Could the U.S. Survive Without Foreign Oil?

Agreed. The problem is that the real costs of used fuel rod storage for centuries, as well as decomissioning of old reactors is not built into the business model. If they were, nuclear probably would not be competitive at all. At the end, the taxpayer will be holding the bad to take care of nuclear old, power plant ruins.

One of the problems, of course, is that current nuclear technology uses only 1% of the energy in the fuel, leaving a host of long-lives radioactive byproducts. That's where breeder technology could come into play.

 

That's a coincidence. I was just about to ask a question on this. These used fuel rods are only a danger because they are still highly radioactive which means they are still giving out a lot of energy but in small amounts in a large period of time. Anyone know if there is serious research on seeing how this energy could be harnessed?

 

America is Sloooowly adapting renewable energy. We are probably behind the rest of the modern world at this point. I know that Wind turbines and hydro electric damns are popping up more in the Midwest and plains states where applicable. This technology is good and we should continue to shift as much as we can into this to heat our homes and keep the lights going. If there is a way to convert mass public transportation then we should do that as well. I think if we can get to a 40/60 situation we will be in much better shape for the day when we can no longer rely on ME oil.

 

If the right wing's hero, Dubya, was so gung ho over renewables, why are conservatives and neoconservatives so opposed to their development? Whenever a solar energy company goes broke, right-wingers are dancing in the street.

 

Because he is no longer President.

 

First of all, we could survive without ANY oil. The fossil fuel industry just wants to keep their cash cow flowing.
Second, destroying the land and poisoning the water with fracking tactics is like burning your own house to keep warm. Just plain stupid.

 

Where is the 'magic fuel' then? Where can I fill my car with said fuel? Fracking does not destroy anything.

 

Actually, people like me WERE running things which is the reason we are using petroleum and NOT using whale oil today. Next time think a bit huh?

 

Some of you people seem to have problems with reading comprehension. Please point out where I said the FED should subsidize natural gas. BTW there is no 'renewable' fuel available because it hasn't been discovered yet.

So why do you think the GW fanatics aren't demanding natural gas and nuclear energy for fuel? We hear how bad petroleum and coal are AND Obama is ready to put more restrictions on it which will drive prices up for the average American. In the meantime the 'magic fuel' is nowhere to be found.

 

That is a made-up problem...There would be much less radioactive waste than with coal. Did you know that coal is radioactive? The amount of radioactivity put into our atmosphere by coal is much more and not controlled at all. You probably don't believe that so...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

Educate yourself. Ignorance is tragic for everyone.

Where can I buy a solar powered car?

OK so there is no alternative fuel today. Exactly my point. Only promises and Unicorn milk.

 

I generally agree with that so....Why are we not developing our own resources today? What's wrong? GW fanatics say we must get off fossil fuels yet refuse to relent when it comes to nuclear energy. Cars could run on natural gas with 50% less CO2 emissions. Isn't it time for Obama to actually DO SOMETHING? Other than declare edicts on our already available fuel that will skyrocket fuel costs to the average American and still leave us vulnerable to volatile foreign energy markets.

 

I take it you didn't read the posts very carefully. The Dr is Dr. Bill Wattenberg and we were talking about natural gas powered vehicles.

 

Well, you are talking to a person who, along with a group of other tax professionals, wanted the Alternative Fuel Vehicle Credit, Form 8910, made permanent and eliminate the phase out limitations. Toyota, Honda, and Ford had the comparative advantage for hybrid and electric vehicles If the credit was made permanent along with the phase out limitations, the three car manufacturers would have changed the type of vehicle we drive today, reduce emissions without producing unrealistic edicts, and improve the tax revenues without cutting or raising taxes. But it did not happen simply because of one lobbying group who opposed the idea and the rest is history.

 

Most natural gas sites are hard to extract for a variety of reasons ranging from paying out huge $$$$ to residents for the use of their property to royalty fees, to production costs. Meanwhile, propane and other natural gas byproducts would become more expensive due to demand. And yes, CNP vehicles are being tested, notably Honda in California, but the cost is about $100k per vehicle.

 

One estimate I read is with the current technology the US could run for 300 years without foreign oil.

 

LOL. Yes, coal is a dirty fuel, both in production and in waste disposal. However, nuclear radioactive waste has its own problems and no, it is not made up. The point I was making has to do with carbon emissions, which coal greatly contributes. We see this in the PRC. The PRC is the largest producer and user of coal plants. It is also way they have the environmental problems today in some areas. Yet, they are doing something about it, slowly but surely. For nuclear waste, it has a longer half life than coal ash. It is also more costly to store nuclear waste than to store coal ash.

You can buy a solar powered car. Here, Ford has made one for you.

But I was referring to solar energy, T Boone Pickens Style. Placing solar panels on top of manufacturing plants, tall office buildings, large supermarkets, and homes would have reduced energy consumption by fossil fuels by as much as 30% with respectable estimates at about 22%.

Yes there is alternative fuel energy today. But there is no mass produced, large grid style alternative energy today.

 

Oil (gasoline) provides a large amount of energy in a relatively small volume that is easy to use for transportation purposes. We can also obtain the same energy from alcohol, natural gas, and compressed or liquified hydrogen that can also. There is nothing preventing the United States from using other forms of energy for transportation. If, for example, Lockheed is successful in creating small nuclear fusion reactors then we could rely on low cost electrical power for short transportation needs and low cost compressed or liquified hydrogen for long transportation needs. The type of energy used for transportation is really irrelevant because many forms of "stored energy" can be used.

 

Nuclear fusion, that Lockheed has said it will be able to produce within a few years commercially, has no radioactive waste and is a very safe form of nuclear energy. Nuclear fission is problematic because of nuclear waste and potentially hazardous operations that can release that waste into the environment but not nuclear fusion which is both safe and clean.

 

Ever since the hoax at Texas A&M, I am on the wait and see approach, even if it is Lockheed.

 

Having worked at the Lockheed Skunk Works (that's working on this) I'm not aware of any commitment it's made where it failed to achieve what was promised on time and below budget. The Skunk Works employs the finest scientists, engineers, and technicians in the industry and when they say they can do something they've always known how to accomplish it before commiting to doing it historically. Perhaps this will be the first time they fail to do what they say they can do but I'll go with history on this because they've never failed before.

 

I understand where you are coming from and have a couple friends who worked there. One on the F22 in its earliest developments. But still, fusion has been worked on since the 1980's by some of the brightest minds in physics. And it has been worked on since the 1980's. I am not saying it is not feasible, but I am stating I am patient when it comes.

Personally, this technology may be available by 2030 and not sooner.

 

Simply not true, the price reflects that.

TESTED? $100,000??? They are already on the road with MSRP of $26,740, 27CITY/38HWY.

http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-natural-gas/

 

Beg to differ. Price of natural gas historical levels delivered to residential homes

If you would notice, the trend is going up, although more slovly now. But that does not reflect the additional costs when obtaining natural gas.

TESTED? $100,000??? They are already on the road with MSRP of $26,740, 27CITY/38HWY.

http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-natural-gas/[/QUOTE]
That is a duel fuel vehicle. It does have natural gas, but it also takes gasoline as well, if I am not mistaken.

 

That is a duel fuel vehicle. It does have natural gas, but it also takes gasoline as well, if I am not mistaken.[/QUOTE]

You are mistaken, it's a CNG fuel only, it's right in the specifications.
http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-natural-gas/specifications.aspx

The average cost in the US for a "gallon" of CNG yesterday was $2.18. Some places had it as cheap as $0.60 per gallon!
http://www.cngprices.com/

 

That you mention foreign oil and natural gas in the same post says you know nothing about the US and energy.