Where would you move to if <not your candidate> wins in November?

Go ahead, get it off your chest.
User avatar
sleepysilverdoor
Mean Street
Posts: 566
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 11:02 pm
Instruments: Basically if I don't have to blow through it it's fair game.
Recording Method: FL Studio/Tascam DP-006
Submitting as: Phlebia, mostly.
Location: Atlanta-ish.

Re: Where would you move to if <not your candidate> wins in November?

Post by sleepysilverdoor »

But there is. Because renewables aren't always available on demand. And hydroelectric is only available in some areas. And geothermal is only available in some areas. Nuclear is by far the most reliable non-fossil-fuel energy option, but has the inherent issue that it must be vigilantly maintained and to this day, at least in the US, nobody has actually figured out what to do with nuclear waste. They just keep kicking the can . And it's fine up until the point that it's not fine and then it's very, very much NOT fine.

The technology to create electricity with renewables HAS been there for decades. I never suggested otherwise. But what I *did* say is that by nature, it not provide the same energy density or reliability that fossil fuels do. And that is the fundamental problem. If it did, we'd have moved decades ago.

And you did just described manufacturing. But it has to get *somewhere*, right? And that's, to date, dependent entirely on portable, high energy-density fuels. Which consist of battery technologies (not really energy sources, just storage), or built in power generation (which is pretty much fossil fuels).
"There's a lot to be said about a full-on frontal assault on the ear drums" - Pigfarmer Jr.
User avatar
Caravan Ray
bono
bono
Posts: 8493
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 1:51 pm
Instruments: Penis
Recording Method: Garageband
Submitting as: Caravan Ray,G.O.R.T.E.C,Lyricburglar,The Thugs from the Scallop Industry
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Contact:

Re: Where would you move to if <not your candidate> wins in November?

Post by Caravan Ray »

sleepysilverdoor wrote:
Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:58 pm
But there is. Because renewables aren't always available on demand.
That is nonsense. They are. Storage. They are far more dispatchable than coal plants
sleepysilverdoor wrote:
Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:58 pm
And hydroelectric is only available in some areas. And geothermal is only available in some areas.
Yes

sleepysilverdoor wrote:
Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:58 pm
Nuclear is by far the most reliable non-fossil-fuel energy option, but has the inherent issue that it must be vigilantly maintained and to this day, at least in the US, nobody has actually figured out what to do with nuclear waste. They just keep kicking the can . And it's fine up until the point that it's not fine and then it's very, very much NOT fine.
Yes
sleepysilverdoor wrote:
Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:58 pm
The technology to create electricity with renewables HAS been there for decades. I never suggested otherwise. But what I *did* say is that by nature, it not provide the same energy density or reliability that fossil fuels do. And that is the fundamental problem. If it did, we'd have moved decades ago.
And that is nonsense. That is what I am trying too explain to you. Why we haven't moved decades ago is because our governments are in the pockets of the coal and oil companies. I know I sound like a conspiracy theorist saying that - but in Australia anyway - it is absolutely true. The technology to replace coal stationary energy has existed for decades. Solar and wind are now cheaper than coal. Using coal to produce stationary energy is simple insane. To argue for it is nonsense.
User avatar
Caravan Ray
bono
bono
Posts: 8493
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 1:51 pm
Instruments: Penis
Recording Method: Garageband
Submitting as: Caravan Ray,G.O.R.T.E.C,Lyricburglar,The Thugs from the Scallop Industry
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Contact:

Re: Where would you move to if <not your candidate> wins in November?

Post by Caravan Ray »

sleepysilverdoor wrote:
Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:35 am

But action on this clearly doesn't start at the government level. It starts at the personal level.
And I seriously cannot repeat how completely wrong this statement is.

Your government determines energy policy.

Your government - like my government - have really bad energy policies


This must change


Do not remove the government from their reponsibilty. It is poor government policy that will leave our children with less affluence than we enjoy.
You - by repeating the nonsense that we need fossil fuels are contributing to this. Stop it.
User avatar
Caravan Ray
bono
bono
Posts: 8493
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 1:51 pm
Instruments: Penis
Recording Method: Garageband
Submitting as: Caravan Ray,G.O.R.T.E.C,Lyricburglar,The Thugs from the Scallop Industry
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Contact:

Re: Where would you move to if <not your candidate> wins in November?

Post by Caravan Ray »

sleepysilverdoor wrote:
Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:17 am
I fully expect you to respond telling me that "no you're stupid what the fuck is this even I can't oh my god you idiot"

Yes.
When you say things like:
To dramatically reduce the amount of carbon emissions throughout the world would inherently crash the global economy.

That is how most people will respond to you.
That is a really stupid thing to say.

Just stop posting nonsense?
User avatar
Caravan Ray
bono
bono
Posts: 8493
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 1:51 pm
Instruments: Penis
Recording Method: Garageband
Submitting as: Caravan Ray,G.O.R.T.E.C,Lyricburglar,The Thugs from the Scallop Industry
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Contact:

Re: Where would you move to if <not your candidate> wins in November?

Post by Caravan Ray »

sleepysilverdoor wrote:
Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:17 am
I fully expect you to respond telling me that "no you're stupid what the fuck is this even I can't oh my god you idiot" , and I'm at the point where I'm convinced that I'm arguing with a brick wall. And that's fine cause obviously you are too. So you're going to reply, get the last word in, insult me again rather than properly debating in good faith, and then lose faith in the songfight community because we all don't think like you.
OK. Lets get one thing out first. I am an arsehole.

For reasons best not gone into - I find solace in being an areole on the internet - and sometimes Songfight falls in to that. That embarrasses me and I apologise for that and this discussion has occurred from one of those occasions. This is a general apology to all Songfight users - I know I have been an arsehole for 20 years here - I would like to grow up.

But.....

You are simply wrong.
User avatar
Caravan Ray
bono
bono
Posts: 8493
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 1:51 pm
Instruments: Penis
Recording Method: Garageband
Submitting as: Caravan Ray,G.O.R.T.E.C,Lyricburglar,The Thugs from the Scallop Industry
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Contact:

Re: Where would you move to if <not your candidate> wins in November?

Post by Caravan Ray »

sleepysilverdoor wrote:
Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:35 am

Electric cars you say? Well, you've got to get the power from somewhere. Geothermal doesn't work everywhere. Hydroelectric doesn't work everywhere. Solar is nice...when it lasts, but to roll it out at that scale would require covering tons and tons and tons of land with unthinkable amounts of solar panels which must be mined and manufactured
Reading this shit makes my eyes bleed.

FFS Sleepy - you are smarter than that?

This is what really bothers me. You are clearly a smart bloke Sleepy - yet you are actually arguing with me?!?! WTF?!?
User avatar
sleepysilverdoor
Mean Street
Posts: 566
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 11:02 pm
Instruments: Basically if I don't have to blow through it it's fair game.
Recording Method: FL Studio/Tascam DP-006
Submitting as: Phlebia, mostly.
Location: Atlanta-ish.

Re: Where would you move to if <not your candidate> wins in November?

Post by sleepysilverdoor »

"It makes my eyes bleed". You continue to just dismiss everything as " I'm wrong", "I can't believe a smart guy like you would even say this" , etc.

Regardless of what the government does, our children's world will be less affluent than ours. This is due to hard geologic limits. Are you familiar with the work of the club of Rome? You haven't touched my comment about energy density of transport fuels.

I never said we "needed" fossil fuels. I said we needed fossil fuels to continue the economic arrangement that makes much of contemporary life possible. Me, I see this as doomed anyway due largely to decline availability of them. Global oil production peaked in 2005 and the world has become increasingly economically turbulent sense while environmental devastation kept on piling up as we continue to try to extract it from more and more marginal sources. And all talk of "stationary energy" aside, that affects a whole lot...how do most people commute? Fossil fuels. How is most ground transportation of goods accomplished? Fossil fuels. How is most shipping accomplished! Fossil fuels. How is jet fuel made? Fossil fuels.

Right now, unless an enormous subsidy program was unleashed most people remain unable to reasonably afford most electric vehicles. And regardless, the environmental externalities that go into their manufacture are usually ignored - they take a lot of rare earth minerals, most of which are made in China, and which have an absolutely enormous carbon footprint to mine, which ends up only "breaking even" over the span of several years of driving the vehicle. You previously called that "trumpian talking points" . When has trump addressed that, really?"

The line about "the government is in the pockets of the coal and oil" industries is true. But it doesn't change my argument, which has less to do with that and more to do to with energy density and difficulty of transitioning everything onto the same scale. And I don't like fossil fuels. I just think that for the niches where they're necessarily, none of the alternatives are realistic. And I'm never going to convince you of that.

Yes, some stationary power can be provided by alternatives to fossil fuel. In some places it can absolutely be provided by it. When I lived in Juneau we were entirely reliant on hydroelectric. Here in Georgia we're largely a mix of nuclear and hydroelectric, many of the latter facilities are managed by the U.S. Army core of engineers. But that's only a part of the picture.

I'm used to people disagreeing with things I say on this topic. I used to believe everything you're saying, you're basically saying everything that I used to believe wholeheartedly and then was convinced was wrong...so yeah you're essentially arguing with a brickwall too. There isn't going to be any convincing or agreement here.
"There's a lot to be said about a full-on frontal assault on the ear drums" - Pigfarmer Jr.
Post Reply