The problem with Trump

[Fryowa]

Secondarily, I agree nuclear is crucial, and if we hadn't demonized it 40 years ago, we would be in a lot better place now. I also think EVs are a part of the solution. If your car can only be powered by 1 thing (gas), that is not nearly as good as if it can be powered by many things (natural gas, coal, solar, wind, nuclear, the next new thing that hasn't been invented yet).

Again I think you and I agree on 99% of the conceptual ideas.

If we could all of a sudden change our power over to nuclear in the world almost all our relevant problems would be doneski. Seriously. It's almost zero emissions other than some heat, and we can bury the waste under mountains for the next thousand years and not even make the tiniest dent in the ecology of the world.

EVs is a topic I like to read about for a lot of reasons. I used to work in the electrical distribution field which I think helps me see the big picture. They're a quaint and novel idea, but they don't even put a drop in a ten gallon bucket to emissions. Plants generating electricity are what's causing emission problems.

Let's even say we could snap our fingers and all our power plants were magically nuclear or wind/hydro generated. Great...now we solved the electricity problem and we can make all EVs, right? Nope. Not even close. We have no way to get electricity to those vehicles because our distribution network in this country was designed in the 1950s for 1950s loads. If we even turned 10% of the nation's current gas/diesel vehicles to EV it would instantly cripple the entire country's power grid and it would cost tens of trillions to upgrade and many many decades to do it.

People can go ahead and make a token statement by buying an EV and saying at least they're doing their part, but it's really just show. They electricity they're using is coming mostly from coal burning. Windmills create the same amount of emissions per unit from raw material to installation/construction than they generate in their useful service lives. It's all really just show until we can get to nuclear power. Maybe in 4 or 5 generations we can get there.

EVs are a good thought and made with good intent. But they aren't helping the real problem and just serve as a somewhat disingenuous guilt-reducer to wealthy people who can afford them. The same wealthier demographic that is many hundreds of times more likely to fly in an airplane for work or pleasure multiple times a year burning kerosene and have a 3,000 square foot house using 1,600 kW/H a month. It ain't the guy driving an '07 Acadia to work at Foot Locker every day.

 

[Fryowa]

The EVs of today are not moving the needle a ton, but the EVs of 50 years from now will be, and they will never be built unless we start pushing in that direction now.

But is that based on something or just hopeful wishing? Not being sarcastic.

Because hopeful wishing is what got us to where we are now with millions of people deluded into thinking they're making a difference because they got sold that idea.

Even in 50 years it will take the same amount of energy to move 50 lbs a distance of 50 feet. What specifically makes you think that in 50 years we'll be able to move that 50 lbs at a much lower cost to society?

 

[Fryowa]

Communism and capitalism are both solid ideas on paper. However neither works the way they got drawn up, not even close.

But one of them has led to a better (relative) quality of life for a greater percentage of their citizenry and that's backed up with a few hundred years of evidence.

If someone has a better idea and wants to put together a hundred-year case study I genuinely hope it works.

 

[PCHawk]

Communism and capitalism are both solid ideas on paper. However neither works the way they got drawn up, not even close.

But one of them has led to a better (relative) quality of life for a greater percentage of their citizenry and that's backed up with a few hundred years of evidence.

If someone has a better idea and wants to put together a hundred-year case study I genuinely hope it works.

Capitalism rewards ambition. I think people underestimate how bad it gets when that ambition is taken away.

 

[PCHawk]

But is that based on something or just hopeful wishing? Not being sarcastic.

Because hopeful wishing is what got us to where we are now with millions of people deluded into thinking they're making a difference because they got sold that idea.

Even in 50 years it will take the same amount of energy to move 50 lbs a distance of 50 feet. What specifically makes you think that in 50 years we'll be able to move that 50 lbs at a much lower cost to society?

Not to speak for him, but I would say it's based on human history of technological improvement. They're already getting better for range so that's one improvement. They're starting to make big trucks that are electric so that's another. 50 years is a long time.

On a side note, I recently got a tesla and it's the coolest car I've ever had. It's saving us a pretty big amount of money too. I don't really fall into the "I need to do my part" crowd. But I did end up with an EV for other reasons.

 

[PCHawk]

Fry is in here giving very logical, right down the middle opinions and is still going to piss off huck. I can't wait.

 

[CP87]

But is that based on something or just hopeful wishing? Not being sarcastic.

Because hopeful wishing is what got us to where we are now with millions of people deluded into thinking they're making a difference because they got sold that idea.

Even in 50 years it will take the same amount of energy to move 50 lbs a distance of 50 feet. What specifically makes you think that in 50 years we'll be able to move that 50 lbs at a much lower cost to society?

Just the general progression of technology. The original cars sucked, way worse than walking or horseback. But, with technological progression and building of the right infrastructure, we can now get in our cars in Iowa and drive to either coast in less than 2 days (good luck doing that on horseback).

Had we just looked at those original crappy cars and deduced they weren't worth our time, we would never have gotten here.

Likewise, the Wright brothers' stupid idea for a flying machine led to a paltry hundred yard "flight" after years and much failure. But, it is now hard to imagine society without air travel.

As you said, electric distribution infrastructure needs to improve dramatically....but most of that is not technological, it just requires vision and will. I think we can get there.

The price of solar and wind have come down dramatically, and are projected to fall further:



Energy storage is the next hurdle. That will take technological advancements, but lots of smart people are working on it.

As for the cars themselves, I am guessing/hoping that battery technology will continue to improve, and hopefully lead to cheap, more sustainable options.

I am definitely an optimist in this regard, but I have lots of faith that smart people will continue to do amazing things, and I think our collective will to push things toward an "electric future" is growing.

This youtube creator has lots of interesting content on emerging technologies that will impact our energy future. Many of the things he highlights will never be feasible at scale or economically, but it is encouraging to see all of the different things being explored:

Undecided with Matt Ferrell

As a UI/UX designer by trade, I explore how sustainable and smart technologies impact our lives. And I try to dive deeper into those topics to provide context. Topics like electric vehicles, solar panels, and renewable energy that is meant to transition the world off of fossil fuels. Smart...

www.youtube.com

 

[HuckFinn]

A couple of off handed comments. Not going to go into details on this broader topic.

First, I have spent a month in Ontario annually since 1987. I have spoken, often in detail, with literally 100’s of Canadian citizens in a wide variety of backgrounds and age groups. I have been treated by Canadian health care personally, and have been with other US citizens who have done so. Recently, a friend had an emergency surgery incident.

I have never, ever, heard unkind words from Canadian’s about their health care system. They love it. My personal experiences have been excellent. My friends emergency was 100% positive. The Republican Party has lied through their teeth repeatedly about Canada’s system.

Yes. Elective treatment involves longer wait times. That is OK. In fact, the wait times in the US for electives are not much different.

In fact, wait times for Dr. appointments here are crazy. Recently, 6 months for my physical with my family Dr. Same with specialists, though one was 12 months. (I have Medicare and Advantage with United Health Care.)
My coverage is cheaper and higher quality than the private coverage I had for years as a public employee.

Look at the quality ratings for US health care. They kind of suck. Canada ranks substantially higher than the US.

Finally, since I transitioned to Social Security and Medicare, I have lost my fear of government run retirement and health care. And, they sure as hell are not free! I pay premiums in accordance with my income, which is fine with me.

Just my thoughts…

 

[PCHawk]

Too bad there isn't a better option for heath care other than throwing away billions to insurance companies as a middle man or trusting a government that ruins everything they touch to run it.

 

[Fryowa]

A couple of off handed comments. Not going to go into details on this broader topic.

First, I have spent a month in Ontario annually since 1987. I have spoken, often in detail, with literally 100’s of Canadian citizens in a wide variety of backgrounds and age groups. I have been treated by Canadian health care personally, and have been with other US citizens who have done so. Recently, a friend had an emergency surgery incident.

I have never, ever, heard unkind words from Canadian’s about their health care system. They love it. My personal experiences have been excellent. My friends emergency was 100% positive. The Republican Party has lied through their teeth repeatedly about Canada’s system.

Yes. Elective treatment involves longer wait times. That is OK. In fact, the wait times in the US for electives are not much different.

In fact, wait times for Dr. appointments here are crazy. Recently, 6 months for my physical with my family Dr. Same with specialists, though one was 12 months. (I have Medicare and Advantage with United Health Care.)
My coverage is cheaper and higher quality than the private coverage I had for years as a public employee.

Look at the quality ratings for US health care. They kind of suck. Canada ranks substantially higher than the US.

Finally, since I transitioned to Social Security and Medicare, I have lost my fear of government run retirement and health care. And, they sure as hell are not free! I pay premiums in accordance with my income, which is fine with me.

Just my thoughts…

The feedback I've heard from co-workers and contacts has been the exact opposite actually. Which is ok and not unexpected. Canada is a huge place with a lot of different people much like here. I do know all the people interact with are from Alberta and BC, mostly BC. I'd imagine there are a lot of differences between there and Ontario similar to our coasts vs. Midwest and South, etc.

 

[Hawkboys]

Too bad there isn't a better option for heath care other than throwing away billions to insurance companies as a middle man or trusting a government that ruins everything they touch to run it.

There are some health care co-ops popping up here and there. The problem with those is that they are hyper-sensitive to pre-existing conditions and if you get 1 long term cancer treatment all the monthly dues rise tenfold in cost.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

Wow. This thread has evolved into the "Hawkeye Fanbase Think Tank..."

I'll throw in a little of my perspective on these issues.

As far as capitalism versus communism/socialism, I would agree for the most part with many of the thoughts above. Human beings are greedy by nature. That greed - if properly incentivized - breeds innovation and technological advancements well beyond what is seen in any system where efforts and ambition are not adequately rewarded (or if at all). As Fry has eloquently pointed out, without reward for effort the vast majority of our technological advances wouldn't have happened, or, at the very least, would have been significantly delayed. Greed, however, also breeds corruption, envy and narcissism.

Both systems are double-edged swords, and, as others have pointed out, a good system necessitates a balance. That is the quandary - what is the proper balance? Scholars have debated that for hundreds of years, and will continue to do so. Ambition and effort must be rewarded, but the populace should also be incentivized to work towards the common good and equity (real equity, not the distorted policies that continue to rain down on us that have a paradoxical effect).

Global warming and climate change are interesting subjects that unfortunately have been highly politicized, and the viewpoints and assertions are often polarized exaggerations to fit narratives. The scientific evidence is there, no doubt, however there remains substantial debate as to the role we as human beings play in those changes and how much control (if any) we have to mitigate it.

As Fry stated, there is minimal chance that EV vehicles will have a substantial impact. For political and almost "religious" reasons, criticism of any "green" mandate gets characterized as "radical right wing" views and/or propaganda. Nevertheless, very few people are willing to openly discuss the negatives - the primarily fossil-fuel source of the stored energy (wool over our eyes...), the negative environmental impact of battery disposal, etc.

As for healthcare, I'll come back to that one when I've got a little more time.

 

[PCHawk]

Wow. This thread has evolved into the "Hawkeye Fanbase Think Tank..."

I'll throw in a little of my perspective on these issues.

As far as capitalism versus communism/socialism, I would agree for the most part with many of the thoughts above. Human beings are greedy by nature. That greed - if properly incentivized - breeds innovation and technological advancements well beyond what is seen in any system where efforts and ambition are not adequately rewarded (or if at all). As Fry has eloquently pointed out, without reward for effort the vast majority of our technological advances wouldn't have happened, or, at the very least, would have been significantly delayed. Greed, however, also breeds corruption, envy and narcissism.

Both systems are double-edged swords, and, as others have pointed out, a good system necessitates a balance. That is the quandary - what is the proper balance? Scholars have debated that for hundreds of years, and will continue to do so. Ambition and effort must be rewarded, but the populace should also be incentivized to work towards the common good and equity (real equity, not the distorted policies that continue to rain down on us that have a paradoxical effect).

Global warming and climate change are interesting subjects that unfortunately have been highly politicized, and the viewpoints and assertions are often polarized exaggerations to fit narratives. The scientific evidence is there, no doubt, however there remains substantial debate as to the role we as human beings play in those changes and how much control (if any) we have to mitigate it.

As Fry stated, there is minimal chance that EV vehicles will have a substantial impact. For political and almost "religious" reasons, criticism of any "green" mandate gets characterized as "radical right wing" views and/or propaganda. Nevertheless, very few people are willing to openly discuss the negatives - the primarily fossil-fuel source of the stored energy (wool over our eyes...), the negative environmental impact of battery disposal, etc.

As for healthcare, I'll come back to that one when I've got a little more time.

The weird thing about climate change is the people pushing it the hardest don't seem to really care based on their actions. How can you take them serious when they're flying private jets and buying beachfront properties. The words coming out of their mouths lead us to believe they know things are dire. But their actions lead us to believe the aren't concerned at all. If the people that are saying we should he concerned aren't even concerned themselves, why should we be?

 

[CP87]

Wow. This thread has evolved into the "Hawkeye Fanbase Think Tank..."

I'll throw in a little of my perspective on these issues.

As far as capitalism versus communism/socialism, I would agree for the most part with many of the thoughts above. Human beings are greedy by nature. That greed - if properly incentivized - breeds innovation and technological advancements well beyond what is seen in any system where efforts and ambition are not adequately rewarded (or if at all). As Fry has eloquently pointed out, without reward for effort the vast majority of our technological advances wouldn't have happened, or, at the very least, would have been significantly delayed. Greed, however, also breeds corruption, envy and narcissism.

Both systems are double-edged swords, and, as others have pointed out, a good system necessitates a balance. That is the quandary - what is the proper balance? Scholars have debated that for hundreds of years, and will continue to do so. Ambition and effort must be rewarded, but the populace should also be incentivized to work towards the common good and equity (real equity, not the distorted policies that continue to rain down on us that have a paradoxical effect).

Global warming and climate change are interesting subjects that unfortunately have been highly politicized, and the viewpoints and assertions are often polarized exaggerations to fit narratives. The scientific evidence is there, no doubt, however there remains substantial debate as to the role we as human beings play in those changes and how much control (if any) we have to mitigate it.

As Fry stated, there is minimal chance that EV vehicles will have a substantial impact. For political and almost "religious" reasons, criticism of any "green" mandate gets characterized as "radical right wing" views and/or propaganda. Nevertheless, very few people are willing to openly discuss the negatives - the primarily fossil-fuel source of the stored energy (wool over our eyes...), the negative environmental impact of battery disposal, etc.

As for healthcare, I'll come back to that one when I've got a little more time.

I think the human-link to our current climate situation is pretty well established at this point. The historical CO2 levels from polar ice cores was the smoking gun that ended that debate. Yes, climate has never been static, it has always been changing for reasons both predictable (procession of earth's axis, eccentricity of earth's orbit) and unpredictable (volcanic eruptions, emergence of new organisms, etc.). We know how we expect global temps to change based upon the predictable factors, and the acceleration above that prediction line has been unprecedented, and it has coincided pretty much perfectly with rising atmospheric CO2 levels which started climbing with the dawning of the industrial revolution.

One way I have seen the debate about what we should do about it framed is wizards vs. prophets. Wizards see technological innovation as the solution, prophets preach doom and gloom, hoping to guilt people into behavior change. Guilt doesn't work very well, so I don't have much confidence there. I am going to bank on technological innovations to help us slow the rising temps, and more importantly, live with the ensuing global changes.

 

[CP87]

The weird thing about climate change is the people pushing it the hardest don't seem to really care based on their actions. How can you take them serious when they're flying private jets and buying beachfront properties. The words coming out of their mouths lead us to believe they know things are dire. But their actions lead us to believe the aren't concerned at all. If the people that are saying we should he concerned aren't even concerned themselves, why should we be?

I think it matters, I would say I care about it a bit. I try to minimize my car trips (unless the I don't feel like it), and I talk about giving up meat a lot (usually while eating a burger). So, I think I am doing my part.

If I actually did half of the "good" things I think about doing, I would be freaking Mother Theresa.

 

[trj]

The weird thing about climate change is the people pushing it the hardest don't seem to really care based on their actions. How can you take them serious when they're flying private jets and buying beachfront properties. The words coming out of their mouths lead us to believe they know things are dire. But their actions lead us to believe the aren't concerned at all. If the people that are saying we should he concerned aren't even concerned themselves, why should we be?

Are you basing that on what you see from the Hollywood elite or is it deeper than that? It is easy to roll your eyes at Leonardo Dicaprio, as he is hanging out with a 25 year old super model, but do you really think that he is that disconnected, in regards to climate change?

 

[PCHawk]

Are you basing that on what you see from the Hollywood elite or is it deeper than that? It is easy to roll your eyes at Leonardo Dicaprio, as he is hanging out with a 25 year old super model, but do you really think that he is that disconnected, in regards to climate change?

Some of it is Hollywood. But those people are saying things other people tell them to believe so it doesn't mean much that they don't fully commit to a different lifestyle. What concerns me are the smart people like the WEF people who do it. They're the ones who "know" what's happening and still live like they do.