It's Coming

With the levels of CO2 in the world, nuclear is inevitable. The oil sands project is the largest greehouse gas emmitter in Canada. A nuke plant would remove that and then the gas could be sold for better uses such as home heating. The supply would also cause prices to fall.

Don't think for any second that the tar sands fields will be shut down. They won't be and it is full steam ahead on enlarging the scale on a vast manner. It is just too valuable and the oil companies will milk the old oil tech as long as they possibly can.

A nuke plant would make the place slighty less destructive. Let's not forget that the technology for emission free transportation is well developed. It just isn't coming to market.

That would cost the oil companies money and with Bush as president, that ain't gonna happen. GM is still bolting land yachts together at a high rate and making tons of money on each one, too. They aren't going to make much off an electric!

GM

Have you checked out GM's most recent yearly financial statements?

I think you'd better.

nuke the tar sand operations

The tar sand projects need power to do what they need to do. Nuclear power is easiest and the left over nuclear matter is only an ICBM away from being shot into the sun. There heat and it's own radiation will take care of those dirty spent rods.
Shoot them toward the sun and let the big blast furnace do the rest.

It's a good idea.

If done properly.

Based on this article that RickW referenced it only makes sense.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7046

No nukes for oil

Because storage dams aren't an unalloyed blessing, using nuclear energy to get more gas out of the tar sands goo is a good idea! Surely not. Without even mentioning the amount of H20 involved in the petroleum recovery process, I think that’s an incredibly narrow viewpoint.

Maybe Albertans like Stockboy Day think it’s a good idea but I’d suggest this is one idea of Dion’s (no nukes for oil) that he’s not going to have much trouble selling in the rest of Canada.

Why not just use the nukes to generate the electricity itself and leave the tar sands in the ground. The problem is CO2 production of all kinds; surely continuing our reliance on the internal combustion engine is the real problem here.

Quote:Like Offshore

Probably not!
The exploration firms will tell you that everything is OK, but remember they have money at stake!
Why are we so busy trying to get everything out of the ground as fast as possible?
OPEC does its best to only draw enough oil to keep the market hungry and the prices up, Maybe we should learn a lesson there?
Would it hurt if there was something of value left in the ground for the next generation(s)?

The oil is going to get extracted anyhow.

Why not do it right?

Why not do both? Makes more sense than telling the tides to stop coming in like King Knute's sycophants suggested he could do.

Oil for gold

The price of a litre of gas in Ontario today was 69 cents per litre, yet the wholesale price has dropped 30%, and yet hasn't been reflected in the lower mainland.
Yet, we get BC Hydro @ about 6 cents a KWH, which is far lower than Ontario.
The price of energy is very fluid, because it has to be.
Who really knows where they stand as an energy producer?
It's always been a policy of and old or new Govt. to give a break to the oil industry, because they have been the industry subsidised and trusted by Govt.
The Govt. has sold out to the oilmen. They had to. They were the only guy's to have a plan of some kind.
None of our liberal Canadian Govt. have ever been on the job in the energy field.
There is Lot's of oil, because of this Govt. interest.
Govt. has never had any incentive to do anything else.
We elected all of these Govt.
We are our own worst enemies.
We cannot be lazy here and not negotiate a way out of this. We need to embrace nuclear energy. We need a salesman.

snert

Simply because we can't afford to continue the way we have - we need to get off the addiction to oil - soon. 10 - 12 years from now it'll be too late.

That's the way to do it right. The sycophants are the ones who say oil is the only way.

G West

You're in denial. It's a matter of use it or lose it. Guaranteed if we don't do it right we will lose the resource. Just crunch the numbers. Three billion Asians don't even have to be addicted to oil make sure of that. Let me know the next time you go to the beach. I want to watch you hold back the tide.

If not mistaken , if we go

If not mistaken , if we go nuclear to exploit the Tar Sands potential, they will very likely be using a CANDU type technology based in Canada,,...errr EASTERN CANADA.

One doesn't hear much about Nuclear Power in Canada ...perhaps this may be the latest POLITICAL move to support an Eastern Industry (ala Bombardier and Skytrain/RAV/Canada Line).

The potential tie -in of (i) EASTERN CANADA based " Hi - tech " energy technology and jobs being used to exploit (ii) a WESTERN -based " raw " energy resource is rather ironic, doncha think?

Canadian Nuclear Industry stats

FYI

There are 18 Nuclear Power reactors in Canada ( and 2 undergoing refurbishment ).

-16 are in Ontario
-1 in Quebec
-1 in New Brunswick

Link:

http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionB.htm#b2

Nuclear power apparently contributes 14% of Canada's total electricity supply...

Nuclear power provides 48% of Ontario's electricity supply (1997 stats).

maestro

Can we say petty.

USE it or Lose it

So now the Tar Sands are going to vanish if we don't convert bitumen into oil. I think if you check your facts you'll find that production costs for tar sands oil are about double that of, say North Sea Oil, while Middle East Oil is even cheaper.

And that's not factoring in the environmental cost - which we clearly haven't been paying.

Oil is the problem, not the solution. Period.

What we're going to lose is a livelable planet, sadly.
If you'd ever been to rural China you might understand.

Snert

Snert...not sure your point...re "petty".

...but suffice it to say the coincidence that Canadian Nuclear Industry for all intents and purposes is an EASTERN Canadian Industry.

The potential political tie in is something one should always consider... in the BIGGER scheme of things vs altruism,economic viability etc.

FTR: Nuclear may be the way to go...funny how CANDU etc. has slid off the radar screen .

In the Hydrogen fuel cell debate,..Hydrogen is tough to source...my understanding is methane "CH4" ironically a fossil fuel, is proposed to be the main source of H2..but producing it may be too expensive...Nuclear power , again ironically may be the best/most viable power source needed to make Hydrogen fuel cells viable.

solar pollution

Anybody figured out how much energy it takes to shoot a ton of spent fuel rods into the Sun? We got where we are by High Grading the resources and ignoring the costs of extraction, cleanup(?), and pollution.
This would anger the Gods: Now that we have Gaia on the warpath we propose to irritate Ra.

China

Not just China but all Asia, SE Asia, the Indian subcontinent etc. Oil consumption by the rest of the planet is going to skyrocket.

Further, I'm not sure what "rural" China has to do with the argument. Some cities haven't seen blue sky for years.

maestro

I fail to see how the fact that Canada's nuclear industry is centered in Ontario has anything to do with whether nuclear power should be used in Alberta other than we have a Canadian sorce for the technology.

Hmmm.

Doggone:

I am sure we have all heard the theories of rockets filled with toxic waste(including Nuclear fuel )sent to the Sun as a safe means of disposal.

However , The NDP has established a " sun hugger " protest there...the Sun is a natural entity, don't "F" with it , yada yada.

" Smile Svend ".

PS I hear Harper is more than willing to send Layton there, spare no expense. Return ticket is only good for one week.

N/C

Trying to hold the tide back

Trying to hold the tide back could produce a lot of energy. About four years ago I attended a presentation by the head of a company called Blue Energy. He had developed a turbine that turned tidal power into electricity. Clean, endlessly renewable power. http://www.bluenergy.com/index.html

He said "I've been beating my head against the wall for eleven years now. I don't understand it." I immediately thought "haven't you ever heard of big oil?" As in the movie Who Killed the Electric Car? the elite squash any threat to their interests. If only we good, intelligent people could have our way, things would be different.

ENVIRO NUTS

G West it is very apparent that you have seen and have been to most parts of the world.
The following is a quote from your thread,{Oil is the problem, not the solution. Period.}
Your not alone in opinions on oil being the great sin of the world , all the enviro nuts are of the same mind set, and like you they too have seen most of the world. Now comes the confusing part . How is it you privileged oil haters were fortunate enough to have seen our world? Did all you people walk , ride a bicycle, sail, ride a donkey, around the world. No, you all flew on planes , planes that require fuel which comes from oil. Talk about being hypocrites . e.g. here is Jack Layton flying all the country yapping off about the pit falls of oil, green houses gases, pollution ,so and so forth , when the plane he just removed his ass from has just burnt 25000 gallons (112500 liters) of kerosene. No need to tell me Garf that other politicians are flying to, the difference being this guy Layton yaps about sh!t he knows nothing about. When was your last ride on the Big fuel burner Garf, 6 weeks, 6 months ago, what about the future next 6 weeks ,or 6 months

woody

If you want to test my bona fides on international air travel I suggest you look for an exchange I had with realisticman a few weeks ago on another of these threads.

Haven't been on a big oil burner for more than a year dude. As a matter of fact it was me who posted links on this site to George Monbiot.
http://monbiot.com/

You might want to read his essay from Dec 19, 2006, among others.

Waste

Simple. Launch nuclear waste into space! Don't think they haven't already run the numbers on that. The numbers don't look good. One in every 30 or 40 launches explodes in the atmosphere. Anybody like to guess what the "fallout" might be from an ICBM laden with a few hundred pounds of the most toxic substance we produce, floating down from the sky? Nuclear waste is a real problem with no known solution. We may have already doomed the planet with what we have already created. We all know that it's not just mustard gas that was dumped into the oceans. Considering the state of fisheries and unexplained beachings all over the world maybe the fish are saying, "everyone out of the pool!"

well said, clubofrome

When it comes to handing out cabinet posts I'm torn between minister of energy and minister of defence.

I think minister of defence looks promising, with a little luck there won't be any Canadian armed forces left to worry about.

Re: Nuclear waste

Clubofrome is correct...

That would be a major concern...

Negative possibilities of a rocket full of nuclear waste veering off course ...or exploding on launch....or perhaps stuck in earth's orbit, etc.etc. ...that would/could get pretty messy.
Maybe even start a war.

The cost , even if it was literally foolproof(famous last words !), would be in the Millions if not Billions of $$$'s .

ALSO The Sun is 146 Million KM from Earth...(maybe use a Solar -Powered Rocket Ship ?).

Contract out

I'm sure the US could hire Halliburton to do it for say... half a trillion...

snert: Again the point is

snert:

Again the point is Nuclear Energy has been taboo for years, 3 Mile Island , the movie " The China Syndrome " ,yada yada. I think BC even has a moratorium on exploring for uranium etc.

Put it this way : "a-politcally" speaking, the Nuclear power technology may have advanced so much since 3- Mile Island that old fears are bogus...its much safer and far more reliable???. I think CANDU is world -renowned technology, yet one rarely hears of it these days . Proabbly due to the "Luke- warm " Cold War.

If the technology can be shown ,( given all the facts and figures and risk assessments etc. etc.) that Nuclear power is a very viable option to other energy sources, perhaps the time has come to re-assess it.

However, will the ENVIROS come out and protest? What is their argument in light of say fossil fuel,greenhouse gases, Kyoto, etc. They can't have it both ways.

However,..Politically speaking...the FACT it is a technology rooted in Eastern Canada adds a bit of made in Canada political intrigue in the overall decision making process...ie the jobs created or maintained in EASTERN Canada towards the construction of a Nuclear facility (to create electricity) in WESTERN Canada to thus reduce the environmental impact of producing fossil fuels from tar sand .

Wouldn't this roll over into Kyoto's "credits" -based system of enviro brownie points?

The overall concept is actually quite intriguing.

US Demands 5-Fold Rise in Oil Sands Exports

From a Globe article today:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/17/oil-sands.html
"The U.S. wants Canada to dramatically expand its oil exports from the Alberta oilsands, a move that could have major implications on the environment.

U.S.and Canadian oil executives and government officials met for a two-day oil summit in Houston in January 2006 and made plans for a "fivefold expansion" in oilsands production in a relatively "short time span," according to minutes of the meeting obtained by the CBC's French-language network, Radio-Canada
The meeting was organized by Natural Resources Canada and the U.S. Department of Energy."
------------------------------------
How will our PM Steve "Bush Lite" Harpo,
respond to such a demand, I wonder?
He's got his Alberta and Big Oil friends counting on him to "do the right thing" for them. And he's got his Bush admin. friends and the US gov't in general he's keen on currying favour with.

Even if it means selling out Canada (and the world) on our environmental obligations,I predict Harpo's pals will be well served by him in his actions/non-actions. Meanwhile, he'll attempt to hoodwink Canadian voters by making a lot of soothing noises about his newfound environmental conscience.

