Bad news for Peak Oil theorists...
 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...the-world.html

Bad news for Peak Oil theorists...
 

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:43:02 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...the-world.html

Who knows? Maybe some day the liberals will see an advantage to
nuclear energy also.

Things change in this world.

Bad news for Peak Oil theorists...
 

On Oct 12, 9:01*am, John H wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:43:02 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports

wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c..._pritchard/629...

Who knows? Maybe some day the liberals will see an advantage to
nuclear energy also.

we always have. i actually met ralph nader about 35 years ago and told
him he was wrong on nuclear power.

and he was.

Bad news for Peak Oil theorists...
 

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:43:02 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/
ambroseevans_pritchard/6299291/Energy-crisis-is-postponed-as-new-gas-
rescues-the-world.html

Yeah, but it ain't a Silver Bullet. Fracking takes tremendous amounts of
water, and uses carcinogenic chemicals. That sometimes leaves a choice
between clean drinking water, and energy. That is, if the area has the
water resources to begin with. Overall, good news, but problems to have
to be worked out.

http://www.earthworksaction.org/pubs...drFrac_CBM.pdf

Bad news for Peak Oil theorists...
 

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:59:02 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:01:27 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:43:02 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...the-world.html

Who knows? Maybe some day the liberals will see an advantage to
nuclear energy also.

Things change in this world.

I don't get how you see everything in such a
black-white/liberal-conservative way, but let's play it your way....

why are the conservatives so

1) opposed to centralized management,

I'm not at all opposed to centralized management, as long as it's not
the government. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should stay in
business to insure that appropriate safety regulations are enforced.

2) opposed to government involvement in major industrial enterprises,

Because *our* government tends to dick things up when it gets control.
The second item in your document was, "...close cooperation among the
key industrial players and the government," The word 'involvement' was
your addition. I've no problem with close cooperation.

3) and opposed to recycling of nuclear waste?

Why would I be opposed to the recycling of nuclear waste? That's a
silly assumption.

.....since you keep pointing to the French as an example of how it
should be done and those are the three things that make nuclear energy
happen for them......
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/....html?PageNr=2

The French system makes a lot of sense. Why are liberals so against
it?

Bad news for Peak Oil theorists...
 

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:55:19 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:29:26 -0400, KotP-A
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:59:02 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:01:27 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:43:02 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...the-world.html

Who knows? Maybe some day the liberals will see an advantage to
nuclear energy also.

Things change in this world.

I don't get how you see everything in such a
black-white/liberal-conservative way, but let's play it your way....

why are the conservatives so

1) opposed to centralized management,

I'm not at all opposed to centralized management, as long as it's not
the government. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should stay in
business to insure that appropriate safety regulations are enforced.

So...... the government should stay out of it and not have any role in
management, but the (Government) Nuclear Regulatory Commission should
stay in business to manage enforcement of safety regulations (plus
anything else that might be in their charter?)?

Yes.

Right, ok.... I guess that kinda makes sense, sorta, maybe in an odd
way........ or not!


2) opposed to government involvement in major industrial enterprises,

Because *our* government tends to dick things up when it gets control.
The second item in your document was, "...close cooperation among the
key industrial players and the government," The word 'involvement' was
your addition. I've no problem with close cooperation.

Wasn't my word at all... it came straight out of the article: "Such
closely knit cooperation is, of course, much easier in France, which
has a long tradition of government involvement in major industrial
enterprises, ranging from the supersonic Concorde jetliner to the TGV
high-speed train."


3) and opposed to recycling of nuclear waste?

Why would I be opposed to the recycling of nuclear waste? That's a
silly assumption.

You are conservative, conservatives have been all about storage of
nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. Obama is a liberal, he stopped those
plans and his energy secretary,Chu, has referred to future
reprocessing of waste so it can be recycled. Therefore it follows that
you are against reprocessing, since you are not a liberal.

Right, ok.... I guess that kinda makes sense, sorta, maybe in an odd
way........ or not! Mostly not.


.....since you keep pointing to the French as an example of how it
should be done and those are the three things that make nuclear energy
happen for them......
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/....html?PageNr=2

The French system makes a lot of sense. Why are liberals so against
it?

Well, let's see:

"The French nuclear program is based on three key ideas: centralized
management, close cooperation among the key industrial players and the
government, and the recycling of nuclear waste."

You just said that didn't make any sense, so, by your own logic, you
must be a liberal! And, using your binary logic, I must be a
conservative..... you commie pinko fag.......

I just said 'what' didn't make sense? I agreed with all three of the
key ideas.

I think your little ploy backfired.

Again, The French system makes a lot of sense. Why are liberals so
against it?

Bad news for Peak Oil theorists...
 

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:29:53 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:37:12 -0400, KotP-A
wrote:

Again, The French system makes a lot of sense. Why are liberals so
against it?

Again. You are jumping on your horse and riding off in about 10
different directions. Either the French system makes a lot of sense as
is or it doesn't. Your objections to what "doesn't make sense" render
the French model meaningless and non-operative. If you want to create
your *own* system and tout it's benefits, fine, but you can't take an
existing system, mentally modify it to your whim and continue to call
it the same thing..... it is different.... how, exactly, is known only
to you.

Besides. You've yet to post the first shred of concrete evidence that
"liberals," who or what ever they are, are "against the French System"
as it actually exists. (Barring a group of extreme lefties in GB.)

Hey Gene, what 'objections' did I pose? I was against the government
running the system. I wasn't against 'cooperation' with the
government. Other than that, I believe I agreed with everything you
pasted.

What are the ten different directions? 'Liberals', in general, are
against nuclear power. How often do you hear 'Bama mentioning it?

Again, show me all the modifications I demanded. Just list three or
four, that should do it.

Bad news for Peak Oil theorists...
 

On 10/13/09 6:21 PM, Gene wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:13:33 -0400, KotP-A
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:29:53 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:37:12 -0400, KotP-A
wrote:

Again, The French system makes a lot of sense. Why are liberals so
against it?

Again. You are jumping on your horse and riding off in about 10
different directions. Either the French system makes a lot of sense as
is or it doesn't. Your objections to what "doesn't make sense" render
the French model meaningless and non-operative. If you want to create
your *own* system and tout it's benefits, fine, but you can't take an
existing system, mentally modify it to your whim and continue to call
it the same thing..... it is different.... how, exactly, is known only
to you.

Besides. You've yet to post the first shred of concrete evidence that
"liberals," who or what ever they are, are "against the French System"
as it actually exists. (Barring a group of extreme lefties in GB.)

Hey Gene, what 'objections' did I pose? I was against the government
running the system. I wasn't against 'cooperation' with the
government. Other than that, I believe I agreed with everything you
pasted.

What are the ten different directions? 'Liberals', in general, are
against nuclear power. How often do you hear 'Bama mentioning it?

Again, show me all the modifications I demanded. Just list three or
four, that should do it.


You've yet to post the first shred of concrete evidence that
"liberals," who or what ever they are, are "against the French System"
as it actually exists. (Barring a group of extreme lefties in GB.)


Fascinating that herring worked for the government his entire
life...without objection.

--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

Bad news for Peak Oil theorists...
 

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:21:15 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:13:33 -0400, KotP-A
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:29:53 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:37:12 -0400, KotP-A
wrote:

Again, The French system makes a lot of sense. Why are liberals so
against it?

Again. You are jumping on your horse and riding off in about 10
different directions. Either the French system makes a lot of sense as
is or it doesn't. Your objections to what "doesn't make sense" render
the French model meaningless and non-operative. If you want to create
your *own* system and tout it's benefits, fine, but you can't take an
existing system, mentally modify it to your whim and continue to call
it the same thing..... it is different.... how, exactly, is known only
to you.

Besides. You've yet to post the first shred of concrete evidence that
"liberals," who or what ever they are, are "against the French System"
as it actually exists. (Barring a group of extreme lefties in GB.)

Hey Gene, what 'objections' did I pose? I was against the government
running the system. I wasn't against 'cooperation' with the
government. Other than that, I believe I agreed with everything you
pasted.

What are the ten different directions? 'Liberals', in general, are
against nuclear power. How often do you hear 'Bama mentioning it?

Again, show me all the modifications I demanded. Just list three or
four, that should do it.


You've yet to post the first shred of concrete evidence that
"liberals," who or what ever they are, are "against the French System"
as it actually exists. (Barring a group of extreme lefties in GB.)

That's it? Where's the ten different directions? Where are all my
'objections'. Why should I post anything about liberals being against
nuclear power? Why, instead, don't you look real hard and see if you
show that liberals are *for* nuclear power.

You are a piece of cake, my friend.

Bad news for Peak Oil theorists...
 

On 10/13/09 7:49 PM, Gene wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:42:17 -0400, KotP-A
wrote:


You've yet to post the first shred of concrete evidence that
liberals," who or what ever they are, are "against the French System"
as it actually exists. (Barring a group of extreme lefties in GB.)

Support your original position, or admit defeat.....


snerk

Wait, maybe Glenn Beck will come up with something for his racist buddy,
herring.

--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All