Those wells have also been Capped for years. I am talking in some cases 40 to 50 years. Don’t assume, you look a fool when you do and even though you are learning from those who work oil/gas in here.

upinak on May 9, 2008 at 11:42 AM

Forty or fifty years is an eye-blink in time compared to the millions of years invoked by the biotic theory of oil production. If any substantial amount of oil re-appears, on a frequent basis in wells previously thought tapped out, then one has to question how that happens. If I’m considered foolish for asking that question, so be it.

Oldnuke on May 8, 2008 at 6:31 PM
TexasJew on May 8, 2008 at 6:23 PM

Morning gentlemen,

But you both and I know why they pander. All in the proposed thinking they might get a slice of the pie, or possibly become a shareholder. Incentives for many is like hitting the jackpot, but not scratching the ticket.

Maxx on May 8, 2008 at 9:35 PM

Those wells have also been Capped for years. I am talking in some cases 40 to 50 years. Don’t assume, you look a fool when you do and even though you are learning from those who work oil/gas in here.

eanax on May 9, 2008 at 10:01 AM

As for you saying methanol. Stop and think about why we don’t use methanol. Then think what would it take to make methanol. Then come to the conclussion you made a bad statement. I really don’t want to call you anything I might regret later.

Nice fiction, but not true, at least in any large-scale way. Oil is almost all biotic in origin.

TexasJew on May 8, 2008 at 6:23 PM

I didn’t say “in a large scale way.” But you agree that in many cases… more oil appears in wells previously thought to be tapped-out, do you not?

Succinct, to the point and right on. I don’t understand it either. I just can’t comprehend how so many rational intelligent people can buy into these fantasies that the idiots in Washington keep holding up in order to pander a few votes. I agree it’s pathetic.

- So you’re buying into the entire “CO2 is a pollutant” bullcrap.
OK, we get it.

It’s silly to assume that a different oil field will behave the same way. You can’t apply such precedent in cases like that.
- That, like most of what you are espousing, is an ignorant statement. The extent of that basin is as great as Prudhoe.
Oil professionals – geologists, geophysicists and engineers are, thankfully, not as stupid.

Yes, your story is a common one. Oil wells believed tapped-out, are never really tapped-out. The oil is replenished by some natural earth process and obviously it wasn’t because some dinosaurs happened by over the last forty years and died there. The late Dr. Thomas Gold developed a theory on where oil REALLY comes from and wrote a book about it. Very interesting stuff.

Maxx on May 8, 2008 at 2:27 PM

- Nice fiction, but not true, at least in any large-scale way. Oil is almost all biotic in origin.

There’s something about energy policy and oil and gas that makes Americans, even conservatives, ignorant fools.
It’s pathetic to see how deluded a lot of people are, chasing one pie-in-the-sky fantasy after another.
If we are not currently willing to drill in our our oil and gas basins and to develop our massive cost-effective coal reserves , we are simply doomed to be slaves to the rest of the world.

Big S on May 8, 2008 at 5:39 PM

I was speaking of thermodynamic efficiency since I don’t know what economic efficiency is. Your post just said

and would provide cleaner power more effciciently

I assumed you were talking about efficiency. Older nuke newer nuke doesn’t matter fossil plants will still have a higher efficiency than a nuke.

However, the price per unit power for nuclear plants is lower than for others (excluding startup capital, which is largely dependent on regulation), so the economic efficiency could be said to be higher. Cost per unit energy is the subject of this thread, and that is what I was referring to.

Really? Got any hard numbers to back that up?

(excluding startup capital, which is largely dependent on regulation),

What, exactly, is startup capital in relation to a nuclear power plant and why do you think it would be dependent on regulation? When you say regulation are you referring to federal or state regulations or both? The cost for a coal plant these days is not too far from projected costs for a nuke. I say projected because no nukes have been built in this country in a while.

Then we have no disagreement. You are arguing that at step 3 when we get the nuke sites built and up and running that we have accomplished nothing to reduce our dependence on oil. And I agree.

But I’m talking about step 47, if we have the foresight to plan for step 47, where hydrogen cars could come to market and we had enough spare capacity to make abundant electricity to convert to hydrogen… which is child’s play, no real R&D required.

All I’m saying is that if we ever intend to move to a hydrogen economy we’ve got to plan for how to produce the hydrogen. The hydrogen cars are of no use without the fuel and the hydrogen fuel has no market without the cars.

