Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
September 22, 2014, 10:39:57 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Beemaster's official FACEBOOK page
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat  

Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: this is interesting  (Read 2988 times)
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15152


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #20 on: August 03, 2012, 07:27:11 PM »

Quote
Becomes a bit boring doesn't it  !!

but it works.  according to the brilliant scientists of my childhood, we should have run out of oil long ago.  instead, we find more and more of it.  i remember when i lived in KY and they were wringing their hands that we'd run out of coal....but not even close.  we have found cheaper and more efficient ways to extract natural gas and it is abundant.

i do believe that the first companies that come up with viable and affordable alternatives to fossil fuels will make gazillions of dollars.  i will probably invest in them and get a bit for myself  grin.
i don't have a problem with incentivising  companies who can come up with real alternatives.  incentivising is NOT the same as subsidizing.

when companies come up with new ideas, they beat each other over the  head to get them to market.  hydrogen fuel cells, electric cars, etc.  so far, most of these things have been either seriously flawed, or overly expensive.  one of the best alternatives for electricity production is solar.  even though the initial investment for homeowners is steep, the cost recovery time is relatively short.  solar companies need to work on the life span of the panels, but even that is much, much, better than it was.  in places like AZ, solar farms would be a great way to generate electricity for the grid....if not for that pesky lizard.
in my area, we have an excess, most years, of water.  hydro is clean and also controls flooding.  we should be throwing up new dams all over the place but we are tearing them down for the sake of fish.  

can't have everything folks......

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15152


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #21 on: August 03, 2012, 07:30:36 PM »

Quote
  Then again most land in the USA is PRIVATE land.  Is there something wrong with getting natural gas from under private land?


i believe the point might be that if it were federal land, the permits and leases would not be issued....as they are not being issued for oil drilling. 

here is a map representing what the federal government owns.  wouldn't it be nice if the people could benefit from the land that belongs to the people?

http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
kingbee
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1083


Location: Big bend of the Tennessee River


« Reply #22 on: August 03, 2012, 10:23:09 PM »

... Yes most natural gas is fracked under private land.  Then again most land in the USA is PRIVATE land.  Is there something wrong with getting natural gas from under private land?... ?

I don't give a fig for President Obama's birth certificate or his lack there of.  It is a red herring that the left trots out every time they are at a lost for words to use in defending the in-defensible, so they send up the birth certificate smoke screen and attack the messenger instead.  Notice I called President Obama "President" because he is still my leader and I honor his office.  Now I ask you to honor me by sticking to the facts at hand. 

To refresh your memory the facts are these.  The "President" did not make any distinction between natural gas produced from below private lands or natural gas produced from beneath public lands?  Am I correct?  If I am the “President”  is opposed to all forms of coal, gas, and petroleum energy.  You may as well add hydro-electric, nuclear and most bio-mass energy forms to that as well, all the “President’s shifty eyed  stuttering, and stammering about creating jobs not withstanding.  Get over President” Obama's birth certificate and get to work either proving me wrong or else proving "President" Obama is right.  That should be easy for the many smart and un-bored “President” Obama supporters among us.   

Since you broached the subject, about 30% of all land in the United States is public.  Yea, public means owned by the government.  In other words 1 acre out of every 3 acres is government or public land, for the math challenged that means about 2 acres out of every 3 acres are private lands.   That also makes the Federal government by far the largest land owner in the USA with 650 million acres in direct holdings.  But who’se counting?

In a matter related to killing the coal industry, lead EPA  harpoonist Lisa Jackson recently dropped an EPA lawsuit she filed on “President” Obama’s behest against a Texas gas fracking company.  She did this when the media learned that when Santa Anna and the Comanche still ruled Texas that the well water in that part of Texas burst into flames when a lit match was held near it.  Nice try Lisa but no cigar.  Truth is not the special providence of either the Left or the Right.  Truth stands tall on its own two feet, and without the need for a birth certificate crutch.
 
Logged
buzzbee
Ken
Administrator
Galactic Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5444


Location: North Central PA


WWW
« Reply #23 on: August 04, 2012, 11:24:21 AM »

As I recall,in Utah i believe it is, we have some of the cleanest burning coal in the world. Then President Clinton ,by executive order ruled it unobtainable by declaring it a national monument.  The State of Utah opposed this,you know ,the citizens of Utah.In this case, if we wanted to buy clean coal it now had to come from Indonesia,benefiting the  Riady family. These people are foreign nationals. And this was a direct payback to contributions to the Democrat party by foreign nationals.Follow the trends.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/lippo.htm
Look at who these people are appeasing. We have clean burning coal.
Whose special interests are being looked out for.Surely not the interests of the American people.
Crushing our economy is first and foremost with these people. And they are succeeding.
We have the hole in the ozone layer,global warming,,coal is bad ,oil is bad ,and even windframs are bad because you may have a few birds killed.
We have locked up the water for use by farmers in the San Joaquin Valley to protect the Delta Smelt which were not indigineous to the area they are protecting them.This is a man made drought to destroy commerce in the western bread basket.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/02/29/delta-smelt-v-central-valley-farmers-the
People need to wake up to the tactics being used and their underlying purpose.
Logged
buzzbee
Ken
Administrator
Galactic Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5444


Location: North Central PA


WWW
« Reply #24 on: August 04, 2012, 11:36:17 AM »

Just a thought on our public lands and National monuments.
Although it may have been natural causes,lets start limiting access to 'public" lands.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97661&page=1
It's just the first step of many.Soon you will only be able to get a video tour.  But what the heck, we should be able to lay off a lot of federal employees,which could be a good thing. I can see some sunshine there.
 Aww but heck,they would need to replace them with armed thugs to keep the public from public lands.
Logged
Boom Buzz
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 165


Location: Longmont, CO


« Reply #25 on: August 05, 2012, 01:34:24 AM »

As for the energy discussion, why not let natural market forces drive the industry direction with respect to coal vs nat gas vs renewable, and at the same time let the government seed research and development for new technologies for the longer range energy policy?  Business people tend to be smart folks and given a level playing field and rules of the game they will deliver the most efficient solution.  When you add in government intervention it distorts the playing field and causes artificial pressures on supply and demand.  Which usually drives up cost, which in the end winds up being like a tax on the consumer. For example, coal becomes necessarily more costly, in order to make less efficient technologies appear more attractive. 

So acknowledging that coal and gas supplies are finite, when the supplies start becoming limited, basic economics indicates that given the same demand, costs/prices will increase naturally, and at some point, renewable energy sources/technologies will naturally become more attractive cost/price wise.  Improved technologies in the renewable arena will hasten the transition, but forcing it before its time just increases the cost to the average consumer, which takes away their spending power.  More spent on energy, less spent elsewhere.

Anecdotally, the quote I received for a solar set up to meet my household electric requirements showed a 60 year payback... SIXTY YEARS?  The useful life of the equipment is at best 30 years.  I would be happy to put in solar, at the point when it is economically viable.  Which it will be one day.  But not yet.  Most solar installations I see in our area are for government buildings.  It doesn't seem to have to make sense economically for the government since they are suing OPM (other people's money).

So Bluebee your passion for nat gas and renewable energy sources is admirable, but why would you be willing to place this cost burden/tax on the lower and middle class?
Logged
BlueBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4217

Location: Mid Michigan


« Reply #26 on: August 05, 2012, 03:06:55 AM »

Hey Boom Buzz, your arguments sound reasonable and I will agree that renewables are not even close to commercial viability at this point.  I favor research (even tax dollars) for those things because they will be very important in the future; that is a good investment IMO.  I do not favor subsidizing technology that is not viable at this time; not the Volt, not solynda, not windmills, not ethanol, not nuclear.  

My beef with our conservative friends is over coal.  I see no good reason for pushing coal when we have a glut of natural gas that is cheaper and cleaner burning.  In a perfect world, I would like to get rid of all the fossil fuels, but I live in reality here.

A side note; those of us in the Great Lakes region are really getting hammered at the gas pump again.  Prices jumped about 40 cents over night and we’re back to $4 a gallon.  I heard Chicago is pushing $4.50/gal.  Supposedly a couple of refineries in IL had some “problem” and the Canadian pipe line which dumped a bunch of crude into the Kalamazoo river a couple years ago failed AGAIN; this time in Wisconsin Sad  Our dependence on this stuff will eventually be our undoing.  
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15152


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #27 on: August 05, 2012, 11:10:51 AM »

one of the things that will drive fuel prices in the next year will be the ethanol mandate.  if it is true that we have lost 50% of our corn crop and we already know that there is a world wide grain issue, then mandating that a % of our fuel come from a reduced grain crop will drive cost up.  it will also increase prices at the grocery store as there is very little that isn't impacted by grain prices.  the grain market, like the oil market, is international....except when countries like Russia decide not to play.

a large part of the cost of fuel can be laid at the state and federal feet.  between fuel mix mandates and taxes.....and the difficulty in getting more local refineries built, i don't see the fuel situation getting better.  the cost of crude can be driven down in a number of ways, but at this point i suspect that lower per barrel costs would invite more state and federal taxes.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15152


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #28 on: August 05, 2012, 11:16:24 AM »

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/costs-conflicts-arise-in-reid-push-for-green-power-164858086.html

this kind of goes along with the conversation.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
kingbee
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1083


Location: Big bend of the Tennessee River


« Reply #29 on: August 05, 2012, 02:01:21 PM »

... It seems universal that nobody is considering the fact that coal ...[is a] finite commodities... The politicians in this lovely land (Australia) seem absolutely hell bent on increasing the population without any thought to the increased infrastructures needed...

Quite true Geoff.  Did you ever consider that the politicans are smarter than us voters and the politicians know that we are on an unsustainable path with the current level of government provided social services.   So since politicians will be politicians they are attempting to create more new, young productive, and compliant tax payers as they are able to keep the social services scam going until the politicans pass on to their "heavenly" or whatever other reward evil they have earned? 

Hey, I just discovered way pigeons all poop on politicians' statues!!!   grin  rolleyes
Logged
buzzbee
Ken
Administrator
Galactic Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5444


Location: North Central PA


WWW
« Reply #30 on: August 05, 2012, 02:05:55 PM »

It's not poop,it's a renewable energy source!! grin
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15152


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #31 on: August 05, 2012, 03:06:48 PM »

there is another reason for some to be concerned with increasing certain parts of the population.  most 1st world countries are experiencing negative birth rates.  in most countries this means importing 3rd world labor.  in some countries like Japan, it means that they are now, for the first time, having to house the elderly because there is no family to tend them. 

it was the 1st worlders who bought into the population bomb crap and never gave a thought to what that would mean for their own future.  what happens when the imported 3rd world labor becomes the majority?  they own the country and they change the culture. + in many places, European countries in particular, they will not have the opportunity to move up and become fully integrated. 
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
kingbee
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1083


Location: Big bend of the Tennessee River


« Reply #32 on: August 05, 2012, 03:08:06 PM »

... a solar set up... showed a 60 year payback... SIXTY YEARS?  The useful life of the equipment is at best 30 years... Most solar installations... in our area are for government buildings.  It doesn't seem to have to make sense economically for the government... they are suing OPM (other people's money)...

Yep. I guess that is why Amtrack pays $16.00 to sell a $9.00 hamburger that Wimpy will gladly pay you a quarter for next Tuesday.

The true beauty of being a right wing cave man in flyover country is that the liberals keep you so well supplied with AAA ammo.
Logged
BlueBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4217

Location: Mid Michigan


« Reply #33 on: August 05, 2012, 04:21:18 PM »

Here’s a sickening expense we all paid for:  $26 a gallon for biodiesel for Navel exercises in the Pacific this month.    

 http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2012/07/19/the-navys-use-of-biofuels-is-inefficient-and-costly

Spending $26 a gallon on diesel is what I call pure corporate welfare.  I’m not against spending $$ on research, but let’s not burn a ton of the stuff until costs come down to $5 a gallon!
Logged
Boom Buzz
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 165


Location: Longmont, CO


« Reply #34 on: August 05, 2012, 05:55:32 PM »

Bluebee, we're not seeing the gas price hike you mentioned here in Colorado.  87 octane at $3.39 still which is as low as its been in a long while.

The article on the Navy's use of biofuels is spot on with the points I was trying to make with respect to government interference/manipulation in markets creates inefficiencies and waste.  The article Kathy posted on Senator Reid and energy in Nevada makes the point as well.  Government interference typically leads to higher costs which ultimately are born by "the people."  You called it "corporate welfare" which makes me think you are saying the this was done to give a benefit to a corporation, however I tend to think of it as a political agenda in which the government, through policy or regulation drives inefficiencies that winds up being a wind fall for one company/industry, and a short fall for another.  If the government weren't driving a political agenda, there would have been a different outcome.  Ie., the navy would have used diesel fuel at closer to $5 per gallon.

The bigger point is...government interference/political agendas have become so invasive that most of the 65 points in the original post can be traced back to government policy and regulation and the ill effects they have on our country and society.  We need government for protection and to preserve rights and freedom, but right now our government has grown to big and powerful and thus is impinging on rights and freedom.  My opinion is both parties are guilty.  But at least the conservative side pretends to represent less government and more freedom.

Not trying to pick on you, but just offering food for thought.  Back to coal versus nat gas.  As a conservative, I am for letting natural market forces enable a transition.  I am not beholden to coal, nor nat gas.  I just think it makes since to use the resource that can provide the most economical electricity given a certain level of air cleanliness.  If it that means coal for the time being given the current infrastructure and plants in place then so be it.  If it means using nat gas, then good, bring it on.

Peace!
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15152


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #35 on: August 05, 2012, 06:48:02 PM »

Quote
Here’s a sickening expense we all paid for:  $26 a gallon for biodiesel for Navel exercises in the Pacific this month. 

this is not the choice of the navy.  let me tell you something else that no one talked about...over the last few years, training and defense cruises have been cut short because of fuel costs.  this means that ships are not getting the sea time they need, sailors are not getting the training, and we are not protecting the shipping lanes.  ships that should have been out roaming the seas have been sitting in various ports rather than burning fuel.

Quote
You called it "corporate welfare" which makes me think you are saying the this was done to give a benefit to a corporation, however I tend to think of it as a political agenda in which the government, through policy or regulation drives inefficiencies that winds up being a wind fall for one company/industry, and a short fall for another.  If the government weren't driving a political agenda, there would have been a different outcome.  Ie., the navy would have used diesel fuel at closer to $5 per gallon.

it is entirely political.  it is to pacify groups like green peace.  it has nothing to do with where the money is going.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
kingbee
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1083


Location: Big bend of the Tennessee River


« Reply #36 on: August 05, 2012, 07:58:50 PM »

... we all paid $26 a gallon for biodiesel for Navel exercises in the Pacific this month...

Tell it to the commander in chief.  He afterall is the Supreme Commander of all the Armed Forces of the United States of America.  He also did his Seargent Schultz impersonation ("I knows nooothing") a month earlier when the U.S.A.F. shelled out... are you ready for this?  $59 bucks a gallon for renewable jet fuel.  shocked LOL  grin
Logged
kingbee
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1083


Location: Big bend of the Tennessee River


« Reply #37 on: August 05, 2012, 09:47:50 PM »

This may be the perfect time to adopt the tag line, “Be careful of that for which you yearn, because you just may receive it.”  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 “Degrowth …is a political, economic, and social movement based on environmentalist, anti-consumerist and anti-capitalist ideas. Degrowth …activists advocate for the downscaling of production and consumption… Key to the concept of degrowth is that reducing consumption does not require individual martyring and a decrease in well-being. Rather, 'degrowthists' aim to maximize happiness and well-being through non-consumptive means… sharing work, consuming less, …devoting more time to art, music, family, culture and community…”

[II]  …Technologies designed to reduce resource use and improve efficiency are often touted as sustainable or green solutions. However, degrowth opposes these technological advances on the ground of what is referred to as the "rebound effect". This concept is based on observations that when a less resource-exhaustive technology is introduced… consumption of that technology will increase [like wind, or solar energy use] …proponents of degrowth hold that the only effective 'sustainable' solutions must involve a complete rejection of… growth… and a move toward a degrowth [sustainable] paradigm…”

[III]  “Marxists distinguish between two types of growth: that which is useful… and that which… exists to increase profits… Marxists consider that it is the …control of production [by someone other than themselves] that is the determinant… They believe that control… [exercised only by them] …enable social and economic development”

[IV]  “The concept of degrowth is viewed as contradictory when applied to lesser-developed countries… the majority of supporters of degrowth advocate …a certain… level of well-being independent of growth. The question of where the balance lies (i.e. how much the developed nations should [or must] degrowth by)… remains open.”

The Bold Italics were added by myself for both emphasis and for clarity.

Paragraph [IV] “a certain level of well-being independent of growth”  is the perfect paradigm for Man Made Global Warming’s Cap and Trade, i.e. spread the wealth around International Socialism scheme.
Earlier this year at a global climate conference in Durban South Africa a near riot erupted when it became clear that industrial nations, including Brazil, China, India and the United States were not going to commit economic suicide so the people of South Africa or anywhere else could enjoy “a certain level of well-being” without a certain level of work or investment.

Folks, all this sustainable agriculture, sustainable development, sustainable this that or the other bull crap is nothing more than  a continuation of the 1960s Height Asbury Hippy temper tantrum.  It was conceived in a drug induced haze, birthed into a make believe world constructed from psychedelic chemicals and suckled on lies.  
I even suspect that the first human who walked away from his dank natal cave and constructed himself airy animal skin hovel on the plains of Africa endured the same abuse Liberals heap on Conservatives today.  

I therefore ask you, who is the greatest danger to American’s Middle Class, Mitt Romney or the current administration in Washington, DC that is mostly dominated by, controlled by, and empowered by degrowth activist?   Remember, “Be careful of that for which you yearn, because you just may receive it.”
« Last Edit: August 05, 2012, 10:45:11 PM by kingbee » Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15152


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #38 on: August 05, 2012, 10:40:09 PM »

it's a modernization of Marx/Engles.  i do wish people spent some time reading all that they wrote.  the wrote different things to different audiences. but the end desire was the same.  they would have had happy cave men doing only manual labor...in the name of saving jobs and saving the environment.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
kingbee
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1083


Location: Big bend of the Tennessee River


« Reply #39 on: August 05, 2012, 11:14:45 PM »

it's a modernization of Marx/Engles....

Marx and Engels was a modernization of the 18th Century Luddite movement that grew out of the Industrial Revolution.  The Luddites were famous for destroying factories, smashing machinery, murdering timekeepers, and killing factory owners. 

The word "Sabotage" is a French term from the Luddite period and the word comes from the French word for a wooden shoe.  Sabotage is therefore the deliberate use of ones' own wooden shoes to foul, break or stop industrial machinery.  Models of efficiency the French.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.685 seconds with 22 queries.

Google visited last this page September 04, 2014, 06:09:13 AM
anything