Biden: 'No coal plants here in America'

[Nick1911]

They don't want to build it at their own expense. They always want government subsidies.

And that right there is the reason I have a profound dislike for environmentalist.

Whenever I hear one whining about how there needs to be subsidies for alt. energy, I want to slap them and ask; "What have you done for alternative energy?  What sacrifices have you made?  Why don't you support alternative energy buying expensive solar panels that will help fund research?"

Oh no, that's too expensive.  Instead, they petition to make me share in the cost of their asinine, altruistic quest while maintaining a smug facade of righteousness.

I think the free market works, and that if there's enough demand for something, it will be built.

[Manedwolf]

They don't want to build it at their own expense. They always want government subsidies.

Put it this way: There's a company in SA that makes solar panels that can feed a small suburban home with its electric needs and fit on the home's roof. IIRC they're experimental now, but I for one would buy them when they're ready.

I can show you that same claim in Popular Mechanics...

...from about 1978.

Somehow, it's always just around the corner.

[Nick1911]

They don't want to build it at their own expense. They always want government subsidies.

Put it this way: There's a company in SA that makes solar panels that can feed a small suburban home with its electric needs and fit on the home's roof. IIRC they're experimental now, but I for one would buy them when they're ready.

I can show you that same claim in Popular Mechanics...

...from about 1978.

Somehow, it's always just around the corner.

It's those big evil oil companies!  They buy out viable solar panel companies one millisecond before they become economically viable.  Clearly it's a conspiracy. 

[MicroBalrog]

They don't want to build it at their own expense. They always want government subsidies.

Put it this way: There's a company in SA that makes solar panels that can feed a small suburban home with its electric needs and fit on the home's roof. IIRC they're experimental now, but I for one would buy them when they're ready.

I can show you that same claim in Popular Mechanics...

...from about 1978.

Somehow, it's always just around the corner.

There's a variety of off-the-grid people that use solar or wind for their homes.

[Firethorn]

There's a company in SA that makes solar panels that can feed a small suburban home with its electric needs and fit on the home's roof. IIRC they're experimental now, but I for one would buy them when they're ready.

The metric of 'feed a home off of panels on the roof' of power density has been met for years, even decades, especially with highly power saving appliances like Sun Frost* and the old fashioned clothes line or a new heat pump dryer.  The problem is the cost of manufacture.  Nuclear power can be construction for $1-3 per watt.  In a year a watt's capacity of nuclear will produce about 3 times as much power as a watt of capacity of solar or wind.

So call me back when the complete cost of a solar install, to include inverters and install costs, drop to $1/watt.

*They use about a tenth of the power of a conventional refrigerator, unfortunately they also cost almost ten times as much.

[Art Eatman]

I looked into solar power when I built my house in 1993.  The cost for a "normal American lifestyle" 1,400 sq-ft house was some $16,000.  About half the cost was in the inverter.  The bill for my monthly electric usage runs about $60, plus a $17 meter fee.  Call it $80/month.  That's 200 months to break even, if I neglect any opportunity value of the money, and ignore any maintenance issues such as battery replacement.  200 months = 16.5 years.

Solar panels are cheaper, now.  Batteries are nearly double (been to a car parts store, lately?) and the materials for an inverter are more than double the cost of 15 years ago.

Now, if you're off in the boonies and go with propane for your refrigerator, stove and water heater, you can get by with three or so panels, a small wind unit and good-used golf-cart batteries.  But you're not gonna run an arc welder or an electric refrigerator or a big air compressor.  IOW, it's a lifestyle thing.

Even coal is not that cheap any more.  China's demand for imported coal is quite profitable for some of our coal mining companies, and the last I looked, it was more than double in price.  Around $160/ton, IIRC.

Long term, if anybody really thinks homo sap's CO2 is doing the Globular Worming thing, nukes are the only way to go.

Oh:  This "removal of the ban" on offshore drilling?  That's only far enough out that the areas still banned are where some 90% of the oil actually is.  And it's possible that the phrasing actually institutes a ban on the presently-unbanned areas offshore of Alaska.

Today's Evans/Novak newsletter had this link:  http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/drillviiihe092408.html  

Art

[BridgeRunner]

We need nuclear reactors, and LOTS of them. Now.

And it's cleaner than "clean coal".  

And no massive new environmental effects to deal with, like we're already seeing with wind power, and would doubtless see with large-scale solar power.

Nuclear power: no one loses.

[freedom lover]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4281705.html?series=15

Cool stuff. American hydropower.

Edit: The USAF is testing syngas.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4283188.html?series=15

[Nick1911]

We need nuclear reactors, and LOTS of them. Now.

And it's cleaner than "clean coal". 

And no massive new environmental effects to deal with, like we're already seeing with wind power, and would doubtless see with large-scale solar power.

Nuclear power: no one loses.

Is there a solution for nuclear waste?  What does one do with it?  Isn't it radioactive for like, 50,000 years?

[Firethorn]

Is there a solution for nuclear waste?  What does one do with it?  Isn't it radioactive for like, 50,000 years?

And Arsenic's forever.

1.  What's called 'High level nuclear waste' that needs to be stored for 'XX' Thousand years is actually 90-95% usable fuel.
2.  A gigawatt nuclear reactor produces 1 or 2 traincars of waste a year.  Note:  That includes the shielding on the cars.  Newer reactors are more efficient, thus produce less.
3.  After recycling*, the remaining isotopes will cool to the more or less arbitrary standard of 'as radioactive as the ore it came from' in a few hundred years.
4.  Not to mention that you just reduced the amount by a factor of 20
5.  Breeder reactors don't even need the recycling, well, most of them.  For a breeder, reprocessing is normally done on site.
6.  After sitting in a cooling pool for 40 years, then another 40 in a cask on the nuclear site, it's substantially cooler, going from something like 200 hairdryers to less than 1.  This reduces reprocessing costs, and reduces additional radioactive waste from contamination.
7.  Your average coal plant releases more radioactive material into the atmosphere than a nuclear plant produces that's safely contained.  This is because a gigawatt coal plant can go through 200 train cars of coal a day.
8.  For that matter, more energy could be obtained from the transuranics in coal than burning the coal.
9.  Besides reprocessing, there's also a technology under development to bombard the waste with an accelerator - artificially causing it to undergo fission faster, incidently producing enough power to be useful once more.

*Don't the greenies WANT that?

[buzz_knox]

*Don't the greenies WANT that?

No, they don't.  They don't want any new construction or any new power plants.  Nukes are radioactive and dangerous.  Coal pollutes.  Wind turbines require mountain top destruction and visual pollution.  Solar panels cause visual pollution, destroy wild life habitats, and reflect too much light that could blind migratory birds.

Greenies are part time luddites without the guts to admit it.  When it comes to their own use of technology, they are absolutely for it.  Polluting the planet to save it is one of their thought processes.

[Manedwolf]

*Don't the greenies WANT that?

No, they don't.  They don't want any new construction or any new power plants.  Nukes are radioactive and dangerous.  Coal pollutes.  Wind turbines require mountain top destruction and visual pollution.  Solar panels cause visual pollution, destroy wild life habitats, and reflect too much light that could blind migratory birds.

Greenies are part time luddites without the guts to admit it.  When it comes to their own use of technology, they are absolutely for it.  Polluting the planet to save it is one of their thought processes.

No, the most extreme ones readily now say that they hate humanity. Look up "voluntary human extinction movement".

[Intune]

voluntary human extinction movement

Are we allowed to sign people up?    When does Hale-Bopp come back around?  I still have my ticket...

[Wildalaska]

I would rather have a Coal Plant than those hideous windmills ruining the view. Driving through Western germany this summer, I was aghast at the extent of the visual pollution of those windmills

WildlederhosenAlaska "

[MicroBalrog]

*Don't the greenies WANT that?

No, they don't.  They don't want any new construction or any new power plants.  Nukes are radioactive and dangerous.  Coal pollutes.  Wind turbines require mountain top destruction and visual pollution.  Solar panels cause visual pollution, destroy wild life habitats, and reflect too much light that could blind migratory birds.

Greenies are part time luddites without the guts to admit it.  When it comes to their own use of technology, they are absolutely for it.  Polluting the planet to save it is one of their thought processes.

No, the most extreme ones readily now say that they hate humanity. Look up "voluntary human extinction movement".

I thought that was parody.

[buzz_knox]

No, the most extreme ones readily now say that they hate humanity. Look up "voluntary human extinction movement".

I thought that was parody.
[/quote]

I've heard them describe it as a real goal.  Many of them believe that the only way the earth can be restored is if humanity (or the vast majority thereof) is wiped out.  They don't off themselves because someone has got to spread the word and insure everyone else kills themselves first.

If they could pull off the activities in Rainbow Six (the novel not the game), they would.

[Physics]

*Don't the greenies WANT that?

No, they don't.  They don't want any new construction or any new power plants.  Nukes are radioactive and dangerous.  Coal pollutes.  Wind turbines require mountain top destruction and visual pollution.  Solar panels cause visual pollution, destroy wild life habitats, and reflect too much light that could blind migratory birds.

Greenies are part time luddites without the guts to admit it.  When it comes to their own use of technology, they are absolutely for it.  Polluting the planet to save it is one of their thought processes.

You of course realize that solar panels absorb light, not reflect it.  They're designed that way.  Why you would reflect the light that you are trying to convert to electricity is beyond me. 

I am an environmentalist, and I am all for nuclear power, as a supplement to wind and solar.  I'm not for coal, nor oil, nor natural gas.  I'd much rather have visual pollution (that's what cities are anyways) than air and water pollution.  Visual pollution doesn't give me cancer.  Regardless if you are a believer in greenhouse gases having an effect on climate (and humans' impact on greenhouse gases), I'm sure most of you will agree that smog sucks.  So does cancer. 

I like hydroelectric too, but that is pretty much tapped out already.  ]

[BridgeRunner]

There really does need to be some way of distinguishing between environmentalists who are interesting in preserving as much of the natural ecosystem as is practical/possible and Environmentalists, who think that it's somehow holier to carry a steel water bottle than a plastic one, who abhor safe, cheap, effective energy in favor of Politically Sanctioned Power (tm), and who think people should voluntarily die to save the wolves, or whatever.

Sportsman (and I think I am the last person on the planet who thinks that in English, the term sportsmen does actually include women as well) are the original environmentalists, and are still the best and most effective at the job. 

[buzz_knox]

The point being made was about the lengths greenies go to shoot down alternative energy sources.  For example, they have blocked many proposals for wind power because of visual pollution.  If you don't care about that matter, go talk with them.

I've had the "pleasure" of dealing with greenies on a professional level.  At least, our side was professional.  I don't think you can call a side that takes extreme liberties with the truth in court and in public as being professional.

[Firethorn]

You of course realize that solar panels absorb light, not reflect it.  They're designed that way.  Why you would reflect the light that you are trying to convert to electricity is beyond me. 

Because the panels only absorb a fraction of the light, and tend to reflect the rest.  I don't know if this is a result of the process, or a deliberate design in order to keep the heat of the panel down.

I'm sure most of you will agree that smog sucks.  So does cancer.

And I think that most of us agree - where we differ is that we're looking for the cheapest, fastest, most effective method.

That's pretty much nuclear power.  Coal spews so much crud into the enviroment, while nuclear power keeps what little waste it generates safely contained.

[Manedwolf]

Anyone who fusses about nuclear should go near Seabrook here.

There's some silent concrete structures, and around it, quiet, clean salt marshes. Sometimes a couple of bass boats drifting around, and the hiss of breezes through the marshgrass. Meanwhile, inside, 1400MW of power are being produced. If they finished Unit 2, it would be 2800MW produced.

Who in their right mind objects to that?

[slingshot]

No objections here.  Nuclear power generation has been proven to be pretty safe.  The waste issue will be solved.  We need a good mix of energy sources.  Those sources include Coal and nuclear power.  I have no problem with wind turbines.  The problem is where to put them.  I view them much like prisons, everybody supports them for the most part but nobody wants one in their back yard.

More research needs to be done with biofuels.  Using corn is not the answer.  It has driven up prices and is probably not a good choice in the long run.  There has to be a better souce material than sugar cane.

[Desertdog]

One thing that I wish the electric producers would look at all the roofs that are suitable for mounting solar panels and offer to mount panels at no cost to the consumer for maybe a 50% reduction in their electric bills.  The benifits to the producers would be no outlay for land, no Enviormental Reports, just a building permit from the city/county.  And I would think that they could probably get a reduced charge for the permits.

[Firethorn]

One thing that I wish the electric producers would look at all the roofs that are suitable for mounting solar panels and offer to mount panels at no cost to the consumer for maybe a 50% reduction in their electric bills.

Why would the power company want to do that?  First, they create a maintenance nightmare of trying to keep the panels up and working, reasonably dust free.  Second, solar panels cost too much, preventing any ROI in any decent timeframe, even with government subsidies paying 50-75% of the installation costs.

The benifits to the producers would be no outlay for land, no Enviormental Reports, just a building permit from the city/county.  And I would think that they could probably get a reduced charge for the permits.

And instead end up in endless negotiations with homeowners, still pay 5X as much per kwh produced as building a new nuke plant, environmental reports included, and get sued everytime a roof with their panels on it experiences damage?

You know, I've had a thought.  How about rather than charging real estate taxes on the value of the house, you charged on the value of the land and the square footage of the house?  Maybe a modifier for energy efficiencyThat way you get fewer McMansions and more efficient/well constructed homes.

[Antibubba]

Quote
if you give me $4 billion I promise you, I promise you we will find the answer, Biden said.

That sure sounds fishy to me.  He could buy his own island and never attempt to find an answer.   It's his money after all.

$4 Billion to sequester Biden on an island would be a good deal.  Where do I contribute?