NationStates

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:16 pm**

The free market hasnt been a force for innovation, that was the military that started the internet. All the market did was create a big ass bubble and a bunch of media platforms that censor themselves to death. That shit is just wrong.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:26 pm**

The focus is too much on what the people in DC will do, which as near as I can tell, have never had any bearing in my life. Right now multiple states have decided to enact resolutions to keep themselves in line with the Paris accords, even though they never signed anything. Cities too are constantly rolling out green programs. And as long as it is fashionable, businesses will want to be green because they can use it in advertising.

Putting programs like this through congress is a long shot, but modifying the proposal so that it is personalized and effective for each state, I wouldn't be surprised by a 65% adoption rate.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:31 pm**

Yes but it would be simpler to just have the state start rolling out solar panels.

You may not like the state, but the political system will run a lot better once some Chinese systems are implemented to sort this shit out.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:32 pm**

Pagan Trapistan wrote:The free market hasnt been a force for innovation, that was the military that started the internet. All the market did was create a big ass bubble and a bunch of media platforms that censor themselves to death. That shit is just wrong.

State-funded research gave us the components to create the iPhone. The free market gave us the marketing-fueled yearly ritual of buying an only marginally upgraded version of it while trying to ignore the fact that the factory making them has suicide prevention nets.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:34 pm**

Liriena wrote:
Pagan Trapistan wrote:The free market hasnt been a force for innovation, that was the military that started the internet. All the market did was create a big ass bubble and a bunch of media platforms that censor themselves to death. That shit is just wrong.

State-funded research gave us the components to create the iPhone. The free market gave us the marketing-fueled yearly ritual of buying an only marginally upgraded version of it while trying to ignore the fact that the factory making them has suicide prevention nets.

I certainly don't see those space exploration companies do anything useful aside from basic deliveries into orbit (which NASA, a state-owned organization, began) and worthless publicity stunts.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:37 pm**

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
Liriena wrote:State-funded research gave us the components to create the iPhone. The free market gave us the marketing-fueled yearly ritual of buying an only marginally upgraded version of it while trying to ignore the fact that the factory making them has suicide prevention nets.

I certainly don't see those space exploration companies do anything useful aside from basic deliveries into orbit (which NASA, a state-owned organization, began) and worthless publicity stunts.

Elon Musk is the worst daddy

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:40 pm**

Liriena wrote:
Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
I certainly don't see those space exploration companies do anything useful aside from basic deliveries into orbit (which NASA, a state-owned organization, began) and worthless publicity stunts.

Elon Musk is the worst daddy

He's got charisma and a machine already going, but where is the initiative? The innovation!?

Don't send cars into space, send us to bloody Mars already!

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:49 pm**

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:I certainly don't see those space exploration companies do anything useful aside from basic deliveries into orbit (which NASA, a state-owned organization, began) and worthless publicity stunts.

https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:59 pm**

Pagan Trapistan wrote:Yes but it would be simpler to just have the state start rolling out solar panels.

You may not like the state, but the political system will run a lot better once some Chinese systems are implemented to sort this shit out.

The state can give me solar panels, that's cool, but let me install them please, I am the steward of this land, I know where they should and shouldn't go. When the government eminent domains, things always get messy.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:13 pm**

Achidyemay wrote:The state can give me solar panels, that's cool, but let me install them please, I am the steward of this land, I know where they should and shouldn't go. When the government eminent domains, things always get messy.

Sure, the state should work with people.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:08 pm**

Pagan Trapistan wrote:Yes but it would be simpler to just have the state start rolling out solar panels.

You may not like the state, but the political system will run a lot better once some Chinese systems are implemented to sort this shit out.

Rapant corruption, slave labor, and dumping dangerous by-products of the manufacturing process into rivers?
No thanks.

We should make our own solar panels, and make them in a more sustainable manner.

Carbon emissions are not the only source of pollution, and not always the worst.
China has a horrible environmental record. Sure they have made some recent positive steps, but still refuse to reign in overcapacity of their zombie companies.

But solar alone will not solve the problem.
It takes up too much space and uses up to many resources, plus is not reliable enough.

The most reliable and most environmentally friendly power source is nuclear, it uses the least amount of resources and land per unit of power produced.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:10 pm**

Liriena wrote:
Pagan Trapistan wrote:The free market hasnt been a force for innovation, that was the military that started the internet. All the market did was create a big ass bubble and a bunch of media platforms that censor themselves to death. That shit is just wrong.

State-funded research gave us the components to create the iPhone. The free market gave us the marketing-fueled yearly ritual of buying an only marginally upgraded version of it while trying to ignore the fact that the factory making them has suicide prevention nets.

But with just the state alone they would not exist. We have public/private partnerships for a reason.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:39 pm**

Novus America wrote:
Pagan Trapistan wrote:Yes but it would be simpler to just have the state start rolling out solar panels.

You may not like the state, but the political system will run a lot better once some Chinese systems are implemented to sort this shit out.

Rapant corruption, slave labor, and dumping dangerous by-products of the manufacturing process into rivers?
No thanks.

We should make our own solar panels, and make them in a more sustainable manner.

Carbon emissions are not the only source of pollution, and not always the worst.
China has a horrible environmental record. Sure they have made some recent positive steps, but still refuse to reign in overcapacity of their zombie companies.

But solar alone will not solve the problem.
It takes up too much space and uses up to many resources, plus is not reliable enough.

The most reliable and most environmentally friendly power source is nuclear, it uses the least amount of resources and land per unit of power produced.

You are mistaken about the amount of land needed for renewables. Not only that but you seem to ignore the construction time and costs of nuclear power plants, as well as the requirement for a fuel that high quality ore for minimum waste or carbon is in not very high supply. Nuclear may serve a purpose, but not nearly as much as renewables can.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:46 pm**

Auze wrote:
Novus America wrote:
Rapant corruption, slave labor, and dumping dangerous by-products of the manufacturing process into rivers?
No thanks.

We should make our own solar panels, and make them in a more sustainable manner.

Carbon emissions are not the only source of pollution, and not always the worst.
China has a horrible environmental record. Sure they have made some recent positive steps, but still refuse to reign in overcapacity of their zombie companies.

But solar alone will not solve the problem.
It takes up too much space and uses up to many resources, plus is not reliable enough.

The most reliable and most environmentally friendly power source is nuclear, it uses the least amount of resources and land per unit of power produced.

You are mistaken about the amount of land needed for renewables. Not only that but you seem to ignore the construction time and costs of nuclear power plants, as well as the requirement for a fuel that high quality ore for minimum waste or carbon is in not very high supply. Nuclear may serve a purpose, but not nearly as much as renewables can.

Your source does not compare nuclear with wind.
Nuclear uses far less land than any other source.
http://environmentalprogress.org/why-cl ... in-crisis/
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... ormat=750w
https://www.science20.com/cool_science/ ... ric-155642
Nuclear has the lowest impact overall, even acounging for the cost of mining and waste.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:47 pm**

Auze wrote:
Novus America wrote:
Rapant corruption, slave labor, and dumping dangerous by-products of the manufacturing process into rivers?
No thanks.

We should make our own solar panels, and make them in a more sustainable manner.

Carbon emissions are not the only source of pollution, and not always the worst.
China has a horrible environmental record. Sure they have made some recent positive steps, but still refuse to reign in overcapacity of their zombie companies.

But solar alone will not solve the problem.
It takes up too much space and uses up to many resources, plus is not reliable enough.

The most reliable and most environmentally friendly power source is nuclear, it uses the least amount of resources and land per unit of power produced.

You are mistaken about the amount of land needed for renewables. Not only that but you seem to ignore the construction time and costs of nuclear power plants, as well as the requirement for a fuel that high quality ore for minimum waste or carbon is in not very high supply. Nuclear may serve a purpose, but not nearly as much as renewables can.

I would add that we still have no clue what to do with the waste and for the most part we just sort of barrel it up

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:54 pm**

Achidyemay wrote:
Auze wrote:You are mistaken about the amount of land needed for renewables. Not only that but you seem to ignore the construction time and costs of nuclear power plants, as well as the requirement for a fuel that high quality ore for minimum waste or carbon is in not very high supply. Nuclear may serve a purpose, but not nearly as much as renewables can.

I would add that we still have no clue what to do with the waste and for the most part we just sort of barrel it up

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... lanet/amp/
All power sources produce waste, but nuclear produces only a tiny amount compared to the power produced. Production of solar panels creates far more toxic waste.

Barreling up nuclear waste harms no one.

Or we could reprocess it into more fuel.

Any Green plan or goals that do not treat nuclear as a clean fuel and granted the same status as other clean fuels is a bad plan.

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:48 am**

Pagan Trapistan wrote:Carbon tax is pointless. If they're doing something economically productive, and you want to go green, tax them normally and put it toward solar panels (or other technology). Don't punish productivity (carbon), just use said productivity to fuel progress and less-polluting technology (instead of badly made jets).

China was massively subsidizing solar panels long before talking about a minor carbon tax late 2017, and thats the sensible way to do it. They might have a ways to go environmentally, but they've been putting more into it than the U.S..

Shaping the market is nonsense. The market just goes to Indian telemarketets. You only want the market at all to ramp up development before going technosocialism.

Thats what China does. (Okay maybe not but I can dream)

Technically, no such thing as a "carbon tax" exists. It's not a government levy, it's not even a system of fines. The term, obviously, comes from what stuck from opponents of the scheme because taxes all sound mean and scary.

Carbon taxes specifically allow companies to trade with each other for carbon credits. Everyone starts at the nominal level and then low-polluting firms get to sell their excess credits to the exchange, allowing bigger polluters to buy those credits suitable to their needs and "allowing" them to emit that much.

Because the credits continually renew, bigger polluters have to keep shelling out for the 'right' to pollute. If they breach their carbon credits, then they get fined by the regulatory body.
They then choose to find means to reduce their pollution and footprint, so they have to spend less money in the exchange.

The money generated through the exchange can be used basically however the government wants it to, but in Australia iirc it was used to subsidise the energy bills of taxpayers and to part-fund measures allowing industries to reduce their footprint.

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:50 am**

Achidyemay wrote:I would add that we still have no clue what to do with the waste and for the most part we just sort of barrel it up

And?

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:18 pm**

"Green" doesn't quite seem very "industrial". Quotes in the OP don't have me convinced.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2019 12:37 am**

Arlenton wrote:"Green" doesn't quite seem very "industrial". Quotes in the OP don't have me convinced.

Most "green deals" fail horribly because they somehow decide that nuclear and hydroelectric (literally THE two most efficient green power sources) power is either too dangerous or too destructive, and thus go for alternate means of electricity generation that are too expensive, too situational/unreliable, or experimental.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2019 1:02 am**

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
Arlenton wrote:"Green" doesn't quite seem very "industrial". Quotes in the OP don't have me convinced.

Most "green deals" fail horribly because they somehow decide that nuclear and hydroelectric (literally THE two most efficient green power sources) power is either too dangerous or too destructive, and thus go for alternate means of electricity generation that are too expensive, too situational/unreliable, or experimental.

I use to be a big advocate for Space Based Solar Power until I realized doing such means you're effectively creating a new breed of WMD weapons.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2019 1:50 am**

Confederate States of German America wrote:
Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
Most "green deals" fail horribly because they somehow decide that nuclear and hydroelectric (literally THE two most efficient green power sources) power is either too dangerous or too destructive, and thus go for alternate means of electricity generation that are too expensive, too situational/unreliable, or experimental.

I use to be a big advocate for Space Based Solar Power until I realized doing such means you're effectively creating a new breed of WMD weapons.

German sun gun...

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2019 3:49 am**

Confederate States of German America wrote:
Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
Most "green deals" fail horribly because they somehow decide that nuclear and hydroelectric (literally THE two most efficient green power sources) power is either too dangerous or too destructive, and thus go for alternate means of electricity generation that are too expensive, too situational/unreliable, or experimental.

I use to be a big advocate for Space Based Solar Power until I realized doing such means you're effectively creating a new breed of WMD weapons.

Space based solar solves the issues of weather and (ground level) dirt, but introduces the new challenge of transmission.

It really is not viable.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:08 am**

Novus America wrote:
Achidyemay wrote:I would add that we still have no clue what to do with the waste and for the most part we just sort of barrel it up

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... lanet/amp/
All power sources produce waste, but nuclear produces only a tiny amount compared to the power produced. Production of solar panels creates far more toxic waste.

Barreling up nuclear waste harms no one.

Or we could reprocess it into more fuel.

Any Green plan or goals that do not treat nuclear as a clean fuel and granted the same status as other clean fuels is a bad plan.

Indeed, newer generations of nuclear power plants can use radioactive waste from older variants as fuel.

Improving the technology behind nuclear fission reactors to increase overall efficiency is a green and worthwhile investment.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:15 am**

Esternial wrote:
Novus America wrote:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... lanet/amp/
All power sources produce waste, but nuclear produces only a tiny amount compared to the power produced. Production of solar panels creates far more toxic waste.

Barreling up nuclear waste harms no one.

Or we could reprocess it into more fuel.

Any Green plan or goals that do not treat nuclear as a clean fuel and granted the same status as other clean fuels is a bad plan.

Indeed, newer generations of nuclear power plants can use radioactive waste from older variants as fuel.

Improving the technology behind nuclear fission reactors to increase overall efficiency is a green and worthwhile investment.

Well, there's nothing generational about it, fast reactors aren't much younger than thermal reactors.

Fast reactors have serious commercial and legislative hurdles. Namely, NPT issues. They are "efficient" in that they can close the fuel cycle and have interesting properties.

NationStates

Nuts and Bolts of a Green New Deal