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 XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play
- Thread starter FreshFish
- Start date
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play
I told you he's an attention whore: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/us-usa-campaign-binladen-ad-idUSBRE87E01F20120815
I told you he's an attention whore: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/us-usa-campaign-binladen-ad-idUSBRE87E01F20120815
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play
I think energy independence should be the #1 issue for the next Presidential term. However, nuclear isn't the answer as the backbone of the power supply. Natural gas is. If I can remember correctly, the current breakdown of power generation sources in the country is roughly: 35% gas, 30% coal, 20% nuclear, 15% renewables.
Coal needs to go way down because its a major pollutant. However, it always needs to be part of the equation because you need a cheap backup source of power. Bring coal down to 10-15%, idle the plants or run that at lower capacity but make sure they can be brought up to speed if needed.
Renewables (and this includes hydro as well as the usual wind and solar) should be brought up to 20% which given current trends should end up happening anyway.
Nuclear can be brought up higher but there is no way we're going to find 100 places to build that many new nuclear power plants in this country which old geezer McCain was advocating. Might as well say your plan is to harness energy on the moon. Furthermore no bank or insurance company is going to put up the money to build all these things and I'd rather not have the feds building all of them.
Rather the existing plants, which are already connected to the grid, situated with a security perimiter, and who's abutters presumably have made peace with their placement in their neighborhood, are the place to start. Upgrade or expand existing facilities since most of them are 40 years old and perhaps we can squeeze an extra 5-10% of total supply out of them.
So, if coal is 10%, nukes say 25%, renewables 20%, that leaves natural gas as the remaining 45% of the pie. This all massively reduces carbon emissions, creates jobs (gas powered plant switch over, drilling for the stuff, upgrading nuke plants, etc), and gives us a competitive advantage in energy over the Chinas and Europes of the world (natural gas isn't easily transportable so there is little global market unlike oil. Also the US is the world leader in # of nuclear power plants). This still leaves capacity to make natural gas the fuel for long haul trucking and busses which should get us off foreign oil once and for all.
I think energy independence should be the #1 issue for the next Presidential term. However, nuclear isn't the answer as the backbone of the power supply. Natural gas is. If I can remember correctly, the current breakdown of power generation sources in the country is roughly: 35% gas, 30% coal, 20% nuclear, 15% renewables.
Coal needs to go way down because its a major pollutant. However, it always needs to be part of the equation because you need a cheap backup source of power. Bring coal down to 10-15%, idle the plants or run that at lower capacity but make sure they can be brought up to speed if needed.
Renewables (and this includes hydro as well as the usual wind and solar) should be brought up to 20% which given current trends should end up happening anyway.
Nuclear can be brought up higher but there is no way we're going to find 100 places to build that many new nuclear power plants in this country which old geezer McCain was advocating. Might as well say your plan is to harness energy on the moon. Furthermore no bank or insurance company is going to put up the money to build all these things and I'd rather not have the feds building all of them.
Rather the existing plants, which are already connected to the grid, situated with a security perimiter, and who's abutters presumably have made peace with their placement in their neighborhood, are the place to start. Upgrade or expand existing facilities since most of them are 40 years old and perhaps we can squeeze an extra 5-10% of total supply out of them.
So, if coal is 10%, nukes say 25%, renewables 20%, that leaves natural gas as the remaining 45% of the pie. This all massively reduces carbon emissions, creates jobs (gas powered plant switch over, drilling for the stuff, upgrading nuke plants, etc), and gives us a competitive advantage in energy over the Chinas and Europes of the world (natural gas isn't easily transportable so there is little global market unlike oil. Also the US is the world leader in # of nuclear power plants). This still leaves capacity to make natural gas the fuel for long haul trucking and busses which should get us off foreign oil once and for all.
French Rage
NICKERSON HAS [CENSORED]
Last edited:
DaveStPaul
New member
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play
You'll never make it as a radio host if you keep up this accuracy thing.
You'll never make it as a radio host if you keep up this accuracy thing.
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play
I don't get hating on Michelle. I really don't, it's like someone hating on Gabby Douglas. What could possibly be more harmless than a healthy eating/exercise campaign from the first lady? It follows a pretty staid tradition from that "office" like literacy programs and whatnot.
I don't get hating on Michelle. I really don't, it's like someone hating on Gabby Douglas. What could possibly be more harmless than a healthy eating/exercise campaign from the first lady? It follows a pretty staid tradition from that "office" like literacy programs and whatnot.
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play
While I had promised not to post again in this thread, this was such a thoughtful and well-reasoned post, that I felt obliged to jump in and say well done (even though I disagree with some details; that's secondary).
While I had promised not to post again in this thread, this was such a thoughtful and well-reasoned post, that I felt obliged to jump in and say well done (even though I disagree with some details; that's secondary).
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play
Cut Old Pio some slack. He thought he'd be supporting Michelle Bachmann as the GOP nominee right now and instead he's stuck carrying the water for Mittens out here the next 3 months, only to watch Romney get crushed by Obama on election night, afterwhich Pio will resume the search for the "real" birth certificate!
Cut Old Pio some slack. He thought he'd be supporting Michelle Bachmann as the GOP nominee right now and instead he's stuck carrying the water for Mittens out here the next 3 months, only to watch Romney get crushed by Obama on election night, afterwhich Pio will resume the search for the "real" birth certificate!
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play
Thank you sir! Would be interested in your thoughts on the subject.
Thank you sir! Would be interested in your thoughts on the subject.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play
What...I have never heard of a First Lady telling people what to do...it just is not done!
(it isnt very hard to figure out why people rip her for wanting kids to eat healthy)
What...I have never heard of a First Lady telling people what to do...it just is not done!
(it isnt very hard to figure out why people rip her for wanting kids to eat healthy)
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play
--- You're mixing apples and oranges in that your percentage breakdown (35/30/20/15) applies only to electricity production, but then you later talk about getting off of foreign oil. Even if you convert 100% of electricity production to gas, the oil-soaked elephant in the room is transportation.
--- When it comes to oil, looking at the US Energy Information Administration data, the four big users of petroleum in the US are Gasoline (48%), Fuel Oil (aka Diesel, 20%), Liquefied Petroleum Gas (12%) and jet fuel (8%), which account for 88% of total usage. We currently import 45% of the oil we use (also from EIA), so even if you solved 100% of the long haul trucking and bus problem, we still wouldn't be off of foreign oil - you'd also have to convert roughly half of the users of gasoline to gas.
--- Bizarrely enough, this is one area where I'm a big government guy. I would be perfectly fine with electrical power generation being one of those "things we choose to do together." The federal government has a pretty darn good track record at specifying, procuring, and operating nuclear reactors in a very safe manner. How about a compromise? We'll downsize the military and re-hire those guys in DOE to build new nuke plants. I agree that it would be difficult to find 100 new sites, so why not just double/triple the size of each existing site? How much more could property values around those sites fall? However, we have to keep in mind all the while that this effort would have NOTHING to do with energy independence, since we already have more coal that we could possibly burn. The only reason to do this huge switchover to Federal Nuclear Power would be to reduce greenhouse emissions, period.
I think you're on the right track here in lots of ways, just a few quibbles:
--- You're mixing apples and oranges in that your percentage breakdown (35/30/20/15) applies only to electricity production, but then you later talk about getting off of foreign oil. Even if you convert 100% of electricity production to gas, the oil-soaked elephant in the room is transportation.
--- When it comes to oil, looking at the US Energy Information Administration data, the four big users of petroleum in the US are Gasoline (48%), Fuel Oil (aka Diesel, 20%), Liquefied Petroleum Gas (12%) and jet fuel (8%), which account for 88% of total usage. We currently import 45% of the oil we use (also from EIA), so even if you solved 100% of the long haul trucking and bus problem, we still wouldn't be off of foreign oil - you'd also have to convert roughly half of the users of gasoline to gas.
--- Bizarrely enough, this is one area where I'm a big government guy. I would be perfectly fine with electrical power generation being one of those "things we choose to do together." The federal government has a pretty darn good track record at specifying, procuring, and operating nuclear reactors in a very safe manner. How about a compromise? We'll downsize the military and re-hire those guys in DOE to build new nuke plants. I agree that it would be difficult to find 100 new sites, so why not just double/triple the size of each existing site? How much more could property values around those sites fall? However, we have to keep in mind all the while that this effort would have NOTHING to do with energy independence, since we already have more coal that we could possibly burn. The only reason to do this huge switchover to Federal Nuclear Power would be to reduce greenhouse emissions, period.
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play
One note off the bat. Coal plants don't work well as backup. They are expensive to build, low cost to run, and take a long while to ramp up to full production level, maybe a day or two. So, they are generally baseload plants that you either don't need to run at all in a given season, or you're running around the clock. Natural Gas plants, particularly combustion turbine plants, can ramp up and down quickly.
One note off the bat. Coal plants don't work well as backup. They are expensive to build, low cost to run, and take a long while to ramp up to full production level, maybe a day or two. So, they are generally baseload plants that you either don't need to run at all in a given season, or you're running around the clock. Natural Gas plants, particularly combustion turbine plants, can ramp up and down quickly.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Ummmm, since when has going out and getting the best player for each position now worked particularly well??
And how many seasons now has brad Pitt won the last game?
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the drive-thru lane.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the drive-thru lane.
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play
Who gives a sh*t what Moochelle or any other First Lady wants or cares about? I'll be proud of America again when she and her ward-healing cheap Chicago pol husband are back in Chicago palling around with Ayers and Dorhn.
What...I have never heard of a First Lady telling people what to do...it just is not done!
(it isnt very hard to figure out why people rip her for wanting kids to eat healthy)
Who gives a sh*t what Moochelle or any other First Lady wants or cares about? I'll be proud of America again when she and her ward-healing cheap Chicago pol husband are back in Chicago palling around with Ayers and Dorhn.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play
Someone needs to inform geezer of the word "hypocrite".
Someone needs to inform geezer of the word "hypocrite".
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play
I believe the operative concept here is: "Don't do as I do. Do as I say."
Someone needs to inform geezer of the word "hypocrite".
I believe the operative concept here is: "Don't do as I do. Do as I say."
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play
A perusal of Paul Ryan's voting history would be a quick primer.Someone needs to inform geezer of the word "hypocrite".
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play
Fortunately, His Phoniness is bringing a "new tone" to the campaign, so there's nothing to be gained there.
Is it my imagination, or are the libstains overreacting just a tad to Ryan?
Fortunately, His Phoniness is bringing a "new tone" to the campaign, so there's nothing to be gained there.
Is it my imagination, or are the libstains overreacting just a tad to Ryan?