UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (73) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 59833  
Subject: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the World Date: 4/23/2014 3:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 39
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/upshot/the-american-middle...

. . . After-tax middle-class incomes in Canada — substantially behind in 2000 — now appear to be higher than in the United States. The poor in much of Europe earn more than poor Americans.

The numbers, based on surveys conducted over the past 35 years, offer some of the most detailed publicly available comparisons for different income groups in different countries over time. They suggest that most American families are paying a steep price for high and rising income inequality.


This is, of course, no surprise to anyone paying attention, but the study results provide a lot of quantification for the raping of working class Americans by the ultra wealthy elite. The figures used to illustrate the data are worth studying.

The poor in the US are really getting crushed:

. . . The struggles of the poor in the United States are even starker than those of the middle class. A family at the 20th percentile of the income distribution in this country makes significantly less money than a similar family in Canada, Sweden, Norway, Finland or the Netherlands. Thirty-five years ago, the reverse was true.

It is not because American GDP is suffering:
. . . The findings are striking because the most commonly cited economic statistics — such as per capita gross domestic product — continue to show that the United States has maintained its lead as the world’s richest large country. But those numbers are averages, which do not capture the distribution of income. With a big share of recent income gains in this country flowing to a relatively small slice of high-earning households, most Americans are not keeping pace with their counterparts around the world.

One reason for this growing wealth gap is that we have let our education system collapse:
. . . Americans between the ages of 55 and 65 have literacy, numeracy and technology skills that are above average relative to 55- to 65-year-olds in rest of the industrialized world, according to a recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an international group. Younger Americans, though, are not keeping pace: Those between 16 and 24 rank near the bottom among rich countries, well behind their counterparts in Canada, Australia, Japan and Scandinavia and close to those in Italy and Spain.

Another issue is that America's wealthy are hoarding more of the country's profits compared to other countries:
. . . companies in the United States economy distribute a smaller share of their bounty to the middle class and poor than similar companies elsewhere. Top executives make substantially more money in the United States than in other wealthy countries. The minimum wage is lower. Labor unions are weaker.

The problem is worse when you consider taxes and government benefits. In the US an increasing tendency toward government stinginess in benefits to the poor but generosity to the wealthy in taxes means America's poor are doing even worse:
. . . inequality in so-called market incomes — which does not count taxes or government benefits — “is high but not off the charts in the United States.” Yet the American rich pay lower taxes than the rich in many other places, and the United States does not redistribute as much income to the poor as other countries do. As a result, inequality in disposable income is sharply higher in the United States than elsewhere.

But everything is just fine for the wealthy:
. . . Americans at the 95th percentile of the distribution — with $58,600 in after-tax per capita income, not including capital gains — still make 20 percent more than their counterparts in Canada, 26 percent more than those in Britain and 50 percent more than those in the Netherlands. For these well-off families, the United States still has easily the world’s most prosperous major economy.
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 56901 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/23/2014 3:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<<. . . After-tax middle-class incomes in Canada — substantially behind in 2000 — now appear to be higher than in the United States. The poor in much of Europe earn more than poor Americans.

The numbers, based on surveys conducted over the past 35 years, offer some of the most detailed publicly available comparisons for different income groups in different countries over time. They suggest that most American families are paying a steep price for high and rising income inequality.

This is, of course, no surprise to anyone paying attention, but the study results provide a lot of quantification for the raping of working class Americans by the ultra wealthy elite. The figures used to illustrate the data are worth studying.>>



Of course, this is no surprise to anyone paying attention to the floods of illegal immigrants coming into the United States in recent decades and flooding the low end of the labor market, torpedoing the wages of the working class.


Why are liberals, Democrats and environmentalists always WAGIN WAR on the working class?



Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaRunner Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 56902 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/23/2014 4:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 23
Why are liberals, Democrats and environmentalists always WAGIN WAR on the working class?
-------------------------------------------------------------------

They aren't, but you're probably stomping your foot when you write stuff like that so it's cute.

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChurchyLaFemme Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 56903 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/23/2014 4:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 22
Why are liberals, Democrats and environmentalists always WAGIN WAR on the working class?
-------------------------------------------------------------------

They aren't, but you're probably stomping your foot when you write stuff like that so it's cute.


Didja ever notice that he is a master of jumping to conclusions that actually have nothing to do with what is said?

He could read the label on a can of soup and come to the same conclusion as above.

Churchy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: culcha Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 56913 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/24/2014 9:09 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 34
Why are liberals, Democrats and environmentalists always WAGIN WAR on the working class?

You mean they should start standing up for unions, equal pay for men & women, a higher minmum wage, worker safety, etc. like conservatives?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 56927 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/24/2014 3:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<<Why are liberals, Democrats and environmentalists always WAGIN WAR on the working class?

You mean they should start standing up for unions, equal pay for men & women, a higher minmum wage, worker safety, etc. like conservatives?
>>


Liberals, Democrats and environmentalists have been waging perpetual warfare on the incomes of the working class for decades. They cheered as they used the Spotted Owl to torpedo tens of thousands of family wage jobs in the forests and mills of Washington state and Oregon, and have been cheering for decades as millions of illegal immigrants came into the United states to flood the labor markets of working class American workers.

And then you guys WONDER why working class wages have declined.




Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 56933 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/24/2014 5:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
And then you guys WONDER why working class wages have declined.

No, I think most of us know why. And it has nothing to do with the spotted owl. It can be laid at the feet of the oligarchs, and the congress that they own.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 56982 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/26/2014 2:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<< And then you guys WONDER why working class wages have declined.

No, I think most of us know why. And it has nothing to do with the spotted owl. It can be laid at the feet of the oligarchs, and the congress that they own.>>



Of COURSE eleven million illegal aliens, heavily feeding on jobs at the low end of the working class, could have nothing to do with it.

And right now, liberals, Democrats and environmentalists are tuning up to torpedo oil pipelines, coal trains and coal ports in Washington State and oil trains to transport crude oil to refineries, since they torpedoed a pipeline that would have gone across the northern tier of states years ago.

There hardly seems to be a blue collar job liberals wouldn't prefer to do away with and would prefer to avoid creating.

Having CREATED or at least contributed to a decline in working class wages, liberals then have the nerve to wring their hands about it and blame others.

Typical.



Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MrCheeryO Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 56990 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/26/2014 3:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Why Immigration Reform is the Right Thing for Our Society and Economy

.....Immigration reform will also help us address worker shortages, not only in high-skilled jobs, but also in lesser-skilled industries (those jobs requiring less than a bachelor’s degree), like home heath care, landscaping, and hospitality.

Allowing foreign workers of every skill level to contribute to our economy will help broaden the tax base and address our demographic realities. Our senior population is exploding, while our birth rate is falling. By 2035 there will be roughly 2 workers for every retiree—compared with 16 workers per retiree in 1950. The more workers we have paying into the system, the better we’ll be able to support our ageing population

https://www.uschamber.com/blog/why-immigration-reform-right-...

You may have some points SP but I don't think anyone could claim the US Chamber of Commerce is in the back pocket of the "liberals" or Democrats. So as always it's a choice, and usually there isn't much choice. Poor Boehner.

I vividly remember the immigrants working late into the night in 100+ degree heat to build all those new developments around me in the Arizona desert. But, when things get a little tough it seems everyone turns on everyone. Hardly a new thing in American history.

Anyway, why did US petroleum production fall so precipitously under Bush/Cheney and is up so much under Obama and friends? Cause that's what has happened. I think the standard response is that it's all private land drilling. Maybe, but still--why down so much under Bush/Cheney? And up under Obama?

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 56996 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/26/2014 6:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Of COURSE eleven million illegal aliens, heavily feeding on jobs at the low end of the working class, could have nothing to do with it.

Actually, no. Not much. They are at the very low end (mostly agricultural). You'd never get Americans working for those wages at those jobs (it's seriously hard work).

The bigger problem is off-shoring. Remember when the US made steel? How about clothing? All gone, and probably never coming back. Because the oligarchs wanted (and got) tax breaks and rule changes to allow them to exploit poor people overseas because their cost of living was so much lower they could pay them nothing (plus stuff like building safety didn't matter...a collapsed building killing dozens of garment workers was just the cost of doing business; can't get away with that here).

Yes, we are attempting to eliminate hydrocarbon fuels. They are killing us. Frankly, only a fool would want to continue using them any longer than is absolutely necessary. We need to be getting alternatives up and running as quickly as possible.

But I will agree that liberals contributed to declines in wages. Because they share the Congress with conservatives, and both sides are whores to the likes of the Koch brothers and corporate lobbyists. Liberals care only slightly more about American workers than conservatives do. Both sides mostly care about their bribes...errrrr..."campaign contributions".

1poorguy

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 56999 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/26/2014 8:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
1poorguy:"Actually, no. Not much. They are at the very low end (mostly agricultural). You'd never get Americans working for those wages at those jobs (it's seriously hard work)."

Wrong...go to any construction crew here in TX and it is 90% 'immigrants' and illegals......and low pay, long hours...and took the jobs of millions of other folks. Roofers, framers, concrete workers. None of them speak English. Hmmm.....

Go to any restaurant. Our Chinese buffet has 4 or 5 'spanish speakers' ...they don't understand English other than the head guy.....they are taking over all the kitchen jobs/dishwashing jobs.

Lawn service? You can't find a white guy mowing lawns here...or have them understand English.....you want to talk to them, they say - here call boss...that's about all they know.....hmmmm.m...



--------

1poorguy: The bigger problem is off-shoring."

Yeah yeah...blame internationalization. Duh! We export more and more each year. From manufacturing goods and services in THIS country. We just are, like the rest of the world, 10x more efficient than 40 years ago.

That's not the case.
---------

1 poorguy:" Remember when the US made steel?"

We still do. In the year 2000, the US had 151, 000 steel workers.

New Steel plants were built in the US in the last decade. They just take a whole lot less workers to man them. They are more automated.


-----

1poorguy:"How about clothing? All gone, and probably never coming back.

Wrong again. All military uniforms are made here. Same for most public service folks. You can buy a variety of goods made here. You just haven't shopped, nor are you likely to spend the extra bucks to buy them.

And you probably drive a foreign car or one with a lot of foreign parts, even if 'made' here' if you can afford a car as a 'poor' guy.

-------

1pporguy" Because the oligarchs wanted (and got) tax breaks and rule changes to allow them to exploit poor people overseas because their cost of living was so much lower they could pay them nothing (plus stuff like building safety didn't matter...a collapsed building killing dozens of garment workers was just the cost of doing business; can't get away with that here)."

heh heh...we've had our share of industrial disasters. The fertilizer explosion in West TX comes to mind, and oil workers die in industrial accidents several times a year as do steel workers.


Once again, you are on the 'bash capitalism' binge. Oh, those nasty tax breaks. Duh, every state here tries to woo away corporations to relocate there...big tax breaks......that often never pay back.....oh, dear..

--------

1poor guy:"Yes, we are attempting to eliminate hydrocarbon fuels. "

Who is the 'we' business? what right do you have to dictate my life and my choices? Oh, right, your a lib. That seems to give you the 'right' to run folks lives.

----------
1poorguy:"They are killing us."

If it weren't for hydrocarbons, we'd be living a 15th century life, each eeking out a starvation subsistence diet and there would be five billion or more less people on the earth. And you wouldn't have electricity or the internet, a nice place to live, paved roads. You'd work 12 hours a day at hard labor just getting by. You'd be dead at age 50.

--------


1poorguy:" Frankly, only a fool would want to continue using them any longer than is absolutely necessary. We need to be getting alternatives up and running as quickly as possible."

Feel free to invest all of YOUR money in greenie rathole projects. We'll watch. Don't foist your greenie agenda and magical wish list upon the rest of us. We don't want it.

Utopia hasnever worked.


-----

-------

1poorguy:"But I will agree that liberals contributed to declines in wages. "


I'll second that!


t

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57001 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/26/2014 9:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
Wrong...go to any construction crew here in TX and it is 90% 'immigrants' and illegals......and low pay, long hours...and took the jobs of millions of other folks. Roofers, framers, concrete workers. None of them speak English.

So? Just because they don't speak English doesn't mean they are illegal. Any reputable builder would not take the risk (they would suffer huge fines if caught). We built our home several years ago, and since have had multiple things done (e.g. pavers). Yes, lots of Latino workers. All legal.

Regarding steel, yes we still make it. But not like we used to. We don't even make enough to satisfy our domestic needs. We used to export the stuff.

http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/coal-statistics/coal-stee...

Oh, right, your a lib.

What's really amusing is that the "libs" I know would laugh at you for that.

Frankly, I don't care if you want it or not. Hydrocarbons must go away or literally millions of people will die in the coming years. Sometimes reality doesn't give a crap what you or I "like" or "want". It is what it is, and you either deal with it or you suffer. The universe doesn't give a crap either way. Yes, hydrocarbons had their place. But their day needs to be over. We need to focus our efforts on discontinuing all use of them. That doesn't mean going on a "diet", it means replacing them. Civilization will continue, and in a better way.

This isn't conjecture. This is scientific forecasts. Though I suspect you don't accept science that disagrees with your preconceived notions. Typical conservative.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57002 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/26/2014 9:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
1poorguy:"Frankly, I don't care if you want it or not. Hydrocarbons must go away or literally millions of people will die in the coming years. "

If hydrocarbon use stopped tomorrow, 6 billion people would be dead within a year. Half of them fighting the other half for the remaining food. When the food ran out because there were no fertilizers, tractors, plows, trucks....., it wouldn't be millions,. It would be 98% of the people alive today. They'd strip the land, strip every square inch of land they could get to....and die within a year from starvation. 98% of the people in the world couldn't plant enough to live on, and those who could without fossil fuels ill die as the mobs overwhelm them and take their food and 'seed corn'.

-----------


"Sometimes reality doesn't give a crap what you or I "like" or "want". It is what it is, and you either deal with it or you suffer. The universe doesn't give a crap either way. Yes, hydrocarbons had their place. But their day needs to be over."

When you invent magic energy beads that can power aiplanes and ships, fine. We stop using carbon based fuels and use your lower cost magic energy beads. Until then...you're just dreaming

"Wishing" for fossil fuel replacements isn't going to make it happen. 40 years now on biofuels and at best they break even. Without fossil fuels to make them, you have no biofuels. Period. All biofuels are is one form or more of fossil fuel energy converted into a liquid fuel. take corn (grown with fossil fuel made fertilizers by tractors built and run by fossil fuels, hauled in fossil fueled tracks, refined using coal or Natural Gas for heat, hauled by TRUCK to distribution points where it is mixed with gasoline at terrible efficiency - like negative 50%....by the time it arrives at your gas pump. Stop using fossil fuels and no more biofuels. Period.

so what does that leave? You hate nukes. Nukes could make hyrdogen fuel...but of course, eco-whacks hate a 'radioactive planet' so no nukes and no hydrogen.

That leaves us with no substitute for liquid fuels.


-------



1poorguy:" We need to focus our efforts on discontinuing all use of them. "

So what is your plan to reduce the population of the planet to say, 300 million people from the nearly 7 billion now?

--------

1poorguy:"That doesn't mean going on a "diet", it means replacing them."

I'm anxiously awaiting hearing about your development plan for substitutes to replace them.

Give me a time line until we have 90 million barrels a day - that's nearly a billion gallons of your substitute IF it has the same energy density - a day.

----------



1poorguy: Civilization will continue, and in a better way."

Only if you magically defy all the laws of physics by creating energy from nothing.

----------

1poorguy:"This isn't conjecture. This is scientific forecasts. "

Really? Then tell me how the 'scientific forecasts' will get us to the equivalent of 90 million barrels a day of oil worth of energy. I'm curious.

What magic source of power? Ayn Rand's magic engine that sucks static electricity out of the atmosphere, enough to run entire cities on a tiny house size plant?


--------

1 poor guy:"Though I suspect you don't accept science that disagrees with your preconceived notions. Typical conservative. "


I'm anxiously awaiting your proposal to generate the same energy as contained in 90 million barrels of oil, and the same ability to produce all the chemicals that come from that and natural gas. Without, of course, using any fossil fuels in the process.

When you have an answer that 'science' agrees we can implement, where we can afford it, where it truly replaces oil and natural gas and coal...... then you will convince me. Not before. You'd need two or three planets, at least to grow that much biomass and meanwhile 7 billion folks would starve.... and I don't know of 3 or 4 other Earths convenient to us to use to grow energy producing plant matter.




t.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CountNoCount Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57003 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/26/2014 10:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
1pg: Actually, no. Not much. They are at the very low end (mostly agricultural). You'd never get Americans working for those wages at those jobs (it's seriously hard work).

The bigger problem is off-shoring. Remember when the US made steel? How about clothing? All gone, and probably never coming back. Because the oligarchs wanted (and got) tax breaks and rule changes to allow them to exploit poor people overseas because their cost of living was so much lower they could pay them nothing (plus stuff like building safety didn't matter...a collapsed building killing dozens of garment workers was just the cost of doing business; can't get away with that here).


Some days you articulate my views very well.

CNC

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57005 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/27/2014 12:49 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
If hydrocarbon use stopped tomorrow, 6 billion people would be dead within a year.

Probably true. But since no one suggested that, it is nonsequitur.

Which pretty much addresses the rest of your post, too. We have the ability to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels in nearly all applications (aviation is the only exception I can think of, though I read something not long ago about a substitute even for that). No one said we turn off the faucet tomorrow. What we do is actively move to replace all that we are able.

What I object to is us not doing ANYTHING to move in that direction, and to attempt to increase our use of fossil fuels with dangerous techniques that already are destroying lives. We can't afford NOT to do this. Everyone who objects always (and I mean ALWAYS) talks about capital costs today, ignoring completely the costs of not doing it.

It was expensive to remove lead from gasoline, but it also was the right thing to do. So we did it.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Art53 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57006 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/27/2014 1:07 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"What I object to is us not doing ANYTHING to move in that direction," 1poorguy


Nothing is as energy dense as fossil fuel. There are no green substitutes that pack as much energy into an equivalent amount of space.

We can't change the laws of physics.

Art

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57009 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/27/2014 10:08 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
tele "If hydrocarbon use stopped tomorrow, 6 billion people would be dead within a year.

1 poor guy: "Probably true. But since no one suggested that, it is nonsequitur.

We have the ability to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels in nearly all applications (aviation is the only exception I can think of, though I read something not long ago about a substitute even for that). "


Joke? Yeah, we can buy $30 gal 'artificial jet fuel' made using more fossil fuel energy than it provides,and only capable of being used below 30,000 feet, and not being used for take offs and landings...but heck, you don't mind if your plane doesn't take off and land, do you? Or crashes when the temps are below minus 20 outside? heh heh....

and no, we have no substitutes in this country than can even begin to replace fossil fuels. Try heating your house on biomass. Or wood pellets. Or corn stover. And just think of the pollution. Gag! I drive through rural areas when the wind isn't blowing and you almost choke to death from all the wood stove smoke!..gag! oh, but that is biomass and not fossil fuels!

And no, ..90% of all houses and apartments and businesses are heated with fossil fuels. if you count electricity from fossil fuels, it is reaching 99%.

You haven't offered a SINGLE proposal that doesn't require fossil fuels to make so far. Not a one.

Big talker, but not a single actual scientific factoid.

-------





1poorguy:"No one said we turn off the faucet tomorrow. What we do is actively move to replace all that we are able."

and if that is near zero?

-------



1poorguy:"What I object to is us not doing ANYTHING to move in that direction, and to attempt to increase our use of fossil fuels with dangerous techniques that already are destroying lives."

Really? Fossil fuels have allowed 1.5 billion, repeat, billion Chinese and Indians to get above the poverty level in the past 30 years. Those lives weren't destroyed, but vastly improved.

We have spend a TRILLION dollars on greenie energy projects and they provide less than 5% of all energy needs, and most of those greenie energy projects took most of that trillion dollars down the greenie rat holes at tax payer expense, and in Europe they are paying $60 billion a year in extra taxes and extra charges on utility bills for very inefficient substitutes for fossil fuels. And in Germany, has caused them to EMIT more carbon and burn more carbon since the sun only shines for 6 peak hours a day average and the wind dies 70% of the time.

---------


1porguy:"We can't afford NOT to do this. Everyone who objects always (and I mean ALWAYS) talks about capital costs today, ignoring completely the costs of not doing it."

Actually, the UN IPCC and follow on analysis show it is less expensive to spend money to avoid the damage (ie, build sea walls, move people away from barrier islands (where they shouldn't be living in the first place ) than spending money on greenie rat hole projects (carbon taxes). Less impact on the the world economy by 2050.

--------

1poorguy:"It was expensive to remove lead from gasoline, but it also was the right thing to do. So we did it. "

It was five cents a gallon. Peanuts compared to what you want. In Europe, utility rates tripled due to greenie subsidies. Gas didn't triple in price. It went up a nickle. Not only that, but cars and exhaust systems now last 7-10 years instead of 18 months with leaded gas and you don't need to adjust your valves every 18 months and need a valve job at 100Kmiles like back then. It more than paid for itself.

You need a history refresher. Maybe you didn't live through the 50s and 60s. I dunno, but I had dual exhausts and went through both mufflers every 2 years. And sometimes tail pipes.

It's one thing to 'wish' for something. You know, we went on a giant solar kick in the late 70s with Jimmy 'freezing in the sweater in the white House' Carter.....thousands of solar water systems went in. Most rusted out or deterioated within 15 years and were scrapped at great cost. Back in the 1890s and 1900 era, there were 2 million solar water heaters in southern CA and FL. That was the only way to get 'hot' water...if you were lucky......to take a shower...in the afternoon or evening..maybe after work. When electricity came around...ALL of them were scrapped. They were unreliable, troublesome, and of course, stuck out like sore thumbs on roof tops .....

We've been through 3 or 4 'solar booms' and all of them came crashing down.

Maybe in another 20 or 30 years, solar will get there, but mostly in 'new homes' and big solar farms subsidized by tax payers forever.

You'd be a lot smarter to build new Nukes..but I have yet to hear you say that. Apparently , smart nuclear energy is not in your vocabulary, but it is the ONLY practical source of the amount of energy required.

Can't you say 100 new nuclear plants?


t

t.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaRunner Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57017 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/27/2014 12:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Can't you say 100 new nuclear plants?
--------------------------------------------------------------------

I can say Fukushima and Chernobyl.

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57018 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/27/2014 1:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"I can say Fukushima and Chernobyl.

Charlie "


Nuke built with no safelty standards in Russia..no containment vessel and stupid untrained crew and a disaster waiting to happen. But...more people die in crashes with oil trains than died there.....

And Japan? Old design and located in known tsunami zone.....so?


HOw many tens of thousands die in coal mining accidents?

You have entire towns abandoned because of underground coal fires !......square miles unusable.....

It's a trade off. You don't want nukes in downtown NYC....but 100 miles outside the city? No sweat.....

You can't have your cake and eat it too. There are no magic energy beads.

Get real.

You want off fossil fuels, nukes are the only solution - to not even half the solution.

You don't live in reality. Are you really an adult?




t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57027 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/27/2014 6:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<You may have some points SP but I don't think anyone could claim the US Chamber of Commerce is in the back pocket of the "liberals" or Democrats. So as always it's a choice, and usually there isn't much choice. >>


Oh, I agree that there has been a political alliance between liberals and cheap wage Republicans for decades to allow the flouting of immigration laws on a mass scale for decades.

So business Republicans are deeply implicated in that. It has been the influence of Tea Party and Reagan Democrat type working class voters who have taken a measure of control in the Republican Party on that issue which has led to the current significant efforts to limit legal and illegal immigration.


While some of the features of the immigration bills suggests significant efforts to limit illegal immigration, the history is that passage of such a bill will be a signal for floods of new immigration, legal and illegal, and a return to ignoring immigration laws on a wholesale basis.

Of course, we have seen Obama do exactly that already --- when he didn't get his "Dream," he just announced that he would no longer enforce Federal immigration laws for classes of people who should be deported.


Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57029 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/27/2014 6:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<
"Wishing" for fossil fuel replacements isn't going to make it happen. 40 years now on biofuels and at best they break even. Without fossil fuels to make them, you have no biofuels. Period. All biofuels are is one form or more of fossil fuel energy converted into a liquid fuel. take corn (grown with fossil fuel made fertilizers by tractors built and run by fossil fuels, hauled in fossil fueled tracks, refined using coal or Natural Gas for heat, hauled by TRUCK to distribution points where it is mixed with gasoline at terrible efficiency - like negative 50%....by the time it arrives at your gas pump. Stop using fossil fuels and no more biofuels. Period.

so what does that leave? You hate nukes. Nukes could make hyrdogen fuel...but of course, eco-whacks hate a 'radioactive planet' so no nukes and no hydrogen.

That leaves us with no substitute for liquid fuels.

>>


And of course many liberals, Democrats and environmentalists hate hydropower as well. They are busily promoting plans to dig up hydroelectric dams in the Pacific Northwest, and in fact several have been dug up.

There was a concerted effort to dig up the four massive dams on the Snake River in the 1990s, by Clinton (to his credit) refused to go along with that. They'll be BACK again on that when the opportunity arises, no doubt.


Seattle Pioneer

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57040 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/28/2014 2:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Nothing is as energy dense as fossil fuel.

Actually, nuclear is more energy dense. By orders of magnitude. And I wouldn't know how to compare it to solar. But I do take your point. Petroleum has a much higher density than any biofuel of which I am aware, and also more than hydrogen (which has other problems anyway).

But if we damage our health and our planet, what good is that extra energy density? The effects on the human population (globally) are projected to be very harsh. And it's so unnecessary. We can replace large amounts of fossil fuels with alternatives today. Not everything, yet. But a lot. We should have started at least 10 years ago.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57041 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/28/2014 3:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
I can say Fukushima and Chernobyl.

Certainly I wouldn't want to trivialize either of those, but they clearly are not representative. France gets most of their power from nuclear without incident. The US has a lot of plants that are running just fine (including one about 80 miles from where I'm sitting). As you probably know, you get more radiation released from coal ash than from nuclear releases (and more deaths).

"Nuclear power" is more an emotional issue than a technical one. Properly regulated it isn't a problem.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57042 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/28/2014 3:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
I can say Fukushima and Chernobyl.

Certainly I wouldn't want to trivialize either of those, but they clearly are not representative. France gets most of their power from nuclear without incident. The US has a lot of plants that are running just fine (including one about 80 miles from where I'm sitting). As you probably know, you get more radiation released from coal ash than from nuclear releases (and more deaths).

"Nuclear power" is more an emotional issue than a technical one. Properly regulated it isn't a problem.


Techie advocates often say things like this, but it seems fairly unscientific and unfounded to make such claims. There is a long record of nuclear reactor failures and resulting contaminations or deaths: http://www.atomicarchive.com/Reports/Japan/Accidents.shtml.

The three most people today remember are:
Three Mile island 1979
Chernobyl 1986
Fukushima 2011

So this isn't emotional at all. Despite all the safety laws, government oversight, and efforts to regulate nuclear energy, there are accidents. People die. Land gets polluted. It may be true that none of these events has yet escalated to the level of devastation of a war or some of the worst natural disasters, but there is certainly plenty of reason for people to be concerned about the proliferation of nuclear power plants run by for-profit energy companies under the regulations of local (national) governments. It appears that with all the laws and oversight, we still manage to have a major accident that threatens large population centers about once every 10 or 20 years. If you increase the number of reactors, that probability goes up proportionally - maybe more since regulation and oversight will likely decrease.

But to me, the question that pro-tech advocates absolutely refuse to address adequately is that of the handling of nuclear waste. Pro-tech advocates love to wave their hands and talk about potential solutions . . . We could bury it in a mountain (but clearly we haven't, so maybe we can't). We could shoot it into to the sun (hmmmmm. . . what could possibly go wrong?) We could migrate to fusion (Right. That will be quick and cost effective) We could encapsulate it in glass and bury it (I'm not holding my breath for this one either). The fact is that no country on earth has yet implemented a plan that has successfully stored a single ounce of nuclear reactor spent fuel in a permanent place. We have this stuff that will be deadly to handle and potentially disaster causing for thousands of years . . . stuff that requires constant (although relatively simple) monitoring and maintenance, that we are just stock piling in big cans waiting for a disaster to happen.

I think few people grasp the significance of that several thousand year time constant when it comes to human social/cultural developments. There has never been a time in the history of humans when we have communicated a message to humans living 5 or 10 thousand years in the future. Dominant cultures and political powers completely turn over in those time frames. Languages die and new ones emerge. Civilizations collapse. Civilizations rise. So if you were producing nuclear waste 5 thousand years ago and stockpiling it in little areas, how would you have communicated to people throughout that period that they needed to keep monitoring and maintaining your poison and not to get too close or they would die? And when you realize that there was no way to accomplish that, tell us how you are going to do it for the next 5 thousand years.

I can't say if all of those that question the wisdom of proliferation of nuclear energy are using emotional arguments or not. But the arguments in favor of massive proliferation appear to me to be faith-based arguments that depend on ignoring the facts.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57047 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/28/2014 6:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Despite all the safety laws, government oversight, and efforts to regulate nuclear energy, there are accidents. People die. Land gets polluted.

Very rarely, but yes. Nothing is ever perfect. We also get Deepwater Horizon, Exxon Valdez, and more than I care to look-up. How about that pipeline rupture down south (Arkansas??)...

The normal "safe" operation of most "carbon" power plants is much dirtier than nuclear. The fact is that coal plants are much more toxic than nuclear, and have killed more people. (Google it, if you like...lots of reputable articles.)

But to me, the question that pro-tech advocates absolutely refuse to address adequately is that of the handling of nuclear waste.

I could point out coal ash waste (which is radioactive, BTW). There are various techniques for dealing with nuclear waste. Ultimately it's sequestration. Sometimes it's treated ahead of time to reduce toxicity and/or immobilize it (i.e. so it can't leak). I'm not an expert in that area. France does't have any significant problems with it.

And there are new nuclear technologies that generate much less waste, or at least much less dangerous waste. I have read that we could deploy LFTR which is less dangerous, and has the added benefits of not being in any way usable for nuclear weapons (either directly or through enhancement). Again, I'm not an expert. Just know what I've read.

There has never been a time in the history of humans when we have communicated a message to humans living 5 or 10 thousand years in the future.

There has also never been a time when I could communicate with people from all over the world in a matter of moments. But I'm doing it right now. You're reading it.

Yours is an interesting question, but just because the Romans couldn't communicate something to us very effectively does not mean we will have the same problem going forward. We've come a long way since papyrus scrolls. It is interesting to contemplate, though...language changes over time. That might be the biggest problem. You'd need some sort of program that updates the warning signs every few decades to be sure they are "current". Something like that.

I don't believe the problem is intractable.

That said, you are correct that the US is far behind other nations in dealing with these wastes. If we committed to a nuclear program we would have to commit to managing waste responsibly. I don't think any pro-nuclear person would say otherwise.

Here's a bit of info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Management_of...

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57048 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/28/2014 7:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
1poorguy:"But if we damage our health and our planet, what good is that extra energy density? The effects on the human population (globally) are projected to be very harsh. And it's so unnecessary. We can replace large amounts of fossil fuels with alternatives today. Not everything, yet. But a lot. We should have started at least 10 years ago. "


Actually, it seems to be you who are pretty dense.

We started on ethanol and biofuels in the 1970s. They didn't work then.


We have something like 18 billion gallons of ethanol produced, mostly from existing fossil fuels.....farming, tractors, fertilizers, refining, transportation. All done using an EQUAL amount of fossil fuel. We just convert coal, gasoline, diesel, and natural gas into ethanol at high cost. We generate NO NEW energy with biofuels. Zero. Zip.

And ethanol hasn't replaced anything!

Most cars on ethanol burn 10% more 'fuel' to go the same distance.

What is even sadder, if you took out the ethanol, you'd get 10% better gas mileage. You car is not doing anything with the ethanol except wasting it. If you take into consideration the fact that ethanol is merely fossil fuels turned into liquid fuels....we are actually burning more 'fossil fuels' than if we added ZERO ethanol to gas.

You have an E85 pump anywhere near you? That's 85% ethanol, which 5% of the US cars can use. Of course, it will cost you 40% more to drive the same miles...but heck, you can be green and bite the bullet. YOu get 40% less fuel mileage at best with E85 and it costs about the same as gasoline!


Your statement we can replace large amounts of fossil fuels is not only ridiculous...it's laughable. So far, we have replaced NONE of the fossil fuels.



t.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57057 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/28/2014 11:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Very rarely, but yes. Nothing is ever perfect. We also get Deepwater Horizon, Exxon Valdez, and more than I care to look-up. How about that pipeline rupture down south (Arkansas??)...

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. Since there is risk to everything we should ignore the risks of Nuclear Power? The risk of a Nuclear reactor meltdown is equivalent to the risk of an oil spill? Maybe you ought to think this one through in a little more detail. Say what you mean.

The normal "safe" operation of most "carbon" power plants is much dirtier than nuclear.

This is a favorite meme of the pro-nucies. So quantify "safe" and produce the data. As soon as you try to do that, you will run into some problems. Nuclear advocates want to look at the ideal operation of nuclear reactors and compare it to the ideal operation of carbon plants. They choose to ignore the range of risks associated with operation outside the ideal and do not talk about the time constant or levels of risk associated with the waste that results from both. That's a pretty biased and incomplete analysis. It certainly fails to even remotely approach good whole system engineering analysis.

The fact is that coal plants are much more toxic than nuclear, and have killed more people. (Google it, if you like...lots of reputable articles.)

Again, a favorite meme of the pro-nuclear crowd. Anyone who bothers to use even a tiny amount of critical thought should be thinking something is wrong with that analysis. Under what circumstances and what definition of "toxic" can someone claim that coal dust (which can cause respiratory problems for many if enough is breathed in) is more toxic than spent nuclear fuel. Exposure to spent fuel can lead to the occurrence of cancer, kidney problems and birth defects in future generations. It can also cause mutations in DNA. These effects do not occur right after exposure; they can occur months, years or even decades later. Immediate effects of radiation can include burns, nausea, hair loss and diminished functioning of the organs.

So coal plants, which have been around since the 18th century, and which are ubiquitous in both industrialized and third world nations around the globe, have killed more people than nuclear plants. Yeah . . . that's a really great comparison. Honestly, it is exactly that kind of misleading, bad scientific nonsense and poor logic that led me to first seriously question nuclear energy. Once you stop looking for rationalizations for your belief in nuclear and start doing some critical thinking, this kind of argument is quickly exposed as illogical rationalization. I could write volumes about what is wrong with this argument and if you bother to think about it for a second, you ought to be able to also.

I could point out coal ash waste (which is radioactive, BTW).

Do you really not understand the difference? Let me know if you don't and I can provide explanations. But comparing coal waste to nuclear waste and coming to the conclusion that coal is more hazardous really ought set off alarm bells in any mind engaged in critical thinking. What are the levels of potential danger from each one? What is the time constant that applies to that danger? For the sake of some critical thinking exercises, maybe you need to ask this question: If both are handled with identical measures, which is more dangerous? The answer to that should be trivial to answer no matter how much you want to embrace nuclear. But then the next question is, "What are you really comparing when you make your original statement?"

And if that's not enough, instead of repeating this nonsense, show us the data . . . in detail. Is it all modern and truly comparable?

Are you sure the data on nuclear includes all the safety issues they should? How can they? How many people were impacted by Chernobyl? How many will be impacted over the next several decades? What about Fukushima? That disaster is still ongoing and we don't have any idea how it will end or who will be impacted. The coal waste in industrialized nations that was disposed of in the 1990s, for example, is under a layer of earth with vegetation growing on it. Erosion could create some pollution issues in the future, but it is pretty easy to correct if it happens, it will be in a very localized area, and with each passing year, the probability that it creates a problem is diminished. The nuclear fuel spent in the 90's is distributed all over the world in various settling tanks. It is still potentially deadly and very dangerous on a scale that is almost global. So the fact that the buried coal slag from the 90's is not creating a problem is not really comparable to the fact that the spent nuclear fuel from the 90's is not . . . oh wait. . . that spent nuclear fuel from the 90's has created problems.


There are various techniques for dealing with nuclear waste.

Really? Then why hasn't anyone ever done it . . . ever? Your various techniques are all theoretical and they all assume a world full of non-critical thinkers who believe in nuclear as the answer. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world and your various techniques have never been tried.

Ultimately it's sequestration. Sometimes it's treated ahead of time to reduce toxicity and/or immobilize it (i.e. so it can't leak). I'm not an expert in that area. France does't have any significant problems with it.

You make these statements as if it is happening. It is not. France has never committed a single ounce of nuclear waste to permanent storage. they are doing what everyone else is doing - storing the waste in temporary facilities all over the country. The nuclear advocates always like to mention France, but they really ought to check their facts. France committed with the same kind of technical arrogance that the rest of the world held in the 1950's and 60's. There was a deep faith in technology - that it could solve the remaining problems. The only problem is that it never did. France produces a lot of nuclear energy. They produce a lot of waste. And they are no closer to finding a solution than anyone else. They just have a bigger pile of stuff that requires solution.

And there are new nuclear technologies that generate much less waste, or at least much less dangerous waste. I have read that we could deploy LFTR which is less dangerous, and has the added benefits of not being in any way usable for nuclear weapons (either directly or through enhancement). Again, I'm not an expert. Just know what I've read.

I've read all that stuff too. The thing is, a lot of that stuff has been written about since the 1960's. Look it up. And maybe some of it will someday be a solution. But the track record of nuclear waste science is not very good. Look it up. Isn't it a bit arrogant to produce this waste for hundreds of future human generations to deal with based on a hand-waving argument that might work someday? That seems pretty irresponsibly to me.

There has also never been a time when I could communicate with people from all over the world in a matter of moments. But I'm doing it right now. You're reading it.

And you think that is comparable to the problem of communicating with unknown cultures with unknown technological/political/social maturity, in an unknown language 5000 years from now? I think that is a very naive notion.

Yours is an interesting question, but just because the Romans couldn't communicate something to us very effectively does not mean we will have the same problem going forward.

Okay, what is your solution? Or are you simply willing to send the risk to hundreds of future generations based on faith that it's different this time.

We've come a long way since papyrus scrolls.

Yes and I'm sure the cultures 5000 years from now won't look back at us and think the same thing.

It is interesting to contemplate, though...language changes over time. That might be the biggest problem. You'd need some sort of program that updates the warning signs every few decades to be sure they are "current". Something like that.

You are assuming a continuity of cultural development that is defied by history. Civilizations die. Knowledge is lost.

I don't believe the problem is intractable.

Well . . . belief is all that matters, I guess.

That said, you are correct that the US is far behind other nations in dealing with these wastes. If we committed to a nuclear program we would have to commit to managing waste responsibly. I don't think any pro-nuclear person would say otherwise.

I never said the US is far behind. I don't think we are.

I used to be pro-nuc too. I got my PhD in Electrical Engineering at a school with a nuclear engineering program and knew a lot of nuclear engineering students. I also served as an assistant professor at two schools with nuc-e programs. A lot of the nuc students took my courses. I happen to have read and researched this topic seriously for several years and became increasingly skeptical of the nuclear engineering story. Did you know that many (maybe all) nuclear engineering curriculum include required courses that cover how to argue against and marginalize nuclear power skeptics in a debate? When I spoke to nuclear engineering students about these courses, I was shocked at the dishonesty and rhetorical methods they were teaching. That was one of the first incidents that made me become more critical in my evaluation of nuclear power.

The nuclear advocate's obsession with comparisons to coal mining and coal plants should also be a trigger for skepticism. For a large number of very obvious reasons, coal and nuclear power generation comparisons are not very useful. But worse, the nuclear industry doesn't even attempt to make legitimate whole system comparisons. Try putting on a critical thinking cap when you look at these comparisons for a little while. Ask questions about whether technology maturity are accurately considered? Does the analysis consider the whole system start to inert? or is it parsed to try to prove a point? Look especially at time frame? Does the conclusion consider potential level of the risk? over all timeframes of importance?

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CountNoCount Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57058 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/28/2014 11:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
salaryguru:
The three most people today remember are:
Three Mile island 1979
Chernobyl 1986
Fukushima 2011


Correct my memory. How many people died at TMI? 100? 1000? 10? Oh, it was none. But this is the worst incident in the US.

But to me, the question that pro-tech advocates absolutely refuse to address adequately is that of the handling of nuclear waste.


This is a political issue, not a technical one. Yucca Mountain is the answer. Politics (and emotional outbursts like yours) have delayed its use.

I think few people grasp the significance of that several thousand year time constant when it comes to human social/cultural developments. There has never been a time in the history of humans when we have communicated a message to humans living 5 or 10 thousand years in the future. Dominant cultures and political powers completely turn over in those time frames.


Straw man. The Romans didn't have computers, either., but much of their writing and "science" is still with us, in spite of 800 years of Christian mis-rule of Europe.

I can't say if all of those that question the wisdom of proliferation of nuclear energy are using emotional arguments or not. But the arguments in favor of massive proliferation appear to me to be faith-based arguments that depend on ignoring the facts.


Speaking of emotional arguments ...

CNC

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Art53 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57060 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/29/2014 12:08 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
"We can replace large amounts of fossil fuels with alternatives today." - 1poorguy


I'm really sorry but I don't believe it. What it takes to feed billions of humans can not be done with green energy. It just can't. If it were true we'd be doing it. It has to be economically feasible and as far as I know there are no "green" energy schemes that come close to being economically feasible.

You can't run tractors and planters and harvesters and combines and large industrial machinery on what green energy can generate. And without tractors, planters, combines, and havesters literally billions of humans are going to starve. The amount of food that is needed to feed big cities is astronomical.



Art

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Art53 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57065 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/29/2014 12:25 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. Since there is risk to everything we should ignore the risks of Nuclear Power? The risk of a Nuclear reactor meltdown is equivalent to the risk of an oil spill? Maybe you ought to think this one through in a little more detail. Say what you mean." - salaryguru
--------------------


I'm so glad I've all ready lived ~ 3/4s of my life. What a mess the world is. I'm glad I got to live when I did.

I don't even like to think about it.

Art

Print the post Back To Top
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57066 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/29/2014 12:44 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Correct my memory. How many people died at TMI? 100? 1000? 10? Oh, it was none. But this is the worst incident in the US.

I listed the three most well-known accidents in recent history to point out that there is some probability of nuclear power plants operating outside of the ideal. The risk of operation outside of the safety range is real and it occurs in modern history with relatively modern plants.

But your point brings up a couple of other nuclear memes that deserve more critical analysis.

1- Do you believe that loss of human life is the only risk that deserves to be considered?

2- How do you know that no one died or will die early as a result of TMI? Pro nuclear advocates love to take full advantage of the fact that nuclear radiation impacts organic life in ways that are not always immediately obvious . . . or even immediate at all. The last reports I read indicated that they still have not accounted for all the radiation and where it went. Ultimately, very little radiation might have leaked out of TMI back in 1979, but TMI-2 had to be entombed in concrete as a result of the accident. It represents a potential life hazzard to human beings for the next several thousand years.

This is a political issue, not a technical one.

So??? What if that were true? We live in a world of politics. The world a hundred years from now and the world 5000 years from now are likely to be worlds of politics too. You think we should ignore that and force your belief in science on the world anyway?

Yucca Mountain is the answer. Politics (and emotional outbursts like yours) have delayed its use.

Says you. No one has proven that. Nor proven that it is fiscally viable. And even if burying the waste in Yucca Mountain were proven safe and not just theoretical, you still have to incur the risk (and cost) of transporting it there. These are real issues in the real world. Your faith in technology does not make it work. Neither does accusing me of an emotional outbursts simply because I brought up facts that you don't agree with. This is a tried and true technique that nuclear engineering programs actually teach their students to engage in. Accuse those that question of being emotional and not worthy of answering. Well . . . you can do that. But it won't make you right nor contribute to the ultimate solutions that are needed if nuclear power is to move forward.

Straw man. The Romans didn't have computers, either., but much of their writing and "science" is still with us, in spite of 800 years of Christian mis-rule of Europe.

It's not a strawman at all. By the way, going back to Roman is not far enough. You need to go back prior to earliest Egyptian. The existence of computers doesn't solve the problem. So that is truly a straw man. But Roman science was lost to most of the world including regions that had been the Roman empire between now and then. How would Roman writing or Roman computers have communicated the deadly waste dumps to the civilizations that developed in those regions at those times?

Speaking of emotional arguments ...

You really are completely off the mark. You are very defensive about your belief in nuclear power as the answer. But most of the world has less faith in the quality of the technology execution that is possible from human produced regulatory systems and human governments. You can read that as, "nuclear energy is only a political problem - not a technical one", but if that is your conclusion, then I think you are not being realistic about the world we live in.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CountNoCount Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57067 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/29/2014 1:06 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
salaryguru: By the way, going back to Roman is not far enough. You need to go back prior to earliest Egyptian. The existence of computers doesn't solve the problem. So that is truly a straw man. But Roman science was lost to most of the world including regions that had been the Roman empire between now and then. How would Roman writing or Roman computers have communicated the deadly waste dumps to the civilizations that developed in those regions at those times?

Why stop there? Why not say that the Cro-Magnon didn't communicate the secret of life to us? Yes, your argument is a straw man. Because we (the human race) didn't preserve the wisdom of the Cro-Magnon, the Egyptians, the Sumerians, etc, we should stop all nuclear power until a perfect disposal system meets the scrutiny of every hysterical anti-nuke on earth? If we did that kind of progress, railroads and steam boats would not be used.

Says you. No one has proven that. Nor proven that it is fiscally viable. And even if burying the waste in Yucca Mountain were proven safe and not just theoretical, you still have to incur the risk (and cost) of transporting it there. These are real issues in the real world. Your faith in technology does not make it work. Neither does accusing me of an emotional outbursts simply because I brought up facts that you don't agree with.

You didn't bring up any facts. Just emotional outbursts with no basis in reality. The cost of transportation is exacerbated by the hysterical outbursts of the anti-nuke ignoranti. How many incidents relating to the transportation of nuclear fuel (spent or otherwise) can you come up with?

This discussion has become boring. You have offered nothing new.

CNC

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57069 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/29/2014 1:43 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Why stop there? Why not say that the Cro-Magnon didn't communicate the secret of life to us?

Oh. You missed the point. The half-life of some of the nuclear waste from reactors (including the retired reactors) is on the order of 5000 or 10,000 years. So if you go back that far from today, you are looking at earliest Egypt in the Western World. Rome was nothing yet.

Yes, your argument is a straw man. Because we (the human race) didn't preserve the wisdom of the Cro-Magnon, the Egyptians, the Sumerians, etc, we should stop all nuclear power until a perfect disposal system meets the scrutiny of every hysterical anti-nuke on earth? If we did that kind of progress, railroads and steam boats would not be used.

Again, you missed the point. Man has never developed a technique for communicating to civilizations or cultures thousands of years in the future. It is a serious issue if we intend to keep future humans safe from our nuclear waste. So how do we do that? Do we simply believe that we have advanced so far as human beings that the kinds of cultural, political, language, . . . changes that have occured during the past several thousand years won't happen anymore? That seems to be your position. Or do we try to think about how to approach that problem and make sure we have plans in place before we commit hundreds of future generations to our waste issues? So you can conclude that we have no obligation to these future generations. That is a valid position to take. But if you don't, then you need to address the question of how we accomplish that communication. Either way, my question is not a straw man by any stretch of the definition.

You didn't bring up any facts.

That's just not true. You simply don't like the facts.

1- No one has proven that storing nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain will contain our nuclear waste safely. There is a theory that depends on certain assumptions that are true to the best of our knowledge of the situation today.

2- Storage in a single location like Yucca Mountain still requires transport of material from all over the country to a single location. This transportation issue involves additional cost and risk.

3- Until waste begins to be shipped by a means that is found acceptably safe to the population and stored with the required security and maintenance that is acceptable to the population, we do not know how much this solution will cost.

Just emotional outbursts with no basis in reality. The cost of transportation is exacerbated by the hysterical outbursts of the anti-nuke ignoranti. How many incidents relating to the transportation of nuclear fuel (spent or otherwise) can you come up with?

I get it. You don't want anyone to be allowed to question the technical solution you believe is the answer. If they do, then they have become the problem to your technical solution. They are hysterical and ignoranti.

I honestly don't feel like either of those accusations can be applied to me. I am not a hysterical activist against nuclear power progress. I believe that far more research dollars need to be spent searching for technical/political solutions that have a chance of addressing the extremely long time constants implied by nuclear material. And I am certainly not among the ignoranti. I have a fairly deep technical understanding of nuclear energy and nuclear material as well as a very healthy appreciation of how human civilizations develop, evolve and die. I also accept the fact that with the time constants implied by nuclear, we have to have a very long-term political solution as well as a technical solution.

Any real solution to the nuclear safety and nuclear waste disposal issues will have to address both technical and political concerns. Not only that, but they will have to address those concerns for several thousand years into the future. Maybe you believe that humans and governments will become less political in the future, but I see no reason to believe that.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CountNoCount Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57070 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/29/2014 1:59 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
salaryguru: I get it. You don't want anyone to be allowed to question the technical solution you believe is the answer. If they do, then they have become the problem to your technical solution. They are hysterical and ignoranti.

What is your solution? The wastes exist. Lots of it. Do you suggest we just leave it at the (aging) power plant spent fuel pools? That's no solution at all. That is the worst possible way to handle spent fuel.

Your posts are hysterical, alarmist, and offer no proposals for a safer way to handle spent fuel.

I am an advocate of newer technology. The age of PWR and BWR plants is over. I think the age of Uranium-based plants is over, unless pebble bed reactors come to fruition. Thorium seems a better approach, but without a governmental advocate, this won't happen. In an era of hysterical anti-nuke emotion, we will just sit on our old (flawed) technology.

CNC

Print the post Back To Top
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57072 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/29/2014 2:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
,i>What is your solution? The wastes exist. Lots of it. Do you suggest we just leave it at the (aging) power plant spent fuel pools? That's no solution at all. That is the worst possible way to handle spent fuel.

Your posts are hysterical, alarmist, and offer no proposals for a safer way to handle spent fuel.

Again, that is not a fair assessment of my posts or my position at all. As I stated, I support more research money to explore and advance solutions that might be viable.

Over the years of my technical career, I have participated in the government research process as an independent researcher, as a proposal reviewer and as a contractor defining programs for DARPA, NIST and NSF. I have seen how targeted government research dollars can significantly impact research directions and technology progress. Often the programs that I have been involved in have targeted advances in multi-disciplinary areas that pulled technologists and social scientists together to work in very effective and important ways. I think that is needed in the nuclear energy area. Government program managers have mostly abandoned nuclear energy research because they have decided the bulk of the work is done and industry can carry it from here. I disagree. I would like to see government programs re-enter this area and embrace the true problems . . . very long time constant waste, safety and waste management problems.

But until we see real progress in actual thorough, verified solutions, I am not in favor of further proliferation of nuclear power. I do not think it is responsible to transfer that kind of health and safety issue forward for hundreds of generations when we cannot effectively deal with it today.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CountNoCount Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57074 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/29/2014 2:50 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
But until we see real progress in actual thorough, verified solutions, I am not in favor of further proliferation of nuclear power. I do not think it is responsible to transfer that kind of health and safety issue forward for hundreds of generations when we cannot effectively deal with it today.

I missed the part about how to deal with current nuclear waste. Could you clarify? You denigrate Yucca Mountain. What do you offer?

CNC

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57084 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/29/2014 1:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
You can't run tractors and planters and harvesters and combines and large industrial machinery on what green energy can generate. And without tractors, planters, combines, and havesters literally billions of humans are going to starve.

Yes. But we can replace ALL of our coal power plants. All of them. And the natural gas ones, too. That's really what I was referring to. Note I said "large amounts", I didn't say "all".

Some applications continue to need fossil fuels, yes. Could we substitute, yes I think we could. But it definitely would not be as convenient as existing tractors/combines/etc are. At least not yet. Aviation is another one.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57087 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/29/2014 2:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Since there is risk to everything we should ignore the risks of Nuclear Power?

I never said that. But you were implying (perhaps unintentionally) that non-nuclear options were risk free. They aren't. They have a horrible history and have resulted in vastly more deaths than nuclear. This is a case of the human inability to evaluate risk properly. From driving cars to letting their kids play outside (or not) to nuclear power, people are terrible at evaluating (objectively) actual risk. Coal has proven to be much more dangerous to health and environment, but people still fear nuclear more.

Under what circumstances and what definition of "toxic" can someone claim that coal dust (which can cause respiratory problems for many if enough is breathed in) is more toxic than spent nuclear fuel.

Because nuclear plants don't deliberately release this stuff into the environment. Coal plants do. Which is why they are more polluting and have killed more people.

Your information on France is wrong, or at least out of date. They are quite responsible. They have different facilities for different grades of waste, and are opening (or maybe have already opened) a site for long-term containment of the really nasty stuff.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/what-fran...

Is it "solved"? Depends on your definition of "solved". If you mean "never have to think about it again", then 'no' it's not solved. If you mean "a management plan", then 'yes' it is. And various shades of gray in between those.

And, if you had read the wiki, you would know that the US is far behind. That wasn't conjecture. I was making a statement (supported by the link). So you are wrong about that, too.

I can't argue your anecdote. I can see why something like that would disturb you, and it does seem inappropriate to me also. I never witnessed such, including from my grad school roommate who was studying nuclear power engineering. But that may not mean much (i.e. maybe he just never mentioned it).

The biggest threat to humanity today is climate change. Burning fossil fuels accelerates this. We are talking possibly millions of people dying in the coming decades. That is why many environmentalists are coming to the nuclear side, because nuclear does not contribute to this threat. We must stop burning coal. Yes, nuclear waste is a concern. Especially if we use uranium reactors. We have the technology to deploy better systems (like thorium), we just have to get the will to do it. And to deal with the waste responsibly.

If you want a habitable planet for future generations then nuclear is one of the few options we have at the moment. Going without electricity is a non-starter. Ultimately I favor going all-solar, but that is more difficult because of the storage requirements for periods when the sun isn't shining.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57092 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/29/2014 3:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<Yes. But we can replace ALL of our coal power plants. All of them. >>


We haven't given up all wood for heating. I warmed up the house burning wood this morning.


And personally I am OPPOSED to the liberal wars on fossil fuels. All of them.

Get used to climate change, liberals --- it's what's happening.



Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57104 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/29/2014 4:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I missed the part about how to deal with current nuclear waste. Could you clarify? You denigrate Yucca Mountain. What do you offer?

Will Rogers is credited with saying, "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." That seems like advice we might want to take with respect to the continued production of nuclear waste. Of course we can't simply shut down nuclear reactors today, but if we can't stop digging right away, we can at least stop adding shovels to the excavation effort.

In the meantime, I support further research and effort into finding a long-term solution. A geologic repository (like Yucca Mountain or maybe even Yucca Mountain) might eventually be a big part of that solution. But it isn't today.

The idea to dump nuclear waste in a geologic repository dates back to 1957. Official federal policy to do just that dates to 1982 and the specific identification of Yucca Mountain as the repository dates to 1987. This is not a new idea nor a new proposal. That brings to mind another quote from another smart man, Albert Einstein: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Repeated charges that the problem is political and not technical or calling those that question the solution names doesn't seem to be getting the job done. Maybe it's time to stop doing that over and over again.

Despite efforts by the nuclear advocates to try to draw attractive parallels between coal and nuclear spent fuel, people know that nuclear material is potentially quite deadly. In fact, the way it causes death is very ugly. People also know that the reason we have not had major nuclear disasters is because the nuclear energy industry is highly regulated by the government. And guess what . . . lots of people not only do not trust the for-profit nuclear energy industry to do what is in their best interest, but they also don't completely trust the government. The recurrence every 10 or 20 years of a nuclear accident that threatens major population centers is support for their continued skepticism about nuclear safety.

Providing a technical solution that does not satisfy the political requirements is not a solution. I would think the decades long history of Yucca Mountain should be plenty of proof for that statement. But not only does a real solution need to address the safety and trust questions of the public, it should have to address those issues and more. It needs to address those issues now and for several thousand years from now. Why should the public trust a solution that will bring potentially deadly material down their street when the regulating government can't even avoid shutting down over budget battles? Will a future nuclear regulatory agency with Teabagger appointed oversight protect the public adequately? Pointing to the very brief history of nuclear energy and saying, "It hasn't happened yet", really isn't valid proof that it can't happen for the next several hundred generations.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57108 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/29/2014 4:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
1poorguy:"Yes. But we can replace ALL of our coal power plants. All of them. And the natural gas ones, too"


Heh heh...Germany is trying that. Shutting down nukes. Now gets 35% of it's energy from wind and solar...

and is BURNING MORE COAL than ever...

since....

the sun only shines 5 hours a day average (peak).....and some days it never shines.....like 30-40 a year


and

the wind only blows 1/3rd of the time, fast enough to generate significant power.....

The rest of the time, Germany is burning records amount of horribly polluting lignite coal (the worst kind)...

heh heh


So much for their 140 billion Euro green energy program.

When they shut down all the nukes....the coal consumption will likely double and NG will double in usage.

Liberals are really brain dead.



t

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57111 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/29/2014 5:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
1poorguy screams the 'alarm' over and over again

It's getting tiring

-----

1poorguy:"The biggest threat to humanity today is climate change. "

I would definitely put insurrection, political instability, and raging Islamic Fundamentalism first.

Over a million people died last year..and a million or more will die int he Arab SPring, the ethnic cleansing happening all over Africa, Nigeria,.....over a million likely died in the Arab Spring.....and more are starving in Egypt as we speak......

You want to tell me how many dead there are in Syria? Half a million now?

No one, repeat no one, died of global warming last year or will die this year. NO one will be affected by sea rise.

And in ten years and 20 years...if war breaks out in the mid east, tens of millions could die as nukes fly.....and not a single person will die of 'global warming'.



-------






1poorguy:"We are talking possibly millions of people dying in the coming decades."


Billions will die in China and India if you cut off fossil fuels they need to industrialize, provide jobs for their people, and food for their tables. They have no intention of reducing their use of fossil fuels and are increasing it at over 5% a year and will for the next 30 years.

--------

1pporguy:"That is why many environmentalists are coming to the nuclear side, because nuclear does not contribute to this threat."

Almost ZERO greenies are coming to the table on this, and 99% are still vehemently opposed.

More nukes are shutting down than being built each year.

---------

1pporguy: We must stop burning coal."

Same rant over and over. No coal. No NG. No oil...the world will end. Sorry we don't buy it

=------




t

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57112 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/29/2014 5:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
. . .But you were implying (perhaps unintentionally) that non-nuclear options were risk free. They aren't.

Not only did I never imply that, but I never would. You have taken up the methodology of the faith based believer in nuclear power. Accuse those who question of ignorance and fear. Belittle them and then ignore their questions.

Coal has proven to be much more dangerous to health and environment, but people still fear nuclear more.

Think about this for a fraction of a second instead of spouting such nonsense. I have two objects, a pound of coal and a pound of spent nuclear fuel. You have to choose one to store under your bed. Which do you choose? The difference in the health and safety record between coal and nuclear energy has nothing to do with the potential risk of the material and everything to do with other factors (ie. relative number of plants using each, time frame of the experience, cost and amount of regulation applied to each over their entire history, effectiveness of the nations using each, . . .)

Rather than assume that anyone who questions nuclear power is a fearful idiot, I happen to think that most people understand that the only thing keeping them from nuclear disasters is very strict and heavy regulation overseen by the government. While that has worked relatively well over the last 50 or 60 years, that timeframe is not long compared to the danger half life of the material. In fact, the danger half life of this material is extremely long compared to even the half-life of all previous governments on earth. So I don't think people who are skeptical are idiots. I think they are skeptical because they have the sense to consider larger issues and ask questions that you apparently will not.

Your information on France is wrong, or at least out of date. They are quite responsible. They have different facilities for different grades of waste, and are opening (or maybe have already opened) a site for long-term containment of the really nasty stuff.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/what-fran......


NO. Unless something has changed very recently, you are wrong. France has a well-documented plan that has been in existence for at least a decade. Pro nuclear advocates love to trot that plan out and claim France is dealing with it. But like Yucca Mountain, that plan has real world problems and has not been implemented. Please at least read the title of your own link: "What France plans to do with its nuclear waste".

And, if you had read the wiki, you would know that the US is far behind. That wasn't conjecture. I was making a statement (supported by the link). So you are wrong about that, too.

I disagree with wiki. I imagine the wiki author had a political motivation for writing that. In some ways the US is behind many other countries. Yes. But I disagree with the characterization, "far behind". Still, that is irrelevant since I never made the claim in any of my posts until you credited me with it. And since it has nothing whatsoever to do with the facts and arguments I have presented.

The biggest threat to humanity today is climate change. . .

Hmmm . . . It is certainly a problem that needs attention, but this is hardly a quantifiable or provable hypothesis. Still, even if we all believe this to be true, that does not make the widespread proliferation of nuclear energy the responsible solution. You understand that, right?

Yes, nuclear waste is a concern. Especially if we use uranium reactors. We have the technology to deploy better systems (like thorium), we just have to get the will to do it. And to deal with the waste responsibly.

And this is where we disagree. You have a faith based belief that science and technology can and will solve the remaining risk issues of nuclear energy and are willing to trust the governments of the world now and 10,000 years from now to do the right thing. You will gladly saddle the next several hundred generations of humans on earth with this risk based on your faith.

I, on the other hand, have taken a very detailed look at the history of the nuclear industry and government regulation . . . and on the history of civilizations and have considered the actual timeframes of the nuclear risk. I do not see good reason to trust that science and technology will find financially and technically viable solutions any time soon, nor that modern governments will exhibit long term stability and continuity greater than all those that preceded them. I think caution is advised and that we need to invest more in energy solutions that are safer and cleaner than what we do today. That investment would include research into nuclear energy and nuclear waste but also into methods of extracting energy from carbon sources that are far cleaner than current techniques. There are, in fact, many other alternatives to explore and develop.

If you want a habitable planet for future generations then nuclear is one of the few options we have at the moment.

That's not really a good argument for proliferation. Hey, we could launch an effort to kill off 90% of the humans on the planet. That option would really help make the planet more habitable for a long time. That fact doesn't make it a good idea.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Art53 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57116 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/29/2014 6:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
"Yes. But we can replace ALL of our coal power plants. All of them. And the natural gas ones, too. That's really what I was referring to." - 1poorguy

--------------------


Yes, And monkeys are going to fly out my butt.

Art

Print the post Back To Top
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57118 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/29/2014 7:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Yes, And monkeys are going to fly out my butt.

Art


Be sure to take picture, Art. That is one YouTube video that would definitely go viral. :-)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57121 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/29/2014 7:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Art:""Yes, And monkeys are going to fly out my butt.



SG:"Be sure to take picture, Art. That is one YouTube video that would definitely go viral. :-) "


That one, SG, cracked me up so bad I was laughing for a full 3 minutes.....

gotta be the post of the day, for sure.

t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57128 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/29/2014 8:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<In the meantime, I support further research and effort into finding a long-term solution. A geologic repository (like Yucca Mountain or maybe even Yucca Mountain) might eventually be a big part of that solution. But it isn't today.
>>


It isn't today because a lot of environmentalists are determined that there will NEVER be a permanent nuclear waste site. Why destroy one of your best issues by allowing a safe waste site to be built?


FAR better to store large amounts of nuclear waste in "temporary" waste sites on the grounds of nuclear reactors, where they are a LOT less secure.


Seattle Pioneer

More environmentalist hypocrisy.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MissEdithKeeler Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57131 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/29/2014 8:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

FAR better to store large amounts of nuclear waste in "temporary" waste sites on the grounds of nuclear reactors, where they are a LOT less secure.


We should store it on the moon. Next to a base called Moonbase Alpha.

No, wait... that didn't work out so well....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space:_1999

Totally my FAVORITE show when I was a kid!!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57132 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/29/2014 8:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<Think about this for a fraction of a second instead of spouting such nonsense. I have two objects, a pound of coal and a pound of spent nuclear fuel. You have to choose one to store under your bed. Which do you choose?>>


Heh, heh! Salary Guru, you can do a LOT better than that argument.




Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57135 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/29/2014 9:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"<<Think about this for a fraction of a second instead of spouting such nonsense. I have two objects, a pound of coal and a pound of spent nuclear fuel. You have to choose one to store under your bed. Which do you choose?>>"


Actually, I'd take the pound of uranium...likely still worth at least $50 lb...provided it was in a 2000 lb lead container......rather than 10c worth of coal...

but why do you compare good new coal......to old uranium? I'd love to have a pound of new uranium.....it would be worth even more..in the right storage container of course.

You do realize that coal has some residual radiation, depending upon where it is from????

But....there are giant toxic waste ponds now of 'coal ash'....some major clean up sites.....

Threatening hundreds of thousands of people with dam breaks and death....you did know that? And a pound of coal ash is considered toxic.....


t.



t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57146 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/30/2014 3:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Here's a chart from the bExxon Mobile annual report, showing the estimated amount of energy that will be used from various sources in 2040, and the annual percentage increase in those sources from 2010-2040:

http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/energy/energy-outlook/cha...

The average percentage increase for oil --- .7%

for gas 1.7%

coal 0%

nuclear 2.5%

solar and wind 5.9%

Of course, solar and wind start from a very low base. In 2040 it looks like coal will still supply about five time the energy of solar and wind.


These figures are world wide estimates.

This is why the global warming issue is really pointless to discuss. We are going to continue to use fossil fuels on a massive scale, and continue to increase them rapidly worldwide.

Get used to global warming, liberals, it's what's happening!


Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaRunner Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57147 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/30/2014 4:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
We are going to continue to use fossil fuels on a massive scale, and continue to increase them rapidly worldwide.
-------------------------------------------------------------------


Which is stupid from a supply standpoint. There is a finite supply of fossil fuels, so why not explore other options - Climate Change aside.

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57152 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/30/2014 8:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Charlie:"Which is stupid from a supply standpoint. There is a finite supply of fossil fuels, so why not explore other options -"


We've been 'exploring' alternative fuels since the 1970s. Likely before you were born....from what I can tell.

In that time, every ethanol company has gone bust without exception.

In that time, no viable sources of 'alternative fuels' have been found that don't require massive amounts of fossil fuels to make.

In that time, every 'greenie company' backed by greenie Obama has gone bust, including Solyndra, A123 Battery, Fisker Cars, a dozen other car companies, at least, every 'battery company', the offshore wave energy projects (both of them).....and all the solar companies in the manufacturing end. every one of them.

10 years of throwing a trillion dollars at greenie projects and nothing to show.

Windmills (made from fossil fuels)....running and costing 35% more or greater for electricity.....

Solar panels...3 times the cost of other energy

In the past 20 years, Obama and the liberal drones have removed half the existing water power in the US...taken out dams back east by the near 100 on small rivers, taken out major dams out in the Pacific Northwest..... and is taking some out in California.....


But...what can you say? The greenies really want you to freeze in your eco-hovel as they sit in their multi million dollar houses in the LA basin, not having much need of heat or a/c.....or figure they'll get federal energy subsidies to live off.....


When you come to me and say, hey, I'm running my car on fuel or electricity that is 100% fossil fuel, that took no fossil fuels to make ti, and you can drive on roads that have no concrete or asphalt in them (fossil fuels) and made from 100% fossil fuel materials.....then you have a plan.

Otherwise, you have a pipe dream.


t.


t.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaRunner Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57153 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 4/30/2014 9:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
We've been 'exploring' alternative fuels since the 1970s. Likely before you were born....from what I can tell.


And you would be wrong....per usual.

I don't think it's a pipe dream, but you do, so I doubt whatever I may say on the issue will matter to you. I do know, there is a finite supply of fossil fuels, there has always been a finite supply, so we better come up with alternatives.

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57157 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 5/1/2014 1:22 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Get used to climate change, liberals --- it's what's happening.

Heh. It's what's happening, alright. I can't disagree. But "getting used to it"...well, we won't have much choice. Millions will die. Trillions of dollars will be lost. But, oh well...cost of doing fossil fuel business, eh?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57158 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 5/1/2014 1:39 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Not only did I never imply that, but I never would.

OK. That's how it read to me, but I'll take you at your word on that.

Belittle them and then ignore their questions.

Not belittling. At least not intentionally. I simply pointed out that statistically coal (fossil fuels) are much more hazardous than nuclear in terms of effects on humans and the planet. Even Chernobyl was unable to alter that calculus.

Hmmm . . . It is certainly a problem that needs attention, but this is hardly a quantifiable or provable hypothesis.

The latest I'm hearing from IPCC says otherwise. Their forecasts are dire.

Still, even if we all believe this to be true, that does not make the widespread proliferation of nuclear energy the responsible solution. You understand that, right?

As I believe I said previously, I would prefer solar. But we just aren't ready to do that yet. Nuclear we can do TODAY. And it's a better choice than fossil fuels. Does that make it a great choice? No. It's not a matter of faith that we can handle the waste properly. We have the technology, we just need the will. It has become so politicized that the technology is being ignored, mostly.

The one point you had which I thought was both interesting and valid (beyond the fact that we must address the waste responsibly, of course) was conveying to future generations about the hazardous storage sites. That is an interesting problem for some of the disposal/sequestration methods. I don't know that anyone has looked at that in detail.

I think caution is advised and that we need to invest more in energy solutions that are safer and cleaner than what we do today.

I definitely can agree with that. We shouldn't be trying to tax people who put panels on their roofs (as is happening now), we should be incentivizing it. We should be investing in solar thermal plants. We should be working on storage technology so we can "charge it up" during the day, and then have a source of power when the sun sets. Etc. Offshore windmills are probably an outstanding idea also. Investing in fracking and pipelines is stupid from an environmental/survival standpoint, and therefore wasteful.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57159 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 5/1/2014 2:36 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Not belittling. At least not intentionally. I simply pointed out that statistically coal (fossil fuels) are much more hazardous than nuclear in terms of effects on humans and the planet. Even Chernobyl was unable to alter that calculus.

Okay. Perhaps I am a little sensitive to the fact that I am a technologist who has done a large amount of work in my lifetime promoting the advance of technology and supporting technology research, yet whenever I discuss my (I think very legitimate) concerns about the nuclear story, I tend to get the same response. That response is to accuse me of being irrational, hysterical, and or uninformed. Yet, when I try to discuss details, I usually find that I understand the specific issues to much greater degree than those that choose to be critical of me.

So I will only comment on the one portion of your post that I quoted above this time. Then you can go on believing whatever you want.

You should understand that the comparison you draw above is completely invalid. I know that nuclear proponents all love to quote it, but it really is invalid analysis. Here is an analogy that explains why: Imagine that we are comparing two weapons. One is a suit of armor with prickly barbs on it. The other is a missile capable of launching explosives a distance of a several miles. The suit of armor is a technology that has been around for 2000 years. Anyone who has ever brushed up against the barbs has suffered cuts and injuries. Occasionally over the history of the armor, some have been pummeled and squashed by prickly armor wearing enemies. Many injuries, even deaths have resulted. The missile was invented only moments ago and the first launch happened a fraction of a second ago. So far, the missile has never hurt anyone. Therefore we can conclude that barbed armor is far more dangerous to humans than missiles filled with explosives.

The coal that has been burned releasing Carbon into the air has done most of the damage it is going to do. That damage is not insignificant, but if we stopped burning coal and oil today, most of the damage would stop and begin to reverse itself. But concluding that because the death and injury count from TMI or Chernobyl or Fukushima is low today means we are safe exhibits ignorance of the impact of time constants on the probability of damage. Once you begin to factor those time constants into the equation, all nuclear reactors and nuclear waste (not just the ones where accidents have occurred) are still producing potential deadly risk to humans . . . not just today, but for several thousand years. Looking at our current nuclear history and concluding that there is no significant danger is like looking at the results from a missile a fraction of a second after the first launch and assuming that you can extrapolate the damage it will do from that instantaneous result.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57163 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 5/1/2014 9:15 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
charlie:" I do know, there is a finite supply of fossil fuels, there has always been a finite supply, so we better come up with alternatives."

Same broken record over and over and over again.

The Club of Rome predicted that the world would crater with over 3 billion people...starve to death..not enough land to grow the crops. Duh! We bio engineered food and now produce enough for 7 billion people. Duh!

But in the last 100 years,no one has successfully made 'bio fuels' using zero fossil fuels in the process. Brazil has come the closest with their sugar cane ethanol...but Brazil now uses more fossil fuels since it has zero cars that can run on 100% ethanol (possible, but remember, ethanol is 'likker'.....200% proof liquor....) and no one anywhere is going to sell booze at 3 or 4 bucks a gallon, right? But even then, Brazil now uses (and gets from its wells) 3 to 4 times as much fossil fuel as it used 25 years ago. So....it really doesn't count....they haven't stopped using or even slowed down using fossil fuels.

So all you keep coming up with 'we're running out of fossil fuels , we gotta do 'something' about it.

We're still driving the same car from 110 years ago. Combustion engine car,not getting more mileage per gallon than a Model T Ford did in 1918. 4 wheels. Steering wheel. Brakes on each wheel. Rubber tires. Two wheel drive....4 cylinder engines.....pistons....and 98% of us drive the same type of machine. Safer, of course, More 'advanced' of course, but the same thing.

we're still using the same fuel...gasoline ...as the Model T.

When 'oil' starts to peak out, we'll go to maybe things like methane hydrates. Japan is already doing pilot projects. There may be 100 or 200 years or 500 years supply of methane hydrates. We can use them to synthesize liquid fuels. Or make methanol (wood alcohol).... which would be a useful liquid fuel.

As to turning sawdust and sawgrass into bio fuels....good luck. Folks have been trying for a century. Same for turkey guts (guffaw)....massive fail but it took 300 million of tax payer money down the drain....

Sorry, wishing for something doesn't make it happen. Geez, I wish I was 21, had all my money and knowledge, was in perfect physical shape able to run marathons....I wish I wish....someone make a machine to make it happen!....I wish......

That's what all your messages turn out to be..... it's 'we gotta do something'.....

Throwing trillions at greenie rat holes is not doing 'something'.


t.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57164 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 5/1/2014 9:23 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
1poorguy:"Heh. It's what's happening, alright. I can't disagree. But "getting used to it"...well, we won't have much choice. Millions will die. Trillions of dollars will be lost. But, oh well...cost of doing fossil fuel business, eh? "

The economy stalled and Baracki and the libs blamed it on 'a cold winter'. They forgot to mention that the record blizzards, low temps were all caused by the non-existent global WARMING!..he he he


And now.....?

Did you see the nice program on the Sahara yesterday on PBS? 10,000 years ago, the climate 'shifted'. The green Sahara savanna, which had elephants and hundreds of varieties of animals, had swamps and rainfall in the 100 inches a year category, with rain all year long, and it supported over 200,000 people.

In less than a generation, the Sahara went from a land of plenty into a total desert and the population went from 200,000 or more (maybe even a million) with large cities...down to less than 2 or 3 thousand - within a single generaton.

of course, we all know that is because they used too many carbon based fuels. Must have been burning a lot of bio mass to 'warm up' the planet....probably a million people died as they were forced to migrate south or fight each other for the remaining resources..and of course 'south' was already occupied , so it was the more vicious aggressive who secured the land and resources and the others just died.

all because they likely burned too much biomass, obviously. It had to be. Why else would there be 'climate change'? Must have been man made global warming!....10,000 years ago!.....right? millions died? You mean the people weren't warned that burning too much animal dung and biomass would cause their extinction?

gimme a break.



t.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57165 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 5/1/2014 9:34 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
1poorguy:" We shouldn't be trying to tax people who put panels on their roofs (as is happening now)"

In some cases, yes. But, why should some folks get a free rider? If someone adds $25,000 to their home, isn't their home now worth that much more? If they go to sell it, they'll get more for it. No different than adding a swimming pool, or upgrading the windows in the house - which might trigger higher taxes due to the improvements.

Most places don't tax extra for solar panels. But if they did? That's a local decision, not a federal one.

-----------



," we should be incentivizing it."

Why? Personal home solar installations are a near zero gain situation. Most are not adequately maintained, they are usually not optimally sited...they are often eyesores in the neighborhood...

What you really want is massive large solar farms....and there is no reason to subsidize them either......

Why should every one else be paying your electric bill? The 'we' is everyone else. Why should I pay fed taxes to build solar farms in MT? or CA? so CA folks can buy 0.000004% more green energy?

------------------------
" We should be investing in solar thermal plants."

Again the liberal 'we'...Pick the pockets of tax payers to subsidize solar thermal plants in AZ or ME......

and why should 'we' (the public') be subsidizing something that will SELL, likely at a PROFIT, to consumers who will get gouged 35% more for 'green energy' than other energy ?

Let those who use it pay for it. Not the guy next to you whose pocket you would pick.

--------


"We should be working on storage technology so we can "charge it up" "

And why should 'we' be doing anything else than funding basic research or a pilot program or two?

Once again, 'you' pick the pockets of 'we' to get your dreams.

--------


". Etc. Offshore windmills are probably an outstanding idea also. "

As they are finding out in England, Off shore wind costs 50% more than on shore wind. It is not an outstanding idea. Hurricanes just love off shore locations.

Besides, your lib buddies, like the Kennedies, won't allow any wind projects anywhere off shore where any of them might be able to see them with a telescope from their mansions on the coast or islands like Nantucket....


----------


"Investing in fracking and pipelines is stupid from an environmental/survival standpoint, and therefore wasteful."

Once again, greenies heads must be exploding. You want to use less coal? And won't build new nukes? THen the only current option is natural gas.

Your brain must be on overload.


t.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaRunner Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57172 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 5/1/2014 3:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
When 'oil' starts to peak out, we'll go to maybe things like methane hydrates. Japan is already doing pilot projects. There may be 100 or 200 years or 500 years supply of methane hydrates. We can use them to synthesize liquid fuels. Or make methanol (wood alcohol).... which would be a useful liquid fuel.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry you seem to think what I'm saying is a broken record, but so is most of what you said....until this part. You seem for the most of your post to not want to try other methods, but you embrace this. Glad to see you come around.

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaRunner Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57173 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 5/1/2014 3:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Your brain must be on overload.
-----------------------------------------------------------------


No, but yours seems to explode with every post. That must hurt.

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57175 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 5/1/2014 5:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<We are going to continue to use fossil fuels on a massive scale, and continue to increase them rapidly worldwide.
-------------------------------------------------------------------


Which is stupid from a supply standpoint. There is a finite supply of fossil fuels, so why not explore other options - Climate Change aside.

Charlie >>


We've been running out of oil for 160 years. Projections by experienced scientists predicted "peak oil" for the world years ago, but technology has made huge new supplies available.

I know it's a bitter disappointment to environmentalists, but the fact is we aren't running out of ANY fossil fuels.

Personally, I see no reason to leave hugely valuable assets in the ground where they do humanity no good at all, the preferred policy of environmentalists.



Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CountNoCount Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57179 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 5/1/2014 6:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Dr. SG, are you a member of the UCS?

CNC

Print the post Back To Top
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57183 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 5/1/2014 8:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
No.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57184 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 5/1/2014 9:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
...still producing potential deadly risk to humans . . . not just today, but for several thousand years.

Potentially true, yes. Though if you declare the risk analysis invalid, do you have a "valid" one? I would like to see it. (Not being challenging, I really would like to see it.)

Also, from what I've read the present thought about climate is that if we did turn off carbon emission today that we still have at least a century (I've seen as high as 500 years quoted, but I'll take the conservative number) of further change built-in to the ecosystem. And there's no way we can just turn it off tomorrow, so it's that much worse.

Plus we're not even talking about ramifications from extraction (e.g. fracking).

I don't really like the missile analogy because if the missile works correctly it WILL cause more mayhem. That's what it is designed to do. If our treatment/sequestration works correctly, there won't be mayhem from the waste, because that's what it is designed to do. If your missile fails then the spiky armor still wins. :-)

I'm sort of surprised you didn't mention politics. That I think is another legitimate concern. Nuclear waste sites should not be placed based on politics (nor should reactors, for that matter). They should be placed based on sound science and engineering. But that frequently is not the reality of the situation, which could prove disastrous.

Also, I haven't seen any discussion on the communicating into the future angle. Did you just think that up, or is there some scholarship on it? I find that an interesting problem.

1poorguy

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57185 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 5/1/2014 9:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Though if you declare the risk analysis invalid, do you have a "valid" one?

We can list the factors in that analysis. That's the first step. Then use as much data, past experience or experiments to quantify those factors. Finally, put them together in appropriate mathematical relationship.

That is what the nuclear industry has done to justify each plant they have produced. The problem is they all have been allowed to leave out that one factor - multi-thousand year time constants. Effectively, the nuclear industry has carried out risk analysis for the the risk to humans living today and ignored the risks that continue into the future.

The existing analysis assumes that current levels of regulation, oversight and maintenance remain constant. That is probably an acceptable assumption if you are talking about this country in our lifetime. It is probably a reasonable assumption for most countries with nuclear power capabilities over our lifetime (less so with some than others).

But if we want to include it in the analysis, we would need to quantify the probability that the regulation, oversight and maintenance becomes unacceptable at some point in the next 10,000 years. Events that could make that happen include social/cultural collapse (eg. Dark Ages), collapse of the government responsible for the oversight and maintenance (eg. ancient Roman empire), warfare that would interrupt continuous oversight and maintenance (eg. war ravaged parts of Africa), the radical change of the landscape due to natural causes that interrupts or prevents oversight (eg. Fukushima, coastal loss, landslides, etc.), . . . There are probably others, but those are off the top of my head. Now those factors are not trivial to quantify. The only thing we have to look at is past history. How often have such things happened over 10,000 year periods? Of course, if you are familiar with doing this type of risk analysis, you realize that this is still simplistic. Each of these factors needs to be examined in more detail. What factors contribute to the observed occurrences in the past? How do current world population etc. contribute to those factors? . . .

I have not seen anyone attempt to include such factors in a detailed mathematical nuclear risk analysis. Such analysis is hardly necessary to realize there is reason for concern. If we use history as a guide, all of those things are likely to happen somewhere where we have nuclear material stored sometime in the next 10,000 years.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57186 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 5/1/2014 9:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Also, from what I've read the present thought about climate is that if we did turn off carbon emission today that we still have at least a century (I've seen as high as 500 years quoted, but I'll take the conservative number) of further change built-in to the ecosystem. And there's no way we can just turn it off tomorrow, so it's that much worse.

When you are comparing the safety record from coal to the safety record from nuclear, you are not talking about Global environment change. You are talking about pollution - dirty air and dirty water.

But this brings up a good point. How many people have died due to Global climate change today? If the nuclear industry wants to claim a safety record based on known deaths from nuclear today, then climate change deniers can do the same thing. Neither argument is valid.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57187 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 5/1/2014 9:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Plus we're not even talking about ramifications from extraction (e.g. fracking).

The safety and wisdom of using carbon is completely irrelevant to the safety and wisdom of using nuclear. You keep trying to paint me as a pro carbon pollution advocate, but not only is that not true, but it has no bearing on whether nuclear is safe or not.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57188 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 5/1/2014 9:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I don't really like the missile analogy because if the missile works correctly it WILL cause more mayhem. That's what it is designed to do. If our treatment/sequestration works correctly, there won't be mayhem from the waste, because that's what it is designed to do. If your missile fails then the spiky armor still wins. :-)

Really? Fine, change the analogy to two excavation tools. One is a pick-axe and one is a launched explosive system. . . . Same timing arguments.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57189 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 5/1/2014 9:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm sort of surprised you didn't mention politics. That I think is another legitimate concern. Nuclear waste sites should not be placed based on politics (nor should reactors, for that matter). They should be placed based on sound science and engineering. But that frequently is not the reality of the situation, which could prove disastrous.

Of course politics (or government stability) may be the most significant risk over the time frames we have to worry about. And the fact that we already see our government making political (rather than technical) decisions regarding nuclear is not encouraging. There really is no reason for us to believe that all the governments and all the political decisions that will be made over the next several thousand years will be any better. In fact, history indicates there is a high probability that they might get worse for part of that period of time.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57190 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 5/1/2014 10:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I haven't seen any discussion on the communicating into the future angle. Did you just think that up, or is there some scholarship on it?

During my more active technical career, I was invited to participate in a number of DoD, NSF and NIST workshops. The agencies would gather groups of experts on a broad array of topics together for several days to discuss specific issues and identify research areas that might help solve emerging problems. In one of those workshops (conducted by the Naval Research Labs) we were considering terrorism and research areas that might help address public safety from terrorist attacks. One of our first tasks was to think about various kinds of terrorist attacks. The nuclear energy industry was, of course, one of the terrorist targets we considered. During the course of our briefings and discussions, this concept of needing to protect for so long came up. Although the time-constant of the Navy research interest wasn't quite that long and none of us could come up with specific research for that problem, the concept intrigued a number of us.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CountNoCount Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 57192 of 59833
Subject: Re: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the W Date: 5/1/2014 11:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
1pg: Though if you declare the risk analysis invalid, do you have a "valid" one? I would like to see it. (Not being challenging, I really would like to see it.)

When I asked this, a got a null response. Something about "studying" the issues.

I missed the part about how to deal with current nuclear waste. Could you clarify? You denigrate Yucca Mountain. What do you offer?

CNC


I still see hysteria, no concrete suggestions. "It's scary, and we can't guarantee anything for 10,000 years. Let's just leave the depleted uranium in a bunch of depleted fuel pools with the operators. That's sooooo much safer than Yucca Mountain, isn't it?

CNC

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (73) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement