View Full Version : Does Al Gore Care about America
I am so worried about our ongoing "Energy Crises" that I think if Al serves it could go either way, but at least we will not see more of the profound inaction of our government.
Possible downer: Al's carbon obsessions cause him to interfere with development of Alaskan natural gas, coal and oil resources.
Possible downer: Al's isotope obsessions cause him to interfere with recent moves to rebuild our national nuclear infrastructure.
Possible upper: At least Al can say "nuclear".
Possible upper: At least Al will support conservation, CAFE standards, etc.
OK then. What do you think?
Anyhow, surveying the current crop of possibles, I am horrified by the likes of Senators McCain and Clinton, so Al Gore seems like the best option, if he can be persuaded to run.
W3MIV
08-23-2006, 11:46 AM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ Aug. 23 2006,05:44)]OK then. #What do you think?
Al Bore probably cares about America far more than America cares about Al Bore. And America cares about Al Bore much more than this Albert cares about Al Bore.
We need to return to nuclear power generation, a technology that has changed radically in the past thirty years.
We need to build far more refineries and more pipelines, and we need to ease regulations to permit more exploration and more drilling in no sequestered "preserves." We have not built a new refinery in thirty years.
Due to the policies of environmental extremism, we have been forbidding instead of intelligently regulating, and much of the hype about global warming is the result of our continued use of fossil fuels, particularly coal, while we could long ago have reduced emissions by using nuclear.
What we may NOT due is seriously damage the US economy by putting another envirowhacko in a position of power to do more harm than good.
The Kyoto Protocol "signers," such as those in the former Soviet Kaffeeklatsch of Eurasia, not to mention China, soon to be the biggest consumer of fossil fuels on earth, have cynically attached their names to a treaty they regularly ignore unless the cameras are running, and the EU condemns the US for having refused to do so.
Boil up a spotted owl for lunch and chill out. Al Bore is a dead issue.
And don't forget: You axed.
I guess I mostly agree with you Albert, but who is better that could actually run and win?
I never found Al Gore boring. If you listen or read what he says without watching him on the boob tube, then he is quite intellectually stimulating. He is not an entertainer like the phoney jerks we keep electing. (My "apolizes" to the entertainers in our forum.)
Al Gore is thoughtfully sincere, and I respect that -- even though I often disagree with his viewpoint.
Quote[/b] ]Al Bore probably cares about America far more than America cares about Al Bore. And America cares about Al Bore much more than this Albert cares about Al Bore.
We need to return to nuclear power generation, a technology that has changed radically in the past thirty years.
We need to build far more refineries and more pipelines, and we need to ease regulations to permit more exploration and more drilling in no sequestered "preserves." We have not built a new refinery in thirty years.
Due to the policies of environmental extremism, we have been forbidding instead of intelligently regulating, and much of the hype about global warming is the result of our continued use of fossil fuels, particularly coal, while we could long ago have reduced emissions by using nuclear.
What we may NOT due is seriously damage the US economy by putting another envirowhacko in a position of power to do more harm than good.
The Kyoto Protocol "signers," such as those in the former Soviet Kaffeeklatsch of Eurasia, not to mention China, soon to be the biggest consumer of fossil fuels on earth, have cynically attached their names to a treaty they regularly ignore unless the cameras are running, and the EU condemns the US for having refused to do so.
Boil up a spotted owl for lunch and chill out. Al Bore is a dead issue.
And don't forget: You axed.
Yep!
Although the entertainment factor of another ALGORE run for the presidency and resulting democrat bloodletting is rather tempting.
W3MIV
08-23-2006, 01:00 PM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ Aug. 23 2006,08:09)]I guess I mostly agree with you Albert, but who is better that could actually run and win?
I wish I had an answer to that. I have none. Like Billy Jeff Clinton, "I share your pain."
The problem has become one of good men (and women) not wanting to suffer the outrages of politics to take a job with crushing responsibility at what amounts to a piddling wage.
Those that do are warped by the lust for power, not by some noble urge to philanthropy and salvation. And, reality demonstrates that even the power is more illusory than real, for the deep partisan bitterness that has been made more and more trenchent by the rejection of the left party's programs and platforms has neutered the bulk of a President's real powers: no Prexy can spend a dime not given to him by the Congress, and without a line-item veto (something that the Congress will never permit since it represents a real abdication of the only power they possess), he cannot risk veto without risking real disruption of government. That's why Bush has been feckless about controlling spending. And it's why West Virginia is filled to overflowing with sparsely occupied buildings (all name for the Grand Wizard) sitting in semi-reclaimed stripmine scars all around the state. Pork barrel reigns because it guarantees re-election to the hack incumbents. As a Florida Congressman once aptly put it: "The difference between a drunken sailor and a Congressman is the drunken sailor is spending his own money."
Every election is boils down to a choice between two undersirables, if not truly "evils." The coming joust promises to be a real "trash-barrel potpourri."
I could probably vote for Joe Lieberman, though I don't find him an ideal, and I could probably vote for John McCain, though I find him a good deal less than ideal. What we need is someone who is more committed to remaining in a centrist position than any of the blowhards, like Biden or Clinton, now bumping and grinding in hopes of lifting the applause meter needle.
It's much too soon, however, to make any kind of predictions. If you remember, Jimmy Carter started out as a total unknown ("Jimmy Who?") when he announced against Ford, and Ronald Reagan was touted as the best possible candidate for the Dems to run against.
Al Bore cares about Al Bore - period.
K2WH
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Aug. 23 2006,05:17)]Al Bore cares about Al Bore - period.
K2WH
Who does Hillary care about?
KW4MW
08-23-2006, 01:38 PM
Somewhat dated but still apt. #
Quote[/b] ]Following the publication of his book, Earth in the Balance, the liberal media anointed Al Gore an environmental expert and political spokesman for the scientific community, possibly contributing to why he was chosen to deliver the commencement address at MIT, the epitome of scientific discovery and innovation. When one carefully examines Gore's writings, though, it is shocking to see the clear parallels between his views and those articulated by the Unabomber in his 35,000-word manifesto, the epitome of scientific mistrust and the leading advocate for returning society to the Stone Age. As syndicated columnist Tony Snow recently wrote, "Gore, like the Unabomber, distrusts unbridled technology. While Gore prefers to concentrate power in the hands of a wise and gigantic government, the Unabomber prefers anarchy."
Interestingly, one of the books found in the Unabomber's cabin after his arrest was a dog-eared copy of Gore's Earth in the Balance, complete with copious notes in the margins and underlined sections. For some reason, federal investigators decided to leave this off of the evidence list released to the media. Could it be that Gore recognizes the similarities and is embarrassed by the fact that he is the leading defender of the same eco-hysteria as the Unabomber? The answer is obvious.
Quote[/b] ]. . . it becomes clear that Vice President Al Gore talking about science and technology is like Fidel Castro talking about freedom and democracy - each knows little about of what he speaks. While his words may sound good and his show may be impressive, his actions are destructive. Gore believes that our salvation lies just beyond another round of federal legislation.
From an article by Gary M Rubman in The Tech (MIT)
complete article >>http://www-tech.mit.edu/V116/N27/gore.27c.html
W3MIV
08-23-2006, 01:43 PM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ Aug. 23 2006,09:23)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Aug. 23 2006,05:17)]Al Bore cares about Al Bore - period.
K2WH
Who does Hillary care about?
Janet Reno?
ac4ut
08-23-2006, 01:50 PM
The odds of finding a diamond in a dung pile are better than finding an honest, well informed politician in today crop.
KB9YCO
08-23-2006, 02:43 PM
Quote[/b] ]We need to return to nuclear power generation, a technology that has changed radically in the past thirty years.
We need to build far more refineries and more pipelines, and we need to ease regulations to permit more exploration and more drilling in no sequestered "preserves." We have not built a new refinery in thirty years.
Due to the policies of environmental extremism, we have been forbidding instead of intelligently regulating, and much of the hype about global warming is the result of our continued use of fossil fuels, particularly coal, while we could long ago have reduced emissions by using nuclear.
Reduced emissions from fossil fuels perhaps, but creating more toxic garbage that we can't get rid of. I've never understood the pro-nuclear crowd, unless they just don't care about future generations, how can anyone justify continually producing a product that creates large amounts of waste we can't get rid of? (That applies to many other "products" as well.) It just seems like a bad idea to produce something that you can't get rid of and that is quite nasty, and I am no environmental wacko.
Obviously, we have an energy crisis from an ever-increasing population, but I don't know that the only solution should be to pour billions of more dollars into something that will literally poison our planet for thousands and thousands of years. Alternatives to fossil fuels and nuclear energies are a possibility if, IF, we take those billions and seek them out. Just my not always humble opinion.
Well, the US Army Corps of Engineers saw the single largest source of renewable energy as being at False Pass, Alaska. Turn that into hydrogen and you could probably fuel all of the cars in California some day.
Also, the environuts would freak out, but Rampart Dam would more than double the total US hydroelectric power generation with just one dam on one river.
I am still trying to get ahold of the study, as I could not find any web references.
W3MIV
08-23-2006, 02:52 PM
Quote[/b] (KB9YCO @ Aug. 23 2006,10:43)]Reduced emissions from fossil fuels perhaps, but createing more toxic garbage that we can't get rid of. I never understood the pro-nuclear crowd, unless they just don't care about future generations, how can anyone justify continually producing a product that creates large amounts of waste we can't get rid of? (That applies to many other "products" as well.) It just seems like a bad idea to produce something that you can't get rid of and that is quite nasty, and I am no environmental wacko.
Obviously, we have an energy crisis from an ever-increasing population, but I don't know that the only solution should be to pour billions of more dollars into something that will literally poison our planet for thousands and thousands of years. Alternatives to fossil fuels and nuclear energies are a possibility if, IF, we take those billions and seek them out. Just my not always humble opinion.
Better get started, Brett. According to Uncle Al, we don't have a lot of time left. Ten years has been bruited by a bunch in the Amen Corner.
How much R&D do you suspect may already have been invested in "alternatives?" Think the utilities have not been tearing through everything they can find to come up with some means of producing and selling their products on the basis of a long-term, "infinitely renewable" resource?
Think the average consumer is going to give up the climate-controlled, all-electric house and 1.5kW linear amp, plus pay a 20 or more percent surcharge without causing a few political ripples in the firmament?
And who will pay all the law suits when the Sierra Club is sued by PETA for all those poor, tiny feathered creatures being eaten by windmills?
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Nuclear is proven. Send the waste to Teheran and let them reprocess it. I have a delivery system in mind...
ke7imb
08-23-2006, 02:58 PM
Ok if Al Gore would practice what he preaches I would have more respect for the man. His made up sudo science is voodo witch craft at best. The biggest contibutor to green house gas is the ocean and trees bet you did not know that one. Al gore forgets to tell people that. Also one eruption from say mount saint hellens will pump more green house gas in the air then we the humans could do in a million years. Al gore never tells you that. or banning CFC's is one of the main causes to global warming he does not tell you that. Al gore is a watermelon Enviro green on the out side commie red on the inside.
W3MIV
08-23-2006, 03:56 PM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ Aug. 23 2006,10:50)]Well, the US Army Corps of Engineers saw the single largest source of renewable energy as being at False Pass, Alaska. #Turn that into hydrogen and you could probably fuel all of the cars in California some day.
Also, the environuts would freak out, but Rampart Dam would more than double the total US hydroelectric power generation with just one dam on one river.
I am still trying to get ahold of the study, as I could not find any web references.
One of the problems with dams has been the destruction of migratory fish, such as the salmon, shad, rockfish (stripers) whose anadromous piscatorial progeny are born in fresh water and must return upstream to breed when mature. Fish ladders and other attempts to assist the journey have proven a failure, and the vast turbines can grind up more fish in a few minutes than all of a dozen Aleut communities can eat in a year.
Big dams and impoundments also drastically alter the patterns that have taken millions of years to form, and despite all of the pronouncements to the contrary by the CofE (who are more interested in training and make-work than in their aftereffects) there is no good way to accurately predict the real consequences well down the road. Once built, the gov't is loath to remove them, as is evident in the many failures in the Columbia basin that continue to soldier on despite a track record of environment irresponsibility.
Quote[/b] (KB9YCO @ Aug. 23 2006,06:43)]I've never understood the pro-nuclear crowd, unless they just don't care about future generations, how can anyone justify continually producing a product that creates large amounts of waste we can't get rid of?
Nuke waste is easy to deal with in a rational society.
Either turn off the lights, throw away the toaster, turn off the computer, and give up the air conditioner -- or, tell me where we are to get energy.
k6bbc
08-23-2006, 04:33 PM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ Aug. 23 2006,04:37)]Anyhow, surveying the current crop of possibles, I am horrified by the likes of Senators McCain and Clinton, so Al Gore seems like the best option, if he can be persuaded to run.
I think it is Gore's time. We need him.
K6BBC
N3ATS
08-23-2006, 04:37 PM
Fish Ladder.
Problem solved.
WB2WIK
08-23-2006, 05:02 PM
Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Aug. 23 2006,09:33)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Aug. 23 2006,04:37)]Anyhow, surveying the current crop of possibles, I am horrified by the likes of Senators McCain and Clinton, so Al Gore seems like the best option, if he can be persuaded to run.
I think it is Gore's time. We need him.
K6BBC
I agree.
And we need alternative energy sources, and to gain independence from fossil fuels forever -- immediately.
Hydroelectric from dams is good. Power generated by wind, and sunlight is good. Developing storage cells that are lead-free and non-polluting is good. Power generated by tides would be awesome, and is used about .0000001% -- nah, probably much less than that -- currently.
For the gubmint to subsidize oil exploration is pure folly. Every penny could be better used almost anywhere else.
WB2WIK/6
W3MIV
08-23-2006, 05:05 PM
Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ Aug. 23 2006,13:02)]And we need alternative energy sources, and to gain independence from fossil fuels forever -- immediately.
I am put in mind of that old Buster Brown shoe commercial line from the early Fifties: "Twang your magic twanger, Froggy!"
TWANG!
Alternative energy sources to power one of the world's most advanced economies.
Riiiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttt ttttt!
You dreamer, you!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
What about ethanol? (http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/ethanol.gif)
W3MIV
08-23-2006, 05:25 PM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ Aug. 23 2006,13:22)]What about ethanol? (http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/ethanol.gif)
Ethanol is an excellent choice, especially as an interim. But the corn lobby will not permit the import (from Brazil and elsewhere) that would make a difference.
All politics is local.
Quote[/b] ]Nuke waste is easy to deal with in a rational society. #
Either turn off the lights, throw away the toaster, turn off the computer, and give up the air conditioner -- or, tell me where we are to get energy.
I still can't believe Japan and France lead the world in the safe use of nuclear power. Japan, the only country on the planet to get "nuked" (as of this writing), gets 40% of their juice from nuclear power and France is 60%.
Neither of those countries use trivial amounts of power.
We need to open Yucca Mountian, start moving the spent fuel we have sitting around in pools, and get back to the business of building some modern, safe nuclear plants.
W3MIV
08-23-2006, 05:56 PM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ Aug. 23 2006,13:28)]I trust Al Gore.
That's OK. I will cancel you.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
KC4HGH
08-23-2006, 06:06 PM
Nuclear is proven. Send the waste to Teheran and let them reprocess it. I have a delivery system in mind...
Brett, where do you think depleted uranium ammunition comes from? Heh, heh!
W2ILP
08-23-2006, 07:28 PM
All politicians say that they care about the USA...but do they?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif Most use political footballs that have recently emmerged to influence voters. Politicans believe that voters are gullible.
If the energy crisis or environmental conditions (such as global warming) can ever be solved or minimized it will not be because politicians in Congress elected to throw money at a solution.
If, for example: global warming is caused by smoke stack emissions, we must face the fact that such emissions have been around worldwide since the start of the industrial revolution. There is nothing that can change any condition that has occurred during the last century, and if there was: then it wouldn't be any help for at least another century, when we are all dead and buried, if not burnt and contributing to the problem.
Politicians are not scientist or mathemeticians, although they tend to use graphs that scientists and mathematicians may draw. Nor are they engineers or industrialists who can work on really doing something tangible to solve problems, aside from pondering about them.
What we need are politicians who are strong enough to recognize what ignorance due to religious dogma has caused in the middle East; to stop supporting both Israel and Muslim dominated states; and to stop paying for the damage that they do to each other. With the money we could save, we could probably find new efficient energy resources, that could more economically run our own industries, so tht we might become more independent.
w2ilp (Ignorant Lying Politicians)...can not solve the problems today, but can spend taxpayer's money in ways that cause more problems tomorrow.
K0RGR
08-23-2006, 07:29 PM
I liked Gore's movie, and I haven't seen anything yet that seriously challenges the science in it - and many, many have tried.
I guess if the idea of Florida being underwater in the next 50 years entertains you as much as it does me, then you want to "stay the course" while the Chinese and India eventually match our carbon dioxide output.
I'm definitely not an environmentalist, but instead of accelerating the production of our oil, we need to replace it.
Speeding up production only brings us that much closer to the day when there is no affordable oil, with the resulting wars and starvation that are sure to follow.
Cover the Great Plains with windmills, and build nukes wherever you can. Use modern nuclear technology to recycle the spent fuel rods. Make E85 the norm.
k4kyv
08-23-2006, 07:44 PM
Quote[/b] (ke7imb @ Aug. 23 2006,07:58)]The biggest contibutor to green house gas is the ocean and trees bet you did not know that one.
Please explain how trees contribute to greenhouse gases.
Trees and other plant life take in CO2 and, using the sun's energy via photosynthesis, break down the CO2 into its components, oxygen and carbon. Oxygen is released as a gas, and carbon is preserved as wood and other plant fibre. Thus trees and other forms of vegetable life reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases by keeping some of the carbon tied up as solid matter. Under the proper conditions, dead plants eventually are converted to oil and coal and that carbon remains permanently out of circulation - or that's the way it worked until humans figured out how to mine the oil and coal and burn it, thus combining the carbon with atmospheric oxygen to release the stored solar energy as heat and CO2 back into the atmosphere.
If there were no plant life on earth to continuously replenish the supply, there would be no free oxygen in the atmosphere, since oxygen is prone to combine with other elements to form stable compounds, including CO2 (that's precisely what happened on Venus and Mars).
Eons ago when I was a student, kids were taught this sometime between grades 6 and 9.
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Aug. 23 2006,09:56)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Aug. 23 2006,13:28)]I trust Al Gore.
That's OK. I will cancel you.
What I mean is that I think he is basically honest -- not that he has the right viewpoint.
I do not think he is particularly dishonest, whereas I think most politicians rarely honest.
W3MIV
08-23-2006, 08:01 PM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ Aug. 23 2006,15:49)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Aug. 23 2006,09:56)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Aug. 23 2006,13:28)]I trust Al Gore.
That's OK. I will cancel you.
What I mean is that I think he is basically honest -- not that he has the right viewpoint. #I do not think he is particularly dishonest, but I think that about most politicians.
I'm only "funnin' ya," as they say around where Al was never raised, but his pop represented in the Congress.
I don't believe Gore is any more, nor any less, honest than any other politician who has, in the words of the immortal Abe Lincoln, a man who knew intimately the feeling, "gets that presidential grub gnawin' inside him."
The problem, one I alluded to in your other post about your new political hope on the horizon, is that honesty shades gradually into expedience. The excuse is an easy one, and the transition is barely noticable at first, but th slow, steady slide continues.
Revisit the Al Gore of fifteen years ago. More; go back to his earliest years in elected office. No less, look, too, at Tipper, and her "campaigns" against indecency and irreligious music and obscenity. Then fast forward to the time of the primaries and the main campaign of 2000.
Over time, it seems that the traditional ground tackle of moral fibre atrophies slowly into a kind of rubber, permitting an ever wider flexure to cover any and all needed political bases as they arise.
I was never too impressed with the original Al Gore, I will confess, but I absolutely distrust the integrity of the most recent iteration, and I have no doubt that a new clone will be made ready should he smell the least encouragement.
OK, this is my last post from my Palm T|X for a while. It is too hard to make sense when using this little screen.
W3MIV
08-23-2006, 08:20 PM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ Aug. 23 2006,16:09)]OK, this is my last post from my Palm T|X for a while. #It is too hard to make sense when using this little screen.
Some of your confreres seem to have that problem with vastly larger screens.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
It's always a pleasure to read and respond to your posts. Don't go away for too long.
73
Does Al Gore Care about America, or global warming?
Both. It's TWO, TWO, TWO Al Gores in ONE!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
ke7imb
08-23-2006, 08:41 PM
Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ Aug. 23 2006,02:02)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Aug. 23 2006,09:33)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Aug. 23 2006,04:37)]Anyhow, surveying the current crop of possibles, I am horrified by the likes of Senators McCain and Clinton, so Al Gore seems like the best option, if he can be persuaded to run.
I think it is Gore's time. #We need him.
K6BBC
I agree.
And we need alternative energy sources, and to gain independence from fossil fuels forever -- immediately.
Hydroelectric from dams is good. #Power generated by wind, and sunlight is good. #Developing storage cells that are lead-free and non-polluting is good. #Power generated by tides would be awesome, and is used about .0000001% -- nah, probably much less than that -- currently.
For the gubmint to subsidize oil exploration is pure folly. #Every penny could be better used almost anywhere else.
WB2WIK/6
All that you sited is good but one thing you forget to bring up is all the forms of energy you quote that is good is subidized " hope I spelled that right?" oil exploration is not. It is funded by the owners of the companies that take a risk to drill a hole and hope that oil is struck one out of three wells is a dry hole. avarge cost per well 2.5 million. So for the money spent on energy I feel let the free market determin were we get it.
I like wind, solar, and hydroelectric, Nuclear is good too.
WB2WIK
08-23-2006, 08:52 PM
Quote[/b] (ke7imb @ Aug. 23 2006,13:41)]All that you sited is good but one thing you forget to bring up is all the forms of energy you quote that is good is subidized " hope I spelled that right?" oil exploration is not. It is funded by the owners of the companies that take a risk to drill a hole and hope that oil is struck one out of three wells is a dry hole. avarge cost per well 2.5 million. So for the money spent on energy I feel let the free market determin were we get it.
I like wind, solar, and hydroelectric, Nuclear is good too.
That's not correct.
I don't know anywhere in the U.S., for example, where wind turbine power has been government subsidized. It's mostly run by co-ops who provide very low cost electric power to residents, such as here:
http://www.palmsprings.com/services/wind.html
Almost all wind power generation in the U.S. is in California, but that's not because it's windy here, it's just because progressive thinking won out over regressive thinking.
It's windier in lots of places. Boston's the windiest place I ever lived...
WB2WIK/6
WB2WIK
08-23-2006, 08:54 PM
Quote[/b] (ke7imb @ Aug. 23 2006,13:41)]All that you sited is good but one thing you forget to bring up is all the forms of energy you quote that is good is subidized " hope I spelled that right?" oil exploration is not. It is funded by the owners of the companies that take a risk to drill a hole and hope that oil is struck one out of three wells is a dry hole. avarge cost per well 2.5 million.
I take issue with this, also. Government has been subsidizing the oil industry forever, and still does:
http://www.monitor.net/monitor/10-9-95/oilsubsidy.html
WB2WIK/6
W3MIV
08-23-2006, 08:59 PM
Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ Aug. 23 2006,16:52)]It's windier in lots of places. #Boston's the windiest place I ever lived...
Washington DC would probably be the best testbed for your theory. Spot the towers around the Capitol.
K0RGR
08-23-2006, 08:59 PM
Quote[/b] (ke7imb @ Aug. 23 2006,13:41)]Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ Aug. 23 2006,02:02)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Aug. 23 2006,09:33)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Aug. 23 2006,04:37)]Anyhow, surveying the current crop of possibles, I am horrified by the likes of Senators McCain and Clinton, so Al Gore seems like the best option, if he can be persuaded to run.
I think it is Gore's time. We need him.
K6BBC
I agree.
And we need alternative energy sources, and to gain independence from fossil fuels forever -- immediately.
Hydroelectric from dams is good. Power generated by wind, and sunlight is good. Developing storage cells that are lead-free and non-polluting is good. Power generated by tides would be awesome, and is used about .0000001% -- nah, probably much less than that -- currently.
For the gubmint to subsidize oil exploration is pure folly. Every penny could be better used almost anywhere else.
WB2WIK/6
All that you sited is good but one thing you forget to bring up is all the forms of energy you quote that is good is subidized " hope I spelled that right?" oil exploration is not. It is funded by the owners of the companies that take a risk to drill a hole and hope that oil is struck one out of three wells is a dry hole. avarge cost per well 2.5 million. So for the money spent on energy I feel let the free market determin were we get it.
I like wind, solar, and hydroelectric, Nuclear is good too.
Bultaco.
Oil Industry Subsidies (http://www.monitor.net/monitor/10-9-95/oilsubsidy.html)
And if you want to look at subsidies for the coal industry, don't forget that they are paid to burn "clean coal" instead of the other kind.
Fossil Fuel Subsidies (http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/fuelsubfact.htm)
When the Taxpayer's groups are complaining, you know it's
not just a bunch of pointy-headed liberals. The energy industry is crying poor while making obscene profits and fleecing Uncle Sam for every penny they can get.
ke7imb
08-23-2006, 09:18 PM
Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Aug. 23 2006,04:44)]Quote[/b] (ke7imb @ Aug. 23 2006,07:58)]The biggest contibutor to green house gas is the ocean and trees bet you did not know that one.
Please explain how trees contribute to greenhouse gases.
Trees and other plant life take in CO2 and, using the sun's energy via photosynthesis, break down the CO2 into its components, oxygen and carbon. #Oxygen is released as a gas, and carbon is preserved as wood and other plant fibre. #Thus trees and other forms of vegetable life reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases by keeping some of the carbon tied up as solid matter. #Under the proper conditions, dead plants eventually are converted to oil and coal and that carbon remains permanently out of circulation - or that's the way it worked until humans figured out how to mine the oil and coal and burn it, thus combining the carbon with atmospheric oxygen to release the stored solar energy as heat and CO2 back into the atmosphere.
If there were no plant life on earth to continuously replenish the supply, there would be no free oxygen in the atmosphere, since oxygen is prone to combine with other elements to form stable compounds, including CO2 (that's precisely what happened on Venus and Mars).
Eons ago when I was a student, kids were taught this sometime between grades 6 and 9.
Harvard study shows that certain pine trees give off both Co2 and Oxygen. plankton gives off the most Co2 of living creatures. just by the vast numbers of them.
Also we could burn all the hydrocarbon fuels that the earth has right now and it still won't produce the amount of green house gasses that on minnor volcanic eruption will produce.
ke7imb
08-23-2006, 09:36 PM
I stand correctted I was mostly wrong evergreen trees do give off CO2 in the winter but trees give off alot more green house gasses heres the link
green house gas (http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2006/January/12010601.asp)
Quote[/b] ]Almost all wind power generation in the U.S. is in California, but that's not because it's windy here, it's just because progressive thinking won out over regressive thinking.
Not so fast there California boy! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] ]Texas has surpassed California in terms of total installed wind power capacity. According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), Texas now produces 2,370 megawatts (MW) of wind power on-line, enough electricity to power 600,000 US homes (as of the end of June 2006). This compares to California's current installed wind capacity of 2,323 MW.
Texas surpasses California for Wind Power lead. (http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/texas-lead-on-wind-power.html)
I can tell you that it took well over a year of "environmental impact studies" and other regulatory hoo-haw before the company I work turned the first bucket of dirt on our second wind farm which just went online here in Iowa this spring.
Look who's number 3! (http://www.awea.org/projects/) (with about 10% the population of either Texas or California)
You are correct about Boston though.
One company there tried to build a wind farm off shore from Nantucket, but alas RFK Jr. and his neighbors pitched a fit about it wrecking their views. It got killed.
Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Aug. 23 2006,17:57)]One company there tried to build a wind farm off shore from Hyannis, but alas Fat Teddy and his neighbors pitched a fit about it wrecking their views. It got killed.
Source please. Oh, excuse me. I forgot, the right doesn't use sources. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
WB2WIK
08-23-2006, 10:10 PM
Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Aug. 23 2006,14:57)]Not so fast there California boy! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] ]Texas has surpassed California in terms of total installed wind power capacity. According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), Texas now produces 2,370 megawatts (MW) of wind power on-line, enough electricity to power 600,000 US homes (as of the end of June 2006). This compares to California's current installed wind capacity of 2,323 MW.
You are correct about Boston though.
One company there tried to build a wind farm off shore from Hyannis, but alas Fat Teddy and his neighbors pitched a fit about it wrecking their views. It got killed.
Hey, wait a minute. According to that same article, more than half that wind generating power isn't on line yet, and is scheduled to come on line "before the end of 2006." California's is all already on line, so we're still ahead. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Also, per the same article:
"California still leads the nation in solar, geothermal, and biomass renewable energy resources. In order to regain its leadership on wind, CEERT and UCS advocate the following:"
In addition, CA has another 500 MW scheduled to come on line by the end of 2006, which would keep us slightly ahead even then. It remains to be seen if all that will happen, since it's not the end of the year yet.
But I do remember the wind power stuff getting knocked down in Massachusetts. That was years ago and it's a hazy memory, but seems to me the problem was the visual impact to very expensive properties in southern MA, like Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket Island, etc. I'll go look around, see if I can dig that up.
WB2WIK/6
WB2WIK
08-23-2006, 10:15 PM
Re the Kennedy name being influential in nixing wind power for Nantucket Sound, here's the article:
http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2006/01/12/capecod/
Quote[/b] ]Source please. Oh, excuse me. I forgot, the right doesn't use sources.
Why bother? I know yours and K9XR's dance by heart. Don't have the time or inclination for it. Look it up yourself.
Quote[/b] ]Re the Kennedy name being influential in nixing wind power for Nantucket Sound, here's the article:
Thanks Steve. Wrong Kennedy, same effect. I shall edit my original post to correct my mistake.
It's even worse, RFK Jr. is a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Fund.
W3MIV
08-23-2006, 10:31 PM
Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Aug. 23 2006,18:23)]Wrong Kennedy, same effect.
Sort of like watching a cow from the rear; when it's a Kennedy, you know what you're going to get, but can never quite be sure how much.
Watch your shoes.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
WB2WIK
08-23-2006, 10:53 PM
My mom used to have a saying about the Kennedys...
The sins of the father are visited...
No, that's not it.
It's the sons of the father come for a visit...
No, that's not it, either.
Oh, I know. They're all sons of ... something. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif