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

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.

{DSG}DarkRaven wrote:
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.

{DSG}DarkRaven wrote: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.

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

Maybe it's just to spite us. 'Nya nya, we've got oil and you don't!' :waggle:

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:

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.

Daarkseid wrote: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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Plug in hybrid vehicles do not tax the electric grid.

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

Los Angeles Times Bottleneck Blog wrote: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.

phattonez wrote: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.

Amaster42 wrote: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.

Cloral wrote: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?

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

Amaster42 wrote: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:

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.

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.

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.

[center]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[/center]

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

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

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

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.

Why don't we just use Antarctica?

Dechipher wrote: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.