Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kamact
Market Observer
09:42 PM on 03/09/2011
This CEO does NOT have the public's interests in mind
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
OneFish
Various and assorted mutualistic microbial buddies
02:16 AM on 03/10/2011
but he is interested in the public's behind. another corporate rapist.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:37 PM on 03/09/2011
Nuclear energy produces a LOT of unacceptably toxic waste. Gas energy is cleaner than coal or petrochemicals but its production is dirty and it produces a lot of waste pollutants.

To paraphrase the words of the eminently sensible William McDonough, it is not enough to be less bad. We have to be good.

Being good means 100% sustainability and 0% toxic waste. It can be done, but it will NEVER be done without massive change and that's one thing that corporations hate most of all. Change reduces their profits and increases their expenses. They do not care who lives or dies, they just want their bottom line to keep growing.

The biggest change required in the 21st Century isn't environmental, its legal. We need to review, assess and reduce the power of corporations over our lives.

Suggestion 1: The biggest problem with corporations is that they are immortal, and yet, they are accorded many of the rights of an individual. Ok. Keep the rights BUT... at the age of 80 years, the corporation 'dies' and its assets are redistributed.

That one thing, on its own, would go a long way to keeping corporations out of the 'too big to fail' bracket. PLUS, estate taxes and other end-of-life issues would dilute the inheritance and spread the wealth. End of rant. :)
08:28 AM on 03/10/2011
One man's waste is another man's fuel. Change laws on reprocessing and you have your solution. A little hard science review and anyone with a basic understanding of physical chemistry can understand that proliferation is not a valid concern for nuclear power generation. See here for the science:

http://depletedcranium.com/why-you-cant-build-a-bomb-from-spent-fuel/

After reading up on it, I'm amazed that nuclear power generation gets so much flack for their "waste problem," when the industry's spent fuel is so closely monitored and contained. Then you have the coal industry just belching it into the atmosphere all willy-nilly! No one gets too concerned about that though, because even though a coal plant's yearly uncontrolled radioactive releases are 100 times that of nuclear, it's still safe. See here for details:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

You can Wikipedia Banana Equivalent Dose to get some perspective on radiation.

I may be wrong (and probably am, I'm no economist) but I think the CEO is just saying, let the markets decide. I agree with that to some extent, but I think some of the subsidies for green alternatives are necessary to get them off the ground, but once they've gotten a little push from the government, they should be able to survive on their own merits if something is actually a viable solution. As gas prices go up, it only makes these other solutions seem more viable.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alvdh1
Simple Fact: Energy Efficiency Pays - It Doesn't C
08:50 AM on 03/10/2011
Oh, and mother nature produces this same type of "unacceptably toxic waste," and has been successful at storing it safely for millennia. Check out the wikipedia article on Natural Fission Reactors for an overview.

Another gem from the Nuclear Power wikipedia article quantifies the "LOTS" of high level waste for you: "All the spent fuel produced to date by all commercial nuclear power plants in the US would cover a football field to the depth of about one meter." The first commercial reactor (I think) in the US in Shippingport, PA went critical in 1957, so, to me at least, that's a heckuva lot of electricity produced since then for the volume of waste produced.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alvdh1
Simple Fact: Energy Efficiency Pays - It Doesn't C
05:08 PM on 03/10/2011
Straight out of the nuclear industry talking points manual. Your quantity is a joke when the toxicity is waht is at issue.

440 civilian nuclear reactors X 1,000 Hiroshima sized bombs of radioactivity per year = 440,000 Hiroshima sized bombs of radioactive waste per year that you are going to provide 100 percent containment for 240,000 years. You Can't even contain the tritium at the majority of the reactors in the U.S..
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:37 PM on 03/12/2011
I'm aware of the natural fission reactors. I'm also aware of earthquakes - should we create man-made ones?

A football field 1 metre deep in nuclear waste doesn't seem like a small price to pay.

One this topic, since its so topical, there are nuclear accidents to consider as well. Todays little problem... Japan. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/12/japan-nuclear-plant-explosion_n_834867.html
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
08:52 PM on 03/09/2011
People like this guy are the problem. I'm shocked that a far right loon would go to the enterprise institute.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
reasonshouldrule
03:40 PM on 03/10/2011
Agree. But I thought the Enterprise Institute was totally conservative--and extremely so.
photo
onehenry
Tea bags lose their flavor
08:38 PM on 03/09/2011
Rowe tried to take over the company I work for. He believes in nothing but profit at any cost,whether it is the enviroment or treating employees like trash.
photo
Buckeye54
...the One your mom warned you about!
08:28 PM on 03/09/2011
This guy must really hate the fact that there aren't two oilmen sitting in the White House any longer. Ah, for the good old days when Dick Cheney was in charge of energy policy. Those were glorious days, weren't they?

And nothing was done to lessen our reliance on imported oil. Not a damn thing.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
OneFish
Various and assorted mutualistic microbial buddies
02:20 AM on 03/10/2011
The nothing being dome bit goes back so far as to be embarrassing and pathetic.

http://luckyrooster.net/2010/06/president-carters-energy-speech-april-181977/
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jimmycarterundeliveredenergyspeech.htm
08:15 PM on 03/09/2011
Words alone are hard to describe the blatant hypocrisy of such a man.

"Congress" in its actions of passing the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act has allowed for the growth of the nuclear power industry, which made Rowe rich. So, of course, now that he got his he gets the religion of libertarianism.

In case folks are unfamilar with it, the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act is a United States federal law, first passed in 1957 and since renewed several times, which governs liability-related issues for all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026.

The main purpose of the Act is to partially indemnify the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents while still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public. The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first approximately $12.6 billion (as of 2011) is industry-funded as described in the Act. Any claims above the $12.6 billion would be covered by a Congressional mandate to retroactively increase nuclear utility liability or would be covered by the federal government.

Name another energy source that gets a cap on liaibility in case of disaster, over which the tax payer foots the bill.


Corporate welfare queen!
01:51 PM on 03/10/2011
Nuke industry $12B for an impossible event which like an asteroid strike can't legally be insured against.

Oil and gas and the chemical industry (solar cells) $150Million liability limit. Big Hydro dams and nuclear aircraft carriers - no liability at all.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alvdh1
Simple Fact: Energy Efficiency Pays - It Doesn't C
05:12 PM on 03/10/2011
You conveniently left out the so many things it is hard to comprehend. If they are so safe, then why doesn't the industry waive the Price Anderson liability limits.

Dams don't leave the country side radioactive for tens of thousands of years, but they should be insured.

Aircraft Carriers are the responsibility of the federal government and taxpayers.

Ignored:

Terrorism
Melt Downs.

Stop cooking the nuclear books!!
ByAndForThePeople
and corporations aren't people!
08:08 PM on 03/09/2011
Sure, Rowe, that's right. "No, we don't need any supervision. We'll do everything right, on the up and up. You'll see. Trust us." Worked every other time, didn't it. Well, not for the citizens, but for the corporations...sure.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
genialityofevil
08:55 PM on 03/09/2011
I seem to remember the government of the Ukraine tried a similar tack a few years ago.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:24 PM on 03/09/2011
Its really unbelievable that such ethically low functioning people are actually empowered by a the corporate ethos.
photo
ranchero42
down from the skies to cry you a song
07:59 PM on 03/09/2011
Those that are more capable tend to be somewhat 'Less Cost Effective'.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:13 PM on 03/09/2011
And the absurdity of that fact is yet another exhibit in the indictment.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:42 PM on 03/09/2011
Your post seems stuck so I'll respond as though its posted. I am actually an architect rather than anthropologist; though anthropology is the primary social science of architecture and its history, so its studied rather heavily. That said, have you seen the Simpson's episode where Homer is given a beer bottle with a non-twist cap in a court of law? Homer starts off with calm rational thought that devolves through increasingly primitive behavior until he's on top of the table acting like a chimp.
photo
Artos
Down with Tyrants
07:17 PM on 03/09/2011
I'm sure this guy and his  energy CABAL would really like that. That way they could run roughshod over everyone just as Enron did. Then too there is this new information coming out about Fracking that may end up putting a stop to that method considering that it might well be the cause of man made Earthquakes. This my friends is how these Corporate hooligans like to operate. No controls, no consideration for the damage that they do. The only way I would allow them to do this is if they did it right in their own backyards, and I mean literally in their own backyards. Let them suffer the consequences of their arrogant behavior.
ByAndForThePeople
and corporations aren't people!
08:10 PM on 03/09/2011
Nice thought, Artos. I've often thought that incorporation laws should require that every executive and member of the board of directors live within 1000 meters (or yards, if you prefer) of their most-polluting facility -- on the downwind side. If it's good enough for the townspeople and workers, it's good enough for the executives and board members. "Here, want a glass of water from my well?" "Ummmm...not thirsty just this minute."
photo
KOisGod
You are, the wind beneath my wings.
07:07 PM on 03/09/2011
The commercials from the "energy companies" show the man and woman on the street saying we have all the energy we need, right here in the good 'ol USA. They just need to be given unfettered access to it.

Looking forward to burping and farting flammable liquids.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kringle
Maverick Change Agent
07:06 PM on 03/09/2011
If we only move AWAY from the "Grid"-based paradigm to home-based energy generation, the "Green" or Cleantech energy generation makes perfect sense. What these "Big Energy" pundits don't state is that "Big Energy" implementations of "Green" or Cleantech energy generation...designed to feed the "Grid" only make sense if falsely "propped-up" by tax-based subsidy.

You see, in terms of systems engineering, the "Grid" is THE most inefficient part of the system. It requires being "fed" continuous energy to be maintained...even when there is very little demand for energy. PLUS the transmission of the energy is hugely wasteful.

These "Big Energy" interests don't want regulation because their mining/extraction and ore processing and waste remediation processes in the "Total Systems Process" are toxic to groundwater, etc.
photo
Artos
Down with Tyrants
07:19 PM on 03/09/2011
If they aren't getting subsidies they are literally robbing the nation, of the resources that they remove from Government lands, due to the cut rate rental agreements they have with their buddies in the government.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blackranger
02:04 AM on 03/10/2011
You are sure right!! I recently found out that our city owned electric company loses about 30 percent of the power that they buy during transmission. If the city fathers were not so dumb, they might see that we could build our own electrical source (NM iis great for solar) and it would be paid for (bonds) with the 30 Percent loss dollars we lose now.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kringle
Maverick Change Agent
07:45 AM on 03/10/2011
In most "retrofit" cases, I would assert that geothermal is step #1, and augmented with whatever other solution(s) are most fitting to the situation. New development should be strictly improved through building code modification to increase perfomance measures, etc.

We must distinguish between corporate needs (manufacturing, etc.) and private needs, which are generally quite small in comparison. Energy efficiency measures/products, etc. are likely to go into sharp economic demand, and the technological innovations for energy generation are likely to do the same.

I believe we shall see a brief period that shall mirror the emergence/development of computer technology, in which there shall be rapid innovation, causing demand markets to be weary of "buyers remorse", but if initially designed to "scale" with future implementations, it shouldn't disrupt the market very much.

Just think: If taxpayers DEMANDED that our taxes stop going to the wealthy and instead were used to self-empower, we would soon see energy independence from those "Big Energy" corporations who pillage our environment and rob us of our earnings. The move would be a tremendous measure for "Homeland Security", for we would no longer be dependent upon foreign interests for our energy demands, and our energy production systems would be tremendously difficult to "take out".

In economic terms, what we're witnessing is a tremendous decentralization of products and services. Major economic interests have been "empire building" for decades, but regardless of their money and past efforts, most economic markets show similar trends towards decentralization.
photo
KOisGod
You are, the wind beneath my wings.
07:00 PM on 03/09/2011
Dear doof,

ANY hydrocarbon fuel will eventually be used up.

GREEN isn't burning more fossil fuels. It's about stopping that.
06:59 PM on 03/09/2011
When will USA develop non gasoline vehicles?
photo
onehenry
Tea bags lose their flavor
08:43 PM on 03/09/2011
We had natural gas vehicles at my company but oil companies refused to put in the natural gas pumps at their stations. that made it impossible to sell the vehicles to the public.
photo
onehenry
Tea bags lose their flavor
08:46 PM on 03/09/2011
0% emissions on those vehicles also.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eraser
Congress - The opposite of progress!
06:51 PM on 03/09/2011
Is it me or do they all just say the same exact words about crippling markets and burdening consumers?
photo
Artos
Down with Tyrants
07:21 PM on 03/09/2011
They do, and I am so grateful to them for their concern about my/our welfare, NOT! As if they really give a tinkers damn.