Some New Ideas
-
John Cardinal wrote: As a fellow capitalist wouldn't you agree that the Republicans while perhaps more capitalist than the alternatives are exhibiting far less than the true ideals of capitalism. What about the lobbying, what about the incentives for industry by govt? Trade embargos? Protectionism? Nudging is the very least of what they are doing right now. Abosolutely! I've never said I liked Republicans. To me, they are merely the lesser of two evils. I would agree with any sane cricitism you could possibly make of Republicans. But if government is going to be involved with business, it should be to help business not to control it. Where does government's power to "nudge" industry stop? How many other problems could government solve if it could just control the products made by industry? "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
One of the worst things in my completely un-humble opinion that goverments do is give huge subsidies to large corporations. I'd like to see that money spent (if it just has to be) instead on training and guidance for anyone interested in starting their own business. Corporate welfare is out of control in North America.
"In our civilization, and under our republican form of government, intelligence is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption from the cares of office." - Ambrose Bierce
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Lets assume for a moment that Bush was the most intelligent human being who had ever lived (and obviously, therefore, a liberal) what would he do? Something different. I'm not taking the bait here, Stan. :) Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing YAPO
Marc Clifton wrote: I'm not taking the bait here, Stan That wasn't bait, it was a challenge. He's asking what would you do other than bitch. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
-
I heard a brief blurb on NPR this morning that Bush has "some new ideas" to help ease the energy supply crunch--built nuclear plants and make closed military bases available for new refineries. Here's a news story[^]. The president's speech was described by White House officials as a way to emphasize how technology can be applied to expand the supply of energy. OK, it's a slightly out of context quote, but geez, my reaction was that yet again, Bush proves himself to be an imbicile. Let's use "technology" to get even more dependent on non-renewable, Arab controlled, resources. Let's restart the nuclear energy program which technology has still not found a solution for with regards to spent fuel rods and other nuclear waste. And what the hell is this: Bush will call on the Energy Department to develop a proposal for a federal "risk insurance" plan that would kick in if there were lengthy delays in licensing of a new commercial power reactor. Something that protects the builder of the plant from excessive regulations? Or something that lets the government step in and say "fire it up" without adequate licensing? And this: The president also will call on Congress to provide a tax credit for gas-electric hybrid automobiles and for use of clean diesel. The hybrid tax break was included in Bush's budget earlier this year but left out of the energy bill passed by the House last week. Such a credit would provide $2.5 billion in tax incentives over 10 years, the White House officials said. Consumers would get a credit, up to $4,000, depending on the level of a vehicle's fuel efficiency, if they purchase a hybrid or clean-diesel vehicle. Is just to be lip service, or so it seems, since it was left out of the energy bill anyways. :mad: Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing YAPO
Marc Clifton wrote: I heard a brief blurb on NPR this morning that Bush has "some new ideas"... Oh shit! I stopped reading right there. :doh: Later, JoeSox "Live for something rather than die for nothing." - George Patton CPMCv1.0 ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ Audioscrobbler
-
Marc Clifton wrote: I'm not taking the bait here, Stan That wasn't bait, it was a challenge. He's asking what would you do other than bitch. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
While I am not in disagreement with President Bush ( at least he is trying to do SOMETHING ) I really do think that we are rapidly reaching the point where we need a Manhattan Project approach in one of two directions. Fuel Cells or synthetic fuels. Electric powered autos are anachronistic at this point because of their dependancy on batteries but viewed in terms of fuel cells they may well be the way to go. Fuel cells have a lot of built in advantages - they are non polluting - the techinical basis is already complete - they should be safe to operate - etc.. Synthetic fuels on the other hand is a technology waiting to be invented. I have no idea if it is even possible on a commercial viable basis. However if we take the 2.something billion and apply it to basic research on one of these two alternatives we would get a bigger bang for the buck in terms of oil used in transportation. Nuke plants are the way to go for commercial electrical production IHNSHO. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
While I am not in disagreement with President Bush ( at least he is trying to do SOMETHING ) I really do think that we are rapidly reaching the point where we need a Manhattan Project approach in one of two directions. Fuel Cells or synthetic fuels. Electric powered autos are anachronistic at this point because of their dependancy on batteries but viewed in terms of fuel cells they may well be the way to go. Fuel cells have a lot of built in advantages - they are non polluting - the techinical basis is already complete - they should be safe to operate - etc.. Synthetic fuels on the other hand is a technology waiting to be invented. I have no idea if it is even possible on a commercial viable basis. However if we take the 2.something billion and apply it to basic research on one of these two alternatives we would get a bigger bang for the buck in terms of oil used in transportation. Nuke plants are the way to go for commercial electrical production IHNSHO. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
Richard Stringer wrote: Synthetic fuels on the other hand is a technology waiting to be invented. I agree. You would think it possible given the molecular structure is known. Richard Stringer wrote: Nuke plants are the way to go for commercial electrical production There is the problem of the spent rods though. I have thought for a long time that some form of bio-mass would be the correct solution. Hemp can produce multiple crops per year on the same plot of ground making it a pretty efficient crop and may be growable on what would otherwise be wasted land. It would also have the advantage of contributing to breathable air, offsetting to some extent the loss of rain forests in South America. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
-
One of the worst things in my completely un-humble opinion that goverments do is give huge subsidies to large corporations. I'd like to see that money spent (if it just has to be) instead on training and guidance for anyone interested in starting their own business. Corporate welfare is out of control in North America.
"In our civilization, and under our republican form of government, intelligence is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption from the cares of office." - Ambrose Bierce
John Cardinal wrote: One of the worst things in my completely un-humble opinion that goverments do is give huge subsidies to large corporations. I'd like to see that money spent (if it just has to be) instead on training and guidance for anyone interested in starting their own business. Corporate welfare is out of control in North America. I tend to agree. However, you must remember that these corporations are paying huge amounts in taxes. Any tax paying entity should have the right to discuss issues with any government taxing it. So, I think "corporate welfare" is a bit over blown as an issue. If corporations were allowed to exist tax free, as they should be (with moderate fines for whatever environmental damage they might cause) I would pretty much agree with you entirely. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Marc Clifton wrote: I'm not taking the bait here, Stan That wasn't bait, it was a challenge. He's asking what would you do other than bitch. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
Mike Gaskey wrote: He's asking what would you do other than bitch. You mean the soapbox is a forum for constructive, intelligent, discussion? :laugh::laugh::laugh: And no, he's baiting me to then make ridiculous comments about my liberal attitudes. Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing YAPO
-
Richard Stringer wrote: Synthetic fuels on the other hand is a technology waiting to be invented. I agree. You would think it possible given the molecular structure is known. Richard Stringer wrote: Nuke plants are the way to go for commercial electrical production There is the problem of the spent rods though. I have thought for a long time that some form of bio-mass would be the correct solution. Hemp can produce multiple crops per year on the same plot of ground making it a pretty efficient crop and may be growable on what would otherwise be wasted land. It would also have the advantage of contributing to breathable air, offsetting to some extent the loss of rain forests in South America. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
Mike Gaskey wrote: I have thought for a long time that some form of bio-mass would be the correct solution In a rural society possibly but as a commercial venture it is not going to work. The amounts of fuel needed is just too great. Mike Gaskey wrote: There is the problem of the spent rods though. The biggest problem is NIMBY sa far as I can see. Or we can get over our ( the US ) insane fear of nuclear proliferation and build fast breeder reactors to greatly alleviate the problem. I read somewhere that thirty fast breeder reactors dedicated to commercial electical generation could supply the whole US power grid with about 1/20 of the waste material now being produced. The biggest problem with any new type of energy source - at least in terms of transportation - will be converting existing fueling stations to distribute and maintain the new fuel source - be it synthetic gasoline, fuel cells ( hydrogen ) , or hydrogen burning engines. It will cost trillions ( not billions ) for a world wide distribution system to be implemented. This will probably take 15-20 years and will require a dual fuel source capability until all the older vehicles are replaced. The upside is that it will produce many new jobs but it is still something that will have to have a lot of Government attention Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
I heard a brief blurb on NPR this morning that Bush has "some new ideas" to help ease the energy supply crunch--built nuclear plants and make closed military bases available for new refineries. Here's a news story[^]. The president's speech was described by White House officials as a way to emphasize how technology can be applied to expand the supply of energy. OK, it's a slightly out of context quote, but geez, my reaction was that yet again, Bush proves himself to be an imbicile. Let's use "technology" to get even more dependent on non-renewable, Arab controlled, resources. Let's restart the nuclear energy program which technology has still not found a solution for with regards to spent fuel rods and other nuclear waste. And what the hell is this: Bush will call on the Energy Department to develop a proposal for a federal "risk insurance" plan that would kick in if there were lengthy delays in licensing of a new commercial power reactor. Something that protects the builder of the plant from excessive regulations? Or something that lets the government step in and say "fire it up" without adequate licensing? And this: The president also will call on Congress to provide a tax credit for gas-electric hybrid automobiles and for use of clean diesel. The hybrid tax break was included in Bush's budget earlier this year but left out of the energy bill passed by the House last week. Such a credit would provide $2.5 billion in tax incentives over 10 years, the White House officials said. Consumers would get a credit, up to $4,000, depending on the level of a vehicle's fuel efficiency, if they purchase a hybrid or clean-diesel vehicle. Is just to be lip service, or so it seems, since it was left out of the energy bill anyways. :mad: Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing YAPO
Does anyone know what France does with its nuclear waste? :confused: AFAIK, they don't have vast amounts of desert they could bury theirs in.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
While I am not in disagreement with President Bush ( at least he is trying to do SOMETHING ) I really do think that we are rapidly reaching the point where we need a Manhattan Project approach in one of two directions. Fuel Cells or synthetic fuels. Electric powered autos are anachronistic at this point because of their dependancy on batteries but viewed in terms of fuel cells they may well be the way to go. Fuel cells have a lot of built in advantages - they are non polluting - the techinical basis is already complete - they should be safe to operate - etc.. Synthetic fuels on the other hand is a technology waiting to be invented. I have no idea if it is even possible on a commercial viable basis. However if we take the 2.something billion and apply it to basic research on one of these two alternatives we would get a bigger bang for the buck in terms of oil used in transportation. Nuke plants are the way to go for commercial electrical production IHNSHO. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
I would drive a hybrid if they didn't look like a damn toy. Every one I have looked at resembles a kids toy. I want a hybrid that has the body style of a sports car. And by 'sports car' I don't just mean a small body and a tv commercial with cool techno music showing the car being driven my some yuppie jerkoff either. I want something that is 2 seats, convertable, chrome wheels and can do more than 50 for some sustained period of time before it needs to be wound back up again.
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: He's asking what would you do other than bitch. You mean the soapbox is a forum for constructive, intelligent, discussion? :laugh::laugh::laugh: And no, he's baiting me to then make ridiculous comments about my liberal attitudes. Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing YAPO
Marc Clifton wrote: You mean the soapbox is a forum for constructive, intelligent, discussion? Well of course. But then .... we do degenerate from time to time. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
-
Does anyone know what France does with its nuclear waste? :confused: AFAIK, they don't have vast amounts of desert they could bury theirs in.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blogJason Henderson wrote: Does anyone know what France does with its nuclear waste? They sell it to Iran? Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing YAPO
-
I would drive a hybrid if they didn't look like a damn toy. Every one I have looked at resembles a kids toy. I want a hybrid that has the body style of a sports car. And by 'sports car' I don't just mean a small body and a tv commercial with cool techno music showing the car being driven my some yuppie jerkoff either. I want something that is 2 seats, convertable, chrome wheels and can do more than 50 for some sustained period of time before it needs to be wound back up again.
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
Ray Cassick wrote: Every one I have looked at resembles a kids toy. Check out the Ford Escape hybrid : http://www.fordvehicles.com/escapehybrid/home/[^] I have driven one and it is not a toy. And its not real expensive as compared to the other hybrids. Ray Cassick wrote: I want something that is 2 seats, convertable, chrome wheels and can do more than 50 for some sustained period of time before it needs to be wound back up again. I have, in my past , owned two (2) convertibles. I was a slow learner. I will never ever again own one of those abnominations - noisy leaky and a prime invitation to any thief in the area with a pocket knife. But on a more serious note it sounds like you are looking for this: http://www.modernracer.com/vwbeetleturbos.html[^] Decent MPG and it really is --- FAST ----. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
Does anyone know what France does with its nuclear waste? :confused: AFAIK, they don't have vast amounts of desert they could bury theirs in.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blogI do believe that France is using Fast Breeded reactors - they produce little or no waste AFAIK. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
While I am not in disagreement with President Bush ( at least he is trying to do SOMETHING ) I really do think that we are rapidly reaching the point where we need a Manhattan Project approach in one of two directions. Fuel Cells or synthetic fuels. Electric powered autos are anachronistic at this point because of their dependancy on batteries but viewed in terms of fuel cells they may well be the way to go. Fuel cells have a lot of built in advantages - they are non polluting - the techinical basis is already complete - they should be safe to operate - etc.. Synthetic fuels on the other hand is a technology waiting to be invented. I have no idea if it is even possible on a commercial viable basis. However if we take the 2.something billion and apply it to basic research on one of these two alternatives we would get a bigger bang for the buck in terms of oil used in transportation. Nuke plants are the way to go for commercial electrical production IHNSHO. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
