This will flush any recovery!

[Bonestorm]

My point is that if the Democrats wanted to do something about global warming then they would tout real solutions, which include nuclear power. Since Captain Trade doesn't offer rebates for nuclear power, its obvious that their agenda is not as stated.

But you don't need to provide a rebate to give nuclear an advantage over fossil fuel based electricity. Not imposing a tax through cap and trade ought to be sufficient.

Yes, I recognize that other non-fossil fuel based electricity is provided subsidies, but those are developing energy sources. Nuclear is already well established and doesn't really need subsidies to get beyond development stages. It's already there.

 

[DamnYankee]

But you don't need to provide a rebate to give nuclear an advantage over fossil fuel based electricity. Not imposing a tax through cap and trade ought to be sufficient.

Yes, I recognize that other non-fossil fuel based electricity is provided subsidies, but those are developing energy sources. Nuclear is already well established and doesn't really need subsidies to get beyond development stages. It's already there.

But I thought the whole deal with Captain Trade was to tax the bad and reward the good.

Isn't the Left always railing on nuclear power because it is dangerous? It seems to me that a few development dollars would refine that technology to make it safer, especially with regard to waste disposal.

 

[Bonestorm]

But I thought the whole deal with Captain Trade was to tax the bad and reward the good.

Isn't the Left always railing on nuclear power because it is dangerous? It seems to me that a few development dollars would refine that technology to make it safer, especially with regard to waste disposal.

1. No, the whole idea of cap and trade is to limit the amount of fossil fuel burning and greenhouse gas production through quasi-market means.

2. Nukes get plenty of subsidies already.

 

[DamnYankee]

1. No, the whole idea of cap and trade is to limit the amount of fossil fuel burning and greenhouse gas production through quasi-market means.

2. Nukes get plenty of subsidies already.

Encouraging nuclear would reduce emissions.

 

[Bonestorm]

Encouraging nuclear would reduce emissions.

As I said, nukes are already subsidized. What more encouragement do you want?

And while nukes do reduce emissions there is the problem of waste.

 

[DamnYankee]

As I said, nukes are already subsidized. What more encouragement do you want?

And while nukes do reduce emissions there is the problem of waste.

Again, if you're going to tax carbon, then the money raised should be spent on technology that generates power with reduced or zero emissions, including nuclear, and including all phases of nuclear power, from mining uranium to disposal of waste. Anything less is hypocrisy.

 

[Bonestorm]

Again, if you're going to tax carbon, then the money raised should be spent on technology that generates power with reduced or zero emissions, including nuclear, and including all phases of nuclear power, from mining uranium to disposal of waste. Anything less is hypocrisy.

But that implies that money is not already spent on nuclear. It is. Lots of it. And, as I said, nuclear comes with its own set of significant environmental concerns and challenges. I suppose we could ship all of the waste to the Yadkin Valley. I'm sure folks down there would just love to take it.

And no, anything less is not hypocrisy. That's just plain silly.

 

[DamnYankee]

But that implies that money is not already spent on nuclear. It is. Lots of it. And, as I said, nuclear comes with its own set of significant environmental concerns and challenges. I suppose we could ship all of the waste to the Yadkin Valley. I'm sure folks down there would just love to take it.

And no, anything less is not hypocrisy. That's just plain silly.

What difference does it make how much money is spent on nuclear. If the goal is to reduce carbon, then tax carbon fuels and give the money to non-carbon fuels. We only have 10% or so of our electricity made from nuclear and that percentage should be much higher.

Apparently that's not your real goal. *shrug*

 

[Damocles]

You think that raising the taxes on the wealthy and the corps will crash the economy right?


The ones we had under Bush didnt stop the economy from crashing in the first place now did it?


You people will just never understand that you have been had by the republican party and just keep going back for more abuse.

Hey, Desh. She thinks that raising gas prices hugely will. You are being deliberately obtuse to build a straw man.

 

[Bonestorm]

What difference does it make how much money is spent on nuclear. If the goal is to reduce carbon, then tax carbon fuels and give the money to non-carbon fuels. We only have 10% or so of our electricity made from nuclear and that percentage should be much higher.

Apparently that's not your real goal. *shrug*

You apparently don't understand that taxing carbon in an of itself is an enormous benefit to nuclear power. Why should additional benefits be added on top of it for an energy technology that is already mature? I mean, maybe there is a case to be made but you sure as shit aren't making it.

Moreover, ignoring the real problems attendant to nuclear power and pretending they don't exist is, well, stupid.

 

[uscitizen]

I'm paying for storage now. My question is about a rebate on the cap and trade since I am buying power with near-zero carbon emissions.

As with most govt stuff, only industry will get those breaks and not pass those savings on to you the consumer. Suck it up and bow to the god of industry/govt.

You might as well, you do not give parties enough money to rent any politicians.
You are just one or 300 million of us peedon peeons.
Both parties will screw you on this because of the money involved with their industrial buddies.

 

[DamnYankee]

You apparently don't understand that taxing carbon in an of itself is an enormous benefit to nuclear power. Why should additional benefits be added on top of it for an energy technology that is already mature? I mean, maybe there is a case to be made but you sure as shit aren't making it.

Moreover, ignoring the real problems attendant to nuclear power and pretending they don't exist is, well, stupid.

I understand that completely. I also understand that with a tax comes revenue, and if we are talking about "trade" the program should be revenue neutral, so that revenue should be used to benefit non-carbon industries, including and especially nuclear power.

So there's the case made and you sure as shit don't understand it.

 

[DamnYankee]

As with most govt stuff, only industry will get those breaks and not pass those savings on to you the consumer. .....

My electric rates are some of the lowest in the country so that's not really my concern. My concern is having the rest of the country enjoy the benefits of nuclear power and to further the stated goal of reduced carbon emissions while having abundant supplies of electricity.

So unless the Obama Administration embraces nuclear power I can only conclude that that their actual agenda is something different.

 

[Lowaicue]

You apparently don't understand that taxing carbon in an of itself is an enormous benefit to nuclear power. Why should additional benefits be added on top of it for an energy technology that is already mature? I mean, maybe there is a case to be made but you sure as shit aren't making it.

Moreover, ignoring the real problems attendant to nuclear power and pretending they don't exist is, well, stupid.

I am confused - genuinely. This planet is chemically and physically identical today as it was 100 years ago with the exception of small quantities of incoming material in the shape of meteorites, and small quantities of out going material such as satellites and space junk.
So, we have some spent fuel. Are we talking millions of tons, thousands, hundreds or tens? Was not this material dangerous as it lay beneath the planet's surface? Is it not that we have just concentrated an existing widespread product in specific areas?
If that is the case ... and I'm sure that just about everyone here knows more about this than do I .... can't we just put it back? I mean can it not be pulverised and dispersed into the atmosphere little by little.
Having spoken to a couple of nuclear guys a few years ago I seem to remember them saying that one could sit atop a pile of nuclear contaminated material and come to no harm, but should one decide to build a shelter and hide within it one would very quickly become another unfortunate statistic.
If any posters regard themselves as experts in this field please explain to me ... in very simple language please.

 

[DamnYankee]

I am confused - genuinely. This planet is chemically and physically identical today as it was 100 years ago with the exception of small quantities of incoming material in the shape of meteorites, and small quantities of out going material such as satellites and space junk.
So, we have some spent fuel. Are we talking millions of tons, thousands, hundreds or tens? Was not this material dangerous as it lay beneath the planet's surface? Is it not that we have just concentrated an existing widespread product in specific areas?
If that is the case ... and I'm sure that just about everyone here knows more about this than do I .... can't we just put it back? I mean can it not be pulverised and dispersed into the atmosphere little by little.
Having spoken to a couple of nuclear guys a few years ago I seem to remember them saying that one could sit atop a pile of nuclear contaminated material and come to no harm, but should one decide to build a shelter and hide within it one would very quickly become another unfortunate statistic.
If any posters regard themselves as experts in this field please explain to me ... in very simple language please.

Millions of years ago the planet had a rich carbon dioxide atmosphere- it was very hot and plants grew like gang busters, turning the carbon into solid matter. This went on for millions of years and most of the dead plants got buried due to geologic movements and turned into materials from coal to crude to natural gas. As we burn these materials the carbon is re-released into the atmosphere. Many scientists think that this will cause the planet to re-warm.

Liberals, under the auspices of caring about the planet, don't want man to burn carbon fuels. So they restrict the exploitation of these fuels wherever they can. OPEC countries, run by dictators and socialists (comrades to liberals), tell the liberals publicly to pound sand. Democratic countries develop all kinds of restrictions. This reduces the supply, hence increase the price, and the dictators and socialists get rich. With all this extra money they attempt to expand their political influence by buying and building weapons, and generally making life miserable for democratic countries. Many wars have been fought over these now valuable resources resulting in the deaths of millions of innocent peoples in many countries.

Along comes nuclear power generation with a proven track record of safety and with zero carbon emissions, except for the tiny amount needed to mine and transport the fuel. Seeing this as a threat to their lock on the petroleum market, liberals-socialists have fought nuclear power since the 1960's.

 

[Bonestorm]

I understand that completely. I also understand that with a tax comes revenue, and if we are talking about "trade" the program should be revenue neutral, so that revenue should be used to benefit non-carbon industries, including and especially nuclear power.

So there's the case made and you sure as shit don't understand it.

The proposal is for the revenue to be used to give tax credits for low income folks to pay for the increased costs and to subsidize emerging energy technologies. Nuclear isn't an emerging energy technology. it is a mature technology that has received shitloads of subsidies in its infancy and continues to receive shitloads of subsidies.

There is no good reason for nuclear to get more subsidies than it has received and continues to receive. At this stage in its development it should be able to sink or swim on its own (with a carbon tax plus the subsidies it has received to date and will continue to receive).

 

[uscitizen]

Again, if you're going to tax carbon, then the money raised should be spent on technology that generates power with reduced or zero emissions, including nuclear, and including all phases of nuclear power, from mining uranium to disposal of waste. Anything less is hypocrisy.

Yes we should open that uranium mine in VA that has been discussed.

On the waste disposal, it should be a state issue not a federal one, unless the waste is due to federal weapons development.
Each state should have to dispose of or store their own waste.

Why should the non nuke states have to pay for the nuke states waste?

 

[DamnYankee]

The proposal is for the revenue to be used to give tax credits for low income folks to pay for the increased costs and to subsidize emerging energy technologies. Nuclear isn't an emerging energy technology. it is a mature technology that has received shitloads of subsidies in its infancy and continues to receive shitloads of subsidies.

There is no good reason for nuclear to get more subsidies than it has received and continues to receive. At this stage in its development it should be able to sink or swim on its own (with a carbon tax plus the subsidies it has received to date and will continue to receive).

Again I would argue that nuclear technology is in its adolescence, with many advances yet to be discovered, especially on the waste utilization-reprocessing-disposal side. It also has a proven rack record of success and by far the largest potential to actually solve the nations energy problem.

Its no surprise why Democrats oppose it.

 

[uscitizen]

Again I would argue that nuclear technology is in its adolescence, with many advances yet to be discovered, especially on the waste utilization-reprocessing-disposal side. It also has a proven rack record of success and by far the largest potential to actually solve the nations energy problem.

Its no surprise why Democrats oppose it.

I agree it is like an adolescent 1 trilliion pound gorilla. Capable of wiping out entire states without realizing it is doing harm.

You would want an adolescent with that destructive potential around?

 

[DamnYankee]

Yes we should open that uranium mine in VA that has been discussed.

On the waste disposal, it should be a state issue not a federal one, unless the waste is due to federal weapons development.
Each state should have to dispose of or store their own waste.

Why should the non nuke states have to pay for the nuke states waste?

Interesting that as a liberal you want the feds to take over all sorts of things that can be easily managed by the private sector or by States until an issue where the federal government may actually be able to do some good comes along.

Having said that I have no problem with the States regulating nuclear power and waste disposal, and the federal government abiding by its Constitutional mandate to require unfettered trade and transport between the States.