backtop


Print 142 comment(s) - last by FaceMaster.. on Jul 5 at 12:39 PM


Mount Spurr, shown here from a southern approach, is among the recently active volcanoes that the Alaskan government is hoping to draw power from. They will be auction land to utilities in August for geothermal development purposes.  (Source: US Geological Survey)

The Chena Hot Springs Resort in Alaska is powered entirely by geothermal, including unique heating and cooling systems. The heat is used to warm a massive greenhouse that grows prized produce for the resort's restaurant, while refrigeration allows the resort's massive ice museum to stay frozen, even in the summer.  (Source: www.chenahotsprings.com)
Good warming; Alaska's geothermal efforts heat up

Late last week, Alaskan officials announced that they would be funding an exploration and surveying of Alaska's largest volcanoes, which they say could provide enough energy to power thousands of households

In an era of soaring energy costs, wind and solar are often thought of alternatives.  Geothermal, especially volcanic geothermal, is a more surprising source to many.  However, volcanoes and hot springs are estimated to be able to provide at least 25 percent of Alaska's energy needs, according to experts.

The government is pushing utilities to lease land on Mount Spurr.  The mountain is an 11,070-foot active volcano and erupted as recently as 1992.  The government says power companies can tap into the vast heat teeming beneath the volcano's surface to generate power.

A lease sale will be held in August to these ends.  The government is planning many similar sales.  The government is also targeting 4,134-foot Augustine Volcano, also near Anchorage, for prospecting.

Alaska is not alone, either.  Dozens of states have geothermal resources.  Experts estimate that if fully exploited, these resources could provide 25 percent of the entire nation's power needs.  Karl Gawell, executive director of the Geothermal Energy Association (GEA) states, "High prices and climate change are definitely creating a renaissance in geothermal interest, particularly on a state and local level."

Currently tax-subsidy eligible projects are underway in Texas, Florida, and most of the western states.  These projects are just the "tip of the iceberg" according to Mr. Gawell.  He states, "If we really want to go all out for it, we could easily achieve a substantial amount, 20, 25 per cent of US energy needs within a few decades. We're limited more by public policy than the resource - the resource is enormous."

According to the Bureau of Land Management, 12 states -- including Alaska -- have high potential geothermal lands.  The most recent survey showed 200 million acres of public land with geothermal potential.  However, Mr. Gawell says that these tracts, while impress are only part of the nation's hidden geothermal resources.  He says many geothermal plots likely exist without outward features like hot springs.  By his estimates 80 percent of the geothermal land in the U.S. remains undiscovered.

In Alaska, home to many easy to see geothermal power sources, geothermal seems like common sense.  However, since the 1970s development has been put on hold thanks to Alaska's abundant oil resources.  Now with oil price at record highs, Alaska is reconsidering geothermal.

The greatest challenge remains in coming up with innovative designs to tap the massive heat wells.  Some are rising to the challenge; among them is a resort at Chena Hot Springs which is entirely powered by hot springs.  It features hot springs driven interior heating and cooling, power, refrigeration (for its ice museum), and heating for a greenhouse.  The resort near Fairbanks is gaining much attention for its innovations.

Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama mentioned the potential for geothermal power in a recent speech.  However, Mr. Gawell argues the issue is still not receiving the level of attention it deserves.  He says, "The problem is it's only being produced in a handful of states. It's well known in those states but it's unknown in others."

Outside the U.S., Europe is also experiencing strong interest in geothermal power.  Europe is the birthplace of the power technology, with the first plant built in Larderello, Italy in 1904.  The GEA is predicting that the number of countries worldwide using geothermal will more than double to 46 by 2010.

While exploiting geothermal resources at volatile sites like volcanoes sounds dangerous, there is tremendous profit to be had with the risk.  With proper monitoring, these sites could be safely operated to produce immense amounts of electrical power.  It appears that Alaska may be on the leading edge of a new alternative energy revolution that's right under our feet.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

sounds like a good idea...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/30/2008 1:11:46 PM , Rating: 2
two things come to mind.
1) If a volcano is dormant - can you still collect energy from it?
2) How long of a distance can you send this energy? 5 miles? 100 miles? 1,000 miles? (may not benefit enough people)




RE: sounds like a good idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 1:17:49 PM , Rating: 5
1. A dormant volcano can still be tapped as long as a sufficient temperature differential still exists and is reachable.

2. Electricity generated with this can be piped no differently than that generated from any other source...which is essentially infinite, though you lose several percent in line losses every few hundred miles. However, if that energy is first transformed into, say, chemical fuel or refined aluminum, it can be transmitted very cheaply with only extremely low shipping costs.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By nycromes on 6/30/2008 1:18:54 PM , Rating: 2
you forgot one:
3) What happens to their equipment when the volcano erupts again?

This is a pretty risky venture seeing as the volcano could erupt again tomorrow. Perhaps it is a little different, but I just had the image of someone trying to build a tornado windmill for all the tremendous power gains the high winds could generate. Given this isn't meant to generate power only when the volcano erupts, but still, seems like a dangerous thing to go mucking about with.

Who knows, maybe this will work... still too far away to do much good in the short run.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By mholler on 6/30/2008 1:23:34 PM , Rating: 2
I'm guessing they're goal is to use the heat generated from the volcano to produce steam in order to run a turbine. In that case the question would become how close would the plant need to be in order to effectively use the heat and what type of safety precautions would need to be put in place in case of an erruption.

The upside is basically a fuel cost of zero once the facility is built so cost recovery could conceivable happen quickly. The downside is there there will undoubtedly be a huge upfront investment required to build the plant and ensure adequate safety for the workers and equipment.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2008 1:48:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The upside is basically a fuel cost of zero once the facility is built so cost recovery could conceivable happen quickly.


And thats why I don't like the idea of government subsidies for this kind of stuff. We're basically helping them make a profit. Now if the money was paid back once they turned a profit, that'd be different. But its not.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By EntreHoras on 6/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: sounds like a good idea...
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2008 2:10:56 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah because that's totally what we've done despite the US not having seen a drop of oil out of Iraq.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By goz314 on 6/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/30/2008 3:19:58 PM , Rating: 5
USA is not even using any oil from that area for the military in that area (unless it was first shipped to USA then bought by the military then shipped back to Iraq.) The people of Iraq controls Iraq's oil wells. The only thing that the US military might be still doing is protecting the area from raids (so the fields are not set on fire.)
You really need to watch the stories and don't drink the kool-aid that the press is putting out there... 95% of the time they take a small piece of truth and bend/twist the story so it comes out the way wish. Like your link here trying to paint President Bush as not-trustable has hind secrets plan to take over whatever.... The truth is this guy has no solid evidence to back his story - just a lot of he said she said (useless information). I have yet to see a video tape of President Bush telling a lie. No one has been able to show or send me a link to one (straight from his mouth, not some new report say, “well president Bush said....” He has been misinformed, wrong and taken some bad actions because of what information he had. However, big difference between lying and being wrong....Just ask former President Bill Clinton, he knowingly lied several time. That is why he was to be impeached. If you could provide video of Bush knowingly lying about a government issue, the Democrats would have him strung up, whipped and shot by now let alone impeached – remember the have control of both houses it would be easy to do if they had evidence.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By sinful on 6/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Jim28 on 6/30/2008 10:21:23 PM , Rating: 2
The context doesn't matter much. If he almost got impeached due to perjury (You know lying on the stand under oath.) over a blowjob what else did he lie about? In any case if it were you or I we would have spent some time in jail for perjury.

James


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By trajan on 6/30/2008 2:46:14 PM , Rating: 4
I fail to see how not getting cheap oil out of Iraq somehow makes the war more justifiable. I kind of hoped at the outset that despite all the other disasters that would befall us--hand in a bee's nest style--at least we would get the honey. Instead we get few thousand stings, get our hand jammed inside with no good way out, and no honey at all.

But if we went in to destroy WMDs, where the hell are the WMDs?

If we went in to stop a ruthless dictator who was endangering our country, well. What the hell was he doing that endangered us, exactly? And how are we any better off with half the country in anarchy and serving as an active training ground for terrorists?

Oh, wait, we went in to stop human rights abuses. Which is why Iraqis certainly *aren't* living in twice as much fear now as they did under Saddam.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By mholler on 6/30/2008 3:07:04 PM , Rating: 5
You're speaking of thing of which you have absolutely no knowledge. We did, in fact, find hundreds of WMDs in Iraq.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Decla...

Also, who are you to speak for the state of mind of Iraqi citizens. I have spoken to many soldiers who have returned from tours in Iraq and they would definitely beg to differ with you on the fact that the people over there aren't happier now then before.

Next time take a little time and do some research before spouting political FUD all over the place.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By TheDoc9 on 6/30/2008 3:24:48 PM , Rating: 3
I didn't even know they found anything either! Just shows what the liberal media has accomplished, just another reason I'm glad I don't watch the news anymore.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By JonnyDough on 6/30/2008 3:27:05 PM , Rating: 3
LOL! You trust FOX for news?!!


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Locutus465 on 6/30/2008 3:32:49 PM , Rating: 2
Typically Fox is actually very good despite their right leaningness... But much like a left leaning news agency (oh lets say CNN) might be apt to sugar coat liberal mistakes, Fox news is rather apt to sugar coat conservitive mistakes no matter how big.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By JonnyDough on 6/30/2008 3:38:52 PM , Rating: 1
I guess I just find it hard to trust anything but PBS any more. Everyone else wants to dramatize the news, and I find many of the news anchors VERY annoying. ESPECIALLY on Fox. But nobody is worse than Nancy Grace from CNN. Ugh!


