Obama to postpone drilling

#26
#26
alaVOL said:
As Chinese business increases its reach around the world, it is seeking oil, which it lacks domestically.
Click to expand...

Chinese involvement in the acquistion of oil is going to be an enormous shaper of policy in the future.

A certain amount of ... leeway must be given in order to avoid a major conflict.
 
#27
#27
IPorange said:
Yes. Nuclear power is quite safe. People fear it because they don't fully understand it and radioactivity.
Click to expand...

Chernobel (sp?) Set nuclear energy back considerably. If you go back and look at the reasons for the meltdown you find that the reason was very poor management of the reactor.
 
#28
#28
alaVOL said:
What kind of logic is this, can someone with COMMON sense really understand this? The Chinese are drilling off our shores and we are going just leave em more room to get our oil. I guess the Chinese will follow all of the safety regulations of the USA and keep our...I mean their oil from spilling onto our shores. Great, they get our oil and any pollution we get anyway......


Part of an article in 2006. Wake up and smell the coffee people!
While Washington dithers over exploiting oil and gas reserves off the coast of Florida, China has seized the opportunity to gobble up these deposits, which run throughout Latin America, the Caribbean and along the U.S. Gulf coast.

The Chinese have forged a deal with Cuban leader Fidel Castro to explore and tap into massive oil reserves almost within sight of Key West, Florida. At the same time, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who controls the largest oil reserves in the Western Hemisphere, is making deals to sell his country�s oil to China, oil that is currently coming to the United States.

Meanwhile, a new left-wing populist regime in Bolivia has nationalized the natural gas industry, threatening to cut off supplies to the United States.

SLANT DRILLING

There are new reports out circulating that Chinese firms are planning to slant drill off the Cuban coast near the Florida Straits, tapping into U.S. oil reserves that are estimated at 4.6 billion to 9.3 billion barrels. This compares with 4 billion to 10 billion barrels believed to be beneath the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, where drilling is held up in Congress due to the objections of environmental groups which warn of endangering caribou. Permission to drill in the refuge, which experts are certain will not present any environmental hazard, has failed by just two votes in the Senate.

As Chinese business increases its reach around the world, it is seeking oil, which it lacks domestically.
Click to expand...

Let's assume that there is 9.3 billion barrels of oil there (which is doubtful, but we will assume it because that was the high end of the estimate you mentioned.) The US, all by itself, consumed 20,680,000 barrels per day in 2007.

9,300,000,000/20,680,000 = 449.7 days worth of oil for our country. That's about a year and four months. And that isn't focusing on global demand, is taking the high (and somewhat guaranteed to be wrong) estimate, and assuming that we got every single drop out of the ground (which also is pretty much impossible for a plethora of factors).

It is a big number, but we use a LOT of oil. It isn't that much in the scheme of things. The fact that you have China and others wanting to get to it tells you how much oil there really is left in the world, relative to current and projected demand.

EDIT: where I got my oil usage estimate: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption
 
Last edited:
#29
#29
IPorange said:
Yes. Nuclear power is quite safe. People fear it because they don't fully understand it and radioactivity.
Click to expand...

One of my only concerns with Nuclear power is how hard it is to staff plants with qualified engineers. Apparently that's one of the biggest problems they run into.
 
#30
#30
KB5252 said:
Chernobel (sp?) Set nuclear energy back considerably. If you go back and look at the reasons for the meltdown you find that the reason was very poor management of the reactor.
Click to expand...

People always call it a meltdown, but it wasn't even that. A meltdown has never occurred. It was a steam explosion. I do agree that it was due to poor management, as well as design flaws that no longer exist in nuclear plants, as well as a lot of bad luck.
 
#31
#31
IPorange said:
Yes. Nuclear power is quite safe. People fear it because they don't fully understand it and radioactivity.
Click to expand...

Also, compare price/watts on all energy choices, Nuclear is the best bang for your buck. Take a few minutes and look over Pickens windmill plan. People think you stick a windmill in the ground and wa-la, power source. The amount of capital it would take just to put in infrastucture to get it started is staggering, and when it was being thrown around as a viable program, sure every one wants it, but not in my neighborhood, or where I can see it. And where it makes the most since, costal areas, yeah, try and fly that by the enviromental police, much less the real estate barons.
 
#32
#32
DC Vol said:
One of my only concerns with Nuclear power is how hard it is to staff plants with qualified engineers. Apparently that's one of the biggest problems they run into.
Click to expand...

Would part of the problem there be that we simply have had no demand for these qualified engineers? If we know there will be some being built certainly there would be a rush for those interested to take the appropriate courses in college and seek the additional training in Europe where they have the expertise.
 
#33
#33
iceman9 said:
Also, compare price/watts on all energy choices, Nuclear is the best bang for your buck. Take a few minutes and look over Pickens windmill plan. People think you stick a windmill in the ground and wa-la, power source. The amount of capital it would take just to put in infrastucture to get it started is staggering, and when it was being thrown around as a viable program, sure every one wants it, but not in my neighborhood, or where I can see it. And where it makes the most since, costal areas, yeah, try and fly that by the enviromental police, much less the real estate barons.
Click to expand...

wind turbines cut up birds like its going out of style. And they are not very efficient so it requires tons of them to amount to anything. They are not environmentally friendly, in the ways that they are often wanted to be deployed..
 
#34
#34
IPorange said:
wind turbines cut up birds like its going out of style. And they are not very efficient so it requires tons of them to amount to anything. They are not environmentally friendly, in the ways that they are often wanted to be deployed..
Click to expand...

I also understand they are fairly expensive to maintain.
 
#35
#35
DC Vol said:
One of my only concerns with Nuclear power is how hard it is to staff plants with qualified engineers. Apparently that's one of the biggest problems they run into.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you, but the same problem lies in the high tech industy(silicon valley), and they've had to bring in skilled workers from all over the world, hundreds of thousands of immigrants come in every year, recruit who you need, and its not like we don't have school programs for this already, make it a priority and see how many kids go into this for a career.
 
#36
#36
KB5252 said:
I also understand they are fairly expensive to maintain.
Click to expand...

unbelievably expensive, and who are we going to get to work on this energy sources, how long will it take for viable maintenance people to be in place to make effecient enough to run. Also, that wind and sun, are not 24/7/365 energy sources, whats your back up plan?
 
#37
#37
iceman9 said:
The same people who argue for alternative energy would throw themselves off of a cliff before they would allow a nuclear plant to be built. The best power source going. So, when I here, yeah I'm all for it, throw the kitchen sink at it, lets go. Does that include nuclear power?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't...though if the federal government doesn't get serious soon about establishing an effective plan to open a repository, then I would have a problem with new plants.
 
#38
#38
iceman9 said:
unbelievably expensive, and who are we going to get to work on this energy sources, how long will it take for viable maintenance people to be in place to make effecient enough to run. Also, that wind and sun, are not 24/7/365 energy sources, whats your back up plan?
Click to expand...

They are a solid supplementary power source, but they can never be your total plan. Sort of like hydroelectric. Solar could really be used a lot more, though. The idea of large fields of solar panels or giant wind turbines is thinking in the past. Start putting solar panels over parking lots, and on every roof. That's how you can best use that technology: by integrating it throughout the grid, to curb general energy demand.
 
#40
#40
IPorange said:
People always call it a meltdown, but it wasn't even that. A meltdown has never occurred. It was a steam explosion. I do agree that it was due to poor management, as well as design flaws that no longer exist in nuclear plants, as well as a lot of bad luck.
Click to expand...

The nuclear fuel pellets did not meltdown in Chernobyl? Really? Once the reactor was exposed after the explosion, how did it not meltdown?
 
#41
#41
KB5252 said:
Would part of the problem there be that we simply have had no demand for these qualified engineers? If we know there will be some being built certainly there would be a rush for those interested to take the appropriate courses in college and seek the additional training in Europe where they have the expertise.
Click to expand...

I think so.
 
#42
#42
IPorange said:
They are a solid supplementary power source, but they can never be your total plan. Sort of like hydroelectric. Solar could really be used a lot more, though. The idea of large fields of solar panels or giant wind turbines is thinking in the past. Start putting solar panels over parking lots, and on every roof. That's how you can best use that technology: by integrating it throughout the grid, to curb general energy demand.
Click to expand...

Agreed, you use it as a helper, and work it in slowly developing the technology as you go in a work inviroment, much much more effecient way of going IMO
 
#45
#45
TennTradition said:
The nuclear fuel pellets did not meltdown in Chernobyl? Really? Once the reactor was exposed after the explosion, how did it not meltdown?
Click to expand...
If you have a opinion on this would be glad to here it, recycled nuclear waste, how close to 100% are we, its now at about 75%, am I correct on that?
 
#46
#46
TennTradition said:
The nuclear fuel pellets did not meltdown in Chernobyl? Really? Once the reactor was exposed after the explosion, how did it not meltdown?
Click to expand...

In the sense that the far-reaching aspects of the disaster were not caused by a meltdown, but rather the release of radioactive steam and debris.

Ah hell, it was totally a meltdown.
 
Last edited:
#47
#47
iceman9 said:
unbelievably expensive, and who are we going to get to work on this energy sources, how long will it take for viable maintenance people to be in place to make effecient enough to run. Also, that wind and sun, are not 24/7/365 energy sources, whats your back up plan?
Click to expand...

Not so... Boone Pickens has and is building massive turbine farms. Germany has them all over the place. The turbines last about 25 years, and you can get a pretty decent ROI with them. Its not the answer but it is part of the solution
 
Last edited:
#48
#48
iceman9 said:
If you have a opinion on this would be glad to here it, recycled nuclear waste, how close to 100% are we, its now at about 75%, am I correct on that?
Click to expand...

Do you mean how close is the US politically to recycling nuclear fuel...or do you mean how much of the fuel is recycled in currently employed closed nuclear fuel cycles in other countries? As a disclaimer, I've studied nuclear fuel cycles and fuel recycling to some degree - but not much (basically just spent a summer on it), so I'm not sure how much help I will be.
 
#50
#50
I remember doing a problem in a thermodynamics class a little while back. It involved a very small amount of Uranium-232 and powering a vehicle. In the end, I it was something around 50 years or so. Safety is the major concern with respect to nuclear power, but there's no doubt in my mind that finding safe ways to harness this incredible power is the best route to end our dependence on oil.

With that being said, meeting safety demands with respect to vehicles will be the greatest challenge. See Toyota's ceramic engine from the 80's.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top