| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
<hans_kung> who is "they"?
<KoBushi> Estuary what solution do you recommend?
<DStewart> hans, the local residents. You know: The subject of your sentence.
<hans_kung> DStewart: you know the scoop, the bill makes it harder for anyone to challenge building a refinery in an area that doesn't want it.
<DStewart> hans, so?
<hans_kung> It's crap law.
<hans_kung> :)
<KoBushi> everyone wants energy... but no one wants it to be made where they live
<Estuary> KoBushi - a drastic shift which replaces the emphasis upon oil, nat. gas, & coal to other means of power generation and transportation
<KoBushi> isn't that nice?
<DStewart> hans, why? Why should "an area" be the voice? It won't have one voice, that's for sure.
<KoBushi> Estuary but, specifically, what's your solution?
<Estuary> KoBushi - i generally agree with the ***essment of the private risk managemant firm that the DOE commissioned to study Peak Oil
<KoBushi> Estuary what would this drastic switch be to?
<DStewart> Yes, a "drastic shift" would certainly be a solution---no costs involved in drastic changes by law.
<hans_kung> DStewart: why stop any possible court action to exercise any cities legal rights?
<hans_kung> That's what courts are there for.
<DStewart> hans, no, that is not what courts are there for.
<KoBushi> What would the switch be to? And over what period of time would this drastic shift take place?
<Estuary> KoBushi - its going to take a 'moon landing' scale project to fix things. unfortunately nuclear will be a part of that equation. mandatory efficiency increases are a must, but they ahve to be coupled with strict conservation, otherwise we'll have the opposite effect.
<hans_kung> Oh, then why encode it into a bill that's so favorable to the oil industry then?
<hans_kung> *nods* to protect them.
<DStewart> hans, why encode a preventive? Because unfortunately the courts are so used.
<hans_kung> *nods knowingly(
<KoBushi> Estuary so, your solution is t go to nuclear for power generation? What about transportation?
<hans_kung> 9 states attornies generals were opposed to the Bill in the House btw (prolly all gulf coast states).
<KoBushi> Also where will you find qualified and/or compitant personel and technicians to effect such a drastic shift?
<DStewart> hans, and?
<Estuary> kobushi - nuclear will be a big segment of it, yes. i think our generation will have to be integrated with transportation via either hydrogen (with a VERY optimistic view) or an electric system that doesn't yet exist.
<pilgrim`> Using the parts inside a single molecule, scientists have constructed the world's smallest car. It has a ch***is, axles and a pivoting suspension. The wheels are buckyballs, spheres of pure carbon containing 60 atoms apiece.
<pilgrim`> It'd be a real squeeze to take it for a spin, however.
<pilgrim`> The whole car is no more than 4 nanometers across. That's slightly wider than a strand of DNA.
<pilgrim`> that would help. great gas mileage
<KoBushi> Estuary oh... so... your solution relys on technology that doesn't exist?
<Estuary> KoBushi - excellent question. the US is facing a dearth of engineers and technicians to even accomplish many of these things.
<Estuary> KoBushi - not hte solution is in intensive R&D
<Estuary> there are existant technologies but they're as yet very undeveloped
<KoBushi> So, you advocate a radical fast shift to a technology that doesn't exist, and for which there are no qualified technicians.
<Estuary> and thats why bush's energy policy is so ****ty
<Estuary> cuz we NEED to develop them, NOW.
<Estuary> we should stop dumping money into oil refineries.
<KoBushi> That's horribly unrealistic Estuary
<Estuary> no, you don't do it haphazardly.
<ImaBadBoy> should have been doing this since back before the Jimmy Carter years
<KoBushi> Estuary yet that's hat yu advocate
<ImaBadBoy> but BUSH is the culprit??
<Estuary> when kennedy initiated the race to the moon, the rocketry to get us there didn't yet exist
<ImaBadBoy> ;-)
<Estuary> but we set the goal, and did what was necessary to reach it
<TimothyW-> We should start using the Poppies in Afghanistan has a Energy Product not a Illegal Drug
<Estuary> the same can be done w/ respect to energy
<ImaBadBoy> are you sure we actually landed on the moon, estuary?
<Estuary> but it would take a visionary, special leader.
<DStewart> Wow, what a crappy analogy.
<KoBushi> Estuary sounds like you have a great deal of "faith" in technology.
<KoBushi> You seem certain that there are solutions, you just don't know what they are.
<KoBushi> :P
<Estuary> kobushi - just the opposite. this comes with the great caveat that it won't be enough. technology is NOT a panacea.
<Estuary> idon't but any "faith" in it at all.
<KoBushi> "Bush's idea is bad... there is something better... somewhere... eventually"
<DStewart> Because energy for an entire nation is just like a very focused program to go to one place, transforming no ubiquitous sector of the economy.
<Estuary> technology isn't reversing peak oil, as some had hoped.
<KoBushi> drastic change isn't the answer... the answer is to deal with the energy problem as best as we can untill replacement technologies can slowly be integrated and moved to.
<DStewart> A stunt shot---a government program to transfer to different energy infrastructure, which can't be determined from a central authority.
<Herzen> I thought DStewart said 'a **** shot'
<Herzen> for a minute there
<Herzen> I guess i'm dreamin
<Estuary> KoBushi - that ***umes we have the luxury of time to do a smooth transition. i don't believe we do.
<DStewart> herzen, what kind of dreams do you have, boy!?
<Herzen> ones about makin pr0n
<ImaBadBoy> wet ones
<ImaBadBoy> lololol
<DStewart> Apparently!
<KoBushi> Imo the solution lies somewhere like this: wind and sea power generation; high energy nuclear reactors which also produce hydrogen, slow move to hybrids while building an infrastructure to support hydrogen fuel cells.
<Herzen> What kind of food should I eat for tonight?
<DStewart> I'm doing mexican, Herzen
<DStewart> Feeding the band
<Herzen> I was thinkin Chinese
<KoBushi> Estuary we have no choice; we can't radically switch to something else... because there isn't anything else to radically switch to.
<DStewart> You're lucky, if you have good Chinese... it's hard to find good Chinese around here
<Estuary> KoBushi - that scheme would be ideal in a condition where we weren't -INCREASINGLY- dependent upon oil and natural gas.
<KoBushi> DStewart You don't like General MSG's Chicken?
<Herzen> There is 1 good chinese place here
<Herzen> the rest are ****
<Estuary> if that plan were initiated 30 years ago, it would be prescient and yield results.
<Estuary> its a little late.
<KoBushi> Estuary it's ideal even in a condition where we ARE increasingly dependant
<KoBushi> But, it won't happen; no one's going to governmentally mandate such sweeping change
<Estuary> kobushi - no its not, because we're increasing our commitment to oil, rather than shifting resources to the new regime.
<Estuary> i dont' think its possible to do both and come out okay.
<KoBushi> Estuary to do anything else just isn't realistic or reasonable
<Estuary> well like i said, it would take a special leader
<Estuary> one which we don't have.
<KoBushi> An other reason a fast change can't work... how are you going to provide transportation for the millions drivig 20+ year old cars?
<Estuary> even kerry woudln't have been adequate in this regard, though light years ahead of bush.
<KoBushi> You need at least a 20 year overlap t get most old transportation technologies out of the general public
<Estuary> he did have a 20-20 plan
<Estuary> kobushi - yes.
<ImaBadBoy> if we only had ronald reagan back
<ImaBadBoy> hehehe
<Brak55> Estuary: It would take a special leader and a congress that wasn't in big oils pocket.
<Estuary> kobushi - we haven't even hit the WORST patch of inefficiency of the life of large vehicles yet...as many are only a few years old.
<KoBushi> ImaBadBoy if only Jimmy Carter had had some balls on the energy issue
<ImaBadBoy> agree KoBushi... missed a great opportunity then
<L0c0> If the defense had its way, a judge who "contributed to Crime Stoppers . . . could not hear a burglary case," Earle said.
<CryArvach> Carters strength was detente
<L0c0> makes sense
<Estuary> kobushi - a large % of these inefficient vehicles have been in the fleet a very short time, and are destined to be used for longer.
<Estuary> brak55 - agreed.
<DStewart> CryArvach, mmmm, let's see: Afghanistan... Nicaragua... I dont think "detente" under Carter was a strength.
<KoBushi> Estuary an other problem is that even with all the prototype fuel cell and other alt. vehicles... there aren't any suiable for taking over industry, semi trucks and etc.
<Estuary> l0c0 - i liked that comeback. in one sentence ol Ronny made delay look like an ***hat.
<CryArvach> no it wasn't...he was a dove
<CryArvach> he was wrong prez at wrong time
<Estuary> kobushi - excellent point. to that end, the price of deisel fuel is KILLING the us economy.
<DStewart> Loco, actually doesn't make sense. It was a ****ty analogy. Unless, of course, you think that the causes of the Democratic far left are identical with the causes of a judge.
<KoBushi> Estuary there are many many people who, like you, complain about the current infrastructure and "inefficiencies" yet are clueless to the technology behind them; they just magically "know it could be better"
<CryArvach> Carter in some ways was a dark horse candidate
<Nikie> wow
<Pickle> Hey, I have an idea. Let's use force to make people use the technologies we want them to use, even if it means sacrificing economic efficiency (and therefore people's well-being). After all, we know better.
<hans_kung> oh my, don't do that, she's gonna need that!
<Nikie> all i did was poked ur eye
<hans_kung> lol Nikie
<Nikie> haha
<Estuary> kobushi - i'm not at all "clueless" about technology. and i don't claim anything without basis. you keep attributing things to me which i have not said. i never put "faith" in technology like you said earlier.
<Nikie> hans, damn right..i ll need that..both of em
<KoBushi> Estuary yes you do
<Nikie> hehe
<KoBushi> Estuary because your entire recommendation for action relys on technology that doesn't even exist yet
<KoBushi> Estuary how is that not faith?
<Pickle> What's a little bit of human sacrifice between friends? After all, isn't the cult of gaia worth it?
<Estuary> KoBushi - no it doesn't. that's a blatant misreading of what i said
<KoBushi> Estuary no, it's exactly what you said.
<ImaBadBoy> vegatable oil... biodiesel......
<Estuary> nuclear technology is half a century old, and i said its going to be a big part of the future energy regime
<Estuary> quite twisting my words.
<KoBushi> Estuary don't act like that's all you said :P
<Estuary> KoBushi - now you're just flagrantly distorting what i've said.
<Herzen> modern nuclear technology
<Herzen> cobalts etc
<Herzen> is like 15-20
<Estuary> KoBushi - and i didn't say the "technology" didn't exist, but the SYSTEMS didn't
<Herzen> 50 year old nukes are pretty simplistic
<Pickle> Oh well. At least this part of the country will be on the receiving end of most of the subsidies for biodiesel, E85, and the rest of that ****. I pity the rest of you ****ers, though.
Return to politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
PuppyLinux amd64
|
|