The News Thread

[CiG]

a huge amount of people that voted for trump were misogynistic/"christian" dudes [even weirdly some actual females] who were just not comfortable with the idea of a female president [explaining why trump won the "red states"] and a huge amount of people voting for hillary were just "feminists" who really, really wanted a female president [explaining why hillary won the popular vote]

Can't tell if trolling or...

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The only way Cruz makes a 2020 run is if Trump is impeached (or the next closest thing to it). A couple "moderate" Reps like Kasich might try making a run but no way will Cruz try to, especially since he's backing Trump pretty hard now. The guy has little charisma anyways and would probably lose a general election even under more favorable circumstances.

 

[Slammed]

Why wouldn't controlled burns prevent future wildfires? It's an established practice. Remove more flammable underbrush, reduce tree density to slow the spread and create barriers, and you've reduced the amount of fuel accessible to wildfires. Do that, and now it's much more manageable for the authorities to extinguish fires.

They certainly work in this country. It's been proven many times that controlled burns at the right time of year do exactly as you suggest while leaving the shit to build up over the years makes fires run faster and hotter because of the fuel available.

 

[CiG]

The only way Cruz makes a 2020 run is if Trump is impeached (or the next closest thing to it). A couple "moderate" Reps like Kasich might try making a run but no way will Cruz try to, especially since he's backing Trump pretty hard now. The guy has little charisma anyways and would probably lose a general election even under more favorable circumstances.

Cruz is an autistic policy wonk, there's no way he could live up to the Trumpism of the current Republican voter base IMO. Now that Repubs have had a taste of a leader with balls and a big mouth they'd be pretty stupid to throw that away for a guy the Dems with their feelz will steamroll over.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

The only way Cruz makes a 2020 run is if Trump is impeached (or the next closest thing to it)

i totally agree with this
but also
if trump gets a 2nd term, then, i'm pretty sure Cruz will make a 2024 run

 

[arg]

i don't even really know anymore
it used to be because the republican party was crap, but the democratic party is crap, too

there's this ridiculously complicated yet totally standardized way of getting to the point of getting anywhere near having your name on the presidential ballot that by the time election day it's like having to choose between blue-bag cool ranch Doritos and red-bag nacho cheese Doritos
but what if you don't want Doritos at all??
what if you want Cheetos Frito's or Funyons?? what if you want Ruffles??

even hillary and trump and beto and ted cruz are freaking doritos
you can't have any felons become president, but what would happen if somebody became president right after finishing a prison sentence??
you're never gonna have a broke dude become president, but what if a min wage worker, or somebody eating off foodstamps suddenly became president??
what if people born outside of the united states could run for president, then we'd end up having to choose between Jerry Springer and Arnold Schwarzenegger
even barak obama wasn't really a black dude, he was a white-guy-with-a-sun-tan [i mean in terms of how he did things, my friends called obama "an oreo" you know, "black on the outside-white on the inside"]

my point here is that when election day comes the republican nominee is going to be interchangeable with the previous republican nominee and the democratic nominee will be be interchangeable with the previous democratic nominee with this back-and-forth thing going on where the person replacing trump is really almost guaranteed to be the democratic nominee [excluding impeachment] it's really just a question of whether it's going to be 2020 or 2024 and whether or not it's beto [which it might actually be]

the only real difference this last time was the fact that the dem nominee was female
a huge amount of people that voted for trump were misogynistic/"christian" dudes [even weirdly some actual females] who were just not comfortable with the idea of a female president [explaining why trump won the "red states"] and a huge amount of people voting for hillary were just "feminists" who really, really wanted a female president [explaining why hillary won the popular vote]

beto becoming president will just try to copy what obama did and ted cruz becoming president will keep what trump is doing

Are you on food stamps ?

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't pretend to be an issue on climate policy. I'm not even interested in "climate policy". I think such a thing is myopic. There's broad issues that need addressing, one of which is climate change. Hyper-urbanism creates significant stressors in a variety of areas including the environment. A more dispersed population more evenly draws on resources. One argument against this is that more dispersion requires more redundancies which increase use of resources. For the most part, this isn't true with the possible or probable exception of energy usage. This is where nuclear power comes in (I'll address that below).

Climate policy isn't an island. Climate policy is social policy, is economic policy, is political policy, etc. These categories are helpful for conversation, but when you get into it you can't just talk about "climate policy" without addressing the rest. I know this, it's just that we're discussing what measures can address climate issues.

Greater dispersion and redundancies in infrastructure and services reduces the impact of disasters, attacks, etc. It provides greater resilience to communities and fosters more human-sized structures and organizations, and reduces inequality.

I agree that it's a measure, but in no way should it be the only dimension of our response (which you acknowledge below, I think).

What's the standard of living you're referring to that I'm unsympathetic to? "Lifestyles of the rich and the famous"? Or just lifestyles of the mundanes in the NYCs and Atlantas of the world? One lifestyle I'm somewhat familiar with is the OuterBanks retiree etc. in these parts. They build million dollerish homes with concomitant amenities (restaurants, etc) on an oversized sandbar jutting out into the ocean and then demand FEMA rebuild them and the infrastructure around them when they get torn up every 2-5 years. It's pretty when there isn't a hurricane - but we know the hurricanes are going to happen. It's not if, merely when. It's unsustainable, and I'm not sympathetic to their losses if the government made the unpopular decision to radically depopulate the Outer Banks (which they should do, as long as the government is underwriting the losses).

I don't have any problem with this. Your comments in the past have suggested the myopia of intellectuals and academics who live on the coasts, but many of these people live in these areas simply because that's where the cultural centers are concentrated. I think that academics/intellectuals would readily move inland if that's where the institutions went.

But to answer your question to some degree: Water usage is an area we could do a lot better on generally speaking, regardless of climate, but there's not the political will behind it unless a situation gets incredibly dire. Water usage is a prime point in dispersing the population buildup in SoCal and PHX. As far as travel, Miles per week isn't really an accurate barometer of how much energy is consumed/GHGs are created.

Just curious. Living on five gallons of water per day is quite doable; it's just not the luxury that many Americans believe they deserve on a daily basis (i.e. unlimited access to water).

Wind farms and Solar farms take up massive amounts of space

Space concerns are simply a non-starter.

Does housing not take up massive amounts of space?

kill and displace wildlife, have their own negative climate effects, and have terrible EROI (Energy Returned On Invested).

And housing doesn't kill/displace wildlife? I'm not sure what the difference would be.

No offense, but I don't see the point of pushing nuclear so heavily. Wind yields worse EROI than nuclear, but combine wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, et al and you approach the EROI of nuclear. Combine those alternative energy sources with selective use of nuclear plants, and I think you get a really sizable number.

In short, nuclear is an option; but again, it should be one part of a multi-faceted approach.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/31f4b6fnj0L._SX345_BO1,204,203,200_.jpgThere's two problems with nuclear power: Threat of meltdown (miniscule with modern codes and when not built in natural disaster prone areas), and waste disposal. The former creates much of the resistance at the electorate level, but the threat is overhyped to a degree far beyond shark attacks, terrorist attacks, etc. The latter is a practical issue that has to be addressed. The current model is to bury it, which comes with its own issues. With the dropping cost of space launch, I'm wondering what the feasibility is on the option is to send waste out of the galaxy. Since space is near infinite, it's not exactly comparable to clogging the oceans with trash or Near Earth Orbit with space junk.

Space concerns are simply a non-starter. The US uses a fraction of the total land mass for either people or agriculture. Obviously some percentage is uninhabitable in practical terms - stretches of the Rockies, parts of the Southwest, etc. But a return to patchwork townships/cityships would be able to handle the growing population with space in between for more localized production. More sustainable homes (with, where applicable, rooftop solar maybe as options) by way of better insulation, etc., can be a part of that. Reduced heat-island effects with smaller, greener cities. While energy usage might be increased by this, the transition from fossil fuels and combustion engines to nuclear and electric would reduce the impact of said energy usage in terms of GHG.

