Russia is getting too big for it's britches again...

[Prrkitty]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1642905,00.html

I think Russia is trying to lay claim to the North AND the South Pole. I didn't think either "Pole" belonged to anyone.

[{DSG}DarkRaven]

Technically, the south pole, and antarctica for that matter, is owned proportionately by several nations, and is reserved for scientific research and whatnot. I think. Since nobody can really live there and it has no strategic or resource value, there's no point in fighting over it.

The north pole, I'm not sure about, because it has no discernable land mass, like the south. At least not in the same league, I presume. I'm not sure what goes on there or what value it really has, but Russia has no more claim to it than anyone else.

Still, since it doesn't seem to do us much good, I say screw it, and let them have the snow. Maybe they're just trying to lay claim because it might contain sub-oceanic oil? Some of the largest ocean reserves in the world, I hear, are in contested waters. I think.

[Daarkseid]

Still, since it doesn't seem to do us much good, I say screw it, and let them have the snow. Maybe they're just trying to lay claim because it might contain sub-oceanic oil? Some of the largest ocean reserves in the world, I hear, are in contested waters. I think.

From the article posted above


Russia's rights over a vast Polar territory that also happens to contain some 10 billion tons of oil and natural gas deposits.

[mikeron]

Technically, the south pole, and antarctica for that matter, is owned proportionately by several nations, and is reserved for scientific research and whatnot. I think. Since nobody can really live there and it has no strategic or resource value, there's no point in fighting over it.

The north pole, I'm not sure about, because it has no discernable land mass, like the south. At least not in the same league, I presume. I'm not sure what goes on there or what value it really has, but Russia has no more claim to it than anyone else.

Still, since it doesn't seem to do us much good, I say screw it, and let them have the snow. Maybe they're just trying to lay claim because it might contain sub-oceanic oil? Some of the largest ocean reserves in the world, I hear, are in contested waters. I think.

Mining in Antarctica is prohibited under the current treaty, but that's not permanent.

[phattonez]

Russia wants revenge for selling Alaska before they knew about oil.

[Darth Marsden]

Maybe it's just to spite us. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6901346.stm) 'Nya nya, we've got oil and you don't!' :waggle:

[mrz84]

If they want the oil there, but it's against the current treaty, then why bother in the first place? Seems like a pretty stupid argument to me. :kitty:

[Aegix Drakan]

Wait, doesn't the North pole belong to us here in Canada?

I'm pretty damn sure it does.

And as stated before, the south pole is internetional territory.

Sorry Russia, you're not getting any bigger.

[{DSG}DarkRaven]

From the article posted above

Psh, reading is for suckers.

Aegix, everybody knows that the north pole has belonged to the Claus cartel for the last hundred and forty years. Their claim expires in 2012.


Seriously, though.

MrZ, contesting something is the first step to changing it. Civil rights, womens sufferage, and all that other stuff that was previously against the law was contested and successfully overturned. Treaties are a little easier to get past, since any real pressure we put on Russia will undoubtedly become a game of politics, and potentially another cold war of sorts. Is protecting this oil worth a war? Doubtful that the people of this country think so, considering how many people have already been crying about Iraq being a war for oil.

Time will tell what lengths the Russians will go to in order to secure their demands.

[mrz84]

I know that contesting stuff can change things. I just feel that Russia is just being greedy really. :kitty:

[Prrkitty]

Russia is trying to build their country back up again. *IF* they had the oil/natural gas supplies from the Pole areas they'd have a way to build up their monies in their govenment and also compete against the Oil Cartels (hope I spelled that right) in the Middle East.

I don't necessarily want to see *anyone* get control of the Poles because then those pristine areas will rapidly degrade.

And yet on the other hand if we (USA) don't start tempering our need for oil/gas/etc... we'll quickly get to a point where *WE* will *desperately* need those same reserves.

No matter how you look at it (from Russias, Canadas, USAs, etc... side), I don't see either Pole surviving thru the glutenous need for what is stored (ok stored is not the word I want but I'm not sure what other word to use) there.

[phattonez]

We have enough oil in Alaska that we're not drilling, and don't forget about the strategic oil reserve. We'll be fine for a while. However, we really do need to shift our focus away from oil, and that begins with cars. We need more public transportation and cars that run on more electricity. I've heard of a hybrid that gets even better gas mileage and all you have to do is plug it in when you get home. Sounds good to me, why not?

[Cloral]

Because where are you going to produce that electricity? I mean yes, in the longer term that would likely be better because you can produce electricity more cleanly on a larger scale. But at the moment our power grids are already stretched pretty thin. Where would we get all that extra power from? Burn more coal? That would pretty much defeat the point in the first place.

[phattonez]

Really, I don't think we're exploring alternate energy sources enough. Have you ever heard of a solar updraft tower? We should be investing in more wind power and solar power. Instead, all that I've heard of is more gas and coal plants.

[The_Amaster]

My guess is that Russia's plan is to sieze the Poles, and then say "Screw the treaty, we're drillin' down". Because think about it, what can we do to stop them? Cut off trade? We need the oil, and they've got a lot. Go to war? We might do that, but I highly doubt that the Russians think we will. If they can get ahold of the poles, it all falls into place. Of course, that's a enourmous if.

What we need is a way to dispose of nuclear waste. Because aside from the whole toxic by-product thing, it's the cleanest energy out there. Either some way to artificially deconstruct it, or a cheap way to send it out among the stars.

[phattonez]

Plug in hybrid vehicles do not tax the electric grid.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2007/07/hybrid-power-ag.html


A new report by an odd couple of sponsors find that there would be big environmental benefits if more people drove hybrids:

Plug-in hybrid cars would cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 500 million tons a year by 2050 without taxing the electric grid, according to a report issued Thursday by an unusual coalition of power companies, General Motors and the Natural Resources Defense Council. The report found that plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, or PHEVs, using power primarily from the electric grid would cut U.S. greenhouse vehicle gas emissions by 33 percent from levels today. "There is no plausible future electric scenario where PHEVs do not return a significant carbon dioxide emissions benefit," according to the report, conducted by the Electric Power Research Institute, the research arm for electric utilities.

[Cloral]

Really, I don't think we're exploring alternate energy sources enough. Have you ever heard of a solar updraft tower? We should be investing in more wind power and solar power. Instead, all that I've heard of is more gas and coal plants.

I have heard of an updraft tower. Unfortunately, those things chew up a ton of space for the amount of power you get out of them.
I'm not saying we shouldn't use alternate sources of power. Just that none of them are the 'silver bullets' a lot of people like to think they are. One of the best things we can all do is try to conserve. Install compact fluorescents or led-based lights in your home. Drive less, and bike or take alternate transportation when you can. Reducing our energy consumption will reduce the negative impacts of any power source we choose.


What we need is a way to dispose of nuclear waste. Because aside from the whole toxic by-product thing, it's the cleanest energy out there. Either some way to artificially deconstruct it, or a cheap way to send it out among the stars.
My worry about shooting it into space is what happens when there is an accident (which there will be) and radioactive waste rains down over a massive area. In the US we've got tons of unused land in places like Arizona and Nevada. What we ought to do is develop a waterless method for cooling the plants. Then we could build a whole ton of them out in the middle of nowhere, so that if something does go wrong it won't affect anybody. The disposal sites could be built right next to the plants, so that nuclear waste doesn't have to be transported anywhere.

[phattonez]

In the US we've got tons of unused land in places like Arizona and Nevada. What we ought to do is develop a waterless method for cooling the plants.

Well wouldn't that be a great place to put solar updraft towers or any other kind of solar plant?

[The_Amaster]

Oh, what if we put the windmills and solar plants on top, and buried the waste down below? Two birds, one stone.

[mrz84]

Oh, what if we put the windmills and solar plants on top, and buried the waste down below? Two birds, one stone.

The windmills and solar towers combined sound like a good idea. The burying does not. The wastes could possible poison underground water that could for all we know flow out to the ocean or some other large body of water. Fish would become contanimnated and all that horrible stuff. I think sending it into the sun would be a good bet. Sure it would be kinda expensive to do that at this point in time and there's the chance of accidents, but it could possibly be the best solution for gettign rid of not only nuke waste, but also our other trash that's cluttring the world. :kitty:

[phattonez]

Have we all forgotten what happened in Futurama, eventually it will all come back.

I don't know a lot about this kind of physics, but if you created a tubular structure above ground, would that create a wind tunnel? Say you did that in the desert, would the inside create a lot of wind? If that works, then you can build a triangle structure and place solar panels on top.

[The_Amaster]

I'm not sure if you'd call it a "wind tunnel" per se, because those use artificial wind to test physics, but I like the idea of combining the two a lot. What if we made the blades on the windmill solar panels. That might work also. It's just a matter of figuring out which is best.

[Brasel]

I bet the next espionage type movie is going to feature the American hero guy fighting Russian soldiers who are guarding a top secret anti-American weapon/missile/thing in what appears to be an oil refinery on the North/South Pole.

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=44896

I'm all for the ethanol solution myself. Not only does it help the environment, but helps the American farmer and the American economy if we grow our own.

[Archibaldo]

Narrarator: Years after the Cold war, Russia makes an attempt to expand it's plan of world domination. But this time, the Cold War will actually deal with the cold. Next summer, be prepared to defend the North Pole from the russians. With Michael Douglas as the President of the United States, Jack Nicholson as Santa Claus and Angelina Joliee as Mother Russia. The Cold War 2: This Time It's Personal...







July 2008

[Prrkitty]

OMG!!! Archibaldo! That's hilarious... and oddly could be true <soft chuckle>.

[mrz84]

*reads archibaldo's post and then proceeds to die laughing*

[Aegix Drakan]

Roflmao. I think I just busted a rib...

[{DSG}DarkRaven]

So, dispelling energy myths.

Nuclear power requires water because the energy it produces and stores is not molecular energy, per se. Nuclear reactors function by heating water and driving steam turbines. The reactions create heat in massive amounts, so you need a lot of water to keep the thing from melting down, but unless you use some other fluid substance to transfer the heat that doesn't evaporate or react, you're stuck with water. It's the best and cheapest solution. The waste is buried beneath a mountain in nevada, I think, and that's about the safest place for it right now. Blasting waste into space is bad for the reasons Cloral said, plus the fact that it's super heavy and there's an unbelievable amount of it tucked away right now. It's beyond practical, especially when we're talking about conserving energy.

Wind power only works in small, isolated areas of the US, and since it requires oil to make the parts it constantly requires replacement of, it usually ends up using more energy than it really creates. And since it only works in certain areas, only certain areas can benefit from it, making it impossible for a long term solution. Wind power in kansas doesn't do jack for someone like me in Michigan.

The same is basically true for solar power, and while it an be used in a much, much larger area, it still doesn't produce as much power as it requires to create the panel. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but as I recall, the efficiency rating of a solar panel is somewhere between 7-11&#37;. That's bad.

Ethanol is great, and solves a lot more problems than the two above, but it's ripple effect on the economy can already be seen, particularly in food prices. Corn requires a lot of water, which can severely limit the amount of it you can plant, and in a drought year could theoretically give our economy a kick in the groin. If corn is sucking up all the water, how are we going to grow other crops? All the money you save on gasoline by buying E85 is going to have to go towards groceries.

Of course, if it keeps us from being thrown back into the stone age, I'm all for it, but it's certainly not a magic bullet, and nothing will be.

[Dechipher]

Why don't we just use Antarctica?

[{DSG}DarkRaven]

Why don't we just use Antarctica?

Once again, how is this a simpler solution than burying it under a mountain? I'd think that with all the talk of global warming going on, the last place we'd want to bury our thousands of tons nuclear waste would be in a place that could melt in another half century.

[Dechipher]

Once again, how is this a simpler solution than burying it under a mountain? I'd think that with all the talk of global warming going on, the last place we'd want to bury our thousands of tons nuclear waste would be in a place that could melt in another half century.

Hey, I kinda think we're fucked anyway, so we might as well just go out with a bang.

[Cloral]

I think it's time we go Sim-City style and build microwave power plants. The idea being that you have a solar-collecting satellite that then beams the energy it absorbs back to Earth in some fashion.

All kidding aside, going to electric-powered hybrids may not actually be a bad idea. The survey you cited seems to be making the assumption that the transition would be gradual over a good number of years, and I think that is a very valid assumption. But we would have to be sure to plan ahead for the increased demand and start building more capacity today. Which again brings us back to the question, where do we get that power?

[{DSG}DarkRaven]

Hybrids are also a confusing solution, and simply aren't viable as a long term problem solver. Current Hybrid vehicles only function on electric power for about twenty-five miles, provided you keep the speedometer at thirty MPH or less. If you go faster, or beyond 50 miles, the good old gasoline engine kicks in. They're completely designed as suburban vehicles, where the average person only drives 25 miles or less to work in one direction though stop and go traffic.


Cloral, if you search back for that article posted somewhere about wireless electricity (or just google the topic), you'll find that beaming power to earth from solar sattelites was one of the first ideas proposed for the new technology. If you don't have to tether them to the planet with huge copper cables that are hundreds of miles long, the idea is suddenly very possible.

[phattonez]

I think it's time we go Sim-City style and build microwave power plants. The idea being that you have a solar-collecting satellite that then beams the energy it absorbs back to Earth in some fashion.

All kidding aside, going to electric-powered hybrids may not actually be a bad idea. The survey you cited seems to be making the assumption that the transition would be gradual over a good number of years, and I think that is a very valid assumption. But we would have to be sure to plan ahead for the increased demand and start building more capacity today. Which again brings us back to the question, where do we get that power?

If ethanol is going to be the solution, then I say we better start researching and make it better. You know, I haven't heard much about fuel cell cars lately. How would those be, and is there any other way to get pure hydrogen without oil?

[{DSG}DarkRaven]

Fuel cells, I believe, are just another means of creating electricity, and are essentially the same as electrically driven hybrid cars that you plug in at night. Fuel cells would be great if there was a cheap and safe way of producing and distributing (respectively) hydrogen, but I'm not aware of such a breakthrough.

Of course, we'd still only be able to drive everywhere at 30mph or so, but it would certainly take the burden off of oil consumption. For passenger automobiles, and in theory, of course. Freight trucks, seafaring vessels, and aircraft still can't be run by any of these things, even ethanol, I think.

All this talk of alternative fuels sounds great on the 11 o'clock news, but once you look at the problem closely, you start to realize the enormity of the task we're faced with. Almost depressing, isn't it?

[phattonez]

Fuel cell cars run just as well as gasoline cars.

I still think that solar power is the way to go, even if it isn't with solar panels.

[biggiy05]

Only problem I see with alternative fuel sources other than ethanol is the startup costs. Car companies don't want to put the money into it because they will have to pass the costs onto the consumer and nobody wants the extra cost.

We should have been making the switch to get off fossil fuels years ago. The world is fucked in the long run.

[phattonez]

So why didn't we do it in the 70s and 80s when this was just as big of a problem. It got better in the 90s for some reason, but you would imagine that the car companies would have had a plan since then.

[Trevelyan_06]

Phattonez,

Solar power is indeed the way to go. Unfortunatly, the current generation solar cells are not efficient enough to use as a reliable energy source on a massive scale. Personally, I'm hoping we eventually start using matter/anti-matter reactors. Nothing like living dangerously heh?

[phattonez]

I've heard the opposition here, but there are ways to harness solar power without solar panels.

[Trevelyan_06]

Phattonez,

Could you explain some of the other ways? I'm not trying to be an ass, but I thought you had to have some type of photoelectric cell that converts the solar radiation into electricity.

[{DSG}DarkRaven]

Could you explain some of the other ways? ...I thought you had to have some type of photoelectric cell that converts the solar radiation into electricity.

Trev, I once saw on a PBS special how in Canada, people are outfitting their homes with solar powered boiler systems that use the sun to heat water and drive a small steam turbine or something. Generates power, power stored in batteries, house runs. Granted, the homes had to cut down to conserve and not be partially reliant on the normal power grid, but you don't need photoelectric cells in order to have solar powered homes.

You're right though, and I believe I mentioned earlier in the thread how the current efficiency rating of photoelectric panels is somewhere around or less than ten percent.

And of course, I'm not even going to begin to comment on how ridiculous the matter/anti-matter subject is.

[phattonez]

Trev, I'll invite you to the link below, which shows some forms or solar power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy#Solar_energy_use

Most consist of using mirrors to heat up water and the steam spins a turbine.

[Trevelyan_06]

All of those ways of generating/using solar energy are interesting. Of course, I can't see any power company's busting thier balls trying to get this type of technology any time soon. The simple fact is, solar energy is basically free. Sure they could still charge for the infastructure and related other expenses, but they know they couldn't charge as much for generating the electricity and that makes them leery.

[{DSG}DarkRaven]

Sure they could still charge for the infastructure and related other expenses, but they know they couldn't charge as much for generating the electricity and that makes them leery.

Sadly, this is the answer to the question several people have asked, "Why wasn't this research begun sooner? (etc.)" Unfortunately, corporations are mostly profit driven, and since (despite what some politicians have claimed) there really hasn't been a complete concensus on global warming and peak oil until very recently (some stubbornly debate the first, many still debate the second), there was no need to spend billions of dollars on research for an unprofitable technology.

Of course, corporations will still find a way to charge you, no matter how cheaply made their product is, Trev. Wal-Mart, for instance, could cut it's prices in half and still make a profit, but they're content to knock off a few dimes and pennies here and there in order to make it look like they're genuinely low prices.

Long story short: technology is driven by necessity.

[phattonez]

Isn't it cheaper to make solar power, so a whole new company could use solar power to sell?

I guess if it was cheaper it would have already been done.

[Trevelyan_06]

Phattoonez,

It maybe cheaper to produce, and you are right that could give a company a unique way to get a toehold. However, this is one other problem.

The only place where something like this could take place would be a developed country like America or Britian. Third world countries consider themselves lucky if they have power, they don't care how eco-friendly it is. Which leads to an interesting problem....

Americans are spoiled. When we turn a switch we expect thier to be lights, T.V., A/C, etc. et. al. With a new technology like solar energy that doesn't have the huge infrastructure of the large fossil fuel power stations there may be more interuptions of service. Most Americans aren't going to use something unless it's 100&#37; tried and trued and comes with a little American flag sticker.

I'm not saying that these problems could happen to solar energy. I'm not saying that solar energy would be less reliable or even have any start up problems at all. The problem is, the general public is stupid. They aren't going to research solar energy on thier own, they are going to rely on the media and the government to tell them what to think about it, just like everything else.

And do we really think that the media and government, both of which have ties to the big oil companies, are going to grease the way for any sort of solar energy company? Fuck no. They're going to fight it at every turn, overplay or even lie straight out about it's shortcomings. Sadly, for all the talk of greener energy and renewable resources, oil interests have become an ugly monster whose first concern is to destroy that which threatens it's profits. Alas, solar energy is one of those things.

[{DSG}DarkRaven]

Isn't it cheaper to make solar power, so a whole new company could use solar power to sell?

I guess if it was cheaper it would have already been done.

Cheaper, maybe, but not more efficient. Like I said before, the amount of energy it takes to build solar panels and arrays to collect power is far more than such a system would ever produce with the current level of tech.


And Trev, geez, you ought to cut down on the rage against humanity. Not everybody and everything in this country is evil and out for profit at the expense of others.

[Cloral]

Cheaper, maybe, but not more efficient. Like I said before, the amount of energy it takes to build solar panels and arrays to collect power is far more than such a system would ever produce with the current level of tech.

I think I remember hearing about a solar plant built somewhere that was operated for a few years and then shut down because it wasn't producing enough energy to be profitable. At the time it was shut down, more power had been consumed to produce the plant than it had generated over its entire lifespan.

As for the question about solar power without solar panels, not too far from here in the Mojave Desert there's a power plant that uses a huge array of mirrors to heat a brine solution that drives a generator. There's also the concept of the solar draft tower that was mentioned previously in this thread. Unfortunately, both use up huge tracts of land and large amounts of infrastructure (pipes, glass plates, etc) for the amount of power that they generate.

[Trevelyan_06]

And Trev, geez, you ought to cut down on the rage against humanity. Not everybody and everything in this country is evil and out for profit at the expense of others.

Oh I don't believe that everyone and everything is. It's just those that are, exceed at making things harder for everyone else with an efficiency that is greater than thier numbers.

[{DSG}DarkRaven]

Unfortunately, both use up huge tracts of land and large amounts of infrastructure (pipes, glass plates, etc) for the amount of power that they generate.

Infrastructure is the hidden cost of any operation like this, and it's the thing that most people don't consider when they talk about how great alternative energy concepts are. It's sad when otherwise intelligent people talk about solar panels like they grow on trees. Simply producing electricity or changing what cars run on will not solve the problem.

[phattonez]

So then from what I'm hearing here, except for the pollution that it creates, nuclear power is the most plausible?

[{DSG}DarkRaven]

Pretty much. Sure, it requires a giant plant to house the reactor, cooling towers, lots of water, etc., but the fuel source is very powerful and efficient.

Think of it this way: solar power is like collecting water in a porous bucket. Nuclear power is like tapping a mineral spring. Solar power collects energy, and nuclear power uses fuel to generate it. This makes solar power more viable in the long run, but for the time being, nuclear power is a fuel source that we can tap much more easily and conveniently, not to mention efficiently. It's the same reason why oil is so great. The effort required to harvest abundant energy is minimal.