1. #9781
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    In a vacuum maybe, but you haven't exactly demonstrated that you're willing to discuss the issue civilly.
    If an argument is completely retarded, then it's completely retarded.

    It's like saying we should switch this forum into only lines of code, because that way we would all have to educate ourselves in coding, and it would be great because places with higher level of education are usually prosperous places.

  2. #9782
    Not to mention moving towards other sources of energy will mean an expansion in high end manufacturing which is going to be pretty coveted.

    ---------- Post added 2012-10-05 at 10:55 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    If an argument is completely retarded, then it's completely retarded.

    It's like saying we should switch this forum into only lines of code, because that way we would all have to educate ourselves in coding, and it would be great because places with higher level of education are usually prosperous places.
    That's not what he said at all but sure ok continue being unjustifiably smug and insulting. You have a knack for it.

  3. #9783
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by smrund View Post
    No, they are not. That's the whole reason they are "spread out". L2Read.
    Don't you realize that these costs are baked in the price for gods sake? The only things that aren't included are external effects that are paid by society like pollution (unless a particular government puts an extra tax on the use of coal).



    Quote Originally Posted by smrund
    Besides, even at the end of the day, coal is still more expensive than other forms of power. In fact this EXACT document has been linked in this discussion before makes this whole argument pointless and stupid.

    http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04...ind-and-solar/
    In case you don't like that document as it could be biased.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of...city_by_source

    And of course, as we develop more of an advanced technology, it becomes cheaper and cheaper to do. So resistance to the production of new technologies only maintains their high cost. It's ridiculous to suggest that we do not develop new and advanced technologies simply because the old ways are "cheaper", they are unsustainable.


    Coal usually recieves no tax breaks, other sources often do, which further skews the real cost in many tables.
    Last edited by mmoc43ae88f2b9; 2012-10-05 at 11:02 PM.

  4. #9784
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Not to mention moving towards other sources of energy will mean an expansion in high end manufacturing which is going to be pretty coveted.
    i can agree with this. a major reason for US's past success was getting out in front in industries and technology. would be nice if we continued that trend, instead of trying to make the country function like a quarter-to-quarter corporation

  5. #9785
    Don't you realize that these costs are baked in the price for gods sake? The only things that aren't included are external effects that are paid by society like pollution (unless a particular government puts an extra tax on the use of coal).
    All the costs are baked in except for the ones that aren't! Brilliant!

  6. #9786
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    All the costs are baked in except for the ones that aren't! Brilliant!
    Sigh, that's not what he was even talking about. He mentioned environmental impacts, and much of it is paid by the supply chain and thus included in the price. Like clean-up after shutting down a coal mine or similar. And transportation and mining most definitely is included in the price of coal, as well as the price of the equipment they use, the cost of building coal plants, of labourers in all phases of the electricity production and so on. I'm just amazed how you guys can't grasp these basic concepts.

  7. #9787
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Sigh, that's not what he was even talking about. He mentioned environmental impacts, and much of it is paid by the supply chain and thus included in the price. Like clean-up after shutting down a coal mine or similar. And transportation and mining most definitely is included in the price of coal, as well as the price of the equipment they use, the cost of building coal plants, of labourers in all phases of the electricity production and so on. I'm just amazed how you guys can't grasp these basic concepts.
    You're right, you probably shouldn't bother.

  8. #9788
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    You're right, you probably shouldn't bother.
    It's a bit like debating creationists: Don't do it.

  9. #9789
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    It's a bit like debating creationists: Don't do it.
    You know comparing people who disagree with you to creationists is kind of just reinforcing the image that you're not actually here to debate, just to throw your ego around.

    Class act man.

  10. #9790
    Merely a Setback Sunseeker's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    27,074
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Sigh, that's not what he was even talking about. He mentioned environmental impacts, and much of it is paid by the supply chain and thus included in the price. Like clean-up after shutting down a coal mine or similar. And transportation and mining most definitely is included in the price of coal, as well as the price of the equipment they use, the cost of building coal plants, of labourers in all phases of the electricity production and so on. I'm just amazed how you guys can't grasp these basic concepts.
    Except you just said environmental costs are paid by society!

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Don't you realize that these costs are baked in the price for gods sake? The only things that aren't included are external effects that are paid by society like pollution (unless a particular government puts an extra tax on the use of coal).

    Make up your mind. Either the costs are included or they are not. You can't have it both ways.

    And I'm aware newer more advanced technologies cost more. Parts aren't manufactured in as high as number, expertise is limited, materials are less frequently sourced.

    Increasing the development of new technologies will increase the demand for all of these things, thus increasing desire to produce them, thus decreasing their costs as higher production results in higher competition.
    Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.

    Just, be kind.

  11. #9791
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    You do realize that all those "spread out costs" are included in the final product which is the cost of producing electricity in coal plants?
    No they aren't. The costs of pollution and their effects are frequently not included at all. That was one of the major bases behind something like a carbon tax: to help put the true cost of burning fossil fuels into the actual price.

  12. #9792
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    If an argument is completely retarded, then it's completely retarded.

    It's like saying we should switch this forum into only lines of code, because that way we would all have to educate ourselves in coding, and it would be great because places with higher level of education are usually prosperous places.
    That's a poor analogy, because the argument against coal isn't one that is strictly set on educating. It is based on the notion that coal is more harmful to the environment and, as a result, our citizens. By encouraging more environmentally sound solutions we ensure that our world is cleaner not only for us, but for future generations as well.

  13. #9793
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by FusedMass View Post
    I did include already two videos? are they not showing up on your ipad?
    On iOS, if you link video as a video, instead of just a link, they don't show up. You only see them when replying. What you did was fine, I was just asking for a bit of extra effort to make it easier on me. It's fine otherwise...

    ---------- Post added 2012-10-06 at 12:29 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by smrund View Post
    Except you just said environmental costs are paid by society!
    Make up your mind. Either the costs are included or they are not. You can't have it both ways.
    He isn't having it both ways, you are arguing two different things. You are absolutely right that environmental costs are paid by society. He is right that the eviormental damages are not directly paid for by either the corporation or the consumer that benefit from it. This is why he also thinks EPA is bad, his goal is for immediate benefit, with no regard for future costs.
    Last edited by Felya; 2012-10-06 at 12:30 AM.

  14. #9794
    The Lightbringer KingHorse's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Somewhere in KY, USA
    Posts
    3,742
    Quote Originally Posted by FusedMass View Post
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BpgLYryI8g
    Mitt Romeny against Coal 2003

    Quoting

    "I will not create jobs that kill people.."
    I'm not sure that saying "that plant kills people" while referencing the fact that the plant owners need to "clean up" the place is exactly being against coal. My children throw their clothes all over the floor and don't clean up after themselves. Pointing out that they don't pick up their crap doesn't mean that I'm against them owning clothes, or hate clothes or something.

    And PG&E (who he's yelling at in the video) has a fucking horrible record of staying within EPA guidelines, so getting on them for killing people is pretty justified.
    I don't argue to be right, I argue to be proven wrong. Because I'm aware that the collective intelligence of the community likely has more to offer to me by enlightening me, than I do to an individual by "winning" an argument with them.
    Quote Originally Posted by belfpala View Post
    I don't always wear tennis shoes, but when I do, I speak Russian. In French.

  15. #9795
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Grokan View Post
    That's a poor analogy, because the argument against coal isn't one that is strictly set on educating. It is based on the notion that coal is more harmful to the environment and, as a result, our citizens. By encouraging more environmentally sound solutions we ensure that our world is cleaner not only for us, but for future generations as well.
    You can't milk our resources to maximize benefits, because unlike those benefits, the damage is far reaching and long lasting.

    ---------- Post added 2012-10-06 at 12:36 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by KingHorse View Post
    I'm not sure that saying "that plant kills people" while referencing the fact that the plant owners need to "clean up" the place is exactly being against coal. My children throw their clothes all over the floor and don't clean up after themselves. Pointing out that they don't pick up their crap doesn't mean that I'm against them owning clothes, or hate clothes or something.

    And PG&E (who he's yelling at in the video) has a fucking horrible record of staying within EPA guidelines, so getting on them for killing people is pretty justified.
    Actually, it's more like your children tossing the clothes into the neighbors yard and you telling them there is nothing you can do about it. If he is against plants that kill people, he shouldn't be just focused on those who die directly due to unsafe plants, but also the log lasting cancer agents that those plants produce.

  16. #9796
    The Lightbringer KingHorse's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Somewhere in KY, USA
    Posts
    3,742
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    Actually, it's more like your children tossing the clothes into the neighbors yard and you telling them there is nothing you can do about it. If he is against plants that kill people, he shouldn't be just focused on those who die directly due to unsafe plants, but also the log lasting cancer agents that those plants produce.
    As a state Governor, that is exactly what he should be focused on: the people close to the plant (in his state) that suffer due to the plant being a shithole.
    I don't argue to be right, I argue to be proven wrong. Because I'm aware that the collective intelligence of the community likely has more to offer to me by enlightening me, than I do to an individual by "winning" an argument with them.
    Quote Originally Posted by belfpala View Post
    I don't always wear tennis shoes, but when I do, I speak Russian. In French.

  17. #9797
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by KingHorse View Post
    As a state Governor, that is exactly what he should be focused on: the people close to the plant (in his state) that suffer due to the plant being a shithole.
    Those plants do not contribute nearly enouph to Medicare, to justify the costs cancer patients end up being on the tax payer. Coal is simply not a clean source of energy and it is pointless to focus on safety of a plant, which by nature is unsafe.

    I also do not see how being a governor does not extend the same care for those he would represent as president.
    Last edited by Felya; 2012-10-06 at 12:45 AM.

  18. #9798
    The Lightbringer KingHorse's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Somewhere in KY, USA
    Posts
    3,742
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    Those plants do not contribute nearly enouph to Medicare, to justify the costs cancer patients end up being on the tax payer. Coal is simply not a clean source of energy and it is pointless to focus on safety of a plant, which by nature is unsafe.
    I don't have any numbers on what the plant contributes, but I'm inclined to say you're right. Good point.
    I don't argue to be right, I argue to be proven wrong. Because I'm aware that the collective intelligence of the community likely has more to offer to me by enlightening me, than I do to an individual by "winning" an argument with them.
    Quote Originally Posted by belfpala View Post
    I don't always wear tennis shoes, but when I do, I speak Russian. In French.

  19. #9799
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by KingHorse View Post
    I don't have any numbers on what the plant contributes, but I'm inclined to say you're right. Good point.
    That's the thing, I realize the immediate benefit, but over the long haul... I do not feel it's worth the damage.

    ---------- Post added 2012-10-06 at 12:51 AM ----------

    Both sides are right in these arguments. Duirdi is right, the immediate benefit is or should be obviouse. But, people arguing with him are right too, the extended costs not being counted, is what creates the immediate benefit. It's simply a mater of opinion, which side you would favor more. Is the immediate boost worth paying for over a long time? I just don't think it is...

  20. #9800
    Brewmaster The Riddler's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    I'm tall, and thin, with a bright red head but strike me once and I'm black instead...
    Posts
    1,451
    It's kind of sad to see people put up a youtube video to "prove" a point they're trying to make.
    So you're unhappy about using a video of Obama to make a point about the words and habits of Obama? Okaaaay... Anyway, the vid shows clearly an ebulliant, unscripted "Preezy of the Steezy" being a self-aggrandizing egomaniac saying he can lower oceans, heal the sick, heal the planet, and that the audience can tell thier future generations about how "they were there", yadda yadda. So when the Messiah's own words prove the point it displeases therefore: Wah - youtube? Whatevs. Anyway if he's such a brilliant leader then he's equally brilliant at keeping it a secret.

    It is based on the notion that coal is more harmful to the environment and, as a result, our citizens. By encouraging more environmentally sound solutions we ensure that our world is cleaner not only for us, but for future generations as well
    Clean coal is as 'good' for the environment as any mass produced energy source barring geothermal or hydro. All the other so-called 'environmentally sound' solutions have a TON of caveats that end up making them either as bad or worse. Yeah, that includes Solar, Wind, Tidal, Bio, whatever you want to name. There is no free lunch. It'd make a ton more sense energywise for the nation to be focusing on building more clean coal plants, and buck it up by starting up a butt-ton of natural gas fracking plants. That would get the US energy independant toot-sweet for the next 100 years - by which time we can hopefully come up with something better.
    Last edited by The Riddler; 2012-10-06 at 12:59 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •