What energy do you see us using in 30 years?

[sawyerloggingon]

You think you taught me that? :lamo



You should stick to water pumps. Since I've never had a use for one at home I'd never seen one like you built.

On the subject of oil leases, your previous post got me curious just how they work. You may find this interesting, I did.

Duration of Gas and Oil Leases - Oil, Gas and Minerals

oNE CLAUSE YOU MAY FIND INTERESTING IS THEY HAVE TO KEEP PRODUCING ONCE THEY START PRODUCTION, THEY CAN'T WALK AWAY TO DRILL ON A fED LEASE AND LET THE PRIVATE ONE SIT IDLE FOR FUTURE USE.

sorry, stupid cap lock, I don't want to retype it.

 

[code1211]

And which cases would those be, exactly?

Obama Sued Citibank Under CRA to Force it to Make Bad Loans – UPDATED « The IUSB Vision Weblog

 

[code1211]

Two data points. That should be plenty on which to base any theory! :lol:

Actually, 5 and a half years of growth compared to 3 and 3/4 years of dismal and miserable failure.

There are fewer Americans working right now than there were 4 years ago ago today: About 3.5 million fewer. There are about 11 million more Americans living right now than there were 4 years ago today.

That is about 14.5 million data points.

There is no way to judge this failure as anything but a failure. I would assume that he knows it and lies about it. That's normal. He's a politician. You presumably are not. Why would you believe it?

 

[MoSurveyor]

Obama Sued Citibank Under CRA to Force it to Make Bad Loans – UPDATED « The IUSB Vision Weblog

Redlining isn't the same thing as refusing people based on their finances. Do you need a primer to tell the difference???



As far as him personally favoring those actions, your evidence doesn't pass that sniff test, either. In 1994 when that case was filed, Obama was working for a private law firm and the case had seven lawyer's names on it with his, the most junior, being the last one:

In 1993, he joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a 13-attorney law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development, where he was an associate for three years from 1993 to 1996, then of counsel from 1996 to 2004.

So if we're going to blame him for a CRA law suit in 1994 then we should be blaming Romney for killing dozens and dozens of companies and throwing tens of thousands of people out of work.
:lamo
I never bought into that stupidity, either.


I don't parrot Party Lines even though it may seem that way sometimes when my opinions agree with one side or the other.

 

[code1211]

Redlining isn't the same thing as refusing people based on their finances. Do you need a primer to tell the difference???



As far as him personally favoring those actions, your evidence doesn't pass that sniff test, either. In 1994 when that case was filed, Obama was working for a private law firm and the case had seven lawyer's names on it with his, the most junior, being the last one:
So if we're going to blame him for a CRA law suit in 1994 then we should be blaming Romney for killing dozens and dozens of companies and throwing tens of thousands of people out of work.
:lamo
I never bought into that stupidity, either.


I don't parrot Party Lines even though it may seem that way sometimes when my opinions agree with one side or the other.

The post to which you responded was in regard to banks being sued if they did not lend to all. Banks have been sued when they have tried to follow prudent lending practices.

The question was asked and answered. If you want to ask a different question, then ask it.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The post to which you responded was in regard to banks being sued if they did not lend to all. Banks have been sued when they have tried to follow prudent lending practices.

The question was asked and answered. If you want to ask a different question, then ask it.

They were sued over redlining. If redlining is "following prudent lending practices", then you're right. The problem was lending to people who were buying houses that they couldn't afford, not buying in the "wrong" neighborhood.

 

[LowDown]

This is a thread to discuss where you think the direction of energy will be in the next 30 years. Personally I think nuclear. While stagnant for the past 30-40 years in this country, nuclear energy is reaching a tipping point in potential. Gen IV reactors will be able to produce up to 300 times more yield than existing nuclear technology by reusing nuclear fuel in the reactor cycle. Micro Nuclear Reactors also have me very excited, being able to produce 10-25 megawatts of power with the flexiblity of being transported where needed and stored underground.

Thoughts?

We will have pretty much the same mix of energy that we do now. I don't see us overcoming the limitations of alternative energy in 30 years, which are that they are much more expensive than conventional sources and there is no economical way to store electricity for later use.

We'll stay away from coal until it becomes too expensive to do so, then that idea will be discarded in the name of "clean" coal or some mealy mouthed nonsense or another.

Modern life is completely dependent on abundant, cheap energy. Without that our economy collapses and we fall back to poverty, disease, starvation and death.
For example, without cheap energy modern farming and food production becomes impossible. Therefore there won't be enough food in the cities.

The way the Democrats are fooling around with our energy sources in the name of some pie in the sky environmental theory is insane.

 

[sookster]

Anything that is a hydrocarbon.

 

[MoSurveyor]

The post to which you responded was in regard to banks being sued if they did not lend to all. Banks have been sued when they have tried to follow prudent lending practices.

The question was asked and answered. If you want to ask a different question, then ask it.

No, you specifically stated "minority, low income home buyers". Your evidence does not show discrimination for that. It does show discrimination based on geography, which is called redlining. Even white males would be denied loans in redlined areas.

There's your primer. If you need more information I suggest you look up the terms yourself and maybe do some reading. Your hack, right-wing website has provided you with the usual misleading and irrelevant information.

Banks have never been sued for following government regulations, which includes denying loans to people not meeting certain government standards for financial acceptance. The financial instruments that created the most trouble, and which the credit companies over-valued for sale, are exactly those loans that did not pass muster with Uncle Sam. If they had been government approved and insured loans there would have been no reason for all the shenanigans trying to get rid of them.



Your answer has been demonstrated as incorrect.

 

[grip]

We will have pretty much the same mix of energy that we do now. I don't see us overcoming the limitations of alternative energy in 30 years, which are that they are much more expensive than conventional sources and there is no economical way to store electricity for later use.

We'll stay away from coal until it becomes too expensive to do so, then that idea will be discarded in the name of "clean" coal or some mealy mouthed nonsense or another.

Modern life is completely dependent on abundant, cheap energy. Without that our economy collapses and we fall back to poverty, disease, starvation and death.
For example, without cheap energy modern farming and food production becomes impossible. Therefore there won't be enough food in the cities.

The way the Democrats are fooling around with our energy sources in the name of some pie in the sky environmental theory is insane.

The notion that the environment will never have any impact is not realistic. Though, the modern world relies on cheap energy it will take the combination of alternative energy sources and conventional to provide the sustained needs of the near future. And unless some sort of abundant renewable source is discovered in a few decades or less we'll see a gradual decline of civilization. There's only so much fresh land, water, food and energy this world can provide before we need to stabilize the population or colonize.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I predict a gradual change from "conventional", i.e. fossil fuel energy to non conventional, or "alternative" energy until what is alternative becomes conventional. It may take some time for that to happen, but it will happen. It must, as we will sooner or later run out of oil.

 

[EagleAye]

I predict a gradual change from "conventional", i.e. fossil fuel energy to non conventional, or "alternative" energy until what is alternative becomes conventional. It may take some time for that to happen, but it will happen. It must, as we will sooner or later run out of oil.

This is true. I'm thinking it will take a very long time to make that change from fossil fuels to alternatives. Decades at least. Waiting oil runs out, or more likely when it ceases to be economical, to get started would be worse than disastrous. All the lessons we're learning now about alternatives now would suddenly have to be learned under a very tight timeline. I think such a scenario would be very painful.

 

[Dittohead not!]

This is true. I'm thinking it will take a very long time to make that change from fossil fuels to alternatives. Decades at least. Waiting oil runs out, or more likely when it ceases to be economical, to get started would be worse than disastrous. All the lessons we're learning now about alternatives now would suddenly have to be learned under a very tight timeline. I think such a scenario would be very painful.

yes, it would.

But, human beings have a long history of ignoring impending problems until they can no longer be ignored. Perhaps this time will be different.

 

[LowDown]

The notion that the environment will never have any impact is not realistic. Though, the modern world relies on cheap energy it will take the combination of alternative energy sources and conventional to provide the sustained needs of the near future. And unless some sort of abundant renewable source is discovered in a few decades or less we'll see a gradual decline of civilization. There's only so much fresh land, water, food and energy this world can provide before we need to stabilize the population or colonize.

Thanks, but this is all hand waving. How exactly is the transition to alternative energy sources going to be made? Using what known technology? There are technical and scientific problems here for which there is no solution on the horizon, e.g., the efficiency and cost of wind generators, the efficiency and cost of solar panels, the cost and capacity of available means of storing electrical energy, among others.

Trusting that these problems will be solved with enough money and effort is foolish. There is no telling when, if ever, someone will make a big leap in solar cell technology, for example.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Thanks, but this is all hand waving. How exactly is the transition to alternative energy sources going to be made? Using what known technology? There are technical and scientific problems here for which there is no solution on the horizon, e.g., the efficiency and cost of wind generators, the efficiency and cost of solar panels, the cost and capacity of available means of storing electrical energy, among others.

Trusting that these problems will be solved with enough money and effort is foolish. There is no telling when, if ever, someone will make a big leap in solar cell technology, for example.

Using that same logic the world will never be substantially different than it is right now. In a thousand years we'll still be burning oil derivatives in internal combustion engines to power most of our land vehicles. :lol:

 

[ReformCollege]

We will have pretty much the same mix of energy that we do now. I don't see us overcoming the limitations of alternative energy in 30 years, which are that they are much more expensive than conventional sources and there is no economical way to store electricity for later use.

We'll stay away from coal until it becomes too expensive to do so, then that idea will be discarded in the name of "clean" coal or some mealy mouthed nonsense or another.

Modern life is completely dependent on abundant, cheap energy. Without that our economy collapses and we fall back to poverty, disease, starvation and death.
For example, without cheap energy modern farming and food production becomes impossible. Therefore there won't be enough food in the cities.

The way the Democrats are fooling around with our energy sources in the name of some pie in the sky environmental theory is insane.

It's not a pie in the sky environmental theory. 9 out of 10 climatologists who do not support global warming have ties to Exxon. Out of 938 papers cited by skeptics on global warming, 186 were written by 10 men with Dr. Craig Idso, the leader of an Exxon funded thinktank, writing 67 of them. 97% of the most published climatologists say human activity is causing global warming. You won't find that kind of consensus on almost anything from the scientific community, they love to argue and dispute with each other and they love to prove each other wrong. You can bet that any leading climatologist would LOVE to find (and prove) some other cause of global warming, because the proof would probably etch their names in the history books. Newton, Einstein, and that guy who showed that global warming is really something else. But it has not been disproved, and may not be.

That said, I believe that current alternative solutions which are pushed by Greenpeace and most environmentalist organizations (please note, there is a difference between a global warming activist and a climatologist) are unworkable. Their strategy shows little fundamental differences from the 1970s, and they wonder why it continues to fail. We are reliant on hydrocarbons for a reason, and until we can reproduce the advantages of hydrocarbons with a cleaner solution, oil will continue to dominate and this will continue to be an issue. Which is why I believe in nuclear power and natural gas. Nuclear power can provide an almost limitless amount of clean energy for cheap after you consider capital construction costs. The cost of a nuclear power plant could be halved in this country, if we streamlined approval and cut the red tape as France and Germany did for the last 40 years. Radioactive waste can easily be managed, spent fuel does not take up a lot of area. Natural gas is at an all time low in price, and is much cleaner than other hydrocarbons.

Whether you "believe" in the facts of global warming or not, I think you can believe that the real solution is a good idea regardless if the former is true.

 

[flogger]

It's not a pie in the sky environmental theory. 9 out of 10 climatologists who do not support global warming have ties to Exxon. Out of 938 papers cited by skeptics on global warming, 186 were written by 10 men with Dr. Craig Idso, the leader of an Exxon funded thinktank, writing 67 of them. 97% of the most published climatologists say human activity is causing global warming.

If you choose to believe all that then man you really got it bad. You'll probably swallow this too then :lamo

William M. Briggs reports:

A new study by scientists has suggested that zombie attacks might increase if the current projections of global warming are realized. “If the earth gets warmer, it means longer springs, summers, and falls, and shorter winters,” said John Carpenter-Romero, Ph.D., a zombie-ologist who co-authored the study. “And shorter winters means more time for the undead to prey on the populace.”


On the other hand, one of Briggs’ commenters suggests that this may be a self-correcting phenomenon:


The good news is that zombies have a significantly lower carbon
footprint than living humans. For example, if Al Gore became Zombie Al
Gore his utility usage and air travel would go from several hundred
tonnes of carbon per year to zero tonnes of carbon per year. . . .

Generalize these figures across the population and we can see an
inverse relationship between zombie attacks and carbon emissions
leading in time to a reduction or reversal of warming trends and
consequently of favorable zombie habitat. A new stable state might be
brought about within a matter of decades provided zombie outbreaks can
be encouraged in heavy emitting states including mainland China

Meanwhile, Transterrestrial Musings suggests that the real cause of global warming is the sun and that changes in the sun’s activity will actually lead to a decrease in zombie attacks

Global Warming To Increase Zombie Attacks!

 

[MoSurveyor]

"CAMBRIDGE, MA—A study released Thursday by researchers at Harvard University's Department of Psychology has found that the simple act of pretending one's life is not a complete shambles threatening to collapse at any moment works. "Even when everything is coming apart at the seams and disaster is almost certainly imminent, putting up a good front for friends and loved ones makes everything better," said Professor Christine Wanamaker, who explained that smiling a lot and evasive answers were usually enough to get by. "Tell everyone that things are fine, and they will be fine. Just don't over-think it." When asked about her study's methodology, Wanamaker said the research was rock-solid, had been looked over by a bunch of scientists, and definitely wasn't anything to worry about."

Study: Pretending Everything's Okay Works

 

[LowDown]

Using that same logic the world will never be substantially different than it is right now. In a thousand years we'll still be burning oil derivatives in internal combustion engines to power most of our land vehicles. :lol:

More hand waving. Can you tell us exactly how things are going to be different and what technologies, exactly, we are going to be using?

 

[LowDown]

It's not a pie in the sky environmental theory. 9 out of 10 climatologists who do not support global warming have ties to Exxon.

What do you mean they have ties to Exxon? They have Exxon credit cards? :2razz:

How much money are they getting from Exxon? Here's a factoid for you: For every dollar a skeptical scientist gets to pursue his ideas climate alarmists get $10,000 or more.

 

[MoSurveyor]

More hand waving. Can you tell us exactly how things are going to be different and what technologies, exactly, we are going to be using?

I just got through saying things wouldn't be different even in a thousand years.

And since you can't tell us exactly how things are going to be different or what technologies, exactly, we are going to be using I must be right!

 

[code1211]

Thanks, but this is all hand waving. How exactly is the transition to alternative energy sources going to be made? Using what known technology? There are technical and scientific problems here for which there is no solution on the horizon, e.g., the efficiency and cost of wind generators, the efficiency and cost of solar panels, the cost and capacity of available means of storing electrical energy, among others.

Trusting that these problems will be solved with enough money and effort is foolish. There is no telling when, if ever, someone will make a big leap in solar cell technology, for example.

Right now the door is open to a major change in electrical generation. Locally, our grid is set up so if i were to mount an array of Solar Cells on my house, it's possible that i could generate more power than i use and that the meter would run backwards "generating" a Check instead of a bill each month. Combine that with a small wind generator and I'm cdapable of being energy independent on my own little lot. I've yet to so this, many are yet to do this, but the possibility exists.

All roofs have shingles that get replace every 20 to 30 years. If these were solare cells, that would be a little more expensive, but would also generate value into the future.

It's possible that houses without the capability to generate electricity will be as rare in 30 years as houses that can generate electricity are today.

 

[grip]

More hand waving. Can you tell us exactly how things are going to be different and what technologies, exactly, we are going to be using?

Do you seriously think anyone from 1850 knew all the technical innovations and the industrial revolution that were around the corner? One thing I'm sure of is that even if we go backwards things do not stay the same. I can't tell the future but I'd guess we'll make some advancements.

 

[ReformCollege]

What do you mean they have ties to Exxon? They have Exxon credit cards? :2razz:

How much money are they getting from Exxon? Here's a factoid for you: For every dollar a skeptical scientist gets to pursue his ideas climate alarmists get $10,000 or more.

98% of climatologists think global warming is man made. There aren't a whole lot of skeptical scientists there. It's the same as saying some scientists are skeptical that germ theory is correct; all available data says that it is correct and most of the people who disagree aren't exactly respectable in the field. In 2007 the American Association of Petroleum Geologists revised their statement, leaving ZERO scientific bodies of national or international standing who hold a dissenting opinion on climate change. This is coming from a conservative who thinks Greenpeace is a bunch of morons. You can't say science is useful when they develop a flu vaccine or say that lead is poisonous, but unuseful when they state something that goes against what you believe. It doesn't work like that.

Besides, did you ignore the entire rest of my post? Regardless of whether or not you choose to accept the fact of global warming, I think drastically reducing OPEC imports and drastically increasing domestic nuclear power and natural gas production solves all of the above issues. Cleaner for the environment, cheaper, and less dependent on imports from the clinically insane.

So I'm not sure what the issue is?

 

[ReformCollege]

If you choose to believe all that then man you really got it bad. You'll probably swallow this too then :lamo

William M. Briggs reports:

A new study by scientists has suggested that zombie attacks might increase if the current projections of global warming are realized. “If the earth gets warmer, it means longer springs, summers, and falls, and shorter winters,” said John Carpenter-Romero, Ph.D., a zombie-ologist who co-authored the study. “And shorter winters means more time for the undead to prey on the populace.”


On the other hand, one of Briggs’ commenters suggests that this may be a self-correcting phenomenon:


The good news is that zombies have a significantly lower carbon
footprint than living humans. For example, if Al Gore became Zombie Al
Gore his utility usage and air travel would go from several hundred
tonnes of carbon per year to zero tonnes of carbon per year. . . .

Generalize these figures across the population and we can see an
inverse relationship between zombie attacks and carbon emissions
leading in time to a reduction or reversal of warming trends and
consequently of favorable zombie habitat. A new stable state might be
brought about within a matter of decades provided zombie outbreaks can
be encouraged in heavy emitting states including mainland China

Meanwhile, Transterrestrial Musings suggests that the real cause of global warming is the sun and that changes in the sun’s activity will actually lead to a decrease in zombie attacks

Global Warming To Increase Zombie Attacks!

That is one of the better attempts at trolling that I have ever seen.

That said.... I don't think I ever saw a zombie attack under 90 degrees .