|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 20 2021 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2021 05:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 20 2021 05:14 Nevuk wrote:
Some news stories : Mitch McConnell just blasted Trump as responsible for the insurrection attempt on the senate floor.
Probably the worst sign yet for his chances at an impeachment trial (he also blasts Hawley and Cruz)
So I guess now the question is: Does MM mobilize the Republican establishment to convict Trump so that he won't win the 2024 Republican primary, or does MM blame Trump while simultaneously saying that this isn't an impeachable offense? I think Mitch sees Trump as enough of an abomination that he should be purged. But more importantly, I think Mitch understands that Trump will likely suffer immensely from not being president and may have such a long list of investigations/convictions by then (fraud and other stuff) that Trump isn't viable anyway. Regardless of any of these things, the republican party can't move on from Trump until Trump can't run for office. All of his kids have the charisma of a potato. Ivanka and all the other kids have no future in politics. It all ends with Trump. If they can bury his eventual campaign early, they can foster Rubio and others. Rubio is a great candidate to lock up the hispanic vote. He's white but also hispanic, religious, young. Rubio gives the republican party more of a future than trump.
I agree that purging Trump is a necessity, and he'll probably/hopefully become radioactive. Rubio is an interesting alternative. I'm particularly worried about someone like Tucker Carlson, who's managed to keep his Fox News viewers while walking the tightrope between establishment conservatism and Trump zealotry. He's got the following and he's actually a pretty good debater too. (I think back to when even Chris Christie destroyed Rubio on the debate stage.)
|
|
|
I don't particularly like Greta, but she has a place in the conversation. You can argue that she's counter-productive to her own cause because of how caustic she is, or that she gets too much airtime relative to X scientist, that's fine. I don't necessarily agree, but there's a self-consistent position there.
What's not consistent is to try and argue - as an unqualified punter sharing an opinion on the internet - that she isn't qualified to give her opinion on the internet. That's just weird.
I will say I strongly disagree with people who try to block criticism of her because she's a child. This is also weird. She's knowingly walked into the ring of public discourse and she's throwing punches left and right. She should expect people to punch back.
|
On January 20 2021 06:43 Belisarius wrote:
I don't particularly like Greta, but she has a place in the conversation. You can argue that she's counter-productive to her own cause because of how caustic she is, or that she gets too much airtime relative to X scientist, that's fine. I don't necessarily agree, but there's a self-consistent position there.
What's not consistent is to try and argue - as an unqualified punter sharing an opinion on the internet - that she isn't qualified to give her opinion on the internet. That's just weird.
I will say I strongly disagree with people who try to block criticism of her because she's a child. This is also weird. She's knowingly walked into the ring of public discourse and she's throwing punches left and right. She should expect people to punch back.
People qualified to give their opinions on climate science are generally terrible messengers and are a reason we need people like Greta. Greta doesn't need to be perfect to be a net positive. Making improvements to the world takes a large, diverse group of people. Greta has been really great for inspiring young people. I agree that people in arm chairs questioning her credentials is funny. In my eyes, so long as she is having a positive impact in some form of messaging, thumbs up. She's doing more than any of us are.
|
One thing I've noticed as a result of Greta's involvement in the climate change awareness movement is the extent to which people decrypt their language when talking about her. There's something about children doing or saying something perceived as out of line with their age that unlocks a kind of reprimand rarely used elsewhere, which is interesting for reasons unrelated to climate change or Greta Thunberg.
|
On January 20 2021 07:03 farvacola wrote:
One thing I've noticed as a result of Greta's involvement in the climate change awareness movement is the extent to which people decrypt their language when talking about her. There's something about children doing or saying something perceived as out of line with their age that unlocks a kind of reprimand rarely used elsewhere, which is interesting for reasons unrelated to climate change or Greta Thunberg.
One of the hallmarks of conservatism is disdain for people "speaking out of turn". Labeling AOC a bartender is an example of this. When you have an ooga booga admiration for authority, people in institutionally less powerful positions speaking against the traditional holders of power makes conservative blood boil.
|
On January 20 2021 06:17 Uldridge wrote:
But emissions are just not going to stop. Like someone said earlier in this thread, many developing countries are only going to emit even more becausr they're still in their booming stage.
You can't really force them to completely adopt the 100% (or whatever%) greener technologies that they need more of because it's less efficient, or which is more expensive. That would be not only unethical, but another neocolonialistic card able to be used.
In any case, one argument I've never thought about until it was brought to my attention, which is actually a good medium term strategy imo, is to massively increase nutrition and life conditions for people being born in developing countries. Having more people from different countries develop more scientists who think differently about the same problems have a higher % of chance to fix the problem faster.
I think our best chance to have the world be saved from an energy standpoint is fusion becoming feasible. Solar plants are atrocious for the environment.
If waiting for a speculative energy source - that we are nowhere near to making workably efficient for a long period of time anywhere and at any cost - to become prevalent enough to be a difference-maker in carbon emissions is our best chance we may as well just dedicate the world's nuclear stockpile to boiling the oceans and call it a day.
The kinds of changes needed to the energy and transport sectors around the world, and those that people (who can afford it) should be making at the consumer level are much, much more immediately implementable than "wait for some Deus Ex Machina of future technology to save us so citizens, industry and government can keep doing their destructive nonsense".
|
On January 20 2021 06:17 Uldridge wrote:
But emissions are just not going to stop. Like someone said earlier in this thread, many developing countries are only going to emit even more becausr they're still in their booming stage.
You can't really force them to completely adopt the 100% (or whatever%) greener technologies that they need more of because it's less efficient, or which is more expensive. That would be not only unethical, but another neocolonialistic card able to be used.
In any case, one argument I've never thought about until it was brought to my attention, which is actually a good medium term strategy imo, is to massively increase nutrition and life conditions for people being born in developing countries. Having more people from different countries develop more scientists who think differently about the same problems have a higher % of chance to fix the problem faster.
I think our best chance to have the world be saved from an energy standpoint is fusion becoming feasible. Solar plants are atrocious for the environment.
This is why its important for the wealthy countries to lead the way on this at first. I dont see why its a given renewables need to be more expensive than fossil fuels. The cost has dropped dramatically over the last 20-30 years. Why cant it be even more affordable in the next 10-20 so that the developing world can adopt and skip a bulk of the pollution all together? Its baffling the US doesnt want to be a global leader in this. The technology could be exported everywhere.
Ill relate it to the auto industry. OEMs have halo cars that have their new tech. Obviously there is a big upcharge and cost for this in the beginning. But the point of a halo car is to try out new shit and lead the way with the hopes of adopting it in cheaper vehicles in the future. The technology gets cheaper over time and then the economy of scale can reduce the price even further. Its why you have adaptive cruise control and auto breaking being implemented in all Toyota vehicles nowadays. That wasnt feasible 10+ years ago. Theres no reason why renewables cost cant be reduced overtime to where even the poorest countries can implement it. Id argue it should be even cheaper to implement than relying on fossil fuels at some point.
|
@Ciaus_Dronu
How is fusion speculative? They are getting it more or less cost-efficient with energy output presently iirc. We're going to see great advances in the following 10-20 years imo. And I'm not saying we need to wait, definitely not, I just don't see the "green solutions" becoming the solution we should put all these resources in. I think we could do better without creating humongous fields of solar panels just eek out a droplet of what nuclear ever could. By the way, people take into account the supply chain of these "green technologies"? Do people take into account which materials are used, how they are assembled, how and how far they are transported, what their functional life time is and how they are processed after their use?
I wonder if anyone has a detailed account of how those things map out in regards to the net carbon footprint of solar panels for example.
@Sadist
I don't think you realize how large the gap is in absolute "wealth" between first world and third world countries.
How do you think extremely high tech technologies are going to become cheaper? Have cars actually became cheaper over time generally? Have smart phones? Have computers? And suddenly high tech green power technologies will become cheaper the more advanced they become, yeah I don't see it happening.
The equation is very, very simple. No developing country will ever invest in green energy as long as it doesn't have the wealth to do so. Burning things you find when you dig a hole in the ground will always be cheaper than any green energy tech ever.
It's a first world issue. Just like we have the option to make bio-agriculture a thing, because we have all the infrastructure and the excess wealth to dump resources in it.
