And Oliver somehow can make the claim that drilling is to blame?

Gob. Smacked.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.’

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Which, of course, would be “marxist.”

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.