Trump's Presidency

[cavman]

That's actually what he said about abortion. He wants to appoint pro life judges to over turn Roe v Wade. He said that the gay marriage issue was "settled" because of Obergefell vs Hodges.

It's weird because it seems he's implying that SCOTUS can overturn RvW but not OvH, which is obviously not true. If he appoints judges who will overturn RvW, decent chance they would also overturn OvH.

This is where I heard it.




But I do think when I said "appointing a judge to overturn the law" I may have misquoted.

 

[gourimoko]

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?

I think he's confusing the technologies here...

Let's go through this briefly:

1) We already have a nuclear fission based economy. 20% of American electrical consumption comes from nuclear power.

Many European nations have much much higher usages of nuclear power. France, for instance, in 2008, drew 76% of it's electrical consumption from nuclear power, with only 12% from fossil fuels.

Looking at France, specifically; here's a snapshot of French electric generation (different than consumption, fyi):

Here's energy consumption (this includes cars/trucks/etc):

As you can see, the problem here is not fossil fuels being more efficient over nuclear power (they're not); but instead, the reliance on the internal combustion engine for locomotion. Move consumer driven automobiles to primarily electrically driven engines and you've removed the vast majority of fossil fuel energy consumption.

With respect to questions of cost, while throughout Europe, the cost per kwh for electricity floats ~$0.30, in France it's $0.169; comparable to the United States at $0.125.

The argument here is not that these technologies be emergent from the free market (which is what would take 40-50 years), but instead, that the government should be subsidizing the expenditures, just as it has for decades with fossil fuels; thus shifting our economy to clean energy.

2) Solar thermal plants already exist; here's one operating right now:

That's Ivanpah, a 400 MW solar-thermal power facility. There are no photovoltaics in use here. The plant's operation, in the most simplistic explanation, uses mirrors on the ground to focus light back at the central tower, at which, boilers generate steam to turn turbines to generate electricity.

This plant is new, but using decades old technology.

These kinds of ideas have been around since the 1950s, but we've moved away from innovation like this in favor of protecting corporate profits.

3) Space-based solar power is the end-game. Such a system would use photovoltaics in space, beaming down microwave energy to the Earth's surface. It would require no new technology, but instead, massive infrastructure to be put into place to maintain these arrays. However, SBSP could power the entire Earth well into the foreseeable future.

These kinds of technologies already exist, yet, like our space-program, have been mothballed because of government ineptitude. Which is the entire point.

We don't do these things because they're impossible or infeasible; we don't do them because we choose not to.

 

[gourimoko]

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're not going to pay attention to what's being said, then what's the point?

I've said about 5 times now I'm not talking about home-based solar panels.

We're talking about fundamentally different technologies.

 

[caf]

If only clean energy was a pussy.

Then we would grab the fuck out of it.

 

[pr26]

I think the media was wrong on the MLK bust and the overhead views of the mall that were taken at 10:17 and 11:03 respectively. Looking at CNN's gigapixel image you can see they are wrong and it filled in during the speech. Was funny watching Anderson Cooper last night showing the image from NYT that was from 11:04 and then saying does it look like Trump had more. Meanwhile I'm looking at their gigapixel where it is full. So for that yes the media was dishonest.

From the CNN gigapixel zoomed all the way to the back.

What the media did and still is portraying.

PBS comparison during Trumps actual speech.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/


Many people I know who attended said the security started 3 miles from the inauguration and most only got in halfway through the speech. They said the media is full of it and the only empty spots on the mall were media staging areas. I feel like I am literally the only one who went and looked at all of the images available to me and made a decision. Most seem to be just parroting what the media tells them even though they can easily refute it on those media companies own websites.

So from what I can see Spicer lied or conflated the Metro numbers. Then it seems they also shut down the National Parks Twitter which is not cool, but if they are retweeting this mistimed NYT comparison then why let them get away with it?

So we have Spicer wrong on the Metro numbers, using full day numbers for this year and half day numbers from 2013. Why does the media get a pass to blatantly lie? Wathing CNN last nght and this mroning they are still showing the very first image in this string, even though their gigapixel image refutes it.

What's your take? Please back it up with verifiable evidence as I have tried to do for you.

Well, we could look at pictures from different angles and see which one looks bigger for presidential dick measuring purposes. Or, we could look at an over head time lapse video:

https://youtu.be/PdantUf5tXg

And there is a difference between spinning numbers, and flat out doubling down on lies:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...auguration-crowd-size/?utm_term=.25ba527e770e

In my opinion, again, juxtaposing this with the MLK bust report makes it look worse. A reporter make a shitty mistake, writes a bad article, and when they are called out on it then that reporter had to retract. When Trump's team lies, blatantly, do they retract or correct? No, they double down and use double speak. "Alternative facts" should been walked back as soon as it was said.

Again, I don't care about crowd size. This isn't important. But, when something important happens to this country, we have to believe that our white House will not lie to us. When the media spins, you spin back. You can't lie, it's a dangerous precedent to set 24 hours into a presidency.

Apologies for any weird formatting, on mobile.

 

[Hurl Bruce]

I know it's not a huge deal in the grand scope of things, but it's telling when you watch how someone treats other people, especially their wife and kids. This picture of Trump not waiting for his wife as she is on the other side of the car speaks volumes to me. I know...it's not like we need any more evidence that Trump loves himself above all others (and Ivanka), but still.

 

[Notorious]

If you're not going to pay attention to what's being said, then what's the point?

I've said about 5 times now I'm not talking about home-based solar panels.

You're ignoring the issue of storage, which we don't have a viable solution for today. You don't understand current power plant operation vs. green energy power production. Our current technology can be turned on anytime and is run to equalize the load being consumed. We have no current large scale way of storing excess. So how do we store all of this energy since it's gonna be based on the wind and the sun? The answer is we don't have the ability yet. The technology isn't there.

There is no way to store all of this energy to use when we need it. That is one of a bunch of problems being worked on that make it not ready for primetime.

 

[Notorious]

Well, we could look at pictures from different angles and see which one looks bigger for presidential dick measuring purposes. Or, we could look at an over head time lapse video:

https://youtu.be/PdantUf5tXg

And there is a difference between spinning numbers, and flat out doubling down on lies:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...auguration-crowd-size/?utm_term=.25ba527e770e

In my opinion, again, juxtaposing this with the MLK bust report makes it look worse. A reporter make a shitty mistake, writes a bad article, and when they are called out on it then that reporter had to retract. When Trump's team lies, blatantly, do they retract or correct? No, they double down and use double speak. "Alternative facts" should been walked back as soon as it was said.

Again, I don't care about crowd size. This isn't important. But, when something important happens to this country, we have to believe that our white House will not lie to us. When the media spins, you spin back. You can't lie, it's a dangerous precedent to set 24 hours into a presidency.

Apologies for any weird formatting, on mobile.

I mean yeah we could look at the timelapse that doesn't show the end because the crowd never disperses in it. But we already proved that way back in this thread. Listen I presented you images that show the media is using images from 10-11AM. Apparently seeing the proof for your own eyes and being given a link to the gigapixel image from CNN from when he was actually speaking isn't enough. So I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

Trump made one comment on the issue. Every media site has 10 articles on the frontpage of their website about it. So who's measuring dicks?

There are also still plenty of articles that exist about the bust even though it's been proven to be fake.

 

[gourimoko]

You're ignoring the issue of storage, which we don't have a viable solution for today.

No, I'm not; I've addressed this already.

Solar thermal plants store power using molten salt; nuclear power plants don't require the sun; electric vehicles would be used for short/mid-distance travel.

This has been address ad infinitum while you're solely talking about home solar panels, which is completely irrelevant to the point being made.

You don't understand current power plant operation vs. green energy power production. Our current technology can be turned on anytime and is run to equalize the load being consumed. We have no current large scale way of storing excess. So how do we store all of this energy since it's gonna be based on the wind and the sun? The answer is we don't have the ability yet. The technology isn't there.

Sigh...

Will say this one last time:

1) Nuclear power is continuous generation.
2) Solar thermal stores energy using molten salt for power generation overnight. SolarReserve is building a 500 MW plant that does just this, for continuous generation.
3) Space-based solar is continuous generation since the sun doesn't go down in space.

There is no way to store all of this energy to use when we need it. That is one of a bunch of problems being worked on that make it not ready for primetime.

You're still talking about photovoltaics. It's absurd that I keep repeating the same thing. You are not talking about the same technologies that I am, do you really still not realize this?

 

[CommD]

Everyone heard President Trump say numerous times during the campaign that he would release his tax returns post audit. He said it again publicly as recently as two weeks ago. Now it appears he has changed his position.

Question: did the President lie to the nation?

Conway: Trump will not release tax returns

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/22/politics/kellyanne-conway-trump-tax-returns/index.html

 

[col63onel]

This is where I heard it.




But I do think when I said "appointing a judge to overturn the law" I may have misquoted.

That was during the primary season. Right after the election he went on 60 Minutes and said this

On abortion

“I’m pro-life,” he said. “The judges will be pro-life.”

Asked specifically whether he wants the Supreme Court to repeal the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion nationwide, Trump replied that if the decision were overturned the issue of abortion would be decided by each state.

“If it ever were overturned, it would go back to the states,” he said.

On gay marriage

As for same-sex marriage, Trump said after the Supreme Court ruling last year it’s the law of the land -- and that he is “fine” with that being the case.

“It’s irrelevant because it was already settled. It’s law,” he said. “It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it’s done … these cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They’ve been settled. And-- I th-- I’m-- I’m fine with that.”

It's good that he feels gay marriage should stand. It's odd that he thinks it's "settled", though.

 

[Notorious]

No, I'm not; I've addressed this already.

Solar thermal plants store power using molten salt; nuclear power plants don't require the sun; electric vehicles would be used for short/mid-distance travel.

This has been address ad infinitum while you're solely talking about home solar panels, which is completely irrelevant to the point being made.



Sigh...

Will say this one last time:

1) Nuclear power is continuous generation.
2) Solar thermal stores energy using molten salt for power generation overnight. SolarReserve is building a 500 MW plant that does just this, for continuous generation.
3) Space-based solar is continuous generation since the sun doesn't go down in space.



You're still talking about photovoltaics. It's absurd that I keep repeating the same thing. You are not talking about the same technologies that I am, do you really still not realize this?

They have one plant running for a year. It is still much more expensive than fossil fuels. It won't translate to every area of the globe. This is a test run. I've seen many of these claims from other companies. One ran out of Lorain and made promises and failed miserably. We don't know yet which is why there is no massive switch. Once someone can prove several working systems for many years and can actually show long term data you will see it adopted in droves.

As I stated we are not there yet. A single one year old operation is not adequate to change the entire globe. The company in Cleveland sold a product knowing it wouldn't work on the basis they could get it to work if they got money to run for several years. Nearly 100 million dollars was dumped into this company and all the customers got was a pretty looking dish that generated no power. There is nkthing stopping this company from making claims that they can't live up to. They will need to prove it longterm because they are claiming they can fix an issue no before them could do.

You have stated over and over in this thread about an all solar world. Now you are adding nuclear. It's because again the solar technology is not there yet. Hopefully SolarReserve has solved some of the problems and in 20 years we can do some massive adoption of their plants.

 

[gourimoko]

They have one plant running for a year. It is still much more expensive than fossil fuels.

That's not the point. The point is that it's not only technologically possible but in operation.

It won't translate to every area of the globe.

It doesn't have to... that's the point I made a few posts ago.

This is a test run.

It's a 500 MW production facility.

I've seen many of these claims from other companies. One ran out of Lorain and made promises and failed miserably.

What company are you talking about in Lorain that was going to build a 500 MW solar thermal plant?

We don't know yet which is why there is no massive switch.

Yes we do know, you're literally not paying attention to what is being said.

Once someone can prove several working systems for many years and can actually show long term data you will see it adopted in droves.

You're still talking about the free market; I'm not, and have not been talking about these technologies competing in a free market.

What you're saying has nothing to do with my argument.

As I stated we are not there yet. A single one year old operation is not adequate to change the entire globe.

SMH.. No one said Ivanpah is a model for the entire globe; you've completely ignored (now 5 times) my call for massive nuclear energy infrastructure.

The company in Cleveland sold a product knowing it wouldn't work on the basis they could get it to work if they got money to run for several years. Nearly 100 million dollars was dumped into this company and all the customers got was a pretty looking dish that generated no power. There is nkthing stopping this company from making claims that they can't live up to. They will need to prove it longterm because they are claiming they can fix an issue no before them could do.

What are you talking about? What has this got to do with anything I've said, Notorious?

You have stated over and over in this thread about an all solar world.

Yes.

Now you are adding nuclear. It's because again the solar technology is not there yet.

Lol.. No.

I don't think you understand what space-based solar is, but I've explained this upthread, and there's a thread about this topic on this forum.

Hopefully SolarReserve has solved some of the problems and in 20 years we can do some massive adoption of their plants.

Smh..

 

[Wrathe]

3) Space-based solar is continuous generation since the sun doesn't go down in space.

That's ridiculous, of course the Sun goes down in space or else the moon would never be up!





....

 

[gourimoko]

That's ridiculous, of course the Sun goes down in space or else the moon would never be up!





....

Had to read the name that posted it, before I realized it was a joke..

Seems like we're going in circles here; this isn't even a political issue, it's a scientific one.