|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 7:50 am
|
Rainbowfied Mouse Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 9:23 am
 |
|
|
 |
well, I had just realized that it still needs to pass the Senate, and I think there are a lot of democrates and some republicans who are going to try to filibuster this bill. There are a lot of democrates who come from farm states and know this bill will hurt them.
Rainbowfied Mouse -Jobs created to run Reusable Power (windmills, solar cells, etc) -Less Foreign Dependency -Research into Hydrogen Fuel Cell Technology -Global Popularity (since we are the only industrial country besides China that did not sign, and made many countries disappointed in us)
Spain had done something like this before and it had not worked, they lost jobs. You can't store the energy you get from wind or solar, so we'll still be dependent on foreign oil. Oil isn't just used for energy either. A lot of our products are made of oil, like plastic and rubber. So we still need oil and if we're not drilling, we're buying from the Middle East. As for jobs, yeah, it'll create jobs at first- but it most likely won't be sustainable since it'll take more money to run than it will produce. Solar energy might be really good in some parts of the states, like the desert area, but not all of the states are sunny deserts.
Getting global popularity is a pipe dream. I don't think there's anything we can do to please the rest of the globe. Are you just talking about Europe? Might I remind you, Europe and the rest of the world are drilling for their own oil. We're the only country not doing it, so this bill won't create global popularity for us.
There is already research going for hydrogen fuel cell technology, by the private sector. They had that research going for a long time now. But I doubt that's going to go very far, because water emits C02- not that its bad, its not dangerous. But since we're regulating what we exhale, using water as a fuel source may be out of question. Besides, the government isn't talking about using hydrogen fuel cell technology, they want to use corn ethanol- which doesn't work.
A lot of what the government is mandating- when you look closely and think critically- you'll notice its less about public good and more about pleasing their lobbysts. The tesla car is an excellent electric car, as is the hydrogen car made by Ford. These excellent cars that would help us a lot, but the government wants to put us in hybrids and smartcars (I wouldn't be caught dead in a smart car). You also have to look at the light bulbs they want us to use. Fluorescent light bulbs are full of mercury, which is highly toxic and nonbiodegradable. But they want us to by it. And fluorescent light bulbs are made by General Electric, who are huge lobbysts in the government.
All I'm saying is this bill won't creat anything in your list and since its carbon dioxide they're regulating, we're all in for it if this bill passes the senate. This is taxing the big companies that produce goods that we need! If we tax oil any more than we are, the cost of food, energy and other products will go up. That will cause job layoffs, people won't be able to afford both food and energy. The private sector is going to go under, because of this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:44 am
|
|
|
|
First and foremost, this bill SQUEAKED by in the House. A 7 vote spread when the Dems have a commanding majority in the House is not good. Latopazora is right, this thing is dead in the Senate. You might get Specter, Collins, and Snowe on board with this thing, but Tester, Baucus, either Nelson, Webb, Warner, Landrieu, the Udalls, Bayh, they're all going to hop on against this thing and there's no way they get cloture.
Second, they put the major benchmarks of this bill WAY outside the range of anything they would ever have to face at the polls. The public won't feel the effects of this bill till 2013, well after the inauguration of the 2012 winner.
As to the jobs creation of this bill, again, a huge loser. Windmills don't create jobs. Basically the government pays farmers to stick them on their land. After that they sit there and generate a microscopic fraction of the energy you could generate with a nuclear power plant. They're not zero-impact either. They use land resources, they're known to kill birds, and they're noisy which makes them both a nuisance to the community and disturbs wildlife. Oh, and most importantly, Europe manufactures them more cheaply than the US, so we will buy them from Europe at the expanse of domestic energy production.
Less Foreign Dependency: We could achieve less foreign dependency in more pro-market ways. We could open up more of our land to drilling. We could expand coal and natural gas usage. We could broaden our capacity for nuclear energy. This bill does none of this. It's approach is to constrict energy usage rather than broaden energy supply.
