You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #32: Time will tell. But with the current state of US politics I see coal in the future. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
Sirveri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 04:54 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. Time will tell. But with the current state of US politics I see coal in the future.
If cost efficiency was all that mattered and the ultimate bottom line, this country would have single payer healthcare. Also Bush would have been impeached alongside Cheney and the whole rotten lot. But that isn't the way things work in this country. Right now we have Congress trying to push through a 'public option' plan, which is probably the only thing that might actually cost more than what we have right now. They do all this because they don't really care about what is best for America, but more what is best for the corporations that give them large sums of money and high paying sofa testing jobs after office.

Mark my words, until NYC is flooded out by global warming and we see oil and nat gas get really expensive we won't see any serious investments into renewables. It will be coal, because they have the strongest lobby. Call me a pessimist, I just don't see anything else happening if we continue with business as usual at the federal level. I'd love to have a strong thermal solar and wind based energy infrastructure since those will allow society to actually have a true stable energy supply. Everything else has a hard limit. Even then society will need to see a dramatic change, cars have to go away because hydrogen fuel cells are nothing more than a pipe dream unless they can figure out a way to remove the platinum from them. My long range societal planning view doesn't forsee nuclear, but I do keep it in my short to mid term view simply because of the ammount of available fuel we have for it along with the addition of the thorium fuel cycle being perfected in India. Cost is relative in all things, the base cost is energy. But we're into the peak oil era, so until all of this works out things might just get interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Nuclear Bombshell: $26 Billion cost $10,800 per kilowatt! killed Ontario nuclear bid bananas  Jul-15-09 07:31 PM   #0 
  - Yes. When all the real costs of nuclear, including storage of waste,decommissioning,&true liability  lindisfarne   Jul-15-09 07:44 PM   #1 
  - We must never forget the pro-nukers have been lying to us for years now  madokie   Jul-15-09 07:49 PM   #3 
  - Yes, and now, even costs are being claimed to be trade secrets in attempts to obscure the truth.  lindisfarne   Jul-15-09 07:52 PM   #4 
  - Oh bull. The fact is that the dumb anti-nuke set is extremely unfamiliar with economics,  NNadir   Jul-15-09 08:05 PM   #5 
  - Did you read the link in OP? Also, in your calculations, did you include the actual  lindisfarne   Jul-15-09 08:08 PM   #6 
  - Big guy don't read links  madokie   Jul-15-09 10:16 PM   #10 
  - But they can unrec this issue  Liberation Angel   Jul-16-09 12:17 AM   #13 
  - nnadir never fails to entertain. nt  Javaman   Jul-17-09 12:07 PM   #35 
  - you don't need to store for tens of thousands of years.  Sirveri   Jul-16-09 12:28 AM   #14 
     - No, you have to store it for a million years - EPA requirement, based on NAS report  bananas   Jul-16-09 11:54 AM   #18 
     - EPA requirement is a smokescreen for the real reason.  Sirveri   Jul-17-09 01:29 AM   #30 
        - No, it wasn't a "smokescreen".  bananas   Jul-17-09 03:07 AM   #31 
           - Time will tell. But with the current state of US politics I see coal in the future.  Sirveri   Jul-17-09 04:54 AM   #32 
              - Oil is less than 2% of current electric generation.  kristopher   Aug-05-09 10:14 PM   #37 
     - You want mayonaise on that shit samwich  madokie   Jul-16-09 12:28 PM   #20 
        - tell that to the US Navy and France.  Sirveri   Jul-17-09 01:15 AM   #29 
           - It's easy to be anything one thinks they want to be here on the Internet  madokie   Jul-17-09 05:44 AM   #33 
              - Wow really, I had NO idea.  Sirveri   Jul-17-09 11:36 AM   #34 
  - Oh bull. The fact is that the dumb pro-nuke set is extremely unfamiliar with economics,  bananas   Jul-16-09 03:24 PM   #22 
  - What were the real costs of earlier non-nuclear power generation methods?  TheMadMonk   Jul-17-09 01:10 AM   #28 
  - 2-4-6-8 -- NUCLEAR POWER -- AIN'T IT GREAT?!?!  xchrom   Jul-15-09 07:45 PM   #2 
  - Nuclear energy is free- we have a giant nuclear reactor in the sky.  Ian David   Jul-15-09 08:57 PM   #7 
  - And it's responsible for wind powersolar power, and hydroelectric power. Not geothermal though-  lindisfarne   Jul-15-09 09:10 PM   #8 
     - For geothermal we can thank the other stars that supplied the material that made the Earth.  GliderGuider   Jul-15-09 10:05 PM   #9 
     - Geothermal energy is produced by nuclear fission  Dogmudgeon   Jul-16-09 10:40 AM   #16 
        - I doubt that nuclear reaction is responsible for geothermal energy..  TheCoxwain   Jul-16-09 11:49 AM   #17 
           - I think you've got your Uranium isotopes backwards...  SidDithers   Jul-16-09 11:59 AM   #19 
           - yup .. my bad .. clearly its been a while ..but I think that does not water my argument down  TheCoxwain   Jul-16-09 12:52 PM   #21 
           - 20% planetary accretion, 80% radioactive decay  bananas   Jul-16-09 04:26 PM   #24 
  - K&R and into the greatest page -- let's see if the unrec does it in  Liberation Angel   Jul-16-09 12:01 AM   #11 
  - UNWRECKER strikes again OFF Greatest page! Damn BUT see this:  Liberation Angel   Jul-16-09 12:16 AM   #12 
  - Only a shill would unrec this thread - they want to hide the true costs.  bananas   Jul-16-09 03:38 PM   #23 
  - They've got it down to three recs - they are really afraid of this information!  bananas   Jul-16-09 07:25 PM   #25 
     - It fits with the way it's been with the nuke crowd from the get go  madokie   Jul-16-09 07:34 PM   #26 
     - 3 recs is their goal  Liberation Angel   Jul-16-09 10:14 PM   #27 
  - No surprise.  girl gone mad   Jul-16-09 01:19 AM   #15 
     - Who knows the price? - nobody yet  DiamondJoe   Aug-05-09 03:47 PM   #36 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC