(09-08-2022, 12:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Still, nuclear does not emit carbon gases or methane, so that is a foremost need at the present time. It is a powerful source, and takes less land or rooftops or ocean space. It is less flexible than renewables though. It is turned off or comes offline periodically, and adding or subtracting energy from the grid as needed from nuclear power is awkward, since it is a huge amount or chunk of energy to add or subtract at a time. Since we need the emission-less energy and it's a major source, it seems we should keep the plants we have for a certain time, and maybe build more in places where it is safe and the need is great, which probably includes China. PG&E in CA just decided to keep its nuclear plant until 2030.

(09-08-2022, 09:21 AM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(09-04-2022, 10:04 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(08-30-2022, 10:06 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The reason Germany is using more coal, is because of Putin. This is a temporary condition, at least if Germany and the EU and the USA continue to support Ukraine and turn back the monster invader. It has to be done. Russia has cut off the gas supply on which Germany was too dependent. That was the mistake. But Germany is now ramping up renewables development too. It has a huge new wind farm being built in the Baltic. Maybe Germany will delay closing nuclear plants, but it doesn't seem to have uranium supplies right now to do that. France I believe is going back to more nuclear right now. Cutting off Russian gas needed to be done anyway as part of the sanctions regime. This gas shutoff was not a deliberate result of cutting it off in order to move away from fossil fuels. It happened because Germany is stepping up and doing its part to turn back the barbarian invader. It HAS to be done! And by the way, the Russians need to be forced to produce less gas anyway.

There will be events caused by the historical model of the Great Man (or the pretender to such a title, at worst Hitler) who believes that he can force events to go his way. Putin thinks himself a Great Man, believing that he can piece again together the old Soviet Union or the Russian Empire with brute force. His sort tells the rest of the world to obey him and serve his ends or endure great tragedy.

Putin reminds me in some way of Mussolini and of great agitprop banners calling for the Italians to restore the glory of the Roman Empire. Mussolini led something much less than a Great Power, and the reality that allowed the Romans to establish an empire that extended from Lisbon to Kuwait and from Syene (now Aswan)  to modern Holland does not exist today. The Romans could hijack Hellenic civilization due to its divisions and disrupt the formation of any great Celtic power, and they were ahead of the time in developing sea power to take over the Mediterranean basin. There was little nostalgia for a restoration of Roman rule in the Levant or Britain, and Mussolini has been mocked as the "Sawdust Caesar".  Well, there is little nostalgia for the restoration of any imitation of the Soviet Union or the Romanov dynasty.

That the Russians had trading posts in northern California does not mean that they have any reasonable chance of taking over California.

Quote:This goes along with your point. Transition is not an overnight project, and it takes time to build the alternatives. Catastrophes like the invasion of a democratic country by a rapacious tyrannical neighbor happen, and have to be handled. Droughts, themselves caused by climate change and fossil fuel use, can cut off hydro energy we already had too, like is happening in CA. So CA may delay closing a nuclear plant and restart some gas generators for a while. But if we were as dedicated to this energy transition as we are to complaining about high gas prices and blaming Biden for it, and even blaming inflation on him because of the bipartisan money spent to help people through the pandemic shutdowns, then we could get it done much faster than we are doing it.

The arrow of time leads to the ultimate ruin of all that we cherish. A couple hundred million years from now the Earth will be too hot for mammalian and avian life, and of course the astronomical prospect of the sun expanding into a Red Giant and destroying all life on Earth if not the Earth itself is an inevitable, if unsettling prospect. Not many of us live to age 100, as our bodies are not programmed for that. Indeed cells that lose the program to die on schedule typically become cancers. Even business entities have their life cycles.

Global warming pushes our ultimate ruin as a species. I expect that some other species (pigs? Orwell was apparently no farmer, but he figured out what pigs would do if we were not around -- or at least asked farmers who told them that they fear their pigs more than any other animals on the farm and recognize what savage animals dogs would be except for us -- just recall his fable Animal Farm) will have time to overwhelm the world's environments and wreck what ecology remains or recovers after us.

We need Zero Population Growth, and we need also to replace the materialistic model of conspicuous consumption with experience-based lives (even if only simulations of the delights of travel). With global warming it is but a matter of time before many of us recognize how necessary winter is for our agriculture. (Did you see the graphic that I had on how the climates of Michigan and Illinois would be displaced? Winters get milder, but summers become brutal).

Quote:And The West promised to actually help developing countries deal with the climate crisis, which poor countries suffer the most from and did the least to cause, but have not fulfilled this commitment. We in the West need to be more than just be an example and to preach. We need to fulfill our promises and get a Marshall Plan-like effort going to provide the world with renewable clean energy, and we need to give them aid when floods and heat waves and droughts wipe them out, since The West caused this problem for them in the first place.

https://youtu.be/HvD0TgE34HA?t=1800

Donald Trump betrayed that promise, but remember that he is not without his supporters on that. Countries emerging from extreme poverty need to ensure that the 'car culture' never emerges, probably with heavy taxes, because the car culture is unsustainable. We in the economically-suicidal parts of the advanced industrial world need to wean ourselves away from the car culture, quarter-acre lots, and the idea that luxury is a virtue.

As far as the car culture goes, why didn't we begin to wean ourselves away from it right after that humongous gasoline shortage which occurred during the winter of 1973-74? Most folks, including my own mother, thought that the shortage was really a hoax, which was more or less proven by the fact that once they got the prices up to a certain level, almost overnight you could once again get all the gas you wanted, any time of day or night. One of the sticking points no doubt is this: I have been a suburbanite for the majority of my lifetime and I do not feel this way, but many if not most suburbanites feel that using public transportation is beneath their dignity.  Not to mention that the spread out nature of suburban areas makes public transit not feasible.

Quote:We also will need to deprogram our love affair with single family homes and nothing but, which many zoning laws and homeowners associations have saddled us with, this contribution mightily to the massive housing shortage and unaffordability we are also now saddled with. These are issues that have been deferred for far too long now. The authors of the book proclaimed that a 4T is a time during which social problems are no long deferred and thus dealt with. But so far there has been little if any effort to solve these issues. Some psychics are predicting that it will take a few more years until Millennials are old enough to move into positions of political power.

Quote:Right now in only 12 percent of the country can one do reasonably well without having a car. I have often wonder how long it might be when those living in "The Other 88" will have suitable alternatives. Having to have a car is a big financial burden. Not only gasoline, but insurance, which is now required by law almost everywhere, maintenance, licensing, tolls and parking fees in many places, and, since most folks need to buy their cars on time, installment loan interest. 

Quote:When first the ride share platform and later food delivery platforms began to take off, it was widely assumed that this would save a lot of cars from needing to be on the road. But it wasn't really even a Band-Aid, as so many people got in on it from a driver standpoint that it proved to be nearly a zero sum game.

(09-08-2022, 02:23 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(09-08-2022, 12:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Still, nuclear does not emit carbon gases or methane, so that is a foremost need at the present time. It is a powerful source, and takes less land or rooftops or ocean space. It is less flexible than renewables though. It is turned off or comes offline periodically, and adding or subtracting energy from the grid as needed from nuclear power is awkward, since it is a huge amount or chunk of energy to add or subtract at a time. Since we need the emission-less energy and it's a major source, it seems we should keep the plants we have for a certain time, and maybe build more in places where it is safe and the need is great, which probably includes China. PG&E in CA just decided to keep its nuclear plant until 2030.

In other words, we should expand use of nuclear power because it is the best thing we have currently, but we should continue R&D to come up with safer alternatives? That is an acceptable answer.

(08-27-2022, 08:29 PM)sbarrera Wrote: I watched the video. Zeihan paints a dark picture of the world post-globalization/free trade. China could lose 500 million people?? The U.S. must stop Russia in Ukraine to avoid nuclear escalation?? Eep.

I didn't expect it but the interviewers mention Strauss-Howe theory toward the end, though Zeihan brushes it off. It's too bad, because he is talking about the end of globalization and the end of financialization which is exactly what The Fourth Turning predicts.

I've seen posts/interviews from him before but haven't read his books, though I do have "The Accidental Superpower" on my list. I will get to it hopefully before too long.

• Geography is the key determinant of a nation's wealth and power. The United States is a superpower because of its unique geographic advantages: two oceans protecting its flanks, a massive navigable river system in a fertile heartland, many excellent harbors on the coasts. This is the "accident" behind the superpower. These geographic advantages are what make the U.S. wealthy and secure; it has nothing to do with the character of the people or its system of government. If anything, geography determines what kind of government is possible. The United States' vast capital surplus, which exists because of low transport and security costs, is what makes its low regulation, entrepreneur capitalist society possible.
  
  
• The second important factor to a nation's success is demography. The young are the ones who generate consumption, while the middle aged are the ones with capital that governments can tax. Children and the elderly are both a burden. It's best to have your population bulge in the young/middle aged groups, but of course that will eventually turn into a population bulge in the old age groups. The best ways to prevent the population histogram from being lopsided toward the older age groups are high fertility and immigration.
  
  
• The long period of U.S. dominance in global affairs was a result of the Breton Woods agreement after WWII, which was basically a pact the U.S. made with its Cold War allies: we will ensure the security of the Free World in return for our allies agreeing to a free trade regime. With the Cold War over, the U.S. no longer needs this agreement to hold. Since the shale revolution has increased domestic energy production, the U.S. doesn't even need to worry about dependence on foreign energy sources.
  
  
• Because the United States no longer needs a global free trade regime as a national security strategy, globalization will collapse. This will hurt a lot of countries, particularly China, but not so much the U.S. For the United States, the biggest threat is actually the drug war, and the best solution to that is to reform immigration and make it easier for Mexican/Central American immigrants to assimilate. This also helps with the demography problem.
  

(08-28-2022, 04:18 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(08-28-2022, 02:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: To use a common phrase, China is "too big to fail." It won't fall so soon after its modern peak just a few years ago. But it may undergo revolution in the mid-2030s. We'll see just how far it goes.

"Too big to fail" applies only to fiscally broken systems insofar that they have the coercive (usually military) clout to force others to give up resources in order to continue to fund the status quo. Most likely, what we're going to see is a sharp recession over the remainder of the 2020s, followed by one or both of the following
1) rekindling of nationalistic zeal, culminating in an expansionary, Russia-esque war campaign
2) Internal revolution, similar to what you just described, but probably a bit sooner (say, 2026 to 2031 if I had to give an approximate date).

Option 2 would likely take a bit longer, as the Chinese have the military to pacify their own people for a few years, but an external conflict would go into effect sooner.

Quote:We can't let the world burn. The world is burning from this "let things happen" ideology. We are all interdependent, and we are one world community, like it or not. The climate crisis is just one proof of that. It requires global cooperation to solve. Covid is another proof of that. Technology is yet another. The rise and fall of imperialism is another. Western colonialism made the world one, but now after the world wars The West is not ruling the world anymore. All regions and all races and nations are rising up and have their place, and borders cannot be walled off. The nationalists, trumpists and social conservative/America Firsters don't like it. It is a matter of them learning to adjust.

If that's what you want, then your best bet is voting for 90s/2000s style neocon (probably from among your generation's ranks).....but no one else outside the billionaire globalists wants to continue policing the world.

To clarify, I'm not suggesting a wall. Outside of the most populist 20% or so of the right, neither is anyone else. I'm not even suggesting protectionism. What I'm saying is that the global system of "free trade" enjoyed by most of the world today is made possible only by the Breton Woods agreement. More specifically, we gave the world a choice at the end of WWII:
1) If you join us, we will give you
- aid to rebuild
- preferential trade terms
- protection of all oceanic shipping routes courtesy of our navy.
2) And in return, you must
- stop fighting each other
- adopt the US dollar as your reserve currency
- purchase your oil in US dollars
- give us free reign to set global security policy as we see fit

There is no question there have been a lot of abuses here (I assume we can agree on that much), but the point is, we aren't seeing trade deficits and lower wages by coincidence, nor were the seeds of this trend sewn during the Reagan Administration. What we are seeing was by design ever since Bretton Woods was agreed to in 1944.

What I'm proposing is simple: we need to stop being the security force for the entirety of the world's oceans and re-negotiate obscenely disadvantageous trade deals in favor of terms that will better serve our national interests.

tl;dr:
1) The internecine wars of Europe only came to an end when America stepped in and made them stop via Bretton Woods and various accompanying treaties.
2) The current expenses levied to police the current system and trade deficits incurred to encourage cooperation never really served the US's best interests.
3) Even if we pretend for a moment that they did, the Soviet Union collapsed on Christmas of 1991, rendering the initial motivation for the arrangement obsolete. The oldest Gen X were barely 30, the oldest millennials around 10 (I was but a 5 month bundle of joy). As such, conservative Gen X and millennials have no interest in defending this system, while liberals of all generations never wanted this level of world policing in the first place.

(10-25-2022, 11:39 PM)nguyenivy Wrote: Since we're discussing how the world developed post-WW2, how do we arrive at the European countries having what Americans like to call 'socialism' but just seems common sense like fair labour laws including paid time off/vacation, universal health coverage, good public transportation, and the US is stuck not having much of this?

(09-08-2022, 02:34 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-08-2022, 02:23 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(09-08-2022, 12:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Still, nuclear does not emit carbon gases or methane, so that is a foremost need at the present time. It is a powerful source, and takes less land or rooftops or ocean space. It is less flexible than renewables though. It is turned off or comes offline periodically, and adding or subtracting energy from the grid as needed from nuclear power is awkward, since it is a huge amount or chunk of energy to add or subtract at a time. Since we need the emission-less energy and it's a major source, it seems we should keep the plants we have for a certain time, and maybe build more in places where it is safe and the need is great, which probably includes China. PG&E in CA just decided to keep its nuclear plant until 2030.

In other words, we should expand use of nuclear power because it is the best thing we have currently, but we should continue R&D to come up with safer alternatives? That is an acceptable answer.

ITER is coming along faster than planned.  First fusion is 2025.  It should be fully operational in the early 2040s, and the commecial spin-offs possible in the 2080s.  Once fusion is on-line, the conversion to zero-carbon fully-capable energy will be a reality.

(10-09-2022, 01:25 PM)sbarrera Wrote:

(08-27-2022, 08:29 PM)sbarrera Wrote: I watched the video. Zeihan paints a dark picture of the world post-globalization/free trade. China could lose 500 million people?? The U.S. must stop Russia in Ukraine to avoid nuclear escalation?? Eep.

I didn't expect it but the interviewers mention Strauss-Howe theory toward the end, though Zeihan brushes it off. It's too bad, because he is talking about the end of globalization and the end of financialization which is exactly what The Fourth Turning predicts.

I've seen posts/interviews from him before but haven't read his books, though I do have "The Accidental Superpower" on my list. I will get to it hopefully before too long.

So I did read "The Accidental Superpower." Zeihan is clearly a pragmatic thinking Xer (he was born in 1973) who describes the facts on the ground as he sees them. These are the key points I got from his book:

• Geography is the key determinant of a nation's wealth and power. The United States is a superpower because of its unique geographic advantages: two oceans protecting its flanks, a massive navigable river system in a fertile heartland, many excellent harbors on the coasts. This is the "accident" behind the superpower. These geographic advantages are what make the U.S. wealthy and secure; it has nothing to do with the character of the people or its system of government. If anything, geography determines what kind of government is possible. The United States' vast capital surplus, which exists because of low transport and security costs, is what makes its low regulation, entrepreneur capitalist society possible.
  
  
• The second important factor to a nation's success is demography. The young are the ones who generate consumption, while the middle aged are the ones with capital that governments can tax. Children and the elderly are both a burden. It's best to have your population bulge in the young/middle aged groups, but of course that will eventually turn into a population bulge in the old age groups. The best ways to prevent the population histogram from being lopsided toward the older age groups are high fertility and immigration.
  
  
• The long period of U.S. dominance in global affairs was a result of the Breton Woods agreement after WWII, which was basically a pact the U.S. made with its Cold War allies: we will ensure the security of the Free World in return for our allies agreeing to a free trade regime. With the Cold War over, the U.S. no longer needs this agreement to hold. Since the shale revolution has increased domestic energy production, the U.S. doesn't even need to worry about dependence on foreign energy sources.
  
  
• Because the United States no longer needs a global free trade regime as a national security strategy, globalization will collapse. This will hurt a lot of countries, particularly China, but not so much the U.S. For the United States, the biggest threat is actually the drug war, and the best solution to that is to reform immigration and make it easier for Mexican/Central American immigrants to assimilate. This also helps with the demography problem.
  

Zeihan goes into a lot of detail and predictions about many other countries around the globe, but I don't think those details are worth getting into here. This book came out in 2014, so a lot of those predictions are probably outdated by now. I will note that he does mention Russia's interest in dominating Ukraine (which would have been obvious in 2014) and he does post a lot now about the war in Ukraine.

Reading Zeihan, I couldn't help by be reminded of another Gen X geopolitical strategist, the somewhat older Thomas P.M. Barnett (b. 1962). Barnett's heyday was during the Bush era, when he published a book called "The Pentagon's New Map" about how the post-Cold War U.S. mission was to integrate the disconnected nations of the world into the globalized economy. It was like a critique of Bush's Iraq War ("this is how they should have done it...") but he was very optimistic about the possibility of the United States continuing to be a global hegemon in a kind of new phase of globalization. Zeihan seems much more the pessimist in contrast. In any event, Barnett's star faded with the failure of the Iraq occupation.

(10-28-2022, 12:51 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Fusion is a long-term project, one about which I am skeptical. The 2080s is of course way too late for what we need now. We need conversion to zero carbon way sooner, I would say 2040 is a good target and that 2030 is a necessary target for many energy needs. Also needed is more development, government funding and R&D on machines that capture carbon from the air; they are also coming along faster than planned. By 2030 we should be stable at below 1.5 C and by 2040 we should be reducing carbon in the atmosphere and fully 0-carbon, perhaps even for airplanes and rockets although I am not sure about those. China and India will need to speed up their plans to end coal use, and of course the USA should vote Democratic and Brazil should vote out Bolsonaro so we both can lead the way and help others and not be the main obstacle.

Eric Wrote:"it seems we should keep the plants we have for a certain time, and maybe build more in places where it is safe and the need is great, which probably includes China" does not mean that it is the best thing currently, or that it should be expanded everywhere. "Safer alternatives" includes renewables, if that's what you meant Jason, including more R&D for them, and even now they are the best option because they are cheaper and expanding fast and the most green, safe and clean alternative. Renewables and alternative fuels can provide the 0-carbon economy, but use of nuclear is a good supplement right now. It is not based on renewable energy and generates waste and risk, so it may not be a good option in the long-run. More R&D in that field including fusion will be needed in order to decide for how long it can be deployed.

(10-31-2022, 01:45 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-28-2022, 12:51 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Fusion is a long-term project, one about which I am skeptical. The 2080s is of course way too late for what we need now. We need conversion to zero carbon way sooner, I would say 2040 is a good target and that 2030 is a necessary target for many energy needs. Also needed is more development, government funding and R&D on machines that capture carbon from the air; they are also coming along faster than planned. By 2030 we should be stable at below 1.5 C and by 2040 we should be reducing carbon in the atmosphere and fully 0-carbon, perhaps even for airplanes and rockets although I am not sure about those. China and India will need to speed up their plans to end coal use, and of course the USA should vote Democratic and Brazil should vote out Bolsonaro so we both can lead the way and help others and not be the main obstacle.

I would like to believe this, but I don't. Zero-carbon energy has to be reliable and cheap enough to fight-off the skeptics. So far, cheap seems to be doing well, but reliable, not so much. If we go for reliable using intermittant sources (ie wind and solar) energy storage or massive managed redistribution will be a must. Neither is likely because storage will require massive mining of not very earth friendly minerals, and redistribution will require political cooperation from everyone, when only some will actually benefit. That's no reason to avoid doing what can be done. It simply won't be enough.

Quote:

Eric Wrote:"it seems we should keep the plants we have for a certain time, and maybe build more in places where it is safe and the need is great, which probably includes China" does not mean that it is the best thing currently, or that it should be expanded everywhere. "Safer alternatives" includes renewables, if that's what you meant Jason, including more R&D for them, and even now they are the best option because they are cheaper and expanding fast and the most green, safe and clean alternative. Renewables and alternative fuels can provide the 0-carbon economy, but use of nuclear is a good supplement right now. It is not based on renewable energy and generates waste and risk, so it may not be a good option in the long-run. More R&D in that field including fusion will be needed in order to decide for how long it can be deployed.

Renewables have downsides too, but can and should be managed at a more discrete level. Still, there isn't enough there to get it all done. The scientists have known that fusion is the long term answer, but one that requires enormous up front cost. Luckily, the cost sharing model was set prior to the current beggar-thy-neighbor politics acme into being full force. I'm still hopeful.

(11-01-2022, 01:26 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-31-2022, 01:45 PM)David Horn Wrote: Zero-carbon energy has to be reliable and cheap enough to fight-off the skeptics.  So far, cheap seems to be doing well, but reliable, not so much.  If we go for reliable using intermittant sources (ie wind and solar) energy storage or massive managed redistribution will be a must.  Neither is likely because storage will require massive mining of not very earth friendly minerals, and redistribution will require political cooperation from everyone, when only some will actually benefit.  That's no reason to avoid doing what can be done.  It simply won't be enough.

It would have even been enough by now had we built it, but Republican resistance stopped this. The skeptics should not be enabled. We either vote for salvation or disaster; it's on the ballot. Batteries are already sufficient and getting better. Cobalt is being phased out. Utility scale batteries will switch from lithium to salt. Concentrated solar power was improved and should be used, and molten salt batteries work well with it. Grid management already works where it is used. Renewables provide more flexible management than nuclear. CA averted shutdowns during the heatwave. Texas did not avoid shutdowns during its freeze. The difference is clear. More improvement is necessary, but we already have the means to supply all our needs through renewables. Nuclear is a good back-up for now. Hydro may be unreliable because of increasing drought, except in northern areas. It is best to keep up to date with developments. My global warming blog is a good place to start.

(11-26-2022, 06:14 PM)nguyenivy Wrote: The Chinese populace have recently seen the World Cup and are protesting the lockdown policies now across multiple cities. There is a new variant spreading there and the government was trying to lock places down again but it coincided with the World Cup where everyone is 'back to normal'. Question: Is China in a 4T like the western nations are or some other Turning?