The Myths That Made an Empire

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/the-myt...ade-an-empire/

[Marcus Bryant]

Rabidly anti-American regimes eagerly trade with the United States. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez maligns the U.S. as the enemy of his country. But Venezuela remains one of America’s top foreign oil suppliers. Bilateral trade between the two countries totaled $50 billion in 2007. Iran, archenemy of the United States, increased American imports tenfold during George W. Bush’s presidency. The Islamic Republic would sell oil to the United States if legal prohibitions were lifted.

[bigzak25]

Why are we so dependent on oil instead of nuclear energy?

Why do we, as a country, need to pillage the oil from other countries instead of just using our own?

[Stringer_Bell]

Why are we so dependent on oil instead of nuclear energy?

Why do we, as a country, need to pillage the oil from other countries instead of just using our own?

How safe and reliable is nuclear energy if we were to focus on transitioning from oil? I'm pretty ignorant on the subject and weary if I go searching online that everything I read will be propaganda, so it's easier to just ask someone to tell me here at the forum cuz there's nothing in it for them

[boutons_deux]

Back on topic, what's the point of your selected quote?

VZ's and Iran's leaders are American-hating hypocrites because they sell America oil?

or America is a hypocrite for seeing VZ and Iran as unfriendly, as enemies (America, that world force for truth, justice, peace, and The American Way, defines its existence by defining and fighting enemies) but buy oil from them anyway?

[DarkReign]

How safe and reliable is nuclear energy if we were to focus on transitioning from oil? I'm pretty ignorant on the subject and weary if I go searching online that everything I read will be propaganda, so it's easier to just ask someone to tell me here at the forum cuz there's nothing in it for them

Scientific American did a cover-to-cover analysis of transitioning all electricity away from fossil fuels.

Conclusion: Doable, but at great initial expense. Based mostly on massive, new nuclear power plants that self-recycle spent uranium/plutonium (instead of current plants that have to store this unstable byproduct for 100s of years). Our government has never opened "The Mountain" and most likely never will, so that would need to change.

Nuclear technology has come a looooooooong way since the reactors that were built in the 70s (which still operate today). Far safer, far more efficent, produce more electricity and less waste, etc. But the moratorium our government put on new reactors looks to never be lifted.

France, of all countries, produces ~70% of their power via nuclear power. But they also have a serious disposal problem. For awhile, I believe Germany was taking it off their hands (and Britain's), but they recently told them both "Nein!" Both countries dont have the USAs landmass and open areas for safe storage.

Another thing SciAm mentioned, is that science is getting extremely close to being able to separate the long-lasting, highly-radioactive materials (unspent uranium and plutonium) from the fission products (spent uranium). Right now, both products are kept together in casks that must be stored for about 100 years before they cool enough to store "anywhere else". Typical nuclear waste is 99% fission byproduct and 1% highly radioactive, half-life plutonium/uranium.

Basically, 99% of the waste could potentially only be stored for about 100 years and the other 1% would have to be stored much, much longer (or be recycled, but thats another issue).

There are a lot of hurdles and an aging infrastructure of reactors that dont pass the test anymore. The new reactors go well into the billions for each.

It would seem our plan is to wait and see. How long can we squeeze coal and oil to power our nation? Who knows, I dont. Neither does anyone else, at least no one can come to a consensus. We'd just better hope someone finally gets cold fusion to work or can convert solar power at a 90% efficency soon.

BTW, sorry for the lack of technical terms. The uranium/plutonium byproduct has a very specific name as does the fission byproducts. I dont remember them, nor do I remember The Mountain's name (like Yucca-something). I never retain anything I read, thus why I never liked school.

[TeyshaBlue]

Scientific American did a cover-to-cover analysis of transitioning all electricity away from fossil fuels.

Conclusion: Doable, but at great initial expense. Based mostly on massive, new nuclear power plants that self-recycle spent uranium/plutonium (instead of current plants that have to store this unstable byproduct for 100s of years). Our government has never opened "The Mountain" and most likely never will, so that would need to change.

Nuclear technology has come a looooooooong way since the reactors that were built in the 70s (which still operate today). Far safer, far more efficent, produce more electricity and less waste, etc. But the moratorium our government put on new reactors looks to never be lifted.

France, of all countries, produces ~70% of their power via nuclear power. But they also have a serious disposal problem. For awhile, I believe Germany was taking it off their hands (and Britain's), but they recently told them both "Nein!" Both countries dont have the USAs landmass and open areas for safe storage.

Another thing SciAm mentioned, is that science is getting extremely close to being able to separate the long-lasting, highly-radioactive materials (unspent uranium and plutonium) from the fission products (spent uranium). Right now, both products are kept together in casks that must be stored for about 100 years before they cool enough to store "anywhere else". Typical nuclear waste is 99% fission byproduct and 1% highly radioactive, half-life plutonium/uranium.

Basically, 99% of the waste could potentially only be stored for about 100 years and the other 1% would have to be stored much, much longer (or be recycled, but thats another issue).

There are a lot of hurdles and an aging infrastructure of reactors that dont pass the test anymore. The new reactors go well into the billions for each.

It would seem our plan is to wait and see. How long can we squeeze coal and oil to power our nation? Who knows, I dont. Neither does anyone else, at least no one can come to a consensus. We'd just better hope someone finally gets cold fusion to work or can convert solar power at a 90% efficency soon.

BTW, sorry for the lack of technical terms. The uranium/plutonium byproduct has a very specific name as does the fission byproducts. I dont remember them, nor do I remember The Mountain's name (like Yucca-something). I never retain anything I read, thus why I never liked school.

Why we don't load these spent fuel rods into BDB's and plot a trajectory into the sun or out of the solar system completely. I'd bet that BDB's are cheap compared to long term Terran storage.

[boutons_deux]

If the fuel really can be recycled, wonderful.

Google "uranium shortage"

70% of US oil goes to transport. Nuclear (or wind/ocean/solar/green) power won't reduce that 70% until fully electric vehicles (ie, batteries) replace carbon-fueled vehicles.

Staying off topic, mining uranium is as polluting and destructive as mountain-top mining

Which capital is going to finance nuclear construction?

US govt already has to subsidzie (be responsible for) insurance for nuclear plants which is capped at $11B liability.

Quite apart from energy production, there are many open problems around 100s of new nuclear plants.