Started By
Message
re: Obama's Farewell Address and what you will remember him for.
Posted on 1/12/17 at 6:33 pm to Papplesbeast
Posted on 1/12/17 at 6:33 pm to Papplesbeast
Gasoline needed a lot more than physics to defeat alcohol, if it was simply a physics thing it wouldn't have needed to do what it did to wipe out alternatives. And as it was explained to me, our current set-up with ethanol is different than what alcohol fuel used to be. A farmer being able to produce his own fuel on-site vs what we go through to get oil..
This is the best, most informative, non-political or agenda based documentary I've seen. You probably won't watch it, but sharing anyway.
How big oil conquered the world
Obviously alcohol fuel isn't 'the one big answer', but its previous usage and its ability to be localized is noteworthy.
Most people don't understand how it, as well as electricity and hemp were a part of the energy landscape 100+ years ago. Understanding that, and understanding why it was wiped out is hugely important to finding the answers moving forward.
The farmland argument against hemp is proven to be completely bogus and an indication of not being up-to-speed on the issue.
We currently grow way too much corn and soy, much of which ends up in the middle aisle of grocery stores in the form of fake food -- and anyway, that's mostly irrelevant. There's enough land. Plus innovation in alternative growing methods.
Hemp enriches farmland, making it a smart thing for famers to rotate through their fields. The Dakota's and Canadian prairies.. huge. It grows in harsh climates on both ends of the spectrum with relative ease.
Right now hemp producers get more from food markets. The food market is all whacked out with pricing for various reasons, and hemp costs more than it should because of the limited legal growing areas and 'health food' tag.
Overall we've been tricked into an energy model that has oil at the top of the pyramid. The energy solution isn't one thing, it's a combination of many things. Our major dependence on oil is 100% thanks to the manipulations from those who'd benefit from such a paradigm.
This is the best, most informative, non-political or agenda based documentary I've seen. You probably won't watch it, but sharing anyway.
How big oil conquered the world
Obviously alcohol fuel isn't 'the one big answer', but its previous usage and its ability to be localized is noteworthy.
Most people don't understand how it, as well as electricity and hemp were a part of the energy landscape 100+ years ago. Understanding that, and understanding why it was wiped out is hugely important to finding the answers moving forward.
The farmland argument against hemp is proven to be completely bogus and an indication of not being up-to-speed on the issue.
We currently grow way too much corn and soy, much of which ends up in the middle aisle of grocery stores in the form of fake food -- and anyway, that's mostly irrelevant. There's enough land. Plus innovation in alternative growing methods.
Hemp enriches farmland, making it a smart thing for famers to rotate through their fields. The Dakota's and Canadian prairies.. huge. It grows in harsh climates on both ends of the spectrum with relative ease.
Right now hemp producers get more from food markets. The food market is all whacked out with pricing for various reasons, and hemp costs more than it should because of the limited legal growing areas and 'health food' tag.
Overall we've been tricked into an energy model that has oil at the top of the pyramid. The energy solution isn't one thing, it's a combination of many things. Our major dependence on oil is 100% thanks to the manipulations from those who'd benefit from such a paradigm.
This post was edited on 1/12/17 at 6:34 pm
1
Posted on 1/13/17 at 10:23 am to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Overall we've been tricked into an energy model that has oil at the top of the pyramid.
Eh. With liquid capital markets I'm not so sure I believe that.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 11:31 am to TeLeFaWx
What will I remember him for?
As a fully healthy 28 year old male, having a health insurance premium be as high as my car note. Affordable my dick.
As a fully healthy 28 year old male, having a health insurance premium be as high as my car note. Affordable my dick.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 11:44 am to TeLeFaWx
quote:
Eh. With liquid capital markets I'm not so sure I believe that.
All you have to do is know the history of how oil conquered the world.
Documentary above.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 11:49 am to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Nuclear power is moronic.
Carry on.
This post was edited on 1/13/17 at 11:54 am
Posted on 1/13/17 at 12:08 pm to navynuke
quote:
Carry on.
Great contribution and excellent counter-point.
By your name I'm assuming there's no bias toward nuke power -- insert series of laughing emojis (never mind, I'm an adult male).
Nuke power is stupid and wrong on so many levels.
It's an unnecessary dangerous risk. It's dirty. It's expensive.
Nuclear plants are prohibitively dangerous and prohibitively expensive. It's the epitome of centralization of energy. Waste storage is toxic for thousands of years. And so on. Lots more to the argument, but it's not needed, is it? No.
The only arguments for its 'goodness' are shortsighted and lack honesty.
Hashtag: fatguyslovenumberedmenus
Posted on 1/13/17 at 12:26 pm to Sleeping Tiger
You are stupid and wrong on so many levels.
Dangerous? There are so many holes to be shot in that but I will start here. Look up negative coefficient of reactivity and get back with me.
Offset by grid reliability.
To achieve a comparable generating capability to most PWRs, a CFB or stoker fired unit would have to burn about 1.4 million tons of coal or coal/coke blend per year. The associated emissions alone exceed the danger of storing spent fuel in a dry cask or a cooling pool and we havent discussed the disposal of combustion products.
Hashtag: ihavenofrickingcluewhatiamtalkingaboutandloveskinnyjeansandappletinis
quote:
It's an unnecessary dangerous risk.
Dangerous? There are so many holes to be shot in that but I will start here. Look up negative coefficient of reactivity and get back with me.
quote:
Expensive
Offset by grid reliability.
quote:
It's dirty.
To achieve a comparable generating capability to most PWRs, a CFB or stoker fired unit would have to burn about 1.4 million tons of coal or coal/coke blend per year. The associated emissions alone exceed the danger of storing spent fuel in a dry cask or a cooling pool and we havent discussed the disposal of combustion products.
Hashtag: ihavenofrickingcluewhatiamtalkingaboutandloveskinnyjeansandappletinis
This post was edited on 1/13/17 at 12:35 pm
Posted on 1/13/17 at 12:40 pm to navynuke
Actually laughed.
To prove that nuclear power is good because it (very arguably) compares favorably to coal shows how limited you are on the topic. I'm half certain you're not going to know why that shows your limitations.
You're 100% connected and biased to it, which makes it nearly impossible to think clearly and honestly.
There's very limited sites that aren't at risk for earthquakes and other natural disasters, not to mention the threat of terrorist or military action.
It's expensive. It's dangerous. The risk-reward isn't worth it. It's dirty when all is considered. Any positive argument is short-sighted.
But please.. continue thinking that a dangerous, expensive and highly risky source of energy that stays toxic for thousands of years is good. I mean, is this even real life?
To prove that nuclear power is good because it (very arguably) compares favorably to coal shows how limited you are on the topic. I'm half certain you're not going to know why that shows your limitations.
You're 100% connected and biased to it, which makes it nearly impossible to think clearly and honestly.
There's very limited sites that aren't at risk for earthquakes and other natural disasters, not to mention the threat of terrorist or military action.
It's expensive. It's dangerous. The risk-reward isn't worth it. It's dirty when all is considered. Any positive argument is short-sighted.
But please.. continue thinking that a dangerous, expensive and highly risky source of energy that stays toxic for thousands of years is good. I mean, is this even real life?
This post was edited on 1/13/17 at 12:45 pm
Posted on 1/13/17 at 12:44 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
All you have to do is know the history of how oil conquered the world.
Documentary above.
I get that, but it's not like France isn't 80% nuclear or whatever. There are other power sources and they don't have as much going for them as oil and gas in a lot of ways. I'm not going to deny any of the facts in that documentary, but Wall Street has always hated oil and gas and if they could have put their money en masse behind something else they would have.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 12:50 pm to navynuke
quote:
Offset by grid reliability.
And yet private capital for nuclear has all bit dried up in the United States. Grid reliability does not offset the costs. If it did we'd see more nuclear plants. The Jews at Goldman don't give a frick about nuclear vs coal or any of that bullshite. They just want to make money. There isn't any money in nuclear right now.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 12:55 pm to TeLeFaWx
Not with cheap gas, but that will normalize. And that will get passed on us.
So what is your proposed plan to replace the generating capacity?
So what is your proposed plan to replace the generating capacity?
Posted on 1/13/17 at 12:56 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
I get that, but it's not like France isn't 80% nuclear or whatever. There are other power sources and they don't have as much going for them as oil and gas in a lot of ways. I'm not going to deny any of the facts in that documentary, but Wall Street has always hated oil and gas and if they could have put their money en masse behind something else they would have.
The doc describes how oil/gas created the game that is played today.
The biggest titans of industry worked to secure oil/gas as the primary energy source. They play on Wall-Street.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 1:36 pm to Sleeping Tiger
Here's where you are limited: What are you proposing to replace that generating capacity (19% nation wide) with?
This post was edited on 1/13/17 at 1:50 pm
Posted on 1/13/17 at 1:53 pm to navynuke
quote:
Not with cheap gas, but that will normalize. And that will get passed on us.
So what is your proposed plan to replace the generating capacity?
Replace? When did I claim I wanted to take nuclear facilities off line?
Posted on 1/13/17 at 1:54 pm to navynuke
You're incapable of forming a good argument for nuclear power -- which isn't a knock on your debating skills, it's an impossible feat. It's simply not a smart thing.
So you're wanting to argue against alternatives because you can't argue for nuclear.
A mix of renewables, especially with improved innovation and investment and legalization of biomass gold (hemp) would provide for our energy needs.
The most important thing here is that this isn't a 1:1 debate. Nuclear energy comes with a ton of baggage that is in a lot of ways immeasurable.
I'm not going to waste an afternoon debating this, nuclear power is stupid -- which is why it's being pushed out.
So you're wanting to argue against alternatives because you can't argue for nuclear.
A mix of renewables, especially with improved innovation and investment and legalization of biomass gold (hemp) would provide for our energy needs.
The most important thing here is that this isn't a 1:1 debate. Nuclear energy comes with a ton of baggage that is in a lot of ways immeasurable.
I'm not going to waste an afternoon debating this, nuclear power is stupid -- which is why it's being pushed out.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 2:26 pm to Sleeping Tiger
I can argue fuel enrichment and borated water injection systems all day long. You don't know enough about any of it save what you can google.
So your plan is to replace almost 200 GW on the grid with renewables and biomass?
You are too stupid to insult.
So your plan is to replace almost 200 GW on the grid with renewables and biomass?
You are too stupid to insult.
This post was edited on 1/13/17 at 2:29 pm
Posted on 1/13/17 at 3:16 pm to navynuke
It's already happening.
It's a process.
Globally there's a transition away from nuclear.
Private investment isn't touching it.
But by all means, continue to support fading, dangerous, risky, expensive method that creates waste that is toxic for thousands of years. I mean, dude.. this is undebatable, it's stupid.
It's a process.
Globally there's a transition away from nuclear.
Private investment isn't touching it.
But by all means, continue to support fading, dangerous, risky, expensive method that creates waste that is toxic for thousands of years. I mean, dude.. this is undebatable, it's stupid.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 3:20 pm to Wtodd
quote:
1 - shitty domestic policies
2 - shitty foreign policies
3 - calling me a racist, sexist & homophobic for 8 yrs simply bc I disagree with someone
4 - his apology tours
Posted on 1/13/17 at 7:33 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
I can agree with this. I think the biggest issue was Obama and the Dems let their special interests design the majority of it, and in the process it did nothing to address cost. It addressed access, and was supposedly "budget neutral", but nothing in the bill was designed to bring down costs. Nothing. And I think if the Democrats had been honest about Obamacare and it's failures they wouldn't have lost the Rust Belt to Trump. It's amazing that they haven't offered up any solutions to their mess in the past 6 years.
Upvote.
Im a moderate, swing voting Dem and I hated the special interest bastards getting their hands all over the bill. Pelosi and Daschle ruined what could have been a much better all around bill.
It did provide access, so that counts for something. I will never completely shite on anything that is meant to help Americans, whether its war to protect us or health care. It does have flaws and needs improvement, so I look forward to seeing how this administration and the House performs on that.
I also give him credit for keeping the economy from collapsing. The stock market was in the shitter in 2008 and jobs were disappearing by the day. That counts in my book as well.
No POTUS will have a perfect tenure, and they all do the best they can. Thats why Im not too down on Trump as a Dem.
Overall, I give Obama a B-
Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:45 pm to stomp
And you hard right cocksuckers can downvote me into oblivion all you want. America has always been great, even under the Black guy 
This post was edited on 1/13/17 at 8:46 pm
Page 9 of 29
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News