Reply With Quote
Considering that our current administration has a hard on for both coal and nuclear power we might have to wait 4 more years for that to happen.
Because you seemed to be going in for this whole "drill here, drill now" bit, as if that would somehow make us safer.
You implied as much with a few of your posts, as WH pointed out.
Maybe you didn't mean to imply that, but I think it is a fair reading of what you were saying.
Either way, telling me to "go back to class, junior" or whatever as if I don't know enough about economics to have though this through logically or correctly is going to piss me off. I might be an asshole sometimes, but I am NOT stupid.
Considering that our current administration has a hard on for both coal and nuclear power we might have to wait 4 more years for that to happen.
Here is what I am talking about.
Yes, you are right that we might not have any control.
I would say: that even with SOME control, you would STILL be vulnerable.
The US simply couldn't produce enough oil, even with immediately drilling all the oil we could physically be capable of, to make a dent in such a large global market.
It is easier, cheaper, and more reliable to go the other route of simply reducing demand, than it is to put our efforts behind increasing supply.
Go ahead and do all the offshore drilling you want. I don't mind.
It will happen eventually anyway, as the price of oil goes up.
We can't afford to hit the snooze bar again on energy R&D. The peak oil scenario exposes our technical base.
We started pretending peak oil matters in the early 1970's. Now, the peak may already have passed. Time's a wastin'
The problem with coal is that it has a lot of nasty ecological damage in just about all stages of its usage.
Coal will be part of the mix, but again, we can do better.
Nuclear just means more waste/fuel shipments for terrorist targets. The odds of a successful attack might be low, but I would rather not lose a city for 26,000 years on even such a low possibility, when other options are available, even IF you could overcome the irrational NIMBY effect.
I don't really mind either per se, I just see better alternatives.
Renewables will NOT in any way in my life time fully replace fossil fuels, but we can insulate ourselves from the nastiness and price swings involved in our current energy usage mix.
Life was just so much ing simpler when we just went out and killed whales for oil.
Alright, I guess I'll ignore you from here on out.
Spanked me? Really? That's quite an imagination you have there.
So you're almost an economist, impressive. I have a lot of confidence in the predictions of economists and almost economists.
This said, I was being a bit of a baiting head trying to get someone to step up and defend the OP, even marginally. I would be less than honest if I said it wasn't entirely accidental. CC is entirely right to be a bit cheesed at me for being a bit of a .
FWIW: Sorry. I know you are a bit smarter than that. I got carried away.
LOL, quoting yourself.
OV = Johnsmith ??Alright, I guess I'll ignore you from here on out.
Regards,
Captain Google and his arrogant punk-ass rag time band.
There's no rule against doing a little of everything at once.
It's not my impression that Obama has excluded renewables from his energy policy -- it it yours?
Don't confuse being able to tell you what will happen to the price of oil if Saudi Arabia gets into a civil war with being able to tell you where exactly the economy will be in 2 years.So you're almost an economist, impressive. I have a lot of confidence in the predictions of economists and almost economists.
I will happily do the first and it doesn't even take an economist to do so, but the second: I have no idea.
Of course not. Obama has specifically stated that he supports wind and solar and believes in magical and hypothetical future sources of clean renewable energy to be named later. He has also stated he intends to put the coal industry out of business, doesn't support nuclear energy, and wants to put a draconian tax on Co2 emissions that will knock our economy back into the stone age.
Thats change you can believe in.
Obama plans to wreck the energy sector and our whole economy, then somehow get reelected. Have I got that right?
A bit of a sarcastic distortion/exaggeration, but I don't exactly disagree with his stated policy goals.
Eat that.
Coal is nasty. Really, really, nasty.
Arsenic, cyanide, mercury, and a host of other nasty heavy metals get dredged up just mining and transporting the stuff.
Burning it makes it altogether nastier.
The problem with the pollution is that we haven't forced some of the true costs of that pollution onto the producers.
It's useful though, and a major source of energy. I would put it out of business tomorrow if I could wave a magic wand and do so without much disruption.
Is there anything wrong with replacing coal usage with something just as, if not more, economical?
Here comes another problem with coal:
The Chinese have been building, and still are to my knowledge, one or two new coal power plants EVERY WEEK FOR YEARS.
If you want to rely on coal to meet your energy needs, you will be competing for every little black rock on the world market with those Chinese consumers, just like you are for oil.
Coal, from what I undestand has a much larger known reserve base, and the US has a LOT of coal, but do we really want to strip-mine half the continent to get it?
Again, we could do better.
As for nuclear energy:
I don't support it either.
No nuclear power plant has EVER, EVER been built without massive government subsidies.
If it were really economically viable, we would see it everywhere already.
Can ANY supporter of nuclear power tell me how to get over the NIMBY effect, without socialistic government mandates that sweep aside all local concerns and lawsuits?
Hmm?
Coy in the interrogative. I think we do, regardless of whether it's a good idea. We're the Saudi Arabia of coal, aren't we?
Good points. There is also the security angle you mentioned upstream. A nuclear plant is another target for evildoers.
Once again, we are left with "green" alternatives:
Conservation, and research into "magic" renewables, as CC wants to call them.
People once thought it would take "magic" to get to the moon. "Silly Americans, you can't do that."
Wait for it....
Yes
We
Can.
It isn't the plants themselves that are in danger. It is the waste/fuel shipments and storage facilities.
The containers used to ship the waste/fuel stay intact after getting hit with trains, but imagine someone driving alongside a shipment with a semi-tractor trailor full of explosives, and who isn't afraid to die.
The resulting explosion would scatter a type of radioactive nastiness over a large area. Plutonium is lethal in microscopic doses, BTW.
Take 15-20 highly motivated idiots who aren't afraid to die, and apply them to ANY security regimen, and you see the problem.
By the time you add in enough security to minimize the threat, you have raised the costs to where it suddenly becomes a LOT less economical.
Why bother?
Coal ash spill, December 2008.
Here's an instructable to convert a Honda Accord to run on garbage.
http://www.instructables.com/id/Conv..._run_on_trash/
EDIT> I'm sure everyone has a CNC plasma cutter laying around.
OK, your background is liberal arts. Mine is Science and Engineering. I actually make a living doing stuff in the energy field. I've actually got a pretty darn good handle on whats doable and what isn't.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions