Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Thom Hartmann Program"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Pareto principle applies. You get 80 % of results with 20 % intput. Getting the consumption of fossile fuels down fast (cheaper solar panels, storage costing considerably less, and not relying on scarce resources ! **) would be the first step - We can take it from there, even if still some fossil fuels are needed as backup.
**
Sites on land that are suited forwind, or for pumped hydro. These are solutions that can work, but in many regions they would be too expensive or have other negative impacts.
And for batteries: materials that are more common, are mined in many nations, and production is not as much impactful as for instance Lithium.
Now they are exploring floating wind (offshore, no problems with residents, stronger and more reliable wind),
there are (more) test proujcts using wave / tidal energy, and of course a few floating solar panel plants are in the process of being built.
All these projects get public funding from their governments (Indonesia, Singapore, Germany, France, ..... Japan), most ideas will never work, at least not at a mass scale, but it does not matter, some might contribute niches (covering a few percent of global demand), others might be too complicated.
But with the mass of approaches (and very different ones) - there will be a few hits.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adama5929 No, a small number of individuals willing to make sacrifices will not make a dent. There are simply not enough of them to _change the paradigm_. they would have to beat the system, the economic power of all important industries in the world. - for instance as an individual you might need transportation to get to work:
What if there are no other choices to BUY than cars with combustion engines. What if public transportation is not even offered, if it is not safe or takes so long that it becomes impractical.
Zuerich in Switzerland is the city of millionaires.
It is also the city where almost everyone uses the TRAIN to get there. Affluent and lower income people share the system. It is very affordable, clean, safe, high frequency (practical, little loss of time). Swiss citizens can buy a yearly ticket for ALL mass transportation in the country, bus, railway, underground, cable care - public and private.
The offers are highly integrated. (connections, frequency, routes). Since the offers are GOOD they are used by a lot of people which means they can service a lot of connections and routes, which makes it even more practical for the users ....
That was a political decision and of course the fruits of decades of effort. Switzerland is a small country - but those tunnels are not cheap. And anyway there are plenty of densely populated FLAT areas in the U.S. that would have excellent conditions for good mass transportation.
That could save a LOT of energy, costs (in the cities you you live w/o car), the cities would be cleaner and more silent, more space for trees, and less for parking lots. It would have extra advantages for low-income people. They could have their transportation needs met w/o the expenditures of a car.
people live their daily lives, use the devices as allows and rich people splurge .... what else is new. That is human nature,
The rich might be made to pay more for their flights. Maybe they will be taxed extra for having private jets.
Regular people will not be able to fly as much. That is not a problem within the U.S. Not a technical one at least. China got bullet trains while the West was dealing with the Great Financial Crisis. France has had the TGV for many, many decades
These trains are as fast as flying if you factor in all the delays at the airport.
That would be a WISE investment - but of course the airlines would riot and the project cannot be realized by a few individuals.
1
-
@adama5929 The sun sends SO MUCH energy to the earth that as soon as we can harvest it efficiently (even better than now ) and store it * we do NOT have to return to the primitive life. - What became of the "Can Do" attitude they had during WW2 and later ? Manhattan Project ?? - it was not clear at all that nuclear fission was possible.
Well, they tried and they meant business: One city in the desert for 50,000 people.
Eisenhower thought flying to the moon (especially with humans) was way too expensive.
There came the Sputnik shock - They were going to make it happen. Money and experts were allocated, it was an ongoing serious effort over some years (approx. 10). Again successful.
The sad thing is that these efforts so far are only politically supported when it is about war, distraction, and adversity among nations.
Imagine the same attitude applied since the 1980s - we would already be well into the transition. The weather would be less erratic. The wars in the Middle East would not have been started.
Fraunhofer Institut is engaged in material research - incl. for photovoltaic, I saw a video
* Lots of interesting things are in the pipeline globally. More cost efficient production, or better performance for panels
Price is ONE variable, it has fallen dramatically because more panels are produced. Like with computers, processors, mobile phones, TVs you can expect lower prices and higher performance once the technology has a market that allows mass production and pays for ongoing research.
