The Lexington Project - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-03-2008, 03:28 AM   #91
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 08:19 AM
I feel like I should split this thread because there are obviously two separate tracks going, but I'm really loath to create a thread on the theme 'Air Your Grievances With Other FYMers Here!!!' and I can't think of a more constructive way to package it.

I don't want to get into pointing out destructive things particular posters may have been doing at the moment, but I do think it'd be very helpful if everyone made an effort (not just in here, but with the campaign threads in general) to minimize throwing-down-the-gauntlet type statements, whether on the thread topic or (even worse) about other posters. Stuff to the effect of 'More brainless pandering from [candidate's name] ' or 'This election is about _______, and if you can't accept that you're deluded' or 'You ________ supporters need to wake up and admit your candidate doesn't have a clue'.

I know that probably all sounds like so much rinky-dink nicety, and in theory we probably all ought to be able to shrug off that sort of hyperbole, but The Horse Race seems to have our collective nerves worn down and I think many of us often come in here looking for an excuse to go, 'Aha! See, you're so fixated on who you (don't) want to win that you can't even debate an issue clearly anymore,' then mentally write that poster off. And when you make those throw-down-the-gauntlet posts in a climate like that, not only do you wind up inviting that verdict, but you also give the impression that the feeling is mutual. Which might be true at that moment!--but I know most people in here are capable of much more this kind of brinksmanship, so long as they don't feel backed into a corner.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 07-03-2008, 03:58 AM   #92
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 08:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty Bottoms View Post
Since melon has convinced me that nuclear power is the way to go when it comes to energy
If you (or melon, or anyone really) are still following this, I'd love to hear a little more about why. How much of our total energy supply should we aim to have it meet; how realistic is funding, building and fueling that many new nuclear plants on McCain's proposed timeframe going to be; what about the waste and the NIMBY problem; etc.

I'm also skeptical about how much time more offshore drilling will buy us, and about how realistic the timeframe is--
Energy Information Administration (eia.doe.gov), 2007:
[q]The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.[/q]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Vega View Post
Clean Coal technologies so far are pretty bad. They lower the efficiency rate to around 30 percent. Not that they shouldn't be developed and researched further, but I think priority should be to develop other means of energy production and energy saving more.

But like with the oil one thing is for sure: Instead of exploiting more and more deposits focus should lie on how to reduce energy consumption altogether, in the US, the greatest energy consumer on earth, in Europe and in all other parts of the world.
'Clean' coal is really more about acid rain reduction anyway. And yes, any energy strategy that doesn't put reducing energy consumption front and center (with specifics) isn't long-term viable.


Agreed with the general assessment that ethanol production, at least as we now know it, is a dead-end and Obama's beholdenness to it is definitely one of his weak points.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 07-03-2008, 07:22 AM   #93
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 02:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
If you (or melon, or anyone really) are still following this, I'd love to hear a little more about why. How much of our total energy supply should we aim to have it meet; how realistic is funding, building and fueling that many new nuclear plants on McCain's proposed timeframe going to be; what about the waste and the NIMBY problem; etc.
For me, it's the timeframe that's most troubling.

We have never been completely successful with providing clean nuclear energy. It is but for the grace of God that we have not had more disasters or calamities. I am not simply referring to developing countries where safety standards are questionable. Japan had 2 or 3 severe problems even as recently as a decade ago, and we have seen similar scale ones in western Europe as well (France comes to mind, sometime in the mid-90s, I remember I was just starting high school). The existing Canadian ones desperately need upgrading and nobody is spending the $ because the costs are extreme and the public is already hostile to having these in their neighbourhoods. There was a report commissioned a couple of years ago detailing the very many, many likely bad case scenarios that may arise as a result.

So to pump out dozens of these massive plants (I also think the McCain people terribly underestimate the cost of building them, nevermind the astronomical costs of litigation that will arise in each and every instance by communities that are hostile) in a few short decades when, if we're being honest, we have not cared to properly maintain the existing ones, seems very shortsighted.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 07-03-2008, 11:47 AM   #94
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 02:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
Agreed with the general assessment that ethanol production, at least as we now know it, is a dead-end and Obama's beholdenness to it is definitely one of his weak points.
Obama supports expanding research and deployment of cellulosic (not corn) ethanol on his website. As the table below indicates, this type of ethanol (e.g. switchgrass) has a greener profile, but the technology is still being worked on.

__________________
ntalwar is offline  
Old 07-03-2008, 12:40 PM   #95
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,731
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
'Air Your Grievances With Other FYMers Here!!!'
Oh, is Festivus coming early this year?

(sorry, couldn't resist. Carry on.)
__________________

__________________
corianderstem is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com