bobbo, to the left of Obama says:

Anonsense–and you know this how? Have you added in the cost of the Gulf Oil Spill? Do you add in the covert subsidies like road building maintenance rather than use of rail? Do you add in an actuarial amount for our exposure to foreign manipulation because of our dependence on their oil? Do you add in the cost of fighting wars to secure the oil? Do you add in the damage to USA by insurgents funded by the oil revenue?

Do you? Or do you just blow into the wind?

Mextli says:

bobbo #29

You are obviously correct, I screwed up and did not post my text. BTW the mention of the Rahm Emanuel quote was Mike’s as well.

Ah_Yea says:

bobbo, you are starting to scare me.

I usually lambaste others for not reading my comments or links, little did I foresee that I would also have to lambaste YOU for not doing the same!

Shame on you.

Everything you stated was already answered in the previous thread, starting on Post #72.

Let’s start with “I assume all could be improved on by investing in R&D”. No. Not true. I already answered this in the Previously Mentioned Post #72!
“I’m waiting for a dark process”.
Yes, and I am waiting for the Second Coming. But in the mean time…

Next you said: “You are aware of all the damage to our environment caused by uranium extraction? Why do you totally disregard our environment?

Again, I answered this in, what? POST #72!!! What part of “Not to mention we already have 728,000 pounds of material which can be converted for power generation already!!” missed your comprehension??

It’s already dug up! It’s already extracted! So where do you get “damage to our environment” from something we already have produced??

“100 miles square using solar-thermal…” Wow, this borders on insanity. Very Dallas, very un-bobbo. Do you have any idea how solar panels are made? You tell me the “environmental damage” that would be caused by building 100 square miles of solar panels? Production of solar panels is an intense process similar to production of computer chips. How many more Fab plants will have to be made to create only ONE square mile of solar cells?

Please, when I ask you to review what we already discussed just two days ago, either remember or please refresh your memory.

bobbo, to the left of Obama says:

Ah Yea–did I read your #72 previously? I think so and mostly negated it point by point in a longish linked response that got lost with DU going down yesterday and my computer backup going astray. So, with honest respect for the work it takes to competently respond to an honest post, I will go read it again or for the first time and post back in more detail.

But in the meantime, I did say solar-THERMAL, not cell. And I thought I was quite leading edge in desiring a dark bio mass process. I do wonder if you really anticipated me? Wonderful if you did.

Isn’t the whole point of R&D and releasing the inventiveness of the private market by way of taxing oil the fact that “new Ideas” are developed? I’m sure that there were some “new ideas” in the development of the space program rather than just the more sterile application of known technology that you claim. For instance, I assume Tang already existed, but the Space Program made it taste better–that kind of thing?

algoreisacrook says:

Maddow gives a great speech. Obama could learn from this guy.

bobbo, to the left of Obama says:

Ah Yea–My review of your post #72==you falter. Calling for a moon shot program for energy independence is almost “by definition” NOT business as usual. You must be thinking of something else while typing a nonsense rhyme?

Accident and INTENTIONAL sabotage/terrorism. Yes. That is a major drawback of large capital intensive centralized power companies. Same problem with coal plants. Better to have a decentralized power system that individually aren’t worthy of attack. The National Security advantage of having my house powered by its roof is worth a HUGE subsidy over having cheaper power delivered by a Nuke.

A lot of money has not been thrown at alternative energy. Are you confusing give aways to various business groups in the form of tax rebates and incentives to be a lot of money spent on the intellectual development of energy alternatives? Note the same thing at all.

“Throwing money at a problem” normally involves just funding what is already in place. The fraud but continues. That follows your recommendation to throw money at Nuke Power. NO! I’m saying artificially if you will, increase the cost of oil and all the market to respond with cost saving renewable/cheaper alternatives.

Its silly to suggest that throwing money at an issue, or more precisely==to fund research programs, is a waste of time. In counterpoint: the genome program. When it started, it took a million dollars and 5 years to map a genome. The Moore’s law re computing power advanced and now it takes a few weeks and 10,000 bucks. A few days and a thousand dollars is expected shortly. Same with energy. Don’t be such a luddite.

The gas/oil tax is phased in. As long as gas/oil is needed, no jobs will be lost. Can’t you juggle more than one ball at a time? The notion that 80% of wind farm funding has gone overseas goes to a separate jobs/manufacturing policy issue. There are jobs in the USA for erecting and maintaining the Wind Farms and in building the energy grid required. Silly to say these jobs are going to wind up in China and India.

I do understand that current Nuke power design arose out of the government throwing money at the ridiculous idea that a new bomb might be possible. If there is safe nuke power that can consume what is now nuke waste, we should pursue that by all means. How come no one is? Your notion that current nuclear warheads can be used to generate nuke power IS NOT THE ISSUE. What to do with the waste is the issue. I recall about 15 years ago an article about the current demonstration project that was supposed to last 100 years: incasing nuke waste in fiberglass and concrete containers. After only 3 years, it was discovered there was some as then unknown electrolysis reaction in play causing the containers to leak. Why play with poison having a half life of 780 Million years?

I will also note your dismissive attitude regarding R&D for a dark bio fuel process shows a fundamental lack of imagination. Research into such tecniques could be a complete revolution: turning waste products/pollution into a resource. A Huge win if it is possible. My faith is that it is possible, just may not be discovered, but worth the effort. Pure science with immediately practical application. Better than teflon.

bobbo, to the left of Obama says:

Well, thanks Ah Yea, but I’m not giving up on my anti-nuke position. I get dizzy whenever I hear pro-Nuke advocates call it “the only clean energy we have” and such nonsense.

No–the failure to deal with the waste products is no smarter than drilling in the deep ocean with no response possible to a spill. Same with Nuke. Might be very rare, but when a plant really blows, we have chernoble: a waste land for years, down wind cancer rates etc, and as you continue to ignore: a target for terrorists.

But we are on board for getting off oil asap by developing alt energy. And thats a good thing.

Faxon says:

#19.
No. She does not SCARE me. Dumbshit. I find her fucking stupid and full of shit.

bobbo, to the left of Obama says:

#56–Faxon/Faxoff-(I’d rather have the clap)== Well, I see those ToastMaster classes are really working out for you.

So again–what doesn’t make your eyes hurt? Limbaugh? Beck? The Holy Bible? Hmmmm. No, from your comments, it looks like Hard Core Porn with animals. Ha, ha.

Rant on. Fax-off.

bobbo, to the left of Obama says:

Mike–so you call this a “public policy concern” rather than the pay back for corrupt political campaigns huh?

Something tells me YOU are part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

Please try to stand up on your hind legs and join the human race.