I-5 wrote:The GOP is quite nervous about Trump being the nominee, despite his popularity. There's a good chance of him being indicted, as evidenced by the DOJ (separate from the Jan 6 House committee) already having had Pence aides Marc Short and Greg Jacob testify for a grand jury. Fox News has stopped televising Trump's rallies, and Murdoch's other papers like the NY Post and WSF have blasted Trump's actions on Jan 6 and called him unfit for the Oval Office, and Pence is all but calling him out without saying his name by saying it's time to look forward. Trump is clearly trying to time his announcement of his candidacy to how it can benefit the legal troubles he's in. This is the most divided we've seen the party in a while. I do like respect Cheney, but she is far far too centrist and reasonable for the radicals who control the party.
I-5 wrote:Dick Cheney was a devious politician, but I think Liz Cheney has been around long enough to show who she is, and she is her own person. Similar to what I've said about Romney, I don't have to agree with every policy position, but I respect their integrity, so I have no problem with either as president. I don't know DeSantis, but he strikes me as a populist, and I've had enough of populists. Conservatives could probably paint Beto O'Rourke with the same populist brush, and I'd have to agree with them (even though I like Beto).
I agree with HT, I hope Biden bows out of 2024, the sooner the better. He's served his purpose similar to Gerald Ford served his purpose. The dems need someone to lead, and I think it's time for someone younger who can energize the base and capture moderates' support, too. That was the talent of Clinton and Obama.
RiverDog wrote:My litmus test for any Republican candidate will be do they support DJT. Liz Cheney is the only high profile R so far that has met that standard and I'd walk through hell in a gasoline suit to vote for her, but she might not even win re-election to her House seat due to her fervent opposition to Trump.
We'll see who emerges after the midterms in November. I see where DeSantis is trying to distance himself from Trump. If he renounces him, then I might consider supporting him.
Hawktawk wrote:Desantus is a MAGA creation . He was Trumps poster boy for way too long . He can wash his hands all he likes . I want him less than I want trump . I will not support any MAGA candidate unless they voted to impeach Trump.
I-5 wrote:Cheney losing her house seat has no effect on whether she'd run for president; in fact, it probably would springboard her to focus on 2024. I know I'd vote for her. She has won my respect, and I expect quite a few others. I never thought I'd say that in all these years I've known about her.
Maybe this is her long game.
I-5 wrote:I'm saying if she loses the primary and her seat, how would that affect her running for president in 2024? I don't think it would have any bearing.
Wyoming politics aren't national politics, and right now she is the national poster child for the anti-Trump, which combined with the lack of exciting democratic candidates so far, makes her an appealing crossover candidate for the national election. At least that's how I read it.
RiverDog wrote:Cheney is way too conservative to attract very many Democratic voters. Even amongst Republicans, she's one of the most conservative members in the House. She is anti abortion, applauded SCOTUS's overturning of Roe v Wade, and introduced a bill to that would cover the pre-born under the 14th Amendment. She is not a friend of the environmental community, having voted to slash the budget of the EPA and has consistently voted against climate change initiatives. She voted against the Dreamers and immigrants fleeing a disaster. And as ASF has eluded to, there's a lot of people that link her to her father, a man that Democrats despised. In a Democrat's eyes, the only thing Liz Cheney has going for her is that she is anti Trump.
RiverDog wrote:Cheney is way too conservative to attract very many Democratic voters. Even amongst Republicans, she's one of the most conservative members in the House. She is anti abortion, applauded SCOTUS's overturning of Roe v Wade, and introduced a bill to that would cover the pre-born under the 14th Amendment. She is not a friend of the environmental community, having voted to slash the budget of the EPA and has consistently voted against climate change initiatives. She voted against the Dreamers and immigrants fleeing a disaster. And as ASF has eluded to, there's a lot of people that link her to her father, a man that Democrats despised. In a Democrat's eyes, the only thing Liz Cheney has going for her is that she is anti Trump.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Glad I'm not the only one that sees this. Liz Cheney is only considered "reasonable" when held up against the crazy that is Trump. Dick Cheney was a Big Oil conservative and I doubt his daughter is far off the mark and probably gets some of her financial support from Big Oil supporters.
RiverDog wrote:I had to make the following correction: Liz Cheney is only considered "reasonable" by the Dems/left when held up against the crazy that is Trump.
Personally, I would vote for Liz Cheney even if Trump wasn't in the equation. I don't agree with everything she stands for, but she' a lot closer than any other major party candidate that I've examined. The fact that she's willing to sacrifice her political career in order to follow her conscience speaks volumes about her character.
I-5 wrote:“…a country that doesn’t acknowledge women”
Just curious which policy position you’re speaking of here. I assume you’re talking about abortion?
Aseahawkfan wrote:Liz would be in your wheelhouse like G.W. She's more of a Bush Era or Reagan Conservative than a Trump Loon. To me like the Republicans chose Trump because they think you need crazy to fight crazy. Right now the Dems are and left are pushing a pretty crazy agenda. I'm still surprised you don't read much on the transgender hardcore push the left up to and including no longer referring to women as women but instead using birthing person to describe a woman so as not to offend transgender females.
https://www.newsweek.com/biden-admin-replaces-mothers-birthing-people-maternal-health-guidance-1598343
A lot of people ignore how crazy the Dems have become and the insane agenda they are pushing up to and including through the public education system. But Trump won because of how crazy the Dems are now. They are not the working class union Dems of the 70s and 80s. This is an elitist liberal socialist group who want to throw out everything American and replace it with their worldview up to and including no longer having gender/sex or whatever you want to call it.
If the right leader came along, I would secede with the right group. I don't want to be hanging with white supremacists and that trash. But I also don't want to be in a country that doesn't acknowledge women. I'd happily split the nation and let the Dems have their liberal fantasy with no gender, defunded police, and drug abusers everywhere they think they can help living in homeless encampments around them. I don't personally want that. Not sure why Democratic voters want it.
RiverDog wrote:I'm not nearly as torqued about the transgender movement as you are. Yes, I agree that they shouldn't be allowed to compete in women sports, but it's not a hot button issue with me. What is a hot button issue with me is the Dem's defund the police movement and their handling of the BLM riots. They are one step above anarchists, shirked their responsibilities as leaders just like Trump did during the Capitol riot and for much the same reason: They didn't want to take action that would offend their political constituency even when lives were at stake.
The Dems want to save the planet by not burning fossil fuels, which I am for, but they don't want to consider nuclear and want to breach existing hydroelectric dams that are cheap, renewable, and multi purpose in that they provide environmentally friendly transportation, irrigation for crops, and flood control. Their preferred alternative is to litter the landscape with large solar farms and windmills that are expensive, inefficient, unwanted by the locals, and not reliable during peak periods.
Those are the reasons why I won't ever be a reliable Dem voter. The transgender issue ranks way down my list of priorities.
I am ripe for a 3rd party, which will never happen in my lifetime. But I am not a revolutionary. These are crazy times, but we'll survive.
c_hawkbob wrote:Saying that a country doesn't acknowledge women because one politician didn't take the bait is a bit preposterous.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Nuclear energy seems to have a lot of dangerous waste that will increase as the population increases and the more nuclear you have, the more chances of a severe event. Hydroelectric I'm not as focused on but you can only dam up so many rivers before you cause other issues, though better dam technology might ameliorate party of this. Batteries seem to require a lot of materials that will be costly to extract and manufacture.
Aseahawkfan wrote:I already believe there is no path humans have that evades the basic problem of overpopulation and no clear understanding of how much vegetation we require to balance the oxygen and carbon cleaning needs of the planet for human survival. Some are attempting to create carbon capture technology to remove carbon from the air like plants do, but they don't produce the oxygen that plants do. The deforestation, fishing, and water depletion is of great concern as well. These folks claiming we don't have too many people really don't spend much time investigating how much waste, natural resources, and deforestation and water depletion occur over a human life that will lead down the path of self-destruction because we just kept on expanding our population until we reached a tipping point not just with climate change which is the current main focus, but total resource depletion and the inability to replenish food and water supplies due to the overexpansion of humans.
Now fusion nuclear reactions if we can harness them would answer our power concerns with less waste. But a fusion reaction that goes wrong could be absolutely catastrophic. But it would supply nearly limitless cheap, clean power. Fission as nuclear power currently works is a dirty business that though calculated to be less waste than a modern power plant would increase if there were more of them including the chance of them being weaponized by bad actors, malfunctioning, and for nations unprepared to handle nuclear power pursuing nuclear power creating possibly dangerous situations at various places in the world. So not sure I would be onboard with strong nuclear adoption until the world is more settled.
Then again the world as a whole has a lot of problems that are going to be difficult to deal with and easier if there are less people. According to some population experts, we should be seeing major population drops in China by 2050. Though I have trouble believing the will drop by the 600 million estimated. But that is the estimate. If we see across the board population drops, less pressure on the environment. EV adoption should reduce the carbon release, but then we'll see how much material extraction for batteries causes issues.
A very complicated problem.
RiverDog wrote:I think we've already discussed this in another thread, but the worldwide birth rate has been in decline for decades. The overpopulation problem has been a result not of over breeding, but of people living longer than in the past. The problem with over population will self-correct when the older generations start dying off. That's one of the things that the liberals don't take into account, that our overall carbon footprint will get smaller as time goes on.
RiverDog wrote:I think we've already discussed this in another thread, but the worldwide birth rate has been in decline for decades. The overpopulation problem has been a result not of over breeding, but of people living longer than in the past. The problem with over population will self-correct when the older generations start dying off. That's one of the things that the liberals don't take into account, that our overall carbon footprint will get smaller as time goes on.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Large of law numbers makes even a small amount of growth a huge number of people.,,So your expectation is eventually this number will go negative?....Average lifespan is currently what? 78 years in America? Probably rising as medical tech gets better. Even with much lower growth, it will still be an immense strain on water, natural resources, and the like.
Aseahawkfan wrote:I'd be happy to discuss nuclear energy. I haven't spent much time looking at it. I know a lot of people tout nuclear energy. About all I know is they are working towards fusion which is the holy grail of sustainable clean energy. Fission is very productive, but the waste is dangerous and fission nuclear reactors can be weaponized. Not sure I love that.
RiverDog wrote:Good point. Yes, if the current trend continues, I expect the numbers to go negative at some point, at least in the industrialized nations where carbon use is greatest.
Average lifespan has been going up, but the maximum hasn't. The oldest person ever died in 1997 at 122 years old. The human body can only last so long. As a matter of fact, the average lifespan actually decreased last year, likely due to Covid, so we may have already seen it peak.
Here's a snippet from the article I referenced:
These next-generation reactors incorporate several important safety features as well. Being a noble gas, the helium coolant will not react with other materials, even at high temperatures. Further, because the fuel elements and reactor core are made of refractory materials, they cannot melt and will degrade only at the extremely high temperatures encountered in accidents (more than 1,600 degrees C), a characteristic that affords a considerable margin of operating safety.
Yet other safety benefits accrue from the continuous, on-line fashion in which the core is refueled: during operation, one pebble is removed from the bottom of the core about once a minute as a replacement is placed on top. In this way, all the pebbles gradually move down through the core like gumballs in a dispensing machine, taking about six months to do so. This feature means that the system contains the optimum amount of fuel for operation, with little extra fissile reactivity. It eliminates an entire class of excess-reactivity accidents that can occur in current water-cooled reactors.
And that's just one of several next generation processes.
And to your concern that they could be weaponized:
When nations acquire nuclear weapons, they usually develop dedicated facilities to produce fissile materials rather than collecting nuclear materials from civilian power plants. Commercial nuclear fuel cycles are generally the most costly and difficult route for production of weapons-grade materials.
My point is that we aren't even considering nuclear as a means of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Technology in the field has made huge advances in the safety of nuclear reactors and the amount of waste that must be stored, yet every time the word "nuclear" is mentioned, everybody has this image of a mushroom cloud, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the Japanese accident. Yet we keep building these unsightly windfarms that has a huge footprint and are unreliable during peak periods.
RiverDog wrote:Good point. Yes, if the current trend continues, I expect the numbers to go negative at some point, at least in the industrialized nations where carbon use is greatest.
Average lifespan has been going up, but the maximum hasn't. The oldest person ever died in 1997 at 122 years old. The human body can only last so long. As a matter of fact, the average lifespan actually decreased last year, likely due to Covid, so we may have already seen it peak.
Aseahawkfan wrote:How long will that take? 20 more years at the current rate and we add almost 2 billion more people and reach close to 10 billion and that is with more of the world industrializing. It really all does come down to people on the planet needing space to live, work, water, food, roads to drive, and all the associated production needs to allow them to live as they have become accustomed. How much room do we have to grow?
Here's a snippet from the article I referenced:
These next-generation reactors incorporate several important safety features as well. Being a noble gas, the helium coolant will not react with other materials, even at high temperatures. Further, because the fuel elements and reactor core are made of refractory materials, they cannot melt and will degrade only at the extremely high temperatures encountered in accidents (more than 1,600 degrees C), a characteristic that affords a considerable margin of operating safety.
Yet other safety benefits accrue from the continuous, on-line fashion in which the core is refueled: during operation, one pebble is removed from the bottom of the core about once a minute as a replacement is placed on top. In this way, all the pebbles gradually move down through the core like gumballs in a dispensing machine, taking about six months to do so. This feature means that the system contains the optimum amount of fuel for operation, with little extra fissile reactivity. It eliminates an entire class of excess-reactivity accidents that can occur in current water-cooled reactors.
And that's just one of several next generation processes.
And to your concern that they could be weaponized:
When nations acquire nuclear weapons, they usually develop dedicated facilities to produce fissile materials rather than collecting nuclear materials from civilian power plants. Commercial nuclear fuel cycles are generally the most costly and difficult route for production of weapons-grade materials.
My point is that we aren't even considering nuclear as a means of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Technology in the field has made huge advances in the safety of nuclear reactors and the amount of waste that must be stored, yet every time the word "nuclear" is mentioned, everybody has this image of a mushroom cloud, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the Japanese accident. Yet we keep building these unsightly windfarms that has a huge footprint and are unreliable during peak periods.
Aseahawkfan wrote:I'm sure if it becomes desperate, they'll give it a shot. I don't see any way out of this issue other than a massive drop in the population and likely control measures at some point. Humans are naturally driven to reproduce. Humans have no natural predators. We have greater control of our environment and require more space and material than any other animal on the planet to live in the manner we've become accustomed. Humans are often self-centered and not particularly far seeing, at least the majority of humans. So they will move forward until they can't.
I personally expect some real bad times, but we'll see how long humans can stave off the cost of their standard of their living. So far humans have always won against the environment so that predictions by folks like Thomas Malthus proved wrong. But will that always be true? Maybe. But we're sure seeing unprecedented depletion and no easy way to replenish the lost resources. We seem to finding ways to produce more in a smaller space and people complain about that like mistreatment of animals in factory farming or genetically engineered plants and animals. Yet these very advancements in science are a major part of the reason we can sustain this level of humanity spread across such a big area.
RiverDog wrote:The problem is that the technologies that the left is embracing, ie wind and solar, are extremely limited in their ability to respond to peak demand periods and they don't have a method to store their energy in quantities large enough to sustain them through periods of low production. In the case of wind, when it gets over 100 degrees or below zero, times when demand is the greatest, there's hardly any wind. There is no solution in sight yet they insist on tearing out the dams, not to mention the fact that wind farms are extremely unpopular here in eastern Washington, with surveys showing over 75% of the residents not wanting them:
The Tri-City Regional Chamber of Commerce recently conducted a Public Opinion Survey regarding the Horse Heaven Wind Project which elicited 2,220 responses over a two-week period. The survey aimed to help determine local sentiment about the proposed project and to identify issues of greatest interest and concern to the region.
The results show overwhelming opposition to the project, with 78 percent of respondents expressing that the Horse Heaven Wind Project is not worth the personal, environmental, and economic impacts on the community (view results below), Survey data also reveals community concerns regarding the level of impact that specific Horse Heaven Wind Project outcomes (such as viewshed, turbine disposal, wildlife, etc.) will have on the region.
Aseahawkfan wrote:They are working on advancing battery tech and power management systems for dealing with this issue. I'm invested in a company called STEM who designs power management and battery systems for companies and possibly as infrastructure using city level power. So you could charge up batteries with wind and water, then store and manage the power to deal with peak demand. We'll see how it goes.
There is a company known as Ameresco which takes waste and turns it into energy. I'm not quite sure how well it does. But so far they have been growing steadily.
There is also geothermal energy converting the earth's core heat into energy. Not sure how widespread that is. The earth's core is apparently almost like a thermal reaction and can supply immense geothermal energy. It's hard to tap as it requires very deep drilling. Not sure how great that would be all over the planet.
Carbon capture technology seems to be advancing. That is allowing them to pull carbon from the air and convert it back into a usable energy form. If carbon capture tech advances far enough, it could solve two problems at once by recycling carbon from the air for use in energy.
That's why I love capitalism and science. A little human ingenuity driven by a desire for profits solving problems always seems to lead us to beating the environment trying to kill us. That's why there is no better system than capitalism. No economic system has solved more problems and provided more value than capitalism. Though it must be regulated and still have a strong moral base to operate well.
RiverDog wrote:You're talking about technology on a scale large enough to replace hydro and fossil fuels that is a decade or more out. Besides, it doesn't solve the problem of the huge footprint and other damages to the environment that wind and solar farms create.
I've seen an episode on Nova entitled "Can we cool the planet?" that talked about carbon capture. But like battery technology, it, too, would be extremely expensive to implement on a scale large enough to make a difference. And there's problems to figure out, like where to store the carbon and how to get it to a disposal site. The plants themselves would be a huge energy hog. They're able to do it in Iceland because they're sitting on a huge geothermal hot spot.
Technology doesn't advance very fast unless there is a monetary incentive or we're in a wartime footing. How long have they been messing around with electric vehicles? We've had electric powered vehicles and watercraft for over 100 years and they're just now becoming a viable mode of personal transportation. We're going to have to use off the shelf technology to cover the gap between now and when these other modes you're talking about become viable.
c_hawkbob wrote:There are a LOT of new technologies on the near horizon. The one I'm most excited about burns as it's fuel less than 4% natural gas and 0ver 90% of CO2. It's only emissions are water and high purity, industrial grade CO2 that it can then sell. There is one working plant right now and 4 others under construction. With it's negative carbon footprint I expect that eventually these will be everywhere and along with some of the newer nuclear technologies bear the brunt of the transformation to clean energy. It may take a while, but it's coming.
https://www.powermag.com/breakthrough-n ... rcot-grid/
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests