Author Topic: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?  (Read 132513 times)

davef

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 217
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Wilsonville, OR
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1800 on: February 07, 2017, 04:48:09 AM »
over 22million  Americans work for the government. That is more than 10% of working age Americans.

Where did you get this horribly wrong number from?

In truth, there are about 2.8 million civilian federal employees, and about 1.5 million people in the US military.  This number has been essentially flat for decades, even as the size and scope of the government has grown tremendously.  Government now does more per federal employee than at any time in history.

Maybe you're also counting state and county and city employees?  Plus irrigation districts, home owner's associations, fire department retirees unions, part time librarians, and everyone who has ever received unemployment?  I just can't fathom how else you turn 2.79 million civil servants into 22 million people without deliberately trying to distort the truth.

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES9000000001

I got that horribly wrong number from the BLS website. You were right, I was off a bit, it is not 22 million, it is 22,276,000
The title for the chart is All employees, thousands, government, seasonally adjusted
It doesn't say anything about unemployment, but as you said, I assume it does include state and local government and military.
When I said 20% waste, manpower is only part of that, I am not implying we could cut 4 million jobs. I meant 20% of dollars.

davef

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 217
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Wilsonville, OR
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1801 on: February 07, 2017, 04:56:26 AM »
Quote
It sounds like he wants to leave gay marriage alone, that's a start.
Two words scare me right now;  Mike Pense

Quote
I don't mind the wall.
I think the wall is entirely symbolic, and functionally worthless.  We are going to spend tens of billions building a symbol that won't curb immigration or drug-running.  It doesn't help that I think the symbol itself is an incredibly bad.


Agreed, on those two points and many of your others. Then again, most of the jobs created by the TARP stimulus were equally functionally worthless, ( saw this first hand) so I guess you could call it another stimulus.

We have done a decent job stopping  terror attacks on the US from foreign attackers, its foreign inspired domestic attacks that we have not done a good job with.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5616
  • Location: la belle province
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1802 on: February 07, 2017, 05:47:35 AM »
I guess I was just going off what Marillyn Hewson, Lockheed CEO has tweeted and said in statements since meeting with Donald Trump in December.  I wouldn't base much off what Trump claims, but if the other party backs it up, there may be some truth.

Quote
“I’ve heard his message loud and clear about reducing the cost of the F-35,” Hewson said in a statement. “I gave him my personal commitment to drive the cost down aggressively.”

Quote
Lockheed Martin credited President Donald Trump for helping to "accelerate negotiations" and "drive down the price" of what is already the most expensive weapons program in history.

So the best we can surmise, even if we assume Hewson wasn't trying to suck up to someone who can send truckloads of money his way and take him at his exact words, is that Trump "accelerated" a process that was already happening. Color me unimpressed.

Pretty much this. Trump is well known for responding to people who suck up to them, and getting into twitter fights anytime someone criticizes him.
If I were a CEO who depended on military contracts I'd probably have said the same things to get my money. 
Think of the alternative - had he put out a statement saying "while our meeting with DJT was productive, we'd like to correct the record and say that these cost-cutting measures were already being implamented before DJT took office" - um, no.  He would have yanked the rug out so fast, then blamed all the fallout on Obama, and only after 6 months would he have come back to the same deal and claimed "amazing cost-savings, I was right!!"
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5616
  • Location: la belle province
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1803 on: February 07, 2017, 06:04:10 AM »
I've been reading through the articles and synopses posted about Bannon, and my conclusion is that his approach is as much of the problem as his end goals.

Running a diverse country is not the same as running a company. In business the primary goal is to defeat your competitors, and it seems DJT is continuing that stategy.  Problem is, the competitors here tend to be minorities and trading partners.

As an example, imagine there was a policy that would do little for the US in the short term but would substantially help Mexico. DJT would rail against it as being a 'horrible deal - the US gets nothing!  Mexico gets everything! BAD' ... yet globally and long term these are the sorts of policies we should consider.

"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

former player

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2083
  • Location: Avalon
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1804 on: February 07, 2017, 06:18:41 AM »
I am fucking fuming at that fucking liar Trump right now.

Here's what he said:  "And all across Europe you've seen what happened, in Paris and Nice.  All over Europe it's happening.  It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported.  And in many cases the very, very dishonest press doesn't want to report it.  They have their reasons, you understand that."

Who the fuck is that meant to be a message to?  People in Europe?  We have pluralistic, free press, of all political persuasions and none, which reports freely and fairly - here is the BBC summary of the White House list of "European" attacks (most of which were not in Europe) and how the BBC reported them-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38890090

So Trump here is gaslighting Americans.  There isn't enough "real" terror in the world for him, so he has to invent some that Americans are not being told about, for "reasons", so he can defeat it and keep them safe.  Fucking Trump has read 1984 and taken it as his fucking manual for being President.

Please, how long is it going to be before you can impeach this fucker?

Edited to add: I guess what Trump might also be trying to do is to get the media to provide excessive coverage of terrorist events in order to prove that they are not underreporting?  Which would have a similar effect in ramping up Bannon's "clash of civilisations" narrative.  Yeah, fuck that.

Further edited to add: the grieving mother of one of the victims in the attack in Queensland Australia in August 2016, one of the attacks listed by the White House as being a "terror" attack, has stated that it was not a terror attack and must not be used as an excuse to persecute innocent people.

Fucking Trump, fucking White House.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-38893253
« Last Edit: February 07, 2017, 07:50:49 AM by former player »
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1106
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1805 on: February 07, 2017, 06:25:38 AM »
I hope he puts stop to the Ethanol scam. But he hasn't said much about it so I doubt it.
It's coming. We're in week 3. Give it a little time. Even MSM is catching on.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/nicolas-loris/finally-america-may-be-catching-ethanol-racket

Senate killed off the ridiculous coal ban
http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/2017/02/senate-ends-obama-coal-mining-rule.php
So much winning I can barely stand it.
semi-SWAMI (Satisfied Working Advanced Mustachian Individual) 1 ‘stash, 1 DW, 7 Mini Money Mustaches...
Don't take life too seriously. You'll never get out of it alive.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1806 on: February 07, 2017, 06:33:17 AM »
over 22million  Americans work for the government. That is more than 10% of working age Americans.

Where did you get this horribly wrong number from?

In truth, there are about 2.8 million civilian federal employees, and about 1.5 million people in the US military.  This number has been essentially flat for decades, even as the size and scope of the government has grown tremendously.  Government now does more per federal employee than at any time in history.

Maybe you're also counting state and county and city employees?  Plus irrigation districts, home owner's associations, fire department retirees unions, part time librarians, and everyone who has ever received unemployment?  I just can't fathom how else you turn 2.79 million civil servants into 22 million people without deliberately trying to distort the truth.

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES9000000001

I got that horribly wrong number from the BLS website. You were right, I was off a bit, it is not 22 million, it is 22,276,000
The title for the chart is All employees, thousands, government, seasonally adjusted
It doesn't say anything about unemployment, but as you said, I assume it does include state and local government and military.
When I said 20% waste, manpower is only part of that, I am not implying we could cut 4 million jobs. I meant 20% of dollars.

The number you're showing does include federal government employees, state and local employees, city officials, teachers/educators, the military, librarians, the post office, etc.  That makes it rather misleading.

There are 2.136 million Federal government employees as of 2014, with a projected loss of more than 200,000 jobs by 2024.  https://data.bls.gov/projections/nationalMatrix?queryParams=999100&ioType=i

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5616
  • Location: la belle province
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1807 on: February 07, 2017, 06:33:49 AM »
I am fucking fuming at that fucking liar Trump right now.

Here's what he said:  "And all across Europe you've seen what happened, in Paris and Nice.  All over Europe it's happening.  It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported.  And in many cases the very, very dishonest press doesn't want to report it.  They have their reasons, you understand that."

...
There isn't enough "real" terror in the world for him, so he has to invent some that Americans are not being told about, for "reasons", so he can defeat it and keep them safe. 

I share your frustration Former Player

Once again DJT seems to be dredging up things that never happened in an effort to get his base to play along, and to keep the whole country fearful of a phantom threat.  He did it in the primaries when he stated that "I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering. It never happened (fact-checked here).  Then he doubled-down on this assertion and (shock!) some people now swear they remember this from happening.  Memory is a funny and meldable thing.
He's also claimed that "I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally"(also debunked)

This list goes on. 

His latest is sinister claim that there are lots more Muslim terrorist attacks we need to protect against, but we don't know about them because they aren't being reported. Again, false.
The best way of getting more power is ofr the populace to be mortally afraid.  That's what happened with the patriot act following 9/11, not to mention during WWII and WWI (and most every other major war).  I'm guessing that in DJT's mind all he needs to do is convince people their greatest threat to life is terrorism and he can accomplish everything he wants to (complete Muslim ban, a 'beautiful wall', some targeted wars againt "very bad people"... 

The best counter I think is to not be afraid.  The average person is safer now than at any time in our history.  The EU certainly has helped with that (all of its problems aside)
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5616
  • Location: la belle province
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1808 on: February 07, 2017, 06:35:08 AM »

It's coming. We're in week 3. Give it a little time. Even MSM is catching on.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/nicolas-loris/finally-america-may-be-catching-ethanol-racket

Senate killed off the ridiculous coal ban
http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/2017/02/senate-ends-obama-coal-mining-rule.php
So much winning I can barely stand it.

I can't tell if that was intended to be serious or sarcastic Acroy.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Fishindude

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1809 on: February 07, 2017, 06:43:32 AM »
I think people so upset by Trump read, listen to, and watch too much news, get over it.  Do you really think your life is going to be affected much by this guy?   How did the last several presidents positively or negatively impact your life?   I always have hopes for positive change, but the way the DC bureaucrats (Repub or Dem) have things so jammed up, major changes of any type rarely happen.

One thing I do have an interest in and will predict:
Firearms and and ammunition sales will level out or decrease now that there isn't much fear of a gun grab, and ammo that has been hard to get will be more readily available, hopefully cheaper too.


AdrianC

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1810 on: February 07, 2017, 07:08:00 AM »
One thing I do have an interest in and will predict:
Firearms and and ammunition sales will level out or decrease now that there isn't much fear of a gun grab, and ammo that has been hard to get will be more readily available, hopefully cheaper too.

Already happening:
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/317806-gun-sales-slow-following-trump-election

They'll go back if Trump is impeached.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
  • Location: MA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1811 on: February 07, 2017, 07:11:01 AM »
Yes, let's support those coal miners by letting their owners pollute the water they drink.  That'll show em! 

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5616
  • Location: la belle province
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1812 on: February 07, 2017, 07:13:09 AM »
I think people so upset by Trump read, listen to, and watch too much news, get over it.  Do you really think your life is going to be affected much by this guy?   How did the last several presidents positively or negatively impact your life?   
Normally I'd be one to agree with you, but we are both seeing some immediate and negative impacts to our own lives. The complete shut-down of the EPA grants plus freezes in the federal hiring have directly and negatively impacted us.  I also have to collegues, both with families, that now feel they cannot travel to and from the country.

Ironically my greatest hope right now is that the bureaucracy will act as a buffer from some of the more extreme changes proposed.  So far DJT seems willing to run roughshot over it though.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

former player

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2083
  • Location: Avalon
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1813 on: February 07, 2017, 07:16:24 AM »
I think people so upset by Trump read, listen to, and watch too much news, get over it.  Do you really think your life is going to be affected much by this guy?   How did the last several presidents positively or negatively impact your life?   I always have hopes for positive change, but the way the DC bureaucrats (Repub or Dem) have things so jammed up, major changes of any type rarely happen.

One thing I do have an interest in and will predict:
Firearms and and ammunition sales will level out or decrease now that there isn't much fear of a gun grab, and ammo that has been hard to get will be more readily available, hopefully cheaper too.
A leader who lies to his nation about non-existent threats has no good purpose or outcome in mind.  When that nation has the most powerful military on the planet and an excess of nuclear weapons, there is the potential for us all to be affected.  The scale of these lies and the potential adverse effects is unprecedented: Dubya lied about Iraq, but the effects at the time were mostly limited to Iraq itself - although I concede the subsequent spread.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1814 on: February 07, 2017, 07:38:04 AM »
It seems like every day is packed full of impacts of Trump being so incredibly outrageous.  The one I'm still trying to explain is his comment 'You think our country is so innoncent...'.  Holy crap, what a demeaning backward thing for a US President to even think, let alone go on the record with.

I literally wake up every morning dreading what Trump might do.  Even in this relative calm with the travel ban halted, I fear that Bannon is whispering in Trump's ear that the jihad is coming and refugees are pouring in.  I worry that, even when democracy and the will of the people reassert itself, when the checks and balances work, that Trump gets a little more crazy.
Transitioning to FIRE'd albeit somewhat cautiously...

StarBright

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1815 on: February 07, 2017, 08:22:10 AM »
I think people so upset by Trump read, listen to, and watch too much news, get over it.  Do you really think your life is going to be affected much by this guy?   How did the last several presidents positively or negatively impact your life?   I always have hopes for positive change, but the way the DC bureaucrats (Repub or Dem) have things so jammed up, major changes of any type rarely happen.


Fishindude - I've been thinking a lot about what you say recently. I'm starting to think that liberals are actually way more likely to be affected by the current administration, in part because liberals seem to be drawn to careers and vocations that are currently "threatened" (in short - liberals are drawn to soft civil service). But that seems to be the reason that each side might be having a hard time finding a middle ground. I don't know any republicans in civil service that isn't teaching or law enforcement.

A few examples of how I and people I'm close with are being directly affected:
  • The small business I work for has already had a couple planned projects for 2017 put on hold due to uncertainty within Fed agencies and defense contractors. 
  • My local library presents an adult education series every year that is funded with a grant from the NEH. I was talking to the program director this weekend and she is afraid they will lose all their funding for it next year
  • I have two friends who work directly for the NEA as well as family, several friends and acquaintances who have received funding from the NEA - everything there is up in limbo right now.
  • Friends from a local interfaith community group who are skipping travel home to visit their families this summer due to the travel ban
  • One of my good friends from college is now an asylum attorney specializing in LBGTQ cases from predominantly muslim countries - her last two weeks have been insane.
  • Additionally I have friends that work for NPS, have grants funded by NIH, work in climate research, are profs at Berkeley (and a million other institutions - but the Pres only threatened to take away UCB's funding as of now), and who work for homeless (re HUD) outreach - All are unsure what their jobs will look like in the near future.
  • Our local JCC had to be evacuated from a bomb threat, and a Muslim family's home was defaced with hate graffiti.

Among my close friend group I would be shocked if there were people who did not feel their lives/livelihoods threatened by upset from the current admin.

Now to be fair - my many members of my Midwestern (Hoosier) family feel very differently and as of right now their lives have only changed for the better (one of my uncles works at Carrier).  So I get where you are coming from for sure.  But please don't dismiss those of us who feel like our lives may be dramatically changed by some of this administration's plans.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2017, 08:39:34 AM by StarBright »

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3357
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1816 on: February 07, 2017, 08:28:49 AM »
I think people so upset by Trump read, listen to, and watch too much news, get over it.  Do you really think your life is going to be affected much by this guy?   How did the last several presidents positively or negatively impact your life?   I always have hopes for positive change, but the way the DC bureaucrats (Repub or Dem) have things so jammed up, major changes of any type rarely happen.

One thing I do have an interest in and will predict:
Firearms and and ammunition sales will level out or decrease now that there isn't much fear of a gun grab, and ammo that has been hard to get will be more readily available, hopefully cheaper too.

Me personally?  Not much. I'm a US-born non-Muslim straight white male.

That said, I'm not selfish enough to ignore the potential repercussions for everyone else.

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1106
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1817 on: February 07, 2017, 08:37:04 AM »

It's coming. We're in week 3. Give it a little time. Even MSM is catching on.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/nicolas-loris/finally-america-may-be-catching-ethanol-racket

Senate killed off the ridiculous coal ban
http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/2017/02/senate-ends-obama-coal-mining-rule.php
So much winning I can barely stand it.

I can't tell if that was intended to be serious or sarcastic Acroy.

Dead serious.
Read up on the rule. Perhaps a source you trust: http://www.vox.com/2017/2/2/14488448/stream-protection-rule
Even Vox acknowledges the 1,700+pg rule (which is in addition to all the other thousands of pages of regulations) is "almost ludicrously complex".
It was one piece of the Establishment's War on Coal
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/05/inside-war-on-coal-000002

Good riddance. Many more to follow.
semi-SWAMI (Satisfied Working Advanced Mustachian Individual) 1 ‘stash, 1 DW, 7 Mini Money Mustaches...
Don't take life too seriously. You'll never get out of it alive.

farmecologist

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 140
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1818 on: February 07, 2017, 08:47:16 AM »
I think people so upset by Trump read, listen to, and watch too much news, get over it.  Do you really think your life is going to be affected much by this guy?   How did the last several presidents positively or negatively impact your life?   I always have hopes for positive change, but the way the DC bureaucrats (Repub or Dem) have things so jammed up, major changes of any type rarely happen.


Fishindude - I've been thinking a lot about what you say recently. I'm starting to think that liberals are actually way more likely to be affected by the current administration, in part because liberals seem to be drawn to careers and vocations that are currently "threatened" (in short - liberals are drawn to civil service).

A few examples of how I and people I'm close with are being directly affected:
  • The small business I work for has already had a couple planned projects for 2017 put on hold due to uncertainty within Fed agencies and defense contractors. 
  • My local library presents an adult education series every year that is funded with a grant from the NEH. I was talking to the program director this weekend and she is afraid they will lose all their funding for it next year
  • I have two friends who work directly for the NEA as well as family, several friends and acquaintances who have received funding from the NEA - everything there is up in limbo right now.
  • Friends from a local interfaith community group who are skipping travel home to visit their families this summer due to the travel ban
  • One of my good friends from college is now an asylum attorney specializing in LBGTQ cases from predominantly muslim countries - her last two weeks have been insane.
  • Additionally I have friends that work for NPS, have grants funded by NIH, work in climate research, are profs at Berkeley (and a million other institutions - but the Pres only threatened to take away UCB's funding as of now), and who work for homeless (re HUD) outreach - All are unsure what their jobs will look like in the near future.
  • Our local JCC had to be evacuated from a bomb threat, and a Muslim family's home was defaced with hate graffiti.

Among my close friend group I would be shocked if there were people who did not feel their lives/livelihoods threatened by upset from the current admin.

Now to be fair - my many members of my Midwestern (Hoosier) family feel very differently and as of right now their lives have only changed for the better (one of my uncles works at Carrier).  So I get where you are coming from for sure.  But please don't dismiss those of us who feel like our lives may be dramatically changed by some of this administration's plans.


It will be interesting to see how much this administration affects the U.S. travel industry.  Just did a quick search and it looks like there are many articles out there about it.  The theory is that the travel ban rhetoric,etc... may make foreigners statistically less likely to visit the U.S.. 

Personally, we may do a road trip to Yellowstone this year.  We also went 2 years ago and the place was absolutely overrun with foreign tourists.  Not complaining...but it was very noticeable from when we went the previous time (about 10 years ago).   It will be interesting to see if there are any differences this year.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5616
  • Location: la belle province
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1819 on: February 07, 2017, 08:49:27 AM »

It's coming. We're in week 3. Give it a little time. Even MSM is catching on.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/nicolas-loris/finally-america-may-be-catching-ethanol-racket

Senate killed off the ridiculous coal ban
http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/2017/02/senate-ends-obama-coal-mining-rule.php
So much winning I can barely stand it.

I can't tell if that was intended to be serious or sarcastic Acroy.

Dead serious.
Read up on the rule. Perhaps a source you trust: http://www.vox.com/2017/2/2/14488448/stream-protection-rule
Even Vox acknowledges the 1,700+pg rule (which is in addition to all the other thousands of pages of regulations) is "almost ludicrously complex".
It was one piece of the Establishment's War on Coal
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/05/inside-war-on-coal-000002

Good riddance. Many more to follow.
why on earth would you think that vox would be a source I would trust over others?
I wouldn't characterize myself as a bleeding-edge liberal.

As for the 'ludicrously complex' regulations surroudning coal, I think it's inherent in an implicit strategy to limit the amount of coal we mine.
I agree we could make this less complex overall, but then we run into the question about what the fair cost for coal should be; is it merely the cost of pulling it out of the ground, or do we incorporate the wide range of health risks to both humans and the planet that it creates?
Since carbon-taxes and cap-and-trade regulation have largely stalled, what would you propose?

If we are going to remove overly ornerous regulation (which I support doing) I believe we need to have some sensible regulations to replace it with. 
Striking down regulations and then saying "well, we'll come up with something better down the line as problems arise" is a really dumb strategy IMO.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
  • Location: MA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1820 on: February 07, 2017, 08:51:30 AM »
Heh, okay.  So you are okay with poisoning people if it puts a few more $$$ in some millionaires pocket.  Good to know. 

I am for anything that kills off coal quicker.  The more burdensome rules, the happier I am.  And before you say "What about the poor coal miners?", there are twice the number of people employed in solar as in all fossil fuels combined.  Let a dying industry die, retrain those folks or provide them assistance if they aren't able.  Supporting coal is dumb on a number of levels.  It's also a horrible job that kills people.  I don't care if it's part of their culture.  My ancestors were from West Virginia, and thankfully, my grandfather got out.  So now I get to work a cushy office job.  I'll take breathing clear air and drinking clean water over "culture" any day. 

http://fortune.com/2017/02/07/us-solar-jobs-2016/


DoubleDown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1805
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1821 on: February 07, 2017, 08:53:24 AM »
I am fucking fuming at that fucking liar Trump right now.

Here's what he said:  "And all across Europe you've seen what happened, in Paris and Nice.  All over Europe it's happening.  It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported.  And in many cases the very, very dishonest press doesn't want to report it.  They have their reasons, you understand that."


Among the attacks the Trump administration claims were not covered by the press are the Pulse nightclub and Brussels. Only in Crazy-As-Fuck-Alternative-Facts-Land did those attacks not completely overwhelm all forms of media when they occurred, wall-to-wall coverage, and of course it's completely verifiable. But facts don't matter. And also the Bowling Green Massacre was completely squelched by the press, the Holocaust never happened, the moon landing was faked, and jet contrails are from the CIA spraying mind-control drugs over everyone.

Meanwhile back in reality, people and the GOP Congress STILL support Trump somehow.
"Not all quotes on the internet are accurate" -- Abraham Lincoln

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
  • Location: MA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1822 on: February 07, 2017, 09:01:37 AM »
Quote
Meanwhile back in reality, people and the GOP Congress STILL support Trump somehow.

Of course they do.  Because his base hates liberals MORE than they care about pretty much anything else.  We are the threat and the enemy above all other threats.  Once you understand that, you understand his appeal.  His values and personality are anti-liberal at a basic level.  His ability to upset liberals is his best feature, even if it is at the expense of his supporters own standard of living.  This is why they will justify anything he does, because it gives them jollies to upset liberals and that is worth it to them. 

The congress just uses Trump's ability to rouse and distract his base in order to suck up wealth and demolish the safety net.  They made a deal with the devil and so far it's working out pretty well for them. 

Fishindude

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1823 on: February 07, 2017, 09:16:48 AM »
Heh, okay.  So you are okay with poisoning people if it puts a few more $$$ in some millionaires pocket.  Good to know. 

I am for anything that kills off coal quicker.  The more burdensome rules, the happier I am.  And before you say "What about the poor coal miners?", there are twice the number of people employed in solar as in all fossil fuels combined.  Let a dying industry die, retrain those folks or provide them assistance if they aren't able.  Supporting coal is dumb on a number of levels.  It's also a horrible job that kills people.  I don't care if it's part of their culture.  My ancestors were from West Virginia, and thankfully, my grandfather got out.  So now I get to work a cushy office job.  I'll take breathing clear air and drinking clean water over "culture" any day. 

This thinking is nuts.  We still get a huge percentage of our electricity in America from evil Coal and Nuke, and natural gas is gaining ground. 
Newsflash .....solar doesn't work after dark, and wind doesn't work when the wind doesn't blow.  There wouldn't even be much wind or solar power initiative in the US had the government not stepped in and highly subsidized (read took our money) to make it happen, because the clean power you want will not support itself unless you are willing to pay a bunch more for your normal monthly electric bill.  Even then, you will still need a percentage of nuke, coal or gas power to run things when the wind doesn't blow and sun doesn't shine.

Also think about what huge increases in electrical bills will do to business and industry.  It will either put them out of business or severely jack up the prices of all the things we consume and need everyday.  Or price a solar system that will provide enough power for your home, I did and the price tag was $70,000.  Would take near 25 years for me to break even, and in all likelihood the stuff wouldn't last that long to begin with.

Ever seen a reclaimed coal mine?   Yes, it's a dirty operation while they are mining, but once reclaimed, these are some of the nicest, best hunting and fishing properties in my state and neighboring states, I spend a lot of time on these properties every year.   What's going to happen when all of these windmills start wearing out in 20 years?

I'm all for clean and green, but solutions need to be cost effective and reasonable.





farmecologist

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 140
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1824 on: February 07, 2017, 09:18:42 AM »
Heh, okay.  So you are okay with poisoning people if it puts a few more $$$ in some millionaires pocket.  Good to know. 

I am for anything that kills off coal quicker.  The more burdensome rules, the happier I am.  And before you say "What about the poor coal miners?", there are twice the number of people employed in solar as in all fossil fuels combined.  Let a dying industry die, retrain those folks or provide them assistance if they aren't able.  Supporting coal is dumb on a number of levels.  It's also a horrible job that kills people.  I don't care if it's part of their culture.  My ancestors were from West Virginia, and thankfully, my grandfather got out.  So now I get to work a cushy office job.  I'll take breathing clear air and drinking clean water over "culture" any day. 

http://fortune.com/2017/02/07/us-solar-jobs-2016/

Another recent bit of news is that 'Wind Turbine Technician' is the USA's 'fastest growing occupation'.  Regardless of what this administration does, wind and solar will only continue to grow...


StarBright

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1825 on: February 07, 2017, 09:18:56 AM »

It will be interesting to see how much this administration affects the U.S. travel industry.  Just did a quick search and it looks like there are many articles out there about it.  The theory is that the travel ban rhetoric,etc... may make foreigners statistically less likely to visit the U.S.. 

Personally, we may do a road trip to Yellowstone this year.  We also went 2 years ago and the place was absolutely overrun with foreign tourists.  Not complaining...but it was very noticeable from when we went the previous time (about 10 years ago).   It will be interesting to see if there are any differences this year.

NPR did a piece about travel just this morning! One of the things they brought up (in addition to foreign tourists not coming to the US) was American travel abroad being cancelled because people are angry at the US and american's are worried about retaliation. They talked to travel agencies whose business was (anecdotally ) falling off rather quickly because no one wants to come in or go out right now.

waltworks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2147
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1826 on: February 07, 2017, 09:26:05 AM »
Cheap natural gas (fracking) killed coal, not "burdensome regulations". That trend will continue, the natural gas reserves available now for development in the US are just insane.

So, Acroy, if your goal is to sell lots of coal to China, you might get your wish. I have mixed feelings about that. If you want to see US coal plants staying in business/being built... sorry. Not going to happen in our lifetimes.

-W

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3357
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1827 on: February 07, 2017, 09:31:55 AM »
Heh, okay.  So you are okay with poisoning people if it puts a few more $$$ in some millionaires pocket.  Good to know. 

I am for anything that kills off coal quicker.  The more burdensome rules, the happier I am.  And before you say "What about the poor coal miners?", there are twice the number of people employed in solar as in all fossil fuels combined.  Let a dying industry die, retrain those folks or provide them assistance if they aren't able.  Supporting coal is dumb on a number of levels.  It's also a horrible job that kills people.  I don't care if it's part of their culture.  My ancestors were from West Virginia, and thankfully, my grandfather got out.  So now I get to work a cushy office job.  I'll take breathing clear air and drinking clean water over "culture" any day. 

This thinking is nuts.  We still get a huge percentage of our electricity in America from evil Coal and Nuke, and natural gas is gaining ground. 
Newsflash .....solar doesn't work after dark, and wind doesn't work when the wind doesn't blow.  There wouldn't even be much wind or solar power initiative in the US had the government not stepped in and highly subsidized (read took our money) to make it happen, because the clean power you want will not support itself unless you are willing to pay a bunch more for your normal monthly electric bill.  Even then, you will still need a percentage of nuke, coal or gas power to run things when the wind doesn't blow and sun doesn't shine.

Also think about what huge increases in electrical bills will do to business and industry.  It will either put them out of business or severely jack up the prices of all the things we consume and need everyday.  Or price a solar system that will provide enough power for your home, I did and the price tag was $70,000.  Would take near 25 years for me to break even, and in all likelihood the stuff wouldn't last that long to begin with.

Ever seen a reclaimed coal mine?   Yes, it's a dirty operation while they are mining, but once reclaimed, these are some of the nicest, best hunting and fishing properties in my state and neighboring states, I spend a lot of time on these properties every year.   What's going to happen when all of these windmills start wearing out in 20 years?

I'm all for clean and green, but solutions need to be cost effective and reasonable.

Your post is lacking in facts and is rife with speculative gibberish.

Solar power has decreased in cost dramatically and will only continue to do so as technology improves.   This is an interesting graph showing how each state gets its power. Note that coal is primarily used in flyover states and coastal areas are almost exclusively on other types:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plants/
« Last Edit: February 07, 2017, 10:11:25 AM by JLee »

gaja

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 595
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1828 on: February 07, 2017, 09:32:02 AM »


It will be interesting to see how much this administration affects the U.S. travel industry.  Just did a quick search and it looks like there are many articles out there about it.  The theory is that the travel ban rhetoric,etc... may make foreigners statistically less likely to visit the U.S.. 

Personally, we may do a road trip to Yellowstone this year.  We also went 2 years ago and the place was absolutely overrun with foreign tourists.  Not complaining...but it was very noticeable from when we went the previous time (about 10 years ago).   It will be interesting to see if there are any differences this year.

We are among those who are considering not going on vacation to the US this year. I hear a lot of people saying the same thing, both IRL and in Norwegian social media. But we are a small nation, not a large part of the statistics. What should worry you more, is that there is a lot of outcry in the academic environments about larger conventions that often are placed in the US. Some, like the psycologists association, have asked their members to boycott already planned conferences. The medical association are considering doing the same. But many more are working to have the next international meetings and conferences located in countries where their colleagues won't be denied access. It is simply becoming too inconvenient to arrange things in a country where you can't know what the rules will be next week.
Travelling southern Norway, Iceland and the Faroes in an electric car: http://travelelectric.blogspot.no/

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3357
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1829 on: February 07, 2017, 09:36:09 AM »


It will be interesting to see how much this administration affects the U.S. travel industry.  Just did a quick search and it looks like there are many articles out there about it.  The theory is that the travel ban rhetoric,etc... may make foreigners statistically less likely to visit the U.S.. 

Personally, we may do a road trip to Yellowstone this year.  We also went 2 years ago and the place was absolutely overrun with foreign tourists.  Not complaining...but it was very noticeable from when we went the previous time (about 10 years ago).   It will be interesting to see if there are any differences this year.

We are among those who are considering not going on vacation to the US this year. I hear a lot of people saying the same thing, both IRL and in Norwegian social media. But we are a small nation, not a large part of the statistics. What should worry you more, is that there is a lot of outcry in the academic environments about larger conventions that often are placed in the US. Some, like the psycologists association, have asked their members to boycott already planned conferences. The medical association are considering doing the same. But many more are working to have the next international meetings and conferences located in countries where their colleagues won't be denied access. It is simply becoming too inconvenient to arrange things in a country where you can't know what the rules will be next week.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/trump-immigration-ban-a-boon-for-canadian-tech-industry-say-executives/article33818200/

I'm curious to see if I end up in Canada in a year or so.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5616
  • Location: la belle province
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1830 on: February 07, 2017, 09:36:54 AM »
Heh, okay.  So you are okay with poisoning people if it puts a few more $$$ in some millionaires pocket.  Good to know. 

I am for anything that kills off coal quicker.  The more burdensome rules, the happier I am.  And before you say "What about the poor coal miners?", there are twice the number of people employed in solar as in all fossil fuels combined.  Let a dying industry die, retrain those folks or provide them assistance if they aren't able.  Supporting coal is dumb on a number of levels.  It's also a horrible job that kills people.  I don't care if it's part of their culture.  My ancestors were from West Virginia, and thankfully, my grandfather got out.  So now I get to work a cushy office job.  I'll take breathing clear air and drinking clean water over "culture" any day. 

This thinking is nuts.  We still get a huge percentage of our electricity in America from evil Coal and Nuke, and natural gas is gaining ground. 
Newsflash .....solar doesn't work after dark, and wind doesn't work when the wind doesn't blow.  There wouldn't even be much wind or solar power initiative in the US had the government not stepped in and highly subsidized (read took our money) to make it happen, because the clean power you want will not support itself unless you are willing to pay a bunch more for your normal monthly electric bill.  Even then, you will still need a percentage of nuke, coal or gas power to run things when the wind doesn't blow and sun doesn't shine.
As Walt stated, cheap natural gas has depressed coal, not solar panels.  The major cost for nuclear is the incredible costs for security and the long-term storage of spent rods (I'm currently working on a decommissioning advisory board for two nuclear plants).  Those are largely regulatory burdens put into place to keep i) terrorists from getting the materials to make a 'dirty bomb' as well as ii) ensure the public they won't blow up, a-la-3 mile island. 

The fastest increase among fossil-fuel powered plants is LNG.

Also think about what huge increases in electrical bills will do to business and industry.  It will either put them out of business or severely jack up the prices of all the things we consume and need everyday.  Or price a solar system that will provide enough power for your home, I did and the price tag was $70,000.  Would take near 25 years for me to break even, and in all likelihood the stuff wouldn't last that long to begin with.

Ever seen a reclaimed coal mine?   Yes, it's a dirty operation while they are mining, but once reclaimed, these are some of the nicest, best hunting and fishing properties in my state and neighboring states, I spend a lot of time on these properties every year.   What's going to happen when all of these windmills start wearing out in 20 years?

I'm all for clean and green, but solutions need to be cost effective and reasonable.

I hear you on solutions being cost-effective and reasonable, but I think your response has a lot of holes in it.  First, it doesn't address the questions of what a 'fair cost' for dirtier technologies should be.  Do we require extremely expensive scrubbers and impost a carbon tax? Do we pay for the disposal of the filters as part of the cost (now concentrated toxic waste)? I'd be fine eliminating all subsidies for solar panels and wind turbines if we also did the same with the fossil fuel industry (oil has been getting the motherload of tax breaks for the past century) as well as include the cost of everything that goes into the air and into our landfills.


Then there's the statement that "solar doesn't work after dark, and wind doesn't work when the wind doesn't blow."  That's frequently used as an argument why we shouldn't use or expand their usages.  What it ignores is storage capacity, which is one of the fastest growing fields in the energy industry.  Adding to that, wind tends to blow strongest in the evening and at night, while solar is best during the day; the two strategies do a lot towards complimenting each other's weakness. To be clear, I agree with you that fossil fuels can and should have uses for our electricity grid.

If your quotes for providing all your electricity via solar came out to $70k you are using a TON of energy.  Even ignoring all subsidies we priced it out just under $30k, and that was in cold, snowy New England.  I'd start by doing a comprehensive energy audit to figure out where all this electricity us going.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

davef

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 217
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Wilsonville, OR
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1831 on: February 07, 2017, 09:48:04 AM »
Heh, okay.  So you are okay with poisoning people if it puts a few more $$$ in some millionaires pocket.  Good to know. 

I am for anything that kills off coal quicker.  The more burdensome rules, the happier I am.  And before you say "What about the poor coal miners?", there are twice the number of people employed in solar as in all fossil fuels combined.  Let a dying industry die, retrain those folks or provide them assistance if they aren't able.  Supporting coal is dumb on a number of levels.  It's also a horrible job that kills people.  I don't care if it's part of their culture.  My ancestors were from West Virginia, and thankfully, my grandfather got out.  So now I get to work a cushy office job.  I'll take breathing clear air and drinking clean water over "culture" any day. 

http://fortune.com/2017/02/07/us-solar-jobs-2016/

You have to look at the unanticipated consequences of your roadblocks. The roadblock put-up by Obama caused stopped burning, not mining. so our cheapest source of energy  25% cheaper than natural gas 80% cheaper than wind and 90% cheaper than solar (DOE numbers from 2014), yes renewables have gone down some, but the DOE has not quantified it yet.   Was still extracted (albeit at a slower rate) and shipped to mexico and mostly china, were it was sold, and burned and did even more damage to the environment because they have absolutely no controls or EPA. Not to mention the fuels burned in shipping. In the case of mexico so they could generate energy and sell that energy back to Southern California.  Do you think that is really good for clean air and water? Perhaps on a very local basis but that is very short sighted.It is far worse than if Obama had done nothing. The only sensible strategy is to keep it in the ground, all of it. The second best strategy, would be to burn it. Sure we get pollution, but at least we get cheap energy. What you got form Obama's strategy is pollution and expensive energy. the worst of both worlds!

farmecologist

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 140
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1832 on: February 07, 2017, 09:55:25 AM »

Your post is lacking in facts and is rife with speculative gibberish.

Solar power has decreased in cost dramatically and will only continue to do so as technology improves.   This is an interesting graph showing how each state gets its power. Note that coal is primarily used in flyover states and coastal areas are almost exclusively on

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plants/


Cool chart!  However, I'll tell you that many 'flyover states' are starting to produce quite a bit of alternative power ( mostly wind )..and will soon surpass the coastal states.

I'm from SE Minnesota.  Looks like we almost produce as much wind power as California now.  The entire I-90 corridor in the western half of Minnesota is solid wind generation...you can even see it on this chart.  Many more turbines are being added each year.  The grid was also updated recently to increase capacity.

Even 'king coal' North Dakota is adding quite a bit of wind generation.  We have family in central North Dakota and visit every year.  We pass a huge coal power plant there (Coal Creek Station).  This power plant also exports power to Minnesota. When you get close to it...you can tell that the air quality is 'slightly off', etc... BIG polluter.  Even so, most folks in North Dakota are very pro-coal.   And I'm happy to see that wind power is encroaching there as well.  Believe me, if wind can be successful in North Dakota, it can be successful anywhere.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
  • Location: MA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1833 on: February 07, 2017, 10:00:54 AM »
Quote
This thinking is nuts.  We still get a huge percentage of our electricity in America from evil Coal and Nuke, and natural gas is gaining ground. 
Newsflash .....solar doesn't work after dark, and wind doesn't work when the wind doesn't blow.  There wouldn't even be much wind or solar power initiative in the US had the government not stepped in and highly subsidized (read took our money) to make it happen, because the clean power you want will not support itself unless you are willing to pay a bunch more for your normal monthly electric bill.  Even then, you will still need a percentage of nuke, coal or gas power to run things when the wind doesn't blow and sun doesn't shine.

Also think about what huge increases in electrical bills will do to business and industry.  It will either put them out of business or severely jack up the prices of all the things we consume and need everyday.  Or price a solar system that will provide enough power for your home, I did and the price tag was $70,000.  Would take near 25 years for me to break even, and in all likelihood the stuff wouldn't last that long to begin with.

Ever seen a reclaimed coal mine?   Yes, it's a dirty operation while they are mining, but once reclaimed, these are some of the nicest, best hunting and fishing properties in my state and neighboring states, I spend a lot of time on these properties every year.   What's going to happen when all of these windmills start wearing out in 20 years?

I'm all for clean and green, but solutions need to be cost effective and reasonable.

I chose solar as an example, but it isn't the only source of replacement.  Fossil fuel replacement isn't a one trick pony.  And I like natural gas as a stop gap, and I like nuclear as long as it is smart and well regulated. 

I know solar only works during the day, but they are quickly working on affordable battery storage to compensate for that. 

But I will be happy if coal gets moved to the periphery.  I know it won't, especially in the developing world, but I see that developing the expertise for next gen energy is a smart bet, and better that pouring federal funds into subsidizing old style power sources.

davef

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 217
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Wilsonville, OR
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1834 on: February 07, 2017, 10:01:51 AM »
Heh, okay.  So you are okay with poisoning people if it puts a few more $$$ in some millionaires pocket.  Good to know. 

I am for anything that kills off coal quicker.  The more burdensome rules, the happier I am.  And before you say "What about the poor coal miners?", there are twice the number of people employed in solar as in all fossil fuels combined.  Let a dying industry die, retrain those folks or provide them assistance if they aren't able.  Supporting coal is dumb on a number of levels.  It's also a horrible job that kills people.  I don't care if it's part of their culture.  My ancestors were from West Virginia, and thankfully, my grandfather got out.  So now I get to work a cushy office job.  I'll take breathing clear air and drinking clean water over "culture" any day. 

This thinking is nuts.  We still get a huge percentage of our electricity in America from evil Coal and Nuke, and natural gas is gaining ground. 
Newsflash .....solar doesn't work after dark, and wind doesn't work when the wind doesn't blow.  There wouldn't even be much wind or solar power initiative in the US had the government not stepped in and highly subsidized (read took our money) to make it happen, because the clean power you want will not support itself unless you are willing to pay a bunch more for your normal monthly electric bill.  Even then, you will still need a percentage of nuke, coal or gas power to run things when the wind doesn't blow and sun doesn't shine.

Also think about what huge increases in electrical bills will do to business and industry.  It will either put them out of business or severely jack up the prices of all the things we consume and need everyday.  Or price a solar system that will provide enough power for your home, I did and the price tag was $70,000.  Would take near 25 years for me to break even, and in all likelihood the stuff wouldn't last that long to begin with.

Ever seen a reclaimed coal mine?   Yes, it's a dirty operation while they are mining, but once reclaimed, these are some of the nicest, best hunting and fishing properties in my state and neighboring states, I spend a lot of time on these properties every year.   What's going to happen when all of these windmills start wearing out in 20 years?

I'm all for clean and green, but solutions need to be cost effective and reasonable.

Your post is lacking in facts and is rife with speculative gibberish.

Solar power has decreased in cost dramatically and will only continue to do so as technology improves.   This is an interesting graph showing how each state gets its power. Note that coal is primarily used in flyover states and coastal areas are almost exclusively on

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plants/

Great graph, but I think it proves HIS point. If you consider all but 5 states flyover states, you may have a point.

The fact of the matter is if you omit hydro (which most people dont consider renewable anymore), only 6% if our energy comes from the renewables, sun and wind. Even if you look at California it is only 15% between sun and wind, and even that fact is deceivingly high because that is only generation, not usage. California buys a huge percentage of its energy from Nevada, Mexico and Canada, I know because I built the 500kv and 230 kv transmission lines to pipe the energy in Also not quantified in this chart is when that energy is generated. Those of us in the industry familiar with the duck curve know that Solar works when the demand is moderate (afternoon) but not when it is most needed (evening) the result of that, and a lack of a suitable means of storage, is that a lot of solar energy sold back to the grid during the mid-day solar spike ends up getting wasted, un-utilized and dissipated as heat over time.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1176
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1835 on: February 07, 2017, 10:02:31 AM »

It's coming. We're in week 3. Give it a little time. Even MSM is catching on.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/nicolas-loris/finally-america-may-be-catching-ethanol-racket

Senate killed off the ridiculous coal ban
http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/2017/02/senate-ends-obama-coal-mining-rule.php
So much winning I can barely stand it.

I can't tell if that was intended to be serious or sarcastic Acroy.

Dead serious.
Read up on the rule. Perhaps a source you trust: http://www.vox.com/2017/2/2/14488448/stream-protection-rule
Even Vox acknowledges the 1,700+pg rule (which is in addition to all the other thousands of pages of regulations) is "almost ludicrously complex".
It was one piece of the Establishment's War on Coal
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/05/inside-war-on-coal-000002

Good riddance. Many more to follow.

... you might want to re-read that Vox article. To put the "ludicrously complex" into context, here is the surrounding text:
Quote
And while it’s almost ludicrously complex, updating hundreds of older regulations, it basically puts a couple of key restrictions in place for coal companies seeking permits to expand or start new mines in the future:

    First, a company that wants to open a surface or underground mine needs to avoid causing damage to the “hydrologic balance” of waterways outside of its permit area. The rule goes into excruciating detail on what these definitions mean, but it’s basically a much stricter limit on dumping waste and debris in surrounding ecosystems.
    Second, companies and regulators have to do a baseline assessment of what nearby ecosystems look like before any new mining begins. They then have to monitor affected streams during mining, and the company has to develop a plan for restoring damaged waterways to something close to their natural state after mining is done.

This sounds basic, but the rule-making process involved numerous debates over best how to define “hydrologic balance,” how exactly to monitor waterways, how to deal with the variety of coal industry practices out there, and so on.

Having worked on rule revision processes, I can easily see how the final document would be long, because it would also track the changes in related rules to (hopefully) keep the regulations internally consistent. The baseline that they are asking for in the rule is reasonable and prudent policy. Elsewhere in the article, the economic analysis said that it would cost 124 jobs, within the conext of the industry shedding tens of thousands of jobs. Want to help coal miners? Work on things that will address the actual problem, not allow the very water they drink to become poison for very modest short term economic gain.

IMHO: this is the opposite of winning.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3357
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1836 on: February 07, 2017, 10:14:45 AM »
Heh, okay.  So you are okay with poisoning people if it puts a few more $$$ in some millionaires pocket.  Good to know. 

I am for anything that kills off coal quicker.  The more burdensome rules, the happier I am.  And before you say "What about the poor coal miners?", there are twice the number of people employed in solar as in all fossil fuels combined.  Let a dying industry die, retrain those folks or provide them assistance if they aren't able.  Supporting coal is dumb on a number of levels.  It's also a horrible job that kills people.  I don't care if it's part of their culture.  My ancestors were from West Virginia, and thankfully, my grandfather got out.  So now I get to work a cushy office job.  I'll take breathing clear air and drinking clean water over "culture" any day. 

This thinking is nuts.  We still get a huge percentage of our electricity in America from evil Coal and Nuke, and natural gas is gaining ground. 
Newsflash .....solar doesn't work after dark, and wind doesn't work when the wind doesn't blow.  There wouldn't even be much wind or solar power initiative in the US had the government not stepped in and highly subsidized (read took our money) to make it happen, because the clean power you want will not support itself unless you are willing to pay a bunch more for your normal monthly electric bill.  Even then, you will still need a percentage of nuke, coal or gas power to run things when the wind doesn't blow and sun doesn't shine.

Also think about what huge increases in electrical bills will do to business and industry.  It will either put them out of business or severely jack up the prices of all the things we consume and need everyday.  Or price a solar system that will provide enough power for your home, I did and the price tag was $70,000.  Would take near 25 years for me to break even, and in all likelihood the stuff wouldn't last that long to begin with.

Ever seen a reclaimed coal mine?   Yes, it's a dirty operation while they are mining, but once reclaimed, these are some of the nicest, best hunting and fishing properties in my state and neighboring states, I spend a lot of time on these properties every year.   What's going to happen when all of these windmills start wearing out in 20 years?

I'm all for clean and green, but solutions need to be cost effective and reasonable.

Your post is lacking in facts and is rife with speculative gibberish.

Solar power has decreased in cost dramatically and will only continue to do so as technology improves.   This is an interesting graph showing how each state gets its power. Note that coal is primarily used in flyover states and coastal areas are almost exclusively on

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plants/

Great graph, but I think it proves HIS point. If you consider all but 5 states flyover states, you may have a point.

The fact of the matter is if you omit hydro (which most people dont consider renewable anymore), only 6% if our energy comes from the renewables, sun and wind. Even if you look at California it is only 15% between sun and wind, and even that fact is deceivingly high because that is only generation, not usage. California buys a huge percentage of its energy from Nevada, Mexico and Canada, I know because I built the 500kv and 230 kv transmission lines to pipe the energy in Also not quantified in this chart is when that energy is generated. Those of us in the industry familiar with the duck curve know that Solar works when the demand is moderate (afternoon) but not when it is most needed (evening) the result of that, and a lack of a suitable means of storage, is that a lot of solar energy sold back to the grid during the mid-day solar spike ends up getting wasted, un-utilized and dissipated as heat over time.

I'm not sure he had a point other than "coal is cheap so we should use it because I'm tired of my money being stolen to pay for better alternatives."

gaja

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 595
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1837 on: February 07, 2017, 12:30:18 PM »
Excluding hydro from renewables sounds like a very good way to shoot yourself in the foot. Yes, there are environmental drawbacks, but so has all the other energy sources. When the hydro power plant has been built, it can continue producing for centuries without additional damages to the environment. You can't get that from fossil fuels. More than 90% of our electricity is from hydro, and I've never heard a single European voice calling it anything other than renewable, on par with or better than solar/wind. The Germans pay high prices for green certificates from these plants. We have stopped building the large dams, and curtailed the small scale hydro development to ensure we can keep the rest of the waterfalls for tourists. But even improving the old plants is enough to increase the amount of green power we can export.

Hydro is the perfect balancing power for solar and wind. There have even been experiments done where they use surplus wind to pump water back into the reservoir to store the energy.

What about biomass and waste? Do you exploit all this?
Travelling southern Norway, Iceland and the Faroes in an electric car: http://travelelectric.blogspot.no/

davef

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 217
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Wilsonville, OR
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1838 on: February 07, 2017, 12:52:58 PM »
Very little Biomass and waste. its growing but still less than .001%

In the US the environmentalists are call for dams to be torn out because they interfere with salmon migration. Even though all the dams that I know of have Salmon ladders. Hydro is a big deal in Vermont, Oregon and Washington.  Its the reason those three states (if you do consider it a renewable) have been more than 50% renewable for decades. MT, SD, TN, NY have respectable amount of hydro as well, but we pretty much have maxed out capacity. Many of the rivers in the rest of the US don't have enough vertical drop to make hydro worthwhile. There are a few, such as the Platte that may work. and others in northern California that would work if the environmentalists didn't oppose them.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2161
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1839 on: February 07, 2017, 12:58:54 PM »
Well, today we learned how many Republican Senators care at all whether a person nominated for a Presidential Cabinet position has any qualifications for the job whatsoever.

That number, in case anyone wants to keep track, is: 2.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5616
  • Location: la belle province
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1840 on: February 07, 2017, 01:51:28 PM »

In the US the environmentalists are call for dams to be torn out because they interfere with salmon migration. Even though all the dams that I know of have Salmon ladders. Hydro is a big deal in Vermont, Oregon and Washington.  Its the reason those three states (if you do consider it a renewable) have been more than 50% renewable for decades. MT, SD, TN, NY have respectable amount of hydro as well, but we pretty much have maxed out capacity. Many of the rivers in the rest of the US don't have enough vertical drop to make hydro worthwhile. There are a few, such as the Platte that may work. and others in northern California that would work if the environmentalists didn't oppose them.

As it so happens my SO works on salmon and dams.  A few points:
Fish ladders don't work nearly as effectively as once though, and dams (even with decent fish ladders) are sizable barriers to salmon migration. As big a problem as they are to upstream migration, there's an additional problem with downstream migration; fish that errantly choose the turbine path get pummeled to bits, ones that go over the spillway often die (falling from great heights and whatnot), which leaves downstream fish-ladders... which many dams don't have and the ones that are only semi-effective.

Also, this isn't just environmentalism for environmentalists sake.  Salmon are important both for the ecosystem and for fisheries.  In California (until very recently) the Salmon fishery was valued at over $4B.  Now it's frequently closed for the entire year. In Puget Sound and BC it's a much bigger (and currently sustainable) fishery, in part because dams there were better constructed and because we use methods other than fish ladders to bypass dams such as active transport (capturing and trucking them above dams and natural barriers).  There's an entire scientific conference every year that's dedicated to nothing but studying and improving fish passage, because its so important and because its still far from optimal.  Ecologically, salmon (and their carcasses) are pretty vital to streams.  Those environments tend to be nutrient-poor, and salmon (+ alewife and others) are a huge transfer of ocean productivity into terrestrial environments.  For example, trees which grow near the river benefit from these nutrients, and you can actually see a "salmon signature" in the wood of trees.  No salmon, less tree growth.

The elephant in the room here though is cost.  In order to be economically competitive, dams need to be very large. Currently Canada has two major hydro projects, one in Quebec's Romaine river, and another one in BC on the Peace River.  Current costs are $13B and $8.3B, respectively. That dwarfs the cost of medium-sized LNG plants, coal plants, wind farms, etc. Only nuclear plants cost more (and there have been no completely new ones built for a generation due to cost, complexity and regulatory burdens. Dam construction takes longer than any other electricity project; the Rivière Romaine damn will take 15 years assuming it doesn't run over. For a region it also "puts all your eggs in one basket" - a bit risky, especially given that droughts, sediment runoff, natural disasters and additional regulatory burdens (e.g. What you must do if your fish ladder does not operate as planned - a common problem)
 
I'm not saying dams are bad. I'm glad that most of our power here in Quebec comes from hydro, though its far from a 'perfect' technology. There's just a lot more issues at play than people often realize.  Hope this primer was a bit useful.


ETA: Final note: we are moving increasingly to a less centralized system of power generation.  This has positives and negatives, but things like solar and wind turbines and much smaller (yet efficient) LNG plants are allowing small municipalities to generate much of their power. Hydrodams, particularly the very large ones needed to be economical, move in the opposite direction.  This presents challenges with power distribution (new corridors of transmission lines are highly controversial, as they have a large overall footprint and get into NIMBY politics).
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1841 on: February 07, 2017, 01:57:56 PM »
Well, today we learned how many Republican Senators care at all whether a person nominated for a Presidential Cabinet position has any qualifications for the job whatsoever.

That number, in case anyone wants to keep track, is: 2.

It really has been shocking how fragile democracy is.  How can the Senate think that DeVos is representative of what the public wants?  Once again, we are left hoping and praying nothing too bad happens in the meantime.
Transitioning to FIRE'd albeit somewhat cautiously...

v8rx7guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 577
  • Location: PNW
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1842 on: February 07, 2017, 02:01:18 PM »

In the US the environmentalists are call for dams to be torn out because they interfere with salmon migration. Even though all the dams that I know of have Salmon ladders. Hydro is a big deal in Vermont, Oregon and Washington.  Its the reason those three states (if you do consider it a renewable) have been more than 50% renewable for decades. MT, SD, TN, NY have respectable amount of hydro as well, but we pretty much have maxed out capacity. Many of the rivers in the rest of the US don't have enough vertical drop to make hydro worthwhile. There are a few, such as the Platte that may work. and others in northern California that would work if the environmentalists didn't oppose them.

As it so happens my SO works on salmon and dams.  A few points:
Fish ladders don't work nearly as effectively as once though, and dams (even with decent fish ladders) are sizable barriers to salmon migration. As big a problem as they are to upstream migration, there's an additional problem with downstream migration; fish that errantly choose the turbine path get pummeled to bits, ones that go over the spillway often die (falling from great heights and whatnot), which leaves downstream fish-ladders... which many dams don't have and the ones that are only semi-effective.

Also, this isn't just environmentalism for environmentalists sake.  Salmon are important both for the ecosystem and for fisheries.  In California (until very recently) the Salmon fishery was valued at over $4B.  Now it's frequently closed for the entire year. In Puget Sound and BC it's a much bigger (and currently sustainable) fishery, in part because dams there were better constructed and because we use methods other than fish ladders to bypass dams such as active transport (capturing and trucking them above dams and natural barriers).  There's an entire scientific conference every year that's dedicated to nothing but studying and improving fish passage, because its so important and because its still far from optimal.  Ecologically, salmon (and their carcasses) are pretty vital to streams.  Those environments tend to be nutrient-poor, and salmon (+ alewife and others) are a huge transfer of ocean productivity into terrestrial environments.  For example, trees which grow near the river benefit from these nutrients, and you can actually see a "salmon signature" in the wood of trees.  No salmon, less tree growth.

The elephant in the room here though is cost.  In order to be economically competitive, dams need to be very large. Currently Canada has two major hydro projects, one in Quebec's Romaine river, and another one in BC on the Peace River.  Current costs are $13B and $8.3B, respectively. That dwarfs the cost of medium-sized LNG plants, coal plants, wind farms, etc. Only nuclear plants cost more (and there have been no completely new ones built for a generation due to cost, complexity and regulatory burdens. Dam construction takes longer than any other electricity project; the Rivière Romaine damn will take 15 years assuming it doesn't run over. For a region it also "puts all your eggs in one basket" - a bit risky, especially given that droughts, sediment runoff, natural disasters and additional regulatory burdens (e.g. What you must do if your fish ladder does not operate as planned - a common problem)
 
I'm not saying dams are bad. I'm glad that most of our power here in Quebec comes from hydro, though its far from a 'perfect' technology. There's just a lot more issues at play than people often realize.  Hope this primer was a bit useful.


ETA: Final note: we are moving increasingly to a less centralized system of power generation.  This has positives and negatives, but things like solar and wind turbines and much smaller (yet efficient) LNG plants are allowing small municipalities to generate much of their power. Hydrodams, particularly the very large ones needed to be economical, move in the opposite direction.  This presents challenges with power distribution (new corridors of transmission lines are highly controversial, as they have a large overall footprint and get into NIMBY politics).

There's always the salmon cannon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9qA8c-E_oA

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5616
  • Location: la belle province
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1843 on: February 07, 2017, 02:08:36 PM »
Well, today we learned how many Republican Senators care at all whether a person nominated for a Presidential Cabinet position has any qualifications for the job whatsoever.

That number, in case anyone wants to keep track, is: 2.

It really has been shocking how fragile democracy is.  How can the Senate think that DeVos is representative of what the public wants?  Once again, we are left hoping and praying nothing too bad happens in the meantime.

I wonder how many GOP senators voted for DeVos because they actually thought she was a decent candidate, vs. how many did so out of fear of what DJT might say and do to them.  In the cases of the latter, this is our checks and balances failing us.

Regarding DeVos - I cannot believe she's been confirmed; again it seems like a bad joke.
Let's review:
She's a billionaire who gave huge sums of money to the GOP (suggests nepotism)
She never attended any public schools, nor did her children
She has degrees in business and poltical science, not education. 
In fact, she has no real experience in education at all. Closest we come is being a board member for charter school advocacy, which is basically the opposite of public education.
Many of the groups she will now represent objected to her nomination
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5616
  • Location: la belle province
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1844 on: February 07, 2017, 02:13:44 PM »
Quote
There's always the salmon cannon

Yup - I thought about including that but decided someone else was sure to bring it up anyway.  Thanks v8xr7guy!
In all seriousness, the fact that the salmon cannon even exists kinda shows how fish ladders tend to be inadequate. There's both a real economic and ecological need to keep fish habitat. 

Just one of those things that have to be taken into consideration when debating energy sources, like coal's impact on the environment, solar's 'duck curve' or the likelihood that an LNG plant could go "boom".
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2161
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1845 on: February 07, 2017, 02:18:58 PM »
Well, today we learned how many Republican Senators care at all whether a person nominated for a Presidential Cabinet position has any qualifications for the job whatsoever.

That number, in case anyone wants to keep track, is: 2.

It really has been shocking how fragile democracy is.  How can the Senate think that DeVos is representative of what the public wants?  Once again, we are left hoping and praying nothing too bad happens in the meantime.

I wonder how many GOP senators voted for DeVos because they actually thought she was a decent candidate, vs. how many did so out of fear of what DJT might say and do to them.  In the cases of the latter, this is our checks and balances failing us.

Regarding DeVos - I cannot believe she's been confirmed; again it seems like a bad joke.
Let's review:
She's a billionaire who gave huge sums of money to the GOP (suggests nepotism)
She never attended any public schools, nor did her children
She has degrees in business and poltical science, not education. 
In fact, she has no real experience in education at all. Closest we come is being a board member for charter school advocacy, which is basically the opposite of public education.
Many of the groups she will now represent objected to her nomination

Yep. It is literally possible -- maybe even likely -- that she has never been INSIDE a public school.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Wexler

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 102
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1846 on: February 07, 2017, 02:32:02 PM »
Well, today we learned how many Republican Senators care at all whether a person nominated for a Presidential Cabinet position has any qualifications for the job whatsoever.

That number, in case anyone wants to keep track, is: 2.

It really has been shocking how fragile democracy is.  How can the Senate think that DeVos is representative of what the public wants?  Once again, we are left hoping and praying nothing too bad happens in the meantime.

I wonder how many GOP senators voted for DeVos because they actually thought she was a decent candidate, vs. how many did so out of fear of what DJT might say and do to them.  In the cases of the latter, this is our checks and balances failing us.

Regarding DeVos - I cannot believe she's been confirmed; again it seems like a bad joke.
Let's review:
She's a billionaire who gave huge sums of money to the GOP (suggests nepotism)
She never attended any public schools, nor did her children
She has degrees in business and poltical science, not education. 
In fact, she has no real experience in education at all. Closest we come is being a board member for charter school advocacy, which is basically the opposite of public education.
Many of the groups she will now represent objected to her nomination

Yep. It is literally possible -- maybe even likely -- that she has never been INSIDE a public school.

This one is bad, but not nearly as WTF as Ben Carson being HUD Secretary.  I mean, the dude is clearly smart on many levels and would even be a great candidate for something like Sec of HHS or head of the NIH or Surgeon General under a Republican president.  There is just no logic to him being the HUD pick other than the saddest answer.  Even Trump supporters have to admit that Trump probably picked him because his neurons have forever linked "black" and "urban" and HUD has the word urban in it. 

On the other hand, I think that Ben Carson is a decent human being and will try his level best to do a good job, while Betsy DeVos will instead use her position to try and make things worse.  I mean, she's part of the Amway family and the Blackwater family. Hasn't that family caused enough misery to last a century? I shudder to think of the Amway-ization of public schools.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5616
  • Location: la belle province
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1847 on: February 07, 2017, 02:39:44 PM »
^^ Privatization of wars, privatization of public schools.
I guess the ethos is the same - why should government be involved when you can contract out?
/sarcasm.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1176
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1848 on: February 07, 2017, 03:12:35 PM »
There is a somewhat distinctive irony in not knowing about the job you are about to take when it is secretary of education. I wonder if she will hire a tutor?

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2161
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1849 on: February 07, 2017, 03:55:14 PM »
There is a somewhat distinctive irony in not knowing about the job you are about to take when it is secretary of education. I wonder if she will hire a tutor?

Those who can, teach.
Those who can't, become Secretary of Education.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap