|
Post by fredorbob on May 22, 2011 18:24:06 GMT -6
The US use to be the world's largest exporter of oil, up to around WW2. Too bad we exported so much, we could use that today. I wonder if one day we're going to regret burning natural gas in power stations.
|
|
|
Post by waltc on May 22, 2011 22:06:06 GMT -6
The US use to be the world's largest exporter of oil, up to around WW2. Too bad we exported so much, we could use that today. I wonder if one day we're going to regret burning natural gas in power stations.
As it stands we have approximately 60+ years(according to industry studies) worth at current consumption rates. If we are stupid enough to replace coal or nuclear plants with NG fired ones, we'd cut it down to 30-40 years.
And if we start powering cars and trucks by it.... it gets bad, real fast.
Fraking BTW doesn't increase NG yields so it's no savior despite what the shiny TV ads state.
But you can't tell the NG promoters any of this.
|
|
|
Post by waltc on May 22, 2011 22:14:51 GMT -6
Merkel's response is a case study in stupidity in the face of tens of thousands college educated marxists and misanthropic loons. These people need to be clubbed like baby seals and few stuff and mounted, not listened to.
No, NG won't save Germany, though they'll rape Poland and a few other East European countries for NG via fraking. But that's ok since the Greens won't see the damage their fucking stupidity is causing.
It's like all the f**king losers who buy Apple products and think they are cool. They don't give a shit their shiny toy is made in a giant slave factory that spews toxic waste like mad. Out of sight, out of mind.
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on May 26, 2011 13:19:05 GMT -6
5 Swiss nuke energy plants will die as a political policy All German nuke energy plants will die as a political policy No New Japanese nuke energy plants will be build (they planned to about double nuke energy plants) "...Switzerland is the second country in Europe, after Germany, to drop nuclear energy as an electricity source after protests flared up ... 20,000 Swiss protested over the weekend " =========================================================================================== Swiss Move to End Nuclear Era ZURICH—The Swiss government Wednesday decided to exit nuclear energy by phasing out the country's existing nuclear plants and seeking alternative energy sources, in a response to security concerns following Japan's nuclear disaster. Antinuclear protesters demonstrate near Switzerland's Beznau nuclear plant Sunday, days before the government recommended phasing it out. . Switzerland is the second country in Europe, after Germany, to drop nuclear energy as an electricity source after protests flared up amid fears that the reactor meltdown at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant, which was hit by an earthquake and a tsunami in March, could be repeated elsewhere. "The government has voted for a phase-out because we want to ensure a secure and autonomous supply of energy," Energy Minister Doris Leuthard said at a news conference in Bern. "Fukushima showed that the risk of nuclear power is too high, which in turn has also increased the costs of this energy form." Switzerland generates roughly 40% of its energy from the country's five nuclear reactors. The rest comes mostly from the more than 1,000 hydropower plants located in the Alps and along Switzerland's rivers. Ms. Leuthard said the government hasn't yet fixed a date for when the last nuclear-power station will go offline, but experts believe such a step could happen around 2040. EU Sets Nuclear Stress-Test Criteria .Resistance to the government's decision may be limited as the recent events in Japan have changed popular opinion, analysts said. However, before the government decision is finalized, the Swiss parliament will discuss the issue. Ms. Leuthard said a popular referendum on the issue also could be held. Meanwhile, Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan told members of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development gathered in Paris that he was seeking a new energy policy that increased the share of green energy to 20% of total power supply by the early 2020s. Mr. Kan said Japan aims to bring down the cost of solar-power generation to a third of its current level by 2020 and to a sixth by 2030. "Our country will put all of our resources into making renewable energy a mainstay of our energy supply," he said Wednesday at a meeting commemorating the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Paris-based international body. His comments provided the most detail yet on the scale of renewable energy expansion that Tokyo is planning. Switzerland's decision to discontinue the country's nuclear-power plants comes as a shock to Swiss utilities. Leading power companies Axpo Holding AG and BKW FMB AG had planned to build two new plants, and pledged to invest some $10 billion. The companies had said new plants are needed if Switzerland wants to avoid being dependent on expensive energy imports. The companies also warned that Swiss industry would suffer from high energy costs. "The government decision will become a problem as far as supply security is concerned," said Axpo Chief Executive Officer Heinz Karrer. He called for an in-depth analysis of the government decision and said that the Swiss population should vote on the issue. Industry group Swissmem, which unites more than 1,000 companies in the Swiss machinery and electrical-engineering industry, said the government decision "is questionable as there is no viable alternative to nuclear energy." Swiss lobby group Economiesuisse said the decision could hit the economy and endanger jobs in the country. Ms. Leuthard said the government will invest in new hydroelectric plants but will also spur the development of renewable-energy resources such as solar and wind power to meet the energy demand. While she declined to provide an investment figure, she said that people and companies should also save more energy going forward and that Switzerland could consider tapping fossil fuels to meet demand. "We want to send a clear signal to the business elite, the population and to investors," Ms. Leuthard said. "It won't be easy, but we are convinced that this is the right step and that it will pay off in the long term." The government's decision comes amid antinuclear demonstrations countrywide. Some 20,000 protested over the weekend against the use of nuclear energy, citing the Japan disaster but also the lack of a viable storage facility for used fuel rods. Finland is in the process of finalizing the world's first permanent storage facility. Plans in Switzerland to create a similar facility have been repeatedly shelved. The country's five existing reactors have operating licenses that expire between 2020 and 2040. online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 87410.html
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on May 31, 2011 9:13:29 GMT -6
Germany is screwed if it planned to used shale natural gas found in or around Germany to replace nuke energy soon. America is blessed with a combination of corrupt government regulators, well established corporations with mad skills in 'fracking' and sophisticated bribing for by passing environmental/pollution poisoning of ground water, and a political desire to promote natural gas while hating nuke energy. average Americans will avoid some of the peak oil crisis, but suffer poison water...so average Americans that live near 'fracking' are not blessed while the masses will not be aware of the moderating impact of abundant 'fracking' natural gas may have on energy prices and as an industrial feedstock for plastics and fertilizer. Germany must rely on wind, solar, bio/algae fuels or imports while shale natural gas 'fracking' is unlikely to provide local European sources of energy. ========================================================== European Shale Gas Is Still Hot Air May 31, 2011 Shale gas has been a game-changer for U.S. energy markets. Following an estimated $250 billion of investment, 23% of US gas production now comes from rocks several thousand meters underground, up from 1% 10 years ago. Could Europe see a similar shale gas revolution? That seems unlikely for the moment. True, Europe could have 639 trillion cubic feet of shale gas, only 25% less than the U.S., according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That could reduce its reliance on gas imports and more polluting alternative fuels. Around 50 companies are exploring for gas now, from majors like ExxonMobil to small independents. But European shale gas is likely to be much more costly to develop. European shale depths are on average 1.5 times lower than in the U.S., according to the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. Europe's dense population doesn't help, as the number of wells needed for commercial shale gas production requires lots of space. Drilling costs are also likely to be higher in Europe, given the lack of a high-tech services sector to support the industry. Meanwhile shale gas faces opposition from environmentalists who fear the extraction process could damage water supply. France is close to banning activity, despite having substantial potential reserves. Production costs could be as high as $16.2 per thousand cubic feet (mcf), according to OIES. That compares with the $8.7 per mcf Gazprom, Europe's main gas supplier, charged for contracted gas in 2010. Existing gas imports from Russia and Africa cost between $3 and $6 per mcf, while US shale gas production costs are around $3 per mcf. Clearly, the outlook for shale gas would improve if gas prices rise. But few expect them to rise high enough to make European shale gas profitable; Bernstein Research expects prices to reach $13.8 mcf by 2015 while Wood Mackenzie expects oil-linked gas prices to rise to only around $11 per mcf by 2025. And in the U.S., the shale gas supply shock has seen prices fall rapidly, meaning producers' returns on investment are in single-digits now, according to TPH. Europe's shale gas revolution may be a long time coming. rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=107575
|
|
|
Post by waltc on May 31, 2011 11:49:12 GMT -6
No Germany isn't screwed, they will get NG from Poland and other East European nations desperate for money.
Those nations will be horribly devastated by this rush for "clean energy".
Of course the stupid, vicious greens couldn't care less. For them it's about being ideologically correct much like their Marxist ancestors.
As for the U.S. our amount of NG isn't that good. Were we to replace all nuclear plants with NG plants our reserve of NG would dwindle to approx 35 years.
Like I said before we need to smash the tiny skulls of greenies because they are ending up supporting extremely destructive energy extraction and consumer practices that actually run counter to being "green".
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on May 31, 2011 14:10:35 GMT -6
No Germany isn't screwed, they will get NG from Poland and other East European nations desperate for money. Those nations will be horribly devastated by this rush for "clean energy". Of course the stupid, vicious greens couldn't care less. For them it's about being ideologically correct much like their Marxist ancestors. As for the U.S. our amount of NG isn't that good. Were we to replace all nuclear plants with NG plants our reserve of NG would dwindle to approx 35 years. Like I said before we need to smash the tiny skulls of greenies because they are ending up supporting extremely destructive energy extraction and consumer practices that actually run counter to being "green". I did include Germany importing in my view: "...Germany must rely on wind, solar, bio/algae fuels or imports while..." Greens won regional elections...sometimes Democracy produces unfortunate election results such as when Germany elected Hilter. If America only gets 35 years of abundant natural gas...that still helps to provide time for a technological miracle that may or may not happen to provide reasonably priced energy. America must play the hand it was dealt and do the best it can within the politics and economics on the times. So, for now German politics is to shut down nuke energy and American politics is to be mindful and pay attention to safety issues at the existing American nuke energy plants without shutting them down by 2022 as the Germans just decided.
|
|
|
Post by waltc on May 31, 2011 19:47:39 GMT -6
If America only gets 35 years of abundant natural gas...that still helps to provide time for a technological miracle that may or may not happen to provide reasonably priced energy. America must play the hand it was dealt and do the best it can within the politics and economics on the times. So, for now German politics is to shut down nuke energy and American politics is to be mindful and pay attention to safety issues at the existing American nuke energy plants without shutting them down by 2022 as the Germans just decided.
We're broke Jeffolie, the banking(usury clan) and investment parasites have bankrupted the country. We don't have the time or resources to fully develop alternatives like Thorium, molten salts and Breeder reactors(to burn nuclear waste), a low cost solar that doesn't require massive tax payer give away to buy and install, etc.
And when the next bubble bursts, it's all over for the U.S. Forget about any new R&D effort or national energy policy. The reality is, any national energy program should have been started 40 years ago, when we had the wealth and brain talent to make it happen.
And those countries who think it's going to be a easy ride with NG are fucking nuts. Once every one gets on the NG bandwagon prices will skyrocket. You think energy costs are bad now wait until Japan and Germany transition over to NG along with the US.
People will be declaring war on the Greentards.
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Jun 1, 2011 11:04:30 GMT -6
Politics killing nuke energy again. Italian anti nuke energy politicans want to put a stake throught the heart in Italy's nuke energy future... impose a permanent ban Italy's ruler wants to go nuke energy, then suspended the nuke energy plan when Japan's troubles happened. ================================================== Italy court gives go-ahead on nuclear referendum MILAN (AFP) – Italy's top appeals court gave the go-ahead for a referendum on nuclear power on Wednesday despite a government decision to temporarily freeze plans to return to nuclear following the disaster in Japan. Italians will vote on June 12 and 13 in the referendum, which if approved and if turnout is high enough would impose a permanent ban on nuclear power. The centre-left opposition has been pushing for a referendum and has dismissed the government's moratorium announced in April as a stop-gap measure. The opposition Italy of Values party had slammed Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi for failing to acknowledge strong public opposition to nuclear power and attempting to undermine the referendum. Berlusconi has long advocated nuclear power. Prior to the court's decision he had insisted the freeze on the programme made it pointless to carry out the referendum, while confirming the government's intentions to pick up the nuclear schedule again within two years. The head of the main opposition Democratic Party, Pier Luigi Bersani, said the go-ahead for the referendum was "excellent news." "The government's dirty tricks have been exposed once more," he said. The "Vote Yes to Stop Nuclear" campaign, an umbrella group of more than 80 associations, said the appeals court had "censured the government's arrogance and given citizens back the right to decide on nuclear." Italy abandoned nuclear power after a referendum in 1987 following the Chernobyl disaster. Berlusconi had planned to start building nuclear power stations from 2014 and to produce a quarter of its electricity with atomic energy by 2030. As well as nuclear power, the referendum will call for Italians to vote on water privatisation. They will also vote on whether the embattled Berlusconi -- currently on trial for sex and fraud crimes -- has the right to refuse to appear in court for an 18-month period to allow him to focus on his political commitments. news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110601/sc_afp/italyenergynucleargovernment_20110601152200
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Jun 1, 2011 11:31:28 GMT -6
You notice all the people pushing for nuke bans are Marxists. This should tell people something. When has a Marxist ever cared for the environment or people? They don't. They just hate the western nations with a passion and want to wreck them.
What better way than to institute rolling blackouts and sky high energy prices for the working class.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Jun 1, 2011 23:47:40 GMT -6
Walt, why don't you buy an old mine in the Mojave and start storing spent fuel rods? You could make a killing.
GB
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Jun 2, 2011 19:21:58 GMT -6
France's Record Heat Puts Strain ... On Nuclear-Plant Cooling France's record drought is threatening electricity supplies, as low water levels reduce hydroelectric power and make it hard to cool nuclear plants, widening the potential impact of the hottest, driest spring in memory. The warning came as neighboring Germany, from which France often buys electricity, shutters some of its nuclear capacity, effectively eliminating its reserve capacity. "We shouldn't be alarmist, but we should be vigilant," French Energy Minister Eric Besson told a French radio show. —Geraldine Amiel online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052702303745304576359752687517350.html
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Jun 2, 2011 20:20:18 GMT -6
Greybeard,
All you got are inane one liners. What a nasty old man.
What don't you get about energy usage and national energy policy?
What don't you get that breeder reactors can use SFR's for fuel instead of having them lay around nuclear reactors as potential time bombs?
Bottom line: We should have had a national energy policy and R&D program going on for the last 40 years to develop and refine current and alternative energy sources. We didn't and now are paying the price.
NG fraking is not a panacea nor a valid replacement for Nuclear(if you bothered to spend 15 minutes googling the subject), not unless you like poisoning working class white people living in rural states and ruining the environment(you probably do by your comments). Sure you buy 35 or so years then it's all gone, but things will get real bad before then once people realize that those like Greybeard sold them a sack of lies. At the end you get a hard stop, then the nation goes terminal face plant.
And we need nuclear. Not the current model - it sucks. We need to develop and refine molten-salts and Thorium reactors. Ideally we should have fusion but it looks like that's fantasy no matter what.
Off course if you want to live like a 3rd worlder with rolling and random blackouts. By all means support getting rid of nuclear and replacing it unreliable "green" sources like wind and solar that are worthless for base line power.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Jun 3, 2011 23:02:34 GMT -6
When you start the name calling, you have lost. Lots of people smarter than you haven't figured out how and where to store that shit, so don't feel too bad.
"We need to develop and refine molten-salts and Thorium reactors. "
Uh, we need energy now, not some scientist's wet dream. Sure, fracking can be disastrous if left to the cheapscrew oil companies, but experts say it doesn't have to be. It needs tight regulation.
GB
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jun 9, 2011 6:37:04 GMT -6
The US use to be the world's largest exporter of oil, up to around WW2. Too bad we exported so much, we could use that today. I wonder if one day we're going to regret burning natural gas in power stations.
As it stands we have approximately 60+ years(according to industry studies) worth at current consumption rates. If we are stupid enough to replace coal or nuclear plants with NG fired ones, we'd cut it down to 30-40 years. And if we start powering cars and trucks by it.... it gets bad, real fast. Fraking BTW doesn't increase NG yields so it's no savior despite what the shiny TV ads state. But you can't tell the NG promoters any of this. I personally don't think we'll ever run out of hydrocarbons. Combining Hydrogen and Carbon atoms isn't exactly rocket science, it just takes energy, which 'hahaha' is one of the greatest cosmic jokes God played on man since it's only profitable when energy is the cheapest.
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Jun 9, 2011 11:55:42 GMT -6
Fredorbob
Energy. No free lunch there. Except maybe if you figure out a way to make Cold or Hot Fusion to work.
Yeah we can make oil out of a lot bio material but all of it takes more energy than we obtain. It makes them unusable from a practical POV.
We can convert solar to hydrogen but then there is the complexity and costs of storing and transporting it. It's another no go.
Take the Tar Sands, they need a enormous amount of energy and water to covert to oil. So much it's a net negative energy generator. If we had Hot or Cold Fusion it would be doable but we don't.
As for oil, we're not going to run out of it. It's just a matter of how much you are willing to pay to get it. In the oil arena all the low hanging fruit has been gotten to already. All the new fields aren't anywhere as productive as the Persian Gulf fields and require a much greater expenditure of money and resources to make work.
But here's the wildcard. If KSR(Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) happens to fall to AQ or some form of it, it's going to tank the world economies overnight. Why? Because they are still a big dog oil producer and if their supplies cease or are disrupted all hell will break lose. Considering Yemen is on the verge of a ecological(overpopulated and almost out of water) and political collapse, KSR could see itself flooded with a half million Khat eating peasants. That could very easily topple the autocratic thugs that rule KSR.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jun 9, 2011 22:00:43 GMT -6
Fredorbob Energy. No free lunch there. Except maybe if you figure out a way to make Cold or Hot Fusion to work. Yeah we can make oil out of a lot bio material but all of it takes more energy than we obtain. It makes them unusable from a practical POV. We can convert solar to hydrogen but then there is the complexity and costs of storing and transporting it. It's another no go. Take the Tar Sands, they need a enormous amount of energy and water to covert to oil. So much it's a net negative energy generator. If we had Hot or Cold Fusion it would be doable but we don't. As for oil, we're not going to run out of it. It's just a matter of how much you are willing to pay to get it. In the oil arena all the low hanging fruit has been gotten to already. All the new fields aren't anywhere as productive as the Persian Gulf fields and require a much greater expenditure of money and resources to make work. But here's the wildcard. If KSR(Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) happens to fall to AQ or some form of it, it's going to tank the world economies overnight. Why? Because they are still a big dog oil producer and if their supplies cease or are disrupted all hell will break lose. Considering Yemen is on the verge of a ecological(overpopulated and almost out of water) and political collapse, KSR could see itself flooded with a half million Khat eating peasants. That could very easily topple the autocratic thugs that rule KSR. Tarsands is not a net energy negative, and it's profitable at about $80 a barrel, a net energy negative isn't profitable in any situation.
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Jun 10, 2011 12:03:00 GMT -6
Considering that oil from Tar Sands is extracted using NG and NG supplies peaked in Alberta in 2001 Canada is robbing peter to pay paul. Hell at current consumption rates they are going to have problems in the not too distant future.
Oh yeah the Canadian NG supply situation will hurt us once the supply gets tight since they are forced to export a lot of it to us under NAFTA.
And what do you think Alberta will do when NG supplies go nasty tight and they have to choose between selling their NG to a bunch of crazed Yanks and turning tar sands into oil for a bunch of Chicoms versus taking care of their own people?
That said, even at the most optimistic projections the Tar Sands and provided that Alberta finds new NG depositis to sustain it, the Sands will not sustain us. Ever see what our daily consumption of oil is?
Don't forget the Chinese now have a big stake in the Tar Sands(also oil in Venezuela) and Korea and Japan are looking into it. And if there are troubles in the Persian Gulf, those people are going to lock it up.
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Jun 10, 2011 12:10:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jun 11, 2011 15:47:40 GMT -6
Considering that oil from Tar Sands is extracted using NG and NG supplies peaked in Alberta in 2001 Canada is robbing peter to pay paul. What function does the NG serve in the extration of Tar Sands? Heat? So you are saying NG is the only form of heat known to mankind?
|
|