Three Way Discussion on Coal-Nuclear-Alternative Energy

brianlux

First of all, I totally expect and understand some of you will scream bloody murder for my creating YET ANOTHER election thread. I get it! You can always ignore it or ask the mods to trash it. But hopefully you'll take time to check out the linked video below first.

Part of my thinking here is to create a thread that addresses discussion and video, etc. that address the convolutions of a three main foci of the presidential elections: Democrats, Republicans and Third Parties. The other factor for this thread is that I couldn't decide where to post the following debate between Robert Reich and Chris Hedges who discuss the three main contenders- Trump, Clinton, Stein/Green/other Third Parties. This is not a two or three minute video so please consider either watching the video in full of ignoring this thread.

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/8/4/as_green_party_convention_opens_watch

Degeneratefk

Brian, jill isn't winning.....

brianlux

Degeneratefk said:

Brian, jill isn't winning.....

No, not at all. But for me Hedges nailed it.

But today, I let all that go. Fuckin' A... I'm still alive!

what dreams

I've taken a deliberate two week break from all forms of social media, and I find myself a much happier person. I'm only back here tonight because there's a concert, dammit!
One conclusion I've returned to in my forum break is that the best I can do is change the things I can control in my own corner of the world. I cannot change or control the way other people think or feel, and it's futile to engage in arguments with people who are hell bent on changing or controlling the way I think and feel. It is perfectly possible for intelligent people to respond to the same set of facts differently because of the unique perspectives we enjoy in life. If some people want to look at our democracy like everything in it is a crooked scam needing a revolution, they are the ones who have to live that reality. If others want to look at our democracy as an imperfect balancing act, they live that reality. If people prefer the "ignorance is bliss" option, they are entitled to live that life as well.
I've been reading a book these past two weeks about understanding how everything in the universe is connected through a spiritual energy. I've been meditating all week about how I can become a better listener so that I understand my connections to other people better. There was this beautiful section about the evidence in science for an energy source higher than we can possibly understand because of our limited perspective. One sentence really knocked me over the head: "The fact is that the sun is always shining -- we just don't always see it." It was used as a metaphor for faith, but I feel like it applies to the way we deal with people -- there are so many positive things we just don't see about others that are there, but if we change our perspective, we might get closer to it.
I have always argued, brianlux, that you should vote for whomever you felt like voting for. I have never been among the chorus who thinks you should vote for Hillary just because Trump is dangerous. If Jill Stein represents your values, and if you feel like it's important to vote your values, then that's what you should do. That's the way it's supposed to work, and nobody should ever give up that freedom.

mickeyrat

what dreams said:

I've taken a deliberate two week break from all forms of social media, and I find myself a much happier person. I'm only back here tonight because there's a concert, dammit!
One conclusion I've returned to in my forum break is that the best I can do is change the things I can control in my own corner of the world. I cannot change or control the way other people think or feel, and it's futile to engage in arguments with people who are hell bent on changing or controlling the way I think and feel. It is perfectly possible for intelligent people to respond to the same set of facts differently because of the unique perspectives we enjoy in life. If some people want to look at our democracy like everything in it is a crooked scam needing a revolution, they are the ones who have to live that reality. If others want to look at our democracy as an imperfect balancing act, they live that reality. If people prefer the "ignorance is bliss" option, they are entitled to live that life as well.
I've been reading a book these past two weeks about understanding how everything in the universe is connected through a spiritual energy. I've been meditating all week about how I can become a better listener so that I understand my connections to other people better. There was this beautiful section about the evidence in science for an energy source higher than we can possibly understand because of our limited perspective. One sentence really knocked me over the head: "The fact is that the sun is always shining -- we just don't always see it." It was used as a metaphor for faith, but I feel like it applies to the way we deal with people -- there are so many positive things we just don't see about others that are there, but if we change our perspective, we might get closer to it.
I have always argued, brianlux, that you should vote for whomever you felt like voting for. I have never been among the chorus who thinks you should vote for Hillary just because Trump is dangerous. If Jill Stein represents your values, and if you feel like it's important to vote your values, then that's what you should do. That's the way it's supposed to work, and nobody should ever give up that freedom.

or have to defend or justify it but if asked they should have the room to explain and have that taken at face value.

what dreams

Shorter post -- I watched the video. Interesting discussion. I agree with both of them :-).

Free

They were both good, but Hedges really nailed it for me.

brianlux

what dreams said:

I've taken a deliberate two week break from all forms of social media, and I find myself a much happier person. I'm only back here tonight because there's a concert, dammit!
One conclusion I've returned to in my forum break is that the best I can do is change the things I can control in my own corner of the world. I cannot change or control the way other people think or feel, and it's futile to engage in arguments with people who are hell bent on changing or controlling the way I think and feel. It is perfectly possible for intelligent people to respond to the same set of facts differently because of the unique perspectives we enjoy in life. If some people want to look at our democracy like everything in it is a crooked scam needing a revolution, they are the ones who have to live that reality. If others want to look at our democracy as an imperfect balancing act, they live that reality. If people prefer the "ignorance is bliss" option, they are entitled to live that life as well.
I've been reading a book these past two weeks about understanding how everything in the universe is connected through a spiritual energy. I've been meditating all week about how I can become a better listener so that I understand my connections to other people better. There was this beautiful section about the evidence in science for an energy source higher than we can possibly understand because of our limited perspective. One sentence really knocked me over the head: "The fact is that the sun is always shining -- we just don't always see it." It was used as a metaphor for faith, but I feel like it applies to the way we deal with people -- there are so many positive things we just don't see about others that are there, but if we change our perspective, we might get closer to it.
I have always argued, brianlux, that you should vote for whomever you felt like voting for. I have never been among the chorus who thinks you should vote for Hillary just because Trump is dangerous. If Jill Stein represents your values, and if you feel like it's important to vote your values, then that's what you should do. That's the way it's supposed to work, and nobody should ever give up that freedom.

Sounds like some great soul searching and excellent reading, what dreams. I like what you said about "the evidence in science for an energy source higher than we can possibly understand because of our limited perspective". Thank God, Buddha, Jesus, the Plum Tree in the Garden, Alla and The Big Pulsing Orb that there is still some mystery about the universe. To me that feels like freedom.

brianlux

Free said:

They were both good, but Hedges really nailed it for me.

Same here. Hedges seems very straightforward and uncompromising in his beliefs and his words reflected my thoughts quite a bit.

Reich is fine too, but he seems to be holding up a weight that is about to make his knees buckle. Kudos for his tenacity.

Degeneratefk

Jill Stein just said she wanted to zero out fossil fuels by 2030. No thanks.

rgambs

Degeneratefk said:

Jill Stein just said she wanted to zero out fossil fuels by 2030. No thanks.

Why not?
There are millions of jobs to be created and it's what we NEED to do for the future.
How will we make plastics and metals for modern life when we are out of oil because we burned it all up for energy?

Do you know how much oil is used to make an MRI machine? AMBU bags, IV tubes, syringes...the list of things we need petrochemicals to make is astounding, burning it all up is not a good idea.

Degeneratefk

rgambs said:

Degeneratefk said:

Jill Stein just said she wanted to zero out fossil fuels by 2030. No thanks.

Why not?
There are millions of jobs to be created and it's what we NEED to do for the future.
How will we make plastics and metals for modern life when we are out of oil because we burned it all up for energy?

Do you know how much oil is used to make an MRI machine? AMBU bags, IV tubes, syringes...the list of things we need petrochemicals to make is astounding, burning it all up is not a good idea.

Because regardless of what the "green" people tell you, there is no other cost effective way to produce energy than burning coal. Other than nuclear facilities. I don't see nuclear power plants popping up every where. Wind and solar are not cost effective and they can't produce the megawatts needed efficiently. Plus, that would put me out of a job. There are not enough jobs to be created that wold be lost if the coal industry was shut down. There are not millions of jobs available in the "green" market.

Degeneratefk

That is the number 1 reason why I did not vote for Obama in either election and will be the number 1 reason why I can't vote for Hilary or Jill. My livelihood literally depends on it.

rgambs

Degeneratefk said:

rgambs said:

Degeneratefk said:

Jill Stein just said she wanted to zero out fossil fuels by 2030. No thanks.

Why not?
There are millions of jobs to be created and it's what we NEED to do for the future.
How will we make plastics and metals for modern life when we are out of oil because we burned it all up for energy?

Do you know how much oil is used to make an MRI machine? AMBU bags, IV tubes, syringes...the list of things we need petrochemicals to make is astounding, burning it all up is not a good idea.

Because regardless of what the "green" people tell you, there is no other cost effective way to produce energy than burning coal. Other than nuclear facilities. I don't see nuclear power plants popping up every where. Wind and solar are not cost effective and they can't produce the megawatts needed efficiently. Plus, that would put me out of a job. There are not enough jobs to be created that wold be lost if the coal industry was shut down. There are not millions of jobs available in the "green" market.

You are buying the company line a little too eagerly. Coal isn't nearly as efficient or cheap as the industry would have you believe. Without the taxpayers subsidizing the fossil fuel industries they would have gone belly-up a generation ago. If those subsidies were redirected to green industries the costs would be competitive in the short run, and would absolutely shred fossil fuels in the long run.
And yes, there are millions of jobs available.

PJ_Soul

Degeneratefk said:

Jill Stein just said she wanted to zero out fossil fuels by 2030. No thanks.

It is completely unfeasible, but not undesirable in theory. To do it by 2030 is a ridiculous endeavor rooted in fantasy. Such a statement pretty much sums up why I can't support the Green Party.

lukin2006

Degeneratefk said:

rgambs said:

Degeneratefk said:

Jill Stein just said she wanted to zero out fossil fuels by 2030. No thanks.

Why not?
There are millions of jobs to be created and it's what we NEED to do for the future.
How will we make plastics and metals for modern life when we are out of oil because we burned it all up for energy?

Do you know how much oil is used to make an MRI machine? AMBU bags, IV tubes, syringes...the list of things we need petrochemicals to make is astounding, burning it all up is not a good idea.

Because regardless of what the "green" people tell you, there is no other cost effective way to produce energy than burning coal. Other than nuclear facilities. I don't see nuclear power plants popping up every where. Wind and solar are not cost effective and they can't produce the megawatts needed efficiently. Plus, that would put me out of a job. There are not enough jobs to be created that wold be lost if the coal industry was shut down. There are not millions of jobs available in the "green" market.

Just ask any sane Ontarian about wind and they'd agree with you 100% as I do...any replacement for fossil fuels has to be cost effective for sure.

PJ_Soul

rgambs said:

Degeneratefk said:

rgambs said:

Degeneratefk said:

Jill Stein just said she wanted to zero out fossil fuels by 2030. No thanks.

Why not?
There are millions of jobs to be created and it's what we NEED to do for the future.
How will we make plastics and metals for modern life when we are out of oil because we burned it all up for energy?

Do you know how much oil is used to make an MRI machine? AMBU bags, IV tubes, syringes...the list of things we need petrochemicals to make is astounding, burning it all up is not a good idea.

Because regardless of what the "green" people tell you, there is no other cost effective way to produce energy than burning coal. Other than nuclear facilities. I don't see nuclear power plants popping up every where. Wind and solar are not cost effective and they can't produce the megawatts needed efficiently. Plus, that would put me out of a job. There are not enough jobs to be created that wold be lost if the coal industry was shut down. There are not millions of jobs available in the "green" market.

You are buying the company line a little too eagerly. Coal isn't nearly as efficient or cheap as the industry would have you believe. Without the taxpayers subsidizing the fossil fuel industries they would have gone belly-up a generation ago. If those subsidies were redirected to green industries the costs would be competitive in the short run, and would absolutely shred fossil fuels in the long run.
And yes, there are millions of jobs available.

Agreed. Fossil fuels will go the way of the dodo someday, and that will be a glorious day. It just can't be done in 14 years. I wish.

lukin2006

rgambs said:

Degeneratefk said:

rgambs said:

Degeneratefk said:

Jill Stein just said she wanted to zero out fossil fuels by 2030. No thanks.

Why not?
There are millions of jobs to be created and it's what we NEED to do for the future.
How will we make plastics and metals for modern life when we are out of oil because we burned it all up for energy?

Do you know how much oil is used to make an MRI machine? AMBU bags, IV tubes, syringes...the list of things we need petrochemicals to make is astounding, burning it all up is not a good idea.

Because regardless of what the "green" people tell you, there is no other cost effective way to produce energy than burning coal. Other than nuclear facilities. I don't see nuclear power plants popping up every where. Wind and solar are not cost effective and they can't produce the megawatts needed efficiently. Plus, that would put me out of a job. There are not enough jobs to be created that wold be lost if the coal industry was shut down. There are not millions of jobs available in the "green" market.

You are buying the company line a little too eagerly. Coal isn't nearly as efficient or cheap as the industry would have you believe. Without the taxpayers subsidizing the fossil fuel industries they would have gone belly-up a generation ago. If those subsidies were redirected to green industries the costs would be competitive in the short run, and would absolutely shred fossil fuels in the long run.
And yes, there are millions of jobs available.

We can not heat our house with renewable electricity cheaper than natural gas here in the great white north ...

rgambs

PJ_Soul said:

rgambs said:

Degeneratefk said:

rgambs said:

Degeneratefk said:

Jill Stein just said she wanted to zero out fossil fuels by 2030. No thanks.

Why not?
There are millions of jobs to be created and it's what we NEED to do for the future.
How will we make plastics and metals for modern life when we are out of oil because we burned it all up for energy?

Do you know how much oil is used to make an MRI machine? AMBU bags, IV tubes, syringes...the list of things we need petrochemicals to make is astounding, burning it all up is not a good idea.

Because regardless of what the "green" people tell you, there is no other cost effective way to produce energy than burning coal. Other than nuclear facilities. I don't see nuclear power plants popping up every where. Wind and solar are not cost effective and they can't produce the megawatts needed efficiently. Plus, that would put me out of a job. There are not enough jobs to be created that wold be lost if the coal industry was shut down. There are not millions of jobs available in the "green" market.

You are buying the company line a little too eagerly. Coal isn't nearly as efficient or cheap as the industry would have you believe. Without the taxpayers subsidizing the fossil fuel industries they would have gone belly-up a generation ago. If those subsidies were redirected to green industries the costs would be competitive in the short run, and would absolutely shred fossil fuels in the long run.
And yes, there are millions of jobs available.

Agreed. Fossil fuels will go the way of the dodo someday, and that will be a glorious day. It just can't be done in 14 years. I wish.

I think it's possible, think of the space race.
Improbable, sure, but you gotta try for the top to get to the middle.

PJ_Soul

rgambs said:

PJ_Soul said:

rgambs said:

Degeneratefk said:

rgambs said:

Degeneratefk said:

Jill Stein just said she wanted to zero out fossil fuels by 2030. No thanks.

Why not?
There are millions of jobs to be created and it's what we NEED to do for the future.
How will we make plastics and metals for modern life when we are out of oil because we burned it all up for energy?

Do you know how much oil is used to make an MRI machine? AMBU bags, IV tubes, syringes...the list of things we need petrochemicals to make is astounding, burning it all up is not a good idea.

Because regardless of what the "green" people tell you, there is no other cost effective way to produce energy than burning coal. Other than nuclear facilities. I don't see nuclear power plants popping up every where. Wind and solar are not cost effective and they can't produce the megawatts needed efficiently. Plus, that would put me out of a job. There are not enough jobs to be created that wold be lost if the coal industry was shut down. There are not millions of jobs available in the "green" market.

You are buying the company line a little too eagerly. Coal isn't nearly as efficient or cheap as the industry would have you believe. Without the taxpayers subsidizing the fossil fuel industries they would have gone belly-up a generation ago. If those subsidies were redirected to green industries the costs would be competitive in the short run, and would absolutely shred fossil fuels in the long run.
And yes, there are millions of jobs available.

Agreed. Fossil fuels will go the way of the dodo someday, and that will be a glorious day. It just can't be done in 14 years. I wish.

I think it's possible, think of the space race.
Improbable, sure, but you gotta try for the top to get to the middle.

rgambs said:

PJ_Soul said:

rgambs said:

Degeneratefk said:

rgambs said:

Degeneratefk said:

Jill Stein just said she wanted to zero out fossil fuels by 2030. No thanks.

Why not?
There are millions of jobs to be created and it's what we NEED to do for the future.
How will we make plastics and metals for modern life when we are out of oil because we burned it all up for energy?

Do you know how much oil is used to make an MRI machine? AMBU bags, IV tubes, syringes...the list of things we need petrochemicals to make is astounding, burning it all up is not a good idea.

Because regardless of what the "green" people tell you, there is no other cost effective way to produce energy than burning coal. Other than nuclear facilities. I don't see nuclear power plants popping up every where. Wind and solar are not cost effective and they can't produce the megawatts needed efficiently. Plus, that would put me out of a job. There are not enough jobs to be created that wold be lost if the coal industry was shut down. There are not millions of jobs available in the "green" market.

You are buying the company line a little too eagerly. Coal isn't nearly as efficient or cheap as the industry would have you believe. Without the taxpayers subsidizing the fossil fuel industries they would have gone belly-up a generation ago. If those subsidies were redirected to green industries the costs would be competitive in the short run, and would absolutely shred fossil fuels in the long run.
And yes, there are millions of jobs available.

Agreed. Fossil fuels will go the way of the dodo someday, and that will be a glorious day. It just can't be done in 14 years. I wish.

I think it's possible, think of the space race.
Improbable, sure, but you gotta try for the top to get to the middle.

I think it's impossible, but I agree that those who are trying need to reach for the top, and they already are, which is great. Their very best can't get it done in 14 years.

lukin2006

...and for all those that like to bitch that all private companies are gangsters, well I never hear people complaining of there gas bills in the winter, but their is countless stories of people who are forced to heat with hydro forgone reason or another complaining about their winter hydro bills, and now the complaints are starting over their summer hydro bills because its been a humid summer ... and some people are forced to use air for a variety of reasons. We've done away with coal...ask real Ontarians how thats working out for them. Got to love the government and their ideas ... they can completely turn the electrical grid upside down with no business plan, just like all their ideas. Don't worry our premier plans to build bike lanes on all new highways and roadways, good use of money ... actually id like to nominate our premier as queen of environmental movement, thats all that the environmental movement needs nows a true leader like her.

lukin2006

PJ_Soul said:

rgambs said:

PJ_Soul said:

rgambs said:

Degeneratefk said:

rgambs said:

Degeneratefk said:

Jill Stein just said she wanted to zero out fossil fuels by 2030. No thanks.

Why not?
There are millions of jobs to be created and it's what we NEED to do for the future.
How will we make plastics and metals for modern life when we are out of oil because we burned it all up for energy?

Do you know how much oil is used to make an MRI machine? AMBU bags, IV tubes, syringes...the list of things we need petrochemicals to make is astounding, burning it all up is not a good idea.

Because regardless of what the "green" people tell you, there is no other cost effective way to produce energy than burning coal. Other than nuclear facilities. I don't see nuclear power plants popping up every where. Wind and solar are not cost effective and they can't produce the megawatts needed efficiently. Plus, that would put me out of a job. There are not enough jobs to be created that wold be lost if the coal industry was shut down. There are not millions of jobs available in the "green" market.

You are buying the company line a little too eagerly. Coal isn't nearly as efficient or cheap as the industry would have you believe. Without the taxpayers subsidizing the fossil fuel industries they would have gone belly-up a generation ago. If those subsidies were redirected to green industries the costs would be competitive in the short run, and would absolutely shred fossil fuels in the long run.
And yes, there are millions of jobs available.

Agreed. Fossil fuels will go the way of the dodo someday, and that will be a glorious day. It just can't be done in 14 years. I wish.

I think it's possible, think of the space race.
Improbable, sure, but you gotta try for the top to get to the middle.

rgambs said:

PJ_Soul said:

rgambs said:

Degeneratefk said:

rgambs said:

Degeneratefk said:

Jill Stein just said she wanted to zero out fossil fuels by 2030. No thanks.

Why not?
There are millions of jobs to be created and it's what we NEED to do for the future.
How will we make plastics and metals for modern life when we are out of oil because we burned it all up for energy?

Do you know how much oil is used to make an MRI machine? AMBU bags, IV tubes, syringes...the list of things we need petrochemicals to make is astounding, burning it all up is not a good idea.

Because regardless of what the "green" people tell you, there is no other cost effective way to produce energy than burning coal. Other than nuclear facilities. I don't see nuclear power plants popping up every where. Wind and solar are not cost effective and they can't produce the megawatts needed efficiently. Plus, that would put me out of a job. There are not enough jobs to be created that wold be lost if the coal industry was shut down. There are not millions of jobs available in the "green" market.

You are buying the company line a little too eagerly. Coal isn't nearly as efficient or cheap as the industry would have you believe. Without the taxpayers subsidizing the fossil fuel industries they would have gone belly-up a generation ago. If those subsidies were redirected to green industries the costs would be competitive in the short run, and would absolutely shred fossil fuels in the long run.
And yes, there are millions of jobs available.

Agreed. Fossil fuels will go the way of the dodo someday, and that will be a glorious day. It just can't be done in 14 years. I wish.

I think it's possible, think of the space race.
Improbable, sure, but you gotta try for the top to get to the middle.

I think it's impossible, but I agree that those who are trying need to reach for the top, and they already are, which is great. Their very best can't get it done in 14 years.

I find it kind of ironic how america is at odds with russia over crimea and yet you rely on them to get your astronauts to space ... that tells me how weak america is becoming.

PJ_Soul

The space program is all about international cooperation (not just with Russia and the US). It's considered a positive, the path to an ideal, a step in the right direction. I don't understand why you are twisting that into a negative at all. Are you advocating for another space race??

lukin2006

The space station and space exploration is a huge waste of money ... more government waste.

PJ_Soul

lukin2006 said:

The space station and space exploration is a huge waste of money ... more government waste.

That's not what I asked about really.

lukin2006

PJ_Soul said:

lukin2006 said:

The space station and space exploration is a huge waste of money ... more government waste.

That's not what I asked about really.

Fair enough ... you see it as international cooperation, I see it as huge waste of money being fleeced from taxpayers. Maybe we could use that money to tackle some of earthly problems is how I see it.

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

Degeneratefk said:

Jill Stein just said she wanted to zero out fossil fuels by 2030. No thanks.

It is completely unfeasible, but not undesirable in theory. To do it by 2030 is a ridiculous endeavor rooted in fantasy. Such a statement pretty much sums up why I can't support the Green Party.

I thinks it's both not doable AND spot on. This is America. If you want something done, you have to ask more than what you will get. If you want people to try 50% harder to do an important job you have to ask for 75% more.

brianlux

In all this talk about replacing fossil fuels we really would do well to address the reality of the situation: 7.4 billion people cannot consume energy and resources at the rate most people in first world countries do. The solution is threefold:
-reduce population
-develop clean alternative energy sources
- and consume less of both!

Gtilley8

lukin2006 said:

The space station and space exploration is a huge waste of money ... more government waste.

Most every study done estimates a $7-$14 return on each dollar spent on NASA. Do you honestly believe people like Branson and Musk, a couple of guys interested in profit, are simply trying to go to space because it's fun?

lukin2006

Gtilley8 said:

lukin2006 said:

The space station and space exploration is a huge waste of money ... more government waste.

Most every study done estimates a $7-$14 return on each dollar spent on NASA. Do you honestly believe people like Branson and Musk, a couple of guys interested in profit, are simply trying to go to space because it's fun?

You mean a couple of billionaires ... billionaires waste money all the time. Kind of a lame argument, how many billionaires buy sports teams that never make money, it's done all the time...and I really love how these billionaires invest in expensive hobbies and then use the tax system to write off said losses. Wish I could write my hobbies off and download the expense to an overburdened middle to lower middle class taxpayers. You can make a study say whatever it wants. I'm sure there studies that say the government returns 7 dollars for every dollar spent on military. Nice try though...

Gtilley8

lukin2006 said:

Gtilley8 said:

lukin2006 said:

The space station and space exploration is a huge waste of money ... more government waste.

Most every study done estimates a $7-$14 return on each dollar spent on NASA. Do you honestly believe people like Branson and Musk, a couple of guys interested in profit, are simply trying to go to space because it's fun?

You mean a couple of billionaires ... billionaires waste money all the time. Kind of a lame argument, how many billionaires buy sports teams that never make money, it's done all the time...and I really love how these billionaires invest in expensive hobbies and then use the tax system to write off said losses. Wish I could write my hobbies off and download the expense to an overburdened middle to lower middle class taxpayers. You can make a study say whatever it wants. I'm sure there studies that say the government returns 7 dollars for every dollar spent on military. Nice try though...

Maybe they are just throwing money at a hobby. Or maybe, 2 entrepreneurs see the value in the vast amount of natural resources that space holds. I'll go with the latter. Nobody is "trying" anything here. Sometimes the correct answer is the easiest. Business are created to make a profit.