Bill Oreilly just said something intelligent

[Strk]

Originally posted by: 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.

Hopefully, we will have fusion reactors within four decades or so.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: 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.

Hopefully, we will have fusion reactors within four decades or so.

It's a big stretch to believe that's possible... the hardest part is developing a reliable method for getting energy out of fusion, which so far has been a net energy loss.

So, you have to get past the thermodynamics of it, and THEN you have to invest billions into a 10-20year project to construct just a single fusion reactor.

Transitioning our entire infrastructure to another energy source is not an overnight switch. It will take many decades and many trillions of dollars, if it can even happen at all.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: 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!

One trick pony . . .

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: 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.

Hopefully, we will have fusion reactors within four decades or so.

Isn't it sad that it wasn't given the emphasis an priority that war has been. Instead of "four more decades" we might be saying "thank goodness we have it now"

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: 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!

Yeah, I heard O'Lielly a few months ago talking about border security, and he mostly blamed it on the "Liberal Media", not the Bush administration.
Somehow with control of Congress, the courts, and the white house, the liberal media is stopping Bush from taking control of our borders. Pathetic.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: 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!

Yeah, I heard O'Lielly a few months ago talking about border security, and he mostly blamed it on the "Liberal Media", not the Bush administration.
Somehow with control of Congress, the courts, and the white house, the liberal media is stopping Bush from taking control of our borders. Pathetic.

You apparently werent listening.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: 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!

You're right, he does blast Bush on quite a few issues. In certain circumstances, like this one, I tend to agree with him. But on issues like torture and liberty vs security, I can't stand to listen to him. Not because I disagree with him, but because all the intelligent analysis and well thought out points tend to vanish into "But we're at WAR!!!!!!" kind of commentary. Bill O'Reilly would be good if he could get away from the frat boy bully style arguments that plague the Bush administration, I believe THAT is why a lot of anti-Bush folks are also anti-O'Reilly. Not because of the overlap in views, but just because of the STYLE of argument.

 

[Rainsford]

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.

Think outside the box, there is a lot out there. And with research into better "batteries" (could be fuel cells or whatever), the types of energy production that currently work very well on a large scale, such as hydo-electric, nuclear, solar, etc, could be used in more portable applications like cars and what not. The only reason none of this has become big is that FAR more money is poured into oil exploration than inventing new technologies to end our dependence on oil. Which is fine at the moment, but it's a short term solution.

And I don't believe people limit their driving because of oil consumption, I suspect there is little evidence to support your claim that energy efficiency will spur people to just use things MORE.

 

[mect]

That nuclear estimate is completely wrong. That is for the least expensive source of nuclear fuel. Using more expensive technologies, there is enough for a couple hundred years. And, there have been a lot of politics involved in nuclear energy. One of the reasons that nuclear plants have been so expensive in this country compared to france is that each reactor has a unique design due to shifting political policies. In france, every reactor is practically the same, so an engineer from any plant can immediately be familiar with any plant, the building process has been optimized, and the safety standardized. Look at the difference between building a standard system compared to a custom one and a lot of the initial expenses become apparent. It isn't cheap to design each individual nuclear plant. Also, the plants in this country no longer recycle the nuclear fuel as france does do to legislation in the 80's I believe from prohibiting the practice. While this has since been reversed, nuclear plants still haven't switched back due to the expense involved. So we have more waste and less fuel. Nope, no politics involved in nuclear energy.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: 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.

Yes that is a very low estimate. That esitmate is what is possible to extract at todays current market prices. IF you only double the extraction price, the supply goes to more than 500 years.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: 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.

Well ask yourself, what has come from goverment programs to increase fuel economy. Not alot is the answer, even with billions spent. Toyota has done for more fuel economy and without govt subsidies.

 

[delas52]

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.

How'd he find out?

 

[LumbergTech]

when oreilly says that alternative energy should be a priority..what he really means is i want to sound good, but wont actually push this type of change

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

"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."

Between $3 - $5 Billion dollars per plant? Or roughly what we are spending PER MONTH in Iraq?


So we have been in Iraq now for at least 3 years...so I see the funding for at least 50 nuclear plants has been expended in Iraq, taking into the quoted costs of support and such.

Hey Georgie boy, you're doing a HECK of a job...of keeping us in oil's clutches.

Future Shock

 

[BrownTown]

Well, 5 billion is a pretty low estimate for a new nuclear reactor, your probably looking at more like 10 billion. The reason it is so high is entirely because of enviromental groups, they have gotten the government to impose insanely high standards on nuclear plants, and have gotten the government to keep delaying Yuccan mountain, meaning that nuke plants now have to store all the material on site (somewhat funny that enviromentalists are so worried about all this radioactive waste sitting inthe middle of the desert, but don't seem to care thatright now it is sitting in much less secure locations much closer to people). Anyways, once built nuke plants produce a constant stream of very cheap power that is used 24/7. However, few energy companies have the money to invest in new plants, and those that do have to contend with ungoldy amounts of red tape as well as "enviromentalists" decrying them in the media. And even if they are willing to invest the 10 billion dollars, annd 10 years of red tape to get hte reactor built they are still not accured that hte governmnet won't just impose even stricter regulatiosn that will end up costing them more money...

I know around where i live there are 3 nuke plants that were very clsoe to completion and had tens of billions of dollars invested in them, andd just before they were completed the government passes new laws that say the plants have to be completely rebuild. The power company pretty much just saidd screw it and decided to cut their losses at tens of billions of dollars rather then trying to invest further billions to meet new regulations. So basically now they are billions of dollars in debt and have nothing to show for it.