<< <i>My family lives in Joplin and Monett and I haven't heard of the process your reporting but here in Tulsa the Trash to Energy was a huge flop. You seperated your garabage and paid more for them to pick it up to covert it to energy, they couldn't make it with a front end load but I'd be interested in reading about the process. Any links? >>
<< <i>Not to argue the point but in the era of converting coal to oil happened when this country was young and we didn’t really relay on energy as a whole. >>
My point was just trying to put a little optimism into this thread by saying that we know what is coming and that we are not definitely heading for a worldwide crisis. Although that is possible we have proven great at adapting throughout history I don't see any reason why industry is doomed not to be able to adapt to a non oil dependacy.
Was there a huge depression when the world switched from coal to oil as the primary energy source? We're not going to run out of oil tomorrow so hopefully the change over will be gradual. Necessity creates invention here is an example oil from waste
A gradual change works fine in theory but in practice it's impossible. Remember the 1973 oil crisis? Gas lines? Rationing? Odd/even days? Many people here wern't even born then but I remember it just fine. Here's what the supply dip looked like. (it's the tiny dip in the graph, the large dip after 1980 was a reduction in DEMAND with record low oil prices not a reduction in supply. Peak oil is always a supply crisis)
A very tiny reduction in supply created a huge effect on our economy and our way of life. This was the test case, the new crisis is going to resemble the one in 1973 except for the fact that it will never end.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Now here is some economic news---The May trade deficit was $55.3 billion. That was slightly less than the expected $57.0 billion, and down slightly from $56.9 billion in April. This is positive in that it provides a bit more support to GDP calculations. Also of good news this morning was the report that import prices excluding oil were down 0.4% in June.
An interesting viewpoint on the jsmineset.com website reasoned that repatrioted corporate profits could alone acount for $10-20 Billion in one time revenues (window closes in Oct 2005). Since this won't be a continuing revenue stream the trade deficit will widen by another $10-20 billion. A $2 BILLION difference in govt accounting is essentially zero with the math they use.
Don't think I buy coal as a non-issue in the energy markets. There are a large number of coal plants throughout the heartland of the US that produce a huge number of MW. The electricity from coal exceeds nuclear energy....as coal handles the MAJORITY of the electricity needs in the U.S. There are barely 100 nuke plants in the US....same number of Waste to Energy Plants.
My family lives in Joplin and Monett and I haven't heard of the process your reporting but here in Tulsa the Trash to Energy was a huge flop. You seperated your garabage and paid more for them to pick it up to covert it to energy, they couldn't make it with a front end load. Nice link.
I work in the Waste-to-Energy industry and I can assure you that the Tulsa, OK WTE project is not necessarily representative of the market in general. So many of the 100 or so WTE projects nationwide depend heavily on their community contracts that they are often the primary indicator of the project's success or failure. The Client (CRRA) linked to the largest WTE plant in Connecticut initially suffered under the collapse of Enron to the tune of $220 million. Fortunately they recovered $113 million of that so far. Had this not happened the tipping rates would have jumped 30% or so to keep that WTE project viable. And that project handles the majority of towns in Connecticut. The cost would have been passed on to the taxpayers of the towns serviced by that facility. Fortunately this did not happen and the rates have stayed reasonable. Here's an instance were politics and deals could have made a worthwhile facility a "burden" in the eyes of many of the state's taxpayers.
I'm not sure what the reasoning is impley that all WTE plants have "issues" but they have a proven 15-20 year track record as a very successful alternative for 90% waste reduction (and with renewable energy output) with emissions far, far lower than coal plants. Most, if not all WTE's are compliant with the Clean Air standards while many older coal plants couldn't come close if required to comply. 85% of the nation's waste is still landfilled through about 6000+ facilities. WTE plants handle about 15% of the nation's waste. Thank heavens for all the open space in places like PA, WV, etc. to dump your waste in. It won't last forever.
Just remember that when you hook up your electric car to the battery charger at night, that some dirty, NOxious COal plant in the midwest is supplying the extra electricity needed to make that happen. Welcome to "cleaner" air my friends (lol). Also remember that it takes something like 25 tons of mined ore (as I recall) to produce one new car (electric or gas). And once again, a dirty coal plant is supplying lots of electricity to help that operation along.
<< <i>A gradual change works fine in theory but in practice it's impossible. Remember the 1973 oil crisis? Gas lines? Rationing? Odd/even days? Many people here wern't even born then but I remember it just fine. Here's what the supply dip looked like. >>
That's if you're predicting a major production dip. I don't see that, I just see rising oil prices and the probable ruin of the Alaska wildlife reserve. Right now we don't greatly use or try develop alternative energy sources because it's just cheaper to use oil, as oil prices rise it will become cheaper to use/develop alternative energy bringing the change. If you don't foresee us being able to power the world with new and alternative energy sources then yes it will be chaos, but I do.
I work in the Waste-to-Energy industry and I can assure you that the Tulsa, OK WTE project is not necessarily representative of the market in general. So many of the 100 or so WTE projects nationwide depend heavily on their community contracts that they are often the primary indicator of the project's success or failure. The largest WTE plant in Connecticut suffered under the collapse of Enron to the tune of $220 million. Fortunately they recovered $113 million of that so far. Had this not happened the tipping rates would have jumped 30% or so to keep the project viable. The cost would have been passed on to you and me. Fortunately this has not happened and the rates have stayed reasonable. Here's an instance were politics and deals could have made a worthwhile facility a burden to many of the state's taxpayers.
I'm not sure what your reasoning is for the WTE bashing but it is a very successful alternative for 90% waste reduction (and with renewable energy output) with emissions far, far lower than coal plants. Most, if not all WTE's are compliant with the Clean Air standards while many older coal plants couldn't come close if required to comply. 85% of the nation's waste is still landfilled through about 6000+ facilities. WTE plants handle about 15% of the nation's waste. Thank heavens for all the open space in places like PA, WV, etc. to dump your waste in. It won't last forever.
roadrunner >>
Not sure why you consider my post a bash since it's the truth. Just trying to find out more. Did I not state that we'll have all kinds of solutions for energy? The Tulsa plant closed long before $40,$50, or $60 oil. But it sucked on what hoops they made you jump though to be a member all at a higher cost to take away your trash....go figure. I live in Ollogah which is about a mile from a PSO coal plant here and it's very clean, this isn't the minus 70's technology . Although I can't claim I'm carrying there tourch since I don't work for either of them.
I guess we'll see if someone from the coal industry bashes you for your statement that "older plants" couldn't come close to compling. This is the 21 century and old plants must be upgraded. Hauling trash from big cities to "Anywhere" USA would not only be smelly and costly but not practical. If you live in or near the BIG city it may prove to be a partial solution. Unlike you I'm not tied to an Oil company (any longer), WTE, or coal so I call it like I see it. Instead of bashing me or others (a popular game on this board) post your data. I'm quite sure I'm wrong but you've proved nothing with your post and lack of proof.
Thermochemical Processes Steam methane reforming: In this process, high-temperature steam is used to extract hydrogen from a methane source such as natural gas. This is the most common method of producing hydrogen; about 95 percent of the hydrogen we use today in the United States is produced using this process.
