Reason Roundup

Brexit Is Broken and No One's Quite Sure How to Fix It: Reason Roundup

Plus: Google CEO to get grilled today on bias and tobacco farmers are finding new profits in hemp.

|

Hollandse-Hoogte/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Complications and chaos surrounding "Brexit" have escalated this week, as the U.K. faces a little more than three months until it's scheduled to leave the European Union (EU). Britain being serially weirder than we Americans realize, the political drama came to a peak yesterday with a member of Parliament (MP) picking up the body's "ceremonial mace" in protest (mace as in giant ornate scepter, not the spray).

People told the Labour MP in hushed tones, "no, no, give it back." He did. He was kicked out. If only leaving a giant transnational body was so simple!

Members of Parliament were scheduled to vote today on whether to accept the Brexit terms that Prime Minister Teresa May had brokered with EU leaders. But with little support for her agreement in Parliament as of yesterday, and an unexpected ruling from the European Court of Justice—it held that it would be OK for the UK to remain in the EU without a vote from other members welcoming the Brits back in—May announced that the vote would be postponed.

May's handling of everything has been seen by many factions as a failure—the latest in a line of them from May, giving Labour and other opposition leaders an opportunity to strike. A statement from Labour yesterday said it would introduce "a motion of no confidence" on May (which would mean members found her unfit to be prime minister) "when we judge it most likely to be successful."

The biggest issue with May's Brexit deal is a "backstop" motion that British lawmakers don't want but May already agreed to and the EU leaders won't reconsider. From Al Jazeera:

The [backstop] clause proposes that the whole of the UK, including Northern Ireland, will remain in a customs union with the EU "unless and until" the bloc agrees there is no prospect of a return to a hard border [in Ireland]. But critics argue that the measure could tie Britain into the EU's orbit indefinitely.

In her statement to the Commons, May pledged to seek further "reassurances" on the brokered withdrawal agreement from EU leaders before rescheduling a parliamentary vote at an as-of-yet unspecified date but no later than January 21.

But in Brussels, EU leaders had none of it. "We will not renegotiate the deal, including the backstop," warned EU President Donald Tusk. "But we are ready to discuss how to facilitate UK ratification."

The Washington Post editorial board calls "the heart of the chaos" the tension between what Brexit referendum supporters thought they were voting for "and the reality of the deal" May made. "Britons were told they could regain sovereignty from E.U. governance without suffering any economic consequences," the board notes. But "in fact, any Brexit will leave the country poorer" with May's deal or "the 'no-deal Brexit' that could occur next March 29 if Parliament does not act, causing massive disruption, including shortages of basic goods."

And that's not all:

Any deal that leaves Britain out of Europe's single market could create a border between the two Irelands and threaten the peace accord that ended decades of violence in the North. Ms. May's plan provides that if Britain and the European Union are unable to agree during a transition period on a relationship that avoids a hard border, Britain would remain in the E.U. customs union indefinitely. That would force London to continue observing E.U. regulations and prevent it from striking its own trade deals with other nations.

There's now discussion of asking voters to consider another Brexit referendum, this one asking for a choice "between the real-world Brexit now on offer and remaining in the union."

FREE MINDS

U.S. Department of Search Engine Optimization? Federal lawmakers have demanded that Google CEO Sundar Pichai participate in their Capitol Hill performance about political bias in search results. Pichai is scheduled to testify today before the House Judiciary Committee, where a faction of Republican representatives will question him on whether Google "shows only the viewing/reporting of Fake News Media," as President Donald Trump put it on Twitter.

In a prepared statement, Pichai said that ideological bias in results would violate both the company's "core principles and our business interests."

FREE MARKETS

Hemp could be the new tobacco—if lawmakers will let it. From Quartz:

A century ago, one of the best things a Kentucky farmer could do to make money was cultivate tobacco. At its height in 1919, over 600,000 acres were harvested across the state. By 2018, that number had decreased by nearly 90 percent. Soybeans are now Kentucky's leading crop.

Now, tobacco and soybean farmers are finding new promise in hemp. Kentucky farmer Will Brownlow told Quartz that an acre of soybeans might bring in $500, "but an acre of hemp—dense with flowers rich in CBD—could yield as much as $30,000."

"The tobacco farmer would be the perfect person to grow hemp," he says. "They're absolutely crazy not to grow it." A tobacco setter, he says, is a perfect piece of equipment for planting young hemp plants, and a barn once used for drying tobacco is the optimum for drying hemp.

Because it comes from the cannabis plant, hemp (the non-psychoactive cousin of marijuana) is still classified by the U.S. government as a controlled substance, a designation it's had since 1970. "The crop was illegal for anyone without a permit to grow until the 2014 Farm Bill opened up industrial hemp cultivation," Quartz notes, and "since then, the land area of planted hemp has more than doubled every year." But there are still big barriers to entry, like the fact that farmers must participate in an approved state-controlled pilot program. Growing hemp outside of one would still run afoul of federal law.

QUICK HITS

  • Russian national Maria Butina will cooperate with U.S. law enforcement "in any and all to matters as to which the Government deems this cooperation relevant," as part of a plea agreement she accepted on a charge of conspiracy.
  • French lessons: the country's "yellow vest" demonstrations "have ignited a debate on the left in the U.S. over how to avoid a similar backlash if Democrats get the chance to enact new environmental laws," reports NBC News. "And the demonstrations come as environmental issues are taking on more prominence amid dire reports from the United Nations and U.S. government warning lawmakers they have only limited time to minimize the damage."
  • More than 100 people were arrested yesterday on Capitol Hill while protesting perceived inaction on climate change.
  • Instagram will soon come with voicemail.

NEXT: India at a Crossroads

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Complications and chaos surrounding “Brexit” have escalated this week…

    Brussels. Can’t live with them, can’t live without them.

    1. they don’t just sprout out of nowhere

    2. Hello.

      It’s a mess by design.

      Democracy. Ain’t it grand when it don’t go your way?

    3. Mmmm, brusselsprouts.

      1. said nobody ever.

  2. Complications and chaos surrounding “Brexit” have escalated this week

    Brevexity is the soul of a git

    1. Free minds, free markets, and holding no government accountable for the sake of a centralized unaccountable European metastate. UK politicians don’t want Brexit, so they broke it.

  3. U.S. Department of Search Engine Optimization?

    Department with a kind of Al Gore rhythm to it.

    1. The party in power gets to “optimize ” it.

    2. Let’s get cereal.

  4. Instagram will soon come with voicemail.

    summer online summer not

  5. Russian national Maria Butina will cooperate with U.S. law enforcement…

    In Russia, law enforcement, well, it browbeat you, too, just like in United States.

  6. French lessons: the country’s “yellow vest” demonstrations “have ignited a debate on the left in the U.S. over how to avoid a similar backlash if Democrats get the chance to enact new environmental laws…”

    Call them astroturfed?

  7. “And the demonstrations come as environmental issues are taking on more prominence amid dire reports from the United Nations and U.S. government warning lawmakers they have only limited time to minimize the damage.”

    channeling gilespie: we see how well dire warnings work when discussing the coming debtpocalypse

  8. Married “Transgender Men” Will Not Impose a Gender on Their Child Until “It” Tells Them What It Is
    This is child abuse.

    Transgenders are less than one tenth of one percent of the population.

    But they’re raising a child, who is 99.9% likely to have a conventional gender, as if it were a transgender.

    These are the same sort of people who scream that it’s monstrous to make gay kids “act straight” or pretend to be straight.

    Is it better to take a normal-gender kid and put it through a transgender childhood to see if it takes or not?

    Don’t tell me the answer; of course the answer is “yes, it’s so much better.”

    1. If their child is a boy he will let them know soon enough during a diaper change with a fan left on in the room

      1. Oh come on, any experienced parent know that you don’t really need a fan.

    2. Increasing immigration would certainly solve this intractable problem.

    3. Transgenders are less than one tenth of one percent of the population.

      So, just large enough in order to justify a nationwide moral panic about sexual assaults in public restrooms!

      1. There are more than a tenth of a percent of the population who will claim to be transgender to get into bathrooms, locker rooms, etc with possibly not the best of motives.

        1. Would you consider stinking up the place to be not the best of motives?

        2. Sneaking into ladies’ rooms in order to spy on them is not exactly a new thing.

          And yet Team Red disgustingly used transgendered individuals as scapegoats, creating a moral panic where none existed previously.

          1. And Team Blue did not create a moral panic mandating that gender overrides in sex segregated facilities otherwise “trans are gonna die”?

      2. The percentage only matters to trans activists who are actively trying to increase it

      3. Frankly, the alphabet soup activists started a moral panic first about the poor trans being denied a right to their preference in sex segregated facilities and programs .

      4. So, just large enough in order to justify a nationwide moral panic about sexual assaults in public restrooms!

        Whether it were one percent or one one-thousandth of a percent, I’d still side with the business owner’s right to designate bathroom usage as they see fit.

      5. And, as always, you get it wrong.

        So, just large enough in order to justify a nationwide moral panic about sexual assaults in public restrooms!

        The problem was never trans people. Trans people are less than one tenth of one percent of the population.

        They are insignificant.

        They are outnumbered, however by several other types of sexual deviants. Deviants who would, with transgender bathroom laws, have legal access to rooms full of victims. THAT was the problem.

        Not actual trans people–who have always been able to handle this, but people who have been pulled from restrooms they don’t belong in because they were victimizing people

        And some of them were actually part of the activist groups behind these laws. Whoda thunk?

  9. More than 100 people were arrested yesterday on Capitol Hill while protesting perceived inaction on climate change.

    If they were white supremacists we’d be reading news stories about how they were representative of half the nation. Wait, come to think of it…

  10. Hemp could be the new tobacco…

    Truth.

    1. No way. It tastes like rope when you smoke hemp.

      1. Yes but it’s much harder for the pushers

        1. You know who else’s actions were like pushing rope?

          1. Sisyphus?

  11. The protestors were wearing T-shirts labelled: “We have a right to good jobs and a livable future.”

    Someone needs to clue them in that:
    a) They don’t have those “rights”
    b) Restrictions on Carbon usage are economically negative, so it will cost money
    c) There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch, therefore, everyone will have to pay… which includes the protestors.
    d) A carbon neutral future will come a lot sooner if the Greens embrace Nuclear power, and if they resist it, they aren’t ‘that’ serious about the effects of Global Warming.
    e) If they collectively spent the same amount of time and energy organizing campaigns to build and buy renewable power systems with power storage, they’d be working towards an actual solution.

    1. If the problem was solved, there wouldn’t be anything to protest, now would there? Then what are they to do? Get a job or something? As if.

    2. A carbon neutral future will come a lot sooner if the Greens embrace Nuclear power, and if they resist it, they aren’t ‘that’ serious about the effects of Global Warming.

      I’m in favor of nuclear power as one of our power sources – but don’t pretend for a nanosecond that it is actually an answer for a carbon neutral future. From Sandia Labsto produce 15 TW (15,000 GWe) by 2050 would require roughly 14,636 new 1-GWe nuclear power plants. Construction of this number of plants would require, on average, the commissioning of a new nuclear power plant somewhere in the world every day continuously for 40 years And even if that were to happen, that would use up the known resources of uranium in 10 years.

      There is only one carbon-neutral energy source that is able to provide that much power going forward – and that is the sun. It daily delivers to Earth about 6000x (theoretically) or 500x (technically) more energy than we use daily. Or 50 million times more energy than we actually tap into using what we call ‘solar energy’. Figuring out how to tap into and utilize what we need – in the form we need it – is the ONLY technological focus for anyone who is actually serious about the issue.

      1. Converting all that solar heat energy into other forms would surely affect the climate.

        1. So – ‘how will it affect the climate’ is a question that needs to be asked – is that only for new forms of energy or for existing ones too?

          1. But one of the great things about solar energy, is that because there is SO MUCH of it, we can design systems that will convert that solar energy to usable power, also design systems that can mitigate any resulting climate change effects, and it doesn’t have to be terribly efficient, because there is plenty of energy to go around. In essence we can have our cake and eat it too.

            1. “Doesn’t have to be efficient” from a thermodynamic point of view, not from a carbon sequestration point of view.

            2. Spoiler Alert: There are also finite amounts of solar panel manufacturing materials on planet Earth, many of which are toxic. Sure, there’s lots of ‘ambient’ power shining around us but you need to capture that power genius.

              1. Technology could change. Maybe 100 years of industry growth in solar will produce awesome solar panels will easy production and great batteries to store more daytime excess electricity.

      2. True, solar energy is the way to go.

        1. I truly believe that if Solar energy had not become politicized, that is if it was just some other form of energy, it would be better off than it is now.

          Now it’s oddly political. Choosing to use solar or not seem mostly to be a personal political statement now. And that’s too bad.

          1. That is too bad. There is nothing inherently political about solar energy.

          2. I think it still comes down to economics. Solar is still way too expensive. Once the cost comes down more, people will start buying solar set ups regardless of ideology.

            1. I hope you are right.

              Then again I see people every day, in the city, driving around in these huge pickup trucks. I’m sorry, when you are commuting from your home in suburbia to your cubicle job in the city, where along the way does the need arise for a half-ton of towing capacity? I think it’s just foolish.

              1. Aww! Poor Jeffry can’t afford a nice vehicle.

              2. When you can only afford one vehicle and you need a truck then you buy a truck only rich people can have more than one car one for working with and one for signaling your environmental creeds

              3. I’m sorry, when you are commuting from your home in suburbia to your cubicle job in the city, where along the way does the need arise for a half-ton of towing capacity?

                On the weekend, when you use your one vehicle to move sheets of plywood or drag a trailer around.

            2. I agree. But I think if the odd politicization of solar and electric vehicles had never happened it probably would have advanced further by now. At the very least, it would be a normal alternative in a suite of options with advantages and disadvantages, but it would continue development of the technology.

              1. Correction: They would have gone nowhere by now since they only exist as a market distortion.

                1. Solar was around before there were any subsidies.

                  Fossil fuels have had over 100 years of subsidies and market distortions, so dont go there.

                  End all subsidies and let all energy sources stand on their own merit and let the market decide.

                  I guarantee that gasoline and fuel oil going up a few dollars a gallon will turn some heads. Add in electricity going up magnitudes because nuclear, coal and natural gas are not subsidized.

                  Then as electricity jump off the grid to solar systems, the “shared cost” of electricity goes up. Less customers and same overhead equals higher prices for paying customers.

                  1. *electricity customers jump…

      3. So, cover fly over country with solar panels to power a handful of cities on the coasts?

        Now I understand the appeal of solar power to the left.

        1. See, this kind of comment illustrates the problem that BUCS was remarking upon above.

          With improvements in solar power technology, there wouldn’t be a need for an energy grid in the first place! Put solar panels on your roof/property, have a good battery storage system, and you can power all of your own household without worrying about supplying power to those dirty hippies living in the cities.

          Solar technology is inherently individualistic because it destroys the need to collectively link together in some sort of energy grid. And with that collectivism there always comes strings. If you could supply your own power, you would have the ability to tell the collective to fuck off.

          1. You know anybody who has done that?
            I do.
            Didn’t work.
            Huge waste of money.

            In viable climates, it might be a good idea.
            For vast swaths of inhabited land, it’s a terrible idea.

            1. You’re right, it doesn’t work right now. But the potential is there, the idea is there. Solar energy is something that even right-leaning libertarians should be wiling to get behind, because it has the potential to free everyone from the collectivism of energy grids. But no, instead we have Team Red demonizing solar power in order to “own the libs”. It’s infantile and ridiculous.

              1. What we have is ‘Team Red’ dealing with the realities of solar power, it’s advantages AND it’s limitations.

                And we have Team ‘I fuckin’ LOVE science’ thinking that “it’s science>/I>, man science it can do anything.”

                Just look at how many times you and the other NPCs simply blurt about technologies we just don’t have now as if simply mentioning them will bring them into being.

            2. See Massie, Thomas (R-KY)

              Solar/Tesla powered house

              I would do this in a new home construction, but I honestly doubt my local city ordinances would allow my house to be fully off the electricity grid.

          2. Put solar panels on your roof/property, have a good battery storage system, and you can power all of your own household without worrying about supplying power to those dirty hippies living in the cities.

            Storage is a problem we are nowhere close to solving.

            1. You are right. There is a long way to go. What I am describing is the as-yet-unrealized ideal.

              1. What I am describing is the as-yet-unrealized ideal.

                What you are describing is even more impossible than building enough nuclear reactors.

                1. Maybe. But I would rather work towards better batteries, than work towards more nuclear reactors. For the reasons described above.

                  1. Maybe. But I would rather work towards better batteries, than work towards more nuclear reactors.

                    You have 2 unicorn problems. First, there is simply not enough silver to make the required number of solar cells. Second, lithium ion batteries are already close to the theoretical limit. IOW, there is no viable solution for either the battery or the solar panel anywhere on the horizon.

                    1. Lithium ferro phosphate batteries have even better energy densities, but they have a nasty tendency to catch on fire really nastily when they are charged wrong, so… lining your basement with them might not be the best plan ever.

                    2. First, silver is not the end-all element for solar cells.

                      Second, batteries have endless possibilities on the horizon.

                      I am skeptical of anyone who refuses to allow solar to get better because…bias.

                    3. First, silver is not the end-all element for solar cells.

                      No replacement has been found despite decades of trying. The metal to semiconductor interface is a rather complex subject. You obviously have no clue why replacing silver is such a perplexing problem. One that may not have a solution.

                      Second, batteries have endless possibilities on the horizon.

                      In the real world they don’t. We are fairly close to the theoretical limit with lithium ion batteries. Wishful unicorn solutions don’t change that reality.

                      I am skeptical of anyone who refuses to allow solar to get better because…bias.

                      Then maybe you should put that bias away and deal with the real fundamental physical limitations of the real world.

            2. It’s an unfortunate fact, not spoken about too often in popular media, but you see it often in most discussions about solar. Battery technology is not scaling well.

              1. Battery tech is scaling well.

                MY cell phone battery last days without recharging and fits into my jeans pocket.

                If batteries and solar got the subsidies fossil and nuke energy production got the last 60 years, it likely would be very different.

            3. Storage isn’t an issue though for those new constructions that can reduce energy use to begin with. Or for those processes that CAN actually be tweaked to deal with discontinuous energy – but where we’ve never attempted to think in that way cuz we didn’t need to.

              The whole point of thinking solar is to get OUT of the trap of thinking about some big expensive centralized project that implements/ossifies a technology we can handle today. Solar is a stream of energy.

          3. “there wouldn’t be a need for an energy grid in the first place! ”

            That’s an ignorant remark. A Tesla Powerwall stores 13.5 kWh and costs $10K with a 10 year warranty. A standard US resident would require around 33 kWh of storage to last 16 hours. So, roughly $25K just to store a nights worth of power. No one is getting off the grid without extremely deep pockets and/or a drastic and negative life style change.

            “Put solar panels on your roof/property, have a good battery storage system, and you can power all of your own household without worrying about supplying power to those dirty hippies living in the cities.”

            Yes, this is true.

            The math:
            Average US residential usage = 50 kWh per day
            Median US solar irradiation per day: 3 kWh per m2
            Solar power efficiency = 15%
            Battery efficiency = 80% (we’ll assume 8 hours a day of direct usage and 16 hours of battery usage).
            System overall storage efficiency = (1.0*1/3+0.80*2/3) = 0.867
            (50/3)*1/0.15*1/0.867= 128 m2
            Conversion to feet = 128 * 10.764 = 1,379 sq feet

            The rural areas and suburbs can supply their own solar power, but urban areas are going to have to bring in power over distribution lines.

            1. Conversion to feet = 128 * 10.764 = 1,379 sq feet

              By way of comparison, the surface area of the Empire State Building is 87,120 sq. ft. So if it were completely covered in solar panels, it could power quite a few buildings nearby.

              Yes, very dense cities will need some sort of distribution grid, but it can be local, not involving huge transmission lines from very distant power sources.

              1. You seem to have not considered that the Empire State Building doesn’t have all of that entire surface area facing the sun all day.

              2. Also, that’s only 63 residential houses worth of electricity. I’m pretty sure the Empire State Building has more volume / electricity usage than that.

            2. Residential solar from suburbs could supply the urban requirement just like residential could mostly provide industry electricity required during the day.

              Its not a end-all solution but the shift in power tech would likely make solar and batteries far better in less than 20 years. We can ween off fossil fuels and nuclear in the mean time.

        2. You think the nuclear alternative is easier?

          If the US accounts for 20% of global energy use – that means 20% of those 14,500 required nuclear plants would have to be built in the US. Let’s exclude Alaska/Hawaii and pretend that those 2900 required plants get built in continental US.

          Just comparing those numbers to something else well distributed geographically and population and presumably reasonably close to ‘energy use’ too. There are 20,000 post offices – so one nuclear plant within the ‘footprint’ of every 10 post offices.

          There is simply no getting around the little reality of what this means. If nuclear ramps up to that scale – there is no NIMBY because there is no possible way to bribe someone else. You want energy – you have to have a nuke plant nearby. Period. Which then raises the question – if the energy source has to be nearby anyway – why look to a system that really does require technological authoritarianism/centralization?

          1. You think the nuclear alternative is easier?

            Yes, as it doesn’t require non existent technology. IOW, no unicorns needed.

            1. Commercial Nuclear power was a unicorn tech once too.

              Once you back yourself into a corner, we all see the fear in your eyes.

              1. Once you back yourself into a corner, we all see the fear in your eyes.

                I thought there was something odd about your eyes.

                Commercial Nuclear power was a unicorn tech once too.

                Well … no it wasn’t. There was a theoretical basis to go by unlike the unicorn batteries you want to wish into existence.

      4. I’m of the opinion that humans need diversity of energy. The amount of human suffering that would be associated with any scarcity of energy (read high prices for everything including food) is a far greater risk to our way of life than climate change. You might argue that we didn’t have as many energy sources thousands of years ago, but we also didn’t have 11 billion people to feed.

        1. And attempts to do something about CO2 are very expensive and produce little in the way of results. There are lots of other things you can do that are less expensive and more efficient that will improve people’s lives a lot more.

          1. I hope we will naturally move to solar and other non-fossil fuel sources over time once they become cheaper. This is the only solution that has a chance. Coercing people into using less fossil fuel will not work.

            1. This “problem” will take care of itself when fossil fuels become relatively more expensive due to scarcity. It might take hundreds of years, though, as we continue to find new, cheap sources of oil.

              1. I should have added, also as technology improves on alternative forms of energy and storage methods and they become relatively cheaper as compared to fossil fuels.

              2. You’re assuming that fossil fuels will get cheaper at the margin as they actually become scarcer. That neoclassical (marginalist) economics actually includes natural resources – because those are all exactly like widgets which can be created from scratch.

                In reality, natural resource scarcity tends to produce declining costs (maybe a bit step-like if tech improvements aren’t continuous) – following by discontinuous jumps to infinity (as something unexpected happens). Because resources (land) aren’t actually included in neoclassical economics. They are just assumed to be just like widgets.

                This’ll happen with ‘shale’ in the next financial crisis. The only thing that made those fields ‘economic’ was the interest rate subsidy we’ve had in place for decade plus. So that sector has incurred roughly a trillion worth of debt to produce. Hey presto – cheap gas. But those wells are not productive enough to actually pay down any of the debt. They came online SOLELY because the cost of capital went to zero which lowered the payback hurdle to zero. When some kid realizes that emperor has no clothes and won’t pay off the debt, then there will be panic. If past is future, they’ll transfer that problem to taxpayers – AND they won’t be able to produce more. THAT is when we will see what the actual price is.

      5. that would use up the known resources of uranium in 10 years.

        “Known resources”. As demand rises, known resources will also increase, as happens with every other commodity. We should have run out of oil 5 times by now, to go by what known resources there were at various times. Yet here we are.

        Your point about how quickly nuclear can be built is a fair one. But can similar solar capacity be built any faster?

        1. No. And solar would actually take up a lot of real estate (okay, deserts, no big whoop), and require a LOT of space and energy and toxic materials in the manufacture.

          1. Solar energy would only take up lots of space if you still think of it in the context of collectivist energy grids. Instead think of it in terms of individualistic energy production. If every house had the ability to generate its own energy, you wouldn’t need vast swaths of desert dedicated to solar panels..

        2. No. And solar would actually take up a lot of real estate (okay, deserts, no big whoop), and require a LOT of space and energy and toxic materials in the manufacture.

          1. Nearly every house can power itself from the surface area of its roof with solar panels.

            Businesses being able to do that depend on the type of industry and power requirements. Daytime power requirements can be siphoned from excess residential solar production when people are at work.

            People are putting up artificial barriers to solar solving most of our energy problems. The biggest barriers to solar solving our energy problems are better batteries for storing the generated solar electricity and better solar panels to be more efficient and easier to produce.

            Cut all subsidies to nuclear, natural gas, oil, coal, wind, and solar and see which energy producer comes out on top. Fossil fuels have had over 100 years of subsidies to make them ingrained into every day life.

            1. My residential solar panels produces surplus power and I use telecom backup batteries and a small wind turbine to provide power all through the night.

              I can easily recharge my Tesla while the Sun is up.

              Its why I can live effectively off the grid.

              1. I don’t think anyone believes you.

                1. Yeah. To the point where I think someone hacked his account.

                  1. Its why I can live effectively off the grid.

                    That’s the only part that lives up to the persona that is LC.

              2. My residential solar panels produces surplus power and I use telecom backup batteries and a small wind turbine to provide power all through the night.

                I worked at a museum with a 40 kW solar array that wouldn’t supply a residence enough power in the Dec-Jan-Feb time frame. Latitude matters.

                1. Im in Georgia. I get plenty of Sun.

                  Look at all the hacks who cannot believe people use solar. Refusing to drive around and see what solar systems put on their homes and talking with them.

                  Keep paying your electricity and gas bills during the winter, morons.

                  1. Over the last 12 months, 8300kWh total used.

                    Average monthly usage 691kWh (21.5kWh per day)

                    Peak monthly was 1100kWh (32kWh per day) due to running the AC for 4-8hrs on a typical day for 3 months (thermostat set to 77F in evenings, off during day).
                    Running the AC is non-negotiable when outdoor summer dewpoint is typically 65-70F.

                    With max of 5hrs of decent sun every summer day, I’d need about 6kw of panels ($7,200), a beefy inverter say $3,000, and a beefy charge controller (1,000)

                    We’re up to $10k and I haven’t added the batteries (3-5k?), miscellaneous extras (wire, enclosures, mounts), or paid for installation.

                    On the other hand, in the last 12 months I paid $960 for electricity (which is actually $100 more than last year due to wife being home with baby 3 months)

                    So, I’m probably looking at close to 20 years for payback. I don’t think so.

            2. And even the batteries are only storing the electricity that the solar energy was converted into. There are other ways of more directly ‘trapping’ that energy for later release. Molten salt being one – admittedly that would still require grid.

              Our fossil fuels are nothing more than that – trapped solar energy accumulated naturally over millions of years that we are ‘unreleasing’ over a period of a century or two. There are ways in which we could potentially tap that current solar to create a hydrocarbon fuel – say Azolla which can double in biomass every week or so in ideal conditions – and then consume that fuel – where the net effect is carbon-neutral.

              1. Fossil fuels are also carbon neutral. They trapped carbon many many years ago.

                1. Yes. But our use is compressing the millions of years of sequestration into a couple centuries of release into the atmosphere. That compression is what is going to cause the climate change that is harmful to species that can’t evolve millions of year worth in a couple centuries.

                  I’ve never heard anyone worry about the fact that pretty much every molecule of carbon that exists on Earth has been on Earth since forever and always will be a carbon molecule.

      6. “I’m in favor of nuclear power as one of our power sources – but don’t pretend for a nanosecond that it is actually an answer for a carbon neutral future. ”

        Way to strawman my point. No where did I say or imply Nuclear had to be a 100% solution.

        “And even if that were to happen, that would use up the known resources of uranium in 10 years.”

        And this part is just ignorant. Proven reserves are small because nobody is looking for them since we have plenty. Proven reserves of oil 20 years ago were roughly 20 years worth. Proven reserves today are roughly 20 years worth….

        In any case, we have the technology to create breeder reactors. We just don’t build them because we haven’t needed them.

        1. Nuclear is just too risky for the return. We dont need it if we weened off nuclear power to solar.

          An oil spill is bad but a nuclear accident lasts 50,000+ years depending on isotopes.

          Nuclear helped us get to this point where solar is decent and will only get better over time. Batteries are the weak point of solar and batteries in all products have gotten awesome over the last 20 years.

          1. An oil spill is bad but a nuclear accident lasts 50,000+ years depending on isotopes.

            This is between untrue and misdirection. We specifically destroyed two cities with nuclear weapons half a century ago and they are livable today, reconstruction began within a decade.

            Technically, the oil spill lasts 10 of millions of years as we never put the oil back.

            1. You really need to brush up on stuff.

              First of all the atomic bomb that detonated over Hiroshima used Uranium-235, while the Nagasaki bomb had Plutonium-239. The half-life of U-235 is 700 million years, while that of Pu-239 is 24,000 years.

              Both bombs detonated as air bursts. Much of the contamination entered the atmosphere. The ground was surveyed and contaminated soil was buried.
              Explaining radiation to idiots like mad.casual

              But, Little Boy over Hiroshima was only about 1% efficient, so what happened to the 139 pounds of the U-235 that were particularized? From all reports, the plume dissipated over land and sea. Same for Nagasaki and the 12 pounds of Pu-239 particles.

              Chernobyl released 200 times more radiation than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, combined. As far away as Scotland, the radiation rose to 10,000 times the norm. Frighteningly, the Fukushima reactors are said to be more dangerous than Chernobyl (Uranium-235) for two reasons: more enriched uranium, and Fukushima #3 has plutonium. At this time, the Fukushima reactors have only emitted about 10% the total radioactivity of Chernobyl, but there seems to be no soon end to this crisis.

        2. I didn’t strawman your point. YOU said carbon-neutral future. I quoted that. I just assumed that you were actually interested in something beyond just converting a few coal/gas electricity plants into nuclear. Which does damn near nothing to address much at all.

          And the word I used is KNOWN RESOURCES – not proven reserves. Yes they are different and apparently you are the one who doesn’t actually understand the difference.

          1. Not only proven resources of oil but financially reasonable extraction costs.

            There may be 30 years of oil at the bottom of the Mariana trench but if it was financially worth it, we would have pumped it already.

      7. I’m in favor of nuclear power as one of our power sources – but don’t pretend for a nanosecond that it is actually an answer for a carbon neutral future. From Sandia Labs – to produce 15 TW (15,000 GWe) by 2050 would require roughly 14,636 new 1-GWe nuclear power plants. Construction of this number of plants would require, on average, the commissioning of a new nuclear power plant somewhere in the world every day continuously for 40 years And even if that were to happen, that would use up the known resources of uranium in 10 years.

        Not to disagree with you whole-heartedly, but it’s incorrect as quoted from your own source;

        Assuming the continued dominance of slow-neutron nuclear power technologies,

        Of course, fast-neutron (breeder) nuclear power technologies, if made economical and
        available worldwide, would alter these scenarios substantially, as they generate more fuel than
        they consume (Garwin 2001).

        It’s actually the opposite of solar power, which would require further advancements in technology in order to be sufficient and/or competitive, Nuclear is/was competitive, the technology to make it more so exists, and we’ve just severely hobbled it to prevent it from doing so.

        If we “need” one reactor per day, the solar equivalent isn’t a much more feasible option.

        1. I don’t see the technology re breeder reactors that even allows a country (eg Iran) to produce its own electricity without another country (eg Israel or the US) trying to destroy that generation capacity. And you think it can ramp up? how many wars at one time do you think are sustainable?

          Further, there really is no chance of nuclear dealing with the 80% of energy use that is ‘low-grade’ energy. It can do electricity – and that’s it. So fine – that is precisely where I favor it. Nukes for electricity really should be replacing the fossil stuff. That stuff is already heavily on a grid system so there’s no real issue of JimmieJoeBob Jihad deciding to set up his own DIY mini-nuclear power plant in his backyard to ‘power his barbeque’ and ‘sell the surplus’ to his neighbors.

          The advantage of solar AS IT EXISTS is you don’t need big centralized projects to implement that also freeze technology. You can do your house. Next year when your neighbor does his, the tech may have progressed. Or the newbuild construction next door decides to implement energy-reduction directly in the design. Two years from now, some town may be able to experiment with solar streets/sidewalks – while another just changes their streetlights. The elephant gets eaten in tiny pieces.

          The problem is that the current distortions heavily disincent even ‘saving energy’ and reinforce fossil energy sources.

      8. use up the known resources of uranium in 10 years

        Is that with or without a rewrite of the stupid provisions in SALT II that prevent recycling “spent” fuel rods (which are will 98% there, just… not good enough for actual continued use any more) or not?

      9. Right now, all that energy goes into this useless thing we call ‘keeping the planet at a livable temperature’.

        What happens when we divert an appreciable fraction of that from heating the globe to…..lighting NPC safe spaces?

        Because you do understand that, if it is used to keep all you grey fuckers cozy and safe, it CAN’T be use to keep the planet at a livable temperature, right?

        1. Practically all energy on Earth came from the sun. Practically all energy find its way to heat eventually.

    3. They want a perfect solution or you are evil!

      Trade offs are the rationale of the morally impure!

      There are no unsolvable engineering problems!

  12. Brexit is gonna be one ugly mess. I get the sentiment for it – but it’s exactly the sort of issue where one-off referendums are the wrong way to succeed.

    Even if the referendum process is enough to get the negotiations rolling – the what-about-this and what-about-thats are way too complicated and contradictory for elected officials to try to read tea leaves about what people were thinking when they voted in the referendum.

    Like a bunch of issues – it’s where a citizens assembly based on sortition (random selection) would produce far better results in implementing something that is initiated by referendum

    1. But if the powers-that-be can simply fuck shit up so badly that they are able to stifle the will of the people…then what?

      It’s not like May et al TRIED to actually do it. The goal was to fuck it up. And they succeeded admirably.

      1. I honestly haven’t followed this process that closely but how much of this is British politicians purposely screwing things up, and how much of it is the whole process just being hard, particularly when the other side (the EU) isn’t in a mood to compromise?

        1. 50/50, but they need to call the EU’s bluff. Tell the EU they will sign a free trade (one page) agreement with the US if the EU doesn’t give them what they want. Britain’s too big a market for the Germans and French to ignore.

          1. That’s one approach but it’s a risky one. I’ll admit that Trump’s hardline approach *seems* to working out well for him, at least in terms of optics (I’m not convinced the new trade deals are really improvements over the pre-existing ones or worth the political/economic cost). But the idea that the UK would be able to walk away cleanly, on its own terms, always seemed to be a pipe dream to me.

          2. But the US government won’t do that either, and the EU knows it. The US government is going to demand mercantilistic concessions of the UK that are favorable to it, especially in the current climate.

            Plus, the same British citizens who voted for Brexit because they don’t want the UK being Europe’s bitch, won’t favor the UK being America’s bitch either.

            1. I dunno. The DUP might be happy with a trade deal with the US if it got them their hard border with the Republic of Ireland.

      2. I don’t know if that was actually their goal – but that’s exactly what that sort of sortition-based assembly could deal with. It’s essentially a combo of a polling system and a focus/working group on steroids. Issues like the Ireland border are real and can’t possibly be boiled down to a yes/no on a referendum.

        the whole point of an assembly like this is precisely to NOT let elected pols themselves interpret the referendum results on their own – while recognizing that no referendum can ever capture the complexity of actually implementing something.

  13. “the political drama came to a peak yesterday with a member of Parliament (MP) picking up the body’s “ceremonial mace” in protest (mace as in giant ornate scepter, not the spray)”

    They deserve the spray

    1. If you cannot do the job the voters told you to do, the only honorable thing to do is resign.

    2. A giant ornate scepter?
      I thought a mace was a spiked metal ball on a stick, d6, blunt force. It might’ve gotten real in the Parliament house.

      1. You need a magical +1 mace to inflict damage in the Parliament.

        1. Maybe, but the MEMBERS of Parliament don’t look all that high-level to me.

      2. “I thought a mace was a spiked metal ball on a stick,”

        No, technically a mace is a metal club, just a metal ball or other solid impactor on a stick.

        With the spikes it becomes a morning star, also known as a holy water sprinkler.

        1. Hunh! And all these years I thought it had to have the spiked ball on a chain to be a morning star.

  14. There’s now discussion of asking voters to consider another Brexit referendum, this one asking for a choice “between the real-world Brexit now on offer and remaining in the union.”

    Which, mind you, would be utter bullshit and brutally undemocratic.

    “We don’t WANT to do this, you fucking plebes, but since you voted for it — we’ll fuck it up so royally that it doesn’t get done and then vote to not do it. Like we wanted”

  15. French lessons: the country’s “yellow vest” demonstrations “have ignited a debate on the left in the U.S. over how to avoid a similar backlash if Democrats get the chance to enact new environmental laws,” reports NBC News. “And the demonstrations come as environmental issues are taking on more prominence amid dire reports from the United Nations and U.S. government warning lawmakers they have only limited time to minimize the damage.”

    12 years after Al Gore told us we have 10 years to save the world…we now have 12 more years to save the world.

    Cannot figure out why people aren’t taking this shit seriously.

    Also, how much larger is the carbon footprint of these people obsessed with the issue as compared to mine?

    1. how to avoid a similar backlash if Democrats get the chance to enact new environmental laws

      Embrace nuclear. It’s a path to a low-carbon future and abundant energy.

  16. French lessons: the country’s “yellow vest” demonstrations “have ignited a debate on the left in the U.S. over how to avoid a similar backlash if Democrats get the chance to enact new environmental laws,” reports NBC News.

    Insult the protesters and call them “rubes from flyover country”. That’s been working great so far!

    1. Science denier backward rubes from flyover country.

      1. Rev? Is that you?

  17. Come to California! The government will provide a home for you!

    “California State Senator Introduces Right to Shelter Bill, to Ensure Homeless Individuals and Families Have Access to Shelter”
    […]
    “SB 48’s language, while preliminary, states that a right to shelter should include:

    A safe place to sleep and keep one’s belongings.
    An ability to access shelter without having to sign up on a daily basis.
    An ability to remain with one’s partner.
    An ability to access services necessary to stabilize one’s life and transition into supportive housing or permanent housing, including mental health, addiction treatment, and other services.”
    https://goldrushcam.com/sierrasuntimes/
    index.php/news/local-news/16694-
    california-state-senator-introduces-
    right-to-shelter-bill-to-ensure-homeless
    -individuals-and-families-have-access-to-shelter

    All for “free”.

    1. I’ll have to figure out a cheaper way to give Amtrak tickets to homeless people.

      1. Knowing California progressives, they’ll start a program shipping poor people off to the inland empire.

        1. This is something they already do, only last I checked it was bus tickets. I don’t know how many homeless people actually take them up on that offer, though, since the weather in San Francisco is a big draw from what I understand.

          1. I dont see thousands of homeless surviving in Fargo, North Dakota.

            San Fran has mostly decent weather, Lefties with white guilt, and plenty of places to get food.

  18. “The Washington Post editorial board calls “the heart of the chaos” the tension between what Brexit referendum supporters thought they were voting for “and the reality of the deal” May made.”

    This sounds a lot like other progressive fantasies, like the one about how Donald Trump didn’t really win the election in 2016. It was because of Russian meddling, the evil electoral college, and the blundering of James Comey!

    Meanwhile, Le Pen won 34% of the vote in France, and Paris is under siege by protestors who are effectively protesting the Paris accord. Meanwhile, Merkel has been kicked to the curb by a populist anti-immigration party.

    The UK voted for Brexit for the same reason every democracy in the developed world is experiencing populist convulsions. It’s because people everywhere in the developed world have rejected progressive elitism on all sorts of issues.

    People in the UK knew what they were voting for and why. It’s people like the editorial board at The Washington Post who still haven’t figured it out. If the vote were held again today, the Brexit people might well win again.

    1. Probably by a wider margin.

      1. Only elitists find it hard to understand why people wouldn’t want unaccountable elitists in Brussels making their choices for them.

        1. To be fair, elitists dont seem to understand why most of America does not want a huge power base in Washington DC either.

  19. Pew Survey: Out Of 27 Nations Polled, Zero Want More Immigrants to Move to Their Country

    http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=59529

    The whole world is racist except for the rich white progressives!

    (I’m fine with more immigration, to a degree, but I do love watching the open border types jump through hoops trying to explain why the rest of the world is wrong and they are right)

    1. I question the validity of that survey because it doesn’t confirm my preexisting biases.

      1. They should run the survey again until it’s swayed to remain in the EU…. I mean leans pro open borders

      2. If people generally didn’t think borders were useful in any way, one might expect borders to have never become a thing in the first place.

        People who are hostile to the notion of borders are, effectively, shills for a one-world government even if they’ve managed to fool themselves into believing otherwise. I suppose belief in unicorns is wider spread than we’d like to believe.

        Sort of like libertarians who are in favor of expanding the concept of natural rights to everyone in the world don’t seem to know that bringing those values to the rest of the world was at least one justification of most of our wars throughout history. Turns out most of the world disagrees with us pretty fundamentally on that point.

  20. Hildog and lesbian lover Huma Wiener attend wedding of a major donor in India.

    You ever notice how almost all of the Clinton’s shady-ass laundered money comes from foreigners?

    1. I can’t say I give a shit where they get their money anymore since they have no power. Maybe they’ll focus on helping the third world with their charity now. I know, I know. One can dream, though.

    2. Comey has no problem with foreign money pouring into Clinton shell charities.

      See him so desperate for getting FIRE-D that is trying to get some Democrat somewhere to beat Trump.

  21. More than 100 people were arrested yesterday on Capitol Hill while protesting perceived inaction on climate change.

    And more than 10,000 were arrested while protesting perceived inaction on the National Debt, right? RIGHT?!

  22. “Any deal that leaves Britain out of Europe’s single market could create a border between the two Irelands and threaten the peace accord that ended decades of violence in the North”

    Just to be clear, the real concern isn’t the threat to the peace accord in northern Ireland. The real concern is that Theresa May’s coalition in parliament depends on pro-British MPs from Ulster.

    In other words, Theresa May cannot get enough votes for her Brexit plan if it makes any kind of border between the UK and northern Ireland–because to the pro-British MPs in parliament, that would be like ceding northern Ireland to the Irish.

    It isn’t that Brexit is a serious threat to the peace process as the parliament is presently constituted. It’s that parliament will never support May’s Brexit plan so long as it effectively creates any kind of customs border between northern Ireland and the UK.

    1. Call their bluff and negotiate a side deal.

      This shit isn’t that hard. Fucking Boys State and Girls State could figure it out.

      1. It’s not that simple. No matter what side deals the UK comes up with, the EU will always be able to use Ireland as leverage against the UK.

      2. The best option for Brexit supporters–long term–may be the default option, which is that “no-deal” Brexit happens on March 29. That’s probably the easiest way around the border issue between the UK and northern Ireland anyway. It will be much harder to torpedo future deals with the EU over the issue of a customs border with northern Ireland if the border already exists. At that point, even the Irish may want to make a deal.

        I’m not sure Theresa May will survive long enough to see the other side of March 29, and if she lost a no-confidence vote, and there were new elections, that would effectively be another referendum on Brexit. Everything from immigration and taxes to climate change is tied to Brexit. That would be the deciding issue.

        1. I think this is hilarious to watch. The Globalists cannot have Britain exit the EU, as its an admission of failure.

  23. Re the Brexit mess:

    *The jungle always reclaims the clearing and the bureaucracy will always prevail.

    *paraphrasing David Stove

  24. Golden State Warriors superstar Steph Curry doesn’t believe the moon landings were real.

    For whatever reason, this old conspiracy theory has always been strong among the libtards, and particularly the Afrocentric community. I guess a Davidson education isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be.

    1. Got hit on the head too many times.

      1. Perhaps a sufficiently respected “sciencey” type such as Neil DeGrasse Tyson could give Curry the super-condensed version of all the astronomy and physics classes he skipped at Davidson.

        1. Or just give the bitch a telescope. The moon ain’t that far and we left some shit up there last I saw.

    2. It’s a constantly moving target so how do you we even know where it’ll be when you get there?

      Seriously though if the earth was round the water would just fall out the bottom… It’s called gravity guys

  25. Brexit and Trump are analogs in this little window of world history. The British progressives were shocked and appalled that Brexit won in a fair election, so they immediately set about undermining that election and vilified those who voted for it. US progressives were stunned when Trump won the 2016 election and immediately set about undermining the results.

    Russia, and Putin, are watching in amusement. Putin never thought his hundred dollar investment in Facebook posts could bring down the western world. What he did not count on was all of the enthusiastic support the lefties lent to his task of sowing discord in US politics, nor the depth of hatred the left has for Western values. Like Putin, I too am surprised.

  26. Brexit was always going to be a very difficult thing to negotiate. The voters wanted some fiction of UK sovereignty but with no downsides. The EU was going to extract a high price in any negotiation. And Ireland was always going to be a huge problem, made even bigger because the Conservative governing coalition depends on DUP support for maintaining their coalition together.

    If it wasn’t for the partition of Ireland, everything would be so much simpler. No need to worry so much about “hard borders” or “soft borders”. Have an ordinary customs process at the usual ports of entry like Britain did for centuries. But because Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are so linked together economically, that would be very difficult to do on the Irish island. So it is no surprise that the EU used Ireland as a wedge to thwart any genuine Brexit process.

    The Republic of Ireland politicians must be grinning from ear to ear. England’s historical habit of treating Ireland like some sort of slave colony is finally coming back to bite them in the ass. A bit of karmic justice, I suppose.

    1. That is a Pyrrhic victory as the Irish Republic is under the thumbs of the regulation happy gnomes in Brussels as well.

      1. As someone of mostly Irish descent, and who’s read a number of books on the subject, the Irish are pretty used to being fucked by pretty much anyone that sails past their island by this point. Not that they haven’t been known to do their share of pirating, but they’ve been conquered more times than Texas.

        1. And now their government officials are treating the concept of national sovereignty as a taboo idea, after only less than a hundred years of having it.

          1. Well, you know what they say. God invented Whiskey to keep the Irish from conquering the world. Or at least I imagine that’s what they tell themselves at the pub.

          2. Ironic since the British freaked out that Ireland wanted to leave the British Empire.

            1. And the Indians.

              And the Pakistanis.

              And the Egyptians.

              And the Canadians.

              And ….

        2. The Emerald Isle has been separated since 1921 with its northern counties under British rule.

          That was a compromise to, of course, get the rest of Ireland independent of England.

          Sad sad story.

    2. “The EU was going to extract a high price in any negotiation.”

      This presumes that nobody in the British Government has a spine. Now, that’s a reasonable presumption, but if they HAD a spine they could say “Well, I suppose we’ll just have to do our business with America” or even “How about we ship over three busloads of football hooligans, with fresh bicycle chains and cricket bats, to discuss this with you?”

      1. May signed away whatever leverage the UK had as her opening position.

        Even with the difficulties of the Tory government’s coalition, it was strange move if she was not trying to torpedo Brexit from the inside.

  27. A possible explanation for Trump’s recent deference to increasing the defense budget?

    “WASHINGTON?President Trump on Tuesday suggested the U.S. military would construct a wall at the U.S. border with Mexico if Democrats refused to agree to provide funding for one, hours ahead of a critical meeting at the White House with Democratic leaders to negotiate a year-end spending bill.”

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/ah…..544535438?

    Talk about dogged determination, homie won’t give up!

    1. Yes, the budget went up by the same amount requested for the wall. More than one way to skin a cat.

      1. The Lefties will never admit that they get outsmarted by Trump over and over.

        They still cannot admit that Trump beat every Republican candidate and Hillary, fair and square.

  28. SM-3 anti-ballistic missile makes second target interception from land based launcher

    More Reagan ‘Star Wars’ reality that the Lefties tried to sink to save Communism. Turns out Socialism is a failure all on its own.

  29. Maybe the EU could just have Britain vote again and again until they get it right, then pour cement in place.

  30. if there is like reverse-Hessianing for the upcoming British Revolution, i’m in.

  31. Brexit Is Broken and No One’s Quite Sure How to Fix It . . .

    There’s nothing broken about it.

    The UK can leave any time it wants with no deal. They don’t need a deal. Its not like the EU will be able to close its borders. They don’t need to agree to a tariff schedule because they can just impose their own tariffs (or none) – just like a sovereign nation. They don’t need a legal agreement because they don’t need to ‘harmonize’ their laws with the EU any more than any other country in the world does.

    The only thing broken is the May government – who has from the beginning either deliberately tried to scupper this or is simply incompetent. Or, for some reason, is shit-scared of the EU and so has no backbone negotiating because they don’t realize they’re the ones holding all the cards.

    The *EU* doesn’t want the UK to leave because that’s less income, sets an example to other countries that might want to follow suit, and move the EU away from its ‘ever closer union’ goal. A goal which is effectively annexation and federalization of all the countries of the EU under Brussels.

    1. When the members of a club do everything in their power to stop you from leaving, that’s a sure sign they need you more than you need them.

      1. +1000

  32. The future of power will be a combination of Solar, Hydro, and Nuclear. Different latitudes effect solar heavily.

    Solar isn’t the magic pill everyone seems to preach it is. Creating solar panels isn’t in expensive in carbon credit terms or in material terms. Then, where you place them and angle them is another big factor. THEN, you’re limited to daylight hours only.

    Hydro is and will continue to be the most cost effective and environmentally friendly source of power. With more H2O running around in the atmosphere, there’ll be more water to capture in places that we don’t get as much water now.

    Nuclear will most likely wind up saving everyone’s bacon. It’s a shame it’s been so stigmatized. Modern nuclear plants are extremely safe, reliable and viable.

    Oil, coal and natural gas will eventually become non viable just from political pressure.

    Tidal, not really viable with the exception of a few places.

    Wind kills too much wildlife and is extremely unpredictable. I think it’d be cool to hook up the windmills to pump water back up to the top of hydro power lake to store the energy.

    Geothermal is a very local option too.

    It’s interesting to think about how much fusion will change the world as we know it.

    Solving the not-really-existent energy crisis would be extremely easy if it there weren’t a bunch of people with set perspectives forcing their desires on places and people they know nothing about.


    1. It’s interesting to think about how much fusion will change the world as we know it.

      As much as I dislike ITER, I still think it’s a pretty cool idea.

    2. Nuclear energy is by far, and by far I mean it’s not even remotely close, the greenest and safest energy generating source of all.

    3. Nuclear can be safe. Its also super dangerous when an accident does happen.

      I watched a documentary on building new nuke plants and the engineers were millennials. These morons were never born when Chernobyl blew up, so they think that Fukishma accident can be prevented 100% by preventing tsunami flood waters from inundating the electrical back generators. Fukishima not only had water damage back up system but the massive earthquake cracked retaining walls, underground pipes, etc which all resulted in multiple backup failures.

      Nuke accidents dont happen when there is one failure. Its always a series of failures that “was not foreseen” or “tested for”.

      The biggest weakness of land based reactors is getting a coolant to an overheating reactor vessel when there are failures.

      Its not worth the risk. Plus, there are hundreds of tons of nuclear waste that sits outside nuke plants because we all cannot agree on a spot to bury the shit.

      Nuclear power has been good to us and its time to move on.

      1. The following is an interesting analysis on this topic:

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger
        /2018/06/11/if-nuclear-power-is-so-safe-why-are-we
        -so-afraid-of-it/#1a545d7d6385

        1. Thanks. Like so many issues I can openly debate energy and we have all sorts of options. Unfortunately there are anti-nuke and pro-nuke people who will hear no other positions.

          Same thing with solar. Not sure if they were soured because of Obama’s crony capitalism with solar or what but they refuse to even admit solar is a partial solution to getting cheap energy.

          I think Taiwan is an interesting discussion point about nuclear vs solar or whatever. Its a relatively tiny island, so space is a premium. Nuclear can be compact and suit their power needs. Communist China also might start a war and their first targets would be the nuclear power plants. Decentralized power via solar would survive direct attacks but its efficiency would go down with dust from bombing.

          I personally enjoy discussing the topic of future energy strategies.

  33. “The *EU* doesn’t want the UK to leave because that’s less income, sets an example to other countries that might want to follow suit, and move the EU away from its ‘ever closer union’ goal. A goal which is effectively annexation and federalization of all the countries of the EU under Brussels.”

    ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
    This is what it’s really about. If the UK just leaves with a big FUCK YOU to Europe and then does fine, thrives even, it’s the EU’s worst nightmare…the obvious lesson being, “if the UK can do it, so can we”.

    I watched a UK politician called Michael Portillo who’s had wide experience of dealing with EU types who said basically, the EU bureaucrats live in a fantasy world, they’re oblivious of the fact that it’s US military power that’s kept the peace in Europe since the end of WWII and they want to get rid of US influence and form their own European army. How that’s going to be paid for and maintained isn’t specified.

  34. 115th Congress casualties and retiring list

    As we wind down the Lefty crying for 2018, some might want to see a list of 115th Congress members not coming back to 116th Congress.

    If only they had repealed ObamaCare, some still might have their jobs.

  35. A judge ordered porn star Stormy Daniels to pay President Donald Trump more than $292,000 in his attorneys’ fees and another $1,000 in sanctions.
    The order relates to a dismissed defamation lawsuit Daniels filed against Trump this year.
    Daniels’s lawyer Michael Avenatti predicted “Stormy will never have to pay a dime because they owe her over $1 million in attorney’s fees and costs” from a pending lawsuit pending related to a non-disclosure agreement that she signed about an alleged affair with Trump.

    CNBC- Judge orders Stormy Daniels to pay Trump’s attorney’s fees

    Just when you think a Wednesday is not going to a fun news day!

  36. Pelosi reportedly questions Trump’s ‘manhood’ after Oval Office clash on border security

    People who lose the battle turn to childish name calling to their propagandists.

    Trump would not fuck Pelosi with Hillary’s dick.

  37. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty

    consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to

    you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in

    addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this

    website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you .
    http://www.geosalary.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.