Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
  On 8/2/2022 at 2:12 PM, Johnny Sack said:

Truly one of the dumbest fucking things the government has ever mandated.

Expand  

Reading a book that pretty methodically breaks down how asinine our energy policy is. We are pursuing anti-human policies. Fossil Future by Alex Epstein. 
 

For anybody that’s starting to question what we’re doing they should check it out. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 6
Posted
  On 8/2/2022 at 3:07 PM, Humble Beast said:

Reading a book that pretty methodically breaks down how asinine our energy policy is. We are pursuing anti-human policies. Fossil Future by Alex Epstein. 
 

For anybody that’s starting to question what we’re doing they should check it out. 

Expand  

This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. 

Posted
  On 8/2/2022 at 3:07 PM, Humble Beast said:

Reading a book that pretty methodically breaks down how asinine our energy policy is. We are pursuing anti-human policies. Fossil Future by Alex Epstein
 

For anybody that’s starting to question what we’re doing they should check it out. 

Expand  

lol he's a lobbyist for the coal and natural gas industries, a former scholar from the cato institute, and was a fellow at the ayn rand institute. He doesn't think climate change is happening, and argues that humans aren't changing our environment with pollution.

Fuck outta here with this continued anti-green energy propaganda shit. It should be both working in conjunction, with a focus on reducing our dependency on energy sources that have such severe negative externalities. Not cheerleading for a "fossil fuel future".

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
  On 8/2/2022 at 3:47 PM, Captainant said:

lol he's a lobbyist for the coal and natural gas industries, a former scholar from the cato institute, and was a fellow at the ayn rand institute. He doesn't think climate change is happening, and argues that humans aren't changing our environment with pollution.

Fuck outta here with this continued anti-green energy propaganda shit. It should be both working in conjunction, with a focus on reducing our dependency on energy sources that have such severe negative externalities. Not cheerleading for a "fossil fuel future".

Expand  

Thank you for chiming in. You’re an excellent counter indicator. Hopefully posters take note. I don’t care about his previous jobs. I’m not anti-green energy. I think we should go big on nuclear specifically. 
 

Without going into a full scale debate on the AC thermostat thread, I’ll just say he takes a full context look at climate change and fossil fuel utilization. You only see negatives. With any fossil fuel usage you catastrophize (falsely) any negatives and don’t figure in the huge positives. You also take cues from climate leaders and organizations that have been horribly wrong repeatedly over time.

 

  On 8/2/2022 at 3:41 PM, Dahobbs said:

This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. 

Expand  


 

I have not yet begun to defile myself. 

Edited by Humble Beast
  • Fuck You 5
Posted
  On 8/2/2022 at 4:23 PM, Humble Beast said:

Thank you for chiming in. You’re an excellent counter indicator. Hopefully posters take note. I don’t care about his previous jobs. I’m not anti-green energy. I think we should go big on nuclear specifically. 
 

Without going into a full scale debate on the AC thermostat thread, I’ll just say he takes a full context look at climate change and fossil fuel utilization. You only see negatives. With any fossil fuel usage you catastrophize (falsely) any negatives and don’t figure in the huge positives. You also take cues from climate leaders and organizations that have been horribly wrong repeatedly over time.

Expand  

And I'm saying that you shouldn't take anything he says seriously.

He believes and argues that 1) climate change isn't real, and 2) humans are not changing the environment through burning fossil fuels.

 

No shit fossil fuels are a no-brainer if you ignore the negative externalities of climate change

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
  On 8/2/2022 at 4:23 PM, Humble Beast said:

Thank you for chiming in. You’re an excellent counter indicator. Hopefully posters take note. I don’t care about his previous jobs. I’m not anti-green energy. I think we should go big on nuclear specifically. 
 

Without going into a full scale debate on the AC thermostat thread, I’ll just say he takes a full context look at climate change and fossil fuel utilization. You only see negatives. With any fossil fuel usage you catastrophize (falsely) any negatives and don’t figure in the huge positives. You also take cues from climate leaders and organizations that have been horribly wrong repeatedly over time.

 


 

I have not yet begun to defile myself. 

Expand  

Most of that book is pure misinformation. For instance, he has a whole section on global cooling concern and how it proves current science on global warming must be wrong. He ignores that global cooling was a minority position among client scientists and driven by factors that we worked to control.   He suggests that climate models have been inaccurate and therefore cannot be relied upon, which isn't true. In fact, climate models in fact did predicate the brief period of global cooling driven largely by aerosols (e.g., smog). He confuses net zero carbon emissions for zero carbon emissions (and thus zero fossil fuels). And his book is full of drivel like this: 

"there is a real, live, committed movement against fossil fuels that truly wants to deprive us of the energy of life."

"“I believe that we owe the fossil fuel industry an apology. While the industry has been producing the energy to make our climate more liveable, we have treated it as a villain. We owe it the kind of gratitude that we owe anyone who makes our lives much, much better.”

“Not only can our way of life last; it can keep getting better and better, as long as we don’t adopt ‘sustainability’ policies”

At any rate, this is all off-topic so I'll bow out. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
  On 8/2/2022 at 4:59 PM, Dahobbs said:

Most of that book is pure misinformation. For instance, he has a whole section on global cooling concern and how it proves current science on global warming must be wrong. He ignores that global cooling was a minority position among client scientists and driven by factors that we worked to control.   He suggests that climate models have been inaccurate and therefore cannot be relied upon, which isn't true. In fact, climate models in fact did predicate the brief period of global cooling driven largely by aerosols (e.g., smog). He confuses net zero carbon emissions for zero carbon emissions (and thus zero fossil fuels). And his book is full of drivel like this: 

"there is a real, live, committed movement against fossil fuels that truly wants to deprive us of the energy of life."

"“I believe that we owe the fossil fuel industry an apology. While the industry has been producing the energy to make our climate more liveable, we have treated it as a villain. We owe it the kind of gratitude that we owe anyone who makes our lives much, much better.”

“Not only can our way of life last; it can keep getting better and better, as long as we don’t adopt ‘sustainability’ policies”

At any rate, this is all off-topic so I'll bow out. 

Expand  

predict. Not predicate. I don't know if that is stupid autocorrect or auto-brain. Could be either. 

Posted

Why the High Plains turns off its turbines to limit wind production while the Texas power grid is stressed

 

While wind farms in the region could help power and lower energy costs for at least 9 million homes, significant infrastructure upgrades would be needed to supply electricity from the region to other parts of the state.

 

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/08/02/texas-high-plains-wind-energy/amp/

Posted
  On 8/2/2022 at 6:47 PM, Post Oak said:

Why the High Plains turns off its turbines to limit wind production while the Texas power grid is stressed

 

While wind farms in the region could help power and lower energy costs for at least 9 million homes, significant infrastructure upgrades would be needed to supply electricity from the region to other parts of the state.

 

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/08/02/texas-high-plains-wind-energy/amp/

 

Expand  

XdY7.gif

 

Man, in another life, I knew Michael really well.  He knows his stuff.  This is a nice clean summary para on the issue.

  Quote

“Because there’s not enough transmission to move it where it’s needed, ERCOT has to throttle back the [wind] generators,” energy lawyer Michael Jewell said. “They actually tell the wind generators to stop generating electricity. It gets to the point where [wind farm operators] literally have to disengage the generators entirely and stop them from doing anything.”

Expand  

We have a lot of great generation that can give us a lot more available capacity in tight times.  But if we don't have adequate transmission, it don't make a shit.  Grow all the potatoes you want in Promisedland.  If you can't get them to me in Hungryville, I'm still hungry.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
  On 8/2/2022 at 4:26 PM, Captainant said:

And I'm saying that you shouldn't take anything he says seriously.

He believes and argues that 1) climate change isn't real, and 2) humans are not changing the environment through burning fossil fuels.

 

No shit fossil fuels are a no-brainer if you ignore the negative externalities of climate change

Expand  

He doesn’t go hard against climate change. He just believes that whatever changes happen we manage them. He cites decreased climate related deaths and air pollution as supporting examples. 
 

Again he’s aware of acknowledges there are downsides, but argues they pale in comparison to the positives for the global population. 
 

  On 8/2/2022 at 4:59 PM, Dahobbs said:

Most of that book is pure misinformation. For instance, he has a whole section on global cooling concern and how it proves current science on global warming must be wrong. He ignores that global cooling was a minority position among client scientists and driven by factors that we worked to control.   He suggests that climate models have been inaccurate and therefore cannot be relied upon, which isn't true. In fact, climate models in fact did predicate the brief period of global cooling driven largely by aerosols (e.g., smog). He confuses net zero carbon emissions for zero carbon emissions (and thus zero fossil fuels). And his book is full of drivel like this: 

"there is a real, live, committed movement against fossil fuels that truly wants to deprive us of the energy of life."

"“I believe that we owe the fossil fuel industry an apology. While the industry has been producing the energy to make our climate more liveable, we have treated it as a villain. We owe it the kind of gratitude that we owe anyone who makes our lives much, much better.”

“Not only can our way of life last; it can keep getting better and better, as long as we don’t adopt ‘sustainability’ policies”

At any rate, this is all off-topic so I'll bow out. 

Expand  

I’m walking through school shopping so I don’t have to time to pull up the specific cooling sections or what you claim he said about models, but there are plenty of examples of wildly wrong predictions by heavily cited experts. Also policy prescriptions that, if undertaken at the time, would’ve seriously stunted modern civilization. 
 

The other stuff listed isn’t misinformation as much as it’s opinions you disagree with. Utilization of fossil fuels is by far the #1 factor that has driven the advancement of our civilization. It’s not even close.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 2
Posted
  On 8/2/2022 at 7:35 PM, Humble Beast said:

He doesn’t go hard against climate change. He just believes that whatever changes happen we manage them. He cites decreased climate related deaths and air pollution as supporting examples. 
 

Again he’s aware of acknowledges there are downsides, but argues they pale in comparison to the positives for the global population. 
 

I’m walking through school shopping so I don’t have to time to pull up the specific cooling sections or what you claim he said about models, but there are plenty of examples of wildly wrong predictions by heavily cited experts. Also policy prescriptions that, if undertaken at the time, would’ve seriously stunted modern civilization. 
 

The other stuff listed isn’t misinformation as much as it’s opinions you disagree with. Utilization of fossil fuels is by far the #1 factor that has driven the advancement of our civilization. It’s not even close.

Expand  

Happy to take this to cloak room and detail the facts and where he misrepresents them. It is an extensive listing. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
  On 8/2/2022 at 7:57 PM, Dahobbs said:

Happy to take this to cloak room and detail the facts and where he misrepresents them. It is an extensive listing. 

Expand  

Lol GRUvibes doesn't want to post his propoganda where people will actually challenge it, he tires from making sock after sock after the community invites him to fuck off

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
  On 8/2/2022 at 7:35 PM, Humble Beast said:

but there are plenty of examples of wildly wrong predictions by heavily cited experts.

Expand  

This is perhaps the method of argument I love the most.  There are many occasions where "heavily cited experts" have been wrong about their predictions.  That's true, by the way.  But what I love is the conclusion it points to -- therefore, we should disregard the vast weight of authority of experts in the field on this issue, because experts have been wrong before.

Let's do that exact same exercise with pilots.  There are many occasions where "heavily trained pilots" have crashed the fuck out of their planes.  That's absolutely true (in fact, almost all plane crashes involve trained pilots).  Therefore, we should disregard the vast weight of authority in the trained pilot community when they say "if you are experiencing a stall, resist the temptation to pull up -- do whatever it takes to gain speed and restore lift," because trained pilots have been wrong before.  GRU wants you to ignore that stall warning, and pull back on the stick -- who are you gonna listen to, some egghead trained pilot?  When most every plane crash has involved a trained pilot?  You dumb sheeple.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
  On 8/2/2022 at 7:57 PM, Dahobbs said:

Happy to take this to cloak room and detail the facts and where he misrepresents them. It is an extensive listing. 

Expand  

575-BF97-C-C2-E3-4476-B2-B5-34-A89-E18-F

life is much better outside the CR. There’s been much more intensive debates between you and Porterhouse on this thread. That said, if you want to drop it here that’s fine. We’ll just have to agree to disagree. 
 

  On 8/2/2022 at 10:30 PM, Brisketexan said:

This is perhaps the method of argument I love the most.  There are many occasions where "heavily cited experts" have been wrong about their predictions.  That's true, by the way.  But what I love is the conclusion it points to -- therefore, we should disregard the vast weight of authority of experts in the field on this issue, because experts have been wrong before.

Let's do that exact same exercise with pilots.  There are many occasions where "heavily trained pilots" have crashed the fuck out of their planes.  That's absolutely true (in fact, almost all plane crashes involve trained pilots).  Therefore, we should disregard the vast weight of authority in the trained pilot community when they say "if you are experiencing a stall, resist the temptation to pull up -- do whatever it takes to gain speed and restore lift," because trained pilots have been wrong before.  GRU wants you to ignore that stall warning, and pull back on the stick -- who are you gonna listen to, some egghead trained pilot?  When most every plane crash has involved a trained pilot?  You dumb sheeple.

Expand  

What a tortured, useless analogy. Great job. 
 

 

 

  • Fuck You 5
Posted
  On 8/2/2022 at 11:10 PM, Humble Beast said:

What a tortured, useless analogy. Great job. 

Expand  

Then do tell, what was the point of your statement below?

  On 8/2/2022 at 7:35 PM, Humble Beast said:

there are plenty of examples of wildly wrong predictions by heavily cited experts.

Expand  

I mean, I know your answer will be a pathetically disingenuous lie (the truth is exactly what I posted, and every human being with double-digit or better IQ points knows it), but hell, I kinda wanna see it written down, just for shits and giggles.  Lay it out for us, man.

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 8/2/2022 at 7:35 PM, Humble Beast said:

Utilization of fossil fuels is by far the #1 factor that has driven the advancement of our civilization. It’s not even close.

Expand  

Cool.  So let's just roll with it going forward instead of paying attention to the decades of data and consequences right in front of our very eyes.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
  On 8/2/2022 at 7:35 PM, Humble Beast said:

Utilization of fossil fuels is by far the #1 factor that has driven the advancement of our civilization. It’s not even close.

Expand  

barack obama GIF

Pornography.

Pushed companies in the 1980s to produce better and better computers to store and watch EGA and VGA pornography.

Pushed companies to produce monitors with 256 colors and 1024 x 768 resolution to make pornography look better.

Pushed companies to produce lightweight LCD displays so that people were no longer lugging 30-pound CRT displays into the bathroom to masturbate in peace.

Pushed the adaption of wireless networking so that Ethernet or Token Ring cables didn't have to be strung under the bathroom door.

Pushed companies (IBM and Apple) to produce laptops that weighed under 15 pounds and had more than 5 minutes of battery life, that could be lugged into the bathroom for peaceful masturbation.

Pushed the adaption of the CD-ROM drive to distribute larger amounts of porn.

Pushed the adaption of high-speed modems, and later broadband, to help people download more and more pornography.

Pushed companies to produce larger and larger hard drives to store pornography.

Pushed companies to produce large solid-state based drives to not only store pornography in a much more safe and reliable manner (no moving parts!), but also to access said pornography almost instantly.

Pushed the adaption of DVDs to store and distribute even more pornography.

Pushed the adaption of Blu-ray to distribution high-resolution pornography.

Pushed companies to produce smaller and better digital cameras (complete with HD video) which simplified pornography production while still maintaining high fidelity in terms of image quality.

Pushed companies to produce smaller and better smartphones with better and better cameras to allow anybody to produce pornography on the spot with a very high quality.

Pushed companies to produce thinner, high-resolution tablets to make bathroom pornography viewing even better.

Pushed adaption of gigabit/fiber broadband to allow for the consumption of massive amounts of 4K pornography.

And the list goes on.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
  On 8/2/2022 at 6:47 PM, Post Oak said:

Why the High Plains turns off its turbines to limit wind production while the Texas power grid is stressed

 

While wind farms in the region could help power and lower energy costs for at least 9 million homes, significant infrastructure upgrades would be needed to supply electricity from the region to other parts of the state.

 

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/08/02/texas-high-plains-wind-energy/amp/

 

Expand  

why are we not building the infrastructure to...ohhhh....

Posted
  On 8/2/2022 at 11:19 PM, Brisketexan said:

Then do tell, what was the point of your statement below?

I mean, I know your answer will be a pathetically disingenuous lie (the truth is exactly what I posted, and every human being with double-digit or better IQ points knows it), but hell, I kinda wanna see it written down, just for shits and giggles.  Lay it out for us, man.

Expand  

Ok. I’ll spoiler it to keep thread from going off rails. 
 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

  • Fuck You 4
Posted

Of course, we are going to the fallacy of if a problem was predicted to occur and didn't happen, then it must not have been real in the first place irrespective of actions taken to avoid the problem (also, air pollution most assuredly contributes to millions of deaths worldwide every year, so Ehrlich's prediction extremely underplayed the actual danger, e.g., https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution). 

Great article on this thinking: https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/07/past-environmental-threats-didnt-just-disappear/
 

  Quote

 

Past environmental threats didn’t just disappear

It's disturbingly common for people to say solved problems were never problems.

Conservative political commentator Matt Walsh took to Twitter last Wednesday to say that the widely held belief that humans are causing climate change is, in fact, a crock. The podcaster and Daily Wire columnist apparently knows this because previous environmental issues we were concerned about in the past—namely acid rain and holes in the ozone layer—disappeared, never to be heard about again.

“Remember when they spent years telling us to panic over the hole in the ozone layer and then suddenly just stopped talking about it and nobody ever mentioned the ozone layer again?” Walsh tweeted. “This was also back during the time when they scared school children into believing that "acid rain" was a real and urgent threat,” Walsh tweeted again.

It’s true that you don’t hear much about acid rain anymore, and discussions about humanity’s long-standing propensity to metaphorically kick the planet in the groin have largely moved away from the ozone layer to newer, flashier issues like sea level rise, rising global temperatures, and mass species die-offs served with a side of ecosystem collapse. (Although, if you know where to look, you can still find mention of the ozone hole.)

One could, as Walsh does, take this to mean that acid rain and holes in the ozone layer simply went away on their own and were thus never anything to worry about—and that, by extension, current fears about climate change are similarly misplaced.

This would be the wrong way to take things. Ozone layer holes and acid rain have actually been dealt with in many parts of the world. In these two cases, efforts to combat environmental issues have worked. Well, mostly, at least.

Acid rain is produced when various chemicals like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are emitted into the atmosphere, usually by the burning of fossil fuels, emissions from vehicles, and manufacturing and other industries. The airborne compounds mix with water and fall to the ground as low-pH rain, harming various species and corroding metals and other materials humans use for buildings.

In many areas around the world, especially those in which coal was used to generate electricity, acid rain caused serious problems. In the US and other areas, it's no longer an issue only because various governments around the world took action.

The US Congress updated and strengthened emission regulations in 1990 and, by 2003, the amount of sulfur dioxide raining down had decreased—by 40 percent in the northeastern US, for instance. Between 1990 and 2019, the US saw a 93 percent reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions. Similar regulations also popped up in Europe, and international agreements were negotiated in an effort to curb the issue. In 2002, The Economist called the fight against acid rain “the greatest green success story of the past decade.” Acid rain is still an issue, just not as much of one.

. . . 

More in the link. 

Expand  

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
  On 8/3/2022 at 4:11 PM, Dahobbs said:

Of course, we are going to the fallacy of if a problem was predicted to occur and didn't happen, then it must not have been real in the first place irrespective of actions taken to avoid the problem (also, air pollution most assuredly contributes to millions of deaths worldwide every year, so Ehrlich's prediction extremely underplayed the actual danger, e.g., https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution). 

Great article on this thinking: https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/07/past-environmental-threats-didnt-just-disappear/
 

 

Expand  

I've always laughed at that argument when people go see.  They predicted that and it didn't happen so they were wrong.  Rachel Carson's Silent Spring very well may have happened if we didn't start changing our ways.  Hell, go to a big city in India or China and that's what cities in the US would look like if we didn't start imposing changes.  But on the flip side we can't just say get rid of it all now unless we want to sit in the dark.

 

The transmission issue is actually really easy to solve.  Fuck the feasibility studies.  Just fucking build.  Now why we put so many wind mills in the middle of nowhere before we were able to utilize it is another question to be asked.  Why build so much before asking if you can make it profitable.  Idle wind farms have to make money somehow right?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
  On 8/3/2022 at 5:20 PM, FartingMonk said:

Now why we put so many wind mills in the middle of nowhere before we were able to utilize it is another question to be asked.  Why build so much before asking if you can make it profitable.  Idle wind farms have to make money somehow right?

Expand  

Various credits (tax, etc.).  We set up a system to incentivize green generation without that system making adequate provision for ensuring that the power can get to market (there are some transmission elements in those incentives, but clearly not enough).  Half-policies can lead to such results.  A comprehensive, unified approach to energy and our grid would be better.

But we won't do that.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
  On 8/3/2022 at 5:20 PM, FartingMonk said:

I've always laughed at that argument when people go see.  They predicted that and it didn't happen so they were wrong.  Rachel Carson's Silent Spring very well may have happened if we didn't start changing our ways.  Hell, go to a big city in India or China and that's what cities in the US would look like if we didn't start imposing changes.  But on the flip side we can't just say get rid of it all now unless we want to sit in the dark.

 

The transmission issue is actually really easy to solve.  Fuck the feasibility studies.  Just fucking build.  Now why we put so many wind mills in the middle of nowhere before we were able to utilize it is another question to be asked.  Why build so much before asking if you can make it profitable.  Idle wind farms have to make money somehow right?

Expand  

Yup. Agree with this. As much as we hate it in Texas, this is why public utilities do need a lot of regulation. Improvements in transmission have to be made or mandated by the state. Maybe this requiring new facilities to either help build out new transmission as part of project approval (something you see all the time with new neighborhood builds in cities for instance). But obviously that cost can't be entirely on the new facility, so we also need a way to either better incentivize construction or increase our use of public funds for transmission. 

Posted
  On 8/3/2022 at 5:20 PM, FartingMonk said:

I've always laughed at that argument when people go see.  They predicted that and it didn't happen so they were wrong.  Rachel Carson's Silent Spring very well may have happened if we didn't start changing our ways.  Hell, go to a big city in India or China and that's what cities in the US would look like if we didn't start imposing changes.  But on the flip side we can't just say get rid of it all now unless we want to sit in the dark.

Expand  

I truly enjoyed being choked to death by pollution in Delhi and Mumbai after being outside for about 7 minutes. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
  On 8/3/2022 at 5:20 PM, FartingMonk said:

I've always laughed at that argument when people go see.  They predicted that and it didn't happen so they were wrong.  Rachel Carson's Silent Spring very well may have happened if we didn't start changing our ways.  Hell, go to a big city in India or China and that's what cities in the US would look like if we didn't start imposing changes.  But on the flip side we can't just say get rid of it all now unless we want to sit in the dark.

Expand  

Hell, we could just sign this "someone who grew up on the Texas coast and never saw a sea turtle or brown pelican, or came in from the beach without having to clean tar off his feet, till he was an adult."  That someone being me.

Many of our environmental changes have had huge positive effects.  The ones above are just about the Clean Water Act and getting rid of DDT here in the US.  I could talk about the differences in air quality between American cities and foreign cities (in Buenos Aires, things like metal bed frames had to be cleaned weekly, as they got a black residue from all the diesel and car exhaust fumes in the area - in my folks' nice apartment in a nice part of town.  That was all going into our lungs, too.)

Yes, burning fossil fuels has been a shortcut to some of our prosperity.  That shortcut has some significant additional costs.  So maybe we should re-evaluate the ACTUAL cost of fossil fuels, and look to get our energy in other ways.  I mean, slavery was a helluva shortcut to prosperity.  Sure as hell made the economy in the CSA work and be profitable.  But, you know.....it had some other actual costs that maybe we shoulda considered earlier in the game?

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
  On 8/3/2022 at 5:32 PM, Brisketexan said:

Various credits (tax, etc.).  We set up a system to incentivize green generation without that system making adequate provision for ensuring that the power can get to market (there are some transmission elements in those incentives, but clearly not enough).  Half-policies can lead to such results.  A comprehensive, unified approach to energy and our grid would be better.

But we won't do that.

Expand  

This.

Build subsidized renewables in the middle of nowhere,

generate stranded energy production,

earn renewable tax credits,

use renewable profits to drill oil & gas wells, make money on fossil fuels,

use renewable tax credits to offset fossil fuel profits.

The end result is investment in part time renewable production results in full time and "Tax free" fossil fuel production.

  On 8/3/2022 at 5:36 PM, Dahobbs said:

Yup. Agree with this. As much as we hate it in Texas, this is why public utilities do need a lot of regulation. Improvements in transmission have to be made or mandated by the state. Maybe this requiring new facilities to either help build out new transmission as part of project approval (something you see all the time with new neighborhood builds in cities for instance). But obviously that cost can't be entirely on the new facility, so we also need a way to either better incentivize construction or increase our use of public funds for transmission. 

Expand  

The biggest issue in Texas is the land is ~ 98% privately owned with very little government land available. High voltage transmission lines can only be constructed using condemnation and emminent domain; nobody wants transmission lines across their property, or anywhere close.

As bad as cross country oil and gas pipelines can be, most of the "damages" are a result of construction and the surface area of the right-of-way still can be used for farming and ranching and hunting in a somewhat "normal" manner.  A 500 kv transmission line ROW is much wider, much less aesthetically pleasing, and damn near useless for anything other than its intended purpose.  I don't even want to walk under the lower voltage lines.

For those of you familiar with climate change studies:  Do they consider roadways, parking lots and concrete buildings and structures? 

That "city" heat was really driven home at the late season baseball games. Disch-Falk was hot as F**K; chairs under the overhang in the shade were still hotter than my body heat well after dark.  That mass of concrete we call DKR, midday in September after 80+ days in 100F sunshine, is going to be brutal.

Appreciate the varied opinions on a complex subject.  I though energy was the biggest issue facing us a graduating engineer in 1979 and it is worse now given the population growth and the multiple layers of politics that impact it. 

Thermostat settings? Be smart, and considerate, for someone besides yourself. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted

the swiss built a big pumped storage facility re-using existing dam infrastructure that can hold a shit ton of energy.

  Quote

With a storage capacity of 20 million kWh of electricity, it is hoped the water battery will play a significant role in stabilising Switzerland and Europe’s energy grids.

Expand  

https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/06/30/enormous-water-battery-in-switzerland-will-help-prevent-power-shortages

 

uses a new GE variable speed turbine to be able to operate rapidly:

  Quote

"With a fixed speed turbine, you have to wait until the power plant is running at exactly the right speed to be synchronized to the grid," says Radue, adding that this wastes time and energy. Variable speed turbines supply electricity to the grid immediately so there's less risk of blackouts

Expand  

and there's a bunch of places where this type of storage could be built

  Quote

Pumped storage hydropower could provide energy security outside of Europe, too: Blakers and his team have identified around 600,000 potential sites for closed loop systems -- although just 1% of these would be needed to meet total global energy storage needs, he adds.

Expand  

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/01/world/water-battery-switzerland-renewable-energy-climate-scn-hnk-spc-intl/index.html

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
  On 8/3/2022 at 7:39 PM, elfenix said:

and there's a bunch of places where this type of storage could be built

Expand  

Very few of them are in Texas.

Pumped hydro requires relatively steep topography (think the highland lakes vs. flat and shallow E. Texas lakes).  They can hold a chunk of water covering a relatively small footprint, and have sufficient depth to push the water through with sufficient force to spin turbines (at least, that's my understanding).

In Texas, the places where we could do that don't have enough water.  And the places with enough water are too flat (E. Texas).

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

I loved the idea of pumped storage hydropower from the first time I read about it.  Obviously it works better in certain locations than others, given the local topography and climate, but it's a really, really clever solution.

Posted (edited)
  On 8/3/2022 at 7:42 PM, Brisketexan said:

Very few of them are in Texas.

Pumped hydro requires relatively steep topography (think the highland lakes vs. flat and shallow E. Texas lakes).  They can hold a chunk of water covering a relatively small footprint, and have sufficient depth to push the water through with sufficient force to spin turbines (at least, that's my understanding).

In Texas, the places where we could do that don't have enough water.  And the places with enough water are too flat (E. Texas).

Expand  

Yeah I didn't read that as a suggestion specifically for Texas-- aside from topography and rain, temperature is another major adversary.  The lakes can lose a foot of water per week, or more, during high summer.

But it's a clever solution and the kind of thinking that will be necessary to address our future power needs in total.

Edited by utee94
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)

I just came here to say fuck China as being the world’s biggest polluter and contributor to climate issues and change and destructor of the world. More than the US, India, Russia (fuck them with a pogo stick) and Japan combined. Doesn’t mean US can’t and shouldn’t do what it can. But fuck China. China is the biggest culprit by far and wont do fuck all about it. 
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-china-climate-change-biggest-carbon-polluters/

if that link isn’t surly worthy (acceptable to all) I’ll find another one on my job break. But China can get fucked. I’m still in Atlanta so I hope like hell for all of you in Texas and my entire family that the grid holds. Damn. Fuck China.

Edited by Nicole44
Posted
  On 8/3/2022 at 7:46 PM, utee94 said:

Yeah I didn't read that as a suggestion specifically for Texas-- aside from topography and rain, temperature is another major adversary.  The lakes can lose a foot of water per week, or more, during high summer.

But it's a clever solution and the kind of thinking that will be necessary to address our future power needs in total.

Expand  

Nah.  Hydro is done solution.  Benefits are good.  But the bad aspects with wildlife are bad.  With our water not ever going back up.  Not really feasible 

Posted
  On 8/3/2022 at 8:01 PM, Nicole44 said:

I just came here to say fuck China as being the world’s biggest polluter and contributor to climate issues and change and destructor of the world. More than the US, India, Russia (fuck them with a pogo stick) and Japan combined. Doesn’t mean US can’t and shouldn’t do what it can. But fuck China. China is the biggest culprit by far and wont do fuck all about it. 
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-china-climate-change-biggest-carbon-polluters/

if that link isn’t surly worthy (acceptable to all) I’ll find another one on my job break. But China can get fucked. I’m still in Atlanta so I hope like hell for all of you in Texas and my entire family that the grid holds. Damn. Fuck China.

Expand  

Is it really China though?  We have learned to shift the blame.  Chinese manufacturing is the cause of a lot of pollution but it's because we have shifted from our backyard.  The shit they produce isn't consumed by them.  It is by us.  Just like the drugs.  It isn't the Colombians who snort it.  It is by us.  We just shift the blame on them.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
  On 8/3/2022 at 8:14 PM, FartingMonk said:

Is it really China though?  We have learned to shift the blame.  Chinese manufacturing is the cause of a lot of pollution but it's because we have shifted from our backyard.  The shit they produce isn't consumed by them.  It is by us.  Just like the drugs.  It isn't the Colombians who snort it.  It is by us.  We just shift the blame on them.  

Expand  

It is a lot of their fault. 22-25 major cities of theirs are the largest polluters and I guarantee they don't take a responsibility nor a world view other than wanting to dominate it. I realize most blame America for everything and that is where it stops for them. Blame America for all of it. We do bear responsibility for quite a bit but not everything is our fault. Its like blame America and if all else fails blame America. China sucks. 

Posted
  On 8/3/2022 at 8:20 PM, Nicole44 said:

It is a lot of their fault. 22-25 major cities of theirs are the largest polluters and I guarantee they don't take a responsibility nor a world view other than wanting to dominate it. I realize most blame America for everything and that is where it stops for them. Blame America for all of it. We do bear responsibility for quite a bit but not everything is our fault. Its like blame America and if all else fails blame America. China sucks. 

Expand  

Maybe it does.

But consider the fact that in terms of modernization, China is where the US was 25-50 years ago.  Step back in a time machine and look at what American manufacturing and power generation looked like in, say, the 60s:

6aeb8bbf05dc0954543d48aa0c6909eb--the-pl

 

In a lot of respects, China is doing exactly what we did at the same stage of development, albeit with the knowledge of today regarding the harmful effect on the environment.  But we used plentiful, cheap coal to rev up our economy, damn the consequences.  China is doing, in large part.....exactly what we did.  I ain't excusing a shitload of stuff that China pulls, but in terms of energy consumption at a particular stage of development, we maybe aren't in the best position to throw stones.

Posted
  On 8/3/2022 at 8:31 PM, Brisketexan said:

Maybe it does.

But consider the fact that in terms of modernization, China is where the US was 25-50 years ago.  Step back in a time machine and look at what American manufacturing and power generation looked like in, say, the 60s:

6aeb8bbf05dc0954543d48aa0c6909eb--the-pl

 

In a lot of respects, China is doing exactly what we did at the same stage of development, albeit with the knowledge of today regarding the harmful effect on the environment.  But we used plentiful, cheap coal to rev up our economy, damn the consequences.  China is doing, in large part.....exactly what we did.  I ain't excusing a shitload of stuff that China pulls, but in terms of energy consumption at a particular stage of development, we maybe aren't in the best position to throw stones.

Expand  

I understand. But getting their cooperation is key in the future. Just obviously not with their current or even future leader(s). That is a big deal. Japan will work with us. Russia won't. Maybe getting some help from India. But my sympathy level for them being behind us and doing what we did is very slight. Ketchup or fuck off the planet. Lol. It is like countries around for thousands of years cannot be expected to pull their own weight or something. And yes, the excuses are there. We are doing things and can do more and they aren't and likely never will. Big difference. Just because we have problems and create problems doesn't mean we can't call out other countries. We should. This isn't some Biblical deal where if you are a sinner you can't call out the other sinners. There are people that genuinely have a hard time calling out anyone but the US and that's bullshit. Their shit sucks too and they deserve to hear about it as do other countries whether they are still in their infancy or not. Just my two cents. They are a massive contributor to climate change and they either join or they can answer for it.

Posted

China does suck.  As does India.  As does the US.  That said, the US has a responsibility to lead, as the "leader of the free world", if we are truly that anymore.  A coalition of the US and most of Europe can throw some weight around when it comes to global policy.

Posted
  On 8/3/2022 at 8:39 PM, Nicole44 said:

I understand. But getting their cooperation is key in the future. Just obviously not with their current or even future leader(s). That is a big deal. Japan will work with us. Russia won't. Maybe getting some help from India. But my sympathy level for them being behind us and doing what we did is very slight. Ketchup or fuck off the planet. Lol. It is like countries around for thousands of years cannot be expected to pull their own weight or something. And yes, the excuses are there. We are doing things and can do more and they aren't and likely never will. Big difference. Just because we have problems and create problems doesn't mean we can't call out other countries. We should. This isn't some Biblical deal where if you are a sinner you can't call out the other sinners. There are people that genuinely have a hard time calling out anyone but the US and that's bullshit. Their shit sucks too and they deserve to hear about it as do other countries whether they are still in their infancy or not. Just my two cents. They are a massive contributor to climate change and they either join or they can answer for it.

Expand  

I agree that getting China's cooperation (almost certainly under a future regime) is important.  But if you aren't coercing it at the point of a gun, you have to be persuasive.  And an argument of "we leaned on dirty power generation for decades to help build a modern economy, but we're pulling the ladder up after us because we now take the position that doing so is bad" is a tough fucking sell.  "We got to do it, and it yielded big benefits for us.....but you can't".....if you can sell that, I will hire you to sell anything, on the spot.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...