Grayson vote traded to get storm center

Joe wrote:

It's funny that Grayson is already preparing to take on Rich Crotty (who will probably be his next opponent). Grayson thinks people will respond to his attacks on Crotty about Crotty raising tolls by 25 cents. He seems to think those same people who are angry at Crotty for costing them 25 cents will not be angry at him for costing them thousands of dollars a year in energy taxes. He will be unpleasantly surprised in November of 2010. I can't wait to vote against this jerk.

You know this is one of the exact things I brought up in my email to Mr. Grayson. He can sit there and condemn a .25 cent toll increase yet plays politics with our hard earned tax dollars. I also slammed him on the 10 million he bragged about stealing from us for the performing art center, you know the center that only rich people will be able to afford but we get to pay for.

He sold us all out and now it's time we vote him out!

truthist wrote:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...
from which I get 57% of our energy is simply lost.

That is an intriguing chart. But the "lost energy" needs a LOT more explanation. How much of that is really 'lost'? How did it get 'lost'? Are they counting all the heat generated by motors and generators? But this isn't really lost, since the heat was needed to allow the engine to do work (2nd law of t.).

Or are they thinking of genuine loss due to inefficiency? Too many unanswered questions about this "lost energy" in the diagram!

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
That is an intriguing chart. But the "lost energy" needs a LOT more explanation. How much of that is really 'lost'? How did it get 'lost'? Are they counting all the heat generated by motors and generators? But this isn't really lost, since the heat was needed to allow the engine to do work (2nd law of t.).
Or are they thinking of genuine loss due to inefficiency? Too many unanswered questions about this "lost energy" in the diagram!

Agree. That is why I said not the complete picture.

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
That is an intriguing chart. But the "lost energy" needs a LOT more explanation. How much of that is really 'lost'? How did it get 'lost'? Are they counting all the heat generated by motors and generators? But this isn't really lost, since the heat was needed to allow the engine to do work (2nd law of t.).
Or are they thinking of genuine loss due to inefficiency? Too many unanswered questions about this "lost energy" in the diagram!

Whoa, that is an amazing graph. I'm pretty sure by "lost" they mean "energy not turned into work". For example, note the huge energy percentage lost in transportation - the 4-stroke engine is notoriously inefficient and wastes most energy as heat.

Admittedly, getting 100% efficiency is impossible (only a reversible, isentropic, adiabatic process can do this, which by definition won't generate any work), but there are a lot better solutions out there - e.g. the Carnot cycle.

Unbelievable wrote:

<quoted text>
You know this is one of the exact things I brought up in my email to Mr. Grayson. He can sit there and condemn a .25 cent toll increase yet plays politics with our hard earned tax dollars. I also slammed him on the 10 million he bragged about stealing from us for the performing art center, you know the center that only rich people will be able to afford but we get to pay for.
He sold us all out and now it's time we vote him out!

I also raised this issue when I e-mailed him. You also brought up a good point about the art center. This guy has to go.

Mac-7 wrote:

<quoted text>
I think a more practical argument is how much we should lower our standard of living to please the people who believe in man-made global warming.
What [people concerned that modern industrial society is affecting the climate in unpredictable, potentially catastrophic ways] are offering now is illogical.
On the one hand they come along and scare the **** out of the public with dark predictions of global disaster if we don't reduce CO2.
And then instead of offering direct measures like building clean nuclear reactors they want to tax dirty energy instead without getting rid of it.
This is just a power grab and a money grab by the liberals who appear not to really believe their own scare tactics on global warming.

Yeah, nukes are awesome. We should replicate them like mushrooms all over the place. Make 'em common as gas stations. They're safe, clean, and cheap, until and unless they aren't anymore. Chernobyl, anyone? Three Mile island?

Savannah River?
"Inspectors find safety problems at nuclear weapons complex" May 2, 2009
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/james_rosen/...

And, as w/ climate change generally, let's be forever resistant to the law of unintended consequences, yes?

Turkey Point?
4.27.09 Miami Herald
"FPL canals criticized as health risk"

"The 168-mile-long loop of canals that cool the twin nuclear reactors at Turkey Point was dug in the 1970s to avoid pumping billions of gallons of damaging hot water into Biscayne Bay.

More than 30 years later, the solution to one environmental problem has emerged as a prime suspect in another -- an underground saltwater wedge that has pushed miles inland from Florida Power & Light's bayside plant..."

Then of course there's the problem of mining nukes and the impossible-to-solve problem of the who gets stuck with the toxic waste.

Then there's problems of cost overruns/taxpayer shafting,["Nuclear reactor construction is so expensive and subject to cost overruns and loan defaults that private banks won't finance it. That's why reactor construction in the U.S. came to an almost complete halt in the late 1970s and early 1980s."] & the environmental racism that is the inevitable 'solution' to waste-dumping...Yucca mountain, anyone?

Or how about Somalia?
"In 1991, the government of Somalia collapsed. Its nine million people have been teetering on starvation ever since – and the ugliest forces in the Western world have seen this as a great opportunity to steal the country's food supply and dump our nuclear waste in their seas.

Yes: nuclear waste. As soon as the government was gone, mysterious European ships started appearing off the coast of Somalia, dumping vast barrels into the ocean. The coastal population began to sicken. At first they suffered strange rashes, nausea and malformed babies. Then, after the 2005 tsunami, hundreds of the dumped and leaking barrels washed up on shore. People began to suffer from radiation sickness, and more than 300 died..."

Nukes are a pandoras box of risks. As soon as I read/hear good, serious answers to the problems of waste disposal, chernobyl-type risks (especially in an age of terrorism),then people like me will begin to open up to the possibilities of nuclear. But not now, when it comes from people willing to ignore gigantic problems they find inconvenient to their suburban lifestyles and "Drill, Baby, Drill" magical thinking.

[cont'd fr #166]

All that said, you should read/read about the ideas of PRO-NUCLEAR CLIMATE CHANGE BELIEVER (w/ a vengeance) JAMES LOVELOCK.

This is one of the guys who discovered the hole in the ozone layer (ever hear of the 'Gaia theory'? That's him too). And in Lovelock's view we should turn to nuclear as final possible hope, problems and all, because

"Lovelock believes global warming is now irreversible, and that nothing can prevent large parts of the planet becoming too hot to inhabit, or sinking underwater, resulting in mass migration, famine and epidemics. Britain is going to become a lifeboat for refugees from mainland Europe, so instead of wasting our time on wind turbines we need to start planning how to survive. To Lovelock, the logic is clear. The sustainability brigade are insane to think we can save ourselves by going back to nature; our only chance of survival will come not from less technology, but more.
Nuclear power, he argues, can solve our energy problem - the bigger challenge will be food. "Maybe they'll synthesise food. I don't know. Synthesising food is not some mad visionary idea; you can buy it in Tesco's, in the form of Quorn. It's not that good, but people buy it. You can live on it." But he fears we won't invent the necessary technologies in time, and expects "about 80%" of the world's population to be wiped out by 2100. Prophets have been foretelling Armageddon since time began, he says.'But this is the real thing.'".

Bracing stuff. I don't buy the 'technology and markets will save us from technology and markets' schtick, but this guy is lookaing at salvaging something from a catastrophically dire situation. You want 'dark predictions'? This is yr man. But notice that this pro-nukes, pro-market guy offers an analogy very unflattering to you climate skeptics:

"Humanity is in a period exactly like 1938-9, he explains, when "we all knew something terrible was going to happen, but didn't know what to do about it". ". Maybe sticking our heads in the sand will help?

Anyway here's a bit more on/from Lovelock:

http://www.jameslovelock.org/page24.html

http://www.canada.com/Free+Market+Economics+E...

http://www.jameslovelock.org/page10.html
"...It was ill luck that we started polluting at a time when the sun is too hot for comfort. We have given Gaia a fever and soon her condition will worsen to a state like a coma. She has been there before and recovered, but it took more than 100,000 years. We are responsible and will suffer the consequences: as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics.

Much of the tropical land mass will become scrub and desert, and will no longer serve for regulation; this adds to the 40 percent of the Earth's surface we have depleted to feed ourselves.

Curiously, aerosol pollution of the northern hemisphere reduces global warming by reflecting sunlight back to space. This 'global dimming' is transient and could disappear in a few days like the smoke that it is, leaving us fully exposed to the heat of the global greenhouse. We are in a fool's climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable."

Jeezis.

As for another climate-change believer who's all too consistent in his pessimistic view toward politicians (and of course head-in-the-sand types), I give you JOHN ZERZAN
[global warming anxiety addressed @ 2 min mark; 7:40 begins a riff I think you might appreciate, a little hating on earth day and the "sustainability lie"]
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

http://www.johnzerzan.net/articles/the-left-n...

http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/

[cont'd fr #166]

All that said, you should read/read about the ideas of PRO-NUCLEAR CLIMATE CHANGE BELIEVER (w/ a vengeance) JAMES LOVELOCK.

This is one of the guys who discovered the hole in the ozone layer (ever hear of the 'Gaia theory'? That's him too). And in Lovelock's view we should turn to nuclear as final possible hope, problems and all, because

"Lovelock believes global warming is now irreversible, and that nothing can prevent large parts of the planet becoming too hot to inhabit, or sinking underwater, resulting in mass migration, famine and epidemics. Britain is going to become a lifeboat for refugees from mainland Europe, so instead of wasting our time on wind turbines we need to start planning how to survive. To Lovelock, the logic is clear. The sustainability brigade are insane to think we can save ourselves by going back to nature; our only chance of survival will come not from less technology, but more.
Nuclear power, he argues, can solve our energy problem - the bigger challenge will be food. "Maybe they'll synthesise food. I don't know. Synthesising food is not some mad visionary idea; you can buy it in Tesco's, in the form of Quorn. It's not that good, but people buy it. You can live on it." But he fears we won't invent the necessary technologies in time, and expects "about 80%" of the world's population to be wiped out by 2100. Prophets have been foretelling Armageddon since time began, he says.'But this is the real thing.'".

Bracing stuff. I don't buy the 'technology and markets will save us from technology and markets' schtick, but this guy is lookaing at salvaging something from a catastrophically dire situation. You want 'dark predictions'? This is yr man. But notice that this pro-nukes, pro-market guy offers an analogy very unflattering to you climate skeptics:

"Humanity is in a period exactly like 1938-9, he explains, when "we all knew something terrible was going to happen, but didn't know what to do about it". ". Maybe sticking our heads in the sand will help?

Anyway here's a bit more on/from Lovelock:

http://www.jameslovelock.org/page24.html

http://www.canada.com/Free+Market+Economics+E...

cont'd fr #167

http://www.jameslovelock.org/page10.html
"...It was ill luck that we started polluting at a time when the sun is too hot for comfort. We have given Gaia a fever and soon her condition will worsen to a state like a coma. She has been there before and recovered, but it took more than 100,000 years. We are responsible and will suffer the consequences: as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics.

Much of the tropical land mass will become scrub and desert, and will no longer serve for regulation; this adds to the 40 percent of the Earth's surface we have depleted to feed ourselves.

Curiously, aerosol pollution of the northern hemisphere reduces global warming by reflecting sunlight back to space. This 'global dimming' is transient and could disappear in a few days like the smoke that it is, leaving us fully exposed to the heat of the global greenhouse. We are in a fool's climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable."

AstroMike wrote:

<quoted text>
Whoa, that is an amazing graph. I'm pretty sure by "lost" they mean "energy not turned into work".

That would be unfortunate, since 'work' is not always the object. Also because as you mention below, not all the heat CAN be turned into work.

For example, note the huge energy percentage lost in transportation - the 4-stroke engine is notoriously inefficient and wastes most energy as heat.

Have you cranked through the numbers? I seem to recall the 4-stroke getting surprisingly close to Carnot efficiency.

Admittedly, getting 100% efficiency is impossible (only a reversible, isentropic, adiabatic process can do this, which by definition won't generate any work), but there are a lot better solutions out there - e.g. the Carnot cycle.

There ARE no working Carnot cycles -- it is a purely theoretical construct, showing the upper limit of efficiency.

You should have noticed this from the description of a Carnot cycle in any good text on Thermodynamics -- each step is made "infinitely slowly", so that it is reversible.

Real machines do not work "infinitely slowly", and are only very approximately 'reversible'.

We are being played.

Obama's cronies coached Grayson. They all know we have a coal fired plant here. The other Dems with seniority, coal fired plants in there districts and tough elections coming up were allowed to vote no. They told Grayson to say he traded it for something that would appeal to this area. A hurricane center fits in with the climate and one can always use the "it creates jobs" selling points. Jobs that generate no revenue and are supported by tax payer money.

The people on the fence about this bill now think they have something positive coming to their area. The are thinking, at least he got something out of it. What good is that free satellite dish when you have to pay the bill for 2 years to get it? Even if we do end up getting this is will just be more government spending.

But this will never happen. Instead of focusing on the real topic, the governments control of our energy and redistributing of wealth. When you are arguing about you congressman trading his vote, or about whether or not we need another hurricane center, it takes away from the real issues.

The bill was estimated by the CBO to increase energy prices by $175 and by the EPA to increase energy prices by $80 to $110 a year for the average family. But the low income family - ones below average - stand to get rebates in excess of $161-$359. Why would a low income family get more money to help them with their electric bill than what it is estimated to increase? Either we are being lied to about the true cost of of this program or we are paying more in energy to help support the poor. We pare being tricked by this bill and we are being played by Grayson. It doesn't add up and it doesn't make sense.

Doorworker, Thank you for the Carlin link it just reafirms all my beliefs that mans greatest problem is himself. The problem we have that the rest of the animal world doesn't? We think to much!

nailman wrote:

Doorworker, Thank you for the Carlin link it just reafirms all my beliefs that mans greatest problem is himself.

It is very revealing that the cynics who express these cynical splatitudes like this one tend to believe it applies to OTHER people -- but never to themselves, oh, never!

otownnole wrote:

We are being played.
Obama's cronies coached Grayson. They all know we have a coal fired plant here. The other Dems with seniority, coal fired plants in there districts and tough elections coming up were allowed to vote no. They told Grayson to say he traded it for something that would appeal to this area. A hurricane center fits in with the climate and one can always use the "it creates jobs" selling points. Jobs that generate no revenue and are supported by tax payer money.
The people on the fence about this bill now think they have something positive coming to their area. The are thinking, at least he got something out of it. What good is that free satellite dish when you have to pay the bill for 2 years to get it? Even if we do end up getting this is will just be more government spending.
But this will never happen. Instead of focusing on the real topic, the governments control of our energy and redistributing of wealth. When you are arguing about you congressman trading his vote, or about whether or not we need another hurricane center, it takes away from the real issues.
The bill was estimated by the CBO to increase energy prices by $175 and by the EPA to increase energy prices by $80 to $110 a year for the average family. But the low income family - ones below average - stand to get rebates in excess of $161-$359. Why would a low income family get more money to help them with their electric bill than what it is estimated to increase? Either we are being lied to about the true cost of of this program or we are paying more in energy to help support the poor. We pare being tricked by this bill and we are being played by Grayson. It doesn't add up and it doesn't make sense.

We're being played!! No, we're being screwed and don't even get to enjoy it!!

If you're going to sell your home any time in the future you'd better do it before this goes through because once it goes through you'll have to have a federal inspector come through and you'll have to bring your home up to the new standards before you sell it. Looking at 10K to 20K just to put it on the market.

This Crap & Tax is nothing but a huge power grab.

I hope people realize once they get a hold of the energy industry and then the health insurance along with everything else they've already stoled that the government with have control of about 50% of America's so called free enterprise.

People need to start connecting the dots before it's too late. This isn't funny anymore!!

Unbelievable wrote:

<quoted text>
We're being played!! No, we're being screwed and don't even get to enjoy it!!
If you're going to sell your home any time in the future you'd better do it before this goes through because once it goes through you'll have to have a federal inspector come through and you'll have to bring your home up to the new standards before you sell it. Looking at 10K to 20K just to put it on the market.
This Crap & Tax is nothing but a huge power grab.
I hope people realize once they get a hold of the energy industry and then the health insurance along with everything else they've already stoled that the government with have control of about 50% of America's so called free enterprise.
People need to start connecting the dots before it's too late. This isn't funny anymore!!

"climate bill + home resale" and "climate bill + home inspection" turned up nothing on the google or lthe google news search engines.

Methinks yr full of the feces. Those are the dots I'm connecting.

Links, Paul Revere. You got some big news to share, you paste the link. That way the rest of us can judge what yr 'dots' are worth.

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Do you really think they would not prefer to just get rid of it? But they realize this is impossible -- since they are more realistic than you.

And don't forget: electric power generation accounts for only about 20% of our energy use. So even if we did replace all electricity generation with nuclear, that would only eliminate about 20% of our carbon output. But we need to eliminate much more, even 80%.
<quoted text>
It is no such thing. You have no evidence for this, but you find it comfortable to believe, so you shout it from the rooftops.

"Do you really think they would not prefer to just get rid of it? But they realize this is impossible -- since they are more realistic than you."

It sounds like you support doing something - ANYTHING - even if it is wrong.

If the cap and trade energy tax does not end or reduce CO2 emissions then it serves no useful purpose except to transfer more wealth from the private citizens to the governemnt.

It's scary that libs are so desperate to stick it to energy users that they are willing to settle for no positive results.

But it says a lot about the left in this country.

Nuclear power would replace carbon based electric power and that would reduce CO2 emissions.

Where did you get the number of electricity being only 20% of our energy use?

That is very low and I think it is wrong.

According to the link below transportation accounts for 28% of energy, commercial and residential 39% and 33% to industry.

Potentially nuclear power could account for 80 to 85% of our energy use and that's all the more reason to use it.

http://www.need.org/needpdf/infobook_activiti...

Mac-7 wrote:

It sounds like you support doing something - ANYTHING - even if it is wrong.

No, this is just another of your numerous and breezy straw-man arguments.

If the cap and trade energy tax does not end or reduce CO2 emissions then it serves no useful purpose except to transfer more wealth from the private citizens to the governemnt.

Again:'IF' is the biggest 2-letter word I know;)

Potentially nuclear power could account for 80 to 85% of our energy use and that's all the more reason to use it.

Total nonsense. It can only replace mass-distributed electricity. But we don't USE mass-distributed electricity for most transportation! Nor should we.

For that matter, the link you gave does NOT support you. Who did you think you could fool by giving it?

doorworker wrote:

<quoted text>
"climate bill + home resale" and "climate bill + home inspection" turned up nothing on the google or lthe google news search engines.
Methinks yr full of the feces. Those are the dots I'm connecting.
Links, Paul Revere. You got some big news to share, you paste the link. That way the rest of us can judge what yr 'dots' are worth.

TITLE II--ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Subtitle A--Building Energy Efficiency Programs

SEC. 201. GREATER ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN BUILDING CODES.

``(3) Compliant code.--For the purposes of meeting the
target described in subsection (a)(1)(A) for residential
buildings, a State that adopts the code represented in
California's Title 24-2009 by the date 27 months after the date
of enactment of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of
2009 shall be considered to have met the requirements of this
subsection for the applicable period.

http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXT...

Too much to actually post but here is HR2454

Unbelievable wrote:

along with everything else they've already stoled that the government with have control of about 50% of America's so called free enterprise.

I am SO glad that rightist nutcases liek you always shoot yourselves in the foot with solecisms like "they've alrady stoled"!

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
I am SO glad that rightist nutcases liek you always shoot yourselves in the foot with solecisms like "they've alrady stoled"!

Oh that's right they bought it with OUR HARD EARNED TAX DOLLARS without our permission. FYI, if you buy something with someone elses money that's called stealing. Polls showed overwelmingly that the American citizens did not want all this spending from the last administration or this administration so yes they stoled these companies!!