Finally a leftist big govt. pro tax plan I can agree with

[Guest #1Stunner]

16 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

In 2018 only 35% of their energy was from renewable source, so it may seem great that they started 2019 at 47 percent (they only had data from months prior to summer) but summer time is when energy use spikes in Germany and the gigawatt output needed in the summer is far greater.  They will be right around 35% again when the year ends, per their own estimates they do not expect a drop off in carbon emissions of more that +-1% in 2019 than 2018 when they finished lower than 35% of energy produced by renewables on the year.

 

You reference the advancement of computing power.  This however was accomplished due to Moore's Law. Moore's law is about the doubling of transistors in microchips every two years while the cost of that computing power is halved.  This has to do with the growth of the microprocessor.  There is nothing comparable to it in the building and advancement of infrastructure,  it is apples to kitchen tables.  Which brings me back to Montana, I brought up it's size to illustrate how little sq km Germany needs to build their infrastructure for.  The US is 28 times larger in size than is Germany, we need to build our infrastructure to cover 28 times the area.  That would require vastly more investment.

I agree we can get 90%+ fossil fuel free but only if we make huge strides in nuclear.  Germany was foolish to abandon it.  The left is scared and illogical.

 

 

 

Do we have the technology for the new molten salt reactors?  I think right now it's still a theory, and that the Chinese are developing it.   If we can build the new, safer nuclear reactors, let's do it.

But I don't think the public wants the old, water cooled reactors anymore.  Not after what happened in Japan.

[Guest #1Stunner]

12 hours ago, Uncle Juan said:

Battery technology is years behind. Lithium batteries are terrible for the environment, the extraction of the metals used to manufacture them is destructive as hell. They are prone to thermal runaway, storage capacity is awful, and there isn't a safe way to dispose of them. Lead acid batteries are bulky with shit for storage capacity. Nickle Cadmium batteries are even worse than lead acid. There may be light at the end of the tunnel with Iron Ion batteries, but these are in the initial development stage and it may be 5 years before we even know if they will do the job. Until a viable battery hits the market, solar and wind are pie in the sky solutions.

Great point.  We are creating a ton of pollution manufacturing and disposing of current battery technology.  We need a big technological push on a better solution.

[Orange]

21 hours ago, TheSanDiegan said:

I love a medium-rare cook on a good cut of beef (and am hungry after all the sexy steak porn), but the fact is our rate of beef consumption is not sustainable. The amount of land and resources required and the subsequent deforestation and resultant climate change and other environmental impacts (e.g., waterways poisoned by waste runoff, dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico, et al) are all reasons to reconsider our habits IMO.

My wife is a vegan (f*ck that). But while I have no plans to go (all) plant-based, there are plenty of solid, published studies that empirically show the benefit - both to one's health and for larger, more far-reaching reasons as mentioned above - of introducing more plant-based protein into our collective diet (such as less inflammation). There are plenty of top-caliber athletes on vegetarian diets. 

Like some have suggested, grow your own - buy a small ranch and go all Farmer Juan on the mutherf*cker - nothing wrong with a little independence. Better for the environment that way as well. Personally, I'd like to see us buck the trend of large-scale industrialized agriculture and livestock and return to more mom-and-pop based agriculture. 

Isn't it weird how there was no parade of "WE OWNED YOU!!!" and "stop it, he's already dead!!!" memes along with "damn, I feel sorry for @TheSanDiegan" posts following this post that basically summarizes my thesis in this thread?

 

These guys (specifically @thelawlorfaithful, @halfmanhalfbronco and @happycamper don't react to ideas.  They react to a poster's reputation.  That's the definition of small-mindedness.

[happycamper]

14 minutes ago, Orange said:

When the +++++ did I say that?

I said that. It's true. We went for uranium reactors because that makes weapons grade fissile material. We looked at stuff like thorium and said "would work great for a civilian program, but we're going to use or civilian program as a feeder for our 27,000 nukes, so no go". 

14 minutes ago, Orange said:

You guys completely make shit up then post a thousand circle-jerk memes and call it a win.  I'm arguing broad principles, but because perhaps a few of you have some (limited) technical expertise in one or two areas, such as guns and nuclear power, you wring that dishrag out for all it's worth and ignore the broader points.  

What did I make up?

My man, we're talking about infrastructure policy and you ignore how the infrastructure works. That isn't worrying about "limited areas of expertise", that's just not understanding the problem at all. 

14 minutes ago, Orange said:

And it's not limited to your so-called "areas of expertise".  I'm an attorney, I've spent tens of thousands of dollars studying constitutional law, and  yet all you yahoos with a bachelor's in engineering (or less) STILL think you know more than me in that area.  It's insane how much you guys fellate yourselves here.

But dude, you don't stick to what you know, and you apparently don't have a hobby of informing yourself of your opinions. I haven't engaged with you on constitutional law. I've absolutely engaged with you on the very basic factual errors you make, because you find it more important to have an opinion than you do to have that opinion be based on fact. In the middle of this conversation, I'm reminded of Trump saying "who knew health care would be complicated?" That's you, dude.

[happycamper]

13 minutes ago, Orange said:

Isn't it weird how there was no parade of "WE OWNED YOU!!!" and "stop it, he's already dead!!!" memes along with "damn, I feel sorry for @TheSanDiegan" posts following this post that basically summarizes my thesis in this thread?

 

These guys (specifically @thelawlorfaithful, @halfmanhalfbronco and @happycamper don't react to ideas.  They react to a poster's reputation.  That's the definition of small-mindedness.

No, I'm reacting to your ideas. The ones I respond most to just aren't well thought out and aren't based on factual information. When this is pointed out, you don't inform yourself and you don't care to be corrected, so you assume it's a personal problem. 

[Orange]

23 minutes ago, happycamper said:

I said that. It's true. We went for uranium reactors because that makes weapons grade fissile material. We looked at stuff like thorium and said "would work great for a civilian program, but we're going to use or civilian program as a feeder for our 27,000 nukes, so no go". 

What did I make up?

The following:

1. Your claim that I misidentified an ancient geologic era of 2 million years ago, conflating it with 70 million years ago.  I did not.  I responded directly to a post where you referenced a climate of 2 million  years ago.

2. Your claim that I advocated for unilaterally banning meat and travel, which I did not.  I supported the idea of a tax on beef.

3. Your claim that I said we already have the means to go 100% solar and wind.  I know we don't.  I'm for innovating until we do.

Quote

My man, we're talking about infrastructure policy and you ignore how the infrastructure works. That isn't worrying about "limited areas of expertise", that's just not understanding the problem at all. 

But dude, you don't stick to what you know, and you apparently don't have a hobby of informing yourself of your opinions. I haven't engaged with you on constitutional law. I've absolutely engaged with you on the very basic factual errors you make, because you find it more important to have an opinion than you do to have that opinion be based on fact. In the middle of this conversation, I'm reminded of Trump saying "who knew health care would be complicated?" That's you, dude.

No, we were talking about environmental footprints.  I'm not an expert on infrastructure, but I don't see why investing in infrastructure that will support green energy is impossible.  

As for your Trump remark, I never once +++++ing said that scaling up green energy would be easy, nor did I claim it's not complicated.  Ever.  I DARE you to find where I said that.  I'm largely ignorant of the specifics of industrial infrastructure and energy creation, but I read a lot, and have some ideas about the broad strokes.  I'm certainly aware that our eating habits have a huge impact on the environment, even tho @halfmanhalfbronco falsely claimed eating vegetables is worse.  Scientific publications have borne that out as false, but he purposefully posted a 4-year-old link to win a petty argument.   At least temporarily.

[Orange]

20 minutes ago, happycamper said:

No, I'm reacting to your ideas. The ones I respond most to just aren't well thought out and aren't based on factual information. When this is pointed out, you don't inform yourself and you don't care to be corrected, so you assume it's a personal problem. 

WTF?  Why tf do you expect me to have a fully formed technological plan to create green infrastructure on a message board?   Holy +++++ing Shit.

[Lester_in_reno]

54 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

Great point.  We are creating a ton of pollution manufacturing and disposing of current battery technology.  We need a big technological push on a better solution.

THIS! ^

 

but I am sure the biggest companies and smartest people they have are working on the next battery breakthrough.

[renoskier]

1 hour ago, happycamper said:

Doesn't matter by when. They're still intermittent. They need a backstop. 

I mean, I've definitely gotten eviscerated and doubled down. And then 2 years later I have a totally different opinion. Weird!

Doesn't that depend upon future advances in storage technology?

[Orange]

8 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Doesn't that depend upon future advances in storage technology?

THANK YOU

[BSUTOP25]

31 minutes ago, Orange said:

WTF?  Why tf do you expect me to have a fully formed technological plan to create green infrastructure on a message board?   Holy +++++ing Shit.

Yes. As you've positioned yourself to be the unmatched subject matter expert on history, constitutional law, neurobiology, cancer research, robotics, global economy, agriculture, social science, climate change, women, and now nuclear energy, we expect you to have a fully formed technological plan to create green infrastructure. Thanks! 

*Edit: I forgot to add “accounting” to your extensive expertise list. 

[Guest #1Stunner]

Why the rage in this thread?

It's not like any of us have any real power to change anything...  It's just chat.

Maybe this will help?

 

 

[happycamper]

1 minute ago, Orange said:

The following:

1. Your claim that I misidentified an ancient geologic era of 2 million years ago, conflating it with 70 million years ago.  I did not.  I responded directly to a post where you referenced a climate of 2 million  years ago.

No, you still are not even understanding what I was talking about. I brought up the miocene climate to point out a much warmer climate period and then I subsequently brought up the cretaceous climate to illustrate just how vast planetary climate swings can be. You really still haven't picked up on that.

1 minute ago, Orange said:

2. Your claim that I advocated for unilaterally banning meat and travel, which I did not.  I supported the idea of a tax on beef.

I cited where you mentioned them dude. 

1 minute ago, Orange said:

3. Your claim that I said we already have the means to go 100% solar and wind.  I know we don't.  I'm for innovating until we do.

No, we don't. You claim we could ever go to 100% solar and wind. Not only can we never do that, it wouldn't make sense; solar and wind are more dangerous than, say, nuclear. 

1 minute ago, Orange said:

No, we were talking about environmental footprints.  I'm not an expert on infrastructure, but I don't see why investing in infrastructure that will support green energy is impossible.  

My man, if you actually care about whether something is green, you have to dig in to specifics. 

1 minute ago, Orange said:

As for your Trump remark, I never once +++++ing said that scaling up green energy would be easy.  Ever.  I DARE you to find where I said that.

DARES!? Oh man! How about the stuff I already posted:

23 hours ago, Orange said:

  Going fully wind and solar is competelly possible, but the old guard doesn't want it because of profits and inertia.

 

 

18 hours ago, Orange said:

Innovation for energy storage can solve this problem.  You don't need it to be constantly sunny in order for solar power to work.  Did you learn about renewable energy on Sesame Street?!

That's stating it would be easy for something that is patently more impossible than just saying "+++++ it" and building a dam from South America to Antarctica and from the Bering Sea to the North Pole. 

I mean, you've bean beaten over the head with the myriad possibilities for nuclear, a power that is always on AND ludicrously safe AND has enough power for thousands of years AND is environmentally safer than current green technologies, but you just... don't care. The goal doesn't seem to matter to you. It's like you totally lose sight of why we want green power in the first place. It's how I feel about you with regards to, for lack of a better term, "wokeness". For someone who espouses liberal talking points, you go in to white savior asshole mode when you talk about race, you casually insult others with homophobia, and when women disagree with you, you condescendingly tell them that they're voting against their own interests. It's like people you like said that inclusive policies are good, but you don't understand the point of not being racist, just that it is what your side does.

Just now, Orange said:

WTF?  Why tf do you expect me to have a fully formed technological plan to create green infrastructure on a message board?   Holy +++++ing Shit.

Because I expect actual conversations and not mental masturbation. You aren't just not discussing specifics, you may as well be saying "well why don't we use unicorn hair for power!?!?" 

[TheSanDiegan]

1 hour ago, Orange said:

Isn't it weird how there was no parade of "WE OWNED YOU!!!" and "stop it, he's already dead!!!" memes along with "damn, I feel sorry for @TheSanDiegan" posts following this post that basically summarizes my thesis in this thread?

These guys (specifically @thelawlorfaithful, @halfmanhalfbronco and @happycamper don't react to ideas.  They react to a poster's reputation.  That's the definition of small-mindedness.

I think what you're observing is par for the course on most fora. However, I don't think it's a poster's reputation as much as it is a (natural) reaction to a poster's proclivities and a subsequent attempt to exploit them to magnify a poster's perceived character flaws.

I've run into some of the same walls over the years, as have most posters here. Think of it as getting jumped in.

You drop a lot of good knowledge, but IMHO at times you let your confirmation bias trump dispassionate discussion of ideas (but don't worry - we all do and/or have at one point or another). I believe the collective pushback from others is a natural response to that in this type of social construct. 

tl;dr: Keep on being you, but never stop trying to be a better version of yourself. 

[Orange]

17 minutes ago, happycamper said:

No, you still are not even understanding what I was talking about. I brought up the miocene climate to point out a much warmer climate period and then I subsequently brought up the cretaceous climate to illustrate just how vast planetary climate swings can be. You really still haven't picked up on that.

I cited where you mentioned them dude. 

Bullshit.  I didn't even mention travel.  Your own brain inserted the GND shit.  And the post I'm talking about did not mention Miocene Climate or cretaceous -- you used references to several hundred thousand years ago to 2 million years ago.  If you need me to, I can post the precise quote where I responded (i.e. we could not have our current civilization in a 2 million-year-old climate.  We'd be +++++ed)

Quote

No, we don't. You claim we could ever go to 100% solar and wind. Not only can we never do that, it wouldn't make sense; solar and wind are more dangerous than, say, nuclear. 

My man, if you actually care about whether something is green, you have to dig in to specifics. 

DARES!? Oh man! How about the stuff I already posted:

So saying "it's possible" is the same thing as saying "it's easy"?  WTF??

 

Is anyone else reading the shit this guy is puking up?

Quote

 

That's stating it would be easy for something that is patently more impossible than just saying "+++++ it" and building a dam from South America to Antarctica and from the Bering Sea to the North Pole. 

That comparison has absolutely nothing to do with the potential to store green energy power.  I'm not even sure why you're making it, apart from the remote chance you're suffering from oxygen deprivation?

Quote

I mean, you've bean beaten over the head with the myriad possibilities for nuclear, a power that is always on AND ludicrously safe AND has enough power for thousands of years AND is environmentally safer than current green technologies, but you just... don't care. The goal doesn't seem to matter to you. It's like you totally lose sight of why we want green power in the first place. It's how I feel about you with regards to, for lack of a better term, "wokeness". For someone who espouses liberal talking points, you go in to white savior asshole mode when you talk about race, you casually insult others with homophobia, and when women disagree with you, you condescendingly tell them that they're voting against their own interests. It's like people you like said that inclusive policies are good, but you don't understand the point of not being racist, just that it is what your side does.

Because I expect actual conversations and not mental masturbation. You aren't just not discussing specifics, you may as well be saying "well why don't we use unicorn hair for power!?!?" 

Now you're just going off the reservations with the bitterness reserve you've held for me since I started posting here.  This is exactly my point.  You're not responding to my points, you're responding (lazily and incorrectly) to how you perceive me.  You're mad that I'm a white male who argues that  white hegemony and toxic masculinity are problems, so you carry it over to other topics, because butthurt.  And that last sentence among the bold portion is a syntactical nightmare that can't begin to formulate a point.

As far as "actual conversations", those are impossible to have with people who do not bother to read the argument they're responding to.  This thread is about carbon footprint from eating meat, not travel restrictions, nor is it a G8 summit or energy engineering panel where we need to come up with specifics to invent a longer-lasting lithium battery or salt storage.  Good god, you're ridiculous.

[happycamper]

20 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Doesn't that depend upon future advances in storage technology?

No. There is essentially no storage technology that will ever meet generating capacity and any storage infrastructure we build will inevitably be a worse ecological disaster than generation. That's just how electricity works. 

Chemical storage is a no go. The best batteries we have today can power a small town for 15 minutes. They're only rechargeable for about 1000 cycles, and they require lithium. We don't have enough extractable lithium on earth really to even have storage for a single large city, and that 1000 cycle limit means that after about 3 years your batteries are scrap. Hooray. Future developments include sulfur lithium batteries, which include higher energy density and more rechargeability, but we don't know if we can make it work and it has the same limitations as lithium batteries we have today.

Physical storage is one possible method, but it's an ecological disaster. This involves pumping water into a reservoir during excess power times and allowing the water to pass through turbines during off hours. But... man, this is a disaster. This would require construction of enough reservoirs to power the entire missing energy generation. That's... enormous and would destroy an enormous area of land. Furthermore, it would require enormously more power generation. If we're relying on wind and solar, we would have to have enough generation to produce power during winter and with no wind. That means we need ~3 times the generation capacity. That's simply enormous, and that's before taking in to account losses. Pumping isn't anywhere near 100% efficient, there's losses in the pipes, and water turbines I believe are about 45% efficient. That's what, another factor of 3? So we need 10 times the energy generation to be able to store during worst production hours, and we have to dam up essentially the entire country, and build piping? 

And... that's about it. I suppose you could crack water and store oxygen and hydrogen for burning, but there is a ton of loss there and storage is a big issue. The power generation we mostly use - coal, oil, natural gas- are all essentially stored chemical energy that were created by millions of years of natural processes. The power generation that many are suggesting - nuclear - is stored nuclear energy, so it's incredibly dense. Trying to take a pure generation, like solar or wind, and storing that is just beating your head against the wall and is trying to fit a boulder into a square hole. It defeats the entire point of going green in the first place.

[halfmanhalfbronco]

50 minutes ago, Orange said:

The following:

1. Your claim that I misidentified an ancient geologic era of 2 million years ago, conflating it with 70 million years ago.  I did not.  I responded directly to a post where you referenced a climate of 2 million  years ago.

2. Your claim that I advocated for unilaterally banning meat and travel, which I did not.  I supported the idea of a tax on beef.

3. Your claim that I said we already have the means to go 100% solar and wind.  I know we don't.  I'm for innovating until we do.

No, we were talking about environmental footprints.  I'm not an expert on infrastructure, but I don't see why investing in infrastructure that will support green energy is impossible.  

As for your Trump remark, I never once +++++ing said that scaling up green energy would be easy, nor did I claim it's not complicated.  Ever.  I DARE you to find where I said that.  I'm largely ignorant of the specifics of industrial infrastructure and energy creation, but I read a lot, and have some ideas about the broad strokes.  I'm certainly aware that our eating habits have a huge impact on the environment, even tho @halfmanhalfbronco falsely claimed eating vegetables is worse.  Scientific publications have borne that out as false, but he purposefully posted a 4-year-old link to win a petty argument.   At least temporarily.

No I corrected your claims on pork and chicken.  You were wrong, very wrong.  Glad I could help.

[halfmanhalfbronco]

1 hour ago, Orange said:

Okay, I'll say it again, Dunning-Kreuger positively OWNS You.

And I own you, in every thread, at all times.  I bet you had dreams about me last night.

[happycamper]

2 minutes ago, Orange said:

Bullshit.  I didn't even mention travel.  Your own brain inserted the GND shit. 

No, you said curttail hydrocarbons. How do you expect that travel isn't affected by that?

2 minutes ago, Orange said:

And the post I'm talking about did not mention Miocene Climate or cretaceous -- you used references to several hundred thousand years ago to 2 million years ago.  If you need me to, I can post the precise quote where I responded (i.e. we could not have our current civilization in a 2 million-year-old climate.  We'd be +++++ed)

Yes, it did. 2 million years ago was the Miocene. The 40% oxygen, world jungle, forest fire climate was a reference to the Cretaceous. I kinda figured that you'd be at least passingly familiar with earth climatological history given all the studies you're pulling up, but you just are not. 

2 minutes ago, Orange said:

So saying "it's possible" is the same thing as saying "it's easy"?  WTF??

Yes. Saying we can do it is saying that it's easy. It is not something that is really possible.

 

2 minutes ago, Orange said:

Is anyone else reading the shit this guy is puking up?

That comparison has absolutely nothing to do with the potential to store green energy power.  I'm not even sure why you're making it, apart from the remote chance you're suffering from oxygen deprivation?

Yes, it does. There are transoceanic currents that would provide an enormous amount of energy if we could get turbines to work based off of them. I'm making it for two reasons; it would be a ludicrously large engineering challenge, and it would defeat its own purpose (if you dam those oceanic currents and prevent cold pacific water from mixing with warm atlantic water, you're going to melt both of the ice caps). 

2 minutes ago, Orange said:

Now you're just going off the reservations with the bitterness reserve you've held for me since I started posting here.  This is exactly my point.  You're not responding to my points, you're responding (lazily and incorrectly) to how you perceive me.  You're mad that I'm a white male who argues that  white hegemony and toxic masculinity are problems, so you carry it over to other topics, because butthurt.  And that last sentence among the bold portion is a syntactical nightmare that can't begin to formulate a point.

As far as "actual conversations", those are impossible to have with people who do not bother to read the argument they're responding to.  This thread is about carbon footprint from eating meat, not travel restrictions, nor is it a G8 summit or energy engineering panel where we need to come up with specifics to invent a longer-lasting lithium battery or salt storage.  Good god, you're ridiculous.

Dude, I have zero bitterness with you. You just don't posit ideas that are thought out, you throw out exaggerations that sink any point you're trying to make, and you take it personally when people don't immediately believe every word you say. I mean throughout this argument I've dropped little hints as to how you could support your points more effectively. 

As to the bolded part... my man, you are not an ally. You are exhibiting more toxic masculinity than most on this forum and you have a white savior complex. If you were a little more informed on racial politics, you'd realize that the language and criticisms I'm using are not coming from the right. You, as a white man, questioned sean's latino-ness because he had the audacity to not fall in line politically. You, as a cishet, talk about other posters fellating each other. You, as a white man, condescendingly tell women that they're just too stupid to know what their own interests are. You're a liberal, yes. You are absolutely not woke and you don't seem to care to be. 

[Orange]

10 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

No I corrected your claims on pork and chicken.  You were wrong, very wrong.  Glad I could help.

And you were incorrect with that correction.  Pork and chicken diets are not more sustainable than a vegetarian diet.