TheMightyEthan Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Wind is actually somewhat reasonable but the downside is that it's pretty limited by geography and the land investment is rather large. Yeah, wind is great out here cause it's really windy and you can just stick the turbines in fields that can still be used for farming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Yante Hydroelectric (if I'm reading that right) is on par with, if not cheaper, conventional production. And Hydroelectric supplies most of the US renewable energy supply. Wind, as you've noted, does rather well for itself too. Also note the $0 operating cost across the board with most of them. They really pay for themselves long-term, especially as they'll keep the pretty flat line operating costs, while as fossil fuels become more scarce, is going to crank up the cost. Once you've got a solar panel in place, it doesn't need anything else added. No lumps of uranium, or tanks of gas and shovels of coal. As for land cost: Not like coal mining is much better. At least nobody is really aiming to make any major use of the sea. As for the estimates, where you looking? BP reckon 40 (now 35) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2888054/Theres-enough-oil-left-to-last-for-40-years-says-BP.html And that's without the whole bother that Saudi Arabia might be lying about their oil reserves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 I think you're reading the operating costs wrong. The variable costs which are for things like fuel are 0 since you don't use fuel for renewable energy sources. The actual regular operating costs for things like solar are higher due to cleaning and other issues. Wind seems to be on par with operating costs. I'm fairly certain though if you're talking square mile ratio you're going to get exponentially more energy out of a coal mine than a wind field. Also, hydroelectric is great if you can get the land to make a lake and get the permits to change the environment. Also I believe the initial investment is quite steep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 The operating costs for solar are higher due to needing to give it a wipe down once in a while? As opposed to the operating costs of needing to oil shit up, clean the mounds of coal dust, clean the smog scrubbers, etc etc? I think a bit of Pledge is pretty cheap in comparison. You get something exponentially prettier with wind-farms too. And as Ethan has stated the land can have a dual use like farming. Which maximises the energy output even more if it's for bio-ethanol crops. And it's hardly like land is something the US is running out of either. We manage plenty of wind farms around here and we're a teensy island. I understand initial setup of renewable sources can be expensive. But that's 99% of the cost, from there on all it's doing is getting cheaper and cheaper. Unlike things like a coal factory which require the initial building cost, then the continued maintenance, workers, cleaning, fuel input, and then the eventual expensive decommissioning. It's cost, cost, cost throughout the life span. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Well, with wind your upkeep is keeping your machines maintained and since they're spread out over a large area and not easily accessible it's kind of a pain. There was even a dirty jobs where they went out with wind turbine cleaners. It was pretty interesting. I'm not really sure how much you can dual purpose the land, I think you have to keep it clear of a lot of things but farming sounds like something you could do. The other problem with wind generation is the location is usually far away from your population and it takes a considerable length of distribution lines to link all of the turbines together and then to transport it back to your population and there's maintenance associated with that. Also you have losses over the length of that distribution but I don't think it's considerable. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder though and not everyone thinks wind turbines are pretty. Anywho, on my rant, conventional energy is considerably cheaper, and with the price of natural gas plummeting it's getting even cheaper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Anyway, I've heard estimates that we've got at least 100 years of oil to run off of and it seems to me that's a fair amount of time to find better solutions to our energy problems without freaking out about it right now. The Marcellus Shale deposits in NY and PA alone could fuel the entire country for decades. Of course there are also deposits around the country and could last us for another hundred years. Energy companies, for the most part, prefer the "All of the Above" model. Solar panels and Windmills alone aren't going to power America or the civilized world and despite what the dirty hippie who should be occupying a shower, nuclear must be part of the solution. Hydroelectric power is great (see Niagara Falls and the Hoover Dam for some success stories) but there really aren't any spots left in the United States to generate any significant power. Plus there's the side effect that the dams have on the various streams and rivers. Unfortunately for the US, much of the massive amounts of power generated at these dams is lost along the power transmission lines. In short, supply isn't the biggest issue we're having it's the location of supply. Unfortunately there really isn't a better solution outside of gasoline to fuel cars (well, Diesel is nice but talk to California Emissions laws as to why we can't have the slick UK 70mpg Fords here in the States.) Electric cars are a joke unless you live in So Cal or drive about five miles a day - in which case you could get a bike for a lot cheaper. So until someone invents a car that gets 80mpg or something, we're kind of stuck with gas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 The problem with diesel is that it's a byproduct. You can't use a whole barrel of oil to make diesel. You can use a large % for unleaded fuels, some of it gets used for other things and another % gets used for diesel fuel but you can't just switch the whole barrel of crude oil over and say that everyone should use diesel cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 dirty hippie who should be occupying a shower Wouldn't it be great if we could discuss these things without personal attacks? We do need to change the public perception that nuclear is bad though. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 I'm fine with Nuclear. But I live in a county with practically 0% chance of major natural disasters. I do like what Simspons has done for the perception of nuclear power though. Mainly that folks expect: So no one bats an eye at this Looks like most other factories around the area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) Yup. Nuclear powers has got to be part of any long-term solution to providing energy, barring some technological breakthrough. I'd like to think we'll learn to grow synthetic hydrocarbon fuel before the oil runs out, but I'm no scientist. I am very concerned about human-caused climate change, however, so I'd prefer better cleaner options sooner rather than later. None of the "clean" options we have now for fuel are viable. Politically, my thoughts about "peak oil" are thus: Sure, there may be enough oil for humanity for the next hundred years. But I suspect things will get bad long before it runs out. As soon as the consensus is that oil will effectively vanish within a few decades, shit's gonna hit the fan. It will be greatly disruptive to society. Wars will be fought. Great hardships will be endured. But at least there will be close-range financial incentives to develop alternative fuel sources, I suppose. I would rather use the political process to fund research into alternative methods (and the underlying pure science) NOW to mitigate, or even prevent, the disruption that is inevitable once the tipping point is reached and most of humanity thinks the oil will run out in the near future. This is exactly the sort of problem that free markets won't address efficiently (in terms of mitigating human misery), so it calls for government intervention. Indeed, a relatively small investment now may prevent a lot of misery later. Edited February 25, 2012 by Mr. GOH! 