American Politics

[SirSamuel016]

Republicans are committing election fraud with mail-in ballots, per this OCR article. Ironic that after Trump spouts a lot of rhetoric about mail-in ballot fraud that it's the republicans doing it to own the Libs and prove it happens.

 

[M3J]

Republicans are committing election fraud with mail-in ballots, per this OCR article. Ironic that after Trump spouts a lot of rhetoric about mail-in ballot fraud that it's the republicans doing it to own the Libs and prove it happens.

they can't prove that the left are committing frauds, but whenever their own does, they just ignore it. Funny part is that Trump votes by mail every year, so for him to claim there's fraud is ironic and fucked up. But then again, the republicans rely on voter suppression to have a chance, and with mail-in everywhere, that means more people can vote when they normally couldn't. Makes sense Trump and the Reps would be scared shitless.

 

[SirSamuel016]

they can't prove that the left are committing frauds, but whenever their own does, they just ignore it. Funny part is that Trump votes by mail every year, so for him to claim there's fraud is ironic and fucked up. But then again, the republicans rely on voter suppression to have a chance, and with mail-in everywhere, that means more people can vote when they normally couldn't. Makes sense Trump and the Reps would be scared shitless.

Indeed. The fact that there's lots of contradictions on their side that it's laughable. Let's not forget being pro-life when it comes to abortions but masks and the pandemic? Suddenly they're pro-choice.

 

[M3J]

They're not even truly "pro-life," few republicans have been caught bribing or encouraging their mistresses to get abortion. It's all horseshit for votes.

 

[hokageji]

Hear how the FBI (I think?) caught a bunch of right wingers attempting to kidnap Gov. Whitmer because she refused to lift the lockdown?

I fail to see how the "radical left" are bad when they're relatively peaceful unless attacked by cops.

On the other hand, fracking will need to stop if we want to achieve reasonable climate goals inside the US.
The sanders fracking ban was supposed to completely ban it by 2025. The latest i heard that that the US needs to cut its emissions by 80% until 2050. Without a serious green turn, including a fracking ban, that is probably not possible.

Biden is correct however: He is not going to ban fracking. Not outright, not at once. Fracking is going to be banned when he is probably not in office anymore. But it will be and needs to be, but there also needs to be serious groundwork before that.

The world is not going to reach reasonable climate targets tho if the US keeps being interested in selling its fracking gas internationally and using it themselves. Fracking is not about clean water, but about the impact on climate change.

Yes, but 2050 is way too far. For solar and wind to be able to replace energy generation, you'd need a quick and clean way of producing batteries, cos the surplus enegy ahs to be available for later use. While the real and only threat of solar and wind are environmental effects on wildlife, the secondary concern down the years would be recycling the material worn down. They just can't with current technology. However, these are less of a threat when you compare to the battery recycling capability which isnt possible in the foreseeable future... The only alternative is a better battery like solid-state, which is much cleaner to produce and can hold in a lot more charge. If this technology comes tomorrow, you'd still need 5 years before you start placing them with solar and wind panel areas.
Realistically, battery will take 5 to 10 years so the whole plan will offset by around 20 years further. Till then Fracking will have to be done.
Also, Fracking may be nowhere close to solar and wind in carbon emission levels, but natural gas is way cleaner than coal, and other petroleum products. Some of the fears of fracking are misplaced, like water contamination, which has been proven to be false. Realistically, very little oil mixes (around 1% at most) with the water, and this water is way below any of the places humans consume, or life exists.... I agree we need to look at an alternative, and work towards that but the negatives arent significantly worse so it'll continue for the coming years and Biden's bet on that is right.

 

[shionoro]

Yes, but 2050 is way too far. For solar and wind to be able to replace energy generation, you'd need a quick and clean way of producing batteries, cos the surplus enegy ahs to be available for later use. While the real and only threat of solar and wind are environmental effects on wildlife, the secondary concern down the years would be recycling the material worn down. They just can't with current technology. However, these are less of a threat when you compare to the battery recycling capability which isnt possible in the foreseeable future... The only alternative is a better battery like solid-state, which is much cleaner to produce and can hold in a lot more charge. If this technology comes tomorrow, you'd still need 5 years before you start placing them with solar and wind panel areas.
Realistically, battery will take 5 to 10 years so the whole plan will offset by around 20 years further. Till then Fracking will have to be done.
Also, Fracking may be nowhere close to solar and wind in carbon emission levels, but natural gas is way cleaner than coal, and other petroleum products. Some of the fears of fracking are misplaced, like water contamination, which has been proven to be false. Realistically, very little oil mixes (around 1% at most) with the water, and this water is way below any of the places humans consume, or life exists.... I agree we need to look at an alternative, and work towards that but the negatives arent significantly worse so it'll continue for the coming years and Biden's bet on that is right.

Personally, i am on the greener side here and would take small risk to push a more ambitious timetable, including using more money on it, but I am happy with what i can get. And Biden can be a good middle ground on the issue.
When the outside world moves faster in that regard, the US can still adjust their climate goals 4 years down the line. The important thing is that it is seen as a serious topic and not just a 'haha liberals think we are all gonna die' kind of topic.

 

[hokageji]

When the outside world moves faster in that regard, the US can still adjust their climate goals 4 years down the line. The important thing is that it is seen as a serious topic and not just a 'haha liberals think we are all gonna die' kind of topic.

Yea, that is true. I am sure America could've done better and i totally agree with that. Plus. Trump stepping out of the climate accord has slightly worsened it too. I think having the goal is important but drastic steps cannot be taken. Biden might look to provide incentives and rebates like Obama did to boost renewable energy, kinda like the one with electric vehicles. That will make the goal more achievable without drastic cuts on teh fracking side.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 13, 2020, Original Post Date: Oct 13, 2020 ---

Also, only Europe and China are moving to renewables. We cannot expect developing nations to move to solar immediately. But yes, if the developed world completely moves to it, the next leg will follow shortly.

 

[kkck]

It's ultimately a matter of governments actually having a real compromise to moving away from fossil fuels. It's simple common sense, there are way too many reasons to look for alternatives. Even if you are the sort of nutjob that casually goes around telling people climate change is a china hoax while ignoring the vast majority of the science community along with several governments and military of the world who have their own estimates of the sheer destruction caused by climate change... it's pretty easy to see how much damage to the public's health an increase in CO2 ppm can cause. China is a country that is actively suffering due to polluted air... lower quality of life for their people (imagine how bad it has to be for china to give a shit), trillions in health care cost... even infrastructure damage...Moving away from fossil fuels is not a question of "if" but rather "when". In that sense, i am a bit of the idea that most green technologies are not exactly the solution to the problem but rather something to mitigate the damage until humanity comes up with more sci fi solutions. Well, that or solar panels become staggeringly better. they have improved incredibly over the past decade but to actually be a solution they would have to have much longer shelf lives so to speak (say, decades), be more easily disposable and still far more efficient than they are now. We might be closer to nuclear fusion than we are to that...

 

[M3J]

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.

 

[hokageji]

It's ultimately a matter of governments actually having a real compromise to moving away from fossil fuels. It's simple common sense, there are way too many reasons to look for alternatives. Even if you are the sort of nutjob that casually goes around telling people climate change is a china hoax while ignoring the vast majority of the science community along with several governments and military of the world who have their own estimates of the sheer destruction caused by climate change... it's pretty easy to see how much damage to the public's health an increase in CO2 ppm can cause. China is a country that is actively suffering due to polluted air... lower quality of life for their people (imagine how bad it has to be for china to give a shit), trillions in health care cost... even infrastructure damage...Moving away from fossil fuels is not a question of "if" but rather "when"

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.

In that sense, i am a bit of the idea that most green technologies are not exactly the solution to the problem but rather something to mitigate the damage until humanity comes up with more sci fi solutions. Well, that or solar panels become staggeringly better. they have improved incredibly over the past decade but to actually be a solution they would have to have much longer shelf lives so to speak (say, decades), be more easily disposable and still far more efficient than they are now. We might be closer to nuclear fusion than we are to that...

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.

 

[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?