What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
Granted, wind and solar energy should (hopefully) be more viable options by then, but ethanol is a nice way to hedge our bets without having to rely on nuclear energy.
Click to expand...
There's nothing nice about delaying our inevitable conversion to nuclear power.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

pirate said:
It is a great knee jerk reaction to experience a problem and decide to completely eliminate the chance of it ever recurring, the Carl Spackler method. It takes some brains, some courage and some work to solve the problem without killing all the golfers; DC has a shortage of all three.
Click to expand...

I don't think DC has any shortage of golfers. ;)
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
And this is exactly why anyone clamoring for Republican leadership needs to realize how boned we are no matter which way Congress swings.

Oh, and the ethanol thing? I think of it long term. Name a country better suited to start growing its own fuel on an annual basis once we start to realize that we can't rely on fossil fuels forever. Granted, wind and solar energy should (hopefully) be more viable options by then, but ethanol is a nice way to hedge our bets without having to rely on nuclear energy.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with relying on nuclear energy? Seriously, why aren't we doing that now?
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Patman said:
i just figure more supply equals lower price



and so do the democrats
Click to expand...

And Republicans hate it...that's why they killed the funding from 2001-2006.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
Oh, and the ethanol thing? I think of it long term. Name a country better suited to start growing its own fuel on an annual basis once we start to realize that we can't rely on fossil fuels forever. Granted, wind and solar energy should (hopefully) be more viable options by then, but ethanol is a nice way to hedge our bets without having to rely on nuclear energy.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the infrastructure does not really exist to transport ethanol, corn-based or otherwise, in an economical manner to make it a serious player in the alt fuels market at the national or international level. For example, you can't use the same pipelines, tankers, etc. to transport ethanol and petroleum products, so you need to duplicate existing distribution systems. While I agree ethanol makes sense long-term, especially if non-food plants are used, the whole idea has been co-opted by corn farmers and others who rely on federal dollars to stay alive.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

walrus said:
How could it decrease gas prices when its takes 30% more energy to produce a gallon of E10?
Click to expand...
It doesn't, at least absent some massive change in how it is derived, and don't expect it to anytime in the foreseeable future. Ethanol is a boondoggle of epic proportions and a monument to the lobbying abilities of farm states and ADM.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

unofan said:
What's wrong with relying on nuclear energy? Seriously, why aren't we doing that now?
Click to expand...

Are you volunteering to let them bury the waste in your yard?
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Priceless said:
Are you volunteering to let them bury the waste in your yard?
Click to expand...

Disposal of nuclear waste shouldn't be an issue, if we weren't such a nation that can't make any hard decisions or decisions that anyone dislikes. Yucca Mountain would be fine for disposal, not to mention that storage on site at nuclear plants has made enormous advances and is really quite safe. But, the feds have failed miserably at their charge of setting up a disposal site, while sitting on many billions of dollars that have been collected to pay for such disposal.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Bob Gray said:
Disposal of nuclear waste shouldn't be an issue, if we weren't such a nation that can't make any hard decisions or decisions that anyone dislikes.
Click to expand...

But other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Priceless said:
But other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?
Click to expand...
So you're advocating our nation follow its recent course of just taking the path of least resistance, regardless of how deleterious that is to long term interest? Really, that response argues that we shouldn't do anything about any substantive issue in this country.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Bob Gray said:
So you're advocating our nation follow its recent course of just taking the path of least resistance, regardless of how deleterious that is to long term interest? Really, that response argues that we shouldn't do anything about any substantive issue in this country.
Click to expand...

You're just glossing over the fact that Americans don't want to make ANY difficult decisions as if that were something that can be changed over night. It's not going to be easy to convince millions of Americans to change their thought process. Particularly when there are a handful of people who, vast numbers of them already don't trust (nuclear energy) or will make an obscene profit off it at the expense of what remains of the middle class. Argue all you like, that's not how Americans think. Americans see trillions of their tax dollars going to bail out Wall Street and got a tad upset. You think it's going to be easy to convince people to switch to nuclear when the same robber baron who just bilked them for oil tells them to? I have oceanfront property in Montana I'd like to sell you.

Americans have to grow up and stop acting like petulant children when things don't go their way. This administration was supposed to lead a grown-up conversation about making these decisions...it hasn't happened yet. I don't think it will happen as long as money remains a factor in elections like it has. Why do we have an ethanol subsidy? Because agribusiness wants it. Also because Iowa is the first state in the presidential elections process so politicians dare not speak ill of it. It doesn't matter what you or I say on an Internet message board. Someone in the White House or Congress has to step up and lead. I won't hold my breath.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Priceless said:
Are you volunteering to let them bury the waste in your yard?
Click to expand...
The great thing about nuclear power is that it doubles as a weapons production facility. Just turn the waste into big bombs and shoot them at Tehran and Pyeongyang! :D ;)
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Priceless said:
You're just glossing over the fact that Americans don't want to make ANY difficult decisions as if that were something that can be changed over night. It's not going to be easy to convince millions of Americans to change their thought process. Particularly when there are a handful of people who, vast numbers of them already don't trust (nuclear energy) or will make an obscene profit off it at the expense of what remains of the middle class. Argue all you like, that's not how Americans think. Americans see trillions of their tax dollars going to bail out Wall Street and got a tad upset. You think it's going to be easy to convince people to switch to nuclear when the same robber baron who just bilked them for oil tells them to? I have oceanfront property in Montana I'd like to sell you.

Americans have to grow up and stop acting like petulant children when things don't go their way. This administration was supposed to lead a grown-up conversation about making these decisions...it hasn't happened yet. I don't think it will happen as long as money remains a factor in elections like it has. Why do we have an ethanol subsidy? Because agribusiness wants it. Also because Iowa is the first state in the presidential elections process so politicians dare not speak ill of it. It doesn't matter what you or I say on an Internet message board. Someone in the White House or Congress has to step up and lead. I won't hold my breath.
Click to expand...
I'm not glossing over that at all, as you should know, being a regular around here. But, just because something would be difficult to do doesn't mean we don't advocate that it should be done, and we don't just throw our hands up and say we shouldn't consider the problem out of hand. In the matter of nuclear waste from power plants, even without a national repository for this stuff, I'm not aware of a significant problem with the on-site storage that's been on-going now for decades at sites all around the country. So, really, even if we can't get a national repository going, that's not a deal-breaker by any stretch of the imagination for doing nuclear power. If you want to argue against it, pick something more substantive, such as the high water use of nuclear plants.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

walrus said:
How could it decrease gas prices when its takes 30% more energy to produce a gallon of E10?
Click to expand...
Don't confuse price with cost. When there are subsidies of this size involved, there's only a vague notion of a relationship between them...
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

LynahFan said:
Don't confuse price with cost. When there are subsidies of this size involved, there's only a vague notion of a relationship between them...
Click to expand...

Yah, that's some of that federal government speak where you can take an action that increases the cost of something, but by throwing subsidies in, you actually reduce the price of that thing in the public eye. You just pay the difference elsewhere in the big picture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top