That is NO REASON for us to do it. If we were gonna follow the leader, i can think of TEN THOUSAND better leaders to follow than the chineese govornment!Originally Posted by Melonie
That is NO REASON for us to do it. If we were gonna follow the leader, i can think of TEN THOUSAND better leaders to follow than the chineese govornment!Originally Posted by Melonie





The EPA refers to the 'last decimal point' compliance requirements in terms of the use of 'best available technlogy' ... which translates to mean the most expensive and complicated pollution abatement system that any environmental consultant can dream up.
My point about the 50 new coal fired power plants in China was in light of the current US environmental compliance cost situation for new power plants which basically takes new US coal fired power plants off the list of economically feasible possibilities, one notch above nuclear power on the environmental activist shit-list. This in turn forces an increased use of oil or natural gas, which would otherwise be conserved if new coal fired power plants were a feasible economic alternative to new oil or natural gas fired power plants. Yes gas and oil fired power plants produce less pollution than coal fired power plants using 'practically priced' less sophisticated (i.e. not best available technology but reasonably affordable) pollution controls. However, new chinese coal fired power plants are being constructed which will produce 10 times the pollution of a US plant equipped with 'practically priced' pollution controls, with the Chinese showing no major regard for pollution controls on these new coal fired power plants beyond a rudimentary level. THIS is how China is reducing their oil and gas consumption, but spewing their smokestack emissions right into an atmospheric air current which will eventually transport it to California !





A partial answer ro global warming by CO2 generation is nuclear and wind energy. Wind energy continues to be a good idea when the wind is blowing. But US may be the only country with an unrealistic defacto moratorium on nuclear energy. Possibly geothermal may become useful with a lot more work.
I know there are nuclear waste issues there, but humans today do not have to feel obligated to solve a 100,000 year long problem. If we do our best with, say, a 1000+ year lifetime, that would give our population a hugh amount of time to solve the problem further. Look at where we were 100 years ago,or even 10 years ago.
Humans are ingenious, but there is no way we can predict anything that may happen in 100,000 years, much less have to design for it now. That goal is completely unrealistic and self-defeating. If hydro dams and land development are designed for a 100 to 200 year flood, we are satisfied with the tradeoffs (except if last year was that 100th year). Nuclear waste is a more intense problem because cleanup is a lot more intense and that is reflected in the 1000+ year design standard. That should be good enough if we are smart enough and awake long enough to ferret out any shyster/incompetent designer/builders involved in the progect.
Let us please be more realistic about where we are going and what we can do.
I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.
Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.
NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.
As usual, your translations of A PHRASE in the law is completely absurdOriginally Posted by Melonie
Then you agree the pollution is a problem...so why bitch about the clean plants and not the dirty ones?My point about the 50 new coal fired power plants in China was in light of the current US environmental compliance cost situation for new power plants which basically takes new US coal fired power plants off the list of economically feasible possibilities, THIS is how China is reducing their oil and gas consumption, but spewing their smokestack emissions right into an atmospheric air current which will eventually transport it to California !
My suggestion that any economy producing for the US market should meet reasonable sustainability stanndards (pollution, worker safety, etc) would solve your problem (of Chinese pollution hurting CA) virtually overnight.
I'm not against nuke plants...IF we cansolve the issues.
If you create a problem that lasts for 10,000 years, it's wrong, imprudent and hateful to say you're not responsible for considering the solution for that length of time.
Besides...we don't even have a solution that's good for 100 years
Emphasis added - so you don't see any ethical issue with making a mess for other people to clean up - maybe? Yes, human beings are ingenius, but if we can't do it now, it is rank foolishness just to go ahead on blind faith that we will be able to do it then. Look at where we are now? In the 50's they thought we would have flying cars. Things don't always pan out the way you expect, especially in long term history.Originally Posted by threlayer
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth
I agree totally with you on nuclear energy. We can't possibly know what technology will exist in 1000 or even 100 years. It may well be that the solution to used nuclear fuel is so obvious to our decendants that they will wonder what all the fuss was about.Originally Posted by threlayer
Of course the biggest hurdle to harnessing nuclear power are the anti-technology environmetal extremists. Many profess to be amenable to nuclear, "if we can guarantee that we have solved the problem of disposition of the waste". But given the history of the environmental movement, you have to wonder if any science would ever satisfy them.
I have disagree with you on the viability of wind power though. The amount of land that would be needed to provide just 10% of our nation's energy source is staggering. Also, thanks to the NIMBY attitude of many evironmentalists (enviornmentalist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. led the fight against a wind farm off the coast of his family's Mass. compound) you realize that wind will never contribute much.
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle





Jenny,
It's just that I see a much bigger ethical issue in the global warming, forest depletion, oil/coal pollution, etc. All of these are near term problems which cannot adequately be fixed by modifying those technologies; many also are political will issues and will continue to be such for millenia, some are international which we have no real control over. In any case many other countries are burning nuclear fuel and they have the same technologies available as we do.
Also we are ignoring the internationally recognized issues such as are being discussed in the G8 conference. How do you feel about the US and a few other countries ignoring world pressure in such things was over fishing, whaling, deforestation, etc?
The confinement of nuclear waste can be done very well now. The careful monitoring needed can be done very well now. Leaks, or incipient leaks, can be detected well and repaired pretty well even now. Some technologies applied to existing waste such as ultra compaction, specific isotope extraction and transmutation to faster half-life isotopes will be handled in the future unless we politically give up on the problem. Those technologies will be even easier to develop for waste which has not yet been stored in those deep underground repositories.
Eventually we will have to face the effects of global warming which will inevitably grow into a huge problem, very likely bigger than nuclear waste problems, in less than a century. We all already have to clean up the waste we have now; so we already need to develop those technologies. We're just talking volume.
I would much rather pass on a techical problem which can be handled for many centuries with today's technologies very carefully applied. This is over the near-term alternative of polluting the atmosphere and killing more vegetation and spoiling the entire world for our quality of life rather than a few square miles of unused land for nuclear waste management.
The problem is that being "polite" now and having to impossibly clean up our waste for a 100,000 year period, like a troop of boy scouts, puts us in a quite vulnerable position in the bigger and longer range picture. I think avoiding this technology in favor of expanding fossil fuel based energies is more irresponsible for future generations.
Last edited by threlayer; 07-08-2005 at 09:55 AM.
I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.
Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.
NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.





I think wind power is helpful in certain locations, even near here on the eastern end of Lake Ontario. It is a lesser supplement. Favorable sites will always be limited and land-use intensive (although often farming can be done in those areas), and it is also often remote from load centers. But so is land use for hydro, but even hydro technology has multiple limitations -- in many areas this is well devloped already, damming up rivers causes massive loss of habitat, and often the source is quite remote from load centers, necessitating massive transmission capacities, such as in the James Bay area of Quebec (near the Hudson Bay) or Italpo near the Amazon. Both of these hydro development have caused stunningly large habitat modifications. Further, wind energy will never be a replacement for base-load power (large plants with low operating/fuel costs). Still once wind power is installed, its pollution level is low unless you are talking about visual "pollution" or radio antenna interference. Then there is that bird interference, but that is not pollution, but an environmental impact.Originally Posted by Destiny
I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.
Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.
NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.
Wind power is an adjunct source, not a primary one. That should be clear. However, in Wyoming, where you have lots of wind and not many people, you can afford to have wind turbines that do a pretty good job of cranking out energy.
I have nothing against properly safeguarded nuclear power.





There are three classes or power sources most commonly used in the commercial power industry...
base load sources - large sources (high capital) costs, lower operating (fuel costs), high reliability (commonly including hydro, nuclear, large coal plants, some cogeneration plants)
intermediate sources - moderate capital and operating costs (commonly including less efficient (older smaller) coal-fired plants, oil fired large plants, co-generation plants typically, some wind units)
peaking load sources - lowest capital but higher operating costs, smaller units but in total sources you must be able to count on (commonly including oil fired gas turbines, hydro pumped storage, wind units (but they are less reliable typically)
I assume your notation of wind as not primary and but adjunct corresponds to not base load (primary) but to the other two classes. You may not mean this, but I believe I grasp your meaning.
Technological changes and govt regulations can alter unit and plant efficiencies and capital costs, including retrofits, and so their usefulness in these ranges can also change over time. Likely geothermal will best fit in base-load; wind energy depends on the site; it would be nice if most could have base-load characteristics as fuel cost is nil. Hard for me to say where each developing development will fit, as I do not keep closely up to date on these technoloogies.
I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.
Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.
NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.
I'm kind of hoping that we don't have to choose. I want someone to master cold fusion please. If we all spent as much time on cold fusion as we did on this message board....Originally Posted by threlayer
I feel very, very bad about it.Also we are ignoring the internationally recognized issues such as are being discussed in the G8 conference. How do you feel about the US and a few other countries ignoring world pressure in such things was over fishing, whaling, deforestation, etc?
Ahhh! I can't converse intelligently on energy - this is a field I know even less about than African poverty. I'm really more questioning the wisdom of a certain way of thought (e.g. - they'll be able to fix it in 1000 years when they really might not. Although I certainly take your point that the step may be necessary to ensure 1000 more years). It's really this thinking - that we don't need to worry about the future that is getting us into this mess (I feel fairly confident about that, despite my lack of knowledge of the field).The confinement of nuclear waste can be done very well now. The careful monitoring needed can be done very well now. Leaks, or incipient leaks, can be detected well and repaired pretty well even now.
Okay. I already said that I have no idea what you are talking about. There is no need to show off.Some technologies applied to existing waste such as ultra compaction, specific isotope extraction and transmutation to faster half-life isotopes will be handled in the future unless we politically give up on the problem. Those technologies will be even easier to develop for waste which has not yet been stored in those deep underground repositories.
I suppose seeking out less... contentious? alternative is terribly impractical? Even with all the human ingenuity that is going to fix nuclear waste 1000 years from now?The problem is that being "polite" now and having to impossibly clean up our waste for a 100,000 year period, like a troop of boy scouts, puts us in a quite vulnerable position in the bigger and longer range picture. I think avoiding this technology in favor of expanding fossil fuel based energies is more irresponsible for future generations.
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth





Going way back to the original topic of this thread, the subject was measures to reduce high oil prices (presumeably in the short term). We haven't really identified any politically acceptable, environmentally permissible, financially practical short term alternative. Therefore logic dictates that either the political situation must change, the environmental situation must change, the financial framework must change, or oil prices are going to stay high and probably get even higher. I suppose there is also the option of fundamentally changing the American way of life too i.e. doing away with the suburban commuter culture.
Leave it to a Mod to insist that we stay on topic. And just when Jenny and I were learning about isotope extraction and transmutation.Originally Posted by Melonie
The answer is simple economics. If you want to lower the cost of something, increase the supply. You can do this at the raw material level by finding additional sources, such as Alaska, or off the coasts of Florida or California. Or you can increase supply at the retail level by removing some of the restrictions on the refining of gasoline. As an example, it's my understanding that California has state-specific requirements for additives to gasoline sold in the state. The result of this is that only refineries in California produce gasoline for the state. If you removed these requirements, you would open the state's markets up to gasoline from other states, thereby increasing the availible supply and reducing the cost. If we are unwilling to do either of the above for evironmental or other reasons, we are in effect, deciding to pay higher prices for gas.
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle
But when the supply is a limited resource, you can only increase it for so long. Then you are hastening its depletion, and at that point, the line goes off the chart.
Which is why many people don't have a problem with the current price of gasoline. It encourages conservation and makes alternatives more attractive. However, as the supply of such a "limited resource" began to decline relative to demand, the price would go back up again.Originally Posted by Jay Zeno
Personally, I prefer to think in terms of not just oil, but energy overall. But the topic is, "America's solution to the oil price problems" so I figured I'd better stay on topic or else that evil Mod Melonie might get on to me.![]()
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle
increase supply...or reduce demand by moving to other forms of energy. But that requires incentives/support to get the competitive forms of energy off the ground (though my BD operation calculated our COST TO PRODUCE BioDiesel at around 99c per gallon, sell for 1.75 taxes included and make a tidy profit.
There is a company taking the plunge and making a biodiesel refinery someplace in the midwest. Millions of dollars at risk - I hope it pans out.Originally Posted by discretedancer
alot of companies are doing it...if our current prospective customer signs, the upfront investment will be about $7MM and our annual profit will run 2-5 MM.
Sounds good...if somebody will front us the $7MM





