The Executive Ban? It's Gone! <sniker>

[crockett]

Wind farms are not that efficient though.  It takes ALOT of generators to equal one coal fired plant.  ALOT!  I like the Idea of building solar farms out in Nevada and arizona.  There is land apon land out there that is doing absolutly nothing and with sulinght 330+ days out of the year it would be pretty efficient.  

(Image removed from quote.)

$320 Million for 154 megawatts

I can't find any stats on costs of a  new nuke plant but I have to assume it's in the billions of dollars price range but you get 2-3000 megawatts.

I say turn Those desert states into solar farms.

Yea granted the wind isn't as efficient but it is clean and renewable, I do agree that solar is a way better option. I read somewhere that a 100 square mile solar farm would produce enough electricity to power the entire country.

[moot]

Apparently Solar is ultimately less interesting than one or two other alternative energies.. I can't recall which.  And won't there be a lot of energy losses with solar farms in the middle of nowhere?

[crockett]

the horizon is 15 miles, you can't see a oil rig 20 miles offshore.

actually by drilling offshore you would be protecting the environment by stopping the natural oil seepage in to the sea.


save the environment by removing the oil before it can pollute the pristine seas.

Personally just like nuclear plant's Oil rigs don't bug me that much assuming the companies are responsible. However I'm trying to be a realist here and I pretty much see off shore drilling as a major dead issue. As others have pointed out it would be tied up in law suits for a long time and by the time we ever see a benefit from them it's wont likely make much impact.

I see the same with nuclear power. It's by far the best option, but again it comes down to the "not in my backyard" problems as others have posted. Hence the reason I think we should just start pushing things that we can get into production fairly fast.

Granted as Gunslinger said wind farms aren't as efficient as other forms but it's still something that can be universally used throughout a large portion of the US. Then on the flip side we have solar that can also be used directly on individual homes and businesses but also in most of the US.

So it just seems like as a country we are gong in the wrong direction in regards to our energy needs. I will give props though to FPL (Florida Power & Light) because Florida is one of the cleanest power grids in the US. As I posted before We have 6 or 7 nuclear plants but they have also converted or are in the process of converting all the oil based power plants over to natural gas. Then add in the kicker that FPL is the company that has built and owns the largest wind farms in the US (ironic enough it's the wind farms in Texas).

On the natural gas I'm not really apposed to it as it's a much better option than oil and can be burned in cars just the same as oil based fuels once you convert it. The draw back I see with gas is it's costly to get just like oil is and I think the price will keep going up on it just like oil.

I think the perfect solution would be a combo of nuclear, wind and solar for our actual power grid and then use natural gas for cars. If we did that we wouldn't need oil anymore and this country could be truly energy indepent. (I leave coal out because even the so called cleaner coal isn't that great and costs more)

[crockett]

Apparently Solar is ultimately less interesting than one or two other alternative energies.. I can't recall which.  And won't there be a lot of energy losses with solar farms in the middle of nowhere?

Well you couldn't toss them out in the middle of nowhere and expect to send the energy all the way across the country. Each state would need their own farms much like each state has their own power plants now. The thing is if we started giving incentives for home owners to add their own solar power to their houses and businesses we would need less as a whole. If every house in the US helped produce it's own electric we wouldn't need as many larger solar farms.

On that solar house website I'm pretty sure I read that it's about $20k to the price of a average house to set it up with solar. So it's still pricey but if it was more common the prices would come down. They claim it's going to be China that makes Solar affordable because they are using it a lot now.

[Gunslinger]

Well you couldn't toss them out in the middle of nowhere and expect to send the energy all the way across the country.

Umm yes you can....that's why we have a "NATION WIDE" energy grid.  It's all connected.  The lines are allready ran accross the desert, all you gotta do is connect to them.  I'm also not talking about solar farms of vast solar panels.  I'm talking more about solar towers.  Several thousand mirrors pointing at a single point to creat and store heat.  Clean and efficient use of the land (WICH ISN"T BEING USED ANYWAYS)  Wind turbines require alot more land and cannot stand up to high gusts of wind. 

Nuke plants are the way to go though.  France uses them and they aren't glowing in the dark. 

[indy007]

Wind turbines require alot more land and cannot stand up to high gusts of wind. 

?? You can get one for your house that kicks in at 8mph, hits peak efficiency at 20mph, and can stand up to 140mph winds. If you're in winds that high... a turbine staying put is the last of your problems.

[REP0MAN]

?? You can get one for your house that kicks in at 8mph, hits peak efficiency at 20mph, and can stand up to 140mph winds. If you're in winds that high... a turbine staying put is the last of your problems.

Link please, I'd be interested in buying one. Maybe it could run my Air Conditioner.....

[lazs2]

crock-it...  all this tapdancing...  aren't your feet getting tired?

You say that offshore oil rigs will only give us 5% of our demand.. I have heard numbers that range from 15% to 100% but let's use your lowball figure of 5%... let's further say that ANWAR gives us a further reduction of 5%...

That is 10% of our demand.. that is a lot of oil we are not buying..  what possible reason could you have for not doing it?

lazs

[indy007]

Link please, I'd be interested in buying one. Maybe it could run my Air Conditioner.....

http://store.altenergystore.com/Wind-Systems/Wind-Turbines-Electric/Grid-Tie-Wind-Turbines/Southwest-Wind-Power-Skystream-37-120V60Hz/p5994/


You'd probably need some other equipment to tie it in... but basically with a grid-tie system, power that you're not using is fed back into the main grid. Generate more than you use, you get a check back from the power company. The same gear will also let you drop in solar panels, hydro, or other sources.


edit: Go to Barnes & Nobles, get a copy of Home Power magazine. It's loaded with good stuff.

[Gunslinger]

http://store.altenergystore.com/Wind-Systems/Wind-Turbines-Electric/Grid-Tie-Wind-Turbines/Southwest-Wind-Power-Skystream-37-120V60Hz/p5994/


You'd probably need some other equipment to tie it in... but basically with a grid-tie system, power that you're not using is fed back into the main grid. Generate more than you use, you get a check back from the power company. The same gear will also let you drop in solar panels, hydro, or other sources.


edit: Go to Barnes & Nobles, get a copy of Home Power magazine. It's loaded with good stuff.

35ft tower with a 12ft rotor diameter.  The HOA will LOVE that!

[avionix]

In response to the "not in my backyard" mentality, any company would be welcome to come in and use my backyard for a nuclear plant.  All I ask is that I can have my power for free.  If we would get away form this mentality that nuclear is unsafe we would be fine.  It is safe.  The major incident, of course was Chernobyl.  Remember, they were using Soviet technology.  Also, two of the operators were in an argument and let things get out of control.  Todays nuke plants are almost run by computer and those problems won't happen.  France, has been using it for years without issue.  It is time to start using cheap and safe and we can say CLEAN power.

[indy007]

35ft tower with a 12ft rotor diameter.  The HOA will LOVE that!

HOA = the devil. Gotta get out of the cookie cutter neighborhoods and into a place where you can actually do what you want on your own property.

[Elfie]

It appears you need a bit of a history refresh. There were many that totally apposed us going into space and wasting the money. It was JFK's leadership that took us there, allowing us to beat the Soviets. Sure maybe we would have went there 20 years later (maybe) had it not been for his drive and leadership we sure as hell wouldn't have done it in 10 years.

part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTyYM-dUgCI
part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfhIjI_N1Pk&feature=related

The Soviets beat us into space. American's were ticked off and outraged that the Soviets were able to do something like that and beat us there. Public opinion is what got the White House moving on the space program, w/o the Soviets actions our inaction would have continued. It wouldn't have mattered who was President when these events occurred, public opinion was going to force the issue. As far as how long it would have taken if someone else had been in office, that would be pure conjecture on the part of either of us. The Soviets also crash landed an unmanned vehicle on the moon and beat the US to the moon as well.

That's only one aspect of leadership and a good leader knows when to delegate authority and when not to.

That is a statement of fact and an expansion of your own statement, not an argument.
 

Because it's under his watch we have come into these problems.. Under no other president has oil doubled it's price every three years. Partly due to the actions of this president and his saber rattling in the middle east. His action by taking us into war with Iraq has caused much of the current rise. It's his duty to do something when the nation is in crisis, not some president from 20 years ago.

I agree that the price of oil has gone up considerably why Bush has been in office. Yet, if other administrations (including this one) over the last 40 years had done things to push alternatives we wouldn't be in this mess today. It's a chain of failures by multiple administrations that has landed us where we are today. You just hate Bush so it's convenient for you to ignore the previous failures and put it all at his feet.

The estimated oil that will be gained by oil rigs in all the area's effected by the ban will be no more than 5% of our consumption and of course it will eventually run out. Meanwhile Solar and Wind power are renewable power and will never run out. Humm.. I assume it must take a rocket scientist to figure out which the better option is, because the reality sure seems to fall on daft ears around here.

That's 5% that we don't have to import and that's assuming there isn't anymore than 5% out there that hasn't been discovered. Solar and wind power can't replace things like lubricants and plastics both of which are derived from oil and our society uses both on a daily basis. Solar and wind power can only replace the electricity we use. Many of our electrical generation facilities are coal powered. Until we can find a replacement for plastics, lubricants and gasoline we are stuck with using oil. Just because those offshore oil deposits will run out we shouldn't use them at all?

Just for the record, I am actually in favor of nuclear power facilities. As someone else has pointed out, France gets the majority of their electricity from nuclear power and it's been quite safe. Only Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island incidents have been major accidents and 3 Mile Island was contained. I'm also in favor of solar and wind power, sure, lets make use of those things because they are an endless source of energy.

[Elfie]

meh.....

[crockett]

crock-it...  all this tapdancing...  aren't your feet getting tired?

You say that offshore oil rigs will only give us 5% of our demand.. I have heard numbers that range from 15% to 100% but let's use your lowball figure of 5%... let's further say that ANWAR gives us a further reduction of 5%...

That is 10% of our demand.. that is a lot of oil we are not buying..  what possible reason could you have for not doing it?

lazs

I'm not tap dancing anywhere.. I'm using the same number that's been reported by both pro and anti on the oil platforms. That's the number that's been all over the news. If you think 15 to 100% you are smoking the crack pipe a bit much.

Why is it you continue to ignore what I've said.. Lets say it does add up to 10% or 15%. We could cut more than that much by just going with non oil power plants and making auto manufacturers produce cars that got 30mpg average.

You always ignore this after I post it time and time again.. Your like a broken record and only thing to do is drill for oil.. yep that will solve everything drill drill drill.. Don't worry about curbing consumption nah that's a dumb idea.

If anyone is tap dancing it you because you actually seem to think drilling offshore would somehow make us energy independent.