Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Environment

Environment Environmental Politics Forum - Environmental issues, global warming, pollution, and proposals


Thanks Tree46Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 11th, 2017, 08:05 AM   #51
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Katmandu
Posts: 4,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clara007 View Post
AND once again the U.S. is no longer LEADING the world in innovation, technology and science. We seem to fall further and further behind as our politics becomes more important than our progress.
The European countries (who seem to bear the brunt of RW jokes) are moving forward and where are we?? Still fighting in D.C. over stupid political footballs, including climate change, alternative energy and medical advances.

AND Trump's motto?? Make America Great Again?? How is that possible when our lawmakers can't even agree within their own party? Trump is reversing the progress made under Obama in areas of environment, including withdrawing from the Paris Climate deal.

The GOP has always wanted to maintain our global leadership, while longing to be BACK in Mayberry RFD...and that's where we're headed.
Banning gas vehicles and cutting nuclear back to 50% of their generation sources are stupid moves by France, based on politics and mis-information not science.
Libertine is online now  
Old July 11th, 2017, 09:03 AM   #52
Senior Member
 
justoneman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 2,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
Banning gas vehicles and cutting nuclear back to 50% of their generation sources are stupid moves by France, based on politics and mis-information not science.
Of course it is. Replace gas vehicles with electric vehicles would intensely increase electric needs in France. i drive an all electric car to work everyday.there is about a 20% or more increase in my electric bill. If France ups electric demand 20% and cuts nuclear power by 50%, there is a real math problem there.
Thanks from Sabcat
justoneman is offline  
Old July 11th, 2017, 10:08 AM   #53
Senior Member
 
Clara007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 6,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
Banning gas vehicles and cutting nuclear back to 50% of their generation sources are stupid moves by France, based on politics and mis-information not science.


Right! AND this is exactly WHY your 'team' is called the REGRESSIVES. Let's take a walk down memory lane.

Look at another transition — from the horse to the horseless carriage. That wasn’t swift and painless either, but SOMEONE (an American) had something called VISION, although the credit for the first "car" is given to Karl Benz in Germany.
In 1903 the U.S. had less than 30,000 miles of roads which were dirt tracks. Enter, the horseless carriage. They were viewed with suspicion....laughed at and hollered at: GET A HORSE!! It took 50 years to convince travelers, farmers, families and businesses to make the switch.
Henry Ford got his first look at the gas-powered engine in the late 1800s and it was love at first sight. While everyone else ridiculed such an incredible idea--a daunting task--Ford moved forward creating an industry that changed the entire world. He built cars that were within the economic reach of average Americans. Because of Ford, more roads were built. Highways were paved. Jobs were created. Assembly lines appeared. Minimum wage increased--NO WAY! Hours were cut??? Horrors! The industrial world was shocked, and other car makers condemned Ford’s move as cutting into profits—but followed suit.
There were others who had vision, from the light bulb to the internet. From the laser to chemo. From LED to GPS......the list goes on. It is Americans who have been.....what's the word....PROGRESSIVE!! They've had vision and brought this country into the 21st Century successfully.

The Party of NO needs to step aside and let our American genius move forward. If you don't like it, you can always move to a lovely place called Zimbabwe.
You'll be happier there. Very little progress. Lots of gas vehicles. ENJOY!

https://www.fastcompany.com/3002809/...urself-failure

Last edited by Clara007; July 14th, 2017 at 06:47 AM.
Clara007 is offline  
Old July 11th, 2017, 10:18 AM   #54
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Katmandu
Posts: 4,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clara007 View Post
Right! AND this is exactly WHY your 'team' is called the REGRESSIVES. Let's take a walk down memory lane.

