Oil is an extremely expensive source of energy... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

eple · 10-01-2003, 10:05 AM

....When you need to go to wars to get it. Guess developing and building solar or other sorts of (almost) eternal energy would be cheaper in the long run? Maybe some of the smarty people in washington should calculate that next time they are talking enviromeltalism and sources of energy (and NO, nuclear or coal is not an option, that's sooo last century)

seretogis · 10-01-2003, 11:02 AM

Hi again!

Thraeryn · 10-01-2003, 11:08 AM

Whaddaya mean, nuclear power isn't an option? I say it's THE option, when used in conjunction with hydrogen-powered cars. And yes, I've gotta imagine that even changing all power infrastructure and car models to nuclear/hydrogen-powered would be cheaper than running drilling operations, fighting wars, and buying from OPEC.

Solar is certainly a growing option, but it's still only growing. Simply put, the sun doesn't even produce enough radiation to melt the polar icecaps. We're gonna have to find a REALLY practical way of using it to get anything substantial.

Superbelt · 10-01-2003, 11:20 AM

The sun gives us enough radiation that the planet is inhabitable rather than a frozen piece of rock like Pluto. The earth only absorbs about 50% of the solar radiation that actually hits the earth. The rest bounces right off back to the sky.

Research is needed to make the solar cells more efficient and cheap so the average american can buy them and we can start supplementing our homes energy with solar power.

seretogis · 10-01-2003, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Research is needed to make the solar cells more efficient and cheap so the average american can buy them and we can start supplementing our homes energy with solar power.

Agreed. Solar energy will never be a viable source of power until it is a cheaper alternative to gas/oil. Despite what many seem to think, the majority of Americans are not upper-class and able to afford tens of thousands of dollars to install a few solar panels that will drop their gas bill by 5%.

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-01-2003, 11:46 AM

This war isn't about getting oil. As it stands we get most of our oil from Alaska, The continental US, Mexico, and Venezuela. Only about 25% of our oil comes from the Middle East. However Japan and Western Europe are heavily dependent on the Arabs oil, so if we are their protecting the resources it discourages other Nations from building up their armies to police the regoin. It all has to do with us remaining the sole hyper power, and as far as Western Europe and Japan goes it is definently working.

filtherton · 10-01-2003, 01:56 PM

With the current administration's oil connections i'd be very surprised to see anything positive happen in terms of gov't support of alternative energy sources in the next coupla years.

That being said, where's the dilithium crystals?

sixate · 10-01-2003, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis

Hi again!

Now that is funny as hell.

eple · 10-01-2003, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
Agreed. Solar energy will never be a viable source of power until it is a cheaper alternative to gas/oil. Despite what many seem to think, the majority of Americans are not upper-class and able to afford tens of thousands of dollars to install a few solar panels that will drop their gas bill by 5%.

Which brings us to my point, with the money spent on invading countries for oil, you could do quite a lot of research on solar, wind, gas plants witg Co2-deplyment, bio-energy, energy efficient housing etc etc.

BigGov · 10-01-2003, 04:02 PM

Just because you throw money at a problem doesn't mean you solve it.

There's another major problem with solar power. Namely, the Pacific Northwest and any other area that doesn't get much sun.

Solar cells have made tremendous advancements over the past couple years, but it is not even close to being realistic for half the year in many places up north. Hard to get sun when your roof is covered in snow.

eple · 10-01-2003, 04:34 PM

Henche the phrasing "and other forms of eternal energy" "and the mentioning of bioenergy, non-emission gas plants, wind, wave and so on. Not only sun, bu ALL kinds of renewable energy sources (and yes, I know that gas is not renewable, I included it because it is easier to produce and free of emission when used right with use of Co2-deployment).

Nuclear is not an option for me because 1:it creates redioactive waste and 2: I live in a country still affected by Tsjernobyl. 'nuff said. Windmills and boiplants may not be perfected yet, but they don't blow up and radiates countries.

BigGov · 10-01-2003, 04:51 PM

American nuclear power plants are much safer than the foreign ones you're describing. So, it's a very, very, very, good option for us.

The thing people always forget though, is they go on and on about all these renewable sources of energy, and in many places, we just can't use them.

In the midwest, where are we going to put the windmills? Chop down our forests and put em up in their place? Solar panels? Well, we might get sun for a total of a few months. We have trees, clouds, and snow that block a large amount of solar energy. Again, if you want a solar farm, where are you going to put it?

seretogis · 10-01-2003, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by eple
Which brings us to my point, with the money spent on invading countries for oil, you could do quite a lot of research on solar, wind, gas plants witg Co2-deplyment, bio-energy, energy efficient housing etc etc.

The interests of the United States are far more important to our administration than the interests of Norway or France or Austria or the Netherlands. That is, honestly, how it should be. If you want to throw $100 billion at research for solar and wind energy, feel free. Don't ask us to do it for you.

Also, make note of the mythical creature depicted above -- it is exactly what I think of your moronic suggestion that the war in Iraq was merely for oil.

eple · 10-02-2003, 05:40 AM

Hmm....so much hate. No need to get all fired up. Renewable energy isn't magic, and it is entirely possible to develop ways of getting energy without radiation or pollution. The only thing needed is will and money. I can't say I understand the attacks on me as Norwegian or European. War and local/global pollution is a problem no matter what country you come from. The only trolling I see here is the default "hay dude we can't build windmills in here LOL, we cant get wawe-energy in texas LOL." answers. There are many, many forms of non-emission, non-nuclear sources of power, in fact, the first Co2-"free" gas plants (they deploy the Co2) were developed in Texas in the early 80's.

Please, don't tell me there is no way of getting energy from renewable sources in the future. The stone age didn't end from lack of stone, and the oil/gas age won't end because of lack of oil, tecknology is the way to go, and I believe noone would benefit from less dependance on petroleum products than the US. Already, many regimes, like Saudi-Arabia must be supported even thoug they clearly are in violation to international law (and we all know where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from, yup, Saudi Arabia).

Dibbler · 10-02-2003, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy4
In the midwest, where are we going to put the windmills? Chop down our forests and put em up in their place? Solar panels? Well, we might get sun for a total of a few months. We have trees, clouds, and snow that block a large amount of solar energy. Again, if you want a solar farm, where are you going to put it?

If I remember right, Iowa is in the midwest and has recently begun construction of the nations largest wind powered energy plant. I don't see many forests around the midwest, just plains, prairies and corn fields.

Here's a link to a nice website about it: http://www.state.ia.us/dnr/energy/programs/wind/

seretogis · 10-04-2003, 02:30 AM

Despite whining, by 2015 Nuclear Power will make a come-back. The Department of Energy is working on plans for Gen IV nuclear power plants, which will both generate electricity and hydrogen (in anticipation of hydrogen-powered autos). Nuclear plants are much more cost efficient and reliable than wind, solar, or tidal power.

Lebell · 10-04-2003, 09:58 AM

I just read an article in the latest Popular Science that the DOE is looking at designs for the next generation of nuclear reactors.

The front runner is called a high pressure reactor and has the advantage that it is immune to the type of runaway reaction and melt down that happened at 3 Mile Island.

I see nuclear as the immediate solution to our country's dependence on oil and further research into alternative energy as the long term solution.

oberon · 10-04-2003, 01:21 PM

Nuclear plants may be more cost efficient, but they still have a stability problem. As I understand it, nuclear plants typically can't shutdown and startup within the same day (cooling down and heating up a reactor is a lengthy process). So they are only good as 'baseload' power plants. I think solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric are useful to supplant the base electricity load. And it'd be great if such energy can be utilized in machines small and cheap enough for normal people to buy and install near their homes.

Fossil fuel plants need to be retired. Hopefully, before long, nuclear fusion will be practical to deploy and we will then not need to worry about fuel supply and disposal.

BTW, solar panels are cheaper than that. 500W of solar panels costs about $2k these days. And the price is going down. But there's still a big problem: the sun isn't up 24/7 except in far north or south parts during parts of the year. So people have to buy large battery caches to be powered at night. And then there's days when the sun is blocked by clouds etc. etc. :\

For now, replacing many of our coal and oil plants with nuclear ones would be a good direction to go in. Even better would be if they used breeder reactors so the fuel can be reused to an extent.

Arc101 · 10-04-2003, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Guess developing and building solar or other sorts of (almost) eternal energy would be cheaper in the long run?

