Solution to the oil problem

[foggedinn]

It's been over thirty years since any electric utility has attempted to build a nuclear plant. The last few that were built had so much litigation attached that the build time was doubled or tripled. Due to the time value of money, the cost of construction also doubled or tripled. This is the reason no utility has attempted to build one for so long.

Although the political climate has changed, I'm not so sure the legal climate has. Without some sort of fasttrack way of getting these things built, it's not likely any utility company will be very eager to get involved in a nuclear project.

That we start building large base-load nuclear generation facilities immediately, I consider vital to our energy and economic security.

 

[Sihouette]

Oh, you bet the political climate has changed...try to build one anywhere near anywhere and you're going to have legal challenges, protests and sabotage. They'll be lucky if they ever get even one up and running.

Another thing pro-nuke people don't want to get talked about is the terrorism factor. Just imagine 9-11 on a nuclear plant.

Yeah, that's right...now things are starting to click.

No nukes, period. It's like giving terrorists their choice of any number of loaded bombs just waiting to wreak maximum havoc.

Can't imagine the same potency for them by bashing in a bunch of solar panels or knocking over some steam generators..

 

[Libsmasher]

The anti-nuke wingnuts managed to game the system with obstructionism in the 1970s. This shows that part-and-parcel of the energy solution requires legislation to head off any of this nonsense this time, when so much more is at stake.

 

[Sihouette]

Exactly. Quite a lot at stake. And in spite of my private opinions of you I don't resort to name-calling to get my points across. Try to keep your insulting comments to a dull roar. Ignorance and spitefulness are not sufficient substitutes for substance in a debate.

What's at stake nowadays is nuclear reactors being more likely to be targeted and detonated to the public's huge demise by terrorists. In the 1970s they still considered this a possibility, but a far-out one. Nowadays it not only is a possibility, but a likelihood.

So yeah, thanks for pointing that out.

 

[PLC1]

Is there anyone seriously suggesting this?

Only the talking heads on rant radio. I'm not sure how serious they are, but they seem to take themselves seriously at least.

I agree. This is exactly what the Democrats will accomplish by implementing a profits tax on American oil companies.

Correct. The Democrats have a plan that will make matters worse, while the Republicans don't seem to have a plan at all, or have one that changes according to the audience of the moment.

 

[PLC1]

Exactly. Quite a lot at stake. And in spite of my private opinions of you I don't resort to name-calling to get my points across. Try to keep your insulting comments to a dull roar. Ignorance and spitefulness are not sufficient substitutes for substance in a debate.

Right on. When the name calling starts, the caller has lost the debate and has no further valid arguments.

What's at stake nowadays is nuclear reactors being more likely to be targeted and detonated to the public's huge demise by terrorists. In the 1970s they still considered this a possibility, but a far-out one. Nowadays it not only is a possibility, but a likelihood.

So yeah, thanks for pointing that out.

That is a chilling possibility. Here is a site that discusses the issue in some depth.

Unless we're willing to shut down the plants now in operation, however, the possibility of an attack is still there, and it's hard to argue that the possibility increases with the increase in the number of plants. It would take only one plant, after all.

The solution is to better protect the existing plants as well as future ones.

 

[Sihouette]

and it's hard to argue that the possibility increases with the increase in the number of plants. It would take only one plant, after all.

Actually it's quite easy to argue. The more numerous the reactors the more choice and access terrorists would gain to causing widespread harm..

Nukes are not the answer. Why people are ADAMANTLY against putting less money into equally viable safe alternatives is beginning to really pique my curiousity. Are they investment speculators in nuclear energy? Do they hold stocks in nuclear and want expansion? What is the addiction to this collosal mistake in energy production given the fact that we monkeys seem hellbent on destruction?

It's why I keep pointing out the Homer Simpson scenario. Let's take a fraction of the money needed to build and reinforce, run and dispose of toxic waste and environmental impacts of nuclear power and sink it into solar, wind, hydro and geothermal. Let's take another fraction of that money and invest it in researching other viable and safe alternatives.

If Homer Simpson falls asleep at the controls of the steam-generator, it's just not going to make headlines like if he falls asleep at the controls of the nuclear reactor.

The human factor, that and unbelievable startup and maintenance costs and terrorist risk is why nuclear won't work...nevermind the thousands of protestors who will dust off their signs and show up to block bulldozers and their construction site.

 

[foggedinn]

Oh, you bet the political climate has changed...try to build one anywhere near anywhere and you're going to have legal challenges, protests and sabotage. They'll be lucky if they ever get even one up and running.

It's not a question as to if they will be built. They will be built. The only question is if they will be built by private utilities concerned about the costs they will charge for the electricity they generate, or if they will be built as a government project. If litigation costs and delays keep private utilities out, they will be built by the government.

We're all pretty much aware of how the courts have a tendency to brush aside objections to anything the govt. choses to do; even valid objections. I believe we will have safer plants and lower cost power from them is they are built, owned, and operated by private utilities.

 

[Libsmasher]

What's at stake nowadays is nuclear reactors being more likely to be targeted and detonated to the public's huge demise by terrorists. In the 1970s they still considered this a possibility, but a far-out one. Nowadays it not only is a possibility, but a likelihood.

So yeah, thanks for pointing that out.

Pure nonsense - your perceptions are stuck in the 1970s. Defense of a point target like a reactor is EASY, if it's DONE, and new reactors can be located underground.

 

[PLC1]

Actually it's quite easy to argue. The more numerous the reactors the more choice and access terrorists would gain to causing widespread harm..

Nukes are not the answer. Why people are ADAMANTLY against putting less money into equally viable safe alternatives is beginning to really pique my curiousity. Are they investment speculators in nuclear energy? Do they hold stocks in nuclear and want expansion? What is the addiction to this collosal mistake in energy production given the fact that we monkeys seem hellbent on destruction?

It's why I keep pointing out the Homer Simpson scenario. Let's take a fraction of the money needed to build and reinforce, run and dispose of toxic waste and environmental impacts of nuclear power and sink it into solar, wind, hydro and geothermal. Let's take another fraction of that money and invest it in researching other viable and safe alternatives.

If Homer Simpson falls asleep at the controls of the steam-generator, it's just not going to make headlines like if he falls asleep at the controls of the nuclear reactor.

The human factor, that and unbelievable startup and maintenance costs and terrorist risk is why nuclear won't work...nevermind the thousands of protestors who will dust off their signs and show up to block bulldozers and their construction site.

Let's hope no one hires Homer to run the nuclear plants.

Yes, there will be those who dust off their signs and show up to protest. There are always protests, no matter what kind of power plant is being proposed. Of course, there are protests when there isn't enough power, too.

Here is why nuclear is still viable. Some other sources are viable, also, of course, but the primary consideration is cost, and will continue to be cost. No one wants to pay more for power than they have to.

This graph shows nuclear and coal pretty stable at 2 to 2 1/2 cents per kilowatt hour: US_ElectProduction_Costs.jpg

This one shows about the same cost for coal, but somewhat higher prices for wind, solar, and other types of plants: http://www.solarbuzz.com/StatsCosts.htm

Of course, the cost of solar and wind is coming down, while the cost of oil and gas is going up. Nuclear and coal is remaining pretty steady, and is still cheaper than any of the other forms of power generation.

According to this one, wind is a pretty attractive alternative:

3.5 to 4 cents per kilowatt hour and declining, wind is a low-cost renewable energy source that is less expensive than coal, oil, nuclear and most natural gas-fired generation, and is becoming attractive to utilities and electric cooperatives.

http://www.gepower.com/businesses/ge_wind_energy/en/about_wind_ener.htm

However, according to the figures above, the price will have to decline further to be as cheap as nuclear.

According to this one, the cost of geothermal is coming down, but is still more than gas or wind turbine. The price of gas generation, however, is going up, while geothermal is coming down:

http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/995653330_5.html

The cost of geothermal electricity in the U.S. ranges from $0.05 to $0.08 per kilowatt-hour, and technological improvements are steadily lowering that range. [10,11] The lowest cost geothermal producers sell power for $0.015 per kilowatt hour, the Geysers sells power at $0.03 to $0.035 per kilowatt hour, and a geothermal power plant built today would require about $0.05 per kilowatt hour to be economic. [12] The reason newer geothermal power plants cost more is that they are generally tapping into lower temperature resources, thus requiring more and deeper drilling into the earthâs crust to produce a given amount of power than earlier geothermal power plants that tapped into higher grade (higher temperature) geothermal resources. By comparison, modern natural gas-fired power plants, and wind turbines in good wind resource regions are producing power at about $0.03 per kilowatt-hour.

To reiterate what I said earlier, we don't need to take any possibility off of the table. If geothermal comes down enough to compete, then it will be a viable source of energy. Wind is quickly becoming competitive in price. Oil and gas are pricing thenselves out of the market.

We should let market forces determine how much power is to be generated how, and not subsidize inefficient sources.

Local interests are trying to get a nuclear plant here. I hope they succeed, as a nuke won't further foul our dirty air, and will provide a dependible supply of energy. Meantime, solar panels on buildings, wind turbines in the hills where the winid blows, and hydro will supply power.

 

[Libsmasher]

Uh, just a sanity footnote:

Whatever the cost per watt "wind" and "thermal" energy gets down to, neither those nor solar could EVER come close to producing anything but a tiny fraction of the >>>AMOUNT<<< of energy needed by the US.

 

[PLC1]

Uh, just a sanity footnote:

Whatever the cost per watt "wind" and "thermal" energy gets down to, neither those nor solar could EVER come close to producing anything but a tiny fraction of the >>>AMOUNT<<< of energy needed by the US.

Do you ahve any research to back that up, or is it just something that we should accept because you said it was so?

 

[Andy]

Is there anyone seriously suggesting this?

I don't know anything about talking heads on rant radio, but yeah, I am.

One thing that people don't seem to have a clue about, is how oil is discovered. It's discovered by... gasp... looking for it.

Quick example: ANWR. Do you know why we know there is billions of barrels of oil there? When ANWR was created, when the boobs in congress signed the bill making ANWR federal land, one of the stated goals was to determine the availability of oil and natural gas on the land...

Side note: Yup, you read that right! One of the main reasons they created ANWR was to explore for oil. It wasn't supposed to be the pristine untouched wilderness, and suddenly right wingers showed saying we should drill, it was the goal from the very start when it was originally created.

Anyway: After 7 years the Department of Interior finely made public it's findings that ANWR had billions of barrels of oil, and recommended that Congress open the coastal plains for drilling in 1987.

My point here is... well first that government is horribly slow stupid and idiotic to take 7 years to figure out there was oil there. A company would have had that report finished in 1981... that said...

The point is that the reason we found the oil was because we looked for it. When you look for oil, you tend to find it. Why does Saudi Arabia lead the world in 'know reserves'? Because they fr***kin look for it. They invest in exploration. It's odd but the Saudis see their oil company as a benefit to the country, instead of something to be attacked and hindered like the stupid Americans do... and then wonder why we have an imported oil problem.

Here are some other examples:
An Indiana man is capitalizing on high crude oil prices with his own oil well - in his back yard.
That's right, just some average joe blow American thought to drill his own well, and shockingly struck oil and is earning money off it.

Anthony Young, the owner of a combination gas station and short-order cafe on a state highway in Tennessee, bought a drilling rig, and has drilled 72 wells and struck oil on 57 of them.
So a plain ol Joe Bob in Tennessee, flipping burgers, decides to start drilling and strikes oil 57 times and now runs "Young Oil Corp".

There are quite a few others, but here's the point... they looked, and shockingly... they found. When you look for oil, you tend to find it. Even better, despite the peak oil theory, oil wells shut down, considered exhausted oil wells, are now the hottest thing in the industry. They are opening old wells to find them filled again.

My point is this. I believe it's entirely possible that the US could be 100% oil independent. I believe there is a real possibility that we can drill our way out of imported oil. Again, maybe not. But here is the kicker... we don't know. We have prevented and hindered our oil companies to the point that most are not willing to even invest in oil exploration in the US because every single time they find any, they get eco-nuts filing law suits, Congress declaring it a wild life refuge, and stupid conspiracy nuts running around saying BigOil has everyone paid off.

Our own oil industry is funding oil exploration in other countries!! All because of our own stupidity! More infurating, China is capitalizing on our oil finds! Our companies can't drill off shore, but China has an oil rig sitting off the coast of Cuba, drilling for oil we found! China wouldn't even know the oil was there if we hadn't explored for it, yet we can't get it and they are? What is wrong with United States of Stupidity?! Communist Socialist China doesn't seem to be worried about destroying the environment.

 

[Andy]

Do you ahve any research to back that up, or is it just something that we should accept because you said it was so?

Yes and No. There are plenty of alternative energy sources being developed that have some potential. However we must live in the present, and currently only two have any real practical use.

Those being hydropower, and geothermal power. However there are large draw backs to both. Hydro power requires massive initial investment, and is not scaleable. Meaning, whatever energy generation is present, is pretty much all you can get. Geothermal also requires a large investment, is not scaleable, and has a reducing production dynamic, and finely is limited by suitable locations.

Thus both have a limited market, and are not likely to be anything but a small fraction of the US electrical energy generation.

As for the remaining alternative energy sources, the two largest being wind and solar, neither are viable. Not that wind and solar do not work... both do in fact produce electricity from their respective sources, however they can not replace a conventional source of power. Why?

Because you can't count on them. If a thunderstorm hits, how much power is that solar panel producing? None. If the wind stops, how much is that windmill producing? None.

What happens to a town that doesn't have a consistent conventional source of power? Answer... black outs. As such, let's say a town requires 200 Megawatts of power. Let us also say that town has 200 MWs of alternative energy, like Solar panels or windmills. Now unless the town wants to black out every time a cloud goes by, or the wind stops, that town will still need a 200 MW nuclear, coal or gas power plant. Thus, the alternative energy production is pointless.

"yeah well I know that when the wind is blowing or the sun is out, I'm saving fossil fuels with my panels and wind mills"

No you are not. See, wind and sun power can die in seconds. So the reliable conventional energy power plant, must be ready at a moments notice. Remember, all three run steam generators, which requires the boilers to be at temp constantly. It can take hours for a power plant to light, get up to temp, and start generating power. You think they are going to shut down the burners when the sun comes out or the wind blows? Of course not, because if they did, and it stopped, the town would be in black out till the boilers got up to temp.

So even when sun power and wind power are at peak output, there is still enough gas, coal or nuclear, burning at the local power plants to cover if it didn't exist. The only difference is the generator at the power plant is on standby, but everything is still burning.

Solar only works in locations that are consistently sunny every day with low chance of cloud cover, like the Nevada desert. Israel is big into solar power, but of course Israel is a desert wasteland, so it makes sense.

I don't know of any location with enough consistent, dependable wind, to make wind power viable.

 

[GenSeneca]

I don't know anything about talking heads on rant radio, but yeah, I am.

Actually, I think you misunderstood my question... Drilling is not the ONLY thing you propose we do, as seen in another one of your posts.

You mentioned Hydro and Geo as well as Nuclear, so you're NOT suggesting we ONLY drill and do nothing else to meet our energy needs.

I think too many people have accepted as truth that there are people saying, "drill, drill, drill and do nothing else." Wonder where they got that idea.... (D)