jump to last post 1-35 of 35 discussions (214 posts)

In your opinion, what is the best solution to the energy crisis?

  1. 0
    Phoebe Pikeposted 5 years ago

    Should we research alternative energy resources, continue to use up the oil, revert back to horses and bovine animals for power, or something else entirely? What are your views on this matter and why?

    1. sn53Anon profile image59
      sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Nuclear power. It is the cleanest, safest source of power for things that do not require mobility. Petroleum for things that move.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        If nuclear power is so safe why do nuclear power stations require armed guards?

        If it is so clean why are large areas of land around Chernobyl still not accessible?

        1. I am DB Cooper profile image67
          I am DB Cooperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The technology has advanced a lot since Chernobyl, and modern plants can use a degraded radioactive material that would be useless in the hands of someone trying to make a weapon.

          The damaged nuclear plant in Japan is something like 40 years old and was not using newer technology. In fact, newer plants are engineered so that a major catastrophe like a fire or getting hit by a tidal wave won't cause a meltdown. Instead of needing to be actively cooled all the time, the fuel rods cool on their own if the system breaks down. The radiation levels around new nuclear plants are lower than the radiation around a coal-burning energy plant.

          As for the armed guards, I'd imagine you'd find them at most major energy plants. They don't want anyone just waltzing in and shutting off power to thousands of people.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I was going to post a picture of a wind farm totally without fences, let alone armed guards, but I lost the will.

        2. sn53Anon profile image59
          sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Because of people like you?



          Personal preferences.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Not likely, I want the biggest space possible between me and any nuclear pollution, although I know that no distance is enough. Parts of the UK were polluted by fall out from Chernobyl.

            I suppose you could put it down to personal preference, would you chose to live somewhere so heavily polluted?

            1. sn53Anon profile image59
              sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              That is the irrational fear gripping you. You were told it was bad. Really, really bad. It wasn't. A few hundred people died. The speculation was that this would kill (from memory) about 6,000 immediately with tens of thousand killed over time. Well. What really happened. About 200 people died in he first days and weeks.



              The remnants of the Big Bang may have had exactly the same effect on Great Britain. How many people died in Great Britain from Chernobyl's fall out. Thousands? Hundreds? Tens? One? Any?



              The place is teeming with life. The nuclear wasteland turned out to be no such thing. So we stay away out of personal preference.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                It must be nice and comfortable in you la la world where you can conveniently ignore facts. A few hundred died did they.
                The most pro nuclear sources say that around 2,200 will die prematurely as a result of being involved in the original containment efforts.

                "Scientists have released a three-volume, 600-page report on the accident and the death, disease and economic ruin that became its legacy in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. "This was a very serious accident with major health consequences, especially for thousands of workers exposed in the early days, who received very high radiation doses, and for thousands more stricken with thyroid cancer," said Burton Bennett, chairman of the Chernobyl Forum, which released the study."

                http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 … gy.ukraine

                1. sn53Anon profile image59
                  sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes. About two hundred. Is that a big deal? Really? How many people die each year from ordinary accidents? Tens of thousands?



                  Will die. Great. When? How long has it been? I was in the Army at the time. I think I was a company commander. So it has been a while.



                  So how many died? Not how many are likely to die or may die or some other way of saying that no one has died yet? How many accidents have there been? Given the paucity of deaths over the entire time the nuclear power industry has been in operation it is the safest, cleanest form of energy we have available today. Not tomorrow. Not in my fantasies of the Green Fairy (who looks like Nicole Kidman). Today.

              2. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this
                1. sn53Anon profile image59
                  sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  From your source:

                  Flora and fauna
                  There has been an ongoing scientific debate about the extent that flora and fauna of the zone were affected by the radioactive contamination that followed the accident. No scientifically documented cases of mutant deformity in animals of the zone were reported other than partial albinism in swallows[2][3] and insect mutations.[4] There have been individual eyewitness reports of other animal mutations but no comprehensive statistical analysis has been completed to date. The cloud of heavily polluted dust left the Red Forest (Rudyi Lis)—a strand of highly-irradiated pine wood near the plant which was subsequently bulldozed.

                  There have been reports that wildlife has flourished due to significant reduction of human impact.[5] For this reason, the zone is considered by some as a classic example of an involuntary park. Populations of traditional Polesian animals (like wolves, wild boar and Roe Deer), red deer, moose, and beaver have multiplied enormously and begun expanding outside the zone. The area also houses herds of European wisent and Przewalski's Horses released there after the accident. Even extremely rare lynx have appeared, and there are reports of tracks from brown bears, an animal not seen in the area for several centuries. Special game warden units are organized to protect and control them.

      2. 0
        Home Girlposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        NO WAY!!!!!!! Look at Chernobyl! Look at Japan! And it's only the beginning. And it can be the beginning of our end if we are not going to be wise enough. Nothing is clean about nuclear energy. It's a death in a trap, that can release itself just from a  slight push from underground activities. Chernobyl is not over yet. People still suffer from things that you cannot see, feel, touch and that are slowly killing you. Radiation is the worst enemy. It's an invisible enemy that can strike you when you least expect it. People need something else. If not - back to horses!!

        1. I am DB Cooper profile image67
          I am DB Cooperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Maybe someday we'll be able to block all that background radiation left-over from the Big Bang. Chernobyl was a plant that was built 34 years ago. A lot of advances have been made since then (during a period when new nuclear power plant construction has been non-existent in the United States, but they still build them in other parts of the world).

          Think about this: 34 years before the Chernobyl plant was built, mankind was still trying to figure out how to create a nuclear reaction. The computing power that existed in the entire Chernobyl Energy Plant complex in the mid-1980's is less than the computing power in my modern cell phone. There has been progress in the past few decades, and a new nuclear plant has about as many similarities to Chernobyl as an iPad has to ENIAC.

          1. 0
            Home Girlposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Can we use nuclear power without radiation? Is it possible, or is it a rather stupid preposition? That would be nice!

          2. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Actually the worlds first commercial nuclear power station was Calder Hall in Scotland in the mid 1950s, nearly 60 years ago.

        2. sn53Anon profile image59
          sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah? How many people died in those very serious accidents?


          It is the cleanest, safest form of energy we have ever devised. We ought to use as much of its as we possibly can. This will free up more petroleum to use in mobile applications.



          How many people have died as a result of the few disasters that have occurred? 500? 300? 200? Now how many people have died from the use of coal, or petroleum, or wood?

          It is the best form we have.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Chernobyl - close to a million now.
            The numbers aren't in for Japan yet.

            1. I am DB Cooper profile image67
              I am DB Cooperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Chernobyl - built in the 1970's
              Nuclear plant in Japan - over 40 years old

              Do we avoid driving in cars because 35 years ago Ford built a car called the Pinto that would engulf in flames when someone rear-ended it?

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                No, you've lost me there.
                Are you saying that because we drive then nuclear power is perfectly safe?

            2. sn53Anon profile image59
              sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Sixty-four. The number you are looking for is sixty-four.
              Japan will be even fewer.

          2. DTR0005 profile image86
            DTR0005posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I agree with you on the nucelar issue. It may not be the traditional liberal opinion, but so be it.

            1. sn53Anon profile image59
              sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              That just means you are not the traditional liberal. I won't stop until everyone agrees with me.  :-)

              Thank you.

      3. Mister Veritis profile image60
        Mister Veritisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Sn53Anon. What can I do but agree?

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          you could try a burst of honest realism and accept that nuclear power is neither safe, clean or cheap.

          1. Mister Veritis profile image60
            Mister Veritisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It is safe and clean. It could be very reasonably priced too. But that would take political courage.

    2. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Solar power. It's constant, free, and is truly a clean source of power.

      As the technology of solar power grows so will the efficiency and effectiveness.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        And if we'd spent even half as much on R&D for solar energy as we've spent on nuclear fuel . . .

        1. TLMinut profile image60
          TLMinutposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          In the housing area my parents live in, there's a housing association that disallows the use of solar panels on your roof! Do they get a kickback from the power company or what?

          My dad's got a couple panels in the backyard and he powers a light with one that's enough to use all evening (all night actually but we don't need bright light that long). Now he and my son need to play some more and hook up something even more useful to it.

        2. sn53Anon profile image59
          sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          you would still have nothing. It just isn't there.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Well, you might be forgiven for thinking that way if you lived in the UK but really, the amount of solar power falling on the earth is pretty stupendous, certainly enough to make even nuclear power look second rate.

            1. sn53Anon profile image59
              sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Ah, Granted. It is the reason for variations in the Earth's climate. Now for the difficulty. How do we convert one form of energy, solar, to a useful form of energy, electricity? That is the problem. And that is why there is no "there" there.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                For instance photo voltaic cells that are rapidly dropping in price even without huge government support.

                1. sn53Anon profile image59
                  sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I admit the engineering I am familiar with is dated. But, from memory, the maximum theoretical possible energy conversion efficiencies were in the 20% range with actual efficiencies in the single digits. When private industry figures it out (probably as a result of a paradigm shift) then we might see it become a commercial reality.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Actual energy efficiency of photo voltaic cells now about 29% compared with about 35% for nuclear power.

    3. Donna Suthard profile image83
      Donna Suthardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      In Indiana, I knew someone who used to heat their home with corn. They had a corn woodstove.

      Many homes have woodstoves, to keep warm during the bitter winters..My son still has a woodstove in his home..

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Shock horror! A wood burning stove, ever so dusty you know and you have to clean the chimney occasionally too. Wouldn't you rather have nice clean nuclear power?

        1. Donna Suthard profile image83
          Donna Suthardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          My husband worked on the Merrom Nuclear Power Plant.. He was an experienced electrician..He did not feel Nuclear Power was safe.
          Your right, we did have to clean out the creosote..but we knew how to cut up wood on our property, when trees were destroyed by mother nature..We didn't have electric power when we had big winter snow and  and ice storms..  My 16 year old son, even built an igloo to sleep in with a friend once when they were stranded in a storm..We often had to learn to llve without electricity for a week or so at a time.. Our wood stove kept us warm, and I cooked on top of it...it was called survival...

          1. recommend1 profile image70
            recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            With all due respect - when the world did this during the industrial revolution the pollution was a killer, literally and immediately.

            Every kind of energy on the scale it is used by modern man requires more than a few windmills and woodstoves. Something has to be burned somewhwere whatever choice is made.

            The general hope that I remembered at the start of the nuclear generation programs was that the problems would be overcome as the technology developed.  It does seem a bit slow in coming but it also seems to be the only choice to produce the massive amounts of power that are going to be needed when the oil runs out soonish.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              When I had a wood burning stove my winter electricity bills were lower than my summer bills!
              As my winter bill was solely for lighting that would have been ideal for a small wind generator.

              They told us that nuclear generated electricity would be so cheap that it wouldn't be worth metering, as it turns out, it's massively expensive requiring huge subsidies and other hidden costs that we pay.

      2. JON EWALL profile image47
        JON EWALLposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Donna Suthard
        You don't burn corn, you burn corn cobs. They burn clean and provide a lot of heat. We used them when we were constructing a school in a farming area. The farmer was glad to help out.

    4. lady_love158 profile image61
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      First we should fire Obama and the democrats for causing the current crisis. Then we should tap all our untapped sources of energy and build nuclear power plants as fast as we possibly can.

    5. Stevennix2001 profile image83
      Stevennix2001posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Idealistically, I think if there was a way to fuse all our trash and garbage into some type of fusion energy like the time traveling car in "Back to the Future", then I think it would be great. No, I'm not saying that all cars should have the ability to time travel, nor am I even suggesting it.  No, all I'm merely suggesting is that the idea of using our trash and fusing them in some type of reactor like the car did in that film would be ideal, as it would eliminate two problems in our society.  One, it would give us a steady fuel source where we didn't have to rely on foreign resources.  Two, it would help eliminate and/or reduce pollution.  The only problems are is one, the technology doesn't exist, and it's not economically practical.  What I mean by that is that most businessmen will only invest in a new type of technology if it shows promise of making money.  Unfortunately, using some sort of fusion type reactor in a car to utilize trash as fuel isn't exactly profitable enough to tempt any businessman to invest in it.  Of course, I could be wrong on that, as you never know what the future holds, but that's my two cents on it. 

      eta:  Yes, I know "Back to the Future" is just a damn film, but many of today's technology was inspired by science fiction; hence my example.

    6. thisisoli profile image64
      thisisoliposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What energy crysis?

  2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    The best solution to the "energy crisis" is to let the market do what it needs to do.

    Punish those who can't pay their debts (Japanese Energy Company), and reward those who can do what others need.

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      i.e. make as much money from us as it possibly can!

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Good ol' Marx. He never did understand where wealth was created... even though there had already been at least a century's worth of economists who outlined it for him.

        1. 0
          Phoebe Pikeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "Punish those who can't pay their debts" - Good-bye America, I will miss you. America is so far in debt that I think China would have the right to take us over by that logic.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Are you suggesting that the US shouldn't have to repay its debts?

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I read it as "can't" not "shouldn't"!

  3. aware profile image70
    awareposted 5 years ago

    4 cylinder engines . solar building materials .   your whole roof should be a solar  gathering system . im not talking conventional solar  panels  . im talking solar   roof tiles and shingles    .those are two of my ideas i have many more

  4. tritrain profile image78
    tritrainposted 5 years ago

    Electric-powered transportation, for the most part. Hybrid technology for now.

    Residential - It depends on your part of the world.
    --If you have a lot of wind, use wind-energy.
    --A good amount of sun, use solar energy.
    --Passive solar design to houses.
    --Super insulation, such as deep voids between walls, straw, tires, etc.
    --Solar water heaters.


    We should be using energy that is relatively constant and freely available.

  5. aware profile image70
    awareposted 5 years ago

    I keep hearing electric cars    . My electric bill is to high already . plus new nuke plant being built up the street . id rather have a nuke powered car than a power plant a mile from my house   i already live in a cancer cluster   .   how much   a month does it take to charge  one of those cars anyway?

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      While the question is a valid one there are so many variables that it is impossible to answer.  How far do you drive?  How big is the car?  What speed do you travel?  What is the outdoor temperature?  Is there a headwind today?  Is it raining?  The list goes on and on.

      What can be said, however, is that the same size car, driven the same miles in the same conditions will cost a lot less to operate if it is electric rather than burning gas.  No matter where you live, what the cost of electricity and gas are locally,   

      Current technology is not up to producing an electric car that is useful for more than a very few miles per day, but that is changing and will change further.  In the meantime a plug in hybrid is a good option.

  6. 0
    Home Girlposted 5 years ago

    i think people still do not understandt that NOT nuclear energy is a bad guy but what we have to deal with in case of break out or something and the long term effects of nuclear disaster. And how to dispose of nuclear "garbage". People still get "nuked" in Chernobyl that's the problem. You can build as many as you like as safe as you think. One good earthquake and what then? Do you want a 3 legged chicken for dinner? How about a two headed son? One head will learn mathematics, another geometry. How about 4 armed wife? She will be so-o-o handy! Seriously, people should think before it's too late.
    "Long-term, low dose exposure to radiation can lead to the development of chronic health conditions including cancer." Enough said.

    1. sn53Anon profile image59
      sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What, in your opinion, have been the long term consequences of the few industrial disasters involving nuclear power plants? How many people died?

      Put it in a deep hole and guard the hole. One day that stuff is going to be worth a lot of money.


      We have had many "good" earthquakes. Almost no bad has happened.



      Sure. I'll take two of each, please.


      Could we add two heads as well?  She would be practically perfect.



      I agree. People should think. But emotion is the far more likely response. See above for an example.

  7. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 5 years ago

    When I was very young I thought the process of turning nuclear power into electricity had a touch of magic about it.
    As I grew older and learnt that actually all the process involved was using nuclear energy to boil water and that energy had to be guarded, that it would be around and dangerous for centuries after it had fulfilled its function, or turned into weapons, I decided that the world had lost its marbles.

    And we were sold a pup! Electricity so cheap that it wouldn't be worth metering. God, we believed them too!

