First off, wind power is a great supplement, not a replacement. It suffers from too much variability to be a reliable power source, and therefore replace fossil fuels.
True but geothermal is a reliable and steady energy source. It's also available in many places. Iceland, in the Arctic, gets a lot of energy from geothermal sources. California gets 4.5% of it's energy from geothermal sources. In Hawaii the Big Island gets 20% of it's energy from the Puna Geothermal Venture which supplies geothermal energy. Heck even the Philippines harvests geothermal energy. Mexico has 853 MW of installed geothermal energy.
That energy does not depend of sunlight or the wind. It is a steady source of energy. New York state has the webpage Geothermal Heat Pumps with contacts that can install both commercial and residential systems.
at least with nuclear power, the pollution is contained.
As for your road tax solution, who cares if we pay it with income taxes or fuel taxes?
I do as do many others. Only those who use the roads should have to pay for them. If a person does not directly pay for something they have no idea how much it costs for one Now if you have to pay say 10 cents a mile, in addition to gas costs, unless you're wealthy you will pay attention. And I say that as someone who loves driving and will not give up my car unless I have to.
Everyone uses and benefits from the roads.
And they will pay for it, but not with income taxes. You may walk or ride a bike everywhere but as long as you buy items you will still pay for the roads. Sellers raise their prices to cover their expenses, they are in business to make money afterall. Heck even when you order a physical object online, you're paying. Say you order a printed book from Amazon you pay shipping and the shipper pays for the roads.
You are right, libertarians are perfect, because if you take the best of every one of them and combine them into a super-libertarian, you have a perfect person. But, individually, they are all arrogant asses.
Like you're not being an arrogant ass now? HAHA!
And you consider that adding to the discussion? Another HAHA!
So, you've never heard libertarians call for privatized roads?
And you did not read where I said "Not all libertarians agree on everything. For instance not all believe roads should be privatized". It was the first two sentences I wrote in the post you just replied to.
If nothing else, the apartment complex will start getting annoyed by the ugly orange cords draped out of everyone's window
I used to do that, I used to maintain the grounds and I'd have one of those orange cords hanging out of a window, or door, for my electric trimmer/edger.
Actually as I type this I'll looking out of one of those windows where I see a sidewalk that has not had the snow shoveled off it. I was getting paid for it but after 8 months of not being paid I stopped. So the owners started paying someone else to do it, but he does not do it. I suppose I could file a complaint with the city but hardly anyone else is shoveling this year either.
I'm just waiting for a libertarian, any libertarian, to reconcile the libertarian call for privatizing roads with the right to travel.
Not all libertarians agree on everything. For instance not all believe roads should be privatized. What many of us do agree on is a Constitutionally limited government, and the Constitution of the USA specifically enumerates roads as a power of government. And if you look at the Libertarian Party's platform not once will you see the words "highway", "road", or "street". All will you see of them in the issues is "street" but that deals with the Wall Street Bailout not paved streets. What you're spreading is nothing more than FUD, Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
More specifically, tarrifs are out of style, but taking actions to keep a currency undervalued is equivalent, and that is very popular precisely because it is effective. It's been the preferred development strategy of China, Brazil, India, and others...
And like subsidies, undervaluing currency is a distortion of the markets. Once a country distorts its economy it is inviting others to do so in retaliation, which harms everyone involved. Actually in a free market currency valuations float, I can go online to Forex.com and buy British pounds, US dollars, Japanese yens, and other currencies. The Chinese government controls the valuation of the yuan. Actually that's one of the things the US and other nations complain about.
Because of regulations, which are much more stringent for the nuclear industry than anything else, no-one can come with the up-front investment.
If only that were true. But it is not. China, France, India, and Russia do not have the regulations the US does. And even in those countries the government not the market says what gets built.
If France found that gaz turbines or coal were cheaper, they would have switched a long time ago... They went nuclear because of the oil crisis
And nuclear weapons and other military goals had nothing to do with it? Charles de Gaulle, who died in 1970 years before the oil crisis, was a big supporter of nuclear power. The Oil Crisis had nothing to do with it.
And Areva having problems with their new power plant? Yeah, sure. New model. Of course, it is typical for activists (you did quote indymedia above...)
Okay let me quote the "New York Times" which supports nuclear power:
In Finland, Nuclear Renaissance Runs Into Trouble
"The massive power plant under construction on muddy terrain on this Finnish island was supposed to be the showpiece of a nuclear renaissance. The most powerful reactor ever built, its modular design was supposed to make it faster and cheaper to build. And it was supposed to be safer, too."
"But things have not gone as planned."
"After four years of construction and thousands of defects and deficiencies, the reactor's 3 billion euro price tag, about $4.2 billion, has climbed at least 50 percent. And while the reactor was originally meant to be completed this summer, Areva, the French company building it, and the utility that ordered it, are no longer willing to make certain predictions on when it will go online."
to blame civil engineering mishaps on nuclear power. Of course, it must be the curse of nuclear that the concrete mix design was wrong!
