Kentucky opts for energy efficiency over coal.

[Jason Kaylor]

Originally Posted by mlarson

So when will you come out in full support of Nuclear power plants, Yucca Mountain and clean coal Tech.?

I am not against nuclear at all. It is still a finite resource. Currently (current technology) there is approx 200 years left of 239 http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-deposits-last. Don't get all excited about breeder reactors either, they have been around for a long time and account for a lot of the nuclear disasters in the past. Even though they produce more than is put it, the production rate is not uranium 239.

Clean coal is an oxymoron that you have been "sold" on. Not to mention "clean coal" is more expensive than wind. The current powers that be stand to lose trillions without coal and oil, they put a lot of money in to rhetoric. You must have skipped my post on geothermal rates. Why would we build coal when geothermal is both cheaper and clean?

As far as subsidies, did you skip that post also? Coal and gas (oil) receive an extreme amount of subsidies. If you put those in to geothermal (no reason to), wind, hyrdo and nuclear we wouldn't spend 40 billion a year. I know it is easy to get confused on how cheap it is. Wind is currently only 10%-20% more without coals subsidies. Nuclear, geothermal and hyrdo are already cheaper. Hydro is estimated in the $0.015 range (1/4 to 1/6 the price of coal).

Here is the ultimate question for you. Would you move your family within a mile of a coal generation plant? Nuclear plant? Or how about a geothermal plant, wind farm, solar field and power generating damn....all combined?

JJ

[Jason Kaylor]

[quote=alandreth;718213]

Originally Posted by mlarson

If we were to do as you are only now proposing(end all subsidies) it would be the end of Solar, Wind and the once exalted Ethanol. quote]

Then we have geothermal, which is also great, if you're the .01 percent of the population that lives on top of a geyser.

Ethanol is a dumb alt energy....agreed. Alt energy sources get almost no subsidies, compared to oil and coal, and the industries have grow exponentially over the past decade. Do you have any data to back this up?

ummmm you might want to do a lot more reading on geothermal. I bet I have over 200 customers that do geothermal installations throughout a lot of the country. Try a Google search on HVAC-R geothermal companies. Or check out the ACCA's site at http://www.acca.org/contractors/ just check the geothermal box. There are either a lot of gysers out there or there is something to this geothermal stuff.

By the way I am not really against oil, currently. Battery technology is just not there yet. My only issue with it is the battery technology jobs are going overseas right now. With only approx 125 years left of the stuff (affordably and not taking inflation in to account) what is the economic landscape going to look like 50 years from now when other countries have had a huge head start on us. Hopefully hydrogen is the future of car power.

JJ

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jkaylor

I am not against nuclear at all. It is still a finite resource. Currently (current technology) there is approx 200 years left of 239 http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-deposits-last. Don't get all excited about breeder reactors either, they have been around for a long time and account for a lot of the nuclear disasters in the past. Even though they produce more than is put it, the production rate is not uranium 239.

Clean coal is an oxymoron that you have been "sold" on. Not to mention "clean coal" is more expensive than wind. The current powers that be stand to lose trillions without coal and oil, they put a lot of money in to rhetoric. You must have skipped my post on geothermal rates. Why would we build coal when geothermal is both cheaper and clean?

As far as subsidies, did you skip that post also? Coal and gas (oil) receive an extreme amount of subsidies. If you put those in to geothermal (no reason to), wind, hyrdo and nuclear we wouldn't spend 40 billion a year. I know it is easy to get confused on how cheap it is. Wind is currently only 10%-20% more without coals subsidies. Nuclear, geothermal and hyrdo are already cheaper. Hydro is estimated in the $0.015 range (1/4 to 1/6 the price of coal).

Here is the ultimate question for you. Would you move your family within a mile of a coal generation plant? Nuclear plant? Or how about a geothermal plant, wind farm, solar field and power generating damn....all combined?

JJ

Look up breeder reactor and thorium reactors.

There is no shortage of ways to produce efficient and clean nuclear energy.

As far as subsidies you continue to equate large dollar amounts with excess subsidies to the detriment of so called alternative energy subsidies.

Until you wrap your head around that there will be no convincing you.

I'm all for removing all subsidies but I guarantee you solar, wind and Ethanol will not survive.

You simply cannot produce enough energy to meet expanding energy needs with what you are proposing.

I have no problem living near a coal fired plant using clean coal tech or sufficient scrubbers.

Living near a wind farm would decrease property values.

[Jason Kaylor]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Look up breeder reactor and thorium reactors.

There is no shortage of ways to produce efficient and clean nuclear energy.

As far as subsidies you continue to equate large dollar amounts with excess subsidies to the detriment of so called alternative energy subsidies.

Until you wrap your head around that there will be no convincing you.

I'm all for removing all subsidies but I guarantee you solar, wind and Ethanol will not survive.

You simply cannot produce enough energy to meet expanding energy needs with what you are proposing.

I have no problem living near a coal fired plant using clean coal tech or sufficient scrubbers.

Living near a wind farm would decrease property values.

I am familiar with both.

I do not understand your arguments. On one hand you say alt energy is too expensive vs coal, so that is why you are against alt energy. But your story goes 180 degrees in nuclear. Do you know the main reason breeder reactors are not everywhere? You do realize there is currently only one operating in the world right now?

JJ

[Brian A. MacNeish]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Some timely data on electricity costs.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html

So, we should all move to West Virginia?

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jkaylor

I am familiar with both.

I do not understand your arguments. On one hand you say alt energy is too expensive vs coal, so that is why you are against alt energy. But your story goes 180 degrees in nuclear. Do you know the main reason breeder reactors are not everywhere? You do realize there is currently only one operating in the world right now?

JJ

I support coal, nuclear, oil. natural gas and any other energy souce that can provide our energy needs in a cost effective manner.

With current technology, Ethanol, solar and wind, and geothermal either suffer from extreme cost per unit of energy produced or have very limited areas suitable for their application.

Just maybe when the tech advanced sufficiently they can be viable but until them they are nothing more than pie in the sky dreams.

The decision to not use breeder reactors was a purely political one not an economic one.

It points to the fact we have no courage to do the right thing.

We could be totally energy independent and not subject to foreign oil but we are not serious about doing it and never have been.

How many wars have we fought and how many of our finest have died because some insist we can't drill for our own oil and won't build new nuclear plants?

In a very real way the green movement anti nuke crowd is responsible for more death than coal fired plants are.

BTW-China still opens a new coal fired plant every week.

We are not the problem when it comes to coal emissions.

Perhaps what confuses you on my call for more nuclear plants is that because of continued harassment and over regulation every Nuclear plant built is custom and far exceeds the original proposed build out cost. France does not have this problem and 70% of their energy production is from nuclear power.

Standardized plants of varying size can be designed and the buildout costs go way down.

Add to that the broken government promises and politicians spurred on by anti nuke activists with regard to low level wast storage(Yucca Mnt.) the waste must be stored on site at ever increasing rates.

We have done this to ourselves and the greens and anti nuke crowd are largely responsible.

I do not understand why it is so hard for some to see what's been happening teh last 40 years.

It is either willful ignorance or an agenda based ideology.

[Jason Kaylor]

Originally Posted by mlarson

I support coal, nuclear, oil. natural gas and any other energy souce that can provide our energy needs in a cost effective manner.

No you don't, breeder reactors are way more expensive than conventional nuclear. That is why they are not everywhere. That is just the economical standpoint. Their options for cooling are about as nasty as it gets. Once again I am not against nuclear.

Originally Posted by mlarson

With current technology, Ethanol, solar and wind, and geothermal either suffer from extreme cost per unit of energy produced or have very limited areas suitable for their application.

ummmm geothermal is cheaper than coal. At this point this conversation is becoming a broken record. I have already stated ethanol is dumb. Solar is too expensive and wind would be the same cost or slightly cheaper with the coal subsidies.

You ask why it is so hard for someone to believe xyz, why is it so hard to believe that coal and oil are simply effects of greedy politicians and companies? I agree with you 100% that money is the pushing factor behind all of this, but the money is not the savings to the public but rather the money pocketed by the aforementioned groups. Our previous president was an oil baby. He came in to office with a surplus in the budget and a couple trillion in debt. Now we are at 14 trillion in debt....OUCH!

China only puts up coal plants because they are forced to. They are also the world leader in solar and wind energy production.

We haven't even discussed solar hot water heaters yet. Here in Phoenix they absolutely make sense financially, especially when the customer has a pool they want heated.

JJ

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jkaylor

No you don't, breeder reactors are way more expensive than conventional nuclear. That is why they are not everywhere. That is just the economical standpoint. Their options for cooling are about as nasty as it gets. Once again I am not against nuclear.




ummmm geothermal is cheaper than coal. At this point this conversation is becoming a broken record. I have already stated ethanol is dumb. Solar is too expensive and wind would be the same cost or slightly cheaper with the coal subsidies.

You ask why it is so hard for someone to believe xyz, why is it so hard to believe that coal and oil are simply effects of greedy politicians and companies? I agree with you 100% that money is the pushing factor behind all of this, but the money is not the savings to the public but rather the money pocketed by the aforementioned groups. Our previous president was an oil baby. He came in to office with a surplus in the budget and a couple trillion in debt. Now we are at 14 trillion in debt....OUCH!

China only puts up coal plants because they are forced to. They are also the world leader in solar and wind energy production.

We haven't even discussed solar hot water heaters yet. Here in Phoenix they absolutely make sense financially, especially when the customer has a pool they want heated.

JJ

You say you are not against Nuclear but then claim there is limited fuel sources.

You can't have it both ways.

Breeder reactors where stopped because of the fear of the plutonium they produce. It was a political decision.


Try reading my posts.

Geothermal falls into the category of very limited area where is is economical to install a plant.

Who forces China to build coal plants?

If they are being "forced", why are they not "forced" to build clean coal facilities?

Something does not add up.


I have no problem with solar water heaters. Who does?

BTW-Is the strawman with obfuscation thrown in your only debating tactic?

BTW- Your "oil baby" argument belies your motives. How sad.

Obama has added to the debt more than all presidents before him combined.

[Jason Kaylor]

Here are a couple of good articles on breeders for those interested:

http://www.3rd1000.com/nuclear/nuke101g.htm

http://members.cox.net/sidelock/page...rreactors.html

U-238 final enrichment rate is currently around $200USD/kg which is 5x higher than U-235. The odd part of this number is that U-235 is approx 99% of all naturally occurring uranium on earth.

JJ

[Jason Kaylor]

Originally Posted by mlarson

You say you are not against Nuclear but then claim there is limited fuel sources.

You can't have it both ways.

huh? I just simply stated it was a finite resource. So is the sun for that matter.

JJ

[Jason Kaylor]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Obama has added to the debt more than all presidents before him combined.

Holy cow where do you get your info? The GOP website?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500803_1...28-500803.html - nevermind the 2nd paragraph.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...44-503544.html - nevermind the 7th paragraph.

So if Bush left with 9 trillion and your statement of Obama adding more than all presidents combined (we will not even do real math for the presidents that actually created a surplus) then you are saying that Obama has created over 9 trillion?

Also keep in mind that Obama walked in to a lot of this debt rolling over (so did Clinton and we see how that ended). The Bush tax cuts that are in place and being voted on right now account for 210 billion over the past 3 years alone. Those cuts mainly effect the top 2% earners in the country. Add in unemployment benefits, which anyone elected would have walked in to. When Bush entered office there was a 240billion surplus when he left he had a 1.4billion deficit. That is a huge number to walk into for anyone. Whoever won the 2008 election was doomed IMO.

JJ

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jkaylor

huh? I just simply stated it was a finite resource. So is the sun for that matter.

JJ

And with the use of a few breeder reactors producing more fuel than they consume that point becomes moot.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jkaylor

Holy cow where do you get your info? The GOP website?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500803_1...28-500803.html - nevermind the 2nd paragraph.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...44-503544.html - nevermind the 7th paragraph.

So if Bush left with 9 trillion and your statement of Obama adding more than all presidents combined (we will not even do real math for the presidents that actually created a surplus) then you are saying that Obama has created over 9 trillion?

Also keep in mind that Obama walked in to a lot of this debt rolling over (so did Clinton and we see how that ended). The Bush tax cuts that are in place and being voted on right now account for 210 billion over the past 3 years alone. Those cuts mainly effect the top 2% earners in the country.

JJ

You are only counting the debt to date and ignoring the costs of his planned spending.

How about an honest debate Jason?

[Michael Larson]

For the interested that understand math.

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...-national-debt