Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Rolex on March 04, 2005, 11:00:14 AM
-
I'm as tired of Iraq threads as you are, so this is my last word on it. This was not written to debate or argue any emotional position.
It is brutally boring and poorly constructed because I don't have time to fix it. If I didn't stop, it would end up as: "The History of the World - Parts I - XVII"
A couple people asked about this, so here it is. I posted somewhere else so I could issue a warning first.
Link >> (http://tech-rep.org/energy.htm)
Warning: Clicking this link may cause severe drowsiness. Do not read this while operating heavy equipment or driving. If you are allergic to words, do not follow the link. I accept no responsibility for the reader suffering a severe concussion from hitting their head on the table while attempting to read this material.
-
Whatever you do, don't mention the oil. I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.
-
I stopped reading it when it got tho the obvious; China.
So lets discuss oil.
The leftists frame it as some sort of race to secure the profits of big oil companies.
And therfore the war is evil because US kids shopuldnt die to ensure profits for Exxon.
But should US kids die to secure stable energy resources for this nation in our upcoming national political and economic conflict with China?
-
Very good read - I didn't think it was dry at all. I didn't find anything I could disagree with. I've always felt the Iraq conflict was ultimately about oil, however it has been framed.
Sometimes I wonder how far a $500 billion dollar investment in solar/wind/geothermal/tidal/nuclear energy research and produciton could've gotten this country, especially if we went about it as if our national future were at stake.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Sometimes I wonder how far a $500 billion dollar investment in solar/wind/geothermal/tidal/nuclear energy research and produciton could've gotten this country, especially if we went about it as if our national future were at stake.
Problem is none of thise really work on a large scale except nuclear. And certainly none are a substitute for petrolueum when it comes to cars, manufacturing, plastics, lubrication etc...
-
The US will never be self sufficient of oil, even if all of Alaska's oil is brought into production. After the oil embargo of the 1970's, US and UK companies developed production in South America to try to offset the risks of a single dominant source (Saudi Arabia) and OPEC in general. Today, the US imports more oil from Columbia, Venezuela and Ecuador than from the entire Persian Gulf.
Is that why the Venezuelan presidency was in turmoil a few year's back?
-
Originally posted by oboe
Very good read - I didn't think it was dry at all. I didn't find anything I could disagree with. I've always felt the Iraq conflict was ultimately about oil, however it has been framed.
Sometimes I wonder how far a $500 billion dollar investment in solar/wind/geothermal/tidal/nuclear energy research and produciton could've gotten this country, especially if we went about it as if our national future were at stake.
Electricity, but not much else. None of those sources you mention are portable, except solar power and wind which are both dependent on the weather.
-
I'm not sure what you mean by large scale. There are a few windmill generators dotting the landscape around S-SW Minnesota now; each one can provide power for something like 700 homes.
I also should've mentioned fuel cell, ethanol and bio-diesel as well. Yeah, I agree it'll be a long time before oil is ever replaced.
But I think alot of progress could be made in many areas if there was a well-lead, concerted effort put forth.
What I'd really like to see is an ethanol-powered Monster truck so large it can CRUSH the other conventionally powered monster trucks to dust. That'd be great PR.
The fastest racecars and dragsters run on alcohol, don't they?
-
Look at the amout of open, available space with the prper amounts of reliable wind year round is required to generate power for those 700 homes.
THen ask how may homes there are in your city? Country? State? USA? Then consider the same for each business etc..
Solar takes an extreme amount of space to, plus doing it on that scale would have environmental effects too because it will mess with sunlight reflection back into to the atmosphere...
And so on...
Nuclear is the best option, and the greenies know it, but they would rather complain than actually solve problerms...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
our upcoming national political and economic conflict with China?
Whaddaya mean "upcoming"? U r already teh pwned!
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Nuclear is the best option
you meant cheapest option.
If possible Wind & Solar Energy why not? they
dont produce the fear of another tschernobyl
or what to do with the radioactive wast crap,
just clean energy. Whats so bad about :\
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Look at the amout of open, available space with the prper amounts of reliable wind year round is required to generate power for those 700 homes.
THen ask how may homes there are in your city? Country? State? USA? Then consider the same for each business etc..
Solar takes an extreme amount of space to, plus doing it on that scale would have environmental effects too because it will mess with sunlight reflection back into to the atmosphere...
And so on...
Nuclear is the best option, and the greenies know it, but they would rather complain than actually solve problerms...
But Grun, you are arguing from an understanding of the current technology's capability - and I am wondering how many breakthroughs could have come from a $500 billion dollar investment. Perhaps the windmill generators could be made 5-10 times more efficient, who knows?
But yeah, I agree lots of problems remain to be solved. And right now the prevailing leadership would rather spend our citizen's blood and treasure trying to strengthen and preserve the status quo.
I hate to see this nation so dependent on others. I don't think we can be strong unless we are independent.
-
Rolex,
Thanks. That was a good read.
-
Good read.
Charon
-
Not sure about the good read... there are just so many other contributing factors that I don't have the time to blend into the mix -- in South America, Russia, UK (in its 'we're part of the EU; we're not part of the EU' bipolar mentality), etc.
The oil industry is unanimous that we're headed into the second half of the game. Geology and geo-politics will make the downward slope much steeper than the upward slope.
The oil embargo 30 years ago was the wake up call that we failed to heed. The decision has been made to continue drilling and pumping until the cost of getting it out of the ground equals the price. We'll stop pumping at that point and real investment into alternatives and conservation will have to be made by those under 30 years old now.
The industry, obviously, would like to see us move more to gas (another temporary fix), and is encouraging a stronger public relations effort to embrace 'energy security' as equal to national/homeland security. The goal being to expand public support for military actions to gain access to resources in the cause of 'defending our way of life.'
Whether that is good policy or not, that's their message, not mine.
Discussing alternatives seems to be a bit futile. The decision has been made to fight for what's left. We're long past the point of bringing back nuclear power construction in time to dampen some of the turbulence soon to come.
One thing for sure, it should be interesting to watch.
-
Glass vitrification works well.
-
Actually I saw in popular mechanics that the new thing is a type of solar funnel. Lots & lots of solar panels that generate power, that also create a greenhouse effect under the canopy of them. That feeds all the rising air into a central chimney looking structure filled with turbines. Smaller footprint than your typical solar or wind farm, much higher power generation, and it works even if it's not windy. Not as effective in colder climates though iirc.