Slashdot Mirror

That would be the propaganda pushers who tell us about that. That was the whole purpose of my post, in case you weren't paying attention.

Well yes, obviously, and in case you weren't paying attention I was accusing you of being a propaganda pusher yourself.

(maybe you should smoke a little bit less)

If you know a way to smoke less than none at all, feel free to let me know.

Yes, sarcasm doesn't always come across well in text.

First of all, I'm not calling the police evil myself. I'm using that description in reference to the way that the propagandists portray them.

Obviously.

The wikipedia link I posted wasn't too informative, but his case was the first one that came up from a quick google search and the 'blog heresay' and press background sounded fairly convincing. In that case, it seems like he was probably reckless with his gun, but most likely scared out of his wits believing that he was being robbed. Even the fox news article (got help me, I'm citing fox news) linked to in the wikipedia article says:

What's clear, though, is that Chesepeake police conducted a raid on a man with no prior criminal record. Even if their informant had been correct, Frederick was at worst suspected of growing marijuana plants in his garage. There was no indication he was a violent man -- that it was necessary to take down his door after nightfall.

In any case, does the Cato institute count as a pro-pot propaganda organization (god help me, I'm linking to the Cato institute)? www.cato.org/raidmap/ (note, I can't tell when that map was updated).
What about police chiefs?

At first, Modesto Police Chief Roy Wasden seemed to be moved by Sepulveda's death toward genuine reform. "What are we gaining by serving these drug warrants?" Wasden is quoted as asking in the Modesto Bee. "We ought to be saying, 'It's not worth the risk. We're not going to put our officers and community at risk anymore.'"

I'm getting power piped into my home at a few cents a kilowatt from a nuke plant ten minutes drive from here.

Without subsidies, never mind the cost of cleaning up, that nuclear power plant isn't profitable.

And the power plant will last a lot longer than solar cells stapled to some roof will.

And leave a lot of hazardous waste. Meanwhile as technology improves those solar cells can be replaced.

Falcon

If the new technologies being talked about, worked on, etc. are not economically feasible because of the current price of other energy generation, too bad.

Yea, because alternative energy sources can't compeat with coal they shouldn't get subsidies. Only coal, and nuclear, should get subsidies. Here's Chevron teeming with the Sierra Club to end coal subsidies. And here's the freemarket CATO Institute reprinting a Forbes article saying Nuclear power is "Hooked On Subsidies".

The U.S. government is (and has been) in the hands of A) lunatics and B) people that couldn't run a business if their lives depended on it (the greatest majority of them, in any case).

Like the coal and nuclear industries, we even go to war over oil.

Falcon

IFR's. There are enough fissionable materials already mined for 100 years of energy production, the waste from IFRs are only a concern for 500 years vs 10,000 for once-thru reactors

I am not opposed to reprocessing waste that has already been created by the nuclear industry. But I am opposed to government subsidies. If businesses want to build and operate plants then they should have to get Wall Street bankers finance them, get private insurance, and deal with the resulting waste themselves. Of course they won't, without government subsidies nuclear power is not profitable.

And to be sure, it's not just the nuclear industry I don't want subsidized. I don't want coal, petroleum, or other sources of energy subsidized either. Farm subsidies, as are others, are bad as well.

Falcon

That is a funny thing to say considering that in 2007 the U.S. gave 4,875 million dollars to renewables (81% in Tax credits) opposed to 1,267 million dollars to nuclear (72% R&D) and 5,451 million dollars to Coal/Petroleum/Natural Gas.

According to the freemarket think tank CATO, and business magazines "Forbes" and "Fortune" nuclear power would not be profitable without government subsidies, which go directly to large businesses. Most subsidies for alternative energy goes to those who buy these systems for their own use. According the article "Nuclear energy relies on taxpayer subsidies" nuclear power gets more in subsidies than what you say. According to the article "Nuclear power is not competitive with coal, natural gas"
"Congress created a $20 billion loan guarantee program for constructing new nuclear power plants; a $2 billion subsidy for developing uranium enrichment facilities in the United States; $2 billion in risk insurance for nuclear power plants facing delays due to regulations or public opposition; a $1.3 billion subsidy for decommissioning older nuclear power plants; $1.2 billion in reactor research; a $0.018 per kilowatt-hour subsidy for electricity produced by new nuclear power plants; and liability protections worth billions of dollars."
Falcon

There may be enough wind in the world to supply our need 40 times over, but is the cost of tapping the energy source competitive with the cost of coal, gas, or nuclear power?

All of this get subsidies, as well as pass costs to others. Coal slurry spills happen all too frequently. Mountain top removal contaminates a lot of land. As does uranium mining. Without government subsidies nuclear power isn't even profitable. Though natural gas emits a lot less CO2 than coal when burned it releases a lot more methane, which is more than 20 tymes as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2. Then it needs pipelines to deliver it.

Well, actually, just because those two articles found negative aspects of nuclear power price, I dug out the following page about nuclear power in Finland. Here the price of nuclear power was EUR 2.37 c/kWh, when the closest second one, coal was 2.81 c/kWh. Wind power was somewhere around 5 c/kWh. The point is, maybe the US are unable to build profitable nuclear power, but that doesn't make nuclear power unprofitable. The same stands for uranium mining. Just because the US has one/some mines that have issues, is no reason to condemn uranium mining in general, at least with modern methods.

The only people who think wind turbines are a good idea are naive Greenists and wind turbine companies.

And those who think they are a bad idea are investors in and or workers for other power companies if not fools. I am neither one of your "Greenists" nor work for a wind turbine company. I'm not an investor in one either. What I am is someone who thinks there is no "1 answer" to the question of where energy will come from. We need a mix of different energy sources. And preferably none will get government subsidies, like coal and nuclear power.

