How many of us consider it absurd to drive two-ton vehicles to transport 150 pound persons? The time to stop immersing ourselves in trivial pursuits & to start serious discussion and thinking is now! Engage your friends & neighbors; spread the word. Invent solutions. Promote responsible politics. More thoughtful activists are required to push the elephant from the room!
The problem with oil that it is in every-freakin'-thing. It is used to make our plastics, to make fertilizer, and the rubber in out tiers. Get off will be a hard catch 22.
The problem is that one of the major replacements for oil - nuclear power - is so reviled by so many - and for bad reasons - that it is a PR "hot potato".
Low level nuclear wastes last a few decades, high level nuclear wastes, (mostly spent fuel rods), must be stored for at least 10,000 years before it is depleated.
A reactor functionally normally produces tiny amounts of HLW compared to the amount of fuel that is used and the LLW produced.
Properly processed, a typical reactor makes less than a cubic meter of HLW a year.
More, even with this admittedly significant disadvantage, nuclear power is far cleaner and safer per unit power than the fossil fuels. And it is the only non-severely-polluting source that can provide sufficient amounts of power at present. Solar, wind, et cetera cannot.
@1RadicalOne I agree, nuclear is a much better fuel source than fossil fuels, I have no problem with increasing our use of nuclear power, as long as we have a safe way of dealing with HLW.
Other energy sources, cannot yet, but as technology improves they will be able to. I also think that increasing energy efficiency should be a major part of our energy policy.
Well, if you want an esoteric and expensive but effective and permanent solution, you could launch the waste into space, ideally at the sun.
Unfortunately, there is a risk of catastrophic failure, and the fact it is presently too expensive to be economical.
As for "renewable" energies, they are unfortunately intrinsically weaker than "nonrenewables". They often are extracting energy from "mechanical" work, which always has large losses in efficiency due to heat, friction, etc.
Wind power actually costs less per KWH than nuclear power. This is due for the very high cost of building the plant in the first place, higher maintnence costs, and costs for fuel.
Yes you are correct. I originally had a source putting nuclear at around 17 cents per KWH, but more reliable sourced put it around 2.5 , while wind varies from 3 to 7 per KWH depending on location. I would like to point out that the cost of wind power is decreasing.
In any case, I think that the risks of Nuclear power outweigh its higher cost efficiency.
Risks? If you mean of meltdown, reactors are actually very safe.
The only times accidents have occurred have been from mistreatment and/or shoddy design. Both of those were responsible in Chernobyl, the "flagship" nuclear accident.
Have a look at Three-Mile Island. Despite a near-meltdown, the building performed wonderfully and noone was injured or killed.
By risks, I meant the risks of nuclear wastes leaking during storage, as well as contamination of workers and the environments from the transport of fuel into the reactor and from dismantling the plants.
The former is valid, but the latter is not. The fuel is transported in heavily shielded and extremely reinforced containers. Have you seen the footage of the tests? These containers are dropped sixty stories, or hit by a freight train, and remain airtight.
Actually with micro generation techniques we could switch to 100% Renewable power within a decade. With proper insulation, adoption of trickle-feed electronics, in home energy exchanging, solar panels and a next generation wind turbine like the QR5 the residential area could generate surplus electricity that can be fed back into the grid and the commercial and industrial demands could be fed from that plus large scale wind farms and coastal tidal generators.
Just dont import it..
You economy will _die_ without the massive import of oil..
Because oil is energy.. and without energy everything dies.
Laughable suggestion..
cantares1 1 year ago
Chavez isn't a dictator - he was elected.
AnonEyeMouse 1 year ago
How many of us consider it absurd to drive two-ton vehicles to transport 150 pound persons? The time to stop immersing ourselves in trivial pursuits & to start serious discussion and thinking is now! Engage your friends & neighbors; spread the word. Invent solutions. Promote responsible politics. More thoughtful activists are required to push the elephant from the room!
SIMKINETICS 1 year ago
The problem with oil that it is in every-freakin'-thing. It is used to make our plastics, to make fertilizer, and the rubber in out tiers. Get off will be a hard catch 22.
TheAtheistPaladin 1 year ago
At the very least, burning less oil will open up more oil for use in these products, so that we can keep them around for longer.
I don't have all the answers, but some of these things can be recylced, and fertilizers can be replaced with organic alternatives.
IceFire9yt 1 year ago
The problem is that one of the major replacements for oil - nuclear power - is so reviled by so many - and for bad reasons - that it is a PR "hot potato".
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
Well, right now we don't even have a place to store our nuclear wastes, instead, we just let them sit in warehouses across the country.
Before we start building more nuclear power plants, I think we need to set up a place that nuclear wastes can be stored for the long term.
IceFire9yt 1 year ago
Nuclear waste is only dangerous for a fairly short time - a couple of decades.
In that time, it can easily be stored in a bunker of some sort then later, when depleted, buried.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
Low level nuclear wastes last a few decades, high level nuclear wastes, (mostly spent fuel rods), must be stored for at least 10,000 years before it is depleated.
IceFire9yt 1 year ago
A reactor functionally normally produces tiny amounts of HLW compared to the amount of fuel that is used and the LLW produced.
Properly processed, a typical reactor makes less than a cubic meter of HLW a year.
More, even with this admittedly significant disadvantage, nuclear power is far cleaner and safer per unit power than the fossil fuels. And it is the only non-severely-polluting source that can provide sufficient amounts of power at present. Solar, wind, et cetera cannot.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
@1RadicalOne I agree, nuclear is a much better fuel source than fossil fuels, I have no problem with increasing our use of nuclear power, as long as we have a safe way of dealing with HLW.
Other energy sources, cannot yet, but as technology improves they will be able to. I also think that increasing energy efficiency should be a major part of our energy policy.
IceFire9yt 1 year ago
Well, if you want an esoteric and expensive but effective and permanent solution, you could launch the waste into space, ideally at the sun.
Unfortunately, there is a risk of catastrophic failure, and the fact it is presently too expensive to be economical.
As for "renewable" energies, they are unfortunately intrinsically weaker than "nonrenewables". They often are extracting energy from "mechanical" work, which always has large losses in efficiency due to heat, friction, etc.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
@1RadicalOne As opposed to harvesting energy from heat, which is the least usefull form of energy
IceFire9yt 1 year ago
Not always.
The reason fossil fuel plants are inefficient is not due to anything intrinsic to heat energy, but to the inefficient combustion of their fuels.
Nuclear fuels are far more efficient, often twice as efficient as fossil fuels.
Cost-wise, they are also more efficient than solar, wind, and tidal power.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
@1RadicalOne
Wind power actually costs less per KWH than nuclear power. This is due for the very high cost of building the plant in the first place, higher maintnence costs, and costs for fuel.
IceFire9yt 1 year ago
I am afraid you are entirely wrong.
A study in Australia found costs of 40-105 AUD per MWh for nuclear and 75 for HIGH-capacity wind.
As you might expect, the less efficient plants are the ones that are older or poorly designed.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
@1RadicalOne
Yes you are correct. I originally had a source putting nuclear at around 17 cents per KWH, but more reliable sourced put it around 2.5 , while wind varies from 3 to 7 per KWH depending on location. I would like to point out that the cost of wind power is decreasing.
In any case, I think that the risks of Nuclear power outweigh its higher cost efficiency.
IceFire9yt 1 year ago
Risks? If you mean of meltdown, reactors are actually very safe.
The only times accidents have occurred have been from mistreatment and/or shoddy design. Both of those were responsible in Chernobyl, the "flagship" nuclear accident.
Have a look at Three-Mile Island. Despite a near-meltdown, the building performed wonderfully and noone was injured or killed.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
@1RadicalOne
By risks, I meant the risks of nuclear wastes leaking during storage, as well as contamination of workers and the environments from the transport of fuel into the reactor and from dismantling the plants.
IceFire9yt 1 year ago
The former is valid, but the latter is not. The fuel is transported in heavily shielded and extremely reinforced containers. Have you seen the footage of the tests? These containers are dropped sixty stories, or hit by a freight train, and remain airtight.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
@1RadicalOne
Actually with micro generation techniques we could switch to 100% Renewable power within a decade. With proper insulation, adoption of trickle-feed electronics, in home energy exchanging, solar panels and a next generation wind turbine like the QR5 the residential area could generate surplus electricity that can be fed back into the grid and the commercial and industrial demands could be fed from that plus large scale wind farms and coastal tidal generators.
AnonEyeMouse 1 year ago
Yes. The US is a big junkie, mugging other guys on the street for his fix
So insulate, recover heat, adopt cheap mass-transport (just compare iwth mass transport using SUVs), grow fuel, harness the wind, waves and tides
Give the job to the MIC (before you close it down)
LOL
beachcomber2008 1 year ago