Yes, but at the moment no one who is involved in this is giving enough in charitable donations to Bush's re-election campaign

And I don’t think nuclear plants are that cost efficient as it costs a huge amount to reprocess the waste and store it. Also not many people are queuing up to have a nuclear power station built near them.

tekaweni · 10-06-2003, 02:15 PM

Well, oil would sure explain why Iraq is such a threat to world peace but Zimbabwe and N. Korea dont seem to be.

eple · 10-06-2003, 02:21 PM

nah dude, countries with actual, proven WMD's are to be handeled with care :P.

Food Eater Lad · 10-06-2003, 02:28 PM

Countries with ties to CHINA are to handeled with care. China wouldnt want a massive land war so close to it, and the poor South Koreans will stand to suffer heavy causualites if a war breaks out. But liberals want to say that the fact that BUsh is doing EXACTLY what he should be doing with N Korea is proof that he is wrong.

BTW N Korea wouldnt be an issue if Clinton didnt let them create nukes in the first place, like he signed a treaty to stop TWICE.

drawerfixer · 10-06-2003, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oberon

So people have to buy large battery caches to be powered at night. And then there's days when the sun is blocked by clouds etc. etc. :\

I read in a magazine that you can use your solar energy when it is available, but during night and other times, power is supplied by the power company. On sunny days with excess power, you can even sell some to the company.

This required costly transformers and a bunch of weird and expensive objects added to the house. Obviously, I don't recall it all, but I thought it was a good concept in this transition age.

seretogis · 10-06-2003, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by drawerfixer
This required costly transformers and a bunch of weird and expensive objects added to the house. Obviously, I don't recall it all, but I thought it was a good concept in this transition age.

Well, is it cheaper to have hundreds of millions of people purchase and install extra equipment, or for thousands of power plants to change over to a Gen IV Nuclear plant (or whatever other safe, cheap, consistent energy source is found)?

eple · 10-06-2003, 02:54 PM

same shit, new wrapping, It still leaves nuclear waste.

drawerfixer · 10-06-2003, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
Well, is it cheaper to have hundreds of millions of people purchase and install extra equipment, or for thousands of power plants to change over to a Gen IV Nuclear plant (or whatever other safe, cheap, consistent energy source is found)?

*shrug* Like I said, it's only a concept. I think nuclear power is an excellent choice for the next hundred years or so, but eventually I'd like to see that phased out also. Nuclear waste is very expensive to treat and store, and a large part of the public is still afraid of nuclear power. They may be wrong, but it might be easier for them to buy some equipment than allow you to build a power plant next to their town.

If a large part of the public decided or were persuaded to buy the extra equipment in my example, prices should go down drastically. I think the government could chip subsidies or tax breaks. Then we can use solar during the sunny days, and nuclear the rest. As time progresses, I'd hope we could go farther than that.

The concept has some holes, as all unresearched things do. I've merely read a solitary magazine article, and I thought it was neat. I'm here to learn.

seretogis · 10-06-2003, 03:28 PM

I don't think that you would be able to convince many but the die-hard-environmentalists to install equipment to supplement their normal power service, which in 10 years MAY pay for itself. Once an alternate source of power becomes cost effective, the consumers will embrace it, but not before that point.

drawerfixer · 10-06-2003, 03:57 PM

*shrug again* I guess I'm too much of an idealist then. I'd like for the consumers to learn that there are more important things than what is cost effective, at least to a point. I don't think the idea I like crosses that point with proactive measures to save energy.

seretogis · 10-06-2003, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by drawerfixer
*shrug again* I guess I'm too much of an idealist then. I'd like for the consumers to learn that there are more important things than what is cost effective, at least to a point. I don't think the idea I like crosses that point with proactive measures to save energy.

Well, I am speaking a bit broadly. I'm sure that if there were to be a well defined ethical boundary which would be crossed (for instance, power from burning of puppies and kittens) that consumers would look for more expensive alternatives that aren't quite as unethical.

oldman2003 · 10-06-2003, 05:45 PM

Think outside the box....either he is a genuis...or a con...please take a look at "The Tom Bearden Website"

Quotes:

THE FUTURE

Unlimited clean energy from the vacuum.
No dependence on foreign oil from politically unstable areas.
No pollution.
No degradation of the biosphere.
No dependence on strategically vulnerable centralized power and distribution systems.
No radioactive waste disposal problems.

The Motionless Electromagnetic Generator (MEG)

Has produced up to 100 times more power than was input, by extracting free energy from the vacuum. The MEG has been independently constructed, and its overunity performance independently replicated, by other researchers. US Patent awarded March 26, 2002. Invented by Tom Bearden and four colleagues."

link: http://www.cheniere.org/

MuadDib · 10-06-2003, 09:12 PM

Wind power is now cheaper than coal power. The most recent studies at Stanford and published in the journal Science have wind power costing about 3-4 cents per kilowatt while coal runs at 5.5-8.3 cents per kilowatt. This mixed with solar power totally eradicates the need for coal or nuclear energy and the pollution/danger involved. The US right now could afford to issue no interest loans to the people of this country to install solar panels into every home which would pay for themselves within 5-10 yrs. Why does this not happen you ask. The reason is simple political economics. Money runs campaigns and corporations control those interests. The energy industry in this country contributes billions of dollars annually to politicians and a renewable move like this would quite simply put them out of business so they put lots of monetary pressure on politicians to not make this kind of move. This is the exact same reason we don't have hydrogen powered cares though the technology is here today and we could have them on the market in the next three years with minimal government funding.
As for nuclear energy, which I endearingly have always referred to by the 50s-60s jargon as "The Promise of the Peaceful Atom", is even more pollutant and unsafe than coal. Let's look at Three-mile Island, Chernobyl, and Tokaimura. Those are possible immediate consequences, now lets look at Yucca Mountain. We're going to be storing 77,000 metric tons of nuclear waste in a mountain that has earthquakes frequently! Now even if we didn't put it there it would have to go somewhere and thats just the problem. In the relatively short period of time we have had such a limited use of nuclear power we have managed to gather up more waste than we can handle without burying it deep in a mountain and walling it off! This waste will be dangerous for thousands of years! This is NOT sustainable energy! It hurts people and it hurts the planet. The technology for safer, cheaper, and cleaner energy is here today, but to get to it we need to get our politicians off their collective duffs and out of the pockets of the trillion dollar industries that paid for their elections, homes, cars, and children's education.

A summation of the study I site can be found at:
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr...dpower822.html
http://dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas...9/daily21.html
http://arizonaenergy.org/News&Events...s_new_wind.htm
http://www.tcgreens.org/gl/articles/...063639524.html

seretogis · 10-07-2003, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldman2003
Think outside the box....either he is a genuis...or a con...please take a look at "The Tom Bearden Website"

Scroll down the website a bit. Along with his for-some-reason-ignored method of generating power, there are some pretty wild claims about Soviets, heh.

Quote:

“... In 1999, the Earth's first strategic sub-space war was silently fought and won...”
Tom Bearden - “Fer de Lance,” 2nd Edition, 2003

The only book that tells the true stories about Chernobyl, and why the Space Shuttle “Challenger” and TWA flight 800 crashed

Dibbler · 10-07-2003, 12:17 PM

I've done some research on this Tom Bearden guy and it seems the consensus in the "free energy" community is that he's a kook. Sounds like he stole the idea from somebody else and isn't even sure how it works. It's known as "Garbage Physics". Sounds good but won't work in the real world.

hobo · 10-07-2003, 05:07 PM

I hope I get this all right. Science majors, fix up my mistakes.

Last I heard, the world's most advanced Nuclear Fusion power plant was going to be built in Quebec. If they could manage to produce a positive net energy gain (past trials all resulted in 0 net energy gain or even a loss) then it will definately become the main power source. Why? Letsee, it uses Lithium (totally abundant and cheap as hell metal) and Deuterium (just 1 neutron more than hydrogen and also readily available) and the waste product is something like water and Tritium (radioactive hydrogen but with a short half-life and not even comparable to plutonium). The Tritium would only need to sit for a few years before turning into Deuterium (or friend and fuel) for reuse.

What does that all mean? Cheap fuel, safe, clean, efficient power that will outlast the human race. People who are against Nuclear Fusion are uninformed or retarded. I can see why they wouldn't like Nuclear Fission (the uranium using, plutonium producing one) because that is dirty along the lines of coal, probably worse. Seriously, coal should have died away a long time ago. It is so ridiculously dirty and inefficient that it should make you want to tear off your arm.

MuadDib · 10-07-2003, 09:02 PM

Nonetheless, why risk the potential danger when you could just build a wind mill or solar panel instead?

Dibbler · 10-09-2003, 08:49 PM

Only problem with wind power is that in order to get the same power from wind as you would from fusion, the size of the fields would be enormous. I wish the government would stop all the fighting between liberals and conservatives and get something going. Back when Kennedy was president he stated that we would have a man on the moon in 10 years. He gave NASA the money and said "Do it!" NASA and industry worked together and made it happen sooner. If we would make "renewable energy" the top priority for this country I think we could be free of fossil fuels within 10 years. The fuel cell is the wave of the future and if we had the government pushing for this option sooner than later we could reduce our reliance on foreign oil completely. The one great thing about the US is that when we get our act together and set our sites on something we can make it happen.

That's my 2 cents...

Conclamo Ludus · 10-10-2003, 08:24 AM

I think the transition will come, but I think fossil fuels will be slowly phased out over the next 50 years. Nuclear technology will probably be the next step and it will become cleaner and safer every year. We'll be reliant on fossil fuels somewhat for the next 50 years. If it happened too fast, we'd be facing a nasty problem, "where do we put all these damn cars?"

eple · 10-13-2003, 06:44 AM

or...."where do we put all this deadly, super-dangerous nuclear waste?" Or is these new, magic nuclear power you support free of waste too?

The sources of energy in the future will be renewable. Stop walking backwards into the future.

Pacifier · 10-13-2003, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hobo
I hope I get this all right. Science majors, fix up my mistakes.

Last I heard, the world's most advanced Nuclear Fusion power plant was going to be built in Quebec.

The most advandced fusion project is, as far as i know, the ITER (as you said canada is one of the locations http://www.itercanada.com/). But it is not yet build. Certain location are considered at the moment. ITER could start producing plasma 10 years after the start of construction.

An other quite successful fusion reactor is the JET (http://www.jet.efda.org/), which is the first reactor that produced a significant amout of energy, it emitted 1.8 kilowatt for the duration of 2 seconds.

There are a couple of other reactors in europe which research different aspects of the process. I don't know what the Status in the USA is, I only know that they stopped their work for the ITER.

some more links:

http://www.ipp.mpg.de/de/pr/index.html (german only)
http://www.iter.org/
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fusion1.html

Oh and BTW:
has anyone infos on the amout of oil the US produces and the amout it buys?

And when saying that you don't need foreign oil, think of the future, the oil fields in iraq and the middle east are much bigger that the fields in alaska.

10-01-2003, 10:05 AM	#1 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	Oil is an extremely expensive source of energy... ....When you need to go to wars to get it. Guess developing and building solar or other sorts of (almost) eternal energy would be cheaper in the long run? Maybe some of the smarty people in washington should calculate that next time they are talking enviromeltalism and sources of energy (and NO, nuclear or coal is not an option, that's sooo last century)

10-01-2003, 11:02 AM	#2 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	Hi again! __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

10-01-2003, 11:46 AM	#6 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	This war isn't about getting oil. As it stands we get most of our oil from Alaska, The continental US, Mexico, and Venezuela. Only about 25% of our oil comes from the Middle East. However Japan and Western Europe are heavily dependent on the Arabs oil, so if we are their protecting the resources it discourages other Nations from building up their armies to police the regoin. It all has to do with us remaining the sole hyper power, and as far as Western Europe and Japan goes it is definently working. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

10-01-2003, 04:02 PM	#10 (permalink)
BigGov WoW or Class... Location: UWW	Just because you throw money at a problem doesn't mean you solve it. There's another major problem with solar power. Namely, the Pacific Northwest and any other area that doesn't get much sun. Solar cells have made tremendous advancements over the past couple years, but it is not even close to being realistic for half the year in many places up north. Hard to get sun when your roof is covered in snow. __________________ One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!" Last edited by BigGov; 10-01-2003 at 04:04 PM..

10-01-2003, 04:51 PM	#12 (permalink)
BigGov WoW or Class... Location: UWW	American nuclear power plants are much safer than the foreign ones you're describing. So, it's a very, very, very, good option for us. The thing people always forget though, is they go on and on about all these renewable sources of energy, and in many places, we just can't use them. In the midwest, where are we going to put the windmills? Chop down our forests and put em up in their place? Solar panels? Well, we might get sun for a total of a few months. We have trees, clouds, and snow that block a large amount of solar energy. Again, if you want a solar farm, where are you going to put it? __________________ One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"

10-01-2003, 11:08 AM	#3 (permalink)
Thraeryn Loser	Whaddaya mean, nuclear power isn't an option? I say it's THE option, when used in conjunction with hydrogen-powered cars. And yes, I've gotta imagine that even changing all power infrastructure and car models to nuclear/hydrogen-powered would be cheaper than running drilling operations, fighting wars, and buying from OPEC. Solar is certainly a growing option, but it's still only growing. Simply put, the sun doesn't even produce enough radiation to melt the polar icecaps. We're gonna have to find a REALLY practical way of using it to get anything substantial.

10-01-2003, 11:20 AM	#4 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	The sun gives us enough radiation that the planet is inhabitable rather than a frozen piece of rock like Pluto. The earth only absorbs about 50% of the solar radiation that actually hits the earth. The rest bounces right off back to the sky. Research is needed to make the solar cells more efficient and cheap so the average american can buy them and we can start supplementing our homes energy with solar power.

10-01-2003, 01:56 PM	#7 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	With the current administration's oil connections i'd be very surprised to see anything positive happen in terms of gov't support of alternative energy sources in the next coupla years. That being said, where's the dilithium crystals?

10-01-2003, 04:34 PM	#11 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	Henche the phrasing "and other forms of eternal energy" "and the mentioning of bioenergy, non-emission gas plants, wind, wave and so on. Not only sun, bu ALL kinds of renewable energy sources (and yes, I know that gas is not renewable, I included it because it is easier to produce and free of emission when used right with use of Co2-deployment). Nuclear is not an option for me because 1:it creates redioactive waste and 2: I live in a country still affected by Tsjernobyl. 'nuff said. Windmills and boiplants may not be perfected yet, but they don't blow up and radiates countries.

10-02-2003, 05:40 AM	#14 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	Hmm....so much hate. No need to get all fired up. Renewable energy isn't magic, and it is entirely possible to develop ways of getting energy without radiation or pollution. The only thing needed is will and money. I can't say I understand the attacks on me as Norwegian or European. War and local/global pollution is a problem no matter what country you come from. The only trolling I see here is the default "hay dude we can't build windmills in here LOL, we cant get wawe-energy in texas LOL." answers. There are many, many forms of non-emission, non-nuclear sources of power, in fact, the first Co2-"free" gas plants (they deploy the Co2) were developed in Texas in the early 80's. Please, don't tell me there is no way of getting energy from renewable sources in the future. The stone age didn't end from lack of stone, and the oil/gas age won't end because of lack of oil, tecknology is the way to go, and I believe noone would benefit from less dependance on petroleum products than the US. Already, many regimes, like Saudi-Arabia must be supported even thoug they clearly are in violation to international law (and we all know where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from, yup, Saudi Arabia).

10-04-2003, 02:30 AM	#16 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	Despite whining, by 2015 Nuclear Power will make a come-back. The Department of Energy is working on plans for Gen IV nuclear power plants, which will both generate electricity and hydrogen (in anticipation of hydrogen-powered autos). Nuclear plants are much more cost efficient and reliable than wind, solar, or tidal power. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

10-04-2003, 09:58 AM	#17 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I just read an article in the latest Popular Science that the DOE is looking at designs for the next generation of nuclear reactors. The front runner is called a high pressure reactor and has the advantage that it is immune to the type of runaway reaction and melt down that happened at 3 Mile Island. I see nuclear as the immediate solution to our country's dependence on oil and further research into alternative energy as the long term solution. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

10-04-2003, 01:21 PM	#18 (permalink)
oberon Quadrature Amplitude Modulator Location: Denver	Nuclear plants may be more cost efficient, but they still have a stability problem. As I understand it, nuclear plants typically can't shutdown and startup within the same day (cooling down and heating up a reactor is a lengthy process). So they are only good as 'baseload' power plants. I think solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric are useful to supplant the base electricity load. And it'd be great if such energy can be utilized in machines small and cheap enough for normal people to buy and install near their homes. Fossil fuel plants need to be retired. Hopefully, before long, nuclear fusion will be practical to deploy and we will then not need to worry about fuel supply and disposal. BTW, solar panels are cheaper than that. 500W of solar panels costs about $2k these days. And the price is going down. But there's still a big problem: the sun isn't up 24/7 except in far north or south parts during parts of the year. So people have to buy large battery caches to be powered at night. And then there's days when the sun is blocked by clouds etc. etc. :\ For now, replacing many of our coal and oil plants with nuclear ones would be a good direction to go in. Even better would be if they used breeder reactors so the fuel can be reused to an extent. __________________ "There are finer fish in the sea than have ever been caught." -- Irish proverb

10-06-2003, 02:15 PM	#20 (permalink)
tekaweni It wasnt me Location: Scotland	Well, oil would sure explain why Iraq is such a threat to world peace but Zimbabwe and N. Korea dont seem to be. __________________ If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten

10-06-2003, 02:21 PM	#21 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	nah dude, countries with actual, proven WMD's are to be handeled with care :P.

10-06-2003, 02:28 PM	#22 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	Countries with ties to CHINA are to handeled with care. China wouldnt want a massive land war so close to it, and the poor South Koreans will stand to suffer heavy causualites if a war breaks out. But liberals want to say that the fact that BUsh is doing EXACTLY what he should be doing with N Korea is proof that he is wrong. BTW N Korea wouldnt be an issue if Clinton didnt let them create nukes in the first place, like he signed a treaty to stop TWICE.

10-06-2003, 02:54 PM	#25 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	same shit, new wrapping, It still leaves nuclear waste.

10-06-2003, 03:28 PM	#27 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	I don't think that you would be able to convince many but the die-hard-environmentalists to install equipment to supplement their normal power service, which in 10 years MAY pay for itself. Once an alternate source of power becomes cost effective, the consumers will embrace it, but not before that point. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

10-06-2003, 03:57 PM	#28 (permalink)
drawerfixer Stonerific Location: Colorado	shrug again I guess I'm too much of an idealist then. I'd like for the consumers to learn that there are more important things than what is cost effective, at least to a point. I don't think the idea I like crosses that point with proactive measures to save energy. __________________ They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

10-06-2003, 05:45 PM	#30 (permalink)
oldman2003 Crazy Location: Over the Rainbow	Think outside the box....either he is a genuis...or a con...please take a look at "The Tom Bearden Website" Quotes: THE FUTURE Unlimited clean energy from the vacuum. No dependence on foreign oil from politically unstable areas. No pollution. No degradation of the biosphere. No dependence on strategically vulnerable centralized power and distribution systems. No radioactive waste disposal problems. The Motionless Electromagnetic Generator (MEG) Has produced up to 100 times more power than was input, by extracting free energy from the vacuum. The MEG has been independently constructed, and its overunity performance independently replicated, by other researchers. US Patent awarded March 26, 2002. Invented by Tom Bearden and four colleagues." link: http://www.cheniere.org/

10-06-2003, 09:12 PM	#31 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	Wind power is now cheaper than coal power. The most recent studies at Stanford and published in the journal Science have wind power costing about 3-4 cents per kilowatt while coal runs at 5.5-8.3 cents per kilowatt. This mixed with solar power totally eradicates the need for coal or nuclear energy and the pollution/danger involved. The US right now could afford to issue no interest loans to the people of this country to install solar panels into every home which would pay for themselves within 5-10 yrs. Why does this not happen you ask. The reason is simple political economics. Money runs campaigns and corporations control those interests. The energy industry in this country contributes billions of dollars annually to politicians and a renewable move like this would quite simply put them out of business so they put lots of monetary pressure on politicians to not make this kind of move. This is the exact same reason we don't have hydrogen powered cares though the technology is here today and we could have them on the market in the next three years with minimal government funding. As for nuclear energy, which I endearingly have always referred to by the 50s-60s jargon as "The Promise of the Peaceful Atom", is even more pollutant and unsafe than coal. Let's look at Three-mile Island, Chernobyl, and Tokaimura. Those are possible immediate consequences, now lets look at Yucca Mountain. We're going to be storing 77,000 metric tons of nuclear waste in a mountain that has earthquakes frequently! Now even if we didn't put it there it would have to go somewhere and thats just the problem. In the relatively short period of time we have had such a limited use of nuclear power we have managed to gather up more waste than we can handle without burying it deep in a mountain and walling it off! This waste will be dangerous for thousands of years! This is NOT sustainable energy! It hurts people and it hurts the planet. The technology for safer, cheaper, and cleaner energy is here today, but to get to it we need to get our politicians off their collective duffs and out of the pockets of the trillion dollar industries that paid for their elections, homes, cars, and children's education. A summation of the study I site can be found at: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr...dpower822.html http://dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas...9/daily21.html http://arizonaenergy.org/News&Events...s_new_wind.htm http://www.tcgreens.org/gl/articles/...063639524.html __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751 Last edited by MuadDib; 10-06-2003 at 09:20 PM..

10-07-2003, 12:17 PM	#33 (permalink)
Dibbler Psycho Location: Initech, Iowa	I've done some research on this Tom Bearden guy and it seems the consensus in the "free energy" community is that he's a kook. Sounds like he stole the idea from somebody else and isn't even sure how it works. It's known as "Garbage Physics". Sounds good but won't work in the real world.

10-07-2003, 05:07 PM	#34 (permalink)
hobo Archangel of Change	I hope I get this all right. Science majors, fix up my mistakes. Last I heard, the world's most advanced Nuclear Fusion power plant was going to be built in Quebec. If they could manage to produce a positive net energy gain (past trials all resulted in 0 net energy gain or even a loss) then it will definately become the main power source. Why? Letsee, it uses Lithium (totally abundant and cheap as hell metal) and Deuterium (just 1 neutron more than hydrogen and also readily available) and the waste product is something like water and Tritium (radioactive hydrogen but with a short half-life and not even comparable to plutonium). The Tritium would only need to sit for a few years before turning into Deuterium (or friend and fuel) for reuse. What does that all mean? Cheap fuel, safe, clean, efficient power that will outlast the human race. People who are against Nuclear Fusion are uninformed or retarded. I can see why they wouldn't like Nuclear Fission (the uranium using, plutonium producing one) because that is dirty along the lines of coal, probably worse. Seriously, coal should have died away a long time ago. It is so ridiculously dirty and inefficient that it should make you want to tear off your arm. Last edited by hobo; 10-07-2003 at 05:10 PM..

10-07-2003, 09:02 PM	#35 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	Nonetheless, why risk the potential danger when you could just build a wind mill or solar panel instead? __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

10-09-2003, 08:49 PM	#36 (permalink)
Dibbler Psycho Location: Initech, Iowa	Only problem with wind power is that in order to get the same power from wind as you would from fusion, the size of the fields would be enormous. I wish the government would stop all the fighting between liberals and conservatives and get something going. Back when Kennedy was president he stated that we would have a man on the moon in 10 years. He gave NASA the money and said "Do it!" NASA and industry worked together and made it happen sooner. If we would make "renewable energy" the top priority for this country I think we could be free of fossil fuels within 10 years. The fuel cell is the wave of the future and if we had the government pushing for this option sooner than later we could reduce our reliance on foreign oil completely. The one great thing about the US is that when we get our act together and set our sites on something we can make it happen. That's my 2 cents...

10-10-2003, 08:24 AM	#37 (permalink)
Conclamo Ludus Modern Man Location: West Michigan	I think the transition will come, but I think fossil fuels will be slowly phased out over the next 50 years. Nuclear technology will probably be the next step and it will become cleaner and safer every year. We'll be reliant on fossil fuels somewhat for the next 50 years. If it happened too fast, we'd be facing a nasty problem, "where do we put all these damn cars?" __________________ Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold. -Son House, Death Letter Blues

10-13-2003, 06:44 AM	#38 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	or...."where do we put all this deadly, super-dangerous nuclear waste?" Or is these new, magic nuclear power you support free of waste too? The sources of energy in the future will be renewable. Stop walking backwards into the future.