But you are absolutely correct that nuke plants in the short term do little to nothing to reduce our dependence on oil.

And the ironic part as I’ve stated before is that there is no need to move away from oil, because there is plenty of oil. But to get the wacko environmentalist off our backs, moving to hydrogen would fill the bill, and you can’t ever run out of hydrogen, that is not possible.

I’ve asked this question before and have yet to get a decent answer. Given that very little of our electricity is produced from oil just how will increasing our nuclear electrical production reduce our oil consumption? Please don’t come back with that cockamamie BS about using nuclear power plants to make hydrogen and then using the hydrogen to power cars.

Oldnuke on May 8, 2008 at 4:18 PM

Skip hydrogen altogether for now. Lithium battery arrays are probably more accessible, and probably a heck of a lot safer than fuel cells. While a battery charge may only give good performance over a range of a few hundred miles, most people don’t go that far without the opportunity to plug in again.

No, actually fossil plants are more efficient than nuclear plants. Cleaner is a matter of perspective. Nuke plants emit fewer contaminants but what they do put out is about a toxic as you can get, and it stays that way for a long time.

Oldnuke on May 8, 2008 at 4:24 PM

Are you talking about thermodynamic efficiency or economic efficiency? Many modern designs for fossil-fuel powered generators have higher thermodynamic efficiencies (> 40%) than older nuclear plants (30-40%). However, the price per unit power for nuclear plants is lower than for others (excluding startup capital, which is largely dependent on regulation), so the economic efficiency could be said to be higher. Cost per unit energy is the subject of this thread, and that is what I was referring to.

Maxx on May 8, 2008 at 4:57 PM

Actually didn’t think you were advocating anything. You asked a question. I just answered it. I didn’t see it as you advocating for hydrogen production. I agree that we need to increase our nuclear capacity but I’m a little biased. I just don’t see it reducing our dependence on oil.

This has nothing to do with regulations, at least on a national level it’s just economics. IF the load isn’t there or projected to be there the utility won’t build the plant. A power plant is a huge investment and the utility has to have assurance that the plant will have buyers for it’s power. Unlike gas and oil companies electrical utilities cannot store their product. If the plant isn’t running it’s just a money pit.

The utility probably wouldn’t have anything to do with the hydrogen manufacturing or distribution system. They would just be a customer. Don’t get me wrong an electric utility would love to get a contract like that. They would have to have assurances though that the customer could accept the output and the contract would spell it out. Utilities build plants to supply electricity to specific customers but those customers guarantee the utilities investment.

No electric utility is going to sink the needed money into R&D for something they don’t have a market for.

Oldnuke on May 8, 2008 at 4:39 PM

No hydrogen cars, thus no market for hydrogen. That makes sense and I agree.

At present no one is jumping up and trying to get a contract for 1500 megawatts on a 24/7 basis for 30 years just to make hydrogen.

Oldnuke on May 8, 2008 at 4:39 PM

I agree with that too. But you misunderstand me when you think I argue for nuclear power just to make hydrogen. Make electricity, we need electricity and there certainly is a huge market for it.

But have enough capacity with the plants that eventually if they hydrogen cars come to market, they can use that spare capacity to make hydrogen. If not than they can just make more electricity as the population grows and demand increases.

Of course the distribution system would need to be put in place for hydrogen. I wouldn’t think the technology for that wouldn’t be much different than the way we distribute natural gas today.

You seem to be thinking I’m advocating a short term solution when I’m actually advocating a long term solution.

But I’m sure you know a lot more about the regulatory situation than I do. And if your saying that the plants would not be authorized without the market in place… then we need to restructure the regulations as well.

Maxx on May 8, 2008 at 4:28 PM

The technology to do this doesn’t exist today, at least not in a commercial package. No electric utility is going to sink the needed money into R&D for something they don’t have a market for. Electric utilities produce electricity and provide it to customers. Now if some company could get backing and provide collateral to front a contract for the power output from a nuclear plant guaranteed for 30 years some utility would almost certainly build the plant to provide the power. At present no one is jumping up and trying to get a contract for 1500 megawatts on a 24/7 basis for 30 years just to make hydrogen. Thus cockamamie.

Given what you’ve told me, I would say you are a moderate, at least from my perspective.

Maxx on May 8, 2008 at 4:13 PM

I can accept that. My greatest fear in American politics is 60 Senators of the same party–which is a militantly moderate view. I usually describe myself as center-right.

Let me tell one benefit of the big tent. I’m fairly good at explaining to the thoughtless left what is wrong with their ideas and even getting them to the idea that voting Republican is not a crime. Someone further to the right than me may not be able to communicate successfully to them.

Please don’t come back with that cockamamie BS about using nuclear power plants to make hydrogen and then using the hydrogen to power cars.

Oldnuke on May 8, 2008 at 4:18 PM

I know it wasn’t directed at me, so you can just ignore me if you like. But tell me sincerely, why is that so “cockamamie.”?

Really…. what am I missing…. why not hydrogen to run cars derived from nukes?

Nuclear power is by no means a small-scale operation, and would provide cleaner power more effciciently than all of the fossil-fuel dependent mechanisms we have now.
Big S on May 8, 2008 at 2:45 PM

No, actually fossil plants are more efficient than nuclear plants. Cleaner is a matter of perspective. Nuke plants emit fewer contaminants but what they do put out is about a toxic as you can get, and it stays that way for a long time.

thuja on May 8, 2008 at 3:39 PM

That is the most ‘immoderate’ argument for abortion I’ve ever heard.

Big S on May 8, 2008 at 2:18 PM

I’ve asked this question before and have yet to get a decent answer. Given that very little of our electricity is produced from oil just how will increasing our nuclear electrical production reduce our oil consumption? Please don’t come back with that cockamamie BS about using nuclear power plants to make hydrogen and then using the hydrogen to power cars.

That was a thoughtful reply and I respect that. You are of course welcome in the Big Tent and you don’t need me to tell you that. And of course you can regard yourself anyway you like, but from my perspective you are still a long way from being right-wing. Being pro-life is core to being conservative in my opinion. And environmentalism is just socialism in a green wrapper, as well as the global warming fraud.

Given what you’ve told me, I would say you are a moderate, at least from my perspective.

Maxx on May 8, 2008 at 3:16 PM

Yes, it is true that on the environment, I don’t agree with the right and that includes abortion. I consider abortion to be an important environmental and I’m more extreme on abortion than is my sister-in-law who is on the board of her city’s Planned Parenthood. Also, I’m gay and I do support gay marriage.

On the other hand, besides environmental threats, I see Islam as also quite threatening. I think we need to be realistic about Islam and appeasement in general. I don’t agree with anything Obama says about foreign policy. I want a very low tax rate and very little government. Get rid of the Department of Education, Department of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, the Federal Reserve, Department of Agriculture, the Human Services part of Health and Human Services, and so forth. I also strongly support the death penalty and even agree with the religious right about opposing gambling and casinos, which I suppose is a lost cause. I’m extremely skeptical about the entire dialog on race in this country. We look for evidence of racism, like a bunch of peasants in medieval Europe looking for a witch–consider just this website and Ron Paul. Finally, I’m a big fan of an old book called “The Closing of the American Mind” by Allan Bloom and Diana West’s newer book “The Death of the Grown-up: How America’s Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization”.

You didn’t get many to agree with you on this thread, where you basically said you loved abortion. Remember this?

Yes, exactly! I shudder to think how bad of state we would be in if it weren’t for abortion.

thuja on April 25, 2008 at 8:31 AM

Thank you thuja for telling us frankly what liberal policies are all about…. killing you neighbor so YOU can live better.

How deceived you are. Children are born with two arms and two legs and only one mouth. Every person has the ability to provide for many. But liberals say… no, just let them die, that’s the solution.

This is the thinking behind abortion, global warming and environmentalism and you just said it plainly.

Maxx on April 25, 2008 at 10:37 AM

I can’t think of a single issue where you are on the right, can you name one?

What I never understood is how does that much bacteria gets to the depth he proclaims before becoming sweet crude stew. And when the pressures build… depending on the heat.. how Natural Gas is formed. Is it baked, flash cooked out of oil?

upinak on May 8, 2008 at 2:32 PM

I found a posted copy of his papers on the subject here.

Yet, I am inexplicably right-wing.

thuja on May 8, 2008 at 2:18 PM

Yeah right, I’ve been reading your comments for some time thuja and you are about as right-wing as Ted Kennedy.

Maxx on May 8, 2008 at 2:35 PM

Ah! so that explains the replies I get on non-environmental threads from people saying that they agree with me. I’d been wondering that.