You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #4: Failed in the sense that it has done nothing to eliminate fossil fuels in this state. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-09-07 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Failed in the sense that it has done nothing to eliminate fossil fuels in this state.
Edited on Sat Jun-09-07 09:47 PM by NNadir
I don't measure success in inability to produce either energy or plants.

Thank you for advocating the waste of my tax dollars on your trust fund brat subsidy for the well-off, but it won't mean a hill of beans. If I recall, you were here recently exulting about the plans to build coal in my state - none of which would be necessary if we built nuclear power plants, since just one large one would produce more energy than all of the solar plants in the United States.

In fact the vast solar subsidy for the rich here has not had a significant effect on energy production here. Thus it is a failure, since what we need is to eliminate fossil fuels in New Jersey (because of our nuclear plants we're half-way there.)

In fact, Japan put two nuclear plants on line last year that outproduce all of the solar energy of California and New Jersey on line.

Your remarks about Dick Cheney are typical of the fact that you know almost nothing about the subject of energy and thus need to distract from the bankruptcy of your position.

You want to talk about 1973. Now I know you know zero about history and a similar amount about numbers, since you have a particularly fraudulent way of representing numbers.

Here are the figures for the production of nuclear energy dating from going back to the Eisenhower administration:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec9_5.pdf

In 1973, around the time that people began talking about how solar energy was going to save the world, the total output of nuclear power plants was - can you read? - 83.5 billion kilowatt-hours. In 2005 it was 780 billion kilowatt-hours.

A failure?

The solar industry as of 2004 was producing 0.579 billion kilowatt-hours, mostly on the roofs of corporate facilities trying to greenwash themselves - like your friends at Walmart - and the roofs of rich trust fund brats.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/table11.html

Note that all these numbers use units of energy.

Note that in the Clinton-Gore years, nuclear energy production increased from 618 billion kilowatt-hours to 753 billion kilowatt-hours.

Let me guess. You think that Dick Cheney was controlling President Clinton's brain with special rays?

As for Governor Hydrogen Hummer and his brazillion solar roofs bill, you were here with all kinds of praise for it the last time it was passed. It isn't going to mean shit. It's a marketing toy.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC