Bush biking toward nowhere?



John_Kane wrote:

> I am not so sure about this. While some of the gas prices are probably
> artifical(markets while they may get it right in the long run are often
> irrational in the short term) I think we also have to look at the
> Hubert's Peak predictions that in many cases oil production has peaked
> in major fields (USA, Canada, probably Saudia, North Sea) without truly
> major fields coming on stream plus what appears to be a greatly
> increased demand in such places as China, S.E. Asia and India. I do
> agree though that we do not really know how much oil is in the ground.

As I understand it, Hubbert predicted the US domestic
oil production peak with great accuracy, and predicted
the global peak would be reached right about now.
I also seem to recall that global oil production
has declined every year since 2001, which would tend
to prove Hubbert right again. So oil would be getting
more expensive even if the demand weren't spiking,
which it is. This aint exactly higher math. The days of
cheap oil are behind us. The question is: will the
US be able to continue with the same supersuburban
walmart WPP lifestyle? The answer is of course not,
doofuses.

Robert
 
Ron Wallenfang wrote:
> "John_Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>>I don't think we are facing an "oil crisis" at the moment but I suspect
>>
>>that we may be seeing something of an end to cheap gas and oil in the
>>West. Over a few decades we may be facing a real crisis. However some
>>of this energy demand may be off-loaded onto renewables.
>>
>
> Correct. Renewables among other things e.g. the heavy oil tars and sands
> of Alberta, Venezuela, etc.; oil shale; coal gasification, fuel cells,
> nuclear power - who knows how this will all play out? What is certain is
> that if the price is high enough, the needed energy supplies will be there.

There are more then physical costs though, oil tar or oil sands are
typically extracted by using strip mining, then you need to separate the
oil and sand, which means that you need more energy to recover the oil,
so net output is considerably lower. So you have environmental costs,
you also have much higher environmental restoration costs, from the
strip mining -- something usually left out of the figures quoted by the
oil companies.

Nuclear is another one, your left with materials that are theoretically
highly radio-active for thousands of years, so what do you do with them.
Reactors cost billions to build, billions to maintain, and billions
to mothball, not to mention, how long does a decommissioned reactor stay
radio-active? Chernobyl was though okay, but last I heard the concrete
coffin around it, was starting to decay......

The only clean energy sources are solar, wind and water powered, but
those also require very high efficiency to be sufficient.

> Meanwhile our NG readers can advocate more biking, as I do at every
> reasonable opportunity.

Of course....

W
 
>Nuclear is another one, your left with materials that are theoretically
>highly radio-active for thousands of years, so what do you do with them.

Regardless of the status of Yucca Mountain, there are technologies in place
to address this issue. REF:
http://www.holtecinternational.com/dryspentfuel.html

Whether these technologies *adequately* address the issue is probably open
to debate, at least to some parties.

> Reactors cost billions to build, billions to maintain, and billions
>to mothball, not to mention, how long does a decommissioned reactor stay
>radio-active?

The billions to build a reactor number is realistic, as is the billions to
maintain one (though spread over 40 years, and neglecting the fact that fuel
costs are downright cheap), but the mothball number is way off. A datapoint:
The Trojan plant in Oregon was fully decommisoned (site able to used for
*any* desired purpose) in about 10 years for $429 million. REF:
http://www.portlandgeneral.com/about_pge/news/2005_trojan_decommissioning.asp?bhcp=1


>The only clean energy sources are solar, wind and water powered, but
>those also require very high efficiency to be sufficient.

Nothing comes without some side effects: Solar often takes some wickedly
toxic materials to build, wind is struggling with the bird-kill issue, and
hydro can have large detrimental effects on fish, and aquatic plants.

The U.S. is pretty tapped out for significant expansion of hydro. Wind is
looking good, solar is too as the costs continue to decline.



Chris Neary
[email protected]

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh
 
Chris Neary wrote:
>
> The billions to build a reactor number is realistic, as is the billions to
> maintain one (though spread over 40 years, and neglecting the fact that fuel
> costs are downright cheap), but the mothball number is way off. A datapoint:
> The Trojan plant in Oregon was fully decommisoned (site able to used for
> *any* desired purpose) in about 10 years for $429 million. REF:
> http://www.portlandgeneral.com/about_pge/news/2005_trojan_decommissioning.asp?bhcp=1
>

A couple of things here though, having read the article, spent fuel rods
are still stored there, and the reactor vessel was simply moved
somewhere else. So there are additional costs for monitoring and
disposing of that stuff, not included in that $429 Million.

>
>>The only clean energy sources are solar, wind and water powered, but
>>those also require very high efficiency to be sufficient.
>
>
> Nothing comes without some side effects: Solar often takes some wickedly
> toxic materials to build, wind is struggling with the bird-kill issue, and
> hydro can have large detrimental effects on fish, and aquatic plants.
>
> The U.S. is pretty tapped out for significant expansion of hydro. Wind is
> looking good, solar is too as the costs continue to decline.
>

Toxic materials needed for Solar, are at least controllable, as part of
manufacturing.

The issue with wind is one of visibility, this could be resolved several
ways, one I think is painting them a colour that birds can see, most are
a light grey that becomes invisible against a grey or light blue
background.

We missed one, that could be used for home heating and cooling, and that
is geothermal. 5m below the grounds surface the temperature is a
constant of around 10 - 12C, meaning that in winter you could easily use
a heat-pump to extract some heat from the ground, for home heating, in
summer you can dump some heat into the ground, for efficient cooling, of
course this depends on using high efficiency insulating and air-exchange
techniques like R2000.

W
 
>> The billions to build a reactor number is realistic, as is the billions to
>> maintain one (though spread over 40 years, and neglecting the fact that fuel
>> costs are downright cheap), but the mothball number is way off. A datapoint:
>> The Trojan plant in Oregon was fully decommisoned (site able to used for
>> *any* desired purpose) in about 10 years for $429 million. REF:
>> http://www.portlandgeneral.com/about_pge/news/2005_trojan_decommissioning.asp?bhcp=1
>>
>
>A couple of things here though, having read the article, spent fuel rods
>are still stored there, and the reactor vessel was simply moved
>somewhere else. So there are additional costs for monitoring and
>disposing of that stuff, not included in that $429 Million.

The cost of disposing of the reactor vessel at a low level disposal site is
included in the $429 million total. How low is "low level"? If anyone who
has had a medical procedure using radioactive tracer compounds, all the
trash from that procedure went to a LL site.

The cost of maintaining the fuel onsite is $1 to $2 million/year. If Yucca
Mountain ever opens for business, that cost will go away as PGE has already
paid for their space in Yucca Mountain.


>Toxic materials needed for Solar, are at least controllable, as part of
>manufacturing.

That sounds like the pitch usually used to defend nuclear power. ;-)


>The issue with wind is one of visibility, this could be resolved several
>ways, one I think is painting them a colour that birds can see, most are
>a light grey that becomes invisible against a grey or light blue
>background.

I live near ground-zero for bird kill issues, the Altamont pass.

Some of the newer rotors have alternating black & white stripes on the
blades, but the stripes aren't effective. Newer, bigger machines which
rotate slower tend to have fewer kills as the birds can distinguish the
blades more easily, but in this area it looks like the county may actually
require the turbine owners to shut the machines down during the times of
year when the birds are migrating.

>We missed one, that could be used for home heating and cooling, and that
>is geothermal. 5m below the grounds surface the temperature is a
>constant of around 10 - 12C, meaning that in winter you could easily use
>a heat-pump to extract some heat from the ground, for home heating, in
>summer you can dump some heat into the ground, for efficient cooling, of
>course this depends on using high efficiency insulating and air-exchange
>techniques like R2000.

I believe this technology is used to some extent in Europe, but the
economics don't add up for U.S. applications - yet.


Chris Neary
[email protected]

"If you think I'm so controlling,
why do you follow me around?" - The Offspring
 
Chris Neary wrote:
>>>The billions to build a reactor number is realistic, as is the billions to
>>>maintain one (though spread over 40 years, and neglecting the fact that fuel
>>>costs are downright cheap), but the mothball number is way off. A datapoint:
>>>The Trojan plant in Oregon was fully decommisoned (site able to used for
>>>*any* desired purpose) in about 10 years for $429 million. REF:
>>>http://www.portlandgeneral.com/about_pge/news/2005_trojan_decommissioning.asp?bhcp=1
>>>
>>
>>A couple of things here though, having read the article, spent fuel rods
>>are still stored there, and the reactor vessel was simply moved
>>somewhere else. So there are additional costs for monitoring and
>>disposing of that stuff, not included in that $429 Million.
>
>
> The cost of disposing of the reactor vessel at a low level disposal site is
> included in the $429 million total. How low is "low level"? If anyone who
> has had a medical procedure using radioactive tracer compounds, all the
> trash from that procedure went to a LL site.
>
> The cost of maintaining the fuel onsite is $1 to $2 million/year. If Yucca
> Mountain ever opens for business, that cost will go away as PGE has already
> paid for their space in Yucca Mountain.
>

It still adds up though, especially considering the length of time, the
problem with moving it to somewhere like Yucca Mountain, is that in
transporting it, your going to get a major case of NIMBY for places you
need to move it through.

>>Toxic materials needed for Solar, are at least controllable, as part of
>>manufacturing.
>
>
> That sounds like the pitch usually used to defend nuclear power. ;-)
>

The difference is, once a solar collector is made, it stops polluting,
where as Nuclear plants create spent fuel rods for the life of the
plant.... I'm not totally against nuclear energy, it's just that the
cost of building, maintaining and decommissioning needs to be considered
as part of the energy costs. They tend to forget to include the cost of
interest on borrowing that up front money, when they show the plant
costs, but it certainly does appear on the electric bill.

>
>>The issue with wind is one of visibility, this could be resolved several
>>ways, one I think is painting them a colour that birds can see, most are
>>a light grey that becomes invisible against a grey or light blue
>>background.
>
>
> I live near ground-zero for bird kill issues, the Altamont pass.
>
> Some of the newer rotors have alternating black & white stripes on the
> blades, but the stripes aren't effective. Newer, bigger machines which
> rotate slower tend to have fewer kills as the birds can distinguish the
> blades more easily, but in this area it looks like the county may actually
> require the turbine owners to shut the machines down during the times of
> year when the birds are migrating.
>

Which fortunately tend to be spring and fall, times when energy use is
not as high as mid-summer and mid-winter.

>
>>We missed one, that could be used for home heating and cooling, and that
>>is geothermal. 5m below the grounds surface the temperature is a
>>constant of around 10 - 12C, meaning that in winter you could easily use
>>a heat-pump to extract some heat from the ground, for home heating, in
>>summer you can dump some heat into the ground, for efficient cooling, of
>>course this depends on using high efficiency insulating and air-exchange
>>techniques like R2000.
>
>
> I believe this technology is used to some extent in Europe, but the
> economics don't add up for U.S. applications - yet.

Mostly because of cheap oil and gas, however every $1 the price of a
unit of oil or gas goes up, it becomes easier to justify. What I find
strange though, R2000 has been around since the early 1970's (see
www.R2000.org to find out what I am talking about here), it's still not
the normal practise among home builders. Geothermal is common in some
countries like Iceland. Your probably right about the US.

W
 
The Wogster wrote:
>
> The difference is, once a solar collector is made, it stops polluting,
> where as Nuclear plants create spent fuel rods for the life of the
> plant.... I'm not totally against nuclear energy, it's just that the
> cost of building, maintaining and decommissioning needs to be considered
> as part of the energy costs.

I'd also consider the fact that the nuclear stuff is potentially useful
to terrorists and other enemies. Attacks on nuclear facilities could
cause tremendous problems. Stolen nuclear waste could do the same.

- Frank Krygowski
 
Fri, 26 Aug 2005 16:43:37 -0700,
<[email protected]>, Chris Neary
<[email protected] > wrote:

>I live near ground-zero for bird kill issues, the Altamont pass.
>
>Some of the newer rotors have alternating black & white stripes on the
>blades, but the stripes aren't effective. Newer, bigger machines which
>rotate slower tend to have fewer kills as the birds can distinguish the
>blades more easily, but in this area it looks like the county may actually
>require the turbine owners to shut the machines down during the times of
>year when the birds are migrating.

Let them also shut down the freeways. Cars kill more birds every day
than your windmills do in a month. According to the National Audubon
Society, house cats kill 100,000,000 birds a year. One study of wind
turbines indicates an average of 2.3 avian fatalities at each turbine
each year, for a total of 10,000 to 40,000 birds killed per year
nationwide.

Bird kill is a red herring regularly trotted out by the oily ones.
Don't fall for it.
--
zk
 
[email protected] wrote:
> The Wogster wrote:
>
>>The difference is, once a solar collector is made, it stops polluting,
>>where as Nuclear plants create spent fuel rods for the life of the
>>plant.... I'm not totally against nuclear energy, it's just that the
>>cost of building, maintaining and decommissioning needs to be considered
>>as part of the energy costs.
>
>
> I'd also consider the fact that the nuclear stuff is potentially useful
> to terrorists and other enemies. Attacks on nuclear facilities could
> cause tremendous problems. Stolen nuclear waste could do the same.
>

Especially the type of terrorist that the US is dealing with. The
problem with all the security, is that it's intended to keep them out,
however it's highly likely that they have people in place, who were in
place before 9/11 just waiting for their chance in the spotlight, and
one or more of those could be working in nuclear plants today. If you
don't find that scary, you should.

W
 
>Especially the type of terrorist that the US is dealing with. The
>problem with all the security, is that it's intended to keep them out,
>however it's highly likely that they have people in place, who were in
>place before 9/11 just waiting for their chance in the spotlight, and
>one or more of those could be working in nuclear plants today.

Anyone working in a commercial nuclear power plant has to pass an FBI
background check and a psychological evaluation.

There are other security measures in place, but do we really want to talk
about them?


Chris Neary
[email protected]

"Prize the doubt, low kinds exist without"
- Inscription at Ramsmeyer Hall, Ohio State University
 
>
>It still adds up though, especially considering the length of time, the
>problem with moving it to somewhere like Yucca Mountain, is that in
>transporting it, your going to get a major case of NIMBY for places you
>need to move it through.

Yes, it will be interesting when (or if..) they start moving fuel. The fuel
canisters are *incredibly* robust. I've seen video of a train ramming a
canister - it barely scratched. it.

>I'm not totally against nuclear energy, it's just that the
>cost of building, maintaining and decommissioning needs to be considered
>as part of the energy costs. They tend to forget to include the cost of
>interest on borrowing that up front money, when they show the plant
>costs, but it certainly does appear on the electric bill.

Actually the decommissioning costs are budgeted for and rolled into the
electric rates over the life of the plant to *avoid* the financing charges.

Construction costs are a whole other matter, with many states only allowing
them to be passed along to the ratepayer upon the start of plant operation.
In that case, the finance charges (especially in a high interest rate time
period like the 1970's) are a big problem. To avoid this issue one approach
would be to include construction costs in electric rates as the costs are
incurred.


Chris Neary
[email protected]

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh
 
Chris Neary <[email protected] > wrote:

>>Especially the type of terrorist that the US is dealing with. The
>>problem with all the security, is that it's intended to keep them out,
>>however it's highly likely that they have people in place, who were in
>>place before 9/11 just waiting for their chance in the spotlight, and
>>one or more of those could be working in nuclear plants today.
>
>Anyone working in a commercial nuclear power plant has to pass an FBI
>background check and a psychological evaluation.

A little behind on your _Simpsons_ viewing, eh? :)
 
Neil Brooks wrote:
> Chris Neary <[email protected] > wrote:
>
>>> Especially the type of terrorist that the US is dealing with. The
>>> problem with all the security, is that it's intended to keep them
>>> out, however it's highly likely that they have people in place, who
>>> were in place before 9/11 just waiting for their chance in the
>>> spotlight, and one or more of those could be working in nuclear
>>> plants today.
>>
>> Anyone working in a commercial nuclear power plant has to pass an FBI
>> background check and a psychological evaluation.
>
> A little behind on your _Simpsons_ viewing, eh? :)

Oh, Grimey...
 
"Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Fri, 26 Aug 2005 16:43:37 -0700,

> Bird kill is a red herring regularly trotted out by the oily ones.
> Don't fall for it.

Right -- it's second only to the one about herring kills due to hydro dams.
 
Chris Neary wrote:

>>Bird kill is a red herring regularly trotted out by the oily ones.
>>Don't fall for it.
>
> One of the oily ones:
>
> http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/index.html

Didn't really see the story on this link and didn't want to wade
through it.

Bird kills IS a problem with wind farms. However, a recent Dutch
study found the losses were far less than originally thought. Cars
accounted for far more.

A recent new problem arising from some California wind farms are
*bat* migrations! Something no one ever really thought about
before.

Some endangered bats are getting knocked off by the wind generators
in fairly large numbers and there is growing concern, at least for
the depleted species involved, in that particular location.


SMH
 
On 19-Aug-2005, Dane Jackson <[email protected]> wrote:

> BFD, as a matter of fact I can. I'd be a lot more impressed if he wasn't
> on his *50th* vacation of his presidency.

In my job, I take 50 hours of vacation PER YEAR.

--
Sock Puppet

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
 
On 19-Aug-2005, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:

> I've always thought I'd like to take a bike trip through that region.
>
> It's always been a rough area to ride from what I've read.

Yeah, if you think dealing with horses on the trails is bad, try camels.

--
Sock Puppet

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Bush crashes mountain biking.
Replies
35
Views
4K
Road Cycling
Richard Adams
R
C
Bush crashes mountain biking.
Replies
36
Views
2K
Road Cycling
Richard Adams
R
N
BUSH SIGNS "FREE VASELINE WITH YOUR GASOLINE" LEGISLATION
Replies
0
Views
966
Road Cycling
[email protected]
N
D
Bush to pardon Clemens
Replies
10
Views
571
Road Cycling
Fred Fredburger
F
D
Willie Nelson says Bush for 10 more years.
Replies
26
Views
1K
Road Cycling
Davey Crockett
D
Top Bottom Back