No One Ever Said Post Peak Oil Would Be A Rose Garden
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by on July 27, 2008, 7:19 pm
Please log in for more thread options Either lead follow or get out of the way. Bret Cahill | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Rod Speed on July 27, 2008, 7:37 pm
Please log in for more thread options > If you don't like my solutions then post your own.
Already did that. Biodiesel for farming. LPG and CNG for cars. Exploit the oil sands and shale oil when the price of oil stays high enough for long enough to make that economically viable. Convert coal to liquid fuel when the price of oil stays high enough for long enough to make that economically viable. Replace coal fired power stations with nukes if you care about the CO2 emissions from power stations. Heat houses with electricty from nukes so the LPG and CNG can be used as a transport fuel. Generate hydrogen using nukes when the price of LPG and CNG is getting high enough to make that economically viable. Dont bother with solar when on the grid unless its cheaper than power from nukes and that has to allow for the fact that is mostly not available when its most in demand in most modern first world countrys. Use solar in some non grid situations like RVs running on biodiesel or LPG or CNG to run the engine. | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Immortalist on July 28, 2008, 12:48 am
Please log in for more thread options > BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
> > If you don't like my solutions then post your own.
>
gh for long enough to make that economically
> Already did that. > > Biodiesel for farming. > > LPG and CNG for cars. > > Exploit the oil sands and shale oil when the price of oil stays high enou= > viable.
ong enough to make that economically viable.
> > Convert coal to liquid fuel when the price of oil stays high enough for l= >
issions from power stations.
> Replace coal fired power stations with nukes if you care about the CO2 em= >
a transport fuel.
> Heat houses with electricty from nukes so the LPG and CNG can be used as = >
gh enough to make that economically viable.
> Generate hydrogen using nukes when the price of LPG and CNG is getting hi= >
e
> Dont bother with solar when on the grid unless its cheaper than power > from nukes and that has to allow for the fact that is mostly not availabl= > when its most in demand in most modern first world countrys.
G or CNG to run the engine.
> > Use solar in some non grid situations like RVs running on biodiesel or LP= I like your approach man. Some of your response styles if tweaked could help you win alot of debates easily with the facts and clear persuasive arguments. Maybe build up a text database with responses and data supporting arguments. How would you defend your position on nuclear when someone comes up with these attacks? =2E..Critics claim that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous and decline [66]energy source, with decreasing proportion of nuclear energy in power production, and dispute whether the risks can be reduced through new technology. Critics also point to the problem of storing radioactive waste, the potential for possibly severe radioactive contamination by accident or sabotage, the possibility of nuclear proliferation and the disadvantages of centralized electrical production... =2E..The primary environmental impacts of nuclear power include Uranium mining, radioactive effluent emissions, and waste heat... =2E..Greenpeace has produced a report titled An American Chernobyl: Nuclear =93Near Misses=94 at U.S. Reactors Since 1986 which "reveals that nearly two hundred =93near misses=94 to nuclear meltdowns have occurred in the United States". At almost 450 nuclear plants in the world that risk is greatly magnified, they say. This is not to mention numerous incidents, many supposedly unreported, that have occurred. Another report produced by Greenpeace called Nuclear Reactor Hazards: Ongoing Dangers of Operating Nuclear Technology in the 21st Century claims that risk of a major accident has increased in the past years... =2E..Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons and related technology to nations not recognized as "Nuclear Weapon States" by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Since the days of the Manhattan Project it has been known that reactors could be used for weapons- development purposes=97the first nuclear reactors were developed for exactly this reason=97as the operation of a nuclear reactor converts U-238 into plutonium. As a consequence, since the 1950s there have been concerns about the possibility of using reactors as a dual-use technology, whereby apparently peaceful technological development could serve as an approach to nuclear weapons capability... =2E..An additional concern with nuclear power plants is that if the by- products of nuclear fission=97the nuclear waste generated by the plant=97 were to be unprotected it could be used as a radiological weapon, colloquially known as a "dirty bomb"... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Uncle Ben on July 28, 2008, 2:08 am
Please log in for more thread options >
> > > > > > BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
> > > If you don't like my solutions then post your own.
>
> > Already did that.
>
> > Biodiesel for farming.
>
> > LPG and CNG for cars.
>
> > Exploit the oil sands and shale oil when the price of oil stays high en=
ough for long enough to make that economically
> > viable.
>
> > Convert coal to liquid fuel when the price of oil stays high enough for=
long enough to make that economically viable.
>
> > Replace coal fired power stations with nukes if you care about the CO2 =
emissions from power stations.
>
> > Heat houses with electricty from nukes so the LPG and CNG can be used a=
s a transport fuel.
>
> > Generate hydrogen using nukes when the price of LPG and CNG is getting =
high enough to make that economically viable.
>
> > Dont bother with solar when on the grid unless its cheaper than power
ble
> > from nukes and that has to allow for the fact that is mostly not availa= > > when its most in demand in most modern first world countrys.
>
> > Use solar in some non grid situations like RVs running on biodiesel or =
LPG or CNG to run the engine.
>
n
> I like your approach man. Some of your response styles if tweaked > could help you win alot of debates easily with the facts and clear > persuasive arguments. Maybe build up a text database with responses > and data supporting arguments. How would you defend your position on > nuclear when someone comes up with these attacks? > > ...Critics claim that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous and > decline [66]energy source, with decreasing proportion of nuclear > energy in power production, and dispute whether the risks can be > reduced through new technology. Critics also point to the problem of > storing radioactive waste, the potential for possibly severe > radioactive contamination by accident or sabotage, the possibility of > nuclear proliferation and the disadvantages of centralized electrical > production... > > ...The primary environmental impacts of nuclear power include Uranium > mining, radioactive effluent emissions, and waste heat... > > ...Greenpeace has produced a report titled An American Chernobyl: > Nuclear =93Near Misses=94 at U.S. Reactors Since 1986 which "reveals that > nearly two hundred =93near misses=94 to nuclear meltdowns have occurred i= > the United States". At almost 450 nuclear plants in the world that
> risk is greatly magnified, they say. This is not to mention numerous > incidents, many supposedly unreported, that have occurred. Another > report produced by Greenpeace called Nuclear Reactor Hazards: Ongoing > Dangers of Operating Nuclear Technology in the 21st Century claims > that risk of a major accident has increased in the past years... > > ...Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons and related > technology to nations not recognized as "Nuclear Weapon States" by the > Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Since the days of the Manhattan > Project it has been known that reactors could be used for weapons- > development purposes=97the first nuclear reactors were developed for > exactly this reason=97as the operation of a nuclear reactor converts > U-238 into plutonium. As a consequence, since the 1950s there have > been concerns about the possibility of using reactors as a dual-use > technology, whereby apparently peaceful technological development > could serve as an approach to nuclear weapons capability... > > ...An additional concern with nuclear power plants is that if the by- > products of nuclear fission=97the nuclear waste generated by the plant=97 > were to be unprotected it could be used as a radiological weapon, > colloquially known as a "dirty bomb"... > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - IIRC the leader of Greenpeace has come out in favor of nuclear electrc power. No power source is without its downside, but if we don't come up soon with something other than oil, the civilization of the world is going to be set back 100 years, and the world's population is gong to shrink correspondingly. Many, many people are going to starve to death! Balance the risks against that possibility. Uncle Ben | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Rod Speed on July 28, 2008, 2:12 am
Please log in for more thread options >> BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote
>>> If you don't like my solutions then post your own.
>> Already did that.
>> Biodiesel for farming.
>> LPG and CNG for cars.
>> Exploit the oil sands and shale oil when the price of oil stays
>> high enough for long enough to make that economically viable. >> Convert coal to liquid fuel when the price of oil stays high
>> enough for long enough to make that economically viable. >> Replace coal fired power stations with nukes if you
>> care about the CO2 emissions from power stations. >> Heat houses with electricty from nukes so the
>> LPG and CNG can be used as a transport fuel. >> Generate hydrogen using nukes when the price of LPG and
>> CNG is getting high enough to make that economically viable. >> Dont bother with solar when on the grid unless its cheaper than power
>> from nukes and that has to allow for the fact that is mostly not available >> when its most in demand in most modern first world countrys. >> Use solar in some non grid situations like RVs running on biodiesel
>> or LPG or CNG to run the engine. > I like your approach man. Some of your response
> styles if tweaked could help you win alot of debates > easily with the facts and clear persuasive arguments. Dont need any of that, the list above is fine. > Maybe build up a text database with responses and data supporting arguments.
Dont need any of that either. > How would you defend your position on nuclear
> when someone comes up with these attacks? Point them at the French that have been doing it for a long time now and currently generate around 75% of their electricity that way. > ...Critics claim that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous
The french havent even had a major nuclear accident. > and decline [66]energy source,
Irrelevant to what is clearly possible. > with decreasing proportion of nuclear energy in power production,
Irrelevant to what is clearly possible. > and dispute whether the risks can be reduced through new technology.
The french havent even had a major nuclear accident. > Critics also point to the problem of storing radioactive waste,
Completely routine to do that. > the potential for possibly severe radioactive contamination by accident or
sabotage,
The french havent even had a major nuclear accident. > the possibility of nuclear proliferation
Irrelevant when used in the first world. > and the disadvantages of centralized electrical production...
No such animal. Its the national grids that make it work so well. > ...The primary environmental impacts of nuclear power include Uranium mining,
No worse than coal mining it replaces. > radioactive effluent emissions,
Coal burning power stations emit even more because of the radioactive stuff in the coal they burn. > and waste heat...
Thats not a bad thing, its a good thing in areas what heat anyway. > ...Greenpeace has produced a report titled An American Chernobyl:
> Nuclear “Near Misses” at U.S. Reactors Since 1986 which "reveals that > nearly two hundred “near misses” to nuclear meltdowns have occurred in > the United States". Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies. > At almost 450 nuclear plants in the world that risk is greatly magnified, they
say.
Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies. > This is not to mention numerous incidents, many supposedly unreported, that
have occurred.
Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies. > Another report produced by Greenpeace called Nuclear Reactor Hazards:
> Ongoing Dangers of Operating Nuclear Technology in the 21st Century > claims that risk of a major accident has increased in the past years... Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies. > ...Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons and related
> technology to nations not recognized as "Nuclear Weapon States" by > the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Irrelevant when used in the first world and places like china and india that have those already. > Since the days of the Manhattan Project it has been known
> that reactors could be used for weapons- development purposes > —the first nuclear reactors were developed for exactly this reason > —as the operation of a nuclear reactor converts U-238 into plutonium. Like I said, its desirable to develop nukes that cant be used for weapons production. > As a consequence, since the 1950s there have been concerns
> about the possibility of using reactors as a dual-use technology, > whereby apparently peaceful technological development > could serve as an approach to nuclear weapons capability... Like I said, its desirable to develop nukes that cant be used for weapons production. > ...An additional concern with nuclear power plants is that if the
> by- products of nuclear fission—the nuclear waste generated > by the plant— were to be unprotected it could be used as a > radiological weapon, colloquially known as a "dirty bomb"... Replacing the first world use of coal in electricity generation with nukes and the two most populous countrys, wouldnt make any difference to that because they have nukes already. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
| |||||||||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| No One Ever Said Post Peak Oil Would Be A Rose Garden | July 27, 2008, 7:19 pm |
| can I make my garden solar lights bline | August 13, 2006, 9:33 pm |
| Solar-recharging garden lights - rewire to mains? | December 18, 2007, 4:10 pm |
| Peak to Peak | August 22, 2006, 1:52 pm |
| can I post | March 21, 2007, 4:57 pm |
| My Introductory Post | March 21, 2007, 3:09 am |
| First post: best place for this? | April 13, 2007, 3:28 pm |
| Peak Reading Voltmeter | October 20, 2004, 3:16 pm |
| RMS vs Peak representation of A/C voltage | May 6, 2006, 3:17 am |
| Op-amp peak detector with gain | September 9, 2006, 5:02 am |
| Peak voltage measurement | January 22, 2007, 12:04 pm |
| measuring peak voltage | March 22, 2007, 10:10 am |
| Peak current to charge a capacitor | August 2, 2004, 5:36 pm |
| How to calculate the peak inductor current? | November 7, 2005, 8:15 pm |
| Dodgin' Peak Oil Ain't Gonna Happen | July 31, 2008, 1:15 am |