Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

NIMBYs and BANANAs are a natural consequence of insufficient regulation. If the Government allows industry to take dangerous or obnoxious risks, People will not want industry in their backyard. Only when the government strikes a balance between the interests of companies and those who have to deal with the consequences of their activities will people see fit to have industry in their backyards.

As the grandson of an Exxon executive who once ran refineries, I have relatives who can attest to a time when industrial accidents like the one that just hit a refineries were rare, when people took greater care with these dangerous facilities. It is the unwillingness of the modern corporation to give in to the needs and desires of the people around them that is making industry and manufacturing unwanted in our communities. Perhaps if industry was more flexible about regulation, people would be more flexible about location.

Heh. You talk as if Oil Company Executives and Corporate CEO’s of Power Companies live right next to their supposedly safe Oil Wells and Nucleur Power Plants.

link text

Alright, so here is my interpretation on the whole energy crisis…breeder reactors. If one reads this article they will surely come to understand the logic of using such reactors. the problem is, we need, as a nation, to get over this ridiculous fear of nuclear reactors. With proper safety regulations the reactors would not be a danger, in either security or accidents. Besides, the benefits vastly outweigh the negatives. Breeder reactors spread across the United States could power the United States with roughly 500 years of self sustaining energy. And why don’t we do it? Because we have uneducated dim-wits like Christina Berkely who go off on anti-nuclear rants, when ultimately, they hold about as little threat as someone trying to blow up an oil refinery. Read this article…trust, it will set the argument with NIMBY and BANANAs straight.

Whether or not plants are safe by any reasonable standard, people still oppose them. Even a clean industry like wind power runs into opposition when it comes near anyone. You may recall all the liberal opponents who fought a wind farm in the sea near Martha’s Vineyard.

I don’t think this is a conservative-liberal issue per se. It comes more from people forgetting that things have to be made or resources have to be extracted. I grew up around industries. All my relatives and neighbors worked in the mills and since we didn’t have cars, we lived close by. We understood the nature of industry. My wife grew up on a farm. Her family worked the land. They chopped trees for wood and raised animals. They understood the nature of agriculture. Now people are separated from the processes that keep them alive.

Urban or suburban kids really don’t understand any of this. When they grow up, they are still separated. Their idea of working in industry is Taco Bell for the poor kids and an internship at daddy’s firm for the rich ones. No industry is without some kind of pollution. We have to make a tradeoff. Even the greenest industrial process will not be as clean as nothing. But the problem is we don’t choose nothing. What we choose it to send industry someplace else, where it may be less efficient and dirtier.

Most environmentalists have read Thoreau and “Sand County Almanac” Read them again. You find respect for the land, but also the assumption that the land must be employed.

Re nuclear power, most of us live fairly close to nuclear power plants. I prefer to live near nuclear than near coal or oil fired plants. Coal, in its extraction and use, kills people every year. Oil make us dependent on the volatile ME. Nuclear power produces no green house gases and virtually no pollution of any kind. We need to work on the disposal of wastes, but that is doable. Despite all the scare stories, more people have died in Teddy Kennedy’s car than in all the nuclear accidents in American history.

Stephen said:

NIMBYs and BANANAs are a natural consequence of insufficient regulation.

I see. And how should we regulate, say, WalMarts so that people want those built near them? NIMBYs and BANANAS are a natural consequence of human nature. Another great example is the Cape Wind power project (which Jack also mentioned). It would supply all of Cape Cod’s power need (currently met with coal) if the NIMBY/BANANA/Environmentalist cabal stopped holding it up.

And Jack, I’m right there with ya on nuclear plants: put that bad boy in my back yard!

Alternatives available today: - but, the government and energy industry are not getting behind selling them for their merits. Why that is appears at the end of the this comment.

Wind- I have not heard of birds flying into and being killed by wind generator props. It it is true, there is little doubt the bird loss could be minimized via very small and inexpensive fixes. Coloring the blades, stringers attached to the blades to make them far more visible come to mind. Green’s are both capable and willing to accept the least of evils with energy.

New dams simply need to be erected to accomodate the species that depend upon the navigable river. No problem.

Nuclear is out until a guaranteed safe method of waste disposal becomes available. A lot more research needs to be done in this area, both theoretical and practical. Morphing hot material to cold material has to be possible. We need to spend the money to find the answer, since nuclear power is one of the best options PROVIDED waste can be safely accomodated.

Vegetation fuels - smell? Smell is a simple matter of chemistry. A little science can remedy that.

Geo-thermal works fine by recirculating the water back into the ground for reheating. Homes can, and some are, being heated by circulating in a closed pipe system a viscous liquid which heats in the earth and cools through heat exchangers at the building and recirculates back to the earth for reheating and vice versa for cooling.

Solar works fine on a whole lot less sunny days than 365 with the use of storage batteries to carry the load through cloudy periods. Automated switches can also put the load back on the grid for those lengthy cloudy periods where batteries have to wait to be recharged. The savings could still be substantial and environmental savings huge.

And we must not forget the absolutely most pristine and cost efficient energy saver of all - biomass. Earth bermed homes use up to 1/4 the energy of non-earth bermed homes. In addition, the cost of materials to construct would be much less than traditional building materials and since you are constructing of concrete, or mortar skin coating, maintenance costs are zero. Putting businesses underground would save vast sums of energy since heating and cooling costs would be reduced up to 75%.

But, the hinge pin in all this discussion is the cost of continuing with fossil fuels. Not just the barrel and refining costs, but, the legislative, war, and environmental costs as well. When fossil fuel’s real costs are summed, alternative energy sources and savings applications suddenly become far more affordable and efficient.

It really boils down to education and separating energy lobbyists from politician’s campaign contributions. Then, and only then, can we effect the kind of research, marketing, alternative development, and savings that alternative energy and savings practices promise.

Why hasn’t the Bush administration endorsed LNG as a new fuel source to replace oil? I’m not going to stand up for the tree huggers, I agree with you in that they hold up progress in a new fuel source. It just seems to me that LNG is a great replacement, and it could be implemented in a matter of years, rather then decades, as opposed to hydrogen. Bush is the issue. It’s obvious that he will put off finding an alternative fuel source for a long time. He makes it appear that he is working towards the issue by throwing a couple million in government funding to develop hydrogen fuel, but he knows that his family will be in great shape financially if he can put it off for a couple of decades. We can blame it on the greenies, but we all know that we need government to endorse a new fuel source. With the amount of money given to republicans by oil companies, I don’t think that we will see this hapen anytime soon.

“Nuclear is out until a guaranteed safe method of waste disposal becomes available. A lot more research needs to be done in this area, both theoretical and practical.”

David, did you read the article???? A) Breeder reactors have been around since the 70s! B) The reactors use self sustaining methods, so waste disposal becomes obsolete! There is no need for further research. At the very least we would have five barrels of deplete plutonium in 500 years! By then I am sure we would have a solution, but why wait 500 years before we start building? Doesn’t it seem strange that France, Britian and Japan ALL use the reactors, and yet here we are trying to figure out what works better a windmill or a drill, when the answer is clear as day? Discussion and usage is not out, if anything it should be in. If we are talking about educating the masses on enrgy usage, maybe you should read that article David. I agree completely with Jack, this has to become a matter of educating urban and suburban populous as to the benefits of nuclear energy, and that theoretically and practically there are solutions that will completely solve our energy crisis. David, don’t get caught up in the Cold War, Carter against nuclear BS. You are right on one point, it comes down to education.

David….see BDM’s comments about breeder reactors. This will help with the waste issue regarding nuclear energy. I agree whole-heartedly with BDM on this issue. I am in the nuclear industry and have been for 15 years now. The only problem with nuclear energy is public education. It is a safe form of energy that can be made cleaner by breeder reactors which will minimize waste…the nuclear form of recycling.

I also agree with Stephen. I’ll be darn if I’d want any type of “fuel” energy repository in my backyard because of the accidents that we’ve witnessed recently. I suppose a little public education would help here too, but energy corporations should put public safety above everything including profits….and I’m not sure this always happens. Yeah, it does get lip service but accidents talk and BS walks. Aldous said it better than I have….if the CEO built his/her home next to the site….well, now that would be putting your money where your mouth is, now wouldn’t it?

I stil think the cleanest and most efficient alternative energy source is the fuel cell. Not ony can it be used to power vehicles but also subdivisions, industrial parks, and entire city blocks. If you aren’t familiar with them I would urge you to look up what a company called Baldor has underway as well as a company called Fuel Cell Technology (No, I don’t own stock in either).

Ivan….although I did not vote for GW (and wouldn’t if I had it to do over)….I do believe in his most recent energy plan press release he talked for quite some time about LNG. Altough I am glad he did so, I would much rather see Fuel Cell technology furthered in an energy plan that would give ENORMOUS tax incentives to companies willing to set up the infrastructure necessary for mass fuel cell distribution.

A lot of the NIMBY thought process has to do with property value. If you build a home with a nice view and suddenly have an LNG or other Industrial park (or even Wal Mart for that matter) in your backyard….well, I bet your property value will not increase much, if at all. In fact, one could lose some equity.

Although I care greatly about the environment I don’t understand the BANANA thought process. Growth requires more energy…let’s make is somewhere…and let’s make it as environmentally friendly as possible.

Good discusssion so far!!!!!!

Let’s face it, no one wants a LNG terminal in their backyard. And, you have to ask yourself, is it fair to put it there? Suffer the few to benefit the many? I certainly wouldn’t do such a thing… Suffer the many to benefit me, maybe :P

Breeder Reactors are no panacea. We will still be generating nuclear waste. Until we find a safe way to dispose of what we have, why add even one more rad to an already perilous situation in this country just waiting for a mishap to shock everyone away from endorsing the danger?

I still say there are many safer alternatives as I outlined - though I would support a lot more research theoretical and practical on the nuclear disposal issue. Energy is a very basic economic problem. Infinitely growing demand with finite resources. This is not complicated folks. Passive energy conservation should be at the very top of the list since it costs nothing after installed. Sustainable energy for which there is an infinite supply, wind, solar and oceanic wave action, should be second, since the source of the energy conversion process is freely available. Last should be energy sources that require large amounts of energy input or labor intensive acquisition of source materials, which includes fossil fuels, uranium, and agriculture.

Where is the government’s common sense and elementary arithmetic skills to reason this out as above? In the pockets of corporate energy companies and OPEC whose profit maximizing potential lies with demand exceeding supply, that’s where.

Breeder Reactors sound like a good idea to me, but you do have to get past the issues of Three-Mile Island, Issues that are not insubstantial.

A refresher for those not familiar with the situation: Some sort of thing happened with coolant pumps and circuitry, resulting in a situation where not enough coolant was being pumped in. There was a partial meltdown of the core into the bottom of the containment vessel.

That’s right. Partial Meltdown.

With any nuclear system there needs to be strict regulation. This not the kind of operation you need run by the seat of one’s pants, not unless you want the locales around these plants made to glow in the dark. Even a breeder reactor has its dangers. We’re still dealing with nuclear material, and the added problems of dealing with molten sodium as I understand it.

I think nuclear power is hazardous enough to require great care in their location on principle alone.

Stephen, we’re getting into my area here… ;) (I am a former Navy Nuclear Reactor Operator)

The accident at 3 Mile Island shouldn’t have happened. A lot was learned from it and in the 25+ years since technology has advanced a great deal. The majority of the problem was that the operators didn’t understand what they were seeing, not something I think we would see these days.

However, there hasn’t been a new nuclear reactor built in the US in decades. Why? The ones that have been running have been going great for decades. No to mention the hundreds in the US Naval fleet without mishap. In the millions and millions of usage hours that nuclear plants have been running we had one very minor incident that luckily wasn’t major. There already *IS* majorly strict regulations in the nuclear power industry, it’s called the Nuclear Regulatory Agency and trust me, having seen them in action, it’s one of the only government agencies that I can say is needed and I trust…

Chernobyl was a horrible horrible accident, but one that could not have happened in the US for a variety of reasons. It isn’t possible, technically speaking.

How many people die every year from coal, natural gas and oil? Explosions, accidents, cave-ins and a myriad of health issues resulting from there use is amazing when you start adding it up.

The fact that the US has turned its back on nuclear energy is a shame, and we are seeing now the results that were predicted when we did all those years ago. Increased dependance upon foreign energy sources, dirtier than needed environments and expensive heating costs.

I have a plan that would satisfy the lefties and the righties and it is very simple. We raise taxes on everyone 1/4 of 1 percent. That revenue gets earmarked for solar panels, earth bermed housing and geothermal heating/cooling as well as hybrid cars for the working poor. Suddenly they won’t be so poor anymore. That satisfies the lefties. Now, the demand for fossil fuels drops increasing the supply to demand ration which lowers oil prices which lowers the overhead for businesses and corporations and permits all the gas guzzlers and 15+ room homeowners a real break on their fossil fuel costs. Everyone walks away happy except Libertarians and anarchists.

Not a bad deal, eh?

It’s about time to tell the envirowackos to SHUTUP!!!!!!!!!!!

Chops, good article. I read the CSM piece, and it looks like the argument is actually over whether the federal government or the state governments have final say over locating the terminals,

“This is a debate that needs to happen,” says James Hoecker, who was chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) during the Clinton administration and is now a partner at the law firm Vinson & Elkins in Washington. “It will be helpful that Congress has decided to express what it believes national policy ought to be.”

I think that’s absolutely right. I hope Bush does get involved in straightning things out, though I hope he backs states rights for once. :)

Also, I live in San Diego, and we made them build our LNG terminal in Baja, Mexico. Heh, heh. :)

David -

I fully agree with you that non-fossil fuels need to be exploited more. As an economist, I predict that if rising fuel costs really get out of hand, earth-bermed housing will pick up. Unfortunately, most people think of living in a cave as regressive rather than progressive, and as long as we can easily afford our way of life, it won’t much change.

However, environmentalists have a record of blocking all new energy projects that are larger than personal-scale. It seems they often can’t see the forest for the trees, and have a Kantian view of doing no harm to the environment, being unwilling to sacrifice, say, some shoals in the Nantucket Sound for cleaner air all around the Cape.

Re. nuclear power, we need to approach this soberly. It’s like flying in an airplane: every failure is spectacular, but they are so rare that flying is actually far safer than driving. We need to build new reactors if only to replace the aging ones we currently have! Nuclear technology has advanced a great deal, and we could have better, safer, and more productive plants with the same amount of waste if we approached this with an open mind.

I agree wholeheartedly with David Remer. As I have mentioned a few times I am a social worker in West Virginia. I support any kind of research for alternate sources of fuel. I am also a “tree hugger”. (to RON BROWN) I WILL NOT shut up!! Both David and Rhinehold are absolutely correct when they ask how many people die every year from coal accidents.

See, part of the problem of being so critical of NIMBY is that in our back yards, the “safe” extraction of coal promised by both our state and Federal governments has come careening down on top of us time after time. Whether it be whole towns destroyed in the blink of an eye by tons of coal sludge, or polluted water, land slides from mountaintop removal or any of the other disasters from decades of coal mining in WVA, the death toll if horrendous. (www.wvgazette.com/static/series/buffalocreek/commission.html
www.wvculture.org/history/buffcreek/bctitle.html

www.pww.org/article/articleprint/763

http://www.appalachianpower.com/Oral%20History,%20Larry%20Conn,%20Buffalo%20Creek%20Flood,%20Logan,%20WV.htm )
You can go ahead and blame us tree-huggers for not trusting the government who says “it is perfectly safe.” So to say, “it can’t happen here,” or “no risk to the environment” to many West Virginians including myself, it really means, “bend over.”
sassyliberal

Chops:

“However, environmentalists have a record of blocking all new energy projects that are larger than personal-scale. It seems they often can’t see the forest for the trees, and have a Kantian view of doing no harm to the environment, being unwilling to sacrifice…”
In West Virginia, a stae Full of trees, is that we canb’t seem to see the forests for all the smog, coal dust and sludge.” And as far as being “unwilling to sacrifice,” I guess that depends on what you are asking us tree huggers to sacrifice…Our health? Our homes and towns? Our children? Or just our future?
Again, I agree we not only have a need for new sources of energy, it is Imperative to our very surtvival. We just have to stick together as a society and demand our government enforce strict environmental safety measures, and hold industries accountable when they violate these measures.
sassyliberal

Japan is the greatest user of Nucleur Power and even they have accidents. Fox News probably never bothered to cover Japan’s string of foul-ups to have this many Conservatives screaming.

I vote we build all the Nuke Plants in Texas.

Breeder reactors are a long term solution but the economics are not as good as modern PWR’s as long as there is an abundant supply of uranium (and there is). I think the U.S. was working on a fast reactor with on site recycling before the plug got pulled on new nuclear power. There’s also that little problem with proliferation of Pu.

Reprocessing would reduce our current waste stream by 5 to7 times, and significantly lessen the need to enrich uranium. It also significantly reduces the toxicity of the final waste product. The US built a few reprocessing plants in the 70’s (AGNS in Barnwell SC was one) but Carter shut them down. The French recycling plant Melox processes about 150tons/year.

Aldous

I would welcome nuclear power to replace coal and other fossil fuels here in Texas.

Chops

If you switched to nuclear you would be giving up the smog, coal dust, sludge, and property value due to general lack of knowledge about nuclear reactors.

Two words:
(1) Oil. We are a fossil fuel based economy.
(2) Change. Business doesn’t like it.
Try to change our dependence on oil and you get resistance from business.
Given the tremendous mass of our population and economy, nuclear power is probably our only currently viable alternative. But I think we need to discard the American model of large scale with each site being designed seperately. The French have many nuclear generators but only a few designs. By sticking with one design we get a different kind of economy of scale. By using a recyclable technology, we reduce the waste problem. The only things left to do are change the American mind set against nuclear energy, finalize waste disposal problems, dis-incent oil and coal energy, and keep politics out of it. Well, 3 out of ain’t bad….

David,

I agree with your list of sustainable energy sources — and your call for “education and separating energy lobbyists from politician’s campaign contributions. Then, and only then, can we effect the kind of research, marketing, alternative development, and savings that alternative energy and savings practices promise” — truer words were never spoken.

“Breeder Reactors are no panacea. We will still be generating nuclear waste. Until we find a safe way to dispose of what we have, why add even one more rad to an already perilous situation in this country just waiting for a mishap to shock everyone away from endorsing the danger?”

Again I couldn’t agree more, and I would add that since nuclear facilities are defacto targets for terrorism, the last thing we need are more of them. Besides, the ones we have now aren’t even being properly protected!

“I still say there are many safer alternatives as I outlined - though I would support a lot more research theoretical and practical on the nuclear disposal issue.”

Here I disagree with you. I think that would be a waste of money because we already know the risks and the expense of dealing with nuclear waste clearly outweigh the benefits.

“Passive energy conservation should be at the very top of the list since it costs nothing after installed.”

Absolutely — it’s a no brainer.

“Sustainable energy for which there is an infinite supply, wind, solar and oceanic wave action, should be second, since the source of the energy conversion process is freely available.”

Spot on. And I believe that in developing sustainable technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, U.S. companies also have an opportunity to create jobs and launch an era of huge economic growth — akin to the start-up phase of the Internet. And conversely, if American investors fail to realize these opportunities, we will impoverish ourselves while our overseas competitors (who are already honing their strategies) get rich and gain complete control in a world where fossil fuels are a thing of the past.

“Last should be energy sources that require large amounts of energy input or labor intensive acquisition of source materials, which includes fossil fuels, uranium, and agriculture.”

I’d skip the fossil fuels and uranium altogether, but I’m with you on the development of alternative fuels through agriculture.

“Where is the government’s common sense and elementary arithmetic skills to reason this out as above? In the pockets of corporate energy companies and OPEC whose profit maximizing potential lies with demand exceeding supply, that’s where.”

I’d say that with our current neocon administration it’s even worse, they’re not just in the pockets of corporate energy, they are one and the same thing. And that because the presidents dearest friends are the Saudi Royal Family, it gives a whole new meaning to the term “conflict of interest”.

Sassy:
“I agree wholeheartedly with David Remer.”

I usually do too. He’s a real smart guy.

“I am also a “tree hugger”.”

Me too, and I’m not ashamed to say so either. Although, I was just a tiny kid in the 1960’s, so I’m not the crunchy, hippy, Burlap-farms type.

“(to RON BROWN) I WILL NOT shut up!!”

You tell ‘im, Sassy!!!

I have a wind “farm” 2 miles from my home, and a nuclear plant within sight of my home. I also live in the country. I couldn’t believe all the liberals crawling over the wind farm going in. All I heard was “it will kill birds!”. Has anyone actually laid eyes on those things? Those windmills are HUGE, and that bird has to be pretty dumb to hit one of those. The flight pattern of most birds (hawks was the token bird of choice in the suit filed), is either below or well above the blades of the mills. Even then, on a very windy day, the mills are shut down, as to not damage the mills anyway. Sure, the blades can move at a good pace, but at only three blades per mill, there’s plenty of time for the bird to move on, and they probably smash into cars more so than a wind generator.

As for the nuclear power, Byron has got to be one of the cleanest towns. The plant is very efficient, and clean, so the town has money, and no pollution.

I don’t understand environmentalists sometimes. Here are two great examples of clean energy, and they’re still a hazard. What is really entertaining is these same people buy clothes, eat out, drive cars, and talk on phones, etc… and those activities use the same energy that they claim kills poor baby seals. The ultimate of hipocracy, unless they’re nude, living in the wild and not eating anything (or leaving anything behind). I haven’t met one like that yet, lololol.

Right now in Ill. near horricon marsh a farmers wind generators are about to be shut down by an eviro group because they feel they might kill birds. I have no link but if you google wind generators/Ill/horricon marsh you’ll likely find something.
I agree about earth bermed homes, you could save alot untill they changed the damn building codes to say that you had to have a bunch of giant egress windows that a 400# fireman could get through. any saveings was lost when they did that.

Rhinehold-
I know Chernobyl couldn’t happen here. One, we don’t build those kinds of finicky steam cooled reactors, and two, we house our reactors in containment vessels.

I agree we already have strict regulations. In fact, my mother was working for Houston Lighting and Power (now Reliant and Centerpoint) when they were doing the work-up for the SW Texas nuclear project. My point in mentioning that is that we get these folks who like to fly by the seat of their pants on energy issues. Here’s one place where it would not be wise.

I do think we should look into new plants, and into breeder reactors. We should just be careful about the waste generated. I am not against nuclear power, in fact I’m for it. But I am well studied enough about the subject to know it’s not a perfect system.

My overall point, though, is that we should be prepared for things to go wrong in how we locate and regulate Nuclear plants. We should not rush into this thinking its a panacea without cost.

To Ron Brown:

No, Ron, it is not time for the “envirowackos” to shut up. They are the only ones who care about what is happening on this planet.

It is time for the anti-environment fools, such as yourself, to eat the shit you are creating.

I think if all the enviro groups pooled their money and built ANY kind of energy production plant(take your pick) they would find that anything they built that was even remotely cost effective would be opposed by their own group!

They would be forced to sue themselves.
Farmers also are a big target of enviro groups, ie..put diapers on cows, you must have toys for hogs to play with, ect ect. They should buy some land and give-er a try useing their standards and see how they make out.

If it were legal for power co.’s and farmers to cut the power and food to the persons sueing them the problem would soon go away.

Beagle-
The Problem nowadays is that the Right uses any example of enviro-wackiness as a reason not to implement sensible pollution controls. As for animal conditions- well, the dark secret of agribusiness is that the old family farm is now the exception rather than the rule for food production.

Most of todays food animals are bound up in pens that don’t allow them much room to move. The animal waste is allowed to cross-contaminate between the cages, so a number of infectious diseases that were once fairly rare among the animals are now widespread. E.Coli is one example. Salmonella is another. If you wonder why everything has to be well-done, nowadays, there’s your reason.

Additionally, the animal waste is often collected into huge ponds that have a nasty habit of getting flushed into the environment when there’s, say, a big hurricane like Hugo or something. That stuff gets washed into the river system, where it has considerable staying power. Forget Diapered Cows. Try industrial animal sewage on for size.

Stephen,

Of course Chernobyl can happen here, it’s just not likely. Engineering hubris caused the Russian catastrophe and we have egotistical engineers here too (me for one).
“It can’t happen here” has never been right, “those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it”, (platitude #3, insert here).

As for agribusiness, it’s being shown that in addition to being dirtier, megafarms are less efficient than small family farms. The opposite of “economy of scale” expectations. It’s just that the ConAgras spend more on politicians than Farmer Bob can.

For Beagle, and windfarms, the evidence is that there are local effects on weather by windfarms. I don’t think it’s enough to justify not having them but the environmentalists are divided on this issue.

I am convinced that we will have to start building new plants, whether they are refineries, wind farms, electric, LNG, nuclear, etc, as soon as possible. I am further convinced that we should be looking at the decommissioned military bases as low-cost, immediately available places for this development. The NIMBYs may object, but if the location is already owned by the federal government, they will have nothing to say about it.

We have wind farms in WI, we have 2 nuke plants, and we have several coal fired electricity plants. If I could have my choice, I would take wind or nuke over coal every day of the week.

It is interesting to note that in the last face to face that President Bush had with Prince Saud, it was remarked by the Prince that the U.S. does not have enough capacity to refine the oil to begin with. In other words, the Middle East could pump out as much as it wished (which it won’t), but in the end we just can’t refine it fast enough. Hence, a discussion on alternative energy, whether for mobility, residential, or otherwise, seems somewhat moot given the inability to process or refine the resources we have already. Does this prevent a look at nuclear, natural gas, wind power, or other source? No, but we should have some perspective on the status of the game and who’s playing.

Of course, the reality is that even if we were able to realistically replace the energy processing/production facilities in this country, there would still be a group who would have a corner on the market, so to speak. As in the case of California, where refineries have stock piled thousands of gallons of oil (which only cost them around $26 per barrel to produce), and then sold those barrels on the open market to themselves at the market rate (currently around 50 to 56 dollars I believe?), thereby creating a “loss” which can be written off and also used to justify the gas prices to begin with. The same also occurred with the energy trading scandals that allowed Gray Davis to be ousted.

It seems that the essential problem is not necessarily one of which energy production method is better (which is a legitimate discussion at a later date), but who do we allow to corner the market and at what cost.

Stephen,

I’m as “Green” as anyone here, so you can put that notion to rest.
Most farms in my area are family farms, the water they drink comes from the ground, they would do nothing to polute it.

Most of the sewage that leaks into rivers with heavy rains or floods comes from city sewage treatment plants.
Factory farms can be a problem, too much in a small area, lets end all property taxes on small farms(1500 acres or less) and allow them to compete in the market.

Most in the green party hate urban sprawl, lets not tax farmers off their land.

I can see both sides of the issue, if the enviro groups could also, we could together solve most of the problems.

Unlike the popular conservative’s beliefs, I do not think most liberals or enviromentalists are this stubborn when it comes to new power generation plants. Those that are, are a very small minority.

Nuclear is a step above fossil fuels, but should never be the primary source of power unless some miracle brings technology that safely disposes of the waste cheaply like an inexpensive one way rocket trip for the waste to outer space.

Until then we should make the best advantage of wind, solar and geothermal energy. Unless these windmills are killing more than 10 individuals of any endangered species I do not think there will be a problem in maintaining the large amount of biodiversity on this planet. There is wasted area on top every single building in this country; putting solar-cell generators on every roof would increase our energy production without more fossil fuels or nuclear power. The enviroment is like our senors, it is old, fragile and must be taken care of with care and not abused.

My patio doors have probably claimed more bird lives than wind generators, at least three a week fly into them and break their necks! Maybe we should ban patio doors? Then we could move on to bay windows after that! The Alaskan pipeline was suppose to be detrimental to the wildlife also, GUESS WHAT, since it is heated the wildlife are all lined up next to it in the winter to keep from freezing to death!

Warren

Most environmentalists are decent reasonable people. The problem is that the weirdos are the most active and they know how to use the courts to harass their fellow citizens.

There is also a problem with the term environmentalist. Many who use that label are not. I have had some dealings with Greenpeace. Most Greenpeace supporters are environmentalists, but the organization is not. Like many such, Greenpeace is a fund raising organization always on the lookout for opportunities to grandstand. Unfortunately that means that reasonable individuals and firms are caught in the crossfire.

The other problem with the term environmentalist is that it has become identified with leftist. Those who love the environment but are conservative in their methods are suspect in their ranks.

Natural Resources, and the environment have to be properly managed.

The problem appears to be the trustworthiness of the government,
and their dedication to enforce environmental law to protect the environment.

If government can NOT be trusted to properly
regulate these industries, the environment will be excessively damaged
by greedy people, and in some cases, we will be
needlessly endangered.

So, once again, it boils down to a more basic and fundamental root question/issue:
Whether or not government can be trusted to enforce the laws, and prevent careless and needless damage to the environment,
or, for that matter, do anything competently. And, if not, how should that be fixed? Because, nothing will work without that prerequisite. Then, once resolved, improvements in protection of the environment, and many other problems and issues would naturally follow.

Insufficient regulation? There should be NO regulation!

Jack,

You’re 100% correct, its as unfair to label all Rep.’s as anti-enviorment as it is to label all Dem.’s as anti-gun.

The problem comes from the leadership of the partys, If they embrace a radical view on an issue, but do mostly good with other issues, voters within that party need to tell them to be more reasonable on that issue, otherwise everyone that votes for them gets labeled as having the same views.
That is where all the “single issue voters” come from, and both sides of the isle play that like a banjo.

Escobar, EAT SHIT?
All you tree hugging envoriowackos care about is controling peoples lives.

Ron Brown and Escobar, one more violation of our policy like the ones above will result in your losing access to WatchBlog.

Of course Chernobyl can happen here

Um, no, it can’t. The Nuclear Regulatory Agency isn’t about to let sodium-cooled plants into the US for the very reasons that led to Chernobyl. Of course, this increases the cost of Nuclear Energy, but to have water-cooled plants instead will allow for an level of safety that is well worth that price.

The thing is that these people that prevent windmills from being put up to produce electicity because of concerns over bats and birds are not “hard-core” enviromentalists; they are mainly homeowners worried about a drop in theri property value willing to use any excuse they can to convinve the government the validity of “NIMBY” in respect to the wind farm. These people are not the same as the hardcore enviromentalists that trash hummers and other SUVs becuase they believe deeply that these cars can destroy society through global warming. There is a difference between these two groups that I hope everyone here will recognize.

Warren

You are right about the differences among environmentalists.

A landowner who wants to keep his land green and pleasant is a soft type of environmentalist.

The hard core that you talk about are religious environmentalists. You are talking about those guys who burn houses etc., right? Earth First! They are like the extreme anti-abortion activists who bomb clinics. Every movement has its weirdos.

“These people are not the same as the hardcore enviromentalists that trash hummers and other SUVs becuase they believe deeply that these cars can destroy society through global warming.”

Warren,

I have to say that I am not a “hardcore environmentalist”, but by the same token, I think that the glut of Hummers and other SUVs is lame.
Most of these trucks will never be used as they are intended. I would bet that 95% or better will never even be seen off road. They clog our city streets and give their drivers a false sense of security, and power.
I wouldn’t suggest that we ban them, but I for one would like to see them off of our city streets.
Let them be used for what they are intended. Not as some status symbol.

Rocky, I too agree that any auto that has less than 22 mpg should be outlawed. The probvlem would be making car manufactures comply and enforcing the law. That would force the innovation of efficient SUV’s. After that the ban would be heightened as innovation increases until it reaches 30-35 mpg. With tax incentives to drivers that drive efficient vehicles, most people would probaly drive cars th at go well beyond the ban in effecientcy.

Rocky, Warren

The secret is simple. Gas prices. The price of gas should reflect the full cost (environmental, military etc) of its use. In that case, anyone who drove an inefficient car would pay the price. In addition, it is the best encouragement to car pooling.

I agree with you about SUVs etc, but I don’t think regulating them is the right way to go because regulations have enforcement costs, and clever people tend to figure out ways to subvert regulations. Regulations also tend to hand around like a fart in a phone booth long after their purpose is gone.

Prices work. I saw that at my own workplace. When gas prices recently went up, many people asked for telecommuting privileges and changed their hours to take advantage of trains and mass transit.

An ironic twist is that much of our current problem with cars is CAUSED by regulation. Almost all jurisdictions require new buildings to provide off street (usually free or low cost) parking. Low cost parking encourages driving. Driving encourages new roads or widened streets, which give people incentive to move farther away, where they demand new roads and free parking.

I forgot to mention an important point. Even if cars got 100 miles to a gallon and made no pollution, they would still be our biggest environmental hazard because they cause changes in land use, sprawl, new roads and acres of sterile parking lots.

A cheaper, more energy efficient car might actually be a bad thing if it encouraged more driving.

Raising fuel prices hurts the poor and middle class, it makes everything go up in price.

When gas costs more heating fuels also cost more, people start heating their home with wood, not the greenist form of heat.
Carpooling may work for the 9-5 crowd but it doesn’t work in mfg. plants where your hours may change daily and they base nothing on who is or isn’t in a certain carpool. Ditto on getting to work in a blizzard ect., you get to work or get fired, an ice storm or 15” of snow on the road is no excuse for missing work.
A 4x4 anything costs alot now, you may only need it 10-20 times a year but without one in many jobs/areas you wouldn’t be working anywhere.
Do you really propose that working stiffs must also buy a toy car to drive when they dont need the 4x4?
American auto mfg.’s are in serious trouble now(the S+P just reduced their debt bonds to “junk” statis), trucks and suv’s are ALL they make money on, if you wish to kill them off, ban trucks and suv’s, that will go over like a turd in the punch bowl with the unions!
Most of the Nation has no mass-transportation of any kind, where I live there isn’t even busses or taxi’s!

I’ve never been there, but, I think disney land has lil shuttles to move people around, I’ve never lived in disney land.

Beagle

Thanks for pointing out that one solution doesn’t work for all of America. It is easy to forget that.

BTW

Tomorrow I am going down to look at two forest properties, mostly “genetically superior” loblolly pine with the balance in river hardwood. If it works as I hope, I will be in the forestry business (part time) I have been thinking about this for nigh on 30 years. Your advice pushed me over the top. Thanks.

Jack my friend,

Thank YOU for not taking any of my comments personal,I only wish that those that hate my opinions on everything could understand that I present them as, sometimes humorus, colorfull, and often misspelled,but they are honest.

If I can help you more on timber management I would be very happy to do so, Hell, if those that hate my guts ask for a research type favor, I would do that too!
Go figger.

Beagle,

“Raising fuel prices hurts the poor and middle class”

But then, so do most adverse things in our society.

Guys,

I’m not advocating banning SUVs or Hummers. All I would like to see is some common sense in their use. You want a toy car, take it off road, not downtown.
We all would like to see more fuel efficiency in our cars, unfortunately, when an Suv makes contact with the fuel efficient vehicle, all hell seems to break loose.

Hell, if those that hate my guts ask for a research type favor, I would do that too!

LOL! Come off it, Saint Beagle! Nobody hates your guts. You’re you’re just wrong, mostly. :)

BTW, Ford has a hybrid SUV (36 mpg), and you can get working trucks that run on alternate fuels - here’re some options from GM.

AP my friend,

I wasn’t counting you or 99% of those that post here, Saint Beagle does have a catchy ring to it?..lol

Seriously, If you check into the hybreds you’ll find that their mileage drops like a rock on the highway, most charge the batterys when braking, hence they get the best mileage in stop/go city driving at slower speeds, they are a good choice for city driving.

Bio-disel is an exellent choice for working trucks,( made from soybeans) it burns much cleaner with no loss in HP or mileage.

Has anyone seen car that runs on compressed air?
They’re calling it the Air Car .

It’s looking promising.
It may not be good for long trips, but good for city commuting.

The hydrogen and hydrogen catalyst technologies
look promising. Existing automobiles could be
modified to use hydrogen. But it will take time
because it will require new refueling equipment
and different safety procedures. Hydrogen doesn’t
have to be any more dangerous than gasoline.

The technologies exist. It will happen eventually.
When the supply of oil gets low enough, and
the price of oil gets high enough.

I’d love for this country to be independent and
not have to rely on other countries for oil.
Eventually, we will go through the transistion.
It would be great for the environment and the
security of the nation, if we could do it before
it becomes an emergency.

Unfortunately, despite the billions spent to
fund the Energy Department, Commissions,
Committees, etc., we still have no energy policy.