+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: my new hero (/thread-4917.html)
my new hero - eppie - 02-01-2006
Of course I did not see the state of the Union (I was sleeping) but I got some headlines here at the news.
The most surprising part was that Bush said he wants to invest hugely in alternative energy sources so that the USA will nog longer be dependend on instable countries for their energy (oil).
If he really puts his money where his mouth is, I think this can become the most important thing an american president has done this last 50 years.
I'm anxiously waiting how this will go on.
my new hero - Rinnhart - 02-01-2006
In other news.
my new hero - SwissMercenary - 02-01-2006
Rinnhart,Feb 1 2006, 08:12 AM Wrote:In other news.
[right][snapback]100723[/snapback][/right]
They must be weeping over the horrible losses they took from Katrina.
my new hero - Occhidiangela - 02-01-2006
eppie,Feb 1 2006, 01:57 AM Wrote:Of course I did not see the state of the Union (I was sleeping) but I got some headlines here at the news.The SoU address isn't worth a sou, and is a lot like a Chinese food meal: a half hour later you need more fuel. (I see most Chinese food as no more than fuel. Indian and Thai FTW!!! :D )
The most surprising part was that Bush said he wants to invest hugely in alternative energy sources so that the USA will nog longer be dependend on instable countries for their energy (oil).
If he really puts his money where his mouth is, I think this can become the most important thing an american president has done this last 50 years.
I'm anxiously waiting how this will go on.
[right][snapback]100722[/snapback][/right]
He is attempting to resolve with hot air what it takes gruelingly hard legislation, decades of patient grinding away, tax incentives, subsidies, and reform to achieve, not to mention a massive information campaign. (AKA sales job) See how hard we had to work to implement emissions standards, for example.) This is an image play to carry into the November 2006 election cycle. Bank on that.
This same bold vision of reducing dependency on oil was proclaimed in 1973 and 1974 when the OPEC gang turned off the spiggot and we had gas lines. Note that the nuclear power solution, from 32 years ago, has NOT resolved the problem, indeed, it got derailed about as soon as it got started. The only good that came out of the resolution in the mid 1970's was a few years of 55 MPH speed limits, the conversion to unleaded gas as the standard, and Federal MPG standards that slowly crept up. (Side note: Detroit chose to turn a blind eye and lose the war of compact cars. Note recent Ford plant closings, while Toyota just opened a new plant in San Antonio, Texas.)
Note how "zero emissions coal" is again mentioned by Pres Bush as though this was other than junk science and a sound byte nod to Virginia and other Coal Hopper States. Nuclear power opportunities have been squandered by fear mongers, lame public policy, and other factors, since the late 1970's. Maybe if someone points out that The French get 70-80% of their electrical power from nukes will someone wake up and realize "not everything the French do is a bad idea." They do more than sauces well. :) (The wine and cheese also get two thumbs up from this rogue.)
Sorry to curb your mild enthusiasm, eppie. While it is nice to see a positive response to Pres Bush from a Bush disdainer, in this State of the Union the President was simply heating a cool winter night in Washington with a dose of pure hot air.
It is going to take far better leadership skills than he has demonstrated to date to pull of the kind of transformation he proclaimed. Ronald Reagan he isn't.
Occhi
my new hero - Raelynn - 02-01-2006
eppie,Feb 1 2006, 03:57 AM Wrote:Bush said he wants to invest hugely in alternative energy sources so that the USA will nog longer be dependend on instable countries for their energy (oil).I really hope he doesn't push for the stupid ethenol that everyone seems to think is the answer. It's already been proven to cost more energy to make than it produces. Stupid marketing people pushing inefficient technologies. :angry:
[right][snapback]100722[/snapback][/right]
my new hero - jahcs - 02-01-2006
I noticed with all this talk of dependence on foreign energy that the President and the rebuttal from Virginia did not mention one neccesary factor:
People need to make some changes in their lifestyles to conserve fuel and other resources. Improved technologies are all well and good but some basic choices we all can make will help too.
my new hero - kandrathe - 02-01-2006
Raelynn,Feb 1 2006, 10:31 AM Wrote:I really hope he doesn't push for the stupid ethenol that everyone seems to think is the answer. It's already been proven to cost more energy to make than it produces. Stupid marketing people pushing inefficient technologies. :angry:In local news...
