Cap and trade Questions

[Navy1960]

You know sealy there are two reps. in that video from MI. one a democrat and one a republican. By not watching it you do yourself a diservice. I was under the impression you wanted jobs there in MI. and the economy to come out of the tank? You do know the CBO in that very same report says that your bills on everything will go up don't you? The one congressman from Mi. in that video states that 1 out of 3 Mi. residents are at least 1 month behind paying utility bills due to struggling to pay bills. What do you suppose a rate hike will do to that? Do you think it will help or hurt? How many companies do you think that are teetering on the edge need that extra push to go under because of a rise in transportation costs, utilities, goods, ? Do you think that will help Mi.? The CBO report spells all that out quite clearly this bill is a tax bill to generate revenue for the Federal Govt. I will put another video up for you that you might like even better as it has Obama in it....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqHL404zhcU]YouTube - Barack Obama Admits: Energy Prices Will Skyrocket Under Cap And Trade[/ame]

 

[Navy1960]

Never ceases to amaze me that when I see a video like this and I hear someone who claims to call themselves a "liberal" can even remotly support legislation that would supress them or cause their own demise....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A8yjGc8qWk]YouTube - EU President-"Global Warming" Being Used As A Vehicle To Suppress Human Freedom[/ame]

 

[woodjack]

The more I learn the more I like.

Since it's physically impossible for you to have actually read any significant amount of the bill, you have actually learned nothing.

I suppose, you'll still be blaming Booooosh when this bill, should it become law, greatly exasperates the job loss problem, as more and more manufacturers flee this tyranny and take their jobs overseas in response.

1. It won't cost jobs. Let them try to flee. That'll be great for their competition. And we'll tax them on the way out. And then they can sell their shit to Mexico, India, China or god forbid socialist Europe.

2. It'll create jobs

3. It won't cost individuals as much as you say

4. It was necessary

5. We found a way to pay for the Iraq war, we can find a way to get this done

6. And who owns the energy companies anyways? Aren't they public owned? Or are they owned like the Federal Reserve/Oil Companies/Media?


7. I see a lot of new green start up companies. That's good.

1. it will not cost jobs? so companies that are open 24/7 can afford to continue their operations with larger electric bills? or will the opposite happen to conserve electricity....the excuse I hear from the obama admin is that with more expensive energy the more people will conserve and limit there electrical output. how will conserving electricty not cost jobs? and for the fact nafta agreements opened up companies to go to mexico...obama already tried to revise this and mexico stated they would do a trade war and OBAMA backed down and apolized to mexico and canada.

2. I hear all the time it will creat jobs green jobs....what exactly are these jobs? and what schooling or training do you need to do? what courses do you need to take to assure that you can get a GREEN job? What is a Green job? Obama has not given any specifics on this just that the jobs that will be created will be in energy.. what energy green jobs is he talking about?

3 it won't cost as much as you say. ok how much will it cost? I have lived in numerous states from alaska to florida and energy rates are not the same in any place I lived....some are alot more expensive then others and it is up to the current electrical company and the state it operates out of. so while it may not cost alot in one state it will cost alot in another you cannot say with a blanket statement that it will not cost much across the board when it depends on the company and state that it is operated in and how they get their energy.

4. it was necessary. Why is it necessary? I live in alaska now, the glacial ice has grown in the last 10 years? I hear all the time about global warming but have yet to see proof of it. would I like cleaner energy sure....but do not force it down my throat with flawed science and it is flawed. the evironment climate conditions are actually based on sunspot activity not co2 emissions...the more sunspot activity the warmer it gets the less activity the colder it gets...this is proven science first noticed in the 1790s...proven science for over 200 years

5. Iraq war yes we did pay for it on credit....but the government has more money then you think ...if they cut assinine programs and fundings we would have more then enough money to say fix health care and the like...look at the UN we give them how many billions of dollars a year and for what? stop funding failed organisations and we would have alot more money and less taxes. The UN is against some of our own constitutional rights...so stop the funding now.

6 energy coops own alot of energy business like gulf power and the like and yes they are under federal along with state guidlines for safety code enforcement yes some are private

7. again with the green companies.....what are these....are they the next ENRON because nobody knows a damn thing about them....lets be very transparent for once and figure out what is going on....

 

[Navy1960]

A recent study by the Renewable Energy Policy Project in Washington, D.C., found that each megawatt of wind capacity installed in the U.S. creates 4.85 full-time jobs, of which 3.4 come from making components -- which is done mostly outside the U.S. The remainder come from such services as installation and maintenance.

The U.S.'s renewable-energy sector has added some significant manufacturing capacity recently. The American Wind Energy Association said this past week that wind suppliers expanded or added 55 facilities last year. But that increase has been outstripped by growth abroad.

American Superconductor Corp. of Devens, Mass., designs wind turbines and licenses its designs to other companies, then helps them build manufacturing facilities. In recent years, it has inked deals with a dozen companies, none of them American.

One customer, South Korea's Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., is "specifically targeting the U.S. market," said Greg Yurek, chief executive of American Semiconductor. Korea's government said last week it is investing $4.37 billion to help Korean companies close the technology gap in 15 energy-product areas including wind, solar and battery technology.
insomnomaniac: Obama creates green jobs...IN CHINA

Green Jobs Wood are those jobs that are supposed to be created here in the U.S. by companies that are switching to meet the demands for the forced switch to renewable sources. i.e. wind, solar, etc..
The problem with that is that most of that work is done offshore so the net effect is creating more jobs offshore by taxing us. The other effect is that by raising prices on domestic fossil fuels and energy you make the imported fossil energy cheaper. So the goal of ending our dependance on foreign oil in this bill is a complete sham as are the so called "green jobs"

 

[sealybobo]

Since it's physically impossible for you to have actually read any significant amount of the bill, you have actually learned nothing.

I suppose, you'll still be blaming Booooosh when this bill, should it become law, greatly exasperates the job loss problem, as more and more manufacturers flee this tyranny and take their jobs overseas in response.

1. It won't cost jobs. Let them try to flee. That'll be great for their competition. And we'll tax them on the way out. And then they can sell their shit to Mexico, India, China or god forbid socialist Europe.

2. It'll create jobs

3. It won't cost individuals as much as you say

4. It was necessary

5. We found a way to pay for the Iraq war, we can find a way to get this done

6. And who owns the energy companies anyways? Aren't they public owned? Or are they owned like the Federal Reserve/Oil Companies/Media?


7. I see a lot of new green start up companies. That's good.

1. it will not cost jobs? so companies that are open 24/7 can afford to continue their operations with larger electric bills? or will the opposite happen to conserve electricity....the excuse I hear from the obama admin is that with more expensive energy the more people will conserve and limit there electrical output. how will conserving electricty not cost jobs? and for the fact nafta agreements opened up companies to go to mexico...obama already tried to revise this and mexico stated they would do a trade war and OBAMA backed down and apolized to mexico and canada.

2. I hear all the time it will creat jobs green jobs....what exactly are these jobs? and what schooling or training do you need to do? what courses do you need to take to assure that you can get a GREEN job? What is a Green job? Obama has not given any specifics on this just that the jobs that will be created will be in energy.. what energy green jobs is he talking about?

3 it won't cost as much as you say. ok how much will it cost? I have lived in numerous states from alaska to florida and energy rates are not the same in any place I lived....some are alot more expensive then others and it is up to the current electrical company and the state it operates out of. so while it may not cost alot in one state it will cost alot in another you cannot say with a blanket statement that it will not cost much across the board when it depends on the company and state that it is operated in and how they get their energy.

4. it was necessary. Why is it necessary? I live in alaska now, the glacial ice has grown in the last 10 years? I hear all the time about global warming but have yet to see proof of it. would I like cleaner energy sure....but do not force it down my throat with flawed science and it is flawed. the evironment climate conditions are actually based on sunspot activity not co2 emissions...the more sunspot activity the warmer it gets the less activity the colder it gets...this is proven science first noticed in the 1790s...proven science for over 200 years

5. Iraq war yes we did pay for it on credit....but the government has more money then you think ...if they cut assinine programs and fundings we would have more then enough money to say fix health care and the like...look at the UN we give them how many billions of dollars a year and for what? stop funding failed organisations and we would have alot more money and less taxes. The UN is against some of our own constitutional rights...so stop the funding now.

6 energy coops own alot of energy business like gulf power and the like and yes they are under federal along with state guidlines for safety code enforcement yes some are private

7. again with the green companies.....what are these....are they the next ENRON because nobody knows a damn thing about them....lets be very transparent for once and figure out what is going on....

1. Should we not conserve energy?

2. Do Republicans just want to avoid this problem forever so instead of alternative energy we have $10 gas and $200 a month heating bills?

3. In the long run, more jobs will be created, and we'll be energy independent and greener. Dems solve problems, Republicans obstruct.

4. Listen to Air America if you want to know what green jobs are and who's creating them. Small business' baby!!!

5. How much will it cost? Remember those rolling blackouts during the Bush early years? Yea, all done on purpose to jack up rates. Remember energy CEO's accidentilly let an email get out where they were laughing about seniors freezing this winter as their profits went up? Yea, fuck them. Time for socialized energy.

6. Yes, we need to force going green down your throat. Watch PBS or listen to NPR if you don't understand global warming. You need to hear both sides of the argument. Sounds like you only hear one side. Funny, many people in Alaska and the arctic do get it. Maybe you lived in the meth capital Wasilla where Palin was major?

Your 5th and 6th questions/points, I agree and/or can't argue with those. Ok, seems like you are an honest guy who's just skeptical. I too am skeptical and don't swallow everything I'm told. I'm buying into "going green" but don't want the Dems to use it as a way to fleece us, much like the GOP used war to empty the treasury.

And fuck raising our taxes. Tax the rich. That's the solution to everything if you ask me. Bush gave them a break and no reason we can't take it away. Obama says he will, but I think they have gotten to him and now he's changing his mind. Now he might actually extend the bush tax cuts. If he does that, then expect your taxes to go up.

You want to argue to make the Bush tax breaks permenant? Then you are arguing to raise your own taxes. Let me know what you decide. We're not going to cut enough programs to avoid it. So pick one. THem or you.

 

[sealybobo]

A recent study by the Renewable Energy Policy Project in Washington, D.C., found that each megawatt of wind capacity installed in the U.S. creates 4.85 full-time jobs, of which 3.4 come from making components -- which is done mostly outside the U.S. The remainder come from such services as installation and maintenance.

Lets demand that change.

I also hear green jobs aren't as good $ as the manufacturing jobs we lost. $10 hr won't cut it. Sucks, but American wages are important.

The economy won't recover because no one is making enough and we are scared we will lose our jobs to China.

So sell your shit in China. Not here. Sell your shit to Mexico. I hear their economy is booming.

 

[Navy1960]

•
Increase production of American-made energy in an environmentally-sound manner.
•
Promote new, clean and renewable sources of energy such as nuclear, clean-coal-technology, wind and solar energy.
•
Encourage greater efficiency and conservation by extending tax incentives for energy efficiency and rewarding development of greater conservation techniques and new energy sources.
•
Cut red-tape and reduce frivolous litigation.
The American Energy Act is an “all-of-the-above” solution that offers more affordable energy, more well-paying jobs, energy independence, and a cleaner environment.

Republicans Introduce the American Energy Act - GOP.gov

Thats the plan introduced by Republicans sealy, and was introduced in the House too, so don't ask what are the Republicans doing. The facts are this cap and trade bill is far from and energy bill and has zero benefit to you and me. I have shown you from several sources where this is a TAX and damn big one in a time where this nation needs solutions not taxes. While it may sounds appealing to say TAX the rich this bill makes not distinction between rich and poor when it comes to rate hikes on everything.

 

[sealybobo]

•
Increase production of American-made energy in an environmentally-sound manner.
•
Promote new, clean and renewable sources of energy such as nuclear, clean-coal-technology, wind and solar energy.
•
Encourage greater efficiency and conservation by extending tax incentives for energy efficiency and rewarding development of greater conservation techniques and new energy sources.
•
Cut red-tape and reduce frivolous litigation.
The American Energy Act is an “all-of-the-above” solution that offers more affordable energy, more well-paying jobs, energy independence, and a cleaner environment.

Republicans Introduce the American Energy Act - GOP.gov

Thats the plan introduced by Republicans sealy, and was introduced in the House too, so don't ask what are the Republicans doing. The facts are this cap and trade bill is far from and energy bill and has zero benefit to you and me. I have shown you from several sources where this is a TAX and damn big one in a time where this nation needs solutions not taxes. While it may sounds appealing to say TAX the rich this bill makes not distinction between rich and poor when it comes to rate hikes on everything.

I don't like it. More tax breaks for companies that don't pay any to begin with?

Don't like nuclear or coal. I like battery and solar.

Cut red-tape and reduce frivolous litigation? Right wing bs.

The American Energy Act? They should have got er done when they had a chance to get er did. Now it is our turn. I like half of what you say and half of what I don't like, I could probably meet you half way on those things too, so I'm sure thats what the solution will be.

Because Dems always cave in to the right. One of the things I hate about them. One of the reasons you get to say, "see, they are no different".

And so now are you a confirmed Republican?

 

[Navy1960]

sealy I don't see how you think you can force a company to not only pay you what you demand but do so while not being able to compete! You act as if your owed a job and a wage. I have news for you your not. Your owed for what you contract to work for. If you think that any of these jobs will suddenly bring back 30 plus dollar an hour Union jobs then your mistaken. I think GM proved that. If you want to have an environment that is competetive and gives you opportunities , then I suggest you encourage your Govt. to provide an atmosphere that is friendly for these companies to want to operate here.

 

[Navy1960]

•
Increase production of American-made energy in an environmentally-sound manner.
•
Promote new, clean and renewable sources of energy such as nuclear, clean-coal-technology, wind and solar energy.
•
Encourage greater efficiency and conservation by extending tax incentives for energy efficiency and rewarding development of greater conservation techniques and new energy sources.
•
Cut red-tape and reduce frivolous litigation.
The American Energy Act is an “all-of-the-above” solution that offers more affordable energy, more well-paying jobs, energy independence, and a cleaner environment.

Republicans Introduce the American Energy Act - GOP.gov

Thats the plan introduced by Republicans sealy, and was introduced in the House too, so don't ask what are the Republicans doing. The facts are this cap and trade bill is far from and energy bill and has zero benefit to you and me. I have shown you from several sources where this is a TAX and damn big one in a time where this nation needs solutions not taxes. While it may sounds appealing to say TAX the rich this bill makes not distinction between rich and poor when it comes to rate hikes on everything.

I don't like it. More tax breaks for companies that don't pay any to begin with?

Don't like nuclear or coal. I like battery and solar.

Cut red-tape and reduce frivolous litigation? Right wing bs.

The American Energy Act? They should have got er done when they had a chance to get er did. Now it is our turn. I like half of what you say and half of what I don't like, I could probably meet you half way on those things too, so I'm sure thats what the solution will be.

Because Dems always cave in to the right. One of the things I hate about them. One of the reasons you get to say, "see, they are no different".

And so now are you a confirmed Republican?

I don't think you have to worry too much about the Act it wasn't passed the reason I posted it was to show you that your statement about Republicans not doing anything was not correct. As for power issues, if the goal here is to reduce CO2 output and make ourselves more energy independant then nuclear must be a part of that solution and is much more environmentally friendly that some of the CO2 sequestration programs put on the table. I believe that EVERY single energy technology should be encouraged and none should be left on the table. I have been a member of the Republican party since I first started voting sealy, however that does not mean I have not voted for whomever I choose to vote for. Which I have in my time , many times in fact.

 

[sealybobo]

sealy I don't see how you think you can force a company to not only pay you what you demand but do so while not being able to compete! You act as if your owed a job and a wage. I have news for you your not. Your owed for what you contract to work for. If you think that any of these jobs will suddenly bring back 30 plus dollar an hour Union jobs then your mistaken. I think GM proved that. If you want to have an environment that is competetive and gives you opportunities , then I suggest you encourage your Govt. to provide an atmosphere that is friendly for these companies to want to operate here.

Competition? You expect the rich opened up global trade and competition is going to protect the American middle class?

A company is FORCED to pay minimum wage, and all the arguments you are making about $30 hr are the same arguments you guys make whenever we bring up raising minimum wage. Can't compete, will go out of business.

BS!

And American companies can operate in America if they serve a public good. If they are only in it to profit, fucking leave. Go do business in China and stay there. Keep your shit there too.

Every country has protection for their workers, except us. I'm sick of repeating that.

Yes, American workers are owed work/jobs. If a company doesn't want to hire Americans, then they don't want to sell to us either.

Not me personally. No one owes me anything. But they owe AMERICAN workers. And I happen to be one. And unions are all over the world. Even socialist countries have worker protections. That shit started here in America. And it was a good thing. Without unions, you wouldn't make nearly as much as you do.

But you blame unions for why companies are leaving. Trust me, they would have left a lot sooner if it weren't for unions.

OR, they would have never left because we'd be cheap labor like Chinese or mexicans too.

Is that what you want? You want our blue collar to make $5 an hour?

I'm never going to agree with you. I like to explain my side to people like you and I like to read where you are coming from so I can understand your side better, but I will always be pro American worker more than pro corporate profits.

Sorry if American workers cost more. Actually, not sorry.

 

[sealybobo]

•
Increase production of American-made energy in an environmentally-sound manner.
•
Promote new, clean and renewable sources of energy such as nuclear, clean-coal-technology, wind and solar energy.
•
Encourage greater efficiency and conservation by extending tax incentives for energy efficiency and rewarding development of greater conservation techniques and new energy sources.
•
Cut red-tape and reduce frivolous litigation.
The American Energy Act is an “all-of-the-above” solution that offers more affordable energy, more well-paying jobs, energy independence, and a cleaner environment.

Republicans Introduce the American Energy Act - GOP.gov

Thats the plan introduced by Republicans sealy, and was introduced in the House too, so don't ask what are the Republicans doing. The facts are this cap and trade bill is far from and energy bill and has zero benefit to you and me. I have shown you from several sources where this is a TAX and damn big one in a time where this nation needs solutions not taxes. While it may sounds appealing to say TAX the rich this bill makes not distinction between rich and poor when it comes to rate hikes on everything.

I don't like it. More tax breaks for companies that don't pay any to begin with?

Don't like nuclear or coal. I like battery and solar.

Cut red-tape and reduce frivolous litigation? Right wing bs.

The American Energy Act? They should have got er done when they had a chance to get er did. Now it is our turn. I like half of what you say and half of what I don't like, I could probably meet you half way on those things too, so I'm sure thats what the solution will be.

Because Dems always cave in to the right. One of the things I hate about them. One of the reasons you get to say, "see, they are no different".

And so now are you a confirmed Republican?

I don't think you have to worry too much about the Act it wasn't passed the reason I posted it was to show you that your statement about Republicans not doing anything was not correct. As for power issues, if the goal here is to reduce CO2 output and make ourselves more energy independant then nuclear must be a part of that solution and is much more environmentally friendly that some of the CO2 sequestration programs put on the table. I believe that EVERY single energy technology should be encouraged and none should be left on the table. I have been a member of the Republican party since I first started voting sealy, however that does not mean I have not voted for whomever I choose to vote for. Which I have in my time , many times in fact.

If the pyramids were nuclear, they would still be toxic today.

Nuclear is an option. Its a bad option, but its an option. Nuclear could provide us thousands of years of energy, but is dangerous.

You don't know if it is safe anymore than you know if I wiped my ass this morning. You can only go by what someone else tells you. You yourself, don't know shit, admit it.

You know what the Nuclear Lobbyists tell you.

 

[Navy1960]

I don't think you heard me correctly, see you think by my saying your not owed a job you think I'm bashing the Unions. What I am saying is this, a company that does business in this nation does so in order to make a profit as bad as that sounds to some that is why they exist sealy. If that company can no longer make a profit regardless of Union employee's or not , any atmosphere that keeps the company from making a profit will effect the employee's i.e. draconian environmental policies, over regulation, or any other reason that company in order to survive will seek the best place in order to do business or go out of business and generally the employee's are the ones that suffer. Ask the UNION miner's who lost their jobs as a result of last years energy policy how much environmental policy means to them? See what I mean. These companies sealy are not the root of all evil no matter how much people wish them to be, they exist to make a profit and do so by providing goods and services, you as the employee contract for a wage or job. You are not OWED it simply based on the fact your an American and the company happens to be down the street from you ..

 

[woodjack]

1. Should we not conserve energy?

2. Do Republicans just want to avoid this problem forever so instead of alternative energy we have $10 gas and $200 a month heating bills?

3. In the long run, more jobs will be created, and we'll be energy independent and greener. Dems solve problems, Republicans obstruct.

4. Listen to Air America if you want to know what green jobs are and who's creating them. Small business' baby!!!

5. How much will it cost? Remember those rolling blackouts during the Bush early years? Yea, all done on purpose to jack up rates. Remember energy CEO's accidentilly let an email get out where they were laughing about seniors freezing this winter as their profits went up? Yea, fuck them. Time for socialized energy.

6. Yes, we need to force going green down your throat. Watch PBS or listen to NPR if you don't understand global warming. You need to hear both sides of the argument. Sounds like you only hear one side. Funny, many people in Alaska and the arctic do get it. Maybe you lived in the meth capital Wasilla where Palin was major?

Your 5th and 6th questions/points, I agree and/or can't argue with those. Ok, seems like you are an honest guy who's just skeptical. I too am skeptical and don't swallow everything I'm told. I'm buying into "going green" but don't want the Dems to use it as a way to fleece us, much like the GOP used war to empty the treasury.

And fuck raising our taxes. Tax the rich. That's the solution to everything if you ask me. Bush gave them a break and no reason we can't take it away. Obama says he will, but I think they have gotten to him and now he's changing his mind. Now he might actually extend the bush tax cuts. If he does that, then expect your taxes to go up.

You want to argue to make the Bush tax breaks permenant? Then you are arguing to raise your own taxes. Let me know what you decide. We're not going to cut enough programs to avoid it. So pick one. THem or you.

Yes I agree that we should conserve but to what extent at the cost of jobs?

and I am far more informed then you think on the climate change theory. I have been to ANWAR...deadhorse kuparik and barrow. the facts if you would like them are as follows most of the pollution that alaska gets.....because of the jetstream is not from the United states but from CHINA and asian countries. I have been involved in studies of this in the Airforce so no amount of what is done here will curb any amount of pollution that alaska gets. and last summer was the coldest summer on record for over 40 years but I will get estimates on the golbal warming from the flyovers that the airforce does with there sensors I think you will be suprised by the data collected...oops but the airforce is not linked to any liberal or conservative site and the sensors they use are actually up to date how can you beleive it when I show it to you?

oh and I have never gotten a raise from a poor man...if the company I work for is rich and makes money I benefit if they are taxed to death because they are successful then I do not get a bonus nor do I get a raise. success should not be frowned upon.

most of the green people I see in alaska are from California that come up here in the summer mostly and pass out their paplets, it is very funny really I should scan some and link it....

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't like it. More tax breaks for companies that don't pay any to begin with?

Don't like nuclear or coal. I like battery and solar.

Cut red-tape and reduce frivolous litigation? Right wing bs.

The American Energy Act? They should have got er done when they had a chance to get er did. Now it is our turn. I like half of what you say and half of what I don't like, I could probably meet you half way on those things too, so I'm sure thats what the solution will be.

Because Dems always cave in to the right. One of the things I hate about them. One of the reasons you get to say, "see, they are no different".

And so now are you a confirmed Republican?

I don't think you have to worry too much about the Act it wasn't passed the reason I posted it was to show you that your statement about Republicans not doing anything was not correct. As for power issues, if the goal here is to reduce CO2 output and make ourselves more energy independant then nuclear must be a part of that solution and is much more environmentally friendly that some of the CO2 sequestration programs put on the table. I believe that EVERY single energy technology should be encouraged and none should be left on the table. I have been a member of the Republican party since I first started voting sealy, however that does not mean I have not voted for whomever I choose to vote for. Which I have in my time , many times in fact.

If the pyramids were nuclear, they would still be toxic today.

Nuclear is an option. Its a bad option, but its an option. Nuclear could provide us thousands of years of energy, but is dangerous.

You don't know if it is safe anymore than you know if I wiped my ass this morning. You can only go by what someone else tells you. You yourself, don't know shit, admit it.

You know what the Nuclear Lobbyists tell you.

France has used nuclear for75% of their electricity for more than 30 years now. there has never been an accident and the amount of waste that France's plants produced in the last 30 years is stored safely under the floor of one room in the Hague.

There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste - WSJ.com

'White House Buries Yucca," read the headlines last week after Secretary of Energy Steven Chu said the proposed storage of nuclear waste in a Nevada mountain is "no longer an option."

Instead, Mr. Chu told a Senate hearing, the Obama administration will cut all but the most rudimentary funding to Yucca and be content to allow spent fuel rods to sit in storage pools and dry casks at reactor sites "while the administration devises a new strategy toward nuclear waste disposal."

Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, a longtime opponent of the repository, was overjoyed. Environmental groups were equally gratified, since they have long seen Yucca Mountain as a choke point for asphyxiating nuclear energy. Greenpeace immediately called for an end to new construction of nuclear power plants, and for all existing reactors to be closed down.

So is this really the death knell for nuclear power? Not at all. The repository at Yucca Mountain was only made necessary by our failure to understand a fundamental fact about nuclear power: There is no such thing as nuclear waste.

A nuclear fuel rod is made up of two types of uranium: U-235, the fissionable isotope whose breakdown provides the energy; and U-238, which does not fission and serves basically as packing material. Uranium-235 makes up only 0.7% of the natural ore. In order to reach "reactor grade," it must be "enriched" up to 3% -- an extremely difficult industrial process. (To become bomb material, it must be enriched to 90%, another ballgame altogether.)

After being loaded in a nuclear reactor, the fuel rods sit for five years before being removed. At this point, about 12 ounces of U-235 will have been completely transformed into energy. But that's enough to power San Francisco for five years. There are no chemical transformations in the process and no carbon-dioxide emissions.

When they emerge, the fuel rods are intensely radioactive -- about twice the exposure you would get standing at ground zero at Hiroshima after the bomb went off. But because the amount of material is so small -- it would fit comfortably in a tractor-trailer -- it can be handled remotely through well established industrial processes. The spent rods are first submerged in storage pools, where a few yards of water block the radioactivity. After a few years, they can be moved to lead-lined casks about the size of a gazebo, where they can sit for the better part of a century until the next step is decided.

So is this material "waste"? Absolutely not. Ninety-five percent of a spent fuel rod is plain old U-238, the nonfissionable variety that exists in granite tabletops, stone buildings and the coal burned in coal plants to generate electricity. Uranium-238 is 1% of the earth's crust. It could be put right back in the ground where it came from.

Of the remaining 5% of a rod, one-fifth is fissionable U-235 -- which can be recycled as fuel. Another one-fifth is plutonium, also recyclable as fuel. Much of the remaining three-fifths has important uses as medical and industrial isotopes. Forty percent of all medical diagnostic procedures in this country now involve some form of radioactive isotope, and nuclear medicine is a $4 billion business. Unfortunately, we must import all our tracer material from Canada, because all of our isotopes have been headed for Yucca Mountain.

What remains after all this material has been extracted from spent fuel rods are some isotopes for which no important uses have yet been found, but which can be stored for future retrieval. France, which completely reprocesses its recyclable material, stores all the unused remains -- from 30 years of generating 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy -- beneath the floor of a single room at La Hague.

The supposed problem of "nuclear waste" is entirely the result of a the decision in 1976 by President Gerald Ford to suspend reprocessing, which President Jimmy Carter made permanent in 1977. The fear was that agents of foreign powers or terrorists groups would steal plutonium from American plants to manufacture bombs.

That fear has proved to be misguided. If foreign powers want a bomb, they will build their own reactors or enrichment facilities, as North Korea and Iran have done. The task of extracting plutonium from highly radioactive material and fashioning it into a bomb is far beyond the capacities of any terrorist organization.

So shed no tears for Yucca Mountain. Instead of ending the nuclear revival, it gives us the chance to correct a historical mistake and follow France's lead in developing complete reprocessing for nuclear material.

there is no reason not to use more nuclear power.

 

[Navy1960]

I don't like it. More tax breaks for companies that don't pay any to begin with?

Don't like nuclear or coal. I like battery and solar.

Cut red-tape and reduce frivolous litigation? Right wing bs.

The American Energy Act? They should have got er done when they had a chance to get er did. Now it is our turn. I like half of what you say and half of what I don't like, I could probably meet you half way on those things too, so I'm sure thats what the solution will be.

Because Dems always cave in to the right. One of the things I hate about them. One of the reasons you get to say, "see, they are no different".

And so now are you a confirmed Republican?

I don't think you have to worry too much about the Act it wasn't passed the reason I posted it was to show you that your statement about Republicans not doing anything was not correct. As for power issues, if the goal here is to reduce CO2 output and make ourselves more energy independant then nuclear must be a part of that solution and is much more environmentally friendly that some of the CO2 sequestration programs put on the table. I believe that EVERY single energy technology should be encouraged and none should be left on the table. I have been a member of the Republican party since I first started voting sealy, however that does not mean I have not voted for whomever I choose to vote for. Which I have in my time , many times in fact.

If the pyramids were nuclear, they would still be toxic today.

Nuclear is an option. Its a bad option, but its an option. Nuclear could provide us thousands of years of energy, but is dangerous.

You don't know if it is safe anymore than you know if I wiped my ass this morning. You can only go by what someone else tells you. You yourself, don't know shit, admit it.

You know what the Nuclear Lobbyists tell you.

sealy, when you get the chance look and see how long the US Navy has safely operated nuclear reactors. Then before you pop off about what you think I know and don't know about nuclear power especially, I'd suggest you do a little reading first on the subject if you can. If not then ask someone that has experience with nuclear power. I can tell you this , I don't know one nuclear lobbyist, however, I do know several people in the nuclear power industry and can tell you for a fact that nuclear power is not only safe it can be reprocessed unlike your sequestration of CO2 that is pumped into the gound. Next time I go out to Palo Verde I'll be sure to tell them you think it's a bad idea and to close the place down.

 

[sealybobo]

I don't think you heard me correctly, see you think by my saying your not owed a job you think I'm bashing the Unions. What I am saying is this, a company that does business in this nation does so in order to make a profit as bad as that sounds to some that is why they exist sealy. If that company can no longer make a profit regardless of Union employee's or not , any atmosphere that keeps the company from making a profit will effect the employee's i.e. draconian environmental policies, over regulation, or any other reason that company in order to survive will seek the best place in order to do business or go out of business and generally the employee's are the ones that suffer. Ask the UNION miner's who lost their jobs as a result of last years energy policy how much environmental policy means to them? See what I mean. These companies sealy are not the root of all evil no matter how much people wish them to be, they exist to make a profit and do so by providing goods and services, you as the employee contract for a wage or job. You are not OWED it simply based on the fact your an American and the company happens to be down the street from you ..

No, they have to both make a profit and serve the public good. And when Dems are in charge, at least in theory, labor has more say. When the GOP run the show, labor takes a back seat.

And they make plenty profit. They want to max profits. They always will. So next year I wonder what they will cut out? Benefits? Pensions? Wages? Profit sharing? Bonus'?

What if they can go to another country and make more profit? That will ALWAYS be your argument. Its a "can't lose" argument.

But I don't buy it.

OMG, don't get me started on the union minors. Under Bush the unions got busted and non union mines hired illegals and if unions found the mine owners were neglegent, it was the mine owners who set the fines, and they were rediculous.

Sorry Navy, I wish I had more time, but I adamently disagree with your position on this.

Tariffs and taxes. That's my answer. And if a company wants to leave, GO. I'm sure they have competition, right Navy? Competition is good.

You keep saying the companies will have to lay people off. I say they only hire as many people as they need. Maybe instead the CEO will only make $10 million this year and not $20. Maybe that is the only bad that will come from unions and regulations? If that were the only con, would you still be crying about it?

And I'll admit that I don't know all the answers, but I really don't like your answers. Sounds more like right wing talking points my dumb friend makes all the time. No offense Navy because I think you are better than that.

The whole, "if we raise their taxes they'll leave or lay people off and blablabla". Too bad. Government sets the rules. And right now we have a pro labor government. We heard all your arguments last year. You lost.

 

[Navy1960]

Theres a lot of problems with Tariff's on some nations at the moment sealy the biggest being that this nation is basically in debt to a lot of nations and by starting a trade war by putting Tariffs on goods that are imported from countries that also hold our debt then we risk as a nation our money basically becomming worthless as those nations that hold our debt dump it on the market. What needs to happen to put us in the position to level the "trade" playing field and you will be surprised here with me that I support that, we need too pay that debt down first. If you keep adding too it by borrowing more money then you are in no position to demand from nations you borrow from to impose Tariffs. How do you pay down that debt? Well thats not easy, but you know Clinton paid it down and did so by a combination of cutting taxes and moving people from welfare to work. Granted Clinton did raise taxes on some things however, the focus was paying down the debt! As for CEO's I've said this to you many times most of the companies that you condemn are public companies where the salaries are approved by a board that is elected by the shareholders. So in order to change that, shareholders need to hold their board members more accountable for the salaries of their executives and base it on their performance. Companies though sealy and I've said it many times, exist not for the sake of providing people jobs, they exist to provide a product or service, in order to make a profit, with the exception of those non-profit companies and even those companies exist to produce a service or product. The employee's are the foundation in which these companies are able to produce those products. So if the company cannot be allowd to compete due to high taxes, excessive regulation, then those employee's that work for the company cannot expect the company to keep providing wages and benefits at levels in an environment that is not competetive. Again, if you wish to make these companies successful then you know I implore you to get on your congressman to provide incentives for those companies to come to MI. and hire people. I'm not anti-union sealy, I think that every employee should have the right to be a part of a union if they so desire as I think an employee should have the right to not be a part of one if they desire too.

As for my position on environmental policies, sealy, I can literally fill this thread up with data of environmental regs. that have caused a lot of Americans to lose their jobs. I think that it's important to take care of the environment but you know I am a person that think we can do that and at the same time provide a friendly place for business that leads to those much needed jobs that we all need.

 

[garyd]

Building codes are already the primary reason for the housing industries collapse. the codes essentailly forced builders to build homes that most people simply couldn't afford without some jerry rigged financing system.

The were showing a green mobile home on TV the other day. It appeared to be about 2/3 the size of my 16 X 80 and cost nearly twice what I paid for said 16 X 80.

The hell with the heating bills most of us aren't going to be able to afford rent.

 

[Navy1960]

Building codes are already the primary reason for the housing industries collapse. the codes essentailly forced builders to build homes that most people simply couldn't afford without some jerry rigged financing system.

The were showing a green mobile home on TV the other day. It appeared to be about 2/3 the size of my 16 X 80 and cost nearly twice what I paid for said 16 X 80.

The hell with the heating bills most of us aren't going to be able to afford rent.

garyd thats actually a really good point as it applies to this bill, the requirements in it for building codes and the prices of homes. Has anyone noticed that a home in California is not cheap? Granted real estate in California is high but building codes have someting to do with that. Imagine people across the nation selling their homes and the Environmental inspectors requiring them to make it green before the sale and how much that will impact the market and prices. Your exactly right, a good example of this "green technology" is in any grocery store. Look at the price differences in anything that is labeled "green" Then attach that to everything!! Then ask yourself if the economy as it is today can support that at the moment.