Solar power seems to be doing pretty good.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...-BC72-4A84-AF45-27E3B6B1851D}&dist=TNMostRead
http://ephysics.fileave.com/pics/FirstSolar.jpg
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...-BC72-4A84-AF45-27E3B6B1851D}&dist=TNMostRead
http://ephysics.fileave.com/pics/FirstSolar.jpg
And I reiterate.....THOSE DAMN SPECULATORS
I believe oil closed out at $136 a barrel yesterday?
There is no monopoly like the oil monopoly. How does one take over the world? Hitler had it all wrong. You take over each individual economy by controlling its life-giving energy. What are you going to do about it? Not drive or ride public transportation to work? Yeah, that protest won't last long.🙄 Build more hybrid vehicles? One of my siblings who works at Nissan tells me (and he sits at the table with all the grey and white hairs) they make little or no profit from hybrid vehicles at this time. At least if those vehicles are to be sold at an affordable price. In California, law states that 10% of vehicles sold there must be hybrids. I guess it doesn't matter that Nissan makes no money building them....of course this means that all the other vehicles must be sold at a higher price to make the difference. You see, we all subsidize this lunacy. I have nothing against hybrids, IMO they're absolutely wonderful. I don't like the idea of being forced to subsidize the extra cost of production in the name of fuel conservation. With all the recent mis-adventures into bio-fuels, you’re not going to run that one by me. Were not running out of oil yet. If the cost was passed straight to the consumer of that hybrid vehicle, they would have to drive it for over 200,000 miles just to recover the extra cost, with today's fuel prices. More laws in this direction will only raise costs for everyone and stifle economic growth. The answer to the world energy monopoly of oil production is nuclear and solar. The investment in that technology isn't catching up fast enough....or rather being impeded by those who currently have the control. Nuclear energy is like a black sheep concept here in the US and it is very troublesome to here that. We need at least 1000 more nuke plants if we are going to break the strangle hold of the international oil market. If the price of electricity was cheap enough and solar energy absorption was more efficient, plug and drive cars will be all over the place. But, you'll never get that passed all the oil lobbyists in Washington though.....too much money and power at stake. Do you actually think their intention is to modernize the electrical infrastructure to accommodate these changes? Don’t be duped by political rhetoric, it is always all about the money which equals control.
EDIT
This thread subject is dangerously interconnected with the political relm making it hard to discuss without some reference to it..........
Yes, so please avoid it here. There are plenty of other excellent forums with more expertise and specialization in that area for discussions of that sort.
Oil Exporters Are Unable To Keep Up With Demand
http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/05/29/oil-exporters-are-unable-to-keep-up-with-demand/
http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/05/29/oil-exporters-are-unable-to-keep-up-with-demand/
Help from the House of Saud
Why the leading oil producer wants to cool off the market
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_23/b4087030945015.htm?chan=search
Why the leading oil producer wants to cool off the market
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_23/b4087030945015.htm?chan=search
China's coal liquefaction project. If China imports less oil, maybe that will help lower the price of oil.
http://english.people.com.cn/200706/22/eng20070622_386664.html
http://english.hanban.edu.cn/english/BAT/118614.htm
http://english.people.com.cn/200706/22/eng20070622_386664.html
http://english.hanban.edu.cn/english/BAT/118614.htm
I got this newsletter recently.
The War for the Arctic
By Roger Conrad and David Dittman
May 27, 2008
Maple Leaf Memo
Though still in the “touchy-feely” stages, a new Great Game is breaking out up north. Touched off by Russia’s audacious flag-planting maneuver last fall and made even more urgent by the “upside” impact of global warming, countries with designs on the resources underneath the North Pole will gather this week to work out parameters for the resolution of conflicting territory claims.
Canadian Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn will be in Ilulissat, Greenland, on Tuesday to begin three days of meetings with officials from the four other nations with continental shelves on the Arctic Ocean: Norway, Russia, the US and Denmark.
Climate change is making the region increasingly accessible, making the need for an international resolution of the conflicting claims in the area more pressing. According to the World Wildlife Fund, the Arctic ice caps are melting at “rates significantly faster than predicted.”
Exploration of the deep Arctic is unprofitable under present conditions, but global warming could change that. Not only could shrinking ice cover cut the cost of energy exploration, but the receding ice pack could also reduce transport costs significantly by opening up currently frozen maritime routes.
Export costs make up a significant percentage of the overall costs of developing Arctic resources, in many instances greater than 50 percent. For shipping in general, cutting across polar waters through the Northern Passage could shave 5,000 miles off a voyage between northern Europe and East Asia.
Scientists believe rising temperatures could leave most of the Arctic - ice free in summer months. This would improve drilling access and open up the Northwest Passage, a potentially lucrative trade route between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans that European explorers sought for centuries.
In the short term, an ice-free Arctic Ocean will open up new possibilities, including easier access to natural resources and new transportation routes. The Northern Sea Route, the shipping lane from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean along the Siberian coast, is expected to open up this summer, and the Northwest Passage through Nunavut waters is also likely to be navigable by August.
According to the US Geological Survey, the 1.2 million square kilometers of Arctic seabed could hold 25 percent of the world’s remaining undiscovered oil and gas. An October 2007 report by British consulting firms Wood McKenzie and Fugro Robertson concluded that the Arctic is home to “resources estimated at 166 billion barrels of oil equivalent.”
The study, “The Future of the Arctic,” found that natural gas accounted for 80 percent of all available reserves. The study focused on areas within defined jurisdictions, primarily on the continental shelf. Most of what the study found is exploitable, and there’s speculation that additional reserves may exist farther out at sea.
This week’s Greenland conference, aimed at preventing a scramble for oil and gas reserves, will focus on United Nations-sponsored rules on dividing up jurisdiction over those waters. Under the 1982 UN Law of the Sea convention, the five countries may be able to extend their sovereignty beyond the usual 200-nautical-mile limit recognized in international law if the seabed is an extension of the continental shelf. All the countries bordering the Arctic have ratified the convention except the US.
In 2001, Russia made a submission to the Continental Shelf Commission of the Law of the Sea Treaty, stating that the Lomonosov Ridge, an underwater oceanic ridge stretching 1,100 miles under the Arctic Ocean and the North Pole, was actually an extension of the Eurasian continent. But Canadian scientists are amassing evidence that Lomonosov extends under the Arctic Ocean from the North America continent, giving Canada the grounds to assert sovereignty over the seabed all along the ridge.
The Canadian claim, which will be submitted in 2013, would be equivalent in size to Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba combined--about 1.8 million square kilometers.
Denmark disagrees with Canada about mineral rights in the coastal waters, and the two countries have a longstanding disagreement over who owns tiny, uninhabited, ice-covered Hans Island, which straddles Nares Strait between Greenland and Canada’s Ellesmere Island. Canada and the US are in dispute about the Northwest Passage and parts of the Beaufort Sea. And a provocative Russian expedition last year planted a tricolor flag on the seabed at the North Pole, laying claim to an area of more than 1 million square kilometers and stoking present fears of a disorderly rush for resources.
Under the treaty’s provisions, a coastal state’s jurisdiction includes its continental shelf. Countries submit data to prove how far the shelf extends. The data are then approved, or not, by the commission.
The commission, however, doesn’t determine who has jurisdiction over the shelf. That’s a political decision made through negotiations between countries with overlapping claims.
Denmark, which administers Greenland, hopes to sign a declaration that the UN would rule on any disputes. A final decision on exploration rights isn’t expected before 2020, but the five potential claimants are getting together to agree on the rules of the game.
Speaking Engagements
Be sure to wear a flower in your hair when you venture west to San Francisco. I’ll be heading to "The City" with Neil George and Elliott Gue Aug. 7-10, 2008, for the San Francisco Money Show.
Neil, Elliott and I will discuss infrastructure, partnerships, utilities, resources and energy, and tell you what to buy and what to sell in 2008.
