|
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 October 10 2018 18:56 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 18:06 Aquanim wrote:On October 10 2018 18:03 Silvanel wrote: I love how enemies of nuclear conveniently ignore the fact that coal/gas power plants and mining create more deaths and enviromental damage EVERY YEAR than nuclear power plants during its entire history. You do know that dust created as byproduct of coke production is radioactive and You get more radiation from driving on roads in any country with heavy coal industry (such as Poland) then by working in Nuclear Power Plant? [To get rid of that dust they add it to asphalt]. Lets face it, there is no power source which is totally safe and enviromentaly friendly its just a question of choice. Somehow people think that CERTAINITY of polluting entire world moderately is better than RISK of polluting small area heavily. I'm not aware of anybody in this thread who opposes nuclear power but supports coal/gas power... I'm quite sure it's not a well-populated position in any case. The interesting discussion IMO is the comparison between nuclear and renewables. Sure, in principle. But you can only use renewables in a future scenario where they are efficient enough to possibly fill our need for energy. Until then this idealism means we're completely destroying the planet with coal and oil. Right now it is either nuclear or a lot of coal and oil. There is no third option. That scenario is the prerequisite for using only renewables. It's not a black and white decision though. There is a fair bit of flexibility in terms of how nuclear vs the various flavours of renewable energy generation are prioritised.
Furthermore, even if renewables are not sufficiently efficient yet (and they were certainly less efficient 10-20 years ago) making some use of them now is a necessary condition for making them efficient enough in the future.
edit:
On October 10 2018 21:17 Silvanel wrote: Can You enlighten those not aware of the context? I'm fairly sure it's a Trump quote?
|
On October 10 2018 21:17 Silvanel wrote: Can You enlighten those not aware of the context?
It's a quote from Trump from an interview a while back. I forgot what the question was, but I'm pretty sure it was irrelevant to the answer he gave.
|
Norway28675 Posts
spoilering this cause it's not that relevant overall, but I think it's still.. a fun read. context provided for kwark's quote.
+ Show Spoiler + it was a press conference from february where they were more than midway through. Then at some point, there's a question from a reporter;
Q When you call it fake news, you’re undermining confidence —
THE PRESIDENT: No, I do that. No, no, I do that.
Q — in our news media.
THE PRESIDENT: Here’s the thing.
Q Isn’t that important?
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, I understand — and you’re right about that except this. See, I know when I should get good and when I should get bad. And sometimes I’ll say, wow, that’s going to be a great story, and I’ll get killed. I know what’s good and bad. I’d be a pretty good reporter — not as good as you. But I know what’s good. I know what’s bad.
And when they change it and make it really bad — something that should be positive. Sometimes something that should be very positive, they’ll make okay. They’ll even make it negative. So I understand it because I’m there. I know what was said. I know who is saying it. I’m there. So it’s very important to me.
Look, I want to see an honest press. When I started off today by saying that it’s so important to the public to get an honest press. The press — the public doesn’t believe you people anymore. Now, maybe I had something to do with that, I don’t know. But they don’t believe you.
If you were straight and really told it like it is, as Howard Cosell used to say, right? Of course, he had some questions also. But if you were straight, I would be your biggest booster, I would be your biggest fan in the world — including bad stories about me. But if you go — as an example, you’re CNN — I mean, it’s story after story after story is bad. I won. I won. And the other thing: Chaos. There’s zero chaos. We are running — this is a fine-tuned machine. And Reince happens to be doing a good job. But half of his job is putting out lies by the press.
I said to him yesterday, this whole Russia scam that you guys are building so that you don’t talk about the real subject, which is illegal leaks. But I watched him yesterday working so hard to try and get that story proper. And I’m saying, here’s my Chief of Staff, a really good guy, did a phenomenal job at RNC. I mean, we won the election, right? We won the presidency. We got some senators. We got some — all over the country, you take a look, he’s done a great job.
And I said to myself, you know — and I said to somebody that was in the room — I said, you take a look at Reince, he’s working so hard just putting out fires that are fake fires. They’re fake. They’re not true. And isn’t that a shame, because he’d rather be working on health care. He’d rather be working on tax reform, Jim. I mean that. I would be your biggest fan in the world if you treated me right. I sort of understand there’s a certain bias, maybe by Jeff or somebody — for whatever reason. And I understand that. But you’ve got to be at least a little bit fair. And that’s why the public sees it — they see it. They see it’s not fair. You take a look at some of your shows and you see the bias and the hatred. And the public is smart. They understand it.
Okay, yeah, go ahead.
Q We have no doubt that your latest story is (inaudible). But for those who believe that there is something to it, is there anything that you have learned over these last few weeks that you might be able to reveal that might ease their concerns that this isn’t fake news? And secondly —
THE PRESIDENT: I think they don’t believe it. I don’t think the public would. That’s why the Rasmussen poll just has me through the roof. I don’t think they believe it. Well, I guess one of the reasons I’m here today is to tell you the whole Russian thing — that’s a ruse. That’s a ruse. And, by the way, it would be great if we could get along with Russia, just so you understand that. Now, tomorrow you’ll say, Donald Trump wants to get along with Russia, this is terrible. It’s not terrible — it’s good.
We had Hillary Clinton try and do a reset. We had Hillary Clinton give Russia 20 percent of the uranium in our country. You know what uranium is, right? It’s this thing called nuclear weapons and other things. Like, lots of things are done with uranium, including some bad things. Nobody talks about that. I didn’t do anything for Russia. I’ve done nothing for Russia. Hillary Clinton gave them 20 percent of our uranium. Hillary Clinton did a reset, remember, with the stupid plastic button that made us all look like a bunch of jerks? Here, take a look. He looked at her like, what the hell is she doing with that cheap plastic button? Hillary Clinton — that was a reset. Remember? It said “reset.”
Now, if I do that, oh, I’m a bad guy. If we could get along with Russia, that’s a positive thing. We have a very talented man, Rex Tillerson, who is going to be meeting with them shortly. And I told him, I said, I know politically it’s probably not good for me. Hey, the greatest thing I could do is shoot that ship that’s 30 miles offshore right out of the water. Everyone in this country is going to say, oh, it’s so great. That’s not great. That’s not great. I would love to be able to get along with Russia.
Now, you’ve had a lot of Presidents that haven’t taken that tact. Look where we are now. Look where we are now. So, if I can — now, I love to negotiate things. I do it really well and all that stuff, but it’s possible I won’t be able to get along with Putin. Maybe it is. But I want to just tell you, the false reporting by the media, by you people — the false, horrible, fake reporting makes it much harder to make a deal with Russia. And probably Putin said, you know — he’s sitting behind his desk and he’s saying, you know, I see what’s going on in the United States, I follow it closely; it’s got to be impossible for President Trump to ever get along with Russia because of all the pressure he’s got with this fake story. Okay? And that’s a shame. Because if we could get along with Russia — and, by the way, China and Japan and everyone — if we could get along, it would be a positive thing, not a negative thing.
|
These reports about the Washington Post journalist, Jamal Khashoggi are terrifying. From the reports, the US intelligence community was aware of the potential plot to kidnap and kill him, but does not appear to have done anything. This and China detaining and forcing the head of Interpol to resign doesn’t make the world feel any safer. I don’t think the US is respected by anyone in the Trump era.
