7 Arab nations agree to boost energy resources using nuclear power

[jpak]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1209627066701&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Seven Arab nations say they have agreed on a plan to boost energy resources in the region by using nuclear power.

The plan announced Monday has been the focus of three days of meetings in Jordan's capital of Amman between energy officials from Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates.

<not much more>

[Arctic Dave]

1. ???? So ....

they are going to do what Iran is tryng to do? What is the word I'm looking for..... it's on the tip of my tounge. Help me out if you can.

[bananas]

2. Iraq?

Yeah right.

[NNadir]

3. Oh my God! Muslims! Arabs! Oh my God! No! Couldn't be!

Let's ramp up a bunch of people, say "Saddam Hussein" and "uranium" in the same sentence and run off and kill people indiscriminately.

Apparently the world hasn't learned much after the 2003 racist invocations of a well known Vice President that nuclear power does not bear the same direct link to war that dangerous fossil fuels bear.

Arab people have a right to nuclear energy.

Is it because they're Arabs?

No, it's because they're human beings.

The sooner they stop burning natural gas in the Middle East to generate electricity, the sooner there will be hope of fighting climate change.

[jpak]

8. If they were building wind farms and PV arrays...

...no one would care...

nuclear kills

[Systematic Chaos]

9. Yeah, you're right. We wouldn't.

Because they don't amount to a hill of dog shit and they're essentially a fucking joke.

Thanks for playing.


oooh oooh I almost forgot:

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

:evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin:

[jpak]

10. Ummm....global additions of renewable energy systems have far outstripped additions of new nuclear

since 2004

dog shit indeed

nuclear kills

lol

[NNadir]

15. If you don't know what you're talking about, make stuff up.

In the period between 2004 and 2005, the planetary increase in renewable energy was 28.26 billion kwh, or 0.107 exajoules. This of course is, like the last 50 years, a period where unrestrained cheering and huge subsidies (valued at more than twice the production cost of energy by nuclear means) have prevailed.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table17.xls

Thus the entire planet was able to produce as much new renewable energy as is put out by two coal plants, and the coal plants do not need spinning reserve from dangerous natural gas to back them up.

Now, the anti-nuke representation that nuclear is not growing very fast is rather like those awful arsonist volunteer firemen you hear about - the one's who start fires to validate their worth as firemen.

Nevertheless, nuclear power generation set an all time record in 2005, in spite of the dumb fundie Amory Lovins' 1980 statement that nuclear power is dead.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table27.xls

It produced, in fact, 700% as much energy as the renewable yuppie toys that people have been pushing here for years in order to promote the use of dangerous fossil fuels.

Nuclear energy established this all time record in spite of the vandalism of dumb fundies like the gas executive Gerhard Schroeder, who couldn't care less about how much dangerous fossil fuel waste Germany dumps into the atmosphere, and, by extension, human flesh.

One could build two nuclear plants per year and - in a few hectares of land - produce as much energy as all the rest of planet produces from the hyped yuppie toys pushed by fundie anti-nukes.

Now. I live in New Jersey, where we plan to build three nuclear plants, thus exceeding the rest of the planet's production from renewable toys. I note that dumb fundie - who couldn't care less about dangerous fossil fuels - are trying their damnedest to dump dangerous fossil fuels into the lungs of my children, my wife, my self by opposing the license extension of Oyster Creek, the nation's oldest nuclear plant. I note that this plant has already expended the vast majority of the dangerous fossil fuel waste that went into building it. Therefore the dumb fundies want to vandalize infrastructure - and cause the dumping of corresponding dangerous fossil fuel waste because they are blind fucking yuppie consumers who imagine that the solution to the vast human tragedy of climate change is "all new stuff."

As it happens - given the profile of electronic waste - it is very unlikely that the "all new stuff" will be anywhere as good or reliable as the old stuff, in particular, the Oyster Creek nuclear plant.

Ignorance kills.

[kristopher]

17. If ignorance kills

You're the deadliest person on DU...

The Potential for Renewable Energy

By the Union of Concerned Scientists

Last update: May 8, 2001

Over the past two decades, renewable energy technologies have made great strides in improving efficiency and reducing costs.

Wind Energy

* The cost of producing electricity from wind has dropped 90 percent since the 1980s. Currently producing electricity for 3 to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour, it is competitive with the cost of electricity from a new coal-fired power plant. Through additional investment in research and development, the price could reach 2.5 cents a kilowatt hour within the next few years.
* 3000 megawatts of wind power are currently installed in the U.S. That amount is expected to increase 50 percent by end of 2001.
* Wind energy is cost-competitive with new plants fired with fossil fuel. Utility contracts have been signed recently with a levelized price of less than 4 cents per kilowatt-hour.
* Good wind areas, which cover 6 percent of the contiguous U.S. land area, are large enough to supply more than 4.4 billion megawatt-hours - more than one and a third times the total amount of electricity used in the United States in 1999.
* Wind power is expected to provide 25 percent of Germany's power by 2010.
* The U.S. Department of Energy has estimated that wind energy production could be expanded in the U.S. to serve the electricity needs of ten million homes.

Solar Energy

* 200,000 homes in the United States use some type of photovoltaic (PV) solar technology and the market is expanding 15 percent annually.
* An area 100 miles square in Nevada could produce as much electricity as is used in the United States annually.
* Photovoltaic systems produce electricity without pollution. They also pay back within three years the energy used in producing them and the CO2 generated in doing so.
* A National Renewable Energy Lab study reports that PV is as well suited for utility applications in the central and eastern United States as it is in the western regions.
* Photovoltaic panels produce electricity at times when the electricity grid is at peak demand. Electricity derived from PV that is connected to the grid can provide critical peak needs and can help to avoid electricity supply problems, such as the recent rolling blackouts in California.

Biomass Energy

* Biomass is an abundant resource that can be tapped to produce energy. Sources can include crops grown specifically for energy, such as fast-growing trees and grasses like hybrid poplars or switchgrass. Other sources include agricultural residues, like corn stover and rice straw, as well as wood waste like sawdust, tree prunings and yard clippings.
* By 2010, biomass power could provide an additional 3000 megawatts of electric capacity in the U.S., increasing the total contribution of this sustainable energy supply to 10,000 megawatts of capacity.
* Worldwide, biomass is the fourth largest energy resource after coal, oil and natural gas.
* Modifying coal plants to derive 3 to 15 percent of their fuel requirements from energy crops and other biomass sources would significantly improve the environment while offering U.S. farmers with new market opportunities.

Geothermal Energy

* Geothermal energy supplies about 6 percent of the electricity in California, 10 percent of the power in Northern Nevada, about 25 percent of the electricity for the Island of Hawaii (the Big Island) and significant power in Utah. These states, together with Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington, could produce nearly 20,000 megawatts with enhanced technology.
* DOE has estimated that we could increase our generation of geothermal energy almost ten-fold, supplying 10 percent of the energy needs of the West.
* The United States has an installed geothermal generating capacity of about 2700 megawatts. That's the equivalent of about 58 million barrels of oil, and provides enough electricity for 3.7 million people. The cost of producing this power ranges from 4¢ to 8¢ per kilowatt hour. The geothermal industry is working to achieve a geothermal life-cycle energy cost of 3¢ per kilowatt hour.
* The United States already has about 1,300 geothermal direct-use systems in operation.
* A recently updated resource inventory of 10 western states identified 271 communities located within 5 miles of a geothermal resource.

For more information, contact Alden Meyer, 202/223-6133, Union of Concerned Scientists

[jpak]

21. Ignorant this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=137124

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=88105#88450

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=125760

How's the molten salt bredder coming along???

[NNadir]

13. They aren't building solar arrays and PV arrays. The main reason is that they are shitty

forms of energy.

I note with contempt that it is racist to assume that Arabs have to pay 4 times as much for energy as French people because they're Arabs.

Racism sucks.

You cannot produce one person killed by nuclear energy in an Arab country, just as you can't produce one person killed by nuclear energy in England, France, the US or Hungary.

Thus your claim that "nuclear kills" is simply made up.

There have been zero nuclear bombs dropped on any civilian by any Arabs anywhere at any time. I note, with contempt for racism, that you couldn't care less how many fossil fuel bombs have been dropped on Arabs in the last year.

YOU. COULDN'T. CARE. LESS.

I note that a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize is not Walmart Executive Amory Lovins, ignorant white yuppie from the US employed by gas companies and car culture companies. A winner of the Nobel Peace is Mohammed El Baradei, the internationally respected head of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

He's an Arab.

Got it?

No?

Why am I not surprised?

Racism sucks and ignorance kills.

[losthills]

14. Charging people with racism who disagree with you

shouldn't be tolerated in this forum or any other.

But no rules seem to apply to this individual.

[Nihil]

16. Please don't pretend that the "no nuclear Arabs" argument of the US admin is anything BUT racism!

It is not an accusation of racism to point out that the US (and supporting
governments) attitude of "Only Israel is allowed nuclear power in the Middle
East" is racist in the extreme.

There have been plenty of other cases where NNadir's comments have been
overly inflammatory and plenty of cases where they have been deleted too.
This is not one of them.

[losthills]

20. It looks to me like he's accusing a member of this forum.

Not "the administration..."

You don't have to be part of "the administration" to understand that reactors are desired by some countries as cover for nuclear weapons programs and that more nuclear weapons in this world are a danger to all of us. It doesn't make anyone a "racist" to point that out. It's a cowardly debate tactic with no humor in it.

[kristopher]

18. Thinking that the past is the future demonstrates a lot of confusion, Marvin

May 12, 2008

Wind Energy Could Produce 20 Percent of U.S. Electricity By 2030
DOE Report Analyzes U.S. Wind Resources, Technology Requirements, and Manufacturing, Siting and Transmission Hurdles to Increasing the Use of Clean and Sustainable Wind Power

WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S Department of Energy (DOE) today released a first-of-its kind report that examines the technical feasibility of harnessing wind power to provide up to 20 percent of the nation’s total electricity needs by 2030. Entitled “20 Percent Wind Energy by 2030”, the report identifies requirements to achieve this goal including reducing the cost of wind technologies, citing new transmission infrastructure, and enhancing domestic manufacturing capability. Most notably, the report identifies opportunities for 7.6 cumulative gigatons of CO2 to be avoided by 2030, saving 825 million metric tons in 2030 and every year thereafter if wind energy achieves 20 percent of the nation’s electricity mix. As part of President Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative announced in 2006, clean, secure and sustainable wind energy has the potential to play an increasingly important role in the Bush Administration’s long-term energy strategy to make investments today to fundamentally change the way we power U.S. homes and businesses and to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions growth by 2025.

“DOE’s wind report is a thorough look at America’s wind resource, its industrial capabilities, and future energy prices, and confirms the viability and commercial maturity of wind as a major contributor to America’s energy needs, now and in the future,” DOE Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy for the U.S. Department of Energy Andy Karsner, said. “To dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance our energy security, clean power generation at the gigawatt-scale will be necessary, and will require us to take a comprehensive approach to scaling renewable wind power, streamlining siting and permitting processes, and expanding the domestic wind manufacturing base.”

Prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy and a broad cross section of stakeholders across industry, government, and three of DOE’s national laboratories - the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, CO; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, CA; and Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque, NM, the report presents an in-depth analysis of the potential for wind in the U.S. and outlines a potential scenario to boost wind electric generation from its current production of 16.8 gigawatts (GW) to 304 GW by 2030. For its technical report, DOE also drew on the expertise of the American Wind Energy Association and Black and Veatch engineering consultants and the report reflects input from more than fifty energy organizations and corporations.

The analysis concludes that reaching 20 percent wind energy will require enhanced transmission infrastructure, streamlined siting and permitting regimes, improved reliability and operability of wind systems, and increased U.S. wind manufacturing capacity. Highlights of the report include:

1. Annual installations need to increase more than threefold. Achieving 20 percent wind will require the number of annual turbine installations to increase from approximately 2000 in 2006 to almost 7000 in 2017.
2. Costs of integrating intermittent wind power into the grid are modest. 20 percent wind can be reliably integrated into the grid for less than 0.5 cents per kWh.
3. No material constraints currently exist. Although demand for copper, fiberglass and other raw materials will increase, achieving 20 percent wind is not limited by the availability of raw materials.
4. Transmission challenges need to be addressed. Issues related to siting and cost allocation of new transmission lines to access the Nation’s best wind resources will need to be resolved in order to achieve 20 percent wind.

“The report correctly highlights that greater penetration of renewable sources of energy - such as wind - into our electric grid will have to be paired with not only advanced integration technologies but also new transmission,” DOE’s Assistant Secretary for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Kevin Kolevar said. “In many cases, the most robust sources of renewable resources are located in remote areas, and if we want to be able to deliver these new clean and abundant sources of energy to population centers, we will need additional transmission.”

With the U.S. leading the world in new wind installations and having the potential to be the world leader in total wind capacity by 2010, DOE’s report comes at an important time in wind development. Last year, U.S. cumulative wind energy capacity reached 16,818 megawatts (MW) – with more than 5,000 MW of wind installed in 2007. Wind contributed to more than 30 percent of the new U.S. generation capacity in 2007, making it the second largest source of new power generation in the nation --- surpassed only by natural gas. The U.S. wind energy industry invested approximately $9 billion in new generating capacity in 2007, and has experienced a 30 percent annual growth rate in the last 5 years.

Read more information about on DOE's Wind Program.

Media contact(s):
Jennifer Scoggins, [phone]

[kristopher]

19. Get Used to It -- Sky-High Oil Prices Are Here to Stay

And how are things different now?


Get Used to It -- Sky-High Oil Prices Are Here to Stay
By Marty Jerome EmailMay 13, 2008 | 4:13:09 PMCategories: Business

Oil_pricesThis ain't a bubble, folks. Better get used to it.

We've gotten a a little relief in recent days, but the stubborn upward spiral of oil prices isn't going to let up to any significant degree. Yes, there's some debate between economists and industry analysts who fall into two camps -- Bubble, Not-a-Bubble -- but the evidence suggests high prices are here to stay.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is firmly in the not-a-bubble camp. The only way for speculators to have a persistent effect on oil prices, he maintains, is if there is hoarding -- a tightening of supplies. There's no evidence of that. Oil inventories have remained at more or less normal levels throughout the recent run-up in prices.

Kevin Drum, from CBS News, agrees. He points out that the Energy Information Agency has been consistently wrong in its near-term forecasts for months now. The agency seems to insist that we're living in an oil-price bubble, but reality refuses to comply.

On the other hand, the United States is unquestionably in the midst of an economic slowdown. As demand for imported (read: Chinese and Indian) goods slows, it will weaken economies around the world. This will weaken the price of oil, which is used to ship all those goods from country to country to store shelves. So the stubborn price of oil must be a bubble caused by speculators.

Who are you going to believe?

There are signs demand is easing in emerging markets like China and India. Chinese demand for oil dipped in April and India's industrial production fell to its lowest level since 2002. Some analysts believe that this accounts for why prices have leveled off in recent days.

Peter Beutel of the energy-risk-management company Cameron Hanover believes the steep run-up since September has primarily been because of the Federal Reserve and the falling value of the dollar (oil is priced in dollars).

"Because we use 25 percent of the world's oil even though we only have 5 percent of the world's population, we'll always pay extra for that incremental barrel of oil when supplies are tight," he says. He believes the price of oil will probably peak by Memorial Day then ebb slightly, depending on the direction of the economy and what the Federal Reserve does.

So oil prices are in a bubble, thanks to speculation and the falling dollar, right?

"No," says Severin Borenstein, director of the University of California Energy Institute. "Real oil changes hands for real demand and real supply. And that price has to be pretty close to the futures' price or you're going to get a crash. So you could see a bubble going for a couple of weeks, maybe, if there was a real miscalculation in supply and demand. But you're not seeing that."

Borenstein maintains that the sustained rise in prices proves that supply and demand are currently aligned. He demurs on making forecasts about where the price of oil is headed.

Could oil fall back to those blissful days of $3 a gallon by summer? Not likely, for reasons that lie somewhere between the bubble, not-bubble camps. Chinese and Indian demand for oil has been rising in a relatively slow upward arc. These countries alone can't explain why oil prices have more than quadrupled over five years. And there's no question that supplies have tightened, but not enough to explain the high spike in prices.

Daniel Yergin, chairman of the Cambridge Energy Research Associates, explains that spare capacity is very tight. The oil market is vulnerable to crises. As a result, speculators are driving up the price. Tight capacity is one reason that, just today, the Senate handed the president a veto-proof vote to stop stockpiling fuel in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve over President Bush's strong objections.

So as the global economy slows, we may see a relatively sharp-but-brief downward drop as speculators get burned, then a slow easing of prices until the economy recovers. But in all likelihood, it won't last for long. High prices are here to stay.

[bhikkhu]

4. Wow!

Not that I think its a bad thing technology-wise, but that sure would take the wind out of the sails of a US policy against a nuclear middle east!

[Zachstar]

5. It would take a decade to get the reactors online.

With new solar and wind storage technology on the horizon perhaps their investments are better spent on those?

Pro-Nukes, please don't start with the crap. The environment out there is better for advanced solar than in the US. Deserts are good for solar.

[kristopher]

6. Absolutely concur. Wanna bet they want breeders.

[Nihil]

7. Send them the Duggans! (n/t)

[madokie]

11. My bet is that producing electricity is only a by product as to the needs and wants

Nuclear is one genie that should never have been let out of the bottle, ever.

[losthills]

12. Anyone who doesn't view this as an arms race

has got their fingers stuck in both ears whistling "Don't Worry Be Happy..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGPYSE4nXUM