You may not like it, but it's not a strawman argument. If we were fracking in Uganda and shipping the gas here, no one would be complaining. Any serious environmentalist would rather we burn natural gas than coal or oil.

I'm not in a position to argue about why Americans use so much oil. But the fact is that they do, and if natural gas displaces that, then you calculate the net benefit. The only way oil comes out on top is Nimbyism and a disregard for the people we kill overseas.

> We've had LPG conversions available in Australia for decades

IN SOVIET RUSSIA, NATURAL GAS CONVERTS CAR

We have natural gas conversions here too but they're much less common, at least in cars. Most of the buses in Geelong were natural gas powered when I lived there (many, many years ago).

Your video, Natural Gas-Powered Car Explodes on Russian Highway, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Please show proof, URL?
This is the exact same line that people against solar tried to sell us 10 years ago...it was BS then, so I'm guessing it's the same today.

Lets see....How much taxpayer money, exactly, per KWH or per turbine (specify size in KWH and type), is being "wasted"? From your certitude I assume you must have a number. If you don't know that number, you can't possibly know if the money is 'wasted' or if it was a great deal for the amount of energy produced, and I'll believe you are simply stating opinion, not fact.

Over what time period are turbines "not paying for their investment"? Are you claiming that, over the full expected lifespan of an average turbine it costs more than making the same amount of electricity with coal? Or Natural gas? Do you include the cost of climate change in that calculation? Didn't think so.

What type of turbine are you talking about...or are you unaware that there are dozens of different designs, some which are not ugly, noisy, or harming any wildlife at all?

The rather rude BS thinking about solar energy is the same kind of rude BS thinking you are displaying, making claims that all turbines suck and should be abolished (paraphrasing you) without any science or math to back you up. On the other hand, just slight investigation shows at least some of your claims are outright wrong. It was about the BS, not the solar energy...understand now?

That doesn't mean that there are not some instances of the problems you describe, but most of them are problems from well over 10 years ago that have been solved. Just painting regular 3 prop turbines with ultraviolet paint reduces bird and bat strikes considerably...making a turbine that doesn't have props worked even better, and they work better at low and high speed wind.

You do know that the government pays the same kind of people to have electric lines on their property, and phone lines, and road ways, train lines, etc...whether they're being used or not, right? They're paying for the use of the land. This is not a new process in any way, or one used only for turbines by a long shot.

I think that you will find enriched uranium is not plutonium. Also, depleted uranium can't be used to make nuclear weapons explode, so I don't know exactly why you bring it up. To be clear, all nuclear nations main weapons plutonium has been made in a very specific way, a way that is inconstant with power generation. It is exactly because power generation reactor are so costly that they are relatively poor weapons materials creators, the method in which uranium needs to be removed from the neutron flux requires you to shut it down often. It is better to get a small, non-power generation reactor and crank out the plutonium. This is what India did with a small test heavy water reactor (CIRUS reactor). You need a reactor you can quickly turn on and off (and uranium extracted), then chemically reprocess the uranium, let it cool down, then put it back into the reactor. This laborious method is why power generation reactors are poor candidates for weapons material generation and why the current generation of weapons have not been made this way.

IAEA safeguards are important to make sure enrichment centers aren't diverting enriched uranium, sure. Plutonium should also have some safeguards as well, so don't take my words for a lack of concern or action on a world stage, I just believe for most, their concerns are blown way out of proportion to the actual risk.

But to reiterate, the relatively complex process to make weapons ready plutonium is why powered reactors aren't used in for weapons material for any of the worlds nuclear weapons nations, nor have any of the non-nuclear nations which have nuclear power and participate in NPT and IAEA systems been implicated in such actions. If Amory Lovins is the one forming your opinion on this, I would suggest a different source. It is like asking the CATO institute their opinion on climate change. I would consult the IAEA or some respectable international organization known for objective science rather than an anti-nuclear advocate. I, actually, fell for the same supposed expert (Amory Lovins) and was fairly anti-nuclear myself as a result. While there surely is some overlap between weapons technology and reactors, they are separate enough that safeguards can be highly effective. The existence of many nuclear powered states without nuclear weapons gives credence to their abilities. Only those countries who decide not to participate in NPT and IAEA systems have been the players known to developing weapons, most notably North Korea.

IAEA Safeguards: Stemming the Spread of Nuclear Weapons

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/S1_Safeguards.pdf

I think he is pessimistic is because energy use is also in growth, usually from coal. When you similarly look at CO2 emissions over the past decade, they aren't going down...every year is a new record. Even in IEA's 450 Scenario, "oil, coal and natural gas — remain the dominant energy sources in 2035"...this is a problem.

I can't find a notable environmental group that endorsees nuclear at all. Like the public, most environmental NGOs don't really make a distinction in reactor types. Nuclear is nuclear is nuclear. From friends of the earth to greenpeace, they are all pretty proudly anti-nuclear, with only local chapters of FoE even remotely interested in revisiting their views.

