Posted on 10/05/2005 5:37:27 AM PDT by OESY
...With insufficient fossil fuel reserves, our country very early on invested in energy alternatives. The two oil crises of the '70s convinced us to accelerate the construction of facilities to produce safe and economically profitable nuclear energy. That strategy paid off: In 30 years, France's energy independence has risen from 30% to 50%. While turning toward nuclear energy might have seemed unusual 60 years ago, I believe that it was an especially visionary choice.
The development of nuclear energy enabled us to meet several objectives: energy independence and security of supply, and competitive, stable energy prices. This nuclear option is also an economic and commercial asset for our country, whose capabilities in this cutting-edge area are world-renowned....
But let's be clear: Choosing to go all-nuclear isn't the only response to rising oil prices. Like nuclear power 30 years ago, renewable energies now constitute the main energy challenge in the coming decades....
What does this mean in concrete terms? France intends to develop all kinds of renewable energies: hydroelectricity and windmills at first, for which we have already established very favorable new regulations; and then renewable heat, in which we plan to make massive investments over a period of several years. And finally clean vehicles, whose research we will finance and whose marketing we will support. For renewable energies will not suffice: Energy economy is the second challenge we must face.
Clearly, this national strategy will be effective only if it is part of a European and international framework. That is the position France just defended at the last G-7 summit. In that way, we will be able to build an energy market that is more effective, better regulated and thus less volatile -- and less vulnerable to the energy cartels....
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Nuclear is the way...always was! S*^$w the Arabs.
At least the French did something right. When the Greens in Germany are forcing the shutdown of their nuclear plants, the French are building more. This is one thing the Americans can learn from the French.
Yes, but unfortunately it won't happen until gas hits $4/gallon and stays there for a few years.
I think a fatal virus might have found its way into your hard drive. Either that or your are deliberately trying to make me feel stupid.
"Electrical Generation is not a significant portion of the US Petroleum use."
In a tight natural gas market, where prices are expected to spike 70% or more, it sure would be nice to have the natural gas supply that will be used by electrical generating plants available in the market place.
Many formerly coal-fired plants have been forced to convert to natural gas as a means of meeting environmental regulations. That "unecessary" consumption affects everyone, through higher prices, as will be apparent this winter.
Yes, but unfortunately it won't happen until gas hits $4/gallon and stays there for a few years.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of nuclear. I actually worked in the industry for over 20 years. Nuclear is a great way to make electricity, but it does not do a damn thing to change our oil consumption. We can build all the nuke plants we want, but it won't change the amount of oil we consume unless we start building nuclear cars too. See the graphic on post #4. Hardly any oil goes into electrical generation, and most of what does is heavy bunker fuel that does not have much use elsewhere.
Electric or hybrid.
I suppose widespread electric vehicle use would increase electrical demand which could be met with more nuclear plants. That demand could also me met with more coal-fired generation. Nuclear is not a pre-requirement to reducing oil demand. Practical electric vehicles that can compete with the internal combustion engine are.
You make the point precisely. Energy is energy and using natural gas rather than uranium to produce electricity is wasteful and dumb.
Natural gas is, and faces many of the same problems petroleum does.
It's elitist to ask some 83 year old retiree to ruin him/herself just to have heat or power, when nuclear can do the same at a fraction of the cost..cleaner too.
The vast majority of industrial use of oil is in the petro-chem industry. Oil is not a "fuel". It is a feedstock.
What most people simply don't understand is that nuclear and coal are already generating around 75% of the electricity in the US. Nuclear over 20% and coal over 50% in any given year. There are 100 nuclear plants operating in the US --- twice as many as in France. From a cost of generation standpoint, they are the cheapest baseload sources. Nuclear and coal generation cost wise are about even +- 2 cents per kwh. But generation costs are only about 30-40% of the total cost of electricity. The vast Transmission and Distribution network eats up the rest. In many parts of the country, especially the colder areas, oil prices would have to go much higher than they are now before your 83 year old retiree would want to switch to electric heat. It's just not that cost efficient.
OK!
Whoa, I'm not attacking you. I am in favor of increasing the use of nuclear energy. And I am in favor of reducing our use foreign oil. I want those decisions based upon truths. And the truth is, not much of our oil economy is used for electrical generation. The conservatives need to be properly informed so we can defend ourselves against environmentalists and anti-business people.
Yes, but I was speaking of Petroleum and responding to the "S*^$w the Arabs" comment. We import less than 4/10 of a percent of our Natural Gas from Arabs (LNG from Egypt).
Also we do not have a shortage of Natural Gas in the US, we have a shortage of production and transportation. Alaska is estimated to have up to 124 Trillion cubic feet of Natural Gas. The Alaskan Natural Gas Pipeline should have been built decades ago.
Over 3/4 of oil use in the US is fuel. Oil is used as feedstock, but it is a minor use.
"Also we do not have a shortage of Natural Gas in the US, we have a shortage of production and transportation"
....so we only have a shortage of Natural Gas that you can buy at a low price!
But the point is that our energy generation & use should be diverse. Coal & Nuclear & hydro for base load, natural gas/other petroleum for peak load, wind and solar and geothermal for those people who actually are dumb enough to believe they are anything but point solutions when nothing else is available.
It is anything but clear if we are actually going to build a pipeline in alaska to tap those reserves. If we don't have the pipeline capacity, the reserves may as well be on Neptune (which does have quite a bit of methane!) for all the good they will do us.
It's not going to be a good couple of years to be an environmentalist, I think. most people can't afford it anymore!
Automobiles aren't the only mode of transportation used by Americans.
We can construct electricly powered mass transit systems (light rail, high-speed rail and Maglev) to service our nation's most densely populated regions and urban areas. Such systems would not only reduce transportation oil consumption, they'd also alleviate inefficient traffic congestion and reduce road rage.
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.