Science & Technology News

[GordMay]

Solyndra, fraudulently received a $535 million U.S. Department of Energy [DOE] loan guarantee, under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

The program was created in 2005 under the Bush Administration, but its renewable-energy component was added in 2009 as part of the Obama Administration's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus program.


Developed in response to the Great Recession, the primary objective of this federal statute was to save existing jobs, and create new ones, as soon as possible. Other objectives were to provide temporary relief programs, for those most affected by the recession, and invest in infrastructure, education, health, and renewable energy.
DOE loan programs are today supporting a diverse portfolio of more than 40 projects that plan to employ 60,000 Americans and give us a chance to compete and succeed in the global clean energy race. These include the largest wind farm in the world, the first new nuclear power plant in the United States in three decades, and the largest solar generating stations in the world.
The program is currently sitting on $44 billion in unused, Congressionally-authorized, clean energy loans, and loan guarantees. that quietly gathered dust. DOE’s loan office has not issued more support for renewable energy projects since 2011.
As of 2014, the agency has loaned $34.2 billion to a variety of businesses, under the program, designed to speed up development of clean-energy technology.
Companies have defaulted on $780 million of that — a loss rate of 2.28 percent.
The agency also has collected $810 million in interest payments, putting the program $30 million in the black [as of 2014].

“Why we should be funding more Solyndras” ~ MIT Technology Review
➥ https://www.technologyreview.com/202...olicy-opinion/

“A RETROSPECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF CLEAN ENERGY INVESTMENTS IN THE RECOVERY ACT”~ The White House 2016
➥ https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov...rgy_report.pdf

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Animal husbandry has gigantic harmful effects on the environment, land use, fresh water. It's responsible for nearly 20% of greenhouse gasses (in CO2 equivalent), as much as cars.


For people who don't want to give up meat and dairy (but I can recommend simply doing that -- food tastes better and its healthier), there have been breakthroughs in the production of real meat without animals, and better and better meat substitutes.


https://www.wired.com/story/the-impossible-burger/


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/labs-ar...om-stem-cells/


I've been on a vegan diet for years, and am so happy with the marvelous variety of tastes in that diet that I never missed meat, and never was attracted to fake meat.


However, some of these new fake meats are so unbelievably tasty that I have started to expand my diet to include them. Try an Impossible Burger at McDonalds some time.

Will the native African tribes such as the Masai be forced to give up their vast herds of cattle?

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Animal husbandry has gigantic harmful effects on the environment, land use, fresh water. It's responsible for nearly 20% of greenhouse gasses (in CO2 equivalent), as much as cars.


For people who don't want to give up meat and dairy (but I can recommend simply doing that -- food tastes better and its healthier), there have been breakthroughs in the production of real meat without animals, and better and better meat substitutes.


https://www.wired.com/story/the-impossible-burger/ and just what is "real meat" without animals??


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/labs-ar...om-stem-cells/


I've been on a vegan diet for years, and am so happy with the marvelous variety of tastes in that diet that I never missed meat, and never was attracted to fake meat.


However, some of these new fake meats are so unbelievably tasty that I have started to expand my diet to include them. Try an Impossible Burger at McDonalds some time.

Do you know what is actually in those fake meat burgers??

[Midnight Son]

Originally Posted by geoleo

There is next to zero concern or interest by Americans in Canadian politics--yet there seems a huge concern by Canadians in USA politics. Is this a tail wagging dog thing? Jordan Peterson says over 95% of Canadian 'academics' are leftists. Is he correct? Are these 'academics' wooly headed? lol

As the US is our largest trading partner/neighbor/family members. A Canadian that doesn't take what goes on in the US, with serious note, is either too young, too old, or mentally suspect.
As this trade partnership affects a great part of our economy and life.
Best wishes from the far North.

[geoleo]

I was just wondering at the "disparity" . LOL. My lexus 350 SUV was made in Canada and has great workmanship. I have no problemas with Canadians except their love of failed leftist ideas by many of them. I was amazed that Ontario passed a law that trans peeps must be addressed as "they s" under penalty of jail. lololol

[Midnight Son]

Originally Posted by geoleo

I was just wondering at the "disparity" . LOL. My lexus 350 SUV was made in Canada and has great workmanship. I have no problemas with Canadians except their love of failed leftist ideas by many of them. I was amazed that Ontario passed a law that trans peeps must be addressed as "they s" under penalty of jail. lololol

Well I'm sorry, you think we should follow your shining example, we will go our way and do as we please. Please keep the comments coming.
Best wishes.

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The GND is a wishlist, presented as a big fat and naive everything-at-once package. In a bitterly bipolar political environment, it is no more unrealistic than its polar opposite - the right-wing fairytale that the invisible hand of the market will make everything peachy if you just keep lowering taxes and dropping regulations.

I really wish Trump would form a 3rd party (or the remaining Republicans with spine and ethics would break away); with 3 viable parties, many conservative Dems would move to a pragmatic centrist party, the electorate would become more discerning and fluid, and the polar logjam would be broken.

Dont forget that many of those "Conservative Dems" are those like Democrat majority leader---Sen Byrd, the racist former KKK leader who taught Hillary "everything she knows about how to be a Senator"(she said), and for who Pres Biden spoke the eulegy at Sen Byrds funeral. lol Perhaps you do not know that Lincoln was a Republican and that the Democrats were the party of Jim Crow and that Joe Biden passed a racist crime bill he wrote. Perhaps. Not to mention that Kamala called Joe a racist in the debates.lololol

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The invisible hand is not enough, but it is far more sound and a lot closer to practical reality than the GND.


Nor is what is happening on the right wing the corresponding opposite of the GND. Climate change deniers are a small minority of Republican voters; did you read the cited article?



"Another poll, carried out last autumn by the Conservation Coalition and the Conservative Energy Network, showed that 82 percent of Republicans aged 18 to 54 said they supported the government taking steps to reduce emissions of gases such as carbon dioxide and methane emissions. Furthermore, 85 percent of the demographic said they would be more likely to back candidates who embrace innovation-based approaches to addressing climate change.
"Danielle Butcher, executive vice president of the American Conservation Coalition, an organization founded by young conservatives in 2017, told Newsweek that even older Republicans aren't necessarily opposed to addressing climate change. Butcher said their concerns with addressing environmental issues are often related more to the solutions being proposed." Op. cit.

The attitude is harmful -- the GND is cute but unrealistic but it's not worse than what the enemy tribe has so let it be. The enemy tribe are all ignoramuses etc etc. etc. This is the root of polarization and inaction, and political failure. If you want action on climate change, you need to jettison highly politicized crap like the GND, whose only effect will be to provide and outrage the other side, deepen polarization, and stoke the flames of the culture wars, and reach across the aisle and find the basis for a common vision.



As Mike so well said -- there is nothing in this issue which has to be inherently polarizing unless we inject the polarizing things into it like the GND does. We every one of us have a stake in avoiding this disaster. If we keep on just throwing bombs at the other side rather than finding common ground and common vision, failure is guaranteed.

You make sense sir.

[geoleo]

I would buy a electric car except they are so expensive that I would have to sell my sailboat to do it. A electric SUV costs $95000.

[GordMay]

[QUOTE=geoleo;3380551... I was amazed that Ontario passed a law that trans peeps must be addressed as "they s" under penalty of jail. lololol[/QUOTE]
It would be amazing, if true.
But it's not!
It may [or may not] be a human rights violation.

In the Canadian Criminal Code, which does not reference pronouns, misusing pronouns alone would not constitute a criminal act.

“Questions and answers about gender identity and pronouns” ~ Ontario Human Rights Commission
➥ Questions and answers about gender identity and pronouns | Ontario Human Rights Commission

Ontario added explicit protection for gender identity and gender expression to the Code in 2012. The Code prohibits discrimination and harassment against trans people in employment, services (including education, policing, health care, restaurants, shopping malls, etc.), housing, contracts and membership in vocational associations. The Code does not specify the use of any particular pronoun or other terminology.

Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education. The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular.

Gender-neutral pronouns may not be well known. Some people may not know how to determine what pronoun to use. Others may feel uncomfortable using gender-neutral pronouns. Generally, when in doubt, ask a person how they wish to be addressed. Use “they” if you don’t know which pronoun is preferred.[2] Simply referring to the person by their chosen name is always a respectful approach.

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by GordMay

It would be amazing, if true.
But it's not!
It may [or may not] be a human rights violation.

In the Canadian Criminal Code, which does not reference pronouns, misusing pronouns alone would not constitute a criminal act.

“Questions and answers about gender identity and pronouns” ~ Ontario Human Rights Commission
➥ Questions and answers about gender identity and pronouns | Ontario Human Rights Commission

Ontario added explicit protection for gender identity and gender expression to the Code in 2012. The Code prohibits discrimination and harassment against trans people in employment, services (including education, policing, health care, restaurants, shopping malls, etc.), housing, contracts and membership in vocational associations. The Code does not specify the use of any particular pronoun or other terminology.

Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education. The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular.

Gender-neutral pronouns may not be well known. Some people may not know how to determine what pronoun to use. Others may feel uncomfortable using gender-neutral pronouns. Generally, when in doubt, ask a person how they wish to be addressed. Use “they” if you don’t know which pronoun is preferred.[2] Simply referring to the person by their chosen name is always a respectful approach.

So it is true - but Professor Peterson refused to address his trans students with such nonsense and was threatened with criminal prosecution by Ontario authorities ---

[geoleo]

This is wackier than Hunter Biden claiming he smoked lots of parmesan cheeze thinking it was crack cocaine.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by geoleo

Will the native African tribes such as the Masai be forced to give up their vast herds of cattle?

Those herds of cattle are tiny and the amount of eat those people eat is miniscule. The problem is the vast factory farms in the developed world and the heavily meat-oriented diet of CERTAIN people in the developed world.



Nor did anyone talk about "forcing" anyone. Forcing anyone to do anything is problematic, especially when it comes to something so intimate as diet. This is a very hard issue. I am not in favor of just forcing everyone to be vegetarian, and I don't think it would be politically feasible.



I think the answer is persuasion and education, perhaps some taxation based on the external costs of factory farming, perhaps some subsidy for engineered meat. But of course you can't take away people's freedom to eat what they want -- that will never happen.


Note also that for real fanatic meat eaters there's always hunting. Wild game is free of the environmental and moral issues with factory farmed meat. Eating meat you've stalked and killed and butchered yourself, especially if you've done it in a really sportsman-like way like with a bow, I have absolutely no problem with.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Those herds of cattle are tiny and the amount of eat those people eat is miniscule. The problem is the vast factory farms in the developed world and the heavily meat-oriented diet of CERTAIN people in the developed world.



Nor did anyone talk about "forcing" anyone. Forcing anyone to do anything is problematic, especially when it comes to something so intimate as diet. This is a very hard issue. I am not in favor of just forcing everyone to be vegetarian, and I don't think it would be politically feasible.



I think the answer is persuasion and education, perhaps some taxation based on the external costs of factory farming, perhaps some subsidy for engineered meat. But of course you can't take away people's freedom to eat what they want -- that will never happen.


Note also that for real fanatic meat eaters there's always hunting. Wild game is free of the environmental and moral issues with factory farmed meat. Eating meat you've stalked and killed and butchered yourself, especially if you've done it in a really sportsman-like way like with a bow, I have absolutely no problem with.

Anytime you place any type of financial incentive for the production of anything you are going to have serious issues.

Here is one I just learned about in my state . If a new electric car ( which BTW qualifies for a 7500 purchase subsidy) if it costs less than $49,000 or used at under $35,000 is also exempt from sales and excise tax . Which for me would be 10.1% so for example the new Solo that is being built in Arizona and BC Canada. Initial cost is $19.500 -$7500= $12,000 and no taxes .

Incentives and subsidies come in all forms .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

It would be amazing, if true.
But it's not!
It may [or may not] be a human rights violation.

In the Canadian Criminal Code, which does not reference pronouns, misusing pronouns alone would not constitute a criminal act.

“Questions and answers about gender identity and pronouns” ~ Ontario Human Rights Commission
➥ Questions and answers about gender identity and pronouns | Ontario Human Rights Commission

Ontario added explicit protection for gender identity and gender expression to the Code in 2012. The Code prohibits discrimination and harassment against trans people in employment, services (including education, policing, health care, restaurants, shopping malls, etc.), housing, contracts and membership in vocational associations. The Code does not specify the use of any particular pronoun or other terminology.

Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education. The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular.

Gender-neutral pronouns may not be well known. Some people may not know how to determine what pronoun to use. Others may feel uncomfortable using gender-neutral pronouns. Generally, when in doubt, ask a person how they wish to be addressed. Use “they” if you don’t know which pronoun is preferred.[2] Simply referring to the person by their chosen name is always a respectful approach.

You might want to add this part about the newest law C-16

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_A..._Criminal_Code

Yes I referenced wiki it was first on my search page on c16