Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mazzarins Demise
Profit Development and Research Association
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 15:53:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Mazzarins Demise on 02/07/2008 15:53:44 Not confused about how it happened but deeply confused about our politician's ideas and the American people's ideas on how to fix the problem.
I know the three main proposed solutions are drill more, conserve and find alternative sources, but why is everybody proposing just one idea? What's wrong with combining our efforts and exploring all three avenues at once? Understandably drilling is not an immediate solution as it'll take years for that oil to reach the pumps, but how exactly is researching for alternative means going to get here any quicker? Fuels need to be researched and that takes a lot of time, not to mention a commercially sound means of mass producing the fuel along with the products which use it quickly and easily. The transition away from Oil in everything is not a quick solution. If anything, conservation is the quickest solution to the problem, but it doesn't add anything new to the picture.
That's all I'm confused about, doing everything at once rather than just one thing. In my opinion, diversity will save us quicker than just one avenue. Also, what's wrong with Nuclear power plants? The technology is so much safer than it was during the days of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, not to much mention the Russian technology used at Chernobyl was shoddy at best.
Thoughts?
|
Eternal Error
Exitus Acta Probant
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 16:11:00 -
[2]
As for combining all three, this is too intelligent.
As for nuclear power, this would actually WORK and solve the problem somewhat. As the environmentalists HAVE to have something to whine about, this is unacceptable.
Any other questions?
|
Mazzarins Demise
Profit Development and Research Association
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 16:13:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Eternal Error As for combining all three, this is too intelligent.
As for nuclear power, this would actually WORK and solve the problem somewhat. As the environmentalists HAVE to have something to whine about, this is unacceptable.
Any other questions?
Nope, that's it. Thanks! .
|
Asestorian
Domination. Scorched Earth.
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 16:22:00 -
[4]
A lot of environmentalists find themselves unable to think away from their ultimate ideal and look at how to get there. They simply assume that you can just go from oil to totally renewable and clean energy sources immediately. It's certainly the right direction to be headed in, but using a stop-gap, like nuclear, while those other technologies are researched, developed and the infrastructure put in place is probably a better idea than relying on oil till the other stuff is properly usable.
Although they may have a legitimate worry in that politicians can sometimes have a tendency to treat the stop-gap as the final solution once complaints quiet down a little.
---
Quote: EVE is unfair by design.
|
Bhaal
Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 16:28:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Bhaal on 02/07/2008 16:34:50 Who burns oil for electricity? (I know China uses diesel generators, but I don't think any countries' main source of electricity comes form burning oil, I could be wrong...)
How did nuclear get thrown in the mix here?
It's all political. No way sides will share/combine their ideas, they want to fight over them and have a clear winner for the next round of elections...
------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE |
CryoHead
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 16:49:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Mazzarins Demise Edited by: Mazzarins Demise on 02/07/2008 15:53:44
There has to be more profit in the exploitation of the alternative energy source in order for our masters to even consider it.
|
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 17:03:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Patch86 on 02/07/2008 17:03:15 For a long time, certain oil fields have been considered off-limits. In the US, for example, there are oil fields in the middle of nature reserves or historical sites that are considered too valuable (literally valuable, in that they can bring a big income in their own right) to destroy, and oil fields that are too close to human populations to be considered fair to drill (would you want your town to suddenly be filled with noxious gasses, and surrounded on all sides by huge noisy drilling and mining operations?). ATM, there is a move by the oil companies to tap these areas anyway, and theres understandable opposition. And people already are drilling more. Saudi Arabia (one of the worlds biggest oil producers) has already pledged to drill some 25% more oil, and the other producers are doing their best to follow suit.
Nuclear power isn't just about dangerous explosions- it also creates fairly large amounts of extremely dangerous waste, with which no-one has come up wth any good way of dealing. Current techniques range from bury it / stick it in a warehouse / dump it in the ocean in big solid containers. nuclear power is certainly a solid means of power production, and it doesn't produce much at all in way of greenhouse gasses...we just need to figure out what to do with that toxic waste. ------
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich You can even get a midget with a camera to sit on the floorboard.
|
Sidewayzracer
Caldari State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 17:09:00 -
[8]
as for nuclear i always said make a special spaceship place the nuclear waste in it.....and fire it at the sun.
i came up with that 13 years ago...when i was 10
|
Bhaal
Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 17:10:00 -
[9]
Quote: we just need to figure out what to do with that toxic waste
Just stockpile it until we are sure enough we can launch it into space at the sun without having a failure and it raining back down on earth.
There really is not much you can do with it unless we find a way to render it harmless. ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE |
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 17:12:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Sidewayzracer as for nuclear i always said make a special spaceship place the nuclear waste in it.....and fire it at the sun.
i came up with that 13 years ago...when i was 10
Ah, well theres a slight problem with that. To get a spaceship in to space, you need to expend energy. If the amount of energy required to shift a given unit of waste is more than the energy produced when making the waste, you're losing energy from the whole affair.
And judging by the COLOSSAL amount of fuel required to shift just 3 astronauts in to space using current technology, this is almost certainly going to be the case... ------
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich You can even get a midget with a camera to sit on the floorboard.
|
|
Sidewayzracer
Caldari State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 17:13:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Bhaal
Quote: we just need to figure out what to do with that toxic waste
Just stockpile it until we are sure enough we can launch it into space at the sun without having a failure and it raining back down on earth.
There really is not much you can do with it unless we find a way to render it harmless.
copying my idea i see.....
|
Sidewayzracer
Caldari State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 17:16:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Patch86
Originally by: Sidewayzracer as for nuclear i always said make a special spaceship place the nuclear waste in it.....and fire it at the sun.
i came up with that 13 years ago...when i was 10
Ah, well theres a slight problem with that. To get a spaceship in to space, you need to expend energy. If the amount of energy required to shift a given unit of waste is more than the energy produced when making the waste, you're losing energy from the whole affair.
And judging by the COLOSSAL amount of fuel required to shift just 3 astronauts in to space using current technology, this is almost certainly going to be the case...
i havent looked into the workings of a nuclear reactor in some years but generally they run for 20 years easily. Im sure a few extra green house gases from a rocket doesnt equal the amount from a conventional powerplat.
|
Arvald
Caldari Aurora Acclivitous Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 17:17:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Patch86 Edited by: Patch86 on 02/07/2008 17:03:15
Nuclear power isn't just about dangerous explosions- it also creates fairly large amounts of extremely dangerous waste, with which no-one has come up wth any good way of dealing. Current techniques range from bury it / stick it in a warehouse / dump it in the ocean in big solid containers. nuclear power is certainly a solid means of power production, and it doesn't produce much at all in way of greenhouse gasses...we just need to figure out what to do with that toxic waste.
rocket it into the sun
Originally by: Xanos Blackpaw Stealthbomber combat (or as i like to call it: Just because you are paranoid don't mean there isnt a invisible demon about to eat your face) |
Bhaal
Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 17:20:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Bhaal on 02/07/2008 17:21:04
Originally by: Sidewayzracer
Originally by: Bhaal
Quote: we just need to figure out what to do with that toxic waste
Just stockpile it until we are sure enough we can launch it into space at the sun without having a failure and it raining back down on earth.
There really is not much you can do with it unless we find a way to render it harmless.
copying my idea i see.....
Oh, lol. Didn't even see that.
That's what I've always thought about what to do with nuclear waste. But can you imagine the fight the environ@zis would put up?
Oh, and I came up with that like 24 years ago when I was 10, so I win infinity X infinity times!... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE |
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 17:21:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Sidewayzracer
Originally by: Patch86
Originally by: Sidewayzracer as for nuclear i always said make a special spaceship place the nuclear waste in it.....and fire it at the sun.
i came up with that 13 years ago...when i was 10
Ah, well theres a slight problem with that. To get a spaceship in to space, you need to expend energy. If the amount of energy required to shift a given unit of waste is more than the energy produced when making the waste, you're losing energy from the whole affair.
And judging by the COLOSSAL amount of fuel required to shift just 3 astronauts in to space using current technology, this is almost certainly going to be the case...
i havent looked into the workings of a nuclear reactor in some years but generally they run for 20 years easily. Im sure a few extra green house gases from a rocket doesnt equal the amount from a conventional powerplat.
No no, not greenhouse gasses. The actual energy itself.
To get a rocket in to space, you need a very large amount of energy (generated, currently, by burning heaps of fuel). If the amount of energy required to shift the nuclear waste in to space is GREATER than the amount of energy actually gained from the nuclear power plant, the operation isn't worth doing- you'd be better off just burning the rocket fuel for electricity instead.
Think of it like having a power plant that generates less electricity than the amount it uses to keep the lights on. You'd be making "negative" amounts of energy, so you wouldn't bother. ------
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich You can even get a midget with a camera to sit on the floorboard.
|
Bhaal
Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 17:22:00 -
[16]
Quote: To get a rocket in to space, you need a very large amount of energy (generated, currently, by burning heaps of fuel). If the amount of energy required to shift the nuclear waste in to space is GREATER than the amount of energy actually gained from the nuclear power plant, the operation isn't worth doing- you'd be better off just burning the rocket fuel for electricity instead.
Not really. The point is just to get rid of the waste... Having a clean environment costs money you know... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE |
Sidewayzracer
Caldari State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 17:22:00 -
[17]
well we can claim its not in there jurisdiction as the sun has not environment. then tell em "proof or STFU noobs"
the **** will vaporize b4 it even hits the sun
|
Slanty McGarglefist
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 17:23:00 -
[18]
Here you go - Nuclear waste revealed.
Comparing radioactive waste to industrial toxic waste
In countries with nuclear power, radioactive wastes comprise less than 1% of total industrial toxic wastes, which remain hazardous indefinitely unless they decompose or are treated so that they are less toxic or, ideally, completely non-toxic. Overall, nuclear power produces far less waste material than fossil-fuel based power plants. Coal-burning plants are particularly noted for producing large amounts of toxic and mildly radioactive ash due to concentrating naturally occurring metals and radioactive material from the coal. Contrary to popular belief, coal power actually results in more radioactive waste being released into the environment than nuclear power. The population effective dose equivalent from radiation from coal plants is 100 times as much as nuclear plants.
Sources -
Waste Management in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association (2006). Retrieved on 2006-11-09.
Alex Gabbard. Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Retrieved on 2008-01-31. __________________________________________________
Originally by: CCP Wrangler No
Doh! |
Bhaal
Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 17:24:00 -
[19]
As I stated b4, nuclear power really has nothing to do with crude oil consumption, at least here in the US.
Building more nuclear power plants is not going to make the crude oil prices drop. Using less gas in our cars will...
------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE |
Sidewayzracer
Caldari State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 17:25:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Patch86
Originally by: Sidewayzracer
Originally by: Patch86
Originally by: Sidewayzracer as for nuclear i always said make a special spaceship place the nuclear waste in it.....and fire it at the sun.
i came up with that 13 years ago...when i was 10
Ah, well theres a slight problem with that. To get a spaceship in to space, you need to expend energy. If the amount of energy required to shift a given unit of waste is more than the energy produced when making the waste, you're losing energy from the whole affair.
And judging by the COLOSSAL amount of fuel required to shift just 3 astronauts in to space using current technology, this is almost certainly going to be the case...
i havent looked into the workings of a nuclear reactor in some years but generally they run for 20 years easily. Im sure a few extra green house gases from a rocket doesnt equal the amount from a conventional powerplat.
No no, not greenhouse gasses. The actual energy itself.
To get a rocket in to space, you need a very large amount of energy (generated, currently, by burning heaps of fuel). If the amount of energy required to shift the nuclear waste in to space is GREATER than the amount of energy actually gained from the nuclear power plant, the operation isn't worth doing- you'd be better off just burning the rocket fuel for electricity instead.
Think of it like having a power plant that generates less electricity than the amount it uses to keep the lights on. You'd be making "negative" amounts of energy, so you wouldn't bother.
its HIGHLY unlikly and by highly i mean ******* HIGHLY!!! unlikly that your point is true. the ammount of waste is fairly small in mass and the usage of it is quite long.
|
|
mercyonman
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 17:53:00 -
[21]
well its also because that they tax the hell out of all the oil and oil is made everyday in the ocean if you would know all it takes to make oil is dead remains high preasure and heat so yea drill more do off show drilling
|
mercyonman
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 17:56:00 -
[22]
oh and to poke a whole in ppls green house gas theory technicly there is no such thing as green house gases and if there were carbon monoxide isnt one of them
|
Amastat
Caldari Omegatech
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 18:01:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Amastat on 02/07/2008 18:02:24 I'm not an environmentalist - but I'm probably closer to being one than being some hardcore conservative who is well prepared to let the world, and everyone around him, be devastated, in any given situation, just so they can pretend everything topsy-turvy, and that their invisible cosmic jewish zombie from 2000 years ago will make everything better, regardless of all the crimes against their brothers and sisters they may have made in their lifetime
This being the case - I don't mind nuclear energy (GASP!) - yes, that's right. Provided it can be done safely. However, I have not seen any indication, at least in the US, that our nuclear power plants are unsafe - including the disposal of depleted uranium. Therefore, build as many of these plants as we want, I say.
Personally - I'd rather live next to a nuclear power plant than next to a coal or oil one - ABSOLUTELY. I'm very confident that I'm more likely to die young from breathing bad air all my life, rather than dying from radiation poisoning because of a nuclear power plant meltdown. ____________________
"All warfare is based on deception... we must seem unable...seem inactive...and crush him " - Sun Tzu |
JAQUE ALERA
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 18:24:00 -
[24]
Oil has been the sole reason for the massive population and wealth created in the last 100 years. Replacing oil with any new system(s) will require world wide cooperation and agreement. History has taught us that we will always go to war over resources as opposed to sharing or using an equitable distribution solution. We will find a new path to the future but it will first require the destruction of the current system to allow for the development of the new system. The old system has the power to fight and hinder this transition(oil companies and oil producing nations)to ensure their wealth is not prematurely destroyed. We will develop new energy sources but not until we are forced to by the exhaustion of the oil resource and much misery for mankind. My sincere hope is the world is worth living in when this process concludes.
|
Amastat
Caldari Omegatech
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 18:34:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Amastat on 02/07/2008 18:38:10 Edited by: Amastat on 02/07/2008 18:34:44
Originally by: JAQUE ALERA Oil has been the sole reason for the massive population and wealth created in the last 100 years. Replacing oil with any new system(s) will require world wide cooperation and agreement. History has taught us that we will always go to war over resources as opposed to sharing or using an equitable distribution solution. We will find a new path to the future but it will first require the destruction of the current system to allow for the development of the new system. The old system has the power to fight and hinder this transition(oil companies and oil producing nations)to ensure their wealth is not prematurely destroyed. We will develop new energy sources but not until we are forced to by the exhaustion of the oil resource and much misery for mankind. My sincere hope is the world is worth living in when this process concludes.
MASSIVE WALL OF TEXT!
Oil has been one of the biggest reasons of why the world is what it is today, however it won't be for long - we are running out, it's a fact - sucks to be you if you don't like hearing it.
What you are talking about is a trend - it might be a law that can be broken. Hopefully we can break that trend, but as you said - it would require massive cooperation, which will probably never happen; unfortunately people are too ******* stupid and unwilling to adapt - just like all the whiners in EVE!!!!!!!!
So - yea, there could be oil wars maybe - but all the resource wards the we have had in the past, during major shifts in human history, did not have nuclear weapons - so this is a big concern.
This could potentially put the world into another World War, however in the past 100 years, the amount of wars and death from wars have been drastically reduced, due to the aftereffect of WW2, the formation of the UN, and the introduction of Nuclear Weapons - mainly the Nuclear Weapons.
WW2, and the introduction of nukes, is a prime example of how trends can be broken. Human societies have long had a ongoing, same-old, chain of war/peace, war/peace. After WW2, the 1:1 ratio of wartime and peacetime shifted to something like a 1:5 ratio of wartime and peacetime.
So yea - will this continue, will this invisible barrier of WMD's that prevent war hold, when oil runs out - or will this barrier turn into a firestorm that could destroy us all?
There has always been a saying that guns kill people, nuclear weapons for a long time have actually done the opposite. Fear is sometime a good thing.
Perhaps we should build some radiation bomb that can do what nuclear weapons do, but slowly kill people in agonizing death. This could scare people ****less, even more than nukes - maybe put a end to war forever, if we have a stockpile of a couple hundred-thousand of these in silos.
____________________
"All warfare is based on deception... we must seem unable...seem inactive...and crush him " - Sun Tzu |
Malcanis
We are Legend
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 18:50:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Patch86
Originally by: Sidewayzracer
Originally by: Patch86
Originally by: Sidewayzracer as for nuclear i always said make a special spaceship place the nuclear waste in it.....and fire it at the sun.
i came up with that 13 years ago...when i was 10
Ah, well theres a slight problem with that. To get a spaceship in to space, you need to expend energy. If the amount of energy required to shift a given unit of waste is more than the energy produced when making the waste, you're losing energy from the whole affair.
And judging by the COLOSSAL amount of fuel required to shift just 3 astronauts in to space using current technology, this is almost certainly going to be the case...
i havent looked into the workings of a nuclear reactor in some years but generally they run for 20 years easily. Im sure a few extra green house gases from a rocket doesnt equal the amount from a conventional powerplat.
No no, not greenhouse gasses. The actual energy itself.
To get a rocket in to space, you need a very large amount of energy (generated, currently, by burning heaps of fuel). If the amount of energy required to shift the nuclear waste in to space is GREATER than the amount of energy actually gained from the nuclear power plant, the operation isn't worth doing- you'd be better off just burning the rocket fuel for electricity instead.
Think of it like having a power plant that generates less electricity than the amount it uses to keep the lights on. You'd be making "negative" amounts of energy, so you wouldn't bother.
Almost certainly not the case. i think you underedstiemate how much energy is produced via nuclear power.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Shin Ra
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 18:59:00 -
[27]
The actual reason is not that we are running out or anything, but that supply takes so long to react to demand. It takes years to get new drilling and production facilities on line. This in turn means there is a lag between demand and actual supply. So as more and more oil is produced, the supply ends up getting delivered la few years after it is needed. This has the short term result of there not being enough oil which causes the price to rise. Long term, the price will continue to rise until supply catches up then it will fall in spectacular fashion. The search for alternatives is a by-product of the increased price, not directly from the supply bottleneck. The problem is that alternatives take just as long to bring online, which is why it isn't as effective as one would image to start exploring alternative sources.
|
Atomos Darksun
Infortunatus Eventus
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 19:14:00 -
[28]
Meh.
Hydrogen, water, and vegetable oil are all suitable clean ways to power cars.
It's a fact.
Originally by: Amoxin My vent is talking to me in a devil voice...
Atomos' Guide to Forum Flaming |
Amastat
Caldari Omegatech
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 19:23:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Amastat on 02/07/2008 19:24:43
Originally by: Plumpy McPudding
Originally by: Amastat
Originally by: Shin Ra The actual reason is not that we are running out or anything, but that supply takes so long to react to demand. It takes years to get new drilling and production facilities on line. This in turn means there is a lag between demand and actual supply. So as more and more oil is produced, the supply ends up getting delivered la few years after it is needed. This has the short term result of there not being enough oil which causes the price to rise. Long term, the price will continue to rise until supply catches up then it will fall in spectacular fashion. The search for alternatives is a by-product of the increased price, not directly from the supply bottleneck. The problem is that alternatives take just as long to bring online, which is why it isn't as effective as one would image to start exploring alternative sources.
^^^ This and the fact that we are already drilling somewhere around 98% of the available oil in the ground, globally, and most of that remaining 2% is probably at deep sea.
No matter what we do, we are going to be out of oil in about 20-30 years - there will be nothing more in the ground to drill for.
I saw so many made up statistics my head explode....
I tried to look it up but google floods Firefox with Peak Oil articles and they all talk about the reserves and how it will happen, nothing about what's still in the ground - and I can't find any statistics on how much is still in the ground - but I recall it being something like that.
If you like, you can get off your ass and look it up yourself and post it. ____________________
"All warfare is based on deception... we must seem unable...seem inactive...and crush him " - Sun Tzu |
Plumpy McPudding
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 19:24:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Plumpy McPudding on 02/07/2008 19:24:24
Originally by: Amastat
Originally by: Plumpy McPudding
Originally by: Amastat
Originally by: Shin Ra The actual reason is not that we are running out or anything, but that supply takes so long to react to demand. It takes years to get new drilling and production facilities on line. This in turn means there is a lag between demand and actual supply. So as more and more oil is produced, the supply ends up getting delivered la few years after it is needed. This has the short term result of there not being enough oil which causes the price to rise. Long term, the price will continue to rise until supply catches up then it will fall in spectacular fashion. The search for alternatives is a by-product of the increased price, not directly from the supply bottleneck. The problem is that alternatives take just as long to bring online, which is why it isn't as effective as one would image to start exploring alternative sources.
^^^ This and the fact that we are already drilling somewhere around 98% of the available oil in the ground, globally, and most of that remaining 2% is probably at deep sea.
No matter what we do, we are going to be out of oil in about 20-30 years - there will be nothing more in the ground to drill for.
I saw so many made up statistics my head explode....
I tried to look it up but google floods Firefox with Peak Oil **** and I can't find any statistics on how much is still in the ground - but I recall it being something like that. If you like, you can get off your ass and look it up yourself and post it.
I'd rather not. I'll just continue to watch you make **** up. __________________________
Fear me for I have an insatiable appetite! Proprietor and inventor of Chocolate Chip Chocolate Donut flavored Ice Cream. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |