AMAZING!!!

[jrance@iacwds.com 716]

Kinda true, kinda not? What do you think?

1911

 

AMAZING! Think of all the people that could have jobs.

Very Interesting!!

Here's an interesting read

Also if I may add, about 6 months ago I was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. This is out of context, but this is the actual question as asked. The host said to Forbes, "I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer, how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground." Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, "more than all the Middle East put together." Please read below.

The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April ('08) that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since '95) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota ; western South Dakota ; and extreme eastern Montana .... check THIS out:

 

The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable... at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion.

 

'When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea..' says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.

 

'This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years' reports, The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' And it stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves.... and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!

 

That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight.

 

2. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from TWO YEARS AGO!

 

U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World!

Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006

 

Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?

 

They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:

 

- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia

- 18-times as much oil as Iraq

- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait

- 22-times as much oil as Iran

- 500-times as much oil as Yemen

- and it's all right here in the Western United States .

 

HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy.....WHY?

 

James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.

 

Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find? Think again! It's all about the competitive marketplace, - it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?

Got your attention/ire up yet? Hope so! Now, while you're thinking about it .... and hopefully P.O'd, do this:

 

3. If you don't take a little time to share with others, then you should stifle yourself the next time you want to complain about gas prices--- because by doing NOTHING, you've forfeited your right to complain.

--------

Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this to every one in your address book.

 

 

By the way...this is all true. Check it out at the link below!!!

 

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

[elvis christ 451]

Dude, the USGS article that is sited to verify the information in the thing you posted totally refutes the claims in the article. It says that there is probably about 3.5 billion barrels of 'recoverable' oil in the oil field. I don't know where the 500 billion barrel claim is coming from.

[saigafreake 27]

the us government will sit on this oil until we run the rest of the world dry.

[zenmetsu 17]

yeah, the numbers do not match up...

 

i am an environmentalist, but every hunter should be one as well. what good is $0.50/gal gas going to do me when i drive all the way to my favorite hunting spot to find that it has been levelled and replaced with oil pumps?? c'mon now.

 

The fact is, we will eventually need to transition off of oil. If we procastinate and do it AFTER we rape our planet's natural resources, then those resources are gone for good. If you level a mountain range to get to the oil, the mountains are not going to come back. We need to get off our asses and make the transition now instead of relying on oil.

[MultiSlacking 102]

I work in the oil industry and see this basic article go around every year. It has some grains of truth to it, but the recovery cost for getting this oil out is so high that most companies wouldn't begin to think of touching it. It's simple economics...if it costs $80 to produce that barrel of oil, think how high "retail" cost would be (and how would you compete when oil is in the $60's right now). There was some mild interest when oil was over $100, but now that it's back down, no one will touch the hard-to-get-to stuff. There will have to be a more cost efficient technology for recovery or oil prices will have to be sky high. Either way, we'll probably be there one day, but not today.

[elvis christ 451]

yeah, the numbers do not match up...

 

i am an environmentalist, but every hunter should be one as well. what good is $0.50/gal gas going to do me when i drive all the way to my favorite hunting spot to find that it has been levelled and replaced with oil pumps?? c'mon now.

 

The fact is, we will eventually need to transition off of oil. If we procastinate and do it AFTER we rape our planet's natural resources, then those resources are gone for good. If you level a mountain range to get to the oil, the mountains are not going to come back. We need to get off our asses and make the transition now instead of relying on oil.

 

I'm going to have to disagree with you. We need to explore all our options for oil, and locate and secure domestic sources. We should be looking for alternate resources, but this whole mentality that we should abruptly cease our usage of fossil fuels will only lead to a bunch of alternate sources that don't perform. It's similar to the way that the US screwed the pooch on small cars in the 70's (and today, to a lesser degree).

Edited September 4, 2009 by elvis christ

[zenmetsu 17]

yeah, the numbers do not match up...

 

i am an environmentalist, but every hunter should be one as well. what good is $0.50/gal gas going to do me when i drive all the way to my favorite hunting spot to find that it has been levelled and replaced with oil pumps?? c'mon now.

 

The fact is, we will eventually need to transition off of oil. If we procastinate and do it AFTER we rape our planet's natural resources, then those resources are gone for good. If you level a mountain range to get to the oil, the mountains are not going to come back. We need to get off our asses and make the transition now instead of relying on oil.

 

I'm going to have to disagree with you. We need to explore all our options for oil, and locate and secure domestic sources. We should be looking for alternate resources, but this whole mentality that we should abruptly cease our usage of fossil fuels will only lead to a bunch of alternate sources that don't perform. It's similar to the way that the US screwed the pooch on small cars in the 70's (and today, to a lesser degree).

 

Not saying that we should not map out and inventory our resources. I am also not saying to drop oil cold-turkey. Sure, oil will be hard to replace for motor vehicles, planes, etc... but other things can easily be transitioned to alternative sources now.

 

Considering that we are supposedly trying to become self sufficient with regards to energy, we sure are not making much of an attempt to treat oil as a scarce resource.

[HateTheSnow 29]

yeah, the numbers do not match up...

 

i am an environmentalist, but every hunter should be one as well. what good is $0.50/gal gas going to do me when i drive all the way to my favorite hunting spot to find that it has been levelled and replaced with oil pumps?? c'mon now.

 

The fact is, we will eventually need to transition off of oil. If we procastinate and do it AFTER we rape our planet's natural resources, then those resources are gone for good. If you level a mountain range to get to the oil, the mountains are not going to come back. We need to get off our asses and make the transition now instead of relying on oil.

 

I'm going to have to disagree with you. We need to explore all our options for oil, and locate and secure domestic sources. We should be looking for alternate resources, but this whole mentality that we should abruptly cease our usage of fossil fuels will only lead to a bunch of alternate sources that don't perform. It's similar to the way that the US screwed the pooch on small cars in the 70's (and today, to a lesser degree).

 

Not saying that we should not map out and inventory our resources. I am also not saying to drop oil cold-turkey. Sure, oil will be hard to replace for motor vehicles, planes, etc... but other things can easily be transitioned to alternative sources now.

 

Considering that we are supposedly trying to become self sufficient with regards to energy, we sure are not making much of an attempt to treat oil as a scarce resource.

 

Viable technologies have been out there for some time. Case in point, a good friend of our family was paid a healthy sum for rights to a patent on a diesel carburetor (by a major US auto company) that got around 250 miles/gallon. This was over 20 years ago. Why it was never implemented, I can't say. Perhaps it was due to emission standards the companies have to take into consideration...that's a guess. I have no idea what the emissions were like for the late 70's model CJ series Jeep he modified and put it into. But, what I can tell you is that my Dad and I drove with him from the Tampa Bay area in Central Florida to Atlanta and back on about a half tank of diesel.

 

To the best of my knowledge, that patent has sat idle ever since.

Edited September 4, 2009 by FLTF3

[lvjeffro 30]

OIl shale, too expensive to be worth extracting right now, so either technology will have to make a huge leap in making it feesable/cost effective to extract the oil from the shale now, or we will have to wait until the rest of the oil supplies in the world have been depleted and then it will be cost effective with current technology to extract the oil and use that for fuel as the cost of oil will skyrocket...

 

I say hydrogen fuel cells and solar batts for the win...

[Bean.223 365]

I hate it when some pundit environmentalist or otherwise says the old cliche, America only has 3 percent of world while using 25 percent of the worlds supply. That is BS, given the chance to LOOK for more oil deposits young enterprising individuals would find them. My ex GF's dad for instance has land that has confirmed to be oil latent. guess what, sued by the environmentalist. Companies would LOVE to bring jobs to poor ass places like the Balkans, guess what environmentalist stop them so the people (who love the US) or did, stay POOR. AND this notion that a oil field will destroy a "place" is just absurd and propaganda. If you go to west central Indiana and east central Illinois you'll find oil pumps IN THE MIDDLE OF CORN FIELDS. And they sell the corn to eat.....NOW if they can get away with selling CORN in commie Illinois that is grown next to a oil pump I THINK ITS OK.

[elvis christ 451]

It's been shown that caribou herds flourish around oil fields. They're attracted to the heat.

[sudaevpps43 31]

Viable technologies have been out there for some time. Case in point, a good friend of our family was paid a healthy sum for rights to a patent on a diesel carburetor (by a major US auto company) that got around 250 miles/gallon. This was over 20 years ago. Why it was never implemented, I can't say. Perhaps it was due to emission standards the companies have to take into consideration...that's a guess. I have no idea what the emissions were like for the late 70's model CJ series Jeep he modified and put it into. But, what I can tell you is that my Dad and I drove with him from the Tampa Bay area in Central Florida to Atlanta and back on about a half tank of diesel.

 

To the best of my knowledge, that patent has sat idle ever since.

 

Those goddamn car companies!!! First they covered up the existence of the 100 mpg carburetor, then they prevented the 200 mpg carburetor from coming to market, and now I find out they did the same thing to the 250 mpg carburetor! Will it never end??!!!!

Edited September 5, 2009 by Frogfoot

[Reverendfranz 160]

Not saying that we should not map out and inventory our resources. I am also not saying to drop oil cold-turkey. Sure, oil will be hard to replace for motor vehicles, planes, etc... but other things can easily be transitioned to alternative sources now.

 

No, it wont. it can be done simply, with technology dating from the 20s and the 50s, its just the cost of doing so for the best returns. Electric cars have been running in the US about as long as there have been cars in the US, and Hydrogen not too long after that. Hydrogen is in all ways more efficient than petrol, and more abundant. The separation process is simple, and only requires electricity to perform, which is the only real cost added to the fuel, other than transportation costs (which could be made quite small, as you can have more localized hydrogen plants than you can oil refineries) and other than this electricity problem, hydrogen fuel would be practically free. But, it does take considerable amounts of electricity, so it is not free, and in fact, not as cheap (though getting close) as petrol.

 

Thats where making electricity cheaper comes in, as if it was made cheaper, the cost for this fuel, and in fact, a lot of other things, would be significantly smaller.

 

Nuclear Power is often mentioned with Fermi's quote about power to cheap to meter, but no one seems to mention why that didnt happen. It didnt happen because "they" (we?) dont want things cheap, so they appealed to general hysteria, and slowed our progress, considerably. The prediction itself is fundamentally sound, still, today, and is very doable, with only a small amount of encouragement.

 

From a single Kg of unenriched Uranium, one of the more abundant minerals on the planet, you can generate 60,000 kWh of electricity in a standard thermo-reactor. Compare that to a single Kg of oil, in an oil fired power plant, which gives you 4kWh, (4) and you can see the orders of magnitude we are talking about, even before you start looking at newer, far more efficient breeder reactors with nearly endless fuel cycles (Illegal, in most countries, wonder why) A test reactor built in france in 1978 was calculated to be able to produce 2.2 million kWh per kg of unenriched uranium, based on a conservative 20% efficiency rating. the fact is, even with our old non-breeder reactors, they produce more fuel, mostly in the form of 239Pu, than is put into them, but because of government regulation, that fuel is removed from the reactor, and placed in giant concrete swimming pools and left to sit. To make matters better, the government pays those plants, with your tax money, to store that "spent" fuel, every day it sits, after refusing to open a permanent storage site. Not that one would be needed, really, if we were allowed to use the breeder reactors, which produce much less waste.

 

Also of some concern to many is the generation of so called Greenhouse Gases, the majority of all of which (after those expelled by earth itself) is electrical generation. Nuclear generation does not directly produce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury or other pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels. Those who argue that Wind and Solar are much cleaner, forget the cost of mining the materials needed, and the amount of energy (and petrolium) it takes to produce a turbine or solar panel, the fact is that both still require mined minerals to manufacture, but wont, kg for kg, be able to generate as much electricity durring their lifetime as will a nuclear power plant, and will be thrown away like so many prius battery packs. Essentially, it is the "Green" choice, as well as the smart one.

 

When Fermi made that prediction about electrical prices, he also said that by the year 2000, there would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 1000 Nuclear Power Plants in the US, today, there are less than 100, and several are slated to close in the next couple years, and there are very few plans to build more.

 

Im sure there is tons of oil left in the US, and im also sure that if we used our heads, we could leave it there, forever, and not miss it, even a little bit. Email letters like that one, go around, but never really tell you what it would cost to get it out, and where we would really be when we are done, which is in exactly the same place we are now. Its time we start moving forward, instead.

 

Also, as just a point of comment, Hunters are Conservationists, not Environmentalists. It might not seem like much of a difference, but i can assure you, it is a significant one, as a conservationist tries to effectively manage the resources around him to ensure they, and as an extension, himself, as part of nature, can last a long time, and environmentalism is a religious movement that elevates some abstract concept of the environment as something that exists separate from humanity, and should be elevated above it, and that everything humans do can only hurt the environment, not help it. They dont understand simple things, like humans are natural, and that culling a deer herd will keep them from starving to death.

[Koliadko 207]

I guess people don't want them in their 'neighborhood'. I myself don't care one hoot. I lived within five miles of Shearon Harris and my folks still do. I'd say the environmentalists are the ones that are keeping anymore from being built.

[DogMan 2,343]

I see a lot of people use the word "environmentalists" with the same repugnance as "communists" or "terrorists". Thats rediculous. Show me any group or movement and I will show you extremists in that group or movement with ideas that I don't agree with but the fact of the matter is that these so-called evil environmentalists are what keep the oil companies and the entire industrial world from fucking up everything they come in contact with. I have worked in the oil industry too and I will tell you matter of factly that they engage in environmental responsibility only to the extent that their feet are held to the fire and they are made to do so. Even then, their is no such thing as a "clean" oil drilling operation. Its a matter of how much pollution we are willing to accept in order to retrieve X amount of barrels of oil.

Edited September 5, 2009 by DogMan

[454496 71]

There is also major oil in the Gulf of Mexico.

[Bean.223 365]

Environmentalist does NOT = Conservationist..........www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS0JADcxIpU

 

EVEN THE CO FOUNDER OF GREEN PEACE agrees that these fools today are "pop environmentalist"

 

Fools.............

 

last few seconds of vid................FIXED

Edited September 5, 2009 by Bean.223

[crackback 135]

For my .02 nuclear power is the way to go for outlet power with a gradual transition to fuel cells/electric/diesel hybrids for personal transport. Keep researching how to make our coal burning cleaner of course but build some damn nuclear plants. Eventually I would like to see us as a net exporter of oil..

[BronCobraJet 80]

yeah, the numbers do not match up...

 

i am an environmentalist, but every hunter should be one as well. what good is $0.50/gal gas going to do me when i drive all the way to my favorite hunting spot to find that it has been levelled and replaced with oil pumps?? c'mon now.

 

The fact is, we will eventually need to transition off of oil. If we procastinate and do it AFTER we rape our planet's natural resources, then those resources are gone for good. If you level a mountain range to get to the oil, the mountains are not going to come back. We need to get off our asses and make the transition now instead of relying on oil.

 

I'm going to have to disagree with you. We need to explore all our options for oil, and locate and secure domestic sources. We should be looking for alternate resources, but this whole mentality that we should abruptly cease our usage of fossil fuels will only lead to a bunch of alternate sources that don't perform. It's similar to the way that the US screwed the pooch on small cars in the 70's (and today, to a lesser degree).

 

Not saying that we should not map out and inventory our resources. I am also not saying to drop oil cold-turkey. Sure, oil will be hard to replace for motor vehicles, planes, etc... but other things can easily be transitioned to alternative sources now.

 

Considering that we are supposedly trying to become self sufficient with regards to energy, we sure are not making much of an attempt to treat oil as a scarce resource.

 

Viable technologies have been out there for some time. Case in point, a good friend of our family was paid a healthy sum for rights to a patent on a diesel carburetor (by a major US auto company) that got around 250 miles/gallon. This was over 20 years ago. Why it was never implemented, I can't say. Perhaps it was due to emission standards the companies have to take into consideration...that's a guess. I have no idea what the emissions were like for the late 70's model CJ series Jeep he modified and put it into. But, what I can tell you is that my Dad and I drove with him from the Tampa Bay area in Central Florida to Atlanta and back on about a half tank of diesel.

 

To the best of my knowledge, that patent has sat idle ever since.

I have a really, REALLY hard timme believing these claims of 100-200 MPG carbs. There is only a set amount of BTU's available in a gallon of gas or diesel. An internal combustion engine is only 40% efficient at it's very best. Unless these people that claim they had/have the carbs can reduce the friction (the biggest waster of energy in an internal combustion engine) of the engine, and the friction of a vehicle, and are some how able to reclaim the heat generated from internal combustion itself, (another waste of energy), there isn't really anyway possible that a 100-200 MPG carb can exist. It goes against every law of physics. Seriously, think about it, if something like that was obtainable and doable, and if one person came up with it, it would be REPEATABLE. The carbs would be all over the place by now. This is simply an urban myth or old wive's tale that people like to perpetuate in the mistaken belief that "someone is out to screw them". It is not mechanically doable. It is not reality. Maybe your friend had a gauge problem or had set the gauge to show what he wanted you to believe. I would bet my last dollar that if it was possible, it would be on the market right now. Why hasn't he given you "as a friend of the family" a simaler device? I will tell you why. IT DOESN"T EXIST! Turbocharging and fuel injection has come a long way in improving efficiency, as well as variable valve timing. 100 MPH carbs (carbs are also very inefficient from the get go compared to Fuel Injection) are a bad joke. EDIT - I meant MPG, not MPH. every thing else I have stated I stand 100% behind. 100-200 MPG carbs are FANTASY.

Edited September 5, 2009 by BronCobraJet

[Diesel42 7]

Cool... what do we do with the waste? Spent nuclear fuel remains deadly toxic for a mere 250,000 years. Our country is only 234 years old. Most scientists agree humanity has been around for 10,000 plus or minus.

 

Hydrogen cells, wind power, wave power, and solar are viable options to oil and should be developed. I was around in the 60's when the media said nuclear energy would be almost free. It wasn't and I don't believe it's a good option.

 

My two cents,

Nick

 

 

For my .02 nuclear power is the way to go for outlet power with a gradual transition to fuel cells/electric/diesel hybrids for personal transport. Keep researching how to make our coal burning cleaner of course but build some damn nuclear plants. Eventually I would like to see us as a net exporter of oil..

[janusthephoenix 24]

Nice write up, ReverendFranz!

 

If I understand correctly, the biggest reason why nuclear power is being and has been suppressed is that plutonium is a by-product of the spent fuel recycling process. Big Brother doesn't want crazies getting their hands on that stuff, so they limit the availability by throwing the clamp on nuke energy.

[RangerM9 1]

yeah, the numbers do not match up...

 

i am an environmentalist, but every hunter should be one as well. what good is $0.50/gal gas going to do me when i drive all the way to my favorite hunting spot to find that it has been levelled and replaced with oil pumps?? c'mon now.

 

The fact is, we will eventually need to transition off of oil. If we procastinate and do it AFTER we rape our planet's natural resources, then those resources are gone for good. If you level a mountain range to get to the oil, the mountains are not going to come back. We need to get off our asses and make the transition now instead of relying on oil.

 

I'm going to have to disagree with you. We need to explore all our options for oil, and locate and secure domestic sources. We should be looking for alternate resources, but this whole mentality that we should abruptly cease our usage of fossil fuels will only lead to a bunch of alternate sources that don't perform. It's similar to the way that the US screwed the pooch on small cars in the 70's (and today, to a lesser degree).

 

Not saying that we should not map out and inventory our resources. I am also not saying to drop oil cold-turkey. Sure, oil will be hard to replace for motor vehicles, planes, etc... but other things can easily be transitioned to alternative sources now.

 

Considering that we are supposedly trying to become self sufficient with regards to energy, we sure are not making much of an attempt to treat oil as a scarce resource.

 

Viable technologies have been out there for some time. Case in point, a good friend of our family was paid a healthy sum for rights to a patent on a diesel carburetor (by a major US auto company) that got around 250 miles/gallon. This was over 20 years ago. Why it was never implemented, I can't say. Perhaps it was due to emission standards the companies have to take into consideration...that's a guess. I have no idea what the emissions were like for the late 70's model CJ series Jeep he modified and put it into. But, what I can tell you is that my Dad and I drove with him from the Tampa Bay area in Central Florida to Atlanta and back on about a half tank of diesel.

 

To the best of my knowledge, that patent has sat idle ever since.

 

 

Guess who likely bought the patent....could it be the oil companies how don't want the oil consumption to decrease? There ahve been many such development that got bought by someone who didn't want it on the market, we see that in biotech all the time. Small start up company comes up with something that works great at half the price of the big companies product....guess who buys the patent (or just sues the little company until they have to fold)......problem solved.

 

While i'm sure it is nice to think that we will never have to transition off oil......get real, there is a limited amount, and it is getting harder and harder to get to for a reasonable cost. We don't have to go cold turkey next week, but we sure better start coming up with some non-fossil fuel alternatives that really work in the next 20 years or we are well and truly BONED!

[Reverendfranz 160]

Well Nick, nuclear waste isnt really "Toxic" its radioactive, which can be easy to confuse, but is a bit different, as lots of minerals (the ones that make the fission process possible, for example, and are as common as the common element lead) are radioactive, and expose us to radiation daily, and in some areas to more radiation that is allowed for human exposure in places like nuclear power plants, just by living there. In Ramsar, Iran, the background radiation levels have been reported as being over 200 times the world average, and have been that high, for as long as people have lived there, with no statisticaly significant ill effects, probably dating back to at least 7000 BC. Ever fly on an airplane? Airline pilots and stewardesses have the highest level of ocupational radiation exposure, of any other occupation in the US.

 

Its quite possible, and more than likely, that life as we know it could not exist without natural radiation.

 

Radiation Hysteria, the abject fear of a fairly simple and easy to control natural phenominon, that has primarily slowwed progress towards this easily atainable energy independence.

 

Somehow, someone got this idea that if we take a naturally radioactive material out of the earth, it becomes unnatural if we were to ever try to put that same, essential material, back into the earth. Shielding is a simple matter of density and distance. if you can show a child how to draw 5 lines radiating from a single point, you can teach that child how radiation works. Its true, Yucca Mountain has been shelved, for laws knows what reason, but how exactly is it safer sitting in concrete swimming pools, in likely your backyards, (or close to) than it would be sitting in a site that was EPA certified for some astronomical number of years, like 100,000 or a million, i forget?

 

Besides, as i mentioned before, if we were allowed to recycle fuel, we would have much much much less waste to worry with at all. (if any, if some predictions are correct.) "At its best, a breeder reactor system produces no nuclear waste whatever - literally everything eventually gets used. In the real world, there actually may be some residual material that could be considered waste, but its half-life - the period of time it takes for half the radioactivity to dissipate - is on the order of thirty to forty years. By contrast, the half-life for the stuff we presently consider nuclear waste is over 25,000 years!"

 

if you are really worried about waste, you can take it and dump it in a tectonic subduction zone, like the Marianas Trench, and within a few hundred or thousands of years the material would be pulled deep within the Earth's interior where it would be completely and utterly dissipated and destroyed. But really, no one really thinks that is really necisary. From the earth, back to the earth, cycle of life and all that.

 

As far as the fear of nuclear bomb material coming out of recycled fuel plants, if that is the reasoning behind it, and i doubt it is, its a very poor one. Its true, recycled fuel, or breeder reactors do produce plutonium, which is needed for nuclear bombs, but more specificly, Plutonium-239 is the only Pu isotope than can be used for nuclear weapons, and it is not the only Pu isotope produced by these reactors, which are quite different than the specialized research reactors used to make pur Pu-239 for nuclear weapons. These breeder power reactors also produce Plutonium-240 and 241 and 242. Now, to date, no one, not us, not france, britain, japan, and who knows who else, (and we have all tried) has ever figured out how to seperate Pu-239, effectively, from its sister isotopes. If you dont have pure, and i do mean pure, Pu-239, you dont have a bomb, you have a failed science experiment, and a big... fizzle. There is zero risk of terrorists being able to steal fuel from a highly guarded nuclear power plant, surpassing 60 years of nuclear science, and building a nuke from scratch, just because we decided we want to provide the best power currently availiable in the US.

 

I admit, i would much prefer that we use something like this http://www.rexresearch.com/bussard/bussard.htm The Fusor Polywell, a small fusion generator that was showing some promise when the navy was funding its development a few years ago. Unfortunately, it isnt technology that is here yet, and while we should move forward with projects like that, we are doing ourselves a great disservice by not using technology that has been at our disposal, unused, for decades, when we have had a problem, the entire time, and no reason not to solve it.

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606

[Lone Star Arms 2,047]

It's true we have lots of oil, and can create jobs in oil production if we wish to. The fact that as a nation, we don't want to, is puzzling and frustrating. We also have plenty of other stuff from which we could produce an abundance of jobs, and an abundance of energy.

 

Nuclear, Solar, Hydrogen, Geo-Thermal.... the list goes on.

 

Why is it that the Chinese have already created some of the top solar enery companies in the world, and are deploying the technology at a breakneck pace, while we are still using it only to power our solar rechargeable garden lights?

 

This IS no engery shortage -if we choose to use available resources - and there SHOULD be no shortage of energy related employment.

 

Where are the Roosevelt style massive socialist public projects designed to heal our economy, and bring us to energy independence within ten years? Does anyone remember how important the issue was BEFORE the election?

 

If the American electorate is hell bent on pursuing a socialist agenda, shouldn't we be putting the horse before the cart, and creating the jobs we need to support the economy BEFORE we burden ourselves with great giveaway programs that will tax every man, woman, and child in this country into relative poverty?

 

Hey. I'm just saying....

 

WS

[Bean.223 365]

It's amazing what a totalitarian government like China can do huh? WE give them all thier economic power, they have little or NO checks or balances, they do what they want. WHY we ever started doing business with a government like them in the first place is beyond me.

[Lone Star Arms 2,047]

It's amazing what a totalitarian government like China can do huh? WE give them all thier economic power, they have little or NO checks or balances, they do what they want. WHY we ever started doing business with a government like them in the first place is beyond me.

 

Ruthless, irresponsible, capitalism empowering ruthless totalitarian fascism (real communism no longer exists in China - if it ever did). Effectively, we are exploiting 1,000,000,000+ captives of an oppressive totalitarian regime, while giving away tens of millions of American jobs, so that we can nobly empower another price rollback at Wal Mart and improve the lot of the working man.

 

Welcome to the New World Order and happy Labor Day!

 

Sorry for the cynicism. I'm the first to admit I'm becoming a bit jaded as of late.

 

 

WS

[cellsworth 21]

Not saying that we should not map out and inventory our resources. I am also not saying to drop oil cold-turkey. Sure, oil will be hard to replace for motor vehicles, planes, etc... but other things can easily be transitioned to alternative sources now.

 

No, it wont. it can be done simply, with technology dating from the 20s and the 50s, its just the cost of doing so for the best returns. Electric cars have been running in the US about as long as there have been cars in the US, and Hydrogen not too long after that. Hydrogen is in all ways more efficient than petrol, and more abundant. The separation process is simple, and only requires electricity to perform, which is the only real cost added to the fuel, other than transportation costs (which could be made quite small, as you can have more localized hydrogen plants than you can oil refineries) and other than this electricity problem, hydrogen fuel would be practically free. But, it does take considerable amounts of electricity, so it is not free, and in fact, not as cheap (though getting close) as petrol.

 

Thats where making electricity cheaper comes in, as if it was made cheaper, the cost for this fuel, and in fact, a lot of other things, would be significantly smaller.

 

Nuclear Power is often mentioned with Fermi's quote about power to cheap to meter, but no one seems to mention why that didnt happen. It didnt happen because "they" (we?) dont want things cheap, so they appealed to general hysteria, and slowed our progress, considerably. The prediction itself is fundamentally sound, still, today, and is very doable, with only a small amount of encouragement.

 

From a single Kg of unenriched Uranium, one of the more abundant minerals on the planet, you can generate 60,000 kWh of electricity in a standard thermo-reactor. Compare that to a single Kg of oil, in an oil fired power plant, which gives you 4kWh, (4) and you can see the orders of magnitude we are talking about, even before you start looking at newer, far more efficient breeder reactors with nearly endless fuel cycles (Illegal, in most countries, wonder why) A test reactor built in france in 1978 was calculated to be able to produce 2.2 million kWh per kg of unenriched uranium, based on a conservative 20% efficiency rating. the fact is, even with our old non-breeder reactors, they produce more fuel, mostly in the form of 239Pu, than is put into them, but because of government regulation, that fuel is removed from the reactor, and placed in giant concrete swimming pools and left to sit. To make matters better, the government pays those plants, with your tax money, to store that "spent" fuel, every day it sits, after refusing to open a permanent storage site. Not that one would be needed, really, if we were allowed to use the breeder reactors, which produce much less waste.

 

Also of some concern to many is the generation of so called Greenhouse Gases, the majority of all of which (after those expelled by earth itself) is electrical generation. Nuclear generation does not directly produce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury or other pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels. Those who argue that Wind and Solar are much cleaner, forget the cost of mining the materials needed, and the amount of energy (and petrolium) it takes to produce a turbine or solar panel, the fact is that both still require mined minerals to manufacture, but wont, kg for kg, be able to generate as much electricity durring their lifetime as will a nuclear power plant, and will be thrown away like so many prius battery packs. Essentially, it is the "Green" choice, as well as the smart one.

 

When Fermi made that prediction about electrical prices, he also said that by the year 2000, there would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 1000 Nuclear Power Plants in the US, today, there are less than 100, and several are slated to close in the next couple years, and there are very few plans to build more.

 

Im sure there is tons of oil left in the US, and im also sure that if we used our heads, we could leave it there, forever, and not miss it, even a little bit. Email letters like that one, go around, but never really tell you what it would cost to get it out, and where we would really be when we are done, which is in exactly the same place we are now. Its time we start moving forward, instead.

 

Also, as just a point of comment, Hunters are Conservationists, not Environmentalists. It might not seem like much of a difference, but i can assure you, it is a significant one, as a conservationist tries to effectively manage the resources around him to ensure they, and as an extension, himself, as part of nature, can last a long time, and environmentalism is a religious movement that elevates some abstract concept of the environment as something that exists separate from humanity, and should be elevated above it, and that everything humans do can only hurt the environment, not help it. They dont understand simple things, like humans are natural, and that culling a deer herd will keep them from starving to death.

 

 

Very well put ReverendFranz!

[Bean.223 365]

It's amazing what a totalitarian government like China can do huh? WE give them all thier economic power, they have little or NO checks or balances, they do what they want. WHY we ever started doing business with a government like them in the first place is beyond me.

 

Ruthless, irresponsible, capitalism empowering ruthless totalitarian fascism (real communism no longer exists in China - if it ever did). Effectively, we are exploiting 1,000,000,000+ captives of an oppressive totalitarian regime, while giving away tens of millions of American jobs, so that we can nobly empower another price rollback at Wal Mart and improve the lot of the working man.

 

Welcome to the New World Order and happy Labor Day!

 

Sorry for the cynicism. I'm the first to admit I'm becoming a bit jaded as of late.

 

 

WS

 

 

Ah don't blame capitalism for being greedy ITS IT'S JOB!!!! Blame the government for CONTINUOUSLY giving China "Most Favored Trade Status" when it FUCKING MATTERED. Now we are the ones hoping/threatening china to get "Most Favored Trade Status"....please.??

 

Capitalism=GREED IS GOOD!!!

[Bean.223 365]

Not to mention the World "GREEN" powers giving China a pass on it's "Carbon" emissions, while Crucifying the United States for it's supposed evil ways....

[Twinsen 86]

Nothing will ever come of any of this. Democrat states will not explore any method of energy generation. Not solar, not wind, not tidal, not coal, not nuke, nothing. They will never allow it in their states, and they will constantly require more from the rest of the nation for their luxuries. Get over it. Your states will be forced to do everything for them, that's just how it is and how it will forever be. You let the government get the power it has now, and the two coasts will suck the rest of you dry.

 

We will drill for oil in this country eventually, but only after we've given every foreign government their shot at our oil first. Then, we'll do whatever we can to fuck over the center of the country.

 

Stop voting like morons.

Edited September 13, 2009 by Twinsen