Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Solar Costs Will Fall Another 40% In 2 Years. Here’s Why.

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/01/29/...2-years-heres/

It’s been one of the big themes at the World Energy Future Conference here in Abu Dhabi. Solar, and other technologies such as wind power, are no longer more expensive than traditional fossil fuels in many parts of the world. Indeed, they are cheaper.

The big oil and gas players recognise this. Dr Adaba Sultan Ahmed al Jabber, the minister of state of the United Arab Emirates, said at the lavish opening on Monday that the cost of solar was competing with traditional sources of energy, and would not be derailed by the plunge in the oil price.

He saw that as an opportunity to call for the removal of fossil fuel subsidies, which he noted outstripped those of renewables by a factor of 5:1 in 2013. “If we have courage and opportunity to saying yes to thinking differently, could deliver better future,” he told the conference. This from a country which is in the top eight oil producers in the world, and the top seven in gas reserves.

A day earlier, the International Renewable Energy predicted that solar costs would fall substantially in coming years, underlying its competitiveness with fossil fuels. If government policy makers did not understand this, IRENA said, then they risked making bad decisions about their energy future.

Last week, the Saudi Arabian power company ACWE, with some $24 billion in assets, set a world record low for the price of solar in the world’s largest tender. Its CEO, Paddy Padmanathan, told RenewEconomy in an interview on Monday that the price of solar will fall by at least a third in coming years. He expects at least half of the 140,000GW of power capacity to be installed in the Middle East and north Africa in the coming decade to be solar.

Why do you think Emirates interests bought out AMD? Hint - it was not to make CPUs and allied chip sets.

CNN asks the not at all rhetorical question, Do ice ages debunk climate science?

I've covered this ground recently, and covered it many a time over the years. I've just never seen CNN (or any other main stream media source) mention the Milankovitch Cycles before. If one is going to pretend that natural forces are causing the recent climate changes, one should really make a study of the natural forces.

Originally Posted by B Butler

CNN asks the not at all rhetorical question, Do ice ages debunk climate science?

I've covered this ground recently, and covered it many a time over the years. I've just never seen CNN (or any other main stream media source) mention the Milankovitch Cycles before. If one is going to pretend that natural forces are causing the recent climate changes, one should really make a study of the natural forces.

Isn't it amazing? A few simple graphs of variables, and some straightforward Pareto analyses (i.e. - the 80:20 rule kind of thing) pretty much lay out the primary aspects of most big, complex problems. There's always plenty of worrisome detail left over, but a bit of quantitation and comparison and contrast sure goes a long ways to point in some productive directions.

“When the Last Tree Is Cut Down, the Last Fish Eaten, and the Last Stream Poisoned, You Will Realize That You Cannot Eat Money.”

This prophecy is becoming a more and more brutal reality. But, even today, not every person is aware of the horrible effects our lifestyles have on nature.

27 images that prove that we are in danger.

http://zumfeed.com/life/1168-27-imag...outh-open.html

What'ya think Wallace? Glick? Classic Xer? Time to move to South Florida? Put your money where your denier mouth is.

from http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/br...108-story.html

Long-range predictions, which previously hadn't extended to the turn of the next century, call for the sea to rise 78 inches at an accelerated rate. If the projections hold, much of this region would be underwater within the next 85 years unless greenhouse emissions are sharply reduced, the steady rise of the Earth's temperature is stopped and arctic ice stops melting.

Jurado said evidence of the increased flooding can already be seen with heavy rains and King tides, particularly in the coastal areas of West Palm Beach, Delray Beach, Fort Lauderale, Hollywood and Miami Beach.

Other major impacts, some of which already are being seen:

• Increased sand and soil erosion, leading to more coastal flooding;

• Increased inland flooding, including areas west of Interstate 95, as a higher ocean would disable the stormwater drainage system;

• Saltwater intrusion in the Biscayne aquifer – South Florida's primary freshwater supply – and local water supply wells;

• Increased pollution on land and in sea, the result of debris and hazardous materials released by flooding;

• Higher flood insurance premiums.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Long-range predictions, which previously hadn't extended to the turn of the next century, call for the sea to rise 78 inches at an accelerated rate. If the projections hold, much of this region would be underwater within the next 85 years unless greenhouse emissions are sharply reduced, the steady rise of the Earth's temperature is stopped and arctic ice stops melting.

Nitpick: you probably meant to say Antarctic ice (also Greenland's ice cap). Arctic ice floats on the seawater and its melting won't raise sea levels, just as the level of water in a glass isn't raised when the ice melts. Antarctic ice and other glacial ice is land-based and would raise sea levels as it melts and runs into the oceans.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Nitpick: you probably meant to say Antarctic ice (also Greenland's ice cap). Arctic ice floats on the seawater and its melting won't raise sea levels, just as the level of water in a glass isn't raised when the ice melts. Antarctic ice and other glacial ice is land-based and would raise sea levels as it melts and runs into the oceans.

Doesn't ice take up less space when it's frozen than when it melts? Warmer water has a greater volume. And what about the albedo effect; more warming is absorbed into the ocean instead of being reflected back?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Doesn't ice take up less space when it's frozen than when it melts? Warmer water has a greater volume. And what about the albedo effect; more warming is absorbed into the ocean instead of being reflected back?

Brian is right. My mistake. Wrong pole. The thing about things that float is that they displace exactly their weight in water. When an iceberg melts, it indeed takes up less volume, but the amount of volume that it does take up is exactly the amount of water it displaced when frozen.

But if the Arctic ice doesn't contribute to sea water rise, as you say it does produce the albedo effect. When the arctic ice is gone, more heat will stay on planet, less will be reflected into space. The arctic melting is still bad. It's just that antarctic ice melting is bad in both ways.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Brian is right. My mistake. Wrong pole. The thing about things that float is that they displace exactly their weight in water. When an iceberg melts, it indeed takes up less volume, but the amount of volume that it does take up is exactly the amount of water it displaced when frozen.

But if the Arctic ice doesn't contribute to sea water rise, as you say it does produce the albedo effect. When the arctic ice is gone, more heat will stay on planet, less will be reflected into space. The arctic melting is still bad. It's just that antarctic ice melting is bad in both ways.

Yes indeed, but doesn't warmer water take up more space than cold water? And thus cold water more than ice too? I've certainly heard that warmer oceans contribute to sea level rise just because of the warmth.

This article says the volume of water increases 2.6% if arctic sea ice melts, although not the mass or weight, due to decreased salinity.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Sea-...ating-ice.html
So melting of sea ice may have some small effect, although melting of land ice will have more effect.

The article below also points out that a warmer, melted Arctic Ocean will also cause temperatures to rise in the permafrost, which will release a lot of carbon (and methane, I also add) into the atmosphere. Permafrost covers almost 1/4 of land in the northern hemisphere.

Abengoa brings night-time solar power to the U.S.

Abengoa has already established a track record of utility scale solar power plants overseas and it has just secured financing to build the largest concentrating solar power (CSP) plant of its kind in Europe. In terms of keeping up with the Joneses, the Solana plant helps the U.S. – and Arizona – keep its solar profile in the global spotlight.

CSPs use mirrors to concentrate solar energy on a focal point, typically a large tower. According to Abengoa, at 280 megawatts the Solana plant is the world’s largest CSP plant to use parabolic trough mirrors to concentrate solar energy (typical CSP mirrors, called heliostats, are flat and quadrilateral).

It is also the first solar plant in the U.S. with thermal energy storage, in the form of a molten salt system. The storage capacity is about six hours. That enables the plant to keep generating electricity from solar energy well into the early evening hours, when demand in the region typically peaks out.

Solana officially went online yesterday after completing a series of tests that included charging the thermal energy storage system and demonstrating that it could produce electricity for six hours using only stored energy.

All of the electricity from Solana has already been scooped up by Arizona Public Service under a power purchase agreement. It will provide the electricity equivalent of 70,000 households.

http://www.triplepundit.com/2013/10/...ith-new-plant/

Study: We’re Already In The ‘Worst Case Scenario’ For Sea Level Rise
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ture-increase/

A major new analysis on the impact melting polar ice sheets could have on sea level rise has given rise to some worrisome conclusions.

Researchers found that sea levels increased some 20 feet during three warming periods of 1.8 to 3.6°F (1 to 2°C) that took place at different interglacial periods over the past three million years. The study’s findings mean that the planet could be in for major sea level rise even if warming is kept to 2°C — a limit that the world is set to exceed without major action on climate change.

Published in the journal Science, the review compiled more than 30 years of research from scientists around the world to show that changes in the planet’s climate and sea levels are closely linked. It found that even a small amount of warming can lead to significant sea level rise.....

When sea levels rise, there are other corollary impacts, including storm surge, erosion and inundation, according to Anders Carlson, an Oregon State University glacial geologist and paleoclimatologist, and co-author of the Science study.
Carlson also said that we are starting to see these changes already.

“It takes time for the warming to whittle down the ice sheets,” he said. “But it doesn’t take forever. There is evidence that we are likely seeing that transformation begin to take place now.”

Carlson told ThinkProgress that “we are nearing one degree Celsius warming,” and that the “worst case scenario is what we are already on.”

Recent studies have shown that both the Greenland ice sheet and West Antarctic Ice Sheet have seen massive increases in ice loss in just the past five years. The rates of losses far exceed even those imagined a few years ago. Furthermore, there is evidence that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has begun an irreversible process of collapse, in part because it is melting from underneath.

For now the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are contributing less than a millimeter a year to sea level rise, but they have the potential to add 20 feet and 200 feet to ocean levels, respectively, if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise unabated. The higher greenhouse gas emissions get, the more Arctic sea ice melts, which allows the oceans to gather more heat. Dwindling sea ice in the Arctic Ocean creates large areas of relatively dark ocean surface that reduce the albedo, or reflectivity, of the polar region. More open water causes the Earth to absorb more of the sun’s solar energy rather than reflect it back into the atmosphere.

As the temperature warms in the Arctic regions, more permafrost also melts, thus adding to the greenhouses gases already in the atmosphere and eventually turning the Arctic from a carbon sink to a carbon source. It has been estimated that defrosting permafrost could add up to 1.5°F to total global warming by 2100. Permafrost covers nearly a quarter of the land surface of the northern hemisphere.....

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

“When the Last Tree Is Cut Down, the Last Fish Eaten, and the Last Stream Poisoned, You Will Realize That You Cannot Eat Money.”

This prophecy is becoming a more and more brutal reality. But, even today, not every person is aware of the horrible effects our lifestyles have on nature.

27 images that prove that we are in danger.

http://zumfeed.com/life/1168-27-imag...outh-open.html

brilliant quote and so true

Ivanpah is doing well.

Ivanpah Solar Production Up 170% in 2015

“As we expected, our operating crew’s expertise with the technology is increasing all the time and the plant is continuing to increase its generation,” the statement read. “In March, Ivanpah produced the second most power it has ever done in a single month. April exceeded that level of generation within just the first two-thirds of the month and ultimately set a new record for power generated in a single month.”

http://breakingenergy.com/2015/06/17...p-170-in-2015/

Its performance is being closely watched because power towers are seen as the best bet for concentrating solar power. Although the technology has been hammered by cheap, increasingly productive photovoltaics in the past five years (and has run into environmental issues), its advocates hold out hope that its compatibility with energy storage could make it a winner. Ivanpah wasn’t built with storage, but SolarReserve’s Crescent Dunes plant was. After seemingly endless delays, that plant, in Nevada, supposedly will come online this summer.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Ivanpah is doing well.

Ivanpah Solar Production Up 170% in 2015

“As we expected, our operating crew’s expertise with the technology is increasing all the time and the plant is continuing to increase its generation,” the statement read. “In March, Ivanpah produced the second most power it has ever done in a single month. April exceeded that level of generation within just the first two-thirds of the month and ultimately set a new record for power generated in a single month.”

http://breakingenergy.com/2015/06/17...p-170-in-2015/

Its performance is being closely watched because power towers are seen as the best bet for concentrating solar power. Although the technology has been hammered by cheap, increasingly productive photovoltaics in the past five years (and has run into environmental issues), its advocates hold out hope that its compatibility with energy storage could make it a winner. Ivanpah wasn’t built with storage, but SolarReserve’s Crescent Dunes plant was. After seemingly endless delays, that plant, in Nevada, supposedly will come online this summer.

the sooner we completely rely on alternative power solutions the better

Trying to rely completely on renewable energy (particularly wind and solar) is impossible so long as one attempts to live according to the standards in which most 21st century westerners are accustomed. Both are not particularly energy dense, and both are intermitent. Geothermal might be a possibility, but it has the tendency to cause small scale earthquakes. Batteries are not a solution, lithium would be cost prohibitive and the other option is lead acid which would take up vast amounts of both lead and sulfuric acid.

The only solution to supplying grid power without carbon emissions is nuclear. And I mean fission, fusion is a pipe dream.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Trying to rely completely on renewable energy (particularly wind and solar) is impossible so long as one attempts to live according to the standards in which most 21st century westerners are accustomed. Both are not particularly energy dense, and both are intermitent. Geothermal might be a possibility, but it has the tendency to cause small scale earthquakes. Batteries are not a solution, lithium would be cost prohibitive and the other option is lead acid which would take up vast amounts of both lead and sulfuric acid.

The only solution to supplying grid power without carbon emissions is nuclear. And I mean fission, fusion is a pipe dream.

Nuclear fission is dangerous; no new plants should be built unless they are proven safe and all the waste is recycled. We should not be leaving crap for future generations ever again. We should investigate the possibility and safety of switching to thorium nuclear energy. That tech already exists. It is an option for the future.

People need to get up to date and read. The article on Ivanpah makes clear that solar energy is being produced from that plant during the night, because of molten salt batteries. Other plants are being built using this method now. That is the way of the future. PV is getting more efficient all the time, and solar energy on rooftops includes batteries too, as do electric cars. Winds happen at night. Wind power works. All the materials for these things can be recycled, and manufactured using solar energy in turn safely. The energy grid we have already balances the needs for energy at different times and places. Geothermal, tidal and biomass may be options in some localities.

Solar and wind may not be as dense as coal, but it is getting more efficient all the time. They can be scaled up to meet our needs, because the needs can be summarized as a few hundred miles by a few hundred miles of desert territory can power the world. And desertec is in the works for Europe and Africa; it will work, and it can be done efficiently in America, without wet dreams of a much more efficient grid system. Imagine how much less of that desert land will be needed, once wind and solar are in every town and on every roof. In fact if we went THAT far, we wouldn't need anything else; that's far more than we need. We need to get crackin'.

We will likely need to lower the standards to which we are accustomed. We 20th-21st century folks are greedy and we want luxury. We may have to decide to either cut back, or see our planet made unliveable for ourselves. And we have no right to kill off other species just for our own convenience and comfort. Turn the thermostat down. Make our buildings efficient. Drive less. Recycle. Replace old light bulbs. Compare the blue states to the red states; the former are already much more energy efficient, because their people and politicians give a damn.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Nuclear fission is dangerous; no new plants should be built unless they are proven safe and all the waste is recycled. We should not be leaving crap for future generations ever again. We should investigate the possibility and safety of switching to thorium nuclear energy. That tech already exists. It is an option for the future.

People like you are the reason none of the things you insist are mandatory have been allowed to happen. The only technology that has been pursued, or will be pursued in the current climate, is technology that can be called "proven". In other words, nothing new and nothing old that's updated either. Why? Because the costs involved in hurdle jumping are too big to justify the effort.

Originally Posted by Eric ...

People need to get up to date and read. The article on Ivanpah makes clear that solar energy is being produced from that plant during the night, because of molten salt batteries. Other plants are being built using this method now. That is the way of the future. PV is getting more efficient all the time, and solar energy on rooftops includes batteries too, as do electric cars. Winds happen at night. Wind power works. All the materials for these things can be recycled, and manufactured using solar energy in turn safely. The energy grid we have already balances the needs for energy at different times and places. Geothermal, tidal and biomass may be options in some localities.

Solar furnaces are only viable in the desert, and have risks of their own. Try to go beyond the demonstration level, and the law suits will begin in earnest.

Originally Posted by Eric ...

Solar and wind may not be as dense as coal, but it is getting more efficient all the time. They can be scaled up to meet our needs, because the needs can be summarized as a few hundred miles by a few hundred miles of desert territory can power the world. And desertec is in the works for Europe and Africa; it will work, and it can be done efficiently in America, without wet dreams of a much more efficient grid system. Imagine how much less of that desert land will be needed, once wind and solar are in every town and on every roof. In fact if we went THAT far, we wouldn't need anything else; that's far more than we need. We need to get crackin'.

Efficiency is important but not definitive. Baseload is still the need of our civilization, not just the desire. There are few options that meet baseload.

Originally Posted by Eric ...

We will likely need to lower the standards to which we are accustomed. We 20th-21st century folks are greedy and we want luxury. We may have to decide to either cut back, or see our planet made unliveable for ourselves. And we have no right to kill off other species just for our own convenience and comfort. Turn the thermostat down. Make our buildings efficient. Drive less. Recycle. Replace old light bulbs. Compare the blue states to the red states; the former are already much more energy efficient, because their people and politicians give a damn.

You'll never sell brownouts as an option. Still, there is a lot we can do, and should, but we're nowhere near solving this.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

... Still, there is a lot we can do, and should, but we're nowhere near solving this.

A bit more than a year ago, I volunteered to go to southeastern New Mexico and help out for a few days trying to get Steve Pearce voted out of office. It happens that he is a very conservative Republican. He pushes back against any energy innovation that does not DIRECTLY serve his oil-patch constituents. And he is reactionary on any number of other issues.

Unfortunately, the local Democratic party cannot convince anyone with any gravitas to them, to run against Mr. Pearce. Clearly it would be an uphill battle. And it doesn't seem that the national party has much stomach for it either. Here would be a good case for the national party to come in with a shitload of money and a good solid candidate to get rid of this dude.

And yet, I'll probably do the same again next year, as I can't think of one single thing more valuable that I might have some influence over. Convincing the Fourth Turning Forum of the need to pursue action against climate change probably won't help much. Getting rid of Steve Pearce has a chance of promoting real change at the level needed before much of anything is going to happen.

Originally Posted by TnT

A bit more than a year ago, I volunteered to go to southeastern New Mexico and help out for a few days trying to get Steve Pearce voted out of office. It happens that he is a very conservative Republican. He pushes back against any energy innovation that does not DIRECTLY serve his oil-patch constituents. And he is reactionary on any number of other issues.

Unfortunately, the local Democratic party cannot convince anyone with any gravitas to them, to run against Mr. Pearce. Clearly it would be an uphill battle. And it doesn't seem that the national party has much stomach for it either. Here would be a good case for the national party to come in with a shitload of money and a good solid candidate to get rid of this dude.

And yet, I'll probably do the same again next year, as I can't think of one single thing more valuable that I might have some influence over. Convincing the Fourth Turning Forum of the need to pursue action against climate change probably won't help much. Getting rid of Steve Pearce has a chance of promoting real change at the level needed before much of anything is going to happen.

That's right; political action is what's needed, and it's not easy.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

People like you are the reason none of the things you insist are mandatory have been allowed to happen. The only technology that has been pursued, or will be pursued in the current climate, is technology that can be called "proven". In other words, nothing new and nothing old that's updated either. Why? Because the costs involved in hurdle jumping are too big to justify the effort.

No no, it's the people who say it can't or shouldn't be done who are the reason it hasn't been done yet. The innovations are being developed and perfected. Batteries, solar panels, windmills, electric cars; it's all here, and more; all proven. Some of the up front costs for alternative energy are greater than just building another gas plant. But the same was true of earlier technology. The government is helping to launch the new energy, as it did earlier technology, and so much more could be done than what has been done up to now. It was stopped by Reagan 35 years ago. That's the reason none of the things I insist are mandatory have been allowed to happen. That's obvious. Corporate barons did not want the new energy and the new cars; they got their man Ronnie to stop them. It may not necessarily be I that needs to learn from you, in this case; it may be you that needs to learn from me, in this case. Get informed. Don't keep making the same points that have already been proven false. Read the links to the articles I have posted in the working class movement thread and here in the global warming thread. I am using it as my blog on this topic.

Solar furnaces are only viable in the desert, and have risks of their own. Try to go beyond the demonstration level, and the law suits will begin in earnest.

Lots of solar plants are being built, all over the world, and they have to resolve the issues of wildlife disruption and where to put power lines. Obviously since these plants are already on-line, they have been resolved in those cases; at least enough to get the project done. No law suits; NIMBY is handled. It is well past the "demonstration level." It's up and running. We just need more. If power lines with 97% efficiency can be built from africa to europe, they can be built from AZ to NY.

Efficiency is important but not definitive. Baseload is still the need of our civilization, not just the desire. There are few options that meet baseload.

We may have to decide for a while whether irreversible damage to species and human life is preferable to some nights without power. We have become hooked on "base load" power, and it is very shortsighted, greedy and foolish of us. No humans except our generations have insisted on "base load" power. Our notion of "civilization" is itself barbaric. We need to ramp down our expectations.

And at the same time, take the blinders off about all the innovations and the new plants, wind farms and rooftop solar being constructed today. See what can be done, not just what has already been done. As George Bernard Shaw, JFK and RFK said, "some people see things as they are and say why, some see things that never were and say why not." Rev up your N- iNtuition function. Be imaginative.

You'll never sell brownouts as an option. Still, there is a lot we can do, and should, but we're nowhere near solving this.

And the only reason for that is the resistance of deniers and delayers. Remember, this denial/delay has been going on for 45 years. We've known of the need to change all this time; since the first Earth Day at least. Further delay is unconscionable. It is not a matter of selling; it is a question of mandating. The market system cannot solve this crisis by itself, though it is going a far piece.

Imagine how well we would be doing if a lot more of us went solar. Here is some good info:

http://pureenergies.com/us/home-sola...s/solar-myths/

Interesting tidbit for M&L:

"Nearly all modern solar panel systems are grid tied which means they’re connected to the conventional electricity grid. Your system generates power during the day and excess is fed back into the grid through a system called net metering. When this happens, your meter spins backwards and your utility company credits you for that power. At night or on overcast days, you’ll use grid power, but you don’t generally get charged for it because of all the credit you’ve generated. This grid tied method tends to be the most convenient for homeowners. Batteries are an option for those who really want them, but they’re expensive, bulky, and have to be replaced every five to ten years."

Delayers typically trot out the notion that solar isn't base load power. But if you are connected to the grid, you'll actually contribute to base load power during the day, and receive it during the night.

We need about as much solar panel-covered rooftop space as equals that 400x400 foot slice of desert land covered in panels that would power the world. How many rooftops is that? I dunno, honestly, but I think it would cover it.

Here's another fact from the article:

"Solar panels work just fine in ambient light and will produce significant energy in the fog or on overcast days. In fact, solar panels are actually more efficient at cooler temperatures than hot ones. Although this might seem counter-intuitive, consider that solar panels on a rooftop in cool, foggy San Francisco produce only one percent less electricity than one in nearby Sacramento, where it’s sunny and hot. Consider too that Germany leads the world in residential solar right now, and doesn’t have a sunny climate."

So solar energy doesn't have to all come from sunny and hot places; Massachussetts, San Francisco, and Germany work just fine.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Nuclear fission is dangerous; no new plants should be built unless they are proven safe and all the waste is recycled.

And this mentality is why nothing ever gets done, because nothing can ever be perfectly safe and there will always be unintended consequences and yet people demand perfection before we do anything. It is too easy for people to jam society's metaphorical gears in bureaucratic red tape and endless risk assessments and studies.

The Silents may be aging out of power and influence, but the can-kicking mindset they perfected is still going strong.

Originally Posted by Odin

And this mentality is why nothing ever gets done, because nothing can ever be perfectly safe and there will always be unintended consequences and yet people demand perfection before we do anything. It is too easy for people to jam society's metaphorical gears in bureaucratic red tape and endless risk assessments and studies.

The Silents may be aging out of power and influence, but the can-kicking mindset they perfected is still going strong.

If there is any truth to the theory, then something will be done even if it involves great reductions in living standards and even mass death (war and even persecutions). Can anyone imagine a D-Day invasion or Pickett's charge at any time other than a Crisis Era? In other times, persons can choose to avoid participation in the Big Picture that might require much horror to create a better world. In a Crisis Era, that choice vanishes.

So far, right-wing solutions involving hierarchy, inequality, and repression are still possible. That is how Spain dealt with its national divisions: modern technology with a medieval ethos. Millions of Americans would be happy with that even if all that offers is Schadenfreude with people that they have been told (on FoX Propaganda Channel) are elites -- people with intellectual sophistication. What? Economic exploiters aren't elites? People who have been correcting the grammar of the semi-literate masses while failing to recognize the glory of low-brow, "real" America might have to choose between selling out, suicide, or exile or the choice of the commanders of the vile fascist America (fairly-quick death by being shot or slow death by toiling under brutal conditions for starvation rations). Being caught on the wrong side of as Crisis War at the end is an unenviable fate.

(Just because Halloween has passed does not mean that we are exempt from a good scare, are we?)

Obsolete technologies have a way of dying out in a 4T, especially if the infrastructure behind them is damaged beyond repair or economic viability.

The Silent are practically out of the workforce, and they will be fading rapidly from political roles. Of sixteen Silent members of Congress, three (Mikulski, Reid, and Boxer) have already announced retirement at least a year before the general election. It is highly unlikely that any of them will be replaced by a Silent member of the US Senate. That is before I even mention the possibility of several of the Silent (all Republicans) being defeated in bids for re-election. That is before I mention the House of Representatives. The long stay of GIs in political power hardly indicates that the Silent will do likewise.

For me the optimum is that the Tea Party types go down as did the Know-Nothings of another time, that those with easy money get taxed heavily, and any unavoidable Great Struggle that we get entangled in we conduct with kindness, caution, and conscience. We don't need any more obscene and distressing photos appearing from any American prisons abroad. That doesn't mean that we cover up the evidence -- rather, that we don't have naked prisoners being forced to walk like dogs while on leashes.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Obsolete technologies have a way of dying out in a 4T, especially if the infrastructure behind them is damaged beyond repair or economic viability.

Nitpick. The massive building of a new technology is generally a 1T thing. That's when one builds railroads or interstate highway systems. A massive turnover in energy systems would likely fit into a similar groove. However, the groundwork that allows the transition is laid by the cultural and political transformation of the 4T. I'd expect the old energy establishment to lose power and hold on the culture's expectations during the 4T, with the bulk of the actual work and transition following in the 1T.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Nitpick. The massive building of a new technology is generally a 1T thing. That's when one builds railroads or interstate highway systems. A massive turnover in energy systems would likely fit into a similar groove. However, the groundwork that allows the transition is laid by the cultural and political transformation of the 4T. I'd expect the old energy establishment to lose power and hold on the culture's expectations during the 4T, with the bulk of the actual work and transition following in the 1T.

Destruction and abandonment of old ways of doing things is much of a 4T. Even if the change is not malign (let us say the abandonment of paper transactions and dead-tree editions of literature, a possible tendency in this Crisis Era), the post-Crisis world implies that people have abandoned unsustainable ways on economic grounds alone.

It is not antiquity that is most likely to disappear. It's the junk, and today most of the trash is from the 3T. Even in the wake of horrific destruction, people will decide what gets restored and what doesn't. Political revolutionaries who have no use for the ways of the Old Order might seek to preserve its old monuments. Stalinists in Leningrad sought to restore old architectural masterpieces of the Tsarist Russia; in Warsaw the Stalinist regime restored to the extent that funds and necessity allowed such splendor as the Nazis had demolished. Had the Polish Home Army prevailed in Poland, one would have gotten much the same result even though the government would have been far different in its economic values.

It's the pomposity, corruption, raunchiness, and absurdity of the recent 3T that will most certainly vanish with no chance of reappearance. Such desire for the tendencies faulted for the Crisis itself and failures within the Crisis will be laid largely upon the bad behavior of the 3T. What may have been fun will be bowdlerized -- but even Generation X (let alone the Millennial Generation) will try to keep their children and grandchildren from experiencing the 3T at its purest because they will want to shield youth from the consequences of indulgence in practices of a 3T. As with the 1920s (a slum of a decade if there ever was one), so it will be with the Double-Zero Decade.

Art Deco, silent films involving Harold Lloyd and Charlie Chaplin, pre-1930 Gershwin, instrumental jazz, and novels by F. Scott Fitzgerald might be OK. Bathtub gin, the dangerous 1915 Klan, and the speculative boom that culminated in the Crash of 1929 were to be avoided, and Americans avoid bringing back the vileness of the 1920s. People around at the time told people my age or younger to choose wisely. I am not sure that the people much younger than I am learned the lesson that I did, either never hearing or it or seeing such as the rantings of senile and irrelevant people. Old as I am, I can remember some Lost in their 60s and early 70s.

The really-good, old stuff survives because it is useful.