Research into Hydrogen Fuel Cell Technology: Mouse, they were researching this when I was your age. The same limitation exists now that existed then, you need a platinum catalyst to achieve any yield and that drives the expense of the device into six figures. When I was your age, the big breakthrough was that they found a way to chop the expense of the device from a quarter million to $160,000. It will never be cost efficient to use these devices.
Quote: Global Popularity (since we are the only industrial country besides China that did not sign, and made many countries disappointed in us)
Actually, both countries signed the treaty. We simply refused to comply, unlike Europe who agreed to comply and just increased their overall emissions output anyways. China was Annex II, which means they didn't comply and they are now on track to become a larger global emitter than the US.
Aside from that, if I had global popularity in my left hand, and $10 in my right, I could do more with my right hand. Global popularity was supposedly obtained when we elected Obama. What did it get us? That would be North Korean provocation on a level not previously seen with less in the way of Chinese help than had existed under Bush, an Iranian populace that re-elected Ahmedinejad, and possibly by a two to one margin, a China that has openly called for a global currency of investment to replace the dollar, and a Europe that refused to go along with Obama and sign stimulus packages in their own nations (continental Europe that is). In short, global popularity isn't worth a damn thing.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rainbowfied Mouse Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:38 am
|
|
|
|
Quote: Solar energy might be really good in some parts of the states, like the desert area, but not all of the states are sunny deserts.
A study done showed that if we get one square mile of solar panels in the desert in Nevada we could power ALL of the USA and more.
As for the topic of loss/gain of jobs, we could take a whole other perspective. If electric companies no longer have to pay workers, they can place their money elsewhere which will expand whatever area they invest the money into. Isn't that part of the trickle-down theory? Give the rich more money to spend and they'll spend it and somehow magically the economy will become more stable.
Quote: Research into Hydrogen Fuel Cell Technology: Mouse, they were researching this when I was your age. The same limitation exists now that existed then, you need a platinum catalyst to achieve any yield and that drives the expense of the device into six figures. When I was your age, the big breakthrough was that they found a way to chop the expense of the device from a quarter million to $160,000. It will never be cost efficient to use these devices.
Another study I watched on the History Channel the other day they are only having two problems now: costs of the vehicles with hydro-fuel... and filling stations. There would need to be more fuel stations with hydrogen that cars could use, and more production of hydrogen (which can be made by electrolysis with water.) California passed a bill that will strategically place these stations along highways in the state in a few years.
Quote: Aside from that, if I had global popularity in my left hand, and $10 in my right, I could do more with my right hand. Global popularity was supposedly obtained when we elected Obama. What did it get us? That would be North Korean provocation on a level not previously seen with less in the way of Chinese help than had existed under Bush, an Iranian populace that re-elected Ahmedinejad, and possibly by a two to one margin, a China that has openly called for a global currency of investment to replace the dollar, and a Europe that refused to go along with Obama and sign stimulus packages in their own nations (continental Europe that is). In short, global popularity isn't worth a damn thing.
Though you could do more with $10 (as of now,) money is not as important as a world that works together for the better good of mankind.
Quote: Less Foreign Dependency: We could achieve less foreign dependency in more pro-market ways. We could open up more of our land to drilling. We could expand coal and natural gas usage. We could broaden our capacity for nuclear energy. This bill does none of this. It's approach is to constrict energy usage rather than broaden energy supply.
Quote: They use land resources, they're known to kill birds, and they're noisy which makes them both a nuisance to the community and disturbs wildlife.
I would rather have a noisy bird-killing machine in my backyard than 10 people with oil all over themselves and a large fire hazard. Oil production is more noisy than a windmill. Although an oil rig will never be found in my backyard (a windmill might in the near future,) I still would much rather have the windmill over the oil rig.
Aside from this we would need to look at the different kinds of wind turbines that could be used to produce the electricity, each with it's own pros and cons. There's Horizontal Axis, Vertical Axis and a few unconventional types that could be used. Aside from this we can combine a wind farm with solar panels in order to efficiently use space.
Going back to the job market with this. Wind is a free resource, and in the future it's believed to be possible for every house to have their own wind turbines (aside from areas with low wind speeds.) Which can create homes with more interdependency on themselves than on corporations that provide it. This would give the average joe more of their own money to spend. As for the areas with low speeds, or even the ones without they can add solar cells to their house as a way to function on their own (in the future of course.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:34 pm
|
|
|
|
Quote: A study done showed that if we get one square mile of solar panels in the desert in Nevada we could power ALL of the USA and more.
You either misread the study or whoever commissioned it is a bald faced liar. If it were that simple they would have done this LONG ago. Forget about oil, coal, and nuclear lobbies. If what you were talking about here were even remotely feasible a private investor would have done it by now. With generation vs. land usage efficiency that high there's no way any other form of energy could compete. That means $$$$$ for that enterprising industrialist. Now, perhaps what you actually read said this: IF the total sun energy in one square mile of Nevada could be harnessed you could power the entire United States. That would be correct on a theoretical level. The problem is you will never get a 100% efficient collection method, and in fact current collection methods probably wouldn't harness enough to power Wyoming. Beyond that you have transmission problems; energy generated in Nevada can only be transmitted so far. Think back to your physics classes in high school. Current travels through a wire by means of the voltage overcoming the resistance in the wire. That generate heat, which is a loss of energy. That means the energy you harness in Nevada only goes so far before it's burned up in the wires. Long story short, if you wallpapered Nevada with solar collectors tomorrow, it wouldn't put one ampere into Ohio.
Quote: If electric companies no longer have to pay workers, they can place their money elsewhere which will expand whatever area they invest the money into.
Who said the issue is electric companies not paying workers? The issue is that the cap and trade taxes are going to push a lot of businesses to outsource even further to Annex II countries, which aren't regulated by Kyoto. That means the net effect in fighting CO2 emissions won't be to reduce them, just to push them into China to the detriment of our workers. Meanwhile everyone is going to be paying more to live. I want you to keep this in mind, reducing income, rising costs of living, now go research what happened with these conditions in France around 1789.
Quote: Isn't that part of the trickle-down theory? Give the rich more money to spend and they'll spend it and somehow magically the economy will become more stable.
Note on debate form, if you're going to advocate a theory of economics that nobody before you injected into the debate, you undermine your own case when you then turn around and pan the same theory.
Quote: Another study I watched on the History Channel the other day they are only having two problems now: costs of the vehicles with hydro-fuel... and filling stations.
Really? No s**t? Cost of the vehicles is an issue? Geez, I wonder if that has anything to do with a $100K platinum catalyst hydrogen fuel cell engine block? You'd think someone would have brought that up already. Wait. . . I did.
Quote: Though you could do more with $10 (as of now,) money is not as important as a world that works together for the better good of mankind.
That was the point, Chad. Electing Obama was supposed to produce international good will and lead to these sorts of things you just described. Instead we've witnessed the exact opposite as I just cataloged. Doing things for the good will of the world gets you a pat on the back from the world, and nothing else. Honestly, name one, just one policy a foreign government has towards us now, that is currently unfavorable, that signing this legislation will cause them to reverse to a favorable policy.
Quote: I would rather have a noisy bird-killing machine in my backyard than 10 people with oil all over themselves and a large fire hazard.
And, see, that's the thing, nobody is proposing putting an oil derrick in your back yard. The places we have oil don't have people living in them. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is uninhabited. We also have numerous coastal deposits that we place off limits, which we could open up. Last I checked, we don't have a population living in the middle of the water. They are, however, proposing putting windmills in your back yard. So, your description here not only presents paranoid misconceptions about the oil industry, which I shall address next, but it also presents a false dichotomy of choices.
As to your claims of people with oil all over themselves, I don't know where you came up with this idea that oil is just spilling out everywhere at a drill site, but it's false. I mean, think, do you think they sell you oil by just splashing it all over the ground and having a bunch of retards run through it? They sell it by barreling every last possible drop that they can because it sells for a killing. You're thinking of the famous images of oil drilling from the 1920s where the oil starts firing 200 feet into the sky, and I'm sorry, but that's just not what oil drilling looks like anymore. That is the result of blowing high pressure into a well with nothing to prevent a blowout. Today they have blowout preventers like crazy, and blowouts are rare. When you do have a blowout it is considered an oil spill. Spills themselves are actually rare enough that you can confine the list of the significant ones since the late 1960s to a single page, with none over 100,000 tonnes since 1992. As for oil well fires, they too are rare enough that the prospects of an oil fire don't even bare consideration.
Quote: Although an oil rig will never be found in my backyard (a windmill might in the near future,) I still would much rather have the windmill over the oil rig.
If we generated a significant portion of our electricity from crude your dichotomy would be applicable. We generate most of our electricity through coal. I presented the electric alternative as nuclear.
Quote: Aside from this we would need to look at the different kinds of wind turbines that could be used to produce the electricity, each with it's own pros and cons. There's Horizontal Axis, Vertical Axis and a few unconventional types that could be used. Aside from this we can combine a wind farm with solar panels in order to efficiently use space.
You can weight them all you like, all wind turbines have the same con, each unit generates very little electricity and you need to wallpaper large amounts of space to provide wind-generation in any meaningful capacity. Since it is so equipment-intensive in its generation, it also isn't competitive (fuel is free, but number of units to generate output vs. a coal plant pushes the price of wind far outside the range of market competativeness).
Quote: Going back to the job market with this. Wind is a free resource, and in the future it's believed to be possible for every house to have their own wind turbines (aside from areas with low wind speeds.) Which can create homes with more interdependency on themselves than on corporations that provide it.
The kicker here is the "in the future" part, along with "it's believed." In the 1950s it was believed that we would have flying cars by now. What you're weighing is not a current benefit but a hope and cross your fingers sort of thing. What if it doesn't work out? The entire premise of what you just laid out would be nil. Aside from which, it's nil anyways. You're not independent of corporations providing you electricity just because you have a wind turbine, you've simply shifted the expense from a service expense to a hardware expense, and changed your corporation from your electric company to your hardware supplier. Even then, you're unlikely to be able to unplug from the electric company altogether, since you can always have a week without any significant wind.
Quote: This would give the average joe more of their own money to spend.
That's a sleight of hand. The average joe doesn't get his wind turbine till he overcomes the threshold costs of buying the turbine. That's likely to be a pricey piece of equipment even by the time the expense is reduced to put it into the range of interested consumers (current consumer models run around $11K, that's NOT cheap). So, you have your wind turbine, and it starts generating your electricity. It has to produce savings to your electric bill to offset the threshold costs of the device before you start getting money in your pocket. Current estimates range between 50-90% off your electric bill. Now, my monthly electric bill is about $65 a month. That means it saves about $58.50 off my bill. At that rate it will take 15.6 years for me to recoup the costs of the turbine, and that's assuming I don't have to spend any money on maintenance for the device, which you will since they only warranty these things for about 5 years. So, to put this in a human perspective, if you put a wind turbine on your house the day your son is born, you'll be teaching him to drive by the time you're breaking even on the investment. That's not putting money into people's hands.
Quote: As for the areas with low speeds, or even the ones without they can add solar cells to their house as a way to function on their own (in the future of course.)
What about cloudy areas that don't get a lot of wind? These alternative energy methods are largely developed considering conditions in the west and in the plains. Michigan, Seattle, Buffalo, these places are large, cloudy, and not particularly windy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:33 pm
|
|
|
|
Rainbowfied Mouse A study done showed that if we get one square mile of solar panels in the desert in Nevada we could power ALL of the USA and more.
Show me the article you read and I will show you a two bit faced liar of an author. SOlar energy storage alone, using the already in use solar panels which covers16 miles of the Mojave desert produces only 0.7% of the energy used in the city of Barstow where the rest of the energy used in Barstow, CA comes from Hoover Dam.
The most effective power source we have right now and has been advanced to major heights is Nuclear power. Regardless of what Barak Insane Obama says, its the future, and needs to be harnessed indefinitely.
Rainbowfied Mouse As for the topic of loss/gain of jobs, we could take a whole other perspective. If electric companies no longer have to pay workers, they can place their money elsewhere which will expand whatever area they invest the money into. Isn't that part of the trickle-down theory? Give the rich more money to spend and they'll spend it and somehow magically the economy will become more stable.
We will never be without an electric company nor their workers. Not even the Statists are gong to allow the population to become self sufficient and we have too many major cities now who will need to have their unit set up on a grid. This argument is ridiculous.
And the Trickle Down theory was not based on this model in no way, no how- not ever. Do not confuse economics with labor dispersion and sociological diatribe.
Rainbowfied Mouse Another study I watched on the History Channel the other day they are only having two problems now: costs of the vehicles with hydro-fuel... and filling stations. There would need to be more fuel stations with hydrogen that cars could use, and more production of hydrogen (which can be made by electrolysis with water.) California passed a bill that will strategically place these stations along highways in the state in a few years.
There are actually three problems: Engine gasket pressure, molecularity process of fuel is inefficient and a lack of market(what you call a lack of stations). The pressurized tanks for hydrogen fuel is a high problemfor US standards. Granted this is something which can be overcome if the cost of liquid fuel is stable and less costly, but this pours into the second problem, which is making the fuel at a decent cost. Yes it takes water to make hydrogen, and pure water at that. The issue is the amount of electricity to make it is almost one American dollar per three litres of Hydrogen made. Not very efficient. And the third would not be an issue if we put this into action as the mentality goes "If you build it they will come".
I like Hydrogen. I am a fan of it, but only when it gets to a place where it will not as much money to invest into I would gladly do so. The latest trend, which is where I thin the direction is going is in Natural gas. Still a Pollutant but hey, Obama likes it! He is after all the Messiah.
Rainbowfied Mouse Though you could do more with $10 (as of now,) money is not as important as a world that works together for the better good of mankind.
Methinks you live in a land full of faeries and elves...
Rainbowfied Mouse I would rather have a noisy bird-killing machine in my backyard than 10 people with oil all over themselves and a large fire hazard. Oil production is more noisy than a windmill. Although an oil rig will never be found in my backyard (a windmill might in the near future,) I still would much rather have the windmill over the oil rig. Aside from this we would need to look at the different kinds of wind turbines that could be used to produce the electricity, each with it's own pros and cons. There's Horizontal Axis, Vertical Axis and a few unconventional types that could be used. Aside from this we can combine a wind farm with solar panels in order to efficiently use space. Going back to the job market with this. Wind is a free resource, and in the future it's believed to be possible for every house to have their own wind turbines (aside from areas with low wind speeds.) Which can create homes with more interdependency on themselves than on corporations that provide it. This would give the average joe more of their own money to spend. As for the areas with low speeds, or even the ones without they can add solar cells to their house as a way to function on their own (in the future of course.)
Nuclear power plants produce more energy, create more jobs, believe it or not, and cover more of an area than the largest wind farm on the planet, alone. Even if we covered the whole of the planet with windmills we could produce more energy and more jobs with nuclear in less than two percent of the amount of area it takes for windmills.
And as I stated before not one Democrat wants us to be self sufficient. Show me one non-blue dog Democrat who wants us to not have the Feds overseeing something in our lives and I will show you Santa Claus. There is not one.
This bill, which I hope dies a horrible death, would be cause for revolt, as it is going to tax us indirectly with direct taxation. There is nothing we do which does not emit energy from some source, even when we are sleeping. We all have one thing in every one of our homes that runs 24/7 and no one thinks of it, the refrigerator. So no matter what we are always consuming energy, which is "bad mojo" to this current administration. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
