Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Danish Energy Agency Reports Its Laws On Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling In Denmark.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 08:02 PM
Original message
Danish Energy Agency Reports Its Laws On Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling In Denmark.
Edited on Thu Apr-29-10 08:03 PM by NNadir
http://www.ens.dk/en-US/OilAndGas/Health_and_Safety/Regulationsoffshore/OSA/Sider/Forside.aspx">You are here: Frontpage/Oil and gas/Health and Safety/Regulations Offshore/The Offshore Safety Act

You are here.

Notice how many of the Danish, um, Oil and Gas, um, "health and safety" regulations appeared in the last year.

Our anti-nukes come here to represent that their rickety wind toys are an alternative to dangerous fossil fuels. Then they cite the wonderful "success" in Denmark.

But apparently the wind mavens in Denmark hardly believe themselves that wind energy is an "alternative" to dangerous fossil fuels. Otherwise, why are they issuing new offshore leases and passing new "safety" laws for their oil fields.

Unlike the Danes, I favor an immediate phase out of all dangerous fossil fuels and I know exactly how to do it.

Have a nice evening misrepresenting and misinterpreting the true Danish intentions to not do what I favor.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
HillbillyBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 08:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. I do not want nukes in my back yard. I remember 3MI,
It was only 48 miles away.

Our house hold is trying to go off grid.

I spoke with the renewable energy rep for our local electric co-op.
He could barely keep from laughing when I spoke to him via phone about putting up solar panels.

I grew up in WV seeing strip mining. Most of our power comes from coal.

We are trying to do concrete energy use reduction and still keep the lights on and live in modern style(moderate)..I ain't carryin water from the creek or beating clothes on the rocks down there. There are cows and pigs upstream.

We have cut electric use by 2/3 so far. We replace anything that dies with the most efficient we can find and afford, even if we have to save up for it.

The absolute best we as end consumers can do is reduce demand and it will also help your wallet.

There is all this talk of smart grid, well if we each put up solar panels will that work with a smart grid?
We literally have gone from using 3300 kilowatts per month to 900 to 1200. It has been pretty easy and not too costly so far.
We have 'picked the low hanging fruit' first. Insulation, weather seals, insulated curtains, changing to LED lights, LCD tv, Energy Star appliances(with research into what customers think about said appliance)
Low cost loans to consumers to put up alternative energy generation and replace old appliances with newer more efficient ones.
I know they put up a tax free day on efficient appliances, but they never fall when we need them to.
We put in a mid range front loader, ROI 2.25 yrs. Saves water, power, soap, wear and tear on clothes, short dry time on the line. Oh and the rash from the not rinsed enough clothes is gone too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. You are TRYING to go off grid?
Big deal. I'll bet your on grid right now.

A little science: The unit of energy is the kilowatt-hour, not the kilowatt, which is a unit of instanteous power.

If you meant to say kilowatt-hour, we can calculate how your "conservation" levels compare to the average energy consumption of a citizen of China, the country rich white guys like to trash for contributing to climate change. If you consume 1000 kwh per month, it follows, using something called "math" that just for your "appliances" you are consuming 12,000 kwh. Since there are still, as always, 8,766 hours in a year, it follows that your electricity consumption alone is about 100 billion joules per year. This means your average continuous power consumption is 3000 watts, some of which is probably involved in writing the smug post.

By contrast, the average continuous power consumption of a citizen of China was 277 Watts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption

A citizen of India lives on 50 watts. A citizen of Sudan lives on 10 watts.

I'm very impressed with your "conservation will save us" notion that, um, Indians and Chinese and Sudanese should, um, live like you do and be as noble as you are.

On the other hand, your "sacrifice" might look a hell of a lot like consumerist luxury to them. And maybe they are hoping to live like you. If they try, guess what? They're going to consume more, way more, not less.

Or maybe you think they should agree to stay impoverished so you can feel happy about your sacrifice?

All new appliances?

You offer up some bull about mining.

Do you know where your magical solar cells come from?

Do you know what they're made of?

How about the batteries? Do tell us if the materials for those batteries quantum mechanically tunneled in from Jupiter or whether there might have been some, um, mining going on to make them.

Let me know exactly what your plan for helping a family of four near where I live, in say, Trenton, benefit from the "all new stuff" consumerist compliance tax break. Do you know how much such a tax break might effect a person trying to feed, clothe and educate their children on a Walmart salary (if one can get it)? You think a fucking tax break is going to induce them to buy an Energy Star refrigerator.

Bull. They're grateful if they have a refrigerator, especially one with food in it, though truth be told, sometimes the only refrigerator that works that can be found in their neighborhoods is the one in the soup kitchen where people from my neighborhood go every Thanksgiving to feel, um, compassionate.

I am so sick of this smug consumer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tortilla_Curtain">Tortilla Curtain "environmentalism."

If you don't know how people on this planet live, Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohamed Elbaradei sure as hell does.

http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/printmember/elb0int-1">Interview: Mohamed El Baradei



Mohamed El Baradei: I went to Nigeria recently, and I compare that with the U.S. In the U.S., every American has 16,000 kilowatt hours of electricity per year. That is enough, obviously, to empower your refrigerators, your air-conditioning, your iPods, everything you need. In Nigeria, they have 70 kilowatt hours per year. That translates into an 8-watt light bulb.


Interviewer: Did you say eight?

Mohamed El Baradei: An eight-watt light bulb. That's not even enough to power your personal computer. Without energy, there is no development. Without development, there is a sense of despair, and with a sense of despair, there are extremists. We need to understand always the link between development and security. That's something I very strongly believe in, and people need to understand. We cannot just erect borders.

We cannot erect walls between the north and the south, between the rich and the poor. We need to make sure that we have an equitable world, where every human being has the right to live a decent life, the right to live a life free from fear, the right to be able to send his kids to have education, the right to have Social Security in their old age. If you do that, I think the insecurities we feel -- the extremists that we are seeing -- will drop absolutely dramatically.



Notice that El Baradei who our grateful anti-nuke racists probably would not trust with nuclear energy because his name is Mohamed is enuciating, subtly, the principles that precisely co-incide with the principles that were first enunciated by Eleanor Roosevelt in her http://www.udhr.org/index.htm">Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which she had approved by the United Nations when she was the first American Ambassador to that body.

These are principles worth enunciating, and guess what, a bunch of "me first" libertarians living a distributed energy toxicological nightmare off grid in an oblivious fashion are going to do nothing toward that end.

El Baradei, of course, an Egyptian, is a tireless worker for nuclear energy and I suspect his reasons for being so are very much like my reasons for doing so, even though El Baradei and I both live pretty damn well.

Have a nice Tortilla Curtain oblivious evening.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Why the hate? A 2/3rd reduction in energy use is commendable!
My goal is to be 100% off grid. Yes, it is possible. I just need a square mile of land to do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 05:24 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. Ignoring the 3MI comment, well done on everything else.
Edited on Fri Apr-30-10 05:25 AM by Nihil
> We have 'picked the low hanging fruit' first. Insulation, weather seals,
> insulated curtains, changing to LED lights, LCD tv, Energy Star appliances
> (with research into what customers think about said appliance)

If everyone could match that behaviour, we could be *closing* coal plants
rather than playing silly games in trying to make them "cleaner".

We might disagree on nuclear but we agree on the important stuff that the
ordinary consumer can do - and are doing it!
:toast:


(Edited to stop a parenthesis being turned into an inappropriate smiley!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 09:26 PM
Response to Original message
2. So your reasoning is don't drink the fossil fuel arsenic...
Have the tasty nuclear cyanide instead.

I'm sorry but nuclear power is a third rate solution to our problems.

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Your evocation of elements in the periodic table is insulting to chemists, since, um,
Edited on Fri Apr-30-10 12:36 AM by NNadir
you have no fucking idea what arsenic is.

Here however is an industrial use for the element:

http://photovoltaics.sandia.gov/docs/PVFSCGallium_Arsenide_Solar_Cells.htm

I don't worship your stupid little god Mark Z. Jacobson. I'm an atheist.

Damn if the only thing I can think of us is one of those poor schizophrenic homeless guys you see on the streets of certain cities, muttering crazed lunatic conspiracy theories about the Pope.

Have a nice repetitious day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 06:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC