I agree the problem is multi-faceted and must be treated as
such to be solved.
It's certainly an alluring thought to build 500 Nuclear plants across the
country. The scale of such a program would be good for the economy.
However, I do not believe we have the water resources necessary to support
such a large number of nuclear plants. Even if we did, I think the
environmental impact of all that heated waste water flowing into our rivers
and streams would have disasterous effects.
I do not know much fissable material a plant uses, but if we have
problems storing the spent material now with the limited number of plants we
have, what's the scale of the problem going to be with hundreds more online.
There are newer and safer nuclear technologies out there, but I am not
familiar with what their impact would be regarding the above
concerns.
Different parts of the country offer different potential solutions. Solar
and Wind do not pollute. I recently read it would only take 100 square
miles of solar panels to handle the entire electric demand of the US for the
next 50 years. I would certainly sacrifice 100 sq miles out of the
millions we have for a project like that.
There are numerous windy areas of the US where Wind power would be
advantageous. Granted, wind farms dotted across the landscape
and hundreds of then standing on all our great mountain peaks would be an
eye sore, but perhaps a couple square miles here and there could be devoted to
wind generation.
Every new house built in the sun belt areas could have their own
supplemental solar system. If they are in a windy area as well, a small
wind turbine on the roof I'm sure could be made attractive or perhaps hidden
some how. It really would not take much to handle the vast majority if not all
of the electric demand of the average home. If solar was widely marketed, its
price would come down tremendously. It certainly pays for industrial users to
explore such technologies.
As I have stated before, all the technologies currently exist to
solve the problem. Unfortunately our government will not pass legislature
for a national effort to reduce our dependency on foreign oil because of the
energy lobby. Therefore, it will be left to the independent to build
this alternate infrastructure which will put us perhaps 30-50 years behind the
curve which is unfortunately how american business works. G-d forbid someone
should have a down quarter or 2 due to expendatures...one of the indexes
might drop a couple points and that would cause a major panic and plunge
us into a recession.
Also, from what I read lately, we may have oil reserves which equal
or rival those of Saudi Arabia under 3-5 states in the north dakota
area of the US. But we probably could not get a permit for a refinery.
All these problems might be moot however if a new technology comes
along that puts all of the above technologies out of business. Unfortunately,
it will probably be priced upon a comparison to oil which would be its closest
competition. That will drive up the cost of that technology numerous times
beyond a more than reasonable profit level. After all, why make 200% profit
per unit when you can get 1000%. But all that means is that we all buy
the stock...if it went public...which I doubt. There would be no
need.
Third world status here we come.
In a message dated 5/17/2008 2:55:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
bobskc@xxxxxxxxxnet writes:
First of all, I seriously doubt if the Saudi's can raise output. I
strongly suspect they are at full production now.
As to filling
up the reserves, Bush is hell bent to keep the reserves
up rather than
use them for a short term solution to high prices. (A
solution which
would do little to help the price problem anyway).
Ira's post offers
some sobering thoughts but what would happen if oil
came down? What if
it came down to $80? And if we stopped promoting
the insane idea of bio
fuels driving up food prices? If grain came
down 50% and meat 30%? Then
what would the consumer situation look
like? Science fiction? I don't
think so. I think the whole ethanol
craze is being seen for just what it
is, crazy. A fuel that costs
more to make, pollutes worse than fossil
fuels, and drives food
through the roof is certainly not the answer.
Atomic energy and
hydrogen fuel cells are where I'm putting my energy
dollars from this
point forward. Solar and wind will be minor players,
especially for
home use but they do little or nothing for transportation
and large,
commercial purposes.
So, a lot of the problems can be
solved by simply forgetting about
ethanol and I feel there is a large
amount of speculation in oil
now. We moved from 100 to 125 in days but
demand most certainly
didn't increase by 25% in days. Who knows, maybe
things will work
out after all.
Bob
At 01:46 PM 5/17/2008,
you wrote:
>And strangly Mr.Bush justifies Saudi for not raising oil
outputs,not
>only that he was not in a favour of stopping filling oil
reserve
>near Gulf of Mexico...very strange attitude and this has
been
>discussed among all leading newpapers round the
world.
>--- In realtraders@yahoogroups.com,
"Ira" <mr.ira@xxx> wrote:
> >
> > It is time to take
a good look at where we are at this time. In
>the first quarter of
this year more than 158,000 families lost their
>homes to foreclosure.
The American public is going deeper in debt
>every day. In a society
where 70% of the economy is driven by
>consumer spending, inflation
and debt are economy killers. Millions
>of people have homes that are
worth less than the mortgage amount on
>their home. When they look at
the economics of the situation will
>they pay the inflated mortgage
payments or walk away from the
>house? Family homes were the main
source of their wealth and now
>with that gone they have no place to
go for that extra money they
>need to pay the ever-increasing cost of
living. Duke Power said
>that they are cutting off utilities to 50
people a day because of
>unpaid utility bills. Whether the government
wants to admit it or
>not we are in a recession. We are also in an
inflationary spiral
>that won't quit. The government is pumping
liquidity into the
>system at an alarming rate to save the financial
institutions that
>created a large portion of the problem.
>
>
> >
> >
> > The balance of the article is on
the web site if you are
>interested.
> >
> >
>
>
> > Just one man's opinion.
> >
> >
Ira
> > www.delta100.com
> >
> > No virus
found in this outgoing message
> > Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus
(4.0.0.26 - 10.072.012).
> > http://www.pctools.com/free-antivirus/
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo!
Groups Links
>
>
>