Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Il Palazzo]

umiman,(let's skip the insult/no insult matter) do not take my fixing of your post's fallacies as a personal matter that can be rebuked with 'the guy doesn't like me' argument. The data you've provided was wrong(500MW) and misinterpreted(3%waste), or disputable(7m; wood burning). Isn't it in the general interest of this discussion to correct other people's misconceptions?

[DJ]

Well, there really is no way we can completely satisfy our energy needs with wood. At best it can cover much of our heating (which is by far the greatest item in domestic energy consumption) and maybe run our cars (on wood grain alcohol). There is simply not enough land available for forests (ie land unsuitable for mechanised agriculture) to make enough wood to power the electric grid.

Still, even if wood doesn't completely solve the energy problem, it can help reduce it. You can't really expect single solution to the energy crisis. Sure, nuclear energy sounds great, but do you have any idea how much time and money it would take (neither of which you have) to build enough nuclear powerplants to power America?

[Il Palazzo]

You can't really expect single solution to the energy crisis. Sure, nuclear energy sounds great, but do you have any idea how much time and money it would take (neither of which you have) to build enough nuclear powerplants to power America?

Didn't France manage to pull this one? They've got 70-something-percent of power produced by nuclear plants.

and they reached this level in 30 years.

[DJ]

USA doesn't have 30 years to wean itself off oil.

[Il Palazzo]

USA doesn't have 30 years to wean itself off oil.

True, but if done as an emergency issue, it would take much less. 10 years maybe? I bet that it'd be much less than building large-scale wood processing industry would take.

Anyway, the bigger problem would be switching all the oil dependent production processes to something else. And ditching every car there is in favor of electricity-powered ones, or, building a massive country-wide public transportation system.

[DJ]

Which are all reasons why I stated in my first post in this thread that we are all screwed. There is simply no time for transition to alternative energy sources.

Anyway, there's no way in hell USA could come up with the money to build that many nuclear powerplants in ten years. It'd probably take something like 75% decrease in the military budget, and we all know that's never going to happen. That, and I don't think there's enough skilled labour on the planet to simultaneously build that many nuclear powerplants.

[PTTG??]

Well, I'm kind of rooting for a massive economic collapse. If we're lucky, it'll happen before a massive ecological collapse,or we'd get pretty hungry.

I'm looking forward to becoming a wilderness warlord.

[Il Palazzo]

DJ: well, the money is indeed an issue. However the labor... you could always hire those frenchmen. But then, money again.
Still, somehow, I don't believe that the USA's government would happily walk the patch to total energetic collapse. Should they finally feel the size of the problem, they'll sacrifice something to get the funds. Like, good-bye NASA and financial support for Israel.

I'm looking forward to becoming a wilderness warlord.

Well, I'd say: you better get yourself a gun today.(this could be a marketing slogan for arms dealers: "Don't wait for the economic collapse, ensure your family's survival now!")

[DJ]

I think the Frenchmen are busy building more reactors in France. Besides, I don't think they could construct more that a couple of reactors simultaneously, while you need dozens. And it is too late already to start doing something. I don't have any numbers I can name off the top of my head, but the site I linked to earlier on has all the numbers you need to realize that there is no realistic alternative energy source. All of them would simply take more money and time than is available.

[Il Palazzo]

Well, then, what can I say?
Tough luck.

[Dae]

I think the Frenchmen are busy building more reactors in France. Besides, I don't think they could construct more that a couple of reactors simultaneously, while you need dozens. And it is too late already to start doing something. I don't have any numbers I can name off the top of my head, but the site I linked to earlier on has all the numbers you need to realize that there is no realistic alternative energy source. All of them would simply take more money and time than is available.

In fact, most French people would probably love the USA hiring them for, well, anything. We've been experimenting some troubles with unemployment lately (some think of 9% for 2009). Anyway, I don't think French will build much more power plants. People don't really like them, probably because they're scared of a catastroph (not likely but still possible) or simply because they're ugly.
And French know how to convince their government. Well, more than in the US anyway.

I reckon nuclear is probably the best solution now, but I hope it won't always be. AND, burying wastes and not talking about it is NOT a solution. It'll still be dangerous for a long time, longer than most protections we could do around it would last. It's a difficult problem.

Also, less financial support for Israel could be a good thing. Less money to invade neighbouring countries and buy weapons to other ones could force the government to peace. But it's off topic.

[umiman]

Having no money has never really ever been an incentive for peace. Look at Africa.

People would probably continue to fight regardless of what their economic or environmental situations are. That's why economic embargoes are really... quite useless.

If I'm not mistaken, there are currently ways to deal with nuclear waste through recycling that practically uses all of the waste for more power, but again, the red tape prevents further development of the field.

Dae: I personally think nuclear reactors look beautiful... hehehe...

[Duke 2.0]

 Of course, if we really want to make an impact we would need to pressure China to start going nuclear. And we all know what a slippery slope that is.

[JoshuaFH]

 Of course, if we really want to make an impact we would need to pressure China to start going nuclear. And we all know what a slippery slope that is.

Will you elaborate on that Duke?

[Aqizzar]

 Of course, if we really want to make an impact we would need to pressure China to start going nuclear. And we all know what a slippery slope that is.

Will you elaborate on that Duke?

I assume you've didn't watch the news through 2006-2007 then?  America nearly went to war with Iran over just talking about nukes, and gave North Korea loads of stuff once they proved they could build a bomb.

However, China building more nuclear power is a completely moot point, because they've been building their own bombs since 1963.  So that ship already sailed.