Posted on 03/14/2012 12:51:06 PM PDT by IBD editorial writer
>That seems to me to be essentially the same thing
Tariffs are not the same as nationalization; they are merely a tax/duty on imports (or exports).
Yes they can be abused, but that is true of almost all powers.
It is essentially telling private companies where they can sell their product by penalizing them if they sell on the international market ... meanwhile other oil companies would be free to sell on the international market.
Also, unless we also set domestic prices (which would be tantamount to nationalizing) the price of oil would not be cheaper domestically.
Now, maybe that’s the way we’ll have to go. But I’m just making the point that oil is not going to be cheaper by strong-arming companies to sell domestically.
I don’t think we have to shut down our coal and natgas operations. I don’t know that coal mining is any cheaper long term than nuclear.
Thorium reactors would not rely on uranium.
So when you said “switch to”, what was going to be switched to nuclear?
I do. Do you want a link?
Of course I mean in the real world, not the "Kill Coal" Obama world.
>It is essentially telling private companies where they can sell their product by penalizing them if they sell on the international market ... meanwhile other oil companies would be free to sell on the international market.
It is taxing the sale on foreign markets of domestically produced petrol, true. (Though I should point out that traditionally tariffs were applied against incoming goods.)
>Also, unless we also set domestic prices (which would be tantamount to nationalizing) the price of oil would not be cheaper domestically.
I think the domestic prices are a bit more complex than most think, mainly to do with taxation and regulation bureaucratic nightmares, but not uninfluenced by “speculation.” (Ever notice that any time there’s strife in the mid-east speculation id the price goes up, in fact, the speculation is almost always “the price goes up”.)
>Now, maybe that’s the way we’ll have to go. But I’m just making the point that oil is not going to be cheaper by strong-arming companies to sell domestically.
No; the obvious solutions would be: a) release the environmental stranglehold on development (industrial as well as the extraction), and b) drop taxes to something reasonable (IIRC about 50 cents is tax, and 3 cents is profit; though these may be outdated it still illustrates the ridiculous ratios involved).
Sure, link would be good.
We’re talking in the context of offsetting oil energy with some other form of energy. For transport, that wouldn’t make much difference, I agreed ... we probably couldn’t produce enough electriciy to displace oil for transport. So that’s a separate nut to crack (maybe natgas will be the answer but a lot of infrastructure changes would have to take place.)
But nuclear could make a huge difference in our other energy needs and make us much less dependent on foreign sources of oil and being at the mercy of price fluctuations.
I will post a separate graph of energy use by sector.
I am quite familiar with that chart.
Which of the lines from Petroleum do you think your are going to replace? We have already ruled out 71% of the choices. Do you think you can use nuclear to replace the one feeding industry for petrochemical feedstock?
The point is we could reduce our overall energy consumption from petroleum if we want to make ourselves overall less dependent on petroleum. So 36% could go down to say 25%, just as an example. IF the issue is being more energy independent, there are multiple strategies we could use to do that, including upping our percentage of overall energy from nuclear ... but only if that is our goal.
It seems not to be our goal.
Sure, link would be good.
Table 8.2 Cost and performance characteristics of new central station electricity generating technologies
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/assumptions/pdf/electricity.pdf#page=5
Even ignoring the near double price to build nuclear over a new scrubbed coal unit:
Based upon a 1,000 MW Power Plant running full time for a year, you have significant savings on the fuel, which is much (but not all) the O&M variable cost.
Coal = $36,792,000
Nuke = $17,520,000
But the fixed cost to operate a Nuclear plant is so much more, that it overwhelms the savings in fuel.
Coal = $ 29,310,000
Nuke = $ 87,690,000
Total operating cost per year
Coal = $ 66,102,000
Nuke = $ 105,210,000
Now add in the cost of an extra couple billion of a new nuke versus an new coal plant.
So 36% could go down to say 25%, just as an example.
That is what I am asking for, an example. What is the new Nuclear plant going to replace. It is not going to replace transportation. It is not going to replace industrial feedstock. How does more electrical energy generated from nuclear power reduce oil consumption?
It’s interconnected.
Nuclear created electricity can displace some petroleum for transportation, but I agree with you, not a lot at this point. That could change depending on the cost to obtain petroleum. Mostly it would probably affect demand.
We are talking present levels of supply and demand.
If petroleum or other sources of energy go down or become too expensive to obtain then we will have to make up the differece (or do without). The other way of looking at it, if an overall greater percentage of energy is captured by other means, then there is that much more petroleum to be used for things it is best suited.
No, it is not.
Nuclear created electricity can displace some petroleum for transportation
Only if you make a meaningful battery and greatly increase the number of electric vehicles while taking traditional vehicles off the road.
If you are talking about present electric vehicles, those are not running on petroleum. They are primarily fueled by coal and natural gas.
We are talking present levels of supply and demand.
Yes, if you want to reduce current oil imports, then you need to talk about changes from where we are now.
If petroleum or other sources of energy go down or become too expensive to obtain then we will have to make up the differece (or do without).
Yes, but if you mean switching from gasoline/diesel cars to electric, coal and natural gas are both cheaper means of making the electricity, plus we have a far more abundant supply of the fuel.
The other way of looking at it, if an overall greater percentage of energy is captured by other means, then there is that much more petroleum to be used for things it is best suited.
Yes, but you have to make far greater changes than just make more electricity by nuclear power. You need to invent a cost effective means of storing electrical energy in larger quantities in vehicles. That doesn't exist yet at a practical level.
What you suggest is at the same level as a baker who makes a thousand cakes a week. The price of sugar is rising, so to offset it, he buys more flower instead of sugar. But without making something beside the original cakes, you don't save sugar.
You have to start at the demand side, not the energy supply side. We are far more likely to use natural gas for vehicles, than nuclear power.
Also see Eisenhower's Farewell Address 1961:
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.