At any rate, I hope you aren't finding me to be combative or argumentative, I am not the best communicator of controversial issues. But I think climate issues are forcing us into a pretty thick walled box which will be hard to breakout of even in the most optimistic technological factors, which is why even if every single concern people have about nuclear is completely justified, waste, weapons, ect, we would most likely still need to build lots and lots of nuclear to even hope to address climate issues...they are that challenging.

ok.
i am reading your response.
and trying to follow your logic..
it is..confusing.
i do not mean that in a critical way.it literally is confusing.

so let me understand this.
you think that because people pointing out the hypocrisy on american foreign policy somehow translates to a moral relativism in regards to assad?
that one is more evil than the other?
and to point to one means to ignore the other?

ok.
which one is MORE evil:
1.the assad regime which has been brutal on its own citizens.beheadings,executions in the street.the people are in a constant state of fear.
this is a common tactic for brutal dictators.fear and intimidation and when then start getting out of control? killings and maimings.of the public kind.
assad has been on the human rights watch for decades.
he is a monster.
or.
2.america and britain have been sending weapons and training a weak rebel force (for the past few years btw).after the outbreak of violence of the arab spring and assads decending hammer of escalating violence the rebels find their ranks being filled by alqeada,muslim brotherhood and other radical muslim factions.
which has the culminative effect of not only creating the civil war but prolonging it.
death tolls of innocents rising.
displaced syrians in the millions.

which of these two are "more" evil?
both caused death.
both caused suffering.
or do you think training and arming rebel factions which only serves to prolong the conflict less evil?

while evil is an arbitrary and subjective word the answer is BOTH are evil.
on a basic and human level BOTH bear responsibility.

let us continue.

now america has had a non-interventionism policy so far.just supplying training and weapons and prolonging the civil war and henceforth:the violence,death,maiming and suffering.

then two things quietly happened.
syria russia and china (iran as well) began talks to drop the petrodollar AND assad refusing a natural gas pipeline through syria (probably in order to not piss off russia).

when you realize that americas currency is almost solely propped up by the petrodollar,the current white house rhetoric starts to make more sense.

this is why evidence on who is responsible for the chemical attacks is important because the united states government used THAT as its reason for NOT entering the conflict (even though it already was involved,but not directly).the united states didnt want to get directly involved.
until the pipeline and petrodollar talks started to surface.

and then as if by magic.
a chemical attack is executed.
now assads army was winning,on all fronts.
why would he risk international intervention if he was winning?
now i am not saying that dictators and tyrants dont do dumb things,but that is dumb on an epic level.
doesnt make sense.
doesnt add up.

so the whole drumbeats for war now.
which were non-existent a month ago...
are all about "humanitarian" and "human rights" and a new "axis of evil".

bullshit.plain and simple.

this is about oil.
about the petrodollar.
this is about big business.

bryzenscki called this 20 yrs ago in his book "the grand chessboard"

and that is my counter argument.
and by your last post on my page i think you agree in some fashion.

now,
let us discuss your "final solution".
oh my friend.you accused so many of being naive.
reading your conclusion i can only shake my head.
not that i dont appreciate your time or that i dont see maybe why you feel that way.
i just dont think you grasp the enormity of it and have listened to one too many of the uber-rights "paper tiger" argument.

if we choose the path you think is the best to put assad on his heels.
america launches a limited strike on assad forces.
and lets say those strategic targets are 100% incapacitated (unlikely,but this is hypothetical).
what then?
have you considered what the reaction of russia,china,iran,saudi arabia, might be?
because according to international LAW,without a united nations concensus.russia and china AND iran would have the right to step in,set up shop and tell you to go fuck yourself.they would dare you to cross that line.
and what then?
do you cross it? and under what grounds?
you have (and when i say YOU i mean america) already disregarded every single policy put forth in regards to international law.the irony is the you (america) were vital in the creation of those very laws.(we rocked that WW2 shit son).

so pop quiz jack.what do you do?
do you really think you can ignore russia and china?ignore the international community?
do you really think the american government gives two shits about people dying in another country?
(checks long list of historical precedent)
not..one..bit.

here are the simple facts.
YOU are a compassionate human being who is outraged over the suffering and execution of innocent people.
YOU.
and i and pretty much everybody with a soul and a heart.
but YOUR argument is coming from that outrage.and man do i wish i was your age again.
god i admire you for this alone.
but the simple,hard and ugly fact is:
this country is about its own business of empire.
they could not give a fuck who is dying or being oppressed,tortured or enslaved.
i will be happy to provide the links but please dont ask...i dont wish to see your heart break anymore than it already has.
you and i live under the banner of an empire.this is fact.
this empire only cares about its own interests.

so let us talk about the very thing that is the emotional heart of the matter shall we?
the syrian people.
how do we alleviate their suffering?
how do we quell the tidal wave of dying?

a limited strike on strategic targets would help the innocents how exactly?
by bombing them?this is your logic?
or is "collateral damage" acceptable? and if so..how much?
do you realize that there are no actual 'strategic targets".assads troops are embedded just as much as the rebels are.
so..where do you hit for maximum effect?
and how many innocent deaths are acceptable?
and if the goal is to weaken assads forces,to level the playing field,wouldnt this translate to an even MORE prolonged conflict?
and wouldnt that equal even MORE innocent people dying?

this scenario is WITHOUT russia,china or iran intervening!

you are killing more and more people that i thought you wanted to save!
what are you doing man? are you crazy!

so i ask you.
what are your goals?
is it revenge?
is it regime change?
do you wish to punish assad?

then assasination is your only true option that will get the results you want and save innocent lives.

in my opinion anyways.

this is why i choose the non-intervention or the negotiation route.
yes..there will still be violence but only to a point.
when negotiations begin there is always a cease fire.
in that single move we stopped the violence.
this will also have the effect of bringing other international players to the table and much needed food,supplies and medical for the syrian people.

all kinds of goodies for the syrian people who are in such desperate need of help.
wanna go with me? ill volunteer with ya!

so which path is better for the syrian people?
a limited strike which at the very least will prolong this vicious civil war.
or negotiations which will bring a cease fire,food,water,medical help,blankets,clothes and smiles and hugs for everyone!

are ya starting to get the picture?

i have lived on three continents.
met and lived with so many interesting and amazing people.
learned about so much and was graced and touched in ways that are still incredible for me to explain.
and you have got to be the most stubborn mule i have ever met...ever.

but kid.you got some serious heart.
so you stay awesome.
namaste.

*edit-it appears assad may be the culprit.syria just accepted russias offer to impound the chemical weapons.so we know they have them.lets see what the US does.
i still think you are going to get your wish for military action.so dont be getting all depressed on me now.

well shit, NC should just elect that neurologist who thinks he's been to heaven and back, kill anyone that advocates peace, and use a nuke to frack that natural gas up to profitability.

Right again, Mr. Chomsky. Then after the rubes have been softened up, enter the smarmy, two-faced Barack Obama, whose plan to save us from global warming is a such a hack job that it's hardly worth the industry shills (like the ones taking up so much space commenting here) to bother with. Like his gift to the insurance industry -- America's sad excuse for "universal health care" -- Obama's environmental "program" is just another load of pretty B.S. thrown up to cover his real agenda, which in this case is to hand over the keys to America's energy industry to people like Dick Cheney, whose hands might as well be guiding the marionette strings coming out of his back. The "president" really doesn't have a choice about pushing natural gas; he sold out to the oiligarchs while still a do-nothing Senator. But that doesn't mean the few of us who are awake and aware shouldn't scream at him about it and do everything in our dwindling power to make him and the rest of the gasoholic cabal wish they'd never been born. Indeed, part of what the moribund U.S. environmental movement needs -- and in particular the fractured and chronically outclassed anti-fracking movement -- is a significantly angrier soundtrack, not bogged down with insipid musical baggage from old, hippy-dippy environmental campaigns. Pete Seeger and his sweet, smiling ilk don't cut through all the background noise any more. With that in mind, here's a new American anthem guaranteed to stir the soul of any red-blooded environmentalist, as well as lure a few emotionally sensitive people over from the dark side. Feel free to use it. Scream your anger! soundcloud.com/biff-thuringer/to-america

fake crater, indeed. that's natural gas burning

Ever see how they process natural gas? "Clean" energy is not what I'd call it at all.

That is a propane filling station or liquefied natural gas. Not regular gasoline or petrol for sure.

Modern inverter air conditioners can modulate the out going air temperature (they vary the compressor speed). Natural gas home heaters can also vary the out going air temperature (they burn more or less gas as needed).

So it depends on what sort of heater/cooler you are using.

Yes, this is part of the new gas extraction craze taking off around the world. In many cases, the natural gas, including methane, isn't worth collecting, it is easier to just burn it then to try and sell it. Usually they are after the liquid hydrocarbons in these new deposits that horizontal mining has allowed access too. One might point to some sinister aim in this kind of venting, but I imagine this offgassing happened outside their control, bubbling up outside of their containment. This can happen if care isn't taken or some geological factor comes into play which you didn't account for...it is a pretty neat science actually, gives geologists something new to do and map out. Generally speaking, if your venting gasses, your also venting the stuff you are trying to collect, which is undesirable, even more so if it is the gasses your after (and depending on the regional prices, that is usually what they are after, australian deposites are usually pretty low in liquid hydrocarbons, meaning they are usually after gas in the land down under). I just posted a very long winded video on the subject if you wish to learn more details about the environmental and health impacts of fracking and new gas extractions technologies. In the end, it might just be a new hydrocarbon to burn and throw into the atmosphere and cause harm. Butin the short term, it might be a good tool for destroying the coal lobby making way for actual low carbon systems to come online like solar, wind and nuclear. Like all things in life, its complicated with benefits and consequences.

>> ^doogle:

Wrong Asian country, ignoramus.
When China takes over, they'll make sure you know that.
Or not. They may just sing you Bee Gees music because AMERICA, FUCK YA!
>> ^BoneRemake:
gungnam style !
heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

sexyyyyyyy laaaaaaaaaaadyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy



Your all wrong, I just said that because I figure they will be making memes of everything with this new CRAZY SONG the young kids listen to.

Doesnt matter what country it is, you are going to see baby monkeys open their eyee for the first time videos with that song over lapping it.

no need to apologize though, we are all assholes at sometime or another.