Obama's energy plan address and how it may affect the gay community

  • 1AlanZSky

    Posts: 1505

    Aug 03, 2015 7:07 PM GMT
    I honestly don't think the climate change/energy plans will affect just the gay community. Everyone will be affected and I have no idea why this even came up.

    I am just thinking if the plans are going into action and any proper changes will happen, such as reduction in greenhouse gases etc.

    But on whether it affect the gay community is beyond me. I hear that these climate change deniers have been saying that God promised there will never be any more flooding after supposed Noah's two by two incident.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Aug 03, 2015 9:15 PM GMT
    We'll see how it plays out. Republicans don't believe in air pollution, so it's an uphill battle.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2015 2:42 AM GMT
    I'm glad to see such enthusiasm from the president about climate change. But Carbon Fee and Dividend would be a better solution. It puts money back into households after collecting fees from the source of emission. how would that affect the gay community? we'd all like more money in our pockets, amiright? (who wouldn't?)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2015 1:22 PM GMT
    TomSOCAL said...people are addicted to their SUV's. You're not going to make me "stop" driving a Jeep with gas and carbon taxes.

    The jump in gas prices during the Bush Administration caused SUVs to sit unsold on dealers' lots, people were moving back to smaller cars. The SUV decline is part of what led to the GM bankruptcy, because it was too heavily invested in their production and had no economical alternatives in the immediate production pipeline.

    And these high gasoline price spikes continued sporadically into the Obama administration, only coming down and somewhat stabilizing in the last few years. And so guess what auto segment is rebounding with lower gas prices? SUVs.

    And so price does affect what kind of vehicle people will buy. That's been demonstrated with every gas price crisis in the past. Whether it's due to the cost of oil or from taxes, what drivers see is that per-gallon price at the pump.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4862

    Aug 04, 2015 8:12 PM GMT

    Half-way measures to deal with climate change will make little difference, such as what Obama proposes.

    By the year 2100, the global demand for power will increase by about FOUR TIMES as poor countries strive to lift their people out of poverty. That includes power for heating, cooling, lighting, cooking, transportation, sea water desalination, manufacturing, etc. To reduce CO2 emissions to acceptable levels, about 90% of that power must come from non-CO2 emitting sources.

    Renewables, because of their intermittent nature, can make only a very minor contribution towards reducing CO2 emissions. Renewables are useful only under very limited circumstances.

    It is only nuclear power that can adequately reduce CO2 emissions so that 90% of global power will come from non-CO2 emitting sources. Unfortunately, the anti-nuclear crowd, by making government leaders afraid even to mention nuclear power, are leading us down a very destructive path.

    Even though our current nuclear power technology is worse than mediocre, it still has a far better safety record than any other currently used power generating technology. It is capable of reducing CO2 emissions to an acceptable level and should be greatly expanded until we develop a better nuclear technology.

    The reason we are temporarily stuck with a bad nuclear technology is that funds for R & D for better nuclear technologies were cut off in the late 1960s else we would already be using a better, more economical, more efficient, and safer nuclear power technology. The liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) looks especially promising, partly because it cannot melt down, but there are also other nuclear technologies that could be used to replace our current pressurized water nuclear reactors.

    Our government leaders should get over their fear of the anti-nuclear crowd and do what should be done, i.e., greatly expand nuclear power while supporting research for better nuclear technologies.
  • tennsjock

    Posts: 349

    Aug 05, 2015 3:23 AM GMT
    FRE0 said
    The liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) looks especially promising, partly because it cannot melt down, but there are also other nuclear technologies that could be used to replace our current pressurized water nuclear reactors.


    Two comments:
    1) A recent GAO technology assessment of advanced nuclear reactors says the high temperature gas reactor (HTGR) is closest to demonstration-stage. However, the report also finds that all advanced reactor concepts are at least 5 years away from submitting a design certification application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    2) The Department of Energy (DOE) halted work on the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) program in 2011 because of a lack of investors. DOE was ready to move forward with the program under a 50-50 cost-share agreement, but the low cost of natural gas means that, at least in the short-term, advanced reactors are not cost-competitive.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2015 3:50 AM GMT
    Lol "gay community" haha that's funny.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4862

    Aug 05, 2015 6:52 PM GMT
    tennsjock said
    FRE0 said
    The liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) looks especially promising, partly because it cannot melt down, but there are also other nuclear technologies that could be used to replace our current pressurized water nuclear reactors.


    Two comments:
    1) A recent GAO technology assessment of advanced nuclear reactors says the high temperature gas reactor (HTGR) is closest to demonstration-stage. However, the report also finds that all advanced reactor concepts are at least 5 years away from submitting a design certification application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    2) The Department of Energy (DOE) halted work on the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) program in 2011 because of a lack of investors. DOE was ready to move forward with the program under a 50-50 cost-share agreement, but the low cost of natural gas means that, at least in the short-term, advanced reactors are not cost-competitive.


    On another site, someone asserted that the integral fast reactor (IFR) is the closest to being ready for implementation. I don't really know, but I do see nuclear power as the ONLY solution.

    Considering the likely, but not accurately known, consequences of global warming, I think that the most rational approach would be to forget about how competitive natural gas is (it also emits CO2, about half as much as coal) and cost, and embark on a crash program to develop and implement a more suitable nuclear power technology. It might be reasonable to do R & D on multiple technologies until we know which is best.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2015 6:54 PM GMT
    so how is this all things gay? icon_rolleyes.gif Post it in the right section

    The world does not revolve around USA
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4862

    Aug 06, 2015 7:22 PM GMT
    TomSOCAL said
    bonaparts saidso how is this all things gay? icon_rolleyes.gif Post it in the right section

    The world does not revolve around USA


    Let's make nuke power gay. Ahhh.... the eye candy on the beaches of Southern California don't know they're in eminent danger .... if the Hangri Fault Zone off the coast of Solvang and San Luis Obispo goes .... the Diablo Canyon Nuke Plant will blow, and send a massive radiation plume over the Gayest State in the Union - Tens of thousands of deaths, from cancer.

    That plant was only built for a 7.0 quake. That fault can produce a 7.8 quake, as it did in the early 1900's when nobody lived along the central coast ...

    This is a very serious situation. Time to shut down Diablo Canyon -

    2_Calif-eco-farm-radiation_MAG.jpg



    That's a good point.

    I'm all for nuclear power and regard it as indispensable. However, we have to use good sense and pay adequate attention to safety. Even so, I doubt that earth quake damage of the Diablo Canyon reactor would cause anywhere near as many deaths as you suppose.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 10, 2015 6:43 AM GMT
    FRE0 said
    TomSOCAL said
    bonaparts saidso how is this all things gay? icon_rolleyes.gif Post it in the right section

    The world does not revolve around USA


    Let's make nuke power gay. Ahhh.... the eye candy on the beaches of Southern California don't know they're in eminent danger .... if the Hangri Fault Zone off the coast of Solvang and San Luis Obispo goes .... the Diablo Canyon Nuke Plant will blow, and send a massive radiation plume over the Gayest State in the Union - Tens of thousands of deaths, from cancer.

    That plant was only built for a 7.0 quake. That fault can produce a 7.8 quake, as it did in the early 1900's when nobody lived along the central coast ...

    This is a very serious situation. Time to shut down Diablo Canyon -

    2_Calif-eco-farm-radiation_MAG.jpg



    That's a good point.

    I'm all for nuclear power and regard it as indispensable. However, we have to use good sense and pay adequate attention to safety. Even so, I doubt that earth quake damage of the Diablo Canyon reactor would cause anywhere near as many deaths as you suppose.




    Worrying
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 10, 2015 9:12 AM GMT
    about 1995 vehicles, the family grocery getter, really bloted out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 12, 2015 12:00 PM GMT
    We will all be paying more for gas and electric. icon_cry.gif