Thanks for the link.
I think we should work with other countries. As long as the framework is advantageous. Which as a powerful country we could get.
I think it’s important to act now actually. I’m not in favor of oceans rising and increased ocean acidity. I think the science skepticism is one of the biggest issues with the Republican Party.
:dubious:
Like if independence from foreign oil and big energy companies is not a conservative idea too.
I’m curious how you come to this conclusion. Like, there’s a legitimate case to be made that the main thing driving many Trump supporters is pissing off the “other” of the liberals. They’re quite overt about it - “triggering the snowflakes” is such a common theme on right-wing websites that it’s virtually impossible to avoid. What’s the equivalent on the liberal side? A few people acting with cruel schadenfreude when they read stories about Trump supporters who didn’t realize that they were on Obamacare?
This goes beyond the topic of this thread, but since you asked …
[off-topic answer]
First of all, I don’t see any evidence that there is a liberal side and a conservative side. People are too diverse to fit into two tiny boxes.
But it’s a perception shared by enough people (particularly the more vocal ones) across the spectrum to turn every issue into a partisan one in the public discourse.
The division of political power in the USA in two parties facilitates the idea that political thinking is equally divided.
But while the most public displays of partisanship are unlikely representative of convictions shared by the majority, they do constitute, consolidate and reinforce the image of those “sides” - for the people who care about the issue currently on view as well as everyone else listening. If we continue to vocalize partisanship on every issue long and strong enough, it turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And since you asked about an equivalent on the “liberal side” (though I’m not quite sure where you position it): in my mind, their outspoken agents tend to characterize anyone who isn’t on their side as fascists or Nazis - in other words, they don’t see a political opposition at work but evil itself. Which might also explain why the ones afflicted by this idea can’t abide to hear any opposition speak at all; a need to silence the ideologically unpure is a disturbing tendency among the loudest voices on the left.
You can see this happening on colleges and the entire public discourse, including this forum.
And while it’s not fair, I think this tendency is the main reason for the willingness among conservatives to box all liberals and lefties once again into a neat “neo marxist” drawer - which turns political opposition into a metaphysical struggle for the “soul of the nation”.
Of course, the partisan voices argue that they have plenty of reason to think like that - and act on it. And, not surprisingly, the loudest among those sides start to devour their own children. Hallelujah.
[/off-topic answer]
Solar will not scale up to meet enough of our energy needs, and is more expensive than nuclear.
But it is politics that causes Democrats to ignore the economics.
Regards,
Shodan
You can keep repeating that over and over, but that doesn’t make it true.
Stranger
Don’t be shy, quote the relevant lines from your cite to support your position.
After that you can address the efficiency issues with solar cells compared to nuclear power. Solar cells have a known problem with night-time production which is when we will need power to recharge EV’s so we can save the planet from climate change.
The solution is to make twice the number of solar cells and batteries necessary to cover electrical usage. No problem, China’s coal-fired industries should take care of demand.
No, I didn’t realize that, but my info isn’t up-to-date. Have they broken even more agreements recently than the U.S.A. has?
Two points:
(1) It was “more than next 4 combined” a few years ago but, because China’s CO2 emissions didn’t grow in 2014-2017, is now only “more than next 3 combined.” But where did you get “next 5 combined”? 
(2) China has more goats than any other country, more sheep than any other country, consumes more ice cream than any other country; need I go on? It’s only two in number of automobiles, behind the U.S.A., but I think China has more red houses than any other country, and makes more Trump-themed apparel than any other country including the U.S. China is a big country.
Qatar has 2½ times the per capita emissions of U.S., which in turn has about twice the per capita emissions of China but, since Qatar emits less than 1% of China in absolute numbers, they’re fine in your opinion?
New York emits more CO2 than Alabama does, so, in your opinion, is it New York rather than Alabama that should cut back? Even though Alabama’s per capita number is three times New York’s?
China leads the world in solar energy; almost twice Japan or Germany or U.S.A. Most of the world’s top manufacturers of solar panels are Chinese companies. China is also the global market leader in hydropower, bioenergy, and electric vehicles.
China has made fighting pollution a priority. While still too high, the SO2 levels of Beijing’s air are only a third what they once were.
The idea that the Board is “left leaning” has always struck me as a bit exaggerated. XT is active in this thread—he’s no leftist—and at least 3 rightists are posting. Does the center-left outnumber the right-wing here? Sure, but that’s true of almost any intellectual grouping.
And “far-left”? There are some Bernie Bros at SDMB, if that’s what you mean, but I don’t think they’re a majority.
I’d be curious to hear specific examples of thinking you call “far-left” (or “far-right” for that matter). Is it “leftist” to think temperatures are rising, and then “far-leftist” to think the warming is caused by man? 
These are the trends I see:
1 - Efficiency increasing
2 - Costs decreasing
To say it “will not” seems to imply a limit that isn’t apparent in the trends. Is there some physical limit that will prevent the cost from dropping further?
I think that’s a big problem with the latter-day (i.e. post-1980s) Republican/Conservative side of things. They’ve hitched their wagon so tightly to the conservative religious fringe that points of religious doctrine have become intertwined with the party platforms.
So you get idiocy like the notion that people have to choose between Jesus or science encoded in the political party’s doctrine. And then you have 40% (not necessarily the same people either) who will vote for that party, come hell or high water and who accept what they say without thinking it, because you know, the Democrats are the enemy, regardless of what they say.
From what I gather, before the 1990s, it was more of a philosophical difference- there was still the same divide, but it didn’t have the religious flavor it does today, and I think that may be what makes a lot of the difference. It winds a lot of people in tighter than they otherwise might be, for fear of religious offense.
The linked report is from the US Energy Information Administration entitled “Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2018”. The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) estimates for different sources are presented in Table 1a and Table 1b for capacity-weighted average and unweighted average for new sources coming online in 2022. The report is in plain language which you can read for yourself. The LCOE is in terms of FY2017 USD per megawatt, so on a cost basis it doesn’t matter that solar power can only be generated in daytime, although from a baseload standpoint that is less of an issue than you make of it because peak electrical power demand also occurs in daytime to early evening.
But there is another logistical issue to consider; a conventional (pressurized or boiling water reactor) nuclear fission power plant can take five years or more to design, site, construct, and certify for operation even without significant delays. Light water reactors also require enriched uranium fuel; the United States has neither high grade uranium ore deposits, nor even enough enrichment capacity to sustain current operating fission reactors; we use enriched uranium and mixed oxide fuel from foreign sources which is costly and a substantial national security risk that would only increase with greater dependence upon nuclear fission. Standing up new refining and enrichment capability to support a multiple factor increase in nuclear fission power generation would be the work of a decade or more even if we can find someplace to site the facility. (Previous enrichment facilities have required extensive cleanup and remediation, and communities are naturally reluctant to be home to one even despite the well-paying jobs it brings.)
On the other hand, photovoltaic (PV) solar can be deployed nearly as fast as panels can be fabricated and shipped. Aside from an environmental impact statement, there are almost no concerns about local pollution, no ongoing fuel processing costs, and is enormously scaleable. The downsides to solar–that it requires a large footprint per kWh of power production, the limited lifespan of PV solar panels, that it is not well suited to high latitude regions, the lack of baseload capability and need for external power storage for nighttime demand–prevent it from being a complete solution but in terms of rapidly offsetting the most polluting fossil fuels it is by far the quickest and cheapest to deploy in the near term, which also gives time and space to develop and approve more advanced fission power generation designs that require less fuel processing and enrichment and generate less overall waste while generating more energy from fuel elements through partial or complete fuel burnup.
As for China, they are investing heavily in renewables and solar in particular because they understand both the costs and security risks of coal and oil are just going to increase as time goes on. Their increase in solar power generation capability in 2016 was greater than the increase of all other nations combined. And PV solar panel fabrication not only has a lower energy cost associated with it per kW of generation capacity than the end-to-end nuclear fuel cycle but also actually has a lower carbon footprint than that associated with the fabrication of nuclear power plants (which require a lot of concrete, steel piping, and transportation carbon costs in addition to fuel mining, milling, and enrichment). China has the goal to be energy secure through a combination of strategic alliances and transitioning to an energy infrastructure that is largely renewable and ultimately not dependent upon any external energy supplies for critical functions. They look to be sitting pretty while the rest of the world runs down the clock on oil and readily available natural gas, which is the smart play looking ahead thirty or forty years. If we really wanted to be energy secure, and oh by the way bring back some of those lost manufacturing jobs, we’d be doing strategic investment in domestic manufacture of PV solar panels and associated hardware, not chopping off mountaintops for coal and fracking the shit out of low yield tar sands as our energy plan of the future.
The crowd of people bitching about how “left leaning” this board is come from the view that anyone left of Newt Gingrich is a flaming socialist, which reflects the fact that the once-pragmatic Republican party has been hijacked by Tea Party zealots who have shifted the perception so far to the political right that even Reagan would protest in the streets with the pussy hat people. With few exceptions, those self-identified conservatives who pisstake about the liberal bent are doing so to avoid making substantive arguments or provide evidence to back up their claims, often resorting to innuendo and baiting rhetoric to divert a discussion not going their way.
Stranger
The designs for the next generation nuclear plants already exist so that’s a red herring. They’re virtually idiot proof and will safely shut themselves down regardless of human input or the lack thereof. They idea that solar panel farms spring into action quickly is nonsense. They’re a construction project just like anything else.
'the fastest alternative to coal plants are natural gas plants which take little time to transition over too.
uh huh. We;ll just forget the 2 power plants a week they were building in 2016.
The article also makes clear that most of the coal plants are headed for a huge fall as even with no clampdown there is an over production of them. Also a lot of other energy projects not related to coal are bound to cause most of the new coal plants to fail.
Man, I get so tired of people looking for “the solution” (and this is, so far as I can tell, a truly bipartisan problem). Those who say that solar power is the solution to green energy generation are just as wrong as those who say that nuclear is the solution. The fact is, we don’t need one solution. We need a whole bunch of things which, collectively, add up to a solution. Let’s make more solar panels, and more wind turbines, and more geothermal plants, and more nuclear plants, and increase the efficiency of our appliances and vehicles, and research and develop new technologies. We’re not limited to just doing one of those things, and it’s highly unlikely that any one would be enough. Now, doing everything? That can be enough.
Not true. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has not certified any design of either a fast neutron reactor or small modular power reactor, and while there are some proof of concept demonstrations of both no full scale complete design exists for any Generation IV nuclear fission reactor. Getting a new type design certified is viewed as a major hurdle by potential operators, hence why their is little serious private interest in developing Generation IV designs for commercial power generation despite the efficiency improvements.
No one has said that “solar panel farms spring into action” by any magical process; what has been stated is that PV solar panels can be deployed nearly as quickly as they can be fabricated and transported with scaleability down to the level of the individual consumer. Since they produce no waste products or emissions, even getting a siting approval is a straightforward process compared to any kind of natural gas power plant. With thermal solar, up to the level of a single installation being able to provide power in the several thousand megawatt-hour/day range.
Stranger
There are type 3 designs approved and ready to go. Beyond that all it takes is political willpower to stop the economic extremists from delaying the process of type 4 approval.
natural gas power plants are upgrades to existing coal plants. the environmental approval consists of agreeing to less Co2 produced.
I guess it is hard for you to see how left this board is because you are a member of the left majority and most people perceive themselves as the center.
Some interesting polls here by members of this very community:
134 votes for Clinton, 15 for Trump
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=8463
Most people think Clinton’s poll numbers were underestimated (40 vs 15)
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=7863
158 to 20 thinking Clinton would win the election.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=7882
Even after the election, more people here think the EC would defect to Clinton
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=7920
86 to 4 on not watching the Republican National Convention
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=7769
There is IMHO a bit of that, but I think that you are not taking into account that our conservatives are different. And I base that on another thread where I did see that the majority of the conservatives did not favor Trump in the past election. Now on many occasions they fall in line with their leaders as good Republicans do, but it is clear to me that they should rather not have the current leadership.
But I do think that a lot of what we are seeing, and this subject is part of it, is that organizations like the press are finding out that misinformation is becoming normalized. In past elections mayor newspapers in the USA usually endorsed the Republican candidate, that changed after the Clinton years when newspapers began to endorse both the Democrat and the Republican with similar numbers.
Obama began to change that when he clearly got more endorsements than McCain, but in 2012 Romney got close to Obama’s numbers.
And then we have 2016, Almost all newspapers endorsed Clinton, what many do forget here is that many of those were of conservative bent. But the main reason why I do think that the newspaper endorsement item is important here is because 538 did notice like I did that politics was not the main driver for that endorsement, and so I do think that what you describe is IMHO what does happen when on a board that was a bit leaning to the left but geared towards evidence based information, finds that the current conservative leadership in Washington is running with the idiot ball.
I voted for Gary Johnson, so feel like a bit of an outsider. My state (Nevada) went for Clinton. I must admit that I enjoyed election night seeing most of the media talking heads simply break down as it became clear that their predictions were wildly wrong. I see a real split in the coasts and the interior and those crowds don’t seem to mix. People need to drive across the country sometime without using the interstate highways.
What really surprises me is that people are so affected (or think they are) by who is president. I am a small business owner and my life has not changed considerably through the GWB, Obama and Trump years. Furthermore a newspaper endorsement has zero influence on me and it scares me to think that it may sway some people.