So much for a Nissan Leaf!

[buickanddeere]

Yeah, a very mixed up place. HS

The government is forcing vehicle manufactures to sell "zero emissions vehicles" at a loss if need be in California. To be able to sell ICEV in California. Hence the EV's.

 

[ultrarunner]

The government is forcing vehicle manufactures to sell "zero emissions vehicles" at a loss if need be in California. To be able to sell ICEV in California. Hence the EV's.

San Francisco-area municipalities make big electric car purchase - Newsday

 

[Loren49]

3rd world countries don't handle radioactive materials any safer than they do any other toxic compound.
You still haven't solved the problem of what really causes health problems in society. Namely toxic compound that do not degrade over time. Remember lead, cadmium, mercury, arsenic, asbestos etc . If you are concerned about health effects, go after those .
I can see eight nuclear reactors from my farm, beats you.
I've read through the so called reports that the anti nuclear alarmist publish. There are for the most part conjecture and exaggeration. You don't know enough about the topic to see the lies and errors.
Ever read an article about farming in a city newspaper? There is an appalling lack of accuracy there as well.
Ever wonder why you bought downwind of two nuclear plants? Sounds like those people who purchase a home near an existing airport. Then launch an excessive noise lawsuit against the airport.

List of extremely hazardous substances - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was born in 1949 and the nuclear plant was born in 1974. Poor example in my case! My family. friends, and farm were here first.

I have said nothing about other toxic substances. Many of these substances are highly regulated. You should be careful about emphasizing this substances as it could be taken as "anti-business" and you could be labeled an environmentalist! :laughing: (that's my humor for the morning.

I agree with your example of city - farmer understanding gap.

We have a choice on how to produce electricity and considering all of the true costs and consequences is the right thing to do. I agree that there are some unfair and exaggerated accounts out there but there are examples on either side of nuclear. (and other energy sources)


Nuclear decommissioning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cost[edit]

In USA many utility estimates now average $325 million per reactor all-up (1998 $).
In France, decommissioning of Brennilis Nuclear Power Plant, a fairly small 70 MW power plant, already cost €480 million (20x the estimate costs) and is still pending after 20 years. Despite the huge investments in securing the dismantlement, radioactive elements such as Plutonium, Cesium-137 and Cobalt-60 leaked out into the surrounding lake.[107][108]
In the UK, decommissioning of the Windscale Advanced Gas Cooled Reactor (WAGR), a 32 MW prototype power plant, cost €117 million.
In Germany, decomm
Decommissioning funds[edit]

In Europe there is considerable concern over the funds necessary to finance final decommissioning. In many countries either the funds do not appear sufficient to cover decommissioning and in other countries decommissioning funds are used for other activities, putting decommissioning at risk, and distorting competition with parties who do not have such funds available.[109]
Currently the European Commission is looking into this issue. It is estimated, that during the next two decades, the dismantling of the 150 nuclear reactors in Europe will cost around €150 billion, with an average cost of 1 billion per reactor.[110]
In Europe there is considerable concern over the funds necessary to finance final decommissioning. In many countries either the funds do not appear sufficient to cover decommissioning and in other countries decommissioning funds are used for other activities, putting decommissioning at risk, and distorting competition with parties who do not have such funds available.[109]
Currently the European Commission is looking into this issue. It is estimated, that during the next two decades, the dismantling of the 150 nuclear reactors in Europe will cost around €150 billion, with an average cost of 1 billion per reactor.[110]
Similar concerns exist in the United States, where the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has located apparent decommissioning funding assurance shortfalls and requested 18 power plants to address that issue.[111

In spite of these challenges nuclear appears to be alive and well:
Plans for New Nuclear Reactors Worldwide
Plans For New Reactors Worldwide
(Updated March 2013)
Nuclear power capacity worldwide is increasing steadily, with over 60 reactors under construction in 13 countries.
Most reactors on order or planned are in the Asian region, though there are major plans for new units in the USA and Russia.
Significant further capacity is being created by plant upgrading.
Plant life extension programs are maintaining capacity, in USA particularly.

Energy subsidies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Critics allege that the most important subsidies to the nuclear industry have not involved cash payments, but rather the shifting of construction costs and operating risks from investors to taxpayers and ratepayers, burdening them with an array of risks including cost overruns, defaults to accidents, and nuclear waste management. Critics claim that this approach distorts market choices, which they believe would otherwise favor less risky energy investments.[23]
Many energy analysts, such as Clint Wilder, Ron Pernick and Lester Brown, have suggested that energy subsidies need to be shifted away from mature and established industries and towards high growth clean energy. They also suggest that such subsidies need to be reliable, long-term and consistent, to avoid the periodic difficulties that the wind industry has had in the United States.[21][24]
A 2012 study authored by researchers at the Breakthrough Institute, Brookings Institution, and World Resources Institute[25] estimated that between 2009 and 2014 the federal government will spend $150 billion on clean energy through a combination of direct spending and tax expenditures. Renewable electricity (mainly wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, and tidal energy) will account for the largest share of this expenditure, 32.1%, while spending on liquid biofuels will account for the next largest share, 16.1%. Spending on multiple and other forms of clean energy, including energy efficiency, electric vehicles and advanced batteries, high-speed rail, grid and transportation electrification, nuclear, and advanced fossil fuel technologies, will account for the remaining share, 51.8%. Moreover, the report finds that absent federal action, spending on clean energy will decline by 75%, from $44.3 billion in 2009 to $11.0 billion in 2014.

Two different looks:
Public Citizen Climate and Energy
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Energy-Subsidies-and-External-Costs/

Loren

 

[Loren49]

Remember plutonium and uranium are very heavy, so the total volume of the stuff the industry has created isn't very large:

"Over the past four decades, the entire industry has produced 71,780 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. If used fuel assemblies were stacked end-to-end and side-by-side, this would cover a football field about seven yards deep." Or another way, a cube about 98 feet on each side. Nuclear Energy Institute - Nuclear Waste Amounts & On-Site Storage

The tonnage sounds scary, but the volume isn't much.

Wind and solar on a nationwide scale are just not practical. Wind is unreliable--we were in one of the best wind power areas, the Columbia River Gorge on Saturday, and there was no wind. Solar and wind require millions of acres, much of which would have environmental problems. A couple decades back a solar project in SoCal had to deal with the desert tortoise. For timber sales we had to deal with numerous threatened or endangered plants as well as the spotted owl. The owl has shut down timber management on much of California, Oregon and Washington, among the best timber producing areas in the world, and for much of that it was politics at work, not real science--I know, I was there.

The Union of Concerned Scientists and Friends of the Earth are not objective organizations, they are environmental groups with biases just like industry. If you don't trust industry you shouldn't trust environmental groups either, they both tilt and spin to support their own objectives.

Charity Navigator Rating - Union of Concerned Scientists

Top two people in this nonprofit make over $200,000 each

Issue stances[edit]
In the UCS-published book The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices: Practical Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists, the authors attempt to give practical advice to consumers to "help...distinguish the critical from the trivial and make choices that are congruent with your values." The book identifies using a fuel-efficient car and driving less as the number one way most people can reduce their environmental impact. The authors say minor choices such as choosing between paper or plastic bags do not have that much overall impact.[9]
The UCS supports an increase in Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, as well as a reduction in smog pollution from construction equipment and diesel trucks and the enactment of state laws to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, based on California's regulations. The group supports deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, as well as national and international action to combat climate change. The organization has also produced several reports on regional effects of climate change in the United States.[10][11] The group supports increased taxes for polluters to discourage pollution and incentives for environmentally beneficial practices.[9]
The UCS supports a national renewable energy standard which would require utilities to produce a certain percentage of their energy from sources such as wind power, solar energy and geothermal energy. The group also supports a national energy efficiency standard for home appliances.[9] The UCS also acknowledges that nuclear power can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but maintains that it must become much safer and cheaper before it can be considered a workable solution to global warming. They support increased safety enforcement from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission among other steps to improve nuclear power.[12] UCS has been critical of proposed Generation III reactor designs. Edwin Lyman, a senior staff scientist at UCS, has challenged specific cost-saving design choices made for both the AP1000 and ESBWR. Lyman is concerned about the strength of the steel containment vessel and the concrete shield building around the AP1000. The AP1000 containment vessel does not have sufficient safety margins, says Lyman.[13]
The UCS in 2008 referred to the EPR as the only new reactor design under consideration in the United States that "...appears to have the potential to be significantly safer and more secure against attack than today's reactors."[14]
The UCS has also endorsed the Forests Now Declaration, which calls for new market based mechanism to protect forests, as the group has recognised the importance of curbing deforestation to tackle climate change.[15] The group also supports governmental incentives for people who want to preserve undeveloped land instead of selling it to developers.[9]
The Union of Concerned Scientists has accused the US government of dozens of instances of political interference in science[16] and supports whistleblower protection, monetary incentives, and free speech rights for federal scientists. Its scientific integrity program has produced surveys of federal scientists at multiple agencies[17] and a statement signed by more than 11,000 scientists condemning political interference in science.[18]
The UCS supports the reduction of antibiotic use on livestock to prevent medical antibiotic resistance in humans who consume treated animals. It also opposes cloning animals for food, as well as forms of genetic engineering.
The group opposes the use of space weapons and supports the idea of an international treaty to regulate military uses of space. The group also works on reducing the number of nuclear weapons around the world and opposes the Reliable Replacement Warhead program. The group criticizes the technical feasibility of building a missile defense shield.

Union of Concerned Scientists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Criticism[edit]
The UCS has been criticized by conservative, libertarian and right-wing groups for being "left-wing" and "liberal".[34][35] The UCS has also been criticized by individuals who reject the science of global warming such as televangelist Jerry Falwell who cautioned Evangelical Christians against "falling for...global warming hocus-pocus" propagated in the mass media, with the UCS "leading the charge".[36]

Loren

 

[DarkBlack]

Loren, most people use a simple link to give readers a chance to see other website's contents.
There's no blue ribbon awarded on TBN ( that I'm aware of ) for copying and pasting the largest volume of other website's content to TBN. If there ever is, rest assured.. I'll vote for you in that catagory.

 

[DarkBlack]

San Francisco-area municipalities make big electric car purchase - Newsday

Absolute utter nitwits... and anyone else who can't see through this farce.

Citing a recent study, the report notes that, "given current capacity, California's electric grid would be unable to handle the conversion of more than 15 percent of the current automobile stock to electric vehicles."
Peak Fuel Report Offers Sober Assessment of San Francisco

So yeh, use tax payer money, to be some of the "pioneers" to purchase battery cars that cause as much or more environmental harm than conventional... drawing off a grid system that has already been identified as only able to support only 15% of cars there presently, if they were to go to batteries.:duh:

Way to go San Fran!!
That's environment political stupidity on a new high level. :thumbdown:

 

[Loren49]

Loren, most people use a simple link to give readers a chance to see other website's contents.
There's no blue ribbon awarded on TBN ( that I'm aware of ) for copying and pasting the largest volume of other website's content to TBN. If there ever is, rest assured.. I'll vote for you in that catagory.

It seems that some post strictly opinions and don't bother to do any research and a little copy/paste with a bit of bold print seems appropriate. You won't hurt my feelings if you just skip my posts. Your snide comments are not constructive and add nothing to the conversation.

Loren

 

[DarkBlack]

Why are you so afraid to post in your own words?

 

[buickanddeere]

 

[Steppenwolfe]

Why are you so afraid to post in your own words?

Loren, don't mind that guy. I enjoyed your post as is. DB has a habit of being annoying.