Falcon

I'm curious, what do you think would be an appropriate penalty for nuclear power, and for what? Are you talking about waste disposal or accident insurance or what?

I wouldn't penalize nuclear power but I would stop giving them massive subsidies. Nuclear Power is "Hooked on Subsidies". Even in China, France, India, and Russia. "How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."

Falcon

There may be enough wind in the world to supply our need 40 times over, but is the cost of tapping the energy source competitive with the cost of coal, gas, or nuclear power?

All of this get subsidies, as well as pass costs to others. Coal slurry spills happen all too frequently. Mountain top removal contaminates a lot of land. As does uranium mining. Without government subsidies nuclear power isn't even profitable. Though natural gas emits a lot less CO2 than coal when burned it releases a lot more methane, which is more than 20 tymes as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2. Then it needs pipelines to deliver it.

We know that there are all sorts of natural energy sources around us, but its the financial cost that keeps us from recovering it.

More like it's politics. If financial costs were that important there would be no nuclear power. As I said before even coal gets subsidies. "Chevron agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies". In "My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!' Rep Edward Markey goes over some of the subsidies different energy sources get.

Personaly I think that we really ought to build more nuclear power plants. Yes there is waste but overall it is fairly clean and cheap and would do more for preserving the environment and supplying electricity than this would.

BS. Mining for nuclear fuel is probably the dirtiest mining there is. Reprocessing, sure fuel can be reprocessed but as the world leader in reprocessing France found it leaves behind a lot of toxic chemicals. Not only that but if not for massive government subsidies nuclear power would not be profitable, it may actually loose money. Here's an article from a Wall Street Journal blog: "It's the Economics, Stupid: Nuclear Power's Bogeyman. The Freemarket think tank CATO reprinted this Forbes article "Hooked on Subsidies. Notice this paragraph:
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."

Falcon

Great you invented the Zero, maybe. The Babylonions were using a zero style placeholder several thousand years before the "invention" of zero by India in roughly 600AD.
I do also need to point out the completely independant use and understanding of the concept of Zero by the American Olmec civilization and is later adoption by the Mayans.
I will also mention the widespread use of a zero/placeholder by most of the BC civilizations surrounding the Babylonions, as well as the philosophical arguments surrounding use of a zero by the Greeks.

So, I don't think that you can really claim credit for the zero, but you sure are eager to claim credit for something that happened well over a thousand years ago as your claim to fame, but what has India done recently that is worth a damn?

The United States of America signed the declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. The question was, what has India done for the USA in the 200+ years that our country has been in existence?
What the hell has India done for our country since then, hmm? Nothing in particular comes to mind. On the other hand, India has received more foreign aid from the USA than any other developing country since World War 2.

I really wish we could stop keeping your lame ass country afloat.

Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C, libertarian think tank.

Amazing how little press it's gotten.

You mean like AIG, Wall Street, all these stupid banks involved in subprime mortgage scams, GM and Chrysler... Oh wait they didnt fail they got a bail out.

The fact they were bailed out shows there wasn't a freemarket. Under a free market the government would have let all of them fail and declare bankrupty. Many of those who support a free market opposed them. Here's some articles from the freemarket think-tank CATO. Here's more articles from the Libertarian Party, with more from the magazine "Reason". All of them support freemarkets.

Falcon

Citation needed.

Go look it up.

You made the assertion not me, so you need to back it up.

This is obvious when you consider that they're poorer that the people in north arlington and don't usually call the cops.

DUH! They don't call police because they could be arrested themselves. By allowing them to be here legally they are more likely to report crimes. That doe snot mean they are committing the crimes!

This isn't immigration, because they aren't allowed to be here. Go tell socal it's for their own good that their schools and hospitals are overrun by illegals.

You need to look up the definition of immigration, here it is: "noun: migration into a place (especially migration to a country of which you are not a native in order to settle there". They are immigrants, those who immigrate.

Guess what? These guys aren't starting businesses, they're working for cheap and generally are a drain financially.

More start businesses as a percentage than native born people do.

Great, they live 4 to a bedroom, spend like misers and send money out of our economy.

And they pay rent, buy food, and spend money too. Those they send money too also want to buy American goods as well, which improves export.

Did you ever think that the reason mexico is such a shithole is that the government exports its underclass to us?

Did you think this through? Mexico was a shithole before a lot of Mexicans started crossing the border. Not the other way around. And you can blame that partially on NAFTA. When US businesses can buy, export, and sell corn in Mexico cheaper than Mexican farmers can grow it because those businesses receive billions in US taxpayer dollars in subsidies they can't compeat. You want to blame someone for illegal immigrants, blame Cargill, one of the largest private corporations in the world, and Archer Daniels Midland, ADM. Both are good examples of corporate welfare. They get billions of your taxpayer dollars, that can't be said enough, and you complain about Mexican illegal immigrants.

Lock down the borders and make it impractical to come here and work illegally, and see if they don't riot.

Yea, and let's call it the Berlin, er Apartheid Wall. Let's also say "fuck you" to those who have the right to cross the border such as the Tohono O'odham Nation. Let's split up families that live on opposite sides of a line on a map, but within a short walking distance.

Falcon

The problem with Nuclear energy in this country is that it has been demonized - Look at the media reaction to TMI

The problem with nuclear power is that it is dirty; it takes years to build, the last power plant that went online took more than 20 years to build; and private businesses and people, Wall Street; will not pay for it without massive subsidies from the government. Not even libertarian free market institutes say that without these subsidies nuclear power plants will be built.

Falcon

environment

2. Ignoring know safe energy production of nuclear

Safe nuclear power? Maybe but it's not clean. And businesses won't spend money on it unless they receive massive subsidies. Not even France has profitable nuclear power without subsidies.

Sorry, the government does more damage

You're right here. In the US, as I'm pretty sure is the same in other nations, the government is the biggest polluter.

The preponderance of evidence against many forms of man made global warming is building faster than support for it.

Where's your source? It's not online but the American Geological Institute's "Earth" magazine published an article in it's November 2008 issue titled "Climate Skeptics in Retreat". Science is proving the skeptics wrong, but they just use the bait and switch tactic.

They are going to create a new government bureaucracy where we already have more than one which does the same job.

Unfortunately I have this fear you're right. We already have 2 bureaucracies that could do this, plus a third that does some of it too, why create another one?

Falcon

You obviously haven't been paying attention to some of the laws that have been passed or proposed recently... like the one some people have called, "The Incumbent Protection Act"... better known as McCain-Feingold. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6074 (item 6). Or the "Clean Elections" stuff going on in South Carolina... http://www.gtowntimes.com/story/Jill-Kelso_-Clean-Elections-Act- (second-to-last paragraph). Everything else you speak of is already covered by various laws about harassment, libel, slander, and such.

The point of my post is that we have invested trillions of dollars in military superiority, and while we can blow up anything we like, we seem to be suffering from the same fate as other imperial powers. A hard, dedicated, local resistance cannot be surmounted unless you kill a good portion of the population to scare them, and even then some will never tolerate outsiders controlling their land or telling them what to do.

When Afghanistan was ruled totally by the Taliban, and they were doing the raping and murdering and burning of schools, we didn't give a shit, and Afghanistan did not attack any American interests. They happened to be the place where Saudi Arabians chose to train terrorists, but we didn't really care about that either, until 9/11. As long as their own local warlords were keeping things quiet, and doing what we told them to, we had no need for expensive military operations in that region. We didn't care how many people they beheaded or women they raped. Colin Powell announced a 43 million dollar grant in May of 2001 in order to reward them with stopping the opium growing in their country (which didn't happen).

If the American government did care about democratic processes, why do we support the monarchy of Saudi Arabia? Why did we overthrow the democratic government of Iran? Afghanistan and Iraq are important if America is interested in maintaining empire, by having control over energy resources. Otherwise, they are like Africa to us. I follow the money, because money matters to everyone. And how much does America spend building democracies versus blowing nations up that don't toe the line? To me, that is the equation that represents our real interest in freedom. And if you believe otherwise, I don't think I'm the one being naive.

More in line with this conversation, I have no illusions about the Taliban, but I also have no illusions about the Northern Alliance, or the fact that we created radical Afghanistan, along with Russia.

On April 14, 1979, the Afghan government requested that the USSR send 15 to 20 helicopters with their crews to Afghanistan, and on June 16, the Soviet government responded and sent a detachment of tanks, BMPs, and crews to guard the government in Kabul and to secure the Bagram and Shindand airfields.

-Wikipedia

Now, why was the Afghan government requesting Soviet military assistance? To help thwart a fundamentalist Muslim uprising. Or, as we knew them in 1980, the "freedom fighters." Or as we knew them in the late 90s, the Taliban. Or as we know them now, the "terrorists."

We have tried using the military for decades, and we have never introduced a lasting democracy into a previously undemocratic country by force. So instead of dropping enough ammunition on Afghanistan to eclipse the value of their GDP, why don't build something there instead? Even if they burn it down ten times over, we'd still save money.

free-market evangelists never mention anything about it

Yep, they surely don't: http://mises.org/story/2190 http://mises.org/story/2259 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1020

From your other posts in this thread you're generally a pretty rational environmentalist, so much so i sent you an email.

I try to be rational. I started calling myself an ecologist instead of environmentalist because I disapprove of some of the antics other environmentalists use. I understand but disapprove. As for emailing me, unless you put slashdot in the subject line I'll probably delete it without reading it.

However I am disappointed to find that you are in the knee-jerk nuclear crowd. Yes nuclear isn't "perfectly clean" but a proper nuclear energy generation system, with spent fuel recylcing

I guess you didn't read enough of my posts on nuclear power. Yes, I oppose it but I can change my mind if it can be shown it can be cleaned up, and here's a big one, Wall Street will finance it NOT the government. The article "Nuclear Energy: Risky Business" published on the Libertarian Free Market CATO Institute website says that even in France, India, and Russia businesses don't find nuclear power profitable. And they don't have the laws and regulations the US does. Here's the quote:"
"Given all of this, how do France, India, China, and Russia build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Government officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Either these governments build expensive plants and shove them down the market's throat-or they build shoddy plants and hope for the best."

Fission power, per gigawatt, is FAR cleaner than coal. Which would you rather have - some radioactive waste we have to find an already ruined, but geological stable, place to store it in and some limited open pit mining. Or the coal industry.

Though I haven't seen any life cycle analysis for coal and nuclear I do believe nuclear can be cleaner than coal, but it needs to be cleaned up. As I said in my reply to the post above yours American Indian tribes have had to suffer from nuclear power. Uranium mines are located on reservation land, the test site for nuclear bombs is by treaty rights part of an Indian reservation. And the proposed nuclear waste storage site is Western Shoshone land, and they oppose storage there.

which is not banned in the US - Ford introduced the ban, Carter approved the ban, Reagan in a rare show of intelligence repealed the ban

Ah, someone who knows the truth, I hear or read so many people blame the ban on reprocessing on Carter when it was Ford who banned it. Another thing they don't know or admit is that Carter had training in nuclear power, though not credited, while in the Navy. He was involved in a cleanup of a nuclear meltdown.

Which would you rather have - some radioactive waste we have to find an already ruined, but geological stable, place to store it in and some limited open pit mining. Or the coal industry.

I'd rather have neither. I'll first start with nuclear power. I would go along with building nuclear power plants that can use the "nuclear waste", perhaps like CANDU, we already have so long as the two points I list above are done, clean it up and have Wall Street finance it. But otherwise no new plants. Next I'd boost geothermal, solar, wind, and other alternative energy sources. There's more than enough of the first three to power the US, and though I don't know how quickly geothermal can come online both solar and wind can do so quickly.

Falcon

Here's a radical idea: Establish a free market in public transportation. Consider the results in Indianapolis:

The impact of the new Indianapolis ground transportation ordinance, which also abolished the official minimum fare, allowing taxis to charge as little as they like for a ride, even surpassed our own expectations. In the first month, the number of licensed taxi operators rose an amazing 60 percent, from twenty-eight licensed companies to forty-five. In addition, the new competition dropped fares among the new licensees almost 7 percent. But perhaps even more impressive than reduced fares and increased competition is the effect that the new market system has had upon the drivers themselves.

Nearly overnight, the dress code for taxi drivers went from ripped T-shirts to collars and ties. Cabs are noticeably cleaner, cabbies are friendlier and their vehicles are more visible on our streets.

Just like there's no such thing as clean nuclear (gotta do something with that waste)

Actually, the French have been recycling their spent nuclear fuel for years.

And "France Acknowledges Massive Radioactive Pollution at La Hague".
Or "PRESS RELEASE"
"Vice-President Cheney Wrong About French Nuclear Repository Program, Independent Institute Asserts"
"French Public's Opposition to Nuclear Waste Repositories as Deep as that in the United States"

Then there's the matter of whether nuclear power is profitable. The libertarian free market CATO Institute has this article: "Nuclear Energy: Risky Business". In it it says
"Given all of this, how do France, India, China, and Russia build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Government officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Either these governments build expensive plants and shove them down the market's throat-or they build shoddy plants and hope for the best."

Falcon

But solar panels are nasty. I mean really toxic-nasty. You do not want highly dispersed, decentralised energy production based on toxic chemistry. At least, nuclear powerplants are small and localised.

Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel also generates a lot of toxic chemicals. See the IEEE "Spectrum's" "Nuclear Wasteland".

You really want nuclear powerplants.

You may want it but I don't. I want clean energy and nuclear power is not clean. While there is no real "clean" energy there are sources that are cleaner than nuclear. Nor do I want my tax dollars subsidizing nuclear power, and without government subsidies nuclear power isn't profitable in the US. And don't try to use the argument that that's because all of the regulations and NAMBYs, without government subsidies nuclear power is not profitable in France, India, or Russia either and they don't have the laws and regulations the US does. As the freemarket CATO Institute says in "Nuclear Energy: Risky Business"
"Given all of this, how do France, India, China, and Russia build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Government officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Either these governments build expensive plants and shove them down the market's throat-or they build shoddy plants and hope for the best."

Falcon

Is the Cato institute conservative enough for you?

"for the one metric we care about here in this analogy: less people drank"

Actually you are wrong.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1360

An that was just one of hits you'd get if you took a moment & looked around instead of assuming something. You seem to be doing that an awful lot in this thread.

*remove regulatory barriers to the development of nuclear power, 3rd generation designs are of sufficient safety and can serve to take the burden off of fossil fuels in regard to energy.

You say destroy subsidies to industry then you say the above. If not for subsidies nuclear power would not exist. The freemarket CATO institute published an article originally from Forbes entitled "Hooked on Subsidies" that goes over the cost of energy and shows nuclear power is too costly and would not be profitable without subsidies. If left strictly to the market nuclear power plants would not be built, not even in China, France, India, or Russia.

Falcon

I don't know ... the issues in the article were computer languages and jobs. A lot of people tossed in the "multi-threaded banking app" as an example, when it's totally bogus. An explanation about financial derivatives - there's no multi-threading required. You can (and people do) do it with a spreadsheet.

why are you not down at your state capitol telling those hippies that are protesting the proposed nuclear plant to shut the hell up?!!?

It's not just hippies that oppose nuclear power. So do libertarians and free market supporters.

Falcon

why are you not down at your state capitol telling those hippies that are protesting the proposed nuclear plant to shut the hell up?!!?

It's not just hippies that oppose nuclear power. So do libertarians and free market supporters.

Falcon

Does 'attempted obstruction of justice' by refusing to answer their questions until you can obtain legal counsel count?

Not likely, our country may have gone pretty far down a dark road, thanks to the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror"; however, we're not quite that far gone, yet.

And since police are allowed to lie to you [transformcolumbusday.org], what's to keep them from lying that the undercover policeman that just entered the room is in fact an attorney, a public defender, and is there to help advise you on your rights? The police could lie at that point and say this 'attorney' can fill in for your attorney until yours actually gets there. Of course, anything said in confidence to this 'attorney' probably wouldn't be covered by any attorney-client priviledge since the 'attorney' is really a cop.

Again, we've gotten bad, but not likely that bad. While I don't doubt that this type idea has crossed the minds of some of the worst of the police, I think they realize the absolute smack down which a judge would hit them with for it. There isn't much which still pisses off judges enough to throw out evidence, but I have no doubt that this would fall well within that realm.

Are you paranoid enough yet?