    They forgot to tell us that rather than being so cheap, that the costs of guarding, disposal and decommissioning would actually make it fantastically expensive.

    They forgot to  tell us about the deadly waste with no realistic method of disposal, but that's OK, we can leave that to our children's children to worry about.
    They forgot to tell us that as they thought of safer and safer methods of generation terrorists would think of even more dangerous ways of using it.

  8. aware profile image70
    awareposted 5 years ago

    how much per month does it cost to charge  electric car  from home?  anyone?

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Really a how long is a piece of string question but I found this:-

      "The cost of charging an electric vehicle will depend on several factors – particularly, how much energy has depleted from the vehicle and the cost of electricity. Across the US, the average consumer pays 11 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity and at that price it would cost around $2.75 for a full recharge. It is expected that there will be variants to charging based on peak and off-peak charging times with most consumers preferring to charge their vehicles overnight."

      http://www.thegreencarwebsite.co.uk/blo … een-piece/

      1. Druid Dude profile image60
        Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Even solar has a pollution factor. I favor solar and wind, and I'm also in favor of individual hydro-electric generation. Recycling and energy conservation are also prime factors, and that includes insulating your home. Believe it or not, just venetian blinds can help utilize the daylight hours more efficiently. Car pooling will still be a factor, even when the hybrids become more popular, but, eventually, the oil will be gone.

  9. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    Replace nuclear power stations with Thorium plants.

    Providing usage education alone could reduce domestic consumption a long way. People still waste so much of it.

    1. I am DB Cooper profile image67
      I am DB Cooperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Technically speaking, thorium power plants are just a type of nuclear power plant. It's absolutely a much-improved technology compared to what we had at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and at the plant in Japan.

  10. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    Hydrogen fuel cell has almost solved the transport problem, now if we convert all nuclear power stations to thorium, we have safe abundant power to take us through till we crack the big one, fusion.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It will come, Earnest, it will come.  We know how to liberate the energy; it is just a matter of controlling it.  Let the govt. throw a few trillion $$ at it; what isn't wasted will almost certainly produce an answer within a decade.

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That's true enough. I believe thorium is the best fuel for electricity delivery. Output is less than uranium, but it is still massive for the area the plant covers.

        The beauty of these plants would be massive clean output without the uranium.

        Wind, solar also create pollution in the manufacturing process, use masses of land area and that takes ages to equalize by using the product to produce power.
        Huge output is the key to providing the existing infrastructure safely in my opinion.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I agree.  Wind, solar, wave etc. make a good addition to a large power plant, but that's all it can ever be - an addition to help out a little.  It will never take the place of such plants as it just can't produce that vast amounts of power the human race needs.

          I really hope and expect to see viable fusion power in my lifetime.  Probably not in America (we've become too afraid of really useful technology and too reluctant to invest in the future), but maybe you Aussies will build us all the first fusion plant.

        2. sn53Anon profile image59
          sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Except, of course, it does not exist.

          My personal favorite is wind powered by the green fairy as she flies about a bottle of absynthe. The more she flies the more wind she generates. And since she looks just like Nicole Kidman all of the young men will be generating energy of their own.

          1. earnestshub profile image88
            earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The tech has been around since the 60's

            The decision to use uranium instead of thorium was because output from nuclear stations could be used to produce weapons, thus eliminating a separate process.

            Thorium is perfectly suitable as a safe alternative to uranium.

            1. sn53Anon profile image59
              sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Then it sounds like you have a winner. Get some venture capitalists to partner with ou and very soon you too, can become one of the hated rich.

  11. Scosgrove profile image83
    Scosgroveposted 5 years ago

    Solar, wind, and water.

    Nuclear isn't even relatively close to an option in my opinion.

    1. Druid Dude profile image60
      Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Particle Wave Generation

    2. sn53Anon profile image59
      sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Okay. If you like very small amounts of power sometimes...
      But when you want the real deal you will have to go nuclear or add more coal. I am fine either way. I am even considering buying one of those overpriced coal powered cars. Well, maybe not.

      1. Druid Dude profile image60
        Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I used to play in the coal bin in the cellar of my grandfather's house. Can't convince me it's clean. Used to come out lookin' like Al Jolson. Nuclear power only leads to a bunch of N.I.M.B.Y. (Not in my back yard) over the waste. Still a valid question. And, the more you do something, the greater the odds that something will go wrong. My GF had Miner's lung when he died...he was a miner back in his day...but he was ninety two, so it's just fine.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          NIMBY is always a problem; around here they are fighting tooth and toenail to keep the wind generators out.  They are noisy, they are unsightly and they kill birds.

          I really believe that people will always fight anything at all in their back yard.  It wouldn't matter if it were a 100 sq ft building one story tall producing enough power to run Los Angeles they would fight it.

          1. Scosgrove profile image83
            Scosgroveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            New forms of wind energy that are both quiet and bird safe are being developed.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I believe that to be true, but it won't change anything as far as the NIMBY concept goes.  Nuclear fission energy is safe as well, yet we see several on this thread nearly screaming out that it is deadly and not to be used in any circumstances.

              Some won't listen, some refuse to learn when they do listen, and nearly all require that it not be in their backyard, just in case.  It seems to be human nature.

            2. sn53Anon profile image59
              sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Uh-huh. I go back to the Green Fairy. She looks bird safe too.

        2. sn53Anon profile image59
          sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Can't convince me either. Hence nuclear power. It is clean and efficient.

          1. Scosgrove profile image83
            Scosgroveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Have you considered the long term ramifications of nuclear power?

            The time frame in question when dealing with radioactive waste ranges from 10,000 to 1,000,000 years. Do you really believe that governments are sustainable for that period of time?

            What that means is that whenever someone new comes into power in any nation with nuclear energy, they inherit all previous nuclear waste. Is this really what you want?

            Nuclear energy is not sustainable. Period. It may be efficient, but it's terrifyingly unsafe. I really can't see any reason why someone would support it while scientists are rolling out newer, cheaper, more efficient forms of solar panels.

            If you look at the big picture, solar, wind, and water are the only viable ways to go.

            1. sn53Anon profile image59
              sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Have you considered the short term? We are here today. We need energy today. This is an excellent alternative, today.



              It is waste to us today because we don't know how to use it. Hang onto it. Eventually we will discover uses that will make that waste valuable. In the meantime it will be fine. And of what possible relevance is your talk of sustainable governments? It seems that if governments are not sustainable then at least the energy will be. Or maybe you are arguing for a smaller, sustainable government. Now that is worth talking about.



              Oh my god! No. What was I thinking? Arghh. There may be bad actors out there! Hmm. There are already bad actors out there. No. It is not so bad. Yes, let's not fear the future so much we are paralyzed by it.



              Why do you fear so much? There are nations which use nuclear energy today and nothing bad has happened or is happening. The only reason you think it is unsafe is that you have been told so. Do you personally know anybody who has been harmed by nuclear energy production? Anybody. Even one person? If it is so terrifyingly unsafe shouldn't you personally know hundreds, if not thousands, of people who have been killed or maimed by it? You have grown up hearing fairy tales by Flat-Earth-No-Growthers. Perhaps as you become an adult you can see those tales for what they were.

              Oh, and how much of the nation's power is derived directly from solar? After more than 30 years of wasted public dollars what do we have to show for it? Isn't the promise of solar just that, a promise?



              If so shouldn't we already be getting most of our energy from those sources? Do you only love them because the clergy of your envro-religion have told you to do so?

              1. 0
                Home Girlposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                My advice, just go to Chernobyl, sn53, look at the local people who live there, let them tell you about their life. There is no life for them neither today nor tomorrow. It's a shame to close your eyes and ignore the fact. Some older people there returned and live in polluted areas not safe for living because it is their home, they do not have another place to go and no money to do that.  They chose to die in their own home. Yes, it is emotional, but there is no religion there, just human ability to understand another human's sufferings and  attempt to help. Now it is not too late. Tomorrow, if we build those things everywhere, if all our underground space will be nuclear dumping ground, how can you possibly look into your grandchildrens' eyes and tell them, sorry, guys, that's your future, we, idiots, because of our endless striving for comfort , we've done it for you. If our underground water and soil will be polluted, where should we go then, to the Moon?
                " Residents within 3 kilometres of the Fukushima Daini power plant, also known as Fukushima II, were ordered to leave their homes. Earlier in the day, authorities extended evacuations to residents living within 10 kilometres of another nearby nuclear plant, Fukushima Daiichi, also known as Fukushima I, where the cooling system experienced troubles Friday.
                Radiation measurements inside the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant were 1,000 times higher than normal, the Kyodo news agency reported early Saturday, citing Japan's nuclear safety agency. "   
                And it's not over yet. Your child still might get it with an apple, or shrimp, or air or... who knows what!


                http://s1.hubimg.com/u/4970720_f248.jpg

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  But you don't understand, according to Anon, the only deaths that count are those directly attributable to the actual explosion, incidental deaths whether a few months or years later don't count.

                  Likewise, those who chose not to live in polluted areas do not count, the fact that living there would jeopardise them doesn't count because all the risk is after the event.

                  Our children don't matter as long as we get (artificially) cheap energy.

                  1. sn53Anon profile image59
                    sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Sixty-four deaths. That is all. In thirty years.



                    Personal preference. And yes, we ought to go for the least expensive, safest way to provide ourselves with prodigious quantities of power.

                2. sn53Anon profile image59
                  sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Cool beans. You do know that radiation poisoning is not something you catch?

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    You are of course having a laugh!
                    You eat or breath radiation and it stays caught.

  12. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 5 years ago

    So you are really medievalist! If they don't die within a year and a day, they haven't been murdered!
    Imagine a train crash, you are very badly injured but kept alive for months, even years but eventually you die, would you then claim that the crash hadn't killed you, even though before the crash you were fit and healthy with a full life expectancy.

    Not 200, but 2,200 directly and immediately. Tens of thousands later as a direct result of the accident.

    1. sn53Anon profile image59
      sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this



      Let me stipulate to your numbers. Is that a big deal? 2,200 over 30 years? Isn't it worth it compared to all of the other risks of living? Of course it is.



      How much later? How long has it been?

      Here is what I found in Wikipedia:

      Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus have been burdened with the continuing and substantial decontamination and health care costs of the Chernobyl accident. Thirty one deaths are directly attributed to the accident, all among the reactor staff and emergency workers.[9] A UNSCEAR report places the total confirmed deaths from radiation at 64 as of 2008. Estimates of the number of deaths potentially resulting from the accident vary enormously: the World Health Organization (WHO) suggest it could reach 4,000;[10]

      Sixty-four deaths. Period.

      It is the safest for of energy we have ever had.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Er, what about the 4000 mentioned?

        1. sn53Anon profile image59
          sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Once again it is idle speculation. After thirty years there have been 64 deaths. How many more years to reach 4,000? Another 50?

          We can also speculate on how many needless deaths the US government will have on its hands as it forces us to by smaller, lighter cars? 10,000? 100,000? One million? Millions?

          1. Druid Dude profile image60
            Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Ho-hum

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Quite!

              And he accuses us of being brain washed! (or is that Danny)

            2. sn53Anon profile image59
              sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Is this the mark of a superior intellect?

          2. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Funny, though I can find estimates as low as 56 direct fatalities, I find no mention of 64 direct deaths! Not deaths after thirty years, but direct deaths.

            Smaller, lighter cars are not  good comparison. I could ask how many lives will be saved by smaller lighter cars. Drivers of smaller lighter cars tend to be far more aware of their vulnerability and modify their driving accordingly.

            1. sn53Anon profile image59
              sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I did another search and found another Wikipedia account. This excerpt is from that report:

              In the aftermath of the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness, of whom 31 died within the first three months.[9][83] Most of these were fire and rescue workers trying to bring the accident under control, who were not fully aware of how dangerous exposure to the radiation in the smoke was. Whereas, in the World Health Organization's 2006 report of the Chernobyl Forum expert group on the 237 emergency workers who were diagnosed with ARS, ARS was identified as the cause of death for 28 of these people within the first few months after the disaster. There were no further deaths identified, in the general population affected by the disaster, as being caused by ARS. Of the 72,000 Russian Emergency Workers being studied, 216 non-cancer deaths are attributed to the disaster, between 1991 and 1998. The latency period for solid cancers caused by excess radiation exposure is 10 or more years; thus at the time of the WHO report being undertaken, the rates of solid cancer deaths were no greater than the general population.

              Thirty one in the first 90 days. plus probably 28 more. So 59 total.
              Add another 216 between 1991-1998.

              Either way, can we agree that millions did not die? Nor hundreds of thousands. Nor thousands.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                OK, millions didn't die, nor hundreds of thousands didn't either. Thousands the jury is still out on.

                1. sn53Anon profile image59
                  sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, earlier i stipulated that 2,200 have died. They haven't but for the sake of argument let us say they did. This still means that nuclear power is the safest, cleanest for of energy available to us. Don't you agree?

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    How many have been killed by solar energy or wind energy?
                    Come to that, how many have been killed as a direct result of coal powered generation?

                    Even if no deaths were attributable to nuclear power it would still not be the cleanest or the safest.

                2. sn53Anon profile image59
                  sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  It has been 25 years. Can we assume a population of normal distribution in the region around Chernobyl? The life expectancy in the Former Soviet Union was around 70 years. Can we assume that about half of the population would have been between the ages of say, 20 and 40? If so, many of those who were aged 40 or above should already be dead or dying. Wouldn't every opportunity to pin those deaths on Chernobyl have already taken place?

                  Do we have to wait an additional 30 years to find out if he number rises, even to one thousand deaths, directly and indirectly attributed to the nuclear accident?

        2. sn53Anon profile image59
          sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It is a good question. What about them? It is an estimate. How long has it been from April 1986 until now? (twenty-five years?) So in twenty-five years 64 have died. Perhaps that number is just too low for the most significant nuclear disaster in world history. The real, small number, is not scary enough. So the WHO can make up a larger number.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/0 … rorism-act

            Note, Sellafield is not a bottle or newspaper recycling plant.

            1. sn53Anon profile image59
              sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              It sounds like the local security officials are appropriately concerned. No big deal. We shall have terrorists with us from now on.

    2. sn53Anon profile image59
      sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      From Wikipedia: Estimates of the number of deaths potentially resulting from the accident vary enormously: Thirty one deaths are directly attributed to the accident, all among the reactor staff and emergency workers.[10] A UNSCEAR report places the total confirmed deaths from radiation at 64 as of 2008.

  13. 69
    logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago

    Dinosaurs lived for over 100 million years and then, despite creating no pollution, building no nuclear plants, they were wiped out by a meteor.  Humankind has been here a mere fraction of that.  We may be wiped out today or never.  Can't be afraid.  If something is imperfect but useful, improve it, perfect it, don't cower in fear of it.
    If technology frightens you, then your best hope is to become compost so there is nothing that harms you.
    Nothing worthwhile has ever been accomplished without sacrifice.  That is the biggest problem with people today, they think they should get everything handed to them on a silver platter at no cost to them.

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So because dinosaurs lived a long time we should commit to an expensive and dangerous (proven) method of power generation!

      http://www.i-sis.org.uk/The_Real_Cost_o … _Power.php

      1. Druid Dude profile image60
        Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I find it unfortunate that none of us has yet figured out a way to capture and utilize all that hot air coming from Congress.

        1. sn53Anon profile image59
          sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I *still* prefer my Green Fairy (the one who looks like Nicole Kidman?).  :-)

      2. 69
        logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        If you send me your address, I will send you some money so you can buy a clue.  The dinosaurs have nothing to do with nuclear power.  The point was that we can hide our heads in the sand and be frightened of everything and still be wiped out or we can have the courage to move ahead and make the short time we have on this planet as self satisfying as we can. There are no guarantees.  Columbus did not have one, nor did Lewis and Clark.  They still had the courage and ambition to take a chance, to risk their lives in order to try to find something to enhance their lives as well as the lives of others.  Cowardice and fear are not positive attributes.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Hang on, what have Columbus et al got to do with the fact that we know that nuclear power is very expensive, very dangerous and very polluting?
          We don't need any more proof than we already have do we?
          Do you not wonder why the US has not built more nuclear power plants, you surely don't think the Greens have enough power to stop them do you, no, they haven't built them because unlike the UK they do not have the mechanisms for putting the costs on the tax payer.

    2. manlypoetryman profile image68
      manlypoetrymanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      This comes to mind on the topic of dinosaurs: If cows release methane gas into the atmosphere...wonder what level dinosaurs did?

      1. kerryg profile image86
        kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Pretty substantial, I would imagine, but I think it's relevant to note that the sun was about 4% cooler during the time of the dinosaurs, so the substantially higher concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere didn't have as dramatic an effect as similar levels would today.

        Still, the cooler sun plus higher greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere were significant enough that there were no year round ice caps and sea levels were substantially higher. In the Jurassic, for example, the US looked something like this:

        http://i51.tinypic.com/10sdr4i.jpg

        Thanks to the warmer sun, we'd only have to hit about 1000 ppm (800ppm lower than the average for the Jurassic) to see similar effects on ice caps and sea levels, though it would take about 1000 years for all the ice to actually melt, which would hopefully give humanity enough time to adjust.

  14. Rock_nj profile image90
    Rock_njposted 5 years ago

    We need to develope utility scale batteries to capture renewable wind, sun, and tidal/wave energy for later use.  Solar cells could be made a lot more efficient with research.  Also, tidal and wave power could be developed a lot further than they are today. 

    Most important is perhaps energy efficiency for autos and trucks.  If we could double the mileage our autos and trucks get per unit of fuel consumed, it would do a lot to alleviate our energy problems.  The technology using hybrids and plug-in electric hybrids is already available.

    1. Druid Dude profile image60
      Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's right. We are already moving in the right direction. The #1 prob w/ nukes is the waste. Nobody wants it, and I don't blame them. I wouldn't want it either. The second problem is the vulnerability of the plants. Just like the Titanic, if they tell you that it's unsinkable, wear your life-vest and stay near the escape boats.

  15. 0
    Home Girlposted 5 years ago

    It's not about fear or cowardice. It's about global responsibility. We all die, don't we? Should we start drinking,overeating on junk food, killing each other etc.? We still have a good planet because our ancestors worked hard to create something. Our children still can have a good life if we preserve what we have. Can we do that? We have our brains, we should use its power. Who knows, may be we, as a civilisation are meant to be here for a long time... If everybody could make just a small effort to drop that don't give a f*** attitude.

    1. kerryg profile image86
      kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hear, hear!

  16. manlypoetryman profile image68
    manlypoetrymanposted 5 years ago

    Nikola Tesla’s Free Energy Invention Was Suppressed by the Government for Over 90 years But is Now Available to the Public:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20110426/ … web5217204

  17. qwark profile image61
    qwarkposted 5 years ago

    Corporations and gov'ts consider people to be dispensable.

    There seems to be a never ending stream of them that can be used to line their coffers with gold!

    Greed is the prime motivation.

    EVERYTHING THAT SURROUNDS US IS A SOURCE OF ENERGY!

    A billion dollars to monster corporations is less than pocket change to them.

    For there to be a change in world energy production there needs to be a "desire" to change.

    When "big" money is being made and the people remain apathetic to being "robbed," the "desire" is to keep doing what is providing the riches!

    There are myriad ways to tap energy and use it to enhance human existence and life style, BUT, since man is a "dispensable, unresponsive" source of labor, man will continue to allow himself to be unjustly deprived, to be taken advantage of, to make the rich, richer.

    The USA has been considering a change in our energy policy for more than 30 yrs, but too much $ passes under the table and politics is absolutely controlled by big money!

    Keep 'wishing" but "wishes" seldom come true without "help."

    The "cavalry" is not gonna arrive.

    Qwark

  18. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 5 years ago

    Anon, I posted this before but you might have missed it.

    http://www.i-sis.org.uk/The_Real_Cost_o … _Power.php

    1. sn53Anon profile image59
      sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It just looks ponderous and plodding and dull. I will scan it later.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, sorry facts are often dull.

        1. sn53Anon profile image59
          sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I did not even get to any facts. Those guys just don't know how to make a usable web site.

      2. sn53Anon profile image59
        sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Under real costs he says what I told you. Our laws are intended to make it very difficult to build a new plant. The cost goes up with every delay. So a plant that might cost 100m to build ends up costing 3-4 B due to the intentional obstacles, obstructions and delays. So dump those laws. And watch the energy flourish.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          OK, keep it up.

  19. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago

    There is no single "best" solution. Every avenue including renewables, improved vehicle fuel economy, nuclear where it can be safely  used(not the plants on California earthquake fault lines) used and with provision for safe waste disposal, natural gas, clean coal technology. Financial incentives must be provided to encourage clean energy technology and discourage dirty technology.

    1. 0
      Phoebe Pikeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think you've hit the nail on the head. Those were my thoughts exactly. smile

  20. 60
    C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago

    So many answers. The "Energy Crisis" is a pretty broad description. How can you solve a problem with out first defining the problem?

    1. 0
      Phoebe Pikeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The problem is that we are running out of fossil fuels, the prices are skyrocketing and we don't invest in alternative energy. To solve this issue, what should we do? I vote we use many different forms based on the environmental state of things.

      1. 60
        C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        We have no way of knowing if your statement is true. It could be true it could not be true. It could be true but so far off that it's not worth our attention at the moment.

        In my opinion the energy crisis is not about availability. It's about fossil fuels being the basis of our economy. Speculative markets are volitile by nature. Comodity speculators basicaly walk into a public theater every other day and scream FIRE! You and I do that and we will be put in jail.

        1. 0
          Phoebe Pikeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So looking towards the future, and working on finding alternative energy is a bad idea? You must be joking. There is nothing wrong with working on finding other ways to fuel our energy needs. We can create different ways to fuel the economy. Creating different jobs, creating a more affordable way. We don't have to stop using fossil fuels, but we would easily create new ways to use it. If we can create new ways to provide the energy we need, then why not? What's the worst that could happen? A few corrupt guys make a little less from oil or it just isn't as effective as planned. So what? We should plan ahead and prepare ourselves.

          1. 60
            C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            "So looking towards the future, and working on finding alternative energy is a bad idea?"

            Never said that. I'm simply stating that looking towards the future doesn't indicate that there is a crisis today.

            "There is nothing wrong with working on finding other ways to fuel our energy needs."

            Of course there isn't.


            However you can't buy a business' product and at the same time tell them NOT to produce it or how much they can charge for it. In order to change that business you must NOT buy their products and find alternatives. That business will respond by changing their model. Oh, but would if we get government involved, that will fix it, right? Wrong, they simply take part of the business' profits and make the problem worse. Now the business has no capital to make changes, so they lobby the government for "help" the government responds by giving them subsidies. In essence taking the money from them, only to give it back. Mean while many in government spew about how the rich oil companies are taking from the poor taxpayer.

            In the ranks of the "eco friendly" or what ever some would call them, there are some GREAT ideas. These folks simply need to embrace the entrepreneural spirit and make it happen. The big evil rich NEVER say "I CAN'T AFFORD THAT" if they believe it's worth wild. They say "HOW CAN I MAKE THAT HAPPEN".

            1. 0
              Phoebe Pikeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              It's similar to buying insurance when we invest in other sources of energy. To not buy it won't help anyone. Truck drivers would lose their jobs, store prices would soar out of control... what we need to do is get the other forms of energy running. Then gas won't be a monopoly and people could simply have a choice. We're not disagreeing, I think we are simply going in different directions with this discussion.

  21. William R. Wilson profile image60
    William R. Wilsonposted 5 years ago

    The best way to solve the energy crisis and also deal with the problem of global warming is to cut our consumption of power.

    A huge amount of the power generated in the US is lost in transmission, up to 70%.   That's a huge amount of waste, grossly inefficient, and is only profitable because of huge government subsidies to utilities and the coal and nuke industries.

    We should subsidize home scale solar and refurbishment of homes to make them more energy efficient.  Centralized power generation is profitable for a few people but detrimental to the planet. 

    Changing the way we build cities would also make a big difference.  It's absolutely stupid to build our communities so that each adult requires a personal vehicle that weighs at least a ton, that they have to drive on average 20 minutes one way just to get to work.  That's a huge amount of energy wasted.  Encourage more people to live closer to work.  Encourage home based businesses and walkable communities.  Encourage local food production and relocalised economies.  Why on earth is it cheaper to grow food in Argentina and ship it to the grocery store in your state?  Why is it cheaper to manufacture T-shirts in China and put them on a boat to come to the consumers in the US?

  22. Donna Suthard profile image83
    Donna Suthardposted 5 years ago

    I believe hydrogen powered cars will be the best way to travel in the future..Greed has lead to the high price of oil..Our dependence on oil in the middle east needs to cease.
    .
    Cobb building of homes would be cost efficient, and cheap to build. They have been known to last for several hundred years in Europe. Windmills can also be built as another source of energy

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Trouble is we've become wed to high tech solutions, who'd have a windmill constructed out of an old oil drum and a car alternator these days?

  23. JON EWALL profile image47
    JON EWALLposted 5 years ago

    HUBBERS
    Someone needs to listen to Boone Pickens because our government refuses to admit the Obama energy plans are not cost efficient in today’s marketplace.
    Our nation has an abundant of natural gas reserves, gas is a clean, efficient and economical to provide much of the energy needed in our country.
    Oil production in our country has been virtually shut down. So when you hear Obama and the Democrats say that ''we must wean ourselves off the need of foreign oil '' they LIE big-time.
    Coal provides much of our energy, technology has been greatly improved to cut down on the pollution.

    Again the above natural resources of the US  is the cheapest and most economical use of energy.
    Solar, wind and other alternate system have only been possible because of billions given and loaned by the government( taxpayers ).President Obama said that he is going to cut $4 billion in subsidies from the oil companies while supporting alternate energy industries with $ 20 billion in subsidies. All smoke and mirrors again. Not to use the nations natural resources in these troubled times is unforgivable. The jobs lost in the oil industries are in the 100 thousands.
    Here is a long list Source(s):
    http://www.anwr.org/features/oiluses.htm

    1. kerryg profile image86
      kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "Solar, wind and other alternate system have only been possible because of billions given and loaned by the government( taxpayers )"

      If you think we shouldn't use solar, wind, and other "alternate system" because their development requires government aid, then you should probably be heating your house, running your appliances, and driving your car exclusively with wood and coal.

      The US federal government has been subsidizing oil and gas since 1916. Nuclear power as we know it today wouldn't even exist without federal government investment and subsidies. Nor would hydropower.

      ALL major modern sources of energy (except coal, which benefited later in its lifecycle) relied on government assistance to be developed from niche local energy sources to major regional and national scale energy sources. To say that wind, solar, and other alternative forms of energy are somehow inferior and shouldn't be pursued because they are relying on government aid to reach large-scale capacity is hypocritical in the extreme.

      1. JON EWALL profile image47
        JON EWALLposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        kerrygposted
        You misunderstood my response. I don't have a problem with developing either of them. What I object to is that our government is purposely deny oil to be produced right here in the US. Their isn't any doubt that oil is the cheapest energy of the alternatives.
        You apparently do not understand what subsidies are. If I give you $2.00 tax credits for a payback of $4.00 ,would you not take the deal.
        Let's not forget that the  payback includes you paying taxes on the profits. Taxes benefit the people ( taxpayers ). Profit is not as bad as the politicians want you to believe . The government can help the cost of oil to go down , at least 25% just by announcing that the permits to drill will be immediately released.
        In  2008 Bush made an announcement that the oil moratorium in the gulf would be lifted. Oil dropped from the high of $124 to $80 overnight.

        Our president is not up to the job. A judge in Florida ordered the Obama administration to stop the moratorium. The latest is that the judge found the GOVERNMENT IN CONTEMP OF THE COURT ORDER.
        THINK ABOUT IT FOR A MOMENT. We are a nation of the rule of law, apparently President Obama believes that government is above the law. Where is the JUSTICE DEPT?

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          But assuming that by alternatives, one means alternatives to the main stream, oil is not an alternative energy source!

  24. Disappearinghead profile image88
    Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago

    Save gas......fart in a money box.

  25. ddsurfsca profile image75
    ddsurfscaposted 5 years ago

    The best solution is to decide for yourself if there is an energy crisis or if we are being misinformed and manipulated into spending a lot of money for a problem that even if  everyone we totally green right this second we wouldn't be able to stop.  Mother Nature is changing again and if you take into consideration her contributions to the greenhouse gases are we as the humans who live here going to be able to change what is going to take place?  I think we give ourselves too much power sometimes.  The methane that bubble up from the ocean floor, the volcanoes and the animals, all contribute way more than we do, and we cannot stop those sources.  Think about it.

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      A rather hollow argument!
      A bit like saying that as we can't stop everybody from shoplifting, we ought to shoplift too.

      1. ddsurfsca profile image75
        ddsurfscaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Nothing hollow about it, and I didn't say follow the masses.  I said make up your mind about the possibility that we cannot do anything about it before we make any decision.  The methane that floats up from one lake is more than all the cars on the road put together.  What can we super humans do about that?

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          And all the cows that are kept for human consumption throw out a lot of methane too.
          The fact that nature produces a lot of methane is not a sound argument for us not controlling the amount that we add.
          What happens if say the ecosystem can handle the amount of naturally produced methane but not the additional human contribution?

  26. Eaglekiwi profile image75
    Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago

    The prisons are overflowing.The potential for human resources is untapped.
    Redirect all that wasted energy from their mouths to something else that generates and can store power wink

    See they could start by being self-sufficent ,make their own power (and if they dont ,they get none) and cold food.

    Market gardening-Grow Grow Grow -Harvest. (If they dont-no work-no food)..

    Anyway eventually they can contribute all kinds of energy.

  27. dutchman1951 profile image60
    dutchman1951posted 5 years ago

    Energy Crisis-not really!

    Reason: Immoral Speculator's being allowed to run the Comodities market with un-scrupioulus Trading. Amassing giant sums of wealth.

    Solution: Arest the thieves, or take Oil of the Comodities market, and treat it as an asset, not a durable good.

    smile

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      speculation isn't bad.

      Let's look at what speculation does: If successful, speculators see that X is undervalued, and then buy a lot of it (raising prices), and then when it nears the "over valued" price, they sell it (thus lowering prices).

      They stabilize prices of commodities and services. Without speculators, long term forecasting would be much more difficult.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Keynes was heavily into speculation!

        If either unsuccessful or over successful speculators can ruin economies.

        Soros made $1 billion by speculating on the UK currency in 1992, I wonder where that money came from?

        1. Moderndayslave profile image60
          Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Isn't a speculator like a parasite? Feeding off the host until it kills it.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That's pretty much my way of thinking.

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No, that's ridiculous.

            Jim bob sells a guitar for $20 to some guy who knows that another guy will pay $40 for it.

            If you think that speculators are evil, then you think that advertising companies are evil. They get paid to find people who are willing to pay more than the current customer base.

            Speculators aren't evil. They provide a service that is important.

            1. 60
              C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Your over simplifying. Speculation, as it occurs in the oil market is NOT that simple. In many cases a group, a small group of people are setting the price. The information they often use to make that decision is NOT based on availabilty alone. Since the 70's oil speculation is based on how much the consumer will pay before they scream OUCH! They raise the price after they find a plausible explanation.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                No, i'm not "oversimplifying", I'm cutting to the core of the issue.

                The people aren't "setting the price", they're "realizing that people will pay more than what others are charging".

                All of this misunderstanding simply comes from the failure to understand that prices are nothing more than "what two people voluntarily come together to exchange". If one guy sells oil for $20, then that's the price. But if that oil can then be sold a week later for $40... THEN THAT'S SPECULATION!!!

                Is that bad? Of course not!! Obviously the people who live "a week later" want the oil "more". It's MORE valuable a week later than it would have been "a week earlier".

                BUT!!! If the speculator HAD NOT been there, there would have been NO oil a week later!!!

                Let me emphasize this again:

                If the speculator (OF EVIL) hadn't been there, then the people who needed the oil MORE would not have had ANY.

                The speculator made life easier for others.

              2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                In your own example you illustrate that "a small group of people" buy a lot of oil at a cheap price (who is stupid enough to sell oil at such a low price?!), and then they sell it at a higher price.

                ... what's wrong with that if the people are willing to pay it?

                I bet you'll tell me that we need to get on to cleaner energy sources than oil, but you are NOW telling me that oil prices should be lower.

                You make hypocritical sense.

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Speculating isn't evil. Speculators even out prices.

          They buy low and sell high. Thus, they raise prices when they're low, and they lower prices when they get high. They make long term forecasting easier.

          Those who argue against speculators simply fail to understand what a price is. Speculators aren't evil. Only an idiot like Marx or Krugman would argue otherwise.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Exactly, they buy low and sell high, they rarely, if ever, buy high and sell low.
            Tell me, for this wonderful service they provide, they generally make a fair bit of money out of it. Who pays them this money?
            They control your beloved "free" market.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              What is your argument? what? you make... my brain...hurt...

              They buy when it's low because it's undervalued, and they sell high because they know that that's what people are willing to pay.

              who pays for it? THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO PAY THE HIGHER PRICE!!!

              If I find a brand new computer in the trash, and take it. Then I proceed to sell it to someone else for 20 bucks....

              I'M AN EVIL SPECULATOR WHO CONTROLS THE FREE MARKET OF EVIL !!!!

              The reason why Obama can play off this "the speculators are evil" nonsense is simply because people don't understand what a price is. They think it's just some number reflecting the "value" of the item.

              Marx made the same mistake.

    2. Mikeydoes profile image80
      Mikeydoesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Too bad the theives aren't just in the energy field.

  28. Evan G Rogers profile image83
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    PS: what energy crisis?

    When i flip my light switch, light appears.

    That ain't no crisis.

    1. Mister Veritis profile image60
      Mister Veritisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Amen Brother Rogers.

  29. JON EWALL profile image47
    JON EWALLposted 5 years ago

    hubbers

    Congress is planning to introduce legislation to cut oil subsidies. For an insight to the oil subsidies check out
    Former Shell CEO: Oil Companies Don't Like High Oil Prices
    John Hofmeister on push to end tax breaks for oil companies
    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-worl … t_id=86929

    The government receives a 18% royalty on each barrel of oil pumped. Oil companies were pumping 10 million barrels/day  before Obama placed drilling  moratoriums. Now they pump 7 million a loss of 3 million barrels/day. Not to mention the billions it cost to lease the sites.
    Pumping more oil, government gets more money! So why is Obama restricting oil production in these troubled times? How about the loss JOBS?
    Check out the billions Obama has invested in subsidies for the alternate fuel industry. The alternates represent only 3% of the energy in our country. WAKE UP AMERICA

  30. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    Well if we don't replace uranium with thorium, the only other suggestion I have is to power the world off the hot air in Washington.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That would be like trying to power a one bedroom apartment with Hoover Dam.  We would have enough left over to turn off the sun and get along fine! lol

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Whoops! I got the math wrong. Underestimated the volume by a huge factor. smile

  31. Evan G Rogers profile image83
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    I'm still waiting for someone to explain how "when i turn on my electricity, I get what I want for a good price that pollutes a lot less than energy did centuries ago" can be considered a crisis.

    anyone?

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      no one? No one can tell me how what we have today is a crisis?

      1. ThoughtfulSpot profile image81
        ThoughtfulSpotposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'm surprised I'm allowing myself to feed into this...

        But, its a "crisis" because we are running out of our traditional fuels and not funding research to adapt to new ones.  I'd say that having no oil for cars in 50 years, and not having fully developed technologies or infrastructures to support any kind of replacement is a "crisis." 

        Not to mention that while we deplete natural resources at a staggering rate, we simultaneously kill off thousands of species of natural biota and slowly but surely destroy the environment of the only thus-discovered inhabitable planet...

        Sure, I can plug in my tv and appliances and computer and play with you here and its all happy-happy-joy-joy.  But, what's going to happen in a few short decades?  Maybe you don't care so long as we're o.k. for the here and now.  But, I prefer to advocate for a far more sustainable future.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Let's go through what would happen if we slowly run out of oil and coal, etc (even though this isn't even really a serious problem at all.)

          As the production of energy using one type of resource decreases, the price necessarily will increase. This is because the same number of people will be bidding for a smaller allotment of resources.

          Then, as that resource's price goes up, other types of resources that do the same thing become more competitive. And gradually people will choose to invest in those WELL before we run out of the first resource.

          ... translation: nope. there ain't no crisis.

          Let's use an example:

          If we found out that we were about to run out of oil in a century, the price of oil would suddenly begin to rise. In fact, speculators might start buying oil en masse to sell later for huge profits.

          Then people would see $20/gallon gas prices and say "F*** this" and start making the CHEAPER decision to ride bikes, walk, take busses, or buy electric cars.

          ... and then massive investment in these types of transportation would ensue.

          Ta-da: not a crisis.

  32. turgeo2004 profile image60
    turgeo2004posted 5 years ago

    Open up the balkan oil fields in co, ne, wy, nd area to drilling, eliminate most of the ridiculus regulations that make it more difficult on oil refineries.

    BUILD 10 new refiners Away from hurricane prone areas say in kansas or missouri to increase refining capacity.

    More on shore/slanted drilling into offshore wells.
    More shallow offshore wells,
    Increased scrutiny and saftey of deep offshore wells.

    and if all else fails, Annex Saudi Arabia and make them our next state.

    1. 0
      Phoebe Pikeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      We can't just impose onto another's land just for their resources... it's immoral and wrong in every sense of the word. Why should we continue to drill oil when we know it isn't going to last? It takes an insanely long time for fossil fuels to be created, yes, there would be plenty for "now" but what about a few generations down the road?

      1. ThoughtfulSpot profile image81
        ThoughtfulSpotposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Its not even a few... At current consumption rates, all of our known and projected oil supplies will be depleted within the next 50 years.  (This is from my environmental science lecture and text... sorry I don't have the book here to source, but I certainly will if necessary.)

        I'm sorry I haven't read back all the pages, but anyone who thinks we can continue to rely on fossil fuels is blissfully uninformed.  I had no idea how serious the situation was until I took this class.

        As for the claims against wind energy and its availability- current research is showing that the midwest alone could provide enough wind energy to support the entire U.S. (granted, this does not solve the problem of liquid fuel requirements for vehicles and the like.)

        In addition, with time comes greater impact understanding.  Turbines are now placed out of migratory paths, and spin slower to allow birds to better see the blades.  Far less impact is being seen on bird populations.  Even better, the turbine footprint itself is relatively small, so the land underneath is still completely viable for agriculture... even if people wouldn't want to LIVE under a turbine.  Noise pollution has also been reduced significantly.

        In fact, the only major obstacle remaining for wind power is the opposition due to aesthetics.  Some areas are solving this by putting their wind farms offshore...

      2. turgeo2004 profile image60
        turgeo2004posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        i dont believe we are running out of oil as many others do, i believe we have enough to last 500 years,  in the Gulf and in continental us and up in the artic circle. plus canada. (i havent included Saudi arabia and the rest of the world in that figure.) and Your enviromental science lecture was taught by a Globalist nazi who is hell bent on Brainwashing every person into thinking that we need to all be green and live in little commie planned cities Well i will not bow to The Nwo or the Nazis in washington D.C. (Disctrict of communists, i would have used the word Cocksucker but i think that will get censored so i havent included it or have i????? smile Thank you and beware of Government they cannot be trusted. (Government is more Evil than you can imagine) 

        Also "You were born free, you got screwed out of half of it by Uncle Sucker and most sheeple wave a flag and celebrate" that is what is wrong with america, americans have become complacent and lazy too afraid to protest or go against the status quo.

        GIrl wake up ! You took a Enviromental class probably from a Liberal university and the professor was either a globalist pig, or one of them wierdos that likes to Protest against industries. And hugg trees and mate with monkeys!

        1. 0
          Phoebe Pikeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You say "500 years" as if it is a large number... considering the average person roughly lives to 74, then it really isn't that far off.

          Many people don't protest because they are afraid to lose their jobs... the economy sucks. Truck drivers used to protest gas prices, but it got too expensive to drive to Washington (ha).

          You assume that a person who teaches a class on environmental type things is a Nazi... um... I don't personally know the person who taught the class, but isn't that going a bit far? I'm not a fan of hippies either, but insulting them by using that particular name is just low.

          1. turgeo2004 profile image60
            turgeo2004posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            i dont think calling dc communists or professors nazis is going to far, as for the hippies i dont really dislike them that much. So i probably went to far calling them hippies. Cause most hippies hate the government like i do and fight for freedom and protest so i used the wrong term to describe government rats.

            Nazis, there are many forms of fascism, i am not talking about the kind that we are all used to (hitlers kind) im talking about the new Naziism that is in america and that is Corporate fascism, fascism occurs when corporate interest merge with government interest, as a result alot of legislation that is created was done primarily cause one Corporate fascist like "monsanto seed" lobbied a government Rat and bribed that rat with campaign dollars as a result a legislation was created to make it illegal for small people like you and me to grow our own food for selling at local markets. WELL im still growing my own food, The Feds can Kiss my butt.

            I am pretty sure you know what im talking about when it comes to corporate fascism in the us, there are many examples of corporations and government merging to create legislation who's sole purpose is to help that corporation have an advantage. Other examples are Haliburton getting most of the oil contracts in Iraq after it fell.   Frankly im sick of the corporations. (it isnt governmet i hate the most yet they can be pretty stupid) it is the corporations that i hate and despise the most.

            There is also fascism all over the world, IN europe you have The same kind we have here except they are more of the Third Riech type since there is alot of anti-semitism in Europe.

            Then in Isreal you have Zionism, which is Ultra-religious-orthodox-pharisseee type fascism, Then the Arabs shout Sieg hiel and blow themselves up for their version of Fascism. Oh and in Africa you have Black Facism (look at rwanda genocide) The Entire World is becoming fascist.

            California has Enviromental Fascism (nature nazis)

            1. 0
              Phoebe Pikeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Next time, it might be wise to clarify what kind of "Nazi" you are referring to because I am willing to bet 9 out of 10 would be offended to being labeled such... and that's a low guesstimate.

              When I speak of "hippies" I am talking about environmentalists. The "Flower hippie" seems to be the kind you like. I'm all for the peaceful hippie, just not the extreme hippie.

              Please, describe, or at the very least, define "Fascism". I want to know what you are referring to. As odd as this sounds, whenever I ask anyone that question, they cannot answer it and when they do, they just put up the red flag, if you get my meaning... (Communism)

              You explained it as corporate meets government, but there is so much more to it then that. Otherwise this entire government is based solely on Fascism.

              1. turgeo2004 profile image60
                turgeo2004posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                im basically talking about the italian fascism under benito mussalini, that is bascially what we are becoming,  (not german third riech racist fascism)

                fascism is when corporate interests merge with government interests. so for example when you hear of legislation being produced that seems to benefit only one corporation, that is fascism. (i call it corporate fascism) some just call it fascism, also in fascism you have a police state which is what we have today.
                IN California the EPA has become its own fascist organization madating laws and regulations that put people in bondage to high taxes and high cost of doing things like owning a car for example, that is why i call the EPA (federal, and in California) a Fascist Movement aka enviromental fascism, i love nature myself and animals and i take care of the enviroment but some people and government agencies go too far hence the term nature nazi smile (examples are the Earth liberation front burning homes down) those people are Nature Nazis and also terrorists.

                1. turgeo2004 profile image60
                  turgeo2004posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  also under fascism you have a single dictator, while we do not have a single dictator today, we do have Government agencies that legislate without going threw congress,  (fascism) we have corrupt senators that take bribes and do things that benefit certain corporations (fascism) we also have a police state, attacks on our freedoms, (arresting people for free speech, protesting, video taping police and gov buildings) and The president seems to have absolute power threw unlimited executive orders, (he doesnt need congressional approval for)  He has the power to start wars without going threw congress. (which i think is something that needs to change) (technically we do have a single dictator, (just in the form of Executive orders, Government agencies that legislate without going threw congress, and corporations bribing and or Donating large sums of cash and lobbying to get legislation created that benifets only them while hurts the competition.)

              2. turgeo2004 profile image60
                turgeo2004posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                check out my hub titled "Corporate Fascism" and u should understand the type i am talking about unless i already explained it.

                1. 0
                  Phoebe Pikeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I got it. Sometimes people confuse it with other things, so it's always a safe bet to ask a person to define it before commenting. You know what I mean?

          2. turgeo2004 profile image60
            turgeo2004posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            "Many people don't protest because they are afraid to lose their jobs... the economy sucks. Truck drivers used to protest gas prices, but it got too expensive to drive to Washington (ha). "

            Exactly i agree with you on that, that is cause many people are in bondage or servitude to corporate Fascists.

            1. turgeo2004 profile image60
              turgeo2004posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              and i was a trucker for 10 years so i know the B.S truckers go threw. smile

          3. Mister Veritis profile image60
            Mister Veritisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It is for me. I am going to die in 2053. We can build many more nuclear power plants. And then we can use oil-based fuels for mobile-applications. When oil becomes scarce we will move on to something else.

            1. turgeo2004 profile image60
              turgeo2004posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              i think unless things change we will most likely all be dead within 3 years, cause it seems to me based on foreign events and what the globalists are trying to do. that they are trying to start a world war, which could become a nuclear holocaust. so im not planning on living that long i anticipate at any moment ill either be vaporized in a chinese or north korean or russian mushroom cloud.
              (watch belarus in eastern europe), the Eu is trying to start something with them, also the US and nato is trying to pick a fight with pakistan and or iran, which will lead to a wider world war, cause China and pakistan are basically allies now. while Russia is pissed and not gonna put up with any more NATO Conquests. And i understand Russia's frustration, i would be pissed too if nato put an iron curtain around me and isolated me to try and start a war as a pretext for invasion and seizing russia's vast resources it seems that every despot EURO TRASH wannabe dictator ever since Napoleon has dreamed of Conquering Russia for her Resources, i think that is what the EU and NATO are wanting to do.

  33. 0
    klarawieckposted 5 years ago

    Back in Cuba, when they started with the whole "special period" (though it was never a period, more like a permanent epoch) the government would cut out the electricity and water service to the entire city or town. So, you could easily be in the middle of taking a shower, when... boom! You have no water to wash off the soap and have to run naked to the sink with a bucket!
    You could be celebrating your own wedding and the lights go out. Not that that would stop Cubans from partying, but we've had to learn how to live regular lives with what we've been provided. The government still does this, and of course, without any warning... that way it's much more fun for the people in power.

  34. LeanMan profile image81
    LeanManposted 5 years ago

    Viagra is a good way to battle that energy crisis...

    1. Castlepaloma profile image24
      Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Why, because you can f**k the dog and not send energy.

    2. 0
      Phoebe Pikeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      How is that even relevant to this forum? I'm sorry if you must rely on medicine in the bedroom, but this is supposed to be a serious discussion about energy. I understand if you were making a joke, but please, unless you found a way to make the pills into fuel for cars, keep that medicine out of this forum.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image24
        Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Silly statements deserve silly question and answers, all in fun

        I gave my energy solution on the thread of -What The rich; do not want you to know

        Sand
        Water
        Cannabis

        Yes, I do take cannabis seriously and with serious fun too

        1. 0
          Phoebe Pikeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I can see the benefits of the plant, though I do not and will not use it myself. I think the government should legalize it then tax it. The amount of money raised from it could wipe out debts, or even fund research for cancer, energy sources and etc.

  35. knolyourself profile image62
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Maybe this is new here, I don't know.

    http://www.naturalnews.com/032455_cold_ … E-Cat.html

    1. Castlepaloma profile image24
      Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If it's true, I would be interested in the final results in the fall. Anything for safe higher energy.

      1. 0
        Phoebe Pikeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with you guys. If it's safe and efficient, why not go for it?

 
working