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

[brad haslett]

CORRECTION

"low sulfur coal" should read high sulfur coal

Brad


--- brad haslett <flybrad at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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
> 
=== message truncated ===



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! 
http://my.yahoo.com