A few ways to stimulate economic growth and new jobs why the hell not?

[merrill]

Yes WE taxpayers should own all power sources. Why?

Because it is you and me that guarantee construction costs and insurance. Construction costs are famous for their large cost over runs.

Bottom line: It is best for taxpayers and ratepayers to demand termination of all existing coal and nuke plants as both produce radioactive waste and cost billions to replace.

A combination of new energy sources would produce cleaner and more efficient energy. Additionally this combination would not only provide way more jobs throughout the states but also safer employment.

Benefits of a 20 Percent by 2020
National Renewable Electricity Standard

Job Creation - 355,000 new jobs—nearly twice as many as generating electricity from fossil fuels

Economic Development - $72.6 billion in new capital investment, $16.2 billion in income to farmers, ranchers, and rural landowners, and $5.0 billion in new local tax revenues

Consumer Savings - $49 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills

Healthier Environment - Reductions of global warming pollution equal to taking nearly 71 million cars off the road, plus less haze, smog, acid rain, mercury contamination, and water use

Rebuilding economies:

The Plan:

Renewing America's Economy (2004) | Union of Concerned Scientists


Wind
How Wind Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Solar
How Solar Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Bio Mass
How Biomass Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists


Geo Thermal
How Geothermal Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists


Hydro Power
How Hydrokinetic Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The GObP/Repubs are against jobs and economic growth.

Unless it benefits Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Business, they'll filibuster it to death.

(That's why marijuana is illegal. As soon as they can figure out how to profit from a weed that will grow in your back yard, they'll want to legalize it. Same with such things as wind and/or solar power. damned hard to control the profits of either one. And, if you wanna see pubs in favor of regulations, just say marijuana in their presence! 'cept, they'll call it a "tax". LOL)

 

[code1211]

Yes WE taxpayers should own all power sources. Why?

Because it is you and me that guarantee construction costs and insurance. Construction costs are famous for their large cost over runs.

Bottom line: It is best for taxpayers and ratepayers to demand termination of all existing coal and nuke plants as both produce radioactive waste and cost billions to replace.

A combination of new energy sources would produce cleaner and more efficient energy. Additionally this combination would not only provide way more jobs throughout the states but also safer employment.

Benefits of a 20 Percent by 2020
National Renewable Electricity Standard

Job Creation - 355,000 new jobs—nearly twice as many as generating electricity from fossil fuels

Economic Development - $72.6 billion in new capital investment, $16.2 billion in income to farmers, ranchers, and rural landowners, and $5.0 billion in new local tax revenues

Consumer Savings - $49 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills

Healthier Environment - Reductions of global warming pollution equal to taking nearly 71 million cars off the road, plus less haze, smog, acid rain, mercury contamination, and water use

Rebuilding economies:

The Plan:

Renewing America's Economy (2004) | Union of Concerned Scientists


Wind
How Wind Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Solar
How Solar Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Bio Mass
How Biomass Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists


Geo Thermal
How Geothermal Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists


Hydro Power
How Hydrokinetic Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Um, right. It's a fantastic idea and anybody with the money to invest in this is running in the opposite direction so fast that if you could harness that energy, there would be no need for any kind of fuel at all.

Why do you spend so much time trying to convince that something that is not real is real?

If these types of energy were viable, there would be no need to subsidize it, legislate it, regulate the other types out of existence or do anything else. It would just happen.

It's a little like a gay guy trying to be straight. It just ain't gonna happen.

 

[code1211]

The GObP/Repubs are against jobs and economic growth.

Unless it benefits Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Business, they'll filibuster it to death.

(That's why marijuana is illegal. As soon as they can figure out how to profit from a weed that will grow in your back yard, they'll want to legalize it. Same with such things as wind and/or solar power. damned hard to control the profits of either one. And, if you wanna see pubs in favor of regulations, just say marijuana in their presence! 'cept, they'll call it a "tax". LOL)

I heard that it was legalized in California and now it costs less and the quality is better.

Another example of free market efficiencies. Unlike your fascist model of forcing something that nobody wants into the market.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

Yes WE taxpayers should own all power sources. Why?

Because it is you and me that guarantee construction costs and insurance. Construction costs are famous for their large cost over runs.

Bottom line: It is best for taxpayers and ratepayers to demand termination of all existing coal and nuke plants as both produce radioactive waste and cost billions to replace.

A combination of new energy sources would produce cleaner and more efficient energy. Additionally this combination would not only provide way more jobs throughout the states but also safer employment.

Benefits of a 20 Percent by 2020
National Renewable Electricity Standard

Job Creation - 355,000 new jobs—nearly twice as many as generating electricity from fossil fuels

Economic Development - $72.6 billion in new capital investment, $16.2 billion in income to farmers, ranchers, and rural landowners, and $5.0 billion in new local tax revenues

Consumer Savings - $49 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills

Healthier Environment - Reductions of global warming pollution equal to taking nearly 71 million cars off the road, plus less haze, smog, acid rain, mercury contamination, and water use

Rebuilding economies:

The Plan:

Renewing America's Economy (2004) | Union of Concerned Scientists


Wind
How Wind Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Solar
How Solar Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Bio Mass
How Biomass Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists


Geo Thermal
How Geothermal Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists


Hydro Power
How Hydrokinetic Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

I never really understood one part of this.
in most cases:
less workers = less cost
not the opposite

 

[Middleoftheroad]

Yes WE taxpayers should own all power sources. Why?

Because it is you and me that guarantee construction costs and insurance. Construction costs are famous for their large cost over runs.

Bottom line: It is best for taxpayers and ratepayers to demand termination of all existing coal and nuke plants as both produce radioactive waste and cost billions to replace.

A combination of new energy sources would produce cleaner and more efficient energy. Additionally this combination would not only provide way more jobs throughout the states but also safer employment.

Benefits of a 20 Percent by 2020
National Renewable Electricity Standard

Job Creation - 355,000 new jobs—nearly twice as many as generating electricity from fossil fuels

Economic Development - $72.6 billion in new capital investment, $16.2 billion in income to farmers, ranchers, and rural landowners, and $5.0 billion in new local tax revenues

Consumer Savings - $49 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills

Healthier Environment - Reductions of global warming pollution equal to taking nearly 71 million cars off the road, plus less haze, smog, acid rain, mercury contamination, and water use

Rebuilding economies:

The Plan:

Renewing America's Economy (2004) | Union of Concerned Scientists


Wind
How Wind Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Solar
How Solar Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Bio Mass
How Biomass Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists


Geo Thermal
How Geothermal Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists


Hydro Power
How Hydrokinetic Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Um, right. It's a fantastic idea and anybody with the money to invest in this is running in the opposite direction so fast that if you could harness that energy, there would be no need for any kind of fuel at all.

Why do you spend so much time trying to convince that something that is not real is real?

If these types of energy were viable, there would be no need to subsidize it, legislate it, regulate the other types out of existence or do anything else. It would just happen.

It's a little like a gay guy trying to be straight. It just ain't gonna happen.

I agree and disagree. If there is no need to subsidize this form of energy, then there should be no need to subsidize other forms of energy, such as oil.

 

[merrill]

Who says cleaner energy sources is not viable? Of course it is.

Where does that nonsense come from?

Sure we need other sources for new jobs.... and that will come up soon enough.

Cleaner energy sources will provide new jobs in every state which is economic growth. Jobs is where economic growth comes from.

These jobs cannot be outsourced if we make it that way!

 

[Avatar4321]

Yes WE taxpayers should own all power sources. Why?

You are free to invest all you want in whatever power sources you want. But don't try to use my money to do so.

 

[Avatar4321]

Who says cleaner energy sources is not viable? Of course it is.

Where does that nonsense come from?

Sure we need other sources for new jobs.... and that will come up soon enough.

Cleaner energy sources will provide new jobs in every state which is economic growth. Jobs is where economic growth comes from.

These jobs cannot be outsourced if we make it that way!

If it's viable then invest in it. You'll make billions. And then you can give your money to whomever you want.

 

[Old Rocks]

The GObP/Repubs are against jobs and economic growth.

Unless it benefits Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Business, they'll filibuster it to death.

(That's why marijuana is illegal. As soon as they can figure out how to profit from a weed that will grow in your back yard, they'll want to legalize it. Same with such things as wind and/or solar power. damned hard to control the profits of either one. And, if you wanna see pubs in favor of regulations, just say marijuana in their presence! 'cept, they'll call it a "tax". LOL)

I heard that it was legalized in California and now it costs less and the quality is better.

Another example of free market efficiencies. Unlike your fascist model of forcing something that nobody wants into the market.

You heard wrong. The pot growers in Northern California put big money into keeping it illegal. They won, and they are still making major profits.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes WE taxpayers should own all power sources. Why?

Because it is you and me that guarantee construction costs and insurance. Construction costs are famous for their large cost over runs.

Bottom line: It is best for taxpayers and ratepayers to demand termination of all existing coal and nuke plants as both produce radioactive waste and cost billions to replace.

A combination of new energy sources would produce cleaner and more efficient energy. Additionally this combination would not only provide way more jobs throughout the states but also safer employment.

Benefits of a 20 Percent by 2020
National Renewable Electricity Standard

Job Creation - 355,000 new jobs—nearly twice as many as generating electricity from fossil fuels

Economic Development - $72.6 billion in new capital investment, $16.2 billion in income to farmers, ranchers, and rural landowners, and $5.0 billion in new local tax revenues

Consumer Savings - $49 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills

Healthier Environment - Reductions of global warming pollution equal to taking nearly 71 million cars off the road, plus less haze, smog, acid rain, mercury contamination, and water use

Rebuilding economies:

The Plan:

Renewing America's Economy (2004) | Union of Concerned Scientists


Wind
How Wind Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Solar
How Solar Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Bio Mass
How Biomass Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists


Geo Thermal
How Geothermal Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists


Hydro Power
How Hydrokinetic Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Um, right. It's a fantastic idea and anybody with the money to invest in this is running in the opposite direction so fast that if you could harness that energy, there would be no need for any kind of fuel at all.

Why do you spend so much time trying to convince that something that is not real is real?

If these types of energy were viable, there would be no need to subsidize it, legislate it, regulate the other types out of existence or do anything else. It would just happen.

It's a little like a gay guy trying to be straight. It just ain't gonna happen.

I agree and disagree. If there is no need to subsidize this form of energy, then there should be no need to subsidize other forms of energy, such as oil.

We have been subsidizing oil and coal for decades. Were we to subsidize alternatives on the same scale, we could shut down the coal fired plants.

The primary problem right now with alternatives is not their cost. In the case of wind, it is far cheaper than clean coal, and even less in many places than dirty coal. The problem is that we do not have the grid in the right places and the grid is not a distributed grid.

We need a program like that Eisenhower used to create our Interstate System to build a national grid.

 

[Charles_Main]

Yes WE taxpayers should own all power sources. Why?

Because it is you and me that guarantee construction costs and insurance. Construction costs are famous for their large cost over runs.

Bottom line: It is best for taxpayers and ratepayers to demand termination of all existing coal and nuke plants as both produce radioactive waste and cost billions to replace.

A combination of new energy sources would produce cleaner and more efficient energy. Additionally this combination would not only provide way more jobs throughout the states but also safer employment.

Benefits of a 20 Percent by 2020
National Renewable Electricity Standard

Job Creation - 355,000 new jobs—nearly twice as many as generating electricity from fossil fuels

Economic Development - $72.6 billion in new capital investment, $16.2 billion in income to farmers, ranchers, and rural landowners, and $5.0 billion in new local tax revenues

Consumer Savings - $49 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills

Healthier Environment - Reductions of global warming pollution equal to taking nearly 71 million cars off the road, plus less haze, smog, acid rain, mercury contamination, and water use

Rebuilding economies:

The Plan:

Renewing America's Economy (2004) | Union of Concerned Scientists


Wind
How Wind Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Solar
How Solar Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Bio Mass
How Biomass Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists


Geo Thermal
How Geothermal Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists


Hydro Power
How Hydrokinetic Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Ok First, Coal Power plants do not produce Radioactive Waste.

Second the French have perfected ways to re process the spent fuel, and safe systems can be used to store the long term waste. who's danger actually diminishes much faster than most try and say. Spent fuel rods are Radioactive for Thousands of years. But the need to keep them Cooled by water only Persist for a few years not Decades or Centuries.

Safe Responsible Nuclear power is the only power source out there, Green or not, New or old. That can Replace all of our Coal fired power plants and really lower demand for fossil fuels. The Dangers of Nuclear power have been sensationalized by Hollywood and anti Nuke nuts. Even The accidents at 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and in Japan all have been over stated in magnitude, as far as their actually effect on the earth and threat to peoples health world wide.

When those Reactors were in Danger in Japan, people were acting like it could kill us all or something. The only real high danger was never to anyone further away than 20 miles or so of the place. People act like 3 mile island was terrible yet all the Experts agree nobody got any more Radiation dose than you would from an Xray or 2.

Even Chernobyl was over stated bad as it was for those close to the Area, and that accident was a direct result of shoddy work, and poor safety standards. I still remember watching a total idiot on CNN who was suppose to be an expert actually say it could burn not only all the way to the core of the earth, but through it.

I was like, does he not know about Gravity? Once you fall to the core of the earth, how the hell do you go through it and out the other side with out defying Gravity? lol

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes WE taxpayers should own all power sources. Why?

Because it is you and me that guarantee construction costs and insurance. Construction costs are famous for their large cost over runs.

Bottom line: It is best for taxpayers and ratepayers to demand termination of all existing coal and nuke plants as both produce radioactive waste and cost billions to replace.

A combination of new energy sources would produce cleaner and more efficient energy. Additionally this combination would not only provide way more jobs throughout the states but also safer employment.

Benefits of a 20 Percent by 2020
National Renewable Electricity Standard

Job Creation - 355,000 new jobs—nearly twice as many as generating electricity from fossil fuels

Economic Development - $72.6 billion in new capital investment, $16.2 billion in income to farmers, ranchers, and rural landowners, and $5.0 billion in new local tax revenues

Consumer Savings - $49 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills

Healthier Environment - Reductions of global warming pollution equal to taking nearly 71 million cars off the road, plus less haze, smog, acid rain, mercury contamination, and water use

Rebuilding economies:

The Plan:

Renewing America's Economy (2004) | Union of Concerned Scientists


Wind
How Wind Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Solar
How Solar Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Bio Mass
How Biomass Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists


Geo Thermal
How Geothermal Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists


Hydro Power
How Hydrokinetic Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Ok First, Coal Power plants do not produce Radioactive Waste.

Second the French have perfected ways to re process the spent fuel, and safe systems can be used to store the long term waste. who's danger actually diminishes much faster than most try and say. Spent fuel rods are Radioactive for Thousands of years. But the need to keep them Cooled by water only Persist for a few years not Decades or Centuries.

Safe Responsible Nuclear power is the only power source out there, Green or not, New or old. That can Replace all of our Coal fired power plants and really lower demand for fossil fuels. The Dangers of Nuclear power have been sensationalized by Hollywood and anti Nuke nuts. Even The accidents at 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and in Japan all have been over stated in magnitude, as far as their actually effect on the earth and threat to peoples health world wide.

When those Reactors were in Danger in Japan, people were acting like it could kill us all or something. The only real high danger was never to anyone further away than 20 miles or so of the place. People act like 3 mile island was terrible yet all the Experts agree nobody got any more Radiation dose than you would from an Xray or 2.

Even Chernobyl was over stated bad as it was for those close to the Area, and that accident was a direct result of shoddy work, and poor safety standards. I still remember watching a total idiot on CNN who was suppose to be an expert actually say it could burn not only all the way to the core of the earth, but through it.

I was like, does he not know about Gravity? Once you fall to the core of the earth, how the hell do you go through it and out the other side with out defying Gravity? lol

Fukashima is still being played out. And there are very hot spots a lot further than 20 miles from Fukashima. Were the fuel to completely breached the containment vessels, then there would be major radioacitive material hundreds of miles downwind.

Three Mile Island was a very close thing, far closer than most people imagine.

The problem here is that nuclear was sold to everybody on two themes. It would be so cheap that you would not have to meter it. And it was absolutely safe. Unfortunately, it turns out to be very expensive, and Three Mile Island and Fukashima have demostrated the falsehood of it's safety.

Wind is, at present, one of the cheapest sources of power. Soon, solar will be. And, according to the people at MIT, geo-thermal has the potential to be cheaper than either of those two. All are non-polluting.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes WE taxpayers should own all power sources. Why?

Because it is you and me that guarantee construction costs and insurance. Construction costs are famous for their large cost over runs.

Bottom line: It is best for taxpayers and ratepayers to demand termination of all existing coal and nuke plants as both produce radioactive waste and cost billions to replace.

A combination of new energy sources would produce cleaner and more efficient energy. Additionally this combination would not only provide way more jobs throughout the states but also safer employment.

Benefits of a 20 Percent by 2020
National Renewable Electricity Standard

Job Creation - 355,000 new jobs—nearly twice as many as generating electricity from fossil fuels

Economic Development - $72.6 billion in new capital investment, $16.2 billion in income to farmers, ranchers, and rural landowners, and $5.0 billion in new local tax revenues

Consumer Savings - $49 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills

Healthier Environment - Reductions of global warming pollution equal to taking nearly 71 million cars off the road, plus less haze, smog, acid rain, mercury contamination, and water use

Rebuilding economies:

The Plan:

Renewing America's Economy (2004) | Union of Concerned Scientists


Wind
How Wind Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Solar
How Solar Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Bio Mass
How Biomass Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists


Geo Thermal
How Geothermal Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists


Hydro Power
How Hydrokinetic Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Ok First, Coal Power plants do not produce Radioactive Waste.

Second the French have perfected ways to re process the spent fuel, and safe systems can be used to store the long term waste. who's danger actually diminishes much faster than most try and say. Spent fuel rods are Radioactive for Thousands of years. But the need to keep them Cooled by water only Persist for a few years not Decades or Centuries.

Safe Responsible Nuclear power is the only power source out there, Green or not, New or old. That can Replace all of our Coal fired power plants and really lower demand for fossil fuels. The Dangers of Nuclear power have been sensationalized by Hollywood and anti Nuke nuts. Even The accidents at 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and in Japan all have been over stated in magnitude, as far as their actually effect on the earth and threat to peoples health world wide.

When those Reactors were in Danger in Japan, people were acting like it could kill us all or something. The only real high danger was never to anyone further away than 20 miles or so of the place. People act like 3 mile island was terrible yet all the Experts agree nobody got any more Radiation dose than you would from an Xray or 2.

Even Chernobyl was over stated bad as it was for those close to the Area, and that accident was a direct result of shoddy work, and poor safety standards. I still remember watching a total idiot on CNN who was suppose to be an expert actually say it could burn not only all the way to the core of the earth, but through it.

I was like, does he not know about Gravity? Once you fall to the core of the earth, how the hell do you go through it and out the other side with out defying Gravity? lol

Really?

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste: Scientific American

Home » Strange but True »
Strange but True | Energy & Sustainability

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation

By Mara Hvistendahl | December 13, 2007 | 112

.ShareEmailPrint1 2 Next > .

CONCENTRATED RADIATION: By burning coal into ash, power plants concentrate the trace amounts of radioactive elements within the black rock.

Image: ©ISTOCKPHOTO.COM


The popular conception of nuclear power is straight out of The Simpsons: Springfield abounds with signs of radioactivity, from the strange glow surrounding Mr. Burn's nuclear power plant workers to Homer's low sperm count. Then there's the local superhero, Radioactive Man, who fires beams of "nuclear heat" from his eyes. Nuclear power, many people think, is inseparable from a volatile, invariably lime-green, mutant-making radioactivity.

Coal, meanwhile, is believed responsible for a host of more quotidian problems, such as mining accidents, acid rain and greenhouse gas emissions. But it isn't supposed to spawn three-eyed fish like Blinky.

Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. * [See Editor's Note at end of page 2]

At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.

Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas.

In a 1978 paper for Science, J. P. McBride at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and his colleagues looked at the uranium and thorium content of fly ash from coal-fired power plants in Tennessee and Alabama. To answer the question of just how harmful leaching could be, the scientists estimated radiation exposure around the coal plants and compared it with exposure levels around boiling-water reactor and pressurized-water nuclear power plants.

The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants.

 

[whitehall]

You almost gotta laugh. The best way to stimulate the economy is cheap energy and lefties still hate "big oil" when they have to shell out $5.00 per gal to drive. Radical lefties think the politicians who had oversight responsibility for Fannie Mae when it went under should run our Coal and oil industries.

 

[merrill]

Yes WE taxpayers should own all power sources. Why?

Because it is you and me that guarantee construction costs and insurance. Construction costs are famous for their large cost over runs.

Bottom line: It is best for taxpayers and ratepayers to demand termination of all existing coal and nuke plants as both produce radioactive waste and cost billions to replace.

A combination of new energy sources would produce cleaner and more efficient energy. Additionally this combination would not only provide way more jobs throughout the states but also safer employment.

Benefits of a 20 Percent by 2020
National Renewable Electricity Standard

Job Creation - 355,000 new jobs—nearly twice as many as generating electricity from fossil fuels

Economic Development - $72.6 billion in new capital investment, $16.2 billion in income to farmers, ranchers, and rural landowners, and $5.0 billion in new local tax revenues

Consumer Savings - $49 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills

Healthier Environment - Reductions of global warming pollution equal to taking nearly 71 million cars off the road, plus less haze, smog, acid rain, mercury contamination, and water use

Rebuilding economies:

The Plan:

Renewing America's Economy (2004) | Union of Concerned Scientists


Wind
How Wind Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Solar
How Solar Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Bio Mass
How Biomass Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists


Geo Thermal
How Geothermal Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists


Hydro Power
How Hydrokinetic Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Sign on to a budget that some democrats put forward in spite of the party of NO aka RINO repubs:

This is the only budget that does everything this country needs:
* Reduces Debt by $10 trillion
* Creates good-paying jobs
* Fully maintains our social safety net
* Invests in education
* Ends our costly wars
* Closes the tax loopholes that have made offshoring jobs profitable
* Ends oil and gas subsidies that pollute our country at taxpayer expense
* Creates a national infrastructure investment bank to help us make intelligent investments for the future
Congressional Progressive Caucus : The People's Budget

 

[merrill]

Claire McCaskill: Spend Money On U.S. Infrastructure, Not Troubled Afghanistan Programs
Claire McCaskill: Spend Money On U.S. Infrastructure, Not Troubled Afghanistan Programs

What could be wrong arguing that American taxpayer dollars be spent on Americans first?

 

[merrill]

Another look at the people's Budget:
Fighting for a People's Budget | The Nation

 

[merrill]

You almost gotta laugh. The best way to stimulate the economy is cheap energy and lefties still hate "big oil" when they have to shell out $5.00 per gal to drive. Radical lefties think the politicians who had oversight responsibility for Fannie Mae when it went under should run our Coal and oil industries.

As of now after considering tax dollar subsidies and the war investment USA consumers in reality are paying $17.50 - $42.00 per gallon for gasoline. That is some deal whoaaaaaaaaa.

 

[code1211]

Yes WE taxpayers should own all power sources. Why?

Because it is you and me that guarantee construction costs and insurance. Construction costs are famous for their large cost over runs.

Bottom line: It is best for taxpayers and ratepayers to demand termination of all existing coal and nuke plants as both produce radioactive waste and cost billions to replace.

A combination of new energy sources would produce cleaner and more efficient energy. Additionally this combination would not only provide way more jobs throughout the states but also safer employment.

Benefits of a 20 Percent by 2020
National Renewable Electricity Standard

Job Creation - 355,000 new jobs—nearly twice as many as generating electricity from fossil fuels

Economic Development - $72.6 billion in new capital investment, $16.2 billion in income to farmers, ranchers, and rural landowners, and $5.0 billion in new local tax revenues

Consumer Savings - $49 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills

Healthier Environment - Reductions of global warming pollution equal to taking nearly 71 million cars off the road, plus less haze, smog, acid rain, mercury contamination, and water use

Rebuilding economies:

The Plan:

Renewing America's Economy (2004) | Union of Concerned Scientists


Wind
How Wind Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Solar
How Solar Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Bio Mass
How Biomass Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists


Geo Thermal
How Geothermal Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists


Hydro Power
How Hydrokinetic Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Um, right. It's a fantastic idea and anybody with the money to invest in this is running in the opposite direction so fast that if you could harness that energy, there would be no need for any kind of fuel at all.

Why do you spend so much time trying to convince that something that is not real is real?

If these types of energy were viable, there would be no need to subsidize it, legislate it, regulate the other types out of existence or do anything else. It would just happen.

It's a little like a gay guy trying to be straight. It just ain't gonna happen.

I agree and disagree. If there is no need to subsidize this form of energy, then there should be no need to subsidize other forms of energy, such as oil.

Your kidding, right? In Indiana, like every state, the Feds tax gasoline at the rate of 18.4 cents per gallon. The state of indiana taxes that same gallon another 16 cents for a grand total per gallon of gas of 34.4 cents.

In a massive SWAG, let's extend to the whole USA in which 3259.45 million gallons of gas are purchased annually and for the sake of this exercise, we'll expand Indiana's ratio to encompass the whole total sold.

So that is $0.344 times 3259.45 million gallons for a total of taxes paid just in the excise taxes of $3,259,450,000. We all have heard the ridiculously high profits turned by the oil companies and any that have not yet relocated off shore to a friendlier tax home ar paying the 35% demanded by Uncle Sam. I would think that most of the oil companies with a global presence has incorporated outside of our borders for that reason.

What is the amount of the subsidies you are citing? Are these actual subsidies or just a reduction tax liability? Do you know the difference?