T. Boone's plan

[rrshock]

So how many people would be opposed to building a few new nuclear plants around the country? That or hydroelectric dams too?

[rayc]

rrshock:
So how many people would be opposed to building a few new nuclear plants around the country? That or hydroelectric dams too?

Not I, but building more and/or more efficient electrical generation doesn’t address the oil import problem we have in the U.S. We actually are one of the more efficient oil using countries in the world (contrary to popular perception), but very, very little oil is used in our electrical generation. I also suspect that oil actually used for electrical generation is probably a residual byproduct, not prime stock, so reducing oil based generation to 0% would probably have 0% impact on imports.

I think that 65%-70% of the oil usage in the U.S.A. is in the transportation sector. If we don’t address that as a priority, we will never solve the import problem.

The only way electrical generation could offset oil usage is with electric/hybrid transportation systems. This is dependent on developing better energy storage systems, which if developed, not only allows us to wean ourselves off oil dependency in transportation (hence imports), but also eventually off fossil/nuclear dependency for electricity.

Thus the reason for my preference for drilling asap in the short term, and putting a priority on energy storage research and development. All just my humble opinion, of course.

[1979Shocker]

AUSTIN, Texas - Texas officials gave the go-ahead Thursday to the nation's largest wind-power project, a plan to build billions of dollars worth of new transmission lines to bring pollution-free energy from gusty West Texas to urban areas...

Texas gives green light to lots more wind power

[rrshock]

rrshock:
So how many people would be opposed to building a few new nuclear plants around the country? That or hydroelectric dams too?

Not I, but building more and/or more efficient electrical generation doesn’t address the oil import problem we have in the U.S. We actually are one of the more efficient oil using countries in the world (contrary to popular perception), but very, very little oil is used in our electrical generation. I also suspect that oil actually used for electrical generation is probably a residual byproduct, not prime stock, so reducing oil based generation to 0% would probably have 0% impact on imports.

I think that 65%-70% of the oil usage in the U.S.A. is in the transportation sector. If we don’t address that as a priority, we will never solve the import problem.

The only way electrical generation could offset oil usage is with electric/hybrid transportation systems. This is dependent on developing better energy storage systems, which if developed, not only allows us to wean ourselves off oil dependency in transportation (hence imports), but also eventually off fossil/nuclear dependency for electricity.

Thus the reason for my preference for drilling asap in the short term, and putting a priority on energy storage research and development. All just my humble opinion, of course.

I guess I was asking about using nuclear to replace the natural gas usage. That could help tremendously and then the natural gas could be used elsewhere. Nuclear is much more dependable than wind.

[ABC]

We have 300,400 years of coal left.

I don't see the need for wind.

If it is cost effective, great, let's use it. But right now wind is as much as 40% more expensive to generate electricty from wind than coal.

[rayc]

rrshock:
I guess I was asking about using nuclear to replace the natural gas usage. That could help tremendously and then the natural gas could be used elsewhere. Nuclear is much more dependable than wind.

Certainly using nuclear to replace natural gas would free up a lot of natural gas for use elsewhere. Other than as a fuel, the only other major uses for natural gas that I can think of are in the production of plastics and fertilizer. Currently I think around two-thirds of the current usage is as a fuel in one way or another and one-third or so in a non-combustible industrial/commercial process.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be conserving it for those areas it has no substitute for, but giving the current state of affairs, I think finding alternatives in as many areas currently relying on oil should be a higher concern.

One of my biggest complaints is the constant use of the oil import problems to push an agenda for “fossil fuel” replacements that do NOTHING to reduce our oil dependency. Finding replacements for oil to fuel our transportation sector will do more for our balance of payments than all of the asinine schemes of Al Gore and his ilk combined. In that vein, natural gas fuel cells as well as natural gas fueled vehicles hold promise.

As a side comment, the current push for wind driven electrical generation in Texas is nothing more than what you suggest for nuclear, it is providing a replacement for natural gas (and nuclear as well unfortunately) as a fuel for generating electricity. Unfortunately it does not replace the need for building as many additional gas, coal or nuclear plants as would be needed even if the wind turbines weren’t there.

[Maggie]

rayc,

I think you make some valid points. Thanks for posting.

[SubGod22]

TBP testifies in front of Senate.

[SubGod22]

Lots of Oil and Gas to the North according to USGS

[SubGod22]

Swiftboating America?

[rayc]

Interesting article, but I can't say I'm surprised.

Thanks for posting articles related to TBP and his plan, it's nice to keep abreast of things like this which are going to end up costing us all a lot of money.

Hopefully there is a positive "return on investment" for the ratepayers, as well as TBP and his groups.