John Stossel Wind Power and NIMBY
From 2003, NIMBY and NRDC attempted to block wind farms off of Nantukett.
Duration : 0:5:5
DIY Solar Hot Water
Water heating takes up a massive 33% of your power bill, do something about it today and start saving tomorrow. Click Here Now!
February 5, 2010
4:11 pm
Democrates are all …
Democrates are all the same, do as I say not as do.
February 5, 2010
4:11 pm
rich liberals I am …
rich liberals I am sure would love the rest of us, to go back to the middle ages. They on the other hand would live the same and have access to all the toys.
February 5, 2010
4:11 pm
HYPOCRITES!!
HYPOCRITES!!
February 5, 2010
4:11 pm
It’s a classic case …
It’s a classic case of do as I say not as I do
February 5, 2010
4:11 pm
Dear Informed …
Dear Informed Skeptic,
A quick check revealed the following;
Elise 21 / 27 mpg city / highway
Vette 16 / 26 mpg city / highway
MSRP
Elise Convertable $47,250
Corvette LT1 Coup $48,930
LT1 Convertable $53,580
Given the big difference in city MPG it is not unreasonable to suppose that for many people the Elise could cost less for than the Corvette. That is, untill it comes time to buy parts.
My larger point is that vast improvements are possible and needed.
February 5, 2010
4:11 pm
Some corvette …
Some corvette owners experience knocking with regular fuel when the vehicle is used in anger.
My comment on fuel economy was based on the comment of a person who has owned both vehicles. Power is proportionate to fuel use. If a vehicle has less mass it will (given the same engine) usually do better in terms of economy. Unless one takes advantage of the added performance.
There is also the cost of materials to be considered. As well as labor and energy costs.
Yes, bright. Really.
February 5, 2010
4:11 pm
Your comparison of …
Your comparison of the Corvette and the Elise is humorous at best. Too bad the supercharged four cylinder Toyota engine barely gets better gas mileage than the 8 cylinder Corvette. It accelerates on par with the 6.2L vette that uses regular not premium gas. The annual fuel cost difference is miniscule. Additionally, the vette is cheaper, has a better range (300+ miles vs. 200) and more cargo space (22 cu ft vs. 4). Yes, 4 cu ft. Bright green? Really?
February 5, 2010
4:11 pm
What a load of …
What a load of elitist shit! Old hypocrites! They look nice! WTF? Why would you be against wind turbines? What a bunch of bastards holding back green energy for the oil barons!
February 5, 2010
4:11 pm
I love it, the …
I love it, the Kennedy’s and their ilk like the idea of windfarms, somewhere ELSE…….
February 5, 2010
4:11 pm
lol and Walter once …
lol and Walter once said that he would move to Denmark when he would retire.
February 5, 2010
4:11 pm
Very typical of …
Very typical of NIMBYISM.
February 5, 2010
4:11 pm
Holy crap. (lol)
…
Holy crap. (lol)
If that is not rich liberalism at its worse, I don’t what is.
February 5, 2010
4:11 pm
Sure, ” …
Sure, “misregulation “sounds better. The point is on the public side I hear people shouting more regulation on one side and less on the other. Both actually want the same thing. They want the crooks caught with fair rules. Ideally simple rules.
I’m personally against the extension of labyrinthine rules.
February 5, 2010
4:11 pm
Would you agree to …
Would you agree to the term misregulation being applicable?
February 5, 2010
4:11 pm
LordV is absolutely …
LordV is absolutely right. Bush didn’t really deregulate anything. Loopholes were created along with more laws, government branches and federal aid, but nothing was really rescinded. Laws were written on top of more laws and negated aspects of previous laws while making it much more complex.
When you hear “deregulation” on the news the above is what they mean. When you say it (like most) you mean dropping important laws that helped people. That never happened.
February 5, 2010
4:11 pm
yeah, but what …
yeah, but what brought Madoff to light? it was private action
What brought Enron to light? It was private action.
And deregulation? So, how come the regulations were bigger AFTER they deregulated, than before?
They call it DE-regulation, what it actually is, is RE-regulation. which doesn’t mean that they reduced it
February 5, 2010
4:11 pm
My take on the …
My take on the situation is that as peoples attitudes have and are changing the NIMBY problem will lessen. Democracies respond to peoples attitudes. Which is why nuclear construction halted in the US.
There are those who see Madoff, Enron, and the Banking meltdown, as a failure to regulate, aka deregulation.
Absent the courts, which are part of the government, Mr. Madoff would be free to do as he pleased.
In my view setting efficiency standards makes good sense.
February 5, 2010
4:11 pm
and I think that is …
and I think that is great, I’m all about nuclear, especially if it gets you global warming people to shut up for thirty seconds.
But again, as soon as the gov gets out of the way, it’ll be a lot easier
The gov cannot regulate anything, look at Madoff, he got a stamp of approval. Look at Enron, they had a stamp of approval. Look at the Mortgage market, they got a stamp of approval, in fact, they got thunderous applause
We don’t need gov to help, all we need is for them to step out of the way
February 5, 2010
4:11 pm
“once started it …
“once started it can’t be stopped”
True and a good point. But it is feasable to just waste all the heat produced.
granted, not very $smart
Florida’s power company is currently either planning or actually surcharging their customers to finance new nuclear plant construction.
And Lamar Alexander has introduced a bill to finance 100 new plants.
Texans are building wind farms like hot cakes.
& couple a weeks ago I saw a “Go Green Go Nuclear” bumper sticker next to a peace sign!
February 5, 2010
4:11 pm
great, lets build …
great, lets build more nuclear plants, you let me know when the US congress legalizes it.
Currently there is so much red tape to go through, we haven’t built a nuclear power plant in what? like 30 years?
If you remove the red tape, they will get built without one tax dollar spent.
Oh, and so you know, you can only supply 80% of your electric grid with nuclear, cause once the reaction is started, it cant be stopped, so you have to generate the power
you need flexibility in 20%
February 5, 2010
4:11 pm
this is the same as …
this is the same as supporting the release of Gitmo prisoners…as long as they aren’t housed in your backyard. If people are going to claim they support wind farms they should be willing to put up with the eyesore.
February 5, 2010
4:11 pm
LV
Nuclear is …
LV
Nuclear is not, as I know, the cheapest non-fossil-fuel power source per KiloWatt Hour.
The other side of the solution is effeciency. Efficiency means getting the same stuff with less waste.
Example: Compare a Lotus Elise with a Chevy Corvette. They both do the same thing. But one accelerates almost as fast as a Ducatti 998 while powered with a toyota 4 cylinder engine.
The future is not dull and dismal green. It could be bright green. And it could be a lot better + FUN.
February 5, 2010
4:11 pm
Think of it as …
Think of it as insurance. You do something to avert a threat. Which includes a lot. It includes the finite nature of fosil fuels. The national security issue (gulf wars). The balance of trade issue. Global warming is just one more item of a host of reasons to move off of fosil fuels.
And at least with electric power, are we going to have a revolution because we make a quick change over to renewables or nuclear power?
But if OPEC turns the screws on us?
If bad AGW effects take place?
February 5, 2010
4:11 pm
Cost to replace …
Cost to replace total U.S. electrical capacity with nuclear power (capital costs only).
Oh a caveat, I am assuming some ecconomies of scale. And you wouldn’t build them all in one year. 412/40=10.3 per year.
(412 plants x 4 billion) / 40 year = cost/year
(cost/year) / population US = per capita-cost
$41,200,000,000. cost/year
$137.33 cost per person per year.
Now is 137 dollars for 40 years is not a police state? Is it?
My point is the cost of actition is not to bad.
February 5, 2010
4:11 pm
LV
What I …
LV
What I support is building a lot of non-carbon producing electrical capacity.
I don’t want armed goons & I don’t want oppresion.
The question I ask is what is the cost? And what is the time scale? The time scale is about 40 years. (2009-2050) The goal is reducing emisions by 80%.
So lets due the math. Take the U.S. 20% of electric comes from 104 nuclear power plants. So build 412 plants over 40 years for 300 million people. At a cost of 4 billion a plant.