Whatever Happened to Electric Cars?

[westwall]

Since coal power generating plants only account for 39% of the power generated in the US, your "umbilically attached" comment is accurate in less than half of the country.

In fact, nuclear energy (19%), hydro (7%) and other renewables (6%) account for 32% of the power generated, so there is almost as much generated by renewables as by coal. As these technologies expand it will overtake coal as a source for electric power.

What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA

As taxpayer funds dry up, you will see less and less renewables being built, and those that are already there will rapidly disappear.

once they become economically viable they will be everywhere and the guy who finds a way to make them viable will become the next Bill Gates.

Considering the advances his company has made, his name is Elon Musk.

Prior to Tesla, EVs were experimental cars that resembled toys or golf carts. The business was incorporated in 2003. They released their first production car in 2008. So in 5 years they went from concept to production of a completely new type of car. In the next 7 years they went from a production car with little practical value to a serious performance/luxury car that is very practical.

I am amazed at the number of people who seem to want to dismiss a car that won '2013 Automobile of the Year' from Automobile magazine, Motor Trend 'Car of the Year', and Consumer Reports said was the best car they ever tested. Not to mention that they were awarded the highest crash test rating ever.

Perhaps if state legislatures weren't wasting time and handicapping the sales, there would be more of them on the road.

At 60,000 for a base Model S, that is unlikely. Tesla has also benefited greatly from using OTHER PEOPLES MONEY. Namely the US taxpayer. The US taxpayer has been footing the bill for old Elon for a very long time. I would like to see Tesla prosper on its own. I would like to see Tesla live or die on the funding it receives from venture capitalists and investors.

That won't ever happen however.

Tesla started with a $465 million loan from the Dept of Energy. They paid that back 9 years early.

I see them doing fine once they get their production up. Right now they sell to high end buyers. But then, so did the initial car manufacturers. And not just car manufacturers. My brother bought the first VCR I ever saw. It was a huge clunky thing that set him back $2,500.

And every plant they have built has been funded by massive tax breaks. Every single one. The most recent one here in Storey County is benefiting from a 5 billion dollar tax break.

 

[Redfish]

From the Blaze tonight:

Bammy promised in his 2011 State of the Union Address, that by 2015, electric cars would swarm this country's landscape thicker than illegal aliens. Yet 99.7% of the hundreds of thousands of electric cars he promised, are nowhere to be found. Yet one more idiotic pipedream by Bammy's warmies. Oh, and you the taxpayer forked over a $7,500 subsidy for every one that was sold. Just makes you feel green and cozy all over, don't it?

no one told obozo that they had to be recharged and that fossil fuels had to be used to create the electricity to recharge them. the Kenyan messiah just thought they ran forever on batteries.

32% of the electricity generated in the US is from renewables. And that number is growing.

and thats very good. I never said that renewables were bad.

the problem that you libs have is that you cannot reconcile your leftarded views on energy with your leftarded views on ecology-----------------my point, liberals have blocked a solar panel farm in the Cal desert because it might disturb the habitat of a lizard. Liberals cut off the water to the central valley in order to save a minnow.

"you libs"? lol So the fact that I am a fan of an entrepreneur producing an amazing car makes me a lib now?

I guess I'll have to go back and edit all my pro-gun posts, pro Fair Tax Act posts and the like. Who knew?

my error, take the word "you" out of my post.

 

[WinterBorn]

From the Blaze tonight:

Bammy promised in his 2011 State of the Union Address, that by 2015, electric cars would swarm this country's landscape thicker than illegal aliens. Yet 99.7% of the hundreds of thousands of electric cars he promised, are nowhere to be found. Yet one more idiotic pipedream by Bammy's warmies. Oh, and you the taxpayer forked over a $7,500 subsidy for every one that was sold. Just makes you feel green and cozy all over, don't it?

no one told obozo that they had to be recharged and that fossil fuels had to be used to create the electricity to recharge them. the Kenyan messiah just thought they ran forever on batteries.

32% of the electricity generated in the US is from renewables. And that number is growing.

No, it's not. 13% is generated by renewables, and the majority of that is hydroelectric power.


"In 2013, the United States generated about 4,058 billion kilowatthours of electricity. About 67% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), with 39% attributed from coal.

In 2013, energy sources and percent share of total electricity generation were

• Coal 39%
• Natural Gas 27%
• Nuclear 19%
• Hydropower 7%
• Other Renewable 6%
  • Biomass 1.48%
  • Geothermal 0.41%
  • Solar 0.23%
  • Wind 4.13%
• Petroleum 1%
• Other Gases < 1%"

What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA

My mistake. I stand corrected. I should have said "nuclear and renewables".

Thats what I get for multitasking.

when did the US last build a nuclear power plant?

It has been about 30 years. One has been approved and started in GA to be added to the Vogtle plant outside Waynesboro.

 

[WinterBorn]

As taxpayer funds dry up, you will see less and less renewables being built, and those that are already there will rapidly disappear.

once they become economically viable they will be everywhere and the guy who finds a way to make them viable will become the next Bill Gates.

Considering the advances his company has made, his name is Elon Musk.

Prior to Tesla, EVs were experimental cars that resembled toys or golf carts. The business was incorporated in 2003. They released their first production car in 2008. So in 5 years they went from concept to production of a completely new type of car. In the next 7 years they went from a production car with little practical value to a serious performance/luxury car that is very practical.

I am amazed at the number of people who seem to want to dismiss a car that won '2013 Automobile of the Year' from Automobile magazine, Motor Trend 'Car of the Year', and Consumer Reports said was the best car they ever tested. Not to mention that they were awarded the highest crash test rating ever.

Perhaps if state legislatures weren't wasting time and handicapping the sales, there would be more of them on the road.

At 60,000 for a base Model S, that is unlikely. Tesla has also benefited greatly from using OTHER PEOPLES MONEY. Namely the US taxpayer. The US taxpayer has been footing the bill for old Elon for a very long time. I would like to see Tesla prosper on its own. I would like to see Tesla live or die on the funding it receives from venture capitalists and investors.

That won't ever happen however.

Tesla started with a $465 million loan from the Dept of Energy. They paid that back 9 years early.

I see them doing fine once they get their production up. Right now they sell to high end buyers. But then, so did the initial car manufacturers. And not just car manufacturers. My brother bought the first VCR I ever saw. It was a huge clunky thing that set him back $2,500.

And every plant they have built has been funded by massive tax breaks. Every single one. The most recent one here in Storey County is benefiting from a 5 billion dollar tax break.

Considering the expenses involved in building a nuclear plant, they will always need gov't tax breaks. Otherwise they would not exist.

 

[Old Rocks]

Maybe it would help if you provided a quote from Obama vs something you made up

There are about 1% electric cars now where before it was zero.

If you're talking about electric cars as a percentile of all automobiles/light trucks registered in the US (not counting hybrids), the number of electric cars registered last year was 130,000 compared to 247 million non-electric/non-hybrid light vehicles. 1% would put the electric car count at 2,247,000, not 130,000. This is why your posts have zero credibility, dean. You're not even a mediochre propagandist, you're just a bad liar and a lazy one at that. Typical useful idiot in other words.

Electric car use by country - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Average age of U.S. car light truck on road hits record 11.4 years Polk says

Another interesting point in the Polk link above: The average age of petroleum-based vehicles in the US hit a historical high last year: 11.4 years. Because of Obama's marvelous economy, most people can't afford new cars/trucks, so they keep their old ones much longer, and they put the maintenance money into them that keeps them on our roads for 200,000+ miles instead of 100,000 miles.

I bought a new truck at Christmas. The sales manager at the dealership told me "Today, the used car market is pretty much the new car market. Nobody can afford the new ones anymore."

Add the fact that electric cars, from the CO/CO2 belching, coal burning electric generation plants with which they're umbilically attached, actually produce 2.8 times the greenhouse gas emissions of any petroleum powered light car/truck, and warmies really look more and more ludicrous every day, don' you agree? Or in dean's case, more and more ridiculous every day.

Hey Sweetie Pie, resorting to lies again, I see.

Are Electric Cars Really That Polluting - Forbes

But mining for thousands of tons of rare earth elements a year does not compare with mining for billions of tons of coal a year. From an environmental and health perspective, the amount of heavy metals, like mercury, uranium and thorium, emitted from burning coal in the U.S. alone exceeds by a thousand times the total amount of lithium and rare earth elements mined in the entire world (USGS; Treehugger).

The simple evaluation is to compare the CO2 emissions from burning gasoline to those emitted by the power plants to produce the energy to charge the battery to drive the same distance. We’ll be nice to internal combustion engines and say they get 40 miles to the gallon. Similarly, we’ll be conservative and say electric vehicles get only 40 miles to every 10 kWhrs.

A gallon of gasoline produces 8,887 grams of CO2 when burned in a vehicle (EPA vehicle emissions). Producing the equivalent of 10 kWhrs of electricity, including the total life-cycle from mining, construction, transport and burning, emits about 9,750 g of CO2 when generated in a coal-fired power plant, 6,000 g when generated in a natural gas plant, 900g from a hydroelectric plant, 550 g from solar, but only 150 g each from wind and nuclear (UK Office of Science and Technology 2006).

The State of Washington is over 80% non-fossil fuel, primarily because of hydro, nuclear and a little wind, so electric vehicles charged in this region are fairly “green”, yielding emission-equivalents similar to gasoline-powered vehicles getting over 70 mpg. But cars charged in Indiana, where coal exceeds 90% of the electricity production, are not much greener than cars with internal combustion engines getting less than half of that.

Fortunately, about half of Americans live in the best grid regions.

 

[Redfish]

no one told obozo that they had to be recharged and that fossil fuels had to be used to create the electricity to recharge them. the Kenyan messiah just thought they ran forever on batteries.

32% of the electricity generated in the US is from renewables. And that number is growing.

No, it's not. 13% is generated by renewables, and the majority of that is hydroelectric power.


"In 2013, the United States generated about 4,058 billion kilowatthours of electricity. About 67% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), with 39% attributed from coal.

In 2013, energy sources and percent share of total electricity generation were

• Coal 39%
• Natural Gas 27%
• Nuclear 19%
• Hydropower 7%
• Other Renewable 6%
  • Biomass 1.48%
  • Geothermal 0.41%
  • Solar 0.23%
  • Wind 4.13%
• Petroleum 1%
• Other Gases < 1%"

What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA

My mistake. I stand corrected. I should have said "nuclear and renewables".

Thats what I get for multitasking.

when did the US last build a nuclear power plant?

It has been about 30 years. One has been approved and started in GA to be added to the Vogtle plant outside Waynesboro.

France gets 70% of its energy from nuclear. Are the frogs ahead of us on energy and in calling radical muslim terrorists what they are?

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

“It is really quite notable, when compared to where we were just five years ago, to see the decline in the cost of these technologies,” said Jonathan Mir, a managing director at Lazard, which has been comparing the economics of power generation technologies since 2008.

With figures like these, we will see a lot more wind and solar installations. And the price for both is still coming down, as opposed to nuclear, coal, and gas. Economics are going to make this happen, and 'Conservative' flap-yap cannot do a thing to prevent it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Redfish, what is the price per kw/hr in France? What do you pay?

 

[Flopper]

From the Blaze tonight:

Bammy promised in his 2011 State of the Union Address, that by 2015, electric cars would swarm this country's landscape thicker than illegal aliens. Yet 99.7% of the hundreds of thousands of electric cars he promised, are nowhere to be found. Yet one more idiotic pipedream by Bammy's warmies. Oh, and you the taxpayer forked over a $7,500 subsidy for every one that was sold. Just makes you feel green and cozy all over, don't it?

As one might expect there is no such statement in 2011 State of Union Speech. The only reference to electric care is the following statement: "With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015." Obama promised nothing, there were no new incentives passed by congress, and the number of electric vehicles on the road in 2015 will be about 300,000.

Full Text State Of The Union Address - Forbes

 

[WinterBorn]

32% of the electricity generated in the US is from renewables. And that number is growing.

No, it's not. 13% is generated by renewables, and the majority of that is hydroelectric power.


"In 2013, the United States generated about 4,058 billion kilowatthours of electricity. About 67% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), with 39% attributed from coal.

In 2013, energy sources and percent share of total electricity generation were

• Coal 39%
• Natural Gas 27%
• Nuclear 19%
• Hydropower 7%
• Other Renewable 6%
  • Biomass 1.48%
  • Geothermal 0.41%
  • Solar 0.23%
  • Wind 4.13%
• Petroleum 1%
• Other Gases < 1%"

What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA

My mistake. I stand corrected. I should have said "nuclear and renewables".

Thats what I get for multitasking.

when did the US last build a nuclear power plant?

It has been about 30 years. One has been approved and started in GA to be added to the Vogtle plant outside Waynesboro.

France gets 70% of its energy from nuclear. Are the frogs ahead of us on energy and in calling radical muslim terrorists what they are?

We are well behind in using nuclear power. Yes, France generates most of its power in nuclear power plants. Unless I am mistaken, I believe I remember reading that the gov't built or funded almost all of those plants.

So, on the one hand you have environmentalists screaming against nuclear power, and on the other you have people complaining about the gov't funding to build them. Those two reasons are why we are behind.

 

[WinterBorn]

Redfish, what is the price per kw/hr in France? What do you pay?

I pay around $0.10 per kWh in Atlanta. The highest rate for consumption in France pays about $0.13 per kWhr. But much of that is due to tariffs.

 

[Flopper]

No, it's not. 13% is generated by renewables, and the majority of that is hydroelectric power.


"In 2013, the United States generated about 4,058 billion kilowatthours of electricity. About 67% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), with 39% attributed from coal.

In 2013, energy sources and percent share of total electricity generation were

• Coal 39%
• Natural Gas 27%
• Nuclear 19%
• Hydropower 7%
• Other Renewable 6%
  • Biomass 1.48%
  • Geothermal 0.41%
  • Solar 0.23%
  • Wind 4.13%
• Petroleum 1%
• Other Gases < 1%"

What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA

My mistake. I stand corrected. I should have said "nuclear and renewables".

Thats what I get for multitasking.

when did the US last build a nuclear power plant?

It has been about 30 years. One has been approved and started in GA to be added to the Vogtle plant outside Waynesboro.

France gets 70% of its energy from nuclear. Are the frogs ahead of us on energy and in calling radical muslim terrorists what they are?

We are well behind in using nuclear power. Yes, France generates most of its power in nuclear power plants. Unless I am mistaken, I believe I remember reading that the gov't built or funded almost all of those plants.

So, on the one hand you have environmentalists screaming against nuclear power, and on the other you have people complaining about the gov't funding to build them. Those two reasons are why we are behind.

It's worst than that. Many environmentalist support building more nuclear plants because it will reduce CO2 while other are more concerned with the safety to the environment. If we put aside all the fears and bullshit, we would be building more nuclear plants.

 

[westwall]

once they become economically viable they will be everywhere and the guy who finds a way to make them viable will become the next Bill Gates.

Considering the advances his company has made, his name is Elon Musk.

Prior to Tesla, EVs were experimental cars that resembled toys or golf carts. The business was incorporated in 2003. They released their first production car in 2008. So in 5 years they went from concept to production of a completely new type of car. In the next 7 years they went from a production car with little practical value to a serious performance/luxury car that is very practical.

I am amazed at the number of people who seem to want to dismiss a car that won '2013 Automobile of the Year' from Automobile magazine, Motor Trend 'Car of the Year', and Consumer Reports said was the best car they ever tested. Not to mention that they were awarded the highest crash test rating ever.

Perhaps if state legislatures weren't wasting time and handicapping the sales, there would be more of them on the road.

At 60,000 for a base Model S, that is unlikely. Tesla has also benefited greatly from using OTHER PEOPLES MONEY. Namely the US taxpayer. The US taxpayer has been footing the bill for old Elon for a very long time. I would like to see Tesla prosper on its own. I would like to see Tesla live or die on the funding it receives from venture capitalists and investors.

That won't ever happen however.

Tesla started with a $465 million loan from the Dept of Energy. They paid that back 9 years early.

I see them doing fine once they get their production up. Right now they sell to high end buyers. But then, so did the initial car manufacturers. And not just car manufacturers. My brother bought the first VCR I ever saw. It was a huge clunky thing that set him back $2,500.

And every plant they have built has been funded by massive tax breaks. Every single one. The most recent one here in Storey County is benefiting from a 5 billion dollar tax break.

Considering the expenses involved in building a nuclear plant, they will always need gov't tax breaks. Otherwise they would not exist.

The new style nukes are far smaller, and far, far cheaper to produce.

Small Nuclear Power Reactors.

 

[Borillar]

My mistake. I stand corrected. I should have said "nuclear and renewables".

Thats what I get for multitasking.

when did the US last build a nuclear power plant?

It has been about 30 years. One has been approved and started in GA to be added to the Vogtle plant outside Waynesboro.

France gets 70% of its energy from nuclear. Are the frogs ahead of us on energy and in calling radical muslim terrorists what they are?

We are well behind in using nuclear power. Yes, France generates most of its power in nuclear power plants. Unless I am mistaken, I believe I remember reading that the gov't built or funded almost all of those plants.

So, on the one hand you have environmentalists screaming against nuclear power, and on the other you have people complaining about the gov't funding to build them. Those two reasons are why we are behind.

It's worst than that. Many environmentalist support building more nuclear plants because it will reduce CO2 while other are more concerned with the safety to the environment. If we put aside all the fears and bullshit, we would be building more nuclear plants.

I don't know about that. It remains a very expensive way to boil water. Then there is the matter of what to do with the radioactive waste produced by these plants. The public is rightfully pretty leery of these plants after the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters.

 

[westwall]

when did the US last build a nuclear power plant?

It has been about 30 years. One has been approved and started in GA to be added to the Vogtle plant outside Waynesboro.

France gets 70% of its energy from nuclear. Are the frogs ahead of us on energy and in calling radical muslim terrorists what they are?

We are well behind in using nuclear power. Yes, France generates most of its power in nuclear power plants. Unless I am mistaken, I believe I remember reading that the gov't built or funded almost all of those plants.

So, on the one hand you have environmentalists screaming against nuclear power, and on the other you have people complaining about the gov't funding to build them. Those two reasons are why we are behind.

It's worst than that. Many environmentalist support building more nuclear plants because it will reduce CO2 while other are more concerned with the safety to the environment. If we put aside all the fears and bullshit, we would be building more nuclear plants.

I don't know about that. It remains a very expensive way to boil water. Then there is the matter of what to do with the radioactive waste produced by these plants. The public is rightfully pretty leery of these plants after the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters.

Fewer people have died, worldwide, from nuclear power than from wind turbine accidents.


"In England, there were 163 wind turbine accidents that killed 14 people in 2011. Wind produced about 15 billion kWhrs that year, so using a capacity factor of 25%, that translates to about 1,000 deaths per trillion kWhrs produced (the world produces 15 trillion kWhrs per year from all sources).


Forget Eagle Deaths Wind Turbines Kill Humans - Forbes

 

[Katzndogz]

In Los Angeles people would love to drive electric cars. They don't. It's not practical. In high density buildings like condos and apartments there are maybe two charging stations for 100 units. Bristol Farms put one charging station in a parking lot. That charging station slot is the nearest to the door so it's taken by non electric vehicles.

So many EVs got stuck on the freeway that BMW put a small gas powered extender in their new EV just to get people off the freeway when they run out of power.

Hybrids are very popular but electric vehicles are a loser where they should be better sellers.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Maybe it would help if you provided a quote from Obama vs something you made up

There are about 1% electric cars now where before it was zero.

If you're talking about electric cars as a percentile of all automobiles/light trucks registered in the US (not counting hybrids), the number of electric cars registered last year was 130,000 compared to 247 million non-electric/non-hybrid light vehicles. 1% would put the electric car count at 2,247,000, not 130,000. This is why your posts have zero credibility, dean. You're not even a mediochre propagandist, you're just a bad liar and a lazy one at that. Typical useful idiot in other words.

Electric car use by country - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Average age of U.S. car light truck on road hits record 11.4 years Polk says

Another interesting point in the Polk link above: The average age of petroleum-based vehicles in the US hit a historical high last year: 11.4 years. Because of Obama's marvelous economy, most people can't afford new cars/trucks, so they keep their old ones much longer, and they put the maintenance money into them that keeps them on our roads for 200,000+ miles instead of 100,000 miles.

I bought a new truck at Christmas. The sales manager at the dealership told me "Today, the used car market is pretty much the new car market. Nobody can afford the new ones anymore."

Add the fact that electric cars, from the CO/CO2 belching, coal burning electric generation plants with which they're umbilically attached, actually produce 2.8 times the greenhouse gas emissions of any petroleum powered light car/truck, and warmies really look more and more ludicrous every day, don' you agree? Or in dean's case, more and more ridiculous every day.

Since coal power generating plants only account for 39% of the power generated in the US, your "umbilically attached" comment is accurate in less than half of the country.

In fact, nuclear energy (19%), hydro (7%) and other renewables (6%) account for 32% of the power generated, so there is almost as much generated by renewables as by coal. As these technologies expand it will overtake coal as a source for electric power.

What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA

So you admit (do the arithmetic) that electric cars ad at least 100% more in the way of noxious greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than petroleum-based vehicles?

 

[WinterBorn]

Maybe it would help if you provided a quote from Obama vs something you made up

There are about 1% electric cars now where before it was zero.

If you're talking about electric cars as a percentile of all automobiles/light trucks registered in the US (not counting hybrids), the number of electric cars registered last year was 130,000 compared to 247 million non-electric/non-hybrid light vehicles. 1% would put the electric car count at 2,247,000, not 130,000. This is why your posts have zero credibility, dean. You're not even a mediochre propagandist, you're just a bad liar and a lazy one at that. Typical useful idiot in other words.

Electric car use by country - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Average age of U.S. car light truck on road hits record 11.4 years Polk says

Another interesting point in the Polk link above: The average age of petroleum-based vehicles in the US hit a historical high last year: 11.4 years. Because of Obama's marvelous economy, most people can't afford new cars/trucks, so they keep their old ones much longer, and they put the maintenance money into them that keeps them on our roads for 200,000+ miles instead of 100,000 miles.

I bought a new truck at Christmas. The sales manager at the dealership told me "Today, the used car market is pretty much the new car market. Nobody can afford the new ones anymore."

Add the fact that electric cars, from the CO/CO2 belching, coal burning electric generation plants with which they're umbilically attached, actually produce 2.8 times the greenhouse gas emissions of any petroleum powered light car/truck, and warmies really look more and more ludicrous every day, don' you agree? Or in dean's case, more and more ridiculous every day.

Since coal power generating plants only account for 39% of the power generated in the US, your "umbilically attached" comment is accurate in less than half of the country.

In fact, nuclear energy (19%), hydro (7%) and other renewables (6%) account for 32% of the power generated, so there is almost as much generated by renewables as by coal. As these technologies expand it will overtake coal as a source for electric power.

What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA

So you admit (do the arithmetic) that electric cars ad at least 100% more in the way of noxious greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than petroleum-based vehicles?

Of course I don't. Even if you have only coal generated electricity, the controls on pollutants and greenhouse gases are better than those on the thousands of gas powered cars.

 

[WinterBorn]

when did the US last build a nuclear power plant?

It has been about 30 years. One has been approved and started in GA to be added to the Vogtle plant outside Waynesboro.

France gets 70% of its energy from nuclear. Are the frogs ahead of us on energy and in calling radical muslim terrorists what they are?

We are well behind in using nuclear power. Yes, France generates most of its power in nuclear power plants. Unless I am mistaken, I believe I remember reading that the gov't built or funded almost all of those plants.

So, on the one hand you have environmentalists screaming against nuclear power, and on the other you have people complaining about the gov't funding to build them. Those two reasons are why we are behind.

It's worst than that. Many environmentalist support building more nuclear plants because it will reduce CO2 while other are more concerned with the safety to the environment. If we put aside all the fears and bullshit, we would be building more nuclear plants.

I don't know about that. It remains a very expensive way to boil water. Then there is the matter of what to do with the radioactive waste produced by these plants. The public is rightfully pretty leery of these plants after the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters.

The Chernobyl design sucked ass. And the Fukushima disaster was not related to the nuclear plant itself, but to a tsunami.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- One problem- Republicans won't buy them- AND THE vOLT WAS ALMOST KILLED DUE TO A TIDAL WAVE OF pUBCRAPPE..ooops. Actually their range is growing- Teslas get 200 miles a charge now, 300 soon, stations are coming. Hybrids ARE SELLING WELL. The things Pubs politicize....a disgrace.