Arsenal vs Tottenham Hotspur: Match Thread.

Well, the answer to that is quite simple from what I've been told.
As always, Money. Was never interested in particle physics, was always my weak point, but one of my friends, explained to me how the cooling systems were ridiculously outdated (something about a ball bearings system), which, combined with the perilous condition the plants were put in, contributed to the utter disaster occurring at the moment. They could have restructured it, but why bother? It'd cost too much money and you'd be quite the (albeit correct, as it turned out) pessimist to think that an earthquake (which didn't cause too much damage, the safe guards worked) would then be followed by a tsunami. Furthermore, the wide spread corruption inherent in Japanese companies/the government meant that TEPCO were never going to get pulled up on it.
Combined with the Japanese mindset of avoiding a loss of face at all costs, to the extent that the damage was downplayed until it was too late, and you have a recipe for disaster, in the case of.... Well, a natural disaster.
Also, slightly off topic, but Japanese company boards take the meaning of dead man's shores to a whole new level, they make ours look like theyre at the forefront of progression in comparison.
And re. the Palestine question, although I was never a history buff (trying to change that now), it was my UK understanding that the problem was created by us in the first place, in which case they surely feel obliged to take care of their mess. (Although I do think that the relationship will be coming close to breaking point soon

 

Much as I believe that the eco nuts do just search for something to complain about, I do believe that the true reason why this energy source is not commercially available is (tin foil hat time), the massive amounts that the oil companies would stand to lose. Not only this, I doubt governments around the world would be very pleased because a) the USA's position in the world economy due to petrodollar b) the huge loss in revenoo from taxes, and c) the possibility of everyone being in possession of what could be turned into a incredibly dangerous weapon.
It is interesting that the rumours regarding the petrol company buying a fully functional hydrogen engine have never gone away though

 

Remember the footage of the little girl who was shot down by the Israeli army ?

 

To be fair, they do put a lot of effort in order to keep collateral damage to a minimum, a lot more than you would think considering how maligned they are. This does become hard when the Palestinians essentially use human shields, and there have been multiple times they've called off strikes, no matter how much good itd do the war effort, because of potential casualties. Whether this is to keep the west on their side or out of the goodness of their heart remains to be seen, but it's still something.

 

Quite the opposite really, what we have at the moment is a small percentage of the world's population living in unsustainable luxury that puts a massive strain on resources, so that the majority of the world's population who are already poor are forced further into poverty and disease. Human progress is about ensuring that all humans have what they need, not what a few want.

And all the while energy is bound up in Oil and the geopolitical equation that brings, we are moving further towards cataclysmic meltdown of ecosystems, food production, and habitable land. Currently we are a parasite on the planet and yet instead of trying to work within our natural means, we look for technological solutions to get us out of the mess we've created, GM foods etc.

Human progress is ultimately about our survival on this planet, not expanding our luxuries for the few at the expense of the poor and the environment without us. This planet would survive quite well without humans and restore a natural equilibrium again, at the moment we are part of the problem, not the solution.

 

This is a picture of PS10 Solar Power Plan near Seville in Spain. It produces 23,400 megawatt-hours per year. It doesn't use PV arrays, instead uses mirrors as collectors for solar thermal energy which is pointed on top of a massive tower, where the heat exchanger keep the salt at a molten state to heat steam for the turbines. However for people that believe you can only create electricity from solar when the Sun is up are wrong, the molten salt only you lose is one percent of its heat when its stored overnight. which means It can still generate electricity 24 /7. if you drive to California in the Mojave Desert you can see them building three of these towers, that project is funded by Google Two more like solar plants being built one in Colorado the other in Arizona, all with MW storage capacity.

please log in to view this image

 

Are you suggesting Spain is a model to follow? Because Obama used to say that, but considering the shocking rate of bankruptcy filings and layoffs by green-energy [*] companies that were subsidized in the US, and the paltry effects the rest of them have had relative to the public funds in question, I don't think he'll make much mention of it ever again.

I hope R&D continues in the field of solar power where it becomes efficient in comparison to alternatives without subsidies, but it's not there yet.
For Spain, by massively subsidizing technologies that are not there yet (in efficiency), with an economy already in the ****ter, the writing was on the wall (excellent paper in 2009), but when eco-Nazis and Communist union mobs strong arm you, you can't exactly react quickly to failed public policies.


But as with all welfare-state policies lead by much passion, and very little sense, reality eventually comes crashing down on you.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323740804578601491675384914.html

[*] by green they mean what eco-Nazis in the political left consider green, not actually economically viable clean energy sources.

 

I think you've just demonstrated why free market capitalism doesn't meet our needs.

 

What? Where is this free market capitalism you speak of?

Government massively subsidizing an in-efficient energy source, disrupting the market (pushing the private sector toward unproductive industries), because they decided other more viable energy sources are not good for the "public health". What is "free market" about that?

 

What I'm saying, is that you've just described how free market capitalism isn't fit for purpose for supporting this technology.

