SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Cogito who wrote (62913)5/2/2008 7:48:16 AM
From: slacker711  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 541945
 
I am not totally opposed to nukes, of course. I just think that if you can build a five hundred megawatt solar thermal plant in less than two years, which you can, for less money than an equivalent nuclear plant costs, which you also can, then the solar plant makes a lot more sense to build than the nuclear plant. This assumes that you do have the space for the solar plant. If you don't, well, maybe the nuclear plant is a good idea.

I figured I'd throw some numbers into the conversation.

The world's largest solar plant is under consideration in Arizona. It would produce 280 Megawatts at a cost of $1 billion and be operational in 2011. The backers say that construction hinges on renewal of the energy subsidies that expire at the end of '08.

solveclimate.com

OTOH, NRG Energy applied for the first nuclear license in 30 years last year. This plant will have a capacity of 2700 Megawatts and cost between $6 and $7 billion but wont be online until 2014/2015.

snl.com

One other interesting number I came up with....the area used by the solar plant in Arizona is about 3 square miles. I looked up the total energy supplied by coal in the US and it is 333,000 Megawatts. Assuming that solar plants can scale linearly, that would mean that we would need a piece of land about 60 miles by 60 miles to replace all of the countries coal production. That isnt nearly as bad as I would have figured.

Slacker



To: Cogito who wrote (62913)5/2/2008 10:00:13 AM
From: Gersh Avery  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 541945
 
Hi Allen

Have you seen this:

amazon.com

One review:

Dr. Ron Paul's THE REVOLUTION: A MANIFESTO is a concise (167 pages) and convincing argument for a return to America's libertarian principles. During his campaign for president, Dr. Paul established a very diverse following: Republicans, Democrats, Greens, and "even some anarchists," he would joke. In truth, many people were drawn to him due his obvious sincerity -- a breath of fresh air! -- even if they did not fully agree with or understand his ideology. Now they will understand and become Austro-Jeffersonians, one and all!

The first chapter, "The False Choices of American Politics," demonstrates why those Ron Paul supporters who do understand his message cannot bring themselves to vote for either McCain or Hillary/Obama, or even to really care who among them wins: There is very little (if any) substantive difference between them. They may disagree about when and where to use foreign intervention, but never over whether it should be used at all. They may disagree over how fast interest rates should be cut by the Fed, but never over whether the Fed should exist. You get the idea.

Chapters 2 and 3 are titled "The Foreign Policy of the Founding Fathers" and "The Constitution," respectively. Here Dr. Paul challenges his neocon and liberal opponents to openly condemn the wisdom of the founding fathers, which they do with their actions, or else follow it. The framers of the Constitution were far from unanimous -- there were bitter disputes among so-called "Federalists" (Hamiltonian nationalists) and "republicans" (Jeffersonian decentralists) -- but today's neocon/liberals reject the wisdom of both parties, taking an expansive view of their powers that even Hamilton himself would have seen as excessive.

Chapter 4, "Economic Freedom," may be an eye-opening one for many readers. First, there are the liberals who were attracted to Dr. Paul's campaign, who may for the first time be presented with a contrast between the true Austro-Jeffersonian libertarian brand of capitalism and the inflationist, Kudlow & Company / Forbes magazine variety. Secondly there are many "paleoconservatives" I met who supported Dr. Paul but were under the mistaken impression that he was against free trade -- nothing could be further from the truth! In fact, as Dr. Paul points out here, he is 100% in favor of unilateral, unconditional free trade and 100% against quotas, sanctions, embargoes, duties, and protective tariffs. He does oppose phony "free-trade" deals like NAFTA and the WTO (joining many liberal Democrats in doing so, but for different reasons) not because they "steal American jobs" (they don't), but because they limit trade too greatly. Furthermore, they erode constitutional sovereignty and work for the benefit of politically connected elites, something with which libertarians, paleocons, and liberals can all agree.

All three constituencies will also cheer Chapter 5, "Civil Liberties and Personal Freedom." Here the contrast between Jeffersonian libertarianism (once considered "liberalism" before that philosophy was given a bad name in the early twentieth century) and the so-called "conservatism" of the neocons and post-WWII New Rightists is perhaps at its greatest. Ron Paul supports the Constitution and the limits it places on government -- which makes him a "blame America" leftist among the neocon punditry, all apologists for the liberal Wilson/FDR/Truman/LBJ foreign policy, by the way.

But the best and most important chapter, without a doubt, is Chapter 6, "Money: The Forbidden Issue in American Politics." Here Dr. Paul expertly details the operations of the Federal Reserve System in stunning clarity -- no conspiracy theories or half-truths that often further obfuscate discussion of the secretive monetary authority. The Austrian (and true) perspective on the Fed is not to be horrified that the Fed isn't a government agency (it is, even if indirectly), but to be outraged that all banks are essentially arms of the government. We don't need the government to have even more control over the money supply, we need it to have no control whatsoever (the exact opposite of what movies like FREEDOM TO FASCISM seem to suggest). What's more, Dr. Paul doesn't spread the myth that the Fed somehow profits as an entity when it creates money (its profits go to the Treasury), but instead, politically connected individuals and businesses profit at the expense of working-class and poor families. You see, the effects of inflation are not uniform -- the Fed System works as a wealth redistribution system from poor and middle-class to the rich and politically connected. How so? Buy this book and find out!

Finally, the book ends with the self-titled seventh chapter in which Dr. Paul lays out a moderate and realistic course that could be accomplished over one or two presidential terms. I'm tempted to share this blueprint for you here but I don't want to discourage anyone from buying the book. Instead, I'll use the last few words of this review to lament the fact that this blueprint will certainly not be implemented by the next president. Perhaps a young man or woman who volunteered for Ron Paul's campaign in 2008 will work his or her way up through the political establishment and be swept into office, with a like-minded Paulian Congress, sixteen years from now (just as Reagan followed sixteen years after Goldwater -- not that either of these two are to be looked at as heroes. . .). We can only hope that the Republic can endure that long!