Throwing Down the Energy Gauntlet

Rhetoric!

We depend on foreign oil because of Federal regulation and laws that prohibit us from extracting gas and oil from our own continent. Rather than take the risk of screwing up our land we buy from others and care not if it mucks up their land.

China does not care a rat's arse about environmental issues (unless the Olympics are coming to town). China is happy to exploit the rest of the world first, but equally as happy to put economic growth well before it's own environmental concerns.

At least I have to credit India for having the foresight to consider their environment in contrast to China, but that is the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship.

Politics demands that we are beholden to other nations for our energy. The real challenge will getting out and voting this November and doing something about it intelligently rather than just sitting on the bar stool and complain.

Salazar is just flapping his jaws in pre election BS.

He turned out to be the leader of the pack of fools Obama brought in for cabinet office positions I guess - though he does have stiff competition for lead fool!

Maybe they can appoint a scientific group of advisors as was done for the gulf spill.

"Where would you start, and how?"

Invest a billion or two in Energy Storage Research... and see what happens.

In my understanding of things, studying Entropy is the key. All things return to zero. When something takes longer to return to zero than to charge it up, that is energy storage.

I figured this out in my bubble bath... a few seconds to create the bubbles, and quite and half an hour for them to disappear. If one knew how to capture the energy from the decaying bubbles.. it would be usable energy. I equate this with nuclear decay, which is also stored energy. In that case, geometry, critical mass, and temperature all play a role in the decay rate. (and chain reaction)

How many other types of energy storage are there, if one studies entropic decay?

Chris

Salazar is just as culpable as his crony Obama and his predecessor Carter. We could put Saudi Arabia out of business if the DOE would get the hell out of the way and let us. We could replace every coal fired plant with a nuke and turn all our coal into oil if we were allowed to. but we aren't. over 95% of the continental shelf is off limits to drilling or even exploration. we don't even know what we don't know, we can only guess. the BLM is sitting on oceans of oil and gas but won't allow anyone to drill. and all that nuclear waste would be reprocessed into more nuclear fuel to be burned in Gen IV reactors. and all the DU can be fed to Thorium reactors to make more fuel too. So even Greenpeace should like that. No nuclear waste to bury for 100k years, and no coal smoke or CO2. everybody wins! except that the DOE won't let us. WHY? Safety? Bullsh!t! The number of people harmed by nuclear reactors in this country can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and still have enough to give a scout's salute. (Karen Silkwood doesn't count, that was intentional.)

Salazar and Obama are the problem. Get rid of them and their ilk and we will HAVE the solution.

And in doing so we will turn the middle east into a non-problem because it is oil money that pays for all the terrorism. cut off the oil money and the terrorism will slow way down. and regimes that manage to hold onto power through oil money will topple as well.

Renewables will never be more than 15% of the power mix. There just isn't enough of it of a high enough "energy quality" to make any more than that.

I like what you say, except I think it is the Bush clan that is to blame.

I do not know why the clamp on nuclear. One has suspicions, but no facts. What if the gulf accident(s) and 3 mile island were false flag ops.. to turn the public opinion against these energy sources?

I know... tinfoil hat time again.

Chris

And just what is the "Truth According To Guest"?

According to MY truth, Rorschach is spot on and your personal attack should be moderated out of here.

Hooker

However, the problems are not apolitical.

Of course the problem crosses party lines, but that doesn't mean because both parties have a hand it that the net culpability = 0.

I can cite chapter and verse of every thing I said. You cannot. therefore you are irrelevant.

OMB canceling all loan guarantees.

Carter killing the Nuclear Power industry AND nuclear reprocessing.

It sux when you don't have any facts to back up your argument doesn't it? Yes, this is an engineering forum, but the simple fact of the matter is that energy production and distribution is far more of a political problem than a engineering one. We KNOW how to solve the engineering problems, or in the cases we don't, we have a pretty good idea on how to go about it. What we have little control over is the political climate we must work within.

The only problem with blaming one set of politicians for every thing, the other set was in power also and their kick at the cart. US dependance on foriegn oil hasn't significantly changed under either party.

Martin

This post was deleted because it was an attack on another user. Please review the CR4 Site FAQ and the CR4 Rules of Conduct.

Come on Chris - Do you really believe that?

Double extra strength tin foil hat!

Oh, you mean like Spain's Solar Power program?

The interior secretary's speech is a very genuine direction to the people of U.S meaning great to the global level as such.

So far so good is the massive service provision by U.S energy service to the extent of feeding around 1100 Giga watts of uninterrupted electricity [[26% of the world demand]. Now the tiger has come, the question of sustainability for the future, the grave consequences of our activities on playing with our resources.

The global rush for sustainability posed by future uncertainties, a real fact and problem haunting us.

Any policy related to economy, welfare, environment always mean and intend good to the people and good to the government. Economy driven by such values is again a facilitated entity. The real responsibility lies primely on the technology arena, meetint the total demand of sustainability. such challenges to be meet are, green low cost electricty, non heat or burning based, total conversion all possible emergy activities to electricity base, grid extension, non carbon transpost systems using electricity, over coming the technocal snags, power augmentability and so on.

To start with,viable technologies developemnt in energy, water and environmental friendlyness is the master task, which should steer policy and economy strategies which or secondary dependants.

Technology and engineers, chin up and surge in the task.

Where I would start is distributed generation, centralized storage.

I think Premise #1 is, "Washington is not going to lead." It can't. 1A: The country is too divided over energy. 1B: Each party has [insert appropriate adjective here] reasons for (pick any five) doing nothing, advocating nukes, eschewing nukes, drilling / not drilling, and on and on. 1C: I see a lot of truth in the cynical statement, "A politician's first duty is to get re-elected."

I can't formulate a succinct Premise #2, but it would be something along the lines of "Energy policy is foreign policy." Yes, we need basic research in energy storage. But couple "storage" with, oh, "gigawatt" and R&D isn't merely R&D; it's a Manhattan Project. Manhattan Projects are dependent tasks, not predecessor tasks. If "no cogent national position for/against OPEC / coal / whatever" then "no large-scale, committed effort to energy storage."

Premise #3 is, "What China / India / Saudi Arabia / et. al. do matters, but not as much as what we do." OK, so them fereners is the bad guys. Now what? Jaw-boning a nefarious THEM is not going to add one kW-hr to any of the outlets in my house.

So Step 1 is, literally, power to the people. Nope, solar collectors on every roof and a community-sized wind turbine the other side of every hill will not supplant the national grid. But it's a start. Not in energy reduction or cost containment, although that may happen. In consciousness.

Step 2 is do the math. In the aggregate, renewables can only supply "x"% of our needs (curiously, "x" is a highly variable and contentious number). Renewables also have enormous front-loaded costs. Fine. *IF* the pay-back is there, then subsidize the dang thing, preferably on the John Doe level, not the multinational corporation level.

Step 3 is storage. I'm just guessing, but I'll betcha 10 million battery systems as an integral part of 10 million distributed generators is somewhere between un-cost-effective and stupid. Send the electrons down the wire as they are generated. Let the utility, with its large power storage capability, park the wee beasties until needed.

Step 4 wait, and watch. The unavoidable combination of increased population; rising energy use per capita; uncertainty over which resources are, hello, politically available for extraction; and [add your own constraints here] will force us to take concerted action. Me and my crystal ball, we don't have a clue -- and neither does anyone else, thank you -- what those many, many actions will be, much less when they will converge (perfect storm, anyone?) but starting on a large number of iterative, partial solutions sounds like a mighty fine idea.

"It's a bad start." Yep. The transition from whale oil to petroleum-based lamp oil wasn't smooth, nor from oil lamps to electricity (we'll ignore the mercifully short-lived presence of natural gas), nor was the start away from carriages to horseless carriages particularly auspicious. True/false: From kinda-sorta worked (Benz, 1886) to kinda-sorta reliable (Ford's Model T, 1908) took a long time and encompassed a whole lot of bad starts. I don't mean to exclusively champion wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, or anything else in particular. I do mean to support something, anything that is both along the iterative path to less energy dependence than we have now and cost-effective. Granted, "cost-effective" is a slippery term.

Nope, I can't give you a GA on your (correct) observation that the solar system you were offered had a high concentration of snake oil. If we had to shut down every initiative or every business that attracted carpet baggers, well, goodbye used cars, half of Wall Street, and can I interest you in this bridge?

My tough grader attitude stems from not doing the rest of the math. Correct, to you, that $50/month, whoop-dee-do. Here's the yeabut, yeabut, yeabut part. Supposedly those systems last for 20 years or so. 50/mo X 12 mo/yr = 600/yr; 600/yr X 14.5 = $8,750. That's nice. Multiplying your conjectural number by my conjectural number, 8750 X 10 million distributed sites and we have 87 billion bucks. OK, so this discussion could well be off by an order of magnitude and it ignores a number of externalities. It still prompts more careful investigation. We import roughly 10 million bbl/day (http://www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_home#tab2). At $80 each (http://www.oil-price.net/), that's $800 million, per day, paid to somebody. Houston, we have a problem. I'm OK with "It's a bad start" for the same reason that I'm OK with Winston Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

Anon, I think your approach, ROI, is correct as far as it goes. I mean, who can argue with a checkbook balance??? But I also thing it's short-sighted and that IRR is better. But that's a topic for later today. Right now I have code to write.

I agree with you. Anonymous Hero's analysis is excellent 'common sense' but at an absolute level, we need alternatives, and therefore solar, wind, energy storage, and anything is 'wisdom', which in my book, supersedes common sense. one is short term and one is long term.

but as others have pointed out, the real problem is all the crookery going on. America is not a democracy and not a free enterprise and free market system anymore.

Chris

You wrote, "but at an absolute level, we need alternatives..."

Why?

We have everything we need right here in the USA - everything - we just are not permitted to go after it. Government has mandated (by law) that we buy a certain percentage of our oil and energy needs from foreign sources.

Incidentally, Canada is one of our biggest importers of oil - thank you for every drop, too.

You wrote, "but at an absolute level, we need alternatives..."

just that old global warming scam... which suggests that fossil fuels are helping to heat and carbonize the atmosphere.

you sound like you don't think your (or any) government has your best interests at heart, with that sort of regulation?

ok really.. I think that the whole ball of wax can solved by energy storage technology and by conservation, because we all waste an ginormous amount of energy. (north americans especially)

I worked in the solar industry from '79 to '82. At least half of the technology discussed back then was passive solar, solar water pre-heat, insulation techniques and thermal storage. I think that raising awareness, and providing real incentives to builders to construct homes that use passive solar techniques and waste less energy would go a very long way to helping energy issues.

Solar and wind are not very transferable to transportation methods, but at least that would save some petroleum for the transportation industry. (by not using it to heat homes. Natural gas et al, is a good home heater, but why use it if it is better applied to transporation.

Why not implement more convective cooling towers or chimneys for houses in the warmer climates? it also is free(r) to operate.

chris

But the question was, why do you think we need alternatives?

for me, alternatives equals independence; from system or political entity.

as the number of possible sources and types of energy multiply, the less we are at the dictates of any power-mongering group. (basic assumption that there will always be those who seek to dictate to others)

As you pointed out, energy is economic power. (sorry if I'm misrepresenting you)

I too, am off for the weekend. (off to a off-grid farm in saskatchewan, to try finish a barn before the snow flies.)

Chris

"why do you think we need alternatives?"

Maybe it's straight forward 'better economics' of new technology?

The capital cost of the plants/kW are 'a number';

link

The service life is is an amortization number, some do poorly on, some better.

The fuel cost is another number;

Some use fuel that costs significant money (~ 75% of operating cost) and is rising in price.

Some use fuel permanently free of inflationary pressures

And, of course, the technology and (one set of) fuel prices, have changed a fair bit, since, per table above, "assuming order was placed in 2006"

This may interest

Wow.

I had no idea that energy policy was inextricably linked with the definition of good domestic governmenance. Assuming of course that "good" and "government" do not create an oxymoron.

I see it now. Duh.

"Misspoke" is close. I was cutting linguistic corners and you caught me. I was worried that if I wrote as I thought -- "anything reasonable along the path" blah-blah-blah -- then I would open a can of worms regarding the weasel word "reasonable."

Let the record show that regardless of my truncated statement, "anything" does not include cold fusion or dilithium crystals. It does include a high tolerance for research renewables and zero for deployment if the CBA isn't positive.

In the current venture I'm the resident bean counter, so I want to wave my hands over a spreadsheet before we joust over your point about that particular deal being both shady (which it was) and "not a good investment" (which it may or may not be. As is often the case, "It depends.").

I think you're on well-travelled ground when you draw a line in the sand with " also believe that it is fundamentally wrong to force people to buy something that they don't want."

If the antecedent to "force" is "buy," no problem.

If for you, as almost certainly for Rorschach (I'm putting words, in your mouth, Tex! Correct me if I am wrong!) "force" also applies to inappropriately used taxation, whoa, big problem. (Sorry, it's that bean-counter mentality coming through. And trust me, I am no fan of big government.)

Suppose a bunch of renegade engineers on a blogging site could take the logical next step. They decide that the government's policy on energy is flat-a** wrong, and that they are not going to be forced into paying for it through their taxes. Wave the magic wand and poof, no more forced separation of citizen from citizen's money. What's to stop every peacenik from withholding 11% of his taxes because 11% of the national budget goes toward what he would call war? You can see where "force people to buy" position leads.

Good grief yes. If someone's got $6k floating about, keep it! As for banking and mortgage, talk about greed.

"If we really want energy independence." May I suggest that, collectively, we don't? If we did, hello, we'd be seriously working on it by now. I've forgotten which of my oh-so-brilliant observations stated it, but here it is again: Washington is not going to lead. It can't. We're too divided, even on this site. That we as a country have vast "supplies of natural gas and oils" (and you're right; we do) is beside the point. Extracting energy is a successor task.

"The free market ... works every time it is tried." Uh, no. To use your example, for any number of reasons investment bankers and mortgage brokers were free to market their wares to whomever would buy. No gov't intervention, no monopoly. That didn't work out so good. That the strong take from the weak is a truism. Pete Carrol (I think) added, "The smart take from the strong." Welcome to the jungle called laissez-faire capitalism.

Energy policy. Am I ever glad I chimed in on this one.

Have a great evening.

I have found it curious that on the one hand the "green" energy initiative is pushed in this country with solar and wind (and has been since the 70s) knowing that the economics don't add up. The economics of nuclear power does add up and is clean, renewable, etc., but the push is and has been to NOT allow it.

Then on the other hand oil and gas do make economic sense, along with the fact that they are stored energy, negating the need for storage technology development such as new batteries. Yet they are considered harmful, if not evil.

Couple these with the point you made earlier about our laws and policies that keep us dependant on foreign oil despite our vast reserves and some conspiracy theorists might think our "master plan" is to use everyone else's oil first. Again to an earlier point, if we are the last one's standing with an oil and gas reserve, then controlling that energy is the ultimate in control of the masses.

But, again, that is just the stuff of conspiracy theorists.

"But, again, that is just the stuff of conspiracy theorists."

sign me up.

"regulates and controls energy because it is how they regulate and control their populations."

true. I remember reading about that. I think it was Richard Rohmer in his book Ultimatum.

ga

Chris

I don't think that roof top solar is going to 'solve' our energy problems, but it is difficult to compare the out-of-pocket costs of two heavily subsidized energy sources (fossil fuel v solar). It makes perfect sense for an individual (person or business) to make decisions based on $, but this is not necessarily true for a group (city, county, state, nation). To an individual it makes little immediate difference if the $ you spend goes to your neighbor or overseas. But as a group it does make a difference. That $ paid to your neighbor (to manufacture solar panels) is subject to the positive multiplier effect since it then gets passed around within your group. There is little or no positive multiplier effect when that $ is sent abroad, and in the case of imported fossil fuels there is clearly a negative multiplier - that $ comes back to us in terrorist attacks and political instability in the oil producing parts of the world. We then get to spend more $ for military operations. We should not confuse price with cost.

excellent! ga.

Step One:

Dismantle the black hole of the DOE...

Hooker

If it was a black hole the DOE would be self-consumming and would vanish into a singularity. ;-)

If only...

but our politicians unfortunately keep feeding it with our seemingly limitless gov't printing presses pushing out dollars like never before.

Hooker

I choose to look for loopholes in the law that allow me to be independent. I can change the world, even if only for myself and my family. I continue to solve the basic problem of how much energy do I need and how can I generate it without playing their game. No foil hat needed. I am not a militant off gridder but have more in common with them than any politician. Humbly, I will try to generate what I need as if the grid has failed and there is no more petro fuels. Maybe I will succeed before they regulate us out of our retirement. Gary

I'm still going to be watching election night (guess it will be morning here). There will be a lot of people cussing lost opportunities and blaming everyone else.

Should also be the start of the end for the tea party. A group of people who are just against different things is hard to maintain without an immediate target in sight.

Russ, I think you will be among those who are surprised, but we'll see in about two weeks who will be crying in their beer. (assuming you can even get beer there.)

Hi Rorschach - No problem getting beer, whiskey or any other drink here - bit on the expensive side due to taxes. Religion is treated much like in the US - the general public doesn't worry about it much - if at all.

Right - we will soon see as elections day is not far off!

Cheers!

Just as an aside Russ, here is an analysis made by a friend of mine here in Houston on early voting patterns in Harris County (the largest and most populous county in the State of Texas). In Harris county, the demographics are that the inner loop area, with a finger running along I-10 to the east is rather blue, and the outer loop area and to the north and west especially, is quite red. The early voting trends are pretty much as I have been expecting, trending 2:1 red.

We won't know for certain until the fat lady sings on the third, but the trend and demographic analysis is looking pretty good from my POV at this point.

Early voters are usually the activists - fairly easy to predict. The tea party members should be heavily in that section. Same with Obama's bunch (what few he has retained), they will tend to be among early voters.

When the general public has to turn out we will see.

I would love to see Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi looking for something to keep themselves busy!

Don't worry. I, as a Tea Partier, a Veteran and a Patriot, will not be going anywhere after election day.

If, anything, we will be re-oiling our guns and being even more vigilant, lest the newly elected continue "business as usual".

If you think we are "against" everything, then you've been watching way too much liberal main stream media. We are wholeheartedly FOR the USA, the Constitution, and Freedom the traditional American way.

BTW, if Obamacare stands, and the Federal gov't mandates that I pay out of my pocket for it, I will either end up in jail or dead.

Hooker

Those on the other side of the argument are not veterans or patriotic?

Blame the liberal media? They actually do a decent job reporting when any candidate makes stupid statements. Not much else they do well though.

Re-oiling the guns? Sounds like a wake up call for the authorities.

You are for your interpretation of the USA, constitution and traditional American way my friend - it is not the only one and you are not the only one that has possibly read bits of it. Most of the signatories of the original documents seem to have been like the politicians of today - they had little idea what they were really signing I believe.

Unfortunately I don't think Obamacare is going anywhere - once on the books it is difficult to remove.

**Those on the other side of the argument are not veterans or patriotic?**

They may be Veterans and they may claim themselves patriotic. But all the Veterans I know (several hundred), and many non-veterans, agree that anyone who subverts the Constitution is NOT a patriot, or is, at best, a Sunshine Patriot.

**Re-oiling the guns? Sounds like a wake up call for the authorities.**

I own and carry my weapons in accordance with the law. The main reason for the 2nd Amendment is to allow us to overthrow a runaway gov't with force if necessary. Gun and ammo sales are at an all time high, which indicates to me that I have many like minded compatriots.

**You are for your interpretation of the USA, constitution and traditional American way my friend - it is not the only one and you are not the only one that has possibly read bits of it. Most of the signatories of the original documents seem to have been like the politicians of today - they had little idea what they were really signing I believe.**

You are so sadly mistaken. Read Paine, Madison, Jefferson, Henry, Franklin, et al. I have and as a Virginian, I was raised on this stuff, especially having grown up in one of the most historically important areas of the country, the Colonial Triangle of Williamsburg, Jamestown and Yorktown. Not to mention having been born on the Army post of Fort Monroe. I am fully steeped on the politics of the era and have been a lifelong student of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. Speaking of which I have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution on four separate occasions. Lastly, remember that the Founding Fathers literally put their necks on the line to fight the British Crown. They were traitors of the highest degree. I think your comparison of them to the politicians of today is, frankly, insulting.

**Unfortunately I don't think Obamacare is going anywhere - once on the books it is difficult to remove.**

Difficult, but not impossible. My state, Virginia, is leading the charge to get Obamacare ruled unconstitutional. We expect to get a favorable ruling in December. Do you wonder why the teacher's unions are being granted exemptions from this law? Or why more unions and some states have applied for exceptions? Or why the law doesn't apply to federal politicians or the federal civil service? The rats are deserting the sinking Obama ship.

Hooker

@ Hooker - Be insulted all you want.

The word patriotic is possibly the most misused word in the US. It is used and misused by all sorts of view points from moderate to both extremes. I put in my time in the service as well. Never in anything more dangerous than a bar fight though.

You wouldn't be the only one with guns - if you have used yours in action I expect you fully realize the horror involved, from what others say.

You are from a historically important part of the country and therefore understand better? Paine, Madison, Jefferson, Henry and Franklin were not the only signatories - they were the guiding lights. I didn't realize being from Virginia was either important or gave special insight.

Jefferson in particular had a difficult task putting together a document that would be signed. If you think all the signatories had a future vision such as he did you are wrong. Be insulted all you want about my reference to the signatories - to do so is being foolish.

Of course that rats are abandoning ship - it happens almost every two and four years. Much of his vaunted political machine of four years back has abandoned him as he breaks promise after promise - thankfully!

Obama standing in front of the podium with his nose in the air expounding on anything is enough to make me change channels.

Russ

Yes, I am a combat veteran, though with no barroom brawls to my credit.

This is obviously going nowhere. Come to America and join me in the Tea Party. It's an education in the American Revolution and Constitution unto itself.

Hooker

I am American - have been for 65 years.

Studied the constitution along with other studies - back in my university days.

I had presumed you were an American so the invitation still stands. Come back and see what the grass roots (Tea Party) are doing. The movement is significantly, nay, astoundingly, different from how the media portrays it.

Hooker

I understand that its much easier to talk politics than energy policy, but this thread is about alternatives to expensive and destabilizing imported energy. IMHO the reason we have no coherent energy policy (nearly four decades after the first OPEC oil shock) is largely due to our tendency to turn all technical and economic discussions into political sloganeering and food fights. With lots of backing of course from entrenched interest groups who profit from the current situation (in this case our dependence on fossil fuel), and funnel the proceeds back into our political system to make sure we never do anything.

Well I wouldn't describe this as "talking politics" - more like teaching me, and others, about the American system and opinion formation criteria - which go's directly to how to achieve a commonality of purpose and direction the "Throwing Down the Energy Gauntlet" seems to seek.

Besides "politics" is 'forbidden'. So this can't be that. Nor is the last sentence of your post - anymore that it is in the OP - though it is mentioned in both as a key criterion.

To all my educators above (at the risk of caps lock):

It seems to me, on my learning so far, that it was designed on 'survival of the fittest', in a time of that 'distinct need' and to an extent, perpetuates that climate. It's a 'minimalist government', which is good for those 'doing ok' and not so good for those who are less ok.

So given I am now probably at risk of caps lock bold; it seems to demand 'proof of "doing ok"' - before it recognizes the right to speak to it (well more so than other models).

But, rather than the 'original underlying benchmarks' of the skills, knowledge and ability to "get it done", like successful military service of old; these seem replaced by gaudy display of wealth, or celebrity, or 'opinion leader', or voting power base.

So my question is - what are the benchmark's for "doing ok" we need to achieve/promote/re-awaken, to be heard;

Given Oprah doesn't understand "energy"?

_{I guess now I've reached "Dead man Typing" ...}

If you are going to take up arms to change things, I suggest you put the Fed at the top of your list. This privately held bank has been taking your money since 1913. (along with all central banks) All else ought to be secondary. Without this, you will never get your country back.

Inflation is a tax levied upon all citizens. It is simply the difference between the amount of value created by a country, and the amount of money created.

Chris

Auditing and/or disbanding the federal reserve is a common theme among tea party groups for that very reason.

well... it probably isn't wise to kill it until one has a reasonable replacement. It is after all, the basis of most economies in the world.

One would think though, that if the constitution of the US is based on authority flowing from the people, to the congress, etc, that they would also grant authority to the monetary system used. That seems rather fundamental to the situation. It was keysian economic obfuscation that allowed the fed to get its start (if I am not mistaken) and is going to be the reason used for not changing it. "You don't understand _____". "All we need is smarter people..." etc.

_{^{I don't know tea party anything... I'm Canadian For my personal bent, I think politics should be issue-based, not party-based... just like CR4.}}

Chris

I like that;

There is a huge gap between a Theory and a Law (in a discipline - not court of) and it comes down to "repeatable measurement"

GA

thank you.

Liberty is.... ?

Absolute.

Like E=MC²

_{or about 293.15K ± a fanatic?}

^{_{(typing small - so caps lock won't hurt as much)}}