US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)

Biden

14 (66.7%)

Trump

7 (33.3%)

Total Members Voted: 21

Voting closed: November 02, 2020, 06:25:59 pm

[Craig Lamson]

Well, I could go out and collect all the quotes and lay it out for you chapter and verse, but you would just rationalize it, and I don't feel like making the effort. You go on believing that Trump tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth every time he opens his mouth if it makes you feel better. I know you know it is not true. You just won't admit it.

Come on man!   How many times do we need to go over this?  Forever I guess.  I've never said Trump only tells the truth, and he doesn't.  He's a saleman, and he talks like one. I'm good with that, because its who he is and has always been. Its what he does that matters and like it or not he has done a lot of good. 

You don't like him, thats fine by me.  Vote your preference and if your side wins, good for you.  I won't protest or scream or burn down any cities.  I'll just go on living my life the best I can.

[Craig Lamson]

Alan meant to say 1.1 million, the actual figure. Anyway it's irrelevant--what society would continue producing and using something that is harmful to the entire world just to save some jobs?

https://www.usenergyjobs.org/2019-report

1.1 million?  Really?  Your report says thats all the workers jobs that will be eliminated if we quit using oil,coal or gas?

Because it makes the world go round.  You think you can replace it?

[JoeKitchen]

Alan meant to say 1.1 million, the actual figure. Anyway it's irrelevant--what society would continue producing and using something that is harmful to the entire world just to save some jobs?

https://www.usenergyjobs.org/2019-report

You can say the same thing about the solar and wind industry.  What is the average size of a one GW solar or wind farm?  About 2000 acres. 

The average size of a one GW coal, oil, gas, nuclear power plant?  About 3 acres.  That's a lot of land destroyed unnecessarily for wind and solar power, which is severely energy dilute and intermittent by the way. 

And oh yeah, let's not forget about endangered species. 

Windfarms kill 10-20 times more than previously thought

[Alan Klein]

Alan meant to say 1.1 million, the actual figure. Anyway it's irrelevant--what society would continue producing and using something that is harmful to the entire world just to save some jobs?

https://www.usenergyjobs.org/2019-report

First I said 6 million because that's what I heard.  But I appreciate you doing the research to pin down the numbers.  Actually, in reading the report you linked to, there's somewhere between 1.1 and 6 million if you consider related jobs.  Bottom line is it affects a lot of people who would be out of work. 

In any case, if you shut down oil, how would people heat their homes and run their cars?  How would trucks deliver food to the supermarket? How would ships deliver food and other international trade to countries and people? How would poor people in third world nations get electricity since oil and other fossil fuels are the cheapest way to do produce it.  They would have to revert to the stone age, as we would too.  We would be cutting our noses off to spite our faces.

[Peter McLennan]

Again I'll ask what does Biden says he will do?  We know he wantes to eliminate a whole bunch of oil jobs, as he "transitions" away from oil.  He makes some vague promises about millions of good paying green jobs but how well did they do with that during Obama? Solyndra?

Biden is looking forward, not backward.  Biden "wantes" to eliminate "a whole bunch of oil jobs" because in the near future, they're toast.

Fossil fuels are declining in use for good reason. In addition to generating a significant number of brand new jobs, renewables are cleaner and cheaper.


Forbes, that bastion of capitalism, reports:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/feliciajackson/2020/04/09/renewable-energy-outstrips-fossil-fuel/#5750b04e508a

The right loves to point to Solyndra, singular, decade-old story of a technology that failed for multiple reasons unrelated to it's Obama Administration support. Total cost to the taxpayer of the experiment was less than half a billion dollars.  A drop in the bucket compared to other, more recent ineptly invoked economic debacles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra

[faberryman]

I also find it to be a little peculiar that (1) this lab, which publicized that they were studying many different corona viruses from bats, was located so close to ground zero and (2) the market this supposedly came from does not sell bat.

I guess that if the research facility was located close to the bats so they could study bat viruses, then it sort of kind of seems plausible that they would be close to the bat viruses too. So just sort of kind of thinking about it for a second, it doesn't really seem all that peculiar that they found this new coronavirus near this research facility. I mean it is kind of sort of why they were there in the first place.

The thing about the market not selling bat, I heard this wild ass theory that maybe the bat bit an animal that is sold in the market, and some guy bought it, handled it and/or ate it and got infected, and we were off to the races. We don't really know for sure, at least not yet. Maybe we will never know. So some people will believe that the whole coronavirus pandemic occurred naturally, and some people will believe that the Chinese developed and deployed the coronavirus as a biological weapon to destroy all of the economies of the world, except theirs, so they could be masters of the universe.

I don't know for sure, but I am kind of sort of leaning towards the natural occurrence theory, probably because I am just naïve, but I am not going to try to convince the conspiracy theorists they are wrong, both because I am not smart enough about virology and epidemiology and bats in general to argue very persuasively, and because the conspiracy theorists wouldn't believe me even if I did. Have you ever tried to talk a conspiracy theorist out of a conspiracy theory?

[Alan Klein]

Biden is looking forward, not backward.  Biden "wantes" to eliminate "a whole bunch of oil jobs" because in the near future, they're toast.

Fossil fuels are declining in use for good reason. In addition to generating a significant number of brand new jobs, renewables are cleaner and cheaper.


Forbes, that bastion of capitalism, reports:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/feliciajackson/2020/04/09/renewable-energy-outstrips-fossil-fuel/#5750b04e508a

The right loves to point to Solyndra, singular, decade-old story of a technology that failed for multiple reasons unrelated to it's Obama Administration support. Total cost to the taxpayer of the experiment was less than half a billion dollars.  A drop in the bucket compared to other, more recent ineptly invoked economic debacles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra

Free markets should determine those things, not the government.  If electric cars develop more, than there will be a natural move away from gasoline.  That's fine. Jobs and industry will transition naturally. But government should not pick winners and losers.  It distorts the economy and misallocates capital.  At one time, government gave oil companies the oil depletion allowance that made the oil companies billions in saved taxes.  Another fiasco and waste of resources as is forcing gasoline to contain 10% ethanol from corn raising the price of food.  Things like this just wastes money.

[Alan Klein]

I guess that if the research facility was located close to the bats so they could study bat viruses, then it sort of kind of seems plausible that they would be close to the bat viruses too. So just sort of kind of thinking about it for a second, it doesn't really seem all that peculiar that they found this new coronavirus near this research facility. I mean it is kind of sort of why they were there in the first place.

The thing about the market not selling bat, I heard this wild ass theory that maybe the bat bit an animal that is sold in the market, and some guy bought it, handled it and/or ate it and got infected, and we were off to the races. We don't really know for sure, at least not yet. Maybe we will never know. So some people will believe that the whole coronavirus pandemic occurred naturally, and some people will believe that the Chinese developed and deployed the coronavirus as a biological weapon to destroy all of the economies of the world, except theirs, so they could be masters of the universe.

I don't know for sure, but I am kind of sort of leaning towards the natural occurrence theory, probably just because I am just naïve, but I am not going to try to convince the conspiracy theorists they are wrong, both because I am not smart enough about virology and epidemiology and bats in general to argue very persuasively, and the conspiracy theorists wouldn't believe me even if I did. Have you ever tried to talk a conspiracy theorist out of his conspiracy theory? That is usual just an exercise in banging your head against the wall, and for exercise I prefer to take my dogs for a walk in the woods.

Their lying about it for 6 weeks and allowing infected people to travel outside of China are not conspiracy theories. They're facts.  What do you think about them?  Should we hold them responsible?

[Craig Lamson]

Biden is looking forward, not backward.  Biden "wantes" to eliminate "a whole bunch of oil jobs" because in the near future, they're toast.

Fossil fuels are declining in use for good reason. In addition to generating a significant number of brand new jobs, renewables are cleaner and cheaper.


Forbes, that bastion of capitalism, reports:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/feliciajackson/2020/04/09/renewable-energy-outstrips-fossil-fuel/#5750b04e508a

The right loves to point to Solyndra, singular, decade-old story of a technology that failed for multiple reasons unrelated to it's Obama Administration support. Total cost to the taxpayer of the experiment was less than half a billion dollars.  A drop in the bucket compared to other, more recent ineptly invoked economic debacles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra

I'll tell you what, when just California can make enough electricity to power their homes, factories and all electric cars in its state with renewables, get back to me. Until then it a pipe dream.

[faberryman]

Come on man!   How many times do we need to go over this?  Forever I guess.  I've never said Trump only tells the truth, and he doesn't.  I'll just go on living my life the best I can.

That seems like a good idea. I think I'll do the same. Except that if Trump wins, I will probably cancel my cable TV. But I think I have already told you that.

[faberryman]

Another fiasco and waste of resources as is forcing gasoline to contain 10% ethanol from corn raising the price of food.

The other thing is I learned the hard way that if your gas contains ethanol, you'll wear yourself out trying to start your chain saw, and it is actually less effort to cut down the tree with a regular saw. Then this friend of mine told me about this place where the tree trimmer guys go to get gas that is all gas. I like using my chain saw now.

It's also cheaper because you no longer slam your chain saw down on a rock and have to go out and buy a new chain saw that you can't start either. Do that a couple of times and it is cheaper just to hire the tree trimmer guys to do it, and you can sit on the back porch sipping lemonade, and telling your wife how you would have gladly done it yourself, but it would have been more expensive.

[Peter McLennan]

You can say the same thing about the solar and wind industry.  What is the average size of a one GW solar or wind farm?  About 2000 acres. 

The average size of a one GW coal, oil, gas, nuclear power plant?  About 3 acres.  That's a lot of land destroyed unnecessarily for wind and solar power, which is severely energy dilute and intermittent by the way. 

This is an invalid argument in many respects. Wind farms can co-exist with crops on farmland.  The actual land use is limited to the tower base and an occasional access road.  Your land use estimate of fossil fuel plants ignores the vast area devoted to mining and transporting the fuels.  It also ignores the cost and land use devoted to "storing" (not removing) the toxic ash produced by burning coal.

Solar installations are frequently sited on rooftops, close to the consumers, or in deserts, where sunlight is abundant and other uses are absent.  Granted, some snakes and lizards may find the solar panels visually disturbing.

And oh yeah, let's not forget about endangered species. 

Windfarms kill 10-20 times more than previously thought

One old, poorly produced, unattributed website does not constitute proof that wind farms are decimating bird populations. 

Fossil fuel plants kill about ten times as many birds as wind farms.

Wikipedia:
Environmental impact of wind power includes effect on wildlife, but can be mitigated if proper monitoring and mitigation strategies are implemented.[85] Thousands of birds, including rare species, have been killed by the blades of wind turbines,[86] though wind turbines contribute relatively insignificantly to anthropogenic avian mortality. Wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible for between 0.3 and 0.4 bird deaths per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil fueled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh. In 2009, for every bird killed by a wind turbine in the US, nearly 500,000 were killed by cats and another 500,000 by buildings.[87] In comparison, conventional coal fired generators contribute significantly more to bird mortality, by incineration when caught in updrafts of smoke stacks and by poisoning with emissions byproducts (including particulates and heavy metals downwind of flue gases). Further, marine life is affected by water intakes of steam turbine cooling towers (heat exchangers) for nuclear and fossil fuel generators, by coal dust deposits in marine ecosystems (e.g. damaging Australia's Great Barrier Reef) and by water acidification from combustion monoxides.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine#Disadvantages

[faberryman]

Their lying about it for 6 weeks and allowing infected people to travel outside of China are not conspiracy theories. They're facts.  What do you think about them?  Should we hold them responsible?

I think I mentioned earlier that I think Trump would have farted around until mid-March even if he had know about it six weeks earlier.

[JoeKitchen]

I guess that if the research facility was located close to the bats so they could study bat viruses, then it sort of kind of seems plausible that they would be close to the bat viruses too. So just sort of kind of thinking about it for a second, it doesn't really seem all that peculiar that they found this new coronavirus near this research facility. I mean it is kind of sort of why they were there in the first place.

The thing about the market not selling bat, I heard this wild ass theory that maybe the bat bit an animal that is sold in the market, and some guy bought it, handled it and/or ate it and got infected, and we were off to the races. We don't really know for sure, at least not yet. Maybe we will never know. So some people will believe that the whole coronavirus pandemic occurred naturally, and some people will believe that the Chinese developed and deployed the coronavirus as a biological weapon to destroy all of the economies of the world, except theirs, so they could be masters of the universe.

I don't know for sure, but I am kind of sort of leaning towards the natural occurrence theory, probably because I am just naïve, but I am not going to try to convince the conspiracy theorists they are wrong, both because I am not smart enough about virology and epidemiology and bats in general to argue very persuasively, and because the conspiracy theorists wouldn't believe me even if I did. Have you ever tried to talk a conspiracy theorist out of a conspiracy theory?

The facility are not close to bats though, it is location over a 100 miles away from bat habitats. 

Once again, you failed to explain this away. 

[JoeKitchen]

This is an invalid argument in many respects. Wind farms can co-exist with crops on farmland.  The actual land use is limited to the tower base and an occasional access road.  Your land use estimate of fossil fuel plants ignores the vast area devoted to mining and transporting the fuels.  It also ignores the cost and land use devoted to "storing" (not removing) the toxic ash produced by burning coal.

Solar installations are frequently sited on rooftops, close to the consumers, or in deserts, where sunlight is abundant and other uses are absent.  Granted, some snakes and lizards may find the solar panels visually disturbing.

One old, poorly produced, unattributed website does not constitute proof that wind farms are decimating bird populations. 

Fossil fuel plants kill about ten times as many birds as wind farms.

Wikipedia:
Environmental impact of wind power includes effect on wildlife, but can be mitigated if proper monitoring and mitigation strategies are implemented.[85] Thousands of birds, including rare species, have been killed by the blades of wind turbines,[86] though wind turbines contribute relatively insignificantly to anthropogenic avian mortality. Wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible for between 0.3 and 0.4 bird deaths per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil fueled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh. In 2009, for every bird killed by a wind turbine in the US, nearly 500,000 were killed by cats and another 500,000 by buildings.[87] In comparison, conventional coal fired generators contribute significantly more to bird mortality, by incineration when caught in updrafts of smoke stacks and by poisoning with emissions byproducts (including particulates and heavy metals downwind of flue gases). Further, marine life is affected by water intakes of steam turbine cooling towers (heat exchangers) for nuclear and fossil fuel generators, by coal dust deposits in marine ecosystems (e.g. damaging Australia's Great Barrier Reef) and by water acidification from combustion monoxides.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine#Disadvantages

All things that are issues with solar and wind, unless of course the materials just pop out of thin air when needed and disappear when at the end of their life, instead of, you know, requiring mining for raw materials and going into landfills at end of life. 

Solar panels, last I checked, contain lead, cadmium and other heavy metals, that are elements btw and do not break down. 

I also might add, it has been documented that both wind and solar farms use more raw materials than other power plants, which would only increase the issues you presented if we went full retard on this. 

Insofar as the birds, perhaps the jury is still out, but it is a major contention of environmentalist around the globe, such as Michael Shellenberger. 

One last thing, and I have no idea how much this effects fly ash usage from coal plants, but if you talk to any engineer specializing in concrete (and I would suggest avoiding the conversation or otherwise you will get sucked into a two to three hour lecture on something that cant possibly be more boring, but if you did) they are having having difficultly finding a different source of ash for concrete given the closures of coal plants. 

[Robert Roaldi]

Once again, you failed to explain this away.

What is there to explain?

[Craig Lamson]

All things that are issues with solar and wind, unless of course the materials just pop out of thin air when needed and disappear when at the end of their life, instead of, you know, requiring mining for raw materials and going into landfills at end of life. 

Solar panels, last I checked, contain lead, cadmium and other heavy metals, that are elements btw and do not break down. 

I also might add, it has been documented that both wind and solar farms use more raw materials than other power plants, which would only increase the issues you presented if we went full retard on this. 

Insofar as the birds, perhaps the jury is still out, but it is a major contention of environmentalist around the globe, such as Michael Shellenberger. 

One last thing, and I have no idea how much this effects fly ash usage from coal plants, but if you talk to any engineer specializing in concrete (and I would suggest avoiding the conversation or otherwise you will get sucked into a two to three hour lecture on something that cant possibly be more boring, but if you did) they are having having difficultly finding a different source of ash for concrete given the closures of coal plants.

There is truly no free lunch.  I read a similar article to this one today.  Said the same thing but from a different source.  But Bloomberg shoud do just fine.


Wind Turbine Blades Can’t Be Recycled, So They’re Piling Up in Landfills

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills

[JoeKitchen]

There is truly no free lunch.  I read a similar article to this one today.  Said the same thing but from a different source.  But Bloomberg shoud do just fine.


Wind Turbine Blades Can’t Be Recycled, So They’re Piling Up in Landfills

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills

Oh Craig, stop it with your facts!

I wonder what the total landfill usage is of old hydroelectric dams?  I have a feeling those solid steel turbine blades they replace every now and then are fully recyclable.  But dams are bad. 

[Craig Lamson]

All things that are issues with solar and wind, unless of course the materials just pop out of thin air when needed and disappear when at the end of their life, instead of, you know, requiring mining for raw materials and going into landfills at end of life. 

Solar panels, last I checked, contain lead, cadmium and other heavy metals, that are elements btw and do not break down. 

I also might add, it has been documented that both wind and solar farms use more raw materials than other power plants, which would only increase the issues you presented if we went full retard on this. 

Insofar as the birds, perhaps the jury is still out, but it is a major contention of environmentalist around the globe, such as Michael Shellenberger. 

One last thing, and I have no idea how much this effects fly ash usage from coal plants, but if you talk to any engineer specializing in concrete (and I would suggest avoiding the conversation or otherwise you will get sucked into a two to three hour lecture on something that cant possibly be more boring, but if you did) they are having having difficultly finding a different source of ash for concrete given the closures of coal plants.

I really have no problem if people want to drive electric cars for example.  I don't own one or even want one but I have owned Tesla stock for some time and I've made good money owning it.

But I have to wonder who will actually get hurt if we require an all electic fleet. I think it might be those who can least afford to be hurt, the poor and those on fixed imcomes.  Generally speaking they drive the older cars in the fleet, well used ones they can buy for very little money.  Cars that get them to their jobs, health care and shopping.  Looking backwards they appeared to be the ones hurt worst when the Cash for Clunkers program removed about 700K used cars from the fleet, also removing them from the used marketplace.  If you were income limited, the potential pool of cars you could afford as greatly reduced and likely got more costly.  People of limited means were the one mostly affected.

Lets fast forward to an all electric car future and wonder what it might look like for low income used car buyers. 

1. Cheap cars may be very hard to find if the current used EV prices are any indication.

2. Used EV may need very expensive battery replacements if todays patterns hold.

3.  Home charging may be a very big issue fro some, especially those who live in homes without a garage or apartments sith limitled parking and no charging stations.  Running an extension cord from your house to the street or worse your apartment window is not a good solution.

4. During a full scale transition from gas to EV, gas prices could rise dramatically, further hurting the lower income driver.

The law of unintended consequences is a bitch.

[JoeKitchen]

I really have no problem if people want to drive electric cars for example.  I don't own one or even want one but I have owned Tesla stock for some time and I've made good money owning it.

But I have to wonder who will actually get hurt if we require an all electic fleet. I think it might be those who can least afford to be hurt, the poor and those on fixed imcomes.  Generally speaking they drive the older cars in the fleet, well used ones they can buy for very little money.  Cars that get them to their jobs, health care and shopping.  Looking backwards they appeared to be the ones hurt worst when the Cash for Clunkers program removed about 700K used cars from the fleet, also removing them from the used marketplace.  If you were income limited, the potential pool of cars you could afford as greatly reduced and likely got more costly.  People of limited means were the one mostly affected.

Lets fast forward to an all electric car future and wonder what it might look like for low income used car buyers. 

1. Cheap cars may be very hard to find if the current used EV prices are any indication.

2. Used EV may need very expensive battery replacements if todays patterns hold.

3.  Home charging may be a very big issue fro some, especially those who live in homes without a garage or apartments sith limitled parking and no charging stations.  Running an extension cord from your house to the street or worse your apartment window is not a good solution.

4. During a full scale transition from gas to EV, gas prices could rise dramatically, further hurting the lower income driver.

The law of unintended consequences is a bitch.

Well, all makes sense. 

Off the topic of cars onto the topic of oil subsidies that Biden wants to get rid of, I just read a large portion of oil subsidies go to poor families in need of heating oil for their house.  What happens when we take those away?  How will they afford oil?  Will they have to switch to electric heat?  Who will pay for the transition and higher costs? 

FYI, extreme cold kills more people in the USA then extreme heat.