PDA

View Full Version : General Politics This time Japan gets it!!! What the GOP never will.


Lightrise
09-15-2012, 07:46 PM
Japanese government announced a dramatic change to its energy policy on Friday, promising to end nuclear power in the country by the 2030s. The move was in response to last year's forced evacuation of 160,000 people after the Fukushima nuclear power complex came close to meltdown. Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda noted that a large majority of Japanese citizens support the elimination of nuclear power from their country. The new proposal calls for investing $500 billion dollars in renewable energy sources, like solar and wind power, over the next 20 years.

---

President Obama is the transformational leader America needs. Now that Germany and Japan have formally decided to exit the nuclear power industry it is America's turn to follow their lead. Nuclear power is too expensive, too dangerous and alternatives offer the greater economic opportunity. America's best days are in front of us and the sooner we end republican obstruction the better. We are rapidly coming to the end of the visionless thinking that brought the nation to its knees.

AustinChief
09-15-2012, 07:47 PM
You are either an effective troll or borderline retarded.

Baby Lee
09-15-2012, 07:48 PM
President Obama is the transformational leader America needs. Now that Germany and Japan have formally decided to exit the nuclear power industry it is America's turn to follow their lead.


yes absolutely, the sine qua non of a transformational leader is someone who follows the lead of others.

A Salt Weapon
09-15-2012, 07:56 PM
So after they spend $500 billion to discover wind and solar are not viable solutions will they go back to nuclear?

Sounds like a good waste of money.
Posted via Mobile Device

LiveSteam
09-15-2012, 07:59 PM
You are a fracking tool

Brock
09-15-2012, 08:01 PM
If anybody had any doubt you're an idiot....

BigMeatballDave
09-15-2012, 08:20 PM
Retard

Pile on...

Lightrise
09-15-2012, 09:14 PM
So after they spend $500 billion to discover wind and solar are not viable solutions will they go back to nuclear?

Sounds like a good waste of money.
Posted via Mobile Device

Well, perhaps not. This is an amazing study indicating that wind alone can provide power to the entire east coast. This is going to happen in one form or another.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/15/13864179-power-east-coast-via-wind-doable-with-144000-offshore-turbines-study-says?lite&ocid=msnhp

RINGLEADER
09-15-2012, 09:30 PM
You are either an effective troll or borderline retarded.

ROFL

LiveSteam
09-15-2012, 09:32 PM
Well, perhaps not. This is an amazing study indicating that wind alone can provide power to the entire east coast. This is going to happen in one form or another.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/15/13864179-power-east-coast-via-wind-doable-with-144000-offshore-turbines-study-says?lite&ocid=msnhp

Bone T Pickens lost his ass on windmills

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ezgmLjMMCZY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

RINGLEADER
09-15-2012, 09:35 PM
The only way to fight the market value of energy is for governments to enact laws to make it artificially more expensive, so the expensive alternative energies become comparable in cost.

If there was a real market for alternative energies you wouldn't need government subsidies to attract capital to them. Where capital IS making investments in these areas it is happening with the knowledge that it is decades away. Eventually, wind, sun, and tidal energy will become marketable, but not until they are cost-effective alternatives to coal and oil/etc.

A Salt Weapon
09-15-2012, 11:30 PM
So does lightrise support a federally owned utility company or do you just support gov't subsidized alternate energy?
if the latter does that mean that solindra just didn't get enough money?
Posted via Mobile Device

A Salt Weapon
09-15-2012, 11:33 PM
Also hydro-electric is a great source of renewable energy (my whole city runs off it) however I do believe the libs stop it anywhere it's tried in the lower 48.
I believe their opposition is it will hurt the environment(fish,etc)
Oh, the irony.
It'd be funny if it wasn't so fucking retarded.
Posted via Mobile Device

Baby Lee
09-15-2012, 11:38 PM
Also hydro-electric is a great source of renewable energy (my whole city runs off it) however I do believe the libs stop it anywhere it's tried in the lower 48.
I believe their opposition is it will hurt the environment(fish,etc)
Oh, the irony.
It'd be funny if it wasn't so fucking retarded.
Posted via Mobile Device

Actually, the big knock on hydro is the limited resources. You have to find, or make, a concentrated reservoir for Potential Energy, then harness. The natural ones [ie, waterfalls] are isolated instances of natural beauty. The created ones not only harm fish but obliterate liveable environs [Deliverance]. Heck, even Taum Sauk has its controversy and it's just a giant battery.

The general ENGINEERING, not political or theoretical, consensus is that hydro is largely tapped in the US, with some fiddling to be done off shore [tidal] and with sidestream generators.

BIG_DADDY
09-16-2012, 12:29 AM
The only way to fight the market value of energy is for governments to enact laws to make it artificially more expensive, so the expensive alternative energies become comparable in cost.

If there was a real market for alternative energies you wouldn't need government subsidies to attract capital to them. Where capital IS making investments in these areas it is happening with the knowledge that it is decades away. Eventually, wind, sun, and tidal energy will become marketable, but not until they are cost-effective alternatives to coal and oil/etc.

I am far from an expert on the subject but I understand we are only harnessing a small fraction of the suns capabilities through our current solar technology.

mnchiefsguy
09-16-2012, 12:37 AM
You are either an effective troll or borderline retarded.

Not an either or...he is definitely both.

Baby Lee
09-16-2012, 12:47 AM
I am far from an expert on the subject but I understand we are only harnessing a small fraction of the suns capabilities through our current solar technology.

But, the sun's capabilities we aren't harnessing are being used by every other living thing on the planet.*







* - except those nefariously entrapped in a man-made albedo designed for our personal destruction.

AustinChief
09-16-2012, 12:50 AM
I am far from an expert on the subject but I understand we are only harnessing a small fraction of the suns capabilities through our current solar technology.

This is very true. And will remain true for a long time.

Here is a funny fact. The very BEST solar cells are around 20% efficiency. I don't think any of these are in production yet, but let's pretend.. oh and the maximum theoretical limit without a HUGE change in the tech is 30%. Ok so let's take these not yet available, likely to be CRAZY expensive cells and put them up under IDEAL conditions. In 2-3 YEARS they will produce enough energy to equal the amount required to manufacture them.

Sobering to look at the REALITY of solar tech. Basically, it's all sorts of SUCK right now... but it is getting better and cheaper. In 30 or 40 years it may be a truly viable source... you know, right about the time our first prototype fusion reactor will be coming online.

BIG_DADDY
09-16-2012, 01:06 AM
This is very true. And will remain true for a long time.

Here is a funny fact. The very BEST solar cells are around 20% efficiency. I don't think any of these are in production yet, but let's pretend.. oh and the maximum theoretical limit without a HUGE change in the tech is 30%. Ok so let's take these not yet available, likely to be CRAZY expensive cells and put them up under IDEAL conditions. In 2-3 YEARS they will produce enough energy to equal the amount required to manufacture them.

Sobering to look at the REALITY of solar tech. Basically, it's all sorts of SUCK right now... but it is getting better and cheaper. In 30 or 40 years it may be a truly viable source... you know, right about the time our first prototype fusion reactor will be coming online.

Again I am far from an expert on this but if I recall correctly I believe if I were to buy into solar at this point our current technology is averaging only 12% of the current potential making it a really shitty investment. What I am unclear on is how long it will take to develop this technology to much more efficient models. This has unbelievable military capabilities from a home front standpoint BTW. I am sure I don't need to point that out.

AustinChief
09-16-2012, 01:37 AM
Again I am far from an expert on this but if I recall correctly I believe if I were to buy into solar at this point our current technology is averaging only 12% of the current potential making it a really shitty investment. What I am unclear on is how long it will take to develop this technology to much more efficient models. This has unbelievable military capabilities from a home front standpoint BTW. I am sure I don't need to point that out.

well 12% of the potential isn't really right. The way it is measured is the efficiency of energy conversion. So if 1000W of solar energy hits the panel you would get 120W of electricity. Giving you 12% EFFICIENCY. Which I think is about right for modern panels.. but we should see 20% soon. OK, now let's get more technical. Theoretically you can't go over something like 90% efficiency... but in reality that number is probably closer to 70% with 30% being a the limit of current tech. So to go past 30% will require a fundamental shift in development.

Now... these ratings are fine but only tell part of the picture, because you have to take that efficiency number and apply it to how much actual sunlight energy you are receiving.

As I have said, it's sobering to look at the real world numbers.

Ok, now you mention how long..... here are my numbers for reasonably cheap and available panels... I would guess 2-5 years to get to 20% ... 20-30 to get to 50% ... 50-100 to get to 70% and that is pretty pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking on my part.

BIG_DADDY
09-16-2012, 02:26 AM
well 12% of the potential isn't really right. The way it is measured is the efficiency of energy conversion. So if 1000W of solar energy hits the panel you would get 120W of electricity. Giving you 12% EFFICIENCY. Which I think is about right for modern panels.. but we should see 20% soon. OK, now let's get more technical. Theoretically you can't go over something like 90% efficiency... but in reality that number is probably closer to 70% with 30% being a the limit of current tech. So to go past 30% will require a fundamental shift in development.

Now... these ratings are fine but only tell part of the picture, because you have to take that efficiency number and apply it to how much actual sunlight energy you are receiving.

As I have said, it's sobering to look at the real world numbers.

Ok, now you mention how long..... here are my numbers for reasonably cheap and available panels... I would guess 2-5 years to get to 20% ... 20-30 to get to 50% ... 50-100 to get to 70% and that is pretty pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking on my part.

Interesting. I can see why people may want to hold off. Then again that is one hell of curve. I would love to take this to another level when I have much more time.

Lightrise
09-16-2012, 06:24 AM
Interesting. I can see why people may want to hold off. Then again that is one hell of curve. I would love to take this to another level when I have much more time.

You might find this interesting...


Germany Hits Record In Solar Power With 50% Of Energy During Mid-Day Hours
Published 1, May 28, 2012 Environment , International , Politics86 Comments


Germany’s economy is viewed as the most successful major economy in the world today and the key bedrock for European recovery. While many conservative leaders in the United States are calling on the tearing up of environmental protections to help our economy, Germany has shown the fallacy of that claim. The Germans continue to set new records on environmental protection. This week the German solar power plants produced a world record 22 gigawatts of electricity per hour — literally half of the energy used through the key midday hours in the country.



That is the equivalent to 20 nuclear power stations at full capacity without any radioactive waste left over. The Germans are getting rid of all nuclear plants after the Fukushima nuclear disaster last year. Instead, the entire country will be using greater renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and bio-mass.

This is not some tiny country with a mainly tourism economy but one of the greatest industrial nations on Earth. It vividly demonstrates how far we have fallen back in the leadership on environmental issues and technology. As we return to an oil and coal emphasis on energy, the Germans are expanding their control over this industry and reducing the health costs of pollution for their population. It is the very definition of leadership and vision that is so lacking in our own country.

To our German friends, we say gut durchgebraten and danke danke?

Source: Inside

Lightrise
09-16-2012, 06:38 AM
So does lightrise support a federally owned utility company or do you just support gov't subsidized alternate energy?
if the latter does that mean that solindra just didn't get enough money?
Posted via Mobile Device

Actually I support expansion in the industry as a whole, with the exception of nuclear power in configurations existing today. I too would be in favor of Hydro if there are viable places to do it now. Hydro to me seems like a winner no matter what...flood control, reliable water source, recreation, economic development in surrounding areas. We only import 14% of our oil needs from Saudi Arabia now. That's still a lot but I would favor expansion of deep water drilling in the gulf to try to end all Saudi imports. Romney's plan to expand drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts is never going to happen however. If we have to tolerate spills contain it to the coasts of Texas, LA, AL and MS. If the republicans want to live in toxic filth that's their choice.

A Salt Weapon
09-16-2012, 09:32 AM
Okay that's great, but your calling for gov't to intervene. If there was a profitable way to produce wind/solar energy it would already be in existence in the private sector. However without gov't intervention there is not. So again is this something that the gov't should create or just let them pick the winner and losers based of campaign contributions?
Posted via Mobile Device

Lightrise
09-16-2012, 11:16 AM
Okay that's great, but your calling for gov't to intervene. If there was a profitable way to produce wind/solar energy it would already be in existence in the private sector. However without gov't intervention there is not. So again is this something that the gov't should create or just let them pick the winner and losers based of campaign contributions?
Posted via Mobile Device

In the first place ending nuclear power does get us out of a lot of government involvement trying to keep it safe. I also want an end to billions the republicans spend annually in subsidies to the industry, payments that CEO's of the nation's largest companies testified before congress they did NOT want or need. So we need to tell republicans to cease their government intrusive involvement here. We also need to broaden the scope of how we use the strategic petroleum reserve. The fact of the matter is that interruption in supply while always a concern is only part of the problem. We have an issue with speculation in these markets and that speculation, often overblown in terms of geopolitical events, creates excess profits for the industry and it can push an economy into crushing recessions. We should use govt power to squeeze the sillyness out of the market to preserve some stability. If that means taxing excess profits then that's what we should do. No uneven speculation, no tax.

With what is going on in North Dakota now I see no reason to extend drilling into waters off the coast of northern Alaska. A spill up there simply isn't going to get cleaned up. It is entirely appropriate for government to rationally manage leases. In fact, it was unfortunate that under the Bush administration there government involvement led to oil and gas companies holding more leases than they were allowed to hold by law. That government mismanagement harmed the private sector by making it uncompetitive and restricted production that could have occured in a fair market.

Finally, the republicans only confused the issue of Keystone and they ticked off the public in Nebraska, as well as the unamimous republican legislature who did not want that pipeline going through critical aquifers, especially given that the pipeline has already leaked 12 times in less than 1 one year. This is dirty oil and expensive to refine. The Canadians have cooperated in looking for alternative routes. So why did reckless republican intervention attempt to create such chaos and perpetuate erroneous assumptions?

There are other enormous success stories with huge advances in solar efficiency. This has been encouraged as a result of government supported research, not perfect, but it has helped. The same is true of wind, with a new study just released that concludes that wind power alone, can support power needs of the entire east coast. There's opportunity there in some capacity, and there is an infinite source to count on.

One more thing, the republicans spent over 20 years obstructing revisions of CAFE standards. They inhibited innovation in the effort, worsened the trade deficit as a result, strained international relationships indirectly and added to the pollution problem adversely affecting the health of citizens. Why?

The only problem with energy in America is the republican party. The evidence is overwhelming and it is one of their greatest lies. I'm reminded of Rumsfeld and what he said of WMD's in Iraq, "We know where they are, they are north and south and east and west of Baghdad....". The GOP is all over the map and they have no idea what they are doing.

When the industry creates an environmental disaster, a responsible government forces them to clean it up.

Donger
09-16-2012, 11:26 AM
Japanese government announced a dramatic change to its energy policy on Friday, promising to end nuclear power in the country by the 2030s. The move was in response to last year's forced evacuation of 160,000 people after the Fukushima nuclear power complex came close to meltdown. Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda noted that a large majority of Japanese citizens support the elimination of nuclear power from their country. The new proposal calls for investing $500 billion dollars in renewable energy sources, like solar and wind power, over the next 20 years.

---

President Obama is the transformational leader America needs. Now that Germany and Japan have formally decided to exit the nuclear power industry it is America's turn to follow their lead. Nuclear power is too expensive, too dangerous and alternatives offer the greater economic opportunity. America's best days are in front of us and the sooner we end republican obstruction the better. We are rapidly coming to the end of the visionless thinking that brought the nation to its knees.

You are aware that Transformer Obama supports nuclear power, right?

alnorth
09-16-2012, 11:35 AM
Japanese government announced a dramatic change to its energy policy on Friday, promising to end nuclear power in the country by the 2030s. The move was in response to last year's forced evacuation of 160,000 people after the Fukushima nuclear power complex came close to meltdown. Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda noted that a large majority of Japanese citizens support the elimination of nuclear power from their country. The new proposal calls for investing $500 billion dollars in renewable energy sources, like solar and wind power, over the next 20 years.

Given that Japan ostensibly cares about CO2 emissions, that is an utterly retarded decision for them.

Solar and Wind can never, ever be depended on for base load power. They can supplement, but if you aren't going to use nuclear, then your only alternatives for baseload power is coal and gas.

If you don't care about the environment or don't think CO2 emissions are a problem, then you should be fine with that.

This is not a "GOP believes in this, bad. Dems don't believe in this, good" issue, the pro-nuke and anti-nuke positions cross party lines and you can't hold this up as a partisan political issue. Trying to do so makes you look ignorant.

alnorth
09-16-2012, 11:38 AM
In the first place ending nuclear power does get us out of a lot of government involvement trying to keep it safe.

It is not hard to keep nuclear power safe. Japan failed even that low bar because the government regulators were heavily pressured to rubber-stamp everything the electric companies wanted. France is almost 100% nuclear, they don't seem to have any problems, and that is not exactly a pro-corporation conservative country.

Lightrise
09-16-2012, 11:45 AM
Yes, but that doesn't mean I support nuclear power. The ONLY part of the nuclear equation that has me waffling is these mini reactors. I'm not sure exactly where this market is heading, but I read a cool article about 2 years ago on them. They are small and buried and able to support power needs for small communities, say 70,000 people. They were seen as safe and far less expensive. I thought it was intriguing in that infrastructure often makes new communities more difficult to get off the ground. Would it be possible to just create small towns where there is little now? Growing pains creates jobs and fresh adventures.

A Salt Weapon
09-16-2012, 11:53 AM
blah, blah, Bush's fault, blah, blah, evil GOP, blah, blah

Okay, for a second I thought you were capable of articulating your own conclusions that you came to using reasoning and logic after evaluating all the facts, I see I was wrong.
Your right, it's all Bush's fault, too bad he's not in office anymore and hasn't been for almost 4 years.
Posted via Mobile Device

PornChief
09-17-2012, 03:46 AM
Wind farms kill more people than nuke plants. I find this hilarious. Am I a bad person?

Amnorix
09-17-2012, 08:02 AM
I tend to support nuclear power, but I really do NOT support the effectively permanent storage of spent rods at cooling pools at each plant because Harry fucking Reid and others won't let them be transported into permanent safe storage at Yucca Mountain. As we currently do things, a Fukushima event at a US plant would be made exponentially worse because of the local storage of spent rods.

FishingRod
09-17-2012, 09:29 AM
It pains me to admit it but the French are better at nuclear power than anyone else producing about 75 % of their electricity from nuclear power plants but, they too are looking at cutting back. There really are not any viable alternatives other than fossil fuels at this point. I would think at some point fusion will be realistic but for now we have a bunch of coal.

PornChief
09-17-2012, 06:05 PM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CqEccgR0q-o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>