Railway Man wrote: Norman Saxon wrote: As of today, there are no commercial CTL production facilities in the US, nor are there any under construction, nor are there any on the drawing board. This in spite of the fact that the break even point for CTL over petroleum (roughly $35 a barrel) was passed five years ago and may never be seen again.The reason? Simply put, it's the threat of CO2 regulation.I am impressed by a man who is confident in stating his observations, but I'm interested in the facts are you drawing on to make your observations. http://www.deq.state.id.us/air/permits_forms/permitting/pcaec/index.cfmRWM
Norman Saxon wrote: As of today, there are no commercial CTL production facilities in the US, nor are there any under construction, nor are there any on the drawing board. This in spite of the fact that the break even point for CTL over petroleum (roughly $35 a barrel) was passed five years ago and may never be seen again.The reason? Simply put, it's the threat of CO2 regulation.
As of today, there are no commercial CTL production facilities in the US, nor are there any under construction, nor are there any on the drawing board. This in spite of the fact that the break even point for CTL over petroleum (roughly $35 a barrel) was passed five years ago and may never be seen again.
The reason? Simply put, it's the threat of CO2 regulation.
I am impressed by a man who is confident in stating his observations, but I'm interested in the facts are you drawing on to make your observations.
http://www.deq.state.id.us/air/permits_forms/permitting/pcaec/index.cfm
RWM
I guess I should have qualified my statement thus: "......that I am aware of."
However, your link is for a fertilizer plant, not a CTL fuel plant per the subject of alternative railroad fuels:
"Proposed products: ammonia, urea, urea ammonium nitrate (UAN), sulfuric acid, and slag/frit for sale for road mix or other uses. Deleted production of Fischer-Tropsch diesel fuels and naphtha for this project phase."
So as it stands when I made the statement, there were no CTL plant plans as I knew of. However, there now are plans that have been made public for a $4 billion CTL plant in Kentucky (dated July 15, 2008):
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/07/kentucky-county.html
And I will stand by my skepticism that such CTL (fuel) plants will never see the light of day until the nutjobs are removed from Congressional power, and I am not confident that will ever happen in my lifetime.
Railway Man wrote: The fees at POLB and POLA are de facto infrastructure fees, imposed to internalize the costs of operating the ports onto the users of the ports, who are in many cases not local users, rather than externalizing the costs onto local taxpayers who may not derive benefits from the ports. The success at POLB and POLA of instituting these taxes will not so much drive business away from these ports as provide an umbrella for other ports to institute their own fee hikes to pay for their infrastructure needs, too. Every West Coast port in order to grow significantly needs to raise billions of dollars; the fee is simply a method of charging the user rather than expecting the benefits of the port to trickle to the state or national taxpayer, and taxing them to pay for the infrastructure. I think rather than expecting the fees to drive business away, the fees will be absorbed, and other ports will do the same shortly.
The fees at POLB and POLA are de facto infrastructure fees, imposed to internalize the costs of operating the ports onto the users of the ports, who are in many cases not local users, rather than externalizing the costs onto local taxpayers who may not derive benefits from the ports. The success at POLB and POLA of instituting these taxes will not so much drive business away from these ports as provide an umbrella for other ports to institute their own fee hikes to pay for their infrastructure needs, too. Every West Coast port in order to grow significantly needs to raise billions of dollars; the fee is simply a method of charging the user rather than expecting the benefits of the port to trickle to the state or national taxpayer, and taxing them to pay for the infrastructure. I think rather than expecting the fees to drive business away, the fees will be absorbed, and other ports will do the same shortly.
Now I'm thinking that de facto infrastructure fees will be passed on to the consumer that buys the imported product, most of whom live far from the ports. The benefits of the ports are the high paying jobs the ports create, which would be local. Thus, the local taxpayer gains from the improvements which other people pay for. Sounds like a good deal for them.
nanaimo73 wrote: Railway Man wrote: Dale, an update for you:Ocean cargo: More fees to be imposed on California shippersThanks,If it sends any additional boxes through Vancouver or Prince Rupert, I'm for it. BTW, Centerm in Vancouver has been running smoothly since the evil Dubai Ports World took over.
Railway Man wrote: Dale, an update for you:Ocean cargo: More fees to be imposed on California shippers
Dale, an update for you:
Ocean cargo: More fees to be imposed on California shippers
Thanks,
If it sends any additional boxes through Vancouver or Prince Rupert, I'm for it. BTW, Centerm in Vancouver has been running smoothly since the evil Dubai Ports World took over.
Seriously, I don't think it will have much impact on market share.
nanaimo73 wrote:Ive read on another forum that some of the politicians in southern California are now pushing for a levy on imported boxes. This may push some inbound containers further north as well.
Patrick Burnson, Executive Editor -- Logistics Management, 7/16/2008
SAN FRANCISCO-West Coast shippers were given some more bad news late yesterday as the California state assembly passed Senate Bill 974, authorizing new fees for containers moving through the state's major seaports. Authored by State Senator Alan Lowenthal, the legislation is now headed for the State Senate.
Shippers expect the bill to be quickly passed in its amended version and signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in the coming weeks.
"We are very disappointed that shippers are being burdened with additional fees when other alternatives had been presented," said Ezra Finkin, a spokesman for the Waterfront Coalition in Washington, DC. "Despite our best efforts with the governor's staff, it appears that our suggestions were not considered."
Once the bill is passed, containers moving through the Port of Los Angeles, the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Oakland would be assessed a $60-per-FEU (forty equivalent units). The bill was amended before passage to define which infrastructure projects would be eligible to be funded from the fee. It also changes the authority administering the funds in the Southland.
The Waterfront Coalition and other shipper associations had hoped that the state would scrap the legislation in favor of a highway toll which would collect the fees directly from trucks transporting cargo. The lobbying group, which has also been championing a "national freight policy," pointed out that two local other container fees pending at the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles total $100 per FEU. Shippers using the Port of Oakland face a $25 per FEU boost.
With the new amendments, SB974 will fund rail and traffic projects primarily in Southern California. Once signed, the new fees will go into effect in 2009.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rule crack down has a couple sides, some we see from the agreement side, and some we dont. I agree, running the railroad has taken a back seat to testing and playing clerk. I can see both sides tho.
(This isnt anything i was told, just my thoughts) A new crew consist agreement might get played a bit sooner then most guys think, stock market was on the slide big time today (CNBC) i didnt hear any hear any optimism, anyways who knows what they can get if they start screaming emergency about fuel prices and the economy. Hold a symbol till they get enough cars to make a monster DP train to save on man power? Might see some things like that, probibly alot worse then that before you'll see them get off diesel.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmann wrote: The amazing part is how long you spend idling. It should not take 12 hours to go 80 miles. But it happens day in and day out. Routings need to be simplified. Why send cars hundreds of miles out of their way? How about some dispatchers and movement officials that have more than 3 brain cells? Managers that care about service, instead of looking for petty rule violations. The biggie - crews need to be better managed.
The amazing part is how long you spend idling. It should not take 12 hours to go 80 miles. But it happens day in and day out. Routings need to be simplified. Why send cars hundreds of miles out of their way? How about some dispatchers and movement officials that have more than 3 brain cells? Managers that care about service, instead of looking for petty rule violations.
The biggie - crews need to be better managed.
You are correct about that.
BTW: I found out what brand of deodorant is used by all Norfolk Southern managers. It's called: "FRA Sure," It gives you three step protection and is 100% rules compliant!!!
Bucyrus wrote:The answer to our energy problem is to take it on and solve it, and stop acting like victims. It is the only way. If you believe we don't have the resources, or that we can't develop them in time to matter, or that trying to obtain more energy will destroy the planet, then there is no hope. You have bought the political propaganda that the U.S. is too successful.
Bucyrus:
I with you on this one, I never heard of being to successful being a roadblock when it comes to solving a difficulty or inconvenience (notice I don't like the word problem).
