Is there anything to worry about?

[Palmpilot]

Funny how folks see a "socialist" behind every bush yet ignore the fascism i.e. "corporatism"--as Mussolini called it between--that surrounds us. You know, that regular circle-jerk between the government, media, public relations, and big business.

Equating the mainstream right with fascism is another smear tactic. It's no more valid than equating the mainstream left with socialsm. One obvious element missing from the goals of both the American right and left is this little thing called dictatorship.

 

[mantakos]

... Call it 'liberal', 'left', 'socialist' or if you wish 'progressive' it is all the same 'your stuff is our stuff' concept.

When it comes to national parks or federal lands that's "our stuff is our stuff".

Liberal/left/socialist are all the same much as right/conservative/anarchist are all the same and kittens are interchangeable with lions.
-harry

 

[Skylane81E]

Hey they didn't dam the Grand Canyon, I'm confident it won't get riddled with holes either.

 

[weilke]

There's a lot more to socialism than that. Trying to equate the mainstream of the left with socialism is a smear tactic.

Nothing wrong with the socialist ideology, somebody has to create a counterweight to war-mongering bible-thumping authoritarian nut-jobs on the right. It is a bit sad that the people who espouse those views try so hard to evade the label.

 

[weilke]

When it comes to national parks or federal lands that's "our stuff is our stuff".

'Our stuff' is also 'their stuff'.

These companies put a lot of money into prospecting for the materials. The federal lands are as much available for this activity as they are available for you to camp hunt or fish there. If their claims are recognized under the rather archaic laws that govern the BLM lands, it is now 'their stuff'. If you dont want any future prospecting on BLM or interior dept lands, change the law.

 

[Palmpilot]

Nothing wrong with the socialist ideology, somebody has to create a counterweight to war-mongering bible-thumping authoritarian nut-jobs on the right. It is a bit sad that the people who espouse those views try so hard to evade the label.

Hogwash. Is it also "a bit sad" that those on the right try so hard to evade the fascist label?

OF COURSE people push back against smear tactics. What do you expect?

 

[weilke]

Hogwash. Is it also "a bit sad" that those on the right try so hard to evade the fascist label?

OF COURSE people push back against smear tactics. What do you expect?

I have learned one thing, anytime someone starts their argument with 'hogwash', it typically indicates that they have run out of arguments.

Language betrays ideology. There are lots of environmental reasons why mining for uranium in that particular location is maybe a bad idea, but anyone who includes 'private profiteering' as one reason gives insight into their socialist mindset.

I grew up around socialists, I have butted heads with actual neonazis. I can detect both by the way they talk, walk, smell and nowadays argue on the interwebs.

 

[Bob Noel]

How about the SZ crap is left (no pun) to the SZ

 

[weilke]

How about the SZ crap is left (no pun) to the SZ

He started it !

 

[Tom-D]

I don't like the idea of ruining the beautiful land, but come on, its desert, and I don't like the idea of living in the dark either.

We do need the energy.

 

[Palmpilot]

I have learned one thing, anytime someone starts their argument with 'hogwash', it typically indicates that they have run out of arguments.

Except that I went on to provide an additional argument, and am still doing so.

Language betrays ideology. There are lots of environmental reasons why mining for uranium in that particular location is maybe a bad idea, but anyone who includes 'private profiteering' as one reason gives insight into their socialist mindset.

I have no quarrel with your objections to the phrase "private profiteering."

I grew up around socialists, I have butted heads with actual neonazis. I can detect both by the way they talk, walk, smell and nowadays argue on the interwebs.

I don't think your experience has made you a mind-reader.

I grew up in a republic that has a mixture of socialism and capitalism, so I hope you'll pardon me if I'm a little less prone to press the panic button about one side or the other of that mix.

 

[Everskyward]

'Our stuff' is also 'their stuff'.

These companies put a lot of money into prospecting for the materials. The federal lands are as much available for this activity as they are available for you to camp hunt or fish there. If their claims are recognized under the rather archaic laws that govern the BLM lands, it is now 'their stuff'. If you dont want any future prospecting on BLM or interior dept lands, change the law.

The way I read it, what was "their stuff" is still their stuff as this only stops mining claims going forward. Avaaz is advocating Alternative B.

Alternative B, the Proposed Action: the proposed withdrawal would be implemented and the entire 1,010,776 acres of federal locatable mineral estate within the three parcels would be withdrawn for 20 years from operation of the Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights. On mining claims where valid existing rights are determined to exist, drilling and mining activities would continue to be processed by the BLM or the Forest Service.

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/media...w.Par.83903.File.dat/Exec-Summary-handout.pdf

 

[alaskaflyer]

Hey they didn't dam the Grand Canyon, I'm confident it won't get riddled with holes either.

Considering how close we came to having it dammed, I wouldn't be so confident.

 

[flyersfan31]

I don't know if calling it the "right" model is really correct. It's a different model.

Sorry, what I meant by "right" was "a model which would end up encouraging the use of diesel engines by the consumer" as the question at hand was "why don't we get a lot of diesel cars in the US?"

I didn't intend to make any value judgements! I can see how you could come to that conclusion, though.

 

[Skylane81E]

Considering how close we came to having it dammed, I wouldn't be so confident.

It was also a different less enviromenaly friendly time too.

 

[Ted]

Sorry, what I meant by "right" was "a model which would end up encouraging the use of diesel engines by the consumer" as the question at hand was "why don't we get a lot of diesel cars in the US?"

I didn't intend to make any value judgements! I can see how you could come to that conclusion, though.

Ahh, that makes more sense.

I agree that they have the right model in that regard, and I wish that the US would adopt a similar model for encouraging an increase in diesel vehicles in this country. I love diesels, and the fact that to get one I have to buy an F-250 or better is rather vexing.

 

[Henning]

Ahh, that makes more sense.

I agree that they have the right model in that regard, and I wish that the US would adopt a similar model for encouraging an increase in diesel vehicles in this country. I love diesels, and the fact that to get one I have to buy an F-250 or better is rather vexing.

Blame GM for the American attitude towards diesels in cars. That abortion of a 5.7 diesel they made out of the 350 Olds burned a lot of people out of a lot of money.

 

[Ted]

Blame GM for the American attitude towards diesels in cars. That abortion of a 5.7 diesel they made out of the 350 Olds burned a lot of people out of a lot of money.

As with virtually all of the technological advances in the auto industry over the past 30 years, emissions are the biggest cause.

The EPA loathes particulate emissions, which are very difficult to get out of diesels (this is why some of the new ones are so complex).The emissions regulations for gasoline engines, while still difficult, are significantly easier by comparison.

Americans do want diesels in their cars, and if you look at the resale values of the VW and Mercedes diesels, that's pretty obvious. Look at the Jeep Liberty CRDs that they made for 2 years, sold way more of than they predicted, and then had to can it because of, you guessed it, emissions. In the 80s, there weren't any diesels that had particularly good manners that I know of. The 5.7 was one of the worst, yes, but even the Navistar diesels have become worlds better in refinement and sophistication over the years.

The auto manufacturers can't meet the emissions requirements to bring most diesels over here. Therefore, you only see very few outside of an F-250.

 

[Henning]

As with virtually all of the technological advances in the auto industry over the past 30 years, emissions are the biggest cause.

The EPA loathes particulate emissions, which are very difficult to get out of diesels (this is why some of the new ones are so complex).The emissions regulations for gasoline engines, while still difficult, are significantly easier by comparison.

Americans do want diesels in their cars, and if you look at the resale values of the VW and Mercedes diesels, that's pretty obvious. Look at the Jeep Liberty CRDs that they made for 2 years, sold way more of than they predicted, and then had to can it because of, you guessed it, emissions. In the 80s, there weren't any diesels that had particularly good manners that I know of. The 5.7 was one of the worst, yes, but even the Navistar diesels have become worlds better in refinement and sophistication over the years.

The auto manufacturers can't meet the emissions requirements to bring most diesels over here. Therefore, you only see very few outside of an F-250.

I can't think of another diesel of the era that would eject the bottom end of the engine out of it. GM was also marketing the Chevy Luv truck as well as the Chevette with 2 different Isuzu diesels that were excellent. I had both of them with no issues, the Chevette would even out run the gas powered one and in those days diesels were exempt from emissions rules.

There are plenty of diesels available outside of an F-250, all the European ones meet US Federalization standards (EU emissions stands are just as strict if not moreso) as do the Japanese ones (Japanese emissions standards are the toughest by far). You can get most any European model car with a diesel in it. Toyota Mazda and Nissan all make a good small diesel that are available everywhere in the world but here. The issue is a marketing issue, not a technical one.

 

[Ted]

I can't think of another diesel of the era that would eject the bottom end of the engine out of it. GM was also marketing the Chevy Luv truck as well as the Chevette with 2 different Isuzu diesels that were excellent. I had both of them with no issues, the Chevette would even out run the gas powered one and in those days diesels were exempt from emissions rules.

Those diesels were noisy and smokey, which is a large part of why people didn't want them. Modern diesels have much nicer manners, in large part because of the emissions standards which no longer permit the significant belching of smoke that the older ones were prone to, and have also resulted in quieter operation by having multiple fuel pulses per cycle as opposed to a big single one that caused the clattering. Americans got a bad first taste, which admittedly didn't help the marketing. However the overall opinion of diesels has improved, and the ones that are available in the US see their popularity by being able to demand significantly higher prices and getting them.

There are plenty of diesels available outside of an F-250, all the European ones meet US Federalization standards (EU emissions stands are just as strict if not moreso) as do the Japanese ones (Japanese emissions standards are the toughest by far). You can get most any European model car with a diesel in it. Toyota Mazda and Nissan all make a good small diesel that are available everywhere in the world but here. The issue is a marketing issue, not a technical one.

Those vehicles being available everywhere but here does me no good, I live here and I can't import them. And the reason they are available everywhere in the world but here is emissions. The EU emissions regulations as well as cost structure favor diesels. American is opposite. Most of the EU diesels do not meet US standards. The only ones that do are here already.

 

[Henning]

Those vehicles being available everywhere but here does me no good, I live here and I can't import them. And the reason they are available everywhere in the world but here is emissions. The EU emissions regulations as well as cost structure favor diesels. American is opposite. Most of the EU diesels do not meet US standards. The only ones that do are here already.

Actually that is not true, all you need to do is take a vacation, buy it there, put 2000 miles on it and you now can bypass all the federalization requirements. I've brought several vehicles into the US that way including my favorite bike, an RG-500 Gamma.

 

[Steve]

There's plenty of oil and gas if you dig deep enough.

https://dco.gl.ciw.edu/

 

[weilke]

The EU emissions regulations as well as cost structure favor diesels. American is opposite. Most of the EU diesels do not meet US standards. The only ones that do are here already.

It would take minor tweaking, the current VW engines are not very different from what is sold in europe.

GM doesn't sell diesels because the big poobah at the company decided that 'our customers wouldn't want that' and changing a decision like that in what is essentially a goverment buerocracy is near impossible.

There is a cost associated with introducing diesels. Chrysler spent quite a bit on training techicians for most of the dealerships when they introduced the VM-mottori powered CRD and the mercedes powered Grand Cherokees and Sprinters.

 

[Bravo3]

Equating the mainstream right with fascism is another smear tactic. It's no more valid than equating the mainstream left with socialsm. One obvious element missing from the goals of both the American right and left is this little thing called dictatorship.

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck . . . If it fits within the parameters of the word, "fascism" then it is what it is and the evidence is pervasive. It's not a "smear tactic" any more than saying that a neighbor is an "alcoholic" because he goes through a 12-pack a day, has a bad liver, and is chronically unemployed.

How can the "right" or "left" be called "mainstream"? Are you talking centrist?

Regardless of the poli-sci jargon, the left-right, Dem-Republic thing is a distraction. As the late curmudgeon, George Carlin, once said, "It's a big club. And you ain't in it!"

 

[Tom-D]

There's plenty of oil and gas if you dig deep enough.

https://dco.gl.ciw.edu/

Does it make any sense to you to spend billions of bucks getting it out of the ground when we could grow all we need, put people back to work in a new industry, renew the O2 we need, use the excess Cos we have too much of ?

We need a new homestead act, giving 10-20 ac of government owned land to any one who will grow algae for fuel. Combined with a guaranteed loan for start up cost for those who would start a algae farming business, which doesn't use farmland that is already in use to produce food.

In the last 200 years we the people have cut most of the earths O2 supplying forests and have over produced the CO's the earth can tolerate. This program would reverse this process, and provide the US with a export to balance the trade deficit, and a new tax sourse to balance the budget.

There is no down side to this, yet the congress can't get the idea because too many congress critters are on the oil companies pay rolls.

Vertical grow bio-reactors are our way out of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsq-uQSN-SE

 

[Palmpilot]

How can the "right" or "left" be called "mainstream"? Are you talking centrist?

No, I'm not talking about centrists. I see mainstream as more of a statistical concept, referring to what most members of a group are. If the group you're tralking about is all people, then centrists could be the mainstream if the political spectrum is not too highly polarized. If it is polarized enough, there may not be such a thing as a mainstream political category.

If the group being considered is a subset of the political spectrum, such as left or right, then the mainstream of the left would consist of those members of the left whose views represent the greatest number of leftists, and the mainstream of the right would consist of those members of the right whose views represent the greatest number of rightists. That's what I mean when I talk about the mainstream of the left or right.

 

[bigred177]

Does it make any sense to you to spend billions of bucks getting it out of the ground when we could grow all we need, put people back to work in a new industry, renew the O2 we need, use the excess Cos we have too much of ?

We need a new homestead act, giving 10-20 ac of government owned land to any one who will grow algae for fuel. Combined with a guaranteed loan for start up cost for those who would start a algae farming business, which doesn't use farmland that is already in use to produce food.

In the last 200 years we the people have cut most of the earths O2 supplying forests and have over produced the CO's the earth can tolerate. This program would reverse this process, and provide the US with a export to balance the trade deficit, and a new tax sourse to balance the budget.

There is no down side to this, yet the congress can't get the idea because too many congress critters are on the oil companies pay rolls.

Vertical grow bio-reactors are our way out of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsq-uQSN-SE

In addition to the corn lobby who probably wouldn't appreciate losing their ethanol.

I'm with you though. Sounds like a good plan. I don't know anything about the algae, can we make fuel that's usable in all engines?

 

[zaitcev]

Algae is just an extremely inefficient way to convert the solar power into useable energy (perhaps somewhat more efficient than using corn for the same purpose). It may be time for people to stop regurgitating the special interest propaganda and study some physics and biology.

 

[Henning]

Does it make any sense to you to spend billions of bucks getting it out of the ground when we could grow all we need, put people back to work in a new industry, renew the O2 we need, use the excess Cos we have too much of ?

We need a new homestead act, giving 10-20 ac of government owned land to any one who will grow algae for fuel. Combined with a guaranteed loan for start up cost for those who would start a algae farming business, which doesn't use farmland that is already in use to produce food.

In the last 200 years we the people have cut most of the earths O2 supplying forests and have over produced the CO's the earth can tolerate. This program would reverse this process, and provide the US with a export to balance the trade deficit, and a new tax sourse to balance the budget.

There is no down side to this, yet the congress can't get the idea because too many congress critters are on the oil companies pay rolls.

Vertical grow bio-reactors are our way out of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsq-uQSN-SE

Never happen, Exxon would lose money. I do agree with you though about the algae fuel.

 

[Everskyward]

Never happen, Exxon would lose money. I do agree with you though about the algae fuel.

(Reuters) - Exxon Mobil Corp said on Wednesday it opened a greenhouse facility to grow and test algae, the next step for its nascent biofuels program.

Exxon said last year it would invest $600 million over the next five to six years attempting to develop biofuel from algae. If it met research goals, Exxon said it would spend more than originally budgeted in the next decade, $300 million of which would be allocated to its partner Synthetic Genomics Inc.

The project would cost billions to fully develop, Exxon said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/07/14/us-exxon-algae-idUSTRE66D3RZ20100714

 

[weilke]

Currently, algae are the most efficient way of turning copier paper and laser ink into federal dollars.

Here's an idea. We have low quality lignite coal coming out of our ears, why don't we turn it into syngas and chemicals ? Sounds like a real winner to me, I bet you could get a multi-billion federal loan guarantee to build a large-scale plant .

 

[Henning]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/07/14/us-exxon-algae-idUSTRE66D3RZ20100714

See, this way Exxon makes the money, read Tom's proposal again....

 

[Henning]

Currently, algae are the most efficient way of turning copier paper and laser ink into federal dollars.

Here's an idea. We have low quality lignite coal coming out of our ears, why don't we turn it into syngas and chemicals ? Sounds like a real winner to me, I bet you could get a multi-billion federal loan guarantee to build a large-scale plant .

Because low quality lignite coal is as expensive and energy intensive to process into an EPA acceptable fuel as algae. Either method though is still going to require nuclear energy to make the processing viable, but between algae and hydrogen you'd be down to one non renewable resource (uranium) with a carbon neutral footprint.

 

[Tom-D]

In addition to the corn lobby who probably wouldn't appreciate losing their ethanol.

I'm with you though. Sounds like a good plan. I don't know anything about the algae, can we make fuel that's usable in all engines?

It's the same process that nature uses, to make crude. only it takes 4 days rather than umpteen billion years. Algae requires 4 days to reach the stage you can harvest and extract the oil. (20,000 gallons per ac per year.)

 

[Tom-D]

Currently, algae are the most efficient way of turning copier paper and laser ink into federal dollars.

Here's an idea. We have low quality lignite coal coming out of our ears, why don't we turn it into syngas and chemicals ? Sounds like a real winner to me, I bet you could get a multi-billion federal loan guarantee to build a large-scale plant .

Simply put, it produces more COs than we can handle, it uses O2, which we do not have enough of, and it is a resourse that will run out one day.

 

[Tom-D]

See, this way Exxon makes the money, read Tom's proposal again....

Exxon really wants you to believe this will cost a lot of bucks so they can set the prices

this system is here and now, it needs nothing from Exxon or any other oil company

 

[weilke]

Because low quality lignite coal is as expensive and energy intensive to process into an EPA acceptable fuel as algae.

That's the point.

Anytime gas gets a bit more expensive that we are used to, we run off into a different direction to find 'cheap fuel' and to 'become energy independent'. Synfuels was a tax-funded dead-end, algae are going to be the next.

If fuel prices support any of those approaches, the smart money will pay for them.

 

[Henning]

Exxon really wants you to believe this will cost a lot of bucks so they can set the prices

this system is here and now, it needs nothing from Exxon or any other oil company

I know some of the guys who have been in it since the beginning. I took them scouting the Bahamas and Turks and Caicos for lagoons. It does require energy and refining capacity.

 

[Henning]

That's the point.

Anytime gas gets a bit more expensive that we are used to, we run off into a different direction to find 'cheap fuel' and to 'become energy independent'. Synfuels was a tax-funded dead-end, algae are going to be the next.

If fuel prices support any of those approaches, the smart money will pay for them.

No, the "Smart Money" always extracts every last possible dime out of their current investments before making them obsolete.

Besides, who's so energy smart at the top end of the energy sector? The relevant question is "What does Greed do?"

 

[Tom-D]

I know some of the guys who have been in it since the beginning. I took them scouting the Bahamas and Turks and Caicos for lagoons. It does require energy and refining capacity.

You do have to run the pumps and the presses, but they can be run on power from algae oil. (after you get the system up and running)

But it requires Congress get off its a$$ and make it happen.