All_Pro_Bills Posted July 1, 2022 Posted July 1, 2022 (edited) 11 hours ago, Delete_Account said: Okay, so I think we’re on the same wavelength for much of this topic! Where we continue to differ is on our optimism levels for renewable materials. FWIW: my educational and professional background is in biomedical engineering, I have numerous friends in the materials science/engineering field, and my dad’s own educational and professional background is in solid-state physics. A lot of my optimism is based on the reality that, as a civilization, we have barely scratched the surface (pardon the pun, I guess…?) in our understanding of photovoltaic cells beyond the silicon-based semiconductors or of rechargeable battery materials beyond the lithium-ion cells with polymer electrolytes. Furthermore, scientists working in the nanotech subfield are at the early stages of learning how to construct “designer materials,” i.e. materials not normally found in nature. When you build materials atom-by-atom and layer-by-layer, you can manipulate atom/molecule types and lattice spacings so that you meet and surpass various engineering specs. This gives us many more material options beyond what Mother Earth may give us in her mine deposits! I mentioned the need for a “Materials Manhattan Project” in the 21st century. This research infrastructure already exists all over the country, mostly in academia but also at select DOE+DOD government labs and a few private industry labs. However, the research activity is not happening at nearly the extent commensurate with the climate urgency. It would be useful to have a centralized, top-down, umbrella organizational structure that would oversee all of the disparate materials research, set overarching goals, establish benchmarks for monitoring progress and for quality control, allocate funding, and handle all of the communication to the public as well as to the politicians. Yes we do agree on let's say 90%. And I yield to your expertise on much of the rest. I think we agree there are limitations to current technology and more advancements are necessary. Where we might agree or disagree is on the pace and timeline for that progress. My expectation is decades more research and development work is required. And while I have no opposition to "green" or "renewable" energy I 100% believe the timelines set by various officials, agencies, and governing bodies are unrealistically short. As I've managed more technical and non-technical projects in my life than I care to remember it always raises a "red flag" when executive management comes into the process dictating schedules and delivery dates while having absolutely no understanding of any details or any plan beyond a well produced powerpoint deck. It never ends up working out the way they think, generally costing more, taking longer, and with a lot of complexity. That to me is what's going on here too. Edited July 1, 2022 by All_Pro_Bills 1
Irv Posted July 3, 2022 Posted July 3, 2022 On 6/30/2022 at 4:28 PM, Irv said: I love the new demented angle Joke Biden is being told to take now by whoever is running the Executive Branch: "Yes. Inflation is bad but it's not as bad as every other country". Like everyone is suffering solely due to Putin. No Joke. If you weren't such a feeble wimp and you didn't listen to morons in the Squad, there wouldn't be a war and we'd still be energy independent. But you ***** that up. What an idiot. What a mess.
ComradeKayAdams Posted July 3, 2022 Posted July 3, 2022 On 7/1/2022 at 9:20 AM, All_Pro_Bills said: Yes we do agree on let's say 90%. And I yield to your expertise on much of the rest. I think we agree there are limitations to current technology and more advancements are necessary. Where we might agree or disagree is on the pace and timeline for that progress. My expectation is decades more research and development work is required. And while I have no opposition to "green" or "renewable" energy I 100% believe the timelines set by various officials, agencies, and governing bodies are unrealistically short. As I've managed more technical and non-technical projects in my life than I care to remember it always raises a "red flag" when executive management comes into the process dictating schedules and delivery dates while having absolutely no understanding of any details or any plan beyond a well produced powerpoint deck. It never ends up working out the way they think, generally costing more, taking longer, and with a lot of complexity. That to me is what's going on here too. I don’t think it needs to take us several decades to get to a satisfactory state of renewables. With the proper political willpower, we could get it done within one decade. If you recall earlier, I provided an example of a national energy percentage breakdown that could get us to net zero emissions by 2050: 45% nuclear 20% EV 15% solar 10% petroleum 5% natural gas 5% all other renewables 0% coal Using CURRENT technology only (so stuff like Generation 2+ fission reactors, lithium-ion batteries, and silicon-based photovoltaics), we could get to something like the following by the end of this decade, simply by enacting sufficiently large government expenditures on energy infrastructure: 35% nuclear 10% EV 10% solar 20% petroleum 20% natural gas 5% all other renewables 0% coal As you can see, I’m accounting for the fact that any practical energy solution will take longer than a decade to wean ourselves off petroleum and natural gas. This sample breakdown would put us well on our way to meeting net zero emissions, and that’s assuming only incremental technology improvements made henceforth. I didn’t even factor in any major nanotech/materials breakthroughs in EV batteries, solar panels, or generation 3/4 fission reactor plants. Those would surely come about at a rapid pace if our country actually tried. The technological difficulties for carbon-free energy aren’t quite as daunting as those faced at the very beginning of the Manhattan Project (which took us ~4 years) or of NASA’s race to the moon (which took us ~8 years). Moreover, we have an international STEM community collaborating on carbon-free energy R&D, unlike the Manhattan Project and NASA moon landing which were carried out under strict national secrecy. So basically, what I’m saying is that I’m much less worried about the technology issues than I am the political ones. What we need by 2024 is the next great U.S. energy president to emerge who takes this subject seriously and who demands an all-hands-on-deck approach involving both the government and private industries. What we don’t need are more MMGW deniers, EPA haters, fossil fuel crony capitalists, and free market fundamentalists.
SoCal Deek Posted July 3, 2022 Posted July 3, 2022 10 minutes ago, Delete_Account said: I don’t think it needs to take us several decades to get to a satisfactory state of renewables. With the proper political willpower, we could get it done within one decade. If you recall earlier, I provided an example of a national energy percentage breakdown that could get us to net zero emissions by 2050: 45% nuclear 20% EV 15% solar 10% petroleum 5% natural gas 5% all other renewables 0% coal Using CURRENT technology only (so stuff like Generation 2+ fission reactors, lithium-ion batteries, and silicon-based photovoltaics), we could get to something like the following by the end of this decade, simply by enacting sufficiently large government expenditures on energy infrastructure: 35% nuclear 10% EV 10% solar 20% petroleum 20% natural gas 5% all other renewables 0% coal As you can see, I’m accounting for the fact that any practical energy solution will take longer than a decade to wean ourselves off petroleum and natural gas. This sample breakdown would put us well on our way to meeting net zero emissions, and that’s assuming only incremental technology improvements made henceforth. I didn’t even factor in any major nanotech/materials breakthroughs in EV batteries, solar panels, or generation 3/4 fission reactor plants. Those would surely come about at a rapid pace if our country actually tried. The technological difficulties for carbon-free energy aren’t quite as daunting as those faced at the very beginning of the Manhattan Project (which took us ~4 years) or of NASA’s race to the moon (which took us ~8 years). Moreover, we have an international STEM community collaborating on carbon-free energy R&D, unlike the Manhattan Project and NASA moon landing which were carried out under strict national secrecy. So basically, what I’m saying is that I’m much less worried about the technology issues than I am the political ones. What we need by 2024 is the next great U.S. energy president to emerge who takes this subject seriously and who demands an all-hands-on-deck approach involving both the government and private industries. What we don’t need are more MMGW deniers, EPA haters, fossil fuel crony capitalists, and free market fundamentalists. Okie Dokie
ALF Posted July 3, 2022 Posted July 3, 2022 55 minutes ago, Delete_Account said: I don’t think it needs to take us several decades to get to a satisfactory state of renewables. With the proper political willpower, we could get it done within one decade. If you recall earlier, I provided an example of a national energy percentage breakdown that could get us to net zero emissions by 2050: 45% nuclear 20% EV 15% solar 10% petroleum 5% natural gas 5% all other renewables 0% coal Using CURRENT technology only (so stuff like Generation 2+ fission reactors, lithium-ion batteries, and silicon-based photovoltaics), we could get to something like the following by the end of this decade, simply by enacting sufficiently large government expenditures on energy infrastructure: 35% nuclear 10% EV 10% solar 20% petroleum 20% natural gas 5% all other renewables 0% coal So basically, what I’m saying is that I’m much less worried about the technology issues than I am the political ones. What we need by 2024 is the next great U.S. energy president to emerge who takes this subject seriously and who demands an all-hands-on-deck approach involving both the government and private industries. What we don’t need are more MMGW deniers, EPA haters, fossil fuel crony capitalists, and free market fundamentalists. I'm for nuclear energy as a bridge to the future , France did it safely . I just can't count on solar and wind to be a reliable source 24/7 . High efficiency gas furnaces and appliances till the power grid can safely handle a much higher load. A Republican WH and Congress will first go to energy independence thru fossil fuels. Inflation and gas prices are the game changer. The US spent many $trillions due to covid that needed to be spent reducing need for fossil fuels. 1
OrangeBills Posted July 3, 2022 Posted July 3, 2022 1 hour ago, Delete_Account said: I don’t think it needs to take us several decades to get to a satisfactory state of renewables. With the proper political willpower, we could get it done within one decade. If you recall earlier, I provided an example of a national energy percentage breakdown that could get us to net zero emissions by 2050: 45% nuclear 20% EV 15% solar 10% petroleum 5% natural gas 5% all other renewables 0% coal Using CURRENT technology only (so stuff like Generation 2+ fission reactors, lithium-ion batteries, and silicon-based photovoltaics), we could get to something like the following by the end of this decade, simply by enacting sufficiently large government expenditures on energy infrastructure: 35% nuclear 10% EV 10% solar 20% petroleum 20% natural gas 5% all other renewables 0% coal As you can see, I’m accounting for the fact that any practical energy solution will take longer than a decade to wean ourselves off petroleum and natural gas. This sample breakdown would put us well on our way to meeting net zero emissions, and that’s assuming only incremental technology improvements made henceforth. I didn’t even factor in any major nanotech/materials breakthroughs in EV batteries, solar panels, or generation 3/4 fission reactor plants. Those would surely come about at a rapid pace if our country actually tried. The technological difficulties for carbon-free energy aren’t quite as daunting as those faced at the very beginning of the Manhattan Project (which took us ~4 years) or of NASA’s race to the moon (which took us ~8 years). Moreover, we have an international STEM community collaborating on carbon-free energy R&D, unlike the Manhattan Project and NASA moon landing which were carried out under strict national secrecy. So basically, what I’m saying is that I’m much less worried about the technology issues than I am the political ones. What we need by 2024 is the next great U.S. energy president to emerge who takes this subject seriously and who demands an all-hands-on-deck approach involving both the government and private industries. What we don’t need are more MMGW deniers, EPA haters, fossil fuel crony capitalists, and free market fundamentalists. The Nat Gas assumptions...not possibly close I'm afraid. And the Libs hate Nuclear, so good luck with that.
Irv Posted July 4, 2022 Posted July 4, 2022 (edited) Would it be too big of a stretch to see that idiot Hochul ban natural gas appliances so we all have to go out and get new ones? What a mess. Edited July 4, 2022 by Irv
SoCal Deek Posted July 4, 2022 Posted July 4, 2022 8 hours ago, DRsGhost said: How in the hell is this a “time of war”? Or a time of “global peril”? I cannot believe that’s an official message from the White House. It’s amateur hour at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Shameful! Hey Joe….get to work! 1 1
Tiberius Posted July 8, 2022 Posted July 8, 2022 American job creating machine just rolls on. Job growth accelerated at a much faster pace than expected in June, indicating that the main pillar of the U.S. economy remains strong despite pockets of weakness. Nonfarm payrolls increased 372,000 in the month, better than the 250,000 Dow Jones estimate and continuing what has been a strong year for job growth, according to data Friday from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate was 3.6%, unchanged from May and in line with estimates. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/08/jobs-report-june-2022-.html
All_Pro_Bills Posted July 8, 2022 Posted July 8, 2022 (edited) On 7/4/2022 at 7:06 PM, SoCal Deek said: How in the hell is this a “time of war”? Or a time of “global peril”? I cannot believe that’s an official message from the White House. It’s amateur hour at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Shameful! Hey Joe….get to work! Perhaps what the person, whose identity is a secret, running the White House and the President's twitter account is referring to is the administration's "war" against reality? Like not understanding the retail gasoline market and the distribution network along with contracts and jobbers while telling gas stations to sell their product below cost. Now I know most of the people running the government never held a public sector job or ran a business but even for them it should be obvious this sell a dollar for fifty cents demand is a bad idea. Edited July 8, 2022 by All_Pro_Bills
ComradeKayAdams Posted July 11, 2022 Posted July 11, 2022 On 7/3/2022 at 3:03 PM, ALF said: I'm for nuclear energy as a bridge to the future , France did it safely . I just can't count on solar and wind to be a reliable source 24/7 . High efficiency gas furnaces and appliances till the power grid can safely handle a much higher load. A Republican WH and Congress will first go to energy independence thru fossil fuels. Inflation and gas prices are the game changer. The US spent many $trillions due to covid that needed to be spent reducing need for fossil fuels. I don’t disagree with anything you said here, ALF. It’s unfortunate that Republican voters think opening the floodgates on domestic fossil fuel supply will have a major effect on inflation and gas prices. A cursory look at U.S. fossil fuel import/export data from the past 5 years would shatter those hopes, as would a cursory look at international inflation and gas price data from the past 5 years. The lesson, in other words: our energy industry isn’t nationalized, and fossil fuel prices are subject to international supply/demand forces. Yet another GOP inflation talking point that should be dispelled by election season (but won’t) is the notion that excess government spending and increased spending agency among the labor market are major contributing factors. We can look at 5-year national/international data on federal budgets, consumer spending, wage growth, and inflation to figure out that these aren’t good explanations, either. And the observed spending spikes in 2020 were necessary to prevent a dangerous deflationary cycle. On 7/3/2022 at 3:51 PM, OrangeBills said: The Nat Gas assumptions...not possibly close I'm afraid. And the Libs hate Nuclear, so good luck with that. At the moment, natural gas is about 30% of our total domestic energy consumption. You don’t think we could get that number down to 20% by ~2035 and 5% by 2050 if we relied on nuclear? That would be three decades worth of preparation! Almost all of the effort would come in the simple form of preventing new public land sales for fracking. Every employee who recently joined the natural gas industry would still have the opportunity to finish their careers in it if they so choose. “Libs” are slowly changing their minds on nuclear. I’m seeing it! It’s true, though, that “cons” are historically more favorable to it. Yet another reason why I’m so pro-nuclear is because it lends itself better to political compromise than any of our other energy options.
OrangeBills Posted July 11, 2022 Posted July 11, 2022 11 hours ago, Delete_Account said: I don’t disagree with anything you said here, ALF. It’s unfortunate that Republican voters think opening the floodgates on domestic fossil fuel supply will have a major effect on inflation and gas prices. A cursory look at U.S. fossil fuel import/export data from the past 5 years would shatter those hopes, as would a cursory look at international inflation and gas price data from the past 5 years. The lesson, in other words: our energy industry isn’t nationalized, and fossil fuel prices are subject to international supply/demand forces. Yet another GOP inflation talking point that should be dispelled by election season (but won’t) is the notion that excess government spending and increased spending agency among the labor market are major contributing factors. We can look at 5-year national/international data on federal budgets, consumer spending, wage growth, and inflation to figure out that these aren’t good explanations, either. And the observed spending spikes in 2020 were necessary to prevent a dangerous deflationary cycle. At the moment, natural gas is about 30% of our total domestic energy consumption. You don’t think we could get that number down to 20% by ~2035 and 5% by 2050 if we relied on nuclear? That would be three decades worth of preparation! Almost all of the effort would come in the simple form of preventing new public land sales for fracking. Every employee who recently joined the natural gas industry would still have the opportunity to finish their careers in it if they so choose. “Libs” are slowly changing their minds on nuclear. I’m seeing it! It’s true, though, that “cons” are historically more favorable to it. Yet another reason why I’m so pro-nuclear is because it lends itself better to political compromise than any of our other energy options. "The Libs" should be pro-nuclear, but they're apparently not very smart so they missed this boat by a mile. The answers to your questions are that Nuclear SHOULD be able to replace Nat Gas, but for the next 10-15 years you're still talking Nuclear Fission. In that case, it's just not possible and we will be ultra-reliant on Nat Gas. Incidentally your 30% number is way off, it's really 38-40% but in reality it's much more than that at given periods...you can't average out baseload capacity for the periods when Renewables are actually 'shining' or else you'd have extended periods of down-time. The US Gov't (read, Libs) have made operating and constructing a Fission plant so impossible that none will be constructed, I'm sorry to say, to create this response you're referring to. They are still shutting down US Nuclear plants, and the most recent dual-Fission reactor plant to be constructed was/is like 8 years behind and costing $Billions more than expected, essentially shutting down any follow-on projects. There would be hope for smaller reactors in development if not for the afore-mentioned cultural problem we have with the Left. So you're really going to have to wait a couple decades for Nuclear Fusion to take over...the Tech is really getting there but will take a generation for it to be scaled to our needs. US citizens should watch what's happening to their Eco-Green-Oriented European counterparts, particularly this winter when they have no fuel to burn unless they pay Russian extortionary pricing (in Rubles likely), and reconsider if that's the future they under some Leftist/Biden/Harris leftward lurch. 1 1 1
Doc Posted July 11, 2022 Posted July 11, 2022 8 minutes ago, OrangeBills said: "The Libs" should be pro-nuclear, but they're apparently not very smart so they missed this boat by a mile. The answers to your questions are that Nuclear SHOULD be able to replace Nat Gas, but for the next 10-15 years you're still talking Nuclear Fission. In that case, it's just not possible and we will be ultra-reliant on Nat Gas. Incidentally your 30% number is way off, it's really 38-40% but in reality it's much more than that at given periods...you can't average out baseload capacity for the periods when Renewables are actually 'shining' or else you'd have extended periods of down-time. The US Gov't (read, Libs) have made operating and constructing a Fission plant so impossible that none will be constructed, I'm sorry to say, to create this response you're referring to. They are still shutting down US Nuclear plants, and the most recent dual-Fission reactor plant to be constructed was/is like 8 years behind and costing $Billions more than expected, essentially shutting down any follow-on projects. There would be hope for smaller reactors in development if not for the afore-mentioned cultural problem we have with the Left. So you're really going to have to wait a couple decades for Nuclear Fusion to take over...the Tech is really getting there but will take a generation for it to be scaled to our needs. US citizens should watch what's happening to their Eco-Green-Oriented European counterparts, particularly this winter when they have no fuel to burn unless they pay Russian extortionary pricing (in Rubles likely), and reconsider if that's the future they under some Leftist/Biden/Harris leftward lurch. They're in some fantasy world that renewable are anywhere close to supplying even a fraction of our energy needs. 1
B-Man Posted July 12, 2022 Posted July 12, 2022 Prepare for the Incoming Hit: WH Already Is Warning About the New CPI Number https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/07/12/prepare-for-the-incoming-hit-wh-already-is-warning-about-the-new-cpi-number-n593370
B-Man Posted July 14, 2022 Posted July 14, 2022 Nationwide RailroadnStrike Looms for Monday, and Biden's Asleep at the Switch by Stacey Lennox Negotiations for a new national contract between the parties in the National Railway Labor Conference entered their third year in 2022. This is the group made up of Class I railroad management representatives and railroad union officials responsible for defining the new terms. The process has progressed to the end of the tracks. The parties are in a 30-day cooling-off period prescribed by the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The period ends July 18. In anticipation, some unions are taking a strike authorization vote. On Tuesday, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) announced that 99.5% of their participating members voted to authorize a strike. https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stacey-lennox/2022/07/13/what-could-go-wrong-next-nation-wide-railroad-strike-looms-for-monday-and-bidens-asleep-at-the-switch-n1612606
Recommended Posts