Turds in Congress have chosen the most expensive (least efficient) form of biofuel

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Well, let's see.

I can plant, harvest, and spray round-up ready corn with well under 2 gallons of diesel fuel used per acer. Without fertilizing I could grow about 50 to 60 bushel of corn on that acer.

Each bushel will produce 2.7 to 2.8 gallons of ethanol. Lets round that to a conservative 140 gallons of fuel.

With fertilizing I can grow 100 to 120 bushel of corn per acer or about 300 gallons of ethanol per acer.

I could do this on 500 acers for 30 years with one tractor and one combine and never wear them out.

Now, I just don't see how anybody could really believe how there could be a net energy loss from making corn into ethanol.

Another thing. Everyone likes to throw the "subsidize" word around. Do you ever stop to think that a bigger demand for corn increases the price, which decreases the amount of money paid to the farmer in subsidy?
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
You know what they say about statisitics.

You seem to be critical of everything, what do you suggest we do to keep the electricty up and running?

I suggest that we use energy that is cheap, efficient and the least polluting.
This rules out ethanol (expensive), nuclear(expensive and polluting) and biodiesel (polluting). This still leaves us natural gas, hydro, solar, wind, and oil.
Why do right-wingers always want to use unproven, expensive means to produce power?
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
You know what they say about statisitics.

You seem to be critical of everything, what do you suggest we do to keep the electricty up and running?

I suggest that we use energy that is cheap, efficient and the least polluting.
This rules out ethanol (expensive), nuclear(expensive and polluting) and biodiesel (polluting). This still leaves us natural gas, hydro, solar, wind, and oil.
Why do right-wingers always want to use unproven, expensive means to produce power?

Well, you haven't proven any of what you just said to be true.

Have there been any studies done on what the long term effects that extensive use of solar and wind energy might be? Would it change the weather patterns/climates?

 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
You know what they say about statisitics.

You seem to be critical of everything, what do you suggest we do to keep the electricty up and running?

I suggest that we use energy that is cheap, efficient and the least polluting.
This rules out ethanol (expensive), nuclear(expensive and polluting) and biodiesel (polluting). This still leaves us natural gas, hydro, solar, wind, and oil.
Why do right-wingers always want to use unproven, expensive means to produce power?

Well, you haven't proven any of what you just said to be true.

Have there been any studies done on what the long term effects that extensive use of solar and wind energy might be? Would it change the weather patterns/climates?

So now you're concerned about the impacts of solar and wind energy? You've suddenly become an environmentalist? But nuclear enery is so safe we have to have the Federal Govt insure them against accidents.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
You know what they say about statisitics.

You seem to be critical of everything, what do you suggest we do to keep the electricty up and running?

I suggest that we use energy that is cheap, efficient and the least polluting.
This rules out ethanol (expensive), nuclear(expensive and polluting) and biodiesel (polluting). This still leaves us natural gas, hydro, solar, wind, and oil.
Why do right-wingers always want to use unproven, expensive means to produce power?

Well, you haven't proven any of what you just said to be true.

Have there been any studies done on what the long term effects that extensive use of solar and wind energy might be? Would it change the weather patterns/climates?

So now you're concerned about the impacts of solar and wind energy? You've suddenly become an environmentalist? But nuclear enery is so safe we have to have the Federal Govt insure them against accidents.

Your the one representing yourself as the mean green enviromentalist here, you mean you don't know about the long term ramifacations of solar or wind energy? If you don't know just say so. It's beginging to appear to me that your green..... behind the ears, and maybe just a tad wet too.

 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
You know what they say about statisitics.

You seem to be critical of everything, what do you suggest we do to keep the electricty up and running?

I suggest that we use energy that is cheap, efficient and the least polluting.
This rules out ethanol (expensive), nuclear(expensive and polluting) and biodiesel (polluting). This still leaves us natural gas, hydro, solar, wind, and oil.
Why do right-wingers always want to use unproven, expensive means to produce power?

Well, you haven't proven any of what you just said to be true.

Have there been any studies done on what the long term effects that extensive use of solar and wind energy might be? Would it change the weather patterns/climates?

So now you're concerned about the impacts of solar and wind energy? You've suddenly become an environmentalist? But nuclear enery is so safe we have to have the Federal Govt insure them against accidents.

Your the one representing yourself as the mean green enviromentalist here, you mean you don't know about the long term ramifacations of solar or wind energy? If you don't know just say so. It's beginging to appear to me that your green..... behind the ears, and maybe just a tad wet too.

When did I ever say I was an environmentalist? You're scared of the environmental impacts of solar or wind energy? Obviously we don't know, it's never been tried on a large scale. The fact that we have to store nuclear waste for 250,000 years is ok, right?
We know the use of oil causes all kinds of pollution, that's Ok? Are you a closet enviro
freak, worried about the pollution from solar and wind?
Get back to the topic, do you support the use of the most expensive form of biofuel?
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Why don't you read the thread? I've already said I support ethanol and burn it in all my vehicles. Hell, as a farmer I can't wait until I can produce all my own energy and food. Then they can take their subsidies and put them them where the sun don't shine.

I haven't tried biodiesel yet. From what I hear it doesn't have enough lubricity for pulling heavy loads, such as a tractor pulls, but when they get the kinks worked out i will use it too.

I also live in an area where several companies have come in and are trying to buy up people's wind energy rights. A local electircal coop even put up a small wind farm in the next county and they put a wind measure station to gather more exact data up less then a mile away from me.

But, as i said earlier, I think ALL areas need to be investigated, including nuclear.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Why don't you read the thread? I've already said I support ethanol and burn it in all my vehicles. Hell, as a farmer I can't wait until I can produce all my own energy and food. Then they can take their subsidies and put them them where the sun don't shine.

I haven't tried biodiesel yet. From what I hear it doesn't have enough lubricity for pulling heavy loads, such as a tractor pulls, but when they get the kinks worked out i will use it too.

I also live in an area where several companies have come in and are trying to buy up people's wind energy rights. A local electircal coop even put up a small wind farm in the next county and they put a wind measure station to gather more exact data up less then a mile away from me.

But, as i said earlier, I think ALL areas need to be investigated, including nuclear.

So it's ok to have a govt mandated ethanol additive, even if it is more expensive, and
basically a political handout to the red states, and hurts our economy.
How about we mandate the use of solar energy, and make you pay for it?
You might want to look into photovoltaics, my buddy had a system installed on his roof, and his energy bill has now dropped to near zero.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Why don't you read the thread? I've already said I support ethanol and burn it in all my vehicles. Hell, as a farmer I can't wait until I can produce all my own energy and food. Then they can take their subsidies and put them them where the sun don't shine.

I haven't tried biodiesel yet. From what I hear it doesn't have enough lubricity for pulling heavy loads, such as a tractor pulls, but when they get the kinks worked out i will use it too.

I also live in an area where several companies have come in and are trying to buy up people's wind energy rights. A local electircal coop even put up a small wind farm in the next county and they put a wind measure station to gather more exact data up less then a mile away from me.

But, as i said earlier, I think ALL areas need to be investigated, including nuclear.

So it's ok to have a govt mandated ethanol additive, even if it is more expensive, and
basically a political handout to the red states, and hurts our economy.
How about we mandate the use of solar energy, and make you pay for it?
You might want to look into photovoltaics, my buddy had a system installed on his roof, and his energy bill has now dropped to near zero.

Nobody is making anybody burn ethanol.

Hmm, even though I hate Bush, I live in a red state, so I guess that just makes me expendable in your eyes?

Put up all the damn solar panels you have the money for and see if I care.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,159
47,367
136
Originally posted by: marincounty
The true economies of the nuclear industry are never fully accounted for. The cost of uranium enrichment is subsidized by the U.S. government. The true cost of the industry's liability in the case of an accident in the United States is estimated to be $560 billion, but the industry pays $9.1 billion -- 98 percent of the insurance liability is covered by the federal government. The cost of decommissioning all the existing U.S. nuclear reactors is estimated to be $33 billion. These costs -- plus the enormous expense involved in the storage of radioactive waste for a quarter of a million years -- are not included in the economic assessments of nuclear electricity.

It is said that nuclear power is emission-free. The truth is very different.

In the United States, where much of the world's uranium is enriched, including

Australia's, the enrichment facility at Paducah, Ky., requires the electrical output of two 1,000-megawatt coal-fired plants, which emit large quantities of carbon dioxide, the gas responsible for 50 percent of global warming.

Also, this enrichment facility and another at Portsmouth, Ohio, release from leaky pipes 93 percent of the chlorofluorocarbon gas emitted yearly in the United States. The production and release of CFC gas is banned internationally by the Montreal Protocol because it is the main culprit responsible for stratospheric ozone depletion. But CFC is also a global warmer, 10,000 to 20,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

In fact, the nuclear fuel cycle utilizes large quantities of fossil fuel at all of its stages -- the mining and milling of uranium, the construction of the nuclear reactor and cooling towers, robotic decommissioning of the intensely radioactive reactor at the end of its 20- to 40-year operating lifetime, and transportation and long-term storage of massive quantities of radioactive waste.

Contrary to the nuclear industry's propaganda, nuclear power is therefore not green and it is certainly not clean. Nuclear reactors consistently release millions of curies of radioactive isotopes into the air and water each year. These releases are unregulated because the nuclear industry considers these particular radioactive elements to be biologically inconsequential. This is not so.

These unregulated isotopes include the noble gases krypton, xenon and argon, which are fat-soluble and if inhaled by persons living near a nuclear reactor, are absorbed through the lungs, migrating to the fatty tissues of the body, including the abdominal fat pad and upper thighs, near the reproductive organs. These radioactive elements, which emit high-energy gamma radiation, can mutate the genes in the eggs and sperm and cause genetic disease.

Tritium, another biologically significant gas, which is also routinely emitted from nuclear reactors is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen composed of two neutrons and one proton with an atomic weight of 3. The chemical symbol for tritium is H3. When one or both of the hydrogen atoms in water is displaced by tritium the water molecule is then called tritiated water. Tritium is a soft energy beta emitter, more mutagenic than gamma radiation, which incorporates directly into the DNA molecule of the gene. Its half-life is 12.3 years, giving it a biologically active life of 246 years. It passes readily through the skin, lungs and digestive system and is distributed throughout the body.

The dire subject of massive quantities of radioactive waste accruing at the 442 nuclear reactors across the world is also rarely, if ever, addressed by the nuclear industry. Each typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear reactor manufactures 33 metric ton of thermally hot, intensely radioactive waste per year.

Already more than 80,000 metric tons of highly radioactive waste sits in cooling pools next to the 103 U.S. nuclear power plants, awaiting transportation to a storage facility yet to be found. This dangerous material will be an attractive target for terrorist sabotage as it travels through 39 states on roads and railway lines for the next 25 years.

But the long-term storage of radioactive waste continues to pose a problem. Congress in 1987 chose Yucca Mountain in Nevada, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, as a repository for the United States' high-level waste. But Yucca Mountain has subsequently been found to be unsuitable for the long-term storage of high-level waste because it is a volcanic mountain made of permeable pumice stone and it is transected by 32 earthquake faults.

Last week a congressional committee discovered fabricated data about water infiltration and cask corrosion in Yucca Mountain that had been produced by personnel in the U.S. Geological Survey. These startling revelations, according to most experts, have almost disqualified Yucca Mountain as a waste repository, meaning that the United States has nowhere to deposit its expanding nuclear waste inventory.

To make matters worse, a study released last week by the National Academy of Sciences shows that the cooling pools at nuclear reactors, which store 10 to 30 times more radioactive material than that contained in the reactor core, are subject to catastrophic attacks by terrorists, which could unleash an inferno and release massive quantities of deadly radiation -- significantly worse than the radiation released by Chernobyl, according to some scientists.

This vulnerable high-level nuclear waste contained in the cooling pools at 103 nuclear power plants in the United States includes hundreds of radioactive elements that have different biological impacts in the human body, the most important being cancer and genetic diseases.

The incubation time for cancer is five to 50 years following exposure to radiation. It is important to note that children, old people and immuno-compromised individuals are many times more sensitive to the malignant effects of radiation than other people.

I will describe four of the most dangerous elements made in nuclear power plants.

Iodine 131, which was released at the nuclear accidents at Sellafield in Britain, Chernobyl in Ukraine and Three Mile Island in the United States, is radioactive for only six weeks and it bio-concentrates in leafy vegetables and milk. When it enters the human body via the gut and the lung, it migrates to the thyroid gland in the neck, where it can later induce thyroid cancer. In Belarus more than 2,000 children have had their thyroids removed for thyroid cancer, a situation never before recorded in pediatric literature.

Strontium 90 lasts for 600 years. As a calcium analogue, it concentrates in cow and goat milk. It accumulates in the human breast during lactation and in bone, where it can later induce breast cancer, bone cancer and leukemia.

Cesium 137, which also lasts for 600 years, concentrates in the food chain, particularly meat. On entering the human body, it locates in muscle, where it can induce a malignant muscle cancer called a sarcoma.

Plutonium 239, one of the most dangerous elements known to humans, is so toxic that one-millionth of a gram is carcinogenic. More than 440 pounds is made annually in each 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant.

Plutonium is handled like iron in the body, and is therefore stored in the liver, where it causes liver cancer, and in the bone, where it can induce bone cancer and blood malignancies. On inhalation it causes lung cancer. It also crosses the placenta, where, like the drug thalidomide, it can cause severe congenital deformities.

Plutonium has a predisposition for the testicle, where it can cause testicular cancer and induce genetic diseases in future generations. Plutonium lasts for 500,000 years, living on to induce cancer and genetic diseases in future generations of plants, animals and humans.

Plutonium is also the fuel for nuclear weapons -- only 11 pounds is necessary to make a bomb and each reactor makes more than 440 pounds per year. Therefore any country with a nuclear power plant can theoretically manufacture 40 bombs a year.

Nuclear power therefore leaves a toxic legacy to all future generations, because it produces global warming gases, because it is far more expensive than any other form of electricity generation, and because it can trigger proliferation of nuclear weapons.

--http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050520-023103-2877r.htm

According to a recent study conducted by the Citizens Utility Board, Commonwealth Edison's customers now pay the highest electric bills in the Midwest, due primarily to the over-reliance on nuclear power plants.
Many costs for nuclear power have been deliberately underestimated by government and industry such as the costs for the permanent disposal of nuclear wastes, the "decommissioning" (shutting-down and cleaning-up) of retired nuclear power plants, and nuclear accident consequences. In January, 1994, Commonwealth Edison acknowledged that it had to nearly double its estimate for reactor decommissioning -- from $2.3 billion to as much as $4.1 billion!

http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/npfacts.htm
But in the electricity market, green power, especially wind, is already competing with traditional sources. At today's average wholesale prices, wind costs 4.2 cents per kilowatt hour, compared with 4 cents for coal, 6.8 cents for natural gas, 9.1 cents for oil and 10 cents for nuclear power, according to Kyle Datta, managing director at the Rocky Mountain Institute, a research group focused on eco-friendly business.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/15/tech/main649562.shtml

That article you posted above is little more than an assassination piece on nuclear energy.

1) The energy intensive process of refining the uranium to light water reactor quality come of the electrical grid from a multitude of sources (including nuclear power). The energy extracted from that uranium also far exceeds what was expending constructing plants and refining fuel over the lifetime of a reactor.

2) Gas emissions: They do happen by design or accident on a routine basis. The impact has been studied and the risks are considered negligible.

3) Waste storage is the only real con of nuclear energy. The need for a long term repository is indeed growing though it is appropriate for the waste to cool at the reactor site before considering permanant disposal. Technology is still developing and alternatives to mine storage (deep boreholes for one) are being considered. All near surface geologic formations have their problems, many countries have selected grainte as the material of choice even though it is prone to fracture. Is Yucca Mountain the best site for long term disposal? I don't know and other sites should be considered anyway since all the space there is spoken for already.

4)The real world impact from TMI was basically zero. Chernobyl cannot happen in the US as we use a completely different type of reactor and we don't go jacking around with the saftey systems because we are in the mood to have a bit of fun.

5)About a hundred times more radiation spews from a single big coal plant into the enviroment than a nuclear plant. Coal contains amounts of uranium and thorium that are released into the atmosphere after combustion.

6)Renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro) is not, I repeat, not currently an option to replace our nuclear, coal, or gas fired generators. This may change in the future but it will be quite a while.

7) Cost: The cost of nuclear power is only going to decrease once newer, more efficent model reactors are constructed. GE and Westinghouse both have more economical and safer plant designs to offer. The Japanese have already taken advantage of these designes from GE by building several plants.





 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Why don't you read the thread? I've already said I support ethanol and burn it in all my vehicles. Hell, as a farmer I can't wait until I can produce all my own energy and food. Then they can take their subsidies and put them them where the sun don't shine.

I haven't tried biodiesel yet. From what I hear it doesn't have enough lubricity for pulling heavy loads, such as a tractor pulls, but when they get the kinks worked out i will use it too.

I also live in an area where several companies have come in and are trying to buy up people's wind energy rights. A local electircal coop even put up a small wind farm in the next county and they put a wind measure station to gather more exact data up less then a mile away from me.

But, as i said earlier, I think ALL areas need to be investigated, including nuclear.

So it's ok to have a govt mandated ethanol additive, even if it is more expensive, and
basically a political handout to the red states, and hurts our economy.
How about we mandate the use of solar energy, and make you pay for it?
You might want to look into photovoltaics, my buddy had a system installed on his roof, and his energy bill has now dropped to near zero.

Nobody is making anybody burn ethanol.

Hmm, even though I hate Bush, I live in a red state, so I guess that just makes me expendable in your eyes?

Put up all the damn solar panels you have the money for and see if I care.

You're wrong again. The use of ethanol is mandated by the Federal Govt, California asked for a waiver and the govt denied it. I don't care if you live in a red, green, or blue state, I just don't want to pay you for something we don't need.
The reason I suggested solar panels is because you said you wanted to be energy independent, it is a fairly simple way to generate electricity with no moving parts.
I support your goal-just not on my dime. How is not supporting an ethanol mandate making you expendable? Do we owe you a living?

Senate Approves 8 Billion Gallon Ethanol Mandate
-- Feinstein expresses concern about impact to California --

June 15, 2005


Letter from California Air Resources Board on
problems posed by ethanol mandate


Washington, DC ? The U.S. Senate today approved an amendment to the Energy Bill that would mandate the use of 8 billion gallons of ethanol in the U.S. by 2012.

Although the amendment exempted California from a summertime ethanol requirement and repealed the 2% oxygenate mandate, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) opposed this amendment because of the $2 billion cost to the Federal government and the likely increased cost of gasoline in California.

Following is the prepared text of a statement by Senator Feinstein entered into the Congressional Record prior to the Senate?s vote:

?Mr. President, I rise today to oppose Senator Domenici?s amendment to require that U.S. refiners blend 8 billion gallons of ethanol into gasoline each year by 2012.

I think this is a mistake that will cost the Federal Treasury $2 billion by the time it is fully implemented and could further pollute California ?s air.

In my home State, the mandate will mean that refiners must choose between blending ethanol into gasoline or using a costly credit/trading system.

Either choice will mean California consumers pay more at the pump.

According to the California Air Resources Board, California would be able to mitigate the air quality impacts of a mandate if it were limited to 6 billion gallons or less.

With a 6 billion gallon mandate, refiners in California would be required to use about 660 million gallons of ethanol, which they could accomplish in the cooler winter months alone.

However, at 8 billion gallons, the State?s refiners would be forced to use about 880 million gallons of ethanol and they would either have to use ethanol in the hot summer months, when it could pollute the air, or buy costly ?credits? for not using ethanol.

While we do not know exactly how the credit-trading system will work, it is estimated that the credits would cost about 40 cents per gallon ethanol.

So if California refiners were not able to use about 220 million gallons of ethanol per year, it could cost $88 million annually to buy the credits ? money that would inevitably be passed on to drivers.

http://feinstein.senate.gov/05releases/r-ethanol-amndt.htm

 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: marincounty
The true economies of the nuclear industry are never fully accounted for. The cost of uranium enrichment is subsidized by the U.S. government. The true cost of the industry's liability in the case of an accident in the United States is estimated to be $560 billion, but the industry pays $9.1 billion -- 98 percent of the insurance liability is covered by the federal government. The cost of decommissioning all the existing U.S. nuclear reactors is estimated to be $33 billion. These costs -- plus the enormous expense involved in the storage of radioactive waste for a quarter of a million years -- are not included in the economic assessments of nuclear electricity.

