The Right Defines The Right. The Left Defines The Left.

[T. A. Gardner]

Hello T. A. Gardner,

It was good. The Obama/Biden recovery was real and reliable. It was a great improvement over the chaos they took on when entering office.

It was doing okay, not good, and the recovery had stabilized.

Like it or not the climate is changing. The climate doesn't care what our economy is doing. It's changing and that demands that we take action. Obama's responsible action was a preservation of habitat and life.

Okay, then the responsible thing is to do what works. Solar and wind don't work. They're expensive, unreliable, and basically really mediocre ways to generate electricity. What does work is nuclear to replace coal, abandon solar and wind, and supplement nuclear with natural gas. You get low CO2 emissions--well below what the Paris accords call for--don't need to squander trillions on a "smart grid" that if Germany is any indication, won't work as advertised anyway, and have cheap abundant, reliable electrical power.
You stop subsidizing failure. That also means no more government handouts for battery cars. You push hydrogen fuel cell technology instead. With cheap, abundant electrical power from nuclear you can make the hydrogen competitive with oil in cost.

Actually the economic recovery was about the same for Trump's first year until he signed off on that terribly irresponsible tax cut that essentially quit paying for government and instead threw borrowed money at the rich. The regulations cut were needed to protect the environment. China built a strong middle class by ignoring air quality. We were foolish to relax our standards. We have shown we can do it while protecting the environment. Sure it's harder, but we've never backed down from a tough challenge when our nation is on the line.

Actually, Obama's recovery was anywhere from 5 to 15% less effective than the Trump plan. That's generalizing. The Obama plan threw money at the poor. More people than ever on food stamps, welfare, etc. That's just a huge drag on the economy as it is money that is totally unproductive, contrary to Nancy Pelosi's idiot claims to the contrary.

The US didn't relax air quality standards. Trump just nixed making them even stricter. Under Obama, the EPA was poised to put a regulation in place lowering acceptable ozone pollution from 75 ppb to 70 ppb (they were shooting for 65 ppb but even they couldn't justify that economically) at an annual cost on the economy of an estimated $100 billion. That's 5 parts per billion reduction. That in terms of the US population amounts to less than a 1 person reduction. It's NOTHING!
The EPA tried to justify this by saying they had studies that showed it would save the US annually about 35,000 deaths from asthma related causes and at least $100 billion a year from that. There were some in Congress who questioned their numbers and when pressed to show evidence the EPA balked, backpedaled, and ultimately refused to show any to Congress! It's a great example of how bureaucrats with an agenda cannot be trusted to do the right thing.

The pandemic is real. The only nonsense is the mixed signals coming from Trump, which have made it far worse than it had to be.

Yes, it is. The solutions so far have been highly political, questionably effective, and when it comes to numbers definitely not honest.

By irresponsibly squandering the environment and the federal budget.

Trump has done neither. He hasn't rolled back in place regulations but rather stopped government agencies from endlessly tightening them for little or no return on investment. That's good for the US, and good for the federal budget.

Obama was responsible, Trump was not.

In your opinion. My view is Obama didn't have a clue what was going on and let the Alphabet Soup of agencies run amok. That is irresponsible. Trump put a clamp on them, fired a lot of deadwood and put them on notice that he wasn't going to let them do whatever they wanted. That's responsible.

Millions of Americans now have healthcare as a result of the PPACA. Nobody can be rejected for preexisting conditions. Trump has a case before the SCOTUS which tries to take all of that away. You are going to be charged more for your preexisting conditions if Trump wins.

No, millions of Americans who had health insurance were forced onto Obamacare. The only new people were almost entirely those that got expanded Medicaid coverage. The pre-existing condition thing is one of the few popular parts of Obamacare, and I can see it being retained with some exceptions even if Obamacare were nixed entirely. But, it still remains that about the same number of people in the US don't have health insurance today as when Obama took office.

As you can see, it was Medicaid expansion that caused the drop in numbers of people without coverage. This graph also shows that today there are about the same number uncovered by insurance as when Obama took office.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello T. A. Gardner,

Okay, then the responsible thing is to do what works. Solar and wind don't work. They're expensive, unreliable, and basically really mediocre ways to generate electricity.

Actually, solar is now considered more reliable than old tech in the Caribbean:

Puerto Rico is shifting to solar energy after Hurricane Maria

Bahamas Rebuilding Power System With Solar After Hurricane Dorian

What does work is nuclear to replace coal, abandon solar and wind, and supplement nuclear with natural gas. You get low CO2 emissions--well below what the Paris accords call for--don't need to squander trillions on a "smart grid" that if Germany is any indication, won't work as advertised anyway, and have cheap abundant, reliable electrical power.
You stop subsidizing failure. That also means no more government handouts for battery cars. You push hydrogen fuel cell technology instead. With cheap, abundant electrical power from nuclear you can make the hydrogen competitive with oil in cost.

I am all for affordable and safe nuclear, but it has to be some kind of new tech. The old style is too expensive and too dangerous. I do not support fracking and gas expansion. That's bad for the environment and it destroys communities where fracking comes in. Hydrogen fuel cell sounds intriguing, but who's doing it? What's holding that back? Why are we not seeing any of that being introduced?

 

[Minister of Truth]

It was easy to argue for the left.

All that is required is to post the facts and back them up with links to solid credible sources.

The right shoots itself in the foot because the right TRIES to define the left with a bunch of made-up nonsense.

The left doesn't have to make up anything about the right. The right is so bad, all the left needs to do is state the facts.

The left is solidly footed in reality, the right is hopelessly lost in propaganda.

The right is obsessed with the left, fixated, gripped with hatred and fear.

The left is astonished at the right.

If you ask the left what is wrong with the right you will get a fairly accurate description. No need to embellish.

If you ask the right what is wrong with the left you will generally get fantasy and fabricated falsehoods.

Sure, there are exceptions on both sides. I'm certainly speaking of generalities here.

But the stark difference cannot be ignored. It's real.

The biggest problem for the right is it constantly attempts to redefine the left, and in so doing it defines itself as fake.

I take it you're currently embarrassed by all of the rioting by leftists that you think will be costly during an election year?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

It was easy to argue for the left.

All that is required is to post the facts and back them up with links to solid credible sources.

The right shoots itself in the foot because the right TRIES to define the left with a bunch of made-up nonsense.

The left doesn't have to make up anything about the right. The right is so bad, all the left needs to do is state the facts.

The left is solidly footed in reality, the right is hopelessly lost in propaganda.

The right is obsessed with the left, fixated, gripped with hatred and fear.

The left is astonished at the right.

If you ask the left what is wrong with the right you will get a fairly accurate description. No need to embellish.

If you ask the right what is wrong with the left you will generally get fantasy and fabricated falsehoods.

Sure, there are exceptions on both sides. I'm certainly speaking of generalities here.

But the stark difference cannot be ignored. It's real.

The biggest problem for the right is it constantly attempts to redefine the left, and in so doing it defines itself as fake.

you're an idiot.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Hello T. A. Gardner,



Actually, solar is now considered more reliable than old tech in the Caribbean:

Puerto Rico is shifting to solar energy after Hurricane Maria

Bahamas Rebuilding Power System With Solar After Hurricane Dorian



I am all for affordable and safe nuclear, but it has to be some kind of new tech. The old style is too expensive and too dangerous. I do not support fracking and gas expansion. That's bad for the environment and it destroys communities where fracking comes in. Hydrogen fuel cell sounds intriguing, but who's doing it? What's holding that back? Why are we not seeing any of that being introduced?

Even the older pressurized water and boiling water reactors are safe. Yes, there's better technology out there. As for expensive... Palo Verde nuclear in Arizona was the last nuclear plant built in the US. It cost $11.5 billion in 2016 dollars to construct. The Ivanpah solar array in California is currently the largest one in the US. It cost $2.5 billion to build in 2016 dollars.
Palo Verde annually produces about 34 times, THIRTY-FOUR TIMES, more power than Ivanpah (32,300 GW / yr vs 940 GW / yr). Both take up roughly the same amount of land. To make solar plants that can produce the same as Palo Verde you'd have to spend about $85 billion in 2016 dollars and those plants would occupy an area roughly 70 MILES on a side. That's how inefficient solar is. That CANNOT be gotten around. You cannot increase the watt density of sunlight nor can you obtain 100% efficiency in converting it to electricity. Perpetual motion machines don't exist.

Then there's environmental... Solar is far less friendly there too. Huge solar arrays create urban heat island effects that change weather patterns. Clear cutting and flattening thousands of square miles of land to put them on is destructive. With Ivanpah, they had to buy additional land equal to the size of the plant and then move Desert Tortoises, an endangered species off the plant land onto the extra land that now can't be used for anything. Ivanpah kills thousands of birds singeing or cooking them from the heat it gives off. It increases the ozone pollution there from the heat too.
Nuclear causes none of that.

The need for natural gas to supplement lots of nuclear would reduce the amount of production needed to support that. So, that industry would shrink in response to market demand. Coal miners can mine uranium and thorium instead.

As for hydrogen, the big roadblock right now is storage. Hydrogen is such a small atom that it 'sees' a heavy steel tank for storage like a screen door. It leaks out. There are some solutions being tried to this and once a cheap and workable one is in use that problem goes away. The technology to use it is already available and improving.

That's the 2020 Honda Clarity. It runs on hydrogen. It can go about 300 to 400 miles on a tank of hydrogen. It fills up like any other car.

Hydrogen filling station incorporated into an existing gasoline station

It's every bit as practical as gasoline as a portable fuel. Once we figure out how to keep it in a tank without it escaping slowly, we've got this nailed.

That's opposed to having to have parking lots full of these everywhere

Battery cars are impractical.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello T. A. Gardner,

Even the older pressurized water and boiling water reactors are safe. Yes, there's better technology out there. As for expensive... Palo Verde nuclear in Arizona was the last nuclear plant built in the US. It cost $11.5 billion in 2016 dollars to construct. The Ivanpah solar array in California is currently the largest one in the US. It cost $2.5 billion to build in 2016 dollars.
Palo Verde annually produces about 34 times, THIRTY-FOUR TIMES, more power than Ivanpah (32,300 GW / yr vs 940 GW / yr). Both take up roughly the same amount of land. To make solar plants that can produce the same as Palo Verde you'd have to spend about $85 billion in 2016 dollars and those plants would occupy an area roughly 70 MILES on a side. That's how inefficient solar is. That CANNOT be gotten around. You cannot increase the watt density of sunlight nor can you obtain 100% efficiency in converting it to electricity. Perpetual motion machines don't exist.

Then there's environmental... Solar is far less friendly there too. Huge solar arrays create urban heat island effects that change weather patterns. Clear cutting and flattening thousands of square miles of land to put them on is destructive. With Ivanpah, they had to buy additional land equal to the size of the plant and then move Desert Tortoises, an endangered species off the plant land onto the extra land that now can't be used for anything. Ivanpah kills thousands of birds singeing or cooking them from the heat it gives off. It increases the ozone pollution there from the heat too.
Nuclear causes none of that.

The need for natural gas to supplement lots of nuclear would reduce the amount of production needed to support that. So, that industry would shrink in response to market demand. Coal miners can mine uranium and thorium instead.

As for hydrogen, the big roadblock right now is storage. Hydrogen is such a small atom that it 'sees' a heavy steel tank for storage like a screen door. It leaks out. There are some solutions being tried to this and once a cheap and workable one is in use that problem goes away. The technology to use it is already available and improving.

That's the 2020 Honda Clarity. It runs on hydrogen. It can go about 300 to 400 miles on a tank of hydrogen. It fills up like any other car.

Hydrogen filling station incorporated into an existing gasoline station

It's every bit as practical as gasoline as a portable fuel. Once we figure out how to keep it in a tank without it escaping slowly, we've got this nailed.

That's opposed to having to have parking lots full of these everywhere

Battery cars are impractical.

Amount of land for solar - We've got plenty of land. Building tops. And the technology is looking at making roadways which generate solar power.

Bird hazard - real and a concern, but is it as bad as it's portrayed? How does it compare to the number of birds killed by autos, airliners and tall glass buildings?

One-time expense is one thing. How about ongoing expenses?

Not much to maintaining the power from a solar array. Build it, keep it clean. What else is there. It's 'low overhead.'

Nuclear is great. I'm for that as part of the energy equation. But I see it as an ongoing expense. Expensive well educated workers, expensive parts and supplies. The fuel is not cheap to mine and transport. Then what do you do with spent fuel? Lotta expense to deal with it. The way the price of solar continues to drop I wonder if the long term comparison ends up being solar is cheaper in the long run.

Thanks for the shots of the clarity and the Hydrogen filling station. Good to see we are trying all kinds of possibilities. I hope that works out. We need better cleaner options for energy.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Hello T. A. Gardner,



Amount of land for solar - We've got plenty of land. Building tops. And the technology is looking at making roadways which generate solar power.

Bird hazard - real and a concern, but is it as bad as it's portrayed? How does it compare to the number of birds killed by autos, airliners and tall glass buildings?

One-time expense is one thing. How about ongoing expenses?

Not much to maintaining the power from a solar array. Build it, keep it clean. What else is there. It's 'low overhead.'

Nuclear is great. I'm for that as part of the energy equation. But I see it as an ongoing expense. Expensive well educated workers, expensive parts and supplies. The fuel is not cheap to mine and transport. Then what do you do with spent fuel? Lotta expense to deal with it. The way the price of solar continues to drop I wonder if the long term comparison ends up being solar is cheaper in the long run.

Thanks for the shots of the clarity and the Hydrogen filling station. Good to see we are trying all kinds of possibilities. I hope that works out. We need better cleaner options for energy.

Here's the problem with solar:

To get one watt/day of power out of a solar array you need about 5 watts of installed capacity. So, the array needs to be five times larger than the power you want to supply over a 24 hour period. But because you have to generate all your power while the sun's up, you now need storage for roughly 3 of the 5 watts of power you generate. This means installing 3 watts of battery capacity, 3 watts of pumped hydro (add a watt for the pumps so now you have 6 watts of capacity), 3 watts of flywheels, etc.
The result is your array is five times the size it needs to be because of how solar works and you have a second site where 3 watts of capacity sit to hold the power you'll need when the sun goes down. That makes the cost of the system grossly expensive for the amount of power produced. This also requires far more land.
To totally replace coal and nuclear with solar would require you pave over an area roughly the size of say, Arizona or New Mexico with nothing but solar panels and then install the batteries, etc., in an area roughly about 250 to 400 miles on a side on top of that.

That is not practical, efficient, or desirable.

Then you need a "smart grid" to move that power around because the weather isn't predictable. This will run you $10 to $30 trillion on its own. In Germany where they're building one, the price tag is already at about $3 trillion and Germany is only slightly bigger than New Mexico...

Wind is the big bird and bat killer. Offshore wind interferes with sea birds hunting etc., too. Both wind and solar are highly vulnerable to adverse weather effects. I mentioned Solana in Arizona where half the plant was destroyed in a thunderstorm and about a quarter of it was offline for six months for repairs. The other quarter was repaired in a few weeks. But, thunderstorms are pretty common... Wind is the same way. Put it where it gets hit by a hurricane and your power is gone, same with solar. I can build a natural gas or nuclear plant that will survive these intact.

Just like any other generation means, solar and wind plants have a service life and need continuous maintenance.

The building top, roof top solar arrays are a waste of time. They are fixed arrays meaning they are less efficient to begin with. Then there's tying them to the grid. On top of that, maintenance is spotty at best. Throw in that they are miniscule in size.

Then there's the problem of what happens when the wind doesn't blow or the sun isn't shining? That means either massive storage capacity or an alternate means of production.

That's why nuclear backed by natural gas is so good an option. Nuclear would supply roughly 70 to 80% of our power needs efficiently and cheaply. The other 20 to 30% which is the highly variable part is supplied by natural gas plants that can put or take off capacity online very rapidly to meet changes in demand. Wind and solar are to variable in output to do either well. They just are horribly inefficient.

 

[PoliTalker]

Here's the problem with solar:

To get one watt/day of power out of a solar array you need about 5 watts of installed capacity. So, the array needs to be five times larger than the power you want to supply over a 24 hour period. But because you have to generate all your power while the sun's up, you now need storage for roughly 3 of the 5 watts of power you generate. This means installing 3 watts of battery capacity, 3 watts of pumped hydro (add a watt for the pumps so now you have 6 watts of capacity), 3 watts of flywheels, etc.
The result is your array is five times the size it needs to be because of how solar works and you have a second site where 3 watts of capacity sit to hold the power you'll need when the sun goes down. That makes the cost of the system grossly expensive for the amount of power produced. This also requires far more land.
To totally replace coal and nuclear with solar would require you pave over an area roughly the size of say, Arizona or New Mexico with nothing but solar panels and then install the batteries, etc., in an area roughly about 250 to 400 miles on a side on top of that.

That is not practical, efficient, or desirable.

Then you need a "smart grid" to move that power around because the weather isn't predictable. This will run you $10 to $30 trillion on its own. In Germany where they're building one, the price tag is already at about $3 trillion and Germany is only slightly bigger than New Mexico...

Wind is the big bird and bat killer. Offshore wind interferes with sea birds hunting etc., too. Both wind and solar are highly vulnerable to adverse weather effects. I mentioned Solana in Arizona where half the plant was destroyed in a thunderstorm and about a quarter of it was offline for six months for repairs. The other quarter was repaired in a few weeks. But, thunderstorms are pretty common... Wind is the same way. Put it where it gets hit by a hurricane and your power is gone, same with solar. I can build a natural gas or nuclear plant that will survive these intact.

Just like any other generation means, solar and wind plants have a service life and need continuous maintenance.

The building top, roof top solar arrays are a waste of time. They are fixed arrays meaning they are less efficient to begin with. Then there's tying them to the grid. On top of that, maintenance is spotty at best. Throw in that they are miniscule in size.

Then there's the problem of what happens when the wind doesn't blow or the sun isn't shining? That means either massive storage capacity or an alternate means of production.

That's why nuclear backed by natural gas is so good an option. Nuclear would supply roughly 70 to 80% of our power needs efficiently and cheaply. The other 20 to 30% which is the highly variable part is supplied by natural gas plants that can put or take off capacity online very rapidly to meet changes in demand. Wind and solar are to variable in output to do either well. They just are horribly inefficient.

That sounds like a good assessment of the challenges in building our cleaner energy systems of tomorrow but does not sound like anything which cannot be overcome.