The Iraq War

[Bob26003]

That is way oversimplified schismatic. And an inaccurate depiction from what I gather. You are leaving out so much. Like the cost of these wars for oil. The damage to the environment. The cost of propping up corrupt middle east regimes. And the fact that we have hit peak oil, and prices will only continue to rise. The fact that once installed , wind turbines have a LONG life and operate at low cost.

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

When calculating costs, several internal cost factors have to be considered[1]. ( Note we are not here talking about price, ie actual selling price, since this can be affected by a variety of factors such as subsidies on some energy and sources and taxes on others):
Capital costs (including waste disposal and decommissioning costs for nuclear energy) - tend to be low for fossil fuel plants; high for renewables and nuclear; very high for waste to energy, wave and tidal, PV and solar thermal.
Operating and maintenance costs - tend to be high for fossil (ash disposal, emissions clean up) and low for renewable and nuclear.
Fuel costs - high for fossil fuel and biomass sources, very low for nuclear and renewables, possibly negative for waste to energy.
Expected annual hours run - as low as 3% for diesel peakers, 30% for wind, and up to 90% for nuclear.


BP claims renewables are on a decreasing cost curve, while non-renewables are on an increasing cost curve.

 

[nos nomed]

For all the people who can't see past the dollar they pay in taxes hopefully this might enlighten the situation a little.

First off america spends about as much money on the actual war and soldiers as they do education very little. True they soak up alot of money with warmongering and anti war campaigns and programs but very little is spent on actual war.

Oil certainly weighed in on bonus for going but first a history lesson. A small group of political activists(could easily be seen as a terrorist group) in the 30's and 40's began amassing power and popularity amongst the German people with radical ideas of creating a new Germany for Germans. Well noone stepped in and stopped this group and they took power over the country. Next well we all know about World War II. That being said Al'Queda had been steadily gaining power and popularity in many 3rd world countries since the mid 90's. Their agenda a new world liberated from the tyranny of America and the oppresive governments of the world. Now Taking this into consideration do you think it was best to sit and wait for something bigger to happen of to preemptively strike in attempts of disbanding an enemy of the world before another power began destroying the world you live in.


Now on a anti-how America handled the war note. I think we had reason but we have a huge flaw in our military operations. The people on the ground and fighting no longer are allowed to call the shots instead politicians sit in desk reading data sheets and decide appropriate action based on charts and numbers and not hard data. The whole thing would have been over years ago if the UN and our government told the military here is your objective minimal civilian casualties go do what you have to you have 8 months and left it at that.


Oh and if you don't know wind turbines are great but very unreliable for an actual primary energy source because the wind has to be blowing the right direction and there are times when the wind doesn't blow for days. Cold fusion should be our primary energy research.

 

[me1]

That is way oversimplified schismatic. And an inaccurate depiction from what I gather. You are leaving out so much. Like the cost of these wars for oil. The damage to the environment. The cost of propping up corrupt middle east regimes. And the fact that we have hit peak oil, and prices will only continue to rise. The fact that once installed , wind turbines have a LONG life and operate at low cost.

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

When calculating costs, several internal cost factors have to be considered[1]. ( Note we are not here talking about price, ie actual selling price, since this can be affected by a variety of factors such as subsidies on some energy and sources and taxes on others):
Capital costs (including waste disposal and decommissioning costs for nuclear energy) - tend to be low for fossil fuel plants; high for renewables and nuclear; very high for waste to energy, wave and tidal, PV and solar thermal.
Operating and maintenance costs - tend to be high for fossil (ash disposal, emissions clean up) and low for renewable and nuclear.
Fuel costs - high for fossil fuel and biomass sources, very low for nuclear and renewables, possibly negative for waste to energy.
Expected annual hours run - as low as 3% for diesel peakers, 30% for wind, and up to 90% for nuclear.


BP claims renewables are on a decreasing cost curve, while non-renewables are on an increasing cost curve.

True, Bob, you are right, there are a lot more factors to consider as far as producing the calculations for the net energy produced by any given source. But, assuming oil is still the best, and the 'alternatives' cannot individually or collectively meet our current needs, let alone any future ones, then there would still be a problem.

Do you know of any site that has the relevant calculations?