Re: [asa] World sets ocean temperature record

Heya Rich,

Direct funding isn't my concern with what I'm bringing up here. Whether or
not / how to implement loans, funding, etc is an issue itself, but not my
point. I'm talking about this issue being taken up in public and addressed -
again, you could have told me "We're making plenty of progress on nuclear!
Look, there's been congressional movement on Yucca!" years ago, complete
with laws passed. It didn't materialize, and at a glance it looks like
that's been put into jeopardy of happening at all. If it does happen, we can
look forward to the facility opening in close to a decade. Maybe longer.
I've got to ask - are you happy with how the Yucca issue has been handled?

And the problem isn't even Yucca itself. You pointed out how Kyoto didn't
work out in part because of politicians wanting to shield their constituents
from taking a hit, etc. I'm saying that if we're going to get anywhere on
nuclear (Do you know when the last time a new nuclear power planet was built
in the US?) then the issue is going to have to take an up-front and center
position in discussions. The public discussions. I want to be clear here:
I'm not just talking about legislation. At a glance S. 1462 looks promising
on that front (seemingly high default rate aside), though that's purely at a
glance. I'm talking about admitting that we're going to have to start
building new nuclear power plants, directly addressing people's worries when
it comes to those, etc. Admitting this to the public, to the AGW activists,
etc. Even if a bill includes great and well-considered measures on nuclear,
it's not going to add up to much when time comes to start taking action and
the result is public outcry, local/state politicians circling the wagons,
delay tactics being played, etc.

I'm skeptical about this being done, and I hope you can see why I'd be so.

On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> Anyway, what I'm saying here is that nuclear should be getting discussed
>> right now and directly. Even if you believe that market forces after an AGW
>> bill is passed will naturally lead to increased pressure to start building
>> nuclear plants (and frankly, we should have been starting work on these
>> things years ago), that just means that a serious discussion about nuclear
>> is going to be inevitable. So why not do it now? I mean, I am excited at the
>> prospect of stirling engines, of alternative energy sources, of a more
>> efficient solar solution, etc. But those strike me as 'maybe someday'
>> solutions, and AGW proponents are insisting present action is needed.
>>
>>
> In Subtitle I of HR 2454 are a number of direct support provisions
> independent of cap and trade.
>
> Sec. 184 Clean Energy investment Fund.
> Sec. 185 Energy Technology Deployment Goals.
> Sec. 186 Clean Energy Deployment Administration.
> Sec. 187 Direct Support.
> Sec. 188 Indirect Approach.
>
> The definitions for "clean energy technology" as defined in Sec. 183 (4)
> would include nuclear energy.
>
> 270
>
> 20 (4) CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY.—The term
> 21 ‘‘clean energy technology’’ means a technology re
> 22 lated to the production, use, transmission, storage,
> 23 control, or conservation of energy—
> 24 (A) that will contribute to a stabilization of
> 25 atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations
>
> 271
> 1 thorough reduction, *avoidance*, or sequestration
> 2 of energy-related emissions
>
> Nuclear energy *avoids *GHG emissions and thus qualifies as a "clean
> energy technology" that receives federal help. Is my reading of the bill
> naive? Nope. I didn't tell you the title of Subtitle I. It's "Nuclear and
> Advanced Technologies".
>
> Rich Blinne
> Member ASA
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Aug 23 20:34:55 2009