Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post - Aid Money

Magness · 11-27-2001, 10:54 PM

Hi Silver Cheetah,

I've just completed reading the remainder of the new entires on this thread (after firing off my "tax" reply to you, that is).

And now, as promised, is my reply to your lengthy reply regarding power generation.

I may not do this in the order as you wrote it. Please forgive...

quote:

Origianlly posted by S/C:

I do my share by buying 'green' energy generated from sustainable sources (windpower) from a supplier here in the UK. By doing that, I help fund the growth of the sustainable energies industry. Consumers can help by signing up to green energy deals, thus helping momentum.

I think that's a great positive step and I applaud you for it. The only issue/problem with such a project/scheme (sorry, couldn't think of the appropriate nuetral word) is that, at least in the USA, it would need to be at least price competetive with the standard electric companies to have a chance.

Furthermore, windpower, specifically, doesn't come without it's own downsides. Uses up a fair amount of real estate. Some environmentalists would probably bitch and moan ... I mean complain about building windmills from time to time. Requires wind, which while free, isn't always available. No everybody likes the low level of noise that the windmills generate. There are probably some others.
Obviously, a definite upside is that the "fuel" is essentially free and is readily available. I'm not actually arguing for or against windpower. I think that the research and innovation is wonderful. And futhermore, I'd suggest that it should probably be government funded. Why, you ask, since I am fairly conservative and fairly anti-government? As you mentioned Exxon (among others) is out to make a buck. The responsible thing for Exxon to do is continue to produce oil and make profits for their shareholders. However, their self-interest doesn't necessary agree with the longer term self interest of developing energy alternatives. They have very little interest in doing the reaserch and I don't want them buying up any patents. Were the government to do or contract out the reseach (with the understanding that the fruits of that research is PUBLIC PROPERTY), I think that we could keep the power companies from burying a perfectly good new technology.

quote:

Originally posted by S/C:

To my mind, huge companies like Exxon have a responsibility to the people of this planet, (the people and planet that allow them to make massive profits, incidently) to act in a way that is socially and environmentally responsible. Exxon doesnt agree.

ARGH!!!!!!! Not one chance in hell do I agree with you here!!! They have a responsibility to act in the interests of their shareholders and within the bounds of the law. Period, end of sentence. If you (and I don't mean you in the strictly personal sense, S/C) don't like the amount of gas that is used by cars, for example, pass tougher gas milage laws.

(This one isn't really aimed at you S/C, but it does follow from what I said above.) All this bitching about SUV's by the eco-terrorist-nazis in the US is a bunch of naive BS. People like big, heavy, SAFE cars that by the nature of being big and heavy do consume more gas . Yes, SUV's themselves are definitely a bit of a current fashion trend in autos. But the big, heavy, and safe principle would still hold true whther the car was an SUV, a mini-van, or big old-style Caddy. People (particular those with families) who can afford a big, heavy, SAFE car do not want to pack the kiddies into some ultra-light fuel-efficient deathtrap.

quote:

Origianlly posted by S/C:

We have a situation where we are burning huge amounts of irreplaceable fossil fuels for energy. A. continuing to do this at present rates will accelerate global warming and we KNOW this. B. There is only so much of these fossil fuels under the earth. We need to use them slower and more carefully, - thinking of the future and the needs of generations to come. Okay? You got that?

B. I completely understand that oil & coal are non-renewable fuels with finite supplies. While conservation is OK, it is only a bandaid. I am far more concerned with the R&D of alternative energy sources.

A. I disagree vehementally. We do NOT know this. One group believes this, the other does not. As I understand it, the breakdown is about 50-50. It's just that the 50% that do believe in global warming are just a lot louder.

quote:

Originally posted by S/C:

Lastly, yes, of course we have to use what we've got until we've got replacements. Do you think I'm some kind of idiot? Like let's all down tools and stay in bed until whoever have got the clean energy thing susssed. Activism is about raising awareness about a situation, and getting the people with clout to take action to change things. That's why we do all that whinging you keep banging on about.

I don't necessarily think that you are some kind of idiot. I don't really know you well enough to give an honest answer. But I have certainly heard more than my share that are certifiable, brainwashed, and brain dead.

I'm not certain that I agree with you about activism, at least as it currently stands now in the US. Activism to me looks more like the latest excuse for a bunch of losers to go on a road trip, smoke some dope, start a mini-riot, smash a few store fronts, etc. all in the name of the cause de jure.

quote:

Origianlly posted by S/C:

But we'll never get anywhere until government realises that short termism isn't going to get us very far, and starts embracing alternative technologies with enthusiasm. We need more research and development money and some tax incentives to encourage people to go for alternatives). At present, they cant see any futher than the end of their coal and oil smeared noses. Vested intests? Perish the thought, Mr Bush......

As I said above, I basically agree with you here. Although not on jab at GW Bush. Al Whore was one of those brain-dead idiots that I mentioned above. He is every bit (if not more so) of an idiot as the media percieved Dan Quayle to be!!!!

For godsakes, on the day before Clinton's first inaugural back in 1993, he was in Charlottesville, Virgina at a place named Monticello. He asked who lived there!!! Good God!!! The idiot should have been flogged on sight!!! An American VP not knowing who lived at Monticello!!!! I thought I was gonna have a heart attack on the spot when I heard that!!! That's about as bad as a Brit not knowing who lives at Buckingham Castle!!!

Ah well.... the end of another overly long post. I expent that I'll see a reply tomorrow.

11-27-2001, 10:54 PM	#133
Magness Quintesson Join Date: January 7, 2001 Location: Manchester, NH, USA Posts: 1,025	Hi Silver Cheetah, I've just completed reading the remainder of the new entires on this thread (after firing off my "tax" reply to you, that is). And now, as promised, is my reply to your lengthy reply regarding power generation. I may not do this in the order as you wrote it. Please forgive... quote: Origianlly posted by S/C: I do my share by buying 'green' energy generated from sustainable sources (windpower) from a supplier here in the UK. By doing that, I help fund the growth of the sustainable energies industry. Consumers can help by signing up to green energy deals, thus helping momentum. I think that's a great positive step and I applaud you for it. The only issue/problem with such a project/scheme (sorry, couldn't think of the appropriate nuetral word) is that, at least in the USA, it would need to be at least price competetive with the standard electric companies to have a chance. Furthermore, windpower, specifically, doesn't come without it's own downsides. Uses up a fair amount of real estate. Some environmentalists would probably bitch and moan ... I mean complain about building windmills from time to time. Requires wind, which while free, isn't always available. No everybody likes the low level of noise that the windmills generate. There are probably some others. Obviously, a definite upside is that the "fuel" is essentially free and is readily available. I'm not actually arguing for or against windpower. I think that the research and innovation is wonderful. And futhermore, I'd suggest that it should probably be government funded. Why, you ask, since I am fairly conservative and fairly anti-government? As you mentioned Exxon (among others) is out to make a buck. The responsible thing for Exxon to do is continue to produce oil and make profits for their shareholders. However, their self-interest doesn't necessary agree with the longer term self interest of developing energy alternatives. They have very little interest in doing the reaserch and I don't want them buying up any patents. Were the government to do or contract out the reseach (with the understanding that the fruits of that research is PUBLIC PROPERTY), I think that we could keep the power companies from burying a perfectly good new technology. quote: Originally posted by S/C: To my mind, huge companies like Exxon have a responsibility to the people of this planet, (the people and planet that allow them to make massive profits, incidently) to act in a way that is socially and environmentally responsible. Exxon doesnt agree. ARGH!!!!!!! Not one chance in hell do I agree with you here!!! They have a responsibility to act in the interests of their shareholders and within the bounds of the law. Period, end of sentence. If you (and I don't mean you in the strictly personal sense, S/C) don't like the amount of gas that is used by cars, for example, pass tougher gas milage laws. (This one isn't really aimed at you S/C, but it does follow from what I said above.) All this bitching about SUV's by the eco-terrorist-nazis in the US is a bunch of naive BS. People like big, heavy, SAFE cars that by the nature of being big and heavy do consume more gas . Yes, SUV's themselves are definitely a bit of a current fashion trend in autos. But the big, heavy, and safe principle would still hold true whther the car was an SUV, a mini-van, or big old-style Caddy. People (particular those with families) who can afford a big, heavy, SAFE car do not want to pack the kiddies into some ultra-light fuel-efficient deathtrap. quote: Origianlly posted by S/C: We have a situation where we are burning huge amounts of irreplaceable fossil fuels for energy. A. continuing to do this at present rates will accelerate global warming and we KNOW this. B. There is only so much of these fossil fuels under the earth. We need to use them slower and more carefully, - thinking of the future and the needs of generations to come. Okay? You got that? B. I completely understand that oil & coal are non-renewable fuels with finite supplies. While conservation is OK, it is only a bandaid. I am far more concerned with the R&D of alternative energy sources. A. I disagree vehementally. We do NOT know this. One group believes this, the other does not. As I understand it, the breakdown is about 50-50. It's just that the 50% that do believe in global warming are just a lot louder. quote: Originally posted by S/C: Lastly, yes, of course we have to use what we've got until we've got replacements. Do you think I'm some kind of idiot? Like let's all down tools and stay in bed until whoever have got the clean energy thing susssed. Activism is about raising awareness about a situation, and getting the people with clout to take action to change things. That's why we do all that whinging you keep banging on about. I don't necessarily think that you are some kind of idiot. I don't really know you well enough to give an honest answer. But I have certainly heard more than my share that are certifiable, brainwashed, and brain dead. I'm not certain that I agree with you about activism, at least as it currently stands now in the US. Activism to me looks more like the latest excuse for a bunch of losers to go on a road trip, smoke some dope, start a mini-riot, smash a few store fronts, etc. all in the name of the cause de jure. quote: Origianlly posted by S/C: But we'll never get anywhere until government realises that short termism isn't going to get us very far, and starts embracing alternative technologies with enthusiasm. We need more research and development money and some tax incentives to encourage people to go for alternatives). At present, they cant see any futher than the end of their coal and oil smeared noses. Vested intests? Perish the thought, Mr Bush...... As I said above, I basically agree with you here. Although not on jab at GW Bush. Al Whore was one of those brain-dead idiots that I mentioned above. He is every bit (if not more so) of an idiot as the media percieved Dan Quayle to be!!!! For godsakes, on the day before Clinton's first inaugural back in 1993, he was in Charlottesville, Virgina at a place named Monticello. He asked who lived there!!! Good God!!! The idiot should have been flogged on sight!!! An American VP not knowing who lived at Monticello!!!! I thought I was gonna have a heart attack on the spot when I heard that!!! That's about as bad as a Brit not knowing who lives at Buckingham Castle!!! Ah well.... the end of another overly long post. I expent that I'll see a reply tomorrow.