candooman

Rail Transport: Why Can't We Learn from Europeans?

The statewide rail is a boondogle in the sense that few people will use them. We would have better return on our money if the funds were used to expand our light rails within the cities. More people will use them if they can get to where they want to go with in walking distances of stations. Expanding them will accomplish this. New York, Boston and Chicago rails are well used because of this but a better example is the system in Toronto. A combination of subway, light rail and electric buses.

One thing I do not understand is why we do not use elevated light rail in cities when it is so much cheaper and safer than surface light rail. They work well in Las Vegas and Chicago.

Rail Transport: Why Can't We Learn from Europeans?

I agree with bpickard. We need more nuclear plants ... uranium, thorium, etc. so we can replace the coal plants and other hydrocarbon powered plants ... to provide electricity as we switch to electric cars, appliances, etc. We need to build more electric trains for short and long distances. We need to reduce our reliance on diesel powered trains as much as possible. Nukes take a long time to build but they are the only ones that can replace big chunks of fossil fired plants, hence the fastest way to drastically reduce our CO2 foot print.

What we need to do is pursue all avenues - solar, wind, nuclear - in parallel to bring down our CO2 foot print as rapidly as we can. Current bills in our House and Senate does not include nuclear which seem to indicate a lack of political will or understanding of the big picture.

Judge's Message to Rating Agencies: Free Speech Not Freedom to Defraud

Let us start from the beginning. Ex-President Carter, in his desire to help the poor, pushes the banks to lend to the poor. The banks refuse to go along - unsound banking practice. With the help of a Democratic congress, Community Redevelopment Act was enacted and banks were allowed to start securitizing loans. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac refuse to buy the loans - again unsound banking practice - but agreed after Democratic appointees were put in management positions. The appointees saw this as an opportunity to get sky high bonuses. The Fed (Greenspan) with his myopic vision (we did not know this then) went along and allowed securitization and derivatives to florish. The laws enacted after the 1907 and 1929-33 financial disasters (Glass-Steagall among others) were slowly whithered away, first by the Democratic congress and later by the Republicans and now the Democrats again - because they were getting millions in campaign money from the financial institutions and wall street --- same institutions that caused the 1907 and 1929-33 crisis.

All this could have been stopped at the doors of the rating agencies, the last barrier. But again, big money (large executive bonuses) came into play. Those insider who had the moral turpitude recognized the scam and refused to go along...and as expected, were fired.

All these events and actions were clearly explained and discussed on several programs for the last six months on 60 Minutes, NOW, Bill Moyers, Newshour with Jim Lehrer and even the 3 networks. I hope ... this is a big hope ... those who were fired would all be put on the witness stand to testify on what went on inside the CRA agencies and bring down this free speach defense. We shall see in the next few months if this Judge and the other one (can't remember his name) who is not accepting the BofA/SEC bonus case settlement can really do justice for the American people.

Energy Secretary Chu Wimps Out Again

The appointment of Chu was a mistake. Chu is intelligent as proven by his earning a PhD Degree and being awarded a Nobel Prize. However, his intelligence does not include the ability to see the big picture (earned his PhD on a narrow subject) nor make him a good leader or administrator. What he has done so far proves this.

Chu has yet to understand that there is no such thing as clean coal. Assuming coal can be cleaned (which researchers know can't be done economically), how much of the CO2 generated by burning coal can be captured, pumped and sequestered underground and for how long? When the underground storage is filled up in a few years, what then? He is pursuing and spending our limited resources and time on somthing that has no future.

Instead of pursuing clean coal he should be spending money on completing the research in the nuclear field. He should start a Manhattan type projects to complete a prototype on fast breeder reactor, pebble bed reactor and thorium fueled reactors which can supply us with electric power for centuries or more to come. Nuclear can replace not only coal power plants but indirectly, a good part of the energy we use for transportation. More cars will be electric, most deisel/electric trains can be converted to full electric, electric light rail can be returned for city transport, etc. Oil and gas will still play a big role in transportation (airplanes and big ships specially) but will be a much smaller percentage of the total world enery consumption. It is the answer to reversing climate change. It also is a great opportunity to make us less energy dependent. This is the big picture not only Chu is missing but also Obama and Congress.

As to natural gas, no matter how much you sugar coat it, it still procues CO2 as it's end product when burned as fuel. Hence, it is not a good answer. Natural gas is really best used as feedstock for the chemical industry for making medicine, plastics, fabricks, etc.

Why I'm Betting on USEC

The fact that Obama has not mentioned nuclear in the last 6 months but specifically pushed for wind and solar and "renewables' tell me he had already reneged on his promise. Behind the scenes I suspect he and many in his staff do not like nuclear. Steven Chu, for all his brain power cannot seem to make the connections to favor nukes.

The Nuclear Industry Will Settle for 25-30 New Plants by 2030

The USA as a nation, need nuclear power badly to move forward and not reduce our lifestyle too much lower than they are today. Here are some major reasons why:

CO2 emissions need to be reduced rapidly, like halved in the next 10-20 years to keep at or below the 380 - 400 ppm "tipping point" limit. The only way to accomplish this with certainty is to replace coal power plants with nuclear power. Building only 20 to 30 nuke plants won't cut it; it should be just a short starting point. We need 100 + of the current design built as quick as we can. Big problems need big solutions.

True, the current advanced nuke plant designs are not renewable. However, Fast breeder type reactors are better than renewable for these make more fuel than they use; call this a 'forever' power source. The research stopped by Pres Carter in the late 70's need to be revived, completed quickly and applied.

For more major reductions in CO2 generation, the US has to start building electric trains throughout the country ( interstate, intrastate and in cities) like they have done for decades and continue to do in Europe and Japan. With a good electric train infrastructure, most diesel trains can be phased out together with most long haul diesel powered trucks. (The remaining trains and trucks can be converted to use LNG to further lower CO2 emissions.) 24/7 base load nuke power is required here; wind and solar cannot be counted on.

We are already moving to electric cars and hybrids which further reduces CO2 emissions. Power will have to come from baseload plants -- again more nuke power -- supplanted by wind and solar.

Commercial building and residential housing heating and air conditioning and appliances need to switch to all electric. Again more nuke power -- supplanted by wind and solar -- will be needed.

[Gas, oil and coal will still be used but relegated to minor roles in our daily life.]

If we as a nation get serius on CO2 reduction, we have 50 - 80 years of work ahead of us. This addresses our nations' need to not just create jobs, but create several millions of meaningful jobs. And we can start right now if we push our politicians hard to provide for our country's needs. Let us revive our high value manufacturing industries and technical enterprises.

One last item: nuclear waste. We will eliminate most of the waste fuel by reprocessing them. The rest we can take care of by conducting further research and implementing the best solutions. Let us start by letting our scientists and engineers study what the Europeans and Japanese have already done and build up from that. This area alone will generate thousands of highly paid and very meaningful steady jobs.

Let us set aside the space program and direct our resources to solving our CO2 problem that treatens our very 'comfortable' existence on earth. Let us wean our way out of dependence on imported oil and achieve much better homeland security.

Sirius XM's Nasdaq Non-Compliance Opportunity

It will be interesting to see what the market does in the next few days.

Why Is Canadian Housing and Banking Stronger than the U.S.?

I lived in Canada in the 60's. No surprise they have much less foreclosure problems.

The differences I found then were (I do not know if this is still true today):

1) Universities throughout Canada were almost equal in quality. I worked with graduates from differnt universities and the quality were the same -- all good. I did not encounter a single engineer from a diploma mill like here in the US.

2) People were considerate and polite regardless of whether they finished high school only or college. I attribute this to the quality of home training and good elementary and high schools. Boistrous behavior did not exist among Canadians. The few times I witnessed it usually was of an American who came over to Canada for a short visit. [Americans and other foreigners who lived there long enough changed their ways soon enough....I did, as well as all my other friends.]

Just these two differences alone explains much of the differences between how business behave in the US and Canada. One of the first engineering assignments I was given was to eliminate the polution and waste being generated by the plant I worked at. This was long before the EPA was formed in the US. This is just one example of good corporate behavior practiced there.

The Declining Usefulness of Debt

Here is my two cents worth of observation that may help explain the deminishing return being observed here. I am in the engineering/construction business and I have seen over the last 20+ years how we are forced to do more and more of things that do not contribute to a good end product. We spend so much resources - material as well as manpower - to avoid exposing ourselves to the risk of being sued should something bad happen. Cost benefit analysis are not done nor required for taking those extra measures that "avoids" a lawsuit. [This by the way can be clearly seen in the medical field when unecessary tests are ordered to protect the medical service provider.... at the expense of the consumer.]

This is also done in the name of "better safety". Extra and expensive steps are taken to make an action that has a probability of being 99.95% safe already --- so it will be 99.99995% safer -- based usually in the 'judgement' of an unqualified person who has no idea on the subject of risk analysis. This happens daily in industry and in business.... millions of times. We are spending an ever increasing amount of money in the US on activities that bring negligible or zero returns. Billions are wasted every year on these kinds of activities!

On the other hand, an activity that will increase the usefulness of debt to very large scales is building of nuclear power plants and retirement of coal power plants. Nukes built 30 - 40 years ago are still giving us solid returns. In fact some of them have been upgraded to bring even more returns for the next 20 years. We need more of them to both replace the ones nearing their end-of-life, to provide power to the rising demand of our increasing population and to ---- this is the big one --- replace coal fired power plants.

Coal fired power plants are a very expensive losing proposition. They produce the highest volume of CO2 that causes our climate to change that in turn, causes destruction all over the US. Destruction by wild fires, tornadoes, hurricane, floods, extreme drought --- are all hugely negative returns! We should stop building new coal plants and start building new Nuclear Plants. The Asians and Europeans have realized this and are starting to build nuke plants. Clean coal is a myth. Anyone who has taken basic chemistry understand that when air and carbon in coal are burned, CO2 is produced and -- in very high volumes. To think that these high volumes of CO2 gas emitted by coal fired power plants all over the US can be captured and stored underground is absurd. To capture it, highly compresse it and send it to underground storage takes more than half of the useful energy produced in burning it. And then the big question is, how much compressed gas can be stored and for how long? A few years? At what cost?

The US economy grew larger and faster than most countries in large part, because of cheap energy. Investing in nuclear energy is undoubtedly, one of the best way to bring up the usefulness of debt.

Sirius Can Avoid Bankruptcy

When SIRI gets settled down and growing again with the economy, the next step is to make the programs available in Europe.... then Asia, South America. Does anyone know it is now possible for SIRI programs to be received in those places without adding more satellites?

Why Coal Is Inevitable

People, you are wasting your time on coal! Here is why technically CS does not work... in layman terms. To product electric power using coal as fuel, coal is burned to generate heat which is used to turn water in boilers into high pressure steam which is used to turn huge steam turbines that turns electric generators that produce the power we use. In burning, the carbon molecules in coal is combined with oxygen in the air to produce heat and CO2. This CO2 gas is very very high in volume.

To sequester CO2, first it must be captured from the high velocity gas stream going out the boiler and into the chimney and out into the atmosphere. If you have observed a power plant chimney in full operation you will see this very high volume of hot CO2 gas flowing out of the large diameter chimney stack. This gas flow has to be captured and then compressed with very large compressors, run the compressed gas into pipes that sends the gas into the ground..... into some cavern deep into the earth.

Two big problems. First is, to compress the gas, 30-50% of the output power generated by the coal powered power plant is needed. This CO2 capturing plant itself will cost more than the power plant. Second, let us assume somehow that the capturing plant is economically feasible (which it is not) so we can continue the discussioon. The captured and complressed CO2 is now sent to some deep storage spaces below the earth. How long (assuming it exists in the right locations) will it take to get filled up with enormous daily volume of CO2 gas from the power plant? Not very long! Can't store anymore CO2. Then what? We are back where we started.... meaning the CO2 is then again released straight into the atmosphere...and consequent addition to global warming.

Anyone who have taken College Chemistry will understand my logic. [Why Steven Chu who has won a Nobel Prize cannot understand this and does not shoot down CS ideas is beyond me.]

The only significant solution to global warming is building more nuclear power plants. Phasing out coal and phasing in nuclearpower will take 30 years plus. People can adjust over this time period. We need to start with the nuclear power plant design we know followed by more advanced designs that are inherently safer and cannot be used to produce atomic bombs. We need to start building prototypes of various designs of nuclear palnts (which includes plants that use safer and more abundant thorium instead of uranium) as we build new one to replace coal plants and the old nuclear plants built in the 60's and 70's.

Wind Power: What We Can Learn from Denmark

In response to Heissman's question --

Denmark is a relatively flat country, hence they do not have significant hydro generation power plants. natural earthen basins which have low head of water will not do. We do in the US but there needs to be transmission lines that connect windpower to hydro dams before this can happen. Again, the limitation is very apparent in the Texas to Canada Boone Pickens wind corridor. This area is far away from areas that can be dammed or already has hydrodams. High capacity transmission line infrastructures have to be built.

This is one government project that Obama can invest on to generate US jobs in the next two years. He just has to make sure the power lines, steel towers, etc. (materials) should be made in the USA. Obama need to rein in the environmentalists who are sure to block projects like these because it "ruins" open space poeple's views and might impede the flights of migratory birds.

Sirius Finally Provides Wall Street the Clarity It Demanded

The best idea I have read is Sell/Lease of channels. Brilliant!

SIRI-XM can afford to lease a few channels without affecting its normal programming. Surely there are some companies/entities there that want to broadcast on satellite but don't have the financial capability.

CDS Regulation: Just One Simple Rule

The basic problem that caused this financial and consequently, our economic disaster is people do not understand risks. When they do understand, their greed overwhelms it - which is the basis for the 'bigger fool theory' - as in Ponzi Schemes and 'bubbles'.

In order to put a check on people's destructive behaviors, sellers of CDS' should be required to have 20% assests backing up all their risks exposures. To prevent buyers of CDS' from gaming the system (and allowing Sellers' collusion), they should be limited on how much CDS' they can buy, say 80% of their bond obligation. This is similar to a homeowner's insurance deductables - a disincentive to bad behavior. All this have to be embedded into law and with heavy penalties (mandatory jail time) for individuals and corporate management who push their employees - directly or indirectly - to violate them. Fining Corporations do not work.

This may sound harsh but look at the millions of people now out of work, having their houses foreclosed, loosing their other assets, etc. And what happened to the perpetuators? Why, they of course were rewarded with big bonuses and salaries..... a big portion of which was subsidized by who else but US, the taxpayers. I am still thinking of how to penalize our lawmakers who created laws to make this all happen. Booting them out of office is too mild a punishment ... and some do not get punished at all --- Gramm, Barney Franks, etc.

Breaking Up the Banks: How Likely Is Legislation?

Breaking up the banks is easily and effectively done in two steps:

1) reinstate Glass-Steagall Act (cancel the 1998 act by Gramm - the name of which escapes me - that essentially repealed GS).
2) regulate all derivatives, CDS, etc. as espoused by Blesley Born when she headed the OTC before being pushed out by Rubin, Greenspan and Summers.

Ask Volker and Born to spearhead the effort, with Born back in the OTC to get it going. These two civil servants will be more than happy to serve again if Obama asks then too. They both love their country very much.

For more than 60 years, until repealed, GS served our nation very well. History has shown that what Born wanted to do at OTC was the right thing to do and the crash of 2008 showed her prediction was, unfortunately for us, very accurate.