McCain calls for building 45 new nuclear reactors [Archive]

Darth Mole

06-19-2008, 02:43 AM

Before you jump on the nuclear bandwagon you should read 'The World Without Us' by Alan Weisman. There's a fascinating chapter on nuclear power and its - pardon the pun - fall out.

Nuclear power isn't free; there's a whole lot of waste that is generated that's useless - and highly dangerous. All we can currently do to HLW (High Level Waste) is bury the stuff. There's a waste site in the US so toxic that they've designed a sign that can be read by extraterrestrial lifeforms to warn them of the danger below ground.

The planned waste site in the Yucca mountains needs to be proven that it will stay safe for at least 1 million years.

And this article makes for interesting reading...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/us/17nuke.html

I'm not against nuclear energy, but I think too many people are ignorant or oblivious of the end results.

starbase1

06-19-2008, 02:43 AM

On the surface I'm in favour.

My only concern about the use of nuclear power in the UK, is that the government is incapable of getting anyone to run it safely.

Spot on... Unfortunately if the only alternatives are being reliant of Putin for gas, or relying on oil, a big nuclear program seems the only viable option.

As the thread started with a positive comment on the American right, I'd like to join in. I was delighted to see George Bush visiting the UK again. As an atheist who is strongly opposed to the Iraq war, every time that man opens his silly mouth he does more to further my views than I could ever hope to.

mattclary

06-19-2008, 08:59 AM

France seems to be doing OK with nuclear power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

p.s. McCain is the lesser of the evils, IMO

Iain

06-19-2008, 09:06 AM

I wouldn't feel comfortable with someone his age driving a car I'm in, never mind running my country.

Couple of years older and he'll start to smell of piss.

Jim_C

06-19-2008, 10:41 AM

dgon64

06-19-2008, 11:41 AM

I live just outside of Chicago in a state that relies heavily on nuclear power and I gotta tell you it can be a complicated issue. We were told that it would help make electricity cheaper but Com-Ed has some of the highest rates in the nation and the problem of nuclear waste looms larger than ever. We've also had a couple of minor problems with the reactors themselves and the debate continues as to whether to invest the money into aging facilities or spend it on needed infrastructure improvements. Building new facilities would be even more expensive and no one wants a reactor in their backyard. Even if you do build one it wouldn't be online for years to come-way past the terms of these guys. Yet for having said all of this what do you do in a global economy that continually yearns for more and more energy-wait for fusion reactors or go back to coal power ( which in itself contributes to another problem )-I just don't know. Proposing more nuclear reactors seems to me to be just an election year soundbite when in fact there is no magic bullet for this ever-increasing problem. Something needs to be done but compromises will have to be made and much smarter minds than mine will need to focus on the situation.
As to Obama, I voted for him for senator and in the primary yet have no illusion that he will change the world. He's basically a Chicago politician and there's a certain amount of baggage that always comes with that. I was blown away by his keynote address to the Democratic convention last time around and I like the fact that he's a great deal smarter than most. If elected he will definitely revive our standing in the world since it will show them that no longer do you have to belong to the good ole boy network ( which is what they themselves say ) to become president. He posseses charisma that's infectious although I fear that some may expect too much of him and therefore be disappointed with the reality.
I also like McCain though I liked him much more before he stepped in line with GW's policies. I just fear that he's given in too much to become his party's nominee this year. In having to choose between the two, I'll have to go with our favorite son-choosing youth and hope over experience and the same ole same ole. I respect anyone who chooses McCain though because I realize that they just want what's best for our country and the world which would be the same answer for the nuclear reactor debate. I wish life offered simple answers but then life would be too easy then wouldn't it. Then what would we talk about.

jcupp

06-19-2008, 11:43 AM

But does are only option have to be a Marxist?

Matt Drabick

06-19-2008, 11:48 AM

Another question . . . and I have very limited knowledge on this subject . . . is who actually makes the reactors at this point. I believe it used to be a division of Westinghouse, but I think that division was sold to the Japanese.

I wonder if the US still has the capability to design, build and maintain new nuclear power plants without outsourcing. I know the US Navy still uses nuclear reactors in submarines and aircraft carriers, so maybe that technology is still around (as part of the US industrial base) . . . does anyone know anything about this?

Matt Drabick

Matt Drabick

06-19-2008, 11:56 AM

Another thought . . . in the article about 45 new power plants it also mentions funding for developing clean coal . . . I think that's a bit of any oxymoron . . . worse, even if coal can somehow be cleaned up and burned to create electricity . . . I am sure it will take a lot of energy and water to clean the coal . . . how much energy do you put in versus how much do you take out . . . also, water is becoming a scarce resource . . . how much water does it take to accomplish this task.

In an effort to create a new, supposedly safe and clean energy supply (coal) aren't we creating new problems (emissions from the power plants that burn it no matter how "clean" the coal is, energy to clean the coal and water) and doesn't the water get dirty in the process? What do you do with it?

Matt Drabick

hrgiger

06-19-2008, 12:10 PM

You know, I was thinking the other day. How can we generate more toxic nuclear waste that nobody wants to transport, store, or even deal with. Then it occurred to me. 45 new nuclear plants would do the trick. But nobody would be crazy enough to do that, except maybe the senile.

mattclary

06-19-2008, 12:13 PM

mattclary

06-19-2008, 12:14 PM

Bog

06-19-2008, 01:07 PM

I don't have a lot of time for Colonel Tigh, er, I mean John McCain - but nuclear power's the only thing that makes sense. Clean coal is - as pointed out - a horrible oxymoron and a marketing lie of the worst stripe. Also 1,500 tonnes of coal yields about the same energy as, what, a kilo of Uranium? That's definately in the ballpark.

When it comes to fission power, we don't really have any other options right now. There's a big resurgance in hot fusion research, which is great and all that, but we need something to tide us over 'til that stupid technological singularity comes along - and as stated, it's Putin, Oil or... er...

Solar? Nope. Can't make enough. Wind? Nope. Same deal. Hydro? Great where it works. Geothermal? Great where it works. Coal, Oil, Gas? Uh... yeah, that's such a help, thanks for playin'.

Fission it is 'til we can bottle stars.

Mike_RB

06-19-2008, 01:12 PM

Scazzino

06-19-2008, 01:16 PM

The funniest thing is that here in the US everyone loves to complain about oil prices and oil dependency, and point fingers at everyone else... but they don't want us to drill where people are... they don't want us to drill where people aren't, they don't want us to drill off-shore, they don't want us to build new refineries, they don't want nuclear power, heck, they don't even want windmills off Cape Cod in MA, because it'll spoil the view...

We reap what we sow... ;)

calilifestyle

06-19-2008, 01:30 PM

http://therealmccain.com/

mattclary

06-19-2008, 01:32 PM

prospector

06-19-2008, 01:43 PM

also, water is becoming a scarce resource
Global warming will give us all the water we could use :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:devil:

Scazzino

06-19-2008, 01:55 PM

Global warming will give us all the water we could use :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:devil:

That's right, and we'll use far less heating oil too! ;)

Wickster

06-19-2008, 02:06 PM

Those would make nice Render Nodes.

SP00

06-19-2008, 02:12 PM

I don't know about nuclear, it is cheap, but the waste just can't be removed. Sticking it into the ground and pretending that its not there is not a solution. I rather they find another source of energy. Can't they do a Back to the Future reactor and just turn our trash into energy?

Bog

06-19-2008, 03:13 PM

That would be fusion, Spoo, I mentioned that a few posts back.

Iain

06-19-2008, 03:38 PM

Fusion is reckoned to be 40 years away. Along with teleporters and time machines.

IMI

06-19-2008, 04:05 PM

I agree with him on nu-clear power, but disagree with him on taxes, the war, abortion, health care, supreme court justices, imo, it seems the more time goes on, the more McCain just sounds like GWB, fear mongerer..

I also think we(USA), just for our world wide image , need to get as far away from old white men running our country as we can.

:agree:
Largely I agree with you on those points, but probably not quite for the same reasons. Most of the "issues" I believe have no place in federal government. State government, maybe, but certainly not federal.
I don't really see McCain doing the "fear monger" thing so much, though, and I don't really see him that similar to GWB. There are those who say McCain would be GWB's third term, but I disagree - I think it'll be more like William Henry Harrison's first term, if he's lucky. :D

Our current Supreme Court Justices are idiots....

Though I disagree almost entirely with his politics, McCain as a person is to be admired. I believe he's honest and sincere - MUCH more than can be said for 'that other guy' who's running....
But as a President, no, I'm not big on the idea of McCain.
We got shafted once again. We're likely to have another four years (at least) of a mediocre Executive Branch. Maybe downright dangerous, depending on how much 'help' it tries to give us...

However, I am really happy to see the ball *finally* rolling on the ideas of drilling lots more oil and creating more refineries and nuclear plants - things we shouldn't have allowed the minority special interests groups to prevent for so many years - we should have been doing all this 20 years ago.

Exception

06-19-2008, 05:39 PM

Whatever you say about nuclear... safety and environmental wise... its a very expensive form of energy. Reactors are expensive to build, maintain and run. The fuels are expensive to harvest and purify... and the waste is expensive to store.

Solar wind is infinately cheaper, and there are many sites in the US where solar wind plants could be built and as a side effect convert arid land into agricultural ones to boot.

But nobody cares about this sort of thing... everybody stares themselves blind on something that burns or explodes. Nobody is consulting actual energy experts. Everything is dug up from old reports dating back to the '60s. I've been part of high profile discussions about power and sustainability, and I tell you: very little science, lots of conjecture and politics.

Build as much renewable as you can, save power as much as you can... only then should you consider hazardous, polluting or potentially disastrous technologies.

rcr62

06-19-2008, 06:28 PM

:agree:
Largely I agree with you on those points, but probably not quite for the same reasons. Most of the "issues" I believe have no place in federal government. State government, maybe, but certainly not federal.
I don't really see McCain doing the "fear monger" thing so much, though, and I don't really see him that similar to GWB. There are those who say McCain would be GWB's third term, but I disagree - I think it'll be more like William Henry Harrison's first term, if he's lucky. :D

Our current Supreme Court Justices are idiots....

Though I disagree almost entirely with his politics, McCain as a person is to be admired. I believe he's honest and sincere - MUCH more than can be said for 'that other guy' who's running....
But as a President, no, I'm not big on the idea of McCain.
We got shafted once again. We're likely to have another four years (at least) of a mediocre Executive Branch. Maybe downright dangerous, depending on how much 'help' it tries to give us...

However, I am really happy to see the ball *finally* rolling on the ideas of drilling lots more oil and creating more refineries and nuclear plants - things we shouldn't have allowed the minority special interests groups to prevent for so many years - we should have been doing all this 20 years ago.
http://www.cosgan.de/images/more/bigs/c011.gif

RebelHill

06-19-2008, 07:41 PM

Fusion is reckoned to be 40 years away. Along with teleporters and time machines.

Fusion is always said to be 30-50 years away....

but heres the thing, Ill start with fission.

dirty dirty fission... produces all that nuclear waste that lasts for hundreds of thousand s of years. Thing is... there have been, over the milenia, thousands of natural fission reactors, where eartquakes, or whatnot have allowed water to spill into underground deposits of uranium ore, where it kick starts a nuclear reaction (look up light water reactors, and natural uranium238 with water as a neutron moderator if u wanna know more).

So... uve got nuclear reactors going off underground anyhow, at some times and places in open fissures... which produce nuclear waste (including plutionium, which is at its highest yield in a simple 238LWR)..

My point... the "bowels of the earth" can process this material... life on earth, goes on.

The physical volume of waste, rated against the amount of power u get is pretty small, its not like 50 years from now there could be so much nuclear waste that ud need an area the size of france to store it all... so im sure we can plod along, and stockpile it while we wait for the technology to get it so far underground that the earth can process it through its geological cycles.

And back to fusion.

Fusion has been with us for a number of years... u acn do it at home, vacuum pump, bit of deuterium, etc... The problem is getting efficient containment technology that allows u to use less power sustaining it than is produced by the reaction.

Things HAVE though been moving on... right now in the south of france near marseilles they're builder the iter reactor, the first experimental fusion power station... which aims to produce 10 times the power it takes to run... if its a success, or close enough to one, then its on to build a prototype plant actually feeding into some lucky persons national grid, and if that succeeds, then rollout will doubtlessly follow.

Thing is... we wouldnt have the knowledge we have about fusion without all the years of usong fission... and keeping the nuclear industry alive and kicking, and empowering it to be forward thinking will only help the move over to fusion in the future.

And btw... fot those who wonder "whys fusion so great again?"...

Kilogram per kilo... hydrogen in a fusion reaction produces 10 million times as much energy as burning coal.. maybe we can one day we can pull the hydrogen out of water well enough to have a limitless supply, but even though at the moment we get it from mainly natural gas... theres still enough gas reserves to power a fusion powered world for several thousand years.

If the thing blows up... no biggie... without containment the fusion ceases... no big explosion... oh, and no irradiation either (well ok, irradiation of things within a few hundred meters).

So im all for nuclear... on a large enough scale its cheap... current nuclear plants, unpleasant though they can be are the precursors to much cleaner, greaner descendants, and the waste products are manageable.

kopperdrake

06-19-2008, 08:00 PM

Fusion is reckoned to be 40 years away. Along with teleporters and time machines.

Hmm...my rusty cogs are slowly turning...if fusion is 40 years away and they also have time machines, perhaps the recent oil hike is just to make people richer after all!! We're probably already running on fusion and we just haven't been let in on it yet!

On a 'not in my back yard' level - I hear the UK government is throwing around ideas along the lines of "let's give the people a choice - if an area of the country says 'yay' to having nuclear waste containers buried in their vicinity then we'll give them monetary/development incentives in return. So who's for a 42" plasma screen in return for sitting on a potential radioactive leak?!

We drastically need an alternative to nuclear - I find it hard to believe that a god-forsaken windy island like ours can not produce more power from air/sea.

prospector

06-19-2008, 08:58 PM

prospector

06-19-2008, 09:01 PM

Solar wind is infinately cheaper,
If so..why isn't electricity cheaper here in Ca..(home of the 492nd airplane prop squadron) that covers thousands of acres?

SP00

06-19-2008, 09:05 PM

maybe they can be creative and force everyone to put solar panels on their roof to feed back into a national power grid. Like pass a law that forces everyone to do it and those who object will have their head cut off and displayed in public as an example. Yeah, I know this will work :D

RebelHill

06-19-2008, 09:15 PM

On a 'not in my back yard' level - I hear the UK government is throwing around ideas along the lines of "let's give the people a choice - if an area of the country says 'yay' to having nuclear waste containers buried in their vicinity then we'll give them monetary/development incentives in return. So who's for a 42" plasma screen in return for sitting on a potential radioactive leak?!

We drastically need an alternative to nuclear - I find it hard to believe that a god-forsaken windy island like ours can not produce more power from air/sea.

Well... living in jersey, a mere stones throw from flamanville, i had hoped that the "new experimenta reactor" being built there was indeed the iter.. but sady its not, its a pressurised fission jobbie that could make a big boom, and lol... the foundations for the reactor core are.... "unsound" but the builders are trying to say its good enough, big hoohar, etc... so it is RIGHT in my back yard as i live well within the boom radius of such a thing.

But it doesnt bother me reli... why... cos well... theres been a lot of nuclear plants the world over... how many meltdowns can u name... adn the french are bonkers for nuclear, building power plants and carrying out weapons tests like there was no tomorrow, and no accidents, not one... so I trust em.

and i kinda think that due to this service record... this whole set of worries about nuclear is nothing more than a modern superstition.

As for renewables... im all for that too... as long as the efficiency issues balance, and there are problems, cos folks look at wind turbines and think about all that lovely power they generate from just the wind... but they forget about the energy that has been used up in extracting the materials from the earth or sythesizing them to build that turbine, the energy used up forging the components, etc. At the moment those diggers and foundrys run on fossil fuel... what about when its gone... they'll have to run on power generated by the turbines, etc, turbines producing energy to build more turbines... is there efficiency, is there power left over from that cycle, sure... but not enough to run the national grid.

renewables like that are certainly gonna help in the short term, cos they're pretty simple mechanically/technologically, and very quick to built by compare.. but they're only gonna be a bridge to something else, on their own they're a dead end.

SP00

06-19-2008, 09:24 PM

I think we just need to plant more trees. They do a good job in cleaning the air, then we can run a few more coal plants.

JMCarrigan

06-19-2008, 09:28 PM

When they figure out that "remainder" that is called infinity, then they'll be on to something.

Matt

06-19-2008, 09:39 PM

Regarding nuclear waste ... can't we just get Superman to fling it into the Sun like he did with those missiles in Superman IV "Quest for Peace"!

:D

IMI

06-19-2008, 10:02 PM

I think the important thing to realize is, we have to do something that works, and we have to do it soon. Pumping oil and generating power with nuclear are things we already know how do do in large scale.

And as far as oil goes, how much sense does it make to continue to be dependent on the Mideast? I mean, considering they despise the Western way of life and all that, not to mention eventually China and/or Russia is going to move in and take them over.
A couple simple facts which seem to have been overlooked for way too long:
- The Mideast is a huge problem zone. For thousands of years their big thing has been the creation of instability.
- We have plenty of our own oil and the technology for getting at it. I say we tell OPEC, "seeya later, bye, and thanks for the memories and all the good times."

Solar, wind, hydroelectric - great ideas WHERE and WHEN practical, but not really something we could count on. All kinds of other alternative energy, again, great ideas, but not something that can be developed immediately. Certainly we're nowhere near being able to replace our current means with anything else just yet. What we need to do, is to develop those technologies as we do what we can NOW to maintain our lifestyle and prevent our economy from collapsing.
Even so, we could feel a sting for a good while, since we also can't make oil wells and nuclear power plants spring up and become productive overnight. Like I said earlier, these are things we should have been doing all the while, for the past few decades.
But, it doesn't have to be that way - the large scale creation of new wells and new nuclear plants and the large scale development of alternative energies could boost our economy in the US the same way WWII did. Hundreds of thousands of jobs could be created simply by dedicating ourselves to the idea we are going to do it, and do it now.

But for those who say that's all well and good, just leave out the part about the oil and nukes, well I'd say they've got their hearts in the right place, but it's simply not a practical solution yet. It's especially not a practical solution for a country with a struggling economy and a population who can't afford to drive to work or pay their electric bills or buy food.

Puguglybonehead

06-19-2008, 10:09 PM

Well here in Canada, in the Far North they're pushing for a new type of mini-reactor, based on Russian nuclear sub technology. The idea is, that in the ecologically sensitive Arctic, small nuclear plants would do less harm than all the gasoline generators that are currently in use.

I'm not saying that I'm in agreement with this kind of thinking, but that's what's going around the block up here.

I think the real answer is to make all new appliances and componentry that use a lot less power. We've seen how easily mini-flourescent bulbs replace incandescant ones (but let's not talk about the waste disposal problem from that one just yet). Really, LED lighting would be even more power efficient, and it wouldn't need to be replaced. Of course, manufacturers don't like that kind of thinking. They want to keep selling you something new, every few years.

Still, make stuff that uses a lot less power. It's completely do-able, if companies were willing to spend the research dollars. I've seen dehumidifiers that use solid-state Peltier Juctions, instead of a compressor and refrigerant, to condense moisture from the air. They're a lot more power efficient, and a lot quieter too. I knew about Peltier Junctions 20 years ago, and I couldn't understand why they weren't being used for this type of thing back then. Who knows how much other useful stuff that could save us lots of power (and money!) is being intentionally ignored by industry directors?

We don't need to make more power. We need to use less.

IMI

06-19-2008, 10:10 PM

But it doesnt bother me reli... why... cos well... theres been a lot of nuclear plants the world over... how many meltdowns can u name... adn the french are bonkers for nuclear, building power plants and carrying out weapons tests like there was no tomorrow, and no accidents, not one... so I trust em.

Yeah, me too. I lived about an hour away from Three Mile Island the day their "situation" developed. They let us out of school, and everyone was freaking out. But, the safety measures worked. I ended up growing up respecting and being in awe of the nuclear plants, and certainly not terrified of them.

and i kinda think that due to this service record... this whole set of worries about nuclear is nothing more than a modern superstition.

Not a modern superstition at all. It's that same fear mongering thing, but from the far Left. Not at all unlike the fear mongering they accuse the Right of doing when it comes to national security. It's a very proactive fear mongering, created by and perpetuated by a very small but active group of uninformed people. Not a superstiton. Intentional misinformation.

Andrewstopheles

06-19-2008, 10:57 PM

We could kidnap all the politicians and throw them in a cell tank a la The Matrix and sell the energy produced to corporations we start in some of the developing countries then buy it back at a premium, the profits used to buy the country from them and flip their property into timeshares we can sell to the ultra rich. Then we'll pay for committees (friends and family) to sit around and talk about it. If the plan gets exposed then I will write a book about the scandal and tour the talk show circuit.

prospector

06-19-2008, 11:51 PM

Like pass a law that forces everyone to do it
Very very VERRRRYYYY bad idea.

UNLESS the govt stayed out of it and didn't make it so the so called rich have to pay for the poors installations.

But boy wouldn't they LOVE that idea...another tax....

IMI

06-20-2008, 12:52 AM

But boy wouldn't they LOVE that idea...another tax....

Prospector :bowdown: ,
Of course they would. That's what They do. And you know who I mean by "They".
Tax, tax, tax, everything can be solved with some new tax.
Hey, we have really high gas prices. Hmmm... and the oil companies are making way too much money. Now, what do we do about that. Wait, I got it! Windfall profits tax! Yeah, that'll work!
Idiots.
Speaking of windfall, I think the better idea would be a Windbag tax, levied against all those in Congress. While we're at it, might as well cut their salaries, too. They could do fine with half what they currently make. After all, most of us do.
Hmmm.... but that would be so un-American, wouldn't it? :D

prospector

06-20-2008, 12:54 AM

We've seen how easily mini-flourescent bulbs replace incandescant ones (but let's not talk about the waste disposal problem from that one just yet)
Yes. lets :D

It showcases another example of enviros NOT THINKING ahead.
What do we do with all that mercury?
You think people are REALLY going to take a burned out bulb to the hazerdious waste dump when the trashcan is within arms reach?
And what happens when ya break one? Well you evacuate the house.
And if you go thru a tornado or hurricane, or earthquake?
well the more bulbs that break the more contaminated your property becomes.
And you'll NEVER get it all up, it breaks into tiny tiny balls (we've all seen it in science classes (well, those old enough to remember when real science was tought).
So you will have mercury fumes untill all has dissapated, all the while giving you mercury poison.

But I HAVE a way to dispose of them...
I break the glass and add the mercury to my stockpile.
I then use the mercury to retrieve fine gold from the rivers around here.
After getting my amalgam of mercury/gold, I cut a potatoe in half, hollow out a hole the size of the amalgam ball and put the amalgam into the hollowed out part, wire potatoe together again and toss on the BBQ.
This makes the mercury 'cook' off leaving just the gold.

But the good part is the potatoe retains the mercury gas and cools it into CLEAN mercury again.
I can then crush the potatoe into a goldpan, swish it around a bit, the mercury drops from the potatoe. wash the potatoe into the trash and put the mercury back in the bottle till next time.

I do lose a bit to fumes but with the new bulbs.....I can replace it at will. :thumbsup:

Maby there IS a silver lining afterall.:D

prospector

06-20-2008, 01:00 AM

Hmmm... and the oil companies are making way too much money.
Lets see...

On 1 hand we have the oil companies making .10 a gallon on auto fuel

And they do the research, testing, exploration, drilling, transporting, refining, transport again, sell to you.

On the other hand we have govt making up to .60 a gallon on auto fuel

They do....ummm....ummmm...ummm.
nothing to get oil
So who is the ones REALLY ripping off the public???

prospector

06-20-2008, 01:07 AM

Wait, I got it! Windfall profits tax! Yeah, that'll work!

When will people figure out what use to be taught in school.

CORPARATIONS DON'T PAY TAXES !!!!!!!
You can tax them till the cows jump over the moon, and they will happily pay it all the while knowing that all costs of doing buisness (and taxes are 1) are passed onto the consumer...

Your paying the corp taxes...you, the consumer...YOUR PAYING !!!!

PLUS...PLUS your paying even MORE taxes at the pump.

Are you tax everything people that dense???

starbase1

06-20-2008, 04:10 AM

Fusion is reckoned to be 40 years away. Along with teleporters and time machines.

Fusion has been 40 years away for a VERY long time...
Nick

starbase1

06-20-2008, 04:15 AM

When will people figure out what use to be taught in school.

CORPARATIONS DON'T PAY TAXES !!!!!!!
You can tax them till the cows jump over the moon, and they will happily pay it all the while knowing that all costs of doing buisness (and taxes are 1) are passed onto the consumer...

Your paying the corp taxes...you, the consumer...YOUR PAYING !!!!

PLUS...PLUS your paying even MORE taxes at the pump.

Are you tax everything people that dense???

The problem I see with this line of reasoning is that it is extremely naive. Mainly because it assume the converse is also true - that a reduction in costs will be passed back to the consumer, as opposed to more Columbian marching powder and bigger bonuses for the executives. Or more funding for lobbyists to screw over the system, or more IP lawyers to prevent competition...

starbase1

06-20-2008, 04:17 AM

prospector

06-20-2008, 04:18 AM

that a reduction in costs will be passed back to the consumer
It is here.
When production costs go down, so do prices.
Oil per barrel dropped in price yesterday and so did price at pump.

prospector

06-20-2008, 04:20 AM

and funding it with a politicians lie tax...
Over here it could fund the govt for years to come :D:thumbsup:
I like it !!
And I truly HATE taxes
These I would vote FOR

starbase1

06-20-2008, 04:59 AM

It is here.
When production costs go down, so do prices.
Oil per barrel dropped in price yesterday and so did price at pump.

A token drop only, I'll bet... Oil companies around the world are making spectacular profits right now, so it's pretty clear where the money is going, and it aint back into consumers pockets, that's for sure...

mattclary

06-20-2008, 07:38 AM

Very very VERRRRYYYY bad idea.

UNLESS the govt stayed out of it and didn't make it so the so called rich have to pay for the poors installations.

But boy wouldn't they LOVE that idea...another tax....

I hear Al Gore has lots of money. Seems right that he should pick up the tab for a few thousand poor people. :thumbsup:

mattclary

06-20-2008, 07:41 AM

Yes. lets :D

It showcases another example of enviros NOT THINKING ahead.
What do we do with all that mercury?
You think people are REALLY going to take a burned out bulb to the hazerdious waste dump when the trashcan is within arms reach?
And what happens when ya break one? Well you evacuate the house.
And if you go thru a tornado or hurricane, or earthquake?
well the more bulbs that break the more contaminated your property becomes.
And you'll NEVER get it all up, it breaks into tiny tiny balls (we've all seen it in science classes (well, those old enough to remember when real science was tought).
So you will have mercury fumes untill all has dissapated, all the while giving you mercury poison.

But I HAVE a way to dispose of them...
I break the glass and add the mercury to my stockpile.
I then use the mercury to retrieve fine gold from the rivers around here.
After getting my amalgam of mercury/gold, I cut a potatoe in half, hollow out a hole the size of the amalgam ball and put the amalgam into the hollowed out part, wire potatoe together again and toss on the BBQ.
This makes the mercury 'cook' off leaving just the gold.

But the good part is the potatoe retains the mercury gas and cools it into CLEAN mercury again.
I can then crush the potatoe into a goldpan, swish it around a bit, the mercury drops from the potatoe. wash the potatoe into the trash and put the mercury back in the bottle till next time.

I do lose a bit to fumes but with the new bulbs.....I can replace it at will. :thumbsup:

Maby there IS a silver lining afterall.:D

Prospector:bowdown: don't you just eat the potato when you are done? ;)

SP00

06-20-2008, 07:54 AM

mattclary

06-20-2008, 08:03 AM

Here is a really interesting article I just found. Haven't even finished reading it yet, but looks good.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/

In Without the hot air, MacKay examines our total energy usage in the UK, and then tries to provide a similar amount of energy but without using any oil and gas. He's willing to consider windpower on a thoroughly heroic scale, as it is probably the renewable technology best suited to the UK climate. As a benchmark for wind, he writes:

Our conclusion: if we covered the windiest 10 per cent of the country with windmills, we might be able to generate half of the energy used by driving a car 50 km per day each. Britain’s onshore wind energy resource may be “huge,” but it’s not as huge as our huge consumption. I should emphasize how audacious an assumption I’m making ... The windmills required ... are fifty times the entire wind hardware of Denmark; seven times all the windfarms of Germany; and double the entire fleet of all wind turbines in the world. This conclusion – that the greatest that onshore wind could add up to, albeit ‘huge’, is much less than our consumption – is important ...

Lightwolf

06-20-2008, 08:12 AM

And how many airplane propeller towers do you need to match a nuke plant?
And how much land will that take up (or ocean surface?).
Or to match a coal powerplant?
Or a natural gas powerplant?
Or even something like Hoover Dam?
A patch the size of Austria is enough to generate the world's current demand in electrical power, using current technology.
Now look at the size of the Sahara (for example).

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,grossbild-1161481-556139,00.html

Cheers,
Mike

mattclary

06-20-2008, 08:17 AM

And...

MackKay also takes a look at the somewhat less right-on options. The biggies here are "clean" coal, in which coal power stations are modified so that the carbon they emit is captured and stuffed away somewhere, perhaps in old gas fields. For a man of his leanings - MacKay is a fairly hardcore pacifist, and more than a bit of a tree-hugger - he's refreshingly open-minded.

We must not let ourselves be swept off our feet in horror at the danger of nuclear power. Nuclear power is not infinitely dangerous. It’s just dangerous, much as coal mines, petrol repositories, fossil-fuel burning and wind turbines are dangerous.

MacKay concludes that nuclear scales up easily, and does so without dominating the country the way wind, solar, tidal and biomass do. The scale of engineering required, in terms of megatons of steel and concrete or areas of land and sea taken up, is enormously down on that needed by useful amounts of renewables.

mattclary

06-20-2008, 08:19 AM

A patch the size of Austria is enough to generate the world's current demand in electrical power, using current technology.
Now look at the size of the Sahara (for example).

Say what??? A patch of wind mills???? According the the physicists in the article I linked to, covering 10% of the UK would not give the UK enough power.

Lightwolf

06-20-2008, 08:26 AM

Say what??? A patch of wind mills???? According the the physicists in the article I linked to, covering 10% of the UK would not give the UK enough power.
Nope, solar/parabolic mirror based plants.

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf

06-20-2008, 08:34 AM

Windmills are nice, but many people forget the power consumed simply to construct one large windmill.
That is the same with anything though. Aluminium production is a lot more energy intensive than steel, yet it can make sense if used to lower the weight of a car.
Power loss due to transportation is another matter (especially when considering electricity). In this sense oil has the major advantage that there is less loss in energy if you transport it over large distances.

Cheers,
Mike

*Pete*

06-20-2008, 08:34 AM

Bellona, a Norwegian enviromentalist company has found out a solution that allows for coal plants, but without increasing CO2 levels..if anything, Bellona proposes to decrease CO2 levels, while burning coal for power.

the idea is like this.

build coal plant, catch the CO2..use the CO2 to grow algies on land, in special algie-production centers (CO2 and sunlight is all they need to grow).
then heat up the algies and extract oil, which you then turn into biofuel.

Algies are very, very potent CO2 eaters and will decrease CO2 from atmosphere even when/if you shut down the coal plants as new tech emerges.

as i see, its the best we can get today..going nuclear is not a good solution, as the waste product of it is incredibly dangerous.

oh..and as for the election in USA..vote Obama, he might have his flaws as does McCain, but he seems to be very inteligent and indepedent.

mattclary

06-20-2008, 08:35 AM

Nope, solar/parabolic mirror based plants.

OK, that's better. ;) But then you trade importing energy from one dessert country for another. ;)

Make sure to read that article. The physicist admits to being a tree hugger (and anti-nuke), but his conclusions make a strong case for nukes.

mattclary

06-20-2008, 08:37 AM

as i see, its the best we can get today..going nuclear is not a good solution, as the waste product of it is incredibly dangerous.

They are dangerous because they are very energetic. Obviously, we are not being efficient if we can't completely deplete that energy. We need to figure out how to do that, doesn't seem like it would be that hard to boil water with the waste.

Lightwolf

06-20-2008, 08:40 AM

Make sure to read that article.
Will do... I'll offer you this in return (a bit more hard core I'm afraid):
http://www.dlr.de/tt/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-2885/4422_read-6575/

Cheers,
Mike

*Pete*

06-20-2008, 08:43 AM

Windmills are nice, but many people forget the power consumed simply to construct one large windmill. And have you seen the absolutely huge, slow moving mega-trucks that drive the parts around? Those must drink fuel like crazy.

I don't have any numbers on how long it takes a windmill to "earn" back it's construction, freight and assembly energy consumption. But I bet it takes a while. Just a thought.

The construction and transportation phase definitely isn't "green".

sure..but then you compare it to a nuclear plant, coal plant, gasplant or what ever.

the one single difference is, that once the windmill is at place, all it needs is simple maintenance.
nuclear, coal and gas plants will still need uranium, coal and gas to produce electricity..all finite sources and all highly recource intensive to produce.

you have a one time one tranportation of the windmill to its location, but you will have a continuous digging, cleaning, transportation, burning of coal for example..and a fair amount of pollution on top of it.

while im all for the green energy, given the current needs for new energy..the idea Bellona came with(my earlier post) sounds very good for me.

SP00

06-20-2008, 08:49 AM

I think solar power is the best way to go. With the advancement in Nano technology we are able to get 3X more power from a panel. I did some research on this and if I fitted my house with solar panels, I would already save about 75% of my electrical cost. In about 5 years, the panels would pay for themselves, and would probably last more than 20 years. Solar panels do not require as much space as wind and can be blend into modern architectural designs. They can be used anywhere, unlike wind which requires their own space. I think Japan has an initiative to subsidize homes with solar panels and any additional power that is not used and fed back to the national grid is paid to the owner by the power company. So you get paid when you go on vacation and you have incentives to be more power cautious in general.

Lightwolf

06-20-2008, 08:51 AM

I think Japan has an initiative to subsidize homes with solar panels and any additional power that is not used and fed back to the national grid is paid to the owner by the power company.
You have that even in Germany, and it's not like we live on the sunniest spot known to mankind either ;)

Cheers,
Mike

SP00

06-20-2008, 08:55 AM

You have that even in Germany, and it's not like we live on the sunniest spot known to mankind either ;)

Cheers,
Mike

That is true, but if we have enough panels and if they can be produced cheaply, it would still be an excellent solution. This wiki page does a good job to see the potential in solar energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy

*Pete*

06-20-2008, 08:56 AM

Solar panels, sure..but there are methods that are far cheaper.

I read about one plant in Spain that had several large mirrors reflecting the sun on to a large concrete building containing large amounts of seawater.

the mirrors heat up the building, which heats up the seawater to boiling point..the steam will power a turbine which will give electricity (a lot of it).

the wasteproduct?..salt and drinking water :D

the whole plant (about 2 football fields in size) was operated by 2 persons and gave electricity to a small town with 20.000 people.

SP00

06-20-2008, 09:00 AM

*Pete*

06-20-2008, 09:06 AM

That is awesome and still solar based in technology and does not have any impact on our environment after construction.

all it needs is water (seawater is prefered, considering the dual purpose of it) and sun.

now, think of Afrika...water for people, animals and plants, energy for export to europe, asia and america.

I read about it once, and since then i been stuck with the idea....free energy, free freshwater production, low cost and incredibly easy to build...few moving parts (other than the engines for mirrors and the turbine) requiring nearly no maintenance...and, the more you build, the more you get of fresh water, salt and energy...and still, no pollution :D

SP00

06-20-2008, 09:35 AM

all it needs is water (seawater is prefered, considering the dual purpose of it) and sun.

now, think of Afrika...water for people, animals and plants, energy for export to europe, asia and america.

I read about it once, and since then i been stuck with the idea....free energy, free freshwater production, low cost and incredibly easy to build...few moving parts (other than the engines for mirrors and the turbine) requiring nearly no maintenance...and, the more you build, the more you get of fresh water, salt and energy...and still, no pollution :D

Yes, I agree. You just solved our energy, water, and food crisis using the abundance of the sun and seawater . This is the type of thinking that we need in the White House. Now which candidate will most likely support this idea. Don't tell me neither.

mattclary

06-20-2008, 11:09 AM

the one single difference is, that once the windmill is at place, all it needs is simple maintenance.
nuclear, coal and gas plants will still need uranium, coal and gas to produce electricity..all finite sources and all highly recource intensive to produce.

you have a one time one tranportation of the windmill to its location, but you will have a continuous digging, cleaning, transportation, burning of coal for example..and a fair amount of pollution on top of it.

The problem with windmills is per area of land use, they kind of suck for producing energy. Once again, I will say, read the article. If you covered 10% of the UK in windmills, you wouldn't touch their energy needs. 10% is a really big chunk of real estate. If you covered 10% of the UK with nuclear plants, they could power all of Europe, probably.

mattclary

06-20-2008, 11:17 AM

Yes, I agree. You just solved our energy, water, and food crisis using the abundance of the sun and seawater . This is the type of thinking that we need in the White House. Now which candidate will most likely support this idea. Don't tell me neither.

:rolleyes: Yes, I am sure it's that simple. Wonder why no one else ever thought of tis?

SP00

06-20-2008, 11:49 AM

The same reason why lightbulb companies don't want to move to LED lightbulbs.

mattclary

06-20-2008, 11:57 AM

The same reason why lightbulb companies don't want to move to LED lightbulbs.

Or more like technical difficulties are more than you realize, like, seawater only exists at the coast. Or salt corrodes metal. Or, few places have enough reliable sunshine to make the thing work. Most of these things I hear about use molten salt, not salt water.

SP00

06-20-2008, 12:03 PM

Or more like technical difficulties are more than you realize, like, seawater only exisst at the coast. Or salt corrodes metal. Or, few places have enough reliable sunshine to make the thing work. Most of these things I hear about use molten salt, not salt water.

So what is the problem of building these by the coast? The fresh water won't corrode pipes as they go to cities. Here is a chart from the wiki link.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Solar_land_area.png
Average insolation showing land area (small black dots) required to replace the total world energy supply with solar electricity

Jim_C

06-20-2008, 12:21 PM

Those black dots are as large as some countries and states are.

Glendalough

06-20-2008, 12:31 PM

Think this is quite an interesting thread going in the right direction. The trouble with saying build 40 nuke generators or off shore drilling is the lack of basic honesty or truthfulness in such statements. The energy problem is extremely complicated. Think the nuke department has to demonstrate some solid results about the cleanup.

Lived just across from the Sellafield reactor in Wales were they processed waste from all over the world. This was a highly contentious issue and has received a lot of press and lawsuit coverage.

Basically the problem was that by the mid 80's the profits for reprocessing the spent fuels were so high, that stuff was coming in from as far away as Japan, they just couldn't get enough as so much profit was involved. The downside was that they were running millions of gallons of raw low grade radioactive waste into the Irish sea which was polluting the fish and other things. The more dangerously radioactive byproducts of this "recycling plant" were also in breach of various laws and too a lesser degree posed a big risk. For years lawsuits and PR wars raged.

The turning point finally came when Sellafield officially announced that they were going to build a shaft and tunnel ONE MILE deep into the earth for the more dangerous waste. This impressive idea really shut everyone up for about a week or so. But unfortunately some skeptics started noticing that the deepest tunnels to date were only a fraction of this and that the technology for building such a thing was non existent.

After this boastful and ridiculous claim the real safety experts moved in. And as the British can make something safe like no one else on the planet (they take in the 'human element', like say the Germans or Americans just can't do), Selfield was soon upgraded and completely overhauled. The trouble was that at the end of the day, it turned out that reprocessing spent fuel PROPERLY was one of the most expensive things in the world and there was no money in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield

SP00

06-20-2008, 12:46 PM

Those black dots are as large as some countries and states are.

Thats only if you collect all the plants in one place and use solar power exclusively for the whole world, but we will have other power sources too such as solar panels on buildings and homes, wind, ethanol, hydrogen, domestic oil, etc.

SP00

06-20-2008, 01:10 PM

Check this video out. Cheap solar power.

http://www.kqed.org/quest/television/view/399

prospector

06-20-2008, 01:43 PM

Cheap solar power.

Well, lets run the numbers

A house of 1600 sq ft (avg around here) has 230,400 sq inches of roof.
Looking on the internet and seeing that it costs 25.00 for 2 solar chips of 2.5 sq in each covering a total of 12.5 sq in, it would take 18,432 kits to cover roof.

At $25 per kit that comes to total of $460,800.00
That's not cheap

BUT the vid you linked to says costs could be up to 1/3 of todays prices.

So lets just take his most optomistic price of 1/3 and forget the 'up to' which it will most likely be.

1/3 of todays price is still $153,600.00.
That's STILL not cheap.
And to cover every house and building in world?.

Who will pay for this?
Using who's tax dollars?

The poor can't afford it,
the barely paying mortgage people can't afford it.

There WILL be some tax scheme involved.

It will only be cheap to those who can't afford to pay in the first place, it won't be cheap for the rest of us.

starbase1

06-20-2008, 01:44 PM

They are dangerous because they are very energetic. Obviously, we are not being efficient if we can't completely deplete that energy. We need to figure out how to do that, doesn't seem like it would be that hard to boil water with the waste.

Um... You want to remove energy from a particle decay process, which is random at the quantum level? And presumably do that without emitting even more radioactive decay products?

Your comments only seem to make sense if you think the problem with the nuclear waste is that it is high temperature?!?!

SP00

06-20-2008, 01:54 PM

Well, lets run the numbers

A house of 1600 sq ft (avg around here) has 230,400 sq inches of roof.
Looking on the internet and seeing that it costs 25.00 for 2 solar chips of 2.5 sq in each covering a total of 12.5 sq in, it would take 18,432 kits to cover roof.

At $25 per kit that comes to total of $460,800.00
That's not cheap

BUT the vid you linked to says costs could be up to 1/3 of todays prices.

So lets just take his most optomistic price of 1/3 and forget the 'up to' which it will most likely be.

1/3 of todays price is still $153,600.00.
That's STILL not cheap.
And to cover every house and building in world?.

Who will pay for this?
Using who's tax dollars?

The poor can't afford it,
the barely paying mortgage people can't afford it.

There WILL be some tax scheme involved.

It will only be cheap to those who can't afford to pay in the first place, it won't be cheap for the rest of us.

Thanks, but I actually call a solar panel provider last year and they did the numbers for me. I can get a panel on my roof for 10K that would provide for all my electrical needs. It will cost less with gov't subsidies. So I don't think your numbers are correct.

Puguglybonehead

06-20-2008, 02:11 PM

Check this video out. Cheap solar power.

http://www.kqed.org/quest/television/view/399

Now that is awesome! If everybody could have low cost solar cells on their homes, and be selling power back to the utilities, wouldn't that be nice for a change? I've heard of a few early adopters of solar and wind-power doing just that.

Still, I wonder how well any solar panel, even a thin-film type, could stand up to, say, a Manitoba hailstorm?

prospector

06-20-2008, 02:18 PM

even a thin-film type, could stand up to, say, a Manitoba hailstorm?
Perfectly...as long as you put it behind a steel corrigated roof :thumbsup:

prospector

06-20-2008, 02:22 PM

So I don't think your numbers are correct.
yea, they are.

The guy said 'covering the roof'.
You were probably looking at some smaller framed panels, and not total roof cover.

But then you mention...........It will cost less with gov't subsidies.

That means higher taxes for someone else to pay for your panels.
Unacceptable...totally

rakker16mm

06-20-2008, 02:25 PM

They are dangerous because they are very energetic. Obviously, we are not being efficient if we can't completely deplete that energy. We need to figure out how to do that, doesn't seem like it would be that hard to boil water with the waste.

Because of entropy we can never reach 100% efficiency. In order to do work there must be a temperature gradient. In the case of a nuclear power plant water must be heated to produce steam to turn the turbine. There come a point when the fuel is no longer able to produce enough heat to convert liquid water to steam quickly enough to justify the cost of keeping it in the reactor. At this point the fuel considered depleted, however it is still radioactive.

There is however a way to make nuclear power more efficient at least from perspective of completely depleting the fuel. The French reprocess the depleted fuel from their reactors to reduce waste, and then use the reprocessed fuel to produce more energy.

If we are going pursue nuclear power in America we should do the same. The question is - will we? After all why would a power company bother with reprocessing nuclear waste into fuel when it is cheaper to dig it out of the ground? This is one area where government regulation is a huge necessity, but you have to wonder if the DOE is going to be any better at their job than the FDA or the EPA. God help us if they can't.

*Pete*

06-20-2008, 03:35 PM

Or more like technical difficulties are more than you realize, like, seawater only exists at the coast. Or salt corrodes metal. Or, few places have enough reliable sunshine to make the thing work. Most of these things I hear about use molten salt, not salt water.

wikipedia on the tech..cool name "solar power tower"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower

molten salt is only a heatstorage medium as it stays hot long after the sun sets, continuing to boil the water inside the tower.

as for seawater..its not needed, freshwater goes just as well..you could even use sevage water, it doesnt matter, as long it can boil it can produce electricity.
really, its nothing more complicated than a teapot, except that you use the steam coming out of it for producing electricity.

Why seawater is prefered is that it gets turned into freshwater, something that is much needed in many places in the planet.

as for other objections as "salt corrodes metal, sunshine", corrosion can be dealt with using materials resistent to it where possible, and as for sunshine...as the saying goes/went "the sun never sets on the brittish empire".
there is always sun somewhere, day and night..and if you think it is difficult to export/import power, you would be suprised over the amounts of power that is moved between nations every day.

take a look at the image i posted. compare it with images you have seen of coal plants and nuclear plants..not to mention of the huge gasplants and hydroplants.
which would you prefer to see in your neighbourhood?..a nuclear plant? i think not.

its as simple as its genious.

in = water, sun.
out =electricity, water.

snsmoore

06-20-2008, 03:36 PM

This discussion reminds me of an article I read not too long ago.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=02

The US should pursue more nuclear power, as some areas won't lend themselves well to alternatives. i.e. Solar on the rooftop, won't work well in areas with fewer sunny days.

However, in California, solar seems like a good option. At $10000-20000 per array, you can power your house. Considering housing costs here in California, that's a small percentage and it can pay for itself in 10-20 years(maybe less if energy prices continue to climb)

Solar only converts about 20% of the energy from the sun (per square meter). I wonder how much more efficient they can make it???

*Pete*

06-20-2008, 03:50 PM

oh..and contrary to a nuclear plant, if there is an accident, terrorist attack or a sudden shortage of water..the tower will simply melt, while a nuclear plant...well, we know what can happen, dont we? ;)

I hope your next president goes for these kinds of alternative sources of energy...far more cost effective, far faster to build and if you build many enough..you will match 45 nuclear reactors.

and..yeah, if a bird happens to fly into the sunrays, it wont become trashed flesh as with windturbines, it will become fried chicken...not even the most hardened enviros will complain about that, everybody likes fried chicken :D

prospector

06-20-2008, 04:04 PM

it will become fried chicken...

Oh, I can see it now
All these dogs and cats making their home below the mirrors, waiting for food to fall from heaven already cooked :lol:

But what happens if a mirror goes off?
Right now we can get arrested for just shining a pointer laser into the sky when a plane goes by. What will one of those mirrors do to blind a pilot at at critical point?
And who gets charged?

tfrank

06-20-2008, 04:09 PM

Perhaps an answer is trying a little bit of everything. Within 60 miles of my house there is a geothermal plant pulling steam out to drive turbines, several dairys capturing methane from cattle waste and either delivering the methane to a gas company or burning it in generators for electricity, and windmills popping up seemingly on every high ridge. There is even a canal company who delivers water for irrigation who has installed low head turbines in some canals to generate electricity. I don't think that there is "one" answer.

prospector

06-20-2008, 04:11 PM

Looking at that picture, it takes up a big swatch of ground for just that much water, How big of a spot would it take to power the New York metro area?
Would Conneticut be under mirrors and towers?
Would it take all of Iowa to power Chicago?

*Pete*

06-20-2008, 04:30 PM

Right now we can get arrested for just shining a pointer laser into the sky when a plane goes by. What will one of those mirrors do to blind a pilot at at critical point?

ever heard about someone becoming blind after watching a mirror? lol

there are a few hundred (or thousand) mirrors all focusing the sunlight into one, single spot..one of them dropping down, or shining on a pilot flying over the site wont do any harm.

Looking at that picture, it takes up a big swatch of ground for just that much water, How big of a spot would it take to power the New York metro area?

takes up a lot of ground?..you kidding me?
that cant be more than 150x150 meters...you wouldnt be able to fit a nuclear plant one a area ten times the size.

look...i know you are allergic to anything "enviro", you prefer the wellknown, expensive nuclear and coal plants, thats fine...you do know that you have to pay for that coal, and the plant, and for every single worker working the plants with your taxes (if goverment run) or the electricity bill (if privately run), dont you?

and not only that, you also have to pay for mining the coal, transporting it, mining uranium, storing the nuclear waste, and you have to pay for every single worker involved in the whole system of producing electricity for you and the rest of us, you pay for all of that.

if i were you, id think with my wallet and opt for building these..discusting enviro things, becouse it is a one time cost (and still cheap) to build them and nearly no cost running them...

and, not only would you get power that is so cheap that you can afford to leave lights on when you leave home, but you would also get an occasional fried chicken delivered to your doorstep, free of charge.

can you beat that kind of solution?

prospector

06-20-2008, 05:07 PM

But I don't look at these enviro things with teary eyes like it's the second coming or something.
I look from the practical side.

You say it's only 150 X 150 meters, but how many homes will it power for that size land plot?
And what about London, New York, LA, San Francisco, Tokyo, Paris, Moscow or any othe good sized city?
What kind of land coverage is needed for those?
Even if you want to use all types of 'green' power.

Would Ireland want all the power grids it would take for just London built on thier land? Would the rest of England want to be covered over with mirrors, airplane propeller towers, and solar panels just so people in London can have power?
Would the people of Nevada want this just so SanFran can have power?

What happens to the people who USE that land? Will there be no more hunting, fishing, 4 wheeling, personel mining...?....Those bring in BIG dollars to local economies.

Ya see, enviros don't think of the fallout for their teary eyed, oh so green, plans...just what feels good at the time.

And it's ANYTHING else, just so oil companies shut down...and that is the bottom line...close the oil companies.
With the new technology now, we CAN get the oil from the tar sands, we CAN get the oil from the shale, we CAN drill miles under the ocean to get oil,

will they (enviros) let us? Nope
With tarsands, shale and deep ocean drilling, we here in the US have more reserves that have been known about since the first oil well was producing than all of Mid East combined...didn't have technology to get it before but we do now.
Are we allowed to get it? Nope.

It's anything but the oil companies.

Doesn't matter how much land we have to steal (and yes, there will be emminent domain theft), just shut the oil companies.

And what about all the wildlife that will inevitably be disturbed?
Oh for green stuff it's ok but it's not ok for oil companies to disturb raindeer, it's not ok for lumberers to disturb fish or birds, or it's not ok for miners to disturb fish or dirt and plants, but ANYTHING can be killed off for 'green' stuff.

Greenies don't care about other stuff as long as their fad-of-the-moment gets forced upon the rest of us. Even if we are taxed to death to do it.

Yea, someone has to bring up all the bad stuff about the 'green' theories.

And yea, I know all the mining for coal and uranium and drilling for oil is paid for, but at least PEOPLE are working for the money, govt subsidies for 'green' ideas is not worked for, it's just taken.

*Pete*

06-20-2008, 05:25 PM

You say it's only 150 X 150 meters, but how many homes will it power for that size land plot?
And what about London, New York, LA, San Francisco, Tokyo, Paris, Moscow or any othe good sized city?

the plant that i posted an image of, produces 15 MW.
South Africa is building a new larger plant able to produce 100 MW.

A Nuclear plant, modern and with 4 fullsize reactors produces at best 1300 MW.

so by simple mathematics, if we estimate the production power of the plant in spain producing 15 MW from 150X150 m area.
an area of 300X300 should quadruple its production ability, giving 60 MW

so 1200x1200 meters should produce 960 MW..already pretty darn close to what a nuclear powerplant produces, and still using an area not too much larger than a typical wallmart.

How many cities will it power?...not enough?, build more of them or build them bigger.

as i mentioned, power gets transported all the time, having a large quantity of these plants in different places on the planet will at all times quarantee you electricity.

and fresh drinking water to go with your fried chickens...all at a low cost, no radiation danger and with only a few workers needed.

IMI

06-20-2008, 05:28 PM

oh..and as for the election in USA..vote Obama, he might have his flaws as does McCain, but he seems to be very inteligent and indepedent.

I would sooner die than vote for Obama.
Maybe he's intelligent, probably is, but it's pretty hard to tell, considering he doesn't say much beyond political catch phrases.
He does have a definite talent for completely evading answering any questions with actual answers, though. Gotta give him that.
Yeah, if you want to call Marxism independent thinking, then I guess he's independent.
He also has an extreme talent for making people think he's more than he is. What he actually is, is a communist with very very little experience in polotics, and even less knowledge of how things work in the non-Obama world. And he's got a huge list of very questionable friends.

Oh, one other thing, the "CHANGE!" candidate (Obama), seems to know little at all beyond how politics works. THAT, he's good at. Great at. being a politician, that is. Now, how is it so many people believe this guy who has been on the scene so little, yet learned so much about how the game is played, will be "changing" anything?
Not to mention he intends on stocking his cabinet with many old-school Washington politicians.
If anything at all is going to change, it will mean a weaker, poorer, more tax-burdened America, beholden to various government agencies for their sustenance.

To sum it up, Obama does not represent this elusive "change" thing. He's a typical politician, nothing more, but considerably less, in that he would be nothing but a puppet, following the directives of those who got him where he is.
And God forbid he should enact his own ideas...

Obama is a lying sack of sh1t, Far Left Radical Marxist, whose primary goal is to make the successful people in America pay for their opulent ways.

Wait until he gets forced to answer non-scripted questions after the conventions. We will see just who the real Obama is, how little he actually knows, how unrealistic his plans, and how radical he is.

The only reason many people think he's some kind of wunderkind is because he's the liberal media's darling. They've gone waayyy out of their way to shine him up and make sure the fallout doesn't tarnish him.

The man is a nice guy on the surface, but a complete idiot underneath, most certainly not at all slightly qualified to be president of this (or any) country.
I wouldn't even vote for him for county dog catcher.

*Pete*

06-20-2008, 05:29 PM

And yea, I know all the mining for coal and uranium and drilling for oil is paid for, but at least PEOPLE are working for the money, govt subsidies for 'green' ideas is not worked for, it's just taken.

you know..thats an incredibly socialistic idea, perhaps i misunderstood you all this time?

In the sovjet union there was no unemployement, as everyone was working with something, important or not..heck, even Hitler thought as you did and put the nations unemployed to build roads (today, autobahn :D) not to let people go on social wellfare...money need to be worked for.

*Pete*

06-20-2008, 05:36 PM

tfrank

06-20-2008, 05:43 PM

i hope that who ever you get elected will show himself to be worthy the task given to him.

You almost have to question the sanity of anyone who would even consider running!:D

prospector

06-20-2008, 05:48 PM

Those were govt jobs, paid for by taxes.
They did in fact work for the money (and they should now too, at half the basic min wage), but taxes paid for them.
I would rather the money go to independent companies, where people can buy stock and save for retirement. Sure some will go out of buisness, but then it's up to the investors to do their homework and sell the stock and go elseware to invest.
A govt program never ever works.....

We put in over 5 trillion dollars towards the 'great society' and there are still poor people, and more than before.
AND the 5 trillion is about the same as the National Debt....HMMM how'd that happen?

The govt arrested Charles Ponzi for devising his money making scheme...yet turned right around and turned the SAME scheme into the Social Security.

Everyone knows that eventually you run out of suckers at the bottom of the pyramid to pay the ones at the top.
And now it's broke...not going broke...it's BROKE...it was NEVER going to work.

Mike_RB

06-20-2008, 05:51 PM

How many square meters are used in the footprint for a single Nuke planet? I imagine you could fit quite a few 150x150m solar facilities in there.

prospector

06-20-2008, 05:52 PM

and even McCain should be better than him.

All we ask is he never bows to the UN and never backs down from a fight, NEVER raises taxes, and NEVER NEVER EVER agrees with the left under penelty of death. :thumbsup:

That would make a good prez.

prospector

06-20-2008, 05:53 PM

I imagine you could fit quite a few 150x150m solar facilities in there.

You might fit them, but the power output would be way off, so what would be the point?

*Pete*

06-20-2008, 06:06 PM

All we ask is he never bows to the UN and never backs down from a fight, NEVER raises taxes, and NEVER NEVER EVER agrees with the left under penelty of death. :thumbsup:

That would make a good prez.

never raises taxes??..man, how are you going to pay for your wars?

how about a compromise...build solar powerplants, and send all the now unemployed nuclear and coal plant workers (and the miners and drivers also) to Iraq, to do some good for the money, eh? ;)

cheap power (but you pay full price, to fund the workers who are now soldiers), more troops in Iraq and few unemployed...AND fried chicken

Mike_RB

06-20-2008, 06:14 PM

Crappy internet stat: 1000 Mw Nuke uses 2.35 square miles

So, Nuke = 1000 MW for (2.35 mi² = 6086472.059 m² )
Solar = 15MW for ( 0.008687 mi² = 22500m² )

So, to get the same juice as the nuke we need 67 solar plants. Which needs only 0.582 mi² or 0.008687 mi².

We can basically get 4 times the power output of a Nuke by filling the same area with these solar generators.... right?

prospector

06-20-2008, 06:16 PM

So your saying bring back the draft?

EXCELLENT !!!!

man, how are you going to pay for your wars?

Not raising taxes and CUTTING defunct programs like social security, welfare.

how about a compromise
with the left? NEVER !!
NEVER!!!
NEVER!!!!
never
ever

IMI

06-20-2008, 06:20 PM

Wow Imi...that was emotional lol

hey, politicians are politicians...dont expect too much of them.
but one thing is for sure, the world, and specially europe is preparing for an obama presidency and recent polls are suggesting that we already like the US far more than before...but hey, it could also be becouse Bush is about to leave the stage, and even McCain should be better than him.

its your election though...i hope that who ever you get elected will show himself to be worthy the task given to him.

Well, I needed to try and make my point about how I felt about him. ;)

If "...the world, and specially europe is preparing for an obama presidency..." it's only because you've allowed yourselves to believe exactly what the media wants you to believe. They have an infatuation with "getting right" with the rest of the world, want you to like us again, and so on and so on. And it's far more evident here than in Europe, or anywhere else, probably - they think if they say it over and over again they can make it happen - make everyone think that nobody would consider NOT voting for him, so everybody thinks it's just the thing to do.
But the facts regarding Obama are certainly out there, and it's all true - all the shady characters who have groomed and influenced him, shady deals with criminals, all kinds of stuff. Notice though how little is made of it, how quickly the mainstream media sweeps it under the rug and lavishes praise on him.

Obama is NOT the guy to have as president at this particular time, and I'm not referring to his bizarro belief that all our enemies can become our friends simply by reasoning with them - we have a failing economy (so they say), and he's going to put the final nails in the coffin if he gets elected. This man will RUIN the American economy completely if allowed to do what he wants. What makes it worse is we have a democrat-controlled Congress also run by far left commie pinko lunatics who will bow to his every whim.
They say McCain would be GWB's third term. Obama would be Jimmy Carter's second term. AT BEST.

"CHANGE!"
Yeah, right. Yet another politician pandering to the special interests. In this case, the gimmee-gimmee- I- want - a - handout, stick-it-to-the MAN special interests. The uneducated, the downtrodden, the Class Envy crowd, who think everything can be solved by taking more money from everyone and creating a government program to replace the free markets.

prospector

06-20-2008, 06:23 PM

1000 Mw Nuke uses 2.35 square miles
HU?
No nuke plant around her takes that much space.
The fenced in areas around here ar like 1/4 mile by 1/4 mile.
I can run the lenght of a fence here and not get tired even at my age.

prospector

06-20-2008, 06:26 PM

Did I say never? :D:D

Mike_RB

06-20-2008, 06:33 PM

HU?
No nuke plant around her takes that much space.
The fenced in areas around here ar like 1/4 mile by 1/4 mile.
I can run the lenght of a fence here and not get tired even at my age.

Find me a Nuke plant on google maps that's only 400m on a side in the fenced in area.

The solar tower stat is wrong. It uses 74,880 meters square area, so 3 times more than was posted above. But thats still 1219 MW for 2.35 miles.

So lets see some real stats on nuke plant footprints... A quick search shows a cooling tower can be up to 100m in diameter. They usually have a couple of them right? With space in between? And then a fence far enough away to keep people from lobbing rocks at them, and some access roads...

Mike_RB

06-20-2008, 06:40 PM

Ok, found a stat you can built a nuke on less than a square mile... so lets assume .8? Which still gives you 33 of these solar towers. So 495 MW for the same land area. I'd still rather live next to a bunch of the solar towers than a bunch of reactors....

SP00

06-20-2008, 06:57 PM

prospector

06-20-2008, 07:23 PM

Here is a 2 stacker
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Shickshinny,+Pennsylvania,&ie=UTF8&ll=41.091643,-76.143537&spn=0.021897,0.042057&t=h&z=15
bout a half sq mi looks like with a quick look. (I don't have a tapemeasure handy:D)

prospector

06-20-2008, 07:24 PM

Oh you found one too :thumbsup:

And they could be made smaller by putting in underground (under buildings) parking instead of spreading out into fields.

A nuke plant, could be made very small in total footprint.

SP00

06-20-2008, 07:25 PM

Does Nuke plants have a larger buffer zone beyond the fence? Like some safety zone where nothing can be built next to it. Google earth program has a tape measure, if anyone wants to try it.

prospector

06-20-2008, 07:43 PM

Not in the one I linked to above, there's a farm right across the street and farmland right outside the fence.

Titus

06-20-2008, 09:06 PM

Find me a Nuke plant on google maps that's only 400m on a side in the fenced in area.

You also need a lot of water to run a nuclear plant.

TripD

06-20-2008, 11:05 PM

Fusion is reckoned to be 40 years away. Along with teleporters and time machines.

Can't we take a loan out on the time machine and just get to the fusion already? :D

Stooch

06-21-2008, 12:07 AM

and..yeah, if a bird happens to fly into the sunrays, it wont become trashed flesh as with windturbines, it will become fried chicken...not even the most hardened enviros will complain about that, everybody likes fried chicken :D

Especially Obama... every day i see more reasons to elect him.

Stooch

06-21-2008, 12:16 AM

I would sooner die than vote for Obama..
another great reason to vote for obama! wow he is shaping up to be a real winner at this rate.

wavk

06-21-2008, 03:25 AM

best reason to vote for obama - mccain.
mccain's a nutter.

mlon

*Pete*

06-21-2008, 03:37 AM

Does Nuke plants have a larger buffer zone beyond the fence? Like some safety zone where nothing can be built next to it. Google earth program has a tape measure, if anyone wants to try it.

suuuure, theres a lot of nuclear power plants built in the middle of cities (yeah, right). :D

as i see it, there are green solutions to match every "old" solution, including nuclear power that will produce a lot of power with a low cost.

then there is even solutions as from Bellona, where you combine a algie growing facility and end up having power produced by coal plants, and the CO2 released from them will be used to grow algies, which in turn becomes biofuel....

but, for some reason, most polliticians are conservative and not willing to go new routes.

prospector

06-21-2008, 09:34 AM

most polliticians are conservative and not willing to go new routes.
Because we have what we need now, there is no desperate need to just switch horses in midstream. Maby in a hunnert years when our oil runs out we can see what technology has to offer, which may even be better than what is offered now...and cheaper.
There may even be car sized fusion plants for less than a battery pack costs to install now.

There is PLENTY of oil here and no matter what enviros say, we WILL extract it.

prospector

06-21-2008, 10:29 AM

Main article: Oil shale reserves
The United States has the largest known deposits of oil shale in the world, according to the Bureau of Land Management and holds an estimated 2,500 gigabarrels of potentially recoverable oil, enough to meet U.S. demand for oil at current rates for 110 years. However, oil shale does not actually contain oil, but a waxy oil precursor known as kerogen. For this reason and because there is not yet any significant commercial production of oil from oil shale in the United States as of 2008, its oil shale reserves do not meet the petroleum industry definition of proven oil reserves.

Recoverable Shale Oil throughout the World [1]
Region Recoverable resources in billions of barrels, assuming a 37% recovery factor.
United States 626 592
South America (Brazil) 300 89
Russia 41
Zaire 38
Jordan 25
Morroco 21
Australia 17 14
Canada 16 9
Italy 13
China 10
Estonia 1 7
Israel 2
Northern and western Europe 2
Other countries 3

WHOA !!!!! Way to go US :thumbsup:

That's just shale oil...not tar sands

Recoverable Tar Sand (Bitumen) Resources of the World [1]
Region Recoverable resources in billions of barrels, assuming a 10% recovery factor
United States 4.3
Canada 265.5
South America 0.9
Western Europe 0.0
Eastern Europe 0.1
Russia 76.2
Transcaucasia and Central Asia 2.0
Africa 4.0
Asia 0.0
China 1.0

WHAO !!!! Way to go CANADA !! :thumbsup:

Just the US and Canada has more oil LEFT than all oil used since oil was burned PLUS what is still left in Mideast combined
WAY TO GO N.America !!! :thumbsup:

Yes..we have PLENTY of oil left for a hunnert years at a 37% recovery rate
and who knows..in a hunnert years we could get the rest with newer technology giving us another few trillion gallons of oil.

Oh, and how about natural gas?

United States in TRILLIONS of cu.ft.
204.385 BP Statistical Review2 Year-End 2005
204.385 CEDIGAZ January 1, 2006
204.385 Oil & Gas Journal3 January 1, 2007
204.385 World Oil Year-End 2005

Yes, yes...we will be using petroleum for centuries to come...

IMI

06-21-2008, 11:30 AM

best reason to vote for obama - mccain.
mccain's a nutter.

mlon

There's no good reason to vote for Obama.
Aside from that, an election is supposed to be for voting for the candidate you like, not voting for someone just because he isn't the other guy.

I really wish somewhere right after the conventions there were a general vote open to everyone to cast a vote for whether or not they approve of the candidates enough to move on to the general election.

It was the media who chose both our candidates. First, they "liked" McCain, because he's a liberal pretending to be a republican (and if he had won it wouldn't have been so bad, in their view). Their early support of McCain effectively destroyed all the other repub's chances. Then they turned on McCain after it was obvious he would be the nominee.
Then they turned on Hillary with a vengeance, hoping it would be Obama to get the nomination.

Well, they would have been better off supporting Hillary, because with it down to McCain against Obama, I'd say McCain is likely to win. Every time Obama speaks somewhere he leaves behind a whole lot of ammunition for the McCain camp to use against him.
Just yesterday he said that the republicans would use the fact he's black against him. Now, why did he do that? To put the idea in the minority voter's heads, that's why. Make them angry. Make them feel oppressed. Whether it's true or not, he made it true in many people's minds just by saying it.
For someone who didn't want to run a campaign base on race, he sure brings it up alot...
Oh and he's also using a new logo designed to look just like the presidential seal, which is actually a crime, believe it or not. he might have changed it just enough to be legal, but I don't know if that's been decided or not. The reason he did it though, is important - he wants to see if the repubs try to prosecute him for it, and sit back and let the media take over his defense if that happens. Just a theory. ;)

The Change Candidate....
He's devious, arrogant and ignorant. And anyone who believes for a minute he's anything but a run of the mill, power hungry, ambitious politician is sadly mistaken.

I'm not thrilled about McCain, either - far far from it. He may claim to be strong on "the war on terror" (whatever that is these days), but he's weak on all the other things immediately affecting our security and way of life. Pretty much the only thing he's said I like is about the nukes and new oil wells.

At this point we might as well just randomly select any American citizen, and it probably wouldn't turn out any worse.

IMI

06-21-2008, 11:39 AM

but, for some reason, most polliticians are conservative and not willing to go new routes.

I don't think our politicians are afraid to go new routes. I think the trend is actually heading that way, and will increase in the future.
For now though, we're not ready to switch over - we need to continue with what we know works, AS we develop the newer and cleaner technologies. I mean, even though we have plenty of the stuff, we can't just plan on waiting until it's all gone to think up something else, even if that IS several centuries in the future.

*Pete*

06-21-2008, 11:48 AM

There's no good reason to vote for Obama.
Aside from that, an election is supposed to be for voting for the candidate you like, not voting for someone just because he isn't the other guy.

Actually, voting against someone is a very democratic thing...if you do not like mr A as a person, but dislike the policy of mr B, voting for A would be the democratic thing to do, becouse after all...you are not voting only for the person who is to be the president, you are voting for the course the nation is about to take for the next 4 (or more) years.

the differences between your canditates are strong.
economy, Iraq war, womens rights and so forth....would you vote for McCain, knowing that he will keep on fighting in Iraq and this resulting in another 4000 dead american soldiers, only becouse you "like the guy"?

or opposite, would you vote Obama only becouse you think it is a historic chance to get a black president, when you truly feel that he will make the nation unsafe?

see, in the end...your not voting for the man (or woman) to be a president, you are actually deciding the course the nation is to take, or against the course you do not want the nation to take.

At this point we might as well just randomly select any American citizen, and it probably wouldn't turn out any worse.

you are most likely correct, as long as that random person is not Prospector :D

seriously...all politicians are out of touch and have no idea what we, the people need, they base a lot of decisions on polls and quesses..while a person, randomly selected, could actually make a few right choices that most people could agree with.

prospector

06-21-2008, 11:50 AM

At this point we might as well just randomly select any American citizen, and it probably wouldn't turn out any worse.

ME !!! ME !!!! ME !!!!

And if elected my fellow Americans,
I will cut taxes to only what is mandated in the Constitution,
I will protect the borders as is mandated in the Constitution,
I will guarantee the PERSUIT of happiness which is ALL that is guaranteed in the Constitution,
I will eliminate the ponzi scheme known as the Social Security for ALL future generations,
I will implement a WORK FOR MONEY unemployment system,
I will endeavour to put the country on a conservation footing, WHERE IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH HUMAN DEVELOPMENT.
I will again have morals taught in school
I will remove the US from the UN
All enemies of the US will get 1 warning only with a 24 hour time limit.
I will consolidate the military into 1 force with no ground troops. (we have enough missiles to take out a city (without nukes by the way), so no need to put people in harms way.

And finally I will totally eradicate liberalism in the US and only make an exception for T. Kennedy and N. Pelosi who are to be kept in a home behind sound proof, unbreakable glass so all the citizens of the US can remember and see what kind of people liberalism makes.
And in the home next doors to them will be kept a trial lawyer AKA ambulance chaser and liberal teacher, so people will not forget what terrible things they have wrought on the country.

Thank you, and good night :thumbsup:

prospector

06-21-2008, 11:55 AM

you are most likely correct, as long as that random person is not Prospector

HEY

I think my platform is very reasonable :hey:

IMI

06-21-2008, 12:01 PM

Actually, voting against someone is a very democratic thing...if you do not like mr A as a person, but dislike the policy of mr B, voting for A would be the democratic thing to do, becouse after all...you are not voting only for the person who is to be the president, you are voting for the course the nation is about to take for the next 4 (or more) years.

the differences between your canditates are strong.
economy, Iraq war, womens rights and so forth....would you vote for McCain, knowing that he will keep on fighting in Iraq and this resulting in another 4000 dead american soldiers, only becouse you "like the guy"?

or opposite, would you vote Obama only becouse you think it is a historic chance to get a black president, when you truly feel that he will make the nation unsafe?

see, in the end...your not voting for the man (or woman) to be a president, you are actually deciding the course the nation is to take, or against the course you do not want the nation to take.

Well, what I meant was it *shouldn't* be that way. We should not be limited to so few choices. The right and left disagree with everything, but they unite completely when it comes to squashing any alternative parties, such as Libertarians or Independents. A so-called democracy (republic) should not allow itself to be run over by the status quo, should certainly not simply accept a two-party system only. The republicans and the democrats are simply too powerful to fight, when they unite. If there's anything truly "unfair" in the USA it's that we are forced year after year, election after election, to become enslaved by these people of these two parties, with very few exceptions.

Much as it'll nauseate me to do it, I'll vote for McCain just because he isn't Obama, but I won't like it much, and I'll probably have to have a barf bag with me for afterwards. ;)

seriously...all politicians are out of touch and have no idea what we, the people need, they base a lot of decisions on polls and quesses..while a person, randomly selected, could actually make a few right choices that most people could agree with.

Again... the political scene here has become so corrupted and so based on money, we're not likely to ever get anyone who isn't anything more than a well-practiced master of the game. The game of politics and power, that is. Oh, and entertainment, too. The American Presidency election process isn't so much different from American Idol these days.

prospector

06-21-2008, 12:06 PM

Much as it'll nauseate me to do it, I'll vote for McCain just because he isn't Obama,
Me too, just because he won't sit down and have crumpets and tea with the enemies.

IMI

06-21-2008, 12:08 PM

ME !!! ME !!!! ME !!!!

And if elected my fellow Americans,
I will cut taxes to only what is mandated in the Constitution,
I will protect the borders as is mandated in the Constitution,
I will guarantee the PERSUIT of happiness which is ALL that is guaranteed in the Constitution,
I will eliminate the ponzi scheme known as the Social Security for ALL future generations,
I will implement a WORK FOR MONEY unemployment system,
I will endeavour to put the country on a conservation footing, WHERE IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH HUMAN DEVELOPMENT.
I will again have morals taught in school
I will remove the US from the UN
All enemies of the US will get 1 warning only with a 24 hour time limit.
I will consolidate the military into 1 force with no ground troops. (we have enough missiles to take out a city (without nukes by the way), so no need to put people in harms way.

And finally I will totally eradicate liberalism in the US and only make an exception for T. Kennedy and N. Pelosi who are to be kept in a home behind sound proof, unbreakable glass so all the citizens of the US can remember and see what kind of people liberalism makes.
And in the home next doors to them will be kept a trial lawyer AKA ambulance chaser and liberal teacher, so people will not forget what terrible things they have wrought on the country.

Thank you, and good night :thumbsup:

You've got *my* vote, prospector. :bowdown:
While I approve of your Pelosi and Kennedy policy, I have to point out you seem to have omitted one Harry Reid. Hopefully that's merely an oversight. ;)

prospector

06-21-2008, 12:10 PM

I have to point out you seem to have omitted one Harry Reid. Hopefully that's merely an oversight.
Not forgotten...we are deporting him to Oslo so *Pete* can deal with him

:D:devil::D:devil::thumbsup:

prospector

06-21-2008, 12:13 PM

And I see Isreal is doing something.....cool
Now we need to just stay out of their way for a few months.
All will be fixed without the UN....again :hey:

SP00

06-21-2008, 12:21 PM

I think Obama is just too inexperience and just doesn't have what it takes to be a presidents. He might have great ideas, but I don't think he is capable of executing them. McCain can put his ideas to work, its just that he doesn't necessary have the best ideas. So they both are not good. I will most like vote for McCain, but I really rather have him look at other sources of energy besides nuclear.

Nuclear in theory kinda makes sense, but having the administrative power to make sure depleted uranium waste is recycled to the point that they have little radiation and disposed of properly is a big task. Transporting Uranium is a very risky job due to thing that can happen when you transport highly volatile and dangerous material. Building these Nuclear plant needs to be done well to prevent meltdown. You just need 1 slip to have an environmental disaster. There are just too many fatal steps in building, running and supplying a Nuclear plant. Drilling for oil in the ocean can also be an environmental disaster. Remember what happened to the last big oil spill. If done properly Nuclear and off shore oil drilling can be a great source of energy, but we are not perfect and therefore we are bound to make a costly mistake. Like the old saying goes, if you play with fire, you will eventually get burned.

With Solar, Wind, and other forms of renewable energy, we have practically no risky steps. Therefore, we don't need the administrative ability and the watchful eye of uncle sam that they are doing the right thing. It's just easier and simpler. Any mistakes made will not cause an environmental disaster.

prospector

06-21-2008, 12:33 PM

He might have great ideas,
I haven't heard of any other than taxing oil companies, which as sure as the sun comes up will be passed onto us, and other taxes he WANTS to put on us.
But he does want change

Change in what?

Home ownership is all time high
we going back to all time low?

Unemployment is very low
we going back to carter years?

Interest rates low
we going back to 20+% ?

Havent been hit by terrorist in years
We going back to Clintons once about every 8 months getting hit?

What change??

kopperdrake

06-21-2008, 12:36 PM

Not a modern superstition at all. It's that same fear mongering thing, but from the far Left. Not at all unlike the fear mongering they accuse the Right of doing when it comes to national security. It's a very proactive fear mongering, created by and perpetuated by a very small but active group of uninformed people. Not a superstiton. Intentional misinformation.

Well I don't class myself as fear-mongering, I just feel strongly it's daft to pump radioactive waste far underground where it sits for thousands of years finding its way to a safer level. I don't trust people to make something earth tremor/flood proof - hell, our government can't even keep pieces of private paper and hard disks safe, let alone something like that. Can you imagine *any* corporate company involved with long term storage of waste being that concerned about the long-term reliability of their storage systems when you're talking thousands of years? No...if that stuff's dumped in our ground then it's a matter of time before human ineptitude trumps and we get leaks into water systems or somesuch - call me old enough to be cynical about human ability - forget star trek - this is real.

I've no idea what the answer is, all I know is that we waste a stupid amount of fuel - every time I see a plastic bottle discarded at the side of the road over here I think how stupid humans are as a race...really stupid, ignorant and quite often arrogant. Of course, I count myself as a fully fledged member :)

IMI

06-21-2008, 12:39 PM

I think Obama is just too inexperience and just doesn't have what it takes to be a presidents. He might have great ideas, but I don't think he is capable of executing them.

That's the thing - his ideas aren't great. In fact, his ideas are pretty lousy. Except for those who want a government that's more in your face, attempting to regulate and control every aspect of your life, and take lots more from you in taxes in order to achieve that....

Ideas aside, I can't help but notice he hasn't said much at all how he plans on achieving any of that. I guess that's just being nitpicky though. ;)

IMI

06-21-2008, 12:53 PM

Well I don't class myself as fear-mongering, I just feel strongly it's daft to pump radioactive waste far underground where it sits for thousands of years finding its way to a safer level. I don't trust people to make something earth tremor/flood proof - hell, our government can't even keep pieces of private paper and hard disks safe, let alone something like that. Can you imagine *any* corporate company involved with long term storage of waste being that concerned about the long-term reliability of their storage systems when you're talking thousands of years? No...if that stuff's dumped in our ground then it's a matter of time before human ineptitude trumps and we get leaks into water systems or somesuch - call me old enough to be cynical about human ability - forget star trek - this is real.

I've no idea what the answer is, all I know is that we waste a stupid amount of fuel - every time I see a plastic bottle discarded at the side of the road over here I think how stupid humans are as a race...really stupid, ignorant and quite often arrogant. Of course, I count myself as a fully fledged member :)

Well I don't know. I saw a show on the Discovery Channel showing them sealing nuclear waste into a "glassified" sand mixture, then packing that into very thick lead lined stainless steel canisters which were designed to stay intact under extreme condidtions. Even so, the waste itself was then a solid glassy thing which can't seep or dissolve in the event the canister fails.

prospector

06-21-2008, 01:04 PM

every time I see a plastic bottle discarded at the side of the road over here I think how stupid humans are as a race...really stupid, ignorant and quite often arrogant.

Indeed

Over here there are tires, refrigerators, stoves, all along the roads where it's out of the way of viewers.

Why?
because the city CHARGES 35 bucks to dispose of 1 tire, 25 for a frig and appliances.

They collect TAXES to pay for disposal, and they want us to pay MORE?
It just cost me 10 bucks to get rid of one of my lawnmower tires, I won't do that anymore...there are too many woods around here to be bothered with transporting them to dump AND to pay extra for the privilege.

IMI

06-21-2008, 01:12 PM

Why?
because the city CHARGES 35 bucks to dispose of 1 tire, 25 for a frig and appliances.

They collect TAXES to pay for disposal, and they want us to pay MORE?

Yeah, we also pay taxes so the city can pick up the recyclables and make money cashing them in.
We have a new tax here to help subsidize the emergency services. 'cause you know, it gets expensive sending six police cars, two ambulances and a fire truck to a fender-bender. ;)

prospector

06-21-2008, 01:14 PM

'cause you know, it gets expensive sending six police cars, two ambulances and a fire truck to a fender-bender.

Yea, that's funny...you'd think they had Osama surrounded till I think about how much it's costing :thumbsdow

UltraViolet

06-21-2008, 01:22 PM

I do not like Obama much. But I like American people and respect their opinions on major stuff. Most of them oppose the war and more nuclear plants. Therefore I will vote for him. Simple, really :)

prospector

06-21-2008, 01:22 PM

I like the news story I heard yesterday.
Someone with a sword held police at bay for 11 hours someplace.

11 HOURS !! A full police force, 11 HOURS !!!

Just shoot the S.O.B. in the legs, use at most 10 bucks for bullets, and get on with protecting the city.

IMI

06-21-2008, 01:37 PM

I do not like Obama much. But I like American people and respect their opinions on major stuff.

Well, I hope you like huge tax increases, the government taking over private enterprise and long, long waits for substandard health care, too, because that's what you'll be voting for. :D

Most of them oppose the war and more nuclear plants.

You sure about that? It's actually about equally split, as long as you don't rely entirely on the mainstream media for your information.
I might add, most Americans NOW AGREE we should drill for more oil and create new refineries. Obama's not into that idea, either.

Stooch

06-21-2008, 01:38 PM

There's no good reason to vote for Obama.
Aside from that, an election is supposed to be for voting for the candidate you like, not voting for someone just because he isn't the other guy. ..........

............... At this point we might as well just randomly select any American citizen, and it probably wouldn't turn out any worse.

you are describing your average politician they all use tactics like these to win. its not their fault its the fault of the environment they are in. you gotta do what you gotta do. i think that there are so many notions of the ideal politician that its pointless try to appease everyone. the point is to get the majority.

as far as politicians being "too conservative" no its not that. a good politician will gauge the public and appeal to the majority. its not about being conservative its about appearing as conservative as the majority is likely to be. americans tend to shovel all responsibilities on one person. shift the blame etc. people need to take responsibility for their own decisions and stupid opinions that fill many political threads. even voters tend to fit into the general mood, opting to go as a herd. there are lots of bush voters out there afterall that are insulting him now when the reality of the fact is they put him there..

jasonwestmas

06-21-2008, 01:51 PM

americans tend to shovel all responsibilities on one person. shift the blame etc. people need to take responsibility for their own decisions and stupid opinions that fill many political threads.

Many people do think the Gov't is fundamentally responsible for everything people do, when in actuallity it's the other way around. The things that concern people the most involves a far deeper problem that has nothing to do with politics. . .the people themselves.

Stooch

06-21-2008, 01:56 PM

Me too, just because he won't sit down and have crumpets and tea with the enemies.

like alquaida? but didnt the US give them crumpets in the form of funding and weapons?

i think your attitude is exactly why we are in the current mess at the moment. you are basically repeating the bush ******** and its obvious that his hard line stance didnt do jack **** for the US. as far as using missiles, yeah thats good, destroy a city with missiles. nice... lots of friends will run out and embrace america right? you have no exit strategy because when you deal with enemies using a boolean operation - You make lots of new ones in the form of victims or children of victims. its progressive of obama to try a different approach, he recognizes that not everyone over there is an idiot. sort of like not everyone in america is (appearances are deceptive). just where do you draw the line in your "enemy" parsing algorithm.

what our election system needs is a better pool of candidates where any significant financial affiliation with the constituents is banned by law. thats what i like about obama, he seems to have less third party interests holding his leash.

IMI

06-21-2008, 01:59 PM

you are describing your average politician they all use tactics like these to win. its not their fault its the fault of the environment they are in. you gotta do what you gotta do. i think that there are so many notions of the ideal politician that its pointless try to appease everyone. the point is to get the majority.

as far as politicians being "too conservative" no its not that. a good politician will gauge the public and appeal to the majority. its not about being conservative its about appearing as conservative as the majority is likely to be. americans tend to shovel all responsibilities on one person. shift the blame etc. people need to take responsibility for their own decisions and stupid opinions that fill many political threads.

I'd agree completely with all of that.
I don't fault the politicians for pandering to their base. They want the job, after all, and that's how politics works.
The problem isn't in that, the problem is when people believe they're sincere and ignore the signs which are blatatantly contradicting that facade of sincerity and honesty and integrity.
The problem is, most people are too wrapped up in their own lives to take the time to see who's who and what's what and to consider what they're asking for. Most people don't look far beyond the packaging.
What's even worse is we never properly grill these people. We largely allow them to set the venues and know the questions ahead of time - we rarely get a true insight into what we have to work with unless the politician in question goes out on a limb. Which usually turns out badly for him.

My biggest gripe is this is the third presidential election in a row now that I have nobody to vote for I feel satisfied with, and I'm disgusted that we don't get the opportunity to have *real* change. The "change" they all push is always just a shift from one same ol' same ol' party to the other same ol' same ol' party.

IMI

06-21-2008, 02:08 PM

what our election system needs is a better pool of candidates where any significant financial affiliation with the constituents is banned by law. thats what i like about obama, he seems to have less third party interests holding his leash.

I agree on the financial part.
But less third party interests? How about almost the entire US Media?
But he really doesn't need anything more than the media. He who controls the press and all that...
You see what they did to Hillary? And Bill, too? Notice how every time Obama gaffes they quickly bury it or ignore it altogether?
I'd say the media is a very powerful friend, indeed, ALOT more powerful than mere money. And you can bet they'll be leading him like any good puppetmaster would.

UltraViolet

06-21-2008, 02:11 PM

Well, I hope you like huge tax increases, the government taking over private enterprise and long, long waits for substandard health care, too, because that's what you'll be voting for. :D

I lived in the country with socialized health care for 25 years and I liked it a lot. I guess powers to be (insurance and pharmaceutical companies) thrive on those who never experienced it by brainwashing them into thinking that it leads to more taxes (did you ever had a medical bill over $500000, one of my friends did, guess what, he lost his house over it) and ultimately communism.

I pay $85/week (which is 25% of my income) for insurance. Are you suggesting they are going to increase taxes that much? :D

You sure about that? It's actually about equally split, as long as you don't rely entirely on the mainstream media for your information.
I might add, most Americans NOW AGREE we should drill for more oil and create new refineries. Obama's not into that idea, either.

Not 100%, nobody is, but I tend to believe it. I think deep inside we all are, because we would not like another country to invade us and tell us what democracy is all about...

Here are some polls:

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Cheers :)

IMI

06-21-2008, 02:32 PM

I lived in the country with socialized health care for 25 years and I liked it a lot. I guess powers to be (insurance and pharmaceutical companies) thrive on those who never experienced it by brainwashing them into thinking that it leads to more taxes (did you ever had a medical bill over $500000, one of my friends did, guess what, he lost his house over it) and ultimately communism.

While it may work in some countries, the US isn't set up to suddenly deal with such a huge change. And, you know, if you were a great doctor, would you rather be overworked and underpaid, working for the government, or would you go into private practice or to a different country?

Well, in any event, it's a bad fix to socialize health care. Why? Because the only reason people can't afford it is because of the government's interference to begin with. They've regulated and taxed it to death. And they've allowed the greedy trial lawyers to run amok over it, hugely increasing its costs.

We need the federal government to step in and repair their broken mess by adding even more red tape and bureaucracy? No, what we need is for them to back off and allow the free market to do their thing.
Doctors and hospitals aren't going to be successful if nobody can afford it, and in a free market, the idea is to be successful.
Oh, there needs to be regulation of course, but they need to regulate the burden they place on doctors and hospitals and the burden the lawyers and insurance companies place on the whole system.

IMI

06-21-2008, 02:38 PM

Why do you suppose it costs a thousand dollars or more for a simple one night stay in a hospital?
Liability. The fact that if even the slightest mistake is made, their insurance might have to pay someone an extremely unbalanced payoff, because some lawyer needs a new Ferrari and an island to park it on.
And the government, coincidentally enough almost entirely made up of lawyers, has no problem with this....
Not to mention all the federal regulations in place which cost the doctors and hospitals ridiculous sums of money.

prospector

06-21-2008, 03:23 PM

prospector

06-21-2008, 03:24 PM

Why do you suppose it costs a thousand dollars or more for a simple one night stay in a hospital?

Maby side bennies from nurses?

Just kidding :)

jasonwestmas

06-21-2008, 03:40 PM

I sometimes wonder how the US became the strongest (in military and industrial) country on the face of the planet without the red tape, the regulations, the taxes, and the trial lawyers in our first 200 years......

Or maby it was because we DIDN'T have all that.........yea, that's it

So we can truthfully say that GOVT IS THE PROBLEM and NOT THE SOLUTION.

I think Renaldus Maximus :bowdown:, (Ronald Reagan to you outsiders) said that.

The only reason the government would be a problem is because it doesn't have a solution. The government can make things legal or illegal but that's about it. . . . In other words the government is expected to do things that it was never designed to do in the first place like solve the greatest mystery of all. . . Human Nature. There is nothing political about humans, it's something imposed upon people in order to cage them up and protect them from those who wish to do them harm (and in the mean time create collateral damage). . . .So I partly agree with that statement.

Puguglybonehead

06-21-2008, 04:14 PM

While it may work in some countries, the US isn't set up to suddenly deal with such a huge change. And, you know, if you were a great doctor, would you rather be overworked and underpaid, working for the government, or would you go into private practice or to a different country?

Well, in any event, it's a bad fix to socialize health care. Why? Because the only reason people can't afford it is because of the government's interference to begin with. They've regulated and taxed it to death. And they've allowed the greedy trial lawyers to run amok over it, hugely increasing its costs.

We need the federal government to step in and repair their broken mess by adding even more red tape and bureaucracy? No, what we need is for them to back off and allow the free market to do their thing.
Doctors and hospitals aren't going to be successful if nobody can afford it, and in a free market, the idea is to be successful.
Oh, there needs to be regulation of course, but they need to regulate the burden they place on doctors and hospitals and the burden the lawyers and insurance companies place on the whole system.

Socialized medicine's been working just fine up here. Sometimes there are problems with administering fair payment. Occasionally, the doctors have to threaten a strike, when the government tries to do something sneaky, to compromise their payment system (I totally sympathize with the doctors in these cases), but for the most part, it works just fine. The only problems have been hypochondriacs abusing the system by going for medical attention for every little 'sniffle' they get, or the usual fraud cases of illegal residents with forged or stolen health-insurance numbers.

The thing is, if you get sick here, you don't have to lose your house because of it. Good system. You should try it, you might like it.

Jim_C

06-21-2008, 05:01 PM

Puguglybonehead

06-21-2008, 05:43 PM

How is all of it funded?
Is there a max anount?per year? lifetime?
Can you choose your own Dr?
What are wait times like for surgeries or major procedures.

Thanks a bunch for the info!
Jim
As would be expected, it is funded by tax. It's a combination of federal and provincial taxes (which results in a lot of arguing between the federal government and the provinces over who is paying for what). Here in Ontario, we used to have to pay health insurance premiums, every 3 months, to cover ourselves, but it is now covered completely in our taxes (we're still paying for it).

Health Canada (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/medi-assur/index-eng.php) has some information.

It's a hot topic all over the country, anytime there is talk of privatization of health care or anything that might threaten the current system. Countless polls that have been conducted over the years, show that the majority of Canadians support universal health care and want to keep it the way it is now.

IMI

06-21-2008, 05:43 PM

Socialized medicine's been working just fine up here. Sometimes there are problems with administering fair payment. Occasionally, the doctors have to threaten a strike, when the government tries to do something sneaky, to compromise their payment system (I totally sympathize with the doctors in these cases), but for the most part, it works just fine. The only problems have been hypochondriacs abusing the system by going for medical attention for every little 'sniffle' they get, or the usual fraud cases of illegal residents with forged or stolen health-insurance numbers.

The thing is, if you get sick here, you don't have to lose your house because of it. Good system. You should try it, you might like it.

I've heard lots of Canadians say that. If your system works for you, that's great. How long have you been at it? What did you have before, or has it always been that way? What was the transition like?
I see the US trying to pull that off and I see, first, like you said, " hypochondriacs abusing the system by going for medical attention for every little 'sniffle' they get..", and then a hopelessly inefficient tangled mess of bureaucracy slowing the system to a crawl.
If they have to do something, I don't see why they can't just buy proper supplemental insurance for the people who need financial assistance, and then pay close attention to who's claiming what.
Myself, I'm well insured through my employer, and on my own. It's not cheap, but it's pretty well-rounded. But I don't have a problem with a tax increase to finance a system of helping others who don't have my kind of coverage. I just don't want to see the federal US government trying to run the show.
I also want to see some "change" in the things which drive up the costs to begin with.
As it is, doctor screws up. Lawyer sues. Doctor's insurance rate goes up, doctor makes less money. Doctor raises rates, no big deal.
How about, Doctor screws up, doctor loses his license? Or jail?
Better yet, permanently revoke his country club membership and remove his right to bear golf clubs. ;)

Puguglybonehead

06-21-2008, 06:42 PM

I've heard lots of Canadians say that. If your system works for you, that's great. How long have you been at it? What did you have before, or has it always been that way? What was the transition like?
I see the US trying to pull that off and I see, first, like you said, " hypochondriacs abusing the system by going for medical attention for every little 'sniffle' they get..", and then a hopelessly inefficient tangled mess of bureaucracy slowing the system to a crawl.
If they have to do something, I don't see why they can't just buy proper supplemental insurance for the people who need financial assistance, and then pay close attention to who's claiming what.
Myself, I'm well insured through my employer, and on my own. It's not cheap, but it's pretty well-rounded. But I don't have a problem with a tax increase to finance a system of helping others who don't have my kind of coverage. I just don't want to see the federal US government trying to run the show.
I also want to see some "change" in the things which drive up the costs to begin with.
As it is, doctor screws up. Lawyer sues. Doctor's insurance rate goes up, doctor makes less money. Doctor raises rates, no big deal.
How about, Doctor screws up, doctor loses his license? Or jail?
Better yet, permanently revoke his country club membership and remove his right to bear golf clubs. ;)

The system has been around, in one form or another, since 1961. Since I was born in 1959, I can't really tell you what it was like before then. I know the transition from having to pay health premiums, to having it all included in taxes, had a lot of people worried about ridiculous tax increases. The increase in tax was almost completely unnoticeable. (although the price of beer went way up, due to added-on, built-in 'sin-taxes':thumbsdow)

As for litigation adding to costs, that really hasn't happened here yet. Trying to sue a physician or a medical institution is a lot more difficult here, than it is in the USA. I'm not sure if it is due to liability being shared by the medical system, or just that our laws don't allow for so much malpractice litigation.

Additional private medical insurance is still a good thing to have. It's something I look for, when I'm looking at a new job. A lot of things like prescription medicines are still not covered by medicare in most of the provinces.

The system isn't perfect. There are problems. Waiting lists for critical things like surgery, cancer treatment. There is a shortage of doctors. A lot of them did decide to go south to make more money. I would gladly pay more tax to get them back. Also a shortage in nurses and other support personnel, but that problem, at least, is being addressed now. Also, the increasing median age of the population isn't helping the system any. Baby boomers are now passing middle age, and a generation that has been known for a life of self-indulgence and excess, isn't exactly the healthiest or cheapest to care for when they are approaching retirement age. Plus, there are now a lot of skilled people to replace, who are retiring from the medical community.

I think the paying of health premiums will probably have to make a reappearance at some point, if we want to sustain the current level of health coverage. I was able to afford them way back-in-the-day, when I was making minimum wage (the premiums were one price, irregardless of income, if I remember correctly). Hopefully, if it comes to that, some type of a fair payment system can still be worked out.

prospector

06-21-2008, 06:58 PM

Intuition

06-21-2008, 08:37 PM

Man, I've been following the hydrogen vehicles development since the late 90s. Problem is that as viable as hydrogen is for cleaning up the air and haveing no emissions it is hard to produce. Such that the only way to have a hydrogen fuel economy is through nuclear reactors it seems.

The first nuclear reactor that could mass produce hydrogen isn't going online until like 2012. I am a big BMW fan and they have 100 test vehicles here in la since there are a few hydrogen stations around. Also, Honda has the clarity coming out next month as well. So we will see the cars start to be available but will there be enough to make the market pull towards it and get more stations?

A chicken and egg conundrum. Why make cars if there are no stations to fill em up? Why make stations unless there are cars to buy the hydrogen?

On the political front, I can't stand the choices we have. Ugh! I mean I am republican capitalist in the traditional entrepreneur sense. I love innovations that are brought to bear due to our competitive markets. Cars, computers, etc.

Yet I voted in the republicans because I wanted them to shrink the govt by reducing taxes and spending. Well we got some tax cuts but they raised the spending through the roof and now a dollar is looking more like a pesos every day.

So, what are our choices? McCain...yikes. I respect his career but I don't like him very much in a political sense. I can't imagine him winning anyone over in a conversation. He's too abrasive.

Politics is so much about how well you speak and communicate your ideas and convince others to try your ideas. Well, Bush was teh worst example and McCain isn't far behind him.

Obama on the other hand is politically almost opposite of me but at least the man can speak and articulate intelligently. He is very cordial and I think this alone may make foreign affairs and convincing the house and senate to go his way on things.

I was bummed a fair tax candidate didn't make it in since that was/is the only way out of the falling dollar and unconstitutional tax policies mess. (IMO)

So where do I reside? I'd almost rather see Obama win then McCain just to see what would happen. And this is also because I think Obama may be the best democrat to be available since JFK. He could remake the party. I'd rather see what the republicans have to offer in 4 years then watch the GOP further ruin themselves with the baby boomer candidates (McCain) that don't care much about reducing the size of the govt.

Obama may very well be the best guy for the next four years based on his ability to express himself over anything John McCain brings to the table with a ton of experience in the "same crap different" day that we are all tired of.

Do I think Obama will be able to change Washington? Probably not but I like the idea of him talking to just about anyone a president talks to over McCain's old depressing tired voice which happens to be capable of outbursts.

So whats the solution?

Vote Ron Paul. ;)

Smaller Govt
Fair Tax
Real reduction in govt and just about everything else mentioned in this thread that people like.

NOTE: These are my opinions and in NOWAY express the views of Eden FX.

Puguglybonehead

06-21-2008, 08:48 PM

Does your system cover people like these who INTENTIONALLY hurt themselves?
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/65165/skate_crashes/
http://www.4wheelingvideos.com/index.php?params=game/123/atv-dirt-bike-crashes/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sSQam-ggUI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKtnY11fSTI&feature=related

I don't want my taxes to pay for people like this who go out and look for crashes.
Their parent should cover every cent, and if that means loosing the house, car and every penny of their savings...well so be it, they allowed the kids to do it.

This is why govt health care should never be allowed to happen, they all think it's *free* healthcare.
Well, I have heard of emergency departments treating them, but very reluctantly, and absolutely last-on-the-list. One can only hope that Darwin will one day have his way with them.

At the same time, I've spent most of my life being physically active. I raced mountain bikes for 8 years, played Capoeira for a number of years, and worked as a bicycle courier on-and-off since 1988. I feel absolutely no sympathy for lazy lard-asses who do no sports or exercise their whole lives and then expect our health care system to take care of them when they develop all kinds of ailments due to their lack of physical activity.

Still, it's the price we pay for a universal system, and I can live with that. The benefits far outweigh the problems.

Puguglybonehead

06-21-2008, 08:58 PM

This always cheers me up

http://www.darwinawards.com/

prospector

06-21-2008, 09:33 PM

At the same time, I've spent most of my life being physically active.
Physically active and doing stuff that can damage you at any min is different.
1 wrong fall and we could be paying for an invalid for life with *free* healthcare, just because they thought it would be fun.

Puguglybonehead

06-21-2008, 10:06 PM

Physically active and doing stuff that can damage you at any min is different.
1 wrong fall and we could be paying for an invalid for life with *free* healthcare, just because they thought it would be fun.

True. Things like 'Jackass' (http://www.jackassworld.com/) don't help things much. We can only hope fools like that eventually make it to the Darwin Awards.

rcr62

06-21-2008, 10:33 PM

I think Renaldus Maximus :bowdown:, (Ronald Reagan to you outsiders) said that.

Yes he did. I also like ths one "Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.":bowdown:

SP00

06-21-2008, 10:48 PM

If it requires a lot of energy to produce hydrogen, isn't it counter productive to use hydrogen? Maybe electric power is the better way to go for cars.

prospector

06-21-2008, 10:52 PM

but at least the man can speak and articulate intelligently.
Have you seen or heard him without cuecards or scripted answers?

I have and you wouldn't be saying that if you have too.

Even Bush couldn't put so many ums and uhs into 1 sentence.
It's like he's thinking of every word and what meanings he can atribute to them.
Kinda like what the definition of is, is.

prospector

06-21-2008, 11:03 PM

Maybe electric power is the better way to go for cars.
So where would the energy to power 100 million cars come from ?
Somewhere ya gotta charge the batteries......
And who in their right mind will go on a trip and you have to stop every 200 miles to sit and recharge batteries ?

AND

Why won't real men and women buy electric cars?
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1133961/2006_moab_jeep_safari_behind_the_rocks/

prospector

06-21-2008, 11:07 PM

The blue jeep at 0:49 reminds me of LW

If you find a spot that you think you can't make something go right, LW gives you soo many ways to do something, take another route, and LW will get you over the hurdle.

Auger

06-21-2008, 11:15 PM

Have you seen or heard him without cuecards or scripted answers?

I have and you wouldn't be saying that if you have too.

Even Bush couldn't put so many ums and uhs into 1 sentence.
It's like he's thinking of every word and what meanings he can atribute to them.
Kinda like what the definition of is, is.

Just had to link to these::devil:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxBX8sz3tO8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbpWonUzlrc

UltraViolet

06-21-2008, 11:42 PM

And, you know, if you were a great doctor, would you rather be overworked and underpaid, working for the government, or would you go into private practice or to a different country?

If I were a great doctor, I would make sure to put helping people first on my priority list, not taking my "business" to another country for more profit, like many US companies are doing...

Most of the doctors in US are overpaid (but they have to pay lots of unnecessary fees as well) . They probably have the most highest salaries in the world.

As of late more of them are actually for universal health care, because it would simplify some of the things they have to go through...here is the article about it:

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN31432035

Cheers :)

prospector

06-21-2008, 11:47 PM

Yea...:D:D:thumbsup:
Also how his uncle freed Auschwitz
He's been to all 57 states and needed to go to 1 more

They come daily if you listen and check what he says against reality

UltraViolet

06-21-2008, 11:55 PM

So where would the energy to power 100 million cars come from ?
Somewhere ya gotta charge the batteries......
And who in their right mind will go on a trip and you have to stop every 200 miles to sit and recharge batteries ?

You would not compromise even if it's $10 per gallon ? I would...

Why won't real men and women buy electric cars?

Because they do not make them attractive yet.

How about this one:

http://www.teslamotors.com/

http://static.flickr.com/3269/2378382528_ec25df4979.jpg

prospector

06-21-2008, 11:57 PM

not taking my "business" to another country for more profit, like many US companies are doing...

I don't blame them 1 bit.
They are there to make investors money, and if going 'overseas' does it then that is what they have to do. I don't want my stock going down the tubes because of regulations and lawsuits.
I have to retire on my savings and income. Anything they do to increase that is fine and dandy.

prospector

06-21-2008, 11:58 PM

How about this one:
any 4 wheeler could use that for play time :D:D

prospector

06-22-2008, 12:03 AM

And lookin at the 'now in production' list, I see it has to stop every 220 miles for however long it takes to recharge.
My F250 goes over 400 miles on a tank, and would beat this thing cross country by days, AND I could hit some 4 wheelin areas while doin it. :D:dance:

And I would be havin much more fun along the way.

UltraViolet

06-22-2008, 12:19 AM

It is against the interest of the major oil companies to produce more efficient batteries. Here is interesting link:

http://www.ev1.org/chevron.htm

There are technologies on the horizon where recharging can be dramatically reduced.

Here is the good example:

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20070227/128226/

Cheers :)

UltraViolet

06-22-2008, 12:40 AM

No, no time not wasted IMO, I would like to think it adds more thing to discuss to this thread in general :)

prospector

06-22-2008, 01:03 AM

don't expect ANY agreement on ANY issue that is not on his general right-wing agenda.

That's not true, If something comes along that will be as fun as what there is now, and it is NOT FORCED on me by the govt, then I will look at it with interest.
Asa for the cars, an electric would be fine if there is no compromise over todays autos, whether I want a car, truck, or 4 wheeler. So if they make an electric that will safely do a head-on with my F250 and take me where there are no roads to look for gold, I would be interested.

prospector

06-22-2008, 01:08 AM

I also would be interested in any conservation measures as long as they do not under any circumstances either now or in the future or NOT FORCED upon us by any govt interfere with human development or pursuit of happiness.

Oedo 808

06-22-2008, 01:17 AM

As soon as we avert a man made global warming event we can all celebrate :bday: and then have the party washed away by a naturally occurring climatic event.

One thing the Earth's climate has never done is remain static, so I think we should be looking for technology to manipulate the climate.

My crystal ball says that cars of the future will be powered via wireless power networks, just make sure if you're on the 3 network that you have full breakdown cover.

*Pete*

06-22-2008, 02:34 AM

Myself, I'm well insured through my employer, and on my own. It's not cheap, but it's pretty well-rounded. But I don't have a problem with a tax increase to finance a system of helping others who don't have my kind of coverage. I just don't want to see the federal US government trying to run the show.

I remember an earlier discussion we had, where we found out that i pay about 2% more taxes than you do (28% vs 26%).

With my taxes i get full healthcare coverage, and the ability to pick my own doctor (as someone was asking).

you pay your taxes, 2 percent less than me and then you have to pay healthinsurance on top of that, or your employer will do it for you..either way, its money out of your pocket.

you get no benefits that i do not get, so...in reality, even if i pay slightly more in taxes, i do have more money for use becouse i do not have to pay any additional money for benefits as healthcare...meaning that of every hour i work for, i get more money in my hands than you do (assuming our salary is the same).

the problem my friend, is not taxes...it is where they are spent at.
USA spends massive dollar on the military, spends incredible amounts of money in the Iraq war..all of it is paid by taxdollars and borrowed money (which will later be paid for with taxdollars, far after the war is over)

every soldier in Iraq is just as a person on wellfare pay..not producing any goods or sellable services, thus, not taking a part of increasing your BNP.

so, sure...you cant afford healthcare for each and everyone in USA, but you sure as hell cant afford the war either.

when you look at the presidentual canditates, do not only look at how much taxes you need to pay, look at what you actually get for it and where the money goes.
If Obama manages to keep his word and ends the war...i can tell you that its a lot of taxdollars saved, right there.
If McCain does as he once said, kicking russia out of G8, increases the conflict by going to Iran, stays in Iraq "forever"...you will loose good friends and allies (not only russia), and you will fight your wars alone...and sure, you might not get a taxincrease, but you would get more war-loans to pay for, for several years to come.

*Pete*

06-22-2008, 02:57 AM

Here in Norway...nobody really would care if taxes were upped by 2-3%, if that money would be put for example as warm meals in schools or something like that...we wouldnt like the money to go to the military (becouse we feel safe) or for example higher politician salariers.
Our mentality on taxes do not really differ from the American viewpoint, but i do believe that we are really focused on what we are paying for with our taxes, more than the amount of taxes we need to pay.

taxes are really supposed to be prepaid benefits, but if those benefits are hard to see..naturally you would want to pay as little as possible.

another thing here...the more you earn, the higher percentage of tax you will need to pay, so those who are making a million a year pay about 50% tax, and those who earn minimum wages pay very, very little tax..in some cases perhaps as little as 10%.
but, the rich and the poor alike are quite satisfied with the system as it is...we do trust the goverment for using the money we pay for what is important for us.

this is also the very reason why in Sweden, one high ranking politician nearly lost her job when she bought a bar of chocolade (2$) using the goverment creditcard (taxmoney).
the most recent scandal in Norway, a very, very high ranking politician was forced to leave office becouse she avoided to pay her taxes for a small house that she was renting for students, its not much money..but you need to lead by example.

we strike down on anything that even looks like corruption immeadetly...If you want USA to have a similiar (by all means, superior) tax and wellfare system, you will need to have tight leashes on your politicians.

prospector

06-22-2008, 03:26 AM

(28% vs 26%).
WOW, dunno where you got that number

I pay close to 50% of my money in taxes
Damn, I WISH it was only 26%. I would be happier than a pig in $H^t. :)

you get no benefits that i do not get,
Sure we do.
I got no lines, appointments, waiting lists, no govt bureaucracy, and no higher taxes.

i do have more money for use because i do not have to pay any additional money for benefits as health-care
I haven't been to hospital since military, 1973. So if we DID have govt health-care all those taxes they would have stolen from me would be wasted money.

the problem my friend, is not taxes...it is where they are spent at.
Indeed
They would be spent on people who intentionally inflict harm to themselves, as seen in the videos I linked to above. It would be spent on people who intentionally make themselves sick, by drugs or alcohol or overeating or risky sex. It would be spent on a govt sloth that never trims waste but gets bigger and bigger year after year, stealing more and more taxes.

USA spends massive dollar on the military, spends incredible amounts of money in the Iraq war..
Just can't get over that hu? :)
Sorry but we are winning.

not producing any goods or sell able services, thus, not taking a part of increasing your BNP.

But they are, every time they stabilize a place, it makes for a better business environment which increases our and that areas business climate which brings more money to both.
Business climate got pretty good after we saved Europe twice and Japan once.
Yea, wars DO make better moneymakers.

If Obama manages to keep his word and ends the war...i can tell you that its a lot of tax-dollars saved, right there.
That's WAY WAY WRONG...have you been listening to what he is promising everyone? That money will be spent and never saved or taxes lowered.

stays in Iraq "forever"...
Forever? No one ever said that. Show me where he said 'forever'....
And we been in Germany and Japan, and S.Korea, and Taiwan for decades, where is the complaint about them? No, we spend too much money there for them to tell us to leave. Their economies would go bust if we took the billions we spend out of there overnight.

you will loose good friends and allies (not only Russia), and you will fight your wars alone
Besides GB Australia and Poland there is none and we continue. And we already fight wars alone, Sure the 3 countries mentioned help, and we appreciate the help....but we know where 90% of the fighting and munitions and the in-tel comes from. And Russia is not our friend. Neither is China.
Dunno bout the new German chancellor, the French President, or the Italian President tho he may be coming around to our way. (Hope I got the titles right).

As soon as we avert a man made global warming event
No such thing, forget it, doesn't exist

IMI

06-22-2008, 03:32 AM

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems rather arrogant (IMO) that you seem to think that YOU know what's right and true and if the rest of us disagree we're being manipulated?

Is that about right?

No, that's not "about right".
He said they in Europe and the rest of the world were preparing for an Obama presidency. OK, fine, maybe he didn't mean that as in they were expecting an Obama presidency, maybe he did, I don't know. Preparing would be a different story.
But polls show that Obama and McCain are pretty close at the moment. I personally expect that to change in McCain's favor gradually as we get closer to November. All McCain really needs to do is keep his mouth shut and let Obama continue to ruin himself. Every new public appearance or speech brings a new gaffe from Obama, it seems.
But just watch the media here and see how they're doing their best to promote Obama, how they're trying their hardest to convince us he's The Truth, The Light and The Way.
No, I'm not saying anyone who believes that does so because he's allowed himself to be manipulated. I'm saying it's obvious the media is doing it's BEST to manipulate people's opinions.
Well, one example, I saw on CNN where they asked some Obama supporters on the street why they would vote for him. Well, those who had actually thought about it more or less like him 'cause they think he's going to give them stuff. (Most of them just repeat the CHANGE! mantra)
That's largely where the manipulation comes in - the media has convinced people the government here was designed to be some sort of a nanny and provide for us our every needs. I guess the JFK days of "ask not what your country can do for you...." are long gone...

But that's beside the point. Yes, I do believe that the media is pushing the idea of Obama as president, as if by repeating it enough they can make it so, and yes I do believe that alot of people are convinced it's going to happen because the media is doing its best to make it seem inevitable. Can I apply that to all the rest of the world? Maybe, maybe not. I guess it depends on how well the individuals know our culture and how much of our domestic "news" makes it over there.
Was it arrogant of me to say what I did? No, not really, IMO. I didn't mean it as an insult.
Thank you once again for correcting me on my forum behavior. It's nice to know I can always count on you to come along and make sure I'm aware if I've been less than nice in your opinion.

cresshead

06-22-2008, 03:36 AM

and i thought he made oven chips?

sorry no real relevance here as i'm in the u.k. not the land of the free/brave [food consumer!]

prospector

06-22-2008, 03:37 AM

I guess the JFK days of "ask not what your country can do for you...."
He would be thrown out of the democratic party today...that war monger !!!!
Bringing us to the brink of nuclear war. And a tax lower-er too..why that's UN-AMERICAN !!!
Why, he would be to the right of even me :thumbsup:

IMI

06-22-2008, 03:40 AM

this is also the very reason why in Sweden, one high ranking politician nearly lost her job when she bought a bar of chocolade (2$) using the goverment creditcard (taxmoney).
the most recent scandal in Norway, a very, very high ranking politician was forced to leave office becouse she avoided to pay her taxes for a small house that she was renting for students, its not much money..but you need to lead by example.

we strike down on anything that even looks like corruption immeadetly...If you want USA to have a similiar (by all means, superior) tax and wellfare system, you will need to have tight leashes on your politicians.

Well, I certainly commend you for that. You need to send some of your people here and teach the US how to do that.
That's one of my biggest problems with our government - the ridiculous amount of corruption among the critters in Congress. Hell, not just Congress, but just about everyone in the government all the way down to state government representatives and mayors. Even those who aren't actively corrupt are enjoying legal perks far beyond what I think they should have. And their salaries are way too high, too.
I would just as soon see the salaries cut in half or more, and the perks eliminated entirely. We might end up with people then who did it for the job and the country instead of what they themselves can get out of it.

You call them "tight leashes". I'd prefer ropes, preferably noose-shaped. :devil:
;)

prospector

06-22-2008, 03:42 AM

You call them "tight leashes". I'd prefer ropes, preferably noose-shaped.

HERE HERE !!!:thumbsup:

prospector

06-22-2008, 03:43 AM

OOOOH OOOH number 5000
WOO HOO !!

IMI

06-22-2008, 03:45 AM

He would be thrown out of the democratic party today...that war monger !!!!
Bringing us to the brink of nuclear war. And a tax lower-er too..why that's UN-AMERICAN !!!
Why, he would be to the right of even me :thumbsup:

JFK was a democrat? Hmm, that's interesting. Looking at what he did, he seems to have been more of a conservative. ;)
I bet if he were still alive he'd slap his idiot brother silly. ;)

prospector

06-22-2008, 03:49 AM

yea, if he was running today with that same philosophy, I would vote for him over McCain

IMI

06-22-2008, 04:09 AM

If Obama manages to keep his word and ends the war...i can tell you that its a lot of taxdollars saved, right there.

Yeah, true. I would like to see the war end, too. No doubt that alone would free up billions of dollars.
But ending the war isn't as easy as Obama seems to want people to think it is. And the kicker is, he knows that, but he also knows his core base of supporters largely don't know that, or the potential consequences of simply leaving, so he runs with it.
HOW is Obama going to end the war? That's the big question. Just pull out so Iran can move in and then three years from now go back in when The UN requests our help to sort out the ensuing mess?
He has no plan on how to do it, no knowledge of how to do it, just a promise that he'll take care of it.
Granted, it shouldn't have begun in the first place. Monumental blunder it was, but the fact is, we got into it, now we have to deal with it and clean it all up. That needs to be done intelligently and realistically.
I tend to believe the guy who says we'll be out when we're out over the guy who just makes blanket statements and promises because he knows that's what the people want to hear.
Even Hillary (at first) agreed you can't just simply pull the troops out. Then she changed her tune once she saw how people were responding to Obama's promise to do just that.

prospector

06-22-2008, 04:23 AM

Iran is going to be a non-player soon, if Israel does what I think it's getting ready to do. And more power to them.
And hopefully we back them all the way, tho we will scold them a bit in the UN as the Champagne flows behind the scenes.

And the skirmish in Iraq will end soon, Bush will start pulling troops out which takes away all of Obamas talking points, tho I'd like to see a massive base there next to Palestine (just to keep them worried which will be fun to watch :))

*Pete*

06-22-2008, 04:27 AM

I pay close to 50% of my money in taxes

well, I pay 28%...but i quess i make less money than you also.
either way..when those 50% tax still doesnt include healthcare, id worry about what you actually do pay for.

Sure we do.
I got no lines, appointments, waiting lists, no govt bureaucracy, and no higher taxes.

we have quite well working system here also, i get an appointment at the doctor within a few hours if i want, or i can also get the doctor to come home to me if im sick enough..no extra charges.

govt bureaucracy?...i never even notice the goverments existence in my day to day life.
there is good, well working bureaucracy, and there is not good, not functioning bureaucracy..it is not bad in itself, its all about how it is run..its best when totally transaprent and easy as possible for us, regulare people.

Just can't get over that hu? :)
Sorry but we are winning.

winning?..sure you are, did you start the war to win it?..next time pick something closer, like Canada or something...it would become cheaper to fight.

oooh...oh yeah, wmds, terrorists and all the 9/11 stuff.
so what, canada had atleast the same much to do with it as Iraq did ;)

But they are, every time they stabilize a place, it makes for a better business environment which increases our and that areas business climate which brings more money to both.
Business climate got pretty good after we saved Europe twice and Japan once.
Yea, wars DO make better moneymakers.

wars make better moneymakers?..so then, why is USA in a recession now?
why is the oilprice at all time high?..sure, war makes moneymakers, but it is not the warring nations that win on it.

and oh..business climate was superb before ww1 and ww2 started, but it got a small pause during the war...actually, i have no idea what is your point.
war is good for global economy??..please explain.

*Pete*

06-22-2008, 04:39 AM

HOW is Obama going to end the war? That's the big question. Just pull out so Iran can move in and then three years from now go back in when The UN requests our help to sort out the ensuing mess?.

I doubt that Iran will move in to Iraq unless specifically asked to do so by Iraq leaders.

you know, historically Iran has never in its history attacked other nations, yet it has defended itself multiple times against invasions...that they have built a strong army over time can mean that they fear getting invaded.

did you know that Iran has multiple times said that it will stop building nuclear plants IF usa gives quarantees of never attacking Iran?..something like Cuba has been enjoying.
its a no-cost solution for the whole nuclear debate, but for some reason US is not even willing to discuss these matters untill Iran dismantles the nuclear program and does other reforms...but, would it do so, it would no longer have a card to play to get insurance against US agression against it.

If you think about it...what do you expect Iran to do?, nuclear weapons will ensure that they are protected from all agression against them, a treaty with US that promises that they will not be invaded by US will do the same.

not to forget...you still have a war to fight (with OUR help, btw) in Afganistan, which is neighboring country to Iran and has both Taliban and Al-queda presence (and perhaps even mr Bin laden).

Iraq was always a distraction...and leaving it is not so difficult as you think it is, UN can assist, arab nations can assist and yes..Iran has offered assistance as well in the form of peacekeepers.

*Pete*

06-22-2008, 04:49 AM

Iran is going to be a non-player soon, if Israel does what I think it's getting ready to do.

and if Iran responds as the threatened, those Israeli planes will see thousands of rockets fired, not at them..but against Israeli nuclear plants.

oh well, wars make money makers ;) ..soon both Israel and Iran are going to be economical powerhouses...sometime year 9008 when the radiation is at acceptable levels again.

prospector

06-22-2008, 05:23 AM

war is good for global economy??..please explain.
Well after WWII;
As Germany's postwar economic and political leaders shaped their plans for the future German economy, they saw in ruin a new beginning, an opportunity to position Germany on a new and totally different path. The economy was to be an instrument for prosperity, but it was also to safeguard democracy and to help maintain a stable society. The new German leaders wanted social peace as well as economic prosperity. They wanted an economic system that would give all an equal opportunity in order to avoid creating underprivileged social groups whose bitter frustration would erupt into revolution and--in turn--repression.

The man who took full advantage of Germany's postwar opportunity was Ludwig Erhard, who was determined to shape a new and different kind of German economy. He was given his chance by United States officials, who found him working in Nuremberg and who saw that many of his ideas coincided with their own. He was influenced by the Austrian School.

Which led to;
The economic reforms and the new West German system received powerful support from a number of sources: investment funds under the European Recovery Program, more commonly known as the Marshall Plan; the stimulus to German industry provided by the diversion of other Western resources for Korean War production; and the German readiness to work hard for low wages until productivity had risen. But the essential component of success was the revival of confidence brought on by Erhard's reforms and by the new currency.

The West German boom that began in 1950 was truly memorable. The growth rate of industrial production was 25.0 percent in 1950 and 18.1 percent in 1951. Growth continued at a high rate for most of the 1950s, despite occasional slowdowns. By 1960 industrial production had risen to two-and-one-half times the level of 1950 and far beyond any that the Nazis had reached during the 1930s in all of Germany. GDP rose by two-thirds during the same decade. The number of persons employed rose from 13.8 million in 1950 to 19.8 million in 1960, and the unemployment rate fell from 10.3 percent to 1.2 percent.

Labor also benefited in due course from the boom. Although wage demands and pay increases had been modest at first, wages and salaries rose over 80 percent between 1949 and 1955, catching up with growth. West German social programs were given a considerable boost in 1957, just before a national election, when the government decided to initiate a number of social programs and to expand others.

They did rather nicely.

And in Japan;
The initial period of the occupation from 1945 to 1948 was
marked by reform, the second phase was one of stabilization. Greater
attention was given to improvement of the economy. Japan was a heavy
expense to the United States. The ordered breakup of the Zaibatsu was
slowed down. The union movement continued to grow, to the ultimate
benefit of the worker. Unremitting pressure on employers brought
swelling wages, which meant the steady expansion of Japan domestic
consumer market. This market was a major reason for Japan's subsequent
economic boom.
So they did rather well too.
And a side note;
Another boom to the economy was the Korean War which
proved to be a blessing in disguise. Japan became the main staging
area for military action in Korea and went on a war boom economy with
out having to fight in or pay for a war.

HMMM so war does bring prosperity. Imagine that..

And we are still in Germany, ane we are still in Japan, so if we are in Iraq for 50+ years and they are as good as Germany and Japan are, I have no problem with it.

prospector

06-22-2008, 05:24 AM

not at them..but against Israeli nuclear plants.
The patriot missles and even newer designs are protecting them, I'm not worried.

prospector

06-22-2008, 05:31 AM

when those 50% tax still doesn't include healthcare, id worry about what you actually do pay for.
Ok here's a breakdown....

100% govt money goes to;
Waste....50% (this includes welfare, Social security)
Inefficiency....30% (this includes Auto registry people :D)
Cronyism.....10% (this includes Unions and teachers and lawyers)

So that's 90% of nothing but money down a drain.

Jim_C

06-22-2008, 05:40 AM

sheeessh..... don't you guys sleep....?
:)

prospector

06-22-2008, 06:01 AM

I been up 25 hrs now LW'in, looking to go to 45

IMI

06-22-2008, 06:02 AM

sheeessh..... don't you guys sleep....?
:)

Yeah, sometimes. Only as much as necessary though. ;)

Another thing. Obama wants to leave the war. Fine, whatever. But he also doesn't want to drill for more oil, which means he wants to continue things the way they are, as far as getting oil from the mideast.
Therein lay our biggest problem. The Arabs resent our presence in the Mideast largely due to the oil business we do. And yet, Saudi Arabia is our... umm.. *friend* (yeah, right).
But nobody is going to do business on that kind of scale and accept the fact they're not allowed to be around to help protect their interests.
So the terrorists attack us, when they should be attacking their own governments for *allowing* us to be there, and doing business with us.
Yeah, they hate us because we're allies of Israel too, but that's a different subject.
Obama could greatly lessen the likelihood of problems with the Mideast countries by *mandating* we find and use as much of our own oil as possible. If he thinks we can continue to do business with those people without these sort of problems, he's badly mistaken, but it appears that's what he wants.
The world has changed - the radical Islamists can't handle our presence. Fine, let's give them what they want and remove all our dependence on them. We really don't need them or their part of the world for anything anyway.
We can't have it both ways anymore, it seems. We can't do billions of dollars of business with them but stay away lest we offend the natives, and we can't break away without using our own resources.

IMI

06-22-2008, 06:09 AM

And any president who *mandates* that we build many new wells and gasoline refineries is going to create thousands of new long term American jobs for American citizens. It's a win-win situation.

kopperdrake

06-22-2008, 07:46 AM

I had a rather interesting conversation with a neighbour who works for a well-known Britsh motorbike developer. He was reasonably sure, as they're looking at the development side, that we'll be seeing very soon a new petrol at the pumps that is 25% alcholhol and 75% standard petrol. This alchohol-based fuel will be a biofuel, which in themselves have a lot of negative consequences, main one being the wasteful use of limited land for production of fuel as opposed to food in today's current climate.

The option longer term is to have carbon extraction facilities that will extract the carbon, using bacteria, from green waste - 75% of a plant grown for food (or fuel) is green waste. The theory is that we can use this to extract the carbon from which can then be turned to more fuel - and it's all carbon neutral.

The plus side is that a typical motorbike engine, using partial alchohol-based fuel, gives an extra 6bhp (I can't remember per what size but I think it was an average so assume 600-1000cc), which is better performance. The beauty of the whole fuel system is you can use current fuel transportation and delivery systems and our old cars won't be out of date any time soon.

Whilst I'm not for biofuels as they currently stand - mowing down rain forests to grow crops for it (the resulting excess in carbon released to the atmosphere will be great for plants, but not so good for animals, resulting in a new carboniferous period type of atmosphere). If they can harvest carbon from green waste then that's a very real option as far as I can see.

*Pete*

06-22-2008, 07:50 AM

Well after WWII;
As Germany's postwar economic........

yes, postwar, prewar...its just events that happened before or after a war, but are you actually saying that without the war, german economy would never have gotten where it is today?
and what then about Sweden. that stayed neutral during the wars and had a very strong economy untill the early 90's?

The initial period of the occupation from 1945 to 1948 was
marked by reform, the second phase was one of stabilization........

again...war ended 1945, and the reforms and later economic growth came after the war...sure, you could say that without the war Japans economy would never get anywhere.

Another boom to the economy was the Korean War.

but then you say this...the Korean war ended up with the strong contrast of poor North Korea and rich South Korea.
If war is the one factor that makes nations rich, both would be rich today.
but if it is reforms, politics, trade and..dare i say it, peace, then i could say that your argument of wars increasing wealth of nations is wrong.

HMMM so war does bring prosperity. Imagine that..

well....im sure Cheney agrees, and so does halliburton, but did you get richer?

*Pete*

06-22-2008, 07:59 AM

And any president who *mandates* that we build many new wells and gasoline refineries is going to create thousands of new long term American jobs for American citizens. It's a win-win situation.

and so does any president who gets you into building green energy plants.

as i said..creating jobs is easy, Hitler had his unemployed building roads...worked wonders and is still today in good use.

one thing about new wells and all that...IF oilcompanies would be intrested in producing more, why dont they want to drill in places they already have permission to drill already?
ill tell you why...becouse they know that the oilprice will only rise further, and the later they get up the last of the oil the more they will make on it.

If it is such an urgency to drill for oil, drill more where they are allowed to drill today...and when its all dried up, go to the protected places becouse by this time, im sure you will have the tech to drill safely ;)

dont be fooled...coorporations will never do anything for you, never...only what is in its own intrest and lower gasprices is not in the intrest of oil companies.

prospector

06-22-2008, 08:08 AM

If war is the one factor that makes nations rich, both would be rich today.

No, because they took nothing in the way of reforms, opening borders, opening trade. Where S. Korea did. Ya just don't get rich by doing nothing.
And I mentioned Japan with Korea because they did mighty well from it too.
They did no fighting but they did give us the bases to operate from, which made them lots of money.

Did I get richer? No, I didn't build anything for the war and rented no land to anyone for the war.

But if Haliburton made money, so did the country, in extra tax income, the workers made money because Haliburton had to hire more, which in turn gave even MORE taxes to country.

but if it is reforms, politics, trade and..dare i say it, peace,
And they wouldn't have had that without the war.

but are you actually saying that without the war, german economy would never have gotten where it is today?
Well, without the war, Hitler or rather his party would still be in charge, so no, they wouldn't be where they are today.

prospector

06-22-2008, 08:20 AM

only what is in its own intrest and lower gasprices is not in the intrest of oil companies.
Of course it is, there is a tipping point where gas prices outweigh the cost of going green.
They won't put themselves out of buisness by making prices so high. As long as it's cheaper to drill and use oil than go green,they will stay in buisness. It would be silly to price themselves out of the market. And we are not there yet, maby in a hunnert years or so.

*Pete*

06-22-2008, 08:25 AM

And they wouldn't have had that without the war.

fine, fine...then explain why nations who stayed neutral, just like Sweden are doing just as well or better than nations who had war?

and, im still curious of why North korea doesnt have a better economy, as they had a lot of war when compared to sweden...oh, oh yeah...reforms?
sweden had reforms without war, north korea didnt despite war...so, war has nothing to do with it and reforms can be achieved by other means than by war.

prospector

06-22-2008, 08:25 AM

and so does any president who gets you into building green energy plants.
Not true.
As many greenies here have stated, once a way to produce green power is built, then there is nothing left to do...hardly a recipe for long term work.
Put up a mirror and your done, put up an airplane propeller tower and your done.

prospector

06-22-2008, 08:29 AM

reforms can be achieved by other means than by war.
Yes they can, but sometimes ya have to force it on people which means sometimes there HAS to be war to make someone change.

IMI

06-22-2008, 08:50 AM

Pete,
As I've said before in this thread and in that other big GW/fuel thread a few months ago, I'm all for the development of "green" and alternative fuels. I've also said in this thread that I believe we have to continue with what works now as we do that.
So, I'll agree - if we embark on a massive alternative fuel development project it could be a great thing for our economy. I also said that in that other thread.
But I think it's just a bad idea to begin mandating it now, before we're ready. For now, for immediate relief, we need to get at our oil and use it. And the coal/algae idea seems pretty interesting, too.
I'm a big fan of nuclear, too, but nobody here seems to like that, so I'm not mentioning it anymore. ;)

The quest for alternative energy and also the challenge of meeting our needs with current energy technologies while drastically reducing our dependence on those psycho countries could be a great thing for the US, and the world as a whole.

prospector

06-22-2008, 08:53 AM

then explain why nations who stayed neutral, just like Sweden are doing just as well or better than nations who had war?

To you this is good?
Swede and Sour

If Sweden left the European Union and joined the United States we would be the poorest state of America. Using fixed prices and purchasing power parity adjusted data, the median household income in Sweden in the late 1990s was the equivalent of $26,800 compared with a median of $39,400 for U.S. households - before taxes. And then we should remember that Sweden has the world´s highest taxes.

The Swedish Research Institute of Trade, who made the study, underlined that Afro-Americans, who have the lowest income in the United States, now have a higher standard of living than an ordinary Swedish household.

That story came as a chock to many about a month ago. But mostly to foreigners, not to Swedes. Since the 1970s, we are used to news about Sweden lagging behind the rest of the world in wealth and income. It was more of a shock to Americans and Europeans who used to think about Sweden as the perfect example, the exception that could combine the big welfare state with a productive economy. If this social model was a part of the US, it would be considered a social problem. How did this come about?

To understand this, we have to understand that Sweden was never an exception to the rule that wealth can only be created by free men and women, on a free market.

prospector

06-22-2008, 08:59 AM

I'm a big fan of nuclear, too, but nobody here seems to like that,
I do.
There should be 1 plant for every 10,000 people.

Puguglybonehead

06-22-2008, 09:05 AM

So where would the energy to power 100 million cars come from ?
Somewhere ya gotta charge the batteries......
And who in their right mind will go on a trip and you have to stop every 200 miles to sit and recharge batteries ?

AND

Why won't real men and women buy electric cars?
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1133961/2006_moab_jeep_safari_behind_the_rocks/
Electric cars could work great for long distance, not to mention all the torque they have for off-roading. All you need is a small nuclear reactor on board to power `em. ;)

Jim_C

06-22-2008, 09:33 AM

I'm a big fan of nuclear, too, <snip>.

Me too..

but I'm also voting Obama.... :D

prospector

06-22-2008, 09:38 AM

All you need is a small nuclear reactor on board to power `em.
Now that I could go for.
A jeep with Warp drive....nicccceeeeee

Jim_C

06-22-2008, 10:00 AM

Is this going to do anything?

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/22/news/international/Saudi_summit/index.htm?postversion=2008062208

*Pete*

06-22-2008, 10:20 AM

the median household income in Sweden in the late 1990s was the equivalent of $26,800 compared with a median of $39,400 for U.S. households - before taxes. And then we should remember that Sweden has the world´s highest taxes.

First, sweden has the worlds highest taxes..but as i mentioned earlier, its not what you pay in taxes, its what you get for it that matters.
in your case, according to yourself, you get 90% waste.
In sweden they get free warm meals at schools, free healthcare for all, 5 weeks paid vacation from work, one of the least corrupted goverments on the planet.
I think the tax i paid when living in sweden was 30%, 2% more than i pay now in Norway, but hey..Norwegian kids dont get free meals at schools.

as for GDP per capita.
2007 the numbers were as follows.

Sweden $36,500.
USA $45,800.
Norway $53,000
Iraq $3,600

Unemployement rates are 6% for Sweden, 4.6 for USA and 2.5% for Norway...Iraq has anything between 18 and 30% unemployement.

as for wars, USA and Iraq are at "war" today, Norway has 200 soldiers in afganistan, but other than that had its last war during ww2, Sweden had its latest war sometime year 1700.

so..we could agree on that having a war (Norway and USA have soldiers in a war at the moment, sweden does not) improves economy.
But..the situation in Iraq is not reflecting the war-improved economy...hmmm
and. not to forget..USA is at big economical difficulties with a gazillion in dept, and the nation in a recession with increasing inflation and unemployement...not the best example if you want to brag with wars improving the economy.

*Pete*

06-22-2008, 10:23 AM

Is this going to do anything?

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/22/news/international/Saudi_summit/index.htm?postversion=2008062208

it will, but not much...the demand is still high and a 8% increase from one of the producing nations wont be enough..expect a few percent lower gasprices, but i doubt that you will get back the smile you used to have when filling up your car at the gastation.

but, its still good news.

IMI

06-22-2008, 10:42 AM

but I'm also voting Obama.... :D

OK, good for you. You do that. ;)
I'm still planning on voting for Prospector. :bowdown:

prospector

06-22-2008, 10:43 AM

But..the situation in Iraq is not reflecting the war-improved economy...hmmm

Just like WWII and Korea, we're not done yet.
Let then get to where we let Germany and Japan take over on their own constitution and economies. And it could take years like it did in either of those or even S.Korea or Tiawan. Doesn't matter to me. It will happen, like it always has.

And that extra oil will mean at most 2-4 cents a gallon. Nothing to write home about.

prospector

06-22-2008, 10:47 AM

I'm still planning on voting for Prospector.
Thanks, and there will be a chicken in every one of your pots.:angel:

Oh wait...someone already promised that. :D

prospector

06-22-2008, 10:53 AM

And I almost have the solution for the whole planet and good times for all.

I have read every witches book, found every incantation spell I could, checked all the old religious alchemy books and scrolls, and made a potion that will make the world live in peace for the next 10 millenia.

All I need is one last ingrediant and it's done.

Anyone know where I can find the soul of a liberal?

:D:D:D:):angel:

IMI

06-22-2008, 10:57 AM

Anyone know where I can find the soul of a liberal?

I think Kennedy might not be needing his much longer... not like it ever got much use anyway. ;)

Puguglybonehead

06-22-2008, 11:57 AM

Nuclear power is a short-term answer. I can understand the attractiveness. I would rather see cleaner fossil-fuel technology developed, instead. Saskatchewan has almost no nuclear plants. They have so much natural gas under their land, that there is no need. They are also investing heavily in wind power and hydro.

The rising gas and oil prices are not all bad news. As those prices rise worldwide, so does the price of transportation of manufactured goods. Here in North America, this makes things like Chinese manufactured goods a lot less attractive to import. Cheap foreign made products soon have less in their favor over domestically produced goods.

As a musician, I can tell you I would not consider spending $1600 on a Chinese-made Vox AC30 guitar amp, (ridiculous, antiquated design anyways) when I can buy a really nice Canadian-made Traynor YCV 50 for about half the price (and have a more reliable and more powerful amp, to boot). There are a lot of other examples that should make the case for bringing manufacturing closer to home again.

And yes, the USA should start drilling for more of its own oil. The Tar Sands Project in Alberta was a money-pit, for about the first 25 to 30 years. The extraction technology was still being developed, and there was a lot of skeptism in the beginning. I mean, really, it looked like science fiction, back in the 1970s. Politicians kept threatening to shut it down, but in the long run, it's paid off huge. There are environmental problems. It's not an entirely rosy picture, but it's still better than having done nothing, I think.

sbrandt

06-22-2008, 11:57 AM

Kennedy's soul is already spoken for.
Mary Jo Kopechne will be using it as a footstool before too long.

IMI

06-22-2008, 12:09 PM

Kennedy's soul is already spoken for.
Mary Jo Kopechne will be using it as a footstool before too long.

:ohmy:
OOOOOO! BAM!

prospector

06-22-2008, 12:11 PM

Mary Jo Kopechne will be using it as a footstool before too long.

SCORRRRRRRRRRE !!!!!
Funniest line on the thread

sbrandt..1
thread...0

prospector

06-22-2008, 12:23 PM

Politicians kept threatening to shut it down, but in the long run, it's paid off huge.
Yep, I gave ya the thumbs up on post 134 of this thread :thumbsup:

That give you more oil than Saudi Arabia at only a 10% recovery rate.
And in another 10 or so years ya might have the tech wherewithal to get another 10% for another 300 billion barrels and the cleanup will be a piece of cake.

We have about 2.5 trillion barrels tied up in shale and the tech isn't quite there yet to get it economically, but maby some of your methods can transfer over.

sbrandt

06-22-2008, 03:27 PM

"We have about 2.5 trillion barrels tied up in shale and the tech isn't quite there yet to get it economically..."

I had an ex-girl friend who owns several hundred acres on the west slope of Colorado that is wall to wall oil shale. The USGS told her, as of 2002, the break even point to process it out using current technology was between $50 and $60 a barrel. We're way past that... where's the oil USGS!!!

SP00

06-22-2008, 03:41 PM

So where would the energy to power 100 million cars come from ?
Somewhere ya gotta charge the batteries......
And who in their right mind will go on a trip and you have to stop every 200 miles to sit and recharge batteries ?

If you have to spend energy to transform it into another form of energy to use it. You loose efficiency. It is better and more efficient to use it directly. Why would you transform electricity that can power 100 million cars into hydrogen and loose efficiency to power 50 million cars?

I do agree with you on the battery power issue, but they are right now using nano technology to increase battery life by 10 times their capacity. So the 40 mile car on one battery charge will become 400 miles on one battery charge.

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.html

Hitachi seems to think they can get 20 times the capacity.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/02/hitachi-maxell-claims-new-li-ion-battery-with-20x-the-power/

Nuclear can be great, but as I said, there are too many steps where a disaster can happen. You only need 1 disaster to see that it was a mistake. As for jobs, we still need people for engineers, architects, metal, concrete, maintenance crews, better nation grid system to have power at night, etc. Jobs will be create and can be sustained. These machines don't last forever, they need to be repaired and replaced. The great thing about it is that you don't need to be a rocket science to do the job. So instead of a few people getting all the money. You will have the wealth distributed to a larger group of people. Since the tech is simpler.

I do agree with you on the war. It is necessary to finish it strong and it will make Iraq a better place for the world. McCain seems more realistic about this.

prospector

06-22-2008, 04:02 PM

We're way past that... where's the oil USGS!!!
Because now, with the laws we got, we CAN'T get it.

IMI

06-22-2008, 04:21 PM

Because now, with the laws we got, we CAN'T get it.

Forget about actually drilling for it, there are laws preventing even surveying for it in alot of places. Oddly enough, places where it's most likely to be found...

Now, I wanna know - if eminent domain laws can allow The Fed to just buy your land from you whether you want to sell or not, why can't eminent domain be used to snatch some national forest from a tree hugger? ;)

Jim_C

06-22-2008, 04:28 PM

because Wal-Mart isn't in the oil business

IMI

06-22-2008, 04:35 PM

Not yet. ;)
They do have gas stations, though. If you buy a prepaid gas card from them, you get gas at a discount and *I think* gas at the price per gallon it was when you bought the card.

mattclary

06-22-2008, 04:35 PM

This looks pretty promising!

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/solar-dish-0618.html

http://www.dailytech.com/MIT+Students+Develop+Revolutionary+Solar+Dish+That +is+Hot+Enough+to+Melt+Steel/article12153.htm

Exception

06-22-2008, 04:39 PM

The rising gas and oil prices are not all bad news. As those prices rise worldwide, so does the price of transportation of manufactured goods. Here in North America, this makes things like Chinese manufactured goods a lot less attractive to import. Cheap foreign made products soon have less in their favor over domestically produced goods.

While the thought of this would be obvious and seem logical, you'll find that this will hardly be the case. Ocean transportation is by far the most efficient form of transport. Even if oil prices multiply by 10, the cost of shipping is still very marginal on even cheap products. It might only affect the price of extremely cheap stuff like rice, which is a bad thing for the world.
So you might find that China has an advantage over the US in various areas. Their export is not likely to drop by much.

For instance, energywise it's much more efficient and thus cheaper to transport something from Shanghai to New York then it is to truck it from LA to New York.