3,000 megawatts of sensible energy

[RandomGuy]

Schwarzenegger signs solar power bill
Mon Aug 21, 2:37 PM ET

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday signed into law a bill that aims to make the state one of the world's biggest producers of solar energy.

The bill, which cleared the state Senate last week, calls for the installation of 1 million rooftop solar panels on homes, businesses, farms, schools and public buildings by 2018.

The solar systems would generate 3,000 megawatts of power and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by 3 million tons, equivalent to taking 1 million cars off the state's highways and making California the third biggest solar producer after Japan and Germany.

The new law requires home builders to offer solar power to home buyers beginning in 2011 and allows utility customers who place panels on their homes or businesses to sell excess power back to their utility.

The law also extends the solar program to municipally owned utilities, such as the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the largest publicly owned utility in the United States.

The California Public Utilities Commission in January approved a $2.9 billion program to help pay for the solar program. The money will come from funds earmarked for solar energy and from gas and electric utility rates.

I really think that photovolataic cells such as this is really where all new electricity generation should come from.

Although initially expensive in terms of cost per unit of energy, they do provide some VERY good cost savings down the road for a couple of reasons.

Solar produces power during the time when most power is used, cutting down on the more expensive forms of electricity. Most "peak power" is currently produced by expensive gas power plants.

Solar panels individually have lives FAR longer than any power plant they would replace, and would likely outlast the buildings they are attached to.

The downside is extra maintenance and complexity for electrical wiring. The complexity part is already factored into the costs, but will be something that will have to be gotten used to. Solar panels will require some extra maintenance over the course of their decades long lives, in terms of the AC/DC converters and other things needed for photovoltaic power.

[boutons_]

There is a little bit of intense sun in Death Valley and southwards to MX border.
Energy transport to population centers might push the overall efficiency (collection plus distribution) too low.

I remember a colleague in the mid-70s saying he had to heat his in CA pool with collector pipes in the walkway around the pool, because he couldn't use electric.

Leave it to California to take the lead, again, again, and again.

[RandomGuy]

If you read the article it advocates putting the panels directly on the buildings that consume the power, obviating any transmission loss.

[1369]

What should be done for large buildings instead of solar panels is to take the hydrogen cell technology from vehicles and install larger ones in buildings. I saw a deal on that on NOVA a while back and they presented a case where it makes more economic sense for buildings to go that route instead.

[TDMVPDPOY]

wind power farms

only bad side of solar panels, hail windstorm :(

[midgetonadonkey]

one point twenty one gigawatts

[101A]

wind power farms

only bad side of solar panels, hail windstorm :(

Therefore: California = ideal location

[boutons_]

Source: Massachusetts Institute Of Technology
Posted: August 24, 2006

Innovative Generator Could Spark Energy Savings

An innovative residential generator that can produce both heat and electricity could spark a revolution in energy efficiency, said Eric Guyer (S.M. 1974, Sc.D. 1977), the CEO of Climate Energy, during an MIT Energy Club talk recently.

MIT graduate student Bryan Urban, left, and alumnus Phil LaFond, who works for Climate Energy, look over one of the company's residential generators, which produces both heat and electricity.

Guyer described Climate Energy's micro-combined heat and power unit (micro-CHP) to the standing-room-only crowd gathered in the Tang Center as "hopefully, the next big thing in energy."

Guyer's talk was part of the Energy Club's lecture and discussion series, sponsored by the Graduate Student Council. These biweekly events occur year-round and feature lecturers or student-led discussions on important energy topics.

The idea for combined heat and power (CHP) is nothing new, Guyer said. "Thomas Edison's first power plant was combined," he explained. Still, the idea of generating both heat and energy in a way that is not only affordable but also quiet enough for use in a private home is a more recent development.

"On an industrial scale, CHP is used all the time," Guyer said. A natural gas-powered micro-CHP unit has the potential to save the consumer money by using the same fuel they buy anyway to generate both heat and electricity with greater efficiency.

The micro-CHP systems are driven by heat-demand, delivering electricity as the byproduct. "This is all about providing thermal comfort to homeowners," Guyer said.

The unit is composed of two parts, one that acts as the generator and another that acts as a traditional air-handler or furnace, blowing hot air into the home.

Currently being used in close to 30,000 homes in Japan and 20 beta test spots around Massachusetts and New York, the micro-CHPs have been very well received. Although the initial cost is more than double that of a traditional furnace, the micro-CHPs can save users up to $700 a year in electric bills, Guyer said. They even come with a backup power supply if the electricity goes out for any reason.

The machines also have the advantage of being far superior at conservation, Guyer said. "Two-thirds of the power in a central station is thrown away," he explained. The micro-CHP utilizes more than 85 percent. "Micro-CHP in the home is one of the biggest things someone could do to reduce their carbon footprint."

Outside the Tang Center, a truck from Guyer's company, Climate Energy, was running free demonstrations of its micro-CHP unit, which will be available this fall. "So far people seem very happy," Guyer said.

"Many were surprised to see how quiet the generator was and how much heat it produced that could be used for space heating," said graduate student Derek Supple of the MIT Energy Club. "The talk was just as we intended: relevant to a broad group of disciplines and exciting due to the innovative nature of this residential-scale technology."

=====================

100s or 1000s of such initiatives could go a long way towards greatly reducing oil consumption.

But all we hear from the Repugs and right-wingers is "we can't conserve, it would be too expensive, cost too many jobs, it would destroy the American economy, poor little "Can't Do" America ".

When the real Repug motivation is to keep oil consumption up and rising, esp as oil price stays high and rises, because that's why the oilco's bought the Repugs and conservatives.

[RandomGuy]

What should be done for large buildings instead of solar panels is to take the hydrogen cell technology from vehicles and install larger ones in buildings. I saw a deal on that on NOVA a while back and they presented a case where it makes more economic sense for buildings to go that route instead.

Yup. One of the problems with current solar cell technology is that to truly get "off the grid" they require nasty heavy metal-based batteries to store energy. Hydrogen cells would change that.

I still think that connection to a grid is a good way to go for now.

Given the choice between reserve power provided by nasty lead batteries, and coal-fired power plants, the coal-plants win in my mind.

I think that every new building should be required to have some form of solar/green/renewable power provide at least 10% of the buildings energy needs, this includes homes.

This would mean that the costs of being energy inefficient were paid upfront, instead of down the line in the dribs and drabs of energy bills.

[RandomGuy]

100s or 1000s of such initiatives could go a long way towards greatly reducing oil conumption.

But all we hear from the Repugs and right-wingers is "we can't conserve, it would be too expensive, cost too many jobs, it would destroy the American economy, poor little "Can't Do" America ".


On this, I agree 100%.

Our energy inefficiency is costing us far more in terms of jobs and growth than the alternative.

It is a myth that all green policies equal lower standards of living.

[Ya Vez]

50 millions liberals giving up their electricity... energy crisis solved...

[CubanMustGo]

No, the "conservatives" would just build bigger McMansions and waste even more electricity. Come up to Plano if you doubt that.

[RandomGuy]

50 millions liberals giving up their electricity... energy crisis solved...

Heh.

That would let the conservatives waste as much energy as they like and drive up the cost to the point where they realize (gasp!) the liberals might have had a point.

[sabar]

Solar energy is generally many times more expensive than say coal per megawatt, but it is so much cleaner.

We should be doing more work into nuclear energy. People made such a big deal over three mile island and chernobyl. No more nuke plants built. Too bad, because all the coal and gas plants built since then have polluted the earth thousands of times more than a one in a million nuclear accident.

Get rid of coal and oil first and foremost, or phase it out. Natural gas is somewhat cleaner but is limited in supply.

But people will be people. They won't pay for the costs of solar plants and the inefficiency of wind/tidal. People will always be afraid of some nuclear accident. We have the cleanest technology at our disposal and are afraid. So we continue to use coal and oil. And we will use it until we have none left.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Solar energy is generally many times more expensive than say coal per megawatt, but it is so much cleaner.

We should be doing more work into nuclear energy. People made such a big deal over three mile island and chernobyl. No more nuke plants built. Too bad, because all the coal and gas plants built since then have polluted the earth thousands of times more than a one in a million nuclear accident.

Get rid of coal and oil first and foremost, or phase it out. Natural gas is somewhat cleaner but is limited in supply.

But people will be people. They won't pay for the costs of solar plants and the inefficiency of wind/tidal. People will always be afraid of some nuclear accident. We have the cleanest technology at our disposal and are afraid. So we continue to use coal and oil. And we will use it until we have none left.

Solar is only "more expensive" because coal generators do not pay for the economic costs of their pollution. Also, cost of solar pv is coming down all the time (recent discovery in Oz will cut cost of solar cells by half - see sliver cell, Andrew Blakers, ANU).

There is plenty of research into nuclear already done - they are up to designing 4th gen plants. It is sadly a necessary part of the future, but there are problems with safety and waste storage - don't believe the "it's totally clean" hype.

As for your last paragraph, NO! We can't just accept that people will continue to act only for their immediate self-interest because they are embedded in a system that says that's okay! The role of governments is to speak for the whole and the future, to encourage the adoption of long-term sustainable behaviours, and to start NOW. If we just accept that people are greedy and stupid and give up, the planet will be a very damaged place for our grandchildren. :depressed

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

As for the initiative, EXCELLENT. Starting in 2008, I'm going to write a PhD about an idea I have for a residential pv scheme in Oz. Here, residential power use is about 28% of demand, so it is a good place to start. Make the residential sector a net donator to the grid over the next 20-30 yrs and you can achieve almost a 1/3 reduction in power demand and CO2 output, not to mention switching main base power to other sources concurrently.

It is doable, we just have to pay for it like any other infrastructure investment!

[boutons_]

"nuclear already done"

Nuclear owners and operators in the USA have having a hard time with cash flow for new plants turning positive 13 years into the future.

========================


August 22, 2006


Slow Start for Revival of Nuclear Reactors

By MATTHEW L. WALD

BALTIMORE * Nobody in the United States has started building a nuclear power plant in more than three decades. Mayo A. Shattuck III could be the first.

As the chief executive of Constellation Energy, a utility holding company in Baltimore that already operates five nuclear reactors, Mr. Shattuck is convinced that nuclear power is on the verge of a renaissance, ready to provide reliable electricity at a competitive price. He has already taken the first steps toward achieving that, moving recently to order critical parts for a new reactor.

But Constellation's neighboring utility, the PPL Corporation, takes a different view. Even though PPL has successfully operated two reactors since 1983, its chairman, William F. Hecht, said that he had no plans for new nuclear plants.

When nuclear reactors were first commercialized almost half a century ago, every self-respecting electric utility wanted one. They were encouraged by a government that saw nuclear energy as a peaceful, redemptive byproduct of the deadly power unleashed at Hiroshima. The federal official for promoting nuclear energy, Lewis L. Strauss, said it would produce electricity "too cheap to meter." http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

It has never given consumers anything like that. But with the industry now consolidated so that most reactors are in the hands of a comparatively few operators, utility executives are sharply divided over whether nuclear power offers an attractive choice as they seek to satisfy a growing demand for electricity.

For them, the question comes down not so much to safety and environmental impact but to whether the potential reward is worth the financial risk. And those who already operate several reactors are prone to want more.

The debate within the utility industry over reviving nuclear power has taken on added importance, though, because unlike plants that burn coal and other fossil fuels, reactors do not produce gases that contribute to global warming.

And once again, Washington is encouraging utilities to push ahead. The summer of 2005's energy bill offered a generous production tax credit, insurance against regulatory delays and loan guarantees. Earlier legislation gave the industry money to help plan new plants. And they continue to benefit from a ceiling on liability damages in case of an accident.

( so who's going to pay beyond the limit? The federal insurance program? http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )

Despite nuclear power's promise as a clean energy source that could hold down emissions of global warming gases, most environmentalists are skeptical of the latest claims by its advocates. They say that utilities, at best, will move ahead with a handful of plants that will receive lavish incentives from the government. But the risks of nuclear power are still so high, they argue, that no utility will be willing to put its own money into building a plant unless the federal government heavily subsidizes it.

"What dismays me about the present situation is the extent to which the Congress and the administration, and now an occasional state legislature, have rushed to anoint it as the solution to climate change," said Peter A. Bradford, a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and former chairman of the public service commissions of both Maine and New York. If nuclear plants cannot compete without subsidies, he said, they should not be built.

Today, nuclear power supplies just under 20 percent of the electricity used in the United States. Its share has been slipping lately as new plants running on other fuels have come online.

With the price of natural gas increasing, coal has emerged once again as the most popular way to generate electricity, a trend that * if it continues * is expected to lead to a significant rise in emissions of carbon dioxide. The utility sector emits about a third of the carbon dioxide produced in this country, nearly all of that from coal.

Adding dozens more nuclear reactors to that mix could reverse the rise in carbon dioxide from the electricity-generating system, but its advance would also run up against certain limits.

Nuclear plants cannot replace all of the fossil fuel used in power generation because current nuclear designs do not easily alter the power output. Plants running on natural gas and coal, by contrast, can adjust their output over the course of a day to match demand.

For a long time, the underlying confidence of utilities in nuclear technology was moot because the economics would not support a new reactor; all those ordered after 1973 were canceled.

But now, because of high prices for natural gas and uncertainty about how emissions from coal plants will be regulated in the future, the nuclear industry is moving from near death to the prospect that perhaps a handful of plants will be ordered in the next few years. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission counts 27 potential reactors under consideration; 103 are now operable.

For all the momentum behind the push, however, there is still a high degree of skepticism within the utility industry.

PPL, for example, has successfully operated two reactors in Berwick, Pa., for 23 years. But with some utilities around the country making preliminary moves or joining consortiums to explore new designs, PPL is absent.

There are better places to put the money of shareholders, Mr. Hecht of PPL said. At the moment he sees a much greater advantage in cleaning up his coal-fired plants, investing $1.5 billion to scrub out most of the sulfur dioxide. That would not only benefit the environment but also generate pollution credits PPL can profitably sell.

That decision was "dull and basic," Mr. Hecht said, but adheres to a paramount goal: maximizing shareholder returns. He won't rule out nuclear plants forever, Mr. Hecht said in an interview, but the business case would have to be a lot clearer than it is now.

"Technology often has zealots, it seems, behind it," he said of companies moving forward on nuclear power.

By contrast, Constellation Energy not only wants to build reactors for itself, it also has formed a partnership with a reactor manufacturer to build and operate them for other utilities.

"This organization has a history of feeling that they have done well in nuclear," Mr. Shattuck said. Constellation executives think that they "can continue to do well in nuclear and shouldn't shy away from their responsibility."

Constellation plans to apply for a reactor-operating license by the end of 2007, probably at either the Calvert Cliffs site in Maryland where it runs two nuclear reactors built in the 1960's and 1970's, or at Nine Mile Point, in Scriba, N.Y., on Lake Ontario, where it operates two reactors it bought in 2001.

Its decision has implications beyond the corporate bottom line for the global environment. There are also arguments over nuclear waste and the risk of accidents. Around New York City, especially, there is concern over reactors as terrorist targets.

But the risk that really matters to utility executives is financial. Among the companies that would actually build these plants, executives focus more on uncertain factors like the future price of power, the cost of producing competing fuels, and the cost of cleaning up coal plants to meet standards for the pollutants that Washington does regulate * sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and soot.

At this point companies do not face any constraints on carbon emissions.

Companies that want to build * among them Entergy, Dominion and Duke Energy * talk about new designs intended to further reduce the risk of an accident and their ability to manage nuclear waste until the government eventually opens a national waste repository.

Opponents often cite the risk of accidents and the problem of nuclear waste, but the companies that do not want to build say that those are not factors in their decisions.

When PPL builds a power plant, it usually sells the power first, and uses the signed contracts to reassure the investors and the bankers from whom it is seeking financing. "I'm not going to build any large generation unhedged," Mr. Hecht said.

But this is not easy with a nuclear plant. For one thing, Mr. Hecht said, no one could be sure when it would be finished. And despite the industry's efforts to shorten the time from order to completion, it could still be 10 years, he said.

"If you build 1,000 megawatts,'' he asked, "how are you going to find someone to buy it 10 years out, for 10 years after it is finished?"

A nuclear plant ordered in 2007 could well turn out to be a more economical power source in 2020 than a coal plant ordered at the same time, he said, but the range of uncertainty is much larger. He is content to let others take the lead.

Constellation Energy insists it is driving risk out of the proposition. Constellation, which doubled its nuclear bet in the 1990's by buying more reactors as the utility industry reorganized, contends that it has demonstrated one marketable skill * running reactors profitably * and that it could quickly follow a new plant with a copycat, building both on time and on budget.

Constellation has an expertise gained in the early, difficult years of nuclear power, Mr. Shattuck said, citing Michael J. Wallace, president of his company's generation division.

"Mike is the only executive in the utility sector today who was an executive responsible for building new nuclear plants last time around," he said. Mr. Wallace oversaw the construction and start-up of two nuclear plants built in Illinois: Byron, which fully entered commercial service in 1987, and Braidwood, the following year.

Constellation proposes a fleet of plants, identical down to the "carpeting and wallpaper," Mr. Shattuck said, reducing the design costs on subsequent reactors to near zero. Operating processes would be identical, and operators could be shuffled among the plants, something that is often impossible today even with adjacent reactors. The company wants partners that would offer either equity or operating skills.

Constellation has a partnership, called UniStar Nuclear, with Areva, the French-German company, which is owned by Framatome and Siemens, to build a model. One model is under construction in Finland.

"A lot of it is establishing a model that mitigates risk as you move forward," Mr. Shattuck said. "A lot of players out there haven't quite figured out how they're going to go to their boards and ask for $4 billion, for which I'll get cash flows in 13 years."

Last December, Constellation and FPL, parent of Florida Power and Light, announced that they would merge, creating the country's largest competitive marketer of power. That would put the company in an even better position to build new reactors, Mr. Shattuck said.

Some experts, however, remain skeptical that new reactors should be built, although they acknowledge this is increasingly likely. In the last 20 years or so, said Mr. Bradford, the former regulator, utility restructuring has often shifted the risks of new construction from ratepayers to investors.

"What the Congress has done now, for the first six or so plants, is to find a third pocket," he said. "Now they've called upon the taxpayer to pony up."

But even if a few plants are built, industry insiders do not expect nuclear power to assume a significantly greater role. Roger W. Gale, an electricity expert and former Energy Department official, asks several hundred utility executives each year what they foresee in their industry.

While they are convinced that a new plant will be ordered soon, the more than 100 senior utility executives who responded also said they do not expect "a future where nuclear generation represents a larger share of generation" than today.

[RandomGuy]

No nuclear power plant has ever been built without large amounts of government money.

This would imply that nuclear power is not cost efficient enough to be competitive with other forms of energy.

[sabar]

On the bright side we're running out of trash to burn and pollute everything. On current reserves we have about 250 years of coal and 70 years of oil and gas. Something better start changing, fast. More oil and gas plants are built than any other and they have the lowest reserves left in the earth. Plus at some point you will have to stop burning it for power and save it for gas lines to homes and oil for cars.

Problem is solar, wind, water, and geothermal plants are all very dependant on their region. Even in an optimal spot, a wind farm that is capable of 900 megawatts will generally only get enough wind to produce a third, 300 megawatts. Solar needs locations with little cloud cover and long days. Water needs, well, water.

This is why I think we will ultimate ressurect nuke plants. Plants that run off uranium-238 have one serious advantage: there's enough uranium to last 4 billion more years at our current usage rate, plus, all it does is make some waste that don't decay for thousands of years and releases harmless water vapor, much better than the thousands of tons of toxic air and water pollutants released from coal plants every day.

I anticipate the holy grail of power will come some day after we're long dead and people figure out how to use nuclear fusion for power with extra power coming from wild and solar plants.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Hmmm, wonder where you get your figures from sabar?

I read that, at current rate of consumption (which is a furphy since consumption of electricity is going through the roof worldwide - in Australia alone, the demand for electricity will increase 72% on today's demand by 2003), we have somewhere between 150-200yrs of uranium reserves.

As for this: "plus, all it does is make some waste that don't decay for thousands of years and releases harmless water vapor, much better than the thousands of tons of toxic air and water pollutants released from coal plants every day," what exactly are you smoking?

Nuclear power generation produces radioactive waste with a half-life in the tens of thousands of years. Radioactive waste produces RADIOACTIVITY, the most damaging form of which, gamma radiation, has the potential to do anything from cause serious illness and death, to damaging the genomes of entire species! Damage done to a genome by radiation carries on into subsequent generations, so the capacity for radioactive waste to damage life ireparably and irreversibly is a serious matter. You also fail to mention the impact of the mining of uranium on the environment, and the danger of proliferation of radioactive materials for weapon purposes. Nuclear power may play an increasing role in our energy future, but it is not to be taken lightly as your overly simplistic statement suggest.

You must work for the nuclear industry to neglect to mention the danger of nuclear waste to the planet and everything on it.

[scott]

Fine and dandy, but non-economic from a cost per unit of energy standpoint. If you place a value on clear air, however (like I do), then that's where the economic trade-off is occuring.

We aren't "energy independent" because it doesn't make economic sense to be "energy independent" and for no other reason. It's not the Oil Companies and Republicans in some vast conspiracy. It's the fact that American has (currently) a comparative disadvantage in the area of energy production. Even my undergraduate students this semester (who have attended a grand total of 1 class thus far) understand this.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Scott, two things.

There is economic value incorporated in renewable energy industries, it's not just about social values. For instance, calculate the impact of enhanced global warming on changing land use patterns (eg. desertification making land untenable for agriculture), the incidence of major storm/flooding events, or the public health costs of fine particulate pollution (which leads to asthsma, respiratory disease and cancers). These things can be measured in $$$. If coal-fired electricity generators were forced to account for their pollution, the price of coal fired electricity would double (in Australia: coal - about $35-40/MWh, wind/solar/tidal - about $70-80/MWh, hydro is even cheaper but ruins river ecosystems) and suddenly renewable energy would be competitive. The extra cost would have to be absorbed by the community, and therein lies the sticking point as I'm sure you well know.

Secondly, you are obviously an economist because you view the effects of pollution as "externalities", somehow external to the economic system and thus not the responsibility of those that generate them. Pollution is only "external" to economics because economics is flawed and has not yet been recast to incorporate the reality that pollution is not relative to the viewer, it is not a subjective "value", it is a by-product of the production process and must be viewed as a "cost". Just because it is a public good being affected does not render it suddenly subjective. (This is a major failing of the economic rationalist worldview IMHO.)

Of course, the idea of paying for pollution is not popular with polluters, and they have a lot of money (they don't have to pay for the damage done by their pollution to the community's health, social and environmental welfare) and with it political power, so the situation is unlikely to change, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't change. Governments subsidise polluters through health and environmental programs to the tune of billions of dollars a year, but no-one ever talks about it.

Why is there not more work being done by academic economists to internalise the cost of "externalities"? Oh, that's right, the world is run by economic rationalist neo-cons...

[RandomGuy]

On the bright side we're running out of trash to burn and pollute everything. On current reserves we have about 250 years of coal and 70 years of oil and gas. Something better start changing, fast. More oil and gas plants are built than any other and they have the lowest reserves left in the earth. Plus at some point you will have to stop burning it for power and save it for gas lines to homes and oil for cars.

Problem is solar, wind, water, and geothermal plants are all very dependant on their region. Even in an optimal spot, a wind farm that is capable of 900 megawatts will generally only get enough wind to produce a third, 300 megawatts. Solar needs locations with little cloud cover and long days. Water needs, well, water.

This is why I think we will ultimate ressurect nuke plants. Plants that run off uranium-238 have one serious advantage: there's enough uranium to last 4 billion more years at our current usage rate, plus, all it does is make some waste that don't decay for thousands of years and releases harmless water vapor, much better than the thousands of tons of toxic air and water pollutants released from coal plants every day.

I anticipate the holy grail of power will come some day after we're long dead and people figure out how to use nuclear fusion for power with extra power coming from wild and solar plants.

I think you are over-estimating the coal/oil/gas reserves. Nukes have their own problems over and above the high costs that I have mentioned.

[RandomGuy]

Nuclear power generation produces radioactive waste with a half-life in the tens of thousands of years. Radioactive waste produces RADIOACTIVITY, the most damaging form of which, gamma radiation, has the potential to do anything from cause serious illness and death, to damaging the genomes of entire species! Damage done to a genome by radiation carries on into subsequent generations, so the capacity for radioactive waste to damage life ireparably and irreversibly is a serious matter. You also fail to mention the impact of the mining of uranium on the environment, and the danger of proliferation of radioactive materials for weapon purposes. Nuclear power may play an increasing role in our energy future, but it is not to be taken lightly as your overly simplistic statement suggest.

You must work for the nuclear industry to neglect to mention the danger of nuclear waste to the planet and everything on it.

Here are additional arguments beyond the simple high costs of building the plants.

You have to dig up one TON of ore to get one OUNCE of gold. Similar ratios probably hold true for uranium.

Mining is NASTY. Do some research on what ecological damage would be done from simply getting the uranium in the first place.

Assuming you are willing to accept the ecological holocost of massive uranium mines, you still have to deal with the following:

Security.

More nuclear power plants=more prime terrorist targets.

Ok, you say, we can build these things to be very "hard" targets, and pay for extra security.

So now you have added the ecological costs and the security costs, making nuclear plants even less cost competitive.

But wait, there is an additional factor that needs to be addressed:

Security.

I am repeating myself you say. This time we need security for the mining facilities to guard them in case of theft, and we need security for the fuel shipments, and the waste shipment, and the eventual waste dump. All of these vulnerabilities are built into this form of energy. At any point in the process, someone who is willing to die for his cause can find a way to steal or release the radioactive crap involved in nuclear power production.

But wait, that's not all.

Where do you PUT the waste?

We have a happy fun site all picked out now. Care to guess why it is empty, years after its completion?

The most powerful and intractible of all the problems of nuclear power, the ONE force in the universe that no proponent of nuclear power will ever be able to argue with, negotiate with, or overcome:

NIMBY(Not In My Back Yard)

Any new nuclear plants will have be built SOMEWHERE, and dump their waste SOMEWHERE. SOMEWHERE will have people who will hire an army of lawyers to sue the holy snot out of anyone foolish enough to try to ignore the NIMBY effect.

[RandomGuy]

Fine and dandy, but non-economic from a cost per unit of energy standpoint. If you place a value on clear air, however (like I do), then that's where the economic trade-off is occuring.

We aren't "energy independent" because it doesn't make economic sense to be "energy independent" and for no other reason. It's not the Oil Companies and Republicans in some vast conspiracy. It's the fact that American has (currently) a comparative disadvantage in the area of energy production. Even my undergraduate students this semester (who have attended a grand total of 1 class thus far) understand this.

Well here is the trillion dollar question then:

At what point will the price of oil make it economically feasible to BE energy independent?

At some point, the cost of oil energy will pass the point where it makes more economic sense to get energy from some other form, do we have any idea where that point is?

[RandomGuy]

There is, somewhere I am sure, a "weighted average cost" of a unit of energy.

Take the amount of energy consumed from each form of energy, add that all up, and divide by total energy. Multiply that factor times the unit cost of each unit of that form energy you can get the "weighted average cost" of a unit of energy.

I am sure that energy is getting more expensive, as we have so far relied on oil and coal for our energy, both of which will get more expensive at accelerating paces as they near their exhaustion.

This will make other forms of energy automatically make more economic sense.

We can encourage efficiency, and technological advances will bring down costs, so I don't think we are in some "doomsday" spiral, but still, we have to think about what we should be doing, and the sooner, the better.

[RandomGuy]

Secondly, you are obviously an economist because you view the effects of pollution as "externalities", somehow external to the economic system and thus not the responsibility of those that generate them. Pollution is only "external" to economics because economics is flawed and has not yet been recast to incorporate the reality that pollution is not relative to the viewer, it is not a subjective "value", it is a by-product of the production process and must be viewed as a "cost". Just because it is a public good being affected does not render it suddenly subjective. (This is a major failing of the economic rationalist worldview IMHO.)


I agree entirely.

You can't isolate the costs of pollution from the cost of production. In essence pollution "steals" public health. Public health is a VERY expensive "commodity", making things that pollute much more expensive in the long run than most think.

What are the costs of making 1 in a 1000 workers sick for one extra day out of any given year?

What are the economic costs of decreased life spans for 1 out of 100,000 people who die 10-40 years "early" from avoidable pollution related causes?

My formerly pregnant wife was told by her doctor to not eat fish because of mercury concerns. Mercury=coal power. Are coal plants going to pay for all the health etc. costs of the babies who were born to mothers that didn't know about this?

I am all about forcing polluters to pay the FULL costs of their products by forcing them to not pollute at all. Better to have the costs paid for up front than to expensively "back end" them in public health and future public health.

[boutons_]

"You can't isolate the costs of pollution from the cost of production"

You shouldn't exclude the military/hurman costs of defending US suppy of foreign oil, which includes the entire war on terr, nor the probaby endless costs of increased domestic security (TSA charade, etc) and the economic friction (losses) of domestic security, costs which were insignficant up to 2002.

The big winners are the owners of America and owners of the Repug party: the energy companies, which are essentially taxpayer-subsidized to pocket 10s $Bs per year of windfall proftis from ... taxpayers.

[scott]

Well here is the trillion dollar question then:

At what point will the price of oil make it economically feasible to BE energy independent?

At some point, the cost of oil energy will pass the point where it makes more economic sense to get energy from some other form, do we have any idea where that point is?

The only answer, of course, is to let the market play out and let it happen - without influence either way.

I personally believe that the technology that will make us "independent" has yet to be invented. $70 oil goes a long way in speeding the process up.

[scott]

Scott, two things.

There is economic value incorporated in renewable energy industries, it's not just about social values. For instance, calculate the impact of enhanced global warming on changing land use patterns (eg. desertification making land untenable for agriculture), the incidence of major storm/flooding events, or the public health costs of fine particulate pollution (which leads to asthsma, respiratory disease and cancers). These things can be measured in $$$. If coal-fired electricity generators were forced to account for their pollution, the price of coal fired electricity would double (in Australia: coal - about $35-40/MWh, wind/solar/tidal - about $70-80/MWh, hydro is even cheaper but ruins river ecosystems) and suddenly renewable energy would be competitive. The extra cost would have to be absorbed by the community, and therein lies the sticking point as I'm sure you well know.

Secondly, you are obviously an economist because you view the effects of pollution as "externalities", somehow external to the economic system and thus not the responsibility of those that generate them. Pollution is only "external" to economics because economics is flawed and has not yet been recast to incorporate the reality that pollution is not relative to the viewer, it is not a subjective "value", it is a by-product of the production process and must be viewed as a "cost". Just because it is a public good being affected does not render it suddenly subjective. (This is a major failing of the economic rationalist worldview IMHO.)

Of course, the idea of paying for pollution is not popular with polluters, and they have a lot of money (they don't have to pay for the damage done by their pollution to the community's health, social and environmental welfare) and with it political power, so the situation is unlikely to change, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't change. Governments subsidise polluters through health and environmental programs to the tune of billions of dollars a year, but no-one ever talks about it.

Why is there not more work being done by academic economists to internalise the cost of "externalities"? Oh, that's right, the world is run by economic rationalist neo-cons...

Lots of work is done on externalities which, by the way, you appear to not have a very good grasp on how they are incorporated into economics. Externalities are not "external" to economics. They are external to the market price paid (in terms of dollars). The field of economics goes far beyond dollars and cents.

I had the pleasure to study under a great Environmental Economist during my graduate program. He's done a lot of great work in the field, and economists are continually looking for ways to "internalize" (as you say) externalities like pollution into market prices. Tradable pollution credits, toll roads, broadband trading (a great idea from a bad company - Enron) are all examples of "internalizing" externalities. Once the cost of pollution is incorporated into market prices, it is no longer considered an externality.

Maybe you haven't heard about the work being done in these areas because you are looking in the wrong places. Unless you are an economist, I doubt you are truely up to date as to what economists are studying (which is typically not reported... well, anywhere).

And yes, it's still non-economic from a cost per unit of energy perspective.

We (humanity) will get there, but there are a ways to go.

Next time you respond to a post of mine, please leave your assumptions about what I believe at the door (and I will try to do the same).

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Where have I made assumptions about what you believe? You are an economist and a lecturer, correct?

Sorry, I miswrote when I said "external to economics" - I meant external to the market/price mechanism, which, let's face it, is the major (only) determinant of economic behaviour in the world today. Academic economists can do all the work they like on internalising externalities, but how much of it is actually affecting markets and protecting non-price values (social, environmental, intergenerational)?

Anyway, my point remains - polluters are by in large not required to pay for their pollution of public goods, which leads many commodities like oil and coal to be vastly undervalued by the market when compared to their "true price" (the price of the good when all the externalities are included). You totally miss my point, for the second time, here: "it's still non-economic from a cost per unit of energy perspective." Competing (renewable/non-polluting) technologies WOULD NOT be non-economic if polluting technologies were made to incorporate the cost of their externalities in their price!

See, I have a feeling we are not connecting on this because of worldview. You keep saying "but price makes competing technologies non-economic", while I am saying "the price mechanism is lying to the market, and that's why the competing technologies are non-economic". You are obviously intelligent and extremely knowledgable on your subject, but worldview can obscure things from even the most brilliant minds.

FYI, I am currently doing a Masters in Human Ecology (a synthesis of hard science, sociology, ecology and economics) to be followed by a PhD in Urban Sustainability. Don't get me wrong by thinking that I am disrespecting your mind or credentials, I am not, but I also have some idea of what I'm talking about.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Oh, and two other things.

RG, good points about nuclear energy - that's what I meant when I said "don't believe the hype that it's clean".

And Scott, I am aware of emissions trading and the like, in fact I just wrote 10,000 words on the Australian electricity market's mandatory renewable energy target (MRET), not a carbon trading scheme but a compulsory renewable energy quota imposed on all energy wholesalers in order to channel investment to the renewable sector.

Carbon trading is a very good idea that has shown some efficacy, although there are currently some problems with it. Targets need to be set correctly and enforced (constrained by political will), and in fact carbon trading really needs to go global or comparative advantage will shift to those nations that don't trade in carbon and pollute freely. The cap on total carbon also needs to be incrementally reduced to have any real effect on the volume of pollution, and that is extremely politically unpopular. Here's a BBC article on the problem with excessive target setting in the EU scheme:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4771871.stm

I actually read an academic article on the problems encountered by the Euro's carbon trading scheme but can't find it right now. I have to record references for what I read more fully! Then there is the fact that the biggest greenhouse polluter in the world (guess who?), and my sorry nation (I hate our PM), won't even come to the table on carbon trading because it will "cost jobs". It will also create jobs, but the neo-cons ignore that.

Anyway, didn't want you to think that I'm talking out my arse.

Your use of the example of toll roads is a curious one! It could be argued that toll roads have nothing to do with curbing externalities and everything to do with shifting the burden for maintenance of the road system from the government to companies and thus onto the general public directly through the tolls. There are some shocking examples of toll roads gone wrong in both Australia and the UK, although I'm not so familiar with the American experience.

[RandomGuy]

Your use of the example of toll roads is a curious one! It could be argued that toll roads have nothing to do with curbing externalities and everything to do with shifting the burden for maintenance of the road system from the government to companies and thus onto the general public directly through the tolls. There are some shocking examples of toll roads gone wrong in both Australia and the UK, although I'm not so familiar with the American experience.

Toll roads in the US are generally pretty well managed, in my experience.

I am all about people using roads paying for them 100%. I would rather public money go towards decent mass transit. Cities need to be denser for a lot of reasons, and that is one way to encourage it.

[johnsmith]

"FYI, I am currently doing a Masters in Human Ecology (a synthesis of hard science, sociology, ecology and economics) to be followed by a PhD in Urban Sustainability. Don't get me wrong by thinking that I am disrespecting your mind or credentials, I am not, but I also have some idea of what I'm talking about."
WHO THE FUCK CARES???????????
Here's an idea, go out and get a job and better mankind rather then just bitching about it in a university and on a chat board. I'm going to go out on a limb and say you are going to be a college professor. They are all the same, no real world experience but they assume they know how everything works and they have the answer for everything. You are the reason I only enjoyed drinking while receiving my under-grad.

[RandomGuy]

Here's an idea, go out and get a job and better mankind rather then just bitching about it in a university and on a chat board. I'm going to go out on a limb and say you are going to be a college professor. They are all the same, no real world experience but they assume they know how everything works and they have the answer for everything. You are the reason I only enjoyed drinking while receiving my under-grad.

Education provides a framework for understanding problems.

One needs some form of education to fix cars instead of sacrificing chickens to "the engine god". The same is true of more complex, larger issues.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you are a used car salesman who has done nothing to better humanity in his life. pfft.

[johnsmith]

Education provides a framework for understanding problems.

One needs some form of education to fix cars instead of sacrificing chickens to "the engine god". The same is true of more complex, larger issues.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you are a used car salesman who has done nothing to better humanity in his life. pfft.

I agree that education provides a framework for understanding problems but if you sit in a classroom for most of your adult life and don't do anything to solve said problems then what good are you doing? So spare me your "I know everything because I'm still in school" attitude, I too graduated college and shortly thereafter realized that I really know nothing. You will too, don't worry, the only sad part is that you will then be working for me.

[johnsmith]

Furthermore, although I am not a used car salesman, what would be wrong with being one? They are doing far more to better other people then your happy ass is by just plugging tuition money back into your prestigious UTSA no doubt.

[RandomGuy]

I agree that education provides a framework for understanding problems but if you sit in a classroom for most of your adult life and don't do anything to solve said problems then what good are you doing? So spare me your "I know everything because I'm still in school" attitude, I too graduated college and shortly thereafter realized that I really know nothing. You will too, don't worry, the only sad part is that you will then be working for me.

I have only spent 1/2 my adult life in school. (amused) I was in the army for a few years and worked for a few more before starting, and have interspersed a few years working in between.

I know fully that school is not the end-all, be-all, and have enough real-life experience to know the value of an education and the possibilities it opens up. My parents haven't paid a dime for me to sit around drinking instead of learning.

While one can indeed make something of one's self with little or no education, your chances are much greater with one.

Based on your attitude to education, I would say it is more likely that you will end up working for me.

[RandomGuy]

Furthermore, although I am not a used car salesman, what would be wrong with being one? They are doing far more to better other people then your happy ass is by just plugging tuition money back into your prestigious UTSA no doubt.

Heh, try Texas State. Undergrad was UTA.

Good/sucessful car salesmen tend to be a tad sociopathic.

I do my share of things to better peoples' lives and consider doing such the primary purpose of my own. I have set myself on a career track that should allow me to be doing some very good things for humanity, if all pans out well. If things go really well, I plan on dwarfing the Gates Foundation at some point, but that is 40 years down the road.

[johnsmith]

I have only spent 1/2 my adult life in school. (amused) I was in the army for a few years and worked for a few more before starting, and have interspersed a few years working in between.

I know fully that school is not the end-all, be-all, and have enough real-life experience to know the value of an education and the possibilities it opens up. My parents haven't paid a dime for me to sit around drinking instead of learning.

While one can indeed make something of one's self with little or no education, your chances are much greater with one.

Based on your attitude to education, I would say it is more likely that you will end up working for me.


Good comeback dude, "No, you will be working for me".......Come up with something original you fucktard.

[scott]

Where have I made assumptions about what you believe? You are an economist and a lecturer, correct?

Sorry, I miswrote when I said "external to economics" - I meant external to the market/price mechanism, which, let's face it, is the major (only) determinant of economic behaviour in the world today. Academic economists can do all the work they like on internalising externalities, but how much of it is actually affecting markets and protecting non-price values (social, environmental, intergenerational)?

Anyway, my point remains - polluters are by in large not required to pay for their pollution of public goods, which leads many commodities like oil and coal to be vastly undervalued by the market when compared to their "true price" (the price of the good when all the externalities are included). You totally miss my point, for the second time, here: "it's still non-economic from a cost per unit of energy perspective." Competing (renewable/non-polluting) technologies WOULD NOT be non-economic if polluting technologies were made to incorporate the cost of their externalities in their price!

See, I have a feeling we are not connecting on this because of worldview. You keep saying "but price makes competing technologies non-economic", while I am saying "the price mechanism is lying to the market, and that's why the competing technologies are non-economic". You are obviously intelligent and extremely knowledgable on your subject, but worldview can obscure things from even the most brilliant minds.

FYI, I am currently doing a Masters in Human Ecology (a synthesis of hard science, sociology, ecology and economics) to be followed by a PhD in Urban Sustainability. Don't get me wrong by thinking that I am disrespecting your mind or credentials, I am not, but I also have some idea of what I'm talking about.

I think we are connecting just fine, Oz, and I don't think it has anything do with worldview. My statement that these alternative energy sources are non-economic includes all applicable marginal costs and benefits (including those not expressely detailed in dollars and cents).

I do, however, have my own opinion of what the value of pollution is, as you obviously have yours. I think the disconnect is the value we place on said pollution. In the end, it doesn't matter what our individual values are, but what the market value is (the market equilibrium quantity of pollution) and obtaining economic efficiency by forcing the producers to bear all the costs of pollution, not non-producers. I think the market value of pollution is lower than what you probably think it is, leading to my statement (of opinion) that things are non-economic.

Economists, who you said aren't spending time studying this because they are "economic rationalist neo-cons", actually are spending quite a bit of time on the very subject. Whether or not they are implemented is not a problem with Economists, but a problem with Politicians who are not in the business of making correct decisions but in the business of being re-elected.

Re: Toll Roads - the theory behind a toll road (or a tradable emissions credit for that matter) is different from the reality of how they are currently implemented, so it's best not to mix the two. The theory of a toll road is solving the externality problem. You shift the cost of building and maintaining the road to those who use is rather than taxpayers who don't use it. Of course, that isn't reality and of course municipalities find ways to create economically inefficient externalities - a rental car and hotel tax to pay for the Spurs' arena, for example.

In the end though, don't assume economists aren't working on these problems just because some politician's economic advisor (who many times isn't an economist himself) doesn't talk about them.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

I understand that economists are working on these things, once again miscommunication on my part (apologies), but my problem is that very little of their work is translating to reality (as you state, a largely political problem), and I still maintain that there is a worldview disjoin. You say:

"I do, however, have my own opinion of what the value of pollution is, as you obviously have yours. I think the disconnect is the value we place on said pollution."

which I cannot agree with. The "value" of pollution cannot be separated from the production process, it is integral to it, however that is not accounted for in the market price. That is a fact. Coal electricity generation without pollution control = $35MWh, with carbon sequestration = $70-80MWh. That is not a question of "my values", that is a reality.

I understand what you are getting at - that I "value" this pollution differently from you. However, my argument is that the market itself is corrupted by not accounting for a cost of production, being the effect of that pollution on the general public and public goods. This is a fundamental flaw of economic theory - it externalises that which is difficult to deal with by labelling it "non-economic values".

Anyway, we are not going to agree on this, but it is healthy to debate it. Unfortunately for me and others who think like me, the world is run by economists (not having a go at you, but in general), who, I think, often forget that their "science" is an inexact metaphorical modelling of the real world (as is all science), and that reality is what is really important. The reality is that we have massive evidence of the damage we are doing to the planet, yet politicians are choosing to do nothing about it, generally using economics (often incorrectly) as their reasoning.

Have a nice day.

[scott]

Ruff,

As you are well aware, there are trade-offs to be made for less pollution. You provide two numbers... $35/unit with pollution, $70 without pollution. But as you are also aware, the market equilibrium quantity of "pollution" is not zero - so the value of incremental pollution is just not the marginal difference in cost between current pollution and no pollution. The fact of the matter is that some people are willing to accept some level of pollution - that is what I meant with discussing the value of pollution. At what price level is the equilibrium quantity of pollution reached?

At least we agree on one thing (I think), however, that is the problem lies not with the economists (though you say the world is run by economists... I disagree on that point) but with people who use economics (or science) incorrectly.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Good point. However I would argue that in the long run we have to aim for zero-pollution, which of course we will never reach, but that to aim in that direction is the only way we will "minimise" pollution. Also, any pollution reduction strategy will be incremental, so it is not as if what I'm calling for will double the price of energy overnight - the increase in price has to be spread over 20-30 years, and may turn out to be far less than anticipated due to innovation and economies of scale in growing renewable energy industries.

I should have said "the world is run by an economic midset" rather than by "economists", making the point that bottom line is the ubiquitous determinant in decision making today (as opposed to social, cultural, environmental values). However, as we agree, that is the domain of politicians (utterly co-opted by big business through the donation system), so no surprises there.

A pleasure as always. ;)

[RandomGuy]

Good comeback dude, "No, you will be working for me".......Come up with something original you fucktard.

:lmao

You're funny, I like that.



http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/gameon.jpg

[RandomGuy]

[message truncated for brevity]
In the end though, don't assume economists aren't working on these problems just because some politician's economic advisor (who many times isn't an economist himself) doesn't talk about them.

This is a very good point. Good economics and what politicians do with that are two separate things.

Not to knock on politicians, very often there are quite a few competing interests that have to be dealt with, even to reach less-than-efficient solutions.

[RandomGuy]

Good comeback dude, "No, you will be working for me".......Come up with something original you fucktard.

http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/mentalmidget.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Good comeback dude, "No, you will be working for me".......Come up with something original you fucktard.


http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/lumbergh.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Good comeback dude, "No, you will be working for me".......Come up with something original you fucktard.

http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/gay_trying.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Good comeback dude, "No, you will be working for me".......Come up with something original you fucktard.

http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/unimpressed.jpg

:nutkick:

[/flame]

[johnsmith]

Random guy, are you honestly coming back at my "you are unoriginal" with a bunch of pictures that have been floating around the internet for the last three years? I don't know if that's ironic or just stupid.

[RandomGuy]

Random guy, are you honestly coming back at my "you are unoriginal" with a bunch of pictures that have been floating around the internet for the last three years? I don't know if that's ironic or just stupid.

Like I said, you are funny.

[johnsmith]

Agreed........can we be done now?

[RandomGuy]

Random guy, are you honestly coming back at my "you are unoriginal" with a bunch of pictures that have been floating around the internet for the last three years? I don't know if that's ironic or just stupid.

I think it was waaaay more original than sitting around wasting mom-and-dad's money drinking.

I would bet that your parents bought you a mustang for college too. :rolleyes

[johnsmith]

I think it was waaaay more original than sitting around wasting mom-and-dad's money drinking.

I would bet that your parents bought you a mustang for college too. :rolleyes

So then no, we're not done with this then? That's quite a big assumption for such a little fella. Don't be mad because you didn't get to enjoy college like everyone else did. The beauty of it is that I had all that fun and still got the same type of degree you did. The only difference is that afterwards I went and did something with it, rather then just going back to school because you fear real life.
And don't come back with, "I went to the military".......anyone can be anything on the internet, in fact, I could be lying about everything I say on here..........or am I?

[RandomGuy]

So then no, we're not done with this then? That's quite a big assumption for such a little fella. Don't be mad because you didn't get to enjoy college like everyone else did. The beauty of it is that I had all that fun and still got the same type of degree you did. The only difference is that afterwards I went and did something with it, rather then just going back to school because you fear real life.
And don't come back with, "I went to the military".......anyone can be anything on the internet, in fact, I could be lying about everything I say on here..........or am I?

(shrugs)
I had my fun when I was in the army, and whether a spoiled momma's boy believes it or not is none of my concern.

I enjoy college immensely, since you mention it. Being a serious student has made me to appreciate earning my own way, and not just being in college like so many who are just there because their parents are paying for it.

I see you didn't deny your first car was a mustang your parents bought you. :lol

[RandomGuy]

Position: Pass-First Guard
Team: Denver Nuggets
vBookie Cash: $500
Post Count: 54

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[RandomGuy]

:elephant

[RandomGuy]

The only difference is that afterwards I went and did something with [my degree]...

Um, yeah, I'd like fries with that...

[johnsmith]

Allow me to defend myself:
Never did I say that my parents paid for college, that was another big assumption from a little guy.
Since you weren't actually in the Army, I won't acknowledge that gem.
I didn't say anything about the Mustang because that comment was just fucking stupid.
Laughing at someone's team, oh that's rich. The only reason I came to this forum was to mock the spineless Spurs fans, I couldn't very well conform with everyone and say I was a Spurs fan could I? I had to put someone.
Finally, What the fuck is the pink elephant dancing? You are using little pictures now for insults?
And since we are throwing around sophomoric insults such as laughing at one's team, is that really you in your picture cause you look pretty gay. Oh, and I just checked out your profile, 36 years old and still in school........HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[johnsmith]

Um, yeah, I'd like fries with that...

So you're fat too. That sounds about right considering the city you are living in.

[RandomGuy]

So you're fat too. That sounds about right considering the city you are living in.

Your momma is so stupid, she got fired from the M & M factory for throwin away the "W"s

(note: RG doesn't live in San Antonio)

[RandomGuy]

Since you weren't actually in the Army, I won't acknowledge that gem.


Random Guy<<< still not caring what you believe.

[johnsmith]

Your momma is so stupid, she got fired from the M & M factory for throwin away the "W"s

(note: RG doesn't live in San Antonio)

Talking about yourself in the third person? You really are proud of yourself. Mom jokes are about the point where I stop because you have clearly given up. Have a super day jackass.

[johnsmith]

Random Guy<<< still not caring what you believe.

Obviously you do or you wouldn't keep acknowledging my point.

[johnsmith]

No comment on the 36 year old in school eh? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

[johnsmith]

Just think, statistically, you are nearly half way through your life........let's hope your children amount to more then Dad or else Mrs. Random Guy is going to be very dissapointed with her life decisions.

[RandomGuy]

Seriously kid, I have had my fun with your punk ass, but I gotta get to work, and you probably do too. Better hurry, those fries aren't going to fry themselves..,

[jaysontx]

wow...interesting string. I must say RandomGuy and John Smith have quite a battle going.

as of now, I say advantage Smith. RG...seriously...36 and still in school? Finish already and move on. You realize that once you're finished, you and your life partner can grow old together, maybe even adopt a child from China. At the rate you're going, you'll be only 60 when they start college and then you'll be dead by the time they finish if the aspire to follow in your footsteps.

And seriously...you can admit it...you aren't paying for college, the military is. Isn't that why you joined? Or was it to be all you can be...and it looks like that would be a gay slow learner.

[jaysontx]

RG...when you say work, don't you mean read a book?

[johnsmith]

Seriously kid, I have had my fun with your punk ass, but I gotta get to work, and you probably do too. Better hurry, those fries aren't going to fry themselves..,

You don't have to go to work. You've lied so much throughout this entire thing, why not just jump in there and throw some thread of truth into the conversation. What you really have to do is go and rub one out to internet porn before hitting up the Monster.com circuit looking for openings in your career path, but bad news though, internet blogging will not amount to a whole lot. But hey, at least you'll sound smart.

[johnsmith]

wow...interesting string. I must say RandomGuy and John Smith have quite a battle going.

as of now, I say advantage Smith. RG...seriously...36 and still in school? Finish already and move on. You realize that once you're finished, you and your life partner can grow old together, maybe even adopt a child from China. At the rate you're going, you'll be only 60 when they start college and then you'll be dead by the time they finish if the aspire to follow in your footsteps.

And seriously...you can admit it...you aren't paying for college, the military is. Isn't that why you joined? Or was it to be all you can be...and it looks like that would be a gay slow learner.

It's funny because it's true.

[jaysontx]

Winner.....John Smith

[johnsmith]

Winner.....John Smith

I want to thank all the little people that made my victory possible, most notably Randomguy. Without his incessent ramblings and complaints about the way energy is produced in America I wouldn't have been annoyed enough to begin this heroic battle. I'd also like to thank the University of Texas for producing a real "free-thinker" like RG, that school helped create a level of jackass among an individual that's virtually unparralleled on the entire internet, which is impressive because the internet is a large place. Most of all though, I want to thank myself for being awesome, and particularly awesome at realizing when people are just "internet politicians" and "armchair thinktanks". I rule, RG sucks. Goodnight now.

[1369]

I want to thank all the little people that made my victory possible, most notably Randomguy. Without his incessent ramblings and complaints about the way energy is produced in America I wouldn't have been annoyed enough to begin this heroic battle. I'd also like to thank the University of Texas for producing a real "free-thinker" like RG, that school helped create a level of jackass among an individual that's virtually unparralleled on the entire internet, which is impressive because the internet is a large place. Most of all though, I want to thank myself for being awesome, and particularly awesome at realizing when people are just "internet politicians" and "armchair thinktanks". I rule, RG sucks. Goodnight now.

Cue someone and the "Special Olympics/Internet Arguing" pic in 5.....4.....3....2...

[johnsmith]

wow you are stupid

And you are extremely witty.

[johnsmith]

Cue someone and the "Special Olympics/Internet Arguing" pic in 5.....4.....3....2...


I knew that one was coming eventually. It's fun though isn't it?

[jaysontx]

I knew that one was coming eventually. It's fun though isn't it?

ahhh...no...not really.

[RandomGuy]

RG...when you say work, don't you mean read a book?

jaysontx
Join Date: 08-30-2006
Total Posts: 4 (4 posts per day)

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


That is the LAMEST trick ever there Johnsmith.

By doing this, you have officially been :owned

[johnsmith]

jaysontx
Join Date: 08-30-2006
Total Posts: 4 (4 posts per day)

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


That is the LAMEST trick ever there Johnsmith.

By doing this, you have officially been :owned

Take a look at the IP address jackass, different computer. There you go again thinking you are intelligent when you are in fact, a jackass.

[RandomGuy]

Having a conversation with yourself was even funnier.

[johnsmith]

Having a conversation with yourself was even funnier.


RG, we both know that you are over half the people on this site, that's where you came up with the idea that I was posting as two people. Now where are all your witty comebacks. You don't have any because you were made to look like a fool over and over again. Go back to studying to become.......................a college student some more.

[jaysontx]

bring it...have a moderator look into it.

[RandomGuy]

The funny thing is that he had the "different IP" excuse ready awful quick, almost as if he knew it might come up, and had it ready before-hand. As if proxy servers are hard to use, even for fry cooks.

Thumping his chest and giving a lame-ass "victory" speech or two just adds more points to his lame score. :lol

For those who do know me, know that I rarely stoop to this level. I think it is a bit fun to occasionally mix it up, but I have other things to do.

Both of your accounts will have the distinction of being the only ones on my ignore list.

Adios and auf wiedersehen.

[johnsmith]

And yet you continue to never reply to any of the accusations made at you. Truth hurts doesn't it? When I feel like having someone bow down to me again I'll let you know. Later bitch.

[RandomGuy]

Neato. I've never done that before.

All the poo-flinging noises have stopped. Yay.

"This message is hidden because johnsmith is on your ignore list. " :blah

I guess there is a first time for everything. (Resumes being a grown up)

My apologies to all for my bout with weakness.

[jaysontx]

Der muß dringend einen geblasen kriegen.

Leck mich am arsch!

[RandomGuy]

random guy has multiple screen names? we need a mod to settle this..where's mookie2001?

OK, ok, I'll admit it.

The reason no one has ever seen us in the same place at the same time is that Yonivore and I are the same person.

[DarkReign]

OK, ok, I'll admit it.

The reason no one has ever seen us in the same place at the same time is that Yonivore and I are the same person.

:lmao

[RandomGuy]

Der muß dringend einen geblasen kriegen.

Leck mich am arsch!

So hat deine mutter gesagt...

Couldn't resist. Zurueck auf "ignore"

[DarkReign]

On the scale of 1-10 internet fights...

We're looking at a 4 here, folks. Weak-ass contenders.

[RandomGuy]

On the scale of 1-10 internet fights...

We're looking at a 4 here, folks. Weak-ass contenders.

You got me. I just don't have the practice at flame wars and it shows. :depressed

Occupational hazard of trying to take the high road on most things I guess.

I will have to practice my flaming at some point. :lol

What would have made this a 10?

[DarkReign]

What would have made this a 10?

The butchering of the English language as both combatants post in such a fury of point/counter-points that the thread would go from intelligent debate of only a few pages, to blood-phlegm hurling from the throats of enraged contestants spewing and breathing the contempt and hatred of which they have for one another immediately deposited into the Classics section.

Obviously, dolling out a 10 is the equivalent of a 10 in Olympic Gymnastics. A rarified air reserved for only the truest of enemies of diametrically opposed views.

The Whott vs JamStone debate when I first showed up on this forum was a solid 8.

[DarkReign]

Oh, just so its out there, I realize you never even wanted to really participate. Not that I blame you, johnsmith is obviously a regulars troll. For 70-odd posts, he hates you too much and too quickly.

[johnsmith]

The butchering of the English language as both combatants post in such a fury of point/counter-points that the thread would go from intelligent debate of only a few pages, to blood-phlegm hurling from the throats of enraged contestants spewing and breathing the contempt and hatred of which they have for one another immediately deposited into the Classics section.

Obviously, dolling out a 10 is the equivalent of a 10 in Olympic Gymnastics. A rarified air reserved for only the truest of enemies of diametrically opposed views.

The Whott vs JamStone debate when I first showed up on this forum was a solid 8.


Wow, I just thought we were giving eachother a hard time, I don't wish anything bad to happen to him, nor do I even hold contempt or hatred towards him. You my friend are a psycho..........and a jackass.

[johnsmith]

The butchering of the English language as both combatants post in such a fury of point/counter-points that the thread would go from intelligent debate of only a few pages, to blood-phlegm hurling from the throats of enraged contestants spewing and breathing the contempt and hatred of which they have for one another immediately deposited into the Classics section.

Obviously, dolling out a 10 is the equivalent of a 10 in Olympic Gymnastics. A rarified air reserved for only the truest of enemies of diametrically opposed views.

The Whott vs JamStone debate when I first showed up on this forum was a solid 8.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, I just read that again and realized what it is that I don't like about this post, this guy's clearly a "Magic the Gathering" player. What level dragon slayer are you buddy?

[DarkReign]

Wow, I just thought we were giving eachother a hard time, I don't wish anything bad to happen to him, nor do I even hold contempt or hatred towards him. You my friend are a psycho..........and a jackass.

Wow, reading comprehension isnt a strong point for you is it?

If you re-read the post (since you quoted it twice), I said a 10 rating would be all of those things. Your "hard time" (whatever that means) was a 4.

[DarkReign]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, I just read that again and realized what it is that I don't like about this post, this guy's clearly a "Magic the Gathering" player. What level dragon slayer are you buddy?

Why? You want to trade some cards?

[johnsmith]

Wow, reading comprehension isnt a strong point for you is it?

If you re-read the post (since you quoted it twice), I said a 10 rating would be all of those things. Your "hard time" (whatever that means) was a 4.

No, I understood what you were saying and I was implying that I would never want it to make your ficticious "level 10" rating because that sounds a little too violent for me. But then I just realized that you are a huge nerd and your true definition of violence was when the ring was dropped by Frodo into the lava.

[DarkReign]

No, I understood what you were saying and I was implying that I would never want it to make your ficticious "level 10" rating because that sounds a little too violent for me.

Ummmm....who really would intentionally?


But then I just realized that you are a huge nerd and your true definition of violence was when the ring was dropped by Frodo into the lava.

Oooooo...another zinger. Boy, youre good at this. Ouch. Man, whoa. Your immediate generalizations about everyone around you are startlingly accurate! You must have a sixth sense or something, one that works over the intranets, because the Frodo thing and the Magic cards....Dead on, man. Dead-fucking-on.

I am going to petition you the powers that be to get your own TV show like that other guy...

http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/webpics/John_Edward.jpg

Seriously, youre weird good at this. More please!

[johnsmith]

I am going to petition you the powers that be to get your own TV show like that other guy...

http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/webpics/John_Edward.jpg

Seriously, youre weird good at this. More please!

Good, that way scary nerds around the world with names like "darkreign", "twistedangel", etc. can call me with questions such as, "should I trade my barricaded castle for his third level warlock? If I make this trade what will he role next on his 12 sided die"?

Nerds, you guys are a quirky bunch.

[RandomGuy]

Oh, just so its out there, I realize you never even wanted to really participate. Not that I blame you, johnsmith is obviously a regulars troll. For 70-odd posts, he hates you too much and too quickly.

Heh, nah, I just went in on him when he started flaming someone else.

(amused)
Can't be Gtown, cuz hee kan spell.

I will give him the fact that he hasn't done the their/they're your/you're thing that I saw.

[RandomGuy]

Oh, just so its out there, I realize you never even wanted to really participate. Not that I blame you, johnsmith is obviously a regulars troll. For 70-odd posts, he hates you too much and too quickly.

Geez now that I look back on it, I really didn't try very hard. I think the "4" was about right. :depressed

I am kind of glad I didn't because I would feel bad making fun of a teenager.
The whole "I am so awesome" post and his other account declaring victory kinda gave that away. No one over 20 would be so immature as to say stuff like that.

"Graduated college" my ass. Probably still living with his parents. :lol

[johnsmith]

Geez now that I look back on it, I really didn't try very hard. I think the "4" was about right. :depressed

I am kind of glad I didn't because I would feel bad making fun of a teenager.
The whole "I am so awesome" post and his other account declaring victory kinda gave that away. No one over 20 would be so immature as to say stuff like that.

"Graduated college" my ass. Probably still living with his parents. :lol

I couldn't leave this one alone. Let's see if I was a teenager then I'd be in high school still, but at least I'd be the proper age for it. I mean shit, it's not like I'd be a 36 year old still in school HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. As for the awesome thing, you'd be surprised how many people over the age of 20 are immature enough to say stuff like that, myself included. I'll tell you what's immature though, coming on a website and lying. Lying about military service, lying about college, lying about a job and a future. Come to think of it, you've divulged quite a bit of information to me about yourself, that's funny to me. I'm your puppet master making you dance. Now dance monkey dance.
Finally,
You're an idiot.

[RandomGuy]

This message is hidden because johnsmith is on your ignore list.

[johnsmith]

This message is hidden because johnsmith is on your ignore list.

Now I can't even talk shit to you..........spineless.

[RandomGuy]

This message is hidden because johnsmith is on your ignore list.

[RandomGuy]

(relaxes in the complete absence of poo-flinging noises)

[1369]

RG, it's simple, Mr. Smith has an unnatural man-crush on you.

[RandomGuy]

RG, it's simple, Mr. Smith has an unnatural man-crush on you.

Yeah, that's why I am playing hard to get. :nope