Skip to main content

View Diary: A Head in the Clouds:   The Genius of 1976 Considered. (119 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Ever consider taking a job ... (0+ / 0-)

    as an "energy consultant"? Apparently, people will pay big bucks to hear someone say things like what you just said. Just consider how much your hero, Amory Lovins, had made selling these same talking points. You'd probably make a killing.

    You already have the perfect sales pitch down cold. The overly vague statements, the lack of supporting evidence, the lack of any numbers at all ... tell me, have you been practicing, or is this natural talent? ;-)

    In either case, you could have a promising future in the energy consulting business. Perhaps, one day, you too could grow bananas in the fashionable part of Colorado. (Neat, huh?)

    If you're educational background is not up to par, don't worry. Companies tend to overlook these things, if you tell them what they want to hear. As you become popular, you'll receive honorary degrees, which will make up for the fact that you have no real academic credentials. If you're lucky, you might even get away with calling yourself a "physicist" without being laughed at.

    •  Can't win on the facts? (0+ / 0-)

      Try a personal attack.

      The last refuge of the loser.

      If conservatives had had their way we'd still be an English colony.

      by baba durag on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 08:38:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Win? Facts? (0+ / 0-)

        Is this a game?

        Have you provided a single "fact" in this entire discussion? Please, do tell.

        Where have I made a personal attack?

        I have not attacked Amory Lovins. I have merely commented that he favors a natural gas intensive solution, and I have backed it up with facts -- i.e., quotes from the man himself.

        I have not attacked you. On the contrary, I have complemented you on your sharply-honed speaking skills and have suggested that you have all the makings of a fine energy consultant. My comment was helpful career advice, but I guess no good deed goes unpunished.

      •  Oh ... sorry (0+ / 0-)

        I just realized that I misread your comment. "Try a personal attack" was meant as a recommendation, since that appears to be your favorite approach to dealing with a situation in which you can provide no facts.

        Sorry for the misunderstanding.

      •  Or ... you could just try ... (0+ / 0-)

        slapping on a troll rating. Apparently, that also works when you cannot effectively argue your point. Thanks for the example of effective debate on DailyKos.

        Nice job. ;-)

        •  As your tantrums escalate (0+ / 0-)

          You just show how weak your arguments are.

          If conservatives had had their way we'd still be an English colony.

          by baba durag on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 08:54:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well then (0+ / 0-)

            Slap on another trollrating, so that everyone can see exactly how strong your arguments are.

            Tantrums? Ha! I'm just having fun.

            •  What, no TU status? (0+ / 0-)

              I can see why.

              If conservatives had had their way we'd still be an English colony.

              by baba durag on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 09:01:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't need to trollrate to make my point n/t (0+ / 0-)
              •  You are misusing your TU status (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Matthew B

                Maybe you are new here.

                Perhaps you should review the DKos FAQ on troll-rating.

                It is not to be used if you disagree with the point of view of the commenter.

                The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

                by Plan9 on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 12:05:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                  I disagree with his ad hominem attacks, which are troll worthy.

                  But thanks for your input.

                  If conservatives had had their way we'd still be an English colony.

                  by baba durag on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 12:13:23 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Then you surely troll-rate Joy Busey (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    LIsoundview

                    She makes racist ad hominem attacks when people point out the facts to her.  

                    So to be consistent, I would expect you to rate her according to your standard.

                    In fact a troll is actually considered someone who comes from, say Free Republic, to sow dissension and broadcast wingnut political statements and hatred at Kos.  

                    Appropriate use of troll ratings

                    An excellent discussion of when a troll-rate is appropriate, and some of the common types of trolls, can be found in the troll rating article, originally from this diary. Reading this article is highly recommended before issuing any troll-ratings.

                    Some posters create accounts at dkos strictly for the purpose of causing disruption. It is considered acceptable to troll rate all of the posts made by such people, even the ones that are not in and of themselves trollish. It should be emphasized, however, that this should not be done lightly. Before rating comments en-masse, you should be very very sure that the author is really a troll, and not just a regular poster who is having a bad day. If there is any shadow of a doubt as to whether a person is a dedicated troll, you should refrain from mass-troll-rating their comments.

                    Kos FAQ

                    The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

                    by Plan9 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 10:32:54 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  A killing, indeed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LIsoundview, bryfry

      But the suspect 'baba durag' said we who believe nuclear to be the cleanest available energy don't acknowledge all the problems.

      That implies 'baba durag' is willing to acknowledge all the problems with natural gas.

      Go ahead then. Everyone will notice if you don't. In 25 words or fewer, or more if you like, what's the biggest problem? How do we know?

      What are the second and third, etc.

      •  When (0+ / 0-)

        natural gas produces wastes as toxic and long lasting as nuclear energy does you come on back and make your case.

        If conservatives had had their way we'd still be an English colony.

        by baba durag on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 12:14:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just a hint (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Plan9

          The toxic wastes of natural gas last forever.  CO2 does not degrade over time, for example.

          http://www.iaea.org/...

          (warning, pdf file)

          Here's the skinny from page 3 of the above report:

          Toxic waste per GW:

          0.2 million tonnes per GW for natural gas (sweetening waste)

          Here's a quote from the one company report I could find that actually said what was in their sweetening waste.  The naphthalene, coal tars and sulphur products are not wonderful.

          The  coal  gas  is  produced  with  the  drying-sweetening  technique,meanwhile 700tons of  sweetening  waste  is  produced  per  year,  which contains    ferric  oxide ,calcium,sulphate, and  sulphur,  coal  tar,  naphthalene  and hull.  Among  them,  there  is  20%  of  sulphur,which  is  not  to  be  stored  arbitrary.>

          compared to about 0.02 million tonnes radioactive waste for nuclear

          another comparison.  It's also about 0.02 million tonnes toxic waste per GW for solar.  Yes PV solar yields toxic waste, both in manufacture and disposal.  Check out this report from Brookhaven National Labs:

          http://www.pv.bnl.gov/...

          And yes, the compounds last forever.

          For greenhouse gas emissions for the entire life cycle of the plant, per GW:

          Natural gas:  (units gCeq/kwh)
          90 in stack emissions and 16 in other steps with latest tech.
          Nuclear:  (units gCeq/kwh)
          between 2.5 and 5.7 in other chain steps only.  No greenhouse gases in operation.

          So as you see, natural gas is a lot more dangerous to the environment, and for longer, than nuclear power.

          You may not like that fact, but it is true.

          •  Yes, contrast gas pollution with nuclear waste (0+ / 0-)

            and you quickly see which is the more environmentally friendly way to produce energy.

            Spent nuclear fuel is shielded and isolated from the environment.  The hottest radionuclides in the waste decay the fastest.  And all of the nuclear waste eventually decays.

            Waste from natural gas production and combustion is stored in the environment.

            If you use household natural gas, you are getting exposed to well over 900 times as much radiation as you would if you lived next to a nuclear plant.  You get 9 millirem per year from household natural gas and .009 millirem per year from nuclear power.

            Methane is a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2.

            The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

            by Plan9 on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 02:56:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Well, (0+ / 0-)
          long lasting: CO2 (eternally, as opposed to mere few centuries)
          toxic: CO, NOx, SO2, gas scale
        •  That was NOT the candid rundown of NG problems (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Plan9

          that the natural gas advocate was invited to give, in keeping with his in my opinion false complaint against us preferrers of nukes over our back fence that we do not acknowledge all the problems with nuclear energy.

          Carbon monoxide is an amazingly toxic material that typically is produced in very much greater quantities, when a joule's worth of natural gas is burned, than spent nuclear fuel is produced when a joule of fission energy is released. Thus it is not surprising that even though the radiation hazard of spent fuel is intense and long-lasting, it kills and injures zero per year, while the carbon monoxide kills many.

          Nuclear-generated boron will be what people burn in their houses when I have my way.

      •  Gas Problems (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Plan9, bryfry

        None of the replies on gas' problems mentions the biggest one of all, the safety hazard.  What about all the people killed or injured by the continuing litany of fires, explosions and conflagrations from natural gas that we continually read about (in tiny sidebars, for one day only of course, given that it's not nuclear).

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site