Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Poll regarding Clean Energy attitudes among Republican voters

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    Republicans don't have a special.exemption from the STEM & economic ignorance that plagues our nation.

    Being less stupid than Democrats does not make Republicans smart.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      Echelon Insights is a consumer research and marketing firm. It's all of two people who appear to be Republicans.

      North Star Opinion Research appears to be a front company for the RNC and represents a number of companies (per their client list) that support the Republican party heavily.

      Public Opinion Strategies is a Republican friendly, if not outright Republican front corporation working to shape public opinion. I like their initials, POS. That is probably pretty accurate...

      Anyway, given that, I'd say they polled a Progressive based set of questions to get information on what the opposition's positions on energy polled at and were doing it to reformat Republican messaging to better fit their target audience and change opinions.
      You guessed correctly.

      The poll was commissioned by "Jay Faison, a North Carolina businessman who calls himself a conservative Republican and has announced that he intends to spend $10 million on efforts to lobby Republicans to embrace the issue of climate change. He has spent $165 million to start a nonprofit foundation, ClearPath, aimed at promoting climate change and clean energy policies that could appeal to conservatives."

      Link

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
        The backgrounds of the pollsters are irrelevant to the STEM & economic ignorance of the general public.
        Actually their backgrounds are relevant if they are attempting to sway a certain target audience as it is in this case.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
          Disposal of the toxic and heavy metal/element components of the large battery packs used in hybrid and electric cars will be an even larger disposal (environmental contamination) challenge/problem.

          If fusion is perfected for commercial/industrial use, spent nuke fuel and waste is a lot easier to solve.
          Good point on the disposal and reclamation of the materials used in the battery packs. A possible growth industry.

          Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
          Regulatory and litigious malfeasance are the only obstacles to the safe disposal of spent fuel and other high level nuclear waste.
          I couldn't agree more. NIMBYism at its worst.

          All in all though, spent nuclear fuel is still a long term hazard for which there doesn't seem to be a solution other than storage.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Gorque View Post
            You guessed correctly.

            The poll was commissioned by "Jay Faison, a North Carolina businessman who calls himself a conservative Republican and has announced that he intends to spend $10 million on efforts to lobby Republicans to embrace the issue of climate change. He has spent $165 million to start a nonprofit foundation, ClearPath, aimed at promoting climate change and clean energy policies that could appeal to conservatives."

            Link
            Unfortunately, Mr. Faison's positions on energy largely mirror those of the Environmental Left: More solar, wind, less reliance on "carbon." This is a recipe for failure in energy manufacturing. The only demonstrably workable solution is nuclear.
            Yet, it is off the table. So, if this guy spends tons of money to change Republican's opinions and move them further to the Left on the environment, they will just being screwed by the results.

            N2N+H is the only economically viable way forward. Solar and wind should be relegated to the niche sources they are.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Gorque View Post
              All in all though, spent nuclear fuel is still a long term hazard for which there doesn't seem to be a solution other than storage.
              Think of things this way, after all this is a history oriented board:

              In 1915 Oil was just becoming a major energy source.

              In 1815 Coal was just becoming a major energy source.

              In 1715 we chopped down forests for energy.

              In less than 300 years we've gone from burning wood to nuclear power for energy. Where will we be in another 300?

              If nuclear power were adopted in mass we would solve the issues that surround it. Instead, we are getting a general call to abandon such advancements and return to earlier times.
              Given impetus to find a solution to nuclear waste we would. But, right now all the industry gets is roadblocks and obstacles thrown at it primarily by Environmentalists.
              We need to pay attention to history, not ignore it.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Gorque View Post
                Good point on the disposal and reclamation of the materials used in the battery packs. A possible growth industry.

                I couldn't agree more. NIMBYism at its worst.

                All in all though, spent nuclear fuel is still a long term hazard for which there doesn't seem to be a solution other than storage.
                There are no logical reasons to oppose nuclear power.

                All of the high level nuclear waste produced by electricity generation over the last 50+ years could be safely disposed of for less than a penny per kWh. Nuclear waste disposal is a 100% political problem. The successful WIPP facility in New Mexico is proof that high level nuclear waste can be safely geologically sequestered. Salt layers are just one of many ideal geologic repositories...

                Waste buried deep underground in the right kind of geological formation is extremely safe and many people who criticize the problem of nuclear waste don’t realize that good technical solutions based on burying waste have already been at hand for decades; the problem is mainly a political one.



                Even the most high-level and toxic waste can be safely disposed of geologically...
                Petroleum drilling costs have decreased to the point where boreholes are now routinely drilled to multi-kilometer depths. Research boreholes in Russia and Germany have been drilled to 8-12 km. The drilling costs for 950 deep boreholes to dispose of the entire 109,300 MTHM inventory, assuming a cost of $20 million per borehole (see Section 3.1), would be ~ $19 billion. Very rough estimates of other costs are $10 billion for associated site characterization, performance assessment analysis, and license application, $20 billion for disposal operations, monitoring, and decommissioning, $12 billion for ancillary program activities, and $10 billion for transportation, resulting in a total life-cycle cost for a hypothetical deep borehole disposal program of $71 billion (in 2007 dollars).

                The entire inventory of high-level radioactive waste produced by US nuclear power plants over the last 50+ years could be safely disposed of for ~$70 billion.

                From 1965 through 2011, nuclear power plants generated 22,219.57 TWh of electricity (22.2 TRILLON kWh). $71 billion works out to 0.3¢/kWh... One-third of one penny per kilowatt-hour.

                Once the inventory is disposed of, the annual cost of drilling and maintaining disposal wells would amount to about 0.3¢/kWh... And that cost would decline over time as technological advances deflate the real cost of drilling.

                The New Mexico site had to overcome a lot of NIMBY'ism...
                The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, known locally as WIPP (pronounced “whip”), opened in 1999 after decades of back and forth between state and federal regulators.

                However this facility has been a huge success. Three counties in the Permian Basin (Eddy & Lea, NM and Loving, TX) are competing for a second facility.

                The ideal geological repository is Yucca Mountain, Nevada... Currently the "poster child" for for mental green****ation & NIMBY'ism.

                The only "cons" are of a political nature.
                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  Think of things this way, after all this is a history oriented board:

                  In 1915 Oil was just becoming a major energy source.

                  In 1815 Coal was just becoming a major energy source.

                  In 1715 we chopped down forests for energy.

                  In less than 300 years we've gone from burning wood to nuclear power for energy. Where will we be in another 300?

                  If nuclear power were adopted in mass we would solve the issues that surround it. Instead, we are getting a general call to abandon such advancements and return to earlier times.
                  Given impetus to find a solution to nuclear waste we would. But, right now all the industry gets is roadblocks and obstacles thrown at it primarily by Environmentalists.
                  We need to pay attention to history, not ignore it.
                  I too am a believer in scientific progress unshackling us from our problems/constraints of today. However, I've read enough past issues of Popular Science/Mechanics during my youth that were predicting flying cars, mag-lev trains, and other wonderful gadgets that were to have occurred by this time..... Then again, personal computers, smart phones and the internet were not envisioned by these forecasters either.... Don't get me wrong, I trust that some new solution will be found, but until that occurs, we still have a problem with the waste that is generated from nuclear power.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                    There are no logical reasons to oppose nuclear power.

                    All of the high level nuclear waste produced by electricity generation over the last 50+ years could be safely disposed of for less than a penny per kWh. Nuclear waste disposal is a 100% political problem. The successful WIPP facility in New Mexico is proof that high level nuclear waste can be safely geologically sequestered. Salt layers are just one of many ideal geologic repositories...

                    Waste buried deep underground in the right kind of geological formation is extremely safe and many people who criticize the problem of nuclear waste don’t realize that good technical solutions based on burying waste have already been at hand for decades; the problem is mainly a political one.



                    Even the most high-level and toxic waste can be safely disposed of geologically...
                    Petroleum drilling costs have decreased to the point where boreholes are now routinely drilled to multi-kilometer depths. Research boreholes in Russia and Germany have been drilled to 8-12 km. The drilling costs for 950 deep boreholes to dispose of the entire 109,300 MTHM inventory, assuming a cost of $20 million per borehole (see Section 3.1), would be ~ $19 billion. Very rough estimates of other costs are $10 billion for associated site characterization, performance assessment analysis, and license application, $20 billion for disposal operations, monitoring, and decommissioning, $12 billion for ancillary program activities, and $10 billion for transportation, resulting in a total life-cycle cost for a hypothetical deep borehole disposal program of $71 billion (in 2007 dollars).

                    The entire inventory of high-level radioactive waste produced by US nuclear power plants over the last 50+ years could be safely disposed of for ~$70 billion.

                    From 1965 through 2011, nuclear power plants generated 22,219.57 TWh of electricity (22.2 TRILLON kWh). $71 billion works out to 0.3¢/kWh... One-third of one penny per kilowatt-hour.

                    Once the inventory is disposed of, the annual cost of drilling and maintaining disposal wells would amount to about 0.3¢/kWh... And that cost would decline over time as technological advances deflate the real cost of drilling.

                    The New Mexico site had to overcome a lot of NIMBY'ism...
                    The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, known locally as WIPP (pronounced “whip”), opened in 1999 after decades of back and forth between state and federal regulators.

                    However this facility has been a huge success. Three counties in the Permian Basin (Eddy & Lea, NM and Loving, TX) are competing for a second facility.

                    The ideal geological repository is Yucca Mountain, Nevada... Currently the "poster child" for for mental green****ation & NIMBY'ism.

                    The only "cons" are of a political nature.
                    Thanks for that Dave. I was aware of the political opposition against the storage of nuclear waste under Yucca Mountain and agree that a solution can be found for burying the waste, afterall, where did the raw materials for the nuclear fuels derive from. And burying the waste deep enough in order that it will not contaminate ground water, I believe (as a non-geolist/scientist), is possible, much like fracking waste. However until the political opposition to this method is overcome, and I'm not trying to be argumentative, nuclear power generation is still problematic with the public, especially with continuing reports of the stored on-site spent fuel enhancing the problems in containing and remediating the failed Fukashima reactors. It was a perfect storm, but these perfect storms with nuclear fuels have such long-lived consequences. Perhaps many of the problems associated with the Fukashima disaster could have been ameliorated had there been a wee bit more political backbone beforehand.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I was quite interested in the Skunk-Works compact fusion concept when it vanished from most discussions. Seems like its still moving ahead. If We can get it going seems to be the best option so far. Also the Thorium reactors seem to be a good bet just to consume the waste that we've generated so far.

                      Some background.

                      http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/08/loc...n-reactor.html
                      Credo quia absurdum.


                      Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                        Short answer: No.

                        Long answer: Every MW of nondispatchable capacity has to be backed up by a MW of dispatchable capacity. Solar, wind and other nondispatchable sources do nothing to reduce the dispatchable capacity that has to be maintained. Coal, natural gas and nuclear are, by definition, dispatchable. Conventional geothermal and hydroelectric can be dispatchable. Wind and solar are not dispatchable; nor can they be made dispatchable through technology or any other Rube Greenberg schemes.
                        I would guess that in the case of solar you are slightly wrong. For most locations the heaviest demand would be on sunny hot cloudless days during peak solar production.
                        We hunt the hunters

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                          I would guess that in the case of solar you are slightly wrong. For most locations the heaviest demand would be on sunny hot cloudless days during peak solar production.
                          Which doesn't make my statement slightly wrong.
                          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                          Comment

                          Latest Topics

                          Collapse

                          Working...
                          X