Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewjdeg
This is a poor analysis, but what can I expect from the Trump administration. I see two problems at first glance.
1. Failure to incorporate the cost of externalities. I'll give an example; Trump recently eliminated regulation of unlined coal ash ponds. In 2008 - one of those ponds burst in Tennessee and the cost was in the billions; this is now more likely. Moreover - look to Trumps attempt to weaken fuel economy standards. Sure - it's profitable for the automakers, but will cost billions when you account for health issues related to more C02 in the environment. This leads me to point 2.
2. There's nothing dynamic about this, it looks at the direct cost in one slice of time. For example, they need to model the effects of relaxed environmental regulations as it relates to human health. 10 years down the road, the revival of "clean coal" will cost us dearly - and it will be a lot more than $1.3 billion.
So many people getting duped by Trump and his cronies.
|
Actually, if you are all so convinced about C02 in the air...
Tell the nuclear regulatory commission to ditch junk inefficient solid fuel reactors.
I would build a liquid fueled reactor that generates far higher temperatures and safely, compared to light or heavy water which has to be placed under such high pressures to keep the water moderator from turning into steam/degas making hydrogen gas explosions a reality like fukishima and chernobyl.
The heat that could be converted into energy.... just looking at research papers from the experimental liquid fueled reactors from Oak Ridge laboratories... could produce easily 4 times what a current solid fuel reactor makes. Plus the fact it can burn up nuclear waste from solid fuel reactors, and in turn, provide no weapons grade materials, but beneficial radio isotopes for medical use by the pounds!
Sell that stuff off cheap, make money in volume...
Sell electricity generated cheaper than say what would be the national average 12-15 cents per kilowatt hour? I'd sell for 5 cents per kilowatt hour.
Devote one turbine that could power a city, to an air filtration tower...
Atmospheric air comes in. Carbon monoxide, dioxide, hydrocarbons brought in, filtered out, exhaust-oxygen.
Even if it's not 100% efficient. Say it manages to be about 20-30% efficient. Better way better than your logical fallacy that we need to tax company xyz to get close to 0 emissions possible.
Plus with gasses being filtered, you could brew synthetic fuel sources from it.
The amount of jobs needed to run and maintain such an operation...
The volume of electricity that can be generated.
Instead. Get junk vehicles because engineers have to comply with CARB and EPA mandates/regulations with decreased mechanical longevity in a fools errand to emit cleaner exhaust than what the engine breathes in.
Who do you think pays for that? Consumers. All of the costs of R&D, materials used for production. All factors into cost of the vehicle. That you the consumer pays for.
Figure a liquid fuel reactor runs 600-800 degrees celcuis. It needs multiple heat exchangers to keep the molten material from going super critical and melting alloys designed to withstand that heat and then some, running at low pressures but super high temperatures... you put a heat exchanger like that in a giant pool of water, with a decent supply of water to generate steam for turbines, or recapture xenon gas emitted from fusion/fission reactions to make use of heat to run a closed loop gas turbine to help cool to sustain the reactors criticality...
I could put one of those reactors out in California.
I'd kill multiple birds with 1 stone.
1. Cheaper/safer power.
2. Filter air.
3. Grab ocean water because Muh ocean levels are rising, pump that in to desalinate/cool heat exchangers. Sell the salt off to the north east to keep their roads from freezing and rot car bodies to keep the body shops in business.
4. Sell off cheap radioactive isotopes to fight tumors/cancers far cheaper than currently.
5. Burn off nuclear waste.
6. Employ 100s of thousands if not millions.
It's 2018.
Don't pee down my back and tell me we don't have the technology to reverse this green house gas theory, the only way to do it is tax tax tax and tax some more.
Kinda counters that whole notion Trump supporters aren't into science, mathematics, and technology doesn't it.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
