Hadn't really seen a thread about it, so figured I would start the discussion.
Clean power plan... What do you guys think?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off...-standards
http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean...wer-plants
Personally, I don't feel that this will have any appreciable impact on "global warming" (whether you subscribe to that theory or not). Additioanlly, I feel that a 32% decrease is too aggressive and will have negative impact on economies - especially in coal dependent states. I am not anti-clean energy, but i would prefer to see it employed in ways that are actually economically viable and not force-fed like this.
Discuss.
My clean power plan:
Build nuclear power plants.
The end.
We've already seen emails between the administration / EPA and activist groups on this plan, which is a clear violation of the equal protection law which governs policies that the EPA is trying to implement. The courts have been shooting these EPA policies down as of late, and with this one already being found to have had influence by one side, it probably wont see the light of day. Also, the courts have stated that the financial costs must be considered before implementing policies.
Enviromentalist idiots:
>We need clean energy to save the Earth from human-created global warming/climate change
>Outlaw coal and oil power
-"Nuclear is 100% clean, practical, emission-free, and renewable. We could try building more of them to reduce reliance on older types."
>NO, NUCLEAR POWER IS THE DEBIL. I bet nuclear power is somehow tied to the Koch brothers. We need solar power plants and wind power sources that take up huge amounts of land and are horribly inefficient because reasons.
(08-05-2015 10:34 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote: [ -> ]My clean power plan:
Build nuclear power plants.
The end.
People love nuclear until someone wants to build it near them. Good luck pushing nuclear plants through on a lakefront where people live. NIMBYism will make building new nuclear exceptionally difficult.
(08-05-2015 11:14 AM)Niner National Wrote: [ -> ] (08-05-2015 10:34 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote: [ -> ]My clean power plan:
Build nuclear power plants.
The end.
People love nuclear until someone wants to build it near them. Good luck pushing nuclear plants through on a lakefront where people live. NIMBYism will make building new nuclear exceptionally difficult.
True.
I'm not saying that tons of planning won't be needed.
Obviously we not need be stupid and build on fault lines and other areas extremely susceptible to natural disasters.
(08-05-2015 10:53 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote: [ -> ]Enviromentalist idiots:
>We need clean energy to save the Earth from human-created global warming/climate change
>Outlaw coal and oil power
-"Nuclear is 100% clean, practical, emission-free, and renewable. We could try building more of them to reduce reliance on older types."
>NO, NUCLEAR POWER IS THE DEBIL. I bet nuclear power is somehow tied to the Koch brothers. We need solar power plants and wind power sources that take up huge amounts of land and are horribly inefficient because reasons.
I had no idea that nuclear was renewable. You learn something new everyday around here!
(08-05-2015 11:14 AM)Niner National Wrote: [ -> ] (08-05-2015 10:34 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote: [ -> ]My clean power plan:
Build nuclear power plants.
The end.
People love nuclear until someone wants to build it near them. Good luck pushing nuclear plants through on a lakefront where people live. NIMBYism will make building new nuclear exceptionally difficult.
There are plenty of old military bases in the middle of no where that would be perfect reactor sites.
(08-05-2015 11:27 AM)RobertN Wrote: [ -> ] (08-05-2015 10:53 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote: [ -> ]Enviromentalist idiots:
>We need clean energy to save the Earth from human-created global warming/climate change
>Outlaw coal and oil power
-"Nuclear is 100% clean, practical, emission-free, and renewable. We could try building more of them to reduce reliance on older types."
>NO, NUCLEAR POWER IS THE DEBIL. I bet nuclear power is somehow tied to the Koch brothers. We need solar power plants and wind power sources that take up huge amounts of land and are horribly inefficient because reasons.
I had no idea that nuclear was renewable. You learn something new everyday around here!
That's because you believe that 'renewable' energy really exists as opposed to simply being a marketing ploy to rail against combustion based power.
(08-05-2015 11:27 AM)RobertN Wrote: [ -> ] (08-05-2015 10:53 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote: [ -> ]Enviromentalist idiots:
>We need clean energy to save the Earth from human-created global warming/climate change
>Outlaw coal and oil power
-"Nuclear is 100% clean, practical, emission-free, and renewable. We could try building more of them to reduce reliance on older types."
>NO, NUCLEAR POWER IS THE DEBIL. I bet nuclear power is somehow tied to the Koch brothers. We need solar power plants and wind power sources that take up huge amounts of land and are horribly inefficient because reasons.
I had no idea that nuclear was renewable. You learn something new everyday around here!
I don't think it's truly renewable, but it can be reprocessed and used again in some capacity. I imagine there are limits to how many times this can be done though.
After it is spent you can spray it on your crop and grow tomacco
(08-05-2015 11:27 AM)RobertN Wrote: [ -> ] (08-05-2015 10:53 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote: [ -> ]Enviromentalist idiots:
>We need clean energy to save the Earth from human-created global warming/climate change
>Outlaw coal and oil power
-"Nuclear is 100% clean, practical, emission-free, and renewable. We could try building more of them to reduce reliance on older types."
>NO, NUCLEAR POWER IS THE DEBIL. I bet nuclear power is somehow tied to the Koch brothers. We need solar power plants and wind power sources that take up huge amounts of land and are horribly inefficient because reasons.
I had no idea that nuclear was renewable. You learn something new everyday around here!
The debate rages on. There is "grey area" regarding whether it is truly "renewable."
But yes. Thank you for your typical liberal response.
(08-05-2015 11:14 AM)Niner National Wrote: [ -> ]People love nuclear until someone wants to build it near them. Good luck pushing nuclear plants through on a lakefront where people live. NIMBYism will make building new nuclear exceptionally difficult.
That's true... but you don't need nuclear power plants on lakefronts.
There are lots of open spaces if we can figure out a better way to transmit that power... but as soon as we start talking about that, the environmentalists go nuts about that as well. I don't want to turn our wildlife preserves into factories, but I'd give up a few hundred acres out of millions to 'save the planet', wouldn't you?
That's what people don't seem to understand. Right now, the whole world is our 'toilet'. While concentrating it may make that one place uglier, it doesn't have to be ugly, and you can make the rest of the house prettier.
It seems that if you were to design the US today, you'd have single easements with rail and electrical and liquid lines (whether they be oil or water or milk or gas or kool aid) to limit the environmental impact (footprint) while concentrating the risks. Too expensive to do now, but we could/should still try and do this where we can.
(08-05-2015 11:39 AM)Niner National Wrote: [ -> ]After it is spent you can spray it on your crop and grow tomacco
Is that (genetically) Modified tobacco? lol
(08-05-2015 11:14 AM)Niner National Wrote: [ -> ] (08-05-2015 10:34 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote: [ -> ]My clean power plan:
Build nuclear power plants.
The end.
People love nuclear until someone wants to build it near them. Good luck pushing nuclear plants through on a lakefront where people live. NIMBYism will make building new nuclear exceptionally difficult.
I live in a large town that has Arkansas Nuclear 1 & 2. Feel free to build Arkansas 3,4,5, and 6.
(08-05-2015 12:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-05-2015 11:14 AM)Niner National Wrote: [ -> ]People love nuclear until someone wants to build it near them. Good luck pushing nuclear plants through on a lakefront where people live. NIMBYism will make building new nuclear exceptionally difficult.
That's true... but you don't need nuclear power plants on lakefronts.
There are lots of open spaces if we can figure out a better way to transmit that power... but as soon as we start talking about that, the environmentalists go nuts about that as well. I don't want to turn our wildlife preserves into factories, but I'd give up a few hundred acres out of millions to 'save the planet', wouldn't you?
That's what people don't seem to understand. Right now, the whole world is our 'toilet'. While concentrating it may make that one place uglier, it doesn't have to be ugly, and you can make the rest of the house prettier.
It seems that if you were to design the US today, you'd have single easements with rail and electrical and liquid lines (whether they be oil or water or milk or gas or kool aid) to limit the environmental impact (footprint) while concentrating the risks. Too expensive to do now, but we could/should still try and do this where we can.
(08-05-2015 11:39 AM)Niner National Wrote: [ -> ]After it is spent you can spray it on your crop and grow tomacco
Is that (genetically) Modified tobacco? lol
It's from a Simpsons episode. Homer throws a bunch of seeds on a field together and sprays it with uranium. It ends up growing a plant that looks like a tomato but is like tobacco inside. It is highly addictive and the tobacco companies offer him $100 million for it because they can sell it to children since it isn't technically tobacco.
It's one of the best episodes in the series.
As for not needing a body of water, how else do you cool the reactors?
(08-05-2015 11:14 AM)Niner National Wrote: [ -> ] (08-05-2015 10:34 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote: [ -> ]My clean power plan:
Build nuclear power plants.
The end.
People love nuclear until someone wants to build it near them. Good luck pushing nuclear plants through on a lakefront where people live. NIMBYism will make building new nuclear exceptionally difficult.
Thats true of all energy resources though. Liberals want to pound billions into wind technology, and then scream like a little b*tch when a wind farm is planned for their area.
(08-05-2015 12:18 PM)Niner National Wrote: [ -> ] (08-05-2015 12:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-05-2015 11:14 AM)Niner National Wrote: [ -> ]People love nuclear until someone wants to build it near them. Good luck pushing nuclear plants through on a lakefront where people live. NIMBYism will make building new nuclear exceptionally difficult.
That's true... but you don't need nuclear power plants on lakefronts.
There are lots of open spaces if we can figure out a better way to transmit that power... but as soon as we start talking about that, the environmentalists go nuts about that as well. I don't want to turn our wildlife preserves into factories, but I'd give up a few hundred acres out of millions to 'save the planet', wouldn't you?
That's what people don't seem to understand. Right now, the whole world is our 'toilet'. While concentrating it may make that one place uglier, it doesn't have to be ugly, and you can make the rest of the house prettier.
It seems that if you were to design the US today, you'd have single easements with rail and electrical and liquid lines (whether they be oil or water or milk or gas or kool aid) to limit the environmental impact (footprint) while concentrating the risks. Too expensive to do now, but we could/should still try and do this where we can.
(08-05-2015 11:39 AM)Niner National Wrote: [ -> ]After it is spent you can spray it on your crop and grow tomacco
Is that (genetically) Modified tobacco? lol
It's from a Simpsons episode. Homer throws a bunch of seeds on a field together and sprays it with uranium. It ends up growing a plant that looks like a tomato but is like tobacco inside. It is highly addictive and the tobacco companies offer him $100 million for it because they can sell it to children since it isn't technically tobacco.
It's one of the best episodes in the series.
As for not needing a body of water, how else do you cool the reactors?
Ah... thanks.... missed that episode but still somewhat got the reference... which to me is the sign of a good premise by those guys.
As to the body of water... I only meant you don't need a 'natural' or 'existing' lakefront (where wildlife and parks and the like already exists etc)
Dig a well or dam a river to produce enough water for the purpose in the middle of nowhere. I don't think it takes THAT much 'standing' water to do that, does it? Water that can't then be sent back downstream?
(08-05-2015 10:34 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote: [ -> ]My clean power plan:
Build nuclear power plants.
The end.
In Missispy. Stimulate that economy.
(08-05-2015 01:01 PM)firmbizzle Wrote: [ -> ] (08-05-2015 10:34 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote: [ -> ]My clean power plan:
Build nuclear power plants.
The end.
In Missispy. Stimulate that economy.
Probably not. Coast is vulnerable to hurricanes and the north is very flat and susceptible to tornadoes.
Appalachia though? More practical.
(08-05-2015 12:18 PM)Niner National Wrote: [ -> ] (08-05-2015 12:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-05-2015 11:14 AM)Niner National Wrote: [ -> ]People love nuclear until someone wants to build it near them. Good luck pushing nuclear plants through on a lakefront where people live. NIMBYism will make building new nuclear exceptionally difficult.
That's true... but you don't need nuclear power plants on lakefronts.
There are lots of open spaces if we can figure out a better way to transmit that power... but as soon as we start talking about that, the environmentalists go nuts about that as well. I don't want to turn our wildlife preserves into factories, but I'd give up a few hundred acres out of millions to 'save the planet', wouldn't you?
That's what people don't seem to understand. Right now, the whole world is our 'toilet'. While concentrating it may make that one place uglier, it doesn't have to be ugly, and you can make the rest of the house prettier.
It seems that if you were to design the US today, you'd have single easements with rail and electrical and liquid lines (whether they be oil or water or milk or gas or kool aid) to limit the environmental impact (footprint) while concentrating the risks. Too expensive to do now, but we could/should still try and do this where we can.
(08-05-2015 11:39 AM)Niner National Wrote: [ -> ]After it is spent you can spray it on your crop and grow tomacco
Is that (genetically) Modified tobacco? lol
It's from a Simpsons episode. Homer throws a bunch of seeds on a field together and sprays it with uranium. It ends up growing a plant that looks like a tomato but is like tobacco inside. It is highly addictive and the tobacco companies offer him $100 million for it because they can sell it to children since it isn't technically tobacco.
It's one of the best episodes in the series.
As for not needing a body of water, how else do you cool the reactors?
You do need water, but it doesn't have to be from a lake or a river. At
Palo Verde NGS in Arizona, they use sewage.
Interesting. While sewage is relatively stable, what do they do if there are large fluctuations? For example, southern california residents cut their water consumption by 27% so far this year to deal with the drought. Wonder if they build in enough margin for error to accommodate drops in sewage that large if they were to occur in Arizona?
I had no idea a plant like that existed. Pretty cool.