Nuclear power could mean the end of America's oil dependence
The world has only two sources of energy in the quantity needed to serve our nation: fossil fuels and nuclear power.
The quantities of solar power, wind power, and other options are too low. This year's $1-a-gallon oil-price increase cost our nation $300 billion, and undoubtedly this cost will continue to grow. What should we do?
The world has 1 trillion barrels of oil in the ground and consumes 26 billion barrels a year. In 40 years it will be gone.
However, by building thousands of synfuel plants, another 2-3 trillion barrels of oil can be extracted from sand beds, tar beds, and coal beds.
All of these sources are private and beyond our nation's control. By simply allowing plant construction to lag behind demand, the price of this oil can be kept at its maximum-revenue level. Thus, we face a future of high prices, permanent shortages, increased global warming, and continued pollution of our environment.
Worse yet, it is unlikely that these high profits will be invested within our borders.
Clearly, if the country is to buy energy at a competitive price, then it must create an excess of energy. The 300 billion gallons of oil that we consume each year equals the energy output of 1,700 nuclear reactors.
Allowing for growth and some excess capacity, we can achieve oil independence in 20 years if we build 100 nuclear reactors a year.
The new pebble design is reputed to be 100 percent safe. Nuclear power costs are equivalent to oil at $2 a gallon.
This will provide enough power to replace our oil furnaces and, using electrolysis, to manufacture the pollution-free hydrogen gas for our new fuel-cell cars. To prevent monopoly pricing, our nation should retain possession of the plants.
Date published: 6/1/2004
freelancestar.com |
