Oil cap

On Jun 17, 1:16*pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On Jun 15, 4:28*am, Pat Flannery wrote:


I'm not that optimistic. But I think that people would put up with
nuclear power plants more easily than ten million windmills.

Well maybe, but that isnt actually the situation. Take a standard
3.6MW windmill and you would need approximately 277 of these to equal
a 1000MV reactor, not 10 million of them. Take into account that some
wind generators are pushing 10MW and that drops to only a 100. Along
way from 10 million.

To put in perspective, the US energy Information administration report
for 2008 on Power generation capacity lists,
104 Nuclear generators producing 106,147MW (nameplate capacity)
494 Wind generators producing 24,980MW (nameplate capacity)

Now the WInd generators are in general windfarms (more than one
generator) and the reactors are singular. However, quadrupling the
existing wind power infrastructure in the US would make Nuclear power
redundant and all the associated waste and security issues along with
them.

Additionally, the US is dependant on foreign sources for the nuclear
fuel. The major players are either traditional rivals eg: Russia or
countries that are allies but whose younger generations are
increasingly hostile to the US (boding badly for future supplies).

The US being dependant on Uranium is equally as bad as being dependant
on middle east oil in IMHO. Short of the US actually reigning in their
ridiculous energy consumption, renewable sources seems the way to a
better future.

tom Donnley wrote:

On Jun 17, 1:16 pm, Quadibloc wrote:

On Jun 15, 4:28 am, Pat Flannery wrote:


I'm not that optimistic. But I think that people would put up with
nuclear power plants more easily than ten million windmills.


Well maybe, but that isnt actually the situation. Take a standard
3.6MW windmill and you would need approximately 277 of these to equal
a 1000MV reactor, not 10 million of them. Take into account that some
wind generators are pushing 10MW and that drops to only a 100. Along
way from 10 million.

To put in perspective, the US energy Information administration report
for 2008 on Power generation capacity lists,
104 Nuclear generators producing 106,147MW (nameplate capacity)
494 Wind generators producing 24,980MW (nameplate capacity)

Now the WInd generators are in general windfarms (more than one
generator) and the reactors are singular. However, quadrupling the
existing wind power infrastructure in the US would make Nuclear power
redundant and all the associated waste and security issues along with
them.

With the caveat that you do need some capacity for some days that are not
windy. Having more than 20% of your energy coming from sources which are
not reliable isn't practical. You can do tricks like having a surplus of
generators at hydro dams which can produce at an unsustainable rate when
the wind is down and let the water level replenish when it is more windy
but to do this kind of thing for more than 20% of your energy needs is
usually not very efficient.

Additionally, the US is dependant on foreign sources for the nuclear
fuel. The major players are either traditional rivals eg: Russia or
countries that are allies but whose younger generations are
increasingly hostile to the US (boding badly for future supplies).

The US being dependant on Uranium is equally as bad as being dependant
on middle east oil in IMHO. Short of the US actually reigning in their
ridiculous energy consumption, renewable sources seems the way to a
better future.

I think that the cost of the fuel is a minor part of the equation for
nuclear energy production. The US could extract uranium on its own soil
if it wanted to do so, it doesn't because the deposits in Canada and
elsewhere are a cheaper source. But I don't think it would be a major
disruption to the US economy to use US uranium at twice the price.
It's not as for petroleum, for which the price of the fuel is the major
cost. For nuclear, the cost of the energy comes mainly from the cost
of building and operating the plant, not the uranium ore.


Alain Fournier

In article c9b3160d-00e2-4a5f-aec4-
, says...

On Jun 17, 10:02*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 9cc64ba0-04aa-44d7-acf4-ad2eaaf88e4c@
Irrelevant. *Humans can't operate at the sort of pressures *and*
temperatures found on the surface of Venus. *It's hot enough to melt
lead. *Human DNA would literally cook.

Your unusual lack of physics and Semitic approved obfuscation is
noted.

Your anti-Semitic rants are pointless.

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?

On Jun 18, 8:06*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article c9b3160d-00e2-4a5f-aec4-
, says...



On Jun 17, 10:02*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 9cc64ba0-04aa-44d7-acf4-ad2eaaf88e4c@
Irrelevant. *Humans can't operateat the sort of pressures *and*
temperatures found on the surface of Venus. *It's hot enough to melt
lead. *Human DNA would literally cook.

Your unusual lack of physics and Semitic approved obfuscation is
noted.

Your anti-Semitic rants are pointless. *

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?

Not nearly as pointless as you think, because I'm only pointing out
those bad Semites (including Catholics, Jews and Zionists) which you
and others of your mainstream status-quo never seem to mind no matters
how bad they act or control our K-12s and the vast bulk of mainstream
media.

Do you think it's only Atheists or perhaps Muslims that are bad-guys?

~ BG

On Jun 18, 12:01*pm, Alain Fournier wrote:

With the caveat that you do need some capacity for some days that are not
windy.

Sure, although that's where other sources such as geothermal, solar
thermal etc come in. Even the solar panels on household roofs
supplementing the electrical grid (as done in other countries) could
achieve a good chunk of that. The point being I guess is that the US
is the one country that doesnt have to be dependant on oil or nuclear,
it just chooses to be.



I think that the cost of the fuel is a minor part of the equation for
nuclear energy production. The US could extract uranium on its own soil
if it wanted to do so, it doesn't because the deposits in Canada and
elsewhere are a cheaper source.

True, although most of the viable US deposits are depleted or are on
the way. For the others, well if you have to spend 10Gw to concentrate
enough uranium to generate 1Gw its not really on. Thats why I believe
that the US should get off the nuclear wagon, they will find it
increasingly difficult to get foreign sources as time goes by. And I
dont think you can rely on Canada forever, especially considering
Canada sells as much of their finite sources as they can, whereas as
countries such only allow some of the reserves to be exploited leaving
vast amounts in the ground.

On Jun 20, 7:54*pm, tom Donnley wrote:
On Jun 18, 12:01*pm, Alain Fournier wrote:



With the caveat that you do need some capacity for some days that are not
windy.

Sure, although that's where other sources such as geothermal, solar
thermal etc come in. Even the solar panels on household roofs
supplementing the electrical grid (as done in other countries) could
achieve a good chunk of that. The point being I guess is that the US
is the one country that doesnt have to be dependant on oil or nuclear,
it just chooses to be.



I think that the cost of the fuel is a minor part of the equation for
nuclear energy production. The US could extract uranium on its own soil
if it wanted to do so, it doesn't because the deposits in Canada and
elsewhere are a cheaper source.

True, although most of the viable US deposits are depleted or are on
the way. For the others, well if you have to spend 10Gw to concentrate
enough uranium to generate 1Gw its not really on. Thats why I believe
that the US should get off the nuclear wagon, they will find it
increasingly difficult to get foreign sources as time goes by. And I
dont think you can rely on Canada forever, especially considering
Canada sells as much of their finite sources as they can, whereas as
countries such only allow some of the reserves to be exploited leaving
vast amounts in the ground.

Replace uranium reactors with failsafe thorium, and we're good to go.
We should build up to a terawatt per century, plus as much solar,
wind, geothermal and hydroelectric as possible.

~ BG

On Jun 20, 8:54*pm, tom Donnley wrote:
The point being I guess is that the US
is the one country that doesnt have to be dependant on oil or nuclear,
it just chooses to be.

Iceland might manage on geothermal.

For the U.S. to subsist on solar and wind energy, though, would mean
its deindustrialization... swiftly followed by Russia and China
carving it up between them. Avoiding that is hardly a "choice".

John Savard

For the U.S. to subsist on solar and wind energy, though, would mean
its deindustrialization... swiftly followed by Russia and China
carving it up between them. Avoiding that is hardly a "choice".

John Savard

The US is already going thru deindrulization. havent you noticed the
closed factories everywhere?

On Jun 14, 4:16*pm, LSMFT wrote:
Somebody on the news said it's a shame we can go to the moon but can't
cap on oil well. Now that I've though about that; *we CAN'T go to the
moon any longer. The country has gone stupid and is no longer capable.

--
LSMFT

I haven't spoken to my wife in 18 months.
I don't like to interrupt her.

Obviously going safely to/from our moon is so much easier than
plugging a hole in Earth. At least that's according to our DARPA and
NASA/Apollo wizards that lost everything that was important or science
worthy enough for ever doing it again.

When is our President BHO going to formally seize control of all BP
accesses, technology and any secondary holdings for damage-control
collateral?

Other big investment groups have been taken over upon having caused 1%
as much national damage. Just because BP is thus far buying their
freedom, doesn’t mean that a month or year from now they still be
picking up the tab without gouging us on the price of their
hydrocarbons, that’ll unavoidably inflate most every other hydrocarbon
resource.

As is, instead of any new hydrocarbon resource to soften the
overpriced oil market, it's nothing but an extremely large added drain
on supplies that had no surplus capacity to begin with.

No wonder other gas and oil providers are keeping to themselves and
smiling from ear to ear, as well as getting those laughter induced
stretch marks in spite of all their anti-smirk botox injections,
because in the near future they is going to hit yet another mega
jackpot of profits.

A federal mandate and if need be enforced by military actions should
keep all such deep water explorations off-line until at least one of
them Big Energy cartel/cabals can effectively demonstrate full blowout
containment within 48 hours or less. If anything of less depth blows
out, then it too shall also cause a mandatory shutdown of all oil/gas
operations at that depth or greater, because the Gulf simply can’t
afford another similar event (not even a little one).

Judge Blocks Deep-Water Drilling Moratorium
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/us/23drill.html
"But the order was challenged by a coalition of businesses that
provide services and equipment to offshore drilling platforms. The
companies sued, asking the judge to declare the moratorium to be
invalid and arguing that there was no evidence that existing
operations were unsafe."

It seems there's also no evidence that the upper best of any oil and
gas exploration technology can contain their blowouts nor effectively
clean up their oily sulfur spillage, but what the hell worse can
possibly happen to the new and improved ocean dead-zone that we used
to call the Gulf of Mexico?

BP calls the rest of us "little people" (just like Hagar and rabbi
Saul Levy), as do them Rothschilds and their Queen. Devout Zionist
Semites call the rest of us **** or whatever's worse, and if they
could they just as soon see us put on a stick like they did to that
other dark-skinned trouble maker. The only Mafia like commonality
here is their religion(s) that suck and blow at us "little people".

Perhaps we should all take a personal time-out break in order to get
our pathetic “little people” life back, such as by cruising about on
our multimillion dollar yachts (offshore registered to be tax-
avoidance certain and 100% insured to that those pesky "little people"
get to pay again and again), of course always catered to by our fleets
of custom jets and teams of brown-nosed minions. Sounds real good to
me.

News flash: Just super BP great, as now those Rothschild BP wizards
are admitting their worse case potential blowout of a hundred thousand
barrels per day (4.2 million gallons), not counting their millions of
cubic meters of raw (mostly toxic) natural gas per day. Of course
that’s with their dysfunctional but somewhat flow restrictive BOP
entirely removed, which could happen if they go for a BOP replacement,
though I’m not certain it's even technically possible.

This BP oily sulfur stench that has become the world’s largest and
spreading ocean dead-zone is starting to smell more like the corporate
greedy flatulence of ENRON, Ponzi Madoff and bogus derivatives
combined (all kosher SEC approved none the less) that's still getting
that AAA or 5 star investment rating.

WTF, drill baby drill, because we sure as hell don’t want any of those
Rothschilds or any other redneck Zionists/Jews as unhappy campers.

~ BG

Quadibloc wrote:

On Jun 20, 8:54 pm, tom Donnley wrote:

The point being I guess is that the US
is the one country that doesnt have to be dependant on oil or nuclear,
it just chooses to be.


Iceland might manage on geothermal.

For the U.S. to subsist on solar and wind energy, though, would mean
its deindustrialization... swiftly followed by Russia and China
carving it up between them. Avoiding that is hardly a "choice".

Non sense. A few years ago, a group evaluated the total potential
of wind electricity production in the province of Quebec. That is
excluding areas where installing wind mills would be politically
undesirable (cities and national parks) and places where installing
wind mills would not be profitable at current energy prices. The
potential turned out to be of comparable size to the total
electricity use in North America. I would be very surprised if the
US would not have much more wind energy potential than the province
of Quebec. And if you cover every roof in the US with solar
cells, you get lots of electricity.

Also, Tom Donnley was talking about ceasing dependence to oil
and nuclear. That leaves other options than just solar and wind.
Hydro, bio-gas digesters, tidal energy...


Alain Fournier