Nuclear waste is a major issue, as is toxic waste in general. Methane has something like twenty-six times more warming potential than CO2, and landfills leak a shit ton of methane. And landfill caps aren't built to last...

Anyway, you should check out this book:

It complements your ideas.

Why wouldn't controlled burns prevent future wildfires? It's an established practice. Remove more flammable underbrush, reduce tree density to slow the spread and create barriers, and you've reduced the amount of fuel accessible to wildfires. Do that, and now it's much more manageable for the authorities to extinguish fires.

I should have been clearer; all I meant was that controlled burns are an effective means of combating the extent of potential fires, but the more environmental conditions are conducive to large wildfires, the more controlled burns we have to do, the more landscape is rapidly affected.

I'm not saying controlled burns don't work, just that they're not sufficient.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

Are you on food stamps ?

no
keep going with the questions
this is interesting

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

amber guyger - Google Search

 

[The Ozzman]

It's official: White liberals are racist, study from white liberal university shows:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/28/white-liberals-patronize-minorities-downplaying-co/

https://insights.som.yale.edu/insig...nt-in-interactions-with-african-americans?amp

 

[Dak]

Climate policy isn't an island. Climate policy is social policy, is economic policy, is political policy, etc. These categories are helpful for conversation, but when you get into it you can't just talk about "climate policy" without addressing the rest. I know this, it's just that we're discussing what measures can address climate issues.

Those areas do come into play, but what I mean is that I do not believe using climate as an orienting point is functional. The climate is one of many challenge areas, not the only or even the primary one.

I think that academics/intellectuals would readily move inland if that's where the institutions went.

Does housing not take up massive amounts of space?

And housing doesn't kill/displace wildlife? I'm not sure what the difference would be.

Human development obviously displaces wildlife. My point was in comparing the nuclear footprint and negative externalities to energy output vs solar and wind, which I'll return to below. The comment about academics following institutions is sort of a chicken/egg issue, which is more broadly a labor/jobs chicken/egg issue. We see this with the Amazon HQ2/2 relocation. You could even argue it's people and capital chasing each other in somewhat vicious cycles until something happens to bust it up. It can either be government forced or through more "natural means" (market corrections, natural disasters, etc). But inertia and tradition are powerful headwinds to that sort of change - for example, good luck getting DC to relocate, even if it means building massive sea-walls. Can't exactly relocate the history and monuments.

No offense, but I don't see the point of pushing nuclear so heavily. Wind yields worse EROI than nuclear, but combine wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, et al and you approach the EROI of nuclear. Combine those alternative energy sources with selective use of nuclear plants, and I think you get a really sizable number.

In short, nuclear is an option; but again, it should be one part of a multi-faceted approach.

Nuclear waste is a major issue, as is toxic waste in general. Methane has something like twenty-six times more warming potential than CO2, and landfills leak a shit ton of methane. And landfill caps aren't built to last...

That's not how EROI works. You're referring to the total amount of energy produced. EROI is energy out for energy in. You have to do better than break even (generate surplus energy). The surplus is what drives any growth possible. Our current standards of living depend on the EROI of fossil fuels, which only nuclear can match/come close to matching.

Photovoltaics, biomass and wind (buffered) are below the economical threshold.

Now, you mentioned geothermal, which probably has a lot of untapped potential, but it's too early to see how that might develop. But photovoltaic development contributes significantly to pollution and GHGs, and along with wind, isn't consistent, scalable in all climes, and require massive footprints with ongoing environmental impacts, and all for minimal energy return. Nuclear is a far superior option.

Waste issues, and I'll include waste-water, trash, etc in that, is really an area ripe for "creative destruction" or "disruptive innovation". We've been burying stuff and/or dumping it into the water for all of human history. We need to do better. But that only addresses future pollution and GHG production, it doesn't reverse the current CO2 levels. Enter carbon capture (real potential solutions), as opposed to carbon credits (a graft scheme):

https://e360.yale.edu/features/negative-emissions-is-it-feasible-to-remove-co2-from-the-air

I remain neither skeptical nor optimistic about the climate, because I expect that solutions will be found in this area as they are needed. I'm less optimistic about solutions being found to more human scale problems without significant pain along the way.

Thanks for the book rec. I now have it sitting on my Amazon book list along with many others for some free time/money lol.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I should have been clearer; all I meant was that controlled burns are an effective means of combating the extent of potential fires, but the more environmental conditions are conducive to large wildfires, the more controlled burns we have to do, the more landscape is rapidly affected.

I'm not saying controlled burns don't work, just that they're not sufficient.

So we create a national fire control force and swallow maybe a billion dollars a year to prevent greater damage and maintain our use of more cost-efficient energy sources. A small price to pay.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

So we create a national fire control force and swallow maybe a billion dollars a year to prevent greater damage and maintain our use of more cost-efficient energy sources. A small price to pay.

so go ask your local senator/congressman to go make it happen

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

It's official: White liberals are racist, study from white liberal university shows:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/28/white-liberals-patronize-minorities-downplaying-co/

https://insights.som.yale.edu/insig...nt-in-interactions-with-african-americans?amp

 

[Einherjar86]

Those areas do come into play, but what I mean is that I do not believe using climate as an orienting point is functional. The climate is one of many challenge areas, not the only or even the primary one.

It does, however, affect literally everything...

Human development obviously displaces wildlife. My point was in comparing the nuclear footprint and negative externalities to energy output vs solar and wind, which I'll return to below. The comment about academics following institutions is sort of a chicken/egg issue, which is more broadly a labor/jobs chicken/egg issue. We see this with the Amazon HQ2/2 relocation. You could even argue it's people and capital chasing each other in somewhat vicious cycles until something happens to bust it up. It can either be government forced or through more "natural means" (market corrections, natural disasters, etc). But inertia and tradition are powerful headwinds to that sort of change - for example, good luck getting DC to relocate, even if it means building massive sea-walls. Can't exactly relocate the history and monuments.

Several coastal cities are developing plans for relocation, most notably Miami (which may be the most immediately affected). Might be too little too late, but it doesn't happen overnight either.

That's not how EROI works. You're referring to the total amount of energy produced. EROI is energy out for energy in. You have to do better than break even (generate surplus energy). The surplus is what drives any growth possible. Our current standards of living depend on the EROI of fossil fuels, which only nuclear can match/come close to matching.

No, I was referring to the EROI measurements. I'm not saying that nuclear isn't feasible, only that it's not the only feasible option. You seem to be implying that it's the only option that actually produces significantly more energy than it consumes.

I found this article helpful: https://energytransition.org/2014/09/renewables-ko-by-eroi/

Now, you mentioned geothermal, which probably has a lot of untapped potential, but it's too early to see how that might develop. But photovoltaic development contributes significantly to pollution and GHGs, and along with wind, isn't consistent, scalable in all climes, and require massive footprints with ongoing environmental impacts, and all for minimal energy return. Nuclear is a far superior option.

I'm going to continue to disagree and say that the best option is a mix.

While nuclear plant production has gone down in places like the U.S. and Germany, it's gone crazy in China; but China is also the leading country in producing renewables.

Nuclear energy is currently the most expensive, something like four times as costly as onshore wind. Furthermore, the costs of wind and solar are plummeting while nuclear continues to rise. We could cut costs by increasing deregulations, but that seems like a short-sighted and dangerous prospect. Although some people (like James Hansen) say that nuclear is the only way to go, many disagree with pursuing a full-fledged nuclear energy program. The International Energy Agency suggests that nuclear should play "an important but limited role."

Ultimately, there need to be contingencies for excessive cost and potential meltdown, as regulated as nuclear plants may be. It's unwise to simply make nuclear the most significant energy source without other structures in place.

Another alternative is to scale down nuclear plants, making them safer and more easy to shut down. They also use better coolants (i.e. better for the environment) and reduce construction time.

Ultimately, the biggest challenge with nuclear is cost, and whether that can be overcome in time to develop quickly enough to make any difference.

Waste issues, and I'll include waste-water, trash, etc in that, is really an area ripe for "creative destruction" or "disruptive innovation". We've been burying stuff and/or dumping it into the water for all of human history. We need to do better. But that only addresses future pollution and GHG production, it doesn't reverse the current CO2 levels. Enter carbon capture (real potential solutions), as opposed to carbon credits (a graft scheme):

https://e360.yale.edu/features/negative-emissions-is-it-feasible-to-remove-co2-from-the-air

There's also been experimentation with deep injection, i.e. taking carbon and injecting it underground.

I remain neither skeptical nor optimistic about the climate, because I expect that solutions will be found in this area as they are needed.

Only if people keep talking about it.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

amber guyger - Google Search

 

[Bloopy]

Head thrown from Petone apartment after decapitation

Someone from downstairs said, 'here is your head', and threw it back up, the witness said.

(Article since edited - the bit I quoted was too good to be true I guess)

 

[Dak]

No, I was referring to the EROI measurements. I'm not saying that nuclear isn't feasible, only that it's not the only feasible option. You seem to be implying that it's the only option that actually produces significantly more energy than it consumes.

I found this article helpful: https://energytransition.org/2014/09/renewables-ko-by-eroi/

I'm going to continue to disagree and say that the best option is a mix.

While nuclear plant production has gone down in places like the U.S. and Germany, it's gone crazy in China; but China is also the leading country in producing renewables.

Nuclear energy is currently the most expensive, something like four times as costly as onshore wind. Furthermore, the costs of wind and solar are plummeting while nuclear continues to rise. We could cut costs by increasing deregulations, but that seems like a short-sighted and dangerous prospect. Although some people (like James Hansen) say that nuclear is the only way to go, many disagree with pursuing a full-fledged nuclear energy program. The International Energy Agency suggests that nuclear should play "an important but limited role."

Ultimately, there need to be contingencies for excessive cost and potential meltdown, as regulated as nuclear plants may be. It's unwise to simply make nuclear the most significant energy source without other structures in place.

Another alternative is to scale down nuclear plants, making them safer and more easy to shut down. They also use better coolants (i.e. better for the environment) and reduce construction time.

Ultimately, the biggest challenge with nuclear is cost, and whether that can be overcome in time to develop quickly enough to make any difference.

I'm not swayed very much by the arguments in that article. Sourcing wiki isn't exactly high-brow, but the wiki referred to did seem to be decent. The main point missed by that article, and briefly covered in the wiki is that "renewables" have so many additional caveats that nuclear doesn't have. It also appears that, without reading any deeper into the literature, none of the optimistic EROI numbers for renewables take into account storage production and associated costs, as well as transmission loss.

Ignoring their environmental impacts, wind and solar have significant geographic limitations for reaching optimal output. These limitations require putting them in places which then may lead to higher levels of transmission loss than closer power producers. Turning them on/off as it were, further reduces their return, so storage is offered as a solution. But this also reduces return, as storage has its own energy investment. Putting solar panels in the desert makes sense. Offshore wind makes some sense. But enter transmission loss and storage costs and the limited optimal areas and there are lots of questions.

I don't know enough about nuclear production specifics to comment on total cost and construction/coolant flexibility. Obviously if nuclear waste were to be disposed of through off-planet means, that adds to cost. But it still appears to be the most efficient energy producer with minimal GHGs.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

when i use the internet, it's typing on this forum and looking at Tessa Fowler's nipples

@arg @Onder @The Ozzman @CiG @Master_Yoda77 @King Richard

no jokes about me being a looser
no google-image searching to see the size of Tessa Fowler's boobs??
i did a joke-set-up that could have been used for a whole dozen different jokes and nobody said shit
tsk tsk tsk
very disappointed, people, very disappointed

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

does anyone who's more up to date on this kind of stuff know if this ever went through?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/feb/19/russia.paulbrown

https://www.rferl.org/a/2235831.html