Dems Join Effort to Block Global Warming Rules

[Pens1566]

Not when its motives are purely political based on shaky science, no.

Are you referring to the previous administration?

 

[Linflas]

So the EPA shouldn't be allowed to do its job. Got it. Then it can be just like FEMA under the last admin ...

Only if you believe that every breath you exhale is a pollutant.

 

[theamericans075]

Remember sulfur dioxide emissions from coal and how it was causing acid rain? Remember how that was fixed? I bet you'll never guess!


(it's cap n trade)

 

[theamericans075]

as a scientist I always giggle at people that have no concept of what those hacked emails mean in science terms (it's nothing)

 

[Atreus21]

as a scientist I always giggle at people that have no concept of what those hacked emails mean in science terms (it's nothing)

Yeah. Good science is always predicated on undergoing an experiment with a desired conclusion in mind.

 

[theamericans075]

Yeah. Good science is always predicated on undergoing an experiment with a desired conclusion in mind.

*giggles*

 

[Moonbeam]

Let's see. Coal provides around 45% of the country's electricity. Nuclear around 20%.

Based on conservative current forecasts, the U.S. demand is increasing, even with the economic malaise, at around 1% per year.

Where will all of this power come from?

In another thread from early last year, I advocated going nuclear as soon as possible. I still do and the negative prospects have not changed for the better either.

The Democrat Congress and the Obama Administration, beyond the BS rhetoric, are adamantly against both coal and nuclear power generation.

Most coal power companies have just given up on building new clean plants based on the government regulatory stonewalling.

No nuclear plants have been built in 30 years.

Companies started applying to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for combined construction/operating licenses in 2007 thanks to Bush reviving their prospects. Although no company in the United States has decided to actually build a new reactor, 17 companies and consortia are exploring the licensing and financial issues associated with such an endeavor.

The entire process, from starting the application to completing the new power plant, will take an estimated nine years. Actual construction will take about four years, excluding about 18 months for pre-construction preparation.

Unlike the old licensing process, the new process allows companies to re-evaluate their decision to proceed at various points in the process without debilitating losses. Some of these applicants will drop the projects due to the interminable government stonewalling, doncha think? Just like clean coal?

From a practical perspective, you have to use fossil fuels or nuclear to generate the required amounts. Nothing else, other than maybe natural gas, will suffice.

Mining has gotten much better, and each coal plant plant is equipped with multi-million dollar scrubbers, the discharges are mostly water vapor. So why not go there as part of a mix for better energy independence?

Nuclear, much cleaner than anything else in use, now has to contend with the Obamanites delaying, then canceling the proposed storage site at Yucca Mountain last year. A "blue-ribbon" commission of experts will study alternatives interminably.

Guess you will have to build yourself a water wheel generator in the back yard or buy some of those toxic (can you say silicon tetrachloride (one ton of polysilicon = FOUR tons silicon tetrachloride,) dusts, and greenhouse gases like sulfur hexafluoride, Sparky?) solar panels soon to keep posting here.

I think these folk are laughing at you, PJABBER:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KLNYlYGdYs

 

[Darwin333]

Let's see. Coal provides around 45% of the country's electricity. Nuclear around 20%.



Guess you will have to build yourself a water wheel generator in the back yard or buy some of those toxic (can you say silicon tetrachloride (one ton of polysilicon = FOUR tons silicon tetrachloride,) dusts, and greenhouse gases like sulfur hexafluoride, Sparky?) solar panels soon to keep posting here.

While I agree with most of your post, are you really trying to imply that the pollution from making and using solar panels is worse than the pollution of mining and burning coal? Seriously? All that other stuff from coal can be "scrubbed" clean, nuclear material can be safely stored (which I agree with), but OMFGWTH are we gonna do with the byproducts of producing electrical components?

As far as the rest of your post, I have said for a while that if Mexico was smart they would be building a ton of power plants right on the border. We don't seem to have a problem when OTHER people pollute, even though its the same air...

 

[her209]

Yeah. Good science is always predicated on undergoing an experiment with a desired conclusion in mind.

You mean a hypothesis?

 

[Darwin333]

Mexico doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of our congress.

Along with recently contructed plants, several super critical coal fired power plants are in various planning and construction phases in Mexico. The rail infrastructure and logistics needed to export a massive amount of coal from the powder river basin has quietly been put in place over the last 10 years. The 2 big players are Uprr & Bnsf. Most of the high voltage transmission lines are already in place to import the electricity.

We call this outsourcing. It was caused by an act of congress. I doubt that it will be as clean as we could have done it here.

Bet you didn't see that coming .....

No shit, they are already doing it?

I am surprised I haven't heard anything about it but it doesn't surprise me one bit that they are doing it. Energy is the lifeblood of an economy. We will use more of it every year as long as we are growing and we will pay whatever it takes to get it from whoever has it. I guarantee that, when we need it, we won't tell them no because they aren't scrubbing the pollutants or because they are dumping waste in their rivers. We will pretend it isn't happening, just like China.

OTOH, it has to be a LOT cheaper to produce the power in Mexico yet they will likely be selling it at rates set in the US. Cha-ching. Just a little more money and a few more jobs being directly exported.

 

[Darwin333]

The skeptic in me believes Nelson and Landrieu are just using this as an opportunity to get something out of Obama, seeing as that's what happened in the HC fight.

Not sure about Nelson but Landrieu can't support cap and trade. She is a Louisiana senator. Know what they have a lot of in La? Oil and gas production and jobs, she would be recalled within a month if she tried to seriously mess with the oil and gas industry in La. Literally entire regions of the state depend on it.

 

[Hacp]

While I agree with most of your post, are you really trying to imply that the pollution from making and using solar panels is worse than the pollution of mining and burning coal? Seriously? All that other stuff from coal can be "scrubbed" clean, nuclear material can be safely stored (which I agree with), but OMFGWTH are we gonna do with the byproducts of producing electrical components?

As far as the rest of your post, I have said for a while that if Mexico was smart they would be building a ton of power plants right on the border. We don't seem to have a problem when OTHER people pollute, even though its the same air...

You know that digging up all the rare-earth metals pollutes the environment far more than coal mines right?

 

[Sclamoz]

Let's see. Coal provides around 45% of the country's electricity. Nuclear around 20%.

Based on conservative current forecasts, the U.S. demand is increasing, even with the economic malaise, at around 1% per year.

Where will all of this power come from?

In another thread from early last year, I advocated going nuclear as soon as possible. I still do and the negative prospects have not changed for the better either.

The Democrat Congress and the Obama Administration, beyond the BS rhetoric, are adamantly against both coal and nuclear power generation.

Most coal power companies have just given up on building new clean plants based on the government regulatory stonewalling.

No nuclear plants have been built in 30 years.

Companies started applying to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for combined construction/operating licenses in 2007 thanks to Bush reviving their prospects. Although no company in the United States has decided to actually build a new reactor, 17 companies and consortia are exploring the licensing and financial issues associated with such an endeavor.

The entire process, from starting the application to completing the new power plant, will take an estimated nine years. Actual construction will take about four years, excluding about 18 months for pre-construction preparation.

Unlike the old licensing process, the new process allows companies to re-evaluate their decision to proceed at various points in the process without debilitating losses. Some of these applicants will drop the projects due to the interminable government stonewalling, doncha think? Just like clean coal?

From a practical perspective, you have to use fossil fuels or nuclear to generate the required amounts. Nothing else, other than maybe natural gas, will suffice.

Mining has gotten much better, and each coal plant plant is equipped with multi-million dollar scrubbers, the discharges are mostly water vapor. So why not go there as part of a mix for better energy independence?

Nuclear, much cleaner than anything else in use, now has to contend with the Obamanites delaying, then canceling the proposed storage site at Yucca Mountain last year. A "blue-ribbon" commission of experts will study alternatives interminably.

Guess you will have to build yourself a water wheel generator in the back yard or buy some of those toxic (can you say silicon tetrachloride (one ton of polysilicon = FOUR tons silicon tetrachloride,) dusts, and greenhouse gases like sulfur hexafluoride, Sparky?) solar panels soon to keep posting here.

Right. There's your typical fantasy story and then there is reality.

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/0...ers-its-first-long-awaited-nuclear-71731.html

"The Obama administration yesterday pledged a conditional $8.3 billion loan guarantee to support the construction of two nuclear reactors in Georgia, which would be the first new U.S. nuclear plants in more than three decades. More commitments are on the way, officials said."

 

[Hacp]

Right. There's your typical fantasy story and then there is reality.

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/0...ers-its-first-long-awaited-nuclear-71731.html

"The Obama administration yesterday pledged a conditional $8.3 billion loan guarantee to support the construction of two nuclear reactors in Georgia, which would be the first new U.S. nuclear plants in more than three decades. More commitments are on the way, officials said."

That is the WRONG way to do it. You don't spur nuclear development by choosing winners and giving them taxpayer handouts. You do it by tearing down regulation and making it easier for a wide variety of companies to come in and start building.

 

[monovillage]

as a scientist I always giggle at people that have no concept of what those hacked emails mean in science terms (it's nothing)

Sorry, but political science is to Science as tiddlywinks is to sports......... it doesn't really count.

 

[Sclamoz]

That is the WRONG way to do it. You don't spur nuclear development by choosing winners and giving them taxpayer handouts. You do it by tearing down regulation and making it easier for a wide variety of companies to come in and start building.

Of course! Get rid of regulations on nuclear power, what a brilliant idea! Which regulations should we start with?

 

[Hacp]

Of course! Get rid of regulations on nuclear power, what a brilliant idea! Which regulations should we start with?

The ones that require approval of the town or city you build the plant in? Let people build plants anywhere they want as long as they buy the land. Too many protesters and environmental wackos block this shit.

Also, make the approval process from the federal govenrment, I think its the NRC automatic. Approve it if its a design that other countries use, let them start building, THEN inspect/check whats up after they break ground.

 

[werepossum]

I'm pretty pro-nuclear power but I don't like the ideas of taking away the local control or removing regulations. I do like the idea of eliminating the nuisance lawsuits if it could be done, but considering the massive ecological repercussions of adding that much centralized heat to existing aquatic systems I want as much ecological review as possible.

Personally I doubt this is more than political pandering. If SCOTUS says something must be done, and it's not set in law by Congress, it usually devolves to the executive branch agencies which in my mind is a bad thing.

 

[Ozoned]

Right. There's your typical fantasy story and then there is reality.

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/0...ers-its-first-long-awaited-nuclear-71731.html

"The Obama administration yesterday pledged a conditional $8.3 billion loan guarantee to support the construction of two nuclear reactors in Georgia, which would be the first new U.S. nuclear plants in more than three decades. More commitments are on the way, officials said."

And then there is real reality with clean coal plants already under construction

This one is in In Obamas back yard.

IIRC the DOE has approved loan guarantees for more than 10 similar COAL plants.

 

[Darwin333]

You know that digging up all the rare-earth metals pollutes the environment far more than coal mines right?

I am not an expert in mining but I have a hard time believing that producing and using solar panels is "far more polluting" than mining and burning coal as it is done today. I am also curious of the "ratio" of materials needed. I deal with solar after the panels have been made and delivered. Even if what you say is absolutely true, we can either make them here with much less pollution (and jobs, economic benefits, etc...) or we can buy them from China. One way or the other we are gonna buy them just like any other source of power.

I still have a very hard time believing that pollutants released into the environment are even remotely close. A solar panel will produce power for decades with no pollution beyond the manufacturing and raw materials. On the production side, I have been told the pollutants are very manageable and rarely make it into the environment.

To be clear, I am also a fan of traditional power sources but the reality is we aren't going to be allowed to build much of it until the shit really hits the fan. By then it will be too late but it seems Mexico will be glad to take our money just like all the people who sell us oil. Again, I am a fan of drilling for our own oil but it won't happen in any meaningful way either. The lawyers own the damned country and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

At least investing in solar provides us with a real tangible asset that will continue to have value for decades to come while helping alleviate our growing power issues AND we can actually do it right now, today.

 

[Darwin333]

The ones that require approval of the town or city you build the plant in? Let people build plants anywhere they want as long as they buy the land. Too many protesters and environmental wackos block this shit.

Also, make the approval process from the federal govenrment, I think its the NRC automatic. Approve it if its a design that other countries use, let them start building, THEN inspect/check whats up after they break ground.

Not much of a states rights person are you? Tons of places where people WANT you to build nuke plants in their areas, no need to force them. The lawyers are indeed a problem but there has to be a better way than fucking over towns/states.

 

[Sclamoz]

And then there is real reality with clean coal plants already under construction

This one is in In Obamas back yard.

IIRC the DOE has approved loan guarantees for more than 10 similar COAL plants.

and? I have no problem with new coal plants. I would prefer nuclear but the more the better. Maybe you should read the post I was responding to before speaking?

In another thread from early last year, I advocated going nuclear as soon as possible. I still do and the negative prospects have not changed for the better either.

The Democrat Congress and the Obama Administration, beyond the BS rhetoric, are adamantly against both coal and nuclear power generation.

The ones that require approval of the town or city you build the plant in? Let people build plants anywhere they want as long as they buy the land. Too many protesters and environmental wackos block this shit.

Also, make the approval process from the federal govenrment, I think its the NRC automatic. Approve it if its a design that other countries use, let them start building, THEN inspect/check whats up after they break ground.

So you want to take the power away from the local government and the people living in the area to decide if a nuclear plant should be built and give it only the federal government?

 

[Hacp]

and? I have no problem with new coal plants. I would prefer nuclear but the more the better. Maybe you should read the post I was responding to before speaking?





So you want to take the power away from the local government and the people living in the area to decide if a nuclear plant should be built and give it only the federal government?

Neither government should have the right to approve the location. If the company buys the land and can provide adequate security/etc then it should be able to build the plant on the piece of land it buys. It is not giving more power to the federal government. It is taking power away from state AND federal government and giving it back to the people.

 

[monovillage]

You can't make this stuff up.
New study "Climate change "makes birds shrink" in North America.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8560000/8560694.stm

from the same BBC mag.

"Great tits cope well with warming"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7390109.stm

 

[NeoV]

PJabber - please stop reading the "lies to use to shoot down global warming believers" blogs..

your comments about coal are, at best, horribly inaccurate

Coal-burning power plants are the largest U.S. source of carbon dioxide pollution -- they produce 2.5 billion tons every year. Automobiles, the second largest source, create nearly 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually.

Now - I'll agree with you on Nuclear power being an excellent alternative, but let's not pretend that our current batch of active coal plants in the US are, on the whole - not harmful to the air we all live in