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2008 3:50:21 PM , Rating: 1
WHAT!?!?!?! You trust PBS?!?!?! One of the biggest liberal run stations out there?

Christ. They even have a new series airing tonight (Monday 6/30) that tries to paint the Allies in World War II as being nearly as bad as the Nazi's because we sided with Russia and bombed Germany. The only reason I heard about it is because I happened to go to a local sub shop that had MSNBC on and they were talking about it and the controversy it was bringing.

Yeah thats a completely unbiased station right there. Please.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/30/2008 3:55:00 PM , Rating: 3
Public board casting system. Straight from the Government funded mouths.
Suggest you deal with annoying anchors and do your own research - that is get a story from your news channel of choice. Hear their version of the story then go out an try to find matching information (not from other news channels). Their review on speeches are your best, easiest to compare. You can listen to a stations review of the speech (notice how little of the speech they use...you see more of the report talking to you about the speech then the person of interest). Then actually listen to the whole speech – must be whole speech otherwise you may been watching an edited speech (yes, very common). One thing is for sure, you do this a couple of times and you will never listen to PBS again. I should add, do it for both Republican and Democratic speech givers.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/2008 6:07:19 AM , Rating: 3
People only think Fox is " to the right " because every single other news source is so increadibly left that Fox somehow comes out looking radical.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By mholler on 6/30/2008 3:34:40 PM , Rating: 2
As much, if not more than I trust the liberal news channels. But this is pretty much the response I expected which is why I included the link to the document. Here is another one.

http://politicscentral.com/audio/2006/09/Iraq_NGIC...


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Locutus465 on 6/30/2008 3:43:38 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, but your point still fails utterly and completely... We invaded because bush told the american people that Iraq was currently persuing the futher development of a WMD program... Further more that Saddam was specifically persuing the development of nuclear weponds presumibly to hand them over to Al-Quida (which futher he tried to have us beleive that to Iraqi government and Al-Quida had a close partnership) to be used in attacks against the USA at home and abroad... *ALL* of these "facts" were false then (as the CIA tried to convince the administration) and remain false to this day.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By mholler on 6/30/2008 3:57:18 PM , Rating: 4
I'm not debating the fact that we didn't find exactly what we believed to be there prior to the invasion. I'm simply pointing out that the liberal stance of "there were no WMDs in Iraq" is 100% false. The munitions found may not have been "new", however they were unaccounted for by UN inspectors and reported as destroyed by Sadam's administration.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Locutus465 on 6/30/2008 4:05:54 PM , Rating: 1
How about the most accurate stance of we didn't find anything the administration claimed was in there at all... The fact is I never heard any claims that we ever beleived there were absolutly no pre desert storm scuds, chem weponds etc (in fact we went into the war expecting chemical weponds to be used). The justification for the attack was Saddams supposed persuite of atomic weponds for use against the USA and interests abroad (via al-quida)... Since we defeated his regime and conducted a through search of the nation we were able to confirm what the CIA was saying all along... Any and all intelligence suggesting anything of the sort was flimsy at best, and almost certainly false... But I guess the Bush administration is more comfertable trusting forgin intelligence sources than he is our own intelligence (which his father used to run at one point btw) if it so happens that forgin sources support his agenda.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By 1078feba on 6/30/2008 4:37:00 PM , Rating: 3
Which administration are you talking about?

Seems to me that Clinton's admin was every bit as sure about Hussein having WMDs as the current admin has ever been. It's just that Clinton knew he couldn't go in and root Hussein out because his liberal-centrist constituency would have hung him from any available tree...so he just lobbed Tomahawks and sent stealth bombers. Google the quotes from all the Democrats at that time; POTUS, John Kerry, Al Gore, etc, etc, ad goddam nauseum. It's all there, educate yourself.

The real reason we went in, and I wish to sweet Christ GWB had had the sack to just admit it, is that Iraq is in the geographic center of the very worst concentration of pathological homicidal/genocidal maniacal regimes on the face of the planet. From there we can very easily "AT&T" any one of them we deem needs it.

Long and short, it doesn't make a tinker's damn what we, as Americans, as a country, do, because it's always going to be wrong in 51% of the world's eyes, and that 51% will always include the most vocal of the total, thus the cacauphony of idiocy we see everyday out of Reuters, the AP, CNN, Time and Newsweek, and that tired, diplaidated sagging old hag, the NYT. So if we can't please them, to hell with them. It's not worth the time or effort.

Whoever ends up as the next POTUS, I'm hoping that once they take the Oath, standing on that platform in D.C. on a cold January morning, the weight of the responsibility hits them, not the power, but the responsibility, the overiding repsonsibility to protect Americans as the Commander in Chief. Because God help the country who harbors the terrorists if we weaken in our resolve and they hit us again.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Locutus465 on 6/30/2008 4:46:04 PM , Rating: 2
Clinton didn't waste time and valubale military resources invading the country when we had no clear reason and a much more valid concern ( you know, finiding osama binlandin ) at the time.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By afkrotch on 6/30/2008 11:48:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Clinton didn't waste time and valubale military resources invading the country when we had no clear reason and a much more valid concern ( you know, finiding osama binlandin ) at the time.


Yes, because Osama bin Laden performed the Sept 11 attacks during Clinton's presidency. Oh wait....that was months and months after Bush took over.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2008 8:03:32 AM , Rating: 2
Umm...Clinton didn't attack Iraq because we were focused on Osama? While yes Osama was surely on our hit list since the early 90s, we were not actively searching for him like we are now. You do know what year 9/11 happened and Clinton left office right?

God that has gotta be one of the dumbest things I've heard yet.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By nstott on 7/2/2008 10:33:30 PM , Rating: 2
"Monica Missiles" on the eve of Clinton's impeachment trial, anybody?
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/16/iraq.strike...

Clinton passed up an offer to take Osama bin Laden, and he admitted it on tape during a speech:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/10/1...
http://archive.newsmax.com/audio/BILLVH.mp3


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/30/2008 4:24:34 PM , Rating: 2
*ALL* these "facts" were false...

Incorrect - The US Government knew Iraq had WMD because the Atlanta Disease control shipped them varies forms of Anthrax, small pox....other diseases. This is done with several countries so their Doctors can reproduce them for study proposes. This was done well before issued were raised...late 80's early 90's. They never provided record of distruction of these items (which is also required.)


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Locutus465 on 6/30/2008 4:35:33 PM , Rating: 2
Please point to any evidence at all which indicates Iraq was in fact continuing to persue WMD's, in paricular that they were persuing atomic weponds development... I'm waiting, I've seen the available evidence and it's all said the same thing a previous poster indicated, that the best we could come up with is left over munitions from the pre-gulf war era which was in a decaying state. To me this speaks of a WMD program abandoned.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By afkrotch on 7/1/2008 12:22:36 AM , Rating: 2
Iraq had and was still actively working on delivery systems for chemical and biological weapons. We simply didn't find the chemicals or biological components required for the delivery systems.

Just locations in Iraq that "could" have been used in their creation. But the equipment was so rudimentary, that we can't conclusively prove that it was infact a WMD program.

Also before the invasion, there was a hell of a lot of traffic leaving Iraq. God knows what went with them.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/2008 7:14:52 AM , Rating: 1
Not entirely accurate.

In his " Axis of Evil " speech Bush clearly laid out the reasons for invading Iraq. It wasn't all WMD's.

Were WMD's used to try to " sell " the war ? Almost certainly. But they weren't the sole justification, and I don't believe if they were Congress would have overwhelmingly signed off on it like they did.

Vietnam was for all the right reasons, but is ultimately condemned by history because of the result. To quote the Klingons " history books are written by the victors ". Years and years from now, similarly, Iraq will either be viewed as a success or the failure because " the US got beat by terrorist and had to pull out ". Which would you choose ? Or we can keep playing the past tense blame game which nobody can change. Its your call.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By smitty3268 on 6/30/2008 4:26:46 PM , Rating: 2
That document doesn't really say very much - they've recovered 500 munitions that were designed to carry mustard gas. Some of them (they don't say how many) still had some "degraded" samples in them. They "might" be lethal, but are degrading. Many of the recovered munitions showed signs of partial destruction, possibly by Iraq's army back in the original gulf war as they abandoned them while being overrun by coalition forces.

Call me a cynic, but when the Vice President says that Iraq may have a nuclear bomb within the year, this isn't the kind of evidence of WMD's I'm expecting to find. It sounds to me like they basically found a junk yard for older munitions that were thrown away and might not even be working anymore.

Anyway, regarding the everlasting Fox News debates. Fox News never outright lies about facts, just like the liberal stations don't either. The difference is always in opinion pieces, which makes up about 99% of cable news anyway. Fox might spend an entire hour talking about how Obama didn't wear a flag pin one day and how they think he should be more patriotic, while MSNBC might spend the same hour talking about how civil rights are important and the various new laws that are limiting them. Both are just opinion pieces, they can't be right or wrong. Simply different focuses.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Locutus465 on 6/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: sounds like a good idea...
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2008 3:53:32 PM , Rating: 1
So you'll vote for Obama simply to get out of Iraq. A move that will cost us dearly in the long term as all the good we've done over there will be erased.

Not to mention he'll destroy our economy, destroy our industries, expand massive social welfare programs, and pretty much commit the US to long term commitments of hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid on top of what we already give. And give that money to the UN no less. An organization that has shown itself to be corrupt and has given money to our enemies such as North Korea.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Locutus465 on 6/30/2008 4:08:42 PM , Rating: 3
Uh, yeah you about nailed it... I'll vote for anyone interested in not continuing an utterly corrupt international policy... McCain at one time had my vote but lost it with his hawkishness on Iraq and obvious desier to invaid Iran with out clear cause. Here's an idea FIT, why don't we go after Osama Binladin? You know.. The person that was ACTUALLY behind the 9/11 attacks? Does he just not matter any more?


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By mholler on 6/30/2008 4:33:45 PM , Rating: 3
Here is my Obama rant for the day.

Although I may not agree with you at least you state the one and only reasonable excuse that can be used by Obama supporters. However I don't see how it can overshadow his gross lack of experience, obvious socialist beliefs, and glaring character flaws.

I've spoken to dozens of Obama supporters and these are the reasons I get for their support, in order:

1) He's black.
2) He stands for change (although they cannot name one single plan or policy that he plans to implement if elected)
3. The Iraq War

He preaches about nationalized healthcare, yet he has absolutely no plan on how to implement it. At least Clinton had a vague concept.

His plan to combat high gas prices is to create a windfall tax to penalize the oil companies. However, as any reasonable person knows, companies do not pay taxes, consumers do. The taxes he proposes will be passed directly to you at the gas pump.

He claims to represent the little man, however he wants to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire therefore taking money out of the pockets of individuals and giving it to the government in order to redistribute as it sees fit. That, my friends, is socialism 101.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Locutus465 on 6/30/08, Rating: 0
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/30/2008 4:49:52 PM , Rating: 2
I live in Illinois. He is much worse then Bush. He will suffer from his tax increases. We went up 67% on average from 2007 to 2008.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By mholler on 6/30/2008 5:01:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As far as nationalized health care, beleive it or not this is something I beleive in and I beleive that at the end of the day such a system well thought out and implemented would be a boon not only to citizens but also major corperations as well.


This is the major problem with nationalized healthcare. Government run programs are never as efficient or well managed as private enterprise. Layers and layers of bureaucracy are the order of things in federal institutions.

What gives you reason to believe that the government can handle the nations healthcare? The amazing success of our welfare system? The continued strength and wonderful management of our social security system? Do you honestly believe, honestly, that the government is equipped to handle you and your family's healthcare?


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Locutus465 on 6/30/2008 5:04:47 PM , Rating: 2
Please consider the private enterprise we're comparing it too though, the US health system... It's in shambles, it's a disgrace in all senses of the word. I'm sorry but a government run program certainly couldn't do any worse than the HMO system, which according to taped conversations with president nixon was specifically put in place to allow HMO's to profit more than was previously legal...

I'm sorry, but I'll take 4 or even 8 years of obama before I'll accept a continuance of the status quo.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By mholler on 6/30/2008 5:24:03 PM , Rating: 2
Because it was believed at the time that a proliferation of HMOs would benefit consumers in the long-run. However this turned out not to be the case. This is another example of government interfering with private enterprise in order to push their own agenda, which is what you are lobbying for.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Locutus465 on 6/30/2008 5:30:33 PM , Rating: 2
So the solution you support is "pretend it isn't there"?


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By sinful on 6/30/2008 10:06:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The continued strength and wonderful management of our social security system?


It's funny you point that out. Social Security was designed to compensate for the epic failure that privatization caused.

The only real problem with it is a series of wars spent all that money.... hrm.. sounds familiar doesn't it?


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 10:47:02 PM , Rating: 2
> "The only real problem with it is a series of wars spent all that money..."

Stuff and nonsense. Just in the last 20 years alone, we've spent $15 trillion dollars on Social Security and Medicaire/Medicaid. Compared to that, a few hundred billion for a war is peanuts.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By andrinoaa on 7/1/08, Rating: 0
RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/2008 7:32:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
1) A lack of support for the Iraq war


Obama truely is for Hope and Change. He Changes his position and Hopes you don't notice. His stance on the Iraq war has flip flopped more times than I can count.

quote:
3) Send a stronger clearer message to the republican party that they need to abandon the course set by the neocons or face becoming irrelivent as a political force in this nation. I would have thought the previous congressional election would have done this, but apparently the party is full of people with thicker heads than your average concrete freeway.


You mean when they attained a slight majority and claimed it a landslide ? And , I ask you, since then what has this powerhouse of a congress done exactly ? Nothing. They have done NOTHING and their approval rating is half of what Bush's is.

quote:
2) A desire to get the "war on terror" back on track by actually persuing Osama Binladin


Yes because if we knock off Humpty Dumpty a 3,000+ year long deep rooted idealology will just go drop their ball and go home ?

Don't get me wrong, I want to see Bin Ladin's head on a pike as much as the next red blooded American. But you must realize Obama's meaning for what it is. A smoke screen. It sounds pretty, pulls on your heart, and then when your asleep it goes and sleeps with your wife.

quote:
Now how good a president he'll be? I guess no one can say how good anyone will be as president until they get there... But I feel very strongly that he can't possibly be any worse than a GW Bush or *ANY* candidate that supports that administations corrupt policies.


Sigh...

You know if people didn't have this aweful attitude we could have had some DAMN good choices for president instead of this lose - lose situation. I mean can you do me a favor and DON'T vote ? Please ?? I'll pay you. I rather have no voters at all than ones with this attitude.

quote:
As far as nationalized health care, beleive it or not this is something I beleive in and I beleive that at the end of the day such a system well thought out and implemented would be a boon not only to citizens but also major corperations as well.


The coupe de graz. Sigh... My head hurts.

So few people understand what made this country great. Its because in this country, if you busted your ass and were an innovator, motivator, inventor etc etc, you WOULD BE PAID for your efforts. Thats the biggest reason for what we have today.

How in the world you think nationalized/socialized health care would be good for industry and corporations is beyond reason.

Just wow man. You didn't even have to tell us you were an Obama supporter. Its crystal clear.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Locutus465 on 7/1/2008 1:13:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obama truely is for Hope and Change. He Changes his position and Hopes you don't notice. His stance on the Iraq war has flip flopped more times than I can count.


I'm sorry, on which issue has he flip flopped?

quote:
You mean when they attained a slight majority and claimed it a landslide ? And , I ask you, since then what has this powerhouse of a congress done exactly ? Nothing. They have done NOTHING and their approval rating is half of what Bush's is.


Thanks for tripply reaffirming in just one paragraph one of my major reasons for voting for obama this time around. Do me a favor, when the votes are counted, and you see the presidency slip from McCain for the second time due to his neo-con policies I want you to repeat something to your self.... "A Democrat being elected could have been avoided if only I and the rest of the party got the message 2 years ago and abandond the neocons and their bankrupt policies"... Becausey you see, it's true... The Democrats aren't running any exciting candidates, they're just running candidates that aren't neocon's... Look at last november when the Republican party was swept from *BOTH* houses, and why? Because of the great love for the Democratic party? I think you answered that right there, there's no great love for them... What they have going for them is they aren't neocons.

quote:
Yes because if we knock off Humpty Dumpty a 3,000+ year long deep rooted idealology will just go drop their ball and go home ?

Don't get me wrong, I want to see Bin Ladin's head on a pike as much as the next red blooded American. But you must realize Obama's meaning for what it is. A smoke screen. It sounds pretty, pulls on your heart, and then when your asleep it goes and sleeps with your wife.


What the bush administration has done in Iraq and plans to do in Iran (hoping McCain is elected to see it through) constitutes a loss of focus on the war in terror... Al-Quida attacked us with out the aid of Iraq and Iran, they did it on their own using Afghanistan as safe haven (sort of like they use our ally Pakistan for safe haven).

By invadeing Iran we're just inviting more Al-Quida infiltration into territories which they currently do not have a foothold (i.e. just like Iraq) which is *BAD* for US security and intrests. What is needed with Iran is diplomacy, not bombs.

quote:
Sigh...

You know if people didn't have this aweful attitude we could have had some DAMN good choices for president instead of this lose - lose situation. I mean can you do me a favor and DON'T vote ? Please ?? I'll pay you. I rather have no voters at all than ones with this attitude.


Well, I hate to do this to you but I'm going to join the rest of the nation in teaching you and your party a lesson, the neocons have screwed your party and the only way to get the party back on track is to leave them behind. Please, remember to repeat to your self that it all could have been avoided if only you didn't try sneaking in another neocon.

quote:
The coupe de graz. Sigh... My head hurts.

So few people understand what made this country great. Its because in this country, if you busted your ass and were an innovator, motivator, inventor etc etc, you WOULD BE PAID for your efforts. Thats the biggest reason for what we have today.

How in the world you think nationalized/socialized health care would be good for industry and corporations is beyond reason.

Just wow man. You didn't even have to tell us you were an Obama supporter. Its crystal clear.


Funny, since you're one of the many that don't understand what has made this country great.... Let me give you a clue, we didn't ascend to super power status by comitting poilitical suicide on a global scale.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/2008 2:31:23 PM , Rating: 1
Ok I see. So the important thing is not putting the best person in the white house, its getting a president who will " punish " the Conservative party ?

