Bush hands enviroweenies a defeat

[Darth Wong]

Interstate tariffs within the U.S. are unconstitutional, unfortunately.

Unfortunately!? The prohibition on interstate tariffs in the Constitution is one of the best ideas of the Founding Fathers! America wouldn't have lasted long at all without it.

This has nothing to do with interstate protectionism. It is a simple matter of calculating distance and applying a sharply increasing fee scale for transmission. It costs more to ship something from New York to California via FedEx than it does to ship it from New York to New Jersey. Is this unconstitutional as well?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Global warming
Carbon dioxide and other chemicals like HFCs, insulate heat from the sun, trapping it... warming up the earth.
I would remind you that an increase in temperature of 10 degrees worldwide is what probably caused the permian extinction... wiping out IICR 98% of all life on earth...
Not a pleasant prospect in my opinion

Aly, please. You know that humanity doesn't have the power to cause that kind of global warming (you may as well argue that we could make the Earth shake if we all jumped up and down at the same time).

Oh no, we coud not do that in our lifetimes... but an increase of only a degree or two could be upsetting to entire biospheres.

Plant and animals need specific temperatures and climates in order to surive... especially ectothermswhich are often keystone species in many areas. An increase in temperaturein florida for example would screw up the breeding of American crocodiles(whos gender is controlled by incubation temperatures)

[Joe]

Well, technically that isn't a tariff, but no, that wouldn't be unconstitutional.

[Dark Hellion]

I am fully aware that it allows for pollution increases, I said myself the decrease pollution line is utter bullshit, but the plants still must abide by the other, albiet still rather crappy, clean air standards. I am just saying that the enviromentalists are fearmongering. This won't cause some kinda superpollution to come tommorrow, like many suggest.
I don't entirely agree with the way it was done, but it is better than the old system, where a $2000 dollar upgrade could cost millions in new installations.

[Darth Wong]

Why not use wind and solar in areas in which they could be used? Energy can easily be stored, and in places like Arizona the sun puts out a lot of energy.

Actually, industrially useful amounts of energy cannot easily be stored. Residential usage only accounts for something like a third of electricity demand.

Sure you would need backup generators, but these would not always be in production... and you would only need these if you didnt use a combination of nuclear power and solar/wind.

Backup generators are proportionally much dirtier than large power plants.

It is completely possible to run a house on a few solar panels here, and I have seen homes doing so.

It's a fad. It's also limited by geography, and its effectiveness decreases as you move away from the equator.

Wind is equally usable in areas that recieve a lot of wind, IICR some of the midwestern states Iowa comes to mind which IIRC has 5 times its energy needs in wind power.

That's because nobody lives there! Do we really need to generate power based on the whims of geography and weather patterns, and then transmit it over long distances to point of use?

Hydrothermal power I am sure with a few technological advances could eventually be used in some areas.

Sure: Hawaii. However, not all of us live on an active volcano.

[Sea Skimmer]

Why not use wind and solar in areas in which they could be used? Energy can easily be stored, and in places like Arizona the sun puts out a lot of energy. Sure you would need backup generators, but these would not always be in production... and you would only need these if you didnt use a combination of nuclear power and solar/wind.

You cannot easily store large amounts of electric, we already covered that in the blackout thread. Nuclear plants cannot be used as a backup for a solar or wind system because they cannot be brought online quickly enough. Bring up a cold reactor can easily take twenty four hours and requires a great many megawatts of power.

It is completely possible to run a house on a few solar panels here, and I have seen homes doing so.

Which is extremely expensive and impractical

Wind is equally usable in areas that recieve a lot of wind, IICR some of the midwestern states Iowa comes to mind which IIRC has 5 times its energy needs in wind power.

There are many areas which always have wind but no palce has a constant wind velocity, if your average wind speed is 10 knots and it drops just one knot you've suddenly lost 10% of your power. Andi f an area has a surpulse of wind power then you need the mentioned extra transmission lines to get it anywhere of use.

Hydrothermal power I am sure with a few technological advances could eventually be used in some areas.

Assuming you mean geothermal power, no technology will not let us expand its use because only a handful of areas are hot enough for it to work. Even places like Iceland with small populations and swarms of active volcanoes can't fully meet there's needs from it.

[Joe]

Why even bother with wind and solar? Nuclear is perfectly adequate.

[RedImperator]

Why not use wind and solar in areas in which they could be used? Energy can easily be stored,

In what? Buckets? That's the whole reason why we got into this electric mess in the first place--you can't store electricity efficently, so you need to have enough capacity to generate every last kilowatt you might ever need, even if most of that capacity is wasted 99% of the time.

and in places like Arizona the sun puts out a lot of energy. Sure you would need backup generators, but these would not always be in production... and you would only need these if you didnt use a combination of nuclear power and solar/wind.

Regardless of whether those generators are in use, they need to be paid for, and they cost hundreds of millions of dollars. And saying you're going to build solar/wind plants and suppliment their output with nuclear generators is like me saying that I'm going to buy a house with the change I found in the dryer and supplement it with a $200,000 check from the bank. Save yourself the tremendous investment and wasted real estate and just build nuclear plants.

It is completely possible to run a house on a few solar panels here, and I have seen homes doing so.

Quite true, but "here" isn't everywhere. And how much does it cost to install and maintain those panels? Above a certain price, and you're not saving enough on the electric bill to justify installing them.

Wind is equally usable in areas that recieve a lot of wind, IICR some of the midwestern states Iowa comes to mind which IIRC has 5 times its energy needs in wind power.

Power which is totally unreliable and would cost billions to harness anyway.

Hydrothermal power I am sure with a few technological advances could eventually be used in some areas.

Hydrothermal? I've heard of hydroelectric, a very efficient source that can only be used in certain areas, and comes with a huge environmental pricetag, and geothermal, which only works in very few locations (who gets the contract to run a transmission line from Mauna Loa to San Deigo?)

[Alyrium Denryle]

Assuming you mean geothermal power, no technology will not let us expand its use because only a handful of areas are hot enough for it to work. Even places like Iceland with small populations and swarms of active volcanoes can't fully meet there's needs from it.

Yes meant geothermal.

Actually, industrially useful amounts of energy cannot easily be stored. Residential usage only accounts for something like a third of electricity demand.

This I did not know.

It's a fad. It's also limited by geography, and its effectiveness decreases as you move away from the equator.

It is a fad, that, while impractical and not usable in some areas, is nonetheless clean. Environmental conerns will of course never outweigh the needs of efficiency, but that doesnt mean that they should not be considered, at least by individuals.

That's because nobody lives there! Do we really need to generate power based on the whims of geography and weather patterns, and then transmit it over long distances to point of use?

lol.. very true. But such power could be used to power the few tht do live there

[Shinova]

Fusion, I say. Solve all problems all at once.

[Utsanomiko]

Possibly make a switch to nuclear power, and renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power...

So that we can spend twice the money as result of having to buy an equal amount of backup generation capacity for when the wind doesn't blow and the sun isn't shining? Not to mention all the extra transmission capacity needed since such plants can only be built in a few areas andh ave quite large footprints.

Keep the nukes, dump the wind and solar idea.

Unfortunately, all the anti-nuke protesting over the decades has kept nuclear power (as well as powerplant safety and waste-disposal research) in this country to a minimum.

Sure, it means we're dumping fossil fuel pollution into the environment at amounts that would have put buried nuclear waste to shame, but at least we don't have to worry about "those scawwy nukes detonating an' the children an' Hiroshima an' stuff".

[Alyrium Denryle]

In what? Buckets? That's the whole reason why we got into this electric mess in the first place--you can't store electricity efficently, so you need to have enough capacity to generate every last kilowatt you might ever need, even if most of that capacity is wasted 99% of the time.

conceeded

Regardless of whether those generators are in use, they need to be paid for, and they cost hundreds of millions of dollars. And saying you're going to build solar/wind plants and suppliment their output with nuclear generators is like me saying that I'm going to buy a house with the change I found in the dryer and supplement it with a $200,000 check from the bank. Save yourself the tremendous investment and wasted real estate and just build nuclear plants.

I was refering more to individual ownership of home based solar panels... but... other than that, for mass use with current tech... points conceeded.

Quite true, but "here" isn't everywhere. And how much does it cost to install and maintain those panels? Above a certain price, and you're not saving enough on the electric bill to justify installing them.

I dont know... I will have to look into that.

Hydrothermal? I've heard of hydroelectric, a very efficient source that can only be used in certain areas, and comes with a huge environmental pricetag, and geothermal, which only works in very few locations (who gets the contract to run a transmission line from Mauna Loa to San Deigo?)

Brainfart, I was refering to geothermal.

And again, localized power... it need not be used to power the entire country.

All I am saying is that areas that have the means to use alternative energy sources... should, if only from an environmental standpoint.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Possibly make a switch to nuclear power, and renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power...

So that we can spend twice the money as result of having to buy an equal amount of backup generation capacity for when the wind doesn't blow and the sun isn't shining? Not to mention all the extra transmission capacity needed since such plants can only be built in a few areas andh ave quite large footprints.

Keep the nukes, dump the wind and solar idea.

Unfortunately, all the anti-nuke protesting over the decades has kept nuclear power (as well as powerplant safety and waste-disposal research) in this country to a minimum.

Sure, it means we're dumping fossil fuel pollution into the environment at amounts that would have put buried nuclear waste to shame, but at least we don't have to worry about "those scawwy nukes detonating an' the children an' Hiroshima an' stuff".

Ugh... damn anti-nuke protestors...

So what if the first use of nuclear energy was in the destruction of 2 cities... It is usefull and relativly clean(as compared to coal)

[Darth Wong]

So what if the first use of nuclear energy was in the destruction of 2 cities... It is usefull and relativly clean(as compared to coal)

Actually, the first use of large-scale nuclear energy was in a fission pile, generating heat for research purposes. Controlled fission is to nuclear weapons as the internal combustion engine is to a daisy-cutter. They aren't even remotely related on any technological level.

[Sea Skimmer]

It is a fad, that, while impractical and not usable in some areas, is nonetheless clean. Environmental conerns will of course never outweigh the needs of efficiency, but that doesnt mean that they should not be considered, at least by individuals.

Actually solar cells are chock full of toxic chemical which must eventually be disposed of. Individuals might take advantage of it but the massive cost of the cells makes it impossible to include it as part of any planning. Many of the few large scale solar plants in existence don't even use solar cells because of those factors, they use mirrors to boil water.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Even in sunny California solar is not always practical. To get a good solar system costs like 25-30K and you will not get a return on your investment for something like 10 years. Since most of us dont own a home that long, its just not going to happen on a large scale in the residential market. A simple system for heating water isnt too bad and its nice. We had one but the neighbors punk kid ruined with a gun.

Id hate to think how useless a solar system is for those of you who live where it snows during the winter. A couple of inches of snow on the panels is a sure way to lose productivity.

As for wind power, it take a lot of land. Land that is pricey in most areas that are close to the customer. The other interesting thing is the birds seem to kamakazie into the blades. There is a large wind farm in the Bay Area and raptors kill themselves in the blades.

[Knife]

Four other semi-conservatives(possibly Stravo, Skimmer, Stormbringer, and Knife) will begin to argue with Hamel and spin off into a completely unrelated discussion.

Hey, I reseamble that remark.

Anyway, I do advocate alternate energy when applicable. Unfortunately, not everyone can live next to a dam or have streches of vast desert with windmills lodged in them.

I am, also, not an advocate for big goverment. Yet, making sure the power grid works, is a tendent that I would expect the goverment to make sure WORKS.

[Thunderfire]

More pollution is always a bad idea. Dealing with pollution costs
money. Making powerplaners cleaner and energy use more efficient
would be a better idea in the long run.

[CaptainChewbacca]

The key to making wind power effective is to fully map wind currents in places where it would be implemented. One of the reasons it is so inefficient is you look at a wind farm and only half of them are spinning because the rest aren't catching the breeze. Offshore windmills of a large size could generate 5 Mw each.

Nuclear could save America, but we would have to start reprocessing and recycling nuclear fuel like european nations do.

People are right about geothermal only being viable in a few places: Hawaii, Southern California, and a few other isolated regions. Geothermal is not a "clean" power source, though. Rather toxic gasses get released by the drilling, and the plants are very maintenance-intensive.

Solar could lessen the drain, as soon as techniques for producing them more cheaply are perfected.

I love energy production discussions. Its one of my favorite fields.

[Sea Skimmer]

Nuclear could save America, but we would have to start reprocessing and recycling nuclear fuel like european nations do.

Restart would be a more accurate way to put it, when the US began building nuclear electrical generating stations there was a big grand some plan for the government to collect up all the waste and reprocess it before selling the new fuel back to the company's running the reactors. Congress pulled the plug on cost grounds after only a few years and since then we've enjoyed the current ever growing pile of waste.

Meanwhile for the anti nuke freaks no spot is safe enough for long term storage and no method is safe enough to transport it. It seems the ability of the designed transport caskets to withstand being rammed by 80mph locomotives and laugh at TOW missile hits isn't enough because if one where coupled up to a train load of aviation gasoline, parked inside a long tunnel and the whole mass exploded and left to burn for a few days the temperature might melt the container which would then somehow contaminate everything within a 20 mile radius despite such trivialities as "wind direction" and "its inside a fucking tunnel"

The stupidity is greatly annoying.

[CaptainChewbacca]

The difficulty is that congress doesn't think that we can process that much nuclear waste securely, and that some of it will get stolen.

Never mind that it hasn't yet happened in any country that processes its nuclear waste into fuel.

[Sea Skimmer]

The difficulty is that congress doesn't think that we can process that much nuclear waste securely, and that some of it will get stolen.

Never mind that it hasn't yet happened in any country that processes its nuclear waste into fuel.

Or the fact that the US already has missing weapons grade nuclear material and somthing like twenty missing nuclear bombs and we've yet to be hit by any rouge uber nuke. Such pesky facts...

[Thunderfire]

Never mind that it hasn't yet happened in any country that processes its nuclear waste into fuel.

Not true it happened if germany a few years ago.

[Darth Gojira]

I think this action clearly settles the Bush-Chimp argument.
No Chimp would stick his head in acid only because his compatiriots, although knowing the consequenses, want him to.



Gee, how did that soapbox get down there?

[MKSheppard]

The grid has to be redesigned for improved safety and the manner in which electricity purchases are prioritized must be rethought (for example, a transmission tariff which sharply penalizes long-distance transmission would create a natural preference for more localized power).

And how are you going to do local power without causing more pollution?

This allows power companies to restart up plants that they were forced to
close under Clinton-era rulings by having to pay just 200m to refurbish them
instead of teh whole $1.1 billion to bring them up to the EPA's pollution standards

I see that NYS is going to sue to stop this Arrogant assholes, only
they would actually dream of suing a company in another state for
doing stuff that's legal in that state