Nuclear Energy to Pump Oil Like No Tomorrow

[Leo Volont]

Nuclear Energy to Pump Oil Like No Tomorrow Those who are now growing rich beyond their wildest dreams, while excusing the exorbitant prices they are demanding for Oil, swear that their only incentive to keep up with the ever increasing World Demand for Oil is that they receive an ever increasing price for that Oil. Simultaneously there are voices in the Oil Industry, particularly from Latin America, that argue that if Production is kept constant, then scarcity bidding would force the Price of Oil even higher, and then their Oil Reserves – the oil that remains in the ground – would last longer. You know, they are right. There can be only one contra-argument, and that is to convince them that Oil will be phased out soon, making any saved Oil Reserves valueless. The Oil Producers must be made to think that they must pump it all out immediately while it is still worth anything at all. So, what plausible rumor can we all spread whereby we can hope that the price of gas might drop? Hmmmmm. Oh, I got it! We can all say, that the Nuclear Power Industries will forthwith be protected from legal challenges posed by the Interests of the Petroleum Industries (actually what killed Nuclear Energy in America was the plethora of Law Suits brought by Neighborhood Committees, but if it were ever to be examined as to who or what was paying the Legal Bills for these little grass roots organizations…). It is not as though some Industries cannot acquire Legal Amnesties. In America, for instance, they have spoken of offering Legal Amnesties to any number of industries – Motorcycle Helmets, General Aviation Small Plane Manufacturers, Doctors, but most successful of all – the Gun Industry. And so far the Supreme Court has smiled on the Principle that allows a Nation to keep the lawyers from killing by strangulation the things the People love the most (and in America, that is Guns). Those Americans did not fight all those wars for freedom just so their lawyers could ruin everything, did they? So, if they wanted, the Nuclear Energy Industry could be made immune to Legal Contest and thus instantly dissolve the one spiraling cost that had once put it out of business. And once the Nuclear Plants could appear on a large scale, electrical energy would become virtually FREE. Yes, I know, that it does cost something to build a Nuclear Plant, but then, once built, absolutely no fuel is required – years go by without supply trucks bringing in anything but pizzas and donuts for the Help. And they say that dispensing of the Nuclear Waste is expensive, but that cost is encountered only when a Nuclear Plant has been decommissioned due to Legal Challenges and must be disassembled and disposed of. But if it were to remain in operation, then there would be no Nuclear Waste, would there? So, once again, as long as a Nuclear Plant is running, the Energy is virtually FREE. Well, all that Free Electricity still does not power automobiles, but wait! Alcohol, which can fill up a gas tank, is presently expensive because it takes so much costly energy to distill it out from the various mashes, but if that energy were FREE, then alcohol would be cheap. Hydrogen, likewise, is now expensive because it requires a great deal of costly electrical energy to extract it from Water, and here again FREE Nuclear Electricity would reduce those costs radically. Even the idea of purely Electrical Cars was nixed because ultimately the sources of cost and pollution, going from the car tailpipes to the Energy Plant’s Smokestacks actually did not provide a net improvement in either energy efficiency or cleanliness. But with Absolutely Clean Nuclear Energy, suddenly the purely Electrical Car would be spotlessly Green and not nearly so expensive (still there would be the cost of buying a new 800 lbs lead acid battery every 6 months… a problem even I can’t think of a ‘work-around’ for). So that would do it. If the Oil Industry People thought we were serious about Nuclear Energy, they would rush, asses over elbows, to be the first to pump out their wells, happy to get $40 a barrel. But we must all keep a straight face, and hope they believe us.

[sloth]

YES! This sounds like a GREAT way to hurry and burn up all of our nonrenewable resources and destroy the planet before it's too late! What's more important? Money? A habitable planet? Instead of pretending that oil will be phased out soon, let's PHASE OUT OIL! A new honda runs entirely on natural gas. The gas is waaay cheaper than gasoline, and you can fill your car up in your own garage. In California, you can drive in the carpool lanes with only one passenger. You can park at parking meters without having to pay. You won't be paying other countries. You won't be destroying the planet that your kids have to live on! Cost? 20,000. Am I the only one who worries that JUST MAYBE... JUST MAYBE burning all of the available gasoline in existence will affect the atmosphere and make Earth uninhabitable? Maybe it won't. Maybe we live in a magical paradise where nothing bad like that can ever happen to us. But why risk it? -sloth ***This reply is not meant to insult the author of the post in any way.***

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by sloth YES! This sounds like a GREAT way to hurry and burn up all of our nonrenewable resources and destroy the planet before it's too late! What's more important? * Money? *A habitable planet? Instead of pretending that oil will be phased out soon, let's PHASE OUT OIL! A new honda runs entirely on natural gas. The gas is waaay cheaper than gasoline, and you can fill your car up in your own garage. In California, you can drive in the carpool lanes with only one passenger. You can park at parking meters without having to pay. You won't be paying other countries. You won't be destroying the planet that your kids have to live on! Cost? 20,000. Am I the only one who worries that JUST MAYBE... JUST MAYBE burning all of the available gasoline in existence will affect the atmosphere and make Earth uninhabitable? Maybe it won't. Maybe we live in a magical paradise where nothing bad like that can ever happen to us. But why risk it? * *-sloth * * ***This reply is not meant to insult the author of the post in any way.*** Okay. Fine. but what is your plan? I suppose you can drop bombs on India and China. Or do you want to drop bombs on New York, Los Angelas, London and Paris. This Great Big One World Civilization we now live in depends intrinsically and integrally upon petro-energy and transportation. You talk about Natural Gas. Well, natural gas, even in the context of all the other existing forms of energy is fairly expensive. But if it were the only allowable source of energy -- well, only Bill Gates and Donald Trump would be able to afford it. But I had an actual plan that could work without destroying Civilization. The Rise of Nuclear Energy would make Petro-Energy affordable, and then, when Petro-Energy did run out, then we would have Nuclear Energy widely available. As for all the Global Warming... well, I have addressed those issues in other of my Threads, particularly "The Fresh Water Revolution". There is no evil consequence expected of Global Warming that could not be addressed by turning all of the World's land masses into virtual Rain Forests, which, again, would be so much more feasibly done if there was a great deal of nuclear energy available for its implementation. But maybe you are right ... that for the sake of the Planet, it would be so much easier just to kill off entire nations.

[Leo Volont]

I take it that many people still feel that the petroleum problem is merely optional, and that to address this issue significantly is somehow to betray one's Green Credentials. Well such people are silly geese. And it is easy to see why. Pay attention to the News. The rising cost of Oil has caused a rise in Inflation, and so the New Most Powerful Man in the World -- Whathisname -- Son of Allen Greenspan, decides to raise interest rates. yeah, I know how hard it is to absolutely guarantee that the Terrorists will indeed win unless to assure the Collapse of the Western Economies as a result of the spiralling upward Energy Costs, we don't also create a scarcity of Currency by strangling Interest Rates. But, Yes, the way Business is conducted in these Capitalist Societies (and didn't everybody dance in the Streets in celebration when the Wall was turn down and the Capitalists declared their Absolute Victory in the Cold War?) is that when Inflation goes up, FOR ANY REASON, then Demand has to be attacked and destroyed. Isn't Capitalism Great? So, go ahead, think about Energy Alternatives that will simply cost more, increasing Inflation, and what we will have is Monetary Policies which will step up their Attack upon us, the Demand. You see, Capitalism is Easy. If Inflation goes up, simply decrease Employment so that there is less money in circulation. Problem solved. But in practical terms, any solution that cost more money will result in the Bankers initiating policies which will increase Unemployment. And we have no choice in these matters. The Chairman of the Fed is not elected, and is not responsible to anybody. He is a Banker. Thats all. The only thing that Matters is that Banks should be the only Businesses that will make a Profit, and that by assuring that Interest Rates will accrue value more than Inflation Rates will detract from it. And they are serious about. The IMF Bankers will go into the Third World, to the Poorest Nations on Earth, and their Policy Decisions will be that the Governments have to show greater fiscal restraint -- these Poorest Countries on Earth are throwing too much money around according to these Bankers. So, anyway, in a World where Bankers are the Most Power Political Class -- where we all live or die by what is decided by Inflation Rate and Interest Decisions -- then nobody any longer has the luxury of supposing that Energy Policy Decisions to be optional. We are all quite in a situation in which we can either truly afford Energy or the Declared and Recognized Policy of every Western Government is to starve out the people until they can no longer compete in the Demand, so that Energy will be affordable to those few who remain. Anyway, I suppose the real choice, now that we have thought about it, is not between one form of energy or another, but between any Strategy for Popular Happiness and Survival, as opposed to the Absolute Rule of Bankers in our Western Societies which quite make a mockery of any pretentions our Democratic Governments may entertain regarding their ability to have the least influence upon any real Policy. George Bush thinks he is King of the World, but it is actually Whathisname, Son of Allen Greenspan, that could bring total ruin to the entire Globe tomorrow, and probably it would not take more than a full point rise in the Interest Rate. ... And he would do that if Oil went up to $100 a barrel. If there is one most important thing in the world today, it is how to force a cheaper price onto petroleum. You know how they used to say "Better Dead then Red". Well, I have a feeling that many idiots today would rather be Green then alive.

[Merlock]

Bah, oil and energy. The world was a much better place when the most powerful force of energy was simple fire...with early deaths and plagues and what not...but still...

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Merlock Bah, oil and energy. The world was a much better place when the most powerful force of energy was simple fire...with early deaths and plagues and what not...but still... Well, of course it was a better place, when there was but 1% of the people there is now. But you do not seriously propose intentionally killing 6.93 Billion People, do you, for the sake of 'Happiness'. Yes, we are stuck with a World that cannot be as good as it once was, but as morally responsible people we are bound to do more than simply lash out and destroy everything. Perhaps we could again bring the World back toward a reasonable level of Population, but it would have to be done over a span of more than a few generations, while still bearing in mind the parental impulses. I suppose more could be done with Community Living, where one sister among many could have a child and they all could participate maternally -- as do Wolves when in their packs, only the most dominant Female will bear young, but all the female wolves participate in the mothering and realize some of the satisfactions. Our present society's insistence upon isolating the Nuclear Family seems the cause of much of the dysfunctionality. Living in Extended Families or complete Clans, in Units of no larger or much smaller than 150 would seem to be ideal. Not every woman would have to be a mother in order to feel a integral part of the Family. so much pressure would not fall upon the shoulders of each man. And then we could perhaps implement a 1 to 5 Replacement Rate of Reproduction without emotionally traumaticizing everybody. But we could not do that in the present system of Nuclear Family Isolation -- of married couples being forced to live alone without children. But in a Community Setting, with other children immediately underfoot and ever in the way -- as annoying as one's own children could ever be, then they would never be missed.

[sloth]

So, are you suggesting that we actually use nuclear power instead of gasoline? Interesting... How easy would this be to implement? Do you think it would work out? You know, hydrogen is a very burnable resource. How do you feel about that? Sometimes, I just want to purchase an old bomb shelter, and go underground, and live with the worms. LOL What a pathetic species. We are given reason, thumbs, and everything else we could ever need to maintain what is left of eden. What do we do with this power? Destroy ourselves, of course! LOL Some grand species. Even bugs don't find ways of wiping out their entire species. -sloth

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by sloth So, are you suggesting that we actually use nuclear power instead of gasoline? Interesting... How easy would this be to implement? Do you think it would work out? You know, hydrogen is a very burnable resource. How do you feel about that? Sometimes, I just want to purchase an old bomb shelter, and go underground, and live with the worms. LOL What a pathetic species. We are given reason, thumbs, and everything else we could ever need to maintain what is left of eden. What do we do with this power? Destroy ourselves, of course! LOL Some grand species. Even bugs don't find ways of wiping out their entire species. -sloth Actually, hydrogen still seems a clumsy way to go. It is difficult to store in quantities comparable to a tank of gas. Think of the little gas tank on the top of a motorcycle that allows it to go 150 miles. So far we can not envision any hydrogen equivalent to that. However, there may be some breakthrough in which some device, not much larger than a traditional carborator or fuel injector could take water and split it into Oxygen and Hydrogen right there on the spot. Well, that would be great, but as of right now, we do not have it. This is not to say that it has not been invented a hundred times already and each time the inventor was bought off or murdered by the Industries of Evil. One important reform we should consider is making a kind of Sovereign Domain of the Patent Office and rescue every Patent that has been permitted to go UNUSED. Protecting Intellectual Property is one thing, but to suppress an invention is quite another. What might be more practical is to genetically design a kind of multiple helix alcohol -- a more energy dense alcohol. You see, as of right now, alcohol is a poor substitute for gasoline because engines require more of it, and the 'compression ratio' of engines designed for alcohol is much higher then that of gasoline motors. But with modern genetic engineering, there is no reason to suppose that some clever biogenetic Engineer could not come up with a alcohol molecule with a 'folded' construction --effectively doubling its energy density per volume. Then that little peanut gas tank on the motorcycle I was talking about would get 200 miles per gallon. However, I should point out that one very serious problem with Alcohol is that typically the same land used to grow food is used to 'grow' alcohol. We would have a situation in which we were forced to bid between Energy and Food, when already there are people in the World starving because they cannot afford the already steep prices of food. But if the prices of Food were to suddenly be linked directly to the rising curve of Energy Prices, not just the Africans would be starving anymore. So, yes, I think we need to break into the Patent Offices and liberate those ten or fifteen Water to Hydrogen Carburetors that have already been invented but that have been suppressed by Saudi Arabian and Texan Interests.

[sloth]

What we need to do is create lots of little faja00m00 clones that run around, pushing all of the rest of us, who will ride in carriages. We could engineer them from faja00m00's DNA.