Click here or call 800-970-4355 and refer to priority code 011362 to attend as our guest.
Send This Issue To A Friend
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maple Leaf Memo is a weekly e-zine written by Roger S. Conrad and David Dittman and published by KCI Communications, Inc. In addition to Maple Leaf Memo, Roger is editor of Canadian Edge, Utility Forecaster and Utility & Income and associate editor of Personal Finance. David is associate editor of Canadian Edge.
Change e-mail preferences here | Contact Us
Copyright 2008
KCI Communications, Inc.
7600A Leesburg Pike
West Building, Suite 300
Falls Church, VA 22043
The War for the Arctic
By Roger Conrad and David Dittman
May 27, 2008
Maple Leaf Memo
Though still in the “touchy-feely” stages, a new Great Game is breaking out up north. Touched off by Russia’s audacious flag-planting maneuver last fall and made even more urgent by the “upside” impact of global warming, countries with designs on the resources underneath the North Pole will gather this week to work out parameters for the resolution of conflicting territory claims.
Canadian Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn will be in Ilulissat, Greenland, on Tuesday to begin three days of meetings with officials from the four other nations with continental shelves on the Arctic Ocean: Norway, Russia, the US and Denmark.
Climate change is making the region increasingly accessible, making the need for an international resolution of the conflicting claims in the area more pressing. According to the World Wildlife Fund, the Arctic ice caps are melting at “rates significantly faster than predicted.”
Exploration of the deep Arctic is unprofitable under present conditions, but global warming could change that. Not only could shrinking ice cover cut the cost of energy exploration, but the receding ice pack could also reduce transport costs significantly by opening up currently frozen maritime routes.
Export costs make up a significant percentage of the overall costs of developing Arctic resources, in many instances greater than 50 percent. For shipping in general, cutting across polar waters through the Northern Passage could shave 5,000 miles off a voyage between northern Europe and East Asia.
Scientists believe rising temperatures could leave most of the Arctic - ice free in summer months. This would improve drilling access and open up the Northwest Passage, a potentially lucrative trade route between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans that European explorers sought for centuries.
In the short term, an ice-free Arctic Ocean will open up new possibilities, including easier access to natural resources and new transportation routes. The Northern Sea Route, the shipping lane from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean along the Siberian coast, is expected to open up this summer, and the Northwest Passage through Nunavut waters is also likely to be navigable by August.
According to the US Geological Survey, the 1.2 million square kilometers of Arctic seabed could hold 25 percent of the world’s remaining undiscovered oil and gas. An October 2007 report by British consulting firms Wood McKenzie and Fugro Robertson concluded that the Arctic is home to “resources estimated at 166 billion barrels of oil equivalent.”
The study, “The Future of the Arctic,” found that natural gas accounted for 80 percent of all available reserves. The study focused on areas within defined jurisdictions, primarily on the continental shelf. Most of what the study found is exploitable, and there’s speculation that additional reserves may exist farther out at sea.
This week’s Greenland conference, aimed at preventing a scramble for oil and gas reserves, will focus on United Nations-sponsored rules on dividing up jurisdiction over those waters. Under the 1982 UN Law of the Sea convention, the five countries may be able to extend their sovereignty beyond the usual 200-nautical-mile limit recognized in international law if the seabed is an extension of the continental shelf. All the countries bordering the Arctic have ratified the convention except the US.
In 2001, Russia made a submission to the Continental Shelf Commission of the Law of the Sea Treaty, stating that the Lomonosov Ridge, an underwater oceanic ridge stretching 1,100 miles under the Arctic Ocean and the North Pole, was actually an extension of the Eurasian continent. But Canadian scientists are amassing evidence that Lomonosov extends under the Arctic Ocean from the North America continent, giving Canada the grounds to assert sovereignty over the seabed all along the ridge.
The Canadian claim, which will be submitted in 2013, would be equivalent in size to Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba combined--about 1.8 million square kilometers.
Denmark disagrees with Canada about mineral rights in the coastal waters, and the two countries have a longstanding disagreement over who owns tiny, uninhabited, ice-covered Hans Island, which straddles Nares Strait between Greenland and Canada’s Ellesmere Island. Canada and the US are in dispute about the Northwest Passage and parts of the Beaufort Sea. And a provocative Russian expedition last year planted a tricolor flag on the seabed at the North Pole, laying claim to an area of more than 1 million square kilometers and stoking present fears of a disorderly rush for resources.
Under the treaty’s provisions, a coastal state’s jurisdiction includes its continental shelf. Countries submit data to prove how far the shelf extends. The data are then approved, or not, by the commission.
The commission, however, doesn’t determine who has jurisdiction over the shelf. That’s a political decision made through negotiations between countries with overlapping claims.
Denmark, which administers Greenland, hopes to sign a declaration that the UN would rule on any disputes. A final decision on exploration rights isn’t expected before 2020, but the five potential claimants are getting together to agree on the rules of the game.
Speaking Engagements
Be sure to wear a flower in your hair when you venture west to San Francisco. I’ll be heading to "The City" with Neil George and Elliott Gue Aug. 7-10, 2008, for the San Francisco Money Show.
Neil, Elliott and I will discuss infrastructure, partnerships, utilities, resources and energy, and tell you what to buy and what to sell in 2008.
Click here or call 800-970-4355 and refer to priority code 011362 to attend as our guest.
Send This Issue To A Friend
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maple Leaf Memo is a weekly e-zine written by Roger S. Conrad and David Dittman and published by KCI Communications, Inc. In addition to Maple Leaf Memo, Roger is editor of Canadian Edge, Utility Forecaster and Utility & Income and associate editor of Personal Finance. David is associate editor of Canadian Edge.
Change e-mail preferences here | Contact Us
Copyright 2008
KCI Communications, Inc.
7600A Leesburg Pike
West Building, Suite 300
Falls Church, VA 22043
I recently talked with guy from UAE (United Arab Emirates, the relatively free country with kinda relaxed laws near the Saudi Emirates dictatorship) and there are two important things to mention.
First - he says - I quote - "gas here is dirt cheap" - end of quote.
Second - oil production is only about 25% of their GDP.
Conclusion - oil and hence gas is overexpensive just because it is sold for dollars.
Solution - break OPEC petrodollar hegemony and let the oil-exporting states sell oil for their currency. Iran already did it, witch is why he is the "bad guy" now.
Iraq under Saddam did it in year 2000 too, and ques what happen in year 2003...
Reasons why that obvious change was not been done already - Saudi Emirates dictatorship (along with few others in the area) depend and can live on only because of direct US military support. Hence as long, as the US want, oil will be sell for dollars. And US want the oil to be sold for dollars, because as long as it is, all US have to do is print paper, call it dollar and in exchange for worthless piece of paper (you cannot exchange it for gold anymore, so it is a worthless legal tender) get all the oil it ever need.
That does not mean, of course, that these in charge will share this free oil for their fellow men. You perhaps noticed that on gas stations.
Another reason why is that all and whole world must pay for gas so much now is, that abolishing the dollar will render it useless and all these countries holding US debt will almost lost these gigantic sums of money. I mean - the debt is in - dollars. The amount of money (things you buy for these money) these debts are actually representing depend on how dollar is strong. If you kill US bubble economy and dollar - what will be your debt worth?
Yea, nothing. Or almost nothing.
So, all in all, we all are in deep troubles.
Oil production simply can't keep up the the demand and as soon, as Tata motors come in India with their super-low-cost cars and more people in China and India buy a car - the demand will be only higher and higher and... higher.
Back in 2006 Saudi Arabia reached their peek and are in the first phase of slow decline in production - despite investments and so on to keep the production steady - if not going up as demand do. Despite political pressure, these laws of physic and nature do apply.
So in short - there is plenty of oil. It is just going to be harder and harder to drill it and hence the cost will be higher and higher.
Todays we are not yet experiencing this real oil shortage, but more like the dollar fall and the failure of the world to stop paying taxes to USA for many reasons. Few major mentioned just above.
It is politically motivated crisis to get other people in charge and to finance it. From things like carbon taxes and so on.
So yes, these links are real, the production curves are real, but there are also other things to consider. The major one is - and I sadly got to mention it again - political.
It was not long time ago, back in 2000, when oil was for $18 a barrel.
Aren't you will be very happy, to 8 years after got for the very same barrel $136 ...? I think these guys ARE very happy after all.
So instead of pointing out this obvious problem it is need to divert people attentions to other "problems", such as the natural cycle of Sun that is now heating up not only Earth, but oher planets as well and their temperatures increase even faster and more notably (likely because of the lack of atmosphere and oceans, that works as heat absorber for quite some time) that Earth temperature.
The main catch how to quickly hit these doomsaysers is, that the ocean is major producer of CO2 and that the higher temperature it is, the more CO2 it produce. And because the oceans warming took like 800 years, then that is why the CO2 LAG after the temperature changes by these 800 years.
Of course for them, the world is failing, Earth dying and we all will perish 😀
PS. I'm sorry to mention some - perhaps rather political issues - in this thread. It is because is almost impossible to discuss something like oil w/o going to the politics. Politics mean control, and control equal the strangehold on oil, money, army and legislative forces. I tried very hard to not mention exact political figures, but one simply cannot help to notice that in some countries are oil dirt-cheap for their natives, while when being sold outside for the dollars, it suddently become extremely pricey.
I tried to explain my point of view and I hope I did not offend anyone. Many times many my views of things are labeled as "antiamerican". However I do understand that not American people are to blame for actions of their government - because - and that is the hardest truth ever - they are in the so called "democracy" as powerless, as everyone else... oh, damn. There I got it again - when trying to explain how hard I tried not to mention politics - my explanation again touched it.
Let's better discuss something else, this is too political theme.
PS2. excuse my english, it is not my native language.
First - he says - I quote - "gas here is dirt cheap" - end of quote.
Second - oil production is only about 25% of their GDP.
Conclusion - oil and hence gas is overexpensive just because it is sold for dollars.
Solution - break OPEC petrodollar hegemony and let the oil-exporting states sell oil for their currency. Iran already did it, witch is why he is the "bad guy" now.
Iraq under Saddam did it in year 2000 too, and ques what happen in year 2003...
Reasons why that obvious change was not been done already - Saudi Emirates dictatorship (along with few others in the area) depend and can live on only because of direct US military support. Hence as long, as the US want, oil will be sell for dollars. And US want the oil to be sold for dollars, because as long as it is, all US have to do is print paper, call it dollar and in exchange for worthless piece of paper (you cannot exchange it for gold anymore, so it is a worthless legal tender) get all the oil it ever need.
That does not mean, of course, that these in charge will share this free oil for their fellow men. You perhaps noticed that on gas stations.
Another reason why is that all and whole world must pay for gas so much now is, that abolishing the dollar will render it useless and all these countries holding US debt will almost lost these gigantic sums of money. I mean - the debt is in - dollars. The amount of money (things you buy for these money) these debts are actually representing depend on how dollar is strong. If you kill US bubble economy and dollar - what will be your debt worth?
Yea, nothing. Or almost nothing.
So, all in all, we all are in deep troubles.
Oil production simply can't keep up the the demand and as soon, as Tata motors come in India with their super-low-cost cars and more people in China and India buy a car - the demand will be only higher and higher and... higher.
Back in 2006 Saudi Arabia reached their peek and are in the first phase of slow decline in production - despite investments and so on to keep the production steady - if not going up as demand do. Despite political pressure, these laws of physic and nature do apply.
So in short - there is plenty of oil. It is just going to be harder and harder to drill it and hence the cost will be higher and higher.
Todays we are not yet experiencing this real oil shortage, but more like the dollar fall and the failure of the world to stop paying taxes to USA for many reasons. Few major mentioned just above.
It is politically motivated crisis to get other people in charge and to finance it. From things like carbon taxes and so on.
So yes, these links are real, the production curves are real, but there are also other things to consider. The major one is - and I sadly got to mention it again - political.
It was not long time ago, back in 2000, when oil was for $18 a barrel.
Aren't you will be very happy, to 8 years after got for the very same barrel $136 ...? I think these guys ARE very happy after all.
So instead of pointing out this obvious problem it is need to divert people attentions to other "problems", such as the natural cycle of Sun that is now heating up not only Earth, but oher planets as well and their temperatures increase even faster and more notably (likely because of the lack of atmosphere and oceans, that works as heat absorber for quite some time) that Earth temperature.
The main catch how to quickly hit these doomsaysers is, that the ocean is major producer of CO2 and that the higher temperature it is, the more CO2 it produce. And because the oceans warming took like 800 years, then that is why the CO2 LAG after the temperature changes by these 800 years.
Of course for them, the world is failing, Earth dying and we all will perish 😀
PS. I'm sorry to mention some - perhaps rather political issues - in this thread. It is because is almost impossible to discuss something like oil w/o going to the politics. Politics mean control, and control equal the strangehold on oil, money, army and legislative forces. I tried very hard to not mention exact political figures, but one simply cannot help to notice that in some countries are oil dirt-cheap for their natives, while when being sold outside for the dollars, it suddently become extremely pricey.
I tried to explain my point of view and I hope I did not offend anyone. Many times many my views of things are labeled as "antiamerican". However I do understand that not American people are to blame for actions of their government - because - and that is the hardest truth ever - they are in the so called "democracy" as powerless, as everyone else... oh, damn. There I got it again - when trying to explain how hard I tried not to mention politics - my explanation again touched it.
Let's better discuss something else, this is too political theme.
PS2. excuse my english, it is not my native language.
trodas said:
I can simplify that:
We want more and more oil. They have it. Therefor, it will get more and more expensive.
BTW, I don't know how you want to 'break up Opec', unless you want to got to war with everyone that has something we want?
BTW2: The gas is dirt-cheap here too. Before our government adds three times the cost as tax. Yes, you read that correct. Three times. Maybe four.
Jan Didden
It sounds like trodas doesn't have a free press in his country. We have the equivalent of about 800 billions barrels of oil in the form of coal in the USA. Unfortunately, the environmentalists don't like coal. It can be made into gasoline and diesel fuel and no doubt will be in the near future, but will be delayed because of politics and will be implemented at the last minute to stop high unemployment and mass starvation.
IMNSHO the worst environmental disaster of our time is not exploiting atomic energy. After all it's what drives all life on earth. Almost as if it was meant to be the greatest minds on our planet unlocked the secret just in time.
Tell that to the environmentalists who are afraid of nuclear energy. The argument is always "what are you going to do with the toxic waste?” I believe that problem will solve its self when there is enough demand to develop proper permanent disposal methods. The amount of waste is quite trivial when you consider the amount of waste from coal and oil in order to obtain the same amount of energy output. Also the radiation is better contained as opposed to the radiation released from smoke stacks from a coal furnace (see contents of fly ash). The coal and oil lobbyists despise nuclear energy for obvious reasons. I wish leaders would wake up and choose to use this not quite so new technology to solve or alleviate the short energy supply so as to move the country forward in the world instead of pacifying us with the typical lies and dribble. We have been lighting fires for energy since the dawn of man; it is time to move on to more practical forms of power. If the USS Stennis was powered by a diesel engine, how much fuel and cost do you think it would take to operate it? Or, you could just change out the core in something like 30 years.
Alternatively we could realise that oil, gas and coal are creating a well-recognised problem - uncontrollable climate change, possibly ending life as we know it. Is it so hard to break the love affair with oil and stop the problems with nuclear waste disposal at the same time, by using renewables? An area 1/3 of the size of the Sahara desert covered with photovoltaic cells (that's not even using mirrors to heat water, as done in Arizona I believe) would provide all the world's energy needs. Some inter-governmental help and investment in research...bingo! Problem solved. 😉 More oil isn't the solution as however much more is found it's going to run out some day and meanwhile the environmental problem is exacerbated. A simplistic striving towards more oil is a bit ostrich-in-the-sand and failing to see the bigger picture. There are some interesting offshore wind farms being built around us in Europe...wave power anyone? 🙂
I live here in Vermont, where something on the order of 50% to 75% of our power comes from one nuclear plant. They are scheduled to be taken offline in 2012, but are trying to get their license extended by the NRC. The problem is that we have a small but rather vocal minority that seems to think we can just shut it down and be able to get the power as easily, cheaply and cleanly. Personally we should make the rules such that if a power plant is shut down because of people like this, they should be the ones to suffer the consequences. I haven't heard any of them offer a viable large scale alternative to the Vermont Yankee plant.
My Uncle was the head of QC for the construction of the Shoreham plant on Long Island. He retired before LILCo finally gave up and gave the plant to the state of NY, without ever powering it up. This wound up bankrupting LILCo. As you can guess, my Uncle wasn't too happy about that one. Another victory for people with minimal knowledge of the technology and the supposed problem. Oh well, maybe we should all go back to living in caves, with no modern conveniences or medicine!🙄 😡
Peace,
Dave
My Uncle was the head of QC for the construction of the Shoreham plant on Long Island. He retired before LILCo finally gave up and gave the plant to the state of NY, without ever powering it up. This wound up bankrupting LILCo. As you can guess, my Uncle wasn't too happy about that one. Another victory for people with minimal knowledge of the technology and the supposed problem. Oh well, maybe we should all go back to living in caves, with no modern conveniences or medicine!🙄 😡
Peace,
Dave
I expect there are some people who like living in caves... 😀 It does rankle somewhat that energy budgets and research policies are often set with regards to a small but vocal minority rather than a considered scientific analysis of the facts and options. Such is life... 😉
Not a proven cause. Do you think we have that much control over the climatic changes on earth? What about the Sun? I suppose it's ever fluctuating energy output has no effect on Earth, only on the other planets.
Burning anything creates pollution, but like pis$ing in a lake, how much effect does it have?So how much food are we going to burn up to subsidize oil and coal? How much manufactured, polluting fertilizer will it require? How much energy is used to create this extra fertilizer? Would using genetically altered crops for this purpose interbreed and affect food crops? Is it really worth it? It costs money to change things and upgrade. Also, change brings uncertainty. People don't like uncertainty. Change usually requires some type of force or enticement....unaffordable fuel.
There’s your problem. If inter-governmental help can't be done with the oil commodity, what makes you think it would work with the solar commodity?
Ultimately yes. On the small local scale, alternative energy may well be the best solution. But, right now we don't have the technology to produce enough energy with solar to power say NYC or Chicago or.....Vermont
. It will take quite a few windmills to equal the energy output of one nuke plant. We have more than enough energy inside the nuclear realm available within the context of current technology.😉If the existing geo-political-military-elite-power structure with regards to energy production is worth about $500 trillion as an existing enterprise...well...don't think that such groups and individuals would not spend billions in efforts in order to keep such a structure out of harms way, with regards to threats from workable and viable alternatives.
Yep
Just like it has always been and always will be, follow the money if you can. I bet you could become a believable fortune teller.😛
Just like it has always been and always will be, follow the money if you can. I bet you could become a believable fortune teller.😛
Solar in Vermont isn't very viable, not enough direct sun for large scale power. Our ridgelines are considered "excellent" by the EIA (Energy Information Administration), but do a little reading on the attempts at wind power here in Vermont and you will find that there are people fighting it also. Either they don't want their precious view altered, or they are concerned about birds and bats, etc. You just can't win. While there is some merit to KBK's argument (which is getting dangerously close to political), you also have the problem that CBS240 mentioned, people don't usually react well to change. That is why we are still predominantly a fossil fuel based economy. While many may complain about it, it does have strong roots in our economy. Changing to something new has other tradeoffs that people don't seem to be willing to accept. Too bad.
Peace,
Dave
Peace,
Dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.