Will FT-900 Bring about the “next 9/11” in April, 2014? What is Jeff Opdyke talking about?

Checking out the teaser pitch for Opdyke's Sovereign Investor newsletter, similar to Porter Stansberry's "July 1, 2014" dire predictions.

By Travis Johnson, Stock Gumshoe, February 12, 2014

Jeff Opdyke has a pretty inflammatory ad going around these days for The Sovereign Investor, it’s all about how the consistent export of gold from the US — as reported in form FT-900 — will lead to America experiencing it’s “next 9/11” moment in April of this year.

The basic argument is that the US Treasury Department has been secretly selling off the gold from Fort Knox for years, consistently exporting more than can be explained by the mining production and internal consumption of gold in the US, and that the global public is becoming aware of this but will be shocked into action in April.

The April date comes from the fact that he says China has tended to release information about their gold reserves only every five years or so, and they last reported their gold holdings in April, 2009. Next release, whenever (if) it comes, will call attention to the huge hoard China has been building (though it may be largely from mining, as I believe all Chinese-mined gold is required to stay in China)

Here’s what Opdyke says about the gold export anomaly:

“Here’s what I found out: Since 1991, the U.S. has been consistently exporting large quantities of gold on a net basis.

“And the amount of gold the U.S. has exported is well above and beyond what the US should be capable of exporting.

“Let me show you what I mean…

“Using data from the Gold Fields Mineral Services, the US Census Bureau, the US Mint and Bloomberg, I was able to determine the U.S. total demand and supply of gold during those 20 years.

“During that time, the U.S. had a total amount of 7,532 tons of gold available for consumption… but the U.S. consumed 7,605 tons.

“So, we consumed more than we had available to us. That implies we should have been a net importer of gold.

Are you getting our free Daily Update
"reveal" emails? If not,
just click here...


“But oddly enough, we were not. In fact, we exported a massive 5,504 tons.”

I don’t know how reliably these import/export figures describe the real situation in the world, since gold is fungible and recyclable moves around the world in both paper from and in bullion form pretty easily (it doesn’t just get exported from one place, imported to another, and consumed — it could just as easily be exported again to another customer), but there are certainly plenty of folks who believe that the Treasury is hiding empty vaults at Fort Knox. They buttress this both by saying that the Federal Reserve has been dragging its feet at Germany’s request to repatriate its gold (though that’s not at Fort Knox), and by noting that many politicians over the years have asked for audits of both Fort Knox and the Federal Reserve, to no avail.

Just as an FYI, Fort Knox is the US bullion depository — it’s the gold that the government owns, managed by the Treasury Department. The Federal Reserve doesn’t have anything to do with Fort Knox, but has a separate gold bullion depository in Manhattan that is filled with gold owned by the central banks of other countries in the world … it’s the Fed-held gold that Germany has asked to have back, not Fort Knox’s gold. I don’t know if that makes any difference in the grand scheme of things, but they are separate — the US government owns only a tiny portion of the gold that’s being held by the Fed. And yes, it seems sketchy that it is going to take the Fed seven years to give Germany its physical gold back, and that they’ll be returning less than Germany holds with the Fed in New York and less than they initially wanted back within German borders — but “seems sketchy” applies to a lot of global finance, banking, and government posturing, I don’t know if that means there’s really any problem with the availability of that gold in the Fed’s vault or not.

So the basic argument from Opdyke ends up being pretty similar to Porter Stansberry’s argument that we’re on the cusp of the global economy losing faith in the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency, and that the loss of this faith will and would mean that the dollar falls versus other currencies and against commodities, meaning imports would be more expensive for Americans and our wealth and standing in the world would be eroded. Porter also intimates that we’ll see social unrest.

There is a clean and attractive logic to all of that, and it makes some sense given the history of currencies and central banks that points to shakeups every 30, 40, 50 or 100 years, depending on who you ask — the waves of currency dominance have mostly tracked the rise and fall of global empires as the Dutch currency and Spanish currency each had a century or so of global importance before the British Pound took over in the 18th or 19th century, then the British Pound collapsed around WWI and the US dollar began to rise, followed by the gold standard being coopted in the 1930s and then abandoned in the 1970s as “fiat” currencies took over both in the US and worldwide, followed by … well, whatever happens next.

And yes, it is absolutely true that we owe much of what we take for granted — cheap imported goods, cheap energy — to the fact that pretty much everyone in the world has agreed on the dollar as their medium of exchange… and, perhaps more importantly, that we’ve been able to build up a massive debt by borrowing money in a currency whose supply we control. With it not being missed by many that we used a chunk of that borrowed money to build the most powerful military in history.

The hegemony of the dollar is clearly eroding to some degree, partly because dollars should be losing value as we print more of them in order to pay off our debts, though the dollar has held up much better than many folks expected in the last few years … arguably because most other currencies of any size seemed more dangerous, what with Greece and their ilk threatening the Euro, and China’s currency remaining under strict control, and the Japanese Yen being aggressively devalued to save that economy… etc.

I’ll leave the big picture thinking to you — I have some sympathy with the view that the US dollar should be losing value more quickly than it has, and that eventual significant devaluation is the only reasonable way to deal with our un-payable federal debt … though I also think that in the current hair-trigger world of global trading and financial engineering it’s quite possible that all of these changes happen slowly enough that the dollar doesn’t appear to crash. The logic of the dollar’s demise is almost impeccable, but logic doesn’t drive the global economy — and, as we’ve seen in the past, crises send people fleeing to the dollar even if logic tells them that the dollar is doomed. At least, so far.

And I do buy a bit of gold or silver bullion now and then to diversify my savings, I’m mindful of real assets owned by companies, and I sometimes hold foreign currencies (though I don’t have any at the moment)… but it’s worth noting that a productive company that produces or owns something important to people should be relatively agnostic, over the long term, regarding the currency in which their daily business is transacted… failing currencies wouldn’t be good for any business operating in that currency, obviously, but strong businesses have survived worse.

Porter Stansberry’s trigger point for his similarly-described collapse of the dollar is the enactment of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) this Summer — that’s the new tax and reporting regime that the US government is pushing through to improve reporting for banks and to catch more tax cheats, and that looks like it will be a big regulatory burden for banks…. and possibly a better solution to tax evasion, though I’m no expert on the details. Porter thinks that will lead banks to exit the US market and avoid the dollar. That sounds fairly extreme to me, though it will certainly impact banks if and when it’s enacted (it’s already been delayed at least once, to July 1, and many folks think the banks will keep chipping away at it and delaying it or altering it to cut out the teeth).

Otherwise, Porter is essentially spinning the same tale that he marketed extremely aggressively in his “End of America” pitch a few years ago — that you need to get into assets that you don’t have to report to the government (like American Eagle bullion coins), and get some money overseas (get a foreign bank account while you can, buy real estate in other countries), and buy farmland to protect your family, etc. etc. You can see Porter’s latest version of this spiel here if you’re so inclined.

Opdyke has a fairly similar pitch (you can see it here if you’re curious), though his trigger point is different, coming in April instead of July. The basic idea is the same: the dollar’s going to collapse, the world as you know it will change dramatically, buy something that will hold its value if the dollar falls (ie, don’t stuff your greenbacks under the mattress or in a savings account — turn them into something else).

Like Stansberry, he cites four things to do … and they’re very similar to Stansberry’s stipulations: buy precious metals, sell bonds that mature in more than five years, generate income with trading (selling options, it appears), get some of your money out of reach of the US government, and buy real estate in some select foreign countries. Frankly, it sounds kind of like Opdyke took his lead from Porter’s “End of America” spiel of a few years back and just twisted it a bit … though, to be fair, the folks who have been suggesting the decline of the American Empire have shared similar kinds of ideas for decades (and built a few newsletter-publishing empires in the process).

[And if you’re curious, Porter’s “World’s Most Valuable Asset in a Time of Crisis” is, yes, still farmland. I’m afraid I’m going to be sticking with my farm share subscription for a while and not tilling to earth myself, but still, it’s hard to argue that owning a farm is a bad thing if you’ve got money burning a hole in your pocket.]

Opdyke’s trigger point, that awakening to the fact that China has more gold than the US or than the Federal Reserve, will, he says, come not with a gradual change over decades but with a “bang” … he quotes an oft-cited study on this point:

“Economists Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff explained this phenomenon in their best-selling book ‘This Time is Different’, in which they examined hundreds of confidence crises. They call it the ‘bang’ moment. Here’s how they explain it:

‘Perhaps more than anything else, failure to recognize the precariousness and fickleness of confidence is the key factor that gives rise to the ‘this-time-is-different’ syndrome. Highly indebted governments can seem to be merrily rolling along for an extended period, when bang – confidence collapses, lenders disappear, and a crisis hits.'”

So … will a future announcement about Chinese gold reserves shock the world, or will the enforcement of FATCA drive the rest of the world away from the dollar? Will the dollar collapse with a bang or continue to deflate in value with a whimper as it has for most of the past 50 years? Or even surprise everyone and go the other direction?

I dunno. And I bet geopolitical surprises will play as much of a role as central banks and interest rates. But let’s look into what investment Opdyke is teasing as a way to protect your wealth in this eventuality.

The first thing he points to is physical bullion ownership — which Porter Stansberry and several other folks also say is important, they think it’s critical that you avoid owning just “paper gold” through ETFs or through the futures market, but own actual physical gold you can touch … or, secondarily, own real, audited, allocated gold held in some (preferably foreign) vault that you can have delivered to you if and when needed. Lots of other heavily-hyped newsletters and precious metals pundits have talked up the importance of “physical” gold and silver — I think the last time we wrote about it was for a Palm Beach Letter teaser about the “paper silver” crisis.

And there are a couple more esoteric ideas in the bunch, too, that I can’t really opine on without sounding uninformed — like the foreign real estate pitch, which has him touting a few opportunities to cut taxes by relocating overseas (including a thinly-veiled hint about “Galt’s Gulch”, which is the name often given to Doug Casey’s Cafayete, Argentina expatriate haven). It all ends up sounding like solutions for the wealthy and government-averse or profoundly tax-averse, or for the young and idealistic — who else would go to the hassle of buying foreign real estate and moving halfway around the world? It just sounds exhausting. I moved my family 600 miles in search of higher taxes and worse schools, and if I never move again I’ll be awfully pleased.

Yes, I know that Porter and others say that the “normalcy bias” leads those of us in the comfortable American middle class to think that the government won’t really get that bad or confiscatory, that “they” won’t come for our gold or our retirement accounts, and that this is a throwback to the fact that so many hundreds of thousands of Jews stayed in Nazi Germany until it was too late to escape, failing to see the clear writing on the wall … but I choose to hear that as more offensive than it is prescient.

But anyway, we do eventually get to something that’s more like an “investment” thought.

One of the ideas Opdyke pitches is related to precious metals — here’s how he teases it:

“… there’s an even better way to profit from the rise of a new monetary system. It’s a gold investment few people know exist.

“A small group of investors have figured out a unique way to profit from gold. They’re striking special deals with certain companies involved in the gold industry.

“Nolan Watson, for example, started using this strategy back in 2008. So far, he’s already increased his investment by 809%. That’s enough to turn a small investment of $25,000 into almost a quarter million dollars.

“Gold expert John Doody has increased his portfolio by more than 1,200% with this strategy. And many consider him one of the best gold investors of our time.

“Here’s what he said recently:

‘I love [this investment]. You just make these deals and move on to the next one.’

“I call this strategy ‘Golden Streams.’ And it has performed much better than the metal in recent years….

“While gold is up 61% since 2008, the ‘Golden Streams’ investment is up 352%. The good news is you can also participate in these deals right from any brokerage account.

“And what’s really amazing is this special class of gold investment has nothing to do with ETFs, bars, coins, options, mutual funds or investing directly in gold miners. And yet, it has managed to beat all those types of gold investments.

