Quote:
Originally Posted by TSGracchus
No, it wasn't cost-efficient in the past even WITH current technology, because the price of oil was too low. It has become cost-efficient now because the price of oil has risen.
|
I am not denying that it was not cost efficiant do to low oil prices. I was trying to say that it is a little bit of both.(avances in technology and the high prices in oil.) Sorry if I came off that way.
Quote:
|
We must also ask ourselves how quickly the oil can be pumped. Another problem with the end of cheap oil is that it can no longer be extracted at the same rate as before. There's still about 50% of the world's oil in the ground, so our current difficulties don't stem from not having enough left in total, but from a slowdown in how much can be produced per year.
|
I'm sure there are people more intellegent than I am who understand how peek oil is determined but I just cant wrap my brain housing group around the concept. How exactly do they know how much oil (in total) there is on earth? Especialy when new fields are being discovered all the time?
Quote:
|
Exactly, and that's why this oil deposit is not a solution. We are suffering not from the loss of oil, but from the loss of cheap and abundant oil.
|
I never claimed it was a solution, But it couldn't hurt to have more of a resource that we thought we had.
Quote:
|
There's still lots of oil left, but it is going to become increasingly scarce and expensive. The only solution is to stop using it as a fuel, switching to something else instead.
|
If it was that easy why haven't we done that already? I'm not dissagreing with you I just think we need more time to develope the technology to creat a cheaper fuel. (Look at ethinal for example it is a extreamly costly fuel to create as well as inefficiant.) And if this new oil find is a key to help give us the time we meen to do it then we should take advantage of it.
Quote:
|
The Navy's operation is NOT without incident. Without meltdown, possibly. But not without environmentally-significant impact.
|
Like what? I have never heard of any sagnificant incident in US naval history reguarding nuke power and the enviroment.
Quote:
There are issues with nuclear waste disposal, hazards from mining and processing nuclear fuels, and leakage of radioactive materials from plant operation, even in the absence of a meltdown. There are steps that can be taken to minimize all of these, but all such steps increase the cost of production. For all these reasons, nuclear power should not be our first option, although I agree it should be on our list.
I'm not at all sure why you are so enamored of it, frankly. Can you explain that?
|
I just don't see any other alternatives to oil and coal power plants. I am not denying to prospect of renewable energy. Its just those forms of power has yet to be perfected to a point that would make them feasible. When they do become a reliable form of energy then there should be a transition away from nukes to incorporate the new technology.