Politics

[375 Ruger Fan]

Interesting history lesson

 

[Doug3006]

Don,

I agree that it’s definitely frustrating that we always have to do the heavy lifting while others do the minimum or less than they should and then, furthermore, sit back and critique us. Very frustrating, but we are still left with the job to do in the end.

You’re right Scott, it’s still our role to do. It is a burden and there’s precious little thanks for it from other nations. But keep in mind, we’re not doing it just for them. We have reaped the plentiful benefits of being the world‘s super power for many generations. Our prosperity and security largely come from our ability to protect global commerce. We haven’t chosen our battles as wisely as we should at times. However the ability and willingness to project power has guaranteed our way of life.

 

[spike.t]

Interesting read .....

https://businesstech.co.za/news/energy/646503/load-shedding-at-40-the-performance-of-power-stations-in-south-africa-vs-the-united-states/

 

[Wheels]

 

[Hogpatrol]

re: power stations, I bet the same amount of money is spent at RSA's as with the U.S. Where that money goes is another story.

 

[Wheels]

This thread was started to keep another thread from being hijacked. That was a little over four years ago. Today it looks like the thread hit 1,000 pages, and almost 20,000 posts, making it the second longest thread on AH. Who says you shouldn't talk politics with friends.

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

What is the longest?

 

[David AK 53]

What is the longest?

“On a lighter note” has over 24,000 posts and over 1,200 pages!

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

Changing the subject a bit from USA politics and the war in Ukraine I would like to hear your thoughts upon the liberal green movement. Whilst I whole heartedly agree with cleaning up unnecessary pollution, especially plastic rubbish, I am just not getting the panic around energy. The world's population growth is slowing, in the developing world it is neutral or negative and I was very surprised to see that Africa is slowing a lot. Energy consumption per capita is likely to drop as more modern and efficient appliances get used, for example LED lights. So whilst there is need for constant progress and smart planning, who amongst us, maybe a person like a demographic engineer can fill us in upon the facts and sensibilities?

 

[Ray B]

The entire carbon thing is a hoax designed to scare people into being subjects of the state. there are a few routes that the population can follow- I suspect the one of least restraint will be the one followed- at least it has been so far. Even with the sheep following the dictators in charge things will come to a head when production of batteries is at maximum level, charging capacity is also into diminishing returns and generation in the free world is limited to "renewable, non-carbon" and only a small percentage of people have a means of private transportation. At that point the stand-in for Louis XVI will lose his/her head and there will be a rather unpleasant shift in power and policy. It would be interesting to see how my prediction plays out but at age 74 I doubt that I will see it.

 

[Alistair]

Changing the subject a bit from USA politics and the war in Ukraine I would like to hear your thoughts upon the liberal green movement. Whilst I whole heartedly agree with cleaning up unnecessary pollution, especially plastic rubbish, I am just not getting the panic around energy. The world's population growth is slowing, in the developing world it is neutral or negative and I was very surprised to see that Africa is slowing a lot. Energy consumption per capita is likely to drop as more modern and efficient appliances get used, for example LED lights. So whilst there is need for constant progress and smart planning, who amongst us, maybe a person like a demographic engineer can fill us in upon the facts and sensibilities?

I think the logic is thus. The world's population is growing, but more importantly energy use per person is also growing. In the first world, populations are stable and energy use is also stable (although not going down really due to our desire for more toys, more processing power, safer, heavier cars, more everything being balanced against the relative efficiency of all those things). American energy demand per person per annum hasn't really changed since the 60's for example, although we have a better quality of life for the same energy spend today.

However, in the third world, not only are populations growing, but increasingly, people start to want a 'western lifestyle' with a nice house, a nice car, air conditioning, a smart phone, a fridge, some holidays, a computer etc etc. That's the main driver of energy consumption increasing; the average American uses roughly 100,000kWh per annum, the average African or Indian uses roughly 5,000kWh per annum, but that figure is growing as they grow and develop. If by 2035 the average African also wants 100,000kWh per annum, we've doubled our worldwide consumption, easily.

An interesting source to look over which seems fairly unbaised, far as I can tell. https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption. Jump to the 'per capita' section for the figures I pulled above.

 

[Wheels]

... I would like to hear your thoughts upon the liberal green movement. ...

Scientists tell us the earth was cold enough the polar ice caps have touched at the equator during the Cryogenian glaciation . There is fossil and skeletal evidence the earth was warm enough mega flora and mega fauna have lived and flourished above the arctic circle. Hippos have flourished in the Thames and the Rhine. The earth is coming out of the Younger Dryas glaciation/iceage 12,000 years ago and we are living in the Holocene Interglacial/warming period.

Yes we have climate change. The earth has always had climate change and always will. Is there some anthropogenic climate change. Probably a bit but mankind has a tremendous amount of hubris to think they can stop the normal climate cycles.

 

[Boyd Brooks]

Scientists tell us the earth was cold enough the polar ice caps have touched at the equator during the Cryogenian glaciation . There is fossil and skeletal evidence the earth was warm enough mega flora and mega fauna have lived and flourished above the arctic circle. Hippos have flourished in the Thames and the Rhine. The earth is coming out of the Younger Dryas glaciation/iceage 12,000 years ago and we are living in the Holocene Interglacial/warming period.

Yes we have climate change. The earth has always had climate change and always will. Is there some anthropogenic climate change. Probably a bit but mankind has a tremendous amount of hubris to think they can stop the normal climate cycles.

View attachment 502331

It is amazing that this is what was taught in science class when I was in high school only 40 years ago. It was logical and made sense, asteroid strikes and/or increased volcanic activity puts ash and dust into the sky blocking sunlight. The resulting cooling caused ice ages.
Another plausible explanation for ice ages and climate changes taught was that the poles are constantly moving and the earth relative position to the sun changes slowly over time.
It is unbelievable to me how the narrative and teachings have changed to say that the burning of fossil fuel is the principle cause of climate change.
One thing that tells me the burning of fossil fuels is bullshit, while on a cruise into Glacier Bay they had information pamphlets indicating the face of the glacier’s location since it was discovered by Captain Cook in 1778. It receded at a constant rate long before the internal combustion engine was invented.

 

[Major Bonkers]

Here is Doctor Spock from 1978 telling everyone that we were in for a new ice age:

At 3:40 - 'our population has exploded to 5 billion people'. Only two days ago, it was put at 8 billion.

Someone is having a lot more sex than me.

 

[steve white]

The entire carbon thing is a hoax designed to scare people into being subjects of the state. there are a few routes that the population can follow- I suspect the one of least restraint will be the one followed- at least it has been so far. Even with the sheep following the dictators in charge things will come to a head when production of batteries is at maximum level, charging capacity is also into diminishing returns and generation in the free world is limited to "renewable, non-carbon" and only a small percentage of people have a means of private transportation. At that point the stand-in for Louis XVI will lose his/her head and there will be a rather unpleasant shift in power and policy. It would be interesting to see how my prediction plays out but at age 74 I doubt that I will see it.

I can think of a few heads that need to roll...Soros is at the top of my list...

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Changing the subject a bit from USA politics and the war in Ukraine I would like to hear your thoughts upon the liberal green movement. Whilst I whole heartedly agree with cleaning up unnecessary pollution, especially plastic rubbish, I am just not getting the panic around energy. The world's population growth is slowing, in the developing world it is neutral or negative and I was very surprised to see that Africa is slowing a lot. Energy consumption per capita is likely to drop as more modern and efficient appliances get used, for example LED lights. So whilst there is need for constant progress and smart planning, who amongst us, maybe a person like a demographic engineer can fill us in upon the facts and sensibilities?

The worlds population growth rate may be slowing, but as long as it is positive, energy demand will continue to grow. As such I think it is wise to still be concerned with how that demand will be met.

As far as the green movement goes, in and of itself I have no issue with it. Reducing pollution whether it be from plastic bottles or automobile exhaust is a good thing, not sure how anyone would argue against it. The question is how?

Currently here in the US, Europe and likely other places, the push is for electric vehicles. There can be no doubt the emissions from an EV are much less than from a internal combustion motor. But what are the trade offs?

It seems like so many here think the electricity shows up pollution free? Or they think solar panels and/or wind alone will be sufficient? As if those “solutions” have no trade offs either.

Over in California they decided that there will be no more sales of non electric vehicles starting in 2035. Meanwhile in spite of the article @spike.t posted above, Cali is already having load shedding issues themselves, and have for a number of years now. Yet they plan to in just 13 years add significantly to their electrical demand.

I don’t have all of the answers by any means. But I do know you don’t get something for nothing. There are always trade offs to any solution. The question that always must be asked is what problems are being introduced by the solution to the current problem, and how will they be addressed.

Its not to say they can’t be, or that it isn’t worth it. But it could be we may be jumping out of the pan and into the fire. When the folks pushing a solution try to tell me there are no trade offs or quickly dismiss them, I know they’re either ignorant or flat out lying to me.

 

[steve white]

Scientists tell us the earth was cold enough the polar ice caps have touched at the equator during the Cryogenian glaciation . There is fossil and skeletal evidence the earth was warm enough mega flora and mega fauna have lived and flourished above the arctic circle. Hippos have flourished in the Thames and the Rhine. The earth is coming out of the Younger Dryas glaciation/iceage 12,000 years ago and we are living in the Holocene Interglacial/warming period.

Yes we have climate change. The earth has always had climate change and always will. Is there some anthropogenic climate change. Probably a bit but mankind has a tremendous amount of hubris to think they can stop the normal climate cycles.

View attachment 502331

Seems the cold periods were much longer that the warm spikes...

 

[Wheels]

Currently here in the US, Europe and likely other places, the push is for electric vehicles. There can be no doubt the emissions from an EV are much less than from a internal combustion motor. But what are the trade offs?

I have read that an EV has to be driven 60,000 miles to cover the carbon footprint cost to mine the batteries. The EV then has to be driven another 40,000 miles to hit the breakeven point against hydrocarbon vehicles. The problem is the battery life isn't 100,000 miles. As with any report there may be questions with the numbers but this may be a bit better than a wag.

 

[Wheels]

 

[sgt_zim]

The worlds population growth rate may be slowing, but as long as it is positive, energy demand will continue to grow. As such I think it is wise to still be concerned with how that demand will be met.

As far as the green movement goes, in and of itself I have no issue with it. Reducing pollution whether it be from plastic bottles or automobile exhaust is a good thing, not sure how anyone would argue against it. The question is how?

Currently here in the US, Europe and likely other places, the push is for electric vehicles. There can be no doubt the emissions from an EV are much less than from a internal combustion motor. But what are the trade offs?

It seems like so many here think the electricity shows up pollution free? Or they think solar panels and/or wind alone will be sufficient? As if those “solutions” have no trade offs either.

Over in California they decided that there will be no more sales of non electric vehicles starting in 2035. Meanwhile in spite of the article @spike.t posted above, Cali is already having load shedding issues themselves, and have for a number of years now. Yet they plan to in just 13 years add significantly to their electrical demand.

I don’t have all of the answers by any means. But I do know you don’t get something for nothing. There are always trade offs to any solution. The question that always must be asked is what problems are being introduced by the solution to the current problem, and how will they be addressed.

Its not to say they can’t be, or that it isn’t worth it. But it could be we may be jumping out of the pan and into the fire. When the folks pushing a solution try to tell me there are no trade offs or quickly dismiss them, I know they’re either ignorant or flat out lying to me.

It's the age old engineering joke.

You can have it high quality, fast, and cheap. Pick 2.

Engineering economics demands trade offs for everything.