How the USA will make Electricity

Originally posted by uzless
You quoted a national spokesperson but then list local examples? Where are the fed programs to back local initiatives?

The point I was making was about the national spokesperson's comment to a nuclear industry group. Just explaining why he might make such comments to a nuclear group. He knew damn well the greenies would be listening in and would be look ...[text shortened]...

This is one of the bigger players in my neck of the woods.

http://www.bullfrogpower.com/

You seem uneducated as to how the US Federal government works. You mistake the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as a mere "spokesman," you seem unaquainted with the idea of Federal funding of state and local government and private initiatives to execute national policy directives, you do not show any evidence that the FERC chief was talking to someone other than his audience or engaging in the deception you describe -- in short, you are a lot of assumptions and hot air and no facts, reasoning, or information.

You don't understand how Federal law and policy works; you don't get how Federal policy makers and decision makers get their job done; and you dismiss facts because they are inconvenient and require more care and time you wish to spend on them.

You are boring the living hell out of me --

Originally posted by joe beyser
I mentioned the roadster because the technology is superior to anything else by far. It would be great if chrysler made as good a car but for less $. I would like to get one if the price was lower.

You'd be limited to the 200km range and the recharge time wouldn't make it reasonable imo for long trips. Great for city commuting though.

If electric cars are going to get serious, we need a recharging infrastructure to be put into place. I've heard of battery swap out stations where you would go to a regular gas station type facility but the attendant would just change the battery for you. That would be ideal and would concentrate the recycling locations of batteries that are no good (approx life cycle of lithium ion batts are about 4 years)


The real prize potentiallly is with EESTOR. These new batteries are reporting to have 500km ranges and will support 120km/h speeds and will recharge in mere minutes. They are backed by companies like Lockheed. Could be all just pie in the sky stuff but if true, the days on the internal combustion engine are over.

Originally posted by Scriabin
You seem uneducated as to how the US Federal government works. You mistake the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as a mere "spokesman," you seem unaquainted with the idea of Federal funding of state and local government and private initiatives to execute national policy directives, you do not show any evidence that the FERC chief was talking more care and time you wish to spend on them.

You are boring the living hell out of me --

Perhaps you would like to discuss Canadian environmental policy then?

btw, while not an american gov official like yourself, I am familiar with your funding system. The feds give a whack of cash to the states, the states divide the cash up as per "guidelines" on and policy directives and dish out to favoured, er, "qualifying partners"...to varying degrees of success.

I did provide an excellent analysis of FERC's comments about small localized distributive generation to the Nuke Industry. You are free to disagree. Why don't you provide your own analysis on what the comments meant and why they were given in the context they were. you seem to have the insight.


Enlighten us:


EDIT: In case you forgot your own original post:

"The chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission told nuclear industry executives today that the construction of new nuclear and coal generating plants was a possible scenario for meeting U.S. electric power needs -- an effort to tame a tempest that followed his comments last month on electric power's future.

At a meeting with reporters then, FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff said he thought coal and nuclear baseload generating plants may not be needed in the future. "I think baseload capacity is going to become an anachronism. ... We may not need any, ever," he said."

Originally posted by uzless
Perhaps you would like to discuss Canadian environmental policy then?

btw, while not an american gov official like yourself, I am familiar with your funding system. The feds give a whack of cash to the states, the states divide the cash up as per "guidelines" on and policy directives and dish out to favoured, er, "qualifying partners"...to varying degrees ...[text shortened]... capacity is going to become an anachronism. ... We may not need any, ever," he said."

you called the chair of the FERC a "spokesman."

that says to me you don't know what his job entails -- what decisions he has the power to make.

I cannot spend my limited time explaining such basics to you ...

Originally posted by Scriabin
you called the chair of the FERC a "spokesman."

that says to me you don't know what his job entails -- what decisions he has the power to make.

I cannot spend my limited time explaining such basics to you ...

my god, your panties are in a knot because instead of calling him a chair i called him a spokesman? jebus, news flash, anyone who speaks is spokesman. You that hung up on job titles? You must be professionally designated. A lawyer perhaps?

Whatev

At least now you know WHY he said it. I am also getting tired of explaining things that should be obvious to someone in the Service.

Originally posted by uzless
my god, your panties are in a knot because instead of calling him a chair i called him a spokesman? jebus, news flash, anyone who speaks is spokesman. You that hung up on job titles? You must be professionally designated. A lawyer perhaps?

Whatev

At least now you know WHY he said it. I am also getting tired of explaining things that should be obvious to someone in the Service.

of course not. but that's a good place to start, as your ignorance snowballs from there. it isn't just the title thing -- you've no idea how funding works. you can't distinguish between that which is local and that which is national -- you conflate and confuse the issues, you muddle the matter, and it makes me too tired to even begin to try to sort you out.

yes, I'm a lawyer -- and yes, it makes me very impatient and tired with people who can't trouble themselves to learn just a little about that which they speak.

I have homes in two states -- and in both states, the power companies I pay may be supplanted by my purchase of electricity from wind power -- that is new, just this year.

Oh, but that's just two LOCAL examples ... hmmmmm -- gee, wonder where the money came from for these wind power guys to set up shop in my two states.

Ah, I follow the news daily in a third state, and just a particular part of that state, since there is a military site there with an environmental enforcement case I've been working on since 1994. Whoops, whaddya know, suddenly, just this year, that military base is siting a wind farm, and, stranger still, so are all the other large military bases around the country with the right amount of land and wind.

Wow, I just got invited to the Pentagon's annual environmental awards ceremony early next week -- they're patting themselves on the back for a couple of large bases that have gotten completely off the grid.

Yeah -- I see that I only cited a LOCAL thing -- nothing to do with a national policy choice, with federal money being spread around -- nothing at all.

And you wonder why I think that if you get any more stupid someone will have to water you every few days?

Originally posted by Scriabin
of course not. but that's a good place to start, as your ignorance snowballs from there. it isn't just the title thing -- you've no idea how funding works. you can't distinguish between that which is local and that which is national -- you conflate and confuse the issues, you muddle the matter, and it makes me too tired to even begin to try to sort you out ...[text shortened]... I think that if you get any more stupid someone will have to water you every few days?

We are having wind farms sprouting all over my state. There are people complaining about what an eyesore they are. I like the idea. I think the blades are a work of art. I don't mind seeing them in number on the ridgelines.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
or until fossil fuels are no longer cheap like they are now

Nuclear plants will not be built, not because of cost, but for the same reason new fossil fuel plants can't be built. The US is held hostage to the demands of the Sierra Club.

Eventually better designed wind turbines, and more likely higher efficiency solar panels will take over, but for the present, fossil fuels are the only cost effective say to increase power production.

Personally, I don't trust the grid, or the will to improve it. I believe a growing number of Americans are going off the grid, either preparing to use significantly less electricity and/or produce their own.

An EMP attack would virtually cripple fossil fuel infrastructure, and most electronics. Such an attack would result in as many deaths as thermonuclear holocaust, but most people would starve or die of exposure leaving the buildings in tact. Depending on the electric grid could be ultimately suicidal for Americans.

Originally posted by uzless
You'd be limited to the 200km range and the recharge time wouldn't make it reasonable imo for long trips. Great for city commuting though.

If electric cars are going to get serious, we need a recharging infrastructure to be put into place. I've heard of battery swap out stations where you would go to a regular gas station type facility but the attendant ...[text shortened]... l just pie in the sky stuff but if true, the days on the internal combustion engine are over.

If the days of fossil fuels, and internal combustion engines are over, isn't it silly and unnecessary for government to manipulate all this stuff? And why is the government subsidizing ethanol, other than pandering to corn farmers?

I'm all for progress, but it seldom comes from government manipulated forced programs. And on that, cap and trade is a bad joke, as bad as Euro carbon taxes. They do nothing about the global carbon footprint, whether or not that is important.

Originally posted by joe beyser
We are having wind farms sprouting all over my state. There are people complaining about what an eyesore they are. I like the idea. I think the blades are a work of art. I don't mind seeing them in number on the ridgelines.

they are going to put a major wind farm off the coast of Delaware, and I will be able to see it (barely) from the beach. some folks don't like that. I like it fine, as it makes sense and will save me money and reduce the use of fossil fuels to make electricity in Delaware.

saw a great cartoon in the New Yorker, though. gotta laugh at things, even things with which you agree, like wind power. Two guys are standing on top of this enormous wind generator - the thing isn't moving. One guy says to the other: "have you tried blowing on it?"

Originally posted by normbenign
If the days of fossil fuels, and internal combustion engines are over, isn't it silly and unnecessary for government to manipulate all this stuff? And why is the government subsidizing ethanol, other than pandering to corn farmers?

I'm all for progress, but it seldom comes from government manipulated forced programs. And on that, cap and trade is a b ...[text shortened]... n taxes. They do nothing about the global carbon footprint, whether or not that is important.

the days of fossil fuels and internal combustion engines are far from over -- you don't change things that well entrenched overnight.

used to hear a history prof who also thought he knew a lot more about the world than he did say "the nation-state is obsolete ..."

that was in 1968 ... oh, and how right he was .... now if only someone would let all these nation states know about it.

changing from one set of government-subsidized technologies to another still involves government policy. so long as the government prints the money, you can't get away from government policy.

sometimes progress on a smaller scale comes about through genuine innovation without government involvement. good examples are consumer electronics like VHS vs. Beta, or similar struggles over other kinds of media standardization. Once the standards are recognized to be more important in the scheme of things than, say, movie discs, government gets into the act -- note that it takes government policy and enforcement money to deal with intellectual property rights re: movies and music. The kind of technical standard for recording the products? not so much.

But nothing truly on the scale of what is involved with energy and fuels and autos can be left to just market forces. We haven't the time for too much of a contest to play itself out -- and as you can see, the viability of major industries and an inter-related circle of suppliers, etc. all depend on what comes next.

now explain your problems with Waxman-Markey ...

I'm pretty sure the US will invade some third world country, declare the locals "illegal humans", stick them on treadmills and generate their electricity by legalised slavery.

Originally posted by shavixmir
I'm pretty sure the US will invade some third world country, declare the locals "illegal humans", stick them on treadmills and generate their electricity by legalised slavery.

Is there a name for your religion?

You've got the dogma now you just need to come up with a name.

Originally posted by normbenign
Nuclear plants will not be built, not because of cost, but for the same reason new fossil fuel plants can't be built. The US is held hostage to the demands of the Sierra Club.

Eventually better designed wind turbines, and more likely higher efficiency solar panels will take over, but for the present, fossil fuels are the only cost effective say to inc buildings in tact. Depending on the electric grid could be ultimately suicidal for Americans.

paranoid fantasies make great drug store paperbacks and big studio movies -- be sure to take notes on your drifts away from the real world
🙄🙄

Two federal contractors will receive nearly $2 billion in economic stimulus money to clean up the Hanford nuclear reservation despite having been fined for environmental and safety violations at the same site.

Washington Closure Hanford and CH2M Hill will continue to rid the nation's most contaminated nuclear site of radioactive and toxic waste even after being repeatedly fined or had their pay reduced, because they are among the few contractors that can handle the specialized cleanup required. The contractors also say they have learned from past mistakes.

The government currently spends about $2 billion each year to clean up Hanford, which is roughly one-third of the total nuclear cleanup budget.

Originally posted by Ullr
Is there a name for your religion?

You've got the dogma now you just need to come up with a name.

Shav worships the moon -- he is a true Lunatic