Posted on 08/22/2005 10:23:33 AM PDT by BulletBobCo
Last week, a disgruntled consumer expressed frustration to a stranger at a gas station on Silas Deane Highway in Wethersfield: "Would you believe I paid 10 cents a gallon less only yesterday? This is outrageous. Is this why we sent our soldiers to Iraq?"
As gas prices have reached $2.60 per gallon and beyond, there is anger in the land. There is also confusion. It's as if the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was supposed to produce cheap oil for the world's biggest user of fossil fuels. It's also as if Americans are entitled to cheap oil.
Turmoil in the Middle East is not the reason for high oil prices. If there is blame, ascribe it to the rise of India, China and other former Third World nations as economic powerhouses. Their appetite for petroleum to fuel their industrial engines is huge.
Inadequate refinery capacity is also a cause for the price crunch. But, foremost, we should look at ourselves in searching for who is to blame. Americans' lifestyles tell the story of a nation that is by far the biggest consumer of oil. We use at least one-quarter of the oil produced in the world, most of it imported.
When supplies are short, producers naturally have the upper hand. Oil-producing countries and oil companies are enjoying windfalls, while consumers have been asked to grin and bear it. So far, users have paid more and more, although there's been grumbling along the way.
Experts are predicting $3 per gallon prices by December. That's still less than consumers pay in most other developed countries, goes one argument. True, but Americans are far more dependent on oil products than people in industrial Europe and Asia.
Fuel-conserving vehicles are omnipresent in much of the world, with the notable exception of the U.S. If Chinese and Indian families required as much gas and oil to run their households and businesses as we do, the world would not have enough energy to meet the global demand.
One superficially comforting thought is that oil prices, high as they are, are still lower in constant dollars than they were in the early 1980s. Yes, but that threshold, which is about $3.30 per gallon, could easily be reached at the current rate of price ascent.
The wonder of it is that the galloping prices haven't led - yet - to skyrocketing inflation. Many producers of goods and services have absorbed the shocks without passing on much of it to consumers. But that cannot last. If the price push continues, inflation is likely to raise its ugly head.
We have it on no less an authority than President Bush, who said earlier this month that the massive energy bill he signed wouldn't bring down the cost of energy in the foreseeable future. He's right.
More ominously, gas lines due to supply shortages could return, as they already have in some parts of the world.
What can be done?
Our leaders should push their constituents much harder to conserve. The new energy bill pays lip service to conservation, possibly because being more aggressive would require sacrifice and invite a political backlash.
The bill contains incentives for developers of alternative fuels, but not nearly enough. Conspicuously absent from the legislation is language aimed at improved fuel efficiency from manufacturers of motor vehicles.
The centerpiece of the federal strategy is to extract more fossil fuels from the ground and oceans, even if that means environmental despoilment. Also, nuclear power is making a comeback, even though its development is very expensive.
It shouldn't take a seer to figure out that pumping our way out of the problem is no lasting solution. Americans should be prepared to pay higher prices until they show a better energy ethic. We remain unwilling to demand more from ourselves by way of conservation and more from our leaders by way of development of alternative fuels.
Preparing for a safe and prosperous future requires a massive national research and development effort now. The effort should rival American taxpayers' historic investment in space exploration.
I think it will be coming soon. We are having a record year at 2500 mw of new wind power this year.
What you fail to mention is that anytime you convert energy from one source to another, some of your energy must be lost (2nd law of thermodynamics). This is typically not significant unless you are converting thermal energy into electrical or mechanical energy (where you are lucky to get 35% efficiency). Another thing you failed to mention is that the machines that use and store different types of energy must be designed differently. Each of these has significant consequences.
In the case of hydrogen, the energy density for storing it as a gas is too low. This is why most fuel cells that use hydrogen as a fuel also have a reformer stage where they convert a hydrocarbon into hydrogen. In general, fuel cells are designed for a clean hydrocarbon. This is for both the economics (the same energy from oil is cheaper than electricity) and the energy density issue (noone wants to refill their car every 250 miles on the highway when they were getting 400 miles). The obvious solution is to store hydrogen as a liquid, but noone wants to drive a car with a very large bomb attached.
Hydrogen is also completely unsuitable for our current fuel transportation infrastructure. From both a materials science perspective and from a strictly engineering perspective, hydrogen is a nightmare to transfer across significant distances. The best solution again would be to make it a liquid, but that is still a safety nightmare.
I see a couple of scenarios developing: 1) the PEM-type fuel cell becomes economical which would drastically reduce (but not eliminate) our need for oil, 2) electric vehicles become common, 3) biodiesel and ethanol takes off, or 4) an armored cryogenic gas tank is designed that would allow people to feel safe using a liquid-hydrogen vehicle. In no case do I see our hydrogen economy as currently designed being successful.
>>>You are not entitled to cheap energy and energy companies are entitled to a respectable percentage profit on their revenues.>>>
You are correct. YOU, however, are entitled to live in a country with a crippled economy due to excess oil profits.
Yeah, but if you go back 25 years it was at 18.6 million bbd.
and our consumption was 17.1 million bbd.
