2016 Presidential Race AND POLL

[RonG]

I think it was O'malley that was beating the drum of Clean power grid by 2050. Instantly i was turned off because honestly he was talking completely out of his ass. I am in the industry and there is a reason for all those rolling brown out and system shut downs. We can not even keep up with supply now at peak demand. Building new generation is helping, but it cant even keep up with growth and the decay of power generation systems that are going on 80 -50 years old.

It sounds great to say to an uneducated person on the matter but it is a straight up lie to even say its possible by that date.

 

[spydy13]

True. And if the Obama and the Democrats in Congress has actually done that, then I could see bitching about Republicans. But Democrats had absolute control over this $800B, which was outside of normal spending and representing a windfall opportunity to spend, and spent less than 4% on roads and bridges.

Why not point the finger at them?

They should have spent more, but as I pointed out it wouldn't have solved the massive problem that we currently ignoring/just slapping tiny band-aids on. If you go back to what I said to @gourimoko though is that moving forward I see no way that the current broken congress will not agree to approve spending on these very needed projects. My guess is this only happens when multiple bridges start collapsing, and hopefully not too many people die from that. I also want to point out that it's not just roads and bridges that need fixing. It's airports, dams, ports, sewer systems, etc. As good as things were built back in the day they were never meant to last forever, and we are currently acting like they will.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

They should have spent more, but as I pointed out it wouldn't have solved the massive problem that we currently ignoring/just slapping tiny band-aids on. If you go back to what I said to @gourimoko though is that moving forward I see no way that the current broken congress will not agree to approve spending on these very needed projects. My guess is this only happens when multiple bridges start collapsing, and hopefully not too many people die from that. I also want to point out that it's not just roads and bridges that need fixing. It's airports, dams, ports, sewer systems, etc. As good as things were built back in the day they were never meant to last forever, and we are currently acting like they will.

I agree, actually. But I'd suggest that one of the best ways to start getting this stuff done is massive reform of federal contracting and environmental requirements so that it doesn"t take forever to get these things off the ground.

But there are too many sacred cows with political pulls that won't let that happen. Frankly, the Keystone Pipeline is a perfect example of this. Piping oil is infrastructure, and regardless of how you feel about the merits of the project, the fact that it has been under environmental review for six years is a damn joke.

 

[Kouki]

I think it was O'malley that was beating the drum of Clean power grid by 2050. Instantly i was turned off because honestly he was talking completely out of his ass. I am in the industry and there is a reason for all those rolling brown out and system shut downs. We can not even keep up with supply now at peak demand. Building new generation is helping, but it cant even keep up with growth and the decay of power generation systems that are going on 80 -50 years old.

Is that not a great reason to start significant investment, then?

I am not in the industry and I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, but seemingly lofty, outrageous goals have value. What sounds unattainable using current technology might be more reasonable with 2030 technology. We were challenged to make a product at our company with impossible targets; we built it the best we could, and it didn't function as well as it needed to, but the intent was to push the limits and learn something from it...and we did, so it was a success even though we did not meet the goal.

Same thing has happened with CAFE (fuel economy targets)...very difficult, seemingly impossible standards were set, but we are moving towards reaching them. Funny story from probably the 70's that I just read on a blog last week. Government wanted to increase fuel economy standards (or maybe emissions standards); the big three manufacturers drug their feet, said it was impossible. Honda took one of their engines and made it compliant.

 

[RonG]

Is that not a great reason to start significant investment, then?

I am not in the industry and I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, but seemingly lofty, outrageous goals have value. What sounds unattainable using current technology might be more reasonable with 2030 technology. We were challenged to make a product at our company with impossible targets; we built it the best we could, and it didn't function as well as it needed to, but the intent was to push the limits and learn something from it...and we did, so it was a success even though we did not meet the goal.

Same thing has happened with CAFE (fuel economy targets)...very difficult, seemingly impossible standards were set, but we are moving towards reaching them. Funny story from probably the 70's that I just read on a blog last week. Government wanted to increase fuel economy standards (or maybe emissions standards); the big three manufacturers drug their feet, said it was impossible. Honda took one of their engines and made it compliant.

What you and i call a goal is what O'Malley was calling obtainable, distinct difference.

 

[gourimoko]

What you and i call a goal is what O'Malley was calling obtainable, distinct difference.

I'll admit to not even beginning to understand O'Malley's plan for a 100% completely clean energy system by 2050. From a purely scientific standpoint, it sounds absurd.

But he did state that it would be a Moon-Landing / Manhattan Project style venture, meaning it would take tremendous resources and effort from the government and the private sector to accomplish.

Are you saying it is not possible, even in that context?

 

[Cavatt]

I'll admit to not even beginning to understand O'Malley's plan for a 100% completely clean energy system by 2050. From a purely scientific standpoint, it sounds absurd.

But he did state that it would be a Moon-Landing / Manhattan Project style venture, meaning it would take tremendous resources and effort from the government and the private sector to accomplish.

Are you saying it is not possible, even in that context?

These are the types of projects we should be working on. Everything is short term, with no knowledge gained. These huge projects sprawl into so many industries and build so many businesses, but there is no leadership in government anymore. They just read surveys and regurgitate what people want.

 

[RonG]

I'll admit to not even beginning to understand O'Malley's plan for a 100% completely clean energy system by 2050. From a purely scientific standpoint, it sounds absurd.

But he did state that it would be a Moon-Landing / Manhattan Project style venture, meaning it would take tremendous resources and effort from the government and the private sector to accomplish.

Are you saying it is not possible, even in that context?

It would take some end of the world, Armageddon ( the movie) type of investing to do. Like literally a blank check, even then I don't think it would be possible let a lone probable.

Just on the substation scale for instance there are 50 year old transformers that were only built to run 10 years. The whole backbone would need to be replaced, much like our bridges through out the US that are basicly out of there engineered "use" time frame.

Nuclear is the best option currently, but who wants that shit in their back yard?

The Majority of the population is not and will not be willing to make the sacrifices needed to change the complete infrastructure. My input is baring some major god like break through in Fusion energy.

 

[gourimoko]

These are the types of projects we should be working on. Everything is short term, with no knowledge gained. These huge projects sprawl into so many industries and build so many businesses, but there is no leadership in government anymore. They just read surveys and regurgitate what people want.

Space Elevator.

 

[KI4MVP]

It would take some end of the world, Armageddon ( the movie) type of investing to do. Like literally a blank check, even then I don't think it would be possible let a lone probable.

Just on the substation scale for instance there are 50 year old transformers that were only built to run 10 years. The whole backbone would need to be replaced, much like our bridges through out the US that are basicly out of there engineered "use" time frame.

Nuclear is the best option currently, but who wants that shit in their back yard?

The Majority of the population is not and will not be willing to make the sacrifices needed to change the complete infrastructure. My input is baring some major god like break through in Fusion energy.

What about renewable sources like Solar. Kurzweil says solar is on an exponential growth path and companies like Apple are already in the process of switching completely over to solar power and other major companies are adopting both solar and wind power.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-11/what-apple-just-did-in-solar-is-a-really-big-deal

 

[Cavatt]

Space Elevator.

i am really into the space elevator. Only thing that will get us into the size of ships I would like to live on in Elysium.

 

[gourimoko]

What about renewable sources like Solar. Kurzweil says solar is on an exponential growth path and companies like Apple are already in the process of switching completely over to solar power and other major companies are adopting both solar and wind power.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-11/what-apple-just-did-in-solar-is-a-really-big-deal

I think to Ron's point, you'd probably need to use solar generation in space and then transmit the power to the ground for something akin to a complete grid replacement. Otherwise, the process is just too inefficient with current technology levels.

This would take trillions of dollars of investment (est. $1T for panels alone, with deployment costs exceeding that by many times). But it could be done. It is definitely a feasible idea and something that could be accomplished in several decades. But it would take an enormous endeavor and a public commitment to the pursuit.

On a future path though, to your point, solar and fusion are definitely the way to go. Solar power could easily power the entire planet many many many times over.

 

[Cavatt]

These large infrastructure things look impossible to achieve due to cost, but what you find out when you do them is that so much new tech is created in the process that you get exponential money out of it. people complain about NASA, but all the billions of dollars we have spent on it has generated Trillions in money and businesses created out of research.

The eerie canal builders and all these guys knew that. Depending on shareholders to spur long term growth is not a good system. You have to have someone invest heavy capitol that a company cannot generate to really win long term.

People thought war did it because of WWII, but it is really all the basic research and materials science that went on that made that war profitable.

 

[RonG]

What about renewable sources like Solar. Kurzweil says solar is on an exponential growth path and companies like Apple are already in the process of switching completely over to solar power and other major companies are adopting both solar and wind power.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-11/what-apple-just-did-in-solar-is-a-really-big-deal

I looked into Solar myself at my house when we built three years ago, it would have taken me 30 years to see a return on investment.

From a company stance we have built wind farms and solar farms but the fact is they cost 20 times as much and with out the Government subsidies there is very little incentive for companies to go that route. They just cant get the return they need.

Even if you did a combination of Solar, wind and water what are you going to do in a shady no wind drought? I have been in meetings with Kinder Morgan and the likes and that question is asked every time. Yes they can and do substitute some of the power from those sources but 100%? It just isnt happening in my lifetime and i turn 40 this year.

I hate being negative here but power generation and distribution is what I do for a living as a Senior Procurement Director for a very very large EPC.

 

[gourimoko]

Even if you did a combination of Solar, wind and water what are you going to do in a shady no wind drought? I have been in meetings with Kinder Morgan and the likes and that question is asked every time. Yes they can and do substitute some of the power from those sources but 100%? It just isnt happening in my lifetime and i turn 40 this year.

I agree. It's why I think solar farms in space is really the ideal solution since "land area" is essentially limitless and the barrier to entry is really just either a reusable rocket, a mass driver, or some other form of cheaper means to get a payload into orbit.