• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House narrowly passes major energy-climate bill

A VERY important thing to remember is that CO2 is not a pollutant.

Well, a VERY important think to actually know is that CO is a pollutant.:cool:

There is healthy skepticism. And there is moronic denialism.

I don't know why I bother, you obviously will never get it.
 
They aren't government controlled per se, but it takes a huge amount of money to erect them. The government helps pay for a lot of it.
I would prefer localized power generation, however, its near impossible to get anyone to support it.

Localized power generation would be more adaptable to market conditions and can come from varying sources (solar, micro-nuclear, coal, etc.).
Hell, even Edison agreed that we should be using DC instead of AC.

Ok, I see what you mean now. The main thing that I liked with DC over AC was that all of the equations and problems related to it were much simpler.

Why won't people support more local power generation?
 
Well, a VERY important think to actually know is that CO is a pollutant.:cool:

CO is a pollutant, CO2 is not. Huge difference. We breathe out CO2 and it is useful to plants. CO is harmful to both us and plants (probably fungi too).
 
They should really put word limits on these things. Seriously. If you can't fit it into 2,000 words it's worthless.

They'll neer do that. They wouldn't be able to throw all the useless crap in there.
 
Ok, I see what you mean now. The main thing that I liked with DC over AC was that all of the equations and problems related to it were much simpler.

I was trying to teach my self basic electronics and I couldn't finish the book because I don't know calculus. I was trying to get a head start on my part of my major.

Your absolutely right.

Why won't people support more local power generation?

In some ways it can be counted as local and it other ways it isn't.
The plant closest to me is about 20 miles away, so it can kinda be considered local.
It isn't really practical to use AC to generate power locally when you can use it to generate power regionally.

DC has many added benefits like the fact that it is safer if you get electrocuted. The electric chair was invented to prove how dangerous AC power generation could be.

But like I said earlier, you'd have to retrofit every home with a true sine wave inverter until people bought all new tvs, computers, other electronics, nearly everything. Not many want to do that.
True sine wave inverters are expensive.
 
Hell, even Edison agreed that we should be using DC instead of AC.

Edison was wrong.

There, that's all solved.

We use AC because transmission losses are dominated by the current transmitted. The use of alternating high voltage allows the use of transformers to create the current locally, instead of shipping the electrons all over the place direct.
 
Well, a VERY important think to actually know is that CO is a pollutant.:cool:

Why would you want to KNOW something that isn't true?

There is healthy skepticism. And there is moronic denialism.

Right. Healthy skepticism says that the Earth isn't being dramatically influenced by human activity. Anyone looking around can see the truth of this. Moronic acceptance is believing everything politicians seeking to put chains on you tells you.
 
Ok, I see what you mean now. The main thing that I liked with DC over AC was that all of the equations and problems related to it were much simpler.

Why won't people support more local power generation?


It's inefficient given the nature of the technology.

You want local generation? Buy a static inverter for those solar cells.
 
DC has many added benefits like the fact that it is safer if you get electrocuted.

Not true.

AC current spasms the muscles, and a person will let go.

DC current goes one way, the muscles contract, and you don't let go.

Or so my electrician pals in the Navy told me.
 
Edison was wrong.

There, that's all solved.

We use AC because transmission losses are dominated by the current transmitted. The use of alternating high voltage allows the use of transformers to create the current locally, instead of shipping the electrons all over the place direct.

Edison isn't wrong is you want to have local, competitive, free market power supplies.

AC is great for regional areas but not good for competitive markets.

Not true.

AC current spasms the muscles, and a person will let go.

DC current goes one way, the muscles contract, and you don't let go.

Or so my electrician pals in the Navy told me.

Your buddy is right but it seems that AC has a higher chance of stopping your heart.
 
Edison isn't wrong is you want to have local, competitive, free market power supplies.

AC is great for regional areas but not good for competitive markets.



Your buddy is right but it seems that AC has a higher chance of stopping your heart.

But you can restart a heart, no?

And the longer you hold onto it, the more damage you would take.
 
If green energy were practical, private industry would already be buying into it. The fact tha they're not is a very telling commentary.

Incorrect. Your statement is a failure to understand capitalism. Private industry allocates capital to where it knows it can make the required rate of return. Merely because something is practical does not equate to private industry investment. If the required rate of return is unknown or above what can be reasonably assumed, private industry does not engage in it. Space tourism was practical, but not sufficiently profitable for a very long time. Health care for the poor is practical, but the profits are so tiny that it's not worth doing.
 
Keynes. And your opinion is rather irrelevant. Especially when the ideal world you want leads to 1990s Somalia when applied to reality.

Keynes did not write the law of this country. He's not God either.
 
Keynes did not write the law of this country. He's not God either.

Indeed he is not. But he is still correct regardless. Keynes described four jobs of the government, one of which was public works. I don't see how anything in your reply is of any value. Socrates never wrote the laws of the country nor that we know of, is God. But his method of the dialectic is an excellent learning tool. The notion that we should reject something for your reasons is asinine.
 
Indeed he is not. But he is still correct regardless. Keynes described four jobs of the government, one of which was public works. I don't see how anything in your reply is of any value. Socrates never wrote the laws of the country nor that we know of, is God. But his method of the dialectic is an excellent learning tool. The notion that we should reject something for your reasons is asinine.

You haven't given a good reason why we should except what Keynes said other than because he said it. The burden of proof lies with you.
 
Incorrect. Your statement is a failure to understand capitalism. Private industry allocates capital to where it knows it can make the required rate of return. Merely because something is practical does not equate to private industry investment.

OK, given that absolutely ridiculous statement, it should be easy to point to where the private sector routinely engages in investing in impractical ventures when more practical, viable alternatives (how green energy is presented, but isn't) are out there.

Care to do that?

If the required rate of return is unknown or above what can be reasonably assumed, private industry does not engage in it.

I think that relying on pixie-dust Ewok-power is something that the private sector has reasonable apprehensions about. That's whats going on here. The Government is essentially placing one energy commodity off-limits while hoping (with some Government incentives) that a new viable alternative will emerge before become the world circa 1750AD.

Space tourism was practical, but not sufficiently profitable for a very long time.

You aren't comparing a cottage industry targeting .000000001% of the world's population to the energy source that powers the modern industrialized world , are you?

Health care for the poor is practical, but the profits are so tiny that it's not worth doing.

That's because there has never been anything "practical" about providing something for nothing.
 
Last edited:
CO is a pollutant, CO2 is not. Huge difference. We breathe out CO2 and it is useful to plants. CO is harmful to both us and plants (probably fungi too).

Depends on the concentration....plant life reaches a saturation point above which it cannot use any more CO2. Just like Oxygen for us, too much, and it is bad for us.
If plants grew on CO2 alone, it might work for us, but give plants too much CO2 without the water, sunlight, nutrients from the soil, etc. and the plants will just die.
 
I was trying to teach my self basic electronics and I couldn't finish the book because I don't know calculus. I was trying to get a head start on my part of my major.

Your absolutely right.



In some ways it can be counted as local and it other ways it isn't.
The plant closest to me is about 20 miles away, so it can kinda be considered local.
It isn't really practical to use AC to generate power locally when you can use it to generate power regionally.

DC has many added benefits like the fact that it is safer if you get electrocuted. The electric chair was invented to prove how dangerous AC power generation could be.

But like I said earlier, you'd have to retrofit every home with a true sine wave inverter until people bought all new tvs, computers, other electronics, nearly everything. Not many want to do that.
True sine wave inverters are expensive.

you only need basic algebra to understand basic electricitiy.....calculus is for engineer level and above...and even most of them never use it once out of college....
 
Edison was wrong.

There, that's all solved.

We use AC because transmission losses are dominated by the current transmitted. The use of alternating high voltage allows the use of transformers to create the current locally, instead of shipping the electrons all over the place direct.

you might be trying to say that we use AC because we can use step up transformers to increase the voltage for long distance transmission, that by increasing the voltage we can reduce the current thus minimizing I squared R losses.Once at your local substation, the voltage can be dropped using more transformers to more closely match the needs of local consumers.
 
Not true.

AC current spasms the muscles, and a person will let go.

DC current goes one way, the muscles contract, and you don't let go.

Or so my electrician pals in the Navy told me.

I have been zapped by AC a few times, never by DC, but I imagine DC hurts about the same. What is fatal much of the time is voltage in the 100 to 200 mA range of current that makes the heart go into spasms, damaging itself. You are better off getting a shock that stops the heart, assuming there is someone there to restart it.:lol:
 
Parts of this bill are a good thing, especially the part that the Architecture 2030 group got put in it. This will require new national building codes so that builders/contractors/subcontractors have to do it right, instead of just doing what will pass an inspection by the local building inspector who is the mayor's idiot son-in-law who needed a job...
As for all the undesireable add-ons, and the parts that might not work, I suppose lack of funding will kill those parts?
 
Depends on the concentration....plant life reaches a saturation point above which it cannot use any more CO2. Just like Oxygen for us, too much, and it is bad for us.
If plants grew on CO2 alone, it might work for us, but give plants too much CO2 without the water, sunlight, nutrients from the soil, etc. and the plants will just die.

But we're not at levels anywhere close to that.
 
Back
Top Bottom