Very inexpensive? Cost of electricity in France is 19 cents/kWh. Russia is 11 cents and the US is 12 cents. China and India are both 8 cents.
I'll grant you it could be a lot worse. Denmark, the top wind power country in the world (wind is 28% of their consumption), is 41 cents.
(the above are all 2011 figures)
It's not that nuclear power is remarkably cheap; it's that wind power is crazy expensive. Offshore wind plants in particular are just about the most absurdly expensive of all sources of electricity - excluding complete pie in the sky stuff like hydrogen fuel cells and so on.
Inexpensive for Europe. Germany, which invested heavily in solar is one of the more expensive in Europe.
If they're supporting nuclear then they aren't environmentalists.
Actually they are. They looked at the science and realize that if we don't use nuclear in the near term then we will continue to be using fossil fuels. That renewables are regrettable not there yet. These people are all for conservation, solar, wind, etc... they just accept the science that these can't get us as far as we want. Especially with the billions of people in the developing world coming on to the electric grid. In short, that conservation, renewables and nuclear all need to be part of the solution. To say that nuclear does not need to be a part of the fossil fuel solution is to deny reality, much like the climate change deniers. Nuclear and climate deniers are remarkably similar, just calling different ends of the political spectrum their home, both abusing scientific reality.
Well, for 30 or so years. But what then? Then you have a huge pile of radioactive crap sitting there that you can't really get rid of sensibly and that will continue to sit there for a few millennia.
4th gen reactors use waste from previous generation reactors as fuel. The 4th gen waste is only hazardous for a few hundred years. http://www.ga.com/energy-multi...
Nothing is permanent. They earth's climate has 'changed' drastically over several billion years.
And disruption really is more accurate.
And this is a beautiful example of why most scientists should not talk to the public. While your point is factually correct it does *not* communicate to the public what it communicates to the scientifically literate. The public does not think of change in geologic terms, they think of it in personal human experience terms. To the public disruptions are temporary, electricity was disrupted by the storm, etc.
Scientists like Sagan and Tyson do such a great job explaining science to the public because they learned to explain things to the public in the public's language, using the public's understanding and connotations. "Change" works in this sense, "disruption" fails.
He also promotes using nuclear energy as part of the solution.
Well, France demonstrates he is correct. They get 75% of their electricity from nuclear and have very inexpensive electricity.
"France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.
France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.
It is building its first Generation III reactor.
About 17% of France's electricity is from recycled nuclear fuel." http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...
He also promotes using nuclear energy as part of the solution.
Well, it is.
As much as we would all really love solar and wind to scale to a level necessary for global needs that is not going to happen with current technology. Its many decades off. Lots of science and engineering are needed to get solar there. We need something to bridge the gap between today and that future date where solar scales.
If not nuclear then its natural gas, oil and coal.
Even environmentalists are starting to realize this, including a co-founder of GreenPeace.
"Moore says that his views have changed since founding Greenpeace, and he now believes that using nuclear energy can help counteract catastrophic climate change from burning fossil fuels. Says Moore, "The 600-plus coal-fired plants emit nearly 2 billion tons of CO2 annually -- the equivalent of the exhaust from about 300 million automobiles." Moore also cites reports from the Clean Air Council that coal plants are responsible for 64 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 26 percent of nitrous oxides and 33 percent of mercury emissions.
"Meanwhile, the 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States effectively avoid the release of 700 million tons of CO2 emissions annually," says Moore. "Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely." Moore points out that the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. He predicts that advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future.
According to Moore, British atmospheric scientist James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory, also believes that nuclear energy is the only way to avoid catastrophic climate change. Concerns about past accidents in the nuclear industry were also mentioned, as he claims the Chernobyl nuclear disaster as example, calling it "an accident waiting to happen. This early model of Soviet reactor had no containment vessel, was an inherently bad design and its operators literally blew it up". He also recognized the difficulty of dealing with nuclear waste." http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Gr...
Regarding nuclear waste from current reactors. 4th generation reactors can use this waste as fuel. And the waste from 4th gen is short lived. Hundred of years rather than tens of thousands. http://www.ga.com/energy-multi...
NASA also thinks nuclear has greatly improved the environment.
"Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning. On the basis of global projection data that take into account the effects of the Fukushima accident, we find that nuclear power could additionally prevent an average of 420,000-7.04 million deaths and 80-240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels by midcentury, depending on which fuel it replaces. By contrast, we assess that large-scale expansion of unconstrained natural gas use would not mitigate the climate problem and would cause far more deaths than expansion of nuclear power." http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/...
Back when this document was written, healthcare consisted of a bottle of rum and a hacksaw for a simple scratch to the leg which got infected. I don't think any other country in the world is so ignorant to think that laws created back then aren't up for rediscussion if it's for the common good.
There is absolutely *nothing* in the US Constitution that prevents government backed and mandated healthcare. Hence the people who argue that Obamacare is unconstitutional simultaneously admit that Romneycare in the state of Massachusetts is perfectly constitutional. The dispute is over the federal government running things rather than the states.
Any mathematicians in the crowd? Explain to me the difference between minimalist government and no government. Something less than epsilon? Less than one full time employee?
A minimalist government would be one that provides essential services to protect life and property, regulates to the degree necessary to ensure a level playing field for society and business, etc.
Here is a concrete example, the IRS. In a minimalist government the tax code would not be absolutely full of deductions, credits and loopholes. There would be a defined payment schedule and that it is it. The IRS would be a small fraction of the size it is today, have far greater compliance, and one of the greatest avenues of political corruption -- politicians editing the tax code for their contributors -- would not exist.
The Nazis allowed Germans civilian to have long guns too.
That should read "German civilians who were members in good standing in the Nazi Party...
Which could have been nearly anyone. Many joined the party because it was an economic or social necessity, not because they were true believers. Even the Allied military recognized this as they went about de-Nazifying the country.
Because they identify themselves as libertarian? Are they lying? How do I tell?
Its more of a credibility thing. Random anonymous person saying crazy things on the internet, very low credibility. Random person saying crazy things for a tv camera, low credibility. Actual candidate for office who is listed on the official party website, more credible.
California has had surpluses before, it does not have a revenue problem. What California has is a spending problem. When surpluses occur the legislature usually goes wild with spending, and some of the governors join in. They act as if the current peak in the economic cycle is the new normal and spend accordingly.
Gov Gray Davis saw revenue increase by about 10% but he and the legislature increased spending by about 30%. Things were so out of control Davis was recalled and Schwarzenegger was voted in.
So seeing a budget surplus in California may simply be a precursor to the next budget disaster.
Not sure why ObamaCare is illegal. It seems to be merely a matter of jurisdiction. Here in Australia...
The construction of the US government was based on competing centers of power. That power would be split between the federal government and the various state governments, and that within the federal government the power would be split between executive, legislative and judicial branches. The basic idea was to have checks and balances between the federal and the state and within the federal itself.
The constitution does this by enumerating the powers and authorities of the various components of the federal government and then it explicitly states that all other powers and authorities are the domain of the state governments.
The argument against Obamacare goes that since the constitution does not enumerate compelling a person to purchase a service as a power of the federal government it is a power that falls into the domain of the states.
In other words the power of the federal government is limited by an enumerated list of power and authority granted to the federal government and the power of the state governments is limited, plus the power of the federal government is further limited, by an enumerated list of rights and privileges granted to individual citizens.
While I agree that "not all dictatorships ban private weapons", they don't have to. All they have to do is control who has them and who doesn't. Example: while it has often been denied, the Nazis did in fact grab guns... from the Jews. I recently read an article that had a picture of the original Nazi decree that Jews could not have guns or bank accounts. Sound familiar?
The Nazis allowed Germans civilian to have long guns too. I recall reading an account by a former US officer who had accepted the surrender of a German unit. He told the German commander to collect all weapons and deposit them at the town hall. Among the weapons collected were numerous civilian rifles and shotguns collected from the town residents. The US commander told the German commander he only meant the military weapons and that the civilian weapons should be set aside so that their owners could come to the town hall to claim their property and have it returned to them.
I'd dispute that British youth would support the removal of the NHS which as we all know is an attack on people's fundamental freedom to die of preventable diseases
Straw man.
Did you even bother to look at the economist article that wiki sites?
Most of them also believe that they should somehow receive those basic service without being taxed to pay for them. I suppose the military should go back to looting the countryside to support itself or something.
What makes the libertarian you quote a real one, but not any others who don't conform to what you think libertarianism is?
Well the fact that he is a real identifiable person, listed on the libertarian party website, is an actual candidate for office, etc. He seems similar to actual libertarians I know in the real world.
As compared to the vague reference to someone who once posted on slashdot.
You've made up some definition you like...
Actually I'm going by real world observations of actual libertarians that I have run into, things the libertarian party has actually said, etc.
Should I be going with questionable claims by anonymous people on the internet? Or should I be going by some "interesting" person a "news" crew dug up for an interview? Because we all know what a spectacularly good job TV and the "news" does with portraying technology and technical people, they surely do equally well with 3rd party politics.
... when there is a widely accepted definition already in existence: That it is a huge swathe of different views broadly united by a theme of anti-authoritarianism
Actually the widely accepted definition is something similar to:
"In the United States, polls (circa 2006) find that the views and voting habits of between 10 and 20 percent (and increasing) of voting age Americans may be classified as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal, or libertarian." This is based on pollsters and researchers defining libertarian views as fiscally conservative and socially liberal (based on the common US meanings of the terms) and against government intervention in economic affairs, and for expansion of personal freedoms. Through 20 polls on this topic spanning 13 years, Gallup found that voters who are libertarian on the political spectrum ranged from 17–23% of the US electorate. In 2013, The Economist opinion piece held that British youth supported a "minimal 'nightwatchman' state", disliked taxation, and were "deficit-reduction hawks" who wanted government out of their personal lives, and accepted homosexuality. It stated, "Today's distracted libertarians are tomorrow's dependable voter block."" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
"Although there is not an explicitly-labeled "left" or "right" designation of the party, many members, such as 2012 presidential nominee Gary Johnson, state that they are more socially liberal than the Democrats, but more fiscally conservative than the Republicans. The party has generally promoted a classical liberal platform, in contrast to the liberal and progressive platform of the Democrats and the more conservative platform of the Republicans." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
With respect to the reference to classical liberalism:
"Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property rights, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
... I've had libertarians on here say that fire services should be provided by the private sector and anyone who can't afford to pay should spend what little free time they have after working 80 hours a week just to feed their kids as a volunteer fireman.
So your view on libertarians is based on slashdot posts?
Libertarians actually running for office say things like this about fire services:
"I advocate consolidation of local fire departments in the county, into a single well coordinated organization to address the growing need for larger response teams and more specialized training. This can be done most efficiently in a county run Fire Department modeled after the combined Fire Authority created for Brighton City, Genoa Township and Brighton Township." http://www.lp.org/candidates/l...
The above is just the first thing I found while googling. I know nothing else about this candidate.
BitCoin's intrinsic value is a massive groundswell of anti-authoritarianism.
I hope not. Each generation typically chooses their own different expression of anti-authoritarianism. You make bitcoin sound like the current youthful generation's fad, something they will grow out of and the next will not take up.
Libertarians do not believe markets should be totally unregulated. What they do believe is that government regulation should have one goal, which is to increase transparency.
Come on, don't make shit up. That's not the definition of libertarianism, and neither is it the goal of many libertarians.
Actually the GP is correct. Most libertarians believe that government should provide basic services (police, fire, military, etc) and provide regulations that create a level playing field. They believe in minimalist government, not no government. Transparency would be a major component of a level playing field.
The coal plants Germany is building are fairly clean. The stats nuke-u-like fans always wheel out are from the early 70s. The plants Germany is looking at building will have things like carbon capture and emissions capture.
So how do state-of-the art coal plants compare to state-of-the art nuclear plants? Keep in mind that 4th gen reactors can use the nuclear waste from previous generation reactors as fuel, produce waste that only needs to be stored for hundreds of years rather than tens of thousands, generates 100s of times the power from the same amount of fuel compared to previous generation reactors, etc. When France goes 4th gen they will still be in a far better place than Germany with respect to energy.
Yeah, and when a hot summer comes around they run out of electricity because many of those reactors can't cool themselves and have to idle. In the past this has resulted in dumping hot water into local lakes and rivers, killing the wildlife.
And Germany's coal based electrical generation has no environmental impact?
"The main source of electricity is coal. The recent plan to build 26 new coal plants is controversial in light of Germany's commitment to curbing emissions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Or are you counting on their wood fired plants?
"Wood-fire plants fuelled by wood pellets are included in biomass. Half of Germany's timber production is consumed by wood fired plants. Wood fired plants are counted as renewable energy by Germany and the European Union counting them as "carbon neutral"."
At least now they can import energy from their German neighbours cheaply at those times.
Is Germany going to export energy at a loss?
"Germany now has Europe's highest energy costs. Costs have risen over the last 5 years even for industrial consumers who are exempted from the costs of the renewable energy subsidy that consumers pay. In 2013, energy was 4 times cheaper in the United States than in Europe, and 6 times cheaper than in Germany."
Slashdot Mirror
Very inexpensive? Cost of electricity in France is 19 cents/kWh. Russia is 11 cents and the US is 12 cents. China and India are both 8 cents.
I'll grant you it could be a lot worse. Denmark, the top wind power country in the world (wind is 28% of their consumption), is 41 cents.
(the above are all 2011 figures)
It's not that nuclear power is remarkably cheap; it's that wind power is crazy expensive. Offshore wind plants in particular are just about the most absurdly expensive of all sources of electricity - excluding complete pie in the sky stuff like hydrogen fuel cells and so on.
Inexpensive for Europe. Germany, which invested heavily in solar is one of the more expensive in Europe.
If they're supporting nuclear then they aren't environmentalists.
Actually they are. They looked at the science and realize that if we don't use nuclear in the near term then we will continue to be using fossil fuels. That renewables are regrettable not there yet. These people are all for conservation, solar, wind, etc ... they just accept the science that these can't get us as far as we want. Especially with the billions of people in the developing world coming on to the electric grid. In short, that conservation, renewables and nuclear all need to be part of the solution. To say that nuclear does not need to be a part of the fossil fuel solution is to deny reality, much like the climate change deniers. Nuclear and climate deniers are remarkably similar, just calling different ends of the political spectrum their home, both abusing scientific reality.
Well, for 30 or so years. But what then? Then you have a huge pile of radioactive crap sitting there that you can't really get rid of sensibly and that will continue to sit there for a few millennia.
4th gen reactors use waste from previous generation reactors as fuel. The 4th gen waste is only hazardous for a few hundred years.
http://www.ga.com/energy-multi...
Nothing is permanent. They earth's climate has 'changed' drastically over several billion years.
And disruption really is more accurate.
And this is a beautiful example of why most scientists should not talk to the public. While your point is factually correct it does *not* communicate to the public what it communicates to the scientifically literate. The public does not think of change in geologic terms, they think of it in personal human experience terms. To the public disruptions are temporary, electricity was disrupted by the storm, etc.
Scientists like Sagan and Tyson do such a great job explaining science to the public because they learned to explain things to the public in the public's language, using the public's understanding and connotations. "Change" works in this sense, "disruption" fails.
He also promotes using nuclear energy as part of the solution.
Well, France demonstrates he is correct. They get 75% of their electricity from nuclear and have very inexpensive electricity.
"France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.
France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.
It is building its first Generation III reactor.
About 17% of France's electricity is from recycled nuclear fuel."
http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...
He also promotes using nuclear energy as part of the solution.
Well, it is.
As much as we would all really love solar and wind to scale to a level necessary for global needs that is not going to happen with current technology. Its many decades off. Lots of science and engineering are needed to get solar there. We need something to bridge the gap between today and that future date where solar scales.
If not nuclear then its natural gas, oil and coal.
Even environmentalists are starting to realize this, including a co-founder of GreenPeace.
"Moore says that his views have changed since founding Greenpeace, and he now believes that using nuclear energy can help counteract catastrophic climate change from burning fossil fuels. Says Moore, "The 600-plus coal-fired plants emit nearly 2 billion tons of CO2 annually -- the equivalent of the exhaust from about 300 million automobiles." Moore also cites reports from the Clean Air Council that coal plants are responsible for 64 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 26 percent of nitrous oxides and 33 percent of mercury emissions. "Meanwhile, the 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States effectively avoid the release of 700 million tons of CO2 emissions annually," says Moore. "Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely." Moore points out that the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. He predicts that advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future. According to Moore, British atmospheric scientist James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory, also believes that nuclear energy is the only way to avoid catastrophic climate change. Concerns about past accidents in the nuclear industry were also mentioned, as he claims the Chernobyl nuclear disaster as example, calling it "an accident waiting to happen. This early model of Soviet reactor had no containment vessel, was an inherently bad design and its operators literally blew it up". He also recognized the difficulty of dealing with nuclear waste."
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Gr...
Regarding nuclear waste from current reactors. 4th generation reactors can use this waste as fuel. And the waste from 4th gen is short lived. Hundred of years rather than tens of thousands.
http://www.ga.com/energy-multi...
NASA also thinks nuclear has greatly improved the environment.
"Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning. On the basis of global projection data that take into account the effects of the Fukushima accident, we find that nuclear power could additionally prevent an average of 420,000-7.04 million deaths and 80-240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels by midcentury, depending on which fuel it replaces. By contrast, we assess that large-scale expansion of unconstrained natural gas use would not mitigate the climate problem and would cause far more deaths than expansion of nuclear power."
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/...
Climate disruption evokes a more accurate picture of what seems to be happening.
Disruption sounds temporary, change sounds more permanent. Change seems a far better word to use.
Fuzzing may catch an erroneously stated buffer size type bug.
An automated tool that was probing the binary on a live system is was what discovered heartbleed.
Back when this document was written, healthcare consisted of a bottle of rum and a hacksaw for a simple scratch to the leg which got infected. I don't think any other country in the world is so ignorant to think that laws created back then aren't up for rediscussion if it's for the common good.
There is absolutely *nothing* in the US Constitution that prevents government backed and mandated healthcare. Hence the people who argue that Obamacare is unconstitutional simultaneously admit that Romneycare in the state of Massachusetts is perfectly constitutional. The dispute is over the federal government running things rather than the states.
Any mathematicians in the crowd? Explain to me the difference between minimalist government and no government. Something less than epsilon? Less than one full time employee?
A minimalist government would be one that provides essential services to protect life and property, regulates to the degree necessary to ensure a level playing field for society and business, etc.
Here is a concrete example, the IRS. In a minimalist government the tax code would not be absolutely full of deductions, credits and loopholes. There would be a defined payment schedule and that it is it. The IRS would be a small fraction of the size it is today, have far greater compliance, and one of the greatest avenues of political corruption -- politicians editing the tax code for their contributors -- would not exist.
The Nazis allowed Germans civilian to have long guns too.
That should read "German civilians who were members in good standing in the Nazi Party ...
Which could have been nearly anyone. Many joined the party because it was an economic or social necessity, not because they were true believers. Even the Allied military recognized this as they went about de-Nazifying the country.
Because they identify themselves as libertarian? Are they lying? How do I tell?
Its more of a credibility thing. Random anonymous person saying crazy things on the internet, very low credibility. Random person saying crazy things for a tv camera, low credibility. Actual candidate for office who is listed on the official party website, more credible.
California has had surpluses before, it does not have a revenue problem. What California has is a spending problem. When surpluses occur the legislature usually goes wild with spending, and some of the governors join in. They act as if the current peak in the economic cycle is the new normal and spend accordingly.
Gov Gray Davis saw revenue increase by about 10% but he and the legislature increased spending by about 30%. Things were so out of control Davis was recalled and Schwarzenegger was voted in.
So seeing a budget surplus in California may simply be a precursor to the next budget disaster.
Not sure why ObamaCare is illegal. It seems to be merely a matter of jurisdiction. Here in Australia ...
The construction of the US government was based on competing centers of power. That power would be split between the federal government and the various state governments, and that within the federal government the power would be split between executive, legislative and judicial branches. The basic idea was to have checks and balances between the federal and the state and within the federal itself.
The constitution does this by enumerating the powers and authorities of the various components of the federal government and then it explicitly states that all other powers and authorities are the domain of the state governments.
The argument against Obamacare goes that since the constitution does not enumerate compelling a person to purchase a service as a power of the federal government it is a power that falls into the domain of the states.
In other words the power of the federal government is limited by an enumerated list of power and authority granted to the federal government and the power of the state governments is limited, plus the power of the federal government is further limited, by an enumerated list of rights and privileges granted to individual citizens.
While I agree that "not all dictatorships ban private weapons", they don't have to. All they have to do is control who has them and who doesn't. Example: while it has often been denied, the Nazis did in fact grab guns... from the Jews. I recently read an article that had a picture of the original Nazi decree that Jews could not have guns or bank accounts. Sound familiar?
The Nazis allowed Germans civilian to have long guns too. I recall reading an account by a former US officer who had accepted the surrender of a German unit. He told the German commander to collect all weapons and deposit them at the town hall. Among the weapons collected were numerous civilian rifles and shotguns collected from the town residents. The US commander told the German commander he only meant the military weapons and that the civilian weapons should be set aside so that their owners could come to the town hall to claim their property and have it returned to them.
I'd dispute that British youth would support the removal of the NHS which as we all know is an attack on people's fundamental freedom to die of preventable diseases
Straw man.
Did you even bother to look at the economist article that wiki sites?
Most of them also believe that they should somehow receive those basic service without being taxed to pay for them. I suppose the military should go back to looting the countryside to support itself or something.
You have been misinformed. To avoid redundant posts see the other child thread: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
What makes the libertarian you quote a real one, but not any others who don't conform to what you think libertarianism is?
Well the fact that he is a real identifiable person, listed on the libertarian party website, is an actual candidate for office, etc. He seems similar to actual libertarians I know in the real world.
As compared to the vague reference to someone who once posted on slashdot.
You've made up some definition you like ...
Actually I'm going by real world observations of actual libertarians that I have run into, things the libertarian party has actually said, etc.
Should I be going with questionable claims by anonymous people on the internet? Or should I be going by some "interesting" person a "news" crew dug up for an interview? Because we all know what a spectacularly good job TV and the "news" does with portraying technology and technical people, they surely do equally well with 3rd party politics.
... when there is a widely accepted definition already in existence: That it is a huge swathe of different views broadly united by a theme of anti-authoritarianism
Actually the widely accepted definition is something similar to:
"In the United States, polls (circa 2006) find that the views and voting habits of between 10 and 20 percent (and increasing) of voting age Americans may be classified as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal, or libertarian." This is based on pollsters and researchers defining libertarian views as fiscally conservative and socially liberal (based on the common US meanings of the terms) and against government intervention in economic affairs, and for expansion of personal freedoms. Through 20 polls on this topic spanning 13 years, Gallup found that voters who are libertarian on the political spectrum ranged from 17–23% of the US electorate. In 2013, The Economist opinion piece held that British youth supported a "minimal 'nightwatchman' state", disliked taxation, and were "deficit-reduction hawks" who wanted government out of their personal lives, and accepted homosexuality. It stated, "Today's distracted libertarians are tomorrow's dependable voter block.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
"Although there is not an explicitly-labeled "left" or "right" designation of the party, many members, such as 2012 presidential nominee Gary Johnson, state that they are more socially liberal than the Democrats, but more fiscally conservative than the Republicans. The party has generally promoted a classical liberal platform, in contrast to the liberal and progressive platform of the Democrats and the more conservative platform of the Republicans."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
With respect to the reference to classical liberalism:
"Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property rights, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Nuclear is cheaper. France has very low energy costs, Germany has very high energy costs. See earlier posts.
... I've had libertarians on here say that fire services should be provided by the private sector and anyone who can't afford to pay should spend what little free time they have after working 80 hours a week just to feed their kids as a volunteer fireman.
So your view on libertarians is based on slashdot posts?
Libertarians actually running for office say things like this about fire services:
"I advocate consolidation of local fire departments in the county, into a single well coordinated organization to address the growing need for larger response teams and more specialized training. This can be done most efficiently in a county run Fire Department modeled after the combined Fire Authority created for Brighton City, Genoa Township and Brighton Township."
http://www.lp.org/candidates/l...
The above is just the first thing I found while googling. I know nothing else about this candidate.
BitCoin's intrinsic value is a massive groundswell of anti-authoritarianism.
I hope not. Each generation typically chooses their own different expression of anti-authoritarianism. You make bitcoin sound like the current youthful generation's fad, something they will grow out of and the next will not take up.
Libertarians do not believe markets should be totally unregulated. What they do believe is that government regulation should have one goal, which is to increase transparency.
Come on, don't make shit up. That's not the definition of libertarianism, and neither is it the goal of many libertarians.
Actually the GP is correct. Most libertarians believe that government should provide basic services (police, fire, military, etc) and provide regulations that create a level playing field. They believe in minimalist government, not no government. Transparency would be a major component of a level playing field.
The coal plants Germany is building are fairly clean. The stats nuke-u-like fans always wheel out are from the early 70s. The plants Germany is looking at building will have things like carbon capture and emissions capture.
So how do state-of-the art coal plants compare to state-of-the art nuclear plants? Keep in mind that 4th gen reactors can use the nuclear waste from previous generation reactors as fuel, produce waste that only needs to be stored for hundreds of years rather than tens of thousands, generates 100s of times the power from the same amount of fuel compared to previous generation reactors, etc. When France goes 4th gen they will still be in a far better place than Germany with respect to energy.
Yeah, and when a hot summer comes around they run out of electricity because many of those reactors can't cool themselves and have to idle. In the past this has resulted in dumping hot water into local lakes and rivers, killing the wildlife.
And Germany's coal based electrical generation has no environmental impact?
"The main source of electricity is coal. The recent plan to build 26 new coal plants is controversial in light of Germany's commitment to curbing emissions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Or are you counting on their wood fired plants?
"Wood-fire plants fuelled by wood pellets are included in biomass. Half of Germany's timber production is consumed by wood fired plants. Wood fired plants are counted as renewable energy by Germany and the European Union counting them as "carbon neutral"."
At least now they can import energy from their German neighbours cheaply at those times.
Is Germany going to export energy at a loss?
"Germany now has Europe's highest energy costs. Costs have risen over the last 5 years even for industrial consumers who are exempted from the costs of the renewable energy subsidy that consumers pay. In 2013, energy was 4 times cheaper in the United States than in Europe, and 6 times cheaper than in Germany."
In the school of business they did their first two years on punch cards. That is not a learning exercise.