Cap and Trade

#101
#101
jwells said:
East Tennessee has the wind capability to integrate more wind power. The turbines near Oak Ridge aren't in the best spot, but South of Knoxville there is good wind.

I'd rather have another Nuclear plant, but given how hard that is to push through, wind isn't a terrible investment.
Click to expand...

The only other investment that is worse than wind is solar. Trust me, the amount of land you would need to equal the output of one nuke unit, not to mention the amount of trenching needing for tying together all of the miles of cable to a substation and all of the inefficiencies associated with windmills (high maintenance, narrow operating region, reliance on a steady flow of wind) make it the least desirable way to make power. Think about it, you can't use wind for your baseoading requirements and you can't use it for spot on demand power because it isn't reliable enough to be counted on when demand spikes, nor is it reliable enough to run continuously to support base loading needs.
 
#102
#102
Rasputin_Vol said:
The only other investment that is worse than wind is solar. Trust me, the amount of land you would need to equal the output of one nuke unit, not to mention the amount of trenching needing for tying together all of the miles of cable to a substation and all of the inefficiencies associated with windmills (high maintenance, narrow operating region, reliance on a steady flow of wind) make it the least desirable way to make power. Think about it, you can't use wind for your baseoading requirements and you can't use it for spot on demand power because it isn't reliable enough to be counted on when demand spikes, nor is it reliable enough to run continuously to support base loading needs.
Click to expand...

It's hard to compare nuclear to wind when it's damn near impossible to build a nuclear plant. Wind works, but you can't put it everywhere. It's a great bonus power source. We can't replace coal or anything else with wind, but it does work.
 
#103
#103
jwells said:
It's hard to compare nuclear to wind when it's damn near impossible to build a nuclear plant. Wind works, but you can't put it everywhere. It's a great bonus power source. We can't replace coal or anything else with wind, but it does work.
Click to expand...

I agree with you here. Nuclear is going to win against any alternative energy technology from a technological (and even cost) basis. The problem is that there are policy constraints (such as what are we going to do with the spent fuel) that are tying the hands of the nuclear energy industry. Coal would slaughter anything if you took emissions out of the equation...

Wind does work, but I worry about the fact that the technology is largely mature and still not as widely competitive as it would need to be to make a real difference. That is why I think solar may be more realistic, simply because it is far from mature. With that said, the land use problems are still there, just like wind....
 
#104
#104
Somebody needs to find how much spent nuclear material is actually out there. I've tried before and seen some conflicting information. I've heard as small as a couple of truckloads to various other larger sizes. No matter, if the environmentalists are just concerned about where to store it, seems like we could come up with two or three regional locations to just burry the stuff in layers and layers on concrete and lead until it become economically feasible to reprocess. This shouldn't be that big of a hurdle at all, yet it is the main argument used against nuclear.

And no one on line or in casual conversation has ever answered this basic question (which is essentially at the heart of the whole cap & trade debate), which is how is carbon dioxide a pollutant?
 
#106
#106
I suppose the EPA's endangerment documents will attempt to answer that. It is clearly not a pollutant in the normal sense of the word...it isn't toxic, it is fine to be in the air form an interactions standpoint with animals/plants, etc. Is the closest comparison CFCs? They really aren't dangerous (well..maybe they are, there is probably a lethality threshold) from an interactions standpoint with humans/plants, but they were believed to be causing negative atmospheric interactions that led to ozone hole problems. The corollary, of course, would be the (theorized) enhanced greenhouse effect for CO2. But, it's also not a perfect extension...it's not exactly analogous...
 
#107
#107
g8terh8ter_eric said:
I will bring something to the table here that no one else is mentioning as of right now.

What about the Fusion technology?? There are studies that show it maybe VERY efficient to use. Here's something I found from the Navy that I read and it makes me wonder why we haven't went this direction yet...

Laser Fusion Energy Using a Krypton-Fluoride Laser
Click to expand...

Someone else (or maybe it was you) posted a link a year or so ago about this technology.
 
#108
#108
g8terh8ter_eric said:
I will bring something to the table here that no one else is mentioning as of right now.

What about the Fusion technology?? There are studies that show it maybe VERY efficient to use. Here's something I found from the Navy that I read and it makes me wonder why we haven't went this direction yet...

Laser Fusion Energy Using a Krypton-Fluoride Laser
Click to expand...

I'll make a quick comment now, but I'll make it noting that I haven't had a chance to read your link yet. There is certainly a focus on trying to move toward fusion (see ITER, the international fusion program), but it is still considered very experimental and still far from actual application. I'm not sure what the sticking points are for sure...but I think that a big one is containment of the energy for efficient conversion. The actual energy from the laser into fusion energy produced can be quite efficient, but retrieving that energy may not be.....but like I said...that's a quick comment...not sure I'm right.
 
#110
#110
TennTradition said:
I suppose the EPA's endangerment documents will attempt to answer that. It is clearly not a pollutant in the normal sense of the word...it isn't toxic, it is fine to be in the air form an interactions standpoint with animals/plants, etc. Is the closest comparison CFCs? They really aren't dangerous (well..maybe they are, there is probably a lethality threshold) from an interactions standpoint with humans/plants, but they were believed to be causing negative atmospheric interactions that led to ozone hole problems. The corollary, of course, would be the (theorized) enhanced greenhouse effect for CO2. But, it's also not a perfect extension...it's not exactly analogous...
Click to expand...
Do me a favor, do a GOOGLE or Wiki search on how much CO2 is in the atmosphere by volume, then ask yourself if manmade actvities were somehow able to double this amount, would you think if it would really throw this planet into chaos...
 
#112
#112
Rasputin_Vol said:
Do me a favor, do a GOOGLE or Wiki search on how much CO2 is in the atmosphere by volume, then ask yourself if manmade actvities were somehow able to double this amount, would you think if it would really throw this planet into chaos...
Click to expand...

It's not the same phenomenon and the physics are completely different....but how much CFCs by volume do you think were in the atmosphere? Or, how much SO2 do you think was in the atmosphere when we were having all kinds of acid rain problems? While the physics are different...it kind of makes one question the validity of the "small percent by volume" arguments.

With that said.....no, I do not think that it would throw the world into chaos....

Edit: Also, it's worth noting that the concentration of water vapor in the total atmosphere is about 0.4% by volume. The greenhouse effect due to water vapor makes the earth inhabitable...we'd be a freaking cold rock if not for it. Does 0.4% sound like a big number? CO2 is at about 0.04%.
 
Last edited:
#113
#113
joevol320 said:
well we're one step close to becoming france. i hope the senate can defeat this.
Click to expand...
What the hell is wrong with France's energy plan. I'm pretty sure they do it pretty well with 80% of their power being from nuclear with a reprocessing system in place. And the fact that their plants are all centralized through government means a standard plant design that is safer and easier to maintain.
 
#114
#114
God bless government!

I wish they controlled every aspect of our life!

I mean, the country absolutely needs a standard lifestyle for its citizens to be fair to every one!
 
#115
#115
I'm disappointed in Heath Shuler. He voted in favor of this craptastic piece of legislation.
 
#116
#116
MG1968 said:
I'm disappointed in Heath Shuler. He voted in favor of this craptastic piece of legislation.
Click to expand...

So much for him being a "Blue Dog" Democrat...

He'll get voted out in 2010 for sure.
 
Last edited:
#117
#117
SGMVols said:
So much for him being a "Blue Dog" Democrat...

He'll get voted out in 2010 for sure.
Click to expand...

Jim Cooper is a blue dog democrat and voted for it as well...I would actually like to know how the votes int the coalition broke down and whether these two samples are indicative of a split over the bill or just a few outliers.
 
#118
#118
Weezy said:
What the hell is wrong with France's energy plan. I'm pretty sure they do it pretty well with 80% of their power being from nuclear with a reprocessing system in place. And the fact that their plants are all centralized through government means a standard plant design that is safer and easier to maintain.
Click to expand...

their energy plan, at least as far as their nuclear power, is the only thing they do right. Other than that, there is nothing about the French culture or government that is worthy of emulation in the US.
 
#119
#119
interesting article about historical CO2 levels...

Climate during the Carboniferous Period

image277.gif
 
#121
#121
Amen!

Cap and trade is nothing but a political pimp whoring off environmentalism, to gain power ,to people who actually care about the environment.
 
#122
#122
Cap & Trade Extras

"So let's just review these three items:

* Payments to those making up to 150% of the poverty line to offset the costs of the Cap & Trade bill
* A doubling of the EITC for low income workers with no dependents who qualify for aid
* An open-ended funding of Medicare and Social Security money to deal with job losses and lower tax revenues caused by Cap & Trade"

Cap and Trade Extras - Jamie Dupree on wsbradio.com
 
#123
#123
I have been unable to determine if this is true or just conservative bloviating. I would like to know more about this.

Cap-and-Trade Bill Creates ‘Retrofit’ Policy for Homes and Businesses

"This means that homeowners, for example, could be required to retrofit their homes to meet federal “green” guidelines in order to sell their homes..."

Democrats’ Cap-and-Trade Bill Creates ‘Retrofit’ Policy for Homes and Businesses
 
#125
#125
VolDad said:
I have been unable to determine if this is true or just conservative bloviating. I would like to know more about this.

Cap-and-Trade Bill Creates ‘Retrofit’ Policy for Homes and Businesses

"This means that homeowners, for example, could be required to retrofit their homes to meet federal “green” guidelines in order to sell their homes..."

Democrats’ Cap-and-Trade Bill Creates ‘Retrofit’ Policy for Homes and Businesses
Click to expand...

this is absolute BS on several levels. It's an undue burden and it flies in the face of "this won't cost people anything" line about the bill.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top