No nukes No coal or any other fossil fuel for that matter No transmission lines in my back yard No current way to store wind/solar energy in massive amounts No dilithium crystals yet
... guess we just need to dry up and blow away
shrayas
· 1 year ago
yes to serious, bold efficiency measures (that means we get the same output with less energy input - not that people will be forced to freeze and wander in the dark) yes to solar, wind, geothermal and yes to massive investment to resolve the storage issues yes to smart electrical grids to improve efficiency and transmission (and any reference to "environmentalists fighting renewable energy transmission lines in so. california" is bogus; check out http://www.sdsmartenergy.org/index.shtml) yes to better public transportation, upping fuel economy standards, r&d; on battery technology and making low-emission vehicles affordable yes to a clean energy future that creates good-paying jobs, lowers energy costs, AND lowers ghg emissions to solve global warming si, se puede
riteizrite
· 1 year ago
drill baby drill, and fire up those nukes. the real security threat comes from dependence on foreign energy. this guy will be the first to complain the wind turbines are killing the red-tailed sparrow. enough. people first. usa first.
coco
· 1 year ago
The presumption is that we will need more nukes for electricity to run our plug-in suvs and refrigerated cooling in the deserts for continued production and service of oversized under-constructed sprawl housing. Not sure about the future of that scenario.
The need for nukes also presumes that everyone must be interconnected and dependent on a huge corporate grid of power lines whether they actually need the juice or not. The key to an alternative scenario is matching the local need for power with the best production alternative. Less wheeling and more customization. (If you want a nuke so bad, put one in your backyard ;-)
riteizrite
· 1 year ago
I certainly don't want 3rd world countries, or obmama, or you telling me where to set my thermostat or what vehicle I can drive. 70. 72, or 78, will not add one day to the life of the planet. Go nuke power! FYI, i have a oversized under-constructed sprawl house, an SUV, and use plenty of juice and 1) I love it and 2) if you want to live in a shoe box, I won't mind.
shrayas
· 1 year ago
the most recent data from florida power & light and other utilities is that the price tag to simply build 1 nuclear power plant is around $10billion. the latest figures for handling and disposal of the spent fuel rods generated by power plants is another $1billion per plant. this $11billion per plant cost is heavily subsidized by us as taxpayers - through direct subsidies as well as loan guarantees. is this really a sensible use of taxpayer's money? the price of uranium has been fluctuating a lot over the past 3-4 years - going through a boom and bust cycle. we would be increasing our dependency on an economically UNstable fuel source (uranium) by promoting the expansion of nuclear power plants. i agree that we must put people first. the latest research is that dollar-for-dollar, we can create 4 times as many jobs by investing in clean energy than in the oil industry. this is because the oil industry is extremely capital-intensive as opposed to labor-intensive; the nuclear industry is very similar in that regard. the uranium processing industry (i.e., mines and mills) is moving towards in-situ leach milling which is very capital-intensive. if we want to create good-paying jobs, then the path is clear - move towards renewable energy and energy efficiency and AWAY from the old, dirty, carbon/nuclear-friendly energy policies of the past.
benson
· 1 year ago
Joma, don't forget "no wind farms off the California coast or anywhere on the Atlantic coast that would 'ruin' Teddy Kennedy's pristine view." For the big energy problems going on right now and in the future, there are a lot of "just say no..." views out there. No nukes, no additional drilling (which still won't provide any relief for ten years. What a shock to find out people were saying this ten years ago), no to renewables (right wingers and Teddy Kennedy's coastline).
But thank God we have an ad. An ad that screams "We demand 100% clean energy in 10 years!" with not much else to it. It's like we can just click our heels and magically make it happen. I've got it! This is a "faith-based energy policy!" Now it all makes sense.
Shrayas, where did you get that data on the cost of disposal cost of the fuel? Because speaking with a nuclear scientist at UNM, the disposal cost of the fuel rods didn't approach that number. And somehow, I don't think the French are spending $1B on handling and disposal.
All Comments
No nukes
No coal or any other fossil fuel for that matter
No transmission lines in my back yard
No current way to store wind/solar energy in massive amounts
No dilithium crystals yet
... guess we just need to dry up and blow away
yes to solar, wind, geothermal and yes to massive investment to resolve the storage issues
yes to smart electrical grids to improve efficiency and transmission (and any reference to "environmentalists fighting renewable energy transmission lines in so. california" is bogus; check out http://www.sdsmartenergy.org/index.shtml)
yes to better public transportation, upping fuel economy standards, r&d; on battery technology and making low-emission vehicles affordable
yes to a clean energy future that creates good-paying jobs, lowers energy costs, AND lowers ghg emissions to solve global warming
si, se puede
The need for nukes also presumes that everyone must be interconnected and dependent on a huge corporate grid of power lines whether they actually need the juice or not. The key to an alternative scenario is matching the local need for power with the best production alternative. Less wheeling and more customization. (If you want a nuke so bad, put one in your backyard ;-)
is this really a sensible use of taxpayer's money?
the price of uranium has been fluctuating a lot over the past 3-4 years - going through a boom and bust cycle. we would be increasing our dependency on an economically UNstable fuel source (uranium) by promoting the expansion of nuclear power plants.
i agree that we must put people first. the latest research is that dollar-for-dollar, we can create 4 times as many jobs by investing in clean energy than in the oil industry. this is because the oil industry is extremely capital-intensive as opposed to labor-intensive; the nuclear industry is very similar in that regard. the uranium processing industry (i.e., mines and mills) is moving towards in-situ leach milling which is very capital-intensive. if we want to create good-paying jobs, then the path is clear - move towards renewable energy and energy efficiency and AWAY from the old, dirty, carbon/nuclear-friendly energy policies of the past.
But thank God we have an ad. An ad that screams "We demand 100% clean energy in 10 years!" with not much else to it. It's like we can just click our heels and magically make it happen. I've got it! This is a "faith-based energy policy!" Now it all makes sense.
Shrayas, where did you get that data on the cost of disposal cost of the fuel? Because speaking with a nuclear scientist at UNM, the disposal cost of the fuel rods didn't approach that number. And somehow, I don't think the French are spending $1B on handling and disposal.