So today we have to import refined product because, although we're consuming 20.4 million bbd, we only have capacity to refine 16.9 million bbd.
We haven't built for the future and it's not a pretty picture.
Considering the costs and enviro issues of land-based nuke plants, I wonder why power companies don't work with the US Navy to build floating nuclear power plants like those in their ships/subs, including the desal capabilities. For coastal urban areas, of course, a nice little baseload power/water source - portable, too!
i've tried that with my grandma (despises Republicans) and she says it all goes to bush and his oil buddies. i kinda end it there, bc, well, it's essentially useless
Who builds refineries? Oil companies.
Who is earning record profits in the current environment? Oil companies.
Likelihood that you are going to see requests for new refineries? Small. The risks of adding capacity at this time apparently outweigh the benefits for the oil companies.
I don't begrudge them their profits, just pointing out that the current situation is working well for them, so they are unlikely to make major adjustments at this time.
The Navy does not follow NRC regulations. The Navy implements its own regulations regarding nuclear safety. Additionally, the Navy does not need to design its plants so that they are cost efficient.
To put it lightly, the NRC would not be amused to see a request to build one of these plants.
Hell, China's buying all the oil companies it can find. Maybe, they'll sell the gas back to us at Walmart's every day low price.(sarc)
"Spent Uranium" is also called "Depleted Uranium."
Naturally occurring Uranium is 99.3% U-238, which is not fissionable (can't be used for power in reactors, can't be used in nuclear bombs.)
Naturally occurring Uranium is 0.7% U-235, which IS fissionable, and therefore good for reactors or bombs.
When naturual Uranium is sent through an enrichment plant, the U235 is pulled out (to max. extent possible) for reactor fuel (3% to 7% enrichment of U235) or bomb-grade (90-plus percent of U235).
Depleted Uranium ... has very little U235. It has a very long decay half-life (about 7 billion years) ... so it is fairly inactive and is extremely dense (50% more dense than lead). Its biggest potential use is in BREEDER REACTORS where the U238 is converted to Plutonium Pu239 ... which is fissionable and can be used in reactors also. BREEDER REACTORS make more fuel than they "burn".
The big question is what to do with SPENT FUEL. Spent fuel has lots of radioactive fission products.
Simple answer ... reprocess the stuff.
For a 1000 lb fuel bundle that was originally 6% enriched fuel, maybe 30 of the 60 lbs of U235 is gone, and some of the U238 was converted to Pu239. Pull out the Plutonium and Uranium, the fuel cladding (Zirconium) for re-use. Pull out the radioactive fission products (about 30 pounds.) Vitrify the fission products (mix with molten glass) then put them in stainless steel canisters and bury them.
(A typical power reactor might have about 180 fuel bundles, and 1/3 of the bundles are swapped out every 1 - 3 years, typical cycle is 18 months. Typically, power plants will discharge the fuel bundles and let them cool off in a spent fuel pool for about 10-15 years before removal from the spent fuel pool. This is when the starting the reprocessing should occur; at this point, decay heat is very small, and the radioactivity levels are somewhat diminished.)
Hint ... make the canisters recoverable. Fission products contain valuable rare-earth elements that, about 700 years later, the material will be fairly non-radioactive ... less than the original Uranium ore was ... and the rare-earth elements might be used in exotic magnets, superconductor technology, etc.
Much of this reprocesses/vitrification process is proven technology - already done by the French ... who get over 70% of their nation's electric power from nuclear power reactors, and some of them are breeder reactors. The French already do reprocessing of nuclear fuel for the Japanese, who also obtain significant amounts of electric power from nuclear power plants.
Mike
(former Navy Nuclear Engineer)
>>>Oil is a market commodity ... repeat after me ... supply, demand .. supply, demand ...>>>
You don't have to be smart a&&. Oh wait, you aren't. Supply and demand would NOT create this much of a price increase this fast. Or are you not getting this. I don't know, maybe it is paranoia to believe people are out to MAKE MONEY. Where would I get that CRAAAAZY idea?
>>>And your evidence is....?
How do you prove a negative? I would think it would on the person making the claim in the first place.
On top of that:
Output is up and down in Iraq
Nutcase Chavez is threatening to cut the US off
There have been several refinery explosoins in the past 6 weeks
The whole Mideast is a tinderbox - causing buyers to hedge their bets by trying to lock in supplies now (up go the prices)
Sure, the bad old oil companies are enjoying the windfall, but they're not orchestrating it any more than they did when the bottom fell out of prices in the 80's and again in the 90's ... it's out of their hands.
You are correct. YOU, however, are entitled to live in a country with a crippled economy due to excess oil profits.
Higher oil prices will allow new domestic resources to come on line.
The change in balance of payments from energy importer to energy exporter will send the economy through the roof.
So9
>>>Personally I believe that is the reason for the high oil prices.>>>
I agree that that is a factor, but more of a future factor. Almost a preperation for more demand from those nations. But I honestly don't believe that it has anything to do with the extreme rise in barrels of crude oil over the past few months.
"We haven't built for the future and it's not a pretty picture."
Unless your in the oil & gas business! :)
Yeah, I know. I was just offering a simple answer to how nukes would reduce our demand for oil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.