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 We recently began building two new nuclear reactor plants here in the US, which is a big deal since they're the first ones in 30 years to be built. So it's a step in the right direction to see that at least some people are finally starting to see the positives of nuclear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 dirty hippie who should be occupying a shower Wouldn't it be great if we could discuss these things without personal attacks? I'm not attacking anyone here. I just don't have a high opinion of the anti-nuclear protesters. Believe me, if you lived near Yankee Atomic you'd see these morons out in droves. I have a hard time taking someone seriously when they protest an atomic power plant about a hundred miles or so away from it and they look like they haven't washed their hair in months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 I didn't think you were talking about anyone here, I've just noticed you have a tendency to mix ad hominems in with your arguments, and I find it distasteful. Unrelatedly: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ann-brenoff/modern-family-virgin-territory_b_1296779.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Only 30% are sexually active at 19? I wish I could go back and tell my 19 year old self that. Still, very good news to hear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 I wonder how accurate those numbers are. 30% sounds a bit low, but maybe it's different in the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) I appreciate the public policy implications of fewer sexually active teenagers, but I really, really dislike it when one person decides how sex ought to be for everyone. Edited February 25, 2012 by Mr. GOH! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 I was curious about the figures so I googled teen sex. After I finished with that I looked up statistics. The article says that 30% of teens are not active by that age, which is true...and which also means 70% of teens ARE active. Half of them have had oral sex, too, but 23% of them don't consider it sex. So I guess technically not everyone is doing it...just 7 out of 10 teenagers, so I dunno what kind of point this writer is trying to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Only 30% are sexually active at 19? I wish I could go back and tell my 19 year old self that. Still, very good news to hear. 30% aren't sexually active. and 30 percent -- of both male and female teens -- still haven't had intercourse by the time they turn 19. Also age of consent is 16 here, so I guess I wouldn't bat an eyelid at a 17 year old having nookie. But I guess it's all just bad parenting over here in..well most of the rest of the world. (Improved sex-ed might help with those STI figures. Just accept teenagers will fuck, and thus it's better to teach safe sex than no sex) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 oh. Well that makes WAY more sense. Can I blame my lack of reading comprehension on running a fever? =P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Teaching abstinence just blows my mind on how much sense it doesn't make. Actually, I'll rephrase that: teaching abstinence-only sex ed in schools makes no sense to me. In what kind of deluded fantasy world do you live in if you honestly think that teens are gonna stop fucking just because you tell them to? Do I think teens SHOULD be having sex? Well, not really, no, but it's gonna happen, so they should at least be well-informed about contraceptives. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Also age of consent is 16 here, so I guess I wouldn't bat an eyelid at a 17 year old having nookie. In Kansas it's 16 also, which seems to be pretty typical in US states. Though in California, the state where the show is set, it's 18. It's just mind boggling to me that people are getting upset about the show even acknowledging that teenagers have sex. When I saw the headline (I hadn't watched the episode yet) I expected that one of the parents was going to walk in on them or something. I just can't get my mind around the idea that merely mentioning it is going "too far." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 It's 15 in Sweden, which amusingly enough seems to shock some people online. I really find the age of consent laws to be kind of silly. Making laws prohibiting it won't stop people having sex, especially not impulsive teenagers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Well it might stop some adults from having sex with teenagers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Only 30%? Wow, someone tell that to my old high school in Southlake, TX. For a town smack dab in the middle of the Bible Belt, we sure had our fair share of sexual escapades. Plenty of locker room stories about girlfriends were passed around. I was propositioned by a few women myself, but for obvious reasons, I wasn't interested. Anyway, point in all this was that the school would have been riddled with STDs if our campus didn't have amazing sex ed initiatives (again, surprising for the Bible Belt). Condoms were freely available in several areas of the campus, and they took the policy of "Look, you're human, we know you want to have sex, so here's the smartest way of doing it" (which is the proper way to do things). Regardless of your position on sex without marriage, I think we can all agree that if they're going to do it anyway, they might as well be taught how to do it so they don't get sick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) While it's surprising that your school was so open about sex ed, it's not surprising there was lots of sex going on in the Bible Belt. I don't know if your specific school was rural, but a lot of the Bible Belt is, and rural areas tend to have higher rates of teen sex than urban areas (with similar incomes). My hypothesis is that it's because there's nothing else to do. I first had sex when I was 14. Which brings me to something else I forgot to mention last night: that Wikipedia article I linked is slightly wrong about Kansas. 16 is the straight-up, "can say yes to anyone" age of consent, but it's not a crime to have sex with someone 14 or older if you are 2 or fewer years older than them. So a 16 year old can legally have sex with a 14 year old, and a 17 year old can legally have sex with a 15 year old, but a 17 year old cannot legally have sex with a 14 year old. Then you hit 16 and it's legal for anybody (except teachers or other adults "in positions of authority" over the kid, teachers have to wait until you're not a student anymore and others in positions of authority have to wait until you're 18). Edited February 25, 2012 by TheMightyEthan 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.