Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
There's somethin' happening here, What it is ain't exactly clear. There's a man with a gun over there, tellin' me I gotta beware. I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound, everybody look what's going down.
--For What It's Worth, Stephen Stills, 1966
It was nearly 30 years ago, in 1979, when Jackson Browne, Graham Nash, Bonnie Raitt and John Hall founded Musicians United for Safe Energy (MUSE) to fight against the use of nuclear power. They organized five exhilarating nights of No Nukes concerts at Madison Square Garden and led a rally of 200,000 people in New York's downtown Battery Park. Their efforts helped to channel public outrage in the wake of the Three Mile Island accident and strengthen opposition to Big Nuclear Energy.
Now, as Congress considers $50 billion in new loan guarantees to the nuclear industry over the next two years (it has already received nearly $10 billion from the Bush-Cheney Energy Debacle of 2005), as well as extended federal liability insurance, Raitt, Browne, and Nash have reunited to educate the public and a new generation about "what's going down" and advocate for a saner path. Along with Ben Harper and Keb Mo, the original No Nukes crowd cut a new music video based on Stephen Stills' For What It's Worth that links to a petition against the massive nuclear industry handout.
On Monday night, the musicians joined their MUSE co-founder -- now Congressman John Hall-- and performed for lawmakers who will be debating this critical Energy Bill that is intended to set us on a greener course. Tuesday, they were back on Capitol Hill lobbying against a "virtual blank check from taxpayers" to build new nuclear plants.
While Big Nuclear is touting a self-proclaimed "nuclear renaissance" and promoting the myth that nuclear energy will solve our climate change crisis, MUSE co-founder and Freepress.org/NukeFree.org editor, Harvey Wasserman, explains the top three reasons to oppose the "Nuclear Bailout" in this video. (A more extensive post by Wasserman on reasons for opposition is here).
In a nutshell, after fifty years since the first reactor was built in 1957, nuclear plants can't pay for themselves. Wall Street doesn't want anything to do with them --exorbitant cost overruns and construction problems continue to plague them -- so the industry is looking to Congress to foot the bill. Secondly, the risk of a terrorist attack -- or human error -- at these facilities is so great that the industry can't even get private insurance so, again, it looks to government to limit liability in case of a major accident. Finally, there is no safe way of dealing with high-level nuclear waste. Despite $11 billion public dollars spent on Yucca Mountain, there are still too many unanswered questions about how to safely contain waste that must be isolated for at least tens of thousands of years, if not longer-- according to Jon Block, nuclear energy and climate change project manager at the Union of Concerned Scientists. Block concludes in a recent op-ed that "any glowing description of nuclear power's benefits ignores serious issues of nuclear plant safety, security against sabotage and terrorist attack and waste disposal."
As to the notion that new nuclear plants are the answer to the climate crisis, Wasserman notes that greenhouse gasses are created in the mining, milling, and enrichment of uranium fuel; and that "huge plumes of heat" are emitted directly into the air and water by the reactors.
But, most importantly, one must completely ignore the devastating risks that these monstrosities pose to the environment, as the Natural Resource Defense Council writes, "The accidental release of radioactivity, whether from a reactor accident, terrorist attack, or slow leakage of radioactive waste into the local environment, poses the risk of catastrophic harm to communities and to vital natural resources, such as underground aquifers used for irrigation and drinking water."
Block also sees far better options than the nuclear one: "The most sensible strategy to reduce global warming is to quickly deploy the cleanest, fastest, lowest risk solutions first. Conservation and increased efficiency by energy producers and consumers are the cheapest and quickest measures by far. Likewise, a wide range of renewable energy resources, including wind, solar, geothermal and tidal power, have enormous potential and are inherently safe-and they would encourage economic development."
Thirty years after MUSE raised public-consciousness about the atomic madness of the 70's, it's good to see them back on the job fighting an absurd and illogical nuclear bailout in 2007. Like the song still says, "Stop-- everybody look what's going down." Don't accept the latest giveaway to corporate lobbyists, sign the petition today.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
RIO -- It's a conservative (not regressive!) stance insofar as those who oppose nukes are actually trying to conserve the world.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 10/25/2007 @ 1:30pm
What are we always told?...."Look how they do it in Europe...."?
okay--
By Peter Ford | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
PARIS – After nearly two decades, Europe's antinuclear tide is showing signs of turning.
For the first time in 15 years, a European country has begun construction of a nuclear reactor, and six more are likely to be built in the next decade. Other countries are revising plans to phase out their nuclear programs. And this week's brief but brutal drop in Europe's supplies of crucial Russian gas has only served to fuel the trend.
"People are saying 'let's take a second look' at nuclear power," says William Ramsay, deputy executive director of the International Energy Agency. "Rising oil prices means nuclear is becoming more economically attractive, and gas prices are a second kick in the pants."
To reduce its dependence on oil and gas imports, Europe needs to "look at nuclear power and at renewable energy," European Union Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs said Wednesday.
Nuclear power plants remain unpopular with a majority of Europeans, who are worried about what happens to the radioactive waste. Industry officials, however, are playing on the public's competing worries about the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming. Nuclear plants, they point out, emit practically no CO2.
"Nuclear is the only game in town if you are serious about cutting greenhouse gases" as the European Union has pledged to do under the Kyoto Protocol, argues Ian Hore-Lacy, spokesman for the World Nuclear Association, an industry lobbying group.
With the legacy of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and rising environmental concerns clouding the nuclear horizon, EU nations stopped building nuclear plants for 15 years. But last yearFinland ended that streak by starting construction of a third-generation pressurized water reactor, designed by the French company Areva. It's to come on-line in 2009.
The French state-owned power generating company, Électricité de France, has won government approval to build a similar plant in France and chosen the site. In addition, President Jacques Chirac announced Thursday, France will complete a pilot plant by 2020 that will produce less waste and burn more efficiently.
Posted by Mask at 10/25/2007 @ 1:38pm
BTW...
"Block also sees far better options than the nuclear one: "The most sensible strategy to reduce global warming is to quickly deploy the cleanest, fastest, lowest risk solutions first. Conservation and increased efficiency by energy producers and consumers are the cheapest and quickest measures by far. Likewise, a wide range of renewable energy resources, including wind, solar, geothermal and tidal power, have enormous potential and are inherently safe-and they would encourage economic development."
Two points....1. any NUMBERS, as in how many coal-fired plants we could SHUT DOWN, with "Conservation and increased efficiency". Or would it just mean slighly less useage of those plants (having nil effect on CO2 production).
2. "wind, geothermal, solar, etc." Again...any numbers? or timelines? For HOW LONG it will take to establish enough wind farms (without Bobby and Ted Kennedy's help, apparently)...or make enough solar panels....or tap enough volcanoes.....to make any significant impact?
Posted by Mask at 10/25/2007 @ 1:44pm
Even when i was a little kid I heard about Fusion being so much better than fission but it required new improved containment methods and R&D. Consider if 80-90% went to fusion rather 100% to fission R&D?
And why not fully fund wind, solar, thermal, ocean tide,... energy R&D governmentally via national security. It would do more to grow our economy and secure our energy resources than pouring a trillian or two down an Iraq/Iran war sinkhole.
Fission:
Pro
1. cleaner than burning fossil fuels - no greenhouse emissions!
2. fewer deaths per MWe than fossil fuels according to the Rassmussen Report.
Con
1. What to do with radioactive waste.
2. Accidents, e.g. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island. (Note: explosions are not possible in fission or fusion reactors)
3. Increasingly expensive to build reactors - more cost effective to improve efficiencies of existing technologies and weatherization techniques.
Fusion
Pro
1. Cleaner than fossil fuels.
2. Virtually no radioactive waste.
3. Can use ordinary water as a fuel source.
Con
1. Presently unfeasible
2. High neutron flux can weaken reactor structure.
3. Catastrophic failure could release radioactive tritium into the atmosphere. However, the potential radioactive fallout is much less than the potential release of radioactive material from a fission reactor.
http://physics.uoregon.edu/~courses/dlivelyb/ph161/L25.html
Prob's:
http://burro.cwru.edu/Academics/Astr221/StarPhys/coulomb.html
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/25/2007 @ 2:07pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/25/2007 @ 2:07pm
I'd support fusion research, HSUB....but it's still decades off.
Just don't buy that "conservation" would cover substantial amounts of power production (it would merely reduce the use of the output of coal-fired plants...not close them. So no net decrease in CO2).
And wind, solar, geothermal production will require years as well. Production of solar cells alone will take a long time.
And of course we, as normal non-rich&famous Americans, can't "buy off our carbon footprint" with phoney "carbon credits" from our own company. A ploy rapidly being exposed by smart enviros as a celebrity excuse......and one used by a certain GW "leader" and future-future Presidential candidate.
Posted by Mask at 10/25/2007 @ 2:17pm
Posted by MASK 10/25/2007 @ 2:17pm |
this computer is at least 50% nuclear powered!
ouch.
we've reduced our usage by about 20-40%, depending on the month.
it's easy.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/25/2007 @ 2:21pm
iran should accuse us of secretly really building nukes...
why not some money into solar/wind power? individual non polluting units - houses/business still hooked to grid, but dispersed power generating?
oh yeah...there's no big fat cat power companies getting rich! ah, sham croney capitalism!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/25/2007 @ 2:35pm
I've been hearing about fusion for like 50 years. Even before computers and look at the incredible leap in advancement in them!?!?! It does make one think that there is a concerted effort to keep producing that little by-product--- DU. Not like they have any real USE for it... now do they. They being MIC/Big Energy.
But hey, on a totally different page, if everyone did a little conservation, the savings would be tremendous; the lower demand-- lowers the cost.
What we really need is leadership at the very top, the president, to take this seriously, like it's 'the' war. But that would mean that our exec not already in bed with the MIC/Big Energy.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/25/2007 @ 3:12pm
er, our exec 'is' not already...
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/25/2007 @ 3:14pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/25/2007 @ 2:07pm Fusion: Cons:
The big "con" is that it's not economically feasable yet (takes more energy to cause it than is released by it).
Posted by Radscal at 10/25/2007 @ 3:46pm
We have the technology to conserve more energy than is produced by nuclear plants - we're just not using it. We're cutting down our national forests to build highly flammable crackerboxes, in which every stud and rafter conducts energy like the fins on a radiator. Alternatives like structural insulating panels (SIPs) and extruded polystyrene (EPS) insulation are still not required by American building codes. If any good comes out of the conflagration in Southern California, it will be that developers are no longer allowed to pass along to consumers and society the true cost of their wasteful construction methods.
Posted by samcrossett at 10/25/2007 @ 3:56pm
Again, always wonder why, despite all the OTHER things we're told we should emulate from France (uni-health care, endless unemployment insurance, free "whatever", etc.)....
that those same folks don't ask us to emulate the way that the French POWER all those wonderful social benefits....i.e. 78% nuclear?
Or seem to mention when discussing Kyoto and how "the Europeans are willing to sign off on it if we do"...that they'll have a nice little cushion of nuclear power to fall back on, that we won't?
Posted by Mask at 10/25/2007 @ 4:13pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/25/2007 @ 2:07pm Fusion: Cons:
The big "con" is that it's not economically feasable yet (takes more energy to cause it than is released by it).
Perhaps with more research, it could be made viable, but most U.S. citizens are afraid of this "N word."
Flash from the past: Mork to Mindy regarding a nuclear accident: "Well, just spray some NukeAway on it." Upon learning we earthlings don't have NukeAway, Mork jumps up. "You don't have NukeAway and you're messing with nuclear energy? What are you people, nuts?"
Posted by Radscal at 10/25/2007 @ 4:31pm
I want the $50 billion put into wind power. I'll bet it would go a long way towards that.
Posted by Waltz at 10/25/2007 @ 4:44pm
I want the $50 billion put into wind power. I'll bet it would go a long way towards that.
Posted by WALTZ
I want the 50 Billion put into Rapid transit systems in our major cities........Starting with 5 Bil for Miami.........
Posted by davebarlett at 10/25/2007 @ 6:48pm
No new Nuclear power plants----No new Refineries----The left wants our capitalist system starved of power. This is not an effort to stop power plants and refineries--it's an effort to destroy capitalism by depriving it of the power that it needs. I am all for wind and other methods---but let's be realistic---these alternative methods can not match the out put of nuclear power. We need to ---dare I say it----follow the example of the French and build more nuclear power plants.
Posted by Len Mosse at 10/25/2007 @ 7:01pm
From what i just read, I think fusion what's about to replace most power sources-- plus it produces hydrogen as a byproduct for hydrogen cars... And if we had put the 1/2 trillian into it rather than Iraq, we'd probably already have a working model... (sigh).
"ITER was originally an acronym standing for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor; that title was dropped to avoid the negative popular connotations of 'thermonuclear' and 'experimental'. 'Iter' also means 'trail' or 'path' in Latin, and this double meaning reflects ITER's role in harnessing nuclear fusion as a peaceful power source.
On November 21, 2006, the seven participants formally agreed to fund the project.[1] The program is anticipated to last for 30 years--10 years for construction, and 20 years of operation--and cost approximately €10 billion (US$13.1 billion), which would make it one of the most expensive modern technoscientific megaprojects. It will be based in Cadarache, France. It is technically ready to start construction and the first plasma operation is expected in 2016.
...
According to the ITER consortium, fusion power offers the potential of "environmentally benign, widely applicable and essentially inexhaustible"[2][3] electricity, properties that they believe will be needed as world energy demands increase while simultaneously greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced,[4] justifying the expensive research project. However, others have criticised the ITER proposal, saying that nuclear fusion has all the problems of nuclear power, including the production of nuclear waste and the risks of a nuclear accident.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
*******************
"In 1998, citing budgetary restrictions, Congress nixed American participation in ITER, leaving the European Union, Japan, Russia and Canada to develop it on their own.
America's fusion research budget is currently $250 million per year. Current estimates suggest another $100 million would be necessary for full participation in ITER.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2001/10/48000
******************
ITER: United States Rejoins International Fusion-Research Project
"Something has changed" to bring the United States on board, says Ray Orbach, head of the Department of Energy's (DOE's) Office of Science. For one thing, most physicists now think the technology is mature. "Simulations, done here [at PPPL] for example, have given us confidence that ITER will work," Orbach says. Ned Sauthoff, a plasma physicist at PPPL, agrees. "I am more confident because there is much more consensus within the scientific community," he says, adding that some of the design flaws of the original ITER had been fixed.
This week's presidential budget request (see p. 806) doesn't contain any new money in 2004 for fusion research. But Abraham said that he expects the budget ramp-up to "move pretty quickly" as the 2006 construction date approaches. That number is the acid test, say ITER supporters, of whether the U.S. plans to fuse or to refuse.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/299/5608/801a?etoc
Also see:
https://www.usiter.org/news_events.shtml
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/25/2007 @ 7:01pm
HSUBS, you are revealing your ignorance here...A controlled nuclear fusion reaction is the holy grail of physics, and no estimate of how long it will take or how much it will cost can be taken as anything other than a wild guess......Therefore,it is not something that can be planned for, or even seriously considered as an alternative energy source.......Sure, it'll happen some day, but like the colonization of space, it's unlikely to happen in our lifetimes...........
Posted by davebarlett at 10/25/2007 @ 7:39pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/25/2007 @ 7:01pm
regardless about whether fusion is feasible or not, that was a really good point about the Iraq war and the money it has cost. Can you imagine what could have been done with that? (Hindsight is 20/20) We could have solar panels and wind mills all over the place! :-)
Posted by Waltz at 10/25/2007 @ 10:40pm
For everyone's information:
Nuclear energy is NOT capitalism's energy source. It has never existed without generous government subsidies. As people slowly became aware how necessary it is to keep nuclear waste isolated from living things -- forever -- they also became aware of the cost of that isolation. No energy company is willing to carry this cost alone. That's why we have a nuclear lobby -- to get the government (and us, the taxpayers) to pay for the disposal of nuclear waste, so that the owners of the power plants don't have to. This is what Mr. Chomsky helpfully calls "privatization of benefits and socialization of costs."
Probably the greatest reductions in greenhouse gas emissions could be gained by insulating houses better and by increasing the use of public transportation. These are unattractive options to politicians, because if the government invested in these things, wealth would actually be SPREAD, rather broadly and rather thinly, bringing few grateful kickbacks from newly enriched corporations. Contrast this with the the campaign financing benefits politicians could get from a newly enriched nuclear industry (pun intended), and you can understand why some of them are now cautiously recommending nuclear power as a "realistic" solution to our energy and climate crisis.
Posted by JakobFabian at 10/25/2007 @ 10:53pm
And to all you Europhiles, both young and old, both habitual and occasional:
You will notice that Europe is the ONLY place where they're building new nuclear power plants, and even here the pace is very slow. Germany has had a nuclear moratorium, on and off, for some time now, depending on whether there are Greens in the governing coalition. The Greens not only want a moratorium on new nuclear plant construction, but a decommissioning of all EXISTING nuclear power plants. And in Europe, even in France, the Greens are a force to be reckoned with.
It's really only in Europe where generous government spending can make nuclear energy feasible, or halfway safe. The rest of the world really can't afford it. Even in Europe, it is economic arguments that are most likely to move people to shake the nuclear habit, once and for all.
Posted by JakobFabian at 10/25/2007 @ 11:01pm
imagine if since the first oil crunch, every house built had had an integral solar panel or windmill installed, and tax credits had resulted in cheap installation for older houses?
but no...oil went artificially low during reagan's admin (accounting for a lot of the reagan era "prosperity") because of the iran/iraq war and i guess the powers that were figured the oil would last forever...
dispersed clean power generation - they dont want that...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/25/2007 @ 11:16pm
IBBLE, Just as relatively cheap energy accounted for the Reagan era's prosperity, so too has relatively cheap energy accounted for much of the record economic growth of recent years, including, most assuredly, that in China, India and other places.....
Record oil prices will now account for massive wealth redistribution to places like Russia, the Middle east, Venezuela, and Mexico, to name a few, and slower growth in oil-consuming nations......
The wild card is the development of alternative energy sources, which will enable the non-opec nations to continue growing, and absolutely none should be taken off the table, especially nuclear..........
Posted by davebarlett at 10/25/2007 @ 11:24pm
We have nuclear power down here in south Florida, for example, and the plant withstood a direct hit by Hurrican Andrew in 1992, with minor damage, and no loss of power.....Now, our Grid, and our third world electical distribution system is another matter, and even a minor Cat 1 hurricane like Wilma exactly 2 years ago shut us down for 2 weeks, mostly because there were so many poles, wires and transformers trashed, and the gas stations didn't have generators, so no one could get to work...even our one metro line was shut down for a week... (which hopefully won't be a problem next hurricane)
Posted by davebarlett at 10/25/2007 @ 11:30pm
KvH: As to the notion that new nuclear plants are the answer to the climate crisis, Wasserman notes that greenhouse gasses are created in the mining, milling, and enrichment of uranium fuel; and that "huge plumes of heat" are emitted directly into the air and water by the reactors.
I am rather HAPPY that the South Texas Nuclear Power Plant will be the first to add a reactor (the 3rd) in the US in 30+ years!
Wasserman's arguments (above) are so weak as to be insulting! Does he know that the mining of coal, our largest source of energy for power production, involves mining, milling and transporting? Does he know that a decent size coal-fired plant burns a mile-long worth of railroad car's coal? Does he wish to compare the amount of CO2 (+other goodies) from ONE DAY's coal plant operation with the just-so-awful "plume of heat" and water vapor released by nuclear plant? Does he think there are no waste heat from coal plants?
You want everyone to conserve? I mean to really, really CONSERVE? Grow some balls and Slap On fat carbon-based tax on all fossil fuels.....stop beating around the bushes! China isn't....it's building hundreds of coal-fired plants a year! Why? It has got a lot of coal! They use oil and gas (more and more now imported) for almost exclusively transportation and industry. They are smart in that they know they can get more power for less money w/coal plants than nuclear......
We, along w/Europe and other fully developed economies, are about the only ones with the luxury of considering going with the much-more expensive nuclear plants!
Posted by Happy at 10/26/2007 @ 12:09am
I don't want to pay for it. They suck, they are dangerous; nuclear waste ever gets into the water table and we are in serious trouble.
Posted by Waltz at 10/26/2007 @ 12:43am
p.s. Good thing I'm broke as the U.S. democracy.
Posted by Waltz at 10/26/2007 @ 12:51am
HSUBS, you are revealing your ignorance here.
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 10/25/2007 @ 7:39pm
Er, no apparently you are. Where have you been since the 80's?
Read up, that's why I posted the links.
They were to start building a fusion reactor 2005. They could've started it 10 years ago if we would have invested 1/10th of what we put into the idiotic Iraq war back then. The little radioactive residue is deminished in 20 years-- not in the thousands of, new ways of creating steal with the unique properties to support a fusion reaction and the toll of nuetron bombardment has advanced, it's fueled by water which I've heard we're about to have in abundance soon, the byproduct is hydrogen that I hear nonpetrol CO2 producing cars will require a cheap way of producing...
Look at the timeline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_nuclear_fusion
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/26/2007 @ 01:14am
I would say it's not necessary. The simple stuff will work.
Posted by Waltz at 10/26/2007 @ 01:59am
The French state-owned power generating company, Électricité de France, has won government approval to build a similar plant in France and chosen the site. In addition, President Jacques Chirac announced Thursday, France will complete a pilot plant by 2020 that will produce less waste and burn more efficiently.
Posted by MASK 10/25/2007 @ 1:38pm
MASK,
French companies are leading the bidding for building these new nuclear (or as W says, nucular) power plants in the U.S. Two large European companies besides Westinghouse are the major folks pushing building these plants.
I have nothing against the France, but once again, this is a situation where private industry is trying to reap huge profits off the American tax payer and our "conservative / republicans" are more than happy to do the bidding for this money grab via our taxes.
So idiots like Rio think that it's alright to pay a foreign company huge sums of tax payer money, but it's not ok for our government to spend some of it's tax money on the American people.
Not only is RIO not conservative, he's un-American by his own standards. He'd rather make a foreign company rich in the name of capitalism rather than help out his neighbor. Yes indeed, these conservatives are really compassionate. Ha HA
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/26/2007 @ 07:34am
Posted by WOLFGANG1 10/26/2007 @ 07:34am
So, you're not opposed to the US developing more nuclear power? Just the profit angle being used here?
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2007 @ 09:36am
Once again The Nation demonstrates it is clueless on the environment. "Huge plumes of heat" from the reators is an admission of total ignorance. If you want the power to run the website it can't come from "renewables" alone. Wind is transient, solar is impractical and expensive, you either have to burn something our use nuclear. Nuclear works in France. The failings of Yuca MT are partly imaginary and partly the result of a stupid 70s law against reprocessing power plant waste.
And finally, isn't it time for people your age to stop looking to rock stars (has been ones at that) for guidance on how to think? Maybe you could try energy, nuclear power, and climate experts instead of rock stars who know even less about the issue than you do.
Posted by Tgasloli at 10/26/2007 @ 10:29am
Funny how the cons don't mind spending tax dollars to build new nuke plants, isn't it? What happened to the market handling these things? Why won;t Wall Street invest in new plants? why won't private insurance companies insure nuke plants? In almost all other instances all we hear is "Let the market work it out", "privatize, privatize, privatize".
Except for nookyular power. In this case the cons WANT their tax dollars to go to private companies, union builders, AND they do NOT want the guvt to mandate security issues. That should be left to "the market".
go figure.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/26/2007 @ 10:36am
What is wrong with CONSERVvation CONSERVatives?
Shouldn't that be a virtue? A "Family Value", conserving energy for your children?
ALl those in favor of more nookyular plants, are you willing to store spent material in your neighborhood? Or are you like the Kennedys and the rich conservatives that live on the Puget sound?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/26/2007 @ 10:42am
MASK, if energy consumption is reduced, does it not follow that emissions from energy plants would be reduced?
Posted by LEN MOSSE 10/25/2007 @ 7:01pm
How has "the left" prevented the building of new refineries? No new permits have been asked for for decades. Refineries have been closed due to consolidation within the energy industry. Is this some hidden conspiracy, the "left" actually controls the boardrooms at EXXON/MOBIL?
Oil was $60 barrel last spring, gas was $3.29 gal. Oil is $92 a barrel today, gas is $2.89/gal.
the difference? Refineries closed for "maintenance".
Posted by crabwalk at 10/26/2007 @ 10:54am
FZ says he has reduced his energy consumption by up to 40%, and he is still "HAPPY". Still a functioning human being, enjoys life.
It can be done, all it takes it the willingness to save energy for future generations, not self involved "if it feels good do it" philosophy of the cons.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/26/2007 @ 10:57am
Nuclear power for peaceful purposes is and has always been one of the more progressive ideas and one we have continuously rejected. I call it the Hiroshima Syndrome. It has two drawbacks, safety and cost. But cost would come down with usage and availability, as it did with oil originally, and the benefits outweigh the risks regarding safety. The USS Enterprise has been using nuclear power since it set sail. There are nuclear power energy plants. Of course, we live in an overprotective age where safety concerns have reached paranoiac levels and the powers that be wish to protect everybody-everywhere-from everything-all-the-time-forever.
What a great opportunity to make good, rather than horrible, use of a cheap source of power. A switchover would even enable us to tell oil companies, whom libs hate so much, to go defecate in their fedoras and middle eastern oil sheiks to go jump of the nearest Minaret. And we won't do it. Sad.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/26/2007 @ 11:02am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/26/2007 @ 01:14am
HSUB, You once again illistrate that skill at googling does not a nuclear Physicist make....
Why do you think they're having such trouble funding and building the reactor, with all of the benefits of an un-limited, clean energy supply at stake?
Because ther's no guarantee that it will work, as any real scientist will tell you......But, don't take my word for it, ask ILOVEPHYSICS, if he is worthy of his handle, he should have a few links of his own...
By the way, back in college I did a report on nuclear fusion, I still get a headache remembering my primary research source, entitled, "Laser plasmas and nuclear fusion" which probably outlines the theoretical design of the reactor they're still trying to build.....This was the early 80's..........And it was 30 years away, then......
Posted by davebarlett at 10/26/2007 @ 11:02am
Thats "jump off" the nearest Minaret. Sorry
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/26/2007 @ 11:02am
What a great opportunity to make good, rather than horrible, use of a cheap source of power. A switchover would even enable us to tell oil companies, whom libs hate so much, to go defecate in their fedoras and middle eastern oil sheiks to go jump of the nearest Minaret. And we won't do it. Sad.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON
Damn right, let 'em eat oil sandwiches, my dad said.....
Posted by davebarlett at 10/26/2007 @ 11:04am
Posted by CRABWALK 10/26/2007 @ 10:54am
It would, if the coal-fired plants reduce their operations significantly. But would "conservation" create enough of a drop in demand that the plant would shut down for a day or two, or even for a few hours a day....
or would it operate its generators at a lower production of megawatts (thus reducing wear and tear and overhead for the power company), while keeping the turbines operating at the same rate (to avoid expensive restarts)?
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2007 @ 11:26am
The thing is with nuclear power it has to always be safe. There can not once be an accident or leakage in the wrong place because the damage can not be undone. Nobody lives in Chernobyl these days except people who have returned to spend their last days in their once home town. Make a bet that you can store nuclear waste safely for the next 100 thousand generations and you'd better win that bet.
Posted by Waltz at 10/26/2007 @ 11:49am
Posted by WOLFGANG1 10/26/2007 @ 07:34am
So, you're not opposed to the US developing more nuclear power? Just the profit angle being used here?
Posted by MASK 10/26/2007 @ 09:36am
MASK, I'm against nuclear generated power. Just supposing that everything the plant does for containment is 100% safe, they still elevate the temperature of the rivers, lakes or streams they release the heated water from the on the cold side (nonradioactive) of the generator. This elevation in temperature will eventually kill the fish in these rivers, lakes and streams not to mention what other ecological damage may be caused that we don't know about.
There are too many risky variables that can really screw us for good using nuclear power plants for energy purposes.
I was pointing out that profit above safety is what is the driving factor for these plants, not producing energy in a costly, efficient, safe manner.
Windmills are a better source of power and one hell of a lot cheaper.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/26/2007 @ 11:55am
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 10/25/2007 @ 11:24pm
i'm actually not a rabid anti nuker, but the waste issue is legit and costly - as well as the security issue.
a wide ranging campaign to equip existing homes and business as well as newly constructed ones with solar/wind/biomass supplemental energy generating systems could not only save buttloads of energy, but do so cleanly, no thousands of years waste, no security problem, and generate a thriving clean energy maintenance and manufacturing industry.
i think the reason mr. bush and compny favor the nuke approach is that such keeps the power generating in the hands of centrally located few rather than dispersing it as would more renewable options.
the irony is that we, the usa, could, with investent and gov encouragement, become the world leaders in this technology.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/26/2007 @ 12:33pm
This was the early 80's..........And it was 30 years away, then......
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 10/26/2007 @ 11:02am
Er, DB, 30 years 'have' gone by since the 80's-- again, where have you been?
Fusion is a lot different and better than fission on just about all fronts and technology has gained a ton since the 80's, which means fusion is now one of the main ways to go and to invest in.
And having said that, I'm in no way saying not to push conservation a lot more also and not to also get rid of fission reators too.
Fusion reactors will only continue to get better and more efficient as our technology makes further breakthroughs. The odds of a fusion incident being like Chernobol (fission) are nil as fusion uses different types of technology and the reaction does not produce the same kind of radioactive plume; thus lots smaller footprint.
The big selling point for fusion development, for me, is no DU for manufacturing weapons from and any radioactivite containment material is safe in 20 years, inactive in 100; not like fission exposed metal that has the half life in the thousands-millions. And of course the cheap fusion fuel being H2O and hydrogen being the byproduct for our future hydrogen cars...
One last consideration-- big oil and MIC would rather not go the fusion route.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/26/2007 @ 12:52pm
er, Chernobyl
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/26/2007 @ 1:21pm
Just don't buy that "conservation" would cover substantial amounts of power production (it would merely reduce the use of the output of coal-fired plants...not close them. So no net decrease in CO2).
Posted by MASK 10/25/2007 @ 2:17pm
Wrongo, Mask. Power plants do not simply have an on/off switch where they either run at a certain level of production or are totally shut off. Lower energy demand in the area served by a coal-fired power plant results in a lower production rate and therefore a lower emission rate.
Posted by bjkron at 10/26/2007 @ 1:24pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/26/2007 @ 12:52pm
HSUB...why haven't the Europeans or the Japanese developed fusion?
or are they corrupted by OUR "Big Oil and MIC"?
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2007 @ 2:19pm
Posted by BJKRON 10/26/2007 @ 1:24pm
So a coal-fired plant substantially reduces it CO2 emiissions with, say, a 10% drop in consumption? By how much? (pre-emission rate vs post-conservation emission rate of CO2 production)
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2007 @ 2:21pm
Windmills are a better source of power and one hell of a lot cheaper.----Posted by WOLFGANG1 10/26/2007 @ 11:55am
True, but nobody wants them blocking their view. Even "environmentalists" like Bobby Kennedy Jr and his uncle Ted!
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2007 @ 2:22pm
If we put on sweaters in the winter, open doors in the summer, drive less, eat locally grown food, insulate our homes and offices...
the terrorists win!!!
Just think neo-cons, if we use less fuel, Chavez has less money, Iran has less money, Russia has less money, the Sauds have less money to build madrasas. Your kids have more energy, you have more money in your pocket, the technology creates jobs and investment opportunities. Its a win, win, win, win.
But, EGADS!, it has a "socialist, lefty tinge" to it. So you must fight it, mustn't you?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/26/2007 @ 2:27pm
Posted by MASK 10/26/2007 @ 2:22pm
Ask people if they want nookyular plant or a windmill.
You're a smart feller, what do you think the answer would be?
the reason the Puget Sound windmills were put forth was to put people like the Kennedys on the spot. The truth is the wind generators could be built further out for not much more money and they would not disrupt two economic bases of the area, recreational boating and fishing. I honestly don't think the company that proposed this idea has ANY real desire to build them. But, it gives people like RIO and MASK something to slobber over.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/26/2007 @ 2:38pm
By Lara Jakes Jordan The Associated Press
Thursday 25 October 2007
Washington - Global energy giant BP PLC agreed Thursday to pay $373 million to settle criminal and civil charges that it overcharged U.S. propane consumers by millions of dollars and ignored environmental warnings that resulted in an Alaska oil spill and a deadly explosion in Texas.
Additionally, a federal grand jury in Chicago indicted four former BP traders who were caught on tape discussing an alleged scheme to pump up profits by cornering the propane markets.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jIbWL76OB7cMmi18PjxD8UVTx7jQ
Posted by crabwalk at 10/26/2007 @ 2:52pm
Posted by CRABWALK 10/26/2007 @ 2:38pm
CRAB....it was the "Cape Wind Project" in Hyannisport...not Puget Sound (one is Massachusetts, the other is Washington State).
And couldn't Bobby and Ted have fooled those evil-doers by ACCEPTING their proposal and allowing it to be built?
Oh and by the way....who WERE the folks trying to "put the Kennedys on the spot"? Do you know?
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2007 @ 3:46pm
Posted by MASK 10/26/2007 @ 3:46pm
Just tell CRABBIE that Kennedy was doing his part to fight 'Big Wind'. Then he'll know which side he's on!
Posted by pontificus at 10/26/2007 @ 4:08pm
Personally, I'd love to buy solar panels to replace my electrical bill. Only problem is, the last time I checked, BP Solar was charging thousands of dollars for a 160W solar panel. Enough to light about 3 bulbs, which for you economically-challenged lefties, is not too good, since I'll achieve payback about 100 years after I'm dead. And that's before you consider the life-cycle environmental emissions from the manufacturing of the solar panel. Given the choice, I'll take nuclear.
Posted by pontificus at 10/26/2007 @ 4:12pm
Kennedys and the rich conservatives that live on the Puget sound?
Posted by CRABWALK 10/26/2007 @ 10:42am
Crab, I believe the Kennedy clan lives on the East Coast whereas the Puget Sound is on the West Coast in the Seattle area.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/26/2007 @ 4:40pm
Posted by CRABWALK 10/26/2007 @ 2:38pm
CRAB....it was the "Cape Wind Project" in Hyannisport...not Puget Sound (one is Massachusetts, the other is Washington State).
And couldn't Bobby and Ted have fooled those evil-doers by ACCEPTING their proposal and allowing it to be built?
Oh and by the way....who WERE the folks trying to "put the Kennedys on the spot"? Do you know?
Posted by MASK 10/26/2007 @ 3:46pm
I have a solution for the rich folks' problems with their view being tarnished by windmills. How about putting a bunch of windmills in states like Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota. All of the states are relatively float and the wind comes whipping through pretty much on a daily basis. I grew in Great Falls Montana and the wind averaged around 13 mph per day. If we harnessed all of that energy, it would go a long way.
But, the power company in Montana has been fighting that very idea. I wonder why. Maybe because the windmills would cut into their profits?
Ted Kennedy was and is wrong for his stance on the windmills too. Just because he's a democrat doesn't always make him right. He has to keep the people who put him in office happy too which means he has been bought off in certain areas just like the rest of our representation in Washington.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/26/2007 @ 4:51pm
Only problem is, the last time I checked, BP Solar was charging thousands of dollars for a 160W solar panel. Enough to light about 3 bulbs, which for you economically-challenged lefties, is not too good, since I'll achieve payback about 100 years after I'm dead.
who's economically-challenged here? a 160W solar panel can take care of all the power in two large mobile homes.
sure, if you're a republican, like yourself, i imagine you're incredibly wasteful and stupid, so your projections for yourself are probably accuarate.
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2007 @ 6:01pm
for the record, BP is only one company selling panels. and there's don't even cost more than $1000 for one 160W panel.
if you want an entire system for a typical 2 bedroom/2 bathroom house, you'd probably have to spend $10,000, and you'd be able to cover 30% of your energy needs (based on what americans normally use).
now, if you're SMART, you could probably cover 60% of your needs, easily. but i imagine most americans just couldn't imagine trying to save energy, they're so f*cking selfish.
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2007 @ 6:04pm
solar panels can power a lot more than 3 bulbs...lol...
now maybe 3 grow lamps might strain it...
but there are plenty of places where both supplemental solar and wind turbines, as well as green architecture could help a lot.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/26/2007 @ 6:35pm
ha ha. whats going up? the price of oil! as bushbaby and the neomorons and the lieberfucks threaten iran for israel and bust out a whole can of whupass sanctions...oil goes up!
wow...that'll show the damned iranian turrurists!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/26/2007 @ 6:48pm
AND the "coalition of the duped, terminally sycophantic, bribed, and coerced" cant even keep their kurds (the only of the 3 iraqi ethnic groups that was happy to see us) in line!
hey neocons! your boys are STUPID AND INCOMPETANT AS WELL AS "MORALLY CHALLENGED"!
keep defending them - makes you look BRILLIANT!
HA HA HA!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/26/2007 @ 6:53pm
and it's not a question of reducing energy consumption to ZERO, it's a question of REDUCTION.
republicans, like ponti, always see things in black and white, not myriad shades of grey.
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2007 @ 7:04pm
Posted by DARLADOON 10/26/2007 @ 7:04pm
all or nuthin baby! lol...
all the $$$$$$$$$$$$ swirling down that big oily ever flushing toilet known as iraq!
how many solar panels, wind turbines, insulating, etc. could have been installed?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/26/2007 @ 7:16pm
Posted by WOLFGANG1 10/26/2007 @ 4:51pm
WOLF, I actually have less animosity to Ted, than Bobby Jr. (host of a show on AAR and supposed "strong environmentalist"). Bobby Jr. was at the forefront of opposing Cape Wind.
And expected us to believe that the fact it would hurt the view off the Kennedy Compound was just...a coincidence!
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2007 @ 8:52pm
Posted by DARLADOON 10/26/2007 @ 6:01pm
who's economically-challenged here? a 160W solar panel can take care of all the power in two large mobile homes.
'Large' for what, a gerbil? 160W peak during a sunny day (zero at night) can handle less than three 60W light bulbs. What are you smoking, DARLA?
sure, if you're a republican, like yourself, i imagine you're incredibly wasteful and stupid, so your projections for yourself are probably accuarate.
BP Solar is one of the leaders in solar panel design and installation. Nobody is substantially better than them. They claim it will take 49 years to recover the cost of my solar installation based on energy savings. This is BEFORE you factor in financing costs, which will easily extend that period to 100 years.
You folks can't seem to face the fact that solar is not there yet. If you take out oil, coal, and gas, and your wishful thinking, nuclear is the ONLY option right now.
Posted by pontificus at 10/26/2007 @ 9:52pm
Posted by DARLADOON 10/26/2007 @ 7:04pm
and it's not a question of reducing energy consumption to ZERO, it's a question of REDUCTION.
The above figures I quoted are for an 8 percent reduction in electrical usage, not replacement. Go ahead, check out www.bpsolar.com and see for yourself.
republicans, like ponti, always see things in black and white, not myriad shades of grey.
DARLA, you only try to paint things in shades of gray when it suits you. Otherwise, you see things in black and white. For example, like when you make stupid generalizations about all 'Republicans' always seeing things the same way.
Posted by pontificus at 10/26/2007 @ 9:56pm
Posted by WOLFGANG1 10/26/2007 @ 4:51pm
But, the power company in Montana has been fighting that very idea. I wonder why. Maybe because the windmills would cut into their profits?
Typically economically ignorant statement. If windmills make economic sense, they will make a profit, and people will build them themselves. If they don't make a profit, they don't make economic sense, and the only way they will get built is for the government to throw taxpayers money away on them, when we'd be better off spending that money on something else.
Posted by pontificus at 10/26/2007 @ 10:02pm
From BP Solar: Your System Size: Medium You can fine tune your system size using the pull-down menu below, and then click on "Recalculate" to see the adjusted cost and savings. What it costs Retail Price $59,500 Rebates $0 Tax Credits $2,000 Final System Cost: $57,500 What you save Monthly Annually Electricity Production 698 kWh 8,382 kWh Bill Savings $53 $638 Tax Savings* $105 $1,259 Bill Reduced By 9% 9%
So for $60,000 I can build a solar system that saves me $100 per month. That means it takes me 50 YEARS to get my money back. And if you factor in the better uses I could put that $60,000 to (6% bonds would make $3,600 per year or $300 per month), my 'green' initiative would be COSTING me $200 per month. At this point, we're better off taking that money that you folks would have us put into solar panels and invest it in research rather than commercializing present technology.
Of course, some of you lefties will suggest that the 'government' pay for it, as if all that money somehow comes out of thin air. This is why you folks shouldn't be allowed around sharp objects.
Posted by pontificus at 10/26/2007 @ 10:12pm
OOPS!!! Sorry! ya got me there! Don't know what I have been thinking. Puget got stuck in my mind and there it spun its wheels.
My bad. Stupid, no excuse.
see, Pontificus, when one is wrong, it is fine to admit it.
Now, Plame was covert.
there was no democratic witch hunt.
Go on , you can do it. Or are you an ideologue?
only way they will get built is for the government to throw taxpayers money away on them, PONTIFLOGIC
Did you notice that that is what this thread is about, using taxpayer money to build nookyular power plants, and then asking the taxpayers to foot the bill for storage of spent fuel. Are you for or agin it?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/26/2007 @ 10:31pm
Tell me Ponti, where is all the money coming from to pay for the off budget war?
Presto magico, it comes from communists and Saudi dictators.Then the next generation pays them back, at interest. allla kazzam! ie, thin air!
Posted by crabwalk at 10/26/2007 @ 10:34pm
Hee hee, that was a whopper!
I could be like Chimpy soon.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/26/2007 @ 10:44pm
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ if it was profitable to do nuclear plants they wouldn't need government subsidies zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :-)
Posted by Waltz at 10/26/2007 @ 10:48pm
BP is an oil company. They're really going to promote solar.. not.
Posted by Waltz at 10/26/2007 @ 10:52pm
Everybody's level of "certainty" is sure different....could it be people are different? Humbug, too politically incorrect!
Now, as a public service, from yesterday's WSJ, "Notable & Quotable" on Page A23.....
John Christy of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (co-recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize) and professor at the Univ. of Alabama....talks about the prize & sharing it w/Al Gore, taking issues with Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" (all bold mine) and comment on the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere:
DR. CHRISTI: ...as a scientist...I always thought that prizes were given for performance, and not for promotional activities.
DR. CHRISTI: Well, there's any number of things. I suppose, fundamentally, it's the fact that someone is speaking about a science that I have been very heavily involved with and have labored so hard in, and been humiliated by, in the sense that the climate is so difficult to understand, Mother Nature is so complex, and so the uncertainties are great, and then to hear someone speak with such certainty and such confidence about what the climate is going to do is--well, I suppose I could be kind and say, it's annoying to me.
DR. CHRISTI: ...remember that CO2 is plant food in the fundamental sense. All of life depends on the fact CO2 is in the atmosphere. So, we are fortunate it's not a toxic gas. And when we build these climate data sets, we don't see the catastrophic changes that are being promoted all over the place.
For example, I suppose CNN did not announce two weeks ago when the Antarctic sea ice extent reached its all time maximum, even though, in the Artic in the North Pole, it reached its all-time minimum.
Posted by Happy at 10/26/2007 @ 10:54pm
hmmm, can't trust the old memory, but I think it is called the Cape Cod Wind Project, or Cape Wind?
Ya, google says Cape wind. Not sure which companies back it under that name, though. ..
Looks like EMI. Don't recall any malfeasance from them recently. I'll look it up.
Stay with me brain, we'll make it yet! Maybe we should hold out hope for the Chimpster, that wise man that leads us so eloquently.
We import about 60 percent of our oil from overseas -- fortunately, most of it from -- a lot of it from Canada and Mexico. Oct. 3, 2007
But we've got a big border in Texas, with Mexico, obviously -- and we've got a big border with Canada -- Arizona is affected. June 24, 2004
Border relations between Canada and Mexico have never been better.Sep. 24, 2001
Posted by crabwalk at 10/26/2007 @ 10:59pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/26/2007 @ 10:12pm
where are you getting your figures from?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/26/2007 @ 11:02pm
I forget, which sea is it that separates the US from Canada and Mexico?
Help me out here, PONTI. Is it the Puget Sea, or Lake Cape Cod?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/26/2007 @ 11:04pm
where are you getting your figures from?
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 10/26/2007 @ 11:02pm |
Victoria Toesning?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/26/2007 @ 11:08pm
Posted by CRABWALK 10/26/2007 @ 11:08pm
for a 5 kw system on a non mcmansion i'm getting a little under $30,000, paying itself in a little over a decade, increasing the value of the house around 20,000+/-...
guess ponty lives in a gigantic republican mansion...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/26/2007 @ 11:12pm
of course with some gov support and more units sold...could go a lot lower...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/26/2007 @ 11:15pm
Keep in mind, Neo-cons think only in terms of cash now, not what resources they will leave the future generations. They will spend $5000 on a tv, or $50,000 on a car, use them for 3-4 years, then move on to the next big thing. To spend a couple of grand on a wind turbine, a couple of solar hot water panels or extra insulation would mean they bought into the hippy lies about oil being a finite resource.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/26/2007 @ 11:15pm
We have to admit that 30k is a lot for the average joe to sink into something like that. For the self proclaiming rich elites like HAPPY, MAASCH and PONTI, that should be chump change.
think about this neo-cons, if you produce extra energy, you get to SELL IT BACK to the energy company!
Posted by crabwalk at 10/26/2007 @ 11:18pm
guess ponty lives in a gigantic republican mansion...
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 10/26/2007 @ 11:12pm
the mirrors at each end of his single wide make it look like a mansion. You can see the pool table in the living room 3 times that way.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/26/2007 @ 11:20pm
actually even a small solar panel would not be a bad investment - but if the gov would get serious about tax credits for it (only like a grand now)...could be really good deal...
its funny, like any solution that involves anything non-oil, non-nuke...the con-trolls hate it...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/26/2007 @ 11:22pm
NEITHER WOULD OIL COMPANIES NEED GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES IF THEY WERE PROFITABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Waltz at 10/26/2007 @ 11:23pm
Posted by CRABWALK 10/26/2007 @ 11:20pm
what? with all those gordon gecko stocks of his? yeah - 30 grand is a plunk...though apparantly big companies give good financing...some claiming that the monthly payments offset the savings...
hard to say, but if the gov made such payments tax deductable...
oh...but we got this awesome oil war going on! between that and tax breaks for hedge fund operaters and mrga rich...just cant afford crazy crap like clean renewable energy investment...
maybe if haliburton got into the game...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/26/2007 @ 11:27pm
BTW Ibble, got the bad news today, I do need a new furnace. But that is ok. As I live in a small, efficient house, I can get away with a small, efficient furnace. I will upgrade to 90+ unit as well as a new more efficient hot water heater. (solar won't work, I am in the deep woods in Michigan). This should cut my gas usage by about 10-15%/yr. I bet I use in a year what PONTI or HAPPY go through in 2 months in the winter, or summer if they live in the south. I think we burned up all of 500 gallons of propane last year. And I am hoping the tax credits are still available so I can make Ponti pay extra to the feds to offset what I would be paying.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/26/2007 @ 11:28pm
AWSOME WAR DUDE!!!
Posted by crabwalk at 10/26/2007 @ 11:30pm
Shock and awesome!!
Shockingly expensive and awesomely ill conceived.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/26/2007 @ 11:32pm
Posted by CRABWALK 10/26/2007 @ 11:28pm
well...apparantly you guys are gonna be subtropical soon...lol...its amazing how gifreakingantic the houses are these days...no wonder there's a housing bubble! with median income dropping since '70 and dumbasses making houses bigger and more expensive every year...no duh!
i hope it crashes and burns...
i live in s.carolina (soon to be tropical) so the solar option looks good to me...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/26/2007 @ 11:35pm
off to bed, in closing:
In order to keep the Free Market rolling we need to give guvt loans and guvt insurance to nookyular power plants, and let the taxpayers foot the bill for transportation and storage of radioactive wastes. The taxpayer should also pay for cleanup costs in the event of a spill. CEO's of these companies should get tax breaks too, as well as airports built with taxpayer money so they can fly their jets on nice runways.
We should not use taxpayer money to invest in new "green" technologies or offer credits to citizens that purchase these technologies.
Thats the free market at it's best.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/26/2007 @ 11:38pm
Posted by CRABWALK 10/26/2007 @ 11:38pm
lol - nite crabby. me too...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/26/2007 @ 11:40pm
well...apparantly you guys are gonna be subtropical soon...lol
hehe. the wife and I have wanted to move to the Petosky region in Northern MI for some time, but the winters are a month longer, or worse. Now we might be able to retire up there and wear shorts 3 seasons. Except the water will be gone so Vegas can have water gardens. Sigh ya can't fight city hall.
but mother nature bats last.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/26/2007 @ 11:41pm
Posted by MASK 10/26/2007 @ 2:19pm
You on meds? Here edited:
1988 - The Conceptual Design Activity for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), the successor to T-15, TFTR, JET and JT-60, began. Participants were EURATOM, Japan, Soviet Union and United States.
1992 - The Engineering Design Activity for the ITER began. Participants were EURATOM, Japan, Russia and United States.
1999 - The United States withdrew from the ITER project
2001 - Negotiations Meeting on the Joint Implementation of ITER begins. Participants were Canada, European Union, Japan and Russia.
2002 - European Union proposed Cadarache in France and Vandellos in Spain as candidate sites for ITER while Japan proposed Rokkasho.
2003 - The United States rejoined the ITER project, and China and Republic of Korea newly joined while Canada withdrew.
2003 - Cadarache in France selected as the European Candidate Site for ITER.
2004 - The United States dropped its own project, the Fusion Ignition Research Experiment (FIRE), to focus resources on ITER.
2005 - Following final negotiations between the EU and Japan, ITER chose Cadarache over Rokkasho for the site of the reactor. In concession, Japan was made the host site for a related materials research facility and was granted rights to fill 20% of the project's research posts while providing 10% of the funding.
2006 - China's EAST test reactor is completed, the first tokamak experiment to use superconducting magnets to generate both the toroidal and poloidal fields.
Construction of ITER was originally planned to start at the end of 2005, but will probably be delayed until 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_nuclear_fusion
Yup, if we had put a 1/4 of the funds wasted on the Iraq war into this, it would probably be going online with China's... But 12 years of reptiles wanting to devolve science and do war instead, what do ya expect.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/27/2007 @ 12:36am
Posted by CRABWALK 10/26/2007 @ 11:28pm
BTW Ibble, got the bad news today, I do need a new furnace.
This is an excellent chance for you to test your ideology in the real world. Instead of buying a new, precious-fossil-fuel-burning furnace, why don't you replace it with a solar panel array? Let us know how that works out for you.
Posted by pontificus at 10/27/2007 @ 08:36am
Posted by CRABWALK 10/26/2007 @ 11:28pm
solar won't work, I am in the deep woods in Michigan.
??? Solar won't work? That's no excuse! Get a government subsidy for it!
Posted by pontificus at 10/27/2007 @ 08:40am
I know you have problems with english, ponti, so have some one read this to you. I go through about 500 gallons of propane a year. Most people around here use that in 2 months.
Do you have that list of dem witch hunters yet?
do you have your secret evidence of Plames non-covert status available for publication yet?
My ideology tells me to get a high efficiency unit and use it as little as possible. I am looking at wind generation for electricity production for my shop.
My electric bill averages about $15/month. How about you? If it feels good do it, right
Maybe I should hold a press conference, but not invite the press, then tout the press conference as being open guvt? Sound familiar?
Chimpy i going to FORCE state dept employees to serve in Iraq, PONTI. He has to do this because you and HAPPY won't live up to your ideology. Imagine!!
Posted by crabwalk at 10/27/2007 @ 09:16am
Do you know who gets guvt subsidies?
PM Maliki and his clan members. 462,000,000,000 so far.
I got your ideology. You are like a sheep crossed with an ostrich. Head in sand, ass sticking out waiting for farmboy Billy to wander by and pleasure you.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/27/2007 @ 09:19am
Were I like you, PONTI, I would continue to claim that the Kennedy's live on Puget Sound, for a year. I would write things like "PONTI, just because your opinion is that they don't, does not make it so".
but, I am a rational person and am able to admit when I am wrong.
Are you? Are you able to admit that the propaganda you drank in was incorrect and the conclusions you reached from that propaganda were wrong?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/27/2007 @ 09:27am
By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer 6 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - In the largest call-up of U.S. diplomats since the Vietnam War, the State Department is planning to order some of its personnel to serve at the American Embassy in Iraq because of a lack of volunteers. "Lack of volunteers!! That is YOU, PONTI, MAASCH, DAVEB, LENMOSSE, HAPPY, RIO, LUVSDESPOTS, WOODYEE, SLIVER ect.
Those designated "prime candidates" -- from 200 to 300 diplomats -- will be notified Monday that they have been selected for one-year postings to fill the 40 to 50 vacancies expected next year.
They will have 10 days to accept or reject the position. If not enough say yes, some will be ordered to go to Iraq and face dismissal if they refuse, Harry Thomas, director general of the Foreign Service, said Friday.
...Military officials have complained that other federal agencies -- including State, Commerce and Agriculture -- aren't moving quickly enough to fill critical needs in Iraq. Those agencies, they argue, have the expertise to help Iraqi business people and farmers get back to their jobs and improve the economy.
Who around here has business experience? The Neo-cons!! they know all about it!! But, they are cowards and will not do what needs doing. They will instead do what feels good.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/27/2007 @ 09:32am
Do you know who gets guvt subsidies?
PM Maliki and his clan members. 462,000,000,000 so far.
Posted by CRABWALK 10/27/2007 @ 09:19am | ignore this person
yeah...thats whats really sickening...we anally bleed buzillions to try to assure the supply of a filthy fuel source that is running out, but the con-trolls ridicule the idea og "gov subsidies" for a real solution that would result in energy independence...gov subsidies good for haliburton, blackwater, et al, but anything else, "gubbament bad...u just want my money..."
what sickening partisan stupidity. and here's whats truly hilarious...
the cost of oil has gone up! we cant get it flowing in iraq, the iranians are happy to jack up the price to offset sanctions, and the neofascists even insist on screwing with chavez in venezuela because he dares flip us the bird!
neoconservativism...stupid, evil, incompetant...
hitch your cart to that hellbound nag, con-trolls! makes you look like geniuses!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/27/2007 @ 11:12am
So for $60,000 I can build a solar system that saves me $100 per month
these are projections derived from what families are currently consuming in markets where consumption is already too high like sacramento or los angeles or san bernadino.
$60,000? that's astronomically exagerrated it's insane. 50 years to re-coup? again, astronomically exagerrated in order to buttress your weak argument that solar is not a viable option.
all the figures you cite are based on projections for large families with extremely wasteful lifestyles. for instance: families who use drying machines for their laundry, even though they have 330 days of sun per year. families who over-use climate control systems, depsite the abundance of techniques to reduce, or simply remove, their use. families who use ancient light bulbs. families who have more than three children for instance.
pontificus. we have solar in our commune. two panels, one storage battery. we can cover up to 50% of our energy use in san francisco, where it is often foggy. you simply cannot convince me that in southern california, you can cover less (unless you are dealing with retarded people who simply haven't taken the time to figure out how to reduce their energy costs).
another issue: rainwater harvesting. very simply operation, and you can calcuate how much water you can harvest simply by knowing the sq footage of your rooftop reservoir. (we have one). san francisco gets up to 45 inches of rain per year, depending on your micro-climate location. our rooftop reservoir is 1500 sq feet. you do the math. that's a lot of rainwater.
even in arizona, where you get like 7 inches of rain per year, you can still save a lot of water. and don't get me started on how much solar energy you can acquire. the sun is THE only reason to live that state......eternal energy.
last thing: so cal forest fires. the reason they spread, and destroy homes is because the homes, and the subdivisions out in the suburbs, were poorly manufactured, planned, developed. cheap homes, made of WOOD, on the edge of the desert. STUPID! and made my idiotic republican types who care nothing about good, sustainable ideas. if those homes were made of ADOBE or rammed earth, there would be little to no problems. just look at some of the photos of the subdivisions that were destroyed. cookie cut out homes, sitting at the edge of no-man's land, made of wood and other cheap materials. no trees in sight, no grass, just pavement, steel, wood, cars everywhere.
stupid, stupid, stupid.
Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2007 @ 12:47pm
nowhere on earth are construction techniques, and suburban development, more retarded than in the southwest. the vast majority of these new developments use neither:
*adobe or rammed earth
*solar panels
despite the existence of:
*over 315 days of sun annual
*likelihood of wildfires
also, water is scarce, BUT they still get up to 14 inches in places like tucson. and new developments STILL refuse to consider rainwater reservoirs on top of new homes.
WHY?!
idiotic republican types, with lame ass business degrees, who get into the business for CASH, and cash only. the refuse to consider how investing in long term, sustainable strategies, because they don't line their pockets over night.
Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2007 @ 12:52pm
Straw bale building is another way to go. Often the straw is waste material anyway. I hope to build my new shop out of bales. Getting past the gubment is going to take patience and skill, but it will be worth it. 12-16" walls, R factors off the charts, better fire protection (counterintuitive but true) and I get to buy my main building material from a neighbor.
I do feel for the residents of San Diego county. however, like living in a flood plain, you makes your bed. I bet a lot of those people are anti-gubment types, but couldn't wait for gubment supplied firefighters to arrive and will be applying for low interest gubment loans.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/27/2007 @ 1:54pm
straw bale is great in places with extreme temps
Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2007 @ 2:01pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 10/27/2007 @ 11:12am
neoconservativism...stupid, evil, incompetant...
Stop it IBBLE, you're cracking me up
Posted by pontificus at 10/27/2007 @ 5:16pm
Posted by CRABWALK 10/27/2007 @ 1:54pm
Straw bale building is another way to go. Often the straw is waste material anyway. I hope to build my new shop out of bales. Getting past the gubment is going to take patience and skill, but it will be worth it. 12-16" walls, R factors off the charts, better fire protection (counterintuitive but true) and I get to buy my main building material from a neighbor.
CRABBIE, given your economic illiteracy and seeming reliance on mystical beliefs to guide yourselves through the world, I find it somehow fitting that you and DARLA should aspire to live in grass huts.
Posted by pontificus at 10/27/2007 @ 5:17pm
$60,000? that's astronomically exagerrated it's insane. 50 years to re-coup? again, astronomically exagerrated in order to buttress your weak argument that solar is not a viable option.
all the figures you cite are based on projections for large families with extremely wasteful lifestyles. for instance: families who use drying machines for their laundry, even though they have 330 days of sun per year. families who over-use climate control systems, depsite the abundance of techniques to reduce, or simply remove, their use. families who use ancient light bulbs. families who have more than three children for instance.
I'll tell you what, DARLA. If you can find a way for $60,000 to magically appear (by making the government give it to me?), I promise that I won't tell the solar panel array that I'm using an electric clothes dryer, which should solve the problem, according to your economic theory.
Posted by pontificus at 10/27/2007 @ 5:22pm
CRABBIE, given your economic illiteracy and seeming reliance on mystical beliefs to guide yourselves through the world, I find it somehow fitting that you and DARLA should aspire to live in grass huts
and yet using cheap chinese building materials, outmoted and inefficient plumbing and climate systems, socialist electricity, and central american immigrant labor.....now that makes perfect economic sense! you got it ponti: economic literacy = cheap shit for sale. it's the american way!
no thanks, i'll live off the grid in my solar powered commune, eat my own home grown veges and herbs, catch my own rainwater, and settle for less, thank you.
Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2007 @ 5:25pm
If you can find a way for $60,000 to magically appear (by making the government give it to me?), I promise that I won't tell the solar panel array that I'm using an electric clothes dryer, which should solve the problem, according to your economic theory
again, black and white thinking. ponti, how about starting with ONE panel, and two storage batteries. is that too theoretical for ya? or do you wanna start making some progress in your dinosaur-ish life?
Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2007 @ 5:27pm
If you can find a way for $60,000 to magically appear
actually, the government does give tax breaks to those who save energy.
Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2007 @ 5:38pm
Posted by DARLADOON 10/27/2007 @ 5:38pm
actually, the government does give tax breaks to those who save energy.
Well, that's fine, but if the government really has $60,000 to give away to each of millions of families, I'd prefer they spend it on finding and perfecting new energy sources, rather than conserving energy that won't last long anyway.
Posted by pontificus at 10/27/2007 @ 5:48pm
Well, that's fine, but if the government really has $60,000 to give away to each of millions of families, I'd prefer they spend it on finding and perfecting new energy sources, rather than conserving energy that won't last long anyway
this statement makes absolutely no sense. for starters, you concede that tax breaks are a benefit to you, and not a cost. on the other hand, you insist that the only way for you to move forward on conserving energy, and saving cash, is for the government to give each and every american family $60,000. now, that claim is just ridiculous on its face.
and when you say, "won't last long anyway," what are you implying? that solar panels won't last long? each panel should last you 15 years, minimum. you may have to replace the storage battery every 3-5 years, but that is as simple and cheap as replacing your car battery.
look, ponti, all you republicans like to talk about smaller government, self-sufficiency, and conservation (of funds, investments, etc). well, then. why don't have the courage of your convictions, get the govt off your back, and start creating your own energy? anyone who's taken a high school shop class can set these things up.
Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2007 @ 5:57pm
if you wanna continue and live in the dark(est) ages in american history, an era in which we have literally consumed all of our fixed resources, then go right ahead.
in the last 15 years, i havent bought any clothing or food. 15 years. can you do that? my monthly energy bill, not counting our collective investment in solar and rain water, is around $5. FIVE dollars.
it is possible and if everyone were like me, this country would have a lot more energy to deal with other problems, both domestic and international.
the key to this country's longevity is, numero uno, ENERGY, and right now we are getting it from oil and coal and timber. stupid stupid stupid.
Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2007 @ 6:01pm
timber? for cookie cut out subdivisions in the desert?
water? for golf courses in the desert?! only an american would build a golf course in the desert.
coal? don't even get me started on the inanity of burning coal....it is insane.
i need a drink, see ya
Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2007 @ 6:02pm
Stop it IBBLE, you're cracking me up
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/27/2007 @ 5:16pm
no prob, ponty...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/27/2007 @ 6:40pm
The 60's bromide "think globally, act locally" is eminently applicable here for those who wish to "make a difference" by "being the change they/we would like to see in the world."
To me, it means consolidating trips in my 40 mpg Civic and buying new flourescent bulbs and recycling and...supporting Kucinich currently.
Posted by lewwelge at 10/27/2007 @ 10:38pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/27/2007 @ 5:22pm
Please, please use your mind as a parachute. I bet I hear the thump from here.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/28/2007 @ 08:02am
Ponti will hop into his Chevette and go down to vote for Chimpy again.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/28/2007 @ 08:03am
Still waiting for that list of dem witch hunters, Pontflogic.
Care to back up your claims with some facts?
I thought not.
Care to go to Iraq and spread your economic insight?
I thought not.
cluck, cluck, baahh, bahhh, cluck cluck.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/28/2007 @ 08:06am