• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

Climate Tax?

5-90 said:
One thing I'd set as a reg were I POTUS - any bill I can't read in its entirety within thirty minutes will be vetoed in toto and sent back for a rewrite. That gives you 35-40 pages of typing.

More than that, it gets vetoed out of hand and sent back for a rewrite.

Less than that, and I do recall the "line-item veto" and intend to use it liberally...
Click to expand...

Is this you throwing your hat in?

:us: Vote 5-90 in 12! :us:
 
There are a few things that get in the way, I think:

1) I actually do not want to be President. I just think I can do a better job than most of the people who we have been electing lately, at least on domestic affairs. If elected, I don't plan to campaign for a second term, either. If you want me in the Oval Office again, I'm sure you'll let me know.

"Every first-term administration wants the same thing - a second term." Except this one.

2) I'm not going to wear a suit and tie every day, as I mentioned. Utilities are the order of the day - I'm going to remind myself that I'm there to work to fix things, not to look good.

3) Politicking and speechifying aren't what I plan to do, either. I don't mind speechifying, but it takes away from trying to get things handled. Politicking is a waste of time - period.

4) With any luck, I'll be able to discourage most of the active Congress from wanting to hold office. I doubt I'd be able to get term limits imposed on those fools (perhaps as a Constitutional Amendment put to popular vote - I'm sure neither House would approve of the idea...) but it's worth trying.

I kicked this around with my wife the other day, and we're probably going to start working on something this week-end - and put it up, and probably send it to at least our pols (for what it will be worth.) I think they need some new ideas, and they need to bubble up from below them, not come down "from the Mountain..."
 
Agreed and agreed. Bubble-up or grass roots was and will be the way that we folks are heard and obeyed. The sheep herders have'nt a chance if we choose to elect REPRESENTATIVES.


...and yes, I ment to holla'.
 
It appears the whole thing passed, by a very narrow margin. The Speaker had to actually harass members of her own party to vote "aye".

-Ron
 
It passed in the House. I don't know when it goes to the Senate or if they'll create their own version, which is usually the case. It was reported the Senate doesn't share quite the same enthusiasm for such a huge tax bill. FWIW, which ain't much nowadays.
 
Response from one of my Senators......who has been make aware he'll be voted out of office if he supports this.

Thank you for your letter expressing opposition to cap and trade legislation as it pertains to energy policy in the United States. I share your concerns with the cap and trade proposals being considered, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

On May 15, 2009, Congressmen Henry Waxman and Edward Markey introduced, H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act which would establish a cap and trade program to control human activities resulting in carbon dioxide emissions. As you may know, on June 26, 2009, the House of Representatives narrowly passed this legislation with a 219-212 vote. Over the next several weeks, the Senate is expected to hold several hearings on climate change legislation and a full Senate vote is expected no earlier than September of this year.

Let me be clear, I have serious concerns with any legislation that proposes a cap and trade system to reduce human carbon emissions. I believe such proposals are not the most effective approach to reducing carbon emissions (CO2), and I question whether controlling human activity can have any influence on the climate. I believe it is important to look at the scientific basis for climate change legislation and to weigh the cost and benefits of such legislation.

Though it is not widely covered in the media, there is considerable debate within the scientific community regarding the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The United Nations Panel on Intergovernmental Climate Change (IPCC) bases its theory of AGW on a number of assumptions. The validity of these assumptions continues to be the basis for the debate surrounding global warming. If the assumptions are wrong, the theory is faulty.

The most obvious assumption is that a causal relationship exists between human carbon emissions and observed warming. If most of the global warming has resulted from human CO2 emissions, then real-world observations of these two variables should demonstrate a correlation. This assumption is not supported by one of the most comprehensive and widely accepted data sets available to climate science: the Vostok ice cores taken in Antarctica.

We now have 600,000 years of ice core data showing a very strong correlation between changes in temperature and carbon levels in the atmosphere. The most recent analysis of the data shows clearly that changes in atmospheric carbon follow changes in temperature with a lag of between 800 and one thousand years. In short, more than one half of a million years of observed data fail to support the very central IPCC assumption that CO2 is a primary driver of the climate. Instead, the data supports the possibility that the opposite relationship exists. Furthermore, climate models failed to predict the climate trends that scientists have observed over the past decade. Actual observations show that the Earth's climates has cooled since 1998.

Moreover, a simple cost-benefit analysis shows that if all provisions of the cap and trade program were implemented global temperatures would only decrease by nine-hundredths of a degree Fahrenheit. This means that for every dollar we spent to combat global warming through carbon emissions, we do far less than a dollar of good.

Proponents ignore the cost-benefit analysis by claiming the program would generate more than $1.6 trillion in revenues. What they do not tell you is who would pay for it. The fact of the matter is, Utahns and all American families across the country will pay for it. A study done by the Rural Electric Cooperative Association concluded that a carbon cap-and-trade program could result in a 70 percent increase in the average Utah family's electric bill, making it the highest increase in the nation. Additionally, as manufacturers struggle to meet expensive mandates, high prices will be passed onto the consumer. Given the current state of our economy, we can ill afford to overburden taxpayers for a program which provides minimal benefits and threatens our global competitiveness.

We should make sure we are not disadvantaging ourselves among our international competitors. As we seek to become more energy independent, this legislation will in fact result in an annual $120 billion reduction in our economy, while ensuring our competitors such as China, gain a distinct advantage over us in the worldwide marketplace. It will send more than a million of our manufacturing jobs to countries with less-stringent environmental standards resulting in a net increase of global CO2 emissions. Unless we require the same standards of our international competitors, it would certainly reduce U.S. jobs while increasing global CO2

Rather than looking at ways to artificially control society through the creation of a false market, we should be tapping into the free market to reduce CO2. False markets simply redistribute wealth to preselected winners and losers, the winners here would be the select few who control carbon credits and the rest of us would be the losers. Such an outcome is the natural result of mandatory cap-and-trade rules, for if you control carbon, you control life.

Again, thank you for writing.

Sincerely,


Orrin G. Hatch
 
XJEEPER said:
Response from one of my Senators......who has been make aware he'll be voted out of office if he supports this.

Thank you for your letter expressing opposition to cap and trade legislation as it pertains to energy policy in the United States. I share your concerns with the cap and trade proposals being considered, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

On May 15, 2009, Congressmen Henry Waxman and Edward Markey introduced, H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act which would establish a cap and trade program to control human activities resulting in carbon dioxide emissions. As you may know, on June 26, 2009, the House of Representatives narrowly passed this legislation with a 219-212 vote. Over the next several weeks, the Senate is expected to hold several hearings on climate change legislation and a full Senate vote is expected no earlier than September of this year.

Let me be clear, I have serious concerns with any legislation that proposes a cap and trade system to reduce human carbon emissions. I believe such proposals are not the most effective approach to reducing carbon emissions (CO2), and I question whether controlling human activity can have any influence on the climate. I believe it is important to look at the scientific basis for climate change legislation and to weigh the cost and benefits of such legislation.

Though it is not widely covered in the media, there is considerable debate within the scientific community regarding the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The United Nations Panel on Intergovernmental Climate Change (IPCC) bases its theory of AGW on a number of assumptions. The validity of these assumptions continues to be the basis for the debate surrounding global warming. If the assumptions are wrong, the theory is faulty.

The most obvious assumption is that a causal relationship exists between human carbon emissions and observed warming. If most of the global warming has resulted from human CO2 emissions, then real-world observations of these two variables should demonstrate a correlation. This assumption is not supported by one of the most comprehensive and widely accepted data sets available to climate science: the Vostok ice cores taken in Antarctica.

We now have 600,000 years of ice core data showing a very strong correlation between changes in temperature and carbon levels in the atmosphere. The most recent analysis of the data shows clearly that changes in atmospheric carbon follow changes in temperature with a lag of between 800 and one thousand years. In short, more than one half of a million years of observed data fail to support the very central IPCC assumption that CO2 is a primary driver of the climate. Instead, the data supports the possibility that the opposite relationship exists. Furthermore, climate models failed to predict the climate trends that scientists have observed over the past decade. Actual observations show that the Earth's climates has cooled since 1998.

Moreover, a simple cost-benefit analysis shows that if all provisions of the cap and trade program were implemented global temperatures would only decrease by nine-hundredths of a degree Fahrenheit. This means that for every dollar we spent to combat global warming through carbon emissions, we do far less than a dollar of good.

Proponents ignore the cost-benefit analysis by claiming the program would generate more than $1.6 trillion in revenues. What they do not tell you is who would pay for it. The fact of the matter is, Utahns and all American families across the country will pay for it. A study done by the Rural Electric Cooperative Association concluded that a carbon cap-and-trade program could result in a 70 percent increase in the average Utah family's electric bill, making it the highest increase in the nation. Additionally, as manufacturers struggle to meet expensive mandates, high prices will be passed onto the consumer. Given the current state of our economy, we can ill afford to overburden taxpayers for a program which provides minimal benefits and threatens our global competitiveness.

We should make sure we are not disadvantaging ourselves among our international competitors. As we seek to become more energy independent, this legislation will in fact result in an annual $120 billion reduction in our economy, while ensuring our competitors such as China, gain a distinct advantage over us in the worldwide marketplace. It will send more than a million of our manufacturing jobs to countries with less-stringent environmental standards resulting in a net increase of global CO2 emissions. Unless we require the same standards of our international competitors, it would certainly reduce U.S. jobs while increasing global CO2

Rather than looking at ways to artificially control society through the creation of a false market, we should be tapping into the free market to reduce CO2. False markets simply redistribute wealth to preselected winners and losers, the winners here would be the select few who control carbon credits and the rest of us would be the losers. Such an outcome is the natural result of mandatory cap-and-trade rules, for if you control carbon, you control life.

Again, thank you for writing.

Sincerely,


Orrin G. Hatch
Click to expand...
I like this guy. I may have to move to Utah.
 
XJEEPER said:
Response from one of my Senators......who has been make aware he'll be voted out of office if he supports this.

Thank you for your letter expressing opposition to cap and trade legislation as it pertains to energy policy in,.....


....., would be the losers. Such an outcome is the natural result of mandatory cap-and-trade rules, for if you control carbon, you control life.

Again, thank you for writing.

Sincerely,


Orrin G. Hatch
Click to expand...
Quite a load of **** spewed out there. Glad to hear he has "serious" reservations.
I didn't read anything like, "I am planning to vote against any,..."

Rather then that load, I'd like to see:
Thank you for your comments concerning this legislation.
To be clear, I do not support it, I will not support it, and I will not vote for it.
sincerely,...
Click to expand...
instead, you got :paperwork

Oh well,..
Plain English is probably too much to expect from that bunch.
 
What amazes me is that people continue to listen to politicians with an agenda, funded by lobbyists with agendas.

What I can't understand is why some people (who I assume, maybe incorrectly, do not also have agendas) refuse to accept that the scientific community is now united in saying that we need to reduce GHG emissions.

I have been watching and debating both sides of this issue for 25 years, and I am one of the few people here at NAXJA with credentials in this area. I have been 100% convinced for a good 2.5 years now that the debate is over in the scientific community. I just hope it is not too late already.

Do I like the idea of GW, or GHG emission controls, or carbon taxes? No, not as a consumer. Do I think the people of this planet have a choice? No. Not unless you consider suicide a choice.
 
Ecomike said:
What amazes me is that people continue to listen to politicians with an agenda, funded by lobbyists with agendas.

What I can't understand is why some people (who I assume, maybe incorrectly, do not also have agendas) refuse to accept that the scientific community is now united in saying that we need to reduce GHG emissions.

I have been watching and debating both sides of this issue for 25 years, and I am one of the few people here at NAXJA with credentials in this area. I have been 100% convinced for a good 2.5 years now that the debate is over in the scientific community. I just hope it is not too late already.

Do I like the idea of GW, or GHG emission controls, or carbon taxes? No, not as a consumer. Do I think the people of this planet have a choice? No. Not unless you consider suicide a choice.
Click to expand...

I can understand that much. What I have a problem with is that this will be little more than creating a moneyspinner for someone (the government, directly or no?) with little tangible effect and at a time when the very last thing the consumer economy needs is another tax - frankly, we're already in the sh**er as it is, and the timing on this is phenomenally bad.

And it's the consumer that is ultimately going to pay for it sooner or later - in this case, rather sooner.

Instead of pushing through a tax to make things more expensive for little to no actual gain, how about incentives for taking positive steps to reduce GHG emissions voluntarily - which will have a much more immediate and beneficial effect than creation of a new tax, a new market, and a new scheme to milk more money out of the public-at-large (since that's where it's going to be coming from,) without actually accomplishing anything notable?

One thing I shall continue to maintain - we were already on the verge of overpopulating this rock when the global population was four to four and one-half billion people - we're pushing somewhere around eight billion now, if we haven't already passed it.

Consider also that the United States is not alone in GHG emissions - but we're going to be alone is reducing them? That doesn't make any sense to me at all either. I'm sure China is pumping out GHGs at about twice the rate of the United States (if not moreso,) and how about all of the developing economies in Central and South America? Has anyone ever been to Mexico City on a "bad air day?" Makes LA look downright clean in comparison.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't do anything to reduce GHGs, but we had damned well better drag everyone else along, or our efforts will be for naught (and they'll also be overshadowed by the reverse efforts of all of the "developing economies," and we won't move forward at all. Period.)

This is a global problem, and it demands a global solution. Not unilateral action that would cripple the economy still further.

Mike - what say you?
 
5-90 said:
Instead of pushing through a tax to make things more expensive for little to no actual gain, how about incentives for taking positive steps to reduce GHG emissions voluntarily - which will have a much more immediate and beneficial effect than creation of a new tax, a new market, and a new scheme to milk more money out of the public-at-large (since that's where it's going to be coming from,) without actually accomplishing anything notable?

One thing I shall continue to maintain - we were already on the verge of overpopulating this rock when the global population was four to four and one-half billion people - we're pushing somewhere around eight billion now, if we haven't already passed it.

Consider also that the United States is not alone in GHG emissions - but we're going to be alone is reducing them? That doesn't make any sense to me at all either. I'm sure China is pumping out GHGs at about twice the rate of the United States (if not moreso,) and how about all of the developing economies in Central and South America? Has anyone ever been to Mexico City on a "bad air day?" Makes LA look downright clean in comparison.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't do anything to reduce GHGs, but we had damned well better drag everyone else along, or our efforts will be for naught (and they'll also be overshadowed by the reverse efforts of all of the "developing economies," and we won't move forward at all. Period.)

This is a global problem, and it demands a global solution. Not unilateral action that would cripple the economy still further.

Mike - what say you?
Click to expand...

Actually the cap and trade program does what you just suggested above. It is market based, not bureaucratic regulation based! It is far better than the old method of statutory permit limits, and MACT, and BACT permit systems. It allows existing industry to voluntarily reduce emissions on existing plants, and then sell those emmissions rights (sometimes at a profit) to those who want to build new plants but need the emissions rights to build such plants. The sold emissions are only allowed to sell about 98 % of the prior eliminated emissions, which is where the long term reduction in emissions comes from. Read up on the SO2 cap and trade programs we set up 20 years ago to eliminate acid rain (they worked great). We have had VOC cap and trade programs for years too. They work fine. I heard the same excuses 20-30 years ago for not passing environmental laws that we all now take for granted.

Also, the new technologies that GHG emission trade & cap enables will create new jobs in new industries here, just like prior environmental changes did.

China is already way ahead of us in this. In fact I own stock in a forward thinking China company that is already beating us to the punch on this stuff because we have had our heads in the sand way too long.

The cap and trade should be looked at separately from a carbon tax that feeds government coffers. The tax, if they get one passed, would be separate of cap and trade, and would go right back out as rebates to those who buy and install green energy technology like solar cells or wind turbines on their house or business, to further reduce GHG emissions by cutting carbon based fuel consumption. Europe has been hard at work reducing GHG emissions for a good 8 years now. We will not be alone in this. In fact at this point, we will be following the world instead of leading it this time.

China has gotten quite serious about reducing coal fired power plant building, in favor of green energy technology installations in the last few years and they are cranking it into high gear right now.

Part of the problem here is that parts of the coal industry and oil industry have financial incentives to kill cap and trade, so they are CALLING Cap and Trade a TAX. If it lowers world wide oil and coal demand, it might actually reduce crude oil and gasoline prices (and coal prices), when compared to not doing it, which is why coal and oil companies are fighting it!
 
Last edited:
Mike,
This never was about the planet.....it's about MONEY, and the debate is not settled in the scientific community. Why does the bill remove the exisiting EPA limits on carbon emissions? More allowable emissions = bigger revenue stream.

There is no factual data to prove that this latest version of Cap and Trade will help the planet, only THEORY and SPECULATION.

It's a massive gamble, and the US Citizen has the most at risk.This bill has removed existing EPA limits on carbon emissions. Why? Even higher emissions will further enrich those who deal in carbon-offsets. The authors of this bill could care less about global warming and the climate, unless its the climate of their own wallets.

However, there is factual data that proves:

A-We have no control over the climate, regardless of GHG output

B-Cap and Trade programs that have been implemented (and are being abandoned) by other countries have failed to produce any results, other than stifling economic growth and burdening taxpayers and businesses. http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=14411

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.

Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history.

Only those afraid of the the truth seek to silence debate, intimidate those with whom they disagree, or slander their ideological counterparts.

  • The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.
  • The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at around 1 °C.
  • The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).
  • The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
  • There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
  • The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)
  • Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.
  • Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.
  • Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.
  • There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.
  • Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).
  • Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.

Suggested additional reading:
 
Last edited:
Surprisingly enough China is pretty forward thinking, they are in the process of building a rather large wind turbine, not the normal run of the mill one, one thats being built to last a couple of hundred years. It's called a maglev turbine, sucker is HUGE http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/11/26/super-powered-magnetic-wind-turbine-maglev/ I like what I am reading about it, no parts to wear out and pretty cool but then Japan has been playing with maglev super trains for a while now.
WE have well over 20 million unemployed. Thats a pretty big workforce, now how about we take $100 BILLION bucks that they are giving away for executive bonuses, build 2 or more solar cell manufacturing plants in every state to manufacture solar panels and solar shingles, then set a goal of replacing every shingled roof with solar shingles, sure they are inefficient but no more inefficient than an internal combustion engine in your cars, 50 million homes which is a conservative number, putting out 2-3KW with a medium sized array would put about 8-10 million people back to work manufacturing, selling, installing and servicing those installations, that does not even count all the commercial buildings. The closed automotive and idle automotive plants could provide the buildings to do the production.
Until hydrogen fuel cells come down in price and make them practical in automotive use thats the only real practical thing we can do RIGHT NOW.
Coming down the pike right now is what are we going to do with all those hybrid battery packs that are going to start dying in another 3 years, it's a toss up as to which is less dangerous, recycling batteries or reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, they are both pretty nasty environmentally wise.
I just see the solar solution as a pretty quick and simple solution to a problem and it could work pretty fast not to mention the companies that manufacture the machines to produce the cells, they would also have to ramp up production of the machines to make the machines, it would have a cascade effect, a win win situation.
 
XJEEPER said:
Mike,
This never was about the planet.....it's about MONEY, and the debate is not settled in the scientific community.
...
Click to expand...

Good luck with using logic and facts in this debate. :rolleyes:

BTW, I'm fairly certain the authors of this bill couldn't care less about global warming and the climate. :)
 
XJEEPER said:
  • The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.
Click to expand...

I stopped reading when I got to this part. Just wondering when 10 to the x power stopped being an exponent (exponential)? Very interesting.:laugh3:
 
Last edited:
RichP said:
Surprisingly enough China is pretty forward thinking, they are in the process of building a rather large wind turbine, not the normal run of the mill one, one thats being built to last a couple of hundred years. It's called a maglev turbine, sucker is HUGE http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/11/26/super-powered-magnetic-wind-turbine-maglev/ I like what I am reading about it, no parts to wear out and pretty cool but then Japan has been playing with maglev super trains for a while now.
WE have well over 20 million unemployed. Thats a pretty big workforce, now how about we take $100 BILLION bucks that they are giving away for executive bonuses, build 2 or more solar cell manufacturing plants in every state to manufacture solar panels and solar shingles, then set a goal of replacing every shingled roof with solar shingles, sure they are inefficient but no more inefficient than an internal combustion engine in your cars, 50 million homes which is a conservative number, putting out 2-3KW with a medium sized array would put about 8-10 million people back to work manufacturing, selling, installing and servicing those installations, that does not even count all the commercial buildings. The closed automotive and idle automotive plants could provide the buildings to do the production.
Until hydrogen fuel cells come down in price and make them practical in automotive use thats the only real practical thing we can do RIGHT NOW.
Coming down the pike right now is what are we going to do with all those hybrid battery packs that are going to start dying in another 3 years, it's a toss up as to which is less dangerous, recycling batteries or reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, they are both pretty nasty environmentally wise.
I just see the solar solution as a pretty quick and simple solution to a problem and it could work pretty fast not to mention the companies that manufacture the machines to produce the cells, they would also have to ramp up production of the machines to make the machines, it would have a cascade effect, a win win situation.
Click to expand...

There are better, and a wider array of options out there other than just solar cells, but you have the right idea. The founders of Google are behind a private company that is ramping up production of a proven, new thin solar cell product that is printed on a special printing press, at a production cost of 3% of silicon solar cells.
It is Nanosolar, in California. (Previously won 2 USDOE R & D grants, you tax money at work, and Goolgle founders tax money at work!!!!!
http://www.google.com/search?q="goo...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

China has been working on a mini, mass producible nuclear power plants, called a pebble bed reactor, that could be used in every home. China is also making major commitments to switch from building any new coal fired plants to building new nuclear power plants. And they are making major infrastructure changes to enable and accelerate a switch from coal power to natural gas powered power plants. Coal is about 10 times worse (I forget the exact number), than natural gas when burned as far as CO2 emissions are concerned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...ina+nuclear+reactors+pebble+bed&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.htm

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html

http://www.physorg.com/news145561984.html

Wind....., geothermal, hydroelectric Dams, offshore water wave (under water currents, flows, power plants, etc., Here are some of the new energy tech stocks I already own that I hope will replace stocks like Exxon someday.

AXPW (new US technology that is breathing new life into lead acid battery technology, uses a new carbon electrodes and converts old lead acid battery tech into an ass kicker battery tech that leaves lithium ion in the dust). Oh and China and Japan control something like 90 % of the worlds lithium supply. Previously funded by the USDOE! Batteries are one way of storing wind, and other solar power for peak loads when the wind is not blowing, or the sun is not shining.

APWR (building next generation power plants, and building waste food/organic scrap digesters that produce natural gas and feed natural gas power plants. The design and build the digesters and the power plants)
COIN - They collect waste food (spoiled) and convert it into organic fertilizer with a high tech energy efficient digester process. Does not burn the waste, so it is carbon neutral.
HTM (operating and building geothermal power plants in the USA)
CABN (they are working on commercializing a biotechnology, reactor that coverts concentrated CO2 from a power plant directly into liquid fuels)!!!!

Another very promising technology, already being deployed here is solar heat, large mirrors that track the sun in the desert, and focus the reflected sun onto a thin tube that contains a super heated fluid that is stored in bulk, and used as needed to heat water to steam for steam generator operation.

SO, Southern Energy (another stock I bought) is at the forefront of doing CO2 sequestration research in a DOE partially funded, SO and other companies partially funded, co-op R & D effort to evaluate coal fired power plant CO2 capture and sequestration options.
 
Ecomike said:
Another very promising technology, already being deployed here is solar heat, large mirrors that track the sun in the desert, and focus the reflected sun onto a thin tube that contains a super heated fluid that is stored in bulk, and used as needed to heat water to steam for steam generator operation.
Click to expand...

That 'system' has been working in Spain for over 15 years, they are building a bigger one and taking the older one down, substandard materials as I understand it and it has to be taken down before it falls down.
The small reactors that get buried for 20-30 years, cost about $20Million, will supply about 20,000 homes at a cost of .02 cents KWH, homeowners could pay it off in $15 years, no maintenance.
My idea was to get going, put people to work and build the infrastructure, my other 'thing' is I don't like corporations controlling the supply, with home solar arrays it reduces the gun to the head and can put the homeowner totally on their own, if the ability to store unused power in reasonably priced batteries does show up that would only be a plus.
Like I have said before, the person or persons who develop home fusion systems that can be carried or used in a car better have good body guards because they would be trampling on a lot of the corporate apple carts.. I've often wondered how many good ideas have been buried. I know from working at bell labs that many of their futuristic stuff is stored and patented waiting for a use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

macgyvr
Bill would close 23 million acres to OHV users in western states
Replies
2
Views
816
David_Bricker
David_Bricker
lobsterdmb
Federal transfers to Utah would shut public out
Replies
0
Views
391
lobsterdmb
lobsterdmb
jeepndel
ACTION Needed; CA Desert; Messy mixed up issues
Replies
0
Views
2K
jeepndel
jeepndel
lobsterdmb
Utah roads dispute emerges in defense authorization bill
Replies
0
Views
301
lobsterdmb
lobsterdmb
lobsterdmb
Dems propose protection of 9.2M acres in Utah
Replies
0
Views
122
lobsterdmb
lobsterdmb
Back
Top