Comments on: Popping the Oil Price Bubble

By: Uncle B

Uncle B — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 08:16:47 +0000

The Uber-rich coupon clippers of America, the Bush family being a good example of this crowd, have a strangle-hold on oil, as well as other strategic portions of the so called 'Free Market' If the U.S. had chosen to be a moral people, and leaving Iraqi oil alone, and following Al Gore, decided to develop the South Western deserts, with the technology of the times – solar/thermal-molten sodium – electricity installations, for the same amount of money as that war cost, ($650 Billion), today, we would be tapping into the largest, renewable, sustainable, energy source the world has ever known. It would have paid every energy bill in the U.S.A. for maintenance fees only – FOREVER! It would be equivalent to an oil field that can NEVER run dry! Low cost electric power, and storeable hydrogen gasoline replacement from the electricity, for all! But: The oil companies wouldn't like it!so georgie boy was put in control.

After the millions of murders, and $650 billions of dollars, borrowed from our children’s futures and pissed away, with thousands of our own and others maimed and disfigured for life, millions of families utterly destroyed, ours and theirs, we are no closer to Iraqi oil production than the Iraqis are!

The next time you hear a blithering idiot spoiled brat, drunken, drug addicted, sociopath, rich Arabic saber dancing daddie’s boy oilman, stand at a microphone and threaten YOUR safety with someone ELSE’S weapons, remember what you lost America, remember, and weep! (also see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand…

By: Jake Garn

Jake Garn — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:34:45 +0000

Good article, like others I think your last paragraph lacks foresight though. Solar power is decades old but the lack of economic incentive (thanks to cheap oil) has created the illusion that the technology is stagnant. With the high price of fossil fuels creating an enticing incentive for innovation you will see this trend of staggering advances in photovolactic technology and battery advancements explode over the next few years, solar film and micro-ribbons are just the beginning… the combination of bio-fuels from algae and weeds (forget this corn business) will have a lot of competition from electric cars powered by electricity from geothermal, solar, and wind powerplants. With the regulatory red tape for nuclear plants taking at LEAST 10-15 years in the U.S. (my state of Utah has just barely started down this path) I'd say that solar, wind and geothermal will have an adequate head start to compete quite well.

By: Michael H

Michael H — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 07:42:00 +0000

I liked the sleeping giant oil article until the very end where solar and wind was rejected by the author. Why? Germany is creating huge solar farms, at a fraction of the time a nuclear plant can be built. ( less than 1 yr to construct) no waste to have to pay for stoarge, completely renewalble. Cost of solar, especially nanosolarand other firms thin films CIGS price points are dropping through the floor, They estimate to be on parity with coal/oil power plants in a few years. So I ask again, solar can power the world, it renewable, its cheap and has leaves no toxic waste to deal with. So I ask again, why do you reject solar or wind?

By: Wally Mahar

Wally Mahar — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 02:05:34 +0000

its all well and good, but we can't make them in time.10-12 years is too late.

By: steveofoz

steveofoz — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:56:37 +0000

While nuclear can be used safely, most folks simply don’t trust the nuclear industry.
Where lots of money can be made by cutting corners, corners will be cut.
To put our future in the hands of faceless Multinationals based abroad (yes citizens of the US, you are a minority) is very scary.
You store your own waste in rusting drums above ground, what care will you take of it in India.

By: Rod Adams

Rod Adams — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:18:21 +0000

Mark:

Though I tentatively agree with your statement that about 40% of the electricity in Switzerland is supplied by renewable energy sources, many mainstream “renewable energy” advocates might quibble since the Swiss renewables are almost completely composed of large hydroelectric power plants. In the minds of some purists, large dams do not qualify.

In fact, I might quibble a bit since most of the rest is supplied by nuclear power plants that run on fuel that could be recycled for long enough to qualify as at least “sustainable” by my own definition.

Perhaps there is a reason why I have tended towards engineering type jobs, not political or sales jobs. I am an obnoxious person who believes that the right answer is better than the popular answer. Window dressing is simply not my style.

Maybe I would be more effective in my advocacy if I could change. Then I look at the success that has been achieved by the anti-nuclear activists that refuse to compromise and believe that it might be best for me to remain adamant that fission is the BEST available power source and should be exploited to its full potential.

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:14:42 +0000

Rod, I agree, modern nuclear plants are safe. You will soon be able to convert most of them to a thorium fuel cycle and slash the amount of waste produced: http://www.thoriumpower.com/ Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors may be better than pebble bed reactors for a number of reasons. Pebble bed reactors are definately better than coal.

By: Rod Adams

Rod Adams — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 03:21:02 +0000

Ken:

I like smaller reactors as well, but I have no concerns about the safety of the large plants. They are carefully built, operated, maintained and regulated. The general public has no risk from their use.

If you are interested in a plan that just might work to convert coal plants to nuclear you might want to visit http://www.jimholm.com/ – NuclearCoal – Converting Coal Power Plants to Nuclear.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 02:21:26 +0000

Rod, that's why I used to words 'could' and 'largely'..

Here in Switzerland, all trains are powered by electricty, aprox. 40% of which is generated from renewable energy sources.

Experiments have already been carried out using sails to reduce fuel consumption of large ships.

Solar powered aircraft have already been flown.

Could and largely are definitely the operative words, along with properly executed. I'm definitely in agreement with you that nuclear power is the most practical long term solution – like I said, renewables will be used as window dressing to help sell a nuclear future.

By: Ken

Ken — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:08:03 +0000

There are safer and more effective ways of generating nuclear power than the current large scale plants. Molten salt reactors and SSTAR-like reactors, one of which is currently being brought to market by Toshiba, will revolutionize nuclear power generation. One possible route someone on the Energy from Thorium site posted that I find most appealing is to replace the furnaces in coal fired plants with a series of molten salt reactors. You already already have the hookup to the grid and a secured facility and molten salt reactors are extremely safe and have the advantage of burning down most of their waste during operation. You might even be able to drive the same turbines. You could probably do something similar with a series of SSTARs if they could be scaled up to produce more than 100 MW. Since both reactor types will probably lend themselves to mass production and can run on Thorium based fuel cycles, the cost should be significantly less per unit output than a traditional solid core fueled reactor. These reactors don't need traditional containment structures like the current fleet of reactors. A real push should be on to get Gen IV reactors like the MSR on line. This is largely a political decision.