Need to know????

[Brian A. MacNeish]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Category: Lights out

The only real answer to energy shortages is in trouble.ML

CHICAGO - The roughly 100 nuclear power plants in the United States are approaching the end of their useful life, and manufacturing executives say the nation cannot rule out building new ones if it wants to keep up with electricity demand. Story

How about keep demand where it is now conserving and using what we have more efficiently and spreading the rest to new customers. That is the strategy some of the smaller rural co-operative producers are using. They have added customers without having to increase supply.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

My Daughter is home on a visit from Germany and she tells me they generate a huge amount of their power by wind.
I had a million questions for her like do the turbines kill a lot of Birds she said she did not notice any dead birds and nothing on radio or in the papers.
How is the Noise and she said a whoosh whoosh if you stand directly under but only then.
She can see many of the turbines from her home and they do not bother her or the animals.

...Cookie

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

My daughter is home on vacation from Germany and they use a lot of wind turbines .
I asked do the kill a lot of Birds she said she had heard nothing about that and did not see any dead birds .
I asked about noise and she said standing under them you could hear whoosh whoosh but not any place else.
She never heard and complaints about them .
...Cookie

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by Brian A. MacNeish

Michael:
Re-read the story with an open mind!!!!! It did work as it should...... some other factors were also in play.

The point is you can't rely on wind and have to build co-generating plants to pick up the load when(not if) fails.
What a wast of resources.

Build a lot of nuclear plants and we'll have what we need.

Think about it. With enough plants online we would have plenty of cheap home produced energy.
You could even use it to produce hyrdogen for automobiles.
Build them now is what I say.
Why wait?

Give me a rational reason for not building them. I want to hear it.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by mlarson

The point is you can't rely on wind and have to build co-generating plants to pick up the load when(not if) fails.
What a wast of resources.

Build a lot of nuclear plants and we'll have what we need.

Think about it. With enough plants online we would have plenty of cheap home produced energy.
You could even use it to produce hyrdogen for automobiles.
Build them now is what I say.
Why wait?

Give me a rational reason for not building them. I want to hear it.

I agree I worked In the building of Coal Fired Plants Back in the 50s and 60s .
I agree Nuclear to me is the best way to go.
Canada is the country that supplied the Uranium for the first Atomic Bombs .
Canada supplies close to 60%~ of the isotopes for the world.
Canada has had Nuclear generation since the early 60s .
We also have many noise makers who feel we should all go back to horse and Conestoga's for our transportation .
But I am not against Wind and solar.
They I agree are only an addition .

...Cookie

[George A. H. Luck]

Because of the nature of a nuclear generating plant ( they are most efficient when they are run 24 / 7) they are ideal for the produciton of hydrogen for really pollution free cars. Hydrogen is the only fuel that makes sense for cars and trucks.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Shining a (mercury-filled) light on global warming kooks
By Michael Graham | Sunday, March 2, 2008 | http://www.bostonherald.com | Op-Ed

Photo by AP (file)


Here’s your “Al Gore Global Warming Question of the Day:”
Is it time to panic?
If you’re a Cambridge Greenie who’s just broken one of your environmentally friendly compact fluorescent bulbs in the kids’ playroom - absolutely.
If you’re a rational person who can actually read a thermometer - not so much.
I fall into the second category, which is why I don’t spend $10 on mediocre, mercury-filled deathsticks known as CFLs. A recent front-page story in USA Today pointed out that these “spaghetti bulbs” as they’re sometimes known, give off lousy, unflattering light; don’t work with dimmer or three-way switches; and can’t handle heat or cold well.
And those are the opinions of people who like them.
Global panic-attackers support CFLs because they use about one-third less electricity. (They also require about one-third more energy to manufacture and transport, but let’s not confuse the nice liberals with math.) I suspect government bureaucrats like CFLs because they’re annoying, ugly and don’t work very well.
The bulbs, I mean.
Then there’s the mercury issue. The activist group Environmental Defense calls mercury “one of the most poisonous forms of pollution” and “a highly toxic heavy metal that can cause brain damage.” They also support government mandates requiring more CFLs.
Apparently, global warming kooks don’t worry about brain damage. For them it’s a pre-existing condition.
But the rest of us might want to read the following guidelines from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection on what to do if a CFL breaks before we blow $10 on a light bulb:
“First, do not vacuum up the mess, because that will spread the mercury vapor and dust and potentially contaminate the vacuum. Keep the kids and pets away. Ventilate the area by opening windows for 15 minutes. Wearing rubber gloves, pick up the larger pieces of glass and place them in something like a glass jar with a metal, screw-top lid. (Plastic jars will not work.)
“Now pat the area with the sticky side of duct tape. Finally, wipe up the area with a damp paper towel or wet wipe. Continue to ventilate the room for several hours, and wash your hands and face.”
The DEP also recommends throwing out your carpet if it’s been contaminated by your broken bulb.
Shouldn’t we be absolutely sure about the global warming crisis before we start buying our kids “WMD-Brand” night lights?
Instead, there is mounting scientific evidence that the global warming panic isn’t a mere overreaction, it’s pure meteorological nonsense.
Environmental alarmists concede that global temperatures have been flat since 1998, despite ever-increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. They continue to predict that temperatures will shoot back up any day now.
Meanwhile, there is record snow cover in the United States, record levels of Antarctic sea ice, and Baghdad experienced its first-ever recorded snowfall this winter.
Now DailyTech.com is reporting that global temperatures have plummeted in the past 12 months, according to all four major global temperature tracking outlets. In fact, each has measured a record drop in temperatures.
Could this sudden chill be linked to new findings by scientists in Canada and Russia that the sun has entered a cycle of lower activity? Gee, I know global warming kooks will dismiss any connection between the sun’s heat and earth’s temperatures as a radical theory, but isn’t it worth considering?
Every intelligent person knows the limits of human understanding. The earth could be slowly roasting to death, or it could be about to freeze. We don’t know. Smart people wait until we have more information before taking drastic action.
Dumb people? They run out and buy their kids another glass tube full of mercury.
Just to be safe.
Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1077143

[Brian A. MacNeish]

Originally Posted by mlarson

The point is you can't rely on wind and have to build co-generating plants to pick up the load when(not if) fails.

The wind doesn't stop every place at the same time. We are developing interconnected grids and management software. We are barely into the infancy of alternate power power supplies and can't use a single incident (in which other conventional power producers also failed) as the "proof" that wind energy is a failure.

What a wast of resources.

Build a lot of nuclear plants and we'll have what we need.

And that insinuates a particular mindset: we can give up on all the research programs in energy efficiency/conservation and go on our merry way, pillaging and plundering the earth to our collective loss of diversity and general enrvironmental quality.

Think about it. With enough plants online we would have plenty of cheap home produced energy.
You could even use it to produce hyrdogen for automobiles.
Build them now is what I say.
Why wait?

Give me a rational reason for not building them. I want to hear it.

After we do all we can to change habits/expectations, conserve, improve energy efficiency/conservation, implement alternatives, if there is still a need for more electricity, build a few nuclear power plants.

It's crazy to simply jump into a nuclear future.....we are addicted to cheap fuel and use as much as you can or want. A quick change to nuclear, is like putting a heroin addict on methadone......their still not cured! Do we know what the "easy to mine" cheap fuel supplies are? When will nuclear fuel costs rise 1000% in 8 years (2000 oil-$10/bbl; 2008 oil-$100/bbl)? Will we be fighting uranium wars in the future? When one of these plants screws up, we have something worse and longer lasting than the EXXON Valdez which has cost them $3 billions plus.

[Michael Larson]

Brian,
We differ in our opinions. Cheap, clean, and abundant energy is exactly what the world needs.
We can and will not ever find prosperity by conservation alone.

There is no shortage of fuel for reactors.
Nuclear energy is the best answer in the mid and long term.

[Michael Larson]

Category: Green Energy

So much for solar panels

Solar panels called an economic ‘loser’
Installing solar panels on homes is an economic “loser” with the costs far outweighing the financial benefit, a respected University of California- Berkeley business professor said recently. The technology, using photovoltaic panels to generate electricity, is not economically competitive with fossil fuels and costs more than other renewable fuels, said Severin Borenstein, who also directs the UC Energy Institute. “We are throwing away money by installing the current solar PV technology,” he said. STORY


I'm sure some will say that the answer is to raise fossil fuel prices.

[klott]

If enviromentalists are sincere, they all should have solar panels, windmills and ride Bicycles, regardless of cost. Then and only then will I respect them as being enviromentally responsible.

[Michael Larson]

Category: Running out of Oil

Not really

- What are the global resources in place? Estimates vary. But approximately six to eight trillion barrels each for conventional and unconventional oil resources (shale oil, tar sands, extra heavy oil) represent probable figures -- inclusive of future discoveries. As a matter of context, the globe has consumed only one(1) out of a grand total of 12 to 16 trillion barrels underground. STORY

Seems the predictions of shortages are just a bit exaggerated ML

[Michael Larson]

Will the Weather Channel stops it Agitprop with a new owner?

The Weather Channel has lost its way, according to John Coleman, who founded the channel in 1982.

Coleman told an audience at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change on March 3 in New York that he is highly critical of global warming alarmism.

“The Weather Channel had great promise, and that’s all gone now because they’ve made every mistake in the book on what they’ve done and how they’ve done it and it’s very sad,” Coleman said. “It’s now for sale and there’s a new owner of The Weather Channel will be announced – several billion dollars having changed hands in the near future. Let’s hope the new owners can recapture the vision and stop reporting the traffic, telling us what to think and start giving us useful weather information.”


The Weather Channel has been an outlet for global warming alarmism. In December 2006, The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen argued on her blog that weathercasters who had doubts about human influence on global warming should be punished with decertification by the American Meteorological Society. More

[Brian A. MacNeish]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Category: Running out of Oil

Not really

- What are the global resources in place? Estimates vary. But approximately six to eight trillion barrels each for conventional and unconventional oil resources (shale oil, tar sands, extra heavy oil) represent probable figures -- inclusive of future discoveries. As a matter of context, the globe has consumed only one(1) out of a grand total of 12 to 16 trillion barrels underground. STORY

Seems the predictions of shortages are just a bit exaggerated ML

Not a problem of shortages, yet. The estimates are not proven. We should be talking about proven supplies and the future projected elevated costs to develop/deliver the oil distillates to the customer.

Seems like most of the easy-to-produce, on-land, cheap light sweet crude that our refieries are set up to distill has been found/developed and production may have peaked. There's talk that the largest oil field in world, Ghawar, in Saudi Arabia is declining in production.

"Since 1982 the Saudis have withheld their well data and any detailed data on their reserves, giving outside experts no way to verify the overall size of Saudi reserves and output. Despite high oil prices, Saudi crude oil production declined to 8.60 million barrels per day (bpd) in February 2007 (from an average of 9.55 bpd in 2005 and 9.15 bpd in 2006) and remained at that level before rising to 8.80 bpd in September.[6] After US President Bush asked the Saudis to raise production on a visit to Saudi Arabia in January 2008, and they declined, Bush questioned whether they had the ability to raise production any more.[7]"

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by Brian A. MacNeish

Not a problem of shortages, yet. The estimates are not proven. We should be talking about proven supplies and the future projected elevated costs to develop/deliver the oil distillates to the customer.

You need to read the whole thing Brian. I think you missed some important facts. We have plenty of oil for many decades ahead of us.

There will be new energy technologies in the future and this is where research needs to be done.

The planet is not running out of energy. We have enough known coal for centuries.

Fission energy now and fusion in the future(50 -100 years away) would make oil less needed and the price would probably even come down.

What we have is a bunch of people that just don't like human beings living on the planet. I suggest they find their own to mange.