Energy Policy
Benoit @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:36 am
We don't need more energy for domestic uses; the US cannot buy any longer our manufacturing goods.
dog77_1999 @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 12:31 pm
Rationalist Rationalist:
Right now, natural gas is $40 for the same energy content as a barrel of oil, I honestly don't see this lasting for long, especially if we use it to extract oil from tar sands.
I agree, transport fuel and electricity serve different uses, but they certainly don't have to. Personally I think using oil in our cars is probably one of the worst uses, and I eagerly await electric cars, more specifically any sort of high-density electrical storage medium. A nuclear-electric power grid supplying vehicles is the best alternative scenario, so crude oil can be used in the applications that are harder to replace, like feedstock for fertilizer (which sustains our high food yields) and polymer plastics.
I hope your professor gets the funding he needs, because innovation is the key factor in keeping Canada afloat.
I agree, transport fuel and electricity serve different uses, but they certainly don't have to. Personally I think using oil in our cars is probably one of the worst uses, and I eagerly await electric cars, more specifically any sort of high-density electrical storage medium. A nuclear-electric power grid supplying vehicles is the best alternative scenario, so crude oil can be used in the applications that are harder to replace, like feedstock for fertilizer (which sustains our high food yields) and polymer plastics.
I hope your professor gets the funding he needs, because innovation is the key factor in keeping Canada afloat.
Actually, I am in Texas.....
And everything you said is exactly what we need to do. I think governments can start right now by investing a power infrastructure that can handle the extra load required to handle powering cars. A country such as Canada is blessed to have large oil reserves. Let's not waste it and invest it properly when it's no longer there.
Benoit @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:42 pm
dog77_1999 dog77_1999:
Rationalist Rationalist:
Right now, natural gas is $40 for the same energy content as a barrel of oil, I honestly don't see this lasting for long, especially if we use it to extract oil from tar sands.
I agree, transport fuel and electricity serve different uses, but they certainly don't have to. Personally I think using oil in our cars is probably one of the worst uses, and I eagerly await electric cars, more specifically any sort of high-density electrical storage medium. A nuclear-electric power grid supplying vehicles is the best alternative scenario, so crude oil can be used in the applications that are harder to replace, like feedstock for fertilizer (which sustains our high food yields) and polymer plastics.
I hope your professor gets the funding he needs, because innovation is the key factor in keeping Canada afloat.
I agree, transport fuel and electricity serve different uses, but they certainly don't have to. Personally I think using oil in our cars is probably one of the worst uses, and I eagerly await electric cars, more specifically any sort of high-density electrical storage medium. A nuclear-electric power grid supplying vehicles is the best alternative scenario, so crude oil can be used in the applications that are harder to replace, like feedstock for fertilizer (which sustains our high food yields) and polymer plastics.
I hope your professor gets the funding he needs, because innovation is the key factor in keeping Canada afloat.
Actually, I am in Texas.....
And everything you said is exactly what we need to do. I think governments can start right now by investing a power infrastructure that can handle the extra load required to handle powering cars. A country such as Canada is blessed to have large oil reserves. Let's not waste it and invest it properly when it's no longer there.
Your suggestions assume a hyper-active society. A freer society would explore something different.
sasquatch2 @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 1:08 pm
The reason that the enviro-nuts reject nuclear is the same reason they rejected the US proposal to plant carbon sink forests or give consideration for the US vast forested area.......It defeats the purpose....to bankrupt the developed countries, cripple western developed society, place themselves in charge of a socialist NWO, in plunge man-kind into a new dark age........
Benoit @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 1:15 pm
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
The reason that the enviro-nuts reject nuclear is the same reason they rejected the US proposal to plant carbon sink forests or give consideration for the US vast forested area.......It defeats the purpose....to bankrupt the developed countries, cripple western developed society, place themselves in charge of a socialist NWO, in plunge man-kind into a new dark age........
Capitalism has a vested interest in a consumer society. The population has to be free to decide what society it wants.
sasquatch2 @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 1:22 pm
Benoit
$1:
sasquatch2 wrote:
Capitalism has a vested interest in a consumer society. The population has to be free to decide what society it wants.
$1:
The reason that the enviro-nuts reject nuclear is the same reason they rejected the US proposal to plant carbon sink forests or give consideration for the US vast forested area.......It defeats the purpose....to bankrupt the developed countries, cripple western developed society, place themselves in charge of a socialist NWO, in plunge man-kind into a new dark age........
Capitalism has a vested interest in a consumer society. The population has to be free to decide what society it wants.
Yes very true! This is why I protest the socialist warming alarmists' attempts to deceive and conceal the truth about their HOAX.
Benoit @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 7:06 am
Capitalism has a vested interest in private accumulation of products for the sake of accumulation. Leisure time, family reunion and rest are grossly and unfairly overlook.
ziggy @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 7:27 am
Benoit Benoit:
The first question to settle about natural resources is the distribution of royalties. If you extract uranium and build nuclear power plants without solving this question, some terrorists will try to blow up your plants.
Were extracting uranium all over this country and havent had a problem yet.
There's also going to be a boom soon in uranium mines in the north,take my word for it. The Innuit are probably enjoying the most royalties when it comes to uranium.
Benoit @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 7:37 am
ziggy ziggy:
Benoit Benoit:
The first question to settle about natural resources is the distribution of royalties. If you extract uranium and build nuclear power plants without solving this question, some terrorists will try to blow up your plants.
Were extracting uranium all over this country and havent had a problem yet.
There's also going to be a boom soon in uranium mines in the north,take my word for it. The Innuit are probably enjoying the most royalties when it comes to uranium.
Niger main natural resource is uranium and it's the most abused country in the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries
Bruce_the_vii @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:20 am
Rationalist Rationalist:
Personally I think using oil in our cars is probably one of the worst uses, and I eagerly await electric cars, more specifically any sort of high-density electrical storage medium.
Batteries are simple chemistry which is 100 year old science. The energy crisis of 1973 stimulated research on all sorts of possibilities and that is pretty much done. There isn't much. I believe nickel-metal hydrid won. Sulphur - chloride is a runner up but it operates at elevated temperatures. An effective battery has to material available in mountanous quantaties.
There are three ways to break down cellulose. Bacteria, fungi and industrial enzemes. The product is methane, natural gas. This may be more practical than batteries in vast quantities.
Benoit @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:12 pm
Rationalist Rationalist:
Personally I think using oil in our cars is probably one of the worst uses, and I eagerly await electric cars, more specifically any sort of high-density electrical storage medium.
Cars are so needed because work and family are far from home. Cars go with an undecided way of life.
dog77_1999 @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:46 pm
Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:
Rationalist Rationalist:
Personally I think using oil in our cars is probably one of the worst uses, and I eagerly await electric cars, more specifically any sort of high-density electrical storage medium.
Batteries are simple chemistry which is 100 year old science. The energy crisis of 1973 stimulated research on all sorts of possibilities and that is pretty much done. There isn't much. I believe nickel-metal hydrid won. Sulphur - chloride is a runner up but it operates at elevated temperatures. An effective battery has to material available in mountanous quantaties.
There are three ways to break down cellulose. Bacteria, fungi and industrial enzemes. The product is methane, natural gas. This may be more practical than batteries in vast quantities.
Well yes. A battery using that technology is basically done. Remember, a battery only needs to apply a steady voltage for it to be called a battery.
Benoit @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:48 pm
dog77_1999 dog77_1999:
Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:
Rationalist Rationalist:
Personally I think using oil in our cars is probably one of the worst uses, and I eagerly await electric cars, more specifically any sort of high-density electrical storage medium.
Batteries are simple chemistry which is 100 year old science. The energy crisis of 1973 stimulated research on all sorts of possibilities and that is pretty much done. There isn't much. I believe nickel-metal hydrid won. Sulphur - chloride is a runner up but it operates at elevated temperatures. An effective battery has to material available in mountanous quantaties.
There are three ways to break down cellulose. Bacteria, fungi and industrial enzemes. The product is methane, natural gas. This may be more practical than batteries in vast quantities.
Well yes. A battery using that technology is basically done. Remember, a battery only needs to apply a steady voltage for it to be called a battery.
Energy policy is not mainly about means, it is mainly about ends.
dog77_1999 @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 1:29 pm
Benoit Benoit:
dog77_1999 dog77_1999:
Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:
Rationalist Rationalist:
Personally I think using oil in our cars is probably one of the worst uses, and I eagerly await electric cars, more specifically any sort of high-density electrical storage medium.
Batteries are simple chemistry which is 100 year old science. The energy crisis of 1973 stimulated research on all sorts of possibilities and that is pretty much done. There isn't much. I believe nickel-metal hydrid won. Sulphur - chloride is a runner up but it operates at elevated temperatures. An effective battery has to material available in mountanous quantaties.
There are three ways to break down cellulose. Bacteria, fungi and industrial enzemes. The product is methane, natural gas. This may be more practical than batteries in vast quantities.
Well yes. A battery using that technology is basically done. Remember, a battery only needs to apply a steady voltage for it to be called a battery.
Energy policy is not mainly about means, it is mainly about ends.
ok....don't know why that needed to be stated, but ok.
Benoit @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 1:40 pm
dog77_1999 dog77_1999:
Benoit Benoit:
dog77_1999 dog77_1999:
Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:
Rationalist Rationalist:
Personally I think using oil in our cars is probably one of the worst uses, and I eagerly await electric cars, more specifically any sort of high-density electrical storage medium.
Batteries are simple chemistry which is 100 year old science. The energy crisis of 1973 stimulated research on all sorts of possibilities and that is pretty much done. There isn't much. I believe nickel-metal hydrid won. Sulphur - chloride is a runner up but it operates at elevated temperatures. An effective battery has to material available in mountanous quantaties.
There are three ways to break down cellulose. Bacteria, fungi and industrial enzemes. The product is methane, natural gas. This may be more practical than batteries in vast quantities.
Well yes. A battery using that technology is basically done. Remember, a battery only needs to apply a steady voltage for it to be called a battery.
Energy policy is not mainly about means, it is mainly about ends.
ok....don't know why that needed to be stated, but ok.
What should be the finality of an energy policy?