Obama’s Pipe Dream
Where’s the Beef?
Today, President Elect Obama announced more members of his administration/cabinet. These appointments had to do with mostly energy and environment.
Obama waxed philosophical about the woes of our economy, as it is tied to our energy dependence. He talked in his normal broad platitudes, pontificating that we have for too long buckled to special interests when it comes to energy. That administration after administration has promised more energy independence, but has failed. He promised that we would hold no bars, we would act universally, and act boldly. We would apply broad based scientific goals and stop at nothing to light the way of an aggressive attack on transforming the whole world, blah blah blah blah…
bullshit…
One word was missing from the whole speech. “Nuclear”. Or, if you prefer the Bush iteration, “Nucular”.
Apparently we are going to carpet the world with wind machines and solar panels, instead of pursuing an aggressive nuclear program. Why? Well, of course, because we are going to buckle to the same “special interest” groups that he just talked about standing in the way of all our other approaches.
Another word that was missing was “drilling”.
Another term, “clean coal”.
More of the same, people… excepting, this promise is going to cost you far more than is being admitted.
One of the folks he appointed cited California as an example of what is right with environmental controls, and energy regulations. Ever bought a gallon of gas in the Golden State? And, um, aren’t they crying “bankruptcy” right now?
And trust me, folks… you don’t carpet the desert with solar panels, or pepper the countryside or ocean’s with wind turbines without raising the ire of the environmentalists. So just wait and see what happens with those plans, once the rubber meets the road.
The left is still looking for the free lunch. They are still unwilling to look at nuclear. They are still unwilling to work with what we have an abundance of, shale oil, and coal.
Obama also stated that it is important that we not solve the world’s climate and environmental issues alone, but impress upon the rest of the world where we need to go, be. Yeah, sure. I have a lot of faith in getting China and India to slow down, and regulate. Surely the rest of the world is going to step right up to the plate. Wait a minute… maybe that is where he plans to use nuclear energy!!! We can bomb them into submission.
When talking of environmental factors, it is important to remember that much of what many States have done (California being one of the best examples) is dig a hole to fill it… or what they call in prison “make work”. Yes, you can “regulate” cleanliness to the level that it will created a demand for jobs and new agencies. However, the costs of that industry and heavy regulation trickles down to YOUR pocketbook, on everyday goods and practices/actions.
America- you wanted “yes we can”? You got it… Too bad he is saying “no we can’t” to the energies we need to rely on.
Worst State of the Union speech EVER! He couldn't stop blaming Bush every five minutes and lecturing Republicans on partisanship ...
Dear COasis,
Do you have any guidelines for your "guest writer" submissions? I have written a somewhat satirical research paper ...
Today 1/20/2010 is a NEW Beginning! Scott Won! Scott Won! Today is the day we begin to take ...
Of course now it's Haiti, he has to pretend to be concerned, throw our money away
and import millions of new ...
HARRY REID QUOTED AS SAYING:
(Paraphrasing) "Obama is a good candidate because he is a light-skinned African-American ... has no ...
1. I continue to debase everyone of your arguments. I don’t claim your blog sites, I claim your blog posts.
2. The reason you have no time to argue with me is because you no longer have an argument. Why aren’t you willing to admit that?
3. Your overconfidence probably hasn’t helped you in life. I’m sure more then a few people have read my posts and questioned their stances. You are one of them.
Really there are only a couple of things to finish up here.
You seem to think I am someone you have chased around the blogosphere, “ruining” blogs. This is my one and only. It was here before you were, will be here after you leave. You see, it is doing quite well.
Second, I really don’t have the time to argue with someone who is as misguided as you are, or paranoid.
Lastly, touting intelligence while constantly using “then” when you mean “than” is just flat out ironic as hell. You’ve done it several times.
As for who will stay and go, I am sure you have not run anyone off that I am speaking to. That I have your ire is amusing, but only for so long.
Have a good day!
1. I have said a lot of things. But they reach far beyond “nothing.” Clearly that is evident because you refuse to respond to my “Assailing Christmas” quotational evidence that was posted 18 days ago.
If you cannot understand me that merely means that you lack understanding. It does nothing to invalidate my points. A stupid man cannot use his stupidity as a tool against someone.
2. My statement makes the point that by going against nature we are destroying it. In our attempts to control it we are creating inequality in the flow of nature. Eventually it will bite back. The best way to preserve is to remain as natural in our processes as possible.
If you take that concept and apply it to energy consumption, you can plainly see that humans are not helping the environment. Anyone who says “Drill baby drill” is probably completely blind to the realities of this world.
3. Ummm no. The best way to manage nature is to not manage nature. Green peace (no matter how misguided it may be) has the goal of keeping human intervention in natural processes as low as possible.
The Endangered Species Act was set up to protect certain species of animals from human destruction and disturbance.
I think you should read the Tao Te Ching. It’s quite a good little read. It explains everything that I’m talking about.
The fact that you are resorting to cute little jokes leads me to believe that I have claimed yet another one of your ridiculous blogs.
4. I don’t believe I ever personally fought NATO. I might be wrong but I’m pretty sure I would remember something like that.
You are quite possibly the worst generalizer I have ever seen.
Tell me, is every brown person a mexican?
It seems as though your lack of intelligence is leading to these default assumptions about myself. Get it through your thick skull… I am a liberal. That doesn’t mean am 1,2,3,4 or 5.
4.I don’t have a “list”. It’s called a state of mind. Listen if I can take the bus, I’ll take the bus. If I can walk, I’ll walk.
If someone throws a cup on the ground and I see it I’ll pick it up and throw it away. I recycle for my dorm community. Etc.
Get my point? It isn’t a list of things to do. It’s a way to live your life.
5. First you disagree and now you agree… Okay fine we can agree on this.
6. I’m pretty sure I cannot explain it any further because I have completely explained them. But I’ll try again.
A. Solar-Thermal Energy: There is a tube surrounded by high quality mirrors. The mirrors gather sun light and concentrate it drawing out the thermal energy (heat). That heat energy is focused on the tube and the tube heats up. Inside that tube is water. The water vaporizes creating steam and steam pressure. The pipe feeds into a turbine where the steam turns the turbine that is attached to a generator. That generates electricity.
B. Solar Energy: Sunlight hits photo-voltaic cells that convert light energy into electricity. That is stored in batteries and distributed as needed.
Solar-Thermal production has a greater efficiency then standard solar energy production. That is why it takes less solar-thermal production to equal that of standard solar energy production.
6. I’m sure it’s another blog that I will easily destroy.
I rant here because I get sick amusement out of making you look like an absolute tool. The intelligent ones in here will read this and leave. The dumb ones will read this and continue to intake your garbage.
Now if you’d excuse me I have some Camus to read…
1. You’re not a man. You’re a child. Yes, I still use Tricky Dicky. You said a lot of nothing. Then followed it with a statement that makes, basically, an argument completely against all forms of preservation, by Government fiat or agency. You, my friend, are an intellectual midget.
IF, as you say, nature manages us, we ought to just up. It is in charge. So, no need for Greenpeace, the Endangered Species Act, etc…
You are an oxymoron. Or, just the latter part of the word.
2. Yes, there is power in numbers. And greeny asses like you fought NATO. Get the point, or do I need to call you a dumbass directly?
3. Please tell me how you are trying to get things done. We all need a list we can follow, so we can reach your level of “example”.
4. The one point we agree upon. At least on the surface.
5. Yes, you need to explain it further. I can’t wait.
Now, in the meantime, I have a blog to try to tend to. I can’t spend my time educating you, although I would love the opportunity.
If you want a soapbox, create one. Otherwise, feel free to rant here. We’re all waiting for you to say something that moves us.
1. I highly doubt that you are going to want to use Tricky Dick as your evidence for RNC innocence. You are walking on a thin line of genius and stupidity.
Also, you don’t manage nature. Nature manages you. Keep that in mind.
2. There would be no need for war if countries were threatened by an amassing group of nations. It’s the same concept as the cold war. There is power in numbers.
Not to mention there are our other ways of enforcibility then war. Diplomacy, economic isolation, etc….
It’s not all about bombs and white flags.
3. I am just as guilty as you are of impacting the planet in a bad way. The point, however, is that I am working on cutting down and eliminating many of my waste. I’m not trying to make excuses. I’m trying to get things done.
4. Soon there will be no golden goose to gawk over. I highly recommend that you realize that laws of nature are more fundamental then laws of economics. Without supply there is no economy. Without supply there is no humanity. So I think you should understand that it is worth contracting the economy for the time being, as we begin to transfer energy resources over to alternative solutions.
This isn’t complicated stuff Con. The human race has never been threatened with such a catastrophe before. Desperate times call for desperate and unpracticed methods.
5. There is no “fuel”. It has nothing to do with fossil fuels. It allows solar thermal energy (heat from sunlight) to concentrate and heat tubes that have water flowing through them. That water heats to temperatures exceeding 600 degrees C. That steam moves turbines that generate electricity.
That is not to be confused with standard solar energy production that merely converts sunlight into electricity through photo-voltaic cells.
So that is why it only takes 92 sq miles of solar-thermal energy to power the entire US and 80 sq miles of standard solar energy to equal one nuclear power plant. Get it? Do I need to explain any further?
That is why you take the cake for the least researched and least understanding blogger on the internet. I grant you that prize for this evening. It’s a medal, wear it with pride.
I’m not Obama. That is clearly obvious. Therefore I do not speak for nor hold the exacting values that he holds. I don’t care what the democratic party has said (As I have mentioned before, they don’t speak for liberals any more then republicans speak for conservatives).
I am my own man.
As the great Jack Nicholson once said
IIIII’m baaaaaaack!!!!
And I’m prepared.
1. If you had any clue about the RNC and the goals of republicans, they are actually in line with preservation. In fact, Nixon signed into law the Endangered Species Act. Like so many liberals, you have no clue who really supports many things as you are fueled by hate. Republicans view nature as a manageable resource. Lefties like you think we should just leave no impact whatsoever. Any idea where your computer comes from? China, cheap labor, trucks fueled by diesel, plastic from petroleum, and so many other nasty things you would cringe. How about your car? Your Power? Your food?
Please list your impact on the earth so we can live by your example.
And by the way, genius… you can’t make money, if, um, you make no money. That is the way it works. So, if you kill the golden goose by trying to take all the golden eggs at once, you lose. And at the same time, if you protect the golden goose so much that nobody can make money from it, nobody will do it. So, genius, if there is NO money IN energy and there is no money if there is no preservation of the resource, where do you think the normal Republican/Conservative puts his energy? Management and benefit. With both, you can win.
2. Wrong. Enforceability has to do with sovereign power. You can’t monitor what you are not willing to go to war over.
3. You do not have to produce emissions to harm the environment. Any idiot knows this. You talk about destruction behind dams. That shows me you know jack shit about what dams do to the environment. You’r missing half the story, at least. I’m not going to tell you what it is.
92 square miles of Solar panels fuels all of the United States, according to you. Please, first, qualify the term “fuels”. Fuels what?
Second, I have to ask, since you were so bold as to continue, you said “***Also it would take about 80 square miles of conventional solar panels to equal the output of an average power plant.”
So from what you said there, we can deduce “If 92 square miles of solar panels can power the entire US, and 80 square miles can match an average power plant, then approximately ONE power plant can power the entire United States. You are brilliant. The Nobel prize awaits.
Second, we can deduce the following as well: “100 large wind turbine generators equals the output of an average power plant.” Holy crap. You mean, 100 large wind turbine power generators equals about the of an average power plant. And an average power plant can be matched by 80 square miles of solar panels. And, a mere 92 square miles of solar panels can fuel the whole United States???
Shit. We’re SAVED!!! That means, 100 Wind Generators can just about power the WHOLE United States!!!
I’m ignoring the rest of what you have to say on this for now. Your immensely powerful grasp of science and logic is going to take me a while to absorb.
By the way- Obama talked about “Clean Coal” extensively when in Pennsylvania and other Coal Mining towns. He has dropped it for the most part from his plan. This is another “bait and switch” that leftists pull all the time…
Come back when you are more prepared.
1. Lets see how harmed we are when there is no environment left to make money off of. The argument that money comes before the health of the world is one of the major flaws of the republican party.
You cannot make money if your capital is destroyed.
2. Enforceability is simply a matter of unification. If all the countries band together then no one would step out of line. I see the US has set a perfect example…
3. Dams don’t produce any emissions. They alter their environment in some nasty ways, but they do not produce emissions. The only objection I have to Dams of massive magnitudes is that they create massive areas of destruction behind them. But believe me, it’s insignificant compared to the destruction of pollution and greenhouse gases.
It’s been calculated that it would take only 92 square miles of solar-thermal power plants in order to power THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES. That is an area roughly smaller then a quaint town.
***Also it would take about 80 square miles of conventional solar panels to equal the output of an average power plant. Too, 100 large wind turbine generators equals the output of an average power plant.
4. I’m not saying the nuclear power is necessarily bad. What I’m saying is that you don’t need to smack talk wind and solar like its a novelty item.
Remember, every 7 minutes enough solar energy makes it to the earths surface to provide energy for the entire planet for one year.
1. Those nations are able to sign because they are not as harmed economically by the accord as we are.
2. The part of Kyoto that falls apart when it comes to China and India is “enforceability”.
3. Stating that wind and solar have zero emissions sounds as nice as “pro choice” and “progressive”, but the devil lies in the details. Dams also produce no emissions. Talk to the salmon. Look at the canyon ecosystems. There is NO free energy out there. Do you have ANY idea how many hundreds of square miles it would take of solar panels to equal ONE nuclear plant? Think those panels have NO effect on the wildlife? The temperature of the area?
Just study the promise of “harmless” hydro-electric, and get back to me.
People never learn.
You claim that the rest of the world needing to band together being an impossible feat. Sadly, you’re ill informed. I would have assumed that you would have heard of the Kyoto Protocol, but after that statement I guess I assumed wrong. The united states is, per capita, the largest emitter of greenhouse gas, yet one of only two signing nations of the Kyoto Protocol to not ratify it. In the United States we declined ratification of this treaty, and in Uzbekistan it is still pending. There were 183 signing nations. I don’t see how 181 nations can abide by this treaty, and we can’t, yet in the long run you view this as us not being able to depend on the world. Maybe it’s the other way around. And yes, China AND India both signed, ratified, and abided by the designated emission reduction rate of 5.2% from that of 1990. In addition, Clean Coal is NOT a viable option for our energy future. It’s twice as expensive per MW of energy when compared to wind energy, and slightly more than solar, both of which are guarenteed zero emissions forever. Since the Bush-Cheney Energy Task Force was established, 150-fully polluting coal fired plants have been planned, and though some of those have been slashed, one even citing global warming as a reason. Had these plants all been built, the net carbon emission output from those plants alone would be greater than 178 of the 183 signing nations of the Kyoto Protocol. I’m afraid you fail the see the significance of the problems we face. “More of the same,” though it may have been a political catchphrase, will be accurate if we continue our ways of dirty energy.