Pentagon cuts aircraft carrier presence in the Gulf due to budget

[Fog]

Developing North American hydrocarbon reserves has nothing to do w/ idealism and everything to do w/ national security, soundness of the US$ and the long-term viability of the US Navy. National security is involved because we would no longer have to be super-cop in the Mideast if we produce our own needs of crude & NG (refining capacity is another issue). Soundness of the US$ is involved because our current Fed policy of printing $$ to purchase Treasury Debt is devaluing the US$ & is what's pushing up the price of crude. The LT viability of the Navy is involved because our Mideast policy of the past decade is wearing out ships, a/c & budgets at an unsustainable rate. Being 69 yrs old has certain advantages of historical perspective. Also, I did spend 20 yrs of active/reserve duty in the USN and 30+ yrs of international & large corporate banking experience w/ Fortune 500 banks. Just sayin' for all the 30 somethings that lecture us daily on this board. If we feel there is value in open & honest exchanges of experiences & POV, let's hear each other out w/out being condescending to our shipmates.

 

[Renegade One]

WE could be building 20 new nuke electrical-power generating facilities per year around America if we so chose instead of greasing the palms of BHO's campaign donors. There, I feel much better after saying that.

As soon as the many and various Native American tribes with substantial land holdings understand that there's more money to be made from NP electrical-generation plants than from casinos…all will be well.

 

[xj220]

Seriously, nuclear power is the way to go, but when you have disasters such as Japan, then people get all freaked out. Europe (especially Germany) and Japan are big on nuclear power.

 

[Flash]

Seriously, nuclear power is the way to go, but when you have disasters such as Japan, then people get all freaked out. Europe (especially Germany) and Japan are big on nuclear power.

It was a pretty bad accident with very long, as in hundreds of years, aftereffects. Don't forget Chernobyl either, Europe was downwind of that. And Germany isn't so big on nuke power anymore and neither is Japan, Germany pans to decommission their nuke power plants over the next few years while Japan is effectively doing the same, sort of. It is probably France you are thinking of with nuke power, most of their electricity is from it.

 

[xj220]

You're right, it is France. I understand the dangers associated with nuclear plants, too. There are long term affects and it can be dangerous if not careful or if something goes wrong, but there's so much potential with them. We can't keep using fossil fuels forever.

 

[Fog]

Just my 2 cents: Japan is an archipelago on the Pacific Rim (of Fire); much too geologically active to be an optimal site for nuke generating plants. Germany's "Green" (i.e., Communists) Party went to the streets in the 70's to raise hell & stop their foray into nuke plants; California on the San Andreas Fault might not be too smart, but the rest of the state & the US (well, parts of Alaska aren't good) should be fine for more nuke plants.

 

[xj220]

I posted this once before but it's worth bringing up again:

We don't have to convert entirely to nuclear power, but we definitely can build enough reactors to start taking the place of things such as coal and natural gas. Granted, this is 2008 so I'd like to see what 2012 looks like. Ultimately, transportation is the biggest user of petroleum.

 

[xj220]

Found it:

 

[Spekkio]

Seriously, nuclear power is the way to go, but when you have disasters such as Japan, then people get all freaked out. Europe (especially Germany) and Japan are big on nuclear power.

Nuclear power is not the way to go. It's all about the Benjamins.

Right now (and in the foreseeable future), it costs more per kW/hr of power for nuclear power than for power obtained by burning fossil fuels. The costs of engineering triple safeguards to everything, machining materials capable of withstanding extreme temperatures and pressures, and paying a highly skilled crew to operate and maintain the plants make nuclear power uneconomical as a long-term power supply source. Couple this with the drastic repercussions that come from nuclear accidents or disasters, and you have a recipe for something that is not likely to take off on a mass scale.

Additionally, as the graph shows, portable equipment from cars to chainsaws to bulldozers all require fossil fuels to run. Electric motors don't have enough endurance to apply them in industrial and commercial uses, and they are much more expensive to boot.

 

[SkywardET]

Developing North American hydrocarbon reserves has nothing to do w/ idealism and everything to do w/ national security, soundness of the US$ and the long-term viability of the US Navy. National security is involved because we would no longer have to be super-cop in the Mideast if we produce our own needs of crude & NG (refining capacity is another issue). Soundness of the US$ is involved because our current Fed policy of printing $$ to purchase Treasury Debt is devaluing the US$ & is what's pushing up the price of crude. The LT viability of the Navy is involved because our Mideast policy of the past decade is wearing out ships, a/c & budgets at an unsustainable rate. Being 69 yrs old has certain advantages of historical perspective. Also, I did spend 20 yrs of active/reserve duty in the USN and 30+ yrs of international & large corporate banking experience w/ Fortune 500 banks. Just sayin' for all the 30 somethings that lecture us daily on this board. If we feel there is value in open & honest exchanges of experiences & POV, let's hear each other out w/out being condescending to our shipmates.

I think you hit the nail on the head, especially WRT the reason for the price of crude. The supply/demand dynamics of crude oil is one thing, but the other side of the transaction is usually in dollars so the supply/demand dynamics of dollars matters too! It is too easy to overlook very important aspects of the economy.

 

[Renegade One]

Nuclear power is not the way to go. ... as the graph shows...

Yeah, the graph TOTALLY did it for me. Thanks.

 

[phrogdriver]

Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels can't help but be good on multiple levels, economic (dollars staying here), national security (reduced dependence on countries that are assholes), and environmental (global warming). Pick your flavor. Its a win for the home team no matter how you score it. It's the means that always kick us in the ass, not to mention the lobbyists for petroleum companies.

The carrier "requirement" in the Middle East is an outgrowth of the region's outsized importance due to petroleum, both for us and the other industrialized nations. Most of that oil may not physically go to us, but since oil is fungible, what happens to that oil affects the oil that is physically headed our way. We're dead last among the Western nations on reducing fossil fuel dependence, and need to get on that train.

That said, the price of empire has gotten way too high, relative to the payoff. We are bankrupting ourselves, and the rest of the world is freeloading off of us. We are setting ourselves up for a massive, catastrophic fall later by hanging on to this fiction now. We need to scale back our comittments overseas and the military that goes with it.

 

[Renegade One]

...the price of empire has gotten way too high... We need to scale back our comittments overseas and the military that goes with it.

Tell me more about our "empire". I don't think we've gained a single acre of "empire" since before I was born.

 

[insanebikerboy]

Electric motors don't have enough endurance to apply them in industrial and commercial uses, and they are much more expensive to boot.

So all of the motors that we run in plants, factories, etc, etc, are steam powered? That's news to me.

 

[Spekkio]

So all of the motors that we run in plants, factories, etc, etc, are steam powered? That's news to me.

Don't be obtuse. I gave three examples of portable vehicles/tools that would have to run on batteries, not motors that can be connected to a constant power supply. It's not economical to use batteries that last for a couple hours and take a whole work day to recharge.