flytyer57 Posted February 5, 2011 Posted February 5, 2011 junkscience.com- Steven J. Milloy is a commentator for Fox News and runs the Web site junkscience.com, which is dedicated to debunking what Milloy labels "faulty scientific data and analysis." On Fox News Channel he is billed as a "Junk Science commentator." He is a self-described libertarian, in the American sense of the term. Among the topics Milloy has addressed are what he believes to be false claims regarding DDT, global warming, Alar, breast implants, secondhand smoke, ozone depletion, and mad cow disease. Milloy also runs CSRWatch.com, which monitors and criticizes the corporate social responsibility movement. From the 1990s until the end of 2005, he was an adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, which hosted the JunkScience.com site. He is currently an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Milloy is head of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, a mutual fund he runs with former tobacco executive Tom Borelli. He also operates the Advancement of Sound Science Center, a non-profit organization which is critical of environmental science, from his home in Potomac, Maryland. Milloy has authored four books. Milloy's close financial and organizational ties to tobacco and oil companies have been the subject of criticism from a number of sources, as Milloy has consistently criticized the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks and human activity to global warming. There's a fine line between fishing and sitting there looking stupid.
Wayne SW/MO Posted February 5, 2011 Posted February 5, 2011 Turkmenistan Afghanistan Pakistan India- pipe line. Look it up. OK and I ask, what does that have to do with uranium to supply US nuclear plants? What part of we don't need uranium from [url=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox&hs=63U&rls=com.yahoo:en-US:official&&sa=X&ei=arVNTZLCJIGosQPR2JyRCg&ved=0CCUQvwUoAQ&q=kazakhstan&spell=1]Kazakhstan don't you get? Every since you posted the problem with uranium from there you've moved farther and farther away from the subject. Is your objection to domestic nuclear generation now based on TAPI? We don't likely need their natural gas either, given the fact that we have a large domestic supply. Today's release is tomorrows gift to another fisherman.
Gary Lange Posted February 5, 2011 Posted February 5, 2011 Afghanistan, search TAPI. Iraq, that's a no brainer. We attacked Iraq because Saddam tried to kill Bush's daddy? Please. And the proof was there long before the war that there were no WMD. So how come we don't seem to have a bunch of oil tankers lined up get filled up by all this cheap oil we suppose be have because of the Iraq war. Respect your Environment and others right to use it!
flytyer57 Posted February 5, 2011 Posted February 5, 2011 OK and I ask, what does that have to do with uranium to supply US nuclear plants? What part of we don't need uranium from Kazakhstan don't you get? Every since you posted the problem with uranium from there you've moved farther and farther away from the subject. Is your objection to domestic nuclear generation now based on TAPI? We don't likely need their natural gas either, given the fact that we have a large domestic supply. So where are we supposed to be getting all the uranium etc. to power these nuclear plants? Right now it looks as if Kazakhstan is the worlds leader in uranium mining. That again is in the same region in which we are currently fighting a war for oil and gas. Shall we continue our wars for energy or should we find alternative sources we can produce right here in the USA? Where are we fighting Wars for energy? This seems to elude me! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Me too Gary. Afghanistan, search TAPI. Iraq, that's a no brainer. We attacked Iraq because Saddam tried to kill Bush's daddy? Please. And the proof was there long before the war that there were no WMD. Now just follow along. I know that's kind of hard for some of you... There's a fine line between fishing and sitting there looking stupid.
