Michael Emrys Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 And China is really killing themselves with all the bad products they've been putting out lately. No point in importing cheap toys if they're tainted with lead. My experience with quality control on Chinese products has always been that it is their weakest point. In fact, much of the stuff entering the market 15-20 years ago was downright crummy. It seems to have improved some over the years on the higher-end stuff, like some electronics, and a few other items have been marvels of a kind. But they still have a long way to go in the quality department. Most everything from China that I pick off the shelf screams "cheap!" (in the derogatory sense) at me. Much of my discomfort at having Chinese made goods replacing US made, EU made, or even other-Asian made goods would go away if I wasn't taking a quality hit every time I had to buy something. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanzerkwVIIIMaus Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Personally? This may sound communist, but i hope the U.S. does change. Capitalism just isn't working out right now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Personally? This may sound communist, but i hope the U.S. does change. Capitalism just isn't working out right now. That sounds very similar to what many people in the west were saying in the 1930s. Or so Emrys tells me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Is that the difference between major economies and the also rans. Primitive Russia and Korea had the benefit of being dragged up byt he rest of the world is my guess 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris London Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 we are all stuck with each other on this pebble 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Actually, fairly self sufficient. Depends on what you mean by it. If you must have a color tv, vcr, and a ipod to live, well, things are going to suck. If you prefer good stuff to eat on your table, no sweat. You're forgeting petroleum. Our economy is dependent on massive amounts of foreign oil. And even if we drill the *&(*?! out of Alaska and the Continental shelf, and build craploads of Coal and Nuclear Power stations, Wind Power, etc., we'll be nowhere near energy self-sufficient for a couple of decades, at least. Weak dollar = very expensive gas, heating oil, etc. Better get used to carpooling and those little subcompacts. . . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 A couple of decades for energy self-sufficiency is a BS estimate. Sheesh, we went to the moon in less time. Hell, even Obama says he's going to get it done in less. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nidan1 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 A couple of decades for energy self-sufficiency is a BS estimate. Sheesh, we went to the moon in less time. Hell, even Obama says he's going to get it done in less. America was a different country back then....we were not mired in special interest on the grand scale we are now.....and all we had was one little war in Asia, and a pesky, bearded Cuban to worry about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 A couple of decades for energy self-sufficiency is a BS estimate. Sheesh, we went to the moon in less time. Hell, even Obama says he's going to get it done in less. And how many years has it been now since we've managed to put a human on another celestial body? Heck, NASA just announced that, once they retire the Space Shuttles (coming shortly), we're going to be dependent upon the Russians and Europeans just to put Americans into Space *at all* for a while (or maybe the Chinese will let us hitch a ride...). Don't get me wrong; shooting a few guys up to the moon to see if it was, indeed, made of cheese was a commendable accomplishment. But it doesn't compare to changing the entire energy production, transport, and consumption paradigm for a massive, post-industrialized economy. But seriously, I'd love to see a well-reasoned, supported projection that has the US reaching energy self-sufficiency in 20 years without *radical* lifestyle changes and/or running completely roughshod over the environment. Haven't seen one yet that doesn't involve doing something really radical like building 800+ new Nuclear Power plants or something like that (you want one in YOUR backyard?). Cheers, YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nidan1 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 As long as it is in your part of New York.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 As long as it is in your part of New York.... My point exactly. Even the most gung-ho Nuclear Power supporters seem to have a change of heart when the plans come out to plunk a plant or a radioactive waste site down in their own town. . . inevitably, NIMBY rears its ugly head. I'll believe we can solve our energy problems with Nuclear Power, when I start hearing those advocating more Nuke Plants volunteering their backyards as Nuke plant sites. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Got two already. Sure, add a couple more. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/states/statesmn.html According to the guv, build six and we're done, as far as electric goes. Yep, seems unsolvable to me... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subvet Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 My point exactly. Even the most gung-ho Nuclear Power supporters seem to have a change of heart when the plans come out to plunk a plant or a radioactive waste site down in their own town. . . inevitably, NIMBY rears its ugly head. I'll believe we can solve our energy problems with Nuclear Power, when I start hearing those advocating more Nuke Plants volunteering their backyards as Nuke plant sites. Well then, you are now a believer! You can put one in my backyard. I don't have a problem with it. Hell, I used to sleep within 40-50 feet of one; and, with my feet against a missle tube containing a missile with nuclear warheads on it. Living near a nuclear power plant isn't scary to me at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 @ Lars & Subvet. Great; I'll let the NRC know. I assume your neighbors are all good with it as well? And where do you get the figure of 6?! The reports I've seen say we'd need build two factors of magnitude more than that to a significant dent in our hydrocarbon consumption 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 2 provide 25% of the electric for MN. So 6 more… I said just electric. I'm not worried about fueling funny little cars. You could use the freed-up natural gas and coal for that though... So, build 350 more for the country, if we're just talking electric (we can keep the hydro, Hoover Dam is paid for), and there you are. You can now tell the Canadians and Mexicans to get stuffed. Oddly enough, purchase price would be around $1 trillion. Seems we print that kind of money all the time in this thread. ;^) And as for a place, I'd suggest just building the new reactors right next to the old reactor. btw, the new AP1000 is designed for mass production. Up and running 36 months after you start pouring concrete. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Ah, I see. You were taking about 8 total for the state of MN. I thought you were talking about the entire country. That's more in the line with the figures I've seen. For the record, I'm definitely not absolutely anti-nuke. I think building more nuke plants should be considered as one component of a comprehensive national energy plan. But IMHO it's critical any investment in Nuke power not be done at the expense of continued investment in more efficient energy consumption techologies and infrastructure, and also continued investment in developing other techologies like solar, wind, hydro and wave. Nuke energy is palatable to me as part of an interim solution to buy a few decades, not as a permanent fix. The big issue with Nuke to me is not so much the prospect of a reactor going China Syndrome, but rather the thousands of years half-life on the leftovers. If we need to use Nuke for a few decades as a bridge to cleaner technolgies, fine. Do so carefully, fill up a few deep caves in Nevada or whereever with the Nasty Stuff, seal it all up once we've developed something better and then move on. But we have to recognize we can't keep producing waste that's that toxic, for that long, indefinitely. We as a nation have developed a very bad habit of getting complacent when there's lots of cheap energy flowing in, and cutting off investment in more efficient and/or greener techologies for the future. Then we get caught with our pants down when the next energy crunch comes along. It's time to break this cycle, IMHO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nidan1 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 I dont have a problem with nuclear plants...what disturbs me is the graft corruption and downright ineptitude that seems to surround any large project these days. Back in the late 80's an attempt was made to build a nuclear plant in Shoreham Long Island. The then Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) proceeded to screw up every phase of construction and licensing , pushing cost overruns into the tens of millions of dollars. After soaking the tax payers and rate payers of Long Island, the project was abandoned right before the plant was due to go online because the requirements for emergency evacuation could not be met. These geniuses realized that it would be nearly impossible to evacuate nearly 2 million folks off of an island that had only one main road west that could handle the auto traffic. Can you imagine....the name of the company was Long Island Lighting, and it only struck them at the end of the project that they had to evacuate from an island. Its stuff like that which scares me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 I like the idea of the fast breeder - make your own fuel. And the spinoffs from the tech side of things should help kick along our decaying markets. Does the US have the same problem we do with Science / Engineering grads - i.e. too few because its hard to do? Could always import some from China and India. Heh, or North Korea. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Really liked this analysis. http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Asias-revenge-K8TBB?OpenDocument&src=is 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 That analysis was interesting. And are'nt i| due a turn : ) However it does raise the concern as to why lax regulation of lending was permitted. Who was asleep at the wheel? Would not mega-infrastructure projects used dollars and been more useful than allowing housing bubbles? Consider how beneficial it would have been for those billions to have gone into improved mass-transportation in densely populated areas, tidal power as per the Rance. The Bay of Fundy and the Severn Estuary are infinitely more useful but untapped. For sunnier climes solar energy has been under used - excepting Spain. The French centerist administration have always been able to look further into the future than the WASP capitalist nations and it shows. TGV, nuclear power, low household debt rate. Makes you wonder about the WASP governments abdication to market forces and the consequent efficiencies. Ballocks - the markets planning span is unlikely to be more than five years and often less and the criteria is maximised profit! Great way to run a country - not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 However it does raise the concern as to why lax regulation of lending was permitted. Who was asleep at the wheel? Would not mega-infrastructure projects used dollars and been more useful than allowing housing bubbles? The key factor, possibly the only one that received serious consideration, is that the real estate lobby had a much better organized campaign than the infrastructure construction lobby. Consider how beneficial it would have been for those billions to have gone into improved mass-transportation in densely populated areas, tidal power as per the Rance. The Bay of Fundy and the Severn Estuary are infinitely more useful but untapped. For sunnier climes solar energy has been under used - excepting Spain. The French centerist administration have always been able to look further into the future than the WASP capitalist nations and it shows. TGV, nuclear power, low household debt rate. Makes you wonder about the WASP governments abdication to market forces and the consequent efficiencies. Ballocks - the markets planning span is unlikely to be more than five years and often less and the criteria is maximised profit! Great way to run a country - not. I couldn't agree with you more. But what you have to realize is that suicidal stupidity plays well and far-sighted intelligence is boring. At least that's what they keep telling me. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 DT - turn is in. Lax lending policies can't compete with an absolute glut of money needing a home - the capital flows went to those countries with a history of incurring debt and a greater likelihood of repaying it. Tech has sort of gone sour since '99 - the consumer isn't too keen to pay for the next generation of data storage (tape to hard disk to floppy to cd to dvd to bluray - in twenty years) and the motivation for young uns has been to go into well paying fields - law, accountancy, business management, real estate, computer game design. Science and engineering - bah! leave it to those who need it. Long term decision making went out of fashion with annual performance bonuses - nobody is going to take on a cost that will reward the next CEO, that's just stupid. ME, the problem with electricity generation in sunny climes is - nobody lives in the desert (except the arab peoples - and they have the oil. Proof that god does have a sense of humour.) You can only transmit the energy so far before losses and other costs start to make the exercise prohibitive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bodkin Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 What's the price of soylent green at the moment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 If you have to ask, you can't afford it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bodkin Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 If you have to ask, you can't afford it. Well I'm not eating that soylent orange sh*t...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.