Damn, just noticed the 67 votes in favor of drilling Alaska from the Republicans!!! Call the firing squad immediately.Kmarion wrote:
http://i18.tinypic.com/4v7yuqu.gif
ƒ³
Personally, I think Wind turbines look cool. They look better than shit ugly refineries and oil wells. I think with todays supercomputer technology there should be less to be worried about nuclear power, as long as they're funded well. The only problem is the nuclear waste, but it's probably cleaner than the waste emitted by oil and coal things.
And the oil companies are too big to do anything in America, that is a lost cause thinking that a solution will come from America. It is upto the rest of the world to do something, hopefully in 40 years time when China, India and the EU become fully developed and strong enough to be independant they will do something. I think the oil companies control those countries less. Well I hope they do.
And the oil companies are too big to do anything in America, that is a lost cause thinking that a solution will come from America. It is upto the rest of the world to do something, hopefully in 40 years time when China, India and the EU become fully developed and strong enough to be independant they will do something. I think the oil companies control those countries less. Well I hope they do.
I don't think oil companies have jack shit in OPEC countries. It's just that said countries rely on the oil for good cash. And guess where the majority of said countries are? In the world's easiest place to bring change - the Middle EastMekstizzle wrote:
Personally, I think Wind turbines look cool. They look better than shit ugly refineries and oil wells. I think with todays supercomputer technology there should be less to be worried about nuclear power, as long as they're funded well. The only problem is the nuclear waste, but it's probably cleaner than the waste emitted by oil and coal things.
And the oil companies are too big to do anything in America, that is a lost cause thinking that a solution will come from America. It is upto the rest of the world to do something, hopefully in 40 years time when China, India and the EU become fully developed and strong enough to be independant they will do something. I think the oil companies control those countries less. Well I hope they do.
If we in the US would stand up for ourselves rather than letting our politicians sell themselves out to the biggest bidder this wouldn't be an issue.
QFT.Mekstizzle wrote:
Personally, I think Wind turbines look cool. They look better than shit ugly refineries and oil wells.
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.
Read my post. They are using ways of recycling it, to reuse it again as an energy source. To the other person who said it's dirty. Wrong again. The waste is stored in holding tanks of water, then reused, once recycled. Coal fired plants use water from big water sources, and heat the water as well, without harm I mite add. Hell the fishing is so good by the outlets, do to the warmer water, the plants put in long docks, and let the public access them for fishing.imortal wrote:
That is because the (sorry, can't think of another term) tree-hugging hippies in the Democrat Party do not want the evil nuclear power which poisons the earth and produces waste that will be radioactive for thousands of years, and the US does not have a good plan to get rid of the waste(of course, that is because they fight tooth and nails to block any attempt to create a good plan to deal with the waste).Miller wrote:
Nuclear power is clean and safe, and reusable.. The only time I can think of something going wrong is when Russia made that one that leaked and the government didn't tell anyone. The US Navy (and I'm guessing others) are using nuclear powered ships now and nothing has happened. Nuclear energy is completely safe and will save money. Why is it the Dems want nuclear power plants to be given a chance in Iran but don't want any here?psychotoxic187 wrote:
That is entirely not true. Nuclear power plants in the US have never had a fatality, during operation or during new construction. They also have ways of recycling the waste to reuse for power now.
It is a decades old issue that I think is being fought by reflex by the greenies in the Dem party.
You're forgetting the tax breaks and public investment that led to our current situation. Oil production did not begin as an economically cost effective process. It required legislation to create tax breaks for oil exploration. If we extended the same tax breaks and public investment into alternative energy sources that oil currently enjoys, it would become cost effective. Instead, we have these oil lobbies fighting this idea in order to keep themselves on top.imortal wrote:
Are you beginning to anticipate where our metaphorical swords are bound to cross by now?Turquoise wrote:
Good points... Aside from corporate resistance to progressive energy alternatives and solutions, there is also the problem of ignorance.
The major difficulty with coorperations and alternative energy is that most alternative energy forrms are not efficient enough or cost effective enough for most coorperations to invest heavily in at this time. We are still in the infancy of solar power, with only a 12-18% efficiency. Once a solar cell that is more efficient becomes cheap to manufacture, the coorperations will gobble it up.
They already invest in a lot of alternative technology in order to keep the rights to it out of the hands of the public and competitors. So yes, they fully understand the worth of alternatives.imortal wrote:
The oil companies are, in the end, just energy companies. They would jump at it too, since once they have the equipment, the energy is free. No more having to pay for oil to refine.
No, you can thank politics. For one thing, it's not really about refining capacity. Refineries in America often operate at near-full capacity as it is. It's the number of refineries that are the problem. If more areas were willing to allow the construction of refineries, then enough refineries would be built to sate our demand. The reason why most areas reject these projects is because of the pollution that refineries create.imortal wrote:
The major problem with the oil companies lately was that they were going to expand their refinery capacity, but put it on hold with all the talk about ethanol fuel, since it would not be cost-effective for them to spend money to upgrade refining capacity if demand is about to drop. So, you can thank promoters of 'bio-fuels' for our continuing high gas prices.
So, if oil companies were willing to allow emission standards for refineries to go up, then pollution would become less of an issue, and then more areas would let them build more refineries.
Essentially, the fight against raising emission standards for industry actually hurts the refining business. They could produce more if only they were willing to do it in a cleaner fashion.
And don't even bring up the profit factor.... Oil companies make more profit than anyone else. They can certainly afford a minor cut in their margin due to cleaner production.
Straight out of the Official Handbook of Conspicacy Theorists. What technologies have they done this to, exactly? Oh, yes. The electric car, right?Turquoise wrote:
They already invest in a lot of alternative technology in order to keep the rights to it out of the hands of the public and competitors. So yes, they fully understand the worth of alternatives.imortal wrote:
The oil companies are, in the end, just energy companies. They would jump at it too, since once they have the equipment, the energy is free. No more having to pay for oil to refine.
You are correct about blaming politics. Nearly all of the refineries we have are operating full out. The problem is that they have to produce a lot of 'custom' blends to conform to various state and local regulations. The state of California has restricitions on the types of additives that can be in their fuel, so a refinery has to make that blend just for California. The city of Atlanta, GA, suffered a severe shortage of gasoline during hurricane Katrina. Why? The hurricane broke the pipeline from the refinery that was responsible for the particular blend they use, cutting off access to their gas; it was illegal to sell any other type of gasoline in the city, so they could not ship in gas from elsewhere.Turquoise wrote:
No, you can thank politics. For one thing, it's not really about refining capacity. Refineries in America often operate at near-full capacity as it is. It's the number of refineries that are the problem. If more areas were willing to allow the construction of refineries, then enough refineries would be built to sate our demand. The reason why most areas reject these projects is because of the pollution that refineries create.imortal wrote:
The major problem with the oil companies lately was that they were going to expand their refinery capacity, but put it on hold with all the talk about ethanol fuel, since it would not be cost-effective for them to spend money to upgrade refining capacity if demand is about to drop. So, you can thank promoters of 'bio-fuels' for our continuing high gas prices.
So, if oil companies were willing to allow emission standards for refineries to go up, then pollution would become less of an issue, and then more areas would let them build more refineries.
Essentially, the fight against raising emission standards for industry actually hurts the refining business. They could produce more if only they were willing to do it in a cleaner fashion.
And don't even bring up the profit factor.... Oil companies make more profit than anyone else. They can certainly afford a minor cut in their margin due to cleaner production.
Now, these blends take time to make, but they do not have a dedicated refinery. Instead, they produce one blend, then shut down production to change equipment over, then produce a new blend. That takes the refinery down for a time when it could still be working, just to produce a blend that is only to be used in a certain area.
The problem of refinery production is that enviromentalist action groups have blocked the construction of EVERY SINGLE refinery that has been proposed for the last 30 years. So our current refineries are 30 years old, at the youngest, and rarely get a chance to update equipment or technologies. Every time they shut down to maintain or update equipment, people complain that they are trying to boost the price of gasoline for more profit.
And they are still trying to build more refineries. California and Florida have banned them. Why? Not for pollution reasons, as many claim, but to preserve their tourism industry. Nearly all of the refineries are off the coasts of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Even with this great concentration, the eviromental issue seems to be contained. I do not see how having them spread out would increase the pollution.
Now, as for profits from oil companies. Yes, they make a profit. It seems nearly every month that they set records for ever greater profits. Is this part of their evil plan, or simple economics? They have a set profit margin. Say, 4.5%. Now, if they sell more oil in a month, they have more profit, even if their profit margin did not change. Say the price of oil goes up. they pay more, and they sell it for more. Not because they are gouging anyone, but because the margin was the same percentage of a greater number. Now, since I do not see the US reducing the amount of oil it consumes, and the cost of oil from Venezuala and OPEC seems to keep going up, they are naturally going to show higher profits without even trying to adjust anything.
If you want to be pissed at anyone, try the OPEC countries, which arbitrarily reduce pumping of crude from the ground for the sole purpose of driving up cost. They even announce it, for crying out loud.
But conspiracy theorists do not like to blame OPEC of Hugo Chavez. They want something sinister closer at home to blame, so the oil companies keep getting the blame for it.
Actually, you are exposed to more radiation and toxic particles living downwind from a coal plant than you would be living next door to a nuclear power plant.Mekstizzle wrote:
Personally, I think Wind turbines look cool. They look better than shit ugly refineries and oil wells. I think with todays supercomputer technology there should be less to be worried about nuclear power, as long as they're funded well. The only problem is the nuclear waste, but it's probably cleaner than the waste emitted by oil and coal things.
Correct. Coal particles have a tendancy to latch on to other particles. In Australia, the highest source of radiation poisoning is not one of the very large uranium mines, but a coal mine.imortal wrote:
Actually, you are exposed to more radiation and toxic particles living downwind from a coal plant than you would be living next door to a nuclear power plant.Mekstizzle wrote:
Personally, I think Wind turbines look cool. They look better than shit ugly refineries and oil wells. I think with todays supercomputer technology there should be less to be worried about nuclear power, as long as they're funded well. The only problem is the nuclear waste, but it's probably cleaner than the waste emitted by oil and coal things.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Well, I had to do a project in physics to determine which type of energy would be the best for the future, and nuclear won.
For those who say that waste is an issue, read this.
Nuclear is much more reliable than any other fuel source, and, believe it or not releases less radiation than current methods. for all you source nazis
People base their opinions of nuclear energy on one incident at a poorly built and barely maintained Soviet reactor, not the actual facts.
For those who say that waste is an issue, read this.
Nuclear is much more reliable than any other fuel source, and, believe it or not releases less radiation than current methods. for all you source nazis
People base their opinions of nuclear energy on one incident at a poorly built and barely maintained Soviet reactor, not the actual facts.
It sounds to me like the solution is setting national standards for fuel that override what states require. Why not just up standards nationally, and tell the states that they have to suck it up? I'm normally a states' rights advocate, but this is a case where national enforcement would benefit most of society.imortal wrote:
You are correct about blaming politics. Nearly all of the refineries we have are operating full out. The problem is that they have to produce a lot of 'custom' blends to conform to various state and local regulations. The state of California has restricitions on the types of additives that can be in their fuel, so a refinery has to make that blend just for California. The city of Atlanta, GA, suffered a severe shortage of gasoline during hurricane Katrina. Why? The hurricane broke the pipeline from the refinery that was responsible for the particular blend they use, cutting off access to their gas; it was illegal to sell any other type of gasoline in the city, so they could not ship in gas from elsewhere.
Now, these blends take time to make, but they do not have a dedicated refinery. Instead, they produce one blend, then shut down production to change equipment over, then produce a new blend. That takes the refinery down for a time when it could still be working, just to produce a blend that is only to be used in a certain area.
The problem of refinery production is that enviromentalist action groups have blocked the construction of EVERY SINGLE refinery that has been proposed for the last 30 years. So our current refineries are 30 years old, at the youngest, and rarely get a chance to update equipment or technologies. Every time they shut down to maintain or update equipment, people complain that they are trying to boost the price of gasoline for more profit.
Why not blame both? You think I trust OPEC anymore than I trust Exxon? You think I trust Chavez anymore than I trust Ahmadinejad?imortal wrote:
Now, as for profits from oil companies. Yes, they make a profit. It seems nearly every month that they set records for ever greater profits. Is this part of their evil plan, or simple economics? They have a set profit margin. Say, 4.5%. Now, if they sell more oil in a month, they have more profit, even if their profit margin did not change. Say the price of oil goes up. they pay more, and they sell it for more. Not because they are gouging anyone, but because the margin was the same percentage of a greater number. Now, since I do not see the US reducing the amount of oil it consumes, and the cost of oil from Venezuala and OPEC seems to keep going up, they are naturally going to show higher profits without even trying to adjust anything.
If you want to be pissed at anyone, try the OPEC countries, which arbitrarily reduce pumping of crude from the ground for the sole purpose of driving up cost. They even announce it, for crying out loud.
But conspiracy theorists do not like to blame OPEC of Hugo Chavez. They want something sinister closer at home to blame, so the oil companies keep getting the blame for it.
It's just a matter of power corrupting. Companies like Exxon and countries like Saudi Arabia simply cannot be trusted because of their singleminded focus on profit.
The interests of society should come before the interests of corporations, and therefore, environmental protection laws should be more strict. At the same time, we could mandate certain areas for the construction of new refineries, in order to alleviate some of the demand for oil. If we had more refineries in place, gas would fall in price somewhat.
Is it? Look at the coal mine death stats in China.....the ones we know about. Now compare that to deaths caused by Nuke reactors in the US.BN wrote:
its just too dangerous. you can have all the safeguards in the world but accidents happen
Visual effect....HA! So typical. Who cares about the visual affect when you don't have ANY energy.... Also, they aren't very big. Ya maybe when you're up close and personal but what if it on the ocean. It wouldn't look bigger than your pinkie nail.Balok77 wrote:
Do the benefits outweigh the dangers?
So far man has extracted roughly 11 billion barrels of oil from the earth with roughly 7 billion left. What will we do when the oil runs out? To power England alone we would need 100,000 wind turbines, can u imagine the visual effect that would have on our country?
Already countries like France almost completely survive on nuclear power, is it a valid option for countries to use instead of oil, or is it simply to dangerous.
Discuss
Nuclear power is good, efficient, dangerous if not controlled properly. But what do you do with the used up U, Pu, etc? Sell it, I think not. Bury it? Where..under your house on your island? Nope. In the ocean under some cement that will crack and ooze radiation. Um think again. Go with something renewable. Solar, wind, etc.
I would like to see an increased use of Nuclear power here in Sweden unfortunely there´s to many enviroment fighters out there today so guess we will keep importing dirty energy from baltikum for a while.
You knew what I meant.V1king wrote:
It can be! Just not long distances yet.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
When we can transmit power by beam the world will be happy. Solar-sats ftw.
Or china can go to war with india. instead of taking years it will take monthsCommieChipmunk wrote:
Stop having so many fucking kids.
Overpopulation ftl.
Solution to 80% of the worlds present and future problems - use a condom.
Nuclear power is the way of the future, its insanely powerful given the small amounts needed for reactors and such, and reactors continue to advance not only in power and productivity but also safety and enviromently.
Some will laugh or call me foolish, but one we can get either a rocket that can be launched without a chance of mishap on the ground, or an elevator to space, we could just launch nuclear waste into space, a star, a black hole whatever, not like you can pollute space, considering our sun is in essence a nuclear power plant.
Some will laugh or call me foolish, but one we can get either a rocket that can be launched without a chance of mishap on the ground, or an elevator to space, we could just launch nuclear waste into space, a star, a black hole whatever, not like you can pollute space, considering our sun is in essence a nuclear power plant.
I think we're on the same wavelength? It's not stable or possible to direct it precisely without killing many bystanders...lol Whoever manages to make it work, will be one very wealthy fella.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
You knew what I meant.V1king wrote:
It can be! Just not long distances yet.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
When we can transmit power by beam the world will be happy. Solar-sats ftw.
I must say you are only "parially ignorant" in this matter....imortal wrote:
Straight out of the Official Handbook of Conspicacy Theorists. What technologies have they done this to, exactly? Oh, yes. The electric car, right?Turquoise wrote:
They already invest in a lot of alternative technology in order to keep the rights to it out of the hands of the public and competitors. So yes, they fully understand the worth of alternatives.imortal wrote:
The oil companies are, in the end, just energy companies. They would jump at it too, since once they have the equipment, the energy is free. No more having to pay for oil to refine.You are correct about blaming politics. Nearly all of the refineries we have are operating full out. The problem is that they have to produce a lot of 'custom' blends to conform to various state and local regulations. The state of California has restricitions on the types of additives that can be in their fuel, so a refinery has to make that blend just for California. The city of Atlanta, GA, suffered a severe shortage of gasoline during hurricane Katrina. Why? The hurricane broke the pipeline from the refinery that was responsible for the particular blend they use, cutting off access to their gas; it was illegal to sell any other type of gasoline in the city, so they could not ship in gas from elsewhere.Turquoise wrote:
No, you can thank politics. For one thing, it's not really about refining capacity. Refineries in America often operate at near-full capacity as it is. It's the number of refineries that are the problem. If more areas were willing to allow the construction of refineries, then enough refineries would be built to sate our demand. The reason why most areas reject these projects is because of the pollution that refineries create.imortal wrote:
The major problem with the oil companies lately was that they were going to expand their refinery capacity, but put it on hold with all the talk about ethanol fuel, since it would not be cost-effective for them to spend money to upgrade refining capacity if demand is about to drop. So, you can thank promoters of 'bio-fuels' for our continuing high gas prices.
So, if oil companies were willing to allow emission standards for refineries to go up, then pollution would become less of an issue, and then more areas would let them build more refineries.
Essentially, the fight against raising emission standards for industry actually hurts the refining business. They could produce more if only they were willing to do it in a cleaner fashion.
And don't even bring up the profit factor.... Oil companies make more profit than anyone else. They can certainly afford a minor cut in their margin due to cleaner production.
Now, these blends take time to make, but they do not have a dedicated refinery. Instead, they produce one blend, then shut down production to change equipment over, then produce a new blend. That takes the refinery down for a time when it could still be working, just to produce a blend that is only to be used in a certain area.
The problem of refinery production is that enviromentalist action groups have blocked the construction of EVERY SINGLE refinery that has been proposed for the last 30 years. So our current refineries are 30 years old, at the youngest, and rarely get a chance to update equipment or technologies. Every time they shut down to maintain or update equipment, people complain that they are trying to boost the price of gasoline for more profit.
And they are still trying to build more refineries. California and Florida have banned them. Why? Not for pollution reasons, as many claim, but to preserve their tourism industry. Nearly all of the refineries are off the coasts of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Even with this great concentration, the eviromental issue seems to be contained. I do not see how having them spread out would increase the pollution.
Now, as for profits from oil companies. Yes, they make a profit. It seems nearly every month that they set records for ever greater profits. Is this part of their evil plan, or simple economics? They have a set profit margin. Say, 4.5%. Now, if they sell more oil in a month, they have more profit, even if their profit margin did not change. Say the price of oil goes up. they pay more, and they sell it for more. Not because they are gouging anyone, but because the margin was the same percentage of a greater number. Now, since I do not see the US reducing the amount of oil it consumes, and the cost of oil from Venezuala and OPEC seems to keep going up, they are naturally going to show higher profits without even trying to adjust anything.
If you want to be pissed at anyone, try the OPEC countries, which arbitrarily reduce pumping of crude from the ground for the sole purpose of driving up cost. They even announce it, for crying out loud.
But conspiracy theorists do not like to blame OPEC of Hugo Chavez. They want something sinister closer at home to blame, so the oil companies keep getting the blame for it.
One NOT ONE refinery is offshore. @nd, opec does drive up prices, but where we are hurt in the U.S. is supply and demand. Oil companies have not only reported record profits, they report record profis PER UNIT. That means they make more money off a gallon then last year. Any time there is a closing of a refinery or pipeline, it is fear that drives prices up....And btw, Americans DON"T have high gas prices. Take a trip to any other country in the world, even opec contries, ours is the cheapest.......
The solution to the remaining 20% is removing religion.CommieChipmunk wrote:
Solution to 80% of the worlds present and future problems - use a condom.
I have no problems with Nuclear Power being used, just as long as they're sure the reactor is a reliable and safe design and doesn't mimic the RBMK in safety performance.
Nuclear Power will definitely come to play a much more significant role in power generation in the years to come and with the many safety improvements that will be offered once the gen-IV reactors begin being fully fleshed out (redundant and naturally controlled backup pump systems, etc.). Hell, the fact is that the current generation of nuclear power plants are already light-years ahead of coal and natural gas power plants in terms of safety.
The biggest roadblock I can see is the problem of nuclear proliferation, which arises from the fact that the methods used for keeping the supply of reactor-grade uranium up with the demand (reprocessing of spent fuel and usage of breeder reactors) produces large amounts weapons grade plutonium. Matter of fact, these methods have already been used at least twice in the past (see Pakistan and India) to secretly acquire the materials for a nuclear bomb.
There's also of course the fact that widespread use of nuclear power would produce large amounts of nuclear waste which must be disposed of, although reprocessing spent fuel helps to significantly alleviate this problem (but then again this circles back to the proliferation problem).
Of course, nuclear power, along with just about all other forms of power generation, will be made pretty much obsolete if they ever figure out a way to make fusion power economical. But then again that reality has been 'only fifteen years away' for the past 30 years...
The biggest roadblock I can see is the problem of nuclear proliferation, which arises from the fact that the methods used for keeping the supply of reactor-grade uranium up with the demand (reprocessing of spent fuel and usage of breeder reactors) produces large amounts weapons grade plutonium. Matter of fact, these methods have already been used at least twice in the past (see Pakistan and India) to secretly acquire the materials for a nuclear bomb.
There's also of course the fact that widespread use of nuclear power would produce large amounts of nuclear waste which must be disposed of, although reprocessing spent fuel helps to significantly alleviate this problem (but then again this circles back to the proliferation problem).
Of course, nuclear power, along with just about all other forms of power generation, will be made pretty much obsolete if they ever figure out a way to make fusion power economical. But then again that reality has been 'only fifteen years away' for the past 30 years...