Investing in Precious Metals 101 Ad

And you thought the debt crisis wa bad…

Login or register to post comments Last Post 5637 reads   34 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 34 total)
  • Thu, Nov 27, 2008 - 01:40pm

    #1

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    count placeholder

    And you thought the debt crisis wa bad…

Financial crisis? That’s nothing

 

  • Thu, Nov 27, 2008 - 03:11pm

    #2

    joe bender

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 17 2008

    Posts: 328

    count placeholder

    Re: And you thought the debt crisis wa bad…

if i am not mistaken i believe m.king hubbert worked for shell

  • Thu, Nov 27, 2008 - 04:40pm

    #3
    joemanc

    joemanc

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 16 2008

    Posts: 138

    count placeholder

    Re: And you thought the debt crisis wa bad…

With gas prices having plunged, this is the perfect time to implement a higher gas tax that can be directed ONLY towards the funding of clean and renewable alternative energy. I’d hope that people would not complain about this, as long as it’s a reasonable amount, say 2 or 3 cents a gallon.

  • Fri, Nov 28, 2008 - 04:20am

    #4

    ckessel

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 12 2008

    Posts: 164

    count placeholder

    Re: And you thought the debt crisis wa bad…

Matrix,

I appreciate your comments. 

I consider that the one-two punch of our current financial scene coupled with a peak in oil production will be completely unmanageable by current world governments and most of the population.

I have been involved in designing and building solar and energy efficient sustainable buildings for 35 years and there is much that can be done. But the numbers are just not there to support the idea that we can convert to a sustainable life style by simply investing in some solar thermal and solar electric panels and maybe an electric car and all will be good.

Until a few years ago I would have disagreed with the point I just made above. But understanding exponential growth and looking at the resources we have available and the sheer size of the population ….. we are definately in trouble. Chris has done an incredible job of putting the facts together for "Joe the Plumber !"

My wife comes from a California farming family who immigrated to Australia in the 60s to farm cotton and wheat. They are very aware of the reliance on oil for their existence. The one thing more dear than oil of course is water. The droughts have decimated their farming businesses. When oil moves into a drought condition, watch out. Basic survival and having enough food to go around will be key issues.

I can only conceive of a de-industrialization of our modern society as a workable solution. I think it is possible to do on a voluntary basis in theory. It will happen in any event, perhaps on a kicking and screaming basis or worse. It does not have to be that way. Horticulture, permaculture and bio intensive farming whether in the urban or rural areas will carry the day if we can prepare ourselves rapidly enough.  Spreading the word and taking action are our best weapons. DVD’s here we come !!!!

My major concern is that the wealthy elite will do whatever it takes to make sure that they have enough (of whatever ) to see them through a perceived crisis.( Send the masses to their misery but preserve my lifestyle.)  History tells us this is true. We need constant vigilance on this point to avoid being sold into slavery so to speak. Or maybe that allready happened in 1913!.

So we will dig out now. Keep swingin ! 

  • Fri, Nov 28, 2008 - 10:31pm

    #5

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    count placeholder

    Re: And you thought the debt crisis wa bad…

[quote=ckessel]

Matrix,

I appreciate your comments.

I consider that the one-two punch of our current financial scene coupled with a peak in oil production will be completely unmanageable by current world governments and most of the population.

I have been involved in designing and building solar and energy efficient sustainable buildings for 35 years and there is much that can be done. But the numbers are just not there to support the idea that we can convert to a sustainable life style by simply investing in some solar thermal and solar electric panels and maybe an electric car and all will be good.

Until a few years ago I would have disagreed with the point I just made above.

[/quote]

 

WOW……  that IS amazing, because I used to run a business doing the exact same thing…..  and I too no longer believe  "that we can convert to a sustainable life style by simply investing in
some solar thermal and solar electric panels and maybe an electric car".

I think you need to have had some experience working in the energy field to get a feel for what it actually is, and the numbers involved.  Energy is such an intangible thing…

I don’t think we should give up trying to achieve some form of sustainable energy, but anyone thinking we can run Business as Usual with alternatives is simply dreaming… 

  • Fri, Nov 28, 2008 - 11:09pm

    #6

    Ray Hewitt

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 05 2008

    Posts: 277

    count placeholder

    Re: And you thought the debt crisis wa bad…

While Matrix and his fellow doomsdayers think backwards, China is looking forward.

  • Mainland China has eleven nuclear power reactors in
    commercial operation, seven under construction, and ten more about to
    start construction.
     
  • Additional reactors are planned, including some of the
    world’s most advanced, to give a sixfold increase in nuclear capacity
    to at least 50 GWe or possibly to 60 GWe by 2020 and then a further
    three to fourfold increase to 120-160 GWe by 2030.
  • The country aims to become self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle. 
  • Electricity demand is growing very rapidly. 
  • Mainland China is starting to rely heavily on imported uranium to fuel its nuclear power program.

Nuclear Power in China

As for the US:

In my earlier articles on
nuclear power, I reviewed how fissile Uranium-235 drives a nuclear reactor, and
how Uranium-238 participates in the process by transforming into Plutonium-239,
which is fissile like Uranium-235. This phenomenon of nuclear physics lies at
the heart of a conceptual blueprint by which the United States once and for all
can end its energy dependence on fossil fuels and the unstable Third World
nations who export petroleum.

Nuclear Waste and Breeder Reactors

Wiki on Breeder Reactors

America’s problems are political and sociological, not technical, geological or economic.

Plenty of info on the web if you take the time and interest. Or do you prefer to keep running around in circles shouting "the sky is falling!"

 

  • Sat, Nov 29, 2008 - 12:44am

    #7
    switters

    switters

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 19 2008

    Posts: 436

    count placeholder

    Re: And you thought the debt crisis wa bad…

hewittr,

We’ve reviewed "plenty of information" for years and have come to the conclusion that renewables cannot replace the energy density of oil in a sufficient period of time (if ever) to avoid a worldwide energy shortage.

You do a quick search of articles on the web and consider that "research".  It is nothing of the sort.  It is denial and wishful thinking.  All of the articles you posted demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the
obstacles that need to be overcome to implement nuclear power.

I’ve posted at length about the limitations of nuclear power, but you always seem to ignore those posts.  Perhaps they are too laden with facts for your liking.

Here, I’ll refresh your memory:


The mean age of the 439 nuclear reactors in the world is 23 years.  The
"life expectancy" of these reactors is 40 years.  That means we’d need
a large number of nuclear reactors built in the next 15 years just to maintain the same number we have now, not to mention adding capacity.

– According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (a pro-nuclear industry group) we can optimistically expect to have no more than four to eight new plants by 2016
If those plants are working to schedule, within budget estimates,
without licensing difficulties, and with continued public policy
support (all of which is far from certain), only then would a new wave
of construction begin.


According to the Nuclear Power Joint Fact Finding Report issued in 2007
by the Keystone Center, we would need approximately 700 GWe of new net nuclear
capacity by the 2050s in order to offset the decline of fossil fuels. 
This would require, on average,the construction of fourteen 1,000-megawatt-electric
(MWe) plants each year.  However, before 2050 it would also be
necessary to replace the retiring nuclear capacity (approximately 370
GWe) which would require construction of an additional 7.4 1,000 MWe reactors each year.  Thus we would need to build a total of 21 MWe new 1,000 MWe plants each year to successfully offset the decline of fossil fuels.  This is not going to happen
The best-case estimate of the NEI (previous bullet point) was adding
4-8 reactors in the next six years, for an average of approximately one
per year.


To meet the new demand for nuclear electricity we would also have to
substantially expand fuel-cycle facilities (uranium mines, mills,
enrichment plants, fuel fabrication plants and nuclear waste
repositories).  Roughly that would include 11-22 new large enrichment plants (compared to 17 existing),18 fuel fabrication plants (compared to 24 existing), and 10 nuclear
waste repositories the size of the statutory capacity of Yucca
Mountain.  (Statutory capacity is used because the Yucca Mountain
project has been stalled and no new alternatives have been proposed.)

I
could go on but I hope the point is clear.  Transitioning to a new
source of energy isn’t a simple matter of waving a magic wand and
watching it happen.  It requires trillions of dollars of
investments, decades of planning, preparation and construction, huge
amounts of fossil fuel and a tremendous level of political will
.  
 

When
you present evidence with real numbers, rather than wishful thinking,
that these obstacles can and will be overcome, I’ll start listening.
Until then none of us is going to take your claims seriously.

 

  • Sat, Nov 29, 2008 - 01:02am

    #8

    Ray Hewitt

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 05 2008

    Posts: 277

    count placeholder

    Re: And you thought the debt crisis wa bad…

Switters

I’m not ruling out short term energy shortages. That problem has a lot more to do with bad politics, the misallocation of capital and public phobia over nuclear energy.  But to believe that this is a permanent shortage misses the point that there is enough fissionable material to last into the indefinite future. Thorium

The Chinese and other Asian countries aren’t buying your can’t-do attitude. America is another story.

  • Sat, Nov 29, 2008 - 01:13am

    #9

    Robert Gardner

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 24 2008

    Posts: 68

    count placeholder

    Re: And you thought the debt crisis wa bad…

Switters, thank you for the down to earth information and insight. I think another fact we might want to consider is peak uranium, as presented by Chris in the Crash Course.

  • Sat, Nov 29, 2008 - 02:33am

    #10
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1357

    count placeholder

    Re: And you thought the debt crisis wa bad…

"Mainland China has eleven nuclear power reactors in commercial operation, seven under construction, and ten more about to start construction."

To keep this in perspective, China is building 600 coal fired plants on any given day.

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 34 total)

Login or Register to post comments