My Prediction of the End of the United States

[Guest Scott]

Quote

Moving manufacturing out of China and into the US protects the environment including reduction of carbon emissions.  Do you disagree?

I both agree and disagree.  Much of the manufactured industries in China, don't use more carbon to produce goods, while some do. 

So moving manufacturing out of China and into the US won't do much (if anything) to reduce carbon emissions, other than transportation costs.

It would however, reduce other pollutant emissions.  Air quality in all large Chinese cities is extremely poor.  Air quality is not the same as carbon emissions.  China puts a ridiculously number of dangerous chemicals into the air.   

Quote

 It's easy to say "more should be done".  Everybody wants to preserve the planet for future generations.  It's more complicated to actually identify WHAT can be done that is not being pursued already balancing such actions against its consequences as you have proven in your own life not being able to "do more" as you desired due to REALITY being in the way - like your wife's health.

There are a lot of things that can be done.  I realize that these are liberal ideas, but so be it.

For example, in some communities (even in overall conservative states such as Utah), new buildings are required to use sustainable energy.

Industries should be required to reduce harmful emissions through modernized scrubbers, for example. 

Aging coal plants should be required to modernize or convert to cleaner sources of energy. It may be more expensive, but it is still possible (and in my eyes worth it). 

The coal and electric industry was subsidized for decades.  Have them pay back the money by  subsidizing alternatives until the technology is improved.  They were subsidized for years by taxpayers; so I see nothing wrong with having them put money back into other forms of energy.

For every new mine permit that is issued, have the mine industry clean up one or more of the old mines that was constructed before the environmental regulations are in place.  Why do the tax payers have to fork out 100% of the money for these Superfund sites and cleanups?   Why is it the EPA itself who is cleaning up these sites?

Here is a major EPA screw up:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-06/documents/_epaoig_20170612-17-p-0250.pdf

My viewpoint is that the EPA shouldn't have been the ones doing the cleanup in the first place.  The mining industry should do it.  If you want to open up a new well or mine, especially if on public lands, your industry should be the ones cleaning up ones from your predecessors.  Is it fair?   Maybe not, but it is fair the taxpayers have to do it.

Here's one that hopefully conservatives would agree with.   Private industries who cause an oil spill should be 100% responsible for footing the bill to clean up that spill.   The taxpayers shouldn't be the ones doing it.

Here's where you may disagree, but I'd say apply that same concept above to air pollution.

 Automakers have always balked at fuel economy and pollution standards, but it has been proven over and over again that they can be met.   Back in the 1970's, all of the auto industry said that cars would become unsafe if they had to meet fuel economy standards.  Now days, cars are much safer and more efficient than they were in the past.  It isn't all because of the free market.

I mentioned that my two former supervisors were charged with conspiracy for poisoning water in Utah.  All they got was a slap on the wrist.  Punishment for intentionally violating pollution laws should be harsher.

Is the above extreme?   Am I an extremist?   Maybe it is and maybe I am, but look at what these industries have done to people and are doing.  

The US is overall a very clean country and we are clean users of energy.  We can still do better.

While the above may seem extreme to some, we're talking about people's health and lives here.   Why should any industry be allowed and encouraged to harm other people if that harm is preventable?  

I already know we disagree on these issues, but I see pollution (especially from working for some of these industries) as a very serious problem.   

I believe that industry, corporations, and the economy should all thrive.  I still believe that they can do this, even if being responsible with the environment.  

It would be nice if corporations and industries will just solve the problems of pollution on their own, without any need for regulation, but they will not (at least not before the second coming).

Do I trust the government?   Most certainly not.

I don't trust many of industries and corporations to do the right thing on their own either.

I this case, governmental regulation may well be evil, but it's the lesser of two evils and a necessary one.   

So, I guess when it comes to environmental issues, you can go ahead and call me a liberal of extreme leftist, or whatever name you can come up with.

From a legal standpoint, I believe that anyone should be able to do whatever they want as long as it does harm another.  Pollution does harm people though.  Why should other people have the right to harm someone else if the harm is preventable (within reason)? 

Quote

You cannot be Conservative and hold that bolded position.  The foundation of Conservatism is that INDIVIDUALS are more trustworthy to do the right thing than GOVERNMENTS.  Hence, the basic Conservative principle of LIBERTY FROM GOVERNMENT that results in small government.

I agree with your definitions of Conservatism.  I am not a Conservative, though, though I believe that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish as long as it doesn't harm someone else.  The thing about pollution is that it does harm others.   So, while I am not a Liberal, I do side with them on environmental issues (as should be obvious by now). 

This is not true on many other issues though.

For the record, I consider my self moderate on gun control, liberal on environmental issues, conservative on many welfare and personal responsibility issues, etc.  I am mostly conservative on Affirmative Action, for example.  Discrimination on the basis of race, sex, etc, should be illegal, but forcing companies to hire people based on race is racist by definition.  

Some issues I am not really either.   For example, I am not opposed to welfare when truly needed, but with rare exceptions, it should not be free.  For many welfare issues, I think we should bring back the CCC, for example.  

The CCC was a welfare program that allowed people who are out of work to work for a living.   They would do projects to help communities.   The jobs paid enough so these people could feed their families, while intentionally paying less than jobs in the private industry so there was an incentive for them to get out of the program as soon as possible.

I see nothing wrong with this.  So instead of giving free welfare to those down on their luck, but who are still able-bodied, why not have them do community beautification projects for their welfare?  They could pick up trash along the highways, plant flowers in park, or clear trails in Forest Service Lands.  This would be way better than giving handouts, at least in my opinion.  

PS, considering some conservatives (I'm not referring to anyone on this forum), a lot of politicians who call themselves Conservatives seem to really only mean they are for smaller Federal Government, but in reality they are for more State Government.   Let me give an example.  I don't drink alcohol, but I lived in Utah for most of my life.   In Utah, which is supposedly the most conservative state in the nation, you must buy your alcohol from a state owned and run liquor store.  How is this small government?  I find it strange that a lot of politicians calling for small government support things like this.  

Anyway, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on many of these issues.  

 

Edited December 4, 2018 by Scott

[JohnsonJones]

15 hours ago, Scott said:

 

That's only because of the larger population countries in the world the US is per capita by far the largest carbon emitter.  

 

I think that is actually CHINA which is the largest carbon emitter.

Someone posted a link that showed over 70% of carbon was due to 100 companies.  Guess who was at the top of the list.  China Coal.

The Chinese say they are supporting environmental protections, but I do NOT see it.

Percentage wise, they may be lower I suppose, but some of it we DO not know because we don't have the people over there to see how bad it really is.  The horror stories coming out of China though indicate that they are under reporting how much they are polluting by a MASSIVE margin.

14 hours ago, anatess2 said:

But, China, EXCEEDS the US on total carbon emissions even as it doesn't rank in the top 10 of industrialized nations being largely agrarian.  The size of the USA at 325 million is a lot smaller than China's 1.38 billion dropping China to the bottom of the per capita measures which is IRRELEVANT because it doesn't change the fact that China's industry pollutes the environment a whole lot more than US industry even as most of China is agrarian! 

That is why... ANY effort to move industry out of China/India and into the USA is a POSITIVE impact on the environment.

 

China is absolutely HORRENDOUS.  I would not be surprised if the amount reported is flat out wrong.  From everything I've heard, China is currently a living horror story of pollution and emissions.  Every US citizen that I know that have gone there have horror stories about how massively bad the cities are at polluting.  Some say they are making small steps, but it's NOTHING compared to what the US has done.

China is saying one thing, but actually doing another from what I can tell.  This is ALSO one of the major reasons some simply say we shouldn't even try.  Compared to the amount of pollution coming from China and other nations, even if the US went to zero carbon emissions, it wouldn't change anything.  The amount of emissions from everyone else is simply more than what one nation can change on it's own.

5 hours ago, Scott said:

Anyway, I'm not going to take a holier than though position, but am just going to say that there are things individuals can do to help, regardless of politics. Next week we are moving into a house powered 100% by solar power. Creating solar power causes some pollutants, but not nearly that many, so there is no need to argue against solar. I have done a lot of travelling and we also offset all our carbons and do so ten times the amount we use. It is done through the The Nature Conservancy.   They are a reputable company and not a scam. I have seen their programs first hand. Anyone can do this.

For the US, this is what I think SHOULD BE DONE.  If the US invested to buy Solar panels and expand Solar Power to all the houses in the US it would be EXPENSIVE.  You may have to cut every program for a year just to pay for that.  At ten thousand per household family that could be 1 Trillion dollars.  However, long term that would end up utilizing a LOT LESS of other energy resources and I think...long term would end up saving many money on energy and bring about a much cleaner way to have energy.

If, along with that, for those who were only LOCAL travel (as batteries are not great yet) we then also had them only drive electric vehicles for those who only needed to drive shorter distances, I think that would do a great deal.

I agree that Trump is probably pretty far right in regards to the entire Global Warming issue, even if I don't agree with your points about China.  I'd also say, the ideas I posit above are FAR LEFT ideas that are no where close to being towards the middle.

That said, going back to the original post...

On ‎12‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 4:01 PM, Carborendum said:

We are all aware of the polarization of politics in the U.S. today.  The conditions are ripe for another revolution or civil war in this country. Whichever way you want to see it, it will spell the end of the U.S. as we know it -- the end of Constitutional Government.  It is hanging by a thread as it is.  But any such revolt has a triggering event --  a spark.  If this trigger is to happen in the next few years, I have an idea of what that trigger might be.

• November 2020: Trump wins re-election (along with Pence).

I'm thinking this is where the prediction stops right there.  I'm not seeing Trump winning a re-election.  Only reason he won last time was that the candidate he ran against was worse in most people's minds.

If the Democrats at least run someone who can win the popularity of their party (instead of stacking it with the super delegates) and be somewhat of a reasonable candidate, I think Trump would be toast.  Of course the Democrats could always toss common sense to the wind again...but if they don't, I think Trump stands a high chance of losing.

(and yes, I know @anatess2 probably disagrees with my assessment, but then we probably can agree we won't see eye to eye on this one).

[JohnsonJones]

31 minutes ago, Scott said:

Here is a major EPA screw up:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-06/documents/_epaoig_20170612-17-p-0250.pdf

My viewpoint is that the EPA shouldn't have been the ones doing the cleanup in the first place.  The mining industry should do it.  If you want to open up a new well or mine, especially if on public lands, your industry should be the ones cleaning up ones from your predecessors.  Is it fair?   Maybe not, but it is fair the taxpayers have to do it.

Here's one that hopefully conservatives would agree with.   Private industries who cause an oil spill should be 100% responsible for footing the bill to clean up that spill.   The taxpayers shouldn't be the ones doing it.

 

I absolutely agree with this.

I think the problem with this and with many other things (such as the idea I said with Solar Panels above) boils down to money.  The money spent on the coal companies went into the owners and bosses pockets decades ago never to be seen by the public again.  When the coal mine is finished, the US will pursue them with fines and other things, but the original owners may be dead, the bosses may have vanished, or they may have spent all the money and so couldn't pay for it even if they wanted to.

The other problem is that the fines are not defined enough.  They are far too high for an individual who may own a small business, but far too small for a major corporation that can earn more than that in an hour of operation while polluting then if they chose to be clean.

Changes to this I think probably would need to stem from Congress getting together and agreeing on laws and such to make changes.  In that light, they normally look at more temporary and pressing matters in regards to their political futures rather than a more longterm outlook on the environment.  It doesn't matter if it's Republicans or Democrats (and Democrats had a majority and the Executive less than 10 years ago if I recall, they could have made the major changes then) they both have short term political goals driving them rather than longer term environmental or other aspects in their wings typically.

All as my opinion...of course.

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, Scott said:

I both agree and disagree.  Much of the manufactured industries in China, don't use more carbon to produce goods, while some do. 

So moving manufacturing out of China and into the US won't do much (if anything) to reduce carbon emissions, other than transportation costs.

It would however, reduce other pollutant emissions.  Air quality in all large Chinese cities is extremely poor.  Air quality is not the same as carbon emissions.  China puts a ridiculously number of dangerous chemicals into the air.   

There are a lot of things that can be done.  I realize that these are liberal ideas, but so be it.
 

They're not liberal ideas.  At least liberal ideas make sense.  I am a liberal on environment protection.

Your statements contradict one from the other such that it doesn't make much sense.

On one sentence you say, Moving manufacturing out of China and into the US does not improve environmental impact.  Then the next phrase you say, except for transportation impact.  Then the next sentence China is terrible with environment protection.

From my chair, it sounds like you're just disagreeing for disagreement's sake.

 

9 minutes ago, Scott said:

For example, in some communities (even in overall conservative states such as Utah), new buildings are required to use sustainable energy.

 

See... here's another illogic.  The phrase "Even in" promotes the idea that it is a surprise for Conservatives to protect their environment.

 

9 minutes ago, Scott said:

Industries should be required to reduce harmful emissions through modernized scrubbers, for example. 

Aging coal plants should be required to modernize or convert to cleaner sources of energy. It may be more expensive, but it is still possible (and in my eyes worth it). 

The coal and electric industry was subsidized for decades.  Have them pay back the money by  subsidizing alternatives until the technology is improved.  They were subsidized for years by taxpayers; so I see nothing wrong with having them put money back into other forms of energy.

For every new mine permit that is issued, have the mine industry clean up one or more of the old mines that was constructed before the environmental regulations are in place.  Why do the tax payers have to fork out 100% of the money for these Superfund sites and cleanups?   Why is it the EPA itself who is cleaning up these sites?

Here is a major EPA screw up:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-06/documents/_epaoig_20170612-17-p-0250.pdf

<snip>
 

Nothing flows in a vacuum.  Everything has consequences.  Saying, "industries should..." cannot stand up in a vacuum because the other side is... "who is going to pay for the should?".

So you say, businesses should take it out of their profits.  Sure.  Any business owner would know that a business is only viable when the Return is worth the Investment.  So, you strap in the regulation that a business is legally required to use renewable energy.  And like the RV boondocking challenges on energy consumption show, solar energy has a high cost associated to it, higher than fossil fuel, without the ability to eliminate fossil fuel as the sun is not always shining and the wind is not always blowing.  So, the requirement would put the cost of operating a business at a higher price point.  So you would say... so what?  It's well worth the cost!  Well, the business has to recoup that cost somehow to meet ROI, otherwise, there's no point in going into business.  So, it gets passed down to consumers through the product price.  Say the business makes pencils... so puts the price of a pack of pencils at $3 and puts it in Walmart.  Well, guess what... China, with their pollutants, can put a pack of pencils at $1 in Walmart and people will not pick up the $3 pencil, so the American business folds...  So, instead of the regulation effectively cleaning the air, it made the air worse because you just gave China more opportunity to expand their pencil businesses.

So, like I said... things have to be considered in balance.  We all want the same end result.  Like I said, I'm on the liberal side of environment protection.  But we can't just install "feel good" solutions without thinking about the consequences of what you're actually doing and its end result.

 

9 minutes ago, Scott said:

Is the above extreme?   Am I an extremist?   Maybe it is and maybe I am, but look at what these industries have done to people and are doing.  
 

You're more misguided than you are extreme.   Thinking with your heart more than your brain as you buy into the leftist propaganda... "Look at what these industries have done..."  Yes.  Exactly.  Look at what these industries have done.  You are lapping in the luxury of what these industries have made possible for you.

 

 

 

[Guest Scott]

Quote

I think that is actually CHINA which is the largest carbon emitter.

You are correct, but they have a much bigger population. About 20% of the worlds population lives in China. China and India combine have around 40% of the world's population. 

Quote

 

China is absolutely HORRENDOUS.  I would not be surprised if the amount reported is flat out wrong.  From everything I've heard, China is currently a living horror story of pollution and emissions.  Every US citizen that I know that have gone there have horror stories about how massively bad the cities are at polluting.  Some say they are making small steps, but it's NOTHING compared to what the US has done.

 

Yes, I agree (and I have been to China).

For straight carbon emissions only though, many Chinese products (It's pretty split down the middle) don't use more carbon emissions to produce the same product than the US does.

China, however has a far worse air pollution and other pollution problem.  It really is horrendous.   India might be worse.  

Quote

Compared to the amount of pollution coming from China and other nations, even if the US went to zero carbon emissions, it wouldn't change anything.

Of course it would change something.  Every little bit helps.  

Quote

 If the US invested to buy Solar panels and expand Solar Power to all the houses in the US it would be EXPENSIVE.  You may have to cut every program for a year just to pay for that.  At ten thousand per household family that could be 1 Trillion dollars.  However, long term that would end up utilizing a LOT LESS of other energy resources and I think...long term would end up saving many money on energy and bring about a much cleaner way to have energy.

For a house at least, solar power is generally cheaper in the long run expensive short term.

I have calculated that it will take 12 years to break even on my (currently being installed) solar panels, even with the tax break.  It would take about 16 years to break even if there were no tax break.  

Quote

At ten thousand per household family that could be 1 Trillion dollars.

It's more than that.  Here is a basic synopsis for anyone interested.

My house is 1719 square feet and it is going to cost around $23,000 (and PS anatess, for the record I requested US built solar panels  ).

Power cost are expected to rise about 4% per year, so that has to be taken in account.

Whether or not you save money on the power bills themselves depends on how long you keep a house.  Solar panels are supposed to last 40 years or so.

If your current power bill is $100, and this rises 4% per year, the total cost of 10 years of power (without solar panels) would be around $14,400. 

After 20 years, the total cost of your power bill (without solar panels) will be about $35,700.

After 30 years, the total cost of your power bill (without solar panels) will be about $67,300.

After 40 years (the expected life cycle of solar panels), the total cost of your power bill (without solar panels) will be about $114,000.

So, in the long run, solar panels save a lot of money.  

[The Folk Prophet]

@anatess2 I haven't gone through and liked and/or even completely read all the posts herein, but from what I have read...kudos, as typical, on your political perspective. Sure, we don't agree on everything. But overall -- like, like, like.

[anatess2]

22 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

For the US, this is what I think SHOULD BE DONE.  If the US invested to buy Solar panels and expand Solar Power to all the houses in the US it would be EXPENSIVE.  You may have to cut every program for a year just to pay for that.  At ten thousand per household family that could be 1 Trillion dollars.  However, long term that would end up utilizing a LOT LESS of other energy resources and I think...long term would end up saving many money on energy and bring about a much cleaner way to have energy.

Not with today's technology.

Solar power technology still largely relies on fossil fuels and carbon-emitting manufacturing in its production.  So you're in a chicken and egg scenario... You increase environmental impact to produce Solar Power equipment, especially with the current life-span of batteries, just so you can reduce environmental impact... that's where we are today.

This technology still has to improve drastically for it to be viable as a replacement of fossil fuel.

 

 

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, Scott said:

You are correct, but they have a much bigger population. About 20% of the worlds population lives in China. China and India combine have around 40% of the world's population. 

Completely irrelevant.  Completely.  

It's okay that you're throwing plastic bags in the ocean because you have 20 children.  Those with only 2 children have to use paper bags.  SENSELESS.

[anatess2]

28 minutes ago, Scott said:

It's more than that.  Here is a basic synopsis for anyone interested.

My house is 1719 square feet and it is going to cost around $23,000 (and PS anatess, for the record I requested US built solar panels  ).

Power cost are expected to rise about 4% per year, so that has to be taken in account.

Whether or not you save money on the power bills themselves depends on how long you keep a house.  Solar panels are supposed to last 40 years or so.

If your current power bill is $100, and this rises 4% per year, the total cost of 10 years of power (without solar panels) would be around $14,400. 

After 20 years, the total cost of your power bill (without solar panels) will be about $35,700.

After 30 years, the total cost of your power bill (without solar panels) will be about $67,300.

After 40 years (the expected life cycle of solar panels), the total cost of your power bill (without solar panels) will be about $114,000.

So, in the long run, solar panels save a lot of money.  

Depending on where you live in the USA, "grid parity" (reducing the price of solar to be equal to or less than the grid) is not always achievable.  Not in today's technology. 

Factors: 
1.)  The sun is not always shining so you cannot completely be independent of grid power.  Some states allow net-metering... where your extra solar power goes back to the grid and credits your bill for it.  The farther north you go, and also depending on whether you have fixed or tiltable array, the difference between net metered solar and grid use during no-shine days favor more to the grid than to the net-metered power.  The best example is Washington State - the state with a low cost of grid power is also the state with the least amount of sunshine.  So.. achieving grid parity in Washington is going to be difficult.
2.)  Battery technology is still a challenge.  Your batteries is not going to last 40 years.  You'll be lucky if it lasts 15. 
3.)  Solar equipment maintenance.   Florida, the sunshine state, has no problem achieving grid parity... until the hurricane comes.

AND... here's the kicker... in today's technology, your American Solar Power equipment was produced through.... tat-tada... fossil fuels.  So, more than likely, you are simply recouping the environmental impact in the making of your solar equipment in your use of solar equipment.

But, that said... all things have to start somewhere.

Texas Wind Power on the other hand... is something to take note of.  The wind corridor flows through Texas... lucky them.  It's like they just got blessed with all kinds of energy potential.

Edited December 4, 2018 by anatess2

[Guest Scott]

Quote

On one sentence you say, Moving manufacturing out of China and into the US does not improve environmental impact.  Then the next phrase you say, except for transportation impact.  Then the next sentence China is terrible with environment protection.

No, I did not say anything like that. That's way off base from what I said, so apparently you misunderstood what I said.  Here it is broken down.

Quote

On one sentence you say, Moving manufacturing out of China and into the US does not improve environmental impact.

No, I did not say that.  I said it wouldn't do much to improve carbon emissions specifically.    You mentioned carbon emissions in China and I was referring to those specifically.  

There is a lot to more to environmental impact than carbon emissions.  Some pollution control systems actually increase carbon emissions, which is unavoidable in many circumstances.

Let's use the example of a catalytic converter in a modern car, for example.   Catalytic converters increase greenhouse gas emissions.  A catalytic converter converts harmful pollutants into less harmful pollutants.  Catalytic converters, for example convert a harmful gas, say carbon monoxide into a less harmful gas (carbon dioxide).

So, while catalytic converters do increase Co2 emissions, the alternative is far worse.  Co2 is the lesser of two evils if you will.

In other words, catalytic converters vastly improve air quality even though they increase greenhouse gas emissions. 

I hope this isn't getting off track since I'm not comparing catalytic converter use in the US vs. China, but just showing that there are different kinds of pollution.

Moving manufacturing out of China and into the US won't do much to decrease carbon emissions specifically (minus transportation as mentioned).  You mentioned carbon emissions specifically and I was responding to that.  Moving manufacturing from China to the US will improve air quality, however, which is what I was referring to in the other comments.  

Air quality and carbon emissions are not the same thing.  

Quote

Then the next sentence China is terrible with environment protection.

Yes, this is true.  I am not speaking of carbon emissions specifically.  

Chinese air quality is horrific in the big cities.   This isn't due to Co2 (Co2 is completely harmless to breath).  It is due to So2, NOx, particulates, etc.

So, to sum it up, moving manufacturing from China to the US won't do much as far as carbon emissions are concerned.   It will however, greatly reduce other forms of pollution.  

China's air quality is just nasty.  The air is much cleaner in the US than cities in China, even in the US cities that are known for air pollution.  

So, moving manufacturing out of China into the US will improve air quality, but not necessarily improve carbon emissions.  

Does this make sense?  

   

Edited December 4, 2018 by Scott

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, Scott said:

No, I did not say anything like that. That's way off base from what I said, so apparently you misunderstood what I said.  Here it is broken down.

<snip>

   

Let's simplify this.  Do you agree or disagree that American Manufacturing is more environmentally responsible than Chinese Manufacturing?

That's all there is to it.

There's no sense complicating something very simple.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Scott]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Do you agree or disagree that American Manufacturing is more environmentally responsible than Chinese Manufacturing?

Yes, I strongly agree.

Since we're keeping it simple, I also say that it  is primarily because of the laws protections in place in this country and that China is a good example of why we don't want to be lax in our environmental policies.  

[anatess2]

Just now, Scott said:

Yes, I strongly agree.

Since we're keeping it simple, I also say that it  is primarily because of the laws protections in place in this country and that China is a good example of why we don't want to be lax in our environmental policies.  

Then hurray.  Trump just made the world cleaner.

Unless, of course, you swallowed the fake news propaganda that Trump's deregulation is making the US on par with China.  

[Guest Scott]

Quote

Depending on where you live in the USA, "grid parity" (reducing the price of solar to be equal to or less than the grid) is not always achievable.

Agreed.   There are a lot of places where solar won't work so well.   

 

Quote

 

 

Quote

 3.)  Solar equipment maintenance.   Florida, the sunshine state, has no problem achieving grid parity... until the hurricane comes.

I'll worry about that the next time a hurricane hits Colorado.

Quote

AND... here's the kicker... in today's technology, your American Solar Power equipment was produced through.... tat-tada... fossil fuels. 

Yes, I know.

Also, I am not against the use of fossil fuels.  I just think we should protect the environment more while using them.  I believe that we can use fossil fuels and protect the environment at the same time.   It sounds that you do too, but we have different ideas of how to do so.  Further even, I believe that we can protect the environment, use fossil, fuels, and have a strong economy.  All three are important.   

Anyway, I'm currently a highway engineer.   Obviously I am not against using fossil fuels.   Even if you could build a car without using fossil fuels and it could run on an alternate fuel (thorium?), asphalt pavement is almost entirely composed of oil, rock, and air.    

Also, assuming we don't burn it all up first, what we are now using as fossil fuels are the building materials of the future.  Have you heard of carbon nanotubes?  If not, they are at least 100 times stronger than steel of the same diameter and yet far lighter.   It my opinion, for example, that the key to future space exploration will be based on carbon based building materials.

Quote

Unless, of course, you swallowed the fake news propaganda that Trump's deregulation is making the US on par with China.  

No, I don't think that.   I still think Trump should be doing far more for the environment that he is (or even better, the citizens and lawmakers should be doing more, in my opinion).   Thank you for the conversation, but in this respect, we'll just have to agree to disagree.  I don't think I can say much more on the matter.  

 

Edited December 4, 2018 by Scott

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, Scott said:

I'm curious as to what your source is?  American built SunPower solar cells are warranted for 25 years and have a 40 year expected life cycle.

https://us.sunpower.com/sites/sunpower/files/media-library/white-papers/wp-sunpower-module-40-year-useful-life.pdf

Of course, they could be lying. 

If mine go out in 15 years, you are free to tell me "I told you so".

I'll worry about that the next time a hurricane hits Colorado.

I am currently assigned to work for the Energy Sector - Fossil, Wind, and Solar.   I deal with data management. 

You will be replacing that battery before your solar panels.  And expecting to pay zero maintenance cost on the system is not wise.  You need to put that into your calculations.

 

10 minutes ago, Scott said:

Also, I am not against the use of fossil fuels.  I just think we should protect the environment more while using them.  I believe that we can use fossil fuels and protect the environment at the same time.   It sounds that you do too, but we have different ideas of how to do so.  Further even, I believe that we can protect the environment, use fossil, fuels, and have a strong economy.  All three are important.   

Anyway, I'm currently a highway engineer.   Obviously I am not against using fossil fuels.   Even if you could build a car without using fossil fuels and it could run on an alternate fuel (thorium?), asphalt pavement is almost entirely composed of oil, rock, and air.    

Also, assuming we don't burn it all up first, what we are now using as fossil fuels are the building materials of the future.  Have you heard of carbon nanotubes?  If not, they are at least 100 times stronger than steel of the same diameter and yet far lighter.   It my opinion, for example, that the key to future space exploration will be based on carbon based building materials.

Well, there you go... You agree with Trump. 

 

10 minutes ago, Scott said:

No, I don't think that.   I still think Trump should be doing far more for the environment that he is (or even better, the citizens and lawmakers should be doing more, in my opinion).   Thank you for the conversation, but in this respect, we'll just have to agree to disagree.  I don't think I can say much more on the matter.  

 

Arbitrary with zero grounds.  You agree with Trump, yet you hate on him.  Sad.  But that's the story of the current state of  the American "Resistance".  I don't care if you disagree.  I only care that your basis for the disagreement doesn't make sense.

[Guest Scott]

36 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I am currently assigned to work for the Energy Sector - Fossil, Wind, and Solar.   I deal with data management. 

You will be replacing that battery before your solar panels.  And expecting to pay zero maintenance cost on the system is not wise.  You need to put that into your calculations.

I was in a hurry and shouldn't have posted so quickly and should have read your post more carefully. Scratch that.  You were speaking of the batteries, not the solar panels.  My mistake and my apology.

I do not have batteries.  Around here, when you have solar (a lot of people around here have solar), you are still connected to the grid, just as you said when you were explaining net metering and how the extra solar power goes back in the grid and is credited. 

36 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Well, there you go... You agree with Trump. 

No (see below).  

36 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 

Arbitrary with zero grounds.  You agree with Trump, yet you hate on him.  Sad.  But that's the story of the current state of  the American "Resistance".  I don't care if you disagree.  I only care that your basis for the disagreement doesn't make sense.

Although I believe that we can use fossil fuels and protect the environment at the same time, I do not believe this is what Trump is doing.  Trump is favoring short term profits and gain over long term environmental effects.  

I already gave examples of what I believed should be done to curb pollution.

So far the only thing you have said that Trump has done for the environment is to move industry (though he hasn't accomplished this) from China to the US  (and I promise you that his motivation had nothing to do with the environment).  I also added earlier that he did sign an ocean plastics pollution law.  Do you really think that that's all he can do to help?  I don't.  

Trumps policies have been very anti-environment.  This is very obvious.    If they weren't, those who care about the environment would be more apt to support and vote for him.

As for me, I would love to vote for any republican that supports the environment and wants to cut back on pollution.  Bush Sr. was an example of a Republican who was very friendly with environmental causes.

I am not against industry, but it should be done responsibly.  Obviously, we disagree on what is responsible when it comes to the environment.   We obviously won't agree on this and neither will I agree with Trump on what is responsible.   In my own mind, that us, as one of the richest and most industrial nations in the world are killing hundreds of thousands of people through pollution, then we as a nation should make some changes.  We can afford it and the cost is worth it in my opinion.   

If you don't think this makes sense, then it is pointless to discuss further.  

 

 

 

 

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

I was in a hurry and shouldn't have posted so quickly and should have read your post more carefully. Scratch that.  You were speaking of the batteries, not the solar panels.  My mistake and my apology.

I do not have batteries.  Around here, when you have solar (a lot of people around here have solar), you are still connected to the grid, just as you said when you were explaining net metering and how the extra solar power goes back in the grid and is credited. 

Then you're not saving $114,000 minus the cost of solar panels and the inverter in 40 years if you're having to use grid power everytime the sun goes down.  Not even with net metering.  With the initial cost of installation, equipment maintenance, and grid power on low light... you might save $10,000 in 40 years with the tax credit if your system doesn't malfunction after 25 years.

Solar tech and other renewable energy has a long way to go still before it can be universally viable in achieving grid parity with fossil fuel. 

1 hour ago, Scott said:

Although I believe that we can use fossil fuels and protect the environment at the same time, I do not believe this is what Trump is doing.  Trump is favoring short term profits and gain over long term environmental effects.  

I already gave examples of what I believed should be done to curb pollution.

So far the only thing you have said that Trump has done for the environment is to move industry (though he hasn't accomplished this) from China to the US  (and I promise you that his motivation had nothing to do with the environment).  I also added earlier that he did sign an ocean plastics pollution law.  Do you really think that that's all he can do to help?  I don't.  

Trumps policies have been very anti-environment.  This is very obvious.    If they weren't, those who care about the environment would be more apt to support and vote for him.

As for me, I would love to vote for any republican that supports the environment and wants to cut back on pollution.  Bush Sr. was an example of a Republican who was very friendly with environmental causes.

I am not against industry, but it should be done responsibly.  Obviously, we disagree on what is responsible when it comes to the environment.   We obviously won't agree on this and neither will I agree with Trump on what is responsible.   In my own mind, that us, as one of the richest and most industrial nations in the world are killing hundreds of thousands of people through pollution, then we as a nation should make some changes.  We can afford it and the cost is worth it in my opinion.   

If you don't think this makes sense, then it is pointless to discuss further. 

 

Okay.  Here's the Dept of Interior notice on the Alaska drilling project.  Find anywhere in that document that supports your view that Trump is anti-environment.

"Those who care about the environment would be more apt to support and vote for him"  - that's leftist propaganda.  We've already established that Conservatism supports the environment.  Conservatives support Trump.  The Alaska drilling project was supported along party lines.  Is your position that only Democrats care about the environment?

 

 

 

 

[Guest Scott]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Then you're not saving $114,000 minus the cost of solar panels and the inverter in 40 years if you're having to use grid power everytime the sun goes down.  

Here's how it works here:

The number of solar panels is calculated off the expected electricity usage for the specified time period of 10-40 years.  I chose 40 years.   Solar degradation is calculated and the number of solar panels was based off the estimated average power use over the next 40 years.   The amount of solar panels is calculated at 106% of expected usage over a 40 year time period.  The buyer purchases the calculated amount of solar panels to produce 106% if the expected electricity to run the house.   If you use less power than expected, the power company buys electricity from you at the wholesale rate.

So starting out, because the solar panels were calculated off what would be needed over 40 years and since they are brand new, at first at least I should be producing a lot more electricity than I use and the power company should be buying some of it back.

As I said though, they are currently being installed so I can't say how it's going to work out with usage.  I should be producing 106% of all the power I need for the next 40 years, but obviously that is just an estimate.

If you or anyone else really are interested in how it works out, I can keep you updated.  
 

Quote

Solar tech and other renewable energy has a long way to go still before it can be universally viable in achieving grid parity with fossil fuel. 

I agree.  Solar power is practical to run a house, but not so much to run huge factories or skyscrapers in a huge city, at least not at this time.   We should still be looking for alternate sources. 

Quote

Okay.  Here's the Dept of Interior notice on the Alaska drilling project.  Find anywhere in that document that supports your view that Trump is anti-environment.

"Those who care about the environment would be more apt to support and vote for him"  - that's leftist propaganda.  We've already established that Conservatism supports the environment. 

I'm sorry, I still don't see why Conservatism overall supports the environment.  At the very least, it's not enough (in my opinion). 

There are plenty of documents that show that Trump has a lot of policies that are anti-environment. Here are a few random ones:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/climate/trump-environment-rules-reversed.html

We don't need to keep rehashing the same things over and over again.  You yourself have said/implied that Conservatives overall don't support more government regulation.  

The area where we disagree is that I say that (unfortunately), regulation and laws are the only reasonable way that things like clean air and water will be achieved.  Most big businesses aren't going to eat into their profits voluntarily. Some will, but most won't. I don't feel that corporations should be the ones deciding how much pollution they feel like putting out, especially when it affects our health.   You can call me unreasonable if you want, but if you disagree on this, we simply will never agree.

Let's move on. 

Quote

Conservatives support Trump.  The Alaska drilling project was supported along party lines.  Is your position that only Democrats care about the environment?

There are many Republicans who care about the environment.  It's many of the Republican politicians who do not.  "Environmentalist" has almost become a swear word among some politicians.  Maybe Florida and other places are different, but my experience has been from Utah and Coal country in Colorado.  

If you want names, some people I am referring to are Lyman White, Shauna Cox, and John Kinkaid, all of whom I have personal experience with.  

Edited December 5, 2018 by Scott

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Scott said:

We don't need to keep rehashing the same things over and over again.  You yourself have said/implied that Conservatives overall don't support more government regulation.  

You are going by the misguided assumption that all regulations protect the environment.  I illustrated to you the fallacy of that assumption before using the pencil company example..  You also have the misguided assumption that government is the sole answer to environmental protections.

The French is one of the bastions of Global Warming alarmists.  Yet here we are...

 

Edited December 5, 2018 by anatess2

[Guest Scott]

Quote

You also have the misguided assumption that government is the sole answer to environmental protections.

Unfortunately, until hearts change and greed becomes less prominent, laws to protect citizens are necessary.

Can you propose an alternative?  

How do you think the pollution problem will get solved with any laws or regulations?

This  is a question, not an argument.  

[JohnsonJones]

7 hours ago, Scott said:

Unfortunately, until hearts change and greed becomes less prominent, laws to protect citizens are necessary.

Can you propose an alternative?  

How do you think the pollution problem will get solved with any laws or regulations?

This  is a question, not an argument.  

My own opinion...Money talks. 

If we want to convert everyone in the US to Solar (at least in their homes) it's going to need to be paid for by the government or another entity, or it's going to need to be so cheap that they will leap on the opportunity.

The flaw I see is that people thus far are using the idea that if they RAISE prices that the alternate forms of energy will look more favorably since they will become cheaper in comparison to what they were.  In reality people just see additional taxes by the government causing the price to rise, not any valid or reasonable form of actual cost increase.

This means that they feel no incentive to change (and in some instances, actual resentment and solid resistance to even consider changing). 

Further resentment builds when they see the government raising taxes in what they see as being arbitrary while people in china or other nations have no such restrictions or restraints placed upon them, even while those nations give lip service to the idea that has our home nations raising the taxes.

The other issue is convenience.  If we could make it more convenient to use alternate energy than it is to use current forms, people would also be more inclined to change to them.  It is like Amazon (which uses a TON of energy and causes a TON of carbon emissions if you think about it).  It got BIG because of convenience to many, and also at times with certain products, the price was cheaper.  Combine the two and you now have the mega corp in the room which is Amazon today that is influencing retailers and small businesses to go out of business (though Walmart still is a giant in the room that remains much larger...for the present).

If one can tackle those twin issues to make alternate forms of energy cheaper and more convenient you will see people jump to use them in masses unforeseen.  I think those are the areas where we should be focusing our energy and money on in regards to Carbon Emissions and energy usage rather than raising taxes on current energy forms or trying to obsolete them by government rather than as natural consequences of people seeing a better and more viable solution.

[clbent04]

On 12/2/2018 at 4:01 PM, Carborendum said:

We are all aware of the polarization of politics in the U.S. today.  The conditions are ripe for another revolution or civil war in this country. Whichever way you want to see it, it will spell the end of the U.S. as we know it -- the end of Constitutional Government.  It is hanging by a thread as it is.  But any such revolt has a triggering event --  a spark.  If this trigger is to happen in the next few years, I have an idea of what that trigger might be.

• November 2020: Trump wins re-election (along with Pence).
• Within that interim period, Trump is assassinated. (Tell me there isn't enough animosity and Trump-hatred to preclude this).   http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/crime-and-courts/4536890-north-dakota-man-pleads-guilty-taking-forklift-planning-flip
• Pence takes over as President for the interim.
• But with Trump's death, many electors change their votes to parties unknown.  No one reaches 270 votes (Pres or V.P.).
• The election of the new President IMMEDIATELY goes to the House.  The currently Democratic House.
• The House elects a socialist as President.
• The Senate must vote for a V.P.  Several Republicans turncoat and they elect a socialist as V.P. as well.

Even though, technically, everything except for the assassination was Constitutional, this will smell to high heaven to to many people.  There will be a revolt.  Martial law.  Constitution is suspended indefinitely -- i.e. abolished.

I have my reasons for believing it will be in the next few years.  But "a few years" could be one year or it could be 10.  Many more than 10 and who knows what can change?  But this is just one scenario that I could envision as setting off the spark.

Now that I've given your daily dose of doom and gloom, I hope you have a nice week.

No way, Jose. 

[Still_Small_Voice]

I have solar panels on our house. They are costing us $35,000 plus 6.5 percent annual interest rate for the twenty year loan.  My payments every month are $280 per month for the panels and at least a $25 to $40 per month for the power bill.  My power bills were rarely more than $305 per month before the panels.  In the blazing summer months my power bill is only reduced by about 50 percent because of running the air conditioner all the time.  If the panels were about $15,000 I would consider them worth it, but mine are very over priced.

[anatess2]

On 12/5/2018 at 1:18 AM, Scott said:

Unfortunately, until hearts change and greed becomes less prominent, laws to protect citizens are necessary.

Can you propose an alternative?  

How do you think the pollution problem will get solved with any laws or regulations?

This  is a question, not an argument.  

Watch this video.  Tupy is a liberal.  I agree with him.  The Environement is a Holistic problem.  It requires Holistic solutions.  Enforcing excessive laws and regulations on the very few countries who have managed to achieve prosperity to the point that they have the luxury of choosing long-term environment protection over immediate survival does not solve your problems when the majority of the planet is occupied by those who do not have the luxury of worrying about what they are going to breathe in 50 years when they're barely fighting to stay alive today.

Rather, enforcing excessive laws and regulations on those few countries would risk their decline out of prosperity back to the point of barely fighting to stay alive (perfect example is what is happening to France today) sending environmental concerns back to the bottom of the "important for survival" stack because now you're back to choosing between dying of starvation or dying of pollution.

 

 

Edited December 17, 2018 by anatess2

[scottyg]

On 12/2/2018 at 10:14 PM, dogwater said:

I think the Trump and the animosity are a hiccup while we sort out our tribalist behaviors into a more constructive path. I think the society and system can withstand the pressure and adapt in a constructive way.

I surely hope so...but the Nephites and Lamanites were unable to do it. After awhile the "ites" creep back in, and everyone separates. I love that that book was written for our day.