Posted on 09/28/2009 8:17:22 AM PDT by RogerFGay
Biofuels are all the rage these days, as illustrated by a particularly silly article that appeared in the New York Times recently. It claimed that homebrew biodiesel could significantly reduce the U.S. demand for imported oil.There is no way that ethanol from sugar, corn, or biomass is going to make a significant reduction in the U.S. demand for crude oil. Do the numbers:
(Excerpt) Read more at mensnewsdaily.com ...
Even the sainted corn ethanol plants produce CO2 and the manufacture of the tens of thousands of windmills and solar panels that would be needed to generate even a fraction of our electricity consumption will also add to CO2 emissions. Nuclear power is the only means to practically replace the burning of fossil fuels, yet environmentalists won’t hear of it.
Thanks
The "diffuse" argument is simply bullshit. It applies only to bombs and military transportation (subs and aircraft carriers). Once solar is converted to electricity (as nuclear would have to be), it is just "watts at the wall". There is ZERO difference as far as "diffuseness" is concerned.
I'm all in favor of nuclear (I have an educational background in nuclear topics), but PLEASE, let's stick to real arguments.
It is not the only solution. It is one of many solutions. And a good one.
“Conclusion: The group that contests everything is actually anti-human race. Apparently, in their world the planet is the first concern and the only way to save the planet is to reduce the human impact on it. Ironically, if the goal is to reduce the human impact on the planet and humans are the problem, what are we trying to save the planet for? The next intelligent species to inhabit it?”
The green movement is succeeding because they’ve duped the public into thinking they’re on the moral side of the issues - they’ve fraudently taken over the moral high-ground, and we’ve let them.
How can you argue against saving the earth, the air, the water, the whales, the dolphins, the wild rivers, the polar bears, etc, etc? They’re not doing it for selfish motives, unlike those greedy capitalists that want to pollute and destroy the environment to maximize their profits.
In reality they are the most selfish and elitist group of people you’ll ever find. They put their own sensibilities above that of all others. They are anti-human and their ultimate solution is to eliminate humanity from earth (with a few notable exceptions - themselves). We need a champion of humanity who can verbalize this and knock them off their self-righteous pedestals.
The waste heat from producing nuclear turbine steam generatoin can be used for the desalination of seawater too. Building colocated facilities - nuke power/fresh-water manufacturing - could produce billions of tons of fresh water that can be piped inland with cheap power.
That’s what’s even worse about all of this, and the attractiveness of nuclear power.
Three Mile Island was a media event.....there was no “fallout”, no injuries....just an unfortnate timing with another stupid Jane Fonda movie “The China Syndrome”.....
I will take it a step further. The best stewards of a resource or commodity are the folks that have the most to gain from it. Human's do not, despite what the left would have you believe, intentionally bite the hand that feeds it.
Conservation? Talk to ardent hunters. They are the best informed about what species should be preserved and what is best for habitats and their environments.
You want to preserve forests? Talk to industrial logging companies that own, take care of and cultivate forest renewals year after year. Have you ever noticed that forest fires rarely destroy "forested" properties? It's because they keep the forest clean of dead debris. They do it at their expense for efficiency and profit.
You want to prevent "over fishing"? Talk to commercial fishernmen.
There is truth to the fact that risk keeps greed in check. It is greed, at its most basic definition, that drives the American economy. And there is nothing wrong with it. I am so greedy that I expect to be paid a certain amount for service to my employer. My expectations are based on maintaining or enhancing a lifestyle that goes beyond "survival". We have a 3 car garage even though we only own two cars. We are so greedy we put our kids through private school. We once took a vacation to Hawaii. And by the way, for most of my career, I have worked 60 to 70 hours a week to earn the lifestyle we have greedily chosen.
Why is it greed? In the minds of these wackos, anything you have or consume or do that is beyone what is essential to survival is "waste". And besides, it's not fair that you can have all these things when there are people out there that are just barely able to survive.
In their utopia everyone works just as hard as they do now and the producers keep producing but they give everything away and reduce their standard of living out of the goodness of their heart.
We have 3000 mw worth of wind turbines installed in IOWA. They provide more power than our one nuke and over 10 percent of the electrical power Iowa uses.
“Why is it greed? In the minds of these wackos, anything you have or consume or do that is beyone what is essential to survival is “waste”. And besides, it’s not fair that you can have all these things when there are people out there that are just barely able to survive.”
We’re on the same page...
One more thing regarding greed is that we’re all greedy by nature. That means that we moderate each other’s greed whenever we enter into a transaction. If you’re selling something that I’m interested in, the fact that each one of us is greedy will cause you to want to get the highest price and me to want to get the lowest. But to get what we want we will need to moderate our greed. So the free market naturally keeps greed under control.
Another thing that is conveniently omitted by the utopians is that we’re are not one dimensional beings. In other words, we’re not simply greedy. We have other strong attributes that complement our selfish desire to take care of ourselves. That attribute is empathy or compassion. That is why before government started getting into the welfare business, there were thousands of charities and private organizations to help those that needed it AND deserved it.
Sorry, but that's just wrong. There is no such thing as 'watts in the wall', except at the final wall. There's a big cost to transporting energy at low voltages, and another big cost to combining lots of small generators into a big flow.
There's a reason we transport electricity cross country at 10,000V or more. And it isn't free to boost it to that point at the source, or downconvert it at the endpoint.
Since you've an educational background, why don't you just connect a battery to about a mile of wire and see what the final voltage is close to the battery, and a mile away. You get points if you are smart enough to use a very strong battery and very thick wires to reduce the voltage drop. Try again at 50 and 100 miles with any battery/wire you want to use.
The engineering of electrical transmission and distribution systems is a valid place for argument. And we do it from big plants because it's cheaper than from lots of small plants, for numerous and technical reasons.
Both small and large plants encounter NIMBY & other political problems, so we can leave that out of the mix. Wait until you try to put in lots of solar units or transmissions lines in a politicians back yard.
Uranium needs to be used generate lots of clean, safe nuclear energy. Then we can drive clean hydrogen powered cars, and cut Iran and Saudi Arabia out of our energy equation.
There were supposed to be 10 units, but because of political opposition in the late 1970's, they only built 3.
The current growth in Phoenix, Los Angeles and Tucson has been largely borne by those 3 units.
And no problems. Imagine if they had built the originally planned installation.
I don’t know that Nuclear is the only solution. But it is the only proven viable solution that we know of that doesn’t use fuels thought to fossil fuels of finite origin.
Any plan that doesn’t build nuclear is a “bet the farm”, “energy shortage”, “give the middle east too much power” strategy.
I don’t know that Nuclear is the only solution. But it is the only proven viable solution that we know of that doesn’t use fuels thought to fossil fuels of finite origin.
Any plan that doesn’t build nuclear is a “bet the farm”, “energy shortage”, “give the middle east too much power” strategy.
The entire US eastern seaboard could be powered by the same forces that drive the weather.
Do not waste you time responding to me with all the reasons why this proposal will not work. Leave that to the environmental lobby. You know, the green (envious) hypocrites.
*I’m still for individual freedom with personal vehicles powered by battery backs that can quickly be exchanged instead of charged at service stations.
I admit, I've become accustomed to the convenience of replaceable batteries as well.
But if we invest in R&D to develop springs that don't wear out, I bet that the old crank type vehicles would work just fine.
;^)
The waste heat from producing nuclear turbine steam generatoin can be used for the desalination of seawater too. Building colocated facilities - nuke power/fresh-water manufacturing - could produce billions of tons of fresh water that can be piped inland with cheap power.
Thanks for the reminder!
Sometimes I get so focused on high-speed rail, light rail and maglev, that I forget that I also advocate Nuclear Desalination as well.
(((sigh))) so many issues... so little time...
sometimes I wonder if I'll ever live long enough to see even a little of my dream come to pass.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.