Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fossil fuels and nuclear energy are limited resources that we will run out of sooner or later.*

Sooner or later we will have to shift to renewable energy sources, whether wind or solar, etc.


*yes I know, some smartass will say that we will not run out oil, just out of cheap oil, but you know what I mean.
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
Fossil fuels and nuclear energy are limited resources that we will run out of sooner or later.*

Sooner or later we will have to shift to renewable energy sources, whether wind or solar, etc.


*yes I know, some smartass will say that we will not run out oil, just out of cheap oil, but you know what I mean.


There is a huge difference between oil, which is dissapearing fast and coal and nuclear. We have barely begun to explore for uranium, and we have enough coal to last for a long time.
Even now a CANDU reactor can "recharge" waste fuel from other reactors. They don't bother because they can simply get it from the ground.
There is enough time with coal and nuclear for us to come up with another solution. Fusion ?
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You are right GC, this planet will run out of fissionable materials eventually. That is a billion or so years, but don't let that stop you from spending all the money you want on wind and solar. Just leave me out of it, and the government out of it please. I prefer to get my power from things that, in my opinion, work, and avoid power from things that don't.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How long do you guys think oil, coal and uranium will last for? Just a rough estimate.

Better yet, how long do you think oil will be affordable? When will it reach $200 a barrel, $500 a barrel? $1000 a barrel??
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
How long do you guys think oil, coal and uranium will last for? Just a rough estimate.

Better yet, how long do you think oil will be affordable? When will it reach $200 a barrel, $500 a barrel? $1000 a barrel??
We will never run out of oil. But, the oil age will end, just like the wind age, and the coal age.

People did not stop sailing across the ocean because the wind stopped blowing, they stopped because something better came along. Likewise with steam power. Diesel electric supplanted the steam train, as the boiler supplanted the sail. As I said, there are billions of years worth of fissionable materials on this planet, so we will never run out of that either.

Your paranoia is tiresome. Eventually the sun will go nova, so that is not renewable either by your definition.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7524
Reputation: 301Reputation: 301
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
Fossil fuels and nuclear energy are limited resources that we will run out of sooner or later.*

Sooner or later we will have to shift to renewable energy sources, whether wind or solar, etc.


*yes I know, some smartass will say that we will not run out oil, just out of cheap oil, but you know what I mean.


While I agree with the sentiment,
I don't think anyone is advocating throwing up Nuclear Power Plants to power the world, dusting off our hands and boarding up any facility around the world that is researching alternatives.

Solar is not there yet,
Wind is not there yet,
Geothermal is not there yet,

That's not to say in 20 years they won't be, but the problem is if you go with a bad system that is not efficient now you stunt the growth in the technology because you concede that mediocrity is good enough.

I am of the mindset that we are at Point A

Point A being a mixed bag of power, much of it causing issues within its Environment (IE Coal) that is largely cost effective but not people effective

Point C is getting 100% of our power from fully renewable sources,

The problem is far to many people realize there is a middle step in that equation, and that is generating cheap, clean power while one of the above fully renewable options is made efficient, the "Point B" if you will.

We have spent how many decades arguing over Solar and Wind which are not close to being at the efficiency we need them to be while Coal plants have dumped countless amounts of sediment into the sky.

Had we had the foresight and gone Nuclear while we worked on making Solar, Wind or Geothermal cost effective we would be in a much better place then we are now.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:
While I agree with the sentiment,
I don't think anyone is advocating throwing up Nuclear Power Plants to power the world, dusting off our hands and boarding up any facility around the world that is researching alternatives.

Solar is not there yet,
Wind is not there yet,
Geothermal is not there yet,
It may be true that non-renewables are not yet as efficient as fossil fuels, but that doesn't mean we should sit around and wait for renewables to run out before we find ways to make renewables more efficient. In other words, let's solve this problem before it becomes a problem in the first place (and that's not even counting global warming, which is another issue altogether). I don't think we should assume that new technology will just appear and the problem will solve itself, we need to work on this.
Quote:
That's not to say in 20 years they won't be, but the problem is if you go with a bad system that is not efficient now you stunt the growth in the technology because you concede that mediocrity is good enough.

I don't see how using renewable sources now will stunt the growth 20 years from now. Tehcnology is always continuously improving. If it wasn't, we'd all be driving model-Ts. In fact, if anything, technology improves more when we use it.

I'll try this a different way:
Let's say that a given amount of energy "X" costs $100 using fossil fuels and $1,000 using renewables. If we simply sit back and wait and only use the most cost effective energy, we will be waiting for oil to hit $1,000 dollars before we start using renewables. If we develop renewables now, we can bring the cost down (hopefully to $100 or even cheaper), and we can switch to renewables without paying $1,000 for energy.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7524
Reputation: 301Reputation: 301
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
cosmostein wrote:
While I agree with the sentiment,
I don't think anyone is advocating throwing up Nuclear Power Plants to power the world, dusting off our hands and boarding up any facility around the world that is researching alternatives.

Solar is not there yet,
Wind is not there yet,
Geothermal is not there yet,
It may be true that non-renewables are not yet as efficient as fossil fuels, but that doesn't mean we should sit around and wait for renewables to run out before we find ways to make renewables more efficient. In other words, let's solve this problem before it becomes a problem in the first place (and that's not even counting global warming, which is another issue altogether). I don't think we should assume that new technology will just appear and the problem will solve itself, we need to work on this.
Quote:
That's not to say in 20 years they won't be, but the problem is if you go with a bad system that is not efficient now you stunt the growth in the technology because you concede that mediocrity is good enough.

I don't see how using renewable sources now will stunt the growth 20 years from now. Tehcnology is always continuously improving. If it wasn't, we'd all be driving model-Ts. In fact, if anything, technology improves more when we use it.

I'll try this a different way:
Let's say that a given amount of energy "X" costs $100 using fossil fuels and $1,000 using renewables. If we simply sit back and wait and only use the most cost effective energy, we will be waiting for oil to hit $1,000 dollars before we start using renewables. If we develop renewables now, we can bring the cost down (hopefully to $100 or even cheaper), and we can switch to renewables without paying $1,000 for energy.


But we are making renewable more efficient,
Look at the cost and output of a Solar Panel in 1998 and compare it to those today, its much more efficient.

In terms of cost to produce energy its still terrible, but its getting better.

I don't think anyone is sitting on their hands waiting till oil hits 1000000000 dollars a barrel to make a change, we just want to make a change to something that is practical.

It is not unreasonable to assume that the technology may be able to approach the cost efficiency of Nuclear power within the next decade or so.

I don't see a need a to force the technology when its not there yet, and I don't see us running out of Uranium while we wait for an efficient (both cost and energy) version of a renewable power source to move forward.

Forcing people onto a 14 cents per Kilowatt hour wind system or a 50 cent per Kilowatt hour Solar system when we have a clean 5 cents per Kilowatt hour alternative in nuclear available under this "Environmental Apocalypse" approach does nothing but hurt the cause for renewable energy.

Canadians don't want to pay three times what they are already paying to go Green-er, just for the sake of going more Green.

Nuclear and Hydroelectric are two clean options,
Nuclear is emission free, and Hydroelectric is you get into all the "decay" and methane factors is still at 3% that of Coal.

Why force Wind and Solar on us at three to ten times the cost now?
Especially when we have good options available right now.

We are simply opting to go with a bad technology because it happens to be "Green", we would be better off burning Biomass then we are going with Wind and Solar with the level the technology is now.

It should be noted that around the turn of the last century there were public debates on how long the Coal reserves would last with the growth of the North American population,

This concept when we have cars that are nearly 80% more efficient then those we had a few decades ago that we will be consuming oil at the same rate we are now for the next few decades is interesting, we shouldn't forget that Peak Oil was suppose to hit us in the mid 1990's, now they are talking about 2030.

I am not too concerned at the inevitable end date for consumables, as its been about two centuries since the industrial revolutions and there has always been talk of "do we have enough X" and as we move closer to the date of running out of X, we find something more cost efficient to use and the debate tends to begin again.

Not because of a green concern, but because of cost efficiency.


Last edited by cosmostein on Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:48 pm; edited 2 times in total
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You are so right Cosmo. Before peak oil, what kept the excitable awake at night was peak coal.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7524
Reputation: 301Reputation: 301
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
You are so right Cosmo. Before peak oil, what kept the excitable awake at night was peak coal.


Yes Sir,

William Stanley Jevons raise the question in 1865, in his book "The Coal Question".
Its actually what M. King Hubbert used as his basis for "peak oil".

What is interesting about all these peak bell curves is that they rarely take any efficiencies into account, peak oil was not realized in the 1990's because we found more and our use of oil became more efficient.

If the rate of efficiency increases, coupled with the inevitable replacement of oil as a primary vehicle energy source determining an "end date" for Coal, Oil, Uranium is a very tricky number to nail down.

Yet it does not stop every environmentalist to attempt to do so as a lobbying tactic for their energy source of choice.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:
What is interesting about all these peak bell curves is that they rarely take any efficiencies into account, peak oil was not realized in the 1990's because we found more and our use of oil became more efficient.

Indeed, Jevons and Hubbert were the climate change modelers of their time, predicting catastrophe based on grossly simple and wrong headed assumptions supported neither by logic nor by history.

Not only do peak theorists fail to account for efficiencies in consumption, they fail to account for advances in production. (Relative) Resource scarcity, technological innovation and economies of scale have worked in tandem time and time again to prove them wrong. I suspect, as you do, that the percieved utility of peak theory as political rhetoric lends far mre to its recurrence than does its real world accuracy.
marklar





Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Posts: 186
Reputation: 38.5Reputation: 38.5Reputation: 38.5Reputation: 38.5
votes: 1
Location: Toronto, Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:

What is interesting about all these peak bell curves is that they rarely take any efficiencies into account, peak oil was not realized in the 1990's because we found more and our use of oil became more efficient.

If the rate of efficiency increases...


Ahhh you can't blame them, they must've worked in the assumption that government would monopolize the industry at some point.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:
I don't think anyone is sitting on their hands waiting till oil hits 1000000000 dollars a barrel to make a change, we just want to make a change to something that is practical.

I disagree. I think this thread is proof of that, although I am glad to see that you are not one of those people.
Quote:
It is not unreasonable to assume that the technology may be able to approach the cost efficiency of Nuclear power within the next decade or so.

It might, but if we throw our hands in the air and declare something a "dead end" then you can be sure it won't.
Quote:
I don't see a need a to force the technology when its not there yet, and I don't see us running out of Uranium while we wait for an efficient (both cost and energy) version of a renewable power source to move forward.
Forcing people onto a 14 cents per Kilowatt hour wind system or a 50 cent per Kilowatt hour Solar system when we have a clean 5 cents per Kilowatt hour alternative in nuclear available under this "Environmental Apocalypse" approach does nothing but hurt the cause for renewable energy.

I don't think anyone is advocating that we completely eliminate the use of fossil fuels and force everyone to use renewables, but there does need to be incentives to use renewables.
Quote:
Canadians don't want to pay three times what they are already paying to go Green-er, just for the sake of going more Green.

True, which is why we should provide incentives like tax relief for people who do "go green".

Quote:
Nuclear and Hydroelectric are two clean options,
Nuclear is emission free, and Hydroelectric is you get into all the "decay" and methane factors is still at 3% that of Coal.

Hydroelectric is great, and it is renewable.
Nuclear may be emission free, but there is waste, and that waste lasts a long, long time. If we could find ways to solve that problem it would be much better, but even still nuclear is non-renewable, so again we are going to run out of it eventually. Probably sooner than many people would like to think. Will we have perfected renewable energy by then? Perhaps, but not if we sit around and pretend that we will never run out of non-renewables.
Quote:
This concept when we have cars that are nearly 80% more efficient then those we had a few decades ago that we will be consuming oil at the same rate we are now for the next few decades is interesting, we shouldn't forget that Peak Oil was suppose to hit us in the mid 1990's, now they are talking about 2030.

The cost of oil has nearly tripled in the past 5 or 6 years, and only came back down when the economy crashed. It may be conventional wisdom that bad mortgages caused the problem, but not many people consider the effect of high oil prices. If that is true, recovery won't be possible until we bring down the cost of energy and the only way to do that is with renewables. If we rely on non-renwables, the cost will just get higher and higher as it has over the past several years. With renewables the cost will only go down with new technology, so the key is to bring the price down now rather than waiting for oil to become as expensive as renewables.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:
kwlafayette wrote:
You are so right Cosmo. Before peak oil, what kept the excitable awake at night was peak coal.


Yes Sir,

William Stanley Jevons raise the question in 1865, in his book "The Coal Question".
Its actually what M. King Hubbert used as his basis for "peak oil".

What is interesting about all these peak bell curves is that they rarely take any efficiencies into account, peak oil was not realized in the 1990's because we found more and our use of oil became more efficient.

If the rate of efficiency increases, coupled with the inevitable replacement of oil as a primary vehicle energy source determining an "end date" for Coal, Oil, Uranium is a very tricky number to nail down.

Yet it does not stop every environmentalist to attempt to do so as a lobbying tactic for their energy source of choice.
I think it is beyond doubt that the really easy light sweet crude, the stuff that came out of the ground on its own ready to burn in boilers, that stuff has peaked. But the thing is, between the seventies and now, we do 4 times the amount of work with a barrel of oil than we did then. That is why when oil got even more expensive that during the energy crisis, it really did not affect is that much. So if oil is $1000 a barrel in 50 years, but we are doing another 4 times the work by then, it does not really matter; that would be a 16 times increase in efficiency from the 70s.

As for nuclear, anyone that thinks we will run out, well they simply do not understand. Greens have created the waste problem that they complain about by insisting on the once through fuel cycle. You put a fuel rod through once, and 1% of the fissionable u-235 is converted to energy. That is right, 99% of the fissionable material is still there, but the insistence of crazies that there be no re-processing, and irrational fear of plutonium prevents use of that fuel. I mean seriously, if we allowed re-processing and breeder reactors, there is probably enough nuclear fuel just sitting in cooling ponds to keep us going for 1000 years.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7524
Reputation: 301Reputation: 301
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:

The cost of oil has nearly tripled in the past 5 or 6 years, and only came back down when the economy crashed. It may be conventional wisdom that bad mortgages caused the problem, but not many people consider the effect of high oil prices. If that is true, recovery won't be possible until we bring down the cost of energy and the only way to do that is with renewables. If we rely on non-renwables, the cost will just get higher and higher as it has over the past several years. With renewables the cost will only go down with new technology, so the key is to bring the price down now rather than waiting for oil to become as expensive as renewables.


Ultimately, I think on the other issues you and I are not entirely off the same page.

I am all for the "Greenest" form of power because when the technology reaches near the peak of its cost and energy efficiency curve I think we will transition because it makes the most sense from an economic stance,

Whereas your approach is to subsidize technology that is not there yet to make people go green sooner,

Same end game different routes,

The point above however caught my eye, because its repeating something that I consider to be largely untrue that I need to combat on nearly a daily basis.

Oil hitting $147.27 had little to do with consumption and much more to do with future trading.

And oil did not come down as the economy fell, oil came down as money returned to standard equities.

Oil hit its peak price of July 11, 2008 this occurred while the DOW was shedding nearly 3000 points off its highs from October 2007.

Oil rose as standard equities fell,
and it wasn't just oil it was all the traditional commodities that rose.
Gold, Silver, Platinum, Palladium etc all rose to record levels at nearly the same pace as Oil did.

Financial and Real Estate were both "parking sectors" and when both those markets got hit you saw money flood the natural commodities market.

The cost of Oil was driven up by futures and not real demand, which was made even more clear when consumption reports from China and India were well below expectations for 2008.

The 140 dollar barrel of oil had nothing to do with demand, and while people seem to be screaming that the sky is falling as oil rises we are basically sitting at an oil price of nearly half of its peak as it returns to being a demand dictated commodity.

As to the point about using renewable,
I don't disagree with you.

Its a good economic concept, but with that said going green for the sake of going green which is basically all Solar is at this point at nearly ten times the cost is not viable, its a bad technology both from an energy and cost efficiency stand point.

Biomass? Maybe?

Wind? Perhaps.

But we are nowhere near depleting the best and most cost effective option available to us by way of Nuclear Power, and while I have an alternative that is cost effective and "Green" why should I force technology which may be a good long term idea on the populous when its just not ready now?

If Solar is viable and can provide cheap efficient power, people will buy it.
Same goes for Geothermal, Wind, and Biomass.

However, I see no need to force citizens onto bad options that are not ready because they "may" become more efficient in ten years.

Let them become more efficient and let the market dictate which one succeeds, in the mean time while we have this debate Coal Fire plants are providing 50% of North America's power.

With 25 Coal Fire Plants being built or expanded in 2009 alone.

Nuclear is the solution for right now as its the most efficient (both cost and energy) that we have available to us, if we want clean efficient power now,

Its Nuclear or Bust.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Wind power: failed technology.

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB