Bipartisanship, Dems with no ideas

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Tw has a systemic problem I perpetually bash him on: he thinks things would be perfectly all right if we could just leave dictatorships, and unfriendly dictatorships that control our friends' main energy sources, alone and unmolested.

Having resources, particularly vital ones, hostage to the unfriendlies, is -- well, how would you describe it? Parlous? Alarming? Scary? Undesirable? See a pattern here?

The problem with alternative energy ideas is one that is usually rather glossed over: they lack concentration. The very history of civilization is the history of devising more and more powerful and concentrated energy sources. To make things work on a large scale, you need to deliver lots of watts, in any quantity needed.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

The problem with alternative energy ideas is one that is usually rather glossed over: they lack concentration. The very history of civilization is the history of devising more and more powerful and concentrated energy sources. To make things work on a large scale, you need to deliver lots of watts, in any quantity needed.

Urbane Guerrilla's idea of intelligence is a 'big dic' mentality. His is bigger; therefore he must be more intelligent. Lurkers are warned that UG often brags about his superior intelligence.

He does same here. His political agenda is a solution for energy shortages. Numbers be damned.

The very history of civilization is always doing same with fewer resources. It’s called innovation. That means less energy every decade to accomplish a same task. A concept so hostile to right wing reactionary politics of Urbane Guerrilla. Innovation? There is no room for innovation in a world where only Urbane Guerrilla can be right. No wonder he never posts facts - only insults.

UG, show us how the Domino Theory was proven by Vietnam. Why did you go so silent when you were caught lying about Vietnam?

UG is promoting Cheney concepts: conservation is a formula for failure. UG advocates a world where innovation is a bad word. Urbane Guerrilla again rewrites the lessons of history rather than admit his political agenda is based in myths. Unfortunately that last sentence is only deja vue. That last sentence a warning to lurkers that Urbane Guerrilla's history is to declare himself of superior intelligence. That claim justifies his accusations and insults.

"They lack concentration". What does that mean? Did Rush Limbaugh teach you that nonsense?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

I was not caught lying, not having lied: some if not all of the dominoes in question did indeed fall: South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and we might as well add Burma to the list of screwed-up dictatorships -- regardless of ideological brand, dictatorships are more alike than different. Your denial of these points says much more about you than about me.

Under the heading of personal remarks, let me point out that your penis is too small to knock over dominoes, hard or soft, so you try and compensate here. All part of the pettiness that is tw, demonstrated as many times as anyone could think necessary.

I had really thought I had made clear what I meant by "they lack concentration." Go reread my post and at the last, comprehend that I mean greater and greater amounts of energy delivered in smaller times and smaller places. An example of "lacking concentration" is solar power. Fine stuff for set-and-forget DC, but how many watts does old Sol lay on the average square foot of Earth? Not really enough to power very much, and there's the matter of diurnal availability and overcast weather.

I said absolutely nothing, pro or con, re conservation. Make up stuff and lie to yourself about me, or anything, all you like, tw. It's your right, but it's also a stupid thing to do, isn't it? And your more egregious postings are met with embarrassed silence by anyone who'd like to be your partisan -- so yeah, I'm smarter than you are, by a high cut above. And you, you petty little wannabe, you cannot stand it. Fine. Scream like the baby you're not far removed from being. Rant like a three-year-old denied cookies. I'll watch. I'll smile, too. I don't need the last word, so long as I can have the best.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

... so yeah, I'm smarter than you are, by a high cut above. And you, you petty little wannabe, you cannot stand it. Fine. Scream like the baby you're not far removed from being. Rant like a three-year-old denied cookies. I'll watch. I'll smile, too. I don't need the last word, so long as I can have the best.

Insults and bragging about his superior intelligence. His posts are so predictable.

[Riddil]

~_0

I sense some hostility. History of bad blood? Without knowing any of the history, I do think UG has a respectable point. You look at the history of "power" and it's always driven not necessarily by concentration, but by peak output. It's just that the two have gone hand-in-hand for the greater part of history. We went from wood-burning steam-power, to coal, to gas, to refined gas, on and on to nuke-u-lar power.

But you also look at history of power development... the primary focus has never been about efficiency so much as raw output. But just as with computer processing power we're starting to reach the right wall, and in order to continue making advancement we're learning about novel ideas like efficiency. The biggest reason that cell phones can go for 3-4 days w/o a recharge as opposed to 8 hours like phones just 10 years ago isn't primarily because of battery improvements, but b/c we've gotten a lot more clever in power usage / consumption of the devices.

They've got "high efficiency" homes in CA that actually input power BACK to the power grid b/c they collect more than enough to run the home off of a small cluster of solar panels... power high-efficiency devices in the home. The theme here is if we cand find ways to be more efficient but accomplish the same tasks, then we'll be able to move back to lower-output energy, without loss of convenience.

But anyhow. The key to actually GETTING there is having the researchers working to make it happen.

(*apologies in advance for potentially stepping into some sort of forum feud*)

[xoxoxoBruce]

(*apologies in advance for potentially stepping into some sort of forum feud*)

Nonsense, the forum apologizes for your shoes.
UG keeps trying to convince us we should beat up the world and anyone who disagrees is not as smart as he thinks he is.
TW keeps presenting logical arguments in such an abrasive manner that people won't digest them.

We went from wood-burning steam-power, to coal, to gas, to refined gas, on and on to nuke-u-lar power.

Making electricity, yes, but it's still steam, just different fuels. A huge breakthrough would being able to store that electricity. That way the power plants could run balls out 24/7 instead of idling half the time.
Matter of fact, if we could store the electricity, we could power the whole damn country with lightning....... with enough power left over to produce all the hydrogen we could use.
But, it's much easier (and profitable for a few)to kick Canada's ass and take their oil.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Riddil

But you also look at history of power development... the primary focus has never been about efficiency so much as raw output.

The result was massive raw output. But what made that raw output so large? Countries that created more from less therefore vastly increased their raw output, productivity, wealth, strength, etc.

Need we cite what made Henry Ford's Model T and Model A so successful? Not for a minute more consumption. Henry Ford innovated - made more from less.

Take recent history as an example. Starting the in the 1970s, cars went from 18 MPG down to 10 MPG. This because Detroit was more concerned with raw output rather than innovating - emergence of the MBA as a corporate leader. Auto executives who did not drive were also blaming unfair competition, government intervention, etc rather than note all automotive innovation was stifled. Do you remember the late 1970s? Do you remember those cold winter days when at least one car every morning would not start? Jobs were scarce, incomes dropping, and everything was about cost controls - because (in part) we massively increased petroleum consumption. We also had to produce too many parts for each auto, too much time, too much labor, too much of everything that meant total output was diminished.

America, the third largest producer of oil, imported more than 50% of its oil. A massive increase in costs and decreased production because we stopped producing more with less.

By 1980s, with homes being insulated, with new innovations (and Japanese products) significantly increasing efficiency, then the economy turned around (other factors were also involved). Why did the auto industry get profitable? Same products manufactured from fewer parts, consumed less energy, required less time to build, etc. The restoration of America in the 1980s was characterized by innovation - doing more with less. Cars did same with only half the energy. Therefore America began growing again.

History is chock full of massive production created because that production took less to accomplish. Even a structurally inferior Sherman tank was so successful in WWII because massive production was made possible by doing more from less. Massive consumption did not make America wealthy and productive. Doing more with less created America's remarkable growth and power. Massive consumption is but a symptom of innovation - repeatedly doing more with less. The heart of so much growth is from America's secret weapons - nurtured by free markets, et al - innovation.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Riddil

I sense some hostility. History of bad blood?

There is no bad blood. There is only Urbane Guerrilla rewriting history and posting insults to justify an extremist attitude. My point about UG repeatedly is his inability to cite facts and details accurately. When caught in lies or half truths, he then posts insults. His same above claim about the Domino Theory was debunked by others. Note how he forgot to mention that part of that discussion. After watching him invent history to justify his political extremism, this and about 6 days of following posts resulted:
Understanding terrorism
Understanding terrorism