Great Engineering

[Assasin]

if the democrats can get people fi go out go vote. You notice only a certain population a support tea party? I tell you I think this movement might be dead by 2012 election. Remember not so long ago you had the "Religious right?" them just reform and relabel.

They can't attract black, hispanic, union and women voters who are great voting block. They will attract the whilte christian men.

[Gamma]

ergo....there will be no gains by dems or teabaggers this mid-term? i think yuh missing a trick, if not you..then it's me.

[Assasin]

tea bagger going to pick up a few seats but watch them fall apart as a movement the next few years. Watch them and the wider republicans have a lot of problem a few days after winining.

The dems simple screwed their campaign. The last two weeks is when they started defending themselves. You have too much John Kerry a run.

[HL]

...also Assasin, if the republicans gain the control as they are predicted to attain--with their no compromise approach... they will be seen as pure obstructionists. They will block good leglislation that are in the public interest.

This may be enough to get the president re-elected.

[Hortical]

That's pocket change....the current cost to replace the Tappan Zee Bridge in NY is about $16 billion ($6.4 billion for the bridge, $6.7 billion for the rail line and $2.9 billion for the bus lanes).

That cost is likely to increase by at least 50% in a few years. New Yorkers don't mind, dem gats money....

[Islandman]

Obama is NOT very popular. His approval rating is about 45% and dropping every month.

[Islandman]

They will have problems with the Republican leadership to be sure, but they are NOT going anywhere before the next Presidential election.

In fact the Dems better HOPE they hang around and get more control of the Republican party.

[Islandman]

But have they not been pure obstructionists for the last 2 years? And how has that hurt them?

The president can get re-elected but it will have to be because 1) the economy improves somewhat and 2) The Republicans choose a candidate that appeals to thier extreme right wing.

[Assasin]

But they don't hate him either. Many people have a good impression of him.

[Assasin]

The democrats have to get together formulate policy and attack and start from early. The repub started the day the 08 election was over.

[Don1]

I have been reading the debates about China's engineering advancements vs the USA, and the conclusion is that the USA has become stagnant in the R & D over the years. The key ingredient to the whole debate, I think, is that whereas the USA may be still "up there" in the leader pack, they have failed to IMPLEMENT most of these technology to better the common people. Take for instance, the bullet train. Successive governments/presidents have passed on a lot of these technological responsibilities to the incoming because of the massive financial investments that is required. Now we have a president that is pushing for these advancements and again, like every other major decisions, he is being blocked by his opponents because, if he gets it done, that would be another feather in his cap. He is on track to becoming the greatest ever in US history.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/01/ff_fasttrack/

Below, is the real reason for my post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQrWIRYIk5A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr8Lk...eature=related

Nice post.... interesting that the ignoramuses who rush in with their uninformed nonsense when I post regarding the obvious US decline & Chinese advancement... they do not address the central thesis of your post reflecting that fact of relative decline.

This begs the question...are the garrulous ignoramuses motivated by personal animus to the messenger?... one Don1?

Good ting mi nuh dey yah fi look fren..

[Jangle]

Thanks Don1. We got a little sidetracked discussing the politics, but the purpose of this post was to discuss the US lag in technological advancement compared with China and Europe. There are certain basic items/developments that the USA has just failed to embrace within its soceity. The one piece of new technology that we in the USA readily endorse is cell phones, and Japan is still ahead of us.

[Don1]

Thanks Don1. We got a little sidetracked discussing the politics, but the purpose of this post was to discuss the US lag in technological advancement compared with China and Europe. There are certain basic items/developments that the USA has just failed to embrace within its soceity. The one piece of new technology that we in the USA readily endorse is cell phones, and Japan is still ahead of us.

I plead guilty on the political sidetracking... I know I'm (somewhat) inflammatory... but ah nuh nutten


As to technology...the US attracts and sometimes creates the best and the brightest minds...and develops great technology BUT...like any empire....after a while gets fat, comfortable & decadent....overextending itself in unwinnable wars with the majority of the population having an "entitlement orientation".... without the requisite sacrifice..

All empires decline after a while...the US is not immune from that rule... some seemingly believe it is

[Jangle]

These are the simple things that the USA is lacking and is resistant to implement.

European Cities Converting Trash to Energy

Nations Embrace Waste-to-Energy Plants; U.S. Shies from Idea

By Brigid Darragh
Thursday, April 29th, 2010
An energy plant that burns thousands upon thousands of tons of garbage, twenty-four hours a day, and converts it into heat and electricity. Sounds like a dream, doesn't it?
A feasible solution to ending landfills as we know them, whilst simultaneously moving away from fossil fuel dependency...
In Denmark, it's a reality.
Denmark now has 29 of these new "waste-to-energy" plants, which convert local household garbage and industrial waste using filters to catch pollutants that would have otherwise found themselves released into the atmosphere.
The plants are not only cleaner than conventional incinerators, but they are allowing Denmark's cities to consider garbage as a clean alternative fuel.
In effect, this kills two birds with one stone; it aids in the disposal of a problem for many urban areas, and it provides a resource for clean energy. And the plants achieve both of these things whilst reducing greenhouse gas emissions and local pollution.

Denmark's waste-to-energy plants currently serve 98 municipalities in a country of 5.5 million people; ten additional plants are being planned or are currently under construction and will join the 400 plants that exist today across Europe.

The United States has no plans to build waste-to-energy plants, according to the EPA.
Nearly half of the nation's states, however, classify and burn waste to create renewable fuel. In the past, states and individual municipalities have decided the process and methods for waste management.

But based on the scale of our country compared to the nations leading waste-to-energy practice in Europe (Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands), the numbers are embarrassing...

There are only 87 trash-burning power plants in the United States, a country of more than 300 million people, and almost all were built at least 15 years ago.

It's important to note that nearly all of those 87 plants are in high density areas, like the North East. Much of the trash Americans generate is easily put out of sight and out of mind, because we have the land and space to do just that.

Why, then, is Uncle Sam hesitant to develop these plants that could reduce waste in water, landfills, and dumpsters and convert it to heat and electricity?

This seems like a no-brainer...

Converting unsightly trash would eliminate rats, disease, and otherwise unpleasant effects of landfills and dumpsters piled high with household garbage — the result of many people sharing a small living space; harnessing the fuel to create heat and electricity would counter the high cost of energy from fossil fuels that citizens currently struggle to afford.
There are two main sides of the argument against waste-to-energy plants in the U.S. of A.

The first lies among those who support recycling; they believe that creating a purpose for trash would encourage people to generate trash and not be as aware of buying recyclable materials and reducing and reusing their waste. These plants could potentially sabotage recycling programs many states have worked hard to institute and enforce in the last decade.

"Once you build a waste-to-energy plant, you then have to feed it. Our priority is pushing for zero waste," said an environmental associate with the New York Public Interest Group, who strongly opposes building a waste-to-energy plant in Manhattan.

But in many of the European cities that have embraced burning garbage for energy — that are currently expanding their plants — only what cannot be recycled goes to the plant as "fuel." Thus, recycling rates are quite high.

The other is (surprise!) the money argument. Landfills are cheaper, and from sea to shining sea, there is an abundance of places for us to bury our trash in the sand.

Landfills remain the final resting place for most Americans' trash. According to the New York Times: New York City alone sends 10,500 tons of residential waste each day to landfills in places like Ohio and South Carolina.
The cost to build these plants is high... and the United States is already so far in debt, it seems that this method of waste management — while sustainable, clean, and efficient — should take a back seat to the many other bills to be paid, so long as we have other methods of disposing of garbage... even if that means putting it in landfills.

But like most clean technology, the upfront costs are surpassed by the savings amassed over time. Trash removal and hauling is expensive.
The NYT reported the Big Apple's trash bill in 2009 at over $300 million to export trash and send it to faraway landfills via rail to Virginia and landfills in Middle America.

It would be unfair to ignore the fact that the incinerators and waste management methods of today aren't a vast improvement of their ancestors. Emissions and pollution have decreased significantly and energy is generated in traditional landfills from methane that results from the breakdown of garbage.
But methane is twice as potent as carbon dioxide and is the primary warming gas released in the process of burning garbage. Waste-to-energy plants produce lower levels of pollutants as they generate energy from incineration.
There are many arguments for and against a national plan to consider and build these plants in the United States. Some feel that ignoring the waste-to-energy plant option as a viable way to manage waste and create clean energy is, put simply, irresponsible.
I can't help but wonder if the same arguments were voiced 15 years ago, if the hybrid and electric vehicle was regarded much like this method of plant treatment for trash is today, during a time when there was enough foreseeable oil to gas up the Chevy.
Why would someone want to spend a higher upfront cost for a vehicle if he or she didn't have to?
Why market a vehicle that could compete with our traditional automobiles?
Does the case for waste-to-energy plants fall under the If it ain't broke, don't fix it philosophy? And if so, maybe it's time we redefined "broke."

Brigid

[Bruce]

Bridge: 2.4 Miles

"My,my and we can't even fix flat bridge."

This was going to be the next part of my post. We (Jamaica) can't even build a bridge across the Kingston harbour linking the airport to St. Catherine. The Bog Walk Gorge needs to be closed off and dammed.

According to my Google Earth, the length of a bridge from the western end of Port Royal to the approximate location of the old
Forum Hotel at the south end of Port Henderson Drive in Portmore is 2.4 miles.

At Port Royal, there is a tongue of land that juts out into the sea
at the northwest corner. The length of a bridge from there to the
Forum Hotel is 2.7 miles.

If the bridge were built northwest to a direct connection to Highway 2000 at the north end of Port Henderson Drive in Portmore, the length would be 1.8 miles.