As to your bafflement of the US showing altruism, insead of pure greed regarding geo-political strategy, I don't know what to say about that as I've never understood the standoff between the world leaders anyway as I'm a very cooperative minded person.
|
Northern Ireland23916 Posts
Consumer electronics have become considerably cheaper at least,
But yes it’s a complex thing with many moving parts. There are plenty of selfish motivations over ‘going green’, it needn’t be purely altruistic. Provided you can establish the infastructure you’re a lot more insulated against price fluctuation and leverage exerted by the big suppliers of fossil fuels being one.
|
On January 20 2021 07:18 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2021 06:17 Uldridge wrote:
But emissions are just not going to stop. Like someone said earlier in this thread, many developing countries are only going to emit even more becausr they're still in their booming stage.
You can't really force them to completely adopt the 100% (or whatever%) greener technologies that they need more of because it's less efficient, or which is more expensive. That would be not only unethical, but another neocolonialistic card able to be used.
In any case, one argument I've never thought about until it was brought to my attention, which is actually a good medium term strategy imo, is to massively increase nutrition and life conditions for people being born in developing countries. Having more people from different countries develop more scientists who think differently about the same problems have a higher % of chance to fix the problem faster.
I think our best chance to have the world be saved from an energy standpoint is fusion becoming feasible. Solar plants are atrocious for the environment. This is why its important for the wealthy countries to lead the way on this at first. I dont see why its a given renewables need to be more expensive than fossil fuels. The cost has dropped dramatically over the last 20-30 years. Why cant it be even more affordable in the next 10-20 so that the developing world can adopt and skip a bulk of the pollution all together? Its baffling the US doesnt want to be a global leader in this. The technology could be exported everywhere.
Absolutely. It's very strange to me that climate-denialism has become part of the conservative worldview. It goes against nearly all the face-value ideals.
I understand why it's a right-wing populist thing, but the conservative establishment is supposed to know better and to think long term; that's the whole point of a conservative establishment. These are the same people that are constantly on about good debt vs bad debt, "get a mortgage, not a credit card", and being frugal and investing for retirement.
All of that seems to go out the window when fossil fuels are in frame. Suddenly it's a business-oriented position to throw government money at the horse-and-cart industry as Henry Ford drives around outside looking for cash to build the model T.
Australia's previous, conservative prime minister has made the point several times:
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/malcolm-turnbull-blasts-liberal-party-for-being-incapable-of-climate-change-action
In his interview, Mr Turnbull called for the science behind climate change to be recognised.
“Conservatives are practical,” he said.
“There is nothing conservative, for example, [in] denying the science of climate change. That’s not a conservative position. That is just, well, that is just denying reality. You might as well deny gravity.”
Ignoring climate change is the nation-state equivalent of buying a flatscreen TV and then having no money for dinner. The only apparent difference is that the tab will go to your children.
|
On January 20 2021 05:01 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2021 04:58 KwarK wrote:On January 20 2021 04:54 evilfatsh1t wrote:On January 20 2021 04:47 KwarK wrote:On January 20 2021 04:44 evilfatsh1t wrote:On January 20 2021 04:33 KwarK wrote:
Let's treat time as a stream. Older people are upstream, younger people are downstream.
Currently the world is run by people who live in a town upstream and they keep dumping raw sewage in the river. Greta lives downstream and she's bitching about it. The people who live upstream are enjoying all their clean water, they're drinking it, they're bathing in it, they're washing their clothes in it. Greta can't do that because the river is full of shit.
Her points are very simple
1) How dare you enjoy all the clean river water while flooding everyone downstream from you with shit
2) Stop shitting in the river
It's really weird that this became so controversial. yeah this is a pretty bad analogy. the people upstream may have shit in the river but if they didnt there may not have even been a river to drink out of. the world didnt reach this level of carbon emissions because we liked fucking with mother nature. its the direct result of our pursuit for prosperity and better quality of life. whether greta admits it or not, she is a direct beneficiary of that wealth and she has no right to get on a moral high horse and call out her previous generations for trying to better them and their childrens' lives. what were our ancestors supposed to do? the world enters into industrial and modern eras and they all just say "you know what lets not raise people out of poverty and lets keep riding horses because otherwise in a few hundred years greta thunberg is gonna call us evil"? The argument that nobody who indirectly benefits from X can ever criticize X is a stupid argument and people should really stop making it if they don't want other people to call them stupid. Greta absolutely has a moral high ground, she's not complicit in the sins of the past just because she benefited from them, but even if she was a hypocrite, that doesn't actually make her point wrong. The argument you're using is some grade A Ben Shapiro idiocy where, instead of actually addressing whatever the issue is, he attempts a "gotcha" to paint the other side as hypocrites. But whether or not the other side are hypocrites has no bearing on the issue in question. Ben Shapiro is an idiot who boasts about his inability to sexually satisfy women. Don't be like him. why in the hell do you think greta absolutely has moral high ground? why should she? who gave her the right to pass judgment from the comfort of her home? i didnt realise greta thunberg was actually the 2nd coming of jesus. You don't have to be the second coming of Jesus to have moral high ground. Also she pretty famously left her home to make a bunch of speeches. That time when all the world leaders sent representatives to one building and then she gave a speech wasn't actually in her house, the building was the UN. yeah i wasnt saying she literally made her speeches from home. who gave her the right to judge people for their past actions when she herself hadnt even reached adulthood
What gives you the right to deny her the right to do so?
On a broader level, how do you think this right is assigned or gained or achieved?
Who is, in your view, allow to judge people's actions? And why?
On January 20 2021 05:16 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2021 05:08 KwarK wrote:On January 20 2021 05:01 evilfatsh1t wrote:On January 20 2021 04:58 KwarK wrote:On January 20 2021 04:54 evilfatsh1t wrote:On January 20 2021 04:47 KwarK wrote:On January 20 2021 04:44 evilfatsh1t wrote:On January 20 2021 04:33 KwarK wrote:
Let's treat time as a stream. Older people are upstream, younger people are downstream.
Currently the world is run by people who live in a town upstream and they keep dumping raw sewage in the river. Greta lives downstream and she's bitching about it. The people who live upstream are enjoying all their clean water, they're drinking it, they're bathing in it, they're washing their clothes in it. Greta can't do that because the river is full of shit.
Her points are very simple
1) How dare you enjoy all the clean river water while flooding everyone downstream from you with shit
2) Stop shitting in the river
It's really weird that this became so controversial. yeah this is a pretty bad analogy. the people upstream may have shit in the river but if they didnt there may not have even been a river to drink out of. the world didnt reach this level of carbon emissions because we liked fucking with mother nature. its the direct result of our pursuit for prosperity and better quality of life. whether greta admits it or not, she is a direct beneficiary of that wealth and she has no right to get on a moral high horse and call out her previous generations for trying to better them and their childrens' lives. what were our ancestors supposed to do? the world enters into industrial and modern eras and they all just say "you know what lets not raise people out of poverty and lets keep riding horses because otherwise in a few hundred years greta thunberg is gonna call us evil"? The argument that nobody who indirectly benefits from X can ever criticize X is a stupid argument and people should really stop making it if they don't want other people to call them stupid. Greta absolutely has a moral high ground, she's not complicit in the sins of the past just because she benefited from them, but even if she was a hypocrite, that doesn't actually make her point wrong. The argument you're using is some grade A Ben Shapiro idiocy where, instead of actually addressing whatever the issue is, he attempts a "gotcha" to paint the other side as hypocrites. But whether or not the other side are hypocrites has no bearing on the issue in question. Ben Shapiro is an idiot who boasts about his inability to sexually satisfy women. Don't be like him. why in the hell do you think greta absolutely has moral high ground? why should she? who gave her the right to pass judgment from the comfort of her home? i didnt realise greta thunberg was actually the 2nd coming of jesus. You don't have to be the second coming of Jesus to have moral high ground. Also she pretty famously left her home to make a bunch of speeches. That time when all the world leaders sent representatives to one building and then she gave a speech wasn't actually in her house, the building was the UN. yeah i wasnt saying she literally made her speeches from home. who gave her the right to judge people for their past actions when she herself hadnt even reached adulthood You were using "from the comfort of her home" as a phrase to imply that she never lifted a finger in for the cause but condemned others for inaction. Whether or not you misidentified the UN building as her literal home you're still wrong, the use of "from the comfort of her home" does not apply to someone who makes the efforts she has made. She has left her home, both literally and figuratively. As for who gave her rights, that depends on who you ask. God? Jefferson? Paine? The point is that she has them. actually i used that phrase to imply that she hasnt endured nearly enough adversity in life to be able to pass any form of judgment to people, let alone people who are literally multiples older. but nice try. and no, she doesnt have the right. i dont care if you think she does but she doesnt. i can understand that she could judge people anyway without the right, but then itd be only fair for people to judge her just the same and yet at the moment a lot of people are jumping to her protection because shes "young". the double standards is rich isnt it
If it's adversity, what hardships qualify? Existential dread? Because according to her parents, she did agonize about climate change so much, that she went on a, now famous, strike.
e: On January 20 2021 05:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2021 05:16 evilfatsh1t wrote:On January 20 2021 05:08 KwarK wrote:On January 20 2021 05:01 evilfatsh1t wrote:On January 20 2021 04:58 KwarK wrote:On January 20 2021 04:54 evilfatsh1t wrote:On January 20 2021 04:47 KwarK wrote:On January 20 2021 04:44 evilfatsh1t wrote:On January 20 2021 04:33 KwarK wrote:
Let's treat time as a stream. Older people are upstream, younger people are downstream.
Currently the world is run by people who live in a town upstream and they keep dumping raw sewage in the river. Greta lives downstream and she's bitching about it. The people who live upstream are enjoying all their clean water, they're drinking it, they're bathing in it, they're washing their clothes in it. Greta can't do that because the river is full of shit.
Her points are very simple
1) How dare you enjoy all the clean river water while flooding everyone downstream from you with shit
2) Stop shitting in the river
It's really weird that this became so controversial. yeah this is a pretty bad analogy. the people upstream may have shit in the river but if they didnt there may not have even been a river to drink out of. the world didnt reach this level of carbon emissions because we liked fucking with mother nature. its the direct result of our pursuit for prosperity and better quality of life. whether greta admits it or not, she is a direct beneficiary of that wealth and she has no right to get on a moral high horse and call out her previous generations for trying to better them and their childrens' lives. what were our ancestors supposed to do? the world enters into industrial and modern eras and they all just say "you know what lets not raise people out of poverty and lets keep riding horses because otherwise in a few hundred years greta thunberg is gonna call us evil"? The argument that nobody who indirectly benefits from X can ever criticize X is a stupid argument and people should really stop making it if they don't want other people to call them stupid. Greta absolutely has a moral high ground, she's not complicit in the sins of the past just because she benefited from them, but even if she was a hypocrite, that doesn't actually make her point wrong. The argument you're using is some grade A Ben Shapiro idiocy where, instead of actually addressing whatever the issue is, he attempts a "gotcha" to paint the other side as hypocrites. But whether or not the other side are hypocrites has no bearing on the issue in question. Ben Shapiro is an idiot who boasts about his inability to sexually satisfy women. Don't be like him. why in the hell do you think greta absolutely has moral high ground? why should she? who gave her the right to pass judgment from the comfort of her home? i didnt realise greta thunberg was actually the 2nd coming of jesus. You don't have to be the second coming of Jesus to have moral high ground. Also she pretty famously left her home to make a bunch of speeches. That time when all the world leaders sent representatives to one building and then she gave a speech wasn't actually in her house, the building was the UN. yeah i wasnt saying she literally made her speeches from home. who gave her the right to judge people for their past actions when she herself hadnt even reached adulthood You were using "from the comfort of her home" as a phrase to imply that she never lifted a finger in for the cause but condemned others for inaction. Whether or not you misidentified the UN building as her literal home you're still wrong, the use of "from the comfort of her home" does not apply to someone who makes the efforts she has made. She has left her home, both literally and figuratively. As for who gave her rights, that depends on who you ask. God? Jefferson? Paine? The point is that she has them. actually i used that phrase to imply that she hasnt endured nearly enough adversity in life to be able to pass any form of judgment to people, let alone people who are literally multiples older. but nice try. and no, she doesnt have the right. i dont care if you think she does but she doesnt. i can understand that she could judge people anyway without the right, but then itd be only fair for people to judge her just the same and yet at the moment a lot of people are jumping to her protection because shes "young". the double standards is rich isnt it Well in that case who gave you the right to pass judgement on her? If you're going to argue that she should shut up because you have not yet given her the right to judge others then please explain to my satisfaction why you shouldn't just shut up right now.
damnit kwark
|
I am getting weird flashbacks to discussions involving Greenhorizons. (At that point about rights for black people) He was making the point very often that conservatives will always complain about the way a message is delivered.
Whenever someone brings something up they don't like, they always act as if it is not brought up in the correct way. You apparently need to tread very careful and formulate stuff exactly so that it is palatable to them, otherwise they will completely block everything. However, that correct way doesn't ever exist, but they always act as if the problem had been brought up just a bit more careful, more respectful, they would totally be on board. But this way, this way is wrong and bad! And now we need to talk forever about the wrong and bad way it was brought up, and not the actual huge problem that was brought up.
It is an easy escape to not have to discuss something you really don't want to discuss, not to react to a problem that you don't want to react to. Just attack the way the message is delivered and feel happy about it.
And this is the exact same thing. Sure, you would care about climate change, and probably do something. But Thunberg is not polite enough, not deferential enough to the wisdom of old white men. So you really cannot do anything now, because a young commoner woman acted beyond her station. It is all her fault in the end.
Of course, this ignores that this problem has been a problem since before Thunberg was even born, and nothing has ever happened. The time is never right, things definitively should be done, but not right now. Tomorrow, we will deal with it, but right now is not the time. This shit has been going on for 30-50 years. And stuff is still moving at a glacial pace. Thunberg has every right in the world to be angry. We could have fixed this. Our parents could have started to fix it. But for decades, we have always kicked the can down the road, and now the problem appears too insurmountable to even start to attempt to fix it.
Our grandparents, our parents and we have fucked stuff up for us and the next generations. And we still don't actually do stuff. Everyone should individually do anything in their power to help, yet we don't. And the longer we don't, the worse this will get.
Is the problem really that a young woman is angry? Or that we have a massive problem, probably larger than the corona pandemic, at the horizon, that we simply ignore. We hope it will go away on its own, but stuff will only get worse. Yet conservatives would rather complain about a young woman being angry rather than the huge pile of shit we are stepping ever deeper in each day.
|
On January 20 2021 08:04 Uldridge wrote:
@Ciaus_Dronu
How is fusion speculative? They are getting it more or less cost-efficient with energy output presently iirc. We're going to see great advances in the following 10-20 years imo. And I'm not saying we need to wait, definitely not, I just don't see the "green solutions" becoming the solution we should put all these resources in. I think we could do better without creating humongous fields of solar panels just eek out a droplet of what nuclear ever could. By the way, people take into account the supply chain of these "green technologies"? Do people take into account which materials are used, how they are assembled, how and how far they are transported, what their functional life time is and how they are processed after their use?
I wonder if anyone has a detailed account of how those things map out in regards to the net carbon footprint of solar panels for example.
@Sadist
I don't think you realize how large the gap is in absolute "wealth" between first world and third world countries.
How do you think extremely high tech technologies are going to become cheaper? Have cars actually became cheaper over time generally? Have smart phones? Have computers? And suddenly high tech green power technologies will become cheaper the more advanced they become, yeah I don't see it happening.
The equation is very, very simple. No developing country will ever invest in green energy as long as it doesn't have the wealth to do so. Burning things you find when you dig a hole in the ground will always be cheaper than any green energy tech ever.
It's a first world issue. Just like we have the option to make bio-agriculture a thing, because we have all the infrastructure and the excess wealth to dump resources in it.
As to your bafflement of the US showing altruism, insead of pure greed regarding geo-political strategy, I don't know what to say about that as I've never understood the standoff between the world leaders anyway as I'm a very cooperative minded person.
Glancing through wikipedia on fusion reactors, it appears barely any further than it was when I last read about it in 1999. I'm not calling it a pipe dream, but it is only in the last four years anything at all has happened with it and this is after a hundred years of research and attempts. At the current rate it'll be done just in time for our 5 degree celsius policies. Am I missing something? Speculative still seems like a fair assessment. There has been no actual evidence anyone can make it effective yet.
|
On January 20 2021 09:11 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2021 08:04 Uldridge wrote:
@Ciaus_Dronu
How is fusion speculative? They are getting it more or less cost-efficient with energy output presently iirc. We're going to see great advances in the following 10-20 years imo. And I'm not saying we need to wait, definitely not, I just don't see the "green solutions" becoming the solution we should put all these resources in. I think we could do better without creating humongous fields of solar panels just eek out a droplet of what nuclear ever could. By the way, people take into account the supply chain of these "green technologies"? Do people take into account which materials are used, how they are assembled, how and how far they are transported, what their functional life time is and how they are processed after their use?
I wonder if anyone has a detailed account of how those things map out in regards to the net carbon footprint of solar panels for example.
@Sadist
I don't think you realize how large the gap is in absolute "wealth" between first world and third world countries.
How do you think extremely high tech technologies are going to become cheaper? Have cars actually became cheaper over time generally? Have smart phones? Have computers? And suddenly high tech green power technologies will become cheaper the more advanced they become, yeah I don't see it happening.
The equation is very, very simple. No developing country will ever invest in green energy as long as it doesn't have the wealth to do so. Burning things you find when you dig a hole in the ground will always be cheaper than any green energy tech ever.
It's a first world issue. Just like we have the option to make bio-agriculture a thing, because we have all the infrastructure and the excess wealth to dump resources in it.
As to your bafflement of the US showing altruism, insead of pure greed regarding geo-political strategy, I don't know what to say about that as I've never understood the standoff between the world leaders anyway as I'm a very cooperative minded person.
Glancing through wikipedia on fusion reactors, it appears barely any further than it was when I last read about it in 1999. I'm not calling it a pipe dream, but it is only in the last four years anything at all has happened with it and this is after a hundred years of research and attempts. At the current rate it'll be done just in time for our 5 degree celsius policies. Am I missing something? Speculative still seems like a fair assessment. There has been no actual evidence anyone can make it effective yet.
That is also what i know about the current state of fusion. The current research is into making them energy positive, so you get more energy out of one compared to what you put into it to enable the fusion. I have not heard about any cost effective fusion reactors, or anything even close to that.
|
On January 20 2021 09:11 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2021 08:04 Uldridge wrote:
@Ciaus_Dronu
How is fusion speculative? They are getting it more or less cost-efficient with energy output presently iirc. We're going to see great advances in the following 10-20 years imo. And I'm not saying we need to wait, definitely not, I just don't see the "green solutions" becoming the solution we should put all these resources in. I think we could do better without creating humongous fields of solar panels just eek out a droplet of what nuclear ever could. By the way, people take into account the supply chain of these "green technologies"? Do people take into account which materials are used, how they are assembled, how and how far they are transported, what their functional life time is and how they are processed after their use?
I wonder if anyone has a detailed account of how those things map out in regards to the net carbon footprint of solar panels for example.
@Sadist
I don't think you realize how large the gap is in absolute "wealth" between first world and third world countries.
How do you think extremely high tech technologies are going to become cheaper? Have cars actually became cheaper over time generally? Have smart phones? Have computers? And suddenly high tech green power technologies will become cheaper the more advanced they become, yeah I don't see it happening.
The equation is very, very simple. No developing country will ever invest in green energy as long as it doesn't have the wealth to do so. Burning things you find when you dig a hole in the ground will always be cheaper than any green energy tech ever.
It's a first world issue. Just like we have the option to make bio-agriculture a thing, because we have all the infrastructure and the excess wealth to dump resources in it.
As to your bafflement of the US showing altruism, insead of pure greed regarding geo-political strategy, I don't know what to say about that as I've never understood the standoff between the world leaders anyway as I'm a very cooperative minded person.
Glancing through wikipedia on fusion reactors, it appears barely any further than it was when I last read about it in 1999. I'm not calling it a pipe dream, but it is only in the last four years anything at all has happened with it and this is after a hundred years of research and attempts. At the current rate it'll be done just in time for our 5 degree celsius policies. Am I missing something? Speculative still seems like a fair assessment. There has been no actual evidence anyone can make it effective yet.
Fusion is weird and difficult to predict. Part of the issue is that there are clearly some fundamental physics things we simply don't know yet. If we were 100% on how it works, we'd have already done it by now. We are operating in some wrong/incomplete assumptions and we just don't know what those are yet. We've been in similar situations in plenty of other times in history of science. Then randomly someone is like "well hey there" and we advance 30 years. My understanding as a materials chemist who has been involved in energy research is that we are best served by keeping every option running. Last place today could be first place next year. Things change a lot. Different energies are also better/worse for certain applications or areas. In an ideal world, we would have scalable fusion reactors that we can just put wherever. Nothing will ever be better than that until we unlock some totally new realm of physics.
China has been ramping up their fusion efforts a lot. If they are the first ones to fusion, they would basically be the defacto world super power overnight, assuming we didn't succeed in stealing their research. One of the interesting things about fusion is that by having an extreme excess of energy, material scarcity also ends. We have ways of artificially creating whatever atoms we want, but it it incredibly expensive due to the energy required. But fusion essentially represents infinite energy and the relative price of materials would basically vanish once the technology was widely available.
In short, no energy solution currently being developed has nearly the payout that fusion would. We may be 1 major breakthrough away but we may also be 10 major breakthroughs away. We don't know. That is why it is important to fund everything.
|
On January 20 2021 09:14 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2021 09:11 Nevuk wrote:On January 20 2021 08:04 Uldridge wrote:
@Ciaus_Dronu
How is fusion speculative? They are getting it more or less cost-efficient with energy output presently iirc. We're going to see great advances in the following 10-20 years imo. And I'm not saying we need to wait, definitely not, I just don't see the "green solutions" becoming the solution we should put all these resources in. I think we could do better without creating humongous fields of solar panels just eek out a droplet of what nuclear ever could. By the way, people take into account the supply chain of these "green technologies"? Do people take into account which materials are used, how they are assembled, how and how far they are transported, what their functional life time is and how they are processed after their use?
I wonder if anyone has a detailed account of how those things map out in regards to the net carbon footprint of solar panels for example.
@Sadist
I don't think you realize how large the gap is in absolute "wealth" between first world and third world countries.
How do you think extremely high tech technologies are going to become cheaper? Have cars actually became cheaper over time generally? Have smart phones? Have computers? And suddenly high tech green power technologies will become cheaper the more advanced they become, yeah I don't see it happening.
The equation is very, very simple. No developing country will ever invest in green energy as long as it doesn't have the wealth to do so. Burning things you find when you dig a hole in the ground will always be cheaper than any green energy tech ever.
It's a first world issue. Just like we have the option to make bio-agriculture a thing, because we have all the infrastructure and the excess wealth to dump resources in it.
As to your bafflement of the US showing altruism, insead of pure greed regarding geo-political strategy, I don't know what to say about that as I've never understood the standoff between the world leaders anyway as I'm a very cooperative minded person.
Glancing through wikipedia on fusion reactors, it appears barely any further than it was when I last read about it in 1999. I'm not calling it a pipe dream, but it is only in the last four years anything at all has happened with it and this is after a hundred years of research and attempts. At the current rate it'll be done just in time for our 5 degree celsius policies. Am I missing something? Speculative still seems like a fair assessment. There has been no actual evidence anyone can make it effective yet. That is also what i know about the current state of fusion. The current research is into making them energy positive, so you get more energy out of one compared to what you put into it to enable the fusion. I have not heard about any cost effective fusion reactors, or anything even close to that.
Energy positive really isn't going to be enough. You need to be energy positive by a fair margin, because you still need to pay off the cost of the plant with electricity to some extent before the plant goes defunct for commercial viability(it otherwise is a fancy research facility). The newest plants from what I can read on wikipedia are approaching equal energy out to energy in, but a large portion of the energy gets lost in the energy conversion process, and another small amount in power conversion.
I'd expect first generation commercial fusion power plants to primarily be government funded partnerships with only minor power generation capabilities to be honest. It's not until second or even third generation commercial plants that I'd expect something like a 20-30 year payoff.
|
|
|
How long do you think it'll take after tomorrow for Republicans to notice the thousands of daily deaths from the coronavirus in the US and go, "Joe Biden is causing thousands of deaths EVERY DAY!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
