$730,000,000,000

MMDad

Lem Putt
It does make sense in some areas, but not at the level his plan was projecting. It's a cafe product in a mega-mall demand. At best, a home brewery in Ireland, if you catch my drift :lol:

Oh, I agree it is not THE solution. But it can be part of it, along with solar, nuclear, coal, oil, bio-fuels (that don't steal from the food supply), and so on.

I'd like to see us use tidal energy. Think of a million ton floating platform in an area that has big tidal action. Move that up and down 16 feet twice a day, and drive generators with that motion.
 

DEEKAYPEE8569

Well-Known Member
...per year.

That's what we're pizzing away right now on oil IN EXCESS price of a barrel. That's right, if we just assume oil is worth $50 a barrel, which is what it was ONE YEAR AGO, then we use $150, which is right around the corner, and it stays there for a year, it will dwarf what we spend on national defense. It would be the largest single item on our national tab.

Think about that. Can you imagine a federal program that goes from ZERO to $730 billion...in one year? That's a $2,400 tax on every man, woman and child in this country.

That is nearly double the largest single year budget deficit in our history. That is enough money to retire the national DEBT in about 11 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------

A good idea in theory would be for all of the U.S. to park its cars for one day; nobody drive. I don't know if it would make a notable impact or not, but it might get someone's attention.
 

MMDad

Lem Putt
----------------------------------------------------------------

A good idea in theory would be for all of the U.S. to park its cars for one day; nobody drive. I don't know if it would make a notable impact or not, but it might get someone's attention.

Symbolic gestures with no real effort are less than worthless. It does no good to park today if I'm going to drive twice as much tomorrow.

If we want to get "someone's attention" we need to drive less, car pool, use public transportation, walk, bicycle, turn the thermostat up in the summer, down in the winter, and all those inconvenient things that will actually reduce our energy consumption.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Oh, I agree it is not THE solution. But it can be part of it, along with solar, nuclear, coal, oil, bio-fuels (that don't steal from the food supply), and so on.

I'd like to see us use tidal energy. Think of a million ton floating platform in an area that has big tidal action. Move that up and down 16 feet twice a day, and drive generators with that motion.
Don't know of any research behind it, personally, but makes a lot of sense to me as one more potential alternative on the menu. :buddies:
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Lol...

I'd like to see us use tidal energy. Think of a million ton floating platform in an area that has big tidal action. Move that up and down 16 feet twice a day, and drive generators with that motion.

...well, that takes care of my laptop...

:lmao:

Think of the cost of getting that dribble of energy.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Symbolic gestures with no real effort are less than worthless. It does no good to park today if I'm going to drive twice as much tomorrow.
I strongly agree
If we want to get "someone's attention" we need to drive less, car pool, use public transportation, walk, bicycle, turn the thermostat up in the summer, down in the winter, and all those inconvenient things that will actually reduce our energy consumption.
Yes, the attention this would garner is our own. We would be inconveniencing ourselves for someone else.

The real way to get "someone ELSE'S attention" is to drill for the oil and other supplies we can use from our own shores, develop internally our own alternatives, and continue to live how WE choose to live without THEIR product.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Oh...

Symbolic gestures with no real effort are less than worthless. It does no good to park today if I'm going to drive twice as much tomorrow.

...you mean like giving the peasants $150 billion to 'stimulate' them while taking $730 billion from us due to poor policies and leadership?
 

MMDad

Lem Putt
...well, that takes care of my laptop...

:lmao:

Think of the cost of getting that dribble of energy.

Your laptop runs on hundreds of megawatts?

There are other ways to harness the tides. The floating platform would be good at the community level. It would take other methods to power regions.

The startup expenses are large, but after that the energy is free except for maintenance. Kind of like a nuke plant, except that there is no waste to dispose of.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
So...

Your laptop runs on hundreds of megawatts?

There are other ways to harness the tides. The floating platform would be good at the community level. It would take other methods to power regions.

The startup expenses are large, but after that the energy is free except for maintenance. Kind of like a nuke plant, except that there is no waste to dispose of.

...you're platform is going to generate hundreds of millions of watts, eh? Pure hour? Per day?

I'm listening.
 

MMDad

Lem Putt
...you're platform is going to generate hundreds of millions of watts, eh? Pure hour? Per day?

I'm listening.

My example would only be good for about one MWh, but the larger scale facilities currently in use (France, for example) run at about 250 MW.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Well...

My example would only be good for about one MWh, but the larger scale facilities currently in use (France, for example) run at about 250 MW.

...that's fairly significant. Any idea what it costs in terms of generators and other infrastructure? I mean, as long as the stuff is robust and will give decades of reliable service, then, at some point, a rather expensive investment in equipment is worth the free juice.

Of course, we need to address how bad AlGore's rising tide will affect performance...
 

MMDad

Lem Putt
...that's fairly significant. Any idea what it costs in terms of generators and other infrastructure? I mean, as long as the stuff is robust and will give decades of reliable service, then, at some point, a rather expensive investment in equipment is worth the free juice.

Of course, we need to address how bad AlGore's rising tide will affect performance...

It's expensive up front. Not sure just how bad, though. The French found that nuclear was far more cost effective. They only built one tidal plant, but had planned many more, until their nuke industry took over.

If the tree huggers won't let us build nukes, tidal could be one part of the solution.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
If...

It's expensive up front. Not sure just how bad, though. The French found that nuclear was far more cost effective. They only built one tidal plant, but had planned many more, until their nuke industry took over.

If the tree huggers won't let us build nukes, tidal could be one part of the solution.

...we can put a reactor underwater with 100 sailors, we can put them all over the place.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
...we can put a reactor underwater with 100 sailors, we can put them all over the place.
Different rules, different rule-makers.

But, I had heard talk of building very, very small version (under 5 MW) "barges", to be moved from place to place in more remote regions (Alaska, areas devistated by natural disaster, etc.) as portable generators. Kind of a cool idea.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I've always been interested in the fact that Norway more or less supports itself on offshore oil and gas - and that at some level, the government owns it.

What would happen if the government got into the oil business? I mean, in terms of actually doing the drilling and so forth? Right now it seems there's little incentive for oil companies to drill like crazy if they can rake in the bucks on what is coming in now.
 

MMDad

Lem Putt
I've always been interested in the fact that Norway more or less supports itself on offshore oil and gas - and that at some level, the government owns it.

What would happen if the government got into the oil business? I mean, in terms of actually doing the drilling and so forth? Right now it seems there's little incentive for oil companies to drill like crazy if they can rake in the bucks on what is coming in now.

Our government does own oil production other than private property. The oil companies buy leases from the government.

I have yet to see a program that is more efficient when run by the Fed. Can you name one? Why would you think they'd be more efficient than a free market?
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Our government does own oil production other than private property. The oil companies buy leases from the government.

I have yet to see a program that is more efficient when run by the Fed. Can you name one? Why would you think they'd be more efficient than a free market?

I didn't even suggest efficiency. There's just no incentive for an oil company to lower prices or drill for more oil when they're making money just doing the same thing. They're doing exactly what corporations are supposed to do, and what their shareholders are paying them to do - make money. The only problem is, they make money managing a resource that the rest of us depend on.

If they managed something like electricity or water but drew in record profits during a drought or brown-outs, there'd be no economic incentive to get more water or build more power plants. That would be stupid - it would be sinking money and driving down prices. As I said, it's in their interest to make a profit, and if people were doing without water or electricity, but they were still making a huge profit, why on earth would they invest in competing technologies?

I'm not faulting oil corporations. They do what everyone else does. It's just that our livelihood depends on them. But try to imagine what life would be like if all of our doctors and medical folks formed a corporation and priced services way above our heads - and we paid them anyway, because we wanted to continue living. The only way to get them back to earth would be to have competition - someone willing to undercut their prices drastically to force them to keep prices where people could afford them. A government owned competitor would make that possible.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I didn't even suggest efficiency. There's just no incentive for an oil company to lower prices or drill for more oil when they're making money just doing the same thing. They're doing exactly what corporations are supposed to do, and what their shareholders are paying them to do - make money. The only problem is, they make money managing a resource that the rest of us depend on.

If they managed something like electricity or water but drew in record profits during a drought or brown-outs, there'd be no economic incentive to get more water or build more power plants. That would be stupid - it would be sinking money and driving down prices. As I said, it's in their interest to make a profit, and if people were doing without water or electricity, but they were still making a huge profit, why on earth would they invest in competing technologies?

I'm not faulting oil corporations. They do what everyone else does. It's just that our livelihood depends on them. But try to imagine what life would be like if all of our doctors and medical folks formed a corporation and priced services way above our heads - and we paid them anyway, because we wanted to continue living. The only way to get them back to earth would be to have competition - someone willing to undercut their prices drastically to force them to keep prices where people could afford them. A government owned competitor would make that possible.
A viable alternative would make that possible, too.
 
Top