Look at another transition ó from the horse to the horseless carriage. That wasnít swift and painless either, but SOMEONE (an American) had something called VISION, although the credit for the first "car" is given to Karl Benz in Germany.
In 1903 the U.S. had less than 30,000 miles of roads which were dirt tracks. Enter, the horseless carriage. They were viewed with suspicion....laughed at and hollered at: GET A HORSE!! It took 50 years to convince travelers, farmers, families and businesses to make the switch.
Henry Ford got his first look at the gas-powered engine in the late 1800s and it was love at first sight. While everyone else ridiculed such an incredible idea--a daunting task--Ford moved forward creating an industry that changed the entire world. He built cars that were within the economic reach of average Americans. Because of Ford, more roads were built. Highways were paved. Jobs were created. Assembly lines appeared. Minimum wage increased--NO WAY! Hours were cut??? Horrors! The industrial world was shocked, and other car makers condemned Fordís move as cutting into profitsóbut followed suit.
There were others who had vision, from the light bulb to the internet. From the laser to chemo. From LED to GPS......the list goes on. It is Americans who have been.....what's the word....PROGRESSIVE!! They've had vision and brought this country into the 21st Century successfully.

The Party of NO needs to step aside and let our American genius move forward. If you don't like it, you can always move to a lovely place called Zimbabwe.
You'll be happier there. Very little progress. Lots of gas vehicles. ENJOY!
In your analogy Germany and the US would have banned horses.
Libertine is online now  
Old July 13th, 2017, 08:37 PM   #55
Senior Member
 
baloney_detector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by guy39 View Post
Lets start with an easy one
Solyndra.
Ok, lets move up another notch

Obama-backed green energy failures leave taxpayers with $2.2 billion tab, audit finds - Washington Times
List: 36 Of Obama?s Taxpayer-Funded Green Energy Failures - Fox Nation

Ya got me though. Its Billions so far not trillions. Oh, well its just someone else money right
Actually, the links you provided cannot be used by themselves to determine that "Billions so far not trillions" of "government money (is) being pissed away."

Indeed, the DOE loan program-related $2.2 billion figure is just an estimate, of which is likely to change-and does change quite regularly-because it is partially based upon variable costs (such administration fees) that occur during the lifetime of said program. Granted, at the end of the loan program that figure could be even higher. However, that cited estimated "tab" from a few years ago, as well as today, is actually significantly lower than the amount that it was expected to be by the people who developed that loan program...which means that program is actually performing better financially than anticipate at the start of said loan program.

(It should also be noted that $2.2 billion figure doesn't include any savings that the American public sees from the reduction of external costs that result from the reduction in the use of fossil fuels.)

Additionally, the dollar figures in the other cited article reflect monies that were only approved of for those cited companies, and not actually monies that were dispersed to said companies. And while some of those companies had received said monies prior to filling bankruptcy, other companies in that listing had not received any of that money they had been approved for prior to filling bankruptcy. Also, some of those companies had reached bankruptcy settlements in which they were required to pay back at least a portion of the loan monies that had been dispersed to them.

So, not only did you evidently exaggerate with your "trillions" claim, you also appear to not have a clue what that actual figure happens to be.

Lastly, the US government always spends someone else's money, so to speak. And the only true difference between yourself and I is in how we want our tax dollars spent by said government.

baloney_detector is offline  
Old July 14th, 2017, 05:43 AM   #56
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 53,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
I don't think that E is economically viable though I am fairly certain that there is little to no difference in many import cars that go to the states VS brazil.

I can run e85 in mine w/ just a tune but my lpfp will shit the bed and i assume that it would be rough on the internals. Point being that the designes are very similar. But I do recall reading that calories used to create e85 are greater than those that are created and removing the government subsidized corn from the equation and no one would make it. That was some time ago and it very well could have been a propaganda piece but adding in all of the oil in the materials it sounded spot on to me.
Corn-based ethanol was and is a political boondoggle, thank you GW and Obama.

However, science never stops progressing.

Quote:
Researchers accidentally turn carbon dioxide into ethanol

Science has a long and storied history of looking for one thing but finding something better instead. Penicillin, radioactivity, science boxes...I mean microwave ovens -- all of these discoveries came in the the search for something else. On Monday, researchers at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee announced that they too had unintentionally discovered something incredible: a means of transforming carbon dioxide directly into ethanol using a single catalyst.

The team was already looking for a way to convert C02 into ethanol but were convinced that doing so would require multiple steps and catalysts. Turns out they were wrong. The system is surprisingly simple. The team created a tiny array of nanoscale copper and carbon spikes mounted on a silicon surface. A nanodroplet of nitrogen sits on the tip of each point. When exposed to carbon dioxide and a small electrical charge, this catalyst sets off an complex chain reaction that essentially reverses the combustion process and converts the gas into liquid ethanol. What's more, because the catalyst is so small, there is virtually no side reactions so the ethanol is quite pure. I mean, you wouldn't want to make a martini with it but it can go straight into a generator and work. Plus, the entire reaction works at room temperature.
More: https://www.engadget.com/2016/10/18/...-into-ethanol/
Thanks from Sabcat
imaginethat is offline  
Old July 14th, 2017, 06:32 AM   #57
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 5,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector View Post
Actually, the links you provided cannot be used by themselves to determine that "Billions so far not trillions" of "government money (is) being pissed away."

Indeed, the DOE loan program-related $2.2 billion figure is just an estimate, of which is likely to change-and does change quite regularly-because it is partially based upon variable costs (such administration fees) that occur during the lifetime of said program. Granted, at the end of the loan program that figure could be even higher. However, that cited estimated "tab" from a few years ago, as well as today, is actually significantly lower than the amount that it was expected to be by the people who developed that loan program...which means that program is actually performing better financially than anticipate at the start of said loan program.

(It should also be noted that $2.2 billion figure doesn't include any savings that the American public sees from the reduction of external costs that result from the reduction in the use of fossil fuels.)

Additionally, the dollar figures in the other cited article reflect monies that were only approved of for those cited companies, and not actually monies that were dispersed to said companies. And while some of those companies had received said monies prior to filling bankruptcy, other companies in that listing had not received any of that money they had been approved for prior to filling bankruptcy. Also, some of those companies had reached bankruptcy settlements in which they were required to pay back at least a portion of the loan monies that had been dispersed to them.

So, not only did you evidently exaggerate with your "trillions" claim, you also appear to not have a clue what that actual figure happens to be.

Lastly, the US government always spends someone else's money, so to speak. And the only true difference between yourself and I is in how we want our tax dollars spent by said government.

This whole program is a PRIME example of PRIVATE PROFIT and but government LOSS.

If the government collected even a portion of the interest that was collected by the banks that actually make the loans (the government doesn't actually make the loans, they simply guarantee them) the program WOULD HAVE MADE MONEY. Many many other companies (INCLUDING FORD) took out these government back loans and repaid them with interest.
BubbaJones is online now  
Old July 14th, 2017, 06:57 AM   #58
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 53,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaJones View Post
This whole program is a PRIME example of PRIVATE PROFIT and but government LOSS.

If the government collected even a portion of the interest that was collected by the banks that actually make the loans (the government doesn't actually make the loans, they simply guarantee them) the program WOULD HAVE MADE MONEY. Many many other companies (INCLUDING FORD) took out these government back loans and repaid them with interest.
What did the government lose, Bubba?
imaginethat is offline  
Old July 14th, 2017, 07:03 AM   #59
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 5,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
What did the government lose, Bubba?
The DOE program is a LOAN GUARANTEE program. When any of the companies defaulted on their loans, the GOVERNMENT pays the bank !!!! When Solyndra went under, the GOVERNMENT had to pay off their loans.

This is my point, the government SHOULD collect a percentage of the INTEREST the BANKS charge for these loans. If they had, the interested earned would have more than offset the losses.
Thanks from imaginethat
BubbaJones is online now  
Old July 14th, 2017, 09:07 AM   #60
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 24,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Corn-based ethanol was and is a political boondoggle, thank you GW and Obama.

However, science never stops progressing.



More: https://www.engadget.com/2016/10/18/...-into-ethanol/
Here's the Oak Ridge publication on it with a bit more detail. Not a full scale paper though. https://www.ornl.gov/news/nano-spike...rectly-ethanol
Thanks from imaginethat
RNG is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Environment

Tags
2040, ban, diesel, france, petrol, sale, set, vehicles



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Four major cities move to ban diesel vehicles by 2025 RNG Environment 1 December 2nd, 2016 09:37 AM
Cooling Trend Through 2040? excalibur Current Events 80 February 1st, 2014 12:00 AM
Petrol dollar death rattle. pana8 Current Events 0 November 11th, 2013 04:32 AM
Obama Budget Slashes Clean Diesel Funding npr Current Events 0 February 16th, 2011 12:00 AM
Daily Petrol Consumption per Country tadpole256 Business & Industries 7 August 2nd, 2010 12:05 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.