|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on May 25, 2013 22:05:40 GMT 1
We're coming a morsel close to personal attacks here. I got no trouble with strong debating but keep it to the topics and not the people. Who came close to an ad hominem? You did by saying this: "Corporate welfare is the only thing keeping the green industry alive because of people like you. " Now here's my counter. I disapprove of corporate welfare across the board, I don't care what industry the business that's failing is. Such is life. It would be helpful if companies wouldn't sell a car that costs $80,000 to manufacture for $70,000, which is one of my main issues with many of the newer green projects: the lack of cost-effectiveness. 70k is what I gross in 4 years before taxes. Before everyone jumped on the hybrid/electric bandwagon, I was hearing promising things about hydrogen fuel cells which seems to be a good step to take: adapt an already inexpensive and common technology while the newer technology matures and becomes less expensive. One of those steps would be better energy storage devices (batteries). Even lithium-ion batteries have their limits (plus they have the nasty tendency to explode more readily than older designs, a situation that isn't completely fixed yet). And regarding the money that went to Pelosi's brother-in-law... his company got handed $735 Million but don't have much to show for it. Solyndra got their half-billion dollars, but their product wasn't as good as advertised and they went under, plus they're under investigation for fraud with regards to applying for their loan. Wind, hyrdo-electric, geothermal, and nuclear are the sources of energy I think would be best for electricity generation with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles supplanting fossil-fueled vehicles which eventually would be replaced by something even better. Solar isn't exactly all it's cracked out to be when you have to factor in things like angle of the sun, durability of the panels, and so on. The big one there will be nuclear: it's pretty much the only known energy source that could be used for deep space missions.
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on May 25, 2013 22:12:16 GMT 1
Doesn't matter. When the mod weighs in, cool off for awhile. By all means address the ad hominem, but the problem is the faulty logic, not the person. Also, we cannot simply point our fingers at the oil companies and say "Aha, thar be our villains!" They certainly contribute, as do the shenanigans with politicians. Right now, if green cars are costing the gov't 10,000 per car in subsidies, then this is a bad situation and needs to be resolved. But blaming it on the idiots who won't invest in the future is the wrong approach. The sensible way is to show them that the green options can work just as well. This I'm in full agreement with (though last I checked, Tesla Motors claims to make about 45k per car after the subsidies are weighed in so it's costing the government about 55k per car to give them a profit). Anyways, like any product: find a way to make it cost-effective and then sell it. That's what Henry Ford did when he made the Models A and T.
|
|
MEdiscovery
Gunnery Chief
The discovery of a life time.
Posts: 93
|
Post by MEdiscovery on May 26, 2013 0:04:52 GMT 1
You did by saying this: "Corporate welfare is the only thing keeping the green industry alive because of people like you. " How is saying that you are a tax payer an insult? Now here's my counter. I disapprove of corporate welfare across the board, I don't care what industry the business that's failing is. Such is life. It would be helpful if companies wouldn't sell a car that costs $80,000 to manufacture for $70,000, which is one of my main issues with many of the newer green projects: the lack of cost-effectiveness. 70k is what I gross in 4 years before taxes. Corporate welfare is indeed a major issue during stable economic times, but federal bailouts kept the auto industry afloat during the crash of 2008-9. Before everyone jumped on the hybrid/electric bandwagon, I was hearing promising things about hydrogen fuel cells which seems to be a good step to take: adapt an already inexpensive and common technology while the newer technology matures and becomes less expensive. One of those steps would be better energy storage devices (batteries). Even lithium-ion batteries have their limits (plus they have the nasty tendency to explode more readily than older designs, a situation that isn't completely fixed yet). I am aware of the technology, and why it is not widespread. And regarding the money that went to Pelosi's brother-in-law... his company got handed $735 Million but don't have much to show for it. Solyndra got their half-billion dollars, but their product wasn't as good as advertised and they went under, plus they're under investigation for fraud with regards to applying for their loan. And? I fail to see any relevance to this. The popularity of a product has little to do with the politics behind smashing anthropogenic climate change deniers. So far, the ineffective use of money has only proved my point. Said industries could not afford lobbyists to advance any agenda. Wind, hyrdo-electric, geothermal, and nuclear are the sources of energy I think would be best for electricity generation with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles supplanting fossil-fueled vehicles which eventually would be replaced by something even better. Solar isn't exactly all it's cracked out to be when you have to factor in things like angle of the sun, durability of the panels, and so on. Solar power will be far more reliable when fiber cables become more commonplace, causing less drain when being transferred. The issue is not how much one can gather in a day, but how much one can transfer without losing the energy entirely. The big one there will be nuclear: it's pretty much the only known energy source that could be used for deep space missions. Indefinitely, once nuclear anti-proliferates are removed from the equation. Doesn't matter. When the mod weighs in, cool off for awhile. By all means address the ad hominem, but the problem is the faulty logic, not the person. I see. Also, we cannot simply point our fingers at the oil companies and say "Aha, thar be our villains!" They certainly contribute, as do the shenanigans with politicians. Right now, if green cars are costing the gov't 10,000 per car in subsidies, then this is a bad situation and needs to be resolved. But blaming it on the idiots who won't invest in the future is the wrong approach. The sensible way is to show them that the green options can work just as well. We certainly can. In 2009, oil companies spent over 174 billion dollars in lobbying alone to fend off climate theorists and the scientific community. Figures have remained consistent with that number ever since. The ignorant political debate is simply the result of lobbying.
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on May 26, 2013 7:13:47 GMT 1
Alright, suppose we can lay it at the lobbyists' feet. How do we stop lobbying? Because an end to lobbying will be an end to political campaigns as we know them (a not altogether undesirable result). It'd be like removing a jenga block from the next to last row. It won't fall over completely, but it sure looks shaky. And how do we know that all climatologists/scientists will tell us the truth? Sure, they may all agree that warming is happening, but I guarantee you they do not agree on how to fix it. It'll be as simple as pie for a displaced company to hire a dishonorable scientist to throw monkey wrenches into the conservation projects. At which point they can swoop in and say "Ha we saved you", You're right that the situation cannot remain as it stands now. How do we create the change we're looking for (and if you say sitting in a tent in NYC, I will laugh at you).
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on May 26, 2013 23:43:13 GMT 1
I view this from a more practical approach: which is the most cost effective, which is a step forward for the long-term, and how do we most efficiently use the resources available to us? As it sits, fossil fuels remain the least expensive approach, but even with advances in technology to extract them, they're still finite. Instead of trying to sell a bunch of snake oil, how about we sit down and come up with an actual strategy that can work? THAT is a key problem with many Green technologies: everyone is trying to clamor for their own pet projects to be funded instead of figuring out what the best way to go is.
Side note it would also help if most people in the Green movement would focus more on the benefits of their ideas than denigrating the big bad oil companies every other breath.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on May 27, 2013 1:08:31 GMT 1
Something for everyone to think about here from the geniu who brought you "Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, but he hasn't been back, has he? Waste of money. Can't have been that good":
|
|
|
Post by Warhammer Gorvar on May 27, 2013 9:47:02 GMT 1
I ndever did watch that show, should give it a try. As for the Moon...i thought we didnt go there anymore because of moon spiders or something.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on May 27, 2013 10:12:41 GMT 1
Not practical. The custom built tech for going there and back doesn't even work with our current shuttles.
Honestly I don't see any new movement on the Moon or Mars until we actually get off our asses and get that space elevator working. I think everyone would like to see shuttles leave orbit with a few tons less fuel involved just to break atmo.
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on May 27, 2013 10:46:13 GMT 1
|
|
Liz the Geth
Serviceman 3rd Class
Do you consider this platform... "Kawaii"?
Posts: 4
|
Post by Liz the Geth on May 3, 2014 0:10:00 GMT 1
Through consensus, we have determined that the intertwining of science and religion is what led the Heretics to worship the Old Machines.
This is highly illogical.
Why do organics insist on combining the two factors?
|
|
|
Post by Cali on May 3, 2014 1:42:39 GMT 1
Thread necro with a joke is a serious thread.
Still, I wholeheartedly approve.
|
|