Gas Holiday this Summer
-
Pierre Leclercq wrote:
Build an adequate number of nuclear plants, and you have all the electricity you will ever need.
Not that I disagree, but along with the nukes comes nuclear waste that needs to be "dealt with". There is no free lunch. <facetious> Of course, if we completely eliminated our need of Middle Eastern oil and let the Arabs and Israelis fight it out to mutual extinction that would be a great place to bury the spent fuel rods. </facetious>
True, there is no free lunch ... the denial of this is implicit in Mr Simmons' idea (and some of the other responses) for solving the problem. But, regarding nuclear waste: the French and the Japanese (and I think British) generate a lion's share of the electricity they use via the nuclear route. Do they glow in the dark?
-
Shog9 wrote:
And you clearly don't want to read.
I read -- and responded to -- exactly what you wrote. Your response to what I'd written[^] was: "And if God didn't want a brutal tyrant running the country, then a brutal tyrant wouldn't be running the country..." and now you want to whine because I responded to *that* just as it deserved.
modified on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 3:30 PM
Then tell me my friend, do you really believe that you - and i - have no role in how this country is run? That we should accept the current state of affairs as the best possible situation for all involved? Do you accept the choices of the mob over your own judgment, or bite your tongue when you see madness and say to yourself, "if what i consider sanity were feasible, it would already be universal, therefore i am wrong and they are right"? Because that doesn't sound like you at all. Not the persona you project onto this forum at least.
Last modified: 19mins after originally posted -- Hoho! So you modify your post after i reply rather! Well, you still fail. I quoted the bit of your post i replied to, and altered the subject to reflect my interpretation of what you were saying. At this point, you've replied twice, and twice failed provide anything of relevance to what i said - so if you *can* read and *do* read then what you lack must be understanding.
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
-
True, there is no free lunch ... the denial of this is implicit in Mr Simmons' idea (and some of the other responses) for solving the problem. But, regarding nuclear waste: the French and the Japanese (and I think British) generate a lion's share of the electricity they use via the nuclear route. Do they glow in the dark?
Ilíon wrote:
Do they glow in the dark?
Soon enough... Radioactive Waste Leaking into Champagne Water Supply[^] Japan's nuclear waste will spill from new plant's chimney[^] British Nuclear Waste in the Irish Sea[^]
-
Ilíon wrote:
- If there were such a thing as "efficient mass transportation" ("efficiency" taking into account all the wasted time of the potential passengers) ... and if Americans wanted to use mass transit ... we would have it.
We did have it. It ran on tracks. Then cars and gas got cheap, roads got better, and Things Changed. Things, as they so often do, are Changing again...
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
You won't stop till Chris enforces a MaxLength for the subject line, will you? :rolleyes:
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
My latest book : C++/CLI in Action / Amazon.com link -
You won't stop till Chris enforces a MaxLength for the subject line, will you? :rolleyes:
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
My latest book : C++/CLI in Action / Amazon.com link -
There is a max length. I've hit it. Several times... ;P
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
Shog9 wrote:
There is a max length. I've hit it. Several times...
I should have known :-)
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
My latest book : C++/CLI in Action / Amazon.com link -
Because as usual, the politicians are completely out of touch with reality. A gas tax holiday will have no significant impact on the price of a gallon of gas, and it's a temporary measure. Americans don't want band-aid fixes and political pandering in the quest for votes. They want real solutions. How about this idea - instead of giving tax breaks to the oil companies, use that money to research alternative fuels or efficient mass transportation.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001I was not even thinking about the efficiency of such a scheme. I was thinking about the authority that Ms. Clinton or Mr. McCain would have this summer to implement this scheme. Here is what I think about it. Investment bankers speculating on commodities is not supply and demand. If commodities are not traded as securities on exchanges and are traded only on physical delivery, then prices will come down dramatically. US has one of the lowest gas prices; most other countries tax gas far more than the US does. I think that $3 a gallon is not that bad at all. 18% tax to build road infrastructure is great, no need to change it. Maybe, the taxes for fuels for personal transport can be made higher to encourage use of public transport; but a differential tax rate will bring in administrative overhead and corruption. Using fuel efficient vehicles, car pooling, working a couple of days from home every week, use mass transit to commute to work, switching off heating, cooling, lights, computers etc. when you do not use them are all personal changes that can make a significant dent to energy demand. Instead of making some adjustments in personal life, a vast majority want the government to bring them some magic solution.
-
Then tell me my friend, do you really believe that you - and i - have no role in how this country is run? That we should accept the current state of affairs as the best possible situation for all involved? Do you accept the choices of the mob over your own judgment, or bite your tongue when you see madness and say to yourself, "if what i consider sanity were feasible, it would already be universal, therefore i am wrong and they are right"? Because that doesn't sound like you at all. Not the persona you project onto this forum at least.
Last modified: 19mins after originally posted -- Hoho! So you modify your post after i reply rather! Well, you still fail. I quoted the bit of your post i replied to, and altered the subject to reflect my interpretation of what you were saying. At this point, you've replied twice, and twice failed provide anything of relevance to what i said - so if you *can* read and *do* read then what you lack must be understanding.
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
Shog9 wrote:
An angry, ill-considered response is worse than none at all.
Shog9 wrote:
Then tell me my friend, do you really believe that you - and i - have no role in how this country is run? That we should accept the current state of affairs as the best possible situation for all involved? Do you accept the choices of the mob over your own judgment, or bite your tongue when you see madness and say to yourself, "if what i consider sanity were feasible, it would already be universal, therefore i am wrong and they are right"?
And now, my friend, in even *asking* that question, you engage in misrepresentation. I really do have to wonder whether you actually read the post[^] to which you responded with that eminently stupid conflation of two quite un-like things (blatant governmental compulsion and a voluntary market economy).
-
Ilíon wrote:
Do they glow in the dark?
Soon enough... Radioactive Waste Leaking into Champagne Water Supply[^] Japan's nuclear waste will spill from new plant's chimney[^] British Nuclear Waste in the Irish Sea[^]
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Ilíon: Do they [citizens of nations making extensive use of nuclear power] glow in the dark? Mike Mullikin: Soon enough...
So, are we ... the human race living the "modern lifestyle" ... ultimately screwed? *Must* our civilization collapse and the vast majority of the human race now living die? 0) Our entire technological civilization ... and the very lives of billions of human beings ... depends upon abundant and relatively cheap energy. We *cannot* "turn back the clock;" we *must* have our technology and we must have the energy to run it ... else we die. 1) Fossil fuels (*) clearly will not last forever. And, this doesn't begin to address pollution from fossil fuels. 2) According to Greens (and/or Chicken Little types), we "cannot" use nuclear fission ... and in any event, ultimately, it is also limited; uranium is also a "non-renewable resource." 3) We haven't figured out how to harness nuclear fussion. 4) "Alternate energy sources" (and "cutting back") are cosmetic window dressing serving only to distract attention from the points above. 4a) Many of these "alternate energy sources" are actually energy sinks -- we put more energy (from other sources, generally fossil fuels) into the process than we can get out. (*) If indeed, *all* the energy sources we call "fossil fuels" are indeed non-renewable. I have a bit of doubt that this is true of petroleum ... Though, if petroleum does actually get replenished, and if we extract it faster than it can be replenished, the effect works out the same in the long run.
-
Pierre Leclercq wrote:
Build an adequate number of nuclear plants, and you have all the electricity you will ever need.
Not that I disagree, but along with the nukes comes nuclear waste that needs to be "dealt with". There is no free lunch. <facetious> Of course, if we completely eliminated our need of Middle Eastern oil and let the Arabs and Israelis fight it out to mutual extinction that would be a great place to bury the spent fuel rods. </facetious>
Well the global warming (the major pollution problem nowadays) is not caused by nuclear wastes. Use your car and you pollute the entire planet. At least nuclear wastes can be safely sealed and stored in well defined locations. And we're talking about fission there, which by the way has been vastly improved over the last 3 or 4 decades. Just wait for fusion, and we'll have our free lunch... I am always amazed the us never signed the kyoto agreement arguing this would slow the us economy. Why did they not build nuclear plant, and significantly reduce their emissions? This is all bad PR for the US, and this is a big deal how people around the world have a wrong perception of this country.
-
True, there is no free lunch ... the denial of this is implicit in Mr Simmons' idea (and some of the other responses) for solving the problem. But, regarding nuclear waste: the French and the Japanese (and I think British) generate a lion's share of the electricity they use via the nuclear route. Do they glow in the dark?
Yep, virtually all the electricity is nuclear in France. And no we do not glow in the dark! :)
-
Shog9 wrote:
An angry, ill-considered response is worse than none at all.
Shog9 wrote:
Then tell me my friend, do you really believe that you - and i - have no role in how this country is run? That we should accept the current state of affairs as the best possible situation for all involved? Do you accept the choices of the mob over your own judgment, or bite your tongue when you see madness and say to yourself, "if what i consider sanity were feasible, it would already be universal, therefore i am wrong and they are right"?
And now, my friend, in even *asking* that question, you engage in misrepresentation. I really do have to wonder whether you actually read the post[^] to which you responded with that eminently stupid conflation of two quite un-like things (blatant governmental compulsion and a voluntary market economy).
-
I was not even thinking about the efficiency of such a scheme. I was thinking about the authority that Ms. Clinton or Mr. McCain would have this summer to implement this scheme. Here is what I think about it. Investment bankers speculating on commodities is not supply and demand. If commodities are not traded as securities on exchanges and are traded only on physical delivery, then prices will come down dramatically. US has one of the lowest gas prices; most other countries tax gas far more than the US does. I think that $3 a gallon is not that bad at all. 18% tax to build road infrastructure is great, no need to change it. Maybe, the taxes for fuels for personal transport can be made higher to encourage use of public transport; but a differential tax rate will bring in administrative overhead and corruption. Using fuel efficient vehicles, car pooling, working a couple of days from home every week, use mass transit to commute to work, switching off heating, cooling, lights, computers etc. when you do not use them are all personal changes that can make a significant dent to energy demand. Instead of making some adjustments in personal life, a vast majority want the government to bring them some magic solution.
(started off as a reply to one post, but ended up being my thoughts in general) The trading of commodities on exchanges happens for a reason, which is to allow for the smooth operating of business. I think if you eliminated the exchanges we would have big big problems in the form of price instability (much worse than it is now), and I'm sure you're aware that at settlement commodities do settle for physical delivery. As far as supply and demand not being the driver, I think we can be fairly certain it is, especially for commodities other than oil. Witness the food riots in other countries. When it comes to oil I think OPEC has A LOT to do with it. However, individuals would rather blame politicians and politicians would rather blame capitalists (corporations, speculators)....all because there's nothing that anyone can do about OPEC. Our politicians are constantly proposing this and that solution on various problems, most of which would be ineffective (for one thing, people don't understand that markets are bigger than governments). They have to propose these solutions though, because it makes people think they are doing something. To be fair, that is the function of an elected official in our country. I think you're right when it comes to the solution, but that pill is evidently too hard for most people to swallow. It seems that even some very bright people here would rather look to someone else to solve their problems (which will never work) rather than take personal responsibility. As an aside, I've come to realize over the last few years that this isn't a trait unique to the US...unfortunately it's just a human trait :( One last note. Whenever I hear/read conversations about pollution/global warming/climate change, I always think about the problem of population growth. I've read some arguments that this problem is far worse than the other problem and that it will kill us all much faster than global warming. When you consider that the concerns about population growth are based mostly on solid, scary, mathematics and not speculation...and also that increases in population growth are certainly contributing to the pollution problem ...Well, it always strikes me as interesting about how people never talk about it. just my .0001592 of a barrel of oil ;P
-
(started off as a reply to one post, but ended up being my thoughts in general) The trading of commodities on exchanges happens for a reason, which is to allow for the smooth operating of business. I think if you eliminated the exchanges we would have big big problems in the form of price instability (much worse than it is now), and I'm sure you're aware that at settlement commodities do settle for physical delivery. As far as supply and demand not being the driver, I think we can be fairly certain it is, especially for commodities other than oil. Witness the food riots in other countries. When it comes to oil I think OPEC has A LOT to do with it. However, individuals would rather blame politicians and politicians would rather blame capitalists (corporations, speculators)....all because there's nothing that anyone can do about OPEC. Our politicians are constantly proposing this and that solution on various problems, most of which would be ineffective (for one thing, people don't understand that markets are bigger than governments). They have to propose these solutions though, because it makes people think they are doing something. To be fair, that is the function of an elected official in our country. I think you're right when it comes to the solution, but that pill is evidently too hard for most people to swallow. It seems that even some very bright people here would rather look to someone else to solve their problems (which will never work) rather than take personal responsibility. As an aside, I've come to realize over the last few years that this isn't a trait unique to the US...unfortunately it's just a human trait :( One last note. Whenever I hear/read conversations about pollution/global warming/climate change, I always think about the problem of population growth. I've read some arguments that this problem is far worse than the other problem and that it will kill us all much faster than global warming. When you consider that the concerns about population growth are based mostly on solid, scary, mathematics and not speculation...and also that increases in population growth are certainly contributing to the pollution problem ...Well, it always strikes me as interesting about how people never talk about it. just my .0001592 of a barrel of oil ;P
bwilhite wrote:
The trading of commodities on exchanges happens for a reason
What I am suggesting is better regulation so that speculative practices are contained. Short term movements are usually based on speculative pressures rather than rise in real demand. Given the current situation, commodities are the best investment. :)
bwilhite wrote:
there's nothing that anyone can do about OPEC.
Nuclear energy comes to mind. Governments around the world have been complacent in looking for alternatives to oil.
bwilhite wrote:
I always think about the problem of population growth.
It is the real reason behind global warming, price rise. More people emitting carbon dioxide, more people wanting food, oil. But, there is no way to deal with it than to tell people to have lesser number of children. That would attract a fatwa from the religious. :)
-
Ilíon wrote:
in even *asking* that question, you engage in misrepresentation
How dare he question *you!*
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
bwilhite wrote:
The trading of commodities on exchanges happens for a reason
What I am suggesting is better regulation so that speculative practices are contained. Short term movements are usually based on speculative pressures rather than rise in real demand. Given the current situation, commodities are the best investment. :)
bwilhite wrote:
there's nothing that anyone can do about OPEC.
Nuclear energy comes to mind. Governments around the world have been complacent in looking for alternatives to oil.
bwilhite wrote:
I always think about the problem of population growth.
It is the real reason behind global warming, price rise. More people emitting carbon dioxide, more people wanting food, oil. But, there is no way to deal with it than to tell people to have lesser number of children. That would attract a fatwa from the religious. :)
I agree with you concerning short term movements being driven by speculation. However, I don't think regulation would help. If anything I think it would make things worse. I think there's actually a lot of credence though, to the idea that electronic trading has had a lot to do with the volatility we're seeing...but I don't think it's the culprit in any way that can really be "fixed." The system will have to adapt somehow. As for oil prices...they have been in an uptrend for a long time now, ever since it broke $70 at the least, hardly short-term. I can't speak for other commodities, but I would bet we'd see the same there, except for lumber. I know gold has been going up for at least 6 years now. I agree with you on your other two points. I'll just say that I'm religious myself (Christian), but I can see the problem clear as day and believe it's something that needs to be addressed. As for how all of this integrates with my theism, well, I've got a unique theological perspective on that which I'll hold off.
-
bwilhite wrote:
The trading of commodities on exchanges happens for a reason
What I am suggesting is better regulation so that speculative practices are contained. Short term movements are usually based on speculative pressures rather than rise in real demand. Given the current situation, commodities are the best investment. :)
bwilhite wrote:
there's nothing that anyone can do about OPEC.
Nuclear energy comes to mind. Governments around the world have been complacent in looking for alternatives to oil.
bwilhite wrote:
I always think about the problem of population growth.
It is the real reason behind global warming, price rise. More people emitting carbon dioxide, more people wanting food, oil. But, there is no way to deal with it than to tell people to have lesser number of children. That would attract a fatwa from the religious. :)
-
Oakman wrote:
How dare he question *you!*
Actually, the point is: How dare he behave as you! ps. It's good to see that you're acknowledging your hypocritical whinging about my use of asterisks to indicate tone or emphasis.
Ilíon wrote:
Actually, the point is: How dare he behave as you!
You mean he's smart, witty, well-read, and capable of carrying on a debate without retreating to the same old tire half-dozen childish insults?
Ilíon wrote:
It's good to see that you're acknowledging your hypocritical whinging about my use of asterisks to indicate tone or emphasis
You actually don't get it, do you? Sad.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Thomas George wrote:
What I am suggesting is better regulation so that speculative practices are contained.
What you're calling for is governmentally imposed scarcity.