# Freedom from ME oil.



## Cold Fusion38

I would like to have an honest, fair, and POLITE debate about energy policy including plug in electric cars and other alt energy cars. I would also like to discuss new ways of producing energy and the idea of new nuclear power plants to supply our energy until such a time as we can get ALL our power from solar sources.



ONCE AGAIN I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THIS THREAD FRIENDLY!


----------



## xsited1

Cold Fusion38 said:


> I would like to have an honest, fair, and POLITE debate about energy policy including plug in electric cars and other alt energy cars. I would also like to discuss new ways of producing energy and the idea of new nuclear power plants to supply our energy until such a time as we can get ALL our power from solar sources.
> 
> 
> 
> ONCE AGAIN I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THIS THREAD FRIENDLY!



That would be nice, but the liberals (in name only, of course) keep us dependent on foreign oil.  Here are a few examples:

1. Coal - too dirty
2. Nuclear - too dangerous
3. Hydroelectric - harms environment
4. Solar - Environmentalists Against the Mojave Desert Solar Plant
5. Wind - Ted out to blow down windmills


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Lets just get the fuck off enemy oil by NOT buying it anymore! Let's do that NOW. The free marketplace will come up with viable, economic alternatives real fast, and we'll bankrupt our enemies instead of financing them.

We need "country of origin" labels on the gas pumps, like we have for food, for starters. Let us vote with our dollars!

But more broadly, without government subsidies most alternatives aren't viable, and most ALL of them are actually worse for the environment than evil fossil fuels!

NO ONE wants a polluted planet. That fallacy is an ad-hom card the EnviroNazis love to play. If you're against AGW, you're a "denier" and like pollution. You don't care about the planet. All that rot. It's just typical attempts to quash debate. To squelch observations and even data. NONE of that is part of science, or the quest for knowledge.

The truth is, we do not know nor can we ever know all the effects of pollution. The ecosystem is so complex, our understanding of it is still in its infancy.

Currently the focus of the AGW theories is on CO2 emissions. Well, that's certainly a convenient devil, it's at least what, 18th on the list of greenhouse gases? Far behind the thousands of times more potent and dangerous NF3? But CO2 IS the one which is emitted by combustion of fossil fuels -- that evil oil and gas stuff.

Well, if the science is settled and there's no room for debate, let's get serious about it! Let's immediately ban ALL manufacture and use of CO2 for entertainment purposes -- fake "smoke" at rock concerts, sporting events, wrestling events, Hollywood special effects... Soda pop carbonation, paint ball guns, any and all toys... also for uses where it's been superseded, such as water treatment, fire fighting.... If it's REALLY so bad these are the cheapest, easiest and fastest ways to stop millions of tons of it from going into the atmosphere every year.

Also while we're at it, let's get that NF3 stopped by redesigning manufacturing processes so they don't produce and emit this highly dangerous for the environment gas. NF3 -- nitrogen trifluoride -- is a compound used in manufacture of flat panel televisions, computer displays, microcircuits, solar panels and is 17,000 times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Also stays in the atmosphere 800 times longer than CO2, yet you never hear anything about it, because it's not a product of fossil fuels combustion.

THESE are things they would do, and be calling for, if they really truly themselves believed in their own cause. But they don't, the cause is simply an excuse to gain more control over people's lives and line the pockets of special interests such as GE.

The "science was settled" that the Jews were inferior and had to go, too. What a convenient devil they were to Nazi Germany! Those who fail to learn the hard lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

By far the most towering idiocy of environmentalism is the harm to the environment most all "alternatives" do:

*Lighting's dirty little secret*: The swirly florescent bulbs that will by law be required, as incandescent bulbs are banned? Mercury. Where's it all gonna go, from the billions of these discarded? Into the groundwater! Love it!

*Wind power's dirty little secret*: It takes 4 barrels of oil per year, per wind turbine, for the gearbox. And another five barrels for the transformer below each turbine. And these turbines leak and sling this oil. Great for the groundwater!

Multiply those figures times a million, two million wind turbines planned -- and you see why oil magnates like Pickens are pushing this. They stand to sell millions of barrels of oil!

*Dirty little secret of solar*: The production of solar panels involves nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) emissions be released. NF3 is about 17,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The concentration of it in the atmosphere has increased 20 fold during the last two decades by its use in manufacturing processes. The level is increasing 11 percent per year.

The weaker CO2 stays in the atmosphere up to 100 years. NF3 stays in the atmosphere for 700 years or more. 

*Dirty little secret of Hydrogen*: Water Vapor is the product of combustion. Sounds great, right? But -- Water vapor is far and away the #1 greenhouse gas. This according to the IPCC and every other scientist on both sides of the issue. It's the one thing they do ALL agree on. Hmmm...

*Dirty little secrets of Ethanol*: Yeah, it's "cleaner" if you believe CO2 is really really bad, because it does produce less when combusted. But it also produces the definite pollutant and definite poison to all living things -- CO (Carbon Monoxide) 100 times more than gasoline! Also, it takes 1,200 gallons of water to make a gallon of this crap!

*Cleaner little secret of gasoline powered internal combustion*: Today's engines put out 95% fewer emissions than their 1970 counterparts!

It's what they DON'T tell us that really winds up hurting the environment in the long haul.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Well it's not like the "conservatives" don't want us to continue using oil until the last drop comes out of the ground. Cheney's energy meeting ring a bell?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I think the only way we will get more nuclear power plants is for the Fed to build them and then lease them to power cos.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Well it's not like the "conservatives" don't want us to continue using oil until the last drop comes out of the ground. Cheney's energy meeting ring a bell?


If Cheney and Boooooosh really wanted to line the pockets of their "rich oil buddies" they would have BANNED all enemy oil imports when they had the chance, SKYROCKETING the price for domestic oil, and oil in general worldwide. And greatly spurring domestic DRILLING in the process. They would have _cleaned up_, making Bernie Madoff look like a piggy bank rifler!

It's when petty partisan hackery -- which is basically regurgitation without cogitation -- such as yours gets into conversations, that they can become unfriendly very fast.


----------



## xsited1

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Well it's not like the "conservatives" don't want us to continue using oil until the last drop comes out of the ground. Cheney's energy meeting ring a bell?



Cheney?  He's not in power.  The Democrats have controlled Congress since 2007.  It's their game now.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> I think the only way we will get more nuclear power plants is for the Fed to build them and then lease them to power cos.


Baloney.

Get the government OUT of that business completely, except as a regulatory role. REMOVE the massive obstacles, the punitive taxation and toweringly costly requirements, which are entrenched. It's interesting, Obama and Dems want to embrace every "European Model" there is, except Nuclear energy policy! The French for example, have a robust Nuclear plant system. Why not emulate that?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Don't think they could just BAN foreign oil......At least not legally. 


I would mostly like to yalk the possibility of plug in electric cars and nuclear power plants to "fuel" them. What say you with regards to these two points?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

The problem is Mid that I don't think a private co could get the kind of money they need to build one. That and the fact that the FED could get past most of the red tape if they were serious about nuclear power. 

Why would you see it as a bad thing if the FED builds them and then leases them to power cos?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I think we pretty much agree on nuclear power as the only curently viable alt to fossil fues we just see getting there in a different way.


----------



## ozzmdj

I said it before the environmental Marxist have taken over the energy policies in this country. Sad to say France can built and have up and running a Nuclear power plant with in 5 years. It would take over 6 in this country just to go through the red tape costing 10's of Millions of dollars before you could even break ground. Not to mention the lawsuits by the environmental wackos.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

I would love to see  wind power harnessed to make hydrogen for distribution for hydrogen cars.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I just wish that the extreme enviros would recognize that new nuke plants are NOTHING like Three Mile Island.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

MR......Actually the new nuke plants produce hydrogen as a BYPRODUCT!! How cool is that?


----------



## ozzmdj

Cold Fusion38 said:


> I just wish that the extreme enviros would recognize that new nuke plants are NOTHING like Three Mile Island.



First off what happened at Three Mile Island? Oh yeah the safety system WORKED extreme enviros are STATIST that are anti-capitalism in other words anti-American like the kook in the White House now


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Well o.k. OZZ a bit of an extremist yourself then hmmm? But let's try to come up with some solutions here. I think that when the electric car becomes cheaper that eveyone should at least CONSIDER replacing one of their households cars with a plug in. I also beleive that we need 10-20 nuke plants by 2020 and I think the only way to do that is for the FED to build them.


----------



## WillowTree

how is al gore going to get around?


----------



## KittenKoder

Midnight Marauder said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the only way we will get more nuclear power plants is for the Fed to build them and then lease them to power cos.
> 
> 
> 
> Baloney.
> 
> Get the government OUT of that business completely, except as a regulatory role. REMOVE the massive obstacles, the punitive taxation and toweringly costly requirements, which are entrenched. It's interesting, Obama and Dems want to embrace every "European Model" there is, except Nuclear energy policy! The French for example, have a robust Nuclear plant system. Why not emulate that?
Click to expand...


Exactly, it's because of government control that we are still stuck on stupid in the first place.


----------



## pal_of_poor

The only thing about Nuclear is that I feel like we're going backwards instead of forwards.

They give terrorists another target, and create a pretty bad waste situation, on where no one, even the place in Nevada we're designing, want to take the waste.

I like the idea of not buying oil from the people who are terrorists, lowing the price of oil generally by not using nearly as much of it, for those of us who'll still be using it in the future.  That will be, of course, most of us, since plastics, cosmetics, shingles, and all sorts of other petroleum based products will always be with us in some form.

The really great thing about solar, other than the clean aspect, is that it decentralizes the production of electricity.  In the South in particular, they work best when they are needed the most, on really hot, sunny days, they are producing like crazy, just when all of our air conditioners are turned up full blast.  If there is one my heat rash and I do not want to give up is AC.

Windmills and solar farms in the desert have small downsides, and though I certainly care about nature, my BS detector tells me that, sure a few birds will be knocked down, and maybe some desert dwellers will have some very localized problems, but in general, it sounds like a great thing to put in a desert, a huge plant, producing power.

Plus there's that unofficial unemployment rate of 19 percent.  Build those grids, build many solar plants, and inverter plants, and get the price down where I don't have to pay almost as much as my little house is worth to put them on my southern-facing roof surfaces.


----------



## KittenKoder

pal_of_poor said:


> The only thing about Nuclear is that I feel like we're going backwards instead of forwards.
> 
> They give terrorists another target, and create a pretty bad waste situation, on where no one, even the place in Nevada we're designing, want to take the waste.
> 
> I like the idea of not buying oil from the people who are terrorists, lowing the price of oil generally by not using nearly as much of it, for those of us who'll still be using it in the future.  That will be, of course, most of us, since plastics, cosmetics, shingles, and all sorts of other petroleum based products will always be with us in some form.
> 
> The really great thing about solar, other than the clean aspect, is that it decentralizes the production of electricity.  In the South in particular, they work best when they are needed the most, on really hot, sunny days, they are producing like crazy, just when all of our air conditioners are turned up full blast.  If there is one my heat rash and I do not want to give up is AC.
> 
> Windmills and solar farms in the desert have small downsides, and though I certainly care about nature, my BS detector tells me that, sure a few birds will be knocked down, and maybe some desert dwellers will have some very localized problems, but in general, it sounds like a great thing to put in a desert, a huge plant, producing power.
> 
> Plus there's that unofficial unemployment rate of 19 percent.  Build those grids, build many solar plants, and inverter plants, and get the price down where I don't have to pay almost as much as my little house is worth to put them on my southern-facing roof surfaces.



Wow ... you haven't been keeping up to date much, or you swallowed propaganda hook, line and sinker. There is a waste facility that is wasting money right now being empty. You also don't know much abut environmental impacts of these "clean" energy sources. Let me guess to, you think that Chernobyl can happen here as well?


----------



## WillowTree

pal_of_poor said:


> The only thing about Nuclear is that I feel like we're going backwards instead of forwards.
> 
> They give terrorists another target, and create a pretty bad waste situation, on where no one, even the place in Nevada we're designing, want to take the waste.
> 
> I like the idea of not buying oil from the people who are terrorists, lowing the price of oil generally by not using nearly as much of it, for those of us who'll still be using it in the future.  That will be, of course, most of us, since plastics, cosmetics, shingles, and all sorts of other petroleum based products will always be with us in some form.
> 
> The really great thing about solar, other than the clean aspect, is that it decentralizes the production of electricity.  In the South in particular, they work best when they are needed the most, on really hot, sunny days, they are producing like crazy, just when all of our air conditioners are turned up full blast.  If there is one my heat rash and I do not want to give up is AC.
> 
> Windmills and solar farms in the desert have small downsides, and though I certainly care about nature, my BS detector tells me that, sure a few birds will be knocked down, and maybe some desert dwellers will have some very localized problems, but in general, it sounds like a great thing to put in a desert, a huge plant, producing power.
> 
> Plus there's that unofficial unemployment rate of 19 percent.  Build those grids, build many solar plants, and inverter plants, and get the price down where I don't have to pay almost as much as my little house is worth to put them on my southern-facing roof surfaces.



well pelosi won't allow no solar panels in her desert, and kennedy won't allow no wind tunnels in his bay,, so now whatcha gonna do??


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Next Gen nuclear is as "going forward" as we can get. NOTHING like older power plants.


----------



## garyd

Nuclear and at some point fusion technolgy is the future. Nuclear power now yields more power per square foot than almost any other system available.

Wind and solar should be used small scale. A wind turbine on the roof of your house is just fine. YOu don't need a forty foot freaking prop for that. Wind turbines have been around for years. Solar is to some extent depedent on the amount of available sunlight in a given region at a given time of year. All the next generation solar may completely change the shape of the traditional panel.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> The problem is Mid that I don't think a private co could get the kind of money they need to build one. That and the fact that the FED could get past most of the red tape if they were serious about nuclear power.
> 
> Why would you see it as a bad thing if the FED builds them and then leases them to power cos?


Money is not the problem. Red tape is.

