Tin foil hat on, dude.Originally Posted by Gillvane
Tin foil hat on, dude.
*Balanced audio hack* *Variable ND filters* *HV20 vs. Film* "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (George Orwell: Animal Farm)
Bill Gates' talk on the subject, pretty interesting:
http://blog.ted.com/2010/02/18/innovating_to_z/
*Balanced audio hack* *Variable ND filters* *HV20 vs. Film* "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (George Orwell: Animal Farm)
Bill Gates is a Billionaire. He's not affected by wealth redistribution programs like cap and tax schemes. It's like Al Gore telling you to buy a Prius, while he flies around burning jet fuel in a private jet. Not very persuasive.
On the building clean energy plants, I definitely agree. On the cap and tax scam, I disagree. But if I was a billionaire, sure, taxing the little people in a co2 scam might not bother me.\
I think Gates hits the nail on the head at the very end of the speech, when he basically agrees with my position 100%.
If you can produce cheap abundant energy that is better than oil I"m all for it, so then the Co2 argument becomes irrelevant. If you cannot do that, then I have no problem pumping double the Co2 into the atmosphere than we're doing now.
So that should be the goal. Producing cheap abundant energy, NOT reducing Co2. It's a win win for everyone. Why fight against me, when you could work with me and get exactly what you want? makes no sense.
I have no problem funding Research and Development. No problem spending money on building clean energy plants.
I will not vote for corrupt Cap and Tax scams that do not create any clean energy, but instead waste money on wealth redistribution. Gates seems to agree with me at the end of the speech.
Last edited by Gillvane; 2012 February 29th at 10:49.
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
If you can show us a way to build that abundance of cheap energy fast enough to make Co2 emissions fall at the needed rate, great. I'll give you bonus points if you can show how that's done without wealth redistribution.
But until then, whatever else can be done to reduce the emissions, needs to be done. And it needs to be done NOW.
*Balanced audio hack* *Variable ND filters* *HV20 vs. Film* "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (George Orwell: Animal Farm)
That is exactly what Bill Gates is working on:
http://www.terrapower.com/home.aspx
Nothing about perfecting these technologies requires a wealth redistribution scam like Cap and Tax.
It really shows you how Cap nad Tax schemes are moot. If you can't figure out these technologies, and you don't support population reduction, NOTHING you do as far as conservation is going to stop the so-called man made warming you are worried about.
The most you can do is cause great economic harm, ESPECIALLY to low income people. Gates describes this with his formula at the very beginning.
If you DO perfect these technologies, then Co2 becomes moot. These technologies will produce more energy cheaper than oil or coal, and the free market will do the rest, no need for wealth redistribution plans like Cap and Tax which do nothing to produce clean energy.
Either way, Cap and Tax does nothing but steal from people and line the pockets of corrupt politicians, and it affects those with the least amount of income the hardest.
Cap and Tax is EXTREMELY regressive.
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
Repeating a lie does not make it true.
*Balanced audio hack* *Variable ND filters* *HV20 vs. Film* "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (George Orwell: Animal Farm)
Hey, Gil - have a look at the Energy Catalyzer.
That should solve the world's energy problem, right?
If it's a lie, feel free to prove it with links.
I've asked you a simple question.
Billions of dollars are spent on "carbon credits" in the EU.
Can you show me what that money was used for?
The people that received those billions of dollars. What did they do with it? Did they build any solar, nuclear, or wind power? Did they light cigars with 100 dollar bills? Do you have any idea what's being done with the Billions of dollars spent on carbon credits that people paid for with higher electric bills, and higher cost of goods?
Feel free to prove that Cap and Tax is not EXTREMELY regressive, hurting the poor MUCH more than the rich.
I will be happy to look at your links showing how raising energy costs on the poor isn't regressive at all. Or maybe you think it's great to put a huge regressive tax on poor people.
Last edited by Gillvane; 2012 February 29th at 14:13.
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
Are you saying the project Bill Gates is funding is a scam?Hey, Gil - have a look at the Energy Catalyzer.
That should solve the world's energy problem, right?
Fast reactors are already online in France. This is simply a more efficient design. That doesn't sound outside the realm of possibility.
It's a liquid metal cooled reactor. Those have already been built, and proven to work. It's not a crazy claim of "cold fusion" if that's what you are trying to imply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_...cooled_reactor
The huge breakthrough is that it doesn't require enriched uranium. INtead, it can run off the waste from current reactors.
How is that so hard to believe? The waste from current reactors is obviously still highly radioactive. If it wasn't we wouldn't' have a nuclear waste problem.
There's no certainty the design will work of course, because it hasn't been built yet. The Project is currently looking for a partner nation to construct the first prototype.
I hope it works. Maybe you're hoping it doesn't, I don't know.
Last edited by Gillvane; 2012 February 29th at 14:12.
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
Wrong. Burden of proof is on you, you're the one making the silly claims. Provide proof that
A) Cap and Trade does not work in reducing Co2 emissions (it does, as shown by the graph of emission statistics i posted earlier)
B) Cap and Trade steals money from people (it does not, it's a business to business solution - the criminals you linked to committed a tax fraud, thus stealing from the government, not individuals - and the one at fault here isn't Cap and Trade)
C) The money that moves in the Cap and Trade system mainly goes to politician's pockets (it does not, the money mainly moves between companies)
D) Show that Cap and Trade is extremely regressive (It's not, it only applies to big businesses, not individuals or small / medium sized companies)
...for starters. Then we'll talk. And no, repeating your own claims or echoing the claims on right wing blogs and media will not count as evidence.
Last edited by Halsu; 2012 February 29th at 14:36.
*Balanced audio hack* *Variable ND filters* *HV20 vs. Film* "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (George Orwell: Animal Farm)
Actually, it is. And it's not funded by Gates, AFAIK.
*Balanced audio hack* *Variable ND filters* *HV20 vs. Film* "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (George Orwell: Animal Farm)
Gillvane, your Terrapower thingy is a breeder type reactor. Germany has started building one in 1973 at Kalkar. It was finished in 1986, but never went into production. It's an amusement park now.
"It is dark the other side. Very dark!" - "Oh, shut up and eat your toast!"
Oh, i thought Gill meant the link Janke posted, not terrapower... silly me. Terrapower might work, but until it's shown that i does, it's pretty irrelevant for the discussion.
*Balanced audio hack* *Variable ND filters* *HV20 vs. Film* "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (George Orwell: Animal Farm)
'People
The TerraPower team includes scientists and engineers from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the Fast Flux Test Facility, Microsoft, and various universities, as well as management with experience at Siemens A.G., Areva NP, the ITER project, and the U.S. Department of Energy.'
That explains the crashes.
It's just as relevant as discussion about development of new battery technology, solar and wind power advances or any other type of energy innovation.
It's not something that's never been constructed. As mentioned, it's a breeder reactor. There are breeder reactors online, right now.
This is simply a BETTER breeder reactor, no different than a better solar cell, a better battery for cars, a better windmill, better biofuel production, etc. If you want to say no one should discuss any of those technologies either, ok fine.
The only difference here, as I stated earlier, is this reactor doesn't require enriched Uranium. There's a LOT of Uranium that is not enriched, so that means a HUGE supply of fuel. There's much less uranium that can be enriched, which means a lot less useful fuel.
If this thing works (yes, still and if) estimates are it could power the US on the radioactive waste from just one current power plant for at least 200 years.
And for you "Man is causing all the global warming, we're all gonna drown in 10 years, OMG! OMG!" types, this is ZERO carbon emissions.
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
It's certainly a possibility that terrapower will fail. However...
Japan has a fast reactor in operation right now. AFAIK fast reactor and breeder reactor are the same thing. At least they seem to have the same benefit, burning all the nuclear fuel, not just the enriched uranium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C5%8D...ear_reactor%29
Russia has a fast reactor in operation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-600
India has a fast reactor in operation, with plans to build the next generation of fast reactor based on studies of the current one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBTR
It's also existed in submarine use for sometime:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-Cooled_Fast_Reactor
Apparently Germany need to get crackin' on another breeder reactor. Technology seems to have moved forward since 1973. Other countries have already successfully operated one of these "thingys".
Last edited by Gillvane; 2012 March 1st at 12:23.
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
Where do the billions of dollars spent on buying Carbon Credits go? What do the people receiving these billions of dollars do with the money?
Do you know? If not, just say, I don't know. Maybe they buy houses on the French Riviera, maybe they build windmills, I have no idea what happens to the money.
Is Cap and Tax Regressive? Does the increased energy cost hurt the poor much more than the rich (like the people getting the billions of dollars for "carbon credits")?
Do you really think that a business cost is not passed down to consumers?
I make a tennis shoe. I spend 1 dollar on labor, one dollar on materials for a total of 2 dollars. I sell the shoe for 3 dollars.
I make 1 dollar profit, my stock holders are happy when I send them a dividend or invest in a new factory to make more shoes.
You tax me with "carbon credit". I pay one dollar for labor, one dollar for materials, one dollar for carbon credits, for a total of 3 dollars.
I now have two choices.
1. I go out of business, since I make no profit.
2. I now charge people 4 dollars for a pair of shoes.
My competitors will do the same thing, because they have to buy carbon credits too.
Who is paying for the "carbon credit"? The business, or the people buying the shoes?
Businesses don't print money. ALL money they spend comes from their customers. If a business is buying ANYTHING, the customers are paying for it. If not, the business closes it's doors.
Unless of course it's not part of the free market, and the Government is running the business off of money it collects from tax payers. In that case we just substitute customer with tax payer, which is the same person.
The businesses dont' buy carbon credits with magic and fairy dust. They charge YOU more money so they can pay for them.
It's regressive.
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
Fail; And no, repeating your own claims or echoing the claims on right wing blogs and media will not count as evidence.
*Balanced audio hack* *Variable ND filters* *HV20 vs. Film* "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (George Orwell: Animal Farm)
Gillvane wins, and I agree with him.
It's cheaper to spend the money to adapt to weather and sea changes. They will change anyways, regardless of pollution. AS a human race, I think that all countries could benefit from a better ability to improve infrastructure, in general.
Last edited by blondandfun; 2012 March 1st at 13:44.
Yes - those too are relevant only when they are actually in production, actually replace fossil fuel usage, not in some distant future but right now.
Last edited by Halsu; 2012 March 1st at 13:59.
*Balanced audio hack* *Variable ND filters* *HV20 vs. Film* "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (George Orwell: Animal Farm)
That depends on the time scale. In near future, maybe 20-30 year scale, doing nothing and coping with the change is way cheaper. In a 50-100 year time frame or longer, it's the opposite.
Nope, they do not, not at this speed and strength.They will change anyways, regardless of pollution.
Sure. So?AS a human race, I think that all countries could benefit from a better ability to improve infrastructure, in general.
*Balanced audio hack* *Variable ND filters* *HV20 vs. Film* "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (George Orwell: Animal Farm)
So? Please provide proof that the adaptation cannot be accomplished.
Gillvane, the breeder technology is stone old. In fact, one of the first nuclear reactors was a breeder.
What I was missing on that Terrapower site, was that they explained beautifully how to start the chain reaction, but there was no mention on how to control or even stop it if there is a need. This is one of the disadvantages of the breeder types.
Germany won't build any nuke plant. They are moving out of nukes completely.
"It is dark the other side. Very dark!" - "Oh, shut up and eat your toast!"
Adaption is accomplished, but it takes generations.
"It is dark the other side. Very dark!" - "Oh, shut up and eat your toast!"
And your point? The changes from the climate will also take generations, the speed at adaptation depending on free market forces. This doesn't take into account economic depressions, which might reduce pollution and global warming.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote