Nationalization of oil industry

You have NOT answered the allegation.
Click to expand...

There was no allegation, just name-calling.

For the love of Pete, try the facts for once. There are 104 operating reactors in the United States. Some job by the "eco-terrorists" over the years, eh?

For the last 10 years there have been laws on the books subsidizing and practically begging industry to build more. They don't right now for a simple reason: they're not economical when compared to carbon-based plants. Their cost per kWh is too high. That may change if the price of carbon goes up, but it hasn't yet.
 
They don't right now for a simple reason: they're not economical when compared to carbon-based plants.
Click to expand...
A little local perspective on Nuclear plants (or should I say Nukuler).

In the 80's a new plant was being built in Iuka, MS by TVA...which is the home town of my partner. This plant was a boon to their economy and they welcomed it. There was some small outside protesting but Iuka is so far from any large cities that it mostly went unnoticed.

The plant went through several stages. There was the initial proposals, hearings, site development, and so on. In the end TVA had received free land from the county, received tons of money from state and federal grants, and had even gone as far as to hire many workers...but then, the plant never opened.

At first they claimed they were being halted because of an accident at another of their plants that was nearly a 3-mile Island level event. In the end, it was leaked to the press that they had pulled out because profit forcasts had turned out to be too low and that the plant would have been lucky to break even and that was with the financial aid of the government. The report claimed that TVA feared that a small change in government assistance would push them into the red and that recent negative nuclear happenings might cause diminished funding.

"Nuclear power is expensive, dangerous, and dirty" was a line from there own report and one of the reasons they felt public opinion of nuclear power was sure to waiver in coming years...and I agree with them. Nuclear waste is not a small issue. Look at all the problems that existed with the small number of plants we have had over a short number of years. Now imagine what would happen it we had two or three times the number of plants running for decades. if they find a way to eliminate the waste I can live with the risk, but not both.

Wind and solar are the way to go. Small initial investment, minimal maintenance, zero risk, and no waste.
 
Coal power plants produce nuclear waste, it's just not called that. There's more heat energy in the fly-ash piles from uranium and thorium than there was in the coal that was burned to produce them. If a nuclear plant released as much radioactive waste in a year as a coal plant releases in a day, it would be shut down and fined into bankruptcy.

The only problem with nuclear waste right now is political, not technological. If we reprocessed spent fuel, we could cut our waste stream down to a fraction of its current volume and end up with waste that is only dangerous for a few hundred years, instead of millions.

nate45 said:
Anti collusion laws aside do you ever see the major fueling stations have disparate pricing?
Click to expand...
So are you saying that government should force one gas station to post a price higher than the one across the street for the same grade of gasoline?

It's called "Economics 101" - fungible commodities. Look it up.

Why do you think Mobil spent billions advertising their "Drive Your Engine Clean" slogan or pushing their SpeedPass system? Because they needed to convince people that it was worth it to spend five cents more per gallon on Mobil gasoline instead of on the convenience store gasoline down the street which came from the same refinery and is virtually indistinguishable from the Mobil product.
 
Coal power plants produce nuclear waste, it's just not called that. There's more heat energy in the fly-ash piles from uranium and thorium than there was in the coal that was burned to produce them. If a nuclear plant released as much radioactive waste in a year as a coal plant releases in a day, it would be shut down and fined into bankruptcy.

The only problem with nuclear waste right now is political, not technological. If we reprocessed spent fuel, we could cut our waste stream down to a fraction of its current volume and end up with waste that is only dangerous for a few hundred years, instead of millions.
Click to expand...
What are the numbers in terms of gallons of radioactive waste produced by coal plants in comparison to nuclear plants? How is it stored?

If we reprocessed the waste from nuclear plants what would the number change, in gallons, be in relationship to actual material stored and what would the reprocessing cost?
 
Wind and solar are the way to go. Small initial investment, minimal maintenance, zero risk, and no waste.
Click to expand...

So I read about how much money you make playboypenguinn, when will you be erecting your windmill and your bank of solar batteries on your roof.???

If what you said was true the Blue water wind company that has proposed a 150 unit offshore windfarm for my state Delaware wouldn't be requiring the local power company to commit to a 25 year exclusive customer deal before they build it because they would be easily able to sell that power on the Grid.
The fact is that by their own admission they have to charge 4 times the rate charged for coal generated power for it to be viable, and they need a backup gas plant for the peak demand times in the summer when the wind isnt blowing enough, and thats with very optimistic and unproven assumptions about the life of the equipment, wind speeds, and the operating costs. The folks makeing the turbines they are proposing to buy, have halted production because the transmissions are not standing up to the saltwater and stress projected. This is at the already existing turbine field off the netherlands where the turbines are failing after less than 5 years service.


The Democrats are just making silly noises because they know full well that after they siezed control the resulting availibility crisis would drve gas prices to $10.00 a gallon and there would be severe shortages. That means they would lose the next election by a landslide (remember Carter v.s. Regan 1980???) when folks woke up to the fact that the Dems took the gas out of the tank of their SUVs.
 
I cannot have a windmill because of zoning laws but I do have passive solar for my hot water (transfered from my old home which was installed by a previous owner).

As an idividual, full solar is to expensive to install in a home you do not intend to keep for more than five years.

Just what is your point anyway?

By the way, you might want to look at the big picture of multiple source power from solar and wind and read current studies.

Also, please provide a link to the study you are quoting.
 
As an idividual, full solar is to expensive to install in a home you do not intend to keep for more than five years.

Just what is your point anyway?
Click to expand...

Maybe the point is the apparent inconsistency concerning cost.

Wind and solar are the way to go. Small initial investment, minimal maintenance, zero risk, and no waste.
Click to expand...
 
Maybe the point is the apparent inconsistency concerning cost.
Click to expand...
There is a HUGE difference between an individual system you will keep for less than five years and a multi-home system that can run for multiple decades. I am sure you can see that without me pointing it out to you.
 
Forbes on Fox this morning was predicting $20/gallon for gas if the govt takes over refineries, because they are such abysmal failures at managing anything, education, immigration, the list goes on and on. Who do you think know's more about oil production and refinery management, the oil compay exec's, many of whom probably have masters or doctorate degrees in petroleum engineering/business management. Or is it the govt bufoons, who are completely clueless about running anything? Many Congressmen are highly educated, but they act like idiots. They don't know the first thing about managing oil production and refining.
 
The fact is, that solar energy generation is still not cost effective, compared to fossil fuels. Read this report, http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/06/16/daily39.html.

The cost to generate electricity by solar is $5.50 to $7.00 per kWh, compared to $3.02 to $3.82 for fossil fuel. By 2015, it is projected to cross over, and reach parity. That is 8 years from now. This is an optimistic study, others have set the cross over point 15-20 years out. If we started drilling our oil reserves now, we could be producing in 3-5 years, maybe less. So, why wait? Start drilling now, and when solar is cost effective, we can begin switching to it.

What I don't get is why liberals and Dems don't want to extract more of our own oil. It is cheaper, has less negative environmental impact and would get us off dependence on foreign oil quicker. So, what is the problem?
 
If you actually read that article it pretty much says that solar could be just as cheap and productive as traditional fossil fuel power sources within a decade (8 years) at the current rate of development. If we started putting more into it now I am betting that time frame could be cut in half at the very least.

The article did not seem to take into account new developments in the solar industry though. Solar panels can now be created that are as thin as a piece of paper and can utilize the entire visible spectrum instead of a single wavelength. There are also a lot more viable options for individual homes that wish to go "off grid."
 
Playboy, I agree that someday solar may be feasible. My question is, why not do both? Why not hedge our bet? While we are waiting for alternative sources, why not use the natural resources we have? Both paths would lead to energy independence, which everyone seems to want.
 
Why keep beating a dying horse when a perfectly healthy one is right next to you? Fossil fuels are dirty, difficult to obtain, and finite. Why waste time, effort, and funding on them while diverting it from better, cleaner, inexhaustible alternatives.
 
Last edited:
Fossil fuels are dirty, difficult to obtain, and finite. Why waste time, effort, and funding on them while diverting it from better, cleaner, inexhaustible alternatives.
Click to expand...

In a word money, if we all had access to an inexpensive renewable energy source then how would the oil companies and their shareholders make enormous profits?
 
There is a HUGE difference between an individual system you will keep for less than five years and a multi-home system that can run for multiple decades. I am sure you can see that without me pointing it out to you.
Click to expand...

What I can see is that you are promoting the cost efficiency of solar for others... but not for yourself.

Investing in solar is too costly for you because you might keep your house for less than five years. You recognize that you would lose a large portion of your investment when you sell your house because 'the market' places a very low value on solar. Thus, I see claims about 'low initial investment' and 'cost efficiency' but I also see the collective judgement of 'the market' saying it's not worth much.
 
What I can see is that you are promoting the cost efficiency of solar for others... but not for yourself.

Investing in solar is too costly for you because you might keep your house for less than five years. You recognize that you would lose a large portion of your investment when you sell your house because 'the market' places a very low value on solar. Thus, I see claims about 'low initial investment' and 'cost efficiency' but I also see the collective judgement of 'the market' saying it's not worth much.
Click to expand...
Nothing in that whole post makes any sense. You can distinguish between small, short term investments and large, long term investments, correct?

Putting full solar system on a private home that you plan to sell soon is like putting new tires on your rental car.
 
Putting full solar system on a private home that you plan to sell soon is like putting new tires on your rental car.
Click to expand...

Your 'rental car' analogy is baseless because it does not involve ownership.

If you make prudent improvements to a home you own, you can recover most of your investment through the increased value of the home when it is sold.

If you make frivolous changes to a home you own, you have wasted your money because the changes do not increase the home's value.

And I happen to agree with you that it is too costly to put a solar system on a private home that you plan to sell soon... because the increase in the home's value will be far less than the cost.

You can distinguish between small, short term investments and large, long term investments, correct?
Click to expand...

Yes, and I have been handsomely compensated for doing so for more than 30 years. :D
 
Seems to me like it is still more expensive to use solar than grid power.

You do realize that the solar cells have a limited lifespan and they do not produce enough power as of yet to justify their cost. The studies i've read published by Berkely say you would need a collection effeciency of 10% before solar started to become economically practical.

http://www.montanagreenpower.com/solar/curriculum/lesson8.html

Background

PV systems are more cost-effective in some situations than in others, depending on the size and nature of the load, the availability of the solar resource, and the cost of alternative sources of power. In many situations, PV can be more cost-effective than many alternatives.

For example, PV is often the cheapest source of electricity for a remote home that is located far from the existing utility grid. In these instances, extending the utility grid is often not feasible or very expensive, making PV a good choice. However, in situations where utility-supplied electricity is readily available and inexpensive, PV systems become less cost-effective.

When we think about whether a PV system is cost-effective, we must consider both financial costs and environmental costs. Financial costs can include system and component costs, design costs, installation, structural support for the modules, site preparation, and more. Today in Montana, a 2- to 4- kilowatt (kW) grid-intertied PV system will have an installed cost between $9 and $16 per watt, with the electricity produced over the life of the system costing 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour. In comparison, residential electricity purchased from the utility grid costs about 7 cents per kilowatt-hour.
Click to expand...
 
Playboy, with all due respect, and I do respect you, the problem with the left's approach is that it is all-or-nothing. I think the American public would buy a combined approach to energy, but the notion that we have to abandon fossil fuels before there is a proven alternative is not something the American public is likely to accept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top