NationStates Jolt Archive

This is from the article

"While Washington dithers over exploiting oil and gas reserves off the coast of Florida, China has seized the opportunity to gobble up these deposits, which run throughout Latin America, the Caribbean and along the U.S. Gulf coast.

The Chinese have forged a deal with Cuban leader Fidel Castro to explore and tap into massive oil reserves almost within sight of Key West, Florida. At the same time, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who controls the largest oil reserves in the Western Hemisphere, is making deals to sell his country’s oil to China, oil that is currently coming to the United States.

Meanwhile, a new left-wing populist regime in Bolivia has nationalized the natural gas industry, threatening to cut off supplies to the United States.

SLANT DRILLING

There are new reports out circulating that Chinese firms are planning to slant drill off the Cuban coast near the Florida Straits, tapping into U.S. oil reserves that are estimated at 4.6 billion to 9.3 billion barrels. This compares with 4 billion to 10 billion barrels believed to be beneath the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, where drilling is held up in Congress due to the objections of environmental groups which warn of endangering caribou. Permission to drill in the refuge, which experts are certain will not present any environmental hazard, has failed by just two votes in the Senate.

As Chinese business increases its reach around the world, it is seeking oil, which it lacks domestically.

After elections in Mexico in early July, when a new regime hostile to Washington is expected to take power, the United States might be without supplies of Mexican crude oil. The United States gets about 40 percent of its imported oil from Mexico and Venezuela.

China is eager to tap into oil reserves in the Florida Straits and then make a deal with Castro to control it. The Chinese have already reopened an abandoned Russian oil refinery in Cuba. Much of the gas refined there is believed to be destined for Freeport in the Bahamas, where the Chinese, through front company Hutchison-Whampoa, has developed a massive port facility and airfield.

With the refinery reopened and expanded it will also meet the needs of Castro.

Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) has introduced legislation to ease U.S. restrictions that prevent dealing with Cuba to drill in the Florida Straits. It is hoped that Florida regulations that prevent U.S. oil drilling off the state’s coasts could also be eased.

The irony is that Chinese drilling could be even more of an environmental hazard since China is not as concerned about or equipped to deal with any potential ecological disaster as a result of a spill, said Craig."
_______________________________________________________________

I saw this really cool online petition here
http://www.americansolutions.com/Default.aspx


(What do you guys think about the Oil problem in America)

Another threat to America's oil supply, great.

I'm not for offshore drilling, its just looking into the past for answers we need now. I mean once we run those dry we've destroyed the habitat and still need more fuel. We keep trying to cling on oil exactly the opposite of what we should be doing.

Cohenn;13778272']Another threat to America's oil supply, great.

I'm not for offshore drilling, its just looking into the past for answers we need now. I mean once we run those dry we've destroyed the habitat and still need more fuel. We keep trying to cling on oil exactly the opposite of what we should be doing.

The congress is going to run out of things to avoid when gas goes up to $5

in Europe they pay like 2x as much as we are now. and they're getting by fine. I don't think american society will collapse if we start paying $5 to the gallon. if anything, maybe it'll convince people to drive less...

The congress is going to run out of things to avoid when gas goes up to $5
Even if the ban on offshore drilling were lifted tomorrow, it would be a very long time before it had a noticeable effect on proces at the pump. This congress would have been and gone, as well as the next few that follow it, before offshore drilling could lead to slightly cheaper fuel.

The only solution is to become independent from oil, American or not, period.

in Europe they pay like 2x as much as we are now. and they're getting by fine. I don't think american society will collapse if we start paying $5 to the gallon. if anything, maybe it'll convince people to drive less...
The record price in the UK is £1.99/litre, which must be what, $7/gallon? Of course, you're pretty stuoid if you pay £1.99, considering there's only one that expensive, but I'd say must Brits are paying around $6 or thereabouts.

in Europe they pay like 2x as much as we are now. and they're getting by fine. I don't think american society will collapse if we start paying $5 to the gallon. if anything, maybe it'll convince people to drive less...

It will hurt our economy....and in Europe they have a huge mass transit system

The record price in the UK is £1.99/litre, which must be what, $7/gallon? Of course, you're pretty stuoid if you pay £1.99, considering there's only one that expensive, but I'd say must Brits are paying around $6 or thereabouts.

Typical UK prices are $8.40 a gallon, and that was before the recent climbs due to Shell strikes.

In fact, as a typical price now is £1.18 per litre, google (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%283.78541178+*+1.18%29+pounds+in+us+dollars&btnG=Search&meta=) tells me it's about $8.70 a gallon.

You US guys can just stop complaining.

And no, our mass transit system isn't particularly spectacular. We have a rail system that is always late or under repairs and a bus service that isn't much better. It's just we're willing to walk to the shops that are all of two minutes away.

Here's a thought, instead of drilling (or in addition to), why not just give tax incentives for people to buy electric cars?

in Europe they pay like 2x as much as we are now. and they're getting by fine. I don't think american society will collapse if we start paying $5 to the gallon. if anything, maybe it'll convince people to drive less...

Which would mean the end of american civilization and the collapse of sociaety and civilization as we know it.

ZOMG!!1! WEBIL LATUM UMERICAN PRESSIDUNTS R UP TO NO GUD!!!! INVADE INVADE!!!

Chavez isnt going to stop selling oil to the US... he needs that money to stay in power.

Cuba on the other hand... well...I guess thats what you get for throwing such a long stoopid tantrum (aka the blockade)

Because, we'd need more power plants. And since Green Peace(aka -eco-terrorists) have raised hell and created a stigma around nuclear power, has decided that Nuclear power wasn't worth it until very recently, and now they say its to late to use it and won't be ready in time to lower emisions, we'd have to rely on new, CO2 emitting power plants.

Because, we'd need more power plants. And since Green Peace(aka -eco-terrorists) have raised hell and created a stigma around nuclear power, has decided that Nuclear power wasn't worth it until very recently, and now they say its to late to use it and won't be ready in time to lower emisions, we'd have to rely on new, CO2 emitting power plants.

Would they emit more or less than the tens of millions of cars they'd replace? I'm guessing less. An electric car gets comparably excellent mileage.

ffs we just had this thread like last week and its already been uncovered that the US reserves could not support the American economy/public/that sort of stuff for anything longer than 2 years (?)

so thats that. case closed. lets have some crumpets.

It's just we're willing to walk to the shops that are all of two minutes away.

lets not be too hasty

Because, we'd need more power plants. And since Green Peace(aka -eco-terrorists) have raised hell and created a stigma around nuclear power, has decided that Nuclear power wasn't worth it until very recently, and now they say its to late to use it and won't be ready in time to lower emisions, we'd have to rely on new, CO2 emitting power plants.

awww bless your having a little tantrum because nuclear waste is a no no

Would they emit more or less than the tens of millions of cars they'd replace? I'm guessing less. An electric car gets comparably excellent mileage.

Well considering that coal power is the number one producer of CO2 in America, not cars.

Typical UK prices are $8.40 a gallon, and that was before the recent climbs due to Shell strikes.

In fact, as a typical price now is £1.18 per litre, google (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%283.78541178+*+1.18%29+pounds+in+us+dollars&btnG=Search&meta=) tells me it's about $8.70 a gallon.

You US guys can just stop complaining.



How much of that is tax?

The irony is that Chinese drilling could be even more of an environmental hazard since China is not as concerned about or equipped to deal with any potential ecological disaster as a result of a spill, said Craig."
Not entirely sure this is ironic at all :p

And aye, do some drilling off yer coast etc., seeing as that produces alright-ish oil at a reasonable cost, as opposed to your Bakken Field and Alaskan stuff, which is not only extremely pish oil, but very, very expensive to extract.

Still a bit of a drop in the ocean, mind. You guys need to reduce your usage of petroleum and sharpish. Cars under 30 miles per gallon are Not Good Enough, let's be honest.
It will hurt our economy....and in Europe they have a huge mass transit system
Bit sweeping right there. Some of Europe does, some doesn't. In the UK, our public transport is pretty average, so most people who aren't very poor just drive everywhere by themselves.

This is from the article

"While Washington dithers over exploiting oil and gas reserves off the coast of Florida, China has seized the opportunity to gobble up these deposits, which run throughout Latin America, the Caribbean and along the U.S. Gulf coast.

The Chinese have forged a deal with Cuban leader Fidel Castro to explore and tap into massive oil reserves almost within sight of Key West, Florida. At the same time, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who controls the largest oil reserves in the Western Hemisphere, is making deals to sell his country’s oil to China, oil that is currently coming to the United States.

Meanwhile, a new left-wing populist regime in Bolivia has nationalized the natural gas industry, threatening to cut off supplies to the United States.

SLANT DRILLING

There are new reports out circulating that Chinese firms are planning to slant drill off the Cuban coast near the Florida Straits, tapping into U.S. oil reserves that are estimated at 4.6 billion to 9.3 billion barrels. This compares with 4 billion to 10 billion barrels believed to be beneath the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, where drilling is held up in Congress due to the objections of environmental groups which warn of endangering caribou. Permission to drill in the refuge, which experts are certain will not present any environmental hazard, has failed by just two votes in the Senate.

As Chinese business increases its reach around the world, it is seeking oil, which it lacks domestically.

After elections in Mexico in early July, when a new regime hostile to Washington is expected to take power, the United States might be without supplies of Mexican crude oil. The United States gets about 40 percent of its imported oil from Mexico and Venezuela.

China is eager to tap into oil reserves in the Florida Straits and then make a deal with Castro to control it. The Chinese have already reopened an abandoned Russian oil refinery in Cuba. Much of the gas refined there is believed to be destined for Freeport in the Bahamas, where the Chinese, through front company Hutchison-Whampoa, has developed a massive port facility and airfield.

With the refinery reopened and expanded it will also meet the needs of Castro.

Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) has introduced legislation to ease U.S. restrictions that prevent dealing with Cuba to drill in the Florida Straits. It is hoped that Florida regulations that prevent U.S. oil drilling off the state’s coasts could also be eased.

The irony is that Chinese drilling could be even more of an environmental hazard since China is not as concerned about or equipped to deal with any potential ecological disaster as a result of a spill, said Craig."
_______________________________________________________________

I saw this really cool online petition here
http://www.americansolutions.com/Default.aspx


(What do you guys think about the Oil problem in America)

Do you have link for the above mentioned news article? When was it written?

Well considering that coal power is the number one producer of CO2 in America, not cars.

Agreed. the problem here is that you keep converting the energy- we take fossil fuels and make heat, heat to steam, steam to electricity, then u ship it in power lines however far it has to go (therefore losing energy), then you power up your car and convert the electric potential to kinetic energy. The power plant it self is only about 33% efficient, which iirc is about how efficient a combustion engine is, add in losses from transportation and utilizing the energy in your car and it'll be a lot lower.

Fuck oil, by the time the oil we would start drilling now would enter the market, it would be irrelevant. Work on alternate fuel sources and stop dicking around because of all the conflicts of interest with the oil industry.

Because, we'd need more power plants. And since Green Peace(aka -eco-terrorists) have raised hell and created a stigma around nuclear power, has decided that Nuclear power wasn't worth it until very recently, and now they say its to late to use it and won't be ready in time to lower emisions, we'd have to rely on new, CO2 emitting power plants.

Hmm somehow I don't think that opposition to nuclear power was all started by Greenpeace. Perhaps it's because of some of these reasons:
a) non-renewable; come on everybody lets swap one limited fuel source for another yay!!!:rolleyes:
b) nuclear waste; oh joy there's no nasty gases coming out of the plant, just stuff which needs to be wrapped in lead, concrete and glass and buried deep underground
c) nuclear safety; Chernobyl ring any bells?

Seriously people don't oppose nuclear power because of Greenpeace, they oppose it because its an awful idea.

a) non-renewable; come on everybody lets swap one limited fuel source for another yay!!!:rolleyes:
This one will last us hundreds of years and stretch other resources such as coal out over a longer period of time. Nothing wrong with that.
b) nuclear waste; oh joy there's no nasty gases coming out of the plant, just stuff which needs to be wrapped in lead, concrete and glass and buried deep underground
Yep... doesn't really take all that much space, and if you keep it well guarded and in the middle of nowhere, job's a good 'un.
c) nuclear safety; Chernobyl ring any bells?
Uhu... poor quality, cheaply made and woefully underprotected fast breeder reactor blows up when the technician in charge gets bored and controls the thing manually, and turns off all of the automated security features.

This is, of course, a sign that current-generation reactors which are properly built and funded to last for a while are all going to fall on their arse and die. Yes...

Here's a thought, instead of drilling (or in addition to), why not just give tax incentives for people to buy electric cars?

What about those of us that, even with a tax incentive, can't afford a new car?

Hmm somehow I don't think that opposition to nuclear power was all started by Greenpeace. Perhaps it's because of some of these reasons:
a) non-renewable; come on everybody lets swap one limited fuel source for another yay!!!:rolleyes:
b) nuclear waste; oh joy there's no nasty gases coming out of the plant, just stuff which needs to be wrapped in lead, concrete and glass and buried deep underground
c) nuclear safety; Chernobyl ring any bells?

Seriously people don't oppose nuclear power because of Greenpeace, they oppose it because its an awful idea.

You're right. Let's just build a bunch of windmills instead. All of our problems are solved!

There are new reports out circulating that Chinese firms are planning to slant drill off the Cuban coast near the Florida Straits...

...but surprisingly little actual evidence for it

...but surprisingly little actual evidence for it
Tangible evidence is for pantywaists.

What about those of us that, even with a tax incentive, can't afford a new car?

Well, I guess you'd be SOL. And remember, the Democrat party (the major party most strongly opposing domestic drilling) is the party for the little guy.

The congress is going to run out of things to avoid when gas goes up to $5

$5 a gallon is nothing. Just pay it or ride a bike. Seriously. When the demand drops the price will, when the price rises the demand (should!) drop, it hasn't yet because guess what? IT'S NOT THAT BAD YET.

When we have to start rationing.......then it will be bad. Until then, quit whining.

in Europe they pay like 2x as much as we are now. and they're getting by fine. I don't think american society will collapse if we start paying $5 to the gallon. if anything, maybe it'll convince people to drive less...

Problem is, most European cities are set up either for mass-transit systems or to allow for easy walking to stores and the like(and probably both.) Cities in the United States aren't anywhere near as efficient in either regard. Furthermore, a lot of people have to commute to work, oftentimes rather long distances, as is the case for bedroom communities in states like right here in Colorado.

So basically, it's not that simple.

This one will last us hundreds of years and stretch other resources such as coal out over a longer period of time. Nothing wrong with that.
But you'll still have to eventually go and find a different fuel source and build a whole new set of plants, if we use renewables now we're set for energy.

Yep... doesn't really take all that much space, and if you keep it well guarded and in the middle of nowhere, job's a good 'un.
Today it might seem like a brilliant idea to just bury it underground but bear in mind some of this waste is going to remain hazardous for the next 10,000 years. A well guarded site now can not be guaranteed to be safe for the next 10,000 years can it? It's the same geologically, a site which seems perfectly fine now could experience serious change over time. The storage of nuclear waste won't just be our problem it'll create a problem for thousands of years to come.

Uhu... poor quality, cheaply made and woefully underprotected fast breeder reactor blows up when the technician in charge gets bored and controls the thing manually, and turns off all of the automated security features.

This is, of course, a sign that current-generation reactors which are properly built and funded to last for a while are all going to fall on their arse and die. Yes...

Lazy, greedy and inept people continue to exist today, so problems continue to. Take the many of the British nuclear stations, on paper their design is much safer but they've been compromised by poor concrete which has caused cracking in key parts. Just last month EDF had to halt production of one of their new power stations, when it was revealed that the building materials they were using weren't up to scratch and cracks were appearing. These problems of shoddy workmanship and lack of foresight are taking place in Western Europe where there is stringent legislation to ensure the safety of nuclear plants. If nuclear becomes the true replacement of coal and becomes globally used, standards will inevitably differ around the world as different companies build to different standards due to the ever present aim of maximising profit; also not all governments are necessarily going to be able to keep up the same level of inspections. Accidents will happen, accidents which can be easily avoided if we decide now to focus on clean and renewable methods of energy production.

But you'll still have to eventually go and find a different fuel source and build a whole new set of plants, if we use renewables now we're set for energy.

Today it might seem like a brilliant idea to just bury it underground but bear in mind some of this waste is going to remain hazardous for the next 10,000 years. A well guarded site now can not be guaranteed to be safe for the next 10,000 years can it? It's the same geologically, a site which seems perfectly fine now could experience serious change over time. The storage of nuclear waste won't just be our problem it'll create a problem for thousands of years to come.


Lazy, greedy and inept people continue to exist today, so problems continue to. Take the many of the British nuclear stations, on paper their design is much safer but they've been compromised by poor concrete which has caused cracking in key parts. Just last month EDF had to halt production of one of their new power stations, when it was revealed that the building materials they were using weren't up to scratch and cracks were appearing. These problems of shoddy workmanship and lack of foresight are taking place in Western Europe where there is stringent legislation to ensure the safety of nuclear plants. If nuclear becomes the true replacement of coal and becomes globally used, standards will inevitably differ around the world as different companies build to different standards due to the ever present aim of maximising profit; also not all governments are necessarily going to be able to keep up the same level of inspections. Accidents will happen, accidents which can be easily avoided if we decide now to focus on clean and renewable methods of energy production.

Kay. I'm going to walk you through this nice and easy: WE CAN'T YET.

Most people do not realize just how potent oil and other fossil fuels are. They are by far the cheapest and most powerful--economically speaking--power source we've ever developed. Nothing else we've got can even come close, not even nuclear fission. The entire worldwide economy is built around having this cheap energy, and it's the only thing holding it up. If it's removed, everything else collapses.

Most renewable sources of energy are limited by certain factors, whether it's production cost, location feasibility, and so on and so forth. Furthermore, even in locales where they can be used perfectly, they still aren't potent enough to match fossil fuels.

We also would need a large amount of new infrastructure, which would take time to build and cost quite a chunk of change. That means that while we build the new infrastructure, the old has to hold out.

Now, with that said, what we've developed so far renewable wise should definitely be used where they can be used effectively. They're not worthless; they simply can't, on their own, replace fossil fuels.

In order to do that, we need better energy sources. But they take time to develop, time in which we need to find an alternative.

Nuclear fission's not perfect, but it's far safer than most people have often been lead to believe. In most nuclear accidents that do occur, the damage is astoshingly minimal compared to the accidents that regularly occur with fossil fuel power plants. The one accident that tends to stay in everyone's mind--Chernobyl--was a case of every possible thing being wrong, from reactor design to construction materials to maintenence going wrong all at the same time, which simply isn't going to happen in the West.

Furthermore, getting rid of the nuclear waste is a lot easier, again, than most people realize. For one thing we're producing less and less of it with each new more efficient reactor design, and for another the waste is actually not that horrible to the environment. It has its effects. It's not the safest stuff to be around, of course. It can definitely damage where it's stored if it's not stored well. But it's far less damaging than fossil fuels and its largest effect is not its actual damage capability, but the stigma associated with it.

I want to see us develop nuclear fusion and other similar sources of energy that are cheap, powerful, and CLEAN, and that CAN replace fossil fuels in our economy. Until then, we're going to need nuclear fission as the backbone of a temporary energy infrastructure.


You might not like it, but it's either accept that and deal with it, or watch as civilization collapses. You might think I'm overstating things, but I'm not. EVERYTHING relies upon the existence of cheap energy and the products fossil fuels can create, from agriculture to food transportation to the computer systems that preserve the vast amounts of information our economy relies upon and so on and so forth. If we don't put something in place that will last until we do have something that can truly replace it, everything goes to hell.

Kay. I'm going to walk you through this nice and easy: WE CAN'T YET.

Most people do not realize just how potent oil and other fossil fuels are. They are by far the cheapest and most powerful--economically speaking--power source we've ever developed. Nothing else we've got can even come close, not even nuclear fission. The entire worldwide economy is built around having this cheap energy, and it's the only thing holding it up. If it's removed, everything else collapses.

Most renewable sources of energy are limited by certain factors, whether it's production cost, location feasibility, and so on and so forth. Furthermore, even in locales where they can be used perfectly, they still aren't potent enough to match fossil fuels.

We also would need a large amount of new infrastructure, which would take time to build and cost quite a chunk of change. That means that while we build the new infrastructure, the old has to hold out.

Now, with that said, what we've developed so far renewable wise should definitely be used where they can be used effectively. They're not worthless; they simply can't, on their own, replace fossil fuels.

In order to do that, we need better energy sources. But they take time to develop, time in which we need to find an alternative.

Nuclear fission's not perfect, but it's far safer than most people have often been lead to believe. In most nuclear accidents that do occur, the damage is astoshingly minimal compared to the accidents that regularly occur with fossil fuel power plants. The one accident that tends to stay in everyone's mind--Chernobyl--was a case of every possible thing being wrong, from reactor design to construction materials to maintenence going wrong all at the same time, which simply isn't going to happen in the West.

Furthermore, getting rid of the nuclear waste is a lot easier, again, than most people realize. For one thing we're producing less and less of it with each new more efficient reactor design, and for another the waste is actually not that horrible to the environment. It has its effects. It's not the safest stuff to be around, of course. It can definitely damage where it's stored if it's not stored well. But it's far less damaging than fossil fuels and its largest effect is not its actual damage capability, but the stigma associated with it.

I want to see us develop nuclear fusion and other similar sources of energy that are cheap, powerful, and CLEAN, and that CAN replace fossil fuels in our economy. Until then, we're going to need nuclear fission as the backbone of a temporary energy infrastructure.


You might not like it, but it's either accept that and deal with it, or watch as civilization collapses. You might think I'm overstating things, but I'm not. EVERYTHING relies upon the existence of cheap energy and the products fossil fuels can create, from agriculture to food transportation to the computer systems that preserve the vast amounts of information our economy relies upon and so on and so forth. If we don't put something in place that will last until we do have something that can truly replace it, everything goes to hell.

But we can't burn more fossil fuels! It'll destroy the world by contributing to global warming -- which is 100% true and not at all exaggerated for political purposes, and the opposition to it definitely hasn't been silenced... because there ISN'T any. After all, everyone knows that every single respected scientist agrees on global warming.

But we can't burn more fossil fuels! It'll destroy the world by contributing to global warming -- which is 100% true and not at all exaggerated for political purposes, and the opposition to it definitely hasn't been silenced... because there ISN'T any. After all, everyone knows that every single respected scientist agrees on global warming.

I believe you have me confused with an AGW denier. I am not an AGW denier. On the contrary, I fully accept the conclusions of the majority of climatologists.

I also recognize that the issue is not anywhere near as simple and clear-cut as people like to think. We're where we are now because of cheap energy, both for good and for ill. We've made mistakes, and we're paying for them in spades and will continue to do so.

That's why we need to stop trying to look at things simply and recognize the reality of the situation. We can't simply dump fossil fuels for the renewable resources we have overnight, because they can't replace them.

Nor can we afford to continue using fossil fuels for too much longer, because of the damage they do to the environment in all sorts of ways and especially because of global warming.

So we have to strike a delicate balance. That balance requires the use, for a few decades, of nuclear fission power.

This one will last us hundreds of years and stretch other resources such as coal out over a longer period of time. Nothing wrong with that.
Millions of years, if Wiki is to be trusted:
As opposed to current light water reactors which use uranium-235 (0.7% of all natural uranium), fast breeder reactors use uranium-238 (99.3% of all natural uranium). It has been estimated that there is up to five billion years’ worth of uranium-238 for use in these power plants.

Yep... doesn't really take all that much space, and if you keep it well guarded and in the middle of nowhere, job's a good 'un.
Aye, the amount of nuclear waste a standard nuclear power plant produces per year is LESS than the amount of radioactive materials released by a coal plant. (first googled source (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste)).

Secondly the amount of actual waste a large nuclear plant produces in a year is 3 cubic meters - A minimum sized olympic swimming pool would be able to store the waste output from over 800 years of use. (sources for both: Wikipedia)

I hope you're satisfied. You completely ruined my trolling sarcasm. *sulks*

I do that quite often.

I believe you have me confused with an AGW denier. I am not an AGW denier. On the contrary, I fully accept the conclusions of the majority of climatologists.

I also recognize that the issue is not anywhere near as simple and clear-cut as people like to think. We're where we are now because of cheap energy, both for good and for ill. We've made mistakes, and we're paying for them in spades and will continue to do so.

That's why we need to stop trying to look at things simply and recognize the reality of the situation. We can't simply dump fossil fuels for the renewable resources we have overnight, because they can't replace them.

Nor can we afford to continue using fossil fuels for too much longer, because of the damage they do to the environment in all sorts of ways and especially because of global warming.

So we have to strike a delicate balance. That balance requires the use, for a few decades, of nuclear fission power.

I hope you're satisfied. You completely ruined my trolling sarcasm. *sulks*

Millions of years, if Wiki is to be trusted:
As opposed to current light water reactors which use uranium-235 (0.7% of all natural uranium), fast breeder reactors use uranium-238 (99.3% of all natural uranium). It has been estimated that there is up to five billion years’ worth of uranium-238 for use in these power plants.


At what usage rates? Current usage rates? I find that a little hard to believe, to be perfectly honest.

I can't wait for $10 gas. It's what everyone wanted.

Do you have link for the above mentioned news article? When was it written?

This is from the article

Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) has introduced legislation to ease U.S. restrictions that prevent dealing with Cuba to drill in the Florida Straits.

*snickers*

I'd say quite a while ago...

I've seen this article a few times in the past. It's another argument from the right-wing that increasing domestic supply and giving Big Oil everthing it could ever want is going to somehow magically reduce our gas prices overnight to $2.50 per gallon.

Even if we went hog-wild on domestic production, it would do nothing in the short term to alleviate gas prices or the need for large quantities of oil imports, and nothing in the long term to stem the rising cost of energy worldwide or address the need for alternate forms of energy as these non-renewable resources are depleted...and the oil companies would laugh all the way to the bank.

This is from the article
This article?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/12/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4177282.shtml
or if you don't like that source ...
http://www.miamiherald.com/campaign08/story/567156.html ?
But industry experts and other observers say there is zero evidence that China is drilling in Cuban waters, and doesn't even hold a lease to drill offshore.

''China is not drilling in Cuba's Gulf of Mexico waters, period,'' said Jorge Piñon, an energy expert at the University of Miami's Center for Hemispheric Policy.

Rising gas prices are prompting renewed efforts to open Florida waters to drilling, and the specter of oil-thirsty China slurping up nearby reserves is helping to fuel the push: In recent days, House Republican leaders have penned newspaper opinion pieces making the claim.
...
The renewed efforts prompted Florida Sen. Mel Martinez, who opposes drilling off Florida's coast, to take to the Senate floor Wednesday to -- as his office put it -- ''debunk the myth'' of China drilling in Cuban waters.

''Reports to the contrary are simply false,'' Martinez said, his remarks delivered just before Cheney spoke. ``They are akin to urban legends. China drilling off the coast of Cuba only 60 miles from the Keys, that is not taking place. . . Any talk of using some fabricated Cuba-China connection as an argument to change U.S. policy has no merit.''


(What do you guys think about the Oil problem in America)
I think it doesn't help if people don't sift through the obviously profit-oriented bullshit often enough.

Do you have link for the above mentioned news article? When was it written?See above post, perhaps, for some details.

Kay. I'm going to walk you through this nice and easy: WE CAN'T YET.

Most people do not realize just how potent oil and other fossil fuels are. They are by far the cheapest and most powerful--economically speaking--power source we've ever developed. Nothing else we've got can even come close, not even nuclear fission. The entire worldwide economy is built around having this cheap energy, and it's the only thing holding it up. If it's removed, everything else collapses.

Most renewable sources of energy are limited by certain factors, whether it's production cost, location feasibility, and so on and so forth. Furthermore, even in locales where they can be used perfectly, they still aren't potent enough to match fossil fuels.

We also would need a large amount of new infrastructure, which would take time to build and cost quite a chunk of change. That means that while we build the new infrastructure, the old has to hold out.

Now, with that said, what we've developed so far renewable wise should definitely be used where they can be used effectively. They're not worthless; they simply can't, on their own, replace fossil fuels.

In order to do that, we need better energy sources. But they take time to develop, time in which we need to find an alternative.

Nuclear fission's not perfect, but it's far safer than most people have often been lead to believe. In most nuclear accidents that do occur, the damage is astoshingly minimal compared to the accidents that regularly occur with fossil fuel power plants. The one accident that tends to stay in everyone's mind--Chernobyl--was a case of every possible thing being wrong, from reactor design to construction materials to maintenence going wrong all at the same time, which simply isn't going to happen in the West.

Furthermore, getting rid of the nuclear waste is a lot easier, again, than most people realize. For one thing we're producing less and less of it with each new more efficient reactor design, and for another the waste is actually not that horrible to the environment. It has its effects. It's not the safest stuff to be around, of course. It can definitely damage where it's stored if it's not stored well. But it's far less damaging than fossil fuels and its largest effect is not its actual damage capability, but the stigma associated with it.

I want to see us develop nuclear fusion and other similar sources of energy that are cheap, powerful, and CLEAN, and that CAN replace fossil fuels in our economy. Until then, we're going to need nuclear fission as the backbone of a temporary energy infrastructure.


You might not like it, but it's either accept that and deal with it, or watch as civilization collapses. You might think I'm overstating things, but I'm not. EVERYTHING relies upon the existence of cheap energy and the products fossil fuels can create, from agriculture to food transportation to the computer systems that preserve the vast amounts of information our economy relies upon and so on and so forth. If we don't put something in place that will last until we do have something that can truly replace it, everything goes to hell.

This is an excellent post. Well said.

Alright my two cents how about we just run things on water, it really is not that difficult despite what some may think or say plus you will keep alot of microwaves out of the dump by using them for parts, and then every one is happy

How much of that is tax?

Probably 70-85%, I think. The government makes a nice profit off it, that's for sure.

Agreed. the problem here is that you keep converting the energy- we take fossil fuels and make heat, heat to steam, steam to electricity, then u ship it in power lines however far it has to go (therefore losing energy), then you power up your car and convert the electric potential to kinetic energy. The power plant it self is only about 33% efficient, which iirc is about how efficient a combustion engine is, add in losses from transportation and utilizing the energy in your car and it'll be a lot lower.

There are economies of scale when you're dealing with heat. You lose it in proportion to surface area, but the amount you can store is proportional to volume. So there's even methods to do clever tricks with solar plants in the desert that would be massive amounts more efficient than anything you can put into a car.

Sun -> Heat -> Kinetic -> Electric isn't that hard, and you aren't destroying fossil fuels. Also, these designs are perfectly usable to provide baseload power, with other methods available to pick it up when needed. (I favour local generation and storage to as high a degree as possible).

Also, it's a lot easier to clean pollutants out of 3 or 4 exhaust stacks on powerplants than out of every single car's exhaust.

And finally, things look a whole lot better if we can develop a room temperature superconductor.

$2.50 per gallon.

Remember when this was an absurd and unreasonably high price of gas in the US? :D

That said, keeping energy cheap enough to keep the global economy moving is a complex problem that requires an attack on many fronts. For one thing, the present cultural infatuation with "Going Green," while somewhat irritating, certainly does help to establish the proper attitude towards energy usage. Conservation consciousness and the shift towards fuel-efficient vehicles and public transportation will ease our immediate energy concerns (and save money for individual consumers). This has to be assisted by developing more fuel-efficient vehicles and more public transportation as well.

For our short and medium term power needs, I agree with Kyronea. We need a stable supply of energy, and nuclear fission appears to offer that. The risks seem negligible to me, and competent design and staffing ameliorate them. The coal industry has been touting "Clean Coal" technology lately, I'd be interested to know just how clean it really is. IIRC, there's a much greater supply of coal than oil in the world, so perhaps clean coal plants could also take pressure off of oil energy.

Obviously, our long term goal should be renewable, completely clean energy forms - hydroelectric, solar, wind, and geothermal (hell, let's throw fusion in there too). At the moment, however, these power sources aren't efficient enough to meet our energy needs. According to one of the Republicans in the US HoR, it would take around 800 wind turbines to duplicate the output of a single coal plant, or around 1200 to equal the output of a nuclear plant. I'll admit that the Repubs have a conflict of interests - they were pushing for ANWR and offshore drilling - but the fact is that wind farms need to be large to be effective, and the same issue seems to exist for solar power as well. Add to this the NIMBY mentality, and it seems there are few places to establish wind turbines. Getting clean energy up and running will mean better generators that make more power as well as getting people to ditch the NIMBY thing.

As for trying to open up ANWR or the coast to domestic exploration and production, the most non-partisan consensus I've been able to develop is:
1 - The environmental impact will actually be pretty negligible
2 - The economic impact will also be pretty negligible
3 - It'll be about ten years before production gets going at full capacity
4 - Domestic refinery capacity has more to do with gas prices than anything else, refinery capacity is working at the max, and oil companies haven't wanted to build a new refinery in 30 years for market reasons.

For reason (1) I don't particularly oppose expanding domestic drilling, but for (2) and (3), I don't think it's important enough to insist on, and it's certainly not going to ease prices. For reason (4), I think expanding refinery capacity is another angle to look at, and the Democratic call to nationalize refineries might be the right idea if it's simply unprofitable for oil companies to build new refineries. Of course, there are other issues with nationalization (cost, loss of confidence) - but some public intervention to force the expansion of refining capacity seems to be in order.

In brief:
Short-Term
*Personal conservation and green-consciousness will ease aggregate demand for gas and reduce the cost to individual consumers.
*Expanding refinery capacity may also help to increase the supply of gas. To this end, if market forces will not drive companies to expand refinery capacity, the public sector should intervene to increase supply.
Medium-Term
*Nuclear (and possibly clean coal) technology offers a reasonable energy solution that is cheap, clean, and safe.
Long-Term
*Renewable, no-risk energy sources need to be invested in, developed and expanded.
*Not-in-my-Backyard resistance to the expansion of energy infrastructure (such as wind turbines) needs to be overcome. We're trying to have a civilization here, you might have to endure some inconveniences for the good of society.

The problem of oil price can not simply be solved by drilling. There if you were to plot on a graph the peaks in oil discovery to the peaks in oil production, there is about a 20 year difference in the peak of exploration to the peak of production.

This is due to the fact that it simply takes time from the point when the oil is discovered to the time that all the material and resources can be aassembled to extract that oil. Now the problem is that the last major discovery of oil reserves was I believe back in the 70's, do the math, that oil finally started to see it way into the market by about the 90's.

There are those analysist that believe that we have almost hit the cap of world wide oil production back around 2003. However, world wide demand for oil has not peaked in any way shape or form. Now given the basic rules of supply and demand, you have on one side production almost at max, while on the other side an ever increasing demand of course the price will go up.

There are car manufactures out there that are deleveloping cheap car to flood the india market (http://business.mapsofindia.com/automobile/car-manufacturers/), well those cars are going to need gas to power them. You can bet that at the cost of those car they will not be very fuel efficent. China is a growing economic power, and as pointed out in the article they are thirsty for oil Why you ask, because as their economy grow so does their depency on oil (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6658583.stm). Gobal forcast show that both China and India's car markets are set to exploded.

To bring my arguement to a close a slight increase in oil drill will not inrease oil production enough to meet the inreasing levels of oil demand. Again coming back to basic supply and demand the only may to effectively drive down oil prices is to decrease the demand of oil. A task that is not so easy accomplish.

Kay. I'm going to walk you through this nice and easy: WE CAN'T YET.

Most people do not realize just how potent oil and other fossil fuels are. They are by far the cheapest and most powerful--economically speaking--power source we've ever developed. Nothing else we've got can even come close, not even nuclear fission. The entire worldwide economy is built around having this cheap energy, and it's the only thing holding it up. If it's removed, everything else collapses.

Most renewable sources of energy are limited by certain factors, whether it's production cost, location feasibility, and so on and so forth. Furthermore, even in locales where they can be used perfectly, they still aren't potent enough to match fossil fuels.

We also would need a large amount of new infrastructure, which would take time to build and cost quite a chunk of change. That means that while we build the new infrastructure, the old has to hold out.

Now, with that said, what we've developed so far renewable wise should definitely be used where they can be used effectively. They're not worthless; they simply can't, on their own, replace fossil fuels.

In order to do that, we need better energy sources. But they take time to develop, time in which we need to find an alternative.

Nuclear fission's not perfect, but it's far safer than most people have often been lead to believe. In most nuclear accidents that do occur, the damage is astoshingly minimal compared to the accidents that regularly occur with fossil fuel power plants. The one accident that tends to stay in everyone's mind--Chernobyl--was a case of every possible thing being wrong, from reactor design to construction materials to maintenence going wrong all at the same time, which simply isn't going to happen in the West.

Furthermore, getting rid of the nuclear waste is a lot easier, again, than most people realize. For one thing we're producing less and less of it with each new more efficient reactor design, and for another the waste is actually not that horrible to the environment. It has its effects. It's not the safest stuff to be around, of course. It can definitely damage where it's stored if it's not stored well. But it's far less damaging than fossil fuels and its largest effect is not its actual damage capability, but the stigma associated with it.

I want to see us develop nuclear fusion and other similar sources of energy that are cheap, powerful, and CLEAN, and that CAN replace fossil fuels in our economy. Until then, we're going to need nuclear fission as the backbone of a temporary energy infrastructure.


You might not like it, but it's either accept that and deal with it, or watch as civilization collapses. You might think I'm overstating things, but I'm not. EVERYTHING relies upon the existence of cheap energy and the products fossil fuels can create, from agriculture to food transportation to the computer systems that preserve the vast amounts of information our economy relies upon and so on and so forth. If we don't put something in place that will last until we do have something that can truly replace it, everything goes to hell.

I have some problems with what you're saying:
Firstly, you seem to be labouring under the mistaken belief that nuclear is super cheap, which isn't wholly true as while it the fuel required is relatively cheap the initial capital costs of construction are very large.
Secondly you overstate the limitations of renewable sources. Sure some sources aren't available at all times but their are viable energy storage methods already in existence, while there are also sources which are continually available such as geothermal and tidal. The current technical potential of all sources is over 3 times the amount of energy used globally and with the technology continuing to develop this technical limit is only going to increase.
Thirdly, you appear to be enamoured with the ideas behind current methods of energy production, the idea that you have one big power station which then sells energy. A crucial part of what makes renewable energy so viable is microgeneration, people being able to have photovoltaic cells on their roofs or a turbine in their garden would totally change the current energy infrastructure. Sure we would still need the big power generation sites but I think you'd be seeing more and more people producing a greater proportion of their own energy, and therefore reducing the need to construct new infrastructure, lowering costs.
Fourthly, I'm aware that Chernobyl was an extreme case and I agree that a catastrophic meltdown is unlikely to happen in the west. However as I already said as nuclear power proliferates around the world plants are going to be built in poorer countries by less able or scrupulous groups. Just because a horrible accident is unlikely to occur in the West doesn't mean we should disregard the likelihood of it happening elsewhere. I'm also aware that while the amount of waste produced is decreasing I would question the wisdom of using a means of production which produces any waste when there is an alternative available which does not.
Fifthly, nuclear fusion might seem like a great idea on paper but you've got to remember that scientists have been working on it for the past 50 years without success and there are no guarantees that they will succeed in making it reliable within the next.
My final point is that you seem to think that society is wholly unchangeable, that the only thing we can do is try and meet energy demands without even thinking of changing the way we live to become less energy intensive and fossil fuel reliant. For instance it has been consistently shown in studies that smaller scale farms using organic methods can be more productive than larger ones using conventional methods as is the norm. We need to take the opportunity to change the way we use energy rather than just find a new source to support our damaging and wasteful ways.

But you'll still have to eventually go and find a different fuel source and build a whole new set of plants
Uhu. Bloody ages away.
if we use renewables now we're set for energy.
I think not. Renewables powering the whole of any large state is not going to happen any time soon.
Today it might seem like a brilliant idea to just bury it underground but bear in mind some of this waste is going to remain hazardous for the next 10,000 years.
Err yep, on the other hand its position can be continually reviewed and its safety improved.
A well guarded site now can not be guaranteed to be safe for the next 10,000 years can it? It's the same geologically, a site which seems perfectly fine now could experience serious change over time. The storage of nuclear waste won't just be our problem it'll create a problem for thousands of years to come.
And you think the people in charge of guarding nuclear waste would be too stupid to have any kind of review process or something?
Lazy, greedy and inept people continue to exist today, so problems continue to.
So war es und so wird es immer sein. What's your point, the issue with Chernobyl was a very poor reactor design, combined with the ability for technicians to disable the in-built security features. Something which will not be an issue anywhere in the world after that particular disaster.
Take the many of the British nuclear stations
Which ones?
on paper their design is much safer but they've been compromised by poor concrete which has caused cracking in key parts. Just last month EDF had to halt production of one of their new power stations, when it was revealed that the building materials they were using weren't up to scratch and cracks were appearing. These problems of shoddy workmanship and lack of foresight are taking place in Western Europe where there is stringent legislation to ensure the safety of nuclear plants.
Yeah, as you can see they were stopped from making a crappy plant... where's the problem here?
If nuclear becomes the true replacement of coal and becomes globally used
It won't become a replacement for coal. The plants are fairly expensive to maintain.
standards will inevitably differ around the world as different companies build to different standards due to the ever present aim of maximising profit; also not all governments are necessarily going to be able to keep up the same level of inspections.
Governments of that poor quality will not be able to afford and maintain a nuclear industry full stop.
Accidents will happen, accidents which can be easily avoided if we decide now to focus on clean and renewable methods of energy production.
What's your solution, then?

For the UK, wind power is a profound waste of time, as for most of the UK more energy is needed to create wind turbines that will ever be yielded. Offshore wind farms off Orkney are lovely and all but the loss from transmission is immense.

Geothermal - again, feh.

Tidal - Fine by me to go across the Severn, but Greenpeace don't like it because it might destroy some grass or something.

Hydroelectric - capacity filled.

Solar - Haha no.

Unless we can make some kind of electricity source using drizzle as its primary source of production, spinning very tiny weeny turbines, we're a bit hard up in terms of real sources of renewable energy.

On the other hand we have massive stocks of coal, also uranium up in the Orkneys (although again Greenpeace will cause a fuss, as they always will).

I have some problems with what you're saying:
Firstly, you seem to be labouring under the mistaken belief that nuclear is super cheap, which isn't wholly true as while it the fuel required is relatively cheap the initial capital costs of construction are very large.


Where exactly did I say that? I specifically said:

Most people do not realize just how potent oil and other fossil fuels are. They are by far the cheapest and most powerful--economically speaking--power source we've ever developed. Nothing else we've got can even come close, not even nuclear fission.

Nuclear is, however, more potent, not to mention much more RELIABLE, than most renewable sources of energy at this point in places where those renewable sources wouldn't be quite viable.


Secondly you overstate the limitations of renewable sources. Sure some sources aren't available at all times but their are viable energy storage methods already in existence, while there are also sources which are continually available such as geothermal and tidal. The current technical potential of all sources is over 3 times the amount of energy used globally and with the technology continuing to develop this technical limit is only going to increase.
Can you source that statement please? Also, you missed part of the point. Energy potency alone is not enough. Hell, if the only problem were energy potency, we could cover a large area of desert with an enormous, miles large photovoltaic field and power everything. Unfortunately the cost of something like that--not just in money, but in terms of materials--simply makes that nigh impossible at the moment, unless we get some miraculous political will.

Even then, one of the primary problems with those energy sources is reliability. At night, a photovoltaic cell is useless. Wind isn't even predictable to the levels that would be necessary. Geothermal is too variable. Hydro power requires huge rivers. Tidal power is extremely limited to small areas.

With fossil fuel plants, none of these factors matter. 24/7/365 so long as you have the fuel, it'll work. The same is true of nuclear fission.

Now, again, as I said, we need to use these methods too, where they are applicable. But on their own they are simply not enough, nor will they be even with huge technical improvements. Their costs will come down and they'll be easier to manufacture, but all the technical innovation in the world couldn't change the factors that are really important(not without the energy to do so, and if we could generate the sufficient energy then why would we be wasting our time trying to make these limited sources more viable?)


Thirdly, you appear to be enamoured with the ideas behind current methods of energy production, the idea that you have one big power station which then sells energy. A crucial part of what makes renewable energy so viable is microgeneration, people being able to have photovoltaic cells on their roofs or a turbine in their garden would totally change the current energy infrastructure. Sure we would still need the big power generation sites but I think you'd be seeing more and more people producing a greater proportion of their own energy, and therefore reducing the need to construct new infrastructure, lowering costs.
You do realize that this would still entail a large amount of time and effort to build this stuff? Whether it's in the form of our current idea of infrastructure or a new form, it'll still have to be built, and it'll still take time.

I'd love to see that happen, though. Problem is, that's not going to cover everyone and everybody. A solar cell on someone's house in Arizona is great. A solar cell on someone's house in Maine or Scotland would practically be wasted.

It'll help. It won't solve things on its own, and large scale power generation will still be required to provide the majority of energy.


Fourthly, I'm aware that Chernobyl was an extreme case and I agree that a catastrophic meltdown is unlikely to happen in the west. However as I already said as nuclear power proliferates around the world plants are going to be built in poorer countries by less able or scrupulous groups. Just because a horrible accident is unlikely to occur in the West doesn't mean we should disregard the likelihood of it happening elsewhere. I'm also aware that while the amount of waste produced is decreasing I would question the wisdom of using a means of production which produces any waste when there is an alternative available which does not.
No we shouldn't disregard it. That's why we ought to work with those countries to improve the quality of their power generation facilities and so on and so forth. Cooperation is going to be key no matter what we do.

Furthermore, again, the waste is negliable. As shown before, coal power plants actually produce more radioactive waste than current nuclear plants do, and getting rid of the waste is pretty damned simple. Is it a bit of a hassle? Sure. Do we have any other choice? Not really.


Fifthly, nuclear fusion might seem like a great idea on paper but you've got to remember that scientists have been working on it for the past 50 years without success and there are no guarantees that they will succeed in making it reliable within the next.
Exactly my point. We need a safeguard, an energy system that will work regardless, that can give us the breathing room we need to build up to nuclear fusion or some other equally clean, powerful, cheap energy source. Renewable sources on their own can't do it. Nuclear fission is required.


My final point is that you seem to think that society is wholly unchangeable, that the only thing we can do is try and meet energy demands without even thinking of changing the way we live to become less energy intensive and fossil fuel reliant. For instance it has been consistently shown in studies that smaller scale farms using organic methods can be more productive than larger ones using conventional methods as is the norm. We need to take the opportunity to change the way we use energy rather than just find a new source to support our damaging and wasteful ways.

While I doubt what you said on organic farming--source that statement please--I otherwise agree with you. We need to become much more efficient in our resource usage. We've acted like idiot gluttons and we're paying for it.

All the efficiency in the world, though, can't bring our energy requirements down to the levels where our current renewable sources will be able to provide enough energy.

Nuclear fission has its own potential problems, true, but it's cleaner than fossil fuels, and next to fossil fuels, it's the cheapest and most reliable energy source we've got. We're going to have to use it. Period.

Uhu. Bloody ages away.
Oh what a great argument that is, because no one has ever said anything like that before.:rolleyes:

I think not. Renewables powering the whole of any large state is not going to happen any time soon.
The only reason that that won't happen is because there are so many misconceptions surrounding renewables and so much propaganda about nuclear.

Err yep, on the other hand its position can be continually reviewed and its safety improved.

And you think the people in charge of guarding nuclear waste would be too stupid to have any kind of review process or something?

Hmm so you're guaranteeing that humanity as it is now will exist in 10,000 years?

So war es und so wird es immer sein. What's your point, the issue with Chernobyl was a very poor reactor design, combined with the ability for technicians to disable the in-built security features. Something which will not be an issue anywhere in the world after that particular disaster.
How can you possibly know that? Older less safe designs will be cheaper and therefore they'll be the ones sold to developing countries when they want to start using nuclear but having no knowledge or experience of it won't know that they're in danger.

Which ones?
Hinkley point A & B, Sizewell B, Oldbury, Wylfa, Sellafield, Torness and Chapelcross

Yeah, as you can see they were stopped from making a crappy plant... where's the problem here?

My point was that even the brand spanking new plants which you seem to think are fantastic can have problems.

It won't become a replacement for coal. The plants are fairly expensive to maintain.
But politicians are trying to sell it to the public as exactly that.

Governments of that poor quality will not be able to afford and maintain a nuclear industry full stop.
Then how can nuclear be proposed as a solution to the worlds power generation needs if not all governments which need alternatives can afford it. As I've said before older less safe designs are going to be cheaper and they're the ones countries with no experience or knowledge of nuclear power are going to be using.

You appear to fall into the same old typical British assumption that we simply don't have the potential to fulfil our energy needs through renewable sources. Solar energy has certainly been shown to be viable in the south of England at least, and it can be also be useful in other areas to reduce or eliminate the need for fossil fuels to heat houses.
As an island nation tidal and wave energy has enormous potential if we are prepared to invest the money required to exploit it. The tidal bore across the Severn is just one large plan in a ecologically sensitive area, wave energy in particular has the potential to not only produce plenty of energy but to do so without damaging the area in which the generators are situated.
It's hard to be sure about the potential of geothermal energy in the UK as it has only really been looked at briefly in the 1970s so further study is going to be needed to ascertain viability. That said the North Sea is one area which is thought to harbour great potential for geothermal energy production, particularly useful considering that production of oil and gas from the region is steadily falling. To say that wind power is a waste of time is absolutely laughable, sure if you're solely building plants onshore the potential isn't brilliant but our offshore potential would satisfy current energy demands three times over.
The only problems with renewables at the moment are a lack of enthusiasm and investment, largely due to the governments obsession with promoting nuclear as the only possible solution to our power needs.

PS. Here are the sources for my statements Kyronea, I'll write a full reply to your post tomorrow as I really need to get some sleep now.

Renewable potential data is from the World Energy Assessment 2001 specifically chapter 5 on energy resources. You can find it on both the wikipedia page on renewable energy and here is a direct link to it http://stone.undp.org/undpweb/seed/wea/pdfs/chapter5.pdf
Not all of the stuff about organics is available online, but here is an article which at the bottom contains source information which confirms my statements. http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html
Also here is a link to a somewhat more readable articles on the status of organic methods
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/08/24/organic-farming-will-feed-the-world/

Renewables are expensive. The more renewable electricity that is used the higher the price will rise. This means that the poor will find it harder and harder to afford heating.

If the goal is to remove some or part of the CO2 used by coal for the gloabal warming concens inevitably the price will rise.

The anti nucleur power debate due to fears is very ill founded. According to wikipedia there were 6027 deaths by coal in 2004 alone solely by coal mining http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining

As for radiation

Yes radiation does exist by uranium. The technology uses the radiation for power. And the waste can always be stored in containers underground in such a way that our sensors today could not tell the difference between that and a bunch of bananas. At the point the fuel is used it can not be useful for the Uranium bomb at all. The atoms for one are no longer Unranium. They have started their decay towards lead