Users have shown that they will not pay for online content unless there is an actual value-add. News sites provide nothing that can't be eventually seen on TV or read elsewhere.
Newspapers are done. Trumpeting AdBlock isn't going to help them make a cent.
I would agree that large-scale newspapers are obsolete as the printed paper is concerned (they still might exist as generic news gathers), but the small-scale newspapers are still doing pretty good. Now, when I say small-scale, I don't mean the difference between the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, I mean like the difference between the New York Times and the small-town (>7,500 subscribers) newspapers. I live in a small town myself and I can say that our local paper hasn't seen any unusual drop in subscribers even through the doom-and-gloom of the giants.
The secret is that most of the smaller papers stick to their knitting. The larger papers still try and do what they didn't 50 years ago and be the end all and be all news source. It's ridiculous for a printed newspaper to try and compete with 24/7 Internet News Coverage (as we saw with the recent Twitter coverage in Iran).
The small town papers, however, cover things the larger ones wouldn't even think about. I'm talking about boring things like school plays, pumpkin growing contests, etc. That's all small potatoes to CNN/MSNBC/Fox News/etc. but means a lot to the little kid *getting* their picture in the paper (much less the parent who gets to cut it out and frame it to embarrass them later with:))
What we need is a division of sources and coverage. We don't need anymore one-size-fits-all news organizations, we need a lot of smaller companies that can tend to their individual areas much more thoroughly.
As of March 9, 2009, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission had received applications for permission to construct 26 new nuclear power reactors with applications for another 7 expected. Six of these reactors have actually been ordered. In addition, the Tennessee Valley Authority petitioned to restart construction on the first two units at Bellefonte.
If wind and solar energy is so cheap and easy, why is Nuclear Energy experiencing such a resurgence? Why would anyone spend the billions needed for plant construction IF they could spend so much less and get the same amount of power (the *and* is very important because they companies make contracts to provide a steady stream of power, not just when the wind blows or the sun shines.)
OH! You asked for citation regarding the "Megaton to Megawatts" program. (though I don't understand why you are so snappy)
I'm afraid you don't understand the difference between theory and fact. You see, the United States is the largest supplier of Nuclear Power at 100,000 megawatts (about 20% of our current electrical production). (citation for this can be found in my original wiki article above, regarding "Nuclear Power in the United States")
France receives over 80% of their electricity from Nuclear power.
Too me, I think that leaves the land of "theory" and enters the land of fact. It is a fact that Investment in Nuclear (though lower than Coal or Natural Gas) is stronger than wind. Companies wouldn't put that much money on the line if they didn't expect a payback.
"Nick d'Arbeloff [masshightech.com], president of the New England Clean Energy Council, views nuclear plants as costly. "Nuclear power plants are massively expensive and they are massively subsidized."
-begin sarcasm - Wow! A salesperson for renewable energy concluded that renewable energy is cheaper than it's chief competitor! How odd! -end sarcasm-
===
with a virtually nonexistent environmental footprint
Try to tell that to indigenous people's from who's land uranium is mined. Ask the Sioux [sustainabilitank.info] or Navajo [lww.com] in the US. Ask the Algonquin First Nation [malko.com] in Canada. Or the aboriginals in Australia such as the Adnyamathanha community [indymedia.org.au].
Uh, you are aware that the majority of Uranium for Commercial Nuclear Power now comes from deactivated Nuclear Warheads. Sounds like these people got a bum deal. A lot of Ford Pinto owners got a bum deal when a few of them burst into flames in minor traffic accidents, doesn't mean we abandoned the automobile, did it?
===
"Haha!!! "But as nuclear reactors take at least a decade to build [ft.com], including the approval process, a lot could change in the coming years." Notice how TFA is about nuclear power throughout the world, and not just building plants in the US. Notice also how the website is the Financial Times. Wiki [wikipedia.org] goes even further: "With extremely long lead times of 10 years and more [for plant construction], it is practically impossible to increase or even maintain the number of operating nuclear power plants over the next 20 years, unless operating lifetimes would be substantially increased beyond 40 years on average." French government owned Areva, the world's largest builder, is building a new plant in Finland [pdf] [greens-efa.org]. Only two years into construction it was already 2 years behind schedule and was 50% over budget. Hold it, that data is out of date. As of 9 July 2009 Olkiluoto 3 [nuclearcounterfeit.com] was "three years later than planned and about $2.4bn dollars (1.7bn euros) over budget.""
The AP1000 will be manufactured in modules designed for rail or barge shipment. This will allow constructing many modules in parallel. The plant is designed to have fuel load 36 months after concrete is first poured. This construction period is much shorter than generation II designs. If achieved, it should greatly decrease the interest costs needed to build the plant. Such reductions would make the design much more economically competitive against other power sources than previous generation nuclear plants.
Can they do it, I have no idea (though, luckily, the Chinese have volunteered to be the first guinea pigs as four of these reactors are currently under construction there).
If they can (and we've seen what prefabrication has done for other industries, that is too say make construction cheaper and quicker) then I think (again, along with "Cap and Trade" costs for Coal Fired energy plants) Nuclear will shake off a lot of the problems it suffered from in the past (though, in truth, all of the older plants have already pretty much solved problems that arose after construction).
I'm sorry if you don't "believe" these things, but they are as perfectly possible as theories regarding mass adoption of Solar and Wind (though I do think Nuclear is a sounder investment if only because there's never a doubt that it will produce electricity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week).
Objecting because nuclear power is dirty is wrong? Objecting because nuclear power is "Hooked On Subsidies" and is not profitable without those subsidies is wrong? Objecting because cost overruns quadruple the cost of building plants is just wrong?
Falcon
Cost overruns are just the result of sloppy accounting, not some overall problem with the business of Nuclear Power Plant construction.
As for you oft-claimed "Hooked on Subsidies" argument, I would say that any business would be crazy *not* too take free money being handed it. However, Nuclear Power has always been at a disadvantage simply because the *total* cost of burning Coal has never been factored into the argument.
Once the environmental impact of burning coal *is* factored in (which, under the new "Cap and Trade" bill currently under consideration, that is *PRECISELY* what will happen), Nuclear can stand straight and tall on it's own too feet because not one of the over 100 Nuclear Plants currently in operation (and the *SEVEN* NEW ones that have been ordered that you conveniently forgot to mention) produce anything but steam and hot water as a byproduct.
No CO2, no Mercury, and no *radioactive* fly-ash (I'm puzzled as too why anti-nuclear zealots leave out the fact that the World's Coal Power Plants release HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of times *MORE* radioactivity every day than all the Nuclear Power Plants AND Nuclear Weapons ever built or detonated).
I've never heard a nuclear power proponent turn down a subsidy. They are "Hooked On Subsidies".
Falcon
Of course not! Why would anyone turn down a subsidy offered? That doesn't change the fact, however, that A Nuclear Power plant and produce energy cheaper than coal with a virtually nonexistent environmental footprint AND with equal reliability (which, of all of the renewables I've ever heard of, none can accomplish all three).
Subsidies will be taken by the Nuclear Industry as long as they are offered (again, who in their right mind would refuse money!) but that doesn't change the fact that even on equal footing, Nuclear Power is ever bit as sound an investment as Coal Fired Energy and every bit as reliable as Coal Fired Energy.
As a Democrat who voted for President Obama, I'm seeing a lot of moves in the area of environmental law that make me very excited on the future of Nuclear Energy.
One, the new "Cap and Trade" laws will make Coal Power (which is already more expensive to operate than Nuclear, even though the initial plant construction costs *might* be cheaper) even more expensive, and I believe this will leave a very large opening that can only be filled with Nuclear Energy.
Despite all the rosy pictures and cheery outlook for renewables, *only* Nuclear Energy is a drop in replacement for Coal Fired Energy.
Right at this moment, we could begin construction of Nuclear Power Plants beside every Coal Fired Plant in the country and in the space of less than a decade, be in a position to TURN OFF those Coal Fired Stations and *instantly* be under the CO2 emission limits that the Kyoto Treaty would have called for had it been ratified in the United States.
This irrational fear of Nuclear Energy is soon to be overcome not with a sudden public awakening (which is really long overdue) but by shear market forces.
Coal is about to be made extinct by Environmental concerns and the ONLY replacement will be Nuclear.
Frankly, I think the future looks very bright indeed!
Something's just occurred to me. Given a fixed amount of petroleum reserves on the planet, the net effect on the climate resulting from using it all for fuel could very well be the same whether it gets used sooner or later. In that case, the question of what action should be taken could best be answered only after the costs for releasing specific quantities of carbon into the atmosphere are known. I realize that the climate is a complex system and that it may not be possible to make these kind of predictions with reasonable certainty. But consider:
either 1) There is a certain maximum level of carbon release that we would be wise to never reach, because the negative effects of global warming (or whatever) would simply be too great. Fossil fuels will have to be abandoned completely at some point.
or 2) Burning all the cheaply available fossil fuels would have a certain environmental effect X, but steps could be taken to mitigate this effect. And, the benefit of exploiting the available fossil fuels exceeds the cost of "cleaning up the mess" (for instance, relocating people from flooded areas if sea levels rise.) In this case, worrying about carbon footprints will have been for naught, because once the oil is used all the carbon will have been emitted anyway.
Except we have no idea if we'd even be able to "clean up the mess", much less how much it might cost.
If the American bread basket, for example, we to be made unsuitable for farming after a period of warming, hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people would die from starvation. If would make the current rate of hunger look like a picnic.
All the money in the world couldn't fix that, I'm afraid.
Your point about carbon neutrality is valid, but there is a reason for the pursuit of a safe, inexpensive hydrogen storage system. The PEM fuel cells that car manufacturers have been developing do not respond well to exposure to any hydrocarbon (except methanol). The short story is that carbon compounds foul the catalysts and ruin the fuel cell performance. For these systems, it would be ideal to feed them pure hydrogen from a storage tank. The other alternative is reform some hydrocarbon into hydrogen gas on the fly. That requires more energy and more equipment (more weight both for the reformer and for the carbon in the fuel that can't be used) and ultimate impacts the operational efficiency of the car. Pure hydrogen fuel makes the fuel cell system much lighter, cheaper, and easier to design and manufacture. The production of the pure H2 can be moved off to stationary reformer/production facilities.
So this is great news. I have long been skeptical about the feasibility of fuel cell cars with hydrogen storage being one of my main concerns. This new approach has the potential to remove it from my list. Of course, you still have the hydrogen production problem (what is the end-to-end efficiency?), the freezing problem (PEMs have hydrated membranes and water freezes), and the catalyst problem (how much platinum and palladium is there in the world?)
But my entire point was that switching to fuel cell vehicles (even if all the other problems are solved) will cost as much, if not more, than simply solving the fuel problem with the ICE.
Because, as I said before, the problem is with the fuel, not the concept of internal combustion.
Now, there is something to be said for electric vehicles (which fuel cells would power). They are far more efficient than ICEs (as diesel-electric locomotives and current gas-electric hybrids show), but we can solve our environmental and defense needs without reinventing the wheel.
What if the earth was making hydrocarbons in abundance?
I think it is referred to as a-biotic production. There is a TON of heat, and pressure below the crust of the earth. It makes sense to me that this could be occurring. What going to happen when we figure out that we aren't going to run out of oil?
I think there was a paper published by Western WA University Spokane, but I'm not sure where to find it today.
Kevin
You're talking about the theory of Abiogenic petroleum.
Screw fuel cells. Just burn H2 instead of gasoline in a regular internal combustion engine. You could even convert a gas engine to a hydrogen engine with a kit.
dom
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with burning hydrogen directly in an Internal Combustion Engine, however pure hydrogen has a relatively low BTU content when burned, much lower than gasoline (the reason being that gasoline has the extra kick of several carbon atoms being burned while you're burning the hydrogen atoms).
The end result of all this is that your car or truck would have far *less* power when burning pure hydrogen as it does burning gasoline.
My point was that we need to stop wasting time and money searching for some type of hydrogen storage system when it is obvious that the cost of *any* new system will cost trillions and will never be supported politically in the time frames needed.
My point is that it will cost at least as much (and possibly more) to attempt to convert every ICE powered vehicle to electric or hydrogen fuel cell power as it would be to simply setup Synthetic Fuel Plants *right now* and start feeding our gas tanks with Synthetic Gasoline/Diesel/Jet Fuel, etc.
By producing hydrogen on the coasts (the cleanest way would be using Nuclear, however even using coal and natural gas fired energy would be more efficient than the current trend of burning petroleum) and combining that with carbon collected from the air, we could begin to take care of two problems at the same time.
First, we would make hydrocarbon based fuels carbon-neutral *and* start to wean ourselves away from our dependence on foreign oil.
When you and your socialist friends get Exxon Mobile shut down
Where does this vile come from?
Why is it that whenever a liberal questions a conservative, they always ask simply for information?
Case in point: Despite all the hateful things spewed on both sides, the main liberal critique of the Bush Administration was that they *cut corners* and went to war with Iraq *before* all the facts were in.
Democrats simply pointed out an undeniable fact. It isn't propaganda, it isn't "liberal" media driven, it is a cold hard FACT. The Bush Administration jumped into a war with Iraq without taking the time to properly plan for it.
Now, why is it when Conservatives criticize Liberals, they always, ALWAYS call us Socialists/Marxists/take your pick?
Why are people like you so damn hateful when all we're trying to do is point out that *WE* think the system needs some work? Why do people like you always, ALWAYS rush to the conclusion that anything other than the status-quo is going to be worse?
Why can't the United States have a health care system like Canada, where no matter how bad things get (you lose your job, your future may not look the brightest, etc.) you at least know you aren't going to die from a treatable disease.
Why can't the United States move from energy sources like oil? Regardless of what you think of the environment, it is a *FACT*, not propaganda, not myth, but a FACT that we will *ALWAYS* be forced to depend on other nations as long as we use oil, we will *NEVER* have enough oil domestically to supply our needs.
The list could go on almost forever, but please just answer me those two.
Why do people like you label every attempt to maybe change things from the way they are to something better lash out in fear (like moaning about taxes, as though your taxes won't *ever* increase without bill/law xyz) instead of engaging in discussion?
And I wonder how long before the hypocrisy of the right begins.
Under Bush, any official support for the idea of Global Warming was seen as damn near unpatriotic. The Bush Administration censored dozens of official reports (such as James Hansen) that backed up the claims of Human induced Climate Change and conservatives looked at him like he was Zeus because of it.
Now, under Obama, now that the shoe is on the other foot, now the conservatives (mark my words, if they aren't already) will run out and use this as some type of proof of the "evilness" of liberals for no other reason that now *they* are the ones being "censored".
The GP was right, this means nothing accept that in politics are politics regardless of what side of the ideological line you call home.
What most people don't seem to understand is that the environmental problem with burning hydrocarbons (gasoline, diesel, etc.) *is not* with the act itself. My point being that the principle of the Internal Combustion Engine isn't the problem.
The problem is where the hydrocarbons come from. Right now, the feedstock for hydrocarbon based fuel production is petroleum. That petroleum is happy underground and would stay that way virtually indefinitely *if* we didn't pump it to the surface.
That brings us to the problem: When we burn hydrocarbon fuels based on petroleum, we are adding carbon to the atmosphere that was locked underground. However, *if* we burn hydrocarbon based fuels that are synthetically created using (among other things) recaptured Carbon from the air, then we are *not* adding to the CO2 load of the planet and therefore can focus on more immediate environmental problems.
It's going to happen sooner or later. However much petroleum there is in the ground (20 years or 200), it is for sure and certain that *one* day it will run out. We're eventually going to have no choice but to switch to a hydrogen economy and I've seen *nothing* on the drawing board (even far flung into the future) that matches the energy potential of hydrocarbons.
What? If they are man-caused (apparently because of global warming) they aren't natural, eh?
The concept of human caused warming will one day go down as one of the greatest scams of all time. It was used to enrich a few (like Al Gore), increase the power of a few more (Democrats) and make a few outspoken wackos (environmentalists) feel good.
In the meantime, thousands of lost jobs, lost homes, busted up families, children forced in to lesser quality schools, reduced standard of living for everyone, prolonged recession if not complete depression and a massive increase in the misery rate.
It was a poor, poor, poor example of the joke US society has become that the media (already massively basised for this piece of crap) could only focus on the death of a odd-ball has been pop star instead of the very serious joke going in Washington that is going to help bankrupt this country and destroy the lives of our children.
Well! That pretty much includes every right-wing, "the black helicopters are coming!" conspiracy theory ever invented.
Congratulations! You should call Guinness, I sure that tie-raid of right-wing, "I don't want to hear bad news so I'll just bury my head in the sand!" rhetoric has to set some type of record for the longest line of bullshit ever spouted in a public forum!
America's energy policy is bullshit, and that's not changed. The current dickwad-in-chief is currently fucking over America by claiming at once that we are "overly dependent on foreign oil" and yet at the same time refusing to lift the restrictions and blockages that he himself put in place that are preventing us from scaling up our nuclear energy program, which is the ONE alternative energy program we have that has any chance in hell of making a significant dent in it.
Of course I could point out that this bill has provision *SPECIFICALLY ALLOWING* Nuclear Power Plant construction to receive the same benefits as solar, wind, etc. but I'm betting that wouldn't make it through your Reality Distortion Field.
*However*, with a large source of CO2 (that has already been emitted, so we don't have to worry about it "building up") like this, it might well be feasible to create a synthetic, instead of bionic, fuels industry.
All we need to go with the CO2 is a large source of Hydrogen (which can be abstracted from Seawater).
You're missing the biggest prerequisite -- a lot of energy to run the reactions.
So what? If we aren't worried about CO2 emissions, then all we have to worry about is economics.
At this moment in time, Electricity equivalent to the energy contained in a gallon of Gasoline is literally pennies compared to an actual gallon of Gasoline, and that's with Coal.
With Nuclear, the price of electricity is even cheaper.
Basically, a company would be turning the cheapest source of energy into the most expense, and that's not a bad job if you can get it:).
Biofuel availability is orders of magnitude less than what is needed to replace fossil sources.
Indeed right. This idea that we can "grow" our way into energy independence has been debunked many times before.
*However*, with a large source of CO2 (that has already been emitted, so we don't have to worry about it "building up") like this, it might well be feasible to create a synthetic, instead of bionic, fuels industry.
All we need to go with the CO2 is a large source of Hydrogen (which can be abstracted from Seawater).
This until we find some mobile source of energy that can rival intense chemical compactness of gasoline, diesel, etc.
There's a reason we propped up the Shah. And there a reason we went into Iraq. There's a reason we're in Afghanistan. Everything has to do with resource control. Meddling with Iran has less to do with defeating evil, and more to do with destabilization.
Well, at least you didn't continue that ludicrous diatribe of "we're stealing their oil!!!" As though we don't pay top dollar (along with the rest of the World) for every barrel we use.
What's the point? NY doesn't have anywhere near as much (potential for) oil as Iran.
While Iran does have a lot of oil for it's population density, it's production peaked in the 1970s at something like 6 million bpd. I think now they struggle to keep it at like 3 or 4 million bpd.
Technically strictly speaking, the U.S. already pumps more than that domestically.
Unless you're a left-winger I suppose, in which case nothing is ever your fault or your responsibility.
I thought that was the Conservative tactic?
Every *single* time President Obama has attempted to make a menses for something not quite smart the United States has done, people like you shout from the Mountain Tops that he's being a traitor for not carrying *your* parties line that "America is great, America is always been great..."?
So I'm confused, at which point does it become wrong to start taking responsibility for one's past actions?
Slashdot Mirror
Users have shown that they will not pay for online content unless there is an actual value-add. News sites provide nothing that can't be eventually seen on TV or read elsewhere.
Newspapers are done. Trumpeting AdBlock isn't going to help them make a cent.
I would agree that large-scale newspapers are obsolete as the printed paper is concerned (they still might exist as generic news gathers), but the small-scale newspapers are still doing pretty good. Now, when I say small-scale, I don't mean the difference between the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, I mean like the difference between the New York Times and the small-town (>7,500 subscribers) newspapers. I live in a small town myself and I can say that our local paper hasn't seen any unusual drop in subscribers even through the doom-and-gloom of the giants.
The secret is that most of the smaller papers stick to their knitting. The larger papers still try and do what they didn't 50 years ago and be the end all and be all news source. It's ridiculous for a printed newspaper to try and compete with 24/7 Internet News Coverage (as we saw with the recent Twitter coverage in Iran).
The small town papers, however, cover things the larger ones wouldn't even think about. I'm talking about boring things like school plays, pumpkin growing contests, etc. That's all small potatoes to CNN/MSNBC/Fox News/etc. but means a lot to the little kid *getting* their picture in the paper (much less the parent who gets to cut it out and frame it to embarrass them later with :))
What we need is a division of sources and coverage. We don't need anymore one-size-fits-all news organizations, we need a lot of smaller companies that can tend to their individual areas much more thoroughly.
That Island was perfectly good enough to offer to Hannibal Lecture as a vacation spot, why is it too good for these diseased animals?
Why do you have such a chip on your shoulder?
Wind and solar are proven.
Then where are they? If wind and solar are as cheap as you say (and your friends say), then where are they?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_united_states#Resurgence
As of March 9, 2009, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission had received applications for permission to construct 26 new nuclear power reactors with applications for another 7 expected. Six of these reactors have actually been ordered. In addition, the Tennessee Valley Authority petitioned to restart construction on the first two units at Bellefonte.
If wind and solar energy is so cheap and easy, why is Nuclear Energy experiencing such a resurgence? Why would anyone spend the billions needed for plant construction IF they could spend so much less and get the same amount of power (the *and* is very important because they companies make contracts to provide a steady stream of power, not just when the wind blows or the sun shines.)
OH! You asked for citation regarding the "Megaton to Megawatts" program. (though I don't understand why you are so snappy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program
You believe in the theories of nuclear power
I'm afraid you don't understand the difference between theory and fact. You see, the United States is the largest supplier of Nuclear Power at 100,000 megawatts (about 20% of our current electrical production). (citation for this can be found in my original wiki article above, regarding "Nuclear Power in the United States")
France receives over 80% of their electricity from Nuclear power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_france
Too me, I think that leaves the land of "theory" and enters the land of fact. It is a fact that Investment in Nuclear (though lower than Coal or Natural Gas) is stronger than wind. Companies wouldn't put that much money on the line if they didn't expect a payback.
"Nick d'Arbeloff [masshightech.com], president of the New England Clean Energy Council, views nuclear plants as costly. "Nuclear power plants are massively expensive and they are massively subsidized."
-begin sarcasm - Wow! A salesperson for renewable energy concluded that renewable energy is cheaper than it's chief competitor! How odd! -end sarcasm-
===
with a virtually nonexistent environmental footprint
Try to tell that to indigenous people's from who's land uranium is mined. Ask the Sioux [sustainabilitank.info] or Navajo [lww.com] in the US. Ask the Algonquin First Nation [malko.com] in Canada. Or the aboriginals in Australia such as the Adnyamathanha community [indymedia.org.au].
Uh, you are aware that the majority of Uranium for Commercial Nuclear Power now comes from deactivated Nuclear Warheads. Sounds like these people got a bum deal. A lot of Ford Pinto owners got a bum deal when a few of them burst into flames in minor traffic accidents, doesn't mean we abandoned the automobile, did it?
===
"Haha!!! "But as nuclear reactors take at least a decade to build [ft.com], including the approval process, a lot could change in the coming years." Notice how TFA is about nuclear power throughout the world, and not just building plants in the US. Notice also how the website is the Financial Times. Wiki [wikipedia.org] goes even further: "With extremely long lead times of 10 years and more [for plant construction], it is practically impossible to increase or even maintain the number of operating nuclear power plants over the next 20 years, unless operating lifetimes would be substantially increased beyond 40 years on average." French government owned Areva, the world's largest builder, is building a new plant in Finland [pdf] [greens-efa.org]. Only two years into construction it was already 2 years behind schedule and was 50% over budget. Hold it, that data is out of date. As of 9 July 2009 Olkiluoto 3 [nuclearcounterfeit.com] was "three years later than planned and about $2.4bn dollars (1.7bn euros) over budget.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000
The AP1000 will be manufactured in modules designed for rail or barge shipment. This will allow constructing many modules in parallel. The plant is designed to have fuel load 36 months after concrete is first poured. This construction period is much shorter than generation II designs. If achieved, it should greatly decrease the interest costs needed to build the plant. Such reductions would make the design much more economically competitive against other power sources than previous generation nuclear plants.
Can they do it, I have no idea (though, luckily, the Chinese have volunteered to be the first guinea pigs as four of these reactors are currently under construction there).
If they can (and we've seen what prefabrication has done for other industries, that is too say make construction cheaper and quicker) then I think (again, along with "Cap and Trade" costs for Coal Fired energy plants) Nuclear will shake off a lot of the problems it suffered from in the past (though, in truth, all of the older plants have already pretty much solved problems that arose after construction).
I'm sorry if you don't "believe" these things, but they are as perfectly possible as theories regarding mass adoption of Solar and Wind (though I do think Nuclear is a sounder investment if only because there's never a doubt that it will produce electricity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week).
just wrong.
Objecting because nuclear power is dirty is wrong? Objecting because nuclear power is "Hooked On Subsidies" and is not profitable without those subsidies is wrong? Objecting because cost overruns quadruple the cost of building plants is just wrong?
Falcon
Cost overruns are just the result of sloppy accounting, not some overall problem with the business of Nuclear Power Plant construction.
As for you oft-claimed "Hooked on Subsidies" argument, I would say that any business would be crazy *not* too take free money being handed it. However, Nuclear Power has always been at a disadvantage simply because the *total* cost of burning Coal has never been factored into the argument.
Once the environmental impact of burning coal *is* factored in (which, under the new "Cap and Trade" bill currently under consideration, that is *PRECISELY* what will happen), Nuclear can stand straight and tall on it's own too feet because not one of the over 100 Nuclear Plants currently in operation (and the *SEVEN* NEW ones that have been ordered that you conveniently forgot to mention) produce anything but steam and hot water as a byproduct.
No CO2, no Mercury, and no *radioactive* fly-ash (I'm puzzled as too why anti-nuclear zealots leave out the fact that the World's Coal Power Plants release HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of times *MORE* radioactivity every day than all the Nuclear Power Plants AND Nuclear Weapons ever built or detonated).
I've never heard a nuclear power proponent turn down a subsidy. They are "Hooked On Subsidies".
Falcon
Of course not! Why would anyone turn down a subsidy offered? That doesn't change the fact, however, that A Nuclear Power plant and produce energy cheaper than coal with a virtually nonexistent environmental footprint AND with equal reliability (which, of all of the renewables I've ever heard of, none can accomplish all three).
Subsidies will be taken by the Nuclear Industry as long as they are offered (again, who in their right mind would refuse money!) but that doesn't change the fact that even on equal footing, Nuclear Power is ever bit as sound an investment as Coal Fired Energy and every bit as reliable as Coal Fired Energy.
As a Democrat who voted for President Obama, I'm seeing a lot of moves in the area of environmental law that make me very excited on the future of Nuclear Energy.
One, the new "Cap and Trade" laws will make Coal Power (which is already more expensive to operate than Nuclear, even though the initial plant construction costs *might* be cheaper) even more expensive, and I believe this will leave a very large opening that can only be filled with Nuclear Energy.
Despite all the rosy pictures and cheery outlook for renewables, *only* Nuclear Energy is a drop in replacement for Coal Fired Energy.
Right at this moment, we could begin construction of Nuclear Power Plants beside every Coal Fired Plant in the country and in the space of less than a decade, be in a position to TURN OFF those Coal Fired Stations and *instantly* be under the CO2 emission limits that the Kyoto Treaty would have called for had it been ratified in the United States.
This irrational fear of Nuclear Energy is soon to be overcome not with a sudden public awakening (which is really long overdue) but by shear market forces.
Coal is about to be made extinct by Environmental concerns and the ONLY replacement will be Nuclear.
Frankly, I think the future looks very bright indeed!
attractive people seem to have more dates!
More at 11!
Something's just occurred to me. Given a fixed amount of petroleum reserves on the planet, the net effect on the climate resulting from using it all for fuel could very well be the same whether it gets used sooner or later. In that case, the question of what action should be taken could best be answered only after the costs for releasing specific quantities of carbon into the atmosphere are known. I realize that the climate is a complex system and that it may not be possible to make these kind of predictions with reasonable certainty. But consider:
either 1) There is a certain maximum level of carbon release that we would be wise to never reach, because the negative effects of global warming (or whatever) would simply be too great. Fossil fuels will have to be abandoned completely at some point.
or 2) Burning all the cheaply available fossil fuels would have a certain environmental effect X, but steps could be taken to mitigate this effect. And, the benefit of exploiting the available fossil fuels exceeds the cost of "cleaning up the mess" (for instance, relocating people from flooded areas if sea levels rise.) In this case, worrying about carbon footprints will have been for naught, because once the oil is used all the carbon will have been emitted anyway.
Except we have no idea if we'd even be able to "clean up the mess", much less how much it might cost.
If the American bread basket, for example, we to be made unsuitable for farming after a period of warming, hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people would die from starvation. If would make the current rate of hunger look like a picnic.
All the money in the world couldn't fix that, I'm afraid.
Your point about carbon neutrality is valid, but there is a reason for the pursuit of a safe, inexpensive hydrogen storage system. The PEM fuel cells that car manufacturers have been developing do not respond well to exposure to any hydrocarbon (except methanol). The short story is that carbon compounds foul the catalysts and ruin the fuel cell performance. For these systems, it would be ideal to feed them pure hydrogen from a storage tank. The other alternative is reform some hydrocarbon into hydrogen gas on the fly. That requires more energy and more equipment (more weight both for the reformer and for the carbon in the fuel that can't be used) and ultimate impacts the operational efficiency of the car. Pure hydrogen fuel makes the fuel cell system much lighter, cheaper, and easier to design and manufacture. The production of the pure H2 can be moved off to stationary reformer/production facilities.
So this is great news. I have long been skeptical about the feasibility of fuel cell cars with hydrogen storage being one of my main concerns. This new approach has the potential to remove it from my list. Of course, you still have the hydrogen production problem (what is the end-to-end efficiency?), the freezing problem (PEMs have hydrated membranes and water freezes), and the catalyst problem (how much platinum and palladium is there in the world?)
But my entire point was that switching to fuel cell vehicles (even if all the other problems are solved) will cost as much, if not more, than simply solving the fuel problem with the ICE.
Because, as I said before, the problem is with the fuel, not the concept of internal combustion.
Now, there is something to be said for electric vehicles (which fuel cells would power). They are far more efficient than ICEs (as diesel-electric locomotives and current gas-electric hybrids show), but we can solve our environmental and defense needs without reinventing the wheel.
What if the earth was making hydrocarbons in abundance?
I think it is referred to as a-biotic production. There is a TON of heat, and pressure below the crust of the earth. It makes sense to me that this could be occurring. What going to happen when we figure out that we aren't going to run out of oil?
I think there was a paper published by Western WA University Spokane, but I'm not sure where to find it today.
Kevin
You're talking about the theory of Abiogenic petroleum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
Unfortunately, I'm afraid there's little evidence to support it.
Screw fuel cells. Just burn H2 instead of gasoline in a regular internal combustion engine. You could even convert a gas engine to a hydrogen engine with a kit.
dom
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with burning hydrogen directly in an Internal Combustion Engine, however pure hydrogen has a relatively low BTU content when burned, much lower than gasoline (the reason being that gasoline has the extra kick of several carbon atoms being burned while you're burning the hydrogen atoms).
The end result of all this is that your car or truck would have far *less* power when burning pure hydrogen as it does burning gasoline.
My point was that we need to stop wasting time and money searching for some type of hydrogen storage system when it is obvious that the cost of *any* new system will cost trillions and will never be supported politically in the time frames needed.
My point is that it will cost at least as much (and possibly more) to attempt to convert every ICE powered vehicle to electric or hydrogen fuel cell power as it would be to simply setup Synthetic Fuel Plants *right now* and start feeding our gas tanks with Synthetic Gasoline/Diesel/Jet Fuel, etc.
By producing hydrogen on the coasts (the cleanest way would be using Nuclear, however even using coal and natural gas fired energy would be more efficient than the current trend of burning petroleum) and combining that with carbon collected from the air, we could begin to take care of two problems at the same time.
First, we would make hydrocarbon based fuels carbon-neutral *and* start to wean ourselves away from our dependence on foreign oil.
When you and your socialist friends get Exxon Mobile shut down
Where does this vile come from?
Why is it that whenever a liberal questions a conservative, they always ask simply for information?
Case in point: Despite all the hateful things spewed on both sides, the main liberal critique of the Bush Administration was that they *cut corners* and went to war with Iraq *before* all the facts were in.
Democrats simply pointed out an undeniable fact. It isn't propaganda, it isn't "liberal" media driven, it is a cold hard FACT. The Bush Administration jumped into a war with Iraq without taking the time to properly plan for it.
Now, why is it when Conservatives criticize Liberals, they always, ALWAYS call us Socialists/Marxists/take your pick?
Why are people like you so damn hateful when all we're trying to do is point out that *WE* think the system needs some work? Why do people like you always, ALWAYS rush to the conclusion that anything other than the status-quo is going to be worse?
Why can't the United States have a health care system like Canada, where no matter how bad things get (you lose your job, your future may not look the brightest, etc.) you at least know you aren't going to die from a treatable disease.
Why can't the United States move from energy sources like oil? Regardless of what you think of the environment, it is a *FACT*, not propaganda, not myth, but a FACT that we will *ALWAYS* be forced to depend on other nations as long as we use oil, we will *NEVER* have enough oil domestically to supply our needs.
The list could go on almost forever, but please just answer me those two.
Why do people like you label every attempt to maybe change things from the way they are to something better lash out in fear (like moaning about taxes, as though your taxes won't *ever* increase without bill/law xyz) instead of engaging in discussion?
Where are my mod points when I need them!
And I wonder how long before the hypocrisy of the right begins.
Under Bush, any official support for the idea of Global Warming was seen as damn near unpatriotic. The Bush Administration censored dozens of official reports (such as James Hansen) that backed up the claims of Human induced Climate Change and conservatives looked at him like he was Zeus because of it.
Now, under Obama, now that the shoe is on the other foot, now the conservatives (mark my words, if they aren't already) will run out and use this as some type of proof of the "evilness" of liberals for no other reason that now *they* are the ones being "censored".
The GP was right, this means nothing accept that in politics are politics regardless of what side of the ideological line you call home.
the best Hydrogen storage is the Hydrocarbon.
What most people don't seem to understand is that the environmental problem with burning hydrocarbons (gasoline, diesel, etc.) *is not* with the act itself. My point being that the principle of the Internal Combustion Engine isn't the problem.
The problem is where the hydrocarbons come from. Right now, the feedstock for hydrocarbon based fuel production is petroleum. That petroleum is happy underground and would stay that way virtually indefinitely *if* we didn't pump it to the surface.
That brings us to the problem: When we burn hydrocarbon fuels based on petroleum, we are adding carbon to the atmosphere that was locked underground. However, *if* we burn hydrocarbon based fuels that are synthetically created using (among other things) recaptured Carbon from the air, then we are *not* adding to the CO2 load of the planet and therefore can focus on more immediate environmental problems.
It's going to happen sooner or later. However much petroleum there is in the ground (20 years or 200), it is for sure and certain that *one* day it will run out. We're eventually going to have no choice but to switch to a hydrogen economy and I've seen *nothing* on the drawing board (even far flung into the future) that matches the energy potential of hydrocarbons.
less natural catastrophes
What? If they are man-caused (apparently because of global warming) they aren't natural, eh?
The concept of human caused warming will one day go down as one of the greatest scams of all time. It was used to enrich a few (like Al Gore), increase the power of a few more (Democrats) and make a few outspoken wackos (environmentalists) feel good.
In the meantime, thousands of lost jobs, lost homes, busted up families, children forced in to lesser quality schools, reduced standard of living for everyone, prolonged recession if not complete depression and a massive increase in the misery rate.
It was a poor, poor, poor example of the joke US society has become that the media (already massively basised for this piece of crap) could only focus on the death of a odd-ball has been pop star instead of the very serious joke going in Washington that is going to help bankrupt this country and destroy the lives of our children.
Well! That pretty much includes every right-wing, "the black helicopters are coming!" conspiracy theory ever invented.
Congratulations! You should call Guinness, I sure that tie-raid of right-wing, "I don't want to hear bad news so I'll just bury my head in the sand!" rhetoric has to set some type of record for the longest line of bullshit ever spouted in a public forum!
Again, congratulations.
America's energy policy is bullshit, and that's not changed. The current dickwad-in-chief is currently fucking over America by claiming at once that we are "overly dependent on foreign oil" and yet at the same time refusing to lift the restrictions and blockages that he himself put in place that are preventing us from scaling up our nuclear energy program, which is the ONE alternative energy program we have that has any chance in hell of making a significant dent in it.
Of course I could point out that this bill has provision *SPECIFICALLY ALLOWING* Nuclear Power Plant construction to receive the same benefits as solar, wind, etc. but I'm betting that wouldn't make it through your Reality Distortion Field.
You're missing the biggest prerequisite -- a lot of energy to run the reactions.
So what? If we aren't worried about CO2 emissions, then all we have to worry about is economics.
At this moment in time, Electricity equivalent to the energy contained in a gallon of Gasoline is literally pennies compared to an actual gallon of Gasoline, and that's with Coal.
With Nuclear, the price of electricity is even cheaper.
Basically, a company would be turning the cheapest source of energy into the most expense, and that's not a bad job if you can get it :).
If that's what's going on then you would need to cool the ocean or as the ice melts it starts to escape.
Clearly we can just drop larger and larger chunks of ice in the water.
Solving the problem of Global Warming once and for all.
Biofuel availability is orders of magnitude less than what is needed to replace fossil sources.
Indeed right. This idea that we can "grow" our way into energy independence has been debunked many times before.
*However*, with a large source of CO2 (that has already been emitted, so we don't have to worry about it "building up") like this, it might well be feasible to create a synthetic, instead of bionic, fuels industry.
All we need to go with the CO2 is a large source of Hydrogen (which can be abstracted from Seawater).
This until we find some mobile source of energy that can rival intense chemical compactness of gasoline, diesel, etc.
There's a reason we propped up the Shah. And there a reason we went into Iraq. There's a reason we're in Afghanistan. Everything has to do with resource control. Meddling with Iran has less to do with defeating evil, and more to do with destabilization.
Well, at least you didn't continue that ludicrous diatribe of "we're stealing their oil!!!" As though we don't pay top dollar (along with the rest of the World) for every barrel we use.
What's the point? NY doesn't have anywhere near as much (potential for) oil as Iran.
While Iran does have a lot of oil for it's population density, it's production peaked in the 1970s at something like 6 million bpd. I think now they struggle to keep it at like 3 or 4 million bpd.
Technically strictly speaking, the U.S. already pumps more than that domestically.
Set up a public fund. Tell the fundies it's a fund to lobby congress to ban digging up evidence that supports evolution
- Mimicks Chris Mathews -
Ha!
Unless you're a left-winger I suppose, in which case nothing is ever your fault or your responsibility.
I thought that was the Conservative tactic?
Every *single* time President Obama has attempted to make a menses for something not quite smart the United States has done, people like you shout from the Mountain Tops that he's being a traitor for not carrying *your* parties line that "America is great, America is always been great..."?
So I'm confused, at which point does it become wrong to start taking responsibility for one's past actions?