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: