 Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,730 Likes: 5
Should be Riding
|
Should be Riding
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,730 Likes: 5 |
Quote:
I remember once when Sinatra doobie-dooed the national anthem.
Quote:
Frank, I can forgive.
Sure, as long as you make laws that only affect things you don't like, right? That's the American way right there... 
Always remember to be yourself. Unless you suck. Then pretend to be someone else.
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,146
Oil Expert
|
|
Oil Expert
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,146 |
Quote:
Quote:
I remember once when Sinatra doobie-dooed the national anthem.
Funny you mention that, Bill. Word is there's a certain gentlemen who resides in British Columbia who once "doobie-dooed" the Canadian National Anthem!
Uh huh. I hear it went somethin' like...
"O Canada,
Our home and umm...and umm...
Duuuuude, it's a really cool place to live, eh!"
(...of course, this is ALL just second hand smok...err, information, so don't quote me on this) 
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,954
Loquacious
|
|
Loquacious
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,954 |
Quote:
Quote:
I remember once when Sinatra doobie-dooed the national anthem.
Quote:
Frank, I can forgive.
Sure, as long as you make laws that only affect things you don't like, right? That's the American way right there...
And yet, when the laws are applied unequally to celebrities, politicians or the wealthy, everyone is up in arms. One law for every person, regardless of status.
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,028 Likes: 8
New Tires
|
|
New Tires
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,028 Likes: 8 |
Sinatra and second hand smoke? Reminds me of a conversation I had with some older retired gentlemen several months ago. Well on Saturdays they all meet at a local neighborhood bar in a suburb that still allows smoking. I have my suspicions that they meet up while their wives are having their hair blued. So a Sinatra song pops up on the jukebox and the conversation turns to Sinatra, then the Rat Pack. Well the consensus was that the Rat pack was cool with their talent, shark skin suits and bad habits. Then one guy says," You know they basically lived their professional lives on TV in the sixties with a smoke in one hand and a drink in the other". They all seemed to agree that if that happened today all hell would break loose.  As far as the national anthem is concerned I don't get upset when singers bastardize it, as most "artist" can't actually sing it. But, when someone nails it, it is worth the wait and quite moving.
Last edited by MACMC; 02/04/2012 11:34 AM.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
H. L. Mencken
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,730 Likes: 5
Should be Riding
|
|
Should be Riding
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,730 Likes: 5 |
Quote:
As far as the national anthem is concerned I don't get upset when singers bastardize it, as most "artist" can't actually sing it. But, when someone nails it, it is worth the wait and quite moving.
That's because most "artists" today can't actually sing.
I agree it's worth it when someone does do a good job
Always remember to be yourself. Unless you suck. Then pretend to be someone else.
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 5,720
Check Pants
|
|
Check Pants
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 5,720 |
Frank, I can forgive, because he's Dead.
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,694 Likes: 22
Monkey Butt
|
|
Monkey Butt
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,694 Likes: 22 |
I know it will sound corny but the one in my lifetime that seemed to really get it with our anthem was Kathie Lee Gifford in 95ish. It did that goose bump thing when she sang it like its supposed to do.
I try to aggravate one person a day. Today may be your day.
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2
Fe Butt
|
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2 |
Well Ron, I gotta admit that while the following artist did that coloratura thing just a couple of times here(remember, earlier I said they're "allowed" only two o' those in my proposed "law" ) I still think a pre-screwed up Whitney Houston here did about as thrilling a rendition of our National Anthem before Super Bowl XLVI in 1991 as I've ever heard! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wupsPg5H6aE
Yep! Just like a good Single Malt Scotch, you might call me "an acquired taste" TOO.(among the many OTHER things you may care to call me, of course)
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,393 Likes: 1
Second Wind
|
|
Second Wind
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,393 Likes: 1 |
I thought this may be relevant to n old thread http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/gre...exrFcB1xQ.emailThe godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change. The implications were extraordinary. Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory. Unlike many “environmentalists,” who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic. His inventions have been used by NASA, among many other scientific organizations. Lovelock’s invention of the electron capture detector in 1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern environmental movement. Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century. Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect. He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances. Among his observations to the Guardian: (1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal. As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.) (2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion. “It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.” (3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines. As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.” (4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”
I have no faith in human perfectability. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active - not more happy - nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago.
Edgar Allan Poe
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,146
Oil Expert
|
|
Oil Expert
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,146 |
I understand he just became a very rich man.
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,954
Loquacious
|
|
Loquacious
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,954 |
Quote:
(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.
As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”
Funny, I mock people who think wind turbines are a waste of energy. What's wasteful is NOT taking advantage of a free powersource, like sun, waves, or wind action, that is a continuous powersource existing on our planet whether we take advantage of it or not. Can it become the base load, perhaps not, but if it is there for the taking, exactly why shouldn't we. Seems the East Coast just shut down this past week because of an overload on the grid. Seems to me that a few hundred extra MW of power might have been appreciated to power all of those A/C units. Whether you build a coal fired power plant or a wind turbine, or a solar panel, you have to consume industrial resources to get that piece of equipment. After you put in the gas or coal-fired plants, you still have to mine those resources, and haul them in via pipeline, or BNSF coal cars. Yes, the scale of generation is much higher, and of course the system is much more stable so long as the fuel is continuous. Put a turbine out in a field, or a few panels, and that's it rather than routine maintenance (you have to do routine maintenance to coal and gas powered plants, and nukes too) for the next 20 or so years. So, maybe you offset the load on a coal plant, or supplement it during heavy demand. I can sure tell you I'd rather see a wind turbine across the street from my house than the tan 350 bbl oil and gas tanks to the east and west of my house with the big HazMat signs on them. I have no problem with building nuke plants either, although I'd be a little more at ease if they were under the jurisdiction and inspected by the Office of Naval Reactors and Dept. of the Navy, since they have a far better record of safety than the civilian utility companies and are driven by safety, not by bottom line profits.
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,146
Oil Expert
|
|
Oil Expert
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,146 |
There was a pretty eye opening article in last month's Popular Science regarding the new containment shelter being constructed for Chernobyl. Actually, horrifying is a better term. The designer/engineer commented that this was just the next structure. As it's designed to last 100 years they will have to build 100 more replacements.
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,146
Oil Expert
|
|
Oil Expert
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,146 |
ONLY...only the Navy should be in charge of nukes. They sleep next to them for six months at a time. Nobody else.
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,630 Likes: 7
Monkey Butt
|
|
Monkey Butt
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,630 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Quote:
(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.
As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”
Funny, I mock people who think wind turbines are a waste of energy. What's wasteful is NOT taking advantage of a free powersource, like sun, waves, or wind action, that is a continuous powersource existing on our planet whether we take advantage of it or not. Can it become the base load, perhaps not, but if it is there for the taking, exactly why shouldn't we. Seems the East Coast just shut down this past week because of an overload on the grid. Seems to me that a few hundred extra MW of power might have been appreciated to power all of those A/C units. Whether you build a coal fired power plant or a wind turbine, or a solar panel, you have to consume industrial resources to get that piece of equipment. After you put in the gas or coal-fired plants, you still have to mine those resources, and haul them in via pipeline, or BNSF coal cars. Yes, the scale of generation is much higher, and of course the system is much more stable so long as the fuel is continuous. Put a turbine out in a field, or a few panels, and that's it rather than routine maintenance (you have to do routine maintenance to coal and gas powered plants, and nukes too) for the next 20 or so years. So, maybe you offset the load on a coal plant, or supplement it during heavy demand. I can sure tell you I'd rather see a wind turbine across the street from my house than the tan 350 bbl oil and gas tanks to the east and west of my house with the big HazMat signs on them. I have no problem with building nuke plants either, although I'd be a little more at ease if they were under the jurisdiction and inspected by the Office of Naval Reactors and Dept. of the Navy, since they have a far better record of safety than the civilian utility companies and are driven by safety, not by bottom line profits.
Mock away, windmills would not exist without massive taxpayer subsidies. Anything works it you pour enough money into it. Any bets as to how long it will be before we're looking for government subsidies to remove those broken down windmills from farmers fields and prairies?
My latest favorite is the Navy spending over $26 per gallon for "green" fuel rather than $3.50 for old fashioned oil. Chicken fat and old french fry oil powering the Navy at 8-10 times the cost. I wonder if it comes from the same bottomless pocket as the other recent "green" boondoggles?
We all like to think of ourselves as rugged individualists. But when push comes to shove most of us are sheep who do what we are told. Worst of all, a lot of us become unpaid agents of whoever is controlling the agenda by enforcing the current dogma on the few rugged individualists who actually exist.
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,026
Learned Hand
|
|
Learned Hand
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,026 |
And the expected lifespan of a windmill is 15 years or so, they are high maintenance, and, as Larry mentions, heavily subsidized, so....how is that free?
Plus, when there is no wind, from where does that "free" energy come? Energy is needed immediately, upon demand, with no wind, no energy, and thats a major bummer(just think how things would be no wind and this heatwave, no a/c, no fans, and many people perishing).
Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and will never be.----Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,954
Loquacious
|
|
Loquacious
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,954 |
and you have data that supports 15 years? I know from my extensive trips to Germany that they have wind farms supplying small towns (10's of thousands) that were in operation before my first trips in '96, and still are today). Further, not sure where you get "high maintenance"? Would you care to do some research on the maintenance it takes to run a coal fired plant like Commanche down in Pueblo, or any other plant for that matter. Or a nuke plant for that matter, I can guarantee you it is substantial. With regard to the no wind thing, I can't recall a day since I moved to northern Colorado 2 years ago that we haven't had enough of a breeze, especially after sunset, to run a wind turbine, they are actually designed to run quite well on a breeze of only a few miles per hour. That will improve substantially with the new generation of wind turbines coming online that use air core generators and direct drive, both technologies which will greatly reduce cost,complexity, starting torque, and raise efficiency as a result.
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,954
Loquacious
|
|
Loquacious
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,954 |
Funny Larry, it was windmills, as "unreliable" as you wish them to be, that actually made settling this part of the country, Kansas, Nebraska,etc... even feasible. There'd be no farming whatsoever out this way if "broken down windmills" hadn't pumped irrigation and feed water to farmers all over the western half of the US. Hell, Holland would be a sunken swamp without those "broken down" windmills. As far as subsidies, that's such a worn out argument it's ridiculous. Without Uncle Sam, there would be NO:
-national rail network that actually helped turn this country into the industrial giant it is(or was)
-telephone network
-electrical distribution infrastructure
-major oil industry
-national interstate network
-nuclear power plants, had it not been for Uncle Sam and the Navy, nuclear power would still be a lab experiment with no practical applications
-internet
and so on ad nauseum.
Larry, new technologies take seed money. While some companies get government grants, such as my current employer, we have more than matched that seed money in private funding. Tesla Motors is a green boondoggle, and it's doing QUITE well. They are achieving almost 300 miles on an all electric vehicle, and are rolling out a passenger sedan that is drop dead sexy and comes close to 300 miles on a charge. They don't seem to have much problem selling those boondoggles, and if I had that much money, I can guarantee you I'd park one in my driveway (the Lotus based version) Yes, there are losers in the field like Solyndra, and they take a lot of money down with them. So what. There are losers in the private sector every day, some of those losers are well-established and have taken a LOT more money with them when they lost. Perhaps AIG, JP Morgan ($9 BILLION AND COUNTING), Enron, Goldman Sachs all come to mind. It's the nature of business, some thrive, some die. But funny, for all your talk of boondoggles, there isn't a major auto manufacturer right now that ISN'T bringing an electric car to the market. The Chinese are even looking at importing our motors into their market to serve the Chinese market (assuming they haven't stolen it already!) Yeah, the EV market is rough right now, so is the economy, but despite that, car companies are marching forward with EV's regardless. And thankfully, the gov't has stepped in to help, since banks weren't all that bullish on lending after 2008 and the Crash. Even for companies seeking loans for established ideas and technologies the money wasn't there, let alone new markets. And billions are being dumped by private investors and major technology manufacturers into battery technology for EV's,(and other markets) amounts of money that DWARF government investment.
We can argue all day about this, I'm sure, but will never see eye to eye, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see which version of history proves right....
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,146
Oil Expert
|
|
Oil Expert
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,146 |
The Volt is a GREAT car and, contrary to disingenuous rumors, it is the safest car on the road. The 'fire rumor' turned out to be a myth no doubt fostered by oil money. When the price comes down I'll be getting an electric.
Everyone will eventually (when the price inevitably drops) unless money doesn't matter to them. Let's see, 300 miles on $3 worth of electricity or $34 dollars worth of gas (assuming your car get 30mpg). I drive around 20,000 miles a year. An electric car will cost me $2-$300 a year in 'fuel' costs. A fuel efficient (let's say 30 mpg) car will run me around $2,600. They are already building recharging stations all over the city I live closest too. The city and county switched to compressed natural gas vehicles a few years back and saved millions. They are already planning on converting to electric.
I don't know how many of you are tool guys (I own ever tool known to man) but cordless tools used to be a fall back. Something handy for small jobs. The NiCad and nickel metal hydride batteries simply weren't powerful enough, didn't hold a charge long enough, and had too short a life expectancy to be relied upon.
With the advent of lithium ion batteries, about the only power tool with a cord or hose I use with any frequency are saws, and that's only if I'm doing a lot of cutting. I'd still defer to my cordless Sawzall most of the time. Lithium batteries changed everything.
Do you think there isn't going to be an even better battery rolling out, not to mention motors, solar panels, charging systems?
Folks that bad mouth electric cars sound to me like my father-in-law who insists nobody uses the internet for business.
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,393 Likes: 1
Second Wind
|
|
Second Wind
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,393 Likes: 1 |
300 miles is a far too limited range for me, and the electric cars are far too expensive. I dont know how well our power grid will hold up to thousands upon thousands of cars being charged all night and at random during the day. A lot of improvement will have to be made to make that a viable alternative. However they should keep up the development. Gasoline engines didn't take over in one day. I like the propane and hydrogen engines better right now. I would get one if it were available in a car more readily. I have a friend who has a a GMC diesel that has a propane injection system that is pretty impressive. He gets much more power and fuel economy. One more thing about those batteries there needs to be a plan to deal with those very toxic buggers when they go bad, because they go bad.
I have no faith in human perfectability. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active - not more happy - nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago.
Edgar Allan Poe
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,630 Likes: 7
Monkey Butt
|
|
Monkey Butt
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,630 Likes: 7 |
If these technologies were so promising there would be private capital out there to finance them. The fact that greenies in government have to tax away capital from the private sector to “invest” in these companies shows a lack of faith by investors that these companies are viable. The rash of bankruptcies in DOE backed companies in the last year or two seems to back up the private sectors viewpoint. As for windmills, the ones that used to be scattered throughout the landscape were not paid for by the government and were used for limited purposes. Because a windmill is used to pump water does not make it a good choice for electricity, especially when it requires billions of taxpayer dollars to make it work. As soon as economics, rather than green zeal and rent seeking opportunists, begin to drive the equation, the windmills will be abandoned and become just a visible monument to wishful thinking. For a real life example just google “windmills in Spain.”
As for electric cars, which one does not have a huge government subsidy?
We all like to think of ourselves as rugged individualists. But when push comes to shove most of us are sheep who do what we are told. Worst of all, a lot of us become unpaid agents of whoever is controlling the agenda by enforcing the current dogma on the few rugged individualists who actually exist.
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,954
Loquacious
|
|
Loquacious
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,954 |
You seemed to have missed my post Larry. There is private capital out there to finance them. Our company alone has already raised over $45 million from shareholders alone, and was actually a condition of our grant. We continue to raise money privately. Same goes with Tesla. There are lots of private investors out there, however the cost to go from prototypes to manufacturing is very costly, the grant money allows us to hire people and buy the equipment necessary to accelerate our shift to volume production. If we don't do it Larry, I can guarantee you that the Chinese WILL and ARE doing it as we speak. Should we just sit back and hand yet another manufacturing sector to China? Frankly, I'm kind of tired of doing that. If all goes well with this battery EV project, we might actually be manufacturing product here in Colorado, and sending it back to China instead of the usual crap.
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,393 Likes: 1
Second Wind
|
|
Second Wind
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,393 Likes: 1 |
These huge wind farms are quite dangerous for migratory birds. I think it would be fantastic if folks that had room wanted to use one for themself, the same goes for solar panels. I would even be for a requirement in the building code for large public buildings, commericial building, and industrial buildings to have some level of self contained owner opperated supplementary power source, be it a shopping mall with solar panels or factory with wind mills. I think that paints a clear enough picture. Big players with big energy consumption should be able to afford such amenities while in the new construction phase of things.
I have no faith in human perfectability. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active - not more happy - nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago.
Edgar Allan Poe
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,954
Loquacious
|
|
Loquacious
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,954 |
Quote:
300 miles is a far too limited range for me
One more thing about those batteries there needs to be a plan to deal with those very toxic buggers when they go bad, because they go bad.
Good points. My using Tesla as an example was merely to show that there is great potential there. Most other battery EV's are only getting 80-100 miles per charge, Tesla now gets almost 300. It is possible, and the new 4 door passenger car is about the price of a mid-range Mercedes, so it is within the reach of some people already. And 300 miles will serve the needs of a lot of average people. Yes, range, and more importantly charge time, need to improve. And it is as evidence by the Tesla. And with the amount of private investment in these technologies by MAJOR players (despite Larrys assertion that there isn't), this WILL improve and I don't think we'll be waiting 10-20 years to see it, more like 5. There are also ways to charge them without causing a major disruption to the grid, although after the blackouts we've seen recently, and with pretty much EVERY major weather event, I would say regardless of battery EV's, our grid needs upgrading NOW!
With regard to the batteries, to my knowledge most of them are already being designed with recyclability in mind.
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,028 Likes: 8
New Tires
|
|
New Tires
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,028 Likes: 8 |
Windmills did help settle the arid west and drain the Holland lowlands, but as soon as they became part of the grid those pumps were electrified. Did they hate Mother Earth or was it econ 101? 
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
H. L. Mencken
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,028 Likes: 8
New Tires
|
|
New Tires
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,028 Likes: 8 |
Tesla is a good example of how a new auto manufacturer should operate, granted they received a gov low interest loan, they've got skin in the game and produce in the USA. Also, Ford is competing with a similar vehicle without gov loans. The down side of Tesla is the max 270 miles on a four hour charge. Don't expect to get across country quick, especially using the heater or air conditioning. Another problem is that if for some reason a Tesla's battery become depleted or below a minimum, the auto becomes what is called a "brick". A "brick" has to have the total battery pack replaced at owner's expense, $40,000, there is a prepaid plan for replacing batteries after their useful life, but not a "brick". There are also problems with towing a "brick" If lots of consumers buy electric cars, there is going to be a problem with our electric grid. Even at present, in large metro areas, where electric autos make sense, they scramble to prevent rolling brown outs. This will only get worse as EPA regs shut down older coal fire plants. Hopefully, the gas from fracking will take up the slack. I'm all for subsidizing research and even low interest gov loans where the majority risk is carried by the recipient. http://jalopnik.com/5887265/tesla-motors-devastating-design-problem
Last edited by MACMC; 07/07/2012 4:56 PM.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
H. L. Mencken
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,146
Oil Expert
|
|
Oil Expert
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,146 |
Quote:
If these technologies were so promising there would be private capital out there to finance them. The fact that greenies in government have to tax away capital from the private sector to “invest” in these companies shows a lack of faith by investors that these companies are viable. The rash of bankruptcies in DOE backed companies in the last year or two seems to back up the private sectors viewpoint. As for windmills, the ones that used to be scattered throughout the landscape were not paid for by the government and were used for limited purposes. Because a windmill is used to pump water does not make it a good choice for electricity, especially when it requires billions of taxpayer dollars to make it work. As soon as economics, rather than green zeal and rent seeking opportunists, begin to drive the equation, the windmills will be abandoned and become just a visible monument to wishful thinking. For a real life example just google “windmills in Spain.”
As for electric cars, which one does not have a huge government subsidy?
Using that logic we should quit using gasoline immediately because oil companies receive the largest subsidies of any industry ($409 billion in 2010). In March there was a bill to end the oil subsidies. It got 51 votes but it was filibustered.
Last edited by Smokey3214; 07/07/2012 5:30 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,630 Likes: 7
Monkey Butt
|
|
Monkey Butt
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,630 Likes: 7 |
Taking money from the government and letting the taxpayer be the loser of first resort is not the same thing as private equity. So far most of the "green investments" the current administration has made are simply money stuffed down a rat hole. If the investment was worth doing there would be no need for government guarantees or matching funds. The way this normally works is that the investors get any profit and the taxpayers are stuck with the losses. All for the politically connected politically correct investor. Solyndra comes to mind as well as several others.
We all like to think of ourselves as rugged individualists. But when push comes to shove most of us are sheep who do what we are told. Worst of all, a lot of us become unpaid agents of whoever is controlling the agenda by enforcing the current dogma on the few rugged individualists who actually exist.
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,393 Likes: 1
Second Wind
|
|
Second Wind
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,393 Likes: 1 |
I'm not much of one for corporate welfare either. Even the oil buisness could do with out gooberment money in my op.
I have no faith in human perfectability. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active - not more happy - nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago.
Edgar Allan Poe
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,028 Likes: 8
New Tires
|
|
New Tires
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,028 Likes: 8 |
I assume you are referring to depreciation expenses and expenses in general that all for profit organizations get to take in general accounting practices and on taxes.
Also, in cases that energy , green or fossil, is subsidized, the proper way to compare is cost per unit produced, not the gross amount of dollars. For example, if one calculates subsidy dollars per unit of BTU or KW produced and usable. The argument concerning green vs fossil subsidies doesn't hold water, green energy subsidies per unit dwarf fossil energy per unit subsidies.
From the Congressional Research Service, 2009
"subsidies", $ per million BTU
Fossil Fuels $ .04
Renewables $1.94
These numbers are from 2009, my gut feeling is that the renewables' numbers have increased.
Last edited by MACMC; 07/07/2012 5:55 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2
Fe Butt
|
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2 |
Well guys, personally I couldn't tell ya why we're havin' this heat wave this summer which seems out of the ordinary. Nope, all I (or at least the leggy and shapely Ann Miller here) can tell ya is that it's... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CYjE9Gv3A4
Yep! Just like a good Single Malt Scotch, you might call me "an acquired taste" TOO.(among the many OTHER things you may care to call me, of course)
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,681 Likes: 1
Bar Shake
|
|
Bar Shake
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,681 Likes: 1 |
That's the most interesting thing I've seen or heard in this whole thread, Dwight. 
"Catching a yellow jacket in your shirt at seventy miles per hour can double your vocabulary" Author unknown
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,028 Likes: 8
New Tires
|
|
New Tires
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,028 Likes: 8 |
Legs is right, Jesus! She and Ginger, both beautiful legs and great talents. Thanks for the vid. Oh it's got to be global warming or maybe the solar flares that disrupted European communications systems recently.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
H. L. Mencken
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,630 Likes: 7
Monkey Butt
|
|
Monkey Butt
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,630 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
I assume you are referring to depreciation expenses and expenses in general that all for profit organizations get to take in general accounting practices and on taxes.
Also, in cases that energy , green or fossil, is subsidized, the proper way to compare is cost per unit produced, not the gross amount of dollars. For example, if one calculates subsidy dollars per unit of BTU or KW produced and usable. The argument concerning green vs fossil subsidies doesn't hold water, green energy subsidies per unit dwarf fossil energy per unit subsidies.
From the Congressional Research Service, 2009
"subsidies", $ per million BTU
Fossil Fuels $ .04
Renewables $1.94
These numbers are from 2009, my gut feeling is that the renewables' numbers have increased.
The taxes on fossil fuels are several orders of magnitude larger than any subsidy. Like tobacco, the government makes a LOT more money off them than the producing companies do.
We all like to think of ourselves as rugged individualists. But when push comes to shove most of us are sheep who do what we are told. Worst of all, a lot of us become unpaid agents of whoever is controlling the agenda by enforcing the current dogma on the few rugged individualists who actually exist.
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,821
Bar Shake
|
|
Bar Shake
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,821 |
Quote:
Quote:
If these technologies were so promising there would be private capital out there to finance them. The fact that greenies in government have to tax away capital from the private sector to “invest” in these companies shows a lack of faith by investors that these companies are viable. The rash of bankruptcies in DOE backed companies in the last year or two seems to back up the private sectors viewpoint. As for windmills, the ones that used to be scattered throughout the landscape were not paid for by the government and were used for limited purposes. Because a windmill is used to pump water does not make it a good choice for electricity, especially when it requires billions of taxpayer dollars to make it work. As soon as economics, rather than green zeal and rent seeking opportunists, begin to drive the equation, the windmills will be abandoned and become just a visible monument to wishful thinking. For a real life example just google “windmills in Spain.”
As for electric cars, which one does not have a huge government subsidy?
Using that logic we should quit using gasoline immediately because oil companies receive the largest subsidies of any industry ($409 billion in 2010). In March there was a bill to end the oil subsidies. It got 51 votes but it was filibustered.
Right you are Chet, with research subsidies, tax breaks, anti-free market protections, etc., the petroleum industry is indeed heavily subsidized. Not to mention the high cost of militarily protecting the oil rich regions in the Middle East.
Contra todo mal, mezcal; contra todo bien, también
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,954
Loquacious
|
|
Loquacious
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,954 |
point is Larry, the oil industry has shown that it is quite able to turn a decent profit and could do so even without the subsidies. YOUR argument was that if they were a viable industry, they should NOT NEED SUBISIDIES. Well, oil has been somewhat viable for over 100 years, so when are they going to get off of the gov't teet? My company pays taxes too, but we're not turning a PROFIT, i.e. AFTER TAXES of tens of billions of dollars. Nor are we still receiving any more grant money, ours was a one shot deal, not a year after year after year deal....
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,028 Likes: 8
New Tires
|
|
New Tires
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,028 Likes: 8 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If these technologies were so promising there would be private capital out there to finance them. The fact that greenies in government have to tax away capital from the private sector to “invest” in these companies shows a lack of faith by investors that these companies are viable. The rash of bankruptcies in DOE backed companies in the last year or two seems to back up the private sectors viewpoint. As for windmills, the ones that used to be scattered throughout the landscape were not paid for by the government and were used for limited purposes. Because a windmill is used to pump water does not make it a good choice for electricity, especially when it requires billions of taxpayer dollars to make it work. As soon as economics, rather than green zeal and rent seeking opportunists, begin to drive the equation, the windmills will be abandoned and become just a visible monument to wishful thinking. For a real life example just google “windmills in Spain.”
As for electric cars, which one does not have a huge government subsidy?
Using that logic we should quit using gasoline immediately because oil companies receive the largest subsidies of any industry ($409 billion in 2010). In March there was a bill to end the oil subsidies. It got 51 votes but it was filibustered.
Right you are Chet, with research subsidies, tax breaks, anti-free market protections, etc., the petroleum industry is indeed heavily subsidized. Not to mention the high cost of militarily protecting the oil rich regions in the Middle East.
First the $409 billion number is subsidies world wide and considering the 13 or 14 largest oil companies are government owned that's not surprising. Actually most large oil companies in the world are nationalized.
In the US the "subsidies" are pretty much agreed, with liberal definitions, to be $4.5 billion in 2010. Of that, $1 billion is IRS SEC 199 investment tax credit given to all US corporations, designed to keep employment in the US. Oil companies take 6%, all other US companies take 9%.
Another $1 billion goes into the Strategic Oil Reserve, the reasons for that are obvious.
Another $1 billion is off road and farm use exemption from petroleum fuel excise taxes. In other words, farmers and construction companies don't pay the "road use' tax at the pump for vehicles not using the roads.
A little over 1/2 billion goes to low income energy assistance. The other $2- billion go to all kinds of efficiency research and different items congress critters and special interest have carved out.
For a minute, let's pretend that all the Middle East problems were solved. Does anyone believe our military would shrink back to pre-WWII size. No, it won't because the world is a dangerous place and it's in the free world's interest to have a modicum of stability. Don't blame big military budgets on big oil, blame it on our allies that free ride, we subsidize their military, their military is us.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
H. L. Mencken
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,821
Bar Shake
|
|
Bar Shake
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,821 |
Quote:
For a minute, let's pretend that all the Middle East problems were solved. Does anyone believe our military would shrink back to pre-WWII size. No, it won't because the world is a dangerous place and it's in the free world's interest to have a modicum of stability. Don't blame big military budgets on big oil, blame it on our allies that free ride, we subsidize their military, their military is us.
That's a rather bizarre reading of what I said  
Contra todo mal, mezcal; contra todo bien, también
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,630 Likes: 7
Monkey Butt
|
|
Monkey Butt
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,630 Likes: 7 |
The "subsidies" you guys bemoan are largely the tax breaks that all industries get. Oil companies make less on each dollar of investment than many, if not most industries. And every business tax deduction is called a subsidy by the Luddites. If that is the case I guess the deductions I get for cost of goods sold, rent and employee wages should be called subsidies from the government and I should kiss someone's ring in humble gratitude.
As for subsidies, how much do the Feds and states rake off the top of oil company sales? They get much more from each gallon than the oil companies do.
Lastly, who owns these evil despicable oil companies? If you have any mutual funds or pension investments YOU DO! Of course I'm sure none of you would mind giving up those profits and retiring on less.
We all like to think of ourselves as rugged individualists. But when push comes to shove most of us are sheep who do what we are told. Worst of all, a lot of us become unpaid agents of whoever is controlling the agenda by enforcing the current dogma on the few rugged individualists who actually exist.
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,669
Learned Hand
|
|
Learned Hand
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,669 |
What if we all just went back to riding horses?
|
|
|
Re: Global Warming?
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,028 Likes: 8
New Tires
|
|
New Tires
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,028 Likes: 8 |
Quote:
Quote:
For a minute, let's pretend that all the Middle East problems were solved. Does anyone believe our military would shrink back to pre-WWII size. No, it won't because the world is a dangerous place and it's in the free world's interest to have a modicum of stability. Don't blame big military budgets on big oil, blame it on our allies that free ride, we subsidize their military, their military is us.
That's a rather bizarre reading of what I said
We do it because no one else is capable and the flow of oil is what drives the modern economies of the west, therefore it's stability. The US needs Mid East oil less than anyone. Bizarre or big picture. I thought the $409 billion number was bizarre.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
H. L. Mencken
|
|
|
|
|
