Governmental subsidies of insurance on nuclear plants is a government solution to a problem caused by government in the first place: government setting ridiculously high requirements for the amount of insurance a nuclear facility must buy.
The United States is a union of states, not a democracy.
Madison's concept was that the best choose from among themselves the best. We're far from that, but at least we've avoided putting into office one of the 100 most corrupt women in the nation's history.
To delay what? Starting to implement full payment for damages, good. (No ex post facto assessments, that's unjust and unconstitutional.) However, many people are going to interpret your statement as insisting on the immediate end to all pollution caused by burning coal. That would have a cost measured in lives and poverty.
When CO2 is released, equal quantities of CO2 must be captured.
That's wasteful for a number of reasons. One is that the reason for creating CO2 in the first place is to produce energy; recovering the carbon from CO2 requires energy. Human made devices being what they are, the full cycle loses energy and money. Of course, that's what eco-loonies want, to destroy mankind's energy dependent civilization.
The proper function of government is the protection of rights. Part of that is to determine when distributed damage is being done, and to transfer payment from the cause of the damage to those hurt by the damage recompense as close as feasible to the actual amount of damage. That is the capitalistic approach to pollution.
When all costs are fully accounted for, the cheapest source of a fungible thing such as electricity is the best.
You mean the oil interests that were stolen from U.S. and British companies in the first place? Petroleum deposits that without Western development, would still be under ground passed over by camel herding zealots?
Those are the world figures. The U.S. federal figures are
_ Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)
_ Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion (29 percent)
_ Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)
_ Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)
The figures per kWh are, of course, even more strongly biased in favor of renewables
Tax simplification means less time spent calculating taxes and fewer people having to hire accountants to do their taxes. That's more free time, less money spent on a parasitic industry.
Adding more middle-men and detaching expenses from benefits makes products and services more expensive, which is just what happened with Obamacare. The country will be far better will be far better off without it.
So Obama was lying when he said he'd destroy the coal industry?
The use of coal as fuel will fall over time, particularly if the resultant pollution is penalized in accordance with the actual damage done. Penalizing it more heavily than that is unjust and causes net damage.
Warm soil means faster plant growth. Trees sequester carbon.
Planting trees is labor intensive. Scatter seeds and wait. It's not as if there's a shortage of seeds; many varieties of trees produce tens of thousands of seeds annually.
Some slightly cloudy plastic film should diffuse the image some. If you can manage to install it uniformly, you may get the smoothness you desire without destroying all of the enhanced sharpness.
Slashdot Mirror
If you move Venus out to 93 million miles from the sun, and give it a couple of billion years to stabilize, I'll accept your example.
Commercial solar shingles were first available in 2005, predating Musk's efforts.
Governmental subsidies of insurance on nuclear plants is a government solution to a problem caused by government in the first place: government setting ridiculously high requirements for the amount of insurance a nuclear facility must buy.
Heavy political pressure recently contributed to a natural gas pipeline project in southern New Hampshire being aborted.
The United States is a union of states, not a democracy.
Madison's concept was that the best choose from among themselves the best. We're far from that, but at least we've avoided putting into office one of the 100 most corrupt women in the nation's history.
You preferred Lucrezia Borgia. Not a wise choice.
FWIW, AFAIK Rand had no objection to collusion and cartels.
We are fortunate that it can't be affected by a pen and a twat.
There are already entries on my monthly electrical bill that amount to maintenance of generation and transmission.
To delay what? Starting to implement full payment for damages, good. (No ex post facto assessments, that's unjust and unconstitutional.) However, many people are going to interpret your statement as insisting on the immediate end to all pollution caused by burning coal. That would have a cost measured in lives and poverty.
When the coal companies are driven out of business, can we sue you for the deaths of people who freeze to death in the winter?
Cigarettes have no benefit. Energy from coal has a benefit, and has to be weighed against its disadvantages.
That's wasteful for a number of reasons. One is that the reason for creating CO2 in the first place is to produce energy; recovering the carbon from CO2 requires energy. Human made devices being what they are, the full cycle loses energy and money. Of course, that's what eco-loonies want, to destroy mankind's energy dependent civilization.
The proper function of government is the protection of rights. Part of that is to determine when distributed damage is being done, and to transfer payment from the cause of the damage to those hurt by the damage recompense as close as feasible to the actual amount of damage. That is the capitalistic approach to pollution.
When all costs are fully accounted for, the cheapest source of a fungible thing such as electricity is the best.
You mean the oil interests that were stolen from U.S. and British companies in the first place? Petroleum deposits that without Western development, would still be under ground passed over by camel herding zealots?
Those are the world figures. The U.S. federal figures are
_ Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)
_ Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion (29 percent)
_ Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)
_ Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)
The figures per kWh are, of course, even more strongly biased in favor of renewables
Tax simplification means less time spent calculating taxes and fewer people having to hire accountants to do their taxes. That's more free time, less money spent on a parasitic industry.
Adding more middle-men and detaching expenses from benefits makes products and services more expensive, which is just what happened with Obamacare. The country will be far better will be far better off without it.
Obama appointed to expand, consolidate, and perpetuate extreme leftist control of the federal government.
Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton are just the most infamous examples.
.
So Obama was lying when he said he'd destroy the coal industry?
The use of coal as fuel will fall over time, particularly if the resultant pollution is penalized in accordance with the actual damage done. Penalizing it more heavily than that is unjust and causes net damage.
LA is a special case. The mountains trap the air, allowing pollution to build up.
That is what should never be done. Legislation should be based on evidence and reason, never on feelings.
The entire lesson of the Tragedy of the Commons is that trying to take care of everybody's problems leads to disaster.
In 1920, just 35 percent of American households had electricity. https://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/how-the-1920s-thought-electricity-would-transform-farms-510917940
Warm soil means faster plant growth. Trees sequester carbon.
Planting trees is labor intensive. Scatter seeds and wait. It's not as if there's a shortage of seeds; many varieties of trees produce tens of thousands of seeds annually.
Some slightly cloudy plastic film should diffuse the image some. If you can manage to install it uniformly, you may get the smoothness you desire without destroying all of the enhanced sharpness.