Paul wants America to fail.

cosmos
We can and should do both.
Conservation is no substitute for new production.
The price of gas is showing the true color of American control freak liberalism.
You want to control the choices that people make.
I do not know anyone who is against alternative energy sources.
I know lots of people who think that wind and solar and nuclear and oil and gas should all be produced, to our maximum capacity.
It is you liberals who want to limit our choices.
If alternatives are, truly, the future, alternatives will win in the marketplace, on their own.

If alternatives are not the answer? No amount of political or governmental power can make alternatives work.
======================================================
That last line says everything one needs to know about franklin and his minimalist mindset: He forgets to put into the equation the human mind, of which he is sadly lacking. Politics and governments have little to do with pushing alternate energy sources, except funding them. It will be driven people who understand the world will keep growing, and energy will be in short supply UNLESS we do something about it so future generations will have the energy necessary for a decent life.

You are dead wrong, idiot. In less than 15 years, that same hearse will be powered by alternate fuels, be it hydrogen or battery.

It’s people like you who fail to give the human mind credit for wanting to better their lives and the lives of future generations. While your motto may be drill here, drill now, it is also I want mine and I want it now, and to hell with my grandkids. You’re a loser and a charlatan, and a typical neo-conservative POS.

Regardless of whether GW is real or not, it’s the best thing that has happened. It forces us to think with a mindset that takes into account future generations, as well as present and future energy needs. With box-like thinking, franklin can’t see the forest for the trees, and his trees are made of oil. Mine are made of human ingenuity; that got us to the moon, and started the first hydrogen powered car. I like to think it can carry us anywhere we want to go, and people like franklin will just get run over in the process. Maybe there is a God after all.

I’m just a bit more optimistic about the ingenuity of my country and the human race than you are.

In 50 years? The internal combustion gasoline powered engine will be a museum piece.

We can have you stuffed and placed next to the exibit.

If alternatives are not the answer? No amount of political or governmental power can make alternatives work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbusto_Energy

“Energy production is very, very risky.”
——–

Energy conservation is guaranteed, AND cheaper than new energy production.

Or you can work very very little in the oil business, fail BADLY and become President of the United States when your energy buddies make you their front man.

Fossil fuels are for people with fossilized thinking.

Also, look at how many shareholders each of those oil companies have.
Look at the average profit per share.
Look at the PE ratio, of the stock.
Look at the relative profitability of oil company stock over the last several years.

Oil company profits are not out of line. Not even a little bit. They have good years, they have bad years. They take the risk and the deserve the rewards.

You libs treat the honest profit of “oil men” and other energy suppliers like it is, some how “evil” -

Yet you treat your High Priest, Al Gore, as though he has no profit motive at all!

There is natural radioactivity in many areas of the country, and in many areas of the world.

Does the radioactivity released by coal really matter?

Since coal is naturally occuring, in so many areas of the country, arent those areas radioactive?

I know that there is natural radioactivity in many areas of the rocky mountains.

We can not have 100% safety, with any energy source. It is a balancing act.

Higher energy costs, alone, no matter the source, will KILL people.

People will freeze in the winter, People will die of heat exhaustion or heat stroke, in the summer.

Higher energy costs are deadly.

But there is more to coal fired plants than mercury:

Partly because of these concerns about radioactivity and the cost of containing it, the American public and electric utilities have preferred coal combustion as a power source. Today 52% of the capacity for generating electricity in the United States is fueled by coal, compared with 14.8% for nuclear energy. Although there are economic justifications for this preference, it is surprising for two reasons. First, coal combustion produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are suspected to cause climatic warming, and it is a source of sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, which are harmful to human health and may be largely responsible for acid rain. Second, although not as well known, releases from coal combustion contain naturally occurring radioactive materials–mainly, uranium and thorium.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

Not a good thing by any means.

But back on topic:
Whether or not Pickens is in it for the money, bringing energy independence to the forefront of the energy debate can only do good. I would rather leave our grandkids a place that doesn’t have to rely on foreign countries for their energy needs.

First off, cars can be made to run on energy not requiring any oil, other than grease, which can be sealed in lifetime bearings, etc. Energy for homes and business can come from Nuclear plants, wind and solar farms and even generated by wave action. It is possible to generate all the energy needed by this country without using oil.

I still am of the opinion superconductors could be developed that would conduct under any temperature extreme in this country. That would mean a 30% savings of all generated current. Cost? Hell yes, but better than paying billions overseas for energy we could be producing here.

“Table 3 in the ES&T paper shows that at 70% removal, including the cost of byproducts, the cost per pound of mercury removed ranges from $19,200 to $149,000, while the COE at 70% ranges from 0.90 to 3.92 mills/kWh. And 90% mercury removal wasn’t achieved at three of the plants, the utility officer points out. “What I’m seeing is really such a large range of control costs that it makes it difficult for managers or operators to find where one of their plants would fit in. It’s very hard to make a general statement of how much this will cost” at every plant, the utility representative says.”

Because he couldn’t have possibly been any worse than

Worst.
President.
Ever.

“There’s been no energy policy for 40 years…”

Just what is (The Big) Dick Cheney hiding, then?

“…as far as I can tell…”

Well, damn.

If the rest of us had to depend on what “GMC70″ “can tell…,” we’d all have a law degree financed by box-tops and bottle caps and have a cushy government job that permits all-day blogging during office hours on the tax-payers’ dime.

“…there are no CF’s for fixtures on a photosensing switch….”

They’re available. They’re fairly-new technology and, so, more expensive. The major market is for traditional illumination. If you have a basic understanding of electronics, it’s simple to insert a capacitor into the photo-sensitive circuit which holds off juice to the bulb until there’s enough to activate the fluorescent action.

As for motion sensors etc the incandescent might still make sense.

My solar lights that automatically come on at dusk are LEDs which are also efficient. I see no reason why one switched that was could not be s atandard CF since they are ’single wattage’

GMC – not sure why you have had the problems. I have found that especially in locations like outside (driveway/porch) and stairs ceilings where changing them is a real pain in the butt they outlast incandescent by several times.