Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 43
  1. #1
    Speechless
    Points: 717,740, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 38.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranCreated Album pictures50000 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    A pineapple under the sea
    Posts
    45,672
    Points
    717,740
    Level
    100
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 433
    Given: 234

    Bad sign of things to come

    Coal-Fired Power Plant Blocked in Iowa

    I also read that Kansas rejected a coal plant on similar grounds. Get ready for much higher electric bills. I can get with rejecting it on the grounds of different pollutants, but carbon dioxide? Coal is ridiculously abundant in the US. At a time when we really need to be focusing on domestic energy independence, this is a setback.



  2. #2
    All-Star Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,384
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Re: Bad sign of things to come

    The elegance of the "global warming chicken little freakazoids" is that they found a natural phenomenon that has occured since the beginning of time, and linked it to something so plentiful (CO2 levels) that an increase or decrease cannot be measured or proven. The human caused global warming "scam" is political/social snake oil of the highest order.


    A ship in port is safe, but that is not what ships are built for.


    A Man Is What He Does When It Counts

  3. #3
    Speechless
    Points: 294,150, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 17.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points
    bawbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Cedar Rapids, IA
    Posts
    17,263
    Points
    294,150
    Level
    100
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 49
    Given: 180

    Re: Bad sign of things to come

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclonepride View Post
    Coal-Fired Power Plant Blocked in Iowa

    I also read that Kansas rejected a coal plant on similar grounds. Get ready for much higher electric bills. I can get with rejecting it on the grounds of different pollutants, but carbon dioxide? Coal is ridiculously abundant in the US. At a time when we really need to be focusing on domestic energy independence, this is a setback.

    Did you even read the article?

    The plant was objected to because Waterloo tried to annex people's farm land in a way that didn't meet state law.

    Also, I know quite a bit about this proposal, this plant was going to be owned by a New Jersey company, burn coal from Wyoming, and ship the power to other states. All Iowa was getting out of it was pollution.

    And whether you like it or not, carbon dioxide is a pollutant, the conservative supreme court has said it must be regulated like a pollutant, and there will be caps on carbon dioxide. There is no current need for these power plants. They are just trying to get them in before any carbon cap is passed by congress.

    If this gets you all , then prepare to be some more, as there are coal plants all over being stopped, including one in South Dakota and one in Marshalltown.

    Why not invest in energy solutions that actually don't pollute?



  4. #4
    All-Star Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,384
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Re: Bad sign of things to come

    And WHICH energy solutions don't pollute?

    (I'm sitting quietly, waiting for pure unadulterated naivete')


    A ship in port is safe, but that is not what ships are built for.


    A Man Is What He Does When It Counts

  5. #5
    Starter
    Points: 10,728, Level: 31
    Level completed: 26%, Points required for next Level: 522
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    loboclone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Rio Rancho, New Mexico
    Posts
    807
    Points
    10,728
    Level
    31
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Re: Bad sign of things to come

    Nuke it............



  6. #6
    Speechless
    Points: 717,740, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 38.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranCreated Album pictures50000 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    A pineapple under the sea
    Posts
    45,672
    Points
    717,740
    Level
    100
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 433
    Given: 234

    Re: Bad sign of things to come

    Quote Originally Posted by bawbie View Post
    Did you even read the article?

    The plant was objected to because Waterloo tried to annex people's farm land in a way that didn't meet state law.

    Also, I know quite a bit about this proposal, this plant was going to be owned by a New Jersey company, burn coal from Wyoming, and ship the power to other states. All Iowa was getting out of it was pollution.

    And whether you like it or not, carbon dioxide is a pollutant, the conservative supreme court has said it must be regulated like a pollutant, and there will be caps on carbon dioxide. There is no current need for these power plants. They are just trying to get them in before any carbon cap is passed by congress.

    If this gets you all , then prepare to be some more, as there are coal plants all over being stopped, including one in South Dakota and one in Marshalltown.

    Why not invest in energy solutions that actually don't pollute?
    Ok, for a start, how about you quit breathing, because the air you exhale is now considered a pollutant? Even wacko environmentalists admit that we could COMPLETELY stop using all fossil fuels in the United States, completely mind you, and not make a significant change in the amount of carbon dioxide in the world as a whole. Caps do nothing but cost people more money.



  7. #7
    Speechless
    Points: 294,150, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 17.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points
    bawbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Cedar Rapids, IA
    Posts
    17,263
    Points
    294,150
    Level
    100
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 49
    Given: 180

    Re: Bad sign of things to come

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclonepride View Post
    Ok, for a start, how about you quit breathing, because the air you exhale is now considered a pollutant? Even wacko environmentalists admit that we could COMPLETELY stop using all fossil fuels in the United States, completely mind you, and not make a significant change in the amount of carbon dioxide in the world as a whole. Caps do nothing but cost people more money.
    Oh, OK, obviously we should dump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as possible then.

    I love that argument. Well, stopping polluting won't do any good so we should pollute more!



  8. #8
    Speechless
    Points: 294,150, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 17.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points
    bawbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Cedar Rapids, IA
    Posts
    17,263
    Points
    294,150
    Level
    100
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 49
    Given: 180

    Re: Bad sign of things to come

    Quote Originally Posted by herbiedoobie View Post
    And WHICH energy solutions don't pollute?

    (I'm sitting quietly, waiting for pure unadulterated naivete')
    Obviously I should have said "don't pollute as much, but still, compared to coal almost anything doesn't pollute.

    We should be expanding our wind, solar, and other non-fossil fuel based energy sources. We should be working on technology to make those source more efficient. Instead all the energy companies can do is MORE COAL, YIPPIE!!



  9. #9
    Hall-Of-Famer
    Points: 59,308, Level: 75
    Level completed: 51%, Points required for next Level: 742
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points
    Kyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,075
    Points
    59,308
    Level
    75
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Re: Bad sign of things to come

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclonepride View Post
    Caps do nothing but cost people more money.
    Oil will continue to steadily increase in price. Simple rules of supply and demand dictate this as production is past its peak and demand is increasing exponentially. Given this fact, and our high dependency on oil, we badly need to develop new technologies to meet our energy needs from even a purely economic standpoint. A carbon cap right now makes research and development of new technologies more economically appealing and can thus spur the innovation we will need in the future.



  10. #10
    Legend
    Points: 174,241, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 3.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    alaskaguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    10,204
    Points
    174,241
    Level
    100
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 6
    Given: 1

    Re: Bad sign of things to come

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle View Post
    Oil will continue to steadily increase in price. Simple rules of supply and demand dictate this as production is past its peak and demand is increasing exponentially. Given this fact, and our high dependency on oil, we badly need to develop new technologies to meet our energy needs from even a purely economic standpoint. A carbon cap right now makes research and development of new technologies more economically appealing and can thus spur the innovation we will need in the future.
    The facts are nearly the opposite.

    It is not evident that production is past its peak.

    Demand is not increasing exponentially. In fact, from a global prospective it has stalled. I could even make a case that we are at "Peak Demand."

    There is dependency on oil. However, the dependency has been reduced significantly compared to twenty years ago. The primary reason that we are dependent on oil is that in most cases it continues to be the least costly energy source.

    Oil is currently in a bull market. In a bull market anything can happen. The NASDAQ hit 5000 in 1999 and arguments were fashioned to support that price.

    Using economics a persuasive argument can be made that oil is grossly overpriced and a substantial drop in its price is likely.



  11. #11
    Legend
    Points: 174,241, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 3.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    alaskaguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    10,204
    Points
    174,241
    Level
    100
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 6
    Given: 1

    Re: Bad sign of things to come

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle View Post
    Oil will continue to steadily increase in price. Simple rules of supply and demand dictate this as production is past its peak and demand is increasing exponentially. Given this fact, and our high dependency on oil, we badly need to develop new technologies to meet our energy needs from even a purely economic standpoint. A carbon cap right now makes research and development of new technologies more economically appealing and can thus spur the innovation we will need in the future.
    If you are convinced that oil will "continue to steadily increase in price" I recommend that you purchase as many crude oil futures contracts as you possibly can.



  12. #12
    Speechless
    Points: 717,740, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 38.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranCreated Album pictures50000 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    A pineapple under the sea
    Posts
    45,672
    Points
    717,740
    Level
    100
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 433
    Given: 234

    Re: Bad sign of things to come

    I read the other day that an oil markets expert said that there is really no factual data support the current prices on oil. It's just all speculation based on instability in oil rich areas. Not to mention, new technologies are being developed that increase the oil available to us.

    I agree that we should be working towards alternative forms of energy, and also at finding cleaner ways to extract the energy from coal. I also did read the article. If it was denied because of land use issues, then fine. But don't throw out the global warming BS argument then.



  13. #13
    Hall-Of-Famer
    Points: 59,308, Level: 75
    Level completed: 51%, Points required for next Level: 742
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points
    Kyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,075
    Points
    59,308
    Level
    75
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Re: Bad sign of things to come

    Quote Originally Posted by alaskaguy View Post
    If you are convinced that oil will "continue to steadily increase in price" I recommend that you purchase as many crude oil futures contracts as you possibly can.
    If I had any substantial capital I might consider it. My student loans don't provide a lot of investment options.



  14. #14
    Hall-Of-Famer
    Points: 76,860, Level: 86
    Level completed: 18%, Points required for next Level: 1,490
    Overall activity: 10.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points
    Incyte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,640
    Points
    76,860
    Level
    86
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 48
    Given: 5

    Re: Bad sign of things to come

    Quote Originally Posted by bawbie View Post
    We should be expanding our wind, solar, and other non-fossil fuel based energy sources. We should be working on technology to make those source more efficient. Instead all the energy companies can do is MORE COAL, YIPPIE!!
    If we relied on wind and solar energy as primary energy sources in Iowa we quickly would get reaffiliated with the phrase "rolling blackout."

    The only non-fossel fuel based energy source worth thinking about is nuclear. Just ask the former head of GreenPeace

    http://www.cleansafeenergy.org/LinkC...y+Statement+-+

    I don't think the link works:

    Statement of Dr. Patrick Moore
    Co-Founder and former leader, Greenpeace
    Co-Chair, CASEnergy Coalition
    U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
    Tuesday, January 30, 2007
    CLIMATE CHANGE SOLUTIONS MUST INCLUDE NUCLEAR ENERGY
    The climate change debate has made one thing abundantly clear: Global warming is an
    environmental reality that requires action. Our nation must step up to the challenge of
    reducing greenhouse gas emissions and I commend the Committee and Chairman
    Boxer in particular for holding today’s hearing.
    As the co-founder and former head of Greenpeace, and an environmentalist, I feel
    compelled to speak to the clean air benefits of nuclear energy and the need for our
    nation to embrace nuclear energy as a key component of any greenhouse gas mitigation
    strategy.
    Nuclear energy plays the single-largest role in the U.S. electric industry’s contribution to
    greenhouse gas emissions reductions. According to the newly released annual report to
    the U.S. Department of Energy from Power Partners—a voluntary partnership between
    DOE and the electric power industry—nuclear energy accounted for 54 percent of
    greenhouse gas reductions reported, the equivalent of taking 100 million automobiles off
    the road.
    Furthermore, nuclear energy has the smallest environmental impact of any clean-air
    electricity source. Nuclear power produces no controlled air pollutants during daily
    operations. According to the University of Wisconsin, the life-cycle emissions of nuclear
    energy are lower than coal, natural gas, hydropower, biomass, and solar. The only
    electricity sources with lower life-cycle emissions are wind and geothermal.
    Nuclear energy accounts for 90 percent of all electric utility reduction in carbon dioxide
    emissions since 1973.
    At present, approximately 30 percent of America’s electricity comes from sources that
    produce no air emissions or greenhouse gases: nuclear energy, hydroelectric power,
    wind and solar. Nuclear energy alone produces electricity for one of every five U.S.
    homes and businesses. That means 60 million homes in America use electricity
    generated from nuclear energy supplies.
    607 Fourteenth Street, NW
    Suite 300
    Washington, DC 20005
    Phone: 202-338-CASE (2273)
    Fax: 202-337-4230
    CASEnergy Home
    There is no single solution to the United States’ rising electricity demands. But, with 50
    percent more electricity needed by 2030 to keep all aspects of American life powered, a
    plan needs to be put in place now to address this demand in a manner that protects our
    environment.
    In its October 2006 report, A Progressive Energy Platform, the Progressive Policy
    Institute urges the nation to “Expand nuclear power…It produces no greenhouse gas
    emissions, so it can help clean up the air and combat climate change. And new plant
    designs promise to produce power more safely and economically than first-generation
    facilities.”
    I agree with PPI. Nuclear energy is clean, safe, affordable and reliable—and needs to
    be part of the climate change solution. This is something that all Americans should
    embrace on a bipartisan basis.
    I encourage this Committee and the Congress to take the appropriate steps to ensure
    the expansion of nuclear power so we can truly achieve the emission savings that our
    nation and the world so desperately need.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Dr. Patrick Moore
    Co-Founder and former leader, Greenpeace
    Co-Chair, CASEnergy Coalition
    The CASEnergy Coalition is an advocacy group dedicated to bringing together
    consumers, conservationists, academics, health care advocates, labor organizations,
    environmentalists, and community leaders who believe greater use of nuclear energy is
    critical to a U.S. energy policy that will meet our nation’s needs today and in the future.


    Last edited by Incyte; 10-24-2007 at 01:38 PM.
    “Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge, which is power; religion gives man wisdom, which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary.”

    Martin Luther King Jr.

  15. #15
    Starter
    Points: 7,638, Level: 26
    Level completed: 15%, Points required for next Level: 512
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    840
    Points
    7,638
    Level
    26
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Re: Bad sign of things to come

    I agree that nuclear power should play a key role in future energy solutions, but your quote actually contradicts your inference of "[t]he only non-fossel fuel based energy source worth thinking about is nuclear."

    In my opinion, both wind and nuclear energy should play a key part in the future. Wind energy has an enormous untapped potential and is viable right now in certain location. (From my understanding, the technical difficulties have more to do with storage and transmission, rather than generation.) Solar energy is likely to play only a minor role to mitigate some peak demand. But since satisfying peak demand is a real issue, it is worthwhile to look at solar in that context.


    Quote Originally Posted by Incyte View Post
    If we relied on wind and solar energy as primary energy sources in Iowa we quickly would get reaffiliated with the phrase "rolling blackout."

    The only non-fossel fuel based energy source worth thinking about is nuclear. Just ask the former head of GreenPeace

    http://www.cleansafeenergy.org/LinkC...y+Statement+-+

    I don't think the link works:

    Statement of Dr. Patrick Moore
    Co-Founder and former leader, Greenpeace
    Co-Chair, CASEnergy Coalition
    U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
    Tuesday, January 30, 2007
    CLIMATE CHANGE SOLUTIONS MUST INCLUDE NUCLEAR ENERGY
    The climate change debate has made one thing abundantly clear: Global warming is an
    environmental reality that requires action. Our nation must step up to the challenge of
    reducing greenhouse gas emissions and I commend the Committee and Chairman
    Boxer in particular for holding today’s hearing.
    As the co-founder and former head of Greenpeace, and an environmentalist, I feel
    compelled to speak to the clean air benefits of nuclear energy and the need for our
    nation to embrace nuclear energy as a key component of any greenhouse gas mitigation
    strategy.
    Nuclear energy plays the single-largest role in the U.S. electric industry’s contribution to
    greenhouse gas emissions reductions. According to the newly released annual report to
    the U.S. Department of Energy from Power Partners—a voluntary partnership between
    DOE and the electric power industry—nuclear energy accounted for 54 percent of
    greenhouse gas reductions reported, the equivalent of taking 100 million automobiles off
    the road.
    Furthermore, nuclear energy has the smallest environmental impact of any clean-air
    electricity source. Nuclear power produces no controlled air pollutants during daily
    operations. According to the University of Wisconsin, the life-cycle emissions of nuclear
    energy are lower than coal, natural gas, hydropower, biomass, and solar. The only
    electricity sources with lower life-cycle emissions are wind and geothermal.
    Nuclear energy accounts for 90 percent of all electric utility reduction in carbon dioxide
    emissions since 1973.
    At present, approximately 30 percent of America’s electricity comes from sources that
    produce no air emissions or greenhouse gases: nuclear energy, hydroelectric power,
    wind and solar. Nuclear energy alone produces electricity for one of every five U.S.
    homes and businesses. That means 60 million homes in America use electricity
    generated from nuclear energy supplies.
    607 Fourteenth Street, NW
    Suite 300
    Washington, DC 20005
    Phone: 202-338-CASE (2273)
    Fax: 202-337-4230
    CASEnergy Home
    There is no single solution to the United States’ rising electricity demands. But, with 50
    percent more electricity needed by 2030 to keep all aspects of American life powered, a
    plan needs to be put in place now to address this demand in a manner that protects our
    environment.
    In its October 2006 report, A Progressive Energy Platform, the Progressive Policy
    Institute urges the nation to “Expand nuclear power…It produces no greenhouse gas
    emissions, so it can help clean up the air and combat climate change. And new plant
    designs promise to produce power more safely and economically than first-generation
    facilities.”
    I agree with PPI. Nuclear energy is clean, safe, affordable and reliable—and needs to
    be part of the climate change solution. This is something that all Americans should
    embrace on a bipartisan basis.
    I encourage this Committee and the Congress to take the appropriate steps to ensure
    the expansion of nuclear power so we can truly achieve the emission savings that our
    nation and the world so desperately need.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Dr. Patrick Moore
    Co-Founder and former leader, Greenpeace
    Co-Chair, CASEnergy Coalition
    The CASEnergy Coalition is an advocacy group dedicated to bringing together
    consumers, conservationists, academics, health care advocates, labor organizations,
    environmentalists, and community leaders who believe greater use of nuclear energy is
    critical to a U.S. energy policy that will meet our nation’s needs today and in the future.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
  • Football
  • Iowa State vs. North Dakota State
  • August 30, 2014
  • 06:00 PM