Your an idiot. Its a sad sad day when you would use the highest office as a petty beat stick against political rivals and not in the best interest of the country. Thanks for trying to take the whole country along for the ride.

The fact that you actually believe there are plans, or future plans, for invading Iran proves your nothing but a lib media shill. Guess what ? This administration IS using diplomacy there and always HAS.

quote:
I'm sorry, on which issue has he flip flopped?


What hasn't he flipped or waffled on is the question. Stop accepting the media's opinions and actually LISTEN to what the man is saying and form your own.

quote:
Funny, since you're one of the many that don't understand what has made this country great.... Let me give you a clue, we didn't ascend to super power status by comitting poilitical suicide on a global scale.


Sheer idiocy. The " global scale " or any type of global effort had NOTHING to do with what made this country great. And politicians damn sure didn't do it. Again, the whole goal to be " loved by the world " is nothing but liberal tripe talking points your regurgitating.

I'm done with you, I honestly have trouble sleeping at night knowing there are petty gullible people like you out there in charge of voting for this great nation.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Locutus465 on 7/1/2008 2:50:22 PM , Rating: 2
Uh, no it's ensureing the two following points happen, and I assure you that in no way do I think that McCain is the right man for the white house now, or ever.

1). Put an end to a bankrupt policy which has sapped global confidnece in the US as a world power politically and economically.

2). Ensure such policies can't reoccur in the near future buy ending the political careers of those who persue these specific policies (i.e. those put forth by the neo cons).

Or do you not care that the Euro is quickly becoming a more influencial international currancy than the US dollar? That the US dollar is at price parody with the Canadian Dollar? That we've so sapped international will to support our causes that I seriously doubt we could get great briton to help with Iran, we already lost CANADA!! on Iraq!!!!


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 7/1/2008 3:27:19 PM , Rating: 2
> "Or do you not care that the Euro is quickly becoming a more influencial international currancy than the US dollar?"

Anyone callow enough to believe the rise of the Euro has anything to do with foreigners not "liking" the US should be turned over Adam Smith's knee and roundly paddled.

The decline of the dollar is the culmination of years of unsound economic and fiscal policy. Our manufacturing has been declining for decades, which leads to a trade imbalance. Put simply, other nations produce more things that we do for them. That makes a currency decline in value.

That decline had been partially offset by many countries lack of faith in their own currencies. They preferred to hold dollars for their long-term stability. But now that the US has been engaging in the same sorts of fiscal irresponsibility that Europe has long treasured, most countries and investors are now realizing they'd do just as well to hold Euros, or even their own currencies.

It doesn't help that the Federal Reserve's been passing out hundred-billion dollar cash injections like cotton candy at a state fair, but the ultimate reason for the declining dollar is the trade imbalance. Luckily, the problem is self-correcting...a weaker dollar means our goods are cheaper overseas, and thus more in demand.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Locutus465 on 7/1/2008 3:46:59 PM , Rating: 2
1). Put an end to a bankrupt policy which has sapped global confidnece in the US as a world power politically and economically.

Perhaps it wasn't clear, but the Bankrupt policies (I should have used a pluaral earlier) include:

1) War with Nations *NOT* involved with the 9/11 attacks and which are *NOT* a threat to US interests and *NOT* actively developing WMDs.

2) Tax cuts coupled with handouts futher spinning national debt out of control in conjunction with a war effort which isn't helping us.

3) A desire to widen current wars to include more territories which also had nothing to do with 9/11 et. al. which would futher increase the economic burden on our nation.

coupled with some circomstances which from the outset were not predictable by any politition but, the fact that it seems like the neocons are adverse to the solutions...

4) Skyrocketing oil prices, states like Alaska taking it upon it's self to modernize energy should help (should they have oil burining power plants, this I do not know), and particularly TX trying to get aging cars off the road but... There needs to be a federal mission, not just a small amount of grant money, to get this nation off it's oil dependance. OPEC has already demonstrated how much they can cripple our economy... It should be noted that since OPEC is so dominated by middle eastern nations, it's foolish to think US policies in the region aren't affecting their choices (as has happened in the past).

5). A worsening economoy in general, while this isn't the fault of any specific politition, the fact that the people (there are many polls backing this up) have already lost faith in neocon leadership is just making a bad situation worse.

That's all just off the top of my head in 5 minutes...


By Reclaimer77 on 7/2/2008 10:12:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
4) Skyrocketing oil prices,


Classic. Those evil " neocons " are the only ones actually trying to solve this problem. We need more oil drilling plain and simple. Thats it.

quote:
1) War with Nations *NOT* involved with the 9/11 attacks and which are *NOT* a threat to US interests and *NOT* actively developing WMDs.


My cousin just got back from his third tour in Iraq. Guess what ? The United states is not going ANYWHERE. Any presidential cannidate who tells you we are is lying. He told me they are building a huge millitary base there. We're heavily invested in Iraq and we are going to have some kind of presence there for a long time.

Weather or not you agree with the war, calling it a bankrupt neocon policy is pure slander. Nearly every single Democrat in congress at the time voted on the war. That vote was based on the SAME EXACT intelligence data that George Bush was using. So please, stop the lies.

quote:
3) A desire to widen current wars to include more territories which also had nothing to do with 9/11 et. al. which would futher increase the economic burden on our nation.


Is this your Iran conspiracy theory again ? Tell you what, show me proof of this.

quote:
2) Tax cuts coupled with handouts futher spinning national debt out of control in conjunction with a war effort which isn't helping us.


Tax cuts are now a bankrupt policy ?? You really are a lib socialist aren't you ?

The first round of Bush tax cuts, the 300 dollar rebate checks years ago, produced a verifiable and proven boost to our economy. The new stimulus package cuts are going to do the same. Its sound economic policy and our national debt has nothing to do with this.

Bush believes the American people can spend their own money better than the federal government can. How is this a corrupt policy again ?

quote:
That's all just off the top of my head in 5 minutes...


Yeah, it shows.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By sinful on 6/30/2008 10:02:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He claims to represent the little man, however he wants to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire therefore taking money out of the pockets of individuals and giving it to the government in order to redistribute as it sees fit. That, my friends, is socialism 101.


Actually, under Obama if you make $112K or less, you'll pay *less* taxes than under McCain.
From $112K-161K, it's almost even.

The only real difference in Taxes is once you start making more than $161,000/year.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candi...


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2008 8:08:52 AM , Rating: 2
Well said. He is a complete idiot with no experience. Everything he says he wants to do to try and look conservative is a downright lie.

"I want to lower energy prices and gas prices"
But he won't allow drilling, will tax oil companies more, will stop any new refineries, etc.

"I will tax the rich more and ease the burden for the middle class."
But I'll repeal the Bush tax cuts and raise taxes on everyone who actually pays taxes. Apparently over $50,000 a year is rich to this man.

"I will be tough on Iran"
We'll serve bad tea in our no pre-conditions meetings.

"I will rebuild our military"
By pulling out of Iraq, slashing the defense budget tens of billions of dollars, and slowing future weapons development.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/30/2008 4:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
The countries he is hiding in needs to give our military the access to the area he lives. They are not all doing this...so they are a safe harbor country.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/30/2008 4:47:07 PM , Rating: 1
my reply was to be under this post:

By Locutus465 on 6/30/2008 4:08:42 PM , Rating: 2

Uh, yeah you about nailed it... I'll vote for anyone interested in not continuing an utterly corrupt international policy... McCain at one time had my vote but lost it with his hawkishness on Iraq and obvious desier to invaid Iran with out clear cause. Here's an idea FIT, why don't we go after Osama Binladin? You know.. The person that was ACTUALLY behind the 9/11 attacks? Does he just not matter any more?


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Locutus465 on 6/30/2008 4:50:09 PM , Rating: 2
That's an additional point of contetion I have with the current administartion ad McCain... On the one had you make neighboring pakistan our ally which has a military dicatorship and good cause not to let our troops enter the territory our ally, and then give the Tailban an Al-Quida a reprive durring the war in afghanistan (you know, when we just stopped fighting in honor of some misc islamic holiday) which gave them every oppertunity to bail of afghanistan (which was a lost cause) and get shelter in pakistan...

So now they're hinding in a country which is a US ally, so we can't invade because that would be stupid, has perfect hiding spots just like afghanistan, and lacks the internal resources to combat them.... These are the people you support?


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2008 5:08:25 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah those troops in Afghanistan are just sitting around. And stopping believing the media. Neither Bush, nor McCain, will be attacking Iran. Personally I support bombing their nuclear activities to dust though.

We can only be in so many places. And in reality Iran is a perfectly valid place Osama might be hiding considering the government there is plenty sympathetic to their cause. Either there or in caves in Pakistan.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Locutus465 on 6/30/2008 5:13:44 PM , Rating: 2
I assume you're first comments are made in regard to my comments about stopping the war? If so I suggest you read up on how the war in Afghanistan was conducted, for a period of not more than 3 days the US ceased all offensive operations in the nation and basicaly set up road blocks (actually I think it was 1 day, but I can't remember the speicfic length of time now so I'm giving my self wiggle room). Basically the idea was to appease islmaic nations protesting the war continue durring the holiday (probably specifically so al-quida could have time to escape), so they figured they'd set up road blocks and arrest any known taliban or al-quida official. The problem was... Road blocks are dreadfully easy to get around, particularly in mountainous terrain, we couldn't afford to stop offensive operations for even 1 hour at that point in time if we wanted any real hope of catching osama binladin.... But that's the bush administration for you...


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By rcc on 6/30/2008 5:44:12 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, but if the Clinton Adminstration hadn't let him slip away repeatedly, there may not have been a 9-11. Or an Afganistan. I'm betting there still would have been an Iraq though


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Locutus465 on 6/30/2008 5:46:51 PM , Rating: 3
The clinton adminstration at least once tried to blow him up with a cruise missle (which at the time was the only reasnoble option) only to miss by minutes because Osama happend to have a prior engagement.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2008 8:18:28 AM , Rating: 2
I remember the cruise missile strikes you speak of. It was a day or two after the Lewinsky scandal. And it was nothing more than a ploy to try and draw attention away from it. Osama might have been the target they stated but I doubt there was any real intel done. They just fired at some likely known militant camps to be like "Hey look over here! I did something! Ignore the whore I banged in my office."


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By andrinoaa on 7/1/2008 3:30:21 AM , Rating: 2
Do you want to know why Iran hates your government? They had good cause 20yrs ago and these guys hold grudges for centuries! lol
I would have thought a good strategy was "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer" , It has stood the test of time. lol


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/30/2008 4:07:39 PM , Rating: 1
You've lead the horses to the water. Now we just need to see if they will drink or if in turn they will go back to their favorite kool-aid fountain. :)



RE: sounds like a good idea...
By juserbogus on 6/30/2008 6:45:49 PM , Rating: 2
from your own link...

Asked why the Bush administration, if it had known about the information since April or earlier, didn't advertise it, Hoekstra conjectured that the president has been forward-looking and concentrating on the development of a secure government in Iraq.

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Kuroyama on 6/30/2008 8:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
That's pathetic. A careful reading of the FOX news article already hints that information is being omitted. A quick google search clears this up quite easily:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

Find something better before pretending like the liberal media is hiding critical information.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By BansheeX on 6/30/2008 8:27:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You're speaking of thing of which you have absolutely no knowledge. We did, in fact, find hundreds of WMDs in Iraq.


Too bad you're not going back far enough. Where did Saddam get most of those bio weapons? Oh yeah, us! Here's a timeline for you with Ron Paul's "blowback" argument in chronological splendor.

1. 1953: The CIA helps overthrow Mossadegh in Iran because he was going to nationalize his country's oil reserves. They reinstate the Shah.
2. In what is viewed as an undermining of nationality sovereignty, Shah ends up being associated with the the West, fueling anti-American propaganda. Radical muslim extremism and hatred towards the West boils until a violent revolution in the late 70s including the storming of the American embassy. Now Iran is an Theocracy with no friendly relations to the U.S.
3. In the 1980's, Iran and Iraq start pissing on each other again in a border dispute. America sees an opportunity to use the enemy-of-our-enemy-is-our-friend strategy and give Iraq a bunch of weapons. In 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War), and also supplying weapons. President Ronald Reagan continues the interventionist strategy, saying that the U.S. "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that we "would do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

4. Desperate for an Iraqi victory, the U.S. turns a blind eye to Saddam's use of biological agents during the war. This creates enormous resentment in Iran. The U.S. also makes a stupid error and shoots down an Iranian passenger plane, while in Iranian waters no less. All 290 passengers are killed. No formal apology is ever issued.
5. Saddam Hussein uses biological weaponry made possible by U.S. relations on Kurdish women and children in his own country. The he invades oil-rich Kuwait, at which point the U.S. says "yeah, okay, that's not cool." After Saddam is defeated in the Gulf War, Bush senior leaves him in power and slaps him on the wrist.
6. Saddam decides to change the pricing of his country's oil from dollars to euros in late 2000. Perhaps fearing a domino effect and unseating of the dollar as the reserve currency of the world, Bush being drumming up WMD charges against Iraq before 9/11 even happens.
7. 9/11 attacks occur. The United States goes into Afghanistan, but Bush also tries to link Al-Qaeda with Hussein even though Hussein hated terrorists and saw them as a threat to his own power circle. Bin Laden slips into Pakistan where he resides today and all attention turns to Iraq. The U.S. goes to war illegally without a constitutional declaration (for the jillionth time since WWII) and wins easily. Saddam is arrested and hung.
7. U.S. enters nation-building phase and preserves the petrodollar, reversing Saddam's decision to price the country's oil in euros. U.S. brings in contractors funded by taxpayer money to rebuild Iraq. Halliburton, Cheney's former stint, receives billions in no-bid contracts and starts charging $100 per bag of laundry among other things.
8. Iraq, now in a power vacuum, turns into a sectarian quagmire and becomes infected with terrorists. Embarrassed and occupied, Iraqi sentiment is now ripe for extremist Muslim propoganda and terrorist recruitment. America engages in a perpetual terrorist whack-a-mole war. Guantanamo torture pictures, collateral damage, and other missteps lend to the continued effectiveness of radical muslim propaganda.
9. The financial cost of the war weighs down on the American economy and its borders become more porous and defenseless than ever as it attempts to sustain its military presence in 130 other countries countries.
10. The end of two Federal Reserve bubbles couldn't come at a worse time for the American economy. Mired in an endless trillion dollar war that didn't go as planned, the military expenditures begin taking their toll and years of inflation finally comes home to roost, sending commodities skyrocketing. Oil climbs to $140, called a bubble the whole way up by mainstream economits despite a complete lack of physical hoarding and demand pullbacks associated with bubbles.
11. Iran starts its own oil bourse to be prices in Euros. Israel and the U.S. begin drumming up Iran as a WMD threat despite the Soviet Union having 40,000 in the cold war. Pelosi removes supplimental bill requiring declaration with Iran at an Israel lobby's behest. Democrats and neo-cons get together and try to pass a crazy bill to "urge" the president to take dictatorial actions on Iran.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7354M1QmGYQ
http://youtube.com/watch?v=iWLBhgTQ46o


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Ringold on 6/30/2008 11:06:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oil climbs to $140, called a bubble the whole way up by mainstream economits


Is this true? Hmm.. The economists I listen to / read, any way, haven't suggested as much. Actually that sort of sounds like rhetoric I'd expect from Democrats and their cadre of economists rather than the whole of mainstream economists.

Mainstream economists look to me to be defending the price rise as real. They're defending it from accusations of "speculation," and you point out the same thing I hear them point to all the time; the fact that the market must still clear by the time contracts come due (meaning consuming firms must be willing to pay the going prices), the demand is strong and the supply side response has been weak, and the dollar is weak, which I do believe you would attribute to loose money, and so would I, to a degree (the lousy stock market doesn't help; if it were strong, it'd attract investment just as higher real bond yields would).

That said, I try to ignore tools like Paul Krugman as much as possible, so if he counts as mainstream and has been calling oil prices a bubble then I suppose I'm just out of touch with mainstream.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Ringold on 7/1/2008 3:34:48 AM , Rating: 2
To fix my last post.. I just came across this from Krugman:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/opinion/27krugma...

Even one of the more famous liberal economists in the country isn't on the speculative bubble bandwagon. The more conservative economists in the country, for example Luskin and Laffer, get on CNBC all the time bashing the bubble theory.

His blog isn't bad either, because... well, simply because he managed to slip this in:

quote:
Um, by definition every long position has to be matched by a short position — it takes two to contango (Yes! I’ve been looking for an opportunity to say that for weeks!).


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By andrinoaa on 7/1/2008 3:36:41 AM , Rating: 2
If it walks like a duck, squawks like a duck, tastes like a duck, it must be DUCK. lol let me see, whats the price today..........


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2008 8:21:33 AM , Rating: 2
Bush Sr. did not just leave Saddam in power. We were ready to crush him then and there with our tanks surrounding Baghdad. But what did Congress and the American people call for? Bring our troops home! Bush would have killed Saddam then and there if he'd been allowed to.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By nstott on 7/2/2008 11:09:42 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, Bush Sr. made the mistake of listening to Colin Powell, who argued that the UN resolution didn't cover an invasion of Baghdad and taking out Saddam.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/...

https://13695.spreadshirt.com/us/US/Shop/Article/I...


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2008 9:42:14 AM , Rating: 2
And perhaps you should watch this video on what actually happens in gitmo.

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_r...


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By sinful on 6/30/2008 9:55:00 PM , Rating: 3
Maybe you should dig into those facts a little more deeply, buddy.

All the WMD's were pre 1990 munitions that were deemed ineffective and non-working.

Finding WMD's that don't work anymore is a joke. Only Fox news would trumpet it as some sort of success.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/30/2008 3:39:48 PM , Rating: 1
Watch the video's again. We went in to take out the powers that be - whom supported and aided terrorist activity. Such as providing training grains, recruitment, funding, building WMD and distribution of these weapons (there is more to the list). Then we were to move on the the next country on the list (which never came about so far because, Iraq was not run efficiently).
This was never a war about WMD...Always been a war on terrorist and countries who support terrorist. Things that terrorist would use things like airline planes, WMD (anthrax, small pox – thing that one suitcase full could kill several million people – easy to hide and move), and just willing to harm innocent lives for no real reason.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By afkrotch on 6/30/2008 11:36:21 PM , Rating: 2
Even through the US was making double, almost triple the oil than Iraq was making before the war started. Even now, the US still trumps Iraq in oil generation.

Let's not forget the possible 1.5-2.5 trillion barrels of shale oil that could be made in the US.

But I'd rather see ppl geared more towards greener power generation. That or nuclear power. French seem to be doing alright with nuclear power.


By Shining Arcanine on 7/1/2008 8:26:45 AM , Rating: 1
I would prefer it if you would stop referring to "the government", which is really something that does not exist in the United States. Instead, what exists is the Federal Government, the State Government and the Local and Municipal Governments.

Not to mention, the Federal Government, which has in charge of war power ever since the Popular Vote became a part of the Constitution, has no constitutional authority to fund this or anything like it.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Locutus465 on 6/30/2008 3:27:53 PM , Rating: 3
I'm all for government subsidies being used to help these people profit, so they can more cheaply provide the power everyone else needs to run their lives and businesses... Look at all the power outtages CA has had to endure because we just can't generate enough power, are you seriously so against the idea of the government helping these corperations profit with the use of tax payer dollars that you're willing to let so many tax payers have to deal with the burden of an insufficient power infrustructure?


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2008 3:56:11 PM , Rating: 2
Why should government subsidies be needed? All businesses have to invest to earn a profit. Power generation is no different. The biggest thing holding back the creation of new power plants in California are environmentalists. It has nothing to do with a lack of investment dollars.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Locutus465 on 6/30/2008 4:10:54 PM , Rating: 2
Subsidies are needed in order to mitigate the risks to private corperations, or did you think all of this can be done with out risk of bankrupting the involved corperations? By offering subsidies utilities are free to persue these new approches to generating power with out fear that they're going to be completely left holding the bag should it turn out that geothermal energy still isn't viable at this time.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Ringold on 6/30/2008 11:11:55 PM , Rating: 2
There are these high-risk tolerant investors known as venture capitalists.

If there is at all a chance of making a boat load of money, despite a high risk, it could still be done. Once one VC firm accomplished it, others would probably pour billions in to it of its own accord.

Subsidies just seek to have the government "pick a winner" technology. That worked fantastic with ethanol. </sarcasm> In the case of Boone Pickens, subsidies also apparently exist to help billionaires make their next billion as taxpayers expense, which seems an odd thing for environmentalists to support.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/30/2008 4:03:03 PM , Rating: 2
actually did not forget just figured you be SOL. :)
However would be interesting to see if they can produce something to handle an eruption.


Geothermal...the true alternative source
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 1:19:34 PM , Rating: 5
Wind is rarely economical and solar almost never so...but geothermal actually has a great deal of potential, thanks to Mother Nature graciously concentrating the heat energy for us. We should tap it where it exists.




RE: Geothermal...the true alternative source
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2008 1:52:34 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. I think geothermal is a great alternative energy source. Few if any input costs to make the power. And the "fuel" source is 100% reliable. It's a better energy source than the sun because it doesn't depend on weather.


RE: Geothermal...the true alternative source
By Alexstarfire on 6/30/2008 2:48:56 PM , Rating: 2
Geothermal is certainly a great idea, but I don't think that it'll provide enough power for the entire planet. Even if it does now, we have rising energy usage and geothermal energy remains pretty consistent.

I think in the end we are going to need some type of solar power; we just need to find a better way to capture the energy. I mean, it'd be stupid to let the largest fusion reaction in our solar system go to waste. In reality, that's the only thing that's practically unlimited. Geothermal has it's limits, but the Sun's limits are MUCH MUCH MUCH higher.


By FITCamaro on 6/30/2008 2:56:51 PM , Rating: 2
Where did I say it would provide 100% of our needs. But I certainly think a combination of geothermal and nuclear could easily power our planet. And it doesn't require blanketing our planet in solar panels.


RE: Geothermal...the true alternative source
By blaster5k on 6/30/2008 3:03:59 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe someday we'll find a way to effectively harness the sun's energy, but today isn't that day. Efficiency isn't there.

Geothermal does have potential to power the entire planet with water injection techniques. This is not yet a proven method and may pose some environmental concerns, but it's interesting nevertheless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_dry_rock_geotherm...


RE: Geothermal...the true alternative source
By Smartless on 6/30/2008 6:14:12 PM , Rating: 2
What exactly would you classify as "proven"? They've been using it here in Hawaii for awhile albeit very limited. I think the one we have is about 25 megawatts.

http://www.punageothermalventure.com/

Yah we get some nice Hydrogen sulfide gases all the time but its more or less controlled. The Hawaiian activists have pretty much killed any more development so I don't really know just how viable it is.


RE: Geothermal...the true alternative source
By Solandri on 6/30/2008 7:13:43 PM , Rating: 2
I think he means on a more wide-scale level. Geothermal at the base of a volcano is easy because of the extremely high temperature gradient across a short distance. The hot magma inside the earth comes close to the surface at these points (if it got any closer and broke through the surface, it'd be an active volcano).

Unfortunately very little of the world sits at the base of a volcano. For wide-scale adoption of geothermal, we'd need to be able to drill several miles underground to tap into deeper heat sources further from the base of a volcano. This is pushing the limits of modern oil drilling capability (which is our most advanced relevant technology). Hence why I would agree it's not "proven."

But I agree, the potential for geothermal is vast. I think it is the best candidate out of all the renewables currently on the plate. Even if you can't drill deep enough to use the earth's latent heat energy, you can still use the earth as a heat source/sink to improve the efficiency of heaters and air conditioners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heat_pump


By Smartless on 6/30/2008 7:59:23 PM , Rating: 2
Ah I see. Hmm I can see why they are doing Alaska though since the Pacific Plate is one of the more active tectonic areas and have hot spots that are easier to get to.

One other interesting thing they are doing on the Big Island of Hawaii is using a temperature differential between bottom ocean water and top. I know its another very rare situation but hey its got a lot of useful hehe farming qualities. Hopefully they stay in business.

http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/energy/renewable/otec

In terms of renewable energy, I think the Big Island is decent at about 30% renewable max. I think geothermal makes up about 10% of the island's power. But we have, what 120,000 homes at the most? haha. Well just food for thought.
http://www.helcohi.com/vcmcontent/StaticFiles/pdf/...


By blaster5k on 6/30/2008 7:50:03 PM , Rating: 2
I was referring to geothermal where they have to do deep drilling down to hot bedrock and inject water manually. It's a mostly "man-made" geothermal reservoir.

The earlier poster claimed that geothermal could not meet all of the world's power needs, so I was just pointing out that that isn't really true when you use that method since it can be done almost anywhere -- it just depends how deep you want to drill.

That type of geothermal power is in its infancy (only Australia is trying it right now to my knowledge), thus I wouldn't consider it "proven". More conventional forms of geothermal power certainly are. They've been around for a long time.


RE: Geothermal...the true alternative source
By JonnyDough on 6/30/2008 3:34:52 PM , Rating: 2
Wind power only fails because of the high cost of installation. The dutch and Amish and original homesteaders used wind to power their wells, grain mills, sawmills, etc...

How can you say it's not economical? You must be looking at the high cost of installation, because wind itself is a fantastic source of energy, it's renewable, fairly constant (despite no-wind areas and the sometimes windless day, there IS always a breeze in most places), and it's free. It doesn't get any cleaner than wind power. Any source of energy above ground that is free and doesn't require much to harness is the best source for energy overall. To you who speak about nuclear power, the uranium and plutonium still have to be mined, enriched, etc...that takes energy and isn't good for the environment. What happens if a nuclear plant fails? Bad things. If a wind turbine fails? Well, it could fall on a single building. The answers to the energy of the future are obvious, now we just have to get there - and we are. Every time a computer becomes more powerful while using less energy we are gaining. Every time we build a car that gets more torque for less fuel (or cleaner fuel) we are getting closer. The Volt however, is a horrible idea, as we do not have the proper energy sources/grid to fuel it yet. Solar panels are going to be flooding into homes when the Volt comes out, because of rising electric costs. The problem is that solar panel makers probably won't be ready for that with a surplus of panels, and so solar panels will see a spike in cost as well.


RE: Geothermal...the true alternative source
By blaster5k on 6/30/2008 4:04:20 PM , Rating: 4
The Volt is not a terrible idea at all and it's absolutely not true that the grid can't handle charging them. It's estimated that relatively little grid expansion would be necessary to support the whole country running electric cars, largely because they'll be charged at night when we have excess capacity. Any change to electric cars will be gradual though, so there's plenty of time to bring new power sources online.

Wind power fails, at least in my book, because of the land area requirements. Far too much land is consumed per watt of electricity generated. Even if the wind is somewhat predictable, it isn't completely and output does vary, which makes regulation more challenging. It's also got subsidies masking the real cost.

Nuclear power certainly can be dangerous, but we've learned a lot over the years and the safety of the designs has improved greatly -- not that Western plants were ever that unsafe to begin with.

I will also point out that wind power can be dangerous and people do die as a result of it, usually while performing maintenance. If you ignore Chernobyl, which featured a ridiculously unsafe design that never would have been allowed in the Western world, more deaths have resulted from wind than nuclear.


RE: Geothermal...the true alternative source
By andrinoaa on 7/1/08, Rating: 0
RE: Geothermal...the true alternative source
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2008 8:27:14 AM , Rating: 2
No nuclear accident has ever killed 300,000 people. Or even 100,000 people. It would take almost intentional sabotage for a nuclear plant to explode like an atom bomb. The two major nuclear accidents that have happened were due to a) extremely poor plant construction and b) stupidity on the part of the engineers in taking the safeguards offline. It is doubtful that 'b' would ever happen again in the US because we know the risks. And 'a' would never happen because we have things called safety standards and building codes.

Stop spreading fud.


RE: Geothermal...the true alternative source
By masher2 (blog) on 7/1/2008 9:26:18 AM , Rating: 3
> "It would take almost intentional sabotage for a nuclear plant to explode like an atom bomb."

Not even with intentional sabotage will a positive-void coefficient reactor -- the only type ever built in the Western world -- explode like a bomb.

You can scram the core, you can potentially even cause a meltdown. But a nuclear explosion? Can't happen.


RE: Geothermal...the true alternative source
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2008 9:37:36 AM , Rating: 2
There you go. I really wasn't sure if it was even possible. But I figured if someone did something intentionally it might be. The problem is when people think of a nuclear plant melting down, they envision a large explosion with a big mushroom cloud because that's the fear the envirowackos have put into their head.


RE: Geothermal...the true alternative source
By masher2 (blog) on 7/1/2008 10:46:05 AM , Rating: 2
Well, to prove my statement, try this simple thought experiment. If a reactor *could* explode like a bomb, then it would very obviously mean the reactor's fuel could be used to make a bomb.

But reactors don't run on weapons-grade HEU -- highly enriched, uranium. They run on LEU or even (for a CANDU reactor) simple natural uranium. Such fuels are useless for bomb-making.

That very fact is the reason Western nations don't mind giving other countries such reactors. The fuel can't be diverted for weapons purposes.


RE: Geothermal...the true alternative source
By andrinoaa on 7/1/2008 11:08:03 PM , Rating: 2
Ok so its an invisible cloud of radiation. lol
You glow boys are so "touchy"


RE: Geothermal...the true alternative source
By nstott on 7/2/2008 11:18:07 PM , Rating: 2
Andrinoaaaaa, you really seem to like overusing lol. lol
It's actually rather annoying. lol
And it makes you seem like a total airhead. lol
Although other things you post have that effect too. lol
Please take a technical writing class. lol
And take Jason with you since he needs it too. lol
Thanks. lol


By andrinoaa on 7/3/2008 5:47:40 AM , Rating: 2
SORRY. I am pissing myself laughing, truely. (point taken though )
The "glow " boys need the micky taken off them. They always find a problem with EVERYTHING except...... yes nuclear power. And every article turns to.....nuclear power.
How about you get stuck into them too, nstott.
We are not writing technical papers here, but, I just don't think the glow boys should getaway with their mantras.


By andrinoaa on 7/3/2008 5:48:50 AM , Rating: 2
SORRY. I am pissing myself laughing, truely. (point taken though )
The "glow " boys need the micky taken off them. They always find a problem with EVERYTHING except...... yes nuclear power. And every article turns to.....nuclear power.
How about you get stuck into them too, nstott.
We are not writing technical papers here, but, I just don't think the glow boys should getaway with their mantras.


By Shining Arcanine on 7/1/2008 8:48:41 AM , Rating: 2
Can you say earthquakes? The drilling necessary to exploit geothermal power tends to relieve pressure in the earth, leading to shifts in the rock beneath the ground. Such shifts cause earthquakes.

I read about a geothermal project that had been suspended in Australia because of the increased seismological activity. I would prefer to have a nuclear power plant in my backyard than a geothermal power plant 30 miles away.


True Geothermal Energy
By hcahwk19 on 6/30/2008 1:01:07 PM , Rating: 2
I remember back in the 90's an episode of the tv show "Dinosaurs" where one of the dinosaurs had the idea of harnessing the power of a volcano to solve an energy crisis in the city. He was laughed out of the science fair, but it appears his vision was way ahead of his time!!!




RE: True Geothermal Energy
By Cheapshot on 6/30/2008 1:24:01 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't Norway or Denmark get 70%+ of thier power from Geothermal?

I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned.

The planets core is probably the most abundant of energy sources we have... its amazing that we have been trying so hard to get into outer space to look for answers when so much energy is below our feet.

Granted it is WAY! below our feet... but just how much and how long of an ordeal would it be to tap into it.


RE: True Geothermal Energy
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 1:36:26 PM , Rating: 4
I believe you're thinking of Iceland. It generates only about 20% of its electricity from geothermal, but over 80% if its heating needs from it.


RE: True Geothermal Energy
By Denithor on 6/30/2008 2:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
Iceland it is indeed.

Geothermal provides the heat for 90% of homes there.

Geothermal provides 26% of energy, hydropower 73%, and less than 1% comes from fossil fuels.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/30/2008 6:18:47 PM , Rating: 2
Well the great thing about living on an island is that hydro based power is pretty easy to come by eh?


RE: True Geothermal Energy
By BarkHumbug on 7/1/2008 10:33:48 AM , Rating: 2
I visited Iceland last summer. In the hotel we stayed, they were very proud of the fact that they had geothermal hot water. However, this meant that the shower reeked of rotten egg from sulfur. Funny feeling, getting sick while getting clean...


RE: True Geothermal Energy
By masher2 (blog) on 7/1/2008 10:46:44 AM , Rating: 3
A simple heat exchanger would solve that problem.


Dual-Minded TREE HUGGERS
By mmc4587 on 6/30/2008 2:43:09 PM , Rating: 1
So, let me get this straight...
There is more oil in Alaska than Saudi Arabia--BUT--We won't be allowed to put up oil pumps in Alaska's frozen dessert, as that would mar the habitat. But heck, we'll pay people to set up geo-thermal factories?
...just one more reason to wonder why we still call this a free country.




RE: Dual-Minded TREE HUGGERS
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 3:09:28 PM , Rating: 5
> "BUT--We won't be allowed to put up oil pumps in Alaska's frozen dessert, as that would mar the habitat. But heck, we'll pay people to set up geo-thermal factories?"

Once you understand the environmentalist's true goal here, the apparent dichotomy is resolved. Their fear isn't marring the landscape -- indeed nothing could be more disfiguring than thousands of square miles of windmills or solar panels -- but rather cheap energy.

Oil is cheap energy, and that means more industrialiation, and a higher standard of living. For those who believe man and all his works are ultimately destructive, cheap energy is the root of all evil.


RE: Dual-Minded TREE HUGGERS
By TheDoc9 on 6/30/2008 3:41:21 PM , Rating: 2
Masher, that was one of those epiphany posts that many people might not pay attention to. It really says exactly what's going on here and I could just feel the synapses being created in my brain by learning this obvious truth.


RE: Dual-Minded TREE HUGGERS
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 5:40:55 PM , Rating: 3
Thanks, but I can't claim credit for any great perspicacity here, when environmentalists have already let their skirts show:

quote:
If you ask me, it'd be a little short of disasterous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it
Amory Lovins, Friends of the Earth

quote:
Giving society cheap abundant energy at this point would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun
Famed environmentalist Paul Ehrlich


RE: Dual-Minded TREE HUGGERS
By Mitch101 on 6/30/2008 3:56:39 PM , Rating: 2
Lets forget fossil fuels. Why? Because were smarter than this. Tapping fossil fuel reserves are a temporary solution that we know pollutes the environment. Weve already discovered we can make bio diesel's from algae lets get someone with gonads to run with alternatives.

Its not that I am a tree hugger but I see fossil fuels are the coal/steam engines of yesterday. Alternatives exist lets get the ball rolling already.


By Shining Arcanine on 7/1/2008 8:52:23 AM , Rating: 2
The landscape in many of the places they want to drill is not that pristine to start and in many cases it could be argued that the oil facilities would be an aesthetic improvement to the landscape.


Freeaire system
By Mitch101 on 6/30/2008 2:24:55 PM , Rating: 2
My favorite Green technology was a ski-resort where they were sitting around drinking on the coldest day of the year when they heard the freezer's compressors turning on. It occurred to them why are they paying electricity cost to cool the freezer when its colder outside?

http://www.freeaire.com/




RE: Freeaire system
By DeepBlue1975 on 6/30/2008 2:59:56 PM , Rating: 2
A cool idea bringing fresh air to the freezing activity.


RE: Freeaire system
By Mitch101 on 6/30/2008 3:50:32 PM , Rating: 2
Its one of those things that all sorts of alternative items are around us we just need to start using them. Every home in the north should have an outside connection like this for their refrigerator it should be a standard hookup like the clothes dryer.

Im still amazed we use hot water heaters when water on demand systems make significantly more sense. At least put hot water boilers on a timer but no they are hard wired into the system most of the time now making that difficult.

Why cant the lighting systems be on DC for the home?

Geothermal heating and cooling not an option on any new homes that I have seen.

I would like to think were smarter than this but apparently were not or someone wants to charge a fortune for something that saves you in the long run.


RE: Freeaire system
By DeepBlue1975 on 6/30/2008 5:14:41 PM , Rating: 2
I think it has more to do with need and resource availability than plain "smartness".
Look at japan, they are constantly coming up with weird ideas of technology and many of them get to be produced and end up being beneficial to their society. But with more than 100.000.000 people living on that little island that Japan is, they'd rather do as they are because otherwise the whole of their country could be erased by a big earthquake in no time.

The US is a huge country with plenty of resources, unlike many in europe, and that makes US governments and inhabitants to be less worried about quickly finding alternatives to common resources.

A harsh geographical location with little resources to exploit gives a country plenty of motivation to work harder than others on a more relaxed situation.

Just my opinion.


RE: Freeaire system
By Rugar on 6/30/2008 5:21:13 PM , Rating: 2
If you are willing to custom build a house or retrofit an existing system, there are a variety of manufactured and DIY geothermal home systems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_exchange_h... A family that lived near us back in the 80's had a geothermal heat pump in their house.

The technology has been there for a long, long time. Only now is energy becoming expensive enough that the mainstream is seriously considering these alternative systems.


RE: Freeaire system
By Solandri on 6/30/2008 7:31:31 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry but this sounds like the bastard child of a naive understanding of how refrigerators / air conditioners work. The idea of piping in outside air makes sense for something like a room refrigerator, where the exhaust air is vented into the room. But it really makes little sense for something like an air conditioner (in winter?) or a commercial refrigerator.

In a commercial refrigerator, heat is carried outside via a liquid refrigerant. The colder it is outside, the more efficient the process is. If it's cold enough outside, the compressor doesn't even need to run. All this idea has done is replace the liquid refrigerant in the system with air.

What the compressor does is increase the local temperature gradient to increase heat exchange between the refrigerator and the refrigerant (rate of heat transfer is proportional to the difference in temperature). If the outside temperature is sufficiently cold enough to generate sufficient heat flow to offset new heat coming into the refrigerator (say, from restaurant staff opening the door to get stuff), then air cooling will work. But if it's not cold enough or there's not enough air flow, you still need some sort of compressor to increase the temperature gradient and the rate of heat exchange.

In other words, the compressor increases the temperature range and operating conditions in which refrigeration is effective. It is not in and of itself less efficient than air cooling. In fact, in marginal conditions, the energy spent on fans to blow cold outside air through the refrigerator will far exceed the energy that would've been spent on a compressor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer#Newton....


RE: Freeaire system
By Mitch101 on 7/2/2008 10:28:14 AM , Rating: 2
I don't doubt your knowledge of refrigeration systems however the ski resort which did this will have the systems pay for themselves in about 8-10 years beyond that is gravy not to mention the reduction of air pollution. It may not make sense in small home based units but it might be worth looking into. Over time these systems would become cheaper.

http://business.transworld.net/2008/04/14/killingt...

Last summer, Killington Resort invested $50,000 into retrofitting six of the resort’s walk-in coolers with a Freeaire Refrigeration System, which taps into the greatest source of refrigeration ever created: winter. The Freeaire system uses cold outside air and new high efficiency evaporator fan motors to chill walk-in coolers. Since the installation and through April 1, 2008 the Freeaire program has saved 55,200 kWh of electricity and eliminated more than 3.7 tons of CO2 emissions.

Thats about $4,800 in savings using a Freeaire system not to mention the CO2 emissions.


Types of Alternative Energy
By phrizzo on 6/30/2008 1:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
So there are our option right now?

- Fossil Fuels
- Oil
- Coal
- Natural Gas

- Nuclear
- Fission
- Fusion

- Solar
- Wind
- Hydroelectric
- Geothermal
- Tidal
- Biomass?




RE: Types of Alternative Energy
By Odysseus145 on 6/30/2008 1:35:12 PM , Rating: 2
You night want to take fusion of the list. It could be decades before that's feasible.


RE: Types of Alternative Energy
By jabber on 6/30/2008 2:04:26 PM , Rating: 5
We are also forgetting that most online Tech Forums such as this provide an almost inexhaustable supply of hot air!

This needs to be tapped!


RE: Types of Alternative Energy
By Adonlude on 6/30/2008 2:33:33 PM , Rating: 2
Haha. Maybe we could get little generators put under each of the keys in our keyboards so we can generate a little electricity with all this chatter. I'd be willing to type a little harder to generate power.


RE: Types of Alternative Energy
By andrinoaa on 7/1/2008 3:43:33 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the biggest untapped source, wave power


How about Yellowstone?
By sonoran on 6/30/2008 3:56:01 PM , Rating: 2
Why not tap the supervolcanic magma dome building up under Yellowstone? Should be a LOT of energy there.




RE: How about Yellowstone?
By kattanna on 6/30/2008 4:20:02 PM , Rating: 3
because it *might* cause some rare and unknown species of beatle to change their habit of living, that no one cares about except 1 person who will then take it upon themselves to save this poor beatle to the expense of humanity....

numerous lawsuits will entail and the only winner will be...

the lawyers.


Once everyone is on geothermal...
By Icelight on 6/30/2008 4:20:36 PM , Rating: 2
Environmentalists everywhere will scream about global cooling and how we are lowering the core temperature of the Earth to dangerously low levels by sucking all the heat out of it.




By FaceMaster on 7/5/2008 12:39:28 PM , Rating: 2
www.steampowered.com is already taken. DAMN YOU VALVE


Energy sources
By rcc on 6/30/2008 4:47:42 PM , Rating: 4
I'm still waiting for the environmentalists to carry through on their thinking(if you care to call it that).

Wind power. A wind mill/turbine/generator takes energy out of the atmosphere in the form of wind. If we build enough wind mills to power the world, aside of the space required, what will this do to the climate, weather patterns, etc. i.e. what really happens if you managed to decrease the average wind speed on the planet by 5/10/15 mph? It doesn't need to be that big a change, the fact is that it will remove energy from the atmosphere.

Same for solar, ignoring the actual installations, what effect will absorbing and converting all that solar energy have on the environment? It's no longer re-radiating through the atmosphere, or being absorbed by the ground/water with helps keep things warm at night.

I'm not saying that any of these things will be measureable or meaningful. But given some of the "change this by 1% and you destroy the xyz" mentality of these folks, you have to wonder.

Then again, as noted previously, if you just assume that the goal of their operations is to destroy/curtail the existance of an industrial society, you no longer need to ask questions like this. : )




Nuclear Power
By Shining Arcanine on 7/1/2008 8:45:14 AM , Rating: 2
They should just build nuclear power plants and be done with it. It is the only technology that meets our future needs and has no serious flaws.

Hydro-electric power - People die when the dam breaks, Salmon Migration patterns are disrupted, dirt accumulates in the artificial lake requiring it to be cleaned out every few months, etcetera.

Solar Power - Even at 100% efficiency, it will be impossible to use this to satisfy our needs

Geothermal Power - Say hello to earthquakes when changes in pressure occur because of the drilling, which has to be done every one to two decades at great cost.

Wind Power - Gives very little energy and extract energy out of the earth's rotation, bringing us ever closer to the 25 hour day. NASA has done studies on the effect of the 25 hour day on human beings in preparation to put a man on Mars and so far, their results have not been very good. Apparently, human beings (and quite possibly most high level forms on this planet) cannot operate on the 25 hour, so if/when we have one, life on the planet as we know it will cease, but don't worry, you will never notice the transition to the 25 hour day, as it happens so slowly, you will be dead before we reach the 24 hour day (currently 1 earth day is 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds).

Coal - Can you say Cancer? We could get more energy out of the radioactive elements coal power plants release into the air than we could out of the burning of the actual carbon:

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/...

Just google "coal" and "cancer". You will get alot of interesting results.

Biofuels - All of the energy comes from the Sun and if solar panels do not work, this will not work. One figure I saw on the efficiency of this was 8%. Good solar panels can do 40%.

Nuclear Power is the only renewable energy source that can satisfy our needs. Nuclear power plants produce far more power than any other energy source we have at very little cost. 99% of their "spent" fuel is recyclable, which means it can be reused. 1/3 of the fuel needs to be replaced every 12 to 18 months, which can be done by using recycled fuel and with the amount of "spent" fuel stored in places like Yucca mountain, it is possible for us to have enough to last us for thousands of years, by which point, we will more than likely have discovered the secret of Cold Fusion.




RE: Nuclear Power
By andrinoaa on 7/1/2008 11:24:18 PM , Rating: 2
Are you prepared for a revolution at home? Because thats what you are advocating. I suggest you stop and think about the consequenses before you try something silly like that. Remember, lots of people in your country like to talk with their cocks rather than the brain sometimes. Witness Vietnam, Iraq.....need I say more....
You do live in a "democracy", I hope? When people make their intentions known ie no more nuclear plants , you do understand what democracy means, no?
Everyone has a solution but not everyone agrees with your solution. I happen to think nuclear creates more hassles we don't need which leaves solar as the way to go. And I am not a greeny or environmentalist like some fellow scribbs here like to tar people. When you attack the man, you lose the arguement.


Iceland
By Hare on 6/30/2008 4:08:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It appears that Alaska may be on the leading edge of a new alternative energy revolution that's right under our feet.

Since 87% of homes in Iceland are geothermally heated I would consider them to be on the leading edge. >19% of Icelands energy is generated from geothermal sources...

... Alaska has some catching up to do.




A few words
By danrien on 6/30/2008 8:59:09 PM , Rating: 2
This is awesome. Clever. Good use of human knowledge to further it. Once again... awesome - Danrien




Ultimately
By excelsium on 7/1/2008 3:57:37 AM , Rating: 2
We will probably need only the sun for energy given storage and efficiency, cost improvements.




"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki