Trump's Presidency

[col63onel]

ommon core is a mixed bag. I used to be really irritated w/ common core math as it's confusing af how they do it. However, ask me how to do large number math problems in my head, it's largely how common core math is explaining it.

800-457? In my head I go from 457 to 500 (43) then 500 to 800 (300) and add the two (43+300=343) and get my answer. They break up the leaps I made into smaller leaps that annoy me but the logic behind it is the same and can help offer another perspective to learning.

With that said, my oldest is 13 and came on in the middle of this. He was HOT that he had to show another way to do math that made no sense to him and how he processes after he'd already learned the legacy methods that resonated with him. He's also gifted in Math so its already tough to challenge him with advanced concepts let alone to bore him w/ alternative ones.

Blaming "common core" is kinda like blaming Ray Farmer for all of the Browns struggles 1999. He was bad, but everything's been a shitstorm in that time frame, it's kinda missing the point.

NCLB was really stupid. Even though it was under Bush's presidency, it passed by a huge margin from both parties, so appropriate blame goes all around. Race to the top and Common Core are just slight variations on NCLB, all with the same, stupid problems. ESSA is a tiny baby step in the right direction, but I don't see any real differences being made.

We could go on for a while about stuff I dislike about common core (there's good stuff in it, but stuff schools should be doing regardless). But Common Core is more just an extension of 15+ years of stupidity.

I think teaching has suffered since my high school era w/ the advent of damn proficiency tests. Teaching shifted from teaching to satisfying metrics. In fact, I swear the biggest evil in all of our society is metrics. They take out the human element and lead to awful choices due to that missing context.

Part is testing. Part of it is that undergrad Education programs are pretty terrible. Teaching has a very high turnover rate because a.) teachers aren't prepared enough when they get their first job, which shouldn't happen because we're talking a pretty narrow field and b.) a decent chunk of teachers only go into the field because they don't know what else to major in. Education should be a harder course of study, and should work on attracting higher talented individuals to the field, IMO.

 

[Notorious]

China would absolutely embrace green technology if we moved forward on a solar world-economy with those cells being manufactured in a free market system that China was a full participant in.

China simply wants to be included, as a full partner, in any move towards a green economy.

And this isn't an ethics issue; culturally, for the Chinese, that's not how they look at it. Instead, they see themselves as wrapping up 300 years of developmental progress in only 3 generations. They still feel they are playing catch-up, but, throughout the population, there is a "trickle-down" of wealth from the wealthiest into the hands of a new, burgeoning middle-class.

It's not an ethics issue, it's one of inclusion for the Chinese.



There would be massive global return.

If the United States moved away from fossil fuels, Europe would applaud us and follow suit; they've been asking the U.S. to lead the way on this front for two decades.

A united West can absolutely dictate policy to China and India through economic treaties that mandate specific clean energy conditions.

We already do this today with 1990s clean air regulations.

So the notion that we cannot influence China and India makes no sense; these nation's economies are based upon building products that we use.

Oil and gas won't go away overnight, but both China and India are nuclear nations - they do not need oil if the world were to subsidize (through loan guarantees, direct funding) a larger shift towards nuclear power in those countries.

Space-based solar power is a technology that could stop climate change in it's tracks. The Japanese and Chinese are developing competing implementations as we speak. The United States has the capability of rolling out an SBSP system with in a decade -- we simply don't do it, because we're locked in an ideological battle with people who demand government behave as it did in the 18th century.

So what's going to happen, as has happened over the past 8 years with the Obama Administration, is that the United States is going to get left behind technologically.

Don't think that's possible? Look at our national space program. Oh yea, that's right... What national space program.



Why not get into it? Why is climate change even remotely controversial?

This is part of the problem.. Dealing with this notion of "alternative facts" over objective reality.

Climate change is a massive problem that can very likely kill off the majority of the human population if not put in check. You will not find many in the scientific community who would disagree.



Agreed, but the point is that we have to have a national effort, that requires national funding. Oil and gas companies aren't going to put themselves out of business.



I'm not sure what you mean? I'm against fracking for the reasons you just stated; but 'legislating these things to the extent they have been' is where I'm getting lost. We've been behind the curve on these technologies for decades. It would be great if government could be more proactive in these areas.



I don't think most folks agree on the end-game; that's the problem.

If people understood the full-on danger of climate change, there would be more calls to action to stop it. You wouldn't have the GOP denying it's very existence solely to support the profits of their corporate paymasters.

This is a very dangerous game we're playing, and the way it's being played means duping the American people; shielding them from empirical facts, data, and the realities that await their children and grandchildren.

Green technologies are not yet at the point of replacing fossil fuels. They are useful for offsetting fossil fuel use, in no way is the science and tehnology there for them to be relied on 100%. If you could have your way and make us a solar world in 20 years people would be livid with you when everything had to be replaced and we produced less electricity than the cost of all of it. You would bankrupt the world doing such a thing. We are probably 40-50 years out from equivalent green technology to the fossil fuel systems we use now.
I'm willing to bet 1 or 2 new things will also pop up in that time that make the goal of green energy everywhere much easier.

No one is arguing climate change. Just what is causing it.

 

[Wrathe]

....

There was a ton in that! I'll try and be succinct.

Why not get into climate change? It's another HUGE topic and I figure there were areas to discuss that besides this thread. Not that it isn't a good topic.

There aren't efficient alternatives. I agree there should be advanced research to discover them. I do also feel once discovered, we should aggressively migrate to them. Our current infrastructure is so dated right now, we couldn't easily convert if we wanted to in the short game.

We do need to focus on freshening our infrastructure and when we do, we should design it to simplify implementation of new technologies as they come. Basically, we need to refresh and ensure it's an agile solution so we're not stuck in the past for the next wave of new technologies.

Do you believe that folks against those policies you're passionate about want the dystopic world you envision it will become if change doesn't occur? I don't think anyone wants that, and that's why I say I think end-game people want mostly the same things.

I welcome China to the global table, green or otherwise. I just disagree with a lot of their actions, and thus question their ethics. I'm not demonizing them, I'm sure from their perspective the reasons for their actions are noble. I just don't agree that any means are justified by the end.

 

[gourimoko]

Do you believe that folks against those policies you're passionate about want the dystopic world you envision it will become if change doesn't occur? I don't think anyone wants that, and that's why I say I think end-game people want mostly the same things.

I don't think they're either aware of it coming into being due to human activity, or that they feel it's anything we could stop even if we tried.

They've been, quite literally, programmed to think this way by the fossil fuel industry and it's manipulation of the media and our politicians.

I welcome China to the global table, green or otherwise. I just disagree with a lot of their actions, and thus question their ethics. I'm not demonizing them, I'm sure from their perspective the reasons for their actions as noble. I just don't agree that any means are justified by the end.

Agreed.

 

[gourimoko]

Green technologies are not yet at the point of replacing fossil fuels.

They aren't to the point of doing so in a free market; no. But technologically, yes, we could move to a largely green economy within 15 years if we spent the money to do so.

John McCain in 2007 advocated a massive infrastructure program to build 50 new, state of the art, large-scale nuclear plants in the United States. Those reactors would be coming online right about now.

His proposal would have meant the share of nuclear power consumption rising above 50% for the first time in American history.

These kinds of solutions aren't going to pop out of a free market economy; and require active government participation, planning, and implementation across the board.

They are useful for offsetting fossil fuel use, in no way is the science and tehnology there for them to be relied on 100%.

No one is talking about 100%, but the point is that we could move away from fossil fuels massively, making petrol the exception rather than the rule. I'm not sure where you got the idea that we couldn't have a nuclear/solar/wind-based economy?

If you could have your way and make us a solar world in 20 years people would be livid with you when everything had to be replaced and we produced less electricity than the cost of all of it.

That's not how space-based solar or thermal solar works.

You're thinking about solar panels on top of someone's home. I'm talking about two completely different technologies:

1) Solar panels in space, with an economic incentive to continually maintain and upgrade such arrays. These arrays beam down their energy via microwaves. Japan is deploying just such an array within the next several years.

2) Solar thermal power plants which use mirrors and molten salt to drive turbine reactors, not photovoltaics.

You would bankrupt the world doing such a thing.

This makes no sense... you can't "bankrupt the world" by creating products that people will want/need; you're literally creating a new business market in place of an old one. People would profit from the new economy just as oil companies profit from fossil fuels.

I have no idea what you mean by this or how you've come to this conclusion?

We are probably 40-50 years out from equivalent green technology to the fossil fuel systems we use now.

No, we're not... You're talking about green technology being cheaper, on scale with fossil fuels; I'm talking about a subsidized shift towards green technologies across the board.

I'm willing to bet 1 or 2 new things will also pop up in that time that make the goal of green energy everywhere much easier.

Of course it will, but we don't have 50 years to wait.

No one is arguing climate change. Just what is causing it.

If we're arguing what's causing it, then we're arguing over the topic of climate change since the whole point of the conversation is what's causing it.

 

[Wrathe]

I don't think they're either aware of it coming into being due to human activity, or that they feel it's anything we could stop even if we tried.

They've been, quite literally, programmed to think this way by the fossil fuel industry and it's manipulation of the media and our politicians.



Agreed.

I agree overall, that's why I didn't want to get into the big Climate debate. We both want clean air. I just don't like the how we're trying to force it currently. We're charging a lot to put a square peg in a round hole. I'd rather make a national investment in alternative energy research, invent that round hole. Talk about creating one hell of an export.

 

[gourimoko]

I agree overall, that's why I didn't want to get into the big Climate debate. We both want clean air. I just don't like the how we're trying to force it currently. We're charging a lot to put a square peg in a round hole. I'd rather make a national investment in alternative energy research, invent that round hole. Talk about creating one hell of an export.

I agree, but, the problem is that we haven't really been doing enough with government as a tool to bring about change.

The reason we're not is because we're protecting the fossil fuel industry's profits, rather than the planet.

 

[Notorious]

I don't think they're either aware of it coming into being due to human activity, or that they feel it's anything we could stop even if we tried.

They've been, quite literally, programmed to think this way by the fossil fuel industry and it's manipulation of the media and our politicians.



Agreed.

I've worked on and around plenty of green energy jobs. Their are currently 2 that were actually succesful. The fossil fuel industry isn't changing my mind, experience is. 12 years ago I was showing everyone I knew An Inconvenient Truth. When I got real world experience I learned it's not quite ready for primetime. We are still in the phase of people spending oodles to advance the technology to the point we need it to be. Thank god for those people spending billions to get us to that point. Many will never see any return on their investments. They are advancing others understanding of what works And doesn't and providing people the opportunity to work on this type of stuff.

 

[Wrathe]

I agree, but, the problem is that we haven't really been doing enough with government as a tool to bring about change.

The reason we're not is because we're protecting the fossil fuel industry's profits, rather than the planet.

Ya, it feels like our best bet right now is nuclear, but it's a tough sell. So much fear and NIMBY going on. There are also the very valid issues of waste disposals and enrichment potential. Efficiency is very nice, though.

So strategically, do you look for a nuclear alternative, or do you enhance nuclear technologies to be safer? Both I'd say. It's real hard to make nuclear the power default then tell countries with dubious motives they can't have it. I recognize anything can be weaponized but I'd rather someone attack me w/ a Tesla cannon than a nuke.

 

[Notorious]

They aren't to the point of doing so in a free market; no. But technologically, yes, we could move to a largely green economy within 15 years if we spent the money to do so.

John McCain in 2007 advocated a massive infrastructure program to build 50 new, state of the art, large-scale nuclear plants in the United States. Those reactors would be coming online right about now.

His proposal would have meant the share of nuclear power consumption rising above 50% for the first time in American history.

These kinds of solutions aren't going to pop out of a free market economy; and require active government participation, planning, and implementation across the board.



No one is talking about 100%, but the point is that we could move away from fossil fuels massively, making petrol the exception rather than the rule. I'm not sure where you got the idea that we couldn't have a nuclear/solar/wind-based economy?



That's not how space-based solar or thermal solar works.

You're thinking about solar panels on top of someone's home. I'm talking about two completely different technologies:

1) Solar panels in space, with an economic incentive to continually maintain and upgrade such arrays. These arrays beam down their energy via microwaves. Japan is deploying just such an array within the next several years.

2) Solar thermal power plants which use mirrors and molten salt to drive turbine reactors, not photovoltaics.



This makes no sense... you can't "bankrupt the world" by creating products that people will want/need; you're literally creating a new business market in place of an old one. People would profit from the new economy just as oil companies profit from fossil fuels.

I have no idea what you mean by this or how you've come to this conclusion?



No, we're not... You're talking about green technology being cheaper, on scale with fossil fuels; I'm talking about a subsidized shift towards green technologies across the board.



Of course it will, but we don't have 50 years to wait.



If we're arguing what's causing it, then we're arguing over the topic of climate change since the whole point of the conversation is what's causing it.

What you are saying is akin to lets build fusion reactors and run off of those. We can't do that because the technology isn't there. If we could do it but it cost twice what it produced we still wouldn't do it. That's where we are today.

We aren't even close to the point of being able to remove fossil fuels. No amount of money the government spends will change this fact. Only time will get us to that point. You wouldn't buy a house for $500k that goes down in value $50k per year and you had to live in it for 10 years before you could sell it. That is what we are doing with solar and wind currently. The technology on the scale we need isn't there.

Humanity will not die in 50 years from climate change. That is complete fear mongering.

 

[Wrathe]

I've worked on and around plenty of green energy jobs. Their are currently 2 that were actually succesful. The fossil fuel industry isn't changing my mind, experience is. 12 years ago I was showing everyone I knew An Inconvenient Truth. When I got real world experience I learned it's not quite ready for primetime. We are still in the phase of people spending oodles to advance the technology to the point we need it to be. Thank god for those people spending billions to get us to that point. Many will never see any return on their investments. They are advancing others understanding of what works And doesn't and providing people the opportunity to work on this type of stuff.

Notorious, just want to take a minute to say it's nice to see you partake civilly in intelligent conversations today, without the dripping sarcasm and vitriol that you oft come w/. I think conversational tones like that will do more to get yourself heard (though not always agreed with). Kudos.

**EDIT**
This isn't to imply no one else is being civil nor intelligent. Just that Notorious has gotten a rep, and it's not news to him through some of his postings. I believe you call out bad when it's bad, and good when it's good, that's all.

 

[gourimoko]

I've worked on and around plenty of green energy jobs. Their are currently 2 that were actually succesful.

This doesn't really answer my question regarding how you've determined these technologies don't work. I'm well aware of how solar power and nuclear power work, and I can't understand how you've determined SBSP and solar thermal are not viable, or how fossil fuels are required when nuclear power is online today providing 20% of our current electrical consumption at present?

The fossil fuel industry isn't changing my mind, experience is. 12 years ago I was showing everyone I knew An Inconvenient Truth. When I got real world experience I learned it's not quite ready for primetime.

Can you be more specific with respect to the technologies I'm referring to?

We are still in the phase of people spending oodles to advance the technology to the point we need it to be. Thank god for those people spending billions to get us to that point. Many will never see any return on their investments. They are advancing others understanding of what works And doesn't and providing people the opportunity to work on this type of stuff.

Notorious, you are talking about making products market viable.

I am not.

Nuclear power plants are not products that companies look to manufacture; they're massive joint ventures between both the private and public sectors requiring government investment, regulation, cooperation; essentially, it is a full-partnership between people, government, investors, and corporations.

Solar-thermal is really no different, although massively cheaper.

Space-based solar uses technology from the 1970s. We simply do not have a space program at present; but it's not that we haven't had one and don't know how to put objects into space.

I think you are talking about something, home-based solar panels, completely different. Such an idea is not viable and likely won't be for decades. I'm talking about massive, large-scale, solar collection systems for many megawatt scale power generation as well as moving towards nuclear, massively.

From there, driving down the cost/watt for electricity and thus making electric cars the absolute no-brainer economic decision for most Americans using internal combustion engines (near-term) only for very long-distance driving which is the exception, not the norm.

 

[Wrathe]

This doesn't really answer my question regarding how you've determined these technologies don't work. I'm well aware of how solar power and nuclear power work, and I can't understand how you've determined SBSP and solar thermal are not viable, or how fossil fuels are required when nuclear power is online today providing 20% of our current electrical consumption at present?



Can you be more specific with respect to the technologies I'm referring to?



Notorious, you are talking about making products market viable.

I am not.

Nuclear power plants are not products that companies look to manufacture; they're massive joint ventures between both the private and public sectors requiring government investment, regulation, cooperation; essentially, it is a full-partnership between people, government, investors, and corporations.

Solar-thermal is really no different, although massively cheaper.

Space-based solar uses technology from the 1970s. We simply do not have a space program at present; but it's not that we haven't had one and don't know how to put objects into space.

I think you are talking about something, home-based solar panels, completely different. Such an idea is not viable and likely won't be for decades. I'm talking about massive, large-scale, solar collection systems for many megawatt scale power generation as well as moving towards nuclear, massively.

From there, driving down the cost/watt for electricity and thus making electric cars the absolute no-brainer economic decision for most Americans using internal combustion engines (near-term) only for very long-distance driving which is the exception, not the norm.

I think what he's asking, and if not, I'm asking out of my own ignorance on the topic. If solar isn't cost effective on small scale installations (home use), what is it that makes it cost effective on large scale installations? Is the return not linear?

 

[gourimoko]

What you are saying is akin to lets build fusion reactors and run off of those.

No it's not, what are you talking about???

Do you not understand the difference in the technologies we're talking about... This isn't in anyway comparable to nuclear fusion.

We aren't even close to the point of being able to remove fossil fuels.

You keep saying this but without providing any reasoning.

I dispute this claim, clearly.

You realize the United States already has a robust nuclear industry right? We use fossil fuels because they are cheaper, easier to implement, and electric cars are not as versatile or cheap.

All of those things can be changed via government policy. That's the point you seem to be missing.

No amount of money the government spends will change this fact. Only time will get us to that point. You wouldn't buy a house for $500k that goes down in value $50k per year and you had to live in it for 10 years before ou could sell it. The technology on the scale we need isn't there.

What has this got to do with fusion, or what I'm talking about?

Can you provide a scientific argument, based on these technologies; specifically SBSP, thermal solar, and nuclear as to why they cannot largely replace fossil fuels in the American economy?

Humanity will not die in 50 years from climate change. That is complete fear mongering.

No one said we would die-off in 50 years.. The problem is that environmental change is happening exponentially; so the longer we wait, the more severe the problem gets.

 

[Notorious]

This doesn't really answer my question regarding how you've determined these technologies don't work. I'm well aware of how solar power and nuclear power work, and I can't understand how you've determined SBSP and solar thermal are not viable, or how fossil fuels are required when nuclear power is online today providing 20% of our current electrical consumption at present?



Can you be more specific with respect to the technologies I'm referring to?



Notorious, you are talking about making products market viable.

I am not.

Nuclear power plants are not products that companies look to manufacture; they're massive joint ventures between both the private and public sectors requiring government investment, regulation, cooperation; essentially, it is a full-partnership between people, government, investors, and corporations.

Solar-thermal is really no different, although massively cheaper.

Space-based solar uses technology from the 1970s. We simply do not have a space program at present; but it's not that we haven't had one and don't know how to put objects into space.

I think you are talking about something, home-based solar panels, completely different. Such an idea is not viable and likely won't be for decades. I'm talking about massive, large-scale, solar collection systems for many megawatt scale power generation as well as moving towards nuclear, massively.

From there, driving down the cost/watt for electricity and thus making electric cars the absolute no-brainer economic decision for most Americans using internal combustion engines (near-term) only for very long-distance driving which is the exception, not the norm.

Listen don't take my word for it. If it is so easy and such an investment you should be outfitting a home with solar panels and getting an electric car to charge from it. If you did the research you would only do it if that cash didn't matter to you and you were willing to spend more to not run fossil fuels. You'd have to keep up this investment every 15-20 years.


You seem to have this vision that we just put a solar panel up and stand back and profit for 400 years. They fail within 15-20 years. The panels degrade and each day produce less electricity than they did the day before. So over time you are pulling in less and less juice. Which means they are not efficient. Over the course of their life they pull in less electricity than they cost. Maintnenance is required and must be done by a trained electrician. Which is another added cost.

Not to mention the batteries needed to store the charge they create. When you turn on a coal plant or nuke plant they are working to generate a load equal to what is being consumed. That will not be the case with solar. So now you need a storage system. Batteries on that scale will be a huge environmental problem. They also only last 4-7 years. They're also expensive as hell.

You're heart is in the right place, but you are talking about fundamentally changing how we generate power and it comes with a lot of caveats.