Random Politics & Religion #02

For one, I don't know how you plan on getting metals out of the ground without, you know, getting it out of the ground. That's like asking to separate the wetness from water.

For another, I know you don't look into this, but the EPA (yes, those nasty *** who like to add regulations for the sake of regulations) actually looks into how much pollution these plants produce. There are strict guidelines about the air/water/ground quality these companies use, and it has improved each year. You are probably thinking how life was back in the 1930s when you think of the pollution issues.

But in reality, it's gotten much better. Not perfect, we don't have the technology yet to make it perfect, but much better.

Read the quotes and link I provided.

On the air quality ratings, Pittsburgh is a 13%. Johnstown is a 2%.

Want to guess who might live smack dab (almost exactly) between those two cities?

When the weather gets really hot I get air quality warnings.

It is not a "1930s" problem.

And don't talk to me about regulations and policing. A WV coal baron blatantly disregarded mine safety regulations, got 29 miners killed, and got a paltry 1 year in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Safety regulations -- be they environmental or for workers -- are a joke.

I'm not saying this is a "1930s" problem.

But I am saying that air quality has improved significantly, and more recently, than what you are inferring to. I also said that it's not perfect, as it requires two things: compliance and technology.

Compliance is more than likely more lax in Pittsburgh than most other cities in the nation because of the industry of that city. Unless the federal government wants another ghost town (or city in this case) made due to their excessive regulations, they aren't going to go strongly after companies in Pittsburgh than they do in other parts of the country. Like cities/towns in Texas, for example.

But if you really want to "clean up the city," so to say, then you first need to create industries in that city that don't have to rely on those companies that pollute. You know, give the EPA a better shot at taking down those companies without putting the entire city out of work.

Opposition to nuclear power is a bipartisan problem.

You know what, regardless of what I will say, you will just take it the wrong way.

So, believe whatever you wish.

What I said was a statement. Opposition to nuclear *is* bipartisan. There's little political will to pursue the amount of spending for them. The public is terrified of them. The bureaucracy behind them is well documented.

You're kinda up a creek if the first thing people associate reactors with is Three Mile Island, Fukushima and Chernobyl.

Do we think of coal disasters when we think of energy fail? Stuff like Deepwater Horizon or coal mine disasters? Not really.

I was going to make a point about hippies being bipartisan too, but knowing you, you would have taken it the wrong way.

Also, Deepwater Horizon involves oil, not coal. Should we start making fun of you for making simple mistakes like this too?

Not my best sentence but there's a reason I said Deepwater Horizon and coal mine disasters. To differentiate them from renewables.

There is a huge shroud of ignorance and fear around nuclear power and coupled with political indifference, creates a nonstarter. Probably make more ground in solar, hydroelectric or wind but those are also political footballs.

An offshore platform blows up, devastates coastline, spills for months and we're not demanding all hydrocarbon production to cease so why should we think the same about nuclear?

Whom do think will win tonight’s Democratic debate?

20%Hillary Clinton

20%Bernie Sanders

7%They all seem to end in ties

53%I don’t care/won’t watch

Total responses: 86,157 votes


A poll from msn.com, you people make me sick...

You can do it without strip or open pit mining (e.g. properly supported long wall mining), however it is not nearly as economically feasible. Depending on the placement and availability of the particular ores. Essentially, a large part of the visible impact is related to how you handle the overburden(the part over what you want to get), with other impacts on how you handle gangue(stuff you don't want)/tailings(leftovers after processing).No, it really isn't like that whatsoever.

Sorry, I shouldn't blown up on you like that. I understood somewhat what you meant.

I completely agree with you on that. I don't know about solar getting political though. At least in San Antonio and the surrounding area, it's actually encouraged. Remember, I have a solar farm running and getting good money off of that.

But also, don't forget mob mentality. A single person or a very small group of people can be reasoned with, but the more people involved, the stupider and more hardheaded they are.

Case in point: The Trump and Sander supporters. Polar opposites of stupidity.

KN are you talking about the already active nuclear plant in Houston? They were trying to expand that one when I was still there, I guess they didn't go through with it. It still has two reactors tho.

Yes, they were supposed to open 2 more reactors to help supply power to the South Texas region.

No real difference in risk factor, beneficial to everyone in the area, yet, still got nixed for no apparent reason, due to a minority of public outrage.

Huge loss to my city's utility company. Could have used that money to spend on more of my solar energy created more solar farms and/or help others get started with solar farms.

Because there can be a fairly significant difference between oil spills and radioactive contamination, in terms of area affected, ease of dispersion, and longevity.
Also, people as a general rule don't do a very good job of objectively evaluating risks.

There is the political aspect of it, but they're limited in the areas they can be used, and they require a lot to generate anywhere close to what fossil fuels can. Wind is pretty cost effective in suitable areas, and really ought to be used more. Solar needs a lot of development to reduce the production costs. Hydroelectric is not just dams, but also tidal, ocean thermal, and some others, with each one being either not fully figured out, limited locations, or both.

Surprised nobody mentioned my link from last page: The largest coal company in the US filed for bankruptcy yesterday.

Because, you know, completely different topic.

When it comes to nuclear power I think the constituents should just be ignored. Build the plants to the best possible specifications (its 2016, not the 70s) turn them on and reap the benefits, they are practically endless. The "risks" are dependent on a 10.0 earthquake, a tsunami, or a Category 7 hurricane hitting the exact right spot, in other words, they are pretty safe.

I remember Hurricane Rita came and tore through Texas from Houston to Dallas, was there a nuclear meltdown? Nope. Classes weren't even cancelled.

Because it's not surprising at all.

The coal industry for years have been running at a net loss, but it's being subsidized by the US government.

Sure, to you or I, but I don't think everyone here is aware of the status of the various energy and fuel industries.

It's not that they aren't aware, it's that they just don't care enough, nor have reason to care enough.

Coal needs to be let go. Nuclear has always been superior and now other alternatives have emerged but coal just keeps being drug along. And its sad how its just become a political football, just the other day I saw the Fox headline "Obama's war on coal" or "Mitch McConnell is going to save the coal industry from the evil Dems." Like really, can we please just move on from coal already not because of partisan bickering, but because it sucks.

You know who pretty much supplies a majority of the workers that go to work in nuclear plants? The navy!

Nuclear plants are a huge expense and the staff you need t maintain them costs a great deal more than the others... The benefit being that it's actually cheaper to produce energy... Highly regulated materials... Negative public image from other leaks or tradgedies like in Japan... There's all sorts of stuff swirling around nuclear power plants...

Y'all keep talking like 3 Mile Island wasn't a thing or in the states. I agree nuclear power is cleaner, more efficient especially with the current generation of technology. But that doesn't mean its not a reminder when decisions are made.

Yeah, I don't care about what happened in 1979, other than Star Wars making its debut.

In FL the utility companies are trying to put solar out of the picture.

Utility-backed solar group raised over $7M to counter TPO proposal in Florida

Get the Facts - Floridians for Solar Choice

Please note that the state has so little marginal power that they will give consumers interruptible power options. Live in FL and you can get interruptible power on your hot water heater, freezer, and pool, perhaps other appliances too.

There was going to be a nuclear power plant in Oklahoma but protests apparently stopped it. The concrete was poured for the facility but stopped there. There are still large concrete drainage pipes sitting in a field visible from the highway too.