| Author | Message | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
     Superdave |
Right now I would be happy if we could just get some gas. The pumps are dry  ( Gas deliveries promised yesterday have not arrived. Poor me hahaha....may as well laugh about it. I got an email from the local HD/Buell dealer inviting me to lunch today and I don't even have enough fuel to get there. Now that really sucks hahaha.... | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Blake |
Pushing pedal power might be the Buellish way to improve things in America, reduce gasoline consumption while also getting us all more fit.  | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Coolice |
Yep the Trek will get used for the grocery store runs and other small errands. Just came back from a ride and the roads are packed here. People just don't get it. Raise to $5 for the gas guzzlers, $2 for motorcycles and economy cars. Oops this will spark some posts! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ara |
Cochise, I agree with you. We live in in a free market economy. The notion that the President can control the price of gasoline, ketchup, or anything else is nothing short of ignorant. (I remember my high school civics class.) Those who were around may remember President Nixon's attempt at price controls, how he needed Congress to pass the appropriate laws, and how badly it worked. Coolice, the problem with your idea (I actually like it, BTW) will be a legally defensible definition of a gas guzzler. In the absence of that, the law (however popular it may be) will be litigated. And that'll kill it. Anything over 25 mpg is OK, but anything under is a guzzler? Measured by whom, the EPA? Suppose the EPA says that my vehicle gets 24 mpg and I actually get a bit over 25? What then? (Not a for-instance. My 2004 GMC Canyon 5-cylinder 3500cc pickup has an EPA highway rating of 24 mpg and I do indeed get a bit over 25 mpg due to some minor - and smart - modifications.) There will be millions of similar what-ifs. The law game is at its core a language game, and legally defensible language is always the central problem. I do like your idea. :-) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Brucelee |
So, history shows that letting the market sort this out through prices is a much better solution all around than when the government decides to "fix" the problem. Be careful what you wish for and don't feel so virtuous. It may be that the powers that be decide that motorcycles are really not very useful and that most times, guys are just out having a good time, rather than doing the "right" things like going to work, pickup the kids at school, soccer practice etc. After all, these are all "good things" that NEED to be done. Now we really don't NEED motorcycles on the road using up gas, no matter what their MPG because, after all, they are just pleasure devices anyway, mostly for immature males of our culture. Hence, the price for THAT gas is oh, say $12.00. Same thing for power boats, karts, dirt bikes, quads ............... You get the point. Be careful who you empower and what they might do! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ara |
Point taken. Another point is that we must have laws because there are those who have little or no concept of morality and ethics. It is because we have those laws and because they are enforced that civilization is possible. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Oldog |
But Bruce!: I filled and parked my truck!, it only gets 14 mpg in town (I have a light foot),With My bike I get my mail, go to church, and pleasure ride on it, in the past I did ferry the stepkids to school, and commute 36mi round trip on one. I am single and work for my self now so I don't do that any more. Your point well taken above but only a moron would ban motor cycles, On second thought I hope that they think of the 13th amendment prohibition, it did not work either. There is a gas guzzler tax in place, I was down at the ford dealer getting some work done and they had the GT40, The guzzler tax was several thou, of course I could get out of this hole of an apartment, and pay off a house. If I could afford the +200k price tag, there was a 100k+ mark up shown on the sticker! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Jlnance |
Your point well taken above but only a moron would ban motor cycles Unlike gas, the supply of morons seems to be plentiful. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| M2me |
Here is some interesting information. This chart shows oil usage in millions of barrels a day for each country.
What if our federal government seriously tried policies to reduce our overall use of oil? Like tax increases on gas, two-tiered pricing like Coolice suggested, increase the mandatory MPG that vehicles must have, increase funding for public transportation, increase funding for alternative fuel research, etc.? Some of you guys will scream, "No! Laissez faire capitalism is the only answer! Besides, the rise in demand from developing countries like China is the real problem!" By looking at the chart you can see that the rise in demand from China is tiny compared to the demand from the U.S. and clearly can not account for the doubling of the cost of oil over the past four years. A very small percentage decrease in the U.S. demand would make a huge difference in the overall world demand. That same percentage decrease from China would make only a tiny difference. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Blake |
The price of oil is largely controlled by what should be an illegal consortium of price fixers. It sure wouldn't be legal in America. OPEC. John, When the world's oil production capacity exceeded demand by 5%, the price of oil was relatively low. When the world's oil production capacity exceeds demand by only 1/2% and is controlled largely by one price fixing consortium, the price skyrockets. In today's dollars, the price of gasoline in America was higher decades ago. Free market economics will be the major force that pushes development of alternative fuels/energy. Until those alternatives are more cost effective than oil, they will fail to garner a significant share of the market, on account of not many folks will see fit to pay more for them nor lose money trying to sell them. Capitalism and free-enterprise represent the forces of natural selection at work in the world of commerce. Muck with that and you are asking for big trouble. Our unemployment rate is now at 4.9% while socialist France is enjoying a mandatory 35 hour work week and double digit unemployment. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cochise |
Whatever they do, don't mess with old cars that guzzle gas, because they aren't daily drivers. Government is already wanting to crush all cars made before 1980 anyway. Save that guzzler thing to newly made cars. Why tax gas more than it already is?? That way gas will be $6.00 a gallon. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ara |
M2me, would you please provide a source for those figures? FASCINATING! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Chainsaw |
...It sure wouldn't be legal in America. I wouldn't be so sure. The NHL, NBA, NFL, and MLB get away with price fixing, salary caps, and legal discrimination to boot. 52% of our population is female, none of these organizations has a single female player. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Brucelee |
"What if our federal government seriously tried policies to reduce our overall use of oil? " Because prices will do this without any government related costs. That is why free market capitalism is so superior to government intervention. To wit, increasing taxes on gasoline INCREASES the price of gasoline. Is this not what folks on this thread are complaining about? Worse yet, the increase in gas prices from taxes DO NOT stimulate suppliers to provide more oil (which they do when prices rise). Worse yet, it add costs to the price just to collect, remit and account for the increased taxes. This is totally non-productive. I could go on and on. There is no question in my mind that price will be an effective modulator of gas prices if left alone. If the government wants to do something to help, they can GET OUT OF THE WAY. How about reducing the time and costs to actually get at the energy that sits under the US or the time and costs to build a nuclear power plant? This would REDUCE costs for suppliers, allowing supply to rise and prices to ease. I thought that is what we were after, not some saintly way to reduce energy consumption. I am fine about consumption if supply is accessed at a moderated price. Given that the US is at the top of the economic AND oil comsumption chart, I wouldn't mess with this relationship at all. It requires energy to produce! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Brucelee |
"I wouldn't be so sure. The NHL, NBA, NFL, and MLB get away with price fixing, salary caps, and legal discrimination to boot. 52% of our population is female, none of these organizations has a single female player." I always laugh at the notion that energy producers have all this power to fix prices and get away with it. Considering that they have been investigated for over 40 years by just about every govt entity and to my knowledge, never been convicted, this is just laughable. We have 50 state AGs who do NOTHING BUT INVESTIGATE and I am not aware that they have even indicted let alone convicted gas suppliers of price fixing. Moreover, we have a Congress, which can investigate anything politicaly interesting and usually does. Can you imagine them NOT feasting on any real or imagined price fixing. Lastly, we have the FTC and the Fed AG. These guys have feasted on Corporate America over the last six years. It always makes me smile when folks accuse Bush of being in Corp America's pocket. We have seen a procession of CEOs and CFOs go to jail during Bush's watch, such that I can not remember. If this guy is soft on white collar crime, his AG has not gotten that message! This is a great thread, lots of laughs. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Steve_mackay |
Blake, out "Official" unemployment rate is now at 4.9. Now let's start counting the people who have used up those unemployment benefits. It's nowhere near double digits. But it is worse than the government wants us to believe | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Brucelee |
Well this thread is about gas prices but that never stopped a liberal from going on to attack the USA, especially when conservative economics is working well. Below is ONE explanation on how different data gets offered up and seized by those who have an agenda, to create doom and gloom where there should be none. To paraphrase Lee Iaccoca, "if you can find a better economic system, move there!" Measuring unemployment Bruce Bartlett (archive) January 6, 2004 | Print | Send On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics will announce the employment report for December. It likely will show a further decline in the unemployment rate--the most politically potent of all economic statistics--since initial claims for unemployment compensation have dropped sharply in the last several weeks. The White House will cheer and claim that the news is confirmation of the wisdom of its economic policies. To counter this good news, Democrats will have to work even harder to find a dark lining behind the silver cloud. For some time, Democrats have been arguing that this has been a jobless recovery despite a fall in the unemployment rate from 6.4 percent in June to 5.9 percent in November. They have made this argument by using different data than that used to calculate the unemployment rate. Lately, they have also taken to recalculating the unemployment rate in nonstandard ways in order to make it seem higher than it really is. To understand what is going on, one needs to know that the Labor Department collects employment data in two different surveys. The first, called the household survey, is based on telephone interviews with about 60,000 households per month. This survey is used to calculate the official unemployment rate, which consists of people not working but looking for work as a share of the labor force (those working plus those looking for work). Those not looking for work, such as retirees and stay-at-home mothers, therefore, are not counted as unemployed. The second survey is called the payroll survey and is based on the actual employment records of domestic businesses. Economists generally consider this survey to be a more accurate measure of month-to-month changes in national employment. However, there is evidence that during cyclical upturns, such as we are in now, the payroll survey misses many new business startups, causing it to understate employment growth. Eventually, the Labor Department finds these businesses and adjusts its data upward, which it probably will do for recent payroll data when revised figures are released on Feb. 6. For some time, there has been a growing divergence between the two labor surveys. The household survey has shown strong employment growth--an increase of more than 2 million jobs between Nov. 2002 and Nov. 2003 (including a statistical adjustment last January). In the latest month it showed 138,603,000 jobs in the U.S. But the payroll survey has shown anemic job growth over the same period. Indeed, between Nov. 2002 and Nov. 2003 it shows a net decline of 235,000 jobs. According to the payroll survey, there are only 130,174,000 jobs--far fewer than shown in the household survey. There are a number of technical reasons why the two surveys will always report different figures. Among these are people with more than one job, who may be counted twice in the payroll survey, and the self-employed, who are counted only by the household survey. Although attempts are made to reconcile differences between the two employment surveys, the gap cannot entirely be explained according to a recent BLS study. Liberals contend that the payroll survey is the only one worth paying attention to, as a recent Economic Policy Institute study argued, because it confirms their story about a jobless recovery. But conservatives will continue to point out that the more favorable data from the household survey is and always has been "official" for calculating the unemployment rate. To counter this last point, liberals have lately taken to adjusting the household survey numbers so as to get the "true" unemployment rate. One technique is to add to the number of unemployed those working part time for economic reasons, temporary workers and others marginally attached to the labor force. In November, these adjustments would have given us an unemployment rate of 9.7 percent instead of the official figure of 5.9 percent. Princeton economist Paul Krugman claimed in a Dec. 30 New York Times column that the adjusted data "indicate the worst job market in 20 years." However, the BLS shows unemployment rates as high as 12.8 percent in the mid-1990s using the same methodology. Therefore, Krugman's claim is simply wrong factually. Most economists believe that employment is poised to rise significantly in coming months. It always lags behind increases in output, but eventually catches up. That now seems to be happening, as indicated by the employment index from the Institute for Supply Management, which rose sharply in November and December. Over the longer term, some economists are starting to worry about labor shortages for demographic reasons, as the large baby boom generation retires and is replaced by a "baby bust" generation that is much smaller. Of course, job growth can't happen too fast for those now unemployed. But it really is happening and they should take heart. Bruce Bartlett BTW- I would be counted as "unemployed" in the wage data, as I own my own business and do to file a 941 each quarter. However, I am doing fine, making money and certainly working! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Bigblock |
actually, solar power and wind are basically competetive with fossil fuels right now, and nuclear power is nothing but a tax drain, and what about the waste and danger, we won't even get into the terrorist possibilities. And the longterm economic and health effects of pollution and the possibility of climate change? Let's face reality folks, fossil is killing us, and nuclear is insane. And there's a great possibility of a new generation of solar technology very soon. I know people right now running there houses and businesses on solar electric, getting credits each month instead of sending off a huge check, adding to the grid instead of burning more coal or gas. This is a reality right now, it's not a pipe dream, and it's getting more efficient and affordable every year, and should take a very big step up in efficienct and affordability VERY soon. The question is, will it be allowed to happen? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Brucelee |
Of course, your hyperbole on nuclear energy is without a factual basis. The cite below, while dated is instructive. Note the liberal source (PBS). What must I be thinking? Also, a loathe as I am to admire anything the French do, they have created a very nice nuclear energy program that actually allows them to sell electricity to other countries. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/november96/nuclear_power.html I would also LOVE to see you backup your assertion that wind and solar power are cost competitive with fossil fuels????? Do you have any data on that? And exactly how is fossil fuel killing me right now? Take a sedative and respond when you can! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Brucelee |
Ironic but relevant! This story is from our news.com.au network Source: AAP back PRINT-FRIENDLY VERSION EMAIL THIS STORY Downer espouses nuclear virtues By Denis Peters September 01, 2005 FOREIGN Minister Alexander Downer has laid out the case for Australia taking the path to nuclear power generation, saying global warming is forcing a rethink on the issue. He joins fellow Cabinet minister Dr Brendan Nelson among government members espousing the benefits of nuclear energy since Prime Minister John Howard called for a renewed debate on the issue. Mr Downer said Australia's substantial uranium exports were already being used to generate 2 per cent of the world's electricity production, making Australia deeply entwined in nuclear energy, particularly in the east Asian region. Heavily coal-dependent, Australia has no electricity generation through nuclear power. Its only reactor, at Lucas Heights, is used for purposes such as sub-atomic research, the production of radioactive medicines for cancer therapy, and production of radioisotopes for industrial uses. But Australia held the world's largest uranium reserves, enabling the country to make a major contribution to global energy production, Mr Downer said "The plain reality is that the growing demand for energy worldwide, and in our own region, will be satisfied in part by nuclear power generation," he said during the 2005 Sir Condor Laucke Oration at the Barossa Valley. "In the 21st century, the responsible position is to recognise that nuclear power has an important place in the overall global energy mix." Mr Downer urged those confronting global environmental challenges to "avoid pseudo-science and doomsday scenarios". "Nuclear power's clear benefits in greenhouse terms are causing many countries to reconsider some outdated prejudices," he said. "The reality is that nuclear energy is the only established non-fossil fuel energy source capable of generating large amounts of baseload electricity without significant emissions of carbon dioxide." Mr Downer said Australia's uranium exports allowed other countries to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. "Countries using Australian uranium avoid CO2 emissions of the same magnitude as Australia's own CO2 emissions from all sources," he said. Safety concerns about nuclear power were inaccurate perceptions of risks that were not backed up by facts, Mr Downer said.. "Anti-nuclear groups irresponsibly exploit these concerns to pursue their own mythology." Mr Downer said Australia would have a vital role to play with regard to the future of global nuclear power. "As global demand for greenhouse-friendly nuclear power grows, global demand for uranium will also grow," he said. "And as the holder of the world's largest uranium reserves, we have a responsibility to supply clean energy to other countries – even if, so far, we have chosen not to use nuclear energy ourselves." | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| M2me |
The source of my chart is: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/oil/supply_demand.html I have also read that both solar and wind power produced electricity are competitive with fossil fuel produced electricity. This is not a projection. This is true right now. Of course wind power is only practical in some areas of the country and solar works better in some areas than others. Solar is pretty expensive to get into but over the long term is cheaper than buying fossil fuel generated electricity. With more government intervention these technologies could be even more competitive. Because prices will do this without any government related costs. That is why free market capitalism is so superior to government intervention. Come on! Energy is no more free market today than agriculture is. We ALREADY HAVE government intervention! Our leaders long ago decided, correctly, that energy is too vital to our nations's security and economy to leave to free market forces. The question I'm asking is why not have government policies whose aim is to wean us off oil? This would provide long term benefits for the majority of Americans. Isn't that what government should be about? The trouble is our current government policies main goal (recent Energy Bill) is to ensure high profitablity for our energy corporations. Now before anyone gets all excited about profits let me say that there is nothing inherently wrong with profits. What is wrong is that shouldn't be the main goal of government policy. Government energy policy, especially at the federal level, should seek benefits for America as a whole, not just a small segment of it. I know I've gone off the thread topic because these policies would likely result in increasing gas prices even further. (Message edited by m2me on September 04, 2005) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Brucelee |
"I have also read that both solar and wind power produced electricity are competitive with fossil fuel produced electricity. This is not a projection. This is true right now." Please provide a credabile source for this assertion. If this were so, then why are these power sources still minimal at best. Clearly, consumers would seek out any energy options that are competitive with fossil fuels. Of course, I will predict you cannot find such sources, other than those who sell these devices or from the extreme greens out there. Again, we are not talking about isolated cases, but usable energy for most Americans! "Of course wind power is only practical in some areas of the country and solar works better in some areas than others. Solar is pretty expensive to get into but over the long term is cheaper than buying fossil fuel generated electricity.: Again, lets see your data! "With more government intervention these technologies could be even more competitive. " That of course is not the point. Sure, the government can make sure any technology competitive by giving tax credits, etc. This does not make the technology competitive, it simply artificially reduces the price or the cost. "Because prices will do this without any government related costs. That is why free market capitalism is so superior to government intervention. Come on! Energy is no more free market today than agriculture is. We ALREADY HAVE government intervention! Our leaders long ago decided, correctly, that energy is too vital to our nations's security and economy to leave to free market forces. " Of course, there is no free market in the classic sense but it is RELATIVELY free as compared with many other nations and scenarios. In your world, the government would pick the technologies it sees as the winners, and conversely, it would selectively dictate who pays more for each, based on its criteria. I am glad you trust them so much but I do not. "The question I'm asking is why not have government policies whose aim is to wean us off oil? This would provide long term benefits for the majority of Americans." We don't need these policies, price will do that all by itself if left alone. It will also raise the amount of oil that is removed from the ground. But clearly to the green whackos, this is NOT what is wanted. They all want us on an energy diet with only sources that they like. "Isn't that what government should be about? The trouble is our current government policies main goal (recent Energy Bill) is to ensure high profitablity for our energy corporations. Now before anyone gets all excited about profits let me say that there is nothing inherently wrong with profits. What is wrong is that shouldn't be the main goal of government policy. Government energy policy, especially at the federal level, should seek benefits for America as a whole, not just a small segment of it. " To the degree that we really have an energy policy, it should be to ensure a continuing source of energy for all Americans at market based prices. Overall this insures that more energy will be sought and produced. Profits are necessary for investment and have to come before the investment is made in costlier energy sources. This is Business 101. " I know I've gone off the thread topic because these policies would likely result in increasing gas prices even further. " You were the one that suggesting an increase in the gas tax. Would that not increase prices immediately with no chance of ever getting more energy in the bargain? Tell me now your logic works? PS-I will post some cites for you to read on how energy prices and supply actually work. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Brucelee |
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/archive.shtml Check out the two articles on the "oil crisis" Good basic economics on energy prices. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Reepicheep |
Speaking as someone with training in Electrical Engineering, solar is only cost competitive with traditional energy sources if your "study" was done as a part of the green big industrial machine. I don't doubt a study says it, but I am sure said study includes some huge (maybe 5x or 10x) multiplier for "traditional" costs that is pretty much just a made up number that accounts for some sort of hypothetical "environmental correction". Wind and tidal power might come close if power costs keep rising, but only if you have a good wind or a good tide handy. Wind is typically only viable is you still have your traditional infrastructure capable of scaling up when the need is there and the wind ain't. These technologies have environmental impacts as well. Nanotech is probably our best hope of the kind of revolution we hit with the development of the semiconductor. Some of the new safe Nuke technology also looks very safe and interesting as well. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Brucelee |
Reep, I would agree with you on the cost issues of solar and wind. And, really is there anyone out there that thinks these can be more than adjuncts tied to peculiar circumstances. BTW-I built a passive solar home in New England years back. BAD IDEA! And I think Passive Solar in some areas is fine. These are simply not technologies that will supplant fossil fuels and we should stop thinking they will and move on to other more viable technologies. I also think it is interesting that the greens go ape •••• when you mention nuclear. However, in France, apparently the greens are OK about it. What I WOULD like to see is some informed dialog on the use of nuclear power. Given that there is NO energy generating technology that is capable of supplying large scale energy needs that DOES NOT POLLUTE in some way, why isn't the NP option on the table as a future major source here in the US. Why can't we build more NUKES???????????? Then again, the greens will try to block any traditional technology. They even try to block building a dam for hydro plants. Seems it upsets the fish. So, we can't do anything to please the greens except sell our cars and bikes and start pedaling. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Reepicheep |
