Last post on Apr 17, 2005 at 4:25 PM
You are in the Hybrid Vehicles - Archived Discussions
This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost? Ask the Hybrids Host for directions! discussion.
What is this discussion about?
Hybrid Cars, Fuel Efficiency (MPG)
#764 of 773 Re: Let's not make this a personal beef please [pf_flyer]
Apr 17, 2005 (3:17 pm)
All I'm asking is that people who are saying that we have plenty of oil share their sources. I've been posting the sources behind my concerns from day one. And I keep hearing things like. "well you can believe what you want but I choose to believe my sources at company x" OK, fine. Put my mind at ease. Share your sources at company x. If they are so logical and authoritative they should put my mind at ease and I can go back to blueprinting that hemi with nitrous that I have been putting off for so long.
#765 of 773 Re: Oh woe is us! [brucej]
Apr 17, 2005 (3:30 pm)
Even though we haven't built a new nuclear facility in 30 years we're just going to dust off the blue prints and bring a few thousand on line in a few years?
Even though the US has been stymied on building new nuclear reactors, the rest of the world has not. This Alaskan Village is excited about getting a nuclear facility that will cut their electric bills to 1/3 of what they are now. There are very efficient nuclear reactors available. Remember France uses nuclear for 70% of their electricity.
The 4S is a sodium-cooled fast spectrum reactor -- a low-pressure, self-cooling reactor. It will generate power for 30 years before refueling and should be installed before 2010
#766 of 773 Re: Let's not make this a personal beef please [brucej]
Apr 17, 2005 (3:44 pm)
Put my mind at ease. Share your sources
Did it ever occur to you that these oil company executives that are wringing their hands feeding you the "Doom n Gloom", may be part of the political process to get ANWR opened up. They all want a shot at those leases. Prudhoe Bay and the other North Slope fields are just about as easy to get oil from as the Saudi desert. Most of the gas fed wells produce 1500 + barrels per day. The average cost to get the oil in the Pipeline headed to market is 83 cents per barrel. They are calculating a huge margin of profit even if oil were to drop back to $10 per barrel. Plus the additional fact that people will not be so adverse to building more refineries that are needed to alleviate these shortages when an accident occurs, such as the BP refinery fire. Exxon & BP have taken more than 250 billion dollars worth of oil out of Alaska. They are convinced there is more than that left. A pretty good incentive to make people change the laws on ANWR.
Apr 17, 2005 (3:46 pm)
I think nuclear is a great idea. Let's get cracking. Hurray for France. (Now go to work and find out how long it took the French to build those plants) My issue is how long its going to take and who is currently concerned enough to get the ball rolling.
Regarding your Alaskan village reactor. The article states"...if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approves it -- which could cost millions of dollars to Toshiba -- the 4S reactor could be installed by 2010." So, it hasn't been approved yet. Again, this is my point. How much time does it take to get one of these approved? "Should be installed" and "could be installed" are two entirely different scenarios.
#768 of 773 Re: Nuclear [brucej]
Apr 17, 2005 (3:56 pm)
How much time does it take to get one of these approved?
I think it will be approved. It is a very remote site accessible only by air. That gives it a better than average chance. The people are all for it, so you don't have NIMBY as you do in most areas of the USA. It will depend on how many environmental lawsuits hold it up in court is my best guess. If we could cut off the oil to a few environmental groups things would get done a lot sooner, for a lot less money.
#769 of 773 Re: Let's not make this a personal beef please [gagrice]
Apr 17, 2005 (4:00 pm)
This is conjecture on your part. Share some FACTS!
#770 of 773 Re: Nuclear [gagrice]
Apr 17, 2005 (4:01 pm)
You think it will be approved? Why? Where are your facts?
#771 of 773 I think this one is headed for retirement but...
by pf_flyer HOST
Apr 17, 2005 (4:12 pm)
I don't know that "dueling links" is going to sway anyone. But to pull a quote from your own source bruce...
"Oil futures show crude prices will stay close to $40 a barrel until 2011 because of rising demand, spurring investment in projects once considered to be marginal."
Given that the runup in the oil market has prices north of $50/bbl, I was kind of surprised to find that quote in the same story. If you wanted to paint the worst picture possible, you certainly cherry picked the right ones for your post bruce.
How about this gem from the same article?
Companies will produce 10.1 million barrels of oil a day by 2030 from projects in Canada and Qatar, more than Saudi Arabia does today, according to forecasts by the International Energy Agency in Paris. That's 8 percent of the world's total.
Sort of paints the picture a different way doesn't it?
So I guess we're back to having to agree to disagree about this. Once we got to the point of questioning people's sobriety and asking folks to "prove" things, I'm thinking were about ready for final comments in this one.
#772 of 773 Nuclear as an alternative to high fuel prices [brucej]
Apr 17, 2005 (4:17 pm)
The facts are these people are trying to resolve their dependence on oil. They ship all their diesel for electricity on barges. This is also very problematic for the environment. The only people that are against it currently are the villagers that were not picked to get the free reactor from Toshiba. It is kind of like the only native opposition to ANWR are the villages that will not benefit from the oil money.
The long winters without large volume transport requires the town to maintain very large fuel tanks - the total storage capacity is more than 3 million gallons between the town and the airport, which equates to more than 4,000 gallons for every resident.
#773 of 773 Honestly
by pf_flyer HOST
Apr 17, 2005 (4:25 pm)
Nuclear is SO far afield from what I think the original intent of this topic was, that I think we're done. This is an automotive message board. Unless someone has proposed nuclear powered vehicles, I think discussion of nuclear power plants will have to take place elsewhere.
When this topic appeared, I assumed it was going to be about how increased gas prices would affect what we drive, how we drive, what vehicles we buy, what the manufacturers would come up with as far as new vehicles, alternative fuel vehicles. All of that stuff. We're hopelessly off into OPEC, ANWR, oil reserves, drilling, etc...
Time for this one to be put to rest.