Energy rationing in exchange for all nuclear plants being be shut down?

[apples and oranges]

Would you support limiting the amount of energy Americans can use on a daily basis until scientists come up with safer energy sources? Anyone who went over their daily limit could be shut off for the rest of the day. Certain groups could have exceptions, like senior citizens and families with babies. What do you say?

[arcane1]

1. We will have to do it eventually, like it or not n/t

[jacquelope]

9. WHY??? We could always build solar.

We'd need to deal with a few fossil fuel lobbyists in ways I can't mention here, but it can be done!

[FreakinDJ]

13. Limit the Number of Children allowed by law like China

[LARED]

2. No thank you. nt

[dbackjon]

3. Nope

I will keep my nuclear power, thanks.

[yawnmaster]

4. I say no. eom

[Countdown_3_2_1]

5. NO. The people will REVOLT.

Build the new energy infrastructure FIRST. Then decommission the nukes.

What does this mean?
1) convert all coal burning plants to Clean coal. fact of life. deal with it.
2) some brilliant DUer mentioned this on another thread, and I thought it was a good idea.
--I just can't remember the name (if you are reading this: you're BRILLIANT!)
Cover ever roof surface with solar panels. Roof over all parking lots, solar panel the new roof space.
3) wide open spaces need wind mills. lots of wind mills.
4) Drill American oil and utilize Canadian oil sands. Wean ourselves away from unstable 3rd world markets. again, its a fact of life and it won't go away anytime soon. deal with it.

[jacquelope]

12. Convert coal burning plants to SOLAR.

No drilling. Replace that with MORE solar and wind power.

[Toucano]

26. What exactly is "American oil"?

By what authority can you restrict the private oil companies from selling their product on the open market?

Are you suggesting we nationalize the oil interests?

[TheKentuckian]

28. Convert to a fantasy and drill nearly nonexistent oil in environmentally sensitive areas.

Your "fact of life" "clean coal" doesn't exist. There is nothing to "deal with".

Sequestration might be a piece of the puzzle but it is nothing to get terribly brash about, it is mostly a sales tool.

[MicaelS]

6. Absolutely not, period. n/t

[Sienna86]

7. I'm in

I'd gladly cut electricity use if our nuclear plants were shut down. I do a good job already but can always do more.

[backwoodsbob]

8. no nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Peak oil, we are pretty much there

in oher countries rolling blackouts have become common

It will come here

[MikeW]

19. ...

Rolling blackouts are characteristic of less developed countries, they have to do with poor infrastructure not oil supply.

[Maru Kitteh]

11. HA! You know what we'd pay for that? No thanks.

[Recovered Repug]

14. Just have all of those

who are anti-nuke taken off the grid. Problem solved. :hide:

[apples and oranges]

15. Americans use the most power and energy by far. I thought more

people here would be willing to sacrifice as we shift over to safer sources. I'm a little surprised by the responses here! There's really no hope for this country!

[MikeW]

20. because that isn't how you handle the situation

You develop parallel supplies from alternative sources and then gradually bring them on-line to be sure what you built is reliable.

You dont just flip the switch off from one power source without another one ready to replace the lost capacity.

[BlueCheese]

27. I'm sure we're near the top, but we're not number one by any means.

According to Wikipedia (I know, I know), in 2003 we were 10th in per capita energy consumption, well behind Qatar, the leader.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita

As for your original proposal, if we're talking about rationing electricity, I'm not sure coal power shouldn't be the first to go.

[girl gone mad]

16. Yes.

I also support mandated appliance efficiency, housing insulation, etc.

The fact is that we are going to be faced with shortages and nuclear is only a stop-gap, at best.

I'm not surprised by the selfishness displayed in this thread. I've grown up witnessing this selfishness. It's reflected in the teabagger rallies, war time tax cuts, SUV sales, widespread pollution, fast food culture. It's human nature, but only the countries that can successfully combat this aspect of human nature will be able win the future.

[tnlefty]

17. False argument...where I live if you don't pay your power bill

your meter is disconnected.

I'd be happy with no longer paying billions to the nuclear industry at the exclusion of all other sources of energy. Why not pay the billions that the nuclear industry receives, along with the subsidies to the oil companies to renewable sources. Get the gubmint subsidies to the nuclear industry via the banks, who front the money only because we taxpayers foot the bill, and make it mandatory that those wonderful private insurance companies insure nuclear plants. End of nuclear plants....

I'd be even happier to have the nuclear reactors close to me mothballed and a massive array of solar panels erected all over that site. Oh, and I've paid extra on my power bill every month for 4 years for TVA to develop cleaner energy, along with an extra 2 bucks per month that goes into a fund to help people pay their bills. With so many people out of work around me and the churches who are supposed to help just expanding their complexes...

What say you?

[MikeW]

18. how about ... no

[annm4peace]

21. Yes, i would We had black outs and brown outs in CA and we adapted

WE could adapt. We can do it.

It would be worth it not to have nuclear or coal power.

[NeedleCast]

22. No

But it's totally unnecessary anyway.

[Statistical]

23. No. I would take a 20% increase in rates to drop some coal plants for wind & solar though.

Coal is worse than nuclear. Magnitudes worse. It simply doesn't get headlines. Today people died from coal. Yesterday people died from coal. Tomorrow people will die from coal. 100% guaranteed.

[madokie]

24. I'm not sure that we'd have to curtail what we use all that much

all of or plants have more capacity than they're using or according to a few friends who work at various power producing plants around here. Lot of our manufacturing base is gone so there is less need for power now.

[taterguy]

25. What exact amount would the limit be? Per household or per person?

[apples and oranges]

29. Per person. So to get more power, you'd have to be honest

about how many people are living in your household.

[taterguy]

31. I don't know of a viable way you'd establish the limit

Presumably you'd subtract the amount of nuclear power from what's available and divide it "equally."

The problem is that the energy needs in this country are so diverse.

People who live alone in free-standing houses suck up a lot of energy. Should we disallow that as a lifestyle choice?

People who live in temperate areas use relatively little energy. If you live where it gets really hot or cold you use a lot of energy.

It's arguable that AC is overused. Most of the time it's used for comfort, not medical necessity. But try getting people who are used to it to do without it.

So how would you set the limits in this proposal of yours?

[MadHound]

30. Another false dichotomy,

Again, and again, and again, we don't need nuclear, we don't need fossil fuels. Green renewables can fulfill all our energy needs.
<http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf>

Why people continue these disproven, false dichotomies, I will never know.

[Zorra]

32. Done. Great idea. nt