What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Know a Book Lover? Give Them the Sony Reader Touch view!
bestbuy.com - It's sleek and light, stores hundreds of books and has a long lasting battery.
272 Comments
- jadenton, on 04/29/2009, -4/+170Oh, this guy is a totally neutral observer.
Wind, solar, and wave power is already less than five times the cost of oil, and getting cheaper all the time. And the price of oil can only go higher. And remember, if you generate solar in your roof or wind power in your yard, you have to generate much less of it because you don't have to compensate for transmission loss.
Local generation for the energy independence win. - tomjm5000, on 04/29/2009, -5/+67The current price of alternative energy is partly BECAUSE we haven't invested in enough R&D for them.... this is exactly the self-reinforcing cycle that needs to be broken.
- LameBiscuit, on 04/29/2009, -2/+64"you'll never break your addiction"...says the crack dealer
- hokie47, on 04/29/2009, -5/+57***** off. In 50 years your country will be a joke. It already is a joke, but we have to play nice to you because you have the one thing that we really need. As soon as the rest of the world has no need for your oil you will be left in the dark ages.
- powatom, on 04/29/2009, -1/+51It's expensive to SHIFT from oil to renewable / clean energy sure, but the cost of running is way lower (infinite resource, anyone?).
- ShrikeDeCil, on 04/29/2009, -6/+49This is nuts.
Without even weening ourselves off of carbon, we've still got truly astounding reserves of both natural gas and coal. Neither are quite as handy as octane, but both can be readily converted into gas in a pinch. (This was done on a wide scale during WWII.) In addition, there's a couple massive oil shale deposits (where we haven't quite nailed recovery techniques.) Proposals popped up out of the woodwork by the dozens when gas shot up to $5/gallon last year.
Even ignoring that, we do have the capability of going towards more nuclear technology right now. The technique the French use to reprocess the spent fuel has been shown to work very well (something like 98% recycling of spent fuel). And there's a couple variations of something called a "Traveling Wave Reactor" that can be used for the pieces that are no longer recyclable. This is another high-efficiency process. The neat thing about the TWR is that it converts materials from highly radioactive with a ridiculously long half-life to moderately radioactive with a sane half-life. IOW: something we can actually deal with.
Of wind, solar and wave, I have the highest hopes for solar on the individual house level. The current structure is hiding some of the manufacturing costs from the consumer, but there's no doubt that there's been a lot of significant progress here. And there's a lot left to make the transition from labs to products too. - Boeing777, on 04/29/2009, -0/+43just as true as "the Saudi monarchy wouldn't survive without the political support of the UK and US"
- mcarrel, on 04/29/2009, -1/+43Sounds like somebody's getting worried.
- Portside, on 04/29/2009, -2/+29He's not exactly unbiased, is he?
An energy-independant US, or even significantly-less-dependant US would spell the end of the middle-east's wealth in an instant. He has every right to fear research into alternative energy sources, as once the world is weened off of oil for its primary sources of fuel and power, Saudi Arabia will be right back where it was in 1900: Stuck in 1400.
One only has to look at Dubai to see the fear in the oil sheiks' eyes, as they desperately try to promote tourism by constructing the most lavish hotels imaginable, and surrounding them with as much decadant, hedonistic delight as the muslim world dares to produce.
While the rest of the world is worrying about pollution and running out of oil, Saudi Arabia is only worrying about the rest of the world finding an alternative to it.
It may take 20 years, 50 or a hundred, but when we no longer need oil, the middle east will be right back where the crusades left them. - surfacewound, on 04/29/2009, -3/+27Reading comprehension > you.
He never said oil wasn't cheaper, he said that alternative power is less than 500% more than oil as claimed. - sprkoolguy, on 04/29/2009, -1/+24Whats with these longwinded comments, they are supposed to be short clever quips! I only have the memory of a goldfish
- Amazan, on 04/29/2009, -1/+22That sounds like a challenge!
- thcobbs, on 04/29/2009, -5/+26Do you understand HOW ***** MUCH ENERGY that is when we are talking about the USA?
For every 10 power plants of equal size, one is effectively eliminated due to line loss.... - inactive, on 04/29/2009, -1/+20We scared them now!
- SuprRoboWolf, on 04/29/2009, -1/+20I wonder how the costs of such a project compares to the bailouts.. I bet this is something we could have already started to implement and create jobs around had we not been busy padding corporate pockets. F*** DC
- MrSpontaneous, on 04/29/2009, -0/+19Another fact to take into account - we get most of our oil from Canada, our allies to the north. If we can replace our Middle East oil consumption with energy from renewable resources that'd be a huge step forward and a huge blow to a sponsor of terrorism.
- MWeather, on 04/29/2009, -1/+19"That's a lot of ***** square miles, Einstein. "
About 1/20 the space we use for strip mining coal. - sodade, on 04/29/2009, -6/+24Couple of problems with this Saudi (shouldn't these ***** be our enemies?) douchebag's statements:
1. He is not taking into account (and neither does our corrupt government) the environmental costs of oil. They are ***** huge and our government has been subsidizing the oil industry by not passing those costs on as tax.
2. Gas is silly cheap today, but as soon as these Saudi parasites realize their goal of staving off another round of alternative investments by keeping the price down, hello 5-10$ gas.
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal - this seems pretty damn cheap to me. It is all made from mirrors and aluminum too so it isn't involving tons of toxic waste. Operational costs are mainly maintenance. And, unlike nuke plants, we don't have to spend millions on risk analysis and we have no rad waste issues. - tieInterceptor, on 04/29/2009, -2/+20it's like hearing your crack cocaine dealer telling you how impossible is to give up the drugs.
The Saudi Family better use the money for something productive for the future, or they are going to starve to death when petrol demand goes down.
at least they won't have the money to fund Wahhaby fundamentalist Islamic Maddrasas on every corner of the planet like they currently do. - bigteebo, on 04/29/2009, -1/+17Let's prove him wrong.
- TallestSkil, on 04/29/2009, -3/+18I remember reading somewhere that 100 square miles of solar panels is all that we need to provide for the entire electrical needs of the United States. Put a huge field of them out in southern Utah or the middle of Nevada and BOOM. We're electrically independent and that much money that would have gone to foreign nations stays HERE. We can then use that money to subsidize electric car production to remove the tie to foreign oil there.
- nilux99, on 04/29/2009, -1/+15Hey Saudi prince, we put a man on the moon. We can become energy independent. FU
- pilot3033, on 04/29/2009, -0/+14the OP never said it wasn't, just that oil prices only risk sky rocketing again and new energy is only coming down in price.
- inajeep, on 04/29/2009, -6/+19Pardon me if the Saudi princes and Duabi get buried in the sands.
Oh and Bush may have mumbled the words but his and Cheney's actions which for some reason brought in record profits for the oil industry didn't match his speeches. Obama is putting money into the R&D budget which is why we might be hearing more oil execs and Saudi Princes whine and sputter and use FUD to derail this effort. - bradleyland, on 04/29/2009, -1/+14Hydrogen isn't comparable to energy *sources* like wind, solar, and wave, because hydrogen isn't free energy. Its inherent instability means it's tied up in stable molecules all over the place. You have to produce it through a process like electrolysis. This means you'd need a true energy source that generates power in order to create hydrogen.
Hydrogen is an energy storage medium, not an energy source. - funkedup, on 04/29/2009, -6/+18Wind, solar, and wave power are all good ideas and should be implemented, but it is foolish to think that these 3 alone can power than entire US by themselves. The green movement is great, but I disagree with many of it's supporters because they want to control energy consumption. Of course oil and gas are not very efficient or viable options for sustaining the future. What suprises me is that hydrogen is not being discussed as much as it should be. It would be great to use in cars. Also, we should be funding and devoting more resources to the pursuit of nuclear fusion. People think that nuclear power is bad for some reason, but it is nessecary for the amount of energy we consume.
Fusion and Hydrogen = Future. - inactive, on 04/29/2009, -0/+12LOL
What esle is he going to say?
"America you are on the right track to energy Independence, Keep up the good work!"
I don't think so. - deathcapt, on 04/29/2009, -0/+12Yeah, U.S.A. gets something like %13 of it's oil from the middle east. More than %50 is from Canada, and my fellow Canadians will most likely not stop selling it any time soon. We've also got *****-tons of natural gas up north. Saudi's are just ***** bricks cause they have no economy other than oil, and they're about to go back to being a 3rd world country.
- reeds1999, on 04/29/2009, -0/+11He hopes!
- Pilot85, on 04/29/2009, -0/+10Succinct, and eloquent. To the point. I like it.
- strafefire, on 04/29/2009, -6/+16"If you are going to be paying for wind, electric and solar energy equivalents that cost five or 10 times more than it costs to use oil, you are going to price yourself out of the market. You are going to lose whatever competitiveness you have in your products."
And that is why Allah created Nuclear power.
Too bad bad those damn, dirty hippie infidels keep getting in the way!!!
/said in jest - Rudegar, on 04/29/2009, -0/+10in the country I live in we produce oil
20% of our power is from wind
not too big a problem - Trekhawk, on 04/29/2009, -2/+12Wind, solar, and wave will DEFINITELY not be powering our grid if you want to use hydrogen for transportation. Producing hydrogen fuel requires a lot of electricity. But if you're for nukes, me too. Let's do it.
- HeyArnold, on 04/29/2009, -0/+10Drug Dealer: You will be hooked on drugs FOREVER!
- twomeyw23334, on 04/29/2009, -3/+13Oil shale is profitable at $50 a barrel and dropping. Stop referencing studies from the 70's. It's absurd to on one hand acknowledge technological improvements and in fact depend on them continuing into the future when referencing solar/wind or other "green approved" energy sources while then making believe there has been no advancement and will be no advancement in areas like shale extraction, coal to liquid conversion (profitable at $45/barrel) or nuclear power in the last half a century.
Our country receives half its electrical power from coal plants, many of which are running at 30% efficiency and under. This while we have the capability to build 90% efficiency plants or just build nuclear. In my honest opinion, the well meaning but intellectually challenged environmentalists are one of the biggest causes of pollution as they are anti-innovation. They will never be happy until we have fusion power. But it is ridiculous to go from decades old coal plants to fusion. We should be embracing all intermediate technologies to bridge the gap. - inactive, on 04/29/2009, -5/+14Electric cars and Nuclear power. Enough said.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html - idlebyte, on 04/29/2009, -1/+10This from a group of people who are drilling/pumping themselves out of a future market. Of COURSE they want us to think we will FAIL...
- stutimandal, on 04/29/2009, -5/+14Transmission loss is less than 10% in most cases.
- rockphotog, on 04/29/2009, -0/+9I'm Norwegian. We win.
- woahwoahwoah, on 04/29/2009, -0/+9The guy doesn't want to lose oil customers. Of course he doesn't want us to be energy independent.
- FOR3MAN, on 04/29/2009, -0/+9Just start taunting us and we'll accomplish anything because we're arrogant like that.
Never tell an America the can't do something. - DangerCollie, on 04/29/2009, -1/+9There are a couple problems with what he's saying. For one he assumes petro-oil is the only game in town. We may be able to replace some of the petro-oils with algae oils. A little bit from solar, a little from wind, a little from nuclear and algae-based oil products and a lot of conservation...sure our energy costs will be higher but if we use less the math still works for manufacturing.
- Fizex, on 04/29/2009, -3/+11While I agree with your assertion that going green carries with it a certain price I disagree with your argument that if the private sector hasn't adopted a strategy or action it's not worth it. Government exists to provide some of those things that would be infeasible for an individual corporation to provide, but that benefit all. The road system is a perfect example. No private corporation would invest the massive amounts of cash necessary to provide roads to all the places people need them; and yet without those roads economies and nations would suffer.
Likewise, having a clean environment benefits everyone, and yet like you mentioned, if one company chooses to "go green" and others do not, then they are at a disadvantage. In my opinion there are two solutions to this situation. First and most preferably the individual consumer gets smart and stops buying only the cheapest thing on the shelf and starts spending money on products that are produced in a manner that is sustainable.
Unfortunately, people often face difficult choices when purchasing and the environment loses out. Which is why we need regulation and incentives in place to make sure that those companies investing in clean production methods are not at such a disadvantage. As you mentioned, however, we also need to be careful not to unduly burden our own industries such that we allow products from polluting nations to undercut our prices both at home and abroad. - MWeather, on 04/29/2009, -1/+9"So you claim that innovation will not come by free individuals left to their own will, but from the force of government?"
So long as not innovating is more profitable, yes. - the2989, on 04/29/2009, -0/+8...and this is coming from a guy who sells us lots and lots of oil. Biased much?
- deathcapt, on 04/29/2009, -0/+8Probably wouldn't have cost $2 trillion dollars
- DeadSkinMask, on 04/29/2009, -4/+12U.S.A is already relying on Alberta's Tarsands to supply them with oil for the next 100 years...
- inactive, on 04/29/2009, -0/+7Hehehe, I smell their fear.............................>:)
- AtanasNenov, on 04/29/2009, -4/+11ah, the classic game theoretic conundrum...what's best for everyone to do together is not necessarily the best that everyone can do by himself...in his case, why can't he just stand back and let others spend the money and innovate and he will just reap the fruits later...the answer is, he can, he does and he will. But if everyone thinks like him, no one will ever invest in that and everyone will stand back and wait...that's where the government should step in.
- DeadSkinMask, on 04/29/2009, -0/+7Fact: Canada is the Unites States largest provider of foreign oil.
http://www.minnpost.com/globalpost/2009/04/16/8142 ...
A great book to read on the topic is "Stupid to the last drop".
http://www.amazon.ca/Stupid-Last-Drop-Environmenta ... -
Show 51 - 100 of 276 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is