Talk-Polywell.org

-H.R.2768 : To declare nuclear energy to be clean energy, for purposes of Federal law.
Sponsor: Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] (introduced 6/9/2009
Latest Major Action: 6/9/2009 Referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

You sure you have the right #?

My search-fu is poor for the actual #. All I'm finding are some state resolutions/bills.

EDIT:
Okay, I found the bill; I don't know where Opencongress.com got the number, though - it doesn't correspond with anything else.

Text of HR 2768 as intended in OP:

111th CONGRESS, 1st Session, H. R. 2768
To declare nuclear energy to be clean energy, for purposes of Federal law.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 9, 2009
Mr. WAMP introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To declare nuclear energy to be clean energy, for purposes of Federal law.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DECLARATION.

For purposes of Federal law, nuclear energy is hereby declared to be clean energy, and any provision of Federal law relating to clean energy shall be considered to include nuclear energy.

Not to be confused with the similarly number HR 2768 above, or the entirely different HR2768 about minting coins.

You can find it on the site of the Library of Congress.

The Indiana House of Representatives passed house bill no. 246 which was written by Edwin J Goodwin, MD. Set the value of pi at 3.2. It was never passed by the Indiana Senate. In Feb 8, 1897.

I'm sure you can find similar attempts at useless laws, even ones that passed and eventually got over turned.

I know of one it was called "Prohibition'.


Regards
Polygirl

@ PolyGirl.
And remember Reps introduce lots of things, the majority dont go anywhere. But constituents can be told that their legislation had been introduced, which tends to make them very happy.

Scupperer wrote:You sure you have the right #?


Not to be confused with the similarly number HR 2768 above, or the entirely different HR2768 about minting coins.

The first you list is from the 110th congress and the second is from the 108th. Totally different sessions. This is the 111th.

PolyGirl wrote: I'm sure you can find similar attempts at useless laws, even ones that passed and eventually got over turned.

Think about all the tax benies and stuff aimed at "clean energy". Think of all the penalties aimed at dirty energy. Were I a fission company, I'd sure like to be in the former designation than the latter!

Oops...the Congress's URL seems to be changing all the time. Google "To declare nuclear energy to be clean energy" site:.loc.gov" and you will find it normally at the bottom of the page.
Polygirl, I think we are on the same line. It is enough for a law to tell one what to do or not to do and I do not like it to tell one what to think. It has proven no good for science, since Giordano Bruno, who had an intuition of the relativity principle, was burned at the stake. Having said that I am not American, so... BTW, we have strange bills too from time to time, on this side of the Atlantic.
I am not supporting nuclear energy because it is clean but as the lesser of many evils today, from a system perspective.

Criminy, are you guys incapable of thinking anything the government does is good? half the time you guys mention fission or even polywell reactors as alternatives to solar or wind power you bemoan how green peace will supposedly blockade it due to it's dangerous nature, and here the congress is trying to get it described as a clean technology (cleanliness is relative and procedure dependent, i'll grant you.) and you go off about how they're mind police.

And don't forget my other hobby horse: Congress has declared that cannabis has no medicinal value.

Professor Science wrote:Criminy, are you guys incapable of thinking anything the government does is good?

It might be a trend.

Professor Science wrote:half the time you guys mention fission or even polywell reactors as alternatives to solar or wind power

Many times its an either or, we need the nations energy portfolio to be as large as possible. Politically this means the Greens shush on nukes, while the far right needs to shush on nixxing solar and wind. Its the overall energy portfolio thats important, not what some extreme fringe group thinks of another fringe group, both who have little or no political power to wield at this current time.

What the right needs to understand, is if you want to see any new nukes built..... and you dont allow solar and wind the same freedom. We wont have any new nukes or new solar or new wind. The Left will take offshore drilling off the table, and we'll be left with where we were in the late 1970's. Buying massive amounts of oil from the KSA.



Kiteman gets it, yes which friggin congress is in session might make a freakkin difference.

For the future, when researching a HR number include the number of the Congress, or include the year if you dont know its the 111th. A title helps too.

Politically this means the Greens shush on nukes, while the far right needs to shush on nixxing solar and wind.

I think we do need solar and wind. But not subsidized at 3X the price of coal. If it was unsubsidized the industry would be spending less on production and more on cost reduction.

As it is wind turbines are designed to last te life of the subsidy. When they start failing in 5 or 7 years they will not be replaced without new subsidies.

Wind is so bad that the wind guys will pay the utilities $40 a MWhr to take the electricity off their hands so they can collect the production tax credit. That is Soviet Economics.

Simon,

Turbine lifetimes were 28 yrs old 30 yrs ago.

Subsides? tax breaks, incentives, what ever you call it, they all get help, why single out one sector of the energy market and not another?

We've been over this before, you hold it against solar & wind that they need help, and you count the money. But you wont acknowledge the same pitfalls of other sources. SO be it.

30 yrs of this crap, thats how nothing gets done. And thats what pisses me off to no end. 30 yrs wasted because of political wrangling & Vanity.

Roger wrote:Subsides? tax breaks, incentives, what ever you call it, they all get help, why single out one sector of the energy market and not another?

Fair enough. But wind and solar are always demanding operational subsidies (i.e. once in place, they have to keep being paid to operate), whereas once oil is in place, governments tax it (i.e. drilling gets writedowns galore, but oil extraction is ALWAYS taxed). We will know when the arrow of thermodynamics is headed in the right direction when governments start insisting on taxing something.

scareduck wrote: Fair enough. But wind and solar are always demanding operational subsidies (i.e. once in place, they have to keep being paid to operate), .

I buy solar panels, put them on my roof, I pay 30k. I do nothing else, I get a check for selling wholesale electricity back to the utility, about 1200 per month.

Where is the operational subsidy?

I buy a wind turbine, install it, again.....

Where is the operational subsidy?

Its called starting a business, a small electrical generating business.