EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3213
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4767 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18863 Posts
On May 05 2021 23:46 Silvanel wrote: For someone not to verse in US corporate law --> Please explain why does it matter where they were incorporated? What does it change? Incorporation is entirely a creature of state law, so companies are subject to the laws of their state of incorporation (among others, depending on their business activities). That's related to why the vast majority of companies are incorporated in either Delaware or New York, both have a vast and well-studied body of corporate law that provides predictability to businesses. The NY AG's actions against the NRA represent the flipside of that dynamic, where businesses enjoying the comfort of NY laws have to abide by them or suffer the consequences. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4767 Posts
On May 05 2021 23:26 EnDeR_ wrote: We are getting side-tracked here. Your initial point was that PV and wind turbines require rare metals and therefore require the exploitation of people in developing countries. Specifically, this is what you said: The vast majority of PV panels on the market do not require rare metals and the energy payback is less than 4 years. Most wind turbines on land (so not off-shore) do not require rare metals or alternatives exist to not have to use rare metals and local production is possible. Therefore, the matter is not complicated. Investment in renewables at this point in time is solid. This doesnt look to me like a small portion. This is majority of the market and is project to grow (at least in the US): https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/solar-panels-market Also You omitted the part when i talked about switch stations and problems with decentralization of energy network. But I agree that we should invest in renewables, just not in majority of panels avilable on market and not in turbines. What we need is hydro, CSP, geo and of course nuclear. Renewables without nuclear doesnt make much sense. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22425 Posts
On May 06 2021 00:22 Silvanel wrote: Hydro is limited by terrain requirements. I don't know if Geothermal is at a level for serious power generation with existing technology.This doesnt look to me like a small portion. This is majority of the market and is project to grow (at least in the US): https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/solar-panels-market Also You omitted the part when i talked about switch stations and problems with decentralization of energy network. But I agree that we should invest in renewables, just not in majority of panels avilable on market and not in turbines. What we need is hydro, CSP, geo and of course nuclear. Renewables without nuclear doesnt make much sense. Wind is easy, its everywhere and often more reliable then solar. So while it might not be the 'best' solution, its probably the easiest one short erm. | ||
|
Husyelt
United States837 Posts
On May 06 2021 00:22 Silvanel wrote: This doesnt look to me like a small portion. This is majority of the market and is project to grow (at least in the US): https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/solar-panels-market Also You omitted the part when i talked about switch stations and problems with decentralization of energy network. But I agree that we should invest in renewables, just not in majority of panels avilable on market and not in turbines. What we need is hydro, CSP, geo and of course nuclear. Renewables without nuclear doesnt make much sense. Which countries or continents would benefit mostly from Nuclear? And what would it take to get that started? It seems like from my limited knowledge, Nuclear energy is not the be all end all, but we might as well use the few hundred years to transition into other things. I never got why people are so obsessed with wind turbines which are not in fact renewable, (20-30 year life span) and then dumped into a landfill. Not to mention the energy and raw materials required to create one. | ||
KwarK
United States44113 Posts
On May 06 2021 00:34 Gorsameth wrote: Hydro is limited by terrain requirements. I don't know if Geothermal is at a level for serious power generation with existing technology. Wind is easy, its everywhere and often more reliable then solar. So while it might not be the 'best' solution, its probably the easiest one short erm. Out here in New Mexico where a large portion of household power usage is air conditioning solar is super reliable. It doesn’t replace the need for a grid for load balancing and matching excess capacity but it functions like household energy efficient improvements, just generally reducing the amount of base power drawn by homes. I got a fairly small install ($13k full price but about $3.5k after credits) and it has reduced the electricity consumption by about 80%. It’s not hugely cost effective once you apply a 10% annual opportunity cost of capital to a $13k base price and straight line depreciation over 15 years but it comes with far fewer externalities than fossil fuels. Solar panels are becoming standard in my city, maybe 20% of houses have them, and to me it just makes sense. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2914 Posts
On May 06 2021 00:22 Silvanel wrote: This doesnt look to me like a small portion. This is majority of the market and is project to grow (at least in the US): https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/solar-panels-market Also You omitted the part when i talked about switch stations and problems with decentralization of energy network. But I agree that we should invest in renewables, just not in majority of panels avilable on market and not in turbines. What we need is hydro, CSP, geo and of course nuclear. Renewables without nuclear doesnt make much sense. That graph you're showing does not define what is 'thin film solar' which can actually include thin film silicon and amorphous silicon. A more reliable source for these types of things is the Fraunhofer institute that do a market report every year. Latest one available is here: www.ise.fraunhofer.de According to them, the c-Si share of production was 95% 2019. Note that that is for crystalline silicon; within the remaining 5% amorphous silicon is also there, as is GaAs and other PV technologies including dye-cells. The amount of PV panels made from CdTe or CIGS is very small in the grand scheme of things. You will need power distribution stations no matter what you do and I'd love to see a source that supports your point that implementing renewables would bring about problems with energy network decentralization linked to mining of rare metals. I'm genuinely curious. With regards to your last paragraph, do you have a source that compares all renewable technologies and concludes that hydro/geo is better than wind/solar for the US? | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2914 Posts
On May 06 2021 00:34 Gorsameth wrote: Hydro is limited by terrain requirements. I don't know if Geothermal is at a level for serious power generation with existing technology. Wind is easy, its everywhere and often more reliable then solar. So while it might not be the 'best' solution, its probably the easiest one short erm. The 'best' solution will always be a mix of different technologies that take into account power requirements as well as location. The actual balance will depend on what can be extracted, i.e. in Scotland you're better off having a lot more wind than solar, but I'd imagine in New Mexico, you'd want to put a lot less wind than solar. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4767 Posts
mono-crystalline technology is now about 66% (compared to 45% in 2018) of total production. So it is bad and getting worse. I think we can agree that mono-crystalline isnt the way forward? The last paragraph i actually meant Europe. In Southern US states solar (be it amorphous or poly Si PV) or CSP makes more sense than in many places in Europe, same with wind. They dont have much rivers, and i dont know about geo but i suspect given the geology it might not be good idea in most places. Frankly in terms of climate the US seem more diverse than Europe so i think they should have different aproach depending on regions. | ||
|
Yurie
12104 Posts
On May 06 2021 01:08 EnDeR_ wrote: The 'best' solution will always be a mix of different technologies that take into account power requirements as well as location. The actual balance will depend on what can be extracted, i.e. in Scotland you're better off having a lot more wind than solar, but I'd imagine in New Mexico, you'd want to put a lot less wind than solar. Another interesting point is location of industry. In Sweden most steel is made in the far north where the population density is low. The area has good ore and more hydro power than the people living there can use. Thus energy intensive industries move there since they can get cheap green power. The combination of best mix with locating power hungry manufacturing/server farms in the good areas makes a lot of sense. You don't need the population selection a major city provides you for them and being near power generation is a bigger concern. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2914 Posts
On May 06 2021 00:39 Husyelt wrote: Which countries or continents would benefit mostly from Nuclear? And what would it take to get that started? It seems like from my limited knowledge, Nuclear energy is not the be all end all, but we might as well use the few hundred years to transition into other things. I never got why people are so obsessed with wind turbines which are not in fact renewable, (20-30 year life span) and then dumped into a landfill. Not to mention the energy and raw materials required to create one. The UK has been trying to install nuclear for ages now, see for instance Hinkley point C en.wikipedia.org, construction kind of started in 2014 and it's not really expected to start producing until well into the mid 2020's. Funding almost fell through several times and the budget has been overshot several times. It's a 3.2 GW installation that is currently projected to cost about £23Bn, so about $30Bn. A quick back of the envelope calculation: Power out: 3.2 x 10^9 W Cost: 30x10^9 $ So the cost per watt for Hinkley point C is about $10 per Watt. Modern solar rooftop installations are currently, according to the Fraunhofer institute www.ise.fraunhofer.de: At the end of 2019, such systems [domestic rooftop installations] cost about 1,050 €/kWp in average. so about $1 per Watt So the UK government could have installed 10x the amount of power generation if they just gave away that money to the population to install solar panels on their rooftops. Sometimes investing in nuclear does not turn out to be as good an investment as you'd hope. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2914 Posts
On May 06 2021 01:22 Silvanel wrote: The report You linked clearly states that (on page 5): The share of mono-crystalline technology is now about 66% (compared to 45% in 2018) of total production. So it is bad and getting worse. I think we can agree that mono-crystalline isnt the way forward? The last paragraph i actually meant Europe. In Southern US states solar (be it amorphous or poly Si PV) or CSP makes more sense than in many places in Europe, same with wind. They dont have much rivers, and i dont know about geo but i suspect given the geology it might not be good idea in most places. Frankly in terms of climate the US seem more diverse than Europe so i think they should have different aproach depending on regions. Keep reading. The energy payback time is less than 2 years for c-Si systems. So it is absolutely a myth that solar installations do not recover the energy invested in producing them. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4767 Posts
Yeah, but in many european countries the most industrialized regions tend to be also the most populus (Poland - Silesia, Germany - Rhine Valley, Italy - Tuscany, and so on) this of course due to historical reasons as industry meant work and money. The switch towards services from manufacturing is something more recent. | ||
|
Yurie
12104 Posts
On May 06 2021 01:29 Silvanel wrote: @Yurie Yeah, but in many european countries the most industrialized regions tend to be also the most populus (Poland - Silesia, Germany - Rhine Valley, Italy - Tuscany, and so on) this of course due to historical reasons as industry meant work and money. The switch towards services from manufacturing is something more recent. They are in Sweden as well. Industry and high energy industry is slightly different. A car assembly doesn't take as much power as Bauxite to Aluminium processes. Placement of new plants should perhaps focus more on energy availability than people. Especially as automation goes up. Cannot ignore people as a factor but putting them in the most densely populated areas doesn't make as much sense as putting them in a good spot for logistics (train/water) and power. The final assembly 5 steps down the chain probably makes sense to be near a population centre though. | ||
|
Slydie
1943 Posts
On May 05 2021 19:19 EnDeR_ wrote: I like the dilutional part, as in, am I being able to be diluted?  Electricity indeed has to come from somewhere, and, as things currently stand, renewables are on par with fossil fuels when it comes to cost per watt. I have said before that a resilient grid will need multiple sources of power and fossil fuels/nuclear will likely play a significant role when there are dips in production from renewables. It's still worth the investment and the reduced pollution is doubly worth it. There is no excuse to have shitty public transport in densely populated areas, that's a uniquely American problem in the context of developed countries. Much like publicly funded healthcare and sensible gun control legislation. These things WOULD BE easy to solve if the will was there. Sorry, it is far more complicated than that. You must remember that European cities were mostly planned without car use in mind, but this is not the case in the US. If you take the bus somewhere, but can't even walk to the shop across the street, what does it help? Not in the US, but look up Brasilia for another city which was built with cars in mind somewhere with too much space. Improvements can be done, but to convert the average US city to mainly use public transport you need to rebuild it. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14146 Posts
On May 06 2021 05:05 Yurie wrote: They are in Sweden as well. Industry and high energy industry is slightly different. A car assembly doesn't take as much power as Bauxite to Aluminium processes. Placement of new plants should perhaps focus more on energy availability than people. Especially as automation goes up. Cannot ignore people as a factor but putting them in the most densely populated areas doesn't make as much sense as putting them in a good spot for logistics (train/water) and power. The final assembly 5 steps down the chain probably makes sense to be near a population centre though. Even final Assembly doesn't need to be in a population center. Modern manufacturing in America at least is incredibly decentralized as more and more automation comes to the machining of parts allowing for shops to operate in rual areas where the cost of living, land, and energy can be incredibly low. The only thing that you need in population centers is modern Amazon sweat shops. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2914 Posts
On May 06 2021 06:30 Slydie wrote: Sorry, it is far more complicated than that. You must remember that European cities were mostly planned without car use in mind, but this is not the case in the US. If you take the bus somewhere, but can't even walk to the shop across the street, what does it help? Not in the US, but look up Brasilia for another city which was built with cars in mind somewhere with too much space. Improvements can be done, but to convert the average US city to mainly use public transport you need to rebuild it. I mean, I get that if you build your streets with 10 lanes, crossing is annoying, but this isn't an unsolvable problem. You can easily convert these wide streets into something similar to las ramblas in Barcelona. The solutions are there and they aren't based on new technologies so it's only a matter of wanting to do it. | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2914 Posts
On May 06 2021 07:29 plasmidghost wrote: I am honestly in awe. I never expected Biden to be on board with this and this is one of the best things he could've possibly initiated. I hope this happens as soon as possible and places like India can get vaccines into their people. That is genuinely encouraging and about damn time too! | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
Not that waiving the IP hurts anything (well, Moderna and Pfizer stock price probably, but I’m not too worried about them). It just feels like people are seeing an ideological issue (i.e. we’re intentionally making less vaccine than we should to preserve corporate profits) when it’s really a logistical one (i.e. we have limited resources available to manufacture vaccine and we need to make optimal use of them). | ||
| ||
