alvish Posted November 27, 2008 Report Share Posted November 27, 2008 Here you go Alavish, heres a little gift.1.00 GBP = 54.5473 THB United Kingdom Pounds Thailand Baht On its way back up, gutted I had to pay for my kitchen last week! That's a pricey kitchen you got.. last weeks were probably the worst exchange rates in 10 years I've been watching it slowly going our way.. 3rd December will be a big day when the BoT Monetary Policy Commission get together to discuss policy / rates. They near had to call an emergency meeting because exports, tourism and internal investment look dire right now and looks to get worse with the PAD playing their games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westbam Posted November 27, 2008 Report Share Posted November 27, 2008 I dont feel sorry for the rich i feel sorry for the poor in a situation like this the poor get poorer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alvish Posted November 27, 2008 Report Share Posted November 27, 2008 I dont feel sorry for the rich i feel sorry for the poor in a situation like this the poor get poorer Same here that's why I hope for better exchange rates to save the millions who stand to lose jobs in the export and tourism industries 2 pillar industries supported by the poor of Thailand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beej Posted November 27, 2008 Report Share Posted November 27, 2008 I dont feel sorry for the rich i feel sorry for the poor in a situation like this the poor get poorer Same here that's why I hope for better exchange rates to save the millions who stand to lose jobs in the export and tourism industries 2 pillar industries supported by the poor of Thailand... **** them, I want my ice crushing fridge! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJTX Posted November 27, 2008 Report Share Posted November 27, 2008 OK - 80 baht to the dollar for two months. That's all I ask :twisted: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alvish Posted November 27, 2008 Report Share Posted November 27, 2008 I dont feel sorry for the rich i feel sorry for the poor in a situation like this the poor get poorer Same here that's why I hope for better exchange rates to save the millions who stand to lose jobs in the export and tourism industries 2 pillar industries supported by the poor of Thailand... Come on, you know you "really' want the better exchange rate so it will be a better deal for "you". Was gonna say what Beej said but didn't have the balls :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted November 27, 2008 Report Share Posted November 27, 2008 If I had money I would invest in Solar and wind power ! add clean coal, nuclear and battery powered automobiles to your portfolio. i think long-term you can't go wrong with citigroup, they seem to be done with letting major banks fail, and still in principle believe in the monetary system, so in the long run it will go up, as will any of the survivors. Clean coal isn't even real and its been spoken all thru the election. Dreaming of clean coal doesn't count but it is good pr. That aside I'm sure coal wouldn't be a bad investment since its a huge energy source. clean coal obviously isn't completely clean, but that it "isn't even real"---that's a new one. someone should inform weakiepedia, they're in on the conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted November 27, 2008 Report Share Posted November 27, 2008 As you suggest it wouldn't be a bad investment, I was thinking you might have some comments on obamas policy to heavily tax the coal industry to the point of failure.No comments on this? yeah i have a comment on this. are you blatantly dishonest or just blatantly ignorant? you never struck me as being stupid enough to spout campaign talking points exactly as they were spoon fed to action mcnews, deliberate distortions intact, as if they were the whole story. perhaps i was mistaken. are you a) aware of the context of the coals tax and even faintly aware of the context of Obama's comment, and what policy he was talking about? it's easy to flail at a straw man, isn't it? you only look like an a**hole to the people who know the context of what you're distorting. most everyone who skims forums and doesn't get past action mcnews might mistake you for someone who wasn't completely full of ****. you get the style points for being so blissfully smug about it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 If I had money I would invest in Solar and wind power ! add clean coal, nuclear and battery powered automobiles to your portfolio. i think long-term you can't go wrong with citigroup, they seem to be done with letting major banks fail, and still in principle believe in the monetary system, so in the long run it will go up, as will any of the survivors. Clean coal isn't even real and its been spoken all thru the election. Dreaming of clean coal doesn't count but it is good pr. That aside I'm sure coal wouldn't be a bad investment since its a huge energy source. clean coal obviously isn't completely clean, but that it "isn't even real"---that's a new one. someone should inform weakiepedia, they're in on the conspiracy. Its still a dream. Weakiepedia says in the site you provided that it won't be available till 2020- 2025. In other words they are still working on it. Coal is still a major source of polution and not clean yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 Its still a dream. Weakiepedia says in the site you provided that it won't be available till 2020- 2025. In other words they are still working on it. Coal is still a major source of polution and not clean yet. not implementable until then is different from non existent. or do you think nuclear power doesn't exist either? new nuclear plants aren't likely to be online until then. "clean" coal isn't perfectly clean. true. there may be problems in that sequestered co2 may leak back from the earth into the atmosphere. true. but it's also true that a bunch of ******* windmills aren't going to power the grid. so what's plan B from a greenie point of view? nuclear's out. "clean" coal's out. there aren't enough windmills, dams, geothermal plants, etc to power the grid. everyone just buys their own solar panel and lives happily ******* ever after? hell of a lot more of a 'dream' than clean coal, isn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 ps eagle, exactly how much of ANY alternative energy do you think can be implemented on a large scale before 2025? if you've seen ANY such plans please post links; i've been known to read an article or two on the subject from time to time and i haven't seen even the slightest hint of such a plan, which doesn't mean i didn't miss it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeGeneve Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 I dont feel sorry for the rich i feel sorry for the poor in a situation like this the poor get poorer Same here that's why I hope for better exchange rates to save the millions who stand to lose jobs in the export and tourism industries 2 pillar industries supported by the poor of Thailand... Tourism employs about 1 million being 6% of GDP according to figures I read in the Post the other day. However, if you look at the phenomenal growth rates of the tourism sector, esp the mass end of the market, in the last 10 yrs it has seemingly been quite durable and survived severe downturns (post 9/11, SARS, Tsunami etc) with an overall trend of annual significant increase. Too many are just too addicted to the sacred tourism easy cash cow and maybe this downturn will require some tourism operators to actually come up with some more sustainable models. From what I read last week, the Federation of Thai Industries estimated last week that 1.1 million factory jobs will go in the first half of next year due to the downturn in world orders. That translates into 12.4 % unemployment in the 9 million strong industrial workforce according to the Federation. That is a pretty sigificant pool of people probably with many being at the lower end of the scale of earnings. They will really hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 Its still a dream. Weakiepedia says in the site you provided that it won't be available till 2020- 2025. In other words they are still working on it. Coal is still a major source of polution and not clean yet. not implementable until then is different from non existent. or do you think nuclear power doesn't exist either? new nuclear plants aren't likely to be online until then. "clean" coal isn't perfectly clean. true. there may be problems in that sequestered co2 may leak back from the earth into the atmosphere. true. but it's also true that a bunch of f*cking windmills aren't going to power the grid. so what's plan B from a greenie point of view? nuclear's out. "clean" coal's out. there aren't enough windmills, dams, geothermal plants, etc to power the grid. everyone just buys their own solar panel and lives happily f*cking ever after? hell of a lot more of a 'dream' than clean coal, isn't? THey don't have it yet just planning on it and yea not much choice since its the most used fuel and China and India are on it big time but Solar plants are better then nuclear. focusing the sun with a huge lense does produce enough electricty for cities along with panels on buildings and homes, and solar doesn't pollute but has been pushed aside till lately. Solar with wind and ocean turbines yea it can happen if its allowed to happen. That to me is alternative fuel , clean coal is ahem coal and again they are working on it. If they had it already they would be telling us the first clean coal plant is being built. I think they should be pushing for the solar plants because they have been proven to work. Pushing for digging huge holes in the earth to burn carbon isn't a good way to go for the future. But then we aren't all going organic next year either. oops http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=5844357&page=1 Guess I was wrong. Still think Solar is better idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 ps eagle, exactly how much of ANY alternative energy do you think can be implemented on a large scale before 2025? if you've seen ANY such plans please post links; i've been known to read an article or two on the subject from time to time and i haven't seen even the slightest hint of such a plan, which doesn't mean i didn't miss it. Solar, Wind turbines and Ocean wave turbines can all be well on their way to replace nuclear and off set coal but a huge amount in 20 years and if it was profitable it would be. Greed will be mans downfall. Of course its my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJTX Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 ps eagle, exactly how much of ANY alternative energy do you think can be implemented on a large scale before 2025? if you've seen ANY such plans please post links; i've been known to read an article or two on the subject from time to time and i haven't seen even the slightest hint of such a plan, which doesn't mean i didn't miss it. Solar, Wind turbines and Ocean wave turbines can all be well on their way to replace nuclear and off set coal but a huge amount in 20 years and if it was profitable it would be. Greed will be mans downfall. Of course its my opinion. What is wrong with the Pickens plan? And what is wrong with Nuclear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldMember Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 It's a darn finger lickin' picken good plan.yesirreeeeeeeeeeeee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 ps eagle, exactly how much of ANY alternative energy do you think can be implemented on a large scale before 2025? if you've seen ANY such plans please post links; i've been known to read an article or two on the subject from time to time and i haven't seen even the slightest hint of such a plan, which doesn't mean i didn't miss it. Solar, Wind turbines and Ocean wave turbines can all be well on their way to replace nuclear and off set coal but a huge amount in 20 years and if it was profitable it would be. Greed will be mans downfall. Of course its my opinion. What is wrong with the Pickens plan? And what is wrong with Nuclear? Nuclear waste is whats wrong with it. They still haven't figured out what to do with the waste they already have except make bombs out of it. Oh and their is that radioactive thing. Why go with a power source that can kill you when you can go with Solar and have no pollution. I don't see a real argument there ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJTX Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 Nuclear waste is whats wrong with it. They still haven't figured out what to do with the waste they already have except make bombs out of it. Oh and their is that radioactive thing. Why go with a power source that can kill you when you can go with Solar and have no pollution. I don't see a real argument there ? If I am not mistaken France and Sweden get most (if not all) of their power from nuclear. I haven't seen any French or Swedes glowing green lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobbes Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 Nuclear waste is whats wrong with it. They still haven't figured out what to do with the waste they already have except make bombs out of it. Oh and their is that radioactive thing. Why go with a power source that can kill you when you can go with Solar and have no pollution. I don't see a real argument there ? If I am not mistaken France and Sweden get most (if not all) of their power from nuclear. I haven't seen any French or Swedes glowing green lately. Sweden has 10 nuclear power reactors that generate 46% of Swedens energy. They also had a near super gau over a year ago that would have been on par with Chernobyl. Sweden has been actively reducing its dependency on oil imports ever since the '73 oil shock. Besides nuclear they are also heavily investing in decentralised combined power-heat generation using biomass for example. Nuclear has, as Eagle pointed out, quite a few issues. There is no solution to the waste storage problem in existence. Some might see this as a mere inconvenience but many people including myself beg to differ. Costs too. If waste storage over the half life of the waste and decommissioning of reactors would have to be taken into account when pricing nuclear energy, it would become non-viable. Hence these costs are conveniently excluded and burdened onto the tax payer when the time comes to decommissioning a nuclear power plant. Uranium isn't the most abundant mineral around either. Increasing demand for 'yellow cake' (the enriched uranium used for reactor elements) due to an increasing number of countries going down the nuclear route has already caused the price to quadruple in just over six years. There you have in a nut-shell just some of the most glaring problems with nuclear... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 Its still a dream. Weakiepedia says in the site you provided that it won't be available till 2020- 2025. In other words they are still working on it. Coal is still a major source of polution and not clean yet. not implementable until then is different from non existent. or do you think nuclear power doesn't exist either? new nuclear plants aren't likely to be online until then. "clean" coal isn't perfectly clean. true. there may be problems in that sequestered co2 may leak back from the earth into the atmosphere. true. but it's also true that a bunch of f*cking windmills aren't going to power the grid. so what's plan B from a greenie point of view? nuclear's out. "clean" coal's out. there aren't enough windmills, dams, geothermal plants, etc to power the grid. everyone just buys their own solar panel and lives happily f*cking ever after? hell of a lot more of a 'dream' than clean coal, isn't? THey don't have it yet just planning on it and yea not much choice since its the most used fuel and China and India are on it big time but Solar plants are better then nuclear. focusing the sun with a huge lense does produce enough electricty for cities along with panels on buildings and homes, and solar doesn't pollute but has been pushed aside till lately. Solar with wind and ocean turbines yea it can happen if its allowed to happen. That to me is alternative fuel , clean coal is ahem coal and again they are working on it. If they had it already they would be telling us the first clean coal plant is being built. I think they should be pushing for the solar plants because they have been proven to work. Pushing for digging huge holes in the earth to burn carbon isn't a good way to go for the future. But then we aren't all going organic next year either. oops http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=5844357&page=1 Guess I was wrong. Still think Solar is better idea. that focusing solar with a huge lens plan has been around for a long time (since the 70s if i recall) but the problem is if something knocks the lens out of its orbit and the lens aims at something other than the solar panel, that something else (and everything that lives there) is scorched to a crisp. given that power lines are very limited in how far they can stretch, that could mean a fuckup results in one less city. actually "they'd tell us it was already being built" is faulty logic. there are a lot of things that humans have worked out the technology for but haven't built. as of last year some US energy company has already made plans for clean coal plants. if they can plan to build a plant then the technology is done and dusted. power plants are never experimental, if they can build it it's ready. clean coal is as good a near term plan as we have. the technology for the big solar lens is a LOT less finished than coal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 ps eagle, exactly how much of ANY alternative energy do you think can be implemented on a large scale before 2025? if you've seen ANY such plans please post links; i've been known to read an article or two on the subject from time to time and i haven't seen even the slightest hint of such a plan, which doesn't mean i didn't miss it. Solar, Wind turbines and Ocean wave turbines can all be well on their way to replace nuclear and off set coal but a huge amount in 20 years and if it was profitable it would be. Greed will be mans downfall. Of course its my opinion. What is wrong with the Pickens plan? And what is wrong with Nuclear? Nuclear waste is whats wrong with it. They still haven't figured out what to do with the waste they already have except make bombs out of it. Oh and their is that radioactive thing. Why go with a power source that can kill you when you can go with Solar and have no pollution. I don't see a real argument there ? because solar is a long way from being a choice to power the grid (on taht scale its' still a fantasy at present) and something needs to be done in the meantime other than 'dirty' coal plants, maybe? the risks of nuclear are vastly exaggerated by the 'green' resistance to it; i have yet to meet a greenie who can quote anything but vague talking points about nuclear radiation and waste. not that they're not real problems but it's like the 'frankenfood' thing; the resistance on the part of most greenies has sweet **** all to do with anything rational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJTX Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 because solar is a long way from being a choice to power the grid (on taht scale its' still a fantasy at present) and something needs to be done in the meantime other than 'dirty' coal plants, maybe? the risks of nuclear are vastly exaggerated by the 'green' resistance to it; i have yet to meet a greenie who can quote anything but vague talking points about nuclear radiation and waste. not that they're not real problems but it's like the 'frankenfood' thing; the resistance on the part of most greenies has sweet f*ck all to do with anything rational. Seems some combination of all of the above would be a lot better than we have now. If Pickens is right - wind. Solar where possible. Nuclear. And dare I say it - the US should drill more of its own oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 because solar is a long way from being a choice to power the grid (on taht scale its' still a fantasy at present) and something needs to be done in the meantime other than 'dirty' coal plants, maybe? the risks of nuclear are vastly exaggerated by the 'green' resistance to it; i have yet to meet a greenie who can quote anything but vague talking points about nuclear radiation and waste. not that they're not real problems but it's like the 'frankenfood' thing; the resistance on the part of most greenies has sweet f*ck all to do with anything rational. Seems some combination of all of the above would be a lot better than we have now. If Pickens is right - wind. Solar where possible. Nuclear. And dare I say it - the US should drill more of its own oil. we need all of those things, 'clean' coal, geothermal and hydroelectric where appropriate, and we need to develop things for the long haul like the big lens that can fry cities. incidentally, James Lovelock, the 'gaia theory' guy, says we need nuclear to get there from here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alvish Posted November 29, 2008 Report Share Posted November 29, 2008 For all you tree huggers out there... While you dig the ?Green movement? all you support is an ideology hijacked by big businesses with vested interests... whether it?s large scale wind farms, developing eco-villages or just promoting sustainable development etc.. these vested interests corrupt decisions and policies of environmental agencies, NGO?s and more concerning Political Parties and Governments. Example... a Political Party pushes Govt to introduce a policy for all govt / social housing to have wood chip boilers or solar panels installed etc. the installers of these solar panels will benefit (big time)..... who do you think own the companies??? The same people who managed to sit on (or influence) the executive of the Political Parties who proposed the motions in the beginning..... Do you think it is the sandal wearing stereotypes that run the show?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobbes Posted November 29, 2008 Report Share Posted November 29, 2008 For all you tree huggers out there...While you dig the ?Green movement? all you support is an ideology hijacked by big businesses with vested interests... whether it?s large scale wind farms, developing eco-villages or just promoting sustainable development etc.. these vested interests corrupt decisions and policies of environmental agencies, NGO?s and more concerning Political Parties and Governments. Example... a Political Party pushes Govt to introduce a policy for all govt / social housing to have wood chip boilers or solar panels installed etc. the installers of these solar panels will benefit (big time)..... who do you think own the companies??? The same people who managed to sit on (or influence) the executive of the Political Parties who proposed the motions in the beginning..... Do you think it is the sandal wearing stereotypes that run the show?? And your point being what exactly?? :? Leave the lobbying and influencing of politics and policies to the Exxons, Halliburtons and Bechtels instead? :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now