China increases power cuts, 'scared' suppliers look to leave country

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 92
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,989member
    DAalseth said:
    lkrupp said:
    And if the climate change radicals get their way this is the future for the U.S. Learn to live one or two days a week without power... to save the planet of course.
    No. 
    Thats a completely clueless comment. 
    Yeah, and how is it clueless? Energy needs are growing exponentially, not shrinking. Climate radicals insist that wind and solar will fill the need. No need for hydrocarbons or nuclear. Abject nonsense. My oldest son is director of engineering at a company deep in the power industry. He was part of the team that designed and built a solar power plant in the Mojave desert that uses liquid sodium to store energy. When he tells me hydrocarbons and nuclear will be around for a very long time I believe him. Solar and wind will never be able to provide a stable base load supply of electricity. The energy density of hydrocarbons far surpasses that of solar and wind. Add to that the problem of storing the energy produced by sources that are not 24/7/365 available.  

    The climate radicals won’t accept that fact. So yes, if they have their way, energy production will not be able to keep up with demand. If they get their way. Hoping for more rational minds to prevail. 
    edited October 2021 cat52
  • Reply 22 of 92
    tedz98 said:
    This is a classic example of the failures of communism, big government and central planning. They can’t keep the lights on!
    Hmm. As I recall, New Orleans was blacked out for weeks in August after Ida hit. Texas had its own statewide blackouts last winter. Damn commies!
    muthuk_vanalingamronnWgkruegerGeorgeBMacfreeassociate2p-dogFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 23 of 92
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 1,988member
    lkrupp said:
    DAalseth said:
    lkrupp said:
    And if the climate change radicals get their way this is the future for the U.S. Learn to live one or two days a week without power... to save the planet of course.
    No. 
    Thats a completely clueless comment. 
    Yeah, and how is it clueless? Energy needs are growing exponentially, not shrinking. Climate radicals insist that wind and solar will fill the need. No need for hydrocarbons or nuclear. Abject nonsense. My oldest son is director of engineering at a company deep in the power industry. He was part of the team that designed and built a solar power plant in the Mojave desert that uses liquid sodium to store energy. When he tells me hydrocarbons and nuclear will be around for a very long time I believe him. Solar and wind will never be able to provide a stable base load supply of electricity. The energy density of hydrocarbons far surpasses that of solar and wind. Add to that the problem of storing the energy produced by sources that are not 24/7/365 available.  

    The climate radicals won’t accept that fact. So yes, if they have their way, energy production will not be able to keep up with demand. If they get their way. Hoping for more rational minds to prevail. 
    It is clueless because you obviously know nothing about the subject. Do you ever wonder WHY it’s so hard to move over to renewables? Because the industry and those of us dealing with the issue are working very hard to NOT cause precisely the problems you so blithely say we want. Heck it would be simple to just turn off the power plants and let everyone sit in the dark and cold. But we’ve been struggling for decades to prevent exactly that outcome. As far as hydrocarbons being more energy dense, well that’s true. That’s why we are working so hard to advance alternatives that won’t kill the environment, and as a result billions of people. Moving off of fossil fuels is an absolute necessity. It’s just a matter of how. It’s not something we can wait another hundred years to figure out. We’re already fifty years too late to start.

    At one time whale oil was the fuel of choice. We transitioned to something better. When that happened there were howls of protest from people that said it would never work. But after a few years the transition was over and things got better. We are going through such a transition now. There are howls of protest and people insisting that it won’t work. They are simply wrong. We can’t afford to not make this change.
    thttmayronnfastasleepWgkruegerGeorgeBMacp-dogelijahgFileMakerFellerjony0
  • Reply 24 of 92
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,034member
    tedz98 said:
    This is a classic example of the failures of communism, big government and central planning. They can’t keep the lights on! The article, which in many ways from a journalistic perspective, isn’t written well - doesn’t answer the basic question of why there is a power shortage in China. It also speaks to the corruption of big government. Companies with political influence, and by inference, the resources to bribe officials, are the ones who get electricity (sounds a bit like what’s going on in Washington D.C.) You can be sure if companies are being denied electricity, private citizens are going without power in their homes. Do global warming alarmists really think China is going to limit CO2 output when they are bringing new coal burning power plants online every week, yet still can’t meet power demand? Apple should have been undertaking a serious effort to leave China a long time ago. But the lure of cheap labor and easier profitability has kept them there longer than they should have been. So wake up America! The siren’s lure of big brother government being the provider of the basic necessities of daily life touted by the likes of AOC, Bernie, Biden, Nancy and Schumer are deceptive and false. California, which is already a semi-socialist state, is well on its way to being unable to meet everyday power needs during periods of peak demand. Gavin Newsome and his ilk in Sacramento falsely think they posses the intellectual superiority to control the basic economic, environmental and societal variables of California to lead to optimal outcomes for the citizens of California. Given the outflow of people and companies from California I would argue they are failing. Tesla is moving their headquarters to Texas as a very recent example of this. Not to mention the California problems with homelessness. Apple’s next big worry is TSMC and their reliance on Taiwan for Apple CPU’s. If Apple were smart they’d be knocking on the doors of Intel and other domestic chip producers and start developing backup supply chains for chips. This is a multi-year effort so get started now! The China pendulum has reached its apex. Time for new plans Apple!
    On the very surface you would think this is a failure of the central planning, and I think China maybe wants everyone to think this. It is more than this, China is doing this on purpose and it not to help with global warming they have not cared for the last 30 yrs and they did not all of a sudden start worshiping at the alter of the world going to burn up in 12 yrs fear mongers. 

    China is doing this to hurt the world economy, if they drive the world into a recession they think they will come out the other stronger since they do not care what happen to the people on a daily bases. China is in it for the long haul, they are not short sighted QoQ view, they looking 25 to 30 yrs out, it may hurt the short term but long term they could come out a head. For 30 yrs US companies were looking to outsource as much as they could to low wage countries like China. However in the last 3 yrs more companies have been bring things back onshore and manufacturing once again was growing in the US. China does not like this and they could not stop the movement, the only way to stop it now is to drag down the economy which will kill off manufacturing in the US. As more thing get more closely to buy, people buy less. It is starting to happen now and companies are beginning to cut back production.

    I Agree Apple has an issue with TSMC, since China is outwardly being more aggressive toward Taiwan and already sent a message to the US it not in their best interest at this point to get in the China's way in regards to Taiwan. I work with people in Taiwan and they very concern and are starting to look how to get out.
    elijahg
  • Reply 25 of 92
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,716member
    DAalseth said:
    lkrupp said:
    DAalseth said:
    lkrupp said:
    And if the climate change radicals get their way this is the future for the U.S. Learn to live one or two days a week without power... to save the planet of course.
    No. 
    Thats a completely clueless comment. 
    Yeah, and how is it clueless? Energy needs are growing exponentially, not shrinking. Climate radicals insist that wind and solar will fill the need. No need for hydrocarbons or nuclear. Abject nonsense. My oldest son is director of engineering at a company deep in the power industry. He was part of the team that designed and built a solar power plant in the Mojave desert that uses liquid sodium to store energy. When he tells me hydrocarbons and nuclear will be around for a very long time I believe him. Solar and wind will never be able to provide a stable base load supply of electricity. The energy density of hydrocarbons far surpasses that of solar and wind. Add to that the problem of storing the energy produced by sources that are not 24/7/365 available.  

    The climate radicals won’t accept that fact. So yes, if they have their way, energy production will not be able to keep up with demand. If they get their way. Hoping for more rational minds to prevail. 
    It is clueless because you obviously know nothing about the subject. Do you ever wonder WHY it’s so hard to move over to renewables? Because the industry and those of us dealing with the issue are working very hard to NOT cause precisely the problems you so blithely say we want. Heck it would be simple to just turn off the power plants and let everyone sit in the dark and cold. But we’ve been struggling for decades to prevent exactly that outcome. As far as hydrocarbons being more energy dense, well that’s true. That’s why we are working so hard to advance alternatives that won’t kill the environment, and as a result billions of people. Moving off of fossil fuels is an absolute necessity. It’s just a matter of how. It’s not something we can wait another hundred years to figure out. We’re already fifty years too late to start.

    At one time whale oil was the fuel of choice. We transitioned to something better. When that happened there were howls of protest from people that said it would never work. But after a few years the transition was over and things got better. We are going through such a transition now. There are howls of protest and people insisting that it won’t work. They are simply wrong. We can’t afford to not make this change.
    Hydrogen, generated via solar energy is a magic bullet for replacement of fossil fuels. It also allows decentralized power production and energy storage which improved the resilience  ot the power grid. 

    Still, the easiest solution is to improve our power grid, making it more efficient and robust, so that excess energy generated in the Southwest can be cheaply distributed through the grid.
    thtfastasleepDAalseth
  • Reply 26 of 92
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,034member
    DAalseth said:
    tmay said:
    The cost of fossil fuels is not just emissions but also in exposure to this volatility
    That is the most profound part. We shouldn’t be dependant on what China does, or what Iran does, or what Russia does. With a domestic, renewable energy supply we could, as my folks said back IN THE 1970s, tell them to drink their damn oil. Same goes for natural gas, or coal. Move off of them and it won’t just be good for the planet, it will be good for national security.

    and you know at night the sun does not shire and winds drop off and batteries storage is expense and must be replaced every 7 to 10 yrs and batteries can not be recycled and material which goes into batteries comes out of mines which requires lots of heavy equipment along with the material going into solar cell. Also the blades on windmills need to be replaces every 10 to 15 yrs due to stress crack and they can not be recyled since they are made of fiberglass. Solar panels need to be replaces every 20 to 25 year and can not be recycled.  The real solution is not solar cell, batteries and windmills. It is Nuclear and hydrogen in either a fuel cell or Hydrogen combusion engins. Last yr the US was engery independent, for the first time in over 50 yrs and in a few short month the US is now dependent on what the world is doing yet again with no solution to do something else. Even if everyone home in the US had solar panels and windmill it could not product enough power to run our economy. Your can not run a factory off solar or windmills.
    cat52jony0
  • Reply 27 of 92
    rcfa said:
    lkrupp said:
    And if the climate change radicals get their way this is the future for the U.S. Learn to live one or two days a week without power... to save the planet of course.
    Nuclear power would solve the problem once and for all; it’s by far the greenest energy, if everything is factored in (land and resource use, waste, CO2, impact on eco systems, cradle to grave) and there’s enough of it for hundreds of millions of years.
    I’m kind of surprised that China isn’t more reliant on nuclear power. Here in the US because of the politics and people’s exaggerated sensitivity to fission nuclear power (while a giant fusion reactor in the sky bombards us with radiation) I understand why we rely on it less. No group of investors wants to spend billions on building a plant that they may never be able to open. But in China I wouldn’t think that was an issue.
    cat52elijahgjony0
  • Reply 28 of 92
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,034member
    tedz98 said:
    This is a classic example of the failures of communism, big government and central planning. They can’t keep the lights on! The article, which in many ways from a journalistic perspective, isn’t written well - doesn’t answer the basic question of why there is a power shortage in China. It also speaks to the corruption of big government. Companies with political influence, and by inference, the resources to bribe officials, are the ones who get electricity (sounds a bit like what’s going on in Washington D.C.) You can be sure if companies are being denied electricity, private citizens are going without power in their homes. Do global warming alarmists really think China is going to limit CO2 output when they are bringing new coal burning power plants online every week, yet still can’t meet power demand? Apple should have been undertaking a serious effort to leave China a long time ago. But the lure of cheap labor and easier profitability has kept them there longer than they should have been. So wake up America! The siren’s lure of big brother government being the provider of the basic necessities of daily life touted by the likes of AOC, Bernie, Biden, Nancy and Schumer are deceptive and false. California, which is already a semi-socialist state, is well on its way to being unable to meet everyday power needs during periods of peak demand. Gavin Newsome and his ilk in Sacramento falsely think they posses the intellectual superiority to control the basic economic, environmental and societal variables of California to lead to optimal outcomes for the citizens of California. Given the outflow of people and companies from California I would argue they are failing. Tesla is moving their headquarters to Texas as a very recent example of this. Not to mention the California problems with homelessness. Apple’s next big worry is TSMC and their reliance on Taiwan for Apple CPU’s. If Apple were smart they’d be knocking on the doors of Intel and other domestic chip producers and start developing backup supply chains for chips. This is a multi-year effort so get started now! The China pendulum has reached its apex. Time for new plans Apple!
    Oh, did you mean California - the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world? Yeah they're doing fine. Just because anti-labor and anti-COVID-measures wingnuts like Musk chase corporate welfare elsewhere doesn't mean there is anything wrong w/ CA. 

    Also, you've enjoyed the fruits of socialism since before you were born.


    If you beliver this, you need some reeducation. Everything on that lists was paid for by the US tax payers and none of it would exist if it was not for capitalism. The government does not create a thing, they only take money and redistribute it there is no value add, they mostly distroy value in the process. There are few on the list which are true socialist program and are failures. SS is running out of money since whole idea relied on each generation being larger than the one in front of it, the Boomers will deplete most of it leaving nothing for those behind them. What a great program, i just wish they allow me to invest that 14% they get of wages I would have done fare better for myself. Then again I do not rely on others to do thing for me.

    Keep in mind Socialism is that the government control all means of production meaning everyone works for the government and no one gets paid since the government provides everything. Everyone is equally poor, it is easier to drag people down and to pull everyone up, and the one no raising rather pull everyone down to make themselves feel better for failing themselves.
    cat52
  • Reply 29 of 92
    cpenzonecpenzone Posts: 111member
    Deleted Comment
    edited October 2021
  • Reply 30 of 92
    thttht Posts: 4,344member
    rcfa said:
    lkrupp said:
    And if the climate change radicals get their way this is the future for the U.S. Learn to live one or two days a week without power... to save the planet of course.
    Nuclear power would solve the problem once and for all; it’s by far the greenest energy, if everything is factored in (land and resource use, waste, CO2, impact on eco systems, cradle to grave) and there’s enough of it for hundreds of millions of years.
    I’m kind of surprised that China isn’t more reliant on nuclear power. Here in the US because of the politics and people’s exaggerated sensitivity to fission nuclear power (while a giant fusion reactor in the sky bombards us with radiation) I understand why we rely on it less. No group of investors wants to spend billions on building a plant that they may never be able to open. But in China I wouldn’t think that was an issue.
    They have the biggest push for nuclear power, with plans to double the number of reactors in operation, another 50 reactors or so. There is a big "but". Renewables+storage will get cheap enough such that it will be, or already is, cheaper to build new renewables+storage than to run and maintain existing nuclear plants, let alone build a new one, which is a nation-state capital investment.

    So, the race is on, and you should be able to figure out which will win out. If the current ones in construction, about 16, come online, that would be great, but for the ones that haven't broken ground, I don't think they are going to come into fruition, even with the one party state that is China. It will be a battle to keep any thermal plant in operation as it will be cheaper to have renewable+storage.
  • Reply 31 of 92
    thttht Posts: 4,344member
    tmay said:
    DAalseth said:
    lkrupp said:
    DAalseth said:
    lkrupp said:
    And if the climate change radicals get their way this is the future for the U.S. Learn to live one or two days a week without power... to save the planet of course.
    No. 
    Thats a completely clueless comment. 
    Yeah, and how is it clueless? Energy needs are growing exponentially, not shrinking. Climate radicals insist that wind and solar will fill the need. No need for hydrocarbons or nuclear. Abject nonsense. My oldest son is director of engineering at a company deep in the power industry. He was part of the team that designed and built a solar power plant in the Mojave desert that uses liquid sodium to store energy. When he tells me hydrocarbons and nuclear will be around for a very long time I believe him. Solar and wind will never be able to provide a stable base load supply of electricity. The energy density of hydrocarbons far surpasses that of solar and wind. Add to that the problem of storing the energy produced by sources that are not 24/7/365 available.  

    The climate radicals won’t accept that fact. So yes, if they have their way, energy production will not be able to keep up with demand. If they get their way. Hoping for more rational minds to prevail. 
    It is clueless because you obviously know nothing about the subject. Do you ever wonder WHY it’s so hard to move over to renewables? Because the industry and those of us dealing with the issue are working very hard to NOT cause precisely the problems you so blithely say we want. Heck it would be simple to just turn off the power plants and let everyone sit in the dark and cold. But we’ve been struggling for decades to prevent exactly that outcome. As far as hydrocarbons being more energy dense, well that’s true. That’s why we are working so hard to advance alternatives that won’t kill the environment, and as a result billions of people. Moving off of fossil fuels is an absolute necessity. It’s just a matter of how. It’s not something we can wait another hundred years to figure out. We’re already fifty years too late to start.

    At one time whale oil was the fuel of choice. We transitioned to something better. When that happened there were howls of protest from people that said it would never work. But after a few years the transition was over and things got better. We are going through such a transition now. There are howls of protest and people insisting that it won’t work. They are simply wrong. We can’t afford to not make this change.
    Hydrogen, generated via solar energy is a magic bullet for replacement of fossil fuels. It also allows decentralized power production and energy storage which improved the resilience  ot the power grid. 

    Still, the easiest solution is to improve our power grid, making it more efficient and robust, so that excess energy generated in the Southwest can be cheaply distributed through the grid.
    Yes, the grid needs to be updated to be like the Internet: distributed, adaptable, robust. It should be capable of rerouting power around a failed distribution point, make up for lost power from generators that trip offline, stop little power failures from cascading into big ones. It will take a 1950s style big engineering program like building the interstate highway system. There is considerable inertia against doing this in the USA as it's hard to break down the entrenched, incumbent fiefdoms of the public utility energy companies and state governments. They want to survive after all, so it is unlikely anything will be done. It will have to happen in a manner that doesn't arise from public policy.

    Ultimately, a good chunk of residences, business, and places will have enough renewables+storage to become grid independent. It's going to be a vicious cycle for the power companies. It's going to get weird. Like, $100/mo charges just to be connected to the grid. The politics are going to be brutal. I'm a house battery away from being grid independent. With a bidirectional EV, it would be a no-brainer.

    I think hydrogen isn't going to make it. It has lost a big use case with cars. Where it can fit in will be interesting to see. Air-to-gas will be available to make jet fuel. Methane (basically natural gas, propane) made from air-to-gas processes can be used for backup or peak electricity generation, but I don't see how that is cheaper than batteries will be. For colder places, backup gas storage used for heating could be a thing, but these places should use geothermal.
    tmayfastasleepWgkruegerp-dogbyronlelijahg
  • Reply 32 of 92
    entropysentropys Posts: 3,388member
    DAalseth said:
    tmay said:
    The cost of fossil fuels is not just emissions but also in exposure to this volatility
    That is the most profound part. We shouldn’t be dependant on what China does, or what Iran does, or what Russia does. With a domestic, renewable energy supply we could, as my folks said back IN THE 1970s, tell them to drink their damn oil. Same goes for natural gas, or coal. Move off of them and it won’t just be good for the planet, it will be good for national security.
    I believe you misunderstood the volatility part. It isn’t just political.
    renewables need baseload to support them and even out energy supply, be it coal, gas or nuclear.  Hence the push to build great big batteries, even though the tech isn’t there and won’t be in the short to medium term, or even longer without some amazing tech breakthrough. The market rigging to favour renewables over fossil fuels cause the fossil fuels to be more expensive, making fossil fuel plants less profitable, and energy companies scale back production from this plants as the central planners intended. 

    Then you start having energy supply problems. Oops.
    cat52
  • Reply 33 of 92
    entropysentropys Posts: 3,388member
    tedz98 said:
    This is a classic example of the failures of communism, big government and central planning. They can’t keep the lights on! The article, which in many ways from a journalistic perspective, isn’t written well - doesn’t answer the basic question of why there is a power shortage in China. It also speaks to the corruption of big government. Companies with political influence, and by inference, the resources to bribe officials, are the ones who get electricity (sounds a bit like what’s going on in Washington D.C.) You can be sure if companies weare being denied electricity, private citizens are going without power in their homes. Do global warming alarmists really think China is going to limit CO2 output when they are bringing new coal burning power plants online every week, yet still can’t meet power demand? Apple should have been undertaking a serious effort to leave China a long time ago. But the lure of cheap labor and easier profitability has kept them there longer than they should have been. So wake up America! The siren’s lure of big brother government being the provider of the basic necessities of daily life touted by the likes of AOC, Bernie, Biden, Nancy and Schumer are deceptive and false. California, which is already a semi-socialist state, is well on its way to being unable to meet everyday power needs during periods of peak demand. Gavin Newsome and his ilk in Sacramento falsely think they posses the intellectual superiority to control the basic economic, environmental and societal variables of California to lead to optimal outcomes for the citizens of California. Given the outflow of people and companies from California I would argue they are failing. Tesla is moving their headquarters to Texas as a very recent example of this. Not to mention the California problems with homelessness. Apple’s next big worry is TSMC and their reliance on Taiwan for Apple CPU’s. If Apple were smart they’d be knocking on the doors of Intel and other domestic chip producers and start developing backup supply chains for chips. This is a multi-year effort so get started now! The China pendulum has reached its apex. Time for new plans Apple!
    Oh, did you mean California - the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world? Yeah they're doing fine. Just because anti-labor and anti-COVID-measures wingnuts like Musk chase corporate welfare elsewhere doesn't mean there is anything wrong w/ CA. 

    Also, you've enjoyed the fruits of socialism since before you were born.


    The blackboard is confused about the difference between public goods and owning/controlling the means of production. And can’t spell “benifits”.
    cat52elijahg
  • Reply 34 of 92
    larryjwlarryjw Posts: 906member
    rcfa said:
    lkrupp said:
    And if the climate change radicals get their way this is the future for the U.S. Learn to live one or two days a week without power... to save the planet of course.
    Nuclear power would solve the problem once and for all; it’s by far the greenest energy, if everything is factored in (land and resource use, waste, CO2, impact on eco systems, cradle to grave) and there’s enough of it for hundreds of millions of years.

    I agree!
    Unfortunately it has been plagued by human stupidity.
    The Chernobyl disaster was caused by human error.
    The Fukishima disaster was caused by incredible stupid planning and design:   They built the plant on the edge of a sea known for tsunami's, built a protective sea wall that was far too small.  Then they put the control rooms in the basement next to that ocean so, when the tsunami struck, the control rooms were flooded and completely unusable (except with scruba gear!).

    The question is not whether nuclear is safe and clean but can we end this cycle of short sighted stupidity and build a plant correctly?   Well, obviously we can.  So perhaps the question is:  do we have the will to do so?
    Very old technology. Nuclear tech is used in nuclear-powered submarines. One would think placing thousands of these smaller power systems around the country might be a better idea. 
    jony0
  • Reply 35 of 92
    danoxdanox Posts: 837member
    DAalseth said:
    lkrupp said:
    DAalseth said:
    lkrupp said:
    And if the climate change radicals get their way this is the future for the U.S. Learn to live one or two days a week without power... to save the planet of course.
    No. 
    Thats a completely clueless comment. 
    Yeah, and how is it clueless? Energy needs are growing exponentially, not shrinking. Climate radicals insist that wind and solar will fill the need. No need for hydrocarbons or nuclear. Abject nonsense. My oldest son is director of engineering at a company deep in the power industry. He was part of the team that designed and built a solar power plant in the Mojave desert that uses liquid sodium to store energy. When he tells me hydrocarbons and nuclear will be around for a very long time I believe him. Solar and wind will never be able to provide a stable base load supply of electricity. The energy density of hydrocarbons far surpasses that of solar and wind. Add to that the problem of storing the energy produced by sources that are not 24/7/365 available.  

    The climate radicals won’t accept that fact. So yes, if they have their way, energy production will not be able to keep up with demand. If they get their way. Hoping for more rational minds to prevail. 
    It is clueless because you obviously know nothing about the subject. Do you ever wonder WHY it’s so hard to move over to renewables? Because the industry and those of us dealing with the issue are working very hard to NOT cause precisely the problems you so blithely say we want. Heck it would be simple to just turn off the power plants and let everyone sit in the dark and cold. But we’ve been struggling for decades to prevent exactly that outcome. As far as hydrocarbons being more energy dense, well that’s true. That’s why we are working so hard to advance alternatives that won’t kill the environment, and as a result billions of people. Moving off of fossil fuels is an absolute necessity. It’s just a matter of how. It’s not something we can wait another hundred years to figure out. We’re already fifty years too late to start.

    At one time whale oil was the fuel of choice. We transitioned to something better. When that happened there were howls of protest from people that said it would never work. But after a few years the transition was over and things got better. We are going through such a transition now. There are howls of protest and people insisting that it won’t work. They are simply wrong. We can’t afford to not make this change.

    The Chinese are working very hard a Thorium reactor is already built (able to support 1000 homes) and currently under going testing, if it works the way want, a 100,000 home reactor also in the works. The Chinese are very motivated like going from zero to many high speed rail systems in 15 short years.
    GeorgeBMacjony0
  • Reply 36 of 92
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,055member
    lkrupp said:
    And if the climate change radicals get their way this is the future for the U.S. Learn to live one or two days a week without power... to save the planet of course.
    At least that'll give us several days a week without hearing from you.
    freeassociate2p-dogelijahgronn
  • Reply 37 of 92
    iqatedoiqatedo Posts: 1,740member
    DAalseth said:
    On the business report on CBC Vancouver a couple of days ago the reporter was asked about these power outages. He said that yes it was due to higher coal prices but the reason coal was more expensive was the interesting part. World coal prices are low, but China got a huge portion of its coal from Australia. China is annoyed with Australia and has stopped buying their coal. But there isn’t enough surplus coal or natural gas on the world market to make up the difference. At root this isn’t a structural problem, or due trying to move to a low carbon economy, something that has been blamed in some reports. At root it’s the Chinese government, meaning Xi, has gotten their nose out of joint at Australia, and the people are paying for it.
    Exactly.
    gatorguyp-dogelijahgronn
  • Reply 38 of 92
    iqatedoiqatedo Posts: 1,740member
    maestro64 said:
    tedz98 said:
    This is a classic example of the failures of communism, big government and central planning. They can’t keep the lights on! The article, which in many ways from a journalistic perspective, isn’t written well - doesn’t answer the basic question of why there is a power shortage in China. It also speaks to the corruption of big government. Companies with political influence, and by inference, the resources to bribe officials, are the ones who get electricity (sounds a bit like what’s going on in Washington D.C.) You can be sure if companies are being denied electricity, private citizens are going without power in their homes. Do global warming alarmists really think China is going to limit CO2 output when they are bringing new coal burning power plants online every week, yet still can’t meet power demand? Apple should have been undertaking a serious effort to leave China a long time ago. But the lure of cheap labor and easier profitability has kept them there longer than they should have been. So wake up America! The siren’s lure of big brother government being the provider of the basic necessities of daily life touted by the likes of AOC, Bernie, Biden, Nancy and Schumer are deceptive and false. California, which is already a semi-socialist state, is well on its way to being unable to meet everyday power needs during periods of peak demand. Gavin Newsome and his ilk in Sacramento falsely think they posses the intellectual superiority to control the basic economic, environmental and societal variables of California to lead to optimal outcomes for the citizens of California. Given the outflow of people and companies from California I would argue they are failing. Tesla is moving their headquarters to Texas as a very recent example of this. Not to mention the California problems with homelessness. Apple’s next big worry is TSMC and their reliance on Taiwan for Apple CPU’s. If Apple were smart they’d be knocking on the doors of Intel and other domestic chip producers and start developing backup supply chains for chips. This is a multi-year effort so get started now! The China pendulum has reached its apex. Time for new plans Apple!
    Oh, did you mean California - the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world? Yeah they're doing fine. Just because anti-labor and anti-COVID-measures wingnuts like Musk chase corporate welfare elsewhere doesn't mean there is anything wrong w/ CA. 

    Also, you've enjoyed the fruits of socialism since before you were born.


    If you beliver this, you need some reeducation. Everything on that lists was paid for by the US tax payers and none of it would exist if it was not for capitalism. The government does not create a thing, they only take money and redistribute it there is no value add, they mostly distroy value in the process. There are few on the list which are true socialist program and are failures. SS is running out of money since whole idea relied on each generation being larger than the one in front of it, the Boomers will deplete most of it leaving nothing for those behind them. What a great program, i just wish they allow me to invest that 14% they get of wages I would have done fare better for myself. Then again I do not rely on others to do thing for me.

    Keep in mind Socialism is that the government control all means of production meaning everyone works for the government and no one gets paid since the government provides everything. Everyone is equally poor, it is easier to drag people down and to pull everyone up, and the one no raising rather pull everyone down to make themselves feel better for failing themselves.
    A fundamental problem in arguing in favour of capitalism ('freedom') over other structures is that 'other' is consistently construed as 'socialist'. Until a realistic argument can be contested, there is little hope of constructive dialogue. Most advanced economies, such as Germany, France and baltic states as examples are 'social democracies'. They are principally democracies and exhibit strong social policies. They are not socialist states and yet education and medical care are free beyond taxes already levied. People who live in social democracies are honestly flabbergasted by inequalities in these aspects and others of some societies.

    WgkruegerGeorgeBMacp-dogronnFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 39 of 92
    Capitalism has failures too. Democrats built many safety valves for the people. Social security and medicare are two famous examples. Capitalism also has credits. US can afford numerous government sponsored social programs because capitalism grow the economy so large that this nation can pay for them. 
  • Reply 40 of 92
    lkrupp said:
    And if the climate change radicals get their way this is the future for the U.S. Learn to live one or two days a week without power... to save the planet of course.
    You used to say smart things. What happened?
    p-dogronn
Sign In or Register to comment.