Gasoline prices are going up due to "oil supplies aren't pinched, but rusty U.S. refineries aren't producing enough gasoline to meet demand.
WHY? The oil companies know that oil supplies will soon decrease and they won't need any new refineries or any more refineries. Why send the money, when there won't be enough oil to refine?
(American) gasoline consumption grew 2.3 percent over the past month and 2.2 percent over the past year according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
U.S. gasoline inventories are at a 20 year low. This week at 194 million barrels -- less than 21 days worth of national use. Last year the inventory stood at 208 million barrels.
Source: The Seattle Times, April 26, 2007, page A1 and A13.
I am watching the oil man, Boon Pickens, on C-Span just now and he says by the end of this year (the fourth quarter) the world will be using 86 million barrels a day and producing only 83 billion a day world wide. Given that the US uses 21% of world production per day, US demand will have the most affect on driving up the price up per barrel.
Boon Pickens also doesn't have a clue about how dangerous is nuclear energy production. He has no knowledge of the numerous close-calls and accidents that could have resulted in melt downs. He has no idea about how much energy it will take to produce a nuk plant. He made a joke about the only accident he is aware of, is when someone dropped a wrench on his foot.
----------------
Click on this link and read for yourself, about how very dangerous is nuclear power. Fission Stories, Nuclear Power Secrets
Source: Everything You Know is Wrong, The Disinformation Guide to Secrets and Lies page 172.
Nuclear Power is not a solution to the coming end of cheap oil
At present there are 442 nuclear reactors in operation around the world. If, as the nuclear industry suggests, nuclear power were to replace fossil fuels on a large scale, it would be necessary to build 2000 large, 1000-megawatt reactors. Considering that no new nuclear plant has been ordered in the US since 1978, this proposal is less than practical. Furthermore, even if we decided today to replace all fossil-fuel-generated electricity with nuclear power, there would only be enough economically viable uranium to fuel the reactors for three to four years.
The true economies of the nuclear industry are never fully accounted for. The cost of uranium enrichment is subsidised by the US government. The true cost of the industry's liability in the case of an accident in the US is estimated to be $US560billion ($726billion), but the industry pays only $US9.1billion - 98per cent of the insurance liability is covered by the US federal government. The cost of decommissioning all the existing US nuclear reactors is estimated to be $US33billion. These costs - plus the enormous expense involved in the storage of radioactive waste for a quarter of a million years - are not now included in the economic assessments of nuclear electricity.
It is said that nuclear power is emission-free. The truth is very different.
In the US, where much of the world's uranium is enriched, including Australia's, the enrichment facility at Paducah, Kentucky, requires the electrical output of two 1000-megawatt coal-fired plants, which emit large quantities of carbon dioxide, the gas responsible for 50per cent of global warming.
Also, this enrichment facility and another at Portsmouth, Ohio, release from leaky pipes 93per cent of the chlorofluorocarbon gas emitted yearly in the US. The production and release of CFC gas is now banned internationally by the Montreal Protocol because it is the main culprit responsible for stratospheric ozone depletion. But CFC is also a global warmer, 10,000 to 20,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
In fact, the nuclear fuel cycle utilises large quantities of fossil fuel at all of its stages - the mining and milling of uranium, the construction of the nuclear reactor and cooling towers, robotic decommissioning of the intensely radioactive reactor at the end of its 20 to 40-year operating lifetime, and transportation and long-term storage of massive quantities of radioactive waste.
To make matters worse, a study released last week by the National Academy of Sciences shows that the cooling pools at nuclear reactors, which store 10 to 30 times more radioactive material than that contained in the reactor core, are subject to catastrophic attacks by terrorists, which could unleash an inferno and release massive quantities of deadly radiation - significantly worse than the radiation released by Chernobyl, according to some scientists.
Enclosed is a news story that tells me DoD is really worried about the end of cheap oil and natural gas.
Pentagon study says oil reliance strains military
May 1, 2007: A new study ordered by the Pentagon warns that the rising cost and dwindling supply of oil will make the US military's ability to respond to hot spots around the world "unsustainable in the long term."
Pentagon advisers believe the military's growing consumption of fossil fuels -- an increasingly expensive and scarce commodity -- leaves Pentagon leaders with little choice but to break with the past as soon as possible.
The study, produced by a defense consulting firm, concludes that all four branches of the military must "fundamentally transform" their assumptions about energy, including taking immediate steps toward fielding weapons systems and aircraft that run on alternative and renewable fuels. It is "imperative" that the Department of Defense "apply new energy technologies that address alternative supply sources and efficient consumption across all aspects of military operations," according to the report, which was provided to the Globe.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/pentagon_study_says_oil_reliance_strains_military/
The United States Military is the the world's largest fuel-burning entity. More than half of the defense department's fuel budget is spent on fueling the U.S. Air Force. The Navy consumes about one third of defense oil resources and the Army uses around 12%. 25% of military energy is used to power and heat buildings and facilities - the remaining 75% is consumed for mobility purposes. This article gives a detailed breakdown of how much oil the military machine consumes.
The U.S. government, as a whole, consumes not quite 2% of all the liquid fuel that the entire U.S. economy uses in a given year. That translates into about 440,000 barrels of oil per day, or slightly more than the entire output of the oil field at Prudhoe Bay, when the pipelines are not shut down due to corrosion. Multiply by 365 days per year, and the U.S. government burns up about 160 million barrels of oil per year, at a cost of something over $10 billion at recent price levels.
Of the total U.S. government liquid fuel use, about 97% of that is consumed by the Department of Defense
http://www.peak-oil-news.info/military-oil-usage-statistics/
This brings us to the third dimension of militarist self-generation as a global warming factor. In the face of runaway industries, the US economy has become dominated by military production. The military is now connected and conjoined to roughly 50% of all economic activity in the US. This doesn't mean that 50% of all production is military production; it means that 50% of all economic activity is associated with the military, either in the production of military hardware, the running of bases, or in ancillary industries whose major customer is the military, and who thus owe their existence and functions to that major customer. Military appropriations by Congress may be 25% of the budget, but there are ripple and multiplier effects that expand the economic involvement of the military to far beyond that 25%.
http://www.greens.org/s-r/42/42-06.html
Pentagon study says oil reliance strains military
May 1, 2007: A new study ordered by the Pentagon warns that the rising cost and dwindling supply of oil will make the US military's ability to respond to hot spots around the world "unsustainable in the long term."
Pentagon advisers believe the military's growing consumption of fossil fuels -- an increasingly expensive and scarce commodity -- leaves Pentagon leaders with little choice but to break with the past as soon as possible.
The study, produced by a defense consulting firm, concludes that all four branches of the military must "fundamentally transform" their assumptions about energy, including taking immediate steps toward fielding weapons systems and aircraft that run on alternative and renewable fuels. It is "imperative" that the Department of Defense "apply new energy technologies that address alternative supply sources and efficient consumption across all aspects of military operations," according to the report, which was provided to the Globe.
http://www.boston.
The United States Military is the the world's largest fuel-burning entity. More than half of the defense department's fuel budget is spent on fueling the U.S. Air Force. The Navy consumes about one third of defense oil resources and the Army uses around 12%. 25% of military energy is used to power and heat buildings and facilities - the remaining 75% is consumed for mobility purposes. This article gives a detailed breakdown of how much oil the military machine consumes.
The U.S. government, as a whole, consumes not quite 2% of all the liquid fuel that the entire U.S. economy uses in a given year. That translates into about 440,000 barrels of oil per day, or slightly more than the entire output of the oil field at Prudhoe Bay, when the pipelines are not shut down due to corrosion. Multiply by 365 days per year, and the U.S. government burns up about 160 million barrels of oil per year, at a cost of something over $10 billion at recent price levels.
Of the total U.S. government liquid fuel use, about 97% of that is consumed by the Department of Defense
http://www.peak-
This brings us to the third dimension of militarist self-generation as a global warming factor. In the face of runaway industries, the US economy has become dominated by military production. The military is now connected and conjoined to roughly 50% of all economic activity in the US. This doesn't mean that 50% of all production is military production; it means that 50% of all economic activity is associated with the military, either in the production of military hardware, the running of bases, or in ancillary industries whose major customer is the military, and who thus owe their existence and functions to that major customer. Military appropriations by Congress may be 25% of the budget, but there are ripple and multiplier effects that expand the economic involvement of the military to far beyond that 25%.
http://www.greens.
New Elementary School Named After Drug trafficker
Gen. Vang Pao
April 10, 2007: MADISON, Wis. -- Madison's new elementary school in the Linden Park neighborhood will be called General Vang Pao Elementary.
Officials said that more than 40 names were submitted for the school.
Vang Pao was an American-allied Hmong military leader. He was considered the preeminent leader of the Hmong people in the United States, WISC-TV reported.
But Pao isn't without controversy. A University of Wisconsin history professor,
Alfred W. McCoy, wrote of Vang Pao's involvement in the drug trade during Vietnam. This ended a bid to name a Madison city park for Pao in 2002.
Alfred W. McCoy, wrote of Vang Pao's involvement in the drug trade during Vietnam. This ended a bid to name a Madison city park for Pao in 2002.
May 2, 2007: MADISON, Wis. -- West Side parents are gathering signatures on petitions requesting that the Madison School Board reconsider the name of the city's new elementary school.
April 21, 2007: MADISON, Wis. -- The union representing Madison teachers is urging the school board to reopen the naming process for a new West Side elementary school
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes. MY NEWSLETTER has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is MY NEWSLETTER endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
my book (a draft) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newsviewsnolose2
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RunningOnEmptyDemocratCaucusWA
my book (a draft) http://groups.
http://groups.
No comments:
Post a Comment