Terra Rossa Poll
by
Terra Rossa
April 16th, 2007
Do you want your voice heard? Participate in our first reader poll, and explain your choice here.
This entry was posted on Monday, April 16th, 2007 at 4:23 pm and is filed under Polls . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:29 am
If Greenpeace really wanted to protect the planet and not just spread their socialist agenda, they would recognize the impressive benefits of nuclear energy. Let’s get past the scare tactics and look at a real energy alternative we are already using.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
My vote is not one of the choices offered. It’s “all of the above”. Our dependence on oil (and coal) is so overwhelming that there is no one alternative source that can take its place (see for example this article on the coming energy transition.
I will say that the threat of climate change is so serious that I think all options, including nuclear energy, must be on the table (whch I would not have said a decade ago). Nuclear may or may not end up being a viable solution but there is too much at stake to rule out any option without discussion.
The answer to the current energy/climate/finite earth meta-problem will come from a “silver buckshot” approach rather than any single silver bullet.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:11 am
I agree with Natural Patriot, the cost of each kilowatt of electricy produced via alternative means is costantly getting lower. If we start using all the above the need for middle east oil would diminsh drastically. The conversion of our excess crops into Biofuels would eliminate the need for farm subsidies and re-establish a free market type economy for farmers that have long been subsidized not to grow certain crops. The car makers would not have to change much in their production to build a car that ran completely on 100% ethanol which is much more efficient than blending and burning an 85% mix.
April 19th, 2007 at 7:08 am
Coal is it, right now. We have a LOT of it, infrastructure and technology to use it efficiently, and no toxic waste dispoal problems a la nuclear. I like renewable energy, but the energy that it is possible to produce from such sources is orders of magnitude less than what we need for even basic systems now in place. Keep trying on the renewable.
April 19th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
“All of the above” might be a better choice. We need nuclear for the base load. The waste problems are more NIMBY and paranoia that any real technical issue. I’m not a big fan of crop-based ethanol. I read that it can’t be pumped through existing pipelines- something about picking up water in the system. So it’s going to have to be trucked around, along with all the fertilizers and pesticides needed for the agriculture. What about it’s effect on the price of food… and the cost of using up farmland? The raw crops are going to have to be trucked around as well… Some say that it will cost more energy that it produces.
I did read an interesting article on using salt water algae to produce biodiesel… I lost the link, but the guys made a good case for it, with estimates on the size needed to supply the US.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
I taught weather for the Coast Guard. Started a class asking how many would like an end to smog and particulates in the air. All hands up. Then, how many would like the end of the biggest greenhouse gas. All hands up. I told them they were consistent and all wanted a bone dry planet. Then, told them moisture must condense on something to fall as rain or snow, and that the biggest greenhouse gas is moisture. They had to think about that one. Moisture is the down comforter that keeps the body warm after the sun goes down, not a thin sheet.
April 22nd, 2007 at 2:39 am
“All of the above.”
That is the right answer. If nothing else we will reduce the $’s going to the nutters in the ME. The reason is scalability. No single answer to the amount of energy the US uses can possibly fill the gap. We need all of them.
And I do not accept the absolute certainty that global warming is man made only. Fact: Mars surface temp has warmed at the same rate as the Earths. Hmm, could it be the suns output is up? The answer is that it is.
I think it is pure hubris to assume that our puny effects are the sole cause.
But this is a long argument made in other ways than the comments section.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
I am for all of the above. Each by itself will not be sufficient. I find nothing wrong with coal as I not a believer in the man made global warming theory. We have lots of coal. There is no sense in buying oil from jihadists when we can use coal.
April 24th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Have we forgotten Tesslers coil? We could have free energy that would be totally clean. The problem that the power companies have with that is the word free.
April 29th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
“All of the above”!!!!
Being from faaaarrrrr west Texas, I know wind power would be, and is, a wonderful addition to meeting our energy needs. A friend works in the industry & the initial costs are becoming much more reasonable.
However, we need all of the rest! I am concerned that we investigate thoroughly the impact of alternative fuels, such as ethanol, on mechanical entities. Our household has 5 drivers and we try to conserve fuel, but at the same time, our cars are all well over the 100,000 mile mark. Living in a rural area, this is not unusual.
Also, as the US has the refining capabilities for the ME oil, why do THEY get to hold us hostage with prices? If it just sits in barrels in the ME, the price would have to drop.
But of course, dems would go nuts — screaming that the sky is falling and how dare the USA think of itself first.
When do our Washington reps get with the program?
When they find a way to profit from changing and supporting all of the choices.
April 30th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Speed is an issue.
The two 1.7 GW nukes order by TXU will not be commercial till 2015 to 2020 (apparently hard dates are difficult to get for new nukes in the US).
OTOH, adding new wind turbines can be done in 12 months (financial decision to commercial operation) for expanding an existing wind farm, and about 30 months for a Greenfield wind farm.
Natural gas freed by new generation can be used for speciality, high priority transportation (although Honda sells a compressed NG Civic) such as garbage trucks and city buses within a few years.
The % of wind that the grid can take can be dramatically increased by building more pumped storage (Google Raccoon Mountain of Bath County Pumped Storage)
and HV DC transmission lines to connect wind with pumped storage and load.
Nuclear can be the S L O W backup and second wave of new non-GHG generation, especially useful for areas with poor wind resources.
BTW: I doubt that the US could complete 4 new nukes/yr before 2025 under any quasi-economic program. We could add that much wind equivalent (30% vs. 90% capacity factor) annually in a decade. In other words, it would be well past 2030 before new nuke generation could catch up with new wind generation if both were pursued vigourously.
May 12th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
The poll favors biofuels, but biofuels take lots of good old Middle eastern oil to grow. Also, our transportation fuel needs are enormous, probably much larger than we can meet with biofuels, unless we all want to give up meat and become vegans. The best solution is IGCC coal gasification and very efficient plug-in hybrid vehicles that run on US coal-generated electricity for short hauls, and a combination of gasoline or biofuel and electricity for longer trips. As long as our economy is tied to unstable and hostile governments through energy, our national security is in jeopardy.
New generation nukes will be safer, but waste disposal, nuclear proliferation, and enormous commissioning and decommissioning costs will slow nukes coming online soon. It takes 12-14 years to bring a nuke online now. The principal cost of electricity is the cost of the capital required to build the facility. The interest on 1-2 billion dollars is impressive.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:55 pm
One of the most important tasks of the 21st century is for the lessoning of the dependence upon Middle Eastern oil.You can bet that with the loss of revenue the rulers in this area will do something to bring about a reduction in the attacks upon the rest of the world.Ethanol seems to be the best way to go,especially in Canada as we have an abundance of space in which to grow the stuff.The growing of corn for conversion to ethanol should be given the same priority as that given to bringing about the creation of the atom bomb during WWII
June 7th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Energy Independence is our most important issue right now. It is our national vulnerability. I personally support solar, wind and other types of energy that depend on ambient conditions as they are low maintenance compared to fossil fuels, biofuels and nuclear power. I also think we need to develop our energy distribution system into a decentralized system that emulates the internet. This way power is produced and consumed locally so that the chance for large scale black outs are reduced to almost 0%. This would help national security considerably and there would be no chance for corporations to gouge consumers the way Enron did.
Our economy could be turned upside down overnight by a terrorist attack on Saudi oil distribution lines. We are spending more money on defending our oil interests than it would take to develop technologies that would make oil obsolete as an energy source.
We need to end the oil subsidies and award entrepreneurs that develop more efficient ways to extract electricity from solar, wind and other ambient energy sources.
June 10th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
WE HAVE ENOUGH OIL UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EXCEPT WE THE PEOPLE HAVE CAVED INTO THE ENVIRONMENTAL WACKO’S DEMAND THAT WE NOT DRILL AND EXPLOIT THE VERY RESOURCES WE HAVE. WE ARE SLOWLY CAVING INTO THE DEMOCOMMUNISTS, WORLDWIDE AND IF WE DO NOT PUT A STOP TO IT WE WILL BE AS ORWELL SAID MANY TIMES, WE WILL BE RAISING OUR SLAVE CHAINED HANDS PRAISING THE COMMUNIST MASTERS WHO HAVE ENSLAVED US WITH OUR PERMISSION. WE DO NOT HAVE THE INTESTINAL FORTITUDE TO TELL EVERY ALIEN WHO COMES TO THESE SHORE’S TO CONFORM TO OUR TRADITIONS,CULTURE, AND LOVE OF THIS COUNTRY OR PACK UP YOUR WORTHLESS ASS AND GO BACK TO WHERE YOU CAME. WE ARE CRAWLING WITH THE LIKES OF PELOSI’S, BOXER’S, RANGEL’S, LEIBERMAN’S, KERRY’S, FEINSTEIN’S, DRUNKENNEDY’S,McCAIN’S,DURBIN’S, BIDEN’S STABENOW’S, LEVIN’S, GORE’S, BOTH CLINTON’S, OBAMA’S, DUBYA BUSH’S, AND A MYRIAD OTHER WORTHLESS COMMUNIST BASTARDS WHO MAKE UP THE POLITICAL COMPLEXION OF THIS COUNTRY. THIS COUNTRY IS DEAD, ALL THAT IS LEFT FOR THE BLEEDING CARCASS,IS TO QUIT KICKING. THE VULTURE’S AND OTHER BIRDS OF CARRION ARE JUST WAITING TO BEGIN THEIR FEAST. WE HAVE BEEN TAKEN OVER BY ALIENS, WHO HAVE NOT FIRED A SINGLE SHOT, AND WE DESERVE EVERY DAMN THING WE GET, BECAUSE WE HAVE CAPITULATED TO THE LIBERAL MINDSET, WHICH IS AS CLEARLY A MENTAL DISEASE IF EVER THERE WAS. WE WERE ONCE GREAT,NOT BY CHANCE BUT BY HARD WORK, LOVE OF COUNTRY, AND ASSIMILATION INTO ONE SOLID PEOPLE, IN THE LAST 50 YEARS WE HAVE BEEN ON A BLIND MARCH TOWARDS BALKANIZATION! DOUBT THAT? LOOK AT THE SO CALLED “DIVERSITY” GARBAGE WE HAVE BEEN FED, AND YES BOUGHT INTO. WE ARE “SHEEPEOLE” OF THE VERY LOWEST ORDER AND ARE SO UNTHINKING WE BELIEVE ALL OF THE PSYCHOBABBLE CRAP FROM THE UNIVERSITIES OF BULL_ _ _ T, IN THIS COUNTRY AND AROUD THE WORLD.
June 11th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Biofuels is not the answer. It shifts pressure on a non-renewable, non-food resource to a renewable, food resource. Taking food crops for fuel production just creates a different problem. Everyone will start complaining about the price of food AND fuel when too much of the “bio” used to produce biofuels is put towards producing biofuels instead of producing food for people. The US will then be accused of causing world starvation and global warming. We need a non-food based energy source that makes oil irrelevant and subsequently the middle east irrelevant. My vote is for nuclear. I also think we should tax oil companies to capture some of their profits that are then applied DIRECTLY (not go into the general budget)to finding the next BBD (bigger, better deal) in energy. The BBD is out there, waiting for us to discover it.
July 15th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Biofuels are looking better and better, oil from algea can be converted into biodiesel and it takes fraction of the area to produce multiples of the oil. Together with renewables and coal I see no reason we cant be energy independant.