Presidential Address

[TN_Bassin]

Anybody else watching??? I like some of what Obama is saying, especially the part about forcing BP to take responsibility (epsecially sense it WAS their rig in the first place). Can he deliver his promises? Only time will tell.

[1/4 stick]

Sounded like a whole lot more of the same hot air he's been blowing since this mess began to me.

[TN_Bassin]

Yea but maybe... just maybe he'll actually have the balls to demand something be done.

[Jim80]

I remember hearing somewhere that the British are upset that that we want BP to pay for the clean up as if it's was our fault that it happened in the first place. On a side note there hae been some vintage Bp t-shirts popping up on Ebay from around the time they bought the pipeline . The T-shirts read - BP bringing oil to America's shores . And that is not a bad attempt at a joke just something weird I ran across .



Jim

[1/4 stick]

Something will be done, I have no doubt about that. But will it be for the better? I doubt it. This will just cause more of our money to be sent overseas for the oil that we use.

[WTL]

It was infuriating. Half the speech was a PR stunt, where he took credit for miles and miles of boom and what not - that hasn't worked. "Look at me, look at what I did, never mind that its all failed"..

The second half was an appeal for moving away from fossil fuels, which seemed out of place for a president who has recently said his #1 priority is jobs (pick one or the other, but you cant have it both ways).

And then, his last line ....

Obama said: And we pray that a hand may guide us through the storm towards a brighter day

I know he spent the previous minute talking about God and praying for a solution, and I thought that was the best part of the speech - but I couldn't help but wonder if it was his hand he envisioned that would guide us through the storm - if it was, he truly has a misplaced sense of reality.

[TN_Bassin]

Originally Posted by Jim80

I remember hearing somewhere that the British are upset that that we want BP to pay for the clean up as if it's was our fault that it happened in the first place.


Jim

Yes I heard that too, via Stephen Colbert. It seems to me, if workers in Britan are losing their pensions from BP due to the cleanup efforts, that is BP's problem they are digging into the Companies employee's pockets instead of the company itself. Also, what right do they have to be upset... the number of people in Great Britan affected is miniscul to the amount of people that live on the gulf and depend on it for their entire yearly financials. The way I see it is that if it's BP's mess then they should be responsible for the cleanup and the recovery, along with the restitutions necessary to keep the people on the gulf's way of life from collapsing (if that's even possible at this point.

Originally Posted by WTL

It was infuriating. Half the speech was a PR stunt, where he took credit for miles and miles of boom and what not - that hasn't worked. "Look at me, look at what I did, never mind that its all failed"..

The second half was an appeal for moving away from fossil fuels, which seemed out of place for a president who has recently said his #1 priority is jobs (pick one or the other, but you cant have it both ways).

And then, his last line ....


I know he spent the previous minute talking about God and praying for a solution, and I thought that was the best part of the speech - but I couldn't help but wonder if it was his hand he envisioned that would guide us through the storm - if it was, he truly has a misplaced sense of reality.

I wondered if he was alluding to himself in that part of the speech too, and i agree he really has no official power to do anything of the sort.

And I know that you believe that jobs and alternative energy sources dont go together, but why couldn't there be both? We both know that even if we are able to find an alternative fuel source that oil will still be in high demand. Besides the millions of cars in the U.S that require oil in one form or another, there are too many other applications that would require oil to still reign supreme even after an alternative fuel source is found.

And yes half the speech did seem to be an awful lot of mollycoddling.

[nofearengineer]

Originally Posted by WTL

It was infuriating. Half the speech was a PR stunt, where he took credit for miles and miles of boom and what not - that hasn't worked. "Look at me, look at what I did, never mind that its all failed"..

The second half was an appeal for moving away from fossil fuels, which seemed out of place for a president who has recently said his #1 priority is jobs (pick one or the other, but you cant have it both ways).

And then, his last line ....


I know he spent the previous minute talking about God and praying for a solution, and I thought that was the best part of the speech - but I couldn't help but wonder if it was his hand he envisioned that would guide us through the storm - if it was, he truly has a misplaced sense of reality.

The guy has been all about his own over-inflated ego for the last 25 years. At some point, when people discovered how nice he sounded when he spoke, he became the golden child. He hasn't done his own homework since. That hasn't stopped him from taking the credit for it. He "delegates." That's why he has over a hundred Czars.

What you saw tonight was just the continuation of this.

Him taking BP to task is merely a prelude to a dog and pony show. It was totally unnecessary, as BP was already liable, and as was seen in the Exxon Valdez spill, the lawyers were already sharpening their fangs at the thought of their cut of the proceeds. It doesn't take the President to make BP "show us the money." Just one more example of him taking credit for something that was going to happen anyway.

Turn on the morning news tomorrow and make sure he hasn't taken credit for the sunrise.

[WTL]

Originally Posted by TN_Bassin

And I know that you believe that jobs and alternative energy sources dont go together, but why couldn't there be both?

That is certainly a fair question which I will attempt to answer.

First, let me point out that of course there is room for alternative energy - I am merely saying that there is not room to fundamentally change where we get most of our energy from. But certainly, there is a little promise in fuel cells, a little here, a little there. Its just not a solution, yet.

The most efficient allocation of resources that is possible in human society is created by what is called the free market. Even marxists I think agree on that. The rub is on whether or not the market creates the kind of jobs/economic conditions that certain people want.

The free market is nothing other than everyday people buying, trading and selling ideas and goods in a way that both sides of the deal find mutually beneficial. You have made similar transactions your entire life. When every man, woman and child in the world makes transactions according to their needs, you have something that is more efficient than even the best laid plans of the most brilliant planner in the world. There is just no way that a single person, or a group of people could have access to the same information that is in the hands of a world of consumers, each buying and selling according to their own interests.

Now, I have explained the free market - again think the words "ultimate efficiency". Opposed to that you have the mixed or planned economy. That is what is being suggested in regards to alternative energy. Obama and likeminded individuals are suggesting that although the market has allocated things so that gas powered cars are currently king, it is instead desirable to either subsidize or coerce individuals into using alternative means of energy - means that we have already established are more expensive than gas powered cars (if they werent, people would be using them on their own). When you force an entire country or even a world to behave differently, a certain amount of efficiency is lost. Where does that loss show up? Jobs, pay and economic viability of a family or nation.

Its like minimum wage. Maybe you like that too. There is a reason to like that, if its your pay that is bumped from $5 to $7 by it. But if you say that every person in this country must be paid 7 dollars or higher, it reduces the amount of jobs by forcing business to spend more on unskilled labor than they otherwise would spend. Less money to go around means less jobs total. And so, what started off as a very progressive "poor friendly" policy, hurts the poor the most.

[WTL]

Put another, more blunt way:


The same people who have screwed up and mismanaged the oil spill cleanup are not capable of doing any better job in leading us to a better way of fueling America. These people are the enemies of efficiency.

[TN_Bassin]

Yea it seems like the government's solution to everything... even this oil spill... is to throw money at it and hope the issue takes care of itself. You would think that approach not working for 250 years would lead them to assume that might not be the best solution. Hence the trillions of dollars of debt that they are in.

Your answer is exactly why the whole subject is beaten to death over and over again, it's one of the most trivial problems to face the modern world. There just isn't a viable solution seeing as how oil, in a sense, makes our world go round, and oil employ's a pretty substantial amount of the world's population and any disruption in that area will cause a breakdown.

IDK it just seems to me that as long as oil is readily available and their isn't an absolute dire need to find an alternative source of fuel, that finding that alternative source of fuel won't be a priority. And hell another reason that the whole subject is close to impossible to solving could be because maybe... just maybe an alternate source of fuel that provides the same efficiency as oil might not even be possible.

[WTL]

Originally Posted by TN_Bassin

ust maybe an alternate source of fuel that provides the same efficiency as oil might not even be possible.

Thats it right there. At least at the moment, theres nothing better. Anything else we try to put in oils place will cost us.

But the great thing about the free market is, for whomever finds the solution to this pickle, they will make billions of dollars. Best motivation in the world right there to find a solution - which in other words means the government forays into trying to "create" alternative energy, in addition to being costly, are also superfluous.

[Rolling Tide]

Originally Posted by WTL

That is certainly a fair question which I will attempt to answer.

First, let me point out that of course there is room for alternative energy - I am merely saying that there is not room to fundamentally change where we get most of our energy from. But certainly, there is a little promise in fuel cells, a little here, a little there. Its just not a solution, yet.

The most efficient allocation of resources that is possible in human society is created by what is called the free market. Even marxists I think agree on that. The rub is on whether or not the market creates the kind of jobs/economic conditions that certain people want.

The free market is nothing other than everyday people buying, trading and selling ideas and goods in a way that both sides of the deal find mutually beneficial. You have made similar transactions your entire life. When every man, woman and child in the world makes transactions according to their needs, you have something that is more efficient than even the best laid plans of the most brilliant planner in the world. There is just no way that a single person, or a group of people could have access to the same information that is in the hands of a world of consumers, each buying and selling according to their own interests.

Now, I have explained the free market - again think the words "ultimate efficiency". Opposed to that you have the mixed or planned economy. That is what is being suggested in regards to alternative energy. Obama and likeminded individuals are suggesting that although the market has allocated things so that gas powered cars are currently king, it is instead desirable to either subsidize or coerce individuals into using alternative means of energy - means that we have already established are more expensive than gas powered cars (if they werent, people would be using them on their own). When you force an entire country or even a world to behave differently, a certain amount of efficiency is lost. Where does that loss show up? Jobs, pay and economic viability of a family or nation.

Its like minimum wage. Maybe you like that too. There is a reason to like that, if its your pay that is bumped from $5 to $7 by it. But if you say that every person in this country must be paid 7 dollars or higher, it reduces the amount of jobs by forcing business to spend more on unskilled labor than they otherwise would spend. Less money to go around means less jobs total. And so, what started off as a very progressive "poor friendly" policy, hurts the poor the most.

Amen to you sir!!!

[nofearengineer]

I have always likened the concept of "green jobs" to that of the "broken window fallacy", in which the act of breaking a window creates jobs, specifically those of glass makers. The fallacy lies in the big picture, where wealth is destroyed, and resources wasted in the production of new windows.

We simply do not get the return on our investment of time, energy, and wealth producing alternative fuels that we get extracting fossil fuels.

Any time we deliberately choose a less efficient means of producing goods; i.e, "green" vs. oil or coal, we destroy wealth.

WTL, I know it wasn't your central point, but I have to say something, because it's driving me nuts. When even a smart guy like you casually mentions fuel cells when discussing green energy, I have to sigh at how pervasive and effective the brainwashing by the media has been. They say it so many times, and so loudly, that people don't even question it.

Here goes.

Fuel cells are not an "alternative energy source". They are an energy storage device, no different than a lead-acid car battery. The energy (raw hydrogen) to charge the fuel cell has to come from somewhere, and that will most likely be a coal or natural gas fired power plant. I don't mind that, but if I'm going to be forced by law to double the price of my damned car, it better at least be for the reason stated. More of the typical hysteria (ignorance and group-think too) driving the decision making process in this country.

Which brings me to another rant. Profits of so-called "green energy" companies are often touted as proof that we should all be doing the same. However, the story almost never tells you that the company is operating under a 30-40% (or more) government subsidy. Welcome to the General Electric Banana Republic! If everyone decides to use these products, we'll end up sitting around wondering why we are starving.

[1/4 stick]

I have an issue with the term "Clean energy". It does not, and will not ever exist. It may sound pretty, but all it does is give a sublimanal (sp?) meassage that some people actually buy into. If you create energy, you're going to create waste. There may be cleanER energy, but not clean. And the cleaner energy technology so far simply doesn't produce enough energy to support itself without the help of fossil fuel.

Sorry I guess that's one of those pet peeves I hear everybody talking about.

[WTL]

Nofear, all true. But we are discussing alternative quoteunquote green energy for a few reasons;

1; Cost - gas is more expensive than people wish and people whine as if it is a bad deal (its really not)
2; Worries about Saudi Arabia - Fuels cells would allow us in the pipe dream they represent to say GTH to some unsavory people
3; Environmental concerns - be it how much pollution it costs to burn something (emissions or nuclear waste) or how much it costs to acquire it (oil drilling, lithium mining, accidents related to it all)

And its easy sometimes to forget as I did, when discussing alt energy, what part of all that the proposed alt energy is saving us from. Cars run on electricity can save us from the Saudis, but it does no good for emissions if the electricity comes from a coal plant. Worrying about peak oil is fine, just don't switch to lithium batteries and run out of lithium too (or else we will have to re-invade Afghanistan).

[WTL]

Originally Posted by 1/4 stick

I have an issue with the term "Clean energy". It does not, and will not ever exist. It may sound pretty, but all it does is give a sublimanal (sp?) meassage that some people actually buy into. If you create energy, you're going to create waste. There may be cleanER energy, but not clean. And the cleaner energy technology so far simply doesn't produce enough energy to support itself without the help of fossil fuel.

Sorry I guess that's one of those pet peeves I hear everybody talking about.

In some peoples world, horse turds as a historical phenomena never existed.

[jwharwell]

I hope that BP pays to correct every problem that was caused by the spill. I am hoping that the government steps in and pays anything that they don't. I am from the coast and we cannot just let these people suffer. This is their LIVES at stake.

[nofearengineer]

The world used to run on renewable energy; i.e burning wood.

I hope this gives you an idea of what your standard of living will be like if the greenies have their way.

"Green Energy" has already been tried. The human race decided they'd rather not read by candlelight.

[1/4 stick]

Originally Posted by WTL

In some peoples world, horse turds as a historical phenomena never existed.

Clean horse turds never have.

[1/4 stick]

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

The world used to run on renewable energy; i.e burning wood.

I hope this gives you an idea of what your standard of living will be like if the greenies have their way.

"Green Energy" has already been tried. The human race decided they'd rather not read by candlelight.

But that gives off carbon dioxide. Not clean.

[nofearengineer]

Originally Posted by 1/4 stick

But that gives off carbon dioxide. Not clean.

That's the funny part. Burning wood is actually "carbon neutral," since it takes C02 to grow new trees. And if we can't grow new trees fast enough, then it sort of shows you just how much energy we would be allowed to use in a "sustainable" fashion. Considering we use thousands of times more energy now than when we were a wood-burning society, that should also clue you in as to how absurd these new energy policy proposals are.

I'll say it again...we've already tried "green energy"....it was such a great idea that we stopped doing it as soon as we figure out how.

[1/4 stick]

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

That's the funny part. Burning wood is actually "carbon neutral," since it takes C02 to grow new trees. And if we can't grow new trees fast enough, then it sort of shows you just how much energy we would be allowed to use in a "sustainable" fashion. Considering we use thousands of times more energy now than when we were a wood-burning society, that should also clue you in as to how absurd these new energy policy proposals are.

I'll say it again...we've already tried "green energy"....it was such a great idea that we stopped doing it as soon as we figure out how.

Exactly.

I'm just saying, while I'm all for finding cleaner energy sources, stop trying to fool people into thinking a eutopia where we get our energy and fuel sources without creating waste. It aint gonna happen. Certainly stop using it as an excuse to spend more and increase taxes to gain money that will never be spent in the quest for better sources of energy.

I was talking to a fella the other day who had the dream of rechargable, recyclable fuel/energy cells for holding energy from wind and sun that created no waste. Bull hockey. You can only recharge and recycle something so many times before it become a useless mass that won't hold a charge and becomes a hazard to humans, other critters, and the enviroment.

And nuclear energy is no where near a clean source. Eventually you'll run into the same problem we have now with carbon, except it will be far worse because you'l have ton upon tons of spent rods and waste radiating the atmosphere and giving everybody cancer.

I do want research into better sources of energy. Just don't try and convince me we'll find away that is completely clean. I won't buy it.

[WTL]

When I was a kid, I was convinced that if I attached a big enough generator to the front wheel of my bicycle, I could power a little electric motor on the back wheel and coast forever. I just did not understand that there are ideas, and then there is reality. My grandfather, who worked with anti-ballistic missiles, didn't tell me that bullcrap about dreaming. He told me the truth, wont work, better learn to peddle kid.

[1/4 stick]

wont work, better learn to peddle kid

I like that.