The U.S. Navy Just Announced The End Of Big Oil And No One Noticed

[happyslug]

31. What do you mean by "economically"??

This process uses electricity produced by a Nuclear power source to produce fuel that is usable for aircraft (and other engines). The first presumption is that the Nuclear Plant is already in existence and the cost to building one has already been paid. i.e. this is electrical power NOT being used by is being produced. This is often called "Base Load" electricity, that is what is in constant demand, as oppose to "Peak Load" Electrical demand, which is electricity needed to meet demand during periods of high demand for electricity,

Now, "Base Load" is often above the true base point for electrical demand. This excess power is produced for it is hard to turn off nuclear plans (and coal, natural gas and oil plants also take time to be taken out and put back into service, Hydro is the quickest electrical power source that can be turn on and off).

The problem is everyone has "plans" for that excess power. Advocates of Electric calls see it as the electricity to charge their cars during the night when demand for power is less. Steel companies, and other manufacturers, do a lot of night work so they can get discounts from their high use of electrical power. Power companies are known to use the excess electrical power to pump water uphill so the electrical company can open up hydro power plants during peak time periods.

Thus there is NOT that much excess electrical power that is NOT being used at the present time. Nuclear Carriers may be the ONLY such source of such excess electrical power. Which means more power plants (Nuclear PLUS coal and Natural Gas) would have to be built to provide the power needed for this process.

Given that, would it NOT be more economical to have people live in more dense population cities and use public transportation? Yes, that is NOT the US of today (it was the US of period 1900-1950) but may it NOT be a better and more economical solution to reduced access to oil?

Sorry, (and I am ignoring Global Warming, another reason to avoid this "solution" to the high price of oil) but is this a "good" solution to the problem of high oil prices? Would not a drop in demand caused by people using less oil be better?

Sorry, every time I research the details, the best solution is abandoning suburbia, something no one really want to talk about for that is where the switch voters between the parties live and where much of the money NOT tied in with the .1% live. Thus it is a taboo subject for most people do NOT want to make so radical an adjustment to where they want to live. Thus you get these "Pie in the Sky" solutions to saving suburbia for such gimmicks on their face preserve what these swing voters want which is suburbia. We will hear these pie in the sky plans over and over again over the next 20-50 years as the price of oil goes up, for as the price of oil goes up, the ability of people living, working and shopping in suburbia goes down. No one likes radical changes and whatever we do given the long term increase in the price of oil (Price of oil is expected to decline till 2017 then increase afterward) will lead to radical changes in how people live.