BP Oil

I've complimented the nuclear industry on their safety record more than once. Still, I think folks have to concede that a fire in a fossil fuel plant isn't quite in the same category as a toxic release in a nuke facility. Then there's all those spent fuel rods. Until Yucca Mtn. is actually opened all that spent rods are being stored across the country. If they can actually produce a traveling wave reactor then that might well be the whole solution.

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

The wind stopped blowing before I had a chance to post the link and I lost power. I had to wait a bit before it started up again. :blushing:

Well if you wernt working from a 1956 duracell battery :innocent:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit

So, are you saying that we should let the non-producers die, instead of giving them food, shelter, and clothing?

---

No. We actually need non-producers. They buy from the small producers.
(We just need LESS non-producers!)
(Or for them to forage or sumthin)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick

Here's a layout of all sources of power generation and their cost per kilowatt hour. I don't know the date on this model but it looks to be current.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directo..._Kilowatt-Hour

---

Um, Rick.......I don't mean to be hard to get along with, but did you check the sourse of those numbers? I don't think I trust the info.
Here is where it came from.(As best as I can tell.)
http://www.coldenergy.com/difference.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeritageFarm

No. We actually need non-producers. They buy from the small producers.(We just need LESS non-producers!)
(Or for them to forage or sumthin)

---

With money taken from all the producers.
Why not do away with the middleman?

Actually, I did check them. As I said. It looks like current numbers. Offer up different ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick

Actually, I did check them. As I said. It looks like current numbers. Offer up different ones.

---

Well....this one is 6 years old, and British. I'll look some more.

http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publica...Commentary.pdf

This one is American, but still, it's 5 years old.

http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_costs.html

March of 2009. Several sources quoted, in an article.

Quote:

---

A modern coal plant of conventional design, without technology to capture carbon dioxide before it reaches the air, produces at about 7.8 cents a kilowatt-hour; a high-efficiency natural gas plant, 10.6 cents; and a new nuclear reactor, 10.8 cents. A wind plant in a favorable location would cost 9.9 cents per kilowatt hour. But if a utility relied on a great many wind machines, it would need to back them up with conventional generators in places where demand tends to peak on hot summer days with no breeze. That pushes the price up to just over 12 cents, making it more than 50 percent more expensive than a kilowatt-hour for coal.

---

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/bu...t/29renew.html

I don't buy that last sentence. You are either producing electricity with a coal fired generator at 7.8 cents or with a wind generator at 9.9 cents. You can't combine the two then say that's how much wind costs any more than you can say that's how much coal fired costs. The truth is the electricity in the grid is produced by multiple sources each with it's own rate per kilowatt hour. You can't combine them and then claim the cost for one source.

I think the point was the cost of building the additional facilities. With the costs of building and maintaining both, the cost per kwh goes up even if the actual process is using one or the other.

I am always willing to pay more for something that's ultimately safer--food, medicine, cars, energy, etc.
There are other ways to save but compromising on safety isn't one of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit

With money taken from all the producers.
Why not do away with the middleman?

---

They can find their place in a local economy. For example, at Polyface farm, Joel farms the land and makes the food. Then his brother buys bulk eggs from him (or maybe it has pastured chickens) and takes 'em into town and sells 'em to restaurants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BENESSE

I am always willing to pay more for something that's ultimately safer--food, medicine, cars, energy, etc.
There are other ways to save but compromising on safety isn't one of them.

---

What needs to be grasp is that it was CHEAP oil that created the world we live in. We have only used half of the worlds reserves but it is getting more expensive. COST is the issue and more will have to do without. Fine if you can afford more as long as others are content with doing without.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alaskan Survivalist

What needs to be grasp is that it was CHEAP oil that created the world we live in. We have only used half of the worlds reserves but it is getting more expensive. COST is the issue and more will have to do without. Fine if you can afford more as long as others are content with doing without.

---

AS, unless you're off grid and completely self sufficient, you are going to pay one way or another. The question is when and on what. You might get cheap stuff upfront, but pay more later when it breaks down or proves to be dangerous (toys from China, baby food, produce treated with pesticides, meat full of hormones, etc.)
Pick your poison.
I personally draw the line at safety. I've cut on other things that are less important to me and that I can do without.
For example, what I'd be paying to own a car, park it, maintain it and fill it up once in a while, I pay way less for organic produce from small local farms. I eat less, walk more and take public transportation. I choose to live where I do so that I can get away with not needing a car or commuting to work a couple of hours each day.
Would I like a house with a big yard to garden in and a basement to store things for WTSHTF? You bet. Would I like a BOV, and a boat? Yes I would. But I can't have it all and my choices aren't infringing on anyone else's nor are they making our "earth home" any worse for the wear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BENESSE

AS, unless you're off grid and completely self sufficient, you are going to pay one way or another. The question is when and on what. You might get cheap stuff upfront, but pay more later when it breaks down or proves to be dangerous (toys from China, baby food, produce treated with pesticides, meat full of hormones, etc.)
Pick your poison.
I personally draw the line at safety. I've cut on other things that are less important to me and that I can do without.
For example, what I'd be paying to own a car, park it, maintain it and fill it up once in a while, I pay way less for organic produce from small local farms. I eat less, walk more and take public transportation. I choose to live where I do so that I can get away with not needing a car or commuting to work a couple of hours each day.
Would I like a house with a big yard to garden in and a basement to store things for WTSHTF? You bet. Would I like a BOV, and a boat? Yes I would. But I can't have it all and my choices aren't infringing on anyone else's nor are they making our "earth home" any worse for the wear.

---

You assume that every one has things that they can give up. There are a lot of people out there, that if they give anything up, it is life altering, or life threatening. Should they not buy the heating oil, or the groceries? Should they buy the cheap (made from petroleum products.) car seat for their baby, or just do without?

As a side note, what you call safety, some may call overkill. Should they be forced to pay for your definition of safety? Where do you draw the line? You speak ill of how most food is produced.....would it be better to produce it like you want, and some people would just have to starve to death, because there isn't enough food?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit

You assume that every one has things that they can give up. There are a lot of people out there, that if they give anything up, it is life altering, or life threatening. Should they not buy the heating oil, or the groceries? Should they buy the cheap (made from petrolium products.) car seat for their baby, or just do without?

---

Well I'll go out on a limb and say that most people are able to make trade-offs of some sort.
Are you saying that WTSHTF you're not gonna be forced to give up something? It's all a matter of choice. You might not like the choices you have but you got them nonetheless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BENESSE

Well I'll go out on a limb and say that most people are able to make trade-offs of some sort.
Are you saying that WTSHTF you're not gonna be forced to give up something? It's all a matter of choice. You might not like the choices you have but you got them nonetheless.

---

No....I'm saying that I don't want to give up everything now, without a damn good reason. I'm also saying that some are asking others to give up far more than is gained, from their suffering. I'm saying that a lot of this stuff, is like asking someone to give up $100 to save someone else $20.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crashdive123

I think the point was the cost of building the additional facilities. With the costs of building and maintaining both, the cost per kwh goes up even if the actual process is using one or the other.

---

'Zactly.:tongue_smilie:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit

No....I'm saying that I don't want to give up everything now, without a damn good reason. I'm also saying that some are asking others to give up far more than is gained, from their suffering. I'm saying that a lot of this stuff, is like asking someone to give up $100 to save someone else $20.

---

Don't know who's asking, but it ain't me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit

would it be better to produce it like you want, and some people would just have to starve to death, because there isn't enough food?

---

I've always heard plenty of this Starving World stuff, and I have no clue where it comes from. A lot of countries starve because of overpopulation - so maybe they should stop reproducing like rabbits. "Hey, our country's starving 'cause there's too many people - let's produce some more!" As well, America produces an EXCESS of food. The reason corn is so cheap is because the market is so flooded the Gov has [chooses] to subsidize corn, milk, whatever.

Not 'Zactly. The coal/gas fired plants are already on line. Why assume you have to build more to back up wind power? As you add wind power you begin to shut down coal/gas generators. That doesn't mean you tear them down. You use them to augment power as needed. So the cost for wind is wind and the cost for coal is coal and neither the twain shall meat.

HeritageFarm - I guess corrupt governments, war, genocide, poverty, geography and weather don't play a role in starvation in third wold countries?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick

HeritageFarm - I guess corrupt governments, war, genocide, poverty, geography and weather don't play a role in starvation in third wold countries?

---

Sure. But mega-farms aren't the answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeritageFarm

Sure. But mega-farms aren't the answer.

---

Why not?

.

They have been to date. There are the sole reason this country has been able to produce as much excess food as it has. Gentleman farms are great but they can't produce the kind of food that keeps a country running.....er, uh.....eating. According to the 1990 census about 75% of the folks in the U.S. live in an urban setting. Not much way for them to grow their own food on a sustainable level.

The run off of fertilizers runs out into the oceans through stream. N is good in small amounts, but large amounts cause certain species to thrive in the water, canceling out others. The pesticides are obviously dangerous, continually resulting in residues on the produce, not to mention resulting in environmental pollution. (If you like to fish, hunt, whatever, you should be concerned about that) Not to mention huge farms require huge machinery, all too often sinking farmers deep into debt, so they die penniless. Several mega farmers have said they could make the same amount of money off 1,000 acres as 100 acres.
There's the fact that most farmers farm a certain area until the soil is basically a desert, requiring more fertilizers. Nature abhors monocultures, positively abhors. To them, crop rotation is a waste of time. So their field is depleted. So much for those great nutrient dense GMOs, the plant can only, repeat only, be as good as the soil. When there are only 3 nutrients in the soil, not very nutritious is it?
Then there is the hidden influences from mega corporations such as Cargill, advocates for mega-farming to get the price of commodities down. Once the price is down, farmers have to produce more to make the same amount of money.

Then it has to be shipped all over the place, resulting in oil dependence. It has to be driven, packaged, grown, fertilizers are shipped around, and pesticides, they're shipped to you and you ship them home.
Not a pretty picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeritageFarm

The run off of fertilizers runs out into the oceans through stream. N is good in small amounts, but large amounts cause certain species to thrive in the water, canceling out others. The pesticides are obviously dangerous, continually resulting in residues on the produce, not to mention resulting in environmental pollution. (If you like to fish, hunt, whatever, you should be concerned about that) Not to mention huge farms require huge machinery, all too often sinking farmers deep into debt, so they die penniless. Several mega farmers have said they could make the same amount of money off 1,000 acres as 100 acres.
There's the fact that most farmers farm a certain area until the soil is basically a desert, requiring more fertilizers. Nature abhors monocultures, positively abhors. To them, crop rotation is a waste of time. So their field is depleted. So much for those great nutrient dense GMOs, the plant can only, repeat only, be as good as the soil. When there are only 3 nutrients in the soil, not very nutritious is it?
Then there is the hidden influences from mega corporations such as Cargill, advocates for mega-farming to get the price of commodities down. Once the price is down, farmers have to produce more to make the same amount of money.

Then it has to be shipped all over the place, resulting in oil dependence. It has to be driven, packaged, grown, fertilizers are shipped around, and pesticides, they're shipped to you and you ship them home.
Not a pretty picture.

---

Fact or opinion? If not the latter - source?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeritageFarm

The run off of fertilizers runs out into the oceans through stream. N is good in small amounts, but large amounts cause certain species to thrive in the water, canceling out others. The pesticides are obviously dangerous, continually resulting in residues on the produce, not to mention resulting in environmental pollution. (If you like to fish, hunt, whatever, you should be concerned about that) Not to mention huge farms require huge machinery, all too often sinking farmers deep into debt, so they die penniless. Several mega farmers have said they could make the same amount of money off 1,000 acres as 100 acres.
There's the fact that most farmers farm a certain area until the soil is basically a desert, requiring more fertilizers. Nature abhors monocultures, positively abhors. To them, crop rotation is a waste of time. So their field is depleted. So much for those great nutrient dense GMOs, the plant can only, repeat only, be as good as the soil. When there are only 3 nutrients in the soil, not very nutritious is it?
Then there is the hidden influences from mega corporations such as Cargill, advocates for mega-farming to get the price of commodities down. Once the price is down, farmers have to produce more to make the same amount of money.

Then it has to be shipped all over the place, resulting in oil dependence. It has to be driven, packaged, grown, fertilizers are shipped around, and pesticides, they're shipped to you and you ship them home.
Not a pretty picture.

---

Stop drinking the kool-aide, and do some real research. While some of what you say is true, it's a small portion of the real world.

You don't know many farmers....do you?

Now, now there 2D - be nice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crashdive123

Now, now there 2D - be nice.

---

You're right, crash....that was kinda rude, of me.

I apologize, HF......I just get really tired of groups cherry picking a few bad issues, and making people think that those issues are the norm, when they are really a very small portion, of the truth.

It also gets very old, hearing people repeat those talking points, as if they are the only "facts", when in reality, they don't know the facts.....so, if this is not the case, with you...then I'm sorry for what I said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit

You're right, crash....that was kinda rude, of me.

I apologize, HF......I just get really tired of groups cherry picking a few bad issues, and making people think that those issues are the norm, when they are really a very small portion, of the truth.

It also gets very old, hearing people repeat those talking points, as if they are the only "facts", when in reality, they don't know the facts.....so, if this is not the case, with you...then I'm sorry for what I said.

---

All right, thank-you. If you'd like to tell me what you mean....
"Do you know any farmers?"
Yes, plenty. Most have a small cow herd, and take then to the auction barns where they are usually bought by large feedlots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crashdive123

Fact or opinion? If not the latter - source?

---

Many...The Omnivore's Delemma by Micheal Pollan,
also this
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7470879/Ca...#fullscreen:on
And lots of others. The big-verus-small quote was from the Contrary Farmer. Page 41.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeritageFarm

Many...The Omnivore's Delemma by Micheal Pollan,
also this
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7470879/Ca...#fullscreen:on
And lots of others. The big-verus-small quote was from the Contrary Farmer. Page 41.

---

OK...now I know where you're coming from.

Micheal pollan....he also wrote "In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto".
Funny, he used the word "manifesto" in that title.

Nice shirt, he has on in this picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeritageFarm

All right, thank-you. If you'd like to tell me what you mean....
"Do you know any farmers?"
Yes, plenty. Most have a small cow herd, and take then to the auction barns where they are usually bought by large feedlots.

---

You wrote..

Quote:

---

There's the fact that most farmers farm a certain area until the soil is basically a desert, requiring more fertilizers. Nature abhors monocultures, positively abhors. To them, crop rotation is a waste of time. So their field is depleted. So much for those great nutrient dense GMOs, the plant can only, repeat only, be as good as the soil. When there are only 3 nutrients in the soil, not very nutritious is it?

---

I'm in northeastern NC. Let's just say, that I'm exposed to a few farmers, and a few acres of farm land, and none of them fit your discription.

Pay little heed to the doom and gloom merchants(the mass media). They are not in the hope or "look on bright" business. The bay wherein the Exxon Valdez spill happened was cleaned up and back to normal in under 10 years. When all the "experts" the mass media could get to talk at the time predicted it would take anywhere from 25 to 100 years for the area to recover. It happened so fast for two main reasons. First Exxon and US taxpayers paid a lot of money to have people there cleaning and second and much more important the Earth cleans itself. Oceans have a way of "digesting" crude oil.
BP will get this plugged sooner rather than later and both human and natural cleaning efforts will repair the damage. Take a chill pill and quit believing everything the so called news agencies tell you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit

You wrote..

I'm in northeastern NC. Let's just say, that I'm exposed to a few farmers, and a few acres of farm land, and none of them fit your discription.

---

There are small farms. I just am talking about mega-farms, and why they are unsustainable. Do you even know what a mega-farm is, or a CAFO? Just because there isn't one in your area doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Your first post: Your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeritageFarm

There are small farms. I just am talking about mega-farms, and why they are unsustainable. Do you even know what a mega-farm is, or a CAFO? Just because there isn't one in your area doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Your first post: Your point?

---

Yes....I do. Do you know that...

Quote:

---

According to recent statistics provided by the American Farm Bureau, 98% of American farms are family farms – only 2% are owned by non-family corporations.

---

Yet you try to make it sound like most farms are these mega-farms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeritageFarm

Your first post: Your point?

---

In my opinion, it speaks volumes about how you think. Now I have a better idea of the type of person I'm talking to.

I just took another look at that picture, and it has been photo edited. I edit photos, and that image DOES NOT follow the shirt shadow contour.