The President of BP on the Today Show...what a dope

[Crass3000]

The answer sure isn't ethanol... We put more energy into making ethanol than we get out of a gallon of it (which should be proof by itself that ethanol is dumb to use). Ethanol is typically more expensive than regular gas even with government subsidies (which are huge). Another reason is that a gallon of ethanol will give you less miles per gallon than a gallon of gasoline.

To top it off if we used all the corn grown in the US to make ethanol it would only offset 20% of our fuel needs as the nation stands today. There are real people that are feeling the effect of increasing corn prices as more corn is used to create gas.

[rideit]

Subsidize my Tortillas, bitches!

[Crass3000]

He knows perfectly well that "opening up more oil and gas domestically" has NOTHING to do with reducing the price.

Have you ever heard of supply and demand? While me might not see huge differences there would be price differences. Although you have to note that if we started exploring and using these sources we wouldn't see any real effects for 15 years or so.

[Toadman]

How about REFINERIES

That would really help stabilize prices...

Why would an oil exec want to increase production of a diminishing resource? These oil execs know that the oil peak is near and none of them have any interest in increasing capacity and lowering there profit margins.

These guys are in the oil business. Not alternative fuels. Although most oil companies have hedged their bets and invested in alternative fuel R&D.

[Cliff Huckable]

First Nuclear energy is much cleaner than coal which is used to generate most of our electricity. Nuclear can provide pretty much limitless energy. Sure we have to get rid of the waste but we should easily be able to do this if we got our act together. We have a large country... there is a space somewhere for more nuclear casks to hold the spent nuclear fuel. Wasn't Yucca Mountain or something like that a great site as far as most were concerned? Obviously we can't make everybody happy. That's what eminant domain is about.

Any facts to back up that a nuclear plant hasn't paid for itself? I have a hard time believing that either here or in other countries. Why would the French, for instance, rely so heavily on nuclear energy? Nuclear energy is very popular in many countries.

Sure wind, solar, and hydro-electric are better but they are just not feasable at this time due to cost and our enormous need for energy.

Terrorism and nuclear plants is pretty scary as you touch on. Not sure what to say about that. But I would be all for building 100 more nuclear power plants in the US. Ironically nuclear power has come full circle and it's hard to be an environmentalist and not support nuclear energy.

"That's what eminent domain is about"?!! This is what you call getting our act together? Don't ever run for office.

Ask the Tennessee Valley Authority about how great nuclear power is - I don't know about lately but they used to have more reactors off-line than on-line, often many more.
Whether or not nuclear power made money for them at the same time is another issue.

Coal is horrible, I agree, but nuclear is no blessing.

How about conservation? How about forcing auto manufacturers to meet energy goals? How about targeting industry? How about a lot of things that would REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY WE USE (AND WASTE)?

The energy wasted in Texas alone is just incredible by world norms.

[Tippster]

Well, nuclear man, answer me 1) where we can put the waste and 2) how we prevent a catastrophy of terrorism, meltdown, etc., and 3) why not one nulcear power plant has ever covered its costs of construction and operation.

1) Modern Nuke Plants, which we the DO NOT HAVE in the US, are far more efficient waste-wise than the old POSs we currently are stuck with since we haven't built a new plant in 30 years. The fuel that is used is recycled quite well, and eventually the radioactive waste that is left can be very safely stored in Yucca Mountain in Concrete casks. Pebble reactors have the fuel already encased in ceramic, FYI.

2) Terrorism: the same way we (and the rest of the Western world, notably France, Germany, and Japan) currently do.

"Meltdown:" There has never been an accident like Chernobyl in any western (IAEA) approved design reactor. Graphite Reactors have never been idemnified by the IAEA, the soviets built them because they were cheaper. More people have died from Solar Power in the West than from Nuclear power.

"etc.:" don't know what you're getting at here.

3) I call bullshit. Bull FUCKING shit, actually.

Thtupendouthly ignent.

[stupendous man]

Wasn't Yucca Mountain or something like that a great site as far as most were concerned?

No. They could not prove that their waste wouldn't slip out to Las Vegas, only a short hop away. No one was willing to let the waste ship through their state. It also cost over 3 billion dollars and was still far from operational.

3) I call bullshit. Bull FUCKING shit, actually.

OK, for a minute there I thought you were questioning the fuel economy bit. that would not make you worth debating.

but, start with Amory Lovins...Macarthur fellow, all around genius who is working with everyone from Walmart to Walmart
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Ener...ukePwrEcon.pdf

For starters, like coal, nuclear is entirely dependent on artificialy government subsidies to be competitive, and even then it still loses, in economic terms only, to all other forms of conventional power. And that's before you get to the issue of waste. Which is real economically as well. I agree that greenhouse gas wise, nuclear beats coal, but its the old story of bringing in the snakes to catch the rats, and then the wolverines to catch the snakes...or something like that.

[ptavv]

First Nuclear energy is much cleaner than coal which is used to generate most of our electricity. Nuclear can provide pretty much limitless energy.

What makes you think we won't run out of uranium and/or thorium? Or that when supplies run low it will increase energy costs?

"Peak supply" theories don't apply only to oil. Not saying this is imminent, just something to consider.

The answer sure isn't ethanol... We put more energy into making ethanol than we get out of a gallon of it (which should be proof by itself that ethanol is dumb to use). Ethanol is typically more expensive than regular gas even with government subsidies (which are huge). Another reason is that a gallon of ethanol will give you less miles per gallon than a gallon of gasoline.

Two things. Ethanol combustion is more efficient. Second, we do get more energy out of ethanol than we put in (just barely). EROEI on corn ethanol is ~1.2. Sugarcane ethanol has an EROEI of ~8. Meanwhile, gasoline has an EROEI right around 8 as well.

Gasoline doesn't come with a host of soil erosion/depletion, fresh water, pesticide, etc needs (which are factored into the energy needed, but not the infrastructure/societal impacts of those resources).

In short, corn ethanol sucks, sugarcane ethanol is far far better (still not the golden panacea), and you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

[Brock Landers]

For starters, like coal, nuclear is entirely dependent on artificialy government subsidies to be competitive, and even then it still loses, in economic terms only, to all other forms of conventional power.

Hate to break it to you, but the "cheaper fuel" isnt going to be around for very long. Whether nuclear fuel is more or less expensive isnt all that important for the idea of nuclear energy as a whole- we need it. Nuclear is going to be a necessity, if not already, whether its cheap or expensive.

[ptavv]

For starters, like coal, nuclear is entirely dependent on artificialy government subsidies to be competitive, and even then it still loses, in economic terms only, to all other forms of conventional power.

CAPITAL COSTS AND PUBLIC GOOD

Those opposed to nuclear energy, however, question whether the industry will ever be competitive because of high construction costs.

"I don't think there will be a lot of capacity added because of [high capital] costs," Thomas Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a separate March interview.

These costs range from $1,400 to $2,000 per kilowatt (kW), according to various sources. Thus, building a 1,000 megawatt (MW) plant would require at least $1.4 billion-$2.0 billion in initial costs.

With multiple orders for nuclear reactors, however, capital costs can be brought down to $1,100-$1,200 per kW, Kerekes said. By comparison, capital costs for coal-fired plants are around $1,300 per kW and those of gas-fired plants around $600 per kW, according to industries' sources.

Kerekes said nuclear power capital costs are comparable with those of clean-coal technology designed to produce electricity with few harmful emissions. (Nuclear power produces no harmful emissions.)

Aside from the fact that a large portion of the cost is regulatory, it still completely debunks what you're yammering about.

[stupendous man]

hate to break it to you, but the cheapest fuel is efficiency, which isn't going anywhere, after that its micropower, solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, hydro, methane from waste - then what's left of coal (which is a shit ton), gas, etc. Coal will only be helpful if CO2 is sequestered, though.

and the cost of nuclear fuel will make sense once you realize the BILLIONS we have already spent, with limited success, if any. Ask the people around Indian Point in NY about the cost in terms of fear of attack. You can shout we need it all you want, there is no way to deal with it as yet. What we need is to harness the power of the earth's core, which if it ever runs out all this would be academic anyway.

[Tippster]

That paper is ridiculous. Wind Power as an alternative to a Nuclear Power plant? Where the hell are you gonna build windfarms large enough to compete with a Nuke plant? The basic "Wndmill costs $XX/kW, Nuke $XXX/kW" argument is absolute bullshit. The footprint of one vs the other doesn't even compare. The tangible real-world environmental damage already being done by the wind farms we have (Noise Pollution, effect on wildlife) is enormous and not factored in either.

I would love to be able to put Solar Cells on everything - like my roof, my car, etc -- yet that is not a viable solution to our energy problems either.

[stupendous man]

With multiple orders for nuclear reactors, however, capital costs can be brought down to $1,100-$1,200 per kW, Kerekes said.

Don't know who that guy is, but there just aren't the multiple orders, his figures count the government subsidies, and he is prolly an industry rep.
debunked my ass.

[stupendous man]

I agree that solar and wind are not there in their own right. But which should we invest in? which has more promise and a limitless source of fuel for less cost per energy unit? and which have little to no waste? and without massive subsidies, they still beat out nuclear, and a lot coal (but that's a different source).

[ptavv]

asdfasdf

[ptavv]

Don't know who that guy is, but there just aren't the multiple orders, his figures count the government subsidies, and he is prolly an industry rep.
debunked my ass.

Okay, you just admitted 1) you don't know who he is and 2) you've made a bunch of assumptions regarding his figures because basically, you don't think they're true.

Way to back up your point intelligently.

[Tippster]

I am not "unchill" I am refuting a paper proffered as "proof."

For the record: I would rather pay a premium for emission-free electricity than maintain the status quo.

[ptavv]

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/di...ceinawz0.41737

A 2005 study by the Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Energy Agency concluded that in countries that consider commissioning new nuclear plants by 2010-2015, nuclear electricity is the cheapest potential energy source nearly everywhere.

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

The NEA and IEA are horrible sources will be your next retort I'm guessing.

[Brock Landers]

Maybe in some fantasyland could we use micropower, solar, wind, hydro, methane, etc as effectively as nuclear but they are more of an auxillary fuel at this point. Unless we go around putting windfarms on every lawn and solar panels on everything we need a main source of energy. Those forms certainly are efficient but its pretty unrealistic to think we are going to get the needed energy from a country of windmills and solar cells.

[ptavv]

I am not "unchill" I am refuting a paper proffered as "proof."

For the record: I would rather pay a premium for emission-free electricity than maintain the status quo.

You can do that. Start buying up CO2 credits to offset your current power usage, driving habits, and consumption.

The option is freely available to all who want to spend money to clean up their existence and make it CO2 neutral or negative, but very few people actually do it. Then you can spend your days raging against the poor who can't/won't do the same as you, and those who realize that it's a losing effort to invest their money (and by their money, their efforts) into economically still-born ideas.

[stupendous man]

Okay, you just admitted 1) you don't know who he is and 2) you've made a bunch of assumptions regarding his figures because basically, you don't think they're true.

Way to back up your point intelligently.

who invited this guy.

seriously, that link doesn't work. I do know the figures count subsidies, b/c without subsidies nulcear plants come in at a little over $4000/ mwhr. They are not even considered a viable option by most regulatory bodies, only by the "investors". So, I know the figures aren't right.

[Tippster]

Since you and I are saying the same thing I shall 1) assume you're addressing Thtupendouthmaaaaaan and 2) bow the fuck out of this retarded thread.

(FWIW - "Tact" is not a 4 letter word, P-Tavv - relax the smartypants attitude)

[stupendous man]

Brock, the fantasyland is that nuclear is the answer. If there were half as much subsidies put into large scale solar, wind and compressed air storage, energy efficiency in manufacturing and transmission lines, there would be parity. There isn't now, and that's what you're missing.

[ptavv]

seriously, that link doesn't work. I do know the figures count subsidies, b/c without subsidies nulcear plants come in at a little over $4000/ mwhr. They are not even considered a viable option by most regulatory bodies, only by the "investors". So, I know the figures aren't right.

You know it, but experts disagree. Convenient.

PS The post with the second quote from the paper has a working link.

[stupendous man]

bow the fuck out of this retarded thread.

sore loser.