[IronCage]

Originally Posted by Ultimo Hombre

Damn tree huggin' commie pinko liberal hippies tryin' to take away my Hemi powered Dodge!!!

*sarcasm

How about nuclear energy to generate electricity? woud a tree-hugging pinko commie hippy lib go a long with that?

It worked in France where 79% of power generated is using nuclear reactors. Why not use it here in the US?

[WrestlingNerd]

Originally Posted by IronCage

How about nuclear energy to generate electricity? woud a tree-hugging pinko commie hippy lib go a long with that?

It worked in France where 79% of power generated is using nuclear reactors. Why not use it here in the US?

No they would not.

The problem with nuclear energy is that no one knows really what to do with waste. So far we bury it and it's dangerous for thousands of year.

[IronCage]

Originally Posted by WrestlingNerd

No they would not.

The problem with nuclear energy is that no one knows really what to do with waste. So far we bury it and it's dangerous for thousands of year.

That is very true. However there was significant advancement recycling nuclear waste energy since the 80s and the generated waste from nuclear reactors is now considered very small. With enough investment in this field it would be even more environmentally safe.

Well... if we can't explore and dig for oil, if we can't use efficient alternative energy like nuclear then things won't change for years to come. Yes you can be smarter about consumption but that is not a solution without finding new energy sources.

[Ultimo Hombre]

Originally Posted by IronCage

How about nuclear energy to generate electricity? woud a tree-hugging pinko commie hippy lib go a long with that?

It worked in France where 79% of power generated is using nuclear reactors. Why not use it here in the US?

Um, toxic waste? I like what the french do with their toxic waste, but the US is about 100 years behind that technology. Our solution to toxic waste is to dump it inside a mountain on an Indian reservation and pray that Jesus comes to rapture us to heaven before our ground water becomes toxic.

[NaglfarCommando]

Originally Posted by Ultimo Hombre

Um, toxic waste? I like what the french do with their toxic waste, but the US is about 100 years behind that technology. Our solution to toxic waste is to dump it inside a mountain on an Indian reservation and pray that Jesus comes to rapture us to heaven before our ground water becomes toxic.

Teacher I had in HS worked there. Said it was pretty solid the idea. I dont like it either but it's temporary till we find a cheap way to jettison it to the sun.

[brackis1]

Originally Posted by Depth

Actually, it's 4.06% and we are 28th on the list......

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2034rank.html

Not that much, when you consider the advancements that come from DARPA, DoD, Boeing, Lockheed, Norththrop, etc.

28th out of 173. Take a look at the 27 countries "ahead" of us. Not a one is a major 1st world democracy.

[Ultimo Hombre]

Originally Posted by NaglfarCommando

Teacher I had in HS worked there. Said it was pretty solid the idea. I dont like it either but it's temporary till we find a cheap way to jettison it to the sun.

Call me crazy but I'm one of those WACKOS who believes that a "temporary solution" to something so fucking horribly toxic isn't a solution at all...

We could develop solar powered batteries that could run a home before we will figure out how to properly get rid of toxic waste from a nuke plant...

[Heresy]

If you're looking to invest, but not sure which greentech company to invest in, there are a couple of different green index funds that have a decent, if relatively short, history.

If you watch shows like Invention Nation, on the science channel, they're going around and checking out green inventions, and some of the companies they're talking to are going to be the next big thing, so to speak.

Why go nuclear when you go wind and solar? The reason wind and solar are currently so marginal in the U.S., is because it hasn't gotten the kind of government backing that fossil fuel burners have gotten. When trying to jumpstart a new industry, especially one that will leave us independent of all the distasteful oil countries we currently deal with, government intervention can be usefull as a vehicle for attracting capital and talent to the new industry.

It's pretty simple really. Oil and nuclear are both dirty, in their own ways, and thus they are what we would call a stupid solution to our energy needs. The sun and the wind can provide all of our energy needs, if we can get off our asses and harness them.

[kingstu]

Originally Posted by brackis1

28th out of 173. Take a look at the 27 countries "ahead" of us. Not a one is a major 1st world democracy.

I don't think this point helps your argument at all. You could make the case that other first world democracies are underspending...or rather...relying on U.S. spending to keep them from getting taken over (i.e. much of Europe, South Korea, Japan, etc).

[kingstu]

Originally Posted by Heresy

The reason wind and solar are currently so marginal in the U.S., is because it hasn't gotten the kind of government backing that fossil fuel burners have gotten.

Say what?

From the WSJ op-ed section...

Congress seems ready to spend billions on a new "Manhattan Project" for green energy, or at least the political class really, really likes talking about one. But maybe we should look at what our energy subsidy dollars are buying now.

Some clarity comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent federal agency that tried to quantify government spending on energy production in 2007. The agency reports that the total taxpayer bill was $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like. That's double in real dollars from eight years earlier, as you'd expect given all the money Congress is throwing at "renewables." Even more subsidies are set to pass this year.

An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized. For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and "clean coal" $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.

The wind and solar lobbies are currently moaning that they don't get their fair share of the subsidy pie. They also argue that subsidies per unit of energy are always higher at an early stage of development, before innovation makes large-scale production possible. But wind and solar have been on the subsidy take for years, and they still account for less than 1% of total net electricity generation. Would it make any difference if the federal subsidy for wind were $50 per megawatt hour, or even $100? Almost certainly not without a technological breakthrough.

By contrast, nuclear power provides 20% of U.S. base electricity production, yet it is subsidized about 15 times less than wind. We prefer an energy policy that lets markets determine which energy source dominates. But if you believe in subsidies, then nuclear power gets a lot more power for the buck than other "alternatives."

The same study also looked at federal subsidies for non-electrical energy production, such as for fuel. It found that ethanol and biofuels receive $5.72 per British thermal unit of energy produced. That compares to $2.82 for solar and $1.35 for refined coal, but only three cents per BTU for natural gas and other petroleum liquids.

All of this shows that there is a reason fossil fuels continue to dominate American energy production: They are extremely cost-effective. That's a reality to keep in mind the next time you hear a politician talk about creating millions of "green jobs." Those jobs won't come cheap, and you'll be paying for them.