Democrats versus Republicans

[wind_magic]

Expanding on the points above, that we never switched from coal ...

United States, 2007 statistics for power generation ...

65,739 megawatts from petroleum (oil)
105,238 megawatts from "other renewables"
247,510 megawatts from conventional hydroelectric (not pump/storage)
806,425 megawatts from nuclear
896,590 megawatts from natural gas
2,016,456 megawatts from COAL

Coal fired generators make 1/2 of the power used by the United States, and petroleum only creates 1.58% of our power, and most of that is created using oil that is resident on the property where the power plant is, it's pumped straight out of the ground and used to generate power - nobody would ship oil from the middle east and use it to generate electrical power, it's too expensive.

We use oil for manufacturing, driving automobiles, agriculture, and shipping products.

So much for using solar, wind, etc, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. At best it'll reduce our dependence on DOMESTIC COAL, unless you think we're going to have wind or solar powered cars.

I ask my question again, what EXACTLY are we going to be spending this "alternative energy" money on ?

[PBzeer]

Originally Posted by sck5

I know i am making good points when pb and sway cant answer directly but just start making insulting remarks!! Way to go guys! Full speed ahead!! Onward and upward to the 19th century!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good points? How about saying nothing worth the effort of replying to?

We currently have rising unemployment. We have a large amount of oil that is extractable. Extracting said oil results in JOBS and REVENUE and doesn't cost the taxpayers a dime. So, what would a reasonable person do? Evidently, put it off limits, since Bambi is supposed to be the master pragmaticist.

In fact, he could be paying for his alternative energy budget off the revenue and increased taxes from drilling. But, it isn't about jobs, or revenue, it's about exercising control.

[drynoc]

We could close most of the coal plants if the luddites on the Left weren't so adamantly opposed to nuclear power. Even the Europeans are ahead of us on this score, and it is solely the "achievement" of the liberals. They whine about the by product, but none of them have even heard of fusion reactors, which have none. It is nothing more than an emotional reaction, utterly without knowledge or fact. Sort of like their approach to national defense, education, social issues................

[PBzeer]

Oh, and by the way, I walk 3.5 miles each way to work. In the past year, I've bought about 40 gals of diesel and 20 of gas. Just like Bush was far more eco friendly in his personal life than Algore, so am I as opposed to most who oppose oil drilling.

[danjarch]

Sk5, not that you'll admit it but we switched from wood to coal because it worked a lot better, and burned cleaner. We will switch our use of from oil when it makes sense and not a minute before. Trying to force the issue only raises the cost for the little guy, and delays the day when would have shifted.

Your belief that reps are against new thing is just a failure to accept that the tragedy of the comons could be a real issue and not just a way to rationalize being mean. I'm not going to repeat what the tragedy of commons theory is because it's been gone over a few times already. Your refusal to even consider that it does exist and should be avoided will allow you to continue to believe the dems are right. It will not make them right though.

The dems biggest stategy for keeping the public from rebelling against the spending plans has been and looks to continue to be "but the reps did it too." I don't think using the faults that brought the reps down is going to get the Dems very far.

[PBzeer]

Your Government in Action

The EPA has ruled that dust caused by the use of farm machinery muct be contained. That's DUST. The thing that happens when wheels roll over dirt.

[erps]

Cap and trade credits for dust in the future? I'm going to go dig a hole in my backyard and start burying dust in it to get started on a credit bank. I'm going to be rich.

[sck5]

You guys will get ideological about ANYTHING. The reason we switched from wood to coal was because we cut down all of the trees in Europe and most of the eastern forests in the US. Wood got expensive and so we switched to coal.

We then switched to oil because we mined most of the THEN AVAILABLE coal (which was anthracite, and mined in traditional tunnel mines) and IT got expensive. Yes, we now use lots of coal but that is because we have new technology (strip mining, hilltop removal, etc.) and also because we started using the bituminous coal, the anthracite having been nearly exhausted.

Why does this have to be a left right issue? Erps got it right that switches happen when the old fuel gets expensive. That calculation can change when new supplies are discovered or technologies change. That isnt political, its basic economics.\\

And if you believe that (and if you dont you are just denying reality) then it isnt too big a jump to the fact that sooner or later, we will run into increasing costs on the oil that is available with present technology and will start to switch to something else.

You can find plenty of conservative economists who will tell you exactly the same thing. It aint rocket science. It aint even politics.

[sck5]

PS

Maybe it is RELIGION for you guys. After all, this forum includes religion as well as politics!!

[PBzeer]

It's political when it's done politically, rather than by economics. Which is exactly what's going on now. You somehow equate opposition to massive federal spending as opposition to the proposed goal. To a liberal, the end justifies the means.