[turtle777]

The Economist is spot on: the US is a big mess.

http://www.bullfax.com/imgs/d5192aa6...c276ff3e8a.jpg

Listening to Obama's State of the Union speech, one can only hope. Because ist surely just sounds like the typical polictical rethoric.

This is our generation's Sputnik moment. [...] And in a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal. We'll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology

So tonight, I am proposing that starting this year, we freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years.[...] This freeze will require painful cuts.

Color me sceptical that both goals can be achieved concurrently.

-t

[subego]

Can be, or will be?

To paraphrase John McCain, I can cut $100 billion of waste in 10 minutes.

[imitchellg5]

Oh no, a country is experiencing economic downturn! That's never happened before!

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Color me sceptical that both goals can be achieved concurrently.

It is theoretically possible to achieve both goals simultaneously. After "freezing" the budget, you implement a real pay-go policy where any proposal for new "investment" requires a corresponding spending decrease elsewhere, to make the total outlay the same (since the budget is "frozen", you can no longer pay for it with tax increases.)

You have to have the discipline to stick to these rules, though, and not carve out exemptions for expensive things that are popular at the moment. (Something that both parties have done when they were in power recently.)

It's going to be difficult, but we don't elect people to office to just make easy decisions. We may not have the right people in Congress to do this, however.

[olePigeon]

Actually, one of the things that perplexes me about Democrats is the push for all-electric and plug-in vehicles, but somehow expect all that electricity to come from what, exactly?

Not wind and solar. Wind is not reliable enough, and solar is not ubiquitous enough. Natural gas power plants produce tons of ammonia and other chemicals, and coal is just flat out horrible.

A sensible nuclear power plan is what we need. It's safe, renewable, and clean. The U.S. is just unbelievably lazy. Spent nuclear fuel can be completely, 100% recycled into reusable energy. The problem is all the bans and crap that the Democrats have managed to put up.

If terrorists were a real threat, France would've been screwed a long time ago.

[subego]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Actually, one of the things that perplexes me about Democrats is the push for all-electric and plug-in vehicles, but somehow expect all that electricity to come from what, exactly?

Not wind and solar. Wind is not reliable enough, and solar is not ubiquitous enough. Natural gas power plants produce tons of ammonia and other chemicals, and coal is just flat out horrible.

A sensible nuclear power plan is what we need. It's safe, renewable, and clean. The U.S. is just unbelievably lazy. Spent nuclear fuel can be completely, 100% recycled into reusable energy. The problem is all the bans and crap that the Democrats have managed to put up.

If terrorists were a real threat, France would've been screwed a long time ago.

I agree about the nuclear, but I'm guessing that even coal is going to produce less waste per mile than an IC engine which can fit in a car.

That being said, I'm sure you could get a much higher MPG if we could play a little more fast and loose with safety regulations.

[osiris]

I'm not ready to give up yet, so I still have a grain of hope in the notion that printing more money and spending most of it on a bloated military is a wise move.

/s

[BadKosh]

How about Nuke plants powering Electric cars that are kind of like "Bump Cars" with that upper grid as a pick-up?

[sek929]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Actually, one of the things that perplexes me about Democrats is the push for all-electric and plug-in vehicles, but somehow expect all that electricity to come from what, exactly?

Not wind and solar. Wind is not reliable enough, and solar is not ubiquitous enough. Natural gas power plants produce tons of ammonia and other chemicals, and coal is just flat out horrible.

A sensible nuclear power plan is what we need. It's safe, renewable, and clean. The U.S. is just unbelievably lazy. Spent nuclear fuel can be completely, 100% recycled into reusable energy. The problem is all the bans and crap that the Democrats have managed to put up.

If terrorists were a real threat, France would've been screwed a long time ago.

Try convincing pro-green people of this, say "Nuclear Power Plant" and all they think of is Chernobyl.

Gas/Electric hybrids are a dead-end, and unless we can really bolster our power grid without coal or other fossil fuels plug in cars are never going to get off the ground without more impact on the environment than our current high efficiency vehicles.

[Lint Police]

The Solution

[Shaddim]

A nuke in every town and a Tesla in every garage!


Actually, that doesn't sound too bad now that I think about it...

[imitchellg5]

That's actually about the best thing that could happen. Model S as daily, roadster as weekend. Yes, please.

[Shaddim]

Bah, just get the Roadster, strap anyone else to the outside of the car.

"Hold on, 60mph is coming in 3.6 seconds."

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

The Solution

Marge: Homer, there's someone here who can help you.
Homer: Batman?
Marge: No, it's a scientist.
Homer: Batman is a scientist.
Marge: It's not Batman!

[subego]

[ghporter]

Rant about the foolishness of painting the whole concept of nuclear power with a broad and poorly educated brush omitted...

If Congress goes along with freezing federal spending the way the president suggested, it would indeed save an enormous amount of money. Cynically, I don't think the Prez thinks it'll happen because he knows too many members of Congress on both sides of the aisle want/need the warm fuzzies/campaign contributions that earmarks and continued broad spending get them. But at least it's an idea that should do something. Somehow I don't see anything from the Legislative Branch that has anywhere near that much potential. In fact, I don't think I've seen anything like a "large scale plan" from that branch.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

"This is our generation's Sputnik moment."

Eh? It's our generation's call to copy the launch of something that will eventually burn up and fall from the sky, sent up by an out of control totalitarian government that's doomed to bloat itself into oblivion?

I dunno, weird choice of 'moments' to choose from, but whatever.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

If Congress goes along with freezing federal spending the way the president suggested, it would indeed save an enormous amount of money.

Errr…not so much. What he proposes to freeze is about 12% of the budget.

[smacintush]

Obama uses the current situation as an excuse to propose NEW government…ahem, "investments"…without acknowledging the real root causes or addressing the real problem areas.

Not surprised, not impressed, not in support of ANY new "investments".

I hope the congress has the courage and integrity to do what is right, rather than what is politically expedient.

One thing has remained consistent with Obama: the better his speeches, the less valuable the content.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

"This is our generation's Sputnik moment."

Eh? It's our generation's call to copy the launch of something that will eventually burn up and fall from the sky, sent up by an out of control totalitarian government that's doomed to bloat itself into oblivion?

I dunno, weird choice of 'moments' to choose from, but whatever.

Ha

Obama's speech writer definitely had a Freudian slip moment with that one.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Errr…not so much. What he proposes to freeze is about 12% of the budget.

Exactly. Which means we'd still have to "borrow" about 30% of the Budget by printing money.

-t

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Errr…not so much. What he proposes to freeze is about 12% of the budget.

...and this is pocket change? I said it would save "a huge amount of money." "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money."*

* Dirksen

[el chupacabra]

… .

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Anyway electric is also more efficient from what I read. Going to coal powered electric is at the least a step in the right direction, especially if we ever get to the hydrogen cars.

*Going to coal* ?

50% of this country's electricity is already produced by coal, how much more do you want ?

All in all, an electric vehicle that's powered by coal generated electricity is none more eco-frinedly than a gas burning engine.

-t

[Shaddim]

I know that we pay an extra 20% for "eco-friendly" power for our house, from what I was told it's ~80% hydro and the rest is solar and turbine. It wasn't my idea, but I was told that it's the "responsible thing to do". Whatever the hell that means.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I know that we pay an extra 20% for "eco-friendly" power for our house, from what I was told it's ~80% hydro and the rest is solar and turbine. It wasn't my idea, but I was told that it's the "responsible thing to do". Whatever the hell that means.

It means you got ripped off

-t

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

It means you got ripped off

-t

I know, but it's part of the tax I pay for living with treehuggers.

[el chupacabra]

… .

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Going to coal powered electric is at the least a step in the right direction, especially if we ever get to the hydrogen cars.

What's wrong with going with nuclear in the first place? Why bother with coal at all?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I know that we pay an extra 20% for "eco-friendly" power for our house, from what I was told it's ~80% hydro and the rest is solar and turbine. It wasn't my idea, but I was told that it's the "responsible thing to do". Whatever the hell that means.

You know what's funny.... my default power is about 80% hydro, and they offer me a plan to pay extra to displace that hydro with wind and solar. lol

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

not ecofriendly. If it comes from dams your killing the salmon, sturgeon as well as all the other fishes. Better to use coal.

Are you serious ?

Next you're telling me coal is more ecofriendly than wind power because some birds get killed in the rotors

Also, coal is more ecofriendly than solor, because it doesn't kill some scorpion who sat under a rock that was moved.

Absurd.

-t

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

not ecofriendly. If it comes from dams your killing the salmon, sturgeon as well as all the other fishes. Better to use coal.

We don't have salmon and sturgeon, we have bass and catfish, and a hell of a lot of them too. Well, there was the issue with the endangered Snail Darter, but I think they were able to relocate those suckers to a neighboring river where they're recovering now.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You know what's funny.... my default power is about 80% hydro, and they offer me a plan to pay extra to displace that hydro with wind and solar. lol

Screw that, no way I'd go for it. To lessen the use of coal and gas? Yes. To lessen the use of a clean resource like water? Hell no.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

What's wrong with going with nuclear in the first place? Why bother with coal at all?

Well it's good that you ask. I will start by saying I personally don't care whether they build more nuclear or coal plants as long as I dont have to pay for the higher cost of nuclear; Some of the surrounding issues are National security risk (keep as few people knowledgeable about uranium/plutonium as possible), transportation of radioactive material, waste, money, pie in the sky technology that doesn't exist anywhere but paper.

Right now nuclear is all the fad with the public which is why there's a lot of overly optimistic information circulating about it. The industry currently has the option to build nuclear facilities if they consider is economically feasible.

A sensible nuclear power plan is what we need. It's safe, renewable, and clean. The U.S. is just unbelievably lazy.

Lets start with this bit of misinformation here. Nuclear hasn't proven itself clean. Such examples as the plant in Scotland thats full of leaks (thats the only one I know about Im sure there's more). Entire shorelines have been permanently quarantined due to the high radioactivity levels. When something like that happens many of the animals/fish in the area become contaminated. It's difficult if not impossible to clean up after leaks and accidents. And what about the spent waste? It has to be quarantined for 200,000 years or something? I grew up near a "shielded, safe" nuclear waste storage facility. And by near I mean about a 100 miles away, and flipper babies were still popping up around the place. This was a political issue in my area. The government was generally silent on the issue. They didnt bother releasing studies or statistics to trick us about how safe it was because they couldn't. In any case nobody wants to be anywhere near this stuff. Nobody likes the idea of waste that has to be quarantined indefinitely.... I dont know if I'd call the "US just unbelievably lazy" yet, it seems most the nuclear success stories have taken place in the US and most the accidents have taken place over seas. If you do some research you might find the US (and maybe france) are actually most knowledgeable in this field and other countries are just talk.

On Safety
People think it's safe because throughout history there hasnt been many sensationalized accidents. Then again there isnt really that much opportunity for accidents since there isnt as many nuc plants... many governments also cover up the extent of their accidents. In the US alone there has been 3 partial meltdowns plus many other costly accidents. Those meltdowns could've potentially done a lot of damage. From what I understand Ukraine only had 1 partial meltdown, and that was all that was needed to kill 4000+ people, and cost $7,000,000,000 in damages. Even though these accident might be considered rare by some it only takes 1 and it makes all the worlds oil spills combined look like spilled coffee. There isnt much room for error; in Japan I saw there were some fatal accidents caused by nothing more than mixing some ingredients inaccurately.

Spent nuclear fuel can be completely, 100% recycled into reusable energy. The problem is all the bans and crap that the Democrats have managed to put up.

It cant be 100% recycled. I saw one statistic that said thorium could potentially get 95% efficiency in the future. As it stands the technology to build a thorium based plant is probably a decade away and nobody knows what to expect with it. In fact to recycle Uranium at all requires that the price of raw material go up from ~$63/lb to $90/lb otherwise it costs more to extract the energy than what you get out. To add more problems no country has successfully recycled a decent percentage of their fuel so all the talk about it is greatly exaggerated and hearsay. ....The full idea of recycability only exists on paper anyway.

Cost
Nuclear energy is currently the most expensive form of energy. When you look at cost comparison charts they will place nuclear power somewhere near the top usually below solar; but they dont take into account all the subsidies and costs the government takes on for nuclear. The government insures against disaster and pays for much of waste cleanup if you can call it that.

For me I just want my cheap coal plant because thats all Im willing to pay for and the technology actually exists to clean up/scrub coal plants. I could say why bother at all with nuclear or coal when we have solar. There is no risk of meltdown or serious accident from solar. There is only air pollution in the panel manufacturing. There is massive toxic waste produced from solar but this can be disposed of easier than nuclear waste which never totally decays and needs protective shielding. Solar panels made in the 70s have gone way past their life expectancy and are still producing to this day. Since all the energy created comes or came from the sun anyway it makes sense to get it directly from the source.

A plant (photosynthesis) can convert 6% of the light that hits to energy. The latest solar technology has a 42% efficiency. If someone wants to go cheap, traditional solar cells can convert 6-15% and use mirrors to gather even more electricity.

New World Record For Efficiency For Solar Cells; Inexpensive To Manufacture or maybe is 22% now.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Are you serious ?

Wow I see somebody hates any kind of environment protection and our animal friends... I love the animals but today Im going to go outside and kill a turtle just for fun... and for you

See this is the problem with the democrat republican thing. You know you dont have to blindly believe every republican idea just because its your team and they told you too... especially considering you spend most your time in Europe.

Next you're telling me coal is more ecofriendly than wind power because some birds get killed in the rotors

Your logic is nonlinear, birds can choose to go around the windmills. Baby fish must pass through the dam. They have no choice.

Also, coal is more ecofriendly than solor, because it doesn't kill some scorpion who sat under a rock that was moved.
-t

Your logic is nonlinear, there's a difference between killing a scorpion and a dam that continuously kills the majority of fish. In the northwest they spend a bit of money trucking fish up and down the dams just to prevent their extinction. It has gotten to the point where they breached some dams to get the salmon back. Thank god some people still care enough about their wildlife.. their most important resource.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Wow I see somebody hates any kind of environment protection and our animal friends... I love the animals but today Im going to go outside and kill a turtle just for fun... and for you

See this is the problem with the democrat republican thing. You know you dont have to blindly believe every republican idea just because its your team and they told you too... especially considering you spend most your time in Europe.

Your logic is nonlinear, birds can choose to go around the windmills. Baby fish must pass through the dam. They have no choice.

Your logic is nonlinear, there's a difference between killing a scorpion and a dam that continuously kills the majority of fish. In the northwest they spend a bit of money trucking fish up and down the dams just to prevent their extinction. It has gotten to the point where they breached some dams to get the salmon back. Thank god some people still care enough about their wildlife.. their most important resource.

Fish ladders