Random Politics & Religion #00

English not your native language? Your from the east side of Canada aren't you.


What you quoted doesn't make any sense...

I already said I apologize if that expression was used incorrectly, but that is the line I was referencing.

Would you be willing to pay five times the rate of your current power bill? How about ten?

Actually, some instances the power bill will be reduced. Solar energy is actually really cheap to produce and maintain, it just is an eyesore (like wind farms) to have. Difference between wind farms and solar energy is the amount of energy produced and transferred.

I have a strong suspicion that you don't know how the energy market works.

You obviously aren't reading the details and just drinking the koolaid at face value.

The point is to use a very convenient, and emotionally charged, issue to usurp power from their political enemies while simultaneously granting themselves potentially unlimited control over every facet of your life.

You realize life, as we know it, can't exist without carbon. A caveman taking a ***in the woods involves carbon. You can use this to justify any action taken by the government. Absolutely nothing is "Carbon Neutral", it's like Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny, nice idea's but complete fantasy. You start with the energy sector because they are the biggest, easiest and most critical targets to take control over any economy.

Energy is the life blood of a society. With energy you have light for when it's dark, heat for when it's cold, coolness for when it's hot, shelter for when it's stormy, transportation for goods, medicine for when your sick, and food for when your hungry. As a human, energy is your God and you worship at it's alter with every breath you take. Every in death energy still rules whats left of your existence.

Those power generators you look at with hatred, those cars who's destruction you yearn for, those at what grant you life and existence. Thus your hatred and destructive desires are a form of self loathing with either suicidal or genocidal tendencies depending if your willing to man up and take the cost upon yourself or instead visit it upon others.

The magic dust you speak of, that fantasy fairly tale of "new clean energy", it doesn't exist. Your high priests actively campaign to stifle any additional forms of it from coming into existence. One form has been available for decades yet you refuse to use it, instead resorting to boggy men and superstition. Ultimately your faith's leadership has zero desire to see you reach the enlightened nirvana of truly "clean energy", it's not good for business for the faithful to actually enter into paradise. An energy rich people are difficult to control, have too many demands, are too rebellious and seek to consume too much. An energy starved people are far easier to manipulate and domesticate as they are too busy simply trying to get by to bother questioning their clergy's leadership merits.


So keep believing in Santa Clause and that he'll deliver you to your promised land. Just don't get pissed at the rest of us who instead go buy our stuff at the store and refuse to suffer for your religious beliefs.

The only way to stop global warming is to... kill all humans !


Just ask this scientian !

http://thedailybanter.com/2014/02/prominent-scientist-on-global-warming-no-hope-were-fcked/

“Enjoy life while you can. Because if you’re lucky it’s going to be 20 years before it hits the fan.”
– James Lovelock on what we can do about global warming

Speaking to the Guardian, legendary scientist and author of the ‘Gaia Hypothesis‘ of planet earth, James Lovelock, outlined why he thinks around 80% humanity will be dead due to climate change by around 2100. From the interview, we learn that Lovelock believes:
1. Global warming has passed the tipping point and is now impossible to stop.
2. If we had changed course in the late 1960’s it could have been prevented
3. Personal behavior won’t make any difference to climate change.
4. Recycling, carbon trading, planting trees are all useless in combating global warming. “Carbon offsetting? I wouldn’t dream of it,” says Lovelock. “It’s just a joke. To pay money to plant trees, to think you’re offsetting the carbon? You’re probably making matters worse.”
5. Renewable energy is the biggest fraud of all . “You’re never going to get enough energy from wind to run a society such as ours,” says Lovelock. “Windmills! Oh no. No way of doing it. You can cover the whole country with the blasted things, millions of them. Waste of time.”
6. Only nuclear power can solve our energy crisis
7. We need more technology, not less, to help mitigate the massive impact of climate change
8. People want to keep living as they are, and only a huge catastrophe like World War II will make us change
9. When it does hit the fan, it will give people purpose. “We all knew something [World War II] terrible was going to happen, but didn’t know what to do about it,” says Lovelock. And once the second world war was under way, “everyone got excited, they loved the things they could do, it was one long holiday … so when I think of the impending crisis now, I think in those terms. A sense of purpose – that’s what people want.”
10. Only after 80% of the population dies out will “we have a human on the planet that really does understand it and can live with it properly.”
In other words, we’re ***.

The fuel maybe but Solar / Wind are astronomically more expensive then Coal / Nuclear (which is itself artificially price inflated) or even Gas / Oil.

The problem with then is you typically need to install 5~7x the nameplate capacity to reach the same demand. A 1GW goal plant can be expected to produce 650~700MW worth of capacity in a reliable way (capacity is actually measured in MWh but that is far too technical for this discussion). To reach that same 650~700MW worth of production you would need to install 5~7GW worth of Solar / Wind. The capital costs and resource utilization become astronomical fast and thus it only makes sense in a few area's.

That being said, they make great additional power sources for when there is little opportunity cost. Places like rooftops, or skyscraper windows (still working on this one) are great examples of ways to lower external energy consumption.

The only two "green renewable" power technologies that make any real sense are Hydro and Geothermal. Hydro is limited by location, if you can get it then it's amazing, but if there isn't a certain type of upstream river structure near a city then it's not an option. Geothermal is just recently seeing advances that could make it more popular. Still location limited but drilling advances made by the Oil field (irony on this one) have enabled a Geothermal reactor to reach better locations in the earth. Utilizing a binary liquid design they can get some pretty decent performance from Geothermal reactors. Still no where near enough to power a city but could be used to reduce a cities external power consumption.

Ultimately the only viable long term bulk source is Nuclear. Modern nuke designs would pretty much solve everything but since that's the last thing progressives want to happen, they do nothing buy spread FUD about it using 1950's era design's and equipment.

It's more like a crown

A conspiracy requires some attempt at hiding actions ... they don't even do that. It's pretty much standard progressive ideology that humans consume too much and there are too many of them. Several of the progressive posters on here have admitted, one way or another, to this being part of their ideology.

Now taking to it's logical, rational, conclusion, we need to reduce the human population and lower the quality of life for those whom we chose to keep around. That leads to the required actions of genocide, population enslavement and mass control. Those responsible for implementing these changes will naturally elect to continue being the ones controlling the society, so guess it sucks to be you. Ohh and welcome to North Korea. Seriously I just described North Korean society, I'm not being hyperbolic on this.

Now lets see how strong your faith really is. If you believe, truly believe, in your progressive heart that the world needs fewer humans and those remaining need to lower their quality of life then demonstrate your faith to all us heathens. Burn all your possessions, all of them. Then when your done, reduce the human population by one.

If you can demonstrate true conviction to your faith and it's cause, then I'll follow it.

Don't jump to conclusions. The same of us who sure think we're too many do not condone genocides. We're actually, on average, more antiwar.

Population cannot be reduced(I mean morally, not literally).

Meh, maybe if you are talking on a scale needed to replace the entire power structure, but on a small basis, such as the solar farm I own, it's pretty productive and lucrative.

I have no energy bill anymore and receive a check from the supplier to several municipal sources for the power provided by my solar farm.

More Nuclear!

Someone's being a bad student.

I just mentioned earlier that energy is the lifeblood of a society, everything you do and everything you are is intimately connected to your access to energy. Lowering your standard of living is a direct consequence of utilizing less energy. Thus if you believe in using less energy as a society, then you must also believe in lowering your standard of living.


This is cognitive dissonance, or your a coward, pick one.

If you believe there are too many humans, then by definition you must also believe they need to be reduced. They are the same statement.

So either you don't actually believe there are too many humans, or you do believe in it but are too chicken ***to do anything about it and instead want someone else to come along and do it for you.

Both of you guys statements are examples of not understanding what you believe in. Your Sunday progressives, spouting off progressive verses and progressive beliefs without having any conviction and real understanding of those beliefs. They are popular amongst your social crowd so you go with along with the group to fit in but if someone was to actually but your beliefs to the test you'd flail and *** excuse your way out of it.

I am because that's the scope we're dealing with. Your not powering a hospital, city service buildings, street lights, telecommunications networks, industrial facility's, office buildings or large apartment complex's. You have a single house with access to a fairly large outdoor area to install and operate those in. I'm also willing to bet your not running and electric car that's being powered by these solar panels (hydrocarbons for transportation also count for energy usage).

I stated that it would be perfectly fine to operate Solar / Wind in places and situations where the little opportunity cost. Yours is a ideal scenario for where a local install makes sense. It doesn't apply to a large metropolitan area.

In actuality Coal / Nuclear would be cheaper for you, assuming costs scaled linearly (they aren't remotely). Coal / Nuclear have by far the cheapest cost, but they both require large installations since the biggest cost item isn't the heat chamber (furnace / reactor) but the steam turbine dynamo required to convert the mechanical energy into electrical energy. A nuclear power engineer whom I have these frequent discussions with quoted to me that the steam turbine system can count for 60% or more of the initial capital expense and account for most of the routine maintenance costs. Nuclear power plants use the same steam turbine system that Coal, Gas and Oil use so the cost is pretty much the same across the board and since Coal, Gas and Oil all have cheaper heat chambers the turbine is, relatively, an even bigger expense item for them. Those don't scale down very well and there is a minimum capacity at which they no longer become economical and your left with small piston generators instead. Piston generators are no where near as efficient as high temp steam turbines so fuel use becomes a big driver of costs.

Anyhow I've done a ***ton of research into different power generation technologies including befriending several individuals whose knowledge dwarfs everyone present combined. The general consensus is that, outside of select ideal case scenarios, the numbers simply don't look good for Wind / Solar in large planned environments.

But reality never stopped a progressive before so why should it now.

Not necessarily. It means if I had the superpowers to do so I would have prevented humanity from going so far.
They exist now, I don't want to kill them. We're overcrowded but it's an issue we have to deal with.
I do am in favour of some drastic measures, which I talked about just the other day here, but I'm perfectly aware they're undesirable for a large part of the population.
I don't have a culling agenda. We're too many is a simple statement of the state of things, not the prelude for a series of counteractions.

I don't have any group to fit in. These are thoughts I formulated observing the world:
1. we're cramped
2. I am not going to support murder
3. litle can be done without stepping on people's rights so we can just deal with it

...
4. until we can safely colonize another planet(if only).

So improving energy efficiency is just something you've never heard of, I guess?

So you are admitting that you would murder billions of innocent people, as long as nobody knew you were the one doing it.

You just admitted that you would preemptively abort large portions of the human population without remorse. That kind of makes you a sociopath.

How would you feel if someone told you they were going to ensure your great great great grandmother never existed as part of a population control plan. How do you feel about not existing? Do you openly embrace your demise and thus resort to reducing the human population by one, or are you going to be a coward and avoid it entirely with some lame excuse.

/reads report emails
//reads pages of personal attacks and wharrgarbl

Hi, friendly neighborhood modmin here. I've locked this thread for a minute, because I am tired of watching this degenerate. I'll remove the lock in a little while, but I want to make it clear that from here on out, any sort of personal infighting gets met with the harshest available sanctions. Everyone here is - in theory - an adult. This section, and this thread in particular, are here to facilitate discussions of current events and personal beliefs. They are not here so people can continually fling poo at each other like apes.

I don't care who started what. Seriously, I don't care. Everyone involved in these little pissing matches either started it, or kept it going. It ends, here and now, or some of you just aren't going to be posting anymore.

Clear? Awesome. I'm going to unlock this in about an hour, which is hopefully enough time for everyone involved to see this.

[Edit: Unlocked now. Behave.]

To be honest, I don't know how much electricity I am supplying (statements say, but I don't give a *** as long as the check has enough numbers on it). I'm pretty sure that the amount of electricity I supply supports at least a city block of houses, if not more. And a city block here in Texas is bigger than other places, such as Italy or New York.

Space to usage ratio, it's bad, but it's still a viable energy source to have, even to supplement the current usage.

But if you want to talk about total energy supply, I agree with you on your points, nuclear is the way to go.

No...
*sighs*
I'll try again..
Just the other day I mentioned that I'm in favour on limiting the amount of children per family, like China used to do(but I'd put it at two rather than one).
But like I already said this is undesirable for most people because it is dictatorial.

I DID NOT mean that I want to go back in time and kill everyone lol. If that's what it seemed I apologize, it wasn't my intention.

Solar's great for supplemental energy, and I just wish people would just stop being so stuck up over stupid crap like aesthetics so that we could actually get the full use out of it. For high capacity, long-term, and sustainable energy that isn't thwarted by something as simple as clouds, we need nuclear. Geothermal and hydroelectric are probably better, but obviously not everyone has access to that.

Most nations need birth rates of around 2.2 to maintain their population. I'm not really opposed to limiting population growth simply for economic and sustainability reasons, but with as many people that never have children as there are in developed nations, a limit of 3 or 4 would be more reasonable and probably cause less push-back.

For houses biosolar is being developed and improved by the day. That one is probably the ideal solution for citizens.

Industries need something more powerful, and there are many options and researches for that too.

Your first step towards self-sufficiency is buying a shovel!

I think just about every energy source should be part of the plan. Even tidal has it's applications. There also needs to be an intelligent rework of our, frankly pathetic, national grid. The regional grids don't integrate well, there's a ton of loss, frequently maintenance and repairs take a back seat, energy is highly regulated at the local level and almost not on the national, etc. There's no reason we can't move exclusively toward truly renewable energy sources over the next few decades with modest investments, but too many people are too heavily connected and invested in fossil fuels. The rest of the opposition is quite petty, as nobody wants to live in the areas where wind and solar farms are most efficient anyway.