Slashdot Mirror
Harry Reid Pushes Nevada As "Saudi Arabia of Geothermal Energy"
An anonymous reader writes "Of all the 'mainstream' forms of renewable energy, it seems that geothermal power is always left in the shadows compared to solar and wind power. However, that looks set to change with news that the US Department of Energy will fund geothermal projects in northwestern Nevada and southeast Oregon. With funds from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, the DOE has stated a 'conditional commitment' to provide a partial guarantee for a rumored $98.5 million loan to the Nevada Geothermal Power Company (NGP). According to US Senator Harry Reid, 'Northern Nevada is the Saudi Arabia of geothermal energy.'"
I wouldn't worry too much about Harry's opinions, he's fading in to history pretty darn soon.
On behalf of California, I'd like to ask you to please restrict your funding of drilling holes into the crust to the other side of the country, or maybe like the middle, y'know? Really far away from fault lines, basically.
If you accidentally tick off The Big One and Southern California falls into the ocean, all you'll have left are those crazy Northern California people, and we'll -so- become a Red State.
Trust me, your boss doesn't want that.
Yeah, I know its possible to do geothermal energy safely. Its also possible to make earthquakes with it. Let's side over on the cautious end in the west coast, shall we?
another republiCUNT.
Seriously... if you only see failure in the party you hate, you're not seeing the whole picture.
Take that hate, and hate them ALL with us. Not just Obama, or the democrats... but the republicans to.
Lets put aside "Jesus" and "Abortion"... and lets actually pick up shovels and start filling the fucking hole left by the these criminal con artists we call elected representatives.
It makes me wonder, if Senators bring in pork to their state to get re-elected, do you think there would be more pork in general if we repealed the direct election of senators, which some claim would give states more say in the Federal government? As is I think the fact that so much party money is on the line to keep representatives 'pure', which greatly distorts the idea of local elections.
Weird. I'd say the exact opposite. With the past election cycle notwithstanding, I've noticed that local politicians in the states where I've lived have been elected on a "getting shit done" basis, rather than an ideological one.
Ideally, the bicameral legislature should be balanced so that the members of the House duke it out over domestic and more "local" issues, while the Senate focuses on issues of equal importance to all 50 states (foreign policy, etc). In other words, your vote for senator should be the most "purely ideological" vote that you cast, as the senate should be involved in the least amount of micromanaging. (This is not the case, which is why pork happens. If big states got their proportional share of resources (or some close approximation thereof), I suspect that few of us would be complaining about it.)
Of course, this brings up the inconsistency that nobody really knows what the states are supposed to do anymore. Although the 10th Amendment seems to make things clear, the remainder of the Constitution is vague enough to grant the federal government almost unlimited power (ie. the interstate commerce clause -- virtually no business is conducted exclusively within state lines today). In many cases, it also makes no sense for individual states to manage things like environmental and health policy on a one-by-one basis. With one or two exceptions, the USA has functioned as a singular entity for over 100 years.
Unfortunately, the states' rights debate has been poisoned by a number of very loud proponents with completely untenable ideas. While I think we can agree that it's completely unacceptable for one human to own another (some southerners still haven't let this one go), there's a reasonable debate to be had over the fact that states like New Jersey get just $0.50 on the dollar back from their federal tax outlays. (The disparity between New York City and New York State is similar). Ironically, it's the blue states that rarely complain about "wealth redistribution" that get hit the hardest.
There are also areas where the state lines (as drawn) make no sense. I wake up in Washington DC, ride my bike to go to work in Virginia, and then hop on a subway train to eat dinner in Maryland. Finding a scheme to govern and fairly tax this clusterf$*#k is a nightmare. Lately, the VA and MD governments have even been using DC's transit system as a political pawn, and threatening to shut it down or withhold funding (which I might add, is primarily used to ferry VA/MD residents into DC for work, an arrangement from which VA/MD benefit vastly, as DC has no tolls or commuter tax). Can you reasonably defend this system?
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Wasn't Nevada also proclaimed as the dumping ground for nuclear and toxic waste?
That would certainly go a long way in explaining Harry Reid.
American Third Position
Finally, a real choice!