David Lund

20K posts

David Lund

David Lund

@DavidLund6

Tesla yogi and really obsessed with Wright's law.

Ogden, UT Katılım Eylül 2020
908 Takip Edilen523 Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
David Lund
David Lund@DavidLund6·
I am claiming the only solution to solve climate change is for energy an energy mix producings too many GHG to be replaced by a demonstrably cheaper energy mix without incentives that produces fewer GHG emissons than to keep the rate of warmng below the solved state of CC.
English
11
0
46
7.7K
David Lund
David Lund@DavidLund6·
The loop moves 25,000 people on convention days. The capacity to move 10M people per year is there. That only requires a capacity to move about 3,000 people per hour. Of 50 people per hour or less than one per second through multiple tunnels. The Boring company has transported between 3-4M people in total.
English
0
0
1
38
Joseph Brown
Joseph Brown@heresyfinancial·
How much of what belongs to me is your fair share? I’ll give you a hint Zero Whether it’s income, wealth, sales, or other, taxes are theft.
Bernie Sanders@BernieSanders

Ok, Jamie: Let me clear things up for you. If my 5% wealth tax on billionaires was enacted you’d owe $135 million more in taxes & a family of 4 making $150,000 or less would receive a $12,000 payment. Oh, and you’d still be worth more than $2.5 billion. Seems pretty fair to me.

English
65
45
680
13.7K
David Lund
David Lund@DavidLund6·
@captgouda24 People are very opposed to taking pay cuts and accepting negative interest, so the economy slows down instead dealing with these realities.
English
0
0
0
9
David Lund
David Lund@DavidLund6·
@judgeglock @AlfakevinE In the future AI could be different. Mainly because it could exponentially decrease the time between major advancements. If it does not do that we do not need to worry about employment.
English
0
0
0
104
Judge Glock
Judge Glock@judgeglock·
Why didn't electricity, mass production, the automobile, electronics, or computers lead to huge growth spikes? Because regular and yet massive breakthroughs such as those were required just to keep the US growing on trend. The real miracle is that these breakthroughs keep coming.
Judge Glock tweet media
Judge Glock@judgeglock

People overestimate the effects of innovation on growth because they assume innovation is an addition to preexisting growth trends. In reality, it takes constant innovation to MAINTAIN growth trends. The growth benefits of old innovations decay just as new ones replace them.

English
17
119
1.3K
65.1K
David Lund
David Lund@DavidLund6·
@RonSwanonson Over the 30 years prices in Japan have been flat and the monetary supply is up 10x.
English
0
0
0
20
Ron Sovereignty Swanson⚡️🗝️
Ron Sovereignty Swanson⚡️🗝️@RonSwanonson·
The reason prices go up overtime is not because of supplying demand The reason houses are $500,000 today and not $25,000 like in the 70s is not a supplying demand thing Hamburgers are not $15 nowadays because they’re more popular… Prices go up overtime because there are more monetary units chasing around the same amount of goods in an economy Monetary inflation is the only thing that raises prices over long periods of time
English
289
102
1.4K
144.4K
David Lund
David Lund@DavidLund6·
@FUDdaily You realize that you need about 18 GW of conventional stand by for when the conventional generation breaks or there is peak demand.
English
0
0
2
124
Pete North
Pete North@FUDdaily·
If wind energy is producing 20GW that means you have to have 20GW of conventional generation or interconnector imports on standby for when the weather drops off. You are paying for two energy systems. You have to have a serious brain injury to not understand this.
English
136
383
2K
35.2K
Robotbeat🗽 ➐
Robotbeat🗽 ➐@Robotbeat·
@yFactr It also means we have tremendous caloric surplus that would count for margin in case of famine. In fact, our corn production alone could provide 2000 daily Calories for over 2 billion people.
English
2
0
1
76
Gamma Factor
Gamma Factor@yFactr·
The productive capacity directed at corn ethanol would be better spent on EVs, but it's just as striking to me that actual human consumption (including by way of products like corn syrup) is less than 5% of total production. Corn is for cows and cars, not people.
Jason,@jasonc_nc

Effectively all growth in corn production over the last 20 years is for ethanol. ~20 million acres of conservation land, grassland, and soybean rotation was turned into corn monoculture that effectively strip mines the topsoil. Meanwhile it’s the most fertilizer dependent crop with only a 40% uptake rate. So ~1.7 million tons of nitrogen runoff flows into the Mississippi basin annually while also polluting their own water supplies. This runoff ends up expanding the Gulf deadzone, which is also where 40% of domestic seafood comes from. It’s hard to find a worse way to create fuel, with a wicked level of waste and downstream consequences.

English
1
1
8
249
David Lund
David Lund@DavidLund6·
If you have a scalable business and are able to get reasonable terms then scaling quickly is very financially advantageous as long as you can scale and get reasonable terms. Having a plan to deal with either problems with scalability or an inability to get money on reasonable terms is a primary job for the founder.
English
0
0
0
124
Aella
Aella@Aella_Girl·
im working on a project where i think i might be able to somewhat easily get investment money, but I'm not sure I want to, partially cause it would primarily involve expanding the team, and I am untried and unconfident in managing/hiring staff. how do i think about this
English
91
1
256
45K
David Lund
David Lund@DavidLund6·
If one is looking at methane one should also be looking at other short term pollutants and the environmental costs of those are far higher than methane. This is a rabbit hole environmentalists do not want to go down as it either show coal and oil are far worse over any time period or that the costs of radiative forcing are not nearly the long term cost that people thought they are.
English
0
0
0
25
David Lund
David Lund@DavidLund6·
If your wages have not gone up over the last 20 years it is because you are a stupid idiot. 1) The wages of pretty much every demographic has in creased in most countries with capitalism over the last 20 years. 2) Wages for people with low wages 20 years ago should have significantly higher wages with 20 years of work experience. 3) People with high wages 20 years ago who did even a moderate job at investing including just buying their home are far better off. 4) What most people are saying is that I won’t be able to buy a house and in 20 years be as well off as someone 20 years ago. You need to find a different investment vehicle as that one is not more than fully valued.
English
0
0
0
7
David Lund
David Lund@DavidLund6·
These time horizon shenanigans are pointless. Because other pollutants are far more hurtful over the next 12 years than radiative forcing. And other pollutants are far worse in coal and oil than in NG. If short term warming is a far worse problem than anyone is suggesting than bioengineering can mitigate this easily and not have the same costs and moral hazards associated with long term warming. And the amount of pollutants put in the atmosphere from bioengineering is almost nothing compared to the difference in pollutants between coal and oil vs NG.
English
0
0
1
88
Matthew Yglesias
Matthew Yglesias@mattyglesias·
Very few elected officials, generalist staffers, or journalists understand the time horizon shenanigans being pushed to make methane leaks look so bad that gas crowding out coal and oil is no longer climate-positive.
Matthew Yglesias tweet media
English
13
14
207
51.2K
David Lund
David Lund@DavidLund6·
No it doesn’t. It separates out the amount of damages at various time periods. For the next say 30 years the damages of having more radiative forcing are minimal as having say 1.8C vs 1.5C does not cause nearly the amount of damages as 2.9C vs 2.8C in 100 years. The damages from radiative forcing through say 2060 are well known and definitely not worth the cost of GDP reductions. If we want to take aggressive action against increased radiative forcing it is because the damages continue after 2060 even if there no more additional radiative forcing after that date. In the case of CH4 after 12 years it has the same long term damages as CO2. So these long term effects are not relevant. If CH4 is a short term problem. It could be mitigated through bioengineering as it does not have the long term moral hazards associated with CO2.
English
0
0
0
8
Ramez Naam
Ramez Naam@ramez·
@noahqk @mattyglesias Interesting paper. I did the numbers looking at temperature increase as the variable to apply the discount rate to. This paper tries to turn that into economic damages. I suspect that's the reason for the difference in conclusions. Will look at it in more depth later.
English
2
0
3
374
David Lund
David Lund@DavidLund6·
@jakluge I think Putin did more but maybe Trump will have us stuck in Iran for years.
English
0
0
0
153
Janis Kluge
Janis Kluge@jakluge·
The world may have finally passed peak oil consumption, thanks to the current crisis. In the end, nobody will have done more for global EV adoption than Donald J. Trump.
Janis Kluge tweet media
English
28
83
482
35.4K
David Lund
David Lund@DavidLund6·
@SteveLovesAmmo I am not sure who would win, but 8 certainly can cause everyone else to loose as they have most of the nuclear weapons.
English
0
0
0
197
David Lund
David Lund@DavidLund6·
@Romy_Holland Letting your child spend time content by themselves is well worth doing so no reason to feel guilty.
English
0
0
6
292
Romy
Romy@Romy_Holland·
the thing I feel most guilty about as a mom is that half the time when my baby wakes up from a nap he's pretty content to roll around in his crib babbling to himself and I just leave him there for 10-20 min or until he cries.
English
53
1
261
26.9K
David Lund
David Lund@DavidLund6·
For grasses on pasture land that is not fertilized. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about the same as the CO2 comes from air and goes back to the air. For fertilized feed a large portion of the CO2 comes from oil and natural gas that has been drilled turned into fertilizer. Put onto the plants and which consumes the fertilizer which then is eaten by animals and then released as either CH4 and CO2. Though there are more steps involved the green house effect is roughly the same as burning NG and oil for energy.
English
0
0
0
13
Sama Hoole
Sama Hoole@SamaHoole·
Here is what happens to a blade of grass whether or not a cow is present. The grass grows. To grow, it pulls carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This carbon becomes the grass. The grass contains it. The sun drives this process. The rain enables it. Now two scenarios. Scenario one: no cow. The grass completes its growing season. It dies. It decomposes. Bacteria and fungi break down the organic matter. The carbon that was in the grass returns to the atmosphere as CO2. This takes weeks to months. The cycle is complete. Atmospheric carbon is unchanged. Scenario two: cow present. The grass grows. The cow eats it. The cow's rumen ferments it. Methane is produced. The methane enters the atmosphere. Over the following ten to twelve years, atmospheric hydroxyl radicals oxidise the methane back into CO2. The CO2 is absorbed by the next season's grass. The carbon goes: atmosphere → grass → cow → atmosphere → grass. In scenario one: atmosphere → grass → atmosphere. The destination is the same. The route is slightly longer in scenario two. The net atmospheric carbon at the end of each cycle is identical. The cow did not add carbon to this system. The carbon was already there. It was in the grass. It was going back to the atmosphere regardless. The cow is not the source. The cow is a temporary stop on a journey that was happening with or without her. This is the biogenic carbon cycle. It has a Wikipedia page. It is not obscure. It is simply inconvenient for the argument.
Sama Hoole tweet media
English
40
462
1.6K
14.6K
David Lund
David Lund@DavidLund6·
@Oh_Come_On_Pls @SamaHoole The green house effect of CH4 is about 100x-150x that of CO2 until it oxidizes into CO2 and H2O over 12 years.
English
0
0
0
15
David Lund
David Lund@DavidLund6·
@ChrisMartzWX @retailLNG China is decreasing coal for energy. The only part of coal that is increasing is the use of coal for chemicals is the reason coal consumption went up in 2025.
English
1
0
2
164
Chris Martz
Chris Martz@ChrisMartzWX·
@retailLNG So freakin’ what? That doesn’t mean that fossil fuel use is declining. The actual numbers tell a very different story. If you increase coal consumption, but then add some solar in, the share of coal use goes down, yes, but the actual amount didn’t. Fractions are not useful.
English
21
3
155
4.5K
Chris Martz
Chris Martz@ChrisMartzWX·
China isn't turning into a “green superpower.” Any renewable energy systems they're installing only add to existing energy sources; they are not replacing fossil fuels at all. China is increasing their use of ALL energy.
Chris Martz tweet media
Matthew Stadlen@MatthewStadlen

@PeterMcCormack Have you not noticed that China is turning itself into a green superpower and that the future is green? Do you want us to be left behind as a fossil fuel dinosaur?

English
274
1.2K
4.9K
236.8K
David Lund
David Lund@DavidLund6·
@LNallalingham How is this not sustainable? This has been the case for over one hundred years. Raising tax rates on the rich is the best was to fix this problem as lower rates causes more of a gap in income.
English
0
0
1
173
David Lund
David Lund@DavidLund6·
@chriswithans Please keep an exemption on primary residences. Figuring out the original cost basis including improvements is not worth it. A $1-2M ceiling is fine.
English
0
0
0
424
Chris
Chris@chriswithans·
The obvious wealth and inheritance tax compromise is to just eliminate the inheritance tax entirely and have heirs inherit the original cost basis for anything they inherit. You inherit a home that's now worth $3 million? You should inherit the original $300,000 (or whatever) cost basis. In other words, let capital gains be uniform for everyone's assets.
English
118
15
461
84.6K

Keşfet

@heresyfinancial @captgouda24 @judgeglock @AlfakevinE @RonSwanonson @FUDdaily @Robotbeat @yFactr