Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just so you know, the process of turning plankton etc., into kerogen, and hence petroleum continues on everywhere that is or was unnderwater. Accordingly, petroeum is being produced constatly - but not at the rates it is being consumed, obviously.
Nuclear power will be used to synthesize fuels. Plans are already underway to build a fleet of nuclear reactor-equipped large barges that can be used for a variety of purposes, including electrical generation, water desalination, or turning Carbon and Hydrogen into Hydro-Carbons, i.e. petroleum. Nuclear power is the key - ask the frogs is you don't believe me.
It is a brilliant end-run around the evironuts. Need power, just park a barge offshore that is equipped with a couple Aircraft Carrier-type reactors hooked up to electrical generation capacity. No enviro studies, no building, no red tape - just anchor, hook up the cable and crank up the juice.
Thirsty, just hook up a nuc-barge with desalinization equipment and hook up the pipes.
It's my idea, BTW - investors welcome!!! I am just a few billion short right now!!!!!
I understand how petroleum is produced, and I agree that we're using it FAR faster than it will replenish. The issue is that it will become much more difficult to get to as the remaining oil reserves are located in risky places (e.g. war-prone countries, difficult underwater locations, etc.). It will be around for some time, but not for everyone to use in the amount that it's used today (world-wide).
The nuclear-reactor barge you mentioned sounds interesting, I hadn't heard of it. Do you know what the timeline looks like to make it fully functional (meaning, when will it be providing energy on a large scale for the US)?
I'm also confused on why there's no environmental issues. Nuclear power produces waste (large amounts of it), just like many other energy sources. Maybe this should be a thread of its own?
I understand how petroleum is produced, and I agree that we're using it FAR faster than it will replenish. The issue is that it will become much more difficult to get to as the remaining oil reserves are located in risky places (e.g. war-prone countries, difficult underwater locations, etc.). It will be around for some time, but not for everyone to use in the amount that it's used today (world-wide).
The nuclear-reactor barge you mentioned sounds interesting, I hadn't heard of it. Do you know what the timeline looks like to make it fully functional (meaning, when will it be providing energy on a large scale for the US)?
I'm also confused on why there's no environmental issues. Nuclear power produces waste (large amounts of it), just like many other energy sources. Maybe this should be a thread of its own?
Just follow France's lead. They manage to handle things ok, so I am sure we can too.
Higher unemployment creates the environment for higher crime. Having said that, if billions a year in subsidies to oil companies is no big deal, catching up to the rest of the developed world in infrastructure shouldn't be either. In fact, remove oil subsidies and use it for infrastructural development.
Yet crime has decreased over the past decade and continues to decline.
So you're supporter of subsidies. I am not. If billions there don't matter (but you believe, actually help), then it shouldn't with what is undeniably the future either.
America started to go down the drain with its infrastructural investment in the 1950s. Of course, we shouldn't care about the billions and trillions spent in oil rich nation countries either, adding to massive trade deficits, debt and wars (proxy or otherwise). Should we?
The quick and easy solution is increased fuel economy, but hybrids are expensive relative to the price of gasoline. When it makes economic sense to use plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles, the market will take care of it.
Anticipating the future demand for electricity and preparing to supply it would be a wiser approach.
No it isn't. We pay less for a gallon of gasoline now as a percentage of income than we did in the 1950s. That means cheap and plentiful oil is here for the forseeable future. And by forseeable I mean hundreds of years.
Please present some facts in support of your opinion.
And "percentage of income" is a meaningless measurement. A poor person can't AFFORD to buy it - period.
Please present some facts in support of your opinion.
And "percentage of income" is a meaningless measurement. A poor person can't AFFORD to buy it - period.
I should have said "inflation adjusted". Obama used the meaningless "percentage of income" idea to push through his unpopular health insurance reform. You're right though, % of income is meaningless.
As you will see on the chart the price of oil has not got more expensive. It has stayed relatively flat. It only goes up when there is some type of political event.
In other words: We are in no danger of running out of oil. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Zero.
And I see poor people driving cars all the time. "Poor people can't afford it" is a meaningless term. Even if true, it is only because of politicians, not because we are going to run out or becasue of anything the market has done.
Wow. So you made a wild unsupported claim, someone called you on it, and then instead of supporting your claim with a link you told him to do your work for you? Seriously? It's your job to support your wild claim not anyone else's but I guess you're just slyly admitting your claim was wrong and that's why you wouldn't stand by it. Got it.
"The only area of the United States where high-speed rail begins to make sense is along the high-traffic, high-population Northeast Corridor from Washington, D.C., to Boston. Amtrak's Acela peaks at 150 miles per hour but averages only about 70 miles per hour because it has to share tracks with other trains. A truly high-speed rail that runs on its own dedicated track could reach 220 mph and cut the travel time nearly in half. While such a line might offer benefits for the region's commuters, Amtrak estimates the line would take 25 years to develop and cost $117 billion. According to a 2009 study by the Congressional Research Service, six to nine million riders would need to take the train each year to justify the costs of high-speed rail systems similar to those in other countries. The Acela carried 3.4 million people in 2008."
I'm also confused on why there's no environmental issues. Nuclear power produces waste (large amounts of it), just like many other energy sources. Maybe this should be a thread of its own?
I'd like to point out that the "nuclear waste" nuke plants produce, is actually reusable and refineable. The downside is, it's considerably more expensive to reuse "spent" rods than refining new ones out of raw uranium. France uses their rods, if I remember correctly
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
High Speed Rail - Insolvency Junction
