Jump to content

phdhorn

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    6434
  • Joined

Everything posted by phdhorn

  1. More rain than expected... how often has that ever happened? These frontal boundary things like last night are always unpredictable, usually way less. But I think that lil' storm in the western Gulf was helping and interacting wiht the front, ramping it up a bit. Then what happened is that it's been so hot and dry that a sort of unusual thing occurred - the outflow boundaries (cool air pushed down and out towards the north) from the storms to the south of us actually caused lift when interacting with the hotter, drier air and allowed storms to form towards the north, where they weren't forecast as much. Perfect cocktail for enhanced rain. Took its time but actually the highest chance of rain in last night's forecast was between 8-10 p.m. so it was pretty spot on - the only thing off was the amount. More widespread and higher totals than forecast. Today should dry out a bit, most storms should be W/SW of us but could drift up. Then we have a break Wed before this Gulf thingy does what it's gonna do... no doubt it'll pack tons of rain. The only question is how far inland will it get. Absolutely some parts well into Central Texas and even west will get rain, but where the concentration occurs is up for grabs. These things can spread rain out but usually have a core - a concentrated swath of rain - and right now it's forecast to be east of ATX. But we'll see. Temps will be helped a good bit to moderate since the heat has been washed out of the ground. Should be a nice 2 days at least temp wise before the disturbance does what it does. Back if warranted (i.e. significant rain coming to ATX). Meanwhile, Houston and Corpus and points on the coast, flooding could happen late week. Watch it.
  2. I don't think CD players and discs will disappear 100%. But as I said, they're getting harder to find stuff to play them on. Yeah they still manufacture stand-alone players (the olds are probably holding that market up for a little while longer before it crashes, see ahead), but in 2010 almost 80% of cars had them - now it's down to 25% and predictions are around 10% after 2025. According to a YouGov poll, 53% of CD's (and players) are bought/used by 55+ers; only 6% of 18-25 year olds have/listen to CD's and players. Perhaps the biggest crash - pun half intended - is in the computer market. Of course with the emergence of the phone as the primary digital device for young'uns (under 35's especially), things have bottomed out for CD's. In 2018, 83% of games and music were downloaded (i.e. MP3 type stuff), while only 17% were CD's. And that percentage has declined by 11% in 2019 and 2020. This article from the RIAA is rife with facts detailing the essential death of the CD. Most striking is the clear plunge in CD revenues; even over the year 2019-2020 it went from a measly 5.5% to a 2.3%. Most of the major CD retailers are done with them; BestBuy stopped selling them in 2018 and Wal-Mart and Target have cut their inventories by about 75% since 2015. Then there's this little graph which is really interesting - the CD market is now almost where it first emerged in 1985 - from essentially nothing: Anyway, the point is taken - there will always, like vinyl and cassette tapes, be a collector's market for CD players and disks. But CD's are now a niche market, almost completely out of the norm of purchase for music. Time/Life will continue to push for the olds a little while longer, and they'll survive. I don't dislike CD's and hope the market sustains that very tiny slice that nostalgic forms do. But very, very few CD's will be worth anything on the market - they've easily been ripped and there's not really much nostalgic value in the physical product (very unlike vinyl). So the point is sure, keep your CD's if they mean something to you (and for a lot, they do, even that physical case & disk). But if you dump them there is pretty much zero chance that in 20 years you'll regret doing so. There are just too few rarities only on CD form to bring any money. Sentimental value is about it.
  3. There are few things as worthless in life as a commercially-released CD. Other than unique collector's cuts which might not have a vinyl counterpart, they're never going to be worth anything. Other than personal stories or sentimental value, they're essentially trash - they didn't emerge in any sort of pioneering era of communication, and their obvious obsolescence gave them a eye-blink 15 year run. It's getting difficult to find anything that can even play them, and unlike turntables they have little commercial or collectors' value. Other than your personal story/save reason(s), that's it. Best to use them as such: (VHS tapes have a bit more collector's worth/value as they were THE first portable video mode, so they can draw some serious cash - both players and tapes. But there's virtually nothing except your own personal life recordings that aren't now out digitally, so it's pointless to save most of them for anything but personal value, too).
  4. <Almost not wanna post here today, but...> Decent but not great change of significant rain this week: - Mon day - fuggeddabouddit - Mon aft/night - pretty good chance of brief shower. Don't get out your surfboard. - Tues day - nah - Tues night -nyah nyah - Wed day - what's for dinner, tacos? - Wed night - no, leftovers - Thurs day - nudgy lil' chance as this whatever arrives from NOLA - Thurs night - but probably will do the coast more - Fri day - if it's happenin', it's happenin' now thru Sat day. Is it happenin'? Dunno, if so will be back. tl;dr: spotty rain, brief very scattered, mostly Tuesday then later Thursday-Saturday if so. Most of it right now looks coastal or just inland. That is all. For now.
  5. Only LITB thread I could find... I just ordered this, have wanted one for years. This is the coolest T-shirt ever made.
  6. That one is yellow. Atmospheric yeast infection. It'll stay away. I think it'll cross the continent and look for some Pacific snatch.
  7. Here's another one with both storms figured in, FWIW right now: Jeez, I'll be in the donut hole in Cancun - if this holds (and I hope it does). That "yellow" system is forecast to drift NW for once, not bullet train it to Louisiana as apparently required by law or something... well at least it's not forecast to go there - yet.
  8. Models coming into agreement that whatever it is, it's going south. I hope so, don't want that in the Yucatan next week!
  9. Totes 100% for it:
  10. That's a really cool Fender M7STAI. Very limited edition model I think only 3 were produced. BTW I'm going to Germany, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, and Italy in the first 1/2 of September. What do I get?
  11. Happy 78th birthday, Jeff Beck. You're no Johnny Depp, but if you hang around with him long enough I'm sure you'll learn a ton from him.
  12. Intensity models: Missus and I are taking a quickie trip to Cancun 2nd-4th. I hereby ORDER all inclement weather out of the Northeastern Mexico coast. As for this thing, 'cane season is off to a S-L-O-W start. A VERY slow start. However it should start to pick up. That big high that's been causing all the grief, meandering back/forth through essentially the entire southern United States is probably hindering development in the Gulf (which is where most of our June-early July storms happen. The long-trackers don't get going until mid-July or so).
  13. Jerry Hall is divorcing Rupert Murdoch? Who the fuck knew they were married???? I sure di-int! https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61904095 Jerry probably exhausted her Mick money. Plus, she wasn't a poorz, her modeling gave her a big bankroll. They tied the knot in 2016(? Who knew?). Still, I guess a buck ain't worth what it used to be, so she got some of that Murdoch billon$ money? Weirdest thing I've seen in awhile. If you knew, you're a better human being than me and deserve to be worshiped and treated as a lifelong demigod despotic ruler. But I didn't know... wowzers.
  14. Okay, I thought this was funny. A little inflation levity...
  15. Fair enough. If you don't believe that sometimes rhetoric doesn't matter and is often pointless, as in this case, I don't know what to tell you man. Moving on, interesting timing, Texas just cut a major deal this week with a Canadian solar company to store solar energy for more ERCOT power. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/06/16/recurrent-energy-acquires-two-stand-alone-energy-storage-projects-in-ercot-territory/?fr=operanews
  16. Assuming this is the case (and even if it is it doesn't matter), then what's the point of even putting a quasi-political article (which really does miss its own point) in DT? Who said that an article can't encourage tangent points of discussion - that's what good articles do. Otherwise, what's the point? Just to nod quietly and hit posrep? Of course I'm making that argument as a non-political response to a basically political one - the tone of the article. Yeah, I said I agree that some of the rhetoric has been made (again, most of it over a year ago, things have changed now). But also that if this is supposed to be some type of "gotcha!" it really isn't, because Texas market and political environments have encouraged the growth of nonrenewables - as well as continued to promote the use of fossil fuels - especially in the past year. So, I am making the arguments that, while 1) I agree that there has been anti-renewable rhetoric, 2) the state itself doesn't have much of a political one, as nothing has stopped record investment, so 3) so what about the "rhetoric?" Yeah people say shit all the time that doesn't mean much. I've tried to take what is (in my opinion) a somewhat blatant attempt to put a political argument into DT. What I did was try to counteract it by showing that in reality, the market transcends politics largely, and that if you look at the record, that "rhetoric" is fairly meaningless. Even the article itself contains somewhat of a contradiction, within a single sentence to boot: Despite the Texas Republican rhetoric that wind and solar are unreliable, Texas has a massive and growing fleet of renewables. Zero-carbon electricity sources (wind, solar, and nuclear) powered about 38% of the state’s power in 2021, rivaling natural gas at 42%. This is a relatively recent phenomenon for the state. So is this article saying that "despite the "rhetoric" (whatever real consequences it's had - pretty much none), somehow the State managed to ram through an environment that produced record nonrenewable investment? That through great labor and hardship, they managed this amazing record? I say nope, it's due to a cheap market which Texas has had in just about every economic area, particularly in the past 30 years - and despite the "rhetoric", these investments have skyrocketed - far beyond even California, a larger and supposedly much more renewable-friendly state. I.e. a productive environment which allows this. Therefore the "rhetoric" is a pretty weak point - no one is "surprised" that these renewables are doing what they are - they've been worked into the energy system in Texas, both politically and economically. I see the "rhetoric". And I've posted several times already that it was dumb and pretty much (not entirely) wrong. But the tide is turning politically. Anyway point is that whatever the political verbage, the reality of this state is that it's been open for nonrenewable development, to record levels. So much for some type of "rhetoric" tamping down the reality of the markets. Anyway, I think this has been a great discussion and I appreciate those who have especially quoted stuff and tried to discuss the article. You make good points and I agree in part. I think we just disagree on the "so what then". If one posts this, then one must expect thoughts about it. And I for one absolutely believe that making a connection between rhetoric and reality is key to discussing this article. (p.s. this article eerily parallels one written a few days later in the San Antonio Current, a left-leaning more political publication akin to our Chronicle. Just in case people want to read more: https://www.sacurrent.com/news/despite-texas-gops-rhetoric-renewables-are-keeping-the-lights-on-amid-states-sweltering-summer-29147649)
  17. Nope, saw it. Not entirely true. But did you miss the part where almost all of the wind turbines failed because they froze? Yeah it was a dumb comment to just blame "renewable energy" in some blanket way - but it wasn't inaccurate that the structures of those energy sources failed in the cold. That was my point in a post above = the infrastructure to deliver renewables still needs work. Without it it don't matter a shit what kind of energy you tap. You still need conventional means to get it to people. So wind power failed just as much as the freezing of natural gas lines for oil and gas. It wasn't the type of energy that led to the problem - it was the bad infrastructure. This is where the focus needs to go now. Obviously "rhetoric" or much of anything else has actually stopped Texas' record investments in these sources. There is no political environment where they're not welcome to develop. If there are examples of where "rhetoric" has caused problems in energy investment that have actually occurred within the last year, post them. I would love to see them (no saracsm, I really would).
  18. That's my point... 1) I don't think #1 is as true as it has been, and again to my point, 2) even if it were, it isn't affecting the huge investments in renewables in Texas, which means that whatever "rhetoric" (also, reading comprehension, that's one opinion in the artcle) exists, it's not doing anything to counteract the market plodding on. Yeah I get the subtle political point of the article - "despite ________ (party or legislature or governor or butler or dog catcher, fill in the blank) being anti-renewable in their stance (which I've disagreed with here, especially in the past year), Texas's renewables have saved our asses." The second part is true, the first not so much. Not wanting to gobble a shitload of "green energy solutions" to the detriment of fossil fuels is by no means "anti-renewable." Moderation has now been the operative, and in the Texas market, it's been the driving force, especially since the Big Chill. So it's no suprise that the renewables have "saved our asses" - Texas investors - and parts of government - are all for it. In moderation. No reading comprehension problems on my part. Hope no others have it.
  19. I believe that legislation (both your links refer to the same thing, SB3) allows ERCOT the ability to charge fees for renewables. To my knowledge no fees have yet to be charged. I agree that in part this is a bad bill - but like most governmental things, it's meant to scour money to put back into the system. However that was last year, and over the last 12 months the government has changed its tune somewhat, in a new biofuels project and similar initiatives. However my main point is that Texas has led the country (even flying past California) in the pace and amount of renewable growth the past several years - in a suppsedly "hostile" political environment for non-fossil fuels, which brings me back to the point: renewables have been a ripe market in Texas, with cheap costs and lots of affordable and profitable opportunities, and the market far eclipses the governmental influence so far on their development. And even the bill you cited hasn't impacted it - at all as far as I know (if someone can find an instance of fees levied by ERCOT on renewable companies, post it thanks). The problem now is that the infrastructure is still old and even the massive spike in renewable energy production is hampered by ways to get that power to people. That's where most of the $$ will be needed. Some of it (and hopefully most of it) will be borne by the companies themselves as the ramp up. I think in 2020 renewables were something like 20% of the energy in Texas. During last week's big heat (and record generation - over 80MW now for days running - keep in mind the peak wattage needed in The Big Chill was about 70MW(!), renewables accounted for over 33% (in 2021 it was about 25%) of the energy! Going back to this thread topic, I agree that renewables "are saving our ass" by providing the needed icing on the energy cake But I also want to point out that this is not news to people in Texas - of all political persuasions - who are taking advantage of ripe (and so far pretty unlimited) opportunities to develop it. The near-term answer is that we need all types (including fossils) and in the last year I think the needle has turned clearly to recognizing that fact.
  20. I've had this little thing on my desk for over a month. Since this is DT and not SHITROOM I can finally get rid of it. But it's a good article (a lot of discussion on ERCOT and Texas energy on here is decent, but naturally, a lot of it is pure bullshit). Posting in its entirety since I think it's behind a paywall. And the bold is mine, but a damn good point. Sum: Texas power resources, driven by market competiton and not by governmental dictate or fiat, is quietly upping - a whole shitload - renewables, and has for awhile. What I love about this article is that it shows that politics is overblown as a driver for good - or bad. Yeah it exists, but it's definitely not the main definer of it. I'll leave it to you to decide. I already have/know (and as a "weather guy", I've had a keen interest in this stuff for years). Anyway, I can finally get this of my desk. THIS IS MEMBER-EXCLUSIVE CONTENT OPINION Renewables supplied a third of Texas’ electricity in 1Q. Why that gives us hope for grid reliability The competitive electricity market is a powerful tool. Dust from strong southerly winds partially obscure wind turbines spinning on the Texas plains near Southland on Jan. 18, 2022.(Tom Fox) By Dallas Morning News Editorial 2:00 AM on May 2, 2022 This editorial is part of a series published by The Dallas Morning News Opinion section to explore ideas and policies for strengthening electric reliability. Find Keeping the Lights On at dallasnews.com/opinion. As the country turned to Texas in the past couple of months to boost oil and gas production to supply our allies against Russia, something else happened, something quiet and extraordinary. In March, Texas oil and gas regulators issued a record number of drilling permits. That’s no surprise; Washington politicians have been calling on the Permian Basin to produce more fossil fuels to support European nations that are cutting off or being cut off from Russian oil and gas. High oil prices are a good signal to the industry to produce more. Also in the first quarter, Texas hit an entirely different energy record. The state produced more renewable energy than ever before. According to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, about a third of the power on the Texas grid came from wind and solar. Some folks thought this kind of success for renewables could be best achieved by protesting outside of an Exxon shareholder meeting or climbing in trees scheduled to be bulldozed to build a pipeline. Turns out market forces are more powerful than bullhorns. The Texas wholesale electricity market was designed to favor low-cost electricity, which at the time when the market was first established meant nuclear and coal power. Lawmakers added some incentives for renewables with modest expectations. A competitive market plus incentives for renewables turned out to be a powerful combination. It also helps that Texas hardly ever rejects a wind or solar project, as regulators in many other states do. Soon renewables on the ERCOT grid became so plentiful, that they knocked many older, more expensive fossil fuel plants out of business. Great for consumers: cheaper, cleaner energy. At times, wind is so plentiful that market prices dip below zero, because of the way the renewable energy credit system is set up to subsidize investment in clean energy. It all worked better than anyone could have anticipated. So well, that ERCOT has to change the way it manages the grid to make sure that when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining, there is enough back-up power to keep the lights on. In fact, keeping the grid reliable is getting dicey, because investors do not want to build expensive fossil fuel plants, nor do they want to keep operating old coal and gas plants that don’t make money. Our electricity market that incentivizes cheap, clean energy has failed to incentivize reliability. Regulators are on it, planning to buy back-up power and subsidize the cost. It’s a good start, but not nearly enough. The success of competitive markets in growing renewable energy in Texas should give us great hope that market forces can also be used to grow reliable energy, too. There’s no need to give an advantage to certain fuel types or technology. Instead, by changing market rules, the Public Utility Commission can ensure that the Texas electricity market is fertile ground for investments in plants and equipment that can produce power on demand. That could be a new natural gas plant, an old coal plant outfitted to meet environmental standards, batteries, or some technology that, like wind and solar 20 years ago, we can hardly imagine will ever become reality in Texas. https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2022/05/02/renewables-supplied-a-third-of-texas-electricity-in-1q-why-that-gives-us-hope-for-grid-reliability/ This is akin to my own life. I recycle prodigiously because I want to, and there are incentives to. Not because I have to. I like it. As far as the topic, no one's saying that ERCOT and the energy situation in Texas is all butterflies and unicorns - but - gasp! There are some good things happening. And renewables are part of it. And finally, staying way the hell out of personal politics, I can say that "Texas government" has indeed gotten the message, and I'll just say that in the past year since The Big Chill, they've uniformly begun to take an "all fuels" tack, including renewables (and I'm looking at about 6-7 articles in the last six months to prove this right now on my screen - but I'll refrain because some of it is political). Anyway, this is my stance - provide incentives for all forms of energy - including fossil - because we're gonna need all of 'em. The biggest threat to our energy livelihood is not political, it's demographic. As in the many, many people moving here, to a place that was never designed to hold as many climatologically as it is starting to (see: Southern California Basin circa 1935ff). Anyway, this is actually some "good news" I hope we can all agree on without getting twisted about which political direction this comes from. In reality, both parties have a hand in the bad's - and the good's like this. I hope it stays that way. (Whew, finally got rid of this!).
