The U.S. Is Poised to Hit a New Oil Gusher

[one...two...tree 2,762]

In 1954, Lewis Strauss, Chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, proclaimed that the development of nuclear energy would herald a new age. "It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter," he declared to a science writers' convention.1 The speech gave the nuclear power industry a memorable phrase to be identified with, but also it saddled it with a promise that was essentially impossible to fulfill.

In contrast to the rosy propaganda and promises, commercial nuclear power from new nuclear plants has become the most expensive form of commonly used baseload electric power in the United States. In part, this was because utilities canceled 121 reactors in the post-1974 period; the money squandered on these canceled plants alone was about $44.4 billion in 1990 dollars,2 or about $50 billion in 1995 dollars. Even larger costs were incurred, in the form of higher electricity costs for instance, because of the very high costs of plants completed in the 1980s. Enjoying virtually every conceivable advantage at its birth -- from high public popularity to lavish government funding to virtually unanimous political support -- the commercial nuclear power industry in the United States is a moribund one, with virtually every one of its early advantages reversed.

http://www.ieer.org/reports/npd.html

The global threats arising from nuclear power and large-scale fossil fuel use stem from a common failing in the political and economic structure of decision-making. Whether one considers plutonium or carbon dioxide emissions, there has been a consistent failure to ask and pursue vigorously the answers to a few simple questions before large-scale deployment of new technologies: Is there a potential for irreversible catastrophic damage if the system does not work? What is the fate of the most dangerous materials? How many generations could be affected One likely reason for the failure to pursue the answers even when the questions were asked is that power and money lay in the direction of development of these technologies, while the common good lay in the answers to the questions about damage to the Earth's ecosystems and to global security. But if we do not answer such questions, then it is possible that wide-ranging, potentially irreversible effects will damage the common good now and for uncountable generations into the future, even as individuals derive transient benefits from the technologies. This study examines nuclear power technology with such questions in mind.

A. Main Findings

1. There was no scientific or engineering foundation for the claims made in the 1940s and 1950s that nuclear power would be so cheap that it would lead the way to a world of unprecedented material abundance. On the contrary, official studies of the time were pessimistic about the economic viability of nuclear power, in stark contrast to many official public statements.

[peejay 327]

Study: Wind power to Texas cities may cost $6 billion

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headli...iz/5673691.html

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Study: Wind power to Texas cities may cost $6 billion

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headli...iz/5673691.html

The proposed nuclear plants for Texas will cost close to $3 billion each. Energy harnessing has never been free...but the big difference with renewable energy is that the sources are infinite and the environmental impact is minimal in comparison to oil, coal and nuclear power.

There is no magic bullet in terms finding one single alternative energy source to fossil fuels, but research, implementation and infrastructure of renewable energy will have a huge impact on oil consumption. Conservation also must play a significant role.

US subsidizes energy, old and new

Incentives and subsidies are not unique to renewable energy. The bill that passed the House and stalled in the Senate in 2004 provided grants, research, matching funds, and a net total $23.3 billion in tax incentives for energy.

Of those tax breaks, approximately 8 percent were for energy efficiency incentives, 24 percent for renewable energy and alternative fuels combined (about three fourths were for renewable combustion-engine transportation fuels such as ethanol), 63 percent for oil, gas, coal energy and nuclear power; and the remaining 5 percent for various other programs.

http://energypriorities.com/entries/2005/0...nergy_bil_1.php

[Heracles 417]

Alright, here is what I would do if I were president. I would first build a string of nuclear plants near large bodies of water. I would dedicate those plants to the production of hydrogen. I would at the same time build infrastructure to deliver liquid hydrogen to every home, business and gas station. I would also put money into the development of fuel cell technology for homes and cars. Every home would have it's own fuel cell to power its needs. This could eleminate our use of oil almost completely. There would be no need for oil or coal fired power plants, no need for new oil drilling and no need for gasoline. At the same time I would provide research money for nuclear fusion. That is an renuable energy that we would never run out of. When fusion becomes a reality then the fission plants would be replaced and they would start producing hydrogen.

Now there is a government project that I can get behind. One that I would be willing to raise my taxes over. It would also have the added benefit of getting us out of the mid-east and it would also take the money out of the hands of the countries that we are bankrolling to train the terrorists. It would also reduce our CO2 output and save the enviroment. There, I just outlined a way to save the world. Where is my Nobel Prize?

Now how to do we get the people in congress to realize this..

[Heracles 417]

Study: Wind power to Texas cities may cost $6 billion

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headli...iz/5673691.html

Have you ever seen how ugly wind farms are.

Destroying the environment to save the environment is right up there with the great idiocies of the modern age.

[Jack and Barbara 0]

The only one that does seem plausible is the nuclear and hydrogen route.

I mean what is the earth going to look like with it being one big solar panel. I mean come on talk about ugly and plants convert the sun's energy more efficiently then any solar panel could ever do. Or maybe wind mills chopping up all the birds, just great!

And big oil rigs whether on land or in the sea look great in a postcard?

Oil often takes years to pull from the earth and at great cost for everything from exploring where the oil is, removing the oil, refining it, and the cleaning up the oil spills.

[Heracles 417]

The only one that does seem plausible is the nuclear and hydrogen route.

I mean what is the earth going to look like with it being one big solar panel. I mean come on talk about ugly and plants convert the sun's energy more efficiently then any solar panel could ever do. Or maybe wind mills chopping up all the birds, just great!

And big oil rigs whether on land or in the sea look great in a postcard?

Oil often takes years to pull from the earth and at great cost for everything from exploring where the oil is, removing the oil, refining it, and the cleaning up the oil spills.

China seems to be doing a good job off 'our' coast though. So while politicians playing trench warfare games with each other, other nations are prospering from our resources.

Edited April 4, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Study: Wind power to Texas cities may cost $6 billion

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headli...iz/5673691.html

Have you ever seen how ugly wind farms are.

Destroying the environment to save the environment is right up there with the great idiocies of the modern age.

Well you can set them up at sea... One of the biggest UK wind farms is off the Norfolk coast.

[Jack and Barbara 0]

The only one that does seem plausible is the nuclear and hydrogen route.

I mean what is the earth going to look like with it being one big solar panel. I mean come on talk about ugly and plants convert the sun's energy more efficiently then any solar panel could ever do. Or maybe wind mills chopping up all the birds, just great!

And big oil rigs whether on land or in the sea look great in a postcard?

Oil often takes years to pull from the earth and at great cost for everything from exploring where the oil is, removing the oil, refining it, and the cleaning up the oil spills.

China seems to be doing a good job off 'our' coast though. So while politicians playing trench warfare games with each other, other nations are prospering from our resources.

Let's invade China!

[Heracles 417]

Study: Wind power to Texas cities may cost $6 billion

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headli...iz/5673691.html

Have you ever seen how ugly wind farms are.

Destroying the environment to save the environment is right up there with the great idiocies of the modern age.

Well you can set them up at sea... One of the biggest UK wind farms is off the Norfolk coast.

I have no problem with harnessing the sea. Especially the immense power of waves. But I do not agree with wasting finite land with solar panels or wind farms; Unless the land is desolate like deserts. Solar panels on house roof tops as well as any other roof top is a great idea as a supplementary energy source.

Let's invade China!

Well they are doing it legally. It is just a matter of the US congress sitting on their ### again. During the cold war it was all about weapons. Whereas now it is all about resources.

[Jack and Barbara 0]

Actually on second though, invasion would be too expensive (i.e. Iraq). What we could do is use some of our nuclear weapons, being sure to take out any nucelar weapons facilities to prevent immeadiate retailiation. This way, by killing hundreds of millions of people, we could decrease the global need for energy, flex our military might, and go back to the policing powers we have enjoyed in the past.

Of course, there would be political backlash and resentment from our allies and enemies alike, but it's not like U.S. foreign policy has been doing well around the globe the past few years anyways, and that has not been a problem.

[GaryC 7]

I just remembered another renewable source that seems to have fallen by the wayside. Tidal energy. Harnessing the energy in ocean waves and tides was explored for a while and has seemed to drop off the table. It would only be good for areas near oceans but that is where are population is concentrated.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I just remembered another renewable source that seems to have fallen by the wayside. Tidal energy. Harnessing the energy in ocean waves and tides was explored for a while and has seemed to drop off the table. It would only be good for areas near oceans but that is where are population is concentrated.

Geothermal is also a good source. Back in '99, I was able to select where my utility company bought it's power from - and I chose a geothermal energy supplier. Unfortunately for the consumers, the utility companies lobbied to take away that choice.

[Gaby&Talbert 1]

what about volcanoes? Has anyone tried to utilize volcanoes for energy?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

what about volcanoes? Has anyone tried to utilize volcanoes for energy?

Essentially, that is what geothermal energy is...it's harnessed heat from deep in the earth.

Here's some info:

What Is Green Power?

Green power is the solution to a cleaner, sustainable energy system. Renewable energy—power from the sun, wind, plants, and moving water—is a sustainable way to meet our energy needs and protect the environment and public health.

* Wind energy converts the power available in moving air into electricity. Wind power does not produce emissions, generate solid waste, or use water.

* Bioenergy is energy from trees and plants. This includes crops grown specifically for energy production and organic wastes (such as wood residues from paper mills and methane from landfills). Using bioenergy to generate electricity reduces global warming emissions if new plants are grown to replace those that are harvested.

* Geothermal energy uses heat from inside the earth to make clean power.

* Solar power captures the heat and light of the sun to generate electricity. Solar energy does not produce emissions, generate solid waste, or use water.

* Hydroelectric power captures the energy in falling water. It does not produce emissions or solid waste, but can have a relatively low or high impact on the environment, depending on the site-specific factors such as maintenance of water flow and water quality, fish impacts, and other land use issues.

Why Buy Green Power?

Choosing green power could make a big difference for the environment because electricity generation is the largest industrial polluter in the country. Electricity generation currently produces:

* About two-thirds of the annual U.S. emissions of sulfur dioxide, the main cause of acid rain and very small soot particles. These fine particles are believed to be responsible for the largest share of the 50,000-100,000 deaths caused by air pollution in the United States each year.

* About 30 percent of the nitrogen oxide emissions, which stress forest ecosystems and combine with organic compounds in sunlight to form smog. High smog levels can also trigger heart and respiratory problems and contribute to air pollution deaths.

* About 40 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions. This heat-trapping gas causes global warming, which may lead to increased droughts, flooding, disease, ecosystem disruption, and severe weather.

* Toxic-metal emissions (such as mercury and lead) and nuclear waste.

What Are the Dirtiest Energy Sources?

All fossil fuels and nuclear power contribute to one or more of the problems mentioned above. Since these power sources currently account for more than 90 percent of the electricity generated in the United States, it is not possible to avoid them altogether. But some are worse than others, and you can try to minimize their use.

Coal. Most electricity in the United States currently comes from coal. But coal burning is the leading cause of acid rain, the largest source of global warming emissions, and a significant source of smog, toxic metals, and tiny-particle pollution. Reducing coal usage is critical to slowing global warming and protecting the environment.

Oil. Oil produces high levels of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides and relatively high levels of carbon dioxide, as well as problems associated with drilling, refining, and transportation, such as tanker spills. Furthermore, the increasing U.S. dependence on imported oil is economically risky and will continue to increase the U.S. trade deficit.

Nuclear power. After coal, the next largest source of our electricity is nuclear power. While nuclear plants don't cause air pollution, they do create radioactive waste, which must be stored for thousands of years. As accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl proved, nuclear plants also carry the risk of catastrophic failure. And nuclear power can be very expensive.

What About Natural Gas?

In 2004, natural gas accounted for about 19 percent of the U.S. electricity mix. Use of natural gas is projected to increase dramatically in the next two decades if we continue on our current path, but supplies are limited and imports are increasing. Our growing reliance on natural gas combined with limited supplies makes this fuel subject to price spikes, which can have a significant impact on consumer energy costs. In addition, though natural gas is much cleaner than coal or oil, it does produce global warming emissions when burned. So, while the use of natural gas serves as a good transition to a cleaner future, it is not the ultimate solution.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewab...reen-power.html