Quote:When did I call myself a scientist?
How many animals were killed when Deeepwater Horizon went to [BAD WORD REMOVED]? How many humans were impacted? The entire Gulf Coast was decimated. That was one event. Almost forgotten.
And your elephant/rat argument is just word salad.
And in what ways did our current environmental laws contribute to the disaster by forcing the producers into the less than ideal circumstances of deep water drilling when shallow water production is safer and more efficient?
This is like being angry at BB5 for throwing interceptions when you never call anything but go routes.
Quote:What is InfoWars?
Did you get the other thread locked?
No I did not request lock or lock it. A mod did it.
Quote:As a small government fiscal conservative I have to ask you, why must government do this if it's such a great and wonderful idea? Why isn't someone using these masterful new ideas to make a profit? And please don't say the oil companies are preventing it, that's silly. If wind/solar/hydro and all the other greenie pipe dreams are so much better than fossil fuels for energy (never mind the dozens of other essential uses of them) why haven't they superceded the FFs by now?
Because the one thing I do know is that if the only way for something to be done is for government to force or require it then it's not going to be a good thing.
I too am a fiscal conservative. Our government doesn't need to necessarily do it themselves. They just needs to make it a viable option instead of allowing energy lobbyists to squash it at every turn. Other countries are embracing these technologies and will be far ahead of us before we catch on that it is the way of the future.
If you don't think energy companies are trying to block this at every turn you are not paying attention. The evidence is overwhelming and decades old.
Quote:And in what ways did our current environmental laws contribute to the disaster by forcing the producers into the less than ideal circumstances of deep water drilling when shallow water production is safer and more efficient?
This is like being angry at BB5 for throwing interceptions when you never call anything but go routes.
Newsflash.. it's not perfectly safe in shallow or deep water. When it goes bad it goes bad in a big way. You're blaming the laws instead of blaming the fact we have not been able to develop an infallible process to extract an energy source that does not mesh well with living things.
Quote:Sorry about the "scientist" snipe, I thought it was SolidSnake.
How many animals were killed by Deepwater Horizon? If you count bacteria, the I agree there were billions. The only decimation on the Gulf Coast was the loss of business by resorts because of the bad publicity. The pollution never made it that far. You really need to read more than Daily Kos.
My elephant argument is just word salad? Are you saying that sparrows need the same protection as golden eagles?
I won't debate you if you refuse to accept reality.
Go look up the environmental impact of that event and tell me again how it was only bacteria impacted by hundreds of millions of gallons of oil.
I refuse to accept you can be that obtuse.
Quote:Sorry about the "scientist" snipe, I thought it was SolidSnake.
How many animals were killed by Deepwater Horizon? If you count bacteria, the I agree there were billions. The only decimation on the Gulf Coast was the loss of business by resorts because of the bad publicity. The pollution never made it that far. You really need to read more than Daily Kos.
My elephant argument is just word salad? Are you saying that sparrows need the same protection as golden eagles?
My speciality is microbial ecology. The DH didn't kill "billions" of bacteria, it actually increased their numbers but also killed other species due to suffocation and reduced dissolved oxygen in the water column (heterotrophic bacteria use a lot of oxygen).
Quote:What is InfoWars?
Did you get the other thread locked?
The other thread got locked because it became nothing but who could quote the biggest and/or longest article. Cutting and pasting
snippets of an article is okay, copying pages full of them is not. That's why they created links... :thumbsup:
Quote:The other thread got locked because it became nothing but who could quote the biggest and/or longest article. Cutting and pasting snippets of an article is okay, copying pages full of them is not. That's why they created links... :thumbsup:
Unlock it please and the copying of long snippets won't happen. I ended it with the 25 points.
Quote:Unlock it please and the copying of long snippets won't happen. I ended it with the 25 points.
Start a new one....without all the huge quotations.
Quote:Newsflash.. it's not perfectly safe in shallow or deep water. When it goes bad it goes bad in a big way. You're blaming the laws instead of blaming the fact we have not been able to develop an infallible process to extract an energy source that does not mesh well with living things.
I didnt say it was, nothing is perfect. But hamstringing the company and then expecting better results is dumb.
Quote:I didnt say it was, nothing is perfect. But hamstringing the company and then expecting better results is dumb.
I would propose not doing everything we can to secure an energy source that isn't hazardous to our existence is dumb.
Quote:Go for it.
Think I just did. If only the government would prevent big energy from blocking such goals at every step.
Quote:How do they block development? Give an example.
Check that documentary I mentioned for starters.
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://priceofoil.org/thepriceofoil/clean-energy/'>http://priceofoil.org/thepriceofoil/clean-energy/</a>
The industry consistently uses its political and financial muscle to try and block the alternatives. In 2015, oil companies spent $11 million on successfully killing a provision in California’s SB 350 climate bill to halve petroleum use by 2030. Coal-burning utilities have tried to penalize consumers for installing rooftop solar. In Europe, Shell successfully lobbied against targets for renewable energy.
Meanwhile, the industry continues to demand handouts, giving it an unfair advantage over clean energy. G20 countries gave $452 billion in subsidies in 2014, going directly towards the production of fossil fuels. The U.S. share of this was over $20 billion. The industry also lobbies for exemptions to environmental rules, which also gives it an unfair advantage by making its costs artificially low.
Quote:<a class="bbc_url" href='http://priceofoil.org/thepriceofoil/clean-energy/'>http://priceofoil.org/thepriceofoil/clean-energy/</a>
The industry consistently uses its political and financial muscle to try and block the alternatives. In 2015, oil companies spent $11 million on successfully killing a provision in California’s SB 350 climate bill to halve petroleum use by 2030. Coal-burning utilities have tried to penalize consumers for installing rooftop solar. In Europe, Shell successfully lobbied against targets for renewable energy.
Meanwhile, the industry continues to demand handouts, giving it an unfair advantage over clean energy. G20 countries gave $452 billion in subsidies in 2014, going directly towards the production of fossil fuels. The U.S. share of this was over $20 billion. The industry also lobbies for exemptions to environmental rules, which also gives it an unfair advantage by making its costs artificially low.
So what? You guys keep saying this is better. If so, then it doesn't need government propping it up. So get on with it.
Quote:We paid a billion dollars over 14 years to clean up a partial meltdown at Three Mile Island..
You think the public has any clue the damage Fukushima did? Wait a decade and see how the people who are in that area are doing. Caesium-137 has a 30 year half life.
There are cleaner alternatives which we are only scratching the surface on, but lobbyists and controlling parties in the US will continue to obstruct.
Wind power, photovoltaic solar power, hydroelectricity, etc.. would never have the mess that comes with meltdowns, fracking, oil drilling.
Speaking as someone who has actually worked in the field of alternative energy, I can tell you a few things that make 2 of the 3 alternatives that you mention not only not cost effective, but they also cause environmental damage as well.
1. Wind power - It's very inefficient for starters, and relies on a constant wind velocity. Wind generation actually produces very little in the way of usable power.
2. Solar power - Again it's very inefficient, though not as much as wind power.
One of the problems with both technologies is that they require storage for the power generated. Take for example solar power. It produces a DC voltage that must be stored somewhere. That storage is usually in the form of batteries. The two most common types of batteries are lead-acid and lithium. The chemical process to not only make, but use and dispose of both types of batteries is not only cost prohibitive, but is also bad for the environment. Lithium batteries are also dangerous, especially in a hotter climate/environment (recall Samsung cell phones exploding and/or catching on fire recently).
The next problem is converting the DC power stored in the batteries to AC power used in the home. Much of the energy is wasted during the conversion process and that process produces heat.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for finding alternative sources of power, but the government needs to stay out of it. Obama wanting to "put coal companies out of business" is not the way to go. Coal, oil and nuclear power infrastructure needs to updated and let the private sector come up with better alternatives. Subsidizing a losing technology (Solyndra) is not the way to go. Throwing our tax dollars at losing programs (cash for clunkers) is not the way to go.