Science and Technology news... :: View topic - No One Ever Said Post Peak Oil Would Be A Rose Garden

Rod Speed · Guest

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

[quote]Taint gunna happen anyway.

Sticking yer head in the sand and denying reality does _not_ change reality.
[/quote]
You wouldnt know what reality was if it bit you on your lard arse, child.

Rod Speed · Guest

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

[quote]If some farmer balks at electric tractors I just pull out my team of oxen and say, "go crazy."

Then I stagger around behind the oxen for a few minutes.
[/quote]
Been having those pathetic little drug crazed fantasys long, child ?

[quote]Then I tell them,

"Cheap oil = easy street"

"Expensive oil = full employment"

You can get middle school students to shut up with that one.
[/quote]
Been having those pathetic little drug crazed fantasys long, child ?

Rod Speed · Guest

Robert Cohen <robtcohen@msn.com> wrote:

[quote]"Oil price maintenance" is as constitutional as everything
else, so it>s not per se a legalistic thing; thoough wouldn>t
the public de-ball any politician that endorses such ?
[/quote]
Unlikely that any politician would actually be that stupid.

[quote]though this article seems very sensible, it ain>t gonna be, unless
by intellectual subtefuge thru p.r. with convoluted machinations

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_31/b4094000658012.htm?chan=magazine+channel_top+stories
[/quote]
Taint gunna happen anyway.

Rod Speed · Guest

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

[quote]You wouldnt know what a real rose garden was if you fell into it.

I>ll have you know that phosphoric acid is good for roses which thrive in low pH soil..
[/quote]
Pathetic.

V for Vendicar · Guest

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
[quote]Or piss on your stupid wanking from a great height.
[/quote]
Oh look, another RepubliKKKan Turd with a sexual Fetish.

This one for water sports, and probably scat too.

So Pissboy ROD, if that is your real name.... Which do you like better,
EuroScat, AmeriKKKanScat, or JapScat?

Fatherland Security needs to know.

Guest

[quote]If some farmer balks at electric tractors I just pull out my team of oxen and say, "go crazy."
Then I stagger around behind the oxen for a few minutes.

Been having those
[/quote]
Pathetic.

Nope.

Ain>t gonna happen.

Bret Cahill

Guest

[quote]Modern electronic transfers make a lot more sense.-
[/quote]
Prove it.

Bret Cahill

Rod Speed · Guest

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 27, 11:12 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote
If you don>t like my solutions then post your own.
Already did that.
Biodiesel for farming.
LPG and CNG for cars.
Exploit the oil sands and shale oil when the price of oil stays
high enough for long enough to make that economically viable.
Convert coal to liquid fuel when the price of oil stays high
enough for long enough to make that economically viable.
Replace coal fired power stations with nukes if you
care about the CO2 emissions from power stations.
Heat houses with electricty from nukes so the
LPG and CNG can be used as a transport fuel.
Generate hydrogen using nukes when the price of LPG and
CNG is getting high enough to make that economically viable.
Dont bother with solar when on the grid unless its cheaper than
power from nukes and that has to allow for the fact that is mostly
not available when its most in demand in most modern first world
countrys.
Use solar in some non grid situations like RVs running on biodiesel
or LPG or CNG to run the engine.
I like your approach man. Some of your response
styles if tweaked could help you win alot of debates
easily with the facts and clear persuasive arguments.

Dont need any of that, the list above is fine.

Maybe build up a text database with responses and data supporting
arguments.

Dont need any of that either.

How would you defend your position on nuclear
when someone comes up with these attacks?

Point them at the French that have been doing it for a long time now
and currently generate around 75% of their electricity that way.

...Critics claim that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous

The french havent even had a major nuclear accident.

and decline [66]energy source,

Irrelevant to what is clearly possible.

with decreasing proportion of nuclear energy in power production,

Irrelevant to what is clearly possible.

and dispute whether the risks can be reduced through new technology.

The french havent even had a major nuclear accident.

Critics also point to the problem of storing radioactive waste,

Completely routine to do that.

the potential for possibly severe radioactive contamination by
accident or sabotage,

The french havent even had a major nuclear accident.

the possibility of nuclear proliferation

Irrelevant when used in the first world.

and the disadvantages of centralized electrical production...

No such animal. Its the national grids that make it work so well.

...The primary environmental impacts of nuclear power include
Uranium mining,

No worse than coal mining it replaces.

radioactive effluent emissions,

Coal burning power stations emit even more
because of the radioactive stuff in the coal they burn.

and waste heat...

Thats not a bad thing, its a good thing in areas what heat anyway.

...Greenpeace has produced a report titled An American Chernobyl:
Nuclear “Near Misses” at U.S. Reactors Since 1986 which "reveals
that
nearly two hundred “near misses” to nuclear meltdowns have occurred
in
the United States".

Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies.

At almost 450 nuclear plants in the world that risk is greatly
magnified, they say.

Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies.

This is not to mention numerous incidents, many supposedly
unreported, that have occurred.

Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies.

Another report produced by Greenpeace called Nuclear Reactor
Hazards:
Ongoing Dangers of Operating Nuclear Technology in the 21st Century
claims that risk of a major accident has increased in the past
years...

Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies.

...Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons and
related
technology to nations not recognized as "Nuclear Weapon States" by
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Irrelevant when used in the first world and places like china and
india that have those already.

Since the days of the Manhattan Project it has been known
that reactors could be used for weapons- development purposes
—the first nuclear reactors were developed for exactly this reason
—as the operation of a nuclear reactor converts U-238 into
plutonium.

Like I said, its desirable to develop nukes that cant be used for
weapons production.

As a consequence, since the 1950s there have been concerns
about the possibility of using reactors as a dual-use technology,
whereby apparently peaceful technological development
could serve as an approach to nuclear weapons capability...

Like I said, its desirable to develop nukes that cant be used for
weapons production.

...An additional concern with nuclear power plants is that if the
by- products of nuclear fission—the nuclear waste generated
by the plant— were to be unprotected it could be used as a
radiological weapon, colloquially known as a "dirty bomb"...

Replacing the first world use of coal in electricity generation
with nukes and the two most populous countrys, wouldnt make
any difference to that because they have nukes already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

Just checking.
[/quote]
Modern electronic transfers make a lot more sense.

rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com · Guest

On Jul 27, 5:19 pm, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
[quote]If you don>t like my solutions then post your own.

Either lead follow or get out of the way.

Bret Cahill
[/quote]

Nuclear power.

Follow along, or get out of the way.

Nuclear proliferation is a non-issue for nuclear power. It is an
issue in global affairs, but it is distinct from nuclear power. The
number of nuclear power generating reactors needed by the Manhattan
Project was zero. The only link between nuclear power and nuclear
proliferation is as a supply of electricity to the enrichment plant.
The israelis still have not built a power reactor, and the canadians
have been looking at peaceful nuclear reactor applications for over
sixty years-- with no bombs built!

The science of waste disposal has long since been solved. The
political problem of waste disposal is being held up by
environmentalists for no good scientific reason-- they just want to
stop nuclear power (and force us to burn coal).

Nuclear power will allow you to power those electric tractors that you
are so fond of.

Without the cheap electricity that nuclear power is proven to be able
to deliver, voters will have to choose between burning coal, or a
drastically reduced standard of living. Short of an environmentalist
dictatorship, we can be fairly certain of increased coal burning, with
global warming prevention abandoned as 'too expensive'.

The hydrogen economy is stymied by electricity being too expensive.
Nuclear power will solve that problem.

Guest

[quote]If you don>t like my solutions then post your own.

Either lead follow or get out of the way.

Bret Cahill

Nuclear power.
[/quote]
Show yer calculations including the cost of stainless steel.

[quote]Follow along, or get out of the way.
[/quote]
Where>s the leadership?

[quote]Nuclear proliferation is a non-issue for nuclear power.
[/quote]
At least not in the U. S. where every WalMart has MX missiles.

[quote]ï¿½It is an
issue in global affairs, but it is distinct from nuclear power. ï¿½
[/quote]
Yer floggin' a dead horse.

[quote]The
number of nuclear power generating reactors needed by the Manhattan
Project was zero. ï¿½The only link between nuclear power and nuclear
proliferation is as a supply of electricity to the enrichment plant.
The israelis still have not built a power reactor, and the canadians
have been looking at peaceful nuclear reactor applications for over
sixty years-- with no bombs built!
[/quote]
Not that I have anything against nukes but if you digress too much
then you won>t git them to believe you are a leader.

[quote]The science of waste disposal has long since been solved. ï¿½The
political problem of waste disposal is being held up by
environmentalists for no good scientific reason-- they just want to
stop nuclear power (and force us to burn coal).

Nuclear power will allow you to power those electric tractors that you
are so fond of.
[/quote]
Actually solar will do just fine.

[quote]Without the cheap electricity that nuclear power is proven to be able
to deliver, voters will have to choose between burning coal, or a
drastically reduced standard of living. ï¿½Short of an environmentalist
dictatorship, we can be fairly certain of increased coal burning, with
global warming prevention abandoned as 'too expensive'.

The hydrogen economy is stymied by electricity being too expensive.
Nuclear power will solve that problem.
[/quote]
The real problem is a cheap battery.

Bret Cahill

Guest

[quote]You wouldnt know what reality was if it bit you on your lard arse, child.
[/quote]
Show your calculations.

Totally huge.

Liar.

Cite?

Prove it.

Guest

[quote]If you don>t like my solutions then post your own.
Either lead follow or get out of the way.

Nuclear power.
[/quote]
Conan Obrien.

[quote]Show yer calculations including the cost of stainless steel.

Dont need any of that,
[/quote]
Show yer calculations.

Nope.

Ain>t gonna happen

Cite?

[quote]France has shown that its perfectly possible.
[/quote]
Nope. The French have socialized medicine which means logic won>t
work in the U. S.

[quote]Nuclear proliferation is a non-issue for nuclear power.
At least not in the U. S. where every WalMart has MX missiles.

Not in any other first world country either.
[/quote]
Sorry Charlie. The U. S. has been 3rd world for quite some time.

That>s why you can>t git no Pell grant to git educated.

[quote]It is an issue in global affairs, but it is distinct from nuclear power. ?

Yer floggin' a dead horse.

You wouldnt know what a dead horse
[/quote]
Totally huge!

Nope.

.. . .

[quote]Nope,
[/quote]
Yup.

Show yer calculations.

Bret Cahill

Rod Speed · Guest

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

[quote]If you don>t like my solutions then post your own.

Either lead follow or get out of the way.

Nuclear power.

Show yer calculations including the cost of stainless steel.
[/quote]
Dont need any of that, France has shown that its perfectly possible.

[quote]Nuclear proliferation is a non-issue for nuclear power.

At least not in the U. S. where every WalMart has MX missiles.
[/quote]
Not in any other first world country either.

[quote]It is an issue in global affairs, but it is distinct from nuclear power. ?

Yer floggin' a dead horse.
[/quote]
You wouldnt know what a dead horse was if one bit you on your lard arse.

[quote]The number of nuclear power generating reactors needed by the
Manhattan Project was zero. The only link between nuclear power
and nuclear proliferation is as a supply of electricity to the enrichment
plant. The israelis still have not built a power reactor, and the
canadians have been looking at peaceful nuclear reactor
applications for over sixty years-- with no bombs built!

Not that I have anything against nukes but if you digress too
much then you won>t git them to believe you are a leader.
[/quote]
You wouldnt know what a real leader was if one bit you on your lard arse.

[quote]The science of waste disposal has long since been solved.
The political problem of waste disposal is being held up by
environmentalists for no good scientific reason-- they just
want to stop nuclear power (and force us to burn coal).

Nuclear power will allow you to power those
electric tractors that you are so fond of.

Actually solar will do just fine.
[/quote]
Nope.

And anyone with a clue uses biodiesel to power farm machinery that cant be on the grid anyway.

[quote]Without the cheap electricity that nuclear power is proven to be able
to deliver, voters will have to choose between burning coal, or a
drastically reduced standard of living. ?Short of an environmentalist
dictatorship, we can be fairly certain of increased coal burning,
with global warming prevention abandoned as 'too expensive'.

The hydrogen economy is stymied by electricity being
too expensive. Nuclear power will solve that problem.

The real problem is a cheap battery.
[/quote]
Nope, batterys wont work with farm machinery that cant be on the grid.

rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com · Guest

On Jul 28, 10:53 pm, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
[quote]If you don>t like my solutions then post your own.
Either lead follow or get out of the way.
Bret Cahill
Nuclear power.

Show yer calculations including the cost of stainless steel.
[/quote]
Who are you to demand such? When you are challenged all that you do
is bluster.

The nuclear powerplants operating in the US are making huge piles of
profits, while paying into the disposal pool.
[quote]
Follow along, or get out of the way.

Where>s the leadership?

Nuclear proliferation is a non-issue for nuclear power.

At least not in the U. S. where every WalMart has MX missiles.

ï¿½It is an
issue in global affairs, but it is distinct from nuclear power. ï¿½

Yer floggin' a dead horse.

The
number of nuclear power generating reactors needed by the Manhattan
Project was zero. ï¿½The only link between nuclear power and nuclear
proliferation is as a supply of electricity to the enrichment plant.
The israelis still have not built a power reactor, and the canadians
have been looking at peaceful nuclear reactor applications for over
sixty years-- with no bombs built!

Not that I have anything against nukes but if you digress too much
then you won>t git them to believe you are a leader.
[/quote]
if you have nothing against nukes, why are you not trying to promote
it?
[quote]
The science of waste disposal has long since been solved. ï¿½The
political problem of waste disposal is being held up by
environmentalists for no good scientific reason-- they just want to
stop nuclear power (and force us to burn coal).
Nuclear power will allow you to power those electric tractors that you
are so fond of.

Actually solar will do just fine.
[/quote]
The required collector area 4 square meters for every three
kilowatt*hours, divided by the charge time in hours and divided again
by the efficiency of the collector. A full battery charge must be
collected within the time that a charge is used, or the tractor will
be sidelined for lack of energy. The rooftops of the typical
collection of farmhouse, barn, and outbuildings will not have enough
area to support it all.
[quote]
Without the cheap electricity that nuclear power is proven to be able
to deliver, voters will have to choose between burning coal, or a
drastically reduced standard of living. ï¿½Short of an environmentalist
dictatorship, we can be fairly certain of increased coal burning, with
global warming prevention abandoned as 'too expensive'.

The hydrogen economy is stymied by electricity being too expensive.
Nuclear power will solve that problem.

The real problem is a cheap battery.
[/quote]
A cheap battery is a useless lump without energy to charge it.
Electrifying the transport sector will require a many-fold increase in
the electrical power grid. Natural gas has the problem that it will
also run out, so we are stuck with nuclear, so we may as well make a
virtue out of necessity.
[quote]
Bret Cahill[/quote]

tg · Guest

On Jul 29, 3:56Â am, "rlbell.ns...@gmail.com" <rlbell.ns...@gmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]On Jul 28, 10:53 pm, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:

If you don>t like my solutions then post your own.
Either lead follow or get out of the way.
Bret Cahill
Nuclear power.

Show yer calculations including the cost of stainless steel.

Who are you to demand such? Â When you are challenged all that you do
is bluster.

The nuclear powerplants operating in the US are making huge piles of
profits, while paying into the disposal pool.

Follow along, or get out of the way.

Where>s the leadership?

Nuclear proliferation is a non-issue for nuclear power.

At least not in the U. S. where every WalMart has MX missiles.

ï¿½It is an
issue in global affairs, but it is distinct from nuclear power. ï¿½

Yer floggin' a dead horse.

The
number of nuclear power generating reactors needed by the Manhattan
Project was zero. ï¿½The only link between nuclear power and nuclear
proliferation is as a supply of electricity to the enrichment plant.
The israelis still have not built a power reactor, and the canadians
have been looking at peaceful nuclear reactor applications for over
sixty years-- with no bombs built!

Not that I have anything against nukes but if you digress too much
then you won>t git them to believe you are a leader.

if you have nothing against nukes, why are you not trying to promote
it?

The science of waste disposal has long since been solved. ï¿½The
political problem of waste disposal is being held up by
environmentalists for no good scientific reason-- they just want to
stop nuclear power (and force us to burn coal).
Nuclear power will allow you to power those electric tractors that you
are so fond of.

Actually solar will do just fine.

The required collector area 4 square meters for every three
kilowatt*hours, divided by the charge time in hours and divided again
by the efficiency of the collector. Â A full battery charge must be
collected within the time that a charge is used, or the tractor will
be sidelined for lack of energy. Â The rooftops of the typical
collection of farmhouse, barn, and outbuildings will not have enough
area to support it all.

Without the cheap electricity that nuclear power is proven to be able
to deliver, voters will have to choose between burning coal, or a
drastically reduced standard of living. ï¿½Short of an environmentalist
dictatorship, we can be fairly certain of increased coal burning, with
global warming prevention abandoned as 'too expensive'.

The hydrogen economy is stymied by electricity being too expensive.
Nuclear power will solve that problem.

The real problem is a cheap battery.

A cheap battery is a useless lump without energy to charge it.
Electrifying the transport sector will require a many-fold increase in
the electrical power grid. Â Natural gas has the problem that it will
also run out, so we are stuck with nuclear, so we may as well make a
virtue out of necessity.

[/quote]
The reason we don>t have more nuclear plants has nothing to do with
environmentalists, it has to do with economics and right-wing
ideology.

France has lots of nuclear plants, and that>s because they were not
tied to phony arguments about the wonderful private sector. If you
want the gummint to subsidize nuclear plants (which it does, in
various ways,) then you should hire the socialist Frenchies to build
and run them in their terribly inefficient socialist top-down
regulated and uniform manner. And now that I think about it, I guess
they aren>t so inefficient, since they have no problem relying on
nuclear power for what---80% of their electricity?

The other problem that you have with nuclear as a solution to CO2 or
other issues is that you just can>t build the things fast enough, even
if you streamline the regulatory process. You have to get an enormous
amount of capital together, you need stuff like cement (big CO2
source), you need qualified welders, and on and on.

In the short term of 20-30 years the absolute easiest, cheapest and
largest improvement would come from conservation and efficiency. No
need for new tech.

Oh yeah and maybe some reduction in birth rates.

-tg

> > Bret Cahill


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Electronics - Basics Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 2 of 4