candooman's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/38000/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/179350-why-i-m-betting-on-usec?source=feed#comment-816990 816990 Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:47:47 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/179166-the-nuclear-industry-will-settle-for-25-30-new-plants-by-2030?source=feed#comment-816050 816050
CO2 emissions need to be reduced rapidly, like halved in the next 10-20 years to keep at or below the 380 - 400 ppm "tipping point" limit. The only way to accomplish this with certainty is to replace coal power plants with nuclear power. Building only 20 to 30 nuke plants won't cut it; it should be just a short starting point. We need 100 + of the current design built as quick as we can. Big problems need big solutions.

True, the current advanced nuke plant designs are not renewable. However, Fast breeder type reactors are better than renewable for these make more fuel than they use; call this a 'forever' power source. The research stopped by Pres Carter in the late 70's need to be revived, completed quickly and applied.

For more major reductions in CO2 generation, the US has to start building electric trains throughout the country ( interstate, intrastate and in cities) like they have done for decades and continue to do in Europe and Japan. With a good electric train infrastructure, most diesel trains can be phased out together with most long haul diesel powered trucks. (The remaining trains and trucks can be converted to use LNG to further lower CO2 emissions.) 24/7 base load nuke power is required here; wind and solar cannot be counted on.

We are already moving to electric cars and hybrids which further reduces CO2 emissions. Power will have to come from baseload plants -- again more nuke power -- supplanted by wind and solar.

Commercial building and residential housing heating and air conditioning and appliances need to switch to all electric. Again more nuke power -- supplanted by wind and solar -- will be needed.

[Gas, oil and coal will still be used but relegated to minor roles in our daily life.]

If we as a nation get serius on CO2 reduction, we have 50 - 80 years of work ahead of us. This addresses our nations' need to not just create jobs, but create several millions of meaningful jobs. And we can start right now if we push our politicians hard to provide for our country's needs. Let us revive our high value manufacturing industries and technical enterprises.

One last item: nuclear waste. We will eliminate most of the waste fuel by reprocessing them. The rest we can take care of by conducting further research and implementing the best solutions. Let us start by letting our scientists and engineers study what the Europeans and Japanese have already done and build up from that. This area alone will generate thousands of highly paid and very meaningful steady jobs.

Let us set aside the space program and direct our resources to solving our CO2 problem that treatens our very 'comfortable' existence on earth. Let us wean our way out of dependence on imported oil and achieve much better homeland security.]]> Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:02:04 -0500
CO2 emissions need to be reduced rapidly, like halved in the next 10-20 years to keep at or below the 380 - 400 ppm "tipping point" limit. The only way to accomplish this with certainty is to replace coal power plants with nuclear power. Building only 20 to 30 nuke plants won't cut it; it should be just a short starting point. We need 100 + of the current design built as quick as we can. Big problems need big solutions.

True, the current advanced nuke plant designs are not renewable. However, Fast breeder type reactors are better than renewable for these make more fuel than they use; call this a 'forever' power source. The research stopped by Pres Carter in the late 70's need to be revived, completed quickly and applied.

For more major reductions in CO2 generation, the US has to start building electric trains throughout the country ( interstate, intrastate and in cities) like they have done for decades and continue to do in Europe and Japan. With a good electric train infrastructure, most diesel trains can be phased out together with most long haul diesel powered trucks. (The remaining trains and trucks can be converted to use LNG to further lower CO2 emissions.) 24/7 base load nuke power is required here; wind and solar cannot be counted on.

We are already moving to electric cars and hybrids which further reduces CO2 emissions. Power will have to come from baseload plants -- again more nuke power -- supplanted by wind and solar.

Commercial building and residential housing heating and air conditioning and appliances need to switch to all electric. Again more nuke power -- supplanted by wind and solar -- will be needed.

[Gas, oil and coal will still be used but relegated to minor roles in our daily life.]

If we as a nation get serius on CO2 reduction, we have 50 - 80 years of work ahead of us. This addresses our nations' need to not just create jobs, but create several millions of meaningful jobs. And we can start right now if we push our politicians hard to provide for our country's needs. Let us revive our high value manufacturing industries and technical enterprises.

One last item: nuclear waste. We will eliminate most of the waste fuel by reprocessing them. The rest we can take care of by conducting further research and implementing the best solutions. Let us start by letting our scientists and engineers study what the Europeans and Japanese have already done and build up from that. This area alone will generate thousands of highly paid and very meaningful steady jobs.

Let us set aside the space program and direct our resources to solving our CO2 problem that treatens our very 'comfortable' existence on earth. Let us wean our way out of dependence on imported oil and achieve much better homeland security.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/172115-cds-regulation-just-one-simple-rule?source=feed#comment-752298 752298
In order to put a check on people's destructive behaviors, sellers of CDS' should be required to have 20% assests backing up all their risks exposures. To prevent buyers of CDS' from gaming the system (and allowing Sellers' collusion), they should be limited on how much CDS' they can buy, say 80% of their bond obligation. This is similar to a homeowner's insurance deductables - a disincentive to bad behavior. All this have to be embedded into law and with heavy penalties (mandatory jail time) for individuals and corporate management who push their employees - directly or indirectly - to violate them. Fining Corporations do not work.

This may sound harsh but look at the millions of people now out of work, having their houses foreclosed, loosing their other assets, etc. And what happened to the perpetuators? Why, they of course were rewarded with big bonuses and salaries..... a big portion of which was subsidized by who else but US, the taxpayers. I am still thinking of how to penalize our lawmakers who created laws to make this all happen. Booting them out of office is too mild a punishment ... and some do not get punished at all --- Gramm, Barney Franks, etc.]]> Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:59:21 -0500
In order to put a check on people's destructive behaviors, sellers of CDS' should be required to have 20% assests backing up all their risks exposures. To prevent buyers of CDS' from gaming the system (and allowing Sellers' collusion), they should be limited on how much CDS' they can buy, say 80% of their bond obligation. This is similar to a homeowner's insurance deductables - a disincentive to bad behavior. All this have to be embedded into law and with heavy penalties (mandatory jail time) for individuals and corporate management who push their employees - directly or indirectly - to violate them. Fining Corporations do not work.

This may sound harsh but look at the millions of people now out of work, having their houses foreclosed, loosing their other assets, etc. And what happened to the perpetuators? Why, they of course were rewarded with big bonuses and salaries..... a big portion of which was subsidized by who else but US, the taxpayers. I am still thinking of how to penalize our lawmakers who created laws to make this all happen. Booting them out of office is too mild a punishment ... and some do not get punished at all --- Gramm, Barney Franks, etc.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/171481-breaking-up-the-banks-how-likely-is-legislation?source=feed#comment-746994 746994
1) reinstate Glass-Steagall Act (cancel the 1998 act by Gramm - the name of which escapes me - that essentially repealed GS).
2) regulate all derivatives, CDS, etc. as espoused by Blesley Born when she headed the OTC before being pushed out by Rubin, Greenspan and Summers.

Ask Volker and Born to spearhead the effort, with Born back in the OTC to get it going. These two civil servants will be more than happy to serve again if Obama asks then too. They both love their country very much.

For more than 60 years, until repealed, GS served our nation very well. History has shown that what Born wanted to do at OTC was the right thing to do and the crash of 2008 showed her prediction was, unfortunately for us, very accurate.]]> Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:34:25 -0500
1) reinstate Glass-Steagall Act (cancel the 1998 act by Gramm - the name of which escapes me - that essentially repealed GS).
2) regulate all derivatives, CDS, etc. as espoused by Blesley Born when she headed the OTC before being pushed out by Rubin, Greenspan and Summers.

Ask Volker and Born to spearhead the effort, with Born back in the OTC to get it going. These two civil servants will be more than happy to serve again if Obama asks then too. They both love their country very much.

For more than 60 years, until repealed, GS served our nation very well. History has shown that what Born wanted to do at OTC was the right thing to do and the crash of 2008 showed her prediction was, unfortunately for us, very accurate.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/165206-sirius-can-avoid-bankruptcy?source=feed#comment-707456 707456 Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:36:20 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/164463-greenspan-still-clueless-on-moral-hazard?source=feed#comment-700491 700491 Fri, 02 Oct 2009 14:26:52 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/164173-rail-transport-why-can-t-we-learn-from-europeans?source=feed#comment-698907 698907
One thing I do not understand is why we do not use elevated light rail in cities when it is so much cheaper and safer than surface light rail. They work well in Las Vegas and Chicago.]]> Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:12:31 -0400
One thing I do not understand is why we do not use elevated light rail in cities when it is so much cheaper and safer than surface light rail. They work well in Las Vegas and Chicago.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/164173-rail-transport-why-can-t-we-learn-from-europeans?source=feed#comment-698898 698898
What we need to do is pursue all avenues - solar, wind, nuclear - in parallel to bring down our CO2 foot print as rapidly as we can. Current bills in our House and Senate does not include nuclear which seem to indicate a lack of political will or understanding of the big picture.]]> Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:02:34 -0400
What we need to do is pursue all avenues - solar, wind, nuclear - in parallel to bring down our CO2 foot print as rapidly as we can. Current bills in our House and Senate does not include nuclear which seem to indicate a lack of political will or understanding of the big picture.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160541-judge-s-message-to-rating-agencies-free-speech-not-freedom-to-defraud?source=feed#comment-669150 669150
All this could have been stopped at the doors of the rating agencies, the last barrier. But again, big money (large executive bonuses) came into play. Those insider who had the moral turpitude recognized the scam and refused to go along...and as expected, were fired.

All these events and actions were clearly explained and discussed on several programs for the last six months on 60 Minutes, NOW, Bill Moyers, Newshour with Jim Lehrer and even the 3 networks. I hope ... this is a big hope ... those who were fired would all be put on the witness stand to testify on what went on inside the CRA agencies and bring down this free speach defense. We shall see in the next few months if this Judge and the other one (can't remember his name) who is not accepting the BofA/SEC bonus case settlement can really do justice for the American people.]]> Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:21:36 -0400
All this could have been stopped at the doors of the rating agencies, the last barrier. But again, big money (large executive bonuses) came into play. Those insider who had the moral turpitude recognized the scam and refused to go along...and as expected, were fired.

All these events and actions were clearly explained and discussed on several programs for the last six months on 60 Minutes, NOW, Bill Moyers, Newshour with Jim Lehrer and even the 3 networks. I hope ... this is a big hope ... those who were fired would all be put on the witness stand to testify on what went on inside the CRA agencies and bring down this free speach defense. We shall see in the next few months if this Judge and the other one (can't remember his name) who is not accepting the BofA/SEC bonus case settlement can really do justice for the American people.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160581-sirius-xm-s-nasdaq-non-compliance-opportunity?source=feed#comment-667874 667874 Wed, 09 Sep 2009 09:16:49 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/158800-energy-secretary-chu-wimps-out-again?source=feed#comment-651994 651994
Chu has yet to understand that there is no such thing as clean coal. Assuming coal can be cleaned (which researchers know can't be done economically), how much of the CO2 generated by burning coal can be captured, pumped and sequestered underground and for how long? When the underground storage is filled up in a few years, what then? He is pursuing and spending our limited resources and time on somthing that has no future.

Instead of pursuing clean coal he should be spending money on completing the research in the nuclear field. He should start a Manhattan type projects to complete a prototype on fast breeder reactor, pebble bed reactor and thorium fueled reactors which can supply us with electric power for centuries or more to come. Nuclear can replace not only coal power plants but indirectly, a good part of the energy we use for transportation. More cars will be electric, most deisel/electric trains can be converted to full electric, electric light rail can be returned for city transport, etc. Oil and gas will still play a big role in transportation (airplanes and big ships specially) but will be a much smaller percentage of the total world enery consumption. It is the answer to reversing climate change. It also is a great opportunity to make us less energy dependent. This is the big picture not only Chu is missing but also Obama and Congress.

As to natural gas, no matter how much you sugar coat it, it still procues CO2 as it's end product when burned as fuel. Hence, it is not a good answer. Natural gas is really best used as feedstock for the chemical industry for making medicine, plastics, fabricks, etc.]]> Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:13:03 -0400
Chu has yet to understand that there is no such thing as clean coal. Assuming coal can be cleaned (which researchers know can't be done economically), how much of the CO2 generated by burning coal can be captured, pumped and sequestered underground and for how long? When the underground storage is filled up in a few years, what then? He is pursuing and spending our limited resources and time on somthing that has no future.

Instead of pursuing clean coal he should be spending money on completing the research in the nuclear field. He should start a Manhattan type projects to complete a prototype on fast breeder reactor, pebble bed reactor and thorium fueled reactors which can supply us with electric power for centuries or more to come. Nuclear can replace not only coal power plants but indirectly, a good part of the energy we use for transportation. More cars will be electric, most deisel/electric trains can be converted to full electric, electric light rail can be returned for city transport, etc. Oil and gas will still play a big role in transportation (airplanes and big ships specially) but will be a much smaller percentage of the total world enery consumption. It is the answer to reversing climate change. It also is a great opportunity to make us less energy dependent. This is the big picture not only Chu is missing but also Obama and Congress.

As to natural gas, no matter how much you sugar coat it, it still procues CO2 as it's end product when burned as fuel. Hence, it is not a good answer. Natural gas is really best used as feedstock for the chemical industry for making medicine, plastics, fabricks, etc.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/149157-why-coal-is-inevitable?source=feed#comment-591516 591516
To sequester CO2, first it must be captured from the high velocity gas stream going out the boiler and into the chimney and out into the atmosphere. If you have observed a power plant chimney in full operation you will see this very high volume of hot CO2 gas flowing out of the large diameter chimney stack. This gas flow has to be captured and then compressed with very large compressors, run the compressed gas into pipes that sends the gas into the ground..... into some cavern deep into the earth.

Two big problems. First is, to compress the gas, 30-50% of the output power generated by the coal powered power plant is needed. This CO2 capturing plant itself will cost more than the power plant. Second, let us assume somehow that the capturing plant is economically feasible (which it is not) so we can continue the discussioon. The captured and complressed CO2 is now sent to some deep storage spaces below the earth. How long (assuming it exists in the right locations) will it take to get filled up with enormous daily volume of CO2 gas from the power plant? Not very long! Can't store anymore CO2. Then what? We are back where we started.... meaning the CO2 is then again released straight into the atmosphere...and consequent addition to global warming.

Anyone who have taken College Chemistry will understand my logic. [Why Steven Chu who has won a Nobel Prize cannot understand this and does not shoot down CS ideas is beyond me.]

The only significant solution to global warming is building more nuclear power plants. Phasing out coal and phasing in nuclearpower will take 30 years plus. People can adjust over this time period. We need to start with the nuclear power plant design we know followed by more advanced designs that are inherently safer and cannot be used to produce atomic bombs. We need to start building prototypes of various designs of nuclear palnts (which includes plants that use safer and more abundant thorium instead of uranium) as we build new one to replace coal plants and the old nuclear plants built in the 60's and 70's. ]]> Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:56:43 -0400
To sequester CO2, first it must be captured from the high velocity gas stream going out the boiler and into the chimney and out into the atmosphere. If you have observed a power plant chimney in full operation you will see this very high volume of hot CO2 gas flowing out of the large diameter chimney stack. This gas flow has to be captured and then compressed with very large compressors, run the compressed gas into pipes that sends the gas into the ground..... into some cavern deep into the earth.

Two big problems. First is, to compress the gas, 30-50% of the output power generated by the coal powered power plant is needed. This CO2 capturing plant itself will cost more than the power plant. Second, let us assume somehow that the capturing plant is economically feasible (which it is not) so we can continue the discussioon. The captured and complressed CO2 is now sent to some deep storage spaces below the earth. How long (assuming it exists in the right locations) will it take to get filled up with enormous daily volume of CO2 gas from the power plant? Not very long! Can't store anymore CO2. Then what? We are back where we started.... meaning the CO2 is then again released straight into the atmosphere...and consequent addition to global warming.

Anyone who have taken College Chemistry will understand my logic. [Why Steven Chu who has won a Nobel Prize cannot understand this and does not shoot down CS ideas is beyond me.]

The only significant solution to global warming is building more nuclear power plants. Phasing out coal and phasing in nuclearpower will take 30 years plus. People can adjust over this time period. We need to start with the nuclear power plant design we know followed by more advanced designs that are inherently safer and cannot be used to produce atomic bombs. We need to start building prototypes of various designs of nuclear palnts (which includes plants that use safer and more abundant thorium instead of uranium) as we build new one to replace coal plants and the old nuclear plants built in the 60's and 70's. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/141072-at-t-does-sirius-xm-have-a-new-competitor?source=feed#comment-530495 530495 Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:20:48 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/136687-why-is-canadian-housing-and-banking-stronger-than-the-u-s?source=feed#comment-498933 498933
The differences I found then were (I do not know if this is still true today):

1) Universities throughout Canada were almost equal in quality. I worked with graduates from differnt universities and the quality were the same -- all good. I did not encounter a single engineer from a diploma mill like here in the US.

2) People were considerate and polite regardless of whether they finished high school only or college. I attribute this to the quality of home training and good elementary and high schools. Boistrous behavior did not exist among Canadians. The few times I witnessed it usually was of an American who came over to Canada for a short visit. [Americans and other foreigners who lived there long enough changed their ways soon enough....I did, as well as all my other friends.]

Just these two differences alone explains much of the differences between how business behave in the US and Canada. One of the first engineering assignments I was given was to eliminate the polution and waste being generated by the plant I worked at. This was long before the EPA was formed in the US. This is just one example of good corporate behavior practiced there.]]> Mon, 11 May 2009 10:53:50 -0400
The differences I found then were (I do not know if this is still true today):

1) Universities throughout Canada were almost equal in quality. I worked with graduates from differnt universities and the quality were the same -- all good. I did not encounter a single engineer from a diploma mill like here in the US.

2) People were considerate and polite regardless of whether they finished high school only or college. I attribute this to the quality of home training and good elementary and high schools. Boistrous behavior did not exist among Canadians. The few times I witnessed it usually was of an American who came over to Canada for a short visit. [Americans and other foreigners who lived there long enough changed their ways soon enough....I did, as well as all my other friends.]

Just these two differences alone explains much of the differences between how business behave in the US and Canada. One of the first engineering assignments I was given was to eliminate the polution and waste being generated by the plant I worked at. This was long before the EPA was formed in the US. This is just one example of good corporate behavior practiced there.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/136058-the-declining-usefulness-of-debt?source=feed#comment-494450 494450
This is also done in the name of "better safety". Extra and expensive steps are taken to make an action that has a probability of being 99.95% safe already --- so it will be 99.99995% safer -- based usually in the 'judgement' of an unqualified person who has no idea on the subject of risk analysis. This happens daily in industry and in business.... millions of times. We are spending an ever increasing amount of money in the US on activities that bring negligible or zero returns. Billions are wasted every year on these kinds of activities!

On the other hand, an activity that will increase the usefulness of debt to very large scales is building of nuclear power plants and retirement of coal power plants. Nukes built 30 - 40 years ago are still giving us solid returns. In fact some of them have been upgraded to bring even more returns for the next 20 years. We need more of them to both replace the ones nearing their end-of-life, to provide power to the rising demand of our increasing population and to ---- this is the big one --- replace coal fired power plants.

Coal fired power plants are a very expensive losing proposition. They produce the highest volume of CO2 that causes our climate to change that in turn, causes destruction all over the US. Destruction by wild fires, tornadoes, hurricane, floods, extreme drought --- are all hugely negative returns! We should stop building new coal plants and start building new Nuclear Plants. The Asians and Europeans have realized this and are starting to build nuke plants. Clean coal is a myth. Anyone who has taken basic chemistry understand that when air and carbon in coal are burned, CO2 is produced and -- in very high volumes. To think that these high volumes of CO2 gas emitted by coal fired power plants all over the US can be captured and stored underground is absurd. To capture it, highly compresse it and send it to underground storage takes more than half of the useful energy produced in burning it. And then the big question is, how much compressed gas can be stored and for how long? A few years? At what cost?

The US economy grew larger and faster than most countries in large part, because of cheap energy. Investing in nuclear energy is undoubtedly, one of the best way to bring up the usefulness of debt.


]]> Thu, 07 May 2009 15:56:37 -0400
This is also done in the name of "better safety". Extra and expensive steps are taken to make an action that has a probability of being 99.95% safe already --- so it will be 99.99995% safer -- based usually in the 'judgement' of an unqualified person who has no idea on the subject of risk analysis. This happens daily in industry and in business.... millions of times. We are spending an ever increasing amount of money in the US on activities that bring negligible or zero returns. Billions are wasted every year on these kinds of activities!

On the other hand, an activity that will increase the usefulness of debt to very large scales is building of nuclear power plants and retirement of coal power plants. Nukes built 30 - 40 years ago are still giving us solid returns. In fact some of them have been upgraded to bring even more returns for the next 20 years. We need more of them to both replace the ones nearing their end-of-life, to provide power to the rising demand of our increasing population and to ---- this is the big one --- replace coal fired power plants.

Coal fired power plants are a very expensive losing proposition. They produce the highest volume of CO2 that causes our climate to change that in turn, causes destruction all over the US. Destruction by wild fires, tornadoes, hurricane, floods, extreme drought --- are all hugely negative returns! We should stop building new coal plants and start building new Nuclear Plants. The Asians and Europeans have realized this and are starting to build nuke plants. Clean coal is a myth. Anyone who has taken basic chemistry understand that when air and carbon in coal are burned, CO2 is produced and -- in very high volumes. To think that these high volumes of CO2 gas emitted by coal fired power plants all over the US can be captured and stored underground is absurd. To capture it, highly compresse it and send it to underground storage takes more than half of the useful energy produced in burning it. And then the big question is, how much compressed gas can be stored and for how long? A few years? At what cost?

The US economy grew larger and faster than most countries in large part, because of cheap energy. Investing in nuclear energy is undoubtedly, one of the best way to bring up the usefulness of debt.


]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/132578-using-anti-trust-law-to-break-up-too-big-to-fail-banks?source=feed#comment-474221 474221 Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:17:03 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/108153-wind-power-what-we-can-learn-from-denmark?source=feed#comment-315797 315797
Denmark is a relatively flat country, hence they do not have significant hydro generation power plants. natural earthen basins which have low head of water will not do. We do in the US but there needs to be transmission lines that connect windpower to hydro dams before this can happen. Again, the limitation is very apparent in the Texas to Canada Boone Pickens wind corridor. This area is far away from areas that can be dammed or already has hydrodams. High capacity transmission line infrastructures have to be built.

This is one government project that Obama can invest on to generate US jobs in the next two years. He just has to make sure the power lines, steel towers, etc. (materials) should be made in the USA. Obama need to rein in the environmentalists who are sure to block projects like these because it "ruins" open space poeple's views and might impede the flights of migratory birds.]]> Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:37:59 -0500
Denmark is a relatively flat country, hence they do not have significant hydro generation power plants. natural earthen basins which have low head of water will not do. We do in the US but there needs to be transmission lines that connect windpower to hydro dams before this can happen. Again, the limitation is very apparent in the Texas to Canada Boone Pickens wind corridor. This area is far away from areas that can be dammed or already has hydrodams. High capacity transmission line infrastructures have to be built.

This is one government project that Obama can invest on to generate US jobs in the next two years. He just has to make sure the power lines, steel towers, etc. (materials) should be made in the USA. Obama need to rein in the environmentalists who are sure to block projects like these because it "ruins" open space poeple's views and might impede the flights of migratory birds.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/105361-3-scenarios-for-the-future-of-the-auto-industry?source=feed#comment-305494 305494

On Nov 11 03:58 PM Tony C wrote:

> The "1 job in 10" number assumes there would be no auto industry
> left in the US. False assumption. Americans will need as many cars
> as they ever have. It's just a question of who would build them,
> and where. Chrysler already builds most of its cars (not trucks)
> outside the US.]]> Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:04:59 -0500

On Nov 11 03:58 PM Tony C wrote:

> The "1 job in 10" number assumes there would be no auto industry
> left in the US. False assumption. Americans will need as many cars
> as they ever have. It's just a question of who would build them,
> and where. Chrysler already builds most of its cars (not trucks)
> outside the US.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/105385-obama-s-green-obsession-more-harm-than-good?source=feed#comment-305481 305481

On Nov 11 09:22 PM Evanoff wrote:

> Interestingly, I love your argument about labor intensivity with
> the wheelbarrows and outlawed bulldozers because it illustrates the
> environmental point so clearly.
> Let's take another example: There are a limited number of trees.
> Arbitrarily, let's say there are 10,000 trees left in the forest
> and we are willing to cut down 1000 of them. If one man with a chainsaw
> can cut down 1000 trees by himself, that is one employed logger.
> If a law goes into effect banning the use of chainsaws (not so strange
> really: think about rules on net fishing intended to limit catch),
> and a man with an axe or handsaw can cut only 100 trees, then that
> is 10 logging jobs.
>
> The point you are missing completely is the constraint of limited
> resources. Having the economies of scale, lower unit costs, more
> efficient (and fewer) employees all make sense only in an environment
> of unlimited potential growth of a whole industry and competition
> between companies for share of that growing market.
>
> The world's fisheries are the first place where we have seen the
> need to reduce total catch and therefore limit maximum possible efficiency
> (an even BIGGER net could catch ALL the fish at once! why not?).
> With forestry, the maximum limit is drawing into focus. The question
> of peak oil production has been asked, if not yet answered.
>
> And coal? How exactly do you put a mountain back together? It is
> one of the single most destructive sources of energy to extract.
> Have you ever been to an Appalachian strip mine? Personally, I'd
> rather have fluctuating electricity in my home on windless days,
> and a nice mountainside nearby for recreation, than a million watts
> of power in my house and nothing of beauty left to enjoy outside
> it.
> Inefficient sources of energy are worth it for reasons that trump
> efficiency. I'll take the wind power, thanks.]]> Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:54:01 -0500

On Nov 11 09:22 PM Evanoff wrote:

> Interestingly, I love your argument about labor intensivity with
> the wheelbarrows and outlawed bulldozers because it illustrates the
> environmental point so clearly.
> Let's take another example: There are a limited number of trees.
> Arbitrarily, let's say there are 10,000 trees left in the forest
> and we are willing to cut down 1000 of them. If one man with a chainsaw
> can cut down 1000 trees by himself, that is one employed logger.
> If a law goes into effect banning the use of chainsaws (not so strange
> really: think about rules on net fishing intended to limit catch),
> and a man with an axe or handsaw can cut only 100 trees, then that
> is 10 logging jobs.
>
> The point you are missing completely is the constraint of limited
> resources. Having the economies of scale, lower unit costs, more
> efficient (and fewer) employees all make sense only in an environment
> of unlimited potential growth of a whole industry and competition
> between companies for share of that growing market.
>
> The world's fisheries are the first place where we have seen the
> need to reduce total catch and therefore limit maximum possible efficiency
> (an even BIGGER net could catch ALL the fish at once! why not?).
> With forestry, the maximum limit is drawing into focus. The question
> of peak oil production has been asked, if not yet answered.
>
> And coal? How exactly do you put a mountain back together? It is
> one of the single most destructive sources of energy to extract.
> Have you ever been to an Appalachian strip mine? Personally, I'd
> rather have fluctuating electricity in my home on windless days,
> and a nice mountainside nearby for recreation, than a million watts
> of power in my house and nothing of beauty left to enjoy outside
> it.
> Inefficient sources of energy are worth it for reasons that trump
> efficiency. I'll take the wind power, thanks.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/105736-sirius-finally-provides-wall-street-the-clarity-it-demanded?source=feed#comment-305077 305077
SIRI-XM can afford to lease a few channels without affecting its normal programming. Surely there are some companies/entities there that want to broadcast on satellite but don't have the financial capability.]]> Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:25:48 -0500
SIRI-XM can afford to lease a few channels without affecting its normal programming. Surely there are some companies/entities there that want to broadcast on satellite but don't have the financial capability.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/105611-winning-etfs-under-obama?source=feed#comment-304474 304474 Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:42:51 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/98651-don-t-blame-deregulation-for-this-crisis-it-s-all-about-lack-of-regulation?source=feed#comment-277073 277073 Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:06:49 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/99034-which-candidate-will-get-to-spend-the-700-billion?source=feed#comment-276985 276985 CRA) of 1977. It was created by a Democratic controlled Congress and passed by a Democratic President, Jimmy Carter. It was made more potent by Bill Clinton in 1999. Even today, Barney Frank and his cohorts in Congress is still unapologetically defending his blocking of moves by Republicans to straighten our Freddie and Fannie Mae in 2003. It looks like Congress will remain under Democratic control. Obama has never ever gone against his party and will never veto any legislation passed by a Democratic congress. That will be so disastrous it will make the present fiasco tame by comparison. And, like the fiasco of today, may not show up until a few years later when it will be so enourmous it is too hard to imagine.

Without the CRA passage in 1977, this economic distaster of today would not have been possible.
]]> Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:57:04 -0400 CRA) of 1977. It was created by a Democratic controlled Congress and passed by a Democratic President, Jimmy Carter. It was made more potent by Bill Clinton in 1999. Even today, Barney Frank and his cohorts in Congress is still unapologetically defending his blocking of moves by Republicans to straighten our Freddie and Fannie Mae in 2003. It looks like Congress will remain under Democratic control. Obama has never ever gone against his party and will never veto any legislation passed by a Democratic congress. That will be so disastrous it will make the present fiasco tame by comparison. And, like the fiasco of today, may not show up until a few years later when it will be so enourmous it is too hard to imagine.

Without the CRA passage in 1977, this economic distaster of today would not have been possible.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/98167-google-outlines-clean-energy-plan?source=feed#comment-273013 273013
Alternative energy such as solar and wind are unreliable, meaning, it is not available all the time when consumers demand power. Wind and sun are erratic in nature and hence unreliable. Geothermal is limited to a few locations around the country.

We need basepower that will supply power whenever there is demand, 24/7, no rests. Wind and Solar can only be used as a complementary power source.

Base power can only be supplied by clean and reliable conventional nuclear power. Further into the future, fast breeder reactors will need to be developed to supply endless power. We need to restart the research that was stopped by the Clinton administration in 1998 because they could not understand its importance and so now, we have to catch up to China, Russia and India who do.

These alternative sources of clean power require time to build and place into our energy structure. In the meantime we have to rely on gas, oil and coal to tide us over. And, we need to plan their replacement in an orderly manner.]]> Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:30:49 -0400
Alternative energy such as solar and wind are unreliable, meaning, it is not available all the time when consumers demand power. Wind and sun are erratic in nature and hence unreliable. Geothermal is limited to a few locations around the country.

We need basepower that will supply power whenever there is demand, 24/7, no rests. Wind and Solar can only be used as a complementary power source.

Base power can only be supplied by clean and reliable conventional nuclear power. Further into the future, fast breeder reactors will need to be developed to supply endless power. We need to restart the research that was stopped by the Clinton administration in 1998 because they could not understand its importance and so now, we have to catch up to China, Russia and India who do.

These alternative sources of clean power require time to build and place into our energy structure. In the meantime we have to rely on gas, oil and coal to tide us over. And, we need to plan their replacement in an orderly manner.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/97924-buffett-s-battery-buy?source=feed#comment-270853 270853 Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:17:13 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/96840-senator-dodd-revamps-paulsons-bailout-plan?source=feed#comment-262926 262926
Then there are the lucky ones who are now teetering on a financial cliff that if they can only hang on for 3 or 4 months, can have their "new" mortgage refinanced using today's more reasonalbe market value of their homes - not the inflated prices they paid in '06 or '07 -- which they should be able to afford.]]> Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:55:38 -0400
Then there are the lucky ones who are now teetering on a financial cliff that if they can only hang on for 3 or 4 months, can have their "new" mortgage refinanced using today's more reasonalbe market value of their homes - not the inflated prices they paid in '06 or '07 -- which they should be able to afford.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/66430-chembio-bio-rad-agreement-new-competition-for-orasure?source=feed#comment-120694 120694 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:06:44 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/35938-will-renewable-energy-be-uranium-s-banana-skin?source=feed#comment-86524 86524
Current common nuclear reactors today only uses 4% of the available fuel. The new generation plants will use up to 95% of the uranium fuel which will greatly reduce nuclear waste and last about 300+ years. However, the newer systems of breeder reactors now being developed is the real answer to mankind's global need for clean, reliable electric power. The fuel cannot be made into bombs (answers safety concerns) and can supply power indefinely. These can completely replace all hydrocarbon based electric generating plants. With this source of clean electric power, most cars used for city driving can be plug-in types, meaning they will not use hydrocarbon fuels except when driving long distances. Airplanes and ships will still need hydrocarbon fuels though. The sooner the world convert to nuclear power, the sooner we can eliminate coal/gas/oil burning power plants, the sooner we can limit the damage caused by people's generation CO2 gases....and the sooner global warming can be reversed.]]> Fri, 18 May 2007 12:36:12 -0400
Current common nuclear reactors today only uses 4% of the available fuel. The new generation plants will use up to 95% of the uranium fuel which will greatly reduce nuclear waste and last about 300+ years. However, the newer systems of breeder reactors now being developed is the real answer to mankind's global need for clean, reliable electric power. The fuel cannot be made into bombs (answers safety concerns) and can supply power indefinely. These can completely replace all hydrocarbon based electric generating plants. With this source of clean electric power, most cars used for city driving can be plug-in types, meaning they will not use hydrocarbon fuels except when driving long distances. Airplanes and ships will still need hydrocarbon fuels though. The sooner the world convert to nuclear power, the sooner we can eliminate coal/gas/oil burning power plants, the sooner we can limit the damage caused by people's generation CO2 gases....and the sooner global warming can be reversed.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/33025-why-i-m-bullish-on-coal-stocks?source=feed#comment-84792 84792 Nuclear, with fuel recycling, will last longer than oil. The Nevada nuclear waste site will not be needed. New nuclear technologies will make our nuclear fuel last forever. The world has an abundance of uranium and thorium and most deposits are located in countries with stable and peaceful populations - US, Canada, Austalia, India. Long term investments are in uranium and nuclear power industries.]]> Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:56:13 -0400 Nuclear, with fuel recycling, will last longer than oil. The Nevada nuclear waste site will not be needed. New nuclear technologies will make our nuclear fuel last forever. The world has an abundance of uranium and thorium and most deposits are located in countries with stable and peaceful populations - US, Canada, Austalia, India. Long term investments are in uranium and nuclear power industries.]]>