Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : PEAK OIL - The New Y2K or The Beginning of the Real End? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AuBug who wrote (332)	4/14/2005 5:43:21 PM
From: Doug R	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1183

A nuclear solution to the tar sand/natural gas problem could be do-able. The time it takes to get that up and running is one glitch. Another is public resistance to nuclear power plants. energyprobe.org As for tar sand companies' profits...they're very heavily subsidized. dogwoodinitiative.org

To: AuBug who wrote (332)	4/14/2005 8:37:29 PM
From: Mahatmabenfoo	Respond to of 1183

<<the tar sand companies can profit if they're buying 2 barrels of oil for every 3 they produce and have other expenses on top of that.>> I was wondering the same thing. Suncor (SU) if that's who you're thinking of (and reportedly T. Boone Picken's biggest holding) seems already to be making a profit. Part of the math is how much energy it takes to build alternatives. Let's say nukes suddenly solved all their problems.... - breeder reactors leak liquid radioactive sodium - Thorium instead of uranium - potential for bombs (atomic or dirty) - a way to detoxify used fuel and could make H2 on the side.... How many nuke plants would be needed? How long to obtain and purify all the needed thorium or uranium? And most critically -- how much fossil fuel and water will it take to build them all? From what I glean, the darkest fantasies of the peak crowd are not based on a conviction that there are no alternatives. While there are no current energy alternatives to support this suburbanized way of life, there are alternatives (known and hoped for) to support a perfectly acceptable (perhaps better) ways of living that would keep industrial society continuing its idea of progress. But for reasons I don't entirely understand building 1,000 breeder reactors or 1,000,000 windmills may take a ton of energy. Where's it going to come from now if there's no surplus? Or in a time of decline? Because of the number of factors, no doubt a lot of uncertainty is unavoidable, but building mathematical models for computers to chew on is a lot of what we've achieved during the past 30 years. The government is surely figuring out some of this stuff, at least on a small scale, but I wonder to what extent anyone is thinking about this stuff in a big picture (international interest) and long term way. - Tilyou1@yahoo.com