US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7751

On June 04 2017 06:30 pmh wrote:



You are such a troll lol,sometimes I wonder why people react seriously to you. Maybe you know them irl,i don't know.
Anyway,while I do agree with quiet a few of your opinions and projections I think you are wrong when it comes to electric cars. Electricity is the future and it will in the end replace all fossil. But this might still take a very long time,a lot of money is invested in the fossil industry and the lobby and money also effects policys and other investments. Musk is a true pioneer for trying to go against the mainstream. For electric cars to take over and become 50%+ of all vehicles,i doubt we will see that in this century but it will happen eventually. Untill then the tesla cars are a good niche at the worst,and a lot more at the best. Lots of people want to "go green" and tesla is one of the few brands to do so. It has become a sort of status symbol,a way to show that you care about the environment and that you have an enlightened spirit. The valuation of tesla is real,the stocks are bought and sold for that valuation every day. You wont get such a high price just from people who think tesla is cool,this is not the dot com bubble. There must be some real perspective for growth and sustainability to sustain such a high price. That you or I don't see it doesn't mean that it is not there.

On June 04 2017 06:34 zlefin wrote:

why do you conclude it being impossible to be a bubble? such things are found in many fields outside the dotcom area.
Of course it probably has more to do with potential, much as in the dotcom fields; it's very hard to tell who's going ot win decades down the line, but if you pick the right ones they can absolutely explode in value.

I think we might well see electrics take over by the end of the century; a lot really depends on how battery/energy storage tech goes. There's nothing that promising in the next 20-30 years or so; but in 60 years? quite possibly. It's really just the battery issue keeping electric cars down; too bad battery tech hasn't gone as well as some other tech paths.

On June 04 2017 06:34 zlefin wrote:

why do you conclude it being impossible to be a bubble? such things are found in many fields outside the dotcom area.
Of course it probably has more to do with potential, much as in the dotcom fields; it's very hard to tell who's going ot win decades down the line, but if you pick the right ones they can absolutely explode in value.

I think we might well see electrics take over by the end of the century; a lot really depends on how battery/energy storage tech goes. There's nothing that promising in the next 20-30 years or so; but in 60 years? quite possibly. It's really just the battery issue keeping electric cars down; too bad battery tech hasn't gone as well as some other tech paths.

On June 04 2017 06:35 pmh wrote:
Anyway,kudos to trump for pulling out of the paris agreement,it is something his supporters will appreciate. In the end the whole paris deal is symbolical,it holds not a single obligation or whatever. It basicly changes nothing,its a symbolical change though an important one I have to admit. Personally I think its to late to make a change already,seeing the growth in china and india. Like rusia and china and india they did sign the deal,but exactly what are they going to do to reduce their emissions? Noone knows I think.

On June 04 2017 06:35 pmh wrote:
Anyway,kudos to trump for pulling out of the paris agreement,it is something his supporters will appreciate. In the end the whole paris deal is symbolical,it holds not a single obligation or whatever. It basicly changes nothing,its a symbolical change though an important one I have to admit. Personally I think its to late to make a change already,seeing the growth in china and india. Like rusia and china and india they did sign the deal,but exactly what are they going to do to reduce their emissions? Noone knows I think.

A draft 10-year energy blueprint published this week predicts that 57% of India’s total electricity capacity will come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2027. The Paris climate accord target was 40% by 2030.

China intends to spend more than $360 billion through 2020 on renewable power sources like solar and wind, the government’s energy agency said on Thursday.

China is the world leader in domestic investment in renewable energy and associated
low-emissions-energy sectors. China invested US$103bn in this sector in 2015, up 17% yoy,
according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF)—two and half times the amount
undertaken by the U.S.

On June 04 2017 06:42 pmh wrote:
About the batterys specifically I am pretty pessimistic in general,there is progress but the progress is not that amazing imo,and I think it will sooner or later hit a hard ceiling. Personally I don't see electric cars take over (as in being 50% of all vehicles) with baterys,something better is needed like a hydrogen fuel cell. Still they can learn a lot from working on the batterys and they will have an advantage over everyone else.

On June 04 2017 06:53 Slydie wrote:


You need cheap energy from somewhere no matter how you run cars. If you build more coal-, or even diesel-powerplants to charge all those batteries, the gain big-picture environmental gain is minimal, but we would get cleaner air in the cities.

There is so much hypocricy in this, I am almost puking some times. The only real way to get green technology going is higher fuel prices, but after serious efforts from several nations, the prices fell like a rock since the crisis. Airports are subsidized, highways are built... As soon as real sacrifices needs to be made, we could not care less about what "might" be bad for us in 50 years. Hell, a lot of us smoke...

President Trump will seek to put a spotlight on his vows to privatize the nation’s air traffic control system and spur $1 trillion in new investment in roads, waterways and other infrastructure with a week-long series of events starting Monday in the Rose Garden.

The events — billed as “infrastructure week” — are part of a stepped-up effort since the president’s return a week ago from his first foreign trip to show that the White House remains focused on its agenda, despite cascading headlines about his administration’s ties to Russia.

Trump’s plans next week also include a trip to the Ohio River, where it separates Ohio and Kentucky, to talk about the importance of waterways and to lay out his vision of infrastructure investments more broadly, aides say. And before the weekend, he will also welcome a bipartisan group of mayors and governors to Washington to discuss the topic and venture to the Transportation Department to talk about roads and railways.

“In many of these areas, we’re falling behind, and the falling behind is affecting economic growth in the United States,” said Gary Cohn, Trump’s chief economic adviser, who is helping lead a task force developing Trump’s infrastructure plan. “The president wants to fix the problem.”

The flurry of planned activity comes as two other marquee Trump promises — overhauling the Affordable Care Act and cutting taxes — remain stalled in Congress, largely because of differences among fellow Republicans and the intricacies of the plans.

It’s unclear whether Trump’s promised infrastructure package, for which the administration hopes to attract bipartisan support, will fare any better when formally introduced in coming months.

Democrats sharply questioned Trump’s commitment to the issue following the administration’s release last month of a budget proposal that, by one accounting, included more cuts to existing infrastructure programs over the next decade than it contemplated in new federal spending.

Citing the analysis by his office, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) declared on the Senate floor that “President Trump’s campaign promises on infrastructure are crumbling faster than our roads and bridges.”

Trump has proposed spending $200 billion over the 10-year period with the aim of attracting a total of at least $1 trillion in new investments with the help of the private sector and state and local governments. Democrats prefer a much larger infusion of federal money.

In a briefing for reporters, Trump administration officials acknowledged the timing of their infrastructure package remains up in the air but said they hope to move much more quickly on one piece of it: an effort to spin off control of day-to-day air traffic control functions from the federal government.

Trump has invited executives from the major airlines to join him in the Rose Garden on Monday as he touts a plan that aides argue would allow more rapid modernization of the air traffic control system if run by a nonprofit corporation rather than by the Federal Aviation Administration.

For months now, Cohn has been making presentations to interested parties, arguing the benefits of moving to a new GPS-based system for flights rather than the current land-based radar system. Among other things, he says, GPS will help pilots fly more direct routes, cutting down both flight times and fuel usage.

Cohn and other privatization advocates argue that government procurement rules and the uncertainties of the annual congressional budget process have undercut the FAA’s ability to move in that direction.

Aides say Trump’s proposal, which will be sent to Congress separately, is largely based on legislation authored last year by Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Penn.), chairman of the House Transportation Committee. The White House previously called his bill “an excellent starting point” for separating more than 30,000 FAA workers from the government.

Instead of current taxes on fuel and airline tickets, Shuster’s plan would rely on fees paid by aircraft operators. The FAA would retain its role as an oversight agency, much like the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which issues auto regulations and recalls faulty vehicles.

Although Shuster’s bill emerged from his committee last year, it never got a vote on the House floor. In the Senate, reaction was lukewarm among some key Republicans.

On June 04 2017 06:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:


Compare Batteries from 10 years and to ones today and I think you will see some improvement.

In 1980, his work led to the invention of the lithium-ion battery — now crucial to powering everything from cellphones and laptops to electric cars. For a lot of people, that would probably be enough. But at 94 years old, he's still at it.

"All the young people that I had as postdocs are getting ready to retire," he says, laughing.

Now, Goodenough and his team say they've created a new battery that may store up to five times more power than current ones. And, even better, such a battery would charge and recharge in a matter of minutes — all without exploding.

…

"As revered and important as John Goodenough is," Steingart says, "the mechanism described to account for the anomalous capacity appeared to be in conflict with the first law of thermodynamics."

On June 04 2017 08:48 LegalLord wrote:
You know, since Trump took office we haven't had a terrorist attack on US soil. We must be doing something right.

On June 04 2017 08:48 LegalLord wrote:
You know, since Trump took office we haven't had a terrorist attack on US soil. We must be doing something right.

On June 04 2017 09:07 LegalLord wrote:
Well maybe it was the idea of a ban that just scared em off and convinced them to go attack Europe instead?