Article

2004-12-13 Arabia

Oil Climbs Above $41 as Saudi Arabia Cuts Jan Deliveries

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by .com 2004-12-13 00:09|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 No time to waste to build nuclear power plants. 250 1000MW plants and new cars built for electric ops will replace all oil imports. Waste heat can be used for second stage electric gen, or boosted to use in thermal breakdown of water.

Posted by ed 2004-12-13 1:02:27 AM|| 2004-12-13 1:02:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 AMEN. Nuclear power, now. This is so f***ing obvious it makes me want to scream. What are we waiting for?

Posted by lex 2004-12-13 1:13:14 AM|| 2004-12-13 1:13:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I dunno, it is 4 years old, but I don't think much changed:

The labels are kinda hard to read, but the oil is noted as petroleum (109).

That does not seem to be that high. Of course, as a fuel in vehicles, it currently the only resource utilized. Theoretically, it may be possible to use water as a fuel, but that brings all sorts of potential problems. Who cares! Let GM pull it out of their vault!

Posted by Sobiesky 2004-12-13 2:55:08 AM|| 2004-12-13 2:55:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Or, at least something like half-&-half

Posted by Sobiesky 2004-12-13 2:58:29 AM|| 2004-12-13 2:58:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Gas is good to burn, we can sell you loads of that. Coal is good.

Nukes are BAD for reasons i've stated a million times.

For example: if you promote nuclear power, that gives countries like Iran and North Korea a really GREAT excuse : we want nuclear power too.

Then they instantly have enough nuke material for weapons. You want the third world to have nuclear weapons? Great idea.

Secondly nuclear power is VERY EXPENSIVE.

it is expensive to build a nuke reactor.

It is expensive to decomission it after its 30 year life is up.

It is expensive to clean up the inevitable accidents that occur due to human error and parts wearing out/ faults. These happen ALL the time, there are hundreds of small accidents at nuke power plants around the world every year.

thirdly: there are lots of HIDDEN COSTS such as: higher incidences of cancer and birth defects (cost the public through paying for health care, sick leave, insurance).

fourthly: there is no safe eternal way to get rid of the waste

lastly: you cannot guarantee that people will speak english or live in civilisation in 3,000 years. For all you know the survivors might be Ugh and Ughlette living in caves.

They won't understand the warning signs on the toxic waste or the abandoned reactors.

Even if civilisation as we know it is around in 3,000 years they still may not understand that a site used to be a nuclear power station. Those people are our surviving descendants, we owe it to them not to foul up the pool.

In Australia there is an abandoned uranium mine called Rum Jungle. The old mine shafts flooded in the tropical rains and the tailings are leaching out of the dumps every Wet season.

There used to be warning signs up about 20 years ago warning people not to fish in the 'lake' (flooded mine) or to swim, and if you swam more than a couple of times to see a doctor immediately.

Those warning signs have long gone, councils forgot to put them back and the town near Rum Jungle has a high-turnover of population: people come and go.

People swim there now, there are no signs to tell them not to.

That is why nuclear power is a stupid idea. IT is the last resort not the first.

Only a few countries should have access to the bomb, like America. I'd like to keep it that way.

Posted by Anon1 2004-12-13 11:21:01 AM|| 2004-12-13 11:21:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Iran and N Korea have no "excuse" for nuclear power. Iran's swimming in oil, has ~8% of world reserves. N Korea's intentions are obvious.

As to expense, our mideast policy designed to secure access to oil is a not-so-hidden cost of oil dependence. Were we independent of mideast oil, we could probably reduce that cost by tens of billions annually.

You make good points re human error and disposal concerns. I'm curious: the French rely heavily on nuclear power. Obvious jokes aside, is it really so difficult to institute safe practices that will prevent the calamities you mention? Presumably the French have done so successfully. Why can't we?

Posted by lex 2004-12-13 11:39:06 AM|| 2004-12-13 11:39:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 For example: if you promote nuclear power, that gives countries like Iran and North Korea a really GREAT excuse : we want nuclear power too.

Er, no, Iran is sitting on a sea of oil. Sound resource management can make their reserves last for quite some time, without necessitating the development of nuclear power. We here in the U.S. don't have that kind of luxury. Besides, Rafsanjani already conveniently gave away the game; the "power" that the mullahs are seeking is not the kind that will provide everyday Persians with electicity.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-12-13 12:35:58 PM|| 2004-12-13 12:35:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 thirdly: there are lots of HIDDEN COSTS such as: higher incidences of cancer and birth defects (cost the public through paying for health care, sick leave, insurance).

Go peddle that crap somewhere else. Mining, transporting, burning coal and disposing of its waste releases more radioactivity and harmful chemicals than nuclear.

That is why nuclear power is a stupid idea.

No, that's why buying into anti-nuclear propaganda is a stupid idea. Pull your head out and take a breath for a change -- go read something that isn't Greenpeace Approved and get educated.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-12-13 12:49:40 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-12-13 12:49:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Again, sidestepping the obvious jokes, where's the parade of horribles in France? They're heavily dependent on nuclear, have been for many decades. If I understand correctly, their political class decided long ago that nuclear made absolute sense and they refused to tolerate any bullshit from their environmentalists. THey went ahead and did the smart thing for their nation. What's stopping us from being similarly hardheaded?

Posted by lex 2004-12-13 12:58:16 PM|| 2004-12-13 12:58:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Well, Lex, the difference is that our government actually listens to the people, even when they are saying something stooopid.

In Europe, the elites always know better (in this case they're right), so do what they want.

I prefer our system, but sometimes it hurts us.

Posted by jackal 2004-12-13 2:35:47 PM|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2004-12-13 2:35:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Anon1,I use to be a Hazmat tech.Cleaning-up a spill is not a whole lot more dangerous than any other hazmat spill,almost always it is low level radioactive waste.Good heavy work clothes and a good respirater is ussally all that is needed.The Nuclear physicists cleaning-up and monitoring Chernobal use paper dust masks(not something I would do).As for the waste,have you ever heard of glassification.Mix the waste(low level or high makes no difference)mix it with sand insert 2 electrodes and aply high voltage current.What you end-up with is a big ass block of glass.Enviromentally as stable as regular non- radioactive glass.

Posted by raptor 2004-12-13 3:20:45 PM|| 2004-12-13 3:20:45 PM|| Front Page Top