This is Baby Fishmouth's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Baby Fishmouth's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Baby Fishmouth
Recent Activity
Question for the group: Will we need CAFE standards in the US if we enact some sort of carbon pricing, like a tax?
It seems that life would just be easier with a carbon tax.
In my area, there are many empty nesters with two cars. One of those two cars would never need more than 50 miles of range. The other car would not need more than 50 miles of range for maybe 48 weeks per year.
Hey Stan, Would you mind explaining what kind of nuclear free lunch you expect? In the US, this will come in the form of loan guarantees, right? In the US, the nukes and their pet politicians do not want permission to operate a plant, they want a hand out/ a free lunch/ something for nothing etc.
Not concerned in whose yard they split atoms. I suppose they are going to want more taxpayer financed loan guarantees and tax credits.
Engineer - Poet, I had no idea that nuclear electricity is cheaper than petroleum. That is great! Of course you would risk your hard earned money on "nukuler" power without a government subsidy, right? I didn't think you would. As rmi.org studies have concluded, taxpayer money would be more productive elsewhere. Think wind, solar, efficiency, natural gas etc.
Matthew, you ignorant slut! I do not think the citizens in Nevada think Yucca is a workable solution. You should check out rmi.org and get some Amory in your life. In a nutshell, he has proven that the money we are going to pony up for "nukuler" would be more effective elsewhere like solar, wind, efficiency, smart meters etc. If Barry has to buy a few Republican votes in the Senate, it might as well be nuclear rather than offshore drilling or "clean coal". In 10 years this project will be dead and Senator Lindsey Graham will have been defeated by a tea bagger.
My pet peeve with EV doubters: someone always brings up some scenario about how a limited range EV is impractical. "I have to drive my wife over 150 miles every Saturday to get her back shaved. I will have to have an ICE for that"
HG, I will not contradict you on nuclear fission. That is probably the correct solution. If only we can find one person that will invest in nuclear fission without a centrally planned government providing a financial sweetener.
Kudos to the Goracle. Probably the first and last time that I'll say that.
Henry, RMI has concluded that nuclear is not a cost effective solution to reduce green house gas emissions. We will be much better off providing tax credits for renewables, micro power, efficiency etc. The only one with "skin in the game" will be the taxpayers (or the taxpayers' grandchildren). It should mean something to you that no one is risking their own money on nuclear. The environmental groups who are supporting nuclear have concluded that Obama will support $50 billion in loan guarantees to get three republican votes in the Senate.
If we can fake a moon landing, why can't we make a lighter and more efficient ICE?
Is there any way that the nuke option could be part of a market based solution i.e. no credits or subsidies? Amory says that since the nuke option will require so much money from big daddy Federal government, we could more easily reach carbon reduction targets through conservation, wind and other methods.
Baby Fishmouth is now following The Typepad Team
Jan 31, 2010