Slashdot Mirror

It is all just a matter of being dependent on other countries natural reserves vs. funding it with tax money.

Bullshit!!! Coal gets more federal subsidies than any other energy source in the US. That is unless the cost of war is included, in which case it's petroleum. Nuclear power is second, unless farm subsidies for corn, which is a bad feedstock, based ethanol is included. Each receives multiples of billions of US dollars in taxpayer money. Yet until Obama became president all alternative source, except the fore mentioned corn based ethanol, had to share about $1 Billion. Rep Edward Markey brags "My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'" In it he lists some of the subsidies various energy sources get. And Chevron CEO Dave O'Reilly agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies. The article originally published in Reason: Free Minds and Free Markets" then published online by CATO Institute: Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Peace titled "Nuclear Energy: Risky Business" starts with "Nuclear energy is to the Right what solar energy is to the Left: Religious devotion in practice, a wonderful technology in theory, but an economic white elephant in fact (some crossovers on both sides notwithstanding)." Another CATO article, Hooked on Subsidies, first published in "Forbes" says how the Nuclear Power industry is as the title says, "hooked on subsidies". Even in countries where nuclear power is big, China, France, India, and Russia it's state actors or the government and not the market that decides what gets built. In brief the US Department of Energy answers the question How much does the Federal Government spend on energy-specific subsidies and support? By fiscal year 2007 all forms of renewable energy got $4.9 billion in subsides, $3 billion of that for ethanol. All other sources had to share the other $1.9 billion. Now how much did coal get? Refined coal got about $2.4 billion and with another $854 million on other coal. And nuclear power got $1.267 billion.

You say you're in Germany. The article Spain slashes solar energy subsidies laments that Berlin decided to continue to use nuclear power. And that Madrid slashed solar subsidies. Another says the same in Germany, Germany to cut subsidies for solar energy .

Personally I'd rather see all energy subsidies eliminated. ALL!!! Let a freer market decide winners and losers not government. What governments can do is make sure the markets are kept open as long as they can compeat, and they pay all their costs including external costs.

Falcon

False. Equipment fails, and a crash at 120 has four times the energy of a crash at 60, not double. We have the speed limits we have because they have been statistically shown to decrease deaths.

Actually, the statistics really don't show that. What you say was true back before seat belts and air bags. Now they're basically all about either traffic flow management or revenue. Less than 5% of all traffic accidents are caused by equipment failure, and even most of the remaining 5% can in many cases be avoided by minor changes, such as:

• Mandate that all new tires sold be of the run-flat variety
• Mandate tire pressure and temperature sensors to tell the car's guidance system to pull over to the side of the road in the event of a puncture or other high-risk situation. (Pressure sensors are already mandatory in the U.S.)
• Mandate sensors that detect low brake pad thickness to warn drivers, followed by preventing the vehicle from operating when they wear beyond a certain point.
• Make a basic axle check part of the biennial inspection process.

Heck, just getting rid of driver fatigue alone would cut accident rates by 30-50%.... That one change alone would completely overshadow any increase in deaths due to even quadrupling the number of deaths in the 5% of accidents that are caused by equipment failure.... Keep in mind that you're talking about quadrupling a rate that got smaller by a factor of 20, and that should put things back in the proper perspective.

But the mileage is a very real problem too. The most aerodynamic cars seem to get their best mileage around 80 mph, like my (past) 1989 240SX or my 1982 300SD. The rest get it around 55 or 60, like my 1992 F250. None of them get it at 120, nor ever will.

Gas mileage is at best a temporary concern. We'll be all-electric by then anyway, at which point it becomes a question of energy production, which does not inherently require fossil fuels.

What crap. Been reading Cato.org much recently? http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11022

Never read anything there before, and apparently you didnt either since the article you are linking to is anything but recent: A version of this article appeared in the DC Examiner on December 2, 2009.

It is now a known fact that at least one journal (Climate Research), when publishing papers that the "top dog" climate scientists didn't like, then faced retribution from those same "top dogs" who conspired to then boycott said publication (to not publish in it, or even cite any publications in it) to manipulate its editorial staff.

What crap. Been reading Cato.org much recently? http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11022

Try http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/05/cato-institute-patrick-michaels-falsehood-stolen-emails-climategate-michael-mann-peer-review/ and follow the links, notably to the statement of the Editor-in-chief of "Climate Research", here: http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/CR-problem/cr.2003.htm

"Climate Research" was indeed manipulated, but but the "skeptics", not the "warmists". One editor slipped in some crap papers (which have since been comprehensively demolished). When the other editors complained and requested that an editorial explaining what happened be printed the "skeptic" refused, so the other editors resigned.

I understand where you're coming from, but I'm not so sure about the claim about the lack of conservative think tanks.

The Heritage Foundation and The Cato Institute are widely known and have a fairly abundant amount of pull in the conservative community. Those two alone are MASSIVE, and capable of more than most people realize.

Maybe you should read this briefing paper.

trust cato institute? http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-36.html

Anyways i can't find the exact data to match that chart but you can google around for National Safety Council and see other charts that indicate the same thing like coal miners. most don't go past the past few years unfortunately.

New GE plants are tested by the FDA, the NIH, and the EPA.

I got this from "Whole Earth Discipline" by Stewart Brand, page 127. http://books.google.com/books?ct=result&id=1tTtAAAAMAAJ&dq=stewart+brand+whole+earth&q=national+institutes

He seems to be wrong. The NIH has no direct responsibility or authority over foodstuffs. They do regulate gene therapy for humans, but that's completely different thing.

Gene therapy is one area I fully support genetic engineering research, and application.

Here's the real story:
http://www.fda.gov/food/biotechnology/default.htm

The FDA considers GM foods basically safe, and looks over safety tests performed by the company selling the product to ensure they have not overlooked potential dangers. In cases that new proteins or pesticide resistance the burden of proof is much higher then swapping genes already in foodstuff.

Is that the same FDA that approved drugs that were later found to be bad?

I disagree with him on the things that fall outside his expertise of biology and ecology.

I don't see what his qualifications or expertize is on the Google or on the Amazon page. His wiki entry has some info but it doesn't say what those qualifications are either. It says he studied design at an art institute but doesn't say what degree he got if any.

Having said that I like that he worked with The Whole Earth Catalog and started the WELL (which I wanted to join). I wonder what he thinks of (Sittin' On) The Dock of the Bay, I love that song.

For instance, I'm not as convinced nuclear power is our only hope.

I'm a long way from being convinced nuclear power is any hope for energy, instead I believe the oppose and believe that the money used in it's research can better be used in other research. As it is the nuclear power industry is Hooked on Subsidies. The SciAm article A Solar Grand Plan says "A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.'s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050." And the NREL's Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States details the wind potential of different regions of the US. One analysis I read of it concluded the Rockies have enough potential to supply the 48 contiguous states with electricity.

The video you link to brought up one problem with alternative energy, the lack of a reliable baseload. However geothermal energy can supply some. And until storage technology is developed that is large scale, natural gas fired and nuclear power plants can be kept online. However which ever way it goes I want to see an end to subsidies whether it's the billion dollars alternative energy gets or the billions more coal, natural gas, nuclear power, and petroleum get. And that includes external costs such as pollution.

Falcon

Oh, on the FDA, I want it abolished. The NIH, which I'd like privatized, can take over some of what the FDA does. As for drug approvals, I believe people should be able to take whatever drug they want without a prescription.

From what I can tell, some of the biggest wastes of our money are farm subsidies (grow so much corn that HFCS is cheaper than sugar!) and the military. I'm all for smaller government regarding those two.

Agreed.

Much of the rest of government spending is welfare state stuff that I not only support, I want it expanded.

I guess I can amicably disagree with you there. the government fills some admirable and necessary roles in supporting those who need it, but in general, it is rife with fraud, and it is mismanaged and wasteful. So at the very least, it needs to be run more competently. We could to far more good with the dollars we already spend if we spent them more wisely. I also feel that welfare-style spending is dangerous. It tends to create an entitlement mentality, and a cycle of dependency, rather than assist people to move up and off their benefits. No, I'm not just talking out of my ass. I see it every day. Of course, the usual caveats apply, every person's circumstances are different, etc.

Free university education for all, longer unemployment benefits, socialized health care, pensions, etc.

State universities used to be places a student could get a good, affordable education. Now government bureaucracy has generally mismanaged them to the point where even a state university education where I am has become quite expensive. Giving them more taxpayer money doesn't look like a solution to me. And believe me, I'd love to not have to pay for college for my 3 kids. I just don't think the government (at least the state & federal govt we have today) should be given any more tax money for education. They've proven they can't effectively use what they have.

Extended unemployment benefits - especially during a downturn like this - is a good thing. It helps prevent a cascade of other bad things like home foreclosure and personal bankruptcy. By preventing the rug being pulled out from underneath the unemployed, we preserve a key asset to our economic recovery - our workforce.

Socialized healthcare? Sorry, I've got to say no on that one, for the same reason as education. The government mismanages healthcare in an abominable fashion. Something needs to be done to help the least fortunate, but not at the price of greater government control over healthcare.

Given your liberal leanings, I realize it might be a stretch to ask you to visit a Cato Institute website, but it can't do any harm to simply read this. If you read this with an open mind, your opinions on pensions might be different. It is a presentation on the Chilean retirement system, the problems they faced, and how they solved them.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-ja-jp.html

To be fair, it's not a perfect system, and there have been justifiable criticisms of it, but it's better than what they had before.

It'd seem to me that any country that could make a surplus on staple crops could actually benefit from higher prices. Excess produce can be sold for higher prices, bringing higher income.

That's not how economics works, the scarce costs more than the abundant. For instance when the supply of silicon does meet the demand the price of silicon goes up. And when supply is greater than demand then prices go down.

The problem comes when you're importing food to survive, like haiti.

Question, why are Haitians importing food instead of their farmers growing food? Because of the massive subsidies given to large agricultural businesses in Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, and the US. When US exporters can sell US corn in Mexico cheaper than Mexican farmers can grow it, I'm using Mexico as an example because corn originated in Mexico and Central America, because the US government gave them billions of dollars in subsidies Mexican farmers can not compeat. Corporations like Archer Daniels Midland, which the Freemarket and Libertarian think-tank CATO Institute has called the most prominent recipient of corporate welfare in recent U.S. history. Another good example of corporate welfare is Cargill, the largest privately held corporation, it's so large that if it was listed on stock exchanges it would be on Fortune 500's list of the top 10 largest corporations.

Falcon

Tesla's model is new to the auto industry: manufacturer sells direct to consumer, and also owns the distribution network and the service departments. That's nothing new in high tech: Apple's made a fortune using that model. The "Apple Store" gives a retail presence, but the guy at the Apple Store doesn't really care whether you buy the thing on the spot or go back home and buy it through the website.

Applying that model to cars is interesting - and potentially groundbreaking. In the case of the Big Three, the dealer networks were an albatross around the neck of the auto manufacturers. If Tesla's model works, Telsa won't need a network of thousands of independent dealerships, because the only function of the dealerships will be to provide test drives and occasional servicing. Dealerships will be profit centers, not loss centers, for the manufacturer.

Actually, it's not new: Europe has this model in place right now. Over there, manufacturers are allowed to sell directly to customers - as well as to franchised dealerships. Customers are able to go and pick up their cars straight from the factory in some cases (see Autostadt in Wolfsburg).

However, in most states in the US, it's illegal for manufacturers to sell directly to the customer (page two, footnote four). My Google-fu is not terribly strong so I was not able to easily find an accessible list of states that permit direct manufacturer-to-consumer sales. That's not to say that manufacturers can't own a stake in dealerships, but that's not quite the same.

For additional bed-time reading, check out a DOJ paper on the effects of bans on direct manufacturer-to-dealer sales.

America has never recovered from Three Mile Island, not because of the physical effects of the disaster, but because of the regulatory effects.

Why then is it government not markets throughout the world decide what nuclear power plants are build? The Nuclear Power Industry is Hooked on Subsidies.

"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

As this system leaves in the human factor for actually deciding if an action is necessary (ie: sending cops), and then leaves the cops deciding what actions to take, it doesnt seem any more open for abuse than the current surveillance system in place.

Except that you left something out, the system is partially paid for with forfeitures. The more forfeiture the bigger the system can be made. We've already been having problems with law enforcement forfeitures. "For example, between 1989 and 1992, the Sheriff's Office in Volusia County, Florida, seized $8 million in cash in roadside stops of motorists. Although the office returned about half of the money in settlements, it still retained $4 million over the three-year period." Today Texas police seize black motorists' cash, cars. Or Asset Forfeiture: Austin Police Use of Seized Funds Probed. Law enforcement makes a lot of money from forfeitures.

