USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[froggyluv 2136]

@ Sep. 24 2008,10:37)]The way I see it:

Green energy = popculture + secular eshatology + uneducated people + casandra syndrome + firm belief humans are the sole cause of everything on earth.

Do you remember when Dan Quayle mocked Al Gore calling him "Ozone"? Humans did cause holes in the lower stratosphere by use of CFC's. And why would big oilmen like

T. Boone Pickens call for a National Agenda on alternative energies?

[scubaman3D 0]

Fiscal conservativity, long the hall-mark of the Republican party was at best elusive, worst, abandonend under this administration as record spending and debt have run rampant.

I agree with you on this but I'm not convinced that raising taxes is the way to solve the problem.

Keep in mind, the bulk of the increased spending is related to the wars, but yes, there has also been increased in domestic spending and expansion of the government and government powers under Bush.

Something I think we can agree on ?

We should cut spending, which will reduce the need to raise taxes.

A guy like Ron Paul, I like. Problem is that neither Republicans, nor Democrats will work with him. For him to do the things he proposes, he would essentially need to consolidate power to the office of the president and become something he is against.

[echo1 0]

@ Sep. 24 2008,09:37)]The way I see it:

Green energy = popculture + secular eshatology + uneducated people + casandra syndrome + firm belief humans are the sole cause of everything on earth.

I'm not as much interested in the environment as the fact that we (ie. the Western world) have all our economic eggs in the oil basket, and all you have to look at is the oil crisis of the 70s and the way Russia threatened Ukraine with turning off the gas pipelines to realize that it would be better off if we used resources that we could "grow" ourselves, and the long term economic benefits of such, I mean, who doesnt want cheaper fuel?

In regards to the running out problem - isnt it a bit naive to believe that such a potentially huge problem is just going to magically sort itself out when it arises? Leaving any merit in what youre saying aside, I think this is the sort of thing we need to start actively acting upon here and now. Assuming that the best outcome is going to happen is the sort of stuff that famous last words are made of

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]The way I see it:

Green energy = popculture + secular eshatology + uneducated people + casandra syndrome + firm belief humans are the sole cause of everything on earth.

People seem to see it different. I sold a house 2 weeks ago. One major factor why I was able to sell the house for a very good price was that it has photovoltaic cells on it´s roof.

I also bought a new house for me 4 weeks ago and the deciding factor among others to buy the house was that it already has a heating system installed that needs no fossil fuel. I don´t know the english word for the system but it works like a reversed refrigerator basically. There are tubes in the ground that actually swap the cold from the house with the soil and the heat-pump produces the heat for radiators and warm water. Additionally I have solar modules on the roof that also produce hot water.

With this combination I am independant of fossil fuels and I am able to save at least 2500 Euro per year currently. As the oil price is steadily rapidly rising over the last years this solution makes me absolutely happy. As a side effect it´s green energy but the deciding factor for me was and is that it´s significant cheaper than the regular fossil fueled systems as it needs no maintenance and no fossil fuel at all.

As the house-prices are very low atm I had to pay no extra penny for the system. It was all included

I guess saving money isn´t that uneducated, is it ? Everyone that has seen the solution in my new house is like "Ahh, ohhh, I also want to have such..."

Saving money isn´t stupid and it´s also not stupid to loosen the dependance on fossil fuels these days as it´s a one way road to higher prices to the point where people will not be able to afford the fuels anymore. That´s a fact.

[Baff1 0]

Subsidies aren't savings.

You got a good price for your photovoltaic, becuase it's paid for out of taxation.

I noticed the electricity you bought for your own use was generated from fossil fuels as it was cheaper than the solar energy you were generating yourself (and selling on for a state guarenteed and highly uncompetative price).

Panda is right.

Your enviromental friendly systems are so cheap because the Greens are holding your country to political ransom.

It might be economic for you personally, but the rest of your countrymen are all paying through the nose for your personal privilage.

Quite frankly it's anti social. (And if they ever subsidise green energy here like they do where you live, I shall adopt those same anti-social money making ways myself!.

P.S. "Geothermal heat exchange".

Obviously I've looked into these too but there are no savings to be had. The intrest on the initial onvestment is greater than the savings it makes.

Once again, becuase you bought a house with it installed does not mean it makes financial sense.

It just means that someone else lost the money, not you.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]You got a good price for your photovoltaic, becuase it's paid for out of taxation.

Wrong. I had to pay for it myself.

The only thing that is guaranteed from the government is was able to sell my produced electricity for a fixed price over a certain period of time. Currently the price for electricity is dramatically rising here in germany so in the end the contract will sell the produced electricity for less than the usual price set by the big electricity providers.

I´ve also switched to "green" energy already. That means that I do not get my electricity from coal or nuclear plants but only from producers of clean elecricity, be it wind, tidal, water or photovoltaic. I pay more for this power as I would have to if I bought usual electricity from the big companies but b doing so I support the movement towards alternative energy sources.

This segment of producing green energy has been a job machine here in germany over the last decade. There is no other market segment that produces more jobs atm so I also du support my country and people by doing so.

Quote[/b] ]

Panda is right.

Germany is the best example that he´s wrong.

Quote[/b] ]Your enviromental friendly systems are so cheap because the Greens are holding your country to political ransom.

Where did you get that those are cheap ? You don´t get rebates on the hardware. The government only guarantess that you get a fixed amount of money per kwh for a certain time.

That´s nothing else than industries getting money if they create jobs. That´s completely usual in capitalist countries. In the end all do benefit from a movement towards green energy except the big players in energy production.

1. A country gets less dependant on power imports if the energy is produced at home

2. The pollution in the country gets less and costs arising from pollution also get decreased

3. Jobs are created in large amounts not only in industrial centres but also rural areas as people don´t only need the hardware but also need people nearby who can maintenance and install the hardware. As I said in germany the green power market is the biggest jobmachine we had over the last 10 years and the market is still rapidly growing as we export both, the knowledge and the technology.

4. Investment in new technology raises tax-income for the country in a higher level than the supported energy price costs the country.

It has nothing to do with the Greens as you suggest. It is the german way to get rid of international energy dependance. It´s nationalism at best, but not some Greens nonsense as you suggest. I remember a debate a while ago where you stated at one point that you don´t really have an idea on how it´s handled and running in germany. I guess this is best shown with your post.

Quote[/b] ]It might be economic for you personally, but the rest of your countrymen are all paying through the nose for your personal privilage.

Read above.

Quote[/b] ]Quite frankly it's anti social.

Quite the contrary.

Quote[/b] ]P.S. "Geothermal heat exchange".

Obviously I've looked into these too but there are no savings to be had. The intrest on the initial onvestment is greater than the savings it makes.

Crash course for starters:

Quote[/b] ]Geothermal systems are able to transfer heat to and from the ground with minimal use of electricity. When comparing a geothermal system to an ordinary system, a homeowner can save anywhere from 30% to 70% annually on utilities.[9] Even with the high initial costs of purchasing a geothermal system the payback period is relatively short, typically between three and five years.[10] Geothermal systems are recognized as one of the most efficient heating and cooling systems on the market.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has called geothermal the most energy-efficient, environmentally clean, and cost-effective space conditioning systems available.[11] The life span of the system is longer than conventional heating and cooling systems. Most loop fields are warranted for 25 to 50 years and are expected to last at least 50 to 200 years.[10][9] Geothermal systems use electricity for heating the house. The fluids used in loop fields are designed to be biodegradable, non-toxic, non-corrosive and have properties that will minimize pumping power needed.

Some electric companies will offer special rates to customers who install geothermal systems for heating/cooling their building. This is due to the fact that electrical plants have the largest loads during summer months and much of their capacity sits idle during winter months. This allows the electric company to use more of their facility during the winter months and sell more electricity. It also allows them to reduce peak usage during the summer (due to the increased efficiency of heat pumps), thereby avoiding costly construction of new power plants. For the same reasons, other utility companies have started to pay for the installation of geothermal heat pumps at customer residences. They lease the systems to their customers for a monthly fee, at a net overall savings to the customer.

Geothermal heat pumps are especially well matched to underfloor heating systems which do not require extremely high temperatures (as compared with wall-mounted radiators). Thus they are ideal for open plan offices. Using large surfaces such as floors, as opposed to radiators, distributes the heat more uniformly and allows for a lower temperature heat transfer fluid. Some of the advantages cited for underfloor radiant heat; lower temperature heat transfer fluid, can however, be compromised somewhat when using wood or carpet floor coverings since the thermal transfer efficiency of these materials is lower than masonry floors (tile, concrete).

Undisturbed earth below the frost line remains at a relatively constant temperature year round. This temperature equates roughly to the average annual air-temperature of the chosen location, so is usually 7-21 degrees Celsius (45-70 degrees Fahrenheit) depending on location. Because this temperature remains more constant than the air, geothermal heat pumps perform with far greater efficiency and in a far larger range of extreme temperatures than conventional air conditioners and furnaces, and even air-source heat pumps. A particular advantage is that they can use electricity to heat spaces and water much more efficiently than an electric heater.

Geothermal heat pump technology is a Natural Building technique.

Today there are more than 1,000,000 geothermal heat pump installations in the United States.

The current use of geothermal heat pump technology has resulted in the following emissions reductions[9]:

* Elimination of more than 5.8 million metric tons of CO2 annually

* Elimination of more than 1.6 million metric tons of carbon equivalent annually

These 1,000,000 installations have also resulted in the following energy consumption reductions[9]:

* Annual savings of nearly 8,000 GWh

* Annual savings of nearly 40 trillion Btus of fossil fuels

* Reduced electricity demand by more than 2.6 GW

The impact of the current use of geothermal heat pumps is equivalent to[9]:

* Taking close to 1,295,000 cars off the road

* Planting more than 385 million trees

* Reducing U.S. reliance on imported fuels by 21.5 million barrels (3,420,000 m³ of crude oil

per year.

Wiki

Quote[/b] ]Once again, becuase you bought a house with it installed does not mean it makes financial sense.

It just means that someone else lost the money, not you.

It makes sense for me and it makes sense for anybody else here who wants to renovate a house or build a new one. Less dependancy on fossil fuels does pay today and it will in 10 or 20 years. Crude oil is going through the ceiling already and if you don´t realize that oldschool heating systems are definately outdated and counterproductive for everyone involved except the crude oil producers you´re a bit old fashioned and narrow minded. For sure the prices for a new system are higher but it pays off in a few years. That´s also a fact.

[Panda-PL- 0]

...

Only alternative fuel is nuclear energy. Rest are just richman's toys, luxury goods that state has to found.

EU has legislature and penalties. The countries are forced to switch by paying for CO2 emissions. This is an artificial situation.

It is also very dangerous. The new enviromental norms will force the new members to switch from coal (that they are themselves extracting) to more expensive, but least polluting, natural gass - which will be imported from Russia.

The problem with your economical argument is: it would be extreamly difficult to make oil more expensive than alternative fuels (with exception of nuclear energy). Even if you assume ill will on the part of producers.

What is the real avarage cost of aquiring 1Gw of energy using variuous methods (take the lifetime of plant into account)?

why this data is not presented to convinvce me, if it indeed was to show the advantages of green energy?

Why do I watch Al Gore's emotional speech instead of real scientific argument, such as the above? If one is to make an economical argument I demand numbers.

Edit: Geothermal just recently showed to cause a significant increase in seismological activity.

Cause so far unknown.

Besides that it produces a fair ammount of greenhouse gasses = water vapour. It is not more green than nuclear energy.

Did you buy yourpanels from a company that hasd no help from the state while developing and applying the technology?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Edit: Geothermal just recently showed to cause a significant increase in seismological activity.

Cause so far unknown.

Besides that it produces a fair ammount of greenhouse gasses = water vapour. It is not more green than nuclear energy.

I guess you´re mixing up things. My loop layers are in 2m depth. They do NOT cause seismic activities.

It´s a closed system, so there is nothing coming out of it anywhere. If there was something coming out of it I would have a leak...

I guess you´re thinking about deep drills where hot water is drilled to the surface and replaced with cold water. That´s a completely different thing.

Quote[/b] ]Did you buy yourpanels from a company that hasd no help from the state while developing and applying the technology?

Oh ! I´m in shock...

Do you drive a car ?

Do you use home-electrics or a computer ?

Do you drive by train or fly in planes ?

All of these things have been developed and are kept running with a big chunk of tax-money.

That´s a lame argument.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Bals, I guess the term you were looking for was "passive house"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house

[Panda-PL- 0]

I guess you´re thinking about deep drills where hot water is drilled to the surface and replaced with cold water. That´s a completely different thing.

Oh yes, my bad.

This system is efficient if you need small ammounts of energy, not a sollution for industry .

We were speaking of entire country just before, so I assumed you ment the power plants.

Thanks for reminding me of planes. They cause more pollution than car traffic, what alternative fuel you propose for aircrafts?

My argument about public founds stands. You only tried to ridicule it, not answer.

Let me rephrase: if the company you bought the panels from at some point received tax relief or dotation then you're not paying the full price.

[Balschoiw 0]

Not really Albert as Pasive house would mean that I also regain the energy from the air within the house.

I´m not a big fan of that houses as you can´t open windows without disturbing the airflow in the house.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]They cause more pollution than car traffic, what alternative fuel you propose for aircrafts?

I´m no scientist but from what I´ve read they are working on several concepts. One using natural gas, one using palmoil, one using GTL on a 3 hour testflight with an Airbus 380 or a swiss concept to use a gas cell to power planes.

For sure flying has to be made more expensive in the first run. The budget market of airlines is a catastrophy for the environment.

For sure it may sound snobby to demand a high rise in flightcosts but it´s the only way to get it into people´s brain that shopping in London for the weekend is a rather stupid idea, not only for Paris Hilton.

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]You got a good price for your photovoltaic, becuase it's paid for out of taxation.

Wrong. I had to pay for it myself.

The only thing that is guaranteed from the government is was able to sell my produced electricity for a fixed price over a certain period of time.

Where "the only thing", is the most important thing.

Green energy might have become a "job machine", but it is costing you the important jobs.

It's inflating the cost of living nationally and making you globally more uncompetative every year.

What you have is a load of people getting state sponsored/enforced work at the expense of the lucrative and productive private sector.

Essentially what you have is a glorified unemployment system.

For a country that relies on global exports for it's wealth, Germany is a very poor example of a country that stands to benefit from this kind of thing.

Energy security is a traditional need for Germany, I can understand the need to pay more for that, but to pretend that it is a money maker, that is just utterly wrong.

Quote[/b] ]The government only guarantess that you get a fixed amount of money per kwh for a certain time.

Mate you have already given me all your figures. I know what they do in Germany because you yourself explained it to me in excellent depth once before.

The Amount of time they guarentee it was more than long enough to make you a mint. You know it, I know it.

You also know you got help with the loans to buy the kit.

You know the price you sold it at was greater than the price you bought fossil fule electricity at.

You have personally coined it in at the expense of your fellow countrymen and used "green" as your justification for doing so.

I would be pro-green too if my government facilitated it for me to make as much money out of it as you did.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Let me rephrase: if the company you bought the panels from at some point received tax relief or dotation then you're not paying the full price.

This is an absurd argument as everything you buy in the supermarket is or has been state sponsored at some point of production or development. Still, it doesn´t show up on the price tag you have to pay. State sponsoring of production and/or infrastructure and/or jobs is a thing of daily life. You simply can´t avoid it neither can you know it. In the end it´s the price you have to pay, no matter if those things have at any point been state sponsored. If you can go somewhere after you have bought such and demand some money from the state it would be reduced in price, but as it is today almost everything is state sponsored, that´s why I say it´s a lame argument.

[Baff1 0]

It's not an sbsurd argument at all.

Just because it isn't not you personally that foots the bill doesn't mean that it's free.

Green energy may have been profitable for you personally, but only becuase you were willing to exploit others. (As I would have been too in your position).

It hasn't been globally or even nationally profitable for your people.

Just a select few of them.

It's not profitable. It has to be paid for. The taxpayer footed your share of the bill.

[Panda-PL- 0]

Balschoiw: is gasoline and electricity I buy at some point state-sponsored? If so I'd love to hear about it, because AFAIK my goverment taxes the hell out of gasoline.

What i say is: green energy is too expensive once you level the playing field. Once you apply the same taxation, once you apply the same sponsoring.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Green energy might have become a "job machine", but it is costing you the important jobs.

Where ?

Please give me some numbers to compare.

Quote[/b] ]It's inflating the cost of living nationally

Same as above.

Quote[/b] ]What you have is a load of people getting state sponsored/enforced work at the expense of the lucrative and productive private sector.

Same as above.

Quote[/b] ]For a country that relies on global exports for it's wealth, Germany is a very poor example of a country that stands to benefit from this kind of thing.

Cough. We´re world export leaders and world technology leaders in this segment.

Quote[/b] ]Energy security is a traditional need for Germany, I can understand the need to pay more for that, but to pretend that it is a money maker, that is just utterly wrong.

It is already so I guess you´re wrong ?

Quote[/b] ]You also know you got help with the loans to buy the kit.

I could have taken a loan but I didn´t need it.

Quote[/b] ]You have personally coined it in at the expense of your fellow countrymen and used "green" as your justification for doing so.

Not really. I went out of the house-selling deal with a minus concerning this as I was not making money with it as I was still in the runup phase where you don´t make money with it. To make it easy. The investment was not paid off by the time it got sold and as you sell a house as a package I didn´t get the full investment from the buyers.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Balschoiw: is gasoline and electricity I buy at some point state-sponsored?

I don´t know about your country but it certainly is here in germany.

Examples: New refining technologies get sponsored by the state, new electricity storage solutions get sponsored by the state, facilities to store nuclear waste are sponsored by the state, methods of co2 storage in the soil used by coal power plants are sponsored by the state....

So yes, I´d say that we pay the price for their profit not only when plugging in a socket or fueling the car.

[Panda-PL- 0]

Examples: New refining technologies get sponsored by the state, new electricity storage solutions get sponsored by the state, facilities to store nuclear waste are sponsored by the state, methods of co2 storage in the soil used by coal power plants are sponsored by the state....

So yes, I´d say that we pay the price for their profit not only when plugging in a socket or fueling the car.

You're very far from being specific. You have to do better if you want to present a serious argument.

- what is the purpose of new refining technologies? What are the advantages? Does it lower the price of gasoline, or is it sponsored from gasoline taxation? (in which case it's a scam).

- are special storages for nuclear waste so expansive because of overzelous regulations? Do those regulations lower the price of energy?

- does storage of co2 affect the actual price of energy? Other than avoiding of state regulated sanctions?

From what I can guess these programs do not aim to lower the price of the product.

in case of gasoline I suspect the tax payed by consumers alone is tenfolds greater than any goverment money "donated".

There is no such thing as energy storage. Energy storage reads energy waste. The efficiency is low. Only gravity storage type facilities are functional.

It is much better to be able to adjust production to demand and perhabs this is where reaserch should be going.

There is no net gain from converting a country to actual green energy. Otherwise it would have happened.

Investors would stand in line to have a part in it.

Any advantage you have from using green energy in your country ceases to be an advantage once scale changes.

so I conclude:

the advantage is artifically created at the state (and EU) level. Perhabs by discriminating agains CO2 emmiters, perhabs by taxing gasoline like crazy, perhabs even by asupporting green energy financially.

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]Green energy might have become a "job machine", but it is costing you the important jobs.

Where ?

Please give me some numbers to compare.

Quote[/b] ]It's inflating the cost of living nationally

Same as above.

Quote[/b] ]What you have is a load of people getting state sponsored/enforced work at the expense of the lucrative and productive private sector.

Same as above.

Quote[/b] ]For a country that relies on global exports for it's wealth, Germany is a very poor example of a country that stands to benefit from this kind of thing.

Cough. We´re world export leaders and world technology leaders in this segment.

Quote[/b] ]Energy security is a traditional need for Germany, I can understand the need to pay more for that, but to pretend that it is a money maker, that is just utterly wrong.

It is already so I guess you´re wrong ?

Quote[/b] ]You also know you got help with the loans to buy the kit.

I could have taken a loan but I didn´t need it.

Quote[/b] ]You have personally coined it in at the expense of your fellow countrymen and used "green" as your justification for doing so.

Not really. I went out of the house-selling deal with a minus concerning this as I was not making money with it as I was still in the runup phase where you don´t make money with it. To make it easy. The investment was not paid off by the time it got sold and as you sell a house as a package I didn´t get the full investment from the buyers.

I'm sorry to hear you didn't make money on that Mate.

I like to see people getting rich.

I hope you won't take offence when I say you haven't been a very good advert for the economic viability of green energy sources.

The figures you gave me showed that it was unviable without government subsidy/price manipulation.

And your personal experience has shown that even in the most incredibly weighted market conditions, a man as switched on as yourself has managed to make a loss on it. (As has the previous owner of your new house when he sold his Geothermal to you).

The figures I will quote you for the additional expense to German export goods are the same figures you gave me for the guarenteed sale price of your solar generated electricity vs the price you were paying for buying off the national grid.

My opinion is based solely off the evidence you have provided me.

Your governments solar power initiative has raised the price of electricity across the board for everyone, including all your manufacturing industries.

The price of everything in the country has been raised to meet that increased overhead.

I'm sure you are as acutely aware of the recent inflation in energy prices as everybody else.

Green energies have had their part to play in this.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Back to topic

Failin' Palin: As Putin rears his head

Sorry but what did the old man and god-fearing woman stands for - step back into old days?

[scubaman3D 0]

You mean, you're changing the topic back to a previous one?

I read the transcript. I think its obvious what she's referring to - that Russian military aircraft regularly probe US air space over Alaska.

This is weak criticism - arguments over how something is said, rather than the substance of the statement.

I think we should be using this standard against Obama. He's running for president and has less foreign policy experience than Pailin, who is the VP.

If we think Pailin is inexperienced when it comes to international relations, what does it say about Obama?

[froggyluv 2136]

I'm sorry to keep disagreeing here but I honestly don't get the feeling that Gov.Palin has a firm grasp of International Politics and security matters as a whole. Granted, Obama may not have a lot of experience here either but he seems to have the intellect and critical thinking attributes needed to function at that level. Sen. McCain certainly has a firm grasp of these matters as well, I just disagree with the last 8 years of Isolationism and 'American Cowboy' way of thinking and sense he is headed in this direction.

[red oct 2]

In case nobody was watching, Congress voted down the 700 billion dollar bail-out for wall st.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26884523/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26945513#26944027

for once the democrats in congress didn't arbitrary follow Bush's orders.

[scubaman3D 0]

I'm sorry to keep disagreeing here but I honestly don't get the feeling that Gov.Palin has a firm grasp of International Politics and security matters as a whole. Granted, Obama may not have a lot of experience here either but he seems to have the intellect and critical thinking attributes needed to function at that level. Sen. McCain certainly has a firm grasp of these matters as well, I just disagree with the last 8 years of Isolationism and 'American Cowboy' way of thinking and sense he is headed in this direction.

I think its unfair to judge a persons problem solving skills off of a couple of clips in an interview with a person who isn't exactly "Republican Friendly".

As I said, in that position, I'm sure I would look just as foolish and I'm a scientist, for goodness sake.

And its not that Obama "doesn't have a lot of experience" - he has no experience in these matters. His claim to fame is as a worker for Acorn - an organization well known to be involved with voter fraud.

I'll tell you what, the thought of that man running this country scares the hell out of me. You think he didn't have his hands in the Freddie/Fannie mess? You should look into how much money he got from them. Same for the so-called "black-caucus" in Congress. Their pockets are all lined with F/F money to provide "affordable housing" (i.e. sub-prime mortgages) for the lower class.

Those houses aren't so affordable anymore...

@Red Oct - you have a fundamental lack of understand of American politics if you think the Democrats "follow Bush's orders".

I mean, whats in your head? Only ~1/2 the # of Republicans voted yes as Democrats. The Republicans didn't "follow orders" as you say.