| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
KwarK
United States43643 Posts
Country Windpower production (TWh) United States 140.9 So there's that. You were looking at the wrong number on the wikipedia article I think. You compared total MWh needs against the nameplate MW capacity, two very different units. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nameplate_capacity | ||
|
JumboJohnson
537 Posts
I guess my point was that it would take a lot of them, and there has been reported incidents of them being annoying to live by. | ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7230 Posts
On September 20 2014 12:55 Sub40APM wrote: We cant prevent all crime therefore we shouldnt prevent any crime. You're saying we should be trying to address the inequality and I'm asking why we're not addressing parental inequality. For example, we have means based programs to correct for differences in starting economic status. Why aren't there parent based programs proposed that determine whether your parent is good or bad, and then gives you some help based on just how bad or perhaps handicaps you in some way if your parents are exceptional? The only time this happens is in the case of abuse, and social workers sometimes intervene. But there's still a gap between those who have non-abusive parents and those who have good parents, and I haven't seen any welfare programs proposed to address this gap. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On September 20 2014 12:44 NovaTheFeared wrote: That seems wholly inadequate to create a level playing field. People with similar economic or social network deficiencies but different parents will still find their results differ through no fault of their own. The intervention minimum has to eliminate all the effects of good or bad parenting. What a stupid thing to say. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43643 Posts
On September 20 2014 13:03 JumboJohnson wrote: Would nameplate MW capacity be more than actual output? Or I'm I misunderstanding that? Also I wasn't using U.S.A.'s wind production for the average but rather the world's and trying to extrapolate from that. One more thing, can you take kilowatt rating and turn that into kilowatt hours? Are they functionally the same thing? I guess my point was that it would take a lot of them, and there has been reported incidents of them being annoying to live by. They're currently at 141, your point is that for them to be even 1% would need them to be 251. So yeah, at the moment they're about .6% of the total US needs but that's still a lot of electricity. Nobody is saying they need to be any given number or else they're a failure though, 141,000 MW/hr isn't nothing. | ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7230 Posts
Only if you think the lottery of birth is just with regards to parents. Noone chooses their parents so to derive an advantage or disadvantage from them is unfair, really. Eliminating economic inequality and other forms of social inequality still leaves us without a level playing field. And at least in the U.S. we're not even close on those two, and noone is talking about how to fix the parental disparity. | ||
|
JumboJohnson
537 Posts
| ||
|
Wolfstan
Canada605 Posts
On September 20 2014 11:26 dp wrote: + Show Spoiler + On September 20 2014 10:48 Wolfstan wrote: Good, we all agree on a basic premise that good parenting can be attributed to success and good habits and choices as a result of that parenting. I just follow that thought that redistribution will not fix inequality, poor people will still be raised poor to whine about their lot in life, and wealthy people will still be encouraged and nurtured to meet their potential. Still though, wealthy person playing the game well somehow "doesn't count" while the poor person falling down the ladder bringing others with them "isn't their fault" mentality is very toxic. It discourages and discounts growth and enables defeatism. No, I haven't done a tour on the tools. You mean 2 generations of right-wing economic policies, where the electorate values hard work and capitalist policies, mean the industry grows and labour participates in the good times? Aside from our electorate, regulations and temperatures Canada and US have fairly similar geological profiles. Wolfstan: That's a nice way to avoid the actual conversation and again exert your position without really addressing the underlining point that is being talked about here. Good parenting is in no way a quality we are discussing when we talk about the divide in upbringing related to economic class. Even bringing that as an example to be discussed is avoiding the conversation as a whole. "Poor people are bad parents while rich people are good parents instilling good values" isn't really a position I would assume any reasonable person would put forward except in the position of deflecting any real discussion on the points being put forward. No one discounts the success of people born into a better economic position. But ignoring that fact is also an unreasonable attempt to act as if someone born into poverty with no connections and gaining success is the same as someone born into wealth and given the best possible upbringing and connections money can buy. It is not a fair game. It doesn't have to be. In the end though, there is no reason to ignore how the game is stacked in the favor of some. Acting as if this reality is just some liberal illusion displays a level of cognitive dissonance that isn't about to be persuaded by any internet forum post/reply. Fair enough, apology if I gave the perception that I was dodging the conversation. I will try to make my position more clear, hopefully restart the discussion along more positive and constructive lines. I will try to avoid being against something and instead post my positions in what I stand for. My position is that average citizen is best served by a capitalist system where productivity, hard work, motivation and discipline is rewarded with wealth that another citizen is willing to give you through market based transaction. There should be a social safety net legislated that no one is starving in the street. I support socialized healthcare funded at the state level to equal about 10% GDP. Education should be funded and curriculum mandated(STEM focused) at the state level. Local is too small to fund adequately(and fairly) and federal is too large to provide insulation from poor policies. I am for a welfare deduction of 5% half paid by employee half employer for the target of being fully funded at 5% unemployment rate. I am for 10% social security funded equally by employer/employee untouchable and unfunded by the general revenues of any level of government. Taxation should be viewed as a cost of running a civilized society. It should be ideally a transaction between 2 willing parties as a cost for a service. It must be having a clear outflow of revenues and governments should provide the floor for essential serves with no government monopolies. Private companies should be allowed to compete providing greater services, innovations or efficiency for those willing to incur a greater cost. Taxes and the IRS should not be used punitively for partisan or populist reasons. The Federal government should offer very little services and collect very little taxes to provide those services. State and municipal governments should have most of the services jurisdiction as they are more able to focus on concerns and needs not being met. Also gives citizens the option exercise their right of mobility to flee jurisdictions where their interests aren't being represented with poor policy decisions. The tax code is a mess because these principles are not being adhered to and instead has been used for 200 years of election promises and lobbyist loopholes. I define a right as something that the government cannot take away from you, these are inalienable. I define an entitlement as something that is given and requires something of another citizen. Entitlements are to be kept at a minimum of GDP and systems in place that keep it from growing too much either from career politicians or changing demographics/economic realities. Healthcare, employment, minimum income, and education are not rights as they require sacrifice from another citizen. The weakest and strongest citizens alike need protections as a strong rule of law is needed for capitalism to work. I support clear, enforceable criminal and civil laws to protect citizens from other citizens. I support reasonable regulation to protect citizens from corporations. I support a strong constitution to protect citizens from government itself. I do not support laws that protect citizens from themselves and their poor decisions. I accept inequality as a result of these views, bootstraps and all. But there is opportunity for those who excel. If you wish to discuss which of these points you disagree with in the hopes of solving inequality feel free to take a position yourself and post what you think needs to change. Wow that was a lot longer than I expected and might have to bookmark this post. You should find my posting history is consistent with my views above. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On September 20 2014 13:05 NovaTheFeared wrote: You're saying we should be trying to address the inequality and I'm asking why we're not addressing parental inequality. For example, we have means based programs to correct for differences in starting economic status. Why aren't there parent based programs proposed that determine whether your parent is good or bad, and then gives you some help based on just how bad or perhaps handicaps you in some way if your parents are exceptional? The only time this happens is in the case of abuse, and social workers sometimes intervene. But there's still a gap between those who have non-abusive parents and those who have good parents, and I haven't seen any welfare programs proposed to address this gap. Because there is an ambiguous line where people draw regarding the parent-child interaction and the line isnt drawn yet at people who are bad but not legally unfit parents from losing their parents. You are right, there is an argument to be made that some parents by the virtue of being undeserving parents dont deserve their kids -- and not just the ones who explicitly abuse them -- but the feeling of absurdity surrounding that suggestion is also pretty obvious, making it easier to assume you are trolling than actually discussing this. | ||
|
Wolfstan
Canada605 Posts
I find that state level for most services at the Goldilocks level of "just right" as municipal is to small and mobility can leave an area underfunded in perpetuity. Some services are necessary to be closer to the user. i.e. waste disposal or fire fighting doesn't make sense to be in the portfolio of an elected official 3000 miles away. The current way education is funded by the district is admittedly too small that quality has taken a massive hit in poor areas as the tax base shrinks. Federal control results in things like the Common Core where those closest to frontlines and most aware of the realities were too powerless to make quick necessary adjustments to meet the needs of the students/area. The inverse of private interests and large, multi-national corporations dominating a state can be seen in well connected Lobbyists causing poor allocation of Federal resources. Uploading services to a higher government will not necessarily aid weak, less well-funded jurisdictions. Smaller jurisdictions also allow for a tighter means test that better represents the area. Keeping social services in mid range of government has very important positives, it allows for innovative, or experimental policies without causing nationwide damage if they turn out to be poor policies. (see: Marijuana in CO, and $15 minimum wage in Seattle) If they turn out to be effective policies they can be applied to other areas with results aiding the debate instead of "studies and rhetoric". If there are different jurisdictions there are likely different approaches to problems. I would rather have a Kentucky Bible based curriculum stop at its own borders than have a Federal Bible based curriculum ruin an entire generation across the nation without being able to cross a border to receive better. The military, post, border control, immigration and diplomatic relations are main services off the top of my head that the Federal government should be responsible for. What is your position? What services should be provided on what levels of government? Where is the line for you? | ||
|
BByte
Finland49 Posts
On September 20 2014 12:45 JumboJohnson wrote: I want to come back to this point. Not the strobe effect but the actually numbers behind wind power. Before I go on I want to make clear that this is literally napkin math. As of 2004 there was a worldwide number of over two hundred thousand wind turbines with a total namplate capacity of 282,482 MW of power. source This averages to 1.4 MW per turbine. The total electrical consumption of the United States in 2004 was 25,155 TWh or 25,155,000,000 MWh source. A hundredth of that is 251,550,000 MWh. So if we wanted a hundredth part of the United States electricity to come from wind, it would take 179,678,571 wind turbines. Disclaimer: Please let me know if there is a flaw in my math. MW is an unit of power, MWh and TWh are units of energy. If you're comparing yearly energy production / consumption, you need to multiply the power by the number of hours in a year. Using the given numbers: Maximum yearly production of all existing wind turbines: 365 * 24 h * 282,482 MW ~= 2,500 TWh Number of wind turbines required to produce 1 % of U.S. electricity: 25,155 TWh / 1.4 MW / 24 h / 365 / 100 ~= 20,500 Of course, the actual production is lower than the nameplate capacity for wind turbines, but it's still significant. This makes sense since the United States already produces over 4 % of its electricity using wind. Edit: Off by 10x error. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11760 Posts
On September 20 2014 13:18 KwarK wrote: They're currently at 141, your point is that for them to be even 1% would need them to be 251. So yeah, at the moment they're about .6% of the total US needs but that's still a lot of electricity. Nobody is saying they need to be any given number or else they're a failure though, 141,000 MW/hr isn't nothing. Energy units: W(Watt) and its multiples kW, MW, GW, TW are all units of power. If you take a river as a simile, this is the amount of water that is in the air flowing down the waterfall right now. Ws or W*s and its multiples like kWh, MWh, TWh etc are units of energy. Once again with the river simile, this is the amount of water that goes down the waterfall in a second/hour, which you could collect in at the bottom in a big basin If you have something that produces or consumes 1 W, it will produce/consume one Ws /s (simple maths, the seconds cancel out). If something produces or consumes 1 kW, it will produce/consume 1 kWh per hour. kW/h is not a unit used for anything by anyone, and kind of nonsensical. I guess you could have some system that linearly increases its power, and in that case kW/h would be the growth of that systems power, but that is kind of farfetched and not really based on anything in reality since power systems don't work like that. The difference between kW and kWh is the same as between velocity and distance travelled. The difference between kW/h and kWh is the same as between acceleration and distance travelled, time squared. | ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
On September 20 2014 19:59 Simberto wrote: Energy units: W(Watt) and its multiples kW, MW, GW, TW are all units of power. If you take a river as a simile, this is the amount of water that is in the air flowing down the waterfall right now. Ws or W*s and its multiples like kWh, MWh, TWh etc are units of energy. Once again with the river simile, this is the amount of water that goes down the waterfall in a second/hour, which you could collect in at the bottom in a big basin If you have something that produces or consumes 1 W, it will produce/consume one Ws /s (simple maths, the seconds cancel out). If something produces or consumes 1 kW, it will produce/consume 1 kWh per hour. kW/h is not a unit used for anything by anyone, and kind of nonsensical. I guess you could have some system that linearly increases its power, and in that case kW/h would be the growth of that systems power, but that is kind of farfetched and not really based on anything in reality since power systems don't work like that. The difference between kW and kWh is the same as between velocity and distance travelled. The difference between kW/h and kWh is the same as between acceleration and distance travelled, time squared. thank god for this post e: especially JumboJohnsons original post mixes the units and thus loses it validity | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 20 2014 12:44 NovaTheFeared wrote: That seems wholly inadequate to create a level playing field. People with similar economic or social network deficiencies but different parents will still find their results differ through no fault of their own. The intervention minimum has to eliminate all the effects of good or bad parenting. total equality is never the goal so this is just a strawman. what you can do is move along what you can do, within present constraints. the political space for the parenting side of things mostly involve higher level of basic social services so in the case of the bad parents, the damage can be minimized. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
a short interlude from the Germans being very German thead. @jumbojohnson napkin math is not math as a napkin would have done it. one hundreth of the total is a very little percentage indeed. | ||
|
JumboJohnson
537 Posts
| ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
On September 20 2014 21:27 JumboJohnson wrote: Damn, I had a feeling I used the wrong numbers. Oh well, I retract my statements. If we take the 1.4 MW per turbine and an effective production time of 2300 hours per year (estimated from the total capacity of 61901 MW and the total generated Energy of 140.9 TWh), it would take roughly 78000 Wind turbines to generate the 1% of energy. this operates under the assumption that the energy from the wind turbines always gets supplied into the power network. I know that in Germany, wind turbines get switched off when there is to much wind, because nuclear plants have priority to supply the energy into the network (does anyone know how that works in the US?) Kwark is right that currently only 0.6% of the total energy consumed of the USA are produced by wind. However, it would take "only" 78000 Windturbines to achieve that goal. i couldnt find how many windturbines currently are used in the USA. Currently, the electricity produced from wind power in the United States amounted to 174.7 terawatt-hours, or 4.25% of all generated electrical energy. sourceso, thats something @nunez pls, its "und" | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
For my part, I've thrown in the towel and dropped out of the rat race, don't care anymore and it's not really about me any longer. I just want to enjoy the time I have left on this rock and hope that my kids get a fair shot to do whatever they want to do. Considering the state of public opinion on priorities on social programs and our public schools, I think this little more than a pipe dream. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
The whole thing keeps working because everybody likes to think of themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. Admitting that not everyone can have a life like Bill Gates isn't defeatism, it's a simple reality. Even Bill Gates couldn't live like Bill Gates if their wasn't a giant horde of poor people that do all the work that keeps the system intact. | ||
| ||
WardiTV Winter Champion…
Playoffs
Classic vs Nicoract
herO vs YoungYakov
ByuN vs Gerald
Clem vs Krystianer
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Sea Dota 2 65388Jaedong  1146Bisu  1054BeSt 687Shuttle 355actioN 344Snow 337firebathero 317EffOrt 285Stork 241[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games singsing1841 B2W.Neo759 Liquid`RaSZi481 crisheroes309 DeMusliM235 Happy199 Lowko198 Hui .107 QueenE24 |
|
Replay Cast
Ultimate Battle
Light vs ZerO
WardiTV Winter Champion…
MaxPax vs Spirit
Rogue vs Bunny
Cure vs SHIN
Solar vs Zoun
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Winter Champion…
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Winter Champion…
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