Falcon

In previous generations being a hacker was literally how you learned. They weren't any books in the library to teach you some things. You couldn't afford classes in college to learn. The only way to learn was to do.

I know. My first access to computers was on TRS-80s at Radio Shack and dumb terminals in my high school library used for college searches. The workers at the closest Rad Shack to my home allowed me, and others, to sit there playing with them. So I'd sit there learning to program by writing graphics programs and games. That and though the library workers said it wasn't possible a few of us figured out how to use the terminals to chat with each other at different schools. The terminals were connected to the county school district's mainframe, an IBM System 360 downtown.

So no in todays environment the laws and rules aren't the same, the standards aren't the same, and so I don't think children should expect to be able to accomplish the same with the same resources when their environment is much more harsh and far more risky, even if you are a computer nerd you can find yourself behind bars.

Again I know. Way back when, while playing with Trash 80s, the IBM, and Apples, I enjoyed reading the vintage magazines like Byte, the Micro and Homebrew computer magazine. That was before hacking was dirty and hackers were criminals. Actually a search of slashdot for hackers falcon will return posts of mine like this one or this one. However back then it was much harder to gain access to any of the technology we enjoy today. Computers were exotic machines occupying floors of buildings if not entire buildings and were operated by white jacked priest. Networking was sneakernet and BBSes before CompuServe, Prodigy, GEnie, and AOL came along. Well not CompuServe, CompuServe was started in 1969 as a subsidiary of an insurance company and was called Compu-Serv Network, Inc.

No I don't want a world where children of the future have to be more resourceful than my generation had to be. If the future is worse than the present then we adults are doing something wrong and need to change

It's ironic but today is both better and worse than it was in say the 1970s. I'm trying to think what issue it was, let me dig out old editions of Reason magazine which I subscribe to... I didn't find it but googling I found Are We Freer? on CATOs website. Ah, Google gave me a "Reason" article like the one I was looking for, "Now for the Good News: Mankind has never been healthier, wealthier or freer. Surprised?" Both TFA I was looking for and the CATO article say it depends on how you look at as to whether we were freer in the past or are freer today.

As for being more resourceful, I don't want the children of the future to be forced to be more resourceful, but I do want them to be so.

Falcon

The nuclear power industry is Hooked on Subsidies.

"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

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3556

Besides the fact that the concept of wealth inequality as moral negative is nonsense,

Then you wouldn't mind having the rich becoming richer at your expense, right? Because that's what "wealth inequality" means. And since you don't mind it, you must have also cheered the recent bailout to bankers, since that was a classic example of taking from the poor and giving to the rich. Right?

Or does the nonsense Cato Institute spouts - specifically, in your link, them intentionally likening an external difference of wealth to inherentl differences of talent, beauty and gender, and I also noticed a bit of trickle-down economics there too, oh and a truly twisted interpretation of The Ten Commandments - only apply when it's you who's benefiting from looting the weak?

Seriously, twisting the Bible to justify your greed is insane, even for a right-wing organization such as Cato. Do you people actually believe your own insane troll logic, or do you simply think that there's going to be someone stupid enough to do so?

Yeah, too bad that's a gross generalization that doesn't correlate with reality. Besides the fact that the concept of wealth inequality as moral negative is nonsense, it doesn't take too much analysis to see that while the US and Mexico may have similar ratios of rich to poor (which by itself is misleading, as 10^4:10^3 is the same ratio as 10^2:10, but the magnitude is different, so the case really is that the poor in the US are richer than the poor in Mexico, and the rich in Mexico are poorer than the rich in the US. The ratio ultimately is the same, but the magnitude is different, which is expressed in the difference in the quality of life), crime in Mexico is worse. Similarly, in 'more equal' countries according to your favored methodology like Columbia, Nigeria, etc. crime and quality of life is worse than in 'less equal' places such as Hong Kong. Your theory simply does not correlate to reality, but I doubt this will stop you.

Nice try. The media certainly has perpetuated the myth that Clinton was fiscally responsible.

No, Bill Clinton Didn't Balance The Budget

If someone actually comes up with a feasible, scalable alternative to fossil fuels, the switch to using that idea would just take care of itself due to market forces.

Only if that were true, but it's not. Those who use fossil fuels get to pass on the external costs to others. One way to make polluters pay is by taxing carbon. But of course some complain that that harms businesses or people. Are you one of them?

And that's only half of it. Fossil fuel supporters complain about how alternative energy sources get subsidies. Well, guess what? So do fossil fuels. Here's Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) bragging about how his bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'. He starts by saying the Nuclear Power industry has received $145 Billion in federal subsides over the years. But combined solar and wind have only gotten $5 billion. In another video the CEO of Chevron agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies. Those subsidies for nuclear power above? The Freemarket CATO institute reprinted a "Forbes" article printed on 26 November 2007 about how the Nulear Power Industry is Hooked on Subsidies. Among other things it says "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." In 2007 in the US all alternative energy sources including the $3.0 Billion corn based ethanol got, when corn is not a good feedstock for ethanol, got $4.875 Billion dollars. Subtract that $3 Billion and geothermal, solar, wind, and others only got $1.875 Billion. Coal got $3.760 Billion. Itself, oil has gotten the majority of federal energy incentives.

What is happening is the government and not a free market is picking winners and losers. The government should end all subsidies, including allowing industries to pass external costs to others, and let the different players compeat.

Falcon

Nuclear is actually cost competitive with coal,

So the Wall Street Journal is wrong? Even they say "The only way to handicap the field in nuclear power's favor is to put a big price tag on emissions of carbon dioxide." If however emissions of carbon dioxide had a price tag then geothermal, solar, wind, and other alternative energy sources would be more competitive as well not just nuclear power. And if nuclear is so great then why does the industry need subsidies and gets loan guaranties?

and is the only green energy source that is.

Nuclear power is not clean, it is dirty from cradle to grave, oops there is no grave for nuclear waste. Ask the Navajo how clean uranium mining is. Or some First Nations in Canada, the aboriginals in Australia, or any number of other indigenous peoples throughout the world.

It's also wrong that nuclear plants need to be these massive, expensive things. We've had portable nuclear generators since the '60s, and you can build out plants of various sizes from there all the way up to the mega installations.

Is that why Finland's Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant has costs overruns raising it's cost from 3 billion euros to more than 4.2 billion? Or seen it's operation delayed from 2009 to 2012 at the earliest? Since you didn't like the previous CATO article you probably won't like this one either but Nuclear Energy: Risky Business says "the industry in the early 1990s asked for-and got-exactly the sort of safety regulations, permit review process, and public comment regime now in place." Further, it says "Indeed, if government were the reason why investors were saying "no" to their loan applications, I would expect that industry officials would be the first to say so. But they do not."

Solar is currently 3x - 10x more expensive than coal.

Saying that's true now, I don't know, solar is constantly dropping in costs. And coal does not pay all of it's own costs. Like other energy sources coal is subsidized. Mountaintop removal probably the safest way to mine coal is very destructive and polluting.

The only reason it can be cost effective is because the government very very heavily subsidizes solar installations.

If ethanol subsidies, most of which go to corn and there are better feed stocks than corn, are removed from alternative energy subsidies coal comes in first place in the amount of subsidies it gets. The graph on the page linked to says alternative energy got $4.875 billion in 2007. Of that though $3 billion went to ethanol. Coal on the other hand is broken down into 2 categories. Refined coal, whatever that is, got $2.370 billion and coal got $932 million. Together coal got $3.302 billion whereas goethermal, solar, wind and other alternative sources got $1.9 billion excluding ethanol. I do see that it has nuclear as getting less than alternatives though, however I wonder how it breaks down for the different types? As that page asks, "which pig wears the most lipstick?"

Geothermal will never amount to more tha

How about throwing parties for shutting down a nuclear power plant? =)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_'90/The_Greens

First off, the wiki article you provided the link to says nothing about the Greens throwing a party, the only references to any party is to political parties. Next, the nuclear power industry is Hooked on Subsidies. That's not me saying that, that is a freemarket institute and a business magazine saying it.

>>but clearly that is not what they do. because if they were doing that, they would be arguing against themselves on many occasions.

Actually, that's precisely what's happening. It's called the "Green on Green Battle", where environmental groups are on both sides of an issue.

Ah, so environmentalists aren't one big monolithic block.

By contrast, if they held more nuanced views (instead of these nutcase all-or-nothing views which )

Make up your mind, either they are a "nutcase all-or-nothing" monolithic block or they are not.

Falcon

is that they're stupid. ... This has led to:
1) A ban on nuclear power here in California

Except environmentalists or greenies didn't stop nuclear power. As the Hooked on Subsidies article the pro freemarket CATO Institute republished, originally published by "Forbes", said it is state actors not the market that decides what nuclear power plants are built. Even in France and other nations, here's the relevant 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."

The "Hooked on Subsidies article brings up the Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant being built in Finland. The French government owned business Areva and Siemans were building it, however Siemens sold it's interest to Areva. As of this tyme last year cost overruns have caused it's "3 billion euro price tag, about $4.2 billion", to climb at least 50 percent. Market Watch published a story about a study that warns of steep cost overruns at new reactors.

2) The Sierra Club successfully shutting down a massive solar plant. (What? Solar is a green energy? But think of all the DESERT that would be covered by those panels! 25 tortoises live there!) Good luck getting more companies to put money into proposing green power generators, assholes. Similar stories exist for wind and tidal projects across the country.

I'm glad I don't donate to the Sierra Club. They're not the only hypocrites though. On the Atlantic Coast there are those who oppose offshore wind farms. Even Ted Kennedy opposed a wind farm, in Cape Cod. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States" lays out the wind potential of various regions of the US. The Rocky Mountains alone has enough potential to supply all of the US with energy. Meanwhile SciAm published the article A Solar Grand Plan lays out how solar power can "supply 69 percent of the U.S.'s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050." Then there are other potential energy sources as well. Geothermal energy supplied California with 13 terawatts or 4.5% of the electricity used in CA in 2007. One geothermal project in Hawaii is the Puna Geothermal Venture and it supplies the big island of 20% of it's electricity. The SciAm article Hawaii Says Aloha (Greetings) to Clean, Renewable Energy says geothermal energy can be expanded to supply more electricity:

"Last January, Hawaii signed an agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) that would make the Aloha State the country's most aggressive in pursuing renewable energy. By 2030, it plans to obtain 70 percent of its power from clean energy (40 percent from renewables and 30 percent from energy efficiency). Outstripping California's goal of 33 percent by 2020, the Hawaii initiative is a green light for clean-tech experts and enthusiasts to set up shop in the heart of the Pacific and may become a blueprint (or greenprint) for the rest of the country."

Geothermal isn't only available in the west either. It is being used now in

is that they're stupid. ... This has led to:
1) A ban on nuclear power here in California

Except environmentalists or greenies didn't stop nuclear power. As the Hooked on Subsidies article the pro freemarket CATO Institute republished, originally published by "Forbes", said it is state actors not the market that decides what nuclear power plants are built. Even in France and other nations, here's the relevant 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."

The "Hooked on Subsidies article brings up the Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant being built in Finland. The French government owned business Areva and Siemans were building it, however Siemens sold it's interest to Areva. As of this tyme last year cost overruns have caused it's "3 billion euro price tag, about $4.2 billion", to climb at least 50 percent. Market Watch published a story about a study that warns of steep cost overruns at new reactors.

2) The Sierra Club successfully shutting down a massive solar plant. (What? Solar is a green energy? But think of all the DESERT that would be covered by those panels! 25 tortoises live there!) Good luck getting more companies to put money into proposing green power generators, assholes. Similar stories exist for wind and tidal projects across the country.

I'm glad I don't donate to the Sierra Club. They're not the only hypocrites though. On the Atlantic Coast there are those who oppose offshore wind farms. Even Ted Kennedy opposed a wind farm, in Cape Cod. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States" lays out the wind potential of various regions of the US. The Rocky Mountains alone has enough potential to supply all of the US with energy. Meanwhile SciAm published the article A Solar Grand Plan lays out how solar power can "supply 69 percent of the U.S.'s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050." Then there are other potential energy sources as well. Geothermal energy supplied California with 13 terawatts or 4.5% of the electricity used in CA in 2007. One geothermal project in Hawaii is the Puna Geothermal Venture and it supplies the big island of 20% of it's electricity. The SciAm article Hawaii Says Aloha (Greetings) to Clean, Renewable Energy says geothermal energy can be expanded to supply more electricity:

"Last January, Hawaii signed an agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) that would make the Aloha State the country's most aggressive in pursuing renewable energy. By 2030, it plans to obtain 70 percent of its power from clean energy (40 percent from renewables and 30 percent from energy efficiency). Outstripping California's goal of 33 percent by 2020, the Hawaii initiative is a green light for clean-tech experts and enthusiasts to set up shop in the heart of the Pacific and may become a blueprint (or greenprint) for the rest of the country."

Geothermal isn't only available in the west either. It is being used now in

Adjusting for inflation (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001519.html) that would be no income tax for everyone below $1,067,821.78 in 2008 dollars.
This is what is wrong with society - it is not a partisan or even a US problem. It is an honor problem. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11706
Maybe we just don't need all the governments we have around the world, we just need people to have honor and uphold justice.

The whole utopia of legalized drugs that people imagine, doesn't exist

Ever heard of Portugal? I assure you it exists and it has yet to fall into a nightmare of addiction and ruined lives yet. Just reduced addiction, reduced crime, and reduced drug related health problems.

Based on what I've read, Portugal has not made it legal to grow, manufacture, transport, sell, own or use any drugs. From Cato institute:

On July 1, 2001, a nationwide law in Portugal took effect that decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Under the new legal framework, all drugs were "decriminalized," not "legalized." Thus, drug possession for personal use and drug usage itself are still legally prohibited, but violations of those prohibitions are deemed to be exclusively administrative violations and are removed completely from the criminal realm. Drug trafficking continues to be prosecuted as a criminal offense. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080

You are putting words in his mouth. He never explicitly stated that Portugal had become a junky heaven where it is legal to grow, manufacture, transport, sell, own or use any drugs. What is your point anyway? Perhaps you guys are you trying to tell us that the US American idea of filling your jails with small time users serving draconian sentences for minor drug offenses is some how better than what the Portuguese did? By the sound of that report the Portuguese simply concluded that having police officers chasing after small time drug users was a waste of time and that the Portuguese state was better off spending it's resources openly treating drug users and limiting addiction. That Cato report concluded that after the decriminalization of drug possession in favor of offering treatment, illegal drug use among teens declined, the rate of HIV infections declined and the number of people seeking treatment for addiction doubled since they didn't have to fear prosecution any more. The executive summary ends with the words:

The data shows that, judged by virtually every metric, the Portuguese decriminalization framework has been a resounding success. Within this success lie self-evident lessons that should guide drug policy debates around the world.

The whole utopia of legalized drugs that people imagine, doesn't exist

Ever heard of Portugal? I assure you it exists and it has yet to fall into a nightmare of addiction and ruined lives yet. Just reduced addiction, reduced crime, and reduced drug related health problems.

Based on what I've read, Portugal has not made it legal to grow, manufacture, transport, sell, own or use any drugs. From Cato institute:

On July 1, 2001, a nationwide law in Portugal took effect that decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Under the new legal framework, all drugs were "decriminalized," not "legalized." Thus, drug possession for personal use and drug usage itself are still legally prohibited, but violations of those prohibitions are deemed to be exclusively administrative violations and are removed completely from the criminal realm. Drug trafficking continues to be prosecuted as a criminal offense. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080

Like it or not, there's no such thing as a school that couldn't do a better job educating kids with more money. It does take money to teach kids. The more the better.

Two words: Kansas City.

As the anonymous person points out... your link starts with a note that they are over 90% the same ethnic group. And most view themselves as the same race.

First, where does the wiki article say most Chinese view themselves as the same ethnic group? Next, as for the majority of Chinese being Han, that's true for all of modern day China, however in some regions ethnic minorities are the majority. To offset this the authorities encourage, and even force, Han Chinese to emigrate to these regions. As Niccolò Machiavelli wrote in "The Prince" an effective way to take over an invaded area, and China did invade independent areas, is by relocating native inhabitants to that area. So for instance the Chinese government encouraged Han Chinese to move to Tibet after the 1949-1950 Chinese invasion of Tibet and continues to do so. Heck the British did that in Ireland, encouraged Protestant British to move to Ireland. Unionism in Ireland. Even the US did that, encouraged settlers to "go west" giving them the land they homesteaded on. This of course didn't sit well with American Indians.

You run into it all over the place... one example being here:
http://cobb.typepad.com/cobb/2005/01/is_that_what_yo_1.html [typepad.com]
"When I pressed him on why he thought that way he finally revealed that because of the racial superiority of the Chinese people, there can never be true equality between a Chinese and non-Chinese and since any deep relationship would require that...there can be no true relationship."

Think about that, you just said the same as I did, it's found everywhere and not just by Chinese. Even the link you hints as much, "And I thought back to the 80s when everybody was sure that the Japanese were going to buy all the real estate in America up, including the Statue of Liberty. Yet somehow when it came to moving around the cities they were consuming, they would still somehow figure out not to go to the ghettoes or buy anything there, thereby leaving blackfolks just as poor in an overheated market." Today there are any number of groups in the US who if not have a superiority/inferiority complex. The "Southern Poverty Law Center counted 932 active hate groups in the United States in 2009." Like U2 sang, "you've got someone to blame?"

Oh, btw, some economists think it will turn out the same for the Chinese as it did for the Japanese. While many Americans and Europeans are afraid the Chinese will take over the world economically, like some did in the 1980s about the Japanese, there are economists who dispute this. Chinese was able to take over a lot of manufacturing because their wages were low however those wages are rising and as they do manufacturers will be looking for other places to go to. Free trade, er as there is no free trade freer trade, benefits a lot of people. Of course China needs to allow it's currency the yuan to float on exchanges. However the US needs to stop giving US agribusinesses billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. Much like the nuclear industry the agriculture industry is hooked on subsidies. Archer Daniels Midland or ADM which is a $500 billion a year multinational corporation, and Cargill the largest privately owned company are examples of corporate welfare queens, receiving billions of taxpayer dollars a year.

Falcon

Sorry you are insulted, but the government is not more efficient than private industry. Never has been, never will be.

Also, cite your sources. Specious claims like the above without any source material to back it up are just plain silly.

I can claim that government employees make more money than their private-sector counterparts doing the same or similar job, but unless I can back up that claim (CATO Tax and Budget Bulletin, issue number 59 (74KB PDF)), it's a ridiculous claim.

Sorry you are insulted, but the government is not more efficient than private industry. Never has been, never will be.

Also, cite your sources. Specious claims like the above without any source material to back it up are just plain silly.

I can claim that government employees make more money than their private-sector counterparts doing the same or similar job, but unless I can back up that claim (CATO Tax and Budget Bulletin, issue number 59 (74KB PDF)), it's a ridiculous claim.

It's true that we don't know the whole scope of the issue and, while my background is in medicine and not economic theory, there are other, more reputable sources that argue otherwise. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/business/03view.html?ex=1359694800&en=e2a7992c36d4a0ad&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3122 I agree that Medicare is a much more pressing issue at the present. The analogy is that

I think back to the architect of the Social Security Act, who's name I can't recall and I don't have time to google, stated from it's inception that it was not durable long-term solution, yet almost 75 years later we still haven't done anything to prevent it's insolvency.

Because there is no threat of insolvency. Zilch, none, nada, zip, ninguno....

See this article for a nice debunking of the propaganda you've been suckered into. These meme that there's a Social Security "crisis" or that "it wont be around for me" is a bunch of Cato propaganda called the Leninist Strategy.

Because really, how is a system that's funded directly out of paychecks ever going to go "insolvent"?

How does Occam's Razor apply here? Neither of our explanations seem particularly more complex. Sure, if income were the only determining factor you would be right, though.

The relationship [between single-parent families and crime] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature. The nation's mayors, as well as police officers, social workers, probation officers, and court officials, consistently point to family break up as the most important source of rising rates of crime. Source

Oops, looks like it's not.

As for some 'magical quality', look around. Men and women think different, they act different, they are different. To expect that one parent can perform as well across all parenting tasks as well as two parents of different genders is laughable. I'm not saying there aren't men who are terrible leader/mentors, or that all women can provide infinite amounts of TLC, but we're talking generalized averages. It's the mental equivalent of why we have different mens and womens leagues in most sports, men and women perform well at different tasks. Why is it wrong to say that men and women need each other as complementary parents to raise children well, when it's so obviously the case?

Republicans on the other hand, want the government completely out of their lives

"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means..."

You seem to have "Republicans" confused with "Conservatives" and "Libertarians". Nowadays, the difference between "Republicans" and "Democrats" (at least among those actually in power) mostly tends to be in WHICH ways to expand Government.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3184
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/19/big-government-gets-bigger/

Because if the solar panels only last for 20 years (optimistically) and it takes 20 years to recoup the cost, you're not getting anywhere.

PVs are warrantied 20, 25, even 30 years yet their payback period can be 7 years. With a payback period of 7 years if your PVs last 30 years you get 23 years of energy free. Well not totally free, maintenance is still needed.

Nuclear plants and hydro dams are built to last a good bit longer than their break even time.

They are only built if they are subsidized first. Actually government officials in China, France, India, and Russia not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors.

Falcon

1. total cost (panels are expensive

Coal fired and nuclear power plants aren't expensive? Neither coal companies nor the nuclear power industry have their hands out begging for government assistance? Cost Is Chief Barrier to 'Clean Coal' and the Nuclear power industry is Hooked on Subsidies. "Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."

2. the Return on Investment is low (extreme cases - 10 years, but typically more than 20).

The payback period can be much shorter than that. In one survey New Jersey had a payback period of 1.5 years. New York had a payback period of 3 years and Delaware 6 for residential applications.

Falcon

The building of a stadium is not some government subsidy... it is a huge source of revenue for the city that does so, and nobody is getting anything for free.

Citation needed, I think.

There seem to be a number of issues with the "statements of fact" that you wrote. Perhaps the biggest issue is that the economic gains on paper do not appear to make it to reality. I know that when we were in the midst of deciding whether or not to build a new stadium one of the biggest concerns was that while it would be profitable for the team owners, there would be a high risk of a net loss for everyone else.

Ah, yes. Here's a citation http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n2/coates.pdf/ that supports my recollections:

"Subsidies of sports facilities may actually reduce the incomes of the alleged beneficiaries... Our own research suggests that professional sports may be a drain on local economies rather than an engine of economic growth."

Feel free to dismiss Cato, but you'll have to come up with something besides your own feelings or studies paid for by teams or stadium advocates.

Regards.

No one has ever even contemplated replacing a Coal-fired plant with a renewable source of energy because renewable in no way, shape, or form have the dependability to be counted on to produce 24 hour a day, 7 day a week, 365 days a year Electricity. I'm not making this stuff up, it's simply a fact of life right now.

One, when did I say anything about closing down all coal-fired, Natural Gas-fired, or nuclear power plants right now? Two, it is a fact of life geothermal can provide a baseload of energy now, today. It is happening as I type this in Iceland, Hawaii, and in the Philippines. California gets 5% of it's baseload from geothermal [pdf] energy.

You can't try and solve every problem at once because all you'll end up doing in NOTHING AT ALL. We can solve a big chunk of our pollution problem right now by switching to Nuclear. We'll tackle the well understood problems with Nuclear when we get to that bridge.

Three, when have I said anything about the 1 big solution, other than discounting it? I haven't, I have repeatedly stated I believe that each place should use the source of energy that is available locally. Solar where it's available, wind where it is, tidal where it is and so on. And as I state above geothermal can be used as a baseload. On the other hand Nuclear power is part of the problem. It is dirty from cradle to grave. Mining it is dirty, processing it is dirty, reprocessing it is dirty, and storing it is dirty. Plus no market or business will pay for it without government subsidies. Nuclear power is Hooked on Subsidies.

"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

Yes, we saw your CATO institute link before, and yet I'm still not impressed with it.

Everything is hooked on subsidies by their definition. We enjoy some of the lowest food prices in the World thanks to massive corn subsidies. No one is looking to remove them because everyone likes it that way. So let's just leave the "subsidies are bad" arguments out of it right now.

As for geothermal, you can't show me a single example of a geothermal plant that isn't located near or directly over a natural source of geothermal heat.

If you'd bothered to try and understand what I was saying (rather than doing your best to lump me in with all renewable bashers) you would have understood that when I said it needed continued research. My point was that it needed continued research before it could be used everywhere.

And, again, you keep using the fact of supposed subsidies as a catch-all excuse as too why Nuclear is bad. If you leave that out, I'm afraid your argument doesn't have much else.

No one has ever even contemplated replacing a Coal-fired plant with a renewable source of energy because renewable in no way, shape, or form have the dependability to be counted on to produce 24 hour a day, 7 day a week, 365 days a year Electricity. I'm not making this stuff up, it's simply a fact of life right now.

One, when did I say anything about closing down all coal-fired, Natural Gas-fired, or nuclear power plants right now? Two, it is a fact of life geothermal can provide a baseload of energy now, today. It is happening as I type this in Iceland, Hawaii, and in the Philippines. California gets 5% of it's baseload from geothermal [pdf] energy.

You can't try and solve every problem at once because all you'll end up doing in NOTHING AT ALL. We can solve a big chunk of our pollution problem right now by switching to Nuclear. We'll tackle the well understood problems with Nuclear when we get to that bridge.

Three, when have I said anything about the 1 big solution, other than discounting it? I haven't, I have repeatedly stated I believe that each place should use the source of energy that is available locally. Solar where it's available, wind where it is, tidal where it is and so on. And as I state above geothermal can be used as a baseload. On the other hand Nuclear power is part of the problem. It is dirty from cradle to grave. Mining it is dirty, processing it is dirty, reprocessing it is dirty, and storing it is dirty. Plus no market or business will pay for it without government subsidies. Nuclear power is Hooked on Subsidies.

"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

Geothermal can be that baseload.

nuclear waste is a problem for later, and will be solved by breeders, which reduce dramatically the volume of waste. It is easy and safe to burrow the final products from these reactors, the only problem being NIMBY

NIMBYs have also stopped wind farms, especially offshore from Maine to Cape Hatteras. For instance before he died Ted Kennedy opposed wind turbines in Cape Cod. Obama may be able to get one built.

As for the "real" price of nuclear, it is a bit like the US medical system, a larger part of the price comes from terrible legislation and political opposition, not from the intrinsic cost.

Ah, how far wrong can a person be? Forget the US, Neither China, France, India, nor Russia has found nuclear power profitable. In those countries politicians not the market says what gets built. Check out the "Forbes" article Hooked on Subsidies reprinted by the Freemarket CATO Institute. Especially notice where is says "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."

The French government owned company Areva has had large cost overruns building the Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant as well as thousands of defects and deficiencies in Finland.

Falcon

research funding for nuclear research such as thorium reactors or pebble bed reactors?

to increase safety and/or move onto other nuclear fuels

How about funding geothermal, solar, tidal, wind and other energy sources just as much? Give each one $54 Billion? Doesn't sound so good does it? How about not picking winners and losers at all? Instead let the market pick them.

Because as CATO, Forbes, and others say nuclear power is Hooked on Subsidies. The market would not support nuclear power without them.

Falcon

The problem is that none of those things can right now, today be used to replace Coal-fired Power Plants.

Coal-fired plants are principally where we get our power from because they can function economically for base load, 24 hour a day, 7 days a week continuous operation. None of the things you listed in your comment can replace Coal for that type of operation. With more R&D, that may not always be the case, but we can't continue pumping garbage into the air waiting for the magic bullet "someday" (I'm thinking of Geothermal, I'm not convinced Wind or ground based Solar will ever be reliable enough for baseload with all the research and money in the World). Nuclear can replace coal right now.

At the end of the day, who gets what subsidy doesn't matter. At some point, everything we currently depend upon for our way of life is subsidized to some degree or another.

People are making fun of the Administrations (not saying you personally, but some of the public in general) push for high-speed rail. They point out that AMTRAK couldn't exist without tax-payer dollars to fill in its funding gaps. What none of them realize is that the exact same thing can be said of the roads they drive on. People think that gasoline taxes pay for road maintenance, in reality those taxes barely make a dent in the total cost of maintaining our highway system (and even at that, it is in terrible shape for many parts of the Nation).

The problem I have with studies that proclaim "Nuclear couldn't exist without subsidies" is that they never make clear exactly what they are counting as a subsidy.

Loan Guarantees, for example, are NOT a subsidy as far as I'm concerned, not unless the utility actually defaults on the loan and the Government has to make it up. We've (speaking of the Government) been giving loan subsidies for dozens of years for Nuclear Power Plant construction and not once has the Government ever had to make good on the promise (meaning actually spend any money because a utility defaulted).

People try to make hay with the eventual cost of disposing of ever how much waste ultimately will need disposing of (I'm allowing for the fact that no matter how efficient secondary recovery efforts become for spent fuel, there will always be some small part that we do indeed have to worry about disposing of). The problem with that is that it ignores that fact that since the very first Nuclear Plant came online, utilities have been paying a tax per unit of electricity generated that specifically goes into a fund to pay for the ultimate disposal of nuclear waste.

With these facts in mind, I think the positives (no Coal pollution -- Heavy metals being spewed into the air, people dieing to mine the coal, pollution from the coal mining itself, etc.) far outweigh the negatives.

I for one would like to welcome our new Nuclear Power overlords. :)

research funding for nuclear research such as thorium reactors or pebble bed reactors?

to increase safety and/or move onto other nuclear fuels

How about funding geothermal, solar, tidal, wind and other energy sources just as much? Give each one $54 Billion? Doesn't sound so good does it? How about not picking winners and losers at all? Instead let the market pick them.

Because as CATO, Forbes, and others say nuclear power is Hooked on Subsidies. The market would not support nuclear power without them.

Falcon

the better discussion is why we have not punished our civil leaders for putting us into this system where there is NO protectionism of the American economy and production system.

A better discussion is that protectionism harms the economy. Try it some tyme. Look up the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 and what it did. Because the US passed a protectionist law other nations did the same in retaliation. Some economists, though not all, blame protectionism on causing the Great Depression.

Also, what happens to our "neighbours" ... our FUCKING neighbours! Flooding Mexico with our governments subsidized corn has repurcussions.

Ah, something we agree with. I have railed on about how because of NAFTA Mexican farmers are being driven off their farms because NAFTA allows large US agricultural businesses to export food and sell it in Mexico cheaper than Mexicans can grow it because of the massive subsidies these businesses get.

However you talk about "libertarian think-tanks that live in a dream world" but Libertarians, large and small "l", have called those subsidies corporate welfare. The article "Confessions of a Welfare Queen: How rich bastards like me rip off taxpayers for millions of dollars" was published in one of those libertarian magazine, "Reason". The libertarian think-tank CATO Institute has the article Archer Daniels Midland: A Case Study In Corporate Welfare on it's website as well as the CATO Handbook For Congress on corporate welfare. For more on what CATO has about corporate welfare check out the link.

Of course I don't expect anything more than "libertarians are evil" from many slashdotters.

Falcon

the better discussion is why we have not punished our civil leaders for putting us into this system where there is NO protectionism of the American economy and production system.

A better discussion is that protectionism harms the economy. Try it some tyme. Look up the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 and what it did. Because the US passed a protectionist law other nations did the same in retaliation. Some economists, though not all, blame protectionism on causing the Great Depression.

Also, what happens to our "neighbours" ... our FUCKING neighbours! Flooding Mexico with our governments subsidized corn has repurcussions.

Ah, something we agree with. I have railed on about how because of NAFTA Mexican farmers are being driven off their farms because NAFTA allows large US agricultural businesses to export food and sell it in Mexico cheaper than Mexicans can grow it because of the massive subsidies these businesses get.

However you talk about "libertarian think-tanks that live in a dream world" but Libertarians, large and small "l", have called those subsidies corporate welfare. The article "Confessions of a Welfare Queen: How rich bastards like me rip off taxpayers for millions of dollars" was published in one of those libertarian magazine, "Reason". The libertarian think-tank CATO Institute has the article Archer Daniels Midland: A Case Study In Corporate Welfare on it's website as well as the CATO Handbook For Congress on corporate welfare. For more on what CATO has about corporate welfare check out the link.

Of course I don't expect anything more than "libertarians are evil" from many slashdotters.

Falcon

how do you know? I think a lot of people might be more willing to try it if they see it sold at the local 7-11, which will result in more addicts.

Instead of talking hypotheticals, why don't we talk real world examples?

Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies

On July 1, 2001, a nationwide law in Portugal took effect that decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Under the new legal framework, all drugs were "decriminalized," not "legalized." Thus, drug possession for personal use and drug usage itself are still legally prohibited, but violations of those prohibitions are deemed to be exclusively administrative violations and are removed completely from the criminal realm. Drug trafficking continues to be prosecuted as a criminal offense. ...

More significantly, none of the nightmare scenarios touted by preenactment decriminalization opponents — from rampant increases in drug usage among the young to the transformation of Lisbon into a haven for "drug tourists" — has occurred.

"We are not running out of trees or forests. America has three-and-one-half times more forest land today than it had in 1920. America is growing 22 million new acres of forest annually while harvesting but 15 million acres, for a net gain of 7 million acres each year."

A quick google search reveals this quote from '92.

I'm sure it wouldn't take much more searching to find other comparable numbers. I'm guessing that 1920 in the quote was picked because it is a low point, but still, it's not like we currently have a big deforestation problem in the US, now is it? "Fully 87 percent of our paper stock comes from trees that are grown as a crop specifically for paper production."

"green energy" Green energy is for the most part only economical because of government subsidy.

and nuclear energy isn't subsidised ? and oil isn't subsidised?(if you're only watching FOX, I'll have to tell all those wars (in Iran, Iraq(*3), Kuwait, Afghanistan ... in the last 5 decades) are/were for oil, do you have any idea how much those wars cost?)
and see here :
http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2008/04/30/energy-payback-ratios-for-electricity-generation/
for a hint about the real economic factors of the different energy-systems.
furthermore:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8792

base load ?

see here :
http://www.greenlivingtips.com/articles/348/1/Baseload-power-bull.html
and here :
http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/myth-of-baseload.html
and here :
http://www.sustainabilitycentre.com.au/WindPowersStrength.pdf
and here :
from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_Power_Sources : for very large penetrations of the most intermittent source, wind energy, such sources when taken together become highly reliable

Spain

the economic crisis of Spain has nothing to do with windpower, but because of troubles in the tourism-sector(NW-europe goes on vacation in maroc, turkey in stead of Spain now), linked with over-investment in building new touristic facilities. (and a resulting crash of housing-prices.)

A question for you: individual people produce CO2 by simply living. Should they be forced to participate in cap and trade? What about other living beings? Do we pay trees for cleaning up the CO2? Where does it end?
Remember, we are talking about limiting the process which life itself depends upon. This is exactly what makes people rich or poor, and you want to use government guns to make them poorer. Remember, this will impact the poor more than the rich, as they have a higher carbon impact proportional to their income. What do you have against poor people?

sigh. cap-and-trade is a bad idea to start with, and that idea has been put forward by the industry, not by the 'greens'. a much better idea would be to invest in high-efficiency systems, superior insulation(triple pane, at least 1 foot insulation in roofs,passive housing), electric transportation/Zero-emission-Vehicles , replant the deserts, replant the forests, ... there are a LOT of good ideas out there, enough to give us a comfortable life with zero impact on the environment and future generations !

Like it or not there's multiple precedents for doing exactly that. Enemy combatants are only accorded POW status if they obey the laws of war.

The first link is about the execution of the conspirators in the Abraham Lincoln assassination.
The second link is about German saboteurs from WWII who were executed as spies.

1. What the fuck does that have to do with enemy combatants?
2. Those were the first two times military tribunals had ever been convened and they were controversial then.
Yes, 144 years ago, it was controversial to try non-POWs by the military.

The lengths people go to justify the Bush definition of "enemy combatants" never fails to surprise me.

When Al Quada starts fighting in uniforms under a flag and taking steps to prevent civilian casualties (rather then setting out to cause them) then we can start treating them as POWs.

This was written in 1949
Read the last paragraph.

If they aren't POWs (3rd Geneva Convention), then they are civilians (4th Convention).
International law is crystal clear that there is no intermediate status.
How hard is it to comprehend that you cannot throw people down a legal black hole and torture them?

If they're not POWs, then why would they be tried in a military tribunal?

Like it or not there's multiple precedents for doing exactly that. Enemy combatants are only accorded POW status if they obey the laws of war. When Al Quada starts fighting in uniforms under a flag and taking steps to prevent civilian casualties (rather then setting out to cause them) then we can start treating them as POWs.