• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. electricity blackouts skyrocketing

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,596
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Experts on the nation's electricity system point to a frighteningly steep increase in non-disaster-related outages affecting at least 50,000 consumers.

During the past two decades, such blackouts have increased 124 percent -- up from 41 blackouts between 1991 and 1995, to 92 between 2001 and 2005, according to research at the University of Minnesota.

In the most recently analyzed data available, utilities reported 36 such outages in 2006 alone.
Im sure my fellow Northeasterners remember the massive blackout in 03. Fortunately there was no chaos, death, destruction and old fashion panic. Of course that was a time when the economy wasnt in the basement either.

U.S. electricity blackouts skyrocketing - CNN.com

Northeast Blackout of 2003 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Im sure my fellow Northeasterners remember the massive blackout in 03. Fortunately there was no chaos, death, destruction and old fashion panic. Of course that was a time when the economy wasnt in the basement either.

U.S. electricity blackouts skyrocketing - CNN.com

Northeast Blackout of 2003 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yup, our infrastructure is falling apart. It is quite old, and some of it is even obsolete. A Manhattan Project to restore it would not only be desirable, but would put people back to work too.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,246
Reaction score
19,931
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Yup, our infrastructure is falling apart. It is quite old, and some of it is even obsolete. A Manhattan Project to restore it would not only be desirable, but would put people back to work too.
Yep, I would be 100% behind such a program.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yup, our infrastructure is falling apart. It is quite old, and some of it is even obsolete. A Manhattan Project to restore it would not only be desirable, but would put people back to work too.
Wasn't that the point of the stimulus projects?
To update stuff like this.

(No one better mention specific parties, this is a bi partisan problem damn it.)
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,235
Reaction score
32,997
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yup, our infrastructure is falling apart. It is quite old, and some of it is even obsolete. A Manhattan Project to restore it would not only be desirable, but would put people back to work too.
The GOP would stand resolutely against such a thing. I mean, the vast majority of Republicans voted against a healthcare bill for 9/11 first responders because those damned LibboDems had the nerve to pay for it by raising taxes by closing tax-shelter-nation loopholes used by corportations to avoid paying income taxes.

YOU CAN'T SPEND MORE MONEY ON FRIVILOUS THINGS LIKE ELECTRICITY! RARR THE SPENDING!

edit: More on-topic, we do need such a program. I'd suggest streamlining the approval process for nuclear power plants, and providing government-backed loans/insurance for their construction. Our energy consumption is increasing rapidly, and for energy density you just can't beat nuclear power. The cost of a nuke plant is mainly due to the enormous red tape involved in construction. The fuel budget at a nuke plant is usually on par with the cafeteria budget.
 
Last edited:

Catz Part Deux

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
28,728
Reaction score
6,742
Location
Redneck Riviera
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Yup, our infrastructure is falling apart. It is quite old, and some of it is even obsolete. A Manhattan Project to restore it would not only be desirable, but would put people back to work too.
I would also suggest that our current way of life is not sustainable.
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
I would also suggest that our current way of life is not sustainable.
You're correct as long as the progressives and environmentalists are in charge it is not sustainable. We can't drill here, we can't drill there. We can't go nuclear. We can't build new refineries. Obama wants to bankrupt the coal industry. Natural gas is dangerous, Blah blah blah. If you think we can live on wind and solar, we may as well go back to living in caves.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,246
Reaction score
19,931
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
You're correct as long as the progressives and environmentalists are in charge it is not sustainable. We can't drill here, we can't drill there. We can't go nuclear. We can't build new refineries. Obama wants to bankrupt the coal industry. Natural gas is dangerous, Blah blah blah. If you think we can live on wind and solar, we may as well go back to living in caves.
Oil will run out, so will coal, I'm all for nuclear power, it's safe, and the waste can be stored safely. Solar power is alot better than it was years ago, and it's not unrealistic to have solar panels on the majority of peoples roofs in 15-20 years. I think it's time to move on from oil, natural gas, and coal, it's hard to get, it hurts the environment, and it will run out. The sun won't.(Well it will, but by that time we better be living on a another planet or it's bye bye humans.)
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
75,438
Reaction score
43,444
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left

Middleground

Dam Epidamic
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
26,216
Reaction score
12,158
Location
Canada's Capital
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
You're correct as long as the progressives and environmentalists are in charge it is not sustainable. We can't drill here, we can't drill there. We can't go nuclear. We can't build new refineries. Obama wants to bankrupt the coal industry. Natural gas is dangerous, Blah blah blah. If you think we can live on wind and solar, we may as well go back to living in caves.
Oops, you little rant forgot to say that our society is extremely wasteful.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
The GOP would stand resolutely against such a thing. I mean, the vast majority of Republicans voted against a healthcare bill for 9/11 first responders because those damned LibboDems had the nerve to pay for it by raising taxes by closing tax-shelter-nation loopholes used by corportations to avoid paying income taxes.

YOU CAN'T SPEND MORE MONEY ON FRIVILOUS THINGS LIKE ELECTRICITY! RARR THE SPENDING!

edit: More on-topic, we do need such a program. I'd suggest streamlining the approval process for nuclear power plants, and providing government-backed loans/insurance for their construction. Our energy consumption is increasing rapidly, and for energy density you just can't beat nuclear power. The cost of a nuke plant is mainly due to the enormous red tape involved in construction. The fuel budget at a nuke plant is usually on par with the cafeteria budget.

Look, now we know what DailyKOS and Huffpo think about the issue!


And OT, the GOP would support Tax Cuts and incentives to invest in such projects, perhaps even some grants and loans.

Crazy that sort of thinking eh?
 

texmaster

Hippie Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
3,969
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Dallas TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
We're good here in Texas. We like our nuclear power.

And anyone living in New York City like my sister will never forget that 03 blackout.
 
Last edited:

Middleground

Dam Epidamic
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
26,216
Reaction score
12,158
Location
Canada's Capital
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Oil will run out, so will coal, I'm all for nuclear power, it's safe, and the waste can be stored safely. Solar power is alot better than it was years ago, and it's not unrealistic to have solar panels on the majority of peoples roofs in 15-20 years. I think it's time to move on from oil, natural gas, and coal, it's hard to get, it hurts the environment, and it will run out. The sun won't.(Well it will, but by that time we better be living on a another planet or it's bye bye humans.)
I'm not so hot on nuclear:

1) It takes 10-15 years to build a plant, which would include a vast amount of energy just to build the damn thing (err... oil).

2) uranium is finite, just like oil.

3) uranium is a bitch to mine. It uses up vast amounts of energy (err... oil).

4) I'm not confident the waste will be disposed of properly. It seems to be a problem now, with few in NA running.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
75,438
Reaction score
43,444
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
It takes time to build anything. But nuclear energy is currently the most efficient and clean of all energies we reasonably have. Uranium may be finite, and the process to purify it long and tedious. But you can use thorium and plutonium as well. Breeder reactors in particular are nice because as a waste product, they produce fissile material which can be reintroduced into the reactor, thus recycling part of the waste and generating significantly less waste which needs disposal. The storage of waste is a bit of a problem, but there are several long term storage sites available. The problem is people's reactions to "nuclear" things. They tend to freak out and believe they're gonna get cancer or something. Poor fools, if only they knew the radiation they receive from being outside. Hell even those concrete building blocks give off some amount of background radiation.

As it stands, nuclear energy is the best form we have. But like oil and gas; we shouldn't stagnate on it just because it's good for now. We always advance, humans have always discovered more things. So I think we can keep developing other energy production means in the meantime and replace current set ups once we have viable alternative forms of energy.
 

texmaster

Hippie Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
3,969
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Dallas TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I'm not so hot on nuclear:

1) It takes 10-15 years to build a plant, which would include a vast amount of energy just to build the damn thing (err... oil).

2) uranium is finite, just like oil.

3) uranium is a bitch to mine. It uses up vast amounts of energy (err... oil).

4) I'm not confident the waste will be disposed of properly. It seems to be a problem now, with few in NA running.
more power

more power

more power

:D
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Oops, you little rant forgot to say that our society is extremely wasteful.
I'm all for conserving and do my part. I can't conserve anymore than I do without being miserable. When electricity skyrockets, I'm going to be SOL.
 

Middleground

Dam Epidamic
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
26,216
Reaction score
12,158
Location
Canada's Capital
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
It takes time to build anything. But nuclear energy is currently the most efficient and clean of all energies we reasonably have. Uranium may be finite, and the process to purify it long and tedious. But you can use thorium and plutonium as well. Breeder reactors in particular are nice because as a waste product, they produce fissile material which can be reintroduced into the reactor, thus recycling part of the waste and generating significantly less waste which needs disposal. The storage of waste is a bit of a problem, but there are several long term storage sites available. The problem is people's reactions to "nuclear" things. They tend to freak out and believe they're gonna get cancer or something. Poor fools, if only they knew the radiation they receive from being outside. Hell even those concrete building blocks give off some amount of background radiation.

As it stands, nuclear energy is the best form we have. But like oil and gas; we shouldn't stagnate on it just because it's good for now. We always advance, humans have always discovered more things. So I think we can keep developing other energy production means in the meantime and replace current set ups once we have viable alternative forms of energy.
This is what would happen should we all go nuclear:



Figure 2 illustrates the different projections of uranium depletion, pending an increase in annual consumption rates of 3%, 5% or 8%. Currently, uranium production falls incredibly short of the demand. As oil resources become scarce, uranium will have more pressure put upon it as a resource. All three different scenarios have a similar course until around 2013, where they part trails. By 2020, there is a serious uranium shortage.
 

Middleground

Dam Epidamic
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
26,216
Reaction score
12,158
Location
Canada's Capital
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
i'm all for conserving and do my part. I can't conserve anymore than i do without being miserable. When electricity skyrockets, i'm going to be sol.
sol?


12345
 

texmaster

Hippie Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
3,969
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Dallas TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Isn't France almost all nuclear now?
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,504
Reaction score
50,052
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
We haven't been building power plants at an adequate rate in the past three decades... and now we're reaping our own short-sightedness.


More nuke plants.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
75,438
Reaction score
43,444
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
This is what would happen should we all go nuclear:



Figure 2 illustrates the different projections of uranium depletion, pending an increase in annual consumption rates of 3%, 5% or 8%. Currently, uranium production falls incredibly short of the demand. As oil resources become scarce, uranium will have more pressure put upon it as a resource. All three different scenarios have a similar course until around 2013, where they part trails. By 2020, there is a serious uranium shortage.
Fissile plutonium and thorium however are well more abundant then fissile uranium. Additionally, that isn't the amount of uranium in the planet. that's our current reserves. If consumption skyrocketed, we would deplete our reserves. However, we could increase mining and also use nuclear plants which can use both thorium and plutonium as well. Additionally, breeder reactors are well more efficient with uranium than traditional reactors which will maybe get 1% of the natural occurring uranium. This is because in the initial fission in a breeder reactor, non-fissile uranium is broken down into fissile components which can be reused in the reactor in future cycles.
 

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
88,751
Reaction score
27,898
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Wasn't that the point of the stimulus projects?
To update stuff like this.

(No one better mention specific parties, this is a bi partisan problem damn it.)
Of course not, it was to buy votes which are more important than a stinking power grid thingy. :roll:
 

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
88,751
Reaction score
27,898
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I think almost 80% of their power now comes from nuclear energy.
That's because they are exempt by nuclear environazis, who only pick the US to protest against.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is what would happen should we all go nuclear:



Figure 2 illustrates the different projections of uranium depletion, pending an increase in annual consumption rates of 3%, 5% or 8%. Currently, uranium production falls incredibly short of the demand. As oil resources become scarce, uranium will have more pressure put upon it as a resource. All three different scenarios have a similar course until around 2013, where they part trails. By 2020, there is a serious uranium shortage.
Just when you thought the world had escaped the stupidity of the fear mongering known as Peak Oil (cue dramatic scary music) comes it's big brother...

PEAK URANIUM!!!!

(which isn't NEARLY as catchy)
 
Top Bottom