oh the irony. wind power project sued for violating endangered species act

#26
#26
sjt18 said:
Maybe you have a poll or statistics... but my experience is completely contrary to what you said.

When I lived near Seattle, you almost never saw those types doing those things. They were no slower to hit the AC when the temp got to 80 than anyone else. Seattle has a very, very temperate climate. It rains but not really like you might think. Most days are cloudy with occasional mistings. King Co is overwhelmingly left wing on environmental issues... but they definitely didn't live it.

Saw the same things in Chicago, Atlanta, Charlotte, and various other places I've visited.

It is a good part of the reason the left wants to tax carbon... to impose behavior change on everyone since it would be "unfair" for them to do it alone.
Click to expand...

No, I agree that the majority do not change their behavior any more than the average American has over the last 10 years (I think even conservatives have tried to be less wasteful, if only for economic reasons sometimes). But there are a few who practice what they preach. They're usually the smelly ones because they don't even want to waste water with a shower.
 
#27
#27
The only thing the enviro-nuts are holding back is Yucca Mountain. But that's not why the plants aren't being built. The NRC process is as streamlined as it needs to be. And the subsidies are there. The problem is that the capital costs, risks, and decommissioning still makes it not very economical. It does seem like it's close though, which is why I think a carbon tax would help kick start the nuclear renaissance.
 
#28
#28
sjt18 said:
Maybe you have a poll or statistics... but my experience is completely contrary to what you said.

When I lived near Seattle, you almost never saw those types doing those things. They were no slower to hit the AC when the temp got to 80 than anyone else. Seattle has a very, very temperate climate. It rains but not really like you might think. Most days are cloudy with occasional mistings. King Co is overwhelmingly left wing on environmental issues... but they definitely didn't live it.

Saw the same things in Chicago, Atlanta, Charlotte, and various other places I've visited.

It is a good part of the reason the left wants to tax carbon... to impose behavior change on everyone since it would be "unfair" for them to do it alone.
Click to expand...

you just decribed about 80% of the population of san francisco.
 
#29
#29
IPorange said:
But there are a few who practice what they preach. They're usually the smelly ones because they don't even want to waste water with a shower.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But I have personally seen as many conservatives doing things just for the environment's sake than I have liberals. That may not be indicative but the whole leftist notion that conservatives do not care about the environment is just wrong.

Like care for the poor... conservatives just tend to make personal sacrifice and change rather than demanding gov't force others to do it.
 
#30
#30
sjt18 said:
The whole notion of a carbon tax is ridiculous and based on pseudo-science.
Click to expand...

:eek:k:

I couldn't agree more!!!

Nevertheless king Barry says we are going to have to pay.

POLITICO 44: Whiteboard Archives for June 29, 2010

If you schroll down to the list of expected attendees you will notice that every senator with an R by their name voted to seat Sotomayor, except Murkowski of Alaska who is also the only one that is speaking out against C&T.

It isn't what Obama and his band of fascists want but it will be like the proverbial camel's nose under the tent, first he keeps his nose warm, then his ears, then comes the hump and it wouldn't be fair to leave his tail out in the cold and the next thing you know he is taking a crap on your Persian rug.
 
#31
#31
sjt18 said:
Agreed. But I have personally seen as many conservatives doing things just for the environment's sake than I have liberals. That may not be indicative but the whole leftist notion that conservatives do not care about the environment is just wrong.
Click to expand...

I try not to be wasteful, not because I fear the planet is going to go up in flames if I use an incandescent bulb, but because I try to save money. Its not that I hate the environment, its just that the economic benefits of 'going green' is some areas is financially beneficial. If a green idea is not cost effective for me, however, I will not adopt it.

I suspect many if not most Americans are the same way. We do common sense things like throwing our trash away in a bin, not on the side of the road, maybe keep the house a degree or two warmer than we'd like in the summer, and turn off the lights when we leave a room, but that's because putting trash in the can is common sense, and keeping the house a little warmer and turning off the lights saves us money.

The environmental aspect is a nice plus, but we're not going to declare bankruptcy just because an idea is said to be good for the planet. If the idea is cost effective and beneficial to the environment, people will adopt it, but forcing people to adopt the ideas by raising taxes will only hinder these efforts.
 
#32
#32
I'd prefer when the next generation of baseload power plants gets built, it's not all fossil fuels. Hydro has pretty much reached it's capacity here. And without a carbon tax, I don't believe nuclear to be very competitive. There's plans out there, but it seems to be very slow going.
 
#33
#33
Weezy said:
I'd prefer when the next generation of baseload power plants gets built, it's not all fossil fuels. Hydro has pretty much reached it's capacity here. And without a carbon tax, I don't believe nuclear to be very competitive. There's plans out there, but it seems to be very slow going.
Click to expand...

what's that supposed to mean?
 
#34
#34
Right now it's not cost (capital and risks) competitive with fossil fuels. It's close, but there's a reason not everyone is rushing to build them. Neither Wind nor Solar provides cost competitive or baseload energy. Hydro is at capacity. Energy demands are always going up and old plants are retiring. Without nuclear being competitive now, we are looking at fossil fuels getting an even larger piece of the pie than they have now. Seems like we're going backwards when everybody else is pushing forward with new technology. That puts us at a disadvantage when selling technical services to rest of the world. I just want balance.
 
#35
#35
due to its efficiency, it seems that nuclear would be the first energy sector to be subsidized by the govt ...... when's the last time a new nuke was built?
 
#38
#38
It would be nice to start building them before everyone who had experience building them in the 70s is retired. That doesn't look like it's going to happen. I believe the plans for this generation is suppose to be a 5 years construction time, but with delays, I'm sure the first several will be in the 8 to 10 year range. The Areva reactors in Finland are already 3 years late and looking at a few more. It'll definitely be a bumpy ride early on.

edit: I know we are building a few. But it's not the renaissance everyone projected. Hopefully everything goes well with Southern's. If they complete it on target and near budget, it will be a massive success.
 
Last edited:
#39
#39
Build em every where!

nuclear-power.gif
 
#40
#40
It would be nice to start building them before everyone who had experience building them in the 70s is retired. That doesn't look like it's going to happen.
Click to expand...
have we done the brain drain on those people or are we losing some of that know-how?

the french seem to be successful in using nuclear ... are we tapping any of their experience?
 
#41
#41
Nuclear power is not expensive. Much of the cost and time is due to having to win numerous court cases and jump through all sorts of regulatory hoops before construction can start.

The US economy can be greatly helped if we become a net exporter of energy. We are fully capable of doing that if the enviro-nuts will get out of the way.
 
#43
#43
I'm not necessarily "pro-nuke" for many other reasons. But pragmatically, it is the only realistic idea for getting us away from fossil fuels.
 
#44
#44
No power plant project is going to be cheap btw. Clean Coal plants cost in the billions. You can't practically get one wind farm at the Nuke level of production but if you could the costs would be outrageous.

The beauty of nuclear power is that once you cover the construction and start up costs... you get great ROI.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top