Look at that Cub! It is ELECTRIC!

[George Willer]

Getting back to the electric Cub, converting a gasoline vehicle to electric isn't actually much of a change away from fossil fuel. Many utilities use coal, oil or natural gas to produce electricity. Can't be electric without recharging those batteries.

The same thing is true of the hydrogen fueled vehicles. We're just not looking hard enough to find wells that produce hydrogen, but any day now.

[Bill E Bob]

I'm remaining neutral in this discussion, but this has been a real
learning experience for me and probably the most interesting thread
I have seen in a long time

Thanks to all who have contributed (so far)

[Ironhorse]

The nuclear waste problem has been solved long ago. It's only politicians that are preventing its use. Truth to be known, nuclear is much more environmentally friendly than any viable alternative.

Let's get on with a program we already know can unleash us from our dependence on folks who want to kill us.

George, no disrespect intended but when, where and how is nuclear waste being disposed of? I'm not talking about burying it deep in the bowels of the earth somewhere under Nevada...I'm talking about a full blown method of permanently neutralizing the radiation...
IF a method of disposal were in place then I wouldn't completely rule out the feasibility of nuclear powered "everything" however the infrastructure that would be required to support it would be phenominal and I can't comprehend a conversion of that scale and magnitude in my lifetime. From my vantage poiint...we're going to need something real soon...

I agree that we need to sever our dependence on black gold but I'm sorry, I just don't think nuclear is feasible for personal vehicle use and I have my doubts about hydrogen...what I do think is that an entirley new energy source could be born from either one of them or a combination therof...or not. Regardless, we cannot abandon potential opportunities for discovering OTHER alternatives, whether they are born in someones garage or basement or in the most advanced research and development laboratories in the the world. If the right alternative energy source is discovered, then I don't think anyone would have a problem trading off $3.50 a gallon fossil fuel for say...a magnetic impulse hyper-drive V-8 that runs on compressed star dust... I sure wouldn't...all of us Cub owners would just have to get you to come up with some modifications to the bottom end of our C-60's to offset the strain of 150 PSI of compression...maybe 4 bolt mains and titanium crankshafts...
O.K. Everyone, I'm first in line...

[Bermuda Ken]

Where does the Cadet 95 Electric mower fit in this world???

As a failed experiment or as another IH product that was "ahead of its time"????

[Tim Martin]

Well, I was a US Navy Diver on a fast attack nuclear submarine for 6 years from 1985 to 1991 and I have to say that nuclear power is the way to go. We had zero emissions, LOTS of power, and the reactor would run for 15 years before the reactor would need refueling. For a reactor the size of a small car I have to say that I was impressed. Just think of all the fossil fuel and polution that it would take to push a 6-7 thousand ton submarine through the water for 15 years.

[Ironhorse]

I'm not disputing nuclear power as the potential "way to go" energy source. No emissions is about as attractive as it gets but there is still a by-product that has to be dealt with. What I'm saying is that we don't have an "effective" method of disposal for the waste that we've already generated as a result of using nuclear power much less what we would generate in the future by having millions of nuclear powered vehicles. Look up "radioctive waste disposal" in Wikepedia and you'll see how many millions of tons of radiocative materials are being "stored"??? Storing it is a patch and a patch will eventaully fail. Basic physics...for every action there is a reaction...cheap energy = expensive disposal...so we save money in propulsion technology but what is it going to cost us to "properly" dispose of the waste that that's generated as a result?...so we save Mother Earth from global warming and inject her guts with radiocative materials that will take thousands of years to "neutralize". Is that the fix? And again...what type of infrastructure (facilities) would be required to maintain the massive number of nuclear powered vehicles and what type of regulations would have to be imposed to keep the reactors in safe operating limits? what happens to wrecked and abandoned vehicles with fuctioning reactors???... I would like nothing more than to have an atomic powered Cub but I can't see the general public being resposnsible enough to handle it on an individual basis...you'd have thugs out there ripping cars off for the plutonium...I guess the plus side of that would be that they would be easy to spot...just look for the guy that glows in the dark...

[George Willer]

George, no disrespect intended

I don't take it as disrespect nor do I intend any. Our energy problem can be solved only when enough people understand the problem and the potential solutions.

The disposal facility for nuclear waste, as I understand, is already well under way (and paid for) at the forementioned Yucca Mountain in Nevada. It's a sound plan and should be accepted by anyone who understands the process.

The uranium was radioactive when it was mined, just as all uranium in our bodies and everywhere else is. There's no such thing as neutralizing radioactivity, only containment. Radioactivity will cease when the element is transformed into another, lead I think. There is far more radioactivity already underground and in the environment than the comparatively miniscule amount in our nuclear waste.

The alternative to black gold will have to be created from another source only by the input of huge amounts of energy. Sure we can get energy from sea water that won't cause any harmful emissions, but not without adding even more energy than it will yield. The task ahead will be to understand exactly what and why we're opposed to the only viable energy source we have available to us.

Wind and solar energy developed on the necessary scale would make us wish we had paid attention to nuclear when we had the opportunity. (Hey, it's cold and dark under all these solar cells!)

The other alternative is to simply stop using energy!

[Rudi]

Gary:

This is exactly what I meant in my various posts on Nuclear Energy over the years.

I'm not disputing nuclear power as the potential "way to go" energy source. No emissions is about as attractive as it gets but there is still a by-product that has to be dealt with. What I'm saying is that we don't have an "effective" method of disposal for the waste that we've already generated as a result of using nuclear power much less what we would generate in the future by having millions of nuclear powered vehicles. Look up "radioctive waste disposal" in Wikepedia and you'll see how many millions of tons of radiocative materials are being "stored"??? Storing it is a patch and a patch will eventaully fail. Basic physics...for every action there is a reaction...cheap energy = expensive disposal...so we save money in propulsion technology but what is it going to cost us to "properly" dispose of the waste that that's generated as a result?...so we save Mother Earth from global warming and inject her guts with radiocative materials that will take thousands of years to "neutralize". Is that the fix? And again...what type of infrastructure (facilities) would be required to maintain the massive number of nuclear powered vehicles and what type of regulations would have to be imposed to keep the reactors in safe operating limits? what happens to wrecked and abandoned vehicles with fuctioning reactors???... I would like nothing more than to have an atomic powered Cub but I can't see the general public being resposnsible enough to handle it on an individual basis...you'd have thugs out there ripping cars off for the plutonium...I guess the plus side of that would be that they would be easy to spot...just look for the guy that glows in the dark...

This is what I mean. First off.. Uranium IS a natural element, it is definitely an integral part of Mother Earth and has been there for billions of years. We are sitting right here in Moncton on a very large Uranium field. Do I glow in the dark ?? Nope.. not that I can see. And on my geiger counter there is more than just background emmissions on our property and surrounding all of the Petitcodia River Valley. Enough that the mining companies are seriously prospecting and already several viable areas have been scoped out. Uranium is a natural element in abundance in areas of the globe.. and it should be used just as Oil has been.

The problem now is all the "tree huggers" who really DO NOT understand Nuclear Energy are gaining a lot of air time, because the news networks like hot topics. The modern day anti-nuke protester is no more informed or rational than the previous anti-oil protesters of the 19th and early 20th century.

By taking used Uranium, including the various isotopes that has everyone so agog.. and putting them back into the mine shafts, mind you in a properly designed, built and maintained treatment facility, these "waste materials" will actually become recycled in time. Momma Earth will be able to handle this stuff, just as she has had for eons.

Also, check out the 12 member group on Nuclear Production.. it is a group of 12 countries who build and produce Nuclear Power Plants... Canada has never belonged because of our NDP (tree hugger weirdo's.. who also advocate peace at all costs and no Military).. but it looks like we are finally going to make the 13th member this year.

Everyone is always complaining about disposal of nuclear waste. It isn't as difficult or complicated as the tree huggers would wish us to believe. This is really a political powederkeg. As we all know, we have huge mines that Uranium actually comes from as well as other metals and precious stones. These shafts and stopes are usually left/abandoned after their useful lives have ended. Sometimes as in the case of back home in Timmins, these shafts and stopes collapse usually causing grave injuries or death.

I never understood why our governments would not advocate building Nuclear Waste Storage Facilities underground in these old shafts and stopes. They all would have to be strengthened and built to suit, but it would be cheaper and better than building storage facilities above ground, or using the Marianas Trench to dispose of our used Uranium, as the US Navy currently does, or just sinking the subs in 1,000 meters of water as the USSR/Russia now does. It would make sense. Also, by using much of the spent fuel rods that can no longer provide enough energy to power a Nuclear Plant, there would be enough left in them to pelletize and power private vehicles for decades. Be much like having the Ever-ready Energizer Bunny in your Engine Compartment.

I have been advocating Slow Poke technology since the 70's for Northern Areas where fossil fuels have to be "flown in by Herc's and other transport aircraft", using spent rods in pelletized form to power personal vehicles as well as heavy equipment. Example.. why can we not power our freight/passenger trains with small slow pokes or units similar to what is powering US Boomers and Attack subs?? Why can we not use Electricity provided by the two safest sets of Nuclear Reactors in the world?? the Candu and the GE plants are by and far the safest in the world. Not one example of a major accident in any US or Canadian built reactor anywhere. The only reactors that have ever gone critical to the point of detonation or atmospheric release have been Russian, Japanese and French. So.. what is the problem??

Wind power itself will have major problems. Enough of these turbines standing up around the continent is going to have detrimental effects on the wind patterns. Has to.. only basic physics. Same with Tidal Power. We are worried about Hydro dams impeding fish passage.. wanna see what happens to a dolphin, porpoise or a minke whale after it has hit an underwater turbine??

Every mode of generating power has it's problems and it's upsides. It is incumbent on man to make use of the BEST technologies.. not just the most profitable.. but the BEST technologies that provide the least amount of collateral damage to the environment.

Nuclear is the way to go..

[brown5490]

Not too long ago, I heard about some scientist trying to alter a plant that readily absorbs the Uranium and convert it into something that isn't radioactive.

[George Willer]

Not too long ago, I heard about some scientist trying to alter a plant that readily absorbs the Uranium and convert it into something that isn't radioactive.

I gave up smoking many years ago. I wonder what that "scientist" was smoking?

Here's food for thought...

http://www.energybulletin.net/16660.html

[Poppy 1948]

As an engineer who worked in the power plant industry (both fossil and nuclear) for several years, this has been an interesting discussion.

Whatever you all have to say about the "solar" cub, if nothing else, it has sparked some intelligent discussion, and that it good.

Clearly we have to wean ourselves from non-renewable energy sources and there is no one perfect solution.

Hydoelectric plants have their place.

Energy conservation has its place.

Waste burning plants have their place. I had an interesting trip to southern CA to visit an electric power plant run on cow dung.

Wind and solar have their places, but not necessarily on a large scale. My neighbor in Adams County is a wind turbine engineer and has 2 or 3 small turbines operating on his place. Every time I hear the wine of the one that is closest to my farm, I think maybe I will talk to him about a system for my new cabin.

The Amish are "off-the-grid" operators. They are the largest consumers of solar panels in Ohio, if I'm not mistaken. Of course, one of their advantages is that they use very little energy.

We are a group of conservation folks; saving cubs for future generations. I, however, don't think that it keeps us in the past, not willing to advace inovation.

Three cheers for the inovators!

[Ironhorse]

The radioactivity of all nuclear waste diminishes with time. All radioisotopes contained in the waste have a half-life - the time it takes for any radionuclide to lose half of its radioactivity and eventually all radioactive waste decays into non-radioactive elements. Certain radioactive elements (such as plutonium-239) in “spent” fuel will remain hazardous to humans and other living beings for hundreds of thousands of years. Other radioisotopes will remain hazardous for millions of years. Thus, these wastes must be shielded for centuries and isolated from the living environment for hundreds of millennia.[4] Some elements, such as Iodine-131, have a short half-life (around 8 days in this case) and thus they will cease to be a problem much more quickly than other, longer-lived, decay products but their activity is much greater initially.

Rudi,
I get your point...the key elements or raw materials required to produce nuclear energy are relatively unharmful to mankind in their natural state which is why you "don't glow in the dark"...it's what we do with them in the process of producing energy and after that concerns the majority of people...yes, virtually every feasible means of producing energy has a negative impact associated with it...I still stand on the initial basis of my point..."we can't close the door on any, ANY alternative means of propulsion technology no matter how unorthodox it maylook to us", it doesn't look like that to the individual who put the thought, time and energy into it. I agree with you 100% that since we are getting desperate in this 11th hour search for a replacement to our dependency on fossil fuel, we should pursue a quest to convert mass transportation or large transport vehicles to nuclear power BUT!!! at the same time, pursue with all of the gusto of a hound dog in heat...a way...the means...a permanent no nonsense method of (George won't let me call it neutralize) "deactivating" the spent fuels left over from the simple and effective production of nuclear energy...splitting atoms has its place but what some of us are saying is that the world cannot, and will not revolve around nuclear energy alone...as soon as we think it does, someone is going to stumble on something that's going to rock the world and leave people scratching their heads...Bill Gates did it and now we're all getting bombarded with radiation producing computer monitors... Well this has been an interesting topic to say the least...I'm gonna sit back now and wait on George to post artist renditions of his atomic powered "Concept Cub"...

[Ironhorse]

Well said Poppy 1948...thank you...

[Rudi]

Gary:

I absolutely am enthralled by the discussion that this thread has inspired. IF we look at the opinions expressed as well as the ideas that although may still be conceptual in nature, some which have progressed beyond conceptual and have been put into practice already, and as "Poppy" said, the innovators and innovations that we as a group constantly come up with, can there be any real chance that a sound, viable and effective solution will arrive?

Nope, don't think so The young ones today are better equipped than us older ones to delve into free-thinking, and as long as they continue to hear the older generations and grasp their wisdom gained by experience, I firmly believe that we will in the not too distant future have these solutions.

Gee, I love this Family of ours.. it is great isn't it

[bob in CT]

I don't think we will ever see nuclear power in private vehicles ever. Too risky. Would you want to give access to dirty bomb material to that nut you used to work with, the loner with the black lipstick, or an ex-wife?

Nuke plants are safe because they have procedures, training, and 1 employee for every megawatt of power. Very conservative and they have pretty good fences too. Try to get into one to make a sales call...We have gas turbine plant customers that have 6 people per shift for a 900 MW COGEN!

I do think the electricity can be converted to transportation fuel eventually by using plug-ins and perhaps hydrogen or ethanol as the renewable fuel.

There is enough wind energy potential in the Dakotas to run big electrolyzers that can pipe hydrogen to Chicago and power the entire region. As far as disturbing the balance of nature with a wind turbine, trees, hills, waves, amber waves of grain, etc. have been providing friction to wind and changing things at the surface for eons of time. On a micro level. In the scheme of things this is a micro-drop in the ocean.

There are only 2 things I am certain of on this topic:
Oil will not last forever
We need to do something about it to survive as a species.

Respectfully submitted,
Bob