Get off the oil IV in 10 years?

[airdvr 200]

Whaddayathink? Sounds pie in the sky to me.

Barry compared it to Kennedy's call to go to the moon. I say that was an easier task.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[alw 0]

I would agree that a national focus of such an approach would be beneficial, but the bottom line is the bottom line. Look around for venture capital today and you might be surprised to find that it hasn't dried up. In fact, there is substantial investment going on in alternative fuels. As long as oil stays above $80/bl that isn't likely to change.

First though we have to focus on the goal, which has been a bit sketchy. Is it reducing foreign imports, middle eastern imports, petroleum en masse? I don't know. With the economy where it is, reducing imports seems like a good place to start, with a domestication of energy sources a longer term goal.

Some reality checks would help. First, only about 1.6% of America's electricity is generated by petroleum. That's less than "other renewables" at 2.5%. Most of that is is reserve capacity so there isn't a great large quantity to be gained by building clean coal, nuclear, or wind when it comes to getting off oil. (Let's not debate global climate change here). To bang that drum you have to take petroleum out of vehicles.

Second, infrastructure costs for the various solutions could be a very significant factor. Electric/LNG/Fuel Cell/Hydrogen pose the greatest problem for infrastructure. Commercially it is a chicken and egg debate or maybe a Blu-Ray vs HD DVD. Even E-85 ethanol requires a significant investment in infrastructure. By far the least expensive is biodiesel. Problem with biodiesel is that you have to replace a whole lot of cars. So even if you have an alternative the associated costs are going to be pretty high.

Third is X the unknown. Right now as I am writing this there are a number of genetic engineering projects and biofuel projects going on. Many of them are funded by big oil. If you think they do this to suppress competition you're only partly right. If they come up with a bug that eats garbage and pees oil on a commercially viable scale they would stop drilling in a New York minute. Unlike the subprime mortgage business, these guys are pretty good at doing business. They are not out to pump oil, they are out to make money. Problem is they aren't going to just stop doing one and start the other overnight.

Fourth, Rome wasn't built in a day. A refinery, algae farm, ethanol plant, or supercapcitor factory takes time to build. It will take a lot of whatever it is that we need to replace what we have and that will take time to build.

Can it be done in 10 years. HELL YES. But unlike the Apollo Program we don't feel like we are in a race with the Ruskies to get it done. Unlike the Mahattan Project we don't seem to understand that our national health may depend on it.

A president isn't going to sell a program like this and the government isn't going to run one. What they might be able to do is sell the need to do it to the American people. To explain to them simple economics. Drill it here, invent it here, build it here has got to be the message. Private enterprise can get it done, after all our last bastion of productivity is innovation.

BUT THAT WON"T WORK if you raise corporate tax rates. We'll do what we did with Algenol. You know them? Check Google. It's being built in Mexico because we can't seem to understand that innovation will go offshore just like manufacturing if we tax the innovators and entrepreneurs out of the country.

---------------------------------------------
Every day is a bonus - every night is an adventure.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Whaddayathink? Sounds pie in the sky to me.

Barry compared it to Kennedy's call to go to the moon. I say that was an easier task.

I think it's doable. We need to downsize our vehicles like the Euros and advance battery technology. We could have battery stations instead of gas stations where we swap out batteries that are charged.

We will have to create battery disposal processes so as not to pollute, but I think 10 years is real doable.

[Thanatos340 1]

You do realize that we do not have the infrastructure to Charge those batteries don’t you??

That takes electricity. We can barely produce enough now to meet peak demands.

If we realistically plan on having viable electric cars as the norm with-in 10 years, We MUST build new power generation plants TODAY!! It will take at least 5 to 10 years to build new Nuclear Power Plants and that is AFTER all the legal battles that the Enoviro Whacko`s and the NIMBY`s throw up have run their course.

If we do not start building new power generation plants immediately and the viable electric car comes with-in the next 10 years, We will not have a way to charge those cars.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Whaddayathink? Sounds pie in the sky to me.

Barry compared it to Kennedy's call to go to the moon. I say that was an easier task.

I think it's doable. We need to downsize our vehicles like the Euros and advance battery technology. We could have battery stations instead of gas stations where we swap out batteries that are charged.

We will have to create battery disposal processes so as not to pollute, but I think 10 years is real doable.

first we need to drill here, make money and jobs, and use that to switch to alternatives. 700 billion going over seas would be a great start to pay for the switch. people don't want to see that we are arming foriegn militaries with the oil money. we are going bankrupt on foriegn oil. we need to drill know and convert along the way. this crap about we only have 3% of the oil in the world is misleading, we may only have 3% of the oil but we do have a large % of natural gas, and these 2 are enough to get us through the swicth to alt energy.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

You do realize that we do not have the infrastructure to Charge those batteries don’t you??

That takes electricity. We can barely produce enough now to meet peak demands.

If we realistically plan on having viable electric cars as the norm with-in 10 years, We MUST build new power generation plants TODAY!! It will take at least 5 to 10 years to build new Nuclear Power Plants and that is AFTER all the legal battles that the Enoviro Whacko`s and the NIMBY`s throw up have run their course.

If we do not start building new power generation plants immediately and the viable electric car comes with-in the next 10 years, We will not have a way to charge those cars.

Also nuclear plants are very expensive. the cost i heard is about 10 billion each. with the lawsuites and protesters the $ amount and delays can bankrupt a company. the idea i heard the other day was for the government to build the plant then privatise it, that way a company would not have the issues that could bankrupt them.

alot of the same people that protest oil drilling are the same that protest nuclear. they want everything but will not sacrifice for what is needed. every power source is protested and held up in courts, that is why we are in the position we have now. hydri power floods land above the damn and changes the ecology of the area. nuclear has disposal and possible dissaster implications. oil and natural gass have drilling and carbon emmission issues.

enviromentalist need to decide what they want, a broken economy with foriegn dependance or sacrifice a little property for disposal and aplication of the energy we need to keep moving.

[Lucky... 0]

Nuclear generators take 10 years to build? ReallY?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>If we realistically plan on having viable electric cars as the norm with-in 10 years. gm'S ALREADY STARTED:

http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/


>>>>>>>>>>>>>Enoviro Whacko`s

What will all the people calling scientists warning of greenhouse, whacko's call them if / when it becomes a problem? Will they be like Bush voters, hard to find people willing to admit they used that language?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If we do not start building new power generation plants immediately and the viable electric car comes with-in the next 10 years, We will not have a way to charge those cars.


And I bet you think those horrible dems are stupid for setting an Iraq deadline. Let's just get started on renewable energy and quit demanding a timeline.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Whaddayathink? Sounds pie in the sky to me.

Barry compared it to Kennedy's call to go to the moon. I say that was an easier task.

I think it's doable. We need to downsize our vehicles like the Euros and advance battery technology. We could have battery stations instead of gas stations where we swap out batteries that are charged.

We will have to create battery disposal processes so as not to pollute, but I think 10 years is real doable.

first we need to drill here, make money and jobs, and use that to switch to alternatives. 700 billion going over seas would be a great start to pay for the switch. people don't want to see that we are arming foriegn militaries with the oil money. we are going bankrupt on foriegn oil. we need to drill know and convert along the way. this crap about we only have 3% of the oil in the world is misleading, we may only have 3% of the oil but we do have a large % of natural gas, and these 2 are enough to get us through the swicth to alt energy.

Didn't you hear 6-pack Sarah? She said tehy are building a 40B pipeline from Alaska to mainland USA for natural gas. I say we do all things positive, perhpas use the funds that go to Haliburton, er, I mean to the valiant Iraq War to fund this effort.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

You do realize that we do not have the infrastructure to Charge those batteries don’t you??

That takes electricity. We can barely produce enough now to meet peak demands.

If we realistically plan on having viable electric cars as the norm with-in 10 years, We MUST build new power generation plants TODAY!! It will take at least 5 to 10 years to build new Nuclear Power Plants and that is AFTER all the legal battles that the Enoviro Whacko`s and the NIMBY`s throw up have run their course.

If we do not start building new power generation plants immediately and the viable electric car comes with-in the next 10 years, We will not have a way to charge those cars.

Also nuclear plants are very expensive. the cost i heard is about 10 billion each. with the lawsuites and protesters the $ amount and delays can bankrupt a company. the idea i heard the other day was for the government to build the plant then privatise it, that way a company would not have the issues that could bankrupt them.

alot of the same people that protest oil drilling are the same that protest nuclear. they want everything but will not sacrifice for what is needed. every power source is protested and held up in courts, that is why we are in the position we have now. hydri power floods land above the damn and changes the ecology of the area. nuclear has disposal and possible dissaster implications. oil and natural gass have drilling and carbon emmission issues.

enviromentalist need to decide what they want, a broken economy with foriegn dependance or sacrifice a little property for disposal and aplication of the energy we need to keep moving.

10 billion, so that's 1 reactor for every week in Iraq..... hmmm. Does that put into perspective the cost of your guy's hobby?


>>>>>>>>>>>>enviromentalist need to decide what they want, a broken economy with foriegn dependance or sacrifice a little property for disposal and aplication of the energy we need to keep moving.


So now it's all the fault of the enviromentalists? Yea, ok. It's American overconsumption at its finest.

[kallend 1,651]

All this talk about our money going to terrorists in the middle east! Our biggest supplier is Canada. Saudi is (supposedly) our ally. We control Iraq. Mexico is our neighbor too.

Country Thousands bbl/day
--------- ----------------------
CANADA 1,960
SAUDI ARABIA 1,661
MEXICO 1,200
VENEZUELA 1,187
NIGERIA 741
IRAQ 696
ANGOLA 640
BRAZIL 241
ALGERIA 232
ECUADOR 226
RUSSIA 202
COLOMBIA 178
AZERBAIJAN 134
KUWAIT 122
CHAD 108

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rhys 0]

Here are a few pages of what we can expect over the coming years,

http://www.topspeed.com/cars/electric-cars/ke1030.html

Imagine if the idiots in Detroit hadn't have crushed all the EV1's those years ago, maybe that could have had a direct influence on todays financial debarcle.

I bet they are kicking themseleves now, all those hummers sitting there devaluing by the minute. greedy ass Morons!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

Nuclear generators take 10 years to build? ReallY?

Yes. Longer if you take into account the legal battles that will have to be fought to get it done.

Quote

gm'S ALREADY STARTED:

Yep and it looks promising.
Now How do we Charge the Batteries once it gets here?
We already have rolling brown outs during peak demand because we cant generate enough electricity.

Quote

Let's just get started on renewable energy and quit demanding a timeline.

No argument from me on that one.
What we can do Right now to get started:
Start Building new Power Generation Plants immediately. We will Need them once the electric car becomes viable.

Building the cars without building the means to charge the Batteries is pointless.

[billvon 2,435]

>You do realize that we do not have the infrastructure to Charge those batteries
>don’t you??

We could replace 25% of California's cars tomorrow with electric vehicles without upgrading our infrastructure. That would allow the state to get off Middle Eastern oil completely.

>That takes electricity. We can barely produce enough now to meet peak demands.

Correct. Fortunately, electric cars will charge at night when demand is lowest.

>If we do not start building new power generation plants immediately and the
>viable electric car comes with-in the next 10 years, We will not have a way to
>charge those cars.

I could do it today with my solar power system. No new power plants needed. (Although I agree that we do need to build more, primarily nuclear, solar and wind.)

[billvon 2,435]

>Barry compared it to Kennedy's call to go to the moon. I say that was an easier task.

I'd tend to agree. I'd put it more in line with the Manhattan Project in terms of scope.

[billvon 2,435]

>We already have rolling brown outs during peak demand because we cant
>generate enough electricity.

Actually EV's and PHEV's would help quite a lot with that. Toyota already has a version of the Prius that will run your house when the power goes out, and having megawatt-hours of storage available in car's batteries will help a lot to smooth loads.

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes. Longer if you take into account the legal battles that will have to be fought to get it done.


http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3225build_6000_nukes.html

There are about 30 units now in construction in the world, with construction times of five to six years, so we are now building about 6 units per year.

Not sure where you're getting your data, could you post? Further supported by:

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/12/westinghouse_wi.html

The company's Web site says the AP1000 plants take about three years to build in addition to two years of engineering and procurement after the first few units are built. The company wants these units up and running by 2013.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yep and it looks promising.
Now How do we Charge the Batteries once it gets here?
We already have rolling brown outs during peak demand because we cant generate enough electricity.



Build more nuclear reactors, use solar panels on people's houses, etc.... BTW, it takes 5-6 years to build a nuclear reactor.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No argument from me on that one.
What we can do Right now to get started:
Start Building new Power Generation Plants immediately. We will Need them once the electric car becomes viable.

Building the cars without building the means to charge the Batteries is pointless.


It's not as if 3,000,000 electric cars are going to hit the road tomorrow. Let's keep moving in that direction at once on all fronts and quit trying use timelines as a mode to get Obama unelected.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

All this talk about our money going to terrorists in the middle east! Our biggest supplier is Canada. Saudi is (supposedly) our ally. We control Iraq. Mexico is our neighbor too.

Country Thousands bbl/day
--------- ----------------------
CANADA 1,960
SAUDI ARABIA 1,661
MEXICO 1,200
VENEZUELA 1,187
NIGERIA 741
IRAQ 696
ANGOLA 640
BRAZIL 241
ALGERIA 232
ECUADOR 226
RUSSIA 202
COLOMBIA 178
AZERBAIJAN 134
KUWAIT 122
CHAD 108

if we cut imports from half those contries (the ones that vote against us in the UN) we would keep 350 billion $ here and weaken those countries that don't like us. the money kept here would help our economy and help fund the switch to alt energy. in 10-20 years we would have energy independence with less terrorism

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

The company's Web site says the AP1000 plants take about three years to build in addition to two years of engineering and procurement after the first few units are built. The company wants these units up and running by 2013.

That is in China.
The exact same Plant being built here would take longer because of Union Issues, Additional Environmental Regulation, Additional Certifications and Documentation Requirements. Also there is the Ramp up period as the Supplier infrastructure will have to be rebuilt in this country. It has been 30 years since we built Nuke Plants here and dont forget that since N.E.`s have not exactly been employable in this country for the past 20 years... They may be a little hard to find (Along with the Skilled craftsmen that it will take to do the work and all the inspectiors.) If we started one tomorrow, It would be 10 years before it went live.

As the supplier infrastructure started getting rebuilt, that time could be reduced for future projects but the first one will take 10 years. Also don’t forget the legal Battles that will hang it up for a few years.

We can deal with ALL of these things But we need to get started right now.

I am not putting a time line on anything. I am just saying we need to start building Power generation Plants right now if we are going to meet the energy demands of the future, especially if we are betting on the electric car.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

The company's Web site says the AP1000 plants take about three years to build in addition to two years of engineering and procurement after the first few units are built. The company wants these units up and running by 2013.

That is in China.
The exact same Plant being built here would take longer because of Union Issues, Additional Environmental Regulation, Additional Certifications and Documentation Requirements. Also there is the Ramp up period as the Supplier infrastructure will have to be rebuilt in this country. It has been 30 years since we built Nuke Plants here and dont forget that since N.E.`s have not exactly been employable in this country for the past 20 years... They may be a little hard to find (Along with the Skilled craftsmen that it will take to do the work and all the inspectiors.) If we started one tomorrow, It would be 10 years before it went live.

As the supplier infrastructure started getting rebuilt, that time could be reduced for future projects but the first one will take 10 years. Also don’t forget the legal Battles that will hang it up for a few years.

We can deal with ALL of these things But we need to get started right now.

I am not putting a time line on anything. I am just saying we need to start building Power generation Plants right now if we are going to meet the energy demands of the future, especially if we are betting on the electric car.

So your position is conjecture rather than real supporting evidence, ok. I agree that we need to start now, but your 10-year constraint was inserted simply to impeach Obama's idea that we could be there in 10 years. Who cares if it's 12 or 15 years, I think he wants to quit spending 10B/mont in Iraq and start using that to support our infrastructure. The Iraq War was for revenge; mission accomplished, let's get out and fix ourselves.

[marks2065 0]

So your position is conjecture rather than real supporting evidence, ok. I agree that we need to start now, but your 10-year constraint was inserted simply to impeach Obama's idea that we could be there in 10 years. Who cares if it's 12 or 15 years, I think he wants to quit spending 10B/mont in Iraq and start using that to support our infrastructure. The Iraq War was for revenge; mission accomplished, let's get out and fix ourselves.

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

but your 10-year constraint was inserted simply to impeach Obama's idea that we could be there in 10 years.

Is that really the way you read that?? Wow!!
I never mentioned Obama (or McCain for that matter) or anything other than we need to build more power generation right now if the electric car is coming. (And I hope it is).

Quote

So your position is conjecture rather than real supporting evidence, ok.

I have spent the past 12 years working for a company where every single employee (with the exception of myself) came directly out of the Nuclear industry. I am the only person that works for this company that is not a degreed Nuclear Engineer. My knowledge is second hand but it came directly from my partners and co-workers that spent the first 20 years of their careers Designing, Building and running Projects at Nuclear Plants and then later running Planning and Scheduling for Nuke Plant Start ups. When they tell me it will take 10 years to get another on up and running, I believe them.

Yep. It is conjecture.. But it is conjecture that comes directly from the people that would be doing the Planning and scheduling for the construction if we ever got a new project started.

And I am glad that it seems we all agree on something for a change.

Start Building New Power Generation Facilities soon as possible. We will need them.

[alw 0]

Quote

So your position is conjecture rather than real supporting evidence, ok. I agree that we need to start now, but your 10-year constraint was inserted simply to impeach Obama's idea that we could be there in 10 years. Who cares if it's 12 or 15 years, I think he wants to quit spending 10B/mont in Iraq and start using that to support our infrastructure. The Iraq War was for revenge; mission accomplished, let's get out and fix ourselves.

I would say that your point is conjecture. To build any power plant in the USA you have to overcome licensing restrictions, transmission and distribution infrastructure, fuel logistics (and storage if nuclear). You will have to overcome the age dynamic in an industry that has been attritting over the past 30 years. The engineering requirements for a nuclear plant are quite large and the atrophy in that industry has hobbled it, it will take about 5 years to ramp up in that area alone. Finally we'll have to overcome the backlog in present production capacity which is full right now - and booked until 2011.

Here are some real numbers for production to grid:

Wind - 9 months, backlog 2 years global capacity
Gas - 18-24 months 18 months global backlog
Steam - (any source) 24-30 months
Nuclear NSSS - 36-60 months

This is isn't conjecture, it's a global reality.

---------------------------------------------
Every day is a bonus - every night is an adventure.

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>but alot of people that think like you don't understand how real life works



Oh show me the way oh wise one....BAHAHAHAHHAHA


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>until there is a way to avoid this roadblock most companies will just keep on doing what they do now.


We should do what Bush wants and to end all tort actions.

[Lucky... 0]

Mine is not conjecture as I posted 2 sources that state 5 to 6 years to get them online. Conjecture is to post something and not support it.


>>>>>>>>>>>>This is isn't conjecture, it's a global reality.


At best your argument is an American reality, as the article stated 5 years to build in China. You still have just assumed that there would be court tie-ups. These could be expeditiously adjudicated and a remote location chosen for construction.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Mine is not conjecture as I posted 2 sources that state 5 to 6 years to get them online. Conjecture is to post something and not support it.


>>>>>>>>>>>>This is isn't conjecture, it's a global reality.


At best your argument is an American reality, as the article stated 5 years to build in China. You still have just assumed that there would be court tie-ups. These could be expeditiously adjudicated and a remote location chosen for construction.

i am sure that in 3-5 years you could be online with nuclear, but that is after you remove the roadblocks. also China's government does what it wants irregardless of the peoples wishes. china doesn't have to listen to people saying what they do or do not want in courts.