Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:
I seriously doubt that the "hidden costs" of your use of electricity
is completely covered by what you pay.
That is correct.
Want to pay more?
Yes, I do want to pay more, and I shall, as soon as "green
electricity" becomes available. I have signed up for it.
Say, $500-600 per month more?
No, the difference is nowhere near as large as this. At least not for
someone who consumes as little electricity as I do. The hidden costs
of gasoline are far greater than the hidden costs of electricity. In
Georgia, the hidden costs are mainly for pollution and global warming
caused by coal. Unfortunately, 63% of our electricity comes from
coal. We have no wind resources and no untapped hydro, so the only
alternative is more nuclear power (presently 27%). I would be happy
to pay extra for all-nuclear power.
See: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/states/statesga.html
Much electricity is derived from oil, and almost all of it is from
fossil fuels.
No, only about 3% of electricity is derived from oil, and that
includes fractions of oil that cannot be used for any other purpose.
It is mainly used for peak generators in some rural areas, and even
this is declining. Petroleum power generation was never large; it
peaked in 1978 at about 22% of U.S. generation (365 billion kWH), and
it has fallen to 3% (90 billion kWH, 2002 data). See the Annual
Energy Review, EIA.
You get no free ride either, buddy. But again, of course it is
different when it is YOU.
You are the one demanding a free ride, not me.
No you do not. That's the problem. Your fuel costs you $2 per
gallon and it costs the rest of us $3 extra in hidden costs. You
are forcing the rest of us to bail you out.
Buses and trains use fossil fuels as well.
They use much less per passenger mile. That's the point. Plus they
are flexible. In California, where only 1% of electricity is
generated from coal, electric trains produce far less global warming
than they do in Georgia or New York.
As I said above, so does most electricity in this nation, and the
world in fact...particularly the hell than is China...with their
coal plants they must be accruing a SERIOUS "hidden cost"... maybe
we should destroy that nation entirely for the good of the planet?
They are destroying their own nation. If they would build wind and
nuclear power generators instead, they will prevent this destruction.
(They do not have much solar energy where the energy is needed.)
Logic such as yours can be dragged out to ridiculous extremes.
That is called the "slippery slope" logical fallacy. See:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
Again, you want to pay a few hundred extra per month for
electricity? No? Then screw off attempting to control our lives.
This is completely incorrect. In California, electricity costs only a
little more than in Georgia or New York, and they produce far less
pollution and carbon per kWH. If present trends continue they will
produce no carbon at all 30 to 50 years from now, and the cost per
kWH will be lower than our coal-based electricity.
No it should not. It is a sure thing. You might as well debate
whether cold fusion is real.
Tell that to Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, etc. They
question what is going on.
Dyson also does not believe in cold fusion. I do not know about these
others. But it is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact --
that is, scientific evidence. If these people deny the facts about
cold fusion or global warming, and you beleive them, you have have
made another logical error. See:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
I suppose you think they are all idiots.
With regard to this subject, yes.
People like Park feel the same way about cold fusion researchers.
Yes, but they are wrong, and I am right. I have the facts and the
science to back up my claims, whereas they do not. It is the same
with your assertion that clean electricity would cost me "hundreds
more." That assertion can be checked against actual cost data from
California, Germany, nuclear power in Georgia, and other sources. I
can prove that clean electricity would not cost me hundreds.
Therefore you are wrong. This is not a matter of opinion.
You really don't get it do you? If you put that kind of tax on
travel, you will DESTROY the US economy overnight.
Nonsense. The U.S. is made of sterner stuff than that. We Americans
accomplished great things in the past. We won terrible wars in 1860
(won and lost), 1918 and 1945. We can fix this problem too, and we
can certainly live with a tax. Our economic competitors in Europe and
Asia do. I for one do not think that Americans are weaker, stupider
or less resourceful than people in Europe and Asia. I have been to
these places, lived there, and I am not afraid to compete with them.
People will starve, riot, the cities will burn.
You seem to think that Americans are helpless babies who cannot live
without welfare payments! Are we really so stupid we cannot make our
transportation safe and pollution free? I have to pay the hidden
costs for your gasoline? I think we can fix our problems at least as
well the people in Denmark or Germany do.
I am helping people do cold fusion experiments, in many ways.
Do tell.
See: lenr-canr.org.
Now I did not know that. I would have expected the media to have
defended her, as one of their own. Probably the truth didn't make a
very interesting story, however. Shame on me for listening to the mass media.
I recommend original sources. See, for example:
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/02/08/dod_pelosi_letter.pdf
The media is not reliable regarding cold fusion either.
I think it would be more practical to use the solar power directly,
for electricity and heat. To make synthetic fuel nuclear energy
might be a better choice.
Who pays the hidden costs of extracting that nuclear fuel, and
cleaning up the radioactive crap belched out by these facilities?
This used to be a problem, but the cost is now is now built into the
nuclear powered electricity, with a large surtax (a couple pennies
per kWh, as I recall, but that is a lot). This is used for a trust
fund that should cover decommissioning and cleaning up the mines,
which are a lot better than they used to be.
GM is selling SUVs. Our corporations and consumers are at fault.
Some leaders in the U.S., such as the U.S. Toyota managers, and
some U.S. consumers -- such as me -- have done a lot to fix these problems.
You bought a Prius...you've done so much.
I have done my share. Buying a Prius a few years ago was a sacrifice
-- or an investment, to be exact. The payback was slow when gasoline
still cost $1.50. I spent a lot of money on a new car when the old
one gave up the ghost. I re-insulated my house. I am willing to pay
more for "green electricity." I buy locally gown, low-energy input
food. What more do you want me to do? If everyone did their share,
the U.S. would be exporting oil. I take responsibility and pay my
share. You are the one who is whining and demanding that the rest of
us pay for your lifestyle.
Most people cannot afford those damned things, and people with a
few kids and groceries to get need something else, say a minivan.
How is that people in Europe, Japan and Korea can afford to pay for
more efficient cars, lightbulbs, insulation and food, and we cannot?
They make less than we do. "These damned things" pay for themselves
in the long run. They are a good investment.
I've worked on these things a few times, they are a nightmare to
repair, and a double nightmare to the customer.
Which things do you mean? Prius automobiles? They are not a nightmare
to repair. I know several people who have them, and I have spoken at
length with the Toyota mechanics who maintain my car. They agree with
me that the Prius is an engineering masterpiece and they report is
*far* easier to repair and maintain than the older technology. Of
course you have to have sophisticated and expensive computerized
equipment. That is the price you must pay for more sophisticated technology.
ain't the damned answer either, and it looks like it never will be in the
forseeable future.
I disagree. If it has been developed properly starting in 1989, I
am pretty sure that by now it would supply most of energy, or all
of our energy.
Then why isn't it being demonstrated absolutely, conclusively?
Because it was not developed properly, as I said.
Dog eat dog, eh? Ok. How about a federal ban on any environmental impact
studies when we start paving the desert with solar collectors.
There is no need to pave the desert when installing solar
collectors! This would be a very bad idea, in fact. You have to
leave the open dirt under the collectors to absorb rainwater. In
Europe they grow grass under collectors, and graze sheep.
I wasn't being literal.
I am not sure what you had in mind, in that case. Anyway, solar
collectors have few adverse effects on the land. Actually, they help
livestock and some wildlife, by providing shade.
- Jed
