Re: 2016 Election
 

Don't be so foolish. Do you have any clue how long it takes to build a nuclear plant? Decades. There are safer and faster ways to reduce coal use...which is already falling..(you brought up coal) and making energy green.

Do you know how many plants were abandoned mid construction due to costs? Do you know that private financing died for nukes and all plants are subsidized by the feds..often at higher cost that the value of the energy they produce, take the blinders off

Re: 2016 Election
 

That's as may be but nuclear serves a purpose at this time and it is much cleaner and operationally safer than coal or oil. It's not a long term solution - the long term solution is renewables and new tech like cold fusion but is a short-mid term solution and to dismiss it purely out of fear is blinkered stupidity.

Re: 2016 Election
 

You missed the point...300,000 homes could be fitted for solar in the time it would take just to get the approvals and studies required to build a nuke..for example.
There is nothing fast or short term about building a nuke.

Re: 2016 Election
 

That would be great but probably not something that would realistically happen. You know how the oil/coal types influence governments after all.

Plus, when I say short-mid term I mean 20-50 years. Things like this don't change overnight, everybody knows that.

But I have things to do, so I shall leave it there for now.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Am I the only person who things solar panels on houses are ugly?

It was starting to become quite common place in the UK with government subsidies (although I think that is now pulled).

Re: 2016 Election
 

A final note.

"Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were canceled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable."

A cover story in the February 11, 1985, issue of Forbes magazine commented on the overall management of the nuclear power program in the United States:

The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale … only the blind, or the biased, can now think that the money has been well spent. It is a defeat for the U.S. consumer and for the competitiveness of U.S. industry, for the utilities that undertook the program and for the private enterprise system that made it possible.

Re: 2016 Election
 

They can be...no doubt. But now there is this.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ar-roof-coming

More expensive..but nice.

Re: 2016 Election
 

The only way you can see ours is if you're on the roof or Google Maps. I couldn't care what they look like as long as I'm getting cheaper electricity and water than people without it.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Yup, ours too. Our house is a rental, but if we owned it we would have the entire roof covered in panels. We currently have the east and north sides covered but if we put another 8 or 10 panels on the west side of the house we would probably not have to pay for electricity at all with the rebates and the fact that I set all my major electric stuff to happen during the day when we're producing our own power.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Water?

Re: 2016 Election
 

Erm. Yup.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Hot water. My apologies.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Good for Obama and the US to abstain during the UN vote against Israel. Why is it that we always vetoed UN resolutions when it comes to Israel? Netanyahu is an obscene little man and a land grabber and we send billions every year in aid to that piffling little nation. Money that is essentially needed here in the States.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Some balance at last. Just as he's leaving office. Then probably back to normal, or even worse, from what they say about the new ambassador.

Re: 2016 Election
 

A bit baffling to see the overreaction from the Israeli right-wing, and the American Republicans over the vote. The resolution, in and of itself really doesn't directly impact anything with the Israeli/Palestinian situation - it's symbolic. In the future, it could be used as a starting basis for additional proposals for Israel, should they continue to push settlements, but would require separate resolutions that the Trump administration would veto. The resolution also notes Palestinian activities that it deems illegal as well, although it doesn't get nearly as much press as the Israeli part.

Ted Cruz has called for pulling all US funding for the UN, and a few other Republicans have tossed about the idea of withdrawing from the UN entirely. If the Republicans were upset about the passage of that UN resolution, then they would be REALLY unhappy should they take those actions - because either of those actions would result in the US losing its seat on the Security Council, as well as voting privileges.

I would guess there would be a number of countries lining up to introduce anti-Israel resolutions that would have much more significant teeth than the resolution that just passed. As an example, it could require that the Israeli government return to the original 'Green Line' Israel/Palestine borders by a certain date. Failure to do so would mean strict economic sanctions, and they could add a provision that any country who ignored the sanctions would also be subject to sanctions (since they were abetting an illegal action). Obviously, the country most likely to provide aid would be the US, but it's not difficult to think that Putin would have any qualms about implementation of sanctions against the US (considering the sanctions that are being imposed on Russian figures/companies as a result of Crimea), and China could view sanctions as another point of opportunity in the potential economic showdown between the US and China. Again, just a guess of what could occur.