Chernobyl series on HBO

[Cosmik]

Few things, we've hit "Peak Oil", meaning we've past the point at peak oil production, and now is in decline, year over year. Not by crazy amounts, but it is in decline. Our demand has finally outstripped our energy supply. The only way to remedy this, is "fix" demand.

Second, renewables pale in comparison to non-renewables. The startup costs are enormous currently by relative comparison, and the land-use required to replace non-renewables simply doesn't exist (you can't just plop down wind farms wherever you feel like, likewise I need not mention how this applies to solar panels), they're simply not reliable with current technological status of those technologies. So barring any discovery of an energy source as net-calorie rich as oil is, these forms of energy are simply not viable on a plant racing toward 8 billion. I'm not even going to mention hydro and such, it's caveats have been understood far longer.

Third, nuclear stands to eliminate this energy issue, but it faces a crisis of stability. Basically like solar panels in a sense, but just all the start-up costs and time multiplied thousands fold. To get a power-plant up and running from idea, to serving a grid or so.. is a decade + ordeal when you have to adhere to safety standards (of which we all agree is something no one should be skimping on when dealing with nuclear). So it takes forever to get up and running, costs billions, and is still concerning if a meltdown (or goodness forbid an explosion occurs).

Also global warming isn't a religion (so I hope this was said colloquially, but in a slightly degrading tone to make joke of the stereotypical hippy-type person global warming proponents have been childishly painted as).

At any rate, none of the current solutions will ever replace the ease of energy afforded to us by the discovery of oil and non-renewables. There are those in denial saying we will never actually run out, or that there are vast stores still possibly present at the polar regions, and things like the Canadian Tar Sands. First off, if there was much oil left, companies wouldn't be shelling out $200 million per off-shore oil rig, that alone is enough evidence to demonstrate that land-based reserves are in acute decline. Second, with current political climates, and the ACTUAL climate, prospecting and actually producing something viable from the northern reserves is such a monumentous effort, it seemingly is impossible without encroaching on massive costs (where it basically isn't worth taking the oil out of the ground even if it is there, which is basically what is mean't when people say we've run out of oil.. not technically, but in practice when the cost to get it out outpaces the the price it can be sold for to the worldwide market). And finally, the Canadian Tar Sands are an ecological disaster that even the most staunch deniers of global warming admit the fall-off will be great if they are exploited.

There are lots of talks about what should be done, but VERY little talking about getting anything actually done. When you have the buffoonary displays of for instance Trump leaving the Paris Climate Accords, you're basically providing the litmus test at just how seriously we're going to be fucking ourselves. And the "told you so's" at that point will pale in comparison to the every progressing suffering that will ensue. I am very pessimistic about the whole ordeal partly due to the human element and stupidity, and any prospect of discovering another Oil, is not a very realistic expectation to base any of your optimism in. The destabilizing effects are currently being felt as we speak, both environmentally, and economically when you take a look at the per-emptive hoarding of resources on an Empire level. Lots of superpowers not willing to budge on territories and lots of bullshit threats neither sides are prepared to back their words up with. These escalations will only progress as time goes on.

Well I did say "... if the numbers add up" - a bit of a hand-waving cop out, I know.

It's just that it feels as though it should be possible to do clever things for the amount of money that nuclear costs 'in the round'. For example, I particularly liked the idea of kite power:

About twenty automatically controlled kites can keep rotating a turbine of 1,600 meters diameter at a speed of 15 revolutions per hour. This can generate 1 Gigawatt of power, equivalent to a medium size nuclear power station but with an estimated capital cost 10 times lower. In other words, 1 cubic Km of sky is able to provide 1 GigaWatt of power for 80% of the time in a year.

I'm surprised it's only a factor of 10. They must be very expensive kites.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Few things, we've hit "Peak Oil", meaning we've past the point at peak oil production, and now is in decline, year over year. Not by crazy amounts, but it is in decline. Our demand has finally outstripped our energy supply. The only way to remedy this, is "fix" demand.

Second, renewables pale in comparison to non-renewables. The startup costs are enormous currently by relative comparison, and the land-use required to replace non-renewables simply doesn't exist (you can't just plop down wind farms wherever you feel like, likewise I need not mention how this applies to solar panels), they're simply not reliable with current technological status of those technologies. So barring any discovery of an energy source as net-calorie rich as oil is, these forms of energy are simply not viable on a plant racing toward 8 billion. I'm not even going to mention hydro and such, it's caveats have been understood far longer.

Third, nuclear stands to eliminate this energy issue, but it faces a crisis of stability. Basically like solar panels in a sense, but just all the start-up costs and time multiplied thousands fold. To get a power-plant up and running from idea, to serving a grid or so.. is a decade + ordeal when you have to adhere to safety standards (of which we all agree is something no one should be skimping on when dealing with nuclear). So it takes forever to get up and running, costs billions, and is still concerning if a meltdown (or goodness forbid an explosion occurs).

Also global warming isn't a religion (so I hope this was said colloquially, but in a slightly degrading tone to make joke of the stereotypical hippy-type person global warming proponents have been childishly painted as).

At any rate, none of the current solutions will ever replace the ease of energy afforded to us by the discovery of oil and non-renewables. There are those in denial saying we will never actually run out, or that there are vast stores still possibly present at the polar regions, and things like the Canadian Tar Sands. First off, if there was much oil left, companies wouldn't be shelling out $200 million per off-shore oil rig, that alone is enough evidence to demonstrate that land-based reserves are in acute decline. Second, with current political climates, and the ACTUAL climate, prospecting and actually producing something viable from the northern reserves is such a monumentous effort, it seemingly is impossible without encroaching on massive costs (where it basically isn't worth taking the oil out of the ground even if it is there, which is basically what is mean't when people say we've run out of oil.. not technically, but in practice when the cost to get it out outpaces the the price it can be sold for to the worldwide market). And finally, the Canadian Tar Sands are an ecological disaster that even the most staunch deniers of global warming admit the fall-off will be great if they are exploited.

There are lots of talks about what should be done, but VERY little talking about getting anything actually done. When you have the buffoonary displays of for instance Trump leaving the Paris Climate Accords, you're basically providing the litmus test at just how seriously we're going to be fucking ourselves. And the "told you so's" at that point will pale in comparison to the every progressing suffering that will ensue. I am very pessimistic about the whole ordeal partly due to the human element and stupidity, and any prospect of discovering another Oil, is not a very realistic expectation to base any of your optimism in. The destabilizing effects are currently being felt as we speak, both environmentally, and economically when you take a look at the per-emptive hoarding of resources on an Empire level. Lots of superpowers not willing to budge on territories and lots of bullshit threats neither sides are prepared to back their words up with. These escalations will only progress as time goes on.

Not peak oil yet. Fracking has pushed that back at least. Not that such a thing is a permanent fix. Graph of world oil production.

World natural gas production is up even more and not expected to peak for 20-30 more years.

Not disagreeing with many of your other statements just like to stay anchored in the data. Energy transitions take 30-50 years. So even if it ends up being solar or some combination of solar, nuclear and other stuff we are late to change in order to avoid exacerbating global warming effects. Things will have to work out however they do. And no matter what you do its a people problem. Some estimates are a peak population just short of 9 billion around 2050. Others say about 11 billion around 2100. I'd say it won't matter to me past 2050 (and maybe sooner).

I don't see controlling demand being the full answer. There are too many 2nd and 3rd world populations which will want to at least end up near the lower end of what is a living standard of 1st world countries. And that will increase demand so much developed countries can't do much about total demand. It is quite the pickle of a problem.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Well I did say "... if the numbers add up" - a bit of a hand-waving cop out, I know.

It's just that it feels as though it should be possible to do clever things for the amount of money that nuclear costs 'in the round'. For example, I particularly liked the idea of kite power:

I'm surprised it's only a factor of 10. They must be very expensive kites.

The kite thing sounded too good to be true. If not you'd likely see them in time.

I like the idea of orbiting solar power microwaved back to earth. All very feasible, but expensive. Too expensive to compete currently. In time making the cells from material mined on the moon might lower costs. But all such things are large expensive projects that will take commitment and lots of time to do. Seems like any way you slice it the cost is at least 10 times too much to be economically feasible. Also would make quite the target for any nation planning to go to war with another.

 

[Tks]

Well I did say "... if the numbers add up" - a bit of a hand-waving cop out, I know.

It's just that it feels as though it should be possible to do clever things for the amount of money that nuclear costs 'in the round'. For example, I particularly liked the idea of kite power:

I'm surprised it's only a factor of 10. They must be very expensive kites.

I'm all for it, in the same way I'm all for ALL solutions. What is left out of many conversations is the requirement that both sides need to agree that to SOME debatable degree, we have royally fucked ourselves and must realize every solution will come with it's own negatives AND negatives that will manifest outside of the direct negatives(for example lets say the whole world decided literally right this day, to go full nuclear, by the time designs are drawn up, and everything is said and done, we are somewhat fucked because by the time we get this done, we are still using current forms of energy, so even in this case where the properties of reality are suspended, and humans become miraculously of one hivemind, we still lose because we are currently already late).

Until both sides can come together with this prerequisite(the understanding we will be hurting quite a bit in the future and are now regardless of what we do), even the discovery of something like an oil reserve bigger than all reserves we've found today - won't matter, because both sides, or one side will always be in denial, and will always have this denial to bias their contributions.

As for High Altitude Wind proposals, they're again - fine in theory, but now I will speak about something I didn't want to:

I've hinted prior at the whole "human element" ordeal, and the reality of certain economic factors. The biggest challenge short-term, is to rid ourselves of this suicidal and idiotic form of economics we have nearly globally. Every single form of economics that has existed on a global scale today has outlived it's use in their current forms we see them. Both socialistic and capitalistic forms of economics are great bootstraps to accelerate progress, but are preposterous with respect to natural order when you have a population that has been stable with around 1 to 1.2 billion people on the planet, to now 7+ billion. The problem with current forms of economics, is the reliance on cyclical consumption and infinite growth. There is no way these sorts of economic systems can ever be allowed to slow or stagnate (this is the definition of recession), let alone stop or reverse (this is depression and full-on economic collapse).

Now the problem with infinite growth, is we live on a finite planet (to put it short). Now you might be asking "yeah okay, what's your point, how does this relate to my kite energy feels?". The problem with why it "feels" it should be done, but isn't (and the internal conflict you have) is your inborn intuition and knowledge/experience is telling you, "this makes sense..why aren't we doing this?" and the reason is because of economics. Outside of the miracle of open-source, and collaborative thought, the current economic incentive doesn't reward something like kite energy. The ROI simply is the main topic of contention after the tech is proven to work. This is why many renewables are actually dead-in-the-water for mass-scale adoption. And in this world with the economies we live under, if there is no monetary incentive, there is no getting anything done. To the contrary, it's worse than that. Many mass-scale profitability initiatives only exist due to the creation of problems AND THEN selling "symptom relief" to those problems, not by actually solving the problems themselves. This is our sort of self-instituted form of natural selection, where the "Economy" is "mother-nature" for us. The only problem is, we already have actual mother-nature that doesn't care about what our will is, actual nature is a dictatorship.

You also see ridiculous ridden things like "patents" and "copyright" and other forms of idea-exclusivity. These sorts of systems all had their place in history, and should not be relinquished as relics. Because when you have the fate of millions of folks around the planet at stake, there isn't a non-psychopathic person out there that will say "No, I think companies need to have their sacred ideas kept to themselves, no matter the cost". They have no place -again I say- in a world where the stakes demand a mode of operation where problems need to be tackled in the same way a civilization were at war, vs in their golden age. These properties of governance, and economy need to have a switch at least.. Actual human progress was always due to the free-flow of ideas, and never by some corporate or monetary incentive hidden away to be only privy to those of some inner circle within companies.

So High Altitude Wind for example, isn't a terrible idea. It just simply has no place for the mode of thinking that currently exists today and is pervading in all facets of life from the grocery store, to college education.

I've gone a bit into the deep end, but giving a simple answer to whatever conundrum you face with the dilema of thoughts you have, doesn't exist. So I apologize, but there simply isn't a better way that I know of, without me coming off as some sort of corny one-liner "woke-type" dude preaching for the abolishment of capitalism (which is what can happen when you give a simple answer to issues that pertain to economics).

 

[Tks]

Not peak oil yet. Fracking has pushed that back at least. Not that such a thing is a permanent fix. Graph of world oil production.



World natural gas production is up even more and not expected to peak for 20-30 more years.

Not disagreeing with many of your other statements just like to stay anchored in the data. Energy transitions take 30-50 years. So even if it ends up being solar or some combination of solar, nuclear and other stuff we are late to change in order to avoid exacerbating global warming effects. Things will have to work out however they do. And no matter what you do its a people problem. Some estimates are a peak population just short of 9 billion around 2050. Others say about 11 billion around 2100. I'd say it won't matter to me past 2050 (and maybe sooner).

I don't see controlling demand being the full answer. There are too many 2nd and 3rd world populations which will want to at least end up near the lower end of what is a living standard of 1st world countries. And that will increase demand so much developed countries can't do much about total demand. It is quite the pickle of a problem.

My peak-oil timetable was based prior to the fracking + tar sands ordeal. Fracking also is seeing serious pushback so we'll see if the new peak-oil timetable pushing up is valid. Peak oil predictions being pushed up like this by some isn't much of a good thing, in the same way something like the GDP of a nations rising due to healthcare. Basically meaning a nation is more sick - likewise with peak-oil being pushed up in timeline: more exploitative and unsafe practices now being undertaken out of a desperation/need (which is what GDP can actually mean most of the time if you ask me and few others personally, and not the actual "wealth" or well-being of a nation, I should say).

As for the comments of who it matters to, like you or me, it's that sort of reasoning that gets us into predicaments like this. The short-term thinking is what's offloading our "debt". I don't rest easy knowing I could probably be of the statistic in the same way heedless others have been when we look back on those people in trying times of the past.

And as for controlling demand, well there is no such thing. We have to shift cultural value. For example, we have animal agriculture for instance as the number one industry for methane emissions and generally many other pollution and greenhouse on the planet. Getting people to give up animal-products like meat, eggs, and dairy will instantly produce a massive shift in overall prospects with respect to something like global warming, world poverty/hunger, and overall healthcare. This is what I mean't for example about my comments concerning "fixing" demand. The actual problem is as you say people. You'll have the spectrum of excuses of why people won't go vegan, ranging from "my religion allows me to do this", to "but where will I get my protien from", to "I've been eating this my whole life, you can't expect me to change now, this is our tradition, our way of life".

 

[Blumlein 88]

My peak-oil timetable was based prior to the fracking + tar sands ordeal. Fracking also is seeing serious pushback so we'll see if the new peak-oil timetable pushing up is valid. Peak oil predictions being pushed up like this by some isn't much of a good thing, in the same way something like the GDP of a nations rising due to healthcare. Basically meaning a nation is more sick - likewise with peak-oil being pushed up in timeline: more exploitative and unsafe practices now being undertaken out of a desperation/need (which is what GDP can actually mean most of the time if you ask me and few others personally, and not the actual "wealth" or well-being of a nation, I should say).

As for the comments of who it matters to, like you or me, it's that sort of reasoning that gets us into predicaments like this. The short-term thinking is what's offloading our "debt". I don't rest easy knowing I could probably be of the statistic in the same way heedless others have been when we look back on those people in trying times of the past.

And as for controlling demand, well there is no such thing. We have to shift cultural value. For example, we have animal agriculture for instance as the number one industry for methane emissions and generally many other pollution and greenhouse on the planet. Getting people to give up animal-products like meat, eggs, and dairy will instantly produce a massive shift in overall prospects with respect to something like global warming, world poverty/hunger, and overall healthcare. This is what I mean't for example about my comments concerning "fixing" demand. The actual problem is as you say people. You'll have the spectrum of excuses of why people won't go vegan, ranging from "my religion allows me to do this", to "but where will I get my protien from", to "I've been eating this my whole life, you can't expect me to change now, this is our tradition, our way of life".

My comment about it not mattering to me is just a fact. I won't be alive then. Now I'm not trying to leave a mess for those that come after nor spend in a way the causes indebtedness others pay off. Things change, things happen, goals shift. One shouldn't plan too incredibly far into the future because your predictions become much more shaky on too far a time horizon. For instance when it makes no economic sense yet, forcing a huge expenditure on a cleaner energy source isn't a good idea. Suppose fusion finally is solved and makes good clean energy pretty cheaply. You wasted resources. We need R&D, we need to plan a little bit into the future, but we can't determine what will go on 100 years from now. One of the better efforts was the early 1970's Club of Rome report with its predictions. Working on a systemic basis using models with limited specificity (on purpose that is good systems modeling) they made predictions which were pretty close right up until the present time. Population predictions, environmental predictions and predicting a concentration of wealth in the upper 1% and 5%.

I get that beginning a shift away form fossil fuels is an obvious good thing to do. We just don't have the ability to jump straight to it yet. It would appear Germany's shift from nuclear to solar/wind was expensive and maybe not a good idea.

Some things that appear green aren't. Alcohol from plants is a good example. It isn't clear once all energy costs are included that plant based alcohol results in a positive gain of energy. Maybe a little or maybe a slight loss. Its basically not worth doing. Energy from plants converts solar energy around 2% efficiency for the right plants (most are 1% or a bit under). Plowing a field and putting in solar panels at 10-15% efficiency is much more worthwhile.

To paraphrase Churchill, the capitalist economic system is the worst one ever..............other than all those other economic systems.

 

[Tks]

My comment about it not mattering to me is just a fact. I won't be alive then. Now I'm not trying to leave a mess for those that come after nor spend in a way the causes indebtedness others pay off. Things change, things happen, goals shift. One shouldn't plan too incredibly far into the future because your predictions become much more shaky on too far a time horizon. For instance when it makes no economic sense yet, forcing a huge expenditure on a cleaner energy source isn't a good idea.

Fair enough, nothing in disagreement here. Except you have to understand what we're doing now is planning for something not far ahead, but of which results will be felt FAR more ahead than our plans are. So it makes sense to plan 2 decades in advanced if the fallout will continue a century or longer.

Suppose fusion finally is solved and makes good clean energy pretty cheaply. You wasted resources. We need R&D, we need to plan a little bit into the future, but we can't determine what will go on 100 years from now. One of the better efforts was the early 1970's Club of Rome report with its predictions. Working on a systemic basis using models with limited specificity (on purpose that is good systems modeling) they made predictions which were pretty close right up until the present time. Population predictions, environmental predictions and predicting a concentration of wealth in the upper 1% and 5%.

The only difference is, we have nearly a fully globalized planet, where an inventory of sorts can be gauged of nearly all metrics. Super markets already do this with a barcode system that's been in use for years. Plans from 100 years ago pale in comparison to ones we make today because our understanding is far more vast. As for the whole "suppose fusion is finally solved", sorry but that's like saying "suppose we leverage AI to build quantum computers, and then have that AI use quantum processing to reach singularity and we find -insert novel ideas like immortality here-

Sorry but those sorts of suppositions are not my cup of tea, as it's simply a outsourcing of responsibility of some quite serious issues. Basically wishful thinking into not going through with action.

I get that beginning a shift away form fossil fuels is an obvious good thing to do. We just don't have the ability to jump straight to it yet. It would appear Germany's shift from nuclear to solar/wind was expensive and maybe not a good idea.

You were perhaps under the impression that I am under the same umbrella of folks aching for renewable or something. I am not, I just wanted to address that point. Wide sweeping changes are great as a litmus test, but rarely pan out instantly. Also, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your thoughts on Germany, simply because singular statements like "maybe not a good idea" doesn't mean anything because it can mean anything. Economic viability, human-live-value index, well-being, etc.. All have to be defined when the worth of something is considered. For corporations, economic viability is the only thing that matters, but corporations aren't people, so others will have a different opinion on the worth of Germany's shift. Likewise with duration of the results of an action, sure it might be great now, but end up being a death-sentence later (or the other way around).

Some things that appear green aren't. Alcohol from plants is a good example. It isn't clear once all energy costs are included that plant based alcohol results in a positive gain of energy. Maybe a little or maybe a slight loss. Its basically not worth doing. Energy from plants converts solar energy around 2% efficiency for the right plants (most are 1% or a bit under). Plowing a field and putting in solar panels at 10-15% efficiency is much more worthwhile.

Again, "green" doesn't mean anything, it's too ambiguous. This is how you sell an idea to common folk. When speaking in terms like this you did well to explain that means "positive energy gain", so I have to commend you for that. Though if energy-yeild was the only consideration, the US would be flooded with nuclear power-plants. Again, the whole system of economics and politics is at play here. None of these topics can be discussed in isolation of one another, it simply becomes a waste of time, and infantile. But I understand that, and try to be as brief as possible with my replies, but as you can see, they're still unwieldy and long.

To paraphrase Churchill, the capitalist economic system is the worst one ever..............other than all those other economic systems.

Meh sure, in his time it was alright, and his words from the grave ring with far less value in the same light of others and idea's of their time did before him. It's witty one-liners that appeal to emotion (the modern day equivalent of "woke talk"). None of his words could ever stand the test of time and when reality decides to disagree as I've spoken about in my other posts on how all current forms of economics should be done away with in their current form. Not entirely, but take what's good, and remove what has no place. Regardless of how important we feel, we barely occupy fractions of a percent of time on this planet, there is nothing in reality that immunizes us from eradication in totality. No amount of stories or consoling quotes will aid us, especially not when we use them as excuse to not strive for something better, and I don't mean passively, but actively demand it.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Meh sure, in his time it was alright, and his words from the grave ring with far less value in the same light of others and idea's of their time did before him. It's witty one-liners that appeal to emotion (the modern day equivalent of "woke talk"). None of his words could ever stand the test of time and when reality decides to disagree as I've spoken about in my other posts on how all current forms of economics should be done away with in their current form. Not entirely, but take what's good, and remove what has no place. Regardless of how important we feel, we barely occupy fractions of a percent of time on this planet, there is nothing in reality that immunizes us from eradication in totality. No amount of stories or consoling quotes will aid us, especially not when we use them as excuse to not strive for something better, and I don't mean passively, but actively demand it.

While we have far more information than before things also change more rapidly than before. Not sure we're much better off to make long, long range plans.

Now about Churchill, who didn't say what I typed, but the idea is about what I had in mind.

So you say all current forms of economics should be done away with in their current form. Do you have even a broad overview of what replaces those?

 

[Tks]

While we have far more information than before things also change more rapidly than before. Not sure we're much better off to make long, long range plans.

Now about Churchill, who didn't say what I typed, but the idea is about what I had in mind.

So you say all current forms of economics should be done away with in their current form. Do you have even a broad overview of what replaces those?

Somewhat do, but its not radically different that what we have now, or what we've had in the past. It calls for a massive redistribution of wealth though, so many folks are against. Taxation dollars would be replaced with spending on things like military, to more educational and welfare prospects. Universal Basic Income that many people see as some insane socialistic tool will be commonplace, and tame compared to the cooperative that will be required on the global scale. You already have some Nordic nations that will probably be pioneers in this respect, but currently we are very far from this sort of ideal. Things like billionaires will not be a thing, things like one car per every person as a right will need to be done away with, politicians themselves will need to be replaced as soon as possible by artificial intelligence systems optimized with the express goal of instituting all policies that contribute to well-being and planetary sustainability (as much as I spoke about the planetary resources being finite, they're not really finite for our intents and purposes, they are only finite now because we're using more than we can replenish).

Basically a whole rewriting of society will need to occur, otherwise we can continue down the path of immeasurable suffering as we've been on. Things like the protests we see all over the world will only get worse, and is simply society reacting to the system, fighting for survival under the economics that currently exist that have very little place for 7 billion people when machines stand to replace a sizable chunk.

In the end, there needs to be an evaluation on our values. If we are okay with what we have now, while a small percentage of people and entities owning the majority of the worlds resources, then we can continue on as is, knowing we are consistent with our beliefs. And any protests to this need to be eradicated by force as those are people who run contrarian to our ideals. If we're not okay with this, then folks like billionaires need to cease having a place on the planet.

These are very radical socialistic ideas when you take them at face value. And if applied, contribute to feelings "oh jeez dude just stop with this utopian shit". The only issue any sensible people should have to this (that aren't plagued by conflicts of interest or mental neurosis) is how something like this can be actually instituted with the least amount of issues (basically getting over the issues of beliefs and politics).

Nothing what I say here runs contrarian to realizing a more positive society for the majority of people. But again, the issue stands, how do we get over current systems that safegaurd themselves against being changed or destroyed.

I usually avoid talking this deeply about this, as all it is, is talk. And for many people they can't get over the hurdle that we should attempt it, let along come up with ways of how we should attempt it. We have people that went to the moon in 1969, but tell folks about how our paradigm of governance and economy need to change, they treat that as something fantastical, impossible, and in the worst cases; undesirable sad to say..

 

[Cosmik]

I'm all for it, in the same way I'm all for ALL solutions. What is left out of many conversations is the requirement that both sides need to agree that to SOME debatable degree, we have royally fucked ourselves and must realize every solution will come with it's own negatives AND negatives that will manifest outside of the direct negatives(for example lets say the whole world decided literally right this day, to go full nuclear, by the time designs are drawn up, and everything is said and done, we are somewhat fucked because by the time we get this done, we are still using current forms of energy, so even in this case where the properties of reality are suspended, and humans become miraculously of one hivemind, we still lose because we are currently already late).

Until both sides can come together with this prerequisite(the understanding we will be hurting quite a bit in the future and are now regardless of what we do), even the discovery of something like an oil reserve bigger than all reserves we've found today - won't matter, because both sides, or one side will always be in denial, and will always have this denial to bias their contributions.

As for High Altitude Wind proposals, they're again - fine in theory, but now I will speak about something I didn't want to:

I've hinted prior at the whole "human element" ordeal, and the reality of certain economic factors. The biggest challenge short-term, is to rid ourselves of this suicidal and idiotic form of economics we have nearly globally. Every single form of economics that has existed on a global scale today has outlived it's use in their current forms we see them. Both socialistic and capitalistic forms of economics are great bootstraps to accelerate progress, but are preposterous with respect to natural order when you have a population that has been stable with around 1 to 1.2 billion people on the planet, to now 7+ billion. The problem with current forms of economics, is the reliance on cyclical consumption and infinite growth. There is no way these sorts of economic systems can ever be allowed to slow or stagnate (this is the definition of recession), let alone stop or reverse (this is depression and full-on economic collapse).

Now the problem with infinite growth, is we live on a finite planet (to put it short). Now you might be asking "yeah okay, what's your point, how does this relate to my kite energy feels?". The problem with why it "feels" it should be done, but isn't (and the internal conflict you have) is your inborn intuition and knowledge/experience is telling you, "this makes sense..why aren't we doing this?" and the reason is because of economics. Outside of the miracle of open-source, and collaborative thought, the current economic incentive doesn't reward something like kite energy. The ROI simply is the main topic of contention after the tech is proven to work. This is why many renewables are actually dead-in-the-water for mass-scale adoption. And in this world with the economies we live under, if there is no monetary incentive, there is no getting anything done. To the contrary, it's worse than that. Many mass-scale profitability initiatives only exist due to the creation of problems AND THEN selling "symptom relief" to those problems, not by actually solving the problems themselves. This is our sort of self-instituted form of natural selection, where the "Economy" is "mother-nature" for us. The only problem is, we already have actual mother-nature that doesn't care about what our will is, actual nature is a dictatorship.

You also see ridiculous ridden things like "patents" and "copyright" and other forms of idea-exclusivity. These sorts of systems all had their place in history, and should not be relinquished as relics. Because when you have the fate of millions of folks around the planet at stake, there isn't a non-psychopathic person out there that will say "No, I think companies need to have their sacred ideas kept to themselves, no matter the cost". They have no place -again I say- in a world where the stakes demand a mode of operation where problems need to be tackled in the same way a civilization were at war, vs in their golden age. These properties of governance, and economy need to have a switch at least.. Actual human progress was always due to the free-flow of ideas, and never by some corporate or monetary incentive hidden away to be only privy to those of some inner circle within companies.

So High Altitude Wind for example, isn't a terrible idea. It just simply has no place for the mode of thinking that currently exists today and is pervading in all facets of life from the grocery store, to college education.

I've gone a bit into the deep end, but giving a simple answer to whatever conundrum you face with the dilema of thoughts you have, doesn't exist. So I apologize, but there simply isn't a better way that I know of, without me coming off as some sort of corny one-liner "woke-type" dude preaching for the abolishment of capitalism (which is what can happen when you give a simple answer to issues that pertain to economics).

Well, I genuinely - in my heart of hearts - don't believe the climate change voodoo. To me, it's obvious that vested interests on all sides can and do result in fraudulence and corruption of science. *But* that doesn't mean I am right wing, or think that we shouldn't be clever and clean about energy. I'm a frugal person by nature - compared to most people here I choose to live life (relatively) 'small' in the more obvious ways. (Just check out the cost of my home-built audio system - about £500, involving recycling of speaker cabinets, secondhand amps, etc. ). I've never spent more than £1600 on a car.

And that frees the money to build furniture or buy stylish secondhand Danish furniture that's far better than the modern version - I live like a prince. It has always seemed to me that if we did things differently in education, politics and economics we might all have more rewarding lives; more free time to build our own houses and so on. But I still want individual freedom and free markets at the heart of it; not totalitarianism masquerading as concern for the planet.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I understand why someone would think UBI is a good thing and may be needed. With increasing automation and if AI gets to be real thing in the near future I get it. What I don't get is any possible way it could really work. I've not seen any explanation that has a chance in hell of working without some big handwaving part that we'll need to start it and work it out.

I think the magic part of capitalism is it fits in with the baser basic nature of humans. Some modifications to it have been put into use for some excesses. It also has a magic in that it works at a personal level to in many ways regulate itself without central planning. There are gov't departments that fix some rules and limit some possibilities, but they don't plan the economy. Doing much planning of the economy necessarily limits some freedoms. Should we give up freedom to save the planet or make the world a better place? So far evidence is freedom does help make the world a better place in more ways than it hurts.

 

[March Audio]

Well, I genuinely - in my heart of hearts - don't believe the climate change voodoo. To me, it's obvious that vested interests on all sides can and do result in fraudulence and corruption of science. *But* that doesn't mean I am right wing, or think that we shouldn't be clever and clean about energy. I'm a frugal person by nature - compared to most people here I choose to live life (relatively) 'small' in the more obvious ways. (Just check out the cost of my home-built audio system - about £500, involving recycling of speaker cabinets, secondhand amps, etc. ). I've never spent more than £1600 on a car.

And that frees the money to build furniture or buy stylish secondhand Danish furniture that's far better than the modern version - I live like a prince. It has always seemed to me that if we did things differently in education, politics and economics we might all have more rewarding lives; more free time to build our own houses and so on. But I still want individual freedom and free markets at the heart of it; not totalitarianism masquerading as concern for the planet.

In some respects it doesnt matter if you (anyone) believes in climate change. The natural resources of oil and gas are finite. At some point it will become uneconomic to extract what is left. This makes the move to renewable resources just as important....well maybe not as important as catastrophic climate change, but very much an imperative to change. Those renewables will be there so long as the sun keeps shining. When it stops we are all screwed anyway

 

[RayDunzl]

It calls for a massive redistribution of wealth though, so many folks are against.

Do you, assuming you have any, want more, assuming some is already, of your "wealth" redistributed?

 

[kevinh]

First my biases.
The climate has been changing since the Earth formed ie for Billions of years. The Earth's Climate will continue to change until the Sun leaves it Hydrogen burning phase and incinerates the Earth in it Red Giant Phase, The Sun's radius will increase past where the Earth is orbiting presently.
CO2 has little impact on climate.
the Global Climate Models haven't been able to make useful predictions, basing anything on computer models is fantasy. I say this as someone who worked in the CAE field most of my career. Liner Models like the GCM's try to model the Climate as a Linear system, which it is not, it is a complex chaotic system with many degrees of freedom and boundary conditions than the GCM's aren't capable of simulating. A simple example they cannot model clouds, think about this Clouds are a major factor on the heating response of the climate system.
The Earth may have (inadvertently) ben SAVED by burning fossil fuels releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere. Levels had been declining steadily for Hundreds of Millions of years fron levels almost an order of magnitude greater than the current levels. The went down to levels of ~180ppm during the last Ice Age. Photosynthesis stops are 150 ppm of CO2, IOW the planet DIES.
Rising CO2 levels have led to a dramatic rise in the Total biomass of the planet in the last 30 years of ~10%. Plants do far better in conditions of Higher CO2 levels. See this presentation by Patrick Moore the founder of Greenpeace on the CO2 deficit and how CO2 has been sequestered over the past 500 million years.

Water Vapor, H2O constitutes ~95% of the Greenhouse Effect for this planet. Selina Water as a Pollutant is a tough sell. Diferentiater CO2 from non scrubbed Soot ie Particulate Emissions which are bad.

Peak Oil has been predicted for 100+ years, we aren't there yet maybe we will sometime but not now.
Liquid fuels are the best fuels, solid fuels are not ideal and tough to manage the waste. Liquid Fuels derived from coals will give us fuel for transportation for many years to come if we hit peak oil.

Solar and Wind Power don't have the energy density to run a madern economy much less satisfy the demands of providing Energy to pull the poor in the third world out of poverty. I am not will to tell thoise people they are not entitled to the level of wealth they I have enjoyed and want for my grandchildren.

Fusion is always been 50- years away since I was a teenager 50 years ago. If it ever happens fine but I am not holding my breath. Uranium and Plutonium reactors has their own problems though they have good energy much higher than chemical/fossil fuels. Current fusion reactors relay on high pressure processes to make energy and the radioactivity is tough in the materials used in the reactor. Uranium 235 is less than 1% OF Natural occurring Uranium.

Thorium is a material that address the isues with Nuclear Power plants people are familiar with. Ther is enough Thorium to provide power for MILLIONS of Years. A liquid fluoride thoriumn reactor is a great solution than can be deployed both in the industrial nations but also in the third world.
The development is going on worldwide right now the Chinese are very invested. This type of reactor was built in the 1960's but the US government killed the funding since they weren't useful for producing materials for nuclear and hydrogen weapons.

Good overview on LMTR and it's benefits here.

 

[Tks]

Well, I genuinely - in my heart of hearts - don't believe the climate change voodoo. To me, it's obvious that vested interests on all sides can and do result in fraudulence and corruption of science. *But* that doesn't mean I am right wing, or think that we shouldn't be clever and clean about energy. I'm a frugal person by nature - compared to most people here I choose to live life (relatively) 'small' in the more obvious ways. (Just check out the cost of my home-built audio system - about £500, involving recycling of speaker cabinets, secondhand amps, etc. ). I've never spent more than £1600 on a car.

And that frees the money to build furniture or buy stylish secondhand Danish furniture that's far better than the modern version - I live like a prince. It has always seemed to me that if we did things differently in education, politics and economics we might all have more rewarding lives; more free time to build our own houses and so on. But I still want individual freedom and free markets at the heart of it; not totalitarianism masquerading as concern for the planet.

Likewise I didn't believe when I first got into audio, that I needed "graphs" to tell me anything about my enjoyment of music. And in the same way I was an idiot by being both ignorant, and simply unknowledgable in anything technical (and still not fully versed in the pure technical theory as probably 95%+ people here, with you being precisely one of those highly educated people in this and orbiting field like electronics after seeing your posts randomly in some very quality discussions) I read the evidence, but also the lack of credible evidence of the side I was on (the purely subjective and dogmatic - almost religious side).

Then I see a place like this. And the people who offer scientific approaches to unknowns, and explanations for inconsistencies.. I first saw the whole "conflict of interest" ordeal relatively absent here and other such sites. I saw the same thing with respect to global warming. The people who don't believe in it, and the open opponents against it, are nearly ALL plagued with conflicts of interest. So even without seeing the pure technical evidence at the time, I automatically understood that people who were adamantly against the findings of global warming were also people steeped in industry that undoubtedly are involved in general pollution of the planet, and have serious monetary incentive to oppose any sort of proposed changes. I find it odd you say you don't believe the "voodoo" of climate change. And then you make the statement there are vested interests on all sides, even after I exclaimed the sorts of systems and people that run it, are all for maintaining this system, and it is intrinsically not one that has stability as even a consideration, let alone a priority.

As for right-wing, left-wing, these are just nonsensical labels created by people too mentally impatient with thinking for prolonged periods. And on some level: human nature that makes us quickly-judgmental and paternalistic creatures. We had to be this way for a long period in our early history especially, we needed simple and quick labels for survival. A moving portion of the long grass brush moving in an open field in the African Sahara naturally led us to believe some predator was about to pounce on us if we remained within the vicinity. Naturally it made more sense to see the moving grass as just the wind that moves all grass, but if you always thought logically back then, you just needed to gamble wrong once, and you're dead. So labeling yourself as left or right wing does yourself a disservice to you and others personally as people are rarely wholly one or the other (only lunatics and ass kissers for their party's superiors attempt to portray themselves publicly as wholly one or the other). Without turning this into a whole other topic, let me just leave you with one example. Some of my ideas for instance are pretty liberal one might label. But most importantly I am wholly conservative with respect to economy. And the sad thing is, many conservatives, and liberals are actually literal hypocrites to the ideals their sorts of ideologies call for in the strict sense.

But getting back to the ordeal of our topic of contention. Your machinations on the matter are well laid out in terms of appeals to emotion for validity of your beliefs. But just because you want something like certain "freedoms" and "free markets" doesn't mean you are entitled to them in every instance of time. I deplore totalitarianism, but if you do as well, then you need to leave the US for instance. It actually is totalitarianism parading as freedom (we need to talk about definitions of freedom btw some other time). The US Constitution is quite an amazing piece of secular writing, hijacked and enveloped by sectarian nonsense of Christianity (hypocrisy at every level from the people running our nation in this matter). You also fool yourself into thinking you live like a prince, in the same way you sort of fool yourself into thinking each side of this debate on climate change is equally plagued by "vested interests" when if you look at the actual state of affairs, it's a massive shift on one side. Likewise with evidence, I simply don't think you've seen enough of it. Nor do I think you're being reasonable when such a massive consensus on the matter in the scientific community is present. You need to see what real princes in Saudi Arabia live like to hold to your claim of living like a prince.

As for getting back to the US again, the issue is, the freedom of markets is an illusion, and ACTUAL free markets always produce the pipedream eventuality of any company: that is to realize themselves as a monopoly of their respective industry, and without some regulations, like nature - the superior de-facto leader/monopoly always will form, and will crush all other serious competition eventually. So when you invite something like true free markets, you invite the end of competition eventually. Also there are readings that need to be done between the inseparable link between industry and governments, one cannot currently exist without the other, which is why things like trillion dollar valuations have now happened, and why tax dodging of the biggest companies goes unpunished, but mom & pop shops get bureaucratically + legally obliterated by government, and economically obliterated if the gates of regulation were actually lifted. This is all even before I start talking about how subsidies and tax-breaks of the top companies artificially skew any real competition, or the philosophies and psychology around how competition always produces a total winner and total loser left to die off.

One thing I really like is your honesty that is somewhat confused as to where and how to manifest itself properly. You claim you feel the world would be better off if certain things were revamped. But the problem is, (I purely guess) you would run into conflicting ideas when to come to the realizations that the things you want to do, run contrary to what immaterial beliefs you hold about the text-book highscool or college level ideas about "freedom" or "free markets".

I always tell people who are bothered by these sorts of topics, take a look at some of the Nordic nations, they are officially a "Kingdom", but are actually a Socialist nation by claim, but actually Democratic in practice. Multiple explorations/studies with people from there confirm they are some of the most socially fluid, happy, educated, crime-devoid, and prosperous folks on Earth. I'm not saying we can apply the system 1:1 here in the US, but like in my other post.. take what works, throw away the stupidities that don't. But people in the past were very quick to call some of them communists/socialists and other such silly things. The interesting thing much of education doesn't teach here in the US is socialism arose out of the failures of things like capitalism and it's cousin-ideologies that give rise to inequality, like monarchies as well. I urge anyone to pay a visit one day in their lives to one of those nations and randomly ask folks they speak with if they feel like they're under some totalitarian regime. As opposed to the function of many governments (which are actually institutions subservient to the ruling classes as can be seen throughout history) highly prosperous nations have governments that serve it's people. So when you have people protesting against government (like right winger sometimes do with respect to governmental involvement) it's precisely because the government isn't serving people, and leaving them "free" free in the sense of being left free to the wolves of people in society that have no qualms about tearing society from piece to piece if it furthers their aspirations.

 

[g29]

With respect to the mini-series. Did anyone pick up on why shutting down the reactor caused it to blow from yesterday's episode ???

TIA

 

[Tks]

Do you, assuming you have any, want more, assuming some is already, of your "wealth" redistributed?

Absolutely yes, but I don't understand why you would ask this.. It's self evident, unless you believe me a hypocrite, then I would suppose your question is valid.

So, you're out of your depth with this question if you're looking for anymore insight other than, if I am a hypocrite or not though..

Likewise, I am out of my depth with entertaining on further elaboration of the logistics on the natural follow-up to your question (if there was one, it would be asking for supposed proposals as to how, why, when, and what form the "wealth" redistribution would occur under). Keep in mind, this topic is about a show on HBO, I take full blame on veering off this far. And I'll take the "hit" on my reputation for stonewalling you if you decide to press me for elaborations.

Oh and also I wouldn't be able to give you a proper answer because THOSE "whys/whens/etc.." are precisely what the topic of contention of social engineers are always deliberating on. But a quick basic answer would be systems of taxation, and democratic referendums/voting of allocation of funds (until AI systems can be brought to speed to properly give us insight as to the effecacy of our choices).

 

[Blumlein 88]

With respect to the mini-series. Did anyone pick up on why shutting down the reactor caused it to blow from yesterday's episode ???

TIA

Not in the episode. I recall reading it was due to the use of graphite which caused instability upon shutdown due to the poor design of the reactor. It was a common problem in that type design that shutting down caused power increases instead. In this case it caused enough of an increase it more or less got out of control. These reactors didn't like running at low power for any length of time as it made such instability more likely. They were running some test of tanks if you remember the first episode. So they ran for quite awhile at very low power during that test. It overheated and cause the steam explosion. Remember the fellow saying over and over they didn't do anything wrong in the test. Well they didn't except if you had been trained about the possible instability, running on low power for a long time was 'wrong' as a procedure of operation or testing.

 

[g29]

Not in the episode. I recall reading it was due to the use of graphite which caused instability upon shutdown due to the poor design of the reactor. It was a common problem in that type design that shutting down caused power increases instead. In this case it caused enough of an increase it more or less got out of control. These reactors didn't like running at low power for any length of time as it made such instability more likely. They were running some test of tanks if you remember the first episode. So they ran for quite awhile at very low power during that test. It overheated and cause the steam explosion.

Thanks much.

 

[Tks]

I understand why someone would think UBI is a good thing and may be needed. With increasing automation and if AI gets to be real thing in the near future I get it. What I don't get is any possible way it could really work. I've not seen any explanation that has a chance in hell of working without some big handwaving part that we'll need to start it and work it out.

I think the magic part of capitalism is it fits in with the baser basic nature of humans. Some modifications to it have been put into use for some excesses. It also has a magic in that it works at a personal level to in many ways regulate itself without central planning. There are gov't departments that fix some rules and limit some possibilities, but they don't plan the economy. Doing much planning of the economy necessarily limits some freedoms. Should we give up freedom to save the planet or make the world a better place? So far evidence is freedom does help make the world a better place in more ways than it hurts.

Let me frame it in a way that can be compared to capitalism in it's current form. You say it's like "basic nature of humans". And we see our nature is quite animalistic, thus be extension any infraction or attempt to go against human nature is an affront to something like capitalism that is also "natural".

The problem is, when did "natural" become "good"? This is why language is quite powerful in the hands of utterly useless but imperatively needed masters of language and emotion churning folks like public figures/politicians.

When well-being is being infringed upon, why does "natural" or anything else matter? It doesn't, and most people will do almost anything to bring an ending to pain/suffering/discontent. Religious people will suspend the beliefs of their life (like hardliner anti-vax, and anti-science, and anti-medicine people) and visit a doctor when their situation becomes grave. There are cases of true devout believers that actually stick to their word under all costs, and the costs have lately been infants dying of easily preventable conditions due to the negligence of these lunatic parents (a case recently of a couple lost their second child this way after they were in court for the first).

Likewise with capitalism.. if it is causing this staggering level of success at the costs of billions of people and animals and life on Earth in general. Why would it make sense to keep doing it, and not always at least attempt to find a better form if we are to stick with it's core tenants? It simply has lost it's purpose, and isn't scaling with all current interpretations and applications of it in the US for instance.

You can't make an appeal to tradition/nature (basically saying, we should do something we always have because it's worked in the past, or because it's "natural"), it's simply logically false. It's like me saying "Let's continue slavery, because it feels natural, and we've always done it, and the economy benefits greatly". If you're not ready to claim this, then you're simply not being consistent.

I'm glad you agree modifications have to be put, but this is always the point of contention "how much" and "what" modifications will suffice? The illusion that it is "self regulating" is the biggest nonsense imaginable, and as totally revealed itself to be a massive falsehood. It is literally the originator of things like monopolies. And with current technology, and things like "copyrights" and "intellectual property", those tools can be leveraged in various ways that totally obliterate any "self regulation" that stands in the way of the pure monetary incentive, and incendiary expansion of the monopoly to unwieldly levels as we've seen from companies deemed "Too Big To Fail".

In survival situations, you either "give up freedoms" or most likely you worsen your chances of survival. You claim "evidence" that "freedom" (this word needs real contextual definitions honestly) helps make the world a better place, more ways than it hurts. Well I can just as easily level the complaints of 1-2 billion people in poverty/stavation on the planet that will easily stand against whatever evidence you claim to have. Quite firmly I would imagine. Now if you said capitalism/freedom MADE the world a better place, or makes SOME aspects of the world better, then I would agree in the past tense for capitalism, and agree freedom makes things always better for the majority of society. But when a fight or flight moment comes, you're going to wish monarchies returned, just for the sake of survival.