Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Life on an oil field 'man camp' — not for everyone

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
LAGC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-03-11 02:32 PM
Original message
Life on an oil field 'man camp' — not for everyone
Edited on Sat Sep-03-11 02:55 PM by LAGC
WILLISTON, N.D. — You can almost smell the opportunity along Highway 2. It oozes deep from the sloping North Dakota prairie where oil derricks and natural gas wells sprout among the drying rolls of hay.
..
..
"I'm making more now than I would've if I would've gone to college," Austin says. As the sun sets behind him, the sky turns a hazy pink.

"I was going to go to school for alternative energy — and here I am in the oil field.

"So much for solar panels."


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44375648 /

This is the sad fact, so long as all the big money is in oil and natural gas production, alternative energy is never going to be able to attract the same kind of talent and interest in prospective workers.

Something has got to give to bust through this dirty fossil fuel paradigm...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-03-11 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. We're being robbed blind by this utility called oil
Why isn't oil declared a utility already? I'm so F sick and tired of the bullshit going on in this country. The prices are through the roof only to enrich the assholes that get rich off oil. Meanwhile we're being lied to as they pretend the oil is coming from the Middle East. Piece of shit is what the oil robber barons are, and their Republican lackeys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-03-11 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
2. People (society, that is) won't get serious about alternative energy
until the oil and oil money are gone. Then they'll be screaming at government for not anticipating it and doing something about it sooner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-03-11 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. That applies to so many things. Climate change, degraded natural resources, the global economy...
In the words of writer Charles Eisenstein, "Those things that must be done to avert the crisis will instead be done only as its consequence."

This situation is the result of a toxic combination of human nature and the industrialized culture we've built. We are psychologically and spiritually disconnected from the world around us to such an extent that most of us limit our horizons to our immediate concerns and "go to sleep" about the larger issues. I call this syndrome "Separation apathy."

Fortunately, there is a groundswell of people who are waking up. They are the ones who are leading the millions of small independent initiatives all over the world to address local environmental and social justice problems. Underlying this enormous meta-movement is the realization that, "We are the ones we have been waiting for."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-03-11 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. A cross between Dodge City and Nigeria. "A new life awaits you on the offworld colonies . . ."
Edited on Sat Sep-03-11 03:14 PM by leveymg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 05:23 AM
Response to Reply #3
21. That's a very appropriate gallery of images there ....
:toast:

... and yet *some people* insist on playing the "bogey-man" card
instead of recognising the REAL problems ...

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-03-11 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
4. That should be ""So much business for solar panels."
Renewables Investment Breaks Records
By Renewable Energy World Network Editors
August 29, 2011

...The document, Global Trends in Renewable Investment 2010, an Analysis of Trends and Issues in the Financing of Renewable Energy, reports that the record itself was not the only eye-catching aspect of 2010. Another was the strongest evidence yet of the shift in activity in renewable energy towards developing economies. Financial new investment, a measure that covers transactions by third-party investors, was $143 billion in 2010, but while just over $70 billion of that took place in developed countries, more than $72 billion occurred in developing countries.

... renewable energy's balance of power has been shifting towards developing countries for several years. The biggest reason has been China's drive to invest: last year, China was responsible for $48.9 billion of financial new investment, up 28 percent from 2009 figures, with dominance in the asset finance of large wind farms. But the developing world's advance in renewables is no longer a story of China and little else. In 2010, financial new investment in renewable energy grew by 104 percent to $5 billion in the Middle East and Africa region, and by 39 percent to $13.1 billion in South and Central America.

...A second remarkable detail about 2010 is that it was the first year that overall investment in solar came close to catching up with that in wind. For the whole of the last decade, as renewable energy investment gathered pace, wind was the most mature technology and enjoyed an apparently unassailable lead over its rival renewable energy power sources. In 2010, wind continued to dominate in terms of financial new investment, with $94.7 billion compared to $26.1 billion for solar and $11 billion for the third-placed biomass & waste-to-energy. However, these numbers do not include small-scale projects and in that realm, solar, particularly via rooftop photovoltaic installations in Europe, was completely dominant. Indeed, small-scale distributed capacity investment ballooned to $60 billion in 2010, up from $31 billion, fuelled by feed-in tariff subsidies in Germany and other European countries, the report finds. This figure, combined with solar's lead in government and corporate research and development, was almost enough to offset wind's big lead in financial new investment last year, the document concludes.

Furthermore, no energy technology has gained more from falling costs than solar over the last three years. The price of PV modules per MW has fallen by 60 percent since the summer of 2008, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates, putting solar power for the first time on a competitive footing with the retail price of electricity in a number of sunny countries. Wind turbine prices have also fallen - by 18 percent per MW in the last two years - reflecting, as with solar, fierce competition in the supply chain. Further improvements in the levelised cost of energy for solar, wind and other technologies lie ahead, posing a growing threat to the dominance of fossil fuel generation sources in the next few years.

...


http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/20...


Battery technology is moving a lightning speed; all auto makers are rolling out multiple lines of EVs; global investment in renewable energy to power them with is skyrocketing. I'd say that despite what one proponent of nuclear power posts about what one worker in a gas field says the move away from a carbon economy is already at the point where it is unstoppable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LAGC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-03-11 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Why do you keep implying that I'm a "proponent of nuclear power?" Are you really that paranoid?
I know you saw my thread where I expressed my concern with current technologies, because you posted in it TWICE:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Truth is, the only way I'll support nuclear power now is if a practical way is found for a 100% safe shut-down in the event of prolonged loss of electricity to a plant. Short of that, its too risky. So I agree with you there.

While its true that alternative energies have come a long way in just the past 10 years, the fact is, our reliance on fossil fuels has only increased, AND IS STILL INCREASING faster than our deployment of alternative energy solutions:



Hell, renewable forms of energy supplies have already almost eclipsed nuclear power sources in this country:



So I don't see why you're still so fixated on nuclear power. Shouldn't you be railing more against oil and natural gas?

What's your real agenda here, kristopher?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-03-11 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Why do you consistantly try to undermine the accomplishments and potential of renewables?
You did it when you overtly supported nuclear and nothing has changed in that regard as far as I can see. The discussions among the circlejerk of nuclear bloggers post Fukushima promotes the strategy of just keeping quiet on nuclear for a few years while Fukushima fades from peoples mind.

Meanwhile those same people have not suddenly disappeared from the internet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-03-11 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Why do you constantly misperceive anything less than pollyanna-ish acceptance of 100% renewables...
Edited on Sat Sep-03-11 07:55 PM by FBaggins
...is the same thing as being anti-renewables?

It's really not rational.

There are plenty of people who are in favor of rapid growth in renewables and large expenditures on research and developemnt... whi nevertheless recognize that renewables aren't going to power the world by next Friday.


And, while I'm not one of them, there are LOTS of people who are not in favor of nuclear power but correctly recognize coal as a FAR larger danger that must be dealt with in the short term while there's still a chance (if there even is a chance at this point)... and the irrational paranoid focus on nuclear could be killing the planet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-03-11 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Nice try, no cigar. The OP speaks for itself.
Edited on Sat Sep-03-11 08:33 PM by kristopher
The poster was so intent on keeping the completely tangential, anti-solar comment in the quoted part that LAGC exceeded the 4 paragraphs to do it. And even after they asked to edit it down LAGC just couldn't bring him/herself to leave it out; it was clearly the entire purpose in posting.

I don't care if, in spite of a global consensus to the contrary, you and the other nuclear proponents want believe that renewables are not able to solve our energy problems. But don't pretend that you are not engaged in attacking them - that is simply offensive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-03-11 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. And that reply speaks for itself.
Edited on Sat Sep-03-11 08:54 PM by FBaggins
You're blind to reality because you don't like it.

Nothing changes the fact that, right now, the ups and downs of natural gas production in this country dwarfs the current contribution of solar power.

You don't want to be that way and I don't want it to be that way (though I'll take it over oil/coal any day of the week), but that IS reality. Solar is growing at a rapid rate but it's still the tiny player at the table (and will be for a long time).

It was a simple statement of fact, but you not only won't accept it, you assume that the OP is sneaking it in there because he doesn't like renewables.

You insist that others accept your fantasy world in order to participate in the conversation.


And you're not really going to complain about someone else's ability to follow posting guidelines, are you? :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-03-11 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. I think the reason that some alt.energy advocates try to keep us focused on the risks of nuclear
Edited on Sat Sep-03-11 07:24 PM by GliderGuider
Is that they count on that concern to distract us from the fact that fossil fuels are damaging the world thousands of times more than nuclear power ever could, that there is no realistic way out of the fossil fuel trap, and that our most probable reason to stop using FF's is if we run out - with the potential attendant collapse of the entire biosphere due to global heating.

The only way the alt.energy crowd can justify their pusillanimous inaction on fossil fuels is to blow the nuclear boogeyman so out of proportion that it fixates our focus so we don't pay any attentioon to the fossil-fueled man behind the curtain.

We need to shut down nuclear power immediately - not so much because of its inherent danger (though that is undeniable) but so there will be no further impediment to realizing how badly we've screwed the pooch with oil, gas and coal.

Rational risk managers address the risk with the gravest impact first. The alt.energy advocates by and large do not seem to be rational risk managers.

On edit: One other thing. If we try to reduce FF use before eliminating nuclear and before ramping up alt.energy, we will simply increase the pressure for nuclear power to replace coal. If we wait for the elimination of nuclear and the widespread scaling up of alternatives, we will burn way more carbon in the interval. We are definitely caught in the devil's bargain on this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-03-11 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. No, it is because the stated policy of the nuclear industry wants to downplay those risks
Especially while Fukushima is still fresh in the minds of the public. That leaves them one public relations path - attack the renewable competition and keep the development of the technology from advancing so much in the next decade that nuclear can NEVER catch up.

It is amazing how frank the discussions are at industry websites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-03-11 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Which is more dangerous to the planet in your opinion, and why?
Fossil fuels or nuclear power?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-03-11 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. That isn't the choice - though it is the framing the nuclear industry loves to use.
Why are you using it?

The actual choice is how do we replace fossil fuels; and the contenders are centralized nuclear OR distributed renewables.



Mods, this is a single paragraph abstract (see original form below) that I’ve broken apart for ease of reading:
You can download the full article at his webpage here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/...

Or use this direct download link: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/...

You can view the html abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?d...

Download slide presentation here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/...

Results graphed here: http://pubs.rsc.org/services/images/RSCpubs.ePlatform.S...

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.


As originally published:
Abstract

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85. Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge. Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs. Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs. Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs. Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85. Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations. Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended. Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended. The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85. Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality. The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss. The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs. The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73 000–144 000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300 000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15 000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020. In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.



Fossil fuels dominate because historical positioning created an energy system dedicated to 1) centralized thermal generation of energy and 2) the use of petroleum to increase personal mobility.

Climate change mandates that we discontinue fossil fuels.

Nuclear energy preserves the system and the largest majority of entrenched interests profiting from that system.

Renewable energy and a distributed grid displaces most of those entrenched players entirely.

Nuclear is the fossil industry's band-aid solution to climate change since it maintains the same power structure focused on fossil fuels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-03-11 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. So you refuse to prioritize the risks they pose? That speaks volumes.
As I said above, many alt.energy advocates appear to have a piss-poor grasp of risk assessment. Your refusal to prioritize two obvious existential risks places you firmly in that camp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-03-11 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. No, that is a stupid approach that only serves the interest of the nuclear industry
Edited on Sat Sep-03-11 09:33 PM by kristopher
Do you want to predict the long term effects of the contamination from the full life-cycle of 6000 - 8000 nuclear plants?

I start with the conclusion that climate change MUST be addressed and then ask how best to do that. How is that in any way subject to criticism as an analytic approach?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. 6,000 nukes? On what planet?
That's just fear-mongering. Realistically, nuclear BAU will be hard to maintain - nuclear power is on a declining trend. The economics and the lack of public support have already put the nuclear industry on notice.

While I still have major reservations about the technical and logistic ability of alt.energy to displace fossil fuels, in a sense that's neither here nor there - those issues can be sorted out in the marketplace. Unfortunately, the biggest problem the industry faces is probably not technical at all. The biggest problem that alt.energy faces in the uphill battle against both the FF and nuclear industries is the collision of politicians with large stacks of cash.

The politicians that have been purchased by the nuclear and fossil fuel industries are in position to throw massive economic and regulatory roadblocks in the path of alternatives. They are already doing that, by jiggering FITs, subsidies and insurance frameworks. Without counterbalancing anti-nuclear, anti-FF politians, renewable energy could be stopped dead in its tracks if it shows real promise of threatening the business model of the entrenched (and hugely profitable) nuclear and (especially) fossil fuel industries. Those suborned politicians are going to take a lot of coin to buy back, and the only money available to do that has to come from the infant alt. energy industry, whose pockets are anything but deep where this kind of baksheesh is concerned.

Unless the problem of purchased politicians can be overcome, the technical and economic superiority of alt.energy may never be demonstrated. So to me the question seems to be, "If we want to let technical and ecological merit decide the outcome, how do we reduce the political opposition to it?" Are we limited to moral suasion? Can we come up with offsetting dollars? Can we change the funding formulas for political campaigns and reduce the power of corporate lobbying? And since this is a global issue, how much of a problem is this going to be in places like Europe and India?

The alt.energy industry is seriously behind the 8-ball. Not only is penetration still relatively low and a number of major infrastructure issues remain to be dealt with, but solving the political question requires the renewable industry to either buy back the opposing pols or to convince them to vote against their own pocketbooks. The nuclear and fossil fuel industries turn over more than $5 trillion per year, while one estimate of the renewable energy industry I found gave it a current turnover of $0.2 trillion per year.

The political challenge is going to be enormous in the face of that 25:1 disparity in cashflow, not to mention that most of the alt.energy money is being used for capital investment and operations, leaving little excess profit available for bribery.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 02:32 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. You wrote the same thing elsewhere
You wrote the same thing about corruption when you tried to dismiss the relevance of Italy's achievements with solar, so I'll just repost what I wrote there:

"Your reference to Italy isn't particulary relevant.

The point of the data on Italy is that it gives a good insight into how the pace of deployment is dependent on policies. Your point that Italy is heavily dependent on carbon is a given, as far as I'm concerned. I know, however, that you perceive it as your duty to invoke negative messaging about renewable energy at each and every opportunity so I'll just move on.

Your second paragraph is the one that needs addressing. While what you say is very true in the US it is only somewhat true in Europe and not at all true in the developing world. That is why things are moving so rapidly now that China is a major force. You simply can no longer use the preChina paradigm to talk about the future energy landscape; it is no longer valid. The agents of the entrenched energy system work by obstructing the development of a system that properly values both the negatives of fossil/nuclear and the positives of renewables. Since there is no mature energy system in the developing nations, they are following the intrinsic overall value.

For the time being that still favors fossil fuels in many cases, however, the degree it favors renewables in the long run is very, very large and I'm of the opinion that their actions in building manufacturing infrastructure is going to very shortly eliminate any remaining advantage for fossil. There is still corruption in the developing countries, but it is corruption working against the tide of real value represented by renewable technologies instead of protecting what is already a massive and powerful system.


To that I'll add two things:
1) the corruption and political obstructionism can only persist as long as the group winning is more powerful than the group of up and coming winners. That balance is on the verge of shifting because of the value and profit potential associated with a renewable manufacturing stream that is emerging around Europe, China and the rest of the developing world. For example, did you know that just a couple of months ago the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) was formed at the UN? Similar to the IEA and the IAEA it is charge with working to ensure the development of renewable and sustainable energy.
http://www.irena.org/menu/index.aspx?mnu=cat&PriMenuID=...

2) You asked for a comparison of the risk posed by nuclear vs carbon. The only way that question has any relevance is if nuclear is going to be pursued as a solution to climate change. The scale of effort needed to develop a cost effective supply chain is so large for nuclear that it should only be done if we are going to build enough reactors to solve the problem. Ergo 6000-8000.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 03:23 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. I responded to your points in the other thread as well.
Here's the link for those who need it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

In answer to your point 1, I agree about relative power. That's why I mentioned the suborned politician angle. the current winners have the inside track on that. That may change, but not without one hell of a fight. I have a sneaking suspicion that Big Energy isn't above wrecking a few national economies in the process if it suits their agenda (can you spell "Iraq"?)

No matter how many or how few reactors they have, Big Nuke is still a part of Big Energy, and the struggle is against the entire conglomerate of entrenched corporate interests. It helps with one's sense of perspective though, to realize that life on the planet is far, far more threatened by 30 gigatonnes of new atmospheric CO2 every year by than the 400 reactors that are the high water mark for the nuclear development of our civilization.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 03:30 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Peace be with you. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 22nd 2014, 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC