More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here. Learn. Stop using fantasy data published by those trying to maintain our addiction, the pushers.

Reserves-to-production ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oil all gone by 2100. All gone. After that we either go back to the horse or we move on to electric vehicles with enough on the grid to replace all of that oil energy, all of the next 90 years of growth, and a bigger population.

Well then we'd better start building more nukes now, because solar, hydro, wind, wave, and geothermal just aren't going to cut it.

 

[PMZ]

Here. Learn. Stop using fantasy data published by those trying to maintain our addiction, the pushers.

Reserves-to-production ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oil all gone by 2100. All gone. After that we either go back to the horse or we move on to electric vehicles with enough on the grid to replace all of that oil energy, all of the next 90 years of growth, and a bigger population.

Well then we'd better start building more nukes now, because solar, hydro, wind, wave, and geothermal just aren't going to cut it.

A private enterprise decision.

 

[flacaltenn]

BBC News - Titan moon's colossal methane seas

You fossil fuel fuckers must be licking your ******* lips This is the only way you can honestly compete with solar in the long run.

And YOU must be crappin your pants KNOWING that some multinational corporation is NOW DECIDING that it could be economically feasible to do that...

What a hypocrit.. Wants more SPACE $$$$$ --- but is afraid to death that SPACE might contain some value to our Planet...

You deny the simple, like fuel and waste free solar, hydro, wind, wave, and geothermal but hope for the esoteric like methane from millions of miles away.

Yeah I deny the simple -- like you.. Aint gonna be anymore major hydro built in the US. Some of what we got needs to get torn down according to "your side". Same with Geothermal which is EXTREMELY limited for the USA and is a dirty mining operation. Not really any different than fracking..

Wave aint ever gonna happen once the enviros see what it looks like installed in sacred estuaries and bays. And WIND is a non-starter for baseline reliable grid generation..

That leaves "the simple" folks with solar.. Which is a 6 hour a day PEAKER technology..
Have fun with all that simple stuff..

What else you got? Give me your "not so simple" plans..

 

[westwall]

BBC News - Titan moon's colossal methane seas

You fossil fuel fuckers must be licking your ******* lips This is the only way you can honestly compete with solar in the long run.

And YOU must be crappin your pants KNOWING that some multinational corporation is NOW DECIDING that it could be economically feasible to do that...

What a hypocrit.. Wants more SPACE $$$$$ --- but is afraid to death that SPACE might contain some value to our Planet...

You deny the simple, like fuel and waste free solar, hydro, wind, wave, and geothermal but hope for the esoteric like methane from millions of miles away.

Flac has done nothing of the sort. he merely pointed out that Matthew is a luddite. he claims to want one thing but when the obvious consequence of that desire is realized he flees.

 

[westwall]

Here. Learn. Stop using fantasy data published by those trying to maintain our addiction, the pushers.

Reserves-to-production ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oil all gone by 2100. All gone. After that we either go back to the horse or we move on to electric vehicles with enough on the grid to replace all of that oil energy, all of the next 90 years of growth, and a bigger population.

Well then we'd better start building more nukes now, because solar, hydro, wind, wave, and geothermal just aren't going to cut it.

A private enterprise decision.

Which. You. Hate.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'd love to see them go to titan. For what ever reason...

What ever gets humanity advancing again I am for.

Now I don't see any reason why we shouldn't use wind, solar and geo-thermal.

 

[polarbear]

Here. Learn. Stop using fantasy data published by those trying to maintain our addiction, the pushers.

Reserves-to-production ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oil all gone by 2100. All gone. After that we either go back to the horse or we move on to electric vehicles with enough on the grid to replace all of that oil energy, all of the next 90 years of growth, and a bigger population.

Well then we'd better start building more nukes now, because solar, hydro, wind, wave, and geothermal just aren't going to cut it.

The guiding principle in engineering a system is to use all available resources at their disposal.
And systems are designed and re-designed by engineers as the need dictates and has always incorporated the best available technology.

