Who believes in Global Warming?

“Why do we tax cigarettes and not cinnamon rolls? Why does the taxpayer subsidize air travel for business and not drugs for suicide? Any time we buy anything from China we're paying a hidden tax and pay the interest on our own money that we borrowed back to run two occupations. Only you can prevent fire sale of your own country.

Diamond doesn't shortcut switchbacks.
last edited: 10/12/07 3:31:53 PM”

“I have no problem with nuclear power as a concept; it's the application where the problems crop up.

Cost-cutting in construction, operations (and cleanup decades later) to maximise profit....   It begins to sound like the healthcare debate.”

“Capital outlay, at any scale, is impossible when the past teaches us that oil can still go back to $30.00 barrel in a month. The fairy tail world of supply-demand pricing of oil is about as real as the difference between the factions of the Muslim religions which keep the oil pot stirring whereever the black transportation drug is found.”

“"Y2, there have been long TT discussion on Nuclear energy, but the same fear mongers who are proclaiming doom from global warming treat it like the boogeyman and run screaming like scared little children." - hyway

Nuclear energy isn't renewable energy. If we all switch over to nukes we'll eventually run into "peak uranium" just like we have "peak oil" today.”

“centuries from now. by then we might have fission or something better. Wind isn't the answer. It helps but it will never supply all we need.”

“techntrek - How long would it take to reach peak uranium?”

“New Scientist published a report on May 23, 2007 on this very issue. Its behind their subscriber firewall, so I can't post a link (I can but you'll only see the preview). They charted the anticipated "lifetime" of various metals/compounds based on known reserves, for current demand and an estimated demand based on world population growth and future anticipated technological demands.

The bottom line for uranium: 59 years at current demand, 30-40 years based on population/technology growth.

Peak uranium I'm guessing would be between 15 and 30 years from now, maybe a little later, based on how peak oil occured in the US and the numbers above.

Not centuries, hyway. Decades at most.


If you really want the link, here it is. You can subscribe for $4.95. http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19426051.200-earths-natural-wealth-an-audit.html
last edited: 10/16/07 11:55:34 AM”

“Thanks!”

“Oh, and hyway, even going by your estimation of "centuries", you have proved my point. Nuke energy isn't renewable no matter what time frame you go with (centuries or decades). Just like we currently have peak oil, and in 100+ years we'll have peak coal, we will also have peak uranium. Might be in the next generation, or it might be in 4. Either way, its a dead-end energy source.”

“tech, does that "peak" timeline mean it's done with by then, or we couldn't build anything new after that? In other words, when would it's use as an energy source disappear?”

“but that's not particularly important tech - you're looking at getting towards a nuke plant's useful life then anyway. It would perhaps, but some time, but is not some all-embracing solution.”

“I wonder if India will regret using Th? I'm sure they're not stupid.”

“but its a green house gas free energy source. And whats wrong with using up the uranium. Is it essential that it be locked up in the earth. In the meantime we can work on better energy sources. For example, if we don't have a solar array in space providing us power within a century then we deserve to die as a civilization.

I am still curious to know what you think the answer to our clean energy problem is?”

“Peak is just the time where demand becomes greater than supply. It would be completely gone in either 30-40 years or 59 years depending on either their projection (30-40) or based on today's demand (59).”

“The sun is too small to help. I just measured it's diameter with a tape measure at arms length 1/2inch, man, I can't see what I'm doing.

Oil next stop $95
last edited: 10/16/07 12:30:46 PM”

“where did you read that? maybe the most anti-nuclear energy scientists came up with that Peak period, but it isn't even close to being accepted by most.”

“unclif, but the sun is much closer to us than the middle east so the shipping costs should be lower. What? You don't think its closer? Well duh, the sun's right there, I can't even see the middle east.”

“Are the conservatives saying there is no problem? that we are just fine at our level of dependence on oil?

In case anyone is wondering, that really is just a question. I'm trying to get a feel for this debate.”

“My eyes are still fried , but can see your point. Living at 3k feet in the middle of the Mojave gives a completely different view of the sun than the majority of americans who live along the cloudy coast. When contrails are the only obstruction for weeks on end , one either hates it or begins to use it.”

“ductape, I am a proponent of nuclear energy with wind energy adding what it can in the areas best suited for it. Wean ourselves from coal. I don't know that we have the technology yet to wean ourselves completely from oil.

I don't speak for all republicans.”

“ductape - the conservatives think that government should butt out and do what it is supposed to do and let the free market work it's thing.”

“If you include the lives lost and the 'defense' budget, alternative fuels are already cost-effective.”

“Until you can guarantee $70+ oil, the people will get by until as always before OPEC and the traders let oil come back down into that always available 'got you again price'. Perot had a moving tax that would keep the expense high so OPECs' power was deminished, but 'Oh, No New Taxes'.We've played this silly ass game since 1973. Free market my ass.”

“my we are full of hate.”

“Sarge, that's helpful, but I already knew that. That's not really what I was asking.”

“hyway, ignoring the nuclear accident issue, the problem with using up the uranium is its a very short dead-end path. If there was enough that we could mine it for a few hundred years then it would be an effective "low" CO2 solution (also ignoring the CO2 created when the uranium is mined and all that concrete is laid). However, with less than 60 year's worth in the ground we would wind up having the same debates in 40 years as we are having now. Might as well short-circuit the problem and make the switchover now.

As for my solution, all we have to do is redirect the millions that go into non-renewable R&D, into R&D for renewables, and the solutions will come. If all the billions that have gone into nuclear R&D over the last 60 years had instead gone into, lets say, wind or solar, we would have had viable solutions long ago.”

“tech, you fail to understand that I don't believe your statement that we only have 60 years of uranium left. The only way you can support that statement is to say that we have found every bit of uranium there is. the truth is we haven't even even put much effort into finding what we have found. We found all we needed for the immediate future and stopped looking.

The truth is that we can spend 10 times what we spend now to discover and mine uranium without significantly increasing the cost of electrical generation.”

“You asked what they are saying. I answered. What did you want to know that wasn't answered? In other words ... "It doesn't matter" if we're almost out or not. Let the free-market work it's magic.
last edited: 10/18/07 5:29:25 AM”

“I was told in high school that we'd be out of oil by now!”

“I don't disagree that we should increase wind and solar research, but nuclear power is not as short term as you say despite how many times you say it. Nuclear power can supply our energy needs right now, solar and wind can not. They can help but they can't come close to suppling all we need.”

“They can help

Hardly. Maybe an insignificant amount at best.”

“Maybe the stock market will help out by going down a bunch - cooling is cool.”

“How are batteries wind turbines use for the environment? How many would we need to create for 1 city?”

“I like the '1 city', because it might bring up the subject of what in the '1 city' can you do without. Every wind turbine worth of energy gets us that closer. Dow only down $38.
last edited: 10/18/07 6:33:54 AM”

“Sarge, I was wanting to know how you feel about our dependence on oil. I know you wouldn't want the government involved, but do you think that it would be wise for someone, anyone, to do something? Or do you think we should wait and see if it really does run out before wasting any resources on alternatives?”

“Then there is this

The discovery could have "huge implications for the ecology and economy of our planet as well as for the chemistry of other planets," said Princeton University researcher Freeman Dyson, who wasn't involved in the new studies.

The scientists found that deep below the Earth, there could exist hydrocarbons -- the class of chemicals that include petroleum and natural gas. They are called hydrocarbons because they mainly contain hydrogen and carbon.

Unlike traditional oil and gas, though, it appears these chemicals do not come from the decay of dead animals and plants. Instead, they come from simple chemical reactions between water and rock at the crushing pressures and high temperatures typical of the deep Earth.
http://www.world-science.net/newspg2/040913_oilfrm.htm
Lets remember that the whole "oil from decaying plants and critters" thing has never really been proven......”

“ductape - Industry WILL (w/o question), meet the demand for energy w/o gov't interference b/c they will always follow the money (i.e. - demand). There will be no lag between the availability of any 2 resources. Think about it, do you think the corporations would just let energy (the sale of) disappear? That's why whether we're 2 years, 20 years, or 200 years from running out of oil, it just doesn't matter. Money talks, that's why capitalism works.”

“I agree that money talks.

I don't feel like I know enough about the issue to truly form an opinion I could stand behind, but at first glance I have a very hard time believing it would be seamless if oil went dry in 2 years.

What is there to replace it? I understand that we can use coal for electricity, and people would be forced to get behind nuclear energy, but what would our cars run off of? From what I've read, ethanol isn't a practical alternative. Even if it was, if your car doesn't run on it, that wouldn't be a seamless transition.”

“Sarge...you overlook all the stuff that would NOT have occurred without Government Interference...

The Lightbulb...wait...Edison on his own...bad example


The Mass produced Automobile...wait...that was Ford without Government assistance

UM the Airplane....no that was Wright Brothers without assistance


OH here is one..Full time Government Sponsored Slavery...NOW that we needed government help for.

LOL...the problem is that Conservatives (true Conservatives as defined by Ronald Reagan) believe in the incredible ability of the Human ability when unencumbered by Government. Libbies on the other hand see people as either too stupid or too incapable of taking care of themselves and so in need of GOVERNMENT MOMMY to take care of them.”

“Universal studios got us to the moon.”

“but at first glance I have a very hard time believing it would be seamless if oil went dry in 2 years.

True, I exagerrated the point. The reason "it doesn't matter" is b/c IF we really were going to run out in 2 years, they'd be on it already. It's not immenent, therefore, no need for them to make changes.”

“XL, I see your point, and I agree that the government gets it's hand involved in way too many things. But, have we ever been a truly capitalist economy? I thought we have always operated under more of a mixed economy, where the government uses policy to shape certain areas or encourage/discourage certain actions.

I think you're overgeneralizing when you say libbies think people are too stupid to take care of themselves. What about 30-40 years ago when it was common practice for corps to dump harmful, dangerous chemicals into the rivers their plants sat on? Was it not wise for the government to pass laws to protect the people who got their drinking water from there, went swimming in it, etc?”

“protecting public health and safety is a government responsibility

creating and directing industry is not”

“It's like:

The government telling you that you may not destroy by fire a local museum, is much different than telling you that you must build one. See the difference?”

“the trouble is that unless you prompt the capitalist system to start early you run the risk of a huge lag between soaring oil prices and alternative energy sources kicking in as the infrastructure would take years and even decades to kick in.

You need to provide some economic incentives now or run the risk of exposing your economy to every oil shock in the next few years.
See what a minor scuffle between Turkey and the Kurds did to oil, can you impagine what some serious disruption would do under this demand pressure?

In terms of generation future, you need a mixed package, including oil, natural gas, hydo, wind and solar, wave and tidal.

For example, when the wind fails you can turn on natural gas, which can be brought into service almost instantly to cope with demand. It's expeensive, but hopefully you'll only use it when the wind fails.”

“I didn't realize we were talking about the government forcing people or industries to do things. I'm with you on that.

But I feel like it gets a little greyer when you start to talk about the government giving subsidies, grants, tax breaks, etc. to encourage certain actions or behaviors. I don't have as much of a problem with those kinds of things if they benefit all, or at least most of us. But they don't always do that to say the least.

Totally out of curiosity, has the government overstepped their bounds by allowing us to write off mortgage interest?”

“Any tax Break is good, regardless of the form.

That's different (the opposite) than a tax increase, which is what a subsidy is. A subsidy is a government program, paid for by the taxpayer. It is not government's role.”

“protecting public health and safety is a government responsibility

creating and directing industry is not

No gov. contracts or subsidies and socialized medicine and safety???”

“So, if the government agrees to tax alternative energy companies at a lower rate, that would be different from giving them a grant for their research? To me, they seem like pretty much the same animal. The function of both of those things is to encourage alternative energy, right?”

“The difference is that a grant is from money you already collected and has to be given to specific companies after a vetting process. You lose money all along the way due to the vetting process requiring a budget to operate. Granting tax breaks to an entire industry takes less oversight and less intrusion on the business process of the company getting the tax break.

I think the second option is much more likely to achieve results since you are spreading more money (due to less cost to operate the program) in smaller amounts over many companies. Thus giving more opportunities for useful alternative. Once a company that is getting a tax break starts seeing progress toward a viable alternative, private money will start flowing into it.”