I would welcome a nuclear reactor in my backyard rather than drilling in alaska. I would much rather have a reactor in my back yard instead of an oil refinery. I bet the refinery is about 100 time more dangerous. The people on this forum make it sound like nuclear power is a new thing. It has been around for a long time and if 3 mile island proved anything its that nuclear power works.
I would like for you to explain to me how to recycle a decayed radioactive isotopes. Once the uranium has gone from the radioactive isotope usually U235 and released it energy and decays into Pu 239 you can't put it back. Some of the isotope that did not undergo decay can be recovered, and the Pu can itself be decayed but you cannot regenerate radioactive uranium. If so why do we spend so much mining it and and refining it.
If you know how, write a paper you will win a nobel prize.
It seems that you have an answer for everything what exactly do you do.
3 mile Island was a very over exaggerated incident. The new Nuke Plants can't be melted down with the new reactor designs. BTW did you know that a coal plant gives off more radiation than a nuke plant
So if 500 million people out of the 6 billion people in the world have enough $ to buy gas regularly, you have to make sure you stay in that group of 500 million people. There are already many Americans who aren't in that top 500 million. If your income is not going up as fast as others in the world, or someone in China is willing to pay $3.25/gal even if they only make $10K, and you're only willing to pay $3.00/gal, you're out of luck. Someone complaining about their need to commute long distances because they don't like the housing near work isn't going to bring much sympathy.
Yes...I agree completely. There are more buyers of gasoline and crude....pure and simple. It is not that the corporate types at oil companies are particularly greedy . I do not buy that. They are all out to make a legal buck..and the market dictated a higher price. IF we all stop fooling ourselves and decrease gas consumption by 5% or 10% , then gas will come down a bit..
In the long term, again....you want to be one of the 500 million people who can afford to buy gasoline. There are another 5.5 billion people trying to compete for that gas. Most are priced out ( like those in Africa, most poor in Asia , south america, etc). Even in US..there are going to be more and more people who will not be able to afford gasoline.
Next 5 years...maybe only 300 million will be able to afford gasoline.
I am not a nuclear engineer but i work with a few and they see 3 mile island as a success story of the safty systems in place in nuclear plants.
I agree with you, fears of nuclear power are unfounded and do nothing for the energy problem in this country.
As for the message earlier talking about how unsightly the windturbins are, in europe this was a problem until they started pay people started getting paid for the energy produced by windturbins on there property they became the most beautiful structurs around.
Put one of those in my back yard next to the nuclear plant .
Oh yeah, 2.71 for Deisel. 06 liberty CRD. $350/month increase in car payment to save around $10/month in gas. really really stupid
I think that you misunderstood the process. The Sulfur-iodine cycle is not a byproduct of a nuclear reactor it is a separate process. specifically used for the production of hydrogen.
>>you have to make sure you stay in that group of 500 million people.
The super rich could be somewhat insulated, hard to say how things may play out in that respect. High fuel prices are one thing that has the ability to destabilize fiat currencies. It's only paper. I mean how much are those stocks really worth without the availability of really cheap oil in the future?
Guy stopped by here from UK pays nine bucks, still loves his v8. One good thing about like $100 gas, no traffic baby!
Silly Goose, it's done right now presently over in Europe.
They take the spent fuel and load it on trains and drive it to the reprocessing plants, and drop it off. The reprocessing plants re-enrich it and they take the batch that was re-enriched back to the Nuke Plant and put it into the reactor.
That's about it and was explained in simple terms by our scientist at our plant. They(Europeans) don't have dry-fuel storage area's like we do here because they essentially recycle everything they take out. The newest plants designed by General Electric, Siemens-Westinghouse, Bechtol, all have a "pebble bed design" where after the 3 burn cycles(fission) are completed, the computers automatically kick out the spent fuel so it can be reprocessed. These new designs eliminate a significant amount of contaminated garbage that's very expensive to discard. I'm not a expert, nor do I claim to be on this topic, but I feel going Nuclear is the best way to cut our energy demands by alot. I worked at one for a year and a half. We will all save a buck or two on our electric bill and if we wanna be energy hawgs, then the Nukes will solve that problem to.
I read recently that Germany is on a 20 year plan to phase out all of its nuclear energy and replace it with wind and solar. That's one of the reasons that solar PV panels are so expensive right now, Germany and Japan are buying them all up. What I didn't read is how they plan on storing this energy, which has always been one of the big stumbling blocks.
They take the spent fuel and load it on trains and drive it to the reprocessing plants, and drop it off.
You need to check these things out Rocky. That is a banned process in the USA.
Recycling used nuclear fuel in the United States. When most U.S. nuclear plants were built, the industry—with federal government encouragement—planned to recycle used nuclear fuel. In 1979, President Carter, completing a process begun by President Ford, banned commercial used nuclear fuel reprocessing in order to address concerns raised about the possible proliferation of nuclear weapons. This decision mandated a once-through, single use fuel cycle. Although President Reagan lifted the reprocessing ban in 1981, non-proliferation concerns continue to guide U.S. policy. Reprocessing and recycling are also not currently cost-effective in the United States, although recycling is being done in other countries.
You sound very knowledgeable when it comes to energy conversion efficiency so I'll take what you've said as fact. I think that we are getting too caught up in conversion efficiency. When comparing different methods for producing energy there are at least 4 factors that need to be plugged into the equation to determine a final cost. Conversion efficiency, cost of source being converted, cost of conversion device, and impact on environment. While solar energy will always be at a big disadvantage when it comes to conversion efficiency the fact that the source being converted is free significantly changes the equation.
The typical PV panels that are available to the general public are around 15% efficient. That doesn't sound too good but, again, the raw material being converted is free and will always be free. The energy in a square meter of sunlight is 1 kilowatt. The average roof probably has around 150 sq. meters of surface area. So during daylight hours your roof is being hit with 150 kilowatts of energy. In 5 hours of good sunlight that is 750 kWh. Should you be discouraged because you would be limited to using 15% of it? Well 15% is over 110 kWh a day, far more than you use. So your only concern should be, how much will it cost me? Right now the final cost is not competitive with other sources because the conversion devices are too expensive. I don't believe that will always be the case. I believe that within 10 years solar energy will be cost competitive and will continue to get cheaper. So even though it will never be the conversion efficiency leader it will eventually be the logical choice based on the bottom line.
Carter made it illegal to recycle fuel. Like you said to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons whos fuel is Pu. Which a spent rod is full of since the fission of U235 produces it. The majority of the uranium in the world is U234 which is non radioactive. I am not sure but I believe the number is around 2% of the worlds uranium is 235.
Besides the key word that you used earlier was re-enrich. They cannot take uranium that has been decayed and turn it back into uranium. It cannot be done. Not even the Europeans are doing that. I am the first to admit that I am a mechanical guy I will design the cooling system and the radiation shielding but i do know that what you are proposing violates E=mC^2.
When Uranium is split(fission) it produces Ba and Kr atoms and 2 to 3 neutrons. In order for this process to be completely renewable you would have to fuse the Ba and Kr atoms back together as well as rounding up those lose neutrons and putting those back in there too. Last I check with the current techology nuclear fusion between to Hydrogen atoms takes so much energy to start than it can be extracted from it.
Uranium 235 is not recycled, the undecayed portion of the fuel rod is re enriched and the Pu by product are extracted and used in other reactors. The world will run out of uranium 235, it might take 500 years but it will happen.
If someone is a nuclear engineer and can give us the over view of how you can recycle the spent fuel I will welcome the correction.
I couldn't agree with you more. If I had 40 grand lieing around i would definatly have the PV panels on my roof and the power company would be paying me for the power that i am putting on thier grid. I would really like to have Solar power at my house. What is really starting to look exciting is the new organic solar collector. they are no where near as efficient only around 8% but they can potentually have a life span of forever. The PV are not a one time cost they will have to be replaced, not very often but they do not last forever.
Another exciting technology floating around out there are natural gas reformer/fuel cell/water heater compos for home use. You would hook up your natural gas line to your house into this unit and it will break down your natural gas into hydrogen, CO2 and Heat. The heat is used to heat water which is used for normal hot water. The hydrogen is sent though the fuel cell and produces electricity.
There is alot of wasted power in a home. Just think about the HVAC systems. It take heat out of your house pumps it to a higher temp and dumps it outside. At the same time you have another appliance in a closet some where tring to turn electricity into heat to warm water. If those two could be combined think of the energy savings. If the heat that is usually just dumped outside were dumped into your water heater it would be like completly eliminating an appliance in the summer. It could also be rigged up to help your heater work better in the winter by extracting heat from the hot water heater when it is too cold the extract it from the outside air.
The beauty of the Sulfer-Iodine cycle that I referneced earlier is the only by products are water, and hydrogen (electricty and the normal nuclear plant emissions if it is done the way I discribed). The sulfer and Iodine are continuously recycled, only water and heat have to be added. After the reactants are added they are constantly recycled.
So now there is a proposal in congress to send everybody a $ 100 check to "ease the pain at the pump". This sounds a little fishy to me and sure enough, there is a provision of driiling in ANWAR attached to it.
FWIW, no matter how much oil drilling is done in the US, this will do very little to have any impact on oil prices. US can supply only about 5% of the oil it consumes, which is less than significant amount. And drilling in ANWAR, which will definitely do a lot of damage to the reserve, will do nothing to solve the problem.
Stop paying billions of dollars in subsidies to farmers for not growing crops, let's grow more corn instead and use it to produce ethanol! This could be a good solution to the oil price problem.
I'm no expert on nuclear energy, but some scientists see enough promise that they've convinced governments to pore billions into designing and building a fusion reactor, that produces a net amount of energy. http://www.iter.org/index.htm
Give me the energy from those fusion plants and we'll make you all the synthetic oil/gasoline you want.
I agree that $100 rebate proposal sounds a little suspect. Almost like trying to buy votes going into an election year. I did hear a proposal that was much worse. Some politicians were suggesting a 60 day repeal of the federal gas tax. Let's think about this. One of the problems right now causing the high prices is high demand. Why in the hell would anyone in their right mind want to increase demand by lowering the price? Just another example of mindless political grandstanding.
I also agree that ANWAR doesn't make much sense. At its peak it will produce 1 million barrels a day and that won't be until 2025. That's like a guy bleeding to death on a street in Los Angeles and calling an ambulance in New York.
"FWIW, no matter how much oil drilling is done in the US, this will do very little to have any impact on oil prices."
??? I suppose that the flip side of this 'logic' would be we could stop all current production of oil in the US and that would also have little impact on oil prices....?
"US can supply only about 5% of the oil it consumes, which is less than significant amount."
U.S. oil production capacity (even without ANWR) is around 5 Mil bbl/day. Since we consume roughly 20 Mil bbl/day, that means that we CURRENTLY produce about 25% of what we consume.
Most responsible estimates put the projected output JUST FROM ANWR in the 1.2 mil - 1.5 mil bbl/day. This is the equivalent of what we currently import from either the Saudi's (1.375 mil bbl/day), Nigeria (around 1.23 mil bbl/day) or Venezuela (around 1.20 mil bbl/day) and would be more than what we get from Angola, Iraq, and Kuwait combined. Since MOST of the current upswing in prices is due to uncertainties regarding future production/delivery from places like Nigeria/Venezuela/etc., you DON'T THINK that having production from ANWR would offset these uncertainties?
"And drilling in ANWAR, which will definitely do a lot of damage to the reserve,..."
First off, it's ANWR, not ANWAR. Second, ANWR is 19 million acres (around 30,000 sq. miles). Of this amount, 17.5 million acres is PERMANENTLY CLOSED to development. Of the remaining 1.5 million acres (all along the exteme northern coast), roughly 2000 acres (a bit over 3 square miles) would be affected by production operations.
Three square miles. Out of 30,000 square miles. And you are telling us this would be "a lot of damage" to the reserve?
BTW - we've had operations going on for 30 years in Prudhoe Bay. The Central Artic Caribou Herd (CACH) migrates right through the middle of Prudhoe Bay every year. Since production has started in Prudhoe Bay, the herd has GROWN from around 3000 head to over 32,000 head. Maybe we've done "a lot of damage" to Prudhoe Bay too?
"Stop paying billions of dollars in subsidies to farmers for not growing crops,..."
HEY! WE AGREE!
"...let's grow more corn instead and use it to produce ethanol!"
While we're on the subject of subsidies, can we eliminate the ethanol subsidy too? No, of course not.... :confuse:
I agree it is rather foolish, or considers the public to be fools, if the reasoning not to develop ANWR is "because it doesn't solve our WHOLE problem". As you point out that oil would offset some other disruption if that were to occur. That oil in ANWR will also offset the growth in oil/gasoline consumption that we expect in the near future.What we need is ANWR + another 10 similar fields to be opened soemwhere around the U.S.
One other note about the alternative to use H2. A few local news segments have reported that in the next few years rolling brown-outs can be expected some days here in New England. We do not have sufficient electrical generation capacity for our growing needs. Producing hydrogen would only be possible if there is a larrge increase in electrical generating plants - which burn fossil fuels (windmills are NIMBY).
??? I suppose that the flip side of this 'logic' would be we could stop all current production of oil in the US and that would also have little impact on oil prices....?
Not really the same thing. The world is consuming just about every drop of oil that can be produced right now. If we took our oil off the market it would have a huge effect. On the other hand if we added another 1.2 million barrels a day OPEC would simply cut their output to offset this. We may not have $70+ prices for a barrel of oil but it would probably be in the $55-$60 range, which seems to be OPEC's new target price, at least for now. Yes we'd be importing 5% less, which would be a good thing from a trade balance perpective but would do nothing when it comes to our vulnerability. And again, full production from ANWR would be 20 years off. If we are looking at this type of long range planning there are better paths to take.
The logic of your argument against ANWR, is like telling a hungry family not to eat the fish they caught, because what they really need is a complete meal.
The best choice is to prepare to eat the fish, and keep looking for other food. The U.S. simply needs to find other oil-fields. I believe there are some off the coasts of Florida, in deeper water for instance.
Back on a certain SUV forum, I stated that we could get these alternate energy sources in significant numbers in 10-20 years. that's the good news.
To do so, you will need to put someone like me in charge with authoritarian powers. I've read The Gulag Archipelago, and I learned how to get major civil projects done cheaply and quickly. All prisoners, homeless, and other unemployed persons will be "employed" to 1) build windmill and solar panel factories, and 2) assemble these. ALL coastal area and mountain tops regardless of any other consideration will have windmills constructed within. Arizona and other sunny states will have vast areas converted to solar collecting stations. Ownership of private property (as will other rights) will be of secondary consequence to the needs of society.
There will be no public debate or studies, no OSHA, or no EPA to slowdown the projects. Those who resist, criticize or EVN THINK of criticizing (since thought of a crime, is the 1st step in actually committing a crime) will find themselves on the crew 16 hours - 7 days a week, attaching the vanes above the chilly Atlantic during the winter.
20 years represents long range planning, at least in my book. If our long range planning involves increasing domestic oil production because we will be using more I just can't support it. Very few, if any, experts refute the existence of global warming. Are you telling me that the biggest producer of green house gases has long range plans to up the ante? Are we conducting some sort of science experiment here?
About 4 years ago OPEC spokespeople used to talk about a target price for oil of around $35/barrel. That seems cheap now but at the time I believe they felt it represented the best long term revenue producing price. It was relatively high based on the recent past but not so high that it didn't allow for global economic growth, which will increases demand. Well due to factors outside their control the price shot up to around $60. I think that there was some initial concern that this could trigger a global recession causing a decrease in the demand for oil. Well it didn't so suddenly the talk from OPEC spokespeople is that $55-$60 is a price they are comfortable with. The world now has $70/barrel oil for the second time in less than 7 months and guess what? There doesn't seem to be a big slump in demand. Don't be surprised if OPECs new target price is more like $65. What am I getting at? ANWR represents a long range commitment to perpetuating our dependence on oil and allowing ourselves to be exploited. I'm not ready to concede that there isn't a better way.
The logic of your argument against ANWR, is like telling a hungry family not to eat the fish they caught, because what they really need is a complete meal
Not really. I agree that when it comes to energy independence there probably won't be one single solution but rather several partial solutions. I just don't think that increased oil consumption should be part of any 20 year plan.
That's funny that someone advocating greater oil production would mention the EPA.
I'm not sure why you'd have to create some fascist state where people were forced into labor. Just pay them and pay them well. How much do we spend on energy now? How much are we spending in the Persian Gulf? How much will this add up to in the next 20 years?
Oil's run needs to be over. In addition to all the reasons I've already mentioned here's another. I'm tired of hearing about the Middle East. Let the Arabs go back to sitting on this worthless goo. They can pass their time beating each other's brains out because they don't believe in the right form of Islam.
I read recently that Germany is on a 20 year plan to phase out all of its nuclear energy and replace it with wind and solar. That's one of the reasons that solar PV panels are so expensive right now, Germany and Japan are buying them all up. What I didn't read is how they plan on storing this energy, which has always been one of the big stumbling blocks.
You can send the generated power back into the grid to be used in other places
I just heard on the history channel that if we were to make a 1mile by 1mile square solar processing power field we could power the USA with it .
Would be nice however our power delievry system is so old that we couldn't send it where it needed to go. Though it would make a nice power solution to the west coast or the east coast depending on where it is built
Quote: "Years ago people at least had a net worth, lived modestly and slept good at night".
Absolutely right. The old man made enough money to take care of the family, wife was at home taking care of the kids. They had a nice clean little house, one station wagon for a car, and lived happily. Now both man and wife work because they need a 2,500 square foot house. They need two gas guzzling SUV's and since their two twins just got their driver's license, it is two more cars in the family. And parrents pay the increased car insurance premiums and car repairs and maintenance. Now the family needs a 28 ft boat, because the neighbor has one. To buy the boat, they get a home equity loan for $ 80k. A 28 ft boat requires a large vehicle to tow it, so one SUV is traded in for a fuel guzzling $ 50k 1 ton crew cab dually 4X4 pickup with a large diesel engine. Can't leave a beatiful big truck like that alone, can we? Now the truck needs $ 3k worth of accessories to look right, and how can we forget the $80k boat? It needs $ 3k worth of fishing and diving gear too.
Now father sees that his neighbor also bought a shiny new $ 20k Harley motorcycle. How can he not buy one too? Have to keep up with the Joneses, right?
Now they need 4 color TVs in the house, all premium channels available on cable, each family member needs his/her own cell phone and I-pod, and a personal laptop.
And on and on it goes. And how do they do it? They are in debt up to their eyeballs.
You can send the generated power back into the grid to be used in other places
You can send it back to the grid but where does the grid store it? Solar and wind can provide all the energy that is needed over the long run but when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing there is no energy being produced. So this strategy is based on producing excess under sunny/windy conditions that can be stored and later tapped into when needed.
I just heard on the history channel that if we were to make a 1mile by 1mile square solar processing power field we could power the USA with it .
I don't think that is right. I read recently that Australia is studying the feasibility of creating a solar power station in the middle of the Outback that could generate all Australia's energy. The area required was going to be 50 kilometer square (roughly 32 miles by 32 miles). So the US would need something considerable bigger. Regardless, it is probably doable. I, however, prefer the idea of local community or home generated power. I think that it will eventually be cost competitive and I just think the independence of being off the grid would be cool.
First we all have to decide that weening ourselves from oil dependency is of utmost urgency. Meaning the fact that the process might be disruptive or painful is not a showstopper. Okay if you agree with that this would be my approach.
An immediate $1/gallon gas tax with 50 cent increases for the next 4 years. This money would be returned to the states in proportion to how it was collected. There would be no subsidies for alternative energy. These emerging technologies would now compete for profitability against this higher price point. Let the best solution win. Allow the power of the free market to push us into the post oil era. That's it.
You may hate this idea but I guarantee the biggest opposition would come from OPEC. That somewhat validates the approach.
"....I guarantee the biggest opposition would come from OPEC."
I disagree.
The biggest opposition would come from the American voters towards any politician insane enough to consider such a proposal to be a boon to his career.
"The biggest opposition would come from the American voters towards any politician insane enough to consider such a proposal to be a boon to his career."
You are absolutely correct. I consider myself to be in touch with reality. While I believe that this would be a good, if not the best, approach I fully realize that it won't appeal to the mindless masses. On a different topic, this represents a fundamental flaw in the democratic process. All opinions count the same regardless of whether the people expressing these opinions are informed or posess any common sense.
The reason those tax increases wouldn't be popular with the masses, or popular politically is: People on the lower end of the economic ladder don't want to admit that they are becoming less able to purchase gasoline. They feel they have a god-given right as an American to a car and cheap gasoline for it, while trying to live a high-consumerism lifestyle. They DON'T want to conserve.
They want to believe that there is some sort of conspiracy which psychologically keeps them from having to face the fact that the world is growing and changing and that their economic place in it is declining. By holding onto the theory that others are acting criminally to put them down, they don't have to face the fact that they are not earning (or saving enough) which is all lifestyle choices.
It is true there are lots of lessons in history. I can just imagine the disbelief of Romans, when the Huns resisted and challenged the Roman view that ruling the world was their birth-right.
It is a god-given right to cheap gasoline and a SUV if your an American. Our society has operated on black gold, and when new technologies come along they get squashed by no other than big oil. We promised to not bite the hand that feeds us, as long as that hand doesn't squeeze us.
My approach would probably not impact the poor all that much. It would involve giving this money back to the states allowing them to deal with the economic consequences of higher gas prices. I'm guessing that most states would expand public transit, which would actually help the poor. Its Joe Bubba Six-Pack that feels he has a birthright to drive his 12 mpg Hemi at affordable prices who will be the most outraged.
What people should understand about my suggestion is that it doesn't represent a new order to things. It represents the most rapid transition, kind of like ripping off a bandage. I have no problem with people driving their big trucks to pick up a gallon of milk. I just have a problem with them burning oil to do this.
you: On a different topic, this represents a fundamental flaw in the democratic process.
me: Consider this thought. The flaw in democracy doing things for society, is due to the fact that people want laws based which are good for them (and their friends and family), which might not necessarily be good for society.
People want plentiful and cheap energy foremost. If they have to tax the wealthy to get it, they'll try, though I question why anyone would consider that unfair. I dislike all forms of subsidies and incentives.
The vast majority of people do not want to conserve energy and will give you all sorts of reasons why they can't reduce their usage much. They want their plentiful and cheap energy. But they would like everyone else to conserve, so the price will drop for them.
But what a lot of people miss when talking politics here and what we can do to conserve energy in the U.S. through laws and taxes is the rest of the world. The U.S. uses 25% of the world's oil. Say we can save 10% of that usage next year, wouldn't that drop prices? Probably not, because the rest of the world has to go along with that too. If the global economy grows 3% the rest of the world will use 3% mire oil probably, and there will be Zero savings. And in 2007, 08, 09 ... there will be more people, more economic growth, more autos. Energy usage is going up if energy is available. Conservation will be overwhelmed by global growth.
Many of us 40 or older know we have been down this road of higher CAFE, Energy Star appliances, better insulated homes, fluorescent bulbs, and more efficient factories have not decreased our energy usage. We continue to increase our population, and overall energy usage despite that.
Well here's my logical solution. Let's expand the railway system in our country and have bullett trains to help folks out that want to travel across country. If I had the oppertunity to go from Amarillo, Tx to Grand Rapids Michigan at 300 miles per hour, I'd do it in a heart beat. I'd also wouldn't mind traveling via railway from Dumas, Tx to my place of employment via choo choo.
Sounds like income transfer to me. Age old problem causer.
I heard a report that some high percentage of SUV owners make more than $85K -- not all that much. But they're not feeling the pinch in their disposable income. Lower income folks, especially those who have bought above their means are feeling it. Bankruptcies, lost homes, etc., all to come.
When I see people stopping careless, distracted driving with cigarettes and cellphones to their head, I'll believe they're having to conserve. It'll make driving safer.
Going to Cinci to appt tomorrow. Will give a full report on how drivers have slowed down to conserve fuel...
Trains will never work other than along highly populated corridors like the northeast coast. Just ain't enough travel and everyone wants the train to go from their exact location to the exact location where they work or want to go to play or vacation.
They're tried to force a train corridor on us at high cost in Ohio from Cinci to Columbus to Cleveland. IT's about time they'll bring it out again. They give an unexpectly low cost proposal based on certain useage level. Costs will multiply drastically and useage will be far below estimates. White elephant.
Sounds like income transfer to me. Age old problem causer.
Absolutely not. I hate the "Robin Hood" philosophy of stealing from the rich to give to the poor. I've read all Ayn Rand and am completely onboard. My position is based on the fact that I don't believe this oil based economy is sustainable and our attempts to drag it out are not in our best interests.
the huge RVs with cars attached behind travel from Florida to Michigan and Canada for the last couple months. Huge fuel drain. Reverse happens in November/December.
I live near I75 and watch the parade of "snowbirds."
That needs a government control to reduce fuel useage. Limit size of bus for personal use on public roads with fuels from the public trough.
you: I'm guessing that most states would expand public transit, which would actually help the poor.
me: Do you realize that high percentages of people in rural areas are the ones who are poor? The poor in the cities already have public transport. Many poor rural people are the ones with the old station wagons and pickups and Broncos which aren't tuned up and get poor mileage.
you: I have no problem with people driving their big trucks to pick up a gallon of milk. I just have a problem with them burning oil to do this.
me: I'm not crazy about it either, but it's their money. Are you upset also about RV owners and the trips they take? Power boat owners and their 100-gal days on the lake? How about optional driving like people driving 200 miles round trip to go skiing? How about needless vacations via airplane? What about people using 800 gallons of oil to heta their house, instead of using wood? We use lots of fuel in many ways that are necessary. What if because I use wood to heat my house, I consider anyone who uses oil to be much worse than a family with 2 Hummers.
Despite all my post you refuse to get my point. I don't think that we need to conserve energy. I think we have an abundance of energy. We just don't have an abundance of the stored energy that we are currently consuming. I'm not some babbling fringe character. Thomas Edison and Nicolai Tesla believed that we were surrounded by free energy. Not to be offensive but I suspect these guys were smarter than most of the posters.
Comments
The people on this forum make it sound like nuclear power is a new thing. It has been around for a long time and if 3 mile island proved anything its that nuclear power works.
Just like we have enough cows to provide methane gas to power millions of homes...yet it is not listed as a source of natural gas.....
I was being sarcastic and playing on people's fears of nuclear power.
We have 20 % of all nuclear power plants in the world...but most countries are building new ones...except us.....
gassed up today.....it is about the same....$3.25 for premium.
Once the uranium has gone from the radioactive isotope usually U235 and released it energy and decays into Pu 239 you can't put it back. Some of the isotope that did not undergo decay can be recovered, and the Pu can itself be decayed but you cannot regenerate radioactive uranium.
If so why do we spend so much mining it and and refining it.
If you know how, write a paper you will win a nobel prize.
It seems that you have an answer for everything what exactly do you do.
Rocky
Yes...I agree completely. There are more buyers of gasoline and crude....pure and simple. It is not that the corporate types at oil companies are particularly greedy . I do not buy that. They are all out to make a legal buck..and the market dictated a higher price. IF we all stop fooling ourselves and decrease gas consumption by 5% or 10% , then gas will come down a bit..
In the long term, again....you want to be one of the 500 million people who can afford to buy gasoline. There are another 5.5 billion people trying to compete for that gas. Most are priced out ( like those in Africa, most poor in Asia , south america, etc). Even in US..there are going to be more and more people who will not be able to afford gasoline.
Next 5 years...maybe only 300 million will be able to afford gasoline.
That is just the way it is....
I agree with you, fears of nuclear power are unfounded and do nothing for the energy problem in this country.
As for the message earlier talking about how unsightly the windturbins are, in europe this was a problem until they started pay people started getting paid for the energy produced by windturbins on there property they became the most beautiful structurs around.
Put one of those in my back yard next to the nuclear plant
Oh yeah, 2.71 for Deisel. 06 liberty CRD. $350/month increase in car payment to save around $10/month in gas. really really stupid
The super rich could be somewhat insulated, hard to say how things may play out in that respect. High fuel prices are one thing that has the ability to destabilize fiat currencies. It's only paper. I mean how much are those stocks really worth without the availability of really cheap oil in the future?
Guy stopped by here from UK pays nine bucks, still loves his v8. One good thing about like $100 gas, no traffic baby!
They take the spent fuel and load it on trains and drive it to the reprocessing plants, and drop it off. The reprocessing plants re-enrich it and they take the batch that was re-enriched back to the Nuke Plant and put it into the reactor.
That's about it and was explained in simple terms by our scientist at our plant. They(Europeans) don't have dry-fuel storage area's like we do here because they essentially recycle everything they take out. The newest plants designed by General Electric, Siemens-Westinghouse, Bechtol, all have a "pebble bed design" where after the 3 burn cycles(fission) are completed, the computers automatically kick out the spent fuel so it can be reprocessed.
Rocky
P.S. No more mining it either.
You need to check these things out Rocky. That is a banned process in the USA.
Recycling used nuclear fuel in the United States. When most U.S. nuclear plants were built, the industry—with federal government encouragement—planned to recycle used nuclear fuel. In 1979, President Carter, completing a process begun by President Ford, banned commercial used nuclear fuel reprocessing in order to address concerns raised about the possible proliferation of nuclear weapons. This decision mandated a once-through, single use fuel cycle. Although President Reagan lifted the reprocessing ban in 1981, non-proliferation concerns continue to guide U.S. policy. Reprocessing and recycling are also not currently cost-effective in the United States, although recycling is being done in other countries.
http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=62
The typical PV panels that are available to the general public are around 15% efficient. That doesn't sound too good but, again, the raw material being converted is free and will always be free. The energy in a square meter of sunlight is 1 kilowatt. The average roof probably has around 150 sq. meters of surface area. So during daylight hours your roof is being hit with 150 kilowatts of energy. In 5 hours of good sunlight that is 750 kWh. Should you be discouraged because you would be limited to using 15% of it? Well 15% is over 110 kWh a day, far more than you use. So your only concern should be, how much will it cost me? Right now the final cost is not competitive with other sources because the conversion devices are too expensive. I don't believe that will always be the case. I believe that within 10 years solar energy will be cost competitive and will continue to get cheaper. So even though it will never be the conversion efficiency leader it will eventually be the logical choice based on the bottom line.
Carter made it illegal to recycle fuel. Like you said to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons whos fuel is Pu. Which a spent rod is full of since the fission of U235 produces it. The majority of the uranium in the world is U234 which is non radioactive. I am not sure but I believe the number is around 2% of the worlds uranium is 235.
Besides the key word that you used earlier was re-enrich. They cannot take uranium that has been decayed and turn it back into uranium. It cannot be done. Not even the Europeans are doing that. I am the first to admit that I am a mechanical guy I will design the cooling system and the radiation shielding but i do know that what you are proposing violates E=mC^2.
When Uranium is split(fission) it produces Ba and Kr atoms and 2 to 3 neutrons. In order for this process to be completely renewable you would have to fuse the Ba and Kr atoms back together as well as rounding up those lose neutrons and putting those back in there too. Last I check with the current techology nuclear fusion between to Hydrogen atoms takes so much energy to start than it can be extracted from it.
Uranium 235 is not recycled, the undecayed portion of the fuel rod is re enriched and the Pu by product are extracted and used in other reactors. The world will run out of uranium 235, it might take 500 years but it will happen.
If someone is a nuclear engineer and can give us the over view of how you can recycle the spent fuel I will welcome the correction.
Another exciting technology floating around out there are natural gas reformer/fuel cell/water heater compos for home use. You would hook up your natural gas line to your house into this unit and it will break down your natural gas into hydrogen, CO2 and Heat. The heat is used to heat water which is used for normal hot water. The hydrogen is sent though the fuel cell and produces electricity.
There is alot of wasted power in a home. Just think about the HVAC systems. It take heat out of your house pumps it to a higher temp and dumps it outside. At the same time you have another appliance in a closet some where tring to turn electricity into heat to warm water. If those two could be combined think of the energy savings. If the heat that is usually just dumped outside were dumped into your water heater it would be like completly eliminating an appliance in the summer. It could also be rigged up to help your heater work better in the winter by extracting heat from the hot water heater when it is too cold the extract it from the outside air.
The beauty of the Sulfer-Iodine cycle that I referneced earlier is the only by products are water, and hydrogen (electricty and the normal nuclear plant emissions if it is done the way I discribed). The sulfer and Iodine are continuously recycled, only water and heat have to be added. After the reactants are added they are constantly recycled.
FWIW, no matter how much oil drilling is done in the US, this will do very little to have any impact on oil prices. US can supply only about 5% of the oil it consumes, which is less than significant amount. And drilling in ANWAR, which will definitely do a lot of damage to the reserve, will do nothing to solve the problem.
Stop paying billions of dollars in subsidies to farmers for not growing crops, let's grow more corn instead and use it to produce ethanol! This could be a good solution to the oil price problem.
Give me the energy from those fusion plants and we'll make you all the synthetic oil/gasoline you want.
I also agree that ANWAR doesn't make much sense. At its peak it will produce 1 million barrels a day and that won't be until 2025. That's like a guy bleeding to death on a street in Los Angeles and calling an ambulance in New York.
??? I suppose that the flip side of this 'logic' would be we could stop all current production of oil in the US and that would also have little impact on oil prices....?
"US can supply only about 5% of the oil it consumes, which is less than significant amount."
U.S. oil production capacity (even without ANWR) is around 5 Mil bbl/day. Since we consume roughly 20 Mil bbl/day, that means that we CURRENTLY produce about 25% of what we consume.
Most responsible estimates put the projected output JUST FROM ANWR in the 1.2 mil - 1.5 mil bbl/day. This is the equivalent of what we currently import from either the Saudi's (1.375 mil bbl/day), Nigeria (around 1.23 mil bbl/day) or Venezuela (around 1.20 mil bbl/day) and would be more than what we get from Angola, Iraq, and Kuwait combined. Since MOST of the current upswing in prices is due to uncertainties regarding future production/delivery from places like Nigeria/Venezuela/etc., you DON'T THINK that having production from ANWR would offset these uncertainties?
"And drilling in ANWAR, which will definitely do a lot of damage to the reserve,..."
First off, it's ANWR, not ANWAR. Second, ANWR is 19 million acres (around 30,000 sq. miles). Of this amount, 17.5 million acres is PERMANENTLY CLOSED to development. Of the remaining 1.5 million acres (all along the exteme northern coast), roughly 2000 acres (a bit over 3 square miles) would be affected by production operations.
Three square miles. Out of 30,000 square miles. And you are telling us this would be "a lot of damage" to the reserve?
BTW - we've had operations going on for 30 years in Prudhoe Bay. The Central Artic Caribou Herd (CACH) migrates right through the middle of Prudhoe Bay every year. Since production has started in Prudhoe Bay, the herd has GROWN from around 3000 head to over 32,000 head. Maybe we've done "a lot of damage" to Prudhoe Bay too?
"Stop paying billions of dollars in subsidies to farmers for not growing crops,..."
HEY! WE AGREE!
"...let's grow more corn instead and use it to produce ethanol!"
While we're on the subject of subsidies, can we eliminate the ethanol subsidy too? No, of course not.... :confuse:
One other note about the alternative to use H2. A few local news segments have reported that in the next few years rolling brown-outs can be expected some days here in New England. We do not have sufficient electrical generation capacity for our growing needs. Producing hydrogen would only be possible if there is a larrge increase in electrical generating plants - which burn fossil fuels (windmills are NIMBY).
Not really the same thing. The world is consuming just about every drop of oil that can be produced right now. If we took our oil off the market it would have a huge effect. On the other hand if we added another 1.2 million barrels a day OPEC would simply cut their output to offset this. We may not have $70+ prices for a barrel of oil but it would probably be in the $55-$60 range, which seems to be OPEC's new target price, at least for now. Yes we'd be importing 5% less, which would be a good thing from a trade balance perpective but would do nothing when it comes to our vulnerability. And again, full production from ANWR would be 20 years off. If we are looking at this type of long range planning there are better paths to take.
But can they store the electricity in transformers, capacitors, and batteries ? I have no clue...maybe you guys have.
I am trying to drive less. I see a slight improvement in traffic....
I am hoping that most people start the voluntary carpool that has existed in BAy area / San francisco, for the past 25 years....
let us all decrease usage !!
So, since we can't have the oil TOMORROW, this means to just abandon ANWR entirely?
And how long before we get all the windmills, solar plants, tidal stations, nukes, hydrogen production, etc. up and running to meet our needs?
The best choice is to prepare to eat the fish, and keep looking for other food. The U.S. simply needs to find other oil-fields. I believe there are some off the coasts of Florida, in deeper water for instance.
To do so, you will need to put someone like me in charge with authoritarian powers. I've read The Gulag Archipelago, and I learned how to get major civil projects done cheaply and quickly. All prisoners, homeless, and other unemployed persons will be "employed" to 1) build windmill and solar panel factories, and 2) assemble these. ALL coastal area and mountain tops regardless of any other consideration will have windmills constructed within. Arizona and other sunny states will have vast areas converted to solar collecting stations. Ownership of private property (as will other rights) will be of secondary consequence to the needs of society.
There will be no public debate or studies, no OSHA, or no EPA to slowdown the projects. Those who resist, criticize or EVN THINK of criticizing (since thought of a crime, is the 1st step in actually committing a crime) will find themselves on the crew 16 hours - 7 days a week, attaching the vanes above the chilly Atlantic during the winter.
Well there's the good with the bad.
About 4 years ago OPEC spokespeople used to talk about a target price for oil of around $35/barrel. That seems cheap now but at the time I believe they felt it represented the best long term revenue producing price. It was relatively high based on the recent past but not so high that it didn't allow for global economic growth, which will increases demand. Well due to factors outside their control the price shot up to around $60. I think that there was some initial concern that this could trigger a global recession causing a decrease in the demand for oil. Well it didn't so suddenly the talk from OPEC spokespeople is that $55-$60 is a price they are comfortable with. The world now has $70/barrel oil for the second time in less than 7 months and guess what? There doesn't seem to be a big slump in demand. Don't be surprised if OPECs new target price is more like $65. What am I getting at? ANWR represents a long range commitment to perpetuating our dependence on oil and allowing ourselves to be exploited. I'm not ready to concede that there isn't a better way.
Not really. I agree that when it comes to energy independence there probably won't be one single solution but rather several partial solutions. I just don't think that increased oil consumption should be part of any 20 year plan.
I'm not sure why you'd have to create some fascist state where people were forced into labor. Just pay them and pay them well. How much do we spend on energy now? How much are we spending in the Persian Gulf? How much will this add up to in the next 20 years?
Oil's run needs to be over. In addition to all the reasons I've already mentioned here's another. I'm tired of hearing about the Middle East. Let the Arabs go back to sitting on this worthless goo. They can pass their time beating each other's brains out because they don't believe in the right form of Islam.
There is a multinational laboratory being built in france to study fusion. The biggest problem is containing the reaction.
You can send the generated power back into the grid to be used in other places
I just heard on the history channel that if we were to make a 1mile by 1mile square solar processing power field we could power the USA with it .
Would be nice however our power delievry system is so old that we couldn't send it where it needed to go. Though it would make a nice power solution to the west coast or the east coast depending on where it is built
Absolutely right. The old man made enough money to take care of the family, wife was at home taking care of the kids. They had a nice clean little house, one station wagon for a car, and lived happily. Now both man and wife work because they need a 2,500 square foot house. They need two gas guzzling SUV's and since their two twins just got their driver's license, it is two more cars in the family. And parrents pay the increased car insurance premiums and car repairs and maintenance. Now the family needs a 28 ft boat, because the neighbor has one. To buy the boat, they get a home equity loan for $ 80k. A 28 ft boat requires a large vehicle to tow it, so one SUV is traded in for a fuel guzzling $ 50k 1 ton crew cab dually 4X4 pickup with a large diesel engine. Can't leave a beatiful big truck like that alone, can we? Now the truck needs $ 3k worth of accessories to look right, and how can we forget the $80k boat? It needs $ 3k worth of fishing and diving gear too.
Now father sees that his neighbor also bought a shiny new $ 20k Harley motorcycle. How can he not buy one too? Have to keep up with the Joneses, right?
Now they need 4 color TVs in the house, all premium channels available on cable, each family member needs his/her own cell phone and I-pod, and a personal laptop.
And on and on it goes. And how do they do it? They are in debt up to their eyeballs.
You can send it back to the grid but where does the grid store it? Solar and wind can provide all the energy that is needed over the long run but when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing there is no energy being produced. So this strategy is based on producing excess under sunny/windy conditions that can be stored and later tapped into when needed.
I just heard on the history channel that if we were to make a 1mile by 1mile square solar processing power field we could power the USA with it .
I don't think that is right. I read recently that Australia is studying the feasibility of creating a solar power station in the middle of the Outback that could generate all Australia's energy. The area required was going to be 50 kilometer square (roughly 32 miles by 32 miles). So the US would need something considerable bigger. Regardless, it is probably doable. I, however, prefer the idea of local community or home generated power. I think that it will eventually be cost competitive and I just think the independence of being off the grid would be cool.
An immediate $1/gallon gas tax with 50 cent increases for the next 4 years. This money would be returned to the states in proportion to how it was collected. There would be no subsidies for alternative energy. These emerging technologies would now compete for profitability against this higher price point. Let the best solution win. Allow the power of the free market to push us into the post oil era. That's it.
You may hate this idea but I guarantee the biggest opposition would come from OPEC. That somewhat validates the approach.
Rocky
I disagree.
The biggest opposition would come from the American voters towards any politician insane enough to consider such a proposal to be a boon to his career.
You are absolutely correct. I consider myself to be in touch with reality. While I believe that this would be a good, if not the best, approach I fully realize that it won't appeal to the mindless masses. On a different topic, this represents a fundamental flaw in the democratic process. All opinions count the same regardless of whether the people expressing these opinions are informed or posess any common sense.
They want to believe that there is some sort of conspiracy which psychologically keeps them from having to face the fact that the world is growing and changing and that their economic place in it is declining. By holding onto the theory that others are acting criminally to put them down, they don't have to face the fact that they are not earning (or saving enough) which is all lifestyle choices.
It is true there are lots of lessons in history. I can just imagine the disbelief of Romans, when the Huns resisted and challenged the Roman view that ruling the world was their birth-right.
Rocky
What people should understand about my suggestion is that it doesn't represent a new order to things. It represents the most rapid transition, kind of like ripping off a bandage. I have no problem with people driving their big trucks to pick up a gallon of milk. I just have a problem with them burning oil to do this.
me: Consider this thought. The flaw in democracy doing things for society, is due to the fact that people want laws based which are good for them (and their friends and family), which might not necessarily be good for society.
People want plentiful and cheap energy foremost. If they have to tax the wealthy to get it, they'll try, though I question why anyone would consider that unfair. I dislike all forms of subsidies and incentives.
The vast majority of people do not want to conserve energy and will give you all sorts of reasons why they can't reduce their usage much. They want their plentiful and cheap energy. But they would like everyone else to conserve, so the price will drop for them.
But what a lot of people miss when talking politics here and what we can do to conserve energy in the U.S. through laws and taxes is the rest of the world. The U.S. uses 25% of the world's oil. Say we can save 10% of that usage next year, wouldn't that drop prices? Probably not, because the rest of the world has to go along with that too. If the global economy grows 3% the rest of the world will use 3% mire oil probably, and there will be Zero savings. And in 2007, 08, 09 ... there will be more people, more economic growth, more autos. Energy usage is going up if energy is available. Conservation will be overwhelmed by global growth.
Many of us 40 or older know we have been down this road of higher CAFE, Energy Star appliances, better insulated homes, fluorescent bulbs, and more efficient factories have not decreased our energy usage. We continue to increase our population, and overall energy usage despite that.
Rocky
I heard a report that some high percentage of SUV owners make more than $85K -- not all that much. But they're not feeling the pinch in their disposable income. Lower income folks, especially those who have bought above their means are feeling it. Bankruptcies, lost homes, etc., all to come.
When I see people stopping careless, distracted driving with cigarettes and cellphones to their head, I'll believe they're having to conserve. It'll make driving safer.
Going to Cinci to appt tomorrow. Will give a full report on how drivers have slowed down to conserve fuel...
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Rocky
They're tried to force a train corridor on us at high cost in Ohio from Cinci to Columbus to Cleveland. IT's about time they'll bring it out again. They give an unexpectly low cost proposal based on certain useage level. Costs will multiply drastically and useage will be far below estimates. White elephant.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Absolutely not. I hate the "Robin Hood" philosophy of stealing from the rich to give to the poor. I've read all Ayn Rand and am completely onboard. My position is based on the fact that I don't believe this oil based economy is sustainable and our attempts to drag it out are not in our best interests.
I live near I75 and watch the parade of "snowbirds."
That needs a government control to reduce fuel useage. Limit size of bus for personal use on public roads with fuels from the public trough.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
me: Do you realize that high percentages of people in rural areas are the ones who are poor? The poor in the cities already have public transport. Many poor rural people are the ones with the old station wagons and pickups and Broncos which aren't tuned up and get poor mileage.
you: I have no problem with people driving their big trucks to pick up a gallon of milk. I just have a problem with them burning oil to do this.
me: I'm not crazy about it either, but it's their money. Are you upset also about RV owners and the trips they take? Power boat owners and their 100-gal days on the lake? How about optional driving like people driving 200 miles round trip to go skiing? How about needless vacations via airplane? What about people using 800 gallons of oil to heta their house, instead of using wood? We use lots of fuel in many ways that are necessary. What if because I use wood to heat my house, I consider anyone who uses oil to be much worse than a family with 2 Hummers.