Most ridiculous green proposal

[pfarley@bigpond.net.au + 36]

16 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

Mr powerful, you are obviously right here. Australia has the best combo of Solar and wind. Just that the copper miners and wire layers will be the ones making the money from selling power to S.E. Asia. They will still need LNG to back up the downtimes, far cheaper outlay of capital than the battery systems alternative.

That is not as clear as it would appear, because battery investment at both ends will reduce the size of the cable required. Improving cable utilisation has significant benefits in capex efficiency. LNG cannot perform the same function and of course it has operating costs. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, 0R0 said:

The agreement is illegal since it is collusion of auto companies facilitated by the State of CA. It dictates national adoption of std equipment that increases the price of the cars on all consumers within and without CA, thus that agreement is invalid outside  CA and CA can not enforce it. Antitrust action can be brought against the signatory automakers and criminal charges against the CA negotiator signed on the contract. This is an act of CA claiming a US national jurisdiction through the ruse of a "voluntary agreement" so is illegal and the auto makers can't face repercussions from ignoring it.

If someone wants to challenge the deal, it is likely going to crumble in court, particularly if Federal gov. intervenes in it.

The DOJ dropped their investigation 9 months ago and Trump did nothing more about it. The agreement was carefully crafted to avoid antitrust action.

https://www.autoblog.com/2020/02/10/trump-antitrust-investigation-automakers-california/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHZIdQ02we7hH2L_LCca9CTNfoV8K10biJzGNuhBZK8meaAVeDKx49E11_YdFdPyVL6tgUnChb1TlbWDVUljtwy4IffAaxmZZBlv4COdecbiRXnAZGotKaKCvrtErWVwiaDXgerV5qin2z9OOXo4Eg7k3wfaA3tcCjBhFt5J3UfE

Edited November 3, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[pfarley@bigpond.net.au + 36]

39 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

The agreement is illegal since it is collusion of auto companies facilitated by the State of CA. It dictates national adoption of std equipment that increases the price of the cars on all consumers within and without CA, thus that agreement is invalid outside  CA and CA can not enforce it. Antitrust action can be brought against the signatory automakers and criminal charges against the CA negotiator signed on the contract. This is an act of CA claiming a US national jurisdiction through the ruse of a "voluntary agreement" so is illegal and the auto makers can't face repercussions from ignoring it.

If someone wants to challenge the deal, it is likely going to crumble in court, particularly if Federal gov. intervenes in it.

What we call over here an opinion from a bush lawyer, not worth the paper its written on

[pfarley@bigpond.net.au + 36]

40 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

Its a start.

I am sure you would love it, no police, no public roads, no public education or health, no enforcable contracts, no food standards, no electricity or water grids. No defence forces, No government funded R&D, just war lords everywhere who impose their own arbitrary taxes and laws 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

4 hours ago, pfarley@bigpond.net.au said:

I am sure you would love it, no police, no public roads, no public education or health, no enforcable contracts, no food standards, no electricity or water grids. No defence forces, No government funded R&D, just war lords everywhere who impose their own arbitrary taxes and laws 

Pretty sure that was satire or sarcasm on @0R0's part.  I think you would find him on the opposite side of your argument.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

20 hours ago, pfarley@bigpond.net.au said:

I am sure you would love it, no police, no public roads, no public education or health, no enforcable contracts, no food standards, no electricity or water grids. No defence forces, No government funded R&D, just war lords everywhere who impose their own arbitrary taxes and laws 

No police: No

No public roads: No

No public education: Yes(USA had better reading/math test scores before public education and higher education rates for whole population)

No public Health: Yes includes the VA, get rid of it.  A lot fewer wars... and had far lower health costs and most developments from today were all developed WITHOUT public health Medicare which came into force in the 1980's which also saw a gargantuan increase in costs.

No enforceable contracts: No

No food standards imposed: Yes, who the Hell are you to tell me what I can or cannot buy?  Now if you wish to say that the Gov should set standards which food must be LABELED as, OK but to disallow what I can buy/sell?  F' OFF!

No elelctricy/water grids: No

No defense forces: No

No Gvmnt R&D: Yes, get the rampant corruption out of the biology, geology departments of our universities caused by it

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

8 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

 

No Gvmnt R&D: Yes, get the rampant corruption out of the biology, geology departments of our universities caused by it

Oh yes please expand for us your ideas on rampant corruption in the geology department. 

[0R0 + 6,251]

On 11/3/2020 at 1:05 AM, pfarley@bigpond.net.au said:

I am sure you would love it, no police, no public roads, no public education or health, no enforcable contracts, no food standards, no electricity or water grids. No defence forces, No government funded R&D, just war lords everywhere who impose their own arbitrary taxes and laws 

You mean like Democrats and particular airhead progressive greens and Marxist "more equals"? I would say you pretty much describe what we have now.

Edited November 4, 2020 by 0R0

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 11/3/2020 at 3:27 PM, 0R0 said:

Mr powerful, you are obviously right here. Australia has the best combo of Solar and wind. Just that the copper miners and wire layers will be the ones making the money from selling power to S.E. Asia. They will still need LNG to back up the downtimes, far cheaper outlay of capital than the battery systems alternative.

Yeah, you are correct that the batteries are the most expensive part of the system, and that LNG backup will be required, but it doesn't change the direction the market is heading. Don't forget, I am not talkin just electricity, but green H2 as well.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

23 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

No Gvmnt R&D:

With that you would eliminate huge branches of important research.

Any research that is not directly tired to short-term product development would not be