Areva is a French government owned Nuclear power company not a civil engineering company.
They are accidents. The first link even has the title "U.S. Nuclear Accidents", that's my my title. Twisting definitions don't change the facts.
If you think nuclear energy should be banned because of the excessive risk caused by such, I sure hope that you also want all cars banned. And swimming pools, and planes.
No I don't. Cars will not harm hundreds, thousands, or millions with one accident. One nuclear accident can. Planes don't harm many people all at once either. The attack on the WTC and Pentagon took 4 planes, and how many were killed? 3000? That's less than 1000 per plane. It was also a once in a lifetime event. If hijackers tried it today the passengers would not meekly go along, heck the passengers in the plane that crashed in Penn revolted once they knew what happened to the other planes. Swimming pools are not mass killers either.
I even have an excuse to ban vehicles, I was disabled because I was hit by a vehicle while riding my bike. While I was in a coma the docs even told my family it would be a miracle if I lived, do I consider it one? Not just no, but HELL NO!!! I don't consider it a miracle, my life has been a living hell. Am I calling for cars to be banned? No I'm not. I do call for people to be responsible, and if they won't exercise it then the law should hold them responsible. Even though the person who hit me had a record of causing accidents, and an arrest warrant was issued in his name, I wouldn't wish my life on him. I'm not that sadistic.
The Bopal disaster should have put the lid on chemical factories.
I'm not against chemical factories or their owners, I do support holding them responsible. That includes oil companies. Has the Alaskan fishermen been compensated for Exxon Valdez? More than 20 years later Exxon still has not paid them. Were the Navajo compensated? No. In the US the government even protects the nuclear industry from lawsuits and paying damages.
Countless deaths due to coal should have made this energy source a big no-no.
I agree. Of course that's not realistic right now. But I would end the subsidies coal gets, yes coal gets subsidies too. Here's a video where Chevron agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies. Then there was TVA's Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill. That wasn't the first one or the last one either. What's even worse is Mountaintop removal and some containment ponds are above where people live. I's also end passing on the external costs. Polluters would have to clean up and pay for damages, all not just coal plants. The same with alternative/renewable energy sources.
Do you think mining for the rare earths required by solar panels is "clean"?
And nuclear does not require mining or that mining is clean? Sure it does and it is dirty, however unlike nuclear solar can easily and cheaply be recycled as can wind turbines. Heck there are still solar panels from the '70s being used. There are also Jacobs wind turbines made in the 1930s still being used. Also with ongoing research, for which I also oppose subsides, efficiencies are improving and non-rare earth minerals and compounds are being investigated.
By the standards of energy generation, yes, nuclear is clean. By any standard, it is safe.
How many accidents has solar energy and wind turbines been involved in? Of those how many lives were put in danger, or how many were killed? And how much have they been given in subsidies? To answer that myself I googled alternative energy subsidies and found this:
We enjoy some of the lowest food prices in the World thanks to massive corn subsidies. No one is looking to remove them because everyone likes it that way.
I and others have railed on about all subsidies including farm subsidies. I and others would most definitely eliminate them.
So let's just leave the "subsidies are bad" arguments out of it right now.
I will not ignore the truth. You can sweep it under the rug but I will not.
As for geothermal, you can't show me a single example of a geothermal plant that isn't located near or directly over a natural source of geothermal heat.
And you have not pointed out one place that is not directly over a source of geothermal heat.
If you'd bothered to try and understand what I was saying (rather than doing your best to lump me in with all renewable bashers) you would have understood that when I said it needed continued research
So where did you also say nuclear needs more research? Leaving it out shows a bias if nothing else.
And, again, you keep using the fact of supposed subsidies as a catch-all excuse as too why Nuclear is bad. If you leave that out, I'm afraid your argument doesn't have much else.
You must be trolling. I have repeatedly pointed out uranium mining is bad as well and there is no safe storage place for nuclear waste. Those are real big issues.
Nice try, but I didn't say that the Republicans were any better, did I?
You didn't say anything about Republicans, you specifically targeted Democrats. Now if you really did mean both it would not have taken much effort to say that.
No one has ever even contemplated replacing a Coal-fired plant with a renewable source of energy because renewable in no way, shape, or form have the dependability to be counted on to produce 24 hour a day, 7 day a week, 365 days a year Electricity. I'm not making this stuff up, it's simply a fact of life right now.
One, when did I say anything about closing down all coal-fired, Natural Gas-fired, or nuclear power plants right now? Two, it is a fact of life geothermal can provide a baseload of energy now, today. It is happening as I type this in Iceland, Hawaii, and in the Philippines. California gets 5% of it's baseload from geothermal [pdf] energy.
You can't try and solve every problem at once because all you'll end up doing in NOTHING AT ALL. We can solve a big chunk of our pollution problem right now by switching to Nuclear. We'll tackle the well understood problems with Nuclear when we get to that bridge.
Three, when have I said anything about the 1 big solution, other than discounting it? I haven't, I have repeatedly stated I believe that each place should use the source of energy that is available locally. Solar where it's available, wind where it is, tidal where it is and so on. And as I state above geothermal can be used as a baseload. On the other hand Nuclear power is part of the problem. It is dirty from cradle to grave. Mining it is dirty, processing it is dirty, reprocessing it is dirty, and storing it is dirty. Plus no market or business will pay for it without government subsidies. Nuclear power is Hooked on Subsidies.
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
In the context of a rapidly developing World, it is highly desirable that nuclear be the choice for large-scale generation,
Aha, that's it. Like so many others you're looking for the next big thing when what will work, and is needed, is many small scale solutions. Coupled with a new smart grid, grid failures in the US currently cost businesses billions a year so it needs to be upgraded anyway, what's produced in one location can be used in another.
The problem is that none of those things can right now, today be used to replace Coal-fired Power Plants.
...Nuclear can replace coal right now.
Nuclear power can not replace coal right now. It takes many years to build a nuclear power plant. And that's not just true in the US either. The French government owned Areva has been building the Olkiluoto nuclear power plant in Finland for years. Construction started in 2006 and was originally planned to be finished in 2009. Now it's not scheduled for completion until 2012 at the earliest. With cost overruns it is overbudget by more than 3 Billion euros and has suffered thousands of defects and deficiencies.
If however 20 5 megawatt wind turbines, and there are bigger ones, are erected a month in 1 year more than 1 gigawatt of capacity is added in that year. Need more, erect more. Quite simply more generation capacity can be added by erecting wind turbines than by building nuclear power plants.
People are making fun of the Administrations (not saying you personally, but some of the public in general) push for high-speed rail.
I love trains but I don't want government paying for them. However if other forms of transportation had to pay their full costs as well then people may think of using trains more.
People think that gasoline taxes pay for road maintenance, in reality those taxes barely make a dent in the total cost of maintaining our highway system
I agree and have repeatedly posted here that I thought drivers should pay the full cost of the roads. So I started supporting the Net Zero Gas Tax. Net zero, because it doesn't raise the average person's tax. Fuel taxes are raised but everyone gets a cut on their income tax. At first I advocated raising fuel taxes like this, but with more and more fuel efficient vehicles on the road it won't work. So instead I now support a mileage tax. When a person goes in to renew their license plate tags the odometer is read. By subtracting the last reading from the current one the number of miles driven is calculated then the person pays for those miles. Some have complained people have no idea how much their bill will be at the end of the year, well people can pay monthly or quarterly. They have a better idea of how much they drive and how much they owe.
The problem with that is that it ignores that fact that since the very first Nuclear Plant came online, utilities have been paying a tax per unit of electricity generated that specifically goes into a fund to pay for the ultimate disposal of nuclear waste.
So you don't think businesses haven't looked at them either? Fact is is without subsidies businesses will not pay to build nuclear power plants. That is why they are asking for loan guaranties. And yes, I consider loan guaranties subsidies. Let then ask those banks that were bailed out for loans, without guaranties they will not get loans. Banks are giving loans for solar and wind without government guaranties though.
I think the positives (no Coal pollution -- Heavy metals being spewed into the air, people dieing to mine the coal, pollution from the coal mining itself, etc.) far outweigh the negatives.
And uranium mining is so pristine, NOT!!! Nuclear power is dirty from cradle to grave just as coal is.
nuclear waste is a problem for later, and will be solved by breeders, which reduce dramatically the volume of waste. It is easy and safe to burrow the final products from these reactors, the only problem being NIMBY
NIMBYs have also stopped wind farms, especially offshore from Maine to Cape Hatteras. For instance before he died Ted Kennedy opposed wind turbines in Cape Cod. Obama may be able to get one built.
As for the "real" price of nuclear, it is a bit like the US medical system, a larger part of the price comes from terrible legislation and political opposition, not from the intrinsic cost.
Ah, how far wrong can a person be? Forget the US, Neither China, France, India, nor Russia has found nuclear power profitable. In those countries politicians not the market says what gets built. Check out the "Forbes" article Hooked on Subsidies reprinted by the Freemarket CATO Institute. Especially notice where is says "How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
The French government owned company Areva has had large cost overruns building the Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant as well as thousands of defects and deficiencies in Finland.
Actually, the track record of nuclear is excellent. In the West, a single accident nearly 40 years ago (TMI) with no victims. In fact, if all the other energy-producing methods were held to the standards of nuclear, you could never afford anything else...
Ask the Navajo, Sioux, and all the others where uranium is mined if it's held to high standards.
Wind and solar will always only provide for peak demand, through massive overcapacity, because even occasional blackouts are unacceptable. You need a base supply, and if you cannot get hydro, the only clean alternative is nuclear.
Nuclear power is NOT clean. Geothermal however is relatively clean and can be used as a baseload energy source.
you will never get enough energy through renewables unless solar platforms in orbit start working -- they will, but I would not count on them this century.
This is way out of date. The government's National Renewable Energy Lab concluded in 2004 that solar panels produce the energy needed to manufacture them in 2 years. Those panels can last 30 years so for 28 years they contribute more energy than it took to make them. Wind turbines can produce as much energy in a few months as it took to make them.
Of course nuclear power supporters disagree with anything that shows nuclear power is not needed.
research funding for nuclear research such as thorium reactors or pebble bed reactors?
to increase safety and/or move onto other nuclear fuels
How about funding geothermal, solar, tidal, wind and other energy sources just as much? Give each one $54 Billion? Doesn't sound so good does it? How about not picking winners and losers at all? Instead let the market pick them.
Because as CATO, Forbes, and others say nuclear power is Hooked on Subsidies. The market would not support nuclear power without them.
Even better than car sharing, IMHO, is a towable generator like the AC Propulsion Long Ranger. Why rent or exchange a whole car when you could just rent or exchange a generator?
Actually it makes sense for many people to share cars. I don't myself but a few blocks from me a Coop I am a member of has some cars parked there as part of car sharing, Hourcar. Online Hourcar members can reserve a car for specific tyme periods then go and pick it up. There is no insurance premium, maintenance, and they only ask the person to fill up if the car is less than 1/4 full. However drivers are given a gas card for that.
If a person only needs a car once or twice a week and only for a few hours at a tyme they can save a lot of money by sharing a car. Even over regular car rentals.
Why rent or exchange a whole car when you could just rent or exchange a generator?
I haven't done it for myself but I used to work in construction and we'd occasionally rent a generator. It's cheaper just to buy the generator, unless it's rarely used. However you have to have someplace to keep it. Where I live there have been 2 bikes stolen from the lot, one was mine, since I've lived here. Both were locked up too. Even left out for a few hours to charge an EV a generator would disappear from here.
Heck last spring I had someone come and rip out all of the plants from a section of my garden I spend days working on, more than 60 peppers, tomatoes, and tomatilloes, in the middle of the night. And I was planning on making jars and jars of salsas and sauces from them.
What's really nutty about the whole thing is that, we haven't even really begun to research what a gasoline fuel cell might look like. I mean, what if you could get gasoline to "burn" but harness the photons produced by combustion directly to produce electricity, rather than heat?
You would still have two problems. By using petroleum you're supporting terrorists. And petroleum will run out.
I think the biggest problem is that most of those thinking about this has a "1 size fits all" mentality. Transportation like energy should be broken down, use what's available in a given area for a given task. Use plug-in EVs in cities where drivers do not drive far. Use hybrids in suburbia. And use trains for longer distances. And those trains can be electric, like the TGV in France. Heck even fossil fueled trains have better fuel economy when fully loaded than road vehicles. The problem there is that people will not willingly give up their cars. I care about the environment and I won't give up mine. I just try not to drive when I don't need to.
Maybe the apartment could install charging outlets at their parking spaces.
I had a similar idea, but not all of us apartment dwellers have parking spaces. I'm in my apartment now and my car is parked on the side of the public road. Actually that's one of the things I hate about here, there is no off-street parking. I hope that changes, but I doubt it, by me moving.
I know, it sounds like an extremely complicated and expensive endeavor, but I think capitalism might just might just be able to work something out.
Unfortunately we don't have a capitalist, or freemarket, economy. What we have is a mixed economy. Yes, even in the US, we have a mixed economy.
Taxpayer bears the risk of default, Tesla execs get to keep any windfalls of development, all the while drawing their salary against the loan. Doesn't sound like the best deal for the taxpayer to me.
Did you like Chrysler and GM getting bailed out? Or the banks? Do you like farm subsidies? How about subsidies for petroleum? I didn't and don't like any of them but by the government giving Detroit loans but not Tesla the government is picking winners and losers. Well at least making it harder for those who are not helped.
A bunch of big banks in the U.S. raised money and paid back the government because they didn't like the conditions that came with the loans they had gotten.
There were no conditions on those loans when the banks were given them. It was only after MegaBank A bought MegaBank B, making banks too big to fail even bigger, as well as raising all sorts of fees to milk even more money from people that there was talk about conditions.
Slashdot Mirror
First off, wind power is a great supplement, not a replacement. It suffers from too much variability to be a reliable power source, and therefore replace fossil fuels.
True but geothermal is a reliable and steady energy source. It's also available in many places. Iceland, in the Arctic, gets a lot of energy from geothermal sources. California gets 4.5% of it's energy from geothermal sources. In Hawaii the Big Island gets 20% of it's energy from the Puna Geothermal Venture which supplies geothermal energy. Heck even the Philippines harvests geothermal energy. Mexico has 853 MW of installed geothermal energy.
That energy does not depend of sunlight or the wind. It is a steady source of energy. New York state has the webpage Geothermal Heat Pumps with contacts that can install both commercial and residential systems.
at least with nuclear power, the pollution is contained.
No it's not. Mining is not contained. Neither are leaks, spills, and other releases. Such as the tritium spills at Exelon Nuclear-owned plants in IL.
As for your road tax solution, who cares if we pay it with income taxes or fuel taxes?
I do as do many others. Only those who use the roads should have to pay for them. If a person does not directly pay for something they have no idea how much it costs for one Now if you have to pay say 10 cents a mile, in addition to gas costs, unless you're wealthy you will pay attention. And I say that as someone who loves driving and will not give up my car unless I have to.
Everyone uses and benefits from the roads.
And they will pay for it, but not with income taxes. You may walk or ride a bike everywhere but as long as you buy items you will still pay for the roads. Sellers raise their prices to cover their expenses, they are in business to make money afterall. Heck even when you order a physical object online, you're paying. Say you order a printed book from Amazon you pay shipping and the shipper pays for the roads.
Falcon
You are right, libertarians are perfect, because if you take the best of every one of them and combine them into a super-libertarian, you have a perfect person. But, individually, they are all arrogant asses.
Like you're not being an arrogant ass now? HAHA!
And you consider that adding to the discussion? Another HAHA!
Falcon
No denial but plenty of trolling.
While I have repeatedly provided evidence to support what I've said all I've gotten in return is trolling.
Falcon
You didn't say anything about Republicans, you specifically targeted Democrats.
The subject at hand was the Detroit bailouts.
Which Republicans started. Did you say that? No you blamed only Democrats. To me that is partisan BS, blaming one party, but not all parties involved.
Falcon
So, you've never heard libertarians call for privatized roads?
And you did not read where I said "Not all libertarians agree on everything. For instance not all believe roads should be privatized". It was the first two sentences I wrote in the post you just replied to.
Troll
Falcon
Still trolling.
Falcon
If nothing else, the apartment complex will start getting annoyed by the ugly orange cords draped out of everyone's window
I used to do that, I used to maintain the grounds and I'd have one of those orange cords hanging out of a window, or door, for my electric trimmer/edger.
Actually as I type this I'll looking out of one of those windows where I see a sidewalk that has not had the snow shoveled off it. I was getting paid for it but after 8 months of not being paid I stopped. So the owners started paying someone else to do it, but he does not do it. I suppose I could file a complaint with the city but hardly anyone else is shoveling this year either.
Falcon
I'm just waiting for a libertarian, any libertarian, to reconcile the libertarian call for privatizing roads with the right to travel.
Not all libertarians agree on everything. For instance not all believe roads should be privatized. What many of us do agree on is a Constitutionally limited government, and the Constitution of the USA specifically enumerates roads as a power of government. And if you look at the Libertarian Party's platform not once will you see the words "highway", "road", or "street". All will you see of them in the issues is "street" but that deals with the Wall Street Bailout not paved streets. What you're spreading is nothing more than FUD, Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
Falcon
More specifically, tarrifs are out of style, but taking actions to keep a currency undervalued is equivalent, and that is very popular precisely because it is effective. It's been the preferred development strategy of China, Brazil, India, and others...
And like subsidies, undervaluing currency is a distortion of the markets. Once a country distorts its economy it is inviting others to do so in retaliation, which harms everyone involved. Actually in a free market currency valuations float, I can go online to Forex.com and buy British pounds, US dollars, Japanese yens, and other currencies. The Chinese government controls the valuation of the yuan. Actually that's one of the things the US and other nations complain about.
Falcon
Because of regulations, which are much more stringent for the nuclear industry than anything else, no-one can come with the up-front investment.
If only that were true. But it is not. China, France, India, and Russia do not have the regulations the US does. And even in those countries the government not the market says what gets built.
If France found that gaz turbines or coal were cheaper, they would have switched a long time ago... They went nuclear because of the oil crisis
And nuclear weapons and other military goals had nothing to do with it? Charles de Gaulle, who died in 1970 years before the oil crisis, was a big supporter of nuclear power. The Oil Crisis had nothing to do with it.
And Areva having problems with their new power plant? Yeah, sure. New model. Of course, it is typical for activists (you did quote indymedia above...)
Okay let me quote the "New York Times" which supports nuclear power:
In Finland, Nuclear Renaissance Runs Into Trouble
"The massive power plant under construction on muddy terrain on this Finnish island was supposed to be the showpiece of a nuclear renaissance. The most powerful reactor ever built, its modular design was supposed to make it faster and cheaper to build. And it was supposed to be safer, too."
"But things have not gone as planned."
"After four years of construction and thousands of defects and deficiencies, the reactor's 3 billion euro price tag, about $4.2 billion, has climbed at least 50 percent. And while the reactor was originally meant to be completed this summer, Areva, the French company building it, and the utility that ordered it, are no longer willing to make certain predictions on when it will go online."
to blame civil engineering mishaps on nuclear power. Of course, it must be the curse of nuclear that the concrete mix design was wrong!
Areva is a French government owned Nuclear power company not a civil engineering company.
Falcon
They are accidents. The first link even has the title "U.S. Nuclear Accidents", that's my my title. Twisting definitions don't change the facts.
If you think nuclear energy should be banned because of the excessive risk caused by such, I sure hope that you also want all cars banned. And swimming pools, and planes.
No I don't. Cars will not harm hundreds, thousands, or millions with one accident. One nuclear accident can. Planes don't harm many people all at once either. The attack on the WTC and Pentagon took 4 planes, and how many were killed? 3000? That's less than 1000 per plane. It was also a once in a lifetime event. If hijackers tried it today the passengers would not meekly go along, heck the passengers in the plane that crashed in Penn revolted once they knew what happened to the other planes. Swimming pools are not mass killers either.
I even have an excuse to ban vehicles, I was disabled because I was hit by a vehicle while riding my bike. While I was in a coma the docs even told my family it would be a miracle if I lived, do I consider it one? Not just no, but HELL NO!!! I don't consider it a miracle, my life has been a living hell. Am I calling for cars to be banned? No I'm not. I do call for people to be responsible, and if they won't exercise it then the law should hold them responsible. Even though the person who hit me had a record of causing accidents, and an arrest warrant was issued in his name, I wouldn't wish my life on him. I'm not that sadistic.
The Bopal disaster should have put the lid on chemical factories.
I'm not against chemical factories or their owners, I do support holding them responsible. That includes oil companies. Has the Alaskan fishermen been compensated for Exxon Valdez? More than 20 years later Exxon still has not paid them. Were the Navajo compensated? No. In the US the government even protects the nuclear industry from lawsuits and paying damages.
Countless deaths due to coal should have made this energy source a big no-no.
I agree. Of course that's not realistic right now. But I would end the subsidies coal gets, yes coal gets subsidies too. Here's a video where Chevron agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies. Then there was TVA's Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill. That wasn't the first one or the last one either. What's even worse is Mountaintop removal and some containment ponds are above where people live. I's also end passing on the external costs. Polluters would have to clean up and pay for damages, all not just coal plants. The same with alternative/renewable energy sources.
Do you think mining for the rare earths required by solar panels is "clean"?
And nuclear does not require mining or that mining is clean? Sure it does and it is dirty, however unlike nuclear solar can easily and cheaply be recycled as can wind turbines. Heck there are still solar panels from the '70s being used. There are also Jacobs wind turbines made in the 1930s still being used. Also with ongoing research, for which I also oppose subsides, efficiencies are improving and non-rare earth minerals and compounds are being investigated.
By the standards of energy generation, yes, nuclear is clean. By any standard, it is safe.
How many accidents has solar energy and wind turbines been involved in? Of those how many lives were put in danger, or how many were killed? And how much have they been given in subsidies? To answer that myself I googled alternative energy subsidies and found this:
We enjoy some of the lowest food prices in the World thanks to massive corn subsidies. No one is looking to remove them because everyone likes it that way.
I and others have railed on about all subsidies including farm subsidies. I and others would most definitely eliminate them.
So let's just leave the "subsidies are bad" arguments out of it right now.
I will not ignore the truth. You can sweep it under the rug but I will not.
As for geothermal, you can't show me a single example of a geothermal plant that isn't located near or directly over a natural source of geothermal heat.
And you have not pointed out one place that is not directly over a source of geothermal heat.
If you'd bothered to try and understand what I was saying (rather than doing your best to lump me in with all renewable bashers) you would have understood that when I said it needed continued research
So where did you also say nuclear needs more research? Leaving it out shows a bias if nothing else.
And, again, you keep using the fact of supposed subsidies as a catch-all excuse as too why Nuclear is bad. If you leave that out, I'm afraid your argument doesn't have much else.
You must be trolling. I have repeatedly pointed out uranium mining is bad as well and there is no safe storage place for nuclear waste. Those are real big issues.
Falcon
Nice try, but I didn't say that the Republicans were any better, did I?
You didn't say anything about Republicans, you specifically targeted Democrats. Now if you really did mean both it would not have taken much effort to say that.
Falcon
No one has ever even contemplated replacing a Coal-fired plant with a renewable source of energy because renewable in no way, shape, or form have the dependability to be counted on to produce 24 hour a day, 7 day a week, 365 days a year Electricity. I'm not making this stuff up, it's simply a fact of life right now.
One, when did I say anything about closing down all coal-fired, Natural Gas-fired, or nuclear power plants right now? Two, it is a fact of life geothermal can provide a baseload of energy now, today. It is happening as I type this in Iceland, Hawaii, and in the Philippines. California gets 5% of it's baseload from geothermal [pdf] energy.
You can't try and solve every problem at once because all you'll end up doing in NOTHING AT ALL. We can solve a big chunk of our pollution problem right now by switching to Nuclear. We'll tackle the well understood problems with Nuclear when we get to that bridge.
Three, when have I said anything about the 1 big solution, other than discounting it? I haven't, I have repeatedly stated I believe that each place should use the source of energy that is available locally. Solar where it's available, wind where it is, tidal where it is and so on. And as I state above geothermal can be used as a baseload. On the other hand Nuclear power is part of the problem. It is dirty from cradle to grave. Mining it is dirty, processing it is dirty, reprocessing it is dirty, and storing it is dirty. Plus no market or business will pay for it without government subsidies. Nuclear power is Hooked on Subsidies.
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
Falcon
Simply, you have to provide for the baseline needs. For that, you need large plants. Currently, your options are gaz, coal, large hydro, and nuclear.
Geothermal can provide [pdf warning} a baseload [pdf warning]. Ah, I see you mention it later.
In the context of a rapidly developing World, it is highly desirable that nuclear be the choice for large-scale generation,
Aha, that's it. Like so many others you're looking for the next big thing when what will work, and is needed, is many small scale solutions. Coupled with a new smart grid, grid failures in the US currently cost businesses billions a year so it needs to be upgraded anyway, what's produced in one location can be used in another.
Falcon
The problem is that none of those things can right now, today be used to replace Coal-fired Power Plants.
...Nuclear can replace coal right now.
Nuclear power can not replace coal right now. It takes many years to build a nuclear power plant. And that's not just true in the US either. The French government owned Areva has been building the Olkiluoto nuclear power plant in Finland for years. Construction started in 2006 and was originally planned to be finished in 2009. Now it's not scheduled for completion until 2012 at the earliest. With cost overruns it is overbudget by more than 3 Billion euros and has suffered thousands of defects and deficiencies.
If however 20 5 megawatt wind turbines, and there are bigger ones, are erected a month in 1 year more than 1 gigawatt of capacity is added in that year. Need more, erect more. Quite simply more generation capacity can be added by erecting wind turbines than by building nuclear power plants.
People are making fun of the Administrations (not saying you personally, but some of the public in general) push for high-speed rail.
I love trains but I don't want government paying for them. However if other forms of transportation had to pay their full costs as well then people may think of using trains more.
People think that gasoline taxes pay for road maintenance, in reality those taxes barely make a dent in the total cost of maintaining our highway system
I agree and have repeatedly posted here that I thought drivers should pay the full cost of the roads. So I started supporting the Net Zero Gas Tax. Net zero, because it doesn't raise the average person's tax. Fuel taxes are raised but everyone gets a cut on their income tax. At first I advocated raising fuel taxes like this, but with more and more fuel efficient vehicles on the road it won't work. So instead I now support a mileage tax. When a person goes in to renew their license plate tags the odometer is read. By subtracting the last reading from the current one the number of miles driven is calculated then the person pays for those miles. Some have complained people have no idea how much their bill will be at the end of the year, well people can pay monthly or quarterly. They have a better idea of how much they drive and how much they owe.
The problem with that is that it ignores that fact that since the very first Nuclear Plant came online, utilities have been paying a tax per unit of electricity generated that specifically goes into a fund to pay for the ultimate disposal of nuclear waste.
So you don't think businesses haven't looked at them either? Fact is is without subsidies businesses will not pay to build nuclear power plants. That is why they are asking for loan guaranties. And yes, I consider loan guaranties subsidies. Let then ask those banks that were bailed out for loans, without guaranties they will not get loans. Banks are giving loans for solar and wind without government guaranties though.
I think the positives (no Coal pollution -- Heavy metals being spewed into the air, people dieing to mine the coal, pollution from the coal mining itself, etc.) far outweigh the negatives.
And uranium mining is so pristine, NOT!!! Nuclear power is dirty from cradle to grave just as coal is.
Falcon
Geothermal can be that baseload.
nuclear waste is a problem for later, and will be solved by breeders, which reduce dramatically the volume of waste. It is easy and safe to burrow the final products from these reactors, the only problem being NIMBY
NIMBYs have also stopped wind farms, especially offshore from Maine to Cape Hatteras. For instance before he died Ted Kennedy opposed wind turbines in Cape Cod. Obama may be able to get one built.
As for the "real" price of nuclear, it is a bit like the US medical system, a larger part of the price comes from terrible legislation and political opposition, not from the intrinsic cost.
Ah, how far wrong can a person be? Forget the US, Neither China, France, India, nor Russia has found nuclear power profitable. In those countries politicians not the market says what gets built. Check out the "Forbes" article Hooked on Subsidies reprinted by the Freemarket CATO Institute. Especially notice where is says "How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
The French government owned company Areva has had large cost overruns building the Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant as well as thousands of defects and deficiencies in Finland.
Falcon
Actually, the track record of nuclear is excellent. In the West, a single accident nearly 40 years ago (TMI) with no victims. In fact, if all the other energy-producing methods were held to the standards of nuclear, you could never afford anything else...
Only one accident in the US in 40 years? HAHA!!! Here's a list of nuclear accidents in the US. Even France has had spills. Wiki has another list of nuclear and radiation accidents.
Ask the Navajo, Sioux, and all the others where uranium is mined if it's held to high standards.
Wind and solar will always only provide for peak demand, through massive overcapacity, because even occasional blackouts are unacceptable. You need a base supply, and if you cannot get hydro, the only clean alternative is nuclear.
Nuclear power is NOT clean. Geothermal however is relatively clean and can be used as a baseload energy source.
Falcon
you will never get enough energy through renewables unless solar platforms in orbit start working -- they will, but I would not count on them this century.
This is way out of date. The government's National Renewable Energy Lab concluded in 2004 that solar panels produce the energy needed to manufacture them in 2 years. Those panels can last 30 years so for 28 years they contribute more energy than it took to make them. Wind turbines can produce as much energy in a few months as it took to make them.
Of course nuclear power supporters disagree with anything that shows nuclear power is not needed.
Falcon
research funding for nuclear research such as thorium reactors or pebble bed reactors?
to increase safety and/or move onto other nuclear fuels
How about funding geothermal, solar, tidal, wind and other energy sources just as much? Give each one $54 Billion? Doesn't sound so good does it? How about not picking winners and losers at all? Instead let the market pick them.
Because as CATO, Forbes, and others say nuclear power is Hooked on Subsidies. The market would not support nuclear power without them.
Falcon
Even better than car sharing, IMHO, is a towable generator like the AC Propulsion Long Ranger. Why rent or exchange a whole car when you could just rent or exchange a generator?
Actually it makes sense for many people to share cars. I don't myself but a few blocks from me a Coop I am a member of has some cars parked there as part of car sharing, Hourcar. Online Hourcar members can reserve a car for specific tyme periods then go and pick it up. There is no insurance premium, maintenance, and they only ask the person to fill up if the car is less than 1/4 full. However drivers are given a gas card for that.
If a person only needs a car once or twice a week and only for a few hours at a tyme they can save a lot of money by sharing a car. Even over regular car rentals.
Why rent or exchange a whole car when you could just rent or exchange a generator?
I haven't done it for myself but I used to work in construction and we'd occasionally rent a generator. It's cheaper just to buy the generator, unless it's rarely used. However you have to have someplace to keep it. Where I live there have been 2 bikes stolen from the lot, one was mine, since I've lived here. Both were locked up too. Even left out for a few hours to charge an EV a generator would disappear from here.
Heck last spring I had someone come and rip out all of the plants from a section of my garden I spend days working on, more than 60 peppers, tomatoes, and tomatilloes, in the middle of the night. And I was planning on making jars and jars of salsas and sauces from them.
Falcon
What's really nutty about the whole thing is that, we haven't even really begun to research what a gasoline fuel cell might look like. I mean, what if you could get gasoline to "burn" but harness the photons produced by combustion directly to produce electricity, rather than heat?
You would still have two problems. By using petroleum you're supporting terrorists. And petroleum will run out.
I think the biggest problem is that most of those thinking about this has a "1 size fits all" mentality. Transportation like energy should be broken down, use what's available in a given area for a given task. Use plug-in EVs in cities where drivers do not drive far. Use hybrids in suburbia. And use trains for longer distances. And those trains can be electric, like the TGV in France. Heck even fossil fueled trains have better fuel economy when fully loaded than road vehicles. The problem there is that people will not willingly give up their cars. I care about the environment and I won't give up mine. I just try not to drive when I don't need to.
Falcon
Maybe the apartment could install charging outlets at their parking spaces.
I had a similar idea, but not all of us apartment dwellers have parking spaces. I'm in my apartment now and my car is parked on the side of the public road. Actually that's one of the things I hate about here, there is no off-street parking. I hope that changes, but I doubt it, by me moving.
I know, it sounds like an extremely complicated and expensive endeavor, but I think capitalism might just might just be able to work something out.
Unfortunately we don't have a capitalist, or freemarket, economy. What we have is a mixed economy. Yes, even in the US, we have a mixed economy.
Falcon
Taxpayer bears the risk of default, Tesla execs get to keep any windfalls of development, all the while drawing their salary against the loan. Doesn't sound like the best deal for the taxpayer to me.
Did you like Chrysler and GM getting bailed out? Or the banks? Do you like farm subsidies? How about subsidies for petroleum? I didn't and don't like any of them but by the government giving Detroit loans but not Tesla the government is picking winners and losers. Well at least making it harder for those who are not helped.
Falcon
A bunch of big banks in the U.S. raised money and paid back the government because they didn't like the conditions that came with the loans they had gotten.
There were no conditions on those loans when the banks were given them. It was only after MegaBank A bought MegaBank B, making banks too big to fail even bigger, as well as raising all sorts of fees to milk even more money from people that there was talk about conditions.
Falcon