Wind ($23.37) v. Gas (25 Cents)

[trickblue]

I'm not posting this for a particular view, just found it interesting...

Link (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121055427930584069.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks)

Wind ($23.37) v. Gas (25 Cents)

Congress seems ready to spend billions on a new "Manhattan Project" for green energy, or at least the political class really, really likes talking about one. But maybe we should look at what our energy subsidy dollars are buying now.

Some clarity comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent federal agency that tried to quantify government spending on energy production in 2007. The agency reports that the total taxpayer bill was $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like. That's double in real dollars from eight years earlier, as you'd expect given all the money Congress is throwing at "renewables." Even more subsidies are set to pass this year.

An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized. For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and "clean coal" $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.

The wind and solar lobbies are currently moaning that they don't get their fair share of the subsidy pie. They also argue that subsidies per unit of energy are always higher at an early stage of development, before innovation makes large-scale production possible. But wind and solar have been on the subsidy take for years, and they still account for less than 1% of total net electricity generation. Would it make any difference if the federal subsidy for wind were $50 per megawatt hour, or even $100? Almost certainly not without a technological breakthrough.

By contrast, nuclear power provides 20% of U.S. base electricity production, yet it is subsidized about 15 times less than wind. We prefer an energy policy that lets markets determine which energy source dominates. But if you believe in subsidies, then nuclear power gets a lot more power for the buck than other "alternatives."

The same study also looked at federal subsidies for non-electrical energy production, such as for fuel. It found that ethanol and biofuels receive $5.72 per British thermal unit of energy produced. That compares to $2.82 for solar and $1.35 for refined coal, but only three cents per BTU for natural gas and other petroleum liquids.

All of this shows that there is a reason fossil fuels continue to dominate American energy production: They are extremely cost-effective. That's a reality to keep in mind the next time you hear a politician talk about creating millions of "green jobs." Those jobs won't come cheap, and you'll be paying for them.

[theogt]

It'd sure be nice if we didn't have to waste our money on these "alternative" energy sources. Too bad people don't realize they're not long-term energy sources.

We're fine in the US. We can just live on our natural gas and coal until that runs out, then switch to nuclear for the rest of time.

But the rest of this is just a waste of money.

[trickblue]

It'd sure be nice if we didn't have to waste our money on these "alternative" energy sources. Too bad people don't realize they're not long-term energy sources.

We're fine in the US. We can just live on our natural gas and coal until that runs out, then switch to nuclear for the rest of time.

But the rest of this is just a waste of money.

I'm all for nuclear energy...

[BrAinPaiNt]

It'd sure be nice if we didn't have to waste our money on these "alternative" energy sources. Too bad people don't realize they're not long-term energy sources.

We're fine in the US. We can just live on our natural gas and coal until that runs out, then switch to nuclear for the rest of time.

But the rest of this is just a waste of money.

It's not a waste of time or money, if you have the money to do it for your own personal property instead of keeping it to large business.

If I had the money I would put out some solar panels. I would imagine about 5 panels of decent size would reduce my monthly electric bill to around $10. If I were to add a windmill I would actually be able to power my place without using any of the power from the electric company.

Plus it is much more environmentally friendly.

Problem is getting the money to buy the panels and windmill and have them installed. However I would imagine they would more than pay for themselves in a year or two.

Now if they can do that from an individual standpoint. I don't see why it could not be done on a grander scale and still be better than paying for fossil fuels that increase in price every year (yes gas increases) and are ultimately going to run out at some time.

We have areas in some states that are just not being used for anything that could be used to put in solar panels or windmills.

The problem is many think it is nothing more that hooey hippy stuff and would rather stick with other forms of energy.

If I had the money to get the stuff done I would love to do it because it takes the money out of bigger businesses and keeps it in my pocket.

Heck I would not ask for any tax breaks or other government plans...if I am saving money myself I don't care about the government. But that is just me.

[Chief]

Interesting article. I wasn't aware how much it cost to subsidize these alternate energy sources.

But I still don't understand why more energy sources haven't been developed over the years.

Look at the advances in technology, with cell phones, computers. Look at the medical advances, with laser surgery, etc.

But after 100 years, we still have the same basic gasoline, piston-driven engine. I don't get it. I reckon the oil and gas companies have something to do with this.

We should have been buzzing around in jetpacks years ago. ;)

[Hostile]

Interesting article. I wasn't aware how much it cost to subsidize these alternate energy sources.

But I still don't understand why more energy sources haven't been developed over the years.

Look at the advances in technology, with cell phones, computers. Look at the medical advances, with laser surgery, etc.

But after 100 years, we still have the same basic gasoline, piston-driven engine. I don't get it. I reckon the oil and gas companies have something to do with this.

We should have been buzzing around in jetpacks years ago. ;)It isn't the same field, but I still find it hard to believe that our area of the country is not more solar controlled. I live in a 97% solar efficient state and I bet less than 5% of new construction is solar. That's ignorant IMO. But solar drives up the building costs so people just don't do it. I am hoping that the Green Movement in construction begins to move towards solar.

[Yeagermeister]

It's not a waste of time or money, if you have the money to do it for your own personal property instead of keeping it to large business.

If I had the money I would put out some solar panels. I would imagine about 5 panels of decent size would reduce my monthly electric bill to around $10. If I were to add a windmill I would actually be able to power my place without using any of the power from the electric company.

Plus it is much more environmentally friendly.

Problem is getting the money to buy the panels and windmill and have them installed. However I would imagine they would more than pay for themselves in a year or two.

Now if they can do that from an individual standpoint. I don't see why it could not be done on a grander scale and still be better than paying for fossil fuels that increase in price every year (yes gas increases) and are ultimately going to run out at some time.

We have areas in some states that are just not being used for anything that could be used to put in solar panels or windmills.

The problem is many think it is nothing more that hooey hippy stuff and would rather stick with other forms of energy.

If I had the money to get the stuff done I would love to do it because it takes the money out of bigger businesses and keeps it in my pocket.

Heck I would not ask for any tax breaks or other government plans...if I am saving money myself I don't care about the government. But that is just me.

If you could run your house on methane all it would cost is a bean burrito. lol

[BrAinPaiNt]

If you could run your house on methane all it would cost is a bean burrito. lol

Yes but I don't want to constantly look at the misses and the dogs wearing gas masks.:D

[ABQCOWBOY]

Interesting article. I wasn't aware how much it cost to subsidize these alternate energy sources.

But I still don't understand why more energy sources haven't been developed over the years.

Look at the advances in technology, with cell phones, computers. Look at the medical advances, with laser surgery, etc.

But after 100 years, we still have the same basic gasoline, piston-driven engine. I don't get it. I reckon the oil and gas companies have something to do with this.

We should have been buzzing around in jetpacks years ago. ;)

For answer to this question and many more, Magic 8-Ball says........ Follow the money Chief.

;)

[Doomsday101]

I'm all for nuclear energy...

I am as well however I do understand it has it's downside namely waste and storage of that waste

[Yeagermeister]

Yes but I don't want to constantly look at the misses and the dogs wearing gas masks.:D

Don't they already wear them? :laugh2:

[ScipioCowboy]

I'm all for nuclear energy...

Ditto.

A high school physics teacher once told me that nations with a strong dependence on nuclear energy are more likely to have balanced budgets. I certainly don't see a correlation, but it's an interesting fact if it is indeed true.

[big dog cowboy]

If you could run your house on methane all it would cost is a bean burrito. lol
Taco Bell. Make a run for the border.

[Yeagermeister]

Taco Bell. Make a run for the border.

Brad would turn in to a real BP after some toxic hell :laugh2:

[AbeBeta]

It isn't the same field, but I still find it hard to believe that our area of the country is not more solar controlled. I live in a 97% solar efficient state and I bet less than 5% of new construction is solar. That's ignorant IMO. But solar drives up the building costs so people just don't do it. I am hoping that the Green Movement in construction begins to move towards solar.

Very true. I'm sitting in a LEED Gold Certified building right now. The design of the building is very smart. Rainwater is collected on top of the building to flush toilets. Offices have large windows. We've got sustainably logged wood, recycled steel girders, ventilation that takes advantage of naturally occurring wind patterns, limited use of formaldehyde and other gases for materials, individual office temp controls, automatic lights, sun shades.

Although the price tag goes up for a building like this there is a ton of savings in terms of energy use -- and if there were greater demand for many of the resources used, there would be great cost reductions realized.

[theogt]

It's not a waste of time or money, if you have the money to do it for your own personal property instead of keeping it to large business.

If I had the money I would put out some solar panels. I would imagine about 5 panels of decent size would reduce my monthly electric bill to around $10. If I were to add a windmill I would actually be able to power my place without using any of the power from the electric company.

Plus it is much more environmentally friendly.

Problem is getting the money to buy the panels and windmill and have them installed. However I would imagine they would more than pay for themselves in a year or two.

Now if they can do that from an individual standpoint. I don't see why it could not be done on a grander scale and still be better than paying for fossil fuels that increase in price every year (yes gas increases) and are ultimately going to run out at some time.

We have areas in some states that are just not being used for anything that could be used to put in solar panels or windmills.

The problem is many think it is nothing more that hooey hippy stuff and would rather stick with other forms of energy.

If I had the money to get the stuff done I would love to do it because it takes the money out of bigger businesses and keeps it in my pocket.

Heck I would not ask for any tax breaks or other government plans...if I am saving money myself I don't care about the government. But that is just me.I'm not talking about doing something for your own personal use. I'm talking about federal and state government subsidizing corporations to build "alternative" energy plants, wind farms, etc. It's a waste of taxpayer money.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I'm not talking about doing something for your own personal use. I'm talking about federal and state government subsidizing corporations to build "alternative" energy plants, wind farms, etc. It's a waste of taxpayer money.

Not if it goes on to be a good renewable source that does not have waste by products or the possibility of disaster like nukes do.

[theogt]

Not if it goes on to be a good renewable source that does not have waste by products or the possibility of disaster like nukes do.Totally overstated. Nuclear is 100% the future. The others are just "feel good" government expenditures.

[ScipioCowboy]

Not if it goes on to be a good renewable source that does not have waste by products or the possibility of disaster like nukes do.

The dangers associated with nuclear power have been played up to an almost mythical status. The Chernobyl disaster represented a clusterf*ck of epic proportion, and a repeat occurence is highly preventable. In fact, safety technology in reactors has advanced considerably since then.

Your concerns about radioactive waste are warranted, but any method of power generation presents hazards, even the safe ones.

Nuclear power is the future. In my opinion, its proliferation is the key to unlocking the next Age.

[AbeBeta]

Totally overstated. Nuclear is 100% the future. The others are just "feel good" government expenditures.

So you'd be happy with a plant in your back yard then?

[theogt]

So you'd be happy with a plant in your back yard then?Physically impossible. :)

Much of my close family has lived for years near a plant.

I guess that explains a lot. :o:

[ScipioCowboy]

So you'd be happy with a plant in your back yard then?

According to a physics teacher of mine, nuclear power plants emit less radiation than conventional plants.

[AbeBeta]

According to a physics teacher of mine, nuclear power plants emit less radiation than conventional plants.

I think the issue is more what can go wrong at one of those plants.

[theogt]

I think the issue is more what can go wrong at one of those plants.There have been 100+ nuclear plants in the US for the past 30 years. When's the last time your heard of an accident at one? 1970s?

When's the last time your heard of an accident at an oil refinery? Yesterday?

From Wiki:

The scientific community is largely agreed on the effects of the Three Mile Island accident. The consensus is that no member of the public was injured by the accident. "The average radiation dose to people living within ten miles of the plant was eight millirem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millirem), and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray), and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by US residents in a year."[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#cite_note-ANS-12).[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#cite_note-13) While some studies have suggested a link between lung cancer and offsite exposures, no study has found a conclusive link between low level exposure and cancer increases. [15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#cite_note-14) A recent study has noted that the counties surrounding TMI have the highest radon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon) concentrations in the United States and that this may be the cause of the increased lung cancer noted in the region [2] (http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/113/2/214).

[AbeBeta]

There have been 100+ nuclear plants in the US for the past 30 years. When's the last time your heard of an accident at one? 1970s?

When's the last time your heard of an accident at an oil refinery? Yesterday?

From Wiki:

That wasn't a worst-case accident now was it?

Again, if you want it in your back yard I'm all for you having it there.

[theogt]

That wasn't a worst-case accident now was it?

Again, if you want it in your back yard I'm all for you having it there.It's irrational not to want it "in your backyard."

[AbeBeta]

It's irrational not to want it "in your backyard."

Irrational or not, I think you know that you wouldn't buy a house next a nuclear reactor even if it was in your beloved Houston.

[Doomsday101]

Irrational or not, I think you know that you wouldn't buy a house next a nuclear reactor even if it was in your beloved Houston.

We have a nuclear power plant right outside of Houston that provides for energy for Houston and other cities in Texas

[AbeBeta]

We have a nuclear power plant right outside of Houston that provides for energy for Houston and other cities in Texas

So again, would you be willing to live in Wadsworth?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Here is what I will say about more Nuclear Power Plants. Until we have a real solution in place for disposal of the waste created by these plants, I am not in favor of creating more of them. Everybody loves the economy of the whole thing and that's great but everybody isn't forced to deal with the problem of housing HAZMAT. New Mexico is and I don't like it one bit. It's not if it ever becomes a problem, it's when. Eventually there will either be a failure or there will be too much to store safely. When that happens, we got a problem. Right now, we don't even have a good way of moving the materials once they've been stored for a significant period of time. These containers will eventually break down. What then?

[vta]

So again, would you be willing to live in Wadsworth?

Does this dimish the validity of nuclear energy as a viable option though?
Does anyone want an oil refinery in their yard? Chances are, no.

[Doomsday101]

So again, would you be willing to live in Wadsworth?

I have no issue living close to a nuclear power plant and given the proximity of the South Texas Nuclear plant that pretty much is in our back yard. Frankly I'm more concerned with refineries given some of the major accidents that have taken place over the years it is much easier for a refinery to blow up or release deadly gases than any nuclear plant in the US.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Does this dimish the validity of nuclear energy as a viable option though?
Does anyone want an oil refinery in their yard? Chances are, no.

If you have a leak at an Oil Refinery, it won't kill everything within a 150 mile radius and effectively make that area uninhabitable for pretty much the rest of your life. I mean, there are inherint dangers associated with Nuclear plants that do not exist with Oil Refineries. I too am in favor of getting off Oil but before we start commiting to Nuclear Plants as the answer, we really need to think about how that can be done. Where do you build them? How do you safe guard them? Earthquakes in Japan have created huge issues for them with their existing Nuclear plants. It's not as easy as just putting them up and then turning on the switches. Seriously, there are real issues, long term issues, with the increased usage of Nuclear Power.

[vta]

If you have a leak at an Oil Refinery, it won't kill everything within a 150 mile radius and effectively make that area uninhabitable for pretty much the rest of your life. I mean, there are inherint dangers associated with Nuclear plants that do not exist with Oil Refineries. I too am in favor of getting off Oil but before we start commiting to Nuclear Plants as the answer, we really need to think about how that can be done. Where do you build them? How do you safe guard them? Earthquakes in Japan have created huge issues for them with their existing Nuclear plants. It's not as easy as just putting them up and then turning on the switches. Seriously, there are real issues, long term issues, with the increased usage of Nuclear Power.

I'll take that as a yes to first question.
I grew up in the nuclear fear generation, myself and don't know enough about it that I would be leery of nuclear waste.

[ABQCOWBOY]

There have been 100+ nuclear plants in the US for the past 30 years. When's the last time your heard of an accident at one? 1970s?

When's the last time your heard of an accident at an oil refinery? Yesterday?

From Wiki:


This post strikes me as particularly funny.

http://marketingtheworld.com/nuclearpower/nuclearaccidents.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

[ABQCOWBOY]

I'll take that as a yes to first question.
I grew up in the nuclear fear generation, myself and don't know enough about it that I would be leery of nuclear waste.


If a way can be found to safely elliminate the disposal issues, then I'm not against it. I mean, there are other issues as well, natural disaster safeguards, terrorist access etc. However, Nuclear Power represents a very cheap, very effective way of dealing with the Oil issues we currently face. The real problem, IMO, is that it takes 10 thousand years for depleated uraninum rods and associated bi-products to break down. Think about that for just a second. 10,000 years. What are the chances that nothing happens, natural or otherwise, to any designed containment unit for 10K years? Of cousre, there are methodes that can be employeed to lesson the time it takes for this process to happen but even then, your still talking about several hundred years, if in fact, the theories behind these methodes are true.

If you stop and look at the by products of Nuclear Waste and the percentage of Hazmat material it represents, the number is relatively small (maybe 10% or less) in comparision to Hazmat materials we produce every day. The problem is that we currently employee a method by which all the radio active waste created by these plants are collected in a single spot. While it may only represent 10% of the total waste, it is concentrated into one location. What would 10% (a number which would certainly go up if Nuclear Power were untilized in greater numbers) of concentrated Radio Active material do if something unforseen happened? I mean, like I say, if a Oil Refinary blows up, it burns out. If a Radio Active disposal facility goes up, your screwed for generations upon generations. A better way has to be found if we are going to rely on more Nuclear Power in future years.

[AbeBeta]

This post strikes me as particularly funny.

http://marketingtheworld.com/nuclearpower/nuclearaccidents.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

Fascinating.

Anyone wanna jump on the NIMBY bandwagon now?

[theogt]

Irrational or not, I think you know that you wouldn't buy a house next a nuclear reactor even if it was in your beloved Houston.No, I wouldn't live next to one, but I wouldn't live next to a coal-fueled power plant either. Does that mean we should ban coal plants? Obviously not.

If you have a leak at an Oil Refinery, it won't kill everything within a 150 mile radius and effectively make that area uninhabitable for pretty much the rest of your life. I mean, there are inherint dangers associated with Nuclear plants that do not exist with Oil Refineries. I too am in favor of getting off Oil but before we start commiting to Nuclear Plants as the answer, we really need to think about how that can be done. Where do you build them? How do you safe guard them? Earthquakes in Japan have created huge issues for them with their existing Nuclear plants. It's not as easy as just putting them up and then turning on the switches. Seriously, there are real issues, long term issues, with the increased usage of Nuclear Power.When has this happened at a nuclear power plant? Give me a single example in the past 30 years.

This post strikes me as particularly funny.

http://marketingtheworld.com/nuclearpower/nuclearaccidents.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_powerI read through just about every incident in the first link and there are no indications that a single public life was at risk in any of them, much less a single report of a death or permanent impairment that occurred.

Not a single one.

It was funny that the only time a member of the public was in danger was when a diver got sucked up into a cooling uptake. But he even survived.

[AbeBeta]

No, I wouldn't live next to one, but I wouldn't live next to a coal-fueled power plant either. Does that mean we should ban coal plants? Obviously not.

Taking the extreme NIMBY stance -- the old "I won't have anything in my backyard"

So you are fine with other people's kids getting cancer and growing a third eye, but not yours?

[theogt]

Taking the extreme NIMBY stance -- the old "I won't have anything in my backyard"

So you are fine with other people's kids getting cancer and growing a third eye, but not yours?The irrational belief is that other people's kids will get cancer and grow 3rd eyes.

But you can't dismiss my point by saying it's some "extreme NIMBY stance." If your only point is that I wouldn't want to have it in my back yard, then that's not a point at all.

[ScipioCowboy]

Taking the extreme NIMBY stance -- the old "I won't have anything in my backyard"

So you are fine with other people's kids getting cancer and growing a third eye, but not yours?

Why would they grow third eyes?

A coal plant releases more radiation than a nuclear power plant. Only exposure to the radioactive waste could possibly cause cancer, and the waste is normally disposed of in unpopulated areas far away from the reactor site.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

If something calamitous did occur at a hypothetical nuclear reactoer situated in your backyard, you would probably be dead well before you had time to get cancer.

It would be Theogt, living many miles away, who would suffer the fallout and contract some horrible disease and a third eye.;)

[ABQCOWBOY]

No, I wouldn't live next to one, but I wouldn't live next to a coal-fueled power plant either. Does that mean we should ban coal plants? Obviously not.

When has this happened at a nuclear power plant? Give me a single example in the past 30 years.

I read through just about every incident in the first link and there are no indications that a single public life was at risk in any of them, much less a single report of a death or permanent impairment that occurred.

Not a single one.

It was funny that the only time a member of the public was in danger was when a diver got sucked up into a cooling uptake. But he even survived.


If people are dying of Cancer related to accidents caused by Nuclear Power Plants, does it matter if we have had a major disaster that kills everything in a give radius? Would you rather I ask you if you want to live by a coal plant instead? I mean, how ridiculous is the question you are asking? You want examples of people dying of Cancer due to radiation? It's not hard to find, just do a search. Start in England.

Has there ever been a Nuclear Device dropped on the US in the last 30 years? No you say? Why then would we spend Billions of dollars on Missile Defense? I mean, how ridiculous is that particular line of reason?

There are currenlty 104 licensed Reactors in the United States. There hasn't been a new one since 1996. Why is that, do you think? Are we not in need of Energy? Is it not the most efficiant way to produce Energy? Is it not cheaper? Why have we not built another Nuclear Power Plant in 10 years?



Honestly, if I told you that you were Theogt, you would ask me where it says that. If you wish to live your life in an uniformed manner, specific to this subject, that is your affair. I will not waste any more time educating somebody who is only interested in being right.

[ABQCOWBOY]

The irrational belief is that other people's kids will get cancer and grow 3rd eyes.

But you can't dismiss my point by saying it's some "extreme NIMBY stance." If your only point is that I wouldn't want to have it in my back yard, then that's not a point at all.


I ask the same question of you, that I asked earlier. If you build more plants, what method do you recommned for disposal of the radioactive materials left over from spent nuclear energy emmisions?

[Doomsday101]

If people are dying of Cancer related to accidents caused by Nuclear Power Plants, does it matter if we have had a major disaster that kills everything in a give radius? Would you rather I ask you if you want to live by a coal plant instead? I mean, how ridiculous is the question you are asking? You want examples of people dying of Cancer due to radiation? It's not hard to find, just do a search. Start in England.

Has there ever been a Nuclear Device dropped on the US in the last 30 years? No you say? Why then would we spend Billions of dollars on Missile Defense? I mean, how ridiculous is that particular line of reason?

There are currenlty 104 licensed Reactors in the United States. There hasn't been a new one since 1996. Why is that, do you think? Are we not in need of Energy? Is it not the most efficiant way to produce Energy? Is it not cheaper? Why have we not built another Nuclear Power Plant in 10 years?



Honestly, if I told you that you were Theogt, you would ask me where it says that. If you wish to live your life in an uniformed manner, specific to this subject, that is your affair. I will not waste any more time educating somebody who is only interested in being right.

Most human exposure to radiation comes from natural background radiation. Most of the remaining exposure comes from medical procedures. Several large studies in the US, Canada, and Europe have found no evidence of any increase in cancer mortality among people living near nuclear facilities. For example, in 1991, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National Institutes of Health announced that a large-scale study, which evaluated mortality from 16 types of cancer, found no increased incidence of cancer mortality for people living near 62 nuclear installations in the United States. The study showed no increase in the incidence of childhood leukemia mortality in the study of surrounding counties after start-up of the nuclear facilities. The NCI study, the broadest of its kind ever conducted, surveyed 900,000 cancer deaths in counties near nuclear facilities.

Some areas of Britain near industrial facilities, particularly near Sellafield, have displayed elevated childhood leukemia levels, in which children living locally are 10 times more likely to contract the cancer. One study of those near Sellafield has ruled out any contribution from nuclear sources, and the reasons for these increases, or clusters, are unclear. Apart from anything else, the levels of radiation at these sites are orders of magnitude too low to account for the excess incidences reported. One explanation is viruses or other infectious agents being introduced into a local community by the mass movement of migrant workers. Likewise, small studies have found an increased incidence of childhood leukemia near some nuclear power plants has been found in Germany and France. Nonetheless, the results of larger multi-site studies in these countries invalidate the hypothesis of an increased risk of leukemia related to nuclear discharge. The methodology and very small samples in the studies finding an increased incidence has been criticized.

In December of 2007, it was reported that a study showed that German children who lived near nuclear power plants had a higher rate of cancer than those who did not. However, the study also stated that there was no extra radiation near the nuclear power plants, and scientists were puzzled as to what was causing the higher rate of cancer.

[CowboyFan74]

It's not a waste of time or money, if you have the money to do it for your own personal property instead of keeping it to large business.

If I had the money I would put out some solar panels. I would imagine about 5 panels of decent size would reduce my monthly electric bill to around $10. If I were to add a windmill I would actually be able to power my place without using any of the power from the electric company.

Plus it is much more environmentally friendly.

Problem is getting the money to buy the panels and windmill and have them installed. However I would imagine they would more than pay for themselves in a year or two.

Now if they can do that from an individual standpoint. I don't see why it could not be done on a grander scale and still be better than paying for fossil fuels that increase in price every year (yes gas increases) and are ultimately going to run out at some time.

We have areas in some states that are just not being used for anything that could be used to put in solar panels or windmills.

The problem is many think it is nothing more that hooey hippy stuff and would rather stick with other forms of energy.

If I had the money to get the stuff done I would love to do it because it takes the money out of big brothers pockets and keep it in my pocket.

Heck we need more tax breaks and forget about government plans...if I am saving money myself I don't care about the government. But that is just me.

I concur:D

[ABQCOWBOY]

Most human exposure to radiation comes from natural background radiation. Most of the remaining exposure comes from medical procedures. Several large studies in the US, Canada, and Europe have found no evidence of any increase in cancer mortality among people living near nuclear facilities. For example, in 1991, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National Institutes of Health announced that a large-scale study, which evaluated mortality from 16 types of cancer, found no increased incidence of cancer mortality for people living near 62 nuclear installations in the United States. The study showed no increase in the incidence of childhood leukemia mortality in the study of surrounding counties after start-up of the nuclear facilities. The NCI study, the broadest of its kind ever conducted, surveyed 900,000 cancer deaths in counties near nuclear facilities.

Some areas of Britain near industrial facilities, particularly near Sellafield, have displayed elevated childhood leukemia levels, in which children living locally are 10 times more likely to contract the cancer. One study of those near Sellafield has ruled out any contribution from nuclear sources, and the reasons for these increases, or clusters, are unclear. Apart from anything else, the levels of radiation at these sites are orders of magnitude too low to account for the excess incidences reported. One explanation is viruses or other infectious agents being introduced into a local community by the mass movement of migrant workers. Likewise, small studies have found an increased incidence of childhood leukemia near some nuclear power plants has been found in Germany and France. Nonetheless, the results of larger multi-site studies in these countries invalidate the hypothesis of an increased risk of leukemia related to nuclear discharge. The methodology and very small samples in the studies finding an increased incidence has been criticized.

In December of 2007, it was reported that a study showed that German children who lived near nuclear power plants had a higher rate of cancer than those who did not. However, the study also stated that there was no extra radiation near the nuclear power plants, and scientists were puzzled as to what was causing the higher rate of cancer.


Dig deeper, and by that I literally mean, DIG deeper. Tritium is the key IMO. NRC will claim that it is released but never in levels that are harmful. You must very careful of what you read and what is published by our Government in regards to this. I am not a left wing guy who believes the Government is out to get us all or anything of the sort but it's not all as simple as the type black and white you read in NRC reports. Seriously Dooms.

[theogt]

Dig deeper, and by that I literally mean, DIG deeper. Tritium is the key IMO. NRC will claim that it is released but never in levels that are harmful. You must very careful of what you read and what is published by our Government in regards to this. I am not a left wing guy who believes the Government is out to get us all or anything of the sort but it's not all as simple as the type black and white you read in NRC reports. Seriously Dooms.You post links that do not support your own arguments. How about YOU dig deeper?

Show me a single example of an accident were the public was seriously endangered?

I mean, you've got 50 years, surely you can come up with one.

[Doomsday101]

Dig deeper, and by that I literally mean, DIG deeper. Tritium is the key IMO. NRC will claim that it is released but never in levels that are harmful. You must very careful of what you read and what is published by our Government in regards to this. I am not a left wing guy who believes the Government is out to get us all or anything of the sort but it's not all as simple as the type black and white you read in NRC reports. Seriously Dooms.

National Cancer Institute is not part of the NRC and did studies and did not find anything to suggest people living near nuclear facilities were at a higher risk of cancer. There is no doubt when dealing with Nuclear power you must have a lot of safety feature built in case of the worst case scenario but I think it is much safer than you think. We have many ships and Subs that have been running off nuclear power for years with no incident and other than 3 mile island there have not been any incidents and as big of a deal as 3 mile island was they were able to have containment of the situation to prevent a major release of radiation.

[ABQCOWBOY]

You post links that do not support your own arguments. How about YOU dig deeper?

Show me a single example of an accident were the public was seriously endangered?

I mean, you've got 50 years, surely you can come up with one.


I am not posting info to drive an agenda. That's the difference between you and I theo. I'm simply providing info so that everybody can understand the Pro's and Con's of using Nuclear Power. In fact, it's clear to me that you have no idea what my position is on this subject. You are trying to catagorize that right now by making this post. Perhaps it would be simpler if you told me what my postion on this is so that I can be clear on how I should best act to support your agenda yeah?

At the end of the day, the same question I have is still unanswered. Tell me how you are going to dispose of the Nuclear Waste associated with increased usage of Nuclear Power. I'm on record as saying that I support Nuclear Power if a safer, more effective way of disposing of the Bio Hazards associated can be found. I mean, youi just dont' get it. We, here in New Mexico, have to deal with the problem. We have the most to lose, we are the ones on the hock if something goes wrong. At the end of the day, New Mexico has to deal with the problem because it IS in our back yard. This whole discussion of "Do you want to live with a Nuclear Power Plant in your back yard?" is amusing to me. The question that should be asked is, do you want to live with the US Nuclear Waste Dump Site in your back yard? If your stepping up and saying that your state is willing to do this, then fine. I'm all for re-examining the question of increasing the usage of Nuclear Power. If not, then you don't anything to say to me, at all.

[theogt]

I am not posting info to drive an agenda. That's the difference between you and I theo. I'm simply providing info so that everybody can understand the Pro's and Con's of using Nuclear Power. In fact, it's clear to me that you have no idea what my position is on this subject. You are trying to catagorize that right now by making this post. Perhaps it would be simpler if you told me what my postion on this is so that I can be clear on how I should best act to support your agenda yeah?

At the end of the day, the same question I have is still unanswered. Tell me how you are going to dispose of the Nuclear Waste associated with increased usage of Nuclear Power. I'm on record as saying that I support Nuclear Power if a safer, more effective way of disposing of the Bio Hazards associated can be found. I mean, youi just dont' get it. We, here in New Mexico, have to deal with the problem. We have the most to lose, we are the ones on the hock if something goes wrong. At the end of the day, New Mexico has to deal with the problem because it IS in our back yard. This whole discussion of "Do you want to live with a Nuclear Power Plant in your back yard?" is amusing to me. The question that should be asked is, do you want to live with the US Nuclear Waste Dump Site in your back yard? If your stepping up and saying that your state is willing to do this, then fine. I'm all for re-examining the question of increasing the usage of Nuclear Power. If not, then you don't anything to say to me, at all.I'm posting info to drive an agenda? Do I own a nuclear plant or something?

If you don't want to live near a nuclear waste dump, then don't live near one. I don't want to live next to a gas station. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have gas stations. If you don't like where you live, move. It's not like every square foot in the United States will be covered with nuclear waste.

[ABQCOWBOY]

National Cancer Institute is not part of the NRC and did studies and did not find anything to suggest people living near nuclear facilities were at a higher risk of cancer. There is no doubt when dealing with Nuclear power you must have a lot of safety feature built in case of the worst case scenario but I think it is much safer than you think. We have many ships and Subs that have been running off nuclear power for years with no incident and other than 3 mile island there have not been any incidents and as big of a deal as 3 mile island was they were able to have containment of the situation to prevent a major release of radiation.

Dooms, I can only say that for every study that can be found and posted saying there are no ill effects, there are just as many studies out there that suggest there are ill effects. I live in an area where a great deal of Nuclear testing, development and waste are conducted or stored. We are told over and over that no links can be traced back to any of these activities yet more and more people are showing effects in and around Nuclear Development, Testing or Storage areas.

Here is an article from the USA Today that talks about Nuclear Power Plant Safety. To me, while accidents at Nuclear Facilities present a big concern, it's really the lessor of Evils. Long term disposal and storage of bi products are the bigger problem IMO.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2007-12-11-nuclear-plant-safety_N.htm


You must consider the fact that we currently use Nuclear Power for less then 20% of our total Energy Consumption in this country. If that number increases to 50 or higher, the demand for this power is going to become an all or nothing play. What will happen is that the demand for Energy will speak louder then the safety issues associated with these plants. That's just how it works. To me, with increased usage of Nuclear Power, the risks of an accident are heavely increased, to say nothing of the bigger issue of disposal. That's just how it works.


Here is an article that speaks to radioactive contamination, not in a Nuclear Power Plant but at a waste site.

http://www.disabledworkerlaw.com/2007/03/articles/-workers-compensation/ny-workers-compensation-board-finds-cancer-linked-to-radiation-at-hicksville-nuclear-waste-site/

I think it's just crazy to support more Nuclear Powered Energy Efforts without a much better plan to deal with the eventual fall out of the bi-products that are inevitably produced. If we can't figure this out, then we're just trading in one problem for a much bigger, much more dangerous one in the near future. At least, that's my opinion on the subject.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I'm posting info to drive an agenda? Do I own a nuclear plant or something?

If you don't want to live near a nuclear waste dump, then don't live near one. I don't want to live next to a gas station. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have gas stations. If you don't like where you live, move. It's not like every square foot in the United States will be covered with nuclear waste.


Step up or shut up. Are you willing to house this waste or not?

I imagine shut up is the answer but I doubt you will follow good advice.

[Rackat]

This thread would have been more entertaining if it was more campaign oriented.

Wind (Obama) v. Gas (McCain)

[vta]

This thread would have been more entertaining if it was more campaign oriented.

Wind (Obama) v. Gas (McCain)

:laugh2:

And both are euphemisms for fart and God know's farts are always funny.

[theogt]

Step up or shut up. Are you willing to house this waste or not?

I imagine shut up is the answer but I doubt you will follow good advice.What don't you get. I'm not willing to house a gas station in my back yard. That doesn't mean gas stations should be illegal.

Are you willing to house a gas station in your backyard? Step up or shut up.

[BrAinPaiNt]

What don't you get. I'm not willing to house a gas station in my back yard. That doesn't mean gas stations should be illegal.

Are you willing to house a gas station in your backyard? Step up or shut up.

I will not speak for him, only myself.

With the way the prices of gas have became, I would let a gas station set up in my back yard if they agreed to let me have free gas, heck I might even agree to a 60% discount on gas prices.

However, i still would not let a nuclear plant in my backyard.

My Dad used to work as an asbestos insulator at some of the plants. There was one plant down in Florida. Between Crystal River and Port Englis (I think that was the name of those two towns, it was years ago we were there).

They got the plant done and one day I was outside playing and heard a noise. Sounded like someone starting a car in some ways and then a looouuddd hum like an air conditioner kicking on. Scared me as I did not know what the heck it was but it was loud. Turned out it was them starting up the plant and the plant was a few MILES away.

Never forget that.

So ...I will take a gas station in my back yard any day over a nuke.

[theogt]

I will not speak for him, only myself.

With the way the prices of gas have became, I would let a gas station set up in my back yard if they agreed to let me have free gas, heck I might even agree to a 60% discount on gas prices.

However, i still would not let a nuclear plant in my backyard.

My Dad used to work as an asbestos insulator at some of the plants. There was one plant down in Florida. Between Crystal River and Port Englis (I think that was the name of those two towns, it was years ago we were there).

They got the plant done and one day I was outside playing and heard a noise. Sounded like someone starting a car in some ways and then a looouuddd hum like an air conditioner kicking on. Scared me as I did not know what the heck it was but it was loud. Turned out it was them starting up the plant and the plant was a few MILES away.

Never forget that.

So ...I will take a gas station in my back yard any day over a nuke.When your fossil-fuel powered electricity company sends you a monthly bill of a couple thousand dollars, I'm sure you'll sign up pretty quickly.

[BrAinPaiNt]

When your fossil-fuel powered electricity company sends you a monthly bill of a couple thousand dollars, I'm sure you'll sign up pretty quickly.

Nah...if we are going to dream I am going to dream big and have a huge crib with solar panels everywhere and a few windmills...no not those old fashion dutch ones. However, as long as I can keep the wife away from them, I may have some hot dutch girls out there keeping an eye on the windmills. :laugh2:

[theogt]

Nah...if we are going to dream I am going to dream big and have a huge crib with solar panels everywhere and a few windmills...no not those old fashion dutch ones. However, as long as I can keep the wife away from them, I may have some hot dutch girls out there keeping an eye on the windmills. :laugh2:Well, $1000+ electric bills aren't really uncommon if you have a moderately large house.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Well, $1000+ electric bills aren't really uncommon if you have a moderately large house.

That's why I am going to have the Solar panels and Windmills...and the hot dutch chicks.

Geez sometimes you just gotta go with the flow here buddy, work with me. Hot dutch chicks and you are still going on about paying electric bills.

That's it, you are studying too hard on the bar exam instead of thinking about hot chicks.:laugh1:

[theogt]

That's why I am going to have the Solar panels and Windmills...and the hot dutch chicks.

Geez sometimes you just gotta go with the flow here buddy, work with me. Hot dutch chicks and you are still going on about paying electric bills.

That's it, you are studying too hard on the bar exam instead of thinking about hot chicks.:laugh1:Did you hear I have season tickets to the new stadium? Dutch chicks, beer, and Cowboys tickets. Match made in heaven. :D

[SuspectCorner]

Nuclear and fossil fuels are obviously NOT the longterm solution. Developing alternatives won't be cheap but it's time to bear down. We shoulda gotten serious about this 30 years ago and didn't. So how much longer should we delay the inevitable?

Hydrogen fuel cells seem promising... zero greenhouse emissions. But the technology will require years and years of investment.

[ABQCOWBOY]

What don't you get. I'm not willing to house a gas station in my back yard. That doesn't mean gas stations should be illegal.

Are you willing to house a gas station in your backyard? Step up or shut up.

I don't know what I'm supposed to take away from this. Obviously, neither are illegal. What's your point? May as well say, I don't want a Sewage plant in my back yard but there not illegal so as long as it's your back yard and not mine, who really cares?

Pretty typical. It's fine, it's what I expect from you Theo.

What does legal or illegal have to do with anything? Until you have a better way to dispose of the waste, it's not a good solution. Simple as that. Even you should be able to understand this.

We are only hurting ourselves by doing what we are currently doing with Nuclear waste products now.

[Ben_n_austin]

It'd sure be nice if we didn't have to waste our money on these "alternative" energy sources. Too bad people don't realize they're not long-term energy sources.

We're fine in the US. We can just live on our natural gas and coal until that runs out, then switch to nuclear for the rest of time.

But the rest of this is just a waste of money.


Ignorance is bliss. I guess a "waste of money" depends on which narrow-minded capitalist you ask.

You should actually do some research on things like gas prices and what not before you write something this uninformed and biased on a message board.

Theogt ought to read about what he's writing about before he writes..

[theogt]

I don't know what I'm supposed to take away from this. Obviously, neither are illegal. What's your point? May as well say, I don't want a Sewage plant in my back yard but there not illegal so as long as it's your back yard and not mine, who really cares?

Pretty typical. It's fine, it's what I expect from you Theo.

What does legal or illegal have to do with anything? Until you have a better way to dispose of the waste, it's not a good solution. Simple as that. Even you should be able to understand this.

We are only hurting ourselves by doing what we are currently doing with Nuclear waste products now.So, what you're saying is that you don't care if they build them and power the entire US with them, but you just don't want them to put it in your back yard. That's fine. I don't want them to put them in my back yard either.

The good thing is that they can service the entire country and not be in everyone's backyard. Those that don't mind one nearby can choose to live near them and those that do mind them can choose not to live near one.

Glad we agree.

[Ben_n_austin]

Nuclear and fossil fuels are obviously NOT the longterm solution. Developing alternatives won't be cheap but it's time to bear down. We shoulda gotten serious about this 30 years ago and didn't. So how much longer should we delay the inevitable?

Hydrogen fuel cells seem promising... zero greenhouse emissions. But the technology will require years and years of investment.

For the most part, this has been done. I think the oil companies see to it that this hasn't already been developed as a viable method to produce and consume energy.

[theogt]

Ignorance is bliss. I guess a "waste of money" depends on which narrow-minded capitalist you ask.

You should actually do some research on things like gas prices and what not before you write something this uninformed and biased on a message board.

Theogt ought to read about what he's writing about before he writes..I'm pretty well read on the issues involved, actually. Thanks.

[Ben_n_austin]

I'm pretty well read on the issues involved, actually. Thanks.

Oh, then pat yourself on the back. We're at war because people like you--who are OK with the way things are and don't want change.

The thing is, there are a half dozen ways to reduce/eliminate our dependency on oil. But you're spouting, "we'll be fine". We'll just use oil and coal until it runs out.

Tell me, when will it run out?

And how do we make a smooth transition from oil to nuclear, smart guy?

In the meantime, I guess killing women and children over our beloved commodity will suit you just fine--until we run out.

[theogt]

Oh, then pat yourself on the back. We're at war because people like you--who are OK with the way things are and don't want change.

The thing is, there are a half dozen ways to reduce/eliminate our dependency on oil. But you're spouting, "we'll be fine". We'll just use oil and coal until it runs out.

Tell me, when will it run out?

And how do we make a smooth transition from oil to nuclear, smart guy?

In the meantime, I guess killing women and children over our beloved commodity will suit you just fine--until we run out.What a ridiculous post.

[SuspectCorner]

Ignorance is bliss. I guess a "waste of money" depends on which narrow-minded capitalist you ask.

You should actually do some research on things like gas prices and what not before you write something this uninformed and biased on a message board.

Theogt ought to read about what he's writing about before he writes..

From what I've read the current hydrogen technology is anything but cost-effective and may take a couple of decades of intense and costly research before it actually becomes a viable alternative.

[doomsday_II]

I'm not posting this for a particular view, just found it interesting...

Link (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121055427930584069.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks)

Wind ($23.37) v. Gas (25 Cents)

Congress seems ready to spend billions on a new "Manhattan Project" for green energy, or at least the political class really, really likes talking about one. But maybe we should look at what our energy subsidy dollars are buying now.

Some clarity comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent federal agency that tried to quantify government spending on energy production in 2007. The agency reports that the total taxpayer bill was $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like. That's double in real dollars from eight years earlier, as you'd expect given all the money Congress is throwing at "renewables." Even more subsidies are set to pass this year.

An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized. For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and "clean coal" $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.

The wind and solar lobbies are currently moaning that they don't get their fair share of the subsidy pie. They also argue that subsidies per unit of energy are always higher at an early stage of development, before innovation makes large-scale production possible. But wind and solar have been on the subsidy take for years, and they still account for less than 1% of total net electricity generation. Would it make any difference if the federal subsidy for wind were $50 per megawatt hour, or even $100? Almost certainly not without a technological breakthrough.

By contrast, nuclear power provides 20% of U.S. base electricity production, yet it is subsidized about 15 times less than wind. We prefer an energy policy that lets markets determine which energy source dominates. But if you believe in subsidies, then nuclear power gets a lot more power for the buck than other "alternatives."

The same study also looked at federal subsidies for non-electrical energy production, such as for fuel. It found that ethanol and biofuels receive $5.72 per British thermal unit of energy produced. That compares to $2.82 for solar and $1.35 for refined coal, but only three cents per BTU for natural gas and other petroleum liquids.

All of this shows that there is a reason fossil fuels continue to dominate American energy production: They are extremely cost-effective. That's a reality to keep in mind the next time you hear a politician talk about creating millions of "green jobs." Those jobs won't come cheap, and you'll be paying for them.

Interesting. Wind and Solar are here to stay. I hope nuclear is on the rise. We need any and all resources at our disposal to combat energy prices. Does OPEC care? They have seen $127 oil not destroy our economy although it is hampered. Do they care about us? Last I heard OPEC was thinking of cutting production. What scares the heck out of me is OPEC used to fear a supply shock. Believe me, and I work in energy, oil now is cheap to what it will be in the next 5 years. I've heard of a Manhattan project type energy proposal forthcoming. I hope it's by-partison and potent. This is exacting what is needed. In my opinion, our energy needs are the most pressing geopolitical and domestic policy we can address. It has only just begun.

[Ben_n_austin]

From what I've read the current hydrogen technology is anything but cost-effective and may take a couple of decades of intense and costly research before it actually becomes a viable alternative.

http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/

See the above. Then tell me about "cost-effective".

[SuspectCorner]

http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/

See the above. Then tell me about "cost-effective".

You don't have to make a point about oil - that situation speaks for itself. I was just saying that hydrogen as a viable alternative is prolly a couple decades away. At least.

By all means - let's do whatever is required to move away from fossil and fissile fuels.

[ABQCOWBOY]

What a ridiculous post.


And you are anybody to call somebody else's post ridiculous? I think not. Perhaps you should just stick to declorations of victory and say, "Glad we agree."

:laugh2: