Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 415: I got nothing clever

(+) Yeah! (+)

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Just did a quick googling, so I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will be able to correct me if I am wrong, but methane gas seems to be more potent at having an effect on climate change when in the atmosphere but doesnt last as long as CO2.

don't dump out the methane you're using as a battery

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Natural gas in general also tends to produce less emissions than coal/petroleum/etc. So I would assume that if they were to capture the CO2 and produce methane, your removing CO2 and pumping some of it back into the environment but still creating a net negative in terms of CO2 being produced.

no!

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Now I didn't read your article, so I'm not sure if they are talking about actually removing CO2 from the atmosphere or if they are talking about improved carbon capture technologies.

read the fucking article!

I interpreted it as being a proposed solution to energy storage. "Generating extra electricity and nowhere to store it? Convert CO2 to Methane and use the methane later when you need the energy!"

But it's just the latest iteration of a slough of articles that seem to be dressing up dirty energy as clean (I think)

Forceful_Dragon posted...

I interpreted as a solution to energy storage. "Generating extra electricity and nowhere to store it? Convert CO2 to Methane and use the methane later when you need the energy!"

what gave you that idea, the subtitle "The groundbreaking electrocatalysis technique uses renewable energy to convert CO2 into methane, creating a closed carbon loop that neutralizes emissions and offers a sustainable energy storage solution."?

Forceful_Dragon posted...

But it's just the latest iteration of a slough of articles that seem to be dressing up dirty energy as clean (I think)

no!

new rule: nobody is allowed to give answers to science questions except me

Eh. The Democratic Party probably has to be looked at from an economic lens and a social lens.

Economically they moved left in the 30s-70s (but not as much as you might think because it was still riddled with racism so only white people reaped the full benefits) in response to the Great Depression and carrying on the spirit of the New Deal. Then when Carter lost and you had massive landsldies by Nixon, Reagan, and a 12-year control with Reagan and Bush 1 the party felt that that philosophy had lost with the voters in favor of Reagan's neoliberalism/trickle-down/etc. and so they moved considerably to the right with Bill Clinton and the "Third Way."

However, I do think since 2016 the Dems have finally shaken off the Third Way thinking in large part (Third Way-era Dem politicians finally being replaced/retiring/dying after holding leadership positions for decades) and have begun to react to the base in this regard.

Socially there's of course the whole thing where the party's "switched" in the 60s-70s because of Nixon and the Southern Strategy. That's why if you look at Electoral College maps the Dems used to be the party of the South and the GOP the north. When JFK and LBJ passed the Civil Rights Acts basically all the "Dixiecrats" in the South abandoned the party and Nixon decided to have the GOP embrace them and the parties basically swapped here.

After that I think you saw the Dems also begin moving to the left here starting around 2004ish during Bush 2's term as a reaction against his heavily religious (read: Christian) approach to governing like trying to push for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. And the Dem momentum on social issues has largely continued on from there.

So I'd say the Democrats circa 2018 to the present are actually the most progressive/left they've ever been.

NFUN posted...

no

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural- gas/natural-gas-and-the-environment.php

This is where I got that natural gas produces less emissions, so if that's wrong I am sorry.

By all means, explain what is being proposed, because I don't understand.

Where is the energy coming from that is being used to convert CO2 into methane?

What is being done with the methane afterwards?

What is the overall purpose of the process if it requires an outside source of clean energy to function as compared to just using that clean energy as energy?

IfGodCouldDie posted...

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural- gas/natural-gas-and-the-environment.php

This is where I got that natural gas produces less emissions, so if that's wrong I am sorry.

natural gas is not involved here at all

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Where is the energy coming from that is being used to convert CO2 into methane?

in practice, solar/wind farms

Forceful_Dragon posted...

What is being done with the methane afterwards?

burned for power

Forceful_Dragon posted...

What is the overall purpose of the process if it requires an outside source of clean energy to function as compared to just using that clean energy as energy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_battery

NFUN posted...

natural gas is not involved here at all

Is methane not a natural gas?

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Is methane not a natural gas?

"natural gas" as an idea pretty inherently involves the whole pipeline from extraction to delivery. if you want to quibble on that, whatever. my objection to that line was you not understanding how conservation of matter works (ie, if you have x molecules of CO2 and you convert it to y molecules of CH4, you end up with x molecules of CO2 at the end [and incidentally, x=y]). The amount of emissions doesn't matter because this is just the combustion process backwards! You necessarily have to store as much CO2 and you'd get by burning the methane!

This interview is hard to watch. Credit to George for pushing for Yes or No answers when they keep getting ignored.

We are so screwed in November.

for the record FD i forgot you originally were who asked the question here

NFUN posted...

what gave you that idea, the subtitle "The groundbreaking electrocatalysis technique uses renewable energy to convert CO2 into methane, creating a closed carbon loop that neutralizes emissions and offers a sustainable energy storage solution."?

no!

new rule: nobody is allowed to give answers to science questions except me

so you're off the hook. IGCD, I'm coming for your ass

NFUN posted...

"natural gas" as an idea pretty inherently involves the whole pipeline from extraction to delivery. if you want to quibble on that, whatever. my objection to that line was you not understanding how conservation of matter works (ie, if you have x molecules of CO2 and you convert it to y molecules of CH4, you end up with x molecules of CO2 at the end [and incidentally, x=y]). The amount of emissions doesn't matter because this is just the combustion process backwards! You necessarily have to store as much CO2 and you'd get by burning the methane!

No attempt at quibbling. Just a vast misunderstanding of what "natural gas" meant, combined with a shotty googling of the topic at hand

Basically just being a misinformed idiot spreading misinformation

NFUN posted...

"natural gas" as an idea pretty inherently involves the whole pipeline from extraction to delivery. if you want to quibble on that, whatever. my objection to that line was you not understanding how conservation of matter works (ie, if you have x molecules of CO2 and you convert it to y molecules of CH4, you end up with x molecules of CO2 at the end [and incidentally, x=y]). The amount of emissions doesn't matter because this is just the combustion process backwards! You necessarily have to store as much CO2 and you'd get by burning the methane!

I guess it would be helpful to know how much energy is lost in this process compared to traditional battery storage.

Because this IS just a roundabout way to store energy, while also requiring copper as an input product?

I'm just having trouble seeing the point of this method versus something like sodium ion batteries (which seems like a strong option for large scale energy storage as long as you have the space for large batteries)

I mean heck, couldn't you just pump water uphill with excess energy and then run a water turbine when you need the energy back later?

Forceful_Dragon posted...

I guess it would be helpful to know how much energy is lost in this process compared to traditional battery storage.

Because this IS just a roundabout way to store energy, while also requiring copper as an input product?

I'm just having trouble seeing the point of this method versus something like sodium ion batteries (which seems like a strong option for large scale energy storage as long as you have the space for large batteries)

I mean heck, couldn't you just pump water uphill with excess energy and then run a water turbine when you need the energy back later?

NFUN posted...

Fundamentally, all that matters for energy storage is cost

If it turns out to be cheaper it wins. If it doesn't it loses. Nothing wrong with the method inherently, just how the engineering turns out. Pumped water storage requires a huge investment of money and concrete (aka pollution, which equals money) unless you're in a place where it's convenient. Batteries work anywhere but they're expensive. Flywheels are probably lossy long-term, which is just a cost. etc

Copper's just a catalyst, so it won't be wasted (though it could require remediation).

That does help. Essentially as long as all the methane used as fuel is first being fabricated then the system itself is carbon neutral. It just raised flags to read something that seemed to say "we cracked clean energy, it relies on burning methane."

I would suggest that maybe a better use of extra energy would be to just pull CO2 out of the air and then not put it right back.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

I would suggest that maybe a better use of extra energy would be to just pull CO2 out of the air and then not put it right back.

no, we should put it back so hard it leaves orbit

nfun, can you run the numbers on gathering up a bunch of co2 stuffing it into a rocket or a balloon or something and then just firing it at the sun?

Now we're asking the important questions

Thorn posted...

no, we should put it back so hard it leaves orbit

nfun, can you run the numbers on gathering up a bunch of co2 stuffing it into a rocket or a balloon or something and then just firing it at the sun?

yeah

turns out like 90% of a rocket's mass is fuel so that's a pretty poor ratio

Forceful_Dragon posted...

That does help. Essentially as long as all the methane used as fuel is first being fabricated then the system itself is carbon neutral. It just raised flags to read something that seemed to say "we cracked clean energy, it relies on burning methane."

I would suggest that maybe a better use of extra energy would be to just pull CO2 out of the air and then not put it right back.

Methane wouldn't be a good fit for that but I am very interested to see if they could extend this tech to make something like ethylene, which would be storable and could reduce our dependence on oil for plastic feedstocks, but I'm not a chemist so I have no idea if such a thing makes any sense

AdmittedFelon posted...

This interview is hard to watch. Credit to George for pushing for Yes or No answers when they keep getting ignored.

We are so screwed in November.

https://twitter.com/nikkimcr/status/1809384004728000619?s=46&t=v9nzYLLBIiNYrqldFs9NWQ

Well when were 20 years into total Republican control because they abolished elections and murdered anyone who says otherwise, at least we can rest easy knowing Joe feels good about his decision.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Well when were 20 years into total Republican control because they abolished elections and murdered anyone who says otherwise, at least we can rest easy knowing Joe feels good about his decision.

Of all the things though, people keep latching onto that one, as if they want him to start an insurrection if he loses...

Obviously he wants to win, and everything he said in the interview proofed that. But accepting the results is...a normal thing that politicians do. I really don't get why some people are giving him crap for that response. He's not a cheeto dictator, he can admit defeat if it happens.

Yeah I don't know what people expect out of that question. It is not the losers job to overthrow the government.

It is the peoples job to overthrow the government but if we didn't massacre the supreme court after all this I doubt people have the stomach to engage in a successful insurrection.

If you wanted him to say "Well I'll think about what would have happened if I dropped out" fuck what the hell. Thats what you say if you want to either lose an election or drop out.

If you are someone upset by that answer you are someone that would have been upset by whatever answer he might have given.

red13n posted...

Yeah I don't know what people expect out of that question. It is not the losers job to overthrow the government.

I mean if the loser is an incumbent the clear political choice is now to try to do that, at least. There clearly aren't legal or political consequences so why wouldn't you try?

...honestly not sure if I'm being serious or not here. Fuck the Supreme Court either way though!

I'm trying to keep it in a range where people will vote for it.if Biden says he wants to overthrow the government he'd lose in a landslide.

If Trump says it his supporters cheer and then the media reminds you Biden is old.

I still don't think Trump wins the election but I'm not terribly hopeful. What happened in the interview?

https://twitter.com/Lucas_Gage_/status/1809202268463370633?t=3pJNgkDb76XI3nAUvRWpPg&s=19
Who the fuck is he and why is Musk letting literal neo-nazis express their bullshit under the guise of "freedom of speech"?

Yeah, I'm torn on the "should Joe step down" question. I've seen various good points brought up.

• Whoever replaces him is not going to be chosen democratically, and Republicans are going to jump on that and call democrats "anti-democratic". And yes, I know, pretty rich coming from the party with an open plan to overthrow democracy, but rhetoric is rhetoric.
• Whoever replaces him has not been nationally vetted and sometimes people have skeletons in their closet that would sink them (John Edwards 2008 run jumps to mind). All of the reasonable replacements did not run in the primary this year so haven't been heavily scrutinized.
• If the replacement is Harris, what's the point? She's still polling below Biden. And if people really think Biden is too old to be functional, people are going to be voting based on Harris anyway.
• Obviously if there is a non-Harris replacement it's going to be a fight over who that gets to be, and the party would have to quash all competition and get everyone behind a singular candidate very quick.
• Some of the higher polling options that at least people on Twitter seem to seriously consider, like Pete Buttigieg, have never been popular among black voters. And if, say, Pete was the replacement, what are the optics of effectively replacing a black candidate (Harris) with possibly the whitest of the 2020 candidates?
• Any branding, ads they have already filmed with Biden in them, lawn signs they might have already printed with "Biden" on them, cool logos they've developed (there's that weird E in the Biden Harris stickers and lawn signs) that would need to be redone fast.
• If Biden doesn't step down willingly, like it's actually just delegates at the convention changing their vote against his wishes, that could also get messy.

I don't know what strategy is better, TBH. If it's better to get another candidate, let's get another candidate. But understand that there would be a whole lot of baggage that comes with replacing a candidate so late in the process, and I don't know if that baggage would hurt more than just sticking with Biden.

Don't forget that a bunch of Republican run states would use the switch to keep whoever replaces Biden off the ballot.

But I do think Biden is still the Dems best shot at winning.

I don't know what I actually realistically expect Biden to do with dictator powerz. It sure would be nice if he did SOMETHING but that sets an awful precedent and probably tanks his chances and maybe even kickstarts a war. I'm really tired of watching the dems play nicely by the rules while the republicans do whatever the fuck they want unopposed, but Biden choosing now to buck that trend should probably stay in the fanfic zone. Shit sucks and I don't have a solution for it.

I think it's gotta be Harris if Biden steps down. I don't know if that's a better or worse idea, so I'm not gonna really pick a fight with either side of that debate. Shit sucks and I don't have a solution for it.

it's pretty fun watching my life expectancy actively tick down over the course of this election cycle

If he is going to use his new immunity it's probably going to be behind the scenes or after the election.

Lame duck periods are going to be nightmares from now on. A president with no way to be held accountable and nothing to lose. Can't take them to court because of immunity, and impeachment would take to long to matter since they are already leaving office soon.

pete's a terrible option because the department he's in charge of is literally in the news every day and he's utterly vanished.

metroidcomposite posted...

Whoever replaces him is not going to be chosen democratically,

entirely the dems' fault. they didn't allow a real primary and are still are trying to avoid one entirely. like that's just not a real reason, biden wasn't picked democratically, he was picked because incumbent.

they're just trying to create decision paralysis while pushing biden forward. not because he's the best choice but because he's the politically easiest and has the power right now.

Wanglicious posted...

pete's a terrible option because the department he's in charge of is literally in the news every day and he's utterly vanished.

But that's just it, who's a "good" option?

Here's some polls on potential replacements, alongside Biden's polls in the same swing states.

https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1808207640708735032/photo/2

Harris polls about the same as Biden.

I've seen Gavin Newsom's name floated. As someone living in California at the moment, definitely not; fuck Newsom. He partially owned a fast food business going into his Governorship (Panera Bread), and granted them an exemption to his new fast food minimum wage laws. Yeah, technically he has all of that in a "blind trust" so he technically doesn't own the shares "right now"--but...it just reeks of giving special preferences to his corporate buddies. I miss Arnold :(

Pete's one of the few people polling above Biden/Harris in a couple swing states. But as you say he's not a great candidate.

And the last person on this poll, Whitmer, has no national presence to my knowledge, nor has she ever ran in a presidential primary. (She's the governor of Michigan, which is why she polls well there. More of something you would look for in a VP pick, though--grab governor of Michigan to win Michigan).

There's only one potential candidate whose polls I've seen look impressive, and I'm pretty sure this one is never happening:

https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1808595923926208556

It's Biden or Harris there's really no other plausible option.

Harris polls better than the other options and is actually the Vice President. She's on the ticket, she's been on the ticket, people voted for her along with Biden.

The downside is that I think she is seen as specifically weaker in the Midwest states that are the tipping points but if the concern is that the media will constantly cherry-pick any error Biden makes to push their narrative maybe it shakes out as better? IDK.

I've gone from feeling confident Trump won't win a few months ago to the point where if you pointed a gun at my head demanding to know who I think would win I'd say Biden with much less confidence. And that hinges on Trump not leaving well enough alone and Biden not making too many more major gaffes. This is going to be exhausting. Also thinking the margin of victory probably doesn't budge much from 2020, which would have been astonishing to think even earlier this year. But here we are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUbp68V3mhM

bluntly i don't trust polling at all and think it's being overplayed heavily there, especially as it's all within like 2-3% of each other. it just needs to be a candidate that can be Biden+. you may not like him but Gavin pretty much represents that. i've seen a lot of "fuck Newsom" kinda things but none of them are from people who wouldn't pick him over Trump anyway so it doesn't matter. Whitmer's more questionable because her covid decisions can still bite her in the ass on a national stage but if she's savvy enough, should be able to be better than a walking zombie. and considering the rumor goes she told biden michigan's out of the race after the debate, it's an important state.

amusingly Harris is one of two major people who i'm pretty sure the ghost of Biden would be a better candidate of but that's largely because she's such a godawful candidate that i have no idea what the dems were thinking of 4 years ago. she got tanked by Tulsi, that was the giveaway. Harris is also the big problem with any replacement because she's kinda trapped dems into their own rhetoric: they can't pass up the black woman for a white guy from the same state without looking bad and unfortunately they care about looking bad more than they care about winning. my personal conspiracy goes dems know they've lost the presidency but will try to win both houses of congress. there's better candidates, they're just politically messy and Joe is old man stubborn mode. so if they can just force him in and not deal with the fallout, it's easy. or he can fall down some stairs and you play up Harris holding Joe's mandate as the story, hoping she can actually get sympathy points for once.

Pete's the other person Ghost Biden wins over because, regardless of what polling has said, his disappearance on train derailment and issues and his absence on literally everything Boeing is so utterly pathetic that he'd die nationally. he's the worst pick because he has poor performance in an executive position that has repeatedly been in the news nationally.

Never mind now I'm second guessing myself at every turn.

metroidcomposite posted...

I miss Arnold :(

As a fellow Californian, yeah fuck Newsom but let's not go crazy here.

Wanglicious posted...

entirely the dems' fault. they didn't allow a real primary and are still are trying to avoid one entirely. like that's just not a real reason, biden wasn't picked democratically, he was picked because incumbent.

What do you mean? There was one in my state, I voted against Biden for all the good it did. There's never going to be a competitive primary against an incumbent but that doesn't make them not "real"

President Mamala Harris 2024.

She exists in the context of all in which she lives and came before her.

Kenri posted...

What do you mean? There was one in my state, I voted against Biden for all the good it did. There's never going to be a competitive primary against an incumbent but that doesn't make them not "real"

I'm pretty sure other candidates existing on the primary didn't matter though. Like not even "basically didn't matter" as in "Biden would be in even if by miracle an alternate candidate won"

Same was true of Trump in the primaries though since they'd all dropped out by the time primary day came

Lopen posted...

I'm pretty sure other candidates existing on the primary didn't matter though. Like not even "basically didn't matter" as in "Biden would be in even if by miracle an alternate candidate won"

"Pretty sure" based on evidence or feels?? Like obviously it feels like Biden was the presumptive candidate before the results even came in, because there was 0% chance of him losing and everyone knew that. That doesn't mean the primary wasn't real, it just means it wasn't competitive.

Like in a Character Battle we might all assume Link is gonna beat Some Girl From Persona in R1 but that doesn't mean we "didn't allow a real R1 match"

Kenri posted...

That doesn't mean the primary wasn't real, it just means it wasn't competitive.

No I mean I don't think they actually mattered. Like literally even if someone else won Biden would still win by default.

Correct me if I'm wrong on that (never checked because it functionally doesn't matter anyway-- feels are reality in this case) but that was my understanding

Kenri posted...

What do you mean? There was one in my state, I voted against Biden for all the good it did. There's never going to be a competitive primary against an incumbent but that doesn't make them not "real"

candidates that could be competitive are "incentivized" to not participate, candidates who are running are magically not eligible in certain states, media favorable to the party does their best to remove the candidate from the picture. you have the illusion of "oh here's a primary" but then don't put anyone up that's relevant and purposefully go out of their way to make sure nobody who could be relevant runs and bends the knee instead. closest to a rival he had was the protest vote over palestine.

And Wang's post is why feels are reality

Ton of hurdles even beyond the psychological "no chance Biden loses why vote in the primary" barrier.

The whole primary system is kinda stupid.

Kenri posted...

Like in a Character Battle we might all assume Link is gonna beat Some Girl From Persona in R1 but that doesn't mean we "didn't allow a real R1 match"

i'd sooner compare it to something that involves booking. like for wrestling if you end up having a title defense against the local jobber instead of the locker room of competitive guys then yeah you won but you didn't really have a match there. or compare it to an actor who's paid to be in 1-2 brief scenes of a movie - yeah you're in the film but you're not really in it.

anybody with two hands got a chance

preferably not one who's also a pest but y'know

hey now i'd vote for a dude with one hand and a hook. gimme that literal pirate candidate.

Tbh I assumed Biden won in 2020 mainly on the back of protest votes against Trump and that in a rematch Biden would likely benefit again. I also figured Trump being the incumbent was the reason he got so many votes in 2020 despite mishandling a national crisis and that therefore Biden would stand to benefit in that case. Then I thought Trump was leading in the polls initially because he announced his candidacy well in advance for the sake of politicizing his criminal trials, so his supporters were more gung-ho about him than Democrats were about Biden.

All Biden has to do is wake the heck up and suddenly this looks so much less nightmarish. God.

Those Bloomberg polls were all much more in favor of biden in all the battleground states except PA where it has Trump +7. Whoa.

Wanglicious posted...

i'd sooner compare it to something that involves booking. like for wrestling if you end up having a title defense against the local jobber instead of the locker room of competitive guys then yeah you won but you didn't really have a match there. or compare it to an actor who's paid to be in 1-2 brief scenes of a movie - yeah you're in the film but you're not really in it.

I mean yeah of course you'd rather compare it to something where the winner is determined in advance because that's a big boon to your argument. Show me a wrestling match where the winner is determined by audience vote and yeah I'll accept this analogy.

Lopen posted...

No I mean I don't think they actually mattered. Like literally even if someone else won Biden would still win by default.

Correct me if I'm wrong on that (never checked because it functionally doesn't matter anyway-- feels are reality in this case) but that was my understanding

I know what you meant, I'm saying that if there's evidence for that you haven't shown any yet, and that I really don't expect you to have any. But if you're gonna be like "feels are reality!!" then there's no arguing with that so believe whatever you want I guess.

Wanglicious posted...

candidates that could be competitive are "incentivized" to not participate, candidates who are running are magically not eligible in certain states, media favorable to the party does their best to remove the candidate from the picture. you have the illusion of "oh here's a primary" but then don't put anyone up that's relevant and purposefully go out of their way to make sure nobody who could be relevant runs and bends the knee instead. closest to a rival he had was the protest vote over palestine.

Yeah that sounds like running against an incumbent (and honestly just politics in general). Is any of this unusual in any way for Biden compared to Obama, or Trump, or Bush? Like define "incentives", define "magically", etc.

Like this sounds like we're relitigating 2016 to a certain extent, but for that one there was at least a chance Clinton wouldn't win so it makes more sense to question if it was rigged or not.

Kenri posted...

"Pretty sure" based on evidence or feels?? Like obviously it feels like Biden was the presumptive candidate before the results even came in, because there was 0% chance of him losing and everyone knew that. That doesn't mean the primary wasn't real, it just means it wasn't competitive.

I mean, the competition was some guy I haven't heard of who's never been in office near as I can tell (Jason Palmer) who nonetheless managed to pick up the 3 delegates from American Samoa.

And...congressman Dean Phillips, whom I also haven't heard of, who's been in congress for 5 years, but got a few interesting endorsements (Andrew Yang, Jeffrey Weaver--a.k.a. Bernie's old campaign strategist).

And finally...Marianne Williamson running for a second time, who, unlike the other two alternatives, won zero delegates.

But regardless: No senators. No governors. (Senators and Governors usually being the serious candidates).

All three other competitors in the primary got fewer votes than uncommitted (and uncommitted is only an option on the ballot in 18 states).

Looking at Dean Phillips, since that seems to be the most serious challenge to the throne...He was not on the ballot in 17 states. So even if he was a strong enough candidate to be noteworthy, actually winning would have been difficult--he'd need to win basically every state where he was on the ballot.