Augusta Economy

More News | Fort Gordon | Plant Vogtle | Savannah River Site | Editor

Energy solutions must be pursued now

  • Follow Letters

Thank you for Tuesday's editorial emphasizing the compelling need for a national energy policy ("This just in: It's raining!" June 10). We do indeed need a realistic and immediateÂenergy policy.

Those who believe in global warming must push for immediate nuclear power worldwide.

We built each Savannah River Site reactor in less than a year, once we had the design. We need that kind of emphasis and priority now, not an occasional new reactor in 10 years!

The problem here is that a realistic world government is needed to control the plutonium made by worldwide reactors; otherwise nuclear explosives will become as common as gun powder.

We must require that our tree-hugging, Al Gore-loving neo-socialists sell a world run by the United Nations if we are to support their global warming programs. (A U.N.-IRS? A U.N. Army and FBI?)

For those of us who don't believe in global warming and are terrified by the prospect of a U.N. world government, we must push for oil from the ground, from shale, from coal, as economics dictate, for the next century or so while we bring on substitutes like ethanol from cellulose, U.S. nuclear power, hydrogen and electric cars for when all the coal and oil is used.

Fred Christensen, Aiken, S.C.

Comments (23)

Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Stanford11
0
Points
Stanford11 06/16/08 - 01:17 am
0
0

While we wait for our leaders

While we wait for our leaders to act on this issue we can all surf with www.treehoo.com the web that plants trees for most of its profit to fight global warming and climate change. Don't wait act now, it's easy and free!

tomgahunter
0
Points
tomgahunter 06/16/08 - 06:43 am
0
0

Strange how our Republican

Strange how our Republican (Rhino) senator Saxby has been missing in action for the last 6 years. He has been too deep in cuts for vet hospitals, the burning food program, amnesty, & of course the old $473,000,000 tax break for race horses.He is of course responsible for the $.50 tarrif on imported ethanol & is opposed to it's repeal. We need someone to repesent Georgia & the USA not out of state special interest.

SCEagle Eye
724
Points
SCEagle Eye 06/16/08 - 07:26 am
0
0

The best, first place to

The best, first place to fight global warming and rising electricity prices is investing in energy conservation and efficiency. the scorching price of $6 billion to $9 billion or more per reactor will be best used if invested in conservation and efficiency. The best approach might well to leave SRS out of the mix as it has often proved to be a elitist fiefdom most interested in taking care of itself and not the larger tax paying public. But perhaps even this tiger can change its neo-socialist stripes?

Bizarro
13
Points
Bizarro 06/16/08 - 08:15 am
0
0

The issue hasn't been is

The issue hasn't been is global warming real, but is it manmade. The international report from the U.N. in 2007 concluded that man has contributed significantly. However global warming is not unique to now. At the beginning of the Eocene Epoch 55.8 million years ago, global temperatures increased by 5 degrees to 10 degrees over a period of 10 to 20 thousand years then returned to warm background climates over the succeeding 100 ky. Massive and rapid flora and fauna changes have been recorded. The same is happening now as flora and fauna are changing. Seems history does repeat itself.

imdstuf
10
Points
imdstuf 06/16/08 - 08:36 am
0
0

I have no problem with

I have no problem with nuclear energy if handled safely. I still hope one day we are able to better harness solar energy, create safe synthetic fuel and other alternative fuels, more efficient cars to be reality sooner rather than later though.

Little Lamb
40059
Points
Little Lamb 06/16/08 - 09:15 am
0
0

Let's use the intelligence

Let's use the intelligence and the natural resources God gave us to make sensible divisions in how we utilize the energy sources: Use coal and nuclear for electricity. Use natural gas and electricity for heating homes and other buildings. Use petroleum for chemicals, cars and trucks. And for goodness sakes, put the corn in the cows, not in the cars!

DeborahElliott2
4
Points
DeborahElliott2 06/16/08 - 09:18 am
0
0

I have seen a lot of other

I have seen a lot of other states using solar energy for their homes as far as heating the water and their homes when possible, and reducing their energy bills. How come Georgia won't give those kinds of incentives to those who would be more than willing to do this same thing?

NotyourDadsBuick
1
Points
NotyourDadsBuick 06/16/08 - 09:19 am
0
0

I recently received a quote

I recently received a quote for putting solar panels on my residence. The house receives so much sun during the day that I thought it would be a great idea. I've read articles where some people who have done this wind up generating so much energy that the excess is actually fed back into the power grid (so their electric meters go backwards). I don't want to discourage anyone else from this, but do you know how much the panels cost? Ouch -- $44,000! It would take years -- at least a decade -- before I realized any savings from my initial investment and that doesn't count the cost of any maintenance that might be required. At least with respect to solar panels, we really do need technology to advance so that the panels are an affordable investment for homeowners. I know they've made some progress, but it isn't yet where it needs to be. Of course, if I could deduct the entire cost of the panels from my taxes, that might be different. But the tax credits aren't near my cost.

Bizarro
13
Points
Bizarro 06/16/08 - 09:23 am
0
0

The sun bathes Earth's

The sun bathes Earth's surface with 86,000 trillion watts, or terawatts, of energy at all times, about 6600 times the amount used by all humans on the planet each year. Wind, biomass, and nuclear power are also plentiful. And there is no shortage of opportunities for using energy more efficiently. I believe the cost will go down

Bizarro
13
Points
Bizarro 06/16/08 - 09:30 am
0
0

Thanks to new exploration,

Thanks to new exploration, drilling, and recovery technology, the worldwide finding and development cost per barrel of oil equivalent (boe) has dramatically declined over the last 20 years, from an average of about $21 in 1979-81 to under $6 in 1997-99 (in 2001 dollars) (9). At the same time, the recovery rate from world oil fields has increased from about 22% in 1980 to 35% today. All these factors partly explain why the life-index of world reserves (gauged as the ratio between proven oil reserves and current production) has constantly improved, passing from 20 years in 1948 to 35 years in 1972 and reaching about 40 years in 2003. Today, all major sources estimate that proven world oil reserves exceed 1 trillion (1012) barrels, while yearly consumption is about 28 billion barrels (10-13). Overall, the world retains more than 3 trillion barrels of recoverable oil resources (14).

Critics could note that new oil discoveries are only replacing one-fourth of what the world consumes every year (following a declining trend that began in the mid-1960s), and that increases in reserves largely derive from upward revisions of existing stock. However, the real issue is that neither major producing countries nor publicly traded oil companies are keen to invest money in substantial exploration campaigns. The countries richest in oil have minimized their oil investments during the last 20 years, mainly for fear of creating a permanent excess capacity such as that which provoked the crisis in 1986 (when oil prices plummeted to below $10/bbl). In fact, countries such as Saudi Arabia or Iraq (which together hold about 35% of the world's proven reserves of oil) produce petroleum only from a few old fields, although they have discovered but not developed more than 50 new fields each. Moreover, in countries closed to foreign investments, the technologies and techniques used are, in most cases, obsolete.

fredinaiken
0
Points
fredinaiken 06/16/08 - 10:17 am
0
0

Pluto Boy: The SRP reactors

Pluto Boy: The SRP reactors cost abour a hundred million each in the 1950's (at least that was the 'official' number I was required to use when calculating the cost of reactor down-time in 1960). In today's depleated dollars this cost would be about a billion each, for new reactors built from already approved designs. The six to nine billion reactor costs you quote result largely from the ten-year reviews (even of designs now in active use) now required by the tree-hugging anti-nukes, whose concrept of paradise apparently involves living in tents in the woods without heat, cooling or lights, while riding the local mule to the store to shop.

LittleLady
1
Points
LittleLady 06/16/08 - 10:45 am
0
0

I have no problems with those

I have no problems with those tree hungging environmentalist who want to conserve energy by reducing demands as long as they are practicing what they preach. If they want to ride bicycle instead of automobile, live in a tent instead of a house with heating and cooling, that is their right. However, I enjoy the comfort and speed of my airconditioned automobile, and climate controled home. What irks me is those who preach environmentalism do not practice what they preach. Before getting in my face, how about leading by example???

Bizarro
13
Points
Bizarro 06/16/08 - 10:55 am
0
0

Solar panels have increased

Solar panels have increased in efficiency and decreased in expense the last forty years. Of all the strategies solar power is perhaps the best way and promising revolutionary voltaic designs, cheaper plastic cells, silicon nanotechnology, and turning air and water into fuel-turning CO2 into hydrocarbon fuels and water into hydrogen are at the front of research. Founded in November 2005, SolFocus is working to make solar energy cheaper by using thin-film materials that are more expensive--but also more efficient--than silicon. The key to making the company's triple-junction solar cells affordable is concentrator technology, which focuses sunlight on a small area so that a little of the expensive thin-film solar material goes a long way. Since joining SolFocus, Jensen has been working on the transition from the company's current model system to full-scale production. I see the light.

shivas
2
Points
shivas 06/16/08 - 11:55 am
0
0

I built a home, and completed

I built a home, and completed it 6 months ago. For a solar panelled roof, the least estimate was 50K. After doing research, it would take 25 years to make-up the costs. Just could not justify that expense.

Bizarro
13
Points
Bizarro 06/16/08 - 12:06 pm
0
0

I think the solar power,

I think the solar power, geothermal, and wind power where appropriate will be worth while efforts to produce. The cost should go down with improvements in nanotechnology, etc. At least it better.

DeborahElliott2
4
Points
DeborahElliott2 06/16/08 - 12:21 pm
0
0

I wanted to build a

I wanted to build a greenhouse on solar power to see as an experiment how much it would actually help grow crops all year around and provide heat and cooling, but I don't have the funds for that kind of lab work and I doubt very much I would even get a grant for that kind of experiment for this area.

Bizarro
13
Points
Bizarro 06/16/08 - 01:07 pm
0
0

Deb that reminds me of the

Deb that reminds me of the movie Phenomenon with John Travolta. I think he was spreading manure too. hee,hee,hee.

Bizarro
13
Points
Bizarro 06/16/08 - 03:27 pm
0
0

Makes you wonder why cars

Makes you wonder why cars can't be made that get over 50 mpg in many vehicles. Here is one with over 3000 mpg :http://www.physorg.com/news70040977.html. A bunch of students built it. Makes you wonder what technology has been produced, patented, then suddenly vanishes. Free or cheap energy just ain't profitable. Given we've had thirty years to work on this problem I find our status highly questionable, Perhaps a congressional investigation but that would reveal all the pay offs they have probably received. Ever see the movie "Chain Reaction" with Keanu Reeves and Morgan Freeman. Good flick. I don't think our govt is interested in a solution, and are probably the problem. Ever get the feeling that "CHANGE" refers to your change as they have already taken all your money so they are going for your change too. Watch your piggy banks.

nightraiders1
0
Points
nightraiders1 06/16/08 - 07:22 pm
0
0

Deb, think small scale, small

Deb, think small scale, small scale. I think adherance to the movie soylent green would solve a lot of problems, health care, energy and food---let's start with the non american Afros and move on to the illegal hispos!

Bizarro
13
Points
Bizarro 06/16/08 - 07:34 pm
0
0

Kill all the longevity

Kill all the longevity scientist who want folks to live healthy productive lives till they are 120 years old. What the heck are they thinking?????? Nightraider you are starting to sound like Bizarro-are you him???

DeborahElliott2
4
Points
DeborahElliott2 06/16/08 - 07:47 pm
0
0

Bizarro, I mentioned that a

Bizarro, I mentioned that a while ago and people thought I was crazy! Wouldn't it be cool to have a vehicle that travels even 500 per gallon of gas and allows us to take our family and groceries with us?!

Bizarro
13
Points
Bizarro 06/16/08 - 08:21 pm
0
0

3000 miles per gallon is some

3000 miles per gallon is some feat eh???? Makes you wonder why all autos aren't at least 50 mpg. You are a forward thinker Deborah-keep it up. All the clones think we are suppose to pay high gas prices and drive fuel inefficient cars. I personally don't buy it. If America can't do better than this since the 70's we are screwed as a nation. Beat the Ruskies to the moon, but can't invent a fuel efficient car. Doesn't make sense.

SCEagle Eye
724
Points
SCEagle Eye 06/18/08 - 01:52 pm
0
0

For the cost estimates for

For the cost estimates for AP1000 reactors, see the Florida Power and Light filing with their PSC, from October 2007, at
http://www.psc.state.fl.us/library/filings/07/09467-07/09467-07.pdf
See page 250 of the pdf document for an estimated cost of $6.05 billion to $8.9 billion PER UNIT! From $5500 to $8000 per kW. It's absurd to base cost projections on the SRS reactors, but that reflects thinking stuck in the past. Due to a backward- thinking SC legislature controlled by the utilities, the cost and risk of new reactors will be shouldered by the rate payers, with the company and shareholders avoiding all risk. Gotta love this big-government socialism at work. Or NOT!!!!

Back to Top

Top headlines

Augusta pensioners eye benefit increase

With an eye on the millions remaining in the city's oldest pension funds - its 1945 and 1949 plans - a handful of retired city and county employees are reviving a push to increase their monthly ...
Loading...