Oil Vs. Alternative Energy

@georgeob1,

He knew he couldn't match his supporter's aspirations competing with slaves you mean George. And quite right too.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

There's a difference between being willing to compromise, and totally changing your opinion on something. McCain tends to totally change his opinion on things.

When Obama says 'I'm willing to compromise on drilling, if we can get renewable energy monies in exchange,' it's craven, and when McCain is willing to compromise, it's Lincolnesque?

Anyways, we're getting far afield. Suffice it to say that there are many pro-drilling advocates who are unwilling to compromise on the issue at all. I don't see how that shows anything other than a stiff-necked partisanship that does not advance our interests as a nation.

Here, think about it this way. Folks want renewable energy investment and credits? Fine. Give them 20 or 30 billion dollars over the next two years. It's not a ton of money from our government's point of view, less then two months of our current wars. But it's a lot of money from the point of view of the industry, who will love it. Funnel the money towards infrastructure with some going to tax credits. In return, get drilling, which should be a major boon to the economy according to your side.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I think closing down mutton into lamb conversion facilities might be an even bigger boon to the economy.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I always count nuclear with renewable energy sources, for it is by far the cleanest and most powerful energy source we have available today.

Cycloptichorn

Uranium is a mineral that requires exploration to find, and there are estimated reserves around the world, just like oil, so I think that is not accurate. Unless we can develop fusion, or some other process other than using U238, so as of now - when the fuel is spent, we may bury it in the earth somewhere. Not exactly renewable using current technology. Also, resources are concentrated in certain countries, one important one being Canada. Not alot of fuel in terms of actual quantity is required to fuel a nuclear plant for a long time, I admit that, so the quantities needed are far different than coal for example, or natural gas. More of the expense of a nuclear plant are tied up in captital costs rather than fuel costs.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie,
The U.S. has huge reserves of highly enriched uranium left over from the nuclear weapons programs, and as well ample reserves of low enrichment fuel for commercial reactors. There are some (now deactivated) uranium mines in the country that could easily be brought back online if there was sufficient demand, and Canada has ample natural reserves of the stuff which they are always eager to sell to us.

Together, we have enough readily available nuclear fuel for a century or two - far more if we begin spent fuel reprocessing and use the residue in reactors of a slightly different design.

4 Replies

@georgeob1,

Sounds good, I hope you are correct. I haven't delved into supplies, except I have read the reason why uranium prices have risen the last couple of years is precisely because some of the old leftover uranium had begun to be used up, and more mines would be needed, thus driving the price up. And sure enough, uranium leasing, drilling, and activation of mines are beginning to be in earnest around the western U.S., from what I have seen. Judging from that, I assumed that reserves are not assured if the nuclear power industry expands.

And so, I wanted to remind cyclops that uranium was in fact, not renewable, it does require mineral resources that cannot necessarily be replaced.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Well Okie, while you are technically correct - I should have said renewables AND nuclear instead of lumping them together - George is also correct that we have absolutely no shortage of fuel sitting around right now, and we won't have to mine to get more uranium for a long time. So, until we can come up with something cleaner (fusion or super-solar or something), it remains an attractive option and an environmentally friendly one.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

George, do you have a good link to support your belief that uranium stockpiles sitting around are plenty to last a long time. I am not under that impression, as I thought the stockpiles were pretty well drawn down as of a few years ago, thus causing a boom in uranium claims, leasing, drilling, etc. here in the U.S. If you have good up to date information, I would be interested, as I have been unable to find definitive information for that on the web, probably just haven't found the right place. I did find info, that indicates world uranium reserves are adequate for at least 100 years, but that includes ore in the ground, yet unmined, not stockpiles laying around, a vast difference between the two. The following link shows the abrupt rise in uranium prices starting about 4 years ago, and isn't price perhaps the top indicator in regard to supply or availability?

http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_g_price.html

P.S. Just a side note, among the things I ran across with the searching in regard to this subject was the notable uranium resources in Niger, a reminder that uranium is one of the most important or the important export of Niger, a reminder that Hussein sent his reps to Niger for only one logical reason, to see about getting yellowcake. There isn't any other logical reason as far as I know, from what I have read.

1 Reply

@okie,

Commercial nuclear fuel is enriched to 3.5% to 6% U-235, depending on the reactor design (natural uranium is less than 1% U-235). The DoE has hundreds of tons of very highly enriched uranium (well above 70%) in storage at various sites throughout the country. Diluted to commercial reactor standards this would yield thousands of tons of reactor fuel. This doesn't include our plutonium reserves which are also substantial.

Flat demand over the past decades caused the closing of all but the most productive and efficient uranium mines. Several, mostly in Canada are being brought back on line now in anticipation of rising demand. There are still others in the U.S. that would be economical at current prices if the paranoia over things nuclear were reduced. The price rise to which you refer is much smaller than the comparable rise in other fuel sources, particularly including natural gas and petroleum over the period, and, compared to the relative energy yield involved, is much smaller still.

The energy yield of our nuclear fuel could be extended several times by reprocessing the spent fuel and separating out the remaining fissionable U-235 and other fissionable nuclides all for use in reactors of a slightly different design. That option and the technology to support it has been available for decades. Unfortunately it was outlawed in this country under the Jimmy Carter Administration (though other countries continue to do it).

If these actions were all taken we could source over one third of our electrical power from these reactors for over a century.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

The energy yield of our nuclear fuel could be extended several times by reprocessing the spent fuel and separating out the remaining fissionable U-235 and other fissionable nuclides all for use in reactors of a slightly different design. That option and the technology to support it has been available for decades. Unfortunately it was outlawed in this country under the Jimmy Carter Administration (though other countries continue to do it).

There is half truth here. Jimmy Carter wanted the deferral of the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor because it was a nuclear dinosaur and was a just a pork barrel project at the Clinch River LMFBR. Many billions and no long life predicted. Carter forgot more about nuclear engeneering than george understands. The LMFBR program was finally defunded by CONGRESS under Reagans insistance in 1983. Carter managed to be heard in this arena.

As far as Okies comment re Carter being "hopelessly ahead of the times", I can agree, If there is an ability to see a problem that will occur in the distant future, then the best time to work on its solution is now, when the cost will be cheapest.

Using Okies argument, we should not be working on fusion technology and any forms of alternative renewable energy so long as oil is cheap and available.

I believe thats how the JApanese began eating Americas lunch wrt automobile technologies.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Using Okies argument, we should not be working on fusion technology and any forms of alternative renewable energy so long as oil is cheap and available.

Cheap shot, farmerman. If you didn't intend to lie, my apologies, but you need to read my posts more carefully. You have totally misrepresented what I post here. My position on energy is "all of the above," and always has been. You need to read more carefully.

Also in regard to Carter, my position has been that government does not usually spend the money well, and the energy solutions will more likely come from the market place, and private enterprise. Government research programs are useless if the results are not economically viable. I seem to recall we've been doing research into fusion for as long as I can remember. I am not against all government research, but I am not in favor of spending tons of taxpayers money without having something realistic come out of it.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

[There is half truth here. Jimmy Carter wanted the deferral of the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor because it was a nuclear dinosaur and was a just a pork barrel project at the Clinch River LMFBR. Many billions and no long life predicted. Carter forgot more about nuclear engeneering than george understands. The LMFBR program was finally defunded by CONGRESS under Reagans insistance in 1983. Carter managed to be heard in this arena.

I made no reference whatever to the Fast Breeder Reactor, and have no idea what stimulated your pointless riff on it. Instead, my reference was very clearly to the reprocessing of the spent nuclear fuel from conventional reactors - something that was indeed outlawed under the Carter Administration as an illusory way of preventing proliferation -- instead we simply gave the business to the British, the French and the Russians who reprocess their spent fuel (and that of Japan, Germany and several other nations) prodigiously - and denied ourselves of the benefits of extending the life of nuclear fuel used in this country.

In addition you omitted several important elements of your largely irrelevant rant. Congress continued to fund research into fast fission through the mid 1990s with the FF Test reactor at Hanford Washington. In fact substantial progress was made, and the foundation established for new mixed fuel and reactor designs that could - if applied - extend the useful power output of existing fuel materials several times. Frankly the technology is a good deal more promising than the Fusion option to which you referred. It doesn't appear to me that you are a well qualified judge of who has forgotten what about nuclear engineering - the contrary is evident.

0 Replies

I don't know whether or not I am happy to see farmerman presenting similar problems to contributors as he does to me on the ID thread. It's reassuring to an extent I suppose but it doesn't help the learning process.

okie- I'm not sure there is such a thing, speaking scientifically, as taxpayer dollars. It's more a mythological concept to me.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

george wrote :

Quote:

Canada has ample natural reserves of the stuff which they are always eager to sell to us.

there are plenty of mothballed uranium mines in northern ontario - waiting to be re-activated ... some day ???
ehbeth used to work out of sudbury and when we visited with her , we could visit some of those mines within a 200 mile radius of sudbury .

ELLIOT LAKE is one of those retirement communities .

http://50plus.com/Classifieds/RetirementCommunities/Ontario/index.cfm?focus=item&classifiedID=2305

Quote:

Located just 20 minutes from the north shore of Lake Huron, the City of Elliot Lake is tucked amongst six freshwater lakes and the beauty of northern Ontario. This popular retirement community offers city living with a rural lifestyle. Modern conveniences include a transit system, a first-class hospital, a new 18-hole championship golf course and easy access to fishing, hiking, canoeing, down hill and cross country skiing, curling and swimming, along with a multitude of social and recreational clubs. Elliot Lake Retirement Living offers a wide variety of rental styles to choose from: Apartments from $425/month Townhomes from $504/month Homes from $535/month

(it's still owned by the mining company and they subsidize the rent . original they were the residences of the mine employees .
it's all pretty spiffy - with the latest living conveniences )

they likely won't show the residents the report by the government of canada .

http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geochem/envir/uranium_e.php

(it's all been cleaned up now , they say . we'd rather stay where we are , despite higher housing costs here) .

it's beautiful country in northern ontario - no question about it - good fishing , hunting , snowmobiling ... ...
hbg

1 Reply

@hamburger,

There's also lots of the stuff in the Rocky Mountains of the U.S. and Canada.

0 Replies

georgeob---Youve conflated the ONE site where J Carter wanted defunding and have extended it to the entire network(You made the Carter Admin the 'angel of death" for nuclear power when the contrary is correct). Carter was totally against theLIQUID METAL fast fission technology(Hanford was not that), and was a reluctant supporter of the Pu tech fast breeder reactors.
You seem to want to make Jimmy the "Fall guy" in the death of nucler power and thats not so. He was a nuclear supporter even after TMI. He was dead set againts technologies that did not have potentials for extended lives.

As far as sources of U for enrichment and fast breeder tech(FFT means somethinmg entirely different in my field), weve got U all over the place, even in the coal fields of PA and WVa. The sandstones of the appalachians and all the mountain ranges of the west are loaded with "carnotite" a sandstone rich in U and Th. Anyplace that is downhill from a granite source rock is a potential U ore

OKIE-You made a statement that deserved contradiction, it wasnt a cheap shot, you deserved it. Youre obviously not able to see future opportunities.

1 Reply

HERES WHAT JIMMY CARTER SAID IN 1977. HIS UNDERSTANDING OF NUCLEAR POWER WAS NOT AS SOME ROOKIE, as many wish to portray him

Quote:

We are now completing an extremely thorough review of all the issues that bear on the use of nuclear power. We have concluded that the serious consequences of proliferation and direct implications for peace and security--as well as strong scientific and economic evidence--require:
--a major change in U.S. domestic nuclear energy policies and programs; and
--a concerted effort among all nations to find better answers to the problems and risks accompanying the increased use of nuclear power.

I am announcing today some of my decisions resulting from that review.

First, we will defer indefinitely the commercial reprocessing and recycling of the plutonium produced in the U.S. nuclear power programs. From our own experience, we have concluded that a viable and economic nuclear power program can be sustained without such reprocessing and recycling. The plant at Barnwell, South Carolina, will receive neither Federal encouragement nor funding for its completion as a reprocessing facility.

Second, we will restructure the U.S. breeder reactor program to give greater priority to alternative designs of the breeder and to defer the date when breeder reactors would be put into commercial use.

Third, we will redirect funding of U.S. nuclear research and development programs to accelerate our research into alternative nuclear fuel cycles which do not involve direct access to materials usable in nuclear weapons.

Fourth, we will increase U.S. production capacity for enriched uranium to provide adequate and timely supply of nuclear fuels for domestic and foreign needs.

Fifth, we will propose the necessary legislative steps to permit the U.S. to offer nuclear fuel supply contracts and guarantee delivery of such nuclear fuel to other countries.

Sixth, we will continue to embargo the export of equipment or technology that would permit uranium enrichment and chemical reprocessing.

Seventh, we will continue discussions with supplying and recipient countries alike, of a wide range of international approaches and frameworks that will permit all nations to achieve their energy objectives while reducing the spread of nuclear explosive capability. Among other things, we will explore the establishment of an international nuclear fuel cycle evaluation program aimed at developing alternative fuel cycles and a variety of international and U.S. measures to assure access to nuclear fuel supplies and spent fuel storage for nations sharing common nonproliferation objectives.

We will continue to consult very closely with a number of governments regarding the most desirable multilateral and bilateral arrangements for assuring that nuclear energy is creatively harnessed for peaceful economic purposes. Our intent is to develop wider international

Seems he was concerned about nuclear proliferation in the days pre "suitcase bombers "

2 Replies

@farmerman,

No wonder you voted him deselected fm. What a wimp eh? Fancy wanting to be loved that much by the wobblies.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

HERES WHAT JIMMY CARTER SAID IN 1977. HIS UNDERSTANDING OF NUCLEAR POWER WAS NOT AS SOME ROOKIE, as many wish to portray him

I didn't say Carter was a rookie - rather that he was a fool. Whatever nuclear engineering training he had, I completed as well. What he didn't have was qualification as a plant engineering officer; experience in operational command of nuclear powerplants and ships; or operational responsibility for operating nuclear faciulities at Hanford and Rocky Flats -- things I did for years.

I have no idea what motivates your largely irrrelevant riff on subjects that have nothing whatever to do with the post of mine to which you object so vociferously. The only reference I made was to the fact - supported by your quote above - that Carter foolishly brought about the end of the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors to recover the fissionable plutonium and the substantial residual and still fissionable U-235. Nothing was acconplished to limit nuclear proliferation - nothing at all. Instead the British, the French and the Russians took over and provided this service for their own reactors and those of other nations, while we wastefully stored still recoverable fissionable nuclides in storage sites across the country - where they still reside as "waste".

Having a bad few days???

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

OKIE-You made a statement that deserved contradiction, it wasnt a cheap shot, you deserved it. Youre obviously not able to see future opportunities.

Any misrepresentation of my position on this issue is a cheap shot, and that is what you did. As far as not seeing future opportunities, that is utter nonsense. I have no clue where you get these ideas, you must make them up, because they are not based on my posts here.

1 Reply

Oil Vs. Alternative Energy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know