Will Nancy Pelosi torpedo House Democrats? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 15, 2024, 06:35:10 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Will Nancy Pelosi torpedo House Democrats? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Will Nancy Pelosi torpedo House Democrats?  (Read 3936 times)
Jacobtm
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,216


« on: August 02, 2008, 11:45:00 PM »
« edited: August 02, 2008, 11:47:47 PM by Jacobtm »


Similar situation. They cost between $4-8 billion to construct. That's a LONG time till profitability, and by about the time that time comes, they'll likely be in the process of being phased out by alternative energy sources.

Besides, why do we need them anyway? We still have plenty of cheap electricity.

Of course, our "cheap electricity" is gradually becoming more and more expensive. As prosperity spreads throughout the world, demand for Coal is growing and growing, and we know what that does to price.

Until we get a national DC power grid, areas that aren't very windy or very sunny will need local power-plants to supply their energy.

Our current power grids uses AC currents, which quickly degrade as they travel over long distances, meaning that even if we max out our capacity for windmills and solar panels, unless we get a new energy grid, it won't matter to those who live in the north-east.

Furthermore, since Solar and Wind can't be turned on and off like nuclear and coal plants can, storing extra energy will require huge advances in battery technology that are not yet in sight.

So to provide energy for everyone, we'll need more than just wind and solar, though they'll obviously play a big part.

Our current "cheap electricity" comes from coal, which is currently everyone's "cheap electricity", meaning it'll do exactly what gasoline has done; become so ubiquitous that we start using it up at astronomical rates and its price skyrockets. Not to mention, it leads to tons of terrible pollution that isn't easy to deal with.

The missing piece to the energy puzzle then, is something that can produce energy at any time of the day, but that isn't going to just run out quickly. Since nuclear power plants run for so long on such small amounts of fissile material, they're exactly what is needed.

Nuclear has risks, but it's not as if the pollution from coal affects nothing. Ever heard of global warming? How about huge increases in all sorts of respiratory diseases? Heard about how Beijing's air might not be clean enough for marathon runners at the olympics? The detriments coal causes are just less obvious than those of nuclear.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.019 seconds with 10 queries.