Buttgig Speaks
-
@taiwan_girl said in Buttgig Speaks:
In my opinion, with a 50 year view, improvements in battery technology, and new ways to create energy (hydrogen fuel cells??), electric cars will dominate by 2100.
So what's the rush? Assume 50 years and think how much things have changed (and improved) by simple market forces since 1972. No need to for ideologically driven governmental meddling (which probably will have tax and other economic implications that most harm poorer people while enriching the wealthy).
@Ivorythumper said in Buttgig Speaks:
@taiwan_girl said in Buttgig Speaks:
In my opinion, with a 50 year view, improvements in battery technology, and new ways to create energy (hydrogen fuel cells??), electric cars will dominate by 2100.
So what's the rush? Assume 50 years and think how much things have changed (and improved) by simple market forces since 1972. No need to for ideologically driven governmental meddling (which probably will have tax and other economic implications that most harm poorer people while enriching the wealthy).
I think the two go hand in hand. I work in industrial safety, and whilst technology and the market can push for great advances, there also tends to be resistance to change from other stakeholders, which sometimes requires a bit of government 'meddling' to overcome.
The problem tends to be when legislative authorities get involved, they're frequently not knowledgeable enough of the details to help make improvements - a light touch from government is generally better than them getting into the weeds.
I was only joking
-
What electricity shortfall?
https://www.virta.global/blog/myth-buster-electric-vehicles-will-overload-the-power-grid
-
Uh, Ben may be wrong.
Checked out grain futures lately?
-
@Jolly said in Buttgig Speaks:
Uh, Ben may be wrong.
Checked out grain futures lately?
Bette Midler and Ben Shapiro arguing about energy production.
Has it come to this?
-
@Ivorythumper said in Buttgig Speaks:
@taiwan_girl said in Buttgig Speaks:
In my opinion, with a 50 year view, improvements in battery technology, and new ways to create energy (hydrogen fuel cells??), electric cars will dominate by 2100.
So what's the rush? Assume 50 years and think how much things have changed (and improved) by simple market forces since 1972. No need to for ideologically driven governmental meddling (which probably will have tax and other economic implications that most harm poorer people while enriching the wealthy).
I think the two go hand in hand. I work in industrial safety, and whilst technology and the market can push for great advances, there also tends to be resistance to change from other stakeholders, which sometimes requires a bit of government 'meddling' to overcome.
The problem tends to be when legislative authorities get involved, they're frequently not knowledgeable enough of the details to help make improvements - a light touch from government is generally better than them getting into the weeds.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Buttgig Speaks:
@Ivorythumper said in Buttgig Speaks:
@taiwan_girl said in Buttgig Speaks:
In my opinion, with a 50 year view, improvements in battery technology, and new ways to create energy (hydrogen fuel cells??), electric cars will dominate by 2100.
So what's the rush? Assume 50 years and think how much things have changed (and improved) by simple market forces since 1972. No need to for ideologically driven governmental meddling (which probably will have tax and other economic implications that most harm poorer people while enriching the wealthy).
I think the two go hand in hand. I work in industrial safety, and whilst technology and the market can push for great advances, there also tends to be resistance to change from other stakeholders, which sometimes requires a bit of government 'meddling' to overcome.
The problem tends to be when legislative authorities get involved, they're frequently not knowledgeable enough of the details to help make improvements - a light touch from government is generally better than them getting into the weeds.
My concern here is for ideologically driven meddling, and unintended (or deliberately ignored) consequences which tend to harm some people and help others. Government certainly has a role in oversight and regulation of industry, and promotion of knowledge toward the common good. The "progressivist" mentality is generally ideological, pragmatist, utilitarian, centralizing and collectivist, as well as elitist -- these are all interwoven into a basically technocratic worldview which while perhaps inevitable should not be assumed as nonproblematic.
I think we're on roughly the same page here.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Buttgig Speaks:
@Ivorythumper said in Buttgig Speaks:
@taiwan_girl said in Buttgig Speaks:
In my opinion, with a 50 year view, improvements in battery technology, and new ways to create energy (hydrogen fuel cells??), electric cars will dominate by 2100.
So what's the rush? Assume 50 years and think how much things have changed (and improved) by simple market forces since 1972. No need to for ideologically driven governmental meddling (which probably will have tax and other economic implications that most harm poorer people while enriching the wealthy).
I think the two go hand in hand. I work in industrial safety, and whilst technology and the market can push for great advances, there also tends to be resistance to change from other stakeholders, which sometimes requires a bit of government 'meddling' to overcome.
The problem tends to be when legislative authorities get involved, they're frequently not knowledgeable enough of the details to help make improvements - a light touch from government is generally better than them getting into the weeds.
My concern here is for ideologically driven meddling, and unintended (or deliberately ignored) consequences which tend to harm some people and help others. Government certainly has a role in oversight and regulation of industry, and promotion of knowledge toward the common good. The "progressivist" mentality is generally ideological, pragmatist, utilitarian, centralizing and collectivist, as well as elitist -- these are all interwoven into a basically technocratic worldview which while perhaps inevitable should not be assumed as nonproblematic.
I think we're on roughly the same page here.
@Ivorythumper said in Buttgig Speaks:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Buttgig Speaks:
@Ivorythumper said in Buttgig Speaks:
@taiwan_girl said in Buttgig Speaks:
In my opinion, with a 50 year view, improvements in battery technology, and new ways to create energy (hydrogen fuel cells??), electric cars will dominate by 2100.
So what's the rush? Assume 50 years and think how much things have changed (and improved) by simple market forces since 1972. No need to for ideologically driven governmental meddling (which probably will have tax and other economic implications that most harm poorer people while enriching the wealthy).
I think the two go hand in hand. I work in industrial safety, and whilst technology and the market can push for great advances, there also tends to be resistance to change from other stakeholders, which sometimes requires a bit of government 'meddling' to overcome.
The problem tends to be when legislative authorities get involved, they're frequently not knowledgeable enough of the details to help make improvements - a light touch from government is generally better than them getting into the weeds.
My concern here is for ideologically driven meddling, and unintended (or deliberately ignored) consequences which tend to harm some people and help others. Government certainly has a role in oversight and regulation of industry, and promotion of knowledge toward the common good. The "progressivist" mentality is generally ideological, pragmatist, utilitarian, centralizing and collectivist, as well as elitist -- these are all interwoven into a basically technocratic worldview which while perhaps inevitable should not be assumed as nonproblematic.
I think we're on roughly the same page here.
I don't have a problem with, for example, giving tax breaks to encourage environmentally responsible research programs. As with everything, governments of all colours have a tendency to take a good idea and ruin it by pushing it too far.
-
@Ivorythumper said in Buttgig Speaks:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Buttgig Speaks:
@Ivorythumper said in Buttgig Speaks:
@taiwan_girl said in Buttgig Speaks:
In my opinion, with a 50 year view, improvements in battery technology, and new ways to create energy (hydrogen fuel cells??), electric cars will dominate by 2100.
So what's the rush? Assume 50 years and think how much things have changed (and improved) by simple market forces since 1972. No need to for ideologically driven governmental meddling (which probably will have tax and other economic implications that most harm poorer people while enriching the wealthy).
I think the two go hand in hand. I work in industrial safety, and whilst technology and the market can push for great advances, there also tends to be resistance to change from other stakeholders, which sometimes requires a bit of government 'meddling' to overcome.
The problem tends to be when legislative authorities get involved, they're frequently not knowledgeable enough of the details to help make improvements - a light touch from government is generally better than them getting into the weeds.
My concern here is for ideologically driven meddling, and unintended (or deliberately ignored) consequences which tend to harm some people and help others. Government certainly has a role in oversight and regulation of industry, and promotion of knowledge toward the common good. The "progressivist" mentality is generally ideological, pragmatist, utilitarian, centralizing and collectivist, as well as elitist -- these are all interwoven into a basically technocratic worldview which while perhaps inevitable should not be assumed as nonproblematic.
I think we're on roughly the same page here.
I don't have a problem with, for example, giving tax breaks to encourage environmentally responsible research programs. As with everything, governments of all colours have a tendency to take a good idea and ruin it by pushing it too far.
@Doctor-Phibes I agree.
-
The grid problem...
https://zububrothers.com/2022/03/09/americas-other-emerging-energy-crisis/
-
The grid problem...
https://zububrothers.com/2022/03/09/americas-other-emerging-energy-crisis/
@Jolly Seems like the article tries to say too much but doesnt really give any real answer.
QUOTE
The nation’s electricity transmission system is growing increasingly undependable.
UNQUOTEAnd then says infrastructure, severe weather, etc as the leading causes.
But then seems to say that the answer is more coal power plants. That seems like they are chasing the wrong problem. Building more coal plants will not solve the transmission problems.
(NOTE - I know nothing about the organization that wrote the article, but it would not surprise me if it was funded by the coal industry)
