UB Dan,

"My kneejerk reaction is that obtaining natural gas would affect the environment as much as obtaining oil...e.g. drilling and transport...although I gotta admit I've never heard of a natural gas spill. Is gas "harvesting" similar to oil "harvesting"?"

I think I would tend to agree with you about that, and the posts of others seem to support that view. Here's your original question...

"Generally, would you prefer fossil fuel energy plants or nuclear energy plants."

If the question is which sort of plants I would prefer, I think I would prefer natural gas to nuclear, coal or oil. As far as extracting the gas and transporting it is concerned, I still think it is probably preferable to the other resources mentioned, but not enough to justify its long term use.

Grab,

Generally, I agree with you about hydro. Although I think if I had to choose between hydro, coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear, I would probably choose hydro, unless the survival of a species or a people would be threatened by it.

I think you are also probably right about it not being easy to assess the total impact cost of the different technologies. Part of what I'm using to form my opinions is potential long-term impact. What I'm asking is, what are the total costs/envionmental impacts for each energy unit produced (i.e., units of heat, units of electricity, etc.). I don't have any data on that, and if I did, I probably wouldn't know how to interpret it. But this is what I think...

As far as solar is concerned, the chemicals used in production are a one time deal per each solar panel. After that, energy is produced (captured), with little or no further impact to the environment. You're right, there are some places where solar power is not practical. Frequently, those kinds of places have good conditions for producing power with wind.

As far as wind is concerned, again, whatever impact on the environment results from the production of the turbine unit is a one time deal for that unit. After that, there is little or no further impact to the environment. Except for the possibilities you've mentioned. However, even those possibilities are restricted to the area that is local to where the turbine is in use. Fossil fuels and nuclear power pollute over a much broader area. In fact it has been suggested that there is no part of the world that is free of the toxins produced by the use of these resources.

Fossil fuels put pollutants into the environment whenever they are used to produce energy. That's on top of whatever impact there has been to the environment while they were being extracted, and in the case of oil and coal, while they were being processed for use. With nuclear, we have the problem of disposal of the waste and by-products, and also problems to the environment from extracting and processing the fuel. With nuclear, these problems persist long after the spent fuel is no longer in use, so the potential for long term negative impact is much greater.

I've heard about the problems with wave power. The impression I have is that that particular technology is not as far along as the other new technologies. Maybe someone reading this thread can give us more information about it.

As far as solar being a net energy loss, again, I'm thinking in terms of long term impact. The cost to someone like me of adding pollutants to the environment is very high. It means the difference between being able to use my body, and having a severely limited use of my body. One can argue that since it's just my body, the rest of the world needn't be concerned. The problem with that perspective is that the numbers of people who are loosing the use of their bodies because of environmental toxins is increasing. You or someone you care about could be next. It's a bit like playing Russian roulette. Do you want to take that kind of chance with your health or the health of a loved one?

So I would add that factor into the equation when I try to figure out the total impact cost of any particular energy resource.