Not to veer too far off topic, but I would think that in today's low interest rate environment investor capital would be easy to come by IF the actual economics of bio-diesel are sustainable in the long term (i.e. with gov't assistance/investor tax breaks factored out). Of course you're competing with under $1 per gallon extraction costs from Tar Sands and many other potential alternate oil options. I'm certain that if crude oil market prices appear to be 'permanently' resettled at a level above $55 per barrel we will soon be 'swimming' in extracted tar sand oil (which BTW is estimated to have a total alternate oil volume exceeding Saudi Arabian oil fields), which constitutes a much more stable much less risky venture to bankers than bio-diesel ! For the record I hope that bio-diesel pans out too, as long as my tax money funding gov't assistance/investor tax breaks isn't an indespensible part of its 'apparent' economic viability
This again raises an underlying question of exactly how much of today's oil and gas price increases are actually due to a long term shortage of crude oil (and alternate oil), versus how much of today's 'refined' diesel/heating oil and gasoline price increases are due to other factors i.e. a shortage of local refining capacity, taxes, local requirements for specialty additives etc.
I certainly agree with Destiny that there is a significant group out there who see $3-4-5 per gallon gasoline prices as a very positive development in terms of creating financial incentive to develop 'practical' alternatives both with substitute fuels and with substitute consumption. Of course there is another significant group out there that realizes that $3-4-5 per gallon US/European gasoline prices represents a de-facto tax increase on both US/European businesses and the US/European working class, will definitely contribute to an economic recession, and at the same time makes Chinese imports even cheaper by comparison (as Chinese will pay a lower cost per gallon more closely associated with the actual cost of gasoline production, which will directly impact future Chinese production costs and labor costs).
~
Last edited by Melonie; 07-10-2005 at 07:31 AM.
Then DD, why are you not building 50 biodiesel plants with emphasis on the northeast were heating oil is used a lot and minor imperfections matter less for performance? You could handily sell the biodiesel for 10 cents per gallon less than all-petroleum diesel and "clean up" (pun intended).Originally Posted by discretedancer
No. Higher prices will reduce demand. Higher prices will also make alternatives more attractive, which is why I prefer to discuss energy as a whole and not just oil. If biodiesel is truly economically feasible there is no need for incentives/support for it. Put it this way. If the cost for water out of the tap at home jumped to $5 per 16 oz.s, bottled water would suddenly become more attractive to me as a consumer. The water bottlers wouldn't need incentives or support (government handouts) to make their product viable.Originally Posted by discretedancer
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle
Agreed. When the pain factor spikes, other options become economically viable.Higher prices will also make alternatives more attractive, which is why I prefer to discuss energy as a whole and not just oil.
To the extent that the government isn't already impeding development of biodiesel options, I agree. However, none of these initiatives happen in a vacuum, and waving the magic wand of government subsidies (a la the ethanol scam/welfare program for red states) will not accelerate the pace of adoption.If biodiesel is truly economically feasible there is no need for incentives/support for it.
Market forces still rule the day.
Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
In truth, making BD retail-price acceptable is rather easy...but because of subsidies to oil companies (not counting the army/diplomacy subsidy of "securing freedom" in oil producing countries) and the other advantages (economy of scale, etc.) of an entrenched industry....making it acceptable on the wholesale market is thin...the reason the incentives were created in the first place.
Our business plan is centered on making $$ without the subsidies, they become gravy to make us MORE competitive....but it would be a whole lot easier if the "externalized costs" of petroleum were actually visible in that price





I'd be very interested to hear how these 'externalized' costs (i.e. hidden subsidies) apply to imported Canadian or South American oil for example.
Bookmarks