Cash for Clunkers engine destruction procedure

Scott Johnson · **Posted:** Sun Aug 02, 2009 7:15 pm

How about we just lower the deficit spending by $4B?

Just a thought.

This was another $4B of stimulus spending and nothing more. The sales pitch was to lower emissions, but we all know that isn't the real motivation.

steve remchak · **Posted:** Sun Aug 02, 2009 7:23 pm

scottjohnson wrote:

How about we just lower the deficit spending by $4B?

Just a thought.

This was another $4B of stimulus spending and nothing more. The sales pitch was to lower emissions, but we all know that isn't the real motivation.

but according to the NBC Evening News today, the ecnomy showed improvement. leading economists agree the goverments deficit spending helped.

take it for what it is worth.

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Sun Aug 02, 2009 9:22 pm

MikeWhitney wrote:

I didn't mean for this thread to turn into a Dem vs Republican argument. It's too late for that.?

Thanks, for trying to steer this in the right direction. I don’t think it’s too late to have a good discussion. It's unfortunate that every topic these days has to be so polarized. And I think that much of the polarization is artificial and created by a handful of vocal extremists across the entire political spectrum.

I was in no way a Bush supporter, but I also didn’t blame him for everything that went wrong during his terms. It drives me crazy when people see every issue as being so black and white. And that we think there is a single person to blame. If things are screwed up people, it’s because of a lot of people. Both politicians and regular old citizens are both the cause and solution. Heaven forbid we actually try to be constructive and find real solutions together as a country.

MikeWhitney wrote:

So what ways would you rather the US government spent $4b to improve our country's energy status?

My list which is much of what has been said above…

• Solar power plants. For example I think the solar plants that use molten salts to store energy so that power can be generated during dark hours is a great idea.
• Wind power plants. I think we need to be putting wind farms off the coasts and in other areas of the country that have the right wind patterns.
• Nuclear. I am fine with Nuclear if it is seen as a transition source of energy. Let’s say it takes 100 years to get off fossil fuel 100%. If Nuclear helps bridge the gap between a system that is optimized for fossil fuels to one that is optimized for renewal sources, then let’s use Nuclear to fill the gap.
• Power grid. Solar, wind and nuclear rely upon better power grids. Especially as the solar and wind sources may require moving power long distances.

The road blocks are that utility companies don’t have the forward vision to do these on their own even if they have the money (which the may have). Everyone in private industry is too focused on next quarter’s earnings than to actually invest in the future. We also have the big problem of NIMBY with respect to nuclear waste storage and location of wind farms. We have to somehow get past that. We seem to be so good a demonizing people in this country, maybe we should demonize the NIMBY proponents. Make NIMBY a bad word. I am not sure what tools are best, but somehow the government should create the incentives to get private industry to move in the directions above. I also think maybe some federal laws to limit much of the NIMBY issues with regards to how much locals have say over what I view as being national issues.

steve remchak · **Posted:** Sun Aug 02, 2009 10:04 pm

sure Richard. tell it to the folks in and around Chernobyl & Three Mile Island.

besides, don't we already have a plant ... Shearon-Harris?

i am as idealistic as the next guy but if anyone thinks there is a populist movement that is sustainable i would like to hear about it.

populist elections don't always translate into populist legislation.

money rules the world. always has, always will. when was the last time someone referred to any of us as being special interests?

the drug companies, the banks & Wall Street, the oil companies, military contractors; these are the movers and shakers.

so we have a populist president and a greedy self absorbed congress, like this is a new scenario. this time the politico moons have aligned and majority rule appears to be rampant.

never fear,oh ye shallow hearted electorate, for mid-term elections can't be far away. the whores we have elected to our legislature will be back to sucking at the teet that keeps them where they long to stay.

violent upheaval is the only way to solve the mess we have created. "up against the wall all you redneck motherf...ers"

damn, Wes and i may not be that far apart in ideals. :twisted:

Arthur McDonald · **Joined:** Fri Aug 29, 2003 1:54 am **Posts:** 2052

Donnie Barnes wrote:

Graham Jagger wrote:

As much as I would agree on this. The typical answer is NIMBY. So we would never actually get one built.

So we just don't bother?!? Seriously, people were a LOT more afraid of nuke plants back when we built the first big wave of them, yet it happened. It would take some work, but we have designs for MUCH safer plants we could build today. We just need to do it.

Realistically we would need to spend a good bit of money on handling nuclear waste first. Fix THAT problem and I think a LOT of the nuke opposition goes away. And it can be fixed.

I do like the subsidy for upgrading your home HVAC. Perhaps you could add in help for other *significant* energy saving upgrades, like better windows, attic insulation, etc.

--Donnie

Done! http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=t ... s.tx_index

However, I used up my 2009 credit buying a new heat pump. Doors/windows and insulation will have to wait for another year.

OK, back to the subject of this thread.

No way that Volvo (an S40?) came in at 18mpg or lower combined city / highway mpg. So not only did the dealer blow up a perfectly good car, he's cheating the system.

This program is supposed to help get low-fuel-mileage high-emissions cars off the road. So the way to do this is to release a bunch of partially burned hydrocarbons from a dying motor into the atmosphere?

We will see a short burst of car-buying, but I doubt it can be sustained unless the govt makes it permanent. People will do what you pay them to do, but only if you pay them.

Aaron Buckley · **Posted:** Sun Aug 02, 2009 11:00 pm

Art's right. My '94 850 Turbo doesn't qualify, for it gets 19 mpg combined according to the government website. The s40 gets better mileage than that. I've gotten as high as 29mpg on a trip in mine too if I am smart with the throtte

- AB

Ryan Holton · **Posted:** Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:43 am

steve remchak wrote:

sure Richard. tell it to the folks in and around Chernobyl & Three Mile Island.

While I was just 4 at the time of Three Mile Island, you do know that NOBODY died, right?

steve remchak · **Posted:** Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:39 am

Ryan Holton wrote:

steve remchak wrote:

sure Richard. tell it to the folks in and around Chernobyl & Three Mile Island.

While I was just 4 at the time of Three Mile Island, you do know that NOBODY died, right?

yes, of course Ryan. i lived less than 100 miles from there while a freshman in college. i do know there were a lot of vey nervous people at the time.

4? damn, you are such a Kid. :lol:

Chuck Branscomb · **Posted:** Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:40 am

Ryan Holton wrote:

steve remchak wrote:

sure Richard. tell it to the folks in and around Chernobyl & Three Mile Island.

While I was just 4 at the time of Three Mile Island, you do know that NOBODY died, right?

Yeah, equating the two is like saying a Yugo is the same as a Veyron since of course they're both cars (then again, I do know some people who think this is true, so heck...).

If it was my choice with that money, I would focus on long term stuff. Every politician stays in office these days with one thing in mind -- short term gain. I would put my funds toward education. After all, the young in this country are going to paying for this massive debt for many decades to come, so I would direct a huge portion of it toward them by STRONGLY encouraging education in science, technology and finance (and when I say finance, I surely don't mean the traditional crap spewed forth by modern "MBA" programs). I hate to see massive government intervention in our economy in most cases, but if we're going to give crap away (and we've been giving a TON of money away), we should create HUGE incentives for education along those lines including building whatever infrastructure necessary to accommodate it (such as large incentives for private sector employees and business owners to teach at said universities).

Without a large and sustained growth by the young generations of our country in these areas of expertise, the USA will left behind by areas of the world such as China. China will in fact be left holding the kitty bag here, since they will be our single biggest debt holder while at the same time our single biggest competitor, long-term -- kind of a great position to be in, huh? If you were competing against someone in the business world, and you held the loans for the other businesses' assets and even the owner's homes, imagine the potential leverage you could exert on them if you were a scumbag (or a head of a country with a few billion hungry people ready to revolt if you can't feed them).

Hence we're loaning out our children's future in the most massive amount in the history of our country, I say that 80% or more of that loan should go directly toward their future with a strong component on education in science, technology and finance. Yeah, all long term stuff. Yep, in today's environment where all we focus on is short term emotional feel good gain, I'd be voted out of office the day after I said any of the above. I know.

BTW, to take wind out of the sails of the oil baron type sentiment and such, I would strongly encourage everyone to FORGET about pricing commodities (with a world market) in dollars -- especially crude oil. Price them in Euros, Pounds, Aussie dollar, etc. Don't continue to fall for the dumb media blather that 100% ignores the world value of our dollar (which has been going down a steep slope for over 20 years). Want a nasty but "world-realistic" look at the current state of the USA? Price the S&P 500 in Euros since the 2000 market top. :shock:

Bernie Baake · **Posted:** Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:48 am

Ryan Holton wrote:

steve remchak wrote:

sure Richard. tell it to the folks in and around Chernobyl & Three Mile Island.

While I was just 4 at the time of Three Mile Island, you do know that NOBODY died, right?

But look what the radiation did to Steve, This thread really answers alot of questions I had.

steve remchak · **Posted:** Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:50 am

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

BTW, to take wind out of the sails of the oil baron type sentiment and such, I would strongly encourage everyone to FORGET about pricing commodities (with a world market) in dollars -- especially crude oil. Price them in Euros, Pounds, Aussie dollar, etc. Don't continue to fall for the dumb media blather that 100% ignores the world value of our dollar (which has been going down a steep slope for over 20 years). Want a nasty but "world-realistic" look at the current state of the USA? Price the S&P 500 in Euros since the 2000 market top. :shock:

last 20 years huh?

let's see 12 years of Bush / 8 years of Clinton. 60/40 by my math.

i'd just like to be able to put some money away to retire on. devalued or not. it spends green in Costa Rica.

steve remchak · **Posted:** Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:52 am

Bernie Baake wrote:

Ryan Holton wrote:

steve remchak wrote:

sure Richard. tell it to the folks in and around Chernobyl & Three Mile Island.

While I was just 4 at the time of Three Mile Island, you do know that NOBODY died, right?

But look what the radiation did to Steve, This thread really answers alot of questions I had.

now that's funny right there, i don't care who ya are. :lol:

Todd Breakey · **Posted:** Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:52 am

Jason Mauldin wrote:

MikeWhitney wrote:

So what would *you* do with $4b to reduce greenhouse gases or improve our country's energy situation? If it was yours to spend?

Nuclear power plants.

^This.

We haven't built a reactor in over 30 years because people are stupid. Meanwhile, France produces more than 80% of their power from nuke plants and then turn around and recycle the spent rods to the medical field.

Seems like a no brainer to me. But what do I know, I just questions everything the gubment does.

Scott Johnson · **Posted:** Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:57 am

Todd Breakey wrote:

...Meanwhile, France produces more than 80% of their power from nuke plants and then turn around and recycle the spent rods to the medical field.

Seems like a no brainer to me. But what do I know, I just questions everything the gubment does.

The French are socialists...

Todd Breakey · **Posted:** Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:07 am

steve remchak wrote:

sure Richard. tell it to the folks in and around Chernobyl & Three Mile Island.

Look at the total number of nuke reactors (hell, include nuke powered ships also) around the world and tell me how many melt downs there have been. That's right...2.

Here's the list from Wikipedia. You will notice that all but one happened before 1980 and all but one of those was just a partial. Technology has come a LONG way since then. You will also notice that NONE of those were in France. Which as I stated earlier, uses nuke power for the majority of their electricity.

Quote:

Meltdowns that have occurred
A number of Russian nuclear submarines have experienced nuclear meltdowns. The only known large scale nuclear meltdowns at civilian nuclear power plants were in the Chernobyl disaster at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, Ukraine, in 1986, and the Three Mile Island accident at Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, USA, in 1979, although there have been partial core meltdowns at:

NRX, Ontario, Canada, in 1952

EBR-I, Idaho, USA, in 1955

Windscale, Sellafield, England, in 1957 (see Windscale fire)

Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Simi Hills, California, in 1959

SL-1, Idaho, USA in 1961. (US military)

Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station, Michigan, USA, in 1966

Chapelcross, Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland, in 1967

A1 plant at Jaslovské Bohunice, Czechoslovakia in 1977. 25% of the fuel elements in a heavy water moderated carbon dioxide cooled 100 MW(e) power reactor were damaged due to operator error. The operators failed to remove silica gel packs from a new fuel element. The silica gel was used to keep the unused fuel dry during storage and transport. The silica gel packs blocked the flow of the coolant resulting in overheating of the fuel and the pressure channel holding it. As a result of overheating the heavy water leaked into the part of the reactor where the fuel elements are accommodated, the cladding was subject to corrosion and a considerable amount of radioactivity leaked into the primary cooling circuit. Through leaks in the steam boilers (similar basic design to a MAGNOX or AGR plant) some parts of the secondary circuit became contaminated.[5]

Not all of these were caused by a loss of coolant and in several cases (the Chernobyl disaster and the Windscale fire, for example) the meltdown was not the most severe problem.

THSCC Forums

Cash for Clunkers engine destruction procedure

Who is online