[right][snapback]100744[/snapback][/right]
The area I live in here in the US is an excellent research area for alternative energy (except solar). The climate can vary from -36C mid January to 43C in mid July. The SW portion of the state is already filling with wind tubines, we have a couple of nuclear reactors, we are a conduit for Montana coal to Lake Superior and with our agrarian roots have tons of biomass and hydrogen research. Lately, I've been researching ways to convert my home to use a geothermal heat pump.
I think the SOA on Energy was right on pinpointing one of the biggest challenges facing the world. With proper leadership we might address both issues of middle east stability AND global warming. But, in order for it to take this time (as opposed to the Cartel power grab in the 70's) is that each person needs to take ownership for their non-renewable consumption. What the government needs to do is begin to increase taxes on non-renewable resources and divert that revenue towards a renewable energy infrastructure. We need to dismantle the fossil fuel economy, and rebuild one based on renewable sources without social disharmony and suffering. Not an easy struggle and we might already be 30 years too late to stop or reverse the negative global climate changes.
my new hero - Occhidiangela - 02-01-2006
jahcs,Feb 1 2006, 10:25 AM Wrote:I noticed with all this talk of dependence on foreign energy that the President and the rebuttal from Virginia did not mention one neccesary factor:I drive a Saturn Ion. 35 MPG highway 28-30 city.
People need to make some changes in their lifestyles to conserve fuel and other resources. Improved technologies are all well and good but some basic choices we all can make will help too.
[right][snapback]100752[/snapback][/right]
*David Spade voice* What's in your driveway? ;)
I want to get a motorcycle for my commute to work, the Missus is adamantly opposed on the grounds of "you'll die, you fool." So much for my mid life crisis vehicle . . . :(
Occhi
my new hero - GenericKen - 02-01-2006
Occhidiangela,Feb 1 2006, 02:22 PM Wrote:This same bold vision of reducing dependency on oil was proclaimed in 1973 and 1974 when the OPEC gang turned off the spiggot and we had gas lines. Note that the nuclear power solution, from 32 years ago, has NOT resolved the problem, indeed, it got derailed about as soon as it got started. The only good that came out of the resolution in the mid 1970's was a few years of 55 MPH speed limits, the conversion to unleaded gas as the standard, and Federal MPG standards that slowly crept up. (Side note: Detroit chose to turn a blind eye and lose the war of compact cars. Note recent Ford plant closings, while Toyota just opened a new plant in San Antonio, Texas.)
[right][snapback]100736[/snapback][/right]
Wait, you mean we're probably not going to go to Mars either? :(
/bitter-unemployed-scientist-sarcasm
my new hero - Occhidiangela - 02-01-2006
GenericKen,Feb 1 2006, 12:39 PM Wrote:Wait, you mean we're probably not going to go to Mars either? :(No, not any time soon is my guess, but perhaps "to the moon, Alice!" should be the guiding principle in putting out to pasture a number of the nitwits in Washington. :P
/bitter-unemployed-scientist-sarcasm
[right][snapback]100766[/snapback][/right]
Occhi
my new hero - jahcs - 02-01-2006
Occhidiangela,Feb 1 2006, 09:09 AM Wrote:*David Spade voice* What's in your driveway?  ;)
[right][snapback]100758[/snapback][/right]
'98 Dogde Neon. Easily over 40 MPG (actual results) with extended highway driving and 30's in town.
'04 Chevy Malibu Maxx. (First new car ever, YAY! B) ) We're averaging 25 MPG in town and about 34 on highway drives. For the roominess and power this car offers I feel it's an excellent number.
My wife also wants to get an electric scooter. Some models are coming out soon that give good range and speeds of 45 MPH. Current models hit 30-35 MPH.
We also combine trips and try to avoid uneccesary driving.
This was a big change from my previous car, an '88 Ford Mustang GT :wub: . Depending on how I drove I would average 17 MPG commuting and extended highway trips were around 24 MPG (5 speed overdrive transmission :shuriken: ). That and a 14.003 second quarter mile wasn't bad for a daily driver <_< . It still wasn't the most responsible vehicle on the road though.
my new hero - Occhidiangela - 02-01-2006
jahcs,Feb 1 2006, 01:22 PM Wrote:This was a big change from my previous car, an '88 Ford Mustang GT :wub: . ==snippy== That and a 14.003 second quarter mile wasn't bad for a daily driver <_< . It still wasn't the most responsible vehicle on the road though.Sounds like fun. :)
[right][snapback]100770[/snapback][/right]
Occhi
my new hero - SwissMercenary - 02-01-2006
In response to the OP, I'll believe it when I see it. You've got to realise that this is the exact same guy that decided to cut funding in those fields, round 2001.
my new hero - Guest - 02-01-2006
I sure hope he means it.
my new hero - Jester - 02-02-2006
Raelynn,Feb 1 2006, 08:31 AM Wrote:I really hope he doesn't push for the stupid ethenol that everyone seems to think is the answer. It's already been proven to cost more energy to make than it produces. Stupid marketing people pushing inefficient technologies. :angry:
[right][snapback]100744[/snapback][/right]
Isn't that required by the second law of thermodynamics?
-Jester
my new hero - whyBish - 02-02-2006
Occhidiangela,Feb 2 2006, 03:22 AM Wrote:Nuclear power opportunities have been squandered by fear mongers, lame public policy, and other factors, since the late 1970's. Maybe if someone points out that The French get 70-80% of their electrical power from nukes will someone wake up and realize "not everything the French do is a bad idea." They do more than sauces well. :) (The wine and cheese also get two thumbs up from this rogue.)
Occhi
[right][snapback]100736[/snapback][/right]
Bucky reckoned that 'enery' rather than oil specifically would become the new world resource. From that (long term) standpoint, Australia looks like a pretty nice place to own some desert right about now. It's dirt cheap ( :P ), and perfect for solar, wind, and apparently "Australia's uranium reserves are the world's largest, with 30% of the total." (But poor for hydro). I wonder when Aus. will look to integrate their power grids and sell excess energy to energy poor countries. I suppose we have to wait for the oil to dry up a bit first.
Thank goodness Kiwis can become an Australian at any time :)
my new hero - SwissMercenary - 02-02-2006
Ghostiger,Feb 1 2006, 08:01 PM Wrote:I sure hope he means it.Guess not. Or, at least, not in the way one'd hope.
[right][snapback]100779[/snapback][/right]
Just as I thought. Same old Oil-pal Shrub.
my new hero - Occhidiangela - 02-02-2006
SwissMercenary,Feb 1 2006, 10:38 PM Wrote:Guess not. Or, at least, not in the way one'd hope.Mideast accounts for just over one fifth of our oil.
Just as I thought. Same old Oil-pal Shrub.
[right][snapback]100818[/snapback][/right]
Canada, Nigeria, Mexico, and Venezuela are US major foreign suppliers. US produces about half its oil internally. (From some old API charts a few months back.)
Occhi
my new hero - Fragbait - 02-02-2006
Hi,
Driving a Ford Fiesta 1.3 with 44 KW (60HP) here. Needs 6.5 - 7.5 l/100km on average which equals to 36 - 31 miles per gallon.
I haven't got an idea really, but I'd estimate 5.5 l/100km on purely highway drives (43 mpg) and 8 l/100km in town (29 mpg).
Oh, and at first I thought of the file extension for MPEG-1 computer files. Quickly showed that I was on the wrong train, though. ;)
Greetings, Fragbait
my new hero - jahcs - 02-02-2006
Fragbait,Feb 2 2006, 05:04 AM Wrote:Oh, and at first I thought of the file extension for MPEG-1 computer files. Quickly showed that I was on the wrong train, though. ;)
Greetings, Fragbait
[right][snapback]100838[/snapback][/right]
30 mpeg per gallon!!11!! Wow, that must be one serious computer system! :lol: