Comments on: MIT Study: 200,000 Premature Deaths Caused by Emissions

By: JP Pierce Chardon OH

JP Pierce Chardon OH — Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:30:00 +0000

Please avoid the name gaming:

Taxpayers paying in , not buying nor affording, pay the tax credit subsidized === money did not grow on your president’s tree, maybe printed though,
30,000 dollar solar or geothermal heat pump with hot water production and heat recovery (www.hydro-temp.com)

or a 5kwh 35000 to 70,000 dollar wind mill for a small home use…
all getting ~ 9,000 to 20,000 dollars OFF THE AMOUNT DUE came from the anti-credit-buster / wanting continuation of tax-credits and non-worker handouts to mysteriously appear.

STOP the credits, I still profit too from and my customers so do…
and work on some government engineering to encourage more support of research and production of a better volkswagen-solar-or-wind-or GTHP , FIRST then…
after taking that money and getting rid of glass-house-federal buildings and related maintenance’s of 100,000 homes equivalency.

Better Ut’y rates (that could EASILY be the credit for everyone to have)
Better Buildings and distribution of HVAC and Hot Water
and
then
better equipment…

By: 13one

13one — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 03:00:00 +0000

No i don’t believe you bob.

By: 12up.

12up. — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 02:39:00 +0000

I don’t Believe you Bob

By: AegysLTS

AegysLTS — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 01:00:00 +0000

I couldn’t help chuckling to see you and him able to come to agreement about electrified transportation….if only my kids will learn to do that…

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 00:45:00 +0000

OK, Randy. Let’s review the evidence and see who is dead set in their beliefs and who flows with the facts.

1. Nuclear energy is expensive. It’s 2x to 3x more expensive than wind and solar.

2. Nuclear energy is dangerous. If we follow best practices and don’t screw up then it doesn’t hurt us. But we don’t always follow best practices and we do screw up. Witness TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

3. Nuclear energy leaves a problem of hazardous waste for those who follow us. Yes we can, at great cost, reduce the amount of hazardous waste we leave for many generation to come but we have no way to eliminate it. And we have no solution for the millions of tons and millions of gallons of radioactive no-fuel waste.

4. We could power the Earth, electricity, heat and transportation, with either sunshine or wind many times over. There is far more renewable energy available that we could foreseeably use even with 9 billion people living comfortable lives.

5. We have the technology in hand right now to power our lives with renewable energy for an affordable price and that technology is constantly improving.

Now, those are facts. And those facts lead me to believe that we should not waste money or endanger ourselves by building more nuclear generation but install renewables while closing down fossil fuel plants.

What do you choose to believe Randy?

By: Guest

Guest — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 00:27:00 +0000

*sigh…I came here for the article too, not to engage in mud-slinging debate…I wonder if the article did mention that MIT had one of the best Nuclear engineering program in the country…

By: Randy

Randy — Sun, 24 Nov 2013 23:07:00 +0000

You sound like someone who is dead set in believing what they believe no matter what they are told, no matter the evidence, I have no reason to talk to someone like you…

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sun, 24 Nov 2013 20:44:00 +0000

Had you thought a little you might have hit upon the fact that now all grids were likely to have the same need for storage. Some would have had much more dispatchable generation than others.

BTW, I thought you were going to stop posting for a while and spend some time educating yourself.

By: Randy

Randy — Sun, 24 Nov 2013 20:28:00 +0000

“Your wrong I’m right it doesn’t matter what you say!”

By: Randy

Randy — Sun, 24 Nov 2013 20:27:00 +0000

No, it is NOT there. It is about a TYPE of storage, you have no source showing that there has been 21 gWh of installed capacity BECAUSE of nuclear energy, nor do you have any source showing that there IS 21 gWh of capacity. I looked at the EIA site and there are many nuclear plants that are no where near any pumped storage.

By: Randy

Randy — Sun, 24 Nov 2013 20:24:00 +0000

*stop posting

By: Randy

Randy — Sun, 24 Nov 2013 20:22:00 +0000

Instead of wasting time with someone who thinks they are right and everyone else is stupid, and is being a total asshole, I think I’ll do something more productive.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sun, 24 Nov 2013 20:13:00 +0000

You’ve demonstrated your ignorance over and over, Randy. You’re ignorant when it comes to both renewables and nuclear.

Why don’t you spend some time learning rather than wasting your time posting and demonstrating how little you know?

By: Randy

Randy — Sun, 24 Nov 2013 19:54:00 +0000

I don’t know anything about renewable energy, i am just an ignorant person, huh? You know that I set up an off-grid solar circuit to run my electronics off of? I thnk renewables are great, for some places. Hawaii, for example. Arizona, I’m a fan of Solona. But in Ohio, we should build more nuclear.

By: Randy

Randy — Sun, 24 Nov 2013 19:51:00 +0000

They are building new coal to replace that clean nuclear energy… They are not building wind and solar anywhere close to fast enough to make up for it.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sun, 24 Nov 2013 19:51:00 +0000

More ignorance on your part, Randy.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sun, 24 Nov 2013 19:49:00 +0000

Again, Randy, you do not know what you’re talking about.

Spend some time and learn the basics.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sun, 24 Nov 2013 19:49:00 +0000

Read the links. Your explanation is there.

By: Randy

Randy — Sun, 24 Nov 2013 19:48:00 +0000

Again, I told you, I know EXACTLY what pumped storage is. You told me that there is 21 gWh of storage for nuclear, I want to see that source. I asked it as plainly as possible.

By: Randy

Randy — Sun, 24 Nov 2013 19:47:00 +0000

If people were not so ignorant on new nuclear, they wouldn’t care about it being built.

The problem is wind is extremely intermittent and unpredictable, so a dispersed grid can bring in power from elsewhere to make up for the differences.

New nuclear wouldn’t require near as much more infrastructure as wind, especially if it was built to replace the large coal and NG plants in the the east part of the US…

Rivers and large lakes.