Outside Bend Posted February 5, 2011 Posted February 5, 2011 Even with those "severe limitations," ]China plans to be off fossil fuels by 2030, based largely on wind power. Well of China says it you can take it to the bank.I won't go into the world's largest hydro project, China's nuclear and stealth technology, the money they've poured into national economies (including ours), their muzzling of multinational corporations such as Google...if it's in their national interest, it gets done. China has the resources to go green, it has the technology, it has the political and economic incentive (cheaper, gives them a stronger international platform, and it's another thing to hold over the American's heads). I'd be surprised if they don't. Even with those "severe limitations," 85% of Brazil's energy is produced domestically using renewable energy. Not hard to believe. With a vast part of the country jungle occupied by first century tribesman. They also have a vast amount of suger cane roughage to process.The vast majority of Brazil's jungle isn't heavily populated, and I've never heard 26% referred to as "vast." Even counting those folks out, 145 million folks in Brazil are getting 85% of their energy through renewables. That's about half the population of the United States. Maybe it's just me, but I think that's darn impressive. Even with those "severe limitations," 81% of Iceland's domestic energy is renewable. And I'll bet it's thermal! We could probably do the same thing with Yellowstone or Kentucky, if Kentucky sat on the same geological thermal region. Not to mention California, Nevada, Alaska, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and other area where there are significant geothermal resources. And no one's saying we have to put all our eggs in one basket. Even with those "severe limitations," 99% of Costa Rica's domestic energy is renewable. Even with those "severe limitations," 90% of domestic hot water in Israel, and 99% of domestic hot water in Greece, is generated via solar poewr. Which has little bearing on electricity generation. I would assume an electric water heater runs off electricity, no? Even with those "severe limitations," several regions of Spain are 100% energy independent, with all their energy coming from renewables. "Regions"??? Regions. Autonomous regions. It's a Spanish thing. Combined population of about 5.3 million- it'd be like taking almost all of Missouri off the grid. Even with those "severe limitations," many European nations have made significant steps toward energy independence using renewable technology. Many are all over Nuclear energy.Right- when you're a France or a Belgium or a Lichtenstein, you don't have the luxury of space and landscape diversity. You can't exploit your vast wind, solar, and geothermal resources because you simply don't have them. When you're a big nation, like a China or a Canada or a Russia or a United States, you have a lot more resources to play with. You guys keep saying it can't be done, yet there are people out there doing it. I guess those severe limitations aren't as severe as some folks imagine.Doing what?? Dipping in small pockets of energy potential? Small pockets compared to what- our planet's limited fossil fuel deposits, or our planet's limited uranium deposits? Do the nation's 12,000+ miles of coastline fall into the small pocket category? What about the Mojave Desert- at 25,000 square miles, it's the size of more than 8300 ANWR's. There's about 3.5 million miles of rivers and streams in the nation, another small pocket? And the 500,000+ square miles of the Great Plains, rife with wind and biofuel potential...small pockets too? All these small pockets sure are adding up What's unproven about green energy? Either a turbine produces electricity, or it doesn't. And when it doesn't? You have a busted turbine. As long as wind blows, it'll provide energy to power a turbine. As long as water flows, it'll provide energy to power a turbine. As long we can heat water, we can use steam to power a turbine- no matter if the fuel used is coal, natural gas, a nuclear reaction, the planet itself, or ethanol. Windmills and waterwheels are thousands of years old, and work on the same principles as modern-day wind turbines, hydropower and geothermal plants. You and I and the fossil fuels we burn are all various packets of solar energy. Harnessing wind and water to do work for us humans is as old as civilization itself, and in many ways is far more proven than any internal combustion engine or nuclear reactor. So what rivers would you dam? Hydroelectric is not a sure thing. Let's start by making the dams we have more efficient- most are decades old, and technology has become more efficient. And dams are no longer necessary to produce electricity. Green technology isn't new, it's centuries old, scientists are just modifying it to suit today's needs. Unfortunately they rely on unreliable energy sources.What's unreliable about it? I'd be willing to bet the sun will still shine, the wind will still blow, the grass will still grow long after we've extracted our last fossil fuels. While they may reduce the use of co2 producing fuels, only nuclear can eliminate all of an uncontrolled fuel. It's still the best source of electrical generation in this country under present technology. You guys keep saying this, but you haven't explained HOW. Wind power is competitive with nuclear on a cost basis (about 2 cents per kilowatt-hour). You don't have to worry about transporting radioactive fuel in, and radioactive waste out. You don't have to worry about storing radioactive waste. You don't have to worry about protecting facilities. Instead of a utility company jacking up customer rates to pay for plant construction, utility companies pay farmers rent- often at a price far above what they'd be getting from livestock or grain. Our we going to do without when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine?? How much lower do think the drain on the grid was in Missouri the last few nights? What are you going to feed the grid with at 3 AM? When your grandpa woke up cold in the middle of the night, did he freeze, or did he just get up and throw more wood in the stove? Wood=biofuel. Need to feed the grid at 3 am? You can burn all sorts of things- ethanol, biodiesel, cow turds, pig turds, people turds, methane vented from the local dump. If all else, use backup batteries- check out your cell phone, we've figured out how to store energy. /quote] <{{{><
flytyer57 Posted February 5, 2011 Posted February 5, 2011 So how come we don't seem to have a bunch of oil tankers lined up get filled up by all this cheap oil we suppose be have because of the Iraq war. How do you know there aren't tankers lined up with your Rushbeckian talking points? More than 160 tankers laden with Iraq oil Iraq starts exporting Kurdish oil There's a lot more of this out there, but I think it's time you starterd doing your own homework instead of listening to Beck and Limbaugh for all your info. There's a fine line between fishing and sitting there looking stupid.
Wayne SW/MO Posted February 5, 2011 Posted February 5, 2011 Now just follow along. I know that's kind of hard for some of you... Yes it is. Lets see, you have gone from saying we will have to get our uranium from Kazakhstan to the Iraq war to a proposed pipeline from Turkmenistan to India, passing through Afghanistan and Pakistan. Apparently in your world we either go wind or solar, or we throw ourselves at the mercy of the TAPI pipeline, if it's every built, or Kazakhstan. You do realize we are talking about renewable energy, right? TAPI is old hat, Clinton was working on it. In my world we know that we need to generate electricity 24/7, cheaply and cleanly. I know that solar and wind will be limited no matter how hard we avoid the truth. Coal is dirty, natural gas cleaner, but not without its pollution, nuclear is clean and efficient and it's draw backs can be overcome without rebuilding the plants. In the time it will take to even think of using building alternates we could reduce pollution from electrical generation with nuclear and clear the way to make use of regional alternatives. We seem bent on putting the cart before the horse. We build electric cars to avoid the pollution of burning carbon fuels in our cars and instead burn carbon fuels generating the power for the cars. We put money out the gazoo into wind and solar knowing full well they can never replace a 24/7 generation process. We still have to have enough capacity to power our civilization even if the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow. Why is it ignorant to put in place a clean generation network and then chip away at it technologically. When a nuclear plant idles, it basically idles the generators while the rods heat like they always do. If you can provide cooling for a nuclear plant in the Sonoran desert, you can do it anywhere. An electric car running off of electricity from a coal powered plant is questionable in regards to clean. The same car running off of nuclear, wind or solar is unquestionably cleaner, but only one is dependable. Today's release is tomorrows gift to another fisherman.
flytyer57 Posted February 5, 2011 Posted February 5, 2011 U.S. Imports 92% of Uranium for Nuclear Power U.S. Forecasts 42% Jump in LNG Imports in 2010, Says Supply May Go Higher There's a fine line between fishing and sitting there looking stupid.
Gary Lange Posted February 5, 2011 Posted February 5, 2011 How do you know there aren't tankers lined up with your Rushbeckian talking points? More than 160 tankers laden with Iraq oil Iraq starts exporting Kurdish oil There's a lot more of this out there, but I think it's time you starterd doing your own homework instead of listening to Beck and Limbaugh for all your info. I don't listen to them at all. I would think that if we were fighting for this oil that it would be ours for free and our fuel prices would be down. We have freed it for export but imagine it is being sold at the 90+ a barrel like the rest is. Respect your Environment and others right to use it!
jdmidwest Posted February 6, 2011 Posted February 6, 2011 I guess Beck and Limbaugh are only opposed to Global Warming to steam up the Liberals with some of the comments on here. "Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously." — Hunter S. Thompson
Recommended Posts