You're interpreting. Where did you read ALWAYS?
Do you see private enterprise doing healthcare? ...building roads? ...providing law enforcement? ...putting out fires?
The benefits of socialism.
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
You're interpreting. Where did you read ALWAYS?
Do you see private enterprise doing healthcare? ...building roads? ...providing law enforcement? ...putting out fires?
"Do you see private enterprise doing healthcare? ...building roads? ...providing law enforcement? ...putting out fires?"
Health care: In the United States.
Building roads: Anywhere in the world, where government dares not to tread.
Law enforcement: Wherever it is profitable. (not a dirty word)
Putting out fires: See above.
Health care: In the United States.
Building roads: Anywhere in the world, where government dares not to tread.
Law enforcement: Wherever it is profitable. (not a dirty word)
Putting out fires: See above.
If you don't like socialism, find a place to live that doesn't provide government policing, healthcare, education, etc. Find one where companies provide all that.
Back to the original topic - a "blame socialism" fest because a drought is affecting a socialist country's water reserves for generating power....
Ya gotta love a capitalists need to rape and pillage the land and oppress the people - profit above all and screw anybody who gets in their way. Does it not say in the bible something about helping your neighbour? If we are a society, we are socialists. Capitalists only look out for number one.
I totally agree, just wish there wasn't such a negative connotation attached to nuclear power, no reason for it.
Places like Germany (25+%) and France (75%) have nuclear power generating their electrical power. Were not even close to them, maybe U.S. 20%, Canada 16%. Get rid of the coal and go totally nuclear. The other so called alternative sources do not even come close to what nuclear can give us. Plus were still using 1900's technology to distribute what ever power we create.
Just to stay on topic, under socialism we never would have explored alternative energy sources.
500 million year half life for waste products, depleted uranium armaments, the sneaky dumping of waste off the coast of Somalia, the poisoning of our oceans and ground water systems, astronomical cost to build, lies form government and the nuclear commission.....
Too many people are stuck in a Cold War mindset. Then, there are the Luddites who think time should stand still. Windfarms allegedly make noise and kill birds. What demons will they "discover" when solar collectors get more widespread?
Solar. Collectors are getting more efficient every year and can be set up on rooftops right in the city they will power. No land has to be drowned. No rotor blades and towers mess with the scenery and they're far less in cost than nuclear power.
Development Sault Ste. Marie Pleased to Announce Major Solar Energy Project
That's fine for homeowners. My question was addressed from the stand point of power companies who provide the baseload power. They have financial departments which weigh the options. I guess I wasn't completely clear about that.
I think home owners generating their own power would be more widespread with more equitable regulations- to compensate home owners fairly for the generation they don't use. Do you know what the rules are in Ontario concerning this?
Rules? They apply to Hydro One?
Solar power isn't a static thing. Photo-electric cell and storage battery technology is growing by leaps and bounds. The Soo's project is aiming for peak hours supplemental power. It's not a great stretch of imagination to see Sol coming into widespread use as a baseload source.
Sneakin' in all secret like over the Pacific Ocean might be a real mind bender for ya then....
Don't know where Canada dumps its waste, we have underground caves dug in salt to store it. Been doing it that way for years, in South West and Louisiana. There is a down side to everything, live with it, storing it will not bother anything. The upfront costs with nuclear power are artificialy created, there is no need for a nuclear power plant to take 15-20 years to build, it could be built in under 10 years same quality. Cost can also be brought down by standardizing the design of the plants, no reason for each one to be different unless it is a major improvement.
Coal power is deadlier than nuclear power- fact. The downsides to nuclear power you have shown have not happened, maybe will happen, just fear by those who are not willing to take chances.
Lets go with solar then, where will you put those millions of panels? When will you a new power grid built to distribute the power? Where will you store this energy when the panels are not operating. How long would it take to build, especially the power gridf to link everything? This is for a whole country not getting hydro, tidal or other clean energy.
In other words, your scenario is not realistic. No country will get 100% of it's power from one source. That's not smart.
Solar thermal will be a big deal in the coming decades. It's a bit player now, but there area huge deals being struck over in Europe with African nations (almost $600 Billion), and plans for stations in the SW and SE USA. You can get power from solar thermal when the sun isn't shining. By storing the superheated liquid in storage tanks.