• 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!

Britain bans gasoline and diesel cars starting in 2040

Not really an answer to the question...was it?

We solved that question, seems reasonable that we will solve your question as well. Since the situation has not dictated commercial charging stations yet, I cannot give you a definitive answer. The electric vehicles sold today seem to get charged. That better?
 
Its easy to twist the manufacturers arms

But consumers have to be forced to buy them or they will just sit on the dealers lots

For the right price/performance delta, consumers will buy them...
 
Awesome. And where will the electricity come from?

Hard to believe you younger Veterans aren't all over this solar and electric transition from fossil to fusion.

In Illinois, the electricity will come from our many nuclear plants, solar fields, wind farms, and remaining fossil fired plants .
 
For the right price/performance delta, consumers will buy them...

Particulary if some future liberal gives them a subsidy and crushes all the gas powered cars so that there is nothing else to buy

But that is hardly a triumph of the free market in a free society
 
Not really an answer to the question...was it?

Isn't it exciting to think about the engineering that will be involved to make 'electric and solar charged stations.' You're military man. The ironic thing about all wars, and NASA of course, are the positive offshoots to the economy afterwards.

Look at the Born-Haber process to make ammonia from hydrogen and nitrogen in WWI to get to nitroglycerin. We now use that process to gain anhydrous ammonia to fertilize farm fields .
 
Particulary if some future liberal gives them a subsidy and crushes all the gas powered cars so that there is nothing else to buy

But that is hardly a triumph of the free market in a free society

See my post #230 to Vance .
 
Just curious: Do people ever get denied... their doctor overruled, essentially... for a procedure or medication? If so, what are some of the common reasons given?

I honestly don't know the answer, hence my asking.

If certain medications are not part of the "approved drugs list" by the province the request could be denied if the doctor made it. Typically associated with drugs that are very expensive, ie over $100 000 for a course of treatments, with little in the way of long term history. Also where probable other less effective drugs exist. This is generally in the case of very very rare diseases (like 1 in a million people type of thing). Other rejected treatments include the one that was popular for MS I believe a few years ago when they expanded the arteries to the brain.

Canada due to its population size probably will not have the same range of treatments for rare diseases like the US. So some treatments might be done in just a few hospitals in the US. The recommendation transport the patient to the US for treatment, can be and often is denied
 
Last edited:
See my post #230 to Vance .

Technology and progress are great when managed by the private sector and a free market

I take advantage of new stuff all the time

But decisions that should be made in the field by engineer and consumers are being made by environmentalist ideologs in washington and that is unacceptable
 
Technology and progress are great when managed by the private sector and a free market

I take advantage of new stuff all the time

But decisions that should be made in the field by engineer and consumers are being made by environmentalist ideologs in washington and that is unacceptable

Take a look sometime at the public/private ventures in Utah. They're the leaders in the USA, especially on infrastructure .
 
Take a look sometime at the public/private ventures in Utah. They're the leaders in the USA, especially on infrastructure .

Sure

The Hoover Dam, the TVA, the NRA were all government projects that were very successful.

But don't take that to mean that government should tell us what kind of cars to drive or reward private citizens that conform to the evironmentalist agenda
 
If certain medications are not part of the "approved drugs list" by the province the request could be denied if the doctor made it. Typically associated with drugs that are very expensive, ie over $100 000 for a course of treatments, with little in the way of long term history. Also where probable other less effective drugs exist. This is generally in the case of very very rare diseases (like 1 in a million people type of thing). Other rejected treatments include the one that was popular for MS I believe a few years ago when they expanded the arteries to the brain.

Canada due to its population size probably will not have the same range of treatments for rare diseases like the US. So some treatments might be done in just a few hospitals in the US. The recommendation transport the patient to the US for treatment, can be and often is denied

Good info. Thank you.
 
Sure

The Hoover Dam, the TVA, the NRA were all government projects that were very successful.

But don't take that to mean that government should tell us what kind of cars to drive or reward private citizens that conform to the evironmentalist agenda

Without FDR printing money and starting the CCC and WPA, we would have never gotten out of the depression. The original CCC dudes made up the Tree Army, some of the first units to fight in Europe.

In my lifetime, I'm 63-yo, I've seen the positive spin offs to the private sector from military, space, and public works technology .
 
Isn't it exciting to think about the engineering that will be involved to make 'electric and solar charged stations.' You're military man. The ironic thing about all wars, and NASA of course, are the positive offshoots to the economy afterwards.

Look at the Born-Haber process to make ammonia from hydrogen and nitrogen in WWI to get to nitroglycerin. We now use that process to gain anhydrous ammonia to fertilize farm fields .
Awesome. Truly. And ou wont find a greater proponent for viable clean energy than me. Especially in emreging tecxhnologies.

But...

What happens when you impose a ban and 20 years from no solar is still not providing viable energy for large scale production, nuclear power is at a standstill and risking being capped, hydrogen generation has fizzled, and the only means you have of providing electricity to those plants is fossil fuels?
 
We solved that question, seems reasonable that we will solve your question as well. Since the situation has not dictated commercial charging stations yet, I cannot give you a definitive answer. The electric vehicles sold today seem to get charged. That better?
And they get charged by fossil fuel plants.
 
Good info. Thank you.

Though my insurance would not pay the flight, it would carry the treatment. If I had the public health policy they would not pay the treatment. If a German doctor were to apply such medicine the doctor would have to pay for it.
 
Awesome. Truly. And ou wont find a greater proponent for viable clean energy than me. Especially in emreging tecxhnologies.

But...

What happens when you impose a ban and 20 years from no solar is still not providing viable energy for large scale production, nuclear power is at a standstill and risking being capped, hydrogen generation has fizzled, and the only means you have of providing electricity to those plants is fossil fuels?

I don't even consider it a gamble. Paraphrasing JFK, some ask why, I ask why not. Because of computers (from Roswell ????), we're on the cusp of incredible advances in technology. Check out ITER and W X-7 for fusion if you haven't recently.

We need adults right now to completely overhaul our grids in infrastructure, energy and electricity. I'm sure you know I worry about the current crew in charge setting us back decades.

We have the engineers in the military. That's how it's always been done. Too bad visionaries like Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt aren't around .
 
Teddy Roosevelt always asked one question, 'What will it be like in one hundred years?' The ultra conservationist TR, the progress---ive GOP who saved our National Parks from the Gilded wing of the GOP, would approve of cars flying around in 2040.

Wife and I will be visiting TR next week in the Black Hills and Mount Rushmore. Can't wait to hear all the snickers about trump being on the Great Faces .

I'm kool with flying cars

Which liberals have been expecting since the first episode of the Jetsons in the 1960's
 
Technology and progress are great when managed by the private sector and a free market

I take advantage of new stuff all the time

But decisions that should be made in the field by engineer and consumers are being made by environmentalist ideologs in washington and that is unacceptable

So why is it acceptable for the government to grant pipeline companies the power of imminent domain, so they can transport fuel from Canada to Texas? Why not let the "free market" determine what the pipeline companies need to pay for access to that land?

And can't say "free market" and not account for externalities, like pollution, or the cost of wars we've fought to retain access to cheap oil in the ME. Energy policy in this country hasn't ever been governed by a "free market." For various reasons, many of them very good ones, the government has placed a heavy hand on the market to ensure that we have plentiful and cheap fossil fuels, for industry, growth, etc. Nuclear owes its existence to $billions in R&D handed over for free to energy producers, not to mention the ongoing subsidies that make nuclear energy viable.

Point is, you can whine about renewables all you want, but please don't insult our intelligence by pretending that fossil fuels never have or don't still enjoy massive government subsidies. The only question is how big those subsidies were and are.
 
And they get charged by fossil fuel plants.

Which are the transition to newer fission, solar and electric, and on to fusion. 'Stairway to the Stars' by Blue Oyster Cult had some dynamite riffs .
 
I'm kool with flying cars

Which liberals have been expecting since the first episode of the Jetsons in the 1960's

They're going to happen after we harness plasma in electromagnetic fields, which is 10 to 15 years away at ITER and W X-7 .
 
So why is it acceptable for the government to grant pipeline companies the power of imminent domain, so they can transport fuel from Canada to Texas? Why not let the "free market" determine what the pipeline companies need to pay for access to that land?

And can't say "free market" and not account for externalities, like pollution, or the cost of wars we've fought to retain access to cheap oil in the ME. Energy policy in this country hasn't ever been governed by a "free market." For various reasons, many of them very good ones, the government has placed a heavy hand on the market to ensure that we have plentiful and cheap fossil fuels, for industry, growth, etc. Nuclear owes its existence to $billions in R&D handed over for free to energy producers, not to mention the ongoing subsidies that make nuclear energy viable.

Point is, you can whine about renewables all you want, but please don't insult our intelligence by pretending that fossil fuels never have or don't still enjoy massive government subsidies. The only question is how big those subsidies were and are.

Without immenint domain almost no big project could get done

If we think about it I bet there are examples of imminent domain that you approve of and some that I don't approve of

That that is much more limited government in our lives that greenies in a star chamber deciding the future of everyone 50 years from now
 
How do you suppose they will charge those vehicles?

Well, the full change over has 23 years to take place...I'm not sure anyone giving you an answer (other than the obvious "at an electric filling station" answer) can claim to know for sure... I mean, think about technology advancements over the last 23 years... Fusion is looking good for national grids, power and solar advancements are making them more and more viable, battery tech is expanding... I don't know.

What I do know is that when a country makes a commitment like this, they are far more likely to make it work then they would be twiddling their thumbs and pining for the good ol days of fossil fuel relevance.
 
They're going to happen after we harness plasma in electromagnetic fields, which is 10 to 15 years away at ITER and W X-7 .

Only 10 to 15 years?

Where have I heard that one before?

But who knows?

Libs can't be wrong all the time
 
Without immenint domain almost no big project could get done

If we think about it I bet there are examples of imminent domain that you approve of and some that I don't approve of

That that is much more limited government in our lives that greenies in a star chamber deciding the future of everyone 50 years from now

trump has always been a strong advocate of eminent domain, especially with his own real estate ventures .
 
Only 10 to 15 years?

Where have I heard that one before?

But who knows?

Libs can't be wrong all the time

You might want to bone up on nuclear fusion/plasma at ITER and W X-7 before embarrassing yourself again .
 
Back
Top Bottom