Printable View
Bush was a hypocrite and moron on energy matters, and more than a few others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
So is your bowing before it.
-------------------------
My father is dead but I respected my elders, especially my father, fully, which is more than todays snot-faced punks are expected to do, much less taught.
Quite apart from that, I was wondering whether the individual to whom you refer has ever made a positive post about anything, containing no criticism of anyone or anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
Explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
He clearly has serious issues which are better explored by himself off-forum. While he is an irritant I feel more pity rather than anything else towards him.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Well, there's plenty of Amish around me that have chosen that lifestyle, but... well, I'll pass thanks. I guess I can't burn a candle, or an oil lamp, or a fire in my fireplace. I suppose we can start handing out those crank flaslights to everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I support this position vigorously:Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
"I have no faith in human perfectability. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active - not more happy - nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago."
Edgar Allan Poe AD 1841
You explain yours and I will think about explaining the obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
He probably wonders the same about your posts that go off the thread topic to instead attack an individual.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Oh well que sera-sera.
I would bet he feels the same about your cretinous adolescent posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
----------------
In a way I admire the Amish, but when you go the areas where they have goods for sale, they know how charge top dollar.
I could READ 5 pages of this topic, but this sums up what supporters of nuclear power deal with. The hell with facts (no one in North America's 100 plus reactors) has been hurt, killed or exposed to a deadly dose of anything in all the years of nuclear power. 3 mile Island was the only incident really of note, and no appreciable damage was done to the environment at all. Meanwhile, the same genius that thinks nukes are bad has been beating my head in for 5 years on this green house gas emissions stuff. Well...we can have safe clean power that doesn't cause the problem you keep telling will kill us all, or you can have no nukes and more GWG.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
I have YET to see anyone of these green fellows plug into a tree and get power...
No Nukes. It does not make economic sense. Plenty of other options out there that are safer, greener and more self reliant. Well for my country anyway.
An interesting take Ben. See, though, you are seeing things through the European prism. Taking a train to get anywhere in North America isn't really practical if you start going any real distance. It would be nice if AMTRAK and VIA here in Canada had a train like the TGV, but the business model isn't being made to construct the lines here. We fly or drive, and we tend to think of the train 3rd. It just isn't really doable when you have nations stretching 4 to 7 time zones....Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
As for progress being made by less energy consumption; I am going to say right now technology is the way we have our cake and eat it too.
I am all for green energy, I am all for nuclear energy and I am all for developing Fusion, Hydrogen and Solar. Wind to me is a bird Cuisnart and a toy. I think over time, we will develop all this stuff. And I bet when the dust settles on all the debate, we wont be giving up our cars or our freedoms.
The modern car has given the common man freedom. Freedom to travel, to associate with whom he pleases on his trip to work. The freedom to change plans, and the freedom to just hop in and go for relatively affordable prices. I can drive my own car 500 miles a lot cheaper than I can fly or take a train and that includes the payment of it and gas and insurance. To hear people say, well we use too many resources, we must stop, and cars have to go ignores the fact that cars are the economic product that pretty much drive the Western economy. How you fill that void with computers and Ipods I don't know because neither has gotten me to work. What is more, a truck (one like I now again drive) has to bring all these products. The infrastructure to move all this product is the same one the cars travel on.
No...our energy issues are two fold. ONE, petroleum is the product that drives the economy and our transportation and some of our electricity needs, and TWO, Electrical products are causing a greater demand for more power. Add in a growing population and this fetish we are starting to have for electric cars and scooters, and you can make things as energy efficient as you want (appliances that use less power? Go for it!) but the numbers are still causing demand for power.
It all comes back to short term and long term solutions. In the short term, Gas and Coal, plus Nuclear will be the way most of the west should go. This fear of the nuclear powerplant in Europe is I predict going to be shoved aside when the hard realities of this ramp in demand for power. So the mid to long term will be probably more nuclear, and newer and safer designs that are more efficient. IN the long term? I still think Fusion will get here, but likely not in what is my life time.
The world gets to Fusion, well, it is a different world then isn't it?
No...I think wanting to keep what we have as a society, and encouraging the rest of the world to develop an economic model and democratic model similar to the west is the best we can hope for. The wasted human capacity that is tired up in conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere, and the grinding poverty of Africa and parts of South American and Asia must be addressed, but it wont be addressed by government subsidies and people sitting around in Brussels, Geneva or New York all ordering Caviar as they discuss it. It will be powered by petroleum and likely nuclear, and the economic systems that have helped us can help them if a handle is gotten on the corruption.
We can live in a better world, and nuclear power is the bridge energy wise to the future.....but too many people are scared of the hard facts, and choose to use emotional fears.
I find it interesting that I have, in all my posts to you, tried to be courteous and polite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Yet you call my posts cretinous and adolescent without being able to address any of them directly. You also try to call me a hypocrite and moron by association again without having the guts to call me that directly.
Try and gain some self-confidence and tackle what you don't like about my posts without making cowardly snide comments. Apart from your issue with authority the only other thing thats clear about your posts is that you are never able to have the courage to state your case and stick with it, preferring to descend to insults.
If you find a poster is offering no benefit to the forum and is behaving in an unpleasant manner which detracts from enjoying the forum, then do what I did. Since I have put Bob on my ignore list, I find the "IQ" of the forum has gone up slightly and my enjoyment of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
I really enjoy debating on here and understanding other peoples views but when there is no value, effort or originality from a member whatsoever, it's just not worth it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Will you give up already, every single post of yours is Democrats this Obama that, ok, we get it, now shutupayerface!
If Obama walked on water, Bob would say he can't swim.
Yeah, all this concern is so unwarranted about nuke plants.
So what?
The stupid FDA is banning the import of certain food items:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42215049...ety/?gt1=43001
The tap water in Tokyo is now been deemed unsafe for drinking for infants, something about twice as much radioactivity as should be permitted................
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42206728...-asia-pacific/Quote:
The officials told reporters that a water treatment center in downtown Tokyo that supplies much of the city's tap water found that some water contained 210 becquerels per liter of iodine 131.
They said the limit for consumption of iodine 131 for infants is 100 becquerels per liter. They recommended that babies not be given tap water, although they said the water is not an immediate health risk for adults.
no big deal.
Just babies. All this fussing over nothing is just upsetting people anyway
Sorry to have interrupted Dunnel and crew in their bashing of Riebe, his father, Bush and his father, and american in general, and on and on...........you may now continue....
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
The Bush administration pushed for that energy bill in exchange for support from the U.S. corn farmers.
Sugar cane-based ethanol can be produced and imported into the U.S. from Brazil far more cheaply than distilling it locally from corn. Brazil has a surplus of sugar cane and the ethanol yield from sugar cane distillation is higher than from corn.
At about the same time as that bill was proposed, the U.S. levied import duties on sugar cane and ethanol products from Brazil :mark: .
Show me the thread where my posts directed at others comments I was the original initiator and not responding because the other ignored the post topic to have a fit and attack me about my method of writing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
I find ignoring a thread topic to go off on a fit about the style used by other writers to be exactly as wrote it. Tony gets the same attacks I and others do.
I will respond in kind, which is a bit of a failing on my part.
It is amazing that attacking other posters is supposed to be a violation yet it seems to be ignored to the point that one of the administrators seems to be infatuated with Dem. political views to the point that he has joined in.
Trashing conservatives by some continually does not get a response from him.
Oh well, as I said, que sera-sera.
This has what to do with the thread topic?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
I'm reporting this post!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TZ_k8wTjsM
Actually the initiatives during the Bush years pushed development of quite a few technologies, including research into ethanol production in the US by means other than corn. Sure you can import from Brazil or anyone else, but you are then once again at the mercy of a market not under the control of the country in need. Something that can be sustained within the country of need not only helps when market swings occur, but would save the cost of shipping all the goods.Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
Among other things the Bush admin pushed energy credits down much farther in the normal persons life, with credits for things the normal consumer could afford. Heating and cooling products, insulation, windows, etc could be eligible for tax credits if the energy efficient approved products were purchased.
The holy grail is really biomass product that can be produced on a very large scale and refined into fuel, but does not impinge on areas of land we currently grow food crops on.
What the hell has all this got to do with your direct insults at me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
I think I'll be taking your adviceQuote:
Originally Posted by Retro Formula 1
That there is my point really. I personally don't really know or really care what the views are of the 'Dems' or any other political party is in the USA. It's having views rammed down my throat I have a problem with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Back down now.Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapc...ex.html?hpt=C1
Quote:
"Erring on the side of caution for the extreme degree for children makes good sense," Cox said. For adults, "as far as the immediate health risk, something that would make people sick, I don't think that would come close to it."
Quote:
And on Thursday, Japan's leading obstetrics and gynecological organization said that pregnant and nursing women should continue to drink tap water -- even if the levels of radioactive iodine rise up to 500 becquerels. Over 280 days, the length of a typical pregnancy, that intake of radioactive iodine would still not be considered overly harmful, according to the group.
The society contends, in a news release, that the harm from not drinking water and dehydrating is far greater for mothers than consuming tap water at their current levels.
Such as algae production taking place in hothouses located in the middle of a desert?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
http://www.desertsweetbiofuels.com/
Being open for other options is something that many of us can agree upon.
for example this:
http://www.grist.org/article/2011-03...ns-entire-fukuQuote:
STILL NUCLEAR POWER, BUT THE REACTOR IS 93 MILLION MILES AWAY
Germany’s solar panels produce more power than Japan’s entire Fukushima complex
:s mokin:
An entire country vs a single nuclear plant? I don't think that's the solution just yet.
I'd say if any society knows the long term effects of radiation exposure on the population, it's Japan. Whether they are open and truly honest about the effects of exposure are a different matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Exactly that type of thing, yes!Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
RaceQuote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
Please read the responses to the Blog you posted. It's claims are ridiculed and the Author fails in his defence.
I am fully behind renewables but they are something that can and should suppliment Nuclear. It's folly to think otherwise.
This response sums it up for me:
Quote:
<LI sizset="128" sizcache="54">DrAlessandro 253382 <LI class=comment-datetime>22 Mar 2011 3:49pm 1300834183 1300852183
Unfortunately, this is erroneous. Solar PV at absolute maximum, with 100% efficient cells, can generate only 3MW/acre. A standard nuclear (LWR) plant generates 50 times that, and does it 24/7. Solar nets about 1/4 its specified max per day. And, weather extremely impacts solar output, which is why Germany, even covering all its farm land, can't rely on solar's present 1/1000 of nuclear's output. Then, there's the absurd land sacrifice for massed PV arrays.
There are 3 pieces of an overall energy solution: efficiency (we waste >50% of generation today); local solar (distributed generation on existing structures); and safe nuclear power (developed 40 years ago by US ORNL and allowed to languish). The Chinese are now taking all our work and running with it (thank goodness they're not dummies too)...
http://energyfromthorium.com/2011/01...tmsr/#comments
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02...a_thorium_bet/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...h-thorium.html
Anyone interested in why the Chinese are interested...
http://tinyurl.com/25mgqkd and http://tinyurl.com/yb2qgex
For an interesting read of how we've indeed been nuclear dummies for decades...
http://energyfromthorium.com/pdf/Civ...clearPower.pdf and http://tinyurl.com/ye6leml
We currently consume energy worldwide at the rate of what 50,000 Olympians can generate working 24/7 as hard as they can, per capita. Yes, each of us has 50,000 energy-producing slaves. And, we don't feed them (OMG, what if we had to?). So we should then grasp how foolish we've been in not addressing energy waste as well as safe generation. Burning 3 cubic miles of oil each year is something our scientists knew was unsustainable before most of us here were born. And, before oil, Arrhenius warned in 1896 & 1905 that burning coal would be problematic around 3000AD (despite being a Nobellist & the father of industrial chemistry, he didn't know we'd be even more addicted to oil).
We're so far behind, hundreds of millions around the world will suffer for our ignorance over the next decades. Time to get with it. Efficiency, solar PV on local structures, plus safe nuclear power, solve the problem -- too late for millions, but as the old country saying goes: "There's no substitute for human stupidity". I also like that we create our own problems with our "opposable thumbs and obdurate minds". Best of all is Walt Kelley's Pogo: "I've seen the enemy and he is us".
Feel free to call, if only for your kids & grandkids.
--
Dr. A Cannara
650-400-3071
Give him a bell and perhaps he will open your eyes. The big problem is Carbons, not Plutonium.
I'm a doomed quoter! I'm doooooomed!!!!! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Retro Formula 1
:s mokin:
Thorium.
Not possible to have an uncontrollable chain reaction thus no chance of China Syndrome.
Why was it poo poo'd? Because it did not create Plutonium as a by-product and thus was of no use to the weapons manufacturers who's wallets are the deepest.
Also;
see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...h-thorium.html
“There is no chain reaction. Fission dies the moment you switch off the photon beam. There are not enough neutrons for it continue of its own accord. The plans were shelved because thorium does not produce plutonium for bombs. As a happy bonus, it can burn up plutonium and toxic waste from old reactors, reducing radio-toxicity and acting as an eco-cleaner.”
Naw, not doomed. The more articles are discussed, the clearer things become :)Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
Who knows, in 10 years, or 50, we might be moaning about why we need wind farms when there are much better sustainable means.
Fingers crossed.
Algae Based fules are coming a long way. I know they can make petrol, diesel and jet fuel already. The best part is, besides production, all the infrastructure is already there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Another guy in aus was using algae in large plastic bags to produce hydrogen. Several acres will produce enough for a small town. Still early stages though.
What about when it's dark?Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
Snuggle :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
You turn on the lights. Duh!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
:o
. . . or snuggle if convenient.