Bush economy strikes California

Page 2 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Bush economy strikes California

Post by Aaron on Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:52 am

I read an interesting article in today's Gazette in which detractors are condemning T. Boone Pickens energy plan because they say the only reason he's so strongly in favor of replacing natural gas as a source for energy with wind and converting the natural gas to auto's is because he would benefit financially on both fronts, which happens to be true.

He's invested $2,000,000,000.00 (2 billion for those of you who can't count) in wind in Texas and about $100,000,000 (one hundred million) in nautral gas cars and trucks in California alone.

My point is, I think I trust a rich Republican that's willing to invest their own money, get their hands dirty and lead by example more then I trust a democrat that's telling us we can't drill or use American resources and that we HAVE to use conservation as our focal point while they themselves are living in mansions consuming more energy in a month the all of us on this forum do in a year.
avatar
Aaron

Number of posts : 9841
Age : 51
Location : Putnam County for now
Registration date : 2007-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bush economy strikes California

Post by Stephanie on Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:04 pm

Damn that capitalist!

He should be drawn and quartered!

_________________
Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense.
-Ron Paul
When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads.
-Ron Paul
avatar
Stephanie
Admin

Number of posts : 6556
Age : 53
Location : West Virginia
Registration date : 2007-12-28

View user profile http://gazzfriends.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Bush economy strikes California

Post by Aaron on Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:46 pm

If nothing else, he shut the "Do as I sayer's" up...

As daddy always said though, actons speak louder then words.
avatar
Aaron

Number of posts : 9841
Age : 51
Location : Putnam County for now
Registration date : 2007-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bush economy strikes California

Post by ohio county on Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:43 am

I do not have access to any of the quantitative sources at the moment and not much time to post.

There are a couple interesting anomalies in T. Boone’s proposal. One of them is that he proposes five wind turbines per square mile as opposed to the more common eight turbines per square mile. It is estimated, therefore (and this is per my memory and admittedly iffy), production rivaling a 1 MW coal-fired power plant would require something like 880 square miles of wind farm. T. Boone has declined the privilege of putting any of the wind turbines on his 68,000 acre West Texas spread as he finds the turbines “ugly”. That said, I still agree with his proposal.

But…Denmark, which is the leading power-from-wind purveyor in the world, stopped building wind farms last year. They found that twenty percent of total production is about the optimum from wind. This is due to the facts that winds are only about thirty percent reliable and since there is no storage, per se, of power that demand and production have to match within about five percent. Standard power plants have coped with this requirement by running “spinning” power during off-peak times that can be ramped up to meet unpredictable demands.

Let me say again that T. Boone’s proposal will require some 880 square miles of land and will produce at about 30% of rated capacity. Nuclear, on the other hand, will require maybe one hundred total acres and will produce at 92% of designed capacity. Coal-fired boilers run at a high capacity but require thousands of acres of coal mine and, as we’ve seen in other threads, often lead producers into questionable and destructive modes of operation like mountain top removal. Eighteen months of fuel rods will fit with room to spare on a single fifty-three foot box trailer. Fly ash is good for …what? Aggregate? Abandoned mine subsidence?

Finally, the energy netted from separating hydrogen from carbon molecules (the burning of coal) is but an infinitesimal fraction of the energy created by splitting an atom. The spent fuel from a nuclear power plant would fit in my single-car garage for many years.

I’m not saying that wind is not worth doing. I’m not saying that hydroelectric is not worth doing. I'm not saying that clean coal is not worth doing. But I will say that nuclear is by far the better value.

_________________
Woody: What's shakin', Mr. Peterson?
Norm: All four cheeks and a couple of chins.
avatar
ohio county
Moderator

Number of posts : 3207
Location : Wheeling
Registration date : 2007-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bush economy strikes California

Post by ziggy on Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:34 am

My point is, I think I trust a rich Republican that's willing to invest their own money, get their hands dirty and lead by example more then I trust a democrat that's telling us we can't drill or use American resources and that we HAVE to use conservation as our focal point while they themselves are living in mansions consuming more energy in a month the all of us on this forum do in a year.

Apples and oranges. For this comparison to make any sense, Pickens would nned to be a candidate for president..
avatar
ziggy
Moderator

Number of posts : 5731
Location : Jackson County, WV
Registration date : 2007-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bush economy strikes California

Post by ziggy on Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:38 am

I’m not saying that wind is not worth doing. I’m not saying that hydroelectric is not worth doing. I'm not saying that clean coal is not worth doing. But I will say that nuclear is by far the better value.

In some respects, yes- especially if all goes as well as "perfection" allows. But the risk of a catastrophic level accident is higher.
avatar
ziggy
Moderator

Number of posts : 5731
Location : Jackson County, WV
Registration date : 2007-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bush economy strikes California

Post by Aaron on Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:50 am

ziggy wrote:
My point is, I think I trust a rich Republican that's willing to invest their own money, get their hands dirty and lead by example more then I trust a democrat that's telling us we can't drill or use American resources and that we HAVE to use conservation as our focal point while they themselves are living in mansions consuming more energy in a month the all of us on this forum do in a year.

Apples and oranges. For this comparison to make any sense, Pickens would nned to be a candidate for president..

How is comparing the actions of Republicans to the inactions of democrats apples and oranges Frank? That makes no sense. You'll have to explain it!!!
avatar
Aaron

Number of posts : 9841
Age : 51
Location : Putnam County for now
Registration date : 2007-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bush economy strikes California

Post by Aaron on Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:54 am

ziggy wrote:
I’m not saying that wind is not worth doing. I’m not saying that hydroelectric is not worth doing. I'm not saying that clean coal is not worth doing. But I will say that nuclear is by far the better value.

In some respects, yes- especially if all goes as well as "perfection" allows. But the risk of a catastrophic level accident is higher.

The question is, with today’s advanced technology vs. that of 30+ years ago, how minimal is the risk and is it worth that risk given our energy situation, our dependence on foreign oil, the fact that liberals have gridlocked us to the point that we can't explore domestic reserves or build new coal fired power plants and the instability of alternative energy sources?
avatar
Aaron

Number of posts : 9841
Age : 51
Location : Putnam County for now
Registration date : 2007-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bush economy strikes California

Post by ziggy on Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:59 am

Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:
My point is, I think I trust a rich Republican that's willing to invest their own money, get their hands dirty and lead by example more then I trust a democrat that's telling us we can't drill or use American resources and that we HAVE to use conservation as our focal point while they themselves are living in mansions consuming more energy in a month the all of us on this forum do in a year.

Apples and oranges. For this comparison to make any sense, Pickens would nned to be a candidate for president..

How is comparing the actions of Republicans to the inactions of democrats apples and oranges Frank? That makes no sense. You'll have to explain it!!!

So it is "action" when a Republican runs for President, but "inaction" when a Democrat runs for President?
avatar
ziggy
Moderator

Number of posts : 5731
Location : Jackson County, WV
Registration date : 2007-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bush economy strikes California

Post by ziggy on Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:05 am

The question is, with today’s advanced technology vs. that of 30+ years ago, how minimal is the risk and is it worth that risk given our energy situation, our dependence on foreign oil, the fact that liberals have gridlocked us to the point that we can't explore domestic reserves or build new coal fired power plants and the instability of alternative energy sources?

How minimal is the risk and is it worth that risk, you ask.

Unfortunately that question will likely be answered by a few energy industry elitists, but while the risks of catastrophe will be shared by millions of people who have little if any voice in the matter. How about putting it up to a vote of the people who live within 500 miles of a proposed nuclear power plant?
avatar
ziggy
Moderator

Number of posts : 5731
Location : Jackson County, WV
Registration date : 2007-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bush economy strikes California

Post by Aaron on Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:31 am

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:
My point is, I think I trust a rich Republican that's willing to invest their own money, get their hands dirty and lead by example more then I trust a democrat that's telling us we can't drill or use American resources and that we HAVE to use conservation as our focal point while they themselves are living in mansions consuming more energy in a month the all of us on this forum do in a year.

Apples and oranges. For this comparison to make any sense, Pickens would nned to be a candidate for president..

How is comparing the actions of Republicans to the inactions of democrats apples and oranges Frank? That makes no sense. You'll have to explain it!!!

So it is "action" when a Republican runs for President, but "inaction" when a Democrat runs for President?

WTF are you talking about Frank?
avatar
Aaron

Number of posts : 9841
Age : 51
Location : Putnam County for now
Registration date : 2007-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bush economy strikes California

Post by Aaron on Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:44 am

ziggy wrote:
The question is, with today’s advanced technology vs. that of 30+ years ago, how minimal is the risk and is it worth that risk given our energy situation, our dependence on foreign oil, the fact that liberals have gridlocked us to the point that we can't explore domestic reserves or build new coal fired power plants and the instability of alternative energy sources?

How minimal is the risk and is it worth that risk, you ask.

Unfortunately that question will likely be answered by a few energy industry elitists, but while the risks of catastrophe will be shared by millions of people who have little if any voice in the matter. How about putting it up to a vote of the people who live within 500 miles of a proposed nuclear power plant?

I don't have a problem with that.

Oh, you do have information that shows the risk extends 500 miles, correct Frank? I mean, realistically, the vote should be to those who would actually be affected, don't you agree!!!

I mean, if you take a 500 mile radius around Three Mile Island, that encompasses half of Mi, IN, TN, most of NC, half of MA and significant parts of 2 Canadian Providences (which raises another point-do they get to vote) and all states in between including all of WV. Should 2/3rd’s of the US population voted on whether to build Three Mile Island?

And on this or any potential vote, how would you pose the question, a simple yes or no to building a nuclear power plant or would you want to list ALL of the potential risk?
avatar
Aaron

Number of posts : 9841
Age : 51
Location : Putnam County for now
Registration date : 2007-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bush economy strikes California

Post by ohio county on Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:58 am

Pelosi says now that she may allow a vote on oil exploration when Congress reconvenes. Before she said that oil exploration was a "hoax". Speculation is that she'll load the exploration bill with so much social spending that no republican can vote for it. Then when they neglect to pass it she will claim that the republicans voted down oil exploration.

Michelle Malkin today examines Pelosi's financial disclosure form. Lo and behold, she bought fifty thousand shares of T. Boone's initial public offering and stands to make a large fortune if his wind and natural gas plan is successful.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTY1Njk0MWNkNTk2NGY3OTRmZTIyMWM4YWM0YWM4MmI=

Even so, I'm not sure that Picken's idea is a bad one.

_________________
Woody: What's shakin', Mr. Peterson?
Norm: All four cheeks and a couple of chins.
avatar
ohio county
Moderator

Number of posts : 3207
Location : Wheeling
Registration date : 2007-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bush economy strikes California

Post by ziggy on Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:59 am

I mean, if you take a 500 mile radius around Three Mile Island, that encompasses half of Mi, IN, TN, most of NC, half of MA and significant parts of 2 Canadian Providences (which raises another point-do they get to vote) and all states in between including all of WV. Should 2/3rd’s of the US population voted on whether to build Three Mile Island?

How large an area in the Ukraine was devastated by Chernobyl?
avatar
ziggy
Moderator

Number of posts : 5731
Location : Jackson County, WV
Registration date : 2007-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bush economy strikes California

Post by ziggy on Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:01 pm

Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:
The question is, with today’s advanced technology vs. that of 30+ years ago, how minimal is the risk and is it worth that risk given our energy situation, our dependence on foreign oil, the fact that liberals have gridlocked us to the point that we can't explore domestic reserves or build new coal fired power plants and the instability of alternative energy sources?

How minimal is the risk and is it worth that risk, you ask.

Unfortunately that question will likely be answered by a few energy industry elitists, but while the risks of catastrophe will be shared by millions of people who have little if any voice in the matter. How about putting it up to a vote of the people who live within 500 miles of a proposed nuclear power plant?

I don't have a problem with that.

Oh, you do have information that shows the risk extends 500 miles, correct Frank? I mean, realistically, the vote should be to those who would actually be affected, don't you agree!!!

I mean, if you take a 500 mile radius around Three Mile Island, that encompasses half of Mi, IN, TN, most of NC, half of MA and significant parts of 2 Canadian Providences (which raises another point-do they get to vote) and all states in between including all of WV. Should 2/3rd’s of the US population voted on whether to build Three Mile Island?

And on this or any potential vote, how would you pose the question, a simple yes or no to building a nuclear power plant or would you want to list ALL of the potential risk?

At least we agree in principle. From that the details of a vote of the people can be negotiated.
avatar
ziggy
Moderator

Number of posts : 5731
Location : Jackson County, WV
Registration date : 2007-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bush economy strikes California

Post by Stephanie on Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:15 pm

Ziggy,

What specific energy sources to you support? You seem to object to everything.

_________________
Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense.
-Ron Paul
When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads.
-Ron Paul
avatar
Stephanie
Admin

Number of posts : 6556
Age : 53
Location : West Virginia
Registration date : 2007-12-28

View user profile http://gazzfriends.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Bush economy strikes California

Post by Aaron on Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:17 pm

ohio county wrote:Pelosi says now that she may allow a vote on oil exploration when Congress reconvenes. Before she said that oil exploration was a "hoax". Speculation is that she'll load the exploration bill with so much social spending that no republican can vote for it. Then when they neglect to pass it she will claim that the republicans voted down oil exploration.

Michelle Malkin today examines Pelosi's financial disclosure form. Lo and behold, she bought fifty thousand shares of T. Boone's initial public offering and stands to make a large fortune if his wind and natural gas plan is successful.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTY1Njk0MWNkNTk2NGY3OTRmZTIyMWM4YWM0YWM4MmI=

Even so, I'm not sure that Picken's idea is a bad one.

It may not be a bad one but it's not quite as attractive as it was Jimmy. Before billions in government subsidies are invested, this needs to looked at a little closer.
avatar
Aaron

Number of posts : 9841
Age : 51
Location : Putnam County for now
Registration date : 2007-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bush economy strikes California

Post by Aaron on Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:28 pm

ziggy wrote:
I mean, if you take a 500 mile radius around Three Mile Island, that encompasses half of Mi, IN, TN, most of NC, half of MA and significant parts of 2 Canadian Providences (which raises another point-do they get to vote) and all states in between including all of WV. Should 2/3rd’s of the US population voted on whether to build Three Mile Island?

How large an area in the Ukraine was devastated by Chernobyl?

It was much more significant to the west then to the east but that's a worst case scenario and is the only level 7 accident in nuclear power history and occurred 22 years ago and if properly monitored, would have been avoided.

It's a scare tactic commonly used by many environmentalist in their efforts to hinder, delay and prevent much needed upgrades to meet America's energy needs.

As I said, I don't have a problem with putting nuclear power to a vote. I don't even have a problem of listing potential hazards, so long as the probability and likelyhood are listed as well as ALL the benefits.
avatar
Aaron

Number of posts : 9841
Age : 51
Location : Putnam County for now
Registration date : 2007-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bush economy strikes California

Post by ziggy on Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:39 pm

What specific energy sources to you support? You seem to object to everything.

I have not objected to "everything"- unless advocating better regulation means objection.

I support natural gas and oil when they are reasonably accessible and their extraction, transport and combustion are adequately regulated.

I support responsibly sited both small and utility scale concentrated solar and wind generating facilities, small scale solar panel generators, coal powered facilities when that coal is mined and burned with minimal environmental impacts.

I might even support nuclear- but I'm not willing to give the nuclear power industry a blank check. The people most at risk should have at least an equal voice in siting nuclear facilities.

And of course I support conservation- which "generates" more available energy than most of us seem willing to admit.


Last edited by ziggy on Wed Aug 13, 2008 1:06 pm; edited 2 times in total
avatar
ziggy
Moderator

Number of posts : 5731
Location : Jackson County, WV
Registration date : 2007-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bush economy strikes California

Post by ziggy on Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:44 pm

It was much more significant to the west then to the east but that's a worst case scenario and is the only level 7 accident in nuclear power history and occurred 22 years ago and if properly monitored, would have been avoided.

Sure. And by 1980 there had been only one space shuttle disaster. And by 1990 only two. And by 2008 only three.

My point is that one disaster does not somehow necessarily prevent the next one.
avatar
ziggy
Moderator

Number of posts : 5731
Location : Jackson County, WV
Registration date : 2007-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bush economy strikes California

Post by Aaron on Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:52 pm

ziggy wrote:
It was much more significant to the west then to the east but that's a worst case scenario and is the only level 7 accident in nuclear power history and occurred 22 years ago and if properly monitored, would have been avoided.

Sure. And by 1980 there had been only one space shuttle disaster. And by 1990 only two. And by 2008 only three.

My point is that one disaster does not somehow necessarily prevent the next one.

It doesn't ensure the next one either.
avatar
Aaron

Number of posts : 9841
Age : 51
Location : Putnam County for now
Registration date : 2007-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bush economy strikes California

Post by ziggy on Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:56 pm

But each accident does help shape predictability. Just ask anyone in the business of actuaries.

There was TMI. Later there was Chernobyl. And dozens of lesser nuclear "events" both before and since. If we think these events don't go into predicting future nuclear accidents, think again.
avatar
ziggy
Moderator

Number of posts : 5731
Location : Jackson County, WV
Registration date : 2007-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bush economy strikes California

Post by Stephanie on Wed Aug 13, 2008 1:38 pm

ziggy wrote:
What specific energy sources to you support? You seem to object to everything.

I have not objected to "everything"- unless advocating better regulation means objection.

I support natural gas and oil when they are reasonably accessible and their extraction, transport and combustion are adequately regulated.

I support responsibly sited both small and utility scale concentrated solar and wind generating facilities, small scale solar panel generators, coal powered facilities when that coal is mined and burned with minimal environmental impacts.

I might even support nuclear- but I'm not willing to give the nuclear power industry a blank check. The people most at risk should have at least an equal voice in siting nuclear facilities.

And of course I support conservation- which "generates" more available energy than most of us seem willing to admit.

There is only so much conservation can do with our ever growing population. Are you suggesting you support population control measures like they have in China? I certainly hope not.

I just don't know how much more "regulation" the nuclear power industry can be placed under. I used to be terrified of nuclear power but one of the most brilliant and compassionate people I have ever had the pleasure of being acquainted with put me at ease.

His name is Bob Barron and to my knowledge he is still an employee of Millstone in CT. He was a manager of one of the plants there. I lost touch with him after I moved and really don't know what he's doing now, could be retired.

Anyway...Bob and I had discussions about my fears of that power plant and expansion of nuclear power in the US and he kept assuring me it was safe and why it was safe and how the NRC performed colonoscopies on the plants and the staff and the surrounding area on a regular basis. One day he looked at me and said, "Stephanie, do you think I'm a reasonably intelligent person." Believe me, this guy is like a rocket scientist, so of course I said yes. Then he asked me, "Do you think I'd have my wife, my only child, and her child living near something that was likely to kill them or destroy their quality of life?"

Now that worked for me because I had gotten to know that guy pretty well over the years. I know how bright he is and I know how devoted he is to his family. There is not a doubt in my mind that he would never do anything to endanger them in any way. He knows a whole lot more about nuclear power than I do and he made me realize that those in the nuclear power industry have as much to lose as the rest of us if they aren't vigilant in preventing a Chernobyl or even a TMI in the USA.

My limited knowledge of dangers associated with energy production and storage leaves me most fearful of LNG storage. I don't believe enough is done to prevent catastrophy with LNG and would like to see something done about that, at least in RI. In Providence, the capitol and most populous area of the state, there is an LNG terminal that if disaster struck would cause massive casualties and nobody seems interested in talking about it.

_________________
Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense.
-Ron Paul
When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads.
-Ron Paul
avatar
Stephanie
Admin

Number of posts : 6556
Age : 53
Location : West Virginia
Registration date : 2007-12-28

View user profile http://gazzfriends.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Bush economy strikes California

Post by Aaron on Wed Aug 13, 2008 1:40 pm

ziggy wrote:But each accident does help shape predictability. Just ask anyone in the business of actuaries.

There was TMI. Later there was Chernobyl. And dozens of lesser nuclear "events" both before and since. If we think these events don't go into predicting future nuclear accidents, think again.

You are exactly right. Each accident helps shape predictability just as each day accident free at the dozens of nuclear facilities reduces that predictability.

That is why I said we must examine the risk and considering the number of accidents vs. the number of accident free years and the number of facilities, the ‘youngest’ of which is 30+ years old, the risk is going to be very minimal. In fact, it is going to be much lower then it was 20 years ago when the minor incident at TMI occurred.

When those risk are taken into consideration with the advances in technology then the predictability of an accident will only solidify the need to build nuclear power plants as soon as possible.
avatar
Aaron

Number of posts : 9841
Age : 51
Location : Putnam County for now
Registration date : 2007-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bush economy strikes California

Post by ziggy on Wed Aug 13, 2008 2:00 pm

There is only so much conservation can do with our ever growing population. Are you suggesting you support population control measures like they have in China? I certainly hope not.

No, I am not. But some future generations of Americans may be looking at that as one scenario.

The conservation I am talking about such inlcudes such things as winterizing and better winterizing of our homes, motor vehicles with better fuel efficiency, planning community developments and cities such as to minimize energy requirements, public transportation in lieu of single occupant transport vehicles where feasible, movement toward more distributive / disbersed generation of electricity and away from builder larger power generation stations and away from more endless networks of long distance power transmission lines. That is not a complete list. But that is some of what I am talking about.
avatar
ziggy
Moderator

Number of posts : 5731
Location : Jackson County, WV
Registration date : 2007-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bush economy strikes California

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum