The thing I found most interesting was the level of energy lost. I obviously knew there was waste but I never realised how much... Can they not improve their distribution network? It'd seem like the most win-win thing...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

The thing I found most interesting was the level of energy lost. I obviously knew there was waste but I never realised how much... Can they not improve their distribution network? It'd seem like the most win-win thing...

Yeah, all throughout the last presidential election and after I was writing the president and my congress critters asking them to concentrate on infrastructure first, before trying to "tackle healthcare". But *sigh*, I guess that wasn't sexy, or politically devisive enough for them.

... where divisive, like partisan, means "whatever I'm against".

Healthcare, anyway, is itself basically infrastructure.

Originally Posted by contracycle

... where divisive, like partisan, means "whatever I'm against". Healthcare, anyway, is itself basically infrastructure.

No, though I mis-spelled it what I meant is the classic definition of the word. Healthcare is not infrastructure, at least the way I was using the word, but you know that.

It was a huge mistake to go after healthcare first. Had the president concentrated upon an infrastructure rebuild intiative, he would have had the bi-partisan support and legislative success. Jobs would have been created and the economty stimulated (not to mention providing for the future). President Obama could have taken that starting win and parlayed it into significant healthcare reform.

Instead, what we got was crappier, less affordable healthcare and no money, or will seemingly, to fix what's crumbling.

Originally Posted by clownboy

No, though I mis-spelled it what I meant is the classic definition of the word.

Oh I'm sure you did. But the one I offered is what is consistent with the positions you adopt.

Quote:

Healthcare is not infrastructure, at least the way I was using the word, but you know that.

Again, I am indeed sure that that is how you think of it. I think you are mistaken.

Quote:

It was a huge mistake to go after healthcare first. Had the president concentrated upon an infrastructure rebuild intiative, he would have had the bi-partisan support and legislative success.

No he wouldn't - I can write the script for you myself: Obama is feeding pork to his political cronies, he is a communist driving the private sector out and an oppressive centralist overriding the independence of the states.

Quote:

Jobs would have been created and the economty stimulated (not to mention providing for the future). President Obama could have taken that starting win and parlayed it into significant healthcare reform.

I think that's wishful thinking. The Republicans have, in the healthcare debate, shown that they will oppose anything Obama does merely because he is doing it, and that they will steadfastly work against the interests of the public. TRhis is not a matter of political finesse, it's a fact created by the Republicans drift to more and more ideologically extreme, vituperative and viciously oppositionist policy positions.

I have to agree with Contra on the point of bi-partisan support.

Obama could propose giving away money to Republican voters and Rep. politicians would still vituperate against it. I think that any spending on infrastructure would have been strenously objected on the basis of the arguments he wrote, plus "tax and spend" and ruining the country by running big deficits.

That being said, I don't see why they couldn't do both infrastructure spending and healthcare reform. As far as I know, it was pointed out that the stimulus was badly spent with a relatively small portion going on any infrastructure spending and lots of new program being created. That doesn't seem so hard to fix and it seems like a more administrative decision rather than a House one - The money had already been agreed upon during the GWB presidency, iirc.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by contracycle

Oh I'm sure you did. But the one I offered is what is consistent with the positions you adopt.

Wonderful, but I don't trust you to characterize [or understand] the positions I adopt, you're usually on the other side of them. You have a vested interest in me being "wrong"

Originally Posted by contracycle

Again, I am indeed sure that that is how you think of it. I think you are mistaken.

Which has nothing at all to do with the discussion at hand, other than your attempt to derail my point.

Originally Posted by contracycle

No he wouldn't - I can write the script for you myself: Obama is feeding pork to his political cronies, he is a communist driving the private sector out and an oppressive centralist overriding the independence of the states.

Quote for us, from anywhere, where I've ever posted any of that. The last president was far more of "an oppressive centralist overriding the independence of the states" than this one is shaping up to be.

Originally Posted by contracycle

I think that's wishful thinking. The Republicans have, in the healthcare debate, shown that they will oppose anything Obama does merely because he is doing it, and that they will steadfastly work against the interests of the public. TRhis is not a matter of political finesse, it's a fact created by the Republicans drift to more and more ideologically extreme, vituperative and viciously oppositionist policy positions.

You may be correct there, however, in terms of support from republican voters (and thus pressure applied upon the representatives), an infrastructure bill would have been a real hit.

Originally Posted by clownboy

Quote for us, from anywhere, where I've ever posted any of that.

I think Contra was refering to Republican politicos' likely counter-arguments, not making up what YOU would say...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

I think the last constructive post that addressed the topic in this thread was:

Quote:

The thing I found most interesting was the level of energy lost. I obviously knew there was waste but I never realised how much... Can they not improve their distribution network? It'd seem like the most win-win thing...

The amount lost surprised me too, especially considering the role that coal generation plays in electricity supply.

A substantial part of the loss in gas- and steam-turbine power stations (whether the latter are powered by nuclear or coal heat) is limited by the theoretical efficiency limit, which is:

(Ti - To)/Ti

Where Ti is temperature of the input gas or steam and To is temperature of the output condensate or gas, both in degrees Kelvin. The lower limit of To is usually higher than 300 degrees K (~30 degrees C).

But modern generation plants are more efficient than older ones (I recall seeing reports that each time China commissions a new coal-fired plant, it decommissions a smaller, old, far less efficient one.)

More here.

There are still further opportunities though. Exhaust gas at a little more than 300 degrees K could provide municipal building heating in cold climates.

Originally Posted by clownboy

Wonderful, but I don't trust you to characterize [or understand] the positions I adopt, you're usually on the other side of them. You have a vested interest in me being "wrong"

Thus demonstrating that you do do precisely what I suggest; instead of dealing with the position, you imagine a motive for why that position is advanced.

Quote:

Which has nothing at all to do with the discussion at hand, other than your attempt to derail my point.

I'm not "derailing", I'm "disagreeing".

Quote:

Quote for us, from anywhere, where I've ever posted any of that.

As Gilles says, I wasn't suggesting this was your argument. I'm suggesting if Obama had said that grass was green the Republicans would have mounted a campaign claiming that he was unAmerican for it.

Quote:

You may be correct there, however, in terms of support from republican voters (and thus pressure applied upon the representatives), an infrastructure bill would have been a real hit.

Well as above, I think that healthcare is infrastructrure, and whats more, healthcare had majority public support. That didn't prevent the Republicans from fighting it every step of the way, or engaging with the issue honestly.