What is Digg?57 Comments
- tbhurst, on 11/18/2008, -1/+18Schwarzenegger's leadership on energy and climate continues to astonish me.
- davidryal, on 11/18/2008, -1/+16i think arnold's happy as long as he can be aggressive with something.
- milkshaker, on 11/19/2008, -3/+17He is 'terminating' our dependence on fossil fuels.
- Sagags, on 11/19/2008, -2/+12I have no idea why we keep approving more and more things that are costing more and more money when we are nearly bankrupt as a state.
Then they complain when Arnold wants to raise sales taxes over 10%. - naturalpapa, on 11/18/2008, -2/+11Go Governator!
- stonebear, on 11/18/2008, -4/+12Nice move for an outfit that's broke, and getting broker.
- agentzero141970, on 11/19/2008, -0/+7DOOOO EEEEETTTT NAO!!!!!!!!!
- the governator has spoken. - Spoomeister, on 11/19/2008, -2/+8I don't know exactly when it happened, but at some point, I became able to say "Governor Schwarzenegger" without any trace of sarcasm or disbelief. And still can now. He's actually rather impressive.
- mywhitenoise, on 11/19/2008, -2/+8and so does his failure with the state's economy and taking it out on CA state workers.
- jbmcb, on 11/19/2008, -0/+5This is what California needs - mini-nuclear power plants:
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/
$25 million, powers around 20,000 homes for 10 years. About the size of a small car. Incredibly cheap - the only cost is installation, no maintenance required. Totally safe - the reactor never goes critical and, if by some remote chance it starts to, the excess heat stops the reaction. The waste heat generated can be used to heat water, or whatever else you want. The nuclear waste after ten years is about the size of a baseball, and can be recycled into new fuel.
Of course, the "environmentalists" will protest because it's a nuclear power plant, and, even though they are safe, clean, and efficient - they are evil because of the movie The China Syndrome. - Renian, on 11/19/2008, -0/+5It's only because he can't Constitutionally. :(
- Barackalypse, on 11/19/2008, -0/+4California's electricity costs are already 32% higher than the national average, I suppose Arnold wants to move the State from the 10th most expensive electricity to the most expensive, and that will take some doing because Alaska and Hawaii both have very high costs due to their locations.
http://www.neo.ne.gov/statshtml/115.htm - milkshaker, on 11/19/2008, -1/+5JOHN KIMBLE
- ncavet, on 11/18/2008, -2/+6Gotta love Arnold.
- willdelaney, on 11/19/2008, -0/+4I think thats what he was shooting for buddy
- spookyttws, on 11/19/2008, -0/+4Please tell me you're being sarcastic..?.
- jbmcb, on 11/19/2008, -0/+4The waste is a combination of fuel and degraded fuel. Centrifuge it to separate out the impurities, and you get more usable fuel. The impurities are waste and do need to be stored safely for a long time, but the amount is negligible.
> I would support nuclear power if there existed a way to get rid of the waste in a safe way.
The old reactors generated a lot of waste, the newer reactors are much more efficient, and with modern recycling methods the amount of waste produced is tiny. It's small enough to be safely contained in clay storage vessels which can be buried in geologically safe batholiths for thousands of years. - mos6507, on 11/19/2008, -1/+4At some point you have to factor in the cost the state suffers via environmental degradation. Focusing on the immediate costs is the reason the planet is *****.
- Richandler, on 11/19/2008, -2/+5How about instead of mandating energy companies to spend money on renewable tech. and passing the bill to customers, we actually give the renewables directly to the people.
- darkmagician777, on 11/19/2008, -0/+3Thats one of the best moves the state can do with continual rise in cost period. Im happy to be a Californian. Now if only solar panels were more affordable for larger homes.
- DigitalisAkujin, on 11/19/2008, -0/+3I for one welcome our solarpanel overlords
- sleeknerve, on 11/19/2008, -1/+4GET TO DA CHAPAAA!!!
- shig, on 11/19/2008, -0/+3"to meet the 33 percent target and spread implementation costs across all ratepayers"
- Majorkerina, on 11/19/2008, -0/+2Actually, he's in his 2nd term already. It ends in 2011.
- PopcornDave, on 11/19/2008, -0/+2What we need is technology brought to the local level instead of at the business level. If you cut out the middleman, PG&E for example in Northern California, then I suspect you'd have a lot more people pushing for alternative energy.
But all the people see now is a mandate for 33% green energy which will translate in to higher energy costs for the consumer because the power company needs to recoup the costs of the new equipment. And in time those rates should stabilize because the equipment is paid off, but we've all seen how well that theory worked on the bridges in the Bay Area. Tolls keep going up even though the bridges have been paid for many times over. A small toll for maintenance should be enough, but try selling that to politicians who would lose that money to be spent.
Until it's down to the individual level I really don't think it's going to take off with the general public. - paulmer2003, on 11/19/2008, -1/+3Thank you for your excellent bipartisan leadership, Mr. Schwarzenegger. When you first got elected I was pissed off, but eh, I shouldn't have been so assumptive based on your past ;)
I will certainly be voting to reelect him on next election. - spookyttws, on 11/19/2008, -0/+2Prop 7 and Prop 10 didn't pass because they were fundamentally wrong. That and T. Boone Pickens funded both. It's hard to say you want to be using renewable energy when the guy promoting both made his billions on oil drilling.
- KMye, on 11/19/2008, -0/+2Whether one agrees or disagrees whether it's good policy to pay for renewables, this will cost Californians more than they pay now...I'm curious why is this "one of the best moves the state can do with continual rise in cost period"?
- jahman, on 11/19/2008, -0/+2It takes strength and courage to promote fundamental change. There will always be small-minded folk who think investing in something that breaks our dependence on: terrorist-supporting oil regimes, CO2 producing fuel, US-based technology development, self-sufficiency, will be: bad for the corporations, bad for the taxpayers, etc.
What this country needs is a central driving force for our economy. It can't be inflated real estate schemes, hot paper, mindless consumption (that fuels the Chinese!). All those automotive engineers from the impending Big 3 crash could be building new and exciting green tech - high altitude wind energy production, wave energy, solar photovoltaic, solar thermal, high speed rail.
We can and should become the high tech leaders and create plentiful, clean, green energy so we can ignore the Middle East, become net EXPORTERS of tech, create the next economic boom, and live happily ever after. - pfranz, on 11/19/2008, -0/+2Ya know, I could have sworn California's voters just said they didn't really want this:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_P ... - Barackalypse, on 11/19/2008, -2/+4Electricity costs in California are already 32% higher than the national average. California pays an average of 14.07 cents per kw/hr, the 10th most expensive in the country. Is it any wonder why?
http://www.neo.ne.gov/statshtml/115.htm - simX, on 11/19/2008, -2/+4Are you *seriously* still blaming all the issues we have in California on Gray Davis? For *****'s sake, get a life.
- inactive, on 11/19/2008, -2/+3How about fixing the brownout problems first? Mexifornia becomes more like a 3rd world country every year.
- PopcornDave, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1You have to realize that as a voter in California, and probably everywhere else for that matter, voting on issues doesn't mean much of a damn thing. The politicians are pretty much going to do what they want anyway because:
a) Recalls usually don't gain any steam, with Gray Davis being the obvious exception. The prison guard's union threatened Arnold with a recall unless they got what they wanted and then they suddenly dropped their recall efforts. Hmmm...
b) Even if an initiative passes, the losing side takes it to court within a month and has it put on hold.
c) Even with term limits, they can shuffle between government jobs and stay within the power circle for years and remain untouchable. - partrow, on 11/19/2008, -1/+2Sounds just like the Peoples' Republic of California. They are in debt $60 billion, yet they continue to pass laws and regulations on an almost daily basis to increase costs to their citizens, (and illegal citizens) businesses, and government.
- credential101, on 11/19/2008, -5/+6It's sad that Gov. Schwarzenegger will never run for President.
- Cglass, on 11/19/2008, -2/+3Yes, I'm sorry, Gray Davis did nothing wrong. He left California in pristine condition and any problems that we did have were easily correctable within days. He wasn't recalled. Just like President Bush, they both did wonderful things for where I live.
I am sorry I misspoke earlier simX, Gray Davis is not a crook. - Ghoztt, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1Too late and the tech is already here.
- carlosos, on 11/19/2008, -1/+2Can you please explain how the nuclear waste gets recycled? Or do you mean putting it under ground for a few hundreds/thousands years in containers that don't last that long?
I would support nuclear power if there existed a way to get rid of the waste in a safe way. - ElGstr, on 01/05/2009, -0/+1Cool
Using High Tech For Conservation http://reno.broowaha.com/article.php?id=4327
We Love Sunlight Spills. In this article, How American Energy Independence Was Won, http://www.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3907, the author wrote,
“Voila, 4,641,748,800 megawatts a year. America’s heir and a spare to American energy independence. The Feds lease this land to U.S. Solar, Inc. (a strong, proud and patriotic USS for the stock exchange with We Love Sunlight Spills as its’ slogan) for The Nevada Solar Plant. U.S. Solar, Inc. is a red-blooded true blue American capitalist mega-corporation. U.S. Solar, Inc., through it’s Nevada division, Nevada Solar, Inc., gets the usual Federal and State tax subsides and contracts awarded to mega-corporations. A new breed of lobbyist is born, one driving electric cars with a solar panel on every roof. U.S. Solar, Inc. immediately pays it CEO $100 million a year plus perks and bonuses. U.S. Solar, Inc. hires illegals, has zero retirement and health care coverage, is non-union. It charges its’ employees for plugging in their electric cars, and each car has a solar panel on its roof. Ownership of electric cars is a condition to employment and the power generated by the solar panel on each car’s roof belongs to the U.S. Solar, Inc. electric grid. For those just not getting it :-( more ;-) tongue-in-cheek sarcasm going on here. Nevada Solar, Inc pays it CEO $50 million a year plus perks and bonuses. Within two years Nevada Solar, Inc., replicates itself in Montana and other American states, then goes global. It’s Another Great American Story. Brings a tear of patriotic pride to my eye, ‘cause boy, we really won that American War for Energy Independence. “ - fluxion, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1i tried to get them to charge it all to Paris Hilton but they wouldnt budge
- sanosuke001, on 11/19/2008, -1/+2Seriously, why are they mandating this at such a slow rate? They should be able to get to 100% within 10-12 years if they really wanted to. Stop procrastinating and just do it ffs.
- PopcornDave, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1And what are the penalties if it doesn't get there? Say it only gets to 28.3343% not the 33% that he's mandated. Does he get to come back in to office and wave his finger at everyone and scold them?
It's a fantastic idea but I'd rather have seen money go in to university research to bring it down to an individual level rather than a mandate that business has to follow. - RP4408, on 12/24/2008, -0/+1Nice post - unfortunately most people have been propagandized by the alarmist global warming/climate change "consensus" .
- dblespresso, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1I wonder why California is a net importer of electricity?
- tsotha, on 11/19/2008, -1/+1This is all just so much BS. Just like at the federal level, every California legislative session is independent of the previous sessions. So any plans you make that last more than one fiscal year can be completely ignored by the legislatures after you. That's why you always see these kinds of plans "backloading" the pain to later legislatures.
Because the current legislature knows the pain part will never happen. - Rockkybox, on 11/19/2008, -1/+1Of trees which have absorbed the same amount of greenhouse gases they give out, rather than unlocking it from oil
- hazyeight, on 11/19/2008, -1/+1Look everyone!! A real world example of an idiot!
- govsucks, on 11/19/2008, -3/+3What was that? California mandates a reduction in businesses operating in California by 33%?
Oh, sorry, I'm thinking about the result. - YodaJones, on 11/19/2008, -3/+3Whatever California saves with their stupid green initiatives they will make up for with world class fires every year.
-
Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is