Federal intervention is what lets them get away with doing the things they do. In a free market, they’d be paying reparations to their victims for the rest of their lives.
Who would make them pay the reparations? Sounds like there would have to be some of that Federal intervention you are so fond of.
Um, their victims?
Judged by a neutral mediator, not a Federal judge who is part of the system that is designed to protect the CEO from liability and, therefore, not even vaguely unbiased.
Or would you rather a SWAT team, who would end up getting the wrong address and killing some innocent family? “Oops!”
Somehow, I tend to prefer nonviolent solutions, when possible.
Rarely have I ever met a “neutral” mediator. I do, however, hold federal court judges in fairly high esteem. They are some of the most straight individuals you will ever meet, period.
Since the mediator is chosen by the participants, if they all agree to a biased mediator, that would be pretty silly for whomever agreed to have the situation judged by someone who was biased against them…
Mike Wilson - 23 April 2008 11:44 AM
I do, however, hold federal court judges in fairly high esteem. They are some of the most straight individuals you will ever meet, period.
I take it you’ve never read the rulings of the Ninth Circuit?
When you consider that all judges got there by being BIG players in one political machine or the other, it becomes tough to get really fair ones - BUT, as Mike suggests, the fact that they have a job for LIFE and can’t be taken down does give them a fair amount of say. For federals judges, it is often a chance to actually put their ideals to work...after a LIFETIME of pandering to pols.
Sure would be nice if there was a better way to rise to judgeships other than doing the parties bidding. My daughter thought about being a judge at one time, but after she found out she would have to trade in her ethics before starting (the rise within the party), she declined.
Funny story - when Martha ran for council one of the local Dems was the WORST possible person and lawyer you could imagine...a real snake, sell-out and just about every other bad name you want to think of (alcoholic, cheater on his wife, etc. etc). For numerous reasons, Martha refused to have him on her campaign committee - even though he was in some big party position. She ended up winning that battle.....BUT
next thing we know, the dude is appointed as Superior Court Judge (they try murders, among other things!)......AND, he was appointed by the OTHER PARTY (GOP). Turned out that he had made some deals with them about some high $$$ projects, contracts, etc.....and as a reward for going their way, he was appointed judge for life.
Unlike the Presidency, though, I do have some respect for the position of a judge - more for the idea than the implementation. Done right, it is about the best possible ideals of our system of laws.
When you consider that all judges got there by being BIG players in one political machine or the other, it becomes tough to get really fair ones - BUT, as Mike suggests, the fact that they have a job for LIFE and can’t be taken down does give them a fair amount of say. For federals judges, it is often a chance to actually put their ideals to work...after a LIFETIME of pandering to pols.
I’ll remember that when you talk about them pandering to corporations…
Funny, but I think they’re still doing it for political and monetary gain, not because they think it’s “the right thing to do.”
How often has a court ever ruled against a corporation? It happens, but they usually side pretty firmly with the corporate world.
Good dialog, but getting way off the orig. green room topic. Maybe start a fresh thread in the ash can on the role and biases of the judiciary?
I do think it’s a bit relevant to the situation. After all, is the current price of oil fair? Or does it ignore externalities that should be factored it? Obviously, most folks here will be fans of supplementing energy usage with wood-based fuels, but for primary energy production, we’re still not “there” for making wood an efficient and cost-effective way to generate power.
If we can get away for the legal bias against nuclear power, a generation of modern nuke plants would likely give us the time to develop alternatives to things like coal, oil, and gas. Nuclear still isn’t renewable, so it can never be a permanent solution, but it’s at least cleaner than those things, and gives us time to work the kinks out of renewable power generation.
I do think the judiciary is biased in favor of fossil fuels, which is why alternatives are so hard to implement. We’re supposed to have a three-branch government, and it’s time for the other two branches to put their feet down and prevent the judiciary from impeding necessary economic and environmental progress.
We can’t magically reduce our power consumption overnight. We can’t magically make the alternatives feasible tomorrow. We need a minimally-polluting power source which we can use right now, so that we have the time to do those other two things. We need nuclear power now, so we have time to make changes to give us a renewable future.
If they needed to enough to cover projected 30 year growths, they would. Right now though, oil is scarce and expensive, why damp it down with large announcements of huge discoveries?
BeGreen - 19 April 2008 10:07 PM
Sounds like we’re back to Mr. Fusion
In the meantime, I’m growing much fonder of the Prius. At 45mpg normal, short trip driving, 55 hwy and about $30 average fillup it’s been a good choice until there is a better solution. Would 45 miles per liter be better, you bet! But that may take a few more years.
Sadly, BMW just came out with a new 5 series sedan that gets better mileage than a Prius, and it’s not a hybrid. Just a new diesel engine. I’d much rather have a regular looking car with enough room for my 6ft 4, 240lb butt, and my two kids who are almost as tall as I am (the wife’s a little shorty at 5ft3) than a little tiny Prius.
Have you sat in a new Prius? It’s classified a mid-sized car and has surprisingly good legroom, even in the back seat. As compared to the BMW 528 the Prius is roomier. Front legroom 1/2” longer, rearlegroom 2.6” longer, front headroom 2” higher. And as far as systems coordinating, believe me, Toyota has this down. It’s virtually transparent.
Nope, and won’t. The Prius is green in name only. When the batteries are taken into account, including disposal, the cost of ownership is a lot higher and more toxic. When a regular car is sent to the crusher the fuel is drained for the salvage yard’s use, the oil and antifreeze are recycled and there is one small lead acid battery to deal with, while a Prius has a whole lot of heavy metal batteries to dispose of. This new BMW signals the possibility of having the MPG of a hybrid with none of the environmental issues. Besides, Toyota is investing in gasoline hybrids, when the more logical choice would be a diesel hybrid. Imagine what your Prius would be getting with a diesel engine half the size of the gasoline engine? Yes, diesel is more expensive but for the most part diesel will have to be 1.5 to 2 times as expensive as gasoline to match cost on two vehicles, more or less equal, except one has a diesel and the other has a gasoline engine.
Toyota put a recycling program in place with the release of the car. The batteries are not disposed in a landfill. Agreed there may be a diesel hybrid in the future. But given the size of the gasoline market in the US and the premium for diesel I can see why they chose the gas market first. The BMW is just an incremental gain on improving diesel technology. It’s good that they are doing it, but better mileage can be obtained in other European diesels, especially if not driven at 75 mph. I expect the next generation of hybrids, with significant battery improvements, will push the mpg envelope to a new level. And then some companies will marry them with diesels (GM, Honda, Citroen?) and we will continue to see improvements. And this is a good thing. Just not soon enough!
Since the mediator is chosen by the participants, if they all agree to a biased mediator, that would be pretty silly for whomever agreed to have the situation judged by someone who was biased against them…
Obviously you have never personally chosen a mediator. Don’t ever assume a fact not in evidence… to wit: an individual’s knowledge that the mediator selected is predisposed.
BrownianHeatingTech - 23 April 2008 11:57 AM
Mike Wilson - 23 April 2008 11:44 AM
I do, however, hold federal court judges in fairly high esteem. They are some of the most straight individuals you will ever meet, period.
I take it you’ve never read the rulings of the Ninth Circuit?
Joe
Then you take it incorrectly. I am well aware of the ninth circuit, as I am of the remainder of the federal circuits. In fact, I am published on them, so it can be said that I am fairly familiar with what I speak. That said, I maintain my aforementioned position… The fact that the ninth circuit is bent to the left is immaterial to the matter at hand. The bench is solid.
If we can get away for the legal bias against nuclear power, a generation of modern nuke plants would likely give us the time to develop alternatives to things like coal, oil, and gas. Nuclear still isn’t renewable, so it can never be a permanent solution, but it’s at least cleaner than those things, and gives us time to work the kinks out of renewable power generation.
We need nuclear power now, so we have time to make changes to give us a renewable future.
Joe
OK, let me understand this. You are dismayed that the Federal Courts come down on the side of corporations, so you want them to come down on the side of Nuclear Power companies to balance it?
And you must know that nuclear power cannot and will not exist independent of gov. guarantees, yet you approve of the government insuring the industry?
It’s hard to fathom such a position of irresponsibility. Such a policy of nuclear power could only happen.....dare I say.....in a Socialist country like France where the government nurses the people. Hard to imagine you are pushing for that.
As fas as the WAITING for renewables to “get there”.....they are already there. If it was not for nimbys (Cape Wind) and lack of planning, we’d be able to go right ahead and forget about those nuke power plants.
The basic idea is that if we FIGURE IN ALL THE COSTS of your nuke power, we already have enough to get the solar instead! Right now......let alone what price solar will be when the nuke plants are built.....
As the article says “I believe that I will prove in this article that UNSUBSIDIZED solar is ALREADY at grid parity today against UNSUBSIDIZED “conventional” power sources. The word “parity” implies “equality,” and therefore, the only fair comparison is one where ALL costs are taken into account.”
Based on your (Joes) outlook on taking ALL costs into account, how can the creation of tens of thousands of years waste be calculated??
Obviously you have never personally chosen a mediator. Don’t ever assume a fact not in evidence… to wit: an individual’s knowledge that the mediator selected is predisposed.
Failing to do due diligence is just silly.
I’ve worked with mediators before. I have a good friend who is a mediator, and he’s even used my kitchen as a location to mediate a divorce for some mutual friends who split up and needed a neutral location to use.
Mike Wilson - 23 April 2008 04:07 PM
The fact that the ninth circuit is bent to the left is immaterial to the matter at hand. The bench is solid.
The fact that they rule based upon personal bias (as you freely admit) rather than the actual law is “immaterial” to you?
Webmaster - 23 April 2008 06:40 PM
BrownianHeatingTech - 23 April 2008 12:25 PM
If we can get away for the legal bias against nuclear power, a generation of modern nuke plants would likely give us the time to develop alternatives to things like coal, oil, and gas.
OK, let me understand this. You are dismayed that the Federal Courts come down on the side of corporations, so you want them to come down on the side of Nuclear Power companies to balance it?
As you quoted me saying, I want them to eliminate bias. I don’t want them to be on anyone’s “side.” I want them to rule fairly and impartially, rather than catering to the oil companies and the like.
Webmaster - 23 April 2008 06:40 PM
And you must know that nuclear power cannot and will not exist independent of gov. guarantees, yet you approve of the government insuring the industry?
As I and anyone else who has studied this knows, no such thing is required. Lloyd’s will insure anyone. You can insure anything, if you can pay the premiums. If you build the plant to actually be safe, the premiums will be manageable.
Webmaster - 23 April 2008 06:40 PM
As fas as the WAITING for renewables to “get there”.....they are already there. If it was not for nimbys (Cape Wind) and lack of planning, we’d be able to go right ahead and forget about those nuke power plants.
The basic idea is that if we FIGURE IN ALL THE COSTS of your nuke power, we already have enough to get the solar instead! Right now......let alone what price solar will be when the nuke plants are built.....
As the article says “I believe that I will prove in this article that UNSUBSIDIZED solar is ALREADY at grid parity today against UNSUBSIDIZED “conventional” power sources. The word “parity” implies “equality,” and therefore, the only fair comparison is one where ALL costs are taken into account.”
Do you really want me to go through and point out all the glaring errors in that article?
Like considering only the price of the solar panels (using figured that are subsidized in various ways, even though he claims at the beginning that he will use unsubsidized numbers), and comparing it to the operating cost of the other plants. And only comparing the “old tech” nuclear plants, as well as figuring in that the government will impede their installation (thereby raising the cost), even though that’s precisely what I (and others) are arguing should be ended…
PV is far from “100% clean,” as well. The production of PV panels involves quite a bit of toxic waste, and major energy usage. Where does the energy to produce the energy-producing panels come from? Why don’t we include the externalities, eh? He includes the externalities and the regulatory cost in the other technologies, and ignores them for his chosen technology. Hardly accurate reporting…
Webmaster - 23 April 2008 06:40 PM
Based on your (Joes) outlook on taking ALL costs into account, how can the creation of tens of thousands of years waste be calculated??
Easy. By accounting for the cost of burying it deep enough that it will be sequestered for that period of time.
Based on your (Joes) outlook on taking ALL costs into account, how can the creation of tens of thousands of years waste be calculated??
Easy. By accounting for the cost of burying it deep enough that it will be sequestered for that period of time.
Joe
Sounds like the Staples Easy Button!
So, since it is easy, give me a really rough idea of the cost per KWH to do so. If you cannot, it must not be so easy. And can you please calculate that there is no geological formation on the planet proven stable enough to contain this stuff for the length of time it would take?
Sure, PV or any technology has hurdles. But, unlike nuclear, they are addressable. Nuclear folks are just giving us the old “wink wink” Easy Button. Hey, I’ll back ALL those new nuke plants if they self-insure and if they 99% come up with an actual disposal system for the waste (and actually implement it).
So I’m all for it. The problem is, as you know, that if we wait for that to happen Solar and wind, etc. will be that much cheaper and there will no reason to do it anyway! So, as we all like to think, as long as government keeps their hands off of it, no new nukes are likely to be built (or very few)....and, IMHO, that is a good thing.
As we used to say in the wood heating field, why heat a reactor core up to tens of thousands of degrees just to heat your house or hot water to 70?
France, BTW, ships their nuclear waste to poor countries and all over the world. I guess, as you say, as long as the natives were not coerced (and since they don’t even know, they were not coerced).
They also have some of the lowest electric rates in Europe and emit a small fraction of their neighbors CO2.
Also read the section on public opinion:
In France, unlike in America, nuclear energy is accepted, even popular. Everybody I spoke to in Civaux loves the fact their region was chosen. The nuclear plant has brought jobs and prosperity to the area. Nobody I spoke to, nobody, expressed any fear.[7]
Palfreman, Jon. “Why the French Like Nuclear Energy”, Frontline, Public Broadcasting Service, 1997. Retrieved on 2007-08-25.
Maybe you should read this - France is piling up their waste and it is costing BIG. Perhaps we should learn from their experiences.....outlined as such:
“The cost of waste disposal—hundreds of billions of euros—is being passed along to ratepayers. High rates aren’t the only legacy of 50 years of nuclear power. Citizens and scientists alike are concerned about security, groundwater contamination, and storage.”
“The director of the Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique (CEA) at the Marcoule facility, Loic Martin-Deidier, recalls the enthusiasm for quickly launching civil and military nuclear programs. At the time, he says, “they weren’t thinking 40 years ahead.”
“The Soulaines-Dhuys site will enter a 300-year surveillance phase. After that, the plan is to observe the site until the stored waste loses its radioactivity. The initial 300 years is just the beginning. Even moderately radioactive plutonium retains hazardous for 24,000 years. Skeptics wonder if future generations will follow the plan—or even remember where the site is located.”
And perhaps the part that says it best:
“The country is far behind most of its European neighbors in renewable energy development. It has meager fossil fuel resources, such as coal or gas. The country is, for the foreseeable future, dependent on nuclear power.”
