User Tag List

First 21011121314 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 136

  1. #111
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,827

    Default

    It is going to hurt to create a more sustainable, more politically stable energy system. I don't like it. I wish it wasn't the case, but the longer we ignore it, the more unpleasant the transition is going to be. Better to just get it over with. I'm not really all that environmentally conscious, but having as our lifeblood petroleum, a non-renewable resource that is primarily produced by people who do not like us is just a bad idea on so many levels.

    Coal is okay in moderation as long as we don't come to rely on it like we do petroleum and fail to work toward something cleaner and more sustainable. I'm not talking global warming, I'm talking aesthetics, assuming coal is as dirty burning as I perceive it to be and that it takes a lot of work to make it clean, it's really not the best solution.

    Our goal, IMO, should be providing sustainable, reasonably priced energy for ourselves in a reasonably clean way. I think we can do it, but we are really going to have to be motivated because we've been very comfortable with things as they are/were.
    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
    ~ John Rogers

  2. #112
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Most of our electricity comes from coal. We're already dependent on it. Based on current technology, the only way we're getting off coal is to go nuclear. Btw, we don't import any coal and we have enough to last well over a hundred years. That's plenty of time to build nuclear power plants.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  3. #113
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Most of our electricity comes from coal. We're already dependent on it. Based on current technology, the only way we're getting off coal is to go nuclear. Btw, we don't import any coal and we have enough to last well over a hundred years. That's plenty of time to build nuclear power plants.
    I'm all for nuclear, but letting private interests get more into wind and hydro would be good in the long run. It's not going to work if we have to rely on federal and state governments to do it.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  4. #114
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post
    It is going to hurt to create a more sustainable, more politically stable energy system. I don't like it. I wish it wasn't the case, but the longer we ignore it, the more unpleasant the transition is going to be. Better to just get it over with. I'm not really all that environmentally conscious, but having as our lifeblood petroleum, a non-renewable resource that is primarily produced by people who do not like us is just a bad idea on so many levels.

    Coal is okay in moderation as long as we don't come to rely on it like we do petroleum and fail to work toward something cleaner and more sustainable. I'm not talking global warming, I'm talking aesthetics, assuming coal is as dirty burning as I perceive it to be and that it takes a lot of work to make it clean, it's really not the best solution.

    Our goal, IMO, should be providing sustainable, reasonably priced energy for ourselves in a reasonably clean way. I think we can do it, but we are really going to have to be motivated because we've been very comfortable with things as they are/were.

    I fully agree. However, we are in a recession. A recession that is slated to get very bad considering its global scope, possible wars, our dollar, inflation, housing and mortgage crisis, etc. Enacting an energy policy that does nothing to target our dependence on oil, but rather targets coal which provides over 50% of our electricity is absurd. It would raise energy prices in our country DURING a very bad recession and make it worse. It would destroy jobs in this country and increase the unemployment on top of the already upward trend. I agree that we need to find better energy sources, but guess what. We do not have a better alternative neither in price, ease of production, amount of production, nor energy efficiency compared to coal and petroleum. It doesn't exist. Not to say we can't create incentives for inventing new energy sources, but that still takes time, and far more time to actually implement it and integrate it into society.

    You cannot cannot cannot implement a policy that cripples our main source of energy in the present and provide no alternative in the present. That is childishly unintelligible. It is lunacy. What Barack needs to do is develop any other way of generating money for new energy research by cutting government spending, not charging our energy companies so that we pay more and lose jobs. We need to use our GREATEST options to work our way toward different energy sources, the greatest of which is currently NUCLEAR energy. Suffice to say, the left has demonized it for years, so we're quite behind on that front. There are good solutions and there are bad solutions. Discern which is which.

    Barack wants to move us to depend on electricity for something like 90% of our needs (I've forgotten the percentage, may be incorrect). If he wants most of our energy to come from electricty (car/vehicle fuel included), he needs to consider that crippling the main source of electricity is plain mental.

  5. #115
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Most of our electricity comes from coal. We're already dependent on it. Based on current technology, the only way we're getting off coal is to go nuclear. Btw, we don't import any coal and we have enough to last well over a hundred years. That's plenty of time to build nuclear power plants.
    That's the problem, though... why build nuclear power plants?

    There are two approaches that I can think of, outside of a full command economy.

    The first is to subsidise nuclear power. This isn't too bad of an idea, but it narrows the scope of the solution down to just nuclear power. It would have to approach close to nationalisation, unfortunately, to make it viable - with oversight, garbage controls and so forth, adding subsidies and what not give an awful lot of political involvement.

    The second is to raise the price of the non-desirable plants, such as coal. This is a broad-market solution in that it would allow innovation into alternative power systems. However, unfortunately, it wouldn't give much depth - it doesn't support large scale power generation (which may or may not be more efficient) or reduce the red tape for such projects (no one wants it in their area!).

    Those are pretty much the only two choices to move away from the current "coal is cheap, even if it is dirty" issues. I prefer the 2nd, because it offers a lot of advances through universities and associated high end technologies, like nano-tech for solar power, mechanical systems/fluid systems for tidal and so forth. However, this holds some other risks, meaning the change would likely be slower and more organic, and is liable to be reversable by future presidents, giving no benefit at all in the long run (it should be incremental costs, with full disclaimer of the future costs. This stamps down on the FV of such plants, preventing further expansion, while not affecting the current plants for a decent amount of time).

  6. #116
    Senior Member "?"'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    TiSe
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    At the same time I question whether you have any intillectual integrity at all if you would vote for someone who spouts as much economically suicidal BS as he does. Yet, I will assume that you care not about such things, and secretly (or overtly) care more about the man's charisma and his mantic promises for change. Such a lapse in logic, judgement, and discernment has no place in this world. *And yes, I am making an assumption and I am making a judgement. *
    To the contrary. I actually would have voted for Hillary Clinton, Mike Huckabee and even John McCain if he had made the obvious choice of running on a more centrist ticket like the Independent Party where he belonged. Unlike some I have no connection to ideology of any party, but based my decision on my familys needs. If anyone cannot see past the rhetoric of any candidate then theyre making their decision based on emotions. Senator Obama will be the first to admit that he is a politician first and foremost.
    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    There isn't a damn thing subjective about what the man has said. It's a quote. IT IS A BLATANT QUOTE. You cannot argue words, you can only argue the meaning. I defy you to argue the meaning of what he says, or what his cap and trade plan is. Don't sit on your keyboard and attack me for shitting on your "Obama is our saviour parade." Don't come at me like a bunch of retarded bipolar polar bears if you don't have an ounce of information to contribute as a counterargument, only your own personal BS. You want to see dominant TI? Bring it to the table your damn self with some facts, and stop bitching at me for doing nothing more than stating the facts in my opening piece.
    Wow, that says it all.

  7. #117
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    That's the problem, though... why build nuclear power plants?

    There are two approaches that I can think of, outside of a full command economy.

    The first is to subsidise nuclear power. This isn't too bad of an idea, but it narrows the scope of the solution down to just nuclear power. It would have to approach close to nationalisation, unfortunately, to make it viable - with oversight, garbage controls and so forth, adding subsidies and what not give an awful lot of political involvement.

    The second is to raise the price of the non-desirable plants, such as coal. This is a broad-market solution in that it would allow innovation into alternative power systems. However, unfortunately, it wouldn't give much depth - it doesn't support large scale power generation (which may or may not be more efficient) or reduce the red tape for such projects (no one wants it in their area!).

    Those are pretty much the only two choices to move away from the current "coal is cheap, even if it is dirty" issues. I prefer the 2nd, because it offers a lot of advances through universities and associated high end technologies, like nano-tech for solar power, mechanical systems/fluid systems for tidal and so forth. However, this holds some other risks, meaning the change would likely be slower and more organic, and is liable to be reversable by future presidents, giving no benefit at all in the long run (it should be incremental costs, with full disclaimer of the future costs. This stamps down on the FV of such plants, preventing further expansion, while not affecting the current plants for a decent amount of time).
    The problem with nuclear power is excessive regulation. Otherwise it would be economically viable. This is an easy problem to fix. Get rid of the over-the-top regulations that were only put in place to keep people from building nuclear power plants (hmmm...sounds familiar). Most of France's electricity comes from nuclear power. It's not like wind or solar, which are not economically viable.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  8. #118
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    The problem with nuclear power is excessive regulation. Otherwise it would be economically viable. This is an easy problem to fix. Get rid of the over-the-top regulations that were only put in place to keep people from building nuclear power plants (hmmm...sounds familiar). Most of France's electricity comes from nuclear power. It's not like wind or solar, which are not economically viable.
    It really isn't that simple. France has environmental laws codified into its constitution, for example. It has a strong central government. It has a history of nuclear power.

    It's also not regulation, but the cost of capital. The cost simply does not justify the output, relative to cheaper alternatives. Nuclear isn't even viable in the current environment with massive subsidies... even if the public would accept it, which is unlikely, the economic reality is that it wouldn't pass because it is too expensive. No one would take on the risk without some form of underwriting; the government would have to be involved at some level, either by reducing the costs or by underwriting free insurance/etc.

  9. #119
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    I suggest (to some) a wikipedia search on the word "Externality".
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  10. #120
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    It really isn't that simple. France has environmental laws codified into its constitution, for example. It has a strong central government. It has a history of nuclear power.

    It's also not regulation, but the cost of capital. The cost simply does not justify the output, relative to cheaper alternatives. Nuclear isn't even viable in the current environment with massive subsidies... even if the public would accept it, which is unlikely, the economic reality is that it wouldn't pass because it is too expensive. No one would take on the risk without some form of underwriting; the government would have to be involved at some level, either by reducing the costs or by underwriting free insurance/etc.
    I'd like to see what information you have that shows capital costs are so high as to make nuclear power not economically viable. I haven't seen that. However, I would agree that capital costs are higher, but how much higher?

    Btw, those costs are GREATLY influenced by regulation.

    Here's a graph showing the per kwh cost of different types of fuel. Notice how nuclear continues to fall.

    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

Similar Threads

  1. "Green" Energy Fails To Make The Grade
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-25-2017, 12:40 AM
  2. what mental illnesses make people harder to type
    By prplchknz in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 03-23-2014, 12:40 AM
  3. Moving the furniture in. Making the place cozy.
    By Brendan in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-14-2009, 02:52 AM
  4. Geoff makes obligatory welcome thread
    By Geoff in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 04-25-2007, 11:59 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO