A Dutch newspaper wrote that with new innovative technology we will have oil for at least another three hundred years. This is because wells that were previously declared "empty" can now be re-opened because of new pumps that can handle smaller quantities. Also oil will be filtered out of sand. New oil well-detection technology allowes humans to discover the black gold which is buried deeper.

From nature point of view this is bad news. We will probably not survive when oil is history and all the Porches, 747's, freight ships come to a halt. A far quicker solution is to eradicate all human beings as we are the only species to pollute our environment.

A last word on lack of space on the planet. Many people argue that Earth does not provide enough space to farm organic. Granted that conventional farming methods provide more but also crops suffer from the intensity - artificial fertilisers, lack of grow space and pesticides provide far less nutritional, healthy energy.
People should eat less meat: it requires SEVEN times more energy to get the steak than that it provides. If the land was used to grow crops instead of raise cattle than there would be less starvation.

China only started to use inorganic fertilizers in the last 50 years. The country with the largest population were able to feed themselves organically and healthily.

I was going to go point by point, but interested readers can see here for somewhat less FUD.

Pro nuke... anti nuke... doesn't matter, really. The modern world depends on, heck even _desires_, cheap
energy. Right now, the only realistic alternative to fossil fuel appears to be nuclear.

The fear surrounding nuclear power prevents a rational discussion of the problem. Remind anyone
of another recurring topic? <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Frenchy:

I think it is entirely all right to offend any New Yorker that is not part of or reads this forum regarding their energy use lifestyle.

Just do not offend their restaurants. (We need a lip licking Graemlin here.)

Bountyhunter <img src="/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

(P.S. Your posts are much more fun when they are whimsical.) <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Groo:

I am not technically adept enough to disagree with you on a fact by fact basis, but I disagree that nuclear is the best alternative.

Nuclear may be the most efficient centralized power generation system, but I believe that solar energy can be efficiently utilized for local and/or individualized use but that the technology is either not being exploited or is being purposely hidden to benefit profit mongering industrial systems.

Bountyhunter

Yeah, I know ...
I didn't want to .... but 42 dead ... LOL ......

As Groo says in his post, it's difficult to have a rational discussion on this subject , but it looks like there cann't be a mid-point : you are either pro or con ...
- If you recognise that nuclear power plants have some huge advantage against, say, coal power plants (ie reducing CO2 emissions), then you are pro-nuke
- If you ask added research in the field of renewable energy, to try to reduce the use of nuclear energy, then you are anti-nuke.

Furthermore, what?s wrong with being afraid about something which is terrifying ? ? IMHO the more afraid you are, the more precaution you will take .
To me, that?s rather a good point, as using nuke plants is not only an actual fact, but certainly a necessity for some time at least. This, hoping other sources of energy will be developped and our need/desire for energy will be curbed.

As a sci-fi reader, I like to dream about safe, cheap, powerful power plants ; but that?s still sci-fi?

I regret that the only choices we seem to have, are either coal/oil power plants producing CO2 (greenhouse effect) or nuclear power plants producing various radio-active wastes our children will have to manage for thousands of years (if they survive until then?)

Another point, making rational discussion difficult, is the economical/political aspect :
- nuke industry is consistent with centralized energy and big bucks ;
- most forms of renewable energy emplies decentralized energy systems, less controlable by the big bucks owners...

Small local energy plants or even individual energy making devices (solar cells wind mills ...) : that's a joke, no ?? you would not want to give away that much power (pun intended), back to the people ???? What would the state control ??
<img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Solar has promise. But right now the panels are too expensive for most and their efficiency sucks.

That said, I'd still love to have a "cabin" somewhere in the midwest powered entirely off a field of
solar panels. That, plus a satellite internet connection and I'd be all set. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I wonder how long it'll be before we outsource power production. Some little country with no
other natural resource is going to realize it could make a bundle by hosting a couple dozen
reactors around back, out of sight of the scuba diving tourists.


Edit:

Bountyhunter, this might interest you... Solar Maps

Note that in the winter, most of the country sucks, and the areas that suck less require a
two axis tracking system to not suck as bad as they otherwise would. Solar cells need to
come down in price and up (way up) in efficiency (the maps are based on a 12% efficient
cell) before solar can be a widespread supplement or replacement for grid power.

As far as the sci-fi refferences go... weren't Jules Verne and Gene Roddenberry both sci-fi writers? Let's see... space travel, submarines, automobiles for the masses, and oh, don't forget... cell-phones (they were even flip-phones, beam me up Moto)... maybe we should put those two in the same realm as Nostradamus, ya think?

Well, anyway, I certainly hope that wind/solar/hydro comes more to the forefront, even though I make a pretty good living working the NUC outages, being A PART of the industry, I'll tell ya... the on-the-job humor is mostly of the gallows variety. If they SAFELY shut down every NUC on the planet tomorrow, it wouldn't break my heart, although... it might dim the lights for a while.

I promised myself I was going to keep this light before I leaned into the keyboard, so I'm not going to let myself climb my soap-box... but as someone who is a small part of the nuclear industry, we'd all be better off without it, statistics be... well, you know.

Troy

Yes, I call it a knee jerk reaction, as it is based on fear.

I live almost immediately down wind of one of the oldest operating reactos in the US, Vermont Yankee, and I have the pamphlet on evacuation and the pills and all the other stuff. Yankee also is noticable for having misinventoried spent fuel in thier pool last year, and that material was "lost" until a full accounting was conducted.

It is medically accepted (and common sense supports) that several thousand people die every year from cancer and respritory illnesses brought about by burning coal, nat gas and oil for electricity. Add in the people who's lives are handicapped by extreme asthma, and those who's cancer goes into remission.

Contrast that to the few tens of thousands who are killed or sickened when a reactor has a major release. How often has that happened? Chernobyl is the only major accident that was not contained that I know of. Three Mile Island, the Fermi plant outside of detroit, the British one about 10-15 years ago, those were mostly contained. Was there a release of gas? Yes. Was the quantity and intensity of radioactive materials about the same as what a coal-fired plant spews out yearly? Yep.

Nuclear fission isn't THE ANSWER (tm). There is no THE ANSWER (tm). The waste is a major concern. No argueement. The feds need to get thier thumbs out and activate the Yucca Mountain facility. Will it be dangerous material a couple of mellenia from now? Yes. And by then, we will either all be dead of some plague or we will have fussion worked out. Maybe we'll even figure out how to use the old fuel for the fussion reactors. At the same time, they will be mining what was once landfills for metals.

But I can also comment on solar cells- unless you live in the desert, there aren't too many ways of making them reliable in the near future. Thier efficency is lousy, but hey, it is free energy; you get what pay for. Of course, if you don't live in the desert, and you are used to going a week, 10 days, without seeing a half clear sky, then you aren't going to be a big fan of solar.

As for wind, you said it yourself: the viewcologists don't like them, to niffliehm with the ecology. My ala matter has one (1) windmill that was designed and built by students and keeps and expansion to the farm powered 24-7. You can't see it a mile away. But someone with a lot of money who moved up to Vermont from the city and lives about 4 miles away, at the other end of the valley, tried to keep the rig from being built. :P

Ah yes... sad but true. The most evolved species on the planet is the one that is that does 99% of the damage.

Corn and Bio Diesel take more energy to create than they produce when burned.