Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

We, as Americans, need to stop listening to the President. Also, make not mistake, he wants to be a fascist dictator.

I mean, really, how can you argue with that?

Heh. Well, when your own staff keeps saying "Don't take the President's words literally, take them seriously..."

I'm still not really sure what that even means. Is it a twist on "don't listen to what I say, listen to what I mean"?

[entropy]

DSL, depends on your definition of Is


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wild Hoss]

Heh. Well, when your own staff keeps saying "Don't take the President's words literally, take them seriously..."

I'm still not really sure what that even means. Is it a twist on "don't listen to what I say, listen to what I mean"?

It means that he's nonsensical but dangerous. IOW, a nutcase.

[Whitley]

Traditional Republicans want to go after entitlements; Trump does not. Because the dirty secret is 'conservative populism' is in favor of entitlements; they just think too many 'undeserving people (illegals, big city minorities, moochers, etc.) are abusing them.

Trump will seriously endanger his reelection if he betrays the populists. He's already risking things by (initially) siding with Ryan on Obamacare. Lots of poor rural folks got insurance through it. They aren't mad at Obamacare because they oppose govt involvement in healthcare on principle; they are mad at Obamacare for not living up to the promise of low premiums.

Well, it is interesting in a lot of those state (like Arizona) that have the skyrocketing premiums those legislature decided to not expand medicaid.

[hack]

That is indeed a tempting vision. But Iran is example #1 in why we should all fear the conjunction of religion with the state.

Don't you think pumping as much oil as we can pump would be good geopolitical policy? It would cut the nuts of both the Saudis and the Russians. But in this matter, as in the case of the Islamic Republic, religion is getting mixed up into politics. You better be very sure you are right about climate change when you start to add up the $ 1.9 Trillion annual cost globally.

Absolutely. But there need be no climate-change argument in order to push renewables. Make the argument on economics alone. Pushing renewables serves the same goal anyways, but creates valuable intellectual property at the same time that will have a longer economic value. Costs for solar just keep falling. 2.4 cents unsubsidized in Abu Dhabi. Lowest contract for power of any type anywhere at any time. Still getting cheaper, too.

And this:

[iam416]

The market for renewables is there. Solar needs to improve to be a major player in most major US markets. Obviously, Abu Dhabi is bit more conducive to solar than Detroit. But, when it does, it will work if its price competitive with other energy (excluding nuclear, since the US Govt has, more or less, blocked that from the marketplace). It just so happens that the market has foisted an abundance of traditional energy upon us at the moment.

Energy isn't a problem. Score yet another for the genius of humans. Food is pretty high up the list, too, though my favorite is still slingshotting a tiny satellite around Jupiter to within 12,000 km of Pluto, a "planet" 7.5 BILLION km away.

I say discount human ingenuity at your own peril.

[Dr. Strangelove]

The US formally apologizes to the British for accusing them of helping Obama spy on Trump. Supposedly both Spicer and McMaster called them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/17/us-makes-formal-apology-britain-white-house-accuses-gchq-wiretapping/

[iam416]

Also, California will be an interesting case study and perhaps model. I believe utilities are required to purchase a significant percentage of their power from renewables -- like 30-40% -- within the next few years. California has some fairly ideal weather and locations. We'll see how those costs compare to other states. They could be a shining example. Or not.

[Mainevent]

The US formally apologizes to the British for accusing them of helping Obama spy on Trump. Supposedly both Spicer and McMaster called them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...q-wiretapping/

I look forward to the President repeating this allocation or claiming they never apologized.

Regardless, Spicer's dance on this one will be interesting to watch. Maybe he'll just go a week without holding a presser.

[Hannibal]

If there are economic arguments in favor of solar, then let those economic arguments be made in a free market. There aren't any inefficiencies or economies of scale that require government intervention to get solar to work. God knows there has been more than enough private and public money dumped into it. It should be ready to go by now. If I can save money by replacing my roof with solar panels then I will gladly do it.

None of this apply to mobile sources though. Fossil fuels will be the most economical mobile sources of energy for our lifetimes at least. Probably our children's lifetimes too.

[Hannibal]

Absolutely. But there need be no climate-change argument in order to push renewables. Make the argument on economics alone. Pushing renewables serves the same goal anyways, but creates valuable intellectual property at the same time that will have a longer economic value. Costs for solar just keep falling. 2.4 cents unsubsidized in Abu Dhabi. Lowest contract for power of any type anywhere at any time. Still getting cheaper, too.

And this:

Also -- I want to see the assumptions behind this graph. Are they talking purely variable cost or are they talking all-in cost including capital? If so, what kind of $/MW-hr building cost, upkeep cost, cost of capital, and lifetime are they assuming for each? That's an important question since the inability of renewables like Wind and Solar to scale up to the huge levels provided by nuclear and fossil fuels is a big problem that renewables have.

[hack]

If there are economic arguments in favor of solar, then let those economic arguments be made in a free market.

There's no free market for petroleum-based energy either.

As for cost assumptions in that screenshot, well, I'd assume they are in there because that's standard. Morgan Stanley's analysts aren't true believer/cheerleaders, and have clients with a sufficient degree of sophistication. And, what the heck else would represent costs? You don't pay the sun.

[hack]

Also, California will be an interesting case study and perhaps model. I believe utilities are required to purchase a significant percentage of their power from renewables -- like 30-40% -- within the next few years. California has some fairly ideal weather and locations. We'll see how those costs compare to other states. They could be a shining example. Or not.

Ontario is a good case study in what not to do -- offer the market conditions too generous, and be stuck charging too much as a result. It's definitely time to let some of this stuff stand on its own.

Overall in the US though, you have a great opportunity to connect the most solar-rich area, in the southwest, to a population-rich area up and down the coast. And in the northeast, you have tons of gas right next to the biggest population concentration. The positioning of people and resource is good.

[Hannibal]

There's no free market for petroleum-based energy either.

You are right. Petroleum-based products are subject to an astronomical amount of taxes and regulations that masssively drive up their costs. The only non-market benefit that fossil fuel based products like oil and gas have is the use of eminent domain, which they do pay out the ass for. But there is no free market alternative to it.

[hack]

The are also corporate welfare queens.