The President of the United States of America along with the Department of Energy have been working on alternative ways to diversify our energy sources in an effort to help American homes and businesses. The Bush administration has been careful to see that much-needed funding has gone into research and development of such things as clean coal technologies.
The problem in the past has been that when you burn coal you'll also puts pollution into the atmosphere. Now with new clean coal technologies thanks to the President's alternative energy strategy and the Department of Energy working with private research and development companies and our top universities they have perfected clean coal-burning technologies.
Follow the link:http://www.lincenergy.us
Clean coal is a lie.
Adding a small amount of control technology to address minor concerns does not make a product "clean".
There is nothing "clean" about mining, transportation nor burning of coal. This is nothing more than a concerted public relation effort.
I've read that clean coal is very relative. Should we say 'a little less dirty but still dirty' instead?
quote:
Originally posted by OurTulsa
I've read that clean coal is very relative. Should we say 'a little less dirty but still dirty' instead?
Clean coal is a theoretical goal for which we have yet to develop a technology.
Putting a filter on a cigarette doesnt mean we can take up smoking.
Clean coal is a great way to go, but the enviro-wackos won't have no part in it. The same goes for oil drilling in Alaska, we can drill safe & clean and get our nation off of OPEC oil but we can't do that. Clean coal is a reality not a hoax. We also need more nuke plants.
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
Clean coal is a great way to go, but the enviro-wackos won't have no part in it. The same goes for oil drilling in Alaska, we can drill safe & clean and get our nation off of OPEC oil but we can't do that. Clean coal is a reality not a hoax.
(Whacks nose with rolled up newspaper)
NO, NO
Clean Coal is not just filtration, it has to do with burner the coal hotter and more thoroughly.
Imagine you have a ruler with "cheap energy" at the zero end of the ruler and "clean energy" at the 12 inch end.
Pick a number.
Lets actually have a conversation about this rather than spouting opinions.
There are 5 items that make coal burning dirty, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter.
Clean coal technology is nothing more than a filtering and scrubbing process that reduces a little over 70% of these. So use of the term "clean coal" is misleading and false.
Cleaner coal is a better term. We are the only nation actively reducing the emissions in the coal plants that produce over 50% of our power. All of the other countries that rely on coal for their power production have done nothing to curb pollution from the use of coal.
Until we bring the price down and embrace nuclear power, we are stuck with coal and oil.
Hydroelectric is clean but only capable of producing a very small amount of electricity.
Solar is very clean, but an enormous land mass of solar panels is necessary to produce the power necessary to fuel even a small community and the efficiency of solar power equipment is dismal.
Wind is also very clean but the sporadic generation and long distance transmission forces the need for concentration of wind power devices in a single region, and only offers a very small percentage of the power generation necessary for a community.
Wave power is both clean and plentiful, but the technology is not there and it would only offer efficient power to coastal regions.
Why can't we produce efficient clean power?
The answer lies in our own arrogance. We look at inorganic methods of storing energy such as batteries, capacitors, and condensers and feel that we are technologically "advanced."
We think that by producing more refined forms of silicon ribbon we can bring solar power up to 15% efficiency, or that by combining more volatile compounds, or thinner sheets of non-conductive capacitor parallels we can increase the preservation and distance that we can push electricity, however we are still left with the fact that nature has already perfected the science of energy preservation, and we simply cannot compete with that. The amount of energy in a drop of oil or a lump of coal is phenomenal, and if you transport it a thousand miles over a hundred days you barley diminish its potency.
One ton of coal can be transported 400 miles on a single gallon of diesel fuel. The average train car holds 117 tons of coal, and the average load is about 10,000 tons. Coal and oil power plants can achieve 40 - 48% efficiency. That is so far above solar, wind and all of the other clean energy forms that it is difficult for us to ignore. Compounding that is the fact that energy from organic fuels does not need inorganic storage after generation. The fuel source itself offers the most efficient storage media.
So how do we "clean up" without the total annihilation of our economy?
We can pledge as a country to use less; however by doing that we give competitive advantage to China, India, Russia and a host of other countries.
We can pledge to use less as a planet; however we would depress and in most cases collapse the economies of developing countries that rely on inexpensive and efficient energy sources for survival. Wars, famine, and disease would be the result we already see this to some extent.
Over the last 40 years we have tried to clean up, first by relegating our oil production and refining off shore we have created imbalances in production vs. consumption and the result is wealthy powerful despotic energy barons; Secondly we have begun the process of punishing ourselves psychologically and economically for our consumption. This produces a mythology that we are an evil society filled with evil companies, and greedy individuals. Over time this poisons the very foundation of liberty and causes people to view free market economies and the opportunities they provide with distain.
So what do we do? Do we continue to develop inorganic energy production such a solar or wind, or do we attempt to clean up what we already have?
I argue that we do BOTH.
Managed to leave out GeoThermal, which has distinct advantages over all the others.
See what Iceland has done to produce most of their energy needs. Only 0.1% of their energy is produced by fossil fuels.
Icelandic Geothermal Energy Production (//%22http://www.energy.rochester.edu/is/reyk/%22)
Or, the Wikipedia Entry (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Iceland%22)
We can do the same here since we are in a very active zone for thermal energy production:
REF: Geothermal Map of North America (//%22http://smu.edu/geothermal/2004NAMap/Geothermal_MapNA_7x10in.gif%22)
Around 75mW/M^2
There is no such thing as 'clean' coal. There is, however, an enourmous abundance of the stuff in the USA, which is our Ace-n-hole backup. CO2 Sequestration may help to offset emissions, but also makes the cost exceed the cost of other methods.
Wind can provide 20% or more of our energy needs for electrical production, once the grid is improved to transmit more effectively/efficiently. Unfortunatly, the cost of wind energy has ceased declining and started to rise to competative levels based only on market conditions and no longer a cost base.
IAC, geothermal is inexhaustable, clean and cost effective.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Managed to leave out GeoThermal, which has distinct advantages over all the others.
See what Iceland has done to produce most of their energy needs. Only 0.1% of their energy is produced by fossil fuels.
Icelandic Geothermal Energy Production (//%22http://www.energy.rochester.edu/is/reyk/%22)
Or, the Wikipedia Entry (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Iceland%22)
We can do the same here since we are in a very active zone for thermal energy production:
REF: Geothermal Map of North America (//%22http://smu.edu/geothermal/2004NAMap/Geothermal_MapNA_7x10in.gif%22)
Around 75mW/M^2
There is no such thing as 'clean' coal. There is, however, an enourmous abundance of the stuff in the USA, which is our Ace-n-hole backup. CO2 Sequestration may help to offset emissions, but also makes the cost exceed the cost of other methods.
Wind can provide 20% or more of our energy needs for electrical production, once the grid is improved to transmit more effectively/efficiently. Unfortunatly, the cost of wind energy has ceased declining and started to rise to competative levels based only on market conditions and no longer a cost base.
IAC, geothermal is inexhaustable, clean and cost effective.
I didn't realize we had any "hot rock" capable of producing enough energy.
Iceland is a great geothermal example. Walking across the asphalt on some streets in iceland can melt your sneakers. They do have quite a resource. Many of the restaurants pipe steam directly from the ground to cook food in their kitchens.
I suppose we could run injection wells to deep rock. Not sure how much power we could recover. The deeper the well, the less efficient/productive the plant. Our hot rock is deep and not as hot (about half of what Iceland's is).
Our hot rocks are between 150-200C (302-392F) and twice as deep as Iceland's. Once boiling is achieved, the rest is efficiency.
The depth is the largest issue, 6 kilometers (20k feet), so isn't an easy or cheap effort, but still both possible and cost effective.
Depending on the plant design and location, one may not need to go quite that deep either.
Don't forget about the new study that says wind power trashes the environment around it...
Apparently the wind farms create extra turbulence in the wind patterns (no surprise) which leads to higher soil temperatures and less soil moisture.
Something along these lines....
http://www.atmos.uiuc.edu/~sbroy/research/comments/news.jsp.html
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
Don't forget about the new study that says wind power trashes the environment around it...
Apparently the wind farms create extra turbulence in the wind patterns (no surprise) which leads to higher soil temperatures and less soil moisture.
Something along these lines....
http://www.atmos.uiuc.edu/~sbroy/research/comments/news.jsp.html
"Trashes" is somewhat extreme, and doesn't properly describe the situation.
Changes, perhaps. There certainly has to be some conservation of energy priciples applied.
And, less soil moisture is an extrapolated result of what was stated as higher soil temps. But, annual rainfall may be a better indicator.
All in all, it amounts to different, not trashed. Could be it benefits the production of different crops or supports another species better.
To delcare it negatively is premature and not related to the facts.
It's a kin to stating a number of large ships affect waves or sea level of the ocean.
Excellent perspective Sq. Currently there are trade offs between all of the above. I would love to see each source rated by:
Environmental Friendliness
Economic Efficiency
Reliability
With 100 being the highest for each...
Frankly, we are currently stuck between a rock and a hard place:
Coal:
Cheap, plentiful, cheap, reliable, cheap... but even clean coal is the most polluting form of electrical generation available.
Oil:
Expensive, reliable, moderate polluting.
Gas:
Price is mediocre at some locations, reliable, low pollution. Good for peak generation needs (low gas demand in the summer months).
Wind:
Not a realistic option. I thought it was a winner, until a friend that works with the FERC told me wind power is so sporadic that you can not take other sources of power offline and supplement it with wind. In the summer (read: when most power is needed) wind is at the low generation level, sometimes storms forces it offline, etc. You can not replace a power plant with a wind farm, it can supplement it and we will probably get better at predicting it... but it is not a solution. (not to mention the local nature of wind power, and that location usually not being near population centers).
Also ignores the environmental arguments: wind patterns locally disrupted as well as large farms causing regional disruption. The merits of which I am not familiar enough to judge.
Hydro:
A great fad that has gone to the wayside. Our net hydro generation has been on decline for over a decade and 3 more hydro dams in Oregon are on the hit list. What we gained in reliability and economic efficiency we lost in overall economic damage (in the perspective of some).
Solar:
Currently, solar panels will NEVER generate enough power in their life spam to offset the energy used in creating them. The efficiency is simply not there. You can efficiently make solar panels if you burn coal to do so... but that is clearly not a real solution. Perhaps a technology issue that will be solved, but currently small scale solar is not a real solution to the overall energy crisis.
Also ignores the sporadic, seasonal, and timely nature of solar.
Large scale solar, however, is somewhat more practical in some locations. The sodium boil generation stations (mirrors focus sun on a pipe and boil sodium [or other source] for generation) is efficient on a large scale. It also has the benefit of working best in the hottest parts of the year/day. It could help with peak demand in Phoenix, LA, Vegas, etc.
Waive/Tidal:
Technology not up to par. Would only work in some areas anyway.
Nuclear:
We are too stupid/too concerned with NIMBY to make a concerted effort to get rid of the waste. Instead of storing it in a lead lined fortress carved into salt caves in the middle of an uninhabited desert specifically designed for nuclear waste, we leave it in the basements of nuclear facilities. Smart. Real smart.
- - - -
IMHO, more nuclear power plants need to be built. We should also generate power as environmentally friendly and efficiently as possible near sources of water that can then be turned into hydrogen... essentially a battery for that power. It would help smooth the peak nature of wind as well as the distribution efforts. Nuclear plants could also use excess capacity to generate hydrogen. Or whatever means is efficient and clean.
I am not a rapid global warming person, but understand the overall need to reduce pollution and even more important, find an electrical generation source that enables us to break our transportation oil needs. Hydrogen could do that if we could generate enough efficiently.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Hydro:
A great fad that has gone to the wayside. Our net hydro generation has been on decline for over a decade and 3 more hydro dams in Oregon are on the hit list. What we gained in reliability and economic efficiency we lost in overall economic damage (in the perspective of some).
Environmental groups will protest any new projects since a new dam/lake will displace wildlife.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Clean coal is a lie.
Adding a small amount of control technology to address minor concerns does not make a product "clean".
There is nothing "clean" about mining, transportation nor burning of coal. This is nothing more than a concerted public relation effort.
I'm curious what you think about ConocoPhillip's E-GasTM technology, which transforms coal to natural gas to burn. http://www.conocophillips.com/newsroom/news_releases/2008news/12-16-2008.htm. Are these more false claims, or could their be some truth to this approach? Obviously, you still have the problems of mining & transporting, but if true, couldn't gassification actually result in something that could be burned relatively cleanly?
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Clean coal is a lie.
Adding a small amount of control technology to address minor concerns does not make a product "clean".
There is nothing "clean" about mining, transportation nor burning of coal. This is nothing more than a concerted public relation effort.
I'm curious what you think about ConocoPhillip's E-GasTM technology, which transforms coal to natural gas to burn. http://www.conocophillips.com/newsroom/news_releases/2008news/12-16-2008.htm. Are these more false claims, or could their be some truth to this approach? Obviously, you still have the problems of mining & transporting, but if true, couldn't gassification actually result in something that could be burned relatively cleanly?
Most of us are environmentalists, the only difference is how we approach the phelosophy. Some come at it from a "cause" based standpoint, adopting a cause and then latching on to any and all information that supports that cause regardless of it's source or validity. A much smaller number come at it by examining the science first, and then accepting or rejecting positions based on valid math, physics, chemistry and statistics.
As for Gasification, I think it's in the math. If you throw enough money at anything you can, through modern science, make it "clean," but is a $15 gallon of fuel economical? How much energy must be exerted to produce the fuel? Or is this simply a marketing ploy like ethanol?
The great thing about marketing is that companies recognize that most of the public will never research the issues. They can allways rely on the "cause" based environmentalist to push products without responsibility. Most of the public simply hunger for the sound-bites and talking points necessary to support causes, and then spread the buzz like a virus through the hive. By the time it returns to the company, it has momentum, political, "junk" scientific, and public.
Ethanol was once viewed as the new "clean' alternative and its marketing sold vehicles, built plants, pushed science, and paid farmers, until understanding of the process and economics behind it began to trickle down from the intelligent people, who do the math, to the general public, and finally to the cause driven environmentalists.
The jury is out on gasification as an efficient fuel source. So far it looks to offer a poor economic model. As for coal in general we have achieved a 70% decrease in pollution, and that could increase to 90% in the next decade.
But all of these arguments go back to CO2. Organic production of energy produces CO2. It does so in nature when an animal converts fuel to energy, and it does so in our cars and factories when machines convert fuel to energy. Simply part of the cycle.
We can focus on silly graphs of the last 100 years and build industries on panic or we can pay attention to real science and come to the humbling conclusion that Yes CO2 is rising, happens every 100,000 years, directly related to the cycles of solar energy hitting the earth and the fluctuations of temperature that results. Within those long, large fluctuations are quick, extreme cavitations caused by solar storms that douse the Earth in massive amounts of energy. We are just coming to the end of one of those. The junk scientists are not stupid, they realize this and have begun to push their language away from the term "warming" to preserve their cause. So now we have a new term, "Climate Change." Since the climate will always change this term is eternal and meaningless, therefore, as a "cause" it will prevail, until the real science trickles down.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Co2-temperature-plot.svg/800px-Co2-temperature-plot.svg.png)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png)
I am a tree-hugger. I grow them, nurture them, admire them, and build things of beauty out of them. I am not so kind to broccoli.
Pretty colors. He wins.
The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor and that stuff is always totally ignored. Why? because they can't blame it on man.[B)]
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor and that stuff is always totally ignored. Why? because they can't blame it on man.[B)]
Yes they can. I "make water" all the time.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor and that stuff is always totally ignored. Why? because they can't blame it on man.[B)]
Yes they can. I "make water" all the time.
You'll just have to change your diet from hydrocarbons to something else. You probably make methane and CO2 also. You are just socially unacceptable to the green world.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Clean coal is a lie.
Adding a small amount of control technology to address minor concerns does not make a product "clean".
There is nothing "clean" about mining, transportation nor burning of coal. This is nothing more than a concerted public relation effort.
I'm curious what you think about ConocoPhillip's E-GasTM technology, which transforms coal to natural gas to burn. http://www.conocophillips.com/newsroom/news_releases/2008news/12-16-2008.htm. Are these more false claims, or could their be some truth to this approach? Obviously, you still have the problems of mining & transporting, but if true, couldn't gassification actually result in something that could be burned relatively cleanly?
Most of us are environmentalists, the only difference is how we approach the phelosophy. Some come at it from a "cause" based standpoint, adopting a cause and then latching on to any and all information that supports that cause regardless of it's source or validity. A much smaller number come at it by examining the science first, and then accepting or rejecting positions based on valid math, physics, chemistry and statistics.
As for Gasification, I think it's in the math. If you throw enough money at anything you can, through modern science, make it "clean," but is a $15 gallon of fuel economical? How much energy must be exerted to produce the fuel? Or is this simply a marketing ploy like ethanol?
The great thing about marketing is that companies recognize that most of the public will never research the issues. They can allways rely on the "cause" based environmentalist to push products without responsibility. Most of the public simply hunger for the sound-bites and talking points necessary to support causes, and then spread the buzz like a virus through the hive. By the time it returns to the company, it has momentum, political, "junk" scientific, and public.
Ethanol was once viewed as the new "clean' alternative and its marketing sold vehicles, built plants, pushed science, and paid farmers, until understanding of the process and economics behind it began to trickle down from the intelligent people, who do the math, to the general public, and finally to the cause driven environmentalists.
The jury is out on gasification as an efficient fuel source. So far it looks to offer a poor economic model. As for coal in general we have achieved a 70% decrease in pollution, and that could increase to 90% in the next decade.
But all of these arguments go back to CO2. Organic production of energy produces CO2. It does so in nature when an animal converts fuel to energy, and it does so in our cars and factories when machines convert fuel to energy. Simply part of the cycle.
We can focus on silly graphs of the last 100 years and build industries on panic or we can pay attention to real science and come to the humbling conclusion that Yes CO2 is rising, happens every 100,000 years, directly related to the cycles of solar energy hitting the earth and the fluctuations of temperature that results. Within those long, large fluctuations are quick, extreme cavitations caused by solar storms that douse the Earth in massive amounts of energy. We are just coming to the end of one of those. The junk scientists are not stupid, they realize this and have begun to push their language away from the term "warming" to preserve their cause. So now we have a new term, "Climate Change." Since the climate will always change this term is eternal and meaningless, therefore, as a "cause" it will prevail, until the real science trickles down.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Co2-temperature-plot.svg/800px-Co2-temperature-plot.svg.png)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png)
I am a tree-hugger. I grow them, nurture them, admire them, and build things of beauty out of them. I am not so kind to broccoli.
Your graph isn't germane to the discussion of the effects of climate change on us humans and our environment.
We humans have not been on this planet for very long. Moreover, we humans have depended on agriculture to feed ourselves for even less time. What the earth was like before humans were around (or when we were few in number confined to a small area of the planet) is not necessarily a planet conducive to our survival.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
Your graph isn't germane to the discussion of the effects of climate change on us humans and our environment.
I have to agree. Showing graphs of global climate change before humans were even on earth doesn't do even one little thing to prove humans are responsible for Global Warming/Climate Change. Get rid of the charts. In fact, erase all such data from the records everywhere. The only acceptable data will be that which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that humans are the exclusive cause of Global Warming, or Cooling, or whatever it is this week.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
I have to agree. Showing graphs of global climate change before humans were even on earth doesn't do even one little thing to prove humans are responsible for Global Warming/Climate Change. Get rid of the charts. In fact, erase all such data from the records everywhere. The only acceptable data will be that which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that humans are the exclusive cause of Global Warming, or Cooling, or whatever it is this week.
I think you missed my point. Whether the earth's climate is changing because of us or not isn't really that important. Fact is that it is. We need to work to maintain the climate in a state that allows us to survive.
IIRC, the atmospheric CO2 peaks in those graphs (prior to the current one we're riding, of course) were due to mass extinction events.
And equating our respiration to digging up massive amounts of carbon from the ground and burning is inaccurate. The carbon cycle consists of the carbon in active circulation in our ecosystem. We've been adding to that ever since we started digging up coal several hundred years ago.
Burning a forest does not have the same effect, nor does our respiration, as that carbon, while temporarily stuck in a tree or our body, would in a relatively short time frame find itself back in the atmosphere. Shortly after that it'll be part of another tree or person or whatever.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
I have to agree. Showing graphs of global climate change before humans were even on earth doesn't do even one little thing to prove humans are responsible for Global Warming/Climate Change. Get rid of the charts. In fact, erase all such data from the records everywhere. The only acceptable data will be that which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that humans are the exclusive cause of Global Warming, or Cooling, or whatever it is this week.
I think you missed my point. Whether the earth's climate is changing because of us or not isn't really that important. Fact is that it is. We need to work to maintain the climate in a state that allows us to survive.
IIRC, the atmospheric CO2 peaks in those graphs (prior to the current one we're riding, of course) were due to mass extinction events.
And equating our respiration to digging up massive amounts of carbon from the ground and burning is inaccurate. The carbon cycle consists of the carbon in active circulation in our ecosystem. We've been adding to that ever since we started digging up coal several hundred years ago.
Burning a forest does not have the same effect, nor does our respiration, as that carbon, while temporarily stuck in a tree or our body, would in a relatively short time frame find itself back in the atmosphere. Shortly after that it'll be part of another tree or person or whatever.
I was joking about breathing etc with Gaspar.
The rest is slightly different. I believe we should not waste resources and should be good stewards of the earth. I also believe that the climate change is affected a LOT less by human action than the popular group. We are not totally blameless but I don't believe that we are capable of maintaining the climate in a state that allows us to survive if we are not the major contributing factor. Most Global Change folks believe that we only have to give up a little bit to save the earth. If we are not the cause, we may give up a LOT with no effect. I believe you are intelligent enough that I don't need to think up some example. We probably still disagree about how much effect humans can have.
Another potential policy that really gets me is that developing country pollution contributes less to Climate Change than in developed countries. It must be so or developed countries (USA, Europe, Russia) would be required to help developing countries (India, China? they have lots of money thanks to us) with their pollution control rather than allow them to pollute to develop. Buying Carbon credits is crap. Either control your emissions or stop, world wide. Carbon credits is just a way for the Algores of the world to cash in on climate change, not a way to fix the problem. That's assuming we can control the climate at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
Carbon credits is just a way for the Algores of the world to cash in on climate change, not a way to fix the problem.
No, it's a way to incentivize emissions improvements without government just up and paying for it.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
Carbon credits is just a way for the Algores of the world to cash in on climate change, not a way to fix the problem.
No, it's a way to incentivize emissions improvements without government just up and paying for it.
Incentivize? I think you listened to W too much and you are making up words. I understand what you intend. I don't think I agree.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
Carbon credits is just a way for the Algores of the world to cash in on climate change, not a way to fix the problem.
No, it's a way to incentivize emissions improvements without government just up and paying for it.
Incentivize? I think you listened to W too much and you are making up words. I understand what you intend. I don't think I agree.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/incentivize
Thanks for your concern. :)
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/incentivize
Thanks for your concern. :)
You're welcome. I don't agree with the popular trend to make adjectives out of adverbs out of nouns etc just by adding the seemingly correct endings. I especially dislike verbification.
You got what you paid for in the free dictionary. If I can find the time to waste, I'll look for it in a more recognized dictionary. As someone said (maybe you), a web site can be found to support almost anything.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/incentivize
Thanks for your concern. :)
You're welcome. I don't agree with the popular trend to make adjectives out of adverbs out of nouns etc just by adding the seemingly correct endings. I especially dislike verbification.
You got what you paid for in the free dictionary. If I can find the time to waste, I'll look for it in a more recognized dictionary. As someone said (maybe you), a web site can be found to support almost anything.
M-W not good enough for you? ;)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incentivize
You can disagree with where language is going, I often do, but you can't really change it. Even the Oxford folks accept incentivize now.
I could have said 'incent,' but that died out soon after people started saying it in the early 80s, although it's still in a few dictionaries. Or I suppose I could have said 'create incentives for,' which probably would be your preference.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/incentivize
Thanks for your concern. :)
You're welcome. I don't agree with the popular trend to make adjectives out of adverbs out of nouns etc just by adding the seemingly correct endings. I especially dislike verbification.
You got what you paid for in the free dictionary. If I can find the time to waste, I'll look for it in a more recognized dictionary. As someone said (maybe you), a web site can be found to support almost anything.
M-W not good enough for you? ;)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incentivize
You can disagree with where language is going, I often do, but you can't really change it. Even the Oxford folks accept incentivize now.
I could have said 'incent,' but that died out soon after people started saying it in the early 80s, although it's still in a few dictionaries. Or I suppose I could have said 'create incentives for,' which probably would be your preference.
OK, I'll buy M-W. You could have said motivate.
Much of today's language trends sound pretentious when simpler language will convey the message better. I think some of it is due to poor language skills. The language guy in the Tulsa World editorial pages did an article about this a while ago. I can't rememeber his name right now.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/incentivize
Thanks for your concern. :)
You're welcome. I don't agree with the popular trend to make adjectives out of adverbs out of nouns etc just by adding the seemingly correct endings. I especially dislike verbification.
You got what you paid for in the free dictionary. If I can find the time to waste, I'll look for it in a more recognized dictionary. As someone said (maybe you), a web site can be found to support almost anything.
M-W not good enough for you? ;)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incentivize
You can disagree with where language is going, I often do, but you can't really change it. Even the Oxford folks accept incentivize now.
I could have said 'incent,' but that died out soon after people started saying it in the early 80s, although it's still in a few dictionaries. Or I suppose I could have said 'create incentives for,' which probably would be your preference.
OK, I'll buy M-W. You could have said motivate.
Much of today's language trends sound pretentious when simpler language will convey the message better. I think some of it is due to poor language skills. The language guy in the Tulsa World editorial pages did an article about this a while ago. I can't rememeber his name right now.
I could have, although it doesn't have the connotation I was going for. :)
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
I could have, although it doesn't have the connotation I was going for. :)
I like to choose my words carefully too. You just found the wrong audience in me.
Words like incentivize are distracting to me. Next I begin to question the intelligence or education of the speaker. Then I start to ignore the speaker. By then the message is lost. So much for connotation.
Reports to the government are usually full of "those words". Some of them are practically unreadable. Executives and politicians like "those words" because (they think) it makes them sound as if they know what they are talking about.
Some gobblety-gook speakers find such words incentivizing to use more like them. I do not.
Enjoy your vocabulary. Maybe in another 20 or 30 years I'll find it less distracting, but probably not.
Someone needs to better align their paradigms to achieve synergy.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Someone needs to better align their paradigms to achieve synergy.
I practically taste the power of that statement...the power.
Dunno. I'm kind of into "incentivize." "Motivation" doesn't capture the economic overtones you get when you verb "incentive." "Motivation" sounds like something you get from a seminar, or therapy, or a tent revival.
Looking at how gimpy our economy is right now, and at how much the government is going to be, ahem, priming the pump in the coming year, I predict that we'll all become MUCH more familiar with "incentivize."
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Someone needs to better align their paradigms to achieve synergy.
I practically taste the power of that statement...the power.
The femtowatts.....
I expected a few comments from the peanut gallery.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
We humans have not been on this planet for very long. Moreover, we humans have depended on agriculture to feed ourselves for even less time. What the earth was like before humans were around (or when we were few in number confined to a small area of the planet) is not necessarily a planet conducive to our survival.
My point exactly. We are renting.
To think that we are producing lasting change that will destroy the earth is beyond arrogant.
It is obvious that the earth/universe/God/Allah/Greenspan is in control, and it will most certainly destroy us eventually with little action on our part.
To look at 100 years and run around in circles claiming that we are destroying the earth, is kinda like looking at the thermometer rise from 75 to 100 on a hot Oklahoma day and deducting that it will be over 600 degrees by the end of the day. It would then follow that because you observe more postal workers delivering mail as the day progresses, that they are the cause of the terminal warming trend. Oh no! Everyone is going to die if we don't halt Postal Warming.
Logic defies most people.
I guess you can color me a bit old fashioned, but I believe we need to get all the engery we can from all sources for our nation, we need to bust away from OPEC. Let's use our own natural resources, (it also makes many good jobs). What good is having coal & oil in our country if it's off limits to drill and use? We may as well not have it at all and beg OPEC for our fuels. We need to use coal, drill for our oil where-ever there is a oil reserve we drill, we need to look into solar and wind and water, Nukes and expand battery and electric cars, we need to go all out. Right now we need oil so that means drilling. We need coal, We need more nuke plants, that could be our base and we work and expand out from there.
This new "Save the Planet" crap is so damn arrogant. To think that we insignificant beings might destroy the planet. Is the Earth warming, are we polluting too much, is our farm land ruined? I don't know one way or another.
But I'll tell you this; no matter what we did or continue to do - the planet will be fine. It has dealt with volcanoes, earth quakes, meteors, massive floods, freezing, and everything else. It has a thousand nuclear explosions a second at the center of it. Far worse than we can do. And it seems just fine to me, not going anywhere.
Now, the PEOPLE. The people might be f***ed. We'll probably screw this place up good enough that we all die off. But the planet, I'm fairly confident the planet will be just fine.
- George Carlin (something like that) [:P]
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
This new "Save the Planet" crap is so damn arrogant. To think that we insignificant beings might destroy the planet. Is the Earth warming, are we polluting too much, is our farm land ruined? I don't know one way or another.
But I'll tell you this; no matter what we did or continue to do - the planet will be fine. It has dealt with volcanoes, earth quakes, meteors, massive floods, freezing, and everything else. It has a thousand nuclear explosions a second at the center of it. Far worse than we can do. And it seems just fine to me, not going anywhere.
Now, the PEOPLE. The people might be f***ed. We'll probably screw this place up good enough that we all die off. But the planet, I'm fairly confident the planet will be just fine.
- George Carlin (something like that) [:P]
I could not agree more, man is like a gnat on the face of the planet and he's helpless against mother nature, man cannot even control a rain storm, flood, blizzard, cold snaps, or droughts. The planet has been around for 4.5 BILLION Years and man is nothing on that time scale. The planet survived comet hits, astroid strikes, and metor hits and it's still here. The planet suffered many severe volcano erruptions that put more toxic dust in the air in one eruption than what man could do in 1,000 years. The planet has lasted 4.5 billion years and it will still be here long after man is gone. As for global warming FairBanks, Alaska is suffering some the coldest weather ever, they have been getting -50 below zero -without wind chill. Car tires go flat and crack, propane gas won't vaporize in temps below -40 below zero. The people of Fairbanks, Alaska who are used to the cold weather are having a hard time coping it's so cold. Al Gore needs to show them where the ice is melting. Grand Rapids Michigan is buried under 5' of global warming white stuff. The high temps in MN are below zero.
The question isn't whether we'll kill off the planet or not. The question is whether we'll kill off its ability to support us.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
The question isn't whether we'll kill off the planet or not. The question is whether we'll kill off its ability to support us.
Exactly. [:)]
Hence the mockery of "save the planet."
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
The question isn't whether we'll kill off the planet or not. The question is whether we'll kill off its ability to support us.
Exactly. [:)]
Hence the mockery of "save the planet."
Aha. I thought I detected a strong whiff of satirical get-off-my-lawnism.
Today's report about Sea Ice levels remaining the same for the past 30 years in spite of unsubstantiated claims to the contrary, and Al Gore's "claymation" videos of polar bears drowning, reinforces my belief that we are going to need a hell of a lot more Tanqueray!
(http://www.killingtime.com/Pegu/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/tony_sinclair2.jpg)
. . . and a much larger ice pick.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Today's report about Sea Ice levels remaining the same for the past 30 years in spite of unsubstantiated claims to the contrary, and Al Gore's "claymation" videos of polar bears drowning, reinforces my belief that we are going to need a hell of a lot more Tanqueray!
(http://www.killingtime.com/Pegu/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/tony_sinclair2.jpg)
. . . and a much larger ice pick.
Your correct Al Gore is pulling a big hoax on the people. They were saying back in the early 1990's that if we don't stop global warming New York City will be under water by the year 2000. Now they like to use the term "Climate Change" and that can mean anything & everything they want it to mean. Earths climate is always changing, With all this cold weather they are saying that colder means warmer. (Google has alot of info if you punch in words like "debunking global warming" or "global warming hoax") I think the globe is cooling off myself.
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
I think the globe is cooling off myself.
Well jeez dude, you would...you live in FREAKING OHIO
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Today's report about Sea Ice levels remaining the same for the past 30 years in spite of unsubstantiated claims to the contrary, and Al Gore's "claymation" videos of polar bears drowning, reinforces my belief that we are going to need a hell of a lot more Tanqueray!
(http://www.killingtime.com/Pegu/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/tony_sinclair2.jpg)
. . . and a much larger ice pick.
Gore's videos of melting glaciers and Polar Bears was cut from the movie "Day After Tommorrow" which got an A for special effects and F for believability. Helicopters freezing in mid air but the passengers inside are fine? Hiking across hundreds of miles of snow while magically staying on course? Massive tidal waves you can outrun?
Oh, and +100 to Gaspar for Tony Sinclair reference.