I do like the way you think about this matter.
PL
zugmann wrote: For the foreseeable future - I can't see the big RRs going for another mainline* fuel source. Right now - all the engines use the same fuel. So all the engines can go anywhere and be interchanged at will. There is enough hassle keeping engines with cab signals, ATC, or LSLs in their correct territory. To add another fuel source (and tenders).... that would be a logistical nightmare.
For the foreseeable future - I can't see the big RRs going for another mainline* fuel source. Right now - all the engines use the same fuel. So all the engines can go anywhere and be interchanged at will. There is enough hassle keeping engines with cab signals, ATC, or LSLs in their correct territory. To add another fuel source (and tenders).... that would be a logistical nightmare.
What you need to ask yourself is if the price of the "logistical nightmare" is more or less than the 13-1 price advantage coal has over petroleum. Let's wait and see what happens to this oil price bubble first. If oil goes down, how far down will it go? Back to $30 a barrel? $70 a barrel? Or will it stay above $100 a barrel for the rest of our lifetimes? If it's the latter, then only hard CO2 caps can stop a return to using coal-fired locomotion.
* - I can see an alternative fuel source used for yard goats as those engines usually seem to stay in one spot, usually.
Here is my peek into the crystal ball...
Railroads will resume the alternative fuel use...aka BN's Natural gas SD40s, with fuel tenders included.
You can already see it in effect at LA Junction with their MK1500s running on natural gas.
Both EMD and GE's prime movers can be adapted to run on CNG, LPG, so forth.
Expect the big 2 to have flex fuel locomotives in their catalogs...
Do not expect electric locomotives on long haul or out west, too cost prohibitive, but look for some smaller eastern roads, maybe a few short lines putting up wires.
Residential power, look for a few nukes, but bet on coal.
America will have to relax the EPA stuff...people will choose their Lexus over the snail darter...
Wind power will get bigger...maybe not better, but bigger, but a combination of Nukes, alternative sources and good old coal will be it...
23 17 46 11
That book is above me, i couldnt make it threw it after reading the reviews off Amazon.com While reading the reviews and watching CNBC, i saw a T. Boone Pickens tv commercial today (BP oil) heres the link http://youtube.com/watch?v=R2bOug1d20c if ya want to watch it.
Below is a quote of what he had to say in 2005.
Heres the link: http://www.peakoil.net/BoonPickens.html
"The majors, they talk about plenty of oil and that they can produce more, but if you look at ExxonMobile, ChevronTexaco, BP (British Petroleum), all the production (is) going down every year. They don't replace and they don't add to production, but they say there's plenty of oil around."Now why would they say that? One of the chief economists with one of the major oil companies... I was at a conference where he was... we were talking and I asked, why do they say that? And he said, can you imagine what would happen if one of these major oil company's CEO's got up and made a speech and he said, 'We're running out of oil'? I said there'd be panic and he said, 'That's right. They're not going to make the statement. They're going to say there's plenty of oil around'"."I know that sounds rather simple, but that's the best answer I've had... why they keep saying that there's plenty of oil around. I can't tell you positive, but I am just so sure that we have peaked and from here on the demand side that we are going to have a hard time making the trip on fuel. I know demand will come down with price. That will happen". He answered several audience questions and predicted that if the summer is hot in the Southeast that natural gas prices will go to $10. "Natural gas is in decline", he stated, concluding that eventually the market will sort out the winners and losers".
Doesnt make much since, didnt the railroads try to use something else then diesel about ten years ago and it didnt work out so well. Guess at least he's not telling lies about where we are at.
Future of Railroading: Lowering operating ratio, fuel conservation, less employees on the payroll... that will keep us going for a little longer. The face of 2009 in the industry is gonna look different. Theres been some little changes here and there that most people dont see the reason behind, if you ask yourself why it becomes a little more clear. If things get too bad i got me a job over at the diesel pit, they like me pretty well over there, scoop me up in a second.
Thanks for sharing the title of the book, liked reading those reviews while waiting for the call to go burn up some more of our limited fuel supply.
Bucyrus wrote: UPRR engineer wrote: passengerfan wrote: On the news this AM was a segment on how South Africa has been producing diesel and gasoline from coal for years they actually built a refinery on top of a huge coal mine that occupies nearly ten miles. It is believed that if similar refineries were built here with just our known coal reserves we would be able to supply the nation with gas and diesel for a minimum of fifty years. Theres alot more people, trains ect. ect. over here using fossil fuel. Thats the difference. We drive to the store to get food, there's people over there living the tribal life living in huts and having to walk and hunt down there dinner. There is a large faction of people in this country who believe that is exactly what the U.S. needs to do because they believe that our material success is offensive and unfair to the rest of the world. This faction shoots down all solutions to the energy problem because they don't want a solution. And if enough people believe them when they tell us there are no solutions, there will not be a solution. Our energy problem is not about technology and fuels. It is all about this ideological tug of war. And by our ideas and beliefs, we are each participating in that tug of war.
UPRR engineer wrote: passengerfan wrote: On the news this AM was a segment on how South Africa has been producing diesel and gasoline from coal for years they actually built a refinery on top of a huge coal mine that occupies nearly ten miles. It is believed that if similar refineries were built here with just our known coal reserves we would be able to supply the nation with gas and diesel for a minimum of fifty years. Theres alot more people, trains ect. ect. over here using fossil fuel. Thats the difference. We drive to the store to get food, there's people over there living the tribal life living in huts and having to walk and hunt down there dinner.
passengerfan wrote: On the news this AM was a segment on how South Africa has been producing diesel and gasoline from coal for years they actually built a refinery on top of a huge coal mine that occupies nearly ten miles. It is believed that if similar refineries were built here with just our known coal reserves we would be able to supply the nation with gas and diesel for a minimum of fifty years.
On the news this AM was a segment on how South Africa has been producing diesel and gasoline from coal for years they actually built a refinery on top of a huge coal mine that occupies nearly ten miles. It is believed that if similar refineries were built here with just our known coal reserves we would be able to supply the nation with gas and diesel for a minimum of fifty years.
Theres alot more people, trains ect. ect. over here using fossil fuel. Thats the difference. We drive to the store to get food, there's people over there living the tribal life living in huts and having to walk and hunt down there dinner.
There is a large faction of people in this country who believe that is exactly what the U.S. needs to do because they believe that our material success is offensive and unfair to the rest of the world. This faction shoots down all solutions to the energy problem because they don't want a solution. And if enough people believe them when they tell us there are no solutions, there will not be a solution. Our energy problem is not about technology and fuels. It is all about this ideological tug of war. And by our ideas and beliefs, we are each participating in that tug of war.
You are absolutely correct. You are to feel guilty because you have running water and some poor souls in outer Krapistan have to carry it on their heads in a jar for ten miles. We are bad because some how we stole all of this wealth and it's not fair. So we have to be made to pay for it. I read "Atlas Shrugged," by Ayn Rand many years ago and the current state of affairs is a scene right out of that book.
I think you guys should read this stuff, what you guys fail to see is how much energy (oil) it takes to do things like building a new power plant. Who ever wrote this does a better job expaining it then i can, they even throw in the energy trains use to make stuff like that happen so i dont get in trouble.
The economics of electricity generation are important. If the financial cost of building and operating the plant cannot profitably be recouped by selling the electricity, it is not economically viable. But as energy itself can be a more fundamental unit of accounting than money, it is also essential to know which generating systems produce the best return on the energy invested in them. This is part of Life Cycle Analysis (LCA).Analysing this energy balance between inputs and outputs, however, is complex because the inputs are diverse, and it is not always clear how far back they should be taken in any analysis. For instance, oil expended to move coal to a power station, or electricity used to enrich uranium for nuclear fuel, are generally included in the calculations. But what about the energy required to build the train or the enrichment plant? And can the electricity consumed during enrichment be compared with the fossil fuel needed for the train? Many analyses convert kilowatt-hours (kWh) to kilojoules (kJ), or vice versa, in which assumptions must be made about the thermal efficiency of the electricity production.
The economics of electricity generation are important. If the financial cost of building and operating the plant cannot profitably be recouped by selling the electricity, it is not economically viable. But as energy itself can be a more fundamental unit of accounting than money, it is also essential to know which generating systems produce the best return on the energy invested in them. This is part of Life Cycle Analysis (LCA).
Analysing this energy balance between inputs and outputs, however, is complex because the inputs are diverse, and it is not always clear how far back they should be taken in any analysis. For instance, oil expended to move coal to a power station, or electricity used to enrich uranium for nuclear fuel, are generally included in the calculations. But what about the energy required to build the train or the enrichment plant? And can the electricity consumed during enrichment be compared with the fossil fuel needed for the train? Many analyses convert kilowatt-hours (kWh) to kilojoules (kJ), or vice versa, in which assumptions must be made about the thermal efficiency of the electricity production.
Thats from http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.html theres more on there to read. Thats what most people cant figure out, it takes a bigger dog (oil) to wag the smaller dogs tail (all other forms of energy).
Sorry your out of work there buddy, this stuff should have been front page news years ago. I'm still standing on what i was told by my buddy at Union Pacific and what the petro geologist are saying. Watch the news and see what happens i guess, with as much oil as the railroads use i doubt things are gonna get any better. If something else blind sided us here, which has happened before, and disrupts our daily supply. Dont paint me as a person that wants it to happen, hang in there, if oil hits $200 a barrel by years end or switches over to the euro as some have said it might be a good time to think about what i've said. Hopefully we'll just keep easing into it. Hang in there guy and keep watching whats happening with oil, lenders, banks and railroads.
UPRR engineer wrote: I get interesting reactions from friends who are left leaning and anti- nuclear when I mention that fact, they are constantly wondering why the US can't be more like Europe. But when I point out Europe's success with Nuclear power they get flustered...I hope your not thinking (and telling people) that thats the answer to our energy problem. It sounds good, but it sure takes alot of oil to build one. Im not saying your an idiot, but theres alot of them out there that cant put the two together. Those are the things you make happen when its cheep to do so. Another thing the common man doesnt realize, they're not gonna give it away for free (power that is) after its up and running. Snap your fingers and a power plant pops up. Thats why things arent moving forward, alot of people blame red tape and environmentalist..... thats half the story, the other half is people alot smarter then we are telling them its not a good idea because oil is gonna drag us down.... why waste the money. The same can be said for the "green ideas" the oil companies are "investing in".... fractions of pennies on the dollar that they are making off oil. Electricity is a trick, it aint gonna help out the farmer, it aint gonna get food in the stores, it wont get the poor to there job, it aint gonna heat your home, ..... theres not copper wire and power poles laying all over the place waiting to get put up. There is no out... its all just a trick to make you feel better. There's far too many people in this country, even for the ones "pulling there weight"... nevermind the ones with there hand out wanting some of my tax money. The good days are going to come to an end here pretty soon. If your gonna talk about energy you really have to look at everything before pointing at another country. I'd bet most people in Europe arent living the good life like the middle class people here are. As a Union Pacific employee im telling you its too late... the economy is going to get even worse, there aint gonna be that many people around to buy what we're moving. Theres no point in switching to steam, no need to hang wire over the tracks. If they (like everyone else today) thought they would be able make money in the future off of doing that, it would have been happening yesterday. I'd be willing to bet that today they think that double tracking the Sunset Route was a waste of time and money. The bad times are just getting started. Theres alot of dummies out there who dont see it, i dont think they'll be around here much longer. Sad but true, theres "a good varied slice" of America that comes here. From the looks of it most dont know the truth about where we're headed, how energy works, or they think some way the light will shine on this country again in the near future. It aint gonna happen, your life is gonna change and its gonna be more then uncomfortable. I have a strong argument to anyone who thinks other wise just by going on what the railroad has told me. You should be scared. We've built ourselfs up so high that making the cliff jump that much worse. What goes up must come down, it doesnt get much more simple then that.
I get interesting reactions from friends who are left leaning and anti- nuclear when I mention that fact, they are constantly wondering why the US can't be more like Europe. But when I point out Europe's success with Nuclear power they get flustered...
I hope your not thinking (and telling people) that thats the answer to our energy problem. It sounds good, but it sure takes alot of oil to build one. Im not saying your an idiot, but theres alot of them out there that cant put the two together. Those are the things you make happen when its cheep to do so. Another thing the common man doesnt realize, they're not gonna give it away for free (power that is) after its up and running. Snap your fingers and a power plant pops up. Thats why things arent moving forward, alot of people blame red tape and environmentalist..... thats half the story, the other half is people alot smarter then we are telling them its not a good idea because oil is gonna drag us down.... why waste the money. The same can be said for the "green ideas" the oil companies are "investing in".... fractions of pennies on the dollar that they are making off oil. Electricity is a trick, it aint gonna help out the farmer, it aint gonna get food in the stores, it wont get the poor to there job, it aint gonna heat your home, ..... theres not copper wire and power poles laying all over the place waiting to get put up. There is no out... its all just a trick to make you feel better. There's far too many people in this country, even for the ones "pulling there weight"... nevermind the ones with there hand out wanting some of my tax money. The good days are going to come to an end here pretty soon. If your gonna talk about energy you really have to look at everything before pointing at another country. I'd bet most people in Europe arent living the good life like the middle class people here are.
As a Union Pacific employee im telling you its too late... the economy is going to get even worse, there aint gonna be that many people around to buy what we're moving. Theres no point in switching to steam, no need to hang wire over the tracks. If they (like everyone else today) thought they would be able make money in the future off of doing that, it would have been happening yesterday. I'd be willing to bet that today they think that double tracking the Sunset Route was a waste of time and money. The bad times are just getting started. Theres alot of dummies out there who dont see it, i dont think they'll be around here much longer. Sad but true, theres "a good varied slice" of America that comes here. From the looks of it most dont know the truth about where we're headed, how energy works, or they think some way the light will shine on this country again in the near future. It aint gonna happen, your life is gonna change and its gonna be more then uncomfortable. I have a strong argument to anyone who thinks other wise just by going on what the railroad has told me. You should be scared. We've built ourselfs up so high that making the cliff jump that much worse. What goes up must come down, it doesnt get much more simple then that.
So, you know better than the rest of us, that America, as we know it is doomed. I really dislike the whole 'America is doomed' kind of rhetoric that comes from people like you.... it's really quite tiresome, to be perfectly honest. Contrary to what you want to believe, there is an out. We have to drill for oil, and that's the bottom line. Americans are people who have always, and I mean, always come up with a solution to a problem. We always have, we always will. We have gone to the moon, built railroads under, around, and through mountains. We have found efficient ways to move things and people around this country. We have won wars, cured diseases, and we have invented many of the conveniences this world knows. I have confidence in my country, and the people who inhabit it, unlike you, who would rather run around and scream the sky is falling.
Pollyanna beliefs? No, it's not a "snap my fingers" for a miracle kind of thing. Whatever solution we arrive at is going to take time, but, I believe the solution will be arrived at.
Why, pray tell, are there going to be "fewer people around" to consume what your railroad is moving. Do you know something we don't? How can you be so sure that most of the "varied slice of America" that inhabits this forum know nothing about how energy works? I think most of the people in this forum have an above average level of intellgence, and are quite capable of finding out how energy works if they don't know already.
Your callous, and crass dismissal of this country being on the way down, and your equally callous dismissal of the members of this forum, is clearly beyond the pale, and frankly, a point of view I am not going to listen to.
Yeah, the economy is bad, (I know, because I have been out of work for 18 months) the energy crisis is there, and it's alive, but, it's not the end of the world, not yet... .
Well I certainly do not think that building any type of power plant is a quick or easy fix for the current crisis I also don't think that American civilization is about to collapse...... It's interesting how many times in modern history people have predicted this (the Y2K scare most recently) only to be proven wrong by events. Solutions do exist, though that does not mean that they will be cheap or easy to implement..
I'm glad that many folks in the US didn't didn't buy into the "we're all doomed" outlook during tough times such as the Great Depression or the start of the Second World War...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Limitedclear wrote: carnej1 wrote: Limitedclear wrote: passengerfan wrote: On the news this AM was a segment on how South Africa has been producing diesel and gasoline from coal for years they actually built a refinery on top of a huge coal mine that occupies nearly ten miles. It is believed that if similar refineries were built here with just our known coal reserves we would be able to supply the nation with gas and diesel for a minimum of fifty years. And if we built fifty nuclear generating plants we could electrify every RR mainline in North America and eliminate diesels from the mainlines altogether. That should be enough left over diesel to supply the trucking industry for at least the next 90 years. So why are we so dependant on oil. Al - in - Stockton And how much of our country would become uninhabitable from the accidents and waste?There have been quite a few more than you think...I'm not ready to glow in the dark just yet, thanks. LC Which is obviously why the entire nation of France is a lifeless, radioactive wasteland..after all they get about 80% of their power from Nuclear plants (and have for decades) so they must have disasters all the time, right? I get interesting reactions from friends who are left leaning and anti- nuclear when I mention that fact, they are constantly wondering why the US can't be more like Europe. But when I point out Europe's success with Nuclear power they get flustered... Many pro-nuke folks I know don't like to cite the French example because of "Francophobia"...Don't get all high and mighty, the French have had their incidents. They are no better at disposing of nuclear waste than the U.S. Where do you propose we put all the spent fuel? I have nothing against France or anyone else in particular and I take particular offense at your suggestion that I am to the left of center. In fact I spent much of my formative years around folks who worked on the Manhattan Project and subsequent nuclear efforts. Nuclear material is EXTREMELY dangerous and any leak or release is not only deadly, but can remain in the environment for long periods of time with half lives of the material measured between decades and centuries. Not someplace I need to live. Have you seen many people moving back into the towns near Chernobyl?? It only takes one mistake. We as humans make many. It is the way we all learn. Unfortunately one significant mistake can cost dearly with nuclear material...LC
carnej1 wrote: Limitedclear wrote: passengerfan wrote: On the news this AM was a segment on how South Africa has been producing diesel and gasoline from coal for years they actually built a refinery on top of a huge coal mine that occupies nearly ten miles. It is believed that if similar refineries were built here with just our known coal reserves we would be able to supply the nation with gas and diesel for a minimum of fifty years. And if we built fifty nuclear generating plants we could electrify every RR mainline in North America and eliminate diesels from the mainlines altogether. That should be enough left over diesel to supply the trucking industry for at least the next 90 years. So why are we so dependant on oil. Al - in - Stockton And how much of our country would become uninhabitable from the accidents and waste?There have been quite a few more than you think...I'm not ready to glow in the dark just yet, thanks. LC Which is obviously why the entire nation of France is a lifeless, radioactive wasteland..after all they get about 80% of their power from Nuclear plants (and have for decades) so they must have disasters all the time, right? I get interesting reactions from friends who are left leaning and anti- nuclear when I mention that fact, they are constantly wondering why the US can't be more like Europe. But when I point out Europe's success with Nuclear power they get flustered... Many pro-nuke folks I know don't like to cite the French example because of "Francophobia"...
Limitedclear wrote: passengerfan wrote: On the news this AM was a segment on how South Africa has been producing diesel and gasoline from coal for years they actually built a refinery on top of a huge coal mine that occupies nearly ten miles. It is believed that if similar refineries were built here with just our known coal reserves we would be able to supply the nation with gas and diesel for a minimum of fifty years. And if we built fifty nuclear generating plants we could electrify every RR mainline in North America and eliminate diesels from the mainlines altogether. That should be enough left over diesel to supply the trucking industry for at least the next 90 years. So why are we so dependant on oil. Al - in - Stockton And how much of our country would become uninhabitable from the accidents and waste?There have been quite a few more than you think...I'm not ready to glow in the dark just yet, thanks. LC
passengerfan wrote: On the news this AM was a segment on how South Africa has been producing diesel and gasoline from coal for years they actually built a refinery on top of a huge coal mine that occupies nearly ten miles. It is believed that if similar refineries were built here with just our known coal reserves we would be able to supply the nation with gas and diesel for a minimum of fifty years. And if we built fifty nuclear generating plants we could electrify every RR mainline in North America and eliminate diesels from the mainlines altogether. That should be enough left over diesel to supply the trucking industry for at least the next 90 years. So why are we so dependant on oil. Al - in - Stockton
And if we built fifty nuclear generating plants we could electrify every RR mainline in North America and eliminate diesels from the mainlines altogether. That should be enough left over diesel to supply the trucking industry for at least the next 90 years.
So why are we so dependant on oil.
Al - in - Stockton
And how much of our country would become uninhabitable from the accidents and waste?
There have been quite a few more than you think...
I'm not ready to glow in the dark just yet, thanks.
LC
Which is obviously why the entire nation of France is a lifeless, radioactive wasteland..after all they get about 80% of their power from Nuclear plants (and have for decades) so they must have disasters all the time, right?
Many pro-nuke folks I know don't like to cite the French example because of "Francophobia"...
Don't get all high and mighty, the French have had their incidents. They are no better at disposing of nuclear waste than the U.S. Where do you propose we put all the spent fuel? I have nothing against France or anyone else in particular and I take particular offense at your suggestion that I am to the left of center. In fact I spent much of my formative years around folks who worked on the Manhattan Project and subsequent nuclear efforts. Nuclear material is EXTREMELY dangerous and any leak or release is not only deadly, but can remain in the environment for long periods of time with half lives of the material measured between decades and centuries. Not someplace I need to live. Have you seen many people moving back into the towns near Chernobyl?? It only takes one mistake. We as humans make many. It is the way we all learn. Unfortunately one significant mistake can cost dearly with nuclear material...
If you reread my quote I never implied that you are a leftist, I was referring to folks I know personally.
The fact remains that there are a number of countries (not to mention the United States NavY) that have had very good results with Nuclear Power. I personally would favor looking at newer, safer reactor designs such as the Modular Pebble Bed Reactor and CANDU designs though these require significant R&D.
The waste of course can be shipped to Yucca mountain when that facility is completed. Chernobyl used a type of reactor design (Graphite core) which was not adopted by the West due to safety concerns.
I do not for a second think that Nuclear power is an instant fix for the energy crisis but it may very well be part of the longterm solution.
Theres alot more people, trains ect. ect. over here using fossil fuel. Thats the difference. We drive to the store to get food, there's people over there living the tribal life living in huts and having to walk and hunt down there dinner. Saw it on the Travel Channel, Anthony Bourdain Show. If you want a look at what life is gonna be like, might want to try to start watching it. If you have never been to a 3rd world country give ya an idea of what real fuel conservation and or living with out fossil fuel is really like.
http://www.travelchannel.com/TV_Shows/Anthony_Bourdain
And if we built fifty nuclear generating plants we could electrify every RR mainline in North America and eliminate diesels from the mainlines altogether. That should be enough left over diesel to supply the trucking industry for at least the next 90 years. So why are we so dependant on oil. Al - in - Stockton
Copper there buddy, its about to peak out also along with oil i guess. That aught to be enough to shoot down the idea of electrifying the mainlines. Same with electric cars and nuke power plants, gonna take alot of copper to get that done. Dont forget our grid has enough problems already. They did fix those problems didnt they???
Railroading reminder - please see the originator's title. Please keep your comments germane.
Thanks a whole bunch.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.