12
   

Moderate Democrats (also liberals)

 
 
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Feb, 2019 12:47 pm
@Olivier5,
Hazardous to Human Health
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Feb, 2019 12:55 pm
@hightor,
Thanks! Of course it would be. Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Wed 27 Feb, 2019 12:56 pm
@Olivier5,
Coal ash contains arsenic, mercury, lead and over a dozen other heavy metals.

Like with plastics and other undesirable products, we ship it Bangladesh and such countries.
ASHTRANS is the "dealer community".
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Feb, 2019 01:04 pm
There was a huge coal ash slurry spill in Tennessee in 2008 from a government owned coal plant which made it's way into two rivers.

'The TVA Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill occurred just before 1 a.m. on Monday December 22, 2008, when an ash dike ruptured at an 84-acre (0.34 km2) solid waste containment area at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston Fossil Plant in Roane County, Tennessee, releasing 1.1 billion US gallons (4,200,000 m3) of coal fly ash slurry. The coal-fired power plant, located across the Clinch River from the city of Kingston, uses ponds to dewater the fly ash, a byproduct of coal combustion, which is then stored in wet form in dredge cells. The slurry (a mixture of fly ash and water) traveled across the Emory River and its Swan Pond embayment, on to the opposite shore, covering up to 300 acres (1.2 km2) of the surrounding land, damaging homes and flowing up and down stream in nearby waterways such as the Emory River and Clinch River (tributaries of the Tennessee River). It was the largest fly ash release in United States history.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Feb, 2019 01:09 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

No argument on the danger of emissions, but on wastes, can't coal ash be disposed of as landfill?


It can indeed, but some of the toxic constituents Walter listed are fairly mobile in the soil and, once the landfill liner is broken (a near inevitability) they can reach the groundwater. Mercury is toxic forever. Nuclear waste is (generally less) toxic, and only for just a few half lives of the substance involved. For the great majority of the waste that's about 50 years.

The company I run makes a lot of money repairing leaking old landfills.
Olivier5
 
  4  
Reply Wed 27 Feb, 2019 01:14 pm
@georgeob1,
Alright, thanks for the info to George and everyone else. I was blissfuly unaware of that. Another reason to go to renewables.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Feb, 2019 12:19 pm
@Olivier5,
We aren't going to run our of Uranium any time soon (and the U.S. has enough fissile fuel on hand to power the country for a century - France likely does as well.) Nuclear power is emissions free, and the management of the nuclear waste is both inexpensive and reliable. The processed uranium fuel is cheaper than either coal or gas.

Current technologies for both wind and solar power are not yet adequate for either to become a reliable or economic mass source of energy. Both must be designed to be able to handle the most intense sunlight or highest winds either will encounter. However the wind doesn't blow, and the sun doesn't shine all the time. The result is that for both ~ three units of generating capacity must be installed for each unit of power produced (24/7). An associated limit is that large scale energy storage is at best 50% efficient - you get back only half of what you put in.

There are already more efficient solar cells than the conventional silicon types, but so far they are very expensive - a situation that will likely improve fairly soon. Wind turbines are about as good as they're likely to get. The most effective large scale energy storage is in dams where hydroelectric generators can capture about half of the stored potential energy. Improved battery technologies with ~ 80% efficiency are in the works, but scaling them up to economically meet power requirements is likely a very long way off.

The central point here is that to sustain human life and eliminate emissions we're going to need nuclear power and a great deal of improved technology for "renewable" sources. That will likely take a long time. In the shorter term other steps ( in order of magnitude) involve (1) transitioning from coal to natural gas, which yields a ~50% reduction in CO2 emissions,and eliminates the problem of coal ash. (2) Expanding the use of nuclear power creates new large scale sources of emission free power and finally; (3) the continued application of wind & solar ( still a good deal more expensive and less efficient than the options above).
ehBeth
 
  4  
Reply Thu 28 Feb, 2019 12:59 pm
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/02/democrats-two-paths-beating-trump-2020/583846/

Quote:
Two distinct paths are emerging for Democrats to beat Donald Trump in 2020, each presenting different challenges—and perhaps demanding a different kind of nominee.

The paths are through the Rust Belt and Sun Belt battlegrounds, which both parties consider most likely to decide the next presidential contest. New state-level polling from Gallup signals that Democrats face very different equations in those two regions.



Quote:
In the key Rust Belt states that Trump captured in 2016, his job-approval rating during 2018 was consistently worse than his national average among whites with and without a college degree, according to detailed figures provided to me by Gallup. This suggests that the most straightforward path for Democrats to recapture these states—particularly Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin—may be to find a nominee who can reassure white voters who are cooling on Trump.

In almost all the Sun Belt states that Democrats are hoping to contest, by contrast, Trump’s approval rating among both college- and non-college-educated white voters exceeds his national average, according to the same previously unpublished results. This suggests that to flip targets such as Arizona, Florida, and North Carolina, Democrats must find a nominee who can mobilize much greater turnout among those states’ large and growing populations of nonwhite voters.

snip

Quote:
But while the same message could prove equally effective in both regions of the country, it’s difficult to argue that the same candidate can deliver it as effectively to both audiences. Most analysts would probably agree that Amy Klobuchar, the senator from Minnesota; Joe Biden, the former vice president; and Sherrod Brown, the senator from Ohio, may be best positioned to reel in white midwestern voters already retreating from Trump. But each seems less likely to excite younger, nonwhite voters than others in the field, including Senators Kamala Harris of California and Cory Booker of New Jersey, both of whom are black; former San Antonio Mayor and federal housing official Julian Castro, who is Latino; and former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas, who showed an electric capacity to inspire younger audiences during his losing Senate bid against Republican Ted Cruz. Vermont’s Senator Bernie Sanders, though much older than those four, also has a record of energizing young people, including African Americans and Latinos.

The new Gallup data, based on more than 73,000 interviews conducted throughout 2018, highlight the clear differences between the opportunities—and challenges—Democrats face in the Rust Belt and Sun Belt. Gallup’s numbers, which track results among all adults, generally show Trump with a slightly poorer job-approval rating in these states than did the Edison Research exit poll conducted last fall among actual voters in the midterm elections. But the Gallup figures could be revealing of attitudes in the larger pool of Americans who usually vote in presidential elections.


big snip

Quote:
In potentially competitive states in the Sun Belt and Rust Belt, Gallup found that Trump drew anemic support from nonwhite voters last year. In Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and North Carolina—all states where the minority population is primarily African American—no more than 17 percent of nonwhites approved of the president’s job performance. Trump rated slightly better among minority voters in Texas (22 percent approval), Florida (25 percent), and Arizona (28 percent), three states where the nonwhite population is primarily Hispanic.

But while Trump’s absolute approval ratings were lower among minority voters in the Rust Belt, it’s the Sun Belt where nonwhite voters likely offer greater opportunity to Democrats. The reason is that in the Rust Belt states, the minority populations are growing only slowly, while in the Sun Belt they’re growing more rapidly. In each of the Democrats’ target states except North Carolina, nonwhites are expected to comprise a majority of the state population under 30 by 2020, according to projections by the Brookings Institution demographer William Frey.


big snip

Quote:
A logical response for Democrats might be to pick a 2020 ticket that combines one candidate best suited to reassure older whites cooling toward Trump with another best positioned to mobilize younger nonwhites who are more unreservedly hostile to him but less inclined to turn out. The new polling results signal that either path could beat Trump—but that neither is guaranteed to do so.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Feb, 2019 01:12 pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/booker-and-four-2020-presidential-rivals-endorse-marijuana-legalization/2019/02/28/f8a97026-3ae2-11e9-a06c-3ec8ed509d15_story.html
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Mar, 2019 06:34 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
The central point here is that to sustain human life and eliminate emissions we're going to need nuclear power and a great deal of improved technology for "renewable" sources.

I agree with that.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Mar, 2019 10:50 am
I just looked up danger of spent fuel rods. 10000 years. But not to worry
Our government is looking after them. The same government that can't keep our highways repaired for 100 years but thinks a stupid fence will stop drugs coming into the country. Keep watching fox propaganda.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Mar, 2019 02:21 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

I just looked up danger of spent fuel rods. 10000 years. But not to worry
Our government is looking after them. The same government that can't keep our highways repaired for 100 years but thinks a stupid fence will stop drugs coming into the country. Keep watching fox propaganda.

The spent fuel rods are indeed radioactive for a very long time. The (very small) component of plutonium has a half Life of about 20,000 years ( there are actually two isotopes,; one with a 24,000 year half life, the other with a 14 year half life.)

We could easily reprocess the spent fuel; reducing the waste volume and radioactivity by almost half and recovering other usable fuel in it. Our Navy does that with the spent fuel from its nuclear powered ships, and I believe France, Britain, Japan, Russia and China all do that with their spent fuel from nuclear power stations.

In either case the volume of the high level waste is very small. All of the high level waste produced by Nuclear power generating stations in this country since the late 1960s would fill a football field about 3.5 feet deep. That's not a big engineering problem.

The total spent fuel from the two 500MW reactors in a Nimitz class aircraft carrier - after 50 years of designed operation - is about 600Kg. The associated environmental insult of this is trivial, compared to other power sources. Commercial reactors use fuel that is less enriched, and therefore yield a greater volume of waste. However that is a simple design/cost tradeoff. More enrichment of the Uranium fuel = less high level waste.

My company recently completed a large asbestos contaminated soil removal at a site in Oregon. We removed (and transported to a waste dump) enough soil to fill that football field 180 feet deep. In comparison to that, the 3 foot depth of the high level nuclear waste is a relatively trivial engineering problem.
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Mon 4 Mar, 2019 06:42 pm
I'm sure you are in favor of nuclear generation because it means more government contracts for your company. As with most business the loss of life caused by radioactivity is accounted for in dollars in your contacts from the government, which is why wind and sun power is looked down on by companies like yours. Not enough money in it for you.
georgeob1
 
  4  
Reply Mon 4 Mar, 2019 09:30 pm
@RABEL222,
I previously ran companies that operated government nuclear sites at Hanford WA and Rocky Flats CO, but the company I'm with now does no government nuclear work, though we do a small amount of work for Private utility companies. I have a lot of experience with nuclear power, starting with Adm. Rickover's nuclear training, and in command of nuclear powered ships, and later running a nuclear engineering consulting company, and still later the two above-mentioned sites. I have no financial interest in nuclear power, but, unlike you and most critics, I have a great deal of experience with it, and know what I am talking about.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Mar, 2019 02:18 pm
@georgeob1,
The fact that I am open minded and read a lot of material both pro and con means I don't have a business bias toward nuclear power.
georgeob1
 
  3  
Reply Tue 5 Mar, 2019 02:21 pm
@RABEL222,
There are many forms of bias and business is only one. I don't have that one either, however I do know a lot more about the facts and risks associated with both nuclear power and it's alternatives than evidently you do.
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Mar, 2019 02:33 pm
🦚
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Wed 6 Mar, 2019 07:40 pm
@georgeob1,
Your sure good at spreading trumpian b s.
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2019 03:14 pm
@RABEL222,
And you're fairly deficient in your use of the language.
glitterbag
 
  3  
Reply Sun 10 Mar, 2019 01:15 am
@georgeob1,
Trumpian?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/28/2022 at 01:23:27