SOTU Address

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
83

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And by the way- I hated the part about nuclear power and offshore drilling. Very dissapointing. I don’t know where that came from or why he brought it up.[/quote]
Because it makes sense? Hmmm, buy oil from a bunch of arabs who want to kill us, or drill with in our own borders? Gee, what to do.[/quote]

How about invest in newer, cleaner technologies and do neither? Just an option.[/quote]

What’s unclean about nukes? The French have pioneered the nuclear energy life-cycle from production to recycling to disposal. It’s the US that needs to follow their lead (and you won’t hear me say THAT often about France).

Fledgling ‘clean energy’ is expensive and must be subsidized. It’s not ‘on demand’ either-- you can’t be guaranteed a burst of sun or a gust of wind daily at peak times. Peak demand cycles are one little important detail that ‘clean/alt energy’ folks either never account for or conveniently ignore. There must be some on demand power, and right now, that’s hydro, coal (various forms), natty gas, and nukes.

You know what’s keeping New England from implementing wind farms? Leftist enviros and rich Liberals (led by the formerly aqueous Senator Teddy K).

Coastal wind farms are consistently shot down because something thinks they are not ‘environmentally asthetic’ or just plain ugly, they may kill a bird or 20, or some other enviro or real estate NIMBY problem du jour. Addiionally, the technology isn’t there that salt degradation mitigation is cost effective.

Closer to my home, we’re fighting a wind farm issue (land rights folks like myself want to see more of them) where enviros are fighting against them because they don’t want to cut a tree, see a turbine, or kill a bird, and NIMBY’s want them, but not near their land.

Disclosure: The company I work for (a “sustainable energy promoting” IT company in the “Energy” sector) is partially owned by THE largest implementer of solar energy grids in the world. All the projects are HEAVILY subsidized and have not returned any profit or significant decrease in DEMAND. They are useless at night.

84

[quote]brnforce wrote:

I agree with you but without investing in the new tech, no one will ever invent anything. This is one of those things where we need to take some risk and try new things. At the same time, while those new techs are being tested we should be using our own resources.
[/quote]

The oil companies are investing heavily in renewable energy, remember the first one that comes up with it will be able to put most of the others out of business. But we also have to remember we are sitting on tens of trillions of dollars with our resources. It makes sense to use those first while they are worth something then switch over to renewable.

85

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And by the way- I hated the part about nuclear power and offshore drilling. Very dissapointing. I don’t know where that came from or why he brought it up.[/quote]
Because it makes sense? Hmmm, buy oil from a bunch of arabs who want to kill us, or drill with in our own borders? Gee, what to do.[/quote]

How about invest in newer, cleaner technologies and do neither? Just an option.[/quote]
Because those so-called cleaner technologies are inefficient and unreliable? Solar and wind are AT BEST 25% reliable, and require spinning capacitance (ie. combustion generation) to stabilize and balance loads. Unless you are OK with only having your power on 25% of the time. Also, those “green” sources are 3X as expensive per kwh.

Nuke power is clean and safe, despite what the enviro-nuts tell you. Offshore drilling is VERY safe. Did you know there has been no spill in the Gulf of Mexico since the 50’s, despite many major hurricanes blowing right over the HUNDREDS of producing wells? Did you know that more oil seeps out of the seafloor off CA than has ever been spilled from a CA offshore drilling operation?

86

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:
How about invest in newer, cleaner technologies and do neither? Just an option.[/quote]
Because those so-called cleaner technologies are inefficient and unreliable? Solar and wind are AT BEST 25% reliable, and require spinning capacitance (ie. combustion generation) to stabilize and balance loads. Unless you are OK with only having your power on 25% of the time. Also, those “green” sources are 3X as expensive per kwh.
[/quote]

Research and development will make them more efficient and reliable. The first internal combustion engine didn’t get 40 mpg.

Put as many as you fuckin want in Cali then. I don’t want one by me. And if there’s anyone that I trust less than the government, it’s the information on how “Safe” something is from a nuclear power company. No thanks.

[quote]
Offshore drilling is VERY safe. Did you know there has been no spill in the Gulf of Mexico since the 50’s, despite many major hurricanes blowing right over the HUNDREDS of producing wells? Did you know that more oil seeps out of the seafloor off CA than has ever been spilled from a CA offshore drilling operation?[/quote]

Still up in the air on this. I don’t want Alaska drilled. But the rest I’m open to, I really don’t know enough about it to really come out strong against it.

87

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]brnforce wrote:

I agree with you but without investing in the new tech, no one will ever invent anything. This is one of those things where we need to take some risk and try new things. At the same time, while those new techs are being tested we should be using our own resources.
[/quote]

The oil companies are investing heavily in renewable energy, remember the first one that comes up with it will be able to put most of the others out of business. But we also have to remember we are sitting on tens of trillions of dollars with our resources. It makes sense to use those first while they are worth something then switch over to renewable.

[/quote]

Very true. The oil companies are in control of this. It sucks a bit cause they’ll milk it and stifle new tech. At least it’s moving in the right direction, the oil companies can stay rich if they want.

88

[quote]brnforce wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]brnforce wrote:

I agree with you but without investing in the new tech, no one will ever invent anything. This is one of those things where we need to take some risk and try new things. At the same time, while those new techs are being tested we should be using our own resources.
[/quote]

The oil companies are investing heavily in renewable energy, remember the first one that comes up with it will be able to put most of the others out of business. But we also have to remember we are sitting on tens of trillions of dollars with our resources. It makes sense to use those first while they are worth something then switch over to renewable.

[/quote]

Very true. The oil companies are in control of this. It sucks a bit cause they’ll milk it and stifle new tech. At least it’s moving in the right direction, the oil companies can stay rich if they want.[/quote]

We will have the tech when we need it. Capitalism hasn’t failed us yet.

89

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And by the way- I hated the part about nuclear power and offshore drilling. Very dissapointing. I don’t know where that came from or why he brought it up.[/quote]
Because it makes sense? Hmmm, buy oil from a bunch of arabs who want to kill us, or drill with in our own borders? Gee, what to do.[/quote]

How about invest in newer, cleaner technologies and do neither? Just an option.[/quote]

Like what solar? That destroys entire ecosystems with requisite large large swaths of land it takes to set them up…Or wind, how many acres in you want to give up to power a whole city with that garbage. Oh I know, fuel cells…what do you think happens to the toxic goo that left after the batteries are used up? It gets barreled and buried. Hydrogen fuel cells, great technology, but have you seen the bang hydrogen makes when it hits oxygen? Yes gasoline is far more stable.

I am all for efficiency, but intelligently done. You aren’t going to get rid of oil and nuclear is the cleanest most efficient way to make electricity, period. It does less environmental damage than any of those proposed bullshit “green” technologies.

90

Also, the public seems mostly unaware that hydrogen should be viewed not as a fuel, but as a sort of battery.

That is to say, we are not going to be obtaining hydrogen from Jupiter or wherever, where it exists as hydrogen.

Instead, we will put so many megawatt hours of electricity into producing so much hydrogen, which then can be transported and used at a future time, and which will yield fewer megawatt hours worth of power when finally burned.

It isn’t an energy source. It is an energy transfer medium, with losses.

91

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[
Research and development will make them more efficient and reliable. The first internal combustion engine didn’t get 40 mpg.
[/quote]
Not possible. Unless you know of some R&D guys that can make the sun shine or the wind blow at a constant rate, day and night.

It’s possible to advance the efficiency of wind turbines and solar cells, but only to a point. Solar radiation over a given surface area contains a certain amount of energy, and can’t be boosted past 100% of the energy striking that piece of ground. Likewise, wind energy striking a given area only contains a certain finite amount of energy. Basic physics. Even at 100% efficiency, the reliability is only around 25% because of the variable nature of solar and wind energy itself. Also, like was said by someone earlier, the enviro-nuts oppose wind and solar projects vehemently.

92

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[
Research and development will make them more efficient and reliable. The first internal combustion engine didn’t get 40 mpg.
[/quote]
Not possible. Unless you know of some R&D guys that can make the sun shine or the wind blow at a constant rate, day and night.

It’s possible to advance the efficiency of wind turbines and solar cells, but only to a point. Solar radiation over a given surface area contains a certain amount of energy, and can’t be boosted past 100% of the energy striking that piece of ground. Likewise, wind energy striking a given area only contains a certain finite amount of energy. Basic physics. Even at 100% efficiency, the reliability is only around 25% because of the variable nature of solar and wind energy itself. Also, like was said by someone earlier, the enviro-nuts oppose wind and solar projects vehemently.[/quote]

Didn’t I just say this in my last post? LOL.

