Presidential Election: 2012

[ProjectVRD]

The EPA was already attempting to force us away from coal. That is how technologically feasible it is. Fortunately the courts shut thst down. But the economic impact would be tough. I do not see any hints of a coal shortage. If that happened we would be hurting, but I'd wager on a petroleum shortage first. Coal even gets the added bonus of being available in in politically stable regions, so pipeline shortages aren't even an issue.

I can't at any point that says it is not technologically achievable, I admit that could be done within a decade. I also admit there is no shortage but only under certain circumstances. At the moment only about 2.5 billion of the population has ready availability to electricity on demand, the rest either put up with daily or even hourly brown outs, or do not have electric via power stations at all. We are now in a planet of 7 billion and under current usage there is alot of coal.

However, the 5.5 billion are now starting to catch up and that is where the shortage lays. These poorer nations will be building cheaper stations that are far more inefficient than those being built and used in already developed nations, so it is not just a case of lowering the reserves in accordance to each new plant being built. According to the World Coal Association there are just over 2300 coal plants in operation around the world, in the last 15 years over 600 have been built in china alone... and China is pretty small by population means compared to the rest of the world that doesn't have these power plants. Hundreds more are due to come online within the next decade.

World Coal Association says "The reserves to production (R/P) ratio provides an indicator of how long proved coal reserves will last at the current rate of extraction. BP calculated this to be 118 years for coal at the end of 2010.

So if we double the number of coal power stations in the next 15 years, which is probably quickly likely with China building yet more, India being another rising superpower, Brazil being another rising superpower, Russia ressurging... and all the other nations who cannot afford the likes of river dams etc... doubling that number is a real possibility. The reserves will be far less than half because of the poor designs.

Coal is central to the entire Energy Crisis which is universally predicted by businesses and scientists.

 

[Liquid]

I do not see any hints of a coal shortage. If that happened we would be hurting, but I'd wager on a petroleum shortage first. Coal even gets the added bonus of being available in in politically stable regions, so pipeline shortages aren't even an issue.

Is the problem with coal that, while we have a few hundred years or so of the stuff left, it's much deeper than we can currently get to? We would need more technologically advanced machinery and more skilled workmen to access it, which would cost a lot of money of course.

Put simply, my understanding is that we are running out of the coal we have access to, but there is a plentyful supply buried deep down. It's just getting to it. You never know, it could be a similar story with oil. I wouldn't put it past the oil companies to understate their reserves to increase price and profits.

 

[Danoff]

I simply cannot muster any concern for coal demand. Oil I can manage some concern for, but not coal.

 

[Keef]

Why are so many Redditors politically inept? Popular stories today include such things as FDR being a genius and and laying all economic blame on the banks. Life, for real? Kids these days.

I try to explain to people that the banks were doing what they're supposed to do - make money. If you create an environment where the only way they can make money is by doing everything wrong, then guess what? They're going to do everything wrong. Businesses are not some arbitor or morality, they're businesses.

 

[Omnis]

Because 90% of political redditors are morons like that Atheist guy.

 

[Joel]

"Obama needs more time! He can't fix the crappy situation Bush left him in just 4 years!"

"At least he's better than Romney!"

 

[FoolKiller]

World Coal Association says "The reserves to production (R/P) ratio provides an indicator of how long proved coal reserves will last at the current rate of extraction. BP calculated this to be 118 years for coal at the end of 2010.

This is what is hurting your point more than anything. We are supposedly just around the corner from peak oil and running out of other resources. I mean, we have been 20 years away from running out of oil and fresh water for the better part of 50 years now. If the predictions are wrong then 118 years for coal seems even less scary than it does at face value. If the predictions are eventually going to be correct then it won't be a lack of coal, but no way to power mining that is the problem. The only way the coal predictions worry me, even if our growth cuts that number in half, is if the coal prediction is dead on and everyone else continues to be wrong.

Is the problem with coal that, while we have a few hundred years or so of the stuff left, it's much deeper than we can currently get to? We would need more technologically advanced machinery and more skilled workmen to access it, which would cost a lot of money of course.

This is only an issue when environmentalists get their way. Much of the Appalachain coal is in mountains. Traditional shaft mines do have issues with depth and extraction, but as technology improves we have been able to open mines that were previously considered tapped.

But then there is the best way to guarantee extraction of 100% of the coal in a mountain. Strip mining. This is what the environmentalists hate, and it is easy to see why. One day you have a mountain. Then eventually you have this:

Coal cannot hide from demolition experts and bulldozers. There are other environmental issues that come with it as well. I will admit it is odd to be driving through the mountains and suddenly see one that just goes flat about halfway up. The new trend is to put the remaining dirt back and replant trees and whatnot, but that still doesn't satisfy protestors.

Anyway, we can get to coal, even if it means digging a crater in the ground.

 

[Liquid]

Fair point, fair point.

I know that Britain, and Wales especially, still has a rich supply of coal underground but the mines were closed during the 1980s. I can sort of understand why environmentalists don't want people to be blowing up the countryside, but frankly we need energy to maintain the world we live in and unless we all agree to live in stone huts and stop washing, which I highly doubt, we're going to need a consistent source of energy and coal is certainly one of them.

As the expression goes; needs must. Although I'd like to see more tidal power stations. But the environmentalists don't want flooded marshlands.

---

Bringing it back on topic... how is the election going? To us outsiders it looked neck and neck but Romney's gaffes look like derailing him.

 

[livemusic]

Couldn't you just switch to hydroelectricity?

 

[Keef]

Couldn't you just switch to hydroelectricity?

We don't exactly have a surplus of high-volume raging rivers that aren't jam packed full of shipping. Hydroelectric power has high potential and is most prominent out west, but is even more regionally limited than wind power. It's being used where it's viable.

 

[FoolKiller]

Couldn't you just switch to hydroelectricity?

What Keef said, and environmentalists again. Something about destroying habitats.

To give you an example of their issue, this is a rivers and lakes map of the state I live in.

Most of the large lakes are man made. The two big ones next to each other in the bottom left are large enough to actually create weather variances, making it hotter and humid in the summer and to have more snow in the winter. They both also have hydroelectric dams, but how many animal habitats were lost in their creation? No total answer is known because they were created before environmental impact studies were required. The area between them is a protected wetland area known as Land Between the Lakes. Kentucky has more shoreline, despite being landlocked, than Florida. That's a lot of wetland habitats to destroy.

The northern end of Lake Barkley has a coal shipping depot, where they use locks to minimize water mixing with the lake because the coal dust runoff has basically created a black sludge. They use evaporation pools to reclaim the coal and keep the sludge from entering the waterway, but the immediate surrounding area (maybe 50 feet from the shore) is dead.

And so, even creating lakes with protected parks around them requires fighting the environmental groups in court. In fact, hydroelectric, solar, wind, whatever will bring them out and environmental impact reports will be required.

Keep in mind we are the country that got DDT banned to save some birds, and now malaria is killing millions in Africa. But the birds lived.

 

[Jahgee]

Romney's smirk when Obama talks is hilarious

 

[theotherspongey]

Romney is so full of 🤬 that he knows it; that's why he's smirking.

*Runs and hides from all the Republicans

Oh, now he's talking about how Obama hasn't shrunk the deficit, well Romney, look how long it took Bush to ruin our balanced budget. 8 YEARS. NOT 4.

 

[Cowboys965]

This was posted by IndyCar driver Tony Kanaan via Twitter:

 

[sumbrownkid]

Either way Mr. Kanaan, Romney sounds like a try hard at the moment.

 

[Cowboys965]

Either way Mr. Kanaan, Romney sounds like a try hard at the moment.

"W-w-w-when you look at the Medicare"

 

[sumbrownkid]

Obama just pulled a "hey by the way my Obamacare is based on your Romney Care as Gov".

 

[Joel]

Romney is so full of 🤬 that he knows it; that's why he's smirking.

*Runs and hides from all the Republicans

Oh, now he's talking about how Obama hasn't shrunk the deficit, well Romney, look how long it took Bush to ruin our balanced budget. 8 YEARS. NOT 4.

Typical. Instead of finding something of merit that Obama said, you instead attack Romney, and attack someone who hasn't been in power since 2008. It's this kind of "debate" that is ruining political discourse in your country. Notice how I didn't say typical Democrat, because this garbage spans both of the two parties. People are too busy attacking the other side instead of looking at reality and realizing that it doesn't matter which of the two parties you vote for. Both sides are big government, big spending, pro handouts, and big military/military intervention (people seem to forget about Libya and Syria, but bring up Iraq constantly).

How on earth people still defend Obama is beyond me. The health care legislation is awful, and was stiff-armed through congress. He is so typical politician, but somehow seems to get off free in the minds of the public psyche. As a senator, Obama said he wanted to retract the Patriot Act, and promised to repeal it, talked about repealing the Patriot Act, shut down Guantanamo, protect Civil Liberties, and end the war in Iraq. Instead, you got expanded intervention into Libya, Syria, and Pakistan. US drones are flying over Pakistan and bombing hundreds, if not thousands of innocent civilians every day, but somehow Bush is a war hawk and Obama is peaceful?

I don't know how someone can support a president behind the NDAA, and one who extended the Patriot Act. Citizens executed without trial, surveillance drones on American soil, Guantanamo remains open. These are all things that Bush would be grilled for, but somehow Obama gets a free pass, it's absurd. Now don't for a second misinterpret me as a Romney supporter, he's awful too. But to claim that Obama is a better choice, based on his track record as president, is just absurd.

 

[Keef]

A famously sweaty anarcho-capitalist named Omnis once said:

The free market is regulated naturally by all those participating in trade. The signals that would normally direct people into making the best decisions have been obscured by fiscal and monetary policy of at least the past 2 decades. To stop the blinded man from walking off the cliff, you're crippling him before he can reach the edge. Why talk about slowing him down when you can just remove the blindfold so that he can turn around himself?

A great libertarian philosopher named Keith "Jew Fro" Rosenkranz, affectionately known as JFK, once observed:

The only good presidents are the ones you've never heard of; you've never heard of them because they never did anything they weren't supposed to do, which is most things.

 

[Omnis]

Mitt Romney Republicans are screaming at Obama: "Don't cripple him, he'll never be able to walk off a cliff again!"

The P stands for "Produces"

 

[Juiposa]

Well, in a surprising conclusion, I'd have to say Romney won that one. While many of his suggestions were idiotic, he was still answering the questions, not running circles around them like Obama did.

I do very much dislike Obama as well, just he seems to be the lesser of two evils. I hope to Christ Obama wins, Romney would take the US down the wrong path.

 

[FoolKiller]

I do very much dislike Obama as well, just he seems to be the lesser of two evils.

Which is still evil.

I hope to Christ Obama wins, Romney would take the US down the wrong path.

As you already pointed out, either choice will get you lost.

There are more than two horses in this race. Vote like you were meant to; for the guy that best represents you, not the guy who second-to-least represents you.

I don't care if you vote for Roseanne, just don't vote for a guy you admittedly know is a bad choice just because he isn't the worst choice. That is only slightly better than voting for a guy you hated four years ago because your party nominated him this year and you treat voting like its a team sport.

 

[Juiposa]

Which is still evil.


As you already pointed out, either choice will get you lost.

There are more than two horses in this race. Vote like you were meant to; for the guy that best represents you, not the guy who second-to-least represents you.

I don't care if you vote for Roseanne, just don't vote for a guy you admittedly know is a bad choice just because he isn't the worst choice. That is only slightly better than voting for a guy you hated four years ago because your party nominated him this year and you treat voting like its a team sport.

I live in Canada, so I can't do that If I were living in the US I would be voting for Gary Johnson. But in the incredible Two-Party loop you guys are stuck in, Obama or Romney will be President. And in that scenario, I hope Obama wins.

 

[FoolKiller]

I live in Canada, so I can't do that If I were living in the US I would be voting for Gary Johnson. But in the incredible Two-Party loop you guys are stuck in, Obama or Romney will be President. And in that scenario, I hope Obama wins.

Somehow I missed the Canada thing. If only we had a way to tell, like a little flag under your avatar... 💡



The sad thing is that people see the two party system and say that any other vote is just a waste and we must keep [insert candidate of evil] out of office. If everyone who felt that way voted third party the two party system would be broken.

What I really don't get is that the same people that think that way treating voting as a sacred right. Fact is it is no longer sacred because those voters sat idly by and let it be bastardized. They think there is nothing they can do when doing is what caused it.

 

[Keef]

I live in Canada, so I can't do that If I were living in the US I would be voting for Gary Johnson. But in the incredible Two-Party loop you guys are stuck in, Obama or Romney will be President. And in that scenario, I hope Obama wins.

I'm glad to hear you're agreeing with Johnson! That's a good thing. He's who I'll be voting for, 75% out of principle and 25% out of spite against Romney and his Republican cronies who effectively rigged the nomination process in his favor. A cheater doesn't deserve to win and without the support of people like me I doubt Romney has the backing to do it. If that puts Obama back in office then so be it, but at least 47% of the country will be so up in arms after another 4 years they might actually start shooting.

 

[Adamgp]

Romney owned the debate last night. Obama looked like a deer in headlights.

 

[Liquid]

I'm glad to hear you're agreeing with Johnson! That's a good thing. He's who I'll be voting for, 75% out of principle and 25% out of spite against Romney and his Republican cronies who effectively rigged the nomination process in his favor.

Earlier, I took one of the "Which candidate are you most similar to?" tests you posted a while back. I was 91% similar to Gary Johnson and 1% similar to Mitt Romney. But 75% similar to Barack Obama. Hmm.

 

[Joel]

I did one, got 96ish for Gary Johnson, roughly 35% for Obama, and 0% for Romney

Add me to the "Canadians who would be voting for Gary Johnson" crowd.

 

[Danoff]

So the debates then. Clearly Romney killed.

I'm not Romney supporter, and chances are I'm not voting for either republicans or democrats despite being in a swing state, but Romney definitely slaughtered Obama in the debate. Obama had no plans on anything it seemed, and spent the entire time attacking Romney's ideas (completely unsuccessfully) and calling for the status quo.

That was not a close call, Romney objectively won. It will be interesting to see what happens going forward.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Looks like Biden may have to tear Ryan a new one in their debates. Obama came off flat against Romney, though then again Romney also tried to always get the last word in. Obama needs more backbone next time.

And the moderator needs to be Samuel L Jackson or someone who will not accept being interrupted. The moderating last night was weak.

Biden really has to practice his material as the President clearly hasn't as his mannerism and speech delivery didn't have the same strengths as Romney's. That said, Romney needs to be more specific instead of just saying generalities and Obama needs to be more like 2008 debating Obama.

Come Oct 16, Obama better bring his old form back.