Source
|
On October 10 2018 19:57 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 18:06 Aquanim wrote:On October 10 2018 18:03 Silvanel wrote: I love how enemies of nuclear conveniently ignore the fact that coal/gas power plants and mining create more deaths and enviromental damage EVERY YEAR than nuclear power plants during its entire history. You do know that dust created as byproduct of coke production is radioactive and You get more radiation from driving on roads in any country with heavy coal industry (such as Poland) then by working in Nuclear Power Plant? [To get rid of that dust they add it to asphalt]. Lets face it, there is no power source which is totally safe and enviromentaly friendly its just a question of choice. Somehow people think that CERTAINITY of polluting entire world moderately is better than RISK of polluting small area heavily. I'm not aware of anybody in this thread who opposes nuclear power but supports coal/gas power... I'm quite sure it's not a well-populated position in any case. The interesting discussion IMO is the comparison between nuclear and renewables. Like i said all energy sources have some drawbacks. Major problem with renewables is low energy density and lack of stable supply. They simply cannot support heavy industry. They also consume large quantities of rare earth metals and require HUGE amount of energy to prepare production (solar panels for PVC/CVD depesition or silicon refining and windturbines for superalloy production). Hydro changes river beds and environment heavily. The way i see it most environmentally friendly solution is to have nuclear as major energy source and solar/wind/hydro as supplemental. Get rid of all coal/gas as power source. Energy payback time is a very valid point. I think currently you'd also have to add a bit of payback time on top of the established numbers due to limited recycling opportunities. Albeit the projected energy payback time of current models is around 2 years, newer PV models are expected to achieve that in around a year's time according to the US department of energy.
PV systems can repay their energy investment in about 2 years. During its 28 remaining years of assumed opera- tion, a PV system that meets half of an average household’s electrical use would eliminate half a ton of sulfur dioxide and one-third of a ton of nitrogen-oxides pollution. The carbon-dioxide emissions avoided would offset the opera- tion of two cars for those 28 years.
Source Though this will considerably vary with the location where the PV modules are installed and may take 5 years according to a LCA done by the scientific team of the German parliament.
Regarding wind turbines, many of them, >80%, do not use massive amounts of Neodymium and that other metal I cannot remember. Though I've seen 90% as well, e.g. here, slide 12. The data is from 2010 and with more offshore wind farms, where the reliability and maintenance advantages of rare earth permamagnets are incredibly valuable, I suspect it might be closer to the 80% now, but I'm not certain.
Enercon (a big player here in Germany) doesnt use any rare materials but copper and steel instead (established recycling pathways for those exist). They only have 7% share of the global production of onshore plants though (I'm unsure about offshore numbers). Siemens developed new generators that need less than 1% of Dysprosium (15% global share).
Currently, there are no ready to deploy solutions for non-rare earth wind turbines that are as efficient and reliable as rare earth wind turbines. Research is being conducted but not yet of practical relevance.
Payback time of current wind turbines ranges between 6 and 17 months, according to a recent publication in the Sustainbility Journal. This is in Texas and as always, (energy/co2) payback will vary from location to location. It's been reported up to 6 years in Scotland when peatland was used (source)
What I'd be more concerned about is the recyclability of fibreglass rotor blades than the recyclability of rare earths. The latter will be recycled due to costs at some point.
Ill have some time tomorrow or firday to give my thoughts about nuclear that I just briefly and superficially mentioned the other day.
|
On October 10 2018 22:07 Plansix wrote:These reports about the Washington Post journalist, Jamal Khashoggi are terrifying. From the reports, the US intelligence community was aware of the potential plot to kidnap and kill him, but does not appear to have done anything. This and China detaining and forcing the head of Interpol to resign doesn’t make the world feel any safer. I don’t think the US is respected by anyone in the Trump era. Source Is there any indication at all that the situation with China has anything to do with Interpol or the US and not a (real or not) corruption hunt by China? Yes its disturbing that they arrest him and say nothing for a week while people wonder if he disappeared but I have seen nothing that indicated its related to his activity as head of Interpol.
As for your article. It was not clear whether the Saudis intended to arrest and interrogate Khashoggi or to kill him, or if the United States warned Khashoggi that he was a target, this person said. This bit is rather key, until we know whether they warned Khashoggi or not its a wee bit early to say the US did nothing.
|
United States42803 Posts
On October 10 2018 20:57 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 13:24 KwarK wrote:On October 10 2018 11:59 micronesia wrote: This discussion seems to have transitioned from US Politics to layman's explanations of nuclear power. Can we return to US Politics please. You know what uranium is, right? It’s this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things. But nobody talks about that. I legit thought Kwark had a stroke for a second there before realizing where this is from Isn’t it weird to live in a time where “nobody on the internet would say something that stupid, they must be quoting the president” is the first reaction, and the correct one.
|
Its more than that. Its remarkable that he has his own style to the point where I immediately could identify it as a "trumpism" without having heard the quote to begin with. That is almost a brilliant form of stupidity.
|
On October 10 2018 22:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 22:07 Plansix wrote:These reports about the Washington Post journalist, Jamal Khashoggi are terrifying. From the reports, the US intelligence community was aware of the potential plot to kidnap and kill him, but does not appear to have done anything. This and China detaining and forcing the head of Interpol to resign doesn’t make the world feel any safer. I don’t think the US is respected by anyone in the Trump era. Source Is there any indication at all that the situation with China has anything to do with Interpol or the US and not a (real or not) corruption hunt by China? Yes its disturbing that they arrest him and say nothing for a week while people wonder if he disappeared but I have seen nothing that indicated its related to his activity as head of Interpol. As for your article. Show nested quote +It was not clear whether the Saudis intended to arrest and interrogate Khashoggi or to kill him, or if the United States warned Khashoggi that he was a target, this person said. This bit is rather key, until we know whether they warned Khashoggi or not its a wee bit early to say the US did nothing. That is only if you trust the Chinese government’s press release saying he was being charged with bribery. Xi Jinping loves to us anti-corruption as a way to control his detractors. And China is so opaque on these types of charges, we may never know.
And reading between the lines on the Jamal Khashoggi article, someone in the US intelligence community leaked that report to the Post without the information that they US intelligence community warned Jamal Khashoggi. My speculation is that the leak was because someone wanted the Post to know that the US government knew about the potential attack and did nothing.
|
On October 10 2018 22:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 22:20 Gorsameth wrote:On October 10 2018 22:07 Plansix wrote:These reports about the Washington Post journalist, Jamal Khashoggi are terrifying. From the reports, the US intelligence community was aware of the potential plot to kidnap and kill him, but does not appear to have done anything. This and China detaining and forcing the head of Interpol to resign doesn’t make the world feel any safer. I don’t think the US is respected by anyone in the Trump era. Source Is there any indication at all that the situation with China has anything to do with Interpol or the US and not a (real or not) corruption hunt by China? Yes its disturbing that they arrest him and say nothing for a week while people wonder if he disappeared but I have seen nothing that indicated its related to his activity as head of Interpol. As for your article. It was not clear whether the Saudis intended to arrest and interrogate Khashoggi or to kill him, or if the United States warned Khashoggi that he was a target, this person said. This bit is rather key, until we know whether they warned Khashoggi or not its a wee bit early to say the US did nothing. That is only if you trust the Chinese government’s press release saying he was being charged with bribery. Xi Jinping loves to us anti-corruption as a way to control his detractors. And China is so opaque on these types of charges, we may never know. And reading between the lines on the Jamal Khashoggi article, someone in the US intelligence community leaked that report to the Post without the information that they US intelligence community warned Jamal Khashoggi. My speculation is that the leak was because someone wanted the Post to know that the US government knew about the potential attack and did nothing. I did say (real or not) corruption, so no I don't believe everything China says at face value. It may well be Xi taking care of a political opponent but the guy was also deputy public security minister. My point of 'his arrest had nothing to do with Interpol or the US' still stands.
|
On October 10 2018 22:42 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 22:31 Plansix wrote:On October 10 2018 22:20 Gorsameth wrote:On October 10 2018 22:07 Plansix wrote:These reports about the Washington Post journalist, Jamal Khashoggi are terrifying. From the reports, the US intelligence community was aware of the potential plot to kidnap and kill him, but does not appear to have done anything. This and China detaining and forcing the head of Interpol to resign doesn’t make the world feel any safer. I don’t think the US is respected by anyone in the Trump era. Source Is there any indication at all that the situation with China has anything to do with Interpol or the US and not a (real or not) corruption hunt by China? Yes its disturbing that they arrest him and say nothing for a week while people wonder if he disappeared but I have seen nothing that indicated its related to his activity as head of Interpol. As for your article. It was not clear whether the Saudis intended to arrest and interrogate Khashoggi or to kill him, or if the United States warned Khashoggi that he was a target, this person said. This bit is rather key, until we know whether they warned Khashoggi or not its a wee bit early to say the US did nothing. That is only if you trust the Chinese government’s press release saying he was being charged with bribery. Xi Jinping loves to us anti-corruption as a way to control his detractors. And China is so opaque on these types of charges, we may never know. And reading between the lines on the Jamal Khashoggi article, someone in the US intelligence community leaked that report to the Post without the information that they US intelligence community warned Jamal Khashoggi. My speculation is that the leak was because someone wanted the Post to know that the US government knew about the potential attack and did nothing. I did say (real or not) corruption, so no I don't believe everything China says at face value. It may well be Xi taking care of a political opponent but the guy was also deputy public security minister. My point of 'his arrest had nothing to do with Interpol or the US' still stands. I don’t agree with that. I don’t believe China would have flagrantly detained the head of the international police if the US had a stronger, more competent leader and Congress that would see it as the power play it is. I view this and the attack on the Post’s journalist as dictatorial governments asserting themselves and seeing what they can get away with. Similar Putin and Crimea.
|
|
On October 10 2018 23:20 JimmiC wrote: The Saudi' s , Russian's and Venezuelans all killed/disappeared political opponents this week. I wonder if this always happened and we didn't hear about or if these totalitarian governments are getting more brazen. Its always happened, and they might be getting a bit more brazen but they have never been really quiet about it.
Even stuff like Russia killing dissenters hiding in the West is not unprecedented, tho the use of chemical weapons and bystanders being effected is bigger then I can think of offhand.
|
Israel detaining a US citizen for supporting a boycott also seems relevant to the discussion. Especially since she was sponsored by a university in Israel and granted a visa by their government. It seems like traveling abroad is risker simply because the US government doesn’t have your back in a lot of countries.
|
|
On October 10 2018 23:41 Plansix wrote: Israel detaining a US citizen for supporting a boycott also seems relevant to the discussion. Especially since she was sponsored by a university in Israel and granted a visa by their government. It seems like traveling abroad is risker simply because the US government doesn’t have your back in a lot of countries.
And this is why I miss having a functional state department
|
|
lmao. Bloomberg was viable like...20 years ago. Bloomberg will get absolutely trashed by whoever Bernie passes his torch too. I don't think Bernie himself will run, but I think Bernie will go balls deep for someone.
I almost don't mind Bloomberg trying because it is so utterly hopeless. He will need to run on single payer and $15 min wage in order to be remotely suitable for the modern day left.
|
On October 10 2018 23:51 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 23:41 Plansix wrote: Israel detaining a US citizen for supporting a boycott also seems relevant to the discussion. Especially since she was sponsored by a university in Israel and granted a visa by their government. It seems like traveling abroad is risker simply because the US government doesn’t have your back in a lot of countries. And this is why I miss having a functional state department This is the part of Trump I fear most, the erosion of things we cannot perceive, but rely on to function in this world. The water stays clean because the EPA tests it and enforces the clean water act. There is no safe guard if the EPA drops the ball due to having its staff cut for no reason. We just drink tainted water and don’t know it until we get sick.
|
On October 10 2018 22:13 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 19:57 Silvanel wrote:On October 10 2018 18:06 Aquanim wrote:On October 10 2018 18:03 Silvanel wrote: I love how enemies of nuclear conveniently ignore the fact that coal/gas power plants and mining create more deaths and enviromental damage EVERY YEAR than nuclear power plants during its entire history. You do know that dust created as byproduct of coke production is radioactive and You get more radiation from driving on roads in any country with heavy coal industry (such as Poland) then by working in Nuclear Power Plant? [To get rid of that dust they add it to asphalt]. Lets face it, there is no power source which is totally safe and enviromentaly friendly its just a question of choice. Somehow people think that CERTAINITY of polluting entire world moderately is better than RISK of polluting small area heavily. I'm not aware of anybody in this thread who opposes nuclear power but supports coal/gas power... I'm quite sure it's not a well-populated position in any case. The interesting discussion IMO is the comparison between nuclear and renewables. Like i said all energy sources have some drawbacks. Major problem with renewables is low energy density and lack of stable supply. They simply cannot support heavy industry. They also consume large quantities of rare earth metals and require HUGE amount of energy to prepare production (solar panels for PVC/CVD depesition or silicon refining and windturbines for superalloy production). Hydro changes river beds and environment heavily. The way i see it most environmentally friendly solution is to have nuclear as major energy source and solar/wind/hydro as supplemental. Get rid of all coal/gas as power source. Energy payback time is a very valid point. I think currently you'd also have to add a bit of payback time on top of the established numbers due to limited recycling opportunities. Albeit the projected energy payback time of current models is around 2 years, newer PV models are expected to achieve that in around a year's time according to the US department of energy. Show nested quote + PV systems can repay their energy investment in about 2 years. During its 28 remaining years of assumed opera- tion, a PV system that meets half of an average household’s electrical use would eliminate half a ton of sulfur dioxide and one-third of a ton of nitrogen-oxides pollution. The carbon-dioxide emissions avoided would offset the opera- tion of two cars for those 28 years.
SourceThough this will considerably vary with the location where the PV modules are installed and may take 5 years according to a LCA done by the scientific team of the German parliament. Regarding wind turbines, many of them, >80%, do not use massive amounts of Neodymium and that other metal I cannot remember. Though I've seen 90% as well, e.g. here, slide 12. The data is from 2010 and with more offshore wind farms, where the reliability and maintenance advantages of rare earth permamagnets are incredibly valuable, I suspect it might be closer to the 80% now, but I'm not certain. Enercon (a big player here in Germany) doesnt use any rare materials but copper and steel instead (established recycling pathways for those exist). They only have 7% share of the global production of onshore plants though (I'm unsure about offshore numbers). Siemens developed new generators that need less than 1% of Dysprosium (15% global share). Currently, there are no ready to deploy solutions for non-rare earth wind turbines that are as efficient and reliable as rare earth wind turbines. Research is being conducted but not yet of practical relevance. Payback time of current wind turbines ranges between 6 and 17 months, according to a recent publication in the Sustainbility Journal. This is in Texas and as always, (energy/co2) payback will vary from location to location. It's been reported up to 6 years in Scotland when peatland was used ( source) What I'd be more concerned about is the recyclability of fibreglass rotor blades than the recyclability of rare earths. The latter will be recycled due to costs at some point. Ill have some time tomorrow or firday to give my thoughts about nuclear that I just briefly and superficially mentioned the other day.
The source You quoted actually mentions 3 years (not that it matters that much if its 2 or 3) but i have more problems with the fact that they "calculate" and "estimate" not actually measure those values in real life. I know the total energy consumption required to produce single PV sheet might be difficult to track but i would love if someone actually did test this.
BTW I didnt know they use offgrade silicon from microprocessor industry. Thats actully really smart solution. I remember my prof. use to say that whoever comes ups with energy efficient process to refine silicon for solar power production will get nobel prize. Beacuse silicon used by microprcessor industry is too pure for solar panels (meaning it could be less pure) and consumes HUGE amount of energy and silicon from lower energy process is not pure enough. So there is really no efficeint way to refine silicon for PV purpose. So usuing offgrade silicon from micropressor industry (that would be melted and purified again anyway) is great solution. Thanks for this, i learned something new.
Anyway i think advances in PVD/CVD are more important either way and that is the way forward with PV.
|
|
|
|