Senate Approves Drilling in ANWR

[Capitalist Lawyer]

OIL FROM ANWR

There are still some negotiations with the House to go through, but as of now it looks like the eco-whacko crowd has lost the battle to prevent oil exploration in the northern reaches of ANWR. Belinda is in mourning.

Just some quick facts for you to peruse:

• Caribou? They don't care. The population of the Central Artic caribou herd near the oil fields of Prudhoe Bay has grown an average of 8.5% per year. The oil exploration operations don't bother them a bit.

• When ANWR was created in 1980 a section was set aside for oil exploration. It is that area in which the Senate has approved oil exploration. Imagine that. Exploring for oil in a section of ANWR that was set aside for exploring for oil. Who would have thunk it?

• Take the highest estimate of oil reserves from ANWR, then take the lowest. Use those numbers to come up with a mean estimate of ANWR oil potential. That figure is 10.4 billion barrels of oil. That much oil could meet the total petroleum consumption needs of the state of New York for 34 years; Georgia for 54 years, Maine for 259 years, Pennsylvania for 39 years. That is not an insignificant amount of oil.

• If the most optimistic estimates of oil reserves in ANWR turn out to be true, it would be enough to replace 30 years of oil imports from Saudi Arabia. That is not an insignificant amount of oil.

• Will oil production from ANWR exceed estimates? Who knows? The estimates for Prudhoe Bay were around eight billion barrels of oil. So far we've extracted 14 billion barrels .. and we're not near through.

This is being referred to in USA Today and other newspapers as "a blow to environmentalists." Exploring Section 1002 of ANWR for oil is not a blow to true environmentalists. It is a blow to assorted leftists, socialists, communists and various anti-American types who have all but taken over the environmental movement, and whose true goal is not so much protecting the environment as it is weakening the American economy.

As for Democrats? They're already reeling with Bush's success in Afghanistan, Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. Proposed elections in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon. Syria pulling back in Lebanon and pleading with Bush to give them time to reform. Messy? You bet! But it's starting to look like Bush just may accomplish his goals in the Middle East. The United States will be better off for it, and there will be the hated George Bush taking the credit. So ...let's carry this forward to the ANWR situation and oil prices. Right now oil prices are soaring. People are paying over two bucks a gallon for gas. Sad to say, but Americans will stand mute as the government seizes about 14% of each paycheck for the hideous Social Security scheme .. but pay over two bucks a gallon for gas and all hell breaks loose. Democrats are loving this. The price of gas could be a huge campaign issue for 2006! I can hear it now: "Bush's failed energy policy" and so forth.

So ... what could happen if exploration is authorized in ANWR? What if the oil sheiks suddenly realize that America is serious about moving toward energy independence? What steps could they take to protect their market position? Well, for starters they could work to lower the price for crude oil to bring prices down at the pump. With lower prices Democrats could lose another campaign issue ... and Bush ends up looking good again.

Make no mistake .. there is a huge, almost insurmountable level of ignorance about ANWR. You'll hear people talk of gently rolling grasslands, pristine rushing streams and waterfalls, snow-capped mountains. True ... some parts of ANWR fit this description ... but not section 1002 .. the section originally set aside for oil exploration. In the Winter .. the only time that vehicular traffic will be permitted across the precious frozen tundra ... section 1002 looks like an iced-over dirt field.

I'll concede that there are people who are opposed to oil exploration in section 1002 for purely environmental reasons. These people are deluded and ill-informed. The rest of the opponents are lying to you about their motives. Their goal is to make sure that America does not alleviate its dependence on foreign oil sources, to weaken America's economy, and to keep high gas prices as a campaign issue.

Crank up the drills

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Any responses?

[New Tolerance]

Nobody cares.

(coming up next week, are "environmentalists" our comrades....???)

[Sabocat]

The Threat of Oil Drilling



President Dwight D. Eisenhower had the foresight in 1960 to set aside this arctic treasure for future generations. Congress reaffirmed the value of the Arctic Refuge in 1980, expanding the Refuge to 19 million acres and designating most of Eisenhower’s orginal Arctic Range as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. The coastal plain was denied this critical wilderness designation because of last-minute pressure from the oil industry.

Today, oil industry lobbyists persistently press lawmakers to open the coastal plain to oil and gas drilling -- despite indisputable proof that oil drilling irreparably damages the fragile tundra and its wildlife. At Prudhoe Bay, home to one of the world's largest industrial complexes, 43,000 tons of nitrogen oxides pollute the air each year. Hundreds of spills involving tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil and other petroleum products occur annually. Decades-old diesel spill sites still show little regrowth of vegetation. Gravel fill, excavation and waste disposal alone have destroyed 17,000 acres of wildlife and marine habitat.

A similar fate awaits the coastal plain if the oil companies have their way. Drilling for oil and gas in the coastal plain would require 280 miles of roads, hundreds of miles of pipelines, 50 million cubic yards of gravel scoured from nearby ponds and rivers, and massive production facilities. There is little doubt that such activities would forever alter and irreparably harm the coastal plain.

But despite nationwide opinion polls showing that an overwhelming 70 percent of Americans support protection of the Arctic Refuge and its coastal plain, the Alaska delegation continues to threaten the coastal plain with onshore and offshore drilling proposals, road-building schemes and powerful attacks on the Wilderness Act itself.

The most optimistic estimates of commercially recoverable oil from the coastal plain would yield only about six months’ worth of oil for the U.S. -- not even a dent in our dependence on foreign oil. America could save far more oil simply by increasing the fuel efficiency of our cars and light trucks. We wouldn’t flood the Grand Canyon to build a hydroelectric dam. We wouldn’t plug Yellowstone’s Old Faithful to tap its geothermal energy. Why should we permanently destroy this unique wilderness for an unecessary and uncertain amount of oil?

Link (http://www.sierraclub.org/wildlands/arctic/oil.asp)

Also worth reading is this piece from the Energy Information Administration, where even they claim that the ANWR site will only reduce foreign dependancy on oil by 3-4%.

Link (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ogp/pdf/sroiaf(2004)04.pdf)

Potential Impacts of Oil and Gas Development on Refuge Resources

well site on tundra Newer technologies that are applied today in Alaska's expanding North Slope oil fields include directional drilling that allows for multiple well heads on smaller drill pads; the re-injection of drilling wastes into the ground, which replaces surface reserve pits; better delineation of oil reserves using 3-dimensional seismic surveys, which has reduced the number of dry holes; and use of temporary ice pads and ice roads for conducting exploratory drilling and construction in the winter. As the oil fields expand east and west, additional oil reserves are consequently being tapped from smaller satellite fields that rely on the existing infrastructure at Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk.

Although technological advances in oil and gas exploration and development have reduced some of the harmful environmental effects associated with those activities, oil and gas development remains an intrusive industrial process. The physical "footprint" of the existing North Slope oil facilities and roads covers about 10,000 acres, but the current industrial complex extends across an 800 square mile region, nearly 100 miles from east to west. It continues to grow as new oil fields are developed.

The 100-mile wide 1002 Area is located more than 30 miles from the end of the nearest pipeline and more than 50 miles from the nearest gravel road and oil support facilities. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, possible oil reserves may be located in many small accumulations in complex geological formations, rather than in one giant field as was discovered at Prudhoe Bay. Consequently, development in the 1002 Area could likely require a large number of small production sites spread across the Refuge landscape, connected by an infrastructure of roads, pipelines, power plants, processing facilities, loading docks, dormitories, airstrips, gravel pits, utility lines and landfills.

Link from Fish and Wildlife (http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm#section4)

Some other info:

Info (http://www.arcticwildlife.org/oil10myths.htm)

[cormacobear]

Since i've never met an oil exec. or a U.S. politician with a degree in biology you can be pretty much assured that the enviornmental impact wasn't even considered by these evil greedy men. The impact on Alaska will be relatively insignifigant however the impact on the Yukon North West Territoies and northern Alberta will be signifigant since the site is the largest breeding ground for caribou, the most important link in the northern food chain.

These plans by the U.S. government have enraged the majority of Canadians, and I can pretty much garantee that the project will be the target of even more signifigant eco-terrorism than the whaling industry has seen. And frankly good for them. It will be interesting to see if enviornmentalists and academics can cost the oil companies more in loss of machinery and possibly lives than they gross in oil revenues.

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 23 2005, 11:13 AM

• Take the highest estimate of oil reserves from ANWR, then take the lowest. Use those numbers to come up with a mean estimate of ANWR oil potential. That figure is 10.4 billion barrels of oil. That much oil could meet the total petroleum consumption needs of the state of New York for 34 years; Georgia for 54 years, Maine for 259 years, Pennsylvania for 39 years. That is not an insignificant amount of oil.

Exploring Section 1002 of ANWR for oil is not a blow to true environmentalists. It is a blow to assorted leftists, socialists, communists and various anti-American types who have all but taken over the environmental movement, and whose true goal is not so much protecting the environment as it is weakening the American economy.

As for Democrats? They're already reeling with Bush's success in Afghanistan, Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. Make no mistake .. there is a huge, almost insurmountable level of ignorance about ANWR. You'll hear people talk of gently rolling grasslands, pristine rushing streams and waterfalls, snow-capped mountains. True ... some parts of ANWR fit this description ... but not section 1002 .. the section originally set aside for oil exploration. In the Winter .. the only time that vehicular traffic will be permitted across the precious frozen tundra ... section 1002 looks like an iced-over dirt field.

I'll concede that there are people who are opposed to oil exploration in section 1002 for purely environmental reasons. These people are deluded and ill-informed.
You forgot to put or in between your figures. and those figures are based on current consumption levels, the United states has never had stable oil consumption rates they are growing. So your math sucks.

How many envionmentalists do you know, exactly which studies did you base your theory on?

Since the American economic policy is the most signifigant threat to the enviornment the two goals are the same

You really have your head up your ass if you think Iraq and Afghanistan have been successful.

Most of the Arctic circle looks like a snow covered dirt feild in the winter. That however does nothing to change the fact that it is one of if not the most sensitive ecosystems in the world.

Since you have not given a single credible scientific argument to prove that the impact will be insignifigant I would suggest it is you who are deluded, rather than the worlds most respected Biologists.

[marxist_socialist_aussie]

that just sounds like more 'money is more important than the environment' garbage that is spewed all the time. Capitalist Lawyer, when you haves studied biology and done your degree, maybe I will listen to you, until then, I will stick to the people I know who do have degrees to back up their assertations.

[NovelGentry]

I'll concede that there are people who are opposed to oil exploration in section 1002 for purely environmental reasons. The rest of the opponents are lying to you about their motives. Their goal is to make sure that America does not alleviate its dependence on foreign oil sources, to weaken America's economy, and to keep high gas prices as a campaign issue.

Hello. You must be new here. This is generally a leftist message board, not a liberal/environmentalist message board. We oppose capitalism. For the majority of us that means you can disregard WHERE the oil is being tapped -- what we care first and foremost about is not where, but the method by which production and consumption happen -- and not just of oil! But of EVERYTHING.

I have much bigger problem with Exxon or whoever taking over ANWR than dead caribou and disturbed plants.

[Sabocat]

The part that disturbs me with regards to this drilling in a wildlife refuge, is that the right insists that this is all about decreasing the U.S. dependancy on foreign oil, but in the same breath, the politicians (oil corp. shills) will effectively try to kill proposed projects like a wind farm to be placed off of Nantucket here in Massachusetts. That project would supply electricity to most of Cape Cod and replace inefficient, and highly polluting coal and oil electric power stations. To me, this is proof enough that there is no real interest in decreasing dependancy on foreign oil.

This is a power solution that will produce electricity without harmful emissions and destructive and negative natural impact.

The bottom line is that the wind farm does not produce profits in grotesque proportions for Exxon/Mobil.

Wind (http://www.capewind.org/)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The solution to all our energy problems is nuclear power: It's effecient unlike oil, and discreet unlike wind farms.

[NovelGentry]

The solution to all our energy problems is nuclear power: It's effecient unlike oil, and discreet unlike wind farms.

The most direct solution is a mix. Not sure why people are stubborn on sticking to one.

Biodiesel, Biomass, Solar, Wind, Hydro, and more direct methods of acquiring methane than biomass.

The only time nuclear becomes more feasible than oil is when we've got cold fusion -- and then you can throw it in the mix with others. But every house should have solar panels on it, if for no other reason than to compliment other forms of energy in the house.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Nuclear fission at the moment is an option that most people aren't considering, but they should. Despite the scary stories it's one of the safest things around.

[Matthew The Great]

I do not support feeding our addiction to fossil fuels. This news made me sad.

[Thomas]

Didn't a scientist come inches from discovering how to use Nuclear fusion? But in one test of out of thousands something went wrong and someone died, so they called it all off or something. I remember reading about it years ago.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 01:30 PM
The part that disturbs me with regards to this drilling in a wildlife refuge, is that the right insists that this is all about decreasing the U.S. dependancy on foreign oil, but in the same breath, the politicians (oil corp. shills) will effectively try to kill proposed projects like a wind farm to be placed off of Nantucket here in Massachusetts. That project would supply electricity to most of Cape Cod and replace inefficient, and highly polluting coal and oil electric power stations. To me, this is proof enough that there is no real interest in decreasing dependancy on foreign oil.

This is a power solution that will produce electricity without harmful emissions and destructive and negative natural impact.

The bottom line is that the wind farm does not produce profits in grotesque proportions for Exxon/Mobil.

Wind (http://www.capewind.org/)
These are some of the very reasons I'm no longer a Republican.

[Individual]

Air electricity! The answer of all answers! Step right up, step right up!

You are one rootin'tootin'genius if you believe wind electricity is doing anything to help.

I happen to live five minutes away from tens of thousands of fucking windmills.

Tens of thousands.

Tens of fucking thousands.

Take a look if you don't believe me:

..The altamont pass..

I'll post a few pictures, just so you get the jist of it .. You brainy'ack you.

http://www.edstravelstories.com/photos/december2002colorado/123002-32a-CMP.jpg

http://www.res-ltd.com/project/images/altamont.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/babycakes434/california/altamontpasswindmills1a.jpg

http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics10/chapters2003fall/01-Energy-8-23-3_files/image015.gif

http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~abrown/Photos/AltamontWindmills-Aug2002/img/d30_CRW_3012.jpg

http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~abrown/Photos/AltamontWindmills-Aug2002/img/d30_CRW_3018.jpg

http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~abrown/Photos/AltamontWindmills-Aug2002/img/d30_CRW_3020.jpg

http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~abrown/Photos/AltamontWindmills-Aug2002/img/d30_CRW_3022.jpg

http://billhocker.com/california/pollution2.jpg



And do you want to know how much my fucking PG&E bill has gone up this past 3 months?

300%

Three hundred percent

Did the price of wind go up three hundred percent this past three months?

Last I checked, wind was free.

Now mind you, because I know you were already thinking it, not all of PG&E's power comes from wind electricity. Nobody ever said it did.

The saddest part about all that; with only a population of 250,000 in the tri-valley area, hundreds of thousands -- HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS -- acres of land are sacrificied to equipment that can't even supply 250,000 people with fucking electricity.

I believe we've made further references to the intelligence of one young sailor.

Now don't get me wrong here .. I love the fact that the windmills chop up our wonderful collection of wildlife here in California. And for that, the windmills should stay.

[t_wolves_fan]

Quick poll:

Would you rather have electricity at the cost of killing a bunch of caribou 4000 miles away, or would you rather have electricity at the cost of a huge fucking windmill in your back yard making loud noises 24/7?

Now consider that even with the oil, the caribou probably will not die, in fact they may even flourish as happened with the trans-Alaska pipeline (even though the environuts said it'd lead to their extinction).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Individual: Yikes. I knew wind power was invasive, but I didn't know it was that bad. Wind power sucks. That's why I think we should go nuclear.

t_wolves_fan: That's interesting what you said about the Trans-Alaska pipeline. Can you provide more information?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 02:41 PM
Individual: Yikes. I knew wind power was invasive, but I didn't know it was that bad. Wind power sucks. That's why I think we should go nuclear.

t_wolves_fan: That's interesting what you said about the Trans-Alaska pipeline. Can you provide more information?
What a shockingly inquisitive post by you, NoX!

http://www.alyeska-pipe.com/Pipelinefacts/Permafrost.html

http://www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/product...inding/appa.htm (http://www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/products/publications/northslope/nsa1999_final_finding/appa.htm)

"While it may be true that calving caribou of the CAH were observed in fewer numbers where the Milne Point road now lies, a conclusion that a shift in distribution equates to long-term negative impact cannot be easily made. Similarly, the occurrence and incidence of lateral movements does not appear to be a clear indicator of long-term viability of the CAH population. USF&WS, citing Cameron (1995) suggests that oil field disturbance leads to reduced nutritional intake of females, which leads to lower body condition, and eventually an increase in reproductive pauses (a year where a calf is not produced). Dr. Cameron reports that fecundity of females was higher in the undeveloped portion of the coastal plain, east of the Sagavanirktok River, as compared to the developed portion west of the river. However, it is not clear that oil development per se is the principal factor contributing to this disparity. The author notes that east-west differences in population density and habitat quality may also be contributing variables other than disturbance from oil field activity. Further, an increase in reproductive pauses may not necessarily be a vestige of long-term adverse effect on caribou populations. In a 1994 paper (abstract), Dr. Cameron writes, "Periodic infertility, as a response to nutritional stress, may enhance long-term reproductive performance in caribou and other ungulates."(Cameron, 1994b)

DO&G has not found sufficient evidence to conclude that caribou population size on the North Slope is a function of habitat availability. Other factors, such as disease, predation, and weather also play a role in caribou population dynamics. It is unlikely that oil field disturbance is a dominant factor which would cause a reproductive decline of the CAH. As described in Chapter Three, the population of the CAH rose steadily throughout the period of oil development on the North Slope. "

[NovelGentry]

Would you rather have electricity at the cost of killing a bunch of caribou 4000 miles away, or would you rather have electricity at the cost of a huge fucking windmill in your back yard making loud noises 24/7?

Quite honestly, I think these things look cool as hell, and I can sleep through anything and turn my music up real loud in the day.


Now consider that even with the oil, the caribou probably will not die, in fact they may even flourish as happened with the trans-Alaska pipeline (even though the environuts said it'd lead to their extinction).

Fuck the caribou -- Even if the oil doesn't kill them, I hope they die anyway and someone blames it on someone just for the sake of seeing these idiot liberals bickering and biting at conservatives.

The whole lot of em is screwy -- as I said at the beginning of this thread, we (as in the communists and anarchists) are in this for a lot more than saving caribou.

[Sabocat]

Yikes. I knew wind power was invasive, but I didn't know it was that bad. Wind power sucks

In what way does it suck? It provides clean efficient power without burning fossil fuel. Which would you rather look at, an oil pump/derrick and the associated natural gas burnoff, or a windmill?


or would you rather have electricity at the cost of a huge fucking windmill in your back yard making loud noises 24/7?

They are not that loud. They move at very slow rpm's. I generate all my electrical needs with solar and wind, and the wind generator I use is very small and much less efficient and runs at much higher rpm's and even still, it's a very minor noise disturbance, closer to an ambient "white noise".


And do you want to know how much my fucking PG&E bill has gone up this past 3 months?

300%

Three hundred percent

Did the price of wind go up three hundred percent this past three months?

This is not the fault of the windmills, this is purely the result of electric deregulation, and the greed of the electric companies.

[cormacobear]

Those wind farms are cool. :lol:

And they are increaseingly being put offshore.

And unlike Nuclear power wind produces no waste material that is dangerous to dispose of.

And Individual I would imagine that the reason your bills went up is because your community does not own, the wind farm. Which means that the power is sold onto the open grid and then the power company buys it's power off that grid at the market price. At least that's how we're getting screwed by our pro NAFTA government in Alberta, Oil coming up out of the ground faster than you can shake astick at, and our bills went up 100% and the power companies profits the year of that hike went up 300%.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In what way does it suck? It provides clean efficient power without burning fossil fuel. Which would you rather look at, an oil pump/derrick and the associated natural gas burnoff, or a windmill?

It is very much far from effecient. It requires huge tracts of land in order to have a good pay-off in terms of resource expenditure.
A single oil derrick can quite easily produce more net energy than an entire wind farm, but a nuclear power plant is even more effecient and certainly much cleaner in terms of emissions.
Not only that, but nuclear waste is a lot easier to manage than the fumes produced by both oil derricks and fossil fuel plants - while fossil fuel facilities spew out fumes and smoke, as well as producing tons of ash annually (Coal burning plants are particularly offensive in this regard) Nuclear power plants produce a few cubic metres of toxic and radioactive chemicals, which are shipped in bullet-proof containers on trains that can survive a head-on collision with another train, to concrete sarcophogi where they are permanently stored.

Nuclear is the best option.

[cormacobear]

I live in Canada huge tracts of land problem solved...next

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 07:59 PM
And unlike Nuclear power wind produces no waste material that is dangerous to dispose of.
Nuclear waste is not dangerous to dispose of. It's dangerous to stick your head in some, but if you do that you deserve a Darwin Award (http://www.darwinawards.com/) anyway.

Think of all the fumes that are produced both by fossil fuel use and by the production of these windmills.
Not to mention the fact that unlike nuclear waste, carcinogenic ash from coal stations is simply dumped in a hole in the ground.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 08:08 PM
I live in Canada huge tracts of land problem solved...next
And what about supllying power to urban areas? I don't think those living in the suburb would particularly like to have massive noisy windmills all over their neighbourhood.

A nuclear power station on the outskirts would be a lot more discreet.

[cormacobear]

Safe Hunh, I notice you're not volenteering to store it in your back yard.

The Steel to build the windmills is a once every 300 years expenditure, after 300 years I doub't even yourback yard could hold 300 years worth of Nuclear waste.

[Sabocat]

A single oil derrick can quite easily produce more net energy than an entire wind farm, but a nuclear power plant is even more effecient and certainly much cleaner in terms of emissions.

The only problem of course, is that there is a finite amount of oil that can be pumped from a particular well. It takes energy to get the oil, ship it, refine it etc. The wind generator just keeps making electricity quietly, and cleanly.

I would agree that nuclear is definitely a better alternative to oil however.



Think of all the fumes that are produced both by fossil fuel use and by the production of these windmills.

Are you implying that it takes more fossil fuel (fumes) to manufacture a wind generator than to produce a nuclear power plant?

[Individual]

The point is not that they are loud, a nuisance, ugly, wasteful, or environmentally unhealthy.

The point is: that they do not provide sufficient energy.

How many fucking windmills do we need to support millions upon billions of people?

Can you not see how many windmills there are, and they can't even provide enough electricity to support 250,000 people.

Two hundred and fifty thousand people. That's it.

My energy bill went up 300% because of oil prices.

What does that mean? That fossil fuels are grossly needed to support our population because the windmills just aren't cutting it.

I can hear the slogans now..

Wind energy, the people's power!

If they are so efficient, so environmentally friendly, all at such a premium low cost;

Tell me why the whole world hasn't caught on.

Tell me why PG&E is still using fossil fuels on top of the windmills?

Tell me why environmentalists hate the windmills and boycott their use daily?

Bottom line, tell me why my fucking energy bill went up 300% ?

Please, tell me. I mean, they are so efficient, aren't they?

[Sabocat]

And what about supllying power to urban areas? I don't think those living in the suburb would particularly like to have massive noisy windmills all over their neighbourhood.

Naturally, the wind generators do not have to be located in the neighborhoods, just like an oil burning power station doesn't need to be. The generator could be very far away and use existing wire infrastructure and substations for transmission.

[cormacobear]

Well of course we'll need a combination of solar and wind power, solar power technology is advancing quite quickly if only there were more money behind getting it into production.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 08:15 PM
Safe Hunh, I notice you're not volenteering to store it in your back yard.

The Steel to build the windmills is a once every 300 years expenditure, after 300 years I doub't even yourback yard could hold 300 years worth of Nuclear waste.
Well, nobody's asked. But considering that standard procedure is to store it away from populated areas, I doubt they will be asking me (By the way, that's just as much to prevent brain-dead idiots digging it up as to protect people. It's all very safe until some dumb fuck breaks into the sarcophagus, opens up a can and starts throwing it around.)

Don't forget that a wind farm has literally thousands, maybe even millions, of moving parts that wear out and have to be replaced. That alone consumes many resources. Then you have to get these relacement parts to the actual windmills, and since most sane people will be unwilling to carry tons of spare parts around on foot they will have to use at least several dozen vehicles, depending on the size of the vehicle and the size of the wind farm. This is exacerbated by the fact that windfarms are usually placed in remote areas, meaning that as well as having to travel for miles around the wind farm itself, the maintenance vehicles have to travel many miles to actually get to the wind farm.
A nuclear waste storage facility requires no maintenance at all save for an annual inspection of the outer sarcophagus to check for cracks, fractures etc.
I wouldn't worry about 300 years of nuclear waste; within 50 years waste-free fusion should be commonplace.

And windfarms placed offshore are in my opinion a major shipping hazard, especially as they are placed in windy areas.

[Sabocat]

Here are some FAQ's regarding the upcoming wind farm off of Cape Cod/Nantucket. Keep in mind, that this project is for 130 wind turbines. Not tens of thousands. 130. The population of the Cape and Islands from a 2000 Census, is 222,230


How much green electricity will Cape Wind produce and where will it go?

On average, Cape Wind will produce an amount of electricity equal to about three-quarters of what is used on Cape Cod and the Islands. In strong winds Cape Wind will produce an amount roughly equal to the entire requirements of Cape Cod and the Islands. Although Cape electric consumers can buy their electricity from the seller of their choice, the physical flow and usage of Cape Wind’s electricity will occur mostly on the Cape. When the wind blows, the electricity generated by Cape Wind will enter the grid on the Cape and follow the “path of least resistance” to flow to the nearest users. Only when Cape Wind is supplying more electricity than the Cape and Islands can use will some of the electricity go off Cape.

· Are wind turbines noisy?

No, not anymore. Technological progress in turbine design has made modern, commercial wind turbines much quieter than older models. Modern wind turbines are also much quieter than powerboats. To be able to hear Cape Wind, you would have to get in a boat and travel fairly close to the turbines.
Back to top

· Are wind turbines reliable?

Yes, they are extremely reliable. Wind power is the fastest growing source of electricity in the world today. This is due largely to enormous progress made in the efficiency and reliability of commercial wind turbines. Modern wind turbines have an “uptime” availability that is better than most other types of electric generation. Offshore wind turbines in Europe have demonstrated excellent reliability in their ten years of experience.


Tell me why the whole world hasn't caught on.

Wind power is one of the fastest growing power generation sectors at the moment.


My energy bill went up 300% because of oil prices.

That's nonsense. Are you telling me that fuel prices increased 300% this year? Your bill went up 300% because that is how much PG&E are fucking you. Do you deny that deregulation has caused electricity price hikes?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Not all locations are as suitable for wind power generation as Cape Cod.
Most alternative energy sources depend very much the local conditions are right.
Not so with fossil suels and nuclear.

[Sabocat]

Not all locations are as suitable for wind power generation as Cape Cod.

Agreed. I think therefore, that places that are optimal to succesful wind generation be used for that. As I think that massive solar arrays in the desert are useful.


Not so with fossil suels and nuclear.

And now we've come full circle. Fossil fuel generation in the ANWR is in my opinion not the right environment.


Don't forget that a wind farm has literally thousands, maybe even millions, of moving parts that wear out and have to be replaced.

I don't know about the massive wind turbines, but my wind generator has 1 moving part. They are actually very simple devices. Think of your automobiles alternator/generator with a propeller on it.


And windfarms placed offshore are in my opinion a major shipping hazard, especially as they are placed in windy areas.

I don't know about the farms in Europe, but the one here in Massachusetts is planned for a shoal which is un-navigable for shipping. The height of the blades, also is such that it doesn't present any real danger. Like anything else, proper siting and planning are necessary.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 03:29 PM

Would you rather have electricity at the cost of killing a bunch of caribou 4000 miles away, or would you rather have electricity at the cost of a huge fucking windmill in your back yard making loud noises 24/7?

Quite honestly, I think these things look cool as hell, and I can sleep through anything and turn my music up real loud in the day.


What if your neighbors can't? Or are you just assuming everyone agrees with you again?

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 08:49 PM
Nuclear fission at the moment is an option that most people aren't considering, but they should. Despite the scary stories it's one of the safest things around.
Oil is used for than just for energy you know.


Its used in Kerosene, plastic, paint, nylon, polyester, detergent, styrofoam, asphalt, toothpaste (glycerine)...and alot more...

[Invader Zim]

Not only that, but nuclear waste is a lot easier to manage than the fumes produced by both oil derricks and fossil fuel plants

What have you been smoking? Maybe its the Air in Gwynedd or Clwyd or wherever in North Wales you happen to be. Do you know what they do do with nuclear waste in this country? They don't do anything with it, this shit has a half life of thousands of years. It will sit around being deadly for generations and generations.

Low level waste, isn't to bad I suppose, give it 50 years and maybe the isotopes will have decayed. But not with high-level radioactive waste. 10,000 years 100,000 years, and maybe it will have decayed to a safe level. But what do you do with it until that happy day? Dump it in the North Sea? Bury it? Don't you just love short term solutions to long term problems?

Clean? You have to be joking.

But for those members old enough to remember Chernobyl, I bet they have fond memories of "clean nuclear power".

Don't forget that a wind farm has literally thousands, maybe even millions, of moving parts that wear out and have to be replaced.

All power production has thousands of moving parts. After all that is what a turbine is. I think you will find that the difference in cost of replacing parts in a wind farm and that of any other power station will be negligible.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What have you been smoking? Maybe its the Air in Gwynedd or Clwyd or wherever in North Wales you happen to be. Do you know what they do do with nuclear waste in this country? They don't do anything with it, this shit has a half life of thousands of years. It will sit around being deadly for generations and generations.

Au contraire, there are procedures followed. This company website (http://www.aeat.co.uk/wmtd/) tells you what they do with it, and let me tell you it's a bit more sophisticated than finding the nearest hole in the ground to put it in, which is what coal stations do with their ash.
As long as nuclear waste is not disturbed, it is harmless if disposed of properly.


Clean? You have to be joking.

But for those members old enough to remember Chernobyl, I bet they have fond memories of "clean nuclear power".

I see you believe the hype perpetuated by the media and Greenpeace. Do you know there have only been three (3), count them, three major accidents in the 50-year history of nuclear power, Chernobyl is one of them. (Not to mention that Chernobyl was caused by human error rather than failure on part of the technology) That's a brilliant safety record. Compare that with the undisclosed number of accidents that have occurred in coal mines, oil rigs, and refineries, not to mention all the great big oil spills that have devastated coastlines. Can you tell me how many accidents have occurred with the transport of nuclear fuel or waste which resulted in the release of dangerous levels of radioactive material?


All power production has thousands of moving parts. After all that is what a turbine is. I think you will find that the difference in cost of replacing parts in a wind farm and that of any other power station will be negligible.

I did point out that a lot of fuel would have to be used to transport the parts to the turbines. Also, there are fewer turbines, and hence fewer parts, in a fossil or nuclear power stations.


Oil is used for than just for energy you know.


Its used in Kerosene, plastic, paint, nylon, polyester, detergent, styrofoam, asphalt, toothpaste (glycerine)...and alot more...

Exactly, and by using nuclear and alternative power sources we free up a lot of oil for other uses.

Don't get me wrong, alternative energy sources are all well and good, but on their own, they will not provide the growing population with enough power. We could use nuclear only, but why pass up the chance to save uranium for those unfortunates not blessed with excess amounts of wind and sunlight? Not only that, but there's the possibility that old nuclear fission plants could be converted to fusion plants when the technology becomes viable.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

UKAEA Safety Record (http://www.ukaea.org.uk/hse/record.htm)

USNRC Spent Fuel Storage (http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage.html)

[Invader Zim]

Really? Well lets here from t'uther side: -

http://www.shutsellafield.com/history.htm

http://www.shutsellafield.com/chernenv.htm

I also forgot to mention, they don't just place depleted uranium in the north sea, but they also fire it into Iraqi homes.

http://www.cadu.org.uk/

This next site points out that while burying nuclear waste is more or less the only alternative; its not as bad as burying the waste generated from coal. Well thats nice to know at least.

http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm

Do you know there have only been three (3), count them, three major accidents in the 50-year history of nuclear power, Chernobyl is one of them.

I would call Chernobyl a big insident, "the worst enviromental disater in human history", is one way of describing it.


You put it down to human error, but have you not considered that human error is always a problem, and that with nuclear power it has dire consequenses, as history has proven.

Can you tell me how many accidents have occurred with the transport of nuclear fuel or waste which resulted in the release of dangerous levels of radioactive material?

To be honest, I don't actually feal the need to do any research into minor accidents, you see (I love this quote), I have the prime example of "the worst enviromental disater in human history"

However i have a question for you, can you name one oil spill, or accident which has lead to the evacuation of 135,000 people, and is still giving people cancer to this very day?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 04:08 PM
I also forgot to mention, they don't just place depleted uranium in the north sea, but they also fire it into Iraqi homes.
I would have thought that firing it at Iraqi tanks would have been a more effective use of it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I also forgot to mention, they don't just place depleted uranium in the north sea, but they also fire it into Iraqi homes.


I'm not arguing for the military use of radiological materials. What a waste of uranium. The CADU link is irrelevant. And DU is only used because it's cheaper than tungsten.


This next site points out that while burying nuclear waste is more or less the only alternative; its not as bad as burying the waste generated from coal. Well thats nice to know at least.

May I take this opportunity to mention that Uranium and coal often come out of the same shaft. A 1 gigawatt coal-fired plant uses about 4 million tons of coal per year. That coal ALSO contains 5.2 tons of uranium, and 12.8 tons of radioactive thorium -- which goes into the biosphere. (In fact if a nuclear plant released as much radioactivity as a coal plant, it could never be licensed) black lung kills 1500 miners annually, more than Chernobyl.
There are a couple coal mines in the US that have been burning underground for a couple decades or so. Haven't seen the same in a uranium mine thus far.
Not to mention that you don't have to mine as much Uranium to get thesame amount of energy as coal.

Coal Mine Fires (http://geology.about.com/library/bl/images/blculmfire.htm)

Vast numbers of people die of air pollution (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4283295.stm). Just in Europe, every year.

People tend to think of fission reactors in terms of the 50-year old designs still in use.
However just as cars, computers, etc. have progressed in 50 years, so have fission reactor designs.
Newer reactor designs can potentially solve most problems of safety, waste, and fuel supply. Here's a good concept called the Integral Fast Reactor: Integral Fast Reactor (http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/)

GenIV can markedly make waste easier to deal with.
The VHTRs use fuel in such a way that the fuel can be removed from the reactor, be put in lead lined bins and packed tightly into a repository. Easy.
The MSRs use constant and full actinide recycle with the use of their fuel-coolant solution.

In order to follow the Kyoto protocol, nuclear power would be a major part of carbon emission reduction implementation. Alternatives can't carry it on their own. They simply do not provide enough power.

In short, fossil fuels have killed more than nuclear.

[Invader Zim]

Noxion, don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing in favour of fossil fuels. They can be discounted for numerous reasons, both enviromental and practical. The enviromental problems are too numerous to list. The practical problems on the other hand are obvious, fossil fuels are by their nature limited. We will reach a stage one day when they are no longer a viable means of generating energy.

Nuclear is way too risky, imagine a nuclear powerplant going up in the UK, in Russia they could evacuate those people within that 465,000 sq km area with ease, it was not a particulaly densly populated area. Imagine trying to evacuate say, half the UK, if not more. Where are these millions of people going to go? In short you can't do it, its logistically impossible. Millions would die in the UK.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Noxion, don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing in favour of fossil fuels. They can be discounted for numerous reasons, both enviromental and practical. The enviromental problems are too numerous to list. The practical problems on the other hand are obvious, fossil fuels are by their nature limited. We will reach a stage one day when they are no longer a viable means of generating energy.

I'm aware of that you don't support fossil fuels (FF). I'm pointing out FF's defencies because FF is the only power source apart from nuclear that can supply large amounts of electricity cheaply. With the living conditions of about a billion people in China improving, they will need a source of cheap power. As do the people living in the West.
Alternative energy sources should be used wherever possible, but it's not always possible and something else has to be used. FFs are much more damaging to the environment and to people's health than nuclear.


Nuclear is way too risky, imagine a nuclear powerplant going up in the UK, in Russia they could evacuate those people within that 465,000 sq km area with ease, it was not a particulaly densly populated area. Imagine trying to evacuate say, half the UK, if not more. Where are these millions of people going to go? In short you can't do it, its logistically impossible. Millions would die in the UK.

A chernobyl-style accident is highly unlikely in the West, as a lot of old reactors are being decomissioned now and are either replaced with FF (yick) or with modern reactors with more safety features designed in mind. There's a thread I started in Science & Environment that had a list of nuclear incidents, in a lot of them the safety procedures were successful and no-one was hurt. I can't say the same for primitive ex-USSR reactors, because most former Eastern Bloc nations lack the money to upgrade their reactors or even to replace them with FF plants. The Chernobyl reactor was one such design. Lessons were learnt the world over, and I think it would be more productive to pick up the pieces rather than point fingers, which is what the ShutSellafield website seems to be doing.

[NovelGentry]

I would have thought that firing it at Iraqi tanks would have been a more effective use of it.

I didn't know the Iraqis had tanks, and if so, only a negligable amount -- at least not since Mission Accomplished.

I could be wrong, but I thought this was a very different kind of warfare.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As to the Iraqi army, I don't think there was much of it left after Operation Desert Storm and years of sanctions. Not only that but it was a demoralised and broken force.

Did they use DU this time round?