Goodbye ANWR, Hello Nukes

The American Enterprise Online ^ | 3/6/05 | William Tucker

[2nd Bn, 11th Mar]

New oilfields are only half the answer. We need to increase refining capacity as well.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Most of the little tea kettles closed a long time ago. Big refineries are getting bigger and the owners of these plants are the first to object when new refineries are proposed.

[Marauder]

Bump for later read.

[kellynla]

BTTT

[dead]

Last August, Fortune magazine ran a cover story entitled, "How to Kick the Oil Habit." Incredibly, the 5,000-world article did not once mention nuclear power.

That is incredible.

[P8riot]

Nuclear power can be extremely efficient. I was a nuclear power plant operator on Nimitz class carriers. On one ship we calculated our fuel usage rate at over 8,000 Nautical Miles per gram. With improvements in fuel loading and core design it can be even better.

[finnman69]

See this article about hybrid cars and expensive gasoline

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1378468/posts
Hybrid-Car Tinkerers Scoff at No-Plug-In Rule

[JustAnAmerican]

I for one am all for ANWR because, as I have been told, it will decrease our dependence on foreign oil. However I heard something today that hopefully someone here can clear up for me. The Alaska Pipeline goes to northern Alaska, Oil drilled in Alaska will use this pipeline for transport.

And from what I have heard so far, all of the oil in the Alaska Pipeline is sold to users outside the United States. So other then Oil companies making more money, how the h*ll are we going to reduce our dependence on Foreign(Read Opec) oil this way?

[68skylark]

Is the ANWR debate really over? After all the decades of arguments, it's hard to imagine that this has now been settled. If so, it's great news.

[Little Pig]

Nuclear power for the grid(s), and two words for mechanized transportation: methane clathrates.

[iopscusa]

It's time for this country to reinvent the whole energy system to include all sources; oil, nuclear, hydrogen...how about some incentives on taxes for new inventors and R&D, the Hewlett Packards and Edisons of today....that is where the breakthroughs will come from and forget about any new Guv.Orgs.

[68skylark]

As I understand it, oil is "fungible." The world oil market is like a giant bathtub -- produces put oil in and consumers take oil out. Increasing the supplies will help lower prices. But it's expensive (and counter-productive) to try to use export or import controls to control which oil source goes to which country.

[delacoert]

Such shifts have occurred throughout history. We turned to kerosene lanterns after 1860 because whale oil was getting scarce. When oil supplies thin out, we may get a boost from natural gas. But natural gas supplies are also limited, which means we must eventually turn to running our cars on electricity or hydrogen generated from electricity.

And we get hydrogen from where? Oh yeah from fossil fuel... never mind.

[Valin]

And from what I have heard so far, all of the oil in the Alaska Pipeline is sold to users outside the United States. So other then Oil companies making more money, how the h*ll are we going to reduce our dependence on Foreign(Read Opec) oil this way?

Yes it does. Remember it's a small world, and there is (for all practical purposes) one pool for oil. The more oil there is in the pool the cheaper it is. The days are long past (if they ever existed) where one nation could go it alone. We are never going to be "Energy independant" if by that you mean we won't import any oil, we (the whole world) are a petroleum based civilization.

[Valin]

I was talking to a guy the other day about the price of gas. He wanted us to use more ethanol, I pointed out that it takes 2 gals.(?) of gas to make 1 gal. of ethanol, and that pound for pound Gasoline is the best source of enery, you get the most bang for your buck.

[Cicero]

ANWR was amply justified, but relatively speaking it's a drop in the bucket.

There's nothing wrong with exporting Alaskan Oil and importing oil to some other part of the country if that works out most efficiently. It all balances out.

But this article is correctamundo. There's no substitute for nuclear power in the foreseeable future. And there's a long lead time to plan and build, so we really should be starting in on this NOW.

Vehicles can be hydrogen powered. But hydrogen can only be usefully produced by hydrolizing water with electrical power. And that means more nuclear power for the electrical grid. There's no alternative, because the other "alternate" power sources will never contribute more than 2 or 3 percent of what we need.

[SampleMan]

Oil is a commodity. Thus, unless supply is cut off (war) burning our own oil vs. someone else's oil doesn't bring down the cost one cent.

Total supply / Total demand = Price

Adding ANWR would increase our war reserve and/or increase total supply.

A side note is that increased domestic production (war reserve) provides some leverage to hold down prices. OPEC must keep in mind our ability to produce or purchase elsewhere (Russia), before they go too radical.

Build new, pebbliest reactors throughout the U.S. Make them safe from attack or accident (pebble-beds are impossible to melt down) and design and market very small two-person commuting cars to augment the family cruiser. I've bee west of the Pecos and throughout Nevada and I think God made that land just for the purpose of burying nuclear waste.

[foreverfree]

bump

[Outlaw76]

" I've bee west of the Pecos and throughout Nevada and I think God made that land just for the purpose of burying nuclear waste."

Can I hear a hell yeah? I knew I could.
After my very first drive across the high desert of California through Arizona and New Mexico I wondered why in the hell we had problems with land fills and getting rid of nuke waste. Never seen a better place for burying stuff and forgetting about it.