$50 a bulb??

[HatchetJack]

It is nice to get away now and then and even nicer to be away from
computers and televisions. It's amazing how cheap you can live in a place
like that. Not a single water, tax, Ins, or utility bill in the 7-8 years we have
been using it. Just some charcoal and a few propane bottles.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

Quite simply, our nation will never again be properous and competitive if we bow to the demands of the eco-left to make energy rare and expensive. It needs to be cheap and plentiful. At the same time, we should work to cut emissions of REAL pollution (not CO2)even further.

And there currently is not a great similiarity between transportation energy and the power grid. The only nexus there is perhaps nat gas which serves both sectors. Making the transistion to electric vehicles or even hydrogen vehicles (which require electricity to create the fuel stock), will require that electricity be plentiful and cheap. Much more capacity and different means of distribution.

Electricity is anything but cheap here, and so we can keep on burning oil and kissing the Saudi's arse?

[flacaltenn]

No Saudi arse-kissing required MerryLander. That energy source (oil) is primarily for transportation. Not the electric grid. So the way you make transportation energy cheap and plentiful is to focus on electrically derived fuel sources that CAN go in vehicles like hydrogen. Or just "supersize" electrical generation capacity with nuclear, solar, wind, whatever so that you can cleanly charge them. Solar & Wind would be especially meaningful on a "separate grid" designed to make hydrogen so that the irritating "promise" of fuel cells moves closer to reality. You can also boost domestic production of Nat Gas (despite the freakin' anti-fracking crowd) which can substitute for hydrogen in fuel cells, or be used DIRECTLY in modified combustion engines..

You don't recovering manufacturing, grow prosperity at all levels by making energy RARE and EXPENSIVE. THAT -- is the underlying goal of all this mind-set that we can conserve our way to adequate supplies of energy..

[merrylander]

Making electrical energy expensive is the goal of the private power generating companies, certainly not the goal of environmentalists, ask me how I know while I pay $0.12 per KWH. If we were really smart we would politely ask Atomic Energy Canada to build us several CANDU reactors. Not only are the inherently much, much safer than the high pressure crap we seem to favour, but they can burn the spent fuel from the high pressure units. Of course they don't need enriched uranium so that would upset the bomb making crowd.

As to the anti fraking crowd, the reason many object to the Haliburton loophole is probably because like us they depend on deep wells for their drinking water. Unlike a VW or Mercedes we don't run on diesel too well.

[flacaltenn]

There are Many new reactor designs that are inherently safer. IEEE has marvelous journalism on this in Spectrum Mag.

I'm kinda with the anti-frackin' crowd (GASP) in that companies need to disclose what they are putting into the ground.. HOWEVER -- your expectation to have clean water when you live right over a petrol-gas-hydrocarbon reserve is a little suspect. And a lot of what they put into fracking fluids is ALREADY present in those kinds of fields..

OMG -- my water smells like methane. Well -- you LIVE right over a NAT GAS reserve. Here -- let me fix that for you....

As for the Rare and expensive part. It's all logic Merrylander. When you primarily push conservation and not production you are making the quantity RARE. When something is RARE - it tends to get expensive. THat's EXACTLY the eco-left agenda for energy.

That and they want to limit economic growth so that we remain "in sustainable harmony" with the earth.

That and they are mostly So@ialists and hate the fact that energy is not centrally ruled and controlled by their intellectuals.. I better stop there..

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Making electrical energy expensive is the goal of the private power generating companies, certainly not the goal of environmentalists, ask me how I know while I pay $0.12 per KWH. If we were really smart we would politely ask Atomic Energy Canada to build us several CANDU reactors.

We can't get our gov't to approve new conventional power plant, much less approve new Nuke plants.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

There are Many new reactor designs that are inherently safer. IEEE has marvelous journalism on this in Spectrum Mag.

I'm kinda with the anti-frackin' crowd (GASP) in that companies need to disclose what they are putting into the ground.. HOWEVER -- your expectation to have clean water when you live right over a petrol-gas-hydrocarbon reserve is a little suspect. And a lot of what they put into fracking fluids is ALREADY present in those kinds of fields..

OMG -- my water smells like methane. Well -- you LIVE right over a NAT GAS reserve. Here -- let me fix that for you....

As for the Rare and expensive part. It's all logic Merrylander. When you primarily push conservation and not production you are making the quantity RARE. When something is RARE - it tends to get expensive. THat's EXACTLY the eco-left agenda for energy.

That and they want to limit economic growth so that we remain "in sustainable harmony" with the earth.

That and they are mostly So@ialists and hate the fact that energy is not centrally ruled and controlled by their intellectuals.. I better stop there..

The laughable part of that last bit is that if it was not for two Canadian Provincially owned electric utilities half of the northeast US would be in the dark.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by merrylander

The laughable part of that last bit is that if it was not for two Canadian Provincially owned electric utilities half of the northeast US would be in the dark.

Didn't we drag them down with us once............?

Dave

[JonL]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

That and they are mostly So@ialists and hate the fact that energy is not centrally ruled and controlled by their intellectuals.. I better stop there..

Without legitimizing your premise that environmentalists are mostly socialists, I want to take issue with another part of this comment. We all tend to look at things through our own set of filters. These filters cause us to formulate opinions about the motivations of people with whom we don't agree or who we don't understand. To imply that socialists are motivated by centralization and consolidation of power within some intellectual elite is simply a reflection of your filters and not reality. I'm not a socialist, but I would suggest that socialists are motivated by a desire to create a more equitable society where there is not a huge disparity in wealth, and where the good of society as a whole is not left to the accidents of market forces that are skewed by extremely powerful corporate interests. Socialists, I think, envision a world in which human beings' basic needs can be provided for as part of the fabric of society and where wealth and privilege have far less influence on policy. You seem to feel that the societal effects of socialism are of secondary importance to how the power structure might change, whereas the socialists likely don't care much about the power structure as long as it supports their desired societal effects. You therefore criticize socialists with the strawman argument that they simply want their intellectual elite to have power rather than for their real objectives. I think that says much more about your filters and world view than it says about socialists or environmentalists.

I also think it's weird that "intellectual" and, by extension, "intelligence" and "education" have become negative buzzwords for the right. WTF is THAT all about?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by JonL

I also think it's weird that "intellectual" and, by extension, "intelligence" and "education" have become negative buzzwords for the right. WTF is THAT all about?

It's always easier to criticize what you don't understand than trying to learn or understand it. If the Right thought it would win them votes, they'd start criticizing Calculus and Thermodynamics.