When I gassed up this week, I got angry!

I didn't prove anything about your argument. No matter how you cut it nuclear energy is a far more dangerous proposition than you think. Those old coal and oil fired furnaces could be far cleaner that they are if the EPA would just implement the regulations already in place as opposed to grandfathering in clauses to keep them dirty so bush minor's backers can still make money without worrying about the impact of their pollutions.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint.

If you are worried about radiation exposure, keep in mind that spent nuclear fuel gives off far less radiation than bananas, the sun (even if the ozone layer is intact), stars, and the computer screen you are reading these words on.

Well, with that little bit o information, you lost all credibility with me.

Check this out by the NRC/CRS [Nuclear Regulatory Commission]

www.cnie.org...

But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a well established ideology.



[edit on 29-5-2007 by whaaa]

Coal will always be dirtier than nuclear power. In order to understand this, you need to learn a little chemistry. Assuming all the contaminants in coal like sulfur can be eliminated somewhere in the process, burning coal cleanly will still give off carbon dioxide gas. You can can trap carbon dioxide in scrubbers which use sodium hydroxide, but you make the sodium hydroxide to trap the carbon dioxide. One way sodium hydroxide can be made is by the electrolysis of sea water, but the amount of energy needed to make sodium hydroxide in order to trap carbon dioxide makes the process of burning coal to create a net yield of energy pointless.

You should read that report more critically. The report says that there are risks of nuclear waste "leaking" while being transported, but says nothing of the actual dangers that could result if the nuclear wastes do "leak." It is common sense to concede that if you transport anything, whether it be gasoline, ice cream, or nuclear waste, there is always a risk that some of it may "leak." Also, the report mentions exposure levels without providing any sort of reference to tell you what the exposure means. If I told you eating cinamon would raise your cholesterol 15,000 jimmy jams at first blush you would think cinamon is dangerous, unless your were told eating a celery stick would raise your cholesterol 20,000 jimmy jams and eating a hamburger would raise your cholesterol 1,000,000 jimmy jams.

We live in a world where industrial processes occurr. These processes often use chemicals and materials which could be hazardous. For example, the semiconductor uses HF and phosphene, two highly dangerous materials. If I had to chose between nuclear waste or phosphene being turned loose in my neighborhood I would opt for nuclear waste as trace amounts of phosphene can kill instantly. Yet Intel and AMD are allowed to build plants near residential areas where large amounts of phosphene and HF are used, yet we look down on nuclear power. Nobody blinks when the pharmaceutical lab in their town orders several liters of methylene chloride, a rabidly carcinogenic compound.

I am not saying we should shut down all industries that use dangerous materials like semiconductors and pharmaceuticals in addition to shutting down nuclear fuel. I am saying that the risks associated with nuclear fuel should be treated fairly and weighed with the risks associated with other activities like coal burning plants, driving automobiles, making microchips, and developing pharmaceuticals.

Originally posted by Nicorette
Almost all gas stations -- even it they have a Shell or Arco or Exxon logo -- is just a franchisee. They make a few cents on the gallon selling fuel. That's why it is almost always self-serve, the clerk sits inside behind the donuts, cigarettes, and coffee machines. They eke out an existence as a convenience store. Those ads you are crying about help keep them open and hire people in your neighborhood.

Still following...

So when people fill up their cars and then drive off without paying, they are not "screwing the evil wealthy oil companies," they are committing petty theft against a local businessman.

Obviously.

More to the point, as previously pointed out, the price of gasoline in the US is in large part state and federal taxes, and in the EU the majority of the price is taxes.

Just shows you how cheap gasoline really is! So many taking a cut yet the consumer can still afford it...

You really think gasoline is expensive at $3.00 a gallon?

No i do not and i know it could be far far cheaper.

How much do you pay for a gallon of milk? Milk comes out of a cow, in a farm near you.

We may very well be able to do without milk but our current rulers are not giving us much of a option when it comes to oil...

Sure, there is some distribution and factory farming, but by and large it's a local product without a lot of technical sophistication.

All based on massive volumes of oil and i think if you check closely you will find there is far more oil in milk than there is milk!

Oil is pumped out of the deserts of Saudi Arabia or out of a hole in the ground thousands of feet below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, at great risk and technological expense.

Actually i think i can argue that dairy farmers runs greater risks opinion and that their return on investment are far smaller!

It is then shipped halfway around the world, refined into gasoline and other fuelds, distributed in a nationwide system of tanker trucks and fuel stations, and delivered to our off-road trucks so you can drive five miles to buy a carton of milk.

And yet their profits are massively rising...

Expensive? I think gasonline is cheap. It's too cheap. It should be $10 a gallon. Twenty.

I know some people don't like progress but unlike you i am not one of those.

The absurd and ridiculous cheapness of gasonline has contributed to this whole ignoble project of suburban sprawl which in turn leads to even more gasoline and car dependency, until it has become ingrained in the American's head that cheap gasonline is our bloody birthright.

Cheap energy is a birthright as we ( some parts of humanity at least) have known how to extract it in any quantity since the late nineteenth century.

So woe betide any politicians, "greedy" oil companies, or "dirty" terrorists who get in the way of the Imperial globalization project to deliver gasoline that's cheaper to milk to the Americans waddling down to their F150s and driving bumper to bumper to Wal-Mart, complaining and moaning the whole way about how expensive it is.

People demand cheap energy and once again i governments know how to give it to us but would rather manipulate the flow to ensure that we do not get the power to what we really want to.

You want to complain about the petroleum based global economy and the military being used as a global oil protection force?

The US military is being used to restrict the flow of oil where ever they think they can get away with it. People complain about the petroleum economy because they know it's not a good thing but rightly decide that they are not going to give up what they acquired based on the failure of the government to solve the problems it has been tasked with.

By all means. But make sure you know what you're complaining about.

I know but i think you are missing the point when you blame the victims ( even if they are the victims that are doing best under the current system) for the crimes of those who make the big decisions.

These topics are far more complicated and nuanced than the easy answers spouted by politicians, media pundits, radio demagogues, and griping consumers.

www.theoildrum.com...
www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net...
www.energybulletin.com...

I agree and don't have much time for those who are attempting to sell us on the idea that we are 'running out' of oil.

At 2003 consumption levels [2], the remaining reserves represent 44.6 years of oil and 66.2 years of natural gas. Does this mean that the world will be out of fossil fuels in 50 years or so? That theory has been around since the 1970s. In fact, the figures for years of remaining reserves have remained relative constant over the past few decades as the industry has replaced consumption with newly discovered oil and gas deposits and has developed technologies to increase the amount of oil and gas that can be recovered from existing reservoirs.

No one can know for certain how much oil and gas remains to be discovered. But geologists sometimes make educated guesses. For example, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducts periodic assessments of U.S. mineral resources. In its most recent assessment (1995), the USGS estimated that the onshore U.S., including Alaska, has undiscovered, technically recoverable resources of 112.3 billion barrels of oil and 1,074 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. In a separate assessment of offshore resources completed in 2000, the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) estimated that 75 billion barrels of oil and 362 trillion cubic feet of natural gas underlie the areas off the coasts of the U.S. The USGS and MMS resource assessments make clear that, despite being a very mature producing area, substantial resources still exist in the U.S.

World oil resources to 2025 may be more than two times current reserves, based on an estimate from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) using USGS data. Reserve growth of 730 billion barrels accounts for new discoveries and the expansion of what can be recovered from known reservoirs due to advances in technology and improvements in economics. But EIA estimates that in 2025, countries around the globe will still have more than 900 billion barrels of oil remaining to be discovered. EIA estimates total world oil resources at more than 2.9 trillion barrels of oil.

How much oil and natural gas i left?

"In 1947, proven oil reserves were 68 billion barrels. Between 1947 and 1968, 783 billion barrels were used —and proven reserves in 1998 stood at 1,000 billion (1 trillion) barrels.

"In 1966, world reserves of natural gas were 1 quadrillion cubic feet. Between 1966 and 1998, we used 2 quadrillion cubic feet — and reserves in 1998 stood at 5 quadrillion cubic feet.

"In 1949, world coal reserves were 256 billion short tons. Between 1949 and 1998, we used 168 billion short tons — and coal reserves stood at 1,000 billion (1 trillion) short tons."

www.oism.org...

WASHINGTON, DC, June 21 -- BP PLC tried recently to quell renewed concerns by some industry observers that world oil reserves are running out sooner than expected.

"2003 was a turbulent year in the world's energy markets, with supply disruptions, strong growth in both demand and production of oil and coal, and the highest prices in the oil and gas markets for 20 years," said BP Chief Economist Peter Davies.

However, he said, "The high prices were not driven by fundamental resource shortages: In 2003, the world's reserves of oil and natural gas continued their long term trend of growing faster than production."

BP: World oil and gas reserves still growing at healthy pace

And i can go on for a quite a while if you wish to defend the belief that there is some truth to the peak oil propaganda.

Stellar

Anyone else assume Timeless Test is a Corporate member of Big Oil? Never seen anyone defend to the death the unknown charity of the almost bankrupt oil companies! According to him, how dare we travel back and forth foolishly to work or to doctors? The oil companies are barely scraping by giving us deep discounts! HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Please tell me I am not the only one who thinks thats a load of BS.

The oil industry as a whole consists of many different types of people who engage in different stages of the marketing and production of fuel like oil drillers, refiners, and people who own gas stations to name a few. While it is conceivable that some of these people, like the people that own gas stations, may be struggling, it is inconceivable that the oil industry as a whole is struggling at this time. The oil industry is posting record profits. Industries that post record profits cannot be struggling.