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.
Not that I don't support nuke plants but that is BS argument, you could just as easily say "Dirt is more radioactive than Nuclear Power plant" under the conditions that article was written.... and yes I know exactly where that lame argument came from, read the addendum at the very end added a full year after it was published:
As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.
Ummmm no ****. Another great example of sensationalism that is so often repeated by so many people.
Exposure to radiation from coal plants falls under "other" in the graph to the right, it's fraction of 1%. The dirt beneath your feet or that granite countertop is of greater concern simply because of greater exposure, not that I'd go getting rid of it . It's really irrelevant.
Here is a little test I always like to use to see if people just recite green ideology or if they actually believe what they say. You want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but you site under development cost-ineffective technologies? Nuclear power is cost effective (more than that actually), carbon free, emits less radiation than a coal plant, and with todays technology and experience can operate compelely error free. Yet it is never site because the champions of the green movement really don't want alternative energy, they just want less. These are they champions that have herded all of you onboard without so much as an initiation to their motives or agendas.
Nuclear energy has a radioactive cost. But I would like to know where France disposes of theirs. If nuclear turns out to be a serious option and we can safely store the byproduct of its use then it should at least be considered as an alternative energy source. I dont think anything should be ruled out entirely, including nuclear power
I applaud your values, but they are not shared by most conservatives. If they were, then we would not have seen people drooling with passion as they chanted "drill, baby, drill" (even though drilling all of N. America's oil would result in about a two cent drop over 10 years).
Good grief. The reason to drill baby drill, is to get us off foreign oil dependence. If we were allowed to drill for our own oil, we could get by with only importing from Canada and Mexico. Maybe we can have cheap energy just long enough to find an alternative to our total reliance on the gasoline combustion engine.
The alternative on the left is to deny us our own oil, punish the entire country with huge new energy taxes, drive up the price of oil, and all fossil fuels, make us poorer, less able to compete in the world markets, and make us more dependent on foreign oil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
If other conservatives truly thought like you, they would be by-passing the government and using the free markets to churn out new technologies. They would be insisting that military protection and government subsidies be removed from the oil industry so that we pay its actual cost (more like $8-$10 a gallon) and level the playing field to a true free market.
There you go, making us pay $8-10 a gallon on gasoline will destroy our economy. Fat chance on seeing entrepreneurs having any capital to invest in alternative energy, when they are broke, and all running for the hills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
Instead, as always, it is incumbent upon the progressives to advance society while conservatives simply fight to hold onto what was, no matter how destructive it might be. When such a powerful element holds onto destructive behavior, they create a scenario in which government must step in and for4ce them along. It was progressives who fought to end slavery and for women's suffrage and for the very founding of our nation (most conservatives wanted to remain loyal to the British crown).
Once again, with renewable energy, we must fight those who simply wish to hold onto the status quo because it's the status quo.
It was anti-slavery activists who created the republican party, and men like Lincoln who fought for abolition, if you want to call them progressives for their time, fine.
But what we are seeing in government today, concerning carbon emissions, is nothing more then a massive grab for power, money, influence from politicians and their pals in corporate America.
I want a cleaner world, but I do not want to go about it the way people like 0bama and Waxman do, by enacting these draconian policies which will severely punish the nation economically.
You are using the word "conservative" in a manner that is incorrect in describing the political term. Conservative in a political sense stands for small federal government/government intervention. It stood to say that people were better managed at a local level, not a "one size fits all" federal level. It included fiscal responsibility and free market capitalism.
You are just saying conservatives only stand for "no change for what is now" which is simply not true. The founding fathers stood for these same things I listed and most certainly were not progressives by the political definition. Radicals, yes, progressives, no.
I understand what conservative is supposed to mean. Within the context of American politics, it has taken on the form of protecting the status quo. So, it's a regional definition, but valid in our country.
And, for the record, I am quite fiscally conservative.
Good grief. The reason to drill baby drill, is to get us off foreign oil dependence. If we were allowed to drill for our own oil, we could get by with only importing from Canada and Mexico. Maybe we can have cheap energy just long enough to find an alternative to our total reliance on the gasoline combustion engine.
The alternative on the left is to deny us our own oil, punish the entire country with huge new energy taxes, drive up the price of oil, and all fossil fuels, make us poorer, less able to compete in the world markets, and make us more dependent on foreign oil.
That's all well and good, but there is no correlating passion on the right beyond drilling. It ends there, unless I missed the subsequent chant, "Then blow, baby, blow".
Quote:
There you go, making us pay $8-10 a gallon on gasoline will destroy our economy. Fat chance on seeing entrepreneurs having any capital to invest in alternative energy, when they are broke, and all running for the hills.
I don't advocate for taking government subsidies out of oil. My only point was that if people are truly free market advocates, they should insist that we pay full price for oil and take our military out of the role of protecting oil interests. I'm simply proposing a free market solution. If you prefer government interference, that's your value.
Quote:
It was anti-slavery activists who created the republican party, and men like Lincoln who fought for abolition, if you want to call them progressives for their time, fine.
Republicans used to be the progressive party and Democrats used to be the conservative party. They switched in the early 20th century.
Quote:
But what we are seeing in government today, concerning carbon emissions, is nothing more then a massive grab for power, money, influence from politicians and their pals in corporate America.
I want a cleaner world, but I do not want to go about it the way people like 0bama and Waxman do, by enacting these draconian policies which will severely punish the nation economically.
Yet, without government pushing the energy industry, what have they done in the U.S.? Wind power was at 2%. Solar was about the same. They had their chance and failed to make the transition. Now, just as when the government built the interstate system and entered us into the automobile era in earnest, so too might Obama be the Eisenhower of renewable energy.
I'm not saying I agree with the tactics, but something has to be done and if the private sector won't do it, then who else can?
It was anti-slavery activists who created the republican party, and men like Lincoln who fought for abolition, if you want to call them progressives for their time, fine.
But what we are seeing in government today, concerning carbon emissions, is nothing more then a massive grab for power, money, influence from politicians and their pals in corporate America.
I want a cleaner world, but I do not want to go about it the way people like 0bama and Waxman do, by enacting these draconian policies which will severely punish the nation economically.
Your first paragraph does not represent the Republican Party of today. How foolish of you to invoke Lincoln and use him as your symbol of the GOP today. If you are a racist, and you are white, you are more likely to vote Republican than you are Democrat. Duh.
Your next paragraph better describes the corporatist's who are polluting the world. The same people who outsourced most American manufacturing are still able to emit more carbon emissions than any other nations industrial base. And much of this represents American comsumption, who consume far more resources, drive more fuel inefficient vehicles, and pump out more greenhouse gases than any nation on earth.
Those responsible are the ones fighting against climate change. Republicans like yourself support them. You have an extremely peculiar way of wanting a cleaner world. You sure dont sound like you do.
No one is going to get "punished" but perhaps more responsibility is required. And that is what chafes Republicans the most, they cannot stand regulation (or responsibility). De-regulation is what leads to all kinds of excesses, as seen recently on Wall Street.
Someday the climate changes will make it apparent to all the price we will pay for burning fossil fuels like gas and coal and oil, I doubt anyone can, or even really will try, to reverse the warming trends and their implications to us all. We all will be learning the meaning of "eco refugees" because they will become quite common
Nuclear energy has a radioactive cost. But I would like to know where France disposes of theirs. If nuclear turns out to be a serious option and we can safely store the byproduct of its use then it should at least be considered as an alternative energy source. I dont think anything should be ruled out entirely, including nuclear power
France reprocesses their used fuel as we did until Jimmy Carter signed a ban on it to try to get other countries to follow suit in a non-proliferation effort. It didn't work. Now we are stuck storing our used fuel until one day when we'll need it, and then go ahead with the reprocessing. Once through fuel actually has about 3-5% of it's potential used up, the rest can be unlocked by reprocessing. With the extra costs and all, nuclear energy if far cheaper. The only issue preventing tons of new builds is the up front build cost. Coal is about $3-10/lb. typically and uranium bounces around from $20-70 (there was a large spike about 2 years ago but it was artificial), so if costs more pound for pound, but coal plants need about 40 train cars a day (somewhere in the neighborhood) whereas a nuke plant needs about 1 every six years. There are your savings. If we lifted the ban, and reprocessed you could put all of the worlds waste in an area smaller than a football field.
The only issue preventing tons of new builds is the up front build cost. Coal is about $3-10/lb. typically and uranium bounces around from $20-70 (there was a large spike about 2 years ago but it was artificial), so if costs more pound for pound, but coal plants need about 40 train cars a day
???????? you're losing me here, are we talking just the cost of the fuel? Bit. coal is roughly $60 a ton. Market value fluctuates and also depends on the quality but generally speaking it should be in that neighborhood.
I didnt suggest controlling climate, I suggested reducing greenhouse gases and researching alternative energy (wind, solar, geothermal, battery, alternative fuels, etc..) because these greenhouse gases are proven to contribute to climate change by their very chemical properties.
No one can control the weather but if our lifestyle is contributing to its change, which it is, we need our governments to pursue alternatives.
And most governments are the reason in the first place and act for financial gain which is in contrast to preventing it. They in fact are profiting from it.
No, it can't be! I always want to be on oil. I don't want there to be any alternative energies! Oil is the only one that works and I refuse to change my lifestyle at ALL!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
Another great example of sensationalism that is so often repeated by so many people.
. It's really irrelevant. 