I don't know exactly what you mean by synthetic fuels, but there is certainly ethonol fuels. There was an article on this on the consumption in Brazil - it was mandated by law a certain percentage and then people actually wanted more. Now they are exporting the stuff. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0417-23.htm[^] http://www.energybulletin.net/2120.html[^]
-
i'm sure that made sense in your own head. out here though, not so much. Image Toolkits | Image Processing | Cleek
I guess 'out there' cognitive reasoning is illegal? Most people are willing to pay more to be amused than to be educated--Robert C. Savage, Life Lessons Toasty0.com Ladder League (beta)
-
I guess 'out there' cognitive reasoning is illegal? Most people are willing to pay more to be amused than to be educated--Robert C. Savage, Life Lessons Toasty0.com Ladder League (beta)
yes. it being a tyranny and all, most things are illegal. Image Toolkits | Image Processing | Cleek
-
I heard a brief blurb on NPR this morning that Bush has "some new ideas" to help ease the energy supply crunch--built nuclear plants and make closed military bases available for new refineries. Here's a news story[^]. The president's speech was described by White House officials as a way to emphasize how technology can be applied to expand the supply of energy. OK, it's a slightly out of context quote, but geez, my reaction was that yet again, Bush proves himself to be an imbicile. Let's use "technology" to get even more dependent on non-renewable, Arab controlled, resources. Let's restart the nuclear energy program which technology has still not found a solution for with regards to spent fuel rods and other nuclear waste. And what the hell is this: Bush will call on the Energy Department to develop a proposal for a federal "risk insurance" plan that would kick in if there were lengthy delays in licensing of a new commercial power reactor. Something that protects the builder of the plant from excessive regulations? Or something that lets the government step in and say "fire it up" without adequate licensing? And this: The president also will call on Congress to provide a tax credit for gas-electric hybrid automobiles and for use of clean diesel. The hybrid tax break was included in Bush's budget earlier this year but left out of the energy bill passed by the House last week. Such a credit would provide $2.5 billion in tax incentives over 10 years, the White House officials said. Consumers would get a credit, up to $4,000, depending on the level of a vehicle's fuel efficiency, if they purchase a hybrid or clean-diesel vehicle. Is just to be lip service, or so it seems, since it was left out of the energy bill anyways. :mad: Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing YAPO
Concerning spent fuel rods... We know what to do with them, but there is no hurry. Their not going anywhere and the solution does not breed hydrogen. That’s why this design lost the bid for the next generation nuclear reactors. However, this ‘technology’ will still be around once we find a better way to extract hydrogen. I still think this technology needs more attention; as far as I know it does not have the funding to build a full reactor. All tests were done using controlled heating elements that replicate the heat given off by spent fuel. http://www.caesar.umd.edu/ If you want something to be angry about, look at research spending in the US. In the past 30 years Biology related research has gone up exponentially, while other fields funding rates are almost flat. People want to live longer, and the cost is a slowing speed of scientific development for the rest of society. If people want to live to see the marvels of the future, they need to fund them.
-
Marc Clifton wrote: Nuclear power however does nothing for the existing automotive industry. It could - if we used nuclear plants to charge hydrogen fuel cells and batteries for electric cars. Peaceful, isolated places like Canada with plenty of open space to build nuclear plants could become the Saudi Arabia of nuclear energy. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
The irony is the US buys a lot of its uranium from Canada. I still hear stories in my family about a cabin on a lake my great grandparents owned in Canada. At night some of the rock pilings around the lake would have a slight glow to them. There are a lot of natural resources in Canada.
-
Concerning spent fuel rods... We know what to do with them, but there is no hurry. Their not going anywhere and the solution does not breed hydrogen. That’s why this design lost the bid for the next generation nuclear reactors. However, this ‘technology’ will still be around once we find a better way to extract hydrogen. I still think this technology needs more attention; as far as I know it does not have the funding to build a full reactor. All tests were done using controlled heating elements that replicate the heat given off by spent fuel. http://www.caesar.umd.edu/ If you want something to be angry about, look at research spending in the US. In the past 30 years Biology related research has gone up exponentially, while other fields funding rates are almost flat. People want to live longer, and the cost is a slowing speed of scientific development for the rest of society. If people want to live to see the marvels of the future, they need to fund them.