 

How have I done that? How are government subsidies favoring unproductive enterprises "free market capitalism"?

I swear PISKI you strike me completely clueless in these discussions and similar (Tesla's "ether energy" etc.).

 

Just because it doesn't fit your view, it is far from clueless.

What you have done is explained precisely how a free market capitalist system is not fit for purpose in supporting alternative energy technologies because they need to be subsided, many small companies have been made bankrupt and others never get off the ground due to lack of finance.

Now, what we're talking about here is not economics in the pure sense, but private enterprise for the specific motive of generating profit. Ergo, if any technology, no matter how good or efficient it is cannot make private profit for a few directors and shareholders then it never sees the light of day, unless of course it is subsidised by Govt. Hence free market capitalism does not meet our needs in this sector.

The situation we have is that Oil dominates, because a minority of capitalists can generate huge profit from it, control the market and suppress alternative tech, policy, govt or 'eco nazis' that present viable alternatives

 

Remember the footage of Hamas soldiers killing several of their fellow Palestinians for committing the cardinal sin of dancing at a wedding? Neither side can claim any absolute moral superiority. I am very critical of Israel for a number of reasons, my biggest problem is the settlement-building (hardly conducive to a amicable peaceful solution) however, Hamas are a brutal, anti-democratic, barbaric terrorist organisation. In my opinion, they are the biggest enemy of the Palestinian people.

 

They don't need to be Subsidized. Subsidies as a concept are a lefty concept, how you can pin that on "free market" capitalism is beyond me. You really have no clue of what you are talking about. That is the absolute definition of an non-free market, it is a distortion of market forces toward unproductive industries.


They are subsidized not because they "need to", it's because the (left-leaning) government wants to push a particular industry ("green energy"), through dumping public funds, despite the technology not being there yet. In a free-market economy companies wouldn't expect to be subsidized so they would instead invest in viable proven technologies that would generate them profit. Hence public funds wouldn't be inefficiently spent on not-ready technologies just to show that "we care about the planet".

 

No, subsidies exist because of the failure of a free market to deliver services properly. Solar power in not an 'unproductive' industry or 'inefficient' in terms of generating power, it's unproductive in capitalist profiteering terms - but that is different from it's efficacy.

Let's use another example, rural bus services. Many are subsidised because they don't generate enough profit to make them viable in a capitalist market economy, but they provide an essential service. So the need for the service outstrips the need for profiteering. In this example, it is again the failure of free market capitalism to provide what is actually needed, because it prioritises profit before actual need.

It's the same with alternative or complimentary energy technologies, generally speaking they are not profit making enterprises, so they are deemed to be 'unproductive' in market terms, but this misses the point of the technology. And limits 'enterprise' to only what can generate profit for private companies. Wind power for example has the potential to meet ALL of our energy needs in the UK, but in order to get these technologies up and running, you have to step outside of the system that fails to deliver it 'free market capitalism' - and subsidise it through govt money. The market actually holds back new technologies because capitalists don't want to risk damaging their profit margins.

We need to move away from the paradigm that something is only worthwhile if it generates profit. Because that has led us to the massive problems of war, environmental damage and depletion, displaced peoples and concentration of power, money and political influence that has come about through championing the profiteering of Oil - a natural resource that actually belongs to everybody.

 

What we should really be concentrating on in the UK is generating our own energy and using what we have more efficiently. The solution is to use different types of energy production, solar, wind, biomass, hydro, geothermal etc. Currently we are burning up what we have left of our own fossil fuels, coal and gas and having to rely on importing much of our energy from places like Russia. Not only does this compromise our economy, but it places us in a fragile political position when it comes to the whims of those who control our energy.

 

. wow

 

If free market capitalism provided all the services that we needed, then there would be no need to subsidise those that are required but not provided within that model. Profit for private companies is a motive to offer goods and services but it doesn't meet all of our needs and only operates within a model that generates private profit for minority owners, directors and shareholders.

You seem to be pretty keen to dismiss this, but I'll give you another example. Take the NHS, in it's inception it was a service for everybody, free at the point of access regardless of income, status or class. Paid for by public funds via taxes. Today you have a Govt who are increasingly trying to privatise it via the back door because they think the private sector can provide it for a cheaper rate. The reality however is that by tendering it out to private companies, they only want to operate the profitable parts of the service. So you get private health care companies all wanting to bid for things like Cataract operations which are relatively cheap and have favourable outcomes, but they want nothing to do with things like Palliative cancer care which is expensive and your patient ultimately dies so it has poor outcomes. What you end up with then is a two tier health system, where the profitable parts are milked by private companies for private profit and the expensive parts with poor outcomes are left to a diminished NHS who are forever under more and more pressure to deliver with less resources from Govt.

The point is that somethings are not designed simply to make profit, but they are worth having in a civilised society. This includes things like new technologies that will ultimately help to limit or reduce global warming, that left to the free market would simply not be provided because they don't make profit. And therein lies one of it's fundamental flaws.

 

Solar power would never work in the UK because it's too cloudy.

 

I hate the international break.