American Politics

[kkck]

China's decision to move to solar is more economic, than pollution. Solar panels need labor for manufacturing and can ship out finished products while they cannot do the same with fossil fuels. So that answers why China gives a shit. Its jobs, money and monopoly. And its working, they are primarily the main manufacturers of solar panels and constitute to 55% of the global solar power manufacturing. This is successful because, its the economics add up. Government got behind R&D, poured in money and that created jobs, money and a strong industry. And of course, solar panels have an overall carbon footprint 20 times lower than that of coal, and natural gas by fracking although cleaner, its only marginal and isnt nearly anywhere close to the numbers of solar. So while the government must look to phase it out, its really important to tie it with an economically viable option.
So Biden's decision to not include frackign was the right thing, but it must be complimented with strong incentives for renewable energies.




The point is cost. Wind is the most efficient, but is intermittent. Solar isnt available all the time so both of these will require a method to store the energy in the form of batteries, and chemical batteries of any type will be bad for the environment. Solar and wind are known to have drastic effects to wildlife. Is the target of better planet only for humans? Its not.
And the other problem with renewable energy is location. You will have to find an area which provides good source of sunlight / wind etc which would be remote. Then additional effort for transmission of that power will bring up additional cost, whereas nuclear can reutilize existing thermal plants with minimum construction. The power lines will stay and thereby provide the best.

I dont think nuclear fusion is close, but the current fission based sources are already very efficient.

I mean, sure, but this is complementary to my point. It's true that its simply good economics in the sense that you get ahead of the competition in this industry. But the economic cost of pollution is also absolutely real and something which definitely weights into what is happening. Look at Beijing and it's pollution... it definitely costs billions in terms of health care. Add to that the cost of being sick in terms of manpower and productivity. There is literally no reason not to throw billions or trillions or any amount of money at alternative energy sources. it's just good business.

Batteries are not really an option. Not only because they are ridiculously pollutant but also because they are absurdly big and expensive. We just don't have any means of storing large amounts of energy in any reasonable or possible way. Unless someone decides that building a city size battery to power a city for a few hours at a time is reasonable.

It's not. To my understanding we could be 40-60-100 years away from it. But storing energy is cartoonishly unviable and solar panels would have to be practically magic so we might as well be closer to fusion, which according to the scientific community the science checks out and fusion materials would be abundant and the process would produce much less waste.

 

[hokageji]

So, has any big republican politician or celebrity condemn voter fraud from their people, or are they ignoring it as per usual? The party of double standards seems to be projecting a lot since Trump's campaign, at the latest. Claims Muslims and "radical left" are dangerous, while majority of terrorism and murders come from the right.

Nope, no big republican politician.... The small are now moving towards libertarian party...

But the economic cost of pollution is also absolutely real and something which definitely weights into what is happening. Look at Beijing and it's pollution... it definitely costs billions in terms of health care. Add to that the cost of being sick in terms of manpower and productivity. There is literally no reason not to throw billions or trillions or any amount of money at alternative energy sources. it's just good business.

Lets stick to the original discussion which is about the green new deal and policy.
Based on that if Biden were to put all his effort into renewables, he wouldn't have the budget for ACA and further improvements. At this point health care itself would be a lot of sanctions, need to bring the economy back on track and for that, jobs have to be present. So the fracking will have to stay but it will have to be phased out slowly with incremental economic incentives for renewble

Batteries are not really an option. Not only because they are ridiculously pollutant but also because they are absurdly big and expensive. We just don't have any means of storing large amounts of energy in any reasonable or possible way. Unless someone decides that building a city size battery to power a city for a few hours at a time is reasonable.

It's not. To my understanding we could be 40-60-100 years away from it. But storing energy is cartoonishly unviable and solar panels would have to be practically magic so we might as well be closer to fusion, which according to the scientific community the science checks out and fusion materials would be abundant and the process would produce much less waste.

Yes, batteries are not feasible which is why solar and wind are not viable.

The alternative storage methods are in talks, like using the additional energy to pump water toa reservoir and then let it run through when required. But compute the construction cost and the volume required for that. Right now, a lot of times, wind turbines are being disconnected for load matching, they will produce too much energy and are often just disconnected for load matching. Potentially, all the energy required is not being used and the maintainence cost is still high.

 

[M3J]

Nope, no big republican politician.... The small are now moving towards libertarian party...

well, as long as they vote for Biden to ensure Trump doesn't win. They'll probably go back to the Republican party after Trump

 

[hokageji]

Well, i do hope they vote for Biden as well... I think the Lincoln project is one group of conservatives who are against Trump. I think its good to have a stronger 2nd party with conservative idealogies. Same on the left, we need a stronger progressive party. If you have individual parties with strong voter base, then they can make their corresponding demands and hopefully it helps the country come out of the two party system.

 

[M3J]

Well, i do hope they vote for Biden as well... I think the Lincoln project is one group of conservatives who are against Trump. I think its good to have a stronger 2nd party with conservative idealogies. Same on the left, we need a stronger progressive party. If you have individual parties with strong voter base, then they can make their corresponding demands and hopefully it helps the country come out of the two party system.

I know they're vocally against Trump... but what's the guarantee they won't vote for him just because they'd rather have an ineptitude leader as long as he's a REpublican?

Problem is, the left don't like progressiveness or further left. Look at how Pelosi and Biden treat AOC and the Green New Deal, or how Biden and Harris support fracking. Not to mention, Biden doesn't support Medicare For All, even though that's a better plan.

 

[shionoro]

Most people in the US notice by now that a two party system is stupid. But nobody seriously tries to create another system.

A lot of frustration would be gone if the democrats split into a left and a moderate democrat party that could coaligne under whichever party gets more votes in an election but can also move independently from each other in the senate and house or gubernational entities.

 

[Sanity Check]

Batteries are not really an option. Not only because they are ridiculously pollutant but also because they are absurdly big and expensive. We just don't have any means of storing large amounts of energy in any reasonable or possible way. Unless someone decides that building a city size battery to power a city for a few hours at a time is reasonable.

It's not. To my understanding we could be 40-60-100 years away from it.

Elon Musk's Tesla battery farm has saved South Australia $116 MILLION

Operating via the Hornsdale Power Reserve in South Australia, the battery has helped to restore stability to the network and lower the costs of running the power grid, according to reports.

www.dailymail.co.uk

• Elon Musk bet that if they didn't deliver the battery in 100 days it would be free
• They delivered it within 70 days and it has saved an estimated $116 million AUD
• It also reduced the cost of operating the once shaky power grid by 91 per cent

Elon Musk built and deployed the world's 1st 100 megawatt lithium battery designed for power grid applications.

Illustrating the technology exists and is feasible.

 

[M3J]

Most people in the US notice by now that a two party system is stupid. But nobody seriously tries to create another system.

A lot of frustration would be gone if the democrats split into a left and a moderate democrat party that could coaligne under whichever party gets more votes in an election but can also move independently from each other in the senate and house or gubernational entities.

Problem is, the Dems and REps are too big and win by large margins that it seems pointless. If Bernie was with a third party, and he came very close to second place, then we'd probably see a new direction and more than two-party system pick up steam. However, the Democrat and Republican parties have history on their side. Left Democrat might not be as left as the further left want them to be, and it could end in infighting between the Democrats.

 

[kkck]

Elon Musk's Tesla battery farm has saved South Australia $116 MILLION

Operating via the Hornsdale Power Reserve in South Australia, the battery has helped to restore stability to the network and lower the costs of running the power grid, according to reports.

www.dailymail.co.uk

• Elon Musk bet that if they didn't deliver the battery in 100 days it would be free
• They delivered it within 70 days and it has saved an estimated $116 million AUD
• It also reduced the cost of operating the once shaky power grid by 91 per cent

Elon Musk built and deployed the world's 1st 100 megawatt lithium battery designed for power grid applications.

Illustrating the technology exists and is feasible.

That's awesome but there are still A LOT of questions to answer before actually deciding this is a good idea, even if by all appearances it is financially viable. If the issue is climate change then the issue isn't merely about money, it's about the environment and sustainability.

1. How long do those batteries last? How often do you need to replace them?
2. How do you dispose of those batteries in a way green enough that it doesn't defeat their purpose pollution wise? To my understanding lithium is absurdly pollutant at pretty much all stages. When it is mined, when it is made into something useful, when you dispose of it, when you recycle it..
3. 30k families is not THAT much so... what happens when you scale this up? Can it be scaled up?

 

[Sanity Check]

That's awesome but there are still A LOT of questions to answer before actually deciding this is a good idea, even if by all appearances it is financially viable. If the issue is climate change then the issue isn't merely about money, it's about the environment and sustainability.

1. How long do those batteries last? How often do you need to replace them?
2. How do you dispose of those batteries in a way green enough that it doesn't defeat their purpose pollution wise? To my understanding lithium is absurdly pollutant at pretty much all stages. When it is mined, when it is made into something useful, when you dispose of it, when you recycle it..
3. 30k families is not THAT much so... what happens when you scale this up? Can it be scaled up?

Conventional energy technologies utilizing hydrocarbon based combustion have been utilized in common applications for decades. There isn't much potential growth or innovation to be realized with internal combustion engines or power plants which have been optimised and improved over decades.

Lithium battery technology however is completely new and carries a large potential for innovation and improvement as successive generations of it are revised. Tesla's skyrocketing stock price, in terms of price to earnings, could be one best indication of this.

Tesla has unveiled a blueprint for improving their battery in leaps and bounds. Which when coupled with ramping up the scale of battery production, will provide EV technology that is not only cheaper and more efficient than oil and hydrocarbon based technology. But also more environmentally friendly, producing decreased greenhouse gas emissions overall.

I would like a solution to the above problem BTW from anyone claiming nuclear power is good policy.



There we have 6 nuclear power plants built on the san andreas fault line in a high risk earthquake and tsunami zone. How could lithium batteries possibly be worse than that?

 

[hokageji]

Problem is, the left don't like progressiveness or further left. Look at how Pelosi and Biden treat AOC and the Green New Deal, or how Biden and Harris support fracking. Not to mention, Biden doesn't support Medicare For All, even though that's a better plan.

Thats not the left, thats the democratic party which is left of center. Which is why i said progressive party...
I already mentioned in detail why Biden and Harris support fracking and why its not a bad thing. THe president has to speak to all and fracking will need to be supported....

I know they're vocally against Trump... but what's the guarantee they won't vote for him just because they'd rather have an ineptitude leader as long as he's a REpublican?

There is no guarantee, but a lot of the minority have vocally said that they didnt vote for Trump in 2016. And their individual votes don't count, their reach is what matters...

Most people in the US notice by now that a two party system is stupid. But nobody seriously tries to create another system.

A lot of frustration would be gone if the democrats split into a left and a moderate democrat party that could coaligne under whichever party gets more votes in an election but can also move independently from each other in the senate and house or gubernational entities.

That's my point. If there is a 2nd party on both sides of the spectrum, it would be better for the country, but perhaps the experts can comment better.

The way i see it, AMerican constitution is nearly 250 years old. So other younger countries like south africa for instance, could have a better system. But i will be hoenest, i am no expert so cannot back my thoughts.

Elon Musk's Tesla battery farm has saved South Australia $116 MILLION

Operating via the Hornsdale Power Reserve in South Australia, the battery has helped to restore stability to the network and lower the costs of running the power grid, according to reports.

www.dailymail.co.uk

• Elon Musk bet that if they didn't deliver the battery in 100 days it would be free
• They delivered it within 70 days and it has saved an estimated $116 million AUD
• It also reduced the cost of operating the once shaky power grid by 91 per cent

Elon Musk built and deployed the world's 1st 100 megawatt lithium battery designed for power grid applications.

Illustrating the technology exists and is feasible.

I Its not that battery technology isnt feasible as much as its a case of using batteries to store power from renewable energy grids and then supplying it to the cities.

The idea of using renewable energy is to offset the carbon emissions. But if you end up building so many batteries, it adds to the carbon emission and will end up offsetting the goal achievable further.

 

[M3J]

Thats not the left, thats the democratic party which is left of center. Which is why i said progressive party...
I already mentioned in detail why Biden and Harris support fracking and why its not a bad thing. THe president has to speak to all and fracking will need to be supported....

that's the left though...

Fracking is known to be bad for the environment but more importantly, it could cause them votes. Dunno if enough, but it doesn't help.

There is no guarantee, but a lot of the minority have vocally said that they didnt vote for Trump in 2016. And their individual votes don't count, their reach is what matters...

Perhaps does, perhaps their actual votes are what makes the difference.

 

[Sanity Check]

Its not that battery technology isnt feasible as much as its a case of using batteries to store power from renewable energy grids and then supplying it to the cities.

The idea of using renewable energy is to offset the carbon emissions. But if you end up building so many batteries, it adds to the carbon emission and will end up offsetting the goal achievable further.

............

Increasing electrical storage greatly increases efficiency while reducing the cost of grid operation. It allows daytime energy from solar panels to be stored for night time use. Rather than be routed away to neighboring states in times when power generation exceeds demand. Virtually any power grid would greatly benefit from batteries for grid use. Storing grid energy is a huge problem many engineers have tried to solve by various means.

Here you can see one method proposed was to lift heavy concrete objects during peak power production to "store" electricity for future use. This concept is considered by some as "cutting edge". Despite it being far inferior and less efficient to grid tied batteries.


The way harvesting of fossil fuels and lithium works is, deposits near to the surface are collected first. As decades pass all of the oil near to the surface is harvested. Wells necessary to reach oil become increasingly deeper, requiring more energy.

Lithium is a relatively new energy medium. While oil wells might be hundreds or thousands of feet deep, producing a good size carbon footprint to collect. Lithium reserves would be shallower and far easier to reach.

Fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas are combusted to produce energy. This harvesting and combustion process directly releases greenhouse gases like methane and CO2. Lithium by contrast is not combusted, it is merely processed. It is far more environmentally friendly no matter what comparison is utilized.

 

[kkck]

Conventional energy technologies utilizing hydrocarbon based combustion have been utilized in common applications for decades. There isn't much potential growth or innovation to be realized with internal combustion engines or power plants which have been optimised and improved over decades.

Lithium battery technology however is completely new and carries a large potential for innovation and improvement as successive generations of it are revised. Tesla's skyrocketing stock price, in terms of price to earnings, could be one best indication of this.

Tesla has unveiled a blueprint for improving their battery in leaps and bounds. Which when coupled with ramping up the scale of battery production, will provide EV technology that is not only cheaper and more efficient than oil and hydrocarbon based technology. But also more environmentally friendly, producing decreased greenhouse gas emissions overall.

I would like a solution to the above problem BTW from anyone claiming nuclear power is good policy.



There we have 6 nuclear power plants built on the san andreas fault line in a high risk earthquake and tsunami zone. How could lithium batteries possibly be worse than that?

This reads more like an add than actual answers to anything I wrote. What's the path forward? Can lithium be mined cleanly? Can it be made into batteries cleanly? Can the used up batteries be disposed of or recycled cleanly?

And.... that's a bit of an awkward comparison. The batteries in question are not an energy source, they are just batteries. And nuclear power plants can be made to withstand earthquakes.

 

[shionoro]

That's my point. If there is a 2nd party on both sides of the spectrum, it would be better for the country, but perhaps the experts can comment better.

The way i see it, AMerican constitution is nearly 250 years old. So other younger countries like south africa for instance, could have a better system. But i will be hoenest, i am no expert so cannot back my thoughts.

I think that even a two party system can work in theory. For example, it would be imaginable to have different factions in house and senate that the party does not try to influence (for example an AOC bloc) while a president needs bipartisan support to do anything.

The problem with the american system is that it is 'winner takes it all' not only in electoral college, but also while governing. There is no compromise, because it is much better for a party to obstruct a president if they are in opposition and a president has to overcome them with power (executive orders or by having enough seats) if he wants to get anything done.

Also, senators and other representatives have to play these games too. If the representative in the senate of a state, for example, would just vote by what he thinks is right, he might feel repercussions from the people who voted him. That can be seen as a democratic process, but it also means that senators have to obey the party line or certain trends in their state instead of going by what they think is best for the country, which obvously leads to less independent decisions.

Generally, the american system has it that ruling from the center seems undesirable , ESPECIALLY for a republican. A republican like mc cain or romney is not going to win elections again, as there are not enough conservatives and the nonvoters and hatevoters are not thrilled by them. That is why Trump was successful.
Biden is the archetype of ruling from the center, but i think he will be the last of his kind.
Similarly, democrats have the problem that the party is torn between two forces that are almost equally strong with moderates still having the edge.

But the leftwing democrats can only really put that into policy once they start overpowering the moderates, who will then be underrepresented and might start swinging republican again, which in turn will swing the republican party into an even more torn state (or stop voting, which is also undesirable).

 

[hokageji]

that's the left though...

Fracking is known to be bad for the environment but more importantly, it could cause them votes. Dunno if enough, but it doesn't help.

Fracking's environmental concerns are realistically only due to burning of the gas mined. The actual extraction happens a kilometer away from the surface, none of the ground water reserves can get contaminated. And like i said, placing better regulations can make it better.

Perhaps does, perhaps their actual votes are what makes the difference.

Max of 200 elected republicans, and only a fraction are anti trump, their actual votes wont.

............

Increasing electrical storage greatly increases efficiency while reducing the cost of grid operation. It allows daytime energy from solar panels to be stored for night time use. Rather than be routed away to neighboring states in times when power generation exceeds demand. Virtually any power grid would greatly benefit from batteries for grid use. Storing grid energy is a huge problem many engineers have tried to solve by various means.

Here you can see one method proposed was to lift heavy concrete objects during peak power production to "store" electricity for future use. This concept is considered by some as "cutting edge". Despite it being far inferior and less efficient to grid tied batteries.


The way harvesting of fossil fuels and lithium works is, deposits near to the surface are collected first. As decades pass all of the oil near to the surface is harvested. Wells necessary to reach oil become increasingly deeper, requiring more energy.

Lithium is a relatively new energy medium. While oil wells might be hundreds or thousands of feet deep, producing a good size carbon footprint to collect. Lithium reserves would be shallower and far easier to reach.

Fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas are combusted to produce energy. This harvesting and combustion process directly releases greenhouse gases like methane and CO2. Lithium by contrast is not combusted, it is merely processed. It is far more environmentally friendly no matter what comparison is utilized.

That concrete object is exactly what i meant before, by alternate ways of storing energy. Any alternative to battery must be considered viable. This is analogous to having a reservoir where additional energy pumps the water, and its flow allows receiving it again. While the solution you present is significantly better, i dont know how it compares to hydrothermal. At the end of the day, these solutions will be better than Lithium.

Yes, Lithium is only for energy storage, but there is no technology to recycle the waste at the moment. Lithium batteries will eventually have to be replaced and new ones will have to be produced.

My point is, we need to consider all the effects of future alternatives before we make a full commitment towards it. Cars were considered clean commute when compared to what they replaced, horses. We cannot repeat the same mistake over and over again. Nuclear is definitely cleaner and established that the waste products are much lower. Consider the energy. There was an environmentalist who encouraged nuclear more than solar and wind, i will share the link once i find it, but the point is solar and wind will killa lot of species on the planet. And moving to nuclear is much easier and quicker from traditional thermal sources so might as well consider it seriously.

 

[kkck]

I don't think the issue with the US is the two party system. At least not necessarily. Having a ton of parties at the same time can also result in chaos and an inability to govern at all... The issue the US has is representation. There are a ton of issues which actually have a majority support from the population (say, medicare for all) but you still have the entirety of the republican party and a substantial part of the democratic party against it. Which is utterly absurd.

 

[shionoro]

I don't think the issue with the US is the two party system. At least not necessarily. Having a ton of parties at the same time can also result in chaos and an inability to govern at all... The issue the US has is representation. There are a ton of issues which actually have a majority support from the population (say, medicare for all) but you still have the entirety of the republican party and a substantial part of the democratic party against it. Which is utterly absurd.

It can if you do it the wrong way, but i think by now countries have a pretty good grasp on how to implement it properly.
After all, you lose the problem of representation when people can actually vote parties they are behind, not just the lesser evil.

After all, the most common problems with a multi party system are usually deadlocks (nobody having the power to govern) and too many small parties.
The latter problem can be removed by having reasonable limits to who gets senate or house seats, the former problem is a problem that already exists in the US when parties can use the senate and the supreme court to block everything the other party does, or, on the flipside, being able to ignore more than half of the country's voters if they have 50% of the seats.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 17, 2020, Original Post Date: Oct 16, 2020 ---

I must say tho, as a european, i am really thrilled about a US that is a reliable ally in the world again.

I do know that the US and Europe have disagreements that are independent from Trump, but still a president Biden with the international relationships that he could form over his career can mean a united front between EU and US stronger than in the times of Obama (leave alone Trump).
That would both be true on issues like China, but also on issues like Iran, Turkey, Russia or broader issues like climate change and the refugee crisis.

Biden is going to have to make very ambitious pitches to really mend this relationship, tho. Trump did destroy a lot.

 

[Sanity Check]

This reads more like an add than actual answers to anything I wrote. What's the path forward? Can lithium be mined cleanly? Can it be made into batteries cleanly? Can the used up batteries be disposed of or recycled cleanly?

And.... that's a bit of an awkward comparison. The batteries in question are not an energy source, they are just batteries. And nuclear power plants can be made to withstand earthquakes.

# Nothing mined is ever 100% clean. Lithium mining however is cleaner than fracking mining coal or oil.
# Processing lithium into batteries is cleaner than processing oil, natural gas or coal.
# Disposed or recycled lithium batteries are more climate change friendly in contrast to hydrocarbon alternatives.

Lithium for Bipolar Disorder

Learn more from the experts at WebMD about lithium use for the treatment of bipolar disorder.

www.webmd.com

Remember lithium is considered a bonafide medical treatment for some mental conditions. Its not as toxic, environmentally damaging or harmful as people seem to think.

Building a nuclear power plant that can withstand earthquakes or tsunamis costs money. The motive for constructing nuclear plants on fault lines is land located in those regions being cheap. The fukushima disaster may have demonstrated how capable nuclear plants are of withstanding earthquakes/tsunamis. In a real world scenario.

That concrete object is exactly what i meant before, by alternate ways of storing energy. Any alternative to battery must be considered viable. This is analogous to having a reservoir where additional energy pumps the water, and its flow allows receiving it again. While the solution you present is significantly better, i dont know how it compares to hydrothermal. At the end of the day, these solutions will be better than Lithium.

Yes, Lithium is only for energy storage, but there is no technology to recycle the waste at the moment. Lithium batteries will eventually have to be replaced and new ones will have to be produced.

My point is, we need to consider all the effects of future alternatives before we make a full commitment towards it. Cars were considered clean commute when compared to what they replaced, horses. We cannot repeat the same mistake over and over again. Nuclear is definitely cleaner and established that the waste products are much lower. Consider the energy. There was an environmentalist who encouraged nuclear more than solar and wind, i will share the link once i find it, but the point is solar and wind will killa lot of species on the planet. And moving to nuclear is much easier and quicker from traditional thermal sources so might as well consider it seriously.

One option for recycling lithium waste. Utilization in medical applications.

Lithium for Bipolar Disorder

Learn more from the experts at WebMD about lithium use for the treatment of bipolar disorder.

www.webmd.com

Scientists and "environmentalists" who claim nuclear power is cleaner than wind or solar could be deserving of slaps for pushing blatant misinformation. If Nikola Tesla, Einstein or a real scientist/engineer heard those people talking, they might be sorely tempted to slap the living shit out of them.

Saying that nuclear power is "clean" isn't science. Its politics. The same with those claiming wind, lithium batteries or solar power are "dirty" or "environmentally damaging".

I don't think the issue with the US is the two party system. At least not necessarily. Having a ton of parties at the same time can also result in chaos and an inability to govern at all... The issue the US has is representation. There are a ton of issues which actually have a majority support from the population (say, medicare for all) but you still have the entirety of the republican party and a substantial part of the democratic party against it. Which is utterly absurd.

A two party system represents democracy. Having a choice.

Single party system is totalitarianism. It represents having no choice.

I feel like the two party system is under attack by those who wish to push the 2nd option.

 

[M3J]

A two party system represents democracy. Having a choice.

Single party system is totalitarianism. It represents having no choice.

I feel like the two party system is under attack by those who wish to push the 2nd option.

Pretty sure he and others are pushing for 3 parties, while Republicans (at least the voters) push for totalitarianism.