Really?
Members of the Coast Guard attempt to contain a fuel oil spill in the Mississippi River at the Port of New Orleans, Louisiana July 24, 2008. A chemical tanker split a fuel barge in half on the Mississippi River on Wednesday, spilling thousands of gallons of fuel oil and forcing the closure of a 58-mile (93-km) stretch from New Orleans southward that could last for days, a U.S. Coast Guard spokesman said.
I’m far from an enviromental purist, but the idea that we should dig for an outmoded pollutant that will not even come close to solving our energy problems seems pretty asinine. Especially in the 21st century.
Actually headed there next week to mourn my grandmother’s passing. You would be suprised how much oil and chemicals are shipped throught the Port of New Orleans without a hitch, but I agree with the main idea of oil becoming outdated, however it has been pretty vital in New Orleans’ survival.
I agree. We should continue to rely on middle east oil thugs, because that’s worked out so well for us. I love being at the mercy of the price of a barrel of oil. Yaaaaayy!
Or…how about just working on every possible avenue, including oil?
Wow. What an idea.
Now, Oliver, let’s face it.
It makes all kinds of sense if you’re a big oil company.
You’ve got to admit I’m right….don’tcha?
Guess we can rule out ever using wind power…
… or hydroelectric…
Was in New Orleans last week with guests from Germany. I was educating them on how the media has become the New Nazi Party in the US and lies were being spread.
Showed them the clips of “Not a drop of oil was spilled by Katrina” as well as the photos of all the oil that was spilled from when the event happened (i.e. THE TRUTH). They were shocked that our media allowed (encouraged) such behavior and messaging in the face of verifiable (and easily accessible) facts to the contrary.
We watched Obama’s speech on CSPAN3 today before putting them on the plane home. They’re big fans. I made them aware of the oil spill as I heard about it yesterday. They have not yet seen the pictures, but I will email. They are going to email me about what they see as the ‘average man’ reaction to Obama’s speech from their German perspectives.
Enjoy.
I say we all fill our tanks with HOPE AND CHANGE!
Tell the Saudi’s…”We don’t need your stinkin’ oil, Barack fills up our tanks for us!”
Yes, SaveFarris, because a dam breaking or a wind tower malfunctioning has the same long-term ecological effects as a fracking oil spill.
Exxon Valdez oil spill impacts lasting far longer than expected, scientists say
“I agree. We should continue to rely on middle east oil thugs…”
Get rid of oil, get rid of oil thugs.
“Guess we can rule out ever using wind power…”
I know you are stupid, but you shouldn’t be proud of being stupid. (And you when you that stupid, you also shouldn’t be upset when someone calls you stupid.)
The amount of people harmed because of oil is much greater than the two bullshit stories you could find.
The oil spill killed people?
Of course, it is now fashionable to say, “We need to get rid of oil and use different energy sources!!” Of course, it’s much easier said than done. The following is from a post by Steven de Beste (who knows something about the subject) about alternative energy and shows why fantasyland shit like “Get rid of the oil” won’t work:
In order for “alternate energy” to become feasible, it has to satisfy all of the following criteria:
1. It has to be huge (in terms of both energy and power)
2. It has to be reliable (not intermittent or unschedulable)
3. It has to be concentrated (not diffuse)
4. It has to be possible to utilize it efficiently
5. The capital investment and operating cost to utilize it has to be comparable to existing energy sources (per gigawatt, and per terajoule).
If it fails to satisfy any of those, then it can’t scale enough to make any difference. Solar power fails #3, and currently it also fails #5. (It also partially fails #2, but there are ways to work around that.)
The only sources of energy available to us now that satisfy all five are petroleum, coal, hydro, and nuclear.
My rule of thumb is that I’m not interested in any “alternate energy” until someone shows me how to scale it to produce at least 1% of our current energy usage. America right now uses about 3.6 terawatts average, so 1% of that is about 36 gigawatts average.
Show me a plan to produce 36 gigawatts (average, not peak) using solar power, at a price no more than 30% greater than coal generation of comparable capacity, which can be implemented at that scale in 10-15 years. Then I’ll pay attention.
Since solar power installations can only produce power for about 10 hours per day on average, that means that peak power production would need to be in the range of about 85 gigawatts to reach that 1%.
Without that, it’s just religion, like all the people fascinated with wind and with biomass. And even if it did reach 1%, that still leaves the other 99% of our energy production to petroleum, coal, hydro, and nuclear.
Discuss.
Sorry, here’s the link. There’s some interesting discussion going on in the comments section as well:
http://chizumatic.mee.nu/ghosts_of_my_past
Sorry, I never expected to see “Steven den Beste” and “knows something” in the same sentence.
By all means we need to take our energy policy suggestions from a guy who has a picture from “UFO Princess valkyrie 3″ at the top of his blog.
So do you disagree with any of his 5 points?
Or are content with just setting up strawmen?
I see. So what the guy has at the top of his blog is what should dictate whether or not somebody’s viewpoint is valid.
Do you have anything to add or are you just continue whipping out logical fallacies?
Remind me again what den Beste’s expertise is? What numbers can he cite to justify his statement that solar power fails on points 3 and 5? If I assert that point 3 is totally ridiculous and nonsensical because we have these things called “wires” which allow current to be relayed from place to place and that means that the windmills wouldn’t need to be in the middle of central Manhattan, does that get the same weight?
Oh and BTW, Master’s degree in Physics, developer for orbit computation software for Shuttle Mission Control here. (Before we get into the inevitable “Well what are *your* credentials canard…)
“What numbers can he cite to justify his statement that solar power fails on points 3 and 5?”
Actually, in another entry found here, Mr. Den Beste discusses some of the numbers involved in #3 and #5.
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/07/Carbonemissions.shtml
BLUF: If you wanted to replace the state of CA’s gasoline usage with solar energy you’d have to pave an area about 1,000 square miles and cover it with solar cells. If you assume that 100% of the solar energy received in the CA desert was converted into electricity (which it is not). Such a plan would be extremely expensive and environmentally hazardous. And that is if you simply wanted to replace the gasoline used in one state in the union.
I have no idea what Mr. den Beste’s specific qualifications are, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong about what would be required to replace 1.755 * 10^18 joules.
What numbers can he cite to justify his statement that solar power fails on points 3 and 5?
Try and continue reading.
If I assert that point 3 is totally ridiculous and nonsensical because we have these things called “wires” which allow current to be relayed from place to place and that means that the windmills wouldn’t need to be in the middle of central Manhattan, does that get the same weight?
What in the world are you babbling about? In number three he says the energy has to be concentrated, and not diffuse. Even I know that clouds and overcast conditions create diffuse light which cannot be concentrated (for use with photovoltaic cells and panels).
Even I know that clouds and overcast conditions create diffuse light which cannot be concentrated (for use with photovoltaic cells and panels).
Jay, I don’t think he means diffuse in that sense. After all, he’s not just talking about solar, he’s talking about any alternative.
I believe he’s saying that the generation of power has to be concentrated in large, centralized facilities, not scattered out in a whole bunch of little tiny ones.
‘Course, I’m wandering in late. I might be confused.
I don’t think Jay knows what he thinks he knows.
More startling insights from Midderpidge as always.
At any rate, based on that, I’ll take a crack at Den Beste’s five:
1. It has to be huge–there’s no source of power any larger than the sun. It is the ultimate source of all the energy we use. The energy from the sun that strikes the earth in just one hour would fulfill all the energy needs of the planet–if we could capture it. Huge? Check.
2. It has to be reliable. In a macro sense, the sun is extremely reliable. If it ever fails, we won’t be around to argue about where our electricity is coming from. In a micro, local sense, there are cloudy, rainy, or snowy days when there’s not much sunshine. Overall, there’s always some sunlight somewhere. Reliable? Check.
3. It has to be concentrated. If my understanding of what Den Beste means here is correct, I disagree. What makes solar power so interesting is that is doesn’t need to have concentrated generation. It’s quite amenable to having power generation scattered all over the place. So, concentrated? No, but I’d debate the need.
