Ed Anecdote to liberal reverse racism

[Robert Prey]

I take it you think stealth technology is a fraud then?

And if we were to put hard limits on carbon emissions for power generation do you not think there would be a substantial market for their new technology?

A market, yes. But hardly a free market, and one that would cost the average American dearly, make all products much more expensive and drastically lower standards of living. And that would make all the environmentalist wackos ecstatic!

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Then why was cap and trade originally promoted by the alleged conservatives, the Republicans?

Goldman Sachs.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Most conservatives don't want to argue with you silly libs. I love it.

If only you were better at it.

I don't believe in a fragile Earth. I believe it absorbs anything we do.

The Earth will continue to revolve around the Sun regardless of what we do it - whether any of us are around to witness that or not.

(If I'm being too subtle, I can explain the point I'm making.)

 

[Travis]

A market, yes. But hardly a free market, and one that would cost the average American dearly, make all products much more expensive and drastically lower standards of living. And that would make all the environmentalist wackos ecstatic!

How would it lower the standards of living?

We already have a great viable alternative in electricity production: nuclear power. With it we would have electricity in the same quantities we now use and for about the same price. With enough power the basic standards of a modern society can continue. Especially as transportation also transforms as it is already doing. We have cars, trucks and even airplanes with fuel efficiencies that once seemed almost impossible. We have the prospect of electric trains connecting the biggest cities too as yet another transportation option. And all that technological innovation undoubtedly created jobs and wealth.

So how is society suffering? How is any of this playing into the hands of your imagined anti-human-enviro-whacko Marxists?

 

[Robert Prey]

How would it lower the standards of living?

We already have a great viable alternative in electricity production: nuclear power. With it we would have electricity in the same quantities we now use and for about the same price. With enough power the basic standards of a modern society can continue. Especially as transportation also transforms as it is already doing. We have cars, trucks and even airplanes with fuel efficiencies that once seemed almost impossible. We have the prospect of electric trains connecting the biggest cities too as yet another transportation option. And all that technological innovation undoubtedly created jobs and wealth.

So how is society suffering? How is any of this playing into the hands of your imagined anti-human-enviro-whacko Marxists?

So many fallacies... so little time. No. Nuclear power for one is a fraud. The published economics of Nukes do not include the zillions involved in taking down an old plant, or the eternal problem of storing waste, nor the enormous insurance liabilities, which no private insurer will assume, but for Fed handouts, no plants would be built. What fuel efficiencies in cars is largely due to bowing to government mandates at the expense of safety. Electric cars are a bust and don't sell without Gov. handouts and tax breaks. Ditto ethanol. One day the market may produce something better. Natural gas seems a possible substitute; but the Eviron wackos don't like it either. Government trains are there because they can't compete in the private market. Few people ride Amtrak and they lose billions every year. But you ain't seen nothin yet. The Obama Express is yet to come (high speed trains).

 

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Travis View Post
How would it lower the standards of living?

Comment: By making everything more expensive.

 

[Multivac]

I'm waiting for the film version.

Would you do the film as a straight adaptation of the book, or more pythonesque? Maybe a porn version: "hey Moses. Have you got the 10 commandments in your pocket, or are you just pleased to see me?"

Biggest question of all time - would you include the missing page from the bible? The page that says: " This book is dedicated to Mary. Without her help and encouragement this book would never have been completed. All characters contained within this book are fiction. Any resemblance to real events or people is purely coincidental".

 

[Dancing David]

Of course. But such new technologies are not of any value unless viable without government handouts.

Just like the railroads, telephone lines, high power transmission lines, the Interwebs or the fact that the gas tax does not support highways but we get soaked for 50%-70% of highway maintainence from income taxes?

 

[Dancing David]

They must make their "loads of money" from the market, not from government handouts or the new technology is a fraud.

Uh huh, and why does it happen that everytime people talk about cutting subsidies to big bussiness, it becomes a *********** crime?

 

[Travis]

So many fallacies... so little time.

Yeah, just list one. Just one.

No. Nuclear power for one is a fraud. The published economics of Nukes do not include the zillions involved in taking down an old plant, or the eternal problem of storing waste, nor the enormous insurance liabilities, which no private insurer will assume, but for Fed handouts, no plants would be built.

All problems that France doesn't seem to have because of a proper regulatory environment and advanced technology.

And do you think that nuclear is better than coal?

What fuel efficiencies in cars is largely due to bowing to government mandates at the expense of safety.

Oh, do tell what safety has been compromised?

And those regulations were very worth it. Just ask the people in LA that can see the mountains again.

Electric cars are a bust and don't sell without Gov. handouts and tax breaks.

I wasn't talking about electric cars. Which is still a maturing technology.

Ditto ethanol.

A boondoggle to be sure. But irrelevant.

One day the market may produce something better. Natural gas seems a possible substitute; but the Eviron wackos don't like it either.

Because it presents most of the problems we are trying to solve. No matter what you do you get carbon emissions.

Government trains are there because they can't compete in the private market. Few people ride Amtrak and they lose billions every year. But you ain't seen nothin yet. The Obama Express is yet to come (high speed trains).

Hmmm, high speed trains make loads of money and the places they are proposed to serve in the USA are ripe markets. And even if they don't they offer a nice alternative to the government subsidized airlines.

 

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
What fuel efficiencies in cars is largely due to bowing to government mandates at the expense of safety.
Oh, do tell what safety has been compromised?

Comment: Weight

 

[sarge]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
What fuel efficiencies in cars is largely due to bowing to government mandates at the expense of safety.
Oh, do tell what safety has been compromised?

Comment: Weight

Weight is not a safety component in automobiles - especially in vehicle/vehicle collisions. In these accidents, a disparity in weight affords the occupants of the heavier vehicle greater protection at the cost of less protection to the occupants in the lighter vehicle.

All else being equal, it is safer when all vehicles are lighter than when all vehicels are heavier, and much safer than when some vehicles are significantly heavier than other vehicles.

In fact, vehicles have gotten steadily safer at the same time that they've gotten lighter and more fuel efficient.

 

[Robert Prey]

Weight is not a safety component in automobiles - especially in vehicle/vehicle collisions. In these accidents, a disparity in weight affords the occupants of the heavier vehicle greater protection at the cost of less protection to the occupants in the lighter vehicle.

All else being equal, it is safer when all vehicles are lighter than when all vehicels are heavier, and much safer than when some vehicles are significantly heavier than other vehicles.

In fact, vehicles have gotten steadily safer at the same time that they've gotten lighter and more fuel efficient.

So in your fantasy world of "all else being equal" trucks have the same weight as cars.

 

[Robert Prey]

Travis wrote:

Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
No. Nuclear power for one is a fraud. The published economics of Nukes do not include the zillions involved in taking down an old plant, or the eternal problem of storing waste, nor the enormous insurance liabilities, which no private insurer will assume, but for Fed handouts, no plants would be built.


Travis: All problems that France doesn't seem to have because of a proper regulatory environment and advanced technology.

Comment: France has plenty of problems. Google it.

And do you think that nuclear is better than coal?

Comment: No Nukes is Good Nukes.

 

[Robert Prey]

Travis wrote:

I wasn't talking about electric cars. Which is still a maturing technology.

Comment: Yeah. It's been "maturing" for about the last 100 years.

 

[bikerdruid]

And do you think that nuclear is better than coal?
.

i am no fan of nukes, as everyone here knows, however coal is not the alternative.
it is finite and dirty. [period.
you'll have to do better than that.

 

[Spindrift]

Of course. But such new technologies are not of any value unless viable without government handouts.

Care to explain via the internet how internet technology has no value?

 

[Travis]

No. Nuclear power for one is a fraud. The published economics of Nukes do not include the zillions involved in taking down an old plant, or the eternal problem of storing waste, nor the enormous insurance liabilities, which no private insurer will assume, but for Fed handouts, no plants would be built.

Travis: All problems that France doesn't seem to have because of a proper regulatory environment and advanced technology.

Comment: France has plenty of problems. Google it.

Google is not leading me to any problems with their power supply. Actually, with Germany going nuke free, they are positioned to start making loads of money.

And do you think that nuclear is better than coal?

Comment: No Nukes is Good Nukes.

So you're reduced to argument by simplistic catch phrase? Okay then.

 

[sarge]

So in your fantasy world of "all else being equal" trucks have the same weight as cars.

Please read what I wrote. There is no way you actualy did so, and then made that post. Here's a version with smaller words:

1. When a big vehicle hits a small vehicle, the small vehicle usually gets more dented.

2. When two small vehicles crash, there is usually less danger of injury than when two big vehicles crash or when a big vehicle and a little vehicle crash.

3. Vehicles are safer now than they used to be, even though they are generally lighter than they used to be.


Weight does not equal safety. Safety is not a reason to produce unnecessarily heavy cars - especially at the expense of fuel efficiency.

 

[Robert Prey]

Please read what I wrote. There is no way you actualy did so, and then made that post. Here's a version with smaller words:

1. When a big vehicle hits a small vehicle, the small vehicle usually gets more dented.

2. When two small vehicles crash, there is usually less danger of injury than when two big vehicles crash or when a big vehicle and a little vehicle crash.

3. Vehicles are safer now than they used to be, even though they are generally lighter than they used to be.


Weight does not equal safety. Safety is not a reason to produce unnecessarily heavy cars - especially at the expense of fuel efficiency.

Yeah, well there seems to be some disagreement about that.

US Dept. of Trans.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/808569.PDF

Effect of a 100-pound weight reduction for passenger cars
NHTSA estimates that a 100-pound reduction in the average weight of passenger cars, with
accompanying reductions (based on historical patterns) in other size parameters such as track width,
and in the absence of any compensatory improvements in safety technology, would have a
significant adverse impact on safety:
• Fatalities would increase by an estimated 302, which would be 1.1 percent over the current
level.
• Serious or moderate injuries (AIS 2-6) in nonrollover crashes would increase by 1,823,
which would be 1.6 percent over the current level
• Police-reported 'A' or TC' injuries, which are usually less serious than AIS 2-6 injuries, would
increase by 8,804 in nonrollover crashes, which would be 3.2 percent over the current level.