Lol

[KittenKoder]

Wind, solar, wave, slow current, and nuclear.

All of those with the exception of nuclear make up less than 15% of our nation's power. There is a reason the the steam plants (mostly nuclear and coal-fired), make up the nation's 'baseline' (plants that run 24/7/365): they are reliable and relatively, inexpensive. If you 'regulate' them out of existance, electrical energy costs will skyrocket and the people living on fixed incomes are the ones that will suffer. They will not be able to afford (or it will be even harder to afford) running their air conditioners in the summer or electric heat in the winter.
Funny, those that claim to care the most, hurt the weakest without thought.

Wind, at present, is on the par with dirty coal for cost. Without the downstream costs of coal.

Solar will soon be the cheapest of all, and capable of generation in any part of the nation.

Wave is being worked on right now off of the coast of Oregon, and looks good.

Slow current is a brand new technology, and looks like a real winner.

Horses once made up the baseline of this nations transportation. Somehow, we manage to do without them now.

Yet ... nothing has replace the Automobile ...

 

[Old Rocks]

Nuclear power NOW.

Bring those other "alternative" energies up to speed over the next few decades.

But nuclear power NOW.

I am so sick and tired of the long standing liberal refusal to embrace nuclear energy. Power more of those plants up and we would cut more CO2 than all that Cap n Trade BS...

A long construction time, and a catastrophic failure is just that for all downwind, unless you go to third or fourth generation plants. That would be a good idea, but the electricity will cost more than the other alternatives.

And don't give me the bullshit about the "cheap nuclear power". Been there, done that. In the '50s and '60s, they were promising power to cheap to meter. And failproof. Well, we recieved the bill, and it was not cheap. And Three Mile Island was a very near thing.

 

[Old Rocks]

All of those with the exception of nuclear make up less than 15% of our nation's power. There is a reason the the steam plants (mostly nuclear and coal-fired), make up the nation's 'baseline' (plants that run 24/7/365): they are reliable and relatively, inexpensive. If you 'regulate' them out of existance, electrical energy costs will skyrocket and the people living on fixed incomes are the ones that will suffer. They will not be able to afford (or it will be even harder to afford) running their air conditioners in the summer or electric heat in the winter.
Funny, those that claim to care the most, hurt the weakest without thought.

Wind, at present, is on the par with dirty coal for cost. Without the downstream costs of coal.

Solar will soon be the cheapest of all, and capable of generation in any part of the nation.

Wave is being worked on right now off of the coast of Oregon, and looks good.

Slow current is a brand new technology, and looks like a real winner.

Horses once made up the baseline of this nations transportation. Somehow, we manage to do without them now.

Yet ... nothing has replace the Automobile ...

Well, that certainly doesn't mean that nothing will. However, it is not the replacement of the automobile that is the goal. It is the replacement of the ICE as the power of the automobile.

And that is looking increasingly like a doable project.

 

[KittenKoder]

Wind, at present, is on the par with dirty coal for cost. Without the downstream costs of coal.

Solar will soon be the cheapest of all, and capable of generation in any part of the nation.

Wave is being worked on right now off of the coast of Oregon, and looks good.

Slow current is a brand new technology, and looks like a real winner.

Horses once made up the baseline of this nations transportation. Somehow, we manage to do without them now.

Yet ... nothing has replace the Automobile ...

Well, that certainly doesn't mean that nothing will. However, it is not the replacement of the automobile that is the goal. It is the replacement of the ICE as the power of the automobile.

And that is looking increasingly like a doable project.

Really? You can't possibly think of a better alternative to the automobile? None at all?

 

[Sinatra]

NUCLEAR POWER NOW.

Removelessen the asinine regulatory roadblocks that slow the process and greatly increase the cost.

France is now the #1 exporter of energy - earning billions per year off of their nuclear plants.

NUCLEAR NOW

____


Economic Factors

France's nuclear power program has cost some FF 400 billion in 1993 currency, excluding interest during construction. Half of this was self-financed by Electricité de France, 8% (FF 32 billion) was invested by the state but discounted in 1981, and 42% (FF 168 billion) was financed by commercial loans. In 1988 medium and long-term debt amounted to FF 233 billion, or 1.8 times EdF's sales revenue. However, by the end of 1998 EdF had reduced this to FF 122 billion, about two thirds of sales revenue (FF 185 billion) and less than three times annual cash flow. Net interest charges had dropped to FF 7.7 billion (4.16% of sales) by 1998.