Hydrogen Delivery Since it can be produced from several sources and using various methods, hydrogen can be produced at large production plants and transported to users, or it can be produced locally, using small generators, possibly at refueling stations, eliminating the need for long-distance transport. Hydrogen is currently transported by road via cylinders, tube trailers, cryogenic tankers, and in pipelines, although hydrogen pipelines currently exist in only a few regions of the United States. The delivery infrastructure for hydrogen will require high-pressure compressors for gaseous hydrogen and liquefaction for cryogenic hydrogen; both currently have significant capital and operating costs and energy inefficiencies associated with them. DOE supports research focused on developing advanced technologies to improve the energy efficiency, durability, and reliability of these technologies.
Fuel cells are an important enabling technology for the hydrogen economy and have the potential to revolutionize the way we power our nation, offering cleaner, more-efficient alternatives to the combustion of gasoline and other fossil fuels. Fuel cells have the potential to replace the internal combustion engine in vehicles and provide power in stationary and portable power applications because they are energy-efficient, clean, and fuel-flexible. Hydrogen or any hydrogen-rich fuel can be used by this emerging technology.
DOE is working closely with its national laboratories, universities, and industry partners to overcome critical technical barriers to fuel cell commercialization. Current R&D focuses on the development of reliable, low-cost, high-performance fuel cell system components for transportation and buildings applications.
As I said, hydrogen isn't an energy source it's an energy carrier. You need to generate the energy from some other source before converting it to hydrogen. This is why hydrogen is not a solution to the energy crisis. IF we can create large amounts of cheap energy some other way, it's possible we can convert cars and other systems to run on hydrogen thus replacing oil.
This is a big IF. Nuclear is probably the only legitimate way to make this work. A nuclear power plant can create electricity which in turn can create hydrogen from water via electrolysis. Photovoltaic can work too, but on a much smaller scale. Stripping hydrogen ions off of natural gas is pointless because you lose more energy than if you simply burned the natural gas in place of hydrogen.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Yes, large dump or waste sites are good producers of Mehtane gases....if anyone has ever passed a waste site you will note flames coming from the site...this is to burn off the methane that is being produced from the waste you and I through away, which is burried benith the ground decaying and producing methane gas.
Nuclear Reactors produce alot of radioactive waste....where do we dispose of this...Nevada...the half life on some of this radioactive waste is hunderds of years and longer....how often do fuel rods need replaced...it has been tried...a China Syndrom or Three Mile Island or Chenoble...we do not need.
Nuclear Reactors produce alot of radioactive waste....where do we dispose of this...Nevada...the half life on some of this radioactive waste is hunderds of years and longer....how often do fuel rods need replaced...it has been tried...a China Syndrom or Three Mile Island or Chenoble...we do not need.
Fine.....then hydrogen cannot be obtained and cannot be used to fuel your car so it's pointless even bringing it up. When fossil fuels run out and we have no alternatives, perhaps you'll change your mind.
I think there's a lot of denial concerning peak oil. When a decision has to be made to destroy the environment or starve, humans will destroy the environment. We'll kill every last whale and cook it for oil if it means survival for one more year. People who oppose nuclear energy simply don't understand the context that we're dealing with here. Nuclear is probably the only rational replacement for oil, and it's a poor one at that.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Was it a fantasy that if we really had a serious oil crisis that the USA would simply just go back to dirty old coal but which she proudly has a 200 year supply of and has more of it than all other countries on our planet combined?
Nice hydrogen post dlimb...and orville is very correct. Coal is what fueled the industrial revolution that brought the US to prominence in the international market. Our coal based industrial capacity along with mass production changed the world and we still got lots of coal and then a lot more and we can even get oil from coal, imagine that. Never forget, money talks BS walks or translated "It's about the money!"...if the US or any one else for that matter can break the code for producing energy cheaply with an abundant resource such as hydrogen technology then we will be in a similar industrial revolution as we witnessed at begining of the 1900's which is also when they minted indian gold...yummy!
You can't burn coal in cars. You can produce oil from coal, but it is very expensive and as a fuel yields about 3 gallons of gasoline per TON. It also releases huge amounts of carbon dioxide. Coal use is the primary cause of acid rain. Mining coal is incredibly destructive to the local environment requring huge amounts of water and causing very toxic acidic runoff. The Fischer-Tropsch method for creating oil from coal requires a large energy input and currently costs about $35 to produce a single barrel of oil. It's doable and will obviously be employed to help with the energy crisis, but will have large effects on the environment and the population.
United States coal reserves are at about 500 billion tons. AT CURRENT CONSUMPTION LEVELS this will last the United States about 300 years. If we start using all our coal to produce gasoline, you can forget about that 300 year number.
Also remember China and the growing world population. Demand for fossil fuel will not stop growing until the population of the world stops growing. Humans don't simply die quietly while the richest country on the planet enjoys it's huge coal reserves. You can expect more war and terrorism, and economic shockwaves from other countries as they suffer from lack of energy.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Great News! Core CPI 0.1%, Sales Up Big: June core CPI was up just 0.1%. A 0.2% gain had been expected. The past three months are now 0.0%, 0.1%, and 0.1%. That is a very encouraging trend after the higher inflation data in the first quarter. The total CPI was unchanged, which also excellent, and lower than the expected 0.3% increase.
There is more good news. June retail sales surged 1.7%. This was in part caused by the surge in auto sales on the GM "employee discount" pricing program. However, excluding autos, the increase was 0.7%, which is also very good and above expectations of a 0.5% increase.
Low inflation and strong sales. It doesn't get much better than this. The low inflation numbers are particularly important as they underscore that inflation is well contained.
Robertson says "the Bush-Cheney regime is preparing the nation for transition from democracy into dictatorship because a dictatorship will be necessary to control, in 5 years´ time, food and water riots."
Well, hel, now what do I do...?
I was wondering "Where do these guys come from?" then I thought about something about the news/newsletter business. DOG BITES MAN is not a story...MAN BITES DOG is a story, MAN BITES A BIG PINK DOG WITH A HORN, IS A GOOD STORY.
"Russia has oil and natural resources that China needs and China has the manufacturing and manpower Russia needs. To top that off China is now in an alliance with India for the trained technology personal they need. Can these alliances hold? Only time will tell but don’t be a fool, China and Russia are buying there time and aren’t our friends." ttown
<< <i>This is not a recommendation or advice but I am shorting OIL related stocks RIGHT NOW.
APC 89.70 SU 50.84 >>
Actually I've been selling oil stocks for about 3 weeks now. I was a little top heavy in them and am shorting them waiting for the price to drop. I still have about 500 shares of BP. I'll start getting back in at around $60 or selling 100 shares at a time for every dollar above $67. I don't think I have to worry about selling anymore unless something big happens to shake the market and you never know.
you guys are getting a worse. everyone has an agenda, don't forget to buy the book or sign up for more doom and gloom newsletters. >>
GREAT RESEARCH CSCOIN!!!!!
This interview was in MAY 2005 not 2004. The market was down 44 when the interview started and down 45 when it was over. Yeah...he really rattled the markets.
This just nails the lid on the coffin that all these links being posted about the end of the world are a crock of poop.
Yes...the US has some socio-economic problems. We have had them before. BFD We'll get thru them as we always have. Was the depression the end of the world. No. Did people get hurt..Yes. Well folks that just the way it is. It is called evolution. Focus on one's own problems, solve them, and you will live happily ever after. Stop worring about what your neighbor is doing. Do for yourself. Stop begging for help. Help yourself.
you guys are getting a worse. everyone has an agenda, don't forget to buy the book or sign up for more doom and gloom newsletters.
I don't read newsletters. I don't cite other opinions. That's why I put "peak oil" in a google search and simply linked the results. All the data is there and anyone can read the numbers to reach their own conclusions.
- No one knows if global warming will kill us. - No one knows if an asteroid is going to destroy the planet. - No one knows if terrorists will find a nuclear weapon and start World War III. - No one knows if HIV will mutate into an airborne strain and exterminate the species. - EVERYONE who has an informed opinion on the subject admits we will reach peak oil in the very near future. The government, the oil industry, the policy makers, EVERYONE. It's a proven fact so write it down. We used up all the oil and now we need to find substitutes or watch the progress of civilization decline in an accelerating spiral. This isn't doomsday, this isn't hype, this isn't spin, this is truth. If denied now, the facts will still be forced on you down the road when the gas station closes.
No one knows how bad this is going to screw up the planet, but it's easy to predict that our economy will suffer. Simply factor in the cost of oil and watch the GDP fall. The richest and smartest men in the world are in crisis mode and that fact shouldn't be ignored. As usual, the talking heads on CNBC and the perma-bulls who predicted a dow at 30,000 are going to be wrong and are going to take a large number of Americans down the tubes with them.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
<< <i>This is not a recommendation or advice but I am shorting OIL related stocks RIGHT NOW.
APC 89.70 SU 50.84 >>
Actually I've been selling oil stocks for about 3 weeks now. I was a little top heavy in them and am shorting them waiting for the price to drop. I still have about 500 shares of BP. I'll start getting back in at around $60 or selling 100 shares at a time for every dollar above $67. I don't think I have to worry about selling anymore unless something big happens to shake the market and you never know. >>
I am not predicting the end of the oil run (perhaps)......my indicators are just screeming that a short term top as appeared.
BP looks like it might be making a double top...It is way too early to tell. the stock would have to trade under 56 to confirm this. That would already be a 15% return for a short seller. However it is interesting to note that Chevron and Exxon failed to hit new highs even though oil did. Money has been leaving the large oil co's for about 4 months now.
This just nails the lid on the coffin that all these links being posted about the end of the world are a crock of poop.
No one is predicting the end of the world. I'm predicting an economic depression followed by a devaluation of the dollar and a recovery.
But how did you determine that all these doom and gloom predictions were false? Because the stock market is slightly up in the last couple of weeks? Ask yourself this question: If the DOW goes to 12,000 in 2006 then falls to 5000 by 2008, who was right and who was wrong? Judging long term economic predictions by the day to day movement of the market is absurd.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
What about when the sun goes "red giant" and we and all our coins are incinerated to atoms?
That would be in about 4 billion years. Make your vacation plans early.
Peak oil either has occured already (we can't know until a couple of years after the fact) or it will come sometime in the next 30. Nothing can stop it and conservation can only delay it. Developing countries like China will only make it worse. This is not science fiction, this is really happening.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
No one is predicting the end of the world. I'm predicting an economic depression followed by a devaluation of the dollar and a recovery.
don't read newsletters. I don't cite other opinions. That's why I put "peak oil" in a google search and simply linked the results. All the data is there and anyone can read the numbers to reach their own conclusions.
These are your posts. I click on PEAKOIL.ORG and this is in bold print...Apocalypse now: how mankind is sleepwalking to the end of the Earth
Exactly what is that you want us to see? Why bother posting a link to such biased opinion? You truely believe that the economy is in trouble and lots of people will get hurt. Thats fine. And in certain cases I even agree with you. Can the DOW go to 8000? You better believe it can. But I think it would be more profitable and reasoned to educate people on how they can protect themselves and profit from it. Links like PEAKOIL.ORG just scare people...and scared people make bad decisions.
Judging long term economic predictions by the day to day movement of the market is absurd
I cant agree more. However predicting anything long term is absurd. It is hard enough trying to figure out what is going to happen in 5 min let alone 5 years.
Who's posts were you reading anyway? I never posted a link to PeakOil.org or any other opinion.
Once again, I put "peak oil" in a blank Google search and linked the results. The search results included ALL current discussions on Peak Oil including those of the ignorant Bush administration. I DID NOT post a link to ANY specific opinion, I didn't not advocate any specific website, and I do not endorse any opinion on the implications of running out of oil OTHER THAN MY OWN.
Be aware of the end of cheap oil and plan accordingly.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
<< <i>Why bother posting a link to such biased opinion?
Who's posts were you reading anyway? I never posted a link to PeakOil.org or any other opinion.
Once again, I put "peak oil" in a blank Google search and linked the results. The search results included ALL current discussions on Peak Oil including those of the ignorant Bush administration. I DID NOT post a link to ANY specific opinion, I didn't not advocate any specific website, and I do not endorse any opinion on the implications of running out of oil OTHER THAN MY OWN.
Be aware of the end of cheap oil and plan accordingly. >>
Yours... Page 75 second post.
What was it exactly that you wanted us to read? You provided a link. I clicked on it. I found this...Apocalypse now: how mankind is sleepwalking to the end of the Earth. By providing a link to a website/newsletter, you are in fact advocating it. What other reason would you have for posting it?
<< <i>Why bother posting a link to such biased opinion?
Who's posts were you reading anyway? I never posted a link to PeakOil.org or any other opinion.
Once again, I put "peak oil" in a blank Google search and linked the results. The search results included ALL current discussions on Peak Oil including those of the ignorant Bush administration. I DID NOT post a link to ANY specific opinion, I didn't not advocate any specific website, and I do not endorse any opinion on the implications of running out of oil OTHER THAN MY OWN.
Be aware of the end of cheap oil and plan accordingly. >>
Yours... Page 75 second post.
What was it exactly that you wanted us to read? You provided a link. I clicked on it. I found this...Apocalypse now: how mankind is sleepwalking to the end of the Earth. By providing a link to a website/newsletter, you are in fact advocating it. What other reason would you have for posting it? >>
There are more than 4,810,000 hits. It's not fair to blame him for each of these sites.
I'm sorry, you are wrong. Page 75 second post is a link to a Google search of "peak oil" and is NOT a link to a specific website. (Someone please verify this and explain it to Cohodk)
The site you're talking about is the third one listed on the search. There are also an article on the same search that says "Russia Proves Peak Oil is a Scam." which you apparently ignored. There are many sites devoted to the subject of peak oil and instead of advocating any one site, I LINKED A SIMPLE SEARCH.
By providing a link to a website/newsletter, you are in fact advocating it.
Oh BS, even if I did link a specific site I might simply be doing so to illustrate the absurdity of it. Why are you persisting in this nonsense argument after I clearly stated I did not advocate any specific opinion?
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
i just think the propaganda machine is aweful. most of these propaganda writers have something to sell such as a newletter, book or an investment. it's also sad that many get caught up in this gloom and doom. it's not a bad idea to store your nuts for a cold winter day, it's another thing to try to sell someone with fear. remember when people selling water filters were all over the place, they used fear tactics to sell their goods.
there are actually people who believe many of these newsletters like it was 100% truth. it's a shame, especially since the truth is often stretched to make their point as we previously saw with that AL Martin article.
Perhaps you should provide more clarification as to what it is exactly that you want us to look at. If you take me to a football game should I be watching the quarterback, the punter or the cheerleaders?
And stop banging your head against me I'm want to take a nap.
The point is that oil production will probably peak in the next several years. This can be disputed but it can't be disputed that this will have a dramatic impact on our way of life either directly or indirectly unless there is a major tecnological breakthrough before it happens. The infrastructure simply doesn't really exist to feed 6 billion people without oil. Indeed, there are many people who believe it's not possible to create this infrastruc- ture. There are huge stumbling blocks.
This doesn't mean this is the end times or that we can't make it through, but it certainly means that one way or another there will be dramatic changes over the next generation.
<< Nuclear Reactors produce alot of radioactive waste....where do we dispose of this...Nevada...the half life on some of this radioactive waste is hunderds of years and longer....how often do fuel rods need replaced...it has been tried...a China Syndrom or Three Mile Island or Chenoble...we do not need. >>
Simple, bury it under Yucca Mountain. As for Chernobyl or Three Mile Island-those both happened in FIRST generation nuclear reactors. Third generation reactors have been designed and are being used without problem in Japan. As with anything else, the first design is somewhat dangerous, but safety measures are added over time and efficiency is also improved. Third generation reactors are like nothing you can imagine. Only problem is our government is so sissified that we are unwilling to build any.
Let's dispose of the "That's-all-well-and-good-but-would-you-live-next-to-a-nuclear-plant argument. Yes I would. For two years I lived four blocks away from one. Nuclear reactors are many thousands of times safer than driving a car.
As another site says, Chernobyl and 3 Mile Isle are:
"These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 11,000 cumulative reactor-years of commercial operation in 32 countries. " http://www.uic.com.au/nip14.htm
Further, regarding waste:
"One important aspect of high-level waste disposal is the small quantities involved. The waste generated by one large nuclear power plant in one year and prepared for burial is about six cubic yards, roughly one truckload. This is two million times smaller by weight, and billion of times smaller by volume, than wastes from a coal plant." http://russp.org/BLC-4.html
I'd rather bury nuclear waste in a remote area than breathe in TWO MILLION TIMES as much waste in the air around me.
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
<< <i>The point is that oil production will probably peak in the next several years. This can be disputed but it can't be disputed that this will have a dramatic impact on our way of life either directly or indirectly unless there is a major tecnological breakthrough before it happens. The infrastructure simply doesn't really exist to feed 6 billion people without oil. Indeed, there are many people who believe it's not possible to create this infrastruc- ture. There are huge stumbling blocks.
This doesn't mean this is the end times or that we can't make it through, but it certainly means that one way or another there will be dramatic changes over the next generation. >>
Cladking- thanks for your usual well stated synopsis.
ddink- I agree with your observations about nuclear power. How many folks have died due to nuclear power in the US?-ZERO. Every year literally tens of thousands of american die from the pollution from coal powered plants, and thousands of children will have damaged brains from mercury pollution resulting from coal. Add to that global warming, and nuclear power looks like a much needed bridge to the post petrolium world. Burying one's head in the sand doesn't change the facts- if oil production has not yet peaked, it will soon. And yes, there are other sources of hydorcarbons, but they are expensive and dirty. And neither the Clinton nor Bush administartions have done anything real to address these issues. Don
The fact that coal supplies over half the US electricity can be found with simple google searches. "Sierra Club clean air" was the first one I happened to run across. Switching from coal to something else would take decades. This doesn't happen overnight. And as far as characterizing an entire industry by one person's experience at one particular plant, is hardly a story. Maybe one should do research themselves on the industry in question before coming to conclusions. Having spent 13 years in the management side of WTE plant Operations (and 10 years on Navy nuclear power plants) I have something to offer on the topic. Please reference particular questions and I'd be happy to refer you to links that will help you answer those.
Nuclear Power is the only way to go unless some future technology is only 10 years away. And I don't see that with our current govt and corporate controls. Those nasty nuke and coal plants produce most of the nation's electricity. If not for those, imagine where we'd be. The govt gave the largest and dirtiest of the coal plants a free ride from Clean Air Act upgrades (all WTE's were required to comply). Supposedly those large coal plants could not make such sweeping upgrades w/o breaking the bank. In any case many continue to operate per older emissions standards.
These discussions on Nuclear power are interesting, but there are a few problems with nukes that we might look at beyond the normal environmental problems. First, we must remember that because of the complexity of these plants it sometimes takes a decade to build and approved them. Second, I think many folks think that once you put the Uranium in the plant it just keeps going like the ever-ready bunny, that is not the case the uranium is used up in large amounts. Third, we are already using nukes to provide 20% of our current electric power in the U.S. Forth, with the entire world headed toward nuclear power we might have as little as a fifty year supply left of the worlds uranium. It appears that long-term nukes are not the solution to our energy problems and it may be that our electric utility bills will catch up quickly to our gasoline bills.
By Scott Wright July 4, 2005
New Uranium Bull “Let’s gather a high-level understanding of what it’s used for. Uranium is a chemical element extracted from ore bodies around the earth that when refined becomes a highly dense radioactive metal. When uranium ore is discovered and mined in sufficient quantities, it can be chemically converted into uranium dioxide and a variety of other chemical forms for industrial use. The most common use is for fuel in nuclear reactors, which is used to produce energy in the form of electricity.
Over the last 40+ years nuclear technology has demonstrated significant leaps in safety and scalability. The nuclear community has coined nuclear energy as “clean energy”, and truly has a case for such. It’s been tagged clean energy because unlike coal, gas and oil, it does not emit carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, or any other waste product into the atmosphere. Instead, the reactors burn the radioactive nuclear fuel generating massive amounts of heat in which the byproducts are reprocessed and recycled within the reactor.
Today there are 439 operational nuclear power reactors around the world and there are another 140+ either under construction, planned or proposed. In order to ramp up their future super-economies, India and China have highly escalated their nuclear programs and between the two of them are planning to build over 60 reactors over the next 15 years.
Did you know that in the United States there are 103 operational nuclear power reactors and it is estimated that they provide over 20% of this country’s electricity? There are 20 other first-world countries that also use nuclear power to generate at least one-fifth of their respective country’s electricity. France, Belgium, Sweden and several former Soviet Union countries use nuclear power for over 50% of their respective country’s electricity.
Just like most other commodities today, as the demand for uranium exceeds its supply, the price of uranium will drastically rise. As recent as early 2000, the spot price for uranium was hovering around $7 per pound. As of the most recent monthly spot quote, uranium is now trading at $29 per pound.
In 2004, total global uranium consumption was estimated at 180 million pounds. Of that 180 million pounds only 104 million pounds, or 58%, was supplied directly from mining. Since mining couldn’t keep up with demand, commercial, private and government stockpiles, along with recyclables from dismantled nuclear weapons were tapped and accounted for the difference. These stockpiles are swiftly dwindling.
The supply and demand anomaly we are seeing today will only get worse down the road. With China and India leading the way, demand is going to dwarf supply in the next 10, 20 and 30 years.
Of the 104 million pounds produced globally last year, approximately 80% of that was produced by only eight companies. The lion’s share of today’s uranium production is isolated to just a few regions around the world. Australia and Canada accounted for over 50% of the mined uranium last year.
The bottom line is not even today can uranium supply keep up with demand. In the future, it will be even more of a strain as secondary stockpiles dwindle and annual usage rises.”
<< <i>Third generation reactors are like nothing you can imagine. Only problem is our government is so sissified that we are unwilling to build any. >>
Or is there just too much money being made by powerful people keeping things the way they are?
Gold Saint, I vaguely remember "breeder reactors" during my training in the late 1970's. They produce fuel as they operate. I'm very rusty but maybe someone else can chime in. As I recall they were somewhat dirty. I'll do some googling next free minute I get. If not Uranium, then Plutonium and other metals might also be alternatives. TDN, do you recall any details on BR's?
"The breeding of plutonium fuel in FBRs [fast breeder reactors], known as the plutonium economy, was for a time believed to be the future of nuclear power. It remains the strategic direction of the power program of Japan. However cheap supplies of uranium and especially of enriched uranium have made current FBR technology uncompetitive with PWR and other thermal reactor designs. PWR designs remain the most common existing power reactor type and also represent most current proposals for new nuclear power stations." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
The concept is essentially this: normal nuclear reactors consume enriched Uranium, and there's only so much of that stuff to go around. However, all the nuetrons released by fission can be used to bombard non-fissionable materials, such as the non-fissionable Uranium 238. U238 accepts a neutron and becomes Plutonium 239, which of course is fissionable. Likewise, Thorium 232, which is non-fissionable, can be converted to the fissionable Uranium 233 when bombarded by neutrons. Breeder reactors are presently less popular, since Uranium fuel is so readily and cheaply available. In the event that Uranium is used faster than it can be mined, however, breeder reactors may well be key.
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
I thought this might be of interest. I received this email from a friend in Austin Texas who has semi retired. Part of his retirement scheme, since he did not have enough money to live on in the style in which he had become accustom, was to develop a new idea for a cooler for cold drinks. I won’t bore you with the details of the cooler, but here is part of what he sent.
These Cruzin Coolers are made in China to exacting specifications by our design team here in the US. People have asked over and over again, why China? China has very advanced facilities with state of the art machinery and trained personnel in making just this type of unit. There are huge cost savings over the US which makes the price of our units more cost effective for you the consumer. Some of the molding fees we received in the US are $500,000 just for one mold! In China the same mold can be made for just $35,000. These savings are passed along to the consumer.
Comments
<< <i>My family lives in Joplin and Monett and I haven't heard of the process your reporting but here in Tulsa the Trash to Energy was a huge flop. You seperated your garabage and paid more for them to pick it up to covert it to energy, they couldn't make it with a front end load but I'd be interested in reading about the process. Any links? >>
company
article
<< <i>Not to argue the point but in the era of converting coal to oil happened when this country was young and we didn’t really relay on energy as a whole. >>
My point was just trying to put a little optimism into this thread by saying that we know what is coming and that we are not definitely heading for a worldwide crisis. Although that is possible we have proven great at adapting throughout history I don't see any reason why industry is doomed not to be able to adapt to a non oil dependacy.
A gradual change works fine in theory but in practice it's impossible. Remember the 1973 oil crisis? Gas lines? Rationing? Odd/even days? Many people here wern't even born then but I remember it just fine. Here's what the supply dip looked like. (it's the tiny dip in the graph, the large dip after 1980 was a reduction in DEMAND with record low oil prices not a reduction in supply. Peak oil is always a supply crisis)
A very tiny reduction in supply created a huge effect on our economy and our way of life. This was the test case, the new crisis is going to resemble the one in 1973 except for the fact that it will never end.
Also of good news this morning was the report that import prices excluding oil were down 0.4% in June.
An interesting viewpoint on the jsmineset.com website reasoned that repatrioted corporate profits could alone acount for $10-20 Billion in one time revenues (window closes in Oct 2005). Since this won't be a continuing revenue stream the trade deficit will widen by another $10-20 billion. A $2 BILLION difference in govt accounting is essentially zero with the math they use.
Don't think I buy coal as a non-issue in the energy markets.
There are a large number of coal plants throughout the heartland of the US that produce a huge number of MW. The electricity from coal exceeds nuclear energy....as coal handles the MAJORITY of the electricity needs in the U.S. There are barely 100 nuke plants in the US....same number of Waste to Energy Plants.
My family lives in Joplin and Monett and I haven't heard of the process your reporting but here in Tulsa the Trash to Energy was a huge flop. You seperated your garabage and paid more for them to pick it up to covert it to energy, they couldn't make it with a front end load. Nice link.
I work in the Waste-to-Energy industry and I can assure you that the Tulsa, OK WTE project is not necessarily representative of the market in general. So many of the 100 or so WTE projects nationwide depend heavily on their community contracts that they are often the primary indicator of the project's success or failure.
The Client (CRRA) linked to the largest WTE plant in Connecticut initially suffered under the collapse of Enron to the tune of $220 million. Fortunately they recovered $113 million of that so far. Had this not happened the tipping rates would have jumped 30% or so to keep that WTE project viable. And that project handles the majority of towns in Connecticut. The cost would have been passed on to the taxpayers of the towns serviced by that facility. Fortunately this did not happen and the rates have stayed reasonable. Here's an instance were politics and deals could have made a worthwhile facility a "burden" in the eyes of many of the state's taxpayers.
I'm not sure what the reasoning is impley that all WTE plants have "issues" but they have a proven 15-20 year track record as a very successful alternative for 90% waste reduction (and with renewable energy output) with emissions far, far lower than coal plants. Most, if not all WTE's are compliant with the Clean Air standards while many older coal plants couldn't come close if required to comply. 85% of the nation's waste is still landfilled through about 6000+ facilities. WTE plants handle about 15% of the nation's waste. Thank heavens for all the open space in places like PA, WV, etc. to dump your waste in. It won't last forever.
Just remember that when you hook up your electric car to the battery charger at night, that some dirty, NOxious COal plant in the midwest is supplying the extra electricity needed to make that happen. Welcome to "cleaner" air my friends (lol). Also remember that it takes something like 25 tons of mined ore (as I recall) to produce one new car (electric or gas). And once again, a dirty coal plant is supplying lots of electricity to help that operation along.
roadrunner
<< <i>A gradual change works fine in theory but in practice it's impossible. Remember the 1973 oil crisis? Gas lines? Rationing? Odd/even days? Many people here wern't even born then but I remember it just fine. Here's what the supply dip looked like. >>
That's if you're predicting a major production dip. I don't see that, I just see rising oil prices and the probable ruin of the Alaska wildlife reserve. Right now we don't greatly use or try develop alternative energy sources because it's just cheaper to use oil, as oil prices rise it will become cheaper to use/develop alternative energy bringing the change. If you don't foresee us being able to power the world with new and alternative energy sources then yes it will be chaos, but I do.
I work in the Waste-to-Energy industry and I can assure you that the Tulsa, OK WTE project is not necessarily representative of the market in general. So many of the 100 or so WTE projects nationwide depend heavily on their community contracts that they are often the primary indicator of the project's success or failure.
The largest WTE plant in Connecticut suffered under the collapse of Enron to the tune of $220 million. Fortunately they recovered $113 million of that so far. Had this not happened the tipping rates would have jumped 30% or so to keep the project viable. The cost would have been passed on to you and me. Fortunately this has not happened and the rates have stayed reasonable. Here's an instance were politics and deals could have made a worthwhile facility a burden to many of the state's taxpayers.
I'm not sure what your reasoning is for the WTE bashing but it is a very successful alternative for 90% waste reduction (and with renewable energy output) with emissions far, far lower than coal plants. Most, if not all WTE's are compliant with the Clean Air standards while many older coal plants couldn't come close if required to comply. 85% of the nation's waste is still landfilled through about 6000+ facilities. WTE plants handle about 15% of the nation's waste. Thank heavens for all the open space in places like PA, WV, etc. to dump your waste in. It won't last forever.
roadrunner >>
Not sure why you consider my post a bash since it's the truth. Just trying to find out more. Did I not state that we'll have all kinds of solutions for energy? The Tulsa plant closed long before $40,$50, or $60 oil. But it sucked on what hoops they made you jump though to be a member all at a higher cost to take away your trash....go figure. I live in Ollogah which is about a mile from a PSO coal plant here and it's very clean, this isn't the minus 70's technology . Although I can't claim I'm carrying there tourch since I don't work for either of them.
I guess we'll see if someone from the coal industry bashes you for your statement that "older plants" couldn't come close to compling. This is the 21 century and old plants must be upgraded. Hauling trash from big cities to "Anywhere" USA would not only be smelly and costly but not practical. If you live in or near the BIG city it may prove to be a partial solution. Unlike you I'm not tied to an Oil company (any longer), WTE, or coal so I call it like I see it. Instead of bashing me or others (a popular game on this board) post your data. I'm quite sure I'm wrong but you've proved nothing with your post and lack of proof.
Steam methane reforming: In this process, high-temperature steam is used to extract hydrogen from a methane source such as natural gas. This is the most common method of producing hydrogen; about 95 percent of the hydrogen we use today in the United States is produced using this process.
Hydrogen Delivery
Since it can be produced from several sources and using various methods, hydrogen can be produced at large production plants and transported to users, or it can be produced locally, using small generators, possibly at refueling stations, eliminating the need for long-distance transport. Hydrogen is currently transported by road via cylinders, tube trailers, cryogenic tankers, and in pipelines, although hydrogen pipelines currently exist in only a few regions of the United States. The delivery infrastructure for hydrogen will require high-pressure compressors for gaseous hydrogen and liquefaction for cryogenic hydrogen; both currently have significant capital and operating costs and energy inefficiencies associated with them. DOE supports research focused on developing advanced technologies to improve the energy efficiency, durability, and reliability of these technologies.
Fuel cells are an important enabling technology for the hydrogen economy and have the potential to revolutionize the way we power our nation, offering cleaner, more-efficient alternatives to the combustion of gasoline and other fossil fuels. Fuel cells have the potential to replace the internal combustion engine in vehicles and provide power in stationary and portable power applications because they are energy-efficient, clean, and fuel-flexible. Hydrogen or any hydrogen-rich fuel can be used by this emerging technology.
DOE is working closely with its national laboratories, universities, and industry partners to overcome critical technical barriers to fuel cell commercialization. Current R&D focuses on the development of reliable, low-cost, high-performance fuel cell system components for transportation and buildings applications.
This is a big IF. Nuclear is probably the only legitimate way to make this work. A nuclear power plant can create electricity which in turn can create hydrogen from water via electrolysis. Photovoltaic can work too, but on a much smaller scale. Stripping hydrogen ions off of natural gas is pointless because you lose more energy than if you simply burned the natural gas in place of hydrogen.
Fine.....then hydrogen cannot be obtained and cannot be used to fuel your car so it's pointless even bringing it up. When fossil fuels run out and we have no alternatives, perhaps you'll change your mind.
I think there's a lot of denial concerning peak oil. When a decision has to be made to destroy the environment or starve, humans will destroy the environment. We'll kill every last whale and cook it for oil if it means survival for one more year. People who oppose nuclear energy simply don't understand the context that we're dealing with here. Nuclear is probably the only rational replacement for oil, and it's a poor one at that.
APC 89.70
SU 50.84
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
United States coal reserves are at about 500 billion tons. AT CURRENT CONSUMPTION LEVELS this will last the United States about 300 years. If we start using all our coal to produce gasoline, you can forget about that 300 year number.
Also remember China and the growing world population. Demand for fossil fuel will not stop growing until the population of the world stops growing. Humans don't simply die quietly while the richest country on the planet enjoys it's huge coal reserves. You can expect more war and terrorism, and economic shockwaves from other countries as they suffer from lack of energy.
08:35 ET
Great News! Core CPI 0.1%, Sales Up Big: June core CPI was up just 0.1%. A 0.2% gain had been expected. The past three months are now 0.0%, 0.1%, and 0.1%. That is a very encouraging trend after the higher inflation data in the first quarter.
The total CPI was unchanged, which also excellent, and lower than the expected 0.3% increase.
There is more good news. June retail sales surged 1.7%. This was in part caused by the surge in auto sales on the GM "employee discount" pricing program. However, excluding autos, the increase was 0.7%, which is also very good and above expectations of a 0.5% increase.
Low inflation and strong sales. It doesn't get much better than this. The low inflation numbers are particularly important as they underscore that inflation is well contained.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
You brave for shorting into an uptrend.
<< <i>You brave for shorting into an uptrend. >>
Thats what I get paid for
So far APC is 86.80 down $2.90
and SU is 49.01 down $1.83
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Well, hel, now what do I do...?
I was wondering "Where do these guys come from?" then I thought about something about the news/newsletter business. DOG BITES MAN is not a story...MAN BITES DOG is a story, MAN BITES A BIG PINK DOG WITH A HORN, IS A GOOD STORY.
you guys are getting a worse. everyone has an agenda, don't forget to buy the book or sign up for more doom and gloom newsletters.
ttown...your answer below:
http://english.people.com.cn/200507/01/eng20050701_193636.html
<< <i>
-Again, cultivate a brain, develop some morals and then make comments.
-Time to brush up on your reading skills.
What was your name again?
-I won't even reply to that nameless jerk off.
Tom >>
nice attitude tom. no wonder no one likes you.
<< <i>This is not a recommendation or advice but I am shorting OIL related stocks RIGHT NOW.
APC 89.70
SU 50.84 >>
Actually I've been selling oil stocks for about 3 weeks now. I was a little top heavy in them and am shorting them waiting for the price to drop. I still have about 500 shares of BP. I'll start getting back in at around $60 or selling 100 shares at a time for every dollar above $67. I don't think I have to worry about selling anymore unless something big happens to shake the market and you never know.
<< <i>AL Martin
you guys are getting a worse. everyone has an agenda, don't forget to buy the book or sign up for more doom and gloom newsletters. >>
GREAT RESEARCH CSCOIN!!!!!
This interview was in MAY 2005 not 2004.
The market was down 44 when the interview started and down 45 when it was over. Yeah...he really rattled the markets.
This just nails the lid on the coffin that all these links being posted about the end of the world are a crock of poop.
Yes...the US has some socio-economic problems. We have had them before. BFD We'll get thru them as we always have. Was the depression the end of the world. No. Did people get hurt..Yes. Well folks that just the way it is. It is called evolution. Focus on one's own problems, solve them, and you will live happily ever after. Stop worring about what your neighbor is doing. Do for yourself. Stop begging for help. Help yourself.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
I don't read newsletters. I don't cite other opinions. That's why I put "peak oil" in a google search and simply linked the results. All the data is there and anyone can read the numbers to reach their own conclusions.
