April 29, 2008 3:02PM
Alaska, Nukes, and You
By Cheryl Casone
Did you listen to the president’s news conference today? I have to say, as he gets closer to leaving office, he gets a little looser, a little more animated, and really isn’t afraid to scold those that DARE ask a follow-up question. Oh, to be Martha Raddatz from ABC. We got a laugh out of that on set.
But I have to say, being a business person, I found the remarks to be so important. First, he talked about ANWR, the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. He said the quickest way to lower gas prices was to drill there. He said OPEC wasn’t going to pitch in, and also that we haven’t built a new refinery in 30 years, and it was time we did. Ok, call me crazy, but wouldn’t it take years to get supply from ANWR?I am not trying to get political, but I am fascinated by energy, oil, and nuclear power. The latter he also mentioned today. France (where I am headed later this week) has had great success with nuclear power. But Americans seem stuck on 3 Mile Island. I was young, but I remember it. I also think to myself “I’ve been in car accidents before, but I still drive.” Maybe I am loose in my thinking, but I wish we moved more toward nuclear power. Right now coal accounts for half the electricity produced in the United States. We have to drill into the American landscape for coal, why not build nuclear power plants? That would be much less land we destroyed.
But back to oil. OPEC would love nothing more than to sell us oil at $100, $200, $250 a barrel. Why would they vote to increase production? There is no motivation.
One of the reporters asked the president if we would “run out of oil supply” in the next few years. Well, yes and no. We will if we don’t do more exploration and drilling. Should we hit up ANWR? I can’t express my opinion because I don’t know enough about the issues that surround the land there. However, I remember one oil guy saying “the Caribou won’t care if we drill there.”
Again, the jury is out IMO. He also said, “Congress was letting the American people down.”
How do you guys feel?
CC
Comment by Joe Runnals
Apr 29th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
if america just moved forward with anwr as well as off shore drilling in the gulf, prices will start to fall. even it it takes years before we see our own oil, opec will take notice and stop all this nonsense. they need our money. if they see that we are moving to independence from foreign oil, they wont be able to lower prices fast enough.
this will ease americas burden and also buy us time to develop alternative energy sources. if something doesnt change soon, we are going to see this spill into all sectors of our economy. $8.00 milk anybody. i am totally on board with bush on this. if we started anwr in 2001, we would see the benifits of it by now. wake up congress. quit sitting on your hand on this one.
joe runnals
atlanta, ga
Comment by Betty
Apr 29th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
I live in Alaska and say — drill away… We need to be less reliant on foreign oil. The studies have actually shown that the caribou like the warm pipeline, so what will the next excuse be. ANWR land is desolate. it does not cut into the beautiful parts of Alaska.
Comment by larry
Apr 29th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Allow drilling in ANWR and offshore Florida. Nuclear power plants are needed but electricty doesn’t run cars oil does.
Comment by Mike
Apr 30th, 2008 at 5:58 am
Why is everyone focused on a short term fix? Sure, lowering the cost of energy next week would be great, but short of some insane government action like flooding the market with oil from the strategic reserve its not going to happen. The long term solution involves every form of energy we can access, including nuclear, and ANWR. Untill the politicians can see past the next election, or special interest group we will be stuck trying to fix cancer with an aspirin. I’m afraid thats not going to happen till our economy is on such a downward spiral it will be to late. Where are the Statesmen?
Comment by Randy
Apr 30th, 2008 at 7:13 am
The answers to these questions will go a long way in explainging how congress has failed to pass legislation that would have helped dampen the effect on our economy that the increased demand for world oil consumption is having.
How long have the environmentalists successfully lobbied Congress not to approve drilling in ANWR? And how long would it have taken to get the ANWR oil from ground to the refinery if Congress had approved drilling there when it was first brought to the floor? What effect would the availability of ANWR have on the amount of oil imported into the US?
Thank you
Comment by Jim Taylor
Apr 30th, 2008 at 8:37 am
We needed to go nuclear yesterday. Nuclear energy is a technology America pioneered decades ago, yet we seem stuck on a the much more primitive technology of burning things (coal ,oil,nat gas). We’ve come a long way, technologically speaking,since 3 Mile Island. With the kind of logic people are using on nuke energy today, well i’m just glad they weren’t around when Orville and Wilbur started flying.
Comment by Tony Burzio
Apr 30th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Yes, it does take many years. This is why rejection of the House 2000 vote to allow drilling the the ANWR will haunt us for at least another decade. Why not nuclear? The main problems are, do you really want to locate terrorism prone radioactive plants around our cities and what will you do with the waste material for the next at least 1000 years?
Europe has come to its senses and is building coal power plants.
Comment by RLinSC
Apr 30th, 2008 at 10:33 am
CC,
You couldn’t be closer to the real issue here. A safe, proven and cost-effective alternative source for supplying this country’s power needs would be one aspect of a double-edged sword with which the current energy trends can be reversed. The other would be my personal favortie, good ‘ol fashioned capitalism.
In 1980, congress passed the Energy Security Act which created the Synthetic Fuels Corp. (SFC). The SFC was afforded almost a quarter of a trillion dollars (adjusted for 2008)in loans and incentives with the primary objective to create a cheaper synthetic fuel (SF). In true free-market fashion, Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) quickly reduced their price for a barrel of oil by nearly 75 percent over a six year period.
While SFC itself was suspended in the late 80’s (its efforts no longer being cost-effective after OPEC’s bargain-bin prices!), the quest for cheap SF has continued. Current capabilities could produce a barrel of SF at around 50 USD……half the price of OPEC’s finest brew.
I couldn’t agree with you more on France - dare we say it, they have it right! Nuclear power is safe and cheaper than ever, as long as the industry-friendly incentives introduced by the Bush Administration remain available for American utility companies. I would encourage any critic of nuclear power’s safety and reliability to conduct their own investigation into the advanced reactor designs of two great American companies. These 21st-century designs reduce construction and operating costs over existing plants, savings that can be passed on to the consumer. It is easy to see that safety standards have been a top priority along with the reduction of waste and the recycling of all by-products. If the former #1 of Greenpeace can become a proponent of nuclear power, there must truly be something to this!
CC, I share your lack of knowledge when it comes to the environmental impact of drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge; but I feel that nuclear power and the strength of capitalism fueled by American ingenuity would be sufficient to bring a smile to any caribou’s face - as long as that caribou is not a member of OPEC.
Comment by Frank Bagheri
Apr 30th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
I think all OPEC needs is the “serious” threat of drilling in Alaska to start worrying about what could happen to their oil prices in the future. The other reason for high oil prices is the weaker dollar and nobody is talking about fixing that problem (if that is a problem.) Weaker Dollar means lowere trade deficit. So what is it “exactly” that we are looking to accomplish here?
Comment by JD Worth
Apr 30th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
On ANWAR - I was raised in Alaska, and saw this issue hammered over and over as I was in High School and later in college.
We have the technology to allow for a minimal impact oil drilling platforms/bases. I’d say go for it.
As for nuclear power. We also have the technology there to build, maintain and protect these plants with minimal additional overhead. As long as the corperations that build such places follow the rules. A safe source of energy can be at our finger tips.
I’d also like to mention the patented generator that runs off water for fuel? After reading that website, where they say they are developing a hummer, with the DoD, that will run on either water or diesel. - Can’t wait for that!
Alternatives abound- it’s up to the people to stand up and demand it from the various corperations, and the government, to motivate that change.
JD
Comment by JR Chipman
Apr 30th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
I see the only alternatives are drilling for our ouwn, no matter how long it takes, and nuclear power. The American public needs to be educated about what happened at 3 Mile Island, which basically was nothing. All the safties worked. Plants are better built, maintained and operated more efficiently now, and as others have said, just the move towards our own oil would make OPEC nervous. Even if it doesn’t lead to immediate supplies, the time to drill and deliver means more refineries can be built. By all means, move towrds wind and solar where possible, but nuclear is the best answer.
Comment by bill adams
Apr 30th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Eight years in office and he, being an old guy, couldn’t convince US (us) to allow an oil refinery to be built in one of our states???? I guess it’s just me…I thought he was going to be a whole lot tougher than he was!
Comment by Justin
Apr 30th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
To be completely honest, if energy independence was an actual priority of the federal government, we would have been well on our way with the constuction of oil refineries and nuclear power plants. I believe the bureaucrats have a vested interest in keeping the status quo (which is I fully support term limiting the con men and women out of office. DC has a way of curropting once decent and honorable politicians.). I also think we need a serious devolution of the responsibilities and red tape that the federal bureaucracy mandates on all 50 states across the board. Let individuals decide whether or not they want jobs to come into their states through the development of nuclear power plants and oil refineries. I’m pleading with you Washington, just let people govern themselves and don’t hinder the free market.
Comment by Howard Roberts
Apr 30th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
“..but wouldn’t it take years to get supply from ANWR?” This is the old “I don’t have time to sharpen the saw, I’m too busy sawing” argument. The length of time required to begin production isn’t an argument, it’s an obfuscation that the anti-exploration community has used effectively to thwart drilling. Further, the Democrats are not likely to approve anything that would appear to be a victory for President Bush.
Comment by Dustin Hughes
May 1st, 2008 at 10:37 am
I agree on moving towards nuclear power just like France. But doesn’t a nuclear power plant produce a vast amount of waste? What would we do with this waste? Just a curious puzzlement.
Comment by Brandon
May 1st, 2008 at 2:27 pm
As an Alaskan who has been to ANWR I say open it up we could use more of the free ride but if you think it will lower the price at the pump or reduce our dependence on foreign oil you are truly naive. It will help a few oil companies and Alaskans. A better question is why Bush and his republican counterparts thought it was a great idea to let the $ devalue. The sinking $ combined with a strong allergy to any kind of conservation is the major reason we are paying close to $4 a gallon. All of this is great for Alaskans however. $8 billion in state surplus this year, close to $40 billion in the permanent fund with estimated dividends this year in excess of $2k per Alaskan and tourism cashing in on Americans inability to afford traveling abroad. An oil man in the white house has been horribly painful for Americans except for the lucky few up north.
Comment by Bill
May 1st, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I say drill. If I had oil in my back yard drill. Drill! Drill! Drill! Sell OPEC it’s oil back, or just wait for the 75% off sale. Or, better yet, drill so much that it’s so common everyone keeps it in their living rooms. What would OPEC and their price gouging think then? How would those countries survive if they could not rip off the West? Quit trying to think for the peolpe government… And start doing the will of the people, by the people, for the people…
Comment by RLinSC
May 1st, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Several of you make a very valid point - there is no such thing as a free lunch. Yes, there will be spent fuel to deal with throughout the life-span of any nuclear reactor and yes, this waste will maintain some level of radioactivity. A substantial dose of radiation is harmful to the tissue of unprotected living organisms, and can cause death once exposure reaches a certain level.
Here is the good news:
- The U.S. Government (probably Department of Energy) has been constructing a storage facility for Nuclear Waste in Yucca Mountain (New Mexico) for some time. Tremendous efforts to ensure safety have been made through continuous engineering and analysis of potential security threats, environmental effects, etc.
- Engineers and scientists are also continuously working towards the minimization of radioactvie waste through modern reactor designs and fuel synthesis process.
- The ultimate goal here will of course be to completely eliminate any waste products from the operation of nuclear power plants. Until that time, we can all rest assured that the waste that DOES exist today will be safely stored in monitored storage facilities that will also allow future access to allow for complete waste disposal/consumption/recycling when the technology is available.
- The radioactive waste will have ZERO net affect on any living organism or our environment as it is being removed from a reactor, transported to the storage facility, and placed for safekeeping as long as it is successfully handled in accordance with DOE standards and protocol.
“Spent” nuclear fuel and/or radioactive waste have existed since the birth of nuclear power over a half century ago - in an effort to view this problem from every aspect, can anyone relate problems or complications with existing radioactive waste storage facilities?
Comment by Dave Young
May 1st, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Nuke is the way to go - risks can be contained, and fuel is unlimited. For starters, why not build plants in Las Vegas, then if there is a meltdown, it will solve two problems -water conservation from the Colorado River, and also Poker TV on Cable - ugh.
Comment by Dave Young
May 1st, 2008 at 4:21 pm
If the US Navy can run submarines and carriers on Nuke energy, I believe we can all feel safe about land based nuclear energy generation….to my knowledge, the Navy has a perfect safety record with its reactors/ containment.
Comment by Linda
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:59 am
I wish we stopped talking and take some action. In an election year candidate makes such great promises and then they fizzle out. We have been talking about this now for over a year and still nothing is being done. The enviromentalists can be applauded for no new refiners and the politicians can be applauded for their “speak about it and do nothing attitude”. It would be nice if Congress could get their act together, stop worrying about who they are sleeping with and do something constuctive.
Comment by PM
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:50 pm
If people knew how much radiation was put into the atmosphere by the process of burning coal to produce energy, they would be shocked, not to include all the particulate matter. Nuclear should become our primary electricity producer.
Comment by Doug Meyer
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:02 pm
The failure of the U.S. to invest in and adopt nuclear power generation on a major scale is one of our greatest failures. The environmental lobby has succeeded in scaring the public with bad science to the point of absurdity. Ironically, it is their fault that we are in such an energy quandry today. If we had built modern nuclear plants to generate our electricity, we would not be creating the greenhouse gases they fear so much by burning coal. We would not be depeleting the available oil at the rate that we are by burning oil and natural gas to generate electricity. More people are killed in coal mines every year than have ever been even injured by commercial nuclear power since its inception. The dangers of spent fuel are completely overblown. The quantities of dangerous by-products of nuclear power generation are much less and more short lived than claimed by the greenies. No drilling in ANWAR? More bad science. It makes me crazy!
Comment by querin
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:01 pm
I worked in petroleum for 25 years,(Reservoir Engineer). IMHO the reason ANWR is not open is simple; had we drilled it 25 years ago it would be empty and sold for $15 bucks a barrel. The US has decided VERY properly to burn as much of the other guys oil as we can. It will be very bad to run out of oil: It will be very much XXXX to run out first. All these times people talk about how long it will take; 10 years plus is XX. If the government wants it, all they have to do is; cut all the red tape and say: DO IT. I know alot of people who can drill wells and lay pipe so fast you had best get out of the way.
Comment by Will
May 5th, 2008 at 10:05 am
OPEC is incapable of increasing production, or they would. They don’t want people to become enraged over fuel prices, and the increases in prices for everything else that must be shipped around the world, and around the country. They don’t want change. People will refuse to pay these prices for fuel, because of budget shortfalls. Lifestyles will be cramped, and that in the end will cause change, not concerns over the environment, although I hope that can be added as “fuel for the fire” of change.
Comment by John
May 5th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Great. Drill in ANWR, but…Also drill off the coast of Florida and California, too! Don’t ban drilling in offshore areas just so some rich homeowners have their “views”. Also, more needs to be done to alleviate the NIMBYism that has prevented more refining capacity in the US. Tis not going to do us any good to have more raw oil, if we don’t have the capacity to refine it. Environmentalists AND Big Oil should be taken to task on this issue!
Comment by David Anderson
May 5th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
The price of oil per gallon, as I understand it, is determined by numerous factors:
1 - it is tied to the value of the dollar, the weaker the dollar, the more expensive oil is;
2 - supply and demand, obviously, with demand in China steadily growing and OPEC’s lack of interest in increasing supply.
3 - investors and futures speculation.
4 - unrest in the middle east - which, it has been alleged by a political opponent of Putin’s, the Russions constantly encourage to help keep the price of oil high for their own monetary benefits.
I am no energy expert but, while I see how nuclear plants could cut back on the need for coal, I do not see how this impacts oil. We need to satisfy the supply problem - by drilling in all of the locations you mentioned, the demand problem - by researching alternative fuels other than corn based ethanol (we need that for food - ask the Somalis), the value problem by supporting economic policies that will strengthen the value of the dollar.
Comment by BILL MILLER
May 5th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
OIL, GASOLINE, we’re talking ISSUES here!! By November gasoline will be $8 (eight) a gallon. NO DEMOCRAT is going to vote for a canadate that doesn’t go for drilling and pumping for OIL regardless ot the excuses he or she might make. Obama and Clinton want to take Oil Company profits to pay for things that will NOT increase the volume of OIL.
Who knows what the price for substitue oil will be; how about $10 or $25 a gallon? I say lets have the Republicsans put up a bill to release the hold on drilling anywhere and for building refineries. There are a lot of Democrat congressman that ran in 2006 as conservatives and won; how would they vote today with their job on the line? Clinton voted seven (7) times to halt oil drilling and Obama also voted ney. Lets get them on the record: everybody wake up; our government is KILLING US, we can’t put up with there excuses for delay in drilling anymore. I would like to see a ground roll start slowly and build up to a 80% demand (including democrats and republicans) our congress pass the law or we’ll throw the ass out of that club for life we call the US Congress.
Comment by Edward Hamilton
May 6th, 2008 at 8:16 am
We need to drill now and explore now. There is also evidence a ton of oil up around Montana which is another place to drill. I think anything we can do for the security of our country. The more we give money to many of these OPEC countries, the more money they have to threaten us. And I really think we need to move to alternate energy of any kind that is not oil in the long run. Security needs to take a front seat. And inflation of energy prices need to be more in our control (and that too is a security issue). Lets also help countries that like us, to grow crops for ethanol. We need to make OPEC feel the heat.
Comment by Stan Hamilton
May 8th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
I agree that we need to drill for oil here including the offshore sites and in AMWR. This can be done safetly and fairly quickly. I do not agree it will take years to get things flowing as long as we do not allow unreasonable environmental concerns or legal issues to get in the way. For all concerned about ANWR impacts on the wildlife, I dare any of you to try live there and survive off what you can find and catch on the small area of land where the drilling is proposed. Not exactly a vacation spot, a scenic spot, or a wildlife spot. I also agree that drilling will send a strong message to OPEC.
I agree we need to pursue nuclear power very aggresively. It it safe and is not effected by bad crops, lack of wind or lack of sun. They should be built on the coast to have reliable access water so they are not dependent on stream flow from rain and snow.
We absolutely need to continue to find cleaner and more efficient ways to use coal. We have tons of the stuff.
Converting corn to ethanol is dumb and dumber and needs to be stopped.
A) There is marginal gain in energy. It takes almost as much energy to make it as it produces.
B) We are burning up our food supply to produce it.
Producing fuel from any crop source puts pressure on converting grasslands and forestland to cropland. Not exactly things that help CO2 problems. Heck, you may plow up Gore’s carbon credits - what will he do then?
All the other alternatives sound fine, but a lot more needs to be done to make them cost effective and to be done on a scale that will have a significant impact on our energy needs. Of course, we should continue to do research in all areas, but in the near term we are going to need energy from our traditional sources so we will have the ability and time to develop these other alternatives.
Lastly, we need to continue to become more efficient in use of all our energy. As an example, I see people all the time stomping on the gas to race to the next stop light only to hit the brakes. Hard on the car, hard on the brakes and a major hit on your gas mileage. If everyone stopped doing this, we would probably reduce gas consumption by 10% or more.