Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

From Winston Churchill's Grandson, a Conservative MP:

[ame]https://twitter.com/nsoamesmp/status/843889823270293514[/ame]

[Jeff Buchanan]

Hack:


Well, when I make a statement, or take issue with one of yours, I attach an example or a link. You don't. Or I concede the point, as I did with " the government doesn't require anyone to build a plant.." or whatever you said. I continually point out the bankruptcy of your ideas, and you cannot defend them.

I strongly suspect that you are realizing that much of what you hold to be true (and to be necessary) is based on climate change, which is the shorthand we have agreed upon for anthropogenic global warming. All of this "..renewable energy of the wave of the future..." won't happen during your lifetime (credit to Hanni), and probably won't happen at all. The US should be finding economically viable ways lower the cost of energy at every opportunity. That is one of the largest comparative advantages the US has in manufacturing, and will also be important as we become more robot-centric in the economy in general. Cheap energy is one thing Talent sells trying to bring plants to Ohio. Why then do we spend time, money, and energy developing renewables? Hey, get your economics out of the 1970's, and your religion out of government.

Look ...... I'll try to be an unbiased moderator of the dialogue between you to which is interesting because it is coming from two very different world views.

Geeze, I don't see anyone's ideas as being "bankrupt." They are ideas; to degrade them suggests the degrader is not open to alternate views. It's fine to say you don't agree, like, well, there is room for more than one position on a particular issue.

Hack, sometimes I don't get what facts you charge Geezer with not presenting to support a position he might articulate here. Admittedly, I may not read deeply enough into your arguments or Geezers but I get the gist of where each of you is coming from on the issues you frequently debate, e.g., renewable energy as the correct pathway forward v. cheaper carbon based energy v. nuclear.

I think one thing I do see more from Geezer than Hack is chasing a side statement down, one that is not particularly relevant to the initial issue, and the debate gets clouded - harder to understand where each side is coming from. Both of you do this ...... and again, admittedly, this kind of venue is not great for really constructive debate on most issues; not terrible but it's not great either.

Try this:

Geezer, defend the role of carbon based energy alternatives as the primary source of energy in powering the global economy.

Hack, defend the position that renewable energy alternatives should and can replace carbon based energy alternatives in powering the global economy.

I think this debate has been had, in bits and pieces - some positions, not all of them, on both sides, have been posted and facts to support that position provided; it is just hard to follow all the posts.

I'll try to keep up. This is a highly relevant debate.

[froot loops]

I guess I don't understand Geezer talking about nuclear if he wants everyone to fight it out based on market dynamics. Nuclear needs a ton of government assistance to get plants off the ground.

China is spending a boatload of money on renewable energy, there is a reason for that.

[hack]

Hack, defend the position that renewable energy alternatives should and can replace carbon based energy alternatives in powering the global economy.


I'll pass, thanks. Like I said, if the debate is to start from a sane, facts-based we can have it. Talent is no fan of, well, whatever part of the climate debate he's not a fan of, but that debate was grounded on the facts the other day. Until it wasn't.

[froot loops]

Lots of bombshells in today's hearing. Comey stating the Russia collusion with Trump campaign wasn't in the IC report that Clapper referenced a month back is because it was part of an active investigation.

[SeattleLionsFan]

Re Paris Picture I think it was surprising and despite my efforts I cannot pin down where it came from. Where did you get it? Also, what do you take from the picture (what's the point of it)?

As far as I can tell it's a picture of the Place de la republique. It had become a makeshirtdt memorial in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, and for the other victims of terrorism. It was cleaned in august of 2016.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Also said that neither the FBI nor the entire DOJ has any evidence to back up Trump's "wiretapping" claims. Sad!

[Dr. Strangelove]

It does appear that Entropy's picture may be in the wrong chronological order. This article says it was cleaned of all graffiti in 2013.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/16/paris-place-de-la-publique

[Da Geezer]

I guess I don't understand Geezer talking about nuclear if he wants everyone to fight it out based on market dynamics. Nuclear needs a ton of government assistance to get plants off the ground.

China is spending a boatload of money on renewable energy, there is a reason for that.

I'm certainly not advocating for nuclear. I simply wanted to know why it was a bad idea to locate nuclear plants on the coast. I thought hack was joking when he talked about putting them on ships. Now I find that tsunamis are a danger to coastal plants, so locating them on ships is actually happening.

froot: China is spending lots on all forms of energy, including renewables. It is also the largest consumer of coal used in generating electricity. But, China is in a different stage of development than the US, and they need "more" of everything.

And, yes, I am using free market principals. I am fully aware there are no totally free markets, but, without using the market, how is one to determine what the most efficient manner of production is?

I disagree with Talent when he says that the supply problem is solved as it pertains to energy. And, I disagree with Talent and Hack when they say that renewables produce energy as cheaply as coal or gas fired plants. They are not counting the cost of maintaining a second, separate, form of energy production as a stand-by for those periods of time when wind or solar are not producing energy. The big flaw in renewables is that the wind doesn't always blow, and the sun doesn't always shine.

Most importantly, I don't think it is the government's place to tell citizens what to think about open scientific questions. And I don't think it is the government' place to favor one religion over another. Almost everyone here wants abortion to remain legal because to have it illegal reflects the Judeo-Christian view of morality. Separation of church and state. I've seen no evidence of AGW, and I particularly note that there is no predictive content in that religion. So I don't like government playing favorites with subsidies to those who believe as they do.

[Da Geezer]

Geezer, defend the role of carbon based energy alternatives as the primary source of energy in powering the global economy.

I won't defend carbon-based energy only, but I'll call it "economic" forms of energy production. The reason I make that distinction is to include hydroelectric and nuclear. I call it "economic" because carbon-based, hydro, and nuclear have developed in a free market where their economic viability was the first consideration in their development.

Trying to not be redundant, there are two major considerations for picking a method of electricity production. The first is the cost of the inputs. The second is the continuity of the energy supply. I concede that cost of inputs can, and probably will, make renewables price-competitive for the generation of the next megawatt. But the case for "economic" generation is that it is continuous, or put another way, it is not dependent on location for efficiency.

BTW, that's why I believe increasing battery efficiency is the most important area of experimentation for making renewables usable for the masses. Continuity and mobility are what limits renewables.

[AlabamAlum]

It does appear that Entropy's picture may be in the wrong chronological order. This article says it was cleaned of all graffiti in 2013.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...de-la-publique

Google Street View has an image from May 2016. It looks pretty bad in it. So, I assume it's just defiled and cleaned now over and over again. I go back to Paris in August. It better be clean upon my return, DSL. I'm holding you personally responsible.

AAlum,
Chief Moderator

[SeattleLionsFan]

If you look at the photos associated with Street View, there was one from October 2016, that shows it clean again after its August 2016 cleaning.

[AlabamAlum]

Yeah. Like I said, it's a wash, rinse, repeat thing. My only personal photo of that I found was from 2007. Some graffiti but not to the May level or the one Ent posted.

[Jeff Buchanan]

I won't defend carbon-based energy only, but I'll call it "economic" forms of energy production.

I sense you don't want to get pinned down on the economic viability (all cost) of carbon based energy production even though it is far and away the biggest contributor to that production*.

*https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

You've broadened the method of energy production to include Nuclear and Hydroelectric. In doing so you've managed to evade arguing for what some of us believe your position is:

Carbon based energy production, including all the costs of production, is more economically viable than renewables.

Is this your position?

But the case for "economic" generation is that it is continuous, or put another way, it is not dependent on location for efficiency.

This argument, to me, fails on an important level: Hydroelectric Power is no different than wind generated electrical power in terms of location dependency. Two fluids, air and water, are certainly not always available. Therefore I see no usefulness in your trying to broaden the scope of power generation to include these.

We're still interested in hearing your defense of carbon based energy production. I think it is an economically viable means of production. The question to me is the environmental cost, in terms of harm done by it, a cost that can be born or mitigated through advances in technology by society?

Is it your position that it can be? If so, what facts can you offer to support that position?

[hack]

I'll let Geezer fend for himself on all that, but, one note: dams are not variable like wind or solar. As long as there's enough rain, you can turn the turbines on or off any time. Dams are quite flexible in that sense. Where dams have a reliability issue is when there's drought. If the water reservoir falls below a certain ratio, you can't let more out to pass through the turbines and generate power.

Geezer's whole thing is a false equivalence though. Were you building a power sector from scratch, Geezer would have a point. With technology as we know it today, you can't run the whole thing on wind or solar. They are not ``base load'' forms of energy, in that you can't count on them all the time. You have to have something complementary. It doesn't have to be conventional. It can be a dam. So investment in wind and solar if you are building a power sector from scratch would factor in that cost. Sometimes. Let's say you wanted to power an office park with an off-the-grid, ringfenced power system. An office park that uses 98% of its power from 9-5 and with servers and other 24-hour stuff elsewhere would be fine on renewables and battery storage. Or, if you wanted to cheap out, a diesel generator as backup.

We are not building from scratch. We have base-load power. An investment decision today in which you pick gas or solar/wind doesn't factor this in. The question from here is having the right energy mix. As was pointed out in the facts-based/pre-Geezer segment of the discussion, that all-renewable power sector thing is just a lefty fantasy. Unless you're Denmark. The reality is that the right mix of sources would do. If I have it right, the estimate is that overall, renewables in the global energy-use mix would have to rise from 18% to 36% in order for the world to meet the targets set at the Paris conference. You don't have to completely shut out fossil fuels, nor do you necessarily want to. Especially in the power sector. You just retire the coal, add wind, solar and a bit of gas as a transition source, and wait for battery capacity to scale up. And, whether Geezer wants to admit it or not, capitalists who build power plants are already finding renewables economic in plenty of circumstances.