Global Warming II

Tony Conner_2

... one of the BIG reasons Tesla parted ways with Edison is that Edison stiffed Telsa for a very large cheque. (It's not "check" here, eh?) It wasn't NEARLY all about philisophical differences.

Connect the dots on the money trail, and all will be revealed, for just about everything. Power rates have increased with the MUCH greater use of nice clean natural gas for generating plants. The more gas gets burned, the higher the cost goes. The cost of gas used for space heating purposes goes right up with it, because it all comes out of the same hole in the ground, and into the same pipeline. If somebody told me that the gas utilities had funded part of the "dirty coal" campaign, I'd be prepared to believe it. (Follow the money...who stands to benefit?) If you get a tax break on something - like solar panels or windmills - the gov't (via the taxpayer) pays - it's not like there's secret money tree somewhere, for funding things. If you're the taxpayer/ratepayer, YOU pay for everything. And it doesn't really matter who's in political power. When you vote, you're deciding WHO you're going to pay, not IF you're going to pay. 'Cause you're paying, no matter what.

S Ebels

Global warming/fuel prices/conservation etc.

Thought I'd start a new thread and condense the topics we've covered in the original. The other one is a great thread, very interesting to say the least. Lot's of good insights, advice and suggestions.

I'll try to list some of the things we've talked about and that there seems to be a concensus on.

1. Nearly all are in agreement that the climate is changing.

2. Not all agree that man and his activity is causing 100% of this change.

3. Fuel prices are going to be on a constant spiral upward until the resource is depleted entirely.

4. We are likely facing stiffer competition for traditional fossil fuels from the global market which will further drive up the per barrel price of crude.

5. Solar water heating, Wind and PV power will augment our present fuel and power sources but likely never be capable of replacing them except on an individual basis.

6. Nuclear power will once again be at the forefront of generating capacity.

7. Bio based fuels at present are not very cost effective in terms of power needed to produce them compared to power delivered.

8. In order to maximize the use of alternative power and fuels, a single family residence has to be designed pretty much from the ground up to do so.

9. Most worthwhile conservation will come from the private sector reducing fuel consumption in response to rising fuel prices.

10. Rising fuel prices will make alternative energy sources become more viable and "affordable".

Comments or additions to any of the above?

Maine Doug_32

Addendums?

4A. Political unrest, whether internal to a country or foisted upon from outside sources, will continue to destabilize oil producing countries and contribute to higher prices and lowered production.

7A Bio fuels such as trash and demolition debris generate significant nasty ash and atmospheric pollution.

[Deleted User]

Happy Earth Day 2006

Almost slipped right by me!

ME

http://www.trails.com/earth-day.asp

[Deleted User]

More poop for the soup...

Looks like the terms are a changin'... Just like the climate.

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_3732393


ME

Glen

9A -

Governments will not enact any meaningful form of conservation legislation, eg - Canada concels "one ton challenge", "US does not sign Kyoto" (flawed agreement at best). This would include a new commodity - carbon credits, allowing massive pollution to continue - as long as the company can pay for it.

Gene_3

this one always cracks me up

{Bio based fuels at present are not very cost effective in terms of power needed to produce them compared to power delivered.}

I have heard this said generally at all Republican runs shows and even on NPR

the claim is that when you factor in the energy to grow the soy and then truck it and run the machinery it costs more to make than fossil fuel

HOWEVER

they never factor in the cost to pump fossil fuel from the ground, the cost to ship it in a barge overseas, to then pump it again, refine it, pump it again, and truck it.


and here we go again with the " it won't even make a dent" claim ??

it won't??? says who??? the oil companies????

scientists aren't,, oh yeah I forgot, we shouldn't listen to any scientists, we should listen to politicians and CEO's

so you are convinced that if half the homes in NY & CT or wherever and some businesses had their own power generation and put power back into the grid it would not make a dent??

you work for Northeast Utilities?????

Gene_3

orr

{7A Bio fuels such as trash and demolition debris generate significant nasty ash and atmospheric pollution.}


yeah and Radiation is good for you???
no offense but sheesh

I'd rather see all trash turned to energy than dumped into the Sound or the ground

too many people, too much trash, gotta find a use for it

some land fills now take the methane off and use that

ahhh but that won't make a dent so why bother??

Trash and demolition are not BIO FUELS EITHER, THAT IS WHY WE CALL THEM ......TRASH TO ENERGY PLANTS

Tony Conner_2

You're...

... spitting.

Read this:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/20/news/economy/pluggedin_fortune/index.htm

Tony Conner_2

Why...

... would you imagine that the oil companies don't have the wellhead costs, transport, refining and distribution costs included at the point of purchase by the end-user? Are you seriously suggesting that their business acumen is SO lacking that they've somehow overlooked these costs and are failing to pass them on the end user? I sure hope that's not the case. I think I'm paying too much as it is. I'd hate to think that the oil companies would suddenly realize that they'd forgotten to include a bunch of their expenses in the cost of their product, and had to raise the price at the pump.

You really need to step back and review your information on the techology of generating power on a large scale in any sort of economical fashion, and business in general. There is no free "energy-lunch". Everything has pluses, minuses, and associated costs & trade-offs. No exceptions.

Maine Doug_30

The point

is that bio-fuels are not without their issues as the bio-fuel boilers here are not just burning some special bio-fuel. They burn everything since there is not enough bio-fuel to keep them at capacity. The trash is not sorted so all the plastics and batteries and such get burned also.
If a plant is burning a narrow catagory of bio-fuel then it is probably a clean burn.
Doesn't wood fall into bio-fuel catagory whether it is new or used? Or it is a bio-fuel if new but trash or demo if used?

JCD

Why would I imagine?

that true oil cost are not that price at the pump?
Let us take a moment.

There is quite a fleet of US warships in the Middle Eastern Gulf area looking out for our vital interests, meaning oil tankers moving smoothly through that region.
There are coastal leases off several states that everyone concedes were givaways - at the time they were to encourage energy exploration.
And yup, tax credits to...I think it was about $14.billion+/-, in last years budget given to the oil companies. Again to encourage exploration. ( "Boy, billions of dollars of tax credits to the oil companies, guess those record profits are just not enough!" - Jay Leno)

Jim - a MN homeowner

And if you look at your roads- hey is that part of the cost of driving? - here in MN, highway taxes on fuel cover about 45 percent of highway costs. The rest comes from our general fund. More here -http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/04/20/transpofunding/ then also on that link, look at the Brookings studies link on the right side.
A primer on the gas tax is a good start.

S Ebels

I have to ask

Does anyone here think that our current high prices for fuels (of all kinds) are contrived, in other words not truly reflective of the actual market price?

Does anyone here think that global fuel markets have nothing to do with the reason(s) fuel prices are going up?

Tony Conner

Well...

... I guess that puts you firmly in the coal/nuke power camp, doesn't it? Glad to have you on board!

Mike T., Swampeast MO

Current fuel prices contrived? By all means...

Why? I cannot say here.

S Ebels

Mike

I mean contrived as in falsely and artificially so.

Still yes? You have my e-mail....hit it, I'm getting curiouser and curiouser by the minute <:O

Mike T., Swampeast MO

Again by all means. Of course I'm a nothing and a nobody with little more than a keen sense of human nature.

Mark Hunt

Here's one that cracks me up


99.999% of the time that someone asks on this forum for help deciding which fuel to use, oil is the answer.

Why not bio-mass??? Why not solar?? Why not wind??

Which would you recommend Gene?

Mark H

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Larry Weingarten

Gentlepeople:

A slightly different perspective... Actions can be at least as political as words and are much harder to undo. I go about my business, helping folks to keep their equipment from failing and making it more energy efficient. I also teach these things to technicians and homeowners so that more hands than just mine are doing the work. It is just a little bit like quietly making your own salt. If enough people do it, things change.
There are very big problems out there that most individuals have no realistic hope of changing with words. One could lobby many years for policy change only to have any gains reversed by the next judge or political wind. I'm optimistic about the future because lots of folks are operating in their own fields finding ways to reduce waste, increase efficiency and properly educate this and the next generation.
Talking over the world's problems is interesting and entertaining, but I expect real progress to continue to be made by individuals, one task at a time.

Yours, Larry

[Deleted User]

Think globally....

act locally...

Great points Larry.

ME

Gene_3

whatever

the point is anyone that uses a biofuel or is off the grid is helping, the current regime and ceo's in power have done nothing to help energy in this country

an intelligent society would use all technology at it's disposal and not say coal and nuke is the only way to go, that's bizaar and too simplistic

you don't hear yourselves

I'm saying anyone should use biofuels and solar or wind to get off the grid to help, IT COULD NOT POSSIBLY HURT

you're saying Nah it won't put a dent, no hope, no point, let's just build more nuke plants and burn foreign oil exclusively

I spend a few cents more to burn biodiesel in my truck because it is clean, low to no co co2 soot etc only a slight rise in Nox

2 companies here in Ct Santa & Devine Bros are using 5% bio in all their fuel oil and are reporting no problems and nice clean boilers and no emissions

but why should they bother, right????

ohh yeah Bill Gates invested millions yesterday in ehthanol But hey!! what the hell does he know about anything right??? he's only the most sucessful business man on the planet and he does it without lying or ripping people off like so many other ceo's


did you know that Edison paid kids to steal pets and then electocuted them with Teslas AC power to scare people into thinking his DC power was better??? that's the mentality big oil has towards bio

CC.Rob

11) You guys are in an industry that can make a HUGE difference. You are the critical "first contact" that many of us consumers will have with options for increasing efficiency, reducing fossil fuel consumption, etc. At least 95% of us will not do our homework about options, relying instead on "professional advice." That's you. There will always be people that simply want a cheapo boiler swap. But there are a lot of others who would dive right in to good information and work with you. Think about how many homeowners you deal with in a year. Get even a few of them on board, and the numbers really add up over the course of a career.

Case in point. If someone told me three years ago that for a modest investment in additional/different equipment, piping, etc. I could reduce my heating/DHW costs as well as my "carbon/environmental footprint" with a 5-8 year ROI, I would have been all over it. That guy would have gotten my business and just about everyone I know as well. But I was undereducated and didn't have contact with the right people. Lesson learned, another story....

Tony Conner_2

I'm...

... not sure that absolutely everybody in the software/computer industry loves Bill Gates/Microsoft for his "benevolent" business practices. I would also be willing to bet that his investment in biofuels would have at least as much to do with favourable tax write-offs as anything.

I also doubt that "big oil" thinks happy thoughts about coal & nuclear power.

You may have the technical savvy to go off-grid. The average homeowner doesn't even begin to possess that kind of capability. They'd have to hire somebody to install & look after it. I'm not sure that most people understand what "off-grid" means. It's more than just generating your own power - it means no lines coming into your house. If your system isn't working, you have no power.

What does the rivalry between Tesla & Edison have to do with this? You do realize that Tesla was allied with a little company called Westinghouse, right?

You're spitting again...

Unknown

My rampant speculation is that the oil companies know they can't milk this train for too many more years and they are "cashing in" while they can. Because when the price gets out of their hands (i.e., there really isn't enough), there will probably be wars and nationalization of oil resources. Just speculating, of course.

Gene_3

you're

right on rob

the point of Tesla v Edison was propaganda and how it is used by business to control people

yeah Tesla originally worked for Edison and left when he wouldn't listen to him about AC, Westinghouse believed in Tesla's theory

another point to their "feud" is that many times ceo's "like Edison" won't listen to their underlings "like Tesla" and miss opportunities

the point in time in this country when the most advances were made in efficiency improvements was during the Carter era when people could write off any energy improvement to their home, that died with Reagan/Bush, a severe loss to this country and we are paying for it now, for if we had stayed the course and promoted Radiant heat and Solar in this country we would now be less dependant


the point in time in the History of the world when the largest shift in WEALTH occured between workers and the rich was during the Reagan/Bush era

now ceo's in this country make 300-500% more than their European counter parts yet they claim they can't make ends meet, must move off shore and cannot give us health benefits

currently we are seeing 200% rise in fuel prices over 6 years, 20-50% rise in elec rates the average person has not seen a raise or maybe 2-3% in years, energy prices are killing us and I beleive anything and everything should be done to help and all of it should be 100% tax deductable

if you don't and think we should stay the course and big business and our leaders know what they're doing that is your choice......... . IT'S AMERICA BABY

Gene_3

however

we currently have tax laws that favor the rich, I say repeal all that GW passed and make it an incentive to get a rebate or write off as in clean energy, bio, etc

this will jump start our nation and economy by providing more jobs, new industry

there are many in the business and political world that like to say the best way is to cut taxes on the rich, and then they invest and start more companies and more jobs

this does not work, it leaves an inbalance of money and power in their hands

what will work is tax incentives to buy products and services, solar, energy, eff oil equipment, etc

during the oil crisis in the 70's all I did for years was upgrade equipment either replacing it or installing flame retention in older stuff and solar took off because of the tax incentive, not just to save on fuel, people need that extra push

we now have several trillion in debt, you cannot go into war and give tax breaks, something has to break and it is OUR wallet

big banks are loving this and encourage it, you and I are paying our taxes and it goes right into some rich bankers pocket because it only pays the interest

what's the interest on a couple of trillion???????????

that is why they do not want the U.S. to have a balanced budget or live within our means

our infrastucture is falling apart and we don't even have the money to afford decent education in public schools, we could do better, it starts with the grass roots, us, and ends with big business {insurance,oil,gas,pharmaceuticals etc etc} having less control over our politicians


regarding senor Tesla
what I recall was Edison giving Tesla a monumental task of repairing a power station of sorts and if he did this he said he would give him $50,000, thinking of course that there was no way he could in the time allowed, but he did and when Edison fluffed off his previous offer and gave him a raise instead, Tesla quit. Tesla had hoped to win Edison over to AC but this was the last straw.

Tesla was a genious but not much of a business man

Tony Conner_2

I'm...

... not sure that all of those issues can be addressed on this forum. Let's just stick to global warming/power issues.

I looked into windmill power a few years ago. I was pretty stoked about it. The first things that struck me were:

1/ Wow - you don't get much power out of these things, even when the wind is blowing hard, and;

2/ Wow - are these things ever expensive - particularly in view of the little bit of power they generate.

Do the same thing for solar. How much power can panels on an average roof provide? How many rooftops are available? What's the installed cost per roof, assuming you have enough possible installations to get some kind of production runs going?

Now look at the power requirements for your jurisdiction. How many MW base load? What's the MW peak? For what you spend on the panels, how much power do you actually get - remembering just how many hours of daylight/sunshine you there are, and assuming that the averager homeowner pops up on the roof periodically, and washes the dirt and bird s**t off the collectors. I think you'll be disappointed in the payback. I sure was on windmills. You wind up spending a lot of money for very little action.

And don't forget to tell the homeowners with some mature trees that they can't shade the panels. Or block the air flow to the windmills. This technology makes for nice stories in the "Granola Times", but at the end of the day, you don't get much power for the money spent. It's just not realistic.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Good luck.

Gene_3

wind power

I have to admit I am not too familiar with

but with residential solar or wind you are just charging batteries that go to an inverter so you don't need much or constant wind or light

there are formulas for figuring but the average system I have checked into that will power an average home runs @20K

wind power is best in an area that has pretty constant wind

there was/is a system set up to go off of Nantucket LARGE SYSTEM, it seems there is a spot there where the wind blows mighty all the time

problem is

the rich people of Nantucket do not wnat to look at it

which brings me to an interesting point

if the rich and wealthy do not want to look at a wind power plant why should the common people of Long Island and Connecticut have to look at a LP plant in the middle of Long Island Sound?????????????

what's good for the goose is no good for the gander??????

johnny4

plain, painful truths

After 20+ years in the energy field, working for greater energy efficiency in all sectors, I find there are some plain and simple truths. They are painful for many Americans, but that does not change the facts or the necessary outcomes.

World oil production has been flat for the past 5 years or so. Demand is rising. So the price is rising. I don't put much stock in conspiracy theories and oil companies, although I do think the U.S. in Iraq is absolutely a strategic long-term oil issue. Read it again: world oil production is flat, and is likely to decline in the years ahead.

Thirty years ago, worldwide refineries were operating at about 65% of capacity. Now, even after refining capacity has nearly doubled, they are operating at about 95% capacity. Contrary to media reports, refining capacity in the U.S. has increased about 15% over the past 20 years as refiners have improved efficiencies to boost capacity. They have not been hamstrung by environmentalists.

Meanwhile, Exxon's total production of liquid fuels (oil, gas) has been flat since 1997 (just using the biggest company as an example). They just aren't able to produce it any faster... new reserves aren't being found. But what we think of as huge oil companies don't really control worldwide oil supply anyway, as more than half of the oil is controlled by nationalized operations - Russia, Iran and other mideast gulf states, Venezuela, etc. Exxon, Shell, BP, and Chevron/Texaco are very big companies, but their 'private' reserves pale in comparison to what is controlled by the often-hostile government blocs. I don't begrudge the oil majors for their profits. We all want businesses to profit commensurate with their size.

So, the most painful truth is that cheap gasoline is NOT an American birthright. We have just been damn fortunate (or not, depending on your point of view) to have 'enjoyed' an energy joyride for the past 50 years.

We need to get serious about alternatives to oil, and boost the efficiency of our vehicles. Hybrids, electrics, and less-intensive ways of moving people are imperative.

Oil and gas are substitutes for each other, and with risk of (1) continued demand for oil worldwide, (2) hurricanes, and (3) wars and political instability, continued high prices should be expected. That's a no-brainer.

Wind and solar are not direct substitutes for oil and gas but since coal and gas are our major feedstocks for electric power, they have a role. Nuclear will have a new role if the finances and safety can be resolved to satisfaction. The NIMBYism concerning wind is foolish, and NRDC's RFK Jr's opposition to the Cape Wind project exposes him as a hypocrite. He's like the bat(ty) people who are blocking wind farms in the Alleghenies and Appalachians.

Global warming and the current supply/demand pinch over oil make for a perfect storm of economic and environmental urgency. Global warming is real, the consequences are scary, and we best be diligent about efficiency and renewables. Frankly, we can't "stop" global warming... its far too late now. But we can take steps to limit the coming damage, and protect our economy and national security from future shocks.

JCD

I am not sure what got me pegged earlier as a coal and nuke loving person. I realize that sometimes people see what they want to see and I am as guilty of that as anyone. The point that I was trying to make the other day is that as taxpayers, under the Carter doctrine, (and every administration since), we keep ships in the gulf region and then seen to think that as another person pointed out, we feel have a right to cheap oil because of it. As a Prius driving and (as I like to call myself), open eyed environmentalist, I will concede that windmills and solar energy, and yes, my Prius, are not the answer to every problem. But I think that it is a darn good start.
I am one who believes that Global warming is real and is here. Everyone once and a while I do hear of something that gives me hope, like this project; http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5356683
There were made earlier in this string, comments that no matter what, there is a cost. Fine, but let’s not make bad short sighted choices (like I believe was made yesterday concerning gas supplies.) We seem to have politicians who believe more in getting quick fixes to get them or their party, re-elected, than in real solutions. Both sides.
There will always be people who say that wind and solar hardly makes a dent. Let’s look at if it was only 15 percent of all production, what that would do. Current US census is 298,603,448. Looking at populations of states, if solar and wind supplied only 15%, that would power the states, (based on population) of New Mexico, Nebraska, and Kansas, or enough to power Minnesota, or Connecticut, or Arizona, or Colorado. That is more than just a dent, it is a good start. Wind energy production here in MN. has postponed another power plant being built for the foreseeable future in this area.
Combine that with other things and the yield grows even more. For example, there was an article in the Mpls. paper the other day about growing grass on roof tops of buildings. They do this in Chicago, Seattle, Stockholm, and if all the city buildings in Chicago had grass they estimate that they could save 100 million dollars a year in heating and cooling. http://www.startribune.com/462/story/390710.html
I would have to agree with LW’s post and ME right behind. That is - each of us do what can, and then Think Globally, Act Locally. As Red Green says, “We’re all in this together.” Jim

Maine Doug_30

And everyone

would be so much more mellow.....

Do the buildings not have some sort of high value insulation now or I wonder if it is the evaporative cooling of plant life?

>>>>>For example, there was an article in the Mpls. paper the other day about growing grass on roof tops of buildings. They do this in Chicago, Seattle, Stockholm, and if all the city buildings in Chicago had grass they estimate that they could save 100 million dollars a year in heating and cooling.<<<<<

S Ebels

DING!!!

This one (John's comments) drives the ball all the way to the top and rings the bell. If you look at the statistics for oil production, posted right out in the open on the Dept of Energy Information website, you will see that what John says is true. Production is flat and has been flat. There may be a few blips upward in the future but in all likelyhood, we are at peak production right now.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if supply of any product is stationary while demand for the product grows, the price will go up. Now factor in the harsh reality that the US is a debtor nation (up to its ears) and other countries, China in particular, have wads of cash..............well, you figure it out. Like I said it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the writing on the wall.

As far as economics of alternative fuel/power sources go, I agree with Tony. At present they are just not there. In the very near future however, (5-10 years) I think they will be, not because alternatives have become widespread and inexpensive, but because traditional fuel has gotten gone up to the point that alternatives are viable.

Even if someone nailed fusion in a lab tomorrow, it would take 20 years to bring on line. There is no "magic bullet" and the quicker ALL the dorks in Washington DC come to grips with that the better off we will be. Someone there needs to grow enough chest hair to say it out loud. WE ARE IN DEEP TROUBLE AND THERE IS NO QUICK FIX IN SIGHT!

There.........you heard it right here on the Wall first.

I agree with John also in the sense that if we could somehow cap our national energy consumption where it's at right now and then begin to reduce it by 15% over the next 10 years, we would be a lot better off. It won't be easy, it won't be cheap, it can't be done with the present "first cost" thinking the economist's are constantly spouting.This is the exact thing (wrong economic model) that Dr's Viessmann and Suzuki were speaking about at the Viessmann 25th anniversary bash a couple weeks ago.

If you're building or remodeling this year, take a very long hard look at how you would do it if fuel oil was $4.50 per gallon, electricity was $.20 a KWH, LP gas was $5.00/ gallon and natural gas was $3.75 a therm. I think that's where we are headed and sooner than most would admit. Don't call me Mr Doom and Gloom, call me Mr Reality.

I hope I am wrong.

tom_49

peak oil

Steve, John,

I agree w/ you also.

Here's some interesting reading on the subject of oil. You may have already heard of this site before, but for all who havent......

www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

Tony Conner_2

If You...

... don't like big-oil, and the politics associated with it, then, realistically, the only alternatives are coal and/or nuke.

Don't look at population numbers for electrical demand. You can watch the folks flogging the benefits of windmill power use "It'll provide power to 10,000 homes..." and it's deceptive. In terms of the electric power grid, houses are like BTUs. It takes a LOT of BTUs to mean anything. Each one, by itself is so small as to be difficult to measure. And wind/solar in your backyard can't realistically even power your house.

Windmill/solar means you have to build your generating capacity twice. There has to be another method to generate power - like coal or nuke - to deliver the juice at night, or when the wind drops. This is very, very expensive power.

Tony Conner_2

Long...

...before people are forced to turn to large scale solar/wind (unless there's a HUGE improvement in this technology), the coal will be mined and the nukes will be a-nukin'.

How many people who are anti-coal/anti-nuke even have a manual can opener? Yeah? Walk over and lay your hands on it right now A lot of lofty ideals will get tossed out the door in a heartbeat when "it" hits the non-electric fan.

Gene_3

I don't agree

solar electric charges batteries, low light or night does not matter if sized properly, nuke and coal are not the only alternatives, they are part of a complete solution.........

we need to use everything to spread usage

nukes, where do we put the rods????????????????

nukes the clean alternative??????????? here in CT Ct Yankee and Millstone have released on us and LI several times and Millstone almost had a meltdown once---they never told anyone


this is what happens when don't control growth and development

everyone in the HVACR industry should be pushing Hi EFF systems to their customers now

look at their equipment, include the fact that they will save fuel and electric because of new controls, ignitors instead of transformers and PSC motors

JCD

Cooler roofs

Maine Doug, you asked,
Do the buildings not have some sort of high value insulation now or I wonder if it is the evaporative cooling of plant life?

From the article: The city/county building, which covers the better part of a square block in downtown Chicago, is a great contrast. The city side has a green roof and the county side is black asphalt. There's a big temperature difference.

I would think that you pegged it with- the evaporative cooling of plant life. We have all walked barefoot on black asphalt and grass on bright sunny days enough to relate to this. Jim

Tony Conner_2

Define...

..."sized properly", when talking about night time solar. And just how much power can be had, and what's the cost?

I'm not a big fan of nuke power either, specifically due to the waste disposal issue. I'd rather see coal. But if it comes down to nuke or nothing, I'll plug into the nuke. And so will the vast majority of anti-nuke people. I suspect that you'd be one of the few exceptions, and I respect that. Most anti-nuke & anti-coal folks will talk the talk, but won't actually walk the walk, though. Here's a little test folks can give themselves:

Summer is coming. If you really believe that man is responsible for global warming, DON'T turn on your AC this summer - not in your house, and not in your car. I just don't see the vast majority of people doing without AC. Prove me wrong, folks

Tanner

Ahhhhh

Now I understand where you're coming from. Thanks for clearing that up.