A Growing Concern

[GSTamral]

Estimates have stated that the Energy Consumption in the United States will increase nearly twofold within the next ten years (from today's USA Today). It has been estimated that we need more than 1900 new power plants in the 500-700 Megawatt range to meet this demand. This will further require either the use of coal, or heavy increases in oil imports to meet the demand, or we can drill in Alaska, or most preferably, build smaller hydroelectric dams to collect power from smaller natural waterfalls.

There is a limited additional supply that can be drilled in the south. The oil is there, but in most places, environmentalists will not allow it. Retarded democrats trying to play to the will of the far left have blocked attempts to drill in Alaska, or even to attempt more offshore drilling in the pacific northwest. I know some stupid fucks will always say we can build little wind shields to collect power or use solar energy, but the BTU harness of a solar panel is so small that it would take nearly 40 years (greater than the expected life of the panel) to harness as much energy from the panel as was used to create it. That is from an SCR estimate from people who build power plants, boilers and such vessels, namely my father.

Nuclear power is viable, but again, the far left has blocked any and all attempts to create such power plants, and have made strict laws that outright bar new nuclear plants from being constructed.

Neither one of our choices for president is addressing this issue. Bush and Cheney have ties to big oil that prevent hydroelectric and fuel cell research from being conducted. John Kerry is a pussy who is worried about a few squirrels whose habitat would be displaced by hydroelectric dams. This nation only needs one hot summer right now to run clean out of power. The leftist fucks of California have declared themselves so elitist, that they have refused to build more oil or natural gas pipelines in their state, and have done nothing to build new power plants.

This nation needs a third party to deport the stupid environmentalists who don't understand modern research and techniques and stick to old adages such as "nuclear power is always bad". Every one of our modern naval vessells runs and operates multiple nuclear power plants within 100 meters of crewman who never show any ill effects. And as horrible as it sounds, fuck a few deer and squirrels to build a dam if it means if we don't this nation will have to have rolling blackouts, or something that critically disrupts national flow.

[Wezas]

I was about to compliment you on an excellent post until I got to the part about you calling Kerry a pussy and referring to leftist fucks.


Originally posted by GSTamral
Bush and Cheney have ties to big oil that prevent hydroelectric and fuel cell research from being conducted. John Kerry is a pussy who is worried about a few squirrels whose habitat would be displaced by hydroelectric dams. The leftist fucks of California have declared themselves so elitist, that they have refused to build more oil or natural gas pipelines in their state, and have done nothing to build new power plants.

:thumbsdown:

[Latrinsorm]

"There is no possible way for us to drill our way out this crisis. We have to invent our way out of it." -John Kerry

Scientists are always having conferences and deciding that we're utterly doomed...

...but we're still here.

[xtc]

There is an energy crisis, I am leaving the politics out of it. In Canada cost has been the limiting factor in building more nuclear power plants. Of course there is the consideration of the time it takes for the rods after to not be radioactive, I think 100 old years.

The real question is what do you when the oil dries up? Oil is $45 or so dollars a barrel currently. I watched a Belgian documentary on energy most of the experts/analysts figure we have maybe 50 years of oil left. European Governments are funding huge research into alternative sources of energy. We in the west should be doing the same.

I heard an Energy Analyst at one of Canada's large investment houses talking on TV how China is usiing 30% more oil this year so far than forecasted and how this too has helped drive up the price of oil.

[Keller]

Added to Tamral's post is that Alaskans want to drill for oil. I could understand not drilling if the people there didn't want to, you know -- the whole freedom and democracy thing. However, seeing as how they want to, why the hell not? Is Mt. Denali going to fall off the face of the earth?

I was listening to NPR today in Los Angeles. There was some call-in show about building a new freeway inbetween Orange County and San Diego. Some environmentalists were on arguing that the run-off would be terrible for the beaches. So then one of the guests who is advocating building the freeway (because it would actually help the people who live there, not the fucking surfers who "need" that beach to be clean) says that the new standards for run-off flumes make run-off a non-issue. So THEN these fucktards start talking about how the freeway would be unsightly from the beach. Wait, let me see if those thousands of people who actually work and have to commute a long ways to and from work give two shits about a bunch of stoners whose view has been "ruined".

So, I'm totally with Tamral here. Let the people of the state decide what they do with their own natural resources.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by xtc
The real question is what do you when the oil dries up?Stockpile V8's and watch out for Australians on motorcycles.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Stockpile V8's and watch out for Australians on motorcycles.

You're too young to remember that movie.

Raven

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I'd rather we researched/create alternative fuel sources than worry about partisan politics.

If either side came out and said (among other things of course) my goal in the next four years is to get low cost alternative fuel sources to the public, it'd definately weigh in on my vote.

[Blazing247]

<If either side came out and said (among other things of course) my goal in the next four years is to get low cost alternative fuel sources to the public, it'd definately weigh in on my vote. >

I think I remember reading in an automotive magazine that Bush has authorized billions in funding to hydrogen/alternative fuel cell research. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

[Snapp]

Originally posted by Blazing247
I think I remember reading in an automotive magazine that Bush has authorized billions in funding to hydrogen/alternative fuel cell research. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

From Tamral's post

Bush and Cheney have ties to big oil that prevent hydroelectric and fuel cell research from being conducted.
I am not saying Tamral's word is fact, but I assume he has a source to back that up (plus it's highly believable).

[Ilvane]

I find the comment funny that you say Alaskans want the Wildlife refuge tapped for oil..so if Colorado said..We want the Grand Canyon mined for oil(say for example there was oil there) would we do it just because the people said..Oh, that's ok?

Just a thought.;) heh..and it's way to early right now.

-A

[GSTamral]

<<
I think I remember reading in an automotive magazine that Bush has authorized billions in funding to hydrogen/alternative fuel cell research. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

>>

Authorized yes, is it being actively spent? No

[GSTamral]

Summing up the alternative fuel options.

Hydrogen Fuel Cells - Cheney argued in the 2003 annual NEA report that one of the drawbacks for these fuel cells, is like any fuel cell (read that to mean battery), the energy we get out of it is less than the energy put into making it. However, unlike Solar Panels, which are static once deployed, fuel cells can travel with people. Nearly 10% of all energy used by Americans is used in a battery setting. Some of the fuel cells in design can return up to 90% of the energy put in, far greater than the 30-40% we currently get from batteries. But because most batteries are created using electricity from oil, money has not been put into this technology at all. A friend of mine's uncle, Adam Tranc, owns the patent on part of this technology that is not being developed at all.

Solar Power: Static and currently not viable, the yield on Solar Panels does not present a viable means of attaining power.

Hydroelectric - by far the largest source of power, niagara falls and the hoover dam being the first and second largest power plants in the world by an enormous margin (60-90 times as large as the next largest power plant in the US), this power is both extremely clean, and has a never ending power supply. Expensive to build, and difficult to harness, it presents one of the lowest cost per yield.

Nuclear - more expensive traditionally than oil (but not at todays prices), the problem with nuclear power is that a reactor cannot be shut down and turned on repeatedly to meet variable demand. However, nuclear presents an excellent option for dealing with a base power demand at today's oil prices.

Cold Fusion - most leftist fucks point to this future source without knowing anything about it. We aren't even close. By not close, we will likely run out of oil in the middle east before any realization of this is made, if it ever can be made. While it has been proven that Cold Fusion exists, no progress has been made in proving that it can be sustained outside a vacuum, or in shifting temperatures. Some stupid leftist shithead saw the "Saint" and thought they were talking about real science.

Wind Power - while a legitimate source of power, the harness is low, and the conversion from motion energy to electricity is terrible unless the winds are very significant in strength (read that to mean the angular acceleration of the counter-weight or wheel is much greater than the force of drag, not to mention, able to overcome motionary inertia). Implementation is difficult.

Natural Gas - has not been explored enough. It is also very much against the interests of big oil for this cleaner, more efficient type of fuel to be explored.

Coal : we have a very abundant supply. It however, is extremely pollutive and can create situations in which corrosive (acid) rain clouds develop.

Kerry has never addressed any of these issues publicly, other than opposing the drilling of oil in Alaska. He has also voted against nuclear power and hydroelectric exploration of the missouri. Bush/Cheney have ties to big oil. It will only take one hot summer for this entire nation to not be able to meet demand. Had this summer in the northeast been as hot as 2000 or 2001, we would not have been able to meet demand. Someone seriously needs to deport the leftist environmentalists to a country where people give a shit. To care for the environment is something we should all do, but there are many environmentalists who have gone well beyond that point to the point where they lie to scare people, quote news sources that conduct bogus research by BS scientists (many of whom are non-accredited), and then try and influence legislation. If this nation runs out of power during a summer (danger zones currently being the northeast, california, and the southeast, where Carolina Power and Light has forwarned that Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina were growing in demand faster than expected), we will be able to thank the leftist fucks for doing more damage to our country than Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein combined.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ilvane
I find the comment funny that you say Alaskans want the Wildlife refuge tapped for oil..so if Colorado said..We want the Grand Canyon mined for oil(say for example there was oil there) would we do it just because the people said..Oh, that's ok?

Just a thought.;) heh..and it's way to early right now.

-A

Alaska has 648,818 people and is 571,951 square miles. That equates to 1.13 people per square mile.

Arizona has 5,580,811 people and is 113,635 square miles. That equates to 49.11 people per square mile.

I couldn't find the tourism numbers of the people who visited the small section of land in Alaska that is proposed to be drilled vs the 5 million that visit the Grand Canyon every year... but I would bet its considerably lower.

[Back]

Your anger seems misdirected, Tam, because its the rightist fucks who won’t let anything develop that would compete with oil.

As a higher species, we have brains. We know we can do things without harming the enviroment. We also know the enviroment will take care of itself in the long run, species be damned. Lets look at way to work with, not compete against, nature.

[GSTamral]

No, Backlash, rightist fucks want the exploration. Bush is an exception to the rule. Us rightist fucks want hydroelectric power, because its the cleanest and most efficient. Us rightist fucks embrace the modern nuclear designs because we use science, not scientology. Us rightist fucks also don't use movies like the Saint as scientific evidence of cold fusion.

[Back]

I thought you meant the petro-chemical industry as being the largest obstacle towards cleaner energy. Now there are some rightist fucks.

I doubt you’d find many leftists against hydro.

You are complaining about environmental extremists. While I agree that extemism is bad in any form, I don’t see environmentalists in general as negative at all. I see it as using the gift of your brain to not shit where you eat.