Gallup: Bush Approval Rating Lowest Ever for 2nd-Term Prez at this Point

Talk about biases.

In order for it to qualify as a WMD, it has to be capable of mass destruction. The decade old sarin warhead they found was barely enough to get a couple of soldiers sick, so simply did not qualify.

 

Hydrogen cars aren't going to mean squat unless you can fill them up at the corner station.

Until there are serious efforts at building a hydrogen infrastructure fuel cell driven consumer transportation is a distraction from more realistic things like hybrids or renewable fuels that can be used in internal combustion engines.

 

Those few shells that were found weren't WMD unless you mean Weapons of Minimal Destruction. They had long since expired as lethal WMD's. A find of old material that was no longer a WMD threat does not constituted a WMD find.

 

basso those rusty old decomposed shells (or should I say, shell) and a vial of Botox were no more Weapons of Mass Destruction than my own flatulence - which I should say, though considerable, is less of a stinker than your post, which I can't believe I even bothered responding too.

Best stick to Bush Doctrine 2.0 and forget this messiness.

 

You are right that the car means nothing without a refueling station. BUT the refueling station won't come until the car is affordable. Once the car becomes affordable, I don't think it will take too long for service stations/energy companies to start adding on hydrogen pumps to the current stations.

A revolutionary technology takes time to implement, but it's not a distraction. It has obstacles and they are slowly (actually not tooooo slowly) being overcome. Infrastructure issues are manageable and I've met a number of PE firms recently that are excited about those type of investment opportunities.

Hybrids are helpful and I suspect my next car will be a hybrid, but they're not a godsend. The Accord hybrid (which I reference instead of the Civic or Prius b/c it has more reasonable performance levels) is 30/37 vs. 21/30. That is helpful, but it is an intermediate step.

 

Is it me or does this thread seem all over the place?

Hydrogen power, media, WMD's, oil prices, Dallas Cowboys? Lets work in some Francis bashing and nairing ones nether regions and then we'll be talking about the ultimate Clutchfans thread!

 

You forgot one thing.

 

How much more political capital Dubya's gonna spend before he draws red?

Ironically, GM can't find a market in the US for hydrogen cars, so where are they banking their hydro line on? China

In fact, China plans to jump over brown to green in the next 20 years on a budget much smaller than the US's efforts, and they have entire cities to test it on. Their infrastructure isn't saddled to the petrol economy, and they're set for expanding their cities.

It's only practical for the Chinese to do so because if they increase fossil fuel consumption, there is no way to sustain that supply in the near future. They've also been investing in pebble bed reactor technology and other green solutions.

Our country used to its laurels and achievements is going to lag behind the times if it doesn't give itself a good kick in the ass.

 

No Worries, you sound worried!

Look, what is missed by your point is just how conservative many members of that Democratic majority were. Many, many members. Those conservative Democrats didn't always vote with the party. Sure, the Democrats were blessed with strong, pragmatic leaders, like Sam Rayburn and LBJ, but they were far from the "left-wing liberal wackos" as painted with the broad brush the Republicans and conservatives here, and elsewhere, so delight in using.

In short, there were a multitude of Democratic voices, of every ideological persuasion. Democrats in the more moderate and liberal areas of the country tended to elect moderates and liberals. Democrats in conservative areas, like the South, tended to elect conservative Democrats. What separated the Democratic Party of the past from that of today was the strong leadership they had, strong and effective, and the fact that they were strong in the South. They were the antithesis of the ultra-conservative, Christian Fundamentalist Republican Party leadership of today, their message of division and hate, and their obsessive desire to crush moderate Republicans who try to have their voices heard.

When LBJ pushed through the civil rights legislation in the '60's, he was told by angry conservative Democrats that he was going to cost the party the South. LBJ took the courageous position and shoved that legislation down the Dixiecrats throats. He knew what would happen because of it, but he knew what he was doing was the right thing to do.

The Party has suffered from that ever since, but I certainly have no regrets. Putting aside how it helped their party, do Republicans? Can Republicans of today give credit where credit is due? Or do they have to make the easy slam, and use their broad brush. Ask the blacks of this country how they feel, and then think about why they tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. They haven't forgotten.


Keep D&D Civil!!

 

A good friend of mine spent the last 3-4 years working for GM in China. GM isn't banking on China for their hydrogen line. They see it as one of the many opportunities. The Chinese government has given them lip service about being excited by a number of different possibilities and encourages foreign companies to pursue it. THat doesn't by any stretch of the imagination mean that the Chinese government will follow through.

People seem to forget that it's easier for countries that are new to industrial development to be "flexible" in a changing market. THat's a price we pay for our past success. But it's not a bad thing.

As for China becoming more environmentally conscious than the US in the next 20 years, I have two things to say: 1) I'll believe it when I see it. The Chinese government puts a lot of information out there, some is simply for PR, some is real and some is just to get short-term investment in the country. 2) Its easy to develop innovations on someone else's technology than it is to develop the initial technology in the first place. That's what China may be doing.

And don't forget, just b/c the US government isn't leading the research doesn't mean it doesn't occur in the US. A lot of private companies are looking for ways to do it, but since we are a capitalist country (unlike China), the efforts being made here aren't centralized and therefore may not be as widely known.

 

You, sir, have stepped over the line.

I will bid you good day.

 

Well I believe the market in China is more responsive to hydrogen cars than the market in the States, even if both are still small at the moment. GM is in a lot of hurt right now with their flagging domestic sales, their credit division and the pension crunch, so with China's market potential and fickle command economy, I'd say that's a great opportunity for them to make use of that hundred of millions of hydro R&D.

That's true, but entrenched markets impeding competition is a bad thing. I see telecoms trying to stifle Voice over IP because the new tech can rid the market of land lines and cell phones. Only recently have they relaxed on broadband. With hydrogen or other renewables, there's the potential to rid or chronically cripple the petrol infrastructure. The oil industry is very much aware of that.

Fair enough.
I get most of my China green news from Wired. A simple search on China at that site will provide several examples. They can integrate green buildings, pebble bed reactors, hybrid or hydro cars, and renewables quicker. Maybe they are specific cases. There's no a lot to feed on over here....

The rebuttal for argument 1 comes from a pragmatic sense. Their cities are severely polluted. They understand the coming of peak oil and geopolitical instability. Their middle class is starting to jump up to "Western needs" such as the car, the TV, and the air conditioner, but they don't have the particular needs we have right now, such as power, size, and speed.

With argument 2, they're following the Japan model. In the middle phase, they build cheap goods and dissect current technologies to flood the world market. Eventually they'll create their own technology. They're attempting to gain the advantage with hydro.

I agree. I make China a point because their command market allows them to change things on a macroscale instead of waiting for a market coddled by cheap gas to change. Stateside, wind power is becoming cheaper and competitive with coal power. Solar has the potential to become another dot.com boom with the right leadership and venture capital. I just feel that when comparing governments, the US is lacking and their vision is focused on dead organic matter.

 

I won't try and refute your point about the Chinese market being more responsive because I don't know enough. All I know is that consumers here don't consider it a possibility yet and if Chinese consumers consider it a possibility, they haven't been able to communicate that to manufacturers. Both are fine, by the way. Generally consumer don't communicate (or have) a desire for a product until it becomes clear that it is a reality.

As for GM, you're 100% right, they (and Ford) are in a world of hurt. They'll do anything they legally can to sell cars and reduce costs. I just wish they would try and sell cars by making better products rather than selling crappy cars for 0% financing and wish they would use more long-term thinking about how the treat their suppliers.

Abso-freaking-lutely. But the better, cheaper technology will win in the long-run. It may take longer to get there, but it will happen. And I'm fine with it taking longer if it means that we had a widespread use of cars, etc.

We're getting there, too. Hell, I am a sucker for performance cars. When a guy like me decides it may be smart for my next car purchase to be a hybrid, that's a sign that our society is starting to change, too.

Yup. And I hope they do it, too. I'm just saying don't blame the US (which you weren't) for taking step 1 & 2 in a technology just because someone else takes step 3.

Please, please, please don't support a dot com boom. That period represents little more than a transfer of wealth from one group of people to another. We threw away money supporting technologies and entrepeneurs that had no ability to provide us with a meaningful return. If solar power represents another dot com boom, hopefully we're a little smarter now and avoid that (thought I doubt we are).

China's command market does give them that "flexibility", but at the same time, it also has more than a few draw backs (I;m sure you wouldn't disagree), than make it far from worthwhile for our society.

Hopefully that post makes sense. If it doesn't, or if I misunderstood your post, I apologize in advance. It ain't my fault, though, blame the Long Trail.

 

A hydrogen economy will never happen! Hydrogen is simply an energy medium rather than a source. It's energy density is very low and the two ways of getting it, extraction from fossil fuels or water either brings us right back where we started or gives us a net loss of energy.

I'm mystified as to why so much effort is being put into fuel cells

Australia has the right idea, imo

 

I think we agree on a lot of principles. What I meant about the dot com boom is how Silicon Valley exploded with semiconductors, reinvented the world, and made the net possible. Now we have supercomputers running under our desks. We're so close with solar, but it isn't inevitable.

The US use to lead the world in alternate energy production. Now countries like Germany, Norway, and Britain have surpassed us, so I'm getting disillusioned with our immediate progress.