93

[quote]brnforce wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And by the way- I hated the part about nuclear power and offshore drilling. Very dissapointing. I don’t know where that came from or why he brought it up.[/quote]
Because it makes sense? Hmmm, buy oil from a bunch of arabs who want to kill us, or drill with in our own borders? Gee, what to do.[/quote]

How about invest in newer, cleaner technologies and do neither? Just an option.[/quote]

How about until it is invented we use our own resources? [/quote]

I agree with you but without investing in the new tech, no one will ever invent anything. This is one of those things where we need to take some risk and try new things. At the same time, while those new techs are being tested we should be using our own resources.
[/quote]

Just going to ignore that thousands of innovation that came about purely because of a profit motive eh?

94

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

[quote]brnforce wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And by the way- I hated the part about nuclear power and offshore drilling. Very dissapointing. I don’t know where that came from or why he brought it up.[/quote]
Because it makes sense? Hmmm, buy oil from a bunch of arabs who want to kill us, or drill with in our own borders? Gee, what to do.[/quote]

How about invest in newer, cleaner technologies and do neither? Just an option.[/quote]

How about until it is invented we use our own resources? [/quote]

I agree with you but without investing in the new tech, no one will ever invent anything. This is one of those things where we need to take some risk and try new things. At the same time, while those new techs are being tested we should be using our own resources.
[/quote]

Just going to ignore that thousands of innovation that came about purely because of a profit motive eh?
[/quote]

I’m not ignoring anything. If there is no profit in it, then no one will put in effort. Increasing the incentives towards new tech will increase competition and therefor increase our chances of better advances. If we solely rely on U.S. oil and not stress alternatives, then the advances will most likely be smaller and further apart. That’s why the fact that the oil companies control the new industry is a somewhat bad thing. They will only progress as fast as they need to instead of putting out new ideas as soon as they can.

Fictional Example:

Random Oil Company #1 has invested millions of dollars in “green” tech. Their scientists find a way to increase the storage capacity of batteries by 100%. They market this and start putting it on the store shelves. As soon as it hits stores, they find a way to increase capacity by 300%. They are not going to release that info until they have to. They would most likely wait until competition starts catching up and then release a 200% version a year later.

95

And what a tragedy for mankind that would be!

96

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
And what a tragedy for mankind that would be![/quote]

lol. I don’t think it’s that big of a deal anyway, just stating my opinion.

97

re: Himalayan Glaciers

more…

The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt.

Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.

…

Dr Pacharui has also been accused of using the error to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.

98

Further into the article, it’s made clear that the IPCC chairman lied repeatedly about this.

So let’s see: The IPCC chairman lied repeatedly about this, and the IPCC vice chairman has said that he thinks the IPCC’s use of this utterly unverified false claim may actually add to the IPCC’s credibility, since error is human, don’cha know.

Isn’t it well past time simply to reject entirely the IPCC as a credible organization?

99

[quote]brnforce wrote:

I’m not ignoring anything. If there is no profit in it, then no one will put in effort. [/quote]

Yeah well, if there is no profit in it nobody wants it enough to pay for it.

So actually it is a good thing that no resources are wasted on it.

100

[quote]brnforce wrote:

Random Oil Company #1 has invested millions of dollars in “green” tech. Their scientists find a way to increase the storage capacity of batteries by 100%. They market this and start putting it on the store shelves. As soon as it hits stores, they find a way to increase capacity by 300%.

They are not going to release that info until they have to. They would most likely wait until competition starts catching up and then release a 200% version a year later. [/quote]

Just think of the technological advances computers and cell phones could have made if only we would have cut out the profit motiuve and wasteful competition!

They could run as smooth and efficient as the DMV or the post office!

101

Bill I don’t get you, if you grill this guy how the fuck did you get through the last 20 years, especially the last 8. Your ass must have been on fire!

102

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:
How about invest in newer, cleaner technologies and do neither? Just an option.[/quote]
Because those so-called cleaner technologies are inefficient and unreliable? Solar and wind are AT BEST 25% reliable, and require spinning capacitance (ie. combustion generation) to stabilize and balance loads. Unless you are OK with only having your power on 25% of the time. Also, those “green” sources are 3X as expensive per kwh.
[/quote]

Research and development will make them more efficient and reliable. The first internal combustion engine didn’t get 40 mpg.

Put as many as you fuckin want in Cali then. I don’t want one by me. And if there’s anyone that I trust less than the government, it’s the information on how “Safe” something is from a nuclear power company. No thanks.

If you don’t know enough about the subject, why is it that you don’t want Alaska drilled?