We`ve been able to do that especially well ever since the petro chemical industry became an integral part.
Without it we would not even have the current material science and technology to go nuclear or any other avenues.
The "we" in this case are the nations that made use and benefited from that resource.
So let`s not knock it down for the sake of tree ring counting "scientists" that claim we are overheating the planet.
None of them would have access to the technology that we developed.
How to manage oil reserves and manage energy supply is not a part of their agenda.
For the "climate science" AGW activists it`s just a convenient cop-out when all else failed.
They don`t just have a issue with oil and gas, they go way beyond that and want to ban every process which generates CO2 !
There will be plenty of fuel for cars and airplanes after even way later than 2100 . Way past that it may not be fossil based but entirely synthetic.
That technology existed since WW2 has been used by Germany and Union Carbide who "inherited" it when German technology fell into the hands of the allied forces and has used it on a scale large enough already in South Africa.
It`s fully developed and turn key ready at short notice...and the rest of the petro chemical industry users are fully aware of it.
When I mentioned Union Carbide you might have already guessed that Acetylene is the first stage of this process.
It is in reality a "renewable resource" because all you need is limestone and electricity. In the process you get lime and when you burn the fuel you get back the CO2 to reconstitute Lime back to Limestone (CaCO3).
But you see, that won`t be good enough for these dickheads that want to ban everything that generates CO2.

Btw. Acetylene can be used as easily as propane or any other non liquid hydro carbon with internal combustion engines.
But the next step which yields Benzene (C6H6) from the acetylene is even easier than the first and requires no energy input.
Benzene is as good as any diesel fuel or any of the JP Kerosene based jet fuels.
From Benzene you can go it the rest of the way, crack it, hydrogenate it and build linear, branched or any other hydrocarbon you desire.
I happen to know this process from end to end because I spent the first 5 years of my working life in pharmaceutical reasearch, organic chemistry.
It was my job to "tag" molecules with C14 so that The bio-chemists could trace the metabolites with ease.
We did not start out with CalciumCarbonate but with C14 Barium Carbonate to first get our C14 CO2 and from that the HCCH acetylene using the exact same method just on a smaller scale.
That part is a well known process, every chemist knows about it and all the Acetylene gas we need has been made like it for almost an entire century now.
If you are eager to know how the next step works...:
The acetylene gas is then passed over a copper "wool" catalyst at 400 C and then condenses as liquid Benzene....and that`s all it takes !
From there on it`s standard organic chemistry again to go to linear Hydrocarbons such as Octane or Cetane if you insist on having them as a fuel.
It`s way more efficient and "doable" than "going it" the "enviro- friendly" electrolytic Hydrogen fuel..or "bio-ethanol" which requires more energy input to get it than what you get out of it when you burn it.
So why all that OMG no more oil angst?
That`s not even a issue in chemical engineering, the issue is entirely political and how to deal with these freaks who want to punish us carbon based life forms for making plant food in the process .

Okay then I just posted the how and the why "we" won`t run out of fuel to burn.
So now let`s see "how" the freaks that are hell bent to go the Al Gore way would do it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here. Learn. Stop using fantasy data published by those trying to maintain our addiction, the pushers.

Reserves-to-production ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oil all gone by 2100. All gone. After that we either go back to the horse or we move on to electric vehicles with enough on the grid to replace all of that oil energy, all of the next 90 years of growth, and a bigger population.

Well then we'd better start building more nukes now, because solar, hydro, wind, wave, and geothermal just aren't going to cut it.

A private enterprise decision.

Excellent! Get the government out of the way of nuclear and get them to stop wasting billions on subsidies for solar, wind and wave.

 

[PMZ]

Well then we'd better start building more nukes now, because solar, hydro, wind, wave, and geothermal just aren't going to cut it.

A private enterprise decision.

Excellent! Get the government out of the way of nuclear and get them to stop wasting billions on subsidies for solar, wind and wave.

If the government didn't take the financial risk, the progress that's been made in the technology would have been made elsewhere and our business opportunity in sustainable energy would not exist.

Nuclear is only viable if it's completely safe. I don't think that anybody favors risky nuclear. The process in place assures us that no shortcuts will be taken.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A private enterprise decision.

Excellent! Get the government out of the way of nuclear and get them to stop wasting billions on subsidies for solar, wind and wave.

If the government didn't take the financial risk, the progress that's been made in the technology would have been made elsewhere and our business opportunity in sustainable energy would not exist.

Nuclear is only viable if it's completely safe. I don't think that anybody favors risky nuclear. The process in place assures us that no shortcuts will be taken.

We can do completely safe nuclear right now.
And it works, rain or snow, day or night, wind or calm.
With zero CO2.
So why don't the rabid greenies support nuclear?

 

[PMZ]

Excellent! Get the government out of the way of nuclear and get them to stop wasting billions on subsidies for solar, wind and wave.

If the government didn't take the financial risk, the progress that's been made in the technology would have been made elsewhere and our business opportunity in sustainable energy would not exist.

Nuclear is only viable if it's completely safe. I don't think that anybody favors risky nuclear. The process in place assures us that no shortcuts will be taken.

We can do completely safe nuclear right now.
And it works, rain or snow, day or night, wind or calm.
With zero CO2.
So why don't the rabid greenies support nuclear?

Did your Intel that nuclear is completely safe now come from Japan or the Ukraine?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If the government didn't take the financial risk, the progress that's been made in the technology would have been made elsewhere and our business opportunity in sustainable energy would not exist.

Nuclear is only viable if it's completely safe. I don't think that anybody favors risky nuclear. The process in place assures us that no shortcuts will be taken.

We can do completely safe nuclear right now.
And it works, rain or snow, day or night, wind or calm.
With zero CO2.
So why don't the rabid greenies support nuclear?

Did your Intel that nuclear is completely safe now come from Japan or the Ukraine?

Will you learn to read before you die?
Try again.
We can do completely safe nuclear right now.
That doesn't mean we are doing completely safe nuclear right now.

Pebble-bed reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
DBI Reactors*|* Safe and Simple Reactor Design

 

[PMZ]

We can do completely safe nuclear right now.
And it works, rain or snow, day or night, wind or calm.
With zero CO2.
So why don't the rabid greenies support nuclear?

Did your Intel that nuclear is completely safe now come from Japan or the Ukraine?

Will you learn to read before you die?
Try again.
We can do completely safe nuclear right now.
That doesn't mean we are doing completely safe nuclear right now.

Pebble-bed reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
DBI Reactors*|* Safe and Simple Reactor Design

Any truly safe reactor design will have no trouble proceeding. But it has to be certified safe by experts who don't have a stake in the decision other than its safety.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did your Intel that nuclear is completely safe now come from Japan or the Ukraine?

Will you learn to read before you die?
Try again.
We can do completely safe nuclear right now.
That doesn't mean we are doing completely safe nuclear right now.

Pebble-bed reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
DBI Reactors*|* Safe and Simple Reactor Design

Any truly safe reactor design will have no trouble proceeding. But it has to be certified safe by experts who don't have a stake in the decision other than its safety.

A truly safe design could be built today in America?
So why doesn't Obama push that, to reduce that ebil ebil CO2?

 

[PMZ]

Will you learn to read before you die?
Try again.
We can do completely safe nuclear right now.
That doesn't mean we are doing completely safe nuclear right now.

Pebble-bed reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
DBI Reactors*|* Safe and Simple Reactor Design

Any truly safe reactor design will have no trouble proceeding. But it has to be certified safe by experts who don't have a stake in the decision other than its safety.

A truly safe design could be built today in America?
So why doesn't Obama push that, to reduce that ebil ebil CO2?

He can't tell private investors what to invest in. Or private energy companies.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Private energy companies are investing in solar and wind at a much higher rate then Nuclear. I love nuclear but that is the truth.

Higher then hydro
Higher then even coal at times

Yet you people attack wind and solar

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Any truly safe reactor design will have no trouble proceeding. But it has to be certified safe by experts who don't have a stake in the decision other than its safety.

A truly safe design could be built today in America?
So why doesn't Obama push that, to reduce that ebil ebil CO2?

He can't tell private investors what to invest in. Or private energy companies.

He has no problem telling private companies what they can and cannot do.
That's his thing.

He could push a bill to fast track a program of nuke building today.
You know that private companies wouldn't **** it up like his Obamacare website.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Private energy companies are investing in solar and wind at a much higher rate then Nuclear. I love nuclear but that is the truth.

Higher then hydro
Higher then even coal at times

Yet you people attack wind and solar

Private energy companies are investing in solar and wind at a much higher rate then Nuclear.

Imagine how much useful CO2 free energy we could produce, if we threw the green energy subsidies at nuclear instead.

 

[HenryBHough]

He's already told you to buy the products of private companies.

Obamacare is not a government insurance policy - it's a directive that you must buy a product you may not wish to buy. He can force you to make purchases so there is no reason He can't force mere companies to buy stuff.

 

[Abraham3]

Private energy companies are investing in solar and wind at a much higher rate then Nuclear. I love nuclear but that is the truth.

Higher then hydro
Higher then even coal at times

Yet you people attack wind and solar

Nuclear has had a long history of sinking its regulatory teeth into the tender bits of its investors. You can't blame them for being gunshy. The Obama administration has promised to make it faster, easier, simpler and financially safer to put up a nuke plant and I would assume they have done so. But it's going to take a while to see any momentum build in that direction. Particularly after the glowing, nuclear power PR victory that was Fukushima.