Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 13 to 21 of 21
  1. #13

    Re: Clean Energy Act



    Quote Originally Posted by Rochardrik View Post
    Hold on now...those projections are for "by 2035" The last time I checked, that's like 26 years.. Advancements in these areas come exponentially.... especially when you have an actual concerted effort to make these advances... which to now , there have been no real efforts .... Additionally, advances in the disposition of nuclear waste could pave the way for nuclear power plants... dozens of them. Necessity is the mother of invention. Just look at all the things we now use because of the research done in WWII..
    I'm not saying this bill is a good thing.. I haven't been able to analyze it. But I do believe these projections are based solely on what we know today.
    There has been huge effort and great strides in the power sources you discuss for the last two to three decades, they are still nowhere NEAR efficient enough for widespread use....

    Nuclear on the other hand, is another animal altogether. But with a Liberal president and legislature you can kiss those dreams goodbye... LIbs REFUSE to have ANY SORT of REASONABLE energy plan, AT ALL.
    There are only two reasonable ways to reduce our dependance on foreign oil, EXACTLY TWO.
    1. Nuke plants
    2. Tapping DOMESTIC sources of fossill fuels(ANWAR, ICS, Oil Shale, etc).

    No lib will support either any time soon, they'd rather tax it....




  2. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    in my house
    Posts
    135

    Re: Clean Energy Act

    Here is what we know the world changes and nobody realizes what is going on at the time. 20 some years ago folks were busy buying fax machines and we were running out of phone numbers, today people are dropping their landlines and fax machines are already a thing of the past. For the past 30 years we couldn't build malls fast enough now we can't tear them down fast enough. 25 Years ago if we saw 8% on a fix mortgage we would of thought we died and went to heaven (these were days where you actually had to prove you could make the payments) today we would think it was the end of the world. 20 years ago cable was taking over the world today people have begun to turn off TV in favor of the internet. The point is we don't really know where we will be getting our future energy could be nuclear (fusion or fission), could be anything the change could be happening right now but no one see's it but we have to do something. This country has sat on it's ass too long (since 74) because they didn't want to make tough decisions if we don't soon do something both the economy and environment will be beyond repair.




  3. #15

    Re: Clean Energy Act

    Quote Originally Posted by PD101 View Post
    Here is what we know the world changes and nobody realizes what is going on at the time. 20 some years ago folks were busy buying fax machines and we were running out of phone numbers, today people are dropping their landlines and fax machines are already a thing of the past. For the past 30 years we couldn't build malls fast enough now we can't tear them down fast enough. 25 Years ago if we saw 8% on a fix mortgage we would of thought we died and went to heaven (these were days where you actually had to prove you could make the payments) today we would think it was the end of the world. 20 years ago cable was taking over the world today people have begun to turn off TV in favor of the internet. The point is we don't really know where we will be getting our future energy could be nuclear (fusion or fission), could be anything the change could be happening right now but no one see's it but we have to do something. This country has sat on it's ass too long (since 74) because they didn't want to make tough decisions if we don't soon do something both the economy and environment will be beyond repair.
    I agree 100% on this!




  4. #16

    Re: Clean Energy Act

    Quote Originally Posted by jonboy79 View Post
    There has been huge effort and great strides in the power sources you discuss for the last two to three decades, they are still nowhere NEAR efficient enough for widespread use....

    Nuclear on the other hand, is another animal altogether. But with a Liberal president and legislature you can kiss those dreams goodbye... LIbs REFUSE to have ANY SORT of REASONABLE energy plan, AT ALL.
    There are only two reasonable ways to reduce our dependance on foreign oil, EXACTLY TWO.
    1. Nuke plants
    2. Tapping DOMESTIC sources of fossill fuels(ANWAR, ICS, Oil Shale, etc).

    No lib will support either any time soon, they'd rather tax it....
    I can't agree with your first statement. We could be decades further if a REAl effort had been made starting in the '70's, when the oil crisis first reared it's ugly head. The mpg standards set for the near future could have been met decades ago..., The car manufacturers admit that, but they were not forced to. Then there is the whole American ideology that bigger is better.. combined with the whole We're American, we DESERVE to be the world's biggest fuel consumers... and wasters...
    Oil shale is maybe the worst of the bunch... Do you realize how much propane is burned to capture the oil?... A case of double indemnity, if you ask me.
    Finally... Libs refuse to have any reasonable sort of energy plan...at all. Huh? Wha? R-U-kiddin' me?.. I figure the plan SHOULD begin with cutting usage and alternative "fuel" be it hydrogen, solar, wind, oceanic currents... or some yet undiscovered substance. Where was Dubya's plan?...Invade Iraq and mak'em sell on the cheap?
    There are not enough fossil fuels to last indefinitely, and the reserves in THIS country, even if tapped would not serve as a lengthy solution... So why delay the inevitable?




  5. #17

    Re: Clean Energy Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Rochardrik View Post
    I can't agree with your first statement. We could be decades further if a REAl effort had been made starting in the '70's, when the oil crisis first reared it's ugly head. The mpg standards set for the near future could have been met decades ago..., The car manufacturers admit that, but they were not forced to. Then there is the whole American ideology that bigger is better.. combined with the whole We're American, we DESERVE to be the world's biggest fuel consumers... and wasters...
    Oil shale is maybe the worst of the bunch... Do you realize how much propane is burned to capture the oil?... A case of double indemnity, if you ask me.
    Finally... Libs refuse to have any reasonable sort of energy plan...at all. Huh? Wha? R-U-kiddin' me?.. I figure the plan SHOULD begin with cutting usage and alternative "fuel" be it hydrogen, solar, wind, oceanic currents... or some yet undiscovered substance. Where was Dubya's plan?...Invade Iraq and mak'em sell on the cheap?
    There are not enough fossil fuels to last indefinitely, and the reserves in THIS country, even if tapped would not serve as a lengthy solution... So why delay the inevitable?
    We were talking about solar and wind and ocean currents, etc. Not viable as of now, not likely to be soon.
    I agree that cars could certainly conserve much more. Conservation in general has promise.
    Oil shale is currently plentiful, yet exactly as you mention inneficient at the moment. I'm more interested in working on that then the above choices, that has potential to be a realistic option. IN the same mindset, Ethanol needs some tech help and should be viable SOON.
    HYdrogen, sounds great.

    Dubya's and Repubs plan is the realistic one. Nuke plants NOW, LOTS of them, and Drill Anwar and ICS. I will repeat, this is the ONLY REASONABLE energy plan. Anything not centered on these two things is pie in the sky.
    That is the plan that allows the developing technologies to, ya know, develop.... Until they develop, we are stuck financing terrorism. THe libs have no issue with this whatsoever. I do. I want energy available here and now.
    Connies have the same energy plan as libs.... PLUS drilling in ANWAR, and ICS, Fozens of Nuke plants, and oh yeah, no regressive taxation. Nobody is suggesting avoiding the developing technologies you speak of, but that investment MAY pay off in as little as 20 years... Let's look a bit shorter term then that as well...




  6. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern PA
    Posts
    4,966
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Clean Energy Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    Africa loves Obama.
    Thats because he was born in Kenya.




  7. #19

    Re: Clean Energy Act

    Quote Originally Posted by TRAP View Post
    Hey guys, scroll several posts up and see my GM comments about them laying off more people.


    On top of laying off the number above, they are about to lop off 20,000 more jobs by 2011 after filing for bankruptcy. They are closing more plants. And most of these plants are in the midwest - Ohio, Michigan and Indiana which is already a third world country from so many plants closing. People out there cant get food.


    Well, that should help clean up some air heh?

    Guys from Merrill Lynch told me this is the depression, especially for those people. My friend was the manager of a ML office in Bel Air. they just closed it down and he laid off about a dozen people. A few of them got jobs in their Towson office. Last year, Morgan Stanley closed its office in Bel air. My friend is now just selling for ML after taking a $50,000 pr year cut in salary. OUCH!


    This is the govts biggest incursion into the private sector yet. Even Pravda printed headlines saying how shocked they are at American descent into socialism.

    Obama keeps saying the govt will not own GM but after filing bankruptcy the govt will be the biggest share holders of its stock after giving them billions.

    A GM worker told me in the gym that he hasnt worked for 2 years. He still gets paid though. GM has charity work like painting nursing homes and what not, so the union sends him out on that. He said there's a gang car pooling up to Wilmington, DE every day to paint some bldg. He painted cars for GM. its either that or, get this, sitting in the union hall all day and watching TV and still getting paid $60 pr hr and there are a lot of guys doing just that.

    No wonder they are in bankruptcy but building all those SUVs and $4 gas prices last summer killed GM and gas is going back to $4. It was $2.49 today - up from $1.54 at Christmas.

    Oh yea, in addition to the plant closings there are already GM dealerships closing around the country because they cant sell cars and it trickles down to the suppliers of parts.

    It's not a good time to own a Chevy because if you need an alternator, you might not get one.


    But this isn't socialism. The govt does not own GM. It is only temporary. sic, sic.



    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124385428627671889.html


    Elsewhere, GM isnt the only one laying off. Over 1/2 million jobs were lost for month of May in USA.

    Like I said, this is the depression, especially for these people.



    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090603/...ByaXZhdGVzZWM-
    Trap, just what are you blaming on Obama this time? That he is trying to do something to help? Gm made it's bed... all by itself... with a little help from the Bush Admin.... As a preference to what the government is trying to do to help GM, what is your solution? Just let'em fail, fire everybody, and leave all current GM owners in the lurch?Obama didn't create their problem, neither did the former presidents. BUT....mandating mileage improvements years ago might have helped... dunno....Just what is your point? or is there none?




  8. #20

    Re: Clean Energy Act

    Quote Originally Posted by TRAP View Post
    I dont know about now w/o looking it up, but remember when gas was $4 last summer and went down

    That was during the olympics when there was so much pollution in China that the govt increased gas tax at the pumps to discourage buying. Even the American olympic team arrived wearing masks which greatly upset the govt.

    The Chinese suddenly went from bicycles to cars after turning to good ole American capitalism and with a billion people suddenly driving cars, you can imagine the pollution problem.

    Also, their industry is run by coal, and a lot of it. When Fred Grau came back from the Special Olympics a couple of years ago, he said there was only 1 day when you could see the sun due to the pollution.

    Gas dropped here after the Chinese imposed that gas tax. Went all the way down to $1.54 in Dec but is now back up to $2.33 and rising back to $4.

    So I dont know what is going on in China now, except it cant be good.

    China is also a key player in our economy and they are reducing their buying of our debt. Thats why Hilly was over there - begging them not to stop.

    Once China pulls the plug, watch out.

    What happened to our economy in Sept is nutten compared to what will happen then.

    But China needs us as much as we need them. They need us to buy their cheap goods on large scales and we need them to buy our debt to keep our interest rates down.

    Otherwise, we d be paying a lot more interest than we already are.

    And Hal Lindsay wrote 35 years ago that America would go under when foreigners stopped investing here. So far we are still the show case of the world and that keeps our economy hanging by a thread.
    So, you are blaming what on Hillary? The trillions of debt to China Dubya created with a bogus unneedful war?
    Boy, that good ole American Capitalism is helping out a lot, isn't it? That's Dubya's legacy... Let's make the whole world like us(being too ignorant to realize the consequences) and make them contenders for the fuel we need to buy!
    Ya know, the further in the past it gets, the more we realize just how ignorant, incompetent and downright independent that heh-heh- (snicker, snicker) group of morons actually was!




  9. #21

    Re: Clean Energy Act

    Quote Originally Posted by jonboy79 View Post
    We were talking about solar and wind and ocean currents, etc. Not viable as of now, not likely to be soon.
    I agree that cars could certainly conserve much more. Conservation in general has promise.
    Oil shale is currently plentiful, yet exactly as you mention inneficient at the moment. I'm more interested in working on that then the above choices, that has potential to be a realistic option. IN the same mindset, Ethanol needs some tech help and should be viable SOON.
    HYdrogen, sounds great.

    Dubya's and Repubs plan is the realistic one. Nuke plants NOW, LOTS of them, and Drill Anwar and ICS. I will repeat, this is the ONLY REASONABLE energy plan. Anything not centered on these two things is pie in the sky.
    That is the plan that allows the developing technologies to, ya know, develop.... Until they develop, we are stuck financing terrorism. THe libs have no issue with this whatsoever. I do. I want energy available here and now.
    Connies have the same energy plan as libs.... PLUS drilling in ANWAR, and ICS, Fozens of Nuke plants, and oh yeah, no regressive taxation. Nobody is suggesting avoiding the developing technologies you speak of, but that investment MAY pay off in as little as 20 years... Let's look a bit shorter term then that as well...
    Agree on the shorter term comment.... We need at least temporary solutions now. I was reading about advancements on the nuclear waste disposal issue. It seems they are developing a way to render the waste unharmful. If so, I can't see either side taking issue with nuclear power.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland