Cap and trade bullshit

[guerilla]

I don't think cap and trade is the best solution, but higher energy prices do incentivize energy efficiency and penalize waste.

Naturally high market prices do this. They ration scarce supplies.

Energy is not scarce naturally. It is artificially made scarce by taxes, licenses and regulation.

Cap and trade is quite simply, the biggest tax boondoggle in the history of the world.

 

[Rusky]

^^^(harveyj)
How long does it take for initial investment in the solar panels to pay up. By the time its pays for its self you'll have to replace it twice. If It was so cheap, I'd be doing it right now.

 

[LotsOfZeros]

Wind energy has a long way to go before it can mature. To use it you have to make sure the wind is blowing (duh) and it can't be stored. I can see it maybe becoming some sort of passive energy source whereas it is used once it is produced and sent through the energy grids but then there is a primary energy source always backing it up, like nuke.

 

[dreamache]

i heard that part of this cap and trade plan.. is that if you want to sell your house, gov. officials have to inspect and make sure that all appliances are up-to-date, along with all utilities + proper windows..

if they aren't, you can't sell your house until they're corrected...



i hope to god i'm wrong.

 

[jbartinla]

As long as US citizens keep voting in people to positions that really don't give a shit about them, this will continue to happen. If you were elected and didn't give a shit about the people that voted for you, you would do things that gave you more power over more people to make sure they vote for you again, or at least be able to make a ton of money and gain power before you get voted out.

It would be cool if politicians got paid on performance.

Did GDP grow while they were in office?
Did more people have affordable health insurance while they were in office?
Did the stock market rise when they were in office?
Did inflation, unemployment, foreclosures, budget deficits, personal bankruptcies drop while they were in office?
Did crime decrease?

Maybe align our leaders with what the people really want or need as a country.

I kinda thought that was the idea - where did it go so wrong?

 

[hellblazer]

Yep, no difference between Repubs and Dems. That must be why Boehner called this bill a 'steaming pile of shit'. Stop covering for them and cut those nutjobs loose.

 

[envision]

Energy is not scarce naturally. It is artificially made scarce by taxes, licenses and regulation.

While that statement may not be totally wrong, it's definitely problematic. Most of our energy today is made from fossile fuel and those resources are limited. Sure, today we could always fire up a few more coal or oil power plants, but 1.) you may realize that clean air is also a resource worth caring for and 2.) you invite a discussion about how much you care about what you leave behind for your children and grandchildren. Do you really want to blow through as much coal and oil as you can possibly grab today and don't give a shit how much is left for future generations? And what about polluting our planet and green-house gas issues? What kind of earth would you want to leave behind?

Of course, there are other sources. Nuclear is one. But you also have to realize that nuclear power is more expensive and that it takes years to build and commission new nuclear plants. Not something that would help us now. And, of course, there's always the "not in my backyard" problem. People all agree that nuclear plants are safe and that spent-fuel storage is safe ... but only as long as nobody plans to open a nuclear waste disposal in your neighborhood.

The only truly abundant form is sun or wind energy, but unfortunately, we're still decades away from utilizing those as our dominating energy source.

In the meantime, attacking the equation from the demand side is something we can do immediately. Getting wasteful consumption under control, we shouldn't even have to argue over.

 

[papajohn56]

This is dead on. Nuclear energy is the only energy source that has the ability to create more energy than was put into it which will make the energy dirt cheap.

nuclear energy is great and all, but it's not like it can violate the laws of physics, friend.

 

[TVensor]

Let me know when there is a carbon credit rebill. Free trial , 5 tons of CO2, just pay $1.99 shipping.

 

[popeye]

i heard that part of this cap and trade plan.. is that if you want to sell your house, gov. officials have to inspect and make sure that all appliances are up-to-date, along with all utilities + proper windows..

if they aren't, you can't sell your house until they're corrected...



i hope to god i'm wrong.

Nope, your correct. To sell your home under this bill you will have to have it inspected and it will need to meet with all the environmental standards set forth in the bill.

 

[cardine]

nuclear energy is great and all, but it's not like it can violate the laws of physics, friend.

The energy that you get through a nuclear reaction can be greater than the energy required to initiate the reaction.

Changing matter to energy is the only way to get more energy in a system than what was put into it, and that is exactly what nuclear does. Maybe you have heard of e=mc^2?

 

[teguh123]

Disposable place settings are cheaper (in energy) to produce, and they don't require sanitation or cleaning, and they can't be used as weapons, or shatter and cut someone.

IIRC, Brown bags have a higher energy cost to produce than plastic bags.

If one wants to be intelligent about the economy and human action, it might be wise to make two logical progressions when you are thinking. That is to say, analyze the cost against the lost potential of incurring that cost. Or look at what is SEEN and what is UNSEEN.

Precisely. Thngs are done in the market because that's the most efficient way to do things.

If they give you plastic bag it's because the plastic bag are cheaper.

If somehow it hurts enviroment government can put polution tax.

Tadaaa... Solved.

 

[johnmatrix]

I'd actually think this glen beck dude is on the ball, but then i saw the fox news logo

 

[JustFU]

Glenn Beck is most definitely a nut ball, but he is on top of this shit.

I started watching his program pretty much religiously about 3 weeks ago and not only does he talk a lot of shit, but he backs it up with some pretty hard proof.

Everyone can say it isn't a republican or democrat thing, but the dude that is lying to me right now is Obama. Before it is all said and done, this cock sucker is going to fucking tax me to the tune of about 70% from the looks of it.

I'm going to figure out the minimum amount of money that I can survive on and make just that much money. The rest of these welfare recipient douche bags can find someone else to fucking support them...Give them Google money kits or some shit and tell them to start posting links.

Cap and Trade
Buying fucking car companies
Taxing my damn health benefits

Then that slut Pelosi is spending some shit like 6 million dollars on some desert rat or some other retarded shit. Someone needs to kick that woman in the vagina.

As much as I hate to say it, Bring Bush back - At least he was too dumb for his handlers to coach into seeming believable. Not to mention, he didn't act like a total pussy and go on a world tour apologizing to every fucking country, race, creed, and religion because America is so evil.

We've now got more czars than Russia running around the white house..fucking douche bags.

 

[papajohn56]

I'd actually think this glen beck dude is on the ball, but then i saw the fox news logo

seriously? so you're willing to discredit everything he's saying, despite agreeing with him, just because of the network he works with? fuck you're a tool. go back to digg or something "hurr hurr FAUX NEWS". when someone is right, they're right; no matter who they work for.

 

[papajohn56]

The energy that you get through a nuclear reaction can be greater than the energy required to initiate the reaction.

Changing matter to energy is the only way to get more energy in a system than what was put into it, and that is exactly what nuclear does. Maybe you have heard of e=mc^2?

seriously? you're still suggesting it violates physical laws, and yes, I can DERIVE E=mc^2 right here and now if you want, explain every single step of the way, and tell you why what you're saying is not right. The mass-energy equivalency equation says that this bit of matter CONTAINS this amount of energy. It does not just create energy out of thin air. The matter contains it, and that energy is released in the form of light or heat via a nuclear reaction. Ever heard of the strong and weak nuclear force? Or how about bond energies? Where do you think the energy released from a nuclear reaction comes from?

Nuclear power does not use matter/anti-matter annihilation to release energy, it's the decay due to the introduction of a neutron into the core of an otherwise stable nucleus. That introduction of neutron(s) causes instability in the nucleus, causing it to break apart, releasing energy.

Energy is NOT created, it is simply turned from one form into another.

Wikipedia:

"The total amount of mass-energy in a closed system remains constant because energy cannot be created or destroyed and, in all of its forms, trapped energy has mass. According to the theory of relativity, mass and energy as commonly understood are two names for the same thing, and neither one appears without the other."

I could also go on and tell you that E=mc^2 is an oversimplified version of the mass-energy equivalence equation, and tell you why relativistic mass-energy equivalence is more important in most cases, where the mass is the rest-mass, and it's multiplied by a relativistic factor of Gamma, which is:

γ=(sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2)))^-1

now, any more? please don't pull that smug "Maybe you have heard of e=mc^2?" shit on me.

 

[johnmatrix]

seriously? so you're willing to discredit everything he's saying, despite agreeing with him, just because of the network he works with? fuck you're a tool. go back to digg or something "hurr hurr FAUX NEWS". when someone is right, they're right; no matter who they work for.

This coming from the guy who thinks theres no energy surplus from nuclear fission... What are you even arguing? cardine is saying you get more energy out of a nuclear fission reaction than is required to initiate it, OBVIOUSLY it comes from the fucking strong nuclear force bonds between the atoms, hes not suggesting it comes from nowhere, it still uses nuclear FUEL. Here you are flying off the handle trying to say it is violating physical laws when you're both arguing the same god damn point with different words.

Everyone knows energy isn't created, congrats you know grade 10 physics.

 

[papajohn56]

This coming from the guy who thinks theres no energy surplus from nuclear fission... What are you even arguing? cardine is saying you get more energy out of a nuclear fission reaction than is required to initiate it, OBVIOUSLY it comes from the fucking strong nuclear force bonds between the atoms, hes not suggesting it comes from nowhere, it still uses nuclear FUEL. Here you are flying off the handle trying to say it is violating physical laws when you're both arguing the same god damn point with different words.

cardine said, "Changing matter to energy is the only way to get more energy in a system than what was put into it, and that is exactly what nuclear does."

you don't change matter into energy, that's the biggest point here. you are not getting out more energy than is available in the closed system, you're converting it to heat and light, heat which is used to create steam and spin the turbines - there's energy lost in there, it's not perfectly efficient. this system is not a net gain in energy, it's a conversion via several steps from strong/weak force and bond energies to electrical energy.


and plus, that's not even my point though - how can you discredit someone you agree with just by the network they work for? if he's got a good point, he's got a good point - regardless of where he works

 

[cardine]

seriously? you're still suggesting it violates physical laws, and yes, I can DERIVE E=mc^2 right here and now if you want, explain every single step of the way, and tell you why what you're saying is not right. The mass-energy equivalency equation says that this bit of matter CONTAINS this amount of energy. It does not just create energy out of thin air. The matter contains it, and that energy is released in the form of light or heat via a nuclear reaction. Ever heard of the strong and weak nuclear force? Or how about bond energies? Where do you think the energy released from a nuclear reaction comes from?

Nuclear power does not use matter/anti-matter annihilation to release energy, it's the decay due to the introduction of a neutron into the core of an otherwise stable nucleus. That introduction of neutron(s) causes instability in the nucleus, causing it to break apart, releasing energy.

Energy is NOT created, it is simply turned from one form into another.

Wikipedia:

"The total amount of mass-energy in a closed system remains constant because energy cannot be created or destroyed and, in all of its forms, trapped energy has mass. According to the theory of relativity, mass and energy as commonly understood are two names for the same thing, and neither one appears without the other."

I could also go on and tell you that E=mc^2 is an oversimplified version of the mass-energy equivalence equation, and tell you why relativistic mass-energy equivalence is more important in most cases, where the mass is the rest-mass, and it's multiplied by a relativistic factor of Gamma, which is:

γ=(sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2)))^-1

now, any more? please don't pull that smug "Maybe you have heard of e=mc^2?" shit on me.

When the fuck did I say that energy was magically being created out of thin air?

I simply said that the energy required to initiate a nuclear reaction is far less than the energy you get out of it.

Edit: Sure, from your purely scientific point of view, the reaction is not 'energy positive' (that is obviously impossible)... however practically it is 'energy positive'. You can take the energy from a nuclear reaction, and use a small fraction of it to initiate another nuclear reaction. In that sense it is 'energy positive'.