Energy vs. Politics

[Ulmo]

I just have a general three paragraph piece I wrote to open people's minds up and clean out some of the crud that's collected there. Here's the post, which I copy below: Energy vs. Politics

If you take the politics out of clean energy, you learn that all the political people on all sides are lying (pro-China, pro-oil, pro-coal, pro-Russia, pro-Iran, pro-nuclear, pro-wind, etc.). Don't even start to consider energy topics without first looking at a physics first interpretation of it. I guarantee the two things least represented in mad media and manipulated socialist forums are the interests of individual citizens and the environment. There are a lot of somewhat complex but not very complex solutions to almost all the claimed energy problems, but the mess of anti-citizen groups don't want to solve any of them.

Yes, there is such a thing as someone smart like Scott Adams looking at the topic briefly learning enough to already have some superior ideas. But the person I would trust the most (because he independently came to nearly identical conclusions to what I did after both of us extensively researched for decades) has already poured out his vast knowledge on the topic in hundreds of hours of videos, and his name is Jack Rickard. At a minimum, I'd say to watch Jack's videos extensively, then go read what Scott has to say on the topic. (Since they are both smart, they cover many topics, not all of which are directly energy, so you have to focus.) And don't forget that any solution that erases the sovereignty of the American People is unacceptable, so while you may assume that just getting rid of dirty coal is a great solution, it has to be done in such a way that we do not lose energy independence and we keep political freedom and independence from and power over the evils of the world such as socialists and ISIS.

Learn about it, think of what individual land-owning farm-owning home-owning citizens would be best served by, and yes, of course, what is best for the environment, then realize that you've been lied to all this time, and that the individuals I mentioned above and below according each to their skill and time invested has gotten a lot closer to the truth than mad media and politicians.

*
Links:

• Jack Rickard (researched energy for 50 years)
• Scott Adams (researched energy for a few years)

 

[nwdiver]

If you take the politics out of clean energy

Step 1 of taking politics out of clean energy is to not support politicians that make rejecting reality as part of their policy platform. Trump is possibly the most reality molesting person ever elected to pubic office (He literally sharpied a weather map to fit a previous statement!!) and IIRC Jack was a supporter....

the evils of the world such as socialists .....

??? What do you have against Finland? What did they do to you?

If you want to take the politics out of clean energy you need to approach policy agnostically. 'Socialism' is a broad label that encompasses A LOT of policy like public schools, police, fire and roads. It's a tool to achieve a policy goal. You're kinda failing in step 1 if you have strong negative feelings about a particular tool. More than a little ironic that you blast 'socialism' as 'evil' on a politics vs energy thread when there's a ~99% chance solar would be >$10/w instead of <$1/w if not for socialist policies that supported solar. Heck... without socialism we probably wouldn't even have an electric grid outside major cities... Electricity distribution would be stuck in the same dystopia as broadband internet because god forbid the government would subsidize infrastructure where it's not commercially viable. That would be socialism and socialism is evil...

Here's a reality: Technology has made it increasingly impossible to provide sufficient gainful employment to provide a means of consumption for our increased production. What's the solution?

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Step 1 of taking politics out of clean energy is to not support politicians that make rejecting reality as part of their policy platform. Trump is possibly the most reality molesting person ever elected to pubic office (He literally sharpied a weather map to fit a previous statement!!) and IIRC Jack was a supporter....



??? What do you have against Finland? What did they do to you?

If you want to take the politics out of clean energy you need to approach policy agnostically. 'Socialism' is a broad label that encompasses A LOT of policy like public schools, police, fire and roads. It's a tool to achieve a policy goal. You're kinda failing in step 1 if you have strong negative feelings about a particular tool. More than a little ironic that you blast 'socialism' as 'evil' on a politics vs energy thread when there's a ~99% chance solar would be >$10/w instead of <$1/w if not for socialist policies that supported solar. Heck... without socialism we probably wouldn't even have an electric grid outside major cities... Electricity distribution would be stuck in the same dystopia as broadband internet because god forbid the government would subsidize infrastructure where it's not commercially viable. That would be socialism and socialism is evil...

Whoa there. Rural broadband _subsidies_ are not good. I live in a state where plenty of "rural" people are actually urban workers choosing to live away from towns. I mean, we have over 19% of housing as vacation homes. Those people need $0 in subsidy for making choices that make it hard to connect them to physical or even networks.

We had a vote for a bond supporting it, and I'm not surprised to such a referendum, because ISPs must be crapping themselves seeing Starlink and other LEO networks go up.

I don't mind underwriting and then charging people the larger amount they need to pay, or supporting B4RN-like initiatives, or possible technologies, but subsidy? Hell no.

Here's a reality: Technology has made it increasingly impossible to provide sufficient gainful employment to provide a means of consumption for our increased production. What's the solution?

Well, I wouldn't say we're there yet. However, there are other systemic problems that make it seem like it's a problem. You can't both have skill shortages and a need for something like UBI.

 

[nwdiver]

Whoa there. Rural broadband _subsidies_ are not good. I live in a state where plenty of "rural" people are actually urban workers choosing to live away from towns. I mean, we have over 19% of housing as vacation homes. Those people need $0 in subsidy for making choices that make it hard to connect them to physical or even networks.

???? .... ok.... what about all the kids and teachers whose families can't afford to live closer to the cities and now have to drive 20 miles to sit in a McDs parking lot do to schoolwork?

Internet access is today what electricity was in the 1930s. It's become less of a luxury and more of a necessity.

Well, I wouldn't say we're there yet. However, there are other systemic problems that make it seem like it's a problem. You can't both have skill shortages and a need for something like UBI.

Sure you can. Not everyone has the intellectual horsepower or experience to be an 'Integrated circuit silicon isotope failure analysis engineer supervisor III'. Even when we desperately need or already have a UBI there will still be a skill shortage of some kind. And it's a continuum. It's not like the lack of a UBI isn't a problem one day and is the next. I'd say the lack of a UBI started becoming an issue ~20 years ago. It's a lot like climate change, the negative effects start small and get exponentially worse over time.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

???? .... ok.... what about all the kids and teachers whose families can't afford to live closer to the cities and now have to drive 20 miles to sit in a McDs parking lot do to schoolwork?

Internet access is today what electricity was in the 1930s. It's become less of a luxury and more of a necessity.

if it's an essential, then minimum wage needs to cover it, and welfare payments would include it.
Then people living in rural areas, where housing is cheaper than urban areas, would be spending more of their money on broadband and less on housing than people in urban areas.

As I wrote, I'm OK with underwriting it, but the costs need to be covered. Bad subsidy, like other bad pricing leads to bad markets.

Sure you can. Not everyone has the intellectual horsepower or experience to be an 'Integrated circuit silicon isotope failure analysis engineer supervisor III'. Even when we desperately need or already have a UBI there will still be a skill shortage of some kind. And it's a continuum. It's not like the lack of a UBI isn't a problem one day and is the next. I'd say the lack of a UBI started becoming an issue ~20 years ago. It's a lot like climate change, the negative effects start small and get exponentially worse over time.

That's a _future_ theoretical. I agree that we have to be _open_ to the idea that technology could ultimately lower the value of human labor low enough that it can't support a reasonable basic standard of living, but I think we're far from it.

If the USA has issues with a lack of trained people in fields that do not require exceptional intellect, or exceptional physical skills, or require neither, doesn't it make sense that before you jump into UBI, you would first try to get people into training in fields with skills gaps? I mean, we need _truckers_.

 

[nwdiver]

Then people living in rural areas, where housing is cheaper than urban areas, would be spending more of their money on broadband and less on housing than people in urban areas.

As I wrote, I'm OK with underwriting it, but the costs need to be covered. Bad subsidy, like other bad pricing leads to bad markets.

That's a _future_ theoretical.

They can't buy what's not offered. It's not that broadband is too expensive... it's that it's not available. Perhaps private companies would need to charge $500/mo to provide service and don't think that's a viable price point. We ran 50 miles of transmission line so 3 farmers could light 6 light bulbs in the 1930s, I think we can find a way to bring internet to rural areas.

It's not a 'future theoretical' it's a 'current reality'. If employment opportunities are so plentiful then why is there so much emphasis on creating more jobs?

 

[ArchEtech]

Taking the politics out of energy and the first response is political! IBTL!