Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

Weeks after denying this would happen, Ivanka Trump is getting an office in the West Wing and has requested security clearance. Won't collect a salary (her dad is, despite promises he wouldn't) but will officially become a member of the staff it sounds like.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Conservative congressmen 'terribly frustrated' after a meeting at the WH on healthcare. Sounds like the moderates are winning the battle.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/20/politics/republicans-count-votes-health-care/index.html

[Dr. Strangelove]

Same recycled campaign speech for Trump in Louisville. He's supposed to be promoting the Republican Health Plan. He's not even talking about it. We're 25 minutes in. He's spending a lot of time on trade & manufacturing, one of the few issues he has genuine and consistent feelings about.

[Dr. Strangelove]

He's finally talking about Obamacare. Can't wait till its over so he can get to what he's looking forward to: massive tax cuts and ripping up trade deals.

Also, FoxNews suspends Judge Napolitano from the air until further notice. This is who the WH is relying upon as their 'very credible" source for British collusion with Obama to spy on Trump.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-napolitano-fox-news-20170320-story.html

[Jeff Buchanan]

......The question from here is having the right energy mix. ....... The reality is that the right mix of sources would do. ......You don't have to completely shut out fossil fuels, nor do you necessarily want to. Especially in the power sector. ........

If I'm reading Geezer right, this fundamental concept seems to elude him or at least his posts would seem to suggest that. If I'm misreading you Geezer, my apologies....... my guess is that you know there needs to be a mix and a declining portion of that mix going forward is going to be carbon based energy but to admit that would dilute many of the free market positions you have staked out. Those depend on uncompromising profit motive to develop energy production capacity and carbon based energy sources make the most sense for those so motivated.

I think there is enough of your posts here for me to conclude that you see carbon based energy production as the most profitable and therefore the most logical choice for free market capitalists to invest in as the way to power the global economy going forward. I respect that view although I don't agree with it as the right path forward.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Republicans be like:

[iam416]

capitalists who build power plants are already finding renewables economic in plenty of circumstances.

Lots of entrepreneurs out there looking for better ways to do renewables and lots of other ways to improve energy consumption. In Ohio I can talk directly about waste-to-fuel and some awesomely cool fuel cell technology (well, sort of -- I only get 30,000-ft stuff on that). The markets are there, entrepreneurs WILL DELIVER and we WILL have an every improving "energy system" that will remain, more or less, market-based.

I understand that renewables are were subsidized for reasons set forth by hack, but in the US it wasn't a particularly high expenditure. More importantly, it's done. Solar, at least, is getting to the point where the entrepreneurs take over and make it work or don't. And I would never bet against human ingenuity -- except for in the case of fusion.

Embrace it all, I say. It's really, really simple in my book: energy erodes poverty. The more, cheaper energy we have, the better.

I see some parallels to the information age. A mere 35 years ago, it cost roughly $1000 in today's dollars for a personal computer with 64K memory -- a glorified typewriter. Throw in some modest government investment in setting up the infrastructure and an entrepreneurial tsunami, and now you can live stream the NCAA tournament on your fucking phone while looking up stats for any given player. It's stunning. No longer do males need to go a quest for shoddy VHS porn or, heaven forbid, magazines.

[Hannibal]

You might be able to get some significant use out of solar and wind for stationary sources, but for mobile sources, you are fighting the laws of thermodynamics. No amount of human ingenuity can add more BTUs to a gallon of ethanol, and even with miracles in genetic engineering there are only so many ethanol gallons that you can get out of an acre of corn. That's why 15 years ago driving through the state of Ohio you passsed a bunch of soybean fields, but now you drive by a bunch of corn fields, and food prices have still skyrocketed since then. There are a lot of other things that are physically possible but that will never make economic sense in our lifetimes. And most of these alternative ideas aren't new. Some of them have been around since the 1970s at least

[hack]

Magazines are the coal of porn.

[hack]

You might be able to get some significant use out of solar and wind for stationary sources, but for mobile sources, you are fighting the laws of thermodynamics.

I wouldn't rule out battery technology scaling up to a point at which owning a non-hybrid electric car presents no charging challenge. But, even if that doens't happen, that's fine. Transportation accounts for less than a third of energy use (here). A significant greening of the power sector is feasible and economic and would go a long way toward satisfying the US' Paris committments. Back out the coal use, at 16% (here), and scale up renewables and nuclear with a side of gas until Elon Musk figures it out.

[iam416]

You might be able to get some significant use out of solar and wind for stationary sources, but for mobile sources, you are fighting the laws of thermodynamics. No amount of human ingenuity can add more BTUs to a gallon of ethanol, and even with miracles in genetic engineering there are only so many ethanol gallons that you can get out of an acre of corn. That's why 15 years ago driving through the state of Ohio you passsed a bunch of soybean fields, but now you drive by a bunch of corn fields, and food prices have still skyrocketed since then. There are a lot of other things that are physically possible but that will never make economic sense in our lifetimes. And most of these alternative ideas aren't new. Some of them have been around since the 1970s at least

Well, ethanol is a another story. I would probably pull the plug, entirely, on that boondoggle. As for other sources of energy, I certainly don't think solar/wind or any other source will replace carbon as the majority source of energy. However, I do expect other sources to contribute to energy production. I also expect lots of advancements that continue to improve efficiency in energy consumption.

I feel entirely comfortable with these expectations.

I should also note, I'm for more and cheaper energy. I'm not in favor of taking anything off the grid that advances this underlying principle. I am all in favor of, e.g., nuclear. And I would keep coal until comparably priced alternatives are available.

[Dr. Strangelove]

New electronics on flights policy is sort of odd...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/21/us/politics/tsa-ban-electronics-laptops-cabin.html?_r=0

Why does the policy only apply to foreign airlines coming from those airports and not US carriers as well? Individual airlines don't control security; the airport staff does. So if the screening at Abu Dhabi airport is inadequate, shouldn't it be equally bad for all airlines?

There's speculation this this may be partly aimed at harming the business of Middle Eastern airlines who have been rapidly growing in international prominence. Given Trump's protectionist bent, this is not altogether unreasonable to think this may be playing a role.

[iam416]

Finally, I shit on environmental activists for a number of reasons. However, activism in the energy area has helped create the market for alternative energy sources. Whether you buy into the DISASTER prognostications or not, I can at least appreciate their role in helping to drive the creating of new, viable sources of energy. Now, they have also bludgeoned nuclear and probably have pie-in-the-sky visions of a green revolution, but I think it's worth acknowledging their role in what will likely be a positive outcome.

Don't get me wrong, they're still asshats in the aggregate!

[hack]

New electronics on flights policy is sort of odd...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/21/us/politics/tsa-ban-electronics-laptops-cabin.html?_r=0

Why does the policy only apply to foreign airlines coming from those airports and not US carriers as well? Individual airlines don't control security; the airport staff does. So if the screening at Abu Dhabi airport is inadequate, shouldn't it be equally bad for all airlines?

There's speculation this this may be partly aimed at harming the business of Middle Eastern airlines who have been rapidly growing in international prominence. Given Trump's protectionist bent, this is not altogether unreasonable to think this may be playing a role.

But its Emirates, Dubai's airline, that has led that charge. This so far targets two smaller, state-run airlines. And it's not as if you have US airlines coming in and out of those places, save for Istanbul. You'd be doing it on behalf of European airlines, if you're thinking that way.

TBH, in a way, I can't blame them, because this is a problem, but in truth they should be targeting airport authorities. Cairo flights are targeted, and they damn well should be. The airports are run by old generals, aren't secure, and in the aftermath of incidents it's just an utter shitshow.

[hack]

I'll get your message to the Aggregasshat Committee for Outreach. We thank you for your support.

I guess it depends on whether you are minded to believe Morgan Stanley's investment research people or Team Geezer, and both do have their limitations as sources, but wind and solar are cheaper than coal in average scenarios, according to that graphic I posted last week, and that's according to a standard industry metric. I think the big question with coal is whether you allow those plants to be used for their full lifetimes or mandate closure. From a system-level perspective, you should clearly rank them by emissions and close them as you can when new plants are ready. I'd be ready to do that, but without Such a government intervention there will likely be a market mechanism to force the same outcome. Electricity is bought from generators in short-term auctions, so if it's true that wind and solar are so competitive, those generators will be able to underbid owners of coal-fired assets anyways. Geezer should be happy about that.