>> ^dystopianfuturetoday: I'm never going to convince blanco...


I'll give it a shot.

blankfist, you mentioned that zoning laws are what prevent McDonalds from setting up their corporate headquarters in a residential neighborhood. And you mentioned that as an absurdly extreme example of people doing whatever they want with their (land) property. I'm glad that you recognize it as absurd, because that implies that you also acknowledge that there are in fact sound legal limits to what a property owner may or may not do with their property, like storing nuclear waste in one's basement, or failing to cut one's grass and generally keep one's home from looking abandoned (blight). What is the legal basis for such laws if property rights are supposed to be absolute? The short answer is that they are not absolute - there are all sorts of restrictions on property rights, especially in the case of land.

But even if, for the sake of argument, I allow that property rights were absolute in the sense I think you're intending, one of the main legal bases for zoning restritctions is because it would infringe on the property rights of others, by lowering the value of their property. That same argument can be (and often is) applied to businesses. That's why strip clubs and porn shops can't be located wherever their owners would like. There are more mundane examples as well, such as the restriction on putting a big box store in the middle of a light commerical/residential mixed area. The exact same legal reasoning can be applied to the practice of discrimination of customers. By allowing a grocery store owner to hang a "whites only" sign in his window, it damages any neighboring businesses, and reduces neighboring property values in general.

That legal argument may ignore the morally repugnant aspects of discrimination, and would probably never be used in practice - it was just for the sake of argument given the premise of nearly absolute property rights. The more appropriate answer is what I mentioned above - property rights aren't even close to absolute, and the property rights of business owner's are routinely more restricted than those of private residences. The reason for that is because despite an ever growing number of Supreme Court decisions giving more and more individual rights to businesses, we're still not quite to the point of corporate citizenship.

A gas explosion recently killed 9 people in America, nuclear doesn't have a single confirmed death in the US.
Coal is much, much worse.

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation

In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.



Remember this fly ash accident, imagine how much radioactivity was dumped over the country then:

Fly ash flood covers acres
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/dec/23/fly-ash-flood-covers-acres/

Workers face "several weeks' worth of work" to clean up 3.1 million cubic feet of fly ash dumped across hundreds of acres after a retention pond collapsed early Monday morning at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston steam plant.



More:

Bush administration hid coal ash dumps' true cancer threat
http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/05/bush-administration-hid-coal-ash-dumps-true-cancer-threat.html
The Bush administration was reluctant to release information that suggested an alarmingly high cancer risk for people who live near landfills and lagoons used to store coal ash waste -- and now it turns out that it released only part of the data, hiding for years the full extent of the health threat from poorly regulated coal ash disposal.



More
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fly_ash

This is getting interesting now. I'd rate this discussion quite a bit higher than the video.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the decay during transmission was estimated at 7.2% back in 1995 (and unlikely to have gotten worse). That's a lot better than when I had expected, and doesn't supply much reason to convert to a new technology.

I've heard a bit about the battery ownership approach (undoubtedly from one of the sifted vids), and that may well offer a solution for the first two issues. It doesn't strike me as helping price, though. We'll see.

I'm far less enthusiastic about using car batteries for grid storage. That sort of aggregated solution has been proposed in other areas. The ones I'm familiar with were mainly IT-related, like using local hard-drives in a company's workstations to store backups. So far, I haven't heard of one example that didn't have serious issues. Admittedly, electricity is fungible, while data is not. But I still think control and coordination is likely to make it unfeasible. Think about the start of rush hour...all those cars that were making up a shortage get pulled off the grid in a very short time. That sort of scenario would make temporary shortages even worse, not better.

It probably -can- be done. I'm less sure it can be done efficiently and in a cost-effective manner. My own prediction is that the approach won't account for more than a miniscule fraction of storage. I'd put my money on non-battery storage, either gravitational or thermal.
>> ^demon_ix:
Well, there are downsides to centralized power generation as well. Power decays when transmitted across large distances, and even the most centralized sources still have to be spread across the world.
Some of the problems with any smart grid concept is the financial viability. Why change the whole way the grid works, when all you're gonna do is run it the same way (from power plant to end user, across miles of power cable). Changing the way the economics work, by moving the power production to the home, or to the neighborhood will make a smart grid all the more viable. People will be able to put these things in the house, use up whatever power they need, and the rest will be sold back to the grid, for use in houses that don't have this capability.
One of the solutions to electric car adoption has been sifted a few times in the past, and is about to go into full testing in Israel soon before a scheduled commercial release in 2011. I'm referring to Shai Agassi's Better Place, which has been sifted quite a few times.
By separating the battery ownership from the car, they're changing the cost of the EV from what's the main deterrent today from those cars today, which is the initial investment. Their solution to range is replacing the battery, and as long as they manage their goal of almost ubiquitous charge spots, range will not be a problem for 95% of car users.
This also relates to the smart grid concept by giving power companies the means to store electricity around the grid in the form of car batteries. The concept is called V2G, meaning the grid can take power out of the car when needed, making it a battery for storing intermittent sources, like wind or solar. By itself it's not very useful, but in large EV quantities, it becomes a very viable option.
---
Wow, I sort of went off-topic there, didn't I? This discussion was about a stationary home/neighborhood power generation device at some point.
>> ^Stormsinger:
The problem with decentralizing power generation is that there really -are- economies of scale here. Large generating plants have significantly better efficiencies in all our current technologies. Centralized plants also offer a cheaper avenue for cleaning the results, whether that means CO2 scrubbing, filtering soot, or handling nuclear waste products. Perhaps fuel cells can change that...perhaps not. But in my mind, efficiency is more important than decentralization simply for the sake of decentralization.
People will support electric cars when electric cars are available that have a reasonable range, can be conveniently and quickly recharged, and have a reasonable price tag. That's likely to be quite a while, given our current battery technology. The question of where the electricity is generated has nothing to do with it.

Well, there are downsides to centralized power generation as well. Power decays when transmitted across large distances, and even the most centralized sources still have to be spread across the world.

Some of the problems with any smart grid concept is the financial viability. Why change the whole way the grid works, when all you're gonna do is run it the same way (from power plant to end user, across miles of power cable). Changing the way the economics work, by moving the power production to the home, or to the neighborhood will make a smart grid all the more viable. People will be able to put these things in the house, use up whatever power they need, and the rest will be sold back to the grid, for use in houses that don't have this capability.

One of the solutions to electric car adoption has been sifted a few times in the past, and is about to go into full testing in Israel soon before a scheduled commercial release in 2011. I'm referring to Shai Agassi's Better Place, which has been sifted quite a few times.
By separating the battery ownership from the car, they're changing the cost of the EV from what's the main deterrent today from those cars today, which is the initial investment. Their solution to range is replacing the battery, and as long as they manage their goal of almost ubiquitous charge spots, range will not be a problem for 95% of car users.
This also relates to the smart grid concept by giving power companies the means to store electricity around the grid in the form of car batteries. The concept is called V2G, meaning the grid can take power out of the car when needed, making it a battery for storing intermittent sources, like wind or solar. By itself it's not very useful, but in large EV quantities, it becomes a very viable option.
---
Wow, I sort of went off-topic there, didn't I? This discussion was about a stationary home/neighborhood power generation device at some point.
>> ^Stormsinger:
The problem with decentralizing power generation is that there really -are- economies of scale here. Large generating plants have significantly better efficiencies in all our current technologies. Centralized plants also offer a cheaper avenue for cleaning the results, whether that means CO2 scrubbing, filtering soot, or handling nuclear waste products. Perhaps fuel cells can change that...perhaps not. But in my mind, efficiency is more important than decentralization simply for the sake of decentralization.
People will support electric cars when electric cars are available that have a reasonable range, can be conveniently and quickly recharged, and have a reasonable price tag. That's likely to be quite a while, given our current battery technology. The question of where the electricity is generated has nothing to do with it.

The problem with decentralizing power generation is that there really -are- economies of scale here. Large generating plants have significantly better efficiencies in all our current technologies. Centralized plants also offer a cheaper avenue for cleaning the results, whether that means CO2 scrubbing, filtering soot, or handling nuclear waste products. Perhaps fuel cells can change that...perhaps not. But in my mind, efficiency is more important than decentralization simply for the sake of decentralization.

People will support electric cars when electric cars are available that have a reasonable range, can be conveniently and quickly recharged, and have a reasonable price tag. That's likely to be quite a while, given our current battery technology. The question of where the electricity is generated has nothing to do with it.

>> ^MaxWilder:
I'm ecstatic about anything that moves away from fossil fuels toward home-based decentralization. When people start feeling like they are making their own electricity, they will be more likely to support electric cars. Anything to reduce the value of oil will make this a much better world.
Of course I would love to see less CO2 as well, but I'll take any steps in that direction as a giant leap forward.

Let's not forget thorium fluoride fission reactors.... compared to the uranium reactors we use we have plenty of fuel, much safer, nuclear waste safe much quicker.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Sure, nuclear reactors are expensive- but keep in mind that they've been sidelined in funding because they are NIMBY bogey man. Most of the problems you cite have been fixed in new model Thorium reactors (half-life is only 500 years, waste is small amount and they actually eat old types of nuclear waste for fuel!)

I'm not sure about that solar panel lifespan- I'm just going by someone I know who has them installed- it may have been the lead acid batteries that they had to swap out ever 5 years or so. Regardless, photovoltaic cell manufacture is a dirty fab process similar to chips- lots of toxic non-recyclable metals and burning a good deal of CO2.

I'm behind new-nuclear as a sensible stop-gap until fusion comes online.

.>> ^curiousity:
>> ^dag:
As far as efficiency goes, I'd take fission over solar.
The amount of square feet required to make solar energy as well as the material required for all of those panels- heavy metals and toxic chemicals- and a short equipment lifespan make them about as well thought-out as ethanol- which is to say not at all.
If we could get over our irrational nuclear fears- nuclear fission really is the best option for the planet in the short term, and then roll on the fusion when it gets here. 10 years right?

Much of the cost for fission reactors is hidden by government subsides. Cost is definitely a reason that there hasn't been a new nuclear reactor build in the US for over 30 years. They are damn expensive. And then the real cost comes with storage of radiated materials. A storage fee that will last a long time.
Last time I checked, most decent solar panels come with a 25-year warranty which means they might last 30 to 50 years if not damaged. There are also solar-based plants that focus sunlight to heat water to drive turbines - much more efficient that current solar panel technology. I can't compare solar energy to ethanol in good faith.

Is coal waste worse than Nuclear waste?

http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Geologic_disposal

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

"Victims of Radiation"

bombing the coast of Somalia? Disgusting, futile, stupid. To hear someone even suggest that is a logical solution to such an incredibly complex issue without knowing or even trying to empathize with all sides of the issue is nauseating.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4312553.stm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/you-are-being-lied-to-abo_b_155147.html

If you're family was covered in rashes and tumors from nuclear waste washing up on your shores and your fellow countrymen couldn't feed themselves because opportunists were stealing their fish, wouldn't you be a goddamn hero for trying to defend your waters and attempt to get some payback for the damage done? I guess not. Sorry you were born in a country without a government, but go frak yourself and suck on the toxic by-products of the civilized world. By no means, am I advocating terrorism or piracy, but I'd suggest its unfair and hypocritical to pass such clear and belligerent judgments without a critical analysis of the entire situation. Violence is indeed an occasionally appropriate response, but working on the causes of this problem seems a lot more logical than breaking out bombs and bullets.

I don't know what nuclear waste created that but, one way or another, I'd make sushi with it.

interesting, but i'm very skeptical of the timeframes given... not to mention the hypothetical building costs for this hypothetical commercial energy production

as an example of this, here's a recent time magazine article on the "comeback" of nuclear power plants:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1869203,00.html

just look at those cost overruns and timeframes for a *known* and now-politically acceptable method of energy production -- now we just need to get over our fears of safely transporting our nuclear waste by inter-state rail to the massive yucca mountain repository

all that aside, i really hope that we don't put all our eggs in one basket - there's certainly no dearth of promising energy alternatives

imho, this man is brilliant - please take the time to consider this testimonial

http://www.oceancommission.gov/meetings/may13_14_02/craven_testimony.pdf

for further consideration:

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

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

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

http://www.evhotspot.com/ocean-current.html

http://www.gizmag.com/energy-island-otec/8714/

anyway, good sift... thanks

Safe way to store nuclear energy? Did he mean nuclear waste?

I have a certain sympathy for Libertarian ideas, and I like the way Mr. Paul states his opinions without all the obfuscating sentimental baggage we get from most pols. But I also have many reservations. Here are couple of examples.

The thing that worries me about Libertarians promoting nuclear energy is that that I assume they mean a 100% unregulated nuclear industry. It seems dangerously naive to assume that the small circle of people in charge of any given plant would have any free-market motivation at all to embrace the extra expense of safely disposing of the nuclear waste. They are more likely to find ways to justify to themselves that a "sweep it under the carpet" type solution will be just fine so long as they maintain the right to collect the profits at the end of each year. Then, after many years of neglect, with all the profits having been spent and the perpetrators safely retired, we get permanent radio active disaster areas popping up all over the place. I don't see how the free market is going to help at all at that point. There is no profit associated with cleaning up nuclear disaster areas and with no taxes and no government, I don't see who is going to volunteer for the dangerous, dirty hard work that pays nothing.

I am also not necessarily convinced that simply allowing everybody to keep as much money as they can earn is even the best possible solution even for the very people who imagine they would benefit most from such a policy. It *seems* obvious that if I have, for example $20,000 more in my bank account than I would otherwise have, then I am better off as a result. But that $20,000 is really nothing in relation to the national economy. It will not enable me to, for example, fix the problems created by toxic nuclear waste dump that just happened to burst open upriver from my home town after a recent storm. Imagine also that EVERYBODY has that extra $20,000. We'd all think it stupidly obvious that we are all better off. But many people are likely to spend it in ways that may make both my and their lives much worse. Again, to a degree that the extra 20k in our accounts cannot compensate for. For example, if everybody living in my town suddenly received enough of a tax break, then we might all celebrate by buying a car rather than continuing to cycle or bus to work. But in fact, everybody might actually be worse off because of the extra traffic, smog and loss of exercise. With all the new traffic, it might actually take longer to get to work--even for those who continue to take buses--but everybody would just sit in their cars anyway damning the traffic like it was uniquely everybody else's fault; no amount of extra money or tax breaks will get them there faster. So, time again to dust off that old cycle (also an example of an alternative to burning fossil fuels, but hardly a comprehensive solution to the problem.)

I think capitalism (i.e., the free market) works because it is fundamentally based on the assumption that all people are greedy, lazy, selfish and stupid. Exceptions to this are rare enough that the system winds up working acceptably well, or at least out competing alternatives attempted until now. People go to work because they realize that they are forced to if they want to eat and show off or whatever and so long as it seems like they are adequately compensated for their efforts, they consider the situation tolerable and think they are "free". Everybody might secretly prefer to be poets rather than janitors, but the free market ensures that bad poetry doesn't pay very well, thereby ensuring that we don't end up with a 100% population of layabout poets and we can all avoid starving to death. Fine. On average, everything looks good. But as soon as someone is permitted to accept inherited privilege or wealth, we are looking at an exception to the free market. This person has profited without regard to contribution or ability and is therefore just as much a violation of the free market as is a welfare recipient (otherwise, the much more popular target of free-market cheer leaders). I would argue that this person is in fact a more dangerous aberration to the system than the welfare recipient because it frees him or her (let's call her "Paris") to apply influences to society that are out of proportion to her ability, compassion or understanding of the consequences. It also lets her not care if everything goes to shit because she will always have enough money to buy a house far away from whatever problems she produces (through nuclear waste mismanagement, for example) and even her own private army to fight off the malcontents when they come knocking. Once the Libertarians have knocked down all government and regulations, how are we to deal with Paris? Do we all deserve to suffer because of our poor choice of birth parents?

Ron Paul is also anti-choice on the abortion issue. Hardly a Libertarian opinion. I suppose that's why he left the Libertarians to join the Republicans.

I'm all in favor of closing all the military bases and bankrupting most the defense industry, though.

"The free market is very protective of the environment."
-
Yeah, Exxon Mobil really super awesomely cares about the environment!


"We do know a source of energy that's cheap and clean and that's nuclear energy"
-
Yeah, nuclear waste is super-duper clean!



I'm totally voting for Ron Paul.

I think they were testing the integrity of a nuclear waste containment vessel.