How do you plan to make nuclear price competitive with renewables and natural gas? There's a reason why you never see nukes in an IRP, it's prohibitively expensive with current technology. If you're a nuke advocate then you should also be pushing hard for a carbon price...which I've never seen you do.
I'm glad you entered the discussion. You and I both know renewables don't work for night time baseload without some other form of battery than we currently have.
I advocate subsidies for nukes, reducing red tape from the EPA, and using imminent domain around NIMBY-ism (Yuka Mountain). Those would all reduce costs.
Natural Gas has it's own issues but getting India and China off of coal and onto Natural Gas would probably reduce emissions by more than anything the US could do. Other than what we are currently doing(exporting) I'm not sure what we can do to encourage that though.
Where do you stand on subsidies and increased grant funding for research into other clean energy? You can't replace fossil fuels until you pioneer a new source of energy. Solar, wind, and nuclear combined can't meet our transportation energy needs alone.
How do you plan to make nuclear price competitive with renewables and natural gas? There's a reason why you never see nukes in an IRP, it's prohibitively expensive with current technology. If you're a nuke advocate then you should also be pushing hard for a carbon price...which I've never seen you do.
I'm glad you entered the discussion. You and I both know renewables don't work for night time baseload without some other form of battery than we currently have.
I advocate subsidies for nukes, reducing red tape from the EPA, and using imminent domain around NIMBY-ism (Yuka Mountain). Those would all reduce costs.
Natural Gas has it's own issues but getting India and China off of coal and onto Natural Gas would probably reduce emissions by more than anything the US could do. Other than what we are currently doing(exporting) I'm not sure what we can do to encourage that though.
Where do you stand on subsidies and increased grant funding for research into other clean energy? You can't replace fossil fuels until you pioneer a new source of energy. Solar, wind, and nuclear combined can't meet our transportation energy needs alone.
How do you plan to make nuclear price competitive with renewables and natural gas? There's a reason why you never see nukes in an IRP, it's prohibitively expensive with current technology. If you're a nuke advocate then you should also be pushing hard for a carbon price...which I've never seen you do.
I'm glad you entered the discussion. You and I both know renewables don't work for night time baseload without some other form of battery than we currently have.
I advocate subsidies for nukes, reducing red tape from the EPA, and using imminent domain around NIMBY-ism (Yuka Mountain). Those would all reduce costs.
Natural Gas has it's own issues but getting India and China off of coal and onto Natural Gas would probably reduce emissions by more than anything the US could do. Other than what we are currently doing(exporting) I'm not sure what we can do to encourage that though.
I'm not on the all renewables bandwagon. Natural gas right now is filling a need that no other resource can provide including nuclear. The debate should center on what can replace gas, and right now the answer is nothing. There is a lot of promising technology but no silver bullet.
In terms of making nukes more economical I'm skeptical of the cut red tape argument without any specifics. They are expensive to build in the US until they arent. It also doesn't really make sense to build a new conventional nuke unless it's used as replacement for an existing baseload plant since electricity demand right now is flat.
A direct federal subsidy would have to be huge...like 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of a nuclear plant to make it competitive with natural gas or renewables. I would rather have a more market based incentives like carbon price or wholesale market mechanism that better values on demand dispatch...the second point is already being discussed in most regional markets.
Even if you're not a fan of a carbon price I would still argue that federal money would be better spent investing in R & D than direct funding construction of existing nuclear technology. Seems more important to figure out the technology that can actually replace natural gas before putting shovels in the ground and going hard in a certain direction.
Not sure if climate change is real. I'm gonna wait to see if food keeps showing up at my local grocery store.
What a retarded article.
The Arctic Circle has relativity little land mass compared to the Antarctic. So.... therefore there is exponentially more ice in Antarctica.
So when you have a quatrillion ice cubes stacked up and it gets above freezing, you are gonna lose a lot more ice cubes than the area that has a few billion ice cubes stacked up.
Proportion is certainly important. Like Bob's argument that there's a higher proportion of blacks in prison than whites simply because they're black.
We had the coldest wettest winter in 132 years in So Cal. After record wild fires. Which we will have again due to the rain bringing all the vegetation back to burn out and catch on fire
We had the coldest wettest winter in 132 years in So Cal. After record wild fires. Which we will have again due to the rain bringing all the vegetation back to burn out and catch on fire
Proceed with mocking me for anecdotal evidence
Sounds like the climate in your neighborhood would hurt a fly
We had the coldest wettest winter in 132 years in So Cal. After record wild fires. Which we will have again due to the rain bringing all the vegetation back to burn out and catch on fire
Proceed with mocking me for anecdotal evidence
I'll take your word for it. 132 years is a blink on the Race Bannon time scale. You probably remember it like it was yesterday.
Not sure if climate change is real. I'm gonna wait to see if food keeps showing up at my local grocery store.
What a retarded article.
The Arctic Circle has relativity little land mass compared to the Antarctic. So.... therefore there is exponentially more ice in Antarctica.
So when you have a quatrillion ice cubes stacked up and it gets above freezing, you are gonna lose a lot more ice cubes than the area that has a few billion ice cubes stacked up.
Proportion is certainly important. Like Bob's argument that there's a higher proportion of blacks in prison than whites simply because they're black.
You're dog whistling by conflating these issues will not stand.
I blame the Paris Climate Accord. It was signed at the end of 2015 and ice levels suddenly dropped afterwards. Trump announced in June of 2016 that the US was withdrawing and the ice levels started going up again (as they did from 1979-2015.)
Not sure if climate change is real. I'm gonna wait to see if food keeps showing up at my local grocery store.
What a retarded article.
The Arctic Circle has relativity little land mass compared to the Antarctic. So.... therefore there is exponentially more ice in Antarctica.
So when you have a quatrillion ice cubes stacked up and it gets above freezing, you are gonna lose a lot more ice cubes than the area that has a few billion ice cubes stacked up.
Proportion is certainly important. Like Bob's argument that there's a higher proportion of blacks in prison than whites simply because they're black.
You're dog whistling by conflating these issues will not stand.
Yes, and polar land mass disqualifies all scientific data. Dumbfuck.
How do you plan to make nuclear price competitive with renewables and natural gas? There's a reason why you never see nukes in an IRP, it's prohibitively expensive with current technology. If you're a nuke advocate then you should also be pushing hard for a carbon price...which I've never seen you do.
I'm glad you entered the discussion. You and I both know renewables don't work for night time baseload without some other form of battery than we currently have.
I advocate subsidies for nukes, reducing red tape from the EPA, and using imminent domain around NIMBY-ism (Yuka Mountain). Those would all reduce costs.
Natural Gas has it's own issues but getting India and China off of coal and onto Natural Gas would probably reduce emissions by more than anything the US could do. Other than what we are currently doing(exporting) I'm not sure what we can do to encourage that though.
I'm not on the all renewables bandwagon. Natural gas right now is filling a need that no other resource can provide including nuclear. The debate should center on what can replace gas, and right now the answer is nothing. There is a lot of promising technology but no silver bullet.
In terms of making nukes more economical I'm skeptical of the cut red tape argument without any specifics. They are expensive to build in the US until they arent. It also doesn't really make sense to build a new conventional nuke unless it's used as replacement for an existing baseload plant since electricity demand right now is flat.
A direct federal subsidy would have to be huge...like 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of a nuclear plant to make it competitive with natural gas or renewables. I would rather have a more market based incentives like carbon price or wholesale market mechanism that better values on demand dispatch...the second point is already being discussed in most regional markets.
Even if you're not a fan of a carbon price I would still argue that federal money would be better spent investing in R & D than direct funding construction of existing nuclear technology. Seems more important to figure out the technology that can actually replace natural gas before putting shovels in the ground and going hard in a certain direction.
Agree on gas. I'm not sure we need a replacement so much as we need to "budget in" its emissions until that new tech is found.
I wouldn't really build "new" nuke stations. We've been actively decommissioning here in CA.
You mean like the subsidies we've been spending on Solar? Again, I'm speaking from a CA perspective. I'm not a fan of carbon pricing in any proposal I have heard so far in that most of them require formations of large government bodies to handle and lots of policing, enforcement, etc. of a commonly found gas. I'm happy to hear what you have to propose though and think on it. It's really a question of how to calculate in external costs and whether you want to do that through stick or carrot.
I regularly advocate for government money for further R&D into energy and other sectors. It's the type of thing that separates me from @MikeDamone and makes me not a real classic lib.
Not sure if climate change is real. I'm gonna wait to see if food keeps showing up at my local grocery store.
What a retarded article.
The Arctic Circle has relativity little land mass compared to the Antarctic. So.... therefore there is exponentially more ice in Antarctica.
So when you have a quatrillion ice cubes stacked up and it gets above freezing, you are gonna lose a lot more ice cubes than the area that has a few billion ice cubes stacked up.
Proportion is certainly important. Like Bob's argument that there's a higher proportion of blacks in prison than whites simply because they're black.
You're dog whistling by conflating these issues will not stand.
Yes, and polar land mass disqualifies all scientific data. Dumbfuck.
Sea ice and Ice caps aren't mutually exclusive sheeple.
The government subsidy for nukes would be to commit to a standard design and permitting process. When we build a new nuclear navy ship we don’t custom design a new nuclear engine. All the over budget nuclear plants are custom non-standardized plants that then are delayed while engineering problems are dealt with during the construction process instead of before the construction process. Then toss in a massively inefficient permitting process. If combined cycle natural gas plants remain cheaper than nukes, then let the state public utility commissions and state legislatures decide what they want to replace base load coal plants with. If Cali wants base load electricity then they can figure out what they want to buy. Nukes should be a lot cheaper than batteries. If it is cloudy and the wind doesn’t blow for a week, that is a sh*t load of back up batteries that you will need. Either that or freeze in the dark.
Gore had said way back when that the ice caps were going to melt by 2014. 2014 ended up being a record year for ice coverage in Antartica.
This looks like AOC's prediction might come true? From the paper...
Holy fuck you are lying your ass off. Show where Gore said they'd be melted. And it's bullshit that 2014 was a record rear for ice coverage. Use your brain.
Gore had said way back when that the ice caps were going to melt by 2014. 2014 ended up being a record year for ice coverage in Antartica.
This looks like AOC's prediction might come true? From the paper...
Holy fuck you are lying your ass off. Show where Gore said they'd be melted. And it's bullshit that 2014 was a record rear for ice coverage. Use your brain.
Here is what he said:
“Last September 21 (2007), as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.”
Comments
In terms of making nukes more economical I'm skeptical of the cut red tape argument without any specifics. They are expensive to build in the US until they arent. It also doesn't really make sense to build a new conventional nuke unless it's used as replacement for an existing baseload plant since electricity demand right now is flat.
A direct federal subsidy would have to be huge...like 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of a nuclear plant to make it competitive with natural gas or renewables. I would rather have a more market based incentives like carbon price or wholesale market mechanism that better values on demand dispatch...the second point is already being discussed in most regional markets.
Even if you're not a fan of a carbon price I would still argue that federal money would be better spent investing in R & D than direct funding construction of existing nuclear technology. Seems more important to figure out the technology that can actually replace natural gas before putting shovels in the ground and going hard in a certain direction.
Proceed with mocking me for anecdotal evidence
This looks like AOC's prediction might come true? From the paper...
Much better correlation than to CO2...
I wouldn't really build "new" nuke stations. We've been actively decommissioning here in CA.
You mean like the subsidies we've been spending on Solar? Again, I'm speaking from a CA perspective. I'm not a fan of carbon pricing in any proposal I have heard so far in that most of them require formations of large government bodies to handle and lots of policing, enforcement, etc. of a commonly found gas. I'm happy to hear what you have to propose though and think on it. It's really a question of how to calculate in external costs and whether you want to do that through stick or carrot.
I regularly advocate for government money for further R&D into energy and other sectors. It's the type of thing that separates me from @MikeDamone and makes me not a real classic lib.
If combined cycle natural gas plants remain cheaper than nukes, then let the state public utility commissions and state legislatures decide what they want to replace base load coal plants with. If Cali wants base load electricity then they can figure out what they want to buy. Nukes should be a lot cheaper than batteries. If it is cloudy and the wind doesn’t blow for a week, that is a sh*t load of back up batteries that you will need. Either that or freeze in the dark.
“Last September 21 (2007), as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.”
Antarctic ice looks to have been a record.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/antarctic-winter-sea-ice-extent-sets-new-record-2014
Arctic ice decreased.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum