Millions saw the apple fall, but Newton asked why.
A good workman is known by his tools.
Originally posted by Mandar Khire:
As nuclear deal between India(the most populous democracy in the world) & USA(has the world's largest national economy) is in full swing in both countries & many countries involve in that. At same time crude oil price goes down. Many people says by increase of usage of non conventional energy this happen.
What java rancher think about this? If we thinking about global warming due to pollution of conventional energy, then we should not forget nuclear energy also create pollution( i think so).
[ August 05, 2008: Message edited by: Mandar Khire ]
My blood is tested +ve for Java.
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
Little changed, fundamentally, after the oil shocks of the 1970s. There were few good alternate sources of fuel, and the oil companies drilled for more oil until the price dropped.
Same thing. (It's sort of like the shortage of software professionals ...)Originally posted by Pat Farrell:
Even today, there is no shortage of oil. There is a shortage of cheap oil.
...
Once we get to the point that we can replace oil with solar/wind/tidal/algae, further technical developments spurred by competition might bring energy prices down the equivalent of $20/bbl oil. But that won't happen until we gain significant experience with large-scale use of those technologies.I predict that the prices will go down some, but they are never going to be $20/bbl again. ... So its time to get used to expensive energy (which is good for the environment) and get the smart scientists and engineers to find some alternatives. They will not be cheap, but they may be a lot better for the world.
Originally posted by Jules Bach:
Renewables is the only solution!
I want to be like marc
Originally posted by Arvind Birla:
I think it's also has to do with what time of year it is. Oil is used extensively to heat homes the world over
Originally posted by Ulf Dittmer:
What are you talking about, man? It's 90F/32C outside, nobody in their right mind is heating their homes. There must be a different explanation.
I want to be like marc
What is the comparison between the fossil fuel needed to build a nuclear plant versus the fossil fuel needed to build a coal plant? Why can't nuclear-generated energy be used to refine nuclear fuel? What about the regeneration of nuclear fuel from nuclear waste via the "breeder reactor"?Originally posted by Jules Bach:
to someone who posted above...Nuclear Energy is not the solution..
If the world replaced all coal fired plants with fission energy plants, we have enough uranium for about 12 years (of course..a simplistic argument can be made that it's a short term solution for developed countries...its long term nightmare for the next generation however)
Furthermore..uranium has to be refined before it can be used as a fuel. the whole refinement requires the use of fossil fuels.....building Nuclear power plants (they are quite tricky to build) also requires a significant amount of fossil fuels.
Some estimates put the C02 emissions per unit of energy from fission as about 2/3 that from a coal fired plants. Hardly a silver bullet...and the waste...ohh that's nasty stuff
What is the comparison between the fossil fuel needed to build a nuclear plant versus the fossil fuel needed to build a coal plant? Why can't nuclear-generated energy be used to refine nuclear fuel? What about the regeneration of nuclear fuel from nuclear waste via the "breeder reactor"?
Also, nuclear technology can be used to solve the overpopulation problem. Chernobel(sp?) was once a dirty industrial area; now it's a wildlife park! (We could use nuclear waste to save the Brazilian Rain Forest from development.)
Originally posted by Jules Bach:
you must be kidding!
Chernobyl
Originally posted by Pat Farrell:
However, the US politicians are looking for votes, and thus want to lower the price of gas/petrol quickly. I predict that the prices will go down some, but they are never going to be $20/bbl again. Unless China and India stop their population growth, and their economic growth.
Nothing is impossible; for those who doesnt have to do it themselves.
myjotting.blogspot.com
Originally posted by Nitin Nigam:
India and China are biggest in terms of population but they are way behind US when it comes to oil consumption.
I disagree. Cattle use up so many natural resources (land, water) as it is. They would use far more resources if we let those animals live out their natural lifespan, and to breed freely without culling their population growth. We save a lot more food by killing and eating them than by, say, using their bodies as fertilizer after their natural deaths.Originally posted by Jules Bach:
Overpopulation problem? Simple things like giving up meat might make the burden of 6 billion people easier to cope with.
It would serve them right -- those people who slash and burn for short-term profits.
Dumping nuclear waster in the rain forest...to save the rainforest?! you must be kidding!
That doesn't sound plausible. I cannot imagine an ecosystem containing migratory animals only. What is more likely is that wild animals are likely to die of disease or predation long before they have a chance to get cancer. In any case, most animals have far more offspring than there is room for, on the grounds that most of them will be eaten by other animals before maturity. So if 25% of the young get cancer, those are simply the ones that will get eaten first.
Chernobyl can be tolerated by migratory animals only (because they leave the area quickly)..
Well, we have to keep humans out of the Rain Forest. Except for the stone age Indians, of course. But what I said about the wild animals near Chernobyl also applies to the death rate among paleolithic peoples.
Ukraine still has the highest rate of thyroid cancer in the world despite it being very rare everywhere else...
Originally posted by Nitin Nigam:
Well i am offended by this remark.
Originally posted by Pat Farrell:
No offense was intended. I think that China and India will greatly increase their energy use as they advance to use as much energy per person as the US. That will put enormous pressure on world energy supplies.
The US can not plan to keep using five to ten times then energy per person as the rest of the world.
[ August 12, 2008: Message edited by: Pat Farrell ]
Nothing is impossible; for those who doesnt have to do it themselves.
myjotting.blogspot.com
My point was that, developing nations need energy to join the category of developed nations. And to meet that extra demand, if country like US can reduce even 2-3% of their demand (by adopting efficient ways of using energy) a 10% increased demand by developing countries like India and China can be accommodated.
Originally posted by Ulf Dittmer:
It's not as simple as that. According to the article you posted, China and India consume the 2nd and 6th largest amount of oil, respectively, despite having only the 4th and 10th largest economy in terms of GDP. So, relatively speaking, oil consumption in these two countries is already ahead of their economic development.
Helping hands are much better than the praying lips
Originally posted by Ulf Dittmer:
While this may be helpful for India, it's a bad day for nuclear non-proliferation, and thus for international security in general. Where's the incentive for countries like North Korea or Iran now to comply with the NPT?
Also, US Congress still needs to approve the deal, and whether or not it will do that is doubtful.
Nuclear non proliferation does not exist, we all know it, we just do not accept it.
Where's the incentive for countries like North Korea or Iran now to comply with the NPT?
Helping hands are much better than the praying lips
Despite of China
Lots of thanks to USA [jumpingjoy]
Helping hands are much better than the praying lips
Originally posted by Ulf Dittmer:
Who is "we"? Please speak for yourself, or make it clear who you mean.
Originally posted by Pat Farrell:
I'm not Devesh H Rao, so I can not say exactly what is meant.
But nuclear non-proliferation has been a joke for decades. Its theater. The Israeli, Indians, Pakistani and North Koreans proliferated.
We means what it is intented to mean, in this context anyone reading this thread.
political discussions are not allowed in JR
No offence meant to you Ulf, but we can agree to disagree
Originally posted by Ulf Dittmer:
I suspected that's what you meant, but that's a rather presumptuous thing to do. As regards this thread, it's also patently false.
[ September 08, 2008: Message edited by: Ulf Dittmer ]
Originally posted by Devesh H Rao:
What you see as proliferation, I see as partnerships of convenience(incorrect on ethical basis but still practical in the given context)
My blood is tested +ve for Java.