Trump's Tariffs

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

Bobbo

There is an easy, though expensive, way of making solar energy practical. Simply hook the world together as a distribution network. There are deserts baking in sunshine, ideal for generating solar power, in the southern USA, and in South America, as well as the Sahara, Namib desert, Kalahari, Gobi desert, and Australia. The potential for 24 hour a day generation of electicity in vast amounts. All that is needed is the cables to distribute the power. Technically possible, but probably impossible due to idiot politics.

However, there are other ways of making electricity which are fully practical. The world need never run out of power as long as those in power can think rationally.

Hell, we are in trouble !

Power distribution from Saudi Arabia to the USA is that easy huh? Like space travel I suppose. ((Thats why I went with Hydrogen.))

[Lance Kennedy]

I never said it would be simple. The idea is easy, but implementation not so, due to the need for politicians to work together.

But hydrogen would not be simple either. There are major technical difficulties. It is difficult to make without fossil fuels, difficult to store, difficult to transport, and even difficult to use. Hydrogen loves to escape !

It might be possible to use a methanol system instead. Hydrogen gas can be converted to methanol (with a big loss of energy). Methanol is much simpler to store, transport, and use.

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

Lance: I think you are behind in hydrogen technology. Labels like simple or hard just argumentative as everything is compared to what? But if you want to change it to a Methanol Economy....good by me. Re loss of energy: its part of the equation: the source being "for free." Helps all kind of economic assessments.

[Lance Kennedy]

No source is "For free ". You could just as readily describe burning coal as "for free ", since it is just dug out of the ground. All electricity comes at a price.

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

No source is "For free ". You could just as readily describe burning coal as "for free ", since it is just dug out of the ground. All electricity comes at a price.

Lance: the source of solar power is free. The source of coal is free. Its after the source that other cost factors are recognized and added in. This is compared to other energy sources that have a cost to establish the resource. Like hydrogen. You have to process some other resource each with its own cost structure.

Do you want to contribute.............or rotate on your own?

[Lance Kennedy]

Solar cells cost money. Installing them costs money. Maintaining them costs money. Storing energy costs money. Transmitting electricity costs money. The source may be free but the electricity is not .

Incidentally, no one seems to have noticed but I slipped a decimal point earlier when I quoted costs. Leaves me a bit embarrassed, but no one is perfect. Nuclear power costs about 10 cents per kilowatt hour. Not a dollar. Solar about 12 cents per kilowatt hour when storage is factored in. Not $ 1.20. Sorry about the mistake.

It may also be worth noting that these costs actually have little bearing on what the consumer pays for power. Too many middle men . The poor consumer pays a lot more.

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

Thats what I said. Who you arguing with?

[Lance Kennedy]

Not an argument, Bobbo. This part of the thread is a discussion, and I was clarifying what you said.

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

Heh, heh. Who were you clarifying for? aka: who here is so (x) that your explanation is anything but mind numbing redundant? ((I can't find any emoji holding up a mirror. A void in the universe?)

[Tom Palven]

If China's new retaliatory tariffs cause the US to remove its tariffs, that would be positive.

If not, then China is just shooting itself in the foot as the US has according to Adam Smith, which makes sense to me.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... H0053?il=0

[ElectricMonk]

China is sending the signal that it has plenty of room to escalate.
It is also posing as the responsible one, a defender of free trade: it is just another step of beating the US at what used to be its own game.

[OlegTheBatty]

China would do more damage to the US by stopping their purchase of T-bills. They've slowed down in recent years as it is. That's another reason for a small tariff response - they have more weapons to use in a financial war than the US.

[OlegTheBatty]

[url=https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/companies/why-america-is-so-scared-of-china’s-biggest-tech-company/ar-BBKCQh3?ocid=spartandhp]Another angle[/url]

Chinese hacking is better than American hacking

[Tom Palven]

Uncle Sam keeps shooting at the Invisible Hand and hitting his foot:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chin ... SKBN1HO0XT

[Gord]

http://assets.amuniversal.com/440036801 ... 5056a9545d

[Tom Palven]

China claims dumping. retaliates:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1HR03Z

[ElectricMonk]

A trade war with China comes about 10 years too late: in the past, China might have agreed to suffer slower growth in return for stable trade relationships.
But now, China has a new sense of its power, and it will make it a point to prove that the US cannot force its economic policies.