Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

hunter

(40,501 posts)
81. You, personally, can quit fossil fuels any time you like.
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 05:00 PM
Nov 2013

Walk out to your electric main and shut it off.

Take apart your car and recycle the pieces.

There. Done.

I burn about a hundred gallons of gasoline a year driving around in my own car and I still feel bad about that. I can't quit gasoline. My wife and I have managed to avoid commuting since the mid 1980's but we've not yet lived in a place where it's more hassle to own a car than not.

Whenever I cut back my electric use to an amount I could conceivably afford to support with solar, it simply doesn't seem worth the trouble.

I was in Home Depot a couple of months ago and a guy there was hard selling solar, "No cost to you! Just pay what you normally pay on your electric bill!"

So I told him what I pay on my electric bill, and he said "Oh...then. Keep it up!" and walked away to hit on the next customer.

I live in a mild climate and cook with gas. We do heat our house somewhat, but no air conditioning. We have friends here who don't heat or cool their houses ever. The weather never gets cold enough to freeze pipes or hot enough at night that it's impossible to sleep.

If we restructure society in such a way that green power is adequate then it really doesn't matter if we are using green power or not. In such a society we could probably power the entire state of California on hydroelectricity and a handful of natural gas plants, turning back the clock to the days of two lane highways and a railroad depot in every town.



Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Mother Russia! nt Xipe Totec Nov 2013 #1
Do they have any detailed plans about how they are going to dismantle them in 20 -50 years? intaglio Nov 2013 #2
Nope to the first question. FBaggins Nov 2013 #3
A-a-a-nd where do they bury the high level waste? intaglio Nov 2013 #5
You don't understand... PamW Nov 2013 #6
Absolute and complete rubbish, indeed deliberately misleading intaglio Nov 2013 #10
Do you really not get it? FBaggins Nov 2013 #13
YES!! PamW Nov 2013 #15
So you are saying that long lived radio-isotopes are not present in nuclear waste. intaglio Nov 2013 #16
Nope... I'm not saying that. Nor most of the rest of your imagined statements. FBaggins Nov 2013 #20
This is like pulling teeth.... PamW Nov 2013 #21
So you or your guru are claiming that reprocessing is 100% efficient intaglio Nov 2013 #25
I explained that earlier. PamW Nov 2013 #33
100% WRONG as ALWAYS PamW Nov 2013 #74
So the Zirconium for the cladding is reprocessed into what exactly? intaglio Nov 2013 #75
In the self-contiained IFR fuel cycle... PamW Nov 2013 #83
Intaglio, I have been reading this Kelvin Mace Nov 2013 #26
LIAR LIAR has no links PamW Nov 2013 #32
I would really prefer less accusation of lying Kelvin Mace Nov 2013 #40
Scientific ILLITERACY rears its head again!! PamW Nov 2013 #14
Illiterate? intaglio Nov 2013 #17
100% WRONG!! AGAIN!! PamW Nov 2013 #22
Ignoramus intaglio Nov 2013 #28
GEESH PamW Nov 2013 #36
You are unaware of the processes in fused salt reactors intaglio Nov 2013 #45
SPECIFICS??? PamW Nov 2013 #49
If you had anything to do with science intaglio Nov 2013 #50
MORE ERRORS!!! PamW Nov 2013 #51
Is learning new (to you) terminology beyond your capabilities? caraher Nov 2013 #58
U238 will not sustain a chain reaction intaglio Nov 2013 #61
Typical IN the box "thinking" PamW Nov 2013 #57
It is necessary for nuclear fuels to sustain a chain reaction intaglio Nov 2013 #63
I explained that PamW Nov 2013 #67
I cant understand why this is being questioned!! PamW Nov 2013 #68
And since I have asked this question of the other side Kelvin Mace Nov 2013 #35
The punchline... PamW Nov 2013 #56
A question please Kelvin Mace Nov 2013 #34
NOPE!!! PamW Nov 2013 #37
Thank you.. Kelvin Mace Nov 2013 #41
NOPE!! PamW Nov 2013 #44
So, the impurities in the water that do become radioactive Kelvin Mace Nov 2013 #46
Look at the NRC diagram... PamW Nov 2013 #47
Well that's kind of what I said Kelvin Mace Nov 2013 #59
EXACTLY!! Give yourself an "A+" PamW Nov 2013 #69
And how does the fluid in the primary cooling circuit move through that circuit? intaglio Nov 2013 #62
Pumps are used. PamW Nov 2013 #70
An EXTREMELY small amount... PamW Nov 2013 #90
Thank you again Kelvin Mace Nov 2013 #97
Some more interesting facts. PamW Nov 2013 #98
Hmmmm... Kelvin Mace Nov 2013 #99
I don't think so... PamW Nov 2013 #100
Not even the CEO & other senior management of TEPCO? GliderGuider Nov 2013 #101
TEPCO - I'll grant you TEPCO PamW Nov 2013 #103
I am talking reality, not the law Kelvin Mace Nov 2013 #104
Which waste would that be? FBaggins Nov 2013 #12
Oh, fun intaglio Nov 2013 #18
Hillarious that you find such errors to be "fun" FBaggins Nov 2013 #23
And how long will the land beneath those dams be uninhabitable? intaglio Nov 2013 #38
Prof Muller and the Panic of Fukushima PamW Nov 2013 #48
Let's take those in reverse order FBaggins Nov 2013 #65
The dry well is no longer part of primary containment because it is breached intaglio Nov 2013 #66
100% WRONG as ALWAYS!! PamW Nov 2013 #71
Reference to facts not in evidence... PamW Nov 2013 #105
WRONG about MOX PamW Nov 2013 #24
Contrary to what you may have heard... PamW Nov 2013 #4
Sorry but I live in a country with as long a history as any of dismantling intaglio Nov 2013 #7
BALONEY!!! PamW Nov 2013 #9
Then check out about Calder Hall intaglio Nov 2013 #11
Gofman was DISCREDITED LONG AGO!! PamW Nov 2013 #27
Not what you said about actinides. n/t intaglio Nov 2013 #29
100% WRONG!! AGAIN!! PamW Nov 2013 #31
I gave you examples intaglio Nov 2013 #39
100% WRONG!! AGAIN!! PamW Nov 2013 #52
You don't know the Gofman story... PamW Nov 2013 #54
Windscale dismantled. PamW Nov 2013 #30
The name of the site is Sellafield now intaglio Nov 2013 #43
Windscale is still used for the two reactors. PamW Nov 2013 #53
NOTE: couldn't specify the isotope!! PamW Nov 2013 #73
Russia doubles down on "The Hard Path" kristopher Nov 2013 #8
It doesn't surprise me at all that Russia is doing this. GliderGuider Nov 2013 #19
Concentrated power likes...concentrated power. Iterate Nov 2013 #64
A Chernobyl in every pot and a Fukushima in every garage FiveGoodMen Nov 2013 #42
Just another veiled way CFLDem Nov 2013 #55
"Green" hasn't replaced fossil fuels or nuclear power anywhere. hunter Nov 2013 #60
AMEN to that!! PamW Nov 2013 #72
Green is not " compatible " because we dont let it to be!!!!! darkangel218 Nov 2013 #77
You, personally, can quit fossil fuels any time you like. hunter Nov 2013 #81
As I recall... PamW Nov 2013 #84
I'm PG&E hunter Nov 2013 #87
Actually, I took the numbers off the PG&E website... PamW Nov 2013 #91
Fucking sickos!! darkangel218 Nov 2013 #76
0.1% of the power used in the world today GliderGuider Nov 2013 #78
My thoughts Aaron8418 Nov 2013 #79
What people are dying due to nuclear waste? PamW Nov 2013 #82
Nobody will die because of Fukushima?? darkangel218 Nov 2013 #88
That sucks. There should not be one more nuke plant built on this planet Cleita Nov 2013 #80
What evidence???? PamW Nov 2013 #85
What evidence do you have that radioactive waste is Cleita Nov 2013 #86
Where did I say radioactive waste was harmless? PamW Nov 2013 #92
You sure know a LOT about the industry. Cleita Nov 2013 #96
Holy shit....you mustv be jk right??? darkangel218 Nov 2013 #89
Do you realize... PamW Nov 2013 #93
Do you realize that youre beating a dead horse? darkangel218 Nov 2013 #94
RUN AWAY, RUN AWAY, RUN AWAY..... PamW Nov 2013 #95
yes because Chernobyl was such a success. MFM008 Nov 2013 #102
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Russia Unveils Detailed P...»Reply #81