  21. You people take this shit way too seriously. This guy is just having fun, there's nothing obsessive about him. Nor A&M, which in their own right is an independent, proud school, with no fixation on the U. of Tex... [re-views the words to the Aggy Warr Himm, which is 90% psychotically fixated on UT]
  22. Johnny Depp otta sue Savannah Guthrie for defaming journalism. The only thing missing were the traditional NBC figure skating soft lenses and weepy music. Fortunately I could bear about 30 seconds of each day, reminded myself, "why am I watching this shit?" and turn it off for Andy Griffith or something.
  23. 1) The Yellowstone is an undammed, 600-mile river - it floods, you just don't hear about it. 2) Any transference of water will be expensive, but maybe not so much as believed. Pipes could easily use gravity to allow the water to go thousands of miles on each side of the continental divide if funneling from the mountains. Once it got to substations it could be pumped. Since about 90% of the water would be needed for the Great Plains and West, gravity could do a lot of work to move the water. Oil pipelines (with regular pumping stations, since oil is thicker and more resistant to gravity) exist all over the country, water could theoretically happen. Especially as the distances might not be all that great. But the problem would be to establish reservoirs "up there" with land rights, etc. as well as rights-of-way to destinations. But geographically, it's very possible, actually (if you draw the water from higher elevations). 3) Desalinization costs aren't what they used to be due to improvements in osmosis technology, but they're not dirt cheap. It costs money and energy to pressurize the water through filters, as most desaliniztion would be "uphill" as the seas are lower than the land (duh!). Even if you simply pump unfiltered saltwater "up" then use gravity by building "downhill" osmosis plants, it still requires a good amt. of energy/electricity/etc. to move that water through filters. California has a few more local plants, esp. around San Diego. But California just last month rejected a large-scale desalinization plan for one reason mostly - the enormous amount of salt and particulates filtered are a problem. To just release them back into the ocean would likely result in "dead spots" which would kill off life in locales where the salt is dumped. That needs to be solved to be feasible. But I would think they'll figure it out eventually. There is going to come a time where water transfer will be vital for say everyone living south and west of the lower Mississippi. Just too many people have moved there to sustain water usage (including Austin) so they'll have to do something. A national (or semi-national) network of pipelines is the most likely answer at some point.
  24. Yup, at times I remembered them and wondered if they were a thing of the past. Then we booked my son's rehearsal dinner on Capital Cruises - they use the Hyatt to cater food, and we had the fajitas on the boat. Got damn they were so good, just as I remembered them 20 years ago. One thing led to another, and we went there to eat them a 2nd time a little over a week ago. I have to say that the Hyatt's catered fajita order was spectacular - big soft aluminum pans of meat and great tortillas, rice, beans. The sit-down was about as good.
  25. Yeah, but it's kinda weird now. There used to be a bona fide restaurant on the 2nd floor in the Hyatt but they axed it some time back. Now there really is no restaurant per se in it (kinda unusual). They still have the bar though, of course. When you go to the Hyatt, ask to be seated at a table that serves food (not all do, mostly the ones closer), or you can just sit at the bar. They do have a menu but we asked for the fajitas and they brought them to us. The fajitas I had were catered for my son's wedding, and my god that was amazing food (even the rice and refried beans). So wife and I went about 2 weeks later for the sit-down. They still serve them as they always did (without the "sizzling" stuff they used to put on them). And I don't know what it is but the meat is so tender and tasty, still like in the 80's.
×
×
  • Create New...