|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2008 : 13:50:27 [Permalink]
|
| I am not that familiar with the state of the US power plant industry... When were most of them build? When will the plants get obsolete and need to be replaced? Then will be a good time for the government to try and direct this next generation of plants not to be relaying on fossil fuels but rather on something clean... |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 11/06/2008 : 14:47:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by Gorgo
He "came to the center" on everything. The center is just about as far right as you can reasonably get in an atmosphere of the government being used to transfer the wealth from everyone else to the extremely wealthy.
|
How did the government transfer my money to the wealthy?
|
By having no-bid contracts for supplies to the Iraq war. |
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. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2008 : 15:16:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by Dude
Tesla Motors, for an example, has a car that does 0-60 in 3.9 seconds. Fully electric. 244 mile range on a single charge.
If you combine the Tesla Motors technology with the GM Volt you'd have a good start towards high performance vehicles that use a minimum amount of gasoline.
A federal subsidy for car companies who make this type of vehicle, and another one for the companies who will make the batteries. |
Do these cars really have a good effect on the environment? These cars need to be charged up and doesn't that shift the polutants to the power plants? Also, can our electric generating capacity handle millions of these cars added to the demand without building more power plants? |
Central power-plants can operate at a higher efficiency than a car engine, and centralised pollution control can more effectively reduce environmental impact. And as hydroelectric and nuclear plants (as well as wind and wave and solar plants) are built, the amount of pollution per electric car will be reduced even more.
| Ethanol could, if cellulosic technologies are more fully developed, provide a huge supply of fuel. Enough to completely eliminate the use of fossil fuels (which is why, obviously, that technology is not yet in place). |
I don't know. Ethanol has less energy content than gasoline and would impact the worlds food supply and take up much more land to grow crops for it. |
Not really. Crops for ethanol production can be grown on land areas where pollution makes the land unsuitable for food production, and land areas that don't have enough nutritions for food crops can be used for plants good for ethanol.
I read somewhere (but can't find it right now) that ethanol should only take up a few percent of total land area for food production, so ethanol production won't really compete with food production unless ethanol subsidies are mis-managed.
| I think that nuclear power is the answer for at least the next 30 years or so until we can get renewable energy in large quantities. |
I think Thorium-style nuclear reactors could be developed to process and extract energy from decommissioned nuclear weapons. With such a technology, you wouldn't have to mine for more uranium for quite a while...
|
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. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2008 : 15:52:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
We should also outlaw fireplaces.
|
How about camp fires or cigarettes?
|
CO2 from log fires and cigarettes aren't fossile-carbon, but renewable
energy sources. Neutral carbon foot-print.
|
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. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2008 : 16:24:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
Well to be fair (from the same link filthy posted)
"Obama still has some way to go, however, to equal the number of "Impeach George Bush" groups on Facebook, which lists at least 95 such groups with varying membership."
|
I saw this article on Christianforums. My proposal there was to use the number of facebook impeachment groups as a surrogate measure for the popularity of the President. Similar to how the big mac index measures living standards.
So we should monitor how many of these groups there are. Then we can make a comparison between presidents or president years using the Facebook Impeachment Index (FIX). |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 11/07/2008 : 04:29:09 [Permalink]
|
The Freepers are going to boycott Fox "News!" Hahahahaha!! Boycott of FOX
Vanity | 11-06-08 | Veritas 2002
Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2008 1:07:54 PM by veritas2002
I propose that we punish the FOX Network for its hatchet job on Sarah Palin.
For one week beginning at 3:00 PM today no one tunes them in. We will demonstrate the power of conservatives when their ratings plummet dramatically.
Will you join me?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOPICS: News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 0000000000000; boycottfox; cameron; crushfox; defendpalin; fox; foxcnnmsnbc; foxnews; palin; protectpalin; vanity1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-100, 101-150, 151-200 ... 251-283 next last
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 posted on Thursday, November 06, 2008 1:07:55 PM by veritas2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: veritas2002
I joined the boycott 3 months ago.
2 posted on Thursday, November 06, 2008 1:08:49 PM by albie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: veritas2002
..also send Thank's to Governor Palin.. Operation Freep Palin
3 posted on Thursday, November 06, 2008 1:08:50 PM by mnehrling
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: veritas2002
I'm done with Teevee. Let them all go to hell.
|
And so forth. Don't ya just love it when the grapes turn sour? Isn't it marvelous when biting off your nose is the only cure for sour grape syndrome? I mean, Fox is all the news these wankers watch, that and maybe the 700 Club -- I'm not too sure about Robertson's comedy classic, though. It might be a shade too intellectual to suit them.
So, I've little doubt that this will drive Rupert Murdock to the poor farm. I've little doubt that a Freep-less Fox will deal the entire corporate empire a mortal blow and their sufferings will be horrendous. Yeah.... And all because they dream, hopelessly, of getting laid by Sarah and can't stand Fox telling the unspun truth, albeit most likely by accident.
Won't ya just love it when their plan comes together? 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 11/07/2008 04:32:22 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2008 : 06:04:25 [Permalink]
|
Robb said:
| I don't know. Ethanol has less energy content than gasoline and would impact the worlds food supply and take up much more land to grow crops for it. |
If you only consider ethanol from corn, sugar cane, or sugar beets, then the net environmental impact is an increase in greenhouse gas (because of the fertilizer). I'm not sure about the impact on food... the US pays some farmers to leave land fallow.
Cellulosic ethanol could use any biomass, not just the fruit. So any plant at all could be used. This bypasses the need for fertilizer since you can just use weeds or other plants that grow well without it. Bypasses farmland used for food as well. Would some farmers use their land for this? Probably. But if demand for food increases they will have the option to grow food crops.
An efficient and inexpensive enzymatic process to render the cellulose into fermentable sugars is possible, just needs an initial push to make it commercially viable.
Cellulosic ethanol primer on wiki.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2008 : 07:19:36 [Permalink]
|
Good to know that Fox's Shepard Smith, who evidently excelled in fake self-righteousness acting class, is now an expert on political correctness.
"Uncle Tom" is probably not the best phrase for someone to use when referring to a black man in any way, but [Smith's response]it's just a good way to ignore the [Nader's]message.
(I don't know who break the matrix is, but it seemed to be the only blog that noticed Shepard Smith's arrogant, phony self-righteousness).
The story: | In the interview with Nader aired last night, Fox host Shepard Smith feigned phony righteousness in his reaction to Nader's assertion that Obama could prove to be an “Uncle Tom” for the corporations rather than an “Uncle Sam” for the people. |
[edited hoping to improve clarity] |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 11/07/2008 07:32:38 |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2008 : 07:23:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Central power-plants can operate at a higher efficiency than a car engine, and centralised pollution control can more effectively reduce environmental impact. And as hydroelectric and nuclear plants (as well as wind and wave and solar plants) are built, the amount of pollution per electric car will be reduced even more. |
I agree with this, but only 20% of the US energy is from nuclear, hydroelectric and renewable energy. The leaders in congress are against nuclear power and even Obama said that we should use nuclear power if we can do it safely. If? It is proven and safe technology now but we will not build any in the US unless attitudes change.
think Thorium-style nuclear reactors could be developed to process and extract energy from decommissioned nuclear weapons. With such a technology, you wouldn't have to mine for more uranium for quite a while...
|
Is there anybody doing this? Sounds like a great idea if it can work. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2008 : 07:43:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Robb said:
| I don't know. Ethanol has less energy content than gasoline and would impact the worlds food supply and take up much more land to grow crops for it. |
If you only consider ethanol from corn, sugar cane, or sugar beets, then the net environmental impact is an increase in greenhouse gas (because of the fertilizer). I'm not sure about the impact on food... the US pays some farmers to leave land fallow. |
First, when growing wheat for ethanol production, it requires less fertilizer than when growing wheat as food. This also goes for other crops. Sugar cane requires even less fertilizer, and sweet sorghum practically no fertilizer at all and can be grown in places where crops for food is out of the question. More on sweet sorghum here.
Edited to add:
One of the major reasons for the increase in food prices (much bigger than bio-fuel) is that more crops are used to feed live-stock. Meat is an inefficient source of energy, and it requires hundreds of kg of crops for every kg meat produced. The methane from farting cows and pigs is a bad green house gas. 
Not only you, I, and Filthy love our T-bone stake, but every Chinese and Indian too. Meat for everyone is unsustainable.
|
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. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 11/07/2008 07:51:57 |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2008 : 09:09:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Central power-plants can operate at a higher efficiency than a car engine, and centralised pollution control can more effectively reduce environmental impact. And as hydroelectric and nuclear plants (as well as wind and wave and solar plants) are built, the amount of pollution per electric car will be reduced even more. |
I agree with this, but only 20% of the US energy is from nuclear, hydroelectric and renewable energy.... |
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Dude
Robb said:
| I don't know. Ethanol has less energy content than gasoline and would impact the worlds food supply and take up much more land to grow crops for it. |
If you only consider ethanol from corn, sugar cane, or sugar beets, then the net environmental impact is an increase in greenhouse gas (because of the fertilizer). I'm not sure about the impact on food... the US pays some farmers to leave land fallow. |
First, when growing wheat for ethanol production, it requires less fertilizer than when growing wheat as food. This also goes for other crops. Sugar cane requires even less fertilizer.... |
My 2 Cents On Energy:
Biofuels will never be able to supply world energy needs long term - at best they are a stop gap. The viable alternatives to fossil fuels are to generate electricity via wind-wave-geothermal, solar (ground based or better yet orbital) or nuclear fission (or fusion if they ever get that worked out) or some combination of the three.
For transportation energy needs, a portion of this electricity is then used to either charge vehicle batteries directly (need better batteries) or generate some energy medium analagous to gasoline. The likely candidate medium is hydrogen for combustion or powering fuel cells. There may be other mediums - a freind of mine insists you can use a spring - but the energy source for those mediums has to be electricity generated from one of these sources.
Biofuels are less attractive because they compete with our food supply, they will result in more of all the problems associated with food-farming (deforestation, soil erosion, soil salination, aquifer depletion, fertilizer pollution, etc), and as energy needs mount, we won't want/be able to use the land necessary to grow the energy crops.
I suppose you could grow them hydroponically in gigantic towers, which is feasible per an article I read some while back about a guy that wants to grow crops in NYC that way. But in the end this is just solar power with a middle-step (so is wind, wave and hydroelectric for that matter). My guess is it's ultimately much less efficient than directly using solar power via photovoltaics.
EDIT: BTW, hydro-electric is inferior as currently used because big dams and their resevoirs really screw with the local and down stream ecology and water needs. If you don't care about conservation, then it's a non-issue.
|
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 11/07/2008 12:14:54 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2008 : 09:21:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
Good to know that Fox's Shepard Smith, who evidently excelled in fake self-righteousness acting class, is now an expert on political correctness.
"Uncle Tom" is probably not the best phrase for someone to use when referring to a black man in any way, but [Smith's response]it's just a good way to ignore the [Nader's]message.
(I don't know who break the matrix is, but it seemed to be the only blog that noticed Shepard Smith's arrogant, phony self-righteousness).
The story: | In the interview with Nader aired last night, Fox host Shepard Smith feigned phony righteousness in his reaction to Nader's assertion that Obama could prove to be an “Uncle Tom” for the corporations rather than an “Uncle Sam” for the people. |
[edited hoping to improve clarity]
|
I don't find this statement offensive. Well; sure, it refers to Obama's race (that's where the 'wittiness' come from)... guess what? Obama IS black. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2008 : 11:12:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
Originally posted by Gorgo
Good to know that Fox's Shepard Smith, who evidently excelled in fake self-righteousness acting class, is now an expert on political correctness.
"Uncle Tom" is probably not the best phrase for someone to use when referring to a black man in any way, but [Smith's response]it's just a good way to ignore the [Nader's]message.
(I don't know who break the matrix is, but it seemed to be the only blog that noticed Shepard Smith's arrogant, phony self-righteousness).
The story: | In the interview with Nader aired last night, Fox host Shepard Smith feigned phony righteousness in his reaction to Nader's assertion that Obama could prove to be an “Uncle Tom” for the corporations rather than an “Uncle Sam” for the people. |
[edited hoping to improve clarity]
|
I don't find this statement offensive. Well; sure, it refers to Obama's race (that's where the 'wittiness' come from)... guess what? Obama IS black.
|
Not very.
At the risk of offending people, the black that many whites fear / hate / mistrust / find distasteful / etc is much more a cultural thing than a color thing. If Obama was raised in a black urban Detroit household his speach, mannerisms and overall look would be a lot different. He probably wouldn't have gotten the education he did either. The fact is Obama was raised by white people, got exposed to a lot more of the world than most US blacks, got a far better education than most US blacks, looks (aside from his tan and curly hair) and sounds like white people, and (apparently) avoided much of the cultural hang-ups that black people pass from generation to generation.
This American Life had a great program a few weeks back about the program in Harlem designed to improve the lives of every black child growing up there. The show detailed startling statistics about the number of unique words urban black children are exposed to and about the number of negative words vs positive they hear from their parents growing up compared to middle-class white children. It talked about how the community around black children discourages education as 'acting white.' And it linked these factors to why so many urban blacks have such a hard time improving their circumstances from generation to generation. If I get time I'll try to find a link to it. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 11/07/2008 14:08:27 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2008 : 11:23:23 [Permalink]
|
| About the Baby College? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2008 : 11:37:49 [Permalink]
|
| Yeah, that's it. Very good snippet. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The Official SFN US Elections Thread
