Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
wasn't trying to pin anything - I thought you'd said you knew energy grids etc you might have insight I / we all don't, that's all
Wonder how much more greenhouse gasses we created more then China 35 years ago? It's part of the industrial revolution thing. Maybe if we had take things more seriously we could have been leading a new type of industrial revolution today.
Not bad considering they have 4-5 times the people.
Nuclear is too expensive to create, maintain, and decommission. Im not sure anyone is actively building new plants.
Well, adequate storage and transmission is still a technology problem. I'm not saying cost effective generation is not a problem, but its not the current problem.
Because the government chose the winners.The government gave 100 billion to solar and wind. If instead they would have given 100 billion to nuclear that would have been the clean way forward and we would have less dependence on fossil fuels than what we currently have.
By covered you mean brushed under the rug. By far the number one place where there is the most potential to have a cost-effective curb of CO2 emmissions is in China. But no, Obama gave them a free ticket to grow their emmissions without any limits until 2035. The dems want to throw money at the least cost benefitial solutionsNot bad considering they have 4-5 times the people.
Post is to illustrate a point that if one insists on looking at a single metric instead of the overall picture, it almost never turns out well once perspective is introduced. Both the US and China can do significantly better than they are.
ETA: Sorry...I see it's already covered
I respectfully disagree. Nuclear is incredibly expensive. All the companies in building, maintaining, and decommissions, plants lose money. Also, we are not talking losses in the range of millions either.
No one is dependent on anything. Foreign oil is cheap and strategic. What's the problem with that?
Energy is not descretionary spending. Demand is not very elastic and our consumers depend on it for basic needs like heating and transportation. Once we turn off our spicket, it is expensive and time consuming to turn it back on. Once we become dependant, the cheap oil will no longer be cheap.
I would say US investors are too gun shy about investments that will return nothing for fifteen to twenty years and then need to hope that when the plant generates some power that its at a competitive price point. Also nuclear is already highly subsidized and for thirty years regulations have been relaxed repeatedly yet there are few takers. A decade or so ago we were supposedly in the nuclear renaissance but it all fizzled out as investors looked for "less capital intensive and more flexible technologies". Now if tax payers just spent $10 billion or so per plant things might be different.
No...by "covered" I mean "addressed".
I noticed you failed to address any points i raised. Seriously one of the crapoiest posterd in herr.
France has been the most successful country in the world in reducing per capita CO2 emmissions. France went from 10t per capita in 1973 to about 5t today, which is by far the best in Europe. And shockingly they did it while becoming the world's largest exporter of electricity. How is that possible? By large investments in nuclear where 70 percent of all their electricity is now generated.
To be fair, I only read the one in response to me so if you made "points" I missed them. None of what you said in response to me had anything to do with my post...oh, and stay classy with the personal insults. They are definitely the cheery on top of the fishing trips
Funny, it was you who made it personal who belittle my point and accused me of turning it into a fishing trip. Instead you ignored it and did exactly what you accused others of by focusing on your one metric and ignoring the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that China/India is where most of the world's economic growth is concentrated which provides the greatest and most cost-effective opportunity to incorporate green energy solutiins. Ripping out functioning energy solutions and replacing them with greener solutions is the least efficient. If you believe that is not a legitimate point and some kind of fishing trip, i would suggest your partisan goggles are a bit thick.To be fair, I only read the one in response to me so if you made "points" I missed them. None of what you said in response to me had anything to do with my post...oh, and stay classy with the personal insults. They are definitely the cheery on top of the fishing trips
Because it is in our nation's best interest to not be dependant upon foreign supplies of oil. OPEC had a gun to our head in the 1970's and we paid a large price. We do not want to return to that.timschochet said:
Do you also oppose moving electric power to 100% carbon-free? Which has absolutely nothing to do with oil...and where solar/wind is already cheaper cost than coal...and where jobs are better and higher paying?
I am all for green energy. But Biden plan is obviously to drive the cost of energy way up, put Americans in pain and force the issue. Not what he ran on.
I don't know what else one would call a reply that had nothing to do with the post they were replying to by a poster who wasn't even being talked toojon_mx said:
Seems to be text book to me.I don't even know what you're talking about here. What metric am I focused on and what argument am I making with it? In my view this is just more evidence, in my view that you don't read what others say.jon_mx said:
The bigger picture goes back WELL before the time in the last 20ish years where China has began to become an economic superpower when we're talking about human/societal impact on the environment. For someone who pisses and moan about people and hyperbole all the time you do yourself an injustice by equating rollback of subsidies with "ripping out functioning energy".jon_mx said:
100% this. Why people wouldn't want an achievable goal of a cleaner environment baffles me. Two r three generations ago you couldn't walk around without dodging horse dung.timschochet said:
The above is an illustration of the below...the response to this should be a doozy if there is one.
The good thing is that recycling efforts are well underway for solar panels. In fact, the U.S. should follow the E.U (see below).....where it is the law that solar producers are responsible not only for disposal and recycling, but paying for it upfront.
I suppose if that area's wanted that yes that's possible- what's the cost? who's paying for it?
Hey now, I grew up in Wyoming.
Sorry, man! Was trying to be good-natured tongue-in-cheek. The grasslands up Powder River way are a true national treasure...and agree coal generally doing a good job with reclamation.
