ipsofacto’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  nukes is least cost?

  Gosh, you would think the US Chamber of Commerce would heed the truth about costs of energy -- as in like including the cost of installation!   At least Bloomberg News cared to report on this this fall.  Nukes is the most expensive installation of all and hence the paucity of new installations.  The report's assertion about nukes being least cost seem to be focussed only on generation costs -- and remind me of a kid running round looking at the world through a papertowel tube.  Fanciful tunnel vision.  

  And the Chamber complains about a "self inflicted wound" being of issue when environmental restraints hem boundless drilling.   No, it's in tunnel visioned analyses. On Obama's NSA pick promotes 'drill, baby, drill,' clean coal, and nuclear posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 6 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  it's about the WASTE!

  ALL RIGHT  you're going to flag me for a giving a troglodyte, sexist reply but here it is:  Men often "think" that the waste will be carted away for them by someone else -- ie waste is not a problem.  Waste, for men in power, has never been a problem, it is okay where it's left and its transmutation is done by a force of nature.  

    Now the fact that this is not true is immaterial.  The fact that it's true for men IN POWER is what matters.  Please note that waste removal is done by men of low status in municipalities or by women, in the home with the most grotesque waste products -- diapers.  The men who removed trash in the 60's in the south were so mistreated in their jobs that one of them was literally munched and killed in his trash truck before a strike shut down the trash collection services.  

  Men like nuclear power because they have the psychological gift of compartmentalization.  "Other" people take care of the waste disposal, therefore waste is not a real, pressing problem.  On Why do more men than women support nuclear power? posted 1 year, 2 months ago 31 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  right & wrong all around

  Obama uses pared down language, suitable for advertising but stilll able to draw fire.  "Penalty on windfall profits" is punitive language that sounds like the closing of tax loopholes he's voted for a few times in the effort to extend the production tax credit for wind and solar energy.   Also, when he says that Exxon "made" 40 billion, he's downplaying their actual income... that was Exxon's final net profits in one year.  They made much more income than that.  
     simple language for a simple ad; perhaps his campaign also thinks his target audience in PA is a simple audience.   Yes?  no?  

  - ipso.  On The latest primary dispute: Does Obama take oil money? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 14 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  $15 per gallon

  Grey Falcon, found your link in re the real cost of oil.

  Appel offers no apologies for needing government largesse to make money. "All oil, even fossil-fuel oil, gets government subsidies in the form of tax breaks and other incentives," he says, citing a 1998 study by the International Center for Technology Assessment showing that unsubsidized conventional gasoline would cost consumer $15 a gallon. "Before we got this, I had the only oil in the world that didn't get a subsidy."On Venture-capital star ain't no clean-tech expert posted 1 year, 10 months ago 54 Responses