Locally, there's a cat named George Chapman who is trying to get regulatory approval for a Nuclear power station here. Money isn't his issue, at all.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

pal_of_poor said:


> The only thing about Nuclear is that *I feel like *we're going backwards instead of forwards.
> 
> They give terrorists another target, and create a pretty bad waste situation, on where no one, even the place in Nevada we're designing, want to take the waste.
> 
> I like the idea of not buying oil from the people who are terrorists, lowing the price of oil generally by not using nearly as much of it, for those of us who'll still be using it in the future.  That will be, of course, most of us, since plastics, cosmetics, shingles, and all sorts of other petroleum based products will always be with us in some form.
> 
> The really great thing about solar, other than the clean aspect, is that it decentralizes the production of electricity.  In the South in particular, they work best when they are needed the most, on really hot, sunny days, they are producing like crazy, just when all of our air conditioners are turned up full blast.  If there is one my heat rash and I do not want to give up is AC.
> 
> Windmills and solar farms in the desert have small downsides, and though I certainly care about nature, my BS detector tells me that, sure a few birds will be knocked down, and maybe some desert dwellers will have some very localized problems, but in general, it sounds like a great thing to put in a desert, a huge plant, producing power.
> 
> Plus there's that unofficial unemployment rate of 19 percent.  Build those grids, build many solar plants, and inverter plants, and get the price down where I don't have to pay almost as much as my little house is worth to put them on my southern-facing roof surfaces.


The bolded part of your post above is your problem. You are "feeling" instead of thinking.

And it's clear you didn't read my post from before:

>Clicky<


----------



## Chris

Cold Fusion38 said:


> I would like to have an honest, fair, and POLITE debate about energy policy including plug in electric cars and other alt energy cars. I would also like to discuss new ways of producing energy and the idea of new nuclear power plants to supply our energy until such a time as we can get ALL our power from solar sources.
> 
> 
> 
> ONCE AGAIN I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THIS THREAD FRIENDLY!



We use twice as much energy per capita as most other countries. We waste a lot of energy. Conservation would be a good place to start.


----------



## ozzmdj

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Well o.k. OZZ a bit of an extremist yourself then hmmm? But let's try to come up with some solutions here. I think that when the electric car becomes cheaper that eveyone should at least CONSIDER replacing one of their households cars with a plug in. I also beleive that we need 10-20 nuke plants by 2020 and I think the only way to do that is for the FED to build them.



You mean like the fed build social security Only CAPITALISM can fix the problem the FED needs to get the HELL OUT OF THE WAY...............DRILL, DRILL, DRILL


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Well o.k. OZZ a bit of an extremist yourself then hmmm? But let's try to come up with some solutions here.* I think that when the electric car becomes cheaper* that eveyone should at least CONSIDER replacing one of their households cars with a plug in. I also beleive that we need 10-20 nuke plants by 2020 and I think the only way to do that is for the FED to build them.


WHY do people think that? It's nonsensical! NO cars have EVER become cheaper! EVER! No matter how many are made!

You're buying into the nonsensical comparison to home electronics? That the "brick" cellphone used to be 4000 bucks? That's silly in every way! THINK about it.


----------



## Chris

When carbon nanotubes are perfected, that will change everything as far as the efficiency of solar cells.

We aren't that far away.


----------



## Navy1960

It's my opinion that the key to ending this nations  slavery to OPEC and I say slavery because each and everytime these nations  control prices on oil they control the economy. Other factors  with OPEC involve the financing of  terrorist groups and weapons systems that would otherwise these nations would have a hard time funding without it. It's very true that the United States is the worlds largest consumer of energy and all good energy policies must start with smart conservation methods.  The simple  act of  turning off a light when not needed all the way to higher fuel standards for  automobiles.  

One of the best ways to end our this  connection to foreign oil is to advocate for an "all in" plan that takes into consideration every technology that the United States can bring to this situation. Those include nuclear generating stations akin to the size of palo verde that serves large metro areas with associated  reprocessing facilites, as well as  residental solar, commerical wind to service small and medium markets. Further, the power grid must be a distributed grid that will take advantage of power when needed , wherever needed. Inconjunction this nation can legislate  a transportation system that promotes the use of EV and plug-in's as well as  alternate fuels for aviation and advanced fossil fuels that are produced domestically.  One thing to consider. one nuclear power plant can produce the same amout of energy as all the current wind turbines  currently installed in the United States. and with the advent of  even newer nuclear  plants like the small reactors they will take less time to build and  even cost less and provide enough energy to end this  need for our nation to beg for energy from those that don't like us very much.  Solar power, while a clean and  abundant energy source can be a key part in this solution and it's my contention that distributed solar i.e. solar panels in roofing, etc will add even further to this  efficiency.  In smaller communties that are in high wind areas. wind makes a viable alternative, in conjunction with EVERY technology to also ending this dependance. The bottom line here though is that both sides of this issue must work together to get to this goal rather than short sighted  narrow views that each have held for so long because all have something to offer and once done then we will have an energy policy that is not only good for the nation, but is also environmenatlly friendly too,


----------



## Old Rocks

ozzmdj said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well o.k. OZZ a bit of an extremist yourself then hmmm? But let's try to come up with some solutions here. I think that when the electric car becomes cheaper that eveyone should at least CONSIDER replacing one of their households cars with a plug in. I also beleive that we need 10-20 nuke plants by 2020 and I think the only way to do that is for the FED to build them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the fed build social security Only CAPITALISM can fix the problem the FED needs to get the HELL OUT OF THE WAY...............DRILL, DRILL, DRILL
Click to expand...


Fucking stupid, Ozz. We have less than 3% of the known reserves in the world, and use 25% of the petroleum. And don't even start the idiocy about the oil shales. Technologically unfeasable, and economically impossible.


----------



## KittenKoder

Old Rocks said:


> ozzmdj said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well o.k. OZZ a bit of an extremist yourself then hmmm? But let's try to come up with some solutions here. I think that when the electric car becomes cheaper that eveyone should at least CONSIDER replacing one of their households cars with a plug in. I also beleive that we need 10-20 nuke plants by 2020 and I think the only way to do that is for the FED to build them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the fed build social security Only CAPITALISM can fix the problem the FED needs to get the HELL OUT OF THE WAY...............DRILL, DRILL, DRILL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fucking stupid, Ozz. We have less than 3% of the known reserves in the world, and use 25% of the petroleum. And don't even start the idiocy about the oil shales. Technologically unfeasable, and economically impossible.
Click to expand...


No, we *supply* less than 3% ... there is more oil below us, just no one lets us drill for it.


----------



## Old Rocks

Nuclear has a bad name in this nation because of the people that sold it. They sold it to us as so cheap we wouldn't have to meter it. And that it was completely safe. Well, it turned out to be damned expensive. And Three Mile Island was a damned close thing. It is not liberals that killed nuclear, it was nuclear advocates that made wild claims.

Nuclear has a very definate place in our energy future, as does wind, solar, geothermal, and other methods. Cost and availability will determine much of what is used where. Right now, wind is one of the cheapest, on overall costs, as is geothermal. Solar, by what a little Oregon company has developed, may soon be the cheapest of all. There is a hugh area in the US that is just begging for solar. They are called roofs. And every industrial and commericial complex has acres of them. Not only that, on residential, it would solve the problem of where the power for our electric vehicles is to come from.

There is no singe 'best' method. The availability of local sources will determine what is best where.


----------



## DiveCon

Cold Fusion38 said:


> I just wish that the extreme enviros would recognize that new nuke plants are NOTHING like Three Mile Island.


hell. TMI wasnt the disaster the enviroweenies claimed
nothing like chenobyl


----------



## KittenKoder

Old Rocks said:


> Nuclear has a bad name in this nation because of the people that sold it. They sold it to us as so cheap we wouldn't have to meter it. And that it was completely safe. Well, it turned out to be damned expensive. And Three Mile Island was a damned close thing. It is not liberals that killed nuclear, it was nuclear advocates that made wild claims.
> 
> Nuclear has a very definate place in our energy future, as does wind, solar, geothermal, and other methods. Cost and availability will determine much of what is used where. Right now, wind is one of the cheapest, on overall costs, as is geothermal. Solar, by what a little Oregon company has developed, may soon be the cheapest of all. There is a hugh area in the US that is just begging for solar. They are called roofs. And every industrial and commericial complex has acres of them. Not only that, on residential, it would solve the problem of where the power for our electric vehicles is to come from.
> 
> There is no singe 'best' method. The availability of local sources will determine what is best where.



Close? Three Mile Island close? Do you even pay attention to how many lives are lost for coal?


----------



## DiveCon

old rocks said:


> nuclear has a bad name in this nation because of the people that sold it. They sold it to us as so cheap we wouldn't have to meter it. And that it was completely safe. Well, it turned out to be damned expensive. And three mile island was a damned close thing. It is not liberals that killed nuclear, it was nuclear advocates that made wild claims.
> 
> Nuclear has a very definate place in our energy future, as does wind, solar, geothermal, and other methods. Cost and availability will determine much of what is used where. Right now, wind is one of the cheapest, on overall costs, as is geothermal. Solar, by what a little oregon company has developed, may soon be the cheapest of all. There is a hugh area in the us that is just begging for solar. They are called roofs. And every industrial and commericial complex has acres of them. Not only that, on residential, it would solve the problem of where the power for our electric vehicles is to come from.
> 
> There is no singe 'best' method. The availability of local sources will determine what is best where.


^^^^
see!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## dilloduck

Old Rocks said:


> Nuclear has a bad name in this nation because of the people that sold it. They sold it to us as so cheap we wouldn't have to meter it. And that it was completely safe. Well, it turned out to be damned expensive. And Three Mile Island was a damned close thing. It is not liberals that killed nuclear, it was nuclear advocates that made wild claims.
> 
> Nuclear has a very definate place in our energy future, as does wind, solar, geothermal, and other methods. Cost and availability will determine much of what is used where. Right now, wind is one of the cheapest, on overall costs, as is geothermal. Solar, by what a little Oregon company has developed, may soon be the cheapest of all. There is a hugh area in the US that is just begging for solar. They are called roofs. And every industrial and commericial complex has acres of them. Not only that, on residential, it would solve the problem of where the power for our electric vehicles is to come from.
> 
> There is no singe 'best' method. The availability of local sources will determine what is best where.



Unfortunately the government will tell you what you you can use anyway.


----------



## Old Rocks

KittenKoder said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozzmdj said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the fed build social security Only CAPITALISM can fix the problem the FED needs to get the HELL OUT OF THE WAY...............DRILL, DRILL, DRILL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking stupid, Ozz. We have less than 3% of the known reserves in the world, and use 25% of the petroleum. And don't even start the idiocy about the oil shales. Technologically unfeasable, and economically impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we *supply* less than 3% ... there is more oil below us, just no one lets us drill for it.
Click to expand...


LOL. My sweet little kitten, that figure is from known reserves, not a production figure.

Who has the oil? | Energy Bulletin


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I think we need to do EVERYTHING that we can to secure our OWN sources of energy. I have even softened my stance on new drilling but it MUST be connected to more REFINING capacity which the oil cos are MORE than happy to keep right where it is.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Anyone who thinks a next gen nuclear power plant is ANYTHING like Three Mile are just being willfully ignorant. Does nuclear have risks.......You are damn right it does but with reprocessing tech and plants that actually produce HYDROGEN as a BYPRODUCT I think it is INSANITY to not pursue it.


----------



## Old Rocks

DiveCon said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just wish that the extreme enviros would recognize that new nuke plants are NOTHING like Three Mile Island.
> 
> 
> 
> hell. TMI wasnt the disaster the enviroweenies claimed
> nothing like chenobyl
Click to expand...


Three Mile Island wasn't supposed to be able to happen at all. The fact that it came so very close to a catastrophic meltdown astounded everybody. Some very bad assumptions were made, assumptions that anybody in maintenance could have told you would lead to disaster.

Technology Lessons from Three Mile Island | Daily Cup of Tech

Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers, page 183One of the most famous incidents in history, for example, was the near meltdown oat Pennsylvanias Three Mile Island nuclear station in 1979. Three Mile Island so traumatized the American public that it sent the US nuclear power industry into a tailspin from which it has never fully recovered.  But what actually happened at that nuclear reactor began as something far from dramatic.  As the sociologist Charles Perrow shows in his classic Normal Accidents, there was a relatively routing blockage in what is called the plants polisher - a kind of giant water filter.  The blockage caused moisture to leak into the plants air system, inadvertently tripping two valves and shutting down the flow of cold water into the plants steam generator.  Like all nuclear reactors, Three Mile Island had a backup cooling system for precisely this situation.  But on that particular day, for reasons that no one really understands, the valves for the backup system werent open.  Someone had closed them, and an indicator in the control room showing they were closed was blocked by a repair tag hanging from a switch above it.  That left the reactor dependent on another backup system, a special sort of relief valve.  But, as luck would have it, the relief valve wasnt working properly that day either.  It stuck open when it was supposed to close, and, to make matters even worse, a gauge in the control room that should have told the operators that the relief valve wasnt working was itself not working.  By the time Three Mile Islands engineers realized what was happening, the reactor had come dangerously close to a meltdown.

No single big thing went wrong at Three Mile Island.  Rather, five completely unrelated events occurred in sequence, each of which, had it happened in isolation, would have caused no more than a hiccup in the plants ordinary operation.


----------



## DiveCon

Cold Fusion38 said:


> I think we need to do EVERYTHING that we can to secure our OWN sources of energy. I have even softened my stance on new drilling but it MUST be connected to more REFINING capacity which the oil cos are MORE than happy to keep right where it is.


i agree
we need to do everything we can to cover the demand we have on our own and at the same time work on alrternatives
but the government should get out of the way not do it themselves


----------



## KittenKoder

Old Rocks said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just wish that the extreme enviros would recognize that new nuke plants are NOTHING like Three Mile Island.
> 
> 
> 
> hell. TMI wasnt the disaster the enviroweenies claimed
> nothing like chenobyl
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Three Mile Island wasn't supposed to be able to happen at all. The fact that it came so very close to a catastrophic meltdown astounded everybody. Some very bad assumptions were made, assumptions that anybody in maintenance could have told you would lead to disaster.
> 
> Technology Lessons from Three Mile Island | Daily Cup of Tech
> 
> Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers, page 183One of the most famous incidents in history, for example, was the near meltdown oat Pennsylvanias Three Mile Island nuclear station in 1979. Three Mile Island so traumatized the American public that it sent the US nuclear power industry into a tailspin from which it has never fully recovered.  But what actually happened at that nuclear reactor began as something far from dramatic.  As the sociologist Charles Perrow shows in his classic Normal Accidents, there was a relatively routing blockage in what is called the plants polisher - a kind of giant water filter.  The blockage caused moisture to leak into the plants air system, inadvertently tripping two valves and shutting down the flow of cold water into the plants steam generator.  Like all nuclear reactors, Three Mile Island had a backup cooling system for precisely this situation.  But on that particular day, for reasons that no one really understands, the valves for the backup system werent open.  Someone had closed them, and an indicator in the control room showing they were closed was blocked by a repair tag hanging from a switch above it.  That left the reactor dependent on another backup system, a special sort of relief valve.  But, as luck would have it, the relief valve wasnt working properly that day either.  It stuck open when it was supposed to close, and, to make matters even worse, a gauge in the control room that should have told the operators that the relief valve wasnt working was itself not working.  By the time Three Mile Islands engineers realized what was happening, the reactor had come dangerously close to a meltdown.
> 
> No single big thing went wrong at Three Mile Island.  Rather, five completely unrelated events occurred in sequence, each of which, had it happened in isolation, would have caused no more than a hiccup in the plants ordinary operation.
Click to expand...


... and the Titanic was unsinkable.


----------



## Old Rocks

KittenKoder said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear has a bad name in this nation because of the people that sold it. They sold it to us as so cheap we wouldn't have to meter it. And that it was completely safe. Well, it turned out to be damned expensive. And Three Mile Island was a damned close thing. It is not liberals that killed nuclear, it was nuclear advocates that made wild claims.
> 
> Nuclear has a very definate place in our energy future, as does wind, solar, geothermal, and other methods. Cost and availability will determine much of what is used where. Right now, wind is one of the cheapest, on overall costs, as is geothermal. Solar, by what a little Oregon company has developed, may soon be the cheapest of all. There is a hugh area in the US that is just begging for solar. They are called roofs. And every industrial and commericial complex has acres of them. Not only that, on residential, it would solve the problem of where the power for our electric vehicles is to come from.
> 
> There is no singe 'best' method. The availability of local sources will determine what is best where.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Close? Three Mile Island close? Do you even pay attention to how many lives are lost for coal?
Click to expand...


A great many in mining it, and a great many more in breathing the pollution resulting from it.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Develop all avenues of alternative energy, yes. But do not do so at the detriment of our economy. Drill, baby, drill for the oil that is currently where we have land (like ANWR) in conjunction with the development of these alternatives.


----------



## Gudrid

Algae Biofuel.  We've got the technology; now we need to make it affordable.  I think it shows a lot of promise, and I plan to invest in it if and when it goes public.


----------



## KittenKoder

Old Rocks said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear has a bad name in this nation because of the people that sold it. They sold it to us as so cheap we wouldn't have to meter it. And that it was completely safe. Well, it turned out to be damned expensive. And Three Mile Island was a damned close thing. It is not liberals that killed nuclear, it was nuclear advocates that made wild claims.
> 
> Nuclear has a very definate place in our energy future, as does wind, solar, geothermal, and other methods. Cost and availability will determine much of what is used where. Right now, wind is one of the cheapest, on overall costs, as is geothermal. Solar, by what a little Oregon company has developed, may soon be the cheapest of all. There is a hugh area in the US that is just begging for solar. They are called roofs. And every industrial and commericial complex has acres of them. Not only that, on residential, it would solve the problem of where the power for our electric vehicles is to come from.
> 
> There is no singe 'best' method. The availability of local sources will determine what is best where.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Close? Three Mile Island close? Do you even pay attention to how many lives are lost for coal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A great many in mining it, and a great many more in breathing the pollution resulting from it.
Click to expand...


So ... one close call, that we can now prevent and which would have cause a few minor dangers for maybe 5 years is worse than thousands dying for what we currently have? I thought I was twisted.


----------



## KittenKoder

Gudrid said:


> Algae Biofuel.  We've got the technology; now we need to make it affordable.  I think it shows a lot of promise, and I plan to invest in it if and when it goes public.



Right now, we need that algae for a lot of other things.  It would be like when we pushed for corn oil.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

If we just mandated that new houses in hot climates have a solar panel it would make great amounts of energy and as somebody pointed out earlier that energy would be produced during PEAK demand. Anyone remember the "Brown outs" in Cal a few years ago? That would NEVER happen if even 10% of houses had solar power.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Old Rocks said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just wish that the extreme enviros would recognize that new nuke plants are NOTHING like Three Mile Island.
> 
> 
> 
> hell. TMI wasnt the disaster the enviroweenies claimed
> nothing like chenobyl
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Three Mile Island wasn't supposed to be able to happen at all. The fact that it came so very close to a catastrophic meltdown astounded everybody. Some very bad assumptions were made, assumptions that anybody in maintenance could have told you would lead to disaster.
> 
> Technology Lessons from Three Mile Island | Daily Cup of Tech
> 
> Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers, page 183One of the most famous incidents in history, for example, was the near meltdown oat Pennsylvanias Three Mile Island nuclear station in 1979. Three Mile Island so traumatized the American public that it sent the US nuclear power industry into a tailspin from which it has never fully recovered.  But what actually happened at that nuclear reactor began as something far from dramatic.  As the sociologist Charles Perrow shows in his classic Normal Accidents, there was a relatively routing blockage in what is called the plants polisher - a kind of giant water filter.  The blockage caused moisture to leak into the plants air system, inadvertently tripping two valves and shutting down the flow of cold water into the plants steam generator.  Like all nuclear reactors, Three Mile Island had a backup cooling system for precisely this situation.  But on that particular day, for reasons that no one really understands, the valves for the backup system werent open.  Someone had closed them, and an indicator in the control room showing they were closed was blocked by a repair tag hanging from a switch above it.  That left the reactor dependent on another backup system, a special sort of relief valve.  But, as luck would have it, the relief valve wasnt working properly that day either.  It stuck open when it was supposed to close, and, to make matters even worse, a gauge in the control room that should have told the operators that the relief valve wasnt working was itself not working.  By the time Three Mile Islands engineers realized what was happening, the reactor had come dangerously close to a meltdown.
> 
> No single big thing went wrong at Three Mile Island.  Rather, five completely unrelated events occurred in sequence, each of which, had it happened in isolation, would have caused no more than a hiccup in the plants ordinary operation.
Click to expand...





Almost sounds like sabotage.


----------



## KittenKoder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> If we just mandated that new houses in hot climates have a solar panel it would make great amounts of energy and as somebody pointed out earlier that energy would be produced during PEAK demand. Anyone remember the "Brown outs" in Cal a few years ago? That would NEVER happen if even 10% of houses had solar power.



There's the problem ... mandates ... take away the freedom and ruin capitalism just to hand a few companies and rich people who didn't earn their money our money by force ... that's stupid.


----------



## DiveCon

KittenKoder said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we just mandated that new houses in hot climates have a solar panel it would make great amounts of energy and as somebody pointed out earlier that energy would be produced during PEAK demand. Anyone remember the "Brown outs" in Cal a few years ago? That would NEVER happen if even 10% of houses had solar power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's the problem ... mandates ... take away the freedom and ruin capitalism just to hand a few companies and rich people who didn't earn their money our money by force ... that's stupid.
Click to expand...

not to mention the hazardous materials needed in the manufacture of solar panels


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I still think the BEST way to get plants online by 2020 is to have the gov't build them and then lease to power cos. The FACT is gov't can get past MANY problems faced by private development. Eminent domain ring any bells?


----------



## KittenKoder

DiveCon said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we just mandated that new houses in hot climates have a solar panel it would make great amounts of energy and as somebody pointed out earlier that energy would be produced during PEAK demand. Anyone remember the "Brown outs" in Cal a few years ago? That would NEVER happen if even 10% of houses had solar power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's the problem ... mandates ... take away the freedom and ruin capitalism just to hand a few companies and rich people who didn't earn their money our money by force ... that's stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not to mention the hazardous materials needed in the manufacture of solar panels
Click to expand...


You know they ignore the fact that all the "green" stuff produces more pollution than any other option, that's why they have to force it on people.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Alge biofuel has MANY possibilities. I heard once about the Mississippi delta that has MASSIVE alge blooms. We could use that for biofuel AND help clean up that region of the ocean.


----------



## KittenKoder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> I still think the BEST way to get plants online by 2020 is to have the gov't build them and then lease to power cos. The FACT is gov't can get past MANY problems faced by private development. Eminent domain ring any bells?



The government can't do squat without thinking with their wallets ...


----------



## RadiomanATL

KittenKoder said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still think the BEST way to get plants online by 2020 is to have the gov't build them and then lease to power cos. The FACT is gov't can get past MANY problems faced by private development. Eminent domain ring any bells?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government can't do squat without thinking with their wallets ...
Click to expand...


Wrong-o there KK.

The government can't do squat without thinking with OUR wallets .


----------



## Gudrid

KittenKoder said:


> Gudrid said:
> 
> 
> 
> Algae Biofuel.  We've got the technology; now we need to make it affordable.  I think it shows a lot of promise, and I plan to invest in it if and when it goes public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right now, we need that algae for a lot of other things.  It would be like when we pushed for corn oil.
Click to expand...



Lol.  Well, I wouldn't want to deprive people of their algae or anything... 

Seriously, it's quite promising.  It doesn't take up much space at all.  Exxon's investing in it at the moment.  And it's really a different concept than corn (bearing in mind I am not a science and type and my understanding is very limited...) - the process appears to be attempting to mimic the manner in which oil was developed.  But since the algae consumes carbon dioxide, it helps offset the carbon dioxide being emitted when the fuel is used.  I don't know the ratios on that one, though.  

Exxon Makes Big Investment in Algae Biofuels | The Heat Zone


----------



## DiveCon

Gudrid said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gudrid said:
> 
> 
> 
> Algae Biofuel.  We've got the technology; now we need to make it affordable.  I think it shows a lot of promise, and I plan to invest in it if and when it goes public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right now, we need that algae for a lot of other things.  It would be like when we pushed for corn oil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.  Well, I wouldn't want to deprive people of their algae or anything...
> 
> Seriously, it's quite promising.  It doesn't take up much space at all.  Exxon's investing in it at the moment.  And it's really a different concept than corn (bearing in mind I am not a science and type and my understanding is very limited...) - the process appears to be attempting to mimic the manner in which oil was developed.  But since the algae consumes carbon dioxide, it helps offset the carbon dioxide being emitted when the fuel is used.  I don't know the ratios on that one, though.
> 
> Exxon Makes Big Investment in Algae Biofuels | The Heat Zone
Click to expand...

wait, so its another way for Exxon/Mobil to make a ton of money


----------



## KittenKoder

RadiomanATL said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still think the BEST way to get plants online by 2020 is to have the gov't build them and then lease to power cos. The FACT is gov't can get past MANY problems faced by private development. Eminent domain ring any bells?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government can't do squat without thinking with their wallets ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong-o there KK.
> 
> The government can't do squat without thinking with OUR wallets .
Click to expand...


My bad ... correction noted.


----------



## Gudrid

DiveCon said:


> Gudrid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now, we need that algae for a lot of other things.  It would be like when we pushed for corn oil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.  Well, I wouldn't want to deprive people of their algae or anything...
> 
> Seriously, it's quite promising.  It doesn't take up much space at all.  Exxon's investing in it at the moment.  And it's really a different concept than corn (bearing in mind I am not a science and type and my understanding is very limited...) - the process appears to be attempting to mimic the manner in which oil was developed.  But since the algae consumes carbon dioxide, it helps offset the carbon dioxide being emitted when the fuel is used.  I don't know the ratios on that one, though.
> 
> Exxon Makes Big Investment in Algae Biofuels | The Heat Zone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wait, so its another way for Exxon/Mobil to make a ton of money
Click to expand...


Is that a problem?


----------



## RadiomanATL

KittenKoder said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government can't do squat without thinking with their wallets ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong-o there KK.
> 
> The government can't do squat without thinking with OUR wallets .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My bad ... correction noted.
Click to expand...


S'ok.


----------



## KittenKoder

Gudrid said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gudrid said:
> 
> 
> 
> Algae Biofuel.  We've got the technology; now we need to make it affordable.  I think it shows a lot of promise, and I plan to invest in it if and when it goes public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right now, we need that algae for a lot of other things.  It would be like when we pushed for corn oil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.  Well, I wouldn't want to deprive people of their algae or anything...
> 
> Seriously, it's quite promising.  It doesn't take up much space at all.  Exxon's investing in it at the moment.  And it's really a different concept than corn (bearing in mind I am not a science and type and my understanding is very limited...) - the process appears to be attempting to mimic the manner in which oil was developed.  But since the algae consumes carbon dioxide, it helps offset the carbon dioxide being emitted when the fuel is used.  I don't know the ratios on that one, though.
> 
> Exxon Makes Big Investment in Algae Biofuels | The Heat Zone
Click to expand...


Actually, right now a lot of our O2 is being produced by algae, the primary reason there are rising CO2 levels is because our plant life is being killed off too quickly. Not to mention it supplies food for the fish we eat and with our over fishing they need it now more than ever. I am a big picture person, I don't see a symptom and jump to fix just that without considering all possible impacts. That's why I have a problem with the current environut methodology, they jump onto "feel good" ideas without considering the dark side to said actions.


----------



## JW Frogen

Cold Fusion38 said:


> ONCE AGAIN I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THIS THREAD FRIENDLY!



I am out.


----------



## DiveCon

Gudrid said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gudrid said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.  Well, I wouldn't want to deprive people of their algae or anything...
> 
> Seriously, it's quite promising.  It doesn't take up much space at all.  Exxon's investing in it at the moment.  And it's really a different concept than corn (bearing in mind I am not a science and type and my understanding is very limited...) - the process appears to be attempting to mimic the manner in which oil was developed.  But since the algae consumes carbon dioxide, it helps offset the carbon dioxide being emitted when the fuel is used.  I don't know the ratios on that one, though.
> 
> Exxon Makes Big Investment in Algae Biofuels | The Heat Zone
> 
> 
> 
> wait, so its another way for Exxon/Mobil to make a ton of money
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that a problem?
Click to expand...

not for me


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Hey Dive when T Boone put his idea out there my neighbor said he was just in it for the money......I told him I didn't give a shit if Boone became the first TRILLIONAIRE if it helped us become energy independant.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Come on JW you can do it if you WANT to and I hope you do.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

WooHoo my REP is over 500.


----------



## Gudrid

KittenKoder said:


> Gudrid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now, we need that algae for a lot of other things.  It would be like when we pushed for corn oil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.  Well, I wouldn't want to deprive people of their algae or anything...
> 
> Seriously, it's quite promising.  It doesn't take up much space at all.  Exxon's investing in it at the moment.  And it's really a different concept than corn (bearing in mind I am not a science and type and my understanding is very limited...) - the process appears to be attempting to mimic the manner in which oil was developed.  But since the algae consumes carbon dioxide, it helps offset the carbon dioxide being emitted when the fuel is used.  I don't know the ratios on that one, though.
> 
> Exxon Makes Big Investment in Algae Biofuels | The Heat Zone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, right now a lot of our O2 is being produced by algae, the primary reason there are rising CO2 levels is because our plant life is being killed off too quickly. Not to mention it supplies food for the fish we eat and with our over fishing they need it now more than ever. I am a big picture person, I don't see a symptom and jump to fix just that without considering all possible impacts. That's why I have a problem with the current environut methodology, they jump onto "feel good" ideas without considering the dark side to said actions.
Click to expand...


They aren't talking about killing off existing plant life.  They're talking about breeding it on a massive scale, and using it, in essence, to balance itself out environmentally while at the same time achieving energy independence.  Assuming they can make the technology viable in terms of affordability.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

When the mods say I can start a religion I ask that you not hold it against me if I get a bit "preachy"


----------



## KittenKoder

Gudrid said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gudrid said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.  Well, I wouldn't want to deprive people of their algae or anything...
> 
> Seriously, it's quite promising.  It doesn't take up much space at all.  Exxon's investing in it at the moment.  And it's really a different concept than corn (bearing in mind I am not a science and type and my understanding is very limited...) - the process appears to be attempting to mimic the manner in which oil was developed.  But since the algae consumes carbon dioxide, it helps offset the carbon dioxide being emitted when the fuel is used.  I don't know the ratios on that one, though.
> 
> Exxon Makes Big Investment in Algae Biofuels | The Heat Zone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, right now a lot of our O2 is being produced by algae, the primary reason there are rising CO2 levels is because our plant life is being killed off too quickly. Not to mention it supplies food for the fish we eat and with our over fishing they need it now more than ever. I am a big picture person, I don't see a symptom and jump to fix just that without considering all possible impacts. That's why I have a problem with the current environut methodology, they jump onto "feel good" ideas without considering the dark side to said actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't talking about killing off existing plant life.  They're talking about breeding it on a massive scale, and using it, in essence, to balance itself out environmentally while at the same time achieving energy independence.  Assuming they can make the technology viable in terms of affordability.
Click to expand...


The one of two things will occur, that they won't tell you about until it's too late like all the others, it will take up a lot of space, or they will disrupt the ecosystem. Again, the big picture is that no matter what we do, we will change things because of how many of us there are.


----------



## JW Frogen

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Come on JW you can do it if you WANT to and I hope you do.



I tried nice once, I ended up playing "tiger" at a Ziegfried and Roy orgy.


----------



## DiveCon

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Hey Dive when T Boone put his idea out there my neighbor said he was just in it for the money......I told him I didn't give a shit if Boone became the first TRILLIONAIRE if it helped us become energy independant.


well, the difference there is T Boone wanted to use tax payer dollars to make the trillion

if he used his own money, he can do anything he pleases with it


----------



## Gudrid

Of course we'll change things.  But that doesn't mean it's a destructive change.  And the fact is, we're going to use energy, and we're going to run out of oil.  I'm not willing to write off viable alternatives based on a gut-level "there must be something wrong with it" feeling.  

The space issues were addressed in that link, btw.



> For example, Glen Kertz of Valcent Products has a closed, vertical system for growing algae that he claims allows the production of 100,000 gallons of algae oil (the ingredient used to make algae biodiesel) per acre, as opposed to 30 to 50 gallons per acre from using corn or soybeans for biodiesel.



Assuming that's correct, of course, I don't think space will be the big issue with this particular alternative.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Assuming it's even 10% correct it sound promising.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

This topic is the most important issue for America bar none!


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Even if you have an idea that is totally absured please put it out there. I beleive America is STILL the best place for innovention.


----------



## Bcurtis35

Hey, 
I would like to put a couple of facts into the forum.

1. All of the so-called environmental energy savers don't hold a candle
to natural gas.  It is 60% cleaner than petroleum and we have lots of
reserves here in North America.

2. All of this hype on how "clean" electric cars will be is just that..Hype.
Think of  it,  one million cars plugged in using electricity that is currently
being produced from Hydro-electric  plants or coal produced energy.
So we save 100 million tons of CO2 and burn enough coal to cloud over the entire
country.

3. You tout the nuclear energy solution as "too dangerous".  It is pure "climate
change" nonsense promoted by Al Gore and the environmentalists.   We never had
the exposure trumpeted by the Three Mile Island  "meltdown"   In thirty years 
we have made fantastic strides in nuclear safety, but it is "politically incorrect" and
financially unacceptable.  But, we could have spent $400 billion on nuclear plants and
we would have been half way out of our dependence on Arab oil.

4 Finally, the "Cap" and Trade act passed by  the House has nothing to do with protecting
the environment, it has to do with politics that actually reward  the biggest polluters with
a way to avoid reducing their emissions, by buying credits frokm those who do.

If you want to have a quiet discussion, then gather the facts, then we can talk.


----------



## Gudrid

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Assuming it's even 10% correct it sound promising.



Time will tell, I suppose.  Kitten's right in that there's likely another shoe to fall somewhere, but I still believe this to be the most viable solution we've seen.  I plan to keep an eye on it and invest in it if it continues to look as promising as it does right now.  Cause the only thing better than good solutions are good solutions that I make money off of.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

BC I am pretty sure Hydro doesn't produce CO2.......Beyond that you may have noticed that I advocate for nuclear power and solar panels on your house could in the near future with "super capacitors" to store enough energy to recharge your plug in.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Forgive me BC but I don't recall calling nuclear too dangerous. Enviromentalists at least the more moderate of them will eventually come around to nuclear power as it is the ONLY viable option that we could have in place within 10 years.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Care to respond BC?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Well BC any response?


----------



## DiveCon

Cold Fusion38 said:


> BC I am pretty sure Hydro doesn't produce CO2.......Beyond that you may have noticed that I advocate for nuclear power and solar panels on your house could in the near future with "super capacitors" to store enough energy to recharge your plug in.


cant damn up rivers, the enviro weenies worry about a snail darter


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Well we here in Idaho enjoy some of the lowest power costs in the country due to hydro power.


----------



## DiveCon

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Well we here in Idaho enjoy some of the lowest power costs in the country due to hydro power.


we could have been a net power exporter here in Maine
but the enviro nuts got maine yankee closed, then they went after the hydro plants and got many of them closed
now we import power from canada


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Crappy.


----------



## DiveCon

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Crappy.


yup
i know


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I think I was even MORE pissed when I heard the Kennedys didn't wnat the view of THEIR ocean front property to be blemished by wind mills.


----------



## DiveCon

Cold Fusion38 said:


> I think I was even MORE pissed when I heard the Kennedys didn't wnat the view of THEIR ocean front property to be blemished by wind mills.


i wasnt pissed, i expected the hypocrisy from them


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Sadly I didn't but it just goes to show how ANY family with that sort of money and influance doesn't give a DAMN about the rest of us. I hope when/if I get elected I won't lose touch with who I really am.


----------



## Ringel05

Electric power vehicles (electric only) must be plugged into the power grid, the source of which you seem to be so against.  Not to mention the waste products from battery manufacturing are toxic to the extreme, the containment sites make death valley look lush by comparison.  By by argument for all electric.  Using solar power has limited application, despite the advancements made.  
One of the things to watch is the new nuclear fuel (I don't remember off hand what it's called).  It can only be used for fuel and the waste is only radioactive for around 100 years as opposed to 10,000 years.
As for wind power I've always advocated turning congress into the worlds largest and most productive wind generator in existence.  Heck, we could power NYC for 100 years for every day congress is in session.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Hydrogen 3 and it is abundant on the moon but we are a VERY long way from mining operations on the the moon like a couple hundred years.


----------



## Ringel05

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Hydrogen 3 and it is abundant on the moon but we are a VERY long way from mining operations on the the moon like a couple hundred years.


I understand but it was reported (on WTOP) that we also have it here and are only a year or two away from being able to start using it en masse.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I think it is pretty limited on Earth but I guess you don't need a whole bunch of it. I would LOVE to see the US become the world leader in nuclear power.


----------



## Ringel05

Cold Fusion38 said:


> I think it is pretty limited on Earth but I guess you don't need a whole bunch of it. I would LOVE to see the US become the world leader in nuclear power.


If I remember the report correctly (it was a week or so ago and I was busy negotiating D.C. traffic at the time) that was one of the great things, very small amounts needed.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Well Ring I am ALL FOR IT!!! Like I said we should be on the forefront of energy technology because if we aren't then we are in BIG trouble.


----------



## DiveCon

Ringel05 said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is pretty limited on Earth but I guess you don't need a whole bunch of it. I would LOVE to see the US become the world leader in nuclear power.
> 
> 
> 
> If I remember the report correctly (it was a week or so ago and I was busy negotiating D.C. traffic at the time) that was one of the great things, very small amounts needed.
Click to expand...

are you talking about the hydrate(sp?) that is on the ocean floor?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Pretty sure it is Hydrogen 3.


----------



## Ringel05

DiveCon said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is pretty limited on Earth but I guess you don't need a whole bunch of it. I would LOVE to see the US become the world leader in nuclear power.
> 
> 
> 
> If I remember the report correctly (it was a week or so ago and I was busy negotiating D.C. traffic at the time) that was one of the great things, very small amounts needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you talking about the hydrate(sp?) that is on the ocean floor?
Click to expand...


CF thinks it was Hydrogen 3, I honestly don't remember if that was the element they were talking about in the report.  
But I still think my idea of harnessing the hot air generated in congress would solve all of our energy problems.


----------



## garyd

I would certainly help... Now if we could just come up with a way to use verbal BS for power all we'd need is congress, ever.


----------



## Douger

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Well o.k. OZZ a bit of an extremist yourself then hmmm? But let's try to come up with some solutions here. I think that when the electric car becomes cheaper that eveyone should at least CONSIDER replacing one of their households cars with a plug in. I also beleive that we need 10-20 nuke plants by 2020 and I think the only way to do that is for the FED to build them.


There is no 2020.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Cold Fusion38 said:


> BC I am pretty sure Hydro doesn't produce CO2.......Beyond that you may have noticed that I advocate for nuclear power and solar panels on your house could in the near future with "super capacitors" to store enough energy to recharge your plug in.



Please explain what a "super capacitor" is?  Since a 10 farad capacitor is the size of a modern day train locomotive I would be interested to hear where you plan to put all of these "super capacitors".


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Cold Fusion38 said:


> I still think the BEST way to get plants online by 2020 is to have the gov't build them and then lease to power cos. The FACT is gov't can get past MANY problems faced by private development. Eminent domain ring any bells?



So you advocate usurping environmental concerns as long as it's the government doing it?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

PatekPhilippe said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still think the BEST way to get plants online by 2020 is to have the gov't build them and then lease to power cos. The FACT is gov't can get past MANY problems faced by private development. Eminent domain ring any bells?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you advocate usurping environmental concerns as long as it's the government doing it?
Click to expand...





Well since I consider energy to be a national security issue then I guess I would. I am very concerned about our enviroment but I understand how important it is for the US to have a reliable domestic source of energy. I have even sofened my view on more domestic drilling.

I hope despite our differences on MSNBC we can be civil to each other.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Supercapacitors (also known as ultracapacitors) store electricity by physically separating positive and negative charges&#8212;unlike batteries which do so chemically. The charge they hold is like the static electricity that can build up on a balloon, but is much greater thanks to the extremely high surface area of their interior materials.

Super capacitors are very good at efficiently capturing electricity from regenerative braking, and can deliver power for acceleration just as quickly. With no moving parts, they also have a very long lifespan&#8212;probably longer than any car.

A super capacitor is also known as a double-layer capacitor. It polarizes an electrolytic solution to store energy electro statically. Though it is an electrochemical device, no chemical reactions are involved in its energy storage mechanism. This mechanism is highly reversible, and allows the ultra capacitor to be charged and discharged hundreds of thousands of times.

A super capacitor can be viewed as two non reactive porous plates, or collectors, suspended within an electrolyte, with a voltage potential applied across the collectors. In an individual supercapacitor cell, the applied potential on the positive electrode attracts the negative ions in the electrolyte, while the potential on the negative electrode attracts the positive ions. A dielectric separator between the two electrodes prevents the charge from moving between the two electrodes. Diagram 2 depicts an supercapacitor, its modules, and an supercapacitor cell.


----------



## Navy1960

The solar issue while a costly one in terms of individual(s) purchasing solar for home usage could be easily solved.  The easiest way would be for the Govt. to offset the purchase of solar panels  for a set period of time. They already provide a lot of  tax incentives in some cases up to half the purchase but it still is unaffordable for  most average familes. So it would seem the best way around this would be to provide  incentives  that are even higher and then require the user to show  at the end of each year  after install overall energy usage as a  requirement for  getting these  loans much like someone would send P&L's on SBA loans.  What this would do would increase demand and also increase production and supply and bring down the cost overall to everyone.  One other benefit of this would be a large energy reduction for  residential area's  in places like I live, Arizona, and you may be surprised that Solar on homes here is not as common as you may think and thats because it is often promoted poorly  and seen as a niche technology that is too expensive  and  does not save money. To me it's a matter of changing perceptions on residential usage and  when solar can be as common in building as say dry-wall then it will put a large  dent in our overall national energy usage.  However, it must be said this is but one block in many needed to be in place  to build a energy plan that works , we only need to have the courage to do it and stop demonizing  industries because they don't suit our agenda.


----------



## garyd

But if you live in a place with a lot of cloud cover Solar isn't all that hot. Seattle for instance gets about 60 days of sunlight a year and compound that with much longer nights in the winter. We are going to need a combination of things. And lets not forget that oil is used for a hell of a lot of things other than energy production. Anything made of plastic needs oil.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Gary.....The best place for solar would be in hot climates. The best thing about putting solar in those areas is that it would produce the most power at exactly when it is most needed to run AC units.


----------



## garyd

Not arguing that at all and solar panels as currently conceived may be on their way to dinosaur status. there is a lot of new stuff coming out in the solar field that will be cheaper and easier to make and much less space intensive.


----------



## Navy1960

Thats the reason why I said Solar  is only a building block in an overall energy policy and not just a singular solution.  It always strikes me when people advocate one or two technologies  and  then exclude others as a solution to this nations energy needs.  In fact I have advocated  an "all in" approach that uses every available technology to end our  need to rely on foreign oil.


----------



## garyd

Good.


----------



## Old Rocks

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> hell. TMI wasnt the disaster the enviroweenies claimed
> nothing like chenobyl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Three Mile Island wasn't supposed to be able to happen at all. The fact that it came so very close to a catastrophic meltdown astounded everybody. Some very bad assumptions were made, assumptions that anybody in maintenance could have told you would lead to disaster.
> 
> Technology Lessons from Three Mile Island | Daily Cup of Tech
> 
> Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers, page 183One of the most famous incidents in history, for example, was the near meltdown oat Pennsylvanias Three Mile Island nuclear station in 1979. Three Mile Island so traumatized the American public that it sent the US nuclear power industry into a tailspin from which it has never fully recovered.  But what actually happened at that nuclear reactor began as something far from dramatic.  As the sociologist Charles Perrow shows in his classic Normal Accidents, there was a relatively routing blockage in what is called the plants polisher - a kind of giant water filter.  The blockage caused moisture to leak into the plants air system, inadvertently tripping two valves and shutting down the flow of cold water into the plants steam generator.  Like all nuclear reactors, Three Mile Island had a backup cooling system for precisely this situation.  But on that particular day, for reasons that no one really understands, the valves for the backup system werent open.  Someone had closed them, and an indicator in the control room showing they were closed was blocked by a repair tag hanging from a switch above it.  That left the reactor dependent on another backup system, a special sort of relief valve.  But, as luck would have it, the relief valve wasnt working properly that day either.  It stuck open when it was supposed to close, and, to make matters even worse, a gauge in the control room that should have told the operators that the relief valve wasnt working was itself not working.  By the time Three Mile Islands engineers realized what was happening, the reactor had come dangerously close to a meltdown.
> 
> No single big thing went wrong at Three Mile Island.  Rather, five completely unrelated events occurred in sequence, each of which, had it happened in isolation, would have caused no more than a hiccup in the plants ordinary operation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Almost sounds like sabotage.
Click to expand...


No, just failure to follow regs, sloppy management, and Murphy's. That is all it takes.


----------



## jillian

DiveCon said:


> hell. TMI wasnt the disaster the enviroweenies claimed
> nothing like chenobyl



matter of degrees....


----------



## garyd

And as Isaac Azimov put it in an op ed shortly after 3 mile Island:

The dosage of radiation recieved by an avearge person within 3 miles of three mile Island about 1/1000 of what you get from a chest x ray. And over about the same amount of time.

And Jillian it aso only a matter of degrees betwen freezing to death and dying of heat stroke. 

Three mile island was the most singularly over hyped essentially non event of the last century. Comparing that to Chernobyl is like trying to compare a five mile an hour breeze to a 300 Mph F5 tornado. Yeah their both wind but one of them is deadly the other one isn't.


----------



## RavensFan

Cold Fusion38 said:


> I would like to have an honest, fair, and POLITE debate about energy policy including plug in electric cars and other alt energy cars. I would also like to discuss new ways of producing energy and the idea of new nuclear power plants to supply our energy until such a time as we can get ALL our power from solar sources.
> 
> 
> 
> ONCE AGAIN I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THIS THREAD FRIENDLY!



I think nuclear energy is the way to go, it's proven that it works and I believe the U.S. has the most regulations on safety issues, so I don't think safety would be a problem. I think we should be looking into all sources of energy (although I'm not sold on wind power yet)

I could be wrong but in reading your post, it sounds to me you would eventually like to see the U.S. eliminate oil as a source of energy at some point. Am I right in thinking that?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Yes Raven I would like to be free of oil some time in the future and I do realize that a great # of things will need to happen before w can do that. I am aware that MANY houshold products come from oil.


----------



## DiveCon

jillian said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> hell. TMI wasnt the disaster the enviroweenies claimed
> nothing like chenobyl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> matter of degrees....
Click to expand...

TMI had a containment chamber, Chernobyl didnt
HUGE difference


----------



## Cold Fusion38

The fact is TMI was NOT the horrible disaster it was made out to be and even if it was it has NOTHING to do with the Next Gen reactors.


----------



## DiveCon

i'd be all for a nexGen nuke power plant here in Maine, thye could even build it on the old Maine Yankee site


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I don't care if they build the damn thing in my back yard, we need it bilt.


----------



## DiveCon

Cold Fusion38 said:


> I don't care if they build the damn thing in my back yard, we need it bilt.


well, we need more than one


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Couldn't agree more Dive. I find we hold many of the same ideals and I like that fact because rather than dwelling on our differences we find a great deal of issues we agree upon.


I call dibs on the first one in my back yard you can have the SECOND one.


----------



## DiveCon

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Couldn't agree more Dive. I find we hold many of the same ideals and I like that fact because rather than dwelling on our differences we find a great deal of issues we agree upon.
> 
> 
> I call dibs on the first one in my back yard you can have the SECOND one.


who says they cant have more than one in both places

its time we actually started to build our electrical supply instead of importing everything
i'm also for clean coal plants
and i dont mean just to shut down the existing ones, but build the new ones before you think about closing the older ones, and then only close those that are too old to cost effectively upgrade


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Yeah I don't like coal but it will take a long time to get away from using it so we should make it as clean as possible.


----------



## Navy1960

The  thing is though Coal can be a part of the solution as well, it would seem to me not a very wise move to simply ignore  one of the most abundant resources this nation has  and not explore ways to burn coal in an environmentally friendly manner. It's my opinion that like nuclear too much effort has been put into deamonizing coal when if used in a  sound manner coal represents a large portion of  our energy portfolio. 

The world's first "clean coal" power plant went on-line in September 2008 in Spremberg, Germany. The plant is state-owned and has been built by the Swedish firm Vattenfall.[11] The plant is state owned because of the high costs of this technology, since private investors are only willing to invest in other sources such as nuclear, solar and wind.[12] The facility captures CO2 and acid rain producing sulfides, separates them, and compresses the CO2 into a liquid state. Plans are to inject the CO2 into depleted natural gas fields or other geological formations. This technology is considered to not be a final solution for CO2 reduction in the atmosphere, but provides an achievable solution in the near term while more desirable alternative solutions to power generation can be made economically practical.

Clean coal technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It would seem if the technology exists to build these clean coal plants then you must address the issue of sequestration of the by product which is the liquid CO2.  That being said though if you look at US coal reserves though this  simply cannot be dismissed and perhaps can be used to offset an overall energy plan that includes nuclear  as the primary, augmented with coal, solar, wind, and even natural gas.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

CO2 sequestering has its own issues. Unless you CAN put it into a cavern with non porus rock then you may be poluting water tables down stream. It has possibilities but is FAR from perfect. I went to a seminar about Canadians doin it and it is very difficult and expensive but like I said it does show promise.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

One thing is for sure. We have a lot of need and we have a lot options. There is NO REASON why we can't be the world leader in power production.


----------



## DiveCon

Cold Fusion38 said:


> One thing is for sure. We have a lot of need and we have a lot options. There is NO REASON why we can't be the world leader in power production.


i agree
but we have to have the willingness to actually BUILD stuff again


----------



## KittenKoder

Navy1960 said:


> The  thing is though Coal can be a part of the solution as well, it would seem to me not a very wise move to simply ignore  one of the most abundant resources this nation has  and not explore ways to burn coal in an environmentally friendly manner. It's my opinion that like nuclear too much effort has been put into deamonizing coal when if used in a  sound manner coal represents a large portion of  our energy portfolio.
> 
> The world's first "clean coal" power plant went on-line in September 2008 in Spremberg, Germany. The plant is state-owned and has been built by the Swedish firm Vattenfall.[11] The plant is state owned because of the high costs of this technology, since private investors are only willing to invest in other sources such as nuclear, solar and wind.[12] The facility captures CO2 and acid rain producing sulfides, separates them, and compresses the CO2 into a liquid state. Plans are to inject the CO2 into depleted natural gas fields or other geological formations. This technology is considered to not be a final solution for CO2 reduction in the atmosphere, but provides an achievable solution in the near term while more desirable alternative solutions to power generation can be made economically practical.
> 
> Clean coal technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> It would seem if the technology exists to build these clean coal plants then you must address the issue of sequestration of the by product which is the liquid CO2.  That being said though if you look at US coal reserves though this  simply cannot be dismissed and perhaps can be used to offset an overall energy plan that includes nuclear  as the primary, augmented with coal, solar, wind, and even natural gas.



There is still a huge problem with mining it.


----------



## JW Frogen

KittenKoder said:


> There is still a huge problem with mining it.



I still cannot believe you are a moderator Kitten.

 Moderate me baby, this post is z smam-like distraction. I am disrailing the vital thought of this thread! Ha hah aha haah HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

 I WANT and NEED some moderation from a kitten.


----------



## KittenKoder

JW Frogen said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is still a huge problem with mining it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still cannot believe you are a moderator Kitten.
> 
> Moderate me baby, this post is z smam-like distraction. I am disrailing the vital thought of this thread! Ha hah aha haah HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
> 
> I WANT and NEED some moderation from a kitten.
Click to expand...


You must be a coal miner yourself ...


----------



## JW Frogen

KittenKoder said:


> JW Frogen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is still a huge problem with mining it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still cannot believe you are a moderator Kitten.
> 
> Moderate me baby, this post is z smam-like distraction. I am disrailing the vital thought of this thread! Ha hah aha haah HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
> 
> I WANT and NEED some moderation from a kitten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be a coal miner yourself ...
Click to expand...


 So you are a stray cat, not a kitten.

Fuck me, the last time this happened was in a bar in Puerto Rico.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

JW Frogen said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JW Frogen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still cannot believe you are a moderator Kitten.
> 
> Moderate me baby, this post is z smam-like distraction. I am disrailing the vital thought of this thread! Ha hah aha haah HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
> 
> I WANT and NEED some moderation from a kitten.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a coal miner yourself ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are a stray cat, not a kitten.
> 
> Fuck me, the last time this happened was in a bar in Puerto Rico.
Click to expand...







Got fucked by a stray cat? Must of had one HELL of a hangover the next day.


----------



## Navy1960

While each technology can be said to have it's problems on one way or another Cold, the point was that  we need to stop making them into monsters  if we ever hope to get away from handing out our money to people who don't like us very much.  I'm aware kitten there are several issue with coal but then again there are issue with every technology and not a single one of them is perfect, however  I do think that is we apply these  technologies  in a smart way and I mean ALL of them that we all win and too much time as of late has been spent on making technologies into monsters rather than trying to solve problems which we all need to get back to doing  IMO. Now back to the  cocktail hour!! .. *laughs*


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I see no reason we can not be the LEADER in new techs as we were the leader in innovation for most of the 18th and 19th centuries.


----------



## Navy1960

The only thing that keeps us from that at the moment  Cold is ourselves if we stop and think about it.  This applies to both sides of this debate. While I tend not to be one of those that falls automatically at the the feet of this  idea of man made global warming and rather see it as a scheme to enrich those companies that are in that business, I do feel things like that tend to take away from what can be a good debate on the climate and the environment.  Personally, no technology that can help our nation end it's  need  on fossil fuel should be seen as a monster rather it should be seen as a step to a bright future and promoted.  When we can all stop focusing on the negative  and looking at what needs to be solved and acknowledge that everyone might have something to offer in this debate then we can get to the business of solving this problem.   Sort of like this,  I respect anyones opinion on Global Warming even though I may not agree with it, so now let's get to work , see how easy that was?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I beleive we have the ways figured out we just need the WILL to accept these new techs.


----------



## rdean

Cold Fusion38 said:


> I see no reason we can not be the LEADER in new techs as we were the leader in innovation for most of the 18th and 19th centuries.



That's an easy one.  The right is against education and science.  It's no secret.  They believe that Jesus will save us, if only we could get more "mysticism" in public schools.


----------



## Navy1960

rdean said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see no reason we can not be the LEADER in new techs as we were the leader in innovation for most of the 18th and 19th centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an easy one.  The right is against education and science.  It's no secret.  They believe that Jesus will save us, if only we could get more "mysticism" in public schools.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't paint everyone on the right that way, unless you are talking about fringe groups and then I would submit to you that republicans  have  no exclusive on that catagory.  In fact I see nothing wrong with teaching everything in school it's only when we limit possibilites, is when we start to reach into the realm of  mysticism.  In fact  even the likes of Newt Gingrich have joined Al Shaprton recently on calling on the Administration to help out our  crumbling public shcool system.


----------



## nodoginnafight

xsited1 said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to have an honest, fair, and POLITE debate about energy policy including plug in electric cars and other alt energy cars. I would also like to discuss new ways of producing energy and the idea of new nuclear power plants to supply our energy until such a time as we can get ALL our power from solar sources.
> 
> 
> 
> ONCE AGAIN I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THIS THREAD FRIENDLY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be nice, but the liberals (in name only, of course) keep us dependent on foreign oil.  Here are a few examples:
> 
> 1. Coal - too dirty
> 2. Nuclear - too dangerous
> 3. Hydroelectric - harms environment
> 4. Solar - Environmentalists Against the Mojave Desert Solar Plant
> 5. Wind - Ted out to blow down windmills
Click to expand...


Well, I'm a left-leaning independent - and been called a radical leftist on this board a few times.

I favor clean coal, nuclear, as well as hydro, solar and wind (where they are feasible). Heck I believe in using the inventories we have as long as we can do it responsibly.

So I think hyper-partisan rants are (as usual) just part of the problem.

I personally think nuclear has to be the key bridge to newer technologies where electricity generation is concerned.


----------



## nodoginnafight

I think when battery technology, photovolteic sensitivity, and wind technology improves, we will be able to take a HUGE step toward USER-GENERATED electricity and THAT's when we really start making progress - imho.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Let's brainstorm new ideas or new ways of using old techs to move our country ahead.


----------



## KittenKoder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Let's brainstorm new ideas or new ways of using old techs to move our country ahead.



There are a lot, just most are bullied out of existence through regulations.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Yeah we really need to decide what our priorities are. I am an enviromentalist and I think that MOST people want a clean and healthy enviroment for their children and grand children but some of the EXTREME eviros are causing more harm than good.


----------



## KittenKoder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Yeah we really need to decide what our priorities are. I am an enviromentalist and I think that MOST people want a clean and healthy enviroment for their children and grand children but some of the EXTREME eviros are causing more harm than good.



Those are the ones I call environuts. 

They jump into things without really considering anything, they rant and scream about saving the planet and will latch onto anything that *sounds* like a good idea, and they are the ones that are causing more harm as well as forcing people to use products and services which are harmful just because they feel it's better. I am a big picture person, and every possible impact and consequence I believe is just as important. We can't destroy the planet, life will always exist here until the sun burns out, it us that we have to worry about.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Yeah I am pretty embarresd by the EXTREME LEFT!


----------



## KittenKoder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Yeah I am pretty embarresd by the EXTREME LEFT!



That's why I went to the middle.


----------



## wvpeach

[/quote]If Cheney and Boooooosh really wanted to line the pockets of their "rich oil buddies" they would have BANNED all enemy oil imports when they had the chance, SKYROCKETING the price for domestic oil, and oil in general worldwide. And greatly spurring domestic DRILLING in the process. They would have _cleaned up_, making Bernie Madoff look like a piggy bank rifler!

It's when petty partisan hackery -- which is basically regurgitation without cogitation -- such as yours gets into conversations, that they can become unfriendly very fast.[/QUOTE]


      Not exactly!  

   You seem to forget that Daddy Bush's investment corp handles something like 60 billion a year in investments from Dubai..................  Home of the worlds largest oil refineries with more being built everyday. 

   You also seem to forget the fact that Haliburton AKA KBR got billions in no bid contracts to build and do everything in Iraq from electrocuting soldiers in showers to feeding them in chow lines. 

   Why in the world would Bush or Chaney want to walk away from those kind of profits? 

   Take Blackwater for instance.  A huge contributor to the Bush campaign and a man that shared Bush's idea that he was some kind of warrior for God and was to rid the world of other religions. ......................  So not only was Iraq a war of profit for Bush and Chaney it also fit their religious ideals.


----------



## logical4u

Before Clinton became president there were tens and tens of new power plants planned (big ones: baseline coal and nuclear); the regulations were changed and very few were ever built.  
A power company pays BAM for designs that meet all the regulations, when the gov changes those regulations before planning can be finalized, the costs skyrocket.  Power companies have and are building these nuclear units (as additions to nuclear facilities).  
Gov built nuclear plants are used to make ships go or to use for weapons grade uranium.
Solar power works when the sun is shining.  
Wind turbines work when the wind is blowing.  
Tidal turbines have very select areas where they can be used.  
Geothermal plants can only be located next to major fault lines.  
We can not build a large enough battery bank to supply any major portion of the electrical grid.  
Fossil fuels (natural gas, oil, propane, ethenol, coal, wood in the form of pulp or waste, manure, tires, plant oil or waste) are the most practical energy producers after nuclear.  Of these, coal is probably the most economical, and coal units can be designed to reduce pollution to acceptable (say less than a landfill) with the most consistent power supply.  It's byproducts can be used to make asphalt, cement, drywall, fertilizer and some plants can harvest hydrogen.  
This country was built on energy: at first it was supplied by people, and animals, the rivers were used, steam engines were invented, then came electricity and gas motors.  If we don't have energy, we will go back to the dark ages.  Do you want your gov telling you who gets to turn on their power and when.  Leave it to the market.  Keep gov small by keeping taxes low.  Power to the individual: when they choose to work alone or together, great things happen.  There are individuals working on alternative power sources now, give them time and give them freedom.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Hey I am ALL for using ALL the various types of energy production.....That being said I beleive that the ONLY way we will get 10-20 nuclear power plants up and running is if the FED gov't builds them and then leases them to power companies. They could cut through a lot of regs by invoking emminent domain.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

We NEED nuclear power to get ourselves away from fossil fues. IMHO.


----------



## DiveCon

Cold Fusion38 said:


> We NEED nuclear power to get ourselves away from fossil fues. IMHO.


yup
there is no way we can get off foreign oil without adding more nuke plants


----------



## KittenKoder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Hey I am ALL for using ALL the various types of energy production.....That being said I beleive that the ONLY way we will get 10-20 nuclear power plants up and running is if the FED gov't builds them and then leases them to power companies. They could cut through a lot of regs by invoking emminent domain.



That's the problem, the government already controls it.


----------



## Dr.House

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Hey I am ALL for using ALL the various types of energy production.....That being said I beleive that the ONLY way we will get 10-20 nuclear power plants up and running is if the FED gov't builds them and then leases them to power companies. They could cut through a lot of regs by invoking emminent domain.



Sorry...

No money left after all the recent (and upcoming) gubmint spending...  Going out back and shaking the money tree isn't going to help either...  It's just a pile of twigs now...


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Well I think if we had MASSIVE amounts of CHEAP energy that we might be able to offset the wage varience between us and the rest of the world.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I just wish we were all serious about getting off of fossil fuels. One of the things I differ with the left on is new energy sources.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I would like to have an honest, fair, and POLITE debate about energy policy including plug in electric cars and other alt energy cars. I would also like to discuss new ways of producing energy and the idea of new nuclear power plants to supply our energy until such a time as we can get ALL our power from solar sources.



ONCE AGAIN I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THIS THREAD FRIENDLY!


----------



## DiveCon

Cold Fusion38 said:


> I would like to have an honest, fair, and POLITE debate about energy policy including plug in electric cars and other alt energy cars. I would also like to discuss new ways of producing energy and the idea of new nuclear power plants to supply our energy until such a time as we can get ALL our power from solar sources.
> 
> 
> 
> ONCE AGAIN I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THIS THREAD FRIENDLY!


the problem is everyone is diverted with Obamacare for now
and gas prices are under $3 a gallon


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I truely beleive that we can overcome our need for energy if we engage in GOOD FAITH debate and work to find areas to compromise. I think nuclear is one of those areas, with reprocessing spent fuel we could eliminate 90% of the waste and have a "green" powersource that is both tested and reliable.


----------



## rdean

Midnight Marauder said:


> Lets just get the fuck off enemy oil by NOT buying it anymore! Let's do that NOW. The free marketplace will come up with viable, economic alternatives real fast, and we'll bankrupt our enemies instead of financing them.
> 
> We need "country of origin" labels on the gas pumps, like we have for food, for starters. Let us vote with our dollars!
> 
> But more broadly, without government subsidies most alternatives aren't viable, and most ALL of them are actually worse for the environment than evil fossil fuels!
> 
> NO ONE wants a polluted planet. That fallacy is an ad-hom card the EnviroNazis love to play. If you're against AGW, you're a "denier" and like pollution. You don't care about the planet. All that rot. It's just typical attempts to quash debate. To squelch observations and even data. NONE of that is part of science, or the quest for knowledge.
> 
> The truth is, we do not know nor can we ever know all the effects of pollution. The ecosystem is so complex, our understanding of it is still in its infancy.
> 
> Currently the focus of the AGW theories is on CO2 emissions. Well, that's certainly a convenient devil, it's at least what, 18th on the list of greenhouse gases? Far behind the thousands of times more potent and dangerous NF3? But CO2 IS the one which is emitted by combustion of fossil fuels -- that evil oil and gas stuff.
> 
> Well, if the science is settled and there's no room for debate, let's get serious about it! Let's immediately ban ALL manufacture and use of CO2 for entertainment purposes -- fake "smoke" at rock concerts, sporting events, wrestling events, Hollywood special effects... Soda pop carbonation, paint ball guns, any and all toys... also for uses where it's been superseded, such as water treatment, fire fighting.... If it's REALLY so bad these are the cheapest, easiest and fastest ways to stop millions of tons of it from going into the atmosphere every year.
> 
> Also while we're at it, let's get that NF3 stopped by redesigning manufacturing processes so they don't produce and emit this highly dangerous for the environment gas. NF3 -- nitrogen trifluoride -- is a compound used in manufacture of flat panel televisions, computer displays, microcircuits, solar panels and is 17,000 times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Also stays in the atmosphere 800 times longer than CO2, yet you never hear anything about it, because it's not a product of fossil fuels combustion.
> 
> THESE are things they would do, and be calling for, if they really truly themselves believed in their own cause. But they don't, the cause is simply an excuse to gain more control over people's lives and line the pockets of special interests such as GE.
> 
> The "science was settled" that the Jews were inferior and had to go, too. What a convenient devil they were to Nazi Germany! Those who fail to learn the hard lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
> 
> By far the most towering idiocy of environmentalism is the harm to the environment most all "alternatives" do:
> 
> *Lighting's dirty little secret*: The swirly florescent bulbs that will by law be required, as incandescent bulbs are banned? Mercury. Where's it all gonna go, from the billions of these discarded? Into the groundwater! Love it!
> 
> *Wind power's dirty little secret*:* It takes 4 barrels of oil per year, per wind turbine, for the gearbox. And another five barrels for the transformer below each turbine. And these turbines leak and sling this oil.* Great for the groundwater!
> 
> Multiply those figures times a million, two million wind turbines planned -- and you see why oil magnates like Pickens are pushing this. They stand to sell millions of barrels of oil!
> 
> *Dirty little secret of solar*: The production of solar panels involves nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) emissions be released. NF3 is about 17,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The concentration of it in the atmosphere has increased 20 fold during the last two decades by its use in manufacturing processes. The level is increasing 11 percent per year.
> 
> The weaker CO2 stays in the atmosphere up to 100 years. NF3 stays in the atmosphere for 700 years or more.
> 
> *Dirty little secret of Hydrogen*: Water Vapor is the product of combustion. Sounds great, right? But -- Water vapor is far and away the #1 greenhouse gas. This according to the IPCC and every other scientist on both sides of the issue. It's the one thing they do ALL agree on. Hmmm...
> 
> *Dirty little secrets of Ethanol*: Yeah, it's "cleaner" if you believe CO2 is really really bad, because it does produce less when combusted. But it also produces the definite pollutant and definite poison to all living things -- CO (Carbon Monoxide) 100 times more than gasoline! Also, it takes 1,200 gallons of water to make a gallon of this crap!
> 
> *Cleaner little secret of gasoline powered internal combustion*: Today's engines put out 95% fewer emissions than their 1970 counterparts!
> 
> It's what they DON'T tell us that really winds up hurting the environment in the long haul.



9 barrels a YEAR? That's nothing.

No one talks about Hyperion nuclear batteries.  They been used for decades.  They can't "melt down" because if they over heat, they shut off.

Hyperion Power Generation


----------



## Bill O'Olberman

xsited1 said:


> That would be nice, but the liberals (in name only, of course) keep us dependent on foreign oil.  Here are a few examples:
> 
> 1. Coal - too dirty
> 2. Nuclear - too dangerous
> 3. Hydroelectric - harms environment
> 4. Solar - Environmentalists Against the Mojave Desert Solar Plant
> 5. Wind - Ted out to blow down windmills



I stopped reading right here... The bulk of foriegn oil used in the United States is used for transportation... so cars, trucks, etc. How many of those sources you listed can we readily use to alieviate our current demand for oil to power these cars and trucks? I mean can nuclear, hydroclectic, solar, and wind power a combustion engine? However, both nuclear energy and coal are great for electricity but until we have more electric cars we're stuck using oil. I'll blame republicans, democrats, oil companies, car companies, the government in general, and the free market for our dependence on fossil fuels.


----------



## Chris

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Well I think if we had MASSIVE amounts of CHEAP energy that we might be able to offset the wage varience between us and the rest of the world.



We have massive amounts of cheap energy.

It's all around us.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Bill O'Olberman said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be nice, but the liberals (in name only, of course) keep us dependent on foreign oil.  Here are a few examples:
> 
> 1. Coal - too dirty
> 2. Nuclear - too dangerous
> 3. Hydroelectric - harms environment
> 4. Solar - Environmentalists Against the Mojave Desert Solar Plant
> 5. Wind - Ted out to blow down windmills
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped reading right here... The bulk of foriegn oil used in the United States is used for transportation... so cars, trucks, etc. How many of those sources you listed can we readily use to alieviate our current demand for oil to power these cars and trucks? I mean can nuclear, hydroclectic, solar, and wind power a combustion engine? However, both nuclear energy and coal are great for electricity but until we have more electric cars we're stuck using oil. I'll blame republicans, democrats, oil companies, car companies, the government in general, and the free market for our dependence on fossil fuels.
Click to expand...






New nuke power plants actually produce HYDROGEN as a BY-PRODUCT! How cool is that?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

rdean said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just get the fuck off enemy oil by NOT buying it anymore! Let's do that NOW. The free marketplace will come up with viable, economic alternatives real fast, and we'll bankrupt our enemies instead of financing them.
> 
> We need "country of origin" labels on the gas pumps, like we have for food, for starters. Let us vote with our dollars!
> 
> But more broadly, without government subsidies most alternatives aren't viable, and most ALL of them are actually worse for the environment than evil fossil fuels!
> 
> NO ONE wants a polluted planet. That fallacy is an ad-hom card the EnviroNazis love to play. If you're against AGW, you're a "denier" and like pollution. You don't care about the planet. All that rot. It's just typical attempts to quash debate. To squelch observations and even data. NONE of that is part of science, or the quest for knowledge.
> 
> The truth is, we do not know nor can we ever know all the effects of pollution. The ecosystem is so complex, our understanding of it is still in its infancy.
> 
> Currently the focus of the AGW theories is on CO2 emissions. Well, that's certainly a convenient devil, it's at least what, 18th on the list of greenhouse gases? Far behind the thousands of times more potent and dangerous NF3? But CO2 IS the one which is emitted by combustion of fossil fuels -- that evil oil and gas stuff.
> 
> Well, if the science is settled and there's no room for debate, let's get serious about it! Let's immediately ban ALL manufacture and use of CO2 for entertainment purposes -- fake "smoke" at rock concerts, sporting events, wrestling events, Hollywood special effects... Soda pop carbonation, paint ball guns, any and all toys... also for uses where it's been superseded, such as water treatment, fire fighting.... If it's REALLY so bad these are the cheapest, easiest and fastest ways to stop millions of tons of it from going into the atmosphere every year.
> 
> Also while we're at it, let's get that NF3 stopped by redesigning manufacturing processes so they don't produce and emit this highly dangerous for the environment gas. NF3 -- nitrogen trifluoride -- is a compound used in manufacture of flat panel televisions, computer displays, microcircuits, solar panels and is 17,000 times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Also stays in the atmosphere 800 times longer than CO2, yet you never hear anything about it, because it's not a product of fossil fuels combustion.
> 
> THESE are things they would do, and be calling for, if they really truly themselves believed in their own cause. But they don't, the cause is simply an excuse to gain more control over people's lives and line the pockets of special interests such as GE.
> 
> The "science was settled" that the Jews were inferior and had to go, too. What a convenient devil they were to Nazi Germany! Those who fail to learn the hard lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
> 
> By far the most towering idiocy of environmentalism is the harm to the environment most all "alternatives" do:
> 
> *Lighting's dirty little secret*: The swirly florescent bulbs that will by law be required, as incandescent bulbs are banned? Mercury. Where's it all gonna go, from the billions of these discarded? Into the groundwater! Love it!
> 
> *Wind power's dirty little secret*:* It takes 4 barrels of oil per year, per wind turbine, for the gearbox. And another five barrels for the transformer below each turbine. And these turbines leak and sling this oil.* Great for the groundwater!
> 
> Multiply those figures times a million, two million wind turbines planned -- and you see why oil magnates like Pickens are pushing this. They stand to sell millions of barrels of oil!
> 
> *Dirty little secret of solar*: The production of solar panels involves nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) emissions be released. NF3 is about 17,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The concentration of it in the atmosphere has increased 20 fold during the last two decades by its use in manufacturing processes. The level is increasing 11 percent per year.
> 
> The weaker CO2 stays in the atmosphere up to 100 years. NF3 stays in the atmosphere for 700 years or more.
> 
> *Dirty little secret of Hydrogen*: Water Vapor is the product of combustion. Sounds great, right? But -- Water vapor is far and away the #1 greenhouse gas. This according to the IPCC and every other scientist on both sides of the issue. It's the one thing they do ALL agree on. Hmmm...
> 
> *Dirty little secrets of Ethanol*: Yeah, it's "cleaner" if you believe CO2 is really really bad, because it does produce less when combusted. But it also produces the definite pollutant and definite poison to all living things -- CO (Carbon Monoxide) 100 times more than gasoline! Also, it takes 1,200 gallons of water to make a gallon of this crap!
> 
> *Cleaner little secret of gasoline powered internal combustion*: Today's engines put out 95% fewer emissions than their 1970 counterparts!
> 
> It's what they DON'T tell us that really winds up hurting the environment in the long haul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9 barrels a YEAR? That's nothing.
> 
> No one talks about Hyperion nuclear batteries.  They been used for decades.  They can't "melt down" because if they over heat, they shut off.
> 
> Hyperion Power Generation
Click to expand...






Don't know about the Hyperion unless it is that thing thats about the size of a large shed. I don't quite get how it works.


----------



## KittenKoder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Bill O'Olberman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be nice, but the liberals (in name only, of course) keep us dependent on foreign oil.  Here are a few examples:
> 
> 1. Coal - too dirty
> 2. Nuclear - too dangerous
> 3. Hydroelectric - harms environment
> 4. Solar - Environmentalists Against the Mojave Desert Solar Plant
> 5. Wind - Ted out to blow down windmills
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped reading right here... The bulk of foriegn oil used in the United States is used for transportation... so cars, trucks, etc. How many of those sources you listed can we readily use to alieviate our current demand for oil to power these cars and trucks? I mean can nuclear, hydroclectic, solar, and wind power a combustion engine? However, both nuclear energy and coal are great for electricity but until we have more electric cars we're stuck using oil. I'll blame republicans, democrats, oil companies, car companies, the government in general, and the free market for our dependence on fossil fuels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New nuke power plants actually produce HYDROGEN as a BY-PRODUCT! How cool is that?
Click to expand...


There's no way the environuts would allow us to use something so wonderful as nuclear power, it's too dangerous remember? Forget that it could solve a lot of our energy problems.


----------



## DiveCon

KittenKoder said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill O'Olberman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped reading right here... The bulk of foriegn oil used in the United States is used for transportation... so cars, trucks, etc. How many of those sources you listed can we readily use to alieviate our current demand for oil to power these cars and trucks? I mean can nuclear, hydroclectic, solar, and wind power a combustion engine? However, both nuclear energy and coal are great for electricity but until we have more electric cars we're stuck using oil. I'll blame republicans, democrats, oil companies, car companies, the government in general, and the free market for our dependence on fossil fuels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New nuke power plants actually produce HYDROGEN as a BY-PRODUCT! How cool is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no way the environuts would allow us to use something so wonderful as nuclear power, it's too dangerous remember? Forget that it could solve a lot of our energy problems.
Click to expand...

a power plant that creates hydrogen as a byproduct would be SO cool
power the cars with hydrogen and the homes and business with the electricity


----------



## KittenKoder

DiveCon said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New nuke power plants actually produce HYDROGEN as a BY-PRODUCT! How cool is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no way the environuts would allow us to use something so wonderful as nuclear power, it's too dangerous remember? Forget that it could solve a lot of our energy problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a power plant that creates hydrogen as a byproduct would be SO cool
> power the cars with hydrogen and the homes and business with the electricity
Click to expand...


Yep ... but then they'd claim that hydrogen is what's destroying the environment and that we are all going to be mutants in 5 years.


----------



## DiveCon

KittenKoder said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no way the environuts would allow us to use something so wonderful as nuclear power, it's too dangerous remember? Forget that it could solve a lot of our energy problems.
> 
> 
> 
> a power plant that creates hydrogen as a byproduct would be SO cool
> power the cars with hydrogen and the homes and business with the electricity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep ... but then they'd claim that hydrogen is what's destroying the environment and that we are all going to be mutants in 5 years.
Click to expand...

oh, no doubt
they arent for saving the enviroment so much as they want to destroy our economy


----------



## HUGGY

Midnight Marauder said:


> Lets just get the fuck off enemy oil by NOT buying it anymore! Let's do that NOW. The free marketplace will come up with viable, economic alternatives real fast, and we'll bankrupt our enemies instead of financing them.
> 
> We need "country of origin" labels on the gas pumps, like we have for food, for starters. Let us vote with our dollars!
> 
> But more broadly, without government subsidies most alternatives aren't viable, and most ALL of them are actually worse for the environment than evil fossil fuels!
> 
> NO ONE wants a polluted planet. That fallacy is an ad-hom card the EnviroNazis love to play. If you're against AGW, you're a "denier" and like pollution. You don't care about the planet. All that rot. It's just typical attempts to quash debate. To squelch observations and even data. NONE of that is part of science, or the quest for knowledge.
> 
> The truth is, we do not know nor can we ever know all the effects of pollution. The ecosystem is so complex, our understanding of it is still in its infancy.
> 
> Currently the focus of the AGW theories is on CO2 emissions. Well, that's certainly a convenient devil, it's at least what, 18th on the list of greenhouse gases? Far behind the thousands of times more potent and dangerous NF3? But CO2 IS the one which is emitted by combustion of fossil fuels -- that evil oil and gas stuff.
> 
> Well, if the science is settled and there's no room for debate, let's get serious about it! Let's immediately ban ALL manufacture and use of CO2 for entertainment purposes -- fake "smoke" at rock concerts, sporting events, wrestling events, Hollywood special effects... Soda pop carbonation, paint ball guns, any and all toys... also for uses where it's been superseded, such as water treatment, fire fighting.... If it's REALLY so bad these are the cheapest, easiest and fastest ways to stop millions of tons of it from going into the atmosphere every year.
> 
> Also while we're at it, let's get that NF3 stopped by redesigning manufacturing processes so they don't produce and emit this highly dangerous for the environment gas. NF3 -- nitrogen trifluoride -- is a compound used in manufacture of flat panel televisions, computer displays, microcircuits, solar panels and is 17,000 times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Also stays in the atmosphere 800 times longer than CO2, yet you never hear anything about it, because it's not a product of fossil fuels combustion.
> 
> THESE are things they would do, and be calling for, if they really truly themselves believed in their own cause. But they don't, the cause is simply an excuse to gain more control over people's lives and line the pockets of special interests such as GE.
> 
> The "science was settled" that the Jews were inferior and had to go, too. What a convenient devil they were to Nazi Germany! Those who fail to learn the hard lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
> 
> By far the most towering idiocy of environmentalism is the harm to the environment most all "alternatives" do:
> 
> *Lighting's dirty little secret*: The swirly florescent bulbs that will by law be required, as incandescent bulbs are banned? Mercury. Where's it all gonna go, from the billions of these discarded? Into the groundwater! Love it!
> 
> *Wind power's dirty little secret*: It takes 4 barrels of oil per year, per wind turbine, for the gearbox. And another five barrels for the transformer below each turbine. And these turbines leak and sling this oil. Great for the groundwater!
> 
> Multiply those figures times a million, two million wind turbines planned -- and you see why oil magnates like Pickens are pushing this. They stand to sell millions of barrels of oil!
> 
> *Dirty little secret of solar*: The production of solar panels involves nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) emissions be released. NF3 is about 17,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The concentration of it in the atmosphere has increased 20 fold during the last two decades by its use in manufacturing processes. The level is increasing 11 percent per year.
> 
> The weaker CO2 stays in the atmosphere up to 100 years. NF3 stays in the atmosphere for 700 years or more.
> 
> *Dirty little secret of Hydrogen*: Water Vapor is the product of combustion. Sounds great, right? But -- Water vapor is far and away the #1 greenhouse gas. This according to the IPCC and every other scientist on both sides of the issue. It's the one thing they do ALL agree on. Hmmm...
> 
> *Dirty little secrets of Ethanol*: Yeah, it's "cleaner" if you believe CO2 is really really bad, because it does produce less when combusted. But it also produces the definite pollutant and definite poison to all living things -- CO (Carbon Monoxide) 100 times more than gasoline! Also, it takes 1,200 gallons of water to make a gallon of this crap!
> 
> *Cleaner little secret of gasoline powered internal combustion*: Today's engines put out 95% fewer emissions than their 1970 counterparts!
> 
> It's what they DON'T tell us that really winds up hurting the environment in the long haul.



*We need "country of origin" labels on the gas pumps, like we have for food, for starters. Let us vote with our dollars!
*

The sad truth is that even most gas station managers do not know where thier product comes from.

There is ONE refinery that supplies all of western and most of eastern Washington.  It is located in Anacortes near the canadian border.  There is almost NO difference is gasoline..no matter what anyone tells you.  Some companies add microscopic amounts of this or that at the refinery but it would take a nuclear physisist to detect the difference.

Most of the oil headed for refineries is sold as credits that are traded back and forth.  I wonder how many people know that the north slope oil never(almost) makes it down to the lower 48.  So much for *OUR* oil.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Like I said even though I am pretty liberal I recognize how important abundant cheap energy is so I can get on board even for drilling more even though I was against it in the past. I think if we allow more drilling then the oil cos have to increase refinery capacity. They may also have to build one that can handle oil with a high sulfer content like a lot of Alaskan oil.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

This issue is WAY WAY WAY too important to let ideology get in the way. We ALL have to work together to get this done for the security of our country and economy.


----------



## rdean

Cold Fusion38 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just get the fuck off enemy oil by NOT buying it anymore! Let's do that NOW. The free marketplace will come up with viable, economic alternatives real fast, and we'll bankrupt our enemies instead of financing them.
> 
> We need "country of origin" labels on the gas pumps, like we have for food, for starters. Let us vote with our dollars!
> 
> But more broadly, without government subsidies most alternatives aren't viable, and most ALL of them are actually worse for the environment than evil fossil fuels!
> 
> NO ONE wants a polluted planet. That fallacy is an ad-hom card the EnviroNazis love to play. If you're against AGW, you're a "denier" and like pollution. You don't care about the planet. All that rot. It's just typical attempts to quash debate. To squelch observations and even data. NONE of that is part of science, or the quest for knowledge.
> 
> The truth is, we do not know nor can we ever know all the effects of pollution. The ecosystem is so complex, our understanding of it is still in its infancy.
> 
> Currently the focus of the AGW theories is on CO2 emissions. Well, that's certainly a convenient devil, it's at least what, 18th on the list of greenhouse gases? Far behind the thousands of times more potent and dangerous NF3? But CO2 IS the one which is emitted by combustion of fossil fuels -- that evil oil and gas stuff.
> 
> Well, if the science is settled and there's no room for debate, let's get serious about it! Let's immediately ban ALL manufacture and use of CO2 for entertainment purposes -- fake "smoke" at rock concerts, sporting events, wrestling events, Hollywood special effects... Soda pop carbonation, paint ball guns, any and all toys... also for uses where it's been superseded, such as water treatment, fire fighting.... If it's REALLY so bad these are the cheapest, easiest and fastest ways to stop millions of tons of it from going into the atmosphere every year.
> 
> Also while we're at it, let's get that NF3 stopped by redesigning manufacturing processes so they don't produce and emit this highly dangerous for the environment gas. NF3 -- nitrogen trifluoride -- is a compound used in manufacture of flat panel televisions, computer displays, microcircuits, solar panels and is 17,000 times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Also stays in the atmosphere 800 times longer than CO2, yet you never hear anything about it, because it's not a product of fossil fuels combustion.
> 
> THESE are things they would do, and be calling for, if they really truly themselves believed in their own cause. But they don't, the cause is simply an excuse to gain more control over people's lives and line the pockets of special interests such as GE.
> 
> The "science was settled" that the Jews were inferior and had to go, too. What a convenient devil they were to Nazi Germany! Those who fail to learn the hard lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
> 
> By far the most towering idiocy of environmentalism is the harm to the environment most all "alternatives" do:
> 
> *Lighting's dirty little secret*: The swirly florescent bulbs that will by law be required, as incandescent bulbs are banned? Mercury. Where's it all gonna go, from the billions of these discarded? Into the groundwater! Love it!
> 
> *Wind power's dirty little secret*:* It takes 4 barrels of oil per year, per wind turbine, for the gearbox. And another five barrels for the transformer below each turbine. And these turbines leak and sling this oil.* Great for the groundwater!
> 
> Multiply those figures times a million, two million wind turbines planned -- and you see why oil magnates like Pickens are pushing this. They stand to sell millions of barrels of oil!
> 
> *Dirty little secret of solar*: The production of solar panels involves nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) emissions be released. NF3 is about 17,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The concentration of it in the atmosphere has increased 20 fold during the last two decades by its use in manufacturing processes. The level is increasing 11 percent per year.
> 
> The weaker CO2 stays in the atmosphere up to 100 years. NF3 stays in the atmosphere for 700 years or more.
> 
> *Dirty little secret of Hydrogen*: Water Vapor is the product of combustion. Sounds great, right? But -- Water vapor is far and away the #1 greenhouse gas. This according to the IPCC and every other scientist on both sides of the issue. It's the one thing they do ALL agree on. Hmmm...
> 
> *Dirty little secrets of Ethanol*: Yeah, it's "cleaner" if you believe CO2 is really really bad, because it does produce less when combusted. But it also produces the definite pollutant and definite poison to all living things -- CO (Carbon Monoxide) 100 times more than gasoline! Also, it takes 1,200 gallons of water to make a gallon of this crap!
> 
> *Cleaner little secret of gasoline powered internal combustion*: Today's engines put out 95% fewer emissions than their 1970 counterparts!
> 
> It's what they DON'T tell us that really winds up hurting the environment in the long haul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9 barrels a YEAR? That's nothing.
> 
> No one talks about Hyperion nuclear batteries.  They been used for decades.  They can't "melt down" because if they over heat, they shut off.
> 
> Hyperion Power Generation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know about the Hyperion unless it is that thing thats about the size of a large shed. I don't quite get how it works.
Click to expand...


Hyperion Power Generation

They currently have a three year back order.  One reactor can provide electric power to 20 to 30 thousand homes at a cost of about 200 dollars per year.  Also, there is three to five times more oil in Canada and the Western United States than all of the middle east combined.  The difference is oil formed into easy to get at discrete pools in the middle east.  Here, it has to be "extracted".

Also,

the primary initial application which would be providing cheaper and more effective heat for oil-sand and oil shale oil extraction. Over 2 trillion barrels of oil is available in Canada and the United states in the form of oilshale or oilsand.

Hyperion uranium hydride nuclear battery update

Love those scientists.  Don't understand why American Christians keep calling them names.


----------



## rdean

*Wind power's dirty little secret: It takes 4 barrels of oil per year, per wind turbine, for the gearbox. And another five barrels for the transformer below each turbine. And these turbines leak and sling this oil. Great for the groundwater!

Multiply those figures times a million, two million wind turbines planned -- and you see why oil magnates like Pickens are pushing this. They stand to sell millions of barrels of oil!*

Millions of wind turbines?  Millions?


----------



## HUGGY

rdean said:


> *Wind power's dirty little secret: It takes 4 barrels of oil per year, per wind turbine, for the gearbox. And another five barrels for the transformer below each turbine. And these turbines leak and sling this oil. Great for the groundwater!
> 
> Multiply those figures times a million, two million wind turbines planned -- and you see why oil magnates like Pickens are pushing this. They stand to sell millions of barrels of oil!*
> 
> Millions of wind turbines?  Millions?



You do not know much about machinery.  All seals fail eventually.  With proper maintanance and inspections the leakage can be reduced to near zero.

You concern is false.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Once again WAY too important to let this question die. Throw out some ideas no matter how out there because this is the NUMBER ONE issue of our time.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Like I said before I have even softened my stance on new drilling........That's a big change for me but I fell like it HAS to be done but OTHER things MUST also be done. We need to build wind farms, we need to build solar panels, we need to use hydro and tidal power plants, and we NEED our gov't to fund research to the logical conclusion of getting off of petrolium based fuels.


----------



## DiveCon

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Like I said before I have even softened my stance on new drilling........That's a big change for me but I fell like it HAS to be done but OTHER things MUST also be done. We need to build wind farms, we need to build solar panels, we need to use hydro and tidal power plants, and we NEED our gov't to fund research to the logical conclusion of getting off of petrolium based fuels.


yup and they can build hydro plants without even needing to build a dam
they can place the turbines in the river and the flow of the river will turn it
not at the speed of a damn, but enough to produce electricity


----------



## Cold Fusion38

So come on people post ideas or ways we can get ALL Americans on board.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

This is the SINGLE most important issue facing America today.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Come on people this issue deserves to be on the FRONT PAGE of EVERY message board. It needs to STAY on the front page until this problem is SOLVED!


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Just put out IDEAS.......There may be an idea that no one else has ever considered.


----------



## logical4u

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Hey I am ALL for using ALL the various types of energy production.....That being said I beleive that the ONLY way we will get 10-20 nuclear power plants up and running is if the FED gov't builds them and then leases them to power companies. They could cut through a lot of regs by invoking emminent domain.



The feds don't usually build nuke plants for civilian energy production.  Duke power (NC) and Southern Energy (Georgia) are adding units (one unit typically generates over 1000 Mega watts) to some of their plants (this usually equals a large coal-fired plant or several gas turbines.


----------



## logical4u

rdean said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just get the fuck off enemy oil by NOT buying it anymore! Let's do that NOW. The free marketplace will come up with viable, economic alternatives real fast, and we'll bankrupt our enemies instead of financing them.
> 
> We need "country of origin" labels on the gas pumps, like we have for food, for starters. Let us vote with our dollars!
> 
> But more broadly, without government subsidies most alternatives aren't viable, and most ALL of them are actually worse for the environment than evil fossil fuels!
> 
> NO ONE wants a polluted planet. That fallacy is an ad-hom card the EnviroNazis love to play. If you're against AGW, you're a "denier" and like pollution. You don't care about the planet. All that rot. It's just typical attempts to quash debate. To squelch observations and even data. NONE of that is part of science, or the quest for knowledge.
> 
> The truth is, we do not know nor can we ever know all the effects of pollution. The ecosystem is so complex, our understanding of it is still in its infancy.
> 
> Currently the focus of the AGW theories is on CO2 emissions. Well, that's certainly a convenient devil, it's at least what, 18th on the list of greenhouse gases? Far behind the thousands of times more potent and dangerous NF3? But CO2 IS the one which is emitted by combustion of fossil fuels -- that evil oil and gas stuff.
> 
> Well, if the science is settled and there's no room for debate, let's get serious about it! Let's immediately ban ALL manufacture and use of CO2 for entertainment purposes -- fake "smoke" at rock concerts, sporting events, wrestling events, Hollywood special effects... Soda pop carbonation, paint ball guns, any and all toys... also for uses where it's been superseded, such as water treatment, fire fighting.... If it's REALLY so bad these are the cheapest, easiest and fastest ways to stop millions of tons of it from going into the atmosphere every year.
> 
> Also while we're at it, let's get that NF3 stopped by redesigning manufacturing processes so they don't produce and emit this highly dangerous for the environment gas. NF3 -- nitrogen trifluoride -- is a compound used in manufacture of flat panel televisions, computer displays, microcircuits, solar panels and is 17,000 times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Also stays in the atmosphere 800 times longer than CO2, yet you never hear anything about it, because it's not a product of fossil fuels combustion.
> 
> THESE are things they would do, and be calling for, if they really truly themselves believed in their own cause. But they don't, the cause is simply an excuse to gain more control over people's lives and line the pockets of special interests such as GE.
> 
> The "science was settled" that the Jews were inferior and had to go, too. What a convenient devil they were to Nazi Germany! Those who fail to learn the hard lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
> 
> By far the most towering idiocy of environmentalism is the harm to the environment most all "alternatives" do:
> 
> *Lighting's dirty little secret*: The swirly florescent bulbs that will by law be required, as incandescent bulbs are banned? Mercury. Where's it all gonna go, from the billions of these discarded? Into the groundwater! Love it!
> 
> *Wind power's dirty little secret*:* It takes 4 barrels of oil per year, per wind turbine, for the gearbox. And another five barrels for the transformer below each turbine. And these turbines leak and sling this oil.* Great for the groundwater!
> 
> Multiply those figures times a million, two million wind turbines planned -- and you see why oil magnates like Pickens are pushing this. They stand to sell millions of barrels of oil!
> 
> *Dirty little secret of solar*: The production of solar panels involves nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) emissions be released. NF3 is about 17,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The concentration of it in the atmosphere has increased 20 fold during the last two decades by its use in manufacturing processes. The level is increasing 11 percent per year.
> 
> The weaker CO2 stays in the atmosphere up to 100 years. NF3 stays in the atmosphere for 700 years or more.
> 
> *Dirty little secret of Hydrogen*: Water Vapor is the product of combustion. Sounds great, right? But -- Water vapor is far and away the #1 greenhouse gas. This according to the IPCC and every other scientist on both sides of the issue. It's the one thing they do ALL agree on. Hmmm...
> 
> *Dirty little secrets of Ethanol*: Yeah, it's "cleaner" if you believe CO2 is really really bad, because it does produce less when combusted. But it also produces the definite pollutant and definite poison to all living things -- CO (Carbon Monoxide) 100 times more than gasoline! Also, it takes 1,200 gallons of water to make a gallon of this crap!
> 
> *Cleaner little secret of gasoline powered internal combustion*: Today's engines put out 95% fewer emissions than their 1970 counterparts!
> 
> It's what they DON'T tell us that really winds up hurting the environment in the long haul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9 barrels a YEAR? That's nothing.
> 
> No one talks about Hyperion nuclear batteries.  They been used for decades.  They can't "melt down" because if they over heat, they shut off.
> 
> Hyperion Power Generation
Click to expand...



Each unit costs $25 million and up, that is cost prohibitive, especially since it has to be changed out every 5 years.


----------



## logical4u

DiveCon said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New nuke power plants actually produce HYDROGEN as a BY-PRODUCT! How cool is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no way the environuts would allow us to use something so wonderful as nuclear power, it's too dangerous remember? Forget that it could solve a lot of our energy problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a power plant that creates hydrogen as a byproduct would be SO cool
> power the cars with hydrogen and the homes and business with the electricity
Click to expand...


One of the problems with Hydrogen byproducts is operator error: it is really easy for it to BLOW UP, if not handled correctly.  Worked at a place that captured hydrogen at one time, when I started it was a wasteland, not considered worth re-building.  They bought the hydrogen they needed.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Well I am PRETTY sure that there would be a LOT of no smoking signs.


----------



## mdn2000

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Like I said before I have even softened my stance on new drilling........That's a big change for me but I fell like it HAS to be done but OTHER things MUST also be done. We need to build wind farms, we need to build solar panels, we need to use hydro and tidal power plants, and we NEED our gov't to fund research to the logical conclusion of getting off of petrolium based fuels.



You need to research your ideas so you understand what your talking about and this is the problem with the debate, one side speaks of what they believe and are taught, they have not looked into what the idea of a tidal farm encompasses. Wind farms are being mandated by government, since when has the government ever been the good guys, they are not scientists, they are simply acting on political whims, or at the direction of lobbyists. Its all about making more money and having more power over people lives.

Wind farms are far from renewable, in ten seconds I found out they use tons of fiberglass, 1000's of tons. Now I will research what exactly fiberglass is, who makes it, which company, how they lobby the government, what the stock is doing, what are all the different materials go into the production of fiberglass.

People are brainwashed, look up your ideas, seriously, your hurting yourself, your country, the future.


----------

