GMTom wrote:Sure looks awesome enough, is this already in use anywhere or just theoretical to date?

I think the Chinese are (were) planning to build one, but i'm not sure. I've some more articles bookmarked but no time to read them yet.

What is the proposal that RickyP has for this energy independence he speaks of?

green

What is the proposal that RickyP has for this energy independence he speaks of?

What? I'm some font of wisdom now? Luckily I'm not shy about sharing my opinion.

1. Most importantly. The US must continue to increase its oil imports from Canada, and willingly paying a large premium for Canadian oil. As a Canadian I cannot stress how important this is to your well being.

2. government investment in start ups in solar, wind, wave and geothermal that have at least 90% of their manufacture in the US. Effectively a 10 year program subsidizing these startups, but also ending them on a date specific time. (subsidies cannot be maintained, as they have in agriculture, for ever. They can used to bring a sector up to competitive level but should not be used to maintain the sector forever. Competitive market forces must take over at a defined point.)

3. Nuclear. Its getting safer all the time. Present circumstance aside... (Please note that there have only been 54 deaths directly related to nuclear power accidents and other than Chernobyl no epidemics of radiation based illness causing death). Fukishima was 2 months from being decommissioned. Most nuclear is now much safer. Note that none of the other 55 reactors in Japan have had problems).

4. Conservation. There are thousands of ways to reduce power usage without affecting our daily lives. I happen to be working with a company that can reduce power use in buildings significantly but also increase the safety of the buildings.

5. Natural Gas.Pickens plan looks fine.
6. Domestic production. Problematic because of the lack of refining capacity. And the lack of decent controls over the current lease hold system. But pushing current lease holders to actually use their holdings seems wise. Although it might not be a huge difference.

All that can reduce or change the source of energy consumption by 15 to 20%. Which would eliminate the need to buy from the Middle east. I note that oil is an economy that Neal outlined. However, delivery methods and trade agreements can legitimately be used to isolate sources. Pipelines are better than ships....

Domestic production should be increased?
But what about the ecological problems due to Off shore drilling? I seem to recall you being dead set against that? What about the ecological impact on fracking? What about the impact from taking it from shale? The poor caribou in Alaska? The ways to increase our own production are fought tooth and nail by liberal tree huggers. It's real easy to demand we increase our own production, but when it comes down to actually allowing it?????

and conservation is great, no argument we can save here and there, but conservation can only go so far and government mandates restricting things make matters worse. I like GA's ideas, untie the hands of oil producers and watch the pipeline open and our dependence on others drop. It's a combination of being allowed to do this as well as being competitive, these higher prices are finally allowing the competition part of the equation to allow for more domestic production, now we need to allow that production or all we can possibly expect is the same old same old.

I would agree with RickyP on all points.
1. Increased Canadian imports is vital.
2. Agree, though w/o subsidies. Just reduce the taxes overall, not pick and choose, and start-ups will flourish.
3. Agree. Nuclear is the way to go.
4. Conservation is always beneficial.
5. Pickens plan would work well.
6. Domestic production increased will not increase refining. When I spoke of Oil production, the refining process is a portion of that. Relaxing some of the restrictions on refining would help independence.

RickyP,
I must applaud you on your last post. There were no spelling errors, it was cogent, rational and grammatically correct. Full marks! I actually enjoyed reading it. I am not even cynical enough to believe that it was written by someone else. Good job!

tom

Domestic production should be increased?
But what about the ecological problems due to Off shore drilling? I seem to recall you being dead set against that?

Tom, "seem to recall" is BS. If you can quote me, quote me.
I believe that deep water oil wells are being safely drilled off Norway. However the regulations for drililing there are significantly more stringent than in the Gulf. Even with teh recently increased regulation.
The reason oil well production had to be shut down in the Gulf was the refusal of BP specifically, and to a lesser degree other producers, to incur the cost of things like acoustic valves. But lets not blame the people responsible for the problems. Lets just scream about "restrictions".
However, I'll first note that in the US there is an incredibly large number of oil extraction leases on land that isn't currently being drilled upon. Both on land, and in shallow areas. The major reason for that lack of activity? Its more profitable for some producers to import oil than drill locally And I suspect there is a limit to the resources for drilling from the leasees who amortize their equipment over a decade's use. Perhaps taxation policy could change that? (Tax imports on oil tankers, but eliminate taxes on crude drilled locally? Something like that.)

Frakking seems dangerous to me. Its been shut down in Arkansas because its being blamed for recent earthquake activity. Perhaps a limited number of well studied pilot projects need to be undertaken to investigate the potential risks. Logically, it seems that Frakking changes the composition of the substructure and I'll bet that it isn't fully understood. Somehow I don't trust T Boone on the science of frakking.

Here's an interesting point I heard on Newsworld. (hav't checked its authenticity but it seems reasonable when we consdier mining accidents alone.) In the last two decades worldwide there have been 10,000 deaths in the oil, gas and coal mining industries. Thats due to industrial mishaps. In the same time, well until last week, no deaths in nuclear plants other than Chernbyl (34?)

.

GMTom wrote:Domestic production should be increased?
But what about the ecological problems due to Off shore drilling? I seem to recall you being dead set against that? What about the ecological impact on fracking? What about the impact from taking it from shale? The poor caribou in Alaska? The ways to increase our own production are fought tooth and nail by liberal tree huggers. It's real easy to demand we increase our own production, but when it comes down to actually allowing it?????

and conservation is great, no argument we can save here and there, but conservation can only go so far and government mandates restricting things make matters worse. I like GA's ideas, untie the hands of oil producers and watch the pipeline open and our dependence on others drop. It's a combination of being allowed to do this as well as being competitive, these higher prices are finally allowing the competition part of the equation to allow for more domestic production, now we need to allow that production or all we can possibly expect is the same old same old.

The conservation venue is mostly useless. If gadgets get more efficient people just have more of them. Most of the gains in efficency are eaten up by an increase in quantity of gadgets.

I agree as well with most of your points. But regulations must be (if this makes sense) both relaxed and enforced better.
Relax many but those kept must be enforced better. I think that would lead to greater chances of oil being found in our own back yard. But if the price is cheaper elsewhere, that's where we are going to get it from. Fewer restrictions coupled with the higher prices is a win-win towards more local production.

Nukes, still not sold.
The cost of building them is tremendous, disposal of the spent fuel is expensive and troublesome, security of these facilities is much more expensive as well, nobody but nobody seems to want any built anywhere near them and as we see in Japan, the risk is incredibly high should anything happen. I fully understand things *almost* never go wrong, but when something goes wrong in a coal plant...not too big an issue, in a nuke plant ....oh boy!
I like that post showing the salt core "thingie" and that sort of alternative at least seems to have great promise.

I think we all agree on more energy independence and more green / renewable energy. It's getting there that causes the arguments.
(and as stated, the conservation angle is useful but barely so, simply one small part of a larger plan and a very small part at that)

fax

The conservation venue is mostly useless

Nonsense. There are thousands of low cost sensible ways of reducing energy use. I can point to building owners who are reducing their electricty use in common areas up to 80% and pay the investment in accomplishing this in 3 to 4 years.
There's energy efficiency in appliances, hosues, cars .... It all adds up.

tom

But if the price is cheaper elsewhere, that's where we are going to get it from

The price of oil production in Saudi Arabia is the lowest in the world. When price is all that matters, you can keep sending your money to them I guess. What happens when they decide to shut that supply down as they did several decades ago? And whats happened to the balance of trade in the US? The greatest transfer of wealth has been from the US to the Middle East . Is that a good thing? Thats why "independence is required. Not just dollars and cents."
Tom

I fully understand things *almost* never go wrong, but when something goes wrong in a coal plant...not too big an issue, in a nuke plant

You've never heard of coal mine cave ins? You remember that people died on the oil rig in the Gulf? Thousands die every year producing energy. Millions are kept as citizens with few rights in dictatorships funded by oil wealth.
And the other thing that is constantly "going wrong" is the build up of pollutants and warming gases in our atmosphere and oceans.
But then you'd have to believe in science

So lets just forget about foreign oil altogether (and why pay more to Canada? Screw them as well) and we can charge $10/gallon of gas? That would solve everything?
Ooops, I forgot economic collapse doesn't matter to your opinion

and if a nuclear plant melts down, how many millions of people might be affected?
a big if I know, but let's ignore the fact that it WILL happen eventually. I'm not saying it's the wrong way to go, but the costs (all the costs) are very very high, weigh the possible risk and it's even higher. And warmer atmosphere and oceans
Love it! I hate winter

rickyp wrote:fax

The conservation venue is mostly useless

Nonsense. There are thousands of low cost sensible ways of reducing energy use. I can point to building owners who are reducing their electricty use in common areas up to 80% and pay the investment in accomplishing this in 3 to 4 years.
There's energy efficiency in appliances, hosues, cars .... It all adds up.

All true and i can point to the simple fact that energy consumption rose faster than gdp growth despite all the energy efficency. Only logical solution people either have more gimmicks or don't turn off the lights as they used to or whatever other behavioral pattern is to blame.
Doesn't mean you shouldn't build efficient devices, just means you won't reduce energy consumption but rather just slow the increase of energy consumption.

tom

and if a nuclear plant melts down, how many millions of people might be affected?

Probably only the people fighting the meltdown at the facility... And for awhile, the people in an area near a plant who evacuate. Melt downs only last until the fuel is expended.
Three Mile Island - 0 people died.
Chernobyl 31 (from the initial explosion and fire fighting efforts). Studies on the effects of radiation on the population in the area havn't concluded an increase in cancer deaths. (One third of the population dies from cancer anyways, so there's significant "background" noise here.) As well, The Ukraine and Russia already have a higher instance of thyroid cancer than most of the world due to iodine deficiency in their diet So I know there are anecdotes about children having a higher cancer rate, but i don't think it bore out in the epidimology
Newer Nuclear facilities are built with much greater saety margins and triple redundancy. (Fukihama did not have redundant back up generators, which are now standard....) Part of the reason they are so expensive. But even the older ones haven't created anywhere near the death rate that the extraction coal and oil have...
Put it this way, if a hydro dam failed and flooded a valley in Tennessee kiling thousands in the flash flood, would we abandon hydro-eletric dams and plants in the future? When an oil refinery blows up in Texas does that end oil production? When thousands get emphasyma from smog and pollution did it completely end coal use? (OK, Actually the reaction to pollution causing lung and heart disease has really curtailed coal use, and thats because it represent the greatest real risk)
We routinely place resevoirs of gasoline in urban areas. (We call them gas stations). Every now and then one of them blows up....
The point is that people don't evaluate risk very well.
After 9/11, for months, Americans stopped flying and drove cars on trips instead... There was a large uptick in car accident deaths. Its far riskier to drive than fly. But the "drama" of the risk in flying skewed the way people thought of risk. Same with nuclear.

I think the real position is somewhere between the two extremes,
Efficiency of course helps, heck, look at cars from the 40's and their 10MPG compared to today.
And some gizmos can certainly help, occupancy sensors reduce electricity, and in some areas are well worth the money but in other areas are not worth it in the least. I have those pig tail CFL bulbs all over my house (I do my part) but my wife went extra crazy with them and put them even in closets where the light is on for all of a few seconds, the damned things take too long to warm up so she went and used greater wattage bulbs ...no gain, spending more for them, poorer performance (I changed those out of course)

I used to work for an electric distributor, trust me, there are all kinds of great products to increase efficiency but there are plenty of horrible things as well.But generally we get more and more efficient, it makes sense of course and over time it will help, but it's no magic bullet that will put much of a dent in the bigger picture, it's minor at best.

One thing fax points to is more energy consumption, not all the increase is due to working around these things, Think about it, We now have computers running while we are watching TV. We read electronic books (unheard of a few years ago), we have kids playing electronic games where in the past they were out playing with a ball or a stick, maybe you have a home security system unheard of not long ago? We use more and more and more, that will not slow down!