Gas Price $7/gallon in two years! [Archive]

Texas

07-15-2008, 12:35 PM

"If the price is only $7 a gallon we would be very lucky indeed. Well, maybe unlucky because it would not prompt any action and we would therefore be in an even worse situation with even higher percentages of foreign oil use. We need $10 to $15 a gallon like numbers to get any really change. Maybe even that will not be enough. Gasoline is very cheap!"

You seriously think it will take $10 to $15 a gallon to see change? Are you kidding me? Exactly what makes you think that prices of more than double what we are paying today is going to be the only way to reduce demand? Demand reactions in the immediate time frame when gas doubles in one year?

At $4 a gallon, there is a ton of change. The problem most of people of your thinking do not realize, that while demand for oil is very elastic, it is also VERY time sensitive. There is a built in delay. It generally comes from markets reaction to develop alternatives, and individuals ability to afford these alternatives. Many drivers are upside down with their 0% financing on the SUV they bought 2-3 years ago. They cant just go and buy a new Prius and double their MPG, even if they want to. It takes a few years.

Exactly why I think we will be lucky if the price only gets to $7. Thus far the biggest action our government took is to lift the ban on drilling. Effect on the price of oil: Nothing.

Have we even started to talk about a plan to fix things? Sure we have the presidential candidates talking their talk but how about Bush throwing some real resources at a new energy plan? Nope. To much partisan resistance yet. At $7 a gallon there will be a lot of finger pointing, fist fights, strikes, etc. but little significant changes will be made that will help the situation over the long-term.

At $15 a gallon there will be riots in the streets if people don't feel the government is doing something huge. There will probably be riots regardless. It is at this point where members of both parties and even the environmentalist will sit down and start churning out a plan that will make a difference.

Once we start drawing up a real plan we can begin to gear up for the massive transition from non-renewables to renewables. This transition will take decades to complete. In the mean time the price of gas will continue to rise. Why wouldn't it? You say there will be massive demand destruction. Yes in the industrialized nations that is true. We are already seeing that low hanging fruit being plucked. That will of course slow as the conservation measures become more painful. Sell your house and move closer to work? Sorry, your house value dropped to more than your mortgage value. Can you see how demand destruction can only go so far so fast? It slows as you get higher in the tree.

In the mean time the rest of the undeveloped world wants more energy. Since oil energy is still about 40 times cheaper than food energy to get work done people will be willing to pay many times the current price of oil. They will continue to the point where it's cheaper to do it by hand. That's a long way away. Oil is cheap!

Oh and demand for oil is not as elastic as you claim. I hope my explanation above shows you the error in your thinking. When people are dropping their health insurance to put gas in their tanks you get the idea that they cannot simply use less gas as the price goes up. Get it? Good.

zzyzzx

07-15-2008, 12:51 PM

If the price is only $7 a gallon we would be very lucky indeed. Well, maybe unlucky because it would not prompt any action and we would therefore be in an even worse situation with even higher percentages of foreign oil use. We need $10 to $15 a gallon like numbers to get any really change. Maybe even that will not be enough. Gasoline is very cheap!

At first glance, I'd like to agree since I really don't think people have made much of an adjustment, etc. But when you really think about it, today's ~$4/gallon is enough to get people to change, but not necessarily act in a panic mode. People aren't going to throw out their existing cars. They are going to wait until thei existing vehicle get wrecked or blows an engine or transmission, or whatever, and then get a new car that gets better gas mileage than the one they had before. I know people like this who still drive their SUV since they can't sell it (meaning that they are upside down on their loan, can't sell the car for much, and can't afford to buy a new car). People who can take the bus will. People like me who already own cars that get decent mileage will simply keep them running until the can get something better. I suspect that there are lots of people who are in my exact situation, enough to supress new vehicle sales noticably for quite some time.

I really don't think $10-$15/gallon gas i a realistic expectation (in today's dollars) because I suspect that something else synthetically made would be cheaper.

Texas

07-15-2008, 01:22 PM

I really don't think $10-$15/gallon gas i a realistic expectation (in today's dollars) because I suspect that something else synthetically made would be cheaper.

The real killer is that even if we can come up with something synthetically that is cheaper (We don't have a good renewable synthetic substitute for oil at the moment for anywhere near $15 a gallon) it takes time to transition. We can of course do coal-to-liquid but that will just rise the cost of that non-renewable resource. Regardless, for any substitute to make a difference it will need to be produced in massive quantities. This infrastructure transition is what takes so long. Yes, eventually we will be alright but it's the timeframe from now till then where we need to be concerned. This time period is where gasoline prices can jump very high. That beautiful liquid gold - It has the power to create or destroy great nations.

If I said to you, "zzyzzx, we have the perfect renewable oil substitute and it can be made in huge quantities and it only cost $15 a gallon!" What would be your next question? It should be, "How long will it take to produce enough annually to keep oil at $15 a gallon? If I was being honest I would say, "At least a decade if we go on an Apollo like project." I wish people understood just how much oil and oil infrastructure we use.

CarZin

07-15-2008, 01:34 PM

Texas

07-15-2008, 10:25 PM

texas, the entire underpinnings of your argument is that the government is the only thing that can fix this. I think you are wrong. the market is beginning to work. Regardless of whether the US decides to drill offshores or not, the market is starting to squeeze the price, the consumer, and the manufacturers into a new direction... that is towards efficiency.

While I would LIKE to see the government help to make this transition more quickly, I do NOT believe it is the only way. If we saw 10-15 a gallon gas, there would simply be a world wide depression. You can forget about an electric car. People can riot in the street all they wont. The government wont be worth a damn, and whatever cures you think we could have to fix the situation will long be gone when there are no investors around the world willing to buy more U.S. debt to secure that fix.

Our best hope is that oil stays in THIS pricing range, and NOT much higher. Also NOT much lower. I do agree that transitioning away from petrol for transportation, but it must come in an orderly fashion.

Bottom line: At current prices, we will see a significant move away from petrol for transportation. We do NOT need $7 gas to do this. We simply need the manufacturers to push hard on coming out with alternatives in the very near future. Given probably technological advances, this changeover can increase dramatically in the 5-7 year time frame.

Just look at the U.S. car manufacturers... They are CHOKING on their gas guzzlers right now to the point of bankruptcy. Do you not think they dont plan on manufacturing dramatically more efficient cars sooner than later? My predition is that we blow the door off the new CAFE standards a lot quicker than expected.

No, I don't think our government is going to save us. Hardly. In fact they are holding needed change back. However, they will be needed. Everyone will be needed to work together. A national plan will need to be created and followed if the oil situation degrades. If oil supplies have indeed hit a plateau then our world as we knew it has already stopped.

I agree with you that it would be nice to keep gas prices at a high enough level to spur investment into alternatives yet low enough to keep our country running strongly. However, I hate to break it to you but we don't have much say in the matter.

If the oil companies are right and we have plenty of oil in the ground and that soon we will be increasing global oil production as we have been doing for the past 100 years (despite the fact that we have been on a plateau since 2005) then great. If we don't take into account that the cost to extract that oil is increasing as the oil gets harder to find and is of less quality than before (this is a fact however) then things should go on as before.

However, I don't think any person knowledgeable in the oil business believes that fluffy scenario. The doomsday crowd says that we already hit peek and our economy will suffer like our oil fields - a continuous an irreversible decline. We will all be hand farming again and living in villages.

Those are the two extreme positions. I am more of a middle-of-the-road kind of guy. I feel we are at a serious point where oil supply is not going to be able to satisfy demand like in the past. The only past we know. I think that if you take a snapshot of the world right now that is about the maximum amount of transportation grade energy we can expect for the next decade or two until alternatives start to carry the load. We might see a small jump over the next 2 or 3 years as new investments kick in or that new huge projects started by the Saudi's start producing but 33 countries are in decline and the huge oil fields around the world are not getting any younger.

Why do you think $7 a gallon of gas is unreasonable? How do you come up with that? Turkey pays an equivalent of $11 a gallon. Most of the developed world is hovering around $7 or more a gallon. I think $7 a gallon is just shocking to you. However, at that price the energy is still very cheap. Hate to tell you this but so is $15 a gallon. It's just that our infrastructure is based on almost free oil. To people around the world, especially undeveloped countries, oil is still cheap! Sounds crazy I know but it's true. You only have to go outside and till the land by hand to see just how cheap it is.

You talk about world-wide depression like it's an impossibility. Think of a fat guy on a diet. To get that big they need to be almost constantly gaining weight for most of their lives. They are accustomed to a diet based on access. For them, just maintaining their weight is extremely difficult. It would require a energy input that equaled their energy output. For most fat people they have not experienced this for most of their lives. They are not acclimated to it. If they then want to start losing weight you can understand that real pain must be experienced. To achieve weight loss means they must consume less energy than they are using. Pulling from reserves (their fat). This situation is very similar to oil production. We here in the US are the fat guy. Living on excessive and always available energy. Now that the world has hit a plateau (since 2005) we are starting to have to learn to live at point where our consumption from year to year is constant. This is being accomplished by the rise in oil prices. It kills our demand to eat. If oil stayed at $4 a gallon for the next 5 years we would adjust and would be able to live just as we do now. Sure you might not go out and buy that hummer but you would still be able to drive a comfortable car. We the people might not even decide to make the needed changes towards sustainability (just like in the 1980s). Environmentalists would still be fighting over solar farms in the deserts, wind turbines would be way too loud and kill too many birds etc. You get the idea. People and governments need real pain for real change. When people can actually see major systems coming down and they feel real suffering (not just the poor but the rich) then they will demand action.

I just don't think you have grasped the magnitude of the problem. Unfortunately, due to our culture of being reactive and not pro-active we will have to see real problems before we see real solutions. How severe or how long will these problem be are unclear. Maybe you are right and the transition will be smooth and pain free. However, just based on what is happening in American right now I think it’s wishful thinking at best.

I do believe that we will eventually figure it out and have a fantastic, sustainable and renewable energy infrastructure but when and how big it will be is the question.

mikeandmerle2@yahoo.com

07-15-2008, 11:52 PM

What if we had a car that got a hundred miles to the gallon? what if gas cost a hundred dollars a gallon?

CarZin

07-16-2008, 10:40 AM

"Why do you think $7 a gallon of gas is unreasonable? How do you come up with that? Turkey pays an equivalent of $11 a gallon. Most of the developed world is hovering around $7 or more a gallon. I think $7 a gallon is just shocking to you. However, at that price the energy is still very cheap. Hate to tell you this but so is $15 a gallon. It's just that our infrastructure is based on almost free oil. To people around the world, especially undeveloped countries, oil is still cheap! Sounds crazy I know but it's true. You only have to go outside and till the land by hand to see just how cheap it is."

It doesnt help make your argument that since Europe pays high gas prices, and is acclimated to those prices, that the only way to see similar responses in America is to have similar pricing, and in your example, even more increases over the top of European rates. Europe has adjusted their lifestyle long ago to artificially inflated high gas prices. In fact, they are lucky that so much good public transportation exists so that even if prices go a lot higher for them, it doesnt affect them as much as it affects the American driver, because they simply dont drive as much as Americans. Gas prices going to $7 a gallon is absolutely not the same on the American family as it would be for a European family. Trying to tie that together is a false comparison.

"I just don't think you have grasped the magnitude of the problem. Unfortunately, due to our culture of being reactive and not pro-active we will have to see real problems before we see real solutions. How severe or how long will these problem be are unclear. Maybe you are right and the transition will be smooth and pain free. However, just based on what is happening in American right now I think it’s wishful thinking at best. "

No offense, but I have. I am more into energy than you think, including a recent in conference in D.C. by the Department of Energy (EIA) on energy policy, and having regular conversations with the individuals that actually release weekly inventory reports. How are you connected to the energy industry? I simply think you dont grasp how quickly Americans are going to ween off large vehicles, even at the current pricing. I think you feel that some shock above and beyond what we are currently seeing is necessary for change. I remember laughing at an expert on CNBC about a year ago when he said that Americans would never conserve or give up their SUVs. I literally laughed out loud. As it turns out, hes flat wrong. GM and Ford cant sell them. The public is waiting for smaller vehicles, and they simply need alternatives that dont exist in scale quite yet. Yet you feel the only way we are going to see changes is with European pricing. Its simply not true.

"You talk about world-wide depression like it's an impossibility. "

No I didnt. I stated you would have a world wide depression or major recession WELL before price of gas reached $15 a gallon. The world-wide economy would be so choked and so inflated, that there would be a disasterous economic response that would have PERMANENT demand destruction. Major unemployment (10+% world wide) world wide. Major reduction in goods production demand (think China actually not growing since no one will buy their crap). This would cause oil prices to plummet. However, since pricing went so high, so fast, instead of allowing consumers to transition, they will have killed the consumer economically instead. Assuming true peak oil doesnt materialize, we still have a large amount of production, but now many less consumers. This causes oil prices to plummet. At this point since gas is cheap, the alternative makers cant sell their expensive hybrids. Alternatives die and do not have a chance to develop. People who actually still make a living have little incentive to change since gas once again is cheap. And the cycle starts all over again. This is why prices MUST not get much higher. If it continues to increase at the rate it has, alternatives will die more quickly with high gas prices, than without them.

GAtechVOLT

07-16-2008, 11:58 AM

Texas, I keep reading your posts and I keep agreeing with you…but it seems like you are always defending your point, ha.

I think the best way to get this point across is that we have consumed almost exactly half of the world oil reserves. This half was the easiest and best oil available. The remaining half will become harder and harder to extract…

For instance imagine you have an orange and I want some juice, say I’ll pay you 1 penny for the first drop two for the second and so forth. You’re going to be very happy with this deal initially but after half the juice is gone it will get harder and harder to get more no matter how hard you squeeze. Eventually it will get to the point where I would give you a million dollars for another drop but you can’t supply it.

Oil supply is not a faucet which can be turned to a higher flow rate but an “orange” we are squeezing.

I think gas will go up about a dollar a year for awhile unless there is a war, attack on a refinery, natural disaster (like Katrina).

Carzin, I don’t agree with you. At $10-$15 a gallon the incentive to invest in alternatives would be epic. Everyone would unite to electrify the world and get off fossil fuels. Jobs would shift to the production of wind turbine solar cells, batteries, etc. right now oil prices are just a slap in the face, at 10-15 it’s a gun pointed at your head…

edit:
refer to the attached figures...they pretty much say it all

CarZin

07-16-2008, 12:23 PM

GAVolt, you simply are not getting it. at $10-$15 a gallon gas in the U.S., would mean $15-20 a gallon gas in Europe. This would crush the world economy into depression. At this point, a large percentage of the population would be unemployed. The great economy of China, which has been growing and spurring this problem, would no longer be a factor, as their exports are no longer needed. We are talking 10+ million barrels a day of oil that are no longer needed. Probably more. This would cause prices to tank. Why do you think alternatives would be developed when gas at this point would be cheap, and it would over a decade for the rest of the developed world to recover economically? Probably longer.

Dont bother posting graphs from the oil drum. I can show you graphs that show the exact opposite. They mean very little. I think Peak oil in the true definition is fear mongering crap, and I am NOT going to get into a peak discussion.

"Everyone would unite to electrify the world and get off fossil fuels. Jobs would shift to the production of wind turbine solar cells, batteries, etc. right now oil prices are just a slap in the face, at 10-15 it’s a gun pointed at your head"

If you think I have wishful thinking with regards to oil production, then this tops it. The problem will be solved well before prices reach this level. If this level were to come before there are alternatives, there is simply no way catastophe is to be avoided. We would need something like the New Deal on a global scale. It simply wont happen that way.

GAtechVOLT

07-16-2008, 12:41 PM

CarZin, I simply do get it, I’ve taken two classes where this was all we talked about.

I think graphs are relevant, please show your graphs. If even shell admits supply will decrease I think that says something…

So if I understand you correctly your theory is that at a certain price people will simply reject oil (by choice and/or necessity). I agree a lot of people wouldn’t be able to afford it but I disagree that it would happen all of the sudden (which would cause a drop in price). Price will continue to rise, slowly pissing people off more and more until action must be taken. But no matter what happens trucks need to drive, ships need to be powered, planes need to fly etc. there is no way there will ever be a “sharp” decline in the demand for oil. People/countries will gradually reach their F-U point and do whatever it takes to get away from oil, but as they leave other will take their place at least for the next 30 years.

As for china, I doubt they are going anywhere quick…you should watch the special discovery channel just did on them, the government motto is “economy first” they know what they are doing and they love oil, they will gladly take anything Europe and America decline. Prices are not going down more then a few cents ever again…

Edit:
I think we are arguing the same point. Obviously measures will be taken from now on to get off oil but right now people are just really annoyed. They will get more and more pissed as price(and pain) goes up it will take more then this to get political parties to stop pointing fingers and get something done.

CarZin

07-16-2008, 01:21 PM

GAtechVOLT

07-16-2008, 01:47 PM

Damnit you keep changing your posts,

To your new bold point:

As western countries get on the renewable bandwagon, India and China will drive a billion of those tata nanos Oil will shift from us to them. But instead of 1 American driving a suburban it will be 20 Indians driving tata cars. I stick with my “orange” argument…where are you getting more juice?

Here’s what I wrote before the post change:

Ha I hate when that happens but I get your point. I agree that china will have some challenges but when you don’t care about your citizens (capital punishment for taking a bribe…need I say more) and growth is your primary objective then I don’t see them refusing oil. I agree they can’t keep up this pace but they will buy oil long after we cut back.

And of course prices went down in the 70’s the price increase was created artificially by OPEC. They say “no more oil for you” supply goes way down, demand stays the same, everyone freaks out, big fus over renewable, yadayadayada just like today EXCEPT there is no oil conglomerate that can say “ok here’s more oil, everybody calm down” The price dropped because there was a sudden dramatic increase in supply. OPEC is not happy about how upset everyone is getting about oil, they would drop prices if they could now but the problem is that demand is outstripping supply. I’m sure you know all this so I’ll leave it at that.

My question with your argument is how are you claiming the price will drop? The only way this could happen is if Atlantis sprang from the ocean with massive working wells and fully functional oil refineries.

I think your claim is that china will suddenly stop wanting oil but this just seems preposterous to me. I’m not being combative I just don’t understand where you are coming from.

CarZin

07-16-2008, 02:24 PM

"And of course prices went down in the 70’s the price increase was created artificially by OPEC. They say “no more oil for you” supply goes way down, demand stays the same, everyone freaks out, big fus over renewable, yadayadayada just like today EXCEPT there is no oil conglomerate that can say “ok here’s more oil, everybody calm down” The price dropped because there was a sudden dramatic increase in supply. OPEC is not happy about how upset everyone is getting about oil, they would drop prices if they could now but the problem is that demand is outstripping supply. I’m sure you know all this so I’ll leave it at that. "

No No No. you misread my comment. DEMAND WENT DOWN 25%. Im not talking about prices. It was an artificial embargo, and after the embargo, in a very short period of time, the U.S. went from consuming nearly 20 million BPD of oil, to 14.5. I was trying to state that the U.S. has reacted very strongly to increases of price to oil in the very recent history. This time the effect is going to be more dramatic. Would you like a graph?

"My question with your argument is how are you claiming the price will drop? The only way this could happen is if Atlantis sprang from the ocean with massive working wells and fully functional oil refineries."

very simple. Irreversible demand destruction.

CarZin

07-16-2008, 02:29 PM

http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/USpetroleumconsumption.gif

Here ya go. This should enlighten those who dont feel as though consumers can reduce their use of something like oil.

GAtechVOLT

07-16-2008, 02:38 PM

Thank you for the pretty picture…

I agree completely that we (America and Europe) can and will reduce demand, but what I don’t agree with is that the world demand will ever fall below supply and cause the price to fall. China and India’s consumption will continue to increase and suck up whatever we cut back on for quite awhile.

Texas

07-16-2008, 09:50 PM

Wow. I typed a huge response, only to have it erased by a keystroke. I am not going to be this detailed this time. In short, I am not arguing peak with you. its great that you have taken classes, but I have personally sat in a room and listened to Matt Simmons to be followed by his nemesis, Peter Jackson. I am not convinced with Matt's argument. The only reason peak is getting more play now is because of oil prices, which BY THE WAY, are not related to peak oil. there is no significant evidence, nor will we really know we are at peak for several years. right now China has grown too quickly, and has exceeded the pace of oil companies to expand growth (especially when oil prices have been cheap up until recently, offering little incentive). if you want an opposed graph, see this:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/conf_pdfs/Monday/jackson.pdf

Look at slide 7. Your graph is the worst of worst case scenarios.

I had written out a long section disputing your China argument. In short, China will not continue to grow like they are, or even close to it, if the world oil price continues to rise. Their own domestic economy cannot support their growth. They require exports. As prices of oil rise, exports get more and more expensive, and countries importing start to look at domestic production. Secondly, their growth WILL be constrained by available oil on the market. IF you believe in peak oil, they economy simply cant grow past a certain point.

Finally, you need to look at history to find that sharp declines in oil consumption have already happened. We were using at peak, around 19 million barrels a day during 1971. Do you know we are using about the same amount now? We dropped about 25% of our demand over a period of 5 years. 25% is HUGE. It took decades for the U.S. to start consuming that level again. We will see substitution in different places than what we saw in the 70s, but we WILL see it. It will likely be concentrated in the transportation sector this time. So if you dont think it can't happen, you're wrong. it already has.

In summary: No one knows really how much more oil we can produce. Its ALL speculation. My point is that I believe current prices will be enough to spur an automobile revolution quick enough for us to need to find out about peak oil. If prices continue to increase at the RATE they are currently increasing, we wont get to see that revolution, because the world economy will tank, demand for oil will plummet, and those left employed will have no real incentives to pay extra for a hybrid vehicle.

end of my argument. Post away, but as most of these peak oil/oil demand arguments, I dont need to convince anyone of anything. whoever is right will know in a few years, and there is little to nothing we can do about any of it. These arguments are cyclical, and I am not going to use anymore of my time on this thread unless I think its really warranted.

CarZin, OK. I think I figured out your problem. You think that paper money actually has value. If you believe that then I can see how you feel it's impossible for the price of gas to reach $15 dollars.

Here is something that's going to blow you away. Money doesn't really mean anything. Remember when money was backed by an actual resource (gold)? That is how they kept the value of it because countries had to hold a rare element in their actual possession and that determined their wealth relative to everyone else.

When it comes down to it economies are powered by resources. If we traded in shells the world would still be about the same. It's the energy that is powering our economies that really matters. Population and wealth follows energy and resources. Just look at the history of oil production vs. population growth. They are almost perfectly related. We had fire, coal and now oil. Fire could only power so much. That is why the populations were tiny and production of goods was minuscule.

If tomorrow we had double the amount of oil production we would see a massive growth in both wealth and populations. Cut the amount of oil production and you can only guess what needs to happen.

You say that if we quadrupled the price of oil that the whole world would collapse and that everything would stop. Nope, the economies of the world might stumble, wealth would be transferred around to different places but 85 million barrels of oil a day can power a lot things. Populations would be able to be sustained at current levels of individual energy use. If populations continue to raise then there is less oil for everyone else. If a guy in China gets a car there is someone else in the world that will need to give up his. All of this will take time to adjust to but in the big picture things will level off.

The thing is, some countries will adapt better than others. Those that prepare better will do better and those who have infrastructures that are not as resilient to oil supplies will do much worse. Unfortunately, we are not very well prepared. No public transportation, long distances, huge and inefficient vehicles, resistance to change mentality, etc.

However, the US is actually in a great position over the long-term. We have vast amounts of coal to power any transition plans, we have solar and wind resources that make most countries envious, and a free market system that makes things happen in a hurry, as long as we reach the point where we can all decide that something drastic needs to be done (like during war or after a disaster). Once we hit that point we are indeed the awakened giant.

How would you like to be England or Japan or any number of countries that have nowhere near the natural renewable resources needed to sustain their current energy use compared to how much we have? We have multiple times the amount of our current energy use in solar alone. Yes it will take time and be quite disruptive. Entire industries might fall by the wayside but others will fill the hole. Don't forget we have the strongest military in the world and nobody wants to get the US in a corner. If we are cornered like a rat things will get very ugly.

That is why I strongly suggest we get moving on a real energy plan. If we have a goal and are working towards it we are less likely to panic and overreact. We are less likely to go bomb Iran or other nation that hold strategic value to us. If we have a plan the rest of the world will follow and hopefully can make the necessary adjustments with as little disruption as possible. We still have 85 million barrels of oil production per day. That's a serious amount of energy. Let's use it wisely to prepare for it's eventual decline.

derickjeff

11-21-2008, 04:41 AM

Yes oil prices are going high.But according to the recent survey the oil prices are going to fall for some extent in the coming months.Most of the companies are using the gasification process to convert coal to liquids (http://www.lincenergy.us) and with that oil and gasoline prices will get reduce.

Coal to liquids Gasification Technique

http://www.lincenergy.com.au/IMG/GTL-Process-Diagram.png

Texas

11-21-2008, 05:14 AM

[QUOTE=derickjeff;16156]Yes oil prices are going high.But according to the recent survey the oil prices are going to fall for some extent in the coming months.Most of the companies are using the gasification process to convert coal to liquids (http://www.lincenergy.us) and with that oil and gasoline prices will get reduce.

Coal to liquids Gasification Technique

QUOTE]

Yep, the main problem is the cost. The Germans used this in WWII when they were cut off from oil resources. However,

1) It produces more pollution than just oil.

2) If we bank on this it will use our coal resources that much faster.

3) It's EROI is very low.

Thus, we can do it but the cost of energy is just going to go up.

pdt

11-21-2008, 08:21 AM

CarZin

11-26-2008, 11:32 AM

Texas, why are you still posting here? I knew there was a thread I forgot about when trying to punish you for your previously stupid statements...

If the price is only $7 a gallon we would be very lucky indeed. Well, maybe unlucky because it would not prompt any action and we would therefore be in an even worse situation with even higher percentages of foreign oil use. We need $10 to $15 a gallon like numbers to get any really change. Maybe even that will not be enough. Gasoline is very cheap!

You think thats true now, in light of the collapse of the price of oil and the very large capacity surplus we are enjoying now? And this happened at $150 a barrel oil, and with $4 gas. Still think $7 gas is needed to change things?

Texas

11-26-2008, 02:55 PM

Texas, why are you still posting here? I knew there was a thread I forgot about when trying to punish you for your previously stupid statements...

You think thats true now, in light of the collapse of the price of oil and the very large capacity surplus we are enjoying now? And this happened at $150 a barrel oil, and with $4 gas. Still think $7 gas is needed to change things?

My stupid statements? I'll leave it as an exercise for interested readers to look up some of the things you posted. Talk about stupid! Wow!

Anyway, yes. I still think gas needs to be higher (or that consumers think it will get higher) to get long lasting and significant change. You didn't hear that many consumers think the oil problem has been solved? If the economy starts to move forward again many will go right back and start looking at trucks and SUVs. Gas is only $1.75! Yeah! When that happens the price of oil will begin to shoot up again (unless we stay in recession for a long time and demand stays even).

When I said that gas is cheap I was referring to the amount of economic activity that can be had for the price of energy. You know, the, it only takes a cup of gasoline to move a 2 ton car a mile down the road, cheap. The amount of energy in a cup of oil is amazing. Someone calculated that an average American uses the daily energy equivalent of having 22 employees. That's what I meant by cheap. Yes, it still is. Would you like to do things by hand?

Hey, who knew it would ONLY take the price of oil going to $150 per barrel to start the economic collapse. I don't remember your predictions. Were you more correct than me? If so, please let me see. You predicted the economic meltdown in terms of when and how extreme? Congratulations! I don't believe it, unless you got lucky. You don't even understand the basics of energy or economy.

Also, you asked why I posted. If you would be more careful and ask yourself any questions you have three times before asking others you would see that someone else posted and I just responded. Are you policing posts these days?

darthvader420

11-26-2008, 08:28 PM

Texas

11-26-2008, 11:30 PM

Carzin, you're hitting on the point that EVERYONE ignores: demand for oil is very easy to lower, especially in the US. I do believe that after the oil shocks when Carter launched his conservation programs the GDP of the United States continued to grow even as oil consumption fell by 25%. So the assumption that economic growth directly results in increased demand is based on very flawed conventional wisdom. Of course China is a very different story, since they're only beginning to industrialize and will almost definitely consume more oil as they grow. But in the US, by far the world's biggest consumer of oil, demand can be greatly reduced, as long as the will is there. According to some people the US was only a few years away from oil independence when Reagan took over and decided that increasing oil consumption was a good idea. Whether total independence is realistic or not the US can cut down on consumption like you wouldn't believe.

I think that what you say about conservation can happen but only for short periods of time naturally. If there was a national conservation plan and a drive towards alternatives I think the economy can grow while our use of energy declines or increases more slowly than historical numbers. Remember that it's much harder to drive an economy with conservation than it is to just get more energy every year. More energy for the same price allows for easy economic growth. Cutting energy and increasing economic growth must come through increases in productivity. These gains are much harder to squeeze out. I think people would agree with that.

Now that the world's energy supply is growing at a much slower rate than historical levels we must work harder to get more economic activity out of each unit of energy. The more you squeeze and the higher up the energy savings tree you go the harder it is.

For example. You can easily go from driving a Hummer to driving a Prius. What's do you do after that? We can go to EVs or electric bikes but that requires massive infrastructure build-outs and technology breakthroughs. Same for housing. You can take your McMansion and put triple pane windows in, increase the insulation, put in LED lighting, install Energy Star rated appliances but what's next? That house is still very far out and you must drive your Prius back and forth each day. There is only so much you can do without having to dramatically change the existing infrastructure. Infrastructure investments cost money and that will lower the resulting short-term productivity improvements.

I hope that makes it clear that conservation and receiving increasing amounts of energy every year are two different animals. One requires no planning and is very close to how America works and the other (conservation) requires big picture planning so that infrastructure investments result in productivity gains. As we know, America is not that great at grand plans. They are far and few between.

I have been writing about grand plans that work on our energy infrastructure for just this very reason. If we embark on a renewable and sustainable energy path we are much more likely to be able to grow our energy supply and thus keep our economies growing. It will also allow the global economy to grow at amazing rates because currently most of the developed world is being held back because there is simply not enough global petroleum production to support increased economic activities. Imagine if you will if all of the countries in the world that have adequate solar, wind, geothermal, etc. renewable resources have access to affordable energy systems.

If you still think I am wrong, can you give any good examples where economies are growing over a long time period with level or reduced energy usage (compared to other growing economies - yes, just having productivity improvements every year does this but it's very slow in comparison)? Energy, economy and population go hand in hand. Of course not a perfect correlation but generally. Our best bet for improving the global economy is to figure out ways of increasing our use of renewable and sustainable energy resources. The key word is sustainability. If we increase the global economy and don't address the unsustainable use of Earth's resources we are just going to keep bumping up against supply limits. Water, land, non-renewables like fossil fuels, minerals, etc. This is where we humans have to stop acting like yeast and start using our brains.

CarZin

11-27-2008, 12:39 PM

Texas' comments continue to get longer and longer and he gets deeper and deeper in trouble.

Anyway, yes. I still think gas needs to be higher (or that consumers think it will get higher) to get long lasting and significant change. You didn't hear that many consumers think the oil problem has been solved? If the economy starts to move forward again many will go right back and start looking at trucks and SUVs. Gas is only $1.75! Yeah! When that happens the price of oil will begin to shoot up again (unless we stay in recession for a long time and demand stays even).

No, I havent heard this. In fact, most people I talk to know it won't last. Whats your source for most people thinking the gas crisis is solved? And you know, thats not even a good point. Your point was that it took much higher prices to get consumer reactions. YOU WERE 100% WRONG. OWN UP TO IT.

When I said that gas is cheap I was referring to the amount of economic activity that can be had for the price of energy. You know, the, it only takes a cup of gasoline to move a 2 ton car a mile down the road, cheap. The amount of energy in a cup of oil is amazing.

HAHAH! Straight from Matt Simmon's playbook. Thats the stupidest comparison I've ever heard of to use a teacup as a measurement for oil. WE DONT DRINK IT. Its the dumbest comparison I've heard of, and just one of the dumb things peakers like Matt use to try to make a point to the many sheep that will listen.

Hey, who knew it would ONLY take the price of oil going to $150 per barrel to start the economic collapse. I don't remember your predictions. Were you more correct than me? If so, please let me see. You predicted the economic meltdown in terms of when and how extreme? Congratulations! I don't believe it, unless you got lucky. You don't even understand the basics of energy or economy.

Why dont you try and look at this thread for starters. I believe I have posted a few times in this thread that we would see significant demand destruction at the previously high levels. I cited we dont need $7 gas. I dont need to cite a magical barrel level where demand collapses, but that gas over $3 a gallon is sufficient. In the past year, I have accurately predicted the currency resurgance and the demand destruction collapse. I posted a lot more predictions in March of last year, to the contrary of popular opinion, that have come to fruition also including China's growth decceleration. I'd post the link, but unless you are an AOPA member, you cant read it.

CarZin

11-27-2008, 12:45 PM

If you still think I am wrong, can you give any good examples where economies are growing over a long time period with level or reduced energy usage (compared to other growing economies - yes, just having productivity improvements every year does this but it's very slow in comparison)?

How long do you want? Germany has been declining its consumption since 1991. Their economy has been growing. Italy has been declining since 1995. Sweden has been declining since 1996. Japan has been declining since 1996.

How many other ways do you want to be proved wrong?

Texas

11-27-2008, 12:48 PM

Now it makes sense! I never understood why CarZin could keep coming back after being wrong on so many issues. He actually believes he's correct! Thanks CarZin for that Thanksgiving laugh.

Texas

11-27-2008, 01:22 PM

Now I know why CarZin's feathers are so ruffled. Check out post #73 - Price of Oil (CarZin, if you were on drugs that week then we can excuse you). ;)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarZin
Apparently... I dont think I need to explain it. I think most 8th graders could understand it.

Texas wrote:
Of course 8th graders could understand what you wrote because an 8th grader wrote it. They have their own way of writing, those crazy kids. It's like code to us adults. Yes! Please explain it. However, can you please use standard English? Sorry, I don't get the code. Thanks!

OK, let's recap. CarZin's first attempt:

"Not sure why this is difficult to understand. Speculators dont own the oil market. They can affect it, but they dont own it. eventually the selling of fear and panick is outweighed by news that it more calming than the fear, and their ability to push the market up, or sustain a price level, is mitigated. "

CarZin's second attempt:

"I guess I'll give you a hint.... Oil Speculators like Goldman Sachs have been pumping the market with sky high pricing for months and months, calling on $200 oil. Selling fear into the market with supply/demand and above ground concerns. However, demand destruction is accelerating much faster in the U.S. than anyone anticipated. Oil imports have rebounded nicely. We are beginning to see an improvement YOY on oil inventories. We are still above YOY on gas inventories. Bottom line, there is only so much crap a perma-bull can spout and push the market higher before the facts set in.

If you cant understand that, I cant help you. "

So what I gather is you feel that Goldman Sachs doesn't own the market but was able to drive the price up to $147 per barrel just by “calling” for a higher value? If what you say is true, they do own the market! That's a lot of power, wouldn't you say? Maybe they should just wait another two weeks and do it again. Then they can make even more money. Brilliant! Oh wait, maybe they won't be able to because the reserves are higher and the supply is not that tight, like it was when the price went up to $147 per barrel. Hummm. Tight supply, price goes up. Supply gets loose, price goes lower. That almost seems to make more sense than speculators with God-like power. It’s Super Speculator!

Folk, we have 85 mbd of oil production. When demand gets close to that number the price will go up. Small events around the world effect the price much more than when we have good reserve levels.

Since global supplies are not getting any larger (flat since 2005) we have to live at this level until that situation changes. Not likely for many years until alternatives start to come on-line.

Now how will the rest of the world react? If we hang at stagnant economic levels (recession level) then we can limp along for a long time. Heck, 85 mbd is a lot of oil! If the economy starts to slowly ratchet up because people realize just how cheap oil is compared to human labor then the demand will start to push toward that 85 mbd limit. Can you guess what will happen to the price? Yup, it's goes higher and gets more volatile (rapid fluctuations). If Iran is bombed or there's a major hurricane and supply is adversely effected then... Never mind, you don't want to know.

Bottom line, our current economic situation is not like how we lived before with continuously growing energy supply feeding continuously growing global economies. Until we get more supply we are not going anywhere fast. Sure we can squeak out better efficiencies and that will be great but don't count on anything near what we had in the past. Populations follow energy. Plain and simple.

Texas

11-27-2008, 02:55 PM

How long do you want? Germany has been declining its consumption since 1991. Their economy has been growing. Italy has been declining since 1995. Sweden has been declining since 1996. Japan has been declining since 1996.

How many other ways do you want to be proved wrong?

Oh CarZin, here you are all misguided AGAIN! Thank you for at least quoting me correctly:

"If you still think I am wrong, can you give any good examples where economies are growing over a long time period with level or reduced energy usage (compared to other growing economies - yes, just having productivity improvements every year does this but it's very slow in comparison)? "

Now, we have a lot of work to get you up to speed but did notice what I said about productivity improvements being slow? That's what I mean when say a country like Germany is slowly improving their use of energy (more efficient cars and trucks, better appliances, more efficient production methods, etc.).

But, before we get more into that we need to talk about energy intensity, and using adjusted values (because inflation changes what currency is worth from year to year). I don't think I need to go though all the trouble to educate you when there are perfectly good sources out there. Why don't you just read the following and it will clear things up for you:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/world.html

Here is their statement about how energy use and economic growth are related:

"Economic growth and energy demand are linked, but the strength of that link varies among regions. In the OECD nations, history shows the link to be a relatively weak one, with energy demand lagging behind economic growth (Figure 22). In the non-OECD nations, except for non-OECD Europe and Eurasia, economic growth has been closely correlated with energy demand growth for much of the past three decades (Figure 23).

Historically, non-OECD Europe and Eurasia have had higher levels of energy intensity than either the OECD or other non-OECD economies. In non-OECD Europe and Eurasia, energy consumption generally grew more rapidly than GDP until 1990 (Figure 24), when the collapse of the Soviet Union created a situation in which both income and energy use declined but GDP fell more quickly. As a result, energy intensity increased. Only since the late 1990s, after the 1997 devaluation of the Russian ruble, did the Russian and Ukrainian industrial sectors begin to strengthen. Since then, economic growth in non-OECD Europe and Eurasia has begun to outpace growth in energy use significantly, and energy intensity has begun a precipitous decline. The region’s energy intensity is projected to continue declining in the IEO2008 reference case, while still remaining higher than in any other part of the world (Figure 25). "

Do you see where I bolded the text? Those are the fast growing economies I was talking about, not the slow 1 to 3 percentage growth rates of the OECD countries (accept during fast recovery growth times). After you read the information you will understand the many factors that explain how economies and energy use are related. However, remember how the U.S. economy just died recently? What happened to the energy consumption? It also died. Why? Because less economic activities require less energy. Simple! Productivity gains should happen every year because new technologies and methods are invented and utilized. These gains however are much slower than just having more energy to feed the fire.

When you look at the energy intensity graphs (corrected) for different countries you will see that the OECD countries are not that different. You don't have let's say Germany going one direction and the U.S. going the other. They are very similar. This all makes logical sense if you understand the factors. Again, just read the information.

CarZin

11-27-2008, 10:51 PM

Texas

11-28-2008, 01:17 AM

You are hopeless and a complete waste of time. I read the first thing you posted, and I didnt contradict myself at all. Your comprehension level is that of a 5th grader. Please do us all a favor and stop trying to act like actually know something. To this point, it seems all you are capable of doing is posting other people's opinions, then when you are proven wrong multiple times, you try to redefine the argument to dig yourself out. I said the speculators do not own the market (they dont), but that they can manipulate the prices until a certain point when that control fails to work simply because of fundamentals.

Your wrong. Im right. You can post 50 line diatribes, but it doesnt change the fact. I also am getting dumber trying to even explain this to you. So, thank YOU for giving my Christmas gift early.

By the way, you have a really short memory:

I answered the question well, flipped you right on your ass, and then you decided to redefine your statement since you were proven wrong. again

Its like you enjoy having the crap kicked out of you.

I guess it’s up to the readers to decide your level of English skill (if you are not a native English speaker than all is forgiven and I apologize). However, based on your refusal to provide any rational rebuttal other than "have the crap kicked out of you", many readers will wonder about your abilities to properly defend an argument.

I did not redefine the my statement. I merely showed you that you improperly made a conclusion based on the raw data. You didn't understand the concept of productivity, rates of growth, currency adjusted values. etc. If you don't properly analyze your raw data you can make all kinds of erroneous conclusions. It's really that simple.

Anyway, I also agree that debating with you will never change your mind but it's not a complete waste of time. Other readers can enjoy it and maybe get them thinking about the subject. Often the real gains do not happen at the debate or for the debaters but after the debate upon reflection and for the benefit of the audience.

During a debate the participants have to fully believe their arguments for a successful defense. They will dig in the best they can and often have to refuse obvious facts and superior logic. In doing so they can think they are doing well when in fact the audience (and judges) have already sided with the opponent.

It would be a useful feature on this forum if readers could vote on who they thought was more correct on a given subject. Not that one side or the other is then absolutely correct but it would give a feeling as to what the majority felt was more reasonable.

With that in mind, and this debate obviously over (due to it breaking down) maybe everyone that has even bothered to read this far can ask themselves the following questions:

1) Is energy necessary for rapid economic and population growth (growth beyond normal and expected productivity gains which will occur because new technologies and methods are used)?

2) Is there a strong correlation to the price of oil based on supply and demand (even if there are long delays and corrections)?

3) If an economic bubble is burst (for what ever reason - high price of oil, food, credit problems, etc.) does the energy usage follow the decline in economic activity?

4) Do the fast growing economies in the world (like before the economic meltdown) use increasing amounts of energy (China, India, etc.)? Is there a strong correlation?

I believe that the answer to those questions is YES. Energy is the main ingredient to activity. We here on earth have many activities that are extremely inefficient and much energy is wasted. With coordinated efforts we can, as a nation, work to greatly improve our efficiency and ability to perform economic activities at decreasing energy intensity (energy use per unit of economic activity). However, these productivity improvements often take thought, planning and coordination. The more efficient your operation becomes the harder it is to reach even higher levels of efficiency.

Efficiency is a non-renewable! You can only get to 100 percent efficient and no more. Early efficiency gains are easy but it gets harder the closer you get to 100 percent. Many activities, due to the laws of thermodynamics will never and can never achieve 100 percent efficiency (many are far below that).

If we want strong economic growth that far surpasses efficiency gains we need to add more energy. The best way for doing so is to use renewable and sustainable forms of energy. Otherwise, we risk the problems faced when the resource starts to run out or starts to require more energy to obtain then previously.

There is a big difference between developed economies and undeveloped ones. While it may be easy at first to improve the energy intensity for a very inefficient process (an American that has a huge McMansion that is poorly insulated and wastefully lit and air conditions the entire square footage - just turn down the thermostat and turn off the lights when not in use), these gains get harder and harder. Eventually, that same American must decide to sell that huge house so they can move closer to work and food. Perhaps give up his BMW and ride a bike. These are major lifestyle changes that are very hard to change. It is much easier to just add more energy (if it's plentiful and easy to extract) to get more economic growth. However, both methods should be used.

If we look on the other side at an undeveloped economy we can see that it’s much harder to grow that economy without adding energy. To go from food powered manual labor to building a tractor, filling it with diesel fuel and using that mechanical advantage to achieve more economic activity requires the addition of more energy. To get more economic activity requires more infrastructure and that requires more energy to both build and maintain. That is why the non-OECD countries are using much more energy while achieving very high economic growth rates.

The real problem we have today is the world's most important energy resource (Petroleum) has not seen historical increases in year-to-year global production. From about 2005 global petroleum production has flatten. This is of real concern. Without historical rates of increasing energy supply our entire economic model starts to break down. We must go from a fast growth model to one based solely on productivity increases. After the low hanging fruit, efficiency gains require much more invention, planning and coordination. This is much slower and thus our economic models must change. We live and die by the concept that next year we will have much more. More products, more consumption, and most importantly more energy.

In conclusion, if we want to continue to grow our global economy at the rates we have become accustomed to we are going to need increasing rates of energy. We cannot rely on our non-renewable energy resources forever. I believe we have thankfully started to see the limitations of the global petroleum resource. For all of the reasons not to use petroleum (wars, resource reserve location, pollution, etc.) we need to find other sources of energy to make up for the inability (be it from geological or geopolitical reasons) of petroleum to increase at historical rates.

Currently, we have the a few options for using alternative non-renewables (coal, NG, nuclear fission, etc., shale, tar sands) or renewables (solar, wind, biofuels, geothermal, hydro, wave, etc.) or more likely a combination of the two to make up for that rate decrease in global petroleum supply. Unfortunately, there is no perfect renewable energy solution at this time. That black gold is just such a beautiful liquid that is provides not only a huge amount of our energy but is the basic ingredient for a vast amount of useful products.

It's going to take a well thought out plan and great execution if the world is going to even have the chance of pulling this off. Some say it's impossible due to the scale of petroleum use in our society. Others say that major economic depression can be avoided if we act now and aggressively. Nobody but the extremely uninformed believe that it's going to be easy to transition away from petroleum. Some feel we will never have to! Realistically, the transition is something we must do eventually and is getting more critical every year. Just about everyone (excluding those that are profiting greatly from petroleum) can find a reason for the transition. Always question the motives of people that say we are doing great and that there is untold and virtually unlimited amounts of oil in the ground. Don’t take people’s word for it who claim that we can and will continue to grow our oil supply at traditional rates and cost. The oil companies have to go out further, drill deeper at greater expense to deliver that petroleum to you. If you can't see the writing on the wall you better get your glasses fixed.

Rooster

11-28-2008, 02:27 AM

Folk, we have 85 mbd of oil production. When demand gets close to that number the price will go up. Small events around the world effect the price much more than when we have good reserve levels.

Since global supplies are not getting any larger (flat since 2005) we have to live at this level until that situation changes. Not likely for many years until alternatives start to come on-line.

Now how will the rest of the world react? If we hang at stagnant economic levels (recession level) then we can limp along for a long time. Heck, 85 mbd is a lot of oil! If the economy starts to slowly ratchet up because people realize just how cheap oil is compared to human labor then the demand will start to push toward that 85 mbd limit. Can you guess what will happen to the price? Yup, it's goes higher and gets more volatile (rapid fluctuations). If Iran is bombed or there's a major hurricane and supply is adversely effected then... Never mind, you don't want to know.

Bottom line, our current economic situation is not like how we lived before with continuously growing energy supply feeding continuously growing global economies. Until we get more supply we are not going anywhere fast. Sure we can squeak out better efficiencies and that will be great but don't count on anything near what we had in the past. Populations follow energy. Plain and simple.

If you are right and oil stays above $70-80 barrel over the long run, change will happen...but what if you are wrong? What if we can reduce demand faster than OPEC or Peak Oil Theory can reduce supply?

According to a Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) Omnibus Household Survey, 78% of US commuters drive 40 miles or less each day, and 68% drive 30 miles or less each day.

http://www.bts.gov/publications/omni...ml/entire.html

In 2003 U.S. passenger cars consumed 74,590,137,000 Billion gallons of gasoline which roughly equates to 3,825,135,200 Billion barrels of oil (i.e., 1 barrel oil (42 gallons) = 19.5 gallons of gasoline). In 2003, the US imported 4,101,870,000 Billion barrels of oil. If every passenger car in the United States had been a E-REV with a 30 mile electric range, then 68% of the demand for passenger car gasoline would be eliminated according to the BTS survey data. That equals 2,601,091,936 Billion barrels of oil, or 63.4% of all net imported oil for the year.

Why the laser beam focus on a 40 mile EV range? Here's why:

If every passenger car in the United States was a E-REV with a 40 mile electric range, then 78% of the demand for passenger car gasoline would be eliminated according to the BTS survey. That equals 2,983,605,000 Billion barrels of oil, or 72.7% of all net imported oil for the year.

Furthermore, an additional 12% of daily commuters in the BTS survey drive between 40 and 60 miles per day. If they too drove an E-REV with performance like the Volt, their equivalent gas mileage would be 150 MPG or greater. That is more than 7 times the 2003 average passenger car fuel consumption of 22.3 MPG. Thus the next 12% of American drivers who consumed approximately 459,016,220 Million barrels of oil in 2003, would have consumed less than 68,523,316 Million barrels of oil. That equals another 10% net reduction in imported oil. Ignoring the remaining 10% of American drivers who drive more than 60 miles per day, the first 90% have the potential to eliminate more than 82% of net imported oil by driving a E-REV like the Volt with a 40 mile EV range.

We could then make up the remain 18% with domestic renewable fuels, if we wanted. I say "if we wanted" because it will require a floor on the price of a barrel of oil of around $70-80 a barrel. Americans drove 5.6% less last year according to the U.S. Department of Energy , and demand for petroleum in 2009 is not forecasted to increase significantly due to the global economic downturn. Consequently, oil has dropped from an average weekly high of $133.60/barrel on 4 July 2008 to $57.04/barrel on 14 Nov 2008. That’s a 57% reduction in price in only 4 months from an estimated 5.6% reduction in US demand for passenger car petroleum.

Anyone care to guess what would happen to the price of a barrel of oil if US demand for it is gashed by 10%, 20%, 30% -- 82%? Well, here's a clue, According to Paul Winters, a spokesman for the Biotechnology Industry Organization, investors think an oil price of $70 to $80 per barrel is the threshold at which cellulosic ethanol becomes viable. On 14 Nov 2008, oil closed at $57.04/barrel -- bye bye cellulosic ethanol.

If we want alternative fuels, we need a floor because alternative fuels have a structural problem. Success means it displaces demand for oil, which reduces the price.

I hope that investors will continue to invest in solar and wind. Although I find it rather ominous that T Boone Pickens has put his plan on hold because "falling prices of natural gas, used in power plants, are making his wind project less economical."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10095309-54.html. (http://http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10095309-54.html.)

BTW, a $70 floor is equal to an average price for regular gasoline of $2.88/gallon. Is a minimum price of $2.88/gallon for regular gasoline too much of a sacrifice to place on American consumers to end our addiction to imported oil?

Just my 2 cents.

Mike756

11-28-2008, 06:43 AM

Texas, you routinely contradict yourself and are apparently immune to reason.

"During a debate the participants have to fully believe their arguments for a successful defense."

Sir, while you may believe what you say, you are certainly not successful.

"They will dig in the best they can and often have to refuse obvious facts and superior logic. In doing so they can think they are doing well when in fact the audience (and judges) have already sided with the opponent."

Indeed, sir; at this you excel.

Texas

11-28-2008, 10:28 AM

If you are right and oil stays above $70-80 barrel over the long run, change will happen...but what if you are wrong? What if we can reduce demand faster than OPEC or Peak Oil Theory can reduce supply? If we want alternative fuels, we need a floor because alternative fuels have a structural problem. Success means it displaces demand for oil, which reduces the price.

I hope that investors will continue to invest in solar and wind. Although I find it rather ominous that T Boone Pickens has put his plan on hold because "falling prices of natural gas, used in power plants, are making his wind project less economical."

First off, I would not be wrong if oil prices drop very low and even stay there. Those conditions could arise if we stay in recession or God forbid go into depression. However, That cheap price of oil and our ability to produce 86 mbd (for now - the longer we don't produce at those levels the longer it will take to get back there when or if we need to) will always be a push towards more economic activity. Again, if we can't increase the rate of global oil production we cannot have historical global economic growth rates. That requires a lot of energy.

Your concerns are real! In fact, I have been working on a new argument that we no longer need to talk about peak oil in the traditional sense. Even if we have tons of resources left we still have the same energy problems! How is this possible? It all comes down to two simple facts:

Facts:

1) We are going farther and drilling deeper and are using less desirable petroleum resources (tar sands, heavy crude) than we did before.

2) Existing oil well production follows a bell curve from start to finish (except for the abiatic crowd who think oil is always bubbling up from and generated from inside the earth - even if this was true the rate of refill is too slow to be of any use). This bell shaped production curve has been proven even if new and better extraction technologies are used.

Therefore, it’s a fact that we need to continuously invest in new projects just to make up for the verified reductions of older projects. This is undeniable. This investment has been increasing every year and is a significant amount just to maintain our current 86 mbd. It is also true that it’s more costly, in terms of energy, just to extract less desirable locations and resources. You can look at the recent predictions as to the amount of needed investment needed to reach projected goals. Even if you do or don't believe in peak oil you can agree that we could, given time and unlimited capital, extract more oil if oil had unlimited value. At what point would it require more energy input in than what is constrained in the resulting product is unknown. A diamond has no energy value but we spend tremendous about of energy to extract it. Same with other resources.

Let's for sake of argument not worry about the point in history that it takes more energy to extract the oil than it produces. That is probably far off. Let's also not talk about the exact amount of year-to-year investment that is needed just to maintain the 86 mbd supply we currently are able to deliver. All we need to know is that it’s a significant amount and the resulting projects require that the price of oil is higher than the cost of extraction and refinement. As you said, many projects like using tar sands require a minimum market price for the resulting petroleum product. If it falls below that level, the operation begins to loose money just by running. Thus, it will be shut down.

Using all of the above facts and logic we can clearly see that if we are able to reduce our level of demand for petroleum the price will stay low which will result in less or no investment as well as the shutting down of unconventional resources (tar sands, heavy crude, etc.). Thus, Global supply reductions will be forced by those events, even if there are massive amounts of petroleum resources left in the earth.

Thus, we don’t need to even care about the controversial peak oil theory. When people here those words they just think that we are running out of oil. Now it’s more clear to me that peak oil is really a financial state where the amount of investment in past projects was not enough to satisfy current economic demands. If economic growth as too fast and there was little investment at the needed time, you will eventually hit a point where oil companies cannot deliver. I believe this is what happened this summer. The global economy was hot and past investments were not enough. The global economy was so hot that it kept demanding more oil even when the price hit $1.47.

Remember, global economics are like ships that take time to turn. There is always a delay from the time you turn the wheel to the time the ship actually moves. Most importantly, there is a long delay for oil projects from when they get started from when the oil is flowing at the desired rate. This time can take 10 years! Thus, a lack in oil investment can look like a peak oil moment. It could be that the demand outgrew planned supply growth even at high oil prices. Oil companies want to slow it down but can’t because of greed and political pressure to keep the valves wide open. All they can do is up the investment and hope those projects come online fast enough.

Normally, the oil companies will have extra projects for reserve capacity. Because the project delay time is so great it’s a necessity part of the business. This summer only Saudi Arabia had any reserve capacity left. Just about every oil producers had the valves turned wide open trying to get every drop they could because the global economy demanded it and was willing to pay for it! Something had to give. Either the raising price of oil was going to cool down the global economy OR a weak point in an economy would crack under the pressure. Guess what happened? Yep, America cracked! Our housing bubble was right on the edge. Hot and over inflated. The high price of oil raised the price of everything so high and so fast that... You know the result. Heck, maybe the high oil price didn’t cause the problem and would have continued to rise. We may never know but might have many chances to find out in the future.

Here we come back to your original worry - what if the price of oil stays low and there is no investment in alternatives. Well, maybe nothing for a long time! Let’s say oil companies (mostly governments) learn their lesson and embark on enough new projects to satisfy future demand. They might have the time if it takes many years to get over our current meltdown. Let’s say Obama shocks us all and commits to spend trillions of dollars on new oil infrastructure around the world. He throws in a few million for alternatives just for show. Hey, don’t look at me that’s what Bush did for alternative energy research. If so, then your worst worry would become reality. Oil prices would probably remain below the price needed to justify alternatives to petroleum. Good bye electric cars, good by Volt, good by biofuels, etc. OK, I think we did let the cat out of the bag and also have other reasons to adopt alternatives for petroleum. However, governments would need to help out.

I’m guessing that is exactly what OPEC and friends are working towards. A good price for oil that keeps them making profits while being able to make investments in new projects so they can keep up with future global economic growth. Why would they do anything else? That is why they are so dangerous. They must do this! Not doing so would hurt their shareholders. They don’t care about us. Please remember this very important point.

Here is the beauty however. The required investments will need to be larger and larger. The resulting needed price for barrel of oil (adjusted) will need to get higher and higher. Why? Because of the facts I listed above (further, deeper, less desirable - sounds like an X-rated movie title). Even if the oil companies do everything correctly and put in just the right amount of investments that will produce just enough oil (even if the economy booms again) and even if they have all of the governments paid for to keep the adoption rate of alternatives to the level they are comfortable with. Hey, they know their game can’t last forever! They can see the increases in investment and energy needed for a given amount of oil. They know exactly what’s going on. They also have an idea as to when they need to have their own alternative projects up to speed so that they can continue to stay in the energy business. Man, this just makes too much sense now!

Continued in next post...

Texas

11-28-2008, 10:31 AM

Continued from previous post...

Thus, Rooster, although things will naturally have to transition away from petroleum (unless we see a global depression or economic collapse), the timeframe that we are all hoping for could be dragged out for maybe decades (depends on the rate of global economic growth and even geological issues). Here are the things that will get and keep alternatives going:

1) Smart government leaders that invest heavily for one reason or another.

2) If oil companies do not plan their investments well and cannot keep up with demand rates. This will drive up the price of oil and start a whole new wave of alternative investments and projects. This last year produced quite a bit of alternative activity. Something big might come out of it (Volt, great battery - A123, Algae biodiesel, etc.).

3) Technological breakthrough. If it undercuts the current cost structure of the oil economy that will be it. It would still take decades to transition because the scale of our petroleum economy is so great and pervasive.

4) The cost of investments makes the minimum price of oil go above the price that an alternative energy company can produce its product. This price is currently very high. This includes the cost of current EV systems, biofuels, hydrogen systems, etc. The good news is the cost of alternatives are continuously coming down while the cost of oil is continuously going up. Once the cross point is reached I’m guessing you will see the oil companies jump in first. After all, they will know this point first! Why? They know what their investments cost and they also know how much their alternative projects cost. Simple! Just keep an eye on the oil companies. When they go big, it’s time.

5) The amount of energy needed to extract the oil is higher than what is contained in the delivered product. Perhaps this is the true peak oil we always hear about. It would be uneconomical to extract above this limit and only continue to get worse as old, big, land based wells go into decline and are replaced by wells that are more expensive to extract from. Of course, that is only if the oil is used for energy purposes. It may remain a valuable resource far beyond it’s energy usefulness. I need my plastics!

OK, now all of this has got me thinking of the following scenario:

The year is 2009 and we get visited by militant aliens who tell us that they want our petroleum resources. They explained to us that the value of that petroleum far exceeds the value of the energy that it contains and are quite frankly disgusted that we use it for energy! “Primitive losers!“, they called us. Anyway, they have decided to let us live if we can increase our petroleum shipments to them by 10 percent each year. To start they will require all of our 85 mbd output. “Pathetically low production!”, they claim. They know exactly how much oil we have so we can’t fool them.

Since they know we currently burn this resource they told us that they will provide 10 times the amount of energy that is contained in the oil they receive. They have also decided to give us some nuclear fusion technology so that we can carry on after they extracted all of the resource.

The question is: can we do it? Can we go past what current peak oil theory believes?

The answer is: Yes, we would do it. We would strip mine every tar sand and shale land mass, convert every lump of coal, go back to every capped well and scrape them clean. For that I have no doubt.

With that new perspective I guess peak oil is just limited by our desire to extract it and by how much energy and capital we are willing or able to put towards it.

Hey, any hard core peak oil advocates out there? What say you? My feeling is that the needed capital is the weak link. I know we have massive amounts of sweet crude and unconventional petroleum resources. Given that we seem to have problems right now and the cost to extract a barrel of oil out of one of those big old fields in Saudi Arabia runs around $1.50 per barrel, I think we are a long way away from the energy extraction equaling the energy delivered.

I wonder if the oil companies are worried. Before they had Bush and friends running the show and were just about to get Alaska and the outer continental shelf and are very close to getting rights to drill the great unknown - Iraq. They didn’t have to worry about big government spending on alternatives and progress seemed very slow at best. They could count on subsidies and high profit margins to finance those all important investment projects. However, the industry blew it. They were not willing or able to invest enough 10 years ago to prevent the summer crisis. Now they have Obama, new biofuel discoveries, new nanotech batteries, the Volt, angry consumers, etc. Looking from the situation from their shoes I have to say, “That sucks!” Hey, they had a long ride and it’s not over yet.

As long as the governments of the world make clear and long term plans to transition away from petroleum I think everyone will have time to plan their activities. The petroleum industry is extremely large and fully integrated in everything we do. The transition is more likely to be a political and social problem rather than a technical one. If you think about it, all you have to do (as Rooster and others have suggested) is to make the cost of that petroleum high enough relative to alternatives to encourage alternative energy investments.

Now, what is the best way to do that? Well, if we hurt the profit margins of oil companies they will not be able to invest in those needed projects. If that‘s the course we take we better have our alternatives ready or we will all be hurting our economy with reduced energy supplies. I’m thinking we want to keep the oil industry healthy so they can invest. Cutting their subsidies or raising the price of gas through taxes would only cut their profits and thus investment. Perhaps the best way is to just subsidize alternatives directly. Purchase production through extended contracts, etc. We want to keep the oil investments going (or we will see a peak oil like curve much faster) while bringing on alternatives as fast as possible. When the alternatives really start kicking we can use carbon taxes and other oil company taxes to slowly reduce petroleum demand. It’s going to take a nice balancing act. Any thoughts on how we can best do this without killing current supply (at a point in time where it’s really looking to have trouble). We want more TOTAL global energy supply. Specifically, more petroleum-like energy supply. That means energy for transportation.

Mike756

11-28-2008, 10:55 AM

Stay the course.

The batteries have the capacity
The engineers have the sagacity
To end our useless toil for oil
Deliver the Volt
Don't let the momentum spoil

Rooster

11-28-2008, 01:29 PM

As long as the governments of the world make clear and long term plans to transition away from petroleum I think everyone will have time to plan their activities. The petroleum industry is extremely large and fully integrated in everything we do. The transition is more likely to be a political and social problem rather than a technical one. If you think about it, all you have to do (as Rooster and others have suggested) is to make the cost of that petroleum high enough relative to alternatives to encourage alternative energy investments.

Now, what is the best way to do that? Well, if we hurt the profit margins of oil companies they will not be able to invest in those needed projects. If that‘s the course we take we better have our alternatives ready or we will all be hurting our economy with reduced energy supplies. I’m thinking we want to keep the oil industry healthy so they can invest. Cutting their subsidies or raising the price of gas through taxes would only cut their profits and thus investment. Perhaps the best way is to just subsidize alternatives directly. Purchase production through extended contracts, etc. We want to keep the oil investments going (or we will see a peak oil like curve much faster) while bringing on alternatives as fast as possible. When the alternatives really start kicking we can use carbon taxes and other oil company taxes to slowly reduce petroleum demand. It’s going to take a nice balancing act. Any thoughts on how we can best do this without killing current supply (at a point in time where it’s really looking to have trouble). We want more TOTAL global energy supply. Specifically, more petroleum-like energy supply. That means energy for transportation.

Agree - so allow me to give you some more information and ideas to consider:

In 2007 the United States gross imported an average of 13,468,375 barrels of oil/day at an average cost $66.52/barrel. For the year, Americans spent $327,009,459,640.00 ($327 Billion) on imported oil, and 44% went OPEC countries ($145 Billion).

However, the real economic cost is likely much greater than the $327 Billion sent overseas in terms of lost potential Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and tax revenue. In Keynesian economics, the multiplier effect theory refers to the idea that an initial spending rise can lead to an even greater increase in national income. Multipliers are measures of the degree to which various businesses and households in an economy are interrelated. They measure the impact of a given external change, such as a new investment, export expansion, or start up of a new businesses on total economic activity in a given community (or nation) through the respending of new dollars within that economy.

The multiplier effect begins when a dollar enters the economy that would have otherwise been spent overseas. For every additional dollar spent in a nation’s economy, a percentage will leak out via imports and world trade, but the remaining amount will make its way back into the economy via domestic businesses and households. If one assumes this leakage relationship holds for the economy as a whole, then it becomes possible to determine a multiplier effect to national GDP. The theoretical limit of the multiplier effect is given by the equation Multiplier = 1/Leakage Rate. For example, in the case of a 30% leakage rate, $1 new dollar spent in the domestic economy (that would have otherwise been spent on imported oil) generates $3.33 of new GDP.

Another opportunity cost associated with spending dollars on imported oil is lost potential tax revenue. As an example, suppose that the $327 Billion spent on imported oil in 2007 was instead spent on $327 Billion of domestically produced alternative energy. Also assume the leakage rate in the US alternative energy economic market is 40 percent. If the above assumptions were true, then the $327 Billion would have generated $817 Billion in new GDP. In 2006, US tax revenue as a percent of GDP was 18.4%. If this percent relationship held for 2007, then the $327 Billion would have yielded and additional $150 Billion in tax revenue (off the $817 Billion increase in GDP). While the exact magnitude of these lost economic opportunity costs are certainly debatable, the point of the above discussion is to simply make the argument that they exist and are likely significant.

However, as President Bush alluded to in his 2006 State of the Union Address, we are on the verge of incredible advances in domestic alternative energy production. Taxpayers have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources. Yet three years later, we are still just as dependent of foreign oil as we were in 2006. So from a strategy point of view, the critical question is what more can the US government do to encourage implementation?

Rooster

11-28-2008, 01:31 PM

To me, the answer is surprisingly straight forward and simple. Take advantage of the capital markets and set the conditions necessary to give investors confidence that new energy technologies will have a fair chance to be competitive with oil and earn a positive return on capital. Then let the market do what it does best, determine the winners and losers. If investors believe there is money to be made in alternative energy, funding will come.

One way to facilitate funding was recommended by The Defense Science Board Task Force on DoD Energy Strategy:

“The Task Force recommends the Department continue investing in basic research to develop new fuels technologies that are too risky for private investments and to partner with other fuel users, such as airlines and engine manufacturers, to leverage efforts. The Task Force also urges the Department to work with partners to conduct comprehensive and objective “well-to-wheel” life cycle assessments of each synthetic fuel technology. It should include issues such as environmental footprint and its mitigation costs and risks, resource availability and scalability, all of which can affect the viability of alternative fuel technologies. The Task Force notes that in order to be viable, any synthetic fuel technology must have a full life cycle carbon footprint less than petroleum.”

The main take away from the DSB Energy Strategy report regarding alternative fuel production is that DoD and the US Government are consumers of fuel; they should not be in the business of production. However any money the DoD can spend as leverage to help clarify the risks and costs associated with new energy technologies is money well spent.

Another, more controversial approach to facilitate investment in alternatives to petroleum is to implement a floor tax on the price of a barrel of oil or gallon of gasoline imported into the United States. It is my opinion (as you know) that a floor tax is the critical instrument of policy that is needed if the United States is serious about a strategy to end dependence on imported oil. This is simply because any new alternative fuel must generate a positive return on invested capital to be viable. As I mentioned before, according to Paul Winters, a spokesman for the Biotechnology Industry Organization, investors think an oil price of $70 to $80 per barrel is the threshold at which cellulosic ethanol becomes viable.

As I’ve also mentioned, a structural problem for the synfuel industry is that success will displace oil, and as the demand for oil drops, so does the price. Another structural problem is the fact that we can reduce demand for oil faster than oil producers and cartels can keep the price high by limiting supply. We did it in the 80s when oil became expensive, and indicators point that we are about to do it again with PHEV's like the Volt as I argued above.

We need a strategy that has no effect if the price of oil stays high, but has a profound effect should the price of oil crash. That is the definition of a floor, and it is the perfect strategy to protect a fledgling domestic alternative fuel industry. When the price for oil is high, a floor tax has no impact other than a psychological one on investors akin to insurance. However, should the price of oil plummet, a floor tax would keep the price of oil imported into the US at a minimum dollar amount, and would protect alternative fuel start-ups. Furthermore, a floor would have the added benefit of increased tax revenue. However, nothing is free and neither is revenue from a floor price on a barrel of oil. The cost to commuters will be an artificial price above the “market equilibrium price” for petroleum. This artificially high price serves to reduce demand, and can create a surplus that would further depress the equilibrium market price of oil.

Ideally, a target floor price would be just enough to ensure alternative fuel producers stay viable, yet not enough to place an undue burden on consumers. Also, for a floor to be effective it must also apply to imported gasoline, otherwise oil companies will simply refine petroleum outside the United States when oil is cheap to avoid the crude oil floor tax. One could study the problem for years, but the real test for an effective floor is whether or not investors are willing to risk their capital on alternative fuels. Fortunately, we already have a target of $70-$80 a barrel according the Biotechnology Industry Organization. Thus a simple solution could be for Congress to simply set the floor at the low end of this estimate, $70/barrel, and monitor investment in alternative energy. If investment in alternative fuel projects is still minimal after a year or two, consider upping the floor price .

As for the important question of the burden imposed on consumers by a $70/barrel crude oil floor, it can be estimated using historic data by simply plotting the average weekly price of a barrel of oil verses the average weekly price of a gallon of regular gasoline dating back to Jan 6, 1997. A second order polynomial fits this data extremely well (R2 = 0.972), and predicts that $70 barrel oil equates to an average cost of regular gasoline of $2.88/gallon.

An interesting “what if” drill is to examine the tax revenue that could have been generated were a $70/barrel crude oil floor price in place during October 2008. On 1 October, Brent Crude closed at $95.97/barrel, and by the end of the month it closed at $61.61/barrel. The United States on average consumes 20,680,000 Million Barrels of Oil/day, thus we must purchase 28,920,307 Million barrel/day, Monday – Friday, when the market is open. On 16 October, Brent crude closed below $70/barrel for the first time since Sept 2007. Had a $70/Barrel Floor tax been in place as recommended above, it would have kicked in. In only 15 days, between 16 and 31 October, a $70 floor tax on oil would have generated nearly $1.7 Billion Dollars in new tax revenue. Gasoline prices would have been expected to bottom out around an average price of $2.88/gallon for regular gasoline.

Although debatable, it is my opinion that this would be an acceptable burden to place on US consumers to encourage the investment in alternative fuels that is necessary to wean the country off imported oil. In addition, the $1.7 Billion in new tax revenue could have been applied to the $700 Billion economic bail out, or invested in alternative energy, or on deep discounts to consumers of the Volt.

In fact, should oil average $62/barrel for an entire year, the government would be expected to earn an additional $60 Billion in gross tax revenue directly from the $70 barrel floor tax. Wouldn’t that come in handy?

Texas

11-28-2008, 11:20 PM

Rooster, I basically agree with much of what you are saying and proposing. Creating a floor is a good idea because it gives alternative energy companies a target to shoot for. It reduces their risk tremendously.

I agree, as I have posted above, that if Americans do reduce demand though the use of alternatives or though recession or depression that the price of oil can stay very low (it can only go so low for so long - due to the concepts I stated previously). I agree that this can lead to a very serious condition where we are using less petroleum, which will lead to less investment and thus less supply capacity in the future all the while discouraging alternatives due to the low cost of oil. It has that dangerous spiral downward pressure that keeps forcing reduced economic activity. Definitely not a good situation!

I also agree with you that the government and military have enormous potential for using and encouraging alternative energy research, development and implementation. I guess the question for our new energy plan is, what is the best combination of incentives to use?

There are numerous tools like tax increases, setting price floors, subsidies, investment funding, having Obama plea to the world, partnerships with other countries - if we all equally take on these costs it will not put a single country at an economic disadvantage - like Germany going to expensive solar. If we all went solar, for example, we would all have similar economic costs for energy. Same with every country moving towards using EVs. We can all share the costs and keep competitive with each other. Remember, this was the main reason America did not sign the Kyoto agreement. We felt we would be at an economic disadvantage. Wait a minute? That would have put most of the developed world at the same level. Why again didn’t we sign it? lol. Anyway, hopefully we can be smarter in the future. I would like to make one personal point: I don’t care if we make an international agreement to reduce petroleum us because it will keep space fairies from dying! We just need to stop relying on a non-renewable energy resource. It just gets worse the more we use and the longer we use it.

Thus, I agree we need government help to transition away from petroleum and to a larger extent move away from using non-renewable energy resources (coal, NG, nuclear fission, etc.). However, our petroleum problems need priority attention.

From what I posted above, if oil companies have collected themselves and now have enough new energy projects in the works to keep oil prices down then we might not have any price pressure for transition for many years or decades to come. This is a sad statement to make but if these new petroleum projects are a long time coming and alternatives technologies continue to be uncompetitive then we could be in for a long period of economic stagnation. The government would be weakened from recession, the price of oil would be inexpensive and the technology to change the situation might not be ready. Not a good situation for those of us that really want to transition now and get the world moving in the right direction, all loaded for massive growth in sustainable living and economic activity.

I'm really looking forward to hearing how serious Obama is and to what priority he places in coming up with the Apollo Energy Plan (or equivalent). We need a great plan that is generated with careful analysis by the best minds in the world. This will take some time but we don't have to sit on our hands while that plan is being worked out. There is so much to do right now. With the current low price of oil it’s basically up to Obama (or other world leaders) to keep us moving forward at a good pace. Do we have to wait another term? Another decade? I hope not. However, if you look at the history of alternative energy development it doesn't look good. If it's true that all the oil companies need to do is invest more and keep up then we can expect them to do their best to accomplish just that. They want to extract not only every drop of oil but every dollar they can. It's the American way! It's up to us to provide the path that is best for our country to drive down. I say we take the right fork in the path. The renewable path. The left fork is the same strategy we are following now and that looks to be a dead end.

pdt

11-29-2008, 09:54 AM

Texas

11-29-2008, 11:35 AM

Among the many problems with a price floor is that it would make things like coal-to-liquid viable. Rather than trying to regulate price, why not regulate CO2 emissions EPA-style, similar to HC, NOx, CO, SOx, and Hg?

While that is true, we defiantly have a much bigger problem with petroleum use than we do with using our own homegrown energy resources like coal and NG.

That said, I do like the idea of cap and trade. Many other countries are already using it and it has the effect of putting the real price on burning fossil fuels. Again, we need the experts to look over all the options, run analysis and decide on the best course of action. Then let the markets loose on it.

Rooster

11-29-2008, 01:15 PM

Among the many problems with a price floor is that it would make things like coal-to-liquid viable. Rather than trying to regulate price, why not regulate CO2 emissions EPA-style, similar to HC, NOx, CO, SOx, and Hg?

PDT,

Actually, we need to do both, but we need to do it in away that encourages investment without placing an undue strain on consumers -- a fine balancing act. In my opinion, any new synfuel technology must have a life-cycle carbon footprint lower than oil to be viable.

By the way, don't assume you can't get synfuel from coal economically without releasing tons of CO2 into the atmosphere...and I'm not talking next gen.

For example:

1) What if I told you there is promising technology that can capture a concentrated CO2 source (as in all of it) and use electricity, heat, water and a catalyst to make long chain hydrocarbons in an exothermic reaction? (Think exhaust plumes and coal fired powerplants) Think in terms of the electricity generated from the Coal fired plant being zero CO2, and the hydrocarbons (synfuel) made from the exhaust heat & CO2 displacing gasoline 1 for 1 at a lower total carbon footprint. Combined as a system, the same amount of energy (electricity and fuel) could be had for half the CO2 footprint.

2) What if I also told you there is promising technology that uses microbes to digest coal to make methane gas (that can be made into synfuel also) and fertile top soil (specifically humic acid) that can double the biomass (growth rate) of crops & trees. Humic acid is the key to fertile soil, and makes non-arable land arable.

If trees are planted on 10% of the non-arable land that can be treated per ton of coal, and crops are planted on the remaining 90%, the net result is 60 tons of CO2 absorbed/year, over and above the amount of CO2 released from burning the resulting synfuel per ton of coal. Thus by taking a systems approach, this specific technology has the potential to do the "impossible" -- create a synfuel with a negative carbon footprint. Actually, there is 10 times the $ value in the resulting humic acid per ton of coal, than in the synfuel produced. Ironically, coal could be the key to feeding the world and clean water. (Do a Google search on MicGas, Actosol, and Humasorb if you are curious.)

The same technology also shows promise in extracting methane from unrecoverable coal seams and oil fields -- but you won't be able to recover the humic acid.

These two technologies may or may not pan out, but my point is don't rule anything out. We need to bring them all forward (solar, wind, geothermal, cellulosic ethanol, clean coal, carbon capture and reuse, algae, etc.) and let them all compete for viability in the market. I define viability as lower lifecycle CO2 footprint per BTU than petroleum and an equivalent cost below $70/barrel – and I think this should be the objective of gov’t policy & strategy.

IMO, our priorities are:

1) Increasing our efficiency (the Volt & E-REVs are a good start)
2) Meeting our energy demands from domestic sources (we need to keep that $300B+/year in the US economy)
3) Reducing our "net" carbon footprint per BTU of energy -- this will require a systems approach.

Cheers!

Texas

11-29-2008, 02:55 PM

IMO, our priorities are:

1) Increasing our efficiency (the Volt & E-REVs are a good start)
2) Meeting our energy demands from domestic sources (we need to keep that $300B+/year in the US economy)
3) Reducing our "net" carbon footprint per BTU of energy -- this will require a systems approach.

Cheers!

If we just make sure the Volt gets produced and give enough tax incentives towards it (already at around $7000) so people buy them in large numbers, connect them to 2-way (V2G) charging stations and add enough solar systems to have a net zero amount of electricity used then we can work on all three of your priorities simultaneously!

Since around 90 percent of the Volts will be idle at any given moment their batteries will be connected to the V2G system ready to accept the output of the solar panels. Adding solar systems to the grid also reduces the CO2 emissions. As a bonus the batteries act to help smooth out the intermittent nature of solar resources. It's a win - win - win solution. EVs and homegrown renewable energy resources. You can also do that with plug-in hybrids second generation biofuels (biodiesel and ethanol).

I'm expecting Obama to announce something very close to what I just wrote about (well maybe not just with Volts). ;) If he doesn't address the petroleum problem with the highest priority we can be sure his energy staff does not understand our energy problems.

A good train of thinking would be to try to have a year-to-year reduction in petroleum powered miles driven in the U.S. and to power those reduced miles with homegrown renewables. This would have the effect of creating American jobs to build the Plug-ins and EVs, to build and install the solar panels (or other renewable energy infrastructure) and to build and install the charging infrastructure. That’s a lot of American jobs for a long time. When we are done with America we can turn all of that trained American labor and advanced technology towards the global market. That will build a green industry with a large amount of long-term American jobs. This should fulfill Obama’s promises and slow the cash drain from our boarders. If we can handle more there is always building our smart grid with enough electrical storage to handle any amount of homegrown renewable energy we add to it; solar farms, high voltage power lines to distribute the power around the country, wind farms, geothermal power plants, etc. There’s a lot to do now and in the future. I hope we don’t miss the rewards of jumping on the green industry bandwagon. I know the Germans and Japanese are going to be there so we better get on it. I would rather not drive a Nissan EV powered by Sanyo solar panels that are being backed up by Panasonic batteries. That’s exactly what’s going to happen if Obama screws this up. GoBama!

Rooster

11-29-2008, 03:18 PM

If we just make sure the Volt gets produced and give enough tax incentives towards it (already at around $7000) so people buy them in large numbers, connect them to 2-way (V2G) charging stations and add enough solar systems to have a net zero amount of electricity used then we can work on all three of your priorities simultaneously!

Since around 90 percent of the Volts will be idle at any given moment their batteries will be connected to the V2G system ready to accept the output of the solar panels. Adding solar systems to the grid also reduces the CO2 emissions. As a bonus the batteries act to help smooth out the intermittent nature of solar resources. It's a win - win - win solution. EVs and homegrown renewable energy resources. You can also do that with plug-in hybrids second generation biofuels (biodiesel and ethanol).

I'm expecting Obama to announce something very close to what I just wrote about (well maybe not just with Volts). ;) If he doesn't address the petroleum problem with the highest priority we can be sure his energy staff does not understand our energy problems.

A good train of thinking would be to try to have a year-to-year reduction in petroleum powered miles driven in the U.S. and to power those reduced miles with homegrown renewables. This would have the effect of creating American jobs to build the Plug-ins and EVs, to build and install the solar panels (or other renewable energy infrastructure) and to build and install the charging infrastructure. That’s a lot of American jobs for a long time. When we are done with America we can turn all of that trained American labor and advanced technology towards the global market. That will build a green industry with a large amount of long-term American jobs. This should fulfill Obama’s promises and slow the cash drain from our boarders. If we can handle more there is always building our smart grid with enough electrical storage to handle any amount of homegrown renewable energy we add to it; solar farms, high voltage power lines to distribute the power around the country, wind farms, geothermal power plants, etc. There’s a lot to do now and in the future. I hope we don’t miss the rewards of jumping on the green industry bandwagon. I know the Germans and Japanese are going to be there so we better get on it. I would rather not drive a Nissan EV powered by Sanyo solar panels that are being backed up by Panasonic batteries. That’s exactly what’s going to happen if Obama screws this up. GoBama!

Shack! That's the idea.

pdt

11-30-2008, 07:27 PM

1) What if I told you there is promising technology that can capture a concentrated CO2 source (as in all of it) and use electricity, heat, water and a catalyst to make long chain hydrocarbons in an exothermic reaction? (Think exhaust plumes and coal fired powerplants) Think in terms of the electricity generated from the Coal fired plant being zero CO2, and the hydrocarbons (synfuel) made from the exhaust heat & CO2 displacing gasoline 1 for 1 at a lower total carbon footprint. Combined as a system, the same amount of energy (electricity and fuel) could be had for half the CO2 footprint.

If you told me that, I'd ask for a reference.

FrayAdjacent

12-21-2008, 12:47 AM

If you told me that, I'd ask for a reference.

Saw it in Popular Science a while back. Problem is, it does take a lot of energy to get the carbon and hydrogen to bind. That's on top of cracking water.

If we're going to do something like that, we need MOAR NUKEZ!!

I did see something interesting today about how coal plant exhaust is scrubbed using a limestone slurry resulting in gypsum and water vapor. Gypsum is the stuff used in sheetrock wall panels. In fact, the show was talking about the wall panels, not the coal plant stuff, but mentioned it. So let's burn coal and get some building materials as a by-product!

For gas prices, I think speculation is out of the game for a while. OPEC announced production cuts, which would have previously caused increased oil prices... but oil prices dropped! I think gas prices will stay low for a while, probably until next summer. It will go up, but not much. I wouldn't expect above $2.50/gal.

It is a little sad, because it reduces the desire for very efficient vehicles and could hurt the development and eventual market success of the Volt and other PHEVs.

So part of me hopes prices will come back up to near $3/gal... but otherwise, I'm enjoying filling up my Porsche for $22.

Rooster

12-21-2008, 01:51 AM

If you told me that, I'd ask for a reference.

LOL,

Nice retort...sorry I missed it.

Unfortunately, my answer is the material is proprietary and I'm not authorized to provide it. When public material is available, I will be happy to provide a link.

pdt

12-21-2008, 10:34 AM

LOL,

Nice retort...sorry I missed it.

Unfortunately, my answer is the material is proprietary and I'm not authorized to provide it. When public material is available, I will be happy to provide a link.

Then it has even less credibility than EEStor. At least they have patents available to read.

Can you at least say if it is a paper-patent like EEStor (nearly worthless calculations), or have they actually built and tested things for which we can believe the energy balances? Or is this a Nocera-type thing where someone has a new catalyst and claims it will change the world without actually building a system and showing it works and how much it costs (in capital and running costs)?

I want to know how hopeful to be!

EDIT: I just reread your post. The other important question is, how much electricity is used? You generate electricity by burning coal, then use electricity to make fuel (along with waste heat and CO2). If you use significantly less electricity than is generated with the coal, then it might be somewhat interesting. If you use electricity similar to that generated by the coal burning, why not just do Fischer-Tropsch?

Rooster

12-21-2008, 06:32 PM

They have the patents. The process has 3 parts. Two are verifed.

That said, it is not ready for prime time yet.

Rooster

12-21-2008, 06:34 PM

You assume EEStor's primary customer is a commerical firm. With a dual use technology like that...you could be wrong.

pdt

12-21-2008, 08:19 PM

They have the patents. The process has 3 parts. Two are verifed.

That said, it not ready for prime time yet.

Which patents?

Rooster

12-22-2008, 01:32 AM

Do a search on PCT US2006/024644

Six additional patents were filed in 2008 (US Provisional). That's all I can say on the subject -- sorry.

Rooster

12-22-2008, 01:41 AM

If you use significantly less electricity than is generated with the coal, then it might be somewhat interesting?

Yes -- that is the supposition.

mhalley

12-29-2008, 01:24 PM

Texas

12-29-2008, 02:42 PM

Did we forget that about everything in life today is manufactured with materials from oil?

...this is not only the about damand for gasoline...we're in an oil age.

I also believe the tipping point is much lower...around $4 a gallon alternative options became extrememly plausable. We also saw a huge drop in market consumption just recently. However this will be detrimental to society, because aside from major cities, functioning in the United States requires one to drive.

I think it's going to take more than that to get alternatives moving quickly into the mix. Why didn't all the other countries with much more expensive gasoline and diesel adopt more alternatives? Most of Europe has gas prices far above $5 a gallon. Then went smaller, more efficient and sometimes to diesel but that's it. Where were the EVs? The biofuels? It makes me wonder just how hard it's going to be to crack this petroleum nut.

omnimoeish

12-29-2008, 08:51 PM

I think it's going to take more than that to get alternatives moving quickly into the mix. Why didn't all the other countries with much more expensive gasoline and diesel adopt more alternatives? Most of Europe has gas prices far above $5 a gallon. Then went smaller, more efficient and sometimes to diesel but that's it. Where were the EVs? The biofuels? It makes me wonder just how hard it's going to be to crack this petroleum nut.

I've been thinking about that. I think some of us kid ourselves thinking that the only reason why no European or even Japanese country has come up with any alternate transportation fuel/system is just because they're not as innovative as the US and if gas prices ever got that high for us, we'd figure something out. In reality we will probably be slowly lulled into paying higher and higher prices thinking nothing of it until we are paying a similar price.

The problem is that the price is all a matter of perception relative to what we are used to. Plus they were already used to driving small cars because their roads are smaller and there's relatively few cowboys who have to drive a V10 pickup to make a manly statement to their coworkers so they don't really mind driving smaller cars anyway. The other thing is that although the price of gas is high for them, it's mainly due to taxes, therefore for them to produce plastics etc. the price is probably comparable to industrial grade oil (or whatever oil is used to make plastics) in the US. They also probably have much lower (if any) taxes on jet fuel otherwise I can't imagine how their airlines would be able to stay in business.

That being said, petroleum is going to be a tougher nut to crack than I think anyone realizes (except maybe Matt Savinar). In order to really switch completely away from petroleum use, basically any kind of rubber and/or plastic supplier in the world is going to have to find a new production medium. I mean, if you look around you, nearly everything, from the couch you're sitting on, the computer you're using, everything comes from oil.

Texas

12-29-2008, 08:59 PM

I've been thinking about that. I think some of us kid ourselves thinking that the only reason why no European or even Japanese country has come up with any alternate transportation fuel/system is just because they're not as innovative as the US and if gas prices ever got that high for us, we'd figure something out. In reality we will probably be slowly lulled into paying higher and higher prices thinking nothing of it until we are paying a similar price.

The problem is that the price is all a matter of perception relative to what we are used to. Plus they were already used to driving small cars because their roads are smaller and there's relatively few cowboys who have to drive a V10 pickup to make a manly statement to their coworkers so they don't really mind driving smaller cars anyway. The other thing is that although the price of gas is high for them, it's mainly due to taxes, therefore for them to produce plastics etc. the price is probably comparable to industrial grade oil (or whatever oil is used to make plastics) in the US. They also probably have much lower (if any) taxes on jet fuel otherwise I can't imagine how their airlines would be able to stay in business.

That being said, petroleum is going to be a tougher nut to crack than I think anyone realizes (except maybe Matt Savinar). In order to really switch completely away from petroleum use, basically any kind of rubber and/or plastic supplier in the world is going to have to find a new production medium. I mean, if you look around you, nearly everything, from the couch you're sitting on, the computer you're using, everything comes from oil.

I guess Matt Simmons said it best when he said, "Oil is still cheap!"

We really don't have a silver bullet right now. That scares me.

Altazi

12-29-2008, 11:43 PM

Texas

12-30-2008, 12:14 AM

What percentage of oil is used as fuel, and what is turned into plastics and other goods? I can't help but think that if we quit burning it as fuel in such quantities that there will be more than enough for the plastics, etc.

Well, there will be more than enough for non-fuel purposes. Of course if a good number Chinese or Indian citizen ends up using even half what Americans use for non-fuel purposes we will exceed our current total petroleum consumption! Now that's a thought for the New Year. ;)

Additionally, the EROI can be negative and oil can still be used. It just depends on the value of the finished product. It's going to be a very hard job to replace oil for everything. There is nothing even close to being that inexpensive.

There is the possibility of synthetic petroleum using algae oil but I'm guessing that will cost several hundred dollars per barrel, if we are lucky.

We humans are going to hold on to that oil drum kicking and screaming before it's torn from our grip. Only when the price gets so hot we can't hold on will we finally transition. That's probably at least a few decades away.

Mike756

12-30-2008, 08:04 AM

"Only when the price gets so hot we can't hold on will we finally transition."

Dude, you do know that this is the Volt forum, don't you?

mhalley

12-30-2008, 11:19 AM

I've been thinking about that. I think some of us kid ourselves thinking that the only reason why no European or even Japanese country has come up with any alternate transportation fuel/system is just because they're not as innovative as the US and if gas prices ever got that high for us, we'd figure something out. In reality we will probably be slowly lulled into paying higher and higher prices thinking nothing of it until we are paying a similar price.

The problem is that the price is all a matter of perception relative to what we are used to. Plus they were already used to driving small cars because their roads are smaller and there's relatively few cowboys who have to drive a V10 pickup to make a manly statement to their coworkers so they don't really mind driving smaller cars anyway. The other thing is that although the price of gas is high for them, it's mainly due to taxes, therefore for them to produce plastics etc. the price is probably comparable to industrial grade oil (or whatever oil is used to make plastics) in the US. They also probably have much lower (if any) taxes on jet fuel otherwise I can't imagine how their airlines would be able to stay in business.

That being said, petroleum is going to be a tougher nut to crack than I think anyone realizes (except maybe Matt Savinar). In order to really switch completely away from petroleum use, basically any kind of rubber and/or plastic supplier in the world is going to have to find a new production medium. I mean, if you look around you, nearly everything, from the couch you're sitting on, the computer you're using, everything comes from oil.

My original post was a bit crude, but thanks for creating some good points. I wonder if the hybrid vehicle is purely an American idea. It may be that just diesels are cheap to produce, consume little fuel where it is expensive, and are perfect for little cars that zip around Europe. Gas guzzlers are sports cars and are used for recreation. Not sure, would be an interesting study to read.

I also believe that the driving culture is different, I think it's seen as a privelage rather than a right. Thus, vehicles are either sports cars for enjoyment or fuel efficient for practical use.

Petrolium is tough, and in these recent bio fuels, bio-oil type substitutes have significant amount of uninteded concequences (exponential rate of deforestation, corn shortages, etc.) and they may serve as a transitional product, it's not a true solution.

jonbo in AR

12-31-2008, 09:05 PM

The problem is that the price is all a matter of perception relative to what we are used to. Plus they [Europeans] were already used to driving small cars because their roads are smaller and there's relatively few cowboys who have to drive a V10 pickup to make a manly statement to their coworkers so they don't really mind driving smaller cars anyway. The other thing is that although the price of gas is high for them, it's mainly due to taxes, therefore for them to produce plastics etc. the price is probably comparable to industrial grade oil (or whatever oil is used to make plastics) in the US. They also probably have much lower (if any) taxes on jet fuel otherwise I can't imagine how their airlines would be able to stay in business.

I think that with the SUV phenomenon, the attraction to larger vehicles surpassed the old "cowboy" penile extension rationale. It used to be that guys liked to drive around in gigantic trucks with enormous push-bars on the front and that big rack of lights on top of the cab. They could pretend they were real rugged and subtly intimidate other drivers. Those trucks were hard to get into and out of, somewhat uncomfortable, difficult to park, all of which added to the mystique. Then Ford took the old Bronco and turned it into the Explorer, a luxury vehicle. Mom got into the drivers seat and felt -safe (and comfortable). Of course she wasn't safe, particularly, but she felt as though she were. Really, she became the intimidator.

Well, it's been kind of a contest since then, which is how we've ended up with Escalades and Hummers. I currently live in a rural part of a flyover state, and what with all the giant Silverados, Suburbans, and flatbed 18-wheeler trailers with oversized loads of industrial equipment being hauled around, if you're traveling on one of our two lane highways in anything like a compact car, you probably don't feel too good.

I don't know what can turn the American driver's car-shopping interest back toward holding fuel economy in high regard, except for pretty high gas prices. Around here, the gas spike gave everyone a pretty good scare. Anyone in the market for a new vehicle now I'm pretty sure will be asking about the mileage. The problem is, nobody is buying a car at this time. By the time most people start feeling OK enough about their job security to want to buy a new car, if gas prices have remained as they are now, the gas spike of this summer will have long been forgotten, and it'll be Suburbans again.

I'm afraid that gas prices will have to rise pretty high, and pretty permanently for SUV's to really become a phenomenon of the '90's and the "Ought's", but not of the "Teen's."

Texas

01-01-2009, 01:50 AM

"Only when the price gets so hot we can't hold on will we finally transition."

Dude, you do know that this is the Volt forum, don't you?

Dude, just let it go.

Mike756

01-01-2009, 02:00 AM

Texas

01-01-2009, 12:31 PM

What, exactly, is "it" that I'm supposed to be letting go of?

Oil?

I think that is why we are all here. It certainly is why I said:

"Dude, you do know that this is the Volt forum, don't you?"

I think everyone who frequents this site is more or less convinced that we need to reduce our oil use.

But you seem to think they are not.

Or does "it" refer to something else?

No. "it" is your anger. It's the reason why you continually troll my posts. Your attacks are also ridiculous and make almost no sense. If you would like to have a constructive debate on an issue why not come up with an argument against what I say? Your childish rebuttals are embarrassing. Make an argument!

Mike756

01-01-2009, 01:29 PM

No. "it" is your anger. It's the reason why you continually troll my posts. Your attacks are also ridiculous and make almost no sense. If you would like to have a constructive debate on an issue why not come up with an argument against what I say? Your childish rebuttals are embarrassing. Make an argument!

Drop the anger?

I don't think so. As long as you continue to leave little droppings like this, for instance:

"You don't care if we humans litter, pollute or dump radioactive waste all over the place. Why would we want to listen to a person like that? You are an environmental disaster waiting to happen."

then you can expect me to continue to ridicule you.

Make an argument?

Why should anyone have a discussion with you when you are unable to admit you are wrong? Let us know when you are capable of that.

Texas

01-01-2009, 08:16 PM

Drop the anger?

I don't think so. As long as you continue to leave little droppings like this, for instance:

"You don't care if we humans litter, pollute or dump radioactive waste all over the place. Why would we want to listen to a person like that? You are an environmental disaster waiting to happen."

then you can expect me to continue to ridicule you.

Make an argument?

Why should anyone have a discussion with you when you are unable to admit you are wrong? Let us know when you are capable of that.

Please read the last few posts that OPEC SUCKS has posted regarding my support for Solar energy. I am fighting a war on two fronts. Thus, I'm dealing with you and I'm dealing with others. Is that OK with you? Would you like to align with OPEC SUCKS? If so, that is fine.

We have a forum that is not monitored. Thus, it's like the Wild West out there. Should I just ignore your sophomoric trolling? I have done that in the past. I may choose to do it in the future. Sometimes I just may tell you to drop it once in a while. Yes, there is freedom of speech. You choose to use your freedom to troll me. That's your right. God Bless America.

darthvader420

01-02-2009, 05:19 AM

Why so touchy Texas? You could really use some anger management.

Mike: when he said "we" he was obviously talking about the general public, not chevy volt fanatics on a message board. Anyone posting here is obviously not about to go buy a cheap SUV now that gas prices have fallen.

Texas

01-02-2009, 08:40 AM

Mike756

01-02-2009, 11:26 AM

Not touchy, not angry. Just tit for tat.

Interesting, and who is it that issues tat first?

Texas

01-02-2009, 11:30 AM

Interesting, and who is it that issues tat first?

Well, I don't call you my troll for nothing. ;)

Mike756

01-02-2009, 12:41 PM

Well, I don't call you my troll for nothing. ;)

So, it is safe to assume that you think I issued tat first?

Texas

01-02-2009, 10:18 PM

So, it is safe to assume that you think I issued tat first?

Lately you seem like an angry child lashing out. I could give you examples if you like but you know it's true. Right?

Mind you, I like a great debate. As long as we have arguments that can be defended. Not just locker room remarks. Build yourself up by tearing the other guy down kind of high school crap. It may be entertaining but it only brings down the quality of this forum. Of course most of us have very strong opinions here and that is going to ruffle some feathers once in a while. Would you agree that the best way to attack would be to defend the next debate to victory? Win with your arguments and your brain? I think that would be most helpful to all readers and at the same time be most satisfying.

Mike756

01-02-2009, 11:02 PM

Lately you seem like an angry child lashing out. I could give you examples if you like but you know it's true. Right?

Mind you, I like a great debate. As long as we have arguments that can be defended. Not just locker room remarks. Build yourself up by tearing the other guy down kind of high school crap. It may be entertaining but it only brings down the quality of this forum. Of course most of us have very strong opinions here and that is going to ruffle some feathers once in a while. Would you agree that the best way to attack would be to defend the next debate to victory? Win with your arguments and your brain? I think that would be most helpful to all readers and at the same time be most satisfying.

That sounds good, but I would still like this one resolved first. Please answer my question of:

"So, it is safe to assume that you think I issued tat first?"

Texas

01-02-2009, 11:09 PM

That sounds good, but I would still like this one resolved first. Please answer my question of:

"So, it is safe to assume that you think I issued tat first?"

Well, why don't you share with us your example. Maybe you posted something so insulting or moronic that I had to reply in kind. ;)

Mike756

01-03-2009, 12:38 AM

Well, why don't you share with us your example. Maybe you posted something so insulting or moronic that I had to reply in kind. ;)

You still haven't answered the question. This isn't going well.

Texas

01-03-2009, 01:13 AM

You still haven't answered the question. This isn't going well.

It's not going well for you or for me. ;)

Mike756

01-03-2009, 01:17 AM

Do you plan on answering the question? Oh, great, I just asked another one. Well forget this one and just answer the other.

Texas

01-03-2009, 01:20 AM

Do you plan on answering the question? Oh, great, I just asked another one. Well forget this one and just answer the other.

I answered your question but you didn't like the answer. Tough luck. Sorry I'm not jumping though your hoops like you wanted. ;)

Mike756

01-03-2009, 05:42 AM

I answered your question but you didn't like the answer. Tough luck. Sorry I'm not jumping though your hoops like you wanted. ;)

Sigh, I feared this result. I can see I will be giving plenty of tat in the future, but I won't be accepting any of your tit; it's tough and dry and bitter.

Altazi

01-03-2009, 02:20 PM

I've lost track of who was tit and who was tat. What was the issue again? ;)

MrBogey

01-11-2009, 03:12 PM

Texas

01-11-2009, 07:04 PM

Everyone you disagree with can't make an argument but everyone who agrees with you is brilliant. I'd wager you have an educational background.

This is a very interesting post. I read it twice but need to ask for more clarification of exactly what you are trying to insinuate.

Why can't they make an argument? I just asked for one! I'm begging for an argument!

If someone agrees with me then what should I say, "Please show me some data to backup your agreement with me?" Does anyone do this? Can you give us all an example of what you are talking about?

What do you mean when you say that I have an educational background? Was I educated? Yes. So were you because you learned how to read and write. Can you further explain what you mean?

Also, does your background give you a more legitimate insight to the world? If so, I look forward to hearing what you have to say. Please dazzle us with your brilliance but don't expect me to be lenient with your bull****. ;)

Altazi

01-11-2009, 09:36 PM

This is a very interesting post. I read it twice but need to ask for more clarification of exactly what you are trying to insinuate.

Why can't they make an argument? I just asked for one! I'm begging for an argument!

If someone agrees with me then what should I say, "Please show me some data to backup your agreement with me?" Does anyone do this? Can you give us all an example of what you are talking about?

What do you mean when you say that I have an educational background? Was I educated? Yes. So were you because you learned how to read and write. Can you further explain what you mean?

Also, does your background give you a more legitimate insight to the world? If so, I look forward to hearing what you have to say. Please dazzle us with your brilliance but don't expect me to be lenient with your bull****. ;)

It's interesting to see your frustration in asking for an argument, begging for your opposition to post relevant information supporting the dissenting opinion. This is just what I was asking of you, and you just dried up and blew away. But that's different, right? ;)

Texas

01-11-2009, 10:02 PM

It's interesting to see your frustration in asking for an argument, begging for your opposition to post relevant information supporting the dissenting opinion. This is just what I was asking of you, and you just dried up and blew away. But that's different, right? ;)

Can you be more specific? It's hard to defend against your accusations without examples. Thank you.

Altazi

01-11-2009, 10:22 PM

Can you be more specific? It's hard to defend against your accusations without examples. Thank you.
Short memory, dude ;). Recall out discussion regarding the safety of nuclear power vis a vis the other major power generation technologies? You never conclusively refuted any points I raised, and when things weren't going your way, you started being irrational and emotional.

Texas

01-11-2009, 11:16 PM

Short memory, dude ;). Recall out discussion regarding the safety of nuclear power vis a vis the other major power generation technologies? You never conclusively refuted any points I raised, and when things weren't going your way, you started being irrational and emotional.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I think your nuclear power safety arguments are ridiculous. I provided pages of documented nuclear accidents but that was not good enough for you. You will twist reality just to try to convince people that we as humans, that have the choice to either produce the world's most deadly substance or to not produce it should produce it. I'm sorry, you proved what?

Also, I will ask again, can you be more specific? Irrational and emotional? I don't recall that. I feel your love of nuclear waste is irrational. We can run a country completely on solar or nuclear. You choose nuclear and all that comes with it. I choose solar and all that doesn't come with it. You choose to have thousands of nuclear reactors built all over the world (hey, they should also have the "best" option too) and I choose to have roll-to-roll factories churning out environmentally safe, sustainable, and renewable energy devices. You feel it's OK to convict multiple future generations with the task of having to deal will all the resulting waste (including the mess we already made). I think it's not OK.

Sorry, I just don't see your rational logic at all. It just seems very irresponsible and delusional. You are of course free to express your ideas but it's mostly a waste of time "debating" with you because you fail to address all of these realities. You talk about what could be done, what might be done but not what IS done. You hope that uranium production will not be a non-renewable. You hope that radioactive waste will not be of any use or problem for anyone. It will just go away, hidden in some mountain somewhere or magically and cost effectively reprocessed and then hidden away. You think it's OK to solve our CO2 emission problems by generating radioactive waste that is far more dangerous. We know the world can recover from massive levels of CO2. What about a massive nuclear accident? Thermonuclear war? I don't know either and I don't want to find out. I would rather error on the safe solar side. It will work and work great. It's the only energy actually coming into the planet. It's more than abundant to last forever. It's not even a question of technology. It's just a question of commitment.

What can I say? I gave you a massive list of past nuclear accidents, provided you with the concept that dirty bombs would be a very useful tool for terrorists and other unfriendly groups, told you that people can die quickly or very slow and painful deaths due to exposure to the waste generated at nuclear reactors, etc. You just don't get it! You feel that if a person doesn't die immediately from radiation that they can't be hurt by it. You try to equate an industrial accident to a nuclear accident! That just blows my mind! You don't even acknowledge the current costs of nuclear, the low adoption of nuclear around the world today (even by countries that impose it on their people), the fears people have about it, the problems with nuclear proliferation, etc. Talk about irrational! Debate nuclear power with you is like trying to teach a bird not to fly into a window but it keeps doing it every day. Doesn’t your head still hurt?

Altazi

01-12-2009, 12:50 AM

I have no idea what you are talking about. I think your nuclear power safety arguments are ridiculous.
I posted links to studies proving that more deaths and injuries resulted from coal, oil, gas, and hydro than nuclear. You produced nothing substantive. You found a scaremongering list from Greenpeas, and I started addressing point by point. That's when you went nuts. I was willing to discuss each point - some were worthy of discussion.

You keep pointing out stuff that happened decades ago, like contamination at WWII nuclear facilities, and I pointed out that that regulations and monitoring are much more stringent in today's world. You just can't deal in the present.

I provided pages of documented nuclear accidents but that was not good enough for you.Oh, yeah - that Greenpeas list. High-quality, that. :rolleyes:

You will twist reality just to try to convince people that we as humans, that have the choice to either produce the world's most deadly substance or to not produce it should produce it. I'm sorry, you proved what?Sorry that I responded with statistics proving my point. How did you substantiate any of your points. Not with what you feel or believe, but what has been researched, studied, and analyzed by experts in the field? Sorry, I can't recall anything from you like that.

Also, I will ask again, can you be more specific? Irrational and emotional? I don't recall that. I feel your love of nuclear waste is irrational. We can run a country completely on solar or nuclear. You choose nuclear and all that comes with it. I choose solar and all that doesn't come with it. You choose to have thousands of nuclear reactors built all over the world (hey, they should also have the "best" option too) and I choose to have roll-to-roll factories churning out environmentally safe, sustainable, and renewable energy devices. You feel it's OK to convict multiple future generations with the task of having to deal will all the resulting waste (including the mess we already made). I think it's not OK.
Once again you are failing to educate yourself on the capabilities of modern nuclear power. I have repeatedly addressed the issues you raised with factual statements backed up with quality source material. You have replied with nothing . . . unless you count Greenpeas again :rolleyes:

BTW, I support solar power - or, as I like to call it, "Remote Nuclear Power" :) I don't see it as an "either-or". I believe that it can play a part in our energy strategy. However, I would rather have baseload power provided by clean nuclear power instead of horribly polluting fossil fuel power plants.

Sorry, I just don't see your rational logic at all. It just seems very irresponsible and delusional. You are of course free to express your ideas but it's mostly a waste of time "debating" with you because you fail to address all of these realities.
No, you just fail to respond with quality information to rebut my points.

You talk about what could be done, what might be done but not what IS done. You hope that uranium production will not be a non-renewable. You hope that radioactive waste will not be of any use or problem for anyone. It will just go away, hidden in some mountain somewhere or magically and cost effectively reprocessed and then hidden away. You think it's OK to solve our CO2 emission problems by generating radioactive waste that is far more dangerous.
Not according to statistics. I pointed to documented deaths related to all other major power generating technologies. Nuclear, including the Chernobyl debacle, was still the lowest for deaths. Prove otherwise, please, by citing a valid study. If you can't, you are just talking . . .

We know the world can recover from massive levels of CO2. We do? Really? What about the acidification of the oceans? Is this something you want to chance?

What about a massive nuclear accident?
Exactly what kind of accident. I don't think that even you would believe that a nuclear power plant could explode. Something like Chernobyl, perhaps? Sorry, that was a terrible old Soviet reactor design that didn't have a containment vessel. Modern nuclear reactors have containment vessels that would prevent the release of nuclear materials. If you want to argue this point, you need to educate yourself first. Again, please be specific.

Thermonuclear war? I don't know either and I don't want to find out.
Show me the link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Please recall that plutonium produced in power reactors is "poisoned" with PU-240, which renders the Pu useless for nuclear weapons. If you are going to argue this point, you will need to be technical and specific.

I would rather error on the safe solar side. It will work and work great. It's the only energy actually coming into the planet. It's more than abundant to last forever. It's not even a question of technology. It's just a question of commitment.
As I mentioned, I support the use of solar power. It's just not too good at night. We need baseload power generation.

What can I say? I gave you a massive list of past nuclear accidents, . .
You simply have to do better than the ridiculous Greenpeas list.

. . . provided you with the concept that dirty bombs would be a very useful tool for terrorists and other unfriendly groups, . . .
And I showed how the main trouble with a "dirty" bomb was the confusion it would cause, not actual injuries, death, or destruction . . . More people would be killed or injured by the conventional explosives used. You conveniently forget things.

. . . told you that people can die quickly or very slow and painful deaths due to exposure to the waste generated at nuclear reactors, etc. You just don't get it! You feel that if a person doesn't die immediately from radiation that they can't be hurt by it.
Yes, you said that. Radiation can kill people or cause delayed injuries like cancer. However, radiation is a relatively weak carcinogen. Prove otherwise, please.

You try to equate an industrial accident to a nuclear accident!
Dead is dead. Is death by radiation more dead than death by drowning, crushing, chemical poisoning, etc.? Historically, more people have died as a result of the other power generation technologies than from nuclear power.

That just blows my mind! You don't even acknowledge the current costs of nuclear, . . .
I told you before, we can talk about costs after the safety issue has been resolved.

. . . the low adoption of nuclear around the world today (even by countries that impose it on their people), the fears people have about it, the problems with nuclear proliferation, etc.
If you were more familiar with nuclear power, you would realize that this is a very weak link. Rogue states that want nuclear weapons can get them anyway; nuclear power has little to do with weapons.

Talk about irrational! Debate nuclear power with you is like trying to teach a bird not to fly into a window but it keeps doing it every day. Doesn’t your head still hurt?
See what I mean? Emotional and vaguely insulting, instead of citing studies, reports from valid authorities, or anything even remotely substantive. I can understand why you don't like debating with me, since you can't successfully rebut my posts.

Having said all of that, I still admire your passion, and agree with you on a number of other issues. I like you and enjoy debating with you. I think you are nuts sometimes, though ;)

I believe you'd be able to do a better job if you had better source material. If you start doing serious (and evenhanded) research, you will find more information to support my position than your own.

And I bet you still haven't read the book I suggested: "Power to Save the World" by Gwyneth Cravens. Read and you'll learn something. The author was an uninformed skeptic, as are far too many, but as she learned, she changed her position. I'd be happy to discuss the book with you.

Texas

01-12-2009, 02:52 AM

I posted links to studies proving that more deaths and injuries resulted from coal, oil, gas, and hydro than nuclear. You produced nothing substantive. You found a scaremongering list from Greenpeas, and I started addressing point by point. That's when you went nuts. I was willing to discuss each point - some were worthy of discussion.

You keep pointing out stuff that happened decades ago, like contamination at WWII nuclear facilities, and I pointed out that that regulations and monitoring are much more stringent in today's world. You just can't deal in the present.

Oh, yeah - that Greenpeas list. High-quality, that. :rolleyes:

Sorry that I responded with statistics proving my point. How did you substantiate any of your points. Not with what you feel or believe, but what has been researched, studied, and analyzed by experts in the field? Sorry, I can't recall anything from you like that.

Once again you are failing to educate yourself on the capabilities of modern nuclear power. I have repeatedly addressed the issues you raised with factual statements backed up with quality source material. You have replied with nothing . . . unless you count Greenpeas again :rolleyes:

BTW, I support solar power - or, as I like to call it, "Remote Nuclear Power" :) I don't see it as an "either-or". I believe that it can play a part in our energy strategy. However, I would rather have baseload power provided by clean nuclear power instead of horribly polluting fossil fuel power plants.

No, you just fail to respond with quality information to rebut my points.

Not according to statistics. I pointed to documented deaths related to all other major power generating technologies. Nuclear, including the Chernobyl debacle, was still the lowest for deaths. Prove otherwise, please, by citing a valid study. If you can't, you are just talking . . .
We do? Really? What about the acidification of the oceans? Is this something you want to chance?

Exactly what kind of accident. I don't think that even you would believe that a nuclear power plant could explode. Something like Chernobyl, perhaps? Sorry, that was a terrible old Soviet reactor design that didn't have a containment vessel. Modern nuclear reactors have containment vessels that would prevent the release of nuclear materials. If you want to argue this point, you need to educate yourself first. Again, please be specific.

Show me the link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Please recall that plutonium produced in power reactors is "poisoned" with PU-240, which renders the Pu useless for nuclear weapons. If you are going to argue this point, you will need to be technical and specific.

As I mentioned, I support the use of solar power. It's just not too good at night. We need baseload power generation.

You simply have to do better than the ridiculous Greenpeas list.

And I showed how the main trouble with a "dirty" bomb was the confusion it would cause, not actual injuries, death, or destruction . . . More people would be killed or injured by the conventional explosives used. You conveniently forget things.

Yes, you said that. Radiation can kill people or cause delayed injuries like cancer. However, radiation is a relatively weak carcinogen. Prove otherwise, please.

Dead is dead. Is death by radiation more dead than death by drowning, crushing, chemical poisoning, etc.? Historically, more people have died as a result of the other power generation technologies than from nuclear power.

I told you before, we can talk about costs after the safety issue has been resolved.

If you were more familiar with nuclear power, you would realize that this is a very weak link. Rogue states that want nuclear weapons can get them anyway; nuclear power has little to do with weapons.

See what I mean? Emotional and vaguely insulting, instead of citing studies, reports from valid authorities, or anything even remotely substantive. I can understand why you don't like debating with me, since you can't successfully rebut my posts.

Having said all of that, I still admire your passion, and agree with you on a number of other issues. I like you and enjoy debating with you. I think you are nuts sometimes, though ;)

I believe you'd be able to do a better job if you had better source material. If you start doing serious (and evenhanded) research, you will find more information to support my position than your own.

And I bet you still haven't read the book I suggested: "Power to Save the World" by Gwyneth Cravens. Read and you'll learn something. The author was an uninformed skeptic, as are far too many, but as she learned, she changed her position. I'd be happy to discuss the book with you.

I went nuts? I don't remember that. How can you tell I went nuts sitting all the way over there? You did try to go point by point on Greenpeace’s list. Most of them you put something like you couldn’t find info on them. So I guess you are discounting the list because it came from environmentalists? It's all a scam to keep us from the wonderful radioactive waste? Are you kidding me? Now I know you are just joking around. Ha ha. You got me.

Oh, I really love the one where you talk about the injuries regarding Chernobyl or how you say a nuclear accident is the same as a coal plant or other industrial accident. I can't believe I thought you were serious on that one.

Yes, If I get around to reading your favorite book by Gwyneth Cravens I'll let you know. Did you read the books I suggested? The one where they talk about our need to tighten security in the nuclear industry. A rational look? No, I didn't think so. You think nuclear waste is like candy. It just melts away. Dirty bombs won’t cause any problems. People will just laugh them off, “Honey, just go inside the house and wait for the rain to wash it all away.” Yep, that old dirty bomb trick again.

You don’t address how with your plan many countries around the world will be running nuclear industries of their own. Training nuclear scientists, running testing, moving radioactive waste around. Maybe some of them get into some trouble. Maybe they need some cash. What about a country now having trained and educated scientists starting up a bomb program for self defense. Just a black ops thing. No big deal. Yeah, they might be very good about reprocessing and investing all that extra money to do it right but I’m guessing many nations won‘t. Like... the U.S.! We don’t even do the reprocessing that France does! Why the heck not? Is it too costly? Too hard for us to understand? Why not? Why is there so much unprocessed nuclear waste sitting in cooling chambers at every one of our nuclear power plants? Can you answer those simple questions? You don’t see any problems at all? What about the difference between thousands of reactors and none? Oh yeah, you are worried about the acidification of the oceans now.

Oh and the comment that solar doesn’t work at night. Nice. Just disregard any and all electrical energy storage systems and the fact that we can have around 20% of our grid supplied by intermittent sources without adding any significant energy storage (at task that would take at least a decade of hard work to achieve) Yep, just ignore that if it makes you feel that nuclear fission reactors are needed.

Using nuclear fission to fix our CO2 problem is like using Napalm to clear a fire code violation.

Altazi

01-12-2009, 04:21 AM

I went nuts? I don't remember that. How can you tell I went nuts sitting all the way over there? You did try to go point by point on Greenpeace’s list. Most of them you put something like you couldn’t find info on them. So I guess you are discounting the list because it came from environmentalists? It's all a scam to keep us from the wonderful radioactive waste? Are you kidding me? Now I know you are just joking around. Ha ha. You got me.
Here is an excerpt from a page (http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/thyd/ne161/ncabreza/sources.html) by Neil M. Cabreza, Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley:

No energy source is perfect, but nuclear energy comes close. The use of nuclear energy is cheap and environmentally safe since its waste is contained. All the existing and operating nuclear power plants of the United States are regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and abide by their safety standards. Nuclear energy also creates jobs since it is the most labor intensive electricity source. Furthermore, the use of nuclear energy will decrease the United States dependency on imported oil.

The unceasing public outcry over the use of nuclear energy was one of the major factors that led to the termination of the construction of nuclear power plants in the United States. People believe that nuclear energy produces radioactive wastes that can destroy the environment. People also believe that nuclear power plants emit cancer causing radiation and for this reason its use should be discontinued. [Ed: Sound like someone we know? ]

What most people don't realize is that most of what they hear are false rumors started by anti-nuclear activists. The waste nuclear power plants generate is all contained and none of it is released into the environment. This, however, does not hold true for the other major sources of power. A typical 1000-megawatt coal-burning plant emits 100,000 tons of sulphur dioxide, 75,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, and 5000 tons of fly ash into the environment per year while a typical 1000-megawatt oil-burning plant emits about 16,000 tons of sulphur dioxide and 20,000 tons of nitrogen oxides. These emissions account for damaging human lungs, the formation of acid precipitation that defaces monuments and buildings and kills the life in countless lakes. However, the problems don't stop here. These type of plants also emit great quantities of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide tends to trap heat on the earth's surface and thus in sufficient concentrations, could create the dreaded greenhouse effect. High enough concentrations could also increase global temperatures which could affect the distribution of rainfall and could create deserts of much of the Northern Hemisphere, causing irreversible catastrophes of unparalleled magnitude, affecting all of mankind.
. . .
The only environmental drawback associated with the use of nuclear power is where to store the radioactive waste. Studies show that geological disposal is the answer. In this way, no radiation will be emitted into the environment, thus keeping the public safe from its emissions.

As for the belief that nuclear power plants emit cancer causing radiation into the environment, there exist no sufficient evidence that can prove this. In fact, the use of nuclear power plants only add a very tiny fraction of radiation exposure to the more common types of radiation (i.e. cosmic rays from outer space, radon gas, television sets, watch dials, smoke detectors, etc...). In numbers, the average radiation dose rate people get from the common types of radiation is about 360 millirem. Nuclear power plants would increase this dosage rate by only 1 millirem.
Industrial waste products from fossil fuel production are not all just "magically cleared" by the environment. Here is a link to an article (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1870599,00.html) in Time Magazine discussing "clean coal". I can't quote it due to space limitations.

Here is a link to a document (http://www.catf.us/publications/reports/Laid_to_Waste.pdf) from the Clean Air Task Force discussing the environmental impact of coal waste. Again, I couldn't quote due to space limitations.

Hundreds of millions of tons per year of waste polluting our environment right now. Where is Texas's righteous indignation at this insult to our environment? Now back to his anti-nuclear comments . . .

Oh, I really love the one where you talk about the injuries regarding Chernobyl or how you say a nuclear accident is the same as a coal plant or other industrial accident. I can't believe I thought you were serious on that one.
OK, so somehow with you, there are different levels of being "dead". That's logical . . . :rolleyes: And please don't forget that Chernobyl was an exception! None of our reactors could fail in that fashion. Got that yet? Or do you want to engage in a detailed discussion of reactor safety systems and just how strong a containment vessel is?

Yes, If I get around to reading your favorite book by Gwyneth Cravens I'll let you know. Did you read the books I suggested? The one where they talk about our need to tighten security in the nuclear industry. A rational look? No, I didn't think so. You think nuclear waste is like candy. It just melts away. Dirty bombs won’t cause any problems. People will just laugh them off, “Honey, just go inside the house and wait for the rain to wash it all away.” Yep, that old dirty bomb trick again.
First, I have nothing against improved security at our nuclear facilities. On the other issues, you are being ridiculous. If you are going to tell me what I said, at least be accurate, OK? I never said that radioactive waste is like candy, or that "dirty" bombs aren't dangerous or that they won't cause problems. I just pointed out that there are major misconceptions about them. Until you read the book, you just sound foolish. How can you critique material you haven't read? C'mon, Tex . . . you can do better than this. Here is a link (http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2007/12/nuclear_qa) to an interview of the author by Wired. Read the interview, and then read the book. Here is another link (http://www.cravenspowertosavetheworld.com/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/) to the author's own webpage. Poke around here - it's not as good as reading the book, but maybe you'll get the idea. Are you afraid of learning something? Don't let your beliefs get in the way of real information.

You don’t address how with your plan many countries around the world will be running nuclear industries of their own. Training nuclear scientists, running testing, moving radioactive waste around.
Actually, this is already happening. There is a great deal of collaboration on reactor designs, safety systems, procedures, and regulations. You seem to think this is a bad thing? On the contrary - this puts the best of the best together working for good purposes.

Maybe some of them get into some trouble. Maybe they need some cash. What about a country now having trained and educated scientists starting up a bomb program for self defense. Just a black ops thing. No big deal. Yeah, they might be very good about reprocessing and investing all that extra money to do it right but I’m guessing many nations won‘t.
I said it before . . . don't you listen, dude? A rogue nation can undertake the steps to make nuclear weapons separately of a nuclear power industry.

Like... the U.S.! We don’t even do the reprocessing that France does! Why the heck not? Is it too costly? Too hard for us to understand? Why not? Why is there so much unprocessed nuclear waste sitting in cooling chambers at every one of our nuclear power plants? Can you answer those simple questions?
I suggested that you read the book, at least as a primer on this and many other issues. The only thing I could do beyond this is sit you down and read it to you. If you want to honestly debate this subject, you will at least put in the small effort to educated yourseld about the "enemy". If you do not, you are just a blattering horn blowing sour music.

You don’t see any problems at all? What about the difference between thousands of reactors and none? Oh yeah, you are worried about the acidification of the oceans now.

You are worried about the safety of an industry with the best safety record of ALL OTHER POWER GENERATING TECHNOLOGIES but don't care about the oceans? Dude, if the oceans go, it's all over . . . surely you don't disagree about THAT?

Oh and the comment that solar doesn’t work at night. Nice. Just disregard any and all electrical energy storage systems and the fact that we can have around 20% of our grid supplied by intermittent sources without adding any significant energy storage (at task that would take at least a decade of hard work to achieve) Yep, just ignore that if it makes you feel that nuclear fission reactors are needed.

Using nuclear fission to fix our CO2 problem is like using Napalm to clear a fire code violation.
You still aren't making a good argument. What you seem to be doing is to follow a pseudo-environmental anti-nuclear slant of misinformation and scaremongering. You don't understand nuclear power, or the "culture of safety" in the nuclear industry, or reactor design issues, or particle physics. What DO you understand? Do you personally have any knowledge of any of these things? If not, how can you possibly participate in a cogent debate on the subject?

Texas

01-12-2009, 12:15 PM

Altazi, I'm afraid your brainwashing is nearly complete. Your “bible“ is but one person's journey in her nuclear education. Humans are free to take information and skew it towards many conclusions. It's getting boring going back over things that you just don't get. OK, one last time though your conclusions, which seem almost insane. What's even more interesting is the conclusions even very intelligent individuals can make, depending on their livelihood. I'm referring to the nuclear physicist. Perhaps brilliant in his or her ability to understand the complexity of the subject. Sometimes with such focus that they are also blinded by the realities of their love and passion. They don't see it but other's on the outside do. That is why nuclear energy has fallen from public grace. Not because we are all wrong. Amory Lovins is not an idiot and is not wrong. He just has his opinions and can look at the industry much more analytically because he is not so invested in it. It's like telling a scientist that works on biological weapons that what he is doing is potentially very dangerous. They will rationalize all kinds of excuses for why it is a good thing for humans. Things like it will protect our country from enemies and such. It's amazing what people can rationalize. Nuclear physicists as well as the average man, like yourself. Children even believe in Santa Claus even though adults can easily deduce it's an impossibility. Adults do the same thing. They don't loose that ability as they become adults. I hope you can see that. OK, let's step though your reality. I cannot change it but it may be interesting to others.

Here is an excerpt from a page (http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/thyd/ne161/ncabreza/sources.html) by Neil M. Cabreza, Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley:

Industrial waste products from fossil fuel production are not all just "magically cleared" by the environment. Here is a link to an article (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1870599,00.html) in Time Magazine discussing "clean coal". I can't quote it due to space limitations.

Here is a link to a document (http://www.catf.us/publications/reports/Laid_to_Waste.pdf) from the Clean Air Task Force discussing the environmental impact of coal waste. Again, I couldn't quote due to space limitations.

Hundreds of millions of tons per year of waste polluting our environment right now. Where is Texas's righteous indignation at this insult to our environment? Now back to his anti-nuclear comments . . .

You are justifying one evil for another? I think they are both bad. That's why I feel we should be transitioning to renewable technologies including solar power. New power generation should be moving us forward, not moving us backward. I believe your basic premise is that solar is an intermittent resource and thus cannot provide base load power. If you could be convinced that it can be added in great amounts before we need significant energy storage you might be convinced to use only renewable and sustainable technologies. Only someone so invested in something could possible argue with that. Right? I mean, why even risk any nuclear accident when it's not needed. I feel we don't even need to risk it. What exactly would putting in more nuclear reactors in the U.S. accomplish? Would it reduce our need for importing oil? No. You understand that. Your only reason is that you wish to reduce our CO2 emissions and lately, the acidification of our oceans. Yes, they are both bad. That is why I want to transition to renewable energy resources. However, I feel it's better to emit that pollution, while we transition to renewbles, than to move forward with a global plan to build thousands of nuclear reactors around the world. It's pure insanity. What does it solve? It's just another form of waste generation. One I feel is much more harmful than what it would replace. Not just for our current generation but for future generations.

OK, so somehow with you, there are different levels of being "dead". That's logical . . . :rolleyes: And please don't forget that Chernobyl was an exception! None of our reactors could fail in that fashion. Got that yet? Or do you want to engage in a detailed discussion of reactor safety systems and just how strong a containment vessel is?

Different levels of dead? Is that what I said? No. I said that you can die quickly or a slow painful death. It's not different levels of being dead but different levels of dying. I hope you understand that difference. For example, how would you rather die? A quick death or a multi year painful death by cancer? One where your family suffers just as much as you. I don't know about you but I'll take the quick death. That's why they say in movies something to the extent, "I'm not going to kill you quickly, I'm going to make you suffer first." Do you understand why they say that? It has great effect. People are fearful of slow painful death. People are also fearful of radioactive waste and being exposed to this unseen radiation.

Note: Nobody is saying that nuclear reactors emit radiation during normal operation. Let’s not confuse the issue. The radiation would come from accidents, though the use of the generated nuclear waste by terrorists, etc.

If you read about Chernobyl or Three mile Island you can get an understanding of the fear people experienced. What, do you want to be carrying a Geiger counter with you everywhere? I don't. I like to see my enemy! I know you will say that Chernobyl was an exception. Chernobyl was not an exception. It was an accident! Three mile Island was not an exception. It was an accident. You say modern reactors cannot fail in this way. That is a flat out lie. If a reactor core loses cooling and the mechanism that inserts the control rods cannot be inserted enough to reduce the generated heat then it will melt down. Yes, it's rare but it has happened before. There are more safeguards but to say it's impossible is a lie. Ask your nuclear physicists if it’s impossible. They cannot tell you that! He can only tell you that the chances are reduced with better design. He cannot tell you that if an earthquake hit the plant that no radioactive waste will be emitted. Why only last year did Japan have damage to one of it's reactors due to an earthquake. They had pictures of the plant and the cracks in the walls! No radioactive waste was released. However, it was a possibility. The earthquake was not a strong one and was not centered near the plant. Please don't lie to people and say an accident cannot happen. It is possible. We only have a few hundreds commercial reactors running around the world. Imagine 10 times that amount. That's more waste, more chance for accidents, etc. You can talk about new technology and reactor design but It's the same basic technology! Better control systems, better confinement chambers, etc. You can talk about new reactor designs that cannot meltdown but those are only in research labs. A commercial rector of that design is at least 10 years away. Maybe it will be cost effective, maybe not. Let's evaluate that technology and our energy situation when they are ready for commercialization. Shall we? By that time we will probably have great energy storage and very cheap solar technology. Who knows!

First, I have nothing against improved security at our nuclear facilities. On the other issues, you are being ridiculous. If you are going to tell me what I said, at least be accurate, OK? I never said that radioactive waste is like candy, or that "dirty" bombs aren't dangerous or that they won't cause problems. I just pointed out that there are major misconceptions about them. Until you read the book, you just sound foolish. How can you critique material you haven't read? C'mon, Tex . . . you can do better than this.

Are you saying that just because a person has not read your "bible" they cannot understand the situation? Is your resource of that importance? Is it required reading for every nuclear physicist? No. So for you to say that a person cannot argue a subject because they have not read one book out of the huge amount of information out there is ridiculous. I can give more examples of this. What about books in different languages? Is your "bible" translated into French? Russian? Chinese? If not, how can all the other countries in the world possibly have fruitful debates on the subject? Do you realize how foolish your claims are? I'm not critiquing your "bible" I just have not had the time to read it and don't feel it's important to read it to have a rational debate with you. It's funny that you think it's so important. I have just proved that it's not. One more time - it's not required reading by the scientists around the world or by the average person around the world. Enough nuclear information is out there for them to read, analyze and finally make their conclusions. Most of the world has already made the conclusion not to build more reactors. It has one of the lowest adoption rates around the world than just about any other commercialized technology. Do you deny that? Why? Is it because they haven't read your "bible"?

Continued...

Texas

01-12-2009, 12:16 PM

Altazi wrote: Actually, this is already happening. There is a great deal of collaboration on reactor designs, safety systems, procedures, and regulations. You seem to think this is a bad thing? On the contrary - this puts the best of the best together working for good purposes.

I said it before . . . don't you listen, dude? A rogue nation can undertake the steps to make nuclear weapons separately of a nuclear power industry.

Yes. This is a bad thing in my eyes. I want less people working on current nuclear fission technology (the technology that will be used for new reactors in the next 10 years or so). I want less proliferation of nuclear technology. I agree with your second statement. However, it would be even easier for a rogue nations if there were more scientists, more programs, more reactors, more equipment, more knowledge, etc. You can't see that? I would take that argument, along with many of my other arguments regarding nuclear fission to an impartial jury and know that they would agree with me. Even nuclear physicists would have to agree with that argument. I'm guessing you disagree.

You are worried about the safety of an industry with the best safety record of ALL OTHER POWER GENERATING TECHNOLOGIES but don't care about the oceans? Dude, if the oceans go, it's all over . . . surely you don't disagree about THAT?

Yes, I care about the oceans, our environment, nuclear proliferation, our petroleum problems, our country's financial position, world hunger, the inequity of poor people around the world, artic seals, the rights of people, etc. I just prioritize. Don't you? It's only natural.

I don't even hear about people talking about the acidification of the oceans. Even if they do, the path I'm working on will address that. Going with solar power will also help that. Right? I feel the decision to go with renewable and sustainable forms of energy will solve many problems. Some people want to save the world, the seals, etc. They go to Africa and give people rice, etc. I say we have to fix the energy problems first because there is just not enough petroleum to bring everyone in the world up to U.S. levels of energy use. Surely you have to agree with that.

You still aren't making a good argument. What you seem to be doing is to follow a pseudo-environmental anti-nuclear slant of misinformation and scaremongering. You don't understand nuclear power, or the "culture of safety" in the nuclear industry, or reactor design issues, or particle physics. What DO you understand? Do you personally have any knowledge of any of these things? If not, how can you possibly participate in a cogent debate on the subject?

There you go, put me in a group (pseudo-environmental anti-nuclear) and then try to marginalize that group. If that helps you sleep better with your conclusions then fine. I don't have to do that because I know my path is a much safer, natural, renewable and a sustainable one that just makes inherent sense. Your path? Nightmare in the making. Your "bible" is not going to change my mind. Just like the actions of the rest of the world (very slow adoption rate of nuclear power) is not going to change your mind. There, I think I have completely addressed just about everything. I would like to now end this toxic cycle with you. We are on completely opposite sides of the fence on this issue. We have both said the same things several times. Let's just agree to disagree. Of course you will want the last word. I give it to you. Enjoy.

MrBogey

01-12-2009, 12:28 PM

I know you will say that Chernobyl was an exception. Chernobyl was not an exception. It was an accident! Three mile Island was not an exception. It was an accident. You say modern reactors cannot fail in this way. That is a flat out lie.

I really believe you don't understand the fundamentals of nuclear power generation.

There have been many a technical books written specifically on what caused the failure at Chernobyl. A friend of mine was a nuclear tech on a submarine and as part of his training they make them read and memorize the specifics of every nuclear disaster that ever happened. Engineers are taught specifically what caused failures in the past and design current reactors to prohibit that failure.

Chernobyl absolutely can not happen again because the specific failure that caused the meltdown has been removed from any reactor built since as well as it wasn't commonly used anyway.

Back in the day, if you rear-ended a Ford Mustang you would probably bust the gas tank causing the driver of said Mustang to be sprayed in it and possibly set aflame. They've since moved the gas tank so it's not likely to bust into the passenger compartment. Now could a driver get covered in gas, still? Yes. Is it remotely likely. Not at all. Engineers solved the problem and you're just trying to scaremonger an irrelevant point.

Texas

01-12-2009, 12:42 PM

I really believe you don't understand the fundamentals of nuclear power generation.

There have been many a technical books written specifically on what caused the failure at Chernobyl. A friend of mine was a nuclear tech on a submarine and as part of his training they make them read and memorize the specifics of every nuclear disaster that ever happened. Engineers are taught specifically what caused failures in the past and design current reactors to prohibit that failure.

Chernobyl absolutely can not happen again because the specific failure that caused the meltdown has been removed from any reactor built since as well as it wasn't commonly used anyway.

Back in the day, if you rear-ended a Ford Mustang you would probably bust the gas tank causing the driver of said Mustang to be sprayed in it and possibly set aflame. They've since moved the gas tank so it's not likely to bust into the passenger compartment. Now could a driver get covered in gas, still? Yes. Is it remotely likely. Not at all. Engineers solved the problem and you're just trying to scaremonger an irrelevant point.

Thanks for the example. Less likely but impossible? No. Sure, things get better every day. Airplanes get better, cars get better, nuclear reactor design gets better. Do Airplanes still fall from the sky, do cars still catch fire? Yes. Will there continue to be nuclear accidents? Yes. That's all I'm saying. Will there be more accidents if we go from several hundred reactors to several thousand all over the world? Yes. Thanks MrBogey, you make my job easier. ;)

Oh, and for those that want to understand Chernobyl better, just Google it. Here is one of many by wiki:

The Chernobyl disaster was a nuclear reactor accident in the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the Soviet Union. It was the worst nuclear power plant disaster ever and the only level 7 instance on the International Nuclear Event Scale. It resulted in a severe release of radioactivity into the environment following a massive power excursion which destroyed the reactor. Two people died in the initial steam explosion, but most deaths from the accident were attributed to nuclear fallout.

On 26 April 1986 at 01:23:45 a.m. (UTC+3) reactor number four at the Chernobyl plant, near Pripyat in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, exploded. Further explosions and the resulting fire sent a plume of highly radioactive fallout into the atmosphere and over an extensive geographical area. Four hundred times more fallout was released than had been by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.[1]

The plume drifted over extensive parts of the western Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Northern Europe, and eastern North America. Large areas in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia were badly contaminated, resulting in the evacuation and resettlement of over 336,000 people. According to official post-Soviet data,[2] about 60% of the radioactive fallout landed in Belarus.

The accident raised concerns about the safety of the Soviet nuclear power industry, slowing its expansion for a number of years, while forcing the Soviet government to become less secretive. The now-independent countries of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus have been burdened with the continuing and substantial decontamination and health care costs of the Chernobyl accident. It is difficult to accurately tell the number of deaths caused by the events at Chernobyl, as the Soviet-era cover-up made it difficult to track down victims. Lists were incomplete, and Soviet authorities later forbade doctors to cite "radiation" on death certificates.[3]

The overall cost of the disaster is estimated at $200 billion USD, taking inflation into account. This places the Chernobyl disaster as the costliest disaster in modern history.[4][unreliable source?]

The 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people.[5] Although the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone and certain limited areas remain off limits, the majority of affected areas are now considered safe for settlement and economic activity.[6]

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

MrBogey

01-12-2009, 12:54 PM

You excoriated me for posting a link to numbers from wiki yet you just posted a summation of events that didn't even include how the accident happened. If you had bothered to do any reserch. You'd know the "how" can never ever happen in a modern design.

Just plain lazy.

Altazi

01-12-2009, 01:14 PM

Gwyneth Cravens' book is not my "bible". It is just one of the most accessible works for laypeople to understand the realities of nuclear power - something you are going out of your way to avoid learning. Also, I have a background in studying nuclear physics and have a physics degree, so my understanding of the subject is likely deeper than yours or the average public.

Maybe it's not that nuclear physicists are "blinded" so much as they have real understanding. The average person doesn't understand radiation or nuclear power, and is easily swayed by scaremongering tactics. Your "average jury" isn't really capable of making decisions on nuclear power because they are unaware of the facts. You truly don't understand nuclear power, don't WANT to understand nuclear power, and seem proud of your ignorance.

You completely ignore the statistics and studies I link for you - studies that are from reliable sources - often industry and government sites.

You mention Amory Lovins; even scientists can have misconceptions - and agendas. Read the series or blog articles here (http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2008/07/amory-lovins-and-his-nuclear-illusion.html) for a look at the holes in RMI's position on nuclear power. It shows how RMI’s claims don’t stand up to scrutiny and points out the flaws in their analyses. The article also includes high-quality links to supporting information. Warning: it will gore your ox.

Don't forget this discussion of a Gallup poll (http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter4.html) shows broad support for nuclear power among scientists:

89% of all scientists, 95% of scientists involved in energy-related fields, and 100% of radiation and nuclear scientists favored proceeding with the development of nuclear power. Incidentally, there were no significant differences between responses from those employed by industry, government, and universities. There was also no difference between those who had and had not received financial support from industry or the government.

You and your fringe sources are not presenting a factual treatment of nuclear power. Your positions are contrary to the bulk of environmental science. You act like someone who is blundering around with his eyes held tightly shut, afraid to have your cherished beliefs destroyed by the cold light of reality. It is a shame that anyone interested in the energy industry and the environment could behave in such a fashion. :(

Texas

01-12-2009, 01:43 PM

Instead of just arguing the same points over and over I thought I would just post more information on nuclear power. The more you read the more you won't want it! Unless of course you are a nuclear physicist and your paycheck depends on the industry. ;)

Here we go. Let's look at what a meltdown is. I will use wiki references here because they are geared to the general reader. If you don't like wiki or suspect they are wrong, just Google other references. If you notice any errors, please post here and to wiki. If people tell you that meltdowns are now impossible then they are lying! Don't take my word for it. Go to your local college and ask. Get involved. It may be more unlikely due to better safety measures but the same basic technology is used - hot fuel, control rods, cooling systems. Also, don't let people tell you about new and fantastic nuclear reactor technology (like pebble reactors). Just ask if any are in commercial operation and if not, when will they be ready to go. Then add ten years to that for the first Watt to be generated. Here we go:

Nuclear Meltdown:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Graphic_TMI-2_Core_End-State_Configuration.jpg/427px-Graphic_TMI-2_Core_End-State_Configuration.jpg

"A nuclear meltdown is a term for a severe nuclear reactor accident. This can occur when a nuclear power plant system or component failure causes the reactor core to no longer be properly controlled and cooled to the extent that the sealed nuclear fuel assemblies – which contain the uranium or plutonium and highly radioactive fission products – begin to overheat and melt. A meltdown is considered very serious because of the possibility that the reactor containment will be defeated, thus releasing the core's highly radioactive and toxic elements into the atmosphere and environment. From an engineering perspective, a meltdown is likely to cause serious damage to the reactor, and possibly total destruction.

Several nuclear meltdowns of differing severity have occurred, from localized core damage to complete destruction of the reactor core. In some cases this has required extensive repairs or decommissioning of a nuclear reactor. In the most extreme cases, such as the Chernobyl disaster, deaths have resulted and the near-permanent civilian evacuation of a large area was required.

A nuclear explosion does not result from a nuclear meltdown because, by design, the geometry and composition of the reactor core do not permit the special conditions necessary for a nuclear explosion. However, the conditions that cause a meltdown may cause a non-nuclear explosion. For example, several power excursion accidents have caused coolant to rapidly over pressurize, resulting in a steam explosion."...

"Meltdowns that have occurred
A number of Russian nuclear submarines have experienced nuclear meltdowns. The only known large scale nuclear meltdowns at civilian nuclear power plants were in the Chernobyl disaster at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, Ukraine, in 1986, and the Three Mile Island accident at Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, USA, in 1979, although there have been partial core meltdowns at:

NRX, Ontario, Canada, in 1952
EBR-I, Idaho, USA, in 1955
Windscale, Sellafield, England, in 1957 (see Windscale fire)
Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Simi Hills, California, in 1959
SL-1, Idaho, USA in 1961. (US military)
Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station, Michigan, USA, in 1966
Chapelcross, Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland, in 1967
A1 plant at Jaslovské Bohunice, Czechoslovakia in 1977. 25% of the fuel elements in a heavy water moderated carbon dioxide cooled 100 MW(e) power reactor were damaged due to operator error. The operators failed to remove silica gel packs from a new fuel element. The silica gel was used to keep the unused fuel dry during storage and transport. The silica gel packs blocked the flow of the coolant resulting in overheating of the fuel and the pressure channel holding it. As a result of overheating the heavy water leaked into the part of the reactor where the fuel elements are accommodated, the cladding was subject to corrosion and a considerable amount of radioactivity leaked into the primary cooling circuit. Through leaks in the steam boilers (similar basic design to a MAGNOX or AGR plant) some parts of the secondary circuit became contaminated.[5]
Not all of these were caused by a loss of coolant and in several cases (the Chernobyl disaster and the Windscale fire, for example) the meltdown was not the most severe problem."

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

Altazi

01-12-2009, 02:08 PM

Texas, you are like the Energizer bunny - you keep going and going and going . . . A blind Energizer bunny with no short-term memory, it seems.

You keep dragging up the Chernobyl accident. No one denies that it was a serious nuclear accident with deaths, injuries, radioactive contamination, etc. Nice cutaway picture of the Chernobyl reactor - it clearly shows that the design includes no containment vessel. All reactors in the US are inside containment vessels that do just that - contain the reactor and any nuclear materials in case of an accident.

In the Three-Mile Island accident, the containment vessel functioned as it was supposed to. Here is an excerpt from an NRC discussion on Three-Mile Island accident (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html):

The accident at the Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) nuclear power plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania, on March 28, 1979, was the most serious in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant operating history(1), even though it led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community. But it brought about sweeping changes involving emergency response planning, reactor operator training, human factors engineering, radiation protection, and many other areas of nuclear power plant operations. It also caused the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to tighten and heighten its regulatory oversight. Resultant changes in the nuclear power industry and at the NRC had the effect of enhancing safety.

The sequence of certain events - - equipment malfunctions, design related problems and worker errors - - led to a partial meltdown of the TMI-2 reactor core but only very small off-site releases of radioactivity.

This specifically discusses the radioactive material released and the effects:

Estimates are that the average dose to about 2 million people in the area was only about 1 millirem. To put this into context, exposure from a full set of chest x-rays is about 6 millirem. Compared to the natural radioactive background dose of about 100-125 millirem per year for the area, the collective dose to the community from the accident was very small. The maximum dose to a person at the site boundary would have been less than 100 millirem.
So you have to go back 30 years to 1979 to find any serious nuclear accident in the US. Did you see that things are different now? Open your eyes.

I can only conclude that you are engaging in willful ignorance.

LampCord

01-12-2009, 02:34 PM

What bothers me the most is that its this sort of fear mongering (remember 'Silkwood'?) that has stopped us from using the only viable alternative to fossil fuels that can be scaled up to our needs.

Nuclear energy is the cheapest, most abundant and safest energy in the world that can be generated on a scale large enough to have an impact.

I'm all for solar and wind but they just aren't enough.

Its best to simply ignore Texas on this issue as he seems completely unwilling to accept any evidence that contradicts his position.

Texas

01-12-2009, 03:01 PM

Let's continue with an investigation of Three Mile Island. Remember, after that accident new reactor construction went down to almost zero. What does that mean? Well, most of our current active reactors are not only of that design or a design of the same era but they are now all 20 years older! Check out how well the nuclear industry is doing now:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Nuclear_Power_History.png/794px-Nuclear_Power_History.png

OK, so of course the design of new nuclear power plants have improved. Right? So, why not a rush to use the new technology? Maybe it's because we already have enough, people don't want it or maybe this:

"Nonetheless, at the time of the TMI incident, 129 nuclear power plants had been approved; of those, only 53 (which were not already operating) were completed. Federal requirements became more stringent, local opposition became more strident, and construction times were significantly lengthened."

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

What happened to Three Mile Island's other operations?

"Cleanup

The TMI cleanup started in August 1979 and officially ended in December 1993, having cost around US$975 million. From 1985 to 1990 almost 100 tons of radioactive fuel were removed from the site. However, the contaminated cooling water that leaked into the containment building had seeped into the building's concrete, leaving the radioactive residue impossible to remove.[citation needed] TMI-2 had been online only three months, but now had a ruined reactor vessel and a containment building that was unsafe to walk in — it has since been permanently closed.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 was too badly damaged and contaminated to resume operations. The reactor was gradually deactivated and mothballed in a lengthy process completed in 1993.[citation needed] Initially, efforts focused on the cleanup and decontamination of the site, especially the defueling of the damaged reactor. In 1988, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced that, although it was possible to further decontaminate the Unit 2 site, the remaining radioactivity had been sufficiently contained as to pose no threat to public health and safety. Accordingly, further cleanup efforts were deferred to allow for decay of the radiation levels and to take advantage of the potential economic benefits of retiring both Unit 1 and Unit 2 together. The defueling process was completed in 1990, and the damaged fuel was removed and disposed of in 1993.[citation needed]"

All this mess and the meltdown did not breach the containment vessel:

"It was later found that about half the core had melted, and the cladding around 90% of the fuel rods had failed,[1][24] however the reactor vessel maintained integrity and contained the damaged fuel.[25]"

Just remember that there are several things that can go wrong, from meltdown to steam explosions to leaks to waste being "misplaced", etc. All kinds of fun. Are problems common? No. Are they impossible? No. Please read the whole article, it's an interesting read. Then, go out and Google more about it, just to make sure you are not being lied to by wiki.

New reactor designs are much better now. So are airplanes and automobiles. Are there accidents? Not as many but they still happen. Also, there are also non-accidents. Intentional sabotage, stealing of radioactive waste for terror activities, etc. Thankfully, we have not had to deal with that yet. I would think people would want to reduce these problems in the future.

One last thing. When people tell you that all those accidents were in the past, please ask them what design will be used for any reactors that are commissioned in the next 5 - 10 years. Are meltdowns impossible? Are accidents impossible? Is the spent fuel dangerous? Where will the spent fuel be stored both short-term and long-term? What are the security measures? Is it possible for the waste to ever get in the wrong hands? etc. Ask these questions. If you feel comfortable with the answers then vote yes for increased nuclear activity in the U.S. Doing so will make it happen around the world. If it's the best we can come up with, why shouldn't the rest of the world use the same solutions we use? Fair is fair.

Altazi

01-12-2009, 03:40 PM

I must compliment you on a more evenhanded post. There are still a few issues that must be addressed.

Then, go out and Google more about it, just to make sure you are not being lied to by wiki.
I cited the NRC official government report. I think that is a bit high quality than wiki, no?

New reactor designs are much better now. So are airplanes and automobiles. Are there accidents? Not as many but they still happen.
Prove it. Cite any accident post-TMI. Prove to me (and all readers) that nuclear power is worse than any other major power generating technology. Not by telling us your feelings, beliefs, or scaremongering - show me a qualified study based on documented facts.

Also, there are also non-accidents. Intentional sabotage, stealing of radioactive waste for terror activities, etc. Thankfully, we have not had to deal with that yet. I would think people would want to reduce these problems in the future.
Exactly how would terrorists steal radioactive wastes? Be specific and cite studies showing how this would be possible.

One last thing. When people tell you that all those accidents were in the past, please ask them what design will be used for any reactors that are commissioned in the next 5 - 10 years. Are meltdowns impossible? Are accidents impossible?
You are so worried about incidents whose chance of occurring are so small as to be virtually impossible, while ignoring documented and proven dangers of existing power generating technologies. At best this is willful ignorance; at worst it is scaremongering.

Is the spent fuel dangerous? Where will the spent fuel be stored both short-term and long-term? What are the security measures? Is it possible for the waste to ever get in the wrong hands? etc. Ask these questions.
Gwyneth Cravens asked these very questions. You seem to be pointedly ignoring reading her book and seeing the answers you so often request. Willful ignorance? Intellectual laziness? You tell me.

If you feel comfortable with the answers then vote yes for increased nuclear activity in the U.S.
People who understand the issues surrounding nuclear power do support it - in high proportions as the poll indicated. In fact, there was a direct link between understanding nuclear power and support for nuclear power. See the relevance here? Only people who are largely ignorant of the truth are anti-nuclear. Are you proud of being ignorant?

Doing so will make it happen around the world. If it's the best we can come up with, why shouldn't the rest of the world use the same solutions we use? Fair is fair.
Nuclear fission is the best that we have right now, as shown by many studies comparing the other major power generating technologies. If nuclear fusion (which always seems to be about 50 years away ;)) makes the scene, I imagine that it would supplant fission plants.

MrBogey

01-12-2009, 06:52 PM

the trouble is Texas is arguing as if you're claiming that a nuclear meltdown is physically impossible. They're not. We know that. But it's so remote an issue because modern reactor designs have thought of everything.

Altazi

01-12-2009, 07:21 PM

Even better - there are reactor designs that inherently cannot melt down even if the coolant is completely removed.

Many anti-nuclear activists don't want to acknowledge the documented safety record of the nuclear power industry, and don't educate themselves with facts relating to radiation, radioactive materials, reactor design, safety, etc. They are more afraid of the infinitesimal chance of an accident - even though no radiation would be released - than the very real problems with the other major power generating technologies in place today. It's like worrying about getting Ebola virus while you are crossing the street in NYC and ignoring the bus that is bearing down on you.

Even former anti-nuclear environmentalists are changing their tunes when they realize how little an impact that nuclear power has on the environment.

Texas

01-12-2009, 10:31 PM

Today, I thought I would post something from NRC. You can tell they are completely sold on this industry by the happy happy fell they try to put on it. This is from the Children's Corner. Happy happy nuclear waste. :) Do you feel good and warm?

Oh, I love how the nuclear proponets on this forum are coming out of the woodwork as I post common infromation about the nuclear industry. :) Anyway, here we go!

Radioactive Waste http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/images/flying-small.gif

Nuclear power plants generate two types of waste: high-level and low-level.

High-level waste includes the fuel used in the nuclear reactor -- called spent fuel . It is highly radioactive and very dangerous. It must be cooled for several years in deep pools inside the plant or in special storage facilities outside of the plant site. It can remain in the pool or later be transferred to special casks, which are like big, concrete barrels. Some of the fission products in the spent fuel will take many years to lose their radioactivity. A special disposal site is needed for this type of spent fuel. The U.S. Department of Energy wants to build such a site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The spent fuel, in heavy casks, would remain buried there for thousands of years. The NRC must approve and license this site to make sure it is safe.

Low-level waste can come from nuclear reactors or from hospitals or universities. Low-level waste is not as dangerous as high-level waste. It can be shipped to low-level waste disposal facilities. There, it is packaged, buried in trenches and covered with soil. States are responsible for selecting new disposal sites or using those that already exist.

Nuclear power provides about 20 percent of our nation's electricity. And nuclear materials help in thousands of medical procedures and dozens of industrial uses. But many scientists believe we haven’t yet found all the ways to use nuclear materials. The NRC will be closely regulating any peaceful use of nuclear material to protect public health and safety, and the world in which we live.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/images/ask.gif

I love the Nuclear Guy with the question mark above his head! Perfect! lol. I think many of us have questions as to if this is a good idea to go huge with nuclear power. You be the judge.

Texas

01-14-2009, 02:34 AM

Sorry for the double post guys. Altazi accused me of dropping the ball on this thread, even though I had the last post. ;)

So, as promised, here is a new list of more recent nuclear accidents. No, it was not from Greenpeace. Seriously, just Google "nuclear accidents" and you will get over 3 million hits! There should more than enough there to decide that these are not all lies and mistruths, as Altazi and others argue. Well, here we go, again:

1990s

April 6, 1993 — INES Level 4 - Tomsk, Russia - Explosion
A pressure buildup led to an explosive mechanical failure in a 34 cubic meter stainless steel reaction vessel buried in a concrete bunker under building 201 of the radiochemical works at the Tomsk-7 Siberian Chemical Enterprise plutonium reprocessing facility. The vessel contained a mixture of concentrated nitric acid, uranium (8757 kg), plutonium (449 g) along with a mixture of radioactive and organic waste from a prior extraction cycle. The explosion dislodged the concrete lid of the bunker and blew a large hole in the roof of the building, releasing approximately 6 GBq of Pu 239 and 30 TBq of various other radionuclides into the environment. The contamination plume extended 28 km NE of building 201, 20 km beyond the facility property. The small village of Georgievka (pop. 200) was at the end of the fallout plume, but no fatalities, illnesses or injuries were reported. The accident exposed 160 on-site workers and almost two thousand cleanup workers to total doses of up to 50 mSv (the threshold limit for radiation workers is 100 mSv per 5 years)[25]. [26] [27]
June, 1999 — INES Level needed - Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan - Control rod malfunction
Operators attempting to insert one control rod during an inspection neglected procedure and instead withdrew three causing a 15 minute uncontrolled sustained reaction at the number 1 reactor of Shika Nuclear Power Plant. The Hokuriku Electric Company who owned the reactor did not report this incident and falsified records, covering it up until March, 2007. [28]
September 30, 1999 — INES Level 4 - Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan - Accidental criticality
Workers put uranyl nitrate solution containing about 16.6 kg of uranium, which exceeded the critical mass, into a precipitation tank at a uranium reprocessing facility in Tokai-mura northeast of Tokyo, Japan. The tank was not designed to dissolve this type of solution and was not configured to prevent eventual criticality. Three workers were exposed to (neutron) radiation doses in excess of allowable limits. Two of these workers died. 116 other workers received lesser doses of 1 mSv or greater though not in excess of the allowable limit. For more details, see Tokaimura nuclear accident and 5 yen coin. [29] [30] [31] [32]

2000s

April 10, 2003 — INES Level 3 - Paks, Hungary - Fuel damaged
Partially spent fuel rods undergoing cleaning in a tank of heavy water ruptured and spilled fuel pellets at Paks Nuclear Power Plant. It is suspected that inadequate cooling of the rods during the cleaning process combined with a sudden influx of cold water thermally shocked fuel rods causing them to split. Boric acid was added to the tank to prevent the loose fuel pellets from achieving criticality. Ammonia and hydrazine were also added to absorb iodine-131. [33], [34]
April 19, 2005 — INES Level 3 - Sellafield, England, United Kingdom - Nuclear material leak
Twenty metric tons of uranium and 160 kilograms of plutonium dissolved in 83,000 litres of nitric acid leaked over several months from a cracked pipe into a stainless steel sump chamber at the Thorp nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. The partially processed spent fuel was drained into holding tanks outside the plant. [35].
November 2005 — INES Level needed - Braidwood, Illinois, United States - Nuclear material leak
Tritium contamination of groundwater was discovered at Exelon's Braidwood station. Groundwater off site remains within safe drinking standards though the NRC is requiring the plant to correct any problems related to the release.
March 6, 2006 — INES Level needed - Erwin, Tennessee, United States - Nuclear material leak
Thirty-five liters of a highly enriched uranium solution leaked during transfer into a lab at Nuclear Fuel Services Erwin Plant. The incident caused a seven-month shutdown and a required public hearing on the licensing of the plant.[36] [37]

Altazi

01-14-2009, 03:28 AM

Texas' previous post:
1) I have to be a broken record because some of you guys can't get simple logic and factual information through your thick heads!
Actually, it is I who have provided links to factual information of high quality. I invite you to find information that is even-handed, not anti-nuclear propaganda. I would like to discuss things that are documented and factual, please. Anything else is really pointless, right? I am doing my best not to post pro-nuclear propaganda; please do the same for your position.

2) I have told you it's impossible to prove that there have been less injuries because nobody knows the long-term effects on exposure to radiation.
The worst nuclear power accident in the U.S. was at Three Mile Island. This accident released a tiny amount of radioactive material into the environment. No injuries or deaths were attributed to the incident. The released radiation increased the natural background of 360 millirems by a whopping one millirem (previously cited government report). Don't you agree that it is ridiculous to worry about the long-term effects of a 0.28% increase? There are many places in the world where the natural background radiation level is much higher; these locations haven't been shown to exhibit any increase in injury or disease related to radiation.

The sources I posted on Chernobyl claim there were tens of thousands of injuries. Oh yes, that was just an accident. Oh, I mean an exception. Right? Maybe, but it proves just how deadly that waste can be. How can you deny that?
Have I ever denied the deaths, injuries, damage, and contamination from Chernobyl? Never. All I can do is (for the twelfth time now :rolleyes:) point out that the Chernobyl reactor was an unsafe old Soviet design that didn't include a containment vessel? Jeez! Can't you get that through your head? I am accepting your points on the damages and injuries - can't you accept the fact that this kind of debacle cannot happen with any of today's reactors in containment vessels? The Three Mile Island accident was serious - a partial core meltdown - but the containment vessel did what it was supposed to do. None of the nasty core materials escaped. Only a tiny amount of radioactive materials were released - that average of one millirem I mentioned above. The natural background there is 360mrem. Are you going to seriously predict injuries and deaths due to an increase of one millirem? Please.

Oh, and I think most rational people would not equate a nuclear accident to an industrial accident. That you do just shows how out of touch you are.
This is another point you can't seem to get over. Industrial accidents kill and injure thousands in the U.S. every year. Deaths attributed to nuclear power = zero. Instead of the term "rational" I would like to use the word "educated". People unfamiliar with the details of nuclear power generation are rather unqualified to be making judgments on the subject, as you are proving continually.

3) Dropped the ball? How do you figure that? The last time I checked I was posting factual information on nuclear technology and all of the proponents on this site went crazy. I even posted things from your favorite site and even told people to please research many different sources. How is that dropping the ball? I think that hit home with you because it makes it even harder to defend your very weak position.
Don't be lazy. Do your own research to refute my posts.

4) You keep hacking at the Greenpeace list like it was generated by the devil. Just disprove it! You couldn't so you are trying to marginalize it.The list includes a high proportion of incidents not related to civilian nuclear power generation. Some are quite ridiculous, like a fire on the nuclear carried U.S.S. Enterprise - that was completely unrelated to any part of the nuclear reactor systems. There were no details for the incidents listed. Those that I was able to research were largely debunked or put into realistic context. Greenpeas screams "radioactive material released!", when the event is barely detectable above background radiation. Even you have to admit that it wasn't an even-handed treatment.

Typical. What about the other accidents I just posted? Are they lies too?
Please refresh my memory on this.

5) Thank you for that suggestion to start my own thread. You are also free to do the same.

6) Yes, lets move on or lets move back to the older toxic thread. I agree. I'm more than happy to keep dispelling your arguments.
Except that you aren't, really. You still have yet to post any valid study or statistics that are not propaganda in support of your position.

It's very easy. I have history, technology, reality and logic on my side. All you have is a silly dream that nuclear energy will power the world safely and cost effectively. Changing your mind would be similar to changing someone's mind on their religion. Almost impossible! I am not trying to change the minds of proponents. I just hope people that are still on the fence take enough interest to research it on their own. You say that the more educated the person the more they move toward nuclear.
Sure, go ahead and disagree with a broad majority of scientists. You can believe what you want, but that doesn't make it valid. The poll clearly showed a link between science education and support for nuclear power. Keep arguing with facts until you are blue in the face. It's amusing.

I disagree so much so that I encourage them to research until they make their own conclusions. I think they will come up with the same conclusion that the rest of the world does - nuclear is not the best idea. That's why the adoption rate is abysmal. You can't deny that!
The reason that the adoption rate is low is due to ignorance - something that is changing faster with today's focus on the evils of climate change and CO2 levels. Even Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace now supports nuclear power. In his own words:

the environmental movement, to a large extent, has become a religious movement. It is about belief and not about science. Whereas I’m the first to be accepting of religious belief, I don’t think that has a place in determining our environmental policies, because they have to be based on science and good knowledge. The environmental movement was basically hijacked by the political activists a long time ago. And they prefer to use sensation and fear and misinformation—propaganda—as a way to get people to support them. Whereas I think science and logic are the correct elements that we should be using, to try to get people to understand what’s going on, and what the best way to deal with it is.
Dr. Moore is a true environmentalist and visionary.

Texas

01-14-2009, 05:33 AM

Altazi, Your way of thinking is so opposite to mine I just can't even believe it! It's amazing how you can discount simple concepts.

1) You didn't even address the accidents I just posted. What about the 28 km cloud?

2) You continue to equate nuclear and industrial accidents. Do you think most people do that? Oh right. It's all ignorance.

3) The world and all of the other countries on earth are ignorant. Right? That's why the adoption of rate of nuclear is so low? You don't see yourself as being arrogant? You just can't face reality. The tide is changing? How? When? Where? China? Iran? Please show us how nuclear is now growing at a huge rate like solar and wind. I'm talking rates of increase, year to year. I think that's a good indicator. Don't you? Of course you don't, it would blow your theory.

4) Why are your references better than mine? Your best reference is some book that nobody heard about. So, one person changed their mind? I can find a million others that once thought nuclear was a great solution but now think we should use real renewable and sustainable and safe technologies. Have they just become ignorant? Perhaps disillusioned at the promise of a perfect power source. Yeah, that sounds more like it.

5) You refuse to think the nuclear waste can be any problem at all to this or to future generations. Wow, just wow!

6) You refuse to address the costs! If we just talk about the costs nuclear is not attractive, especially if you add in all of your reprocessing costs. What about current U.S. subsidies? Should we keep them going?

7) What about the world being not so friendly? Terrorists attacks? Nuclear proliferation? What about all that?!

Your logic is crazy. You talk about the majority of scientists being behind you but... Why is there such low adoption? Nobody is listening to the scientists? The world is just ignorant? Wake up!

Round we go because you never address the real issues. You just dodge them, say they are old, they don't matter, refuse to acknowledge people hate to be near nuclear radiation, refuse to admit that you would be condemning future generations to your selfish decisions, refuse to address that we don't know how radiation effects humans long-term or how the rest of the world will also have nuclear plants and all of those problems.

I'm guessing the whole nuclear story is going to be showing up in the next 20 years when large numbers of reactors are going to be needing to be decommissioned. Trying to find places to put all of that waste (even the metal tubing needs to be stored). The cost overruns. People not wanting to have that waste in their neighborhoods, etc. Sounds like fun times ahead.

You are in serious denial and will justify anything to support your argument. I guess it's just a waste of time for us to keep going back and forth. You see my arguments as crazy and I see your arguments as not only crazy but extremely irresponsible to future generations as well as being highly dangerous!

You can't say my ideas are dangerous. They are renewable, sustainable and far more safe than your ideas. You just think solar can't do it. That's where I think you should spend your time. Can solar and other renewables work? If not, why? That's what we need to fix in your head. Once you realize that we can do it you will understand why the adoption rate of solar is so high, just as it should be. It makes sense to the world. Not to you, but to the rest of the world that actually make decisions and build things.

If you have any new info or ideas, please present them. If you want to address the issues, please bring them up. It might be good therapy for you. It might crush your belief system but believe me, that's a good thing for everyone concerned. Safe, not sorry. Seems like the better choice. Go renewable, not non-renewable. Go green not radioactive.

Don't be afraid, there is no shame in admitting you have been misguided and that your support for such generation of the worst materials man is capable of making is not the smart thing to do. Less waste, not more. See the light! It's right there in the sky. The solution is so simple!

Altazi

01-14-2009, 03:13 PM

Altazi, Your way of thinking is so opposite to mine I just can't even believe it! It's amazing how you can discount simple concepts.
I am just considering the source ;) You seem pretty sharp in most other areas; I don't see why you won't take the time to educate yourself about nuclear power. Sounds like willful ignorance to me.

1) You didn't even address the accidents I just posted. What about the 28 km cloud?
Sorry, you are correct. I must have missed that while I was trying to keep my wife on an even keel after her computer crashed hard. Hours of work and a total reinstall of XP coming up. Anyway . . .

The accident at Tomsk in 1993 occurred at a Soviet-era military plutonium reprocessing plant. Here is a link to a 1995 GAO report (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/gao/rc96004.pdf) discussing this incident and the general state of Soviet-era nuclear facilities at that time. I am not denying that there are real problems in facilities such as these. Clearly the former Soviet Union wasn't taking the required steps to maintain safety and environmental integrity, as this report shows:

DOE, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and European Union
officials, as well as other nuclear safety experts, told us that certain
nuclear facilities in the former Soviet Union, particularly those that are
part of the weapons complex, present safety risks. During our discussions with these experts, the following five factors emerged as the main contributors to unsafe conditions: (1) lack of technology as well as aging facilities and equipment, (2) the lack of awareness and commitment to the importance of safety, (3) the long-standing emphasis on production over safety, (4) the absence of independent and effective nuclear regulatory bodies, and (5) the lack of funds to improve safety. and specifically
DOE officials who visited Tomsk and Krasnoyarsk within the past 2 years in conjunction with a U.S.-Russian exchange program on reprocessing observed that the Russian safety practices were generally not comparable to U.S. practices.
I believe we can agree that poorly designed equipment and facilities, and inadequate safety concerns and protocols represent serious problems for any industry dealing with hazardous waste - nuclear waste being no exception. Let me emphasize yet again that current nuclear power plants in the Western World are held to higher standards. You are comparing apples to oranges. Please find valid documentation (e.g., official report) of a recent serious nuclear accident in the Western World - that would at least be relevant to this discussion.

Now back to Texas' diatribe:

2) You continue to equate nuclear and industrial accidents. Do you think most people do that? Oh right. It's all ignorance.
For once you have it right! Ignorance is the problem. Few people understand radiation and radioactive materials. Radioactive waste can be dangerous. Industrial waste can be dangerous. The disaster in Bhopal, India killed roughly 3,800 people and injured or permanently impaired thousands more. Show me statistics, a scientific study, or a government report detailing any injuries or deaths related to the nuclear power industry. Don't go off waving your hands about "we don't know the long term effects of radiation" - show me numbers NOW. We have had nuclear plants in operation long enough for any long-term effects to have manifested.

3) The world and all of the other countries on earth are ignorant. Right? That's why the adoption of rate of nuclear is so low? You don't see yourself as being arrogant?
You call me "arrogant". I call myself "educated". I call you "ignorant" - willfully ignorant, it seems.

You just can't face reality. The tide is changing? How? When? Where? China? Iran? Please show us how nuclear is now growing at a huge rate like solar and wind. I'm talking rates of increase, year to year. I think that's a good indicator. Don't you? Of course you don't, it would blow your theory.
A bit off-topic, as we ar debating the safety of nuclear power relative to that of the other major power generating technologies. We can get to that if we start talking about the economic issues - after this debate is over.

4) Why are your references better than mine?
Because they are! My references point to scientific studies, official government reports, and so on. Your references (when you even bother to link them) tend to be slanted towards the anti-nuclear scaremongering. Give me references equal or better to those I post.

Your best reference is some book that nobody heard about.
That's not a reference so much as it is an even-handed approach to nuclear power from the viewpoint of a skeptic. The author was ignorant of the details of nuclear power and the industry in general. This book describes her journey of education about nuclear power. I keep mentioning the book it because you need to read it. You just make yourself look foolish as you continue to argue your point from a position of ignorance.

So, one person changed their mind? I can find a million others that once thought nuclear was a great solution but now think we should use real renewable and sustainable and safe technologies.
That would be a great place for you to provide links. Don't be lazy - do the job.

Have they just become ignorant? Perhaps disillusioned at the promise of a perfect power source. Yeah, that sounds more like it.

5) You refuse to think the nuclear waste can be any problem at all to this or to future generations. Wow, just wow!

Instead of making an emotional comment like that above, why don't you what you know about nuclear waste. What YOU know, not what you have to look up on the Internet. Be honest and do it. Also, as I have said before, Gwyneth Cravens' book discusses this and many other subjects you keep ranting about. Why do you refuse to educate yourself. I'm not saying the book would even change your (obviously closed) mind, so why are you so afraid of reading it? You might even gather more information to further your cause, but you won't know until you read the book.

Continued next post . . .

Altazi

01-14-2009, 03:15 PM

Continued from above quote due to 10,000 character limitation. We begin with more of Texas' irrational diatribe against nuclear power . . .

6) You refuse to address the costs! If we just talk about the costs nuclear is not attractive, especially if you add in all of your reprocessing costs. What about current U.S. subsidies? Should we keep them going?
You are correct - I refuse to talk about the costs while the discussion is centered on the safety of nuclear power as compared to the other major energy generation technologies. Prove to me, using valid statistics or official reports or studies, that nuclear power is dangerous. Show me the numbers of the injuries and deaths related to the nuclear power industry. Let's finish this one debate before going off on the economics of nuclear power. No changing the subject - put-up or shut-up.

7) What about the world being not so friendly? Terrorists attacks? Nuclear proliferation? What about all that?!
It's like you don't remember what I wrote in a prior post - or maybe you didn't even read the post. What about it? The world isn't a friendly place. Rogue countries can develop nuclear weapons whether we have nuclear power or not. Show me how the two are linked. Until you show me proof, this is just you moving your mouth - or fingers, actually. Not quality information, just the typical pseudo-environmental anti-nuclear religion that former Greenpeace leader Dr. Patrick Moore was talking about.

Your logic is crazy.
Show me how, using your own logic and supporting materials.

You talk about the majority of scientists being behind you but...
Actually, it is more of a case of me being behind them.

Why is there such low adoption? Nobody is listening to the scientists?
Yes, that's pretty much the case. I suggest you re-read Dr. Moore's comment I quoted in a prior post.

The world is just ignorant?
Decidedly so, if you are talking about nuclear power. The population in general is woefully ignorant on many aspects of science. Why do you choose to remain in this group?

Wake up!
Excellent advice; I suggest you take it. Educate yourself. I would rather debate with someone who had true understanding of the subject, not someone who just parrots the ignorant rantings of the priests of the anti-nuclear religion.

Round we go because you never address the real issues. You just dodge them, say they are old, they don't matter, . . .
Hard to know where to begin with this one. Show me how an old, Soviet-era reactor design is relevant to the modern nuclear power industry.

. . . refuse to acknowledge people hate to be near nuclear radiation, . . .
I never said that people liked to be near nuclear radiation. I have just pointed out that most people are ignorant about radiation, radioactive materials, and nuclear power in general. People tend to fear what they don't understand, and you are a case in point.

. . . refuse to admit that you would be condemning future generations to your selfish decisions, refuse to address that we don't know how radiation effects humans long-term or how the rest of the world will also have nuclear plants and all of those problems.
It's like I'm talking to a black hole . . . Show me, PROVE TO ME, that the use of nuclear power would be worse for future generations than our current use of fossil fuels. Show me the studies, reports, statistics. If you can't produce these, it just proves the fallacies of your position.

I'm guessing the whole nuclear story is going to be showing up in the next 20 years when large numbers of reactors are going to be needing to be decommissioned. Trying to find places to put all of that waste (even the metal tubing needs to be stored). The cost overruns. People not wanting to have that waste in their neighborhoods, etc. Sounds like fun times ahead.

You are in serious denial and will justify anything to support your argument. I guess it's just a waste of time for us to keep going back and forth. You see my arguments as crazy and I see your arguments as not only crazy but extremely irresponsible to future generations as well as being highly dangerous!
I have yet to see you provide any documented proof supporting your position. You mention the "Tomsk incident" in scaremongering fashion. I acknowledge the incident, don't downplay its seriousness, but put it in context. Whose argument is superior, based entirely on documented evidence?

You can't say my ideas are dangerous. They are renewable, sustainable and far more safe than your ideas. You just think solar can't do it. That's where I think you should spend your time. Can solar and other renewables work? If not, why? That's what we need to fix in your head. Once you realize that we can do it you will understand why the adoption rate of solar is so high, just as it should be. It makes sense to the world. Not to you, but to the rest of the world that actually make decisions and build things.

If you have any new info or ideas, please present them. If you want to address the issues, please bring them up. It might be good therapy for you. It might crush your belief system but believe me, that's a good thing for everyone concerned. Safe, not sorry. Seems like the better choice. Go renewable, not non-renewable. Go green not radioactive.

Don't be afraid, there is no shame in admitting you have been misguided and that your support for such generation of the worst materials man is capable of making is not the smart thing to do. Less waste, not more. See the light! It's right there in the sky. The solution is so simple!
It's not like I am against solar power, but it has its drawbacks as well. But please don't change the subject - we are debating the safety of nuclear power as compared to the other major power generating technologies. Stay on track until the job is done, or just give it up.

Altazi

01-14-2009, 03:18 PM

Is anyone else following this discussion, or is it just me & Texas going around in circles? ;)

I'd be interested in hearing your comments, pro and con.

calgaryvolt

01-14-2009, 03:40 PM

Seems like quite the pissing match. I used to follow some of the posts and have been back a few times to review what has been said but, yes, it has just been a circular discussion going no where with neither side making any significant progress.

I don't know if it was mentioned in any of the previous posts but the founder of greenpeace, Patrick Moore, has come out in support of nuclear energy as a safe, clean and cost effective energy source.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html

One of the primary concerns, and rightfully so, is the safety of nuclear reactor facilities. It is pretty apparent that nuclear facilities are safe but accidents can happen. The design of facilities largely mitigates accident impacts to the surrounding environment and communities. I would feel safe living near a reactor. I would not choose to live near any energy source though. Accidents could happen where a wind turbine could fall over or an airplane could crash into it. Every energy sources has safety concerns.

Storage and waste is another primary concern. Plans are currently and have been in the works for this. Of course there have been many issues related to planning. My feeling is that there is too much focus on the negative aspects and not enough focus on the positive. The perfect plan will be evolutionary but it can't evolve if it keeps getting stopped from the get-go. The powerful minds that exist, if given free-range, can devise the solutions but the current environment is not allowing the experts to get things done.

Too many people think they know what is best and are constraining progress.

Altazi

01-14-2009, 06:19 PM

Seems like quite the pissing match.
Thanks, calgaryvolt.

Warning to Texas: I just had three cups of coffee, four glasses of iced tea, and two glasses of water. Ready and able! ;)

Texas

01-14-2009, 11:00 PM

I don't know if it was mentioned in any of the previous posts but the founder of greenpeace, Patrick Moore, has come out in support of nuclear energy as a safe, clean and cost effective energy source.

It's funny how this Greenpeace guy was once dismissed as being a tree-hugging environmentalist until he changes sides. Then he is the most brilliant and significant person on the subject. You don't find that ironic? Altazi, you just dismissed the Greenpeace list as being insignificant! Your guy probably helped write that list! I do find it ironic. Again, one person changing sides does not the majority make. Nuclear has extremely low adoption rates all over the world. Period.

I would not choose to live near any energy source though.

Really? I have been living directly under a solar power system and it hasn't caused me one bit of concern. Care to re-state your position? Solar power, after all, is the leading contender to solve our energy problems. You can picnic in the middle of a solar farm with your children running barefoot. How can people deny that?

Too many people think they know what is best and are constraining progress.

Well, if that constraint is keeping thousands of nuclear power plants from being built all over the world then I'm all for it. Altazi talks about the poor state of safety in Russia. Russia has been working on nuclear technology for just about as long as we have. When the world decides to go nuclear (I'm sure they won't) you are going to be having hundreds of countries putting in nuclear reactors, working out the regulations, etc. Altazi talks about the safety in the U.S. like the rest of the world does not exist. Yeah, France and the U.S. have good records. Not perfect but good. Don't forget that France only has about 60 reactors and we only have 100 or so commercial power plants. That’s only a tiny amount of power. We are talking thousands! Why can't people get this? If there is not thousands then it won't make a bit of difference. I'm talking about running the entire world on solar power. Yes, there can be many different sustainable technologies like wind, biofuels, etc. but the world could run just on solar power. Can you imagine for one moment the world running on just nuclear power? Can anyone chime in here for a moment? Iran having 60 power plants, Africa having hundreds! You say no but if you think nuclear is the solution then everyone should have it. If not, why? You think it's perfectly safe.

Just look at how the rest of the world is dealing with our chemical waste. Oh Altazi! That was good how you equated the worst chemical disaster to industrial accidents. lol. Great! I would put horrible industrial accidents like that in India as very close to a nuclear accident. However, let's talk about normal and most used technologies like gas, goal, hydro. Shall we? Does anyone fear the aftermath of a gas power plant disaster? I wouldn't be one bit concerned going in there one week after. How about going in after a Three Mile Island accident? Well, I can tell you I would be carrying a Geiger counter with me, a special suit, etc. If I just so happened to get a huge dose (for some reason) then I would wonder if that huge dose did any damage that will cause me to suffer 10 years down the line. Come on guys, they are different! Just about everyone on earth would agree with that, even nuclear physicists!

Let's do a poll. Like a CNN poll. I'm sure we would get 90% or higher people agreeing with me. Yes, they may all be ignorant (what a joke) but the fact is that those people are going to resist nuclear, with good reason. So, it doesn't matter that every nuclear physicist is for nuclear power (duh, their livelihood depends on it) it has only resulted in extremely low adoptions rates. That's a fact that cannot be denied.

I just don't want the new order of things to forget our passed lessons and feel we have no other choice but to go nuclear to solve our CO2 problems. That's a huge and massive mistake, in my opinion. We can have an even faster and greater effect on things just putting in solar power. Nuclear power plants take 10 years to build and the industry is far to small to be ramped up fast enough. You have to train a lot more nuclear physicists to handle all the new operations. If we don't take the time to do that, we are going to have more accidents! Yes, the U.S. spends a huge amount on our nuclear industry. The subsidies are outrageous! The government support is unparalleled. However, will the rest of the world have that same level of funding and regulation? Same oversight? I think not! Can anyone argue against that? No. If Russia is unsafe, with all it's decades of experience, how is Africa or Iran going to do much better?

Or... Just install safe and sustainable solar technology. More than enough energy for the world by multiples. The technology only gets better every year and we can add up to 20% to the grid without having to add significant amounts of electrical energy storage. That's a decades worth of hard work at the very least. Do people think we will not have better storage technology in 10 years? If not, then we can consider nuclear. Agreed? Let's go with the great sustainable technologies we have, add up to 20% and if we have still have not figured out how to make it all work then we can go to nuclear. The world's most dangerous substance generation should come last, not first on our options list. It's that simple. I'm confident that the solar solution will make it. In 10 years it will be a given. Nobody will even consider going with nuclear fission reactors. They will be too expensive at the very least.

Texas

01-14-2009, 11:19 PM

Who is Patric Moore? Since his name is now brought up all the time let's check him out.

"Alternative energy
Moore today supports nuclear power, along with renewable energy sources such as hydroelectric, geothermal, biomass, and wind.[3] He argues that any realistic plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and the emission of greenhouse gases should include increased use of nuclear energy.[3] He has publicly acknowledged that this is in stark contrast to his views on this subject some decades earlier [3] (as has another pioneer environmentalist, Stewart Brand). In 1976, Moore called nuclear power plants "the most dangerous devices that man has ever created. Their construction and proliferation is the most irresponsible, in fact the most criminal, act ever to have taken place on this planet".[6] Moore believes that alternatives to fossil fuels must be found and that nuclear energy is one of the most effective technologies to reduce fossil fuel use.[3]

Moore is supported by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a national organization of pro-nuclear industries which hopes to enlist Moore's help in bringing about a nuclear renaissance.[7]

[edit] Global warming
Moore calls global warming the "most difficult issue facing the scientific community today in terms of being able to actually predict with any kind of accuracy what's going to happen".[8] While acknowledging that the increase of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is caused by human consumption of fossil fuels, he claims that as of 2006, it cannot be proven as the exclusive reason the Earth has been warming since 1980.[citation needed] He stresses that it is scientific evidence, not consensus opinion, that would prove or disprove this relation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist) - Please read the whole article

Also, there seems to be even more issues coming up:

"Dr Leonie Jacobs of the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands has said, "Dr. Patrick Moore may be a good marine biologist and a former founder of Greenpeace but he is presently paid by the timber industry to deliberately mislead the public and politicians about the acceptability of aggressive logging practices."

Hummm, Not all squeaky clean. He changed his mind almost 180, like a politician, and has sold his soul to do anything to fix what he feels is the world's more dire problem - global warming. He feels so strongly about it that he is willing to put in thousands of nuclear power plants all over the world. I think he has lost his mind. Talk about Machiavellian!

Altazi

01-15-2009, 01:43 AM

Texas

01-15-2009, 03:02 AM

In Oregon, we tend to think green and tend toward environmentalism. I tended to support Greenpeace early on. Now that it has gone pseudo-environmental whacko, I call it "Greenpeas" and pretty much ignore it. Dr. Patrick Moore came to the realization that nuclear power is a better alternative that the fossil fuel power plants that are polluting our environment to the tune of millions of tons of CO2 and other gunk per year. Global warming or not, anthropogenic or not, there is nothing bad about reducing the level of pollutants we are dumping into the environment.

It's almost as if you haven't read any of my posts, and you don't seem to be interested in learning any facts about nuclear power.

That would be a mistake, and be quite unfair to the nuclear power industry which has a much better safety record. Thousands were killed in Bhopal! Show me a number of the people in the US whose deaths can be linked to the nuclear power industry. SHOW ME FIGURES, STATISTICS, REPORTS, STUDIES, etc. ANYTHING ELSE IS JUST YOUR PERSONAL OPINION, AND CARRIES NO WEIGHT.

You conveniently forget the study I showed you that proved that nuclear power resulted in the fewest deaths and injuries. It must be easy to debate - no, I will call what you do "arguing" - when you completely ignore documented fact.

Can you anything besides scaremongering? You are so worried about something that has an infinitesimal chance of happening and ignoring the thousands of documented lives shortened as a result of our existing power generating technologies like coal.
Show statistics, official reports, or studies that support your position, and stop foisting your own opinions upon the reader. Prove that you are right beyond a shadow of doubt. NO OPINION, JUST DOCUMENTED FACT.

What a waste of time. You keep trying to marginalize my posts by saying I don't give you stats and studies. Well, I keep posting information about the nuclear industry and giving you more lists on accidents. However, the basic problems is:

1) You don't acknowledge that radiation can cause long-term effects that are hard to track. Look at Chernobyl - not for the accident (I know you think it's impossible) but for how the injuries were reported and covered. We just have no idea. Can't you understand that? There have been tons of conflicting studies and nobody knows what will happen to all of the exposed people. It's a waste of time trying to get you to understand the difference between an industrial NG power plant accident and radiation exposure. Hello McFly!

2) You keep talking only about the U.S. and not the rest of the world. We are the best funded and subsidized. The rest of the world is going to go the way we do. You can't understand that and don't even address it.

3) Nothing about terrorists except to say that rouge nations can do it by themselves. Not that having thousands more nuclear plants, waste sites, scientists all over the world will increase that risk. Ever hear about nuclear proliferation? What's a matter with you?

Thus, I find it impossible to have a rational and fact-based discussion with you because your logic is so flawed against reality. Therefore, I'm going to give you the, let's agree to disagree. We have went around and around more than enough times and you still fail to address the most basic reasoning. I think we dragged out thoughts out more than enough. I could just post my same posts over and over, as could you. Nothing is going to change your feeling that nuclear energy for the world is perfectly safe. Accidents are impossible of won't cause any problems at all. Far less than auto accidents. Right? Man, Unbelievable!

Good luck with your nuclear theories. I will just continue to post more information and facts on reality. I think that's far more useful. Please feel free to take the last word.

P.S. Just using bigger text will not make your arguments correct. I have continued to post info, facts and have told people to research things on their own. I know you are getting frustrated because your arguments are failing. That causes people's voices to rise, texts to get better, etc. When you lose your cool it just shows you can't defend your arguments. There is no shame because nobody could defend the argument that nuclear power is safe for not only our generation but for future generations. If you compare it to using solar power then... What's really the argument? They both will work, as I have shown (even if you don't acknowledge it). OK, people, if both options work, which one would you choose? Nuclear waste or completely renewable solar energy? Hummm. Remember, if you choose nuclear you should have to live near it, not pawn it off to the poor. You are already pawning it off to multiple generations.

Altazi

01-15-2009, 06:15 AM

What a waste of time. You keep trying to marginalize my posts by saying I don't give you stats and studies.
Dude, you marginalize your own posts by failing to substantiate anything. If you can't provide supporting information, you are indeed wasting your time. You just keep spinning and spinning and getting nowhere. You might as well just quit if you can't provide decent information.

Well, I keep posting information about the nuclear industry and giving you more lists on accidents.
What information? I see paragraph after paragraph of your irrelevant opinions, emotional rants, and comments on what "rational" people would choose, but no real, factual information. Based on what you expect from other people with whom you engage in a debate, I am disappointed in your efforts here. Furthermore, you mentioned only one more accident - Tomsk - hardly a "list". I responded accordingly, not disagreeing with you in any way regarding the Tomsk incident, but putting it in historical context. If you can't realize that old Soviet designed facilities are different from what is used in modern Western nuclear power plants, you are truly hopeless. Up to this point, the only incident you listed that was truly relevant was Three Mile Island. I responded with official information (supported) showing an average increase of the 360mrem normal background radiation level by only one mrem. Furthermore, no deaths or injuries were reported. Are you trying to tell me that one additional millirem would cause injuries years later?

However, the basic problems is:

1) You don't acknowledge that radiation can cause long-term effects that are hard to track. Look at Chernobyl - not for the accident (I know you think it's impossible) but for how the injuries were reported and covered. We just have no idea. Can't you understand that? There have been tons of conflicting studies and nobody knows what will happen to all of the exposed people. It's a waste of time trying to get you to understand the difference between an industrial NG power plant accident and radiation exposure.
Do you remember that we already discussed Chernobyl, and how it can't happen here? You're not very good at letting something go. Let's move on, shall we?

Hello McFly!
Appropriate that you take the role of Biff from Back to the Future. I note some intellectual similarities . . . ;)

2) You keep talking only about the U.S. and not the rest of the world. We are the best funded and subsidized. The rest of the world is going to go the way we do. You can't understand that and don't even address it.
As I have already mentioned, nuclear reactor and facility designs as well as safety issues and protocols are discussed in depth in the international nuclear community. Make an attempt to prove otherwise, or you lose this point.

3) Nothing about terrorists except to say that rouge nations can do it by themselves. Not that having thousands more nuclear plants, waste sites, scientists all over the world will increase that risk. Ever hear about nuclear proliferation? What's a matter with you?
The genie is out of the bottle. We can harness the genie for good or ill, and I choose good. And what exactly is a "rouge" nation? One with too much makeup? ;)

Thus, I find it impossible to have a rational and fact-based discussion with you because your logic is so flawed against reality.
I'm not even sure how you can say this when you really haven't provided one single fact to prove that the nuclear power industry is a greater danger risk than the other major power-generating technologies. You have failed to refute any single factual reference I have mentioned. Your reality must be a strange place of irrational emotion and fallacious beliefs. I suspect that any readers who have made it this far are likely to agree with my assessment of your performance here.

Therefore, I'm going to give you the, let's agree to disagree. We have went around and around more than enough times and you still fail to address the most basic reasoning. I think we dragged out thoughts out more than enough. I could just post my same posts over and over, as could you. Nothing is going to change your feeling that nuclear energy for the world is perfectly safe. Accidents are impossible of won't cause any problems at all. Far less than auto accidents. Right? Man, Unbelievable!

Good luck with your nuclear theories. I will just continue to post more information and facts on reality. Did I miss something? What "information"? Why don't you provide links to supporting information? Could it be due to the fact that you can't find any? Also, don't keep dragging up crap that happened 40-50 years ago and call it relevant.

I think that's far more useful. Please feel free to take the last word.

P.S. Just using bigger text will not make your arguments correct. I have continued to post info, WHERE? LINK, LINK, LINK? I SEE NONE. YOU HAVE POSTED NOTHING BUT IGNORANT OPINION
facts and have told people to research things on their own. Yes, "research on their own" = Texas is too lazy to find supporting material - or more likely, CANNOT find supporting material.
I know you are getting frustrated because your arguments are failing. That causes people's voices to rise, texts to get better, etc. I am getting frustrated because of your lack of short-term memory and WILLFUL IGNORANCE on the subject of nuclear power. You are not qualified to debate on this subject.
When you lose your cool it just shows you can't defend your arguments. There is no shame because nobody could defend the argument that nuclear power is safe for not only our generation but for future generations. If you compare it to using solar power then... What's really the argument? They both will work, as I have shown (even if you don't acknowledge it). OK, people, if both options work, which one would you choose? Nuclear waste or completely renewable solar energy? Hummm. Remember, if you choose nuclear you should have to live near it, not pawn it off to the poor. You are already pawning it off to multiple generations.
My God, what a nutcase. I cannot engage you in a debate because you provide no substance against which factual opposition is effective. In this entire debate, you have proven nothing. You have failed to prove that nuclear power is more dangerous than the other major power generating technologies. You offer nothing but irrelevant material and your own uneducated opinions. You don't honestly know the first thing about nuclear power, and yet you rant against it. You are afraid to learn the facts about nuclear power because it might displace your irrational beliefs - what a sad state to have achieved. Very strange in someone who appears to be fairly intelligent in other respects.

Texas

01-15-2009, 06:26 AM

Thank you for the last word. Good luck with your nuclear power industry arguments... You're going to need it.

calgaryvolt

01-15-2009, 12:02 PM

Altazi

01-15-2009, 02:16 PM

Thank you for the last word. Good luck with your nuclear power industry arguments... You're going to need it.

Has anyone here ever worn Texas out to the point he just quits? Or am I the first? :)

Texas

01-15-2009, 02:52 PM

Has anyone here ever worn Texas out to the point he just quits? Or am I the first? :)

Only a few have reached such a ridiculous level. Completely unreasonable. Thus, I'm have not quit my debate on nuclear or my willingness to keep people informed about it. I have just decided that the monotonous back and forth we had going there for way too long was well, way too long. If you bring any new points to the argument and I feel the urge to chime in, I will.

Oh, I gave up on Mr. Bogey right before you. Sorry to disappoint you but if it makes you feel better you are in his league. That's one class I would not want to teach! ;)

Altazi

01-15-2009, 02:59 PM

Only a few have reached such a ridiculous level. Completely unreasonable.

Texas, don't be so hard on yourself. You weren't completely unreasonable. I know you will do a better job next time.

We need a referee or a judge or something to break the infinite loops. :)

Texas

01-15-2009, 03:28 PM

Accidents that have occurred in the past are unlikely to occur in the future. The most important thing that comes out of accidents is knowledge. Actions of the past can be studied and learnt from so that similar events don't occur again. Chernobyl was a terrible disaster and because of it we (being the nuclear industry and society) have learnt about the effects of reactor accidents. We now know more about how radiation can harm humans and mutate genetic material and what not. It's a tragic part of life but the most valuable information often times comes from the most devistating accidents.

A good parallel would be to examine auto racing. The safety records of 50 years ago are terrible. A collision at high speed (significantly less in those days than today) almost certainly meant death to the driver. The engineers and others have learnt various things over time and now it is very rare to have a driver die even when impacting a wall at 200 plus miles per hour.

I will not dispute that the nuclear industry and nuclear power can be harm and has experienced a number of devistating accidents. I, however, feel that the industry will progress in time to become one of the best clean, cost effective and safe solutions for energy generation. The key is to continue funding and research and experimentation so that we can build better facilities and understand the waste and disposal process better.

I just wanted to post this in addition: it is in response to a brief comment made by Texas,
"Let's do a poll. Like a CNN poll. I'm sure we would get 90% or higher people agreeing with me. Yes, they may all be ignorant (what a joke) but the fact is that those people are going to resist nuclear, with good reason,"
about the general public and their ignorance on various topics.
"Early in 2003 France's first national energy debate was announced, in response to a "strong demand from the French people", 70% of whom had identified themselves as being poorly informed on energy questions. A poll had shown that 67% of people thought that environmental protection was the single most important energy policy goal. However, 58% thought that nuclear power caused climate change while only 46% thought that coal burning did so."
This is posted by the the World Nuclear Association.

Well, your arguments are much more reasonable than other posters. I would like to add just a few pieces of the puzzle regarding nuclear fission energy safety:

1) Nuclear waste. Yes we have reprocessing but even the U.S. does not use it.

2) The cost with reprocessing. Current project costs without government subsidies and with complete reprocessing (not even France has complete reprocessing) would be a lot higher today. OK, this is for costs but it’s a cost directly associated with safety.

3) Adoption rates of nuclear power are extremely small today. Governments are going with other options at a much higher rate.

4) Terrorists and nuclear material. What about non-proliferation? Is that OK? It's not safe now. We have highly toxic material being cooled right now next to every reactor in our country. That's a lot of nasty stuff with no place to go. Who gets that? Can terrorists? Dirty bombs are easy to make. Just like a bomb with nails only with highly radioactive waste that can be found at any of those reactors.

5) Natural disasters. An earthquake did good damage to a reactor in Japan only a short time ago. If the quake was closer and stronger then we don't know what would have happened. Can you guarantee containment? No. Nobody can. Do you say sorry to anyone that was irradiated but has to spend the rest of their lives worrying about cancers or worse? This is what happened to Chernobyl (just looking at the radiation aftermath, not the actual accident because people here claim that it cannot happen again - impossible with earthquakes or terrorists).

6) Future generations. Who gets all that waste? Our children do. Their children and so on. Unless they figure out a better way. Perhaps they can dig it up and shoot it into the sun or something. Either way, they are going to have to deal with it. They already have to.

7) If we decide it's the best solution then the rest of the world will argue, rightly so, that they should also have the best solution. Seems fair to me. Will they have as good as safety as we do? Look at Russia. They have been doing it as long as we have and I don’t think everyone agrees that their safety record is good. I posted a few accidents, one putting out a radioactive cloud for 28 km. This was in 1993.

Thus, it's safer now (because it was horrific before) but it's still not safe. Nobody can guarantee that with our current technology. We can only put in many safety systems (confinement, backup safety systems, etc.). Earthquakes, huge steam explosions, man-made bombs, etc. can all cause these safety systems to become overwhelmed.

I also agree that we need to continue to R&D nuclear power. I have always said that. If we do end up with a great solution that is impossible to be used for nuclear dirty bombs, will not put highly radioactive waste into the ground that generations after us have to deal with and that can't produce clouds of radioactive waste if an accident happens then that would be great (pebble reactors, etc.). Next would be to check if the costs would be in-line with our other options.

I personally think solar and electrical storage (batteries, caps, hydrogen, other) will be far beyond that when the time comes. If not, I'm up for exploring a non-renewable option like nuclear fission, if we really have to.

Altazi

01-15-2009, 03:44 PM

Texas has raised issues related to the nuclear power industry. For anyone not afraid of learning something, I recommend the book "Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy" by Gwyneth Cravens. She was a skeptic about the safety and efficacy of nuclear power, and approached the subject from that viewpoint. This book documents her journey towards understanding the facts of nuclear power.

She has a website (http://www.cravenspowertosavetheworld.com/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/) where you can learn more about the book and also a FAQ section and links.

calgaryvolt

01-15-2009, 04:21 PM

Well, your arguments are much more reasonable than other posters. I would like to add just a few pieces of the puzzle regarding nuclear fission energy safety:

1) Nuclear waste. Yes we have reprocessing but even the U.S. does not use it.

2) The cost with reprocessing. Current project costs without government subsidies and with complete reprocessing (not even France has complete reprocessing) would be a lot higher today. OK, this is for costs but it’s a cost directly associated with safety.
Costs will always decrease as associated technology increases.

3) Adoption rates of nuclear power are extremely small today. Governments are going with other options at a much higher rate.
France is one government which has/is considering nuclear before all most any other source. If I'm not mistaken, China is also leaning strongly towards nuclear energy options.

4) Terrorists and nuclear material. What about non-proliferation? Is that OK? It's not safe now. We have highly toxic material being cooled right now next to every reactor in our country. That's a lot of nasty stuff with no place to go. Who gets that? Can terrorists? Dirty bombs are easy to make. Just like a bomb with nails only with highly radioactive waste that can be found at any of those reactors.
Terrorists acts on anything will always be a risk until humans learn to live in peace with each other. Large wind farms or solar farms or energy storage facilities will be targets if they exist. The evil-doers will always find something to go after which they deem could cripple society.

5) Natural disasters. An earthquake did good damage to a reactor in Japan only a short time ago. If the quake was closer and stronger then we don't know what would have happened. Can you guarantee containment? No. Nobody can. Do you say sorry to anyone that was irradiated but has to spend the rest of their lives worrying about cancers or worse? This is what happened to Chernobyl (just looking at the radiation aftermath, not the actual accident because people here claim that it cannot happen again - impossible with earthquakes or terrorists).
Building in geologically active areas is not a bright idea to begin with. On the other hand, the fact that little to no damage occurred when an earthquake had an impact near a reactor is very positive in terms of build quality.
The safest place for reactors would be in stable, cratonic environments which do not experience earthquakes, tsunami's, floods, hurricanes, tornado's etc. Long distance electric transport is possible so reactors don't need to be located near populated areas.
The stable craton of North America (Canadian shield, northern Ontario/northern Manitoba/northeast Saskatchewan) would seem to be an excellent location

6) Future generations. Who gets all that waste? Our children do. Their children and so on. Unless they figure out a better way. Perhaps they can dig it up and shoot it into the sun or something. Either way, they are going to have to deal with it. They already have to.
I still don't see why sending the waste to space isn't considered a more viable solution. I understand the costs would be high and that there would be considerable risk associated with failed takeoffs but we've been firing shuttles into space for so long the overall risk of something going wrong is fairly minor.

With further research and development I'm sure better and more effective ways of reducing the waste will be developed. This could include better recycling, better waste storage or some other techniques and technologies currently unavailable or unknown to us. If there is a need and desire, some brilliant mind will come up with a feasible solution (this much I am sure of.)

7) If we decide it's the best solution then the rest of the world will argue, rightly so, that they should also have the best solution. Seems fair to me. Will they have as good as safety as we do? Look at Russia. They have been doing it as long as we have and I don’t think everyone agrees that their safety record is good. I posted a few accidents, one putting out a radioactive cloud for 28 km. This was in 1993.

One of the benefits for future development and distribution of facilities is that organizations exist which act as watch dogs. Such organizations include the Nuclear Energy Agency, the Internation Atomic Energy Agency and others. The goal of these agencies it actively distribute information and knowlege and monitor the generation of nuclear energy. Of any energy source nuclear has the largest "safety net" and industry watchdog groups.

Thus, it's safer now (because it was horrific before) but it's still not safe. Nobody can guarantee that with our current technology. We can only put in many safety systems (confinement, backup safety systems, etc.). Earthquakes, huge steam explosions, man-made bombs, etc. can all cause these safety systems to become overwhelmed.

I also agree that we need to continue to R&D nuclear power. I have always said that. If we do end up with a great solution that is impossible to be used for nuclear dirty bombs, will not put highly radioactive waste into the ground that generations after us have to deal with and that can't produce clouds of radioactive waste if an accident happens then that would be great (pebble reactors, etc.). Next would be to check if the costs would be in-line with our other options.

I personally think solar and electrical storage (batteries, caps, hydrogen, other) will be far beyond that when the time comes. If not, I'm up for exploring a non-renewable option like nuclear fission, if we really have to.

I think the important thing is that the technology needs to be further developed and explored and understood as a viable option. It's one thing to do the engineering and put together models in computers and run tests and what not but it's another thing to actually put things together in real life. With the current red-tape and legal barriers and human barriers how can we really figure out if nuclear is right or wrong. It's easy to say that accidents have happened so we shouldn't develop or implement the technology but it's also easy to figure out what went wrong and improve and learn from mistakes.

I'm not saying that nuclear is the only way but, to me, it's ridiculous to shelve the idea without even really trying to implement it.

Texas

01-15-2009, 04:21 PM

Yes! When you are done with that book check out the issues she conveniently did not cover. I would look at:

Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change

"Product Description
How much will nuclear energy cost relative to other means of getting rid of carbon dioxide emissions? What will be the risks of catastrophic accidents if we build reactors at the rate of one a week or more, cookie-cutter style, around the world? What about the risks of proliferation and terrorist attacks and nuclear waste? This book provides a meticulously researched analysis of the risks of using nuclear energy to combat global warming. Were there no alternative, the severity of the threat facing humankind and other species from global climate change might warrant serious consideration of the risks of nuclear energy. But as Insurmountable Risks convincingly shows, there are far safer economical alternatives. "

http://www.amazon.com/Insurmountable-Risks-Dangers-Nuclear-Climate/dp/1571431624/ref=pd_bbs_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232050665&sr=8-10

And

Nuclear Energy Principles Practices -

"Product Description

As energy resources, particularly fossil fuels, become strained, nuclear energy (despite its known shortcomings) must be considered as an alternative. This book presents an objective view of nuclear energy as an important source for future energy needs. It discusses various types of reactors, the nuclear fuel cycle, the problem of nuclear waste disposal, reactor accidents, safety and new types of reactors that are being considered, and the cost of electricity from nuclear power. Additional themes include the problem of nuclear weapons, their storage, and, very important, their disposal as nuclear arsenals are pared down.

This new edition has been brought up to date throughout, with new data, figures, and tables added. The chapter on costs of electricity has been shortened, simplified, and revised to make reference to the changes caused by the electricity deregulation. A motivating introductory chapter, and a new chapter on nuclear waste disposal at Yucca Mountain have been added."

http://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Energy-Principles-Practices-Prospects/dp/0387207783/ref=pd_bbs_sr_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232050428&sr=8-6

Texas

01-15-2009, 05:41 PM

Altazi, I finally solved your “Gwyneth Cravens” dilemma!

Wow, this really seems to be a common path. People that once hated nuclear power, learn to hate global warming more, think solar, wind or other renewable resources can’t solve the problem so they turn to their once hated enemy - nuclear power.

It’s almost sad to see them do that. I know deep in their hearts they don’t want to (who would?) but they honestly feel there is no way out! I shed a tear for them. Too bad they have not kept up with modern solar technology and energy storage ideas.

I hate to tell you this Altazi but if she understood what is possible she would turn her back on nuclear energy so fast your head will spin! lol. I can’t believe you don’t see that. Anyway, let’s take a very close look at what she wrote, shall we?

“I used to oppose nuclear power, even though the Sierra Club supported it. By the mid-1970s the Sierra Club turned against nuclear power too. However, as we witness the catastrophic consequences of accelerated global temperature increase, prominent environmentalists as well as skeptics like me have started taking a fresh look at nuclear energy. A large percentage of the heat-trapping greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, that thaw Arctic ice and glaciers comes from making electricity, and we rely upon it every second of our lives.

There are three ways to provide large-scale electricity the kind that reliably meets the demands of our civilization around the clock. In the United States:
75% of that baseload electricity comes from power plants that burn fossil fuels, mainly coal, and emit carbon dioxide. Toxic waste from coal-fired plants kills 24,000 Americans annually.
5% comes from hydroelectric plants.
Less than 1% comes from wind and solar power.
20% comes from nuclear plants that use low-enriched uranium as fuel, burn nothing, and emit virtually no CO2. In 50 years of operation, they have caused no deaths to the public.

When I began my research eight years ago, I'd assumed that we had many choices in the way we made electricity. But we don't. Nuclear power is the only large-scale, environmentally-benign, time-tested technology currently available to provide clean electricity. Wind and solar power have a role to play, but since they’re diffuse and intermittent, they can't provide baseload, and they always require some form of backup--usually from burning fossil fuels, which have a huge impact on public health.”

That it! lol. If you can’t see that then you are blind. It’s because she felt she had no solution! Her research was also 8 years old. Today we have roll-to-roll solar technology that is now being pumped out like crazy. They are building more plants as we speak. It’s like a solar revolution, only slightly dampened due to the current economic crisis - almost no industry can get funding). However, even you can see the writing on the walls. Here are the big questions:

Are there electrical storage technologies available to make solar and wind work as base load power?

1) We can add 20% to the grid before we need storage in the first place. That’s 10 years of very hard work. If you take that globally it’s more than three times the work. I just ran a calculation that shows you could add the equivalent of 2800 nuclear reactors (1 GW) of solar power before you needed a significant amount of energy storage. See calculation below. Wow! Did anyone ever run those numbers? That’s a lot of nuclear waste if we decided to go nuclear and not solar.

2) We are going to be adding a tremendous amount of electrical energy storage by way of plug-in hybrids and EVs. Our transportation fleet is sitting, on average, 90 percent of the time. A simple metered system will allow the storage at night or when more energy is generated than needed and can give back during peak need or during long cloud cover. They work together to allow even more than 20%.

3) We have pumped storage hydro that is proven and only needs to be put in. No more costly or expensive than nuclear power and all the subsidies, decommissioning, etc.

4) We have very promising electrical storage coming on-line. From batteries to biofuel to hydrogen using advanced electrolysis, etc. These are all renewable, sustainable solutions that do not produce the world’s most deadly substances (radioactive waste).

We can make this work today and in the future. No need to spend trillions on nuclear power plants that will never need to be turned on! I can almost guarantee it. In ten years when solar is kicking all over the world, people are not going to give a non-renewable solution that generates radioactive waste the time of day. Why would they?

Wow! That was so cool. I could almost feel the inner stress that Gwyneth felt. So torn, so twisted. It’s actually a good lesson on justification. She hated an idea so much but decided it was not as bad as global warming. Thus, she changed her tune. The lesser of two evils in her mind. It’s just too bad she didn’t have modern solar and EV technologies to turn to for help. Man, let’s get Gwyneth on the phone! Could she even accept such a concept? Would it just tear her up inside to have to admit that she robbed Peter to pay Paul? Oh the drama and conflict. This is interesting stuff on human nature and society. Poor Gwyneth. I hope she sees the light and can gracefully come to the renewable and sustainable camp. Fixing global warming will be just one of the major problems we will fix as we transition from fossil fuels.

Man, that was so good I’m almost embarrassed for Altazi.

Calculation of equivalent nuclear reactors:

The world’s energy generation currently produced from fossil fuels would be 16TW * .865 (percentage from burning fossil fuels) = 13.8 TW. If you put up to 20% of that value as solar power then comes out to a whopping 2.8 TW of energy that can be added or replaced. An average nuclear reactor can generate about 1GW so that could substitute the building of 2800 nuclear reactors around the world! That’s not even talking about any new significant electrical energy storage! Just solar and electrified transportation. Throw in a massive amount of pumped storage hydro just in case and some NG backup and that would be much better, no? Not to have to deal with countries all over the world with 2800 nuclear reactors? What a nightmare!

calgaryvolt

01-15-2009, 06:37 PM

Calculation of equivalent nuclear reactors:

The world’s energy generation currently produced from fossil fuels would be 16TW * .865 (percentage from burning fossil fuels) = 13.8 TW. If you put up to 20% of that value as solar power then comes out to a whopping 2.8 TW of energy that can be added or replaced. An average nuclear reactor can generate about 1GW so that could substitute the building of 2800 nuclear reactors around the world! That’s not even talking about any new significant electrical energy storage! Just solar and electrified transportation. Throw in a massive amount of pumped storage hydro just in case and some NG backup and that would be much better, no? Not to have to deal with countries all over the world with 2800 nuclear reactors? What a nightmare!

The area required is pretty substantial to generate that amount of power using solar.
As an example I looked at the information for a solar farm in Jumilla, Spain. It is about 100 hectares in size with 120,000 solar panels and produces 23 Mw. Jumilla, Spain also has very excellent conditions for solar generation with over 300 days of excellent sunshine.
If my math is correct, in order to generate 2.8 Tw with these types of conditions you would need 121,740 more of the farms. At 100 hectares each that is 121,740,000 hectares or 470,000 square miles. That is almost twice the size of Texas. This is with very favourable sun conditions. I don't know the size of an average nuclear facility but the Pickering Ontario plant generates about 2GW and is about 0.5 square mile.

Altazi

01-15-2009, 07:57 PM

gmmm1400

01-15-2009, 08:13 PM

Speculators are at it again! Good timing for the Volt in two years!

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/06/26/oil-shock-analyst-predicts-7-gas-mass-exodus-of-us-cars/
Can you believe GM they take Billions of our tax dollars and source the Batteries with a Korean Company, what's up with our leadership in Washington

Texas

01-16-2009, 12:18 AM

Texas, for someone who wants to end the discussion, you are certainly flapping your jaws quite a bit.

I see you mentioning Gwyneth Cravens' book repeatedly - mentioning what she covers and doesn't cover - but I bet you still haven't read it. Classy. Real classy.

Oh come on! You know you got totally burned on that source. At least admit that. Have you lost your complete sense of reality over this nuclear idea? It would seem so. You and I both read what she wrote! From that she just simply justified it in her head so it felt better to her. It's obvious to anyone not also trying to justify their support for nuclear. You don't think she will jump on the next renewable solution she thinks is viable and say goodbye to nuclear for good? If so, you are delusional.

Anyway, I have to get back to one of your friends. Now he sounds exactly like you. Are you two playing a joke? lol. I will be brief with him because you two could be the same person for all I know and he uses the same tired arguments that make no sense.

Altazi

01-16-2009, 12:24 AM

Oh come on! You know you got totally burned on that source. At least admit that. Have you lost your complete sense of reality over this nuclear idea? It would seem so. You and I both read what she wrote!
Did you read the entire book? Yes or no.

Texas

01-16-2009, 01:01 AM

The area required is pretty substantial to generate that amount of power using solar.
As an example I looked at the information for a solar farm in Jumilla, Spain. It is about 100 hectares in size with 120,000 solar panels and produces 23 Mw. Jumilla, Spain also has very excellent conditions for solar generation with over 300 days of excellent sunshine.
If my math is correct, in order to generate 2.8 Tw with these types of conditions you would need 121,740 more of the farms. At 100 hectares each that is 121,740,000 hectares or 470,000 square miles. That is almost twice the size of Texas. This is with very favourable sun conditions. I don't know the size of an average nuclear facility but the Pickering Ontario plant generates about 2GW and is about 0.5 square mile.

Yeah, it's a lot of land. Did you look at a globe lately and compare the size of Texas to the rest of the world? It's tiny. A pimple on a monkey’s ass.

So, you would rather have 2800 nuclear reactors at hundreds of different countries? Yeah, you are right, that Texas land is just too much. It might change the landscape of the desert.

Look at how much you care about a tiny amount of desert land and think that’s too much. I could tell you all day that it will produce no waste and could be taken down, melted and people could move in the area an build houses while the panels were being taken down. It's not even a loud operation to decommission the power plant!

You want to compare that to the nuclear waste generated by 2800 reactors? There are only around 440 commercial reactors in the world today! The U.S. has the most by far at 100, France has 60, etc. Only 17 have been decommissioned yet. That's a whole new ballgame that we will be playing soon.

Oh, you are talking about China? A country that has a smaller percentage of nuclear power than Brazil, India and even Mexico? China can also impose their will on others. They just say you are going to have a nuclear plant here and you have to live with it. I think China wants to be like the developed nations and thus will build just as many as the rest of the developed world. I wonder what level they are shooting for. They are also putting in a few new coal plants every week! Just look at the facts of where they are and where they are headed. I'm not as worried about China regulating their power plants as I am about the other 100 or so nations that will be getting their new nuclear industries if your plan works out. I'm also concerned about the huge increase in nuclear waste generation just to equal what solar can without adding more electrical storage.

Now, if all of the people that don’t like global warming want to turn off all fossil fuel plants and replace them with nuclear power plants knew how many that would take I don’t think they would want that solution anymore. Do you have an idea of how many that will take? Well let me show you!

The world’s energy generation currently produced from fossil fuels would be 16TW * .865 (percentage from burning fossil fuels) = 13.8 TW well that comes out to 13,800 reactors all over the world compared to the 440 we have now in the developed world. That's over 30 times more! You see, there is no quick solution for the burning of fossil fuels, even if we wanted to change quickly. In fact, it will be far faster and cheaper to transition using solar and pumped storage hydro. For one, it's extremely safe and every country could have dozens of solar factories churning out panels while others are digging out two big holes at different elevations. It would not require the level that building, operating and regulating 13,800 reactors would require. Agree with that?

If things really go badly around the world we will just have to do our work when the sun is shining. What's so bad about that? In fact, it would be a huge improvement over what most of the world is doing now with very limited energy resources.

Thus, I just can't understand why people want to go nuclear to solve the world's CO2 and energy problems when it's clearly not the way to go. It would be impossible to get that many trained nuclear technicians and physicists and to ramp up the nuclear power plant generation machine that quickly.

Altazi

01-16-2009, 05:50 AM

Wow. Texas can post 8,000 characters of his typical drivel but can't answer a simple yes or no question.

Must be tiring, all that bobbing and weaving . . .

Texas

01-16-2009, 07:56 AM

Wow. Texas can post 8,000 characters of his typical drivel but can't answer a simple yes or no question.

Must be tiring, all that bobbing and weaving . . .

Oh, I forgot that you think the world revolves around you. I just replied to your friend. Is that OK? Now, let me see what you are talking about...

OK, I think you are talking about if I read the book. I mean your "bible"?

Why would I read that book? I just did a whole physiological workup of her. You obviously didn't agree. Figures.

Did I read her silly book? No, I didn't get around to it. If she posts it on the Internet I'll check out some of it. There are hundreds out there just like it both for and against.

Just because you think someone's book is a work of art doesn't mean it is. Like I said, if it's not translated into every language and considered required reading in every nuclear program than why on earth would I want to waste the time on a person that has obviously wrote this book to justify her 180? She only did it because she wrongly thought there was no other solution. Did you even read my post on it? Funny how you just conveniently pass over things that are against your mindset. Actually, it's typical. Oh, did you read the books I listed? No, I didn't think so. Ironic how you don't think that's the same thing.

Altazi

01-16-2009, 12:58 PM

Oh, I forgot that you think the world revolves around you. I just replied to your friend. Is that OK? Now, let me see what you are talking about...

OK, I think you are talking about if I read the book. I mean your "bible"?

Why would I read that book? I just did a whole physiological workup of her. You obviously didn't agree. Figures.

Did I read her silly book? No, I didn't get around to it. If she posts it on the Internet I'll check out some of it. There are hundreds out there just like it both for and against.

Just because you think someone's book is a work of art doesn't mean it is. Like I said, if it's not translated into every language and considered required reading in every nuclear program than why on earth would I want to waste the time on a person that has obviously wrote this book to justify her 180? She only did it because she wrongly thought there was no other solution. Did you even read my post on it? Funny how you just conveniently pass over things that are against your mindset. Actually, it's typical. Oh, did you read the books I listed? No, I didn't think so. Ironic how you don't think that's the same thing.

I like how you can fabricate crap about the author and the book without actually having read it. Keep talking, dude. You are painting yourself to be a most impressive figure . . . :rolleyes:

Did I say I wouldn't read the books you mentioned? No, I did not. I didn't poke at them, or attempt to marginalize them in any way. Where is the irony?

What is it with you? You can't engage in an honest debate, you evade direct questions, and make up conflict where there is none. You seem to have a need for a constant level of turmoil in your life.

LampCord

01-16-2009, 03:50 PM

Texas

01-17-2009, 06:14 AM

I bought that book for my father last birthday. He was anti nuclear. Not any more!

I take it you and your father didn't agree with my analysis of her dilemma that I posted a few posts up? Seems more than obvious to me. I bet you also ride politicians for doing 180s as well. That's what she did! She loves the environment yet wants to put in 13,800 nuclear reactors around the world to "fix" our problems (there are only 440 in the world now - the U.S. has the most at 100). It's like Hitler wanting to kill Jeews (it's a swear word here) because he wanted to bring peace to his people. Humans are amazing!

pdt

01-17-2009, 11:17 AM

From her website:

"that wind and solar power, while important, can meet only a fraction of the demand for electricity"

Can someone who read the book, tell me how she supports this statement? At face value, it's simply not true, but perhaps in the book she qualifies the statement in a way that makes it more acceptable. I'm not saying that nuclear power isn't a viable option for the short term nor that the book doesn't contain useful information. I just think that the statement above advertising her book on her website is misleading at best.

Among the many problems with nuclear power is that it is going down another dead-end path, just like fossil fuels. Once the infrastructure is built to support renewable energy sources, they will be viable as the sun shines...that's likely to be a really long time, much longer than the average duration of a species on the earth.

pdt

01-17-2009, 11:51 AM

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

Altazi

01-17-2009, 12:13 PM

From her website:

"that wind and solar power, while important, can meet only a fraction of the demand for electricity"

Can someone who read the book, tell me how she supports this statement? At face value, it's simply not true, but perhaps in the book she qualifies the statement in a way that makes it more acceptable. I'm not saying that nuclear power isn't a viable option for the short term nor that the book doesn't contain useful information. I just think that the statement above advertising her book on her website is misleading at best.
Perhaps she has listed a source in the back of the book. There are numerous sources listed. I don't have it with me, or I'd look.

Altazi

01-17-2009, 12:39 PM

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

Thanks for the link, pdt.

Here is a quote from the linked site:

But the prospects for nuclear energy as an option are limited, the report finds, by four unresolved problems: high relative costs; perceived adverse safety, environmental, and health effects; potential security risks stemming from proliferation; and unresolved challenges in long-term management of nuclear wastes.
Notice that, instead of mentioning actual adverse safety, environmental, and health effects, they mention perceived adverse safety, environmental, and health effects? That is the exact point I was debating. The public, suffering in ignorance from poor science education, knows little or nothing about nuclear power. Add the misinformation from scaremongering antinuclear radical groups and you have a public living in fear of nuclear power.

If there were real, hard examples of safety, environmental, or health issues, they would have been listed as such.

Texas

01-19-2009, 06:33 AM

Well, I guess not every scientest is for nuclear (as some posters here suggest).

Stanford Professor Assesses Best Energy Options
December 26, 2008
The best ways to improve energy security, mitigate global warming, and reduce the number of deaths caused by air pollution are blowing in the wind and rippling in the water, not growing on prairies or glowing inside nuclear power plants, says Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford.
And "clean coal," which involves capturing carbon emissions and sequestering them in the earth, is not clean at all, he asserts.
Jacobson has conducted the first quantitative, scientific evaluation of the proposed, major, energy-related solutions by assessing not only their potential for delivering energy for electricity and vehicles, but also their impacts on global warming, human health, energy security, water supply, space requirements, wildlife, water pollution, reliability and sustainability. His findings indicate that the options that are getting the most attention are between 25 to 1,000 times more polluting than the best available options. The paper with his findings will be published in the next issue of Energy and Environmental Science but is available online now. Jacobson is also director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program at Stanford.
"The energy alternatives that are good are not the ones that people have been talking about the most. And some options that have been proposed are just downright awful," Jacobson said. "Ethanol-based biofuels will actually cause more harm to human health, wildlife, water supply and land use than current fossil fuels." He added that ethanol may also emit more global-warming pollutants than fossil fuels, according to the latest scientific studies.
The raw energy sources that Jacobson found to be the most promising are, in order, wind, concentrated solar (the use of mirrors to heat a fluid), geothermal, tidal, solar photovoltaics (rooftop solar panels), wave, and hydroelectric. He recommends against nuclear, coal with carbon capture and sequestration, corn ethanol and cellulosic ethanol, which is made of prairie grass. In fact, he found cellulosic ethanol was worse than corn ethanol because it results in more air pollution, requires more land to produce, and causes more damage to wildlife.

http://www.eponline.com/articles/69960/

Altazi

01-19-2009, 02:19 PM

"Some posters" indicated that MOST scientists favored nuclear power, not ALL scientists. Please be accurate.

Texas

01-19-2009, 02:24 PM

"Some posters" indicated that MOST scientists favored nuclear power, not ALL scientists. Please be accurate.

OK, Most. I guess Dr. Jacobson bucks the trend. Oh, where did you get the "most" stat again?

Altazi

01-19-2009, 02:55 PM

Texas

01-19-2009, 04:25 PM

And the report you mentioned (by Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson) is not universally accepted: http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/2008/12/review-of-mark-z-jscobsons-review.html (http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/2008/12/review-of-mark-z-jscobsons-review.html)

I have to agree that Dr. Jacobson went too far in saying that having a nuclear industry will lead to nuclear war. Even if the proliferation of radioactive waste and having thousands more nuclear technicians, facilities, etc. to play with will not necessarily lead to a full out conflict it might bring more nuclear activitiy to the world. That would be hard to argue with. If we replace our fossil fuels with nuclear energy you get around 13,800 nuclear reactors (from our current 440). That's a whole lot of nuclear industry in a whole lot of countries. Not just the big guys. I'm talking several reactors in each of most of the Middle Eastern, African, South American, etc. countries. Well, it's not going to be less nuclear activity.

OK, so let's take the high road on the nuclear war predictions and on the CO2 emissions by using a respected (by both parties) opinion:

"Rather than detail the complexity and variation inherent in the
greenhouse gas emissions associated with the nuclear lifecycle, most studies obscure it; especially those motivated on both sides of the nuclear debate attempting to make nuclear energy look cleaner or dirtier than it really is"

Dr. Sovacool

Oh, I never said Dr. Jacobson’s view was universal! You said that most scientists agree with your nuclear position. I argue that is not the case.

OK, lets look at your resource and see what that shows. The name of the blog is, Energy from Thorium. Nah, they’re not one-sided towards nuclear energy. Nope. Even with their complete slant, they only brought up the nuclear war part. Not other more important things like why wind and solar were better and nuclear and corn ethanol were at the bottom. Not just the safety issues but the cost and efficiency. Since your source did not bring it up, I have to assume they agreed with the rankings. So do I.

Altazi

01-19-2009, 09:46 PM

Texas

01-19-2009, 11:00 PM

I was disappointed to find a lack of detail in the link you posted - not your problem - but I would have liked to read Dr. Jacobson's full report, not a quick review of it.

No question that the Thorium people have a dog in the fight. It just goes to show that, even with scientists, there are disagreements and questions. Also, even people with an obvious bias one way or the other can still raise good questions.

You can disagree all you want regarding whether most scientists support nuclear power, but I posted a link to a Gallup poll (twice, in fact) that supported this position that a large majority of scientists do indeed support nuclear power. I am not arguing the point, merely stating the factual results of the poll. If you can find similar information that instead supports your beliefs, I'd be happy to see it.

To clarify my position: I am a strong supporter of renewable energy - solar, wind, etc. When I also support the nuclear power, it is not in place of these sources; rather, it complements them.

I would be interested in examining that Gallup poll in more detail. I'm sure there is some explanation.

I was wondering in your image of the world's completed energy infrastructure how many and where are the nuclear power plants located. Where is the material reprocessed and where is the waste stored. Time frames? etc. I would like to calculate the amount of waste generated and where it would have to be shipped for storage. Kind of like a safety assessment. We are talking about huge amounts here.

Solar and Wind does not need a nuclear compliment. That would be an insult.

Altazi

01-19-2009, 11:15 PM

I would be interested in examining that Gallup poll in more detail. I'm sure there is some explanation.
I posted the links twice before. Did you check it out? What details were you missing?

I was wondering in your image of the world's completed energy infrastructure how many and where are the nuclear power plants located. Where is the material reprocessed and where is the waste stored. Time frames? etc. I would like to calculate the amount of waste generated and where it would have to be shipped for storage. Kind of like a safety assessment. We are talking about huge amounts here.
It's not so much "my image" as it is the image of experts in the field. I gave you links and suggestions on where to start looking into this, but you sort of went off the deep end. I won't keep dishing out my "repetitive bullsh1t" at your request.

Solar and Wind does not need a nuclear compliment. That would be an insult.
Haha! A pun! (or is that just a misspelling? ;) )

Texas

01-20-2009, 02:11 AM

We have an interesting post today from the same group that just discounted Dr. Jacobson on his putting nuclear energy low on the list of things we should move forward with.

Charles Barton, who writes The Thorium Energy blog (the reference Altazi uses), wrote an impassioned plea to Obama to fund Thorium reactors and it‘s a featured article in The Oil Drum. These 4th generation reactors are supposed to fix all the problems with our current nuclear technology.

The great thing about this post is that it tells you all the real problems with the technology we are not only using today but that will use before 2030 or so when the Thorium reactor is hoped to be ready for commercial operation. Mr. Barton thinks that can be shaved by a few years but understands that much time is needed for development and commercialization.

Thus, with Altazi’s plan (excuse me, all the scientist’s plan) would be to use 3rd generation technology for the next several thousands reactors. We all know what that gives us but why not let Mr. Barton tell us! I agree with everything he has to say about the reactors we use now and will use for decades:

“Very low (compared with the uranium-plutonium fuel cycle) production of long-lived radiotoxic wastes, including transuraniums, plutonium and transplutoniums...”

“unlike today’s LWRs. Operation at low pressures alleviates much of the accident risk with LWR.”

“Thus they eliminate the criticism that mining for nuclear fuel will use fossil fuels and add to the greenhouse effect.”

“The Obama campaign, properly in my opinion, opposed the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository. Indeed, there is a far more effective way to use the $25 billion collected from utilities over the past 40 years to deal with waste disposal. ”

“This fund should be used to develop fast reactors that consume nuclear waste, and thorium reactors to prevent the creation of new long-lived nuclear waste. By law the federal government must take responsibility for existing spent nuclear fuel, so inaction is not an option. Accelerated development of fast and thorium reactors will allow the US to fulfill its obligations to dispose of the nuclear waste...”

“It is commonly assumed that 4th generation nuclear power will not be ready before 2030. That is a safe assumption under "business-as-usual”. However, given high priority it is likely that it could be available sooner.”

“it was possible to create other fissionable substances with the excess neutrons produced by a U-235 chain reaction. Thus if U-238 absorbed a neutron, it became the unstable U-239, which through a two stage nuclear process was transformed into plutonium-239. Plutonium-239 is very fissionable. The physicists also calculated that if thorium-232 was placed inside a reactor and bombarded with neutrons, it would be transformed into U-233. Their calculations also revealed that U-233 was not only fissionable, but had properties that made it in some respects a superior reactor fuel to U-235 and Pu-239.”

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4971#more

The article and the comments are excellent. Just read and you will see not only what the problems we have with developing 4th generation nuclear reactors but the problems that currently exist with the technology we use today and will use until the 4th generation technology is ready (around 2030).

Are you all ready to sign on the dotted line for thousands of 3rd generation reactors? I’m looking forward to the Thorium rectors and will wait to see how the pilot plants turn out. Then there is the commercialization phase, etc.

Until then, I’m voting to start installing as much solar and wind as we can. Let’s skip the huge amount of nuclear waste that is going to be generated with 3rd generation reactors. Shall we? We have at least 10 years of hard work just to get up to 20% of renewables. Then we have all the EVs and their batteries, etc. At that point, if we don’t have good electrical energy storage technology available we can go down the Thorium path, if it’s ready.

I think that’s a good way to move forward. Even if all the people that Altazi thinks is behind him decide to go with 3rd generation technology I doubt it will be enough of a movement to move forward in any significant way. Good bye 3rd generation nuclear technology. Even your proponents are opponents!

Altazi

01-20-2009, 03:33 AM

Good post, Texas.

I support the concept of nuclear power. That means especially no burning of fossil fuels. I don't necessarily care which nuclear technology ends up being the best choice. My previous discussions centered on the proven safety history of the major power generating technologies - hydro, fossil, and nuclear - and I posted links to official studies and statistics showing that the nuclear power industry was responsible for the fewest deaths and injuries. I'm sure you don't want to revisit that whole thing again.

I never said that nuclear power was perfect, just that it is clearly the best choice of the current major power generating technologies. I have nothing against critical analyses of nuclear power, but they must be even-handed, and not undertaken by people with axes to grind. I am especially pleased that some of the most thorough critiques come from the nuclear scientists themselves as they play "Devil's advocate" for their own projects. They, better than anyone else, know what could possibly go wrong and how to prevent accidents.

I have also said (and provided links) showing that much of the public's issues with nuclear power are the result of poor science education and a powerful misinformation campaign on the part of radical anti-nuclear activists. Ask anyone on the street what they know about radiation, what are sources of everyday exposure, what are normal background radiation levels, how much radiation is dangerous, nuclear reactor safety, etc. - you know that darned few will be able to say anything substantive about this.

If we are going to reject nuclear power in favor of coal, gas, oil, etc., then I want to make sure it is rejected by people who know the facts and are dealing with honest-to-God hard data, not a cringing group of misinformed people who have been brainwashed by axe-wielding radicals.

CarZin

09-09-2010, 05:02 PM

George S. Bower

09-09-2010, 10:41 PM

Remember that when you take people like Texas seriously.

CarZin,

Nothing is black and white. and nothing will happen overnight. We WILL run out of oil at some point. It's just a matter of when. So I think you are saying---- not as soon as some would say.

OK, premise accepted. But it makes the most sense to start practicing right now. If our country was smart we would become a leader in this field......and if the Republicans were smart they would GET ON Board. instead of vetoing everything on general principles!!

omnimoeish

09-10-2010, 05:11 AM

I love going through this thread from time to time, reading my posts talking about how the world would respond to oil prices, and having people state that demand would not be reduced below available supply (GATech) and other fun prognostications. Not that every post I made has rang 100% true, but I dont think there is any doubt that I came the closest of all to running out the scenarios to the response of the world to high oil prices and the resulting supply picture.

I only bring this back to the top with the new peak oil crap that Lyle posted. If you decide to go back and read this thread and my posts, remember this started at the peak of oil prices. I was saying things no one else was stating, and just about every market response I posted about actually happened.

Remember that when you take people like Texas seriously.

I didn't read your posts, anyone who says that demand wouldn't fall below supply is a moron. Our relatively free market will always set the price so that supply equals demand. What's amazing is that with about 1 in 6 people out of work, oil still costs about 3 times what it cost 8 years ago when I graduated from high school (I am 26 now). I remember paying $1.30/gallon when I started college and now I'm just finishing and I'm excited about paying $2.99. So yes, there was a temporary jump and temporary dip in 2008, but overall, there is definitely an upward trend.

What people don't realize is just how headlong we are into oil dependence. They think it's just a matter of oil getting back up to $4/gallon and magically everyone will just buy EVs and hybrids or something and problem solved in a couple of years.

The reality is that we have around 255 million cars just in the US.

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html

If everyone could afford and wanted to buy a hybrid in the US, and sales were the same as they are now, and we started only buying hybrids, it would take 20-25 years to completely replace our nation's fleet to hybrid vehicles. Of course hybrids still use oil, and about 100 million of those vehicles are trucks which are not going to be electrified any time soon. Oh yeah, 1 in 3 barrels aren't even used for transportation, they're used for making things. Everything from tires, to CDs.

In a 1997 study, it said there were 600 million cars in the world, and that number would double over 30 years, which should put us at 1,200,000,000 cars by 2027 (17 years from now). According to the CIA world fact book, at PRESENT demand, we have about 40 years left of oil (if we use every last drop in proven reserves) and assuming OPEC countries aren't lying about how much they have.

So, the best solution we have today are cars like the Volt that cost $40,000+ and even then still use gas sometimes and GM is only selling them in small numbers.

In the long run, it doesn't matter what the US does. Our efforts to conserve oil will do nothing as countries like China and India are sucking up more and more oil while countries like Mexico are no longer net exporters of oil, and technologically advanced countries like the US have been in oil production decline since the 70's.

As George said, it's only a matter of time before the world as a whole is in decline (it's already happened if you look at production), the time to begin preparing for high oil prices is now, not when oil gets back up to $4.25/gallon and we are paying $80-$200 to fill up our tanks again and the economy is coming screeching to a halt.