Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Larry G on 12 Jul 2010 08:17
On Jul 12, 5:11 am, Day Brown <dayhbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 07/11/2010 06:55 PM, Larry G wrote:
> > the discussion was poo poo GW ...as well as many of the other concerns
> > about pollution in the environment... and basically equating them all
> > to a trumped-up enviro-weenie agenda...
> > totally consistent... and totally the pure right wing BS these
> > days... as you are aware.
> > comparing mercury in the environment to automobile accidents - is
> > consistent but wrong.
> There is a synergy between environmental and food contamination,
> inappropriate diet affecting childhood mental development, and that in
> turn leading to neurosis expressed as right wing denial of GW.
> But we are where we are. The Right wing votes enuf that no effective
> policy can get a mandate to do anything. And as you see, you cannot
> convince a neurotic of the truth with just the facts.
> So the question is, not how to stop global warming because that is
> politically impossible, but what to do about it. And here, you get to
> vote with your feet to whatever area or community you think will be able
> to adapt to whatever both economic and weather changes are.
> So- what do you think your readers should _do_?
unfortunately you are correct. Nothing is going to happen without some
level of political concurrence and right now there is a loud and
vociferous minority who cannot determine policy but who can stifle
The folks who will decide this are what I call "in the middle" - which
is what all of this rhetoric is about - to convince them that GW is a
hoax and if they succeed (and they have so far) then we'll end up the
way we have with mercury, ozone holes, oil spills and the like -
damage ... hopefully arrested if not reversible but also hopefully not
past the tipping point where we are on a doomed outcome.
what to do? continue to point out what is wrong with the GW hoax
argument and hope enough others at the least, see some problems with
the current ring wing logic.
From: Dave Head on 13 Jul 2010 17:12
On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 04:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>On Jul 9, 12:31�am, Rally2xs <rally...(a)att.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 8, 6:36�pm, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> > it is SOME of them's agenda... though... and it will add money to the
>> > cost.
>> Everything an envirowacko dreams up adds to the cost....
> not putting pollution into the environment costs money - but so does
>putting pollution into the environment.
OK, this is where I think I came in... after a bit of traveling and
being away from my Forte Agent, which is the best way to do Usenet
that I know.
Well, it costs a WHALE of a lot more money to do what an envirowacko
wants done, rather than what the customer of the utility wants done,
which is to provide him with the cheapest electricity possible.
>Want to have dioxin in all of our rivers or lead back in gasoline?
I'd like the lead back. It makes cars cheaper to build and makes for
better gas that allows for higher compression and actually more
efficient burning of gasoline. I never believed the hype about lead -
it was really all about the fact that they couldn't find a way to deal
with the other pollutions in exhaust except for Platinum, and the lead
poisoned the Platinum. That's all it was.
Dioxin I've seen in literature that says it has a bad rap in small
concentrations - go walking thru a jungle where it has been saturated
with the stuff and you're in trouble, but if there's a little in your
beer, its supposedly not a problem.
>according to one quick check from the EPA: " Cost estimates fall in a
>wide range. It is projected that the Hg removal capabilities projected
>in Table 3 would add no more than about 3 mills/kWh to the annualized
>cost of power production."
Even if true, which it probably is, that wouldn't be good enough. Its
never good enough with the envirowackos unless it costs billions or
trillions. Its like the safety nazis with cars - it was shown that
the side impact bars in the doors were so expensive, that it would
have been cheaper and saved more lives to build and man more emergency
response units. Other things, like the last 0.03% of pollution that
would cost billions and be undetectable in the overall welfare of
plants, animals or humans, the envirowackos will still want to / try
to force having done that particular pollution cleanup.
I _really_ believe the environmental movement has been infiltrated and
is being used to more easily attack the country from within by
communists, socialists, anarchists, anti-capitalists, etc., possibly
without the knowledge of each other's ultimate purposes.
>the most important thing is that the folks who are opposed don't care
>> > > Just don't eat so much fish.
>> > it's in other things too guy... �anything that eats off the ground may
>> > be accumulating it in their tissues.
>> Still, I eat this food.
>it's kids guy.... how much is it worth to have a kid with lower IQs?
We should fix the problem permanently, but the envirowackos oppose
nuclear too, and nuclear _is_ the _ultimate_ answer. Eliminate
permits, eliminate public say, allow anyone that wants to build a
nuclear power plant begin work at once, and we'd maybe get what we
need in 5 years or so. MAYBE they could build that many that quickly.
Yeah, I know about the foundary in Japan that builds nuclear
components, and how backed up that would be, so maybe we build some
foundaries here. But we need to DO IT, and quit screwing around. But,
of course, its never gonna happen. Nuclear power is never gonna happen
here. solar will happen but much too late, wind will happen but will
not be adequate as baseload even with storage, etc. Natural gas could
do it but it is not an ultimate solution because it is still fossile
fuel, and therefore finite. Nuclear can be used in a breeder mode,
and be made more or less inexhaustible.
>they are not stop anything.
They try, and succeed far too often. They are nowhere close to
"reasonable" about much of anything.
>It's a lack of support from the vast
>larger numbers of our population.
Yeah, they've been scared / lied to by the envirowackos and their
accomplices in the mainstream media to the point that they're against
it too. Same sort of lying that was going on in the 90's about the
assault weapon ban, and the mainstream media dutifully bent over to
the wackos in the gun-ban movement and put up a video of someone
shooting a machine gun every time they talked about it, and so any
person you'd ask on the street was under the impression that the
assault weapon ban was a law against machine guns.
>the enviro-weenies are loud but very
>small in numbers.
They're not that small, and they lie their asses off. The mainstream
media repeat the lies, fall over backwards to repeat an envirowacko
lie, and that is what scares everyone and confuses everyone.
>The rest of the country can outvote them anytime
>they want to but they can't agree.
Because they've been fed a steady diet of lies with willing
participation by the mainstream media.
> did you ever hear of the Mad hatter? It is well documented. It
>works like a pesticide and it does not break down... it
>accumulates... like other pesticides do that have been banned - for
Yeah, but the supposed cure won't ever be enough. There will be some
extreme process found to remove the last 0.003% of the mercury, the
wackos will demand it, and then we'll lose cheap electricity entirely.
Of course, the present administration wants to make cheap electricity
illegal with this cap-and-tax scheme, so's we can all end up paying 50
cents a KwH, and that will be the end of America.
More likely, it'll be the beginning of an actual shooting war. That
high of electricity would make air conditioning impossible, and I just
heard one commentator on the radio as I was driving back from St.
Louis, talking about this, and saying, "Over my dead body." I think
he actually means it, too - about losing air conditioning. I'm with
him, BTW. I gotta give up air conditioning because of some pinhead
and their rules, someone will get a bullet.
>you create the same number of widgets with 1/2 the energy ..is not
Productive is the same number of widgets for half the COST.
>if you produced the same number of widgets with 1/2 the labor.. that
>would not be productive?
Maybe. Depends on how much extra money you had to spend to do it. If
that was less than the wages of the 1/2 the labor that you're no
longer using, then that's productive.
>you produce the same number of widgets with 1/2 the resources?
The resource in question is money. That is the thing to be minimized
- the cost of production.
>Europe uses Pebble reactors that cannot "run away".. but they cost
>more to build and operate
I'm for them. Was not aware that the PBR was in use yet - I always
heard it needed more testing. Is it a case of our envirowack-laden
government not accepting the PBR as "safe", much as some medical drugs
and procedures are not deemed "safe and effective" by the FDA?
>no. you'd be wrong. If the public really did want it in strong enough
>numbers, it would get enough yes votes in the congress and
It'll never happen. Too many 50's nuclear scare movies and too much
envirowacko likes that are gleefully repeated by the mainstream media.
>don't believe it? Have one major Nuke Power incident and see how quick
>those who say they want it - change their minds... public support for
>Nukes is weak .. and influenced by Nuclear "events".
Yet there's tons of radioactivity that is put into the atmosphere by
coal plants - not sure if there's any radon that is spewed by natural
gas plants but I'd bet there is. About anything that burns, its going
to be easily attacked by the envirowackos and the MSM.
>I'm in favor of the pebble type reactors but like I said.. the
>American public still has a phobia about it.. less than before..but
>still too many for strong support which is what you need for the
>politicians to act.
We're going to crash economically because of envirowacko lying and
mainstream media bending over for it.
>> The envirowackos have to make up their minds and choose something they
>> like and THAT WORKS. �As long as they are unviable, we have no choice
>> but to ignorre them. �We're not going to live in caves with no heating
>> and no coooling and no transportation just to make them happy.
>we agree.. that's my frustration with them.. they seem to oppose
>virtually every option except the ones that only work if we all cut
>our energy use to 1/2.
And doing that would ruin my life as I'm living it now. Just got back
from another couple nice National road rallies in St. Louis. Drove
out there myself. My driver flew. But I couldn't do that - no way -
if I had to use 1/2 the energy.
>However, I'll again point out that the American people themselves are
>split and not sure what they really want.
They've been lied to a lot. They can't know what they want, 'cuz
they're not nuclear engineers or even halfway familiar with the
>By the way - there is no "cave". Houses can be built right now that
>are energy zero.
Its hard to figure out whether they mean this thing to be air
conditioned or not. They mention evaporative cooling (only works good
in the desert southwest), and there's a little about geothermal heat
pumps. No air conditioning means "non starter" with me.
And I don't buy the "energy zero" as long as I have an electric
company bill to pay.
I'm thinking on the way back from St. Louis that the thing to do is to
find some survivalist-minded people and build a small commune for the
purpose of defending ourselves and a food stash, and getting ourselves
off the grid entirely, so's if the sun has one of its periodic
tantrums and gives us a humongous solar flare that knocks out the the
entire power grid, which will likely take 3 years to rebuild and cause
the deaths by starvation of probably 90% of the US population, we
should have 3 years of food, lots of guns and ammo to defend it with,
and no possibility of going down the tubes from lack of electrical
power. Big 'ol windcharger and maybe some solar thermal electric
generation and then the geothermal heat pump, etc. Prolly too
>the problem is that you have to pay up front to get them and people
>won't do that.
>It's much like a Fluorescent CF bulb that costs 7 times an
>incandescent but lasts 10 times as long.
My experience is that CF longevity vs. bulbs is a myth. And boy do
they stink when they fail.
>> They don't have that far to go in the 1st place. �Their countries are
>they have urban centers like we do... you know with the exurbs around
>them like we do.
They have buses and trains and their cities are closer together and
the country is smaller so unless they routinely go thru the passport /
visa hassle, they have less in terms of mileage to go on vacation with
or a routine event like my road rallies. Substitute following your
favorite ball team, or the Grateful Dead concerts, or whatever for the
US road trip, and the US road trip will be a lot longer. Driving
those distances is not all that comfortable in a rollerskate-like car,
either, so thus the popularity of a lot of our larger cars.
>Their countries while smaller are a lot like our states where each
>state has urban centers and rural.
Lots and lots of us cross state borders for vacation and even routine
>> And somewhere thru this mess I remember reading you said that solar
>> works on rooftops and so forth. �No, no, no,. �We're looking for base-
>> load clean electricity. �That's what 100% solar or 100% wind or 100%
>> geo or a combination of them is all about. �No fossile fuel should be
>> burned. �But you can't do them without storage. �And you can't build
>> ANY of those to do the base load, and therefore not burn fossilee
>> fuels at all, any time soon. �Nukes would be the quickest to buld, but
>> in the quantitiees we need them to be able to shut down the fossile
>> plants, it'd be decades.
>Solar and Wind save your baseload guy.
We need something new to _be_ the baseload, and it needs to not be
something that is exhaustible. Wasting money building something that
is going to go obsolute for lack of fuel seems counterproductive,
unless you expect it to simply wear out before the fuel does, I guess.
And the FF is still spewing CO2, BTW, if you're the sort that cares
>They allow you to use Natural
>Gas Peaker plants to add to the base when Solar/Wind are not doing...
We're looking at not building FF plants at all, aren't we?
>You use smart meters to charge people what it costs to produce peak
>power - which is about 7 times as much as non-peak power.
Aha! 7X power bills in the mail! Sounds like Enron, only done
officially. Hey, if we can get cap and tax in on the deal, maybe we
can get to 10X, maybe 20X! Lessee, I'm getting it now for 8 1/2 cents
a KwH here, less in Indiana if I go back there, and but multiply that
by 10X and you get 85 cents per KwH - which is where I suspected this
was going. I knew that's where this would go eventually, just not
exactly how we would get there.
>Then people will pay attention to how they use it.
The country will go dead flat broke is what will happen. The farmer
welding his field equipment back together is going to be doing it in
the day or evening or about anytime except 2AM which will end up being
the only time that electricity will be reasonably priced. That may
even go away with the advent of electric cars.
The whole thing is bass-ackwards. The thing to do is build power
plants out the wazoo, to keep power cheap 24/7/365, and that will help
make this country efficient and prosperous.
>You won't be running your water heater when it cost 70 cents a KW to
>do it and that's the problem right now with the base and peak loads.
Yeah, cold showers now, too. Love it. I always figured that's where
the envirowacko agenda was going, its just good to hear someone else
saying it too.
>How much do you really want to know about the problem and work for
>reasonable solutions and how much do you not care and just want to
>maintain the status quo?
I don't want to maintain the status quo, I want things to be BETTER.
that means cheaper power, more abundant food, etc. etc. I want more
good factory jobs in this country because that is one of the 3 ways
wealth is produced - mining, agriculture, and manufacturing.
Conserving power is for the birds. Finding cheap ways to produce it
is where we should be going. Attempting to limit people will work,
but it will produce widespread poverty and misery.
From: Larry G on 13 Jul 2010 18:21
On Jul 13, 5:12 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 04:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
> <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 9, 12:31 am, Rally2xs <rally...(a)att.net> wrote:
> >> On Jul 8, 6:36 pm, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > it is SOME of them's agenda... though... and it will add money to the
> >> > cost.
> >> Everything an envirowacko dreams up adds to the cost....
do you distinguish between enviro-wackos and the EPA and other NGO
health & welfare groups ?
From: Dave Head on 13 Jul 2010 18:42
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:21:35 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>On Jul 13, 5:12�pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 04:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>> <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jul 9, 12:31�am, Rally2xs <rally...(a)att.net> wrote:
>> >> On Jul 8, 6:36�pm, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > it is SOME of them's agenda... though... and it will add money to the
>> >> > cost.
>> >> Everything an envirowacko dreams up adds to the cost....
>do you distinguish between enviro-wackos and the EPA and other NGO
>health & welfare groups ?
Not really - the envirwackos whine and the EPA (Who's NGO?) jumps.
There's lots of envirowackos _IN_ the EPA.
From: Larry G on 13 Jul 2010 20:57
On Jul 13, 6:42 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:21:35 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
> <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 13, 5:12 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 04:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
> >> <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jul 9, 12:31 am, Rally2xs <rally...(a)att.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Jul 8, 6:36 pm, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > it is SOME of them's agenda... though... and it will add money to the
> >> >> > cost.
> >> >> Everything an envirowacko dreams up adds to the cost....
> >do you distinguish between enviro-wackos and the EPA and other NGO
> >health & welfare groups ?
> Not really - the envirwackos whine and the EPA (Who's NGO?) jumps.
> There's lots of envirowackos _IN_ the EPA.
NGO = non-govt organizations that are like organizations concerned
about bad air quality that affects children, elderly and those with
compromised immune systems and the like.
so... you consider the EPA to be an enviro-wacko also?