- No one knows if global warming will kill us.
- No one knows if an asteroid is going to destroy the planet.
- No one knows if terrorists will find a nuclear weapon and start World War III.
- No one knows if HIV will mutate into an airborne strain and exterminate the species.
- EVERYONE who has an informed opinion on the subject admits we will reach peak oil in the very near future. The government, the oil industry, the policy makers, EVERYONE. It's a proven fact so write it down. We used up all the oil and now we need to find substitutes or watch the progress of civilization decline in an accelerating spiral. This isn't doomsday, this isn't hype, this isn't spin, this is truth. If denied now, the facts will still be forced on you down the road when the gas station closes.
No one knows how bad this is going to screw up the planet, but it's easy to predict that our economy will suffer. Simply factor in the cost of oil and watch the GDP fall. The richest and smartest men in the world are in crisis mode and that fact shouldn't be ignored. As usual, the talking heads on CNBC and the perma-bulls who predicted a dow at 30,000 are going to be wrong and are going to take a large number of Americans down the tubes with them.
<< <i>
<< <i>This is not a recommendation or advice but I am shorting OIL related stocks RIGHT NOW.
APC 89.70
SU 50.84 >>
Actually I've been selling oil stocks for about 3 weeks now. I was a little top heavy in them and am shorting them waiting for the price to drop. I still have about 500 shares of BP. I'll start getting back in at around $60 or selling 100 shares at a time for every dollar above $67. I don't think I have to worry about selling anymore unless something big happens to shake the market and you never know. >>
I am not predicting the end of the oil run (perhaps)......my indicators are just screeming that a short term top as appeared.
BP looks like it might be making a double top...It is way too early to tell. the stock would have to trade under 56 to confirm this. That would already be a 15% return for a short seller. However it is interesting to note that Chevron and Exxon failed to hit new highs even though oil did. Money has been leaving the large oil co's for about 4 months now.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
No one is predicting the end of the world. I'm predicting an economic depression followed by a devaluation of the dollar and a recovery.
But how did you determine that all these doom and gloom predictions were false? Because the stock market is slightly up in the last couple of weeks? Ask yourself this question: If the DOW goes to 12,000 in 2006 then falls to 5000 by 2008, who was right and who was wrong? Judging long term economic predictions by the day to day movement of the market is absurd.
Huh? What then? Huh?
See!
That would be in about 4 billion years. Make your vacation plans early.
Peak oil either has occured already (we can't know until a couple of years after the fact) or it will come sometime in the next 30. Nothing can stop it and conservation can only delay it. Developing countries like China will only make it worse. This is not science fiction, this is really happening.
don't read newsletters. I don't cite other opinions. That's why I put "peak oil" in a google search and simply linked the results. All the data is there and anyone can read the numbers to reach their own conclusions.
These are your posts. I click on PEAKOIL.ORG and this is in bold print...Apocalypse now: how mankind is sleepwalking to the end of the Earth
Exactly what is that you want us to see? Why bother posting a link to such biased opinion? You truely believe that the economy is in trouble and lots of people will get hurt. Thats fine. And in certain cases I even agree with you. Can the DOW go to 8000? You better believe it can. But I think it would be more profitable and reasoned to educate people on how they can protect themselves and profit from it. Links like PEAKOIL.ORG just scare people...and scared people make bad decisions.
Judging long term economic predictions by the day to day movement of the market is absurd
I cant agree more. However predicting anything long term is absurd. It is hard enough trying to figure out what is going to happen in 5 min let alone 5 years.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Who's posts were you reading anyway? I never posted a link to PeakOil.org or any other opinion.
Once again, I put "peak oil" in a blank Google search and linked the results. The search results included ALL current discussions on Peak Oil including those of the ignorant Bush administration. I DID NOT post a link to ANY specific opinion, I didn't not advocate any specific website, and I do not endorse any opinion on the implications of running out of oil OTHER THAN MY OWN.
Be aware of the end of cheap oil and plan accordingly.
<< <i>Why bother posting a link to such biased opinion?
Who's posts were you reading anyway? I never posted a link to PeakOil.org or any other opinion.
Once again, I put "peak oil" in a blank Google search and linked the results. The search results included ALL current discussions on Peak Oil including those of the ignorant Bush administration. I DID NOT post a link to ANY specific opinion, I didn't not advocate any specific website, and I do not endorse any opinion on the implications of running out of oil OTHER THAN MY OWN.
Be aware of the end of cheap oil and plan accordingly. >>
Yours... Page 75 second post.
What was it exactly that you wanted us to read? You provided a link. I clicked on it. I found this...Apocalypse now: how mankind is sleepwalking to the end of the Earth.
By providing a link to a website/newsletter, you are in fact advocating it. What other reason would you have for posting it?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>
<< <i>Why bother posting a link to such biased opinion?
Who's posts were you reading anyway? I never posted a link to PeakOil.org or any other opinion.
Once again, I put "peak oil" in a blank Google search and linked the results. The search results included ALL current discussions on Peak Oil including those of the ignorant Bush administration. I DID NOT post a link to ANY specific opinion, I didn't not advocate any specific website, and I do not endorse any opinion on the implications of running out of oil OTHER THAN MY OWN.
Be aware of the end of cheap oil and plan accordingly. >>
Yours... Page 75 second post.
What was it exactly that you wanted us to read? You provided a link. I clicked on it. I found this...Apocalypse now: how mankind is sleepwalking to the end of the Earth.
By providing a link to a website/newsletter, you are in fact advocating it. What other reason would you have for posting it? >>
There are more than 4,810,000 hits. It's not fair to blame him for each of these sites.
The site you're talking about is the third one listed on the search. There are also an article on the same search that says "Russia Proves Peak Oil is a Scam." which you apparently ignored. There are many sites devoted to the subject of peak oil and instead of advocating any one site, I LINKED A SIMPLE SEARCH.
By providing a link to a website/newsletter, you are in fact advocating it.
Oh BS, even if I did link a specific site I might simply be doing so to illustrate the absurdity of it. Why are you persisting in this nonsense argument after I clearly stated I did not advocate any specific opinion?
there are actually people who believe many of these newsletters like it was 100% truth. it's a shame, especially since the truth is often stretched to make their point as we previously saw with that AL Martin article.
And stop banging your head against me
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
be disputed but it can't be disputed that this will have a dramatic impact on our way of
life either directly or indirectly unless there is a major tecnological breakthrough before
it happens. The infrastructure simply doesn't really exist to feed 6 billion people without
oil. Indeed, there are many people who believe it's not possible to create this infrastruc-
ture. There are huge stumbling blocks.
This doesn't mean this is the end times or that we can't make it through, but it certainly
means that one way or another there will be dramatic changes over the next generation.
Nuclear Reactors produce alot of radioactive waste....where do we dispose of this...Nevada...the half life on some of this radioactive waste is hunderds of years and longer....how often do fuel rods need replaced...it has been tried...a China Syndrom or Three Mile Island or Chenoble...we do not need.
>>
Simple, bury it under Yucca Mountain. As for Chernobyl or Three Mile Island-those both happened in FIRST generation nuclear reactors. Third generation reactors have been designed and are being used without problem in Japan. As with anything else, the first design is somewhat dangerous, but safety measures are added over time and efficiency is also improved. Third generation reactors are like nothing you can imagine. Only problem is our government is so sissified that we are unwilling to build any.
Let's dispose of the "That's-all-well-and-good-but-would-you-live-next-to-a-nuclear-plant argument. Yes I would. For two years I lived four blocks away from one. Nuclear reactors are many thousands of times safer than driving a car.
As another site says, Chernobyl and 3 Mile Isle are:
"These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 11,000 cumulative reactor-years of commercial operation in 32 countries. "
http://www.uic.com.au/nip14.htm
Further, regarding waste:
"One important aspect of high-level waste disposal is the small quantities involved. The waste generated by one large nuclear power plant in one year and prepared for burial is about six cubic yards, roughly one truckload. This is two million times smaller by weight, and billion of times smaller by volume, than wastes from a coal plant."
http://russp.org/BLC-4.html
I'd rather bury nuclear waste in a remote area than breathe in TWO MILLION TIMES as much waste in the air around me.
<< <i>The point is that oil production will probably peak in the next several years. This can
be disputed but it can't be disputed that this will have a dramatic impact on our way of
life either directly or indirectly unless there is a major tecnological breakthrough before
it happens. The infrastructure simply doesn't really exist to feed 6 billion people without
oil. Indeed, there are many people who believe it's not possible to create this infrastruc-
ture. There are huge stumbling blocks.
This doesn't mean this is the end times or that we can't make it through, but it certainly
means that one way or another there will be dramatic changes over the next generation. >>
Cladking- thanks for your usual well stated synopsis.
ddink-
I agree with your observations about nuclear power. How many folks have died due to nuclear power in the US?-ZERO. Every year literally tens of thousands of american die from the pollution from coal powered plants, and thousands of children will have damaged brains from mercury pollution resulting from coal. Add to that global warming, and nuclear power looks like a much needed bridge to the post petrolium world. Burying one's head in the sand doesn't change the facts- if oil production has not yet peaked, it will soon. And yes, there are other sources of hydorcarbons, but they are expensive and dirty. And neither the Clinton nor Bush administartions have done anything real to address these issues.
Don
plant Operations (and 10 years on Navy nuclear power plants) I have something to offer on the topic. Please reference particular questions and I'd be happy to refer you to links that will help you answer those.
Nuclear Power is the only way to go unless some future technology is only 10 years away. And I don't see that with our current govt
and corporate controls. Those nasty nuke and coal plants produce most of the nation's electricity. If not for those, imagine where we'd be. The govt gave the largest and dirtiest of the coal plants a free ride from Clean Air Act upgrades (all WTE's were required to comply).
Supposedly those large coal plants could not make such sweeping upgrades w/o breaking the bank. In any case many continue to operate per older emissions standards.
roadrunner
By Scott Wright
July 4, 2005
New Uranium Bull
“Let’s gather a high-level understanding of what it’s used for. Uranium is a chemical element extracted from ore bodies around the earth that when refined becomes a highly dense radioactive metal. When uranium ore is discovered and mined in sufficient quantities, it can be chemically converted into uranium dioxide and a variety of other chemical forms for industrial use. The most common use is for fuel in nuclear reactors, which is used to produce energy in the form of electricity.
Over the last 40+ years nuclear technology has demonstrated significant leaps in safety and scalability. The nuclear community has coined nuclear energy as “clean energy”, and truly has a case for such. It’s been tagged clean energy because unlike coal, gas and oil, it does not emit carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, or any other waste product into the atmosphere. Instead, the reactors burn the radioactive nuclear fuel generating massive amounts of heat in which the byproducts are reprocessed and recycled within the reactor.
Today there are 439 operational nuclear power reactors around the world and there are another 140+ either under construction, planned or proposed. In order to ramp up their future super-economies, India and China have highly escalated their nuclear programs and between the two of them are planning to build over 60 reactors over the next 15 years.
Did you know that in the United States there are 103 operational nuclear power reactors and it is estimated that they provide over 20% of this country’s electricity? There are 20 other first-world countries that also use nuclear power to generate at least one-fifth of their respective country’s electricity. France, Belgium, Sweden and several former Soviet Union countries use nuclear power for over 50% of their respective country’s electricity.
Just like most other commodities today, as the demand for uranium exceeds its supply, the price of uranium will drastically rise. As recent as early 2000, the spot price for uranium was hovering around $7 per pound. As of the most recent monthly spot quote, uranium is now trading at $29 per pound.
In 2004, total global uranium consumption was estimated at 180 million pounds. Of that 180 million pounds only 104 million pounds, or 58%, was supplied directly from mining. Since mining couldn’t keep up with demand, commercial, private and government stockpiles, along with recyclables from dismantled nuclear weapons were tapped and accounted for the difference. These stockpiles are swiftly dwindling.
The supply and demand anomaly we are seeing today will only get worse down the road. With China and India leading the way, demand is going to dwarf supply in the next 10, 20 and 30 years.
Of the 104 million pounds produced globally last year, approximately 80% of that was produced by only eight companies. The lion’s share of today’s uranium production is isolated to just a few regions around the world. Australia and Canada accounted for over 50% of the mined uranium last year.
The bottom line is not even today can uranium supply keep up with demand. In the future, it will be even more of a strain as secondary stockpiles dwindle and annual usage rises.”
<< <i>Third generation reactors are like nothing you can imagine. Only problem is our government is so sissified that we are unwilling to build any. >>
Or is there just too much money being made by powerful people keeping things the way they are?
fuel as they operate. I'm very rusty but maybe someone else can chime in. As I recall they were somewhat
dirty. I'll do some googling next free minute I get. If not Uranium, then Plutonium and other metals might also be alternatives. TDN, do you recall any details on BR's?
roadrunner
"The breeding of plutonium fuel in FBRs [fast breeder reactors], known as the plutonium economy, was for a time believed to be the future of nuclear power. It remains the strategic direction of the power program of Japan. However cheap supplies of uranium and especially of enriched uranium have made current FBR technology uncompetitive with PWR and other thermal reactor designs. PWR designs remain the most common existing power reactor type and also represent most current proposals for new nuclear power stations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
The concept is essentially this: normal nuclear reactors consume enriched Uranium, and there's only so much of that stuff to go around. However, all the nuetrons released by fission can be used to bombard non-fissionable materials, such as the non-fissionable Uranium 238. U238 accepts a neutron and becomes Plutonium 239, which of course is fissionable. Likewise, Thorium 232, which is non-fissionable, can be converted to the fissionable Uranium 233 when bombarded by neutrons. Breeder reactors are presently less popular, since Uranium fuel is so readily and cheaply available. In the event that Uranium is used faster than it can be mined, however, breeder reactors may well be key.
These Cruzin Coolers are made in China to exacting specifications by our design team here in the US. People have asked over and over again, why China?
China has very advanced facilities with state of the art machinery and trained personnel in making just this type of unit. There are huge cost savings over the US which makes the price of our units more cost effective for you the consumer.
Some of the molding fees we received in the US are $500,000 just for one mold! In China the same mold can be made for just $35,000. These savings are passed along to the consumer.
<< <i>These savings are passed along to the consumer. >>
Only to the extend needed to slightly underprice their nearest competitor. The rest of the savings get pocketed
Yes I am sure that is true.
Who knows what will happen if we ever pass a 27% tariff on China?
Will guys like this have to pay the tariff to bring goods back here?