If the panels are cheap it does not matter if you have surplus electricity at times - worst case you heat your water or send the energy deep into the earth if the electric grid is not yet able to manage it. (The German net became much more stable. Not that it was bad before, but especially with thunderstorms and extreme weather, there were blackouts sometimes.
The German energy providers were forced to step up to deal with more fluctuations. So the occasional hickup in the traditional steady sources are easily and always compensated as well. the German grid has halved the "off grid" times (there is a industry parameter) since 2006, while France and U.K. still operate under the old standards.
(you could have an arrangement with a neighbour that uses a heat pump (in the soil) for heating. The heat you take out of the soil in winter must regenerate, you need to drill deeper and the heat is regenerated with rain - so it works the best if the surface is not sealed (sand or soil would be best), cobblestones are less ideal, tarmac does not work at all.
if you install a little PV panel to help along (or get the occasional surplus of your neighbours), you do not have to drill as deep (cost saving) and have less restrictions regarding using the surface area. The donor has the advantage that the panel can be protected from overheating. It might be a decision to not even send your surplus into the electric grid.
** A mega game changer would be batteries. (if possible not Lithium). Many promising projects for solid state. Better or cheaper batteries would make the whole system more economic and bridge much better peak production and peak demand.
The moment batteries become cheaper people could satisfy most of their needs, at least in the sunnier season and over night. (PV works very WELL on a sunny winter day, and they work better if they do not get too warm. Those household batteries could also be adressed by the providers to extract electricity exactely when the grid has extra demands.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
6) Dems are financed to keep progressives out, their job is to win primaries - NOT necessarily the GENERAL ELECTION. NOTHING is more important than keeping the big donors happy - not even winning the general. - Dems occasionally use the same tactics that the Repubs use to rig the general - they do it in the primaries, should that be necessary to help a neoliberal big donor darling to win. See Greg Palast.
That explains the deafening ! silence of the Dems on many outrageous R voters suppression tactics. Either they do not want to draw too much attentiion (they do it too, on a smaller scale) or they just cannot be bothered.
Careerists and opportunists do not fight for a righteous cause (like easy access to voting for ALL). They have given up on the South, and Mid West, (the farmers that handed the unexpected ! victory to Truman in 1948). so the Repubs were free to gerrymander and suppress the vote as they saw fit.
It is not like the Dems would have a relentless campaign to call them out. Like the Repubs have a RELENTLESS campaign on every issue THEY find convenient for electoral wins (Remember the niche of the fierce ideologues is occupied by Republicans). Single issues like guns, abortions, gay marriage (that has now swtiched to going after transgender people, they found out that too many affluent R voters are also gay, there are too many of them and they often have support from friends of family, they are not a good target anymore.
And now immigration. ACA death panels (ACA is bad but not that bad).
Decades of claims of rigged elections, justifying their need for measures who happen to suppress the vote of low income people which coincides with people of color for the most part. (and Establishments Dems were unfazed).
There was NO campaign on the D side about REAL stealing of elections: 1) the COMMON donors do not want the sheeple to get upset 2) Dems find those tactics also useful form time to time. 3) they are getting a cushy job when losing elections, and while they might prefer to win, it is not the most important issue. Nothing is more important than serving the big donors. If a candidate gets carried away and tries to win on populism - the big donors pay the party establishement to reign such rogue elements in - or to get rid of them by all means necessary.
Then Democrats can fight just fine.
Like many hours wait times in GA for black voters. I was astonished that Stacy Abrams got a little airtime in 2018, then they wanted a Blue Wave so much and the symbolism of GA getting a black female as governor, that Dems and their buddies from liberal media broke the rule to report on systemic voter suppression.
And Stacy Abrams is unusually feisty for a Democrat.
The oligarchs do not finance democracy, they finance Democrats to sheepdog the part of the population that is out of reach for Republicans.
Dems can and do fight, incl. very shady tactics - they just do not use that ever against the other wing of the one-and-only-big-donor-party.
Sure they would like to win the general (some like HRC very much, Al Gore was more the opportunistic, not-so-ambitious type, he went away quietly in 2000 and was rewarded for not rocking the boat. The oligarchs want quiet in their empire. They did not care if Bush or Gore got it - both would sign the Chinese trade deal, that the Clinton admin had prepared).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ Paulette - I am STILL not sure that Clinton would have been better that Trump. She would not attack the dreamers and immigrants - admitted.Nor would she do anything substantial for them or help the working people (legally here or not). - Clinton also would not OPENLY DISMISS the Paris agreement. MEANINGFUL ACTION against Global Warming means much more than paying lip service and some of the actions would not be liked by the Big Donors (the relevant industries of course generously donated) - so aint gonna happen not under Trump or Clinton.
The Republicans do nothing and deny the reality of man made CC - the Democrats admit it and still do nothing (or not nearly enough).
When she become Secretary of State she promoted fracking all over the world on behalf of U.S. companies (no doubt donors to the party and also donors to the Clinton Foundation) - fracking is a DESASTER when if comes to the Methane footprint. Leaked UNBURNT fossil gas - some marketing genius coined the term "natural gas" for it - is a STRONG greenhouse gas, it has 28 times the effect of Co2.
Of course methane produces Co2 like every other fossil fuel when used in the regular manner and burnt, but the trouble starts when it escapes before being burnt. The only advantage is that Co2 can stay in the atmosphere up to 1000 years, while methane is mostly broken down after approx. 100 years (some of it becomes Co2 though. And some of the Methane reacts with the Ozone layer high up - that protects us from radiation).
There is a reason scientists talk about "runaway Global warming" and the "methane" bomb.
Now I have been knowing these things as an interested citizen (no professional ties to the filed) since the 1990s - so how come Clinton and Obama who allegedly admit to the reality of GW - show this schizophrenic behavior of saying one thing - and then doing the other.
As CITIZENS can easily know the health costs for the people who live nearby fracking sites - Mr. Hope and Change or Mrs. "I am with her" could not be bothered to at least re-introduce the the "Clean Air and Water Act". Cheney/Bush knew full well why they made the fracking industry exempt from that protective law (Nixon had signed it).
Trump may be compromised with Russia - they are obviously playing that "advantage" with a very light hand if they have it.
I would see that as advantage. if THAT is what makes Trump stay out of Syria and avoid the constant, reckless, unethical poking of the Russian Bear - so be it.
HRC is as hawkish as they come. Would she have announced twice that the U.S. would disengage from Syria in April 2017 and April 2018 ? Which in both cases was followed within a week by a social media storm claiming to "prove" a chemical attack (2017 could have been an accident caused by regular bombing, and this time it is not even sure if it was only people being hosed down after they came to the hospital - lured there either by the promise of sweets for children or they had relative harmless respiratory problems because of the dust caused by bombing).
Funny enough: neither the big attack in 2013 (which we know DID happen, many people dead, and in that case Sarin was used) nor the alleged events in 2017 and 2018 could ever be proven to have been caused by the Syrian government army.
And in all cases the "rebels" (the Syrian and the foreign jihadists) were losing against the regular army and had very good reasons to draw the U.S. in - they had all to win and nothing to lose. in 2017 and 2018 they were negotiating the conditions for an amnesty and free passage (in 2018 3000 fighters had left, while those who still were in the contested area wanted to take 900 million USD with them - according to Peter Ford former UK embassador to Syria in an interview with Ron Paul).
In all cases the U.S. government immediately claimed (w/o any possibility to KNOW) that the government army did it, in all cases the media and the vasalls of the U.S. (aka NATO states ) picked up the claim and repeated it like the gospel - no questions asked.
In 2017 and 2018 Trump gave in - and the U.S. carried out a chest thumping act of airstrikes (and in both cases the back channels between the U.S. and the Russian military negotiated a "face-saving" deal to prevent outright war, the airstrike of 2018 had 8 targets, no casualties, 4 injured. The Russians and Syrians KNEW what was going to be targeted, they might even have "provided" the sacrificial lambs".
This was the suspicion about the 2017 airstrikes and it was confirmed by the Russian foreign minister (in a BBC interview he gave after the airstrike) for 2018. No details but that the backchannels had talked and "found a solution".
1
-
Transition to renewables. the red-green * Social-Democratic / Green Party coaltion (a force for neoliberalism btw **) passed an orderly transition out of nuclear power. The Exit from nuclear power. Slowly shutting them down. Merkel was elected and did her buddies a favor, that was revised and the
population was told it was all safe, they had checked out the safety of the plants.
Nuclear power and especially the question of the waste is more controversial than in most nations. I guess one third are against , one third for nuclear power, one third does not care either way and hope they know what they are doing.
So Merkel did the "Exit from the exit".
* Internationally red is the color of the Lefties, unions and Social Democrats, only in the U.S. it is the Conservatives that have that as signature color.
** like Bush could not pass NAFTA it needed Bill Clinton to screw the working class, this was the era when types like Clinton, Blair and Schroeder were at large)
Then Fukushima happened in 2011. Germany took notice. BIG TIME. They respect the Japanese as their equals when it comes to technology, the failure of the power plant was NOT because of the earthquake it was the flooding and both are well known risks in Japan. Tsunami is an old Japanese word. The Soviet failure could be put on the flaws of Communism - but Japan ??
In one state dominated by the conservatives (for decades) a red-green state governments seemed possible according to polling. The Green party of Germany has many anti-war and anti nuclear power activists. A not a few weeks before that election Fukushima happened.
I think world wide many government and agencies had a good hard look at their nuclear power plants. They were shut down 1 month for stress tests etc. Also in the EU.
The German plants had just been evaluated for risks (or so they said). Their run time (they are rather old like in most nations) had just been extended (instead of following through with the plan of the former government) and the population had been told that was safe (corks popping in the industry).
After Fukushima they were evaluated again (??!!).
The Conservatives lost in that state, they did get a red-red-green coalion (with a few seats of the far left) and that was a blow.
Merkel - which exells ! a opportunism if at nothing else, and is an adminstrator of German stagnation (living of past investments) - said she had a change of opinion (??) No, she hadn't. She is a phycisist by training. If she truly believed nuclear power was safe (to please the buddies / donors / job providers for ex politicians of the party) she still believed it.
She took the wind out of the sails of the Green party and to a degree Social Democrats, and adopted their position (criticism of nuclear power validated) - and put up a new program with a strong NEOLIBERAL twist.
The Exit from the Exit form the Exit (Germans call the 180 of Merke that) became an investment model with a lot of subsidies. And unlike the former red-green party plan it was done so hastily that it opened a chance for the industry to SUE the government. I do not think that was a stupid mistake ! They could dupe the voters AND help the industry to recoup some of their costs (the former plan did not offer any chance to recoup money from the government, their run times were not extended. and reasonable safety requirements were made).
"Energy transition" (an euphemism, it was only switch from nuclear to renewables !) was an investor-friendly scheme. And it was not a comprehensive plan, it shows that her heart is not into it, she is not into renewables. Storage - as a future chance for Germany was completely neglected. The government should have thrown money at research so now batteries could be the next export hit of Germany and SUPPORT a large scale ! transition in the country.
Large scale transition was NOT the plan - it would challenge the established players !
Insulation is much better than in the U.S. for newer homes - codes, and little was done to bring old housing up to modern standards (think 1970s, 1980s). At least NOT with consistent policies and subsidies. Insulating homes and buildings that housed lower income people would lower their costs of living and would also provide a lot of jobs IN the country.
Solar panel industry in Germany was getting a lot of subsidies (that I think was more under Schroeder) but went under because of Chinese competition (which was also heavily subsidized). Of course one could have subsidized the German industry, put tariffs on the Chinese imports and have required quality standards (back in the day there were major differnces, and they still exist, although the Chinese panels have become better. Quality pays off, for a 20 year investmtent, the costs for "made in Germany" can be spread out over 20 years, especially with generous low or no interest loans). But that would be against neoliberalism so to the new solar panel companies in Germany that had been propped up before went under (a lot of them). because they produced in GERMANY and that costs more than in China. But of course lots of jobs in Germany.
Some residue of unemployment is good. For the neoliberals.
Insulation is a job motor also in rural areas, and the materials are also produced in Germany so the effect on the economy (reduced unemployment, training the workforce) is higher because more value is created in Germany.
That is not all good if the government continues and doubles down on wage stagnation that was started under red/green Neoliberals. Germany has enough unions left that high employment and robust job numbers would result in higher wages. And the cost of living for the low income folks could fall - long term (if their landlords are incentivized or mandated to invest. And in condeminiums it is also hard to convince all owners to insulate or get a shared solar power installation or insulation - unless it is mandated).
Such installations (larger buildings sharing one solar power installation, they could produce for the grid) have NEVER been encouraged. At all.
it was a niche for investors AND for for the affluent citizens that typically vote Conservative. They did not get much on their savings (interest or bonds) in 2011, stocks are not that popular and that was after the financial crisis. So anyone with a house and a roof in the right direction and some money in the bank could consider getting solar panels, the subsidies made it a SAFE and lucrative investment (more so than bonds).
people that rent or only own a flat. THEY were stuck with the high electricity prices to finance that. The living expenses of the low income people financed the green investments of the affluent, the 30 - 40 % in Germany that still do well.
The transition to renewables did some good - still. but it also gave it a bad rep among low income people, and it was a lost chance. So much more could have been achieved it Merkel had come from a place of conviction - not neoliberal service for big biz and opportunism.
If you are low income you still want to be in Germany and not in the U.S.
It is very telling that the Germany government under Merkel threw money at the car industry in the financial crisis. And of course banks.
Old cars were taken out of use and the owners got high subsidies to buy a NEW car. (They found out that sales went down in the next years, people bought earlier but not MORE. And it was of course also a program for the middle class, low income folks cannot afford a new car, not even with massive subsidies.
Like the cash for clunkers program (only that the cars in Germany by and large are much more energy efficient, even older ones).
Alternative: the car industry worker get higher unemployment, and the industries must invest big, big time into battery research.
very basic knowledge about renewables will tell you - wind and solar can only work if you have storage or battery solutions. Especially in a country like Germany. In california or Australis peak production of solar meets peak demand (A/C) much better. So they need less storage to make it economically viable. And with solar you have to do something with the electricity, you cannot turn off the panels, the over production would cause a blackout. There are times when German (or Californian, ....) producers give away electricity for almost free just to get it out of the system. Of couse if companies and households would have cheap, and robust batteries that electricity would go into storage. Where it would save them costs (especially with the HIGH German electricity prices).
BUT good,cheap, robust, residential storage (other demands than for cars, weight is not an issue and fast charging isn't an issue either) would make renewables a mass solution.
1
-
The German government (2019, 2020) put a CAP on larger installations that now would be viable w/o subsidies. They discouraged large installations (home owners, companies) with taxing ! the power that is harvested. ONCE (a fee to providers) if the energy is directly used by the producer. TWICE if the producer sells the energy to the grid (sales tax AND the fee).
I think the latest dire news about climate change prompted a partial change on that policy. Only small (too small) private installations were excempt, and it is possible they very recently reneged on that.
A neighbourhood doing their thing as energy cooperative ? Nope ! they are an electricy provider with ALL the massive red tape that comes with it. De facto impossible.
A landlord installing solar and selling power to renters ? Nope !
A large production hall getting solar and the company produces a lot of what they need - and they could even be off the grid - they have the resources to run a diesel or gas generator and also use the heat * * *
Definitly NOPE. That would be the nightmare scenario. For providers.
* * * more than 2 thirds of the fuel become heat (not motion) in steam engines or combustion engines. Only a small part of the fuel becomes motion that turns the generator (or motor). That inefficiency of heat engines is a law of physics (the theoretical limit is under 25 % I believe - in that range, 21 - 23 % in practice would be considered good). But if they use the waste product heat (warm water for neighbourhoods or for heating their own halls) they achieve better efficiency. Over 60 %.
(Heat can even be used for COOLING .- and ice can store heat, crazy as that sounds. That is not even a new concept for industrial use. Ice as temperature storage / BUFFER).
Waste (what is left after recycling) is burned in German and Austrian plants. Some use that heat to produce electricity and hot water. There are even some wood burning stoves for homes and farms that produce electricity (peak demand) and the heat produces warm water. For burning waste they need to add fuel (especially if a lot of the plastic is sorted out). But they can recoup some of the fuel costs when producing peak electricity and some more if they sell warm water. Plus no transmission losses if electricity is used on site or nearby.
Providers were propped up as for profits and with all the neoliberal "free market" gibberish. Dividends, over payed management, cushy jobs for former politiicans.
I disagree: they have a natural monopoly and of course in a time of disruption for an established, highly important sector a for profit will get into trouble. And they cannot really plan, the unknown technology that might be available in 10 years can totally undermine their business model.
providers need to have the reserves when solar or wind is not delivering. Solar NOW provides a lot of energy during midday (when they used to get good rates for peak demand). They need to maintain the gas and coal turbines - and sometimes renewables beat the heck out of them and supply at very low costs they can impossibly compete with. And the times when they used to make good money (midday, summer heat) are also spoiled by renewables.
A public non-profit could finance the necessary reserves and would not need to worry about the future, they are still a very much needed backup and reserve of the system and if they use their financial resources in a reasonable manner they will be kept open. But no investor get's rich of it.
Of course the transition phase needs reserves. Of course times of luw supply of renewables (winter !, rainy periods) need reserves - and reserves cost money. Investment that does not always bring a Return On Investment.
So which way is it - for profit free market ?
They can't have it both ways - when consumers and companies buy less electricity and at buying when providers do not find convenient they ask for protective regulation and for sidelining COMPETITION. If things go well, then it is the free market narrative. And lots of dividends for the investors.
The fee (just for being ON the grid as backup when renewables do not deliver or if you have technical problems) is not per se unfair. Unless of course the providers otherwise insist that the free market rules (in energy). Which is a ridiculous stance anyway.
And a sales tax and regulatory hindrances for TINY grassroots producers ?? Who would massively boost installation of renewables and batteries.
WTF
If only Germany had kept the solar panel producers in Germany and had invested in battery research. Because then it would create TONS of jobs. IN Germany.
But it is very obvious the government under Merkel wanted it to be a niche for investors - not a MASS SOLUTION. That could make a dent regarding climate change.
Nothing that goes beyond a lucrative, half hearted (climate change), investor friendly, kinda green pet project.
Nothing that would directly go against the interests of the LARGE PROVIDERS. Which have been paying out secure proifts (from their natural monopoly) over decades and never bothered to have a nest egg or to invest into adaptation - unless they got a lot of subsidies for it.
NOW solar power has become so cheap, and batteries have become cheaper too (and there will be a price drop in the next 5 years) - that the providers are getting a LOT of pressure. We can see that in how THEIR government reacts.
So now they have extra fees for power that a home owner or company produces and directly consumes. Yep, the power goes from roof to the appliances and never leaves the property and you pay a fee on that. Also for installations that got NO subsidies.
Only small (too small) private installations are excempt. And companies are completely excempt. Halls of commercial buildings must be more solidly built in Germany than in the U.S. (insulation, stability overall), so they could carry panels. if they produce sometihing they have the electricians for the set up and maintainance, so a larger installation would often cost them less. More exertise in the house and economy of scale effects compared to home owners.
Nope, can't have VIABLE solar energy that would be a REAL competition for the big providers.
1
-
1
-
The most effective way to suppress the vote is long waiting lines. And surprising people that they are NOT on the rolls anymore. Both things can be easily counteracted with MAIL VOTING. That is the reason Republicans hate it that much.
They have worked diligently and for decades on their death-by-a-thousand-cuts strategies to eek out a 0.1 margin her and 0.05 margin there. It adds up. And mail voting undoes a LOT of the effort to make it really a hassle for low income people (many of them of color) to vote.
No long waiting times, voting is comfortable and easy. No need to show a NEW driver's licence (that may have been needed when the person registered the first time, which could have been many years ago). , some people (the elderly or disabled !) let it expire.
Some state's seize the driver's licence if a parent (usually a father) does not pay child support, so if they do not have a passport they cannot vote. Some states accept active duty ID, but NOT a veteran's ID.
NGO's can register people to vote.
The next best thing for voter suppression is to make it very easy to throw people off the roles and very hard to get back on. Especially for people who need to show ID. (or up to date ID. Yes they show them (outside of villages), the driver's licence from 50 years ago, or the passport that has expired 15 years ago.
Many European countries demand ID, which is useless, but on the other hand it is common and easy to have it, and they need passports for travelling much more than U.S. citzens. If you drive 3 hours in any direction you are in 1 - 10 other countries (more if you start out in one of the many small to medium sized nations).
1