In 2006 EdF sales revenue was EUR 58.9 billion and debt had fallen to EUR 14.9 billion - 25% of this.

The cost of nuclear-generated electricity fell by 7% from 1998 to 2001 to about EUR 3 cents/kWh, which is very competitive in Europe. The back-end costs (reprocessing, wastes disposal, etc) are fairly small when compared to the total kWh cost, typically about 5%.

EdF early in 2009 estimated that its reactors provide power at EUR 4.6 cents/kWh and the energy regulator CRE puts the figure at 4.1 c/kWh. The weighted average of regulated tariffs is EUR 4.3 c/kWh. Power from the new EPR units is expected to cost about EUR 5.5 to 6.0 c/kWh.

From being a net electricity importer through most of the 1970s, France now has steadily growing net exports of electricity, and is the world's largest net electricity exporter, with electricity being France's fourth largest export. (Next door is Italy, without any operating nuclear power plants. It is Europe's largest importer of electricity, most coming ultimately from France.) The UK has also become a major customer for French electricity.

Nuclear Power in France | French Nuclear Energy

 

[Old Rocks]

Yet ... nothing has replace the Automobile ...

Well, that certainly doesn't mean that nothing will. However, it is not the replacement of the automobile that is the goal. It is the replacement of the ICE as the power of the automobile.

And that is looking increasingly like a doable project.

Really? You can't possibly think of a better alternative to the automobile? None at all?

Not for where I go.

 

[KittenKoder]

Well, that certainly doesn't mean that nothing will. However, it is not the replacement of the automobile that is the goal. It is the replacement of the ICE as the power of the automobile.

And that is looking increasingly like a doable project.

Really? You can't possibly think of a better alternative to the automobile? None at all?

Not for where I go.

Absolutely no possible way they could have made a serious advancement in automobiles?


::MOLLER:: ... just nothing coming to mind?

 

[logical4u]

Wind, solar, wave, slow current, and nuclear.

All of those with the exception of nuclear make up less than 15% of our nation's power. There is a reason the the steam plants (mostly nuclear and coal-fired), make up the nation's 'baseline' (plants that run 24/7/365): they are reliable and relatively, inexpensive. If you 'regulate' them out of existance, electrical energy costs will skyrocket and the people living on fixed incomes are the ones that will suffer. They will not be able to afford (or it will be even harder to afford) running their air conditioners in the summer or electric heat in the winter.
Funny, those that claim to care the most, hurt the weakest without thought.

Wind, at present, is on the par with dirty coal for cost. Without the downstream costs of coal.

Solar will soon be the cheapest of all, and capable of generation in any part of the nation.

Wave is being worked on right now off of the coast of Oregon, and looks good.

Slow current is a brand new technology, and looks like a real winner.

Horses once made up the baseline of this nations transportation. Somehow, we manage to do without them now.

Coal, has been bad-mouthed by many, but there is no replacement source that comes close: reliable, fairly easy to aquire, can be burned and exhaust treated to reduce harmful pollutants (compared to people switching to burning wood in their own homes), transports readily, and available 24 hours a day.
Wind would take more a lot more space than coal burning plants to produce, roughly, the same amount of electricity. Environmentalists are now driving the costs of these turbines, sueing for wildlife interference.

Wave, is promising, but again it cannot supply the nation (transmission over hundreds and thousands of miles), the most efficient delivery of electric power is "close" to the customer.

Horses are still used for baseline work in some areas. Why replace something that works well, without a compareable replacement?

Nuke, environmentalists and gov regulations change the rules faster than the plant can be built at astronomical costs to the utility.

Wind, solar, hydro, wave all work, but take longer to recoup original costs (the reason to build in the first place), and the environmentalists (sometimes the competition using the environment), are making it harder to construct these plants. Currently, the costs of these types of generation are about the same as the income made, not a good business decision.

Coal, being targeted as heavy polluter: by-products used for roads, drywall, concrete. If done correctly, there is little waste and little pollution. The plants can be built without the enormous safety precautions (rightly so) that run up the expenses of nuke plants.

