The American Constitution

[Robert Roaldi]

I’ll leave it there and bypass your editorial on my “personal circumstances.” It’s an area where you haven’t a clue. Not the only one.

Are you deliberately mis-reading what I wrote or do you confuse personal insult for conversation?

The only reason I mentioned your personal circumstances was to highlight the fact that driving long distances, something that e-cars are not that good at right now, and it's you who brought up the example, is that what we take for granted in N.A., routinely driving long distances, is not a fact of life for much of the world. I don't understand why you would take umbrage at what was a pretty innocuous comment.

If you lost the tendency to take personal digs at people who disagree with you, more people might be willing to listen. I don't assume that you're stupid if you disagree with me, you should do the same.

[Robert Roaldi]

The purpose of the government is to keep us safe, so military funding for research does not really bother me.  NASA is another anomaly; there was really no point to go the moon other then bragging rights on who got their first.  I am glad that we went, but in reality no private company would do that since the ROI would not be there. 

Now, aside from this, this does not imply certain innovations would not have been publicly discovered and funded, which was the case prior to our government giving out funding for research.  You cant blame a capitalist for using free money to do research. But the fact is, many many products never were initiated by the government. 

And I don't really think research money given to universities really fall under this.  Professors research, it's what they do.  Those are public universities get some public money to do so, while others at private universities get, perhaps, less.  If government money dried up, assume our taxes when down too, researchers would be able to find moneys elsewhere.

I didn't say any of those things. And I didn't minimize the creativity or validity of private interests to engineer useful products from publicly available information. I just think that it's important to keep in mind that neither Toyota nor Sony nor any other corporation would fund multi-decade research into something for which there is no guaranteed outcome. That is not a value judgement on my part, that's not what they're for and there is no reason to expect it from them.

[Robert Roaldi]

Nuclear is safe because it is not an inherently dangerous power source, and this is due to the fact that it is good for business to have it that way.  If a nuclear power plant melts down, it is gone, done, no further ROI.  So it is good business to make sure it does not fail.  This is exactly what companies, on their own, are doing right now, trying to make it absolutely fool proof and come up with the next generation of reactors that are more efficient and powerful.  But government has gotten in the way so much so it is impossible to get a new nuclear plant built, and even harder with newer better designs. 

Pretty funny, there are safer better designs but because of how slow government runs, the government would rather you build an older type plant instead of a new one. 

The red tape is so thick that coal plants release more radiation then what nuclear plants are allowed to.  How silly is that. 

Insofar as Boeing, what's your point.  I believe the accident was caused by a programing glitch no one realized existed until an accident occurred.  It's tragic but how do you foresee it until after the fact.  Most responses on how the government could have prevented it are filled with hindsight bias.  The government did nothing, nor would have been able to, to prevent it.  And do you really think Boeing is fixing the problem due to government?  No!.  They are fixing it because they want to continue selling planes.  If they ignored it, no one would want to fly in a Boeing plane and they would loose business.  It just make sense to fix the problem. 

It also makes sense to make planes safer and safer as time goes on.  Do you really think a company would make planes to the same safety standards of the 30s if they could?  Come one, you're being irrational. 

Cars you say, well the cars of 30 years ago were not less safe because of less red tape.  They were less safe because innovations we have today had not yet been invented.  The government did not just all of a sudden think up some safety innovations and products and force them onto the car makers.  The car makers thought of these things and implemented them before the government even had a whiff of them.  Stop kidding yourself. 

Ahhh, the smog of Pittsburgh.  Guess what, no one really knew how bad smog was for your health pre 1940s. The industries let it get that bad simply because no one, including them, knew any better.  It was not until the 1948 Donora smog crisis that people started to take it seriously, Of course, when they found out how unsafe it was, they cleaned it up.  So what is the point?  It is a great example of a local government getting together and implementing a policy that hd direct results.  Not a large federal government run amuck with regulations, some of which no one can really explain.

Cars are safer today because regulation and law suits forced the car companies to come up with those improvements.

As I stated earlier, I think we should use nuclear energy. But your arguments regarding corporate benevolence is falling on deaf ears. Unless someone forces them to, companies have had a long history of bad behaviour. The oil industry leaves abandoned oil and gas rigs all over the place. The nuclear industry would do the same unless there were stringent regulations forcing them to. Suggesting that they, or any other industry sector, does not need formal supervision does not match history.

[Alan Klein]

...was to highlight the fact that driving long distances, something that e-cars are not that good at right now, and it's you who brought up the example, is that what we take for granted in N.A., routinely driving long distances, is not a fact of life for much of the world. ...

My 2012 Acura TL gas tank holds 18.5 gallons compared to my 2019 Lincoln MKC which holds 15.7 gallons.  The Lincoln drives me crazy, It seems like I'm filling it up every few days.  True, it only gets 19.2 gpm compared to the Acura which get 22.2mpg.  But when I fill up the Acura, the range it shows is 475 miles compared to around 300 miles for the Lincoln.   Something is screwy somewheres.  Range is important when you drive 15,000+ miles per year.  (includes both my wife and me total for both cars).  And my wife and I live in a typical suburban area in New Jersey, not Texas or some other Plains state. 

Having said that, I've driven a company owned Prius regularly when I worked.  All the driving was in the 5 boros of NYC.  It was a peppy car and nice for running around in traffic.  My biggest complaint is that the cost of the battery takes away from comfortable features that a non-electric car could provide at the same total cost for the electric car.  also, i believe depreciation on electrics are greater because the battery eventually has to be replaced at great cost.  Like buying a used camera with too many shutter operations.

[Alan Klein]

Cars are safer today because regulation and law suits forced the car companies to come up with those improvements.

As I stated earlier, I think we should use nuclear energy. But your arguments regarding corporate benevolence is falling on deaf ears. Unless someone forces them to, companies have had a long history of bad behaviour. The oil industry leaves abandoned oil and gas rigs all over the place. The nuclear industry would do the same unless there were stringent regulations forcing them to. Suggesting that they, or any other industry sector, does not need formal supervision does not match history.

I agree that some regulation is required in many industries although companies today have found that it is good marketing to provide safe products and be a good steward in your industry.  It also avoids liability lawsuits which can wipe out your company.  On the other hand, government regulation can become oppressive not only against rich corporations, but individuals and smaller companies.  While it's important to protect things, you don;t want to shoot yourself in the foot either.  I think the pendulum has swung too far toward regulation.  It's gotten to the point where government picks winners and losers. (See my earlier post).  That's not good for anyone.

[RSL]

Cars are safer today because regulation and law suits forced the car companies to come up with those improvements.

ROTFL! Regulation has required car companies to meet absurd fuel consumption standards. The result has been that they've had to build a bunch of lower-end, small, relatively unsafe cars. Between 2014 and 2016 U.S. traffic deaths increased by well over 4,000 per year. In 2017 they dropped slightly, but there's nothing at all to indicate that government control improves human welfare.

[Alan Klein]

ROTFL! Regulation has required car companies to meet absurd fuel consumption standards. The result has been that they've had to build a bunch of lower-end, small, relatively unsafe cars. Between 2014 and 2016 U.S. traffic deaths increased by well over 4,000 per year. In 2017 they dropped slightly, but there's nothing at all to indicate that government control improves human welfare.

The car companies are selling more SUVs and crossover SUV's.  Many sedans like Chevrolet Impala are being discontinued after decades of production as more people buy crossover SUV's which have less mileage.  The cheaper price of gasoline I think has helped the SUV and bigger automobile market again.  So people should be driving safer. 

Curious what's happening in Europe, Canada and Australia.  Are people buying larger less efficient cars? 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Curious what's happening in Europe, Canada and Australia.  Are people buying larger less efficient cars? 

In Europe, it is about parking. My friend switched from his Mercedes to a Smart car, which he can park sideways, if necessary, in the same spot.

[Alan Klein]

In Europe, it is about parking. My friend switched from his Mercedes to a Smart car, which he can park sideways, if necessary, in the same spot.

Just gave me a great idea.  I can buy a Smart car and keep it inside the back of my SUV.  That way, when I drive to NYC in my SUV, I can pull out the Smart car for driving and parking in Manhattan. 

[RSL]

The car companies are selling more SUVs and crossover SUV's.  Many sedans like Chevrolet Impala are being discontinued after decades of production as more people buy crossover SUV's which have less mileage.  The cheaper price of gasoline I think has helped the SUV and bigger automobile market again.  So people should be driving safer. 

Absolutely, Alan. This year I traded in my Odyssey and bought a beautiful brand new Honda Pilot – an SUV. I love it. SUV’s are selling well. As you point out that’s partly because the price of gas has dropped, even though our previous administration did everything in its power to limit fracking and keep the price of gas high. But because of absurd “Corporate Average Fuel Economy” (CAFE) standards set by Trump’s predecessor, auto companies have to build small cars to offset the SUV production. Happily, the Trump administration is proposing that economy standards be set at 2020 levels until 2026. That may help.

[JoeKitchen]

I agree that some regulation is required in many industries although companies today have found that it is good marketing to provide safe products and be a good steward in your industry.  It also avoids liability lawsuits which can wipe out your company.  On the other hand, government regulation can become oppressive not only against rich corporations, but individuals and smaller companies.  While it's important to protect things, you don;t want to shoot yourself in the foot either.  I think the pendulum has swung too far toward regulation.  It's gotten to the point where government picks winners and losers. (See my earlier post).  That's not good for anyone.

I agree with this.  Some regulations can be good.  Many though just get the way for no apparent reason. 

I just had my house completely rewired.  You cant have lights in cloests anymore in Philly.  Why, because you could break a light bulb and spread glass through out the closet.  What genius thought of this; cant you break a light bulb in a room and spread the glass all over?  You cant have outlets in closets either, because they could start fires.  Well, cant an outlet anywhere start a fire?  You need to have an outlet every 12 feet around the perimeter, period.  I have an outlet behind a radiator that will never be used to satisfy this regulation.  The electrician even told me that he needed to put it there even though it makes no sense because the city would not pass the inspection if it was not there. 

It's stuff like this that screws things up.  An outlet behind a radiator makes no sense what so ever.  But if you make up a regulation and then give it to a bureaucrat, they suddenly cant think for themselves and never allow for common sense exceptions.   

[Rob C]

Cars are safer today because regulation and law suits forced the car companies to come up with those improvements.

As I stated earlier, I think we should use nuclear energy. But your arguments regarding corporate benevolence is falling on deaf ears. Unless someone forces them to, companies have had a long history of bad behaviour. The oil industry leaves abandoned oil and gas rigs all over the place. The nuclear industry would do the same unless there were stringent regulations forcing them to. Suggesting that they, or any other industry sector, does not need formal supervision does not match history.

Ralph Nadar.

Regarding the volume of cars: this may be a misconception insofar as some places go. There was a 40% drop in sales in Britain a month or two ago; many urban kids no longer even want a car or get a driving licence. The things are losing their appeal unless you live far out there and have to travel huge distances to work or buy food. What used to be our weekly drive to Safeway for the things we needed for home has become something that a lot of women now do by taxi: a couple of them gets together and gets picked up, does what it wants to do, goes for a coffee and a chat; another buzz on the cellphone and a Jeeves appears to take 'em home. Pay as you go; no upfront expenses, payments, contracts, fuel, maintenance, washing, nada. What's not to like? We oldies and our wheels fixation are becoming passé.

Nuclear. Did I mention that in the UK, both our own govt. in tandem at times with France and China have tried to come up with a new nuclear power plant? They got so much ground broken and then it appeared to abort because costs were soaring beyond any quoted figures before the work properly began. Nuclear, to be safe and useful, and its waste to be safely dispose of, is a friggin' nightmare and not the stroll down easy street its advocates think. It's no panacea to me, it's a nightmare waiting for folks to fall asleep. And really, it seems to be that worse than the immediate effects of a catastrophe at work, the greater danger is the waste material that remains toxically active for thousands of years.

All of that ignores the terrorist target aspect of such a structure. You may remember the international chaos that was caused at Heathrow, I think, by a drone incident a few months ago? All the money riding on transport, and they still were powerless to find a civilian with a radio control. Yeah, living downhill of a big dam can be just as unsettling, but the one danger does not negate the other.

[JoeKitchen]

Cars are safer today because regulation and law suits forced the car companies to come up with those improvements.

As I stated earlier, I think we should use nuclear energy. But your arguments regarding corporate benevolence is falling on deaf ears. Unless someone forces them to, companies have had a long history of bad behaviour. The oil industry leaves abandoned oil and gas rigs all over the place. The nuclear industry would do the same unless there were stringent regulations forcing them to. Suggesting that they, or any other industry sector, does not need formal supervision does not match history.

Maybe I am being a little facetious in my anti-regulation stick.  However, I think you can agree that in many cases regulation is hold industry back.  Nuclear is a great example. 

Putting the minimum amount of radiation released of nuclear power plants much lower than what is released by non-nuclear activities, like burning coal, is kind of a ridiculous regulation.  Should there be a regulation for this, perhaps.  Should it be lower then what you get when you burn a non-nuclear substance, probably not. 

There are plenty of others. 

I have faith though.  Eventually the majority of America will be screwed by high electricity prices, and people will demand change.  Nuclear will be adopted; I have no doubt. 

I just wish some of the new start ups would start offering IPOs!   

[faberryman]

There was a 40% drop in sales in Britain a month or two ago; many urban kids no longer even want a car or get a driving licence.

Yeah. They just take an Uber/Lyft. Oh wait... those are cars.

[RSL]

Ralph Nadar.

Regarding the volume of cars: this may be a misconception insofar as some places go. There was a 40% drop in sales in Britain a month or two ago; many urban kids no longer even want a car or get a driving licence. The things are losing their appeal unless you live far out there and have to travel huge distances to work or buy food. What used to be our weekly drive to Safeway for the things we needed for home has become something that a lot of women now do by taxi: a couple of them gets together and gets picked up, does what it wants to do, goes for a coffee and a chat; another buzz on the cellphone and a Jeeves appears to take 'em home. Pay as you go; no upfront expenses, payments, contracts, fuel, maintenance, washing, nada. What's not to like? We oldies and our wheels fixation are becoming passé.

Nuclear. Did I mention that in the UK, both our own govt. in tandem at times with France and China have tried to come up with a new nuclear power plant? They got so much ground broken and then it appeared to abort because costs were soaring beyond any quoted figures before the work properly began. Nuclear, to be safe and useful, and its waste to be safely dispose of, is a friggin' nightmare and not the stroll down easy street its advocates think. It's no panacea to me, it's a nightmare waiting for folks to fall asleep. And really, it seems to be that worse than the immediate effects of a catastrophe at work, the greater danger is the waste material that remains toxically active for thousands of years.

All of that ignores the terrorist target aspect of such a structure. You may remember the international chaos that was caused at Heathrow, I think, by a drone incident a few months ago? All the money riding on transport, and they still were powerless to find a civilian with a radio control. Yeah, living downhill of a big dam can be just as unsettling, but the one danger does not negate the other.

Rob, Nuclear waste is recyclable. Once reactor fuel (uranium or thorium) is used in a reactor, it can be treated and put into another reactor as fuel. France, Great Britain and Japan, among other nations do this. France recycles most of its waste. Unfortunately, the U.S. doesn't do that. One reason it doesn't is that Hollywood and the news media have made people so afraid of nuclear power it simply isn't worth it.

[Rob C]

Yeah. They just take an Uber/Lyft. Oh wait... those are cars.

Or hop on public transport. There's loads of it, and the more people use it the better it will become.

That said, and you could well be right about those folks just using another car, the point remains that as an item of lust and ego, it may be singing its swan-song. Also, if you don't drive, you don't get into the aimless trips mindset, which can only be good for those who have no alternative but the highway.

An electric car might really suit me best of all. I drive so little these days - still under 30,000 klicks in almost nine years. A small thing like a golf buggy would be fine, if the rest of the traffic was no larger and faster. As for SUVs doing the school run, do me a favour! Is your local school up a mountain track or in a forest with no roads? That Range Rover had two purposes: display hubbies wealth; protect the passengers from other equally silly transport devices.

[Alan Klein]

Ralph Nadar.

Regarding the volume of cars: this may be a misconception insofar as some places go. There was a 40% drop in sales in Britain a month or two ago; many urban kids no longer even want a car or get a driving licence. The things are losing their appeal unless you live far out there and have to travel huge distances to work or buy food. What used to be our weekly drive to Safeway for the things we needed for home has become something that a lot of women now do by taxi: a couple of them gets together and gets picked up, does what it wants to do, goes for a coffee and a chat; another buzz on the cellphone and a Jeeves appears to take 'em home. Pay as you go; no upfront expenses, payments, contracts, fuel, maintenance, washing, nada. What's not to like? We oldies and our wheels fixation are becoming passé.

Nuclear. Did I mention that in the UK, both our own govt. in tandem at times with France and China have tried to come up with a new nuclear power plant? They got so much ground broken and then it appeared to abort because costs were soaring beyond any quoted figures before the work properly began. Nuclear, to be safe and useful, and its waste to be safely dispose of, is a friggin' nightmare and not the stroll down easy street its advocates think. It's no panacea to me, it's a nightmare waiting for folks to fall asleep. And really, it seems to be that worse than the immediate effects of a catastrophe at work, the greater danger is the waste material that remains toxically active for thousands of years.

All of that ignores the terrorist target aspect of such a structure. You may remember the international chaos that was caused at Heathrow, I think, by a drone incident a few months ago? All the money riding on transport, and they still were powerless to find a civilian with a radio control. Yeah, living downhill of a big dam can be just as unsettling, but the one danger does not negate the other.

How does France handle terrorists, waste, safety, etc.?  Most of their production is from nuclear.  If it works for them, why not us? 

[JoeKitchen]

Nuclear. Did I mention that in the UK, both our own govt. in tandem at times with France and China have tried to come up with a new nuclear power plant? They got so much ground broken and then it appeared to abort because costs were soaring beyond any quoted figures before the work properly began. Nuclear, to be safe and useful, and its waste to be safely dispose of, is a friggin' nightmare and not the stroll down easy street its advocates think. It's no panacea to me, it's a nightmare waiting for folks to fall asleep. And really, it seems to be that worse than the immediate effects of a catastrophe at work, the greater danger is the waste material that remains toxically active for thousands of years.

All of that ignores the terrorist target aspect of such a structure. You may remember the international chaos that was caused at Heathrow, I think, by a drone incident a few months ago? All the money riding on transport, and they still were powerless to find a civilian with a radio control. Yeah, living downhill of a big dam can be just as unsettling, but the one danger does not negate the other.

Rob, this is all BS!

Nuclear power plants are expensive because of the regulations, period.  That is why they have become too expensive to build.  A second, yet smaller issue, is nothing has been standardized yet; they are all one off designs.  This is mainly due to the fact that not enough of them have been built yet for a standard to develop, which brings us back to the first issue. 

Second, in the event of a meltdown, the containment dome holds in all of the radiation.  To this date, aside from Chernobyl, which had no containment dome, all of the destruction and death from any nuclear plant malfunction was a direct result of mass hysteria.  There was never, nor has there been, any threat from the radiation in any event other then Chernobyl.  Also, the threat from Chernobyl was much less then what people have been told.  Like I said before only about 120 people have died from radiation exposure at Chernobyl. 

Third, nuclear waste is not as dangerous as people make it out to be.  It is a solid.  It can not spill out and flow all over the place.  It would remain where ever it happened to land.  Anyway, the short term containers are incredibly well built and it would take an severe action to break them.  So it is highly unlikely the waste would somehow be exposed.  On top of that, nuclear power produces an extremely small amount of waste that is completely contained somewhere.  Uranium is extremely energy dense, so much so that you would only use up about a soup can size amount of it in your entire life if you only ever used nuclear for all of your energy.  Any other base line power source produces significantly more waste per capita and almost all of it is released into the atmosphere in the form of carbon emissions. 

Forth, nuclear power plants are a really really, and I mean really, bad terrorist target.  The fuel rods are only, at most, 20% radioactive material, but I think most are only 5%.  Point being, you cant make a nuclear bomb with it because you need 99% or higher fissionable material to do so.  So, it makes no sense to try and steal it for that purpose.  Using it in a dirty bomb would not do anything either since the explosion would spread the material so far apart fission would nearly stop.  You can actually safely handle the pellets in the fuel rods safely by themselves.  Insofar as exposing the core, the domes are built so thick not even a nuclear bomb can rupture them, and even if it did, the bomb would produce a much bigger problem then exposing the core would.  Stealing the short term waste containers also would not be practical since they are so big and heavy.  Trying to blow them up is also nearly impossible.  To quote Richard Brant, it would have to be a really stupid terrorist to try and attack a nuclear power plant.  There are a lot better and significantly softer targets to worry about. 

Last your comment about the drone, intentionally or not, is nothing but a red herring.  The reason a drone poses so much threat to an airport is because it could fly into a plane engine and bring it down.  However, no drone is going to be able to destroy a containment dome or a temporary nuclear waste container at a nuclear power plant.  This is not even a comparison worth thinking about. 

[JoeKitchen]

Yeah. They just take an Uber/Lyft. Oh wait... those are cars.

Personally I walk. My grocery is about a half mile away.  No need to drive unless it is raining.  Even then, I have this thing called an umbrella.   

[Alan Klein]

Or hop on public transport. There's loads of it, and the more people use it the better it will become.

That said, and you could well be right about those folks just using another car, the point remains that as an item of lust and ego, it may be singing its swan-song. Also, if you don't drive, you don't get into the aimless trips mindset, which can only be good for those who have no alternative but the highway.

An electric car might really suit me best of all. I drive so little these days - still under 30,000 klicks in almost nine years. A small thing like a golf buggy would be fine, if the rest of the traffic was no larger and faster. As for SUVs doing the school run, do me a favour! Is your local school up a mountain track or in a forest with no roads? That Range Rover had two purposes: display hubbies wealth; protect the passengers from other equally silly transport devices.

In America, the shift is going to crossover SUV's, not traditional SUVs.  Crossovers are basically sedan bodies with a SUV look and higher cabin sitting positions.  Frankly, my regular sedan drives smoother but the higher view in a SUV is nice.  And safer to drive.  But the drive is coarser.  Well, you do have a choice. 

Arguing that it's more fun to take a bus falls on deaf ears.  There's nothing like rolling up the windows, putting on some great music sound speakers, and getting comfortable in an auto from the garage in your house to the place you're going.   I also love just driving around.  Getting out in the country driving country roads are an escape.  I think you've forgotten how much fun it could be.