Partisan Gap over Energy Exploration Disappears

[amped]

FTA:

Much of the increase in support for energy exploration has come among groups that previously viewed this as a less important priority than energy conservation - young people, liberals, independents, Democrats, women and people who have attended college.

Fully half of people ages 18 to 29 (51%) now say expanding energy exploration is a more important priority for energy policy than increasing energy conservation and regulation; only about a quarter of young people (26%) expressed this view in February. The proportion of liberals who say expanded energy exploration is the more important priority also has doubled (from 22% to 45%).

Overview: As Gas Prices Pinch, Support for Energy Exploration Rises

[Alric]

Sure. I am all for energy exploration as long as we don't explore for more oil to burn into the atmosphere.

Solar, wind and nuclear would be excellent technologies to explore. Oil exploration today would not result in any improvement in energy production for many, many years to come.

[tripp]

Oil exploration today would not result in any improvement in energy production for many, many years to come.

That's the part the most people don't understand. As if exploration involves rummaging around for spigots attached to massive oil fields.

[amped]

Originally Posted by Alric

Sure. I am all for energy exploration as long as we don't explore for more oil to burn into the atmosphere.

Solar, wind and nuclear would be excellent technologies to explore. Oil exploration today would not result in any improvement in energy production for many, many years to come.

Of course solar, wind and nuclear are already available. For nukes, all it takes is the stroke of a pen.

The "many, many years" oil argument, while true, goes back over ten years. Had it been allowed during that time, oil would now be flowing from ANWR and offshore rigs.

[tripp]

True, but 10 years ago $10/bbl oil would have prevented it. We're gonna need that oil later, frankly. As more oil producing developing nations (Iran, for example) become more affluent, they're going to be exporting less and less oil. Conservation and efficiency are the first line of defense against this problem. At it's peak, ANWR will shave a whopping $0.80 off the price of a barrel of oil. There's a fundamental misunderstanding of what's going on. That's the real problem.

[icarus]

You might be able to build more nukes "with the stroke of a pen" but that wouldn't solve the seemingly intractable problem of LONG TERM STORAGE OF NUCLEAR WASTE! Until then, I'm not prepared to gamble my great great,,,grand children's future on something that is "good enough"
Don't give me the line, "The French do it, why don't we?" They haven't solved the long term problem yet either, just delayed it.

Not to mention the fact that NO private investor will build nukes because they can't get liability insurance. The only way to get the investors off the hook is for the Feds to pick up the tab. Also consider that any new plant proposed to day would be 10+ years from going on line. Can you spell Wpps?

Nope, go down some other road,

Icarus

[thepolarcrew]

I think we need to get it to a point where we use petro-chem for production of products that can (as of now) only be made from oil.

I think what tripp was getting at when he said they injected substance was a desposal method? Help me out here if you will tripp? One of my Professors had a theory that you inject waste in to diving plates or shoot it at the sun.

[FL_Prius_Driver]

Originally Posted by icarus

Not to mention the fact that NO private investor will build nukes because they can't get liability insurance. ...

That's not entirely true. I do not like this, but this is the present law:

Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The bigger showstopper is getting financing. Anyone with big money sees WPPSS like scenarios rather than quick $$$ returns.

The government really goes out of it's way to subsidize (indirectly) big power plants and puts up barriers (often directly) for sustainable plants. For example, early SEGS plants were limited to 30 MW. After intense lobbying, the limit was raised to 80MW.....and the only way around this was to build multiple 80MW plants, thereby limiting the economy of scale and making solar more expensive. Imagine limiting a nuclear plant to 30 MW. What would be your cost per kWh out of that?

It really is nutty how (behind closed doors) most all mainline politicians really think solar and wind are still in the "evaluation" stage.

[thepolarcrew]

Nuclear Waste: Storage and Disposal Methods

[thepolarcrew]

Disposal: Nuclear Waste: Storage and Disposal Methods