Psaki pushes renewable energy to stop dependence on foreign oil instead of increasing US production
Comments come as fears that energy prices could continue to rise amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine
White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the U.S. needs to decrease its reliance on foreign oil by switching over to renewable energy, not increasing domestic production.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/psa...production
We are already drilling for oil all over the US. The one thing that would really help us on the "mitigate climate change" and "middle finger to the Arabs and Russians" front is more nuclear energy. I would be all for a federal plan to subsidize new nuclear plants.
(02-28-2022, 02:21 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]We are already drilling for oil all over the US. The one thing that would really help us on the "mitigate climate change" and "middle finger to the Arabs and Russians" front is more nuclear energy. I would be all for a federal plan to subsidize new nuclear plants.
Really this is the only thing that will ever allow us to generate the necessary amount of electricity to both power our grid and run a nation-scale fleet of electric vehicles.
(02-28-2022, 02:28 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (02-28-2022, 02:21 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]We are already drilling for oil all over the US. The one thing that would really help us on the "mitigate climate change" and "middle finger to the Arabs and Russians" front is more nuclear energy. I would be all for a federal plan to subsidize new nuclear plants.
Really this is the only thing that will ever allow us to generate the necessary amount of electricity to both power our grid and run a nation-scale fleet of electric vehicles.
Amen. I worked at the electric utility here in Jax for 30 years, and part of my time was in the System Planning Department, duties which included Generation planning and System load forecasting. Even up to the last year I was there (2011), solar/wind/etc was never considered as a primary source of power; it was always seen as a supplement for base loading that would heat water, run appliances and provide lighting, but would not chase the peaks that HVAC demand causes. Even as good as batteries are today, big motors require big amps that batteries can't currently provide. Adding millions of charging EV's would make these peak demands even more drastic. A smart energy policy runs what it has as cheaply and efficiently as it can, while introducing the alternate forms of energy as they become technologically available and economically viable. Green New Deal people don't seem to understand this, or don't want to because of an already determined narrative. For a period of time, there was a company here in Jax called Offshore Power Systems. They were advocating designing/building floating nuclear power plants. The 1973 oil crisis, Prez Carter and 3 mile island slowed and finally stopped the concept, and they dissolved sometime in the mid 80's. Had those things been built tho, I would not have wanted to be the transmission line crew doing the maintenance on 5 to 10 miles of underground 3 phase 230kV cable needed to get the power ashore to the mainland. Hazard pay would be required. Would have been interesting to have seen one of those developed and operational.
(02-28-2022, 02:21 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]We are already drilling for oil all over the US. The one thing that would really help us on the "mitigate climate change" and "middle finger to the Arabs and Russians" front is more nuclear energy. I would be all for a federal plan to subsidize new nuclear plants.
0.4% of the US' energy generation comes from petroleum.
The majority comes from Natural Gas, Coal, Nuclear and Renewables.
(02-28-2022, 04:01 PM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ] (02-28-2022, 02:21 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]We are already drilling for oil all over the US. The one thing that would really help us on the "mitigate climate change" and "middle finger to the Arabs and Russians" front is more nuclear energy. I would be all for a federal plan to subsidize new nuclear plants.
0.4% of the US' energy generation comes from petroleum.
The majority comes from Natural Gas, Coal, Nuclear and Renewables.
I'm thinking bigger than that.
We get 20% of our electricity from nuclear. Very few countries do more than us. But France gets 70% from
nuclear! There is no reason we can't aspire to get to France's level in the coming decades. Nuclear jobs are good jobs. We could and should get so good at building nuclear that the Indias and Nigerias of the world are calling us, trying to get us to build and supply plants for them! Today they call South Korea.
(02-28-2022, 04:07 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-28-2022, 04:01 PM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ]0.4% of the US' energy generation comes from petroleum.
The majority comes from Natural Gas, Coal, Nuclear and Renewables.
I'm thinking bigger than that.
We get 20% of our electricity from nuclear. Very few countries do more than us. But France gets 70% from
nuclear! There is no reason we can't aspire to get to France's level in the coming decades. Nuclear jobs are good jobs. We could and should get so good at building nuclear that the Indias and Nigerias of the world are calling us, trying to get us to build and supply plants for them! Today they call South Korea.
Nobody wants them near them though. Having some brief experience, it is done as safe as possible. The main issue right now, at least in the US, the technology is very old. They are limited in what they can do after the plant is built. A lot is still paper based and communications are usually nonexistent in most of the onsite buildings.
I wouldn't want one near me but that really goes for any plant.
Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk
(02-28-2022, 04:07 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-28-2022, 04:01 PM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ]0.4% of the US' energy generation comes from petroleum.
The majority comes from Natural Gas, Coal, Nuclear and Renewables.
I'm thinking bigger than that.
We get 20% of our electricity from nuclear. Very few countries do more than us. But France gets 70% from
nuclear! There is no reason we can't aspire to get to France's level in the coming decades. Nuclear jobs are good jobs. We could and should get so good at building nuclear that the Indias and Nigerias of the world are calling us, trying to get us to build and supply plants for them! Today they call South Korea.
I get that, but that wont help ween the US off the teat of OPEC and Russia for oil.
At the moment, the oil required for transport alone exceeds the oil produced in the US. If you want to reduce oil consumption, you need to reduce gasoline consumption. The F series pickup remains the best selling vehicle.
(02-28-2022, 06:57 PM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ] (02-28-2022, 04:07 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I'm thinking bigger than that.
We get 20% of our electricity from nuclear. Very few countries do more than us. But France gets 70% from
nuclear! There is no reason we can't aspire to get to France's level in the coming decades. Nuclear jobs are good jobs. We could and should get so good at building nuclear that the Indias and Nigerias of the world are calling us, trying to get us to build and supply plants for them! Today they call South Korea.
I get that, but that wont help ween the US off the teat of OPEC and Russia for oil.
At the moment, the oil required for transport alone exceeds the oil produced in the US. If you want to reduce oil consumption, you need to reduce gasoline consumption. The F series pickup remains the best selling vehicle.
Yeah, you'll never eliminate some liquid fueled transport from the modern economy no matter how hot or repressive things get. You can only hope for some of those F-150s to become electric F-150s. And for more electrified railways to be built.
(02-28-2022, 08:25 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-28-2022, 06:57 PM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ]I get that, but that wont help ween the US off the teat of OPEC and Russia for oil.
At the moment, the oil required for transport alone exceeds the oil produced in the US. If you want to reduce oil consumption, you need to reduce gasoline consumption. The F series pickup remains the best selling vehicle.
Yeah, you'll never eliminate some liquid fueled transport from the modern economy no matter how hot or repressive things get. You can only hope for some of those F-150s to become electric F-150s. And for more electrified railways to be built.
I’ll keep my F-150’s. But Ford has already done an electric one. In the ‘90s they had a sporty/quick truck called the Lightning. It’s back now. It is electric this time. Not sure I’d want it for my purposes of hauling a trailer but they have one. Electric, as we all know is quick off the line. If/when they get to a point to make a truck that can haul for a good distance then maybe electric trucks can take off. But until then, we need to burn that gas.
(02-28-2022, 06:04 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ] (02-28-2022, 04:07 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I'm thinking bigger than that.
We get 20% of our electricity from nuclear. Very few countries do more than us. But France gets 70% from
nuclear! There is no reason we can't aspire to get to France's level in the coming decades. Nuclear jobs are good jobs. We could and should get so good at building nuclear that the Indias and Nigerias of the world are calling us, trying to get us to build and supply plants for them! Today they call South Korea.
Nobody wants them near them though. Having some brief experience, it is done as safe as possible. The main issue right now, at least in the US, the technology is very old. They are limited in what they can do after the plant is built. A lot is still paper based and communications are usually nonexistent in most of the onsite buildings.
I wouldn't want one near me but that really goes for any plant.
Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk
I would rather live near a typical American nuclear plant than a typical American coal plant. Coal plants spew far more cancer and asthma causing particles into the air and water than nuclear plants do.
CNN.com has an alarmist essay right now about how there's no perfect disposal system for nuclear waste. The essay says we need to turn away from nuclear because nuclear leaves behind waste that we will still be having to contain generations from now; all known existing technology corrodes and degrades before the nuclear waste is done radiating. And that's true. But carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere about as long.
Currently nuclear waste is buried in steel and concrete bunkers near where it is produced. Geiger counters are placed all around to detect any leak that starts, and workers will have to suit up and repair any leak that is detected. Humans will have to have those Geiger counters and teams of repair workers for centuries, for millenia. And that's still OK. That's still better than having the dew point in the tropics become so high that humans literally can't breathe, which is a problem we'll be dealing with sooner than that if we don't change course.