It is said that nuclear power is emission-free. The truth is very different.

In the United States, where much of the world's uranium is enriched, including

Australia's, the enrichment facility at Paducah, Ky., requires the electrical output of two 1,000-megawatt coal-fired plants, which emit large quantities of carbon dioxide, the gas responsible for 50 percent of global warming.

Also, this enrichment facility and another at Portsmouth, Ohio, release from leaky pipes 93 percent of the chlorofluorocarbon gas emitted yearly in the United States. The production and release of CFC gas is banned internationally by the Montreal Protocol because it is the main culprit responsible for stratospheric ozone depletion. But CFC is also a global warmer, 10,000 to 20,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

In fact, the nuclear fuel cycle utilizes large quantities of fossil fuel at all of its stages -- the mining and milling of uranium, the construction of the nuclear reactor and cooling towers, robotic decommissioning of the intensely radioactive reactor at the end of its 20- to 40-year operating lifetime, and transportation and long-term storage of massive quantities of radioactive waste.

Contrary to the nuclear industry's propaganda, nuclear power is therefore not green and it is certainly not clean. Nuclear reactors consistently release millions of curies of radioactive isotopes into the air and water each year. These releases are unregulated because the nuclear industry considers these particular radioactive elements to be biologically inconsequential. This is not so.

These unregulated isotopes include the noble gases krypton, xenon and argon, which are fat-soluble and if inhaled by persons living near a nuclear reactor, are absorbed through the lungs, migrating to the fatty tissues of the body, including the abdominal fat pad and upper thighs, near the reproductive organs. These radioactive elements, which emit high-energy gamma radiation, can mutate the genes in the eggs and sperm and cause genetic disease.

Tritium, another biologically significant gas, which is also routinely emitted from nuclear reactors is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen composed of two neutrons and one proton with an atomic weight of 3. The chemical symbol for tritium is H3. When one or both of the hydrogen atoms in water is displaced by tritium the water molecule is then called tritiated water. Tritium is a soft energy beta emitter, more mutagenic than gamma radiation, which incorporates directly into the DNA molecule of the gene. Its half-life is 12.3 years, giving it a biologically active life of 246 years. It passes readily through the skin, lungs and digestive system and is distributed throughout the body.

The dire subject of massive quantities of radioactive waste accruing at the 442 nuclear reactors across the world is also rarely, if ever, addressed by the nuclear industry. Each typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear reactor manufactures 33 metric ton of thermally hot, intensely radioactive waste per year.

Already more than 80,000 metric tons of highly radioactive waste sits in cooling pools next to the 103 U.S. nuclear power plants, awaiting transportation to a storage facility yet to be found. This dangerous material will be an attractive target for terrorist sabotage as it travels through 39 states on roads and railway lines for the next 25 years.

But the long-term storage of radioactive waste continues to pose a problem. Congress in 1987 chose Yucca Mountain in Nevada, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, as a repository for the United States' high-level waste. But Yucca Mountain has subsequently been found to be unsuitable for the long-term storage of high-level waste because it is a volcanic mountain made of permeable pumice stone and it is transected by 32 earthquake faults.

Last week a congressional committee discovered fabricated data about water infiltration and cask corrosion in Yucca Mountain that had been produced by personnel in the U.S. Geological Survey. These startling revelations, according to most experts, have almost disqualified Yucca Mountain as a waste repository, meaning that the United States has nowhere to deposit its expanding nuclear waste inventory.

To make matters worse, a study released last week by the National Academy of Sciences shows that the cooling pools at nuclear reactors, which store 10 to 30 times more radioactive material than that contained in the reactor core, are subject to catastrophic attacks by terrorists, which could unleash an inferno and release massive quantities of deadly radiation -- significantly worse than the radiation released by Chernobyl, according to some scientists.

This vulnerable high-level nuclear waste contained in the cooling pools at 103 nuclear power plants in the United States includes hundreds of radioactive elements that have different biological impacts in the human body, the most important being cancer and genetic diseases.

The incubation time for cancer is five to 50 years following exposure to radiation. It is important to note that children, old people and immuno-compromised individuals are many times more sensitive to the malignant effects of radiation than other people.

I will describe four of the most dangerous elements made in nuclear power plants.

Iodine 131, which was released at the nuclear accidents at Sellafield in Britain, Chernobyl in Ukraine and Three Mile Island in the United States, is radioactive for only six weeks and it bio-concentrates in leafy vegetables and milk. When it enters the human body via the gut and the lung, it migrates to the thyroid gland in the neck, where it can later induce thyroid cancer. In Belarus more than 2,000 children have had their thyroids removed for thyroid cancer, a situation never before recorded in pediatric literature.

Strontium 90 lasts for 600 years. As a calcium analogue, it concentrates in cow and goat milk. It accumulates in the human breast during lactation and in bone, where it can later induce breast cancer, bone cancer and leukemia.

Cesium 137, which also lasts for 600 years, concentrates in the food chain, particularly meat. On entering the human body, it locates in muscle, where it can induce a malignant muscle cancer called a sarcoma.

Plutonium 239, one of the most dangerous elements known to humans, is so toxic that one-millionth of a gram is carcinogenic. More than 440 pounds is made annually in each 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant.

Plutonium is handled like iron in the body, and is therefore stored in the liver, where it causes liver cancer, and in the bone, where it can induce bone cancer and blood malignancies. On inhalation it causes lung cancer. It also crosses the placenta, where, like the drug thalidomide, it can cause severe congenital deformities.

Plutonium has a predisposition for the testicle, where it can cause testicular cancer and induce genetic diseases in future generations. Plutonium lasts for 500,000 years, living on to induce cancer and genetic diseases in future generations of plants, animals and humans.

Plutonium is also the fuel for nuclear weapons -- only 11 pounds is necessary to make a bomb and each reactor makes more than 440 pounds per year. Therefore any country with a nuclear power plant can theoretically manufacture 40 bombs a year.

Nuclear power therefore leaves a toxic legacy to all future generations, because it produces global warming gases, because it is far more expensive than any other form of electricity generation, and because it can trigger proliferation of nuclear weapons.

--http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050520-023103-2877r.htm

According to a recent study conducted by the Citizens Utility Board, Commonwealth Edison's customers now pay the highest electric bills in the Midwest, due primarily to the over-reliance on nuclear power plants.
Many costs for nuclear power have been deliberately underestimated by government and industry such as the costs for the permanent disposal of nuclear wastes, the "decommissioning" (shutting-down and cleaning-up) of retired nuclear power plants, and nuclear accident consequences. In January, 1994, Commonwealth Edison acknowledged that it had to nearly double its estimate for reactor decommissioning -- from $2.3 billion to as much as $4.1 billion!

http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/npfacts.htm
But in the electricity market, green power, especially wind, is already competing with traditional sources. At today's average wholesale prices, wind costs 4.2 cents per kilowatt hour, compared with 4 cents for coal, 6.8 cents for natural gas, 9.1 cents for oil and 10 cents for nuclear power, according to Kyle Datta, managing director at the Rocky Mountain Institute, a research group focused on eco-friendly business.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/15/tech/main649562.shtml

That article you posted above is little more than an assassination piece on nuclear energy.

1) The energy intensive process of refining the uranium to light water reactor quality come of the electrical grid from a multitude of sources (including nuclear power). The energy extracted from that uranium also far exceeds what was expending constructing plants and refining fuel over the lifetime of a reactor.

2) Gas emissions: They do happen by design or accident on a routine basis. The impact has been studied and the risks are considered negligible.

3) Waste storage is the only real con of nuclear energy. The need for a long term repository is indeed growing though it is appropriate for the waste to cool at the reactor site before considering permanant disposal. Technology is still developing and alternatives to mine storage (deep boreholes for one) are being considered. All near surface geologic formations have their problems, many countries have selected grainte as the material of choice even though it is prone to fracture. Is Yucca Mountain the best site for long term disposal? I don't know and other sites should be considered anyway since all the space there is spoken for already.

4)The real world impact from TMI was basically zero. Chernobyl cannot happen in the US as we use a completely different type of reactor and we don't go jacking around with the saftey systems because we are in the mood to have a bit of fun.

5)About a hundred times more radiation spews from a single big coal plant into the enviroment than a nuclear plant. Coal contains amounts of uranium and thorium that are released into the atmosphere after combustion.

6)Renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro) is not, I repeat, not currently an option to replace our nuclear, coal, or gas fired generators. This may change in the future but it will be quite a while.

7) Cost: The cost of nuclear power is only going to decrease once newer, more efficent model reactors are constructed. GE and Westinghouse both have more economical and safer plant designs to offer. The Japanese have already taken advantage of these designes from GE by building several plants.

Since nuclear is so cheap and safe, why do they require massive subsidies and govt
backed insurance against accidents? If it was truly cheap the free market would be rushing to build nuclear plants. And if it is so safe, you won't mind if we build one next door to you.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,159
47,367
136
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: marincounty
The true economies of the nuclear industry are never fully accounted for. The cost of uranium enrichment is subsidized by the U.S. government. The true cost of the industry's liability in the case of an accident in the United States is estimated to be $560 billion, but the industry pays $9.1 billion -- 98 percent of the insurance liability is covered by the federal government. The cost of decommissioning all the existing U.S. nuclear reactors is estimated to be $33 billion. These costs -- plus the enormous expense involved in the storage of radioactive waste for a quarter of a million years -- are not included in the economic assessments of nuclear electricity.

It is said that nuclear power is emission-free. The truth is very different.

In the United States, where much of the world's uranium is enriched, including

Australia's, the enrichment facility at Paducah, Ky., requires the electrical output of two 1,000-megawatt coal-fired plants, which emit large quantities of carbon dioxide, the gas responsible for 50 percent of global warming.

Also, this enrichment facility and another at Portsmouth, Ohio, release from leaky pipes 93 percent of the chlorofluorocarbon gas emitted yearly in the United States. The production and release of CFC gas is banned internationally by the Montreal Protocol because it is the main culprit responsible for stratospheric ozone depletion. But CFC is also a global warmer, 10,000 to 20,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

In fact, the nuclear fuel cycle utilizes large quantities of fossil fuel at all of its stages -- the mining and milling of uranium, the construction of the nuclear reactor and cooling towers, robotic decommissioning of the intensely radioactive reactor at the end of its 20- to 40-year operating lifetime, and transportation and long-term storage of massive quantities of radioactive waste.

Contrary to the nuclear industry's propaganda, nuclear power is therefore not green and it is certainly not clean. Nuclear reactors consistently release millions of curies of radioactive isotopes into the air and water each year. These releases are unregulated because the nuclear industry considers these particular radioactive elements to be biologically inconsequential. This is not so.

These unregulated isotopes include the noble gases krypton, xenon and argon, which are fat-soluble and if inhaled by persons living near a nuclear reactor, are absorbed through the lungs, migrating to the fatty tissues of the body, including the abdominal fat pad and upper thighs, near the reproductive organs. These radioactive elements, which emit high-energy gamma radiation, can mutate the genes in the eggs and sperm and cause genetic disease.

Tritium, another biologically significant gas, which is also routinely emitted from nuclear reactors is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen composed of two neutrons and one proton with an atomic weight of 3. The chemical symbol for tritium is H3. When one or both of the hydrogen atoms in water is displaced by tritium the water molecule is then called tritiated water. Tritium is a soft energy beta emitter, more mutagenic than gamma radiation, which incorporates directly into the DNA molecule of the gene. Its half-life is 12.3 years, giving it a biologically active life of 246 years. It passes readily through the skin, lungs and digestive system and is distributed throughout the body.

The dire subject of massive quantities of radioactive waste accruing at the 442 nuclear reactors across the world is also rarely, if ever, addressed by the nuclear industry. Each typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear reactor manufactures 33 metric ton of thermally hot, intensely radioactive waste per year.

Already more than 80,000 metric tons of highly radioactive waste sits in cooling pools next to the 103 U.S. nuclear power plants, awaiting transportation to a storage facility yet to be found. This dangerous material will be an attractive target for terrorist sabotage as it travels through 39 states on roads and railway lines for the next 25 years.

But the long-term storage of radioactive waste continues to pose a problem. Congress in 1987 chose Yucca Mountain in Nevada, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, as a repository for the United States' high-level waste. But Yucca Mountain has subsequently been found to be unsuitable for the long-term storage of high-level waste because it is a volcanic mountain made of permeable pumice stone and it is transected by 32 earthquake faults.

Last week a congressional committee discovered fabricated data about water infiltration and cask corrosion in Yucca Mountain that had been produced by personnel in the U.S. Geological Survey. These startling revelations, according to most experts, have almost disqualified Yucca Mountain as a waste repository, meaning that the United States has nowhere to deposit its expanding nuclear waste inventory.

To make matters worse, a study released last week by the National Academy of Sciences shows that the cooling pools at nuclear reactors, which store 10 to 30 times more radioactive material than that contained in the reactor core, are subject to catastrophic attacks by terrorists, which could unleash an inferno and release massive quantities of deadly radiation -- significantly worse than the radiation released by Chernobyl, according to some scientists.

This vulnerable high-level nuclear waste contained in the cooling pools at 103 nuclear power plants in the United States includes hundreds of radioactive elements that have different biological impacts in the human body, the most important being cancer and genetic diseases.

The incubation time for cancer is five to 50 years following exposure to radiation. It is important to note that children, old people and immuno-compromised individuals are many times more sensitive to the malignant effects of radiation than other people.

I will describe four of the most dangerous elements made in nuclear power plants.

Iodine 131, which was released at the nuclear accidents at Sellafield in Britain, Chernobyl in Ukraine and Three Mile Island in the United States, is radioactive for only six weeks and it bio-concentrates in leafy vegetables and milk. When it enters the human body via the gut and the lung, it migrates to the thyroid gland in the neck, where it can later induce thyroid cancer. In Belarus more than 2,000 children have had their thyroids removed for thyroid cancer, a situation never before recorded in pediatric literature.

Strontium 90 lasts for 600 years. As a calcium analogue, it concentrates in cow and goat milk. It accumulates in the human breast during lactation and in bone, where it can later induce breast cancer, bone cancer and leukemia.

Cesium 137, which also lasts for 600 years, concentrates in the food chain, particularly meat. On entering the human body, it locates in muscle, where it can induce a malignant muscle cancer called a sarcoma.

Plutonium 239, one of the most dangerous elements known to humans, is so toxic that one-millionth of a gram is carcinogenic. More than 440 pounds is made annually in each 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant.

Plutonium is handled like iron in the body, and is therefore stored in the liver, where it causes liver cancer, and in the bone, where it can induce bone cancer and blood malignancies. On inhalation it causes lung cancer. It also crosses the placenta, where, like the drug thalidomide, it can cause severe congenital deformities.

Plutonium has a predisposition for the testicle, where it can cause testicular cancer and induce genetic diseases in future generations. Plutonium lasts for 500,000 years, living on to induce cancer and genetic diseases in future generations of plants, animals and humans.

Plutonium is also the fuel for nuclear weapons -- only 11 pounds is necessary to make a bomb and each reactor makes more than 440 pounds per year. Therefore any country with a nuclear power plant can theoretically manufacture 40 bombs a year.

Nuclear power therefore leaves a toxic legacy to all future generations, because it produces global warming gases, because it is far more expensive than any other form of electricity generation, and because it can trigger proliferation of nuclear weapons.

--http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050520-023103-2877r.htm

According to a recent study conducted by the Citizens Utility Board, Commonwealth Edison's customers now pay the highest electric bills in the Midwest, due primarily to the over-reliance on nuclear power plants.
Many costs for nuclear power have been deliberately underestimated by government and industry such as the costs for the permanent disposal of nuclear wastes, the "decommissioning" (shutting-down and cleaning-up) of retired nuclear power plants, and nuclear accident consequences. In January, 1994, Commonwealth Edison acknowledged that it had to nearly double its estimate for reactor decommissioning -- from $2.3 billion to as much as $4.1 billion!

http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/npfacts.htm
But in the electricity market, green power, especially wind, is already competing with traditional sources. At today's average wholesale prices, wind costs 4.2 cents per kilowatt hour, compared with 4 cents for coal, 6.8 cents for natural gas, 9.1 cents for oil and 10 cents for nuclear power, according to Kyle Datta, managing director at the Rocky Mountain Institute, a research group focused on eco-friendly business.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/15/tech/main649562.shtml

That article you posted above is little more than an assassination piece on nuclear energy.

1) The energy intensive process of refining the uranium to light water reactor quality come of the electrical grid from a multitude of sources (including nuclear power). The energy extracted from that uranium also far exceeds what was expending constructing plants and refining fuel over the lifetime of a reactor.

2) Gas emissions: They do happen by design or accident on a routine basis. The impact has been studied and the risks are considered negligible.

3) Waste storage is the only real con of nuclear energy. The need for a long term repository is indeed growing though it is appropriate for the waste to cool at the reactor site before considering permanant disposal. Technology is still developing and alternatives to mine storage (deep boreholes for one) are being considered. All near surface geologic formations have their problems, many countries have selected grainte as the material of choice even though it is prone to fracture. Is Yucca Mountain the best site for long term disposal? I don't know and other sites should be considered anyway since all the space there is spoken for already.

4)The real world impact from TMI was basically zero. Chernobyl cannot happen in the US as we use a completely different type of reactor and we don't go jacking around with the saftey systems because we are in the mood to have a bit of fun.

5)About a hundred times more radiation spews from a single big coal plant into the enviroment than a nuclear plant. Coal contains amounts of uranium and thorium that are released into the atmosphere after combustion.

6)Renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro) is not, I repeat, not currently an option to replace our nuclear, coal, or gas fired generators. This may change in the future but it will be quite a while.

7) Cost: The cost of nuclear power is only going to decrease once newer, more efficent model reactors are constructed. GE and Westinghouse both have more economical and safer plant designs to offer. The Japanese have already taken advantage of these designes from GE by building several plants.

Since nuclear is so cheap and safe, why do they require massive subsidies and govt
backed insurance against accidents? If it was truly cheap the free market would be rushing to build nuclear plants. And if it is so safe, you won't mind if we build one next door to you.

The public fear after Chernobyl and TMI (even though the safety systems prevented any meaningful release) caused opposition to grow. The industry was besieged with tremendous opposition against reactors that had been proposed or under construction at the time. Billions were lost by a few utilities in the panic so they had been understandably hesitant. The previously attractive option of natural gas turbines and low fuel costs also shifted focus.

Several utilites have announced that they will file licensing applications for multiple reactors with the NRC in the next year or so (the first step in new construction). These would be the first since the early 70s.

I happen to live in Illinois where we have more nuclear power plants than any other state in the union. Though the real estate market in downtown Chicago (where I live) might be a tad pricy for that use but they are welcome if they want to pony up the dough.

 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Why don't you read the thread? I've already said I support ethanol and burn it in all my vehicles. Hell, as a farmer I can't wait until I can produce all my own energy and food. Then they can take their subsidies and put them them where the sun don't shine.

I haven't tried biodiesel yet. From what I hear it doesn't have enough lubricity for pulling heavy loads, such as a tractor pulls, but when they get the kinks worked out i will use it too.

I also live in an area where several companies have come in and are trying to buy up people's wind energy rights. A local electircal coop even put up a small wind farm in the next county and they put a wind measure station to gather more exact data up less then a mile away from me.

But, as i said earlier, I think ALL areas need to be investigated, including nuclear.

So it's ok to have a govt mandated ethanol additive, even if it is more expensive, and
basically a political handout to the red states, and hurts our economy.
How about we mandate the use of solar energy, and make you pay for it?
You might want to look into photovoltaics, my buddy had a system installed on his roof, and his energy bill has now dropped to near zero.

Nobody is making anybody burn ethanol.

Hmm, even though I hate Bush, I live in a red state, so I guess that just makes me expendable in your eyes?

Put up all the damn solar panels you have the money for and see if I care.

You're wrong again. The use of ethanol is mandated by the Federal Govt, California asked for a waiver and the govt denied it. I don't care if you live in a red, green, or blue state, I just don't want to pay you for something we don't need.
The reason I suggested solar panels is because you said you wanted to be energy independent, it is a fairly simple way to generate electricity with no moving parts.
I support your goal-just not on my dime. How is not supporting an ethanol mandate making you expendable? Do we owe you a living?

Senate Approves 8 Billion Gallon Ethanol Mandate
-- Feinstein expresses concern about impact to California --

June 15, 2005


Letter from California Air Resources Board on
problems posed by ethanol mandate


Washington, DC ? The U.S. Senate today approved an amendment to the Energy Bill that would mandate the use of 8 billion gallons of ethanol in the U.S. by 2012.

Although the amendment exempted California from a summertime ethanol requirement and repealed the 2% oxygenate mandate, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) opposed this amendment because of the $2 billion cost to the Federal government and the likely increased cost of gasoline in California.

Following is the prepared text of a statement by Senator Feinstein entered into the Congressional Record prior to the Senate?s vote:

?Mr. President, I rise today to oppose Senator Domenici?s amendment to require that U.S. refiners blend 8 billion gallons of ethanol into gasoline each year by 2012.

I think this is a mistake that will cost the Federal Treasury $2 billion by the time it is fully implemented and could further pollute California ?s air.

In my home State, the mandate will mean that refiners must choose between blending ethanol into gasoline or using a costly credit/trading system.

Either choice will mean California consumers pay more at the pump.

According to the California Air Resources Board, California would be able to mitigate the air quality impacts of a mandate if it were limited to 6 billion gallons or less.

With a 6 billion gallon mandate, refiners in California would be required to use about 660 million gallons of ethanol, which they could accomplish in the cooler winter months alone.

However, at 8 billion gallons, the State?s refiners would be forced to use about 880 million gallons of ethanol and they would either have to use ethanol in the hot summer months, when it could pollute the air, or buy costly ?credits? for not using ethanol.

While we do not know exactly how the credit-trading system will work, it is estimated that the credits would cost about 40 cents per gallon ethanol.

So if California refiners were not able to use about 220 million gallons of ethanol per year, it could cost $88 million annually to buy the credits ? money that would inevitably be passed on to drivers.

http://feinstein.senate.gov/05releases/r-ethanol-amndt.htm

I guess I missed the part where they sell only ethanol in California? Are you telling me that when you pull up to the pump the only choice you have is an ethanol blend? I didn't think so. You have yet to prove any of your claims. You act as thought you speak for the whole state of California, but i'm sure they're people who support ethanol out there and WANT to burn it.

And yes, if you want to eat, then you owe farmers a living. One way or another somebody is going to have to pay for their services. If you think it's such a sweetheart deal, then by all means buy some land, equipment, etc and go for it. Good luck, because your going to need it.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Why don't you read the thread? I've already said I support ethanol and burn it in all my vehicles. Hell, as a farmer I can't wait until I can produce all my own energy and food. Then they can take their subsidies and put them them where the sun don't shine.

I haven't tried biodiesel yet. From what I hear it doesn't have enough lubricity for pulling heavy loads, such as a tractor pulls, but when they get the kinks worked out i will use it too.

I also live in an area where several companies have come in and are trying to buy up people's wind energy rights. A local electircal coop even put up a small wind farm in the next county and they put a wind measure station to gather more exact data up less then a mile away from me.

But, as i said earlier, I think ALL areas need to be investigated, including nuclear.

So it's ok to have a govt mandated ethanol additive, even if it is more expensive, and
basically a political handout to the red states, and hurts our economy.
How about we mandate the use of solar energy, and make you pay for it?
You might want to look into photovoltaics, my buddy had a system installed on his roof, and his energy bill has now dropped to near zero.

Nobody is making anybody burn ethanol.

Hmm, even though I hate Bush, I live in a red state, so I guess that just makes me expendable in your eyes?

Put up all the damn solar panels you have the money for and see if I care.

You're wrong again. The use of ethanol is mandated by the Federal Govt, California asked for a waiver and the govt denied it. I don't care if you live in a red, green, or blue state, I just don't want to pay you for something we don't need.
The reason I suggested solar panels is because you said you wanted to be energy independent, it is a fairly simple way to generate electricity with no moving parts.
I support your goal-just not on my dime. How is not supporting an ethanol mandate making you expendable? Do we owe you a living?

Senate Approves 8 Billion Gallon Ethanol Mandate
-- Feinstein expresses concern about impact to California --

June 15, 2005


Letter from California Air Resources Board on
problems posed by ethanol mandate


Washington, DC ? The U.S. Senate today approved an amendment to the Energy Bill that would mandate the use of 8 billion gallons of ethanol in the U.S. by 2012.

Although the amendment exempted California from a summertime ethanol requirement and repealed the 2% oxygenate mandate, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) opposed this amendment because of the $2 billion cost to the Federal government and the likely increased cost of gasoline in California.

Following is the prepared text of a statement by Senator Feinstein entered into the Congressional Record prior to the Senate?s vote:

?Mr. President, I rise today to oppose Senator Domenici?s amendment to require that U.S. refiners blend 8 billion gallons of ethanol into gasoline each year by 2012.

I think this is a mistake that will cost the Federal Treasury $2 billion by the time it is fully implemented and could further pollute California ?s air.

In my home State, the mandate will mean that refiners must choose between blending ethanol into gasoline or using a costly credit/trading system.

Either choice will mean California consumers pay more at the pump.

According to the California Air Resources Board, California would be able to mitigate the air quality impacts of a mandate if it were limited to 6 billion gallons or less.

With a 6 billion gallon mandate, refiners in California would be required to use about 660 million gallons of ethanol, which they could accomplish in the cooler winter months alone.

However, at 8 billion gallons, the State?s refiners would be forced to use about 880 million gallons of ethanol and they would either have to use ethanol in the hot summer months, when it could pollute the air, or buy costly ?credits? for not using ethanol.

While we do not know exactly how the credit-trading system will work, it is estimated that the credits would cost about 40 cents per gallon ethanol.

So if California refiners were not able to use about 220 million gallons of ethanol per year, it could cost $88 million annually to buy the credits ? money that would inevitably be passed on to drivers.

http://feinstein.senate.gov/05releases/r-ethanol-amndt.htm

I guess I missed the part where they sell only ethanol in California? Are you telling me that when you pull up to the pump the only choice you have is an ethanol blend? I didn't think so. You have yet to prove any of your claims. You act as thought you speak for the whole state of California, but i'm sure they're people who support ethanol out there and WANT to burn it.

And yes, if you want to eat, then you owe farmers a living. One way or another somebody is going to have to pay for their services. If you think it's such a sweetheart deal, then by all means buy some land, equipment, etc and go for it. Good luck, because your going to need it.

Yes, that's right we're required to use an ethanol blend, now that MTBE has been banned.
Did you read the link? WE ARE REQUIRED TO USE IT. No, the senator has spoken for California, and I am sure a poll would reveal most Californians are against this expensive program that does nothing to clean the air.
No, I don't owe you a living, just because you're a farmer. In case you haven't noticed,
California is a farming state, and we supply the world with fruits and vegetables.
We can easily feed our people with what we grow here, what we don't need is a mandate to buy stuff we don't need from your state.
How about we get congress to pass a law mandating that midwestern states buy a certain percentage of California produce?
I have tried to respond with facts and logic, but you can't seem to deal with that.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Facts and logic?? LMAO Your intent here is obviously to discourage the use of ethanol by any means possible.


It is your state that banned MTBE after finding it in the ground water supply. Talk to your govenor and state legislature about that one. In my state, we have a choice at the pump, of course we're not stuffed in here like a bunch of sardines either.

Ethanol is here to stay because it works, like it or not.

Thank you for your support. :D
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Ethanol is a viable product for consideration to reduce emissions and our reliance on foreign energy.

BUT . . . it's quite obvious that domestic political considerations are not allowing us to maximally exploit the benefits of ethanol or other biofuels. That needs to change if ethanol and biodiesel are going to make substantive contributions to our energy security and reducing pollution.

For the record, MTBE sux. Don't beotch about it being illegal . . . complain about it in the groundwater and be glad that arsehole DeLay didn't manage to protect the companies that made it or allowed it to enter the water supply.
 

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,424
1,637
136
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
You know what they say about statisitics.

You seem to be critical of everything, what do you suggest we do to keep the electricty up and running?

I suggest that we use energy that is cheap, efficient and the least polluting.
This rules out ethanol (expensive), nuclear(expensive and polluting) and biodiesel (polluting). This still leaves us natural gas, hydro, solar, wind, and oil.
Why do right-wingers always want to use unproven, expensive means to produce power?

How on earth do you include solar as cheap? You do realize that for the lifetime of the solarpanel solar energy is an order of magnitude more expensive than coal. While nuclear might be more expensive than coal, it is a lot cheaper than solar. While solar remains the ideal, until it becomes cheaper and more efficient, it remains very impractical. Also, polluting generally refers to what is released into the environment; as nuclear energy releases nothing (except heat in the cooling towers) into the environment, it is not polluting. And yes, I have no problem living right next to one. I have several times. Best schools in the state due to all the money the plants poured into the community. I'd rather live near a nuclear plant than a coal plant or a coal mine for that matter. I'll store the contained waste in my basement if someone will pay me for the storage space. Hospitals release far more radiation into the environment than a nuclear plant does. You get more exposure to radiation flying across the country on a commercial airliner than working in a nuclear plant for a year. The reason there haven't been plants built in this country recently is because of the fear of the people. To many plants were shut down before they even started operating in the early 80's with tons of money lost. The energy industry has been a little hesitant since then.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Facts and logic?? LMAO Your intent here is obviously to discourage the use of ethanol by any means possible.


It is your state that banned MTBE after finding it in the ground water supply. Talk to your govenor and state legislature about that one. In my state, we have a choice at the pump, of course we're not stuffed in here like a bunch of sardines either.

Ethanol is here to stay because it works, like it or not.

Thank you for your support. :D

Yes, our state banned MTBE, and rightly so. It was only added to the gas because the former gov republican Pete Wilson decided to mandate it as a favor to an oil company who he owed a favor to. After it polluted tons of wells, lakes and groundwater, we finally were able to ban it.
Now the asshole Republicans in Congress and the White house are screwing us again with the ethanol mandate.
You thieving bastards can go to hell.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: mect
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
You know what they say about statisitics.

You seem to be critical of everything, what do you suggest we do to keep the electricty up and running?

I suggest that we use energy that is cheap, efficient and the least polluting.
This rules out ethanol (expensive), nuclear(expensive and polluting) and biodiesel (polluting). This still leaves us natural gas, hydro, solar, wind, and oil.
Why do right-wingers always want to use unproven, expensive means to produce power?

How on earth do you include solar as cheap? You do realize that for the lifetime of the solarpanel solar energy is an order of magnitude more expensive than coal. While nuclear might be more expensive than coal, it is a lot cheaper than solar. While solar remains the ideal, until it becomes cheaper and more efficient, it remains very impractical. Also, polluting generally refers to what is released into the environment; as nuclear energy releases nothing (except heat in the cooling towers) into the environment, it is not polluting. And yes, I have no problem living right next to one. I have several times. Best schools in the state due to all the money the plants poured into the community. I'd rather live near a nuclear plant than a coal plant or a coal mine for that matter. I'll store the contained waste in my basement if someone will pay me for the storage space. Hospitals release far more radiation into the environment than a nuclear plant does. You get more exposure to radiation flying across the country on a commercial airliner than working in a nuclear plant for a year. The reason there haven't been plants built in this country recently is because of the fear of the people. To many plants were shut down before they even started operating in the early 80's with tons of money lost. The energy industry has been a little hesitant since then.

You must not be paying attention, solar is becoming cheaper and cheaper, and with federal and state tax credits, the payback time is down to as little as 8 years on panels with a 20 year warranty. The last time I checked , solar panels don't spew smoke into the sky or have radioactive waste that has to be safely stored for 250,000 years.
What's impractical is nuclear power, we pay for the very expensive power from Diablo Canyon nuke plant, as it costs more than almost any other source in spite of all of the government subsidies.

 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Facts and logic?? LMAO Your intent here is obviously to discourage the use of ethanol by any means possible.


It is your state that banned MTBE after finding it in the ground water supply. Talk to your govenor and state legislature about that one. In my state, we have a choice at the pump, of course we're not stuffed in here like a bunch of sardines either.

Ethanol is here to stay because it works, like it or not.

Thank you for your support. :D

Yes, our state banned MTBE, and rightly so. It was only added to the gas because the former gov republican Pete Wilson decided to mandate it as a favor to an oil company who he owed a favor to. After it polluted tons of wells, lakes and groundwater, we finally were able to ban it.
Now the asshole Republicans in Congress and the White house are screwing us again with the ethanol mandate.
You thieving bastards can go to hell.

LOL, thank you for your support. :D

I have nothing against solar panels, I support the development of all forms of alternative energy. At this point in time there is no one technology that is going to be able to supply all of our demands so, as I said previously, it all needs to be explored and exploited.

Since it never rains in California and you hate ethanol so much, maybe you should look at a solared power bike/trike instead of driving around in a gas guzzler?
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Facts and logic?? LMAO Your intent here is obviously to discourage the use of ethanol by any means possible.


It is your state that banned MTBE after finding it in the ground water supply. Talk to your govenor and state legislature about that one. In my state, we have a choice at the pump, of course we're not stuffed in here like a bunch of sardines either.

Ethanol is here to stay because it works, like it or not.

Thank you for your support. :D

Yes, our state banned MTBE, and rightly so. It was only added to the gas because the former gov republican Pete Wilson decided to mandate it as a favor to an oil company who he owed a favor to. After it polluted tons of wells, lakes and groundwater, we finally were able to ban it.
Now the asshole Republicans in Congress and the White house are screwing us again with the ethanol mandate.
You thieving bastards can go to hell.

LOL, thank you for your support. :D


I have nothing against solar panels, I support the development of all forms of alternative energy. At this point in time there is no one technology that is going to be able to supply all of our demands so, as I said previously, it all needs to be explored and exploited.

Since it never rains in California and you hate ethanol so much, maybe you should look at a solared power bike/trike instead of driving around in a gas guzzler?

It never rains in California? Huh? We get 40 inches a year here. I love ethanol-for drinking, not driving. I'm still waiting on my hydrogen-fueled SUV.
Hired any illegals lately?