[Rhodes22-list] The Hydrogen Economy - Part II AND Politics

[brad haslett]

Roger,

You wrote;

"Short of another OPEC oil embargo resulting in a 2nd
great depression, there is nothing that will sway the
American public regarding nuclear energy".

Thank-you, you're on to something.  The Clinton
administration, while he was President, did about the
same thing for the nation as he did for Arkansas as
Governor regarding chicken farming pollution, ie, 
make the environmental groups feel like they had been
heard and responded to.  During the nineties we built
a record number of natural gas fired electric power
plants because that is what made the "tree huggers"
feel good.  Never mind that gas follows the same
production decline curve and depletion outlined in
Hubbert's Peak or that the bulk of it in this country
is imported (Canada being the largest supplier for
now, but that will change with CNG).  Since wind can't
supply the demand, especially with the NIMBY's, we're
left with coal. My next door neighbor, an energy
banker, and his wife had an anniversary dinner for Fan
and I this weekend.  He had just concluded a unique
financing deal for a coal mine and a good part of the
dinner conversation was about the future of the coal
and energy markets.  Bottom line - until we embrace
nuclear, coal is the future.  Coal mines, such as the
ones in Southern Illinois that were considered "played
out", are now back in business because utilities are
willing to pay the upfront costs for scrubbers to burn
low sulfur coal.  The environmental damage left behind
from the mine tailings and surface scars remain
unchanged.  There is no free lunch in the energy
equation.  There hasn't been a single President in
history with the political balls to present how dire
the energy situation is to the American people, so it
should come as no surprise that groups oppose this,
that, and every other energy development, good or bad.
 The Chinese have no such problems.  They buy oil from
anybody, dam whatever river promises gravity, and
ignore the environmental damage in their headlong rush
to market domination.  I repeat myself, when the PHd
educated WalMart greeters can't see because of a
brownout, people's attitudes toward nukes will change.
Reality check, Please!

Brad Haslett
"CoraShen"


--- Roger Pihlaja <cen09402 at centurytel.net> wrote:

> Brad,
> 
> Name another political movement besides the
> antinuclear folks that enjoys
> such a broad base of support among the American
> people.  Antinuclear power
> sentiment cuts broadly across all age groups, income
> levels, and racial
> groups.  Short of another OPEC oil embargo resulting
> in a 2nd great
> depression, there is nothing that will sway the
> American public regarding
> nuclear energy.  Then, given the long lead time for
> a nuclear power plant,
> it will be nearly a decade before the new plants
> even come on-line.  Too
> little, too late.
> 
> The bean counters don't really care whether the
> risks to a given project are
> technical, economic, political, or litiguous.  Risk
> is risk, no matter how
> the investment gets squandered.  The stakes are so
> high that most companies
> can't afford to take the chance.  You might get a
> few companies or perhaps a
> consortium to throw their hat in the nuclear power
> ring again; but,
> certainly not the hundreds that would be required to
> generate the sort of
> electrical power envisioned by the author.  Sure
> it's technically feasible;
> but, the author is smoking dope if he thinks
> anything like that is even
> remotely likely.
> 
> Roger Pihlaja
> S/V Dynamic Equilibrium
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "brad haslett" <flybrad at yahoo.com>
> To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list"
> <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 7:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] The Hydrogen Economy -
> Part II
> 
> 
> > Roger,
> >
> > Time does not permit a fully reasoned response
> since I
> > have to catch a flight to Manchester, NH this
> morning
> > and operate my own jet back to Memphis tomorrow
> > morning, lets say about 12,000 gallons of
> hydrocarbons
> > total.  However, allow me this quick comment on
> > electric cars.  You're right, battery power alone
> > won't hack it.  Two years ago the DOT had a
> contest
> > among the car manufacturers for the highest milage
> > vehichle and Volkswagon won it with a 87 mpg
> > diesel/electric hybrid with the others close on
> their
> > heels.  FedEx developed 40 diesel/electric hybrid
> > delivery trucks with Eaton that are currently in
> > service and under evaluation.  The risk you speak
> of,
> > "betting the firm", on nukes is not so much a
> market
> > risk as it is a litigation risk from environmental
> > groups.  When the lights start going out people's
> > attitudes will change.  If you've been following
> the
> > "Oil Patch" news this week you probably already
> know
> > that the Chinese are contemplating a bid for
> Unocal.
> > The Indians are bidding for parts of Yukos.  The
> big
> > American oil companies are trimming debt, raising
> > dividends, and buying back stock rather than
> expanding
> > at the drillbit.  This is an ominous sign.  We are
> > rapidly approaching the "perfect storm" of
> geology,
> > market demand, and Middle East uncertainty in the
> oil
> > markets.  I appreciate the contribution that
> ethanol
> > and biodiesel makes to the fuel budget but there
> isn't
> > enough dirt on the face of the planet to replace
> our
> > current consumption.  More later after I'm through
> > burning fuel.
> >
> > Brad Haslett
> > "CoraShen"
> >
> >
> > --- Roger Pihlaja <cen09402 at centurytel.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Brad,
> > >
> > > In general, I agree with the author's premise
> that
> > > electrical use in the
> > > United States is going to increase and that
> nuclear
> > > power needs to provide a
> > > bigger component of electrical generation
> capacity.
> > > I do have several
> > > problems with the article:
> > >
> > > Battery electric cars are not ready for prime
> time,
> > > the range is far too
> > > short, the batteries are too expensive, and the
> life
> > > span of the battery
> > > pack is too short.  An electric car which can
> only
> > > be used for short range
> > > commuting will never sell in large numbers, even
> > > though the market is
> > > theoretically huge.  The situation for large
> battery
> > > electric trucks is even
> > > worse.  The author almost glosses over this
> > > technical issue; but, it's a
> > > show stopper.  Land transportation is going to
> > > require a high energy density
> > > fuel like gasoline, diesel fuel, or ethanol and
> an
> > > on-board internal
> > > combustion engine for a long time into the
> future.
> > >
> > > Given the age of all currently operating nuclear
> > > power plants, the costs of
> > > decomissioning & replacement, and the massive
> > > regulatory/political problems,
> > > the US nuclear industry will be doing well just
> to
> > > keep the percent of
> > > electrical generating capacity somewhere near
> the
> > > current level of about
> > > 17%.  At several billion dollars apiece,
> building a
> > > nuclear power plant is
> > > an intrinsically risky, "bet the entire
> company",
> > > propsition for most
> > > utility companies.  The author completely missed
> > > this issue.  Again, it's a
> > > potential show stopper.
> > >
> > > High voltage power transmission lines require a
> big
> > > footprint on the
> > > landscape and the US public is already rebelling
> > > against building more of
> > > them.  The author completely missed how
> difficult
> > > it's going to be to build
> > > the necessary new power transmission lines. 
> Again,
> > > this issue is a
> > > potential show stopper because, without the new
> > > power transmission lines,
> > > additional electrical generating capacity is
> > > virtually useless and the
> > > growth in electical power consumption forecast
> by
> > > the author is impossible.
> > >
> > > I also have a big problem with the author's
> analysis
> > > of GDP growth in the
> > > future being almost entirely driven by
> electricity.
> > > While it's true that a
> > > large portion of our recent GDP growth has come
> from
> > > electrically intensive
> > > activities like IT and telecommunications, this
> > > analysis completely ignores
> > > a crucial underlying fact.  IT never grew one
> bushel
> > > of corn, pumped a
> > > single gallon of clean water, built one car,
> paved 1
> > > mile of road, moved a
> > > single package of goods to market, or any of a
> > > million other "real world"
> > > activities that are required for 6.2 billion+
> humans
> 
=== message truncated ===



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo