Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Congressman Sanders on Energy.

Posted 1 year ago on Oct. 16, 2012, 3:57 p.m. EST by shooz (26680)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Please read this and stop complaining about government attempts to fund renewable energy sources.




Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Just 2 items I loved:

wind accounts for as much energy generation as 50 nuclear plants!!!

Wall st banksters won't insure nuclear plants, so the American people are on the hook.

That should be enough to replace nuclear and ramp up wind energy generation.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26680) 1 year ago

They won't insure them, but they sure do back their construction.

Do you think maybe they have stretched the profit model to it's limits?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Sounds about right. They love it when the govt provides loans and guarantees (low risk/low liability) for the things they invest in.

But they squeal whenever anyone else gets govt money.

Greedy, selfish, corp 1% plutocrats.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26680) 1 year ago

it's always been about WallStreet entitlements.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

So this big energy corp welfare also serves as welfare for big finance.

It's just disgusting.

They fuck us coming and going!

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

In the last 12 months US wind powered generators accounted 3% of the total electricity production. Nukes accounted for 20%.

There are currently 65 operational nuclear power plants in the US.

That means 10 nuclear power plants generate as much as all of the wind turbines in the US. Plus nuke output can be varied on demand. Wind power is unpredictable and today the US taxpayer is forced to pay some wind utilities not to produce electricity.

BTW nukes use 1/700 of the land area including additional transmission lines needed for vast wind farms. 60,000 acres of wind farm are required to produce the same power output as a large, 1.2 gigawatt, conventional power plant which occupies less than 200 acres of land. Wind farms must be located hundreds of miles from the cities and suburbs where the electricity is needed. Additional land (greater area than the land needed for the farm) is required for new transmission lines which cost ~ $1,000,000 per mile to install. Up to 50% of the electricity generated can be lost in long transmission lines due to radiation and I2R losses.

Nukes just need water adjacent to the generation site which is also a frequent commodity near large population areas.

Nukes are also a lot cheaper than wind farms ($ 1.7 B / GWe vs $ 6.9 B / GWe).



[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago
  • Yes Nukes use adjacent water and turn it into massive amounts of poison waste water. But that isn't it is it? What about plutonium? Wind need only........ WIND!!

  • Wind IS far from cities and require new superconducting transmission lines, but so what? improvements exist. We just have to install them as part of our new infrastructure bank jobs investment.

  • Nukes use less land and are closer to cities. ??? Wind farms do not "melt down" and have the potential to destroy hundreds of square miles and millions of lives.

  • no problem getting private insurance for wind farms, Not possible for nuke plants.

  • I trust Bernie Sanders numbers on how much wind power we currently generate. You've been obviously anti green tech, & you're numbers are not sourced. Wind power generation = 50 nuclear plants!

Sorry. Wind is better than nukes. We disagree.

Peace, Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I have no truck with green tech: it is just that nukes are a lot greener than either wind or solar. The most efficient solution to a problem is usually the most environmentally sound. Solar and wind are just so inefficient compared to nukes it is hard for them to compete. And nukes could be much more efficient and reliable if a standard design was adopted and built out on a large scale. Nuke efficiency is currently hurt by the use of a myriad of designs each requiring separate, expensive approval and regulation.

All of the issues that you cite above have had minimal impact in the US. A quick look at the actual electricity generation over the last 12 months shows that 10 nukes = entire US wind generation. The fact that Sanders misleads you by using capacity numbers instead of generation data (which is really all we should care about) should make you suspicious of the rest of his story.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

No I ain't suspicious of Sen Sanders. I agree with him.

I cannot support nuclear power because of Chernobyl, & Fukushima.

Sorry I can't risk the millions of lives for nuclear energy.

Peace. Good luck in your good efforts.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

What about these lives:

Number of people killed by wind turbines: 86

Number of people killed in US nukes (ever): zero

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I don't believe either number!

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago


Wind & Solar power generation is the future.

The risk of Nuclear energy is too great! (that's why private insurers won't insure them)

How many people died from Chernobyl & Fukushima? Do those people not count.?

How many have yet to die from those catastrophes?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Apples and oranges. They are not US facilities.

US Nukes are the safer and cheaper than wind.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Nuclear plants are too dangerous.

The millions dead from nuclear accidents absolutely matter. We are not so exceptional that we can avoid the inevitable disaster.

Hubris to think we can. The risk is too great.

Sorry. We disagree.

Peace, Good luck in all you good efforts.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

It is callous for those in rich countries to spend $ billions more on things like wind instead of nukes to save lives that might be lost (although none have been lost after 60 years of US production) while we starve 4 million people every year world wide.

If you took the difference in development and production costs between wind vs nuke electrical generation you could end starvation world wide, forever. Over 60 years of US nuke history that equates to 240 million people. Is that what you really want?

It is the difference between being environmentally conscious and and eco-maniacal. There is a good treatment of this problem here. It is worth a few minutes of study:


[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Lomberg's work was investigated in his native country and found to be scientifically dishonest.

The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:

Fabrication of data;
Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.
[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago


Wind & Solar power generation is far & away cheaper, safer & more efficient.

To suggest that using nuclear energy equates to feeding 240 million people is laughable.

We disagree.

Peace, Good luck in all your good efforts.


[-] 1 points by shooz (26680) 1 year ago

LFTRs are are the way for centralized production and hopefully Ecat will work on smaller, decentralized scales.

The thing is to actually do something.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20546) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

From the article -

  • Let’s be clear. The war against sustainable energy by the Big Energy companies has been extremely successful. During the last year, with almost unanimous Republican opposition, Congress has not been able to extend a very successful program, the 1603 grant program, which had supported over 20,000 sustainable energy projects and tens of thousands of jobs. Congress also has been unable to extend the production tax credit that primarily supports wind energy. The result has been significant layoffs and cancelled projects in the wind industry.

I think I will continue to complain, shooz - I trust you won't mind . . . .

[-] 0 points by shooz (26680) 1 year ago

Of course not.

This complaint is very much on topic..........................:)

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20546) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

The website invites you to embed the entire article, just like a movie. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be possible to embed movies on this platform, so . . . .

I just thought that was cool.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26680) 1 year ago

All in all, it's very good site.............................:)

Smart enough to quote Bernie too and that's always a plus.

Don't tell Betsy about it......LOL

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20546) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago


Why not? It might be enough to put her right over the edge. That might be fun!

[-] 0 points by shooz (26680) 1 year ago

She's not over the edge already?

I thought she was........................LOL

In that case, the only thing stopping her from falling, is all that sticky, messy GOP goop.

[-] 1 points by Dmooradian (-74) 1 year ago

Come on, you are going to ask Bernie Sanders to make those decisions? What is his background to something like that. He doesn't even comment that the reason solar energy prices have come down is due to Chinese manufacturing. Our government subsidies are worthless.

And of course we should eliminate the oil and nuclear subsidies. These are wrong.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20546) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Just as the article says, he is a member of both the Senate energy and environment committees

And I do suspect that makes him much more informed on this issue than you.

[-] 0 points by Dmooradian (-74) 1 year ago

I am not comparing to me but to the market. Bernie Sanders is a career politician and has not made accountable decisions in his whole life. Why would we want him making he decisin between solar and wind.

Sanders, the son of Polish Jewish immigrants, was born in Brooklyn, New York. He graduated from James Madison High School in Brooklyn, and later attended the University of Chicago, graduating with an Bachelor of Arts in political science in 1964.[5] After graduating from college, Sanders spent time on an Israeli kibbutz, an experience that shaped his political views.[6] In 1964, Sanders moved to Vermont, where he worked as a carpenter, filmmaker, writer and researcher, among other jobs.[5]

Sanders's political career began in 1971, when he joined the anti-Vietnam War Liberty Union Party (LU) in Vermont. In the special U.S. Senate election of January 1972, recently appointed incumbent Republican Robert Theodore Stafford defeated Democratic nominee Randolph Mayor and LU nominee Sanders 64%-33%-2%.[7] In the November 1972 gubernatorial election, Democrat Thomas Salmon defeated Republican Luther Fred Hackett and Sanders 55%-44%-1%.[8] In the 1974 U.S. Senate election, Democrat Patrick Leahy defeated Republican Richard Mallary and Sanders 49%-46%-4%.[9] In the 1976 gubernatorial election, Republican Richard Snelling defeated Democrat Stella Hackel and Sanders 53%-40%-6%.[10] In 1979, Sanders resigned from Liberty Union and worked as a writer and the director of the nonprofit American People's Historical Society.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

That you have decided to personally attack Sen Sanders indicates you don't really have very convincing arguments against his assertions.

I'm glad you agree we should end the corp welfare fossil fuel/nuclear corps get, now let's agree to take that almost $15b a year and put it into wind and solar.


[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20546) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

yes - absolutely. Donald Norman, in his book Psychology of Everyday Things (first edition) he makes the case that new technology doesn't always succeed even if it is the best technology - often today the difference between success and failure has nothing to do with the technology itself but rather public acceptance, and much of that has everything to do with marketing.

The above article linked in the forum post provides some great stats indicating the progress made so far, and illustrating the viability of upscaling both wind and solar. With a concerted national effort like we created in going to the moon, we could easily end the consumption of coal for electrical generation - probably in ten or fifteen years - if not less.

The only thing standing in the way is the fossil fuel industry, and their allies in the banking sector and in Congress.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (667) 1 year ago

Cutting oil subsidies is a no-brainer. Just don't let the anti-nuclear hysteria stop research on the next generation of nuclear technology.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20546) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

the problem with nuclear energy begins with the fact that it is a private sector industry. In Vermont we are seeing Entergy is reluctant to decommission Vermont Yankee, a facility that has reached the end of its engineered life span.

Beyond that there is the obvious difficulty of maintaining an industrial process with zero human errors over not only the life of the plant, but rather the life of the radioactive waste itself.

And we still do not have a disposal process.

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (667) 1 year ago

Last I heard was thorium reactors cut the half life to hundreds of years and some plants can recycle waste. I agree the plants we have now are out of date and badly placed. I have no problem with decommisioning the plants but the benefits of nuclear energy are real. The outer system probe launched decades ago (voyager I think) is still sending data back to us. What other technology could keep a vessel powered this long with no refu#ling or maintanence.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20546) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I don't know - but every single time we launch a nuclear payload into space we depend on one hundred percent error free methods, processes and technology - the consequence of even one failure are unclear.

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (667) 1 year ago

There are ways around that if we invest in the infrastructure needed. In 1967 a nuclear engine was created for use solely in space. For something like that you need to assemble the ship in space. Then you simply package the radioactive materials in a crate that could survive a nuclear blast.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20546) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

you simply package the radioactive materials in a crate that could survive a nuclear blast.


  • r..i..g..h..t..
[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (667) 1 year ago

So instead of giving criticism you just want to be a smart ass. Let me spell it out.

Shuttle crashes. Crate keeps radiation contained. We recover crate. Your fears have been dealt with.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20546) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Oh I see -


you are saying the theory has been

  • thoroughly tested
[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (667) 1 year ago

The same way we test spacecraft. Modeling of the stresses involved. Modeling of the materials used then overbuild.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (667) 1 year ago

Not that I know. But testing it would be worthwhile. Or if not that then we test something else. We need nuclear if we want to explore the solar system.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20546) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

and just precisely how to you plan to test a box built to withstand the rigors of reentry, friction from the atmosphere, and impact, while preserving intact a radio active payload

if not by dropping one from space?

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (667) 1 year ago

Plus thorium waste can not be used to create nuclear bombs.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

DU munitions is the disposal process.

Isn't it? I admit I haven't looked into all the waste from reactors.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20546) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

[Wiki] indicates that DU is produced during the enrichment process. Natural uranium is processed to extract U235.

When U235 is used in a reactor it does deplete the uranium, but it leaves behind trace amounts of Neptunium and Plutonium. This is known as dirty uranium, but the amounts of Pu and Np are insignificant - this form of DU has been used as armor in tanks.

from Wiki:

Since the U-235 content of nuclear reactor fuel is reduced by fission, uranium recovered by nuclear reprocessing from spent nuclear reactor fuel made from natural uranium will have a lower-than-natural U-235 concentration. Such ‘reactor-depleted’ material will have different isotopic ratios from enrichment byproduct DU, and can be distinguished from it by the presence of U-236.[4] Trace transuranics (another indicator of the use of reprocessed material) have been reported to be present in some US tank armour.[3]

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Thanks. The shit is everywhere on the battlefields then.

Major Doug Rokke was onto this a long time ago. Way back in 2003


The interview with DU expert US Army Major Doug Rokke was conducted by Dennis Bernstein, the producer of the program Flash Points on KPFA (Pacifica) radio in Berkeley, California, and broadcast on April 17, 2003. I heard it while driving my car, and was so upset that I had to pull over. I had heard of DU munitions, of course, but I thought they were used occasionally to attack tanks and had no idea of how widespread, deadly and permanent their damage was. ECOTECTURE obtained the tapes of the interview and republishes it with Mr. Bernstein's permission.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20546) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

thanks - I'll take a look

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Agreed, I would only add that most of big oils political support is Republican!

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20546) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

those scumbags are gonna drive me right round the bend.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Repelicans will be defeated. It is the only way forward.

Then we will fight the remaining pols to get control back from big energy & all corp 1% plutocrats.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20546) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

that is the plan - my expectation is that as soon as he is elected they will get serious about proceeding to impeach - not that they have any grounds - but it is an effective means of avoiding any measures that impose on the one percent.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

depressing but not surprising.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20546) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

it might well take 18 months to get underway - but if you google it you will find there are several who are already talking that way.

I lost the link, but I saw one article indicating that impeachment itself is seen by repelicans as nothing more than one more legislative tool

When I hear that shit I'd really like to pull a Charlie Mason art campaign on their lame asses. fukers

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

If they do. They will overreach and more will be voted out.

Repelicans will probably retain the House but will lose seats I believe so they will be weaker and less able to mount a real impeachment effort.

Or they may lose control of the House and impeachment will be out of the question.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20546) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

This site indicates the dems will pick up 4 seats in the House, for a total of 197 (D) to 238 (R) and 218 seats are needed for a majority.

This site indicates the Senate will see dems pick up one, for 52, plus 2 independents.

This site indicates there are currently 32 (R) Governors and they will pick up three - generally a bad trend in my opinion.

Remains to be seen how accurate any of these projections actually are.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

drawn & quartered!

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Definitely a bad trend.

Probably fairly accurate, however it's kinda tougher to measure House races and there is an outside chance we can take it.

Outside chance.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20546) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

we can wait for global warming to become completely undeniable and risk their retooling their message, or we can begin to pursue criminal conspiracy charges where they may apply.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I support criminal charges.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20546) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

followed by hangin' in the public square . . . .

[-] 1 points by Dmooradian (-74) 1 year ago

I am not attacking Sanders personally. I said nothing about his personal attributes. I am questioning his business acumen. He wants the authority to make investment decisions with our money. What is his experience in doing this?

Just like I don't think oil should receive subsidies I don't think, nuclear or wind or solar should receive subsidies. All this does is create corruption. Just look at what is happening in solar. And the same think happened in the 70's the last time we did this.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We MUST as a society invest in future technology in order to assure our people benefit from the jobs and exports that come with it.

Or we could do nothing in future tech and watch the Chinese and Germans dominate these industries.

Are you working for them, or do you prefer the US develop these strategically critical tech/industries.?

[-] 1 points by Dmooradian (-74) 1 year ago

Our society is not government as every dollar that they take away from the society is used inefficiently.

Let there be a level playing field and the best technology will come forward. Right now, oil is being subsidized so the alternatives can't be pushed forward.

I am not that worried about the Russians and Chinese as they are not free societies and cannot dictate technology. This was proven ultimately by the Germans and the US in WWII. The former had a huge advantage on the US in technology and lost it as government control took over. FDR loosened his controls in '42 when he realized that he wasn't producing. The Russians and Chinese have the same problem.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I meant Germans. & I mentioned those 2 countries 'cause they ARE investing heavily on the national level in these industries because they recognize the future.

And China may not be free, but the govt is free to invest 10's of billions (&they are) because they don't have to worry about a congress obstructing them like we do.

We gotta invest in new greentech or we will al be buying chines solar panels w/ our food stamps.


[-] 1 points by Dmooradian (-74) 1 year ago

Yes, Germany is investing heavily but so far, none of that has payed off. Hopefully it does, so they can spend the money and we can get the benefit.

China has way to much corruption and does not have an efficient market. You can only push the labor cost advantage so far.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

They are jumping ahead of us while you are rationalizing why we should save our tax dollars.

[-] 1 points by Dmooradian (-74) 1 year ago

They very well could be jumping ahead of us but that still doesn't mean that their decision to subsidize solar is the correct one. We don't know what is going to be feasible and viable but if we unleash the power of the people we will find out. Oil has been subsidized for a long time and this had made it a market share leader. How much farther along would we be if it wasn't.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Solar & Wind tech is the future. It is the right decision to invest in those industries. I don't need to wait for big oil subsidies to end.

The Chinese & Germand know. You are the only one who don't know.

C'mon get in the know.

[-] 1 points by Dmooradian (-74) 1 year ago

i don't know and there is alot of smart money that is betting against it. I do know that if we subsidize it all it does is drive the price lower and move the rewards to governmental cronies. I don' t think this type of corruption is efficient.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well we should certainly watch for corruption whenever our govt spends our money.


We MUST invest in these new green techs because they ARE the future and we must dominate these fields so that Americans get the jobs & American corps export the products around the world.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20546) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I am not comparing to me but to the market. Bernie Sanders is a career politician and has not made accountable decisions in his whole life. Why would we want him making he decisin between solar and wind.

I guess you don't favor Veteran's issues - just to name one example.

Veterans do - and with very good reason -

  • Disabled American Veterans recognizes Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders

    • BURLINGTON, Vt., Oct. 15 – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has been chosen to receive a Congressional Leadership Award from the Disabled American Veterans.

    • “Your personal efforts led to important increases in funding for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder treatment, Gulf War Illness research and adaptive housing grants for seriously disabled veterans,” said Larry Polzin, the DAV national commander. “When veterans have needed your support, you have always stood up for them.”

And before, in your ignorance you begin to insist that this is somehow a one off, election year, theatrical piece of iconography, let me reassure you - the Senator's support for Veterans - even in the face of overwhelming political opposition and DoD resistance, lies, and spin - goes back more than a decade.

Find yourself a copy of Union Calendar No. 228, from the 105th Congress, 1st session - House Report 105-388 -

  • Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses: VA, DoD Continue To Resist Strong Evidence Linking Toxic Causes To Chronic Health Effects
[-] 0 points by Dmooradian (-74) 1 year ago

What does the support from Veterans have to do with making asset allocation decisions. I didn't say he was a mean guy. He wants to make investment decisions with a large cash of money, what experience does he have in doing that?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20546) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I see you have edited your comment above - to reflect the Senator's early career.

[-] 0 points by Dmooradian (-74) 1 year ago

I edited a mispelling. My eyes are going.

[-] 0 points by shooz (26680) 1 year ago

That may or may not be well and good.

I have yet to see an explanations of why the costs are falling.

In the mean time other avenues still need to be explored and leaving it all up to corporations as we know them, will only result in a guarantee of higher consumer costs.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20413) 1 year ago

Thanks for posting this. Gotta love Bernie Sanders, and he does a great job in that article of laying all of the issues out.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26680) 1 year ago

Thanks, just trying to bring back a little focus as the site is being harassed by foreign policy "experts"...........On the day of the foreign policy debates.


Not a chance, but do take note of those who are perpetuating that, to the exclusion of every other topic available..

On a day like this we can all use a little Bernie sensibility...........:)