Posted on 09/03/2005 6:46:32 AM PDT by narby
If "alternative" energy sources were feasible they'd be in use right now courtesy of the private sector. The goobermint has throw billions at laughable wind, solar, and fuel cell energy technologies that are at least 20 years away from operating.
Get the gov't out of subsidizing these unproven technologies and they'll be in use on their own.
Also, and worse, I see a major political impediment. "Most of the best territory for this astonishing process is on land under the control of the Bureau of Land Management", and the author thinks that's a "good thing?" I'd bet my last dollar that the enviros will see to it that public land will never, ever be used to benifit mankind in any way.
This slick idea is DOA.
Been a user of IC engines for 50+ years and love the freedom they allow. And, yes, I DO understand that the statist utopian idiots would prefer we be totally dependent on PUBLIC transit in order to keep better track of us all. That's why the HATE our automobiles and would, if they could, take them from us.
And no voodoo science from here. Just stark realities, to wit:
The refinery shortage (thank the NIMBYs and ecofreaks) IS a big part of the problem as well as the wildly diverse local CLEAN AIR regs which require the refiners to produce multiple blends.
The current OIL PRODUCTION level is around 84 million barrels per day. Current world DEMAND is 87 million barrels per day -- and rising (thanks to the Chinese and others swapping their bikes and motorbikes for CARS).
We have at least a 3 million barrel per day shortfall.
The oil being taken from the ground today is from strikes discovered over 30 years ago: Very few NEW oil deposits are being found. ONE oil geologist (I THINK his name is Fox) has raised the prospect that geological forces are producing NEW oil and gas all the time and it is either forming NEW deposits or migrating thru fractures in the rock to the existing fields. That makes some sense but has yet to be confirmed by his peers. Even if true, it's hard to imagine that those replacement stocks can keep up with the growing demand.
What all this means is that we're headed toward ever-higher prices. That's the bad news.
The GOOD NEWS is that those higher prices are pushing us back toward some modicum of ENERGY SANITY where we will have no choice but to get on with NUCLEAR for stationary energy production. The Japanese SAFELY produce most of their power with nukes. Their plants are cookie cutter designs, making it easy to THOROUGHLY train their people in their safe operation. Even our good friends the French produce 80% of their juice with nukes!! And if THEY can do it, we sure as hell can.
One of the reasons electric rates in Georgia have remained some of the lowest in the nation is our half dozen or so NUCLEAR PLANTS. Many OTHER states NOT using nukes have switched from dirtier coal-fired plants to NATURAL GAS (NG)! It is absolutely NUTS to be burning a perfect – and finite -- mobile power fuel for a stationary application!
Even so, many power producers are using PEAKING PLANTS to cope with the summer air-conditioner demand. Those are generally jet engines strapped to a slab and coupled to an AC generator. They come up to speed and on line quickly when demand peaks. Those jet turbines burn FOSSIL FUEL (often NG).
What the move to nukes will do is free up the FOSSIL FUELS we DO have for MOBILE power applications (our vehicles). ANY internal combustion engine can be converted to run on NG or propane once a new tank is installed and (this is WHY the US hasn’t moved on this earlier) a CONSUMER SUPPLY INFRASTRUCTURE (GAS STATIONS!) is in place. NG also burns a hell of a lot cleaner and is easier on an IC engine than gasoline.
A few years ago, it was projected that there was around a 1,000 year supply of NG available under the GULF OF MEXICO at then current consumption. That was in the days when most major generating plants were coal fired. Even so, once we can get the nukes on line, that NG will become available for MOBILE applications. We need to get the nukes on line safely, of course, but 12 to 15 years to permit a new plant is just crazy! The technology proposed in the application is probably OBSOLETE by the time the thing is off the ground, adding countless millions to the project to bring it up with all the retrofits.
The concern about nuclear waste disposal is very real – but it is one we can and will solve. We MUST. If we are to maintain our living standard here, we have no choice. Even my bride – who is VERY vocal with her concerns on this topic – becomes silent when I ask her to imagine the lights going out and the A/C shutting down and remind her that the A/C here is almost certainly coming from a NUCLEAR PLANT up the road! The ladies LOVE their home A/C in August. So do I.
And, not incidentally, these current higher energy prices will put new legs under the quest for ALTERNATIVE fuel sources. We’re learning more and more about the physics of these new systems every day. I’m confident that our grandkids will be sitting behind the wheels of vehicles powered by systems we cannot even envision today. That has been the history of mankind – especially in the West -- throughout history.
And we can tell the Saudis and Venezuelans to DRINK the oil they have left – because we no longer need it!
Sorry for the ramble but I really have a burr under by blanket on this one.
What did you think I meant by fissionable elements?
bump
Let me restate that twisted fact properly:
The statistic is that A FULL LANE AND ONE THIRD OF ADDITIONAL VEHICLES ARE PRODUCED BY PRIVATE INDUSTRY before the GOVERNMENT GETS OFF THEIR LAZY ASSES AND PRODUCE ONE NEW LANE OF HIGHWAY.
IT'S GOING TO TAKE PRIVATE INDUSTRY TO SOLVE THE HIGHWAY PROBLEM TOO! GOVERNMENT IS PART OF THE PROBLEM, NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION.
There, now I feel better.
I've seen and heard that nonsensical pap thrown around before, and never had the chance to correct it.
Thanks for the opportunity.
Sorry dude, missed it.
Perhaps you didn't read the article. Who is doing the R&D on this? Or perhaps you don't consider Shell Oil a "big oil company."
Perhaps you didn't read the article. Who is doing the R&D on this? Or perhaps you don't consider Shell Oil a "big oil company."
BUMP.
And, capping would reduce emissions to practically nil.
And modifications of this technology could be used to tremendously extend the life of oilfields in central California and also used to extract oil from the gigantic oil tar sands in Alberta and Saskatchawan provinces. It could dramatically change world oil outlook since with oil shale and oil tar sands fully productive some 25% of OPEC's export market will be gone.
"The enviros will attack this process I'm sure."
At $3 a gallon, there aren't nearly as many enviros as there used to be.
An acquaintance just announced he is giving up all non-essential driving because of gas prices. There's no way he won't listen to cheap alternatives.
You make a statement about the ratio of unit of energy input to unit of energy produced - of about 1(input) to 3.5(produced).
But, when listening to the discussion of the various stages and requirements of production - multiple drilled cores for the extraction area, multiple drilled cores for the heaters, multiple drilled cores for the ice wall, energy for the heating, energy for the ice wall, energy for the extraction, energy for flushing the area post production - it just makes me question the energy ratio between production and output.
It might be right. Call me suspicious.
ping
Failing that they will probably want to protece diesel bugs!
What's the cost of product compared to drilling? It seems to me that it ought to be significantly higher. If it isn't, good.
Appreciate your polite and well-written reply. Thanks for not taking my statements as bombastic or personal...
this story give you hope that a number of sources will soon change how we run America - nuke, clean coal, gas and ANWAR.
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.