My big fat American gas tax

[Amianthus]

Actually. there wasn't,  because the nearest seller of biodiesel was in Jacksonville, which is a one-tank roundtrip from here.

Here's a list, though probably not definitive:

http://www.biodiesel.org/buyingbiodiesel/retailfuelingsites/showstate.asp?st=FL

[Xavier_Onassis]

That was helpful, actually. Thank you, Ami. I will check some of these out.

[Plane]

If there is a demand for bio diesel in an area with no supplyers , does this present an entrepreneurial opportunity?

[_JS]

This debate is much like the debate on taxing internet sales. Bottom line is the states and the fed are looking for additional revenue sources without having to provide a service to earn it.

You can dress a pig up and paint it with lipstick, but in the end it is still a pig.

you want a tax on gasoline. make it 25 cents per gallon and earmark it as a prize for the developer of the best alternative energy solution. ANd for petes sakes bring nuclear energy back on to the grid. That is if you want to be like europe.

One of the big problems with nuclear energy Bt, is that people do not want it near them. TVA tried a number of times to build new nuclear reactors in different areas of Tennessee, even in areas where people "supported" nuclear energy as an alternative energy resource. The problem they discovered was that even people who "support" the use of nuclear energy become some of the most vocal anti-nuclear energy folks when it is in their backyard. It seems to be one of those energies people support in theory, if you could place all the reactors on the surface of the moon!

The second major problem with them is that they don't make money and private companies run away from them unless they can receive large government subsidies. When the United Kingdom privatised her energy sector (which was almost entirely publicly owned in the 70's) they found almost no interest in the nuclear power plants. Those that did show interest wanted heavy government involvement.

The last problem is that they do have waste. It is true that they do not release the carbon dioxide of other power plants (and in fact newer plants release far less radioactive material into the air than current coal-fired power plants), but the waste nuclear power plants leave behind is solid waste and is an extremely nasty and harmful byproduct.

I think it is an interesting and probably superior alternative. Yet, far from a perfect solution.

[Amianthus]

I think it is an interesting and probably superior alternative. Yet, far from a perfect solution.

It may not be perfect, but it's the most viable energy generation we have until we can move to a hydrogen economy.

The cost problems are mostly an artifact of the extreme government control and oversight of the plants.

[Xavier_Onassis]

One problem is that the US nuclear industry supervision and training of its employees more closely resembles Chernobyl than it does the much more fail-safe systems used in France.  In the US we have had incidents at Hansford Works and Three Mile Island, while in France, there have been no incidents.

I don't think I would want a nuclear plant next door to me, either. Not one like the US plants.

There is a reason why Homer Simpson and Montgomery Burns (get it? BURNS!) were cast as a nuclear power worker and his boss.

FPL's Turkey Point is fairly close to me.

[BT]

If the French method is superior we should either outsource or license their protocol.

[Amianthus]

In the US we have had incidents at Hansford Works and Three Mile Island, while in France, there have been no incidents.

There have been more than 2 in the US. However, just because you didn't hear about them, doesn't mean that none have occured in France:

Grenoble, 1967/11/7
La Hague, 1968/10/2
St Laurent des Eaux, 1969/10/17
La Hague, 1980/9/22
La Hague, 1981/1/6
Blayas, 1983/10/1
Bruyere le Chatel, 1988/4/28
Fessenheim, 1990/5/26
Superphenix Fast Breeder Reactor, 1990/9/16
Blayais, 1990/12/4
Belleville, 1991/6/1
Dampierre, 1992/7/22
Paluel, 1993/1/20
Saint Alban, 1993/10/22

There have also been a bunch of incidents at the Gravelines facility, but they were all related to the cooling systems external to the reactor (so there was no likelyhood of them leading to a release of radioactives).

[The_Professor]

This debate is much like the debate on taxing internet sales. Bottom line is the states and the fed are looking for additional revenue sources without having to provide a service to earn it.

You can dress a pig up and paint it with lipstick, but in the end it is still a pig.

you want a tax on gasoline. make it 25 cents per gallon and earmark it as a prize for the developer of the best alternative energy solution. ANd for petes sakes bring nuclear energy back on to the grid. That is if you want to be like europe.

One of the big problems with nuclear energy Bt, is that people do not want it near them. TVA tried a number of times to build new nuclear reactors in different areas of Tennessee, even in areas where people "supported" nuclear energy as an alternative energy resource. The problem they discovered was that even people who "support" the use of nuclear energy become some of the most vocal anti-nuclear energy folks when it is in their backyard. It seems to be one of those energies people support in theory, if you could place all the reactors on the surface of the moon!

The second major problem with them is that they don't make money and private companies run away from them unless they can receive large government subsidies. When the United Kingdom privatised her energy sector (which was almost entirely publicly owned in the 70's) they found almost no interest in the nuclear power plants. Those that did show interest wanted heavy government involvement.

The last problem is that they do have waste. It is true that they do not release the carbon dioxide of other power plants (and in fact newer plants release far less radioactive material into the air than current coal-fired power plants), but the waste nuclear power plants leave behind is solid waste and is an extremely nasty and harmful byproduct.

I think it is an interesting and probably superior alternative. Yet, far from a perfect solution.

Perhaps extensive funding of cold fusion is in order?

[Plane]

This debate is much like the debate on taxing internet sales. Bottom line is the states and the fed are looking for additional revenue sources without having to provide a service to earn it.

You can dress a pig up and paint it with lipstick, but in the end it is still a pig.

you want a tax on gasoline. make it 25 cents per gallon and earmark it as a prize for the developer of the best alternative energy solution. ANd for petes sakes bring nuclear energy back on to the grid. That is if you want to be like europe.

One of the big problems with nuclear energy Bt, is that people do not want it near them. TVA tried a number of times to build new nuclear reactors in different areas of Tennessee, even in areas where people "supported" nuclear energy as an alternative energy resource. The problem they discovered was that even people who "support" the use of nuclear energy become some of the most vocal anti-nuclear energy folks when it is in their backyard. It seems to be one of those energies people support in theory, if you could place all the reactors on the surface of the moon!

The second major problem with them is that they don't make money and private companies run away from them unless they can receive large government subsidies. When the United Kingdom privatised her energy sector (which was almost entirely publicly owned in the 70's) they found almost no interest in the nuclear power plants. Those that did show interest wanted heavy government involvement.

The last problem is that they do have waste. It is true that they do not release the carbon dioxide of other power plants (and in fact newer plants release far less radioactive material into the air than current coal-fired power plants), but the waste nuclear power plants leave behind is solid waste and is an extremely nasty and harmful byproduct.

I think it is an interesting and probably superior alternative. Yet, far from a perfect solution.

Perhaps extensive funding of cold fusion is in order?

I like the idea , but fusion in compacted Plasma is better understood and more likely to gain success soon .

My favoriate idea is to exploit an hundred ideas , tide and wind and fission and fusion and geothermal and biomass and every other thing to produce a reliable mix of tecnologys rather than haveing all of our eggs in one tecnological basket .

But whichever technology bears fruit first  or best should reap a bonus.