Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (938195)	6/4/2016 2:21:02 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575421

Snoop Dogg is right about movies By Cal Thomas theindependent.com My musical tastes do not include rap and hip-hop, but when Snoop Dogg comments on the “Roots” remake, saying he is tired of movies about slavery and would prefer a series “about the success that black folks are having,” he is singing my song. The original “Roots” drew a phenomenal 130 million viewers when it aired on ABC in 1977. The remake, now playing on The History Channel, will probably draw far fewer viewers, just because it is on cable and most are familiar with the storyline. The filmmakers apparently are targeting a younger generation. While there is no question that slavery has left an indelible mark on the descendants of slaves and the nation (former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has called it America’s “birth defect”), continuing to dwell on the subject does nothing to improve a single black life. Snoop’s point is that seeing more stories about African-Americans who are successful would inspire more minorities to overcome the difficult circumstances in which many find themselves. He is correct. “Roots” is depressing. Stories about overcoming obstacles are inspirational and can produce motivation. Add hard work and any life can be improved. The kinds of examples Snoop is talking about can be found everywhere if one will seek them. My search took me to a webpage called Tech.Co and an article “38 Black Entrepreneurs Share Their Origin Stories.” There is also a link to another article: “21 Most Successful Black Entrepreneurs Throughout History.” Here’s one of my historical favorites: “Stephen Smith grew up as an indentured servant in Pennsylvania. From young age, he was assigned to work in the lumberyards by Thomas Boude, whose wealth stemmed from his extensive lumber business. After buying his freedom for $50 at the age of 21, he continued to work in the lumberyards until establishing his own lumber business in 1822, as well as dealing coal. By the 1850s, Smith was grossing $100,000 in annual sales. By 1857, Smith was worth $500,000 (approximately $13.5 million today). On top of being a businessman, Smith was a minister and served as chairman of the black abolitionist organization in Columbia, PA.” The stories of modern African-American entrepreneurs and visionaries may not be as dramatic as the historical ones, but they are still compelling. What all of these men and women have in common is that they did not accept present conditions as the final verdict on their lives. They committed themselves through hard work and the vision for a brighter future. Take the time to read their stories. I’ll bet you’ve never heard of most of them. Even during Black History Month, many of their stories are never told. Why is that? One would think that these inspirational stories are tailor-made for so-called civil rights leaders, who could tell African-American kids, “If they could do it, so can you.” Instead, we get stories about slavery, discrimination and charges of racism. I live in a suburb of Washington, D.C. At night the local TV stations frequently lead with crime stories. Many involve young African-American men with guns. The image conveyed to viewers is a negative one. There is no secret to becoming successful, or at least self-sufficient: Stay in school, avoid drugs and crime, get married before you have children and work to stay married, develop a vision. Snoop Dogg’s criminal background and misogynist lyrics may not make him the best role model for young African-Americans, but he’s right about being fed-up with slavery movies. So am I. http://www.theindependent.com/opinion/another_opinion/snoop-dogg-is-right-about-movies/article_e6fccd2c-2880-11e6-865d-2f2114593115.html

To: Brumar89 who wrote (938195)	6/4/2016 3:32:50 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575421

June 2 Exelon Corp, the biggest U.S. nuclear power plant operator, said on Thursday it will shut reactors at the Clinton and Quad Cities nuclear stations in Illinois, given a lack of progress on state energy legislation that would have allowed the plants to operate economically. Exelon was hoping the Illinois Legislature would adopt legislation, known as the Next Generation Energy Plan, that would compensate nuclear reactors for the reliability, environmental and economic benefits they provide like round-the-clock power with no carbon emissions, and jobs and taxes for the local communities. in.reuters.com

To: Brumar89 who wrote (938195)	6/24/2016 8:17:09 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575421

Diablo Canyon, Climate Change, Drought, and Energy Policy Posted by Peter Gleick on June 24, 2016 Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, courtesy PG&E The announcement that Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) will close the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant when its current operating licenses expire in 2025 has caused what can only be described as consternation mixed with occasional conniptions among the nuclear industry and some strongly pro-nuclear groups. That’s understandable. Diablo Canyon is aging, but is not the oldest nuclear plant in the fleet and PG&E could have chosen to push for a renewal of the license to continue operations for many more years. Diablo Canyon’s two reactors are also California’s last operating nuclear plants, following the closure many years ago of Rancho Seco near Sacramento, and more recently, the last of the San Onofre reactors. As such, the closure is symbolic of the broader woes of the nuclear power industry in the United States, which has been unable to build new reactors and is seeing the current reactors being shuttered, one by one. The decision to phase out Diablo also rankles those who see *all* non-carbon energy sources as critical in the fight against the real threat of climate change. This has led to an internecine dispute among those who claim the mantle of “environmentalist,” who are legitimately concerned about climate, but who split on their positions around the pros and cons of nuclear power. I get it. The climate threat is the most urgent one facing the planet and shutting down major non-carbon energy sources makes it that much harder to meet carbon reduction goals. But old nuclear plants have to be retired and replaced at some point, simply due to age, economics, and updated environmental challenges. It would be great if there was a new generation of replacement reactors that was safe, cost-effective, and reliable and if there was a satisfactory resolution to the problem of nuclear wastes and accumulating spent fuel. But at the moment, there isn’t. The good news is there are other non-carbon alternatives available. And Diablo Canyon faced a unique set of problems, including the need in the next few years to replace its old once-thru ocean cooling system with a far costlier, but more environmentally friendly system, challenges with steam generators and a growing risk of leaks, the long-standing earthquake risk at the site, and cheaper alternatives. Even with the sunk costs at Diablo Canyon, these challenges made it clear that cheaper options exist and “ that California’s new energy policies will significantly reduce the need for Diablo Canyon’s electricity output.” Moreover, the claim that current nuclear energy is cheap is false: even at Diablo Canyon – never a cheap nuclear plant – additional updates to address existing problems could cost a massive additional $10 billion. As Peter Bradford, a former member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said, “The unraveling of the [hoped for nuclear] renaissance was not a surprise to anyone who understood the workings of the power markets.” Diablo isn’t shutting down tomorrow. The plan gives the utility nearly a decade to phase out the plant and replace it with renewable energy and energy efficiency. As the official announcement notes: “The Joint Proposal would replace power produced by two nuclear reactors at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) with a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables and energy storage.” This time frame is important. When San Onofre closed its last reactor in 2012, with no formal replacement plan in place, there was a short-term spike in natural gas consumption (worsened by the simultaneous arrival of a multi-year drought, which cut hydroelectricity generation) and an increase in California’s greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear proponents cherry pick this point as evidence that shutting Diablo will similarly lead to an increase in emissions. But within a couple of years, the rapid construction of non-carbon wind and solar systems made up for San Onofre’s lost electricity, and natural gas use — excluding excess natural gas burned to make up for lost hydroelectricity due to the drought –dropped again. The Figure below shows total non-fossil fuel electricity generation in California from 2001-2015 (solid red line) and what it *would* have been without the drought (dotted red line). Without the drought, expansion of new solar and wind completely made up for San Onofre’s closure. Total non-fossil fuel electricity generation with (solid red line) and without the drought (dashed red line). Data from US EIA. With the longer timeframe to prepare for closing Diablo Canyon, and with the specific agreement to accelerate investment in renewables, there is no reason California’s carbon reduction targets can’t be met. Will they? We don’t know: that ultimately depends on the nature and timing of efforts to continue California’s transition to non-carbon energy. But even this argument misses the key point: While it is certainly far better from a climate perspective to replace old fossil fuel plants rather than old nuclear plants, even old nuclear plants have to be replaced eventually. We should keep them open as long as feasible from an economic, environmental, and safety point of view, but when the decision is made to replace them, make sure other non-carbon generation and energy efficiency options are part of the decision. That’s what happened here and it is a model for the future. scienceblogs.com