3 edits
Ok gang, with oil projected as being $200 dollar a barrel in the near future, who will tell me what the plan is for alternative fuels? Specifically, what is the plan for the US? Amongst the three Presidential candidates, I know McCain speaks of nuclear power and the other two,.....well.....I'm not really sure. Do they consider solar and wind enough? Is this enough for any country as an alternaitve fuel source? I see France, for example, running on nuclear fuel and, in fact, they are now exporting their energy abroad in Europe as a result. Also China is in the midst of constructing numerous nuclear reactors.
So lets hear it from you liberals who don't want nuclear reactors in your back yard. What is the plan Stan?
Edit: All this complaining about alternative fuels such as nuclear or even drilling for oil off shore in the States reminds me of the liberal mess California found themselves in a number of years back during their fuel crisis. Every effort was made to prevent further investement in fuel sources such as nuclear power, offshore drilling etc etc and then they had their fuel crisis and came crying to the federal government. Is this what liberals will cause to happen to the entire country? In fact, is it happening now?
Originally posted by whodeyCan you give me specifics about what laws were passed?
Ok gang, with oil projected as being $200 dollar a barrel in the near future, who will tell me what the plan is for alternative fuels? Specifically, what is the plan for the US? Amongst the three Presidential candidates, I know McCain speaks of nuclear power and the other two,.....well.....I'm not really sure. Do they consider solar and wind enough? Is th ...[text shortened]... this what liberals will cause to happen to the entire country? In fact, is it happening now?
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyNot so fast Roy, need to hop off the bus gus and check this out.
Also China is in the midst of constructing numerous nuclear reactors.
" [ Already, China uses more coal than the United States, the European Union and Japan combined. And it has increased coal consumption 14 percent in each of the past two years in the broadest industrialization ever. Every week to 10 days, another coal-fired power plant opens somewhere in China that is big enough to serve all the households in Dallas or San Diego.] " This was posted back in June 11, 2006 from the NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/worldbusiness/11chinacoal.html?...
ex=1307678400en=e9ac1f6255a24fd8ei=5088partner=rssnytemc=rss
Also don't think that this dependence will end soon.
From the beeb.
"[Coal built China - and fuels its relentless growth today. Eighty per cent of China's electricity comes from coal, and there are plans for 544 new coal-fired power stations to meet an insatiable demand for energy.]"
Story from BBC NEWS: Published: 2005/03/09 13:12:13 GMT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4330469.stm
The real problem if this is not addressed and some sort of 'clean coal technology is not introduced is the effects of this dependence as a polluting influence that is already starting to dwarf other countries.
While arguments can be made that on a per capita basis China is not one of the worlds worst polluters, with slightly over a billion people her output of pollutants does make a difference. The reality though is that the west greedily ran to China by shifting her manufacturing bases to her shores, in part because of all the environmental regulations that she chose not to adopt. The scale of the pollution is staggering though.
Again from the nyt article:- "[ China released about 22.5 million tons of sulfur in 2004, more than twice the amount released in the United States, and a Chinese regulator publicly estimated last autumn that emissions would reach 26 million tons for 2005, although no official figures have been released yet. Acid rain now falls on 30 percent of China.]"
And this little thought "[In 2002, the Chinese government vowed to cut sulfur emissions by 10 percent by 2005. Instead, they rose 27 percent. ....China contributes one-sixth of the world's sulfur pollution. Together with the emissions from various other countries, those from China seem to offset more than one-third of the warming effect from manmade carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere, according to several climate models.But the sulfur particles typically drift to the ground in a week and stop reflecting much sunlight. Recent research suggests that it takes up to 10 years before a new coal-fired power plant has poured enough long-lasting carbon dioxide into the air to offset the cooling effect of the plant's weekly sulfur emissions]"
For a last word then..."[ Climate experts say that, ideally, China would cut emissions of sulfur and carbon dioxide at the same time. But they understand China's imperative to clean up sulfur more quickly because it has a far more immediate effect on health. .."It's sort of unethical to expect people not to clean up their air quality for the sake of the climate," said Tami Bond, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.]"
The nyt article was written by Keith Bradsher reporting from Hanjing and Guangzhou, China, and David Barboza from Datong and Shanghai.
EDIT: This was published almost a year ago on the Beeb "[ China is now building about two power stations every week, the top climate change official at the UK Foreign Office, John Ashton, has said. ...Climate sceptics in the UK have been asking why Britons should switch off lights, turn down central heating and avoid foreign flights in order to save carbon when the Chinese are increasing emissions at their current rate. "Responsibility for China's soaring emissions lies not just in Beijing but also in Washington, Brussels and Tokyo," said Greenpeace UK director John Sauven. "All we've done is export a great slice of the West's carbon footprint to China, and today we see the result. "Let us not forget that the average Chinese emits just 3.5 tonnes of CO2 per year, whereas Britons emit nearly 10 tonnes and Americans 20 tonnes.]"
Story from BBC NEWS: Published: 2007/06/19 22:22:18 GMT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/6769743.stm
© BBC MMVIII
Originally posted by whodeyThe entire solar power industry in the world to date generates as much electric as one decent coal fired plant, which china are building at a rate of two a week.
Ok gang, with oil projected as being $200 dollar a barrel in the near future, who will tell me what the plan is for alternative fuels? Specifically, what is the plan for the US? Amongst the three Presidential candidates, I know McCain speaks of nuclear power and the other two,.....well.....I'm not really sure. Do they consider solar and wind enough? Is th ...[text shortened]... this what liberals will cause to happen to the entire country? In fact, is it happening now?
That the price of oil will reach $200 per barrel is pure speculation.
In fact, to those people who say Chinese expansion is driving the rise in oil prices I say that as western economies slow down, China will need less of the stuff, as we buy less of what they produce.
I would be surprised if oil hits $200 per barrel.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAre you inquiring about the energy crisis I was referring to in California? If so, here is a web siet that talks about it.
Can you give me specifics about what laws were passed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis
In effect, part of the problem was that California utilitites came to depend in part on the import excess hydroelectricity from the Pacific Northwest states of Oregon and Washinington. California's groundbreaking clean air standard favored in-state electricity generation which burned natural gas because of lower emissions, as opposed to something like coal whose emissions are more toxic and contain more pollutants.
I get the point that the liberals do not want to pollute the evironment with such dirty energies as coal, for example, nor do we want the possibility of it with potentially messy alternatives such as off-shore drilling (oil spills) and nuclear energy (Three Mile Island). However, what are teh alternatives? Horse and buggy? I say that if the left cannot supply us with alternative energies they can agree on, the US should go ahead and choose the lesser of two evils which are energies that potentially could harm the environment like nuclear power.
I do have a solution to the whole affair, but am not sure it is practicle. Why can't nuclear reactors be under ground or inside of a mountain etc? That way if they go the way of Three Mile Island their damage will be limited because they are under ground. Then when the US has clean and cheap electricity from these reactors we can switch cars from gasoline to batttery operated and simply plug them in every night.
Originally posted by whodeyAlthough I do not have a lot against nuclear power, it is not the only option. There are plenty of other clean alternatives. Hydroelectic power, Solar power and wind power are very viable for a start. The main reasons why they have not been used extensively are:
I do have a solution to the whole affair, but am not sure it is practicle. Why can't nuclear reactors be under ground or inside of a mountain etc? That way if they go the way of Three Mile Island their damage will be limited because they are under ground.
1. Cost effectiveness compared to oil.
2. Government willingness (probably due to pressure from the oil corporations). It takes an initial investment plus encouragement to get a new technology off the ground. Once enough people are using it the price drops significantly, but it often needs government involvement to get started.
Then when the US has clean and cheap electricity from these reactors we can switch cars from gasoline to batttery operated and simply plug them in every night.
Not so simple. Current battery technology has several problems when it comes to all-electric cars:
1. Cost. They are still more expensive than oil powered cars.
2. Capacity. They may not give the distance per charge that people desire.
3. Charge time. It takes to long to charge the batteries, so if you plan to do a journey longer than the capacity of the batteries allow, you must stop for a recharge of several hours or more. Also if you forget to charge over night you cannot simply pop into the nearest filling station and fill up, you must wait several hours before driving to work. That is an unacceptable delay for some.
However, hybrid vehicles already exist and they save fuel and cut down on some of the problems I mentioned. What we need now are hybrids that can also be recharged.
However, the uptake in the US of hybrids has not been very good partly because of pressure from the oil companies, partly because the fuel is still very cheap (despite what you might think).
Here in SA fuel costs more than in the US and in Zambia it is double what it is here. In Zambia electricity is half the price of fuel so it would be very economical to run an electric vehicle there.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell I suppose we could speculate all day as to why the governmnet is unwilling to alter their course with foreign oil, however, I think you left out the far left and their evironemental issues. I think it is a combination of corruption and ineptitude in terms of seeing what the future will hold.
[b]Although I do not have a lot against nuclear power, it is not the only option. There are plenty of other clean alternatives. Hydroelectic power, Solar power and wind power are very viable for a start. The main reasons why they have not been used extensively are:
1. Cost effectiveness compared to oil.
2. Government willingness (probably due to pressure ...[text shortened]... re using it the price drops significantly, but it often needs government involvement to get started.
Originally posted by whodeyI don't understand. Are you saying that you have a group of people in the US who actually want a polluted environment? Or were you talking solely about nuclear power? The only people with a reason not to promote clean energy are the people selling the dirty energy.
Well I suppose we could speculate all day as to why the governmnet is unwilling to alter their course with foreign oil, however, I think you left out the far left and their evironemental issues.
I think it is a combination of corruption and ineptitude in terms of seeing what the future will hold.
Actually a large part of the fault lies in your political system. I do not think it can truly be defined 'corruption and ineptitude' when a political system is tuned to allow 'big business' to be the main influencer of government policy.
Government listens to business - and business right now is making a killing in oil profits.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am a firm believer in the notion that necessity is the mother of invention. There is no doubt the technology will come once we provide an energy source with which to work. In the short term, battery powered cars could get us to and from work and the gasoline powered cars could be used on special occasions such as leaving town etc etc.
Not so simple. Current battery technology has several problems when it comes to all-electric cars:
1. Cost. They are still more expensive than oil powered cars.
2. Capacity. They may not give the distance per charge that people desire.
3. Charge time. It takes to long to charge the batteries, so if you plan to do a journey longer than the capacity of th ...[text shortened]... icity is half the price of fuel so it would be very economical to run an electric vehicle there.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo one wants a polluted environment, however, some go to an extreme in protecting it. I think the far left has a point in much of what they say, however, they go too far in the fanaticism and think certain pollutants do far more damage than they do and/or they do not consider the risk/reward for using these alternative energies.
I don't understand. Are you saying that you have a group of people in the US who actually [b]want a polluted environment? Or were you talking solely about nuclear power? The only people with a reason not to promote clean energy are the people selling the dirty energy.
An example would be Al Gores movie about global warming. He may be right in what he says, however, I heard he used photos in the movie to show how global warming was effecting the globe yet the photos were not even real. Why must you fabricate reelity to drive home a point?
Originally posted by twhiteheadAs I said, it is a combination of corruption and ineptitude. I view being "payed off" to act in a certain way as corruption, albiet, it is not corrupt in the sense that it is illegal to do so.
I think it is a combination of corruption and ineptitude in terms of seeing what the future will hold.
Actually a large part of the fault lies in your political system. I do not think it can truly be defined 'corruption and ineptitude' when a political system is tuned to allow 'big business' to be the main influencer of government policy.
Government listens to business - and business right now is making a killing in oil profits.[/b]
Also, you must also consider other businesses that are suffering from high oil prices. Perhaps the energy companies are making a killing but perhaps at the expense of the rest of the business community. I guess the question then becomes, can these energy companies duke it out with other Big Business regarding their insistance on dependance on foreign oil?
Originally posted by whodeyIt is, and the $200 dollar a barrel oil you are projecting will go a long way towards encouraging alternatives. However, governments should plan ahead (which is what you were suggesting at the start of the thread).
I am a firm believer in the notion that necessity is the mother of invention.
There is no doubt the technology will come once we provide an energy source with which to work.
Not sure what you mean there. Electricity is already working.
In the short term, battery powered cars could get us to and from work and the gasoline powered cars could be used on special occasions such as leaving town etc etc.
And plugin hybrids would do both while saving you the trouble of buying two cars.
Don't get me wrong, if I could by an electric vehicle at an affordable price I would do so. In fact I have been investigating the possibility of getting one but it is difficult and expensive to import a car from Europe (the nearest source of electric vehicles I can find.)
As I mentioned, in Zambia electricity is half the price of fuel, for a business that has high transport costs that could make a very big difference.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat I mean is that the battery driven car technology is still in its infancy. I am certain we could achieve battery driven technology in vehicles if felt forced to do so that are both affordable and functional in terms of their use.
There is no doubt the technology will come once we provide an energy source with which to work.
Not sure what you mean there. Electricity is already working.