Chef Jim Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 It's funny how the left did nothing but B word and moan for eight straight years, and yet the minute anyone disparages their new toy, they're a bunch of whiners. What, are you new to this? It's what they do best.
Gene Frenkle Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 It's not an analogy, you moron, it's MATH. And it's not operating costs, it's construction costs. One-time expense. Operating costs are above and beyond that. And "a buck a watt" already has economies of scale factored in - that's the cost for a traditional plant. So Gore's still an order of magnitude off if you replace coal/oil plants with new coal/oil plants. If "green" technology came down in cost to be merely competitive with traditional methods, Gore's cost still off by a factor of about 12. I don't even have to go any farther than that to demonstrate he's talking out of his ass (again). To meet his cost estimates, solar/wind/geothermal would have to drop in price by a factor of about 90. And construction of even non-traditional power plants isn't carbon neutral. Do you have any idea how much carbon dioxide is generated in concrete production? Or silicon refining? Or carbon fiber manufacture? The argument here isn't if non-traditional energy sources aren't worth pursuing. Of course, pursue them. The argument is whether or not Al Gore is a complete bullshitter and charlatan. He is. He's selling snake oil to the masses, nothing more. (Which IS an analogy, by the way.) I think you missed the point or are just trying to be intimidating. Either way the analogy I think you're making is between two completely different types of power plants. I'll leave it to you to worry about my use of the word analogy - as if that has absolutely anything to do with this discussion. Putting your childish ad hominem attack aside, how the hell can you honestly argue that construction and development costs are the only thing that should be taken into account here? The financial and environmental costs and benefits over time mean everything here, unless you're only worried about your own brief window of existence. All manufacturing has a carbon cost right up until the point where you start getting your energy from solar, wind nuclear, etc... At that point concrete production, silicon refining and carbon fiber manufacturing start to leave a much smaller footprint. Are you saying that we should continue to use polluting, diminishing resources like coal and oil and not pursue these other things because of the carbon footprint created in the production of solar panels and windmills? WTF does that get us except even more carbon in the atmosphere and an increasing dependence on external sources of fuel?
Gene Frenkle Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 What, are you new to this? It's what they both sides do best. fixed
DC Tom Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 Putting your childish ad hominem attack aside, how the hell can you honestly argue that construction and development costs are the only thing that should be taken into account here? I can argue it BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT GORE'S TALKING ABOUT!!!! You freakin' moron. I'm not doing a cradle-to-grave analysis of alternative energy costs versus traditional power plants. I'm demonstrating Gore's a charlatan. Discuss. The. Topic. Under. Discussion. Or shut the !@#$ up, dumbass.
Gene Frenkle Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 I can argue it BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT GORE'S TALKING ABOUT!!!! You freakin' moron. I'm not doing a cradle-to-grave analysis of alternative energy costs versus traditional power plants. I'm demonstrating Gore's a charlatan. Discuss. The. Topic. Under. Discussion. Or shut the !@#$ up, dumbass. Wow, you're a !@#$ing ahole for sure. Right, the constructive thing to do is to try to discredit Gore's plan by cherry picking the part you deem unrealistic instead of discussing the merits of what he's talking about long-term. Whatever makes you think you're right I guess. Repeating the same thing over and over again must make it true. I forgot the strict code that's so closely followed on this board. All threads must stay strictly on topic. Sorry for straying so far. Off. Topic. !@#$ing myopic retard.
RkFast Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 Factoring in the cost of a hybrid when you buy it, dontcha have to drive it for like 20 years before you see the cost benefit the extra few MPG gets you? Who the hell keeps cars that long? Same principle, right Tom?
molson_golden2002 Posted November 11, 2008 Author Posted November 11, 2008 Factoring in the cost of a hybrid when you buy it, dontcha have to drive it for like 20 years before you see the cost benefit the extra few MPG gets you? Who the hell keeps cars that long? Same principle, right Tom? That would depend on the price of gas. If for whatever reason it shoots up to 8 or 10 dollar a gallon, you will make up the cost pretty quickly
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 That would depend on the price of gas. If for whatever reason it shoots up to 8 or 10 dollar a gallon, you will make up the cost pretty quickly What if everyone buys hybrids and the demand for oil sinks so low that gas falls below 1.00 per gallon!
ieatcrayonz Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 What if everyone buys hybrids and the demand for oil sinks so low that gas falls below 1.00 per gallon! Then buy a used SUV you doofus. There will be thousands for the taking.
Boomer860 Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 That would depend on the price of gas. If for whatever reason it shoots up to 8 or 10 dollar a gallon, you will make up the cost pretty quickly The price of gas will go up under Obama he will tax it ,as he has stated. And of course it wil be passed on to the consumer , the dimwits are to stupid to see it. Obama is a lying communist fraud.
IDBillzFan Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 The price of gas will go up under Obama he will tax it ,as he has stated. And of course it wil be passed on to the consumer , the dimwits are to stupid to see it. Obama is a lying communist fraud. Those comments will cost you three Obamadays and you are now on the Obama Civilian Military Watchlist. Please report to their local office every Monday between 9-10 a.m through the end of the year to be removed from this list.
Boomer860 Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 Those comments will cost you three Obamadays and you are now on the Obama Civilian Military Watchlist. Please report to their local office every Monday between 9-10 a.m through the end of the year to be removed from this list. I have been on the Obama watch list as I am in charge of the underground resitance . Soon they will have no office to report to. The resistance is as well funded and as strong as our military. I must leave now as my carbon spewing helicopter is here to take me to a secret location.
DC Tom Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 Factoring in the cost of a hybrid when you buy it, dontcha have to drive it for like 20 years before you see the cost benefit the extra few MPG gets you? Who the hell keeps cars that long? Same principle, right Tom? Is everyone's mental drive train stuck on "stupid" or something? The "cradle-to-grave" economy of alternative energy was not Gore's point. He specified a certain amount of money to construct the infrastructure, and was completely dishonest about it.
RkFast Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 Is everyone's mental drive train stuck on "stupid" or something? The "cradle-to-grave" economy of alternative energy was not Gore's point. He specified a certain amount of money to construct the infrastructure, and was completely dishonest about it. I took the cost of purchase, didnt I? I was just askin...jeez.
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 Boy, this thread is fun! I'm waiting for something to be said about someone's mother. All kidding aside, thought, three items come into play: 1. Al Gore says, "New high-voltage, low-loss underground lines...". Well, that would be a trick, since these lines do not exist in the real world and violate every law of physics. It is not physically possible to transmit electricity for thousands of miles. 2. Building said lines would require acquisition of millions of acres of private property, as well as major deforestation of said property. 3. Why is it considered politically acceptable to transmit electricity from the southwest to the northeast, but not politically acceptable to transmit water from the northeast to the southwest?
Joe Miner Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 Here's something to think about. It costs about $1,000,000/mile to build 138kV transmission line. Not substations, not high voltage (which is actually what's needed, and would be at least 345kV and up, 500kV, 756kV), not any type of protection system, not any Right of Way. Just poles and wires for 138kV is about $1,000,000/mile. Then pay people to monitor and operate it after building perhaps the most elaborate control center in the world to operate the entire US electrical grid. Now, go out and build one to tie the entire US together and do it for $40 billion, along with all the other crap he wants.
Chef Jim Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 Boy, this thread is fun! I'm waiting for something to be said about someone's mother. 3. Why is it considered politically acceptable to transmit electricity from the southwest to the northeast, but not politically acceptable to transmit water from the northeast to the southwest? It's not that it's not politically acceptable it's just not feasable to get water from the northeast to the southwest. That is until we can get your mother's fat ass out of the way.
Joe Miner Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 Here's something to think about. It costs about $1,000,000/mile to build 138kV transmission line. Not substations, not high voltage (which is actually what's needed, and would be at least 345kV and up, 500kV, 756kV), not any type of protection system, not any Right of Way. Just poles and wires for 138kV is about $1,000,000/mile. Then pay people to monitor and operate it after building perhaps the most elaborate control center in the world to operate the entire US electrical grid. Now, go out and build one to tie the entire US together and do it for $40 billion, along with all the other crap he wants. Sorry to quote myself, but I should mention a few other things: You'll also need a networked system set up for at least a single contingency. Which will take a sh---ton of computing power. Many networks today are pushing the limits of their computer modeling. Something of this magnitude would take hours to analyze a single change on the systems that most companies are running. Not to mention that I'm not even sure that the programs that Siemens and GE make would be capable of handling that many thousands (maybe even millions) of buses. You'll need all sorts of new security in place to run this thing. Physical, organizational, electronic, etc... Any large distribution or transmission load that an individual company would be bringing on line would have to pass contingency studies by this new third party (government run) organization to get anything built. Good luck on getting something like a new Walmart built. Companies would constantly be spending money to upgrade their interconnects with other companies in order to reduce the number of flowgates on the system. Which means everyone's bills go up, because those costs are capital and get passed on to customers. Who the hell would ever figure out which company and which company's customers are paying for what upgrades to the system? It's a cluster!@#$ as it is figuring that stuff out on a small scale. Most parts of the US are regulated (thankfully), but some parts are not. Talk about headaches in trying to coordinate anything between two completely different entities like that. This is so far from feasible, it's pretty laughable that it's an idea that just gets thrown out there as a "solution". I suggest we instead spend $40 billion dollars on training a monkey to follow Al Gore around and beat the piss out of him whenever he talks. And for $40 billion, the monkey has to film it and put it on Youtube for our enjoyment.
ieatcrayonz Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 Boy, this thread is fun! I'm waiting for something to be said about someone's mother. All kidding aside, thought, three items come into play: 1. Al Gore says, "New high-voltage, low-loss underground lines...". Well, that would be a trick, since these lines do not exist in the real world and violate every law of physics. It is not physically possible to transmit electricity for thousands of miles. 2. Building said lines would require acquisition of millions of acres of private property, as well as major deforestation of said property. 3. Why is it considered politically acceptable to transmit electricity from the southwest to the northeast, but not politically acceptable to transmit water from the northeast to the southwest? I have highlighted the part of the ruse plan that Al would enact first.
Nanker Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 Holy !@#$ing sh--! Put Al Gore's name on anything and the usual suspects come out and shoot it down without any !@#$ing thought. Yea, we get it - McCain lost and you're not happy about it. Time to let it go. Yes. Let's please get back to reflexive Bush/McCain/Palin bashing. That's so refreshing. Even after eight years it hasn't lost its luster. Yea, we get it - BO won and you're happy about it. Time for him and his cohorts to actually do something instead of just running the country down.
Recommended Posts