WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congressional Republicans vowed on Thursday to make a major push for more U.S. oil and gas drilling and in the process force Democrats to cast difficult votes at a time of skyrocketing gasoline prices....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080612/pl_nm/usa_congress_energy_dc;_ylt=Ak7TpHpBocFsqYxbU9b94V 8S.MwF

In a way, I don't like this to pass. I like the way various technologies are developing right now. One advantage of having the price of oil sky high is that it stirs up innovation, and the US could be a leader again in alternative fuels and clean technology, to stir up our economy once again. The next wave after the internet is meeting the challenges of the impending strong demand for energy. The only side effect, if we continue in the current path is a cleaner atmosphere for mankind.

If we let our country drill for oil again, yes, we could burn cheaper gas with wanton abandon in our big muscle inefficient roaring cars, and ever more pollute our atmosphere.

I don't think prices will go down as a result of drilling, but it will slow the price rise, while keeping more money within the US.

I just hope those money will be equitably distributed, not in the pockets of a handful of individuals. As it is, it will not change our financial status.

I just hope those money will be equitably distributed, not in the pockets of a handful of individuals. As it is, it will not change our financial status.

As long as you are getting cheaper gasoline, it is none of your business where profits go. In contrast, we know where our money goes, when we buy imported oil - to terrorists. If the money stays at home, then capitalists will continue to use their money to create more wealth, with the effect of providing cheap goods and services for everyone.

Yes, that's true. I often see cheap food prices as one way of distributing the nation's wealth equitably, and everyone benefits. I just hope we don't return to inefficient cars, but sure would like our country to sell oil and distribute the cash some other means like investing for a more solid energy technology foundations of the future, not the cheap gas. Cheap gas only encourages "laziness" and backward evolution.

We need to explore our own resources in the short term. Just the mention of drilling will encourage the speculators to reduce the price of oil. We are sending 800 billion a year out of the country for oil. The dollar is being devalued.

We never stopped drilling. It has always been greatly encouraged, particularly during the present administration. Do a search a look at the number of wells drille over the years and you will see our oil shortfalls are not for a lack of drilling. There are certain areas where drilling has been and still is forbidden. We can debate the benefits of opening these areas up but that is another discusion. The problem with drilling for oil in the recent past and in areas like the Baken fields has been cost. The cost to drill and extract oil from most of the remaining US deposits is high. Only until oil rose above $70 or so a barrel did it become cost effective to drill again. It takes time before the decision to explore matures into a productive well. There will be increases in new US production during the next couple of years. The problem is that these wells pump slower and our older wells are declining. There is another possitive side of the issue. Not every well that is drill gets activated. Many are not productive enough to warrant extracting the petroleum. The decision is based on the market at the time. There are a lot of drilled wells that weren't worth extracting from at $50/barrell but now make great sense. These can be brought online much faster than new wildcatting efforts. So we can probably increase production some, it will not be nearly enough by itself to make a big difference though. Fortunately the change in consumer habits brought on by the higher fuel prices will also help stem the tide. Changing from a 14MPG SUV to a 25MPG sedan is huge difference in consumption. People are choosing to drive their higher mileage cars more, vacation closer, combine trips, and buy higher mileage vehicles. This has already shown up in the national fuel consumption figures. Consumption will continue to decrease as long as fuel prices remain high. The effect of influenced car pruchases is an additive one and this reduction last for years.

I don't believe this will drop gas prices, but it does have the potential to slow it down long enough for us to make the switch to alternatives without "economic upheaval" as predicted by the US DoE.

Increasing gas prices are here to stay as long as there is an increasing global demand (China and India), and decreasing global supply.

I don't believe the US can continue to grow economically while dumping millions of US dollars into the hands of the very enemy we are attempting to defeat.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congressional Republicans vowed on Thursday to make a major push for more U.S. oil and gas drilling and in the process force Democrats to cast difficult votes at a time of skyrocketing gasoline prices....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080612/pl_nm/usa_congress_energy_dc;_ylt=Ak7TpHpBocFsqYxbU9b94V 8S.MwF

In a way, I don't like this to pass. I like the way various technologies are developing right now. One advantage of having the price of oil sky high is that it stirs up innovation, and the US could be a leader again in alternative fuels and clean technology, to stir up our economy once again. The next wave after the internet is meeting the challenges of the impending strong demand for energy. The only side effect, if we continue in the current path is a cleaner atmosphere for mankind.

If we let our country drill for oil again, yes, we could burn cheaper gas with wanton abandon in our big muscle inefficient roaring cars, and ever more pollute our atmosphere.

Jeb Bush decided "not in my backyard." W supported him. If Republicans want to drill, let's put 1000 derricks in the Gulf of Mexico, right by Sarasota, Marco Island, and the Florida panhandle. It is far more cost effective to ruin beaches in Florida than the remote ANWAR.

I fully support drilling anywhere on our own soil. It's pay to play. If we love to burn the stuff, we should own up to the potential environmental risks and unsightliness and drill. Now we just export the stuff we don't like and that just isn't right. Don't get me wrong, I don't think drilling is any big huge deal the way it's done now in the states. So go for it.

One thing though. If we give the oil companies the green light it should come with huge conditions.

1) Every drop of that oil goes to American consumers only.

2) A fair price for that oil is established below market value.

If they don't like these conditions, let it stay in the ground. My biggest fear is that the oil companies will get access to all that oil and then sell it to China and India at market rates, make a butt load of money, and very little benefit will come to American consumers.

Even if we all buy the Volt and never use the ICE range-extender, we will still need substantial quantities of petroleum-based fuels, particularly diesel. Our long-haul trucks and diesel-electric locomotives require diesel fuel for operation. We may eventually have alternative-energy based replacements for these vehicles, but in the short-term (<10 years or so) we will continue to need diesel fuel.

As some of the previous posters have wisely pointed out, if we (the U.S.) does the drilling, we will control the fuel source, and the dollars should remain in-country.

All great points from DaV8or. I also support the drilling if it will be used to keep our gas prices down. I took for granted that it would be used to subsidize the american market but we all know what happens when you assume.

At the same time Joe's original point isn't lost on me. These huge recent gas price increases have had the side effect of advancing our drive towards cleaner tech. The production announcement of the volt is case in point of that. I'd hate to lose this new effort to get off of gas because the prices come back down. Is that selfish of me?

If you put a frog in a boiling pot of water it will jump out. If you put a frog in a pot of water and slowly raise it to a boil you will end up with frog soup(never really tried it). The point is that the huge price increase has caused people to relize that we're headed in a bad direction and we're now seriously going to jump out of the pot. I'd hate for the prices to drop again and the masses go back to relaxing in the hot tub.

Barely any meantion of alternatives. Lets drill on our coasts and save 5 cents a gallon in about 5 years from now. Our own inflation will raise oil prices more than that by then. I really think its time we mandate alternatives. Solar is getting cheaper, battery technology is here, biofuel from microalgae is being developed. We have reached a turning point.
I thought we were addicted to oil?
Do you quit an addiction but getting more of it, cheaper?

Its time to quit, goodbye oil.

I say let them drill their brains out. If it will shut up the Republicans and move the focus on the real problem of getting off of non-renewable sources of energy then fine. It won't make a bit of difference anyway. We are talking a minimum of five years after the go ahead to get drop one to market. Of course our oil rigs are an average of 30 years old and we would have to first start there. Go for it. However, if it diverts from doing the only things that will matter like investing in BEVs, Plug-in Hybrids, second generations biofuels, solar, wind, wave, geothermal, etc. then the drilling will only delay and intensify our pain. I guess we Americans like to bang our heads against the wall.

We need a plan folks. Not made by a presidential candidate like McCain who wants to build 45 new nuclear reactors. Like how is that going to reduce our petroleum use? Even if it were a solution for using petoleum It takes 10 years to build a reactor and uranium is a non-renewable resource that is expected to need more energy to extract and refine than it produces by 2050. At best it will allow us to shut down some aging nuclear reactors. This is a complete waste of money and time. Oh, by the way us taxpayers will pay the entire bill because private companies will never invest in nuclear. Too risky. Please search this forum for links about the financial and other risks that the nuclear "solution" brings.

Thus, drill and build nuclear reactors if that makes you shut up and focus on the real solutions.

Well if we won't go nuclear, won't drill for oil then I guess we'll just have to suffer as a civilization till hopefully the impossible happens.

It's not like the poor need gas, oil, electricity, or any of these other awful modern conveniences. They can just go without while us "rich" folks buy it all up.

We need a plan folks. Not made by a presidential candidate like McCain who wants to build 45 new nuclear reactors. Like how is that going to reduce our petroleum use? Even if it were a solution for using petoleum It takes 10 years to build a reactor and uranium is a non-renewable resource that is expected to need more energy to extract and refine than it produces by 2050. At best it will allow us to shut down some aging nuclear reactors. This is a complete waste of money and time.

Texas, you are spot on! McCain is a huge step forward from the Bush misadministration but nuclear is not the way to go. Too expensive and too long to put in place. Solar thermal, solar nano PV, wind, and PHEVs will get us there sooner at lower cost and risk. Nuclear is just an effort to appease the utility industry that believes they can profit by amortizing big capital investments back to rate payers. JUST SAY NO.

Well if we won't go nuclear, won't drill for oil then I guess we'll just have to suffer as a civilization till hopefully the impossible happens.

It's not like the poor need gas, oil, electricity, or any of these other awful modern conveniences. They can just go without while us "rich" folks buy it all up.


MrBogey, You just don't get it! We are going to be in rough shape in LESS than 5 years. If we waste all of our time and resources on nuclear and drilling we are going to be in trouble. It's likely we are going to be in trouble anyway and frankly I think we will need to feel the pain for change to occur. Make no mistake. We have the renewable technologies needed to get moving in a huge way that will be much more beneficial to our economy than going the drill and ray way.

People think this will cost us too much and blah blah. Going "green" in a huge way now will give us the technical and infrastructural edge when it's time to turn the lights on for all those poor people you mentioned. Are they going to use nuclear power? No. Are they going to use oil? No. They are going to use biofuels, solar, wind, geothermal, etc. Why not be a market leader? My God I think I'm taking crazy pills here. Why can't people understand these simple concepts??!!! Makes me want to pull my hair out sometimes. lol. It's OK, we will be sitting back working on the real solutions and will be ready when the politicians and masses are ready to get serious.


Greenman, dead on.

We're going to be in rough shape in less than 5 years because several years ago we did nothing because we'd be in trouble in less time than it'd take to solve it. I remember the ANWR debate when people scoffed at drilling it 8 years ago because it'd take at least 6 years before a single drop hits the market. That'd have been nearly 2 years ago. We need it now but people always defer thinking that the future isn't soon enough.

Look at it this way. The way you're suggesting is akin to popping up in the 1950s when nuke power came about and demanding that we stop building oil and coal plants so we can build "cheaper" and cleaner" nuke plants. We need to do what makes the best sense for now while working towards what will make the best sense in the future. In the past burning oil made incredible sense. As time passed it made less sense. But we have to evolve with it. Demanding we stop totally and suffer till we evolve fully is crazy.

It's easy to say we need to suffer a little bit when there are people earning minimum wage who can't afford power today are the ones who'll suffer the most.

Real solutions? Real solutions solve problems. The problem isn't there's too much oil, nuke, and coal plants. The problem is we need more energy. The solution is making more energy. How does making more nuke plants not solve that problem? No oil, no CO2, and a small bit of radioactive waste that we are exceptionally able to dispose of without harming the environment. And we have a small plant footprint with an incredibly stable output not dependant on the sun(solar or wind) in the least. It sounds extremely viable. Moreso if the gov't is friendly towards it and doesn't let anti-science extremists snowball the project.

Or look at this way. In the 70s we had people stomp their feet and demand we stop building nuclear plants and oil refineries... and here we are. We didn't have to be here in a bind. We could have kept meeting our needs and developing tech till we could transition to the next. But now instead of sending 1.30$ to an American pumping oil, we're sending 4.00$ to an oil sheik. Money that would have stayed here and allowed us more money to thrive. More money to research new power plants. More money in our pocket for the poor. Instead some sultan gets an indoor ski slope.

Suffering can help guide people. It can help them learn their mistake. Make them think faster and make better decisions. But needless suffering is just sadism.

It's about @#*& time!!!!

Now if the Dems will just get out of the way so we can get on with it.

Now if the Dems will just get out of the way so we can get on with it.
Yeah blame the dems...
Drilling in ANWR and everywhere else here in the states will do nothing.
United States oil production peaked in 1970, no amount of exploration and drilling will be able to satisfy demand here.
Any oil we find here will be sold overseas.
And if any of you are wondering where I got my information, it comes from the man himself, T. Boone Pickens.

We are not going to be in rough shape in 5 years because we have an urgent need to develop and mass produce solar panels, wind turbines and other clean technologies. These industries need lots of workers here in the U.S. It will take a few years to move people over from service jobs to manufacturing and engineering jobs in the renewable sector. Once the renewable sector is booming the economy will be moving full steam ahead.

Yeah blame the dems...
Drilling in ANWR and everywhere else here in the states will do nothing.
United States oil production peaked in 1970, no amount of exploration and drilling will be able to satisfy demand here.
Any oil we find here will be sold overseas.
And if any of you are wondering where I got my information, it comes from the man himself, T. Boone Pickens.

Yea but there's good reason. We tap the cheap wells that give us a huge cost to expense ratio. Then tap it to fill the market. When that one runs dry, we move to the next well that isn't as lucrative. We don't need to drill for 100% efficiency. We just need to drill to boost production to act as a bulwark against foreign market dominance for now. And that doesn't necessarily mean massive increases. They just got us because they had cheaper wells to tap.

Look at when our production peaked. OPEC came in and started jerking around the market to bleed the US and other non-OPEC nations of wealth. We're not going to turn that around overnight. But the thing is we don't export a lot of crude, relatively. If we can just get some more cheap veins tapped to increase the production we can help ease our transition off of imported oil. And American dollars would be better off going to Americans rather than foreigners IMO.

It's not about forever...it's about not letting them jam us hard as we move away from their oil.

We are not going to be in rough shape in 5 years because we have an urgent need to develop and mass produce solar panels, wind turbines and other clean technologies. These industries need lots of workers here in the U.S. It will take a few years to move people over from service jobs to manufacturing and engineering jobs in the renewable sector. Once the renewable sector is booming the economy will be moving full steam ahead.

What makes you think they will build any of this stuff here? Chances are they will build it all in China just like they do everything else. We can get the bulk of the engineering done in India too. Admittedly, they will need installers, but hey, we've Mexican day laborers for that! I'm not holding my breath for a booming renewables sector to save the economy.

If they don't like these conditions, let it stay in the ground.
My biggest fear is that the oil companies will get access to all that oil and then sell it to China and India at market rates, make a butt load of money, and very little benefit will come to American consumers.
Thats exactly whats going to happen if they get their way.

What makes you think they will build any of this stuff here? Chances are they will build it all in China just like they do everything else. We can get the bulk of the engineering done in India too. Admittedly, they will need installers, but hey, we've Mexican day laborers for that! I'm not holding my breath for a booming renewables sector to save the economy.

The number of shops building turbine blades has increased from 3 to 11, since 2003, because blades are too massive to economically ship, so they are built domestically. There is a well known bearing shop in Michigan that suddenly got a new lease on life by supplying bearings for wind turbines. These are just a couple examples of domestic suppliers benefitting from wind turbine production. Once installed, wind turbine service and maintenance requires local skilled tradesmen, so the installed base of renewable energy keeps people employed.

http://www.zimfamilycockers.com/DCPP-Wildflowers-March2004.jpg

Most industrialized nations in the world rely on nuclear power heavily. Only in America do we have the luxury of choosing not to. This luxury is getting tougher to afford. Like it or not folks, nuclear power is going to make a come back in this country as part of the new century's energy diversity plan.

Most industrialized nations in the world rely on nuclear power heavily. Only in America do we have the luxury of choosing not to. This luxury is getting tougher to afford. Like it or not folks, nuclear power is going to make a come back in this country as part of the new century's energy diversity plan.


Well your facts are a little off so would please answer some questions?

1) How many nuclear power plants are functioning in the world?

2) How many are in the US?

3) When is the expected date for Uranium extraction and refinement energy to exceed the amount of energy it produces?

4) How many years must spent fuel (most radioactive state) remain in liquid cooled chambers before being sealed in guarded facilities?

5) How long is this spent fuel dangerous to humans?

6) How are nuclear power plants financed? Utility companies?

6) How long do they take to build?


I think if you answer these simple questions you might have to change your previous posts and thoughts. Of course you won't because your reality is not based on reality.

Texas, do you already know the answers to the questions you have asked, and are trying to prove a point? Or do you truly wish to know the answers?

From the tone of your post, you sound like one of those who don't WANT to find a way to make local nuclear power a safe and effective choice.

It sounds like the only solution you would find acceptable is to cut back all energy usage and live like primitives, since all energy production leaves some kind of environmental footprint.

What would YOU have us do?

Texas, do you already know the answers to the questions you have asked, and are trying to prove a point? Or do you truly wish to know the answers?

From the tone of your post, you sound like one of those who don't WANT to find a way to make local nuclear power a safe and effective choice.

It sounds like the only solution you would find acceptable is to cut back all energy usage and live like primitives, since all energy production leaves some kind of environmental footprint.

What would YOU have us do?


Yes, I already know the answers to the nuclear questions. I just feel that people that want to go the non-renewable, ten year nuclear way don't know what they are wishing for. If they research it very carefully instead of listening to McCain and other's that are either uniformed or have special interests then I think they can slowly start to understand why we haven't built a new nuclear power plant in 30 years. Until we can build one that does not produce radioactive waste or that can cause massive problems if something goes wrong (like nuclear fusion reactors) then I think we should go a different path. Besides many do not understand that uranium extraction, refinement and enrichment is a non-renewable resource! This is extremely important.

What do I want? Well, I have hundreds of posts stating what I feel is the right path to take. A path based on long-term sustainability. One that utilizes our country’s natural renewable resources. Please use the search function and type in Texas for the user name and you can get complete details. I also have responded to just about every single rebuttal question you are about to post. Please save everyone some time and read what I already wrote, should you decide to respond. Thank you.

I recommend:

1) The massive effort to come up with a national energy plan that will address our long-term needs. This will not only have to deal with technology but with the geopolitical issues. We are in very deep with the petrol dollar and are intertwined in the global oil economy. It will be difficult for us to figure out how to get us out of that self destructing situation. However, we must eventually break free. Once the plan is complete and a plan management system is in place we must execute it with the vigor that we execute military plans.

2) Solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, biofuel, and other renewable sources of energy will most likely make up a large part of the plan. I feel the biggest proportion of that mix will be solar technologies. Solar PV, solar thermal, solar concentration, etc. We have enormous amounts of solar resources here in America. Just using 10% of New Mexico, for example, can provide our entire country’s energy needs! Fill the deserts, cover every building and parking lot. One thing about solar is that they can start producing energy in less than one year after approval! New coal and nuclear power plants can take around 10 years to get the first kWh.

3) Build a national smart grid. This will be part of the energy plan. It will allow energy to be traded like currency. If you have extra you can add to the grid. When you need energy you subtract from the grid. Individuals will become like tiny power plants. Energy will be the new currency.

4) Build massive amounts of electrical energy storage. Because of the nature of renewable energy large amounts of electrical energy storage will be needed. The energy plan will decide what kind, where, and how much. The biggest portion of that is likely to be pumped storage hydro. You can see all my other posts for detailed reasons for that. The batteries in BEVs and hybrids will also play a huge part. Ninety percent of our transportation fleet is not being used at any given moment.

5) Work hard toward the electrification of our transportation fleet. Actually this is job number one. Our discussion was more about nuclear so we drifted from the most important issue - petroleum use. However, our new energy plan will first try to wean us off of imported oil. However, political and geopolitical issues will determine the pace. Plug-in hybrids like the Volt and BEVs are one of the best ways for us to accomplish that goal. The Volt can effectively reduce petroleum use by around 80 to 90 percent because the source of its energy is transferred to the grid. Even using our dirty coal plants is better in the short term than importing. However, our grid is not just made up of dirty coal plants. We also have much cleaner sources like natural gas, hydro, wind, etc. The grid is getting cleaner every year.


There you go. It really couldn't be more simple that that. All of the technology is ready to begin today and will only get better as we move into our energy plan. Why are we not moving hard right now? The only reason is due to the complicated political and geopolitical environment we live in. For example, if we were to stop using imported oil today it would effectively crush the global economy and ours along with it. The value of our dollar would be a complete unknown. Oil producing nations might decide to switch to the Euro for oil trades and that would absolutely destroy our economy. We owe the world over $5 trillion and they would want to be paid. As for our political mess, when was the last time the Democrats and the Republicans agreed on something of this magnitude? Only during times of extreme crisis or war. Thus, It’s my belief that our government will not be a significant part of the solution until we feel real pain. When the masses gather and civil unrest is in the air is when the government will listen and get to work. It's so simple yet so complicated. The technology however is ready to go.

Texas, I would like to agree with you but none of your points except the 1st one has a snowballs chance in hell. Economically, I don't think they don't add up. Solar ?? Eh ?? Minnesota in January ?? Wind ?? Are you kidding ?? Store energy by pumping it in resevoirs ?? Huh ?? California has more potential storage than any state east of the Rockies. And its all, already used up. And we do pump water at night back up hill to run down during the day. And it adds up to about 0.01% of the energy produced here. Geothermal ?? Where in the US except a TINY piece of California is that even a dream ?? It sounds like the same old greeny weeny rattle. Where is the toxic waste from our Nuclear plants that have been operation for over 40 years ?? Where is the harm ?? There isn't any ...... Show me a single plant thats leaking now or can't dispose of its waste. I know you better than that. We had a Nuclear plant in Sacramento that was stopped by an uninformed and paranoid public. Built but never turned on. And now its costing us.

An energy policy yes. A green solution ? Better tap the heat in Hades.

Manage the grid better ?? Yeah, that could help a little. What 5% ?? But remember the artificial Electric shortage that got our govenor out and Arnold in ?? Manipulation and greed can never be fully accounted for. Back to the VOLT. Do you agree its part of the solution ?? At least a start ??

Texas, I would like to agree with you but none of your points except the 1st one has a snowballs chance in hell. Economically, I don't think they don't add up. Solar ?? Eh ?? Minnesota in January ?? Wind ?? Are you kidding ?? Store energy by pumping it in resevoirs ?? Huh ?? California has more potential storage than any state east of the Rockies. And its all, already used up. And we do pump water at night back up hill to run down during the day. And it adds up to about 0.01% of the energy produced here. Geothermal ?? Where in the US except a TINY piece of California is that even a dream ?? It sounds like the same old greeny weeny rattle. Where is the toxic waste from our Nuclear plants that have been operation for over 40 years ?? Where is the harm ?? There isn't any ...... Show me a single plant thats leaking now or can't dispose of its waste. I know you better than that. We had a Nuclear plant in Sacramento that was stopped by an uninformed and paranoid public. Built but never turned on. And now its costing us.

An energy policy yes. A green solution ? Better tap the heat in Hades.

Manage the grid better ?? Yeah, that could help a little. What 5% ?? But remember the artificial Electric shortage that got our govenor out and Arnold in ?? Manipulation and greed can never be fully accounted for. Back to the VOLT. Do you agree its part of the solution ?? At least a start ??


Your rebuttal lacks any facts at all. Your numbers are pulled from your butt and your logic is nonexistent. Finally, I have always agreed that plug-in hybrids and BEVs have a great potential to get us off imported oil. Heck, I am on this forum! Where are you getting your reality? Rush Limbaugh? No numbers, no technical validity, no logical reasoning. That is the kind of resistance that is causing a real plan and solution to be implemented. After your reality comes crashing down you will back what I have said and then blame the Democrats for not doing it. When we do our five year “look back” it will be painfully obvious to anyone but you of course. You will insist that you were right or that the facts pointed in a different direction. Other than that you are doing a great job!

Your rebuttal lacks any facts at all. Your numbers are pulled from your butt and your logic is nonexistent. Finally, I have always agreed that plug-in hybrids and BEVs have a great potential to get us off imported oil. Heck, I am on this forum! Where are you getting your reality? Rush Limbaugh? No numbers, no technical validity, no logical reasoning. That is the kind of resistance that is causing a real plan and solution to be implemented. After your reality comes crashing down you will back what I have said and then blame the Democrats for not doing it. When we do our five year “look back” it will be painfully obvious to anyone but you of course. You will insist that you were right or that the facts pointed in a different direction. Other than that you are doing a great job!

The book discussed at this link has an analysis of the potential of nuclear energy:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06...arbon_free_uk/

An interesting aspect of the idea of using nuclear energy on a huge scale discussed in the book is that large-scale energy storage would be needed since nuclear plants aren't designed to handle quick changes in demand. It seems that any carbon-free energy system is going to need a great deal of energy storage capacity.

The book discussed at this link has an analysis of the potential of nuclear energy:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06...arbon_free_uk/

An interesting aspect of the idea of using nuclear energy on a huge scale discussed in the book is that large-scale energy storage would be needed since nuclear plants aren't designed to handle quick changes in demand. It seems that any carbon-free energy system is going to need a great deal of energy storage capacity.


pdt, that is an excellent point! People think that because it’s nuclear that they don't need to do anything else. If there’s no way to adjust the output to the demand you need to either use an electrical storage system to generate the curve or dump the access into the ground. Demand is a varying curve and the output of a nuclear reactor is flat. In fact, you cannot shut it down completely until the fuel is spent. Even the spent fuel will remain hot for at least 10 years after it is taken out of the reactor. That is why it must be stored in liquid cooled vaults (please see my links to nuclear power in the forums). With the cost of uranium going up (renewable resource) dumping is becoming less of an option. Currently, the US and other countries around the world use pumped storage hydro for exactly this purpose. That’s why it baffles me that people take such a strong opposition to me when I suggest using pumped storage hydro as a means to include massive amounts of renewables into our grid.

I think the major reason for the resistance is that some people are politically conditioned to disregard the use of renewables because they "feel" too Democratic. How have we gotten to this point? I'm sure it was due to oil markets in the good old days. Oil good, alternatives bad. Remember when Reagan tore down the solar panels from the White House? That pretty much summed up the situation. Now please don't think I’m blaming or siding with any party. I just try to figure out why people think the way they do. I think the Republicans need to embrace renewables. They are not bad or hippy technology. They are not used only to save the environment. They are good for business and our economy. They will make us tons of money.

Now, how can we fix the situation? I think that Bush and McCain need to install solar on their houses. I truly think it's a pride issue. Almost like admitting the tree huggers were right. Does anyone else feel the way I do? How can we get everyone in the country to at least consider alternatives to the traditional, non-renewable fossil fuels and nuclear power mindset? I mean it's getting silly at this point in time with all of the technological advancements and geopolitical awareness.


PEOPLE, SOLAR IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS AND OUR ECONOMY! IT'S NOT JUST TOUCHY-FEELY TECHNOLOGY FOR TREE HUGGERS!

I am really sold on Solar compared to anything else. We need to have energy storage systems to go along with it. After all, even oil and coal and most other fossil fuels originally came from Solar Power. The wind which drives the wave, the water that was evaporated to reload the dams, all the biofuels, they all have solar origins, albeit at extremely very low efficiencies from the original solar energy that was spent to prime them. One thing is that even the best terrestrial plants of this planet, the efficiency of producing fuel (count their total energy value: sugars, cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, plant oiils, etc) is at best 5% efficient.

Direct solar energy trapping is the most efficient route. Direct solar hydrogen for fuel can even attain greater efficiencies than solar PV when producing fuels, as shown by Canadians and Australians, currently at around 45-50% solar to hydrogen energy conversion efficiency (sorry, no reference yet, except in patent claims, you can also look up articles of SHEC Labs which discusses of such range of efficiency, with the company now shelved by oil investors after making great strides). The US has to catch up with direct solar hydrogen production.

And of course, solar PV has still long exciting road ahead of it, it is practical now if economies of scale can be made affordable, and to come up with ever increasing energy conversion efficiencies. As sunlight space becomes crowded (remember neighbors suing neighbors for solar PV shading), we simply need to be more efficient, well beyond the 14% average of thin film right now. There is great potential with new theoretical possible limit for a perfect solar cell pushed to 70% (http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-perfect-solar-cell.html ).


To exploit the alloy's near-perfect correspondence to the spectrum of sunlight will require a multijunction cell with layers of different composition. Walukiewicz explains that "lattice matching is normally a killer" in multijunction cells, "but not here. Optoelectonic properties of these materials show amazing insensitivity to defects created by the lattice mismatch. "

Two layers of indium gallium nitride, one tuned to a bandgap of 1.7 eV and the other to 1.1 eV, could attain the theoretical 50 percent maximum efficiency for a two-layer multijunction cell. Currently, no materials with these bandgap can be grown together.

Indium gallium nitride solar cells could be made with more than two layers, perhaps a great many layers with only small differences in their bandgaps, for solar cells approaching the maximum theoretical efficiencies of better than 70 percent.

It remains to be seen if a p-type version of indium gallium nitride suitable for solar cells can be made, but here too success with LEDs of the same material gives hope. A number of other parameters remain to be settled, like how far charge carriers can travel in the material before being reabsorbed.

Apologies in advance if I "waste anyone's time" by re-hashing anything Texas has posted. He is a prolific poster, and the search capability isn't as flexible as I would have liked.

Texas, I agree with most everything you mention - the sole exception being that I advocate the use of nuclear power. I don't like the current state of the nuclear industry - it IS possible to do things better than we do now. The key is that we have to WANT to do better.

- You didn't mention the ridiculously inefficient single fuel cycle we currently use in the USA; rather than reprocess spent fuel, it just gets stored as waste. Reprocessing returns useful nuclear fuel to power reactors, and greatly reduces the radioactivity of the resulting waste. Reprocessing the spent fuel in a closed cycle makes better use of a "non-renewable" resource, and just makes sense. Other countries do it - why don't we?

- Nuclear fuel: there are alternatives to the enriched U235 fuel used in most US reactors. U235 comprises about 0.7% of naturally-existing uranium; the other 99.3& is U238, suitable for processing in a breeder reactor. Estimates I found put the resource lifetime in the billions of years - long enough, in my guessing. Also, other fuel cycles could be used to mitigate geographic concerns and radioactive waste storage - thorium comes to mind.

- Inherently safe reactor technology - too long a subject to delve into here; there are numerous technologies available here.

It is difficult to find any information on nuclear power that isn't biased on one way or another; it is a polarizing issue. What this also means is that the detractors of nuclear power don't WANT to find a way to make it safe and effective. Furthermore, the average Joe Q. Public doesn't have a good understanding of radiation. I am exposed to more radiation when I am standing outside in the sunshine than when I stand looking down into an operating TRIGA reactor - with nothing more than water between me and the glowing core.

I don't have anything against remote nuclear power (solar), and actively encourage its use. I support conservation efforts, and pretty much anything that gets us off of foreign oil (the Volt!). I also strongly support the use of safe local nuclear power - especially when considered against the use of fossil-fuel based power generation.

Altazi, You bring up some great points that need to be addressed. I would like to ask this one question:

What technology will be used to build the 45 nuclear power plants that McCain is proposing? When will they be completed?

Sorry, that was two questions. The answers, to the best of my knowledge are 1) The same technology that is used in our other 104 power plants. 2) At least 10 years after approval.

I would also like you to consider the question that always comes to my mind. Why not just go with solar and wind instead of messy and dangerous nuclear? Is it the cost? Is it the stability? Is it the long-term better solution? Why? If we start with a solar plan today we can begin to see power generation on the grid this time next year (see nanosolar for their talk about small municipal farms). The technology is here today and will only get cheaper every year as we move along the technology curve. There is proven large scale electrical storage technology in pumped storage hydro so why even bother with nuclear?

It may be true that there are newer nuclear technologies that are renewable, cost effective when compared to solar and not dangerous should terrorists or earthquakes come to town. I don't believe these technologies are ready today or will be producing energy in less than 10 years. I would love to be proven wrong. I am a proponent of nuclear fusion because of the amazing renewable and safe energy production potential but we all know that's still at least 50 years out in the future. In the mean time why don't we just go renewable and go hard? OK, let's keep some proportion of development on nuclear fission so that we keep the technology and our ability to deploy it alive and well should we really need it (I don't think I want to live in a world that would require nuclear fission for survival but we should cover all the risks and keep all options open). However, the majority of our efforts should be in technologies that give us the best long-term solution. The funny thing to me is that solar and wind are also technologies that can provide power in the shortest amount of time (less than one year from approval is possible).

One more point. If our government really wanted the price of oil to drop they would not make announcements that we will drill ANWAR and the outer continental shelf or that Saudi Arabia will produce more oil. Did you notice how that effected the price of oil? It went up! lol. Makes sense to me. All of those announcements points to strategies that continue and even grow our reliance and addiction to oil, not reduce it! The 45 nuke plants that McCain talked about? No effect at all because we they do not replace any oil. We only use oil for 2% of electricity generation. Hawaii uses 90% but they are not going to put a nuke plant there (if there is a God).

If our government really wanted the price of oil to drop then they would have to make investors nervous about future oil demand. If we said we are going to electrify our transportation fleet, develop second generation biofuels to create everything from biodiesel to biofertilizer then investors might start to think. Of course nothing may be able to make a difference due to the time frame of transition but setting a national plan to move away from oil will do much more than one that keeps us on the oil addiction path.

Hi Texas,

I think we are more "on the same page" than we are not on most of these points.

Perhaps I lean more towards nuclear than solar due to the fact that I live in Oregon, where the sun is a rather sometimes thing.

Of all of the major power-generating technologies, nuclear (when done right) seems to have the smallest environmental footprint.

Hi Texas,

I think we are more "on the same page" than we are not on most of these points.

Perhaps I lean more towards nuclear than solar due to the fact that I live in Oregon, where the sun is a rather sometimes thing.

Of all of the major power-generating technologies, nuclear (when done right) seems to have the smallest environmental footprint.


Fair enough. I will wait until I hear more about what nuclear technologies will be used for the new proposed power plants. I would also like to add that if we wish to continue having the same amount of nuclear power we currently have that we will need to get going on new nuclear power plants soon. Most of our existing nuclear facilities are 30 plus years old and when the proposed 45 nuclear power plants come on-line in 10 years they might have to decommission 45 older ones! This is no joke people. Nuclear power plants will not last forever and it's not easy going in there to refurbish them. Even the shielding gets irradiated for 50 years. You can't just send in a crew and replace all the concrete and pipes. No sir. I think I need to do more research on the decommissioning plan for our current nuclear power plants. That just might bring up a whole new can of worms. I know the UK has been on a plan to rid themselves of nuclear (you can see on their power charts that nuclear output has been declining for years - this however may soon change because they are also in an energy crisis).

Oh and you are in Oregon so I guess I understand why you think solar is a weak solution. Just spend a few months in Arizona or Texas and you will feel like lightning has struck you, "My God! Solar IS the answer!" lol.

Don't worry, we can move electricity all over the country using existing high voltage AC and DC power line technology. The losses are less than 10% if you can believe that. These lines will be part of the new smart grid infrastructure. I never said this was going to be cheap or easy. Heck, I wouldn’t have it any other way. Maybe our generation will outdo the Manhattan, Apollo, and the Interstate projects combined!

Hi Texas,

I accept your solution. let's cover Arizona with PV panels and ship some of that clean solar power up to the sun-deprived Pacific Northwest! It also has the added benefit of providing much-needed shade to the overheated Arizonians. . . ;)

Thats really weak Texas. I don't need facts to point out that solar wont work in Minnesota in the winter. Its called brain cells. Use them. If you want to get crappy and personal, then bring it on. I stand by my statements. If you want to call BS on BS, then by your own logic you are talking a shiatt load.

"Your rebuttal lacks any facts at all."

-Fact, solar wont work in Minnesota in the winter. A 5 year old in Minnesota can understand that, apparently you can not. What say you ??

"Your numbers are pulled from your butt and your logic is nonexistent." Nice, intelligent statement. All backed by facts, of course. You shall be judged by your words, and how you address others.

"Finally, I have always agreed that plug-in hybrids and BEVs have a great potential to get us off imported oil. "

-Ok, let's be friends. No let's not, I have better enemies.


"Heck, I am on this forum! Where are you getting your reality? Rush Limbaugh? "

- No, I own a house and make mortgage payments just like a lot of us. I have operated a motor vehicle since 1973. I haven't listened to Lush Bimbaugh, ever. What the H are you talking about ?? Sounds like you pulled that one out of your B......utt.

"No numbers, no technical validity, no logical reasoning."

- Duh. Let's talk logic, OK ?? In plain English I stated that geothermal can't and never will amount to jack in terms of a % of the US fuel or energy supply. That the potential for geothermal is NILL. Its obvious, to anyone but a nut job. Got any magma pools under Florida. What a dumb ahss.

I live in California, part of my Utility bill is electric from PG&E. Thats Pacif Gas and Electric Company. So, yes, i do have some first hand knowledge of what works and doesn't. You, where are your facts to disprove what I said ? None, just internet Bad slam. I have friends that have worked at the Geysers in Lake County CA. The wells that produce steam are dirty, pollute, and close down due to corrosion of the sulfuric water. Facts my ..s.

We have more solar and wind here in California than the rest of the US combined. Care to disoute that, little man ? Go pull some facts up. We will wait. We have some of the highest electricity rates in the nation to go with it. Do you doubt that ??

I pay the utility bill here, I don't think you do. So what experience do have, other than being a internet &hack job ??

"That is the kind of resistance that is causing a real plan and solution to be implemented. After your reality comes crashing down you will back what I have said and then blame the Democrats for not doing it. When we do our five year “look back” it will be painfully obvious to anyone but you of course. You will insist that you were right or that the facts pointed in a different direction. Other than that you are doing a great job! "

-- A nice, personal slam, with political jest thrown in for good measure. Where did I ever insist that I was right ?? How do you know what my political beliefs are ?? You are one opiniated, egotistic little.....blowfish. Have you looked in the mirror at what you throw around ???

Intentions don't work, they never have. Economics rules. That is the bottom and irrefutable line in a democracy. Not a socialist state like France, but a free enterprise system.

Since you are big on calling bogus, you didn't even care to spew anything about our experience here in California with the electrical grid. Not a peep, oh little one. It was manipulated and a self induced brown out insued. Govenor Gray Davis was impeached because of it. Where was your head when that happened ? Thats right, just like it is now, up your .....s.

Look at subsidized medicine and health care. Have you been to an Emergency Room lately ? Seen any nice public housing projects you like to drop your daughter off at ? After sniffing around that, you want to let the Government throw up a "PLAN" with a "Control " for eneregy??

Absolutely brilliant.

I don't think you are a real working tax paying stiff.

Sorry for the rant folks, but this guy is a total tool and $ack off.

Sorry to bring down this forum to his stinking level.

California boasts that it is the leader in clean power. The data enclosed is from the utilities themselves, so we 'll have to take their info on faith.

Here's one link to site showing our local socialized power producer, SMUD, Sacramento Metro Utility District....

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/utility_scale.html

The highly touted solar installation produces a whopping 2 mega watts. The stillborn Ranch Seco Nuclear plant, built with rate payers money, then killed by a paranoid public is ironicly looming in the background. Wonder what that cost us ??? Similar nuclear plants at Diablo Canyon in San Luis Obispo produce 1,100 MW each.

Do the math........

Here's another link to our other local gem, PG&E touting its geothermal.......

http://www.pge.com/about/news/mediarelations/newsreleases/q2_2007/070510a.shtml

The expected output is again, a whopping 25.5 MW. Barely a sneeze in the grid. PG&E claims 13% of its power from "qualifying renewable" power sources. All the rivers that can be dammed, are. Their production is subject to drought, and ironicly, to environmental pressure to regulate flows to preserve reminant Salmon and other native specie populations...... The trend is LESS POWER NOT MORE.

Resevoirs only fill up with sediment and get shallower, losing hydrostatic capacity as time goes on.

My opinion........somewhere I saw that US auto mileage driven is down some significant % since a similar time last summer. Presumably because of the increased cost of fuel. This may be an indication that, Sorry, RUSH IS RIGHT, that the controlling force in an open economic system is supply and demand. When the cost of fuel gets high enough, then the market will swing in the direction of alternative power sources.

Right now, I think the shuttered Ranch Seco plant could be a viable source of power for various E-vehicles. The comment is made above that the Nuclear plants have a problem with excess capacity as they aren't utilized on a consistent basis. We run the AC in the day, when its demand is highest, and charge the millions of cars at night. I have never heard of any nuclear plant in California, and they have been running for 30 or more years, of a problem with excess capacity. I'll try to dig up some "WindPower" links, but I think its a waste of baud rate and yes, electrical power.

OPEC SUCKS, Your name speaks volumes. Isn't that like hating your mother's breast? OPEC provides all the energy you need to grow up nice and strong. More like you suck OPEC. I think that's more logical. Don't you agree?

Seriously, I have never read someone try to cover so many topics with so little in my entire life, and I have read quite a few posts in my day. How about we address your "facts" one at a time.

OPEC SUCKS facts:

1) "Fact, solar wont work in Minnesota in the winter"

You can get 3-5 kWh/m^2/day on average in January in Minnesota. In fact, it's better than over 10 states! Don't take my word for it. Just check out the solar radiation maps. Input January, Average, 2-axis flat panel, hit the button:

http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/

Maybe NREL (National Renewable Energy Lab) is not a good enough reference for you? Thus, Solar does work in Minnesota in Winter. Your fact was wrong so please admit to it.

With that said, I actually don't recommend putting up massive amounts of solar in Minnesota. I feel we will be putting up huge solar farms in the deserts and then using that energy to fill our proposed electrical storage systems. These system will fill the energy demands for our country. Our national energy plan will decide where best to locate everything and how it will be distributed and stored. No, our government has no real national energy plan and is not even working on one. Why? We like pain. This national energy plan will be in the works within the next few years I predict. Ok, why don't you chew on that for a while and we can continue with your other points, one at a time. Can we agree to keep focused? Please don't try to squirm out of the situation by shifting from this topic. Fair enough? One at a time.

I don't think prices will go down as a result of drilling, but it will slow the price rise, while keeping more money within the US.

I agree with the above statement.

We need to drill everywhere it's ecomically viable AND build a bunch of nuclear power plants to replace our coal plants AND then use our excess coal to create fuel AND develop electric cars and better solar panels and other alternate sources (like turkey guts -> oil, wood chips -> oil) and make geothermal heat pumps the norm.

I really do think that the situation is so bad that we need to be doing EVERYTHING instead of depending upon one or maybe two things to bail us out.

Fair enough Texas. What will 3-5 kWh/m^2/day on average power ?? Name it. :)

"Seriously, I have never read someone try to cover so many topics with so little in my entire life, and I have read quite a few posts in my day. "

Exactly. I think you get all your facts from other little fact givers. On the web. I stand by my statements when you said I was pulling $%# out of my %^$$.

I took personal offense to that. Its cooled off.

You have nothing. I live here , the green capital of the United States, you don't.

Do you have an electric bill you can look at so we can compare ??

Fair enough Texas. What will 3-5 kWh/m^2/day on average power ?? Name it. :)

3 kWh will power a 100 W light bulb 30 hours, your 1500 W hair dryer for 2 hours, your 500 W computer for 6 hours.....

Need I go on? With the electric uses on my house, 30 m^2 would cover my entire usage. If I actually got 5kWh/ day, I would be selling back 1/3 of the power I generated. I admit that is a lot of space, but if you cut the bill in half and switched to CF lighting, you can do a lot with just a south facing roof.

Is everyone aware that the Chinese are building offshore oil drilling platforms in Cuba's coastal water to tap into the SAME DEPOSITS that Gov Crist and Sen Martinez fought so hard to keep U.S. companies out of. We need this oil, so would you rather have a bunch of Chinese technicians in a position to destroy the Keys and South Florida, or a drilling operation that our EPA and Coast Guard can keep in line?

Let's get the issues straight here too. Wind, hydro, nuclear and solar have no place in a discussion about gas prices and offshore drilling; since electricity generation cannot now displace any gasoline use. UNTIL we have 50 million EVs and PHEVs on the road (outof 240 million total cars) in America we've got to provide the oil or accept a 3rd World economy that would make Bangledesh look inviting. So McCain is getting it! He realizes that deep down everyone knows it is a necessity of survival that we need to drill now and produce nuclear power for the future (for instance to get the Great White North off home heating fuel), and that by taking these positions people will see that he is offering to let us live in REALITY and can get us out of our mess.

You can run a couple of light bulbs, or kill the battery off in a couple hours using your computer. And when the sun dips below the horizon, you are freezing. Solar has uses and it has limitations. Running the US power grid by alternate green means is simply not feasible at this time for the majority of the population. That map shows ND with as much solar potential as the foothills of Northern CA. That may or may not be true, but its a hell of a lot colder in ND in January than here. You simply can not heat a house with solar electric. To discuss it any more is ludicrous.

Years ago before the VOLT or this forum popped up I looked into a solar powered pump to lift water from the ditch to my field. I ran the numbers by a friend who is a PE and he simply said, "why *&^% around with the solar BS, when you can just plug in your low amp motor........" From the mouths of babes.

Every now and then you can see a TV special on a house "off the grid" and its a very careful balance of household electric use to get by on solar electricity. Try a city like Chicago or NYC in a heat wave with SOLAR AC. Wanna try it ?? Or Los Angeles, if the lights go out. Riot and burn. Better have some nasty coal fired power to light the place up in hurry.........

Drilling for oil is NOT, I repeat, NOT going to solve the problem with fuel that America has today. Even if we were to drill for oil, that oil goes onto the WORLD market, and as we are only 20% of the world market users, it would still mean that we would have to compete to buy the oil that we get off of our own land. Could we create contracts to only use our own oil? Sure, but then we would have to say good-bye to every other source that we buy from every day. And I'm sure that there are incentives for our senators to keep buying from foriegn countries, otherwise we wouldn't be doing it already.

For the majority, battery powered cars are not the answer either, and the Volt is a COMPELTE joke to anyone that has to actually commute every day. I cannot believe that GM would even think to waste so much time on such a ridiculous vehicle. In fact, I'm so outraged by it, that I'll simply make a seperate thread to voice my concerns. Just wanted to add my 2c, that drilling will not solve the problem of America's dependance on oil.

125, why wouldn't the VOLT work for your 15 -20 mile one-way commute ?? :confused:

Why don't they drill on the leases they have now?
We can talk about opening more leases after that.

Why don't they drill on the leases they have now?
We can talk about opening more leases after that.

Probably because they don't want to lose money by tapping high cost/low oil areas.

Drilling for oil is NOT, I repeat, NOT going to solve the problem with fuel that America has today. Even if we were to drill for oil, that oil goes onto the WORLD market, and as we are only 20% of the world market users, it would still mean that we would have to compete to buy the oil that we get off of our own land.

Well regardless of all your other factually incorrect and flawed responses, America is not an oil exporter. Some leaves the country, sure. But almost all of it is domestic use. We purchase on the world market. We don't sell.

Also, there's nothing that can solve the problem today. It's about solving the problem 5...6...hell 10 years from now.

http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/the-us-governments-secret-colorado-oil-discovery

I am new to the site and intrest in renewable energy but this could help us make the transition a little easier.

Probably because they don't want to lose money by tapping high cost/low oil areas.

This is about Republican political posturing while facing a November election and $4+ / gallon gasoline. Oil companies make billions of dollars because they have thousands of green eyeshade analysts looking at every investment.

The problem that Republican law makers choose to ignore is that you can give more offshore leases to oil companies but you can't make them drill. They will make FAR MORE exploiting Saudi oil fields and restricting supply than drilling in high cost coastal fields of unknown return.

It is Republican political theater, nothing more.

This is about Republican political posturing while facing a November election and $4+ / gallon gasoline. Oil companies make billions of dollars because they have thousands of green eyeshade analysts looking at every investment.

The problem that Republican law makers choose to ignore is that you can give more offshore leases to oil companies but you can't make them drill. They will make FAR MORE exploiting Saudi oil fields and restricting supply than drilling in high cost coastal fields of unknown return.

It is Republican political theater, nothing more.




I like the "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink" reference. This is exactly correct. I do agree that it’s complete political posturing. It hits the heartstrings of our culture. The quick fix mentality. They are playing it up like a winning lottery ticket that nobody is playing. "Here is the winning lottery ticket folks!", they claim. “We can't even play because congress won't let us.” What a bunch of crap!

Here is a very important article that really sums up a lot of issues regarding our extraction of oil (and natural gas) and the EROI (Energy Return on Investment). This is basically how much energy it takes to get useful energy. As the fields get older and we have to go out further and drill more to get them that ratio gets smaller. Please read this article and you may have your eyes opened wide (the selected paragraphs explain why oil companies are not drilling the land they already have rights to, even if there were enough rigs - this should shock people):


http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3412


"Energy return on investment (EROI or EROEI) is simply the energy that one obtains from an activity compared to the energy it took to generate that energy. The procedures are generally straightforward, although rather too dependent upon assumptions made as to the boundaries, and when the numerator and denominator are derived in the same units, as they should, it does not matter if the units are barrels (of oil) per barrel, Kcals per Kcal or MJoules per Mjoule as the results are in a unitless ratio. The running average EROI for the finding and production of US domestic oil has dropped from greater than 100 kilojoule returned per kilojoule invested in the 1930s to about thirty to one in the 1970s to between 11 and 18 to one today. This is a consequence of the decreasing energy returns as oil reservoirs are increasingly depleted and as there are increases in the energy costs as exploration and development are shifted increasingly deeper and offshore. Even that ratio reflects mostly pumping out oil fields that are half a century or more old since we are finding few significant new fields. (In other words we can say that new oil is becoming increasingly more costly, in terms of dollars and energy, to find and extract).

While we do not know whether that extrapolation is accurate, essentially all EROI studies of our principal fossil fuels do indicate that their EROI is declining over time, and that EROI declines especially rapidly with increased exploitation (e.g. drilling) rates. This decline appears to be reflected in economic results. In November of 2004 The New York Times reported that for the previous three years oil exploration companies worldwide had spent more money in exploration than they had recovered in the dollar value of reserves found. Thus even though the EROI of global oil and gas is still about 20:1 as of 2007, this ratio is for all exploration and production activities. It is possible that the energy break even point has been approached or even reached for finding new oil. Whether we have reached this point or not the concept of EROI declining toward 1:1 makes irrelevant the reports of several oil analysts who believe that we may have substantially more oil left in the world, because it does not make sense to extract oil, at least for a fuel, when it requires more energy for the extraction than is found in the oil extracted. "

I hate the oil drum, and most of the jerks on there...

Apparently the world energy producers dont know what about EROI. According to this article, there is more money being poured into deep sea drilling than ever before. It appears that producers simply dont have the rigs they need to drill right now, and all the shipyards in the world are working overtime to produce record amounts of drilling ships.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/18/business/ships.php

I hate the oil drum, and most of the jerks on there...

Apparently the world energy producers dont know what about EROI. According to this article, there is more money being poured into deep sea drilling than ever before. It appears a lot of the companies out there want to throw money into a hole, since your argument is that they arent making money off investing in production anymore....

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/18/business/ships.php




You hate them because the information they provide conflicts with your political and thus religious beliefs. If you were to seriously research their claims to see if they were false instead of coming up with the brilliant, "I hate them." defense you might just learn something. Actually, I believe you are beyond reasonable thought and thus unable to objectively process information. Don't worry, it's common among members of any party, group or religion. Probably genetic. You know, safety in numbers. Anyway, if you decide to seriously look at the numbers and come up with anything intelligent please post your analysis and I look forward to a healthy debate based on facts and figures.

I dont need the oildrum for information. I get it from the sources. I dont need to read a website by fanatics to make up my mind. As I have mentioned, I've sat in the same room as your vaulted Matt Simmons (if you dont know who he is, you shouldnt be talking to me) and listened to your peak oil argument in person. Have you? In a nutshell, the peakers are guilty of everything they accuse the non-peakers of.... that is using numbers that they pull out of their asses to 'speculate' what is most certainly the worst possible scenario. I have listened to many counter proposals which are FAR more convincing.

the peakers have been claiming peak for a while. I guess when you keep getting it wrong, you just keep shouting it louder to make yourselves feel better.

Its simply bad science, bad conclusions, and I imagine the people spreading this are laughing all the way to the bank.

Im not going to argue with you. Believe all the nonsense you want. I think most peak oilers are enlightened idiots.

I dont need the oildrum for information. I get it from the sources. I dont need to read a website by fanatics to make up my mind. As I have mentioned, I've sat in the same room as your vaulted Matt Simmons (if you dont know who he is, you shouldnt be talking to me) and listened to your peak oil argument in person. Have you? In a nutshell, the peakers are guilty of everything they accuse the non-peakers of.... that is using numbers that they pull out of their asses to 'speculate' what is most certainly the worst possible scenario. I have listened to many counter proposals which are FAR more convincing.

the peakers have been claiming peak for a while. I guess when you keep getting it wrong, you just keep shouting it louder to make yourselves feel better.

Its simply bad science, bad conclusions, and I imagine the people spreading this are laughing all the way to the bank.

Im not going to argue with you. Believe all the nonsense you want. I think most peak oilers are enlightened idiots.


Oh, you sat in the same room as him. I didn't realize how qualified you are. <cough> If that is how you back up your arguments then we have nothing more to debate. When and if you decide to use refutable arguments then I'll be happy to resume the debate.

I dont need to argue with you. You made some response like I havent heard your overdramatic peak oil theories. I have. I have heard them directly, in person, from one of THE sources, which is apparently more than you have. I am unimpressed. Why do I need to argue with you? What can you bring to the table more than whats presented on the website? I simply dont buy their arguments on decline rate, technology advances, or supply/capacity.

Its like trying to argue with someone who believes everything is a conspiracy. You are probably one of those. Its simply not worth my time to deal with it, more than expressing irritation over it now and then (what I am doing now).

We'll reach a peak, alright. It just won't be the type of peak that sends us into the dark ages. And it certainly not happening now.

But like I said, if you believe everything you hear:
* Peak-oil
* pandemic flu
* food shortages
* global warming and rising seas
* over population
* nuclear war

Pick a choice for your destruction.

With this, I exit the thread. Have fun in your bunker. I'll be one of those 'sheep' you accuse us of being.

Here is a very important article that really sums up a lot of issues regarding our extraction of oil (and natural gas) and the EROI (Energy Return on Investment). This is basically how much energy it takes to get useful energy. As the fields get older and we have to go out further and drill more to get them that ratio gets smaller.

I haven't read the article...but wouldn't the simplest response be to just allow drilling on high EROI areas like coastlines?

I haven't read the article...but wouldn't the simplest response be to just allow drilling on high EROI areas like coastlines?


Why don't you read the article and ask again? It explains it much better than I can. Remember, they only have high EROI if you are hitting huge fields with very little effort. If you have to go deeper and do massive amounts of test holes then the number goes down. We won't know until they explore the areas. Something I think we should do at the very least. They already have 68 million acres ready and waiting drilling. What's stopping them? Limited numbers of drilling rigs and predicted low EROI - high risk of investment. Again, read the article.

I glanced through it but I don't see an answer to expanding drilling areas. Yes, letting them drill more in the same areas will do no good. But if there's oil 5 miles off the coast versus 15 miles...wouldn't it have a higher EROI as it's closer and more shallow?

Kind of like arable land versus world hunger studies. We only have enough food to feed a certain amount of people... assumig we don't expand the tilling and harvesting of more arable land.

To get more to the point, I think you're arguing this as more of a technical cause crisis when I see it as more a political cause crisis.

I glanced through it but I don't see an answer to expanding drilling areas. Yes, letting them drill more in the same areas will do no good. But if there's oil 5 miles off the coast versus 15 miles...wouldn't it have a higher EROI as it's closer and more shallow?

Kind of like arable land versus world hunger studies. We only have enough food to feed a certain amount of people... assumig we don't expand the tilling and harvesting of more arable land.

To get more to the point, I think you're arguing this as more of a technical cause crisis when I see it as more a political cause crisis.



How is this small amount of land going to change the energy dynamics of the world? People are drilling all over the world looking for this stuff. The EROI has been dropping for decades. Now we are having to use tar sands, shale, and heavy crude. How is this a political issue? Did you read how many holes were being drilled with less being found? You don't believe that? You don't believe the published data showing oil discoveries over our history? You think they just need to find more virgin land? This virgin land you are putting all our hopes on is just a pimple of energy. It will not bring us energy independence the same way that Alaska didn't. All of our massive amounts of technology have only been able to slow our country's decline. Do you disagree with our numbers? Do you feel we really do have this oil and that there is a massive conspiracy to keep it in the ground (I'm talking about areas not in the banned areas)? I just wonder how a rational person can think that opening up Alaska and the previously banned areas is going to make a bit of difference in global supply for more than a few years at best.

I think people are wasting their time trying to squeeze the last of the toothpaste tube and should go out and buy a new, renewable one.

Since this is such a political issue I'm suggesting we go in to these areas and start exploration and mapping. Let's see what is out there. Once we know if there is anything out there and how much we can extract then we decide what to do. Don't worry, it will take years to get that information. Forget about quick fixes or changes to global supply.

Since this is such a political issue I'm suggesting we go in to these areas and start exploration and mapping. Let's see what is out there. Once we know if there is anything out there and how much we can extract then we decide what to do. Don't worry, it will take years to get that information. Forget about quick fixes or changes to global supply.

That's all I'm asking for. More exploration. And it's not about fixing global supply... it's about keeping fuel prices from inflating US budgets too quickly. If we could just curb speculative factors and keep the price from doubling every other year then the US can make it through this. If not... it won't be pretty for anyone.

This is in response to a post made in here about 5 pages back. Its England, but here goes. Sort of like 40 myths in the rules of baseball....

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4259/

That's all I'm asking for. More exploration. And it's not about fixing global supply... it's about keeping fuel prices from inflating US budgets too quickly. If we could just curb speculative factors and keep the price from doubling every other year then the US can make it through this. If not... it won't be pretty for anyone.




Ah, Now I see how you came to your conclusions. You feel that the price of oil is just speculators and not based on tight supply and that oil is just a local product not traded as a global commodity. Unfortunately, you are wrong on both accounts. For our drilling to affect the price of our gasoline it must affect global supply. Sorry but that's just the way the world is setup right now. It's a commodity traded on the open market and we buy most of our oil on that market. If you think the new fields will pump out 10 million barrels per day I know you are dreaming. ;)

Is there anyone even on the Republican side that is claiming we can drill our way out? I hope that has been clearly dismissed. I know people don't get the message that quickly so... If you still think this is the case. Please tell us how this is expected to play out. Like we start this year, explore for a whole six months or so, start pumping 5 or so million barrels of oil by next summer and that number keeps rising up to 10 million barrels of oil a day by the following fall. OK, if that's how you think then yes, we might be able to get out of our problem for a few years. We could reach energy independence within a year and even though it's only 10 million barrels a day out of a global demand currently around 86 million barrels a day I would agree that it would temporarily (a decade maybe) fix the problem. Is that how you are thinking? I'm curious about expectations.

But the US isn't an exporter. We import. It's traded on a global market but it generally doesn't leave our shores. And we use so much foreign oil that foreign disturbances drive our prices up. Hugo gets mad... speculators drive it up 5$. Mahmoud gets mad... go another 10$.

And no, I'm not saying we'd drill 10 million barrels extra and everything will be peaches and cream. In fact I said the opposite. I made the argument that we just need to drill a bit more just to hedge our supply. In fact, it seems as if your post was designed to counter an idealized opponent and not anything that I said.

Again, we don't need 100% domestic production. We just need a bit more production that when Mahmoud gets angry people can see how we'd get by and don't cause a panic run.

But the US isn't an exporter. We import. It's traded on a global market but it generally doesn't leave our shores. And we use so much foreign oil that foreign disturbances drive our prices up. Hugo gets mad... speculators drive it up 5$. Mahmoud gets mad... go another 10$.

And no, I'm not saying we'd drill 10 million barrels extra and everything will be peaches and cream. In fact I said the opposite. I made the argument that we just need to drill a bit more just to hedge our supply. In fact, it seems as if your post was designed to counter an idealized opponent and not anything that I said.

Again, we don't need 100% domestic production. We just need a bit more production that when Mahmoud gets angry people can see how we'd get by and don't cause a panic run.




Sorry but your logic makes no sense. Hedge our production? We only produce about 5 million barrels a day in the US but use around 20 million barrels a day. How are we going to hedge that? Are you talking about increasing our national reserve? By how much? Since you just stated that it's traded on the global market it doesn't matter where it's coming from. It's the price refineries and eventually the energy users have to pay. Oil is flowing all over the place. Oh and we do export oil. You didn't know that? We also export refined products. We just happen to import much more. That's the way the world works. Things are coming and going all over the place. I think you need to research this subject a lot more. Don't worry, it's worth the effort to understand global energy. We all need to research more and also keep up with changing conditions and new technologies.



http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/diagram1.jpg

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/diagram1.jpg

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pecss_diagram.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pecss_diagram.html

From the same source.......

Sorry but your logic makes no sense. Hedge our production? We only produce about 5 million barrels a day in the US but use around 20 million barrels a day. How are we going to hedge that? Are you talking about increasing our national reserve? By how much? Since you just stated that it's traded on the global market it doesn't matter where it's coming from. It's the price refineries and eventually the energy users have to pay. Oil is flowing all over the place. Oh and we do export oil. You didn't know that? We also export refined products. We just happen to import much more. That's the way the world works. Things are coming and going all over the place. I think you need to research this subject a lot more. Don't worry, it's worth the effort to understand global energy. We all need to research more and also keep up with changing conditions and new technologies.



http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/diagram1.jpg

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/diagram1.jpg


First: Oil production in the US- 8.3 million barrels per day
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/index.cfm

The 5 million is derivative of the 8 million which is included in the 20 million total consumption by the estimates I've seen.

Second: The US imports 12.3 million barrels a day.

By government estimates the exportation of crude is negligible. It amounts to about 7% of total exchanges (13 million brought in 1 million exported). That's very low compared to all other nations. A negligible amount. Look at the numbers in the past. During the halcyon days of petroleum we weren't very far off from where we are. We don't need millions of barrels a day more to keep the price from running wild.

Let's take a step back though. If we open these areas, what is the downside? If the EROI is higher than the ones today then the oil companies won't go for them. And let's say a bit of it does get exported. That's money going into the American economy and stability is still increased against foreign instability because a conflict with Mahmoud won't hurt American production.

So where's the downside of drilling more?

First: Oil production in the US- 8.3 million barrels per day
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/index.cfm

The 5 million is derivative of the 8 million which is included in the 20 million total consumption by the estimates I've seen.

Second: The US imports 12.3 million barrels a day.

By government estimates the exportation of crude is negligible. It amounts to about 7% of total exchanges (13 million brought in 1 million exported). That's very low compared to all other nations. A negligible amount. Look at the numbers in the past. During the halcyon days of petroleum we weren't very far off from where we are. We don't need millions of barrels a day more to keep the price from running wild.

Let's take a step back though. If we open these areas, what is the downside? If the EROI is higher than the ones today then the oil companies won't go for them. And let's say a bit of it does get exported. That's money going into the American economy and stability is still increased against foreign instability because a conflict with Mahmoud won't hurt American production.

So where's the downside of drilling more?




Actually, we are down to 5,103 mbd (2007) from a peak of 9,637 mbd (1970). You can get an example of just how quickly we are in decline because in 2000 we produced 5,822 mbd:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mcrfpus2a.htm


Can you please give a link to your numbers? According to the official US statistics we produced your 8.3 mbd number in 1975. Are you sure you are looking at the US crude oil field production numbers? What year? You have to give the year because we are in irreversible decline. Have been since 1970. You don't believe the numbers I take it.

I do say we should explore and drill to see what we have. It would then shut up everyone so we can get on with real solutions. Do you realize we will need to produce over 700,000 mbd in the next 7 years from your virgin land just to cover our expected decline? You really think the production we are likely to see is going to bring down the price of oil to any significant amount? How long do you expect it to last? You should face the fact that this is just political posturing so we don't have to deal with the real serious problem we face. Uninformed voters don't like to hear about problems, they just want that quick fix. Don't be a lemming. Get the facts on what is possible and what is probable. Why is it that it's uncool for Republicans to jump on the renewable bandwagon? It just sounds to tree hugging to them. Seriously, all the Republicans are for drilling and extending our non-renewable addictions? I'm sure this will make great culture study in future but for now it's hampering and delaying the necessary transition activities. I just want to slap the Republicans sometimes. I also want to slap the Democrats for not allowing exploration drilling and mapping. It's just giving the Republicans a bone to chew. Their pride is keeping them from compromising. This is political comedy (or tragedy) at it's best. It's like a bunch of children are running things. Actually, that is probably an insult to children. They are much more likely to want to work towards a common good. Why? Because not doing so is obviously destructive.

I linked to my numbers. The 20 million is total petroleum consumption per the link. The 8.3 is total petroleum production. The 5 is just crude production. At least that's the way I'm reading the numbers along with their tags and explanations.


Why is it that it's uncool for Republicans to jump on the renewable bandwagon?

I'm a Republican. I'm completely for renewables. McCain is a Republican. Wanna guess his position? And if you want to go by the standard of "those who don't support renewables by avoiding oil are republicans" then the GOP must have a veritable lock on America. Republicans just aren't about to advocate we ditch low cost energy for high cost energy. What's wrong with that?

The transition will occur as renewables will decline in price. And petro products will increase in price. The quibble here is we don't have to slow production or allow it to be slowed because of price politics to hasten the switchover. Renewables ARE the future. No need to go crazy and advocate policy that tanks the economy to get them here quicker.

And the fact that we will have an oil production decline is all the more reason to increase exploration to at least throw a bone towards minimizing the decline. Allow me to repeat a point that I think is key here.

If we open these areas, what is the downside? If the EROI is higher than the ones today then the oil companies won't go for them. And let's say a bit of it does get exported. That's money going into the American economy and stability is still increased against foreign instability because a conflict with Mahmoud won't hurt American production.

I linked to my numbers. The 20 million is total petroleum consumption per the link. The 8.3 is total petroleum production. The 5 is just crude production. At least that's the way I'm reading the numbers along with their tags and explanations.



I'm a Republican. I'm completely for renewables. McCain is a Republican. Wanna guess his position? And if you want to go by the standard of "those who don't support renewables by avoiding oil are republicans" then the GOP must have a veritable lock on America. Republicans just aren't about to advocate we ditch low cost energy for high cost energy. What's wrong with that?

The transition will occur as renewables will decline in price. And petro products will increase in price. The quibble here is we don't have to slow production or allow it to be slowed because of price politics to hasten the switchover. Renewables ARE the future. No need to go crazy and advocate policy that tanks the economy to get them here quicker.

And the fact that we will have an oil production decline is all the more reason to increase exploration to at least throw a bone towards minimizing the decline. Allow me to repeat a point that I think is key here.




Of course you are a Republican. It's obvious. Can you show me where the Republicans are taking a serious stance on renewables? All I hear is massive drilling and nuke plants. You have to admit that is McCain's main position. Hello? Those are both non-renewable resources (please see my issues with uranium supply below, if you are interested).

Again, I'm not religiously against safe nuclear and drilling for more oil. I just don't think its going to make much of a difference. I think that's the main point here. You think I'm against it. I'm not. I say let's at least start today on exploration and mapping. It has to be done before any production starts anyway. I also think everyone on both sides of the fence can agree to that. Then we can get an accurate picture of what we can expect and when.

I say to Congress open up the ban for exploration and mapping activities. Now I know the oil companies want us taxpayers to assume the cost risks. If not, the oil companies would already be drilling more in the 68 million acres that are ready to go. I'm even for opening up small land for shale and tar sand projects. I know just about every environmentalist just cringed and yes they are environmental disasters waiting to happen but I am fairly sure that oil companies will not invest a lot into those projects because of the very low EROI numbers. If you think of how much energy it takes to extract oil from shale and the amount of resources needed and the costs to keep the whole operation environmentally safe than you can get a picture of the situation.

If you think current technology can do it cheaply and safely you are kidding yourself. Just go to YouTube and look at some videos of the Alberta tar sands. If you want that all over America then I just can't help you. If you choose that path over solar and wind then I just have to write your mind off as being politically corrupted. How could a sane person pick that and think it's a good path to take. It reminds me of the Lord of the Rings. Here, check it out... If your political beliefs allow you to process reality:



http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=S1jC65mJizU Part 1
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=KkQJd69jNbQ&feature=related Part 2
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=OaG27v2HnUo&feature=related Part 3




Uranium supply:

"The ultimate supply of uranium is believed to be very large and sufficient for at least the next 85 years[35] although some studies indicate underinvestment in the late twentieth century may produce supply problems in the 21st century.[41]

Some claim that production of uranium will peak similar to peak oil. Kenneth S. Deffeyes and Ian D. MacGregor point out that uranium deposits seem to be log-normal distributed. There is a 300-fold increase in the amount of uranium recoverable for each tenfold decrease in ore grade." [42] In other words, there is very little high grade ore and proportionately much more low grade ore."


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


Now it is important to also look at the EROI for the enrichment of the decreasing grade of the ore. The Japanese have shown in the 1980's that uranium can be extracted from seawater. However, the cost is much higher. Again, the prices might fluxuate depending on increased world demand. Thus, uranium acts just like a non-renewable resource and thus should be treated as such.

Personally, I feel we can power a lot of the world using nuclear fission I just don't think it's in the long-term interests of the world. It's easy to make bombs from and it is difficult to store and keep away from those that would love to get their hands on it. I just think there are better ways to move forward. Would you rather have a world powered by solar and wind or by tens of thousands of nuclear fission power plants? I'll take option A please. If nuclear fusion technologies are perfected then that's a whole different ballgame. The energy potential from that puts our civilization on a differet, higher level. However, that's a minimum of 50 years away using the most consevative estimates.

Awe c'mon. Don't forget about breeder reactors. You can recycle fuel.


it is difficult to store and keep away from those that would love to get their hands on it.

Yucca Mountain proves quite the opposite. It's not a gas or an organic lifeform. It stays right where it's put if the right engineer work is done.

BTW...up till the 1950s the entire world was run by a really large nuclear plant. I'm not concerned about a few thousand. The nuclear boogeyman really screwed us in the 80s and hurt us today.


Can you show me where the Republicans are taking a serious stance on renewables?

Let me just ask you what you believe to be serious? Tax rebates? Mild subsidation? Or are we talking mandated adoption? Because this goes back to my earlier point. Renewables ARE the future. No need to trash the economy and force people to suffer because you can't wait. Serious policy looks to address the issues. Not the desires. The issue is price. It's not the 100 year viability of petrochemicals. That's a long term issue that IS being worked on and we're seeing the fruits of which with the Volt, CIGS, and other new technology. I have no fear over our long-term energy needs. Americans will shift as needed.

Put it to you this way. If the oil tripled by 2010, there will be no Volt because we'll be so economically screwed GM will be gone and no one could afford it due to the collapsed economy. But a good gradual rise in price will spur a shift that makes it more palletable. Now I picked that as an obvious example. I don't expect anything major to happen if we did start drilling today. But one day several years down the line those extra sources could help waylay enough extra oil to muffle a minor crisis. The price of oil to 2010 is pretty much stuck on overdrive and there's little we can do except beat a few pennies off the price here and there. But that's because of bad oil policy in the 80s and 90s...

So yea...getting back... what do you consider serious policies? Because I personally don't consider ignoring possible, even slight amelioration, to be serious.

Awe c'mon. Don't forget about breeder reactors. You can recycle fuel.

Yes breeder reactors can be used. Do they do it now? Why not? EROI. They also use breeder reactors to produce plutonium. If we do decide to use breeder reactors how long do they take to become operational? I'm guessing around 10 years. Do you refute that?



Yucca Mountain proves quite the opposite. It's not a gas or an organic lifeform. It stays right where it's put if the right engineer work is done.

BTW...up till the 1950s the entire world was run by a really large nuclear plant. I'm not concerned about a few thousand. The nuclear boogeyman really screwed us in the 80s and hurt us today.


Maybe because we still use the same nuclear technology! Yes, there are a few pebble reactors in the works so maybe we can improve the safety. However, I suspect the EROI will be quite low because the costs needed to reach that level of safety will be very high, especially when compared to new solar and wind technologies that will be available around the same time. We are talking at least 5 - 10 years away. However, any new commissions will use the same dangerous technology and require the spent fuel (funny they use the word spent because it's in a state where the fuel is most radioactive and dangerous to life - ironic) to sit in liquid cooled vaults for at least 10 years before being cool enough to put in your mountain vaults. Thus, every nuclear plant will have the equivalent of 10 years worth of highly radioactive waste onsite that is being liquid cooled in preparation for mountain storage. Do you refute that?



Let me just ask you what you believe to be serious? Tax rebates? Mild subsidation? Or are we talking mandated adoption? Because this goes back to my earlier point. Renewables ARE the future. No need to trash the economy and force people to suffer because you can't wait. Serious policy looks to address the issues. Not the desires. The issue is price. It's not the 100 year viability of petrochemicals. That's a long term issue that IS being worked on and we're seeing the fruits of which with the Volt, CIGS, and other new technology. I have no fear over our long-term energy needs. Americans will shift as needed.

Put it to you this way. If the oil tripled by 2010, there will be no Volt because we'll be so economically screwed GM will be gone and no one could afford it due to the collapsed economy. But a good gradual rise in price will spur a shift that makes it more palletable. Now I picked that as an obvious example. I don't expect anything major to happen if we did start drilling today. But one day several years down the line those extra sources could help waylay enough extra oil to muffle a minor crisis. The price of oil to 2010 is pretty much stuck on overdrive and there's little we can do except beat a few pennies off the price here and there. But that's because of bad oil policy in the 80s and 90s...

What I am most concerned about is that we as a nation move forward in a way that makes the most sense for both the short and long term. That is why I call for The Apollo Energy Plan. We cannot figure out what policies will be needed until we have a great planning structure. This problem is too big and complicated to leave it up to a few companies to figure out what is best for the long-term stability of our country. However, nobody is working on such a plan. Sure the presidential candidates are throwing their silly plans out there in an attempt to win votes but I'm talking about a serious plan. One that brings together the best minds in the world. A planning structure that can analyze and test all reasonable options and can adapt to new technologies as they become available.

A tax break? Do you really understand how big this problem is going to be? Can you see the failing banks, housing crisis, fuel price fluctuations, etc. and think a tax break is going to fix things? No, we will need something similar to how we reacted to Pearl Harbor. People have not yet grasped that we are going from a situation where our economy was in continual growth to one where we have to deal with continual decline (at least until we can get enough alternatives to substitute for non-renewable energy declines) I like to use the analogy of the fat guy that has been over eating his whole life and now needs to go on a crash diet because he came down with diabetes. From growth to flatness to decline. That is the kind of situation we are facing. The past oil embargos was just a test. Everyone knew the oil was there and coming back. It took America more than a decade to recover from that. And that was a situation where global oil production increased every year after that. We didn't learn a darn thing and history is repeating itself only with permanent reductions and irreversible declines (just like US oil production since 1970). Even if you don't believe in peak oil (I know you do not) you have to agree that EROI numbers continue to drop as the oil becomes harder to explore and extract (from the huge fields in Saudi Arabia to heating the earth with giant heaters to extract oil from shale rock) I think everyone can agree that the cost of energy will continue to raise. That is a far different situation that we have seen in the past.

Yes, we are going to eventually turn it around using new technologies but how far do we have to drop before the turnaround? I'm guessing you think it will be a slight recession. I'm guessing a lot more pain will be felt. Some people are calling for severe and unrelenting depression. Let's just say that if Saudi Arabia or OPEC as a whole peaks this year (global oil production has been flat for the past 3 years) I would think we are headed for a depression at the very least.

However, I suspect the EROI will be quite low because the costs needed to reach that level of safety will be very high, especially when compared to new solar and wind technologies that will be available around the same time.

Everythig I've ever read shows the cost per kW/hr to be virtually the same or slightly lower(nuclear versus solar/wind) over the total life of the system. The EROI isn't low. It's just pushed out.

And don't become an anti-science boogeyman when it comes to nuclear waste. It's not as treacherous as you paint it.


Yes, we are going to eventually turn it around using new technologies but how far do we have to drop before the turnaround? I'm guessing you think it will be a slight recession. I'm guessing a lot more pain will be felt. Some people are calling for severe and unrelenting depression.

Considering this current energy recession is caused by people like you fearmongering nuclear and oil production the 80s and 90s, I'd say our further decline depends on how much we continue to listen to your bad advice.

Oh and you always ignore the EROI argument when it suits you. You say EROI will continue to drop... igoring the possibility we could increase EROI probably if we stopped telling oil compaies they could't drill in oil rich locations.

Texas, you stated that you are not "religiously against" safe nuclear power, but you sound like one of the people who want to find ways for nuclear power to NOT happen.

I wish people could keep their biases out of the energy discussion.

Texas, you stated that you are not "religiously against" safe nuclear power, but you sound like one of the people who want to find ways for nuclear power to NOT happen.

I wish people could keep their biases out of the energy discussion.



How can people keep their biases out of the nuclear fission discussion when the decisions are based on more than just the costs? There are so many considerations like the environment, non-renewability of the resource, national security, long lead-times, expensive costs, etc. This is a very charged topic. How can think it is not?

Yes, I would rather go a different route than nuclear fission. It's just plain dirty and a security risk. I also think the lead times are too long and that the taxpayer has to pay the entire bill because companies don't want to assume the risks of the project. Additionally, the EROI keeps getting lower as the high concentration ore is used up. More energy must go into the exploration, enrichment, etc. Same as for petroleum.

I would much rather go the way of solar and wind then waste time with radioactive and non-renewable sources of energy. However, if it can help the situation and is safe and secure then I would consider it. I simply feel it is not needed. Period.

Epic Thread boys. I'll just throw in that one of the original founders of Greenpeace is now ardently pro nuclear. Bizarre isn't it ??

There are in fact 4 things wrong with nuclear power. First it is nonrenewable. Second is the long lead times as already mentioned. The third is what to do with the waste. Most of the waste is still being kept on site because it is still too hot to move safely. And the last is safety of the plant it self. Safe nuclear is very subjective. Is it safe if an earthquake hits? What about a tidal wave or volcano? Is it still safe if someone decides to blow it up? How well can you protect the site? Will they protect the site properly? You can not scrimp on security when the balance sheet starts to wane and I am not sure I trust a company to maintain that level of security.

I agree with many people here, I don't think this will really drop the current price of gas TOO much - it'll hinder the rising cost of it though. Drilling for more isn't the long term answere I want - I think modern innovation and tech can provide a way out for the general public.

The only thing I do like about them drilling for oil at home - is that it's yet another slap in the face of a speculator or foreign oil company.

The biggest problem seems to be; you can lead an oil company to an oil field, but you can't make 'em drill. They are quite giddy about the high price of a barrel of oil right now. They really don't want to change that. They would love to have the rights to drill in new areas, but I doubt that they'll invest the money to start drilling right away. They'll just sit on it for the future. Net effect at lowering the price at the pump for the consumer: none.

So then some might say that the government should get into the oil business and drill for the oil themselves, except the government doesn't know how. So of course they will have to contract out to an established oil company with a lot of experience in exploration and development of oil fields and this will get us back to square one with the oil company dragging it's feet and bilking the government out of tax payer money at the same time. This scenario would be a complete boondoggle IMO. I guess it's best to just let the market do what it does, and this will spur on development of new technology faster.

There are in fact 4 things wrong with nuclear power. First it is nonrenewable. Second is the long lead times as already mentioned. The third is what to do with the waste. Most of the waste is still being kept on site because it is still too hot to move safely. And the last is safety of the plant it self. Safe nuclear is very subjective. Is it safe if an earthquake hits? What about a tidal wave or volcano? Is it still safe if someone decides to blow it up? How well can you protect the site? Will they protect the site properly? You can not scrimp on security when the balance sheet starts to wane and I am not sure I trust a company to maintain that level of security.

Another post by someone who doesn't WANT nuclear power to work - right? At least I will look at things with an open mind.

Nuclear power may not be "renewable", but with fuel reprocessing and allowing a higher uranium recovery cost, there could be billions of years worth of fission fuel available. That's good enough in my book. Plus, waste from reprocessed fuel is much less radioactive, and has a shorter half-life than non-reprocessed fuel.

A fission reaction released about 0.01% of the available energy in the fuel. A fusion reaction releases about 0.1% of the available energy - 10x that of a fission reaction. Do you think we could come up with more advanced nuclear power resources within 100 years, like fusion power?

The sun is a fusion reactor, and as such, it is not a renewable energy resource. It will fail in several billion years. Why is no one pissing and moaning about that?

There are in fact 4 things wrong with nuclear power. First it is nonrenewable. Second is the long lead times as already mentioned. The third is what to do with the waste. Most of the waste is still being kept on site because it is still too hot to move safely. And the last is safety of the plant it self. Safe nuclear is very subjective. Is it safe if an earthquake hits? What about a tidal wave or volcano? Is it still safe if someone decides to blow it up? How well can you protect the site?

A fully loaded jetliner would disintegrate on impact with no damage to anything inside on the cooling tower. Also, I don't believe there are that many volcanoes or that many nuclear plants planned along oceanic shorelines.

A fully loaded jetliner would disintegrate on impact with no damage to anything inside on the cooling tower. Also, I don't believe there are that many volcanoes or that many nuclear plants planned along oceanic shorelines.




You realize that you don't have to get into the chamber. All you have to do is disable the cooling and the stuff in the chamber will come out on it's own. ;)

When people talk about recycling the uranium they never talk about the added costs of doing so. Why is it not done today? Because it's too expensive! Low EROI. Less radioactive? Can you publish how long that waste needs to be cooled before being put in the mountain vaults? Is it much less than the 10 years it requires now? What, only 2 years? Let's say 1 year for arguments sake. That still means there will be reactors around the world with extremely hot and deadly waste being liquid cooled on-site before it needs to be transported to the mountain vaults. Yes, stored on-site, transported, you get the idea? If someone really wants the material and plans it well...

However, why go that route at all? It's not needed! When you put the cost of all the security, the lower EROI because the ore is of less pure quality as every year passes (They use the good stuff just like they use the good sweet crude first), the added cost of recycling (huge amounts of energy required), then you have to start asking yourself... Why? Is there a better way? Yes! It is already up and running in Germany. Check it out and then tell me why you think we should even bother with nuclear. Oh and don't forget it takes 10 years to get the first kWh out of it:


http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=tR8gEMpzos4


Folks, there is a better alternative to nuclear fission. Please ask yourself why you are defending it so strongly. Step back and really look at the positives and negatives. Is it just your political beliefs? Nuclear fission is not needed! It's dirty and dangerous. If they get the pebble reactors up and running than we can take another look. My feeling is that the EROI will be extremely low, much lower than current reactor technology. Thus, it will not be cost effective to produce compared to other alternatives that will be available.

Texas, I can tell you are not a fan of nuclear power. I have a feeling that, no matter what kind of positive information people can find to support nuclear power, you (and others like you) will put in the effort to come up with an equivalent amount of negative information.

A few weeks ago, you were hacking away at nuclear power and I responded with a post pointing out solutions to the points you raised. Am I a "fan" of nuclear power? Perhaps so - it does have many good points - but I will consider all possibilities. You seem to have a real "thing" against nuclear power.

Would you rather have a small amount of radioactive waste in safe storage, or tons of pollutants and greenhouse gases dumped into the atmosphere? (I can already post your answer for you: neither. Solar + pumped hydro storage, right? Well, that doesn't check-out as "perfect", either.)

The bottom line is that all energy technologies have their good points and bad points. I just prefer a more even-handed discussion; I want to hear from people who WANT to make the various technologies work, proposing the best solutions (but still realistic) for each of the issues that arise. We can do a cost-benefit analysis and make the choices at that time. I would expect that we end up with a mix of technologies, based on the needs and environment of each region.

Texas, I can tell you are not a fan of nuclear power. I have a feeling that, no matter what kind of positive information people can find to support nuclear power, you (and others like you) will put in the effort to come up with an equivalent amount of negative information.

A few weeks ago, you were hacking away at nuclear power and I responded with a post pointing out solutions to the points you raised. Am I a "fan" of nuclear power? Perhaps so - it does have many good points - but I will consider all possibilities. You seem to have a real "thing" against nuclear power.

Would you rather have a small amount of radioactive waste in safe storage, or tons of pollutants and greenhouse gases dumped into the atmosphere? (I can already post your answer for you: neither. Solar + pumped hydro storage, right? Well, that doesn't check-out as "perfect", either.)

The bottom line is that all energy technologies have their good points and bad points. I just prefer a more even-handed discussion; I want to hear from people who WANT to make the various technologies work, proposing the best solutions (but still realistic) for each of the issues that arise. We can do a cost-benefit analysis and make the choices at that time. I would expect that we end up with a mix of technologies, based on the needs and environment of each region.




You are right. I am against our current nuclear technology being used in a big way for future projects. Pebble reactors are a different animal and of course there is the coming fusion reactors. I'm open to those options and also for healthy research and development programs for all promising nuclear technologies.

What I’m most against is that people seem to be blindly going for the nuclear card before they know all of the advantages and disadvantages. Since this is such a huge investment we have to ask ourselves if it's the right path to take. To go renewable or non-renewable. That is the real question. You can do both but there is only so much capital available. Now McCain suggests building out 45 nuclear reactors and opening up more land for drilling but didn't even mention huge wind farms, solar farms, etc. He mentioned to explore the alternatives in such a way as to suggest they are only science projects. I strongly disagree with that attitude. You can defend old nuclear fission and I'll do the same for the renewables. That's your right.

My main push is to get our country committed to starting a real energy plan. I call it The Apollo Energy Plan. The top minds and experts in the world will determine just what is needed, where and when. If they come back and say we need to build out 45 nuclear power plants to keep us going then I will sign off on that. Will you sign off on the other things they decide?

Thus, old nuclear fission technology? Against it. However, if that's what is decided to get us in the best possible position for the long-term then I say hand be the uranium!

Texas, what percentage of the cost per kWh is the fuel? Becuase I have a hunch if the price of Uranium doubled we wouldn't see a doubling of the price.

Texas, what percentage of the cost per kWh is the fuel? Becuase I have a hunch if the price of Uranium doubled we wouldn't see a doubling of the price.



Well, here is the historical price chart. Notice how it looks like oil? If you were a CFO would you like to see that? The price of your fuel continuously going up and more importantly the need for more energy to explore, extract, refine, enrich, cool, and dispose of goes higher and higher every year.

http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_graph_u3o8_hist.gif


http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_g_hist-price.html


Now about the price of the fuel. Here is a good explanation:

"Another study states "nuclear fission energy requires small inputs of natural resources compared to most other fossil and non-fossil energy technologies. When we consider net electricity generation (e.g., net electricity after subtracting consumption by internal plant loads and by uranium enrichment plants), the life-cycle resource inputs for non-fossil power sources are dominated by construction materials, most notably steel and concrete. The construction of existing 1970-vintage U.S. nuclear power plants required 40 metric tons (MT) of steel and 190 cubic meters (m3) of concrete per average megawatt of electricity (MW(e)) generating capacity. For comparison, a typical wind energy system operating with 6.5 meters-per-second average wind speed requires construction inputs of 460 MT of steel and 870 m3 of concrete per average MW(e). Coal uses 98 MT of steel and 160 m3 of concrete per average MW(e); & natural-gas combined cycle plants use 3.3 MT steel and 27 m3 concrete" (1)."

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/10/17/18478/085


Remember, the price of uranium will go up with oil because of all the exploring, extracting, processing, transport, etc. You think the utilities are going to eat that? Nope. They will just pass it on to you. Enjoy! You know how the rise in gas prices effected the economy. Right? If you look at a person's budget the cost of gasoline is usually only a small percentage. People get into a budget and when it is forced tighter it causes problems. Maybe wind and solar farms cost a bit more right now but they will deliver the energy at around the same cost for many decades to come. When it's time to replace the units (end of life) the replacement cost will be less due to technology improvements! Thus your budged gets opened up little by little. Feels good right? That the difference between using a resource that is non-renewable and a renewable resource that continues to improve as we slide down the technology curve. What side do you want to be on? What is going to be the price of oil or uranium 10 or 15 years from now? I have no idea either! I can tell you however that the price for electricity coming from wind and solar farms will be cheaper than today. That reduces risk! That has value that any good CFO can enjoy.


If you are really interested in EROI and Net Energy Analysis I recommend the following article. It will light your hair on fire. If you can get though it I would be impressed!


http://www.eoearth.org/article/Net_energy_analysis

My 3 step plan:

1) Open up off shore drilling. Lift all restrictions so production can be up and running ASAP.
2) Tax the hell out of it.
3) Use the tax money to supplement PHEV's and EV's to the point where its more cost effective to buy them than ICE's ($15k per vehicle?).

Meanwhile:

Continually build out cleaner and cleaner sources of electricity and slowly replace the polluting ones.

We could be selling oil to China to pay for our own PHEV's and moving towards energy independence. All without costing the taxpayer a dime.

Meanwhile, the reduced energy cost from switching from gas to oil (5-7 times cheaper per mile) will put $200 - $300 / month back into the hands of families raising everyone's standard of living.

Just my 2 cents.

My point was that is uranium quadruples in prices... do you think the extra penny per kwh will bancrupt people?

My point was that is uranium quadruples in prices... do you think the extra penny per kwh will bancrupt people?



Well, depends on the person. If they are paying 8 cents per kWh and they now have to pay 9 cents per kWh and their electricity bill was 95 percent of their budget (they run an aluminum company) then yes, it might bankrupt them.

MrBogey, the price of enriched uranium is currently around 5-10 percent of the cost to run a nuclear power plant. For a coal plant the cost of the fuel is around 40 percent. Yes, uranium is a smaller percentage and the doubleing of the price of the fuel will not be the same as the doubling of the price of coal. However, the cost of the fuel to run a wind or solar plant is 0 percent!

Do you see how your very simplified thoughts on energy cost analysis and the viability of different energy solutions for our complicated situation will not make the grade? You have to consider everything! Both short term capital expenditures and long term expenses. Some have high unknown values like the price of non-renewable fuel resources and some are very well known like how much concrete and steel is needed to build a reactor core. Did you know that there is also a huge cost to decommissioning an nuclear reactor? Every year the utility adds to a decommissioning fund so at the end of the life it can be safely (and extremely expensively) put into the ground (or wherever they put all that radioactive concrete, piping, etc.). People don't even talk about that. Did you consider those costs? It cost's more to stop a nuclear reactor than it does to keep it going. Does that scare you at all now that most of our reactors are over 30 years old? The bean counters are saying, "Just patch it up!" Surely even you can see a conflict of interest brewing there. Unless your head is buried so far in the sand (as I suspect) that you can't even acknowledge or process our nuclear reality.



MrBogey’s reality:

1) Build nuclear power plant - time needed: 3 to 5 years.
2) Purchase fuel - It’s only 5 percent of costs! Cheap. ha ha.
3) Produce GWs of perfectly clean energy on a perfectly flat supply curve. Sweet!
4) Every now and then take spent fuel (ok, rent an armored car) to the mountian.
5) The reactor runs and runs forever.

The End.



Most of you might laugh but I feel that is how 80 percent of Republicans feel about our current nuclear reality. Now that’s scary! Note: the reality for 80 percent of Democrats is equally rediculous. However, their ignorance leans to the safe side and is thus forgivable.

I believe that wind farms in the right places could definitely help to the US get off of oil. Actually Texas is the leader in in the US in Wind Power. See the article below.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/05/17/wind_power/index.html

You still think The Repulicans want alternatives to oil?


"With billions of dollars of solar and wind power projects and thousands of green-collar jobs hanging in the balance, the U.S. Senate on Wednesday again failed to extend a key investment tax credit for renewable energy.

Republicans blocked the legislation from coming to the floor, marking the eighth attempt to extend the 30 percent tax credit beyond it’s Jan. 1, 2009, expiration date. The extension is backed by all the state governors save Georgia, a coalition of Fortune 500 companies, Wall Street banks, renewable energy startups, and tech giants like Google (GOOG), Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) and Applied Materials (AMAT)."

http://greenwombat.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/07/30/eighth-times-not-a-charm-senate-fails-again-to-extend-key-renewable-energy-tax-credit/

From the same source. Omitted from the above post in the name of objectivity. Looks like a down turn in Uranium prices.


http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_graph_u3o8.gif

Supply

Mines in 2005 supplied some 49,000 tonnes of uranium oxide concentrate (U3O8) containing 41,600 tU, about 64% of utilities' annual requirements. (See also paper World Uranium Mining). The balance is made up from secondary sources or stockpiled uranium held by utilities, but those stockpiles are now largely depleted.

The perception of imminent scarcity drove the "spot price" for uncontracted sales to over US$ 100 per pound U3O8 in 2007 but it has settled back to $70-80 early in 2008. Most uranium however is supplied under long term contracts and the prices in new contracts has in the past reflected a premium above the spot market.

Note that at the prices which utilities are likely to be paying for current delivery, only one quarter of the cost of the fuel loaded into a nuclear reactor is the actual ex-mine (or other) supply. The balance is mostly the cost of enrichment and fuel fabrication.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedImages/org/info/Costcurve.gif


The above graph, from International Nuclear Inc. as of end of 2007, shows a cost curve for world uranium producers, and suggests that for 40,000 tU/yr production from mines (approximately the present level) and up to 60,000 tU/yr, US$25-28/lb plus profit margin is a plausible price.



OPEC SUCKS, I hope you read the following on how the fuel supplies for reactors are determined and what causes their pricing. This is not some Green Peace article. This is from the World Nuclear Association!

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf22.html


Uranium is just another non-renewable resource that will be priced based on what the perceived supplies will be. Solar and Wind use no mined fuel and thus do not have such problems. Their costs can be predictable for decades. That is an important point because it reduces risk due to uncertainty.

I was simply pointing out the discrepency in the data you posted, again.


"Another study states "nuclear fission energy requires small inputs of natural resources compared to most other fossil and non-fossil energy technologies. When we consider net electricity generation (e.g., net electricity after subtracting consumption by internal plant loads and by uranium enrichment plants), the life-cycle resource inputs for non-fossil power sources are dominated by construction materials, most notably steel and concrete. The construction of existing 1970-vintage U.S. nuclear power plants required 40 metric tons (MT) of steel and 190 cubic meters (m3) of concrete per average megawatt of electricity (MW(e)) generating capacity. For comparison, a typical wind energy system operating with 6.5 meters-per-second average wind speed requires construction inputs of 460 MT of steel and 870 m3 of concrete per average MW(e). Coal uses 98 MT of steel and 160 m3 of concrete per average MW(e); & natural-gas combined cycle plants use 3.3 MT steel and 27 m3 concrete" (1)."

Why did you post this when it shows the huge disparity in construction materials when comparing nuclear and wind power ??

I was simply pointing out the discrepency in the data you posted, again.



Why did you post this when it shows the huge disparity in construction materials when comparing nuclear and wind power ??


To show you that there are many factors in figuring out what is the best energy system to use. The wind turbine might use a lot of construction costs per kW but there are no fuel costs. You are talking about Nuclear having small fuel cost but I think my links show how vulnerable the fuel situation is and most importantly what it's heading for.

I can't help but smile at the fact you are both arguing FOR nuclear power. :eek: Wind, Solar, and Hydro are just forms of nuclear power where the reactor is 93 million miles away. Surely there are benefits and reasons to use BOTH remote nuclear and local nuclear power. . .

I can't help but smile at the fact you are both arguing FOR nuclear power. :eek: Wind, Solar, and Hydro are just forms of nuclear power where the reactor is 93 million miles away. Surely there are benefits and reasons to use BOTH remote nuclear and local nuclear power. . .

I hope you are just being funny and not being an idiot. lol. You do know there's a big difference I hope! Fusion? Fission? No?

I'm all for fusion but very against fission as it creates so many harmful and long lasting radioactive byproducts. From the fuel itself to the concrete and tubing used in the reactor. All this stuff needs to be stored for thousands of years and can be used for dirty bombs. Fun stuff. Can we just agree to error on the safe side and pick solar and wind?

I don't think prices will go down as a result of drilling, but it will slow the price rise, while keeping more money within the US.

The questions I have are will drilling also slow the rapid introduction, lower the production quantities and raise the costs of alternatively fueled cars? Until someone convinces me that it won't, I'm against drilling. I'm willing to compromise off-shore in places that other countries are not restricted.

The questions I have are will drilling also slow the rapid introduction, lower the production quantities and raise the costs of alternatively fueled cars? Until someone convinces me that it won't, I'm against drilling. I'm willing to compromise off-shore in places that other countries are not restricted.





Not being sided with the Democrats or the Republicans or any special interest group I simply have to ask the following:


1) Is there an unlimited amount of time and capital to invest in our new energy infrastructure?

2) Are we wasting time debating on doing Nuclear and drilling or wind and solar?

3) If we do succeed in finding massive amounts of oil would that then lower the cost of global oil and thus keep alternatives from being cost competitive?



The answers to those questions are as follows:


1) No, every dollar spent on drilling is a dollar less for solar, wind or 2nd generation biofuel.

2) Do I really need to answer that? OK. Yes.

3) If the finds were significant then it could keep alternatives from getting off the ground. Maybe next decade, babies.


I'm against drilling and continuing our addition because you are not supposed to do that to an addict. It just makes it that much harder to stop later. Besides, Europe is reducing their use of oil and we will not be able to compete with them eventually. They will eat our lunch and we will be preparing theirs.

Also, I believe renewable energy technologies are ready for prime time. Most people are thinking old-school solar cells and have no idea how good the new thermal solar farms are. Pumped storage hydro for the massive amounts of electrical storage we will need and fill that in with great batteries, ultracaps, 85 percent efficient electrolysis, etc. as they become available in large volumes and reasonable prices.

Who needs drilling and nuclear anyway? Just to satisfy lobbyists? Read my lips, "WE DON'T NEED HIGHER LEVEL OF NON-RENEWABLE ENERGY DEPENDENCY" We can use what we have now and wean off as fast as possible. Petroleum first.

http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html

World Uranium Reserves By James Hopf Nuclear Engineer
November 2004


One important fact that must be understood is that, unlike the gas and oil, the cost of the uranium ore is a negligible fraction of the cost of nuclear power (with almost all of nuclear power cost being in the form of value added by domestic labor). Specifically, at today's price of ~$40/kG of uranium, the ore costs amount to only ~0.1 cents/kW-hr (i.e., only ~2-3% of nuclear’s total power cost). The ore cost could increase by a factor of 10 (to ~$400/kg) and nuclear's power cost would only increase by ~1 cent. Thus, whereas gas and oil applications are extremely sensitive to the cost of fuel, and can be rendered uneconomical by even a small increase in fuel price, nuclear power is almost immune to ore price increases. Thus, the maximum price for uranium ore, above which nuclear power would become uneconomical, is extremely high indeed.

If an extremely high ore price is tolerable, then very low grades of uranium ore can be considered as possible reserves. As the permissible ore grade (uranium concentration) goes down, the amount of recoverable uranium (i.e., reserves) goes up exponentially. As is discussed in more detail later, limitless supplies of uranium are present in seawater and in the earth’s crust, which can be extracted at some price. The question is how much uranium is available at a cost that doesn’t truly price nuclear power out of the market.

The “proven reserve” estimates are flawed for two primary reasons. First of all they do not consider the fact that very little effort, or money, has been put towards uranium exploration thus far. Second, they do not adequately account for the tiny effect that uranium ore price has on final nuclear power price, and the maximum allowable prices that they use to determine “economically recoverable” reserves are far too low.

The effort made thus far in uranium exploration is absolutely negligible compared to the many hundreds of billions (trillions?) of dollars that has been invested in oil and gas exploration, technology development, and extraction, etc… As the history of oil and gas shows, as these investments are made, more and more reserves are found. As discussed earlier, we stopped exploring for new uranium deposits relatively soon after we started looking, since we rapidly found “all we need”, due to sluggish nuclear expansion and the glut of uranium from decommissioned weapons. Now, even the majority of known sites and mines lay idle due to the low ore price (although this is starting to change).

As the price of uranium ore goes up, significant resources will go into uranium exploration, and many new deposits will be found, including many high-grade ore deposits that were simply never discovered. It is likely that the amount of uranium in yet-to-be-discovered high-grade (low cost) ore deposits greatly exceeds that which exists in currently-known high-grade deposits. In addition to these high-grade deposits, a large number of lower-grade deposits, both currently known and yet to be discovered, will become economical and will be developed. This is what happened with oil and gas, and it is even more clear that this is what will happen with uranium. Given that uranium produces about a million times as much energy as an equivalent mass of oil, gas, or coal, the amount of energy locked up in uranium (in the earth’s crust) exceeds that locked up in fossil fuels by several orders of magnitude. This bodes well concerning the amount of uranium that will/can be eventually discovered and developed.

Current estimates of “economically recoverable” reserves apply an upper price/cost limit of $135/kg for uranium ore. This price cutoff does not sufficiently appreciate the lack of effect that ore cost has on power cost. It corresponds to a power price increase of only ~0.25 cents/kW-hr, versus today’s $40/kg ore price. Uranium sources that cost up to $500, and perhaps even ~$1000/kg (which would increase nuclear power’s cost by 1-2 cents/kW-hr) can still be economic, especially in a CO2-emission-constrained world, and/or a world where gas and oil have started to run out. Even at $1000/kg, advanced nuclear plants should be able to produce power at ~6 cents/kW-hr or less. The cost of power from post-production-peak gas or oil plants, or from coal plants with full CO2 sequestration, is likely to be higher than this. Finally, it should be noted that (as discussed later), at a uranium price of $500-1000/kg, breeder reactors become economical, and the uranium supply effectively becomes infinite.

On one end, there are our current high-grade deposits, where we currently get all of our uranium. On the other end of the spectrum is seawater, which has an essentially infinite amount of uranium, but at a very low concentration (and high expected extraction cost). The source with the largest overall quantity of uranium is the granite in the earth's crust. This actually has a much higher concentration than seawater, and has tens or hundreds of thousands of years worth of uranium.

Using the Deffeyes & MacGregor data you can estimate the total reserves of uranium that can be extracted, as a function of the maximum allowable ore cost. As the allowable cost goes up, the potential supply exponentiates. Extrapolations using this data shows that at a (still economical) price of a few hundred dollars per kg of uranium, there is enough recoverable uranium to provide all of our nuclear power needs for several hundred (perhaps 1000) years, even at a greatly increased rate of usage.


In summary, the actual recoverable uranium supply is likely to be enough to last several hundred (up to 1000) years, even using standard reactors. With breeders, it is essentially infinite. Hundreds of thousands of years is certainly enough time to develop fusion power, or renewable sources that can meet all our power needs.

As far as I can tell, none of the nuclear utilities have shown any real concern about long-term uranium supplies, and for good reason. This is basically a non-issue. The 50-year supply “problem” is most often brought up by two groups, both of which have a vested interest. First, there are the groups opposed to nuclear energy, who use these reserves estimates to argue that nuclear power has no long-term future anyway, and is therefore not worthy of significant investment. The second group consists of nuclear engineers and scientists who are devoted to the concept of a closed fuel cycle, where breeders or spent fuel reprocessing (to re-use the uranium and plutonium in spent fuel) is used. They argue that unless these methods are used, nuclear has no long-term future, because standard reactors (using the once-through fuel cycle) only have enough fuel (uranium ore) for a few more decades.

Whatever the merit of these groups’ goals, these arguments are based on a false premise. Long-term uranium supplies are simply not a real problem. Even if (in the distant future) uranium ore does get really expensive, market forces, and nuclear technology, are equipped to handle it. Advances in extraction technology, along with higher ore prices, will exponentiate the recoverable reserves. Breeder reactors, which will become more economical in 50-100 years, will eventually appear and eliminate all supply issues. All indications are that we will have plenty of time (50-100 years) to develop such breeder technology, before the cost of ore really starts to impact nuclear economics. This is true even under the highest nuclear power growth scenarios.

Greenpeace founder goes nuclear

by Adam Stein – April 16, 2006

Patrick Moore, who as a co-founder of Greenpeace began his environmental career protesting nuclear energy, now feels that nuclear power is the key to fighting climate change:

Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can’t replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk building big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. It’s that simple.
…the 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States effectively avoid the release of 700 million tons of CO2emissions annually — the equivalent of the exhaust from more than 100 million automobiles.

Moore has courted controversy in recent years by attacking numerous environmental orthodoxies. But his appeal for more nuclear power is sensible and convincing.

So the nuclear construction costs, according to Texas are negligable and less than those of wind, and the cost of the fuel is negligible. So, you have proven, usable power with reserves that will last a long, long time. A way better source than coal, with assured output. Political, emotional really, concerns impact nuclear power. Not Logic.

So the nuclear construction costs, according to Texas are negligable and less than those of wind, and the cost of the fuel is negligible.
How much will it cost to handle, treat, and store the waste?
When that is factored in, is it still cheaper than solar, wind, etc?
Also, where will the waste be stored? Certainly not in my back yard, I say store it in Texas.

Also, what about those costs associated when the reactor is decommissioned?
Are those costs also factored in?

As I understand it, reactors only have a 40 year lifespan or so, and when at the end of that cycle, so much of the reactor and containment vessel is hot (radioactive) that it essentially needs to be completely dismantled & buried.
Once again, are these costs factored in as well?

How much will it cost to handle, treat, and store the waste?
When that is factored in, is it still cheaper than solar, wind, etc?
Also, where will the waste be stored? Certainly not in my back yard, I say store it in Texas.

Also, what about those costs associated when the reactor is decommissioned?
Are those costs also factored in?

As I understand it, reactors only have a 40 year lifespan or so, and when at the end of that cycle, so much of the reactor and containment vessel is hot (radioactive) that it essentially needs to be completely dismantled & buried.
Once again, are these costs factored in as well?




Sorry, don't expect much from OPEC SUCKS. He only sees the silver lining in nuclear fission and will only read the parts that fit his needs, just like the nuclear industries do. I try to tell him to look at all sides but he just cannot. Radioactive waste? What's that? You just put that in a mountain and that's it. It's amazing how a human mind can do that and it defies all logic. For example, pulling some parts from his posting we get:


"Breeder reactors, which will become more economical in 50-100 years, will eventually appear and eliminate all supply issues. All indications are that we will have plenty of time (50-100 years) to develop such breeder technology, before the cost of ore really starts to impact nuclear economics. This is true even under the highest nuclear power growth scenarios."

or:

The question is how much uranium is available at a cost that doesn’t truly price nuclear power out of the market.


Now OPEC SUCKS should read the above and have to acknowledge that there is still some time needed to get breeder technology up to snuff (50 years) or that there is still a question as to how much the uranium costs before it’s more expensive than other options.

He should also know by now about all the energy needed to enrich the uranium in the reactor, the cost of getting it out, cooling it for 10 years in liquid baths before it’s ready for full armed-guard escort to the mountain and all of those costs but he just can't at least acknowledge it. It's amazing!

He talks about how cheap the fuel is but doesn't acknowledge that solar and wind systems have free fuel! No, radiation, no terrorist threat, no decommissioning mess, etc. However, he just cannot even bring it up. I bring up all issues including posting things from Nuclear associations!

He should also know that there are technologies for solar and wind to store the energy but he just quotes some idiot who should know better. Pumped storage hydro? Oh yeah, I forgot. You don't believe in the technology even though it's used all over the world in massive amounts. Better electrical storage options will be coming as batteries, ultracaps, eletrolyzer, etc. continue to be developed. However, Pumped storage hydro can keep us moving strong for many years. Fully sustainable and renewable.

Oh and try to tell OPEC SUCKS that a reactor takes at least 10 years to get the first kWh out of it and he will just say that you should have started 10 years ago. Tell him that Germany is slowly phasing out their nuclear reactors and replacing them with solar and other renwables and he will say that it won't work here. Unbelievable! I mean Germany IS doing it today and they don't have anywhere near the solar and wind resources we have. Yet... Nuclear is his favorite option. I'm guessing his house and yard look like it came right out of the Lord of the Rings movie! lol. Come on OPEC SUCKS, you can tell us. I think you should change your name to NUCLEAR SUCKS. ;)

Hi Texas,

As near as I can tell, you are arguing from the point of using an open nuclear fuel cycle. Reprocessing the used fuel can significantly reduce the volume of radioactive waste. Furthermore, the waste from the reprocessing cycle is less radioactive, and the level of radioactivity falls much faster. More information available at:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.html

Hi Texas,

As near as I can tell, you are arguing from the point of using an open nuclear fuel cycle. Reprocessing the used fuel can significantly reduce the volume of radioactive waste. Furthermore, the waste from the reprocessing cycle is less radioactive, and the level of radioactivity falls much faster. More information available at:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.html

Fair enough, but his other points still stand. Look at what Germany's doing with their measly solar resources right now. Solar will only come down in cost from here too.

So the nuclear construction costs, according to Texas are negligable and less than those of wind, and the cost of the fuel is negligible. So, you have proven, usable power with reserves that will last a long, long time. A way better source than coal, with assured output. Political, emotional really, concerns impact nuclear power. Not Logic.

I agree that nuclear might be a better choice than coal and I'm open to the nuclear alternative, but the case for it in this country doesn't seem persuasive.

The first big issue is cost. I've seen all the estimates of the costs and so forth (mostly built on the shaky foundation of flaky French accounting, or lack thereof) but a nuclear plant is a HUGE government project. And every huge government project in the history of the United States takes at least twice as long and costs five times more than the initial estimate. (Think Big Dig).

Related to cost is the amount of government backing a nuclear plant needs. Other forms of energy production may require incentives -- I have no problem with that -- but nuclear requires loan guarantees in addition to the incentives. For various reasons having to do with what happens when you let people gamble with other people's money, these are invariably horrible ideas best avoided. If A can do the job with incentives, and B needs incentives and loan guarantees do the same job, then why go with B?

Then we have the water issue. Nuclear plants consume water like no-body's business. Right now large parts of the country are in drought cycles. If we can't locate the plants near the coasts is there really enough water?

Finally you are being a bit cavalier about the waste issue. It's real, it's just off in the future. But it is real.

To me nuclear would be best used as a niche fill-in solution.

I agree that nuclear might be a better choice than coal and I'm open to the nuclear alternative, but the case for it in this country doesn't seem persuasive.

The first big issue is cost. I've seen all the estimates of the costs and so forth (mostly built on the shaky foundation of flaky French accounting, or lack thereof) but a nuclear plant is a HUGE government project. And every huge government project in the history of the United States takes at least twice as long and costs five times more than the initial estimate. (Think Big Dig).

Related to cost is the amount of government backing a nuclear plant needs. Other forms of energy production may require incentives -- I have no problem with that -- but nuclear requires loan guarantees in addition to the incentives. For various reasons having to do with what happens when you let people gamble with other people's money, these are invariably horrible ideas best avoided. If A can do the job with incentives, and B needs incentives and loan guarantees do the same job, then why go with B?

Then we have the water issue. Nuclear plants consume water like no-body's business. Right now large parts of the country are in drought cycles. If we can't locate the plants near the coasts is there really enough water?

Finally you are being a bit cavalier about the waste issue. It's real, it's just off in the future. But it is real.

To me nuclear would be best used as a niche fill-in solution.




That's a good point that many people don't talk about. Amory Lovins says it very clearly when he testified to congress (http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=2JkrvSaL7-w). I personally don’t understand how someone can watch that video and not be effected by it. Private companies do not invest in nuclear. Way too risky! Only governments can, which is why it‘s perfect for France. Take every cost estimate (in the billions per plant) and double it! All paid for by you and me, even if we’re off the grid.

Yes, some of the nuclear waste can be recycled but it‘s always going to be there and extremely dangerous. One cupful is enough to kill every person on earth within seconds of being exposed. Nasty stuff. Recycling also cost money, that is why they don't do it now. I base my analysis on how they are doing it now and how they plan to do it in the near future. They are not talking about using pebble reactors and breeder reactors for the next wave of nuclear projects. These technologies are way in the future and are not likely to be cost effective. Even raw nuclear that we use now is barely cost effective. When you put in the factors of raising fuel costs, rising construction costs, rising waste costs, etc. there are serious questions that need to be addressed.

I also want to talk about why people think nuclear is better than coal? I say if we really need to make sure we have grid power and people are not ready for solar and wind then clean coal is the way to go. Our newest coal plants are very good except for CO2 emissions. I say the CO2 issue is much less serious than the nuclear cost and waste issue. We have a lot of coal right here in America. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal.

Regardless, I say we just go full bore with solar and wind and don't even worry about that old technology. We have enough NG and coal for any amount of backup. When we finally get the ultimate electrical energy storage system developed we can wean off of the old fossil fueled power plants. You have to admit it's a lot easier to decommission a coal or NG power plant than it is to decommission a nuclear power plant. To me it's a no-brainer. No current-technology nuclear fission power plants are needed. They just cost too much in the long run. In every sense of the word.

Here is a sample of the Texas' posts from the last 3 weeks regarding nuclear power.

1) People that he has never met, nor discussed anything with, are "idiots". The engineer he called an idiot, James Hopf, has the courage to go on line with his name. And publish. And not hide behind his keyboard and an annonymous forum name. He is not a coward.

2) Texas is the first person on this board to call someone a troll. What is it they say in about 3rd grade ? It takes one to know one.

3) He would never say the things to a person's face that he says here. If he is really that crass enough to try it, he would never be able to finish.

4) He is constantly harping on "reality" "pulling things out of one's butt", "drinking" and "being on drugs".

5) No one's word or information that differs has any validity. Because he can out spew out an endless volume of web-based links and "information".

In his increasingly personal vitriol directed against me, the esteemed gentlemen neglected one thing. In his zeal, his lust to slam others, he missed the big prize. I have never said I favor nuclear energy over any other power source. I have only said I have a tilt meter, a crap detector for Bhull shiat. And he has maxed it out. His entire focus is misdirected. An cyber onanism.

Here's the synthesis of Texas' diatrabe, the clear crystallization of his logic. The truth. Truly, not pulled out his ahs. Take a good look folks. I quote him regarding nuclear waste, not nuclear warheads or plutonium. Nuclear waste. Ladies and gentlemen, the word according to the oracle, Texas:


One cupful is enough to kill every person on earth within seconds of being exposed.

That, sir. Has already been done. It was called Little Boy and Fat Man. The targets were the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They are both there today and thriving.

Texas, I would like to see you back up your statement, since you hold others to such a high standard. Since you are so fervent against misinformation. Forget the math, the toxic levels, your knowledge of manufacturing principles. Go ahead and use "moronic" and "idiot". They apply well to you here. :)

I mostly agree with Texas on this stuff but he sure does come off as a dick.

I'm not going to go on an anti nuclear rant here, I'm just going to say that time and resources can be better spent on solar and wind power. John McCain's brilliant plan is to drill everywhere and put a new nuclear plant in every state while him and his buddies put nothing into renewables. Renewables wouldn't have the same cost problem they have now if they were subsidized like coal, nuclear, oil, etc. Maybe a few more nukes are needed for base load, who knows, but solar and wind, among other things, should be the main focus in the near future.

Here is a sample of the Texas' posts from the last 3 weeks regarding nuclear power.

1) People that he has never met, nor discussed anything with, are "idiots". The engineer he called an idiot, James Hopf, has the courage to go on line with his name. And publish. And not hide behind his keyboard and an annonymous forum name. He is not a coward.

2) Texas is the first person on this board to call someone a troll. What is it they say in about 3rd grade ? It takes one to know one.

3) He would never say the things to a person's face that he says here. If he is really that crass enough to try it, he would never be able to finish.

4) He is constantly harping on "reality" "pulling things out of one's butt", "drinking" and "being on drugs".

5) No one's word or information that differs has any validity. Because he can out spew out an endless volume of web-based links and "information".

In his increasingly personal vitriol directed against me, the esteemed gentlemen neglected one thing. In his zeal, his lust to slam others, he missed the big prize. I have never said I favor nuclear energy over any other power source. I have only said I have a tilt meter, a crap detector for Bhull shiat. And he has maxed it out. His entire focus is misdirected. An cyber onanism.

Here's the synthesis of Texas' diatrabe, the clear crystallization of his logic. The truth. Truly, not pulled out his ahs. Take a good look folks. I quote him regarding nuclear waste, not nuclear warheads or plutonium. Nuclear waste. Ladies and gentlemen, the word according to the oracle, Texas:



That, sir. Has already been done. It was called Little Boy and Fat Man. The targets were the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They are both there today and thriving.

Texas, I would like to see you back up your statement, since you hold others to such a high standard. Since you are so fervent against misinformation. Forget the math, the toxic levels, your knowledge of manufacturing principles. Go ahead and use "moronic" and "idiot". They apply well to you here. :)




Thanks for the laugh! Are you feeling defensive? Instead of debating the facts you are now attacking my character, even though you yourself have never met me and state that I attack others that I have never met. lol. Can you see how hypocritical that is? Why not just stick to the debate and defend as best you can. I know you are struggling mightily but at least try.

Oh, and of course I'm much nicer and social in real life. That is what society requires of us. However, many of the subjects we discuss on this forum require frank and aggressive defense. If it hurts your feelings then I'm sorry. However, maybe you would feel more comfortable in flower arranging forums or support groups that will dance around the issues and cuddle your frail disposition. Grow a pair and debate. Take the pillow gloves off and hit me with your best arguments. That is the only way you will find out which of your theories hold up to intense scrutinization. If you can survive my aggressive attacks you will have no problems claiming victory over one of those liberal tree huggers.


P.S. My God does it hurt to always be wrong? I'm not taking about exploding the nuclear waste. I'm talking about walking up and exposing every person to the material. You could literally carry it around the world just walking next to the person and could kill every human on earth. Do you deny that nuclear waste is nasty stuff? Even McCain doesn’t want it passing though his state! Please don't insult yourself more by saying there's not enough time to get this done. Santa Claus could do it! ;)

Getting back on drilling, this is an interesting article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aF0O8lmgo128

I'm not sure if I can make these assumptions based on the limited data in the article, but you 'could' infer that technology/competition/volume of offshore drilling is significantly driving down the price to get deeply buried crude. This could counter arguments that the crude is simply too expensive to mine in deep locales.

America owns 3% of the world's oil reserves and is by far the biggest consumer. Drilling is a republican wedge issue, a lie forced upon the unknowing public to win the election. This should be obvious, but the general public has mostly bought into the deception. It's so bad that the Democrats, who happen to be in the right on this issue, are now willing to include offshore drilling in future energy plans to deny the Republicans the "moral high ground" on the drilling debate.

We have had here in California two main nuclear power facilities that supply about 16% of our electric power. They have made clean, continuous power since they were constructed in the 1970's. They have been on line since that time, with brief planned interuptions for maintenance and routine functioning.

California is the focus of intense environmental pressure, a green lobby, and liberal media scrutiny.

I defy anyone on this board to find an incident involving one of PG&E's or Southern California Gas and Electric having a waste credible disposal issue, or a health problem associated with the plant (s).

You will not because there have been none.

The arguments made against nuclear power are emotional and not founded on facts. Those are are debatable, ad infinetum, but simply ask yourself. Where is the everyday evidence ?? There are 34 or 38 applications for new nuclear plants filed with the NRC. Filed by entities with foresight, money, and yes, intelligence. Not internet orators. Hard money and the intention to use it. That says volumnes about whether it's economically feasible or not. EROI Accronyms to hide and obscure the simple facts. The increase in uranium was posted here, even though the poster neglected to show from the same source that it was actually falling. That is disinformation.
As he said, the price spiked because of political events in Iran. The point has made by me that the price is high because there hasn't been much uranium exploration in many years. Because of the availability of cheap weapons material and the low demand. Low demand from low use. As in not a lot of new plant construction. Doesn't that make sense ??


http://www.stpnoc.com/Units%201-4%20rendering.jpg

Hi Ya'll Here's how we do it here .


Leading the Industry's Renaissance
The first new nuclear power plants in the U.S. in nearly three decades in all likelihood will be built at STP. We already have applied for a federal license to build and operate two new units, the first such application submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 29 years.

STP is well suited for new construction. It has the necesary site license, water resources and infrastructure, as well as excellent management and the strong support of its neighbors and surrounding communities. In addition, Texas has a critical need for more electrical generation capacity.

http://www.stpnoc.com/New%20Units.htm

Right in the heart of the sunbelt, and in the path of the Winds.......

http://www.window.state.tx.us/comptrol/fnotes/fnEnergy08/nuclear.html

From the Economic Journal, not the Nuclear Propaganda, Take Note:

"Expansions on the horizon for South Texas Project, Comanche Peak"

1) Uranium is running out

According to Greenpeace, uranium reserves are ‘relatively limited’ (1) and last week the Nuclear Consultation Working Group claimed that a significant increase in nuclear generating capacity would reduce reliable supplies from 50 to 12 years (2).

In fact, there is 600 times more uranium in the ground than gold and there is as much uranium as tin. There has been no major new uranium exploration for 20 years, but at current consumption levels, known uranium reserves are predicted to last for 85 years. Geological estimates from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) show that at least six times more uranium is extractable – enough for 500 years’ supply at current demand (3). Modern reactors can use thorium as a fuel and convert it into uranium – and there is three times more thorium in the ground than uranium (4).

Uranium is the only fuel which, when burnt, generates more fuel. Not only existing nuclear warheads, but also the uranium and plutonium in radioactive waste can be reprocessed into new fuel, which former UK chief scientist Sir David King estimates could supply 60 per cent of Britain’s electricity to 2060 (5).

In short, there is more than enough uranium, thorium and plutonium to supply the entire world’s electricity for several hundred years.

2) Nuclear is not a low-carbon option

Anti-nuclear campaigners claim that nuclear power contains ‘hidden emissions’ of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from uranium mining and reactor construction. But so do wind turbines, built from huge amounts of concrete, steel and plastic.

The OECD analysed the total lifetime releases of GHG from energy technologies and concluded that, taking into account mining of building materials, construction and energy production, nuclear is still a ‘lower carbon’ option than wind, solar or hydroelectric generation. For example, during its whole life cycle, nuclear power releases three to six grams of carbon per kiloWatthour (GC kWh) of electricity produced, compared with three to 10 GC/kWh for wind turbines, 105 GC/kWh for natural gas and 228 GC/kWh for lignite (‘dirty’ coal) (6).

Greens, exemplified by the Sustainable Development Commission, place their trust in ‘carbon capture and storage’ (CCS) to reduce the GHG emissions from coal and gas plants (7). But carbon capture is, at present, a myth. There is no functioning power station with CCS in the world – not even a demonstration plant – and if it did work, it would still greatly reduce the energy efficiency of any power station where it is installed.

3) Nuclear power is expensive

With all power generation technology, the cost of electricity depends upon the investment in construction (including interest on capital loans), fuel, management and operation. Like wind, solar and hydroelectric dams, the principal costs of nuclear lie in construction. Acquisition of uranium accounts for only about 10 per cent of the price of total costs, so nuclear power is not as vulnerable to fluctuations in the price of fuel as gas and oil generation.

Unlike the UK’s existing stations, any new designs will be pre-approved for operational safety, modular to lower construction costs, produce 90 per cent less volume of waste and incorporate decommissioning and waste management costs.A worst-case analysis conducted for the UK Department of Trade and Industry (now the Department of Business and Enterprise), which was accepted by Greenpeace, shows nuclear-generated electricity to be only marginally more expensive than gas (before the late-2007 hike in gas prices), and 10 to 20 times cheaper than onshore and offshore wind. With expected carbon-pricing penalties for gas and coal, nuclear power will be considerably cheaper than all the alternatives (8).

4) Reactors produce too much waste

Contrary to environmentalists’ claims, Britain is not overwhelmed with radioactive waste and has no radioactive waste ‘problem’.

By 2040 there will be a total of 2,000 cubic metres of the most radioactive high-level waste (9), which would fit in a 13 x 13 x 13 metre hole – about the size of the foundations for one small wind turbine. Much of this high-level waste is actually a leftover from Britain’s atomic weapons programme. All of the UK’s intermediate and high-level radioactive waste for the past 50 years and the next 30 years would fit in just one Royal Albert Hall, an entertainment venue in London that holds 6,000 people (and which seems, for some reason, to have become the standard unit of measurement in debates about any kind of waste in the UK) (10).

The largest volume of waste from the nuclear power programme is low-level waste – concrete from outbuildings, car parks, construction materials, soil from the surroundings and so on. By 2100, there will be 473,000 cubic metres of such waste from decommissioned plants – enough to fill five Albert Halls (11).

Production of all the electricity consumed in a four-bedroom house for 70 years leaves about one teacup of high-level waste (12), and new nuclear build will not make any significant contribution to existing radioactive waste levels for 20-40 years.

5) Decommissioning is too expensive

Existing UK reactors were built with no regard for future demolition. New reactors will be constructed from modular designs with the need for decommissioning built-in. The costs of decommissioning and waste management will be incorporated into the price of electricity to consumers (13).

New nuclear plants are expected to have a working life of 40 years so the cost of decommissioning is spread over a longer period. Current government subsidy of decommissioning costs is approximately £1 billion annually (for 20 per cent of Britain’s electrical supply) – half the subsidy to ‘sustainable’ energy (two per cent of Britain’s electrical supply).

Note: the reactors built in California 40 years ago have exceeded their design life and continue to operate with no expectation of decomisioning in the foreseeable future. They do not need to be decomisioned.

6) Building reactors takes too long

This is perhaps the most ironic of the anti-nuclear arguments, since the legal manoeuvrings of Greenpeace delayed the UK government’s nuclear decision by a year and it is the very opposition of greens that will cause most of the future delays.

The best construction schedules are achieved by the Canadian company AECL, which has built six new reactors since 1991; from the pouring of concrete to criticality (when the reactors come on-line), the longest build took six-and-a-half years and the shortest just over four years (14).

The UK government expects pre-licensing of standard designs and modular construction to reduce construction times significantly – to about 6 years (15). New nuclear build could certainly start making significant contributions to UK carbon reduction targets by 2020.

Note: A canadian firm has completed reactors in four to six years.

7) Leukaemia rates are higher near reactors

Childhood leukaemia rates are no higher near nuclear power plants than they are near organic farms. ‘Leukaemia clusters’ are geographic areas where the rates of childhood leukaemia appear to be higher than normal, but the definition is controversial because it ignores the fact that leukaemia is actually several very different (and unrelated) diseases with different causes (16).

The major increase in UK childhood leukaemia rates occurred before the Second World War. The very small (one per cent) annual increase seen now is probably due to better diagnosis, although it is possible that there is a viral contribution to the disease (17).

8) Reactors lead to weapons proliferation

More nuclear plants (in Britain and elsewhere) would actually reduce weapons proliferation. Atomic warheads make excellent reactor fuel; decommissioned warheads (containing greatly enriched uranium or plutonium) currently provide about 15 per cent of world nuclear fuel (19). Increased demand for reactor fuel would divert such warheads away from potential terrorists. Nuclear build is closely monitored by the IAEA, which polices anti-proliferation treaties.

It is purely by chance that a leukaemia ‘cluster’ will occur near a nuclear installation, a national park or a rollercoaster ride. One such ‘cluster’ occurred in Seascale, the nearest village to the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant, but there are no other examples. Clusters tend to be found in isolated areas where there has been a recent influx of immigration – which hints at a virus.

Men who work on nuclear submarines or in nuclear plants are no more likely to father children with leukaemia (or any other disease) than workers in any other industry (18).

9) Wind and wave power are more sustainable

If, as greens say, new nuclear power cannot come on-line in time to prevent climate change, how much less impact can wind, wave and carbon capture make?

Environmentalists claim offshore wind turbines can make a significant contribution to electricity supply. Even if that were true – which it is certainly not (20) – the environmental impact disqualifies wind as ‘sustainable’. The opening up of the North Sea continental shelf to 7,000 wind turbines is, essentially, the building of a huge industrial infrastructure across a vast swathe of ecologically sensitive seabed – as ‘unsustainable’ in its own way as the opening of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration.

Wave power is still highly experimental and unproven as a method of generating electricity. Even if we allow the Severn Tidal Bore, the tidal surge that runs up and down the River Severn estuary in south-west England (and a great natural wonder of the world), to be destroyed, the cost overruns and time delays would make any problems of the nuclear industry look cheap by comparison.

Note: The discussion above pertains the North Sea, England, and is mostly not applicable to the wind target areas of the central United States.

10) Reactors are a terrorist target

Since 11 September 2001, several studies have examined the possibility of attacks by a large aircraft on reactor containment buildings. The US Department of Energy sponsored an independent computer-modelling study of the effects of a fully fuelled Boeing 767-400 hitting the reactor containment vessel. Under none of the possible scenarios was containment breached (21).

Only the highly specialised US ‘bunker busting’ ordnance would be capable – after several direct strikes – of penetrating the amount of reinforced concrete that surrounds reactors. And besides, terrorists have already demonstrated that they prefer large, high visibility, soft targets with maximum human casualties (as in the attacks on New York, London, Madrid and Mumbai) rather than well-guarded, isolated, low-population targets.

Any new generation of nuclear reactors in the UK will be designed with even greater protection against attack than existing plants, and with ‘passive’ safety measures that work without human intervention or computer control.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4259/

From Wiki :

[QUOTE] In France, as of 2002, Électricité de France (EDF) — the country's main electricity generation and distribution company — manages the country's 59 nuclear power plants. As of 2008, these plants produce 87,5% of both EDF's and France's electrical power production (of which much is exported),[1] making EDF the world leader in production of nuclear power by percentage. In 2004, 425.8 TWh out of the country's total production of 540.6 TWh was from nuclear power (78.8%).[1]
France is the world's largest net exporter of electric power, exporting 18% of its total production (about 100 TWh) to Italy, the Netherlands, Britain, and Germany, and its electricity cost is among the lowest in Europe.[1][2]
In 2006, the French Government asked Areva and EDF to build a next generation nuclear reactor, the EPR (European Pressurized Reactor), at the Flamanville Nuclear Power Plant. This was followed in 2008 by an Presidential announcement of another new EPR, spurred by high oil and gas prices.[3] A site for that unit should be selected in 2009, and construction should start in 2011.
/QUOTE]

France went Nuke along time ago, freeing themselves from OPEC.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

Dispelling Myths About Nuclear Energy, Here are some additional Links:

http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/bg2087.cfm

From " some idiot" at MIT:

http://www.c2c.ucsb.edu/summit2007/pdf/presentations/mujid_kazimi.pdf

[QUOTE]My God does it hurt to always be wrong? I'm not taking about exploding the nuclear waste. I'm talking about walking up and exposing every person to the material./QUOTE]

That may be what you meant,but that is not what you said. If you were more clear in your words, maybe you would be more understandable. And others wouldn't refer to you as being a dick.

Please propose a method to accomplish what you were trying, or think you were trying to say. Start in Antarctica, and head around the world with your cup.

Please explain the relevance of your odd, odyssey. You could make the same argument, equally irrelevant, that you could drown everyone in the world with a single teaspoon of water.

The person you called an idiot is an ardent supporter of extended range hybrids as the VOLT. Thats why I implore you to take my advice from more than a month ago. Look in the mirror. Tone it down a little. You are doing way more damage to your cause than you can imagine. :)

7) Leukaemia rates are higher near reactors

Childhood leukaemia rates are no higher near nuclear power plants than they are near organic farms. ‘Leukaemia clusters’ are geographic areas where the rates of childhood leukaemia appear to be higher than normal, but the definition is controversial because it ignores the fact that leukaemia is actually several very different (and unrelated) diseases with different causes (16).

The major increase in UK childhood leukaemia rates occurred before the Second World War. The very small (one per cent) annual increase seen now is probably due to better diagnosis, although it is possible that there is a viral contribution to the disease (17).

8) Reactors lead to weapons proliferation

More nuclear plants (in Britain and elsewhere) would actually reduce weapons proliferation. Atomic warheads make excellent reactor fuel; decommissioned warheads (containing greatly enriched uranium or plutonium) currently provide about 15 per cent of world nuclear fuel (19). Increased demand for reactor fuel would divert such warheads away from potential terrorists. Nuclear build is closely monitored by the IAEA, which polices anti-proliferation treaties.

It is purely by chance that a leukaemia ‘cluster’ will occur near a nuclear installation, a national park or a rollercoaster ride. One such ‘cluster’ occurred in Seascale, the nearest village to the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant, but there are no other examples. Clusters tend to be found in isolated areas where there has been a recent influx of immigration – which hints at a virus.

Men who work on nuclear submarines or in nuclear plants are no more likely to father children with leukaemia (or any other disease) than workers in any other industry (18).

9) Wind and wave power are more sustainable

If, as greens say, new nuclear power cannot come on-line in time to prevent climate change, how much less impact can wind, wave and carbon capture make?

Environmentalists claim offshore wind turbines can make a significant contribution to electricity supply. Even if that were true – which it is certainly not (20) – the environmental impact disqualifies wind as ‘sustainable’. The opening up of the North Sea continental shelf to 7,000 wind turbines is, essentially, the building of a huge industrial infrastructure across a vast swathe of ecologically sensitive seabed – as ‘unsustainable’ in its own way as the opening of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration.

Wave power is still highly experimental and unproven as a method of generating electricity. Even if we allow the Severn Tidal Bore, the tidal surge that runs up and down the River Severn estuary in south-west England (and a great natural wonder of the world), to be destroyed, the cost overruns and time delays would make any problems of the nuclear industry look cheap by comparison.

Note: The discussion above pertains the North Sea, England, and is mostly not applicable to the wind target areas of the central United States.

10) Reactors are a terrorist target

Since 11 September 2001, several studies have examined the possibility of attacks by a large aircraft on reactor containment buildings. The US Department of Energy sponsored an independent computer-modelling study of the effects of a fully fuelled Boeing 767-400 hitting the reactor containment vessel. Under none of the possible scenarios was containment breached (21).

Only the highly specialised US ‘bunker busting’ ordnance would be capable – after several direct strikes – of penetrating the amount of reinforced concrete that surrounds reactors. And besides, terrorists have already demonstrated that they prefer large, high visibility, soft targets with maximum human casualties (as in the attacks on New York, London, Madrid and Mumbai) rather than well-guarded, isolated, low-population targets.

Any new generation of nuclear reactors in the UK will be designed with even greater protection against attack than existing plants, and with ‘passive’ safety measures that work without human intervention or computer control.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4259/





OPEC SUCKS, Nice attempt. However, you simply answered your own issues with false information using very few included references and misguided logic. Why don't you address these issues:


1) Our nuclear bombs have sat in their silos without one failure. Are they dangerous? What if someone steals one? Where are we going to store it? Who pays for it? Many of these answers can be applied to nuclear reactors. Yes, they are bombs waiting to explode. Why even deal with them? They are not needed!

2) You said they are not expensive. Please tell us who pays for the reactors. No private company will finance them. Can you address that? Only the government because they represent too much risk. With good reason!

3) Reactors do take too long. Please tell me how long it took our last 20, on average, to complete. From application to power generation. Thank you.

4) Nobody said uranium is running out. The sea is filled with the stuff. However, how much will it cost in ten years if 1000 new reactors are built because everyone comes to the conclusion that nuclear is the way to go? Your guess is wrong. So is mine. Nobody know! That's the risk. You don't have to purchase non-renewable fuels for solar and wind farms. Why not just use those energy options? Too clean? Come on-line too quickly? Unless you want to dump all that extra power generation from the nuclear power plants you need pumped storage hydro stations anyway! Human demand does not follow the output curve of a nuclear reactor.

5) Decommissioning is very expensive. They put money towards that activity every year. However, if they don't use that fund the operators get to keep it a bit longer. You don't see the conflict of interest in that? I don't want to be living near a 40 year old reactor. Do you?

6) You said the reactors should last 40 years? If we start building 100 reactors today they should just about be completed when our old batch of 100 reactors reach 40 years old. Hummmm. Does that sound like nuclear is going to be adding all this new capacity? They are just talking about replacing what we already have. Think about it. I say let's do what the Germans are doing. Just let nuclear die. It's a nasty, dirty way to generate electricity and the risks and costs far outweigh the benefits. They are great for military ships that can stay out for years at a time. If they have a problem with leaking (like the recent military rector in the news - very small amount but has been leaking around the world for years) you can just sink them to the ocean floor. Big difference!


I just wonder why people try to defend the nuclear option so hard. Why do they do it and neglect the obvious and better renewable and sustainable paths? Solar and wind. Solar throws over 800 TW of energy at the earth 24 hours a day. Let's just learn to use that first.

It doesn't really matter because micro generation is far outstripping new nuclear around the world today. Even China is not putting too much into nuclear. They only have to say build it and people must obey. They open up their bank and pay for it, no questions asked. However, they are smart to know how expensive and troublesome nuclear fission really is. I wish OPEC SUCKS was as enlightened. However, it's interesting that people still want nuclear so badly. The republican party is pushing the agenda hard. That and drill more. It boggles the mind.

Still at it Tex? In the words of Alexander Hamilton "I find Sir, you take a particular delight in persisting in absurdity"

Still at it Tex? In the words of Alexander Hamilton "I find Sir, you take a particular delight in persisting in absurdity"




Firstly, can you check that quote? I was not able to find reference to it.

Secondly, I was not sure of your position on the matter so I checked a few of your recent posts. I found:


"As far as nuclear goes, I doubt its demise is imminent:"


And then:

"Just so you know where I'm coming from, I operate nuclear power plants for a living and I've spent the better part of the last two years reading about energy and global warming."


So, from your posts I ascertain that you are for nuclear and disagree with me. You don't offer any real counter arguments to what I bring up so I take it you don't have any. Or, maybe I can assume you have taken too many "rads" and you can't think straight. ;)

Either way, it’s quite hard to have any debate from what you laid out but the correct tone is there. Please enlighten us on the virtues of nuclear over solar (starting with the points I already brought up) and we can continue with this absurdity. The absurdity that nuclear is a good path for our energy future.

Texas, I think we have all seen what you are made of. No one has the time nor the morbid desire to waste anymore time with us on this. Let's agree to disagree. It's that internet parable, and it goes both ways, to you and me, " Don't argue with an idiot, people watching may not be able to tell you apart".

I think you and I have proven that beyond any shadow of a doubt. Debating nuclear is dead, it's over. We'll narrow it down to one last parting shot.


No private company will finance them. Can you address that? Only the government because they represent too much risk.

I stick to PG&E because I pay my bills to them. They are a publicly traded stock, listed as PUCG on the Pacific, New York and at least one other exchange. Is that in clear enough English for you ?? I think you are incorrect here. Again.

http://research.scottrade.com/public/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp

I advise that you do not buy the stock, they are a private company, and one of the major suppliers of nuclear energy in the west.

Back to oil.

I'll wager that Texas will agree with me on one thing. Sorry about that !!

Drilling for more oil will not have an immediate and dramatic effect on the price of energy in the US.

Whether we should or not is a different issue. I believe we should simply to show we have the will to do it. If it is economically feasible, then they should be allowed to drill. It's that simple. Buy Chevron stock. There are those who have lived an entire life sucking down large quantities of oil, but don't want to see any more drilling. That simply strikes the wrong chord with me. :)

I say nuclear power shouldn't be pushed at the expense of solar and wind. You can defend nuclear from Texas's craziness, but please don't tell me that building 50 nuclear plants is the best course of action here.

Back to the original thread topic: Obama has chosen Joe Biden as his running mate. Joe Biden is very outspoken on alternative energy and energy independence as can be seen here. http://grist.org/feature/2007/08/29/biden_factsheet/
This is enough for me to look past his somewhat corporatist voting record. The guy is owned by the RIAA/MPAA, mortgage brokers and the state of Israel but hey, you have to pick your battles. I'm hoping this VP pick means Obama is serious about his energy plan.

I stick to PG&E because I pay my bills to them. They are a publicly traded stock, listed as PUCG on the Pacific, New York and at least one other exchange. Is that in clear enough English for you ?? I think you are incorrect here. Again.

http://research.scottrade.com/public/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp

I advise that you do not buy the stock, they are a private company, and one of the major suppliers of nuclear energy in the west.



Wow! OPEC SUCKS, you really have no idea how the system works! That was a very good laugh you gave me by giving a link to PG&E. Priceless! OK, I know you won't read the following because it will blow your entire nuclear reality but maybe others will:


"The feds still provide the industry with most of its fuel and waste disposal, and much of its research. Between 1948 and 1995, the government spent more than $61 billion (in 1995 dollars) on nuclear power research- almost two-thirds of all federal support for energy research and development. The 1996 figure was $468 million.


The insurance subsidy

Since 1959, the government has also limited the liability of nuclear utilities for damage caused by accidents. Until 1988, the utilities were only responsible for the first $560 million per accident; then the limit was raised to $7 billion.

But $7 billion wouldn't begin to cover the costs of a core meltdown, or even a near meltdown like Chernobyl. That accident's total costs are estimated at $358 billion-not to mention the 125,000 deaths the Ukrainian government figures it has caused.

The Energy Information Administration calculates that if nuclear utilities were required to buy insurance coverage above that $7 billion on the open market, it would cost almost $28 million per reactor, for a total annual subsidy of $3 billion. (Even if it could pay its own way, the risks of nuclear power far outweigh its benefits. But that's the subject for another book.)


Enriched uranium fuel

Before 1993, the DOE (Department of Energy) was responsible for all domestic production of enriched uranium fuel for nuclear power plants. Since then, that's been the job of a government corporation called the US Enrichment Corporation (USEC). The USEC has been a financial disaster, even for a government program; taking into account lingering liabilities like environmental cleanups, it's more than $10 billion in the hole... (Much more to read - see link)



Reprocessing fuel rods

Nuclear power plants create radioactive waste. Naturally, the government feels that it's our responsibility as taxpayers to take this waste and either reprocess it into new fuel rods or find some place to store it for the next 10,000 years or so. Let's talk about reprocessing first.

Argonne National Laboratory (outside of Chicago) used to operate an enormously expensive facility for separating plutonium, uranium and the like from spent nuclear fuel rods, so that these elements could be used in new fuel rods or nuclear weapons. In 1994, Congress killed funding for that, but the same sort of reprocessing is still taking place in Idaho, at an annual cost to us of $25 million. And Argonne is still getting $25 million a year to terminate its program.

The Savannah River site in South Carolina was originally used for weapons production. As a result of that activity, several square miles of land are so badly contaminated that human beings will probably never be able to use them again. This site is now used for reprocessing spent and corroded fuel rods, and may reprocess foreign fuel rods as well. This new business is going to cost us $340 million a year.


Their waste-our responsibility

A place like Savannah River naturally brings the subject of waste to mind. Nobody wants nuclear waste stored in their state, so Congress picked a place in Nevada, a state with little congressional clout. Called Yucca Mountain, it's the least stable site of any considered to date, with 33 known earthquake faults in the area.

Work on Yucca Mountain can't proceed until the Supreme Court rules on a law Nevada passed that prohibits the storage of nuclear waste in the state. Yucca Mountain's planned opening has been moved back from 1998 to 2015, but we're still being charged $250 million a year just to study the situation.

If Yucca Mountain does go ahead, it will cost us $33 billion-some say $40 or $50 billion-to build the facility, transport radioactive waste to it from all over the country, and seal the waste into thousands of containers. Meanwhile, there are no long-term storage sites for nuclear waste (and Yucca may never be one either).

The nuclear industry is lobbying hard to build a vastly inadequate short-term storage facility above ground at Yucca Mountain. Their eagerness is explained by the fact that once they turn the waste over to Uncle Sam, it's our problem, not theirs. The Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) says that this whole boondoggle has the potential to turn into "the S&L bailout of the Nineties."

Yucca Mountain is supposed to be financed by the Nuclear Waste Fund, which is generated by charging utility customers a fee of 1/10 ¢ per kilowatt hour for nuclear-generated power. But in its thirteen years of existence, the fund has never been adjusted for inflation, which has cut its purchasing power by 45%... (much more to read - see link)


The cost of closing them down

Nuclear reactors are licensed to operate for 40 years, but only one has survived past 30. Of the 110 reactors in the US, only three have begun to be "decommissioned" (closed down), but 25 others will need to be soon.

The Yankee Rowe plant in Massachusetts, the nation's first commercial reactor, was the first to begin the process (except for the Shoreham plant on Long Island, which only operated for 300 hours). How much will decommissioning Yankee Rowe cost? The figure continues to rise; the owner's latest guess is $375 million- ten times what it cost to build the plant. Other estimates go as high as $500 million.

Let's say it costs about $400 million, on average, to decommission a nuclear reactor. That means that closing down 25 plants will cost about $10 billion, which is more than the nuclear industry has set aside for all 107 remaining plants. Decommissioning all the plants will cost almost $42 billion.

The utilities are supposed to maintain a trust fund for decommissioning each plant. Chicago's Commonwealth Edison owns six elderly nukes, which will cost close to $2 billion to decommission; it has about $542 million set aside in trust funds for this purpose. Assuming this 73% shortfall is typical of the industry, the public's eventual share of the cost of closing all nuclear power plants will run more than $30 billion.

To help bail the industry out, Congress dropped the corporate tax rate on the industry's decommissioning trust funds from 34% to 20%. This has cost taxpayers $76 million for the five years from 1992 through 1996, and it's projected to rise to "several hundred million more" in the future. The nuclear industry is lobbying for relaxed restrictions on what they can put the trust funds' money into, obviously hoping that riskier investments will make up some of the shortfall.

A sympathetic federal appeals court has ruled that instead of decommissioning them, the utilities could turn their nuclear power plants into "sealed waste sites" for some unspecified period of time. This will probably make the eventual decommissioning even more expensive, since these reactors weren't designed to be used as storage facilities.

There's another problem with that plan. Because nuclear power plants need some place to discharge the water that cools the reactor, they're all situated near large bodies of water-usually rivers. Rivers flood at least every hundred years, which is a fraction of a second compared to the half-life of radioactive waste. Lakes can flood too, given enough rainfall. And if ocean levels rise significantly over the next century-as is predicted-seaside plants would also be threatened by high tides.

One way or another, the decommissioning of all these reactors will have to be paid for. It's not likely the utilities will cover the costs themselves. They'll probably leave the government to pick up the tab, along the lines of the S&L bailout."


http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welfare/Nuclear_Subsidies.html



Construction subsidies:

"Federal subsidies comprise 60-90% of the generation cost for new nuclear plants."


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=nuclear+subsidies+construction+costs&spell=1


Cost of past nuclear reactors and time-frames for completetion:


"CBO’s assumption about the cost of building new nuclear power plants in the United States is particularly uncertain because of the industry’s history of construction cost overruns. For the 75 nuclear power plants built in the United States between 1966 and 1986, the average actual cost of construction exceeded the initial estimates by over 200 percent … Although no new nuclear power plants were proposed after the partial core meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979, utilities attempted to complete more than 40 nuclear power projects already under way. For those plants, construction cost overruns exceeded 250 percent. (An average of 12 years elapsed between the start of construction and the point at which the plants began commercial operation. The overruns in overnight costs did not include additional financing costs that were attributable to post-accident construction delays.)"


http://greenenergywar.com/2008/05/21/cbo-nuclear-report-pt-2-construction-cost-peril/

Yet they still fission.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactsum.html

Stupid to argue. What about the Push to drill Oil ?? I think you would rather argue endlessly, than address any attempt to return to the topic. You are afraid of the perception of losing an argument. To that, you will stop at nothing. No one cares. It's over Tex. Give it up. I have. You have a PM. :)

Stupid to argue. What about the Push to drill Oil ?? I think you would rather argue endlessly, than address any attempt to return to the topic. You are afraid of the perception of losing an argument. To that, you will stop at nothing. No one cares. It's over Tex. Give it up. I have. You have a PM. :)




We are not endlessly arguing. You didn’t know about the massive amounts of subsidies the nuclear industry gets every year. It’s huge! We basically build the facilities, insure the operation, process the fuel, store the waste, help decommission old plants, etc. You have to admit it’s almost unbelievable! How about that the last few reactors took on average over 12 years to complete and that they were 250 percent over budget? You have got to be kidding me! The final nail in the coffin is that we don’t even have the manufacturing capability to build all these new plants. They will be built in Japan and other countries. Nuclear is dead people. Let it die like the Swiss and Germans (and others) are doing. It’s the right thing to do from both cost and environmental perspectives.

What about the push to drill? I thought everyone knew it’s a waste of money and it won’t have any effect on the price of oil for well over 5 years at minimum. It’s a birthday present to the oil companies. With that said, I say let them lease out the land and drill like crazy. At least it will shut them up so we can talk about our renewable options. Extending our oil addition by a year or two is worse than a complete waste of time and money.

Pick up your PM :D