Politics

[Alistair]

I recall B Rocko 'Bama saying that a significant amount of greenhouse gases could be reduced by having gasoline at $5+ per gallon.

I doubt it.

UK gasoline (petrol) is more like $5.70/US gallon due to extortionate duty and people will still do whatever they want. They just pay for the privilege.

It's just another tax in disguise.

 

[Ray B]

So you're saying the US should be like UK? It's working out so well for UK and Europe in general I can see no reason why the US shouldn't jump at the chance. Is there one of those little smiley faces for vomiting?

 

[Alistair]

So you're saying the US should be like UK? It's working out so well for UK and Europe in general I can see no reason why the US shouldn't jump at the chance. Is there one of those little smiley faces for vomiting?

Now don't put words in my mouth. I'm not commenting on if expensive fuel is a good thing or a bad thing (It's a bad thing).

You quoted Obama as saying that expensive fuel at $5/gallon would result in greenhouse gas emissions dropping. I disagreed with that premise quoting the complete lack of interest in energy efficiency exhibited by a country that already lives with such joys. Nothing more than that.

 

[Brent in Az]

Shall we call him ChinaMitch, since it has been alleged that he and his wife have ties to Chinese money?

The traitorous Swamp Rats.

Report: McConnell Will Propose Trump Impeachment Trial Starting in February

Mitch McConnell is expected to propose to Chuck Schumer to begin the impeachment trial of Donald Trump in February, according to a report.

www.breitbart.com

 

[Red Leg]

Shall we call him ChinaMitch, since it has been alleged that he and his wife have ties to Chinese money?

The traitorous Swamp Rats.

Report: McConnell Will Propose Trump Impeachment Trial Starting in February

Mitch McConnell is expected to propose to Chuck Schumer to begin the impeachment trial of Donald Trump in February, according to a report.

www.breitbart.com

You may be right, but I suspect this is intended as a poison pill. I can't imagine anything the Biden administration wants less while they are trying to jump start their new legislative agenda than for the Senate to be tied up in a Quixotic impeachment trial. Hate him all you want, but McConnell is an inside knife fighter who plays for blood. This puts Pelosi, Biden, and Schumer in more than a bit of a jam and particular pressure on Pelosi to actually file the single charge with the Senate. She will have to fish or cut bait.

 

[Brent in Az]

Poison pill, or not, it's tragic how so many Republicans threw a President under the bus, for self serving reasons. Love him or hate him, Trump was the best thing to happen to the Republican party in a long time. Even if his Presidency was a blessing and a curse at the same time.
What charge will Pelosi file? Inciting violence? I saw Trumps rally speech. There was nothing inciting about it. The radicals were well on their way to storm Capitol hill, even as he was giving the speech on video. False flag event? I don't have the answer to that.

Either way, I don't trust McConnell.

 

[Areaonereal]

Well I am sitting here after a bottle of Merlot... the child bride just returned afte a day at the bank ( internal auditor) with a sackful of clothes from the local Talbots final last day closing today. Ready for this.. all you can cram into a plastic Talbots bags For $20.00. Four shorts, five Capri pants and ten tops to a close $900.00 retail as per tickets. Boys, we are looking at a interesting next four years. Sales girl said cram more in and give them away regardless of the size. This economy is an issue that looks scary, concerning to the working stiff and eveyone else not in the 1 per cent.

 

[Brent in Az]

I'm no constitutional scholar, and there is much argument across the net, as to the legality of a President being tried in the Senate on impeachment charges, once he becomes a private citizen. Impeachment is just a term for "Accused", and was designed to remove someone from political office, while serving in that capacity.
What will this actually accomplish, besides making the Democrats feel good about their hatred for the man?

 

[Ray B]

I didn't watch any TV on Wednesday but today I saw a clip of the Bidet and I was impressed at how terrible he looks. Compare him to Woodrow Wilson in the last year of his administration. Wilson lived for four years after leaving office but the last five were in near vegative status. I'd hate to be the doctor tasked with keeping ole Joe among the living.

 

[Zambezi]

They should get Michael Jackson's doctor... he kept MJ alive through drug fuelled years and declining mental ability

 

[Foxi]

I think that what the greenies in geneneral don't get is that the world isn't getting any smaller and energy requirement wont go down. So if it isn't going to come from fossil fuel, then where? Forget solar and wind, it is a nice idea, but a drop in the ocean. Nuclear is the only alternative, and a good alternative, but they hate that too. The real problem is increasing population, so until they 1. Force the galloping nations to curb population, 2. Accept nuclear, they have no grounding to attack fossil fuels, cows etc. You and I giving up steak will achieve absolutely nothing. Nothing new here, we all know this, but it is the elephant in their rooms.

Europe's largest industrialized nation met almost 20% of its final energy demand last year with renewable energy (455 billions of KW/H), which is more than a drop in the bucket.
Germany (as the only country in Europe, we are so stupid) is getting out of coal and nuclear power completely.
Instead, we buy nuclear power from Eastern Europe and France as a matter of course.
The Bitcoin industry is terrible; it needs as much electricity for calculating its algorithms as Denmark does, with cheap electrified lignite from Mongolia.Blowing CO 2 into the air for such crap,Speculators have always contributed to the fact that people perish .
They should work for a change.

 

[sgt_zim]

Europe's largest industrialized nation met almost 20% of its final energy demand last year with renewable energy (455 billions of KW/H), which is more than a drop in the bucket.

At what cost to the consumer via utility bill, and also to the consumer via taxation? I suspect the price is WAY higher anything else except wood.

To progress means to become more efficient over time. Germany is headed the other way. If you guys keep this up, you won't be Europe's industrial powerhouse for long.

 

[Alistair]

At what cost to the consumer via utility bill, and also to the consumer via taxation? I suspect the price is WAY higher anything else except wood.

To progress means to become more efficient over time. Germany is headed the other way. If you guys keep this up, you won't be Europe's industrial powerhouse for long.

I think it depends on how it's executed.

On the one hand, yes, building renewables at large scale is more expensive than gas, whilst nuclear is capital intensive (even if cheaper long term). As such, Government level 'grid improvements' are probably not gonna improve peoples standard of life. It's perhaps worth noting that renewables are getting cheaper every year whilst gas is fairly stable however.

On the other hand, I work for a large beverage company. We're working on moving away from at nat gas for thermal energy across our network globally and installing anaerobic digesters at each large plant. At some we can do the combined thermal / electrical thing and eliminate our electricity spend too.

On the one hand, this is good for the environment and gives marketing a good story (they claim that a 100% pricing premium is possible for products in our sector with an eco story in the US). On a more pragmatic level it allows us to generate value from a waste stream, eliminate a global natural gas bill that runs to tens, maybe hundreds of millions worldwide, and even sell the excess methane back into the grid. This is just good business. Even ignoring the soft benefits, any project that offers millions in savings and offers a payback of less than 5 years is worth looking at I'd say. The same can be said for energy recovery, process eficiencies, small scale renewable installations in the correct locations. Personally I'm not that fussed about emissions, but I am very interested in efficiency and cost savings. Eco measures, done properly, help me with this goal.

 

[sgt_zim]

I think it depends on how it's executed.

On the one hand, yes, building renewables at large scale is more expensive than gas, whilst nuclear is capital intensive (even if cheaper long term). As such, Government level 'grid improvements' are probably not gonna improve peoples standard of life. It's perhaps worth noting that renewables are getting cheaper every year whilst gas is fairly stable however.

On the other hand, I work for a large beverage company. We're working on moving away from at nat gas for thermal energy across our network globally and installing anaerobic digesters at each large plant. At some we can do the combined thermal / electrical thing and eliminate our electricity spend too.

On the one hand, this is good for the environment and gives marketing a good story (they claim that a 100% pricing premium is possible for products in our sector with an eco story in the US). On a more pragmatic level it allows us to generate value from a waste stream, eliminate a global natural gas bill that runs to tens, maybe hundreds of millions worldwide, and even sell the excess methane back into the grid. This is just good business. Even ignoring the soft benefits, any project that offers millions in savings and offers a payback of less than 5 years is worth looking at I'd say. The same can be said for energy recovery, process eficiencies, small scale renewable installations in the correct locations. Personally I'm not that fussed about emissions, but I am very interested in efficiency and cost savings. Eco measures, done properly, help me with this goal.

It isn't merely that these so-called improvements won't make people's lives better, they will in fact make them worse because they are less efficient. If an average person's utility bill goes up, then they have fewer coins with which to purchase other things, coins which would still be there if energy production were cheaper (like it would be with NG and nuclear).

 

[Pheroze]

The environmental movement needs to settle down and jettison the wackiest and impetuous amongst them. But, before this all took off, I hated what I saw as the Oil cartel - basically four or five companies, OPEC etc setting the standard of living for the world. Diluting that strangle hold is still a good thing to achieve. Maybe if done correctly there will be more competition in the energy sector.

 

[sgt_zim]

One cost of solar that NOBODY seems to have considered is disposal. Those panels contain rare earth, toxic metals. They can't just be thrown in a landfill.

 

[sgt_zim]

The environmental movement needs to settle down and jettison the wackiest and impetuous amongst them. But, before this all took off, I hated what I saw as the Oil cartel - basically four or five companies, OPEC etc setting the standard of living for the world. Diluting that strangle hold is still a good thing to achieve. Maybe if done correctly there will be more competition in the energy sector.

If it is done/mandated by government, it will necessarily be more expensive. Otherwise, businesses would already be doing it to turn a profit. If business isn't already doing it, it's because it is too inefficient - which is to say there is too much input and not enough output.

efficiency/economy means...
same inputs to achieve more outputs
fewer inputs to achieve same outputs
and ideally,
fewer inputs to achieve more outputs.

Renewable energy requires more inputs to achieve fewer outputs. That is absolutely the worst case.

 

[Pheroze]

If it is done/mandated by government, it will necessarily be more expensive.

Government will always have a hand in changing market conditions when there is a virtual monopoly - we see it with with Marconi machine, Microsoft and the beer cartels that paid for the British empire's expansion. I agree with you, however, that the way it influences, or forces, the market change will have a direct impact on the most vulnerable in society. In Canada the government has already identified the problem with our new taxes (I think they call it energy poverty or something). I do not see it as an either/or proposition. It is tied into so many other societal problems, to wit:

 

[Red Leg]

Biden is pandering to his environmental base. If a few Canadian First Nation people are ruined, that is the price, in his mind, of simply maintaining his coalition.

He will be under tremendous pressure to do the same to the coal industry in this country. Needing to keep Senator Manchin (Dem WV) in the fold will complicate that calculus a little.

 

[Foxi]

At what cost to the consumer via utility bill, and also to the consumer via taxation? I suspect the price is WAY higher anything else except wood.

To progress means to become more efficient over time. Germany is headed the other way. If you guys keep this up, you won't be Europe's industrial powerhouse for long.

It is certainly not as easy to define progress as just being efficient.
As an example, promote your product to a large, international, western company.
If you are not :
environmentally
politically correct
socially in consensus with others
certified and act in consensus with others, they don't care about your efficiency and they will give you not a chance to talk with them.
The parameters have shifted and it would be ideal, if the deputy CEO belonged to the third gender.

I also fear, that we will crash economically, but who should overtake us in Europe?
There is no one far and wide.
We sinking together.
You will be flooded by people from South America and we from Africa.
Carpe diem