[Shady Grady]

For all the tree hugging environmentalists that are so anti coal, I wonder if they would care to ask the Japanese how that clean energy is working out for them? With fossil fuels, technology is such that it can be used wisely. Even with the disaster in the gulf last year, yes the wildlife suffered, but what about human lives? There is absolutely no comparison to an oil spill and a nuclear meltdown. That's whats wrong with this country. More emphasis is placed on the spotted owl than human life. Before any of you get your shorts in a wad, I support taking care of the wildlife. However, given the choice between them and us, I choose us!!!

[Bolt]

For all the tree hugging environmentalists that are so anti coal, I wonder if they would care to ask the Japanese how that clean energy is working out for them? With fossil fuels, technology is such that it can be used wisely. Even with the disaster in the gulf last year, yes the wildlife suffered, but what about human lives? There is absolutely no comparison to an oil spill and a nuclear meltdown. That's whats wrong with this country. More emphasis is placed on the spotted owl than human life. Before any of you get your shorts in a wad, I support taking care of the wildlife. However, given the choice between them and us, I choose us!!!

I couldnt agree more Grady.
Im in the Coal business and know how important it is for families of E Ky to keep these jobs going. I believe in preserving wild life and other things like you, but not when it comes to are well being. PETA and other orginizations blow thing way out of proportion. I would bet any amount of money if any of those types of people were took back 200 years in time and the only thing to eat is what you hunted and killed, theyd be the first to grab a gun cause being hungry isnt a good feeling.
As long as coal sites keep redoing the thing there suppose to by regulation and do there best to rebuild once leaving, IMO that is a natural resource for us to use again later on.
Japan just goes to show us how the whole nuclear blow up isnt the way to go. An earthquake could happen here anytime and its scary to think of how many Americans could die in the wake of such destruction.

[Stardust]

I know nothing about Coal, but I do know that the disaster taking place in Japan will be devastating to those people. They have just been hit by their own Atom Bomb.

[TheRealVille]

Nuclear power is a LOT more regulated over here. Even so, there is nothing that can be made that mother nature can't tear down. I've worked in Nukes a lot, they are very safe. Japans backup system went down, because of the tsunami flooding the diesel generators. The radiation being detected is very low at this point. You get low level radiation from just walking around, or even eating bananas. If you chew tobacco or smoke, you should put a geiger counter up to those and see what happens. To be sure, those reactors could melt down and cause a catastrophe if they don't keep them cool, but as of right now, they are keeping them fairly cool. It coul get bad, but right now it isn't.

[TheRealVille]

We've had reactor meltdowns in the US before. Three Mile Island(PA} and Fermi(MI).

[TheRealVille]

I also support coal mining and coal burning, as long as it's done in a way as to not harm people or the environment.

[BillyB]

The reactor having problems in Japan is an old design. The newer ones are much safer. The Achilles Heel of any nuclear reactor is electricity -- to keep the cooling systems online.

[Bob Seger]

Nuclear power is a LOT more regulated over here. Even so, there is nothing that can be made that mother nature can't tear down. I've worked in Nukes a lot, they are very safe. Japans backup system went down, because of the tsunami flooding the diesel generators. The radiation being detected is very low at this point. You get low level radiation from just walking around, or even eating bananas. If you chew tobacco or smoke, you should put a geiger counter up to those and see what happens. To be sure, those reactors could melt down and cause a catastrophe if they don't keep them cool, but as of right now, they are keeping them fairly cool. It coul get bad, but right now it isn't.

I'm not going to pretend that I know the first thing about nuclear power, because I dont, but this accident is being classed as a stage 6 with a stage 7 being the worst as far as severity. The media is reporting that the 50 workers staying are putting their lives on the line and one stated that he is not afraid to die to try to fix the problem. They had to retreat yesterday because of the severness of the situation. From a dummy on the outside looking in, that kinda sounds like it's bad to me.

[Bob Seger]

The reactor having problems in Japan is an old design. The newer ones are much safer. The Achilles Heel of any nuclear reactor is electricity -- to keep the cooling systems online.

Drilling in the Gulf has been for the most part very safe and enviromentaly favorable too, but you see what happens when you have one accident. The liberalists go beserk and want to shut that down permanently. Where are they at now, when something really catastrophic developes. Not a peep!!

Clamp down on these idiots at the EPA, and put the drillers and the miners back to work in this country. Let them enforce what makes common sense to enforce, and stop the stupidity.

[TheRealVille]

I hadn't read anything new about the plant, until now. They are worried that it might leak high levels, but the reports don't say it is yet.

[TheRealVille]

They are evacuating a 20 mile radius, just in case. The main thing is to keep the reactors cool. If they can do that, they can turn this around. Low levels of radiation has been detected, but they are taking evacuation measures in case they can't get the reactor cool.

[Hoot Gibson]

I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with parts of every post in this thread. I once agreed with you, Grady, and thought that nuclear power should be developed only as a last resort but I changed my mind a few years ago.

It may seem foolish that the Japanese have built so many nuclear power plants in an area so prone to earthquakes and tsunamis but given their severe shortage of natural resources and the fact that all of Japan, they really did not have much of a choice.

Modern nuclear reactors are much safer than they were 40 years ago but nothing is going to be safe if it is hit by both one of the five strongest earthquakes ever measured on the planet and a tsunami. Large parts of the US are not prone to earthquakes (Florida and the Dakotas, for example). Nuclear reactors could be built in many areas with no fear of an earthquake even 1/100th as powerful as the one that hit Japan.

RV, I cannot say with certainty that the Japanese nuclear power plants are as heavily regulated as those in the US (I don't read Kanji) - but I would be shocked if that were the case. There are nuclear plants operating in this country that were built by GE 40 years ago based on the same design as the ones having problems in Japan.

Also, am I correct in saying that US plants tend to have much more spent fuel stored than most foreign plants because we have no nuclear waste disposal site? (Obama killed Yuca Mountain.) If so, then I think that they pose a bigger risk than the ones in Japan under more normal circumstances.

However, I do agree that so far, the safeguards seem to have worked pretty well in Japan. The media is focusing far too much attention on the nuclear plants when thousands of earthquake and tsunami victims are still missing. Assuming that the containment vessels do not fail, the casualties from the nuclear plant explosions will be relatively small compared to the other disasters.

[TheRealVille]

I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with parts of every post in this thread. I once agreed with you, Grady, and thought that nuclear power should be developed only as a last resort but I changed my mind a few years ago.

It may seem foolish that the Japanese have built so many nuclear power plants in an area so prone to earthquakes and tsunamis but given their severe shortage of natural resources and the fact that all of Japan, they really did not have much of a choice.

Modern nuclear reactors are much safer than they were 40 years ago but nothing is going to be safe if it is hit by both one of the five strongest earthquakes ever measured on the planet and a tsunami. Large parts of the US are not prone to earthquakes (Florida and the Dakotas, for example). Nuclear reactors could be built in many areas with no fear of an earthquake even 1/100th as powerful as the one that hit Japan.

RV, I cannot say with certainty that the Japanese nuclear power plants are as heavily regulated as those in the US (I don't read Kanji) - but I would be shocked if that were the case. There are nuclear plants operating in this country that were built by GE 40 years ago based on the same design as the ones having problems in Japan.

Also, am I correct in saying that US plants tend to have much more spent fuel stored than most foreign plants because we have no nuclear waste disposal site? (Obama killed Yuca Mountain.) If so, then I think that they pose a bigger risk than the ones in Japan under more normal circumstances.

However, I do agree that so far, the safeguards seem to have worked pretty well in Japan. The media is focusing far too much attention on the nuclear plants when thousands of earthquake and tsunami victims are still missing. Assuming that the containment vessels do not fail, the casualties from the nuclear plant explosions will be relatively small compared to the other disasters.

I agree, 100%. The main problem I see in Japan's nuclear problem is, if the American Nuclear Commissioner is correct, that the spent fuel rods got away from the spent fuel pool and are out in the open. If he isn't correct and they are still where they need to be, and they keep that reactor cool, they can contain this mess. Like you say, no matter how safe they have nuclear plants, they can't control mother nature. Like you, I can't see why they would build one in an earthquake prone area, especially close to a tsunami prone area.

[Old School]

Was the damage to the reactors caused mainly by the earthquake itself, or by the tsunami knocking out the power to the backup cooling systems?

Last night during an interview with nuclear experts (their words not mine) said that while these systems were designed by GE, the data used in the design was provided by Japan and that they were designed for a much smaller earthquake.

[Hoot Gibson]

I agree, 100%. The main problem I see in Japan's nuclear problem is, if the American Nuclear Commissioner is correct, that the spent fuel rods got away from the spent fuel pool and are out in the open. If he isn't correct and they are still where they need to be, and they keep that reactor cool, they can contain this mess. Like you say, no matter how safe they have nuclear plants, they can't control mother nature. Like you, I can't see why they would build one in an earthquake prone area, especially close to a tsunami prone area.

Japan is in an earthquake zone and it has very little fossil fuel reserves of its own. If the Japanese nuclear plants weather an earthquake of a 9.0 magnitude without suffering a total core meltdown, it should boost American confidence in nuclear power. Instead, our media and weak-kneed politicians are clamoring for a moratorium on nuclear development in this country until we can figure out what went wrong in Japan. What went wrong was they suffered an earthquake that was more than 20 times the intensity for which the plants were designed.

Although I support developing nuclear power, I would still strongly prefer living near a coal fired plant.

[TheRealVille]

Was the damage to the reactors caused mainly by the earthquake itself, or by the tsunami knocking out the power to the backup cooling systems?

Last night during an interview with nuclear experts (their words not mine) said that while these systems were designed by GE, the data used in the design was provided by Japan and that they were designed for a much smaller earthquake.

I don't know which happened to cause it OS. All I know is, when something went wrong, the tsunami flooded the backup diesel generators that provide electric that powers the system that keeps the reactor cool, and they wouldn't start so that they could do their job. From all appearances, it looks like the main electric was knocked out, then the diesel generators got flooded and wouldn't work, thus there was no electric to keep the cooling system going, and the reactors started heating up.

[Beetle01]

As for the oil spill, due to the chemicals used in the cleanup I will never for the rest of my life, ever take a vacation to the Gulf Coast.

[tvtimeout]

This is a very interesting thread. I have some opinions but that is just about it not facts. I would think comparing the meltdown to anything but to a meltdown is a mistake. Coal has served a purpose in the past and is serving one now with 20% using coal to power the country.

However, I think it is foolish for us the United States to rest on coal, because, it is a fossil fuel, therefore, there is just a limited quanity of it, and takes thousands of years to make. This is not a wise plan.

The oil arguement could be explained with the last paragraph that I wrote, but I will add more to this arguement. I believe (again believe) that certain groups on both sides of the Aisles are guilty for oil. It serves both sides not to drill and not to find alternative methods for oil or coal. Here is how, price manipulation on the right with coal and oil Subsidies going to the pockets of the right, and thus getting politicians re-elected. On the left, they have the people who love nature and that sort of thing and appeal to that group as well. Therefore, neither side will do anything about coal or oil.

Now, the American people are the ones getting hurt by this, (some of you are asking how, it puts me and my family to work, so on and so forth). Again, you are dealing with a fossil fuel, it will come to an end, so would it not be better to have a back up plan.

Some of you will say yes, but the market should dictate it, but I have already pointed out that the regulation on the market is one where a new product would not be premitted by those in power, and therefore, could never come into existance. If it was so, we would follow what Google does and their magic "black box", very interesting.

Look forward to hearing comments!

[Hoot Gibson]

This country has hundreds of years of coal, gas, and oil shale reserves remaining. Think of the technological advances that have been made in the past 110 years, thanks in large part to the cheap energy that fossil fuels have provided.

I would rather rely on future advances in technology replacing fossil fuels rather than strictly conserving our resources, lowering our standard of living, and delaying or preventing the arrival of future technological breakthroughs.

The development of great civilizations has coincided with the effective harnessing of affordable energy and that will always be the case. Fossil fuels are cheap and they should be utilized sooner rather than later. As they become more scarce, prices will rise and the market will stimulate the development of cheaper alternatives. Or not.

Either way, it really makes no difference to me if fossil fuels become prohibitively expensive in 200 years or 1,000 years. Either period is (hopefully) a mere blink of an eye in terms of mankind's existence on Earth. Our descendants will either find new sources of affordable energy or they will revert to an agrarian society that once again relies on horses for horsepower.

As for the rest of your post, I think that you need to do some research. A typical oil company pays three times or more in state, federal, sales, property taxes, etc. than it makes in profits. The gouging that is going on is being done by government not by the oil companies. Oil companies have historically posted profit margins below 10 percent, even when oil prices have been high.

As for "subsidies," can you post some details about where taxpayer dollars have been transferred from taxpayers (and our Chinese creditors) to a single oil company?

[tvtimeout]

This country has hundreds of years of coal, gas, and oil shale reserves remaining. Think of the technological advances that have been made in the past 110 years, thanks in large part to the cheap energy that fossil fuels have provided.

I would rather rely on future advances in technology replacing fossil fuels rather than strictly conserving our resources, lowering our standard of living, and delaying or preventing the arrival of future technological breakthroughs.

The development of great civilizations has coincided with the effective harnessing of affordable energy and that will always be the case. Fossil fuels are cheap and they should be utilized sooner rather than later. As they become more scarce, prices will rise and the market will stimulate the development of cheaper alternatives. Or not.

Either way, it really makes no difference to me if fossil fuels become prohibitively expensive in 200 years or 1,000 years. Either period is (hopefully) a mere blink of an eye in terms of mankind's existence on Earth. Our descendants will either find new sources of affordable energy or they will revert to an agrarian society that once again relies on horses for horsepower.

As for the rest of your post, I think that you need to do some research. A typical oil company pays three times or more in state, federal, sales, property taxes, etc. than it makes in profits. The gouging that is going on is being done by government not by the oil companies. Oil companies have historically posted profit margins below 10 percent, even when oil prices have been high.
As for "subsidies," can you post some details about where taxpayer dollars have been transferred from taxpayers (and our Chinese creditors) to a single oil company?

That is not logical, if a company pays three times as much in taxed as it takes in profits, it would be bankrupt. Exxon who posted it's highest profits ever two years would also prove it is not logical, simply because, my 401K did great with them!!!

[Hoot Gibson]

That is not logical, if a company pays three times as much in taxed as it takes in profits, it would be bankrupt. Exxon who posted it's highest profits ever two years would also prove it is not logical, simply because, my 401K did great with them!!!

Like I said, you need to do some research. Then, you need to check your math. Let us know what you find out. :popcorn:

[tvtimeout]

This country has hundreds of years of coal, gas, and oil shale reserves remaining. Think of the technological advances that have been made in the past 110 years, thanks in large part to the cheap energy that fossil fuels have provided.

I would rather rely on future advances in technology replacing fossil fuels rather than strictly conserving our resources, lowering our standard of living, and delaying or preventing the arrival of future technological breakthroughs.

The development of great civilizations has coincided with the effective harnessing of affordable energy and that will always be the case. Fossil fuels are cheap and they should be utilized sooner rather than later. As they become more scarce, prices will rise and the market will stimulate the development of cheaper alternatives. Or not.

Either way, it really makes no difference to me if fossil fuels become prohibitively expensive in 200 years or 1,000 years. Either period is (hopefully) a mere blink of an eye in terms of mankind's existence on Earth. Our descendants will either find new sources of affordable energy or they will revert to an agrarian society that once again relies on horses for horsepower.

As for the rest of your post, I think that you need to do some research. A typical oil company pays three times or more in state, federal, sales, property taxes, etc. than it makes in profits. The gouging that is going on is being done by government not by the oil companies. Oil companies have historically posted profit margins below 10 percent, even when oil prices have been high.

As for "subsidies," can you post some details about where taxpayer dollars have been transferred from taxpayers (and our Chinese creditors) to a single oil company?

You ask and you shall receive:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

[tvtimeout]

Like I said, you need to do some research. Then, you need to check your math. Let us know what you find out. :popcorn:

Again Ask you shall receive:

http://climateprogress.org/2010/04/27/bi...-oil-spil/

[tvtimeout]

And another:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/big-oil...2010-10-25

[Hoot Gibson]

[/B]

You ask and you shall receive:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

Tax breaks are not subsidies, despite the efforts of the New York Times and its liberal friends' best efforts to redefine the word. (Nor is an increase in the earned income tax a "tax cut." The earned income tax credit is, in fact, a subsidy.)

[tvtimeout]

This country has hundreds of years of coal, gas, and oil shale reserves remaining. Think of the technological advances that have been made in the past 110 years, thanks in large part to the cheap energy that fossil fuels have provided.

I would rather rely on future advances in technology replacing fossil fuels rather than strictly conserving our resources, lowering our standard of living, and delaying or preventing the arrival of future technological breakthroughs.
The development of great civilizations has coincided with the effective harnessing of affordable energy and that will always be the case. Fossil fuels are cheap and they should be utilized sooner rather than later. As they become more scarce, prices will rise and the market will stimulate the development of cheaper alternatives. Or not.

Either way, it really makes no difference to me if fossil fuels become prohibitively expensive in 200 years or 1,000 years. Either period is (hopefully) a mere blink of an eye in terms of mankind's existence on Earth. Our descendants will either find new sources of affordable energy or they will revert to an agrarian society that once again relies on horses for horsepower.

As for the rest of your post, I think that you need to do some research. A typical oil company pays three times or more in state, federal, sales, property taxes, etc. than it makes in profits. The gouging that is going on is being done by government not by the oil companies. Oil companies have historically posted profit margins below 10 percent, even when oil prices have been high.

As for "subsidies," can you post some details about where taxpayer dollars have been transferred from taxpayers (and our Chinese creditors) to a single oil company?

Again, the point that breakthroughs can not happen because the both sides of the aisle will never let that come to pass because they both stem to lose to much, which prevents progress, which prevents the market, which lowers the standard of living.

[tvtimeout]

Tax breaks are not subsidies, despite the efforts of the New York Times and its liberal friends' best efforts to redefine the word. (Nor is an increase in the earned income tax a "tax cut." The earned income tax credit is, in fact, a subsidy.)

I thought that you might say that, so I will continue to look in "more friendly waters":biggrin:

[tvtimeout]

http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/29/news/com.../index.htm

Is CNN ok or is that out of bounds?

[tvtimeout]

http://sovereign-investor.com/2011/01/17...-are-here/

How about these guys?

http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/pages/2...02-01.aspx


These guys? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193682,00.html

Granted a little older none the less proves the point... Oil companies are just fine.

[Hoot Gibson]

I thought that you might say that, so I will continue to look in "more friendly waters":biggrin:

A subsidy is a payment from the government to an individual or a company. Allowing a business to deduct business expenses is not a subsidy but the NYT portrayed it as such. If you post a similarly inaccurately headlined news release from the Heritage Foundation, that would not make a false assertion true.