# Current price of oil



## elkimmeg

Yesterday oil futures hit $78 per barrel. It seems there are problems in the North Sea  production, causing the pricing increases.

That and the switching over to produce home heating oil for the upcoming season.  Home heating Oil now cost $2..11 to produce leaving the refineries

The last time it was priced this high was last Aug. Part of the problem is not supply related, but refineries are now at peak demand.

 We just do not have enough refinery capacities to meet the demand.  For those that may not know, no new refineries have been built in USA since the 70's

At this point every glitch cough  will disrupt  production and prices will soar Including Hurricanes. That wood/ pettet/corn/ coal/ stove may be looking mighty good come January

 Time is almost gone to season wood properly. Time to get pellet supplies in order.  Pellet wise the time is now. I doubt there will be any price declines in the next few months.
 and if shortages occcures these prices today are looking good.  Another Katrinia disaster, all bets are off finding economical pellet prices..

 Here is a question I been thinking  are pellet supplies like our oil refinery capacities they are at Peak ?  IF so  how does that effect pellet stove sales?

It is still early but how are pellet stove sales going. How are pellet sales progressing what about supplies?

Moderators this post might be better in the hearth?  Please this is not Pellet VS wood debate, but a reality check of what to expect and current pricing and supply conditions.

If you want to debate Pellet VS wood start a new post


----------



## Shane

No new refineries since the 70's and I've seen two perfectly operational ones torn down in my lifetime.  Didn't want to update them to meet EPA standards.  I honestly believe they saw reducing refining capacity as a way of making prices unstable.  Instability seems to spell billions for these companies.


----------



## Metal

There have been no new ones built but almost all of the existing ones have been updated/expanded in that time.  Not saying we don't need more new refineries, I just think the "no new refineries since the 70's" quote is slightly misleading, they should be saying what increase/decrease in capacity there has been in that time.

Here in Kansas we just had a major flood at the Coffeyville Refinery (100,000 barrels/day capacity) which shut it down and polluted half the city.  That has caused our gas prices to go up ~20 cents/gallon, but we are still cheaper than on the coasts at $3.09/gallon.


----------



## keyman512us

Metal said:
			
		

> There have been no new ones built but almost all of the existing ones have been updated/expanded in that time.  Not saying we don't need more new refineries, I just think the "no new refineries since the 70's" quote is slightly misleading, they should be saying what increase/decrease in capacity there has been in that time.
> 
> Here in Kansas we just had a major flood at the Coffeyville Refinery (100,000 barrels/day capacity) which shut it down and polluted half the city.  That has caused our gas prices to go up ~20 cents/gallon, but we are still cheaper than on the coasts at $3.09/gallon.



It's a shame that the 'bounty-full' rains those in the midwest have hoped for...have come "all at once"...and in selected areas.

For those that have never driven across Kansas or that region in general... it trully is the "Bread Basket" of this country. Mother nature can be nasty to those folks...

Here "on the coast" gas prices have dropped to somewhat of a relief though... the cheapest "in town" right now is $2.83/gallon at the local Cumberland Farms (convience store chain)...not sure what the prices are over at 'Gasoline Alley' though....

July (typically) ends up being the 'cheapest' time to stock up on heating oil...I don't want to even try to speculate what we are in for this winter though..


----------



## TMonter

Gas/Oil  is still as cheap or cheaper than it was at almost any point in the past (adjusted for inflation).


----------



## Metal

I saw a funny car commercial the other night by Honda.  They were touting their "highest miles per gallon fleet."  At the end of the commercial they stated that one of their models could go 600 miles on a tank of gas.  Don't get me wrong, I own their products and think they make great vehicles, but how stupid do they think we are?  I guess if you can't make it get more mpg, then you just have to install a bigger gas tank!  I expect we will see many more gas mileage marketing angles in the near future.


----------



## webbie

Much product can be (and is) refined overseas and shipped here as finished. So the refinery excuse may not be accurate. It is a "free" market, and that means rumor, speculation, profiteering and many other factors are at play. They (traders, corporations, etc.) can inject stories and press releases into the media almost at will to change the perception or price. Think Diamonds.......my dad told me you could buy a $100,000 ring today, and if you went to sell it tomorrow, you would be lucky to get $30,000 for it. It's like the Golden Rule (he with the gold rules), except it's the Oil Rule (he with the Oil, rules).....

T, I think the current price is just about at the top of what it was (adjusted for inflation), so it's not "cheaper", and also keep in mind that it hit that earlier high (1980?) for a very short time.


----------



## Metal

The big oil companies (the five that control 55% of the crude) are now saying since Bush has called for increased ethanol production, it is just too risky to build new refineries that may not be needed.  What a joke!  They know that if they build more refineries, their capacity will increase, but the profits will probably stay  the same or be lower since gas prices will go down.  They are just like OPEC, release just enough to keep the prices low enough that people won't seriously consider alternatives.


----------



## ChrisN

I think the lack of U.S. refinery capacity may have been an issue in the recent years, but the larger problem now is that oil producing countries are pumping as much oil as they can, which is about 84 million barrels a day, and world daily demand is at that level and growing.  Add to that the fact that a good deal of the world's oil reserves are locked up in politically unstable places like Iraq and Nigeria.  I believe the ugly truth is that we are at or near the Peak Oil producing point and slowly but steadily from now on less oil will be pumped from the world's oil fields, while demand will continue to rise.  The North Sea's production has been decimated, the Mexican oil field in the Gulf is declining, Iran and Venezuala are ekeing out every drop they can   Of course while richer nations like the US will be able to buy oil for a good while longer, we can expect to pay increasingly higher prices.  I suspect that in a couple of years from now we will look back on the days of $75/bbl as the good old days.


----------



## TMonter

> T, I think the current price is just about at the top of what it was (adjusted for inflation), so it’s not “cheaper”, and also keep in mind that it hit that earlier high (1980?) for a very short time.



Not when you factor in the greater percentage of taxes.

Taxes used to make up about 10% of gasoline and now make up about 20%.


----------



## Sandor

chrisN said:
			
		

> I think the lack of U.S. refinery capacity may have been an issue in the recent years, but the larger problem now is that oil producing countries are pumping as much oil as they can, which is about 84 million barrels a day, and world daily demand is at that level and growing.  Add to that the fact that a good deal of the world's oil reserves are locked up in politically unstable places like Iraq and Nigeria.  I believe the ugly truth is that we are at or near the Peak Oil producing point and slowly but steadily from now on less oil will be pumped from the world's oil fields, while demand will continue to rise.  The North Sea's production has been decimated, the Mexican oil field in the Gulf is declining, Iran and Venezuala are ekeing out every drop they can   Of course while richer nations like the US will be able to buy oil for a good while longer, we can expect to pay increasingly higher prices.  I suspect that in a couple of years from now we will look back on the days of $75/bbl as the good old days.



I was going to type a reply, but ChrisN covered it pretty well.

His post is the truth.


----------



## webbie

TMonter said:
			
		

> Not when you factor in the greater percentage of taxes.
> 
> Taxes used to make up about 10% of gasoline and now make up about 20%.



???

We are talking about the price you pay, not what the components of that price are.....

It appears the record high is an adjusted price of $3.22 TOTAL PRICE including taxes.

I think we are still a bit below that, so you are correct there....although some places (like Ca.) are very high (higher than $3.22)

Taxes are bound to go up for a number of reasons, among them:
1. The US road infrastructure is falling apart fast, with thousand of bridges, etc. needing replaced.
2. State governments always need more money, and gas taxes are less visible than sales tax or more property tax, etc.

but, of course, that is another story. I doubt that taxes would go down, and in fact I would support higher gas and oil taxes (carbon taxes), but ONLY if the money was "lockboxed" for use in alternative energy, roads, pubic transportation, etc.

As things are right now, it is more likely to go to other stuff, including lining pockets.


----------



## TMonter

> We are talking about the price you pay, not what the components of that price are.....



But when you accuse oil companies of profiteering (something all capitalists do BTW) the reality is they haven't changed profit margins at all, just acquired more customers. In fact in many cases actual prices have fallen.

The reality is oil companies simply aren't to blame for today's prices, government interference in the marketplace and a myriad of other factors including rising world demand are.

Every time I hear people whine about the price of gas I chuckle and tell them to look at the actual price versus monetary inflation.


----------



## webbie

Nah, I don't think I accuse them of that. I own too many Energy stocks to do that!

The more they charge, the more I make.

But in all seriousness, it is not a problem of profiteering. As you know, oil is a relatively low profit item. Why, we make VASTLY higher percentages on woodstoves and chimneys.......

The price is still low - in my opinion - although it is starting to get to a point where it may be somewhat accurately priced. Try to get some guys to push your Prius down the road at 50 MPH for 40 miles, and you'll develop a new appreciation for what $3.00 can do.

Still, the $3.00 does not figure the "real" cost of wars, security, pollution, roads, traffic and other aspects. I suspect closer to $5.00 or more would cover a more sustainable situation that didn't involve human sacrifice.


----------



## elkimmeg

TMonter said:
			
		

> We are talking about the price you pay, not what the components of that price are.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But when you accuse oil companies of profiteering (something all capitalists do BTW) the reality is they haven't changed profit margins at all, just acquired more customers. In fact in many cases actual prices have fallen.
> 
> The reality is oil companies simply aren't to blame for today's prices, government interference in the marketplace and a myriad of other factors including rising world demand are.
> 
> Every time I hear people whine about the price of gas I chuckle and tell them to look at the actual price versus monetary inflation.
Click to expand...


 I think the problem is necesity of home heating oil. One can chose not to take a sunday drive but one has a hard time choosing not to heat their home

Even without taxes, recently home heating oil pricing as gone beyond fuel pump cost , untill recently that never happened.  Its not the cost of fuel going up ,but along with that every food article you buy goes up, due to increased transportation cost.. IT is a spiral that really hurts needy famillies. Every time they turn around scrafices are made to the point of eating or being warm.
 Unfortunately it could be a guy and his familly that worked for a company 20 years till, the company just closed its doors and moved opperations to the pacific basin.

After a year all his savings are gone,, he is working but $10 jobs he falls deeper in the hole. I am describing potentially the next donor recepiant . He has an old slam in insert that is so dangereous to opperate, but he will be using it and taking risk. 
 I'm prepared to spend money to get one, eventhough my winter finances may not be much better than his, if this winter is a repeat of last.


----------



## webbie

I'm certain you know about the Kennedy cheap heating oil program. Many older folks have a tough time with wood or pellet stoves, and oil bought under this program is cheaper than either.

http://www.citizensenergy.com/
"the Oil Heat Program is more than doubling in size, expanding to reach tens of thousands of the neediest households in many states. Eligible families can purchase one-time deliveries of up to 200 gallons of home heating oil at a 40 percent discount"

Not to say a person should not burn wood, but when it comes to keeping the house warm for needy people, I hate to see them breaking their backs.

Here is another one:
http://massenergy.com/Comm.Intro.html
See Oil Bank....


----------



## Metal

I thought Hugo Chavez gave you North easterners cheap heating oil?


----------



## webbie

Yeah, you are right in that even positive things (making $$ in stocks) can have negative consequences. But then again, I am simply harvesting the spilled coal by the side of the RR tracks. I have absolutely no effect on the market. 

You are also right in that ALL of these changes affect the poor much more than the wealthy. Again, there is little effect I can have on that except to be a progressive, meaning that I think we SHOULD have national health care and such things to provide for each other, as opposed to the theory that each person should sink or swim. I also try to help others with money, time and advice to prevent their sinking.

As I mentioned before, I recently put some $$ into a Green (renewable and efficiency) energy fund, which BTW is beating the pants off the oil stocks. 

But, for our purposed of general discussion here, I think the Big Picture is that higher energy prices will encourage conservation, efficiency and less use of fossil fuels (and associated pollution, problems, wars, etc.) - and that is why I have that viewpoint. In terms of the stocks, I am simply putting my chips down onto the players that I think benefit from these trends.

At $80 for a 42 gallon barrel, the dead wholesale price of unrefined oil is about $2.00 - as BB will explain, you don't get 42 gallons of gasoline out of this, so when you think that we pay $3.00 a gallon, that is $1.00 a gallon for:
1. Intital transportation
2. Refining and refinery profit
3. Transportation of finished goods
4. Retail markup at gas station
5. State and federal taxes.....

I can't imagine it being done for less.....the road system in this country is something we take for granted, but think about the costs associated with keeping all those roads in some sort of decent shape.....such a deal.


----------



## webbie

Metal said:
			
		

> I thought Hugo Chavez gave you North easterners cheap heating oil?



Yeah, the Kennedy thing is a partnership with Citgo (Chavez).

I'm glad that someone cares about the poor. Bush is giving our (tax) money to ethanol makers instead of helping the poor -" let 'em eat cake and freeze!" is the message.

Truth is, when we buy gas we finance terrorism (Saudis,Iran,Etc.) and also dictators (Putin, Russia) as well as all kinds of other chit. Chavez, by comparison, is a nice guy.


----------



## TMonter

> Still, the $3.00 does not figure the “real” cost of wars, security, pollution, roads, traffic and other aspects. I suspect closer to $5.00 or more would cover a more sustainable situation that didn’t involve human sacrifice.



I'd agree with that, but high prices are actually good as they encourage investment in alternative energy.

Our government needs to get out of the business of controlling the market and worrying about things like price gouging (which simply doesn't exist). They need to go back to performing a few limited functions and let the market work.


----------



## keyman512us

TMonter said:
			
		

> Still, the $3.00 does not figure the “real” cost of wars, security, pollution, roads, traffic and other aspects. I suspect closer to $5.00 or more would cover a more sustainable situation that didn’t involve human sacrifice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd agree with that, but high prices are actually good as they encourage investment in alternative energy.
> 
> Our government needs to get out of the business of controlling the market and worrying about things like price gouging (which simply doesn't exist). They need to go back to performing a few limited functions and let the market work.
Click to expand...


TMonter... Very good of you to "point this out" ....BUT I would also like to point out...

High prices of oil and (and the notion of) it will "lead towards conservation and foster alternative develeopment"???

WHEN and where have we heard that before??? In the 1970's,1980's,1990's??? YES TO all those years. While I'm not a big fan of 'government involvement' some sort of legislation should be in place to FINALLY move this country in the right direction. If alternatives do make any 'headway'...don't be surprised if big OIL counters with keeping oil at artificially low prices (like in years past) to drive down economic incentives to advance alternatives.

All Americans should advocate that the playing field should be 'tilted' AGAINST big oil to make up for the years lost and the costs associated that "we have all paid for"...IMHO


----------



## Eric Johnson

Speaking of tolls......I was on the toll road outside of Denver last week and was shocked that they dinged me $2 about every 5 miles. That's an expensive way to get into the city!

I would be inclined to agree with Hogwildz about tolls never going down, except I can remember when you had to pay the toll on I-90 between Stockbridge and W. Springfield, MA. But not no more! So occasionally, for whatever reason, the tolls do go down. Unfortunately, NY State never followed suit.


----------



## webbie

Well, oil is certainly not tolls - and either are stocks! Both of them do go down, although the very long term trend may be up. Still, all in all, energy remains cheap and is perhaps the best bargain available to us.

It is usually impossible to get companies or people to pay for "years lost". However, my dad used to always enforce that rule - "This punishment is for all the times you DIDN'T get caught!"


----------



## keyman512us

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Well, oil is certainly not tolls - and either are stocks! Both of them do go down, although the very long term trend may be up. Still, all in all, energy remains cheap and is perhaps the best bargain available to us.
> 
> It is usually impossible to get companies or people to pay for "years lost". However, my dad used to always enforce that rule - "This punishment is for all the times you DIDN'T get caught!"



Web..
That is very subtle and eloquent analogy...perhaps the best way for America to view Big OIL... a child that is misbehaving... and should be addressed accordingly.


----------



## BrotherBart

Eric Johnson said:
			
		

> Speaking of tolls......I was on the toll road outside of Denver last week and was shocked that they dinged me $2 about every 5 miles. That's an expensive way to get into the city!
> 
> I would be inclined to agree with Hogwildz about tolls never going down, except I can remember when you had to pay the toll on I-90 between Stockbridge and W. Springfield, MA. But not no more! So occasionally, for whatever reason, the tolls do go down. Unfortunately, NY State never followed suit.



They built the toll road between Dallas and Ft. Worth in 1955 and said that when it was paid off the tolls would go away. I always said "Yeah, right.". I was amazed when the thing was paid off in December of 1977 and on January 3, 1978 they demolished the toll plazas.

Of course the next day, since the various sections jurisdiction passed from the State to the localities along the road, every three or four miles a different town's radar traps appeared and started slinging tickets. I drove down it that afternoon and had never seen so many different cop cars and radar guns in my life. It was a circus.


----------



## saichele

chrisN said:
			
		

> I think the lack of U.S. refinery capacity may have been an issue in the recent years, but the larger problem now is that oil producing countries are pumping as much oil as they can, which is about 84 million barrels a day, and world daily demand is at that level and growing.  Add to that the fact that a good deal of the world's oil reserves are locked up in politically unstable places like Iraq and Nigeria.  I believe the ugly truth is that we are at or near the Peak Oil producing point and slowly but steadily from now on less oil will be pumped from the world's oil fields, while demand will continue to rise.  The North Sea's production has been decimated, the Mexican oil field in the Gulf is declining, Iran and Venezuala are ekeing out every drop they can   Of course while richer nations like the US will be able to buy oil for a good while longer, we can expect to pay increasingly higher prices.  I suspect that in a couple of years from now we will look back on the days of $75/bbl as the good old days.



OPEC is holding back about 1.5 or 2 MBD of capacity at the moment right?  And the nigeria and iraq situations aren't helping anything, but that's another couple MBD that could be online if we could all just get along.  

One of these days it'll start to really hurt, and we'll open up more off shore drilling and ANWR.  In the meantime, let's keep burning someone elses oil...  Seems like I heard there were some big reserves in the Arctic - if we could just figure a way to get that ice to melt, we'd be in good shape.

Steve


----------



## Sandor

Steve said:
			
		

> chrisN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the lack of U.S. refinery capacity may have been an issue in the recent years, but the larger problem now is that oil producing countries are pumping as much oil as they can, which is about 84 million barrels a day, and world daily demand is at that level and growing.  Add to that the fact that a good deal of the world's oil reserves are locked up in politically unstable places like Iraq and Nigeria.  I believe the ugly truth is that we are at or near the Peak Oil producing point and slowly but steadily from now on less oil will be pumped from the world's oil fields, while demand will continue to rise.  The North Sea's production has been decimated, the Mexican oil field in the Gulf is declining, Iran and Venezuala are ekeing out every drop they can   Of course while richer nations like the US will be able to buy oil for a good while longer, we can expect to pay increasingly higher prices.  I suspect that in a couple of years from now we will look back on the days of $75/bbl as the good old days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OPEC is holding back about 1.5 or 2 MBD of capacity at the moment right?  And the nigeria and iraq situations aren't helping anything, but that's another couple MBD that could be online if we could all just get along.
> 
> One of these days it'll start to really hurt, and we'll open up more off shore drilling and ANWR.  In the meantime, let's keep burning someone elses oil...  Seems like I heard there were some big reserves in the Arctic - if we could just figure a way to get that ice to melt, we'd be in good shape.
> 
> Steve
Click to expand...


I think the Russians just laid claim to the majority of the vast Artic area. At least someone is thinking ahead.


----------



## BrotherBart

Sandor said:
			
		

> I think the Russians just laid claim to the majority of the vast Artic area. At least someone is thinking ahead.



Hmmm... Artic oil exploration. Wildcat jackup rigs on the ice. Illegal aliens needing work discussed in another thread.

I think I see a plan in all this somewhere. Hmmm...

Synergism. What a concept.


----------



## elkimmeg

Sandor said:
			
		

> Steve said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chrisN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the lack of U.S. refinery capacity may have been an issue in the recent years, but the larger problem now is that oil producing countries are pumping as much oil as they can, which is about 84 million barrels a day, and world daily demand is at that level and growing.  Add to that the fact that a good deal of the world's oil reserves are locked up in politically unstable places like Iraq and Nigeria.  I believe the ugly truth is that we are at or near the Peak Oil producing point and slowly but steadily from now on less oil will be pumped from the world's oil fields, while demand will continue to rise.  The North Sea's production has been decimated, the Mexican oil field in the Gulf is declining, Iran and Venezuala are ekeing out every drop they can   Of course while richer nations like the US will be able to buy oil for a good while longer, we can expect to pay increasingly higher prices.  I suspect that in a couple of years from now we will look back on the days of $75/bbl as the good old days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OPEC is holding back about 1.5 or 2 MBD of capacity at the moment right?  And the nigeria and iraq situations aren't helping anything, but that's another couple MBD that could be online if we could all just get along.
> 
> One of these days it'll start to really hurt, and we'll open up more off shore drilling and ANWR.  In the meantime, let's keep burning someone elses oil...  Seems like I heard there were some big reserves in the Arctic - if we could just figure a way to get that ice to melt, we'd be in good shape.
> 
> Steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the Russians just laid claim to the majority of the vast Artic area. At least someone is thinking ahead.
Click to expand...


 Sandor I know you research this but tell me if I'm right or wrong I believe Mexico reached peak I know long ago we did the North sea seems to gone past peak.
 What are the  current places peak has arrived  or gone past  how bad is it


----------



## keyman512us

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Metal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought Hugo Chavez gave you North easterners cheap heating oil?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the Kennedy thing is a partnership with Citgo (Chavez).
> 
> I'm glad that someone cares about the poor. Bush is giving our (tax) money to ethanol makers instead of helping the poor -" let 'em eat cake and freeze!" is the message.
> 
> Truth is, when we buy gas we finance terrorism (Saudis,Iran,Etc.) and also dictators (Putin, Russia) as well as all kinds of other chit. Chavez, by comparison, is a nice guy.
Click to expand...


Speaking of CITGO??? Whatever became of the attempted legislation to have the huge Citgo sign behind the green monster at Fenway park removed???

That one 'quietly' disappeared didn't it??? Do you think people said 'enough is enough' bashing of Venezuala...you're not gonna tear down a landmark just because the Pres. doesnt like the other Prez.??? Or do you think all the people getting helped out with the winter bills spoke up???

Both Maybe???

Or perhaps the lawyers' chimed in??? Would be a bad precedence don't ya think??? Pull down the Citgo sign in Boston because of a countries' political views...next thing ya know the 'Golden Arches' start fallingall over the world???

How much you want to bet the first occurence would be in Paris??? ROFLMAO


----------



## keyman512us

BrotherBart said:
			
		

> Sandor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Russians just laid claim to the majority of the vast Artic area. At least someone is thinking ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... Artic oil exploration. Wildcat jackup rigs on the ice. Illegal aliens needing work discussed in another thread.
> 
> I think I see a plan in all this somewhere. Hmmm...
> 
> Synergism. What a concept.
Click to expand...


Good one BB 

Seeing as the clock is ticking...and if drilling in the ANWR isn't approved and the oil production starts to 'dry up'...I'de be willing to bet the Feds will enact legislation declaring the Alyeska pipeline a "strategic national asset" (to prevent it from be dismantled by it's original charter). 

If drilling isn't approved...I'm sure it will become 'interesting to say the least'. 

Are higher oil prices just an "End Run" by big oil to get public sentiment to sway towards drilling in the ANWR???


----------



## webbie

keyman512us said:
			
		

> Speaking of CITGO??? Whatever became of the attempted legislation to have the huge Citgo sign behind the green monster at Fenway park removed???
> 
> That one 'quietly' disappeared didn't it??? Do you think people said 'enough is enough' bashing of Venezuala...you're not gonna tear down a landmark just because the Pres. doesnt like the other Prez.??? Or do you think all the people getting helped out with the winter bills spoke up???



The politics of this stuff is so convoluted. On one hand, being a socialist...there is no doubt that Chavez is steering money in his country away from the wealthiest and more to the middle and lower classes. But, of course, that makes US dislike him, probably because we don't want our middle and lowers class (or, more specifically, other latin american countries) getting any bright ideas!

Of course, we have BIG gas outlets here called Lukoil (russian), which in terms of politics (IHMO) is vastly worse than Chavez.

But the very, very, very worst award......beating all the others by a country mile - goes to where most of the worlds imported oil comes from - our "friends" in Saudi Arabia. One out of every two suicide bombers is a Saudi, 3/4 of 9/11 hijackers were, and on and on. Any yet we don't hear anything about how bad they are from the pols and administration. We see them kissing the princes and kings instead.

And, even worse, we have already sold a large chunk of our country to them......
Here are the holdings of ONE Saudi company (keep in mind these companies are usually owned or tied to the government of that country)
http://www.kingdom.com.sa/index.asp?id=51

And don't think they are just a small investor! They own a LOT of stock, and have a say in the operations of some of these companies. Other stuff they own outright.

But I guess that is OK, as long as we remove the Citgo sign.


----------



## keyman512us

Webmaster said:
			
		

> keyman512us said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of CITGO??? Whatever became of the attempted legislation to have the huge Citgo sign behind the green monster at Fenway park removed???
> 
> That one 'quietly' disappeared didn't it??? Do you think people said 'enough is enough' bashing of Venezuala...you're not gonna tear down a landmark just because the Pres. doesnt like the other Prez.??? Or do you think all the people getting helped out with the winter bills spoke up???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The politics of this stuff is so convoluted. On one hand, being a socialist...there is no doubt that Chavez is steering money in his country away from the wealthiest and more to the middle and lower classes. But, of course, that makes US dislike him, probably because we don't want our middle and lowers class (or, more specifically, other latin american countries) getting any bright ideas!
> 
> Of course, we have BIG gas outlets here called Lukoil (russian), which in terms of politics (IHMO) is vastly worse than Chavez.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always wondered what happened to Getty..lol Just never got to the point of looking it up online. Sen. Joe McCarthy would be rolling in his grave...lol
> 
> 
> 
> But the very, very, very worst award......beating all the others by a country mile - goes to where most of the worlds imported oil comes from - our "friends" in Saudi Arabia. One out of every two suicide bombers is a Saudi, 3/4 of 9/11 hijackers were, and on and on. Any yet we don't hear anything about how bad they are from the pols and administration. We see them kissing the princes and kings instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...It still sticks out in my mind though...When I think of K-SA I still look back and think of the bold, brash, and CALLOUS words of the Saudi prince after 9/11 talking to Rudy Giulliani and how Rudy responded by basically telling him to "Keep his (P.O.S.) check" and "Go home"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, even worse, we have already sold a large chunk of our country to them......
> Here are the holdings of ONE Saudi company (keep in mind these companies are usually owned or tied to the government of that country)
> http://www.kingdom.com.sa/index.asp?id=51
> 
> And don't think they are just a small investor! They own a LOT of stock, and have a say in the operations of some of these companies. Other stuff they own outright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...All the more reason to 'dispose of BIG OIL'....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I guess that is OK, as long as we remove the Citgo sign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...What is good for the goose" perhaps we should make OIL advertising go the way of cigarette advertising...lol
> 
> ...But I would still say keep the Citgo sign...lol That would be a good one...only oil advertising sign left in America???
> 
> (sry, just trying my hand at figuring out how to 'custom quote' posts)
Click to expand...


----------



## TMonter

> WHEN and where have we heard that before??? In the 1970’s,1980’s,1990’s??? YES TO all those years. While I’m not a big fan of ‘government involvement’ some sort of legislation should be in place to FINALLY move this country in the right direction. If alternatives do make any ‘headway’...don’t be surprised if big OIL counters with keeping oil at artificially low prices (like in years past) to drive down economic incentives to advance alternatives.



The price problems in all these years were caused by government intervention in the market, and the 1990's? There wasn't any huge spikes in pricing in relative terms in the 1990's.


----------



## pinewoodburner

Saw this and thought, $78 a barrel of oil, heating oil $2.11.  Boy, those where the days.  Something you might tell your grandkids.  But it was only 8 months ago.


----------



## BrotherBart

pinewoodburner said:
			
		

> Saw this and thought, $78 a barrel of oil, heating oil $2.11.  Boy, those where the days.  Something you might tell your grandkids.  But it was only 8 months ago.



The hell of it is that the underlying fundamentals of oil pricing actually only support a price around $78 today based on availability, inventories etc. It is speculation and the basketball game with the dollar that has it soaring.


----------



## TMonter

Speculation is some of it, but not everything. Refinery capacity is down because of some outages and it's been a longer than average winter.

Besides speculators serve a very important function in a marketplace.

A lot of it has to do with declining dollar values and people moving assets into oil, and other long term commodities.


----------



## rdrcr56

Cheny has been over doing some arm twisting with the Saudis, so we'll see if production increases ;-P


----------



## MainePellethead

Not to mention  "old" wells are being uncapped.....some are right next to motels that werent there years ago...yikes....and even near some residential housing....

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47618


----------



## mainemac

Peak Oil is here

I know  I know I remember the 70's when they told me we would run out of oil before I could drive! Boy was I an angry adolescent! 

I have one friend who travels worldwide  for Texaco: he tells me  that all the 'easy oil' has been taken. The rest is way offshore, way up North or as noted by Craig in volatile countries like Iraq and Nigeria. Luckily Canada and Mexico has lots of oil, for now.  The Prudhoe Bay oil reserves in Alaska are drying up and  have to be heated to extract the oil. Not ideal energy effieciency. 

Gone are the days when oil bubbled to the surface in PA then  OK and TX.  Part of the reason we were such a huge military  economic and industrial powerhouse in and after WWII was we had excess oil capacity but that came to a halt as noted in the 60's and 70's. 

I have heard the argument that ANWAR is the answer but I do not buy it. Our consumption (not to mention China and India)  is just too great and continues to grow. There is only enough oil for 6-12 months at current levels in ANWAR , then what? You have trashed part of Alaska then we are out of that oil. More consumption and more drilling is not the long term answer.

It takes Millions of years to make oil from animals plants plankton and we have used up most of it in about 100 years. We do not have a million years to wait around to create more oil.


Conservation is critical as we move OFF oil onto other ways of making heat and electricity: Nuclear? Geothermal? Tidal? Wind? Solar, and yes good old wood !
Tightly insulated houses, plug in hybrid cars, more biking more public transport. I am afraid to say the only way for Americans to conserve or decrease consumption is to have the price of gas stay close to $4.00 a gallon.


Tom


----------



## MainePellethead

Where the heck is grannie and jed clampet when we need them! 

Seriously though....whats the story I heard that Colorodo has under the Rockies enough oil to power the colder northeast states for 100-200- years....?


----------



## webbie

Yeah, Aw, another statistic. Unfortunately, we can't have it for the NE....they need it for cars, chemicals, jets and other stuff - war too! Takes a lot of oil to fly tanks around. So the question is more like - how long could it last our whole country? Answer is probably a couple months.


----------



## RedRanger

How is it that Germany when pressed to make synthetic oil during the war did so, and we still don`t?  Like, that was 55 years ago,what is wrong with this picture?   Like hello, this is not new technology.  Do we still have R and D in north america? or has it gone the way of the dinasaur?


----------



## mainemac

" Come and listen to a story about a man named Jed 
A poor mountaineer, barely kept his family fed, 
Then one day he was shootin at some food, 
And up through the ground came a bubblin crude. 

Oil that is, black gold, Texas tea. 

Well the first thing you know ol Jed's a millionaire, 
Kinfolk said "Jed move away from there" 
Said "Californy is the place you ought to be" 
So they loaded up the truck and moved to Beverly. 

Hills, that is. Swimmin pools, movie stars."

Great reference to the Clampetts

I love it Texas tea!

Yes I have heard about the Montana shale oil. The problem with that is again very energy intensive to get the hard shale into liquid, and of course
means the  release of more and more greenhouse gasses. 

I heard a great talk on renewable energy noting that yes we do have a ton of  coal but it is  OK to leave it in the ground. 
That struck me as somehow un American , uncapitalistic to exploit a resource. That is to NOT  go and get the coal. There is no reason  however, 
why we should feel compelled to blast off mountain tops to get every last drop of coal if we have safe, clean , cheap alternatives.

Unless we get more of us on renewable wood solar wind other we may be forced to go that way.

Tom


----------



## MainePellethead

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Yeah, Aw, another statistic. Unfortunately, we can't have it for the NE....they need it for cars, chemicals, jets and other stuff - war too! Takes a lot of oil to fly tanks around. So the question is more like - how long could it last our whole country? Answer is probably a couple months.



Well....if we are giving the  contract for new "refueling" planes to Europe then we should make them pay for the fuel too   lol


----------



## mayhem

FYI, I just had my tank partially filled yesterday.  $3.849 per gallon.  I took 150 gallons, so there's another $600 sent to Saudi Arabia.


----------



## rdrcr56

Lost another 1.5 million barrels a day of oil with the bombing of the two pipelines in Basra, betcha Cheny is bummed.


----------



## BrotherBart

rdrcr56 said:
			
		

> Lost another 1.5 million barrels a day of oil with the bombing of the two pipelines in Basra, betcha Cheny is bummed.



He will be happy. Haliburton will get the contract to fix the pipe.


----------



## Burn-1

mayhem said:
			
		

> FYI, I just had my tank partially filled yesterday.  $3.849 per gallon.  I took 150 gallons, so there's another $600 sent to Saudi Arabia.



I just did about the same amount of damage to my wallet and while it sucks for us now. I got a bit more dismayed at what T. Boone Pickens had to say about the oil market, of course until he mentioned alternative fuels.



> "We're spending about $1.5 billion a day -- *$500 to $600 billion a year -- on imported oil," he noted.  "That's four times the cost of the Iraqi war. *We can't continue to do that. *In 10 years you will have transferred wealth from the United States to the producing countries of about $5 or $6 trillion*. That won't work. I'm not sure what it's going to do to us to remove that much wealth out of this country. We have got to get on alternative fuels in the United States. That's all there is to it."



With those kinds of transfers unless we consume way less, spend less at the government level, or export a lot more we won't have much of currency left. And it's not so hot currently either.


----------



## mainemac

Oil:

Supply low
Demand high
Prices go up

We aint changing supply so we need to change demand

I drive a Prius 45-55 mpg (winter summer)
Would love to get a plug in hybrid add solar panel  to charge battery and presto little to no demand for oil

Tom


----------



## heaterman

Burn-1 said:
			
		

> mayhem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI, I just had my tank partially filled yesterday.  $3.849 per gallon.  I took 150 gallons, so there's another $600 sent to Saudi Arabia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just did about the same amount of damage to my wallet and while it sucks for us now. I got a bit more dismayed at what T. Boone Pickens had to say about the oil market, of course until he mentioned alternative fuels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We're spending about $1.5 billion a day -- *$500 to $600 billion a year -- on imported oil," he noted.  "That's four times the cost of the Iraqi war. *We can't continue to do that. *In 10 years you will have transferred wealth from the United States to the producing countries of about $5 or $6 trillion*. That won't work. I'm not sure what it's going to do to us to remove that much wealth out of this country. We have got to get on alternative fuels in the United States. That's all there is to it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With those kinds of transfers unless we consume way less, spend less at the government level, or export a lot more we won't have much of currency left. And it's not so hot currently either.
Click to expand...


I said that to my boys a couple months ago. Told them they were witnessing the greatest transfer of wealth that has ever occurred in the history of the world. Pickens is absolutely correct, it cannot continue this way. Our country is well on its way to insolvency. The only trump card is that we are still the breadbasket of the world. Oil for food anyone? The other side of the coin is that a local farmer told me that his fuel bill for spring field work will be over $50K this year.

Regular gas $3.46, diesel $4.28 this morning here in Falmouth, Michigan


----------



## Burn-1

heaterman said:
			
		

> I said that to my boys a couple months ago. Told them they were witnessing the greatest transfer of wealth that has ever occurred in the history of the world. Pickens is absolutely correct, it cannot continue this way. Our country is well on its way to insolvency. *The only trump card is that we are still the breadbasket of the world*. Oil for food anyone? The other side of the coin is that a local farmer told me that his fuel bill for spring field work will be over $50 this year.
> 
> Regular gas $3.46, diesel $4.28 this morning here in Falmouth, Michigan



We'll be the breadbasket for little while longer but climate change will take care of that

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42380000/gif/_42380678_america_wheat_416x350.gif

Alaska won't be a bad place to farm wheat by then. I'm sure most of the Russian steppe will be in play too.


----------



## billb3

mayhem said:
			
		

> FYI, I just had my tank partially filled yesterday.  $3.849 per gallon.  I took 150 gallons, so there's another $600 sent to Saudi Arabia.



$590 of that $600 went to Canada or Mexico.

(make that $589, $1 goes to Hugo Chavez)


----------



## webbie

Right, you also have to calculate how much went to all the American and British (and multi-national) corps that own the wells, the ports, the refineries and the pipe lines.

Even your local Cumberland Farms or 7/11 gets a piece of the pie.

Thanks for supporting the local economy!


----------



## renewablejohn

Just a reality check UK prices at the moment diesel £1.14 per litre petrol £1.04 per litre. Welcome to the real world


----------



## webbie

So that is about $8 a gallon at current trade rates.....I guess we Yanks are a bunch of whiners.....paying less than 1/2 the price and complaining!


----------



## Mike Wilson

renewablejohn said:
			
		

> Just a reality check UK prices at the moment diesel £1.14 per litre petrol £1.04 per litre. Welcome to the real world



Which is why I sold my place Ashurst Wood back in 1992...

(actually, my job moved, so I had to, but still...)

-- Mike


----------



## webbie

But Mike, you can buy hashish cheaper and semi-legal in Britian!


----------



## fraxinus

Just got the dealer's pre-buy announcement this morning: 3.65.9 per gallon if you purchase next winter's entire supply now. For the average household around here that's $3660 up front. Impossible for most people. And if this is really going to be the best deal for next winter...??? I still think there is a chance that global recession may drive down the price of crude to $80 or so a barrel, but who knows what the traders and hedgers have up their sleeves. BTW: the commodity speculators have succeeded in doubling the price of wheat and rice, among other foodstuffs. Last week's food riots in Haiti are just the beginning.


----------



## begreen

Not just Haiti. 
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d135576c-02a9-11dd-9388-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

Imagine what will happen when these shortages hit fuel? Not such an unreal scenario in Mexico and parts of Asia. China is already experiencing major diesel shortfalls and is way under capacity for electrical generation. In the meantime the gulf states a running low. 
http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/08/04/06/10203450.html


----------



## webbie

If verified, it will prove that the price of oil has very little to do with the supply, and more to do with the cabal.


----------



## webbie

I guess airplanes will continue to fly for another generation or two!


----------



## webbie

Yeah, that's right - but since the extraction is over a long period of time, it is probably more like 10-20 years of 500,000 B/D

Which is a nice addition to what we import from Canada, Mexico and other sources. Takes some pressure off. 

Let's see - a 737 uses about 40 BBL per hour - so that means 200 barrels for across the country. So 500,000 per day, would allow for a heck of a lot of flights!
Where's my Hearth.com Gulfstream?


----------



## Burn-1

Can't forget about Gull Island 

Tinfoil goodness!


----------



## heaterman

All of these new sources of petrol are good no doubt but the fact remains that world wide demand is skyrocketing. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that while the price may dip here and there, we are probably at the new "floor" for oil prices. In addition, these new finds are increasingly more costly to extract which will add to the upward pressure on pricing.

Wood is where it's at my friends.


----------



## kjklosek

gram drude said:
			
		

> How will this new discovery factor in?
> 
> http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html



Probably have to go on reservation land to get the stuff.

Whoopee, the white man gets to stick it to the indians once again!

Why is it so hard for people to cut back?

J.P.


----------



## webbie

SmokinJoe said:
			
		

> Why is it so hard for people to cut back?
> 
> J.P.



No one asked them to?

Bush said "go shopping" as the response to 9/11. 

Oil hit 113.00 today. A year or two ago, we would have said this was impossible. The way I see it, people will not cut back unless there is a reason - like:

1. Price - over $4 a gallon we might see some conservation...over $5 we will see a little more
2. A national effort - Bush or the next prez could have a fireside chat with us (next to an efficient wood stove) and set a goal of conservation, which would be updated every week as a challenge....sort of a national game or goal.

But the current situation is just too PROFITABLE to too many people to stop on it's own. We still think it is our birthright to consume 2 to 10 times as much energy as the rest of the world, and as long as the main thrust of our military efforts are to secure oil, we will lose the game (some would call it winning, but it is a costly win).


----------



## Highbeam

Prices will keep rising and as they do we'll see less demand. The trouble is that the reduced demand will come from folks at the bottom that can't afford to consume fuel. It might be that old lady on SS that can't fill her HHoil tank or the single mom cashier at walmart who is barely making it at today's prices. I am a little less worried about the gasoline (transportation) prices than I am about the fuel prices since propane, NG, and fuel oil heats homes and runs powerplants to make electricity. By the time that enough of the population is ready to make real changes, these bottom folks will be greatly damaged. 

I just hope that we choose to go nuclear while we still can afford to build the plants. Electricity is how we are going to replace oil. We might use the electricity to make hydrogen or charge batteries but we need the electricity, the root energy.


----------



## webbie

Nuclear seems like another "buy now, pay later" routine because it cannot even exist without government guarantees and insurance. If the technology was sound, the industry would be able to indemnify itself (like airlines, doctors, auto makers and everything else). The fact that it cannot scares me. If we are going to talk about "sustainable", that cannot include something where the entire waste problem has not even started to be solved (despite promises).

It is time that we looked at stuff like this over the long run. If the problem of nuclear waste is not significant, then they (the industry) should prove it by solving it! Maybe it will triple the actual cost of nuclear power when a real solution to the waste is found...and, if so, wouldn't it do better to invest that same money in solar, tides, wind or something else where the entire life cycle is calculated in?


----------



## heaterman

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Nuclear seems like another "buy now, pay later" routine because it cannot even exist without government guarantees and insurance. If the technology was sound, the industry would be able to indemnify itself (like airlines, doctors, auto makers and everything else). The fact that it cannot scares me. If we are going to talk about "sustainable", that cannot include something where the entire waste problem has not even started to be solved (despite promises).
> 
> It is time that we looked at stuff like this over the long run. If the problem of nuclear waste is not significant, then they (the industry) should prove it by solving it! Maybe it will triple the actual cost of nuclear power when a real solution to the waste is found...and, if so, wouldn't it do better to invest that same money in solar, tides, wind or something else where the entire life cycle is calculated in?



Could not agree more Craig. Gubmint' subsidy of any kind creates a false picture of what something really costs. We've done too much of that and are now beginning to see the results of that line of reasoning. It's going to bite us in a lot of different places ranging from energy costs to Social Security and Medicare. The bills from those to programs alone will bankrupt this country by 2025. 

We simply have to buckle down as a nation and accept the fact that our whole economy is predicated on energy costs that are artificially low. 

The piper has been playing and now it's time to pay him. Unfortunately it seems that no one at either state or federal level, seems to have the balls to come out and call a spade a spade. It's probably time for those three guys in the picture from 1776, the guys marching with the drum, fife and flag to be reincarnated and start another revolution.


----------



## kjklosek

Webmaster said:
			
		

> SmokinJoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so hard for people to cut back?
> 
> J.P.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one asked them to?
Click to expand...


It just seems a little crazy.  How long can folks walk around thinking that the world can provide endless resources?

I am no doom and gloom prophet, or an eco fanatic, but common sense just says moderation.

I guess most folks do really need to be told what to do.

J.P.

PS.  I don't think anyone could seriously sit by their radio, or i-Pod and listen to George W. Bush give a fireside chat.  8 years of this blubbering goon is enough.


----------



## Telco

It's hard for people to cut back because they don't know how.  Case in point, my dad has a 2000 Silverado truck with the 5.3L engine.  It got 19MPG when he got it.  When I drove it home to borrow while working on my own truck I drove it 130 miles, got 19MPG driving it easy, right in line with what fueleconomy.gov claims at 14/19.  How many people would be able to get better mileage in that truck?  Not many.  Just by reprogramming the computer (bought EFI Live to do it) I was able to get it up to 24MPG for the drive back.  5MPG difference just off programming, and it's a helluva lot faster now to boot.  If my dad follows my suggestions on parts to change, then lets me get back in it for a couple more runs, I'll be able to get him to 29+MPG at 75MPH average speed with an investment of 1500 dollars in parts (electric fans, tonneau cover, long tube headers with true dual 2.25 inch exhaust).  This will be about a 60 percent improvement in mileage, and what's really bad is GM could have made these changes themselves.  Just with the programming I netted him a 26 percent improvement in MPG with no other changes and no effect on durability, reliability, and only a positive effect on power.  The truck still runs on 87 octane, too.  If GM were to have made the same program I've got in there now in all their trucks (and believe me, if I can get 24MPG with simple tools they can get 30MPG) then a million trucks on the road going 20K miles average would save 220 million gallons of gasoline per year.  A co-worker with a 2003 or thereabouts supercharged Grand Prix claims to have tuned his to the point that he's pushing 40MPG and is faster than he was when he started.  These cars get 16/25 according to fueleconomy.gov.  He's currently rebuilding his engine to gain power and thinks that with the parts he selected 40MPG should be an easy target to hit.  

1 million trucks * 20,000 miles / 19MPG = 1,052,631,579 gallons used
1 million trucks * 20,000 miles / 24MPG = 833,333,333 gallons used
1,052,631,579 gallons - 833,333,333 gallons = 219,298,246 gallons saved

1 million trucks * 20,000 miles / 19MPG = 1,052,631,579 gallons used
1 million trucks * 20,000 miles / 24MPG = 689,655,172 gallons used
1,052,631,579 gallons - 689,655,172 gallons = 362,976,407 gallons saved

Unfortunately most people don't even know how to change their spark plugs, much less reprogram their rigs, so they have to depend on those that do know how to sell them cars that get the better mileage from the get-go.  Unfortunately, it would add about 300 bucks to add the right parts to most cars, and the manufacturers up to now have had no incentive to get better mileage when it's a lot cheaper to just announce loudly and often that they are already at the theoretical limits of what they can achieve.  

What I'd like to see is true diesel electric cars, not hybrids, out on the roads.  If a General Electric locomotive can move thousands of tuns while getting 3 gallons to the mile, then surely a small car or truck would be able to see 100+MPG while having no acceleration or tow issues at all.


----------



## Telco

Why won't people conserve?  It affects how they live their lives.  People are like a body in motion, they will stay in motion. And, like a body moving in space, they will not change speed or direction unless an outside force acts upon them.

On nuclear, the breeder reactor is the most sustainable solution as when the nuclear fuel is spent, it is reprocessed into new fuel for the same reactor.  Theoretical limit for use with reprocessing is 500 years.  Within 500 years, provided we start now, surely we can come up with a solution to waste disposal, even if the solution is a rocket into the sun where it would become about 1/99999999999999 of a second's worth of nuclear fuel for the sun.


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech

Telco said:
			
		

> It's hard for people to cut back because they don't know how.  Case in point, my dad has a 2000 Silverado truck with the 5.3L engine.  It got 19MPG when he got it.  When I drove it home to borrow while working on my own truck I drove it 130 miles, got 19MPG driving it easy, right in line with what fueleconomy.gov claims at 14/19.  How many people would be able to get better mileage in that truck?  Not many.  Just by reprogramming the computer (bought EFI Live to do it) I was able to get it up to 24MPG for the drive back.  5MPG difference just off programming, and it's a helluva lot faster now to boot.  If my dad follows my suggestions on parts to change, then lets me get back in it for a couple more runs, I'll be able to get him to 29+MPG at 75MPH average speed with an investment of 1500 dollars in parts (electric fans, tonneau cover, long tube headers with true dual 2.25 inch exhaust).  This will be about a 60 percent improvement in mileage, and what's really bad is GM could have made these changes themselves.  Just with the programming I netted him a 26 percent improvement in MPG with no other changes and no effect on durability, reliability, and only a positive effect on power.  The truck still runs on 87 octane, too.  If GM were to have made the same program I've got in there now in all their trucks (and believe me, if I can get 24MPG with simple tools they can get 30MPG) then a million trucks on the road going 20K miles average would save 220 million gallons of gasoline per year.



If they didn't have to design to meet the arbitrary EPA testing program, they could easily do it.

But they are stuck with that, so they have to design the vehicles to do the best on the EPA's dyno, even if they know that it will not perform well in the real world.

Joe


----------



## Telco

BrownianHeatingTech said:
			
		

> If they didn't have to design to meet the arbitrary EPA testing program, they could easily do it.
> 
> But they are stuck with that, so they have to design the vehicles to do the best on the EPA's dyno, even if they know that it will not perform well in the real world.
> 
> Joe



Oh yeah, forgot that for a moment.  It's better to have a reading of 15 percent pollution per gallon of gas at 15MPG than 20 percent pollution per gallon of gas at 30MPG. :roll:


----------



## Highbeam

It's hard for me to grasp that there is some sort of diposal issue with nuclear power since I have walked on and helped cut up nuclear powered ships and submarines. Even had a part in setting up the disposal of the reactors. We are now using nuclear power to play war with, the reactors are hot and running. Maybe park one of the ships (most have more than one reactor) and attach the prop shaft (s) to a generator head.


----------



## webbie

Uh, Highbeam - so you work in the industry and don't know that they promised (like Telco above) that, by the time the waste built up, they would have the solution?

And you don't know that since they have not come up with the solution, they store the waste in swimming pools outside the reactors? And that they have now received permits to expand this on-site storage because they still (50 year later) are NO CLOSER to a solution?

So, pray tell, since you think there is no disposal issue, why can't they ship that stuff somewhere safe?

As to breeders and rocketing it to the sun - fine - let me know the cost of sending the stuff into the Sun, figure it into the price - take away government guarantees and build 'em if feasible. But after having a couple exploding rockets out of the last couple dozen, I'm not certain about those rockets either.


----------



## Telco

No idea what the future would hold, but I doubt any real money's been spent on dealing with the waste beyond figuring out that you can encase it in glass, then stick it in a swimming pool.  The breeders are currently in use in France though, so we do know that it works.  No idea how well it works without government money though, since the French government pays for just about everything in France.  The rockets going up lately, no comment on that.  I'm with you, I don't want to see 20 tons of nuke waste crashing anywhere, or worse yet exploding 20 miles up.  Would also need a secure means of controlling the rocket too, don't need any Mini-Me wannabe hijacking a rocket after launch.  Don't think we could manage a million billion dollars.


----------



## webbie

Is a million billion what mini-me wants?

The waste problem is a perfect example of the problem with planning which says "by then we will have figured it out". This would be like making murder legal, with the caveat that someday we will figure out how to bring the dead back alive. Maybe.....the cost might be high. 

We have been given so much in terms of nature, and we have so many great minds who have brought us this far....there are real solutions existing right here, and right now. Solar is still being slammed for being 3x the price of other electric - but without subsidies, the other electric might cost as much! According to the CSX commercial, trains can move a ton of freight 400 miles plus on one gallon of fuel....and trains are nowhere near 100% efficient....and yet we brag about 30 MPG? We should discuss 30 Miles per Liter!


----------



## Highbeam

I'm not in the nuclear industry exactly, but I am an engineer so I know how to move things. How to weld reactors to barges, how to drag the barges in the ocean and up rivers, how to move the reactors onto land vehicles, and then how to set them down in the desert to sit forever among hundreds of other spent reactors. Among the navy reactors are old powerplant reactors. This is one place where they are shipping the stuff. Is it safe? I don't know. They've been doing it for a long time and only improving their methods. 

Build up? Just how much build up of waste do you think there is? Our country is huge. So much uninhabited area that a tiny little gem of waste is nearly meaningless. 

There are no swimming pools at the shipyards. I think there is this perception of a monstrous heap of green goo when there is no such thing. I've stood next to reactors. I just don't see any big heap or mass of anything. Just lots of clean power being produced. 

At least the very small amount of waste is contained unlike the current methods of coal and NG combustion.


----------



## webbie

Highbeam said:
			
		

> how to set them down in the desert to sit forever among hundreds of other spent reactors. Among the navy reactors are old powerplant reactors. This is one place where they are shipping the stuff. Is it safe? I don't know. They've been doing it for a long time and only improving their methods.



Uh, a long time? Like what, 50 years?

"Certain radioactive elements (such as plutonium-239) in “spent” fuel will remain hazardous to humans and other living beings for hundreds of thousands of years. Other radioisotopes will remain hazardous for millions of years. Thus, these wastes must be shielded for centuries and isolated from the living environment for hundreds of millennia"

No, there is no green goo. It's worse. There are invisible rays which enter our cells and cause mutations, most notably cancer.

As to the "tiny" amount, if we are talking about High Level Wastes (the bad stuff) - 
"High level waste (HLW) is produced by nuclear reactors.  The amount of HLW worldwide is currently increasing by about 12,000 metric tons every year, which is the equival to about 100 double-decker busses or a two-story structure built on top of a basketball court"

So we are not talking a couple 55 gal. barrels here - more accurately, we are talking about enough to cause hundreds of millions of cases of cancer if let out into the environment. And right now it is protected by - sitting in a swimming pool. Not exactly the solution I was looking for.


----------



## Highbeam

You're not supposed to eat it. The spent fuel indeed takes essentially forever to be safe. Things like reactors cool off in a few decades to safe levels. I think the figure was 97% gone in 27 years.  

To some folks, any amount of pollution is unacceptable and I can appreciate that viewpoint only if those people will also consider how much waste that the alternatives produce. How many tons of pollution a coal stack produces for example which is uncontained and allowed to fly. A few of these little basketball huts are very tiny when looked at against the big picture, very much a drop in the bucket. 

You've seen those huge strip mines? Those pits for diamonds or whatever on the discovery channel? I've never actually seen one in real life, I wouldn't miss that amount of storage if filled up with nuclear waste. I wonder how many basketball huts you could fit in one of those. Look at landfills. Huge volumes of our earth are occupied by bad stuff already. Essentially off limits. Why not have a similar system for the nuclear waste. 

I don't need technology to be able to make the waste disappear. If the technology only was good enough to simply contain the waste.   


PS, not trying to ruffle feathers. I just don't see the problem.


----------



## webbie

I agree that things must be weighed. But putting them under the rug (so to speak) is not a scientific process whereby we can guess at the true cost. There is no formation on the earth stable enough to contain the waste until it is not deadly. That pretty much leaves either somehow processing it - because based on that weight we're not going to rocket it anywhere!

Yes, everything has problems....and I don't believe in taking the tops off of mountains either, although the western pits seem relatively benign (take some dirt off, remove the coal and put dirt back)....

What's done is done - we can't put the tops back on the mountains, but I would rather have a "arms race" based on tidal, wind, solar and other renewable resources than make decisions for thousands of future generations (decisions which will cost them in lives and treasure).

As you know, the technology is not good enough to contain the waste. That is the problem.


----------



## iceman

Telco said:
			
		

> It's hard for people to cut back because they don't know how.  Case in point, my dad has a 2000 Silverado truck with the 5.3L engine.  It got 19MPG when he got it.  When I drove it home to borrow while working on my own truck I drove it 130 miles, got 19MPG driving it easy, right in line with what fueleconomy.gov claims at 14/19.  How many people would be able to get better mileage in that truck?  Not many.  Just by reprogramming the computer (bought EFI Live to do it) I was able to get it up to 24MPG for the drive back.  5MPG difference just off programming, and it's a helluva lot faster now to boot.  If my dad follows my suggestions on parts to change, then lets me get back in it for a couple more runs, I'll be able to get him to 29+MPG at 75MPH average speed with an investment of 1500 dollars in parts (electric fans, tonneau cover, long tube headers with true dual 2.25 inch exhaust).  This will be about a 60 percent improvement in mileage, and what's really bad is GM could have made these changes themselves.  Just with the programming I netted him a 26 percent improvement in MPG with no other changes and no effect on durability, reliability, and only a positive effect on power.  The truck still runs on 87 octane, too.  If GM were to have made the same program I've got in there now in all their trucks (and believe me, if I can get 24MPG with simple tools they can get 30MPG) then a million trucks on the road going 20K miles average would save 220 million gallons of gasoline per year.  A co-worker with a 2003 or thereabouts supercharged Grand Prix claims to have tuned his to the point that he's pushing 40MPG and is faster than he was when he started.  These cars get 16/25 according to fueleconomy.gov.  He's currently rebuilding his engine to gain power and thinks that with the parts he selected 40MPG should be an easy target to hit.
> 
> 1 million trucks * 20,000 miles / 19MPG = 1,052,631,579 gallons used
> 1 million trucks * 20,000 miles / 24MPG = 833,333,333 gallons used
> 1,052,631,579 gallons - 833,333,333 gallons = 219,298,246 gallons saved
> 
> 1 million trucks * 20,000 miles / 19MPG = 1,052,631,579 gallons used
> 1 million trucks * 20,000 miles / 24MPG = 689,655,172 gallons used
> 1,052,631,579 gallons - 689,655,172 gallons = 362,976,407 gallons saved
> 
> Unfortunately most people don't even know how to change their spark plugs, much less reprogram their rigs, so they have to depend on those that do know how to sell them cars that get the better mileage from the get-go.  Unfortunately, it would add about 300 bucks to add the right parts to most cars, and the manufacturers up to now have had no incentive to get better mileage when it's a lot cheaper to just announce loudly and often that they are already at the theoretical limits of what they can achieve.
> 
> What I'd like to see is true diesel electric cars, not hybrids, out on the roads.  If a General Electric locomotive can move thousands of tuns while getting 3 gallons to the mile, then surely a small car or truck would be able to see 100+MPG while having no acceleration or tow issues at all.




could you point me in the right direction for a 2001 expedition???


----------



## raybonz

As long as people create reactors things will go wrong and this includes the waste they create... There is way too much at stake to assume such a risk... That is my feeling on nuclear power...

http://todayspictures.slate.com/inmotion/essay_chernobyl/ or another good read : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_accident#Lists_of_accidents

Ray


----------



## Mike Wilson

We need Mr. Fusion.


----------



## begreen

Mike Wilson said:
			
		

> We need Mr. Fusion.



Yeah, but instead the govt. comes up with Cornfusion!  >:-(

In the meantime, Exxon sure isn't worried:

http://metrospirit.com/index.php?cat=11011103083760550&ShowArticle_ID=11001104084533044


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech

Webmaster said:
			
		

> No, there is no green goo. It's worse. There are invisible rays which enter our cells and cause mutations, most notably cancer.



Actually, most radiation is particles.

Gamma is rays.  It can travel _one thousand feet_ in air.  That's _almost a quarter of a mile_!  Why, if there were some gamma-emitting waste nearby, you could be _not exactly sitting on top of it_ and still be in danger!

Beta radiation more damaging than gamma, since it is composed of high-energy particles (electrons or positrons) instead of mere rays.  Being exposed to beta radiation is like being blasted with a shotgun.. if a shotgun shot tiny particles that could be stopped by thick paper, that is.

Alpha radiation is the most damaging sort.  It consists of two protons and two neutrons, so it can punch a much bigger hole in your cells.  Of course, being big and slow, alpha particles can be stopped by almost anything, such as the layer of dead skin cells on your body.  It is only dangerous when ingested.

All of these are ionizing radiation, which describes their ability to ionize atoms, causing damage if that happens within your body.  Some other examples of ionizing radiation...

X-rays (chase your doctor down with a baseball bat!)
Ultraviolet light (that's how it causes skin cancer)
Visible light (yup, your lightbulb is sleeting ionizing radiation at you - that's how photographic film works)
Potassium (stop eating those dangerous bananas!)

Oh, by the way, burning wood releases radiation, as well.  Just figured you should know, so you can avoid such dangerous, environmentally-unsound activities...

Joe


----------



## Telco

There was a TV news story recently about a University of Oklahoma cancer researcher that claims to have discovered a cancer cure.  They are in the preliminary testing phase, but they said it's looking pretty good.  No details beyond they do this and the cancer dies, but surrounding cells do not.  It doesn't matter what sort of cancer either, any cancer they try it on dies without harming nearby cells.  Hopefully this will turn up in the next 3-5 years.

One way you can look at pollution is:  nuclear waste is exactly the same as coal/petroleum waste, except nuclear waste is concentrated.  Both will kill you, but one can be completely isolated.  Is it better to have tons of a pollutant everywhere killing you slowly, or tons of it in one place where if you go where it is it kills you instantly, but if you don't go where it is, it doesn't affect you?  Think I'd rather have it concentrated and stored somewhere nobody else is, with heavy security.

Iceman - Unfortunately, no.  The program I used on my dad's truck is called EFI Live, and is only for General Motors products.  To use it you'd have to trade your Ford for a GM, or if you don't mind making heavy modifications you can locate a 411 processor from a GM truck, and rewire your Ford to use it.  It should be a matter of just figuring out what all the wiring on your Ford does, and connecting the appropriate wires to the computer ports on the new computer, then changing all sensors to GM specific ones.  A third alternative would be to change the Ford engine for a Chevy engine.  Local salvage yards in my area will sell complete takeout 5.3L engines for 1000 dollars with all accessories, wiring harness and computer.  Any of these options would allow you to use the same software.  If this is too much, the next step would be to visit some Ford high performance boards, if there is such a thing as a high performance Ford, to see if they have any programming software similar to EFI Live.  The software would need to allow you to change the timing and fuel maps, O2 sensitivity, airflow maps, ect.  If it's just a plug in programmer where you push a button, then it won't do it.  EFI Live is a program that requires a laptop to operate and allows you to change everything as though you were a GM programmer, right down to remodeling the fuel gauge operation.  For hard parts, the only thing I can suggest for an SUV would be to add a set of electric fans, open up the intake, change tires and change the exhaust.  For electric fans, Ford Taurus fans are very popular on the GM V8 trucks.  And, GM now installs electrics on their trucks from the factory.  You will also need some sort of control method for the fans, which may be possible through the computer.  On GM computers, there is an option for electrics on the trucks without them because the same computer is used on cars that do have fans.  Be warned, if you go with the electric fans you'll need to monitor the temps closely when towing, AND there is the possibility of a jerky double shift on a wide open throttle 1-2 shift.  Without the drag of the mechanical fan you might hit the RPM cutoff before the trans can shift, which makes the 1-2 shift feel like it's bucking.  If you have the 4.6L Ford engine, then a set of long tube headers with 2 inch duals or a single 2.5 inch pipe, along with a low restriction muffler, will improve flow and make it easier for the engine to operate.  Muffler selection is very important as you drive a big box, which will have resonance issues.  My Tahoe ran with Walker Quiet Flow mufflers, along with 18 inch glasspacks right at the rear bumper.  The mufflers by themselves were quiet but resonated, the glasspacks knocked off almost all the resonance.  Next thing to do would be to open up the air intake path, try for a straight airpath by removing factory plastic.  Don't descreen the MAF if you have one though, it can do funny things to the computer.  Lastly, increasing tire diameter will allow you to travel further by increasing the rear end ratio (lower numerically) without an expensive gear change.  Remember that a 10 percent larger tire will mean the speedo is off by 10 percent, so going 60MPH will really be 66MPH and could mean a ticket, unless you reprogram to take this into account.

Hope all this helps.


----------



## webbie

As Joe states, there are  many sources of ionizing radiation. You get a LOT when you fly at high altitudes or even live at them! Living in certain areas (radon) also gives you larger doses. Every x-ray that you get increases your chance of mutation (usually cancer).  A CAT scan - just one - gives you a 1 in 1000 chance of getting cancer (from it).

So the kicker is this - every bit of radiation which you are exposed to OVER AND ABOVE background and "normal" increases the incidence of cancer and mutations. I don't get X-Rays just as a normal course of action...if I really need them, I get them. I would never agree to a CAT scan unless there was a life threatening reason.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/07/3674/

Dr. Goffman worked on the first A-Bomb, discovered isotopes of Uranium and was the chief medical researcher for the Atomic Energy Commission....that is, until he decided to tell the truth and they forced him out. So I guess it is a question of whether one believes him or wants their research done by GE and Westinghouse (who build plants).

I'm not saying that other sources of power don't kill people - they do! But we have to weigh the entire life cycle. If, after careful weighing, nuclear comes out as relatively benign, then it deserves to be considered. But shipping the waste around the world and dumping it in poor countries or swimming pools on the reactor site is not the solution.


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech

Webmaster said:
			
		

> As Joe states, there are  many sources of ionizing radiation. You get a LOT when you fly at high altitudes or even live at them! Living in certain areas (radon) also gives you larger doses. Every x-ray that you get increases your chance of mutation (usually cancer).  A CAT scan - just one - gives you a 1 in 1000 chance of getting cancer (from it).
> 
> So the kicker is this - every bit of radiation which you are exposed to OVER AND ABOVE background and "normal" increases the incidence of cancer and mutations. I don't get X-Rays just as a normal course of action...if I really need them, I get them. I would never agree to a CAT scan unless there was a life threatening reason.



Do you watch TV?  The average American gets a chest x-ray each year, just from the emissions of the TV (CRT computer monitors count, too).



			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/07/3674/
> 
> Dr. Goffman worked on the first A-Bomb, discovered isotopes of Uranium and was the chief medical researcher for the Atomic Energy Commission....that is, until he decided to tell the truth and they forced him out. So I guess it is a question of whether one believes him or wants their research done by GE and Westinghouse (who build plants).



Or the research done by every other credible source (even ones that don't get money from GE or Westinghouse), which don't support Goffman's findings...



> One of Gofman’s most powerful and influential moments came in 1974, when he agreed to defend a civil disobedient named Sam Lovejoy in the small town of Montague, Massachusetts. A member of a communal organic farm, Lovejoy had manually knocked over a 500-foot weather tower erected as a precursor to the building of a large twin reactor complex.



Point of order: civil disobedience involves "disobedience," not willful destruction of property.  Gandhi would roll over in his grave if he knew what sort of evil was being defended by twisting his words.



			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> I'm not saying that other sources of power don't kill people - they do! But we have to weigh the entire life cycle. If, after careful weighing, nuclear comes out as relatively benign, then it deserves to be considered. But shipping the waste around the world and dumping it in poor countries or swimming pools on the reactor site is not the solution.



Okay, since nuclear _does_ come out as "relatively benign" in any unbiased examination, I guess we should build more nuke plants...

Joe


----------



## DriftWood

Anything in your back yard?


U.S. Nuclear Accidents
http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html


----------



## Redox

Not to "fuel" this fire any further, but here it is:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/...el-building-construction-union_563303_11.html

Constellation is poised to break ground this year on the first new nuclear reactor in decades here in MD.  They are the parent company of Baltimore Gas and Electric.  Calvert Cliffs was the first nuke plant in the country to be recertified.  The state of Maryland just settled a lawsuit with them over deregulation and now it looks like we are closer to a green light on the project than ever before.  CEO Mayo Shattuck is apparently buds with Bush; they had a press conference together here some time back.  Don't know where this is headed, but one thing's for sure; our electric isn't going to get any cheaper.

We can't even agree on the proposed LNG terminal in Sparrows Point...

Oh, well!


----------



## fraxinus

A couple of points missing from the nuclear power discussion: First, it's not really meaningful to talk about radiation in general. The particular radioisotope is very important. For example, the human body cannot distinguish between regular iodine and its radioactive form. This is why the radioactive iodine is stored in the thyroid causing serious damage, especially in children. In a similar way, radioactive cesium is "mistaken" for calcium and is stored in bone and becomes a part of mammalian milk.
     Long term storage of nuclear waste remains an intractable problem in part because of our Federal system. Every Preseidential candidate over the past 20 years has assured the people of Nevada and other western states that they will not host a waste depository. Numerous state laws have also been passed to prevent such an eventuality. High level waste from decommissioned nuclear plants is currently stored (dry cask storage is one method) on site with little prospect for any change despite a massive suit intended to force Federal action slowly making its way through the courts.
     The money people have yet to re-embrace nuclear power. All plants have a finite life and are so expensive to build it's very difficult to make them profitable over their useful life.
     We may yet build new nuclear plants, but siting them, financing them and gaining public acceptance will be a monumental task.


----------



## Ken45

fraxinus said:
			
		

> We may yet build new nuclear plants, but siting them, financing them and gaining public acceptance will be a monumental task.



You are right.  We just don't want any power plants of any kind, no coal or oil.   We might allow gas fired plants, but the supply of gas is limited and we won't allow import terminals.  People think  they can say "no" to everything (including new oil fields in the US), and then complain that prices are going skyhigh! 

I agree our government has done a terrible job of managing nuclear energy.  For one thing, we won't allow fast breeder reactors, which tremendously reduces the waste problem.

I've heard proposals about dumping sequestered nuclear waste at the deep ocean subduction zones, where it will be carried to the molten core of the earth, from where it came.  I've never heard anyone mention problems with that approach, so what's wrong with it?   Or do we just insist on sticking our heads in the sand (and fighting wars) and ignore doing anything to solve our energy problems?

Ken


----------



## blackgooseJT

What really freaks us out is the "unknown". Humans have never been able to deal with things in the LONG term without screwing up. SL-1, Three mile island, and Chernobyl all served to illustrate just how fragile and short lived our technologies and our memories are. The difference between traditional power generation and nuclear is that the consequences of predictable failure last longer than recorded human history.The half-life of some of the isotopes involved is hundreds of thousands of years. Who's going to be around to make sure this stuff is still contained ? I worked in radiological controls in the 1970's and I know how careful everyone was, but people still made mistakes. I like the idea of nuclear power. I'm just not too sure about the human factor.

J.T. Black Goose


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech

blackgooseJT said:
			
		

> What really freaks us out is the "unknown". Humans have never been able to deal with things in the LONG term without screwing up. SL-1, Three mile island, and Chernobyl all served to illustrate just how fragile and short lived our technologies and our memories are. The difference between traditional power generation and nuclear is that the consequences of predictable failure last longer than recorded human history.The half-life of some of the isotopes involved is hundreds of thousands of years. Who's going to be around to make sure this stuff is still contained ? I worked in radiological controls in the 1970's and I know how careful everyone was, but people still made mistakes. I like the idea of nuclear power. I'm just not too sure about the human factor.



The "accidents" you mention are all related to designs that were used in order to comply with government regulations and government-sponsored limitation of liability.

If the companies were free to use proper designs, and were actually liable for damages if they had a leak, then you'd see inherently-safe designs being used.  For example, pebble bed reactors, which simply cannot melt down, as a matter of physics.  No external safety intervention is required - the coolant is an integral part of the reaction, and any coolant loss shuts down the reactor.  Proper reactor designs eliminate the human element.

In any case, coal plants release more radioactive material into the atmosphere than a nuke plant.  And they do that during "normal operation," not in the extremely-unlikely event of a radiation leak.

Joe


----------



## webbie

BrownianHeatingTech said:
			
		

> If the companies were free to use proper designs, and were actually liable for damages if they had a leak, then you'd see inherently-safe designs being used.
> 
> Joe



Well, Yeah.....but isn't that like saying "if we lived on the moon"?

Even if the government stopped insuring nuclear plants, wouldn't there just be levels of "shell" corporations and LLCs who owned or ran them? And, even if not, what does "liable" mean? So what if you sue the corporation out of business? That is not real liability. 

So maybe a real question would be "Give ANY situation of normal business which could or would happen....."

And I think the answer to that is clear. We (the taxpayers) end up footing the bill. If that is the case, it might as well stay just like it is now.

Ok, so would we say "all the boards of directors and CEOs of a nuclear energy company ....if they cause death and disease as a result of shoddy designs or practice...could be executed and all their assets and those of their heirs siezed?". Sound silly? Well, that is exactly what happens when everything defaults back to the tax and rate payers  - we die from the leaks, pay the bills and so do our kids.

There is no such thing as real "liability", it is only limited liability.


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Even if the government stopped insuring nuclear plants, wouldn't there just be levels of "shell" corporations and LLCs who owned or ran them?



Corporations are part of the government, Craig.  They do not exist in the real world.  They are not people.  You can't go and wave your finger at "Exxon."  They are legal fictions, created by the government.



			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> And, even if not, what does "liable" mean? So what if you sue the corporation out of business? That is not real liability.



The actual people involved should be held liable.  Which cannot happen under the current "regulatory" system.  As long as they "comply with regulations," they are free to do absolutely any amount of damage imaginable, and can never be legally accountable for it.



			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> Ok, so would we say "all the boards of directors and CEOs of a nuclear energy company ....if they cause death and disease as a result of shoddy designs or practice...could be executed and all their assets and those of their heirs siezed?". Sound silly? Well, that is exactly what happens when everything defaults back to the tax and rate payers  - we die from the leaks, pay the bills and so do our kids.



Uh, I think there's a logical disconnect there.  If the CEOs were held personally liable for their actions, then the debt _wouldn't_ default to the taxpayers, like it currently does.

Joe


----------



## Telco

I like this thread, both sides of the nuke issue are discussing the issue without resorting to namecalling.

The taxpayers actually would wind up footing the bill of a nuke accident as the CEO is unlikely to have enough personally to cover the costs of a cleanup.  However, that picks the story up at the end of the book, not the beginning.  If a CEO were told that he is allowed to build a nuclear power plant using whatever design he wants, but has to meet a specific limit on radioactive emissions and would go to real jail where he'd room with Bubba, and not the Martha Stewart Minimum Security Facility and Spa outside Kennebunkport, ME, then the cost of the plant would be far less and the plant would be far safer from the getgo.  With this sort of incentive (unless the CEO happens to like being a "hood ornament") it's far less likely that unsafe designs or practices would be allowed.  Triply so if the responsibility and jail time were to roll downhill to the actual responsible person, ie cause a nuclear meltdown and the state grabs all assets and makes a chain gang out of the chain of command all the way down to the guy that threw the wrong lever.  Course the only way anyone would accept such a job is if they had the right to refuse an order from a superior if they thought it would cause a meltdown.  

All in all though, something is going to HAVE to be done, and people are going to have to get over their NIMBY complex.  Personally I wouldn't mind seeing a nuclear reactor going in on the Arkansas River in Tulsa, and that's with me living 20 miles upwind of where any radioactive cloud would head in the event of an accident.  I'd not protest the plant going in unless they were using some unsafe design like was used in one of the nuclear failures listed before.  But, either we need more refineries, more hydro plants, and more wind/solar facilities, or we need more efficient stuff, or we need to get used to higher and higher prices.

Another thing I'd like to see:  The end of the boutique fuel formulation.  There should be one federal standard for all fuel, split into five regions (divide the nation in 4, 5th region would be all high altitude areas) and only two octane ratings made, 87 and 93.  If a station wants to offer a midrange, 87 and 93 will mix to make a 90 octane.  Doing this, even if we went with the strictest standards of fuel, would mean cheaper fuel for everyone since the refineries would not have to retool for each formulation, and one refinery going down would not be such a hardship.  I wouldn't mind seeing more refineries going in either, I know the US government was offering to allow retired military bases to be converted.   Right now they oil companies have too few refineries as one going down puts a major crimp in supplies.  Seems like every time I hear an economist say "Fuel prices are expected to drop unless a refinery has problems" is followed by a refinery fire within 2 days.


----------



## kjklosek

Ken45 said:
			
		

> fraxinus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We may yet build new nuclear plants, but siting them, financing them and gaining public acceptance will be a monumental task.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard proposals about dumping sequestered nuclear waste at the deep ocean subduction zones, where it will be carried to the molten core of the earth, from where it came.  I've never heard anyone mention problems with that approach, so what's wrong with it?   Or do we just insist on sticking our heads in the sand (and fighting wars) and ignore doing anything to solve our energy problems?
> 
> Ken
Click to expand...


Ken,

The oceans of the planet are not a toilet that can be used to flush away all our ills.

Oceanographers still can't come to a consensus on how deep ocean currents work.  It is still unchartered territory, so to speak.

Besides, wasn't Godzilla created by dumping nuclear waste in the sea?

The last thing we need is a 20 story lizard running around stomping on our skyscrapers!

Or maybe we do.

J.P.


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech

Telco said:
			
		

> The taxpayers actually would wind up footing the bill of a nuke accident as the CEO is unlikely to have enough personally to cover the costs of a cleanup.



The CEO and all the board of directors, or whomever was responsible for setting an unsafe practice into effect, or knew that the practice was unsafe and either kept quiet or actively worked to hide the fact.



			
				Telco said:
			
		

> However, that picks the story up at the end of the book, not the beginning.  If a CEO were told that he is allowed to build a nuclear power plant using whatever design he wants, but has to meet a specific limit on radioactive emissions and would go to real jail where he'd room with Bubba, and not the Martha Stewart Minimum Security Facility and Spa outside Kennebunkport, ME, then the cost of the plant would be far less and the plant would be far safer from the getgo.  With this sort of incentive (unless the CEO happens to like being a "hood ornament") it's far less likely that unsafe designs or practices would be allowed.  Triply so if the responsibility and jail time were to roll downhill to the actual responsible person, ie cause a nuclear meltdown and the state grabs all assets and makes a chain gang out of the chain of command all the way down to the guy that threw the wrong lever.  Course the only way anyone would accept such a job is if they had the right to refuse an order from a superior if they thought it would cause a meltdown.



Exactly.  And we'd have pebble-bed reactors, which can't melt down.  Or other inherently-safe designs.  No reliance on automatic or manual valves that could fail.  Everything built using physical properties to make it failsafe.

Since the government gave the nuclear industry _carte blanche_ to do whatever they wanted without concern for the risk, we had Three Mile Island and such.  Because there was no incentive to be safe.

Joe


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech

SmokinJoe said:
			
		

> The oceans of the planet are not a toilet that can be used to flush away all our ills.
> 
> Oceanographers still can't come to a consensus on how deep ocean currents work.  It is still unchartered territory, so to speak.
> 
> Besides, wasn't Godzilla created by dumping nuclear waste in the sea?
> 
> The last thing we need is a 20 story lizard running around stomping on our skyscrapers!
> 
> Or maybe we do.



Ken's referring to "reverse volcanoes" at the bottom of the ocean.  Not just dumping it somewhere, but placing it in a location where it will be drawn down into the mantle of the planet, buried deeper than we could ever imagine doing.

Joe


----------



## Telco

SmokinJoe said:
			
		

> Ken,
> 
> The oceans of the planet are not a toilet that can be used to flush away all our ills.
> 
> Oceanographers still can't come to a consensus on how deep ocean currents work.  It is still unchartered territory, so to speak.
> 
> Besides, wasn't Godzilla created by dumping nuclear waste in the sea?
> 
> The last thing we need is a 20 story lizard running around stomping on our skyscrapers!
> 
> Or maybe we do.
> 
> J.P.



This is true.  Not 6 months ago researchers discovered a major climate driver, which is an oceanic current south of Australia that goes around the South Pole.  

And, this is why I've got a real problem with man being blamed for global warming.  We can't go saying man is causing global warming when we don't know everything that is affecting the climate, nor can we say man is doing it when we only have a few decades worth of records.  This is not to say that I think we should pollute no holds barred, because there are real, provable consequences from pollution.  But man causing the entire planet to heat up, I say not.  They've done core samples in the Artic and found tropical plants some 2000 - 3000 feet down, they've discovered a new "mud volcano" between Greenland and Norway that is strong enough to be heating the Gulf Stream oceanic currents right as it's hitting the Arctic.  And, when they found the one they think they found at least one other, which means there may be more we haven't found.  On top of this, it's been discovered that while the Artic ice has shrunk, Antarctic ice has increased.  Not to mention that this year is the coldest April I can remember for a long time, and last summer Oklahoma only had about a 3 week run of temps that stayed over 90 degrees in the summertime.  Last year was pretty cold, and this year seems to be shaping up to be a cold one.  Quite frankly, the weather patterns just look to me like normal weather, with it getting hotter sometimes and colder others.  I imagine that Europe being hotter than normal might be related to that huge oceanic volcano that's heating the water year round.  And if a 2 degree increase in air temperature can cause such havoc, surely a similar change in water temps play an equal amount of havoc, if not more since it takes so much more energy to heat salt water than air.

I doubt man is having much effect on global temps because we really don't know enough about how the world works to say that for certain.  The only effect I do know man can be blamed for is fouling air and water, and those are the problems that need to be fixed.  Nice thing about my position is, if man is a primary cause of global warming the same actions needed to clean the air and water are the same actions needed to clean this supposed manmade global warming.

Arctic ice shrank
Antarctic ice increased
Volcano between Greenland and Norway


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech

Telco said:
			
		

> Not to mention that this year is the coldest April I can remember for a long time, and last summer Oklahoma only had about a 3 week run of temps that stayed over 90 degrees in the summertime.  Last year was pretty cold, and this year seems to be shaping up to be a cold one.  Quite frankly, the weather patterns just look to me like normal weather, with it getting hotter sometimes and colder others.



I do think I read that we're heading into a solar minimum, and that the flare patterns indicate we will likely have a decade of below-normal temperatures.

It's looking to be a good time to improve heating system efficiency!

Joe


----------



## blackgooseJT

BrownianHeatingTech said:
			
		

> Proper reactor designs eliminate the human element.



When the facilities are designed, built, operated and maintained by humans 'splain to me again how you can remove the "human factor". Most of the by-product of nuclear power is the waste generated during operation and maintenance, not the expended core material. I dealt with tons of contaminated tools,water,clothing and cleaning gear. All had to be surveyed, counted, tracked, packed and shipped to secure facilities. I worked in nuclear propulsion and sent lots of stuff to Hanford and Barnwell. Most was contaminated with cobalt 60 which has a 5.2 yr. half-life, and it is still putting off 'zoomies" presumably in safe storage. Of greater concern is the occasional contaminated man, or an inadvertent release of material. I remember one instance where a radiation worker was exposed to airborne cobalt 60 during mechanical maintenance. In truth, the isotopes involved were numerous...... actually a "soup" of debris that had been neutron flux irradiated. A whole body scan revealed contamination in his left lung. Alpa emmitters aren't much trouble uless you ingest them. I wonder what ever happened to him.

The point is that you can't see,feel.smell,hear, or taste nuclear contamination. People naturally fear the unknown. Some assume that whole body ionizing radiation exposure above an arbitrary set-point (called background) is where the stuff begins to be hazardous. Others maintain that any exposure above zero must result in a proportional increase in cell damage. I'm sure that the exposure I got as a child looking through the fluoroscope at our local shoe store exceeded the exposure I recieved as a consequence of my job dealing with nuclear material. I don't believe in x-rays for fun and I also don't fear them, but then I'm not having any more kids.

Theres a lot of hubris here. When folks deny human frailty and error , it's kind of like sticking a finger in God's eye.


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech

blackgooseJT said:
			
		

> When the facilities are designed, built, operated and maintained by humans 'splain to me again how you can remove the "human factor". Most of the by-product of nuclear power is the waste generated during operation and maintenance, not the expended core material. I dealt with tons of contaminated tools,water,clothing and cleaning gear. All had to be surveyed, counted, tracked, packed and shipped to secure facilities. I worked in nuclear propulsion and sent lots of stuff to Hanford and Barnwell. Most was contaminated with cobalt 60 which has a 5.2 yr. half-life, and it is still putting off 'zoomies" presumably in safe storage. Of greater concern is the occasional contaminated man, or an inadvertent release of material. I remember one instance where a radiation worker was exposed to airborne cobalt 60 during mechanical maintenance. In truth, the isotopes involved were numerous...... actually a "soup" of debris that had been neutron flux irradiated. A whole body scan revealed contamination in his left lung. Alpa emmitters aren't much trouble uless you ingest them. I wonder what ever happened to him.
> 
> The point is that you can't see,feel.smell,hear, or taste nuclear contamination. People naturally fear the unknown. Some assume that whole body ionizing radiation exposure above an arbitrary set-point (called background) is where the stuff begins to be hazardous. Others maintain that any exposure above zero must result in a proportional increase in cell damage. I'm sure that the exposure I got as a child looking through the fluoroscope at our local shoe store exceeded the exposure I recieved as a consequence of my job dealing with nuclear material. I don't believe in x-rays for fun and I also don't fear them, but then I'm not having any more kids.
> 
> Theres a lot of hubris here. When folks deny human frailty and error , it's kind of like sticking a finger in God's eye.



There's a human element in handling the waste, but the reactor design itself is failsafe in a modern reactor.  No Three Mile Island.  No Chernobyl.  If there is a coolant failure, the reaction fails and the core shuts down, rather than melting down.

You can have minor accidents, of course, but no major releases like a meltdown.

Joe


----------



## Redox

I like this thread, too!  Funny how it was restarted from an old thread by Elk marvelling at oil prices last year.

The time is ripe for a rational discussion on where this country and, indeed the world is headed as far as energy policy.  I believe the US has to lead this, because everyone is following us anyway.  We "discovered" oil and invented the cheap mass produced motor car.  The rest of the world was content with the bicycle and public transportation, but we had to find a "better" way.  The Chinese want what we have, so they buy up all the oil they can and dam up the Yangtze river to make electricity to run their world.  Apparently the population is resigned to having to move out of the way of the government because it is a "good" thing, right?  Right!  Hydropower is the best thing since canned beer, right?  Right!  Don't tell that to the families that are being displaced by this monstrosity.  The Chinese are set to pass us soon in total CO2 emissions and they have almost no environmental controls at all.   All those little two strokes are trashing the planet, but they get 200 MPG and are cheap to buy.  This can't be a bad thing, can it?

As green as I am, I have long been an advocate of nuclear power.  I remember TMI, it's only about 50 miles from here.  There are two others plants that I can think of within 100 miles of Baltimore (Peach Bottom and Calvert Cliffs), so I do know what is is like having it "in my back yard".  We were all a little uncomfortable when it (TMI) happened, but frankly, I am more concerned about a terrorist cutting loose a dirty bomb over DC than a little radioactive gas being vented.  In my mind, there is a far more likely chance of a terrorist event than a nuke accident.  Is it safe to say that more people died on 9/11 than have ever died as a result of a nuclear accident in the US?  I don't have the numbers, but I venture to guess it's true.  I am also more concerned with coal fired emissions dropping mercury and radiation and whatnot on my head.  The eastern seabord gets to enjoy all the fumes from the rest of the country before it wafts out to sea and contaminates our seafood.

It is possible to build a perfectly safe nuke plant and operate it with zero risk of contamination?  No, it isn't.  Is it possible to drive to work or fly across the country with zero risk?  No, absolutely not.  If riding a motorcycle or scooter is more dangerous, then why are they so popular?  Everyone will have a different answer to this one.  Is it possible to manage the risk to an acceptable level?  With proper design and sensible operation, yes!

If nuclear power is so dangerous, how come France hasn't blown themselves off the face of the earth yet?  70% of their electric comes from nuclear power and they aren't making any headlines with it.  I haven't seen any blue glow the last time I looked across the pond, either.  At least when Constellation breaks ground on their next reactor, I will rest a little easier knowing that they are in a consortium with a French company.  (google Unistar Nuclear for details)    Funny how the French are the brunt of our jokes, but they are giving us a run for our money in the aerospace and other high technology world. (Now I am really OT!)

If Constellation isn't successful here in Maryland, they are going straight for Nine Mile Point in NY.  The NIMBY's will be having a field day with that one!  They basically don't want anyone to build anything anywhere, ever!  I remember a few years ago BGE proposed a new substation out in Worthington Valley where all the NIMBY's live.  Nobody wanted it, but nobody wanted to give up their airconditioning, either.  I guess they don't want heat either, as everyone is against the proposed LNG terminal near Baltimore.  Guess we'll just sit around and wait for the blackouts to begin.

More Irish and German than French,
Chris


----------



## raybonz

"If nuclear power is so dangerous, how come France hasn't blown themselves off the face of the earth yet?"

My understanding is that France has much smaller nuke plants rather than the huge ones we have here and are more manageable ... When things go wrong with nukes they go horribly wrong.. The bigger the plant the bigger the danger.. What about the nuclear waste that lasts 100 years? It's one thing when I decide to do risky things but another thing when someone else risks my life for the sake of making a profit.. Just look at Chernobyl today and tell me it's worth the risk...

Ray


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech

raybonz said:
			
		

> My understanding is that France has much smaller nuke plants rather than the huge ones we have here and are more manageable ... When things go wrong with nukes they go horribly wrong.. The bigger the plant the bigger the danger.. What about the nuclear waste that lasts 100 years? It's one thing when I decide to do risky things but another thing when someone else risks my life for the sake of making a profit.. Just look at Chernobyl today and tell me it's worth the risk...



A modern plant cannot do a Chernobyl.  It's not merely unlikely - it's not physically possible.

Joe


----------



## Redox

Pook said:
			
		

> http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
> link says more zaps from coal than nuclear plant. still when & if the sht hits the fan...



Holy C&@%!  I never would have thought it was that high!

How does the amount of nuclear material released by coal combustion compare to the amount consumed as fuel by the U.S. nuclear power industry? According to 1982 figures, 111 American nuclear plants consumed about 540 tons of nuclear fuel, generating almost 1.1 x 10E12 kWh of electricity. During the same year, about 801 tons of uranium alone were released from American coal-fired plants. Add 1971 tons of thorium, and the release of nuclear components from coal combustion far exceeds the entire U.S. consumption of nuclear fuels. The same conclusion applies for worldwide nuclear fuel and coal combustion.

unquote

I always like to check the sources of the propaganda I read.  That one was from Oak Ridge National Laboratory; methinks they know a little bit about nuclear energy.

Thanks, Pook!


----------



## raybonz

Interesting read: http://www.time.com/time/daily/chernobyl/860721.reactors.html

Ray


----------



## kjklosek

BrownianHeatingTech said:
			
		

> SmokinJoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The oceans of the planet are not a toilet that can be used to flush away all our ills.
> 
> Oceanographers still can't come to a consensus on how deep ocean currents work.  It is still unchartered territory, so to speak.
> 
> Besides, wasn't Godzilla created by dumping nuclear waste in the sea?
> 
> The last thing we need is a 20 story lizard running around stomping on our skyscrapers!
> 
> Or maybe we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ken's referring to "reverse volcanoes" at the bottom of the ocean.  Not just dumping it somewhere, but placing it in a location where it will be drawn down into the mantle of the planet, buried deeper than we could ever imagine doing.
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...


OK, so I read a little about this subduction thing.

It seems that it happens where the tectonic plates meet, say in avery deep oceanic trench.  Then while one plate is forced under another the mantle material is turned into magma and can then re-surface through volcanic activity.  Or something like that.

So being that these subducted plates are about 600 meters below the surface and move at a rate of about 1 to 2 centemeters a year.  It seems that the radioactive bad stuff would more or less become benign by the time it could be turned into liquid rock.

Plus there is a chance it wouldnt even get sucked into the earths crust since these subduction zones are hot spots of seismic activity.  It may very well end up rattling around at the bottom of the sea until the box, or whatever the stuff is put in, breaks open.

A whole lot of if's with that plan, methinks.

I'd rather not risk creating another Godzilla.

J.P.

PS.  Thanks for the science lesson.  I have always liked geology.


----------



## blackgooseJT

Redox said:
			
		

> Pook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
> link says more zaps from coal than nuclear plant. still when & if the sht hits the fan...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always like to check the sources of the propaganda I read.  That one was from Oak Ridge National Laboratory; methinks they know a little bit about nuclear energy.
> 
> 
> Thanks, Pook!
Click to expand...


There are some real smart folks at Oak Ridge, but they aren't exactly faultless either. They shipped us a two ton machine lathe to be used in machine shop facilities. They never dissassembled it to thoroughly survey it for surface contamination. In our regular periodic surveys we found it to be contaminated. It had been shipped without any safety precautions and had likewise  been used for several months  . It's impossible to say what contamination someone may have carried home with them, or what exposures were involved. A two-ton wrapped,tagged bag of Radwaste is a ponderous thing.

I'm not against nuclear power. I'm just not sure we are advanced enough to make productive use of it for power generation without killing ourselves. 

J.T. Black goose


----------



## webbie

BrownianHeatingTech said:
			
		

> Uh, I think there's a logical disconnect there.  If the CEOs were held personally liable for their actions, then the debt _wouldn't_ default to the taxpayers, like it currently does.
> 
> Joe



Did I miss something here?
So, a CEO is personally liable? What does that mean? People are sacrificed every day (war, suicide bombers) - are you suggesting that it is not worth the career of one person to build a nuclear plant? 

What do you do - send him to jail? That costs money! There is no way an individual can be held responsible for such things. That is why we have insurance - shared risk - and the fact that the plants cannot be insured this way SAYS IT ALL. When they can indemnify us all, the story is different. Solve the waste problem, put up the insurance and I'll be listening...until then, it is off my shelf.


----------



## Redox

raybonz said:
			
		

> "If nuclear power is so dangerous, how come France hasn't blown themselves off the face of the earth yet?"
> 
> My understanding is that France has much smaller nuke plants rather than the huge ones we have here and are more manageable ... When things go wrong with nukes they go horribly wrong.. The bigger the plant the bigger the danger.. What about the nuclear waste that lasts 100 years? It's one thing when I decide to do risky things but another thing when someone else risks my life for the sake of making a profit.. Just look at Chernobyl today and tell me it's worth the risk...
> 
> Ray



I think my grandmothers pressure cooker was built better than Chernobyl was.  That design was never exported out of the USSR.  Did you read the article on radiation from coal?  It's all a matter of perspective.


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Did I miss something here?
> So, a CEO is personally liable? What does that mean? People are sacrificed every day (war, suicide bombers) - are you suggesting that it is not worth the career of one person to build a nuclear plant?



He's going to sacrifice himself in order to build a plant?  What sense does that make?  He's in charge, and has the oversight responsibility.  He's the one who would have to do the sacrificing...



			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> What do you do - send him to jail? That costs money! There is no way an individual can be held responsible for such things.



Liquidate all his assets, and those of anyone else involved.  Then they work for however long it takes to recoup the rest of the amount.  Strict liability.

If anyone died as the result of a leak, charge them with homicide and give them a stay of execution that lasts precisely as long as they continue making reparations for the damage they did.

Intentionally building an unsafe nuke plant is similar to driving a car you know has shoddy brakes, except it's worse in degree.  So why should the car-driver get charged and held liable, and the nuke plant CEO walk away and retire to his mansion?



			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> That is why we have insurance - shared risk - and the fact that the plants cannot be insured this way SAYS IT ALL. When they can indemnify us all, the story is different. Solve the waste problem, put up the insurance and I'll be listening...until then, it is off my shelf.



Lloyd's will insure anything.  Lloyd's would give you fire insurance on a building that was currently engulfed in flames, if you were willing to pay the premium.  It's not that they _won't_ insure the plants, but that the government won't let them.

Joe


----------



## Ken45

BrownianHeatingTech said:
			
		

> Intentionally building an unsafe nuke plant is similar to driving a car you know has shoddy brakes, except it's worse in degree.



Have you forgotten that in the U.S., nuclear plants have to be built according to bureaucratic NRC  rules and regulations, not according to common sense?


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech

Ken45 said:
			
		

> BrownianHeatingTech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intentionally building an unsafe nuke plant is similar to driving a car you know has shoddy brakes, except it's worse in degree.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you forgotten that in the U.S., nuclear plants have to be built according to bureaucratic NRC  rules and regulations, not according to common sense?
Click to expand...


Nope.  Just arguing that we should change that.

Joe


----------



## Telco

Holy cow, I didn't know that burning coal dumped more radioactive crap in the air than is used in the US for reactors, per year.  I still think that it's better to have total control over your waste than to pump it into the air as a course of normal operation.  If the slight risk of a nuclear plant meltdown is reason enough to not have them, then the certainty of pumping nuclear waste into the air should be plenty enough to shut down all coal fired plants, immediately.  

The comment on smaller nuke plants being safer, I think I can go along with that too.  Not to mention that building them smaller means building more, so plants could be distributed around the nation closer to the point of need rather than having one gigantic plant provide power for an entire state with a failure blacking out the entire state.

This brings up a pet peeve of mine, electrical distribution.  Right now, a single circuit breaker failure can cause a cascade that will take half the nation down for days, and require tons of coordination to get the grid back up.  A strong solar flare from the Sun is enough to cause a cascading failure.  I understand why they did it as they did, it allows plants nationwide to help make up shortfalls in areas where the load is larger than normal.  

What I'd like to see is smaller cells of local operational areas, interconnected into regional areas for makeup power, then have the regional operational areas interconnected.  Each local area cell would have only one generation plant, regardless of type.  Each interconnection point would have a local power quality monitor that is capable of breaking the connection if a set amount of current were drawn, with that amount below the threshold that would break the local or regional cell's generation capability.  With this sort of setup, it's unlikely that a gigantic cascade failure would hit.  At most one cell and the cells connected to it would drop, and once dropped all connections would be broken.  This would allow each plant to get itself back online independent of any other cell, and only when all cells are operational would they reconnect.  

While we are rebuilding the grid, let's require that it be rebuilt with all lines underground, not above ground.  Every winter in Oklahoma we have ice storms, and trees fall on the power lines.  This takes power down for days for no good reason.  Put all the lines underground, and the power grid would be as reliable as the gas grid.

On the sources, I'd like to see hydro and nuke as bulk production since these are the only true 24x7 sources of non-fossil production we have, with solar added at each generation plant to help supply the top-off power for the increased daytime needs.  Wind just isn't reliable enough except in very limited areas, and geo and wave technology's not to the point yet.

This is all pie-in-the-sky posting, of course, but if I had any say in the issue, this is what we'd do.


----------



## heaterman

Ya know.........

There's a lot of truth in much that has been posted here regarding nuke plants. There's also been some misinformation from what I can see.

I know a guy that is an engineer in a nuke plant in Wisconsin and he has described the safety measures they have to go through in order to operate. A modern nuke plant has redundancy built on redundancy, both automatic and manual. They are very safe to say the least.

I'm not advocating that we go nuke first and foremost due to the unsolved waste issues but we are going to have to accept some new construction of nuke plants very shortly. It's inevitable given that there are no other options on the table that will put out the volume of power needed in the future. Most everything else like bio this or that, wind and solar is pie in the sky type rhetoric. It simply can't be scaled to meet the need with existing technology. 25 years from now.......who knows. Maybe someone will invent a thin film solar panel that can convert radiation to electricity at 50-60% efficiency and do it at a reasonable cost. Then we would need a "battery" of truly staggering proportions to supply the grid at night. And the if's and but's go on and on.


----------



## webbie

heaterman said:
			
		

> Ya know.........
> 
> d he has described the safety measures they have to go through in order to operate. A modern nuke plant has redundancy built on redundancy, both automatic and manual. They are very safe to say the least.



Ask your buddy about these recent pictures from our local (Yankee) nuclear plant.

Fully licensed and inspected.

This is worse that the DIY fireplace chimney linings I have seen here - HECK, this is worse than pook feeding kerosene by drip into his Englander Pellet Stove!

I did hear that they claimed it was Homeland Security (Tom Ridge) approved Duct Tape as opposed to some Home Depot brand.


----------



## Todd

$78 per barrel back in July according to OP. Oil set another record today at $117! Nuts!


----------



## webbie

$117 is completely mind-boggling!

I would guess that the average cost of oil taken out of the ground (including basic profit) is closer to $30.
Add something for refining and transportation, and profit.....what, like 20%.....which would put gas and heating oil at $1.50 dead wholesale....$2.00 to the customer.

At the current price, that means about $3.00 a gallon unrefined and dead wholesale. $4.00 gas and heating oil is here.

I have not kept up on it all, but I suppose the run-up is partially due to speculation....just like the subprime crisis - a LOT of people are making a lot of money. Hedge funds, oil companies, traders......but where does that money come from? I think YOU and I.

Funny that people are always so concerned about tax hikes - when there are so many other ways the "system" can beat the money out of us! 

All in all, I like the idea of more expensive energy because it will spur development of alternatives and conservation, but it would have been better for us to tax the oil and use the proceeds for alt energy....IMHO. Now it is boom and bust instead of more careful planning.


----------



## Telco

I'd like to put out a couple of articles for your perusal.

Oil is a natural function of the Earth, not a fossil fuel.  This makes a lot of sense if you think about it, since they state that oil has been found miles in the ground deeper than the deepest fossil ever found.  Not to mention, that oil is lighter than water, so if oil were made of biomatter that settled it should not only be so deep but should have floated to the surface years ago.  And, I've read other stories talking about how oil fields that were once pumped dry then abandoned have been found to be full of oil again.

e.Coli makes diesel  This is another one that makes more sense than all fossil fuels are dead dinosaurs.  e.Coli is found in just about all of the soil of the Earth, and it's not inconceivable that if bacteria excrement is just a few molecular changes away from being diesel fuel, then bacteria crap plus heat and pressure would be able to further compress and fuse the molecular structure into petroleum.  After all, diesel (and all petroleum products) are made initially by heating the petroleum to crack the molecular bonds, then collecting them by weight inside a large condensing tower.  If heating the stuff with no pressure can crack the bonds, then heating the stuff under extreme pressure can cause the bonds to form.  

The more I look into this stuff, the more I'm convinced that Peak Oil and oil scarcity is actually a con being run on the world by the oil producers, as we all know a scarce resource is far more valuable than a commonly available resource.  Look at salt vs gold, salt sells for 30 cents a pound while gold sells for 1000 dollars an ounce.  And consider, people have been claiming that Peak Oil is just around the corner almost as long as oil has been pumped from the ground.  Are we at Peak Oil now?  Or is this just hype to make us all think that oil is going away?  Take the first article with a grain of salt, but the second is something that is ongoing.


----------



## begreen

Not to disagree, I've read up about alternative theories regarding oil's creation. They're fascinating.  But the cause of Peak Oil is consumption which is growing exponentially. Sure there is still oil there, but extracting it is getting harder and more expensive. Countries have reached the point where they are consuming more than they can export. Dubai is an example. This week the Financial Times reported that Russia's production capacity is at max. Mexico is in very serious decline. 

Our consumption is rising exponentially so regardless of new discoveries, we are going to run out soon unless consumption is dramatically reduced. And so far, that isn't happening.

Here's a great lecture on the math:
http://globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461


----------



## webbie

I know a lot of peak oil folks, and I think they are wrong....for a number of reasons. There may not be a lot of oil that is $3 a barrel a the well head, but there is enough for a few generations to fly in jets and drive cars. I think the bigger problems are the pollution, the distribution (rich/poor), the cost and the efficiency. There is really no alternative to the price gouging - any way you look at it, there are a limited amount of companies with the technology and capital to recover the refine the oil. Therefore, it is in their interest to rake in the big bucks. 

Peak oil is just another statistic. Someday they will laugh about it and say we were looking at the wrong chart. We should have noticed the anti-gravity effects of tririllium 4 (non-existent compound). Just a couple kilos in the wings and the planes lift off the ground.


----------



## Telco

Begreen, I have to disagree with production capacity being the definition of peak oil.  These countries being at max production simply means that all the wells they have sunk and all the pipelines they use are running max out.  Build a new well, run a new pipeline, build a new refinery and suddenly we aren't maxed out again.  "Maximum Capacity" is a business decision, nothing more.

Peak Oil is also a "scare the masses" tactic as it is based on the fact that we have only 30 years of proven oil left.  The oil companies only scout out up to 30 years at a time because scouting out new sources costs money.  Once they've proven out 35-40 years of capacity, they stop looking and start developing any new fields until they figure they've reached 25 years of proven, then they look again.  



			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> We should have noticed the anti-gravity effects of tririllium 4 (non-existent compound). Just a couple kilos in the wings and the planes lift off the ground.



How would you weigh that?  Wouldn't it float off the scale?  :lol:


----------



## begreen

There are much wiser folks than I watching this issue. But the math is pretty simple. In today's market alone, the supply just isn't there to keep up. 
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/967448f4-0b1e-11dd-8ccf-0000779fd2ac.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/282adfd4-0a4c-11dd-b5b1-0000779fd2ac.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120847521878424735.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news

And it's affecting all forms of energy. Coal prices are up 100% in a few weeks in China. That is affecting steel prices directly. I do agree, our governments are not doing enough planning here. Besides big short-term profits, the outcome of this lack of planning will likely be serious economic impact. 

_"If we wait until the problem hits us, we are in for very serious economic problems worldwide for at least 20 years," he says. "There is no good news. Nobody is really doing anything."_
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0317/p15s01-wmgn.html


----------



## heaterman

Webmaster said:
			
		

> heaterman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya know.........
> 
> d he has described the safety measures they have to go through in order to operate. A modern nuke plant has redundancy built on redundancy, both automatic and manual. They are very safe to say the least.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask your buddy about these recent pictures from our local (Yankee) nuclear plant.
> 
> Fully licensed and inspected.
> 
> This is worse that the DIY fireplace chimney linings I have seen here - HECK, this is worse than pook feeding kerosene by drip into his Englander Pellet Stove!
> 
> I did hear that they claimed it was Homeland Security (Tom Ridge) approved Duct Tape as opposed to some Home Depot brand.
Click to expand...



Homeland security duct tape........sounds like something from the Reg Green show  

Seriously, what were those pipes carrying? Radioactive plasma or something a bit more benign perhaps?

The water fall picture looks like something related to a cooling tower, not an event that would cause the release of radioactive material. Hard to tell without some facts on exactly what that is. 

That being said, nuclear driven energy is definitely not child's play. The immediate consequences of a failure are orders of magnitude larger than anything else in the power generation industry. (Chernobyl comes to mind) It would be best if we didn't need it or have to resort to it. The grim truth of the matter though is that the longer term effects of other generation methods are not a lot different. Google coal fired emissions and spend an hour or two reading on that. It's costing not only our country but the world, countless lives and health problems along with the billions of dollars needed to deal with them. Those costs are largely unnoticed because they are spread out over many small individual, even personal events instead of a single large one.

(Deeeeep Thought for the day) If you look at the ramifications of nearly any power production method needed to sustain our current lifestyle, a factual and objective analysis would lead one to believe that maybe we are not supposed to live and consume the way we do.


----------



## begreen

Telco said:
			
		

> Begreen, I have to disagree with production capacity being the definition of peak oil.  These countries being at max production simply means that all the wells they have sunk and all the pipelines they use are running max out.  Build a new well, run a new pipeline, build a new refinery and suddenly we aren't maxed out again.  "Maximum Capacity" is a business decision, nothing more.
> 
> Peak Oil is also a "scare the masses" tactic as it is based on the fact that we have only 30 years of proven oil left.  The oil companies only scout out up to 30 years at a time because scouting out new sources costs money.  Once they've proven out 35-40 years of capacity, they stop looking and start developing any new fields until they figure they've reached 25 years of proven, then they look again.



You could find 3 times as much oil in 30 years and it wouldn't matter if your consumption is doubling every 7 years and you are currently at max. Do the math.

But you are correct, we are also at our maximum supply capacity. The Saudis have been sinking new wells as fast as possible for the past several years. There are only so many well drillers, so many rigs, boats and pipelines in the world. Refineries take a long time to build, get running and staff. Infrastructure doesn't sprout up overnight. For example: US coal production is at max having reached rail capacity to transport it. Meanwhile, the beat goes on, consumption keeps growing exponentially.


----------



## webbie

heaterman said:
			
		

> (Deeeeep Thought for the day) If you look at the ramifications of nearly any power production method needed to sustain our current lifestyle, a factual and objective analysis would lead one to believe that maybe we are not supposed to live and consume the way we do.



Well, that is pretty much the case. It is obviously not sustainable, just us "stuffing our faces" because oil a drug.....makes us fat and lazy.

But, we could certainly apply technology and live a great life on vastly less power than we do now. It might mean great sacrifice like not driving a 4000 lb vehicle with 500 HP carrying one 150 Lb person......

A lot of the science in the world right now is being applied to this problem (energy and pollution). It's pretty clear that we can't simply make another billion cars for China and India and have them get 20MPG.


----------



## RedRanger

Webmaster said:
			
		

> heaterman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Deeeeep Thought for the day) If you look at the ramifications of nearly any power production method needed to sustain our current lifestyle, a factual and objective analysis would lead one to believe that maybe we are not supposed to live and consume the way we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that is pretty much the case. It is obviously not sustainable, just us "stuffing our faces" because oil a drug.....makes us fat and lazy.
> 
> But, we could certainly apply technology and live a great life on vastly less power than we do now. It might mean great sacrifice like not driving a 4000 lb vehicle with 500 HP carrying one 150 Lb person......
> 
> A lot of the science in the world right now is being applied to this problem (energy and pollution). It's pretty clear that we can't simply make another billion cars for China and India and have them get 20MPG.
Click to expand...


You are right on the money here. and this is what people keep forgetting, that china and india are on target to consume as much or more than we do, and it just ain`t sustainable.  Gotta love those comercials for the Hybrid Cars, hey, they still burn gasoline. what a joke!!  We better find alternatives and soon....


----------



## begreen

Sounds like we're back to Mr. Fusion 

In the meantime, I'm growing much fonder of the Prius. At 45mpg normal, short trip driving, 55 hwy and about $30 average fillup it's been a good choice until there is a better solution. Would 45 miles per liter be better, you bet! But that may take a few more years.


----------



## RedRanger

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Sounds like we're back to Mr. Fusion
> 
> In the meantime, I'm growing much fonder of the Prius. At 45mpg normal, short trip driving, 55 hwy and about $30 average fillup it's been a good choice until there is a better solution. Would 45 miles per liter be better, you bet! But that may take a few more years.



Agreed.  I guess whether fusion is possible or not is  going to be a testement to the human intelligence or lack thereof.?  Hopefully the former.


----------



## Redox

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Sounds like we're back to Mr. Fusion
> 
> In the meantime, I'm growing much fonder of the Prius. At 45mpg normal, short trip driving, 55 hwy and about $30 average fillup it's been a good choice until there is a better solution. Would 45 miles per liter be better, you bet! But that may take a few more years.



BG, you have a Prius?  I'm curious what kind of batteries does it use?  I haven't heard of anyone having to replace them yet.


----------



## begreen

The main battery pack is NiMh. Toyota rates it at 150,000 miles and they are very conservative.


----------



## Redox

BeGreen said:
			
		

> The main battery pack is NiMh. Toyota rates it at 150,000 miles and they are very conservative.



I was just wondering, as all the doom and gloom types are predicting thousands of $$ to replace them.  Ever check to see if there is an aftermarket battery available?  Toyota's battery management is probably a lot better than the average laptop, so it might be a moot point.  I'm just wondering if these would be a good deal in the future for us tinkerers.  Ever looked into converting it to a plug in?

Chris


----------



## Ken45

Webmaster said:
			
		

> I would guess that the average cost of oil taken out of the ground (including basic profit) is closer to $30.



The Canadian Tar Sands need a reliable $40/barrel to be profitable. (Actually, that figure is a year old and cost of operations have risen significantly since then.)  Yes, oil sands production is still minor, but significant. Candada is one of our top three oil suppliers.  Without the oil sands production, we would have significantly less supply than demand.

I believe that shale oil production (US Rocky Mountains) needs even higher prices to break even.


As for "how long until we run out of oil", I too view the predictions with skepticism.  Back around 1978, the U.S. Secretary of Energy (or maybe it was Transportation) assured us that the world would totally exhaust all oil within ten years.  Idiot politician!

I do believe that we have a lot of oil left to be discovered BUT it will require new technology and be expensive to operate.   The newest deep sea drilling operations rent for $500,000 PER DAY.  That's a half million dollars per day just to look for oil.   Assuming they actually find oil, they are not going to sell it for $3/barrel!


----------



## webbie

Ken45 said:
			
		

> world would totally exhaust all oil within ten years.  Idiot politician!
> 
> I do believe that we have a lot of oil left to be discovered BUT it will require new technology and be expensive to operate.   The newest deep sea drilling operations rent for $500,000 PER DAY.  That's a half million dollars per day just to look for oil.   Assuming they actually find oil, they are not going to sell it for $3/barrel!



That's why it's a good idea to own some stock in RIG (Transocean)......they rent out those rigs!

Since wages can't keep up with energy prices, maybe income from energy stocks can!

Even at $50 a barrel it will seem cheap....considering that there is a mix of oil - some costing as low as $5 and some as high as $50. $100 is still going to create quite a bit of profitability. 

I would consider a Prius is my car didn't have such low mileage on it....and if I drove to work, etc. - As it is now, my $$savings would only be about $700 a year....and as to the "green" part, if I sell my Subaru, someone else is going to drive it for a long time - so the amount of net pollutions is not going to change. That's a whole 'nother story - whether we benefit from getting rid of the SUV and selling it to someone else who is going to drive it just as much! I guess it lowers the demand for news ones, which would help.


----------



## Redox

Somehow I should have figured you as a Subaru driver... :red: 

You have an SUV?  Say it ain't so!

I really like my CNG Cavaliers...

Can't make a stereotype about that one; not enough of us to notice...

No offense, Craig!

Chris


----------



## Ken45

Craig,

the other item I forgot to mention is that governments are also demanding a larger share.  The Canadian provincial gov't has significantly increased their royalty fees from the oil sands.  As have many other foreign governments.  That too jacks up the price of crude oil.

Ken


----------



## webbie

Nah, I have a Subaru Forester 4 banger....but some people call it a small SUV. I was being general about "our" SUVs.

Everyone in New England drives either a volvo or a subaru.....well, or a Prius or a Honda. VERY few large SUV's....

Here are my Cavaliers.  :coolsmile:


----------



## BrotherBart

My 1993 Suburban has 69,000 miles on it and for the last two years has averaged 15 miles a week. Trade in value is $2,000. If  I bought a bare bones rice burner it would cost me a minimum of $17,000 or so and at $4.00 a gallon payback would be something like 49 years if the new one used no gas at all.

And as Craig said, somebody else would be driving it a hell of a lot more than I do.

Sooo... I am saving money and the world by keeping the Suburban.


----------



## heaterman

Ken45 said:
			
		

> Webmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would guess that the average cost of oil taken out of the ground (including basic profit) is closer to $30.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Canadian Tar Sands need a reliable $40/barrel to be profitable. (Actually, that figure is a year old and cost of operations have risen significantly since then.)  Yes, oil sands production is still minor, but significant. Candada is one of our top three oil suppliers.  Without the oil sands production, we would have significantly less supply than demand.
> 
> I believe that shale oil production (US Rocky Mountains) needs even higher prices to break even.
Click to expand...


The problem with both the Canadian oil sands and the shale formations found here in the good ol' USofA is that both sources require enormous amounts of water to process. The supply available in both areas is not adequate to process the raw materials into fuel. Where is it going to come from??

It'll be another government boondoggle where they will subsidize these processing companies by mandating that water be brought in from somewhere else at no charge to them and no reimbursement for the donor area.


----------



## begreen

Redox said:
			
		

> BeGreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The main battery pack is NiMh. Toyota rates it at 150,000 miles and they are very conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was just wondering, as all the doom and gloom types are predicting thousands of $$ to replace them.  Ever check to see if there is an aftermarket battery available?  Toyota's battery management is probably a lot better than the average laptop, so it might be a moot point.  I'm just wondering if these would be a good deal in the future for us tinkerers.  Ever looked into converting it to a plug in?
> 
> Chris
Click to expand...


Early on, there are a few silly and misinformed articles about the Prius. As ownership increases and longevity reports come in, it turns out that this is a really low maintenance vehicle. Toyota was concerned about the adoption of a new technology and over-engineered the car. There are Prius cabs with well over 200K miles on them that are still going strong with the original battery pack.  So I may never see a battery replacement. I'll most likely upgrade to a PHEV long before then. Yes, there are 3d party sources and I am told it can be done for under $3000. If I did replace the battery, I would most likely go for Lithium Ion pack for the extra capacity and mileage. If we had a vehicle that could go 50 miles at 40 mph on electric, that would cover 90% of our driving.


----------



## Ken45

heaterman said:
			
		

> The problem with both the Canadian oil sands and the shale formations found here in the good ol' USofA is that both sources require enormous amounts of water to process. The supply available in both areas is not adequate to process the raw materials into fuel. Where is it going to come from??



There are several approaches being used with the Canadian oil sands.  They ARE in serious produciton mode with more coming on line.  Actually if you look at the satellite photos of the area, you will find that there is a LOT of water there.

Shale oil extraction may yet be uneconomical (oil prices aren't high enough?) Or it may require as yet undeveloped technology.  But there is plenty of oil there.



			
				heaterman said:
			
		

> It'll be another government boondoggle where they will subsidize these processing companies by mandating that water be brought in from somewhere else at no charge to them and no reimbursement for the donor area.



It will only be another government boondoggle if the gov't gets involved and interferes with a free marketplace.  It can't be much worse than the corn/ethanol boondoggle, can it? <sigh>

Ken


----------



## begreen

Ken45 said:
			
		

> Craig,
> 
> the other item I forgot to mention is that governments are also demanding a larger share.  The Canadian provincial gov't has significantly increased their royalty fees from the oil sands.  As have many other foreign governments.  That too jacks up the price of crude oil.
> 
> Ken



And those producer nations no longer want to give away their natural resources cheaply. So go the talks in Rome this weekend. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSL20434820080420


----------



## Ken45

BrotherBart said:
			
		

> My 1993 Suburban has 69,000 miles on it and for the last two years has averaged 15 miles a week. Trade in value is $2,000. If  I bought a bare bones rice burner it would cost me a minimum of $17,000 or so and at $4.00 a gallon payback would be something like 49 years if the new one used no gas at all.
> 
> And as Craig said, somebody else would be driving it a hell of a lot more than I do.
> 
> Sooo... I am saving money and the world by keeping the Suburban.



You are right.

The issue (which is ignored) is that a NEW vehicle requires a LOT of energy and resources to produce.  People spending $20K or $30K on a new vehicle probably would save the environment more if they stuck with their ten year old vehicle even if it wasn't flashy  and advertised as "saving the environment".  How much energy is consumed and pollution created in building a new vehicle?

Ken


----------



## TboneMan

Here are my Cavaliers.  :coolsmile:[/quote]

Are those really your Cavalier King Charles Spaniels?  They are great looking dogs.  

My wife and I are chit Zu fans (and owners) but I'd love to get a Cavvy.  

Sorry to seal the tread momentarily, but I couldn't resist.


----------



## Ken45

TboneMan said:
			
		

> Are those really your Cavalier King Charles Spaniels?  They are great looking dogs.
> 
> My wife and I are chit Zu fans (and owners) but I'd love to get a Cavvy.
> 
> Sorry to seal the tread momentarily, but I couldn't resist.



This thread has gone to the dogs :-(

;-)

Ken


----------



## webbie

Yes, the little one (thin face) is my Rosie and the other belongs to my daughter - Rocky.

They are good friends! And, if the shoe fits (a little dog)- I highly recommend them! They differ greatly in size and temperament, so be sure to look at the other dogs by the same mom and dad.

Sad story on the oil thing today. The Bejing auto show is ok, and GM and others are showing their BIG SUV's, which have a fast growing market there. The government in China is keeping gas prices relatively low, and also there is a lot of "new" money.

I guess it is too much to expect that these companies would take some responsibility for the overall condition of things.


----------



## Ken45

Webmaster said:
			
		

> I guess it is too much to expect that these companies would take some responsibility for the overall condition of things.



You mean by having the companies dictate what the customer is allowed to purchase rather than providing what the customer may want?

Let's face it, GM doesn't make much money on small cars and there would be nothing to distinguish their product if they were pushing small cars in a country that makes millions of them.

What GM does have that differentiates them from the competition is the larger vehicles.  Let's face it, "one size does NOT fit all".  We would be in a heap of trouble trying to haul 7 tons of hay, a half ton of grain, or our horse trailer with a little Honda Civic.

I know that a lot of people bash those who don't conform to the politically correct "small car".  Well guess, what?  Those little mini cars don't fit a lot of people's needs. That's why people want larger vehicles that do fit their needs.  You can't cram a family with teens in them and they can be downright uncomfortable.  We had a Chevy Lumina and it was painful for my wife and I to get in and out of it.  At our age and height, we aren't contorshonists.  

Ken


----------



## Mike Wilson

Face this... I just filled up my car, $4.00 per gallon.  Yep... four dollar gasoline is here.
60 bucks to fill up a car tank...  not for nothing, but we've been at war for five years, and apparently, we still haven't hit the right tent.

-- Mike


----------



## Mike Wilson

TboneMan said:
			
		

> My wife and I are chit Zu fans (and owners) but I'd love to get a Cavvy.
> 
> Sorry to seal the tread momentarily, but I couldn't resist.



I've never heard of a #### Zu.  Some new breed that you can order online?

-- Mike


----------



## webbie

Ken45 said:
			
		

> You mean by having the companies dictate what the customer is allowed to purchase rather than providing what the customer may want?



Exactly - fit a business within the constraints of what is sustainable and practical and provides good stewardship of our common resources. That allows for a lot of normal differential, such as trucks and larger vans for those who need them, but at the same time keep in mind that we must leave some for our children.

It would be very hard for you to convince me that we need vast amounts of Escalades with 500HP. If these things were benign, then it is another story. But they are not benign...


----------



## Highbeam

I saw the Escalades on display at the China show today too. I thought wow, here I am trying to downsize my fuel consumption overall while these guys are bumping it up. Makes me question reality. Is it really that bad? I can handle 4$ gas, but if it hits 14$ I worry that I will need to change. I am worried about the if. The ifs and not the whens.


----------



## fraxinus

I also saw the story about the wealthy Chinese love affair with huge SUVs. China's government subsidizes gasoline to keep it at about $3 per gallon - way out of reach for most of the country.

From my reading, China will be the place where real ecological disaster occurs first. I know they are only following the American example, but the kind of free wheeling hypercapitalism taking place is simply not sustainable in the 21st century, especially when it is coupled with a general disregard for any and all environmental consequences. Free market extremists have in China the best possible example of where such policies can lead.


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech

fraxinus said:
			
		

> I also saw the story about the wealthy Chinese love affair with huge SUVs. China's government subsidizes gasoline to keep it at about $3 per gallon - way out of reach for most of the country.
> 
> From my reading, China will be the place where real ecological disaster occurs first. I know they are only following the American example, but the kind of free wheeling hypercapitalism taking place is simply not sustainable in the 21st century, especially when it is coupled with a general disregard for any and all environmental consequences. Free market extremists have in China the best possible example of where such policies can lead.



_Communist_ China is an example of the failure of the free market?  In your first paragraph, you admit that the Chinese government is tampering in the market by keeping gasoline at $3 per gallon.

Tampering by the government is the _exact opposite_ of a free market.

Joe


----------



## fraxinus

You're right Joe. China is an odd hybrid of central planning and free market capitalism. Both parts, however, actively encourage rapid and often thoughtless industrial and other development. What the British economist whose name I can't remember characterized as the greatest market failure in history - the ability to defer the actual costs of decisions in the present to generations in the future - is taking place at an astonishing pace.


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech

fraxinus said:
			
		

> You're right Joe. China is an odd hybrid of central planning and free market capitalism. Both parts, however, actively encourage rapid and often thoughtless industrial and other development. What the British economist whose name I can't remember characterized as the greatest market failure in history - the ability to defer the actual costs of decisions in the present to generations in the future - is taking place at an astonishing pace.



Free market capitalism is about the only system that does anything _except_ "encourage rapid and often thoughtless industrial and other development."

There is no ability to defer your costs in a free market.  You must pay all the internalities and externalities.

Only controlled economic systems allow you to avoid that inherent part of the free market.  The ability to avoid paying the externalities is what businesses incorporate and pay taxes for.  They pay a fee for the privilege of having the rest of us take care of their externalities.

That option does not exist in a free market situation.

Joe


----------



## webbie

BrownianHeatingTech said:
			
		

> There is no ability to defer your costs in a free market.  You must pay all the internalities and externalities.
> 
> That option does not exist in a free market situation.
> 
> Joe



Joe, honestly...that is the biggest bunch of hogwash I have EVER heard. Of course, you will be unable to point to a system anywhere in the world that meets this criteria, but for instance.....

Ok, so we sell something into the "free market" today. We honestly don't know that it causes hundreds of birth defects or other future problems....science just has not caught up. Then we find out. Well, it would seem to me that this represents deferred costs! Ones that were never paid by the producers and sellers of this product. With a products like asbestos, it would be virtually impossible for any trust fund or set-aside to pay the future costs....but yet our system allows this 100%. Just run a couple companies out of business and your exposure is reduced.

China is a lot closer to a Free Market (in terms of less regulated) than we are, that's for sure. And, to be honest, a lot of parts of their economy do work better than ours. But neither system is responsible for the true deferred costs.

I wrote a small article about the Real Cost of oil 20 years ago - I think it still rings true today:
https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/stories/articles/the_real_price/

The only difference between my example and reality is that today WE KNOW what the deferred costs are going to be, and yet we continue to do anything that is legal.....even if it is "wrong". 

Since when was "consumer choice" part of the constitution? (see Kens post above about choice of cars). Would he want to allow a car that is 20 feet tall and takes up two lanes? Why not? Oh, because it does not fit into "regulation" car lanes! Well, I can't see over that giant SUV, and it endangers my life on the road more than it should.


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Joe, honestly...that is the biggest bunch of hogwash I have EVER heard. Of course, you will be unable to point to a system anywhere in the world that meets this criteria, but for instance.....
> 
> Ok, so we sell something into the "free market" today. We honestly don't know that it causes hundreds of birth defects or other future problems....science just has not caught up. Then we find out. Well, it would seem to me that this represents deferred costs! Ones that were never paid by the producers and sellers of this product. With a products like asbestos, it would be virtually impossible for any trust fund or set-aside to pay the future costs....but yet our system allows this 100%. Just run a couple companies out of business and your exposure is reduced.



You still seem to have trouble seeing what a free market actually is, Craig.  You're inserting limited liability (an aspect of socialistic control of the market) into the mix.

There is no limitation of liability in a free market.  You are 100% responsible for your actions, and if you release a dangerous product, you are fully responsible for the costs of the damage.

Of course, you're going to claim (as usual) that the owners have limited resources, so even if we seize all their property, we can't pay for all the damage.  That's why in a "real world" free market, you would carry liability insurance, because no one in their right mind would buy from you if you weren't insured sufficiently to repair any damage your product might cause.  If you want to pay insurance premiums that are even vaguely reasonable, something tells me that your insurance company will require you to put systems in place to do things safely.  Since it's their profit margin on the line, and they can't just go running to the taxpayers for a bailout, they will make very certain that your testing standards are good enough to guarantee that they won't be paying claims on your products.

The current system doesn't allow for that.  If you meet government regulations, you are protected from the consequences of your actions.  The government not only doesn't care about consumer safety, but actually benefits from a certain level of damage.  If consumers weren't being occasionally injured/maimed/poisoned/killed by products, they might forget that they "need" the government to protect them.  So not only won't the government do an adequate job of protection, but they actually will make certain to have a certain level of damage, just like they maintain a certain level of unemployment (that's not a conspiracy theory, by the way - it's a standard component of Keynesian economics).

In a free market, when a dangerous product gets released, the ones who released it and the ones who insured them against liability are the ones who have to pay, rather than the guy walking down the street who didn't have anything to do with it, except now he's being taxed to make up for some CEO's greed.

Asbestos is a good example, by the way, since it is mostly government hype.  "Ooh! Evil stuff! Must Ban"  Of course, it was a necessary component in many applications, so what happens?  We develop "refractory ceramic fiber," which is simply artificial asbestos, and can cause the same health danger if you don't treat it with respect.

In a free market, asbestos wouldn't be banned, but your liability insurance company would require you to get training and proper safety equipment before handling it.  Instead, I can walk into any wholesaler and buy RCF and install it with no training and no safety equipment, if I wanted to.  Because it meets "regulatory" standards.



			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> Since when was "consumer choice" part of the constitution?



Tenth Amendment.

Joe


----------



## DriftWood

BrownianHeatingTech said:
			
		

> Webmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I miss something here?
> So, a CEO is personally liable? What does that mean? People are sacrificed every day (war, suicide bombers) - are you suggesting that it is not worth the career of one person to build a nuclear plant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's going to sacrifice himself in order to build a plant?  What sense does that make?  He's in charge, and has the oversight responsibility.  He's the one who would have to do the sacrificing...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Webmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you do - send him to jail? That costs money! There is no way an individual can be held responsible for such things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liquidate all his assets, and those of anyone else involved.  Then they work for however long it takes to recoup the rest of the amount.  Strict liability.
> 
> If anyone died as the result of a leak, charge them with homicide and give them a stay of execution that lasts precisely as long as they continue making reparations for the damage they did.
> 
> Intentionally building an unsafe nuke plant is similar to driving a car you know has shoddy brakes, except it's worse in degree.  So why should the car-driver get charged and held liable, and the nuke plant CEO walk away and retire to his mansion?
Click to expand...



After reading this I thought I was back in the old USSR. Share holders find it  very difficult do any thing to limit the income, benefits , stock options , or any thing else connected to a CEO in the USA. Its way to silly to think any CEO would all of a sudden become responsive to any thing you have in mind short of a Federal intervention. Thats not going to happen as the power industry payed for the election of those making the law in Washington.


----------



## Telco

If they needed to enough to cover projected 30 year growths, they would.  Right now though, oil is scarce and expensive, why damp it down with large announcements of huge discoveries?  



			
				BeGreen said:
			
		

> Sounds like we're back to Mr. Fusion
> 
> In the meantime, I'm growing much fonder of the Prius. At 45mpg normal, short trip driving, 55 hwy and about $30 average fillup it's been a good choice until there is a better solution. Would 45 miles per liter be better, you bet! But that may take a few more years.



Sadly, BMW just came out with a new 5 series sedan that gets better mileage than a Prius, and it's not a hybrid.  Just a new diesel engine.  I'd much rather have a regular looking car with enough room for my 6ft 4, 240lb butt, and my two kids who are almost as tall as I am (the wife's a little shorty at 5ft3) than a little tiny Prius.  Hybrids just aren't the way to me as they have battery packs which must be dealt with later, AND try making two different power systems run the car at the same time.  What I want to see is an AC traction motor driving a car down the road with a 0.5 liter turbodiesel driving a generator, with no direct connection to the wheels.  This would just need a couple of batteries to keep the power flow smooth, and should net some 100+MPG while performing as well (or better) than a conventional gasser.  This would be more efficient because the ICE would be optimized to operate the generator which runs best at a set RPM, and not across a wider powerband as is needed to turn wheels on a car.  This is the same technology used by diesel electric locomotives.  Finding the traction motor in a size to fit a regular car is a challenge though.


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech

DriftWood said:
			
		

> After reading this I thought I was back in the old USSR. Share holders find it  very difficult do any thing to limit the income, benefits , stock options , or any thing else connected to a CEO in the USA. Its way to silly to think any CEO would all of a sudden become responsive to any thing you have in mind short of a Federal intervention. Thats not going to happen as the power industry payed for the election of those making the law in Washington.



Federal intervention is what lets them get away with doing the things they do.  In a free market, they'd be paying reparations to their victims for the rest of their lives.

Joe


----------



## BrotherBart

BrownianHeatingTech said:
			
		

> Federal intervention is what lets them get away with doing the things they do.  In a free market, they'd be paying reparations to their victims for the rest of their lives.



Who would make them pay the reparations? Sounds like there would have to be some of that Federal intervention you are so fond of.  :coolsmirk:


----------



## begreen

Telco said:
			
		

> If they needed to enough to cover projected 30 year growths, they would.  Right now though, oil is scarce and expensive, why damp it down with large announcements of huge discoveries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BeGreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like we're back to Mr. Fusion
> 
> In the meantime, I'm growing much fonder of the Prius. At 45mpg normal, short trip driving, 55 hwy and about $30 average fillup it's been a good choice until there is a better solution. Would 45 miles per liter be better, you bet! But that may take a few more years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, BMW just came out with a new 5 series sedan that gets better mileage than a Prius, and it's not a hybrid.  Just a new diesel engine.  I'd much rather have a regular looking car with enough room for my 6ft 4, 240lb butt, and my two kids who are almost as tall as I am (the wife's a little shorty at 5ft3) than a little tiny Prius.
Click to expand...


Have you sat in a new Prius? It's classified a mid-sized car and has surprisingly good legroom, even in the back seat. As compared to the BMW 528 the Prius is roomier. Front legroom 1/2" longer, rearlegroom 2.6" longer, front headroom 2" higher. And as far as systems coordinating, believe me, Toyota has this down. It's virtually transparent.


----------



## webbie

If oil keeps up, they are going to be selling a LOT of Priuses. My neighbors, who are quite well off (and work at home), are now carpooling up to the local golf course (5 miles away), and when they are ready to do somewhere, they ask their spouses "would you like to take a $10 ride in the car?". We are close to the tipping point in gas prices, which is probably about $4 - where behavior will have to change somewhat. It may take awhile, because if people can't afford the gas they also cannot afford to get a new car before the old one is completely worn.


----------



## begreen

Diesel is selling locally here for $4.27 a gallon. At least as of a few days ago. The sign is wearing out from the frequent updates.


----------



## Redox

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Diesel is selling locally here for $4.27 a gallon. At least as of a few days ago. The sign is wearing out from the frequent updates.



Many of the stations around here have installed electronic signs to make price changes faster and easier!  A lot of them are changing twice a day.  Glad all the cars are full...

Chris


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech

BrotherBart said:
			
		

> BrownianHeatingTech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federal intervention is what lets them get away with doing the things they do.  In a free market, they'd be paying reparations to their victims for the rest of their lives.
> 
> 
> 
> Who would make them pay the reparations? Sounds like there would have to be some of that Federal intervention you are so fond of.  :coolsmirk:
Click to expand...


Um, their victims?

Judged by a neutral mediator, not a Federal judge who is part of the system that is designed to protect the CEO from liability and, therefore, not even vaguely unbiased.

Or would you rather a SWAT team, who would end up getting the wrong address and killing some innocent family?  "Oops!"

Somehow, I tend to prefer nonviolent solutions, when possible.

Joe


----------



## Mike Wilson

Rarely have I ever met a "neutral" mediator.  I do, however, hold federal court judges in fairly high esteem.  They are some of the most straight individuals you will ever meet, period.

-- Mike


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech

Mike Wilson said:
			
		

> Rarely have I ever met a "neutral" mediator.



Since the mediator is chosen by the participants, if they all agree to a biased mediator, that would be pretty silly for whomever agreed to have the situation judged by someone who was biased against them...



			
				Mike Wilson said:
			
		

> I do, however, hold federal court judges in fairly high esteem.  They are some of the most straight individuals you will ever meet, period.



I take it you've never read the rulings of the Ninth Circuit?

Joe


----------



## webbie

When you consider that all judges got there by being BIG players in one political machine or the other, it becomes tough to get really fair ones - BUT, as Mike suggests, the fact that they have a job for LIFE and can't be taken down does give them a fair amount of say. For federals judges, it is often a chance to actually put their ideals to work...after a LIFETIME of pandering to pols. 

Sure would be nice if there was a better way to rise to judgeships other than doing the parties bidding. My daughter thought about being a judge at one time, but after she found out she would have to trade in her ethics before starting (the rise within the party), she declined.

Funny story - when Martha ran for council one of the local Dems was the WORST possible person and lawyer you could imagine...a real snake, sell-out and just about every other bad name you want to think of (alcoholic, cheater on his wife, etc. etc). For numerous reasons, Martha refused to have him on her campaign committee - even though he was in some big party position. She ended up winning that battle.....BUT

next thing we know, the dude is appointed as Superior Court Judge (they try murders, among other things!)......AND, he was appointed by the OTHER PARTY (GOP). Turned out that he had made some deals with them about some high $$$ projects, contracts, etc.....and as a reward for going their way, he was appointed judge for life.

Unlike the Presidency, though, I do have some respect for the position of a judge - more for the idea than the implementation. Done right, it is about the best possible ideals of our system of laws.


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech

Webmaster said:
			
		

> When you consider that all judges got there by being BIG players in one political machine or the other, it becomes tough to get really fair ones - BUT, as Mike suggests, the fact that they have a job for LIFE and can't be taken down does give them a fair amount of say. For federals judges, it is often a chance to actually put their ideals to work...after a LIFETIME of pandering to pols.



I'll remember that when you talk about them pandering to corporations...

Funny, but I think they're still doing it for political and monetary gain, not because they think it's "the right thing to do."

How often has a court ever ruled against a corporation?  It happens, but they usually side pretty firmly with the corporate world.

Joe


----------



## begreen

Good dialog, but getting way off the orig. green room topic. Maybe start a fresh thread in the ash can on the role and biases of the judiciary?


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Good dialog, but getting way off the orig. green room topic. Maybe start a fresh thread in the ash can on the role and biases of the judiciary?



I do think it's a bit relevant to the situation.  After all, is the current price of oil fair?  Or does it ignore externalities that should be factored it?  Obviously, most folks here will be fans of supplementing energy usage with wood-based fuels, but for primary energy production, we're still not "there" for making wood an efficient and cost-effective way to generate power.

If we can get away for the legal bias against nuclear power, a generation of modern nuke plants would likely give us the time to develop alternatives to things like coal, oil, and gas.  Nuclear still isn't renewable, so it can never be a permanent solution, but it's at least cleaner than those things, and gives us time to work the kinks out of renewable power generation.

I do think the judiciary is biased in favor of fossil fuels, which is why alternatives are so hard to implement.  We're supposed to have a three-branch government, and it's time for the other two branches to put their feet down and prevent the judiciary from impeding necessary economic _and environmental_ progress.

We can't magically reduce our power consumption overnight.  We can't magically make the alternatives feasible tomorrow.  We need a minimally-polluting power source which we can use right now, so that we have the time to do those other two things.  We need nuclear power now, so we have time to make changes to give us a renewable future.

Joe


----------



## Telco

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Telco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they needed to enough to cover projected 30 year growths, they would.  Right now though, oil is scarce and expensive, why damp it down with large announcements of huge discoveries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BeGreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like we're back to Mr. Fusion
> 
> In the meantime, I'm growing much fonder of the Prius. At 45mpg normal, short trip driving, 55 hwy and about $30 average fillup it's been a good choice until there is a better solution. Would 45 miles per liter be better, you bet! But that may take a few more years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, BMW just came out with a new 5 series sedan that gets better mileage than a Prius, and it's not a hybrid.  Just a new diesel engine.  I'd much rather have a regular looking car with enough room for my 6ft 4, 240lb butt, and my two kids who are almost as tall as I am (the wife's a little shorty at 5ft3) than a little tiny Prius.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you sat in a new Prius? It's classified a mid-sized car and has surprisingly good legroom, even in the back seat. As compared to the BMW 528 the Prius is roomier. Front legroom 1/2" longer, rearlegroom 2.6" longer, front headroom 2" higher. And as far as systems coordinating, believe me, Toyota has this down. It's virtually transparent.
Click to expand...


Nope, and won't.  The Prius is green in name only.  When the batteries are taken into account, including disposal, the cost of ownership is a lot higher and more toxic.  When a regular car is sent to the crusher the fuel is drained for the salvage yard's use, the oil and antifreeze are recycled and there is one small lead acid battery to deal with, while a Prius has a whole lot of heavy metal batteries to dispose of.   This new BMW signals the possibility of having the MPG of a hybrid with none of the environmental issues.  Besides, Toyota is investing in gasoline hybrids, when the more logical choice would be a diesel hybrid.  Imagine what your Prius would be getting with a diesel engine half the size of the gasoline engine?  Yes, diesel is more expensive but for the most part diesel will have to be 1.5 to 2 times as expensive as gasoline to match cost on two vehicles, more or less equal, except one has a diesel and the other has a gasoline engine.


----------



## begreen

Toyota put a recycling program in place with the release of the car. The batteries are not disposed in a landfill. Agreed there may be a diesel hybrid in the future. But given the size of the gasoline market in the US and the premium for diesel I can see why they chose the gas market first. The BMW is just an incremental gain on improving diesel technology. It's good that they are doing it, but better mileage can be obtained in other European diesels, especially if not driven at 75 mph. I expect the next generation of hybrids, with significant battery improvements, will push the mpg envelope to a new level. And then some companies will marry them with diesels (GM, Honda, Citroen?) and we will continue to see improvements. And this is a good thing. Just not soon enough!


----------



## Mike Wilson

BrownianHeatingTech said:
			
		

> Mike Wilson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rarely have I ever met a "neutral" mediator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the mediator is chosen by the participants, if they all agree to a biased mediator, that would be pretty silly for whomever agreed to have the situation judged by someone who was biased against them...
Click to expand...


Obviously you have never personally chosen a mediator.  Don't ever assume a fact not in evidence... to wit: an individual's knowledge that the mediator selected is predisposed.





			
				BrownianHeatingTech said:
			
		

> Mike Wilson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do, however, hold federal court judges in fairly high esteem.  They are some of the most straight individuals you will ever meet, period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you've never read the rulings of the Ninth Circuit?
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...



Then you take it incorrectly.   I am well aware of the ninth circuit, as I am of the remainder of the federal circuits.  In fact, I am published on them, so it can be said that I am fairly familiar with what I speak.  That said, I maintain my aforementioned position... The fact that the ninth circuit is bent to the left is immaterial to the matter at hand.  The bench is solid.

-- Mike


----------



## webbie

BrownianHeatingTech said:
			
		

> If we can get away for the legal bias against nuclear power, a generation of modern nuke plants would likely give us the time to develop alternatives to things like coal, oil, and gas.  Nuclear still isn't renewable, so it can never be a permanent solution, but it's at least cleaner than those things, and gives us time to work the kinks out of renewable power generation.
> 
> We need nuclear power now, so we have time to make changes to give us a renewable future.
> 
> Joe



OK, let me understand this. You are dismayed that the Federal Courts come down on the side of corporations, so you want them to come down on the side of Nuclear Power companies to balance it?

And you must know that nuclear power cannot and will not exist independent of gov. guarantees, yet you approve of the government insuring the industry?

It's hard to fathom such a position of irresponsibility. Such a policy of nuclear power could only happen.....dare I say.....in a Socialist country like France where the government nurses the people. Hard to imagine you are pushing for that.

As fas as the WAITING for renewables to "get there".....they are already there. If it was not for nimbys (Cape Wind) and lack of planning, we'd be able to go right ahead and forget about those nuke power plants. 

Read this article about Solar Parity:
http://tinyurl.com/5hc4td

The basic idea is that if we FIGURE IN ALL THE COSTS of your nuke power, we already have enough to get the solar instead! Right now......let alone what price solar will be when the nuke plants are built.....

As the article says "I believe that I will prove in this article that UNSUBSIDIZED solar is ALREADY at grid parity today against UNSUBSIDIZED "conventional" power sources. The word "parity" implies "equality," and therefore, the only fair comparison is one where ALL costs are taken into account."

Based on your (Joes) outlook on taking ALL costs into account, how can the creation of tens of thousands of years waste be calculated??


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech

Mike Wilson said:
			
		

> Obviously you have never personally chosen a mediator.  Don't ever assume a fact not in evidence... to wit: an individual's knowledge that the mediator selected is predisposed.



Failing to do due diligence is just silly.

I've worked with mediators before.  I have a good friend who is a mediator, and he's even used my kitchen as a location to mediate a divorce for some mutual friends who split up and needed a neutral location to use.



			
				Mike Wilson said:
			
		

> The fact that the ninth circuit is bent to the left is immaterial to the matter at hand.  The bench is solid.



The fact that they rule based upon personal bias (as you freely admit) rather than the actual law is "immaterial" to you?



			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> BrownianHeatingTech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we can get away for the legal bias against nuclear power, a generation of modern nuke plants would likely give us the time to develop alternatives to things like coal, oil, and gas.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, let me understand this. You are dismayed that the Federal Courts come down on the side of corporations, so you want them to come down on the side of Nuclear Power companies to balance it?
Click to expand...


As you quoted me saying, I want them to eliminate bias.  I don't want them to be on anyone's "side."  I want them to rule fairly and impartially, rather than catering to the oil companies and the like.



			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> And you must know that nuclear power cannot and will not exist independent of gov. guarantees, yet you approve of the government insuring the industry?



As I and anyone else who has studied this knows, no such thing is required.  Lloyd's will insure anyone.  You can insure anything, if you can pay the premiums.  If you build the plant to actually be safe, the premiums will be manageable.



			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> As fas as the WAITING for renewables to "get there".....they are already there. If it was not for nimbys (Cape Wind) and lack of planning, we'd be able to go right ahead and forget about those nuke power plants.
> 
> Read this article about Solar Parity:
> http://tinyurl.com/5hc4td
> 
> The basic idea is that if we FIGURE IN ALL THE COSTS of your nuke power, we already have enough to get the solar instead! Right now......let alone what price solar will be when the nuke plants are built.....
> 
> As the article says "I believe that I will prove in this article that UNSUBSIDIZED solar is ALREADY at grid parity today against UNSUBSIDIZED "conventional" power sources. The word "parity" implies "equality," and therefore, the only fair comparison is one where ALL costs are taken into account."



Do you really want me to go through and point out all the glaring errors in that article?

Like considering only the price of the solar panels (using figured that are subsidized in various ways, even though he claims at the beginning that he will use unsubsidized numbers), and comparing it to the operating cost of the other plants.  And only comparing the "old tech" nuclear plants, as well as figuring in that the government will impede their installation (thereby raising the cost), even though that's precisely what I (and others) are arguing should be ended...

PV is far from "100% clean," as well.  The production of PV panels involves quite a bit of toxic waste, and major energy usage.  Where does the energy to produce the energy-producing panels come from?  Why don't we include the externalities, eh?  He includes the externalities and the regulatory cost in the other technologies, and ignores them for his chosen technology.  Hardly accurate reporting...



			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> Based on your (Joes) outlook on taking ALL costs into account, how can the creation of tens of thousands of years waste be calculated??



Easy.  By accounting for the cost of burying it deep enough that it will be sequestered for that period of time.

Joe


----------



## webbie

BrownianHeatingTech said:
			
		

> Webmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on your (Joes) outlook on taking ALL costs into account, how can the creation of tens of thousands of years waste be calculated??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easy.  By accounting for the cost of burying it deep enough that it will be sequestered for that period of time.
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...


Sounds like the Staples Easy Button!

So, since it is easy, give me a really rough idea of the cost per KWH to do so. If you cannot, it must not be so easy. And can you please calculate that there is no geological formation on the planet proven stable enough to contain this stuff for the length of time it would take?

Sure, PV or any technology has hurdles. But, unlike nuclear, they are addressable. Nuclear folks are just giving us the old "wink wink" Easy Button. Hey, I'll back ALL those new nuke plants if they self-insure and if they 99% come up with an actual disposal system for the waste (and actually implement it). 

So I'm all for it. The problem is, as you know, that if we wait for that to happen Solar and wind, etc. will be that much cheaper and there will no reason to do it anyway! So, as we all like to think, as long as government keeps their hands off of it, no new nukes are likely to be built (or very few)....and, IMHO, that is a good thing.

As we used to say in the wood heating field, why heat a reactor core up to tens of thousands of degrees just to heat your house or hot water to 70?

France, BTW, ships their nuclear waste to poor countries and all over the world. I guess, as you say, as long as the natives were not coerced (and since they don't even know, they were not coerced).


----------



## Redox

France imports other countries waste to reprocess it.  They also export 18% of their electricity to other European nations.

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

They also have some of the lowest electric rates in Europe and emit a small fraction of their neighbors CO2.  

Also read the section on public opinion:

In France, unlike in America, nuclear energy is accepted, even popular. Everybody I spoke to in Civaux loves the fact their region was chosen. The nuclear plant has brought jobs and prosperity to the area. Nobody I spoke to, nobody, expressed any fear.[7]

Palfreman, Jon. "Why the French Like Nuclear Energy", Frontline, Public Broadcasting Service, 1997. Retrieved on 2007-08-25. 

unquote

Seems to me they are doing something right...

Chris


----------



## webbie

Maybe you should read this - France is piling up their waste and it is costing BIG. Perhaps we should learn from their experiences.....outlined as such:

http://energypriorities.com/entries/2005/03/france_nuke_was.php

"The cost of waste disposal -- hundreds of billions of euros -- is being passed along to ratepayers. High rates aren't the only legacy of 50 years of nuclear power. Citizens and scientists alike are concerned about security, groundwater contamination, and storage."

"The director of the Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique (CEA) at the Marcoule facility, Loic Martin-Deidier, recalls the enthusiasm for quickly launching civil and military nuclear programs. At the time, he says, "they weren't thinking 40 years ahead."

"The Soulaines-Dhuys site will enter a 300-year surveillance phase. After that, the plan is to observe the site until the stored waste loses its radioactivity. The initial 300 years is just the beginning. Even moderately radioactive plutonium retains hazardous for 24,000 years. Skeptics wonder if future generations will follow the plan -- or even remember where the site is located."

And perhaps the part that says it best:
"The country is far behind most of its European neighbors in renewable energy development. It has meager fossil fuel resources, such as coal or gas. The country is, for the foreseeable future, dependent on nuclear power."


----------



## Mike Wilson

BrownianHeatingTech said:
			
		

> Mike Wilson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you have never personally chosen a mediator.  Don't ever assume a fact not in evidence... to wit: an individual's knowledge that the mediator selected is predisposed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've worked with mediators before.  I have a good friend who is a mediator, and he's even used my kitchen as a location to mediate a divorce for some mutual friends who split up and needed a neutral location to use.
Click to expand...


I'm very glad your friend the mediator got to meet in your kitchen to handle a divorce, but let's face it, that's not the level of mediator that we are discussing... unless you liken divorce mediators in kitchens to federal court justices.  Your point above was, if I interpret correctly, comparing mediators to sitting justices of the federal bench.  Let's at least continue to be rational and keep the level of mediator we are discussing on the same plane as the federal judge, not some guy deciding who gets the family pet in another guy's kitchen.  We are discussing mediators who will resolve the same or similar issue that a federal judge would, and, having retained said mediators in the past, I can say without hesitation that, insofar as bias is concerned, the federal judge has less on almost every occasion.  




			
				BrownianHeatingTech said:
			
		

> Failing to do due diligence is just silly.



Again, don't assume a fact not in evidence.  This is not a matter of failing to do due diligence, this is a matter of the inherent bias of a mediator that is unknown to the party retaining same.  Note, mediators' decisions are largely unpublished, which is in stark contrast to the federal bench.  Therefore, potential bias points are usually concealed from the parties retaining the mediator and, therefore, there is generally little "due diligence" to conduct.  Furthermore, whilst any individual brings the sum total of their upbringing to their position in life, the expression of these societal prejudices is more often found in mediators than on the federal bench.



			
				BrownianHeatingTech said:
			
		

> Mike Wilson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the ninth circuit is bent to the left is immaterial to the matter at hand.  The bench is solid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that they rule based upon personal bias (as you freely admit) rather than the actual law is "immaterial" to you?
Click to expand...


Purporting to know what others "freely admit" is presumptuous, to say the least.  In fact, that is not at all what I said... don't let the shades of gray escape you.  As noted above, societal prejudices are found in both mediators and the federal bench, as well as in every other individual, in every position in life.  If your assertion is that the gravamen of the majority of ninth circuit decisions are based upon personal bias rather than the law, then I, as well as the sheer facts of the matter, clearly disagree.  While yours is a convenient stereotype, it is, inherently, wrong.  An excellent analysis of the topic is included in a few chapters in  this book, which is probably available on Amazon.  The underlying dataset is located here.

Vbr,

-- Mike


----------



## fraxinus

Some recent developments in high level nuclear waste storage: $50 million was cut by the Senate from the administration's request for Yucca Mountain development funds. This basically brings Yucca Mountain to a standstill for now.

The DOE is now required to come up with an alternative to the YM site.

The appeal of the multi-million dollar suit brought by a consortium of power producers to require the DOE to take charge of high level waste will be decided some time this year. If the DOE loses its appeal, it will be required to take custody of the waste. Without any national or regional waste storage system, it's very likely that shut down plants currently storing waste onsite will become defacto depositories for waste from other sources. Federal authorities, rather than the original owners, would be responsible for the sites. I assume this would supercede any existing state statutes. In short, we will soon be embroiled in another waste disposal controversy at the very time there is renewed interest in nuclear power.


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech

Webmaster said:
			
		

> So, since it is easy, give me a really rough idea of the cost per KWH to do so. If you cannot, it must not be so easy.



Yes, because if I cannot determine the cost of something outside my realm of expertise, that clearly means that the thing is unfeasible.

That's not even sensible, Craig.

Drill a very deep shaft, and lower the stuff down.  If you eliminate the cost of fighting about it in court, the actual cost of drilling isn't all that high.  If it was, the Chunnel would never have been built (as one example).



			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> And can you please calculate that there is no geological formation on the planet proven stable enough to contain this stuff for the length of time it would take?



Says who?  You a geologist now?



			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> Sure, PV or any technology has hurdles. But, unlike nuclear, they are addressable.



They are?  Not by current technology...



			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> Hey, I'll back ALL those new nuke plants if they self-insure and if they 99% come up with an actual disposal system for the waste (and actually implement it).



First, you'll have to remove the legal prohibitions on them doing that.  You're demanding that place in the top 50% of the Boston Marathon (a significant, but achievable feat for a dedicated individual), but then insisting that they do it with 100 pounds of lead weight attached to each ankle, then saying, "see, you can't do it!"



			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> So, as we all like to think, as long as government keeps their hands off of it, no new nukes are likely to be built (or very few)....and, IMHO, that is a good thing.



The only reason no new nukes are being built is because the government is stopping them.



			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> France, BTW, ships their nuclear waste to poor countries and all over the world. I guess, as you say, as long as the natives were not coerced (and since they don't even know, they were not coerced).



Really?  I thought they stored in in France, like you say in your next post...



			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> Maybe you should read this - France is piling up their waste and it is costing BIG. Perhaps we should learn from their experiences.....outlined as such:
> 
> http://energypriorities.com/entries/2005/03/france_nuke_was.php



So which is it, Craig?  Do you even know?



			
				Mike Wilson said:
			
		

> I'm very glad your friend the mediator got to meet in your kitchen to handle a divorce, but let's face it, that's not the level of mediator that we are discussing... unless you liken divorce mediators in kitchens to federal court justices.  Your point above was, if I interpret correctly, comparing mediators to sitting justices of the federal bench.  Let's at least continue to be rational and keep the level of mediator we are discussing on the same plane as the federal judge, not some guy deciding who gets the family pet in another guy's kitchen.



Yeah, because clearly if someone does one thing, he cannot do anything else.

I understand that this guy is so skilled, he can even walk and chew gum... at the same time!



			
				Mike Wilson said:
			
		

> Again, don't assume a fact not in evidence.  This is not a matter of failing to do due diligence, this is a matter of the inherent bias of a mediator that is unknown to the party retaining same.  Note, mediators' decisions are largely unpublished, which is in stark contrast to the federal bench.  Therefore, potential bias points are usually concealed from the parties retaining the mediator and, therefore, there is generally little "due diligence" to conduct.



You would hire someone "blind"?  Oddly enough, I would demand extensive references and such.  That's what due diligence means.



			
				Mike Wilson said:
			
		

> Furthermore, whilst any individual brings the sum total of their upbringing to their position in life, the expression of these societal prejudices is more often found in mediators than on the federal bench.



Says who?



			
				Mike Wilson said:
			
		

> Purporting to know what others "freely admit" is presumptuous, to say the least.



Um, actually no.  What you "freely admit" is what you have stated blatantly, in a public manner.  So it is the _exact opposite_ of presumptuous to say that one knows such a thing.

Purporting to know what you _do not_ freely admit would be presumptuous.  Thanks for playing, though...



			
				Mike Wilson said:
			
		

> In fact, that is not at all what I said... don't let the shades of gray escape you.  As noted above, societal prejudices are found in both mediators and the federal bench, as well as in every other individual, in every position in life.  If your assertion is that the gravamen of the majority of ninth circuit decisions are based upon personal bias rather than the law, then I, as well as the sheer facts of the matter, clearly disagree.  While yours is a convenient stereotype, it is, inherently, wrong.



I'd suggest actually reading the Constitution and the published works of those who wrote it.  The plain text of the document and the published statements of the Framers regarding their intent in writing the various portions of it clearly indicate that the overwhelming majority of what the Federal government does is completely outside their Constitutional authority.  Federal judges are specifically there to prevent the Executive and Legislative branches from doing exactly what they have done.  Especially the appeals courts.  That they have conspired to aid an abet the other branches in these abuses is proof of gross levels of bias.

The plain text of the Constitution is pretty simple, and any competent schoolchild should be able to interpret it, so one would presume that a highly-educated Federal judge would have enough grasp of the English language to apply it.  Instead, they pretend that it says more than it actually says, in some places, and less than it actually says, in others.

Joe


----------



## begreen

AFAIK, the French nuclear waste problem is not solved, it has been deferred, much like ours. At this point they haven't figured out how or where they will be storing vitrified waste for perhaps a thousand millenia. It is not a trivial or inexpensive problem.  

Their first storage project, much like Hanford, WA, was short term and turned out to be leaky. Their latest state of the art holding area is also proving to be flawed. In Normandy the aquifer is reading at 7 times the European limit, showing serious contamination, a bad problem for agriculture. In the meantime they also have a growing ground water radiation contamination in the Champagne region that is at threatening levels.

Waste is the issue with nuclear power and it is public pressure that is stopping it's growth. That cumulative public pressure is called government. So of course it is govt. that is stopping this growth.


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech

BeGreen said:
			
		

> AFAIK, the French nuclear waste problem is not solved, it has been deferred, much like ours. At this point they haven't figured out how or where they will be storing vitrified waste for millenia. It is not a trivial or inexpensive problem.  Their first storage project, much like Hanford, WA, was short term and turned out to be leaky. The latest state of the art, holding area is also proving to be flawed. In the meantime they have a growing ground water radiation contamination in the Champagne region that is at threatening levels.



I expect you're very correct.  That's what happens when the government gets involved - you have a $10,000 toilet seat that wears out in two weeks.

There are three ways to do things... the right way, the wrong way, and the government way.

While the lifespan of this waste is long in _human_ terms, it's not particularly long in _geological_ terms.  Drill a really deep mineshaft in a geologically-stable area, and things will be stable for far longer than it takes the waste to decay to safe levels.

Or, as others have mentioned, use a deep-ocean subduction zone.

Joe


----------



## webbie

BrownianHeatingTech said:
			
		

> While the lifespan of this waste is long in _human_ terms, it's not particularly long in _geological_ terms.
> 
> Joe



Uh, didn't the ice age end about 11,000 years ago - and create many of the formations in New England?

No doubt the easiest way to solve problems is to write a sentence about how to do it. However, I think we are all mostly in agreement about a few things:

1. AS OF NOW, the nuclear industry in the US does not indemnify themselves
2. NO ONE can even guess at the eventual cost of the storage or reprocessing of the waste.

So, Joe, let me know when you come up with the proven and tested technology to solve #2....the fact is that the industry, which does consist of some great minds as well as billions of $$, has been unable to do so. Just the idea of the first pilot project being 300 YEARS of watching the stuff should scare you! 

I would not dare say these problems are unsolvable. But I can say that they are very likely to NOT be solved in a time frame and at a cost which would be competitive with renewables. 

So, in summary, I'm waiting for the solutions to the existing waste before subjecting my children and future generations to 20,000+ years of cleaning up.


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Uh, didn't the ice age end about 11,000 years ago - and create many of the formations in New England?



Ice ages are meteorological, not "geological" in the sense of stability of the planet's strata.



			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> 1. AS OF NOW, the nuclear industry in the US does not indemnify themselves



As of now, the nuclear industry is prohibited, at the point of a government gun, from indemnifying themselves.  There's a difference.  Phrasing it as if they're just being irresponsible is a gross distortion of the situation.



			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> 2. NO ONE can even guess at the eventual cost of the storage or reprocessing of the waste.



No one?  That's a rather universal statement, Craig.  No one on the planet can "even guess" at what it would cost to drill a deep mineshaft?  That's laughable.



			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> So, Joe, let me know when you come up with the proven and tested technology to solve #2....the fact is that the industry, which does consist of some great minds as well as billions of $$, has been unable to do so.



The technology exists.  They have been prohibited at gunpoint from utilizing it.



			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> Just the idea of the first pilot project being 300 YEARS of watching the stuff should scare you!



_Government_ pilot project.  Anyone with any sense can come up with better options than that one...



			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> I would not dare say these problems are unsolvable. But I can say that they are very likely to NOT be solved in a time frame and at a cost which would be competitive with renewables.
> 
> So, in summary, I'm waiting for the solutions to the existing waste before subjecting my children and future generations to 20,000+ years of cleaning up.



The solutions exist.  They've simply been prevented from utilizing them by bureaucrats who are more interested in personal gain and maintaining the status quo, rather than doing anything constructive or even just letting others do constructive things.

Violence is not the answer, Craig.

Joe


----------



## webbie

BrownianHeatingTech said:
			
		

> No one?  That's a rather universal statement, Craig.  No one on the planet can "even guess" at what it would cost to drill a deep mineshaft?  That's laughable.
> Joe



We cannot approximate the cost of drilling a mine shaft into a formation stable enough to hold materials for 20,000 years AND the cost of then inserting millions of cubic feet of that materials down there. 

Time to bake the donuts, Joe. Your rhetoric about violence has gotten a little old. Pretend that you had to actually make sense to most people reading this....please!


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech

Webmaster said:
			
		

> BrownianHeatingTech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one?  That's a rather universal statement, Craig.  No one on the planet can "even guess" at what it would cost to drill a deep mineshaft?  That's laughable.
> Joe
> 
> 
> 
> We cannot approximate the cost of drilling a mine shaft into a formation stable enough to hold materials for 20,000 years AND the cost of then inserting millions of cubic feet of that materials down there.
Click to expand...


That a royal "we," Craig?  Because I'll guarantee you that there's someone, somewhere on the planet who can do just that.



			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> Time to bake the donuts, Joe. Your rhetoric about violence has gotten a little old. Pretend that you had to actually make sense to most people reading this....please!



If you don't like being reminded that you regularly support aggression against innocent people, Craig, I suggest that it would be best to stop doing so.

I mean, you're quoting Gandhi in your signature... do you imagine that he would support what you use the government to do?

There's nothing "rhetorical" about the violence that you support, Craig.  If I bought some land and tried to build a nuclear power plant without jumping through your hoops, you'd be waving a gun in my face, or you would hire someone else (government) to do it, which is morally equivalent.

Joe


----------



## Ken45

Webmaster said:
			
		

> The basic idea is that if we FIGURE IN ALL THE COSTS of your nuke power, we already have enough to get the solar instead! Right now......let alone what price solar will be when the nuke plants are built.....
> 
> As the article says "I believe that I will prove in this article that UNSUBSIDIZED solar is ALREADY at grid parity today against UNSUBSIDIZED "conventional" power sources. The word "parity" implies "equality," and therefore, the only fair comparison is one where ALL costs are taken into account."



I hope you don't mind having electricity available only during daylight hours!   I kind of like it to be available at night too!

Solar panels ONLY generate electricity during periods of sunlight, preferably bright sunlight.  

Even if the true cost of solar power came to parity with nuclear and coal plants, we would still need the nuclear and coal plants to provide power during nighttime and cloudy weather.  Having them sit there idle while "solar saves the day" doesn't really help costs very much!

Even if the price of "unsubsidized solar" was equal to conventional KWH costs, it certainly doesn't allow solar to displace nuclear and fossil fuel plants.

Ken


----------



## webbie

Sure it does, Ken. As you well know, when we talk about promoting nuclear now it is for EXCESS capacity over what we have right now. We already have lots of hydro (flows at night), wind (blows at night), geothermal (boils at night) plants, as well as natural gas and others. Of course, we do sleep most of the night, so excess capacity is rarely needed then.

The point is that conservation, smart technology and renewables can take the edge off and allow us to build vastly fewer plants - especially those fueled by nuclear. As far as storage, those problems are not that hard to solve....in fact, we already have them solved! For instance, the Northfield hydro plant near here uses excess power (say, for example, on a sunny day from too much PV) UP into a pond at the top of an 800 ft mountain - then, when there is more power needed, as in your middle of the night example, the water runs down back into the river and generates massive amounts of electricity.

The only thing we seem to lack is the will to tackle the situation. I would like to see the Presidents face (yeah, even GW Bush) challenging the entire residential sector to set an example and reduce use by 5% one month....and then have a real time ticker showing us how we are doing! Make a sport of it, and people may just play along. 

I do think the technical pieces are in place AND that Solar PV at less than $1 a watt (the holy grail) is here in the next year. In fact, I would lay odds (and even real money) on the fact that we will have PV at 50 cents a watt before we have Joes drills and nuclear storage ready. Anyone want to take the bet? If you don't - well, there is the "market" answer right there in front of you.


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech

Webmaster said:
			
		

> As far as storage, those problems are not that hard to solve....in fact, we already have them solved! For instance, the Northfield hydro plant near here uses excess power (say, for example, on a sunny day from too much PV) UP into a pond at the top of an 800 ft mountain - then, when there is more power needed, as in your middle of the night example, the water runs down back into the river and generates massive amounts of electricity.



Yeah, that's a sensible (efficient) way to store power.

What's the capture efficiency of the PV system (from solar flux all the way to conditioned AC voltage)?  Then the efficiency of the huge pumps to do that.  Then the efficiency of the hydro turbine and generators.

Rube Goldberg would be proud.  Bet that "storage" system is less than 1% efficient.



			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> I do think the technical pieces are in place AND that Solar PV at less than $1 a watt (the holy grail) is here in the next year. In fact, I would lay odds (and even real money) on the fact that we will have PV at 50 cents a watt before we have Joes drills and nuclear storage ready. Anyone want to take the bet?



Of course we will, because your buddies with the guns won't let the nuclear waste storage happen.

As I said, it's like shackling someone and then demanding that he run a marathon, and then claiming that his inability is his fault.

The reason that we are dumping tons upon tons of pollutants (including radioactive ones) into the atmosphere is because the majority if the "green" movement is more concerned with the _image_ of good environmental policy than with the actuality of it.  Look at the CF lightbulb fiasco.  Given the total environmental cost of manufacture and disposal, coupled with below-claimed efficiency when used in inappropriate applications, we're likely to see a net increase in energy use as a result of that nonsense.

But if certainly "feels green" to those who are more concerned with emotion than science.



			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> If you don't - well, there is the "market" answer right there in front of you.



Figure in the total cost of the PV, then talk.  What's the energy cost of building a PV panel, obtaining the raw materials to do so, disposing of the toxic waste byproducts, etc?  And of the ancillary equipment to convert the unregulated DC to regulated AC.  And the maintenance cost.

You actually imagine that you will see a lifecycle cost of even a dollar a watt, let alone less than that?  Inflation will take care of that prediction long before it is even on the horizon.

Joe


----------



## webbie

BrownianHeatingTech said:
			
		

> Then the efficiency of the hydro turbine and generators.
> Rube Goldberg would be proud.  Bet that "storage" system is less than 1% efficient.
> 
> Joe



Well, let's put it this way.

The nuclear plant close to where you and I live (Yankee) provides the electricity to do this now at this Privately owned corporation, which makes a very good profit by pumping the water up there, letting it come down and selling the power to you and I.

Perhaps a bit of reading is in order:
http://www.firstlightpower.com/generation/north.asp

As far as exact efficiency, being as you are probably driving down the road in something 20% efficient (or less when everything is figured in), and running your computer on electricity that is probably being delivered at 30% efficiency, your point falls on deaf ears. Since energy is, by most definitions, limitless or infinite....points such as pollution and waste come into play more than efficiency.

Anyway, read up on where your power and my power comes from there, and tell me how they end up making money at 1% efficiency. I am all ears. I'm sure you'll have a good reason that makes just as much sense as your other points "It's because of the government and you, Craig, holding a gun to my head". Yeah...
 :coolmad:


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Well, let's put it this way.
> 
> The nuclear plant close to where you and I live (Yankee) provides the electricity to do this now at this Privately owned corporation, which makes a very good profit by pumping the water up there, letting it come down and selling the power to you and I.
> 
> Perhaps a bit of reading is in order:
> http://www.firstlightpower.com/generation/north.asp
> 
> As far as exact efficiency, being as you are probably driving down the road in something 20% efficient (or less when everything is figured in), and running your computer on electricity that is probably being delivered at 30% efficiency, your point falls on deaf ears. Since energy is, by most definitions, limitless or infinite....points such as pollution and waste come into play more than efficiency.
> 
> Anyway, read up on where your power and my power comes from there, and tell me how they end up making money at 1% efficiency. I am all ears. I'm sure you'll have a good reason that makes just as much sense as your other points "It's because of the government and you, Craig, holding a gun to my head". Yeah...
> :coolmad:



Uh, Craig, is because they're getting the power from a nuke plant, as you so astutely pointed out.  Not the PV system that you suggested in the post that I was replying to.

Nuclear is much more efficient than PV, which is why they can make that work.  With the inefficiency of PV, it never could make sense.  Make sense?

And yes, efficiency is still critical.  That's where the actual delivered power price per watt comes in.  The number of dollars per watt at the panels is completely irrelevant, except as an upper limit of economic efficiency.  The price that matters is the average cost of delivering power to the grid, which is where all those inefficiencies come into play.

And the level of pollution generated to build PV panels also matters.  If you are getting fractional delivered efficiency, you need a lot more panels.  Which means a lot more pollution stemming from the production of those panels.  Halve the efficiency and you double the number of panels you need.  And we're talking large numbers of panels, anyway, so doubling that (or more) is a huge deal.

From the numbers I've seen over the years, they are very, very far from being "nonpolluting."  They may not produce pollution at the point of use, but their lifecycle pollution production is very high.

Tell me, Craig, what's your plan to deal with the toxic waste and other pollution generated by the production of PV panels?

Joe


----------



## webbie

In hopes of further education:
"Taking into account evaporation losses from the exposed water surface and conversion losses, approximately 70% to 85% of the electrical energy used to pump the water into the elevated reservoir can be regained. The technique is currently the most cost-effective means of storing large amounts of electrical energy on an operating basis, but capital costs and the presence of appropriate geography are critical decision factors."

There you go - you were only off by a factor of what??? 80X....... 8000%. Close, but no cigar!

Doesn't add much cred to your rantings. Why not just say "Hey, that is a cool way to store electric".....nah, that would be a positive and progressive opinion........

Read more....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech

Webmaster said:
			
		

> In hopes of further education:
> "Taking into account evaporation losses from the exposed water surface and conversion losses, approximately 70% to 85% of the electrical energy used to pump the water into the elevated reservoir can be regained. The technique is currently the most cost-effective means of storing large amounts of electrical energy on an operating basis, but capital costs and the presence of appropriate geography are critical decision factors."
> 
> There you go - you were only off by a factor of what??? 80X....... 8000%. Close, but no cigar!
> 
> Doesn't add much cred to your rantings. Why not just say "Hey, that is a cool way to store electric".....nah, that would be a positive and progressive opinion........
> 
> Read more....
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity



And, as stated, that ignores the system efficiency losses.

It's like the pump heating contractors that sell equipment based upon AFUE.

I can sell you an 87% AFUE boiler that's three times the size you need for your building.  When that burner lights, it will run at 87% efficiency.

Of course, being oversized like that, it will waste hundreds of gallons of fuel every year.  But the sticker says "87%," so it must be a good deal, right?

If we're talking about environment and pollution, the total efficiency is the critical number, not the efficiency of any one individual component.

Selling things based upon an efficiency number that ignores the total system is dishonest.  I would never even dream of doing something like that to my customers, and you shouldn't be doing it here, Craig.

Pumped storage like that _is_ a cool way to store electricity, but that doesn't make it a good companion to PV.  Ferraris are a cool way to travel, but that doesn't make them a good way for me to deliver a heating system.  Being cool doesn't make something a good idea.

(By the way, I do know a thing or two about pumped storage, as I've toyed with the notion of using it as a way to store power for my house.  I don't imagine that it is efficient, but rather that it may be more cost-effective than lead-acid batteries.  It's certainly not more efficient than a nuclear plant, by any stretch of the imagination.)

Joe


----------



## begreen

BrownianHeatingTech said:
			
		

> BeGreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFAIK, the French nuclear waste problem is not solved, it has been deferred, much like ours. At this point they haven't figured out how or where they will be storing vitrified waste for millenia. It is not a trivial or inexpensive problem.  Their first storage project, much like Hanford, WA, was short term and turned out to be leaky. The latest state of the art, holding area is also proving to be flawed. In the meantime they have a growing ground water radiation contamination in the Champagne region that is at threatening levels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I expect you're very correct.  That's what happens when the government gets involved - you have a $10,000 toilet seat that wears out in two weeks.
> 
> There are three ways to do things... the right way, the wrong way, and the government way.
> 
> While the lifespan of this waste is long in _human_ terms, it's not particularly long in _geological_ terms.  Drill a really deep mineshaft in a geologically-stable area, and things will be stable for far longer than it takes the waste to decay to safe levels.
> 
> Or, as others have mentioned, use a deep-ocean subduction zone.
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...


This is a serious oversimplification of the issues involved. If it was as simple as digging a deep hole in the ground (mineshaft) and filling it with spent nuclear material certainly this would have been done a long time ago. The problem is, that is not a good solution. I'm not a nuclear scientist, but from what I have read, putting thousands of tons of nuclear material together creates massive heat which is a major concern with nuclear waste storage. Believe me, if this was an easy problem the French and Japanese would have tried the suggested solutions a long time ago.


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech

BeGreen said:
			
		

> This is a serious oversimplification of the issues involved. If it was as simple as digging a deep hole in the ground (mineshaft) and filling it with spent nuclear material certainly this would have been done a long time ago. The problem is, that is not a good solution. I'm not a nuclear scientist, but from what I have read, putting thousands of tons of nuclear material together creates massive heat which is a major concern with nuclear waste storage. Believe me, if this was an easy problem the French and Japanese would have tried the suggested solutions a long time ago.



Um, you don't put it all in one particular spot.

And, as said, the reason this hasn't been done is because the government prohibits it from being done, not because of any technical problem.

Nor would the heat matter, buried deep in the rock.  Heat matters in a situation like the Chernobyl sarcophagus because it's a lightweight, manmade structure that could collapse due to a steam overpressure.  It's not physically possible for simple heat pressure to move the mass of rock we're talking about.

Joe


----------



## RedRanger

BrownianHeatingTech said:
			
		

> BeGreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a serious oversimplification of the issues involved. If it was as simple as digging a deep hole in the ground (mineshaft) and filling it with spent nuclear material certainly this would have been done a long time ago. The problem is, that is not a good solution. I'm not a nuclear scientist, but from what I have read, putting thousands of tons of nuclear material together creates massive heat which is a major concern with nuclear waste storage. Believe me, if this was an easy problem the French and Japanese would have tried the suggested solutions a long time ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, you don't put it all in one particular spot.
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...


That`s right, we spread it everywhere, so the whales, and the birds , and everyone gets a bite out of it.  Of course, seems like common sense to me!!


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech

sonnyinbc said:
			
		

> That`s right, we spread it everywhere, so the whales, and the birds , and everyone gets a bite out of it.  Of course, seems like common sense to me!!



Once you sober up, you'll probably figure out that I meant multiple boreholes.  Until then, I'd suggest laying off the absinthe for a while.

Joe


----------



## begreen

BrownianHeatingTech said:
			
		

> Pumped storage like that _is_ a cool way to store electricity, but that doesn't make it a good companion to PV.  Ferraris are a cool way to travel, but that doesn't make them a good way for me to deliver a heating system.  Being cool doesn't make something a good idea.
> 
> (By the way, I do know a thing or two about pumped storage, as I've toyed with the notion of using it as a way to store power for my house.  I don't imagine that it is efficient, but rather that it may be more cost-effective than lead-acid batteries.  It's certainly not more efficient than a nuclear plant, by any stretch of the imagination.)
> 
> Joe



All systems have losses. The question is what are acceptable losses and why. 

PV power is helpful and in some locations a good start. But thinking of just PV for solar is narrow minded. True, storage is the key issue, but there are options. For example, there are a couple of interesting ideas for solar that have much better efficiencies and are proving themselves well in pilot programs. The first is using massive solar furnaces to heat phase change salts to high temps and then storing them in the earth for nightime/cloudy day retrieval. There is a large scale project going in Nevada that will utilize this technology. 
http://www.news.com/Full-steam-ahead-for-Nevada-solar-project/2100-11392_3-6166113.html

The second is a large solar tower system that stores enough heat to run itself during the night. This system was tested successfully for 7 yrs in a 50 kw pilot project in Spain. True it works best in a dry sunny climate, but we have that in Nevada and the southwest. 
http://www.enviromission.com.au/project/project.htm

Solar will be an important part of our weaning off of fossil fuel based power. It isn't the final answer or universal panacea, but it will be a valuable asset once we start really putting our minds together and creating new infrastructure to solve our power needs.


----------



## begreen

BrownianHeatingTech said:
			
		

> sonnyinbc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That`s right, we spread it everywhere, so the whales, and the birds , and everyone gets a bite out of it.  Of course, seems like common sense to me!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once you sober up, you'll probably figure out that I meant multiple boreholes.  Until then, I'd suggest laying off the absinthe for a while.
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...


Joe, personal attacks are uncalled for. Even in the ashcan. You are out of bounds.


----------



## RedRanger

BrownianHeatingTech said:
			
		

> sonnyinbc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That`s right, we spread it everywhere, so the whales, and the birds , and everyone gets a bite out of it.  Of course, seems like common sense to me!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once you sober up, you'll probably figure out that I meant multiple boreholes.  Until then, I'd suggest laying off the absinthe for a while.
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...


Hmmm, it is people like you that sometimes make us canucks (who are your number one supplier of crude oil) make us want to turn off the taps.  Talk about sobering up,mabye if we shut off the taps you will wake up from your drunkeness from drinking our oil.  Can you imagine the hangover??

God bless Canada and save us from people like you.


----------



## begreen

Also note, the scale of our accumulated nuclear waste is huge and growing. Even with lots of boreholes you are stacking thousands of pounds of waste on top of itself. The problem is not as trivial as perceived it or it would have become standard practice.

Closing thread due to increasing, unwarranted personal attacks.


----------

