The Real Danger of a Democrat in 2008
- Thread starter amicus
- Start date
SEVERUSMAX
Benevolent Master
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Posts
- 28,995
I knew it....for all of his moralizing....Ami is just an old-fashioned ladies' man....randy old goat. 
drksideofthemoon
West of the moon. . .
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2005
- Posts
- 4,778
SEVERUSMAX said:I knew it....for all of his moralizing....Ami is just an old-fashioned ladies' man....randy old goat.
I bet he's making a dash to the store for some Grecian Formula...
SEVERUSMAX
Benevolent Master
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Posts
- 28,995
mckai777 said:That's one way to put it.
Though to be honest, I only know because I'm a randy old goat myself....well, maybe not so "old" per se....30 ain't old, is it? But definitely a goat....I admit it freely....
Though married women are usually safe from my advances.... 
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
a rosey future, unlimited uranium supply?
hi roxanne,
a geologist, mr perrault, gives the projections below, and counts himself optimistic. he's no skeptic or critic or 'tree hugger.'
World reserves for ore with a production cost of less than US$40/kg are estimated at nearly 2 Mt uranium, representing more than a 30-year supply for existing reactors (Sidex, 2004).
this is a bit less than your 10,000 year vision of adequate supply, but of course that's faith, not fact. you might note that the issues of a several hundred new reactors for China is not breached.
Serge Perrault, resident geologist,
Nov 2005.
Quebec Mines website.
http://www.mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/english/mines/quebec-mines/2005-11/uranium.asp
[start excerpts]
Uranium, a breath of optimism
[...]
Between 1970 and 1984, the uranium market was dominated by a primary production that exceeded the needs of nuclear reactors. The production was based on erroneous forecasts of a sharp increase in nuclear energy production (Sidex, 2004). Right up until 1990, the primary production of uranium oxide (U3O8) largely exceeded demand. After 1990, U3O8 production declined in proportion to demand (Comb, 2004), and stockpiles were even liquidated between 1985 and 2003.
Starting about two years ago, the spot price for U3O8 increased dramatically to attain US$30/lb in October 2003 (source: Ux Weekly; Bonnel and Chapman, 2005). It was in 1976-1977 that the price of U3O8 attained its historic high at just over US$100/lb (price in 2004 dollars or ~ US$43/lb in current dollars).
This high was followed by a rapid decline, beginning in 1980, to bottom out at under US$8/lb in 2001. Spot prices account for about 15% of the uranium market, whereas 85% of transactions are carried out in the form of long-term contracts, generally at a higher cost than the spot price (Sidex, 2004).
Today
In the years since the Kyoto summit, prominent industrialized countries have made efforts to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, which are partly responsible for the climate changes noted by scientists for over a century. With the exception of hydro-electricity, solar energy and wind energy, nuclear energy releases the least amount of greenhouse gases compared to fossil fuels (World Nuclear Association, February 2005).
In order to meet their Kyoto commitments and reduce their dependence on oil and natural gas to meet their energy needs, many industrialized countries have decided to construct new nuclear power plants. Furthermore a rising demand in energy needs by emerging countries like China, India and some in southeast Asia, the progressive depletion of several currently mined deposits is anticipated shortage between now and the next 10 to 15 years.
The current production of primary uranium represents 55% of the needs of operating nuclear reactors (World Nuclear Association, October 2004). Collectively, these are the necessary ingredients for an upsurge of uranium spot prices, which would lead to a renewed interest on the part of mining companies to dedicate some of their exploration expenditures for uranium.
World production of uranium
World production of uranium attained 36,300 tonnes in 2003 (Bonel, 2005). World reserves for ore with a production cost of less than US$40/kg are estimated at nearly 2 Mt uranium, representing more than a 30-year supply for existing reactors (Sidex, 2004). The Canadian production for 2004 amounts to 13,676 tonnes of U3O8 concentrate and is equivalent to 30% of world production. This production is evaluated at CA$800 million. Uranium resources with low production costs (Reasonably Assured Resources and Category I Estimated Additional Resources) amount to 590,000 tonnes U3O8 and corresponds to 12% of world production.
For comparison, global reserves with low production costs are twice that of Canadian reserves. Canadian production comes entirely from Saskatchewan (Athabaska Basin). In 2003, about $13 million dedicated to off-site mineral exploration, mainly in Saskatchewan (World Nuclear Association, August 2005). At the present time, Québec does not produce uranium.
[end excerpts]
======
i do detect a pattern in this objectivist argument about energy:
the sequence is:
1) there's no problem.
2) there might be a problem, but it's transient.
3) it's not transient, but price incentives will bring out the entrepreneurs.
4) they'll fix things in short order while making a nice profit.
------
The scenario is that when gasoline is $30/gallon and home heating is $2000/ month, some enterprising genius is going to say to us:
"Hey, give me a couple years and a tax holiday and I'll solve your problem for HALF those numbers."
PRESTO. Everything's fine in a couple years. The "market" has solved the problem.
hi roxanne,
a geologist, mr perrault, gives the projections below, and counts himself optimistic. he's no skeptic or critic or 'tree hugger.'
World reserves for ore with a production cost of less than US$40/kg are estimated at nearly 2 Mt uranium, representing more than a 30-year supply for existing reactors (Sidex, 2004).
this is a bit less than your 10,000 year vision of adequate supply, but of course that's faith, not fact. you might note that the issues of a several hundred new reactors for China is not breached.
Serge Perrault, resident geologist,
Nov 2005.
Quebec Mines website.
http://www.mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/english/mines/quebec-mines/2005-11/uranium.asp
[start excerpts]
Uranium, a breath of optimism
[...]
Between 1970 and 1984, the uranium market was dominated by a primary production that exceeded the needs of nuclear reactors. The production was based on erroneous forecasts of a sharp increase in nuclear energy production (Sidex, 2004). Right up until 1990, the primary production of uranium oxide (U3O8) largely exceeded demand. After 1990, U3O8 production declined in proportion to demand (Comb, 2004), and stockpiles were even liquidated between 1985 and 2003.
Starting about two years ago, the spot price for U3O8 increased dramatically to attain US$30/lb in October 2003 (source: Ux Weekly; Bonnel and Chapman, 2005). It was in 1976-1977 that the price of U3O8 attained its historic high at just over US$100/lb (price in 2004 dollars or ~ US$43/lb in current dollars).
This high was followed by a rapid decline, beginning in 1980, to bottom out at under US$8/lb in 2001. Spot prices account for about 15% of the uranium market, whereas 85% of transactions are carried out in the form of long-term contracts, generally at a higher cost than the spot price (Sidex, 2004).
Today
In the years since the Kyoto summit, prominent industrialized countries have made efforts to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, which are partly responsible for the climate changes noted by scientists for over a century. With the exception of hydro-electricity, solar energy and wind energy, nuclear energy releases the least amount of greenhouse gases compared to fossil fuels (World Nuclear Association, February 2005).
In order to meet their Kyoto commitments and reduce their dependence on oil and natural gas to meet their energy needs, many industrialized countries have decided to construct new nuclear power plants. Furthermore a rising demand in energy needs by emerging countries like China, India and some in southeast Asia, the progressive depletion of several currently mined deposits is anticipated shortage between now and the next 10 to 15 years.
The current production of primary uranium represents 55% of the needs of operating nuclear reactors (World Nuclear Association, October 2004). Collectively, these are the necessary ingredients for an upsurge of uranium spot prices, which would lead to a renewed interest on the part of mining companies to dedicate some of their exploration expenditures for uranium.
World production of uranium
World production of uranium attained 36,300 tonnes in 2003 (Bonel, 2005). World reserves for ore with a production cost of less than US$40/kg are estimated at nearly 2 Mt uranium, representing more than a 30-year supply for existing reactors (Sidex, 2004). The Canadian production for 2004 amounts to 13,676 tonnes of U3O8 concentrate and is equivalent to 30% of world production. This production is evaluated at CA$800 million. Uranium resources with low production costs (Reasonably Assured Resources and Category I Estimated Additional Resources) amount to 590,000 tonnes U3O8 and corresponds to 12% of world production.
For comparison, global reserves with low production costs are twice that of Canadian reserves. Canadian production comes entirely from Saskatchewan (Athabaska Basin). In 2003, about $13 million dedicated to off-site mineral exploration, mainly in Saskatchewan (World Nuclear Association, August 2005). At the present time, Québec does not produce uranium.
[end excerpts]
======
i do detect a pattern in this objectivist argument about energy:
the sequence is:
1) there's no problem.
2) there might be a problem, but it's transient.
3) it's not transient, but price incentives will bring out the entrepreneurs.
4) they'll fix things in short order while making a nice profit.
------
The scenario is that when gasoline is $30/gallon and home heating is $2000/ month, some enterprising genius is going to say to us:
"Hey, give me a couple years and a tax holiday and I'll solve your problem for HALF those numbers."
PRESTO. Everything's fine in a couple years. The "market" has solved the problem.
Roxanne Appleby
Masterpiece
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Posts
- 11,231
This is a silly argument. It's equivalent to saying that estimates for world production of crude oil assuming a maximum economic value of $6 per barrel are X, (an amount equivalent to 10 percent of what the world uses today.) So what? It's a meaningless artificiality.Pure said:
Uranium is present in seawater and in granite in the earth's crust, but we'll never come close to relying on those dilute sources, because there are vast potentials for much richer sources, and as my previous post reports, the price can increase 10 or 20 times and it's still an economical power source. Unlike oil, man has barely scratched the surface in looking for uranium.
What might be the motivation to try to argue away a fruitful source of energy? I can think of a couple. First, some people are psychologically attached to apocalyspe visions, and unsettled by the notion that industrial civilization can thrive for tens of thousands of years or more, sustainably, and without polluting our own nest. In the late 1970s it was right wing "survivalists," today it's "ecotopians" on the left. Second, there's nothing like an imminent "crisis" to provide rationales for those whose real goal is to expand the scope of government's reach into every conceivable area of human life.
I suspect that most people kind of like the idea that we're neither "all gonna die!" or all need to return to primitive agricultural villages (which given the current population would mean that only most of us need die.) I suspect that most Indians, Chinese and those in the Third World kinda like the idea that they too might be able to enjoy middle class living standards, which requires lots of energy.
elsol
I'm still sleeepy!
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2005
- Posts
- 3,964
Normally, I would jump on Amicus with both feet just for laughs... but
The Middle East war = a social issue.
What drugs can I take to make this characterization connect?
Bad breath --> Social problem.
AIDS --> Staggering medical bills and death... just slightly and I'm talking only a TINY bit bigger problem than halitosis.
The Middle East war = a social issue.
What drugs can I take to make this characterization connect?
Bad breath --> Social problem.
AIDS --> Staggering medical bills and death... just slightly and I'm talking only a TINY bit bigger problem than halitosis.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
RA What might be the motivation to try to argue away a fruitful source of energy?
P: there ya go again. the Speech about haters of industrial civilization.
incidentally, speculation about motives, particularly disreputable ones, is a breach of civility and charity, ma'am, as well as a logical fallacy.
i didn't 'argue away' uranium, i merely presented some evidence that the picture might be quite different, as regards supply, in a very few decades. a British gov report i posted, and a geologist's estimate supported that idea.
you say a 20 fold increase in production price doesn't affect the economic feasibilty, but you have no evidence. nor of course do you consider the net energy yield problem
you say ten thousand years supply and it's found in seaweed, but you've got no evidence relevant to the question of feasible and practical sources; it might take a rather large pile of seaweed to run your local reactor. it's my mistake of course, to take your talk seriously.
P: there ya go again. the Speech about haters of industrial civilization.
incidentally, speculation about motives, particularly disreputable ones, is a breach of civility and charity, ma'am, as well as a logical fallacy.
i didn't 'argue away' uranium, i merely presented some evidence that the picture might be quite different, as regards supply, in a very few decades. a British gov report i posted, and a geologist's estimate supported that idea.
you say a 20 fold increase in production price doesn't affect the economic feasibilty, but you have no evidence. nor of course do you consider the net energy yield problem
you say ten thousand years supply and it's found in seaweed, but you've got no evidence relevant to the question of feasible and practical sources; it might take a rather large pile of seaweed to run your local reactor. it's my mistake of course, to take your talk seriously.
Last edited:
colddiesel
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2006
- Posts
- 5,765
My Generation invented, created and made available to all, Television, mass transit, Jet airliners, the computer and defeated Communism in the process and became the single greatest power in the history of man and shares that greatness by being the nation that contributes the most of any other to the health and welfare of 3rd world, impoverished nations.
Amicus Veritas....[/QUOTE]
The subject changes half way through from "My generation' to "the nation" In any event it's worth correcting a couple of points. the nation did not invent:-
1 television - John Logie Baird
2 jets - Heinkel and Whittle
3 mass transport - George Stephenson
4 the computer. - Alan Turing.
It's reasonably arguable that the primary cause of communisms fall was its own internal problems and that opposition sustained it for a considerable period.
It's difficult to respect your argument when it is based on numerous factual errors
Amicus Veritas....[/QUOTE]
The subject changes half way through from "My generation' to "the nation" In any event it's worth correcting a couple of points. the nation did not invent:-
1 television - John Logie Baird
2 jets - Heinkel and Whittle
3 mass transport - George Stephenson
4 the computer. - Alan Turing.
It's reasonably arguable that the primary cause of communisms fall was its own internal problems and that opposition sustained it for a considerable period.
It's difficult to respect your argument when it is based on numerous factual errors
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
lest we forget...
but cold, you're forgetting one of amicus' most telling points in favor of his generation.
apparently there was less buttfucking and more procreating... or so the story goes. women were far less assertive and many stayed home doing their proper duties of raising kids... so it's said.
but cold, you're forgetting one of amicus' most telling points in favor of his generation.
apparently there was less buttfucking and more procreating... or so the story goes. women were far less assertive and many stayed home doing their proper duties of raising kids... so it's said.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
uranium
Sources on the availability and supply of uranium
Australian report to parliament
http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/RN/2004-05/05rn32.htm
[see graph 1 of world production and consumption]
=====
world energy council survey
http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ser/uranium/uranium.asp
Sources on the availability and supply of uranium
Australian report to parliament
http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/RN/2004-05/05rn32.htm
[see graph 1 of world production and consumption]
=====
world energy council survey
http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ser/uranium/uranium.asp
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
colddiesel said:
The subject changes half way through from "My generation' to "the nation" In any event it's worth correcting a couple of points. the nation did not invent:-
1 television - John Logie Baird
2 jets - Heinkel and Whittle
3 mass transport - George Stephenson
4 the computer. - Alan Turing.
It's reasonably arguable that the primary cause of communisms fall was its own internal problems and that opposition sustained it for a andconsiderable period.
It's difficult to respect your argument when it is based on numerous factual errors[/QUOTE]
~~~
Hello, Cold Deisel, so a newbie jumps right in eh? Well you picked the weaker side of this discussion to back.
My generation, or this generation, does not necessarily apply to those born in the United States, I suppose. Typical America haters, such as yourself, will always find a way to criticize the US to your own glorifications.
Your location, "in my shed", is right where you belong, without the amenities of post 20th century luxuries.
National pride is a dirty world in Unionized Europe and perhaps should be, as the age of 'empires' be it French, English, Dutch, Spanish, German or Russian, is well in the past.
Strangled by Monarchies, Dictatorships, and the bane of all mankind, Socialism, European nations have scant little left to support pride in anything outside appeasement and capitulation in the face of conflict.
The subject of 'civility' has been a topic for a few days on the forum; you display an abject lack of that virtue by impugning factual errors existing only in your mind. To imply that America did not earn its' position in the world is simply jealousy and hatred and you know it.
Many Americans proudly claim European heritage, with English, Irish, Dutch, German, Italian and French ancestors. I think it is time to expel that pride in ancestry and replace it with "born American", and damned proud of it. Fuck all you Euro Rats.
And to excuse the graveyard that was the Soviet Union as 'internal problems', when a hundred million humans were butchered by National Socialists and Marxist toadies, is nigh on to obscene.
Amicusa the American!
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
to cold d
amicus said,
The subject of 'civility' has been a topic for a few days on the forum; you display an abject lack of that virtue by impugning factual errors existing only in your mind.
this of course is claptrap. amicus errors of spelling, logic, syntax, fact are matters of legend and record.
to politely point out the fatuity of some claim to "in on" or "part" of the invention of everything innovative in the 20 century is hardly uncivil. (you might check out the thread).
presumably you know Amicus is our brown shirt uber patriot: those who are "left", i.e. think social security is a good thing, are considered as traitors. etc.
best to simply enjoy the show; how many peanuts you feed the monkey is up to you, and depends if you want to be close enough to be pissed on.
amicus said,
The subject of 'civility' has been a topic for a few days on the forum; you display an abject lack of that virtue by impugning factual errors existing only in your mind.
this of course is claptrap. amicus errors of spelling, logic, syntax, fact are matters of legend and record.
to politely point out the fatuity of some claim to "in on" or "part" of the invention of everything innovative in the 20 century is hardly uncivil. (you might check out the thread).
presumably you know Amicus is our brown shirt uber patriot: those who are "left", i.e. think social security is a good thing, are considered as traitors. etc.
best to simply enjoy the show; how many peanuts you feed the monkey is up to you, and depends if you want to be close enough to be pissed on.
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Ah, the clown slithers slime wise to claim yet another rotting piece of flesh for the scavenger.
The 'peanuts' you toss are tainted and impure, Pure and beware the monkey is not an 800 pound gorilla in your refrigerator.
Chuckles...Social Security, the worlds greatest forced 'Ponzi Scam', imposed by taxation on individual income, confiscated without annual investment, untouchable until well beyond the statistical age of demise and a pittance of a return for a forty year, or more, investment.
Only a true parasite would find that amusing.
amicus....
The 'peanuts' you toss are tainted and impure, Pure and beware the monkey is not an 800 pound gorilla in your refrigerator.
Chuckles...Social Security, the worlds greatest forced 'Ponzi Scam', imposed by taxation on individual income, confiscated without annual investment, untouchable until well beyond the statistical age of demise and a pittance of a return for a forty year, or more, investment.
Only a true parasite would find that amusing.
amicus....
drksideofthemoon
West of the moon. . .
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2005
- Posts
- 4,778
amicus said:
Well, I see our babbling baboon is alive and well today....
Speaking of Monachies. Prince Harry will be deployed to Iraq with his regiment. It's similar to his uncle, Prince Andrew serving in the Falklands. Love them, or hate them, the British monarchy has always had a sense of duty....
I am proud of my heritage, my ancestors came from Ireland, England and the Ukraine. What's the old saying, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
drksideofthemoon~a proud Canadian
cumallday
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2006
- Posts
- 547
We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespear. Now thanks to the internet we know that is not true. Or should I say it might be true, but amicus is regrettably on the internet. (dumbing it down).
Roxanne Appleby
Masterpiece
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Posts
- 11,231
Here is a good article on the prospects for uranium supplies going forward: http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html
CharleyH
Curioser and curiouser
- Joined
- May 7, 2003
- Posts
- 16,771
I appreciate your original post, Ami, as I do appreciate all opinions. However ...
Why? In all true reality a democrat isn't MUCH different than a republican.
the concept of the United States is build on democracy, which in the simplest terms (without getting into history) means choice for every citizen and in respect to that individual citizen's rights ... the US has always been a bit afraid of acknowledging rights no mater what government.
Now that combination is a contradiction, no?
I like this ... but what is a truly "FREE" society?
I personally believe the Democrats are the only party (right now) who can get the US out of its rut.
SEVERUSMAX
Benevolent Master
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Posts
- 28,995
America can survive a President from either party in the short-term....it's the long-term that is the question.....and as bad as the Democrats have been in the past over financial issues, they have been moving to the center on budgetary matters for some time now. Not all of them, of course....but quite a few of them. The GOP, once the party of fiscal restraint, has created a massive federal debt that we may never be able to repay this time around. And if that's not bad enough, the civil liberties issues are staggering....so, right now, the GOP is scarier to me....I'm as thoroughly a disgruntled lifelong Republican as one can be (and let's face it, most of my life, I was a Republican). The GOP just isn't the party of Goldwater anymore. It's not even the party of Reagan. It's the party of Bush, Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, Bauer, etc. That's not the kind of party of which I can be a member these days.
I'm no enemy of capitalism, that's for sure. I'm very much in favor of the free market. But that doesn't mean selling political power to the highest bidder, as seems to be the case these days.
I'm no enemy of capitalism, that's for sure. I'm very much in favor of the free market. But that doesn't mean selling political power to the highest bidder, as seems to be the case these days.
Roxanne Appleby
Masterpiece
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Posts
- 11,231
I will not get in the middle of a partisan dispute, but Charlie - that pair of statements evokes one more from the same post: "Now that combination is a contradiction, no?CharleyH said:
" To which I say, "
" indeed.
CharleyH
Curioser and curiouser
- Joined
- May 7, 2003
- Posts
- 16,771
Roxanne Appleby said:I will not get in the middle of a partisan dispute, but Charlie - that pair of statements evokes one more from the same post: "Now that combination is a contradiction, no?
To which I say, "
Indeed. The question is why I meant it to be, Roxy babe.
cantdog
Waybac machine
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Posts
- 10,791
Actually, in that post, you hardly expressed a thing. It was a stack of fragments. Even your sentences were like this one I quote here. It's as if a randomizer program were swapping nouns and adjectives into a matrix. The result parses, but makes no sense. How do you ban, constitutionally or otherwise, creation of an available resource? If you could create anything which was already available anyhow, where is it written that being able to create the available resource is an individual right?amicus said:
On the whole, I suppose, I prefer the sentences.
Similar threads
