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

[Dan J 277]

We should, but thats not a particular prioirty in this country right now. The priority is oil and how to get more of it.

We need to tap the oil sources for now but clearly the research grants need to go to other technologies. Shutting off oil overnight is simply not an option. Therefore the no drilling embargo needs to be lifted.

I'm not saying that. But imagine what we could accomplish if we devoted what we have spent in Iraq to alternative energy research. We will still liekly need oil for planes and possibly other uses, but we will just need alot less of it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I thought that the US was in talks with France to build some new nuclear plants...

Several new plants are in the works. I would like to see many more.

I think if they kickstart nuclear they could likely start phasing out coal-fired plants.

[Heracles 417]

I definitely agree we need to move on from oil. I am sick of the trouble associated with that one liquid. In the short-term we need to cut our reliance on any foreign oil..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Coal is more polluting than oil - by quite a significant margin.

[GaryC 7]

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?

Edited April 4, 2008 by GaryC

[Jamie76 0]

Coal is more polluting than oil - by quite a significant margin.

The technology for clean burning coal power plants is available. We just haven't implemented it. Mainly because of costs involved seeing it is a newer technology.

[Tyrobe 1]

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?

The plan works great!

Until the infrastructure for renewable energies, production of hydrogen and nuclear powers are in place to provide the nation with cheap energies, we need to open up more places to drill for oil and gas. Open up Alaska's ANWR, Rockies and the Gulf for exploration and production to reduce our energy dependency on foreign oil.

[Dan J 277]

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?

The plan works great!

Until the infrastructure for renewable energies, production of hydrogen and nuclear powers are in place to provide the nation with cheap energies, we need to open up more places to drill for oil and gas. Open up Alaska's ANWR, Rockies and the Gulf for exploration and production to reduce our energy dependency on foreign oil.

If we go after ANWR or similar sources of oil and gas, we will just put off developing alternative sources of energy. Some uses for oil can't easily be replaced by alternatives. If we wait until we run out of oil, then we may not be able to find a vaible alternative for some thing that rely on it.

[Dan J 277]

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?

Your losing energy by converting to hydrogen. Most things can use electricity directly. You only need hydrogen if you need the power to be stored and portable. Your best off providing water and electricity directly to fueling stations.

But anyway, you would be lucky to get 20-25 years if you switch everything to nuclear and have cars running off hyrdogen generated by nuclear power plants. Right now cars don't impact the power grid, but if you made them all hydrogen, they would.

[GaryC 7]

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?

Your losing energy by converting to hydrogen. Most things can use electricity directly. You only need hydrogen if you need the power to be stored and portable. Your best off providing water and electricity directly to fueling stations.

But anyway, you would be lucky to get 20-25 years if you switch everything to nuclear and have cars running off hyrdogen generated by nuclear power plants. Right now cars don't impact the power grid, but if you made them all hydrogen, they would.

There is enough uranium to last 100 years. Your just wrong about the amount we can get. The ocean is full of uranium btw. All we need to do is filter it out. I am not sure where you are getting your information but it's just wrong.

ETA.

Here Dan, read and learn.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.htm

Edited April 4, 2008 by GaryC

[Jamie76 0]

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?

Your losing energy by converting to hydrogen. Most things can use electricity directly. You only need hydrogen if you need the power to be stored and portable. Your best off providing water and electricity directly to fueling stations.

But anyway, you would be lucky to get 20-25 years if you switch everything to nuclear and have cars running off hyrdogen generated by nuclear power plants. Right now cars don't impact the power grid, but if you made them all hydrogen, they would.

There is enough uranium to last 100 years. Your just wrong about the amount we can get. The ocean is full of uranium btw. All we need to do is filter it out. I am not sure where you are getting your information but it's just wrong.

ETA.

Here Dan, read and learn.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.htm

Start filtering then Gary. The idea of mining the oceans is not a new one. If you've noticed, no one is currently doing that, and I am sure you can figure out why.

[Dan J 277]

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?

Your losing energy by converting to hydrogen. Most things can use electricity directly. You only need hydrogen if you need the power to be stored and portable. Your best off providing water and electricity directly to fueling stations.

But anyway, you would be lucky to get 20-25 years if you switch everything to nuclear and have cars running off hyrdogen generated by nuclear power plants. Right now cars don't impact the power grid, but if you made them all hydrogen, they would.

There is enough uranium to last 100 years. Your just wrong about the amount we can get. The ocean is full of uranium btw. All we need to do is filter it out. I am not sure where you are getting your information but it's just wrong.

Your right, but if it takes you more energy to filter it out of the ocean, than you get out of the uranium you gain nothing.

But its simple math. Right now only 6.5 percent of our energy needs are met with nuclear power. As you said yourself at this level we have about 500 years worth taking into account sources that are not currently being accessed.

You want to move to 100% of our energy being generated with nuclear power. That means you have to increase uranium consumtion by a factor of 100/6.5 = 15.4. Now lets see how long our uranium resources last if we use 15 times as much. 500/15.4 = 32.5. This does not take into account what will likely be increased energy demand as well. Especially in other parts of the world.

So after 30 years, when we dont have much uranium left, what happens? Hope that you manage to get a working Fusion system in time?

[Dan J 277]

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?

Your losing energy by converting to hydrogen. Most things can use electricity directly. You only need hydrogen if you need the power to be stored and portable. Your best off providing water and electricity directly to fueling stations.

But anyway, you would be lucky to get 20-25 years if you switch everything to nuclear and have cars running off hyrdogen generated by nuclear power plants. Right now cars don't impact the power grid, but if you made them all hydrogen, they would.

There is enough uranium to last 100 years. Your just wrong about the amount we can get. The ocean is full of uranium btw. All we need to do is filter it out. I am not sure where you are getting your information but it's just wrong.

ETA.

Here Dan, read and learn.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.htm

Start filtering then Gary. The idea of mining the oceans is not a new one. If you've noticed, no one is currently doing that, and I am sure you can figure out why.

To get 1 kg of uranium from seawater, you would need to filter about 4.6 million gallons of seawater.

Looking at the energy cost of de-salinization it would be about 10 kwh for every 1000 gallons. I'm guessing some similar type of filtering would be applied here. That woud mean it would take around 46,000 kwh to filter out 1 kg of uranium.

But 1 Kg of uranium generates roughly 50,000 kwh of electricity per kg.

On top of that you would have to enrich the uranium to be usable in reactors. Which would add more to the energy cost.

In other words, you would be lucky to see a net positive energy equation in getting uranium from seawater.

[GaryC 7]

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?

Your losing energy by converting to hydrogen. Most things can use electricity directly. You only need hydrogen if you need the power to be stored and portable. Your best off providing water and electricity directly to fueling stations.

But anyway, you would be lucky to get 20-25 years if you switch everything to nuclear and have cars running off hyrdogen generated by nuclear power plants. Right now cars don't impact the power grid, but if you made them all hydrogen, they would.

There is enough uranium to last 100 years. Your just wrong about the amount we can get. The ocean is full of uranium btw. All we need to do is filter it out. I am not sure where you are getting your information but it's just wrong.

ETA.

Here Dan, read and learn.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.htm

Start filtering then Gary. The idea of mining the oceans is not a new one. If you've noticed, no one is currently doing that, and I am sure you can figure out why.

To get 1 kg of uranium from seawater, you would need to filter about 4.6 million gallons of seawater.

Looking at the energy cost of de-salinization it would be about 10 kwh for every 1000 gallons. I'm guessing some similar type of filtering would be applied here. That woud mean it would take around 46,000 kwh to filter out 1 kg of uranium.

But 1 Kg of uranium generates roughly 50,000 kwh of electricity per kg.

On top of that you would have to enrich the uranium to be usable in reactors. Which would add more to the energy cost.

In other words, you would be lucky to see a net positive energy equation in getting uranium from seawater.

Your arguments just don't hold water Dan. I don't know what your real reason for dismissing a real alternative is but you are just not making sense. So go ahead and think what you want. Smarter people than you are going ahead with nuclear power despite what you think. It's a good thing your not making energy policy, otherwise we would be on oil until it runs out and the lights go out. I do notice that while your dismissing any suggestion of a real solution you have none of your own. We can't conserve our way out of our oil addiction. Your main argument seems to be that we are counting on an alternative coming while we run out of uranium. Well, what is your alternative that comes before we run out of oil? It seems we will run out of oil before we run out of uranium. The logic in your argument doesn't make sense.

[Dan J 277]

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?

Your losing energy by converting to hydrogen. Most things can use electricity directly. You only need hydrogen if you need the power to be stored and portable. Your best off providing water and electricity directly to fueling stations.

But anyway, you would be lucky to get 20-25 years if you switch everything to nuclear and have cars running off hyrdogen generated by nuclear power plants. Right now cars don't impact the power grid, but if you made them all hydrogen, they would.

There is enough uranium to last 100 years. Your just wrong about the amount we can get. The ocean is full of uranium btw. All we need to do is filter it out. I am not sure where you are getting your information but it's just wrong.

ETA.

Here Dan, read and learn.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.htm

Start filtering then Gary. The idea of mining the oceans is not a new one. If you've noticed, no one is currently doing that, and I am sure you can figure out why.

To get 1 kg of uranium from seawater, you would need to filter about 4.6 million gallons of seawater.

Looking at the energy cost of de-salinization it would be about 10 kwh for every 1000 gallons. I'm guessing some similar type of filtering would be applied here. That woud mean it would take around 46,000 kwh to filter out 1 kg of uranium.

But 1 Kg of uranium generates roughly 50,000 kwh of electricity per kg.

On top of that you would have to enrich the uranium to be usable in reactors. Which would add more to the energy cost.

In other words, you would be lucky to see a net positive energy equation in getting uranium from seawater.

Your arguments just don't hold water Dan. I don't know what your real reason for dismissing a real alternative is but you are just not making sense. So go ahead and think what you want. Smarter people than you are going ahead with nuclear power despite what you think. It's a good thing your not making energy policy, otherwise we would be on oil until it runs out and the lights go out. I do notice that while your dismissing any suggestion of a real solution you have none of your own. We can't conserve our way out of our oil addiction. Your main argument seems to be that we are counting on an alternative coming while we run out of uranium. Well, what is your alternative that comes before we run out of oil? It seems we will run out of oil before we run out of uranium. The logic in your argument doesn't make sense.

Im only dismissing the idea that nuclear power is a holy grail as you make it out to be. Its not, and it never will be. Its a non-renewable resource just like oil.

At best it can be part of the solution, but it is not the solution.

It can compliment our energy needs like coal, oil, wind and solar. But it is not capable of replacing all of our energy needs.