Bill Oreilly just said something intelligent

[Trevelyan]

I was just watching Fox News ( :Q :beer: ) and he said that developing alternative energy sources should be a definate priority, even if oil prices drop.

More experts are being interviewed now and Dick Morris is saying that oil prices will remain at the $60+ level because of China and India and their increased use. He also said that Bush will certainly not invest anything in alternative energy development, but that Clinton nor anyone before him did either, mainly because no president wants to mess with the oil companies.

Finally someone in the mainstream (not Bill, his guests really) is talking some sense about the looming energy crisis.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I HATE it when he does that. Doesn't happen often, but every 3-6 months he actually makes a valid point in a reasonable way. Scares me to death every time, but almost kindles a bit of hope for the future as well.

 

[Strk]

Well, you have a big issue with people hating the best alternative (nuclear).

 

[Aimster]

What alternative energy?

We will need oil for at least another 100+ years.

Hybrid cars for example will just make people drive even more.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: Strk
Well, you have a big issue with people hating the best alternative (nuclear).

Yeah, but I think the main reason we don't have more nuclear power plants has more to do with the economics than the public opinion... I mean, when have environmentalists stopped a corporation from making the kind of substantial profit associated with energy investments, unless the profit potential simply isn't there.

 

[sandorski]

A broke clock is right twice a day. [disclaimmer: assumes 12 hour clock and that all hands are present.]

This is just stating the obvious, but on a positive note his minions will now enthusiastically support what was previously some evil Euro-Liberal Conspiracy!

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: Strk
Well, you have a big issue with people hating the best alternative (nuclear).

Yeah, but I think the main reason we don't have more nuclear power plants has more to do with the economics than the public opinion... I mean, when have environmentalists stopped a corporation from making the kind of substantial profit associated with energy investments, unless the profit potential simply isn't there.

True...although I wonder how that is true. Hows has nuclear energy gone for places like France which rely mainly on nuclear power? Is the return good?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: Strk
Well, you have a big issue with people hating the best alternative (nuclear).

Yeah, but I think the main reason we don't have more nuclear power plants has more to do with the economics than the public opinion... I mean, when have environmentalists stopped a corporation from making the kind of substantial profit associated with energy investments, unless the profit potential simply isn't there.

True...although I wonder how that is true. Hows has nuclear energy gone for places like France which rely mainly on nuclear power? Is the return good?

I believe it is Profitable. There's a large initial investment, but the cost of Electricity Production is low enough to recover that. There's been a lot of PR(TV commercials) here in Canada recently espousing the benefits of Nuclear Power. I expect that Nuclear will once again fall into favour in North America soon.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: Strk
Well, you have a big issue with people hating the best alternative (nuclear).

Yeah, but I think the main reason we don't have more nuclear power plants has more to do with the economics than the public opinion... I mean, when have environmentalists stopped a corporation from making the kind of substantial profit associated with energy investments, unless the profit potential simply isn't there.

True...although I wonder how that is true. Hows has nuclear energy gone for places like France which rely mainly on nuclear power? Is the return good?

"Nuclear power is more expensive than most people realize. A single reactor costs between 3 and 5 billion dollars, not counting the costs associated with the extraction of nuclear fuels, decommissioning, and safeguarding against accidents and terrorism. Nuclear power has only existed because the oil used to construct nuclear power plants has been so cheap. The US currently has 100 nuclear reactors."

 

[Trevelyan]

Even more curious..

"Even if we were to overlook these problems, nuclear power is only a short-term solution. Uranium, too, is subject to a bell shaped production curve. Estimates of current known reserves vary, but seem to be between 25-40 years at best. As with other resources, the supply of Uranium will ?peak? long before the supply is exhausted."

 

[ntdz]

I rarely watch O'Reilly, but whenever I do he always seems to make valid and reasonable points.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: ntdz
I rarely watch O'Reilly, but whenever I do he always seems to make valid and reasonable points.

I would call that a sampling error.

Actually Carter did talk and even direct resources towards alternative energy. Virtually all of those programs were scuttled by Reagan.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Even more curious..

"Even if we were to overlook these problems, nuclear power is only a short-term solution. Uranium, too, is subject to a bell shaped production curve. Estimates of current known reserves vary, but seem to be between 25-40 years at best. As with other resources, the supply of Uranium will ?peak? long before the supply is exhausted."

I used to live near a Uranium deposit that was placed into a mining moratorium. Not sure if the size of the deposit was found or not, but even if the known supplies are only 40ish years, more would likely be found if useage were to increase.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
I was just watching Fox News ( :Q :beer: ) and he said that developing alternative energy sources should be a definate priority, even if oil prices drop.

More experts are being interviewed now and Dick Morris is saying that oil prices will remain at the $60+ level because of China and India and their increased use. He also said that Bush will certainly not invest anything in alternative energy development, but that Clinton nor anyone before him did either, mainly because no president wants to mess with the oil companies.

Finally someone in the mainstream (not Bill, his guests really) is talking some sense about the looming energy crisis.

George Bush quickly cancelled the Clinton era research program to improve the gas mileage of autos, so he could push his pie in the sky hydrogen fuel program.
Gov Schwarzenegger recently drove a nice fuel cell SUV prototype at a news conf, very cool-too bad it cost $3 million to build and could travel something like 50 miles before it needed to be refueled. Nice going Georgie boy.
And Dick Morris is a corporate whore campaign liar, he'll tell whoever's paying him what they want to hear. When he worked for Clinton he had nothing but praise for him.
Didn't he get caught in some scandal with a hooker?
Do you remember Bush during the 2000 campaign hassling Gore about the HIGH ($30)
price of oil?
Dick Morris knows about as much about the energy crisis as I do about campaign finance law-nothing.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: sandorski
A broke clock is right twice a day. [disclaimmer: assumes 12 hour clock and that all hands are present.]

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
I was just watching Fox News and he said that developing alternative energy sources should be a definate priority, even if oil prices drop.

Gee Bill, YA THINK?!?!?!? :roll:

 

[techs]

To be honest it's not just politicians fear of taking on the oil companies. It is the fear of asking the American public to pay one penny more for energy to help encourage alternative resources.
If oil were guaranteed to cost 60 per barrel alternative resources would be developed but it is the fear that it might drop to 30 dollars that stops companies from spending billions on alternative resources.
The simplest method would be a price floor for a barrel of oil. It goes lower than say 60 a barrel a federal tax kicks in.
Wait for the "My god is Capitalism" folks to start screaming....
Because they won't acknowedge the oil market is not supply and demand but manipulated by nations and that the supply is affected by the politics of nations and not the amount of oil that can be extracted.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: ntdz
I rarely watch O'Reilly, but whenever I do he always seems to make valid and reasonable points.

I would call that a sampling error.

Actually Carter did talk and even direct resources towards alternative energy. Virtually all of those programs were scuttled by Reagan.

Yep, some of us were calling for this after the Oil Embargo. Ronnie fscked us over, and no one picked up the ball after that. That's shameful.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
I was just watching Fox News ( :Q :beer: ) and he said that developing alternative energy sources should be a definate priority, even if oil prices drop.

More experts are being interviewed now and Dick Morris is saying that oil prices will remain at the $60+ level because of China and India and their increased use. He also said that Bush will certainly not invest anything in alternative energy development, but that Clinton nor anyone before him did either, mainly because no president wants to mess with the oil companies.

Finally someone in the mainstream (not Bill, his guests really) is talking some sense about the looming energy crisis.

Pretty much everyone accepts the need for alternative energy research. There has in fact been quite a bit of investment in this, and I expect we'll see more money put in in the near future.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
I was just watching Fox News ( :Q :beer: ) and he said that developing alternative energy sources should be a definate priority, even if oil prices drop.

More experts are being interviewed now and Dick Morris is saying that oil prices will remain at the $60+ level because of China and India and their increased use. He also said that Bush will certainly not invest anything in alternative energy development, but that Clinton nor anyone before him did either, mainly because no president wants to mess with the oil companies.

Finally someone in the mainstream (not Bill, his guests really) is talking some sense about the looming energy crisis.

Pretty much everyone accepts the need for alternative energy research. There has in fact been quite a bit of investment in this, and I expect we'll see more money put in in the near future.

Although impossible to know, I would wager that if the same amount of money that is being thrown at Iraq had been spent on the far more vital need of energy independence after the Oil Embargo, we would not have an Iraq war.

History would have been changed. THe US would not have the cause to manipulate the ME, and the powers there would not be cashing in their money for influence. The money for Saddams armies would not have been there, and the Middle East would have had as much value to the world as the Sahara.

Oil is our heroin, and we don't seek to free ourselves from it, we just keep looking to shake down the dealers.

 

[Jhhnn]

Even a blind squirrel finds a few acorns...

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Aimster
What alternative energy?

We will need oil for at least another 100+ years.

Hybrid cars for example will just make people drive even more.

Very true, the general public must do their part for any alternative plan to work.

 

[Genx87]

You should really watch his show more often. He blasts the Bush administration plenty.
Get him on the topic of border security and watch him go!

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: Strk
Well, you have a big issue with people hating the best alternative (nuclear).

Yeah, but I think the main reason we don't have more nuclear power plants has more to do with the economics than the public opinion... I mean, when have environmentalists stopped a corporation from making the kind of substantial profit associated with energy investments, unless the profit potential simply isn't there.

True...although I wonder how that is true. Hows has nuclear energy gone for places like France which rely mainly on nuclear power? Is the return good?

"Nuclear power is more expensive than most people realize. A single reactor costs between 3 and 5 billion dollars, not counting the costs associated with the extraction of nuclear fuels, decommissioning, and safeguarding against accidents and terrorism. Nuclear power has only existed because the oil used to construct nuclear power plants has been so cheap. The US currently has 100 nuclear reactors."

The same could be said for dams, coal plants, wind turbines, and any number of things that we build to produce electricity. They all required the use of fossil fuels to construct.

Inital construction and shutdown cost is a concern, but the lifetime of a reactor will can be as long as 60+ years if maintained properly. Currently existing reactors have become hot energy property since their fuel costs are relatively low and not subject to wild fluctuations in cost. Also, many of them have had their power ratings "uprated" so they can produce more electricity from the same amount of fuel.

GE and Westinghouse have both developed new, less complicated reactor designs that will be less expensive to construct and be safer in the bargain. The Japanese have already build several of these and are looking to do more.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Even more curious..

"Even if we were to overlook these problems, nuclear power is only a short-term solution. Uranium, too, is subject to a bell shaped production curve. Estimates of current known reserves vary, but seem to be between 25-40 years at best. As with other resources, the supply of Uranium will ?peak? long before the supply is exhausted."

That estimate, that I suspect is deliberately low anyway, completely ignores the other sources of nuclear fuel: surplus HEU, plutonium (MOX fuel and breeder reactors), natural uranium, thorium to U233, etc...

Managed properly we can get hundreds of years out of fission energy.