Our gov is telling us to use less power, at the same time telling us to buy products, many of those are electrical. The gov is not talking about power shortages, it is pretending that there is plenty to go around; that is not the case. As our plants age, it will be harder to meet the demands of the nation's energy requirements. Until we "develope and perfect" the alternative sources for energy, don't you think it would be "wise" to prepare for the next thirty years or so?

 

[Charles Stucker]

Our gov is telling us to use less power, at the same time telling us to buy products, many of those are electrical. The gov is not talking about power shortages, it is pretending that there is plenty to go around; that is not the case. As our plants age, it will be harder to meet the demands of the nation's energy requirements. Until we "develope and perfect" the alternative sources for energy, don't you think it would be "wise" to prepare for the next thirty years or so?

The "deregulation" craze which overran the utility company is an example of why "Free Market" is not a panacea answer to all problems.
The "free Market" suppliers cut on their infrastructure investment to remain competitive in today's market. When the infrastructure fails, people complain, but they don't understand that a well regulated industry works better than the free market in this particular instance.

The problem with government regulation is that instead of appointing someone who is both competent and honest, the position is often awarded to a crony of whichever politician controls the appointment. If the position is filled by election it gets no better for all that generally gives is a smooth talking snake oil salesman with no true ability in the field. There is a solution, but not one available unless we, the people, curb our preference for ignorant slogans and actually take the time to learn a bit about various problems.

 

[k2skier]

Clueless morons....

PolitiFact | Matalin claims the Earth is cooling

 

[KittenKoder]

Our gov is telling us to use less power, at the same time telling us to buy products, many of those are electrical. The gov is not talking about power shortages, it is pretending that there is plenty to go around; that is not the case. As our plants age, it will be harder to meet the demands of the nation's energy requirements. Until we "develope and perfect" the alternative sources for energy, don't you think it would be "wise" to prepare for the next thirty years or so?

The "deregulation" craze which overran the utility company is an example of why "Free Market" is not a panacea answer to all problems.
The "free Market" suppliers cut on their infrastructure investment to remain competitive in today's market. When the infrastructure fails, people complain, but they don't understand that a well regulated industry works better than the free market in this particular instance.

The problem with government regulation is that instead of appointing someone who is both competent and honest, the position is often awarded to a crony of whichever politician controls the appointment. If the position is filled by election it gets no better for all that generally gives is a smooth talking snake oil salesman with no true ability in the field. There is a solution, but not one available unless we, the people, curb our preference for ignorant slogans and actually take the time to learn a bit about various problems.

No one alive today has ever seen a "free market" in any industry ... ever.

 

[Old Rocks]

Thank God! The deregulation that we have seen in the last 20 years has led us into a very dicey period.

 

[KittenKoder]

Thank God! The deregulation that we have seen in the last 20 years has led us into a very dicey period.

What "deregulation"? For every regulation that was dropped five more were added.

 

[Old Rocks]

All of those with the exception of nuclear make up less than 15% of our nation's power. There is a reason the the steam plants (mostly nuclear and coal-fired), make up the nation's 'baseline' (plants that run 24/7/365): they are reliable and relatively, inexpensive. If you 'regulate' them out of existance, electrical energy costs will skyrocket and the people living on fixed incomes are the ones that will suffer. They will not be able to afford (or it will be even harder to afford) running their air conditioners in the summer or electric heat in the winter.
Funny, those that claim to care the most, hurt the weakest without thought.

Wind, at present, is on the par with dirty coal for cost. Without the downstream costs of coal.

Solar will soon be the cheapest of all, and capable of generation in any part of the nation.

Wave is being worked on right now off of the coast of Oregon, and looks good.

Slow current is a brand new technology, and looks like a real winner.

Horses once made up the baseline of this nations transportation. Somehow, we manage to do without them now.

Coal, has been bad-mouthed by many, but there is no replacement source that comes close: reliable, fairly easy to aquire, can be burned and exhaust treated to reduce harmful pollutants (compared to people switching to burning wood in their own homes), transports readily, and available 24 hours a day.
Wind would take more a lot more space than coal burning plants to produce, roughly, the same amount of electricity. Environmentalists are now driving the costs of these turbines, sueing for wildlife interference.

Wave, is promising, but again it cannot supply the nation (transmission over hundreds and thousands of miles), the most efficient delivery of electric power is "close" to the customer.

Horses are still used for baseline work in some areas. Why replace something that works well, without a compareable replacement?

Nuke, environmentalists and gov regulations change the rules faster than the plant can be built at astronomical costs to the utility.

Wind, solar, hydro, wave all work, but take longer to recoup original costs (the reason to build in the first place), and the environmentalists (sometimes the competition using the environment), are making it harder to construct these plants. Currently, the costs of these types of generation are about the same as the income made, not a good business decision.

Coal, being targeted as heavy polluter: by-products used for roads, drywall, concrete. If done correctly, there is little waste and little pollution. The plants can be built without the enormous safety precautions (rightly so) that run up the expenses of nuke plants.

Our gov is telling us to use less power, at the same time telling us to buy products, many of those are electrical. The gov is not talking about power shortages, it is pretending that there is plenty to go around; that is not the case. As our plants age, it will be harder to meet the demands of the nation's energy requirements. Until we "develope and perfect" the alternative sources for energy, don't you think it would be "wise" to prepare for the next thirty years or so?

Remember the slag heap that ran into and poisoned a whole river from a coal fired plant?

Mines and Communities: Twenty Six US communities face high hazards from coal ash ponds

18TH June 2009

WASHINGTON - The government has made public a list of 26 communities in 10 states where coal ash dumps pose a potential high hazard to public health and safety.

The Environmental Protection Agency says it will inspect each of the 44 coal ash sites near the communities to make certain they are structurally sound. The sites are being classified as potentially highly hazardous because they are near where people live and not because of any discovered defect.

Until now, the site list has not been provided to the public. Earlier this month the Army Corps of Engineers said it didn't want the locations disclosed because of national security.

Coal ash - kept in ponds usually in liquid or as a slurry - is a byproduct of burning coal.

Fact Sheet: Coal Combustion Residues (CCR) - Surface Impoundments with High Hazard Potential Ratings:

Fact Sheet: Coal Combustion Residues (CCR) - Surface Impoundments with High Hazard Potential Ratings | Industrial Waste | US EPA

Now add to this that there is not one "clean" coal plant in the US even in a permitting stage. That is a chimera created by big energy to placate those that would rather turn off reality.

The present coal powered generators put CO2, Mercury, and Lead into the atmosphere. Those with scrubbers do better, but only better compared to the past.

Windmills are located on ridges and wheatfields. The wheat, or any other crop, for that matter, grows right up the the rather small concrete base.

No more coal fired plants should be built, period.

 

[logical4u]

Wind, at present, is on the par with dirty coal for cost. Without the downstream costs of coal.

Solar will soon be the cheapest of all, and capable of generation in any part of the nation.

Wave is being worked on right now off of the coast of Oregon, and looks good.

Slow current is a brand new technology, and looks like a real winner.

Horses once made up the baseline of this nations transportation. Somehow, we manage to do without them now.

Coal, has been bad-mouthed by many, but there is no replacement source that comes close: reliable, fairly easy to aquire, can be burned and exhaust treated to reduce harmful pollutants (compared to people switching to burning wood in their own homes), transports readily, and available 24 hours a day.
Wind would take more a lot more space than coal burning plants to produce, roughly, the same amount of electricity. Environmentalists are now driving the costs of these turbines, sueing for wildlife interference.

Wave, is promising, but again it cannot supply the nation (transmission over hundreds and thousands of miles), the most efficient delivery of electric power is "close" to the customer.

Horses are still used for baseline work in some areas. Why replace something that works well, without a compareable replacement?

Nuke, environmentalists and gov regulations change the rules faster than the plant can be built at astronomical costs to the utility.

Wind, solar, hydro, wave all work, but take longer to recoup original costs (the reason to build in the first place), and the environmentalists (sometimes the competition using the environment), are making it harder to construct these plants. Currently, the costs of these types of generation are about the same as the income made, not a good business decision.

Coal, being targeted as heavy polluter: by-products used for roads, drywall, concrete. If done correctly, there is little waste and little pollution. The plants can be built without the enormous safety precautions (rightly so) that run up the expenses of nuke plants.

Our gov is telling us to use less power, at the same time telling us to buy products, many of those are electrical. The gov is not talking about power shortages, it is pretending that there is plenty to go around; that is not the case. As our plants age, it will be harder to meet the demands of the nation's energy requirements. Until we "develope and perfect" the alternative sources for energy, don't you think it would be "wise" to prepare for the next thirty years or so?

Remember the slag heap that ran into and poisoned a whole river from a coal fired plant?

Mines and Communities: Twenty Six US communities face high hazards from coal ash ponds

18TH June 2009

WASHINGTON - The government has made public a list of 26 communities in 10 states where coal ash dumps pose a potential high hazard to public health and safety.

The Environmental Protection Agency says it will inspect each of the 44 coal ash sites near the communities to make certain they are structurally sound. The sites are being classified as potentially highly hazardous because they are near where people live and not because of any discovered defect.

Until now, the site list has not been provided to the public. Earlier this month the Army Corps of Engineers said it didn't want the locations disclosed because of national security.

Coal ash - kept in ponds usually in liquid or as a slurry - is a byproduct of burning coal.

Fact Sheet: Coal Combustion Residues (CCR) - Surface Impoundments with High Hazard Potential Ratings:

Fact Sheet: Coal Combustion Residues (CCR) - Surface Impoundments with High Hazard Potential Ratings | Industrial Waste | US EPA

Now add to this that there is not one "clean" coal plant in the US even in a permitting stage. That is a chimera created by big energy to placate those that would rather turn off reality.

The present coal powered generators put CO2, Mercury, and Lead into the atmosphere. Those with scrubbers do better, but only better compared to the past.

Windmills are located on ridges and wheatfields. The wheat, or any other crop, for that matter, grows right up the the rather small concrete base.

No more coal fired plants should be built, period.

CO2 is not a bad thing. We also expell CO2 when we breathe; based on the modern hysteria, it will be used to kill people (in the name of saving the environment).
Mercury is part of nature; it gets into our systems through many methods, including those "eco-friendly" light bulbs that congress wants to force us to use.
Lead is also part of nature, if you have products in your home from China, chances are, you are exposed to more lead than you would be with a coal-fired plant with "scrubbers".

Maybe you would prefer if we stop generating with coal-fired plants; no one would want to visit cities without clean water pumped (electrically) in and 'dirty' water pumped out (electrically). Maybe you think windmills at the top of every building would provide enough energy; I believe your thinking is naive. Nuke plants and coal-fired plants provide 'most' of the generated electricity in the USA; to take those away is to limit electricity for people across the country.

It is easy to sit back and say how things should be. That is a lot different in how things actually are. This country used energy to become the GREATEST country ever, in the world. Without energy (or limited to the elites that would make policy to take it away from taxpayers), this country will drop back to third world status, quickly. Please, don't lose heart, with planning and ingenuity and lots and lots of power (electrical), more ways will be found to generate electricity for less expense. Until then, lets plan wisely and make the best of the resources we can access.

 

[midcan5]

No ... we remember the "claims" made by certain people that they were over polluted, not actually seeing it.

You are not serious I hope? Love Canal, and come visit New Jersey sometime, I'll show you places you can camp for free. When we were kids the factories dumped anything into the rivers and lakes, we saw it. Even today they catch polluters dumping illegally and walmart got in trouble for same not long ago. Check out cancer rates downwind of refineries sometime.

Best Argument I’ve Heard to Take Global Warming Seriously - One Man's Blog

this is a variant on Pascale's Wager....

That's our Midcan't!

He just mindlessly posts the opinions of others that align with his, so he doesn't have to go through the bother of having an independent thought.

LOL - you are so large a moron you fall over your own stupidity. So if I found independent thought do you think I could be as dumb as you or is your dumbness just a gift. You idiots amaze as how do you even know what independent thought would constitute? Nothing you say is not repeated over and over again by a circle jerk of like idiots. I have yet to see anything that constitutes thought from you - disprove me.

 

[KittenKoder]

Midcan, independent thought is not your strong suit ... you are swallowing propaganda now. Here's a little independent thinking for you, see if you can keep up:

Environmental protection has been going on for decades, originally it was just restrictions on what they did to public land (which I supported) ... but now the latest laws have nothing to do with keeping things clean ... even then, nothing has changed since we started enacting the first laws, things keep "getting worse". Logic dictates that since nothing is changing, what we are doing has no effect or such a small effect that no change will make things "better". Tack on the newest laws and what we are doing becomes worse than what we use to do. So far the environmental scientists quoted by those who support the global warming scam have done nothing but endorse products and services that are not only more expensive, but also worse for the environment. Logic then dictates that the scientists quoted are not really interested in protecting what we are use to but are actually shilling for a few companies, pushing products people would not normally buy through the force of law. Now ... mull over those words, think about them, ignore your preconceptions created by propaganda for a moment. In other words, try to see it from more than one angle for a moment.

 

[Oddball]

LOL - you are so large a moron you fall over your own stupidity. So if I found independent thought do you think I could be as dumb as you or is your dumbness just a gift. You idiots amaze as how do you even know what independent thought would constitute? Nothing you say is not repeated over and over again by a circle jerk of like idiots. I have yet to see anything that constitutes thought from you - disprove me.

Sorry, as string of insults doesn't count as an independent thought.

Nor do posts full of links of the opinions of other people, with little more commentary than "me too" from you.

 

[code1211]

In the last eleven years we have had ten of the warmest on record. At a time when we had both a solar minimum and a strong and persistant La Nina, 2008 turned out to be the eighth warmest on record in the last 150 years.

The anthropogenic increase in GHGs has completely over rode the slight decrease in TSI. We have an increase in atmospheric CO2 of nearly 40% due to the burning of fossil fuels. The TSI has declined only a small fraction of 1%.

This summer, we saw the oceans the hottest that they have ever been recorded. Those figures are from NASA, NOAA, and various governmental agencies in Europe.

Ice is melting far more rapidly in both Greenland and Antarctica than the climatologists predicted. And the North Polar Cap will be gone in the summer by mid-century, at the latest, not 2100 as previously predicted.

Yes, the IPCC predictions are completely off. It is going to progress far more rapidly than their very conservative predictions.

Expert analysis on the Argos array of 3000 temperature sensing buoys:
Jennifer Marohasy » The Ocean Really is Cooling

The official site of the Argo Array of 300 or so buoys:
Argo - part of the integrated global observation strategy

 

[code1211]

Our gov is telling us to use less power, at the same time telling us to buy products, many of those are electrical. The gov is not talking about power shortages, it is pretending that there is plenty to go around; that is not the case. As our plants age, it will be harder to meet the demands of the nation's energy requirements. Until we "develope and perfect" the alternative sources for energy, don't you think it would be "wise" to prepare for the next thirty years or so?

The "deregulation" craze which overran the utility company is an example of why "Free Market" is not a panacea answer to all problems.
The "free Market" suppliers cut on their infrastructure investment to remain competitive in today's market. When the infrastructure fails, people complain, but they don't understand that a well regulated industry works better than the free market in this particular instance.

The problem with government regulation is that instead of appointing someone who is both competent and honest, the position is often awarded to a crony of whichever politician controls the appointment. If the position is filled by election it gets no better for all that generally gives is a smooth talking snake oil salesman with no true ability in the field. There is a solution, but not one available unless we, the people, curb our preference for ignorant slogans and actually take the time to learn a bit about various problems.

The most regulated and governmentally controlled power distribution system in the country was in Kahleeforneeahhh. It was the cause of the highest costs anywhere in the country, the closure of virtually every power company in that state, the dismal failure of buying power on the open market at the highest rates, the political end of the career of Grey Davis and the election of Ahrnold.

The California debacle is single best argument in favor of using the cheapest and most available energy source, coal, and figuring out a way to trap the undesired waste. I cannot believe that this cannot be figured out.

The same people who endorse wind power, an energy source that provides about 1% of the nation's power as something that needs to be exploited claim that "clean coal" does not exist and is impossible to achieve. Uh-huh... Impossible, it seems, depends on your point of view.

My guess is that the energy source that currently provides about 50% of the nation's electricity would be easier to make clean than it would be to re-manufacture the entire energy grid.

Of course, that's an uneducated opinion.