|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2008 : 10:15:57 [Permalink]
|
I'm just disgusted by the whole who is the better Christian thing. I didn't watch. Every time one of these peckerheads, both of whom have no love for the religious right pander to them, it just reinforces the idea that we should be a theocracy, which is an idea held by a few RR blowhards and the lemmings they preach to. It's the politicians who give power to this minority whom, if you really look at it, could be the most un-American goobers, based on the power that has been handed to them, that this country has ever seen.
I would rather watch "I Love Lucy" reruns. Lucky for me, there was the Olympics to watch instead. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 08/20/2008 : 10:43:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Corn or sugarbeet ethanol are worse, in the total sum, than oil (because of the nitrogen based fertilizers required to grow them). |
Sweet sorghums can produce more ethanol than maize with only a fraction of the fertiliser needed. With genetic engineering, sorghums can get even more efficient.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Zeked
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2008 : 14:04:55 [Permalink]
|
Hi Dude,
Some thoughts.
Government levies taxes to create and subsidize programs, but this does not create wealth, it is only a redistribution that will distort fair markets. Success and viability of programs are often erroneously overstated because of these undisclosed distortions.
Without significant energy subsidies, wind, solar and biofuels are not competitive with coal, petroleum or nuclear. Forcing older technology energy producers to adapt or die, by use of carbon taxes and clean energy legislation requirements, etc., further distorts the markets. The true costs of energy will not be seen on your energy bill or at the pump because massive hidden costs in our taxation. On top of that are added explicit taxes.
While there are many alternative energy programs, they should live or die according to honest merits, profits and cost benefit. With energy subsidies and regulations already as thick as mud, the energy industries are draining our wallets coming and going, while suppressing competition that would arise in a free market.
Obama is just a bit more overt with planed increased energy market manipulations than McCain. Neither gets to the root of the problem, because government IS the problem.
In science, ignoring evidence to maintain ones position is dubious. There are conclusions that are not warranted concerning alternative energy costs, and global warming causes, that make the carbon tax and clean energy issues repulsive to me. The end result does not justify the means, because the lack of honesty and clarity makes the goal ellusive.
Is it delusion or deliberate deception? I would hope McCain and Obama are both smart enough to be considered audacious liars. The alternative is just as dispiriting. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2008 : 14:28:37 [Permalink]
|
Zeked, has there ever been a "free market?" I'm not talking about a demonstration or a computer simulation in some economics professor's classroom, but a real free market functioning correctly out in the real world? You're right that ignoring evidence to maintain a position is wrong, but so is inventing evidence where none exists.
Taxation is a perfectly legitimate way to finance solutions to large social problems, and the energy problems we have now are large social problems. Wishing for some mythical free-market competition to come and clean up the mess appears to be no different (on a practical level) than praying. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2008 : 16:29:01 [Permalink]
|
Zeked said:
| Without significant energy subsidies, wind, solar and biofuels are not competitive with coal, petroleum or nuclear. |
Only in the short term.
Besides, we already subsidize oil to the tune of 60-100billion a year. Lets reduce some of that (actually make Exxon/Mobil pay some taxes...) and give it to renewable/sustainable energy. If big oil wants to keep the subsidy, then they have to start making real (instead of token TV commercials) investments in building up infrastructure for renewable power.
Once a significant wind infrastructure is in place it will be profitable. Our energy problems impact us at every level of society, from individual interests all the way to national security. So I'm all for tax subsidies on this one.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2008 : 18:18:19 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
| We need a focus on wind as a primary power source. All we lack is investment in the infrastructure, but wind alone could provide all our electricity needs for the next 250 years. |
Not quite! The technology of large-scale electrical energy storage is still in it's infancy and super-batteries or super capacitors on a gigantic scale would be necessary for the country to be largely dependent on wind power generation.
This technology will inevitably arrive, but my guess is that we will be able to locate and build enough wind and solar farms, even with the necessary attendant transmission infrastructure, to supply half of the nations's electrical demand - far sooner than we will have the technology to store this energy and be able to equalize supply with demand.
The combination of massive development of wind and solar energy generation - both subject to the vagaries of weather and the daily solar cycle - together with the construction of 50+ third-generation nuclear generation facilities - operable 24/7 night and day - that would be able to offset the transmission lows in the grid; that combination undoubtedly would be capable of replacing fossil fuels as primary sources for America's power and eventually totally replace oil, natural gas, and coal.
Properly funded, this could happen within 10-15 years. By that time, electrical power storage technology may be sufficiently developed to permit less and less dependence on nuclear power and the attendant radioactive waste disposal problems. |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 08/20/2008 19:15:06 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Zeked
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2008 : 18:57:13 [Permalink]
|
Hi Dave,
Yes, there is a looong and accepted history that precedes the current nation state, and free markets are the basis for free enterprise and capitalist systems.
Free markets really do exist in the wild. There are experts taking DNA samples and you can see the ice chest full of bones and fur on CNN for proof.
Taxation, within reason, never perfect and too often illegitimate. Can the means be subordinated to the ends? Of course, but always entertain skepticism regarding intentions. The government often takes our wealth for purposes that are against our desires, but fit their ideas and intentions.
Here is a myth one should consider: “the government will provide”
Hi Dude,
I actually agree with you. My only objections to wind and solar is the large land area required compared to gen 3-4 nuclear plants, and the limited and intermittant generation capability.
DOE has shelfed many commericialy viable solar projects after sucking millions for R&D. eg. point focus sterling generators, linear piston type. Shutting down the solar electric capability at Edison Electric in CA still has me feeling unsettled at the true purpose.
Subsidies go in so many directions they wind up being counterproductive to the markets, our wallets and prop up monopolies and discourage competition. Hydrogen vs the battery electric seems a good example.
Subsidies should only be short term. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2008 : 19:19:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Zeked
Yes, there is a looong and accepted history that precedes the current nation state, and free markets are the basis for free enterprise and capitalist systems. |
Yes, I know that free markets are the basis for free enterprise and capitalism, but that doesn't mean that free markets exist. That would be like saying that the philosophy of materialism means that there exists someone who has never thought about any sort of god. That free-market idealism exists doesn't mean that free markets exist.| Free markets really do exist in the wild. There are experts taking DNA samples and you can see the ice chest full of bones and fur on CNN for proof. |
If the evidence is so pervasive, why not show me one? Just one market which doesn't bow one iota to any government, religion or headman. Most of what I see on CNN falls under the regulatory mandates of either the SEC or the FTC, and so might be part of a mostly free market, but not an actually free market.| Taxation, within reason, never perfect and too often illegitimate. Can the means be subordinated to the ends? Of course, but always entertain skepticism regarding intentions. The government often takes our wealth for purposes that are against our desires, but fit their ideas and intentions. |
We are the government, Zeked. That we allow our elected representatives to steal from us is not the fault of government per se. In this country, at least, you can't separate the government from the governed and still claim you're making an argument based upon solid premises.| Here is a myth one should consider: “the government will provide” |
Good thing I didn't say that, isn't it? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2008 : 19:21:51 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
Love to push buttons but sometimes I hit the wrong one!
Give me a little credit, I did edit it! |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2008 : 19:36:11 [Permalink]
|
Zeked said:
and the limited and intermittant generation capability.
|
That is a non-issue. There are enough locations that have constant wind at 80meters to eliminate that concern. Then there is the tethered turbine, which is never subject to no wind.
Nuclear can make up the difference in places that do not have access to the good winds.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2008 : 22:04:16 [Permalink]
|
Zeked.....
Is it your belief that a free market exists in any of the energy commodities, most specifically oil? |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2008 : 00:47:13 [Permalink]
|
Dude......
| Then there is the tethered turbine, which is never subject to no wind. |
from wiki:
The main disadvantage is that kites and 'helicopters' come down when there is insufficient wind. Also, bad weather conditions, such as lightning and/or thunderstorms, could temporarily suspend use of the machines, probably requiring them to be brought back down to the ground and covered. These schemes require a long power cable and, if the turbine is high enough, an aircraft exclusion zone. As of 2008, no commercial airborne wind turbines are in regular operation. |
Great idea, but probably years away from commercial application, though.| Nuclear can make up the difference in places that do not have access to the good winds. |
Nuclear is going to be mandatory, if we are to truly escape the further tyranny of oil dependence - It is the only, technology-ready, high KW generation source available to supplement the developing technologies of wind and solar; and allow us to quickly (10 years) wind down our petroleum demand.
Small scale electric energy storage and the resultant electric cars must proceed at the same development pace.
Obama, or drill, drill, drill McCain (hah!) certainly has their work cut out for them!
|
|
|
|
Zeked
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2008 : 02:26:07 [Permalink]
|
Hi Dave
There are standard accepted definitions and then there is pedantic nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2008 : 09:09:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Zeked
There are standard accepted definitions and then there is pedantic nonsense. |
Apparently, the "standard accepted definitions" mean that a "free market" isn't truly "free," then. Hard-line free-marketers would find the mere existence of the SEC and FTC to be unnecessary government interference in the marketplace.
So, Zeked, how much government meddling within a market is too much for that market to be called "free?" Where do you, personally, draw the line? (Obviously, subsidies are out, but what about product safety requirements, mandatory environmental impact studies or anti-fraud laws?) How do you justify your own conclusions about what is acceptable regulation and what might be unacceptable market distortion? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Obama vs McCain at Lake Forest
