Cap and Trade

[Rasputin_Vol]

May as well call it a done deal. I have no faith that the Senate will put up much of a fight.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

May as well call it a done deal. I have no faith that the Senate will put up much of a fight.

I can't wait for the Mid-term elections. We should take back Congress once all this gets done. It's also worth noting that most people that voted for Obama have no idea what cap and trade is. Pander to the idiots and they will get you elected. What's their reward?? Less money in their pockets. I will have to get a second job just to pay my bills.

 

[TennTradition]

This bill has been watered down considerably since it was originally introduced into committee. The reduction is now 17% below 2005 emissions by 2020 and the number of credits is quite large. As is any compromise, it finds itself with problems for both proponents and opponents. For those who want to see cap and trade, this bill alone doesn't do much except establish a framework and start along a path. For those who don't want to see cap and trade, the negotiations have significantly lessened the financial impact the bill will have. Unfortunately, in doing this, it has created a bill that still costs something, but doesn't do a lot. With that said, this is how the first step is going to have to be.

I'm not sure how this will fare in the Senate...it will be interesting. I know for a fact that at least one southern Republican Senator threw around the idea of introducing carbon tax legislation as an alternative to cap and trade....so there may be Republican interest in the legislation, but those who may be sensitive to climate legislation are put off by the implementation. You have to think that there are a few democrats who really don't want to vote for it...though the concessions may make that more feasible. I could actually see this bill failing in the Senate...don't know....

 

[MG1968]

this bill should fail, even in it's watered down form. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

 

[VolunteerHillbilly]

How about coal producing states just keep all thier coal to provide power to their citizens and those in non-coal producing states can make do on solar and wind mills?

 

[joevol320]

How about coal producing states just keep all thier coal to provide power to their citizens and those in non-coal producing states can make do on solar and wind mills?

what's wrong with nuke power, i would rather have that than solar or wind.

 

[Daddy Gee]

coal-fired plants provide nearly 50% of our electricity... it's insane to make a run at further weakening our country with restrictions that other countries would never enforce on themselves...

the amount of power produced by nuclear compared to renewables such as solar/wind is not even close... yet the greenies don't want it...

 

[TennTradition]

If the government would get it's head out of its rear (I know, I know) and license a nuclear waste repository, construction of new nuclear power plants would take off.

 

[TennTradition]

the amount of power produced by nuclear compared to renewables such as solar/wind is not even close... yet the greenies don't want it...

As for wind, I agree....the technology is quite advanced and still not all that widely used. On the other hand, solar technology still has a lot of room for improvement and therefore a lot of room for growth, in my opinion (whether it be photovoltaics or solar thermal). At the moment, your point stands, but also note that if we don't fix our repository problem...nuclear energy use could drop instead of increase as the older plants have to go off-line and companies face a nowhere-to-put-the-waste scenario for new plants.

 

[Daddy Gee]

I wonder how significant the ramp up would be if we decided to start building them? Have we built any new ones recently (outside of refurbishments)? It doesn't seem like something that you could just start building..

 

[TennTradition]

I wonder how significant the ramp up would be if we decided to start building them? Have we built any new ones recently (outside of refurbishments)? It doesn't seem like something that you could just start building..

We have not built a new plant in over 20 years. We have brought maybe 2 (not sure...Watts Bar 2 and one at Sequoia?) reactors on-line that were dormant before in recent years, but those weren't new plants. The process is not fast. There have been licensing applications before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a number of years from various energy companies. I don't know if any of those have been approved, and if they have, if there are plans for construction. I think that Ohio just announced that they plan to build a new nuclear power plant (and I think that California has either announced it or is close).

We are at least 3-5 years away from seeing any new ones I would say...and that is if these guys actually follow through with the plans. I just don't see too many companies taking the plunge with the current regulatory situation. If a climate bill passes that isn't completely indifferent to coal, then you could see more activity.

 

[Daddy Gee]

refresh my memory tntrad... is it breeder reactors that would allow us to use/reuse more of the nuclear material... what is the reason that we don't use them more?

 

[Daddy Gee]

I knew that we hadn't built a refinery since ~'76, and I was thinking that it had been quite a while on new nuclear facilities..

 

[KB5252]

Can someone please explain how this is going to help the environment? Aren't there much more efficient ways to reduce our impact on the environment? Why are we going to tax our CO2 production when it has so little effect on the global temperature? Why are we going to do this right now, especially considering we are in a recession? Why isn't congress asking these questions? If they are then why don't they care?

 

[TennTradition]

refresh my memory tntrad... is it breeder reactors that would allow us to use/reuse more of the nuclear material... what is the reason that we don't use them more?

Yeah..it's breeder reactor technology. Well, that's one technology that would allow us to use more. Moving to a MOX (mixed oxide) fuel cycle would as well, and I believe that is different than breeder technology. With all of these advanced reactor/fuel cycle concepts, I think the biggest impediment to their use is the risk for diversion of nuclear material / proliferation.

Typically these reactors/fuel cycles create plutonium (I think that is where the breeding comes from...uranium breeds plutonium, for example...though I'm not a nuclear eng...others here may be able to help more on that) and that is how you can extract more energy out of the fuel than the once-through that we currently use. The problem is that plutonium from reactors like this, if recovered, can be used to make not just a dirty bomb, but an actual nuclear weapon (lower yield, though). So...that proliferation risk (threat of theft, for example) is probably the biggest impediment from a DOE policy perspective.

The capital cost is also a lot more - and the capital cost of our current system is already sky high...so that doesn't help either. It's possible that if we come to some sort of resolution about the proliferation risks and move forward with the advanced concepts reactors...but I think that the US participation in the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership has pretty much dropped off to nothing...so that probably means we're not going down that road in the near future.

 

[Daddy Gee]

kb,

we have pols in DC that are going to advance their agenda no matter what we think. one might say that they are liberals who want to help everybody and do the right thing, and one might also say that they are in the process of the biggest power grab in our nation's history.

I believe number 2. And, the sad fact is that about 50% of our citizens are so undereducated/tuned out that they will pull the lever for a Democrat no matter what.

 

[Daddy Gee]

tntrad,

From wiki, it looks like there are methods being developed that will "corrupt" the plutonium and make it practically unusable for nuclear weapons....

 

[TennTradition]

Can someone please explain how this is going to help the environment? Aren't there much more efficient ways to reduce our impact on the environment? Why are we going to tax our CO2 production when it has so little effect on the global temperature? Why are we going to do this right now, especially considering we are in a recession? Why isn't congress asking these questions? If they are then why don't they care?

It does seem like little effect on global temperatures in some ways, even if you take the IPCC numbers at the gospel. On the other hand, the polar warming numbers ... while not seeming THAT high, can apparently make a big difference (particularly if the permafrost begins to thaw). I've said all along that better analysis about the true effects of these temperature increases is a lot more important than debating whether or not CO2 causes warming....but that's probably because I don't understand how to predict the effects at all (and would like the scientists who do to present that to me more clearly).

 

[TennTradition]

tntrad,

From wiki, it looks like there are methods being developed that will "corrupt" the plutonium and make it practically unusable for nuclear weapons....

Part of the GNEP that I mentioned in my previous post was to conduct scientific research to build in proliferation resistance to the fuel cycles since it is the largest political hurdle. The last time that I had my hands in this with any detail was about 7 years ago so a lot could have changed - but at that time, the technologies were not there. Many argue that the fuel is so hot (in a radioactive way) that the real threat is significantly minimized because it would be so hard to safely extract the plutonium from the fuel, most terrorists would just kill themselves in the process. While this is true in some ways, it isn't a cure-all.

What I generally found was that any solutions to the problem were usually quite reversible. I suppose that there are some agents that you could dope the fuel with that would allow a controlled nuclear chain reaction take place (such as in a reactor), but prevent run-away reactions (such as those required for weapons)....I need to read to see if they're doing something like that. Possibly some sort of fast-neutron vs. slow-neutron sieve or something...don't know.

I don't see the proliferation problem as being technologically insurmountable...but politically it seems to be off the table (and has been for some time). Perhaps we'll get there...

 

[Daddy Gee]

Many argue that the fuel is so hot (in a radioactive way) that the real threat is significantly minimized because it would be so hard to safely extract the plutonium from the fuel, most terrorists would just kill themselves in the process. While this is true in some ways, it isn't a cure-all.

lol: :good!:

 

[droski]

obama got on national tv yesterday and said that it's a fact that co2 emmisions cause global warming. really?

 

[Daddy Gee]

if you say it enough times...

 

[TennTradition]

obama got on national tv yesterday and said that it's a fact that co2 emmisions cause global warming. really?

I would agree that this is fact. Largely, any debate is limited to extent and consequences....

...I would disagree with him if he were to say, on the other hand, it is fact that CO2 is responsible for all warming seen to date since the pre-industrial period....global warming vs. "all" global warming. My guess is he is taking the IPCC view, which would say "a lot of the" global warming is due to CO2....not sure if they can say "a lot" yet, but the literature generally supports such a claim. Though, some would disagree with said literature... (Fred Singer...)

 

[KB5252]

It does seem like little effect on global temperatures in some ways, even if you take the IPCC numbers at the gospel. On the other hand, the polar warming numbers ... while not seeming THAT high, can apparently make a big difference (particularly if the permafrost begins to thaw). I've said all along that better analysis about the true effects of these temperature increases is a lot more important than debating whether or not CO2 causes warming....but that's probably because I don't understand how to predict the effects at all (and would like the scientists who do to present that to me more clearly).

And therein lies the real problem. If it can be explained more clearly then why has it not happened? I think the reason it cannot is because at this point they are going on their "best guess". I have seen no concise evidence to support the claims that the rise in temperature we have seen over the last 100 years has anything to do with man. In fact we have gone through a cooling period in the last 10 years. Would that not be reason enough to pause and rethink why polar ice is melting? There is something else at work here that has nothing to do with CO2 it seems.

Here is a similar scenario, although completely unrelated:
Let's say you go to the doctor because you are having stomach pains. The doctor studies your stomach and after some thought decides the best course of action would be for you to have an appendectomy.

The doctor is making an educated guess without first understanding all the dynamics here. There is a chance it could be a ruptured appendix, there is also a chance it could be an ulcer, it could IBS.

The point here is it would be very irresponsible for a doctor to perform surgery without first knowing what the actual cause is. It is the same with this CO2 cap and trade bs. We are going to drive up prices on everyday needs, which in turn will cripple many Americans, all before we fully understand what is actually happening, and what is causing it! It seems very irresponsible to me, unless of course it is more about power and money, then it makes perfect sense.

 

[droski]

I would agree that this is fact. Largely, any debate is limited to extent and consequences....

...I would disagree with him if he were to say, on the other hand, it is fact that CO2 is responsible for all warming seen to date since the pre-industrial period....global warming vs. "all" global warming. My guess is he is taking the IPCC view, which would say "a lot of the" global warming is due to CO2....not sure if they can say "a lot" yet, but the literature generally supports such a claim. Though, some would disagree with said literature... (Fred Singer...)

The jury is still out. Even if it's a probable theory, obama should not be trying to push this down our throats by lying and saying it's fact. The guy clearly has no scruples about stretching the truth for his own gain. He's AT LEAST as bad as Bush.