Until after the election, he'll paint himself as a born-again greenie who's seen the light. He'll try to hide
his turd-brown self under layers of green
feel good sounding spin, soundbites, and false promises that he has no intention of keeping.

Hmm.

clubofrome:

Re: Halliburton

Well maybe, .....but I think the cost can also be reduced B-I-G time if you get STAR TREK's "Trekkie" Fans to pay to have their ashes on board at the same time.

Maybe call Leonard Nimoy or Bill Shatner to endorse it...

Hey Maestro!

You seem inquisitive and curious and perhaps even a young man with a head on his shoulders... so why would you want to re-assess nuclear before exploring every other possible solution that doesn't tax us with more problems? We don't know the consequences of this waste but we certainly could endorse renewable sources long before nuclear was even a last resort. Shirley, you must be for a cleaner product for your childrens future?

It's all about T-A-X-E-S

clubofrome:

I mentioned this in another recent TYEE topic...

Gov'ts have projections of revenue streams, they heavily TAX such evils as Cigarettes, Booze...and yes various Fossil Fuels.

I'd bet they are the ones that have "THE" BEST handle on future reserves. Fossil Fuels are a quasi-Public Property and only accessible with major investment, generally involving Private Corporations.

I keep a bit of a peripheral eye on the " Gov't passion " for new technology.

IF and WHEN Gov't wants to seriously invest in new energy options is a sign to divest oneself of Oil Co. stocks ie the tap will begin to run dry. Gov'ts are stupid ,...but not THAT stupid.... and thus wish to avoid major revolutions.

Solar Power ?... its not so much a monopolistic Private Sector in fear of competition...in my view its more the GOV'T Tax Grab.

Tidal power ?...or wind power? ...same thing...again its the TAX grab...how do you TAX it at source/raw material ?

OK .....let's harness solar, wind , tidal energy, etc... but where is the Mega Uni- National Corporation called GOV'T going to make up the TAX REVENUE $$$$ shortfall ? Could get interesting.

(PS Maybe rent " Soylent Green ".)

Maestro's comment about

Maestro's comment about taxes points to the government's perennial excuses for inaction: where are you going to get the money, we don't have the resources, we have to be fiscally responsible... ad nauseum. It also points to our near total indoctrination about money. So we, the people, never seem to scrutinise those excuses. Are they valid? Is there really a shortage of money? This failure to investigate produces maestro's question:

Finance is dead simple. Money is just a number, a number printed either on a computer screen (95% of the money supply) or on an intricately decorated piece of paper (5%). There is no excuse. A truly democratic government would use publicly produced money to fund any socially accepted project, i.e. to fund anything we say should be funded; like excellent health care, like excellent infrastructure, like homes, food, a clean environment. Anything.

Scrutinise money. It's the most important thing you can do. It'll raise your awareness and contribute greatly to your personal growth. Look at me, I used to be 5'6", now I'm 6'3".

air lines dumping on us

G West , read that good story you mentioned.
clubofrome your very close to the truth, when you stated,

Again I blame the air traffic industry, not only do they foul our air with their burning of so much fuel ( not mentioning the dumping of fuel ) , but additionally our water and our land ,by applying “ethylene glycol” de icing on to the planes . Here is a little info I picked up

So in the mean time, the save our world movement jet setters ,fly off to yet another city to extol their virtues while they chastise joe six pack for using a gas burning lawn mower. Knowing full well, while in their secure, high speed ,fuel burning, glycol soaked aluminum cocoon , their soiling all of us on the ground below.
Last summer a fella I see around once in awhile was outside a local store with a bicycle, he went onto tell me he was using the bike to commute to work(4kms per day), better for his health and the environment, he stated , I commented as to the sleekness of his bike, I could see it wasn’t a $125.oo Walmart bike,He effortlessly picked up his bike with one hand and handed it to me, it felt like it may have weighed a couple of pounds if that, I questioned him as to what material it was made from, I can’t recall now, but what ever it was that he said, it sounded like it was a composite material, alloy- mag -aluminum- maybe even pubic hair, who knows, what all. So here is this guy who going to save our planet with his 4 km a day bike commute. His intentions were honorable until he bought that space aged bike. Needless to say a $125.oo walmart bike would have sufficed. How deep into the bowels of the earth did man have to reach in order to accumulate all these exotic metals and materials, then there is the energy to smelt ,boil, cook, or what ever they have to do to achieve this end product. If he rode it every day, until he is 100 years old, it still will not have justfid its self for what ever bit of gasoline that it may have saved. Then there is the disposing of this space age bike how long will it lay in the landfill 1000 years ? Come to think about it, the save the rivers people have kayaks, with similar space age materials as well, but then their saving fuel as they go “down stream” aren’t they . I could mention the type of clothing all these conservation types wear, you know all that man made synthetic sh!t. I think Ill save that one for another day.

Random samplings

- Jack Layton

- freebc

- club of rome

- G West

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0522-05.htm
http://consciousearth.blogspot.com/2006/06/tar-sands-from-space-via-google-maps.html
Will nuc-u-lar energy fix these?

Rick W - in response to yours

Jeez RickW, I dunno. I saw the first story last spring and heard an epidemiologist talking about the 2 to 3 times normal incidence of certain types of cancer in First Nations folks from Fort Chipewyan. It hadn't affected death statistics significantly apparently because the deaths are nearly all registered in Edmonton. I have heard nothing more since about the study mentioned in the story. But these are First Nations people, so don’t hold your breath.

There's no doubt in my mind that this is a result of the enormous quantities of water being used at the various tar sands plants and the subsequent pollution of the Athabaska. So, in the main I'd say Stockboy's little plan to promote the use of nukl'r power instead of Natural Gas in the process won't help the situation at Fort Chipewyan.

I think the problem is the greed for oil and the unwillingness of industry and government to come to grips with that. Some environmentalists are starting to promote nukes as a CO2 neutral way of generating electricity... Lovelock for example – see here -
http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/Lovelock_insight_07_04.pdf: and maybe it's worth looking at. However, to replace natural gas just so that they can continue to produce more hydrocarbons, and pollute the rivers and streams of the north to boot…..

Sorry, that's just another Hobson's choice.

My view.

That Google earth image is grotesque!

So rather than just being a nay sayer

G West

Why don't you actually provide some constructive criticism and the job may get done without any actual environmental disasters other than the obvious one of ripping large holes in the ground.

snert: can't you read?

What do you think I've been saying? Using nuclear energy to replace the natural gas in the processing of tar sands bitumen into oil to feed the beast is no answer.

My criticism was constructive because I suggested a possible alternative. To wit: electricity and vehicles, cars trucks and trains powered by electricity so produced.

Lovelock says this is the answer but I'm not inclined to be so sanguine about it - in fact I tend to agree with clubofrome on a lot of this stuff.

You're the one who posts single sentence accusations and encomiums, not me.

snert & constructive criticism

http://www.lightparty.com/Energy/Hemp5.html

In your opinion.

G West

That's not constructive criticism. Like I said you're just being a naysayer.

I don't think you've ever posted an encomium in your life, well maybe not very many.

RickW:

That's still a pretty energy intensive process in any event so maybe nuclear power could be used to provide the energy needed for that as well. Any more great suggestions?

Some things are poison

Nuclear power is one of them. A few other commodities are now making the list: aerosols, coal, solvents in all the caulking we used to seal up your condo and the asbestos we used to install for insulation and water pipes.

So we could proceed to a few more years of this interpretation of "Nirvana" by sucking oil out of the tar sands with massive energy input from Nuclear generators (and lots of WATER). We can do it! There are enough highly trained (but poorly grounded) psychopaths in even the "emerging democracies" to keep this '56 Chevey V8 pounding away for a few more years but

27 people died in the last two days in Europe due to unusual storm conditions.
65 people died in the Mid western US for the same reason in the same time frame.
Now is not the time to be worrying about you RRSP.
By the way those figures (deaths) are just initial estimates.

snert - you still can't read

Did you look at the pdf from Lovelock?

I never said I posted either - look at the sentence again.

snert

Are you being stupid?
Throwing a seed in the ground is energy intensive? Essentialy, directly capturing the energy of the sun is "energy intensive"?
Did you actually read the contents of the link?
I don't think so........

Cynic: Good run/good

Cynic:

Good run/good comments .

My view is when one follows the paper and money trail, START at the top of the food chain/pyramid....the top is always represented by GOV'T in some form..., the rest is relatively simple, just move downwards to view the "supporting cast".

Not much different than the clientele "cow" and lawyers cartoon ....the cartoon of one party(ie defendant) pulling on the tail, the other(plaintiff) party pulling at the head...the lawyer doing the $$$$ milking.

Lawyers make up a disproportionate amount of elected MP's and MLA's etc....NOW substitute GOV'T (also full of Lawyers)as the milker on the udders....everyone else in society is pulling in various parts of another version of the cow....the $$$$ flow .

Gov'ts love it when the masses infight amongst themselves, often no -one notices what goes on. Same-old same -old ...

39 in Europe

And who knows how many deaths in the Canadian Maritimes in the next 24 hours.

Nuclear power use will reduce the output of Greenhouse Gas in the short term (well actually it won't help at all till the generators are on line) but the system is out of balance NOW! 15 - 20 years down the road it is doubtful that "cheap" energy will be deliverable: electrical transmission systems do not survive the weather "bombs".

It is time to "Circle the Wagons" and figure out exactly what we can do to survive with what we have inside that circle.

Short Sighted

So the Government is short sighted. Addicted to taxes or not, change is coming. Unfortunately it will not be in time. It's not just Gov't. that is short sighted it's the corporations and most individuals as well. I don't get a sense that you take any of the threats to our existance seriously. The crises will soon pile up faster than we can address them. Without the will to change, there are only a few options left. Disaster planning changes to disaster response. Soon you will be on your own. These threats are here and are every bit a real as your precious accounting system. There are limits to growth. Beyond those limits is peril. Shirley you have the capacity for rational thought to understand a threat?

Dog gone those weather, bombs.

doggone said,

Good point doggone, the easiest way to eliminate all those transmission lines , build the Nuke plant at its market source. The first plant should be built where B.C. Place stands. The waste (spent nuclear fuel) from this plant will be hauled to Cache creek, Ashcroft ,Logan Lk, areas, as we out in fart land are fully aware that no dirty ( garbage) or bad things (sh!t)- are allowed in the GVRD.

clubofrome: Sorry, You are

clubofrome:

Sorry, You are ranting, whereas I am more into forensically dissecting the issue/s.

Eternal question: What are YOU going to DO...??? often its basically individual efforts that work best, whether they be individually and/or collectively, as opposed to a "Big Gov't Legislated hammer".

Much of life is people who have to move forward in their daily lives and don't have time to listen to ranting and sky is falling rhetoric. I heard a recent POLL has 9/10 of the population expressing some concern/ guilt over the environment.

So?

In another POLL ,a large percentage of Quebecers admit they are racist at times ?

So?... does that mean the majority of people who care about the environment are racist ?

I hate waste, I recycle, so don't go sh!tting on me. Otherwise, if I hear a pragmatic " 100% certified organic Rant Free solution " , I am all ears and eyes.

BTW who's Shirley...Laverne's sidekick ???

clubofrome

clubofrome:

Sorry, You are ranting, whereas I am more into forensically dissecting the issue/s.

Eternal question: What are YOU going to DO...??? often its basically individual efforts that work best, whether they be individually and/or collectively, as opposed to a "Big Gov't Legislated hammer".

Much of life is most people have to move forward in their daily lives and don't have time to listen to ranting and sky -is- falling rhetoric. I heard a recent POLL has 9/10 of the population expressing some concern/ guilt over the environment.

So?

In another POLL ,a large percentage of Quebecers admit they are racist at times ?

So?... does that mean the majority of people who care about the environment are racist ?

I hate waste, I recycle, so don't go sh!tting on me. Otherwise, if I hear a pragmatic " 100% certified organic Rant Free solution " , I am all ears and eyes.

BTW who's Shirley...Laverne's sidekick ???

SHIRLEY, you know DICK.

Shirley I don’t know Dick, tell me what does BTW and LOL mean or represent?

space junk

It seems to me that the costs to deliver these nuke wastes into space is cheapened by the fact that we already have a few very reliable ICBM's kicking about. Contrary to the one failure in about 30 odd launches, these ICBM's are actually quite sturdy and very reliable. After all, the reason they used them in the first place was to guarentee delivery of a lethal blow to some other country in the event of war.
And spent nuke rods don't have to do anything but go for the ride.
Point and click.
Once the ICBM achieves escape velocity, the sun's gravitational pull does the rest.
It's not like we are shipping some fragile and delicate instrument into orbit. We are getting rid of junk.
The only thing hot enough and able to tolerate out little bits is the sun.
So, why not put those ICBM's to good use?
It might be something to turn a sword into a plow thingy then wouldn't it?

Surely you jest....

A new character on CSI Canada! That's you Shirley. Mr. Forensics! LOL! I was wondering when the pleasantries would taper off again, and you don't disappoint. There is no foundation for a debate let alone a discussion, it's like we are on two differnt planes. Mine, enlightened, aware and yours, forensic accounting for dummies. You are uninteresting and boring and the only person who thinks you are funny is you. BTW, FTR, GFY Shirley...

Egads...

Can someone please explain the difference between an ICBM and an effective launch vehicle that will actually leave the atmosphere and the gravitational pull of the Earth. Lets start with ICBM. That's Inter Continental, not Inter Planetary.

Go to: Ask a Rocket Scientist at Nasa.com
Ask: Why can't we blast off with this junk.

give the woody a hand ,wood you.

I figured out the GFY thing, but, stuck on what LOL and BTW stand for. [/b]CLUBO[b], who are you so pissed about?

Hmmm....

Woody:

Your brother wouldn't be "clubbed o'er head from rome" aka clubofrome , would he ???

aka - Also -Known- As

LOL = Laugh -Out- Loud (or Lathered Over Leftie).

BTW = By -The -Way (or Boris Thou-arta Wingnuttio)

BTW Clubofrome tends to "think" that they t-h-i-n-k LOL , the type that probably likes to throw snowballs at the moving bus, then wonders why the Bus driver is in reverse gear at 100 + kmh...

Clubofrome tends to try to begin to debate , " Hope Springs Eternal" , sorta talks the ideological party line, then tries to jerk you around, feels others should subsidize their ignorance and then they go crying to Mommy when they fill their diaper due to another loss. Seen this pattern from clubofrome enough times.

Probably the type that would play Dr. Strangelove and wipe mankind from the planet with a Nuke bomb so that it can " return to mother nature ".

Other than that, nothing else new from clubofrome.

BTW ....Got a bus pass??? LOL

Woody: sorry..TYEE error

Sorry Woody..the TYEE is screwing up again....

error re the beginning of my last post...it should start:

" Woody: Your brother wouldn't be clubbed o'er head from rome" aka clubofrome , would he ???"

It's out of context re the 1st post.

RE solar powered rocket to the Sun

maestro now don't get me going Im still chuckling about a comment you made one or two days ago, re. the solar powered rocket to the sun, to funny. Me thinks that old clubfoot might just be taking things a little to serious. Any who, duty calls, gotta do my civic duty for one ta one and half hours. That dip sh!t brother,I wish he was in rome.

Global Dimming Anyone?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml

fun site

what was the topic?
Oh yeah: launching nuclear waste into the sun
I would not recommend that - likely to put you and yours on a hit list from the environment real enforcement.
And so it should!
The notion that you and I can perform whatever perverse act we wish and ship the detritis to Ashcroft may be slightly more achievable than shooting depleted uranium at the sun.But I'd take my chances with Ashcroft before I would challenge the sun

Message to any/all King Kanutes

The Tar Sands will be developed, ONE way or the OTHER..that's a GIVEN .

They have been discussed for decades. Everything has a "the -time -is -ripe " date.

It's simply a matter of what will be the technology that has the MINIMUM impact on the Environment in order to process it.

If we don't sell OUR Oil, or at least use it domestically, someone ELSE will sell THEIRS and thus GAIN from the typical Canuck " navel gazing and holier than thou" attitude we Canucks export and likely get laughed at by other countries.

Time to drill offshore so we get our piece of the pie...

Cassini-Huygens ends 'fossil-fuel' hoax.

Talkin' about space-craft and fuel...I've been studying the Huygens (the lander from Cassini-Huygens) trip down to Titan (a really big moon of Saturn) so diligently I feel as though I've been riding on the damn thing.

Anyhew, google, yahoo, dogpile, whatever: 'liquid hydrocarbons on Titan' and learn why there's thousands of years worth of liquid hydrocarbons in the earth's mantle. (9 miles down, or so)

Otherwise known as 'oil.'

(No dead animal fossils on Titan, eh)

Peak oil? Fugetaboutit. Another hoax from the same likely suspects who brought you the war on terror and a harmless retrovirus that can destroy the human immune system.

At least read the article in WorldNetDaily: "Fossil Fuel" theory takes hit with NASA finding," and hundreds of other articles all over the web about the true abiotic derivation of fuel hydrocarbons.

Oil from bacteria and dinosaur fossils?

Not!

RickW ..good link..re global dimming (thanks).

Rick W's link re "Global Dimming" is a good one.

Seems to allude to an ironic equilibrium, ie (i) pollution in the form of particulates was cancelling out the effects of (ii) the pollution /impacts derived from greenhouse gases.

However, cleaner air via less particulates etc. is shifting this balance.

Truman:

Truman:

Yes your points are very good, I was coming to the same basic views after reading them over the past few weeks.

I think the old view is Oil etc.is "FOSSIL" fuel which implies "Dead Dinosaurs" and other "dead ancient organic matter" .

This has a side implication that Oil and other "FOSSIL" fuels would be only at or near the earth's surface. We presume living things were buried over layers of geological material and decomposed, which goes against the theories of Anaerobic(Oxygen free) decomposition.

I was near BC Place when they excavated for the EXPO 86....the False Creek area , including GM Place was an old dump site they were pulling out "organic" items like shoes , shoe leather etc. from the 1930's etc....intact... ZERO rot....

This term "FOSSIL" keeps us believing OIL etc.is scarcer than it really is.

Lets cut the PR out that it is FOSSIL Fuel...call it something ELSE. IE: Are they sucking up dinosaur bones when the pump the oil up? Any evidence of both may be concurrent(coincidence)via simple random odds and probabilites and thus not correlative.

No-one has drilled very far down to find out,have they? , and perhaps they know more than us...but they are also going after the more easily accesible reserves, given drilling ain't cheap.

Has anyone proven with plausible theories and good solid evidence its not possible that OIL does not exist deeper down ?

As I said before, are we being Debeer'ed with urban mythology ?

les sables bitumeux,oui, fils d'une chienne

This much Im sure of,when it comes to the Tar sands, they will be developed long before Dee-on develops his english well enough that I can understand him. I can not recall when a leader spoke english so poorly, that I would rather he spoke french, where by, a clear speaking translator could clearly translate on his behalf.

Hmmmm. BTW : What do you

Hmmmm.

BTW : What do you get when you cross- breed a (i) TRUDEAU the Professor and his "legendary intellect" LOL with (ii) CHRETIEN's and his quasi- Shakespeare-ean English skills...LOL

Mon Dieu !

Eureka !

Of Course !!!

See the connection...

A " DION " (non sextuplet)

I get it Maestro, but...

Maestro, I've just been learning a bunch of predicate calculus and modal and boolean logic so I'm right up on this stuff, eh.

I get it...tru +(deau) + (chre+(tien)divide(deau)over(tien)= di-on (dion), Right?

Although, I'm not sure if it's true, dough!

Maybe a bit of a stretch, humour-wise, too.

But yeah, liquid hydrocarbons are not really FOSSIL FUELS! It's just a really really stupid idea left over from the eighteenth century which happens to come in handy for the PEAKOILISTS--and it's way past time this goofy idea is removed from the textbooks.

Do I gotta tell you people everything?

Here's the opposing views: http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

and

(google this) "Oil Without End, Revisionists say oil isn't a fossil fuel."

Worlds in Collision

http://bourmistroff.tripod.com/velikovsky_wc.htm
Part 1, Chapter 2 - Naptha

Truman : Dion ...and OIL

Truman:

Re: Dion

No..if the Trudeau + Chretien = Dion theory is peer reviewed,as you have done, you have corroborated it via a different route... thus, ergo, the theory is on its way to becoming a Law. Woody also gets credit (with his Dion comment) towards the ultimate Nobel prize...

Back to OIL...it only makes sense that more would exist, given what ideas and information you are contributing.

Of course , OIL is, overall, a finite resource, but as I also stated earlier, I am pretty sure the vested interests are in no major fear of TRUE hydrcarbon based shortages in the near term , and perhaps the far term as well.

The issue then becomes hydrocarbon emission concerns, ...and what alternatives are brought out on the market to provide options (ie solar, tidal, wind powered) to address the hydrocarbon emissions concerns, AND exclusive of PEAK Oil concerns....correct?

ICBM

Lets start with ICBM. That's Inter Continental, not Inter Planetary.

Well, let's see.
Interplanetary assumes you are shipping your little deal to another planet. All I'm suggesting is lob the bugger toward the sun. It's gravity will do the rest.
ICBM's are already carry more fuel than they need to get to another country, and they already are able to achieve orbit. The Viking rocket boosters tried with the Mercury program could do that. They settled up on the Redstone that could also easily lift nuke missiles. and all those missles that the nuke subs the Raging Ninnies protest all the time, pack about are every bit as reliable and will do the job.
So rather than go into orbit, wait till the right time and shoot straight toward the sun. Gravity does the rest.
This is not difficult unless people make it that way. People are the problem.

there's several issues here, Maestro

Okay, there's several issues here.

1. are fuel hydrocarbons derived biogenically or abiogenically? (fossils or not.)

2. are we running out of fuel hydrocarbons, if they are biotic?

3. are we running out of fuel hydrocarbons if they are abiotic?

4. how do we prevent air polution while we're burning hydrocarbons?

5. are we doing a net increase in the greenhouse effect by burning hydrocarbons?

6. does the greenhouse effect sufficiently increase the efficiency of the atmospheric shroud, resulting in an increase in temperature of the earth's atmosphere.

6a. What the hell do you think heats up the earth in the first place, eh?

7. is it possible to develope 'cleanly-burning' fuel hydrocarbon systems?

8. why is a warmer atmosphere dangerous for human beings? For vegetation? For animals?

8a. is it harder to heat a cold house or a warm house?

9. would the global snakes lie about running out of oil to protect their zillion-dollar birthrites?

10. and what about farting cows?
(optional)

Do a 1000 word essay on each of these questions, Maestro, with particular emphasis on the importance of new information from the Cassini-Huygens landing on Titan, where there's liquid hydrocarbons all over the place. Explain exactly how these discoveries affect the stupid, effing fossil fuel theory, there being no fossils on Titan, with which to invent a stupid theory.

Start by reading Thomas Gold's book, which he plagiarised from the Russians, allegedly.

And no googling! (Except for Cassini-Huygens.)

Methane

Let's go WAY back:
Elements heavier than Hydrogen are only available from the furnace of the core of a star, Correct?

These elements have to be blown out of the furnace by a nova or super nova. Then they float about in interstellar space for some time and some are captured in a gravitational field of an embryonic solar system. So far so good.
Since the precoursor: Hydrogen is readily available all we need for Methane is the carbon so it makes sense (if any of the above does) that they could combine and there would be lots of methane. Maybe there is some mechanism which forms the long chain and ring carbon based molecules (oil) without life but my education so far gives no indication of this.
I may be forced to consult the sites mentioned above

doggone, just to prove your good faith...

So doggone, seeing as how you're all edumacated about how oil forms from fossils hows about giving us a rundown on it, starting with these critters and plants dying and settling on the bottoms of oceans.

Remember EVERYBODY who believes the fossil fuel hypothesis claims it all happens on the bottoms of oceans.

So when these critters die and float to the bottom of the oceans...

Then what happens? No googling. You claim to be all educated on it, eh.

In theory:....

In theory,shouldn't researchers be able to take a pile of dead organisms(plants and animals) and subject them to conditions that would be consistent with the " FOSSILs " as the raw material "theory", in order to create hydrocarbon fuels ?

Take a bunch of dead animals and plants and subject them to controlled lab conditions and thus attempt to produce OIL and other hydrocarbons.

Wouldn't this at least be useful to prove or disprove the FOSSIL Fuel theory ?

Woody: re :the expensive bicycle

Woody:

I like your story re: the expensive Bicycle. Your point re: quasi- hypocrisy is duly noted.

I know Bicycle enthusiasts who will spend thousands of $$$ on a bike. It is made of exotic materials and effectively shaves a few pounds off the weight of the bike..SO? IF the point is exercise,a few pounds of weight adds a a resistance factor that assists in the exercise effort, does it not? You allude towards buying the Wal Mart bike ,and then I say give the $$$ difference to charity.

Our City has miles and miles of dedicated bike lanes, but they are effectively a major WHITE elephant. I drive beside many of them on a daily basis. Cyclists are often NO WHERE to be seen. They are seriously under-used.

Many hard - earned Tax Dollars were wasted and much "Impact on the environment" was undeniably created in building them.(ie trucks exhaust,production and placement of asphalt etc.)

In essence, society has provided an option to the Enviro - Lobbyists,(ie Bike Lanes) and invested hundreds of thousands of dollars $$$ to cater to this . This is one of many reasons I am getting quite jaded...and moving from skepticism to cyncism, and tired of the Sky Is falling rhetoric.

An actual solution /option ie dedicated Bike Lanes was provided and effectively failed. In my view, they should re-dedicate the Bike Lane to a vehicular one, this will do FAR more to reduce pollution than bicycle use. Move the painted lines...the pavement is already there.

In addition, given that everything is being "nickel and dimed", they should charge these cyclists a fee for use of the public Bike Lane ...and given the lack of use, probably would have to charge the cyclists $10,000 each way so as to maintain something remotely resembling fairness and cost effectiveness.

Thus, Case Closed.

Miles and Miles of bike lanes

Same can be said of sidewalks........

Re; Sidewalks

Most Cities are gridded out with pre-dedicated easements.

These would usually allow for 4 vehicular lanes and (2) sidewalks. Many people don't realize this, even in subdivisions, and assume that their front yards are bigger than they really are...One person I know has his front lawn out to the street, but actually about 15 feet of it belongs to the City.

In our City, they used this easement on ONE Arterial ROAD to create only one dedicated land for traffic in each direction (ie ONE lane for say Eastbound traffic and ONE lane for Westbound traffic. There is ONE lane in the middle for either /or direction, and ONE bicycle lane.

However, the City has now changed the OCP to allow for more density on this same route... which is already creating more traffic on the two traffic lanes...

Sidewalks, in my view are more a necessity, for various reasons.

Bike lanes are a waste of $$$ and time...little bang for the buck, simply an ass-kissing political statement to cater to enviro - nutzis.

Petroleum

Truman Green:
I was mainly interested in minerals but what little I remember goes something like this:
Organics build up in marine sediments over millions of years and further sedimentation caps and weights the formation. Over a very long time period and with just the correct heat and pressure the hydrocarbons are cooked to perfection and given favourable porosity (and sufficient cap seal - salt domes preferred) the oil will pool and wait there for our recovery methods.

Now can I google the topic?

Sorry I can not phone "home"

My father-in-law will certainly be happy to share the "conventional" theories of oil genesis but I believe the evening is "Super Bowl" or something sporty so I won't bother him. I did dig out my Geology 101 text and did not find much I had misquoted (except for the salt dome).
I am certainly interested in the actual process and as you seem to doubt the accepted theory could you do an outline of the alternative theory in less than 1000 words?

Time

Seems to me that one of the things adding to the confusion about where the "fossil Fuel" resources came from is the fact that we can not imagine what a million years means. We have been aware for maybe half a century at the most each of the posters here. What we think of as normal: composting, making diamonds (or oil) in a research fascility or chatting on this forum have zero track record and consequently we have zero understanding of them.

On the other hand the processes that put the Oil Patches where they are had all the time in the world: about 4.5 billion years.

This is not a trivial point. If someone here convinces me they have an usable picture of the last thousand years I will pay attention.

By the way I know that life processes are not recorded as far back as 4.5BYAGO

Dr maestro

Dr. Strangelove. Or how I stopped worrying and learned to love the bomb.... Love than movie!
Intelligent, funny.... all the things you are not! When will your autobiography be coming out, you self important POS? I see that no one else of intelligence bothers to debate with you, so that must be a sign. Good luck eradicating the environuggies...

Deliverance!

FreeBC
That's my point. The ICBM needs a boost to leave the orbit of earth like your Viking rocket or whatever the program is called. I'm no rocket scientist, but I do play one on TV! So that is where the problem lies. Strapping nukes onto booster Rockets headed for space, don't always make it to space... While statistics are improving, you still don't take the chance of poisoning the planet with a fine dusting of radiation. But the real point, was the options to alternative energy are real and diverse and should be fully engaged before nuclear is revisited. We waste power like the Gov't wastes money. So there is that avenue as well. Those who can't comprehend these ideas need to rethink their position. Most scientists are in agreement climate change is upon us. More and more threats are emerging and need to be planned for as opposed to reacted to. Pretty simple really, who do you want controlling your destiny? The solutions are in front of your eyes and ears everyday. Use less power, consumme less. Easy! Of course some here would like you to believe that these are complex issues, like tax accounting. More man made drivel and fear of change. Energy addicts needing their daily fix. How would we ever replace gas taxes if we all drove electric cars? With that kin of thinking there will be no breaking the addiction and no chance to plan our own future. Who wouldn't want one last chance to control their own outcome? How about those Colts yesterday!! YEAH BABY!!!!

Making it difficult

FreeBC:

We still have no estimate of the cost to lift this waste beyond earth's gravity. Where do you get the notion that this is a simple and cheap solution? Have you even launched a toy rocket? Boosting the rocket itself, let alone any cargo is overwhelmingly energy expensive - don't forget that you also have to lift the unburned fuel. Straight up. The 2000 liters per hour of fuel burned by a cruising 747 is nothing compared to a vertical launch.

At the risk of encouraging you to start promoting more "efficient" ways of getting the poisons far enough away so they can fall in to the Sun (I think that notion is dumber than simply requiring every shareholder in Uranium stocks to take a tiny bit of depleted uranium home and keep it safe) there was a proposal called the "DynaSoar" which came from the early space exploration program. Remember the "X-15"? The payload rocket is carried as high and fast as it can be by a B-52 and boosts from that platform. Unfortunately NASA went for the vertical launch "Shuttle"

ICBM's

Actually, if you read closely, I never said it would be cheap.
What I said (or meant) was that there are missiles that were originally designed to lift weapons to some other part of this planet that could be used to lift the spent rods into orbit. And yes they still carry some radiation but it isn't good for anything else but garbage.
The sun therefore is a great incinerator.
Additionally, the fuel used by rockets isn't fossil fuel. At one time there was kerosene used but that hasn't happened in many years. That was one of the first fuels used by Nazi scientists in WWII. Nowadays, we use oxygen and hydrogen in a combustion chamber to achieve the power needed for escape velocity. Unless I am mistaken, all those ICBM's are fitted that way to get off the ground fast. Once in the air they move to a suborbital altitude where they are targeted for someplace on the ground. Coming that way, they are harder to shoot out of the sky.
So, if we didn't want them to come back, we just taget them for someplace further out and let them burn off their fuel and drift away to the sun.
I'm just thinking that since there seems to be a degree of no turning back showing in the energy community, we really should look at options for getting rid of the left overs.
Using resources we already have would make disposal a lot less expensive, and might help in the area of excessive arms.
In my mind, it's kind of a win win.
Disposal of two assets we didn't really want in the first place.

CANDU and Tar Sands

I worked in the nuclear industry about 25 years ago, so let me tell you this about CANDU:

- CANDU cannot produce high-temperature process steam. Even project proponents admit process steam can only be piped a limited distance;

- No CANDU reactor was ever built on time or on budget. The last units built, Ontario Hydro’s Darlington, were close to 500% over budget. This far exceeds cost overruns in US plants as they had to expensively back-fit new safety features in the wake of the Three Mile Island Accident. I never heard a proper explanation for this;

- Design and manufacture of CANDU components will not have significant industrial and economic benefits for Alberta or Western Canada;

- Many of the companies who did this work have long since folded or merged into other corporations. Nuclear work requires a culture of quality assurance and accepts nothing that is off-specification. The body of experienced workers with this approach has long ago dissipated, and probably survives as a scattering of people close to retirement. The stated goal of having a CANDU on-line in the tar sands by 2014 is quite simply delusional;

- The scrapping of Canada’s Avro Arrow cast a long shadow over how Canada treated its government-funded showpiece technologies. CANDU has been mythologized, but as a business venture is an outrageous failure. Federal support since the inception of the program to develop CANDU in the 1950s to today was recently estimated to be about $80 Billion. It’s because of that huge investment that no federal government has had the guts to pull the financial plug. I won’t even talk about the regional distribution of those monies.

I could go on but I hope these comments are food for thought.

CANDU

In other words the Candu should rightly be to referred as the Can(t)du. Is there any thing in the East that functions without the Federal Govt. supporting or subsidizing them?

Nope

Pretty much like the west woodrow, all western sycophants need their dollop of largess too.

dave 49

Thanks dave49...good insight.

I guess that answers(and " NUKES ") the economic viability question.

Woody:....Not sure why G West has to twist around the obvious of the historical " Eastern Canada job pogey program" ...I alluded to that waaaaay back in this topic.

heart in the west,but wallet in the east.

maestro said,

Maestro, this is a typical reaction from some one who’s heart is in the West but, his wallet lies in the East!
A few days back ,you said in your thread,“I was near BC Place when they excavated for the EXPO 86....the False Creek area”
Can you recall who the contractor was and, to where the excavated material was taken to from the EXPO 86 SITE? If this Isn't possible, maybe a suggestion as to a direction where I may find out.

Woody:...

Woody:

Like I said ... in essence ...people best don't shite in their own nest...I don't know why some parties are perpetual knee-jerk apologists and capitulators for the status - quo.

Fair IS fair...if its NOT fair lets point it out and make it fair...not live in Fair-y-land. The squeaky -wheel -gets- the- grease, but unfortunately Ottawa is, coincidentally, " in the East " and can't hear the Western noise.

Somehow the Tax $$$'s migrate eastward without much squawking 24/7/365 "quack - quack...". Take the apologists with them, but don't look up, might get shite- on...at least carry an umbrella to prevent this while they head East walking backwards .

WOODY: re Expo 86

Woody:

Re: the EXPO 86 Excavation and Fill Material:

My recollection was this went on in 1984(?)...I seem to recall at the time they excavated and piled/stored the excavated fill elsewhere on the Expo site.

I recall they were quite aware the False Creek soil was toxic in places and full of landfill material. I also seem to recall that they did try some treatment of this toxic soil on the Expo site , but I also believe there may have been some exposes' regarding some of this Expo material taken UNtreated and disposed of in Local areas..(I seem to recall Richmond Dump ???)

I think much of the Expo 86 site was basically left alone UNexcavated except for the foundation /footprints of the temporary Expo 86 buildings. Much of the Expo 86 fair was basically built on an old dump site and hence on toxic soil, given its industrial past history.

After the Expo 86 fair was when they were literally "legally" obligated to remove all or most of the toxic soil. I wasn't in the area when that occurred. It may have been loaded onto barges in False Creek ,which was logistically easy to do, and taken out to the ocean areas and dumped, which was not uncommon.

If you want to know more details, I would suggest accessing the City of Vancouver Building Dept. and perhaps some appropriate Provincial agency, there should be a paper trail with reports to WHO did the work.... and WHERE the Fill went ...and HOW it was treated.etc. etc.

As an aside..when GM Place was built, again over an old False Creek dump,....word got out that they had uncovered a "gold mine" of old Coca Cola bottles, the ones which had straight uncurved sides... Bottle collectors, some of who I know, where in there like a dirty shirt and finding many of them....which ironically depreciated the collectors price via lots of supply.

I met a fellow a few years later who told me they had trucked the fill from the GM Place site to a secret area around Highway 1 and 200th street area in Langley....I was curious and one day had a look, and noticed a bunch of these old Coke bottles, mostly broken,
in the fill, just as he had said. How good the dumped soil was is anyone's guess , as the area is now being re-developed as we speak.