Being careful is not being paranoid. The police, in this country, have become so emboldened with the War on Drugs that they are willing to Kick in a mayor's door and kill his dogs based on very thin pretenses. They are also willing to gun down elderly ladies in their homes, and plant evidence to cover up their crime.

You can call me paranoid all day long, if you like. It's a free country after all, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how stupid. But until we stop seeing botched drug raids on a regular basis, I am going to continue to assume that the police are not my friend.

Yeah, I agree that farm subsidies are monsterously stupid. The logic, in theory, is that if you simply allow agriculture in this country to go the way of manufacturing (which it might well do given lower labor costs elsewhere) then it becomes a national security issue.

The problem isn't that agricultural production would decline so much that national security would be at risk. A lot of people want to farm but they can't compeat with large agricultural businesses. As it is now, many in the third world are already facing the loss of farmers due to first world subsidies. Do you recall when the Doha Rounds fell apart in Geneva? Brazil, India, and other nations complained about the First World subsidies. If I recall right India's rep in the talks walked out and went back home when the EU refused to budge on EU subsidies. If anything it's the Third World countries that are facing national security issues and are loosing food security.

But as for the highway system. If we NEED these roads so much to move stuff to the cities, then maybe the cost should be born by the goods that need to be moved. I'm not really suggesting that all these roads should be abandoned, just that the costs should be allocated where they belong.

I agree and that's why I support user fees, when you drive on roads and use them you pay for it. Now unlike many Libertarians I don't believe in privatizing roads. Instead I'd have mileage taxed. When a person, or business, renews their license plate tags their odometer would be read and they'd pay a fee depending on how much they drove. If a person was considered about being hit by a big bill when they renew what they could do was to make monthly or quarterly payments. Then they can see what they have to pay for roads and if needed adjust their driving.

look at Vermont where I am

Ah, across the state line from the Free State Project state, New Hampshire.

Heck, you can't even find a farm in this state practically that MAKES money, IN SPITE of the fact that they get subsidized.

How much do those who farm get in subsidies though? I'd bet that if businesses like Archer Daniels Midland, who the Free Market CATO Institute says is "he most prominent recipient of corporate welfare in recent U.S. history" didn't get hugh subsidies then those farmers in Vermont could make an earning farming.

Falcon

Unfortunately I don't have such a choice now, I rent an apartment.

Do the research, if you can make it make financial sense(remember, it'd be a deductible expense!), talk with your landlord. They might do it.

I have done some research. Hopefully in a few years I'll own the apartment building. My sister owns it now but when the mortgage is paid down enough so I can qualify for one the plan is that she will sell it to me and I'll take over the mortgage. Once I do own it I'll have an energy audit done, then save money to have an architect redesign the building.

in the sense of a 'carbon tax', nuclear power is lumped in right along with wind, solar, tidal, etc...

Except nuclear power isn't carbon free, the construction emits a lot of carbon. How? Nuclear power plants require vast amounts of concrete and steel. Both require a lot of energy to make, concrete is made from cement and cement is made from heating lime to 1450C in a kiln. A lot of heat is also required to make steel. More than likely that energy comes from a fossil fuel. Then there's uranium mining. These along with other things are called the nuclear cycle.

Oh, and when have I expressed anything but disdain for coal power?

When did I say you didn't?

I'm trying to remember, did you ever post a link showing just how much nuclear power is subsidized? Bonus points if it shows coal or nuclear above wind/solar per kwh.

Yes I have. "Hooked on Subsidies: Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power" is one. CATO, a Freemarket Institute, also has articles that say something about coal subsidies.

• Coal-to-liquids: "It's a Syn
• Clean Coal: "McCain, Obama, and Clean Coal"
• Rural Subsidies

And it doesn't matter if the company making the solar panel doesn't get the subsidy if every customer who buys their product gets one.

You're right it's still a subsidy however the people have a choice as to who they buy from. When a subsidy is given to nuclear power people don't have that choice.

BTW, your first solar and nanosolar links go to the same spot.

Oops I cut and pasted wrong, NanoSolar.

Nanosolar gets government subsidies

Maybe I spoke too soon. Looking at that page you provide a link to though it doesn't say how much or what type of subsidy Nanosolar gets. The second link says Germany gave the company a subsidy for it's German plant. The "Spectrum" article " First Solar: Quest for the $1 Watt" says the subsidies are feed-in tariffs. Because it's not the government giving the money though I don't consider them subsidies. Perhaps "rebate" would be a better word.

Falcon

Unfortunately I don't have such a choice now, I rent an apartment.

Do the research, if you can make it make financial sense(remember, it'd be a deductible expense!), talk with your landlord. They might do it.

I have done some research. Hopefully in a few years I'll own the apartment building. My sister owns it now but when the mortgage is paid down enough so I can qualify for one the plan is that she will sell it to me and I'll take over the mortgage. Once I do own it I'll have an energy audit done, then save money to have an architect redesign the building.

in the sense of a 'carbon tax', nuclear power is lumped in right along with wind, solar, tidal, etc...

Except nuclear power isn't carbon free, the construction emits a lot of carbon. How? Nuclear power plants require vast amounts of concrete and steel. Both require a lot of energy to make, concrete is made from cement and cement is made from heating lime to 1450C in a kiln. A lot of heat is also required to make steel. More than likely that energy comes from a fossil fuel. Then there's uranium mining. These along with other things are called the nuclear cycle.

Oh, and when have I expressed anything but disdain for coal power?

When did I say you didn't?

I'm trying to remember, did you ever post a link showing just how much nuclear power is subsidized? Bonus points if it shows coal or nuclear above wind/solar per kwh.

Yes I have. "Hooked on Subsidies: Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power" is one. CATO, a Freemarket Institute, also has articles that say something about coal subsidies.

• Coal-to-liquids: "It's a Syn
• Clean Coal: "McCain, Obama, and Clean Coal"
• Rural Subsidies

And it doesn't matter if the company making the solar panel doesn't get the subsidy if every customer who buys their product gets one.

You're right it's still a subsidy however the people have a choice as to who they buy from. When a subsidy is given to nuclear power people don't have that choice.

BTW, your first solar and nanosolar links go to the same spot.

Oops I cut and pasted wrong, NanoSolar.

Nanosolar gets government subsidies

Maybe I spoke too soon. Looking at that page you provide a link to though it doesn't say how much or what type of subsidy Nanosolar gets. The second link says Germany gave the company a subsidy for it's German plant. The "Spectrum" article " First Solar: Quest for the $1 Watt" says the subsidies are feed-in tariffs. Because it's not the government giving the money though I don't consider them subsidies. Perhaps "rebate" would be a better word.

Falcon

Unfortunately I don't have such a choice now, I rent an apartment.

Do the research, if you can make it make financial sense(remember, it'd be a deductible expense!), talk with your landlord. They might do it.

I have done some research. Hopefully in a few years I'll own the apartment building. My sister owns it now but when the mortgage is paid down enough so I can qualify for one the plan is that she will sell it to me and I'll take over the mortgage. Once I do own it I'll have an energy audit done, then save money to have an architect redesign the building.

in the sense of a 'carbon tax', nuclear power is lumped in right along with wind, solar, tidal, etc...

Except nuclear power isn't carbon free, the construction emits a lot of carbon. How? Nuclear power plants require vast amounts of concrete and steel. Both require a lot of energy to make, concrete is made from cement and cement is made from heating lime to 1450C in a kiln. A lot of heat is also required to make steel. More than likely that energy comes from a fossil fuel. Then there's uranium mining. These along with other things are called the nuclear cycle.

Oh, and when have I expressed anything but disdain for coal power?

When did I say you didn't?

I'm trying to remember, did you ever post a link showing just how much nuclear power is subsidized? Bonus points if it shows coal or nuclear above wind/solar per kwh.

Yes I have. "Hooked on Subsidies: Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power" is one. CATO, a Freemarket Institute, also has articles that say something about coal subsidies.

• Coal-to-liquids: "It's a Syn
• Clean Coal: "McCain, Obama, and Clean Coal"
• Rural Subsidies

And it doesn't matter if the company making the solar panel doesn't get the subsidy if every customer who buys their product gets one.

You're right it's still a subsidy however the people have a choice as to who they buy from. When a subsidy is given to nuclear power people don't have that choice.

BTW, your first solar and nanosolar links go to the same spot.

Oops I cut and pasted wrong, NanoSolar.

Nanosolar gets government subsidies

Maybe I spoke too soon. Looking at that page you provide a link to though it doesn't say how much or what type of subsidy Nanosolar gets. The second link says Germany gave the company a subsidy for it's German plant. The "Spectrum" article " First Solar: Quest for the $1 Watt" says the subsidies are feed-in tariffs. Because it's not the government giving the money though I don't consider them subsidies. Perhaps "rebate" would be a better word.

Falcon

Well, the people on the planet now (including us) did not create the problem.

We, and I include myself in that, maybe making things worse. As someone once said, "if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem."

At the moment, the idea is to determine what the best course of action is. To me, it seems like the best way to handle the situation is to get as much low hanging fruit as possible (change light bulbs, etc, etc) in the short term. Things like this reduce energy usage and also don't really add an economic cost.

As happened to me, many others are finding out making some changes actually saves them money.

In the long term, switching to nuclear power would probably be the best way to go.

I haven't been convinced nuclear power is needed never mind the best way to go. Some say it's needed as a baseload, however geothermal energy [pdf warning] might be used as a baseload as well. And without subsidies nuclear power wouldn't be profitable. The Free Market CATO Institute has this article from the business and investment magazine "Forbes" on "Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power", "Hooked on Subsidies".

Falcon

Aggressively switching away from current fuel sources is extremely expensive, and potentially crippling to the economy.

Alternative energy isn't really that much more expensive than conventional energy. "The coal, oil and gas industries" get subsidies as does nuclear power. And please note that those links aren't from an environmentalist or alternative energy organization but from the Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Peace CATO Institute. The second link is an article first published in the business and investment magazine "Forbes".

Falcon

Aggressively switching away from current fuel sources is extremely expensive, and potentially crippling to the economy.

Alternative energy isn't really that much more expensive than conventional energy. "The coal, oil and gas industries" get subsidies as does nuclear power. And please note that those links aren't from an environmentalist or alternative energy organization but from the Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Peace CATO Institute. The second link is an article first published in the business and investment magazine "Forbes".

Falcon

Aggressively switching away from current fuel sources is extremely expensive, and potentially crippling to the economy.

Alternative energy isn't really that much more expensive than conventional energy. "The coal, oil and gas industries" get subsidies as does nuclear power. And please note that those links aren't from an environmentalist or alternative energy organization but from the Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Peace CATO Institute. The second link is an article first published in the business and investment magazine "Forbes".

Falcon

Nuclear is not clean!

It's there, it's understood, it's completely doable and for a hell of lot less money than the democrats want to steal from the people of the US right now.

So I guess CATO and Forbes are Democrats. Where are these commercially running plants?

Falcon

If you have a hot water tank, perhaps an electric one without the heating elements connected*, you'd have hot water from the day before and have your warm/hot shower

To keep the water harm if not hot in a tank the water heater would have to continually cycle on and off just as refrigerators and freezers do. Every time a heater or cooler cycles on the power spikes, and the water isn't always being used. A point of use water heater only runs when the water is being used though. See the Tank-Type versus Tankless box.

If you mean you can use a solar water heater to heat water before a tank in conjunction with a point of use heater, then yes it may be more efficient. I thought I said that before, but I went up this tread and didn't see it so maybe I said it in another thread.

That $420 Billion would provide almost 3,000 gigawatts with PV technology, a lot more than even 400 Gigawatts.

Still have the difference between 'subsidy' and 'build' Don't forget the disadvantage solar has over nuclear when it comes to demand and capacity factors.

Nuclear power will need subsidies as well. Wall Street will not finance nuclear power plants without some subsides. Here's an article that first appeared in "Forbes" on 26 November 2007, "Hooked on Subsidies"
"Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power." Whereas coal generated electricity costs 3.53 cent per KWH and "clean coal" it's 3.55 cents per KWH, without subsidies nuclear power generated electricity cost 5.94 cents per KWH. If the subsidies for coal are removed coal is still cheaper, 3.79 cents and 4.37 cents for clean coal.

For a typical power system, the rule of thumb is that the base load power is usually 35-40% of the maximum load during the year.

Wow, that's more than I thought. If the Science Daily link you provided was right then the coal plants would all be needed but the LNG plants could be closed.

I'd say more engineering needs to be done; yes, they can use the waste sitting in casks and cooling ponds as fuel. Depending on design, you can even pull rods/fuel/waste from the plant and reprocess it to provide MORE fuel to the more standard plants.

So the tech isn't ready. To reduce the waste that's already there I may agree to reprocess it so it can be used in power plants that have already been built but I don't think I could agree to building more nuclear power plants.

I wonder why France would build the BN-600 in Russia.

Falcon

There's a *big* difference between a bunch of miners (who choose to do their job in the full knowledge of the risks) being injured or killed and a large civilian population being injured or killed by a nuclear reactor going boom.

I never said there wasn't a difference, and if you look my previous posts I am decidedly pessimistic about nuclear power.

The media and "environmentalist groups", of course, play a large part in continuing the myth that another Chernobyl disaster

Except environmentalists are supporting nuclear power. It's businesses and the freemarket that doesn't. Without massive government subsidies nuclear power is not profitable.

proposed Sizewell C reactor will have an output of 1600MW - that's the equivalent of around 450 offshore wind turbines

What wind turbines are you talking about? To produce 1600MW all it takes is 320 5 megawatt turbines but there are bigger ones.

And that's before you've even built all the infrastructure for connecting the hundreds of turbines to the grid

Transmission is needed whether the generators and nuclear or wind turbines. However if the wind genies are cited locally then not as much is needed to transmit power.

and the stand-by power generation capacity (probably gas turbines) for when the wind doesn't blow.

Or storage can be used.

Falcon

Environmentalists should be proponents of finding ways to deal with our nuclear waste problem, not object to every single proposal with a blanket statement that nuclear power is a dead end and re-hashing the same old tired arguments regardless of whether or not they apply to the new proposals.

Actually environmentalists are supporting nuclear power. It's the freemarket and Wall Street that don't support it. Quite a switch from how it used to be isn't it?

Falcon

The ever-powerful eco-lobby that can't even get us to limit carbon emissions barely has the power to stop nuclear power plants. Many environmentalists, like myself, support nuclear power when it's properly regulated and well thought out. The problem is too many people can't get Chernobyl and 3 mile island out of their heads, despite the fact that the pollution from coal and oil is ultimately more destructive than nuclear power.

I agree the eco lobby doesn't have that much power, however it's not just Chernobyl that has people scared that's the problem. The freemarket doesn't support nuclear power either. Here's what the freemarket CATO Institute has to say:

"Hooked on Subsidies"
"Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power."

CATO credits "Forbes magazine" for the article. And neither CATO nor Forbes are part of the "eco lobby" or scared of Chernobyl.

Falcon

Because the eco lobby does not like it and will scare monger anything to do with it. Grandma thinks that a reactor failing will look like Hiroshima.

So you consider the CATO Institute an eco lobby then? Here's what they say:
"Hooked on Subsidies"
"Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power."

Falcon

Because the eco lobby does not like it and will scare monger anything to do with it. Grandma thinks that a reactor failing will look like Hiroshima.

So you consider the CATO Institute an eco lobby then? Here's what they say:
"Hooked on Subsidies"
"Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power."

Falcon

As a former nuclear engineer you must also be aware that nuclear material can and is frequently used with virtually no risk to anyone.

I'm not a former nuclear engineer, perhaps you meant you are one. And yes, I know nuclear material is used with little risk. They are used in Nuclear medicine.

I too am scared by unregulated, corner-cutting businesses working with the stuff. But no more afraid of a commercial farmer breeding a potentially lethal or ecologically dangerous super-crop though... and that's legal.

Surprise, surprise. I'm more concerned with, scared of, genetic engineering of crops than I am with nuclear power. I'm not opposed to GE but believe maximum precautions should be taken. Though GE haven't been done long super weeds are already being created.

The nuclear industry exists now, and there have been tremendous strides in the technology and safety. To suggest that we should not encourage an industry that may, with advances such as this article discusses, result in nearly zero net effect on the environment is pretty awesome if you ask me.

I'm not totally opposed to nuclear power or research but I don't want taxpayer money paying for it. If it is subsidized then I want alternative energy sources subsidized just as much. McCain campaigned saying he wanted to give the nuclear power industry billions of dollars, I say if you want to do that then give solar just as much, and wind, and tidal energy research. Otherwise let Wall Street pay for it. The Freemarket think-tank CATO Institute explains "Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power." And CATO isn't some environmentalist hippies.

Honestly, nuclear fission is probably the best energy source we could pursue right now. Why, because we can do it now with virtually no waiting and no chance of finding out later that we rushed into something we shouldn't have (like corn ethanol).

I agree about corn ethanol, corn is a poor feedstock for ethanol. Sugarcane is better, but even better is switchgrass. Right now both solar and wind work. A 5 megawatt wind turbine should be able to be erected in less than a month. Erect 20 a month for a year and you'll add 1.2 gigawatts of power in that year. The last nuclea rpower plant to go online in the US was the Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station. Construction started in 1973 and unit 1 of 2 units was compleated in 1996, it took 23 years. And how much does it generate? It has a generating capacity of 1,167 megawatts. Using wind genies that capacity could be done in one year.

Falcon

As a former nuclear engineer you must also be aware that nuclear material can and is frequently used with virtually no risk to anyone.

I'm not a former nuclear engineer, perhaps you meant you are one. And yes, I know nuclear material is used with little risk. They are used in Nuclear medicine.

I too am scared by unregulated, corner-cutting businesses working with the stuff. But no more afraid of a commercial farmer breeding a potentially lethal or ecologically dangerous super-crop though... and that's legal.

Surprise, surprise. I'm more concerned with, scared of, genetic engineering of crops than I am with nuclear power. I'm not opposed to GE but believe maximum precautions should be taken. Though GE haven't been done long super weeds are already being created.

The nuclear industry exists now, and there have been tremendous strides in the technology and safety. To suggest that we should not encourage an industry that may, with advances such as this article discusses, result in nearly zero net effect on the environment is pretty awesome if you ask me.

I'm not totally opposed to nuclear power or research but I don't want taxpayer money paying for it. If it is subsidized then I want alternative energy sources subsidized just as much. McCain campaigned saying he wanted to give the nuclear power industry billions of dollars, I say if you want to do that then give solar just as much, and wind, and tidal energy research. Otherwise let Wall Street pay for it. The Freemarket think-tank CATO Institute explains "Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power." And CATO isn't some environmentalist hippies.

Honestly, nuclear fission is probably the best energy source we could pursue right now. Why, because we can do it now with virtually no waiting and no chance of finding out later that we rushed into something we shouldn't have (like corn ethanol).

I agree about corn ethanol, corn is a poor feedstock for ethanol. Sugarcane is better, but even better is switchgrass. Right now both solar and wind work. A 5 megawatt wind turbine should be able to be erected in less than a month. Erect 20 a month for a year and you'll add 1.2 gigawatts of power in that year. The last nuclea rpower plant to go online in the US was the Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station. Construction started in 1973 and unit 1 of 2 units was compleated in 1996, it took 23 years. And how much does it generate? It has a generating capacity of 1,167 megawatts. Using wind genies that capacity could be done in one year.

Falcon

Yeah, it's a little different in the USA, because politically research institutions (being the "intellectual elite") are frequently threatened with funding cuts (their lump sum public financing), or complete elimination. Remember, this is the place that cancelled funding for the Superconducting Super Collider, ceding dominance of basic physics research to Europe. (An example of the political winds faced by the SSC, and typical of those facing US publicly-funded research in general, is here. Note the emphasis on short-term economic return from the research investment.) There are a lot of people in powerful political places in the US (at least in the recent past) who would be quite happy if there were "less places for research."

It is also true that, as you say, IP royalties are a good defense against claims of "academic elitism," since royalties are received only when a product is sold commercially (and is, therefore, assumed to be adjudged useful by the market). However, it has been my experience that in the US this defense is typically used by research institutions to avoid budget cuts, rather than to apply for funding for more research facilities. The latter is typically done based on the expected value of the proposed research itself.

So, for all the conspiracy theory fanatics out there. It comes down to the all-mighty dollar, not some nefarious deed

So, in your mind, dollars rule out nefarious deeds. that's stupid.

... to spy on your daily surfing and email habits....unless of course your are a child predator, drug dealer, human trafficker, organized crime-lord, etc.

Yes, well, the problem is that to be accurate you would have to also let "etc" = 100% legal statuses including political opponent, personal rival, and superior inventor, especially in a field with government-sponsored monopolies like telecomms and passenger transportation. Yes, government-sponsored monopolies, in the form of exclusive telecomms franchises and direct subsidies to oil companies, and farm corporations to burn food, are all highly suspicious as possible real motives for the blatantly criminal activities of the FBI and NSA, in the name of "Homeland Security." So who are you, that you claim to know that only criminals are subject to NSA spying? That is certainly not true. And in case you complain that Rachel Maddow is liberal, yes she is, she believes in liberty. And if you don't, emigrate to Saudi Arabia. Liberty is patriotic and searches and seizures without a warrant are not. The abuses by the NSA are not a concoction or an exaggeration from "liberal" MSNBC, the Associated Press carried the same story and Newsweek has yet another scoop. You cannot even send a bit across the publicly owned Internet anymore without the NSA committing surveillance crime against you. You'd have to be a neo-con conspiracy nut to believe any of Alberto Gonzales's arguments that NSA has any legal grounds to exist.

Cato is also an almost-paid mouthpiece for big business.

A ludicrous claim, as a cursory glance at their positions would show. But Cato does inspire an extremely hostile reaction from many liberals, who are perhaps threatened by arguments for free markets on the basis of liberty and benefit to ordinary people, as opposed to the all too common corporatist Republican types.

If the on-line service provider model became institutionalized, everyone would adopt it

Why? It's already established that customers overwhelmingly prefer the open Internet. As long as there's any competition whatsoever, it will stay that way.