Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 350

Thread: The New Political Thread: New Rules; New Attitude

  1. #41
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    rmc51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,282
    Rep Power
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Future View Post
    She's a "sexy" politician and is bold in her approach, that will always generate clicks/views. There's no real mystery around it.

    The problem is that "sexy" and sensible, for politicians, aren't always found in one person.
    Yeah, not sure sensible applies after reading the Green New Deal, but I get what you're saying.

  2. #42
    Senior Member Junior Division
    BlairBettsBlocksEverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    6,197
    Rep Power
    79
    It's interesting to me (and this isn't directed at you) that earlier in the thread, there's an article with the takeaway that Democrats don't actually do anything about the environment (I didn't agree with that takeaway, but I digress) but on the issue of the Green New Deal, a democratic initiative, it's not a good idea.

    Again, this isn't about you or directed at you in anyway, just noticing what's on the thread.

    What about the green new deal do you think isn't sensible?

    Without, admittedly, knowing the specifics of the plan, I think that, backed up with scientific data saying that climate change is real and action needs to be taken to address it, it would be sensible to introduce legislation based on evidence right?
    __________________________________

  3. #43
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    rmc51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,282
    Rep Power
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by BlairBettsBlocksEverything View Post
    It's interesting to me (and this isn't directed at you) that earlier in the thread, there's an article with the takeaway that Democrats don't actually do anything about the environment (I didn't agree with that takeaway, but I digress) but on the issue of the Green New Deal, a democratic initiative, it's not a good idea.

    Again, this isn't about you or directed at you in anyway, just noticing what's on the thread.

    What about the green new deal do you think isn't sensible?

    Without, admittedly, knowing the specifics of the plan, I think that, backed up with scientific data saying that climate change is real and action needs to be taken to address it, it would be sensible to introduce legislation based on evidence right?
    The plain and simple answer is it mixes socialism on top of climate control, so it fails to be just about climate control. For example, what does economic security for those unwilling to work have to do with being more conscientious about the climate?

    The timeline (10 years) for when things are supposed to be done changing over to net zero emissions is pure insanity. And in a lot of cases, it's not just about the timeline either. High speed trains and no airplanes? Replace all gas powered cars? It actually talks about getting rid of farting cows? Just have to read it and draw your own conclusions.

  4. #44
    Senior Member Junior Division
    BlairBettsBlocksEverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    6,197
    Rep Power
    79
    well I think it's pretty standard with legislation (and really any negotiations really) to take a starting point and it gets worked down from there through negotiations
    __________________________________

  5. #45
    HNIC BSBH Legend
    Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    76,778
    Rep Power
    526
    Quote Originally Posted by BlairBettsBlocksEverything View Post
    well, she won an election the same way anyone else would have won an election, which gives her the right to pursue an agenda and work to pass any legislation as any other representative.

    Her predecessor was careless and ignored a growing trend in the Democratic party (and really, in the country as a whole) of being anti-establishment and not accepting the status-quo type of dem. She took advantage of that and ran a great campaign.

    I mean less than a year ago she was working as a bartender and now she's in congress. It's actually quite fascinating to see that one person, with ideas and the drive for it, can oust the party establishment, specifically a Dem who hadn't had an opponent since 2004. In terms of primary turnout, it's tough to compare numbers (as you said, only 16k) when the guy she beat had not had a primary opponent since 2004, and with the result of that election being guaranteed dem (there are plenty of seats across the country where one party is guaranteed a victory) it was all she needed. If in two years her constituents don't like her anymore, they can vote her out.

    Nationally, primary turnout was up significantly across the country though. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...mocratic-side/
    Not exactly the same way... No corporate money.

  6. #46
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    4EverRangerFrank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    2,348
    Rep Power
    48
    GND was very well thought out as far as a 30,000 foot view is concerned. Carefully crafted to appeal to sensibilities while not pissing everyone off all it once. It’s a starting point, a framework inviting lots of discussion and opportunity for agreement. I’d much rather have this focus than more and bigger tax breaks to fossil fuel companies.

    AOC - it’s early and time will tell BUT...I love that she has balls! She’s absolutely willing to ask the hard questions and not fear the repercussions. I respect her tenacity.

    Pelosi - she must feel empowered by all the new women in congress and especially how they are unabashedly promoting a progressive agenda.

    For me? I’m all for shaking up the status quo and breathing fresh ideas into the mix.

  7. #47
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    rmc51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,282
    Rep Power
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by 4EverRangerFrank View Post
    GND was very well thought out as far as a 30,000 foot view is concerned. Carefully crafted to appeal to sensibilities while not pissing everyone off all it once. It’s a starting point, a framework inviting lots of discussion and opportunity for agreement. I’d much rather have this focus than more and bigger tax breaks to fossil fuel companies.

    AOC - it’s early and time will tell BUT...I love that she has balls! She’s absolutely willing to ask the hard questions and not fear the repercussions. I respect her tenacity.

    Pelosi - she must feel empowered by all the new women in congress and especially how they are unabashedly promoting a progressive agenda.

    For me? I’m all for shaking up the status quo and breathing fresh ideas into the mix.
    Don't see how any part of that is true. It wasn't planned out well at all, mixing socialism and climate control - two completely different topics. Therefore, it is not a starting point. Only the extreme left finds it "appealing". Nancy Pelosi's description of it was pretty good..."the green dream".

  8. #48
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    4EverRangerFrank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    2,348
    Rep Power
    48

    The New Political Thread: New Rules; New Attitude

    @rmc51 - when I read GND I focused on the big picture stuff dealing with climate, fossil fuels and our long goal of renewables. It’s not going to end up socialist -or democrat - or republican - whenever, if ever, it gets life as passed legislation. Sure, it’s a dream. Why shouldn’t we dream of sustainable energy? It’s a heavy lift wrought with huge commitments to a vastly changed infrastructure.

  9. #49
    Senior Member Squirt Division
    RodrigueGabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    DC Area
    Posts
    310
    Rep Power
    26
    Even AOC admitted that the GND is not anything like a bill. It's a statement of principles on climate that comes from the progressive side. One thing enviros learned in 2009 is that you can't just try to please the utility/auto/fossil interests in a grand deal. You have to have the base with you. This time, they have started with something that comes from the base. Now they have to engage in the internal combat to determine if the carbon pricing mechanism is going to be a carbon tax, straight regulation (like the Clean Air Act), or a fancy cap and trade-like market mechanism.

    In strange happentstance, I ran into the former chief of staff of the Heritage Foundation at the local taco joint yesterday. Don't get much more conservative. After opposing any movement on climate for years, he now has a promising business selling solar microgrids. So the writing is on the wall. He also thinks that Rs are finally ready to deal on climate. So we shall see.

  10. #50
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    4EverRangerFrank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    2,348
    Rep Power
    48

    The New Political Thread: New Rules; New Attitude

    “Having the base with you” may become the most difficult part in all this. Eventually, change will come down to money. Will the government spend your money (vis a vis taxes) or will you spend money upgrading your home/business building/autos for what is still a very long-term return on investment?

    When push comes to shove I just don’t see individuals making the financial investment (sacrifice or whatever one wants to call it) to achieve meaningful energy use reductions without being subsidized in a huge way or forced to change by law. And nobody wants to be forced by law.

    To me what’s unfortunate, is that the current investment scheme in existing energy systems and delivery mechanisms have years of write-offs remaining on them and the incentive to seriously and impact-fully shift towards renewables is a trillions of dollars undertaking making it nearly impossible to make happen fast enough...for my liking. Taking politics out of it for a minute; Can you imaging the jobs created by a massive overhaul of what we’re discussing here? You’d need more than a ‘caravan’ of workers to get all the work done.

    There is a fruitful way to explore a vastly larger legal immigration capacity joining our workforce (and paying taxes) while at the same time benefiting all of America as we embark upon a renaissance of infrastructure modernization. It could happen that way. Do we have the mental and intestinal fortitude to peruse this? IDK

  11. #51
    Senior Member Squirt Division
    RodrigueGabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    DC Area
    Posts
    310
    Rep Power
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by 4EverRangerFrank View Post
    “Having the base with you” may become the most difficult part in all this. Eventually, change will come down to money. Will the government spend your money (vis a vis taxes) or will you spend money upgrading your home/business building/autos for what is still a very long-term return on investment?

    When push comes to shove I just don’t see individuals making the financial investment (sacrifice or whatever one wants to call it) to achieve meaningful energy use reductions without being subsidized in a huge way or forced to change by law. And nobody wants to be forced by law.

    To me what’s unfortunate, is that the current investment scheme in existing energy systems and delivery mechanisms have years of write-offs remaining on them and the incentive to seriously and impact-fully shift towards renewables is a trillions of dollars undertaking making it nearly impossible to make happen fast enough...for my liking. Taking politics out of it for a minute; Can you imaging the jobs created by a massive overhaul of what we’re discussing here? You’d need more than a ‘caravan’ of workers to get all the work done.

    There is a fruitful way to explore a vastly larger legal immigration capacity joining our workforce (and paying taxes) while at the same time benefiting all of America as we embark upon a renaissance of infrastructure modernization. It could happen that way. Do we have the mental and intestinal fortitude to peruse this? IDK
    These are all key hinges for the future, Frank, and good points to raise. On the positive side, solar and wind are no longer hippie sideshows in the energy industry. New solar electricity is now cheaper than running old (paid for) coal plants, as we just saw in Indiana of all places. Not only that, but it is competing head to head with new natural gas plants. https://thinkprogress.org/forget-coa...-e281f5485e5f/. Wind has seen similar price drops as has energy storage, which makes the "but the Sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow" argument increasingly obsolete. It is also important to note that solar employment already outstrips that of oil and gas, so there is significant people-power already attached to clean energy. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmc.../#de28a7228000 So, while incentives for significant personal changes remain tough, we are entering this period with a major economic headwind for the good stuff that is only going to get stronger. A great annual source for energy facts is the Bloomberg New Energy Finance Factbook, the new version of which - as it happens - is coming out this week. I'll post the link when I get it.

  12. #52
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    4EverRangerFrank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    2,348
    Rep Power
    48
    Bloomberg’s link will be appreciated.

    I’ve mentioned before my ‘hobby’ designing Net-Zero energy homes so any method of heading towards renewables piques my interest. I’m equally interested in who’s talking about it...local, state or national stage.

    I’m missing the part about how anyone can be against this - other than self-interest and the obvious attachment to $$$. Where is concern for the future? Or is it just, “F-it ‘cause we’re all gonna’ die eventually.”

    Sorry, I’m not about that. So what if I go into the ground with less $ in my bank account? Who cares when you’re cold and stiff?

  13. #53
    Moderator BSBH Prospect
    Puck Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    10,932
    Rep Power
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by RodrigueGabriel View Post
    These are all key hinges for the future, Frank, and good points to raise. On the positive side, solar and wind are no longer hippie sideshows in the energy industry. New solar electricity is now cheaper than running old (paid for) coal plants, as we just saw in Indiana of all places. Not only that, but it is competing head to head with new natural gas plants. https://thinkprogress.org/forget-coa...-e281f5485e5f/. Wind has seen similar price drops as has energy storage, which makes the "but the Sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow" argument increasingly obsolete. It is also important to note that solar employment already outstrips that of oil and gas, so there is significant people-power already attached to clean energy. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmc.../#de28a7228000 So, while incentives for significant personal changes remain tough, we are entering this period with a major economic headwind for the good stuff that is only going to get stronger. A great annual source for energy facts is the Bloomberg New Energy Finance Factbook, the new version of which - as it happens - is coming out this week. I'll post the link when I get it.
    Just to note, the above article in regards to employment was misleading. You took it a step further in the wrong direction of information from this author, and he took mislead what the actual report said.
    It stated employment of Solar vs Electrical Distribution generated from fossil fuels. Not employment in the oil and gas industry as a whole.

    The number of individuals employed in the oil and gas sector are much greater than Solar, or all other alternative energies combined., (as stated per the report he references).

  14. #54
    Moderator BSBH Prospect
    Puck Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    10,932
    Rep Power
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by RodrigueGabriel View Post
    These are all key hinges for the future, Frank, and good points to raise. On the positive side, solar and wind are no longer hippie sideshows in the energy industry. New solar electricity is now cheaper than running old (paid for) coal plants, as we just saw in Indiana of all places. Not only that, but it is competing head to head with new natural gas plants. https://thinkprogress.org/forget-coa...-e281f5485e5f/. Wind has seen similar price drops as has energy storage, which makes the "but the Sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow" argument increasingly obsolete. It is also important to note that solar employment already outstrips that of oil and gas, so there is significant people-power already attached to clean energy. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmc.../#de28a7228000 So, while incentives for significant personal changes remain tough, we are entering this period with a major economic headwind for the good stuff that is only going to get stronger. A great annual source for energy facts is the Bloomberg New Energy Finance Factbook, the new version of which - as it happens - is coming out this week. I'll post the link when I get it.
    The article listed by ThinkProgressive is also somewhat confusing.
    I'd assume and agree that a solar plant would be cheaper to operate long term than conventional oil/Gas.
    But.....we must recognize that these types of plants aren't even generally measured in the same capacity reference.
    Conventional Oil/Gas are measuered in thousands of MW. Solar plants are measured in hundreds of MW.

  15. #55
    Senior Member Squirt Division
    RodrigueGabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    DC Area
    Posts
    310
    Rep Power
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Puck Head View Post
    The article listed by ThinkProgressive is also somewhat confusing.
    I'd assume and agree that a solar plant would be cheaper to operate long term than conventional oil/Gas.
    But.....we must recognize that these types of plants aren't even generally measured in the same capacity reference.
    Conventional Oil/Gas are measuered in thousands of MW. Solar plants are measured in hundreds of MW.
    It's actually less than hundreds for solar. Mostly less than 5. You likely know this, but a lot of people don't or get confused. A Megawatt (MW) is the ability to produce a certain amount of electricity at any given moment. A Megawatt hour MWh is the quantity of electricity that is produced by a 1 MW plant in an hour at full capacity factor. The Lazard "Levelized Cost of Energy" (LCOE) measures the cost of a delivered MWh over the life of a power generation factility. So it is a relatively comparable figure. The fact that it is dark at night and other differences in power technologies are baked in. So the fact that you can generally build much bigger gas plants than solar plants doesn't change the fact that it has become cheaper to deliver a MWh of solar over the life of a plant even if a gas plant is 3000 MW and most utility scale solar plants are <5MW in capacity. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=38272

  16. #56
    Moderator BSBH Prospect
    Puck Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    10,932
    Rep Power
    139
    Well written response.
    I was next going to look at a MW unit cost when comparing solar vs conventional oil/gas.

    I’ll read that link


    Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

  17. #57
    I feel sorry for the earth's population BSBH Prospect
    AmericanJesus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    19,554
    Rep Power
    348
    I just read the Green New Deal resolution. I agree that it's kind of a cluster fuck. What I'm getting is that conceptually it's a pretty good platform as far as a shift to renewable energy, but then what's cooked in is free education focusing on what AOC and company feel are marginalized groups to turn them into the front line workers to put this into practice. That strikes me as both niave to think that focusing on a specific population for training will somehow get the qualified people in place to make those energy goals a reality. It also inserts a poison pill to get conservatives on board.

    It seems to seek a jobs transfer. Rather than empowering those workers who would be displaced by a move away from traditional energy production, it would instead replace them in the workforce with employees from marginalized groups. So you'd see massive unemployment among, let's call a spade a spade, white males in the hopes of leveling wages across the board.

    I fail to see how any of this would work without leaning heavily on private sector money. The best way to move forward on an actual Green New Deal would be to provide an incentive for the oil/gas industries to shift towards renewables, considering that is where the wealth is currently and also industry knowledge and the structures in place for R&D.

    It all just seems to be a "cake and eat it too" approach that puts significant barriers towards realization. If climate change is the problem that is claimed (and I believe it is) then the path of least resistance in order to achieve the best result should be the driving directive. Partner with and give incentives and subsidies to fossil fuel industry and transportation, along with regulations on carbon output in those areas, to get those two pillars moving quickly towards renewables. And in the meantime, put a carbon tax in place to gain revenue for government involvement and to put towards partnerships with higher education for research.
    Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck. George Carlin

  18. #58
    Moderator BSBH Prospect
    Puck Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    10,932
    Rep Power
    139
    Am I the only fan of Nuclear around here?
    It's been the safest form of energy vs Coal, Petroleum, Gas, or Hydro.
    It's by far and away the cleanest, having emission values lower than renewable energy.

  19. #59
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    4EverRangerFrank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    2,348
    Rep Power
    48

    The New Political Thread: New Rules; New Attitude

    Quote Originally Posted by Puck Head View Post
    Am I the only fan of Nuclear around here?
    It's been the safest form of energy vs Coal, Petroleum, Gas, or Hydro.
    It's by far and away the cleanest, having emission values lower than renewable energy.
    Bill Gates was behind a published report 10 years ago that promoted the idea of small nuclear. One of the uses was ‘localized’ energy production for subdivisions. They envisioned a ‘power plant’ about the size of a refrigerator that would be buried amongst the homes and supply them with electricity for a very long time without need for maintenance or refueling. The science and engineering behind it was more than feasible but the optics...not so convincing.

    “Gates invested in TerraPower in 2011 with the hope of helping to prove the company's core concept: a so-called traveling-wave reactor (TWR) which would run on depleted uranium, as opposed to the enriched uranium commonly used in nuclear plants. The concept is appealing on several levels—not only would its small design lower the currently rising price of nuclear energy, it would actually consume the trash pumped out by today's modern reactors.”

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sour...49884274899909
    Last edited by 4EverRangerFrank; 02-10-2019 at 06:30 AM.

  20. #60
    HNIC BSBH Legend
    Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    76,778
    Rep Power
    526
    Quote Originally Posted by Puck Head View Post
    Am I the only fan of Nuclear around here?
    It's been the safest form of energy vs Coal, Petroleum, Gas, or Hydro.
    It's by far and away the cleanest, having emission values lower than renewable energy.
    Safe until something happens like in Japan, and they tell you not to eat sushi for 6 months.

Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •