Free Republic

As so-called "cap-and-trade" legislation winds its way through Congress, many Americans want to know how they their country's energy future might be impacted if the legislation becomes law. Because the mainstream media isn't being too honest about the topic, they have to find alternative sources of information, including the blog you're reading now. Another good source for insight about this dangerous legislation is the Institute for Energy Research.

Recently, the folks at IER published a post that, despite being a bit scholarly at times for this native Oklahoman, is well worth wading through to learn a lot about the legislation. If, however, you would rather skip the opening act and see who shot who at the end of the play, simply read the paragraph below which appears about a dozen paragraphs into the piece:

All sources are needed to ensure energy will be available for future economic growth and to reduce dependence on foreign imports. Trading foreign imports of oil for component parts of wind and solar technologies does not reach any goals to which the U.S. is aspiring. To reach reductions of greenhouse gas emissions required by H.R. 2454, or other similar legislation, either nuclear power or biomass generating technologies will be needed, which provide greater amounts of energy than wind or solar power. That’s precisely the reason that China is investing in oil and gas resources abroad and in building power plants from hydrocarbon, nuclear, and renewable sources of energy without legal and government delays.

* * *

SEE ALSO:

China Buys Oil and Gas; America Dithers; and

Chinese Drill, Americans Suffer, Congress Sleeps

Hat tip: Jane Van Ryan at Energy Tomorrow

And I'm with you, too. I fundamentally disagree with this kind of stupidity, but if they are going to do it anyway, then productive members of society should grab some for themselves before the ponzi scheme collapses. And if it make it collapse come faster, then I think in the long run we will be better off.

I do not agree with the notion that if you disagree with some government boondoggle, for instance, social security, then on principal you should never draw on it. The left would love nothing more than for us to complain, pay, and not receive any benefits. The productives (my term for those of us who work for a living but are not filthy rich) should be prepared to drop out of the taxable economy, take what they can get from the gummit, and then supplement their lifestyle with ingenuity and industriousness. You can still live comfortably while toppling the system by both drawing on their resources and denying them your productive labor. You will also be better prepared to endure the more unpleasant aspects of the collapse. I call it “The Reverse Cloward-Piven Strategy”.

“So you’re ready to fall for the government scam? I suggest you read the whole article, not just the headline”

I said “If this is legit”. Read my whole post.

I’m in favor of starting near the Navy Pier and giving those living along Lake Shore drive a good view.

To top it off liberals in NY and London frequently poke each other in the ribs and joke about how far removed they are from anything but buildings, asphalt and concrete. They treat parks as if grass and trees are alien species.

What a lot of people fail to realize is that depending on unreliable and chaotic generating sources for a significant portion of base load capacity builds in a structural requirement to burn more fossil fuels, either coal or natural gas, to make up for the deficiencies in wind or solar-based generation. You generally come out on the losing side of the ledger both on costs and emissions.

It always amazes me how libs, who live in a urban concrete jungle the furthest they could from nature, can tell the rest of us who decide to live closer to God how to live.
Arrogance beyond imagination.

Since I've inadvertently posted the wind farm in Denmark, I suppose it's only appropriate to also mention:

There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone). Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark’s largest energy utilities) tells us that “wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.” The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that “Germany’s CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram,” and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery. Indeed, recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its intermittent character. On the negative side of the environmental ledger are adverse impacts of industrial wind turbines on birdlife and other forms of wildlife, farm animals, wetlands and viewsheds. Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontario’s current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, “windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.” Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it “a terribly expensive disaster.”

Wind power is a complete disaster (Denmark relevant)

The general idea is: put the turbines “out there” (where the conservatives live), and send the power “in here” (cities, where the liberals live)....

hh

There was no need for any stars to line up with Chernobyl, they did that ON PURPOSE, it was no accident, just stupidity. Albeit not a very well thought out purpose but what do you expect from the night shift?? I just have a pet-peeve about people bringing up Chernobyl when discussing “western” reactor designs and the dangers with nuclear power. The RBMK reactor would never be licensed here, or in Japan, or France, or Germany, etc. in a million years, then add in the inherently deficient construction capabilities of the eastern bloc countries and it’s a wonder that more haven’t gone supercritical and laid waste to half the former Soviet empire.

Wind power is inefficient, inconsistent, and ugly.

Other than that, what's to lose?

Greenies live in gentrified urban spaces, shower infrequently and hate cars, houses, suburbs and open spaces. Don’t let them ruin everyone’s lives.

Well actually that’s the thinking of every state, not just CA. The people in CA want electricity by any means, wind, solar, coal etc. but the minority special interest groups have our elected officials bent over the money barrel and control everything.

Taking into account all of the costs (startup, decommission, fuel, etc.)....

And the fact that they provide virtually zero benefit just compounds the stupidity of the decision, no? http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/04/08/wind-power-is-a-complete-disaster.aspx

Ah, nevermind - here's the caption for that particular image:

In 2002, the world’s largest offshore wind farm was built off the Danish west coast into the North Sea.

It was used for illustration in an article discussing the wind farm planned for Lake Michigan.

Video here: http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/ottawa_county/Mtg-set-to-talk-wind-turbines-in-lake

This probably isn't the same image the article is about, but this is an image of the proposed wind farm on Lake Michigan:

I know a lot about Chernobyl...we got hammered on it regarding the political causes of the accident and how the RBMK was a design that was inherently dangerous because of the positive void coefficient that the reactor exhibited (i.e., Keff goes greater than 1). Look that up, genius. There was no containment building other than a glass building.

You can have a Ferrari nuclear plant with all the bells and whistles and you can still have another Chernobyl with one should all the stars line up...kind of like at Chernobyl. The US navy runs its program really well.

It’s kind of like a dictatorship, though and the employees aren’t union and the sub and carrier reactors are super simple and as far removed from civilian power reactors regarding power transients, simplicity, and component survivability regarding shocks and blowy-up things that might happen. Lots of small reactors around the world just wouldn’t have the navy standards and the more you have, the more the probability goes up that the nasties might come out, which is just not an option. One or two real General Area Emergencies would shut down every reactor in the US.

I was making the point that it was an accident that released lots of the nasties. Check out the NOVA called “Return to Chernobyl.” It made US Nuclear Professionals shudder.

PWR’s, BWR’s, the new designs are all vastly superior to the RBMK design which used a graphite moderator rather than water.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

Taking into account all of the costs (startup, decommission, fuel, etc.)

Natural Gas is ....... 3.4 - 4.5 cents/kW-hour
Nuclear is ..............4.0 - 5.5 cents/kW-hour
Offshore Wind is......6.0 - 15. cents/kW-hour

The first two are assumed to run at 8,000 hours per year.

Wind power at 2200 hours per year.

Why can’t they just bury them underground like electric cables?

Hell, put them all in Washington, D.C.

There's enough wind there to power the world!

Why can’t they just bury them underground like electric cables?

Just like California. While I think windmills are not economical, this particular opposition to them shows what I call “California Thinking.” It can be summed up by the attitude of:

“We want electricity, but we don’t want anything that actually generates electricity anywhere near us. We expect that infinite quantities of electricity will be made in ‘some other place’ without any harm to any living thing and will be transported at no cost to our electric outlets.”

Having spent a great deal of professionsl time at LPS, Pentwater, Ludington and the entire west coast, I’m all for the spinners being put in!

I would bet that the ones most aghast at the prospect voted for Opossum.

Good point, but aren’t Libertarians all for self sustainability, personal responsibility, keep government out of our lives, ect.?

This is just so goofy. The US govt approves a nuke plant everytime the Navy builds a new sub or large surface ship. Here’s the way to do it. Build nuke power units that the Navy uses (standardization), hire discharged sailors who ran the power plants to run the power plants, and use the US Marines as security.

Solved and done.

This will NEVER happen as long as we have the current crop of panty waists in Washington. Can’t make a decision without a 20 year study and a boat load of lawyers.

A good case of NIMBY needs to sprout Nationwide. I say start in Marin County and Cape Cod first!

I have a bumper sticker....

A LITTLE NOOKIE NEVER HURT ANYONE

Great post, explain to people that nukes tend to run at 100 percent output all the time. I believe they become very inefficient below 100 percent power.

Toshiba (and what the hell they are doing with Los Alamos technology I don’t know) is another:

Actually, Japan has a very advanced and sophisticated nuclear program, sporting some 50 nuclear plants. They are fully competent enough to build a bomb if they wanted to.

The Toshiba model was proposed over a decade ago, and was what jump-started this whole idea. They even got some keen interest from some Alaskan and Canadian villages.

The Navy reactors run on HE uranium (almost bomb grade). This makes them small and powerful. It also makes them not suitable for commercial use because of that.

I think any Chicom N-powered container ship will likely contain a well-armed and trained crew (or seperate security team) that’ll eat any Somali pirates for breakfast.

And the ship mentioned in the article does 32 knots, I think a boarding attempt would remove some Somalis from the gene pool.

cool

Well, you have to consider the ship was an experiment. It's hull design was primarily to look good, and as a result it's cargo-carrying capacity was limited and wasn't easy to load. I'm sure a solidly utilitarian design would be quite successful. Heck the original SS Savannah, the world's first steam cargo ship, also didn't make a profit.

not a bad idea.....wouldn't really work for us because we live in a little hilly area and we don't golf....

but if anyone knows of any legal tax avoidance methods, it would make for an interesting thread....

You lost all credibility with me when you mentioned Chernobyl. If you are in the know, then you should know a thing or two about Chernobyl and the RBMK reactor design and how that happened. Comparing Chernobyl to any of the new Gen III+ designs is like comparing a Yugo to a Ferrari. The NuScale Power design was born from one of the best Nuclear Engineering schools in the country, Oregon State University. I have faith in the knowledge and experience of Dr. Jose Reyes far more than a guy who thinks “Chernobyl and all that.”

If that cult Loser is correct and water does come up by 10-12 feet then Florida will lose about 20% of it’s land use. As that much of Florida is less than 12 feet above sea level.
From the jetties on South Beach to the Fort Pierce inlet
(FP&L area)would be underwater. Eliminating thousands of hotels and condominiums. Not to mention the beach Strip north to Jacksonville.
After all Global Warming has some benefits and Pluses!! LOL