Article

2005-06-17 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Seafarious 2005-06-17 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Em? I thought you had special editor-highlighting?

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-06-17 00:21|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-06-17 00:21|| Front Page Top

#2 Oh, and getting back on topic:

Given how much of California's power is out and out bought from out of state, isn't this a comedy of errors, in a way? The CO2 generated by California's pwoer needs is emitted in Texas and the great plains. So all he'd be doing would be shifting the blame around, at the cost of making the state even more vulnerable to the sorts of crises it faced in 2000, both from power wholesalers and the already strained electrical grid.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-06-17 00:30|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-06-17 00:30|| Front Page Top

#3 Oops. My fine, hand-carved mahogany blue hilighter pen inlaid with jasper and lapis lazuli unfortunately fell back behind the desk and I was too lazy to go fish it out from under the dust bunnies.

I'm also goooogling around for the meeting resolutions signed by the mayors attending on behalf of their cities. Horrifying. Worse than Kyoto, if any international law could be. Will post when I find 'em, later today.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2005-06-17 01:06|| 2005-06-17 01:06|| Front Page Top

#4 I thought Arnie had more sense. If he really wanted to help the environment there's loads of logical, common-sense things he could do.

carbon emissions are not part of the problem that can or should be solved

Posted by anon1 2005-06-17 02:26|| 2005-06-17 02:26|| Front Page Top

#5 Phil, that is the hydrogen economy in a nutshell. Shift the emissions somewhere else and so what if it doubles or triples energy consumption. It's happening somewhere else.

Posted by phil_b 2005-06-17 04:06|| 2005-06-17 04:06|| Front Page Top

#6 Hydrogen economy is a no-go unless supported by massive changeover from coal/oil electrical power generation to nuclear power. And that includes so-called "breeder reactors" that will produce more fuel (enriched plutonium and uranium) as part of the process.

If we want to truly go "green" (without the masked marxism that often accompnaies it), and get to a hydrogen/fuel-cell economy, we need to go nuclear, NOW.

Posted by OldSpook 2005-06-17 09:58|| 2005-06-17 09:58|| Front Page Top

#7 Petroleum is a solar savings account that was deposited (read: converted) millions of years ago. Now we humans are drawing on that savings account. To substitute another energy source will require an energy conversion, and none of the conversions are ideal. The only one I can think of that is "green" is solar, and we are certainly not there yet.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Plug in your electric car and somewhere there is a dead dinosaur going up in flames to power a generator.

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2005-06-17 09:58|| 2005-06-17 09:58|| Front Page Top

#8 Arnie can sign an executive order declaring that the moon is made of green cheese if he likes, but that don't make it so.

Posted by mojo">mojo 2005-06-17 10:08|| 2005-06-17 10:08|| Front Page Top

23:57 JosephMendiola
23:53 mojo
23:40 Captain America
23:35 trailing wife
23:35 badanov
23:29 trailing wife
23:22 Captain America
23:17 11A5S
23:13 3dc
23:07 3dc
22:59 Just About Enough!
22:13 trailing wife
22:12 Ptah
22:12 Frank G
22:00 Frank G
21:58 macofromoc
21:58 Frank G
21:56 Frank G
21:54 Frank G
21:51 Frank G
21:47 trailing wife
21:47 True German Ally
21:42 From all the Spembles
21:39 trailing wife