“While ‘Golden Streams’ have performed extremely well in recent years, I expect them to go parabolic once investors lose faith in the dollar.

“Even if gold moves to just $3,000 an ounce, I expect this investment will move more than 700%. That’s enough to turn each $20,000 into a little more than $165,000.”

Sound familiar? Yes, indeedy — Opdyke is teasing the old streaming/royalty concept in precious metals. Which, frankly, is my favorite way to invest in mining as well — but it’s been awful over the last year, getting much the same downside as the actual large mining stocks and falling worse than the price of gold. In general industry parlance, Streaming refers to usually larger investments made in “almost ready to produce or expand” mining operations that give the buyer the right to buy a substantial portion (typically 8-30% or so) of the gold (or silver) mined at a set price, typically fixed at roughly a third of what the then-current commodity price is.

This strategy was developed and commercialized by Silver Wheaton (SLW), which made streaming deals for silver with big non-silver mines (silver being a valuable byproduct that the miners could monetize by pre-selling it to SLW). Nolan Watson was the CFO at Silver Wheaton when they perfected this model, and later went on to found Sandstorm Gold (SAND, SSL in Canada), which is presumably one of the stocks being teased here, and Sandstorm Metals and Energy (SND in Canada, STTYF on the pink sheets), which focuses on base metals (and is still a bit of a train wreck after some bad deals). Sandstorm Gold continues to be my largest mining investment and largest and preferred gold equity investment, but it’s sure been a rough ride as gold has fallen.

Royalties are often the result of investments made into a mining project at a much earlier stage, or of early work by a prospector or settlement to a land owner, and if bought they cost the investor less than streaming deals, and they yield a flat percentage-of-the-gold (or other metal) produced that’s typically far smaller (1-5% or so). The two largest passive gold mining investment companies are mostly royalty owners, Franco-Nevada (FNV) and Royal Gold (RGLD), though they also do both own some streaming deals and some non-gold assets.

So it’s hard to picture a world in which those aren’t the three “Golden Streams” investments Opdyke teases, if only because they’re by far the largest and most accomplished and viable of the existing royalty/streaming companies that are gold-focused — unless you throw in Silver Wheaton in place of one of those to get your silver exposure instead of gold (SLW has a little gold exposure too, but it’s very small)… SLW has been by far the most volatile of the four over the years, but is also by far the largest (the volatility comes largely from the fact that silver has almost always been much more volatile than gold). All four of those streaming/royalty firms are up since 2010 or so … but all are also down considerably (dramatically, even) from their highs of late 2012, when all the world seemed to think that gold and silver were simply not allowed to fall in price. Leverage is fun when prices are moving up and a $100 move in the price of gold causes your stock to go up to 20 or 30% in a month or two, but when gold falls 25% that same leverage means your stock can fall by 50%, sometimes more.

The John Doody quote, by the way, is from a conference call the Phase 1 Investor folks had with Nolan Watson, SAND’s CEO, when they recommended that stock a couple years ago — we covered their teaser pitch for it at the time, but Sandstorm Gold has since put the transcript up online here.

And yes, Opdyke and I aren’t the only ones who like the idea of these “passive” precious metals investments — the benefit of royalties and streaming deals is that you don’t have to worry too much about cost inflation in mining, or about delays in mine development causing a cash crisis or dilution … on the flip side, the downside of these kinds of deals is that same passivity — you end up pretty stuck if the operator is desperate for cash or losing money and can’t finish building the mine, or simply decides to shut the mine down for a while if prices are low. Diversification should help with that, as will counting on Sandstorm or Royal Gold or Franco-Nevada to choose projects wisely, projects that are sustainable and profitable and low-cost, with potential upside from future exploration or expansion … but it does sometimes backfire on the royalty or streaming deal owner if a few partners go bad at once. That’s how Sandstorm Metals & Energy got into trouble a while back, and it’s hitting Sandstorm Gold a little bit right now — the larger RGLD, SLW and FNV are reliant on a few tentpole projects but otherwise are far more diversified than the smaller SAND.

So … all that gives you something to chew on when it comes to the “big picture” stuff … and at least a few royalty and streaming stocks to consider that are likely Jeff Opdyke’s three “Golden Streams.” Got an opinion on any of it? Well, what are you waiting for? That friendly little comment box below isn’t going to fill itself …


Irregulars Quick Take

Paid members get a quick summary of the stocks teased and our thoughts here. Join as a Stock Gumshoe Irregular today (already a member? Log in)

205
Share your thoughts...

avatar
61 Comment threads
144 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
100 Comment authors
himagaindesi erasmustes1900ROBERT ROARKWA1 Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

WGH
Guest
WGH

Gold should be traded at (max) $800 an ounce. The $US dollar will continue to be strengthened for years to come (especially when the US start exporting LNG). Opdyke and Porter are self serving investors.

Add a Topic
210
Add a Topic
653
misterkel
Guest

Not sure about that gold thesis.
Check out the book Gold Wars: Battle for the Global Economy – trending on Amazon.
It’s good on specifics of manipulation and FRN strains, but doesn’t prognosticate on outcomes too much.

Dollar will continue to slowly decline while China accumulates gold. China will gradually put the Rem into global circulation with a gold backing and bid for the world reserve currency status. With the BRICS rising power and the disgust at US actions and hegemony, they will likely win the day, but it will play out fairly slowly.
my $.02

Add a Topic
210
Add a Topic
210
Add a Topic
34
Jem Crowne
Guest
Jem Crowne

What is Rem?

jambola16
Member
👍0
jambola16

chinese currency is yuan or remnibi(rem)

Robbo
Guest
Robbo

Stansberry is a fraud (has been sued by SEC. His mentor, Mark Ford is an even greater fraud…you can google him…he even changed his name.

Add a Topic
1696
archives2001
Irregular
👍89
archives2001

These characters all belong to the conglomerate of James Dale Davidson:
check him out.

David A
Guest
David A

Blah Blah Blah. I have followed much of advice and made a lot of money. And I mean a lot. I am amazed at how much S&A bashing goes on here. Perhaps jealousy. I could care less what “he” is or is not. I’m laughing all the way to the bank.

Mike
Guest
Mike

Not to sound persnickety, but it’s “couldn’t care less”, not could care less!

wendy3491
Member
👍0
wendy3491

Nice to see someone finally pointin out this pervasive error. Thanks

wendy3491
Member
👍0
wendy3491

Just saw my typo: it should be “pointing” instead of “pointin.”

Joe
Guest
Joe

There is noting wrong with “I could care less.” It is the subjunctive. This least understood and and most badly used part of the English language can yet be highly expressive. Many professional grammarians do not have a feel for it, thus the endless, pointless and boring arguments about “I could care less.” The subjunctive is used to express wishes, possibilities, no possibility, hypothetical situations and all the things that are not completely real. Could, would and should are words that often express the subjunctive. In the phrase, “I could care less,” the speaker is saying that there is no… Read More »

Joe
Guest
Joe

Sorry – a few minor typos in my post.

David A
Guest
David A

This is old news. Blah Blah Blah. I continue to make money from his knowledge.

David
Guest
David

Sounds like sour grapes to me. I have made a lot of money with them. So either I am delerious or you are an idiot.

johnkerttu
Member
👍15
johnkerttu

What did you make money on?

takeprofits
Member
👍416

Yes indeed,, a $17.5 Trillion debt should certainly inspire confidence in the U.S. dollar which has already lost at minimum, 95% of its original purchasing power. My question to WGH that started this thread would be, where do you come up with a fair price for gold at a maximum of $800.? You present ZERO facts to back up your “opinion” which you are certainly entitled too, but that is all it is, but not a very well informed opinion. Based on the amount of “dollars” created out of thin air in just the last decade, having ZERO intrinsic value,… Read More »

Add a Topic
210
Add a Topic
210
Steven White
Guest
Steven White

Well said.

sunny
Guest

what do u think about gold this month

Add a Topic
210
robinsteel
Member
👍6

thanks Myron…where may I read more of your Junior mining articles?

himagain
Guest
himagain

Being at the other end of the planet does give one a better perspective on matters, I believe, but doesn’t allay fears or improve accuracy by much, however: Do we really believe that it isn’t all, meaning ALL, just a Ponzi scheme? Of course in Comment areas of most Websites there is the typical spread from very clever to moronic, understandably, but where are the discussions about the real causes for inflation/deflation, the insanity of currency value shifts? I actually did personally gain considerably from oh, yes, definitely insider knowledge in the truest sense , when told exactly what when… Read More »

Add a Topic
1270
Add a Topic
247
Add a Topic
210
Ronald E. Baker
Guest
Ronald E. Baker

Porter Stansberry has gone on like this for years, much like his “Randy” mentor Doug Casey. I recall his other mentor, Bill Bonner of Agora Inc, fomenting similar terror through James Dale Davidson,s little treatises in the 1994 to 1996 era, with essentially the same pitch as Porter recent diatribes. One of the worst of Porter’s “doomsday disasters ahead” rhetoric was his prediction of the collapse and bankruptcy of General Electric in 2010, set to occur by 2011 or 2012. His promotion of Casey’s valhalla in Argentina, in light of recent financial chaos there ,offered his readers a similar escape… Read More »

Add a Topic
388
Add a Topic
2756
Add a Topic
753
GALT
Guest
GALT

Your clues seem to suggest “hydrogen”, with solar power ( used as electricity ) to electrolyze water into it’s component parts. H2 & O……..unfortunately, the process is “inefficient” from an energy perspective…..in that it requires more energy to separate the elements, than one gets when one burns them, although the burning is efficient and produces pure water as a result. If one regards externalities and prices them into the final result, this method is preferable to all other energy sources, and given total solar energy potential, production of hydrogen gas as a combustable fuel, where required would cancel the inefficiencies,… Read More »

Add a Topic
540
Add a Topic
540
Add a Topic
1340
Leo S
Guest
Leo S

Galt, You are correct. You cannot repeal the second law of thermodynamics, which is the conservation of energy.

Ventureshadow
Guest
Ventureshadow

1st law of thermodynamics = conservation of energy
2nd law of thermodynamics = entropy increases with time

Frank
Guest
Frank

Good work Ventureshadow.
Too many people want to talk about Second Law of Thermodynamics without knowing what it is!

John Harris
Guest
John Harris

If the very real and measured climate change we see happening is actually caused by Humans burning carbon based fuels (coal, oil, natural gas, and wood), as most world scientists agree is the case (though many republicans and their big business and oil and coal supporters deny that for obviously self serving reasons), well if we are changing the climate as seems to be true, we must move from gasoline and liquid fuels for transportation to something else. Electricity is fine for short hops but batteries are just not the ticket for long drives in cars let alone in trucks,… Read More »

Add a Topic
1337
Add a Topic
359
Add a Topic
338
Ray
Guest
Ray

While it is possible that burning carbon based fuels (coal, oil, natural gas, and wood) does cause some global warming it is far less than the earth’s wobble and our sun getting hotter. Burning less will help but only delay the final outcome.

Add a Topic
1337
Add a Topic
359
Add a Topic
338
jimfire
Guest
jimfire

Man have you drank the global warming kool-aid The number one global warming gas is water vapor aka clouds, so burning hydrogen will just warm the earth faster you idiot.There is no proof that co2 is warming the earth it is only .06 percent of air and weighs 1.5 times heavier imagine that it stays low to the ground by the plants that breath it. Maybe you should study science instead of listen to phony scientist on the government payout trying to steal our money.

Add a Topic
540
John Harris
Guest
John Harris

Maybe Jimfire, you should read a bit first before calling others idiots. Start here for instance http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm as it debunks your claim that hydrogen will warm the earth faster. Yes water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas, but it constantly recycles itself as rain or snow back to the earth. The amount held as clouds or vapor is dependent on the temperature overall of the earth. The warmer the earth (from say other gases like CO2 that persist for a long time) the more water vapor that evaporates from the oceans and lakes. That actually amplifies the warming of the… Read More »

Add a Topic
540
Add a Topic
540
Add a Topic
540
Cornel
Guest
Cornel

To John Harris: You said “Hydrogen is the answer for such a fuel that does not contribute CO2 to the earth. Sure it takes more energy to separate it from water than you get back”. My reply to your statement is just where the hell is all this energy to make hydrogen going to come from? It will come from fossil fuels. I don’t know anyone stupid enough to spend more fossil fuel energy to produce less of their so called “clean” energy! Look at it this way…a gasoline engine produces first generation energy. An engine running on Hydrogen will… Read More »

Add a Topic
540
John Harris
Guest
John Harris

To Cornel: I suppose I am longwinded and write more than you can manage to read in one setting. I apologize. But had you read all of that post (or thought about all the various sources of energy) you would realize that electicity can be made in lots of ways other than burning carbon fuels. Nuclear is the elephant in the room for robust dependable electric power with no CO2 emissions but there are a slew of other sources of electricity that produce less or intermittent electricity without burning carbon fuels from hydroelectric, to solar, wind, geo-thermal, and even tides.… Read More »

Adam Roberts
Guest
Adam Roberts

If the powers that be would dump (not literally -) the uranium and switch to thorium based reactors, we could temporarily solve the energy problem… at least until all the kinks could be worked out on a mass scale hydrogen infrastructure. Thorium cannot be used to destroy the planet so I guess the neocons frown on it’s use. Energy is everywhere and energy cannot be destroyed, it can only be transformed into different forms. There are enough sources of consistent (free) energy on this planet, other than fossil fuels, to provide us all with the electricity we demand. Ocean tides,… Read More »

Add a Topic
520
Add a Topic
1487
Add a Topic
1487
Brian
Guest

Couldn’t we covert a Nuclear Power Plant to Make Hydrogen. Then Store or Pipeline that as a replacement of Gas. I realize there still is a carbon footprint in the mininng and construction of a facility. Also i have seen articles on using existing nuclear waste as fuel for more modern reactors.

John Harris
Guest
John Harris

To Brian, To make hydrogen you need electricity which can break apart the two hydrogen atoms from the oxygen in water (H2O). You would still need that nuclear plant (or a new version based on say thorium instead of uranium) to create the clean electricity to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen. And yes breeder reactors (used a lot in France) can be fueled by the waste from the conventional nuclear plants – but alas breeders don’t make plutonium that can make bombs so here in America we had no use for breeders and as a result we can’t seem… Read More »

Add a Topic
540
Add a Topic
1487
Add a Topic
520
Alan Harris
Guest
Alan Harris

Theres a zillion ways to generate power….all have some form of pollution. But the trick is to generate it centrally so that the pollution can be captured and contained with rather than being spewed out of a grillion exhaust pipes all round the country. I really like the idea of splitting water into hydrogen which when burned turns back into water. It doesnt matter that its ‘inefficient’. Hydro power goes 24/7 and is mostly wasted at night. Ditto wind/wave power. Loads of nuclear is wasted off peak. Look at all this shale gas! Converting any waste energy to hydrogen, so… Read More »

Add a Topic
540
Add a Topic
540
John Harris
Guest
John Harris

To Alan, Nice last name by the way…. I suppose you can say that nuclear or hydroelectric make some form of pollution but so far as I can see that would only be during the construction of the dam or the nuclear plant. Once running hydro has virtually no pollutant emissions. Nuclear needs thorium (or uranium) that gets dug out of the ground with machines that pollute and transported by truck or train that presently pollute. But Thorium is a waste by-product of almost all mining operations so I discount the digging leaving just the loading and transport – and… Read More »

Add a Topic
1487
Add a Topic
520
Add a Topic
1487
Alan Harris
Guest
Alan Harris

Hi Bro ‘arris. Maybe I was a little narrow in my definition of pollution. Maybe I should have said risk of…..
….’ So I see nuclear as virtually pollution free…… ‘
Go tell that to the Japanese!!