tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post351956726965885664..comments2021-03-28T01:52:28.147-07:00Comments on The Rational Middle: Rational Politics Chapter 7: EnergyMichael Chasehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10665821948140933568noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-48218088416672562212010-05-26T13:44:17.933-07:002010-05-26T13:44:17.933-07:00Jon...the why we don't can be summarized by th...Jon...the why we don't can be summarized by the Sierra Club, Three Mile Island, cost. Nuclear has enormous fixed costs. Why not for the future...resources; we can find enough uranium to meet our demand, but only with an investment in exploration on the order of what oil companies have spent since 1900. For the same trillions, we could have a grid (perhaps 35% solar, 25% wind, 15% natural gas, 15% nuclear, 10% all other) with far less systemic risk. Space shots present the same risks as central disposal (in terms of short term exposure); but the difficulties in cleaning up and oil spill, with a precisely known initial point,in waters with well know bottom features and surface currents, should give one pause when considering the ease of cleanup of substances with far greater toxicity.Michael Chasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10665821948140933568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-24944919314148286942010-05-26T12:08:56.630-07:002010-05-26T12:08:56.630-07:00I've got a question, and a challenge for you, ...I've got a question, and a challenge for you, Michael. I've wondered for years why we've never developed a decent nuclear grid in this nation. It seemed obvious while I was growing up listening to fellow Nevadans hurling invectives about the waste dump at Beatty (was it Beatty? Man it's been awhile) but there came a point when I realized that I'm allowed to look at issues rationally and for myself instead of following the crowd, lemming-like, down whatever primrose path is heading toward Hell today. With that realization, the Beatty debates seemed to instantly devolve into the NOBE effect. I'm going to make things sound a little more simplistic than they are, betraying my lack of hard research and revealing my challenge to you. I understand Nuclear waste is a bummer. We've been going to space for a long time and a rocket full of Nuclear garbage fired toward our nearest nuclear-powered neighbor (the Sun) wouldn't even be noticed. In fact, it would be vaporized long before ever getting there. Personally, I would prefer this method of disposal since I don't relish the thought of sticking my trash in anyone else's back yard and we don't know who might be out there or where they might be. For those that don't relish the, "shoot all our garbage to the Sun option", for whatever reason, there is another. Launch it all off the ecliptic into interstellar space. It will far surpass it's half-life many times over before ever reaching the outskirts of the nearest galaxy.<br /> Now, my challenge to you is to provide a convincing argument that these are not viable options. Fear doesn't cut it. "What if there is an accident?" is a cop out. What if I fall down the stairs, hit my head on a nail, and die from complications because my cell phone was temporarily out of service and I couldn't call for help? Well, by all means we should stop building houses with steps or out of wood (requiring nails) and cell phones are ineffective when truly needed so that technology was just a bad idea. Please! We could "What if" ourselves to death. The risk in the nuclear scenario could be minimized by launching from a deep-ocean platform and having clean-up crews in position just in case.<br /> I'm listening :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-24793679893298345962010-05-26T09:56:03.525-07:002010-05-26T09:56:03.525-07:00You're exactly right: "It can and should ...You're exactly right: "It can and should be done." But the systemic realities present a bleak outlook for implementing a rational plan for the future of our energy supply. The market and us taxpayers as a whole, react to the immediate situation rather than properly analyzing the system of production and profit that has put us, our economy and our environment in danger of collapse. Rationally looking at the future has never been a trademark of our political system or the corporate interests that dictate our democracy. If you believe that the pressure of the voters can enact change on the legislatures who have the power to create change, then our one-party "democracy" must be taken back by "we the people" from the hands of the corporations who manufacture our consent of this system that benefits only the few.Todd Curlhttp://thetoddblog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-46057092002261885022010-05-26T08:30:39.613-07:002010-05-26T08:30:39.613-07:00That last point Todd, would be central to my argum...That last point Todd, would be central to my argument. A national energy plan would create positive market pressures through existing suppliers; cap and trade tries this, but it largely ignores current capital investment. I don't believe there are many CEO's or officers at major electrical producers (or oil companies), that think climate change is a hoax. These folks are mostly engineers by trade; but if you are responsible to shareholders for perhaps $10 billion in plants that still have a decade or more to go on a depreciation schedule...it is tough. The only entity that has the scale, the sheer muscle power to do this, is the consolidated power of the American people. We call that "the Government"...and the consolidated power is harnessed through taxes. At this point, Hank might be feeling less supportive (maybe). Energy/fuel taxes that lower demand and are funneled to new and existing enterprise to modify current infrastructure and build the new. No more playing around in the margins; no more whining. Americans adjust to fuel costs that jump by a dollar or more in a few weeks, all to support speculator profits. Adjusting to staged per unit tax increases on gas and kilowatt hours is well within the capability of Americans. I am talking in terms of a plan of twenty to thirty years, with a tax schedule that phases in over, perhaps, the first 10, then plateaus before regressing to the finish. In thirty years, we could see a new energy model comprises of far lower per person demand levels, and perhaps two-thirds of that demand serviced through renewables. It can and should be done...and if Southern Company and "ExxonSolar" are earning $4.00 per share then, fantastic!Michael Chasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10665821948140933568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-63409450955142949032010-05-26T06:38:01.382-07:002010-05-26T06:38:01.382-07:00Very reasoned Michael, and accurately assessed as ...Very reasoned Michael, and accurately assessed as well. Unfortunately, no matter how rational a plan might be, it will ultimately be thwarted by a political apparatus that will make sure the "petro-dictators" continue their hegemony over energy policy, benefiting not only the profits of these modern oil barons, but ensuring that war profiteering will continue in perpetuity as we continue to destabilize the middle east for western capitalist control over their precious finite resource: OIL.<br /><br />Let us not forget about the role that the coal industry plays as well. Environmental and human catastrophes aside, coal provides 60% of the world's electricity. I don't think they're going to go away without a fight -- or at least a propaganda campaign; which they have already begun. Have you seen the ads for "clean coal"?<br /><br />Perhaps the only chance for clean energy is if the "petro-dictators" control the production, oversight and eventual profits of wind and solar energy and the construction of a new, more efficient grid.Todd Curlhttp://thetoddblog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-612086215887429232010-05-25T20:07:05.140-07:002010-05-25T20:07:05.140-07:00It may come as a surprise, but as much as I can un...It may come as a surprise, but as much as I can understand what you say here, I can't find a single thing to disagree with.<br /><br />Your three observations for why the United States doesn't have a coherent national energy strategy are about as spot on as possible. Actually, I think those three things could cover a wide range of what ails America.<br /><br />Good post.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311066766835433023noreply@blogger.com