I'll try and find a link, but there was a very cool reactor that they were considering for a town in Alaska, it was basically a big solid sphere of fissionable material, and if you hit it with a beam of... something... it would start to react. the minute the beam stopped, it would stop. When it was done it became absolutely stable, even the cooling material.. http://www.atomicinsights.com/AI_03-20-05.html Cool stuff! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Bigblock |
You need the sedative buddy! I ain't carrying on and namecalling, you are BL! I have acually seen my friends solar house in Long Island on the north fork. This is not sunny california, nor is it the desert. LI buddy. He runs his fishing business on his RESIDENTIAL solar setup. 2 commercial grade ice machines, an electric smoker, commercial size and grade, a walk in fridge. And all electric in the house except for the heat. On a cloudy day this summer, about 2:30 in the afternoon, with the ice machines and walk in running, the meter was running backwards. This is not some "study" , or some BS statistics that some oil corporation sponsored , or some "green group" as if that's a dirty word, but something I actually witnessed, and something I see every time I go there. The system wasn't cheap, but he used to have an electric bill of 600 to 900 dollars amonth, and now he either gets a credit 8 months a year, or at the peak load in summer when the icemachines and cooler work hardest and the smoker is running, he pays between 30 and 300 dollars a month. He's saving on average 600 dollars a month, thatll payy of a hefty initial hardware investment in a very short time! Training in electrical engineering makes you an expert on solar power, especially the latest technologies? Do YOU have some sort of vested interst in fosil or nuclear power? Has anyone ever heard of acid rain? this is happening right now, and there ARE health effects, andf environmental as well. Coal burning for electric generation is a huge contributor to this, as well as the main source of mercury contamination in america. The fed is recommending a major reduction in the amount of fish that americans eat due to the large increase in mercury contamination due to fossil fuels, mainly coal burning for electric generation. This is not some "green statistic", this is facts from the fed, your beloved republican controlled "conservative" Gov't. Pollution from fossil fuels has no health effects? are you really that deluded? Nuclear, well, let's see, can we really afford another Chernobyl ANYWHERE ON EARTH? Answer that honestly, now. How about 3 mile island,I suppose that was some GREEN Corporatiuons fantasy. Didn't really happen. What's the half life of radioactive waste? How is it being dealt with? Oh, I think it's piling up somewhere where they are trying to figure out what they can do to protect FUTURE generations from this POISON. Oh, I suppose you think it's Non-toxic? Piling it up on some base is a good idea? Let's bury it somehwere, can we be sure someone wont dig it up in 1,000 or 5,000 years and have it poisoning people then. Oh, wait you won't be around then, why should YOU care? There is a large scale solar plant running and supplying power to the grid in the southern California desert Right now, I drove by it 4 years ago, and going strong. Not a gov't sponsored tax drain, supplying power to the grid at a profit. Sure, it's sunny CA, but we can do this without More Nuclear waste, and the time has come to seriously attempt to reduce our reliance on fossil . If you belive this isn't possible, I say you either have a vested interest in fossil or nuke, or YOU are deluded by the oil/ fossil and the nuke propaganda.Stop being a dinosaur before we all go the way of the dinosaur. I haven't quoted any "green propaganda " here guys, just stuff I have actually seen. I'm sorry if you don't believe this, and I don't mean to insult anyone personally, so, Reep, don't take it personally, and BL, well, you were sounding a bit personal. I feel REAL STRONGLY about this if you haven't noticed, but am a little tired of the mudslinging that has been going on here in the BWB. See ya later. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Reepicheep |
For somebody that doesn't mean to insult anyone, you sure spent a lot of time insulting me. I go out of my way to not take things personally though, no harm done, no hard feelings. This board is not the place for this conversation though, so I am going to drop it here. And it's not my job to change anyones mind anyone, so I really don't feel like taking it up anywhere else either. No big deal. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Brucelee |
BigBlock Several brief comments: Use paragraphs to contain your logical arguments. This is something to be learned in about third grade. Otherwise, one can get lost in your sea of words. Briefly: I cannot refute you anecdote about your friends solar electric plant. I asked for credible third party data and you provide a story. Hmmm, how can one respond to that. "My friend has a nice nuclear power plant in his backyard ......... Re: My defense of fossil fuel. It is what we have and the MAJORITY OF THE WORLD is using it. So, for practicable solutions, we need to deal with that. Third: If nuclear energy does not work, well, you better explain how there are over 1000 plants world wide. Yet, with all this experience, we have one real accident and one near accident. The Russian experience was useful in how NOT to build and run a NP plant. Three Mile Island showed how redundant systems actually worked to contain the issue. Also, if you are so concerned about acid rain and CO2, the NP solution is actually quite workable. Anyway, I am still waiting for your data, rather than your rants. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Brucelee |
Reep, Fascinating story on the 4S reactor. Good stuff! Thanks |