4. It has to be possible to utilize it efficiently. In one sense, solar doesn’t need to be used efficiently. It’s vastly abundant. If we “waste” it by capturing it inefficiently, we’re not going to use it all up. Efficiency comes into play only in regard to point 5. Efficiency? Check.
5. The capital investment and operating cost to utilize it has to be comparable to existing energy sources. Right now, solar is a great deal more expensive to generate. However, cost comparisons often ignore some costs, such as the cost of transmission. If you break the barriers on concentration of production, you also save transmission costs. Likewise, cost comparisons often neglect uncaptured, downstream costs, like air pollution. Carbon pumped into the air has costs related to health and environment that are not charged directly to power consumers. At any rate, we have to be a little bit speculative in comparing what the relative costs will be in the future. The Japanese government is betting that half of its domestic electricity production will come from solar energy within 20 years. That sounds pretty economically feasible to me. Cost? Check–I think.
Take it away.
I realize this is hearsay in this sort of forum (i.e. I don’t have a link) but I’ve spoken with some solar installers in the little San Francisco satellite hippy-town in which I live, and they claim to me that solar’s biggest problem right now is that it doesn’t benefit nearly from the economy of scale that the dirty sources currently enjoy. When (it isn’t really a question of ‘if,’ according to these gents) it does get bigger, and more and more single buildings are not only energy independent but are feeding green energy back into the grid, the economics will start to make more sense.
In any case, the Economist, a bastion of classical but not political liberalism, agrees with them. They ran a long piece recently on how the future of personal transport was likely to be batteries charged by solar energy. The environmental studies department of our university seems to be at a consensus that any future clean energies will have to be a mixture of several, wind/solar/wave most likely, with a dirty backup just in case.
“At any rate, based on that, I’ll take a crack at Den Beste’s five:”
Yes. Let’s do so.
“1. It has to be huge (in terms of both energy and power)”
No it doesn’t. Several smaller solutions working together can solve the problem just as well as one major solution. Better perhaps.
Working on part of the solution is better than giving up.
“2. It has to be reliable (not intermittent or unschedulable)”
Seattle has enough sunlight to generate solar power reliably.
… Seattle.
Then there’s wind power, tidal power, hydroeletrical power, etc. As long as you don’t try to find ONE solution, alternative fuels are more than reliable enough.
“3. It has to be concentrated (not diffuse)”
Why? Transporting power is inefficient. You lose power the farther away it is from the source, so it would be better for everyone to have a few solar cells on their house than for there to be a massive power plant 100 km away.
“4. It has to be possible to utilize it efficiently”
More efficient then spending money and energy drilling / mining for oil / coal? I think that’s pretty damn easy.
“5. The capital investment and operating cost to utilize it has to be comparable to existing energy sources (per gigawatt, and per terajoule).”
Tell you what, as soon as oil companies and coal companies pay the true cost of business, which includes environmental damage the rest of us will have to pay for, then we can talk about the capital investment.
Oil is a finite resource that is dwindling in supply worldwide. Almost all the easy-to-get oil is already used up. Drilling ANWR, the coasts, and wherever we can find it won’t offset the already-reported depletion in the pumping (not refining, PUMPING) capacity of the known sources: North Sea, Mexico, Gulf of Mexico, Venezuela, and other places. In other words, no matter what we do there will be worldwide shortages of oil.
But oil is a wonderfully compact energy mass. It’s pretty stable compared to others, cleaner than coal, less explosive than natural gas, and much of our infrastructure is based on it. There will always be oil in our economy, but we have to figure out where to use it when the supply is shrinking.
Wind, solar, coal, natural gas, nuclear, tide, geothermal, and the rest won’t save us in time from the worldwide hurt the dwindling oil supply will bring. Things simply won’t be the same in twenty years. Suburban homes are already being abandoned by the poor and middle class, cities are experiencing huge growth in homebuilding, and public transportation is more popular than ever, or at least tolerated much more.
There will be many winners and even more losers as a result of the end of cheap oil, but the best thing we can do is abandon our idea that drilling more will allow things to be wonderful again. It simply can’t, since the oil wells are running dry. We can drill more, but it will still be getting more and more expensive because the US isn’t the only country in the world and all the predicted oil in the pro-drillers’ plans only amounts to, at best, a four-year supply.
For there to be a smooth transition to the post-cheap-oil world, we’ll have to change our architecture, the way we dress, what we eat, how we cool our homes, how we heat our homes, where we live, what we do for work, how we spend, how we invest, how much we travel, how we travel, and figure out how to change so we don’t run out of other valuable resources. I’m sure it will all go smoothly, since everyone is well aware of the scope of the problem.
I notice the right never seems to have a response to why the oil companies want more land when they aren’t drilling those 60 million-odd acres of land they already have the rights to.
At any rate, I’ll agree……oil sucks. Unfortunately, we need it. We are dependent on it. So, knowing that, why object to us getting our own oil, and also going full force into alternative energy sources? Why not? I don’t see the problem with this, and it shouldn’t be a conservative/liberal argument.
Do you honestly want to NOT drill for oil because of…….caribou???? Eyesores???? What? What is the problem…….the fact that somebody might make money???? I don’t get it.
If there was a magic bullet at this time and we didn’t have to get our own oil, I’d be all for it…..but at this time, that’s just not the case. Cars don’t run on hope and change, as much as the “young people” think they do.
Ugh. You people are ridiculous, elitist, out of touch, and completelty unreasonable.
Windmills won’t get people to work.
The bind that liberals like many on this website have got us into with their radical environmental views is nothing short of criminal. You, my friends, are the reason people are struggling to get by. In your world….caribou are more important than people. And so are trees.
Congratulations. Your a burden to your own species.
“At any rate, I’ll agree……oil sucks. Unfortunately, we need it. We are dependent on it. So, knowing that, why object to us getting our own oil…”
Because it is killing us. More oil is a short-term solution. Spending money drilling for more oil will only hurt us later by wasting money that should be used developing alternative fuels.
“I don’t get it.”
No. You don’t get it. You don’t understand the long-term and global impact of damaging the environment.
“Windmills won’t get people to work.”
At one point there were more electric cars in the world than internal combustion.
Windmills certainly could get people to work, by charging the batteries in their cars. Car companies will just have to stop crushing wholesale their electric car models.
But I’m sure you already knew that.
Because it is killing us. More oil is a short-term solution. Spending money drilling for more oil will only hurt us later by wasting money that should be used developing alternative fuels.
LMAO! Yeah man, I’m just dyin’ here. And until we have a “magic bullet,” I’m damn fine with a short-term solution. What’s the alternative…..being held hostage by crazy people that hate us? I’ll take the “short-term” solution every time. And let the oil companies drill. We don’t have to pay for it. We’re spending tons of money already on alternative energy! What do you fill your tank up with….”hope and change?” How’s that workin out for ya?
Your’re a mindless drone spewing the party line because you resent the idea that at some time, at some place, someone….will (gasp) make money.
Respond now Marxists.
“Of course, it is now fashionable to say, ‘We need to get rid of oil and use different energy sources!!’ Of course, it’s much easier said than done.”
And the challenges are far greater than what de Beste suggests. Those challenges are best laid out by Jon:
For there to be a smooth transition to the post-cheap-oil world, we’ll have to change our architecture, the way we dress, what we eat, how we cool our homes, how we heat our homes, where we live, what we do for work, how we spend, how we invest, how much we travel, how we travel, and figure out how to change so we don’t run out of other valuable resources. I’m sure it will all go smoothly, since everyone is well aware of the scope of the problem.
One of the problems with de Beste’s analysis is that he’s demanding that alternative energy options satisfy the demands of a world shaped by oil. On one level, that’s entirely unrealistic and so of course alternative energies, as they now exist, fail to meet the grade.
The world as we know it has been shaped in incalculable ways by the unique properties of oil. Oil didn’t come along to meet the demands of an already industrial society: Oil played a huge part in creating it. If some Jules Vern-style scientist had discovered how to efficiently harness solar power in the 1800s, we’d have a radically different kind of civilization right now. What Jon rightly points out that whatever alternative energies are developed, society will also have to adapt to them in rather significant ways if we are going to move successfully into a post-oil era.
“I’ll take the ’short-term’ solution every time.”
I believe this accurately sums up exactly why we find ourselves in our current situation.
What’s the alternative…..being held hostage by crazy people that hate us?
Well the oil is sold globally, such that the gas station down on the corner can’t tell you whether its gas is from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Alaska or Venezuela. So the only way to really stop being held hostage by ‘crazy people that hate us’ is to stop using their product.
You hear often that gasoline is cheaper in major exporters… I believe this is because their oil companies are nationalised. Private outfits sell globally, so there’s no getting around the oil from the ‘crazy people.’
As a side note, when you say crazy people, to whom are you referring? Can you name a current world leader who you believe is insane? There almost certainly are none, not even Korea’s Mr. Kim.
“Your’re a mindless drone…”
Two points…
1.) Your’re?
2.) Projection. Look it up and avoid it in the future.
You just admitted you were willing to pay more in the future for short term gain now. Do you realize how fucking stupid that is? Or is your plan for the future, “Don’t care, I’ll be dead before then!”?
Um……no, fafaroo.
That partially sums it up.
We’re in this situation because we HAVEN’T drilled for our OWN oil……and nor have we bothered to find alternative energy sources to make up for our oil usage. Thank you liberals.
So, you’re at least partially right.
Congratulations.
Marxists, I demand your response now.
Holla.
We haven’t drilled for our own oil?
Have you ever been to Texas?
“So, knowing that, why object to us getting our own oil, and also going full force into alternative energy sources?”
It’s not our oil it’s the property of BP, Exxon or whoever gets the rights to drill it. They can sell that oil to whoever they want (China, India, etc) unless the US is going to nationalize oil production. Stop thinking that drilling the OCS has anything to do with that oil being “our oil.”
“Respond now Marxists.”
You may want to spend some more time on learning capitalism before throwing that 60’s nonsense around.
Thank you CS strowbridge for correcting my typo.
I am forever in debt to you and your intellectual greatness. You’RE like the internet’s version of a superhero..
“wherever there is a typo…..he’ll be there to save humanity from it’s awful impact.”
Congrats. You’RE a real winner.
Ok seriously….
“Well the oil is sold globally, such that the gas station down on the corner can’t tell you whether its gas is from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Alaska or Venezuela. So the only way to really stop being held hostage by ‘crazy people that hate us’ is to stop using their product.”
And when Barack Obama can fill your tank up with “hope and change,” let me know. I’ll be the first in line. Until then, my car uses gasoline, and it’d be better for all of us if we as a nation had our own supply. Really, it’s economics 101. Why so many of you are too stupid to unerstand this is beyond me. There’s no magic bullet right now to solve this problem. Drill now, drill everywhere. Plain and simple.
And another thing….I’m not against alternative energy sources. No reasonable person is. But until we have something to replace oil, we better get what we can, or things are only going to get worse. And that will be the fault of people like you who basically don’t like the idea of someone actually making money on oil.
Personally, I’m fine with it. Especially if they drill and the price for a gallon drops big time.
Marxists, respond right now.
I’m just glad we invaded Iraq because now gas is a lot cheaper.
Thank you Dick Cheney!
“Especially if they drill and the price for a gallon drops big time.”
The estimated savings at the pump from drilling the OCS is $.03 per gallon in 5-7 years. It’ll be interesting to see how much of the cost of building new offshore platforms Big Oil passes on to the consumer. Great pocketbook issue there.
it’d be better for all of us if we as a nation had our own supply.
Does the United States have a national oil company? Did I miss the army tanks rolling into the lobby of Texaco?
McCann… we won’t have our own supply. It is sold globally. The gas at your station could be from any continent. Unless, of course, there is some regulation forcing the oil companies to sell it here.
“Unless, of course, there is some regulation forcing the oil companies to sell it here.”
Which, of course, would be “marxist.”
I just love all the “estimates.” You and I both know that’s bullshit.
I once heard that ANWR had a total of 2 barrels of oil….estimated of course.
WTF???
Funny how all these other countries see it as sensible to drill, yet we don’t. Shit, why don’t we just sell Alaska back to the Russians, have them drill, then buy it off of them.
Morons.
“Personally, I’m fine with it. Especially if they drill and the price for a gallon drops big time.”
And when it doesn’t? How much do you think drilling in ANWR would drop the price of oil?
“Funny how all these other countries see it as sensible to drill, yet we don’t. Shit, why don’t we just sell Alaska back to the Russians, have them drill, then buy it off of them.”
Funny how you think we should give the oil companies more land when they are not drilling on the stuff they have now.
Nope, not funny. Fucking stupid.
You are a god damn idiot if you think opening up ANWR will solve anything.
Now, instead of responding right now, shut the fuck up and try to learn something.
doesn’t matter how much more oil the U.S. can obtain through domestic drilling, our capacity to refine that oil into gasoline is maxed out. there’s no interest in expanding that capacity either, increasing the supply of gasoline would simply reduce profit.
psst… mccann… you forgot to end your post with a demand that the Marxists respond. I mean if you aren’t going to throw baseless insults around then why are you trolling in the first place?
Quick question then, and I’m very serious about this: We’re talking about drilling offshore as a “short-term” solution to the problem, but I don’t know how exactly it even temporarily solves anything. The oil, when, in several years, it is sold to the consumer market, will be sold internationally, and to us at whatever price the companies have worked out we’ll be willing to pay for it at the time, there being no real reason to lower the cost if demand is still high (and there’s no reason to believe it wont be) so seriously, what kind of gains are we actually talking about here? Is there some sort of compromise that I don’t know about where we, the consumer, see the projected benefit of it immediately or something? I dunno, lock the price at $3.75 for three years and we’ll give Exxon offshore and ANWR or somesuch, maybe even get rid of that fucking 9/10 on the price, just something we’d get out of it. How does this even amount to a “short-term solution” in the first place?
See, cause here’s my thing. The cost of Solar power has, since 1998, gone from roughly $12 per watt to an estimated (depending on the project) $1 per watt. Thats an order of magnitude within ten years. I’m not saying it’ll happen again in another ten, but maybe, just maybe, we could spend the next decade pursuing that a little more aggressively, rather than just waiting and hoping that the cost of gas might sort of increase less quickly.
Mccann who is a douchebage, respond immediately. You have twenty seconds to comply.
I honestly don’t know why people even have this debate about energy. We already have the perfect replacement for coal as an energy source. Nuclear power. It’s efficient, it’s clean, and it’s a technology that is already here. The problems America has with nuclear power are political.
CSS mentioned that Seattle gets enough sunlight to make solar power reliable. No it doesn’t. The plan to which CSS is referring is a program in Washington state where residents and businesses which use solar power, and generate excess power during the spring and summer, earn credits which they can use to offset their power usage in the fall and winter when their solar systems do not generate sufficient power. And what generates the power they use during that time? A coal plant.
As for the other alternative energy sources, tidal energy would only be feasible in a handful of areas in the US, and would likely cause huge environmental issues w/ local wetlands and coastal areas. Wind power is even less efficient. The Oklahoma Wind Energy covers nearly 19 square miles, and generates enough power for 30,000 households. There are 438,000 households in Oklahoma City. This would require a wind farm over 275 square miles to provide their energy needs.
Personally, I’ll believe that someone is serious about doing something about America’s dependence on fossil fuels when they get serious about building more nuclear plants. Anything else if just wishful thinking.
“I honestly don’t know why people even have this debate about energy. We already have the perfect replacement for coal as an energy source. Nuclear power.”
The price of Uranium has skyrockted recently. Sure, it’s off its high earlier this year, but it is still twice as expensive as it was a few years ago.
Replacing one scarce resource with another won’t help solve the problem.
Even with the price increases in uranium oxide it remains the cheapest fuel source available. And the known uranium deposits provide enough fuel to last long into the future, and fuel can be recycled extending its life further. If your goal is to reduce the environmental impact of energy consumption, while reducing costs to consumers, and reducing our dependence on unfriendly governments (Canada and Australia are the largest uranium producers), then nuclear power is the short-medium term answer. Unless, of course, all you care about is being sanctimonious.
Unless, of course, all you care about is being sanctimonious.
You may have a point that nuclear might be a part of the solution, but how was
“Replacing one scarce resource with another won’t help solve the problem.”
sanctimonious? The adjective I would use is not holier-than-thou. More like ‘pragmatic.’
I was a bit over the top w/ the “sanctimonious”, however, I wouldn’t use “pragmatic” either. “Obtuse” would probably have been a better description of CSS on this topic. That he doesn’t want to see the benefits of increasing the use of nuclear power, because it is a “scarce resource” is simply being difficult for the sake of being difficult.
We do not have the technology to greatly increase the energy produced by the alternative sources CSS has mentioned. We simply don’t. Solar power through photovoltaics has been around since the mid 50s. In that time their efficiency for most commercial applications has reached a whopping 18%, with the most expensive commercial cells reaching 22%. The other alternative sources are even less useful for any number of practical reasons.
As I’d said earlier. If someone should not claim to be serious about doing something for the environment or wanting to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, if they’re not serious about seeing increased use of nuclear power.
“As I’d said earlier. If someone should not claim to be serious about doing something for the environment or wanting to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, if they’re not serious about seeing increased use of nuclear power.”
Do you know how much oil it takes to mine Uranium? Do you know what would happen to the price of uranium if we said we where going to replace oil with nuclear? Do you know how much pollution is created mining? Do you know how much environmental damage is created? That’s not to mention the environmental damage produced by nuclear. Granted, it is cleaner than coal and oil, but it has the potential for massive, epic scale damage. Also, it may be cheaper now, but that would change, and change fast.
By the way, if there was any political will (and cash give) to improve solar, the efficiency of solar power would be better by now. And even without that, if everyone slapped solar cells on the roof of their house, there would be a huge drop in demand for outside energy sources.
“Do you know how much oil it takes to mine Uranium?” I have no clue how much. If forced to guess I’d say it was nearly what’s required to extract any other ore or mineral through mining.
“Do you know what would happen to the price of uranium if we said we where going to replace oil with nuclear?” My bad for saying “replace”. “Supplement” would be a more apt word. However, either way, the price would continue to go up. Just like the price of any other resource which was suddenly in greater demand. Such as the silica needed to make photovoltaics.
“Do you know how much pollution is created mining?” Yes I do. Do you know how much pollution is generated in the manufacturing of an industrial wind farm? Or the mining and manufacture of solar cells? How environmentally destructive is a dam or a basin to harness tidal power? If your requirement is zero pollution then you’re going to be disappointed in any option.
“That’s not to mention the environmental damage produced by nuclear.”
Nuclear plants produce zero carbon emissions, and the most likely environmental threat would come from the water the plants use to cool the reactors. The waste water needs a place to cool before being reintroduced to another body of water. Proper plant design and reactor containment limits the damage from a catastrophic meltdown. Nuclear plants in America are simply not capable of having a situation like Chernobyl occur because they are not designed in a way which would allow that to occur.
“By the way, if there was any political will (and cash give) to improve solar, the efficiency of solar power would be better by now.”
The most efficient solar cells possible right now come in at a little over 43% efficiency. There is also an upper limit to how efficient a solar cell can be. No amount of political will or money can circumvent thermodynamic limits.
“And even without that, if everyone slapped solar cells on the roof of their house, there would be a huge drop in demand for outside energy sources.”
As luck has it, this is something which I’ve given a whole lot of thought to. An you’re painfully naive about what “slapp(ing) solar cells” costs. I live in Arizona. One of the most perfect-for-solar places in America. I even have a house which is nearly perfectly oriented for solar. Arizona even has some very nice credits to help defray the cost of solar installation. Despite all that it would cost me nearly $30,000 to install a solar array to produce the energy my house uses. It would take me 15 years to recoup that cost. And I’m lucky since Arizona doesn’t increase the property tax of my house when I make an improvement like that. If you live in a state which taxes increased home value from home improvements, then it will take you even longer to recoup that cost. Now, if you’re willing to foot the bill for another $20,000 credit to reduce my out-of-pocket expenses to $10,000 I’d be happy to call the local solar installer and have them come out.
“Nuclear plants produce zero carbon emissions…”
Wrong. Nuclear plants require uranium and mining uranium produces a ton of carbon emissions. Mining is also terrible for the environment. If can’t ignore mining, if you are talking about nuclear.
“The most efficient solar cells possible right now come in at a little over 43% efficiency.”
Which is twice what we have now. Also, they would be cheaper than they are now.
“As luck has it, this is something which I’ve given a whole lot of thought to. An you’re painfully naive about what ’slapp(ing) solar cells’ costs.”
I’m not talking about money, I’m talking about energy production.
God you people are so f**king stupid.
Look….no point arguing with a bunch of marxists that have no solutions to anything. Nuclear energy…NOPE! Too many emissions, too “risky!” Windmills? Nope!!! They hurt birds! Drilling? Nope….too risky, won’t help anyways! Coal? Nope!!! Too messy. Look assholes…..telling people to “put on a sweater”…or “ride your bike to work” isn’t a solution.” Take your heads out of the sierra club’s butt for a second and see the unnecessary hardships your tree-hugging bullshit policies have created.
Just jet me know when I can fill my FRACKING car up with “hope and change” from your messiah, ok? I’ll go get in line.
Idiot marxists.
Damn you guys, Mccann is right. We all better agree with whatever he says if we don’t want him to call us Marxists three times in a single comment.
Like I said……I’m waiting to fill my car up with “hope and change,” because evidently, that’s all anyone needs.
“Nuclear plants require uranium and mining uranium produces a ton of carbon emissions. Mining is also terrible for the environment. If can’t ignore mining, if you are talking about nuclear.”
CSS, unfortunatly for Gaia, it is impossible to produce any form of energy without there being some sort of pollution at some point in its generation. You bemoan the fact that carbon emissions (far more than a ton) are generated during the mining of uranium. The metal used on the frames that hold solar cells doesn’t simply wash up on our shores all ready for use. It has to be mined and processed as well. As does the silica used to produce the photovoltaic cells themselves. The concrete used to make windmills has to be mined and extracted and processed as well.
“I’m not talking about money, I’m talking about energy production.”
No you weren’t. You suggested that everyone should just slap some solar cells onto their roofs. I don’t know about where you live, but in my part of the country solar cells don’t grow on trees. I can’t just walk out and find some lying around and plop them onto my roof. At some point in time, someone is going to have to foot the bill to install those cells onto our houses. Photovoltaic companies won’t make them out of their own altruistic desire to make the world a better place. I’m not mechanically inclined enough to install them myself even if they did. And the guy who installs them for me probably won’t do the work out of the kindness of his heart either. So, at some point, money is a key issue on the subject.
SFC B: “CSS, unfortunatly for Gaia, it is impossible to produce any form of energy without there being some sort of pollution at some point in its generation.”
Right, which means we find one that produces less pollution. And nuclear is not it.
SFC B: “The metal used on the frames that hold solar cells doesn’t simply wash up on our shores all ready for use.”
Those can be recycled.
SFC B: “As does the silica … The concrete…”
Which is less damaging than mining for Uranium.
Me: “I’m not talking about money, I’m talking about energy production.”
SFC B: “No you weren’t.”
Yes I was. You said solar couldn’t produce enough energy to fill demand, and that’s not true.
By the way, if the government gave the $7 billion they give to the oil companies instead to average people to install solar panels, then 230,000 people could install them on their homes. Probably a lot more as the price would drop given the economics of scale.
An oil tanker collides with a barge…
And Oliver somehow can make the claim that drilling is to blame?
Gob. Smacked.