Trump and Energy Policy

  • Just a passing mention of cold fusion here- but interesting that it was mentioned at all in such a meeting.


    "The glassy waters barely disturbed the Sanssouci Star, a 174-foot yacht on which William Doll was hanging out one evening last August, anchored at a distance from the voluble quayside bars and restaurants of Stavanger.


    On board was a gathering of Doll’s “private society,” a club whose primary condition of membership is at least a billion dollars in wealth. He and around a dozen members and guests, lolling around a long, candle-lit table, and dining on baked turbot served by a chef flown in from Copenhagen, were discussing a big new play in advanced batteries.


    Shares were available for $100 million each, in case anyone was interested. That got the group chatting admiringly of Tesla Motors, the electric car company, which led to smaller huddles debating cold fusion, artificial intelligence, autonomous driving and billion-dollar startups. "


    https://qz.com/844487/meet-the…rom-destroying-the-world/

  • Mainstream physicists aren't idiots. Many of them are informed about progress in cold fusion in the same way, like we are or even better.

    No, they are not. I have spoken with or e-mailed many mainstream physicists. They get their information on cold fusion from the Scientific American or Wikipedia. Both of these have only fact-free nonsense.

  • Rumours swirl about Trump's science adviser pick

    Climate skeptic William Happer and ardent critic of academia David Gelernter have met with the president.

    Quote
    They get their information on cold fusion from the Scientific American or Wikipedia. Both of these have only fact-free nonsense.


    I know, I also talked with few mainstream physicists. But the sources which these deniers argue with aren't always equivalent to ways, in which they get informed about subject of their denial. After all, which sources would you argue by, being a denier of cold fusion? You must choose these most authoritative/representative ones, which are still proving/providing your point.


    Under such a situation the Wikipedia would be your best option available...

  • unfortunately, having a billion dollars has no effect on your IQ or wisdom, and admiring Tesla Motors is proof

  • Sooner or later the cows come home, and the fact that trillions of dollars have been spent by the dept of energy and other government agencies, with one out of every three dollars borrowed, and paying no regard to the utility or probable benefit to the taxpayer has led to an unsustainable situation. Average Joe Sixpack works his entire life to pay federal and state taxes and if he is lucky and frugal, he will have a small nest egg made worthless by inflation. Any small increase in interest rates on a debt of $20 x 10>12 will make us all poor.

    The dept of energy became a cash machine for well connected individuals and companies and spent money like a drunken sailor. Case in point, CO2 "remediation projects". We have things called plants that done that job admirably , without complaint or cost, at CO2 levels ranging from near extinction at 170 ppm to 8000 ppm, for billions of years.

    The dept of energy was created to make this country energy independent, which it has failed miserably at, and is about as useless as the government subsidy on sugar.

  • Average Joe Sixpack works his entire life to pay federal and state taxes and if he is lucky and frugal, he will have a small nest egg made worthless by inflation.


    Under Ronald Reagan (8 years acting as US- president.. the longest Hollywood movie ever scripted ) the transformation of the tax-system started from balanced (total income) to just taxing working salaries.


    Today working salaries are overall taxed between 40 and 50% - worldwide. Income generated by property is taxed between 0 and 10% world wide...Thus from pure mathematical laws it is clear that the imbalance will increase!


    What can we expect for LENR?

    - Rich people (regarding to outside their circle) in average are greedy, parsimonious, mostly avariciously too, - most important they are under educated and depend on secondary advice.

    - Rich people like the investors in IH try to bind talented researchers with spending tuna-sandwich amount of money for a deal in of all intellectual outcome of their work...


    Thus: Look out for philantropists - there are a few among the rich - which at least are willing to share profits...

    - Try to resist the money makes happy mantra - just look at Rossi live.. can it be worse?


    --> Share your knowledge with the public before it's burried into a patent!!!!

  • We have things called plants that done that job admirably , without complaint or cost, at CO2 levels ranging from near extinction at 170 ppm to 8000 ppm, for billions of years.

    If that were the case, we would not see a dramatic rise in CO2 and large changes in temperature and weather. But we do see them, so obviously plant life cannot keep up.


    Here is one of the best illustrations of the change in temperature. Scroll to the bottom:


    https://xkcd.com/1732/


  • Aboard was one Carl Page. For his insights into cold fusion, access to his brother, or both?

  • - Rich people (regarding to outside their circle) in average are greedy, parsimonious, mostly avariciously too, - most important they are under educated and depend on secondary advice.

    That is not in evidence. The largest collections of rich people in the U.S. are in states such as New York, Connecticut and California. These also have the highest per capita income (which is not the same thing). They have the most generous welfare benefits; they spend the most per student in public schools, and they send far more money to the Federal government than they take back. They are net contributors to the Federal budget. Voters, including wealthy people, vote heavily Democratic. Whereas the GOP red states contribute far less to the Federal government than they take, and they have lower per capita income, less devoted to education and so on.


    In Europe and other first-world countries we also see that more wealth, when it is distributed without a huge gap between the rich and poor, generally makes societies less greedy, parsimonious and avaricious.


    There is some confusion about this, for various reasons. For example, the average SAT score in New York is lower than it is in Alabama, despite the fact that public schools are funded far more lavishly in New York ($8,755 in Alabama versus $19,818 in New York). Some people have the impression this means funding does not increase educational achievement. That is incorrect. You have take into account the fact that 7% of the students in Alabama take the SAT test, scoring 1608 on average, whereas 76% of the students in New York do, scoring 1463. The top 7% of students in New York have much higher scores than the ones in Alabama. The overall educational attainment is higher.


    https://ballotpedia.org/Public_education_in_New_York


    https://ballotpedia.org/Public_education_in_Alabama

  • If that were the case, we would not see a dramatic rise in CO2 and large changes in temperature and weather. But we do see them, so obviously plant life cannot keep up.


    Here is one of the best illustrations of the change in temperature. Scroll to the bottom:


    https://xkcd.com/1732/

    except for one small fact,

    there is no "dramatic" rise in CO2

    the effects of CO2 decrease at the log of the concentration, once over 100 ppm the effects are negligible,

    and blaming global temps on CO2 concentrations is massive misdirection of the facts

  • A reminder.


    This thread is about President Trump's Energy Policy. While this may be a good reason for passing comments about climate change and taxation, the emphasis should be on the 'passing'. If this turns into a climate change thread it will die (or be killed). There are other fora for discussing climate.

  • This thread is about President Trump's Energy Policy. While this may be a good reason for passing comments about climate change and taxation, the emphasis should be on the 'passing'.

    Energy policy is inseparable from climate change and taxation. They are one and the same. Climate change is caused by energy, and the only way to address this problem and stop catastrophic climate change is by changing taxation policy. That is, by taxing carbon emissions.


    You statement that only "passing comments" should be made about climate change is like saying that disease should only be mentioned in passing in a discussion of healthcare policy.

  • except for one small fact,

    there is no "dramatic" rise in CO2

    the effects of CO2 decrease at the log of the concentration, once over 100 ppm the effects are negligible,

    That is not a fact. It is an alt-Right ignorant assertion contrary to proven scientific facts. Such statements have no role in a discussion group devoted to science. You should move that to political forum devoted to lying about science.

  • There is no alt-right. There is just the right and the fake liberal right who are truly leftists. The whole term "alt-right" is simply a concoction made up by liberals to undermine the idea that the right -- which had been infiltrated and suppressed -- is re-emerging. Since the essence of the left is a total lack of any divide between right and wrong (only the situation and context and hoped goals matter) they will lie and scheme to push for total control of the energy industry and every other aspect of our lives in the name of, "saving the planet." If they really cared about the environment, they would have been focusing on exotic energy technologies instead of stone age technology like solar panels and windmills. The truth is that to most of them the end goal is really the broad and widescale adoption of globalism and the dissolution of individual nation states. Trump, despite his flaws and failings, is an imperfect hero, because unlike any other liberal who pretended to call themselves a "republican", he is standing up for national sovereignty and national defense.