Walker on 1/31/2008 9:08:49 AM wrote:
Sorry about those failed links.
Anyways, short story.
Hillary Clinton has a HUGE donor who is dealing in Uranium mining in Kazakhstan (sp?).
Old dirty Billy went over there with this guy, Frank Giustra, and smoozed it up with a dirtbag dictator.
Goes to show, you can take a slimeball out of Arkansas...well, you know how it goes.
|
Walker on 1/31/2008 9:04:09 AM wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?_r=1&ei=5065&en=6a843530898e147a&e&oref=slogin
|
Walker on 1/31/2008 9:02:49 AM wrote:
Great article on friends of uranium.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?ei=5065&en=6a843530898e147a&ex=1202446800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
|
Kringles_Helper on 1/23/2008 8:01:29 PM wrote:
Just some additional information about the down side of Nuclear energy:
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080119/D8U95JO00.html
Notice that the waste disposal is "lucrative, secretive business" that nobody likes to discuss...
...but if we have no known technology to get rid of nuclear waste, should we continue to stockpile it?
More nuclear waste data:
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080119/D8U95H401.html
"Drought could force nuke-plant shutdowns":
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080124/D8UBTBUO0.html
|
Kringles_Helper on 1/20/2008 8:12:14 AM wrote:
Because they're just simply too inefficient and are not capable of running any sort of operations unless it requires additional tax dollars to support the wages of their growing corruption:
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080117/D8U7ROHO0.html
Does anyone ever wonder where those "big energy" companies spend all of their profits?
It doesn't take a fortune teller to read this article and know the government is planning to allocate money to the "Big Energy" industry.
Strange...other industries have to pay for their own technology and innovations...I'm sure they can afford it...or pass the cost to the customers.
Roanoke has already experienced that sting.
|
Walker on 1/17/2008 1:39:42 PM wrote:
Ice returns as Greenland temps plummet!
Temps are plummeting in the Winter time? How could this be?
http://www.cphpost.dk/get/105114.html
|
Kringles_Helper on 1/16/2008 10:30:10 PM wrote:
Also...to point out...there are essentially monopolies in the auto industry.
We can check patent ownership and dates from PTO research...but the technology to improve has been around for a while...and yet it hasn't really improved, has it?
Why?
The petro-chemical industry infiltrated the Govt...ask Bush.
Why does the news so readily cover celebrity nudity or the Superbowl, but nobody wants to mention The President of the United States is in obvious Conflict of Interest for any decisions regarding:
A) War - due to connections to war suppliers
B) Oil - due to strong history of family investments
The U.S. Government is the biggest "big busienss" around...and its all scam and scandle!
More taxes? For what?
Their own best interests?
|
Kringles_Helper on 1/16/2008 10:19:18 PM wrote:
Energy companies are in the business to invest in the energy market, which must be profitable to facilitate such investment.
I still haven't heard back about my FOIA request to FERC about the project at Smith Mountain Lake, which cost the taxpayer how much? I asked, "How much has AEP made from the hydroelectric project at SML?" I also asked how much AEP has spent on environmental issues for SML, and when?"...since FERC's Mission states:
"The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates and oversees energy industries in the economic, environmental, and safety interests of the American public."
Now...is it safe to mine uranium?
Does it matter?
"Business as Usual" politics don't float in the new sea of information flow.
|
Walker on 1/16/2008 4:07:52 PM wrote:
Maybe your right about BP. My personal opinion is...it's Public Relations.
They know there is a huge campaign of hysteria for "Global Warming, Climate Change, etc" and they don't want to be seen as the bad guys.
|
TripleActionJones on 1/16/2008 2:47:32 PM wrote:
I guess some who can afford it don't mind the $70-$80 or more fill up fee for a lot of SUV's.
I do see more hybrid's on the highway than before though, that's for sure.
SUV sales are in the gutter now.Most the ones on the road now were probably bought a few years ago when gas prices and the economy were better.
At the moment I do have a mid-sized SUV.
I got it for the sole purpose of transporting equipment though and needed something large.And now that I have other means of transporting the equipment I am currently looking to trade it in on a vehicle that gets much better gas mileage.
I can't afford to fill up my vehicle anymore. My roundtrip to and from work is 40 minutes & I have to fill up a little under every 2 weeks
|
bikerjohn on 1/16/2008 2:06:22 PM wrote:
"global conscious consumerism is driving the "Green" market."
I noticed this phenomenon this morning as I was passed on the interstate between exit 150 and 141 by about 100 very important people driving SUV's doing 80 or more.
Seems the common man does not think there is an energy shortage, at least not one that affects him (or her).
|
TripleActionJones on 1/16/2008 9:55:23 AM wrote:
While I'm sure BP's pouring it on extra thick to make themselves look extra enviromentally friendly to lure in more paying customers, I will say that of all the major oil companies they spend more money on alternative energy resources than any of the other ones.
Reportedly $10 billion over an 8 year span.
Check out this link which tells you as much.
You'll have to copy and paste.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/22/news/companies/exxon_renewables/index.htm
Says the company has a 30 year old solar unit which is now turning profit.
I guess the idea is,knowing oil won't be around forever,to try and monopolize any other means of energy they can harnass effectively and efficently.
So they can charge you an arm and a leg for it, too!
;)
|
Walker on 1/16/2008 9:22:51 AM wrote:
I agree fully with your last statement.
But, Co2 isnt a toxin.
Life thrives in warmer climates anyways, who is to say that this warm cycle that the Earth (and Mars by the way) was going through (the overall temperature has dropped since 1998) wasn't positive.
The idea that we can alter the atmosphere/nature is probably the most arrogant idea that's ever been thought by a human being.
We simply won't agree about Man-made Global Warming (Al Gore knows the term doesn't hold water, so he changed it to Climate change, one size fits all).
On a seperate note, a question to all:
You've seen the ads on TV for BP, claiming to be working to find energy alternatives.
Is it the job of an OIL company to create something that will put it out of business?
|
Kringles_Helper on 1/15/2008 8:14:47 PM wrote:
Any "toxin" in concentrations that exceed the natural balance of a system is a pollutant.
I also believe in free capitalism, but we haven't existed in a free capitalistic society in many years. We can examine the legislation to find the biases...and should!
"Big Energy" has a "centralized" model that is very inefficient and polluting. Though bio-fuels are not the most efficient, they could be readily available anywhere in the country with very little infrastructure.
Actually, many business models are decentralizing. The energy industry has been aware of this for many years.
I just do not believe human health should ever be traded for greed, which is very "business as usual" for our government to allow.
|
Walker on 1/14/2008 8:07:32 PM wrote:
"I'm talking systemic changes, including cultural, that reduce our "footprint"...not "carbon credits" or other "Big Business" scams."
I am ALL for conservation and reducing/limiting waste, I don't know anyone who isn't.
But, these potentially cultural, systemic changes should happen by choice and having the obvious better alternatives as options in the marketplace.
You see, while I am not a fan of trash/pollution, I also know that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
In my opinion, Man-Made Global Warming is a Man-Made pseudo-catastrophe that will prove to be as real as the coming ICE AGE of the 1970's. Hence my skepticism, I think Al Gore is doing a huge disservice to anyone remotely credible with his doomsday prophecies.
|
Kringles_Helper on 1/14/2008 6:32:08 PM wrote:
Bio-plastics to replace petroleum-based plastics.
Implementation of energy generation systems at consumer sites to eliminate so much of the waste over lines at transformers, etc.
Localized gardening is a "Green" approach, and can demonstrate solvency AND homeland security.
Water filtration at every water movement is possible, and such measures should be initiated. I don't believe we'll feel it as much locally, but in places like Atlanta, it becomes more relevant.
Water savings devices, etc. can and should be implemented by building code. Electricity just is NOT the most efficient home heating solution.
I'm talking systemic changes, including cultural, that reduce our "footprint"...not "carbon credits" or other "Big Business" scams.
|
Walker on 1/14/2008 6:05:08 PM wrote:
Where my expertise lies is irrelevant, I'll admit you have FAR more knowledge on the topic of Systems Engineering than I.
But, isn't product innovation about improvement ultimately? Making things better? I have yet to see any real, practical solutions from the "Green" revolution. Ethanol is a joke, causing more problem than it fixes.
Why do all of Al Gore's speeches start off with something like, "Well, we all need to realize we need to make certain sacrifices...", right before he gets on his jet.
If the market decides to go for "Green" products, Excellent. Don't legislate it, see Al Gore, Kyoto, the U.N. etc.
The movement has no credibility with me, right now.
When they put something out that actually works and they don't try and make me pay them, I'll be in.
|
Kringles_Helper on 1/14/2008 4:31:04 PM wrote:
Real solutions?
Industrial cannabis. Check the history on the laws regarding industrial cannabis or "hemp" in Virginia.
To introduce a fuel crop, you don't want to take away from existing crops...like corn...that are used for feedstock, etc.
Taxes and bullshit?
Two words for ya..."Homeland Security".
Are you even aware of the system inefficiencies of the existing energy infrastructure? Do you understand where the loss occurs within the system?
I believe I've read news that the folks from Roanoke are already aware of upcoming increases in energy prices. The "old way" is just antiquated and causes more pollution.
Study both of the long-term and short-term economic models to see which is more costly.
|
Kringles_Helper on 1/14/2008 4:20:57 PM wrote:
What are your backgrounds "boater" and "walker"? I'm a proven systems process improvement engineer from very mature systems development environments producing solutions for multiple government and commercial applications out of DC. I'm talking simple systems engineering.
You?
Simple product replacement within the economy to reduce deforestation with sustainable paper and alternative building materials, etc. You can speak whatever rhetoric you wish, but you are not impressing me as being very educated on the subject matter.
I agree that the marketing industry and politicians like to stamp misnomers upon products just for sell, but product innovation is a fact of reality, and global conscious consumerism is driving the "Green" market.
|
Walker on 1/14/2008 11:27:43 AM wrote:
I agree boater, these "Green" solutions boil down to more taxing and subsidizing. It boils down to BS regulations that enforce the new religion or penalize companies who don't meet certain ridiculous criteria.
Ethanol is a joke. Wind, solar? Nice ideas, until reality smacks you in the face when you try to have more than one light on in your eco-bubble.
All these "green" solutions, or process improvements or whatever, sound like steps backwards.
In my opinion, the whole campaign is purely anti-capitalist. Make it harder and harder for them to make their products competitively, and they will go under.
I'm waiting for some GOOD ideas that make sense for businesses AND the public. So far, just constant propaganda.
|
boater on 1/14/2008 9:47:17 AM wrote:
The "green" movement is nothing more than a new big business venture as well and it is being forced on us via unnecessary regulation and it will never succeed without government propping it up. It adds cost to goods in every aspect and the benefits are debatable at best.
The whole "green" label is nothing more than slick marketing praying upon those that feel guilty about man inhabiting the earth.
Ohhh lookie what a good person I am...I bought a "green" chicken. Nope, that was just mold...
|
Kringles_Helper on 1/12/2008 7:15:14 PM wrote:
AND oil is a dirty solution that has "Green" alternatives all across the board...
So no...I'm not an advocate of "Big Oil" or coal for that matter. Its dirty. Everything about it seems to pollute. The plastics don't decompose, and many times (as in fabrics) they decompose into harmful respiratory particles. The very roads themselves pollute, when simple engineering could dramatically make some "Green" improvements, including energy generation.
Its very much more political than scientific, really.
As for business...
I'm very much in support of entrepreneurialism. I believe the "green" market will naturally take over, if the "business as usual" politics are overcome.
I'm very much interested in an open discussion of solutions!
|
Kringles_Helper on 1/12/2008 6:57:37 PM wrote:
I've heard a regional boast of "Moonshine Capital of the World".
So...using regional pride for good purposes, you put a traditionally agricultural economy back to work growing bio-fuel mass for local energy generation.
Smells like economic improvement to me...not the exploitation of the locals for the benefit of some external corporation. It is exactly this kind of economic exportation that robs an area of its economic resources...but I'm sure it will be marketed as a very good and rewarding option. The economic carrot will surely be alluring for some folk, but there are many ways to bolster an economy.
To "improve" the economy...savvy?
|
Kringles_Helper on 1/12/2008 6:47:53 PM wrote:
Process Improvement is a "science" or methodology(ies) of "improvement", thus "Green" process improvement denotes "Green" requirements to proposed process improvements.
Applied to the everyday "you and me", that means an economic choice to use, for example, laundry detergent and washing machines that have improved performance using less water, etc...or caulking the cracks in your energy-leaky old homes, etc.
As applied to the Energy industry, it means a dramatic change in the very model of the industry from "centralized" energy production and sales as a "product" to a model of home-based energy generation that produces less toxic emissions and has less overall energy loss while not endangering the poor.
Sure...bio-fuels, wind, solar...
|
Walker on 1/12/2008 12:22:20 PM wrote:
I giggle anytime uses the term "green".
The Enviro-zealots are the people who won't allow our country to build more oil refineries, thus making gas less expensive and more available.
They are same people who won't allow more nuclear power plants, the most efficient source of energy we currently know.
I'm all for "better" energy, but what does a "Green" movement entail? What "green" technology is there out there that is worth a damn currently?
Surely, you aren't talking about ethanol.
As for the "greed-is-me" and big business types, you need not look any further than the prophet Al Gore.
"Hey, all you guys need to do is buy carbon offsets...we'll plant some trees, I swear. Just make the check out to ME."
Didn't it just snow in Iraq? Funny.
|
Kringles_Helper on 1/11/2008 3:59:40 PM wrote:
I giggle at "Environmental Zealots"...
Let us digress to elementary school biology, m-kay?
Remember "The Food Chain"?
The economic status that we are in is purely political. Those who make money from war and "business as usual" politics will swarm all over the availability of uranium ore.
One needs only to examine the situation of the environmental status of the Smith Mountain Lake project next door to understand the government's unerring collaboration with "Big Business"...and it does not bode well for the health and benefit of "We the People".
I believe there is great hope for the region in the form of a "Green" movement, which for those of you greed-is-me types is simply process improvement to incorporate "green" technology.
|
bturner99 on 1/11/2008 11:00:00 AM wrote:
Let me put another viewpoint on here...I am a native and current resident of N. Pittsylvania County. I agree with all of you that research needs to be conducted. Uranium mining of the past was unregulated and dangerous, but this is the 21st Century and all mining is heavily regulated. I have two points to make...we have NO economy left in the county (textiles are gone and tobacco is collapsing). This promises 500+ HIGH paying jobs. Additionally, the groups opposed to this cite environmental issues. Yet, you do not see them complaining about the RAPID deforestation, junk cars in fields, and trash in the ditches that is an even larger environmental problem. This mine could save our county...to ban it will doom our area's economy.
|
Walker on 1/11/2008 9:10:30 AM wrote:
Amen Quincy, let them do the proper research on the area. With our technology now, the risks shouldn't be near what they used to be. With nuclear power being the most efficient we have, shouldn't we devote more to it?
Let me premise this by saying, I LOVE nature and do not want to do anything to damage it, but unfortunately, we have allowed the Enviro-zealots (anti-capitalists) to write our laws regarding envirnmental do's and dont's.
They decide if/where we can drill for oil, whether we can build new oil refineries (none in the last 30 years), whether nuclear energy is good or bad, etc.
Emotion has no place in science. (It's the same with Man-Made global warming)
If it is found to be reasonably safe, go for it! Nuclear power rocks.
|
quincy1775 on 1/11/2008 8:34:56 AM wrote:
I can certainly understand the concern over radiuoactive materials, but with all the modern technology, security, and safeguards that are sure to be implimented at the site, I don't really see what the huge fuss is about. If these folks want to mine their own land for minerals they found beneath the surface, it should be their right to do so provided they meet safety, security, and environmental standards so the off-site impacts are minimized as much as possible. It would be a shame if government red tape or NIMBY types keep these folks from using their property to its fullest potential. Besides, don't we need the domestic sources of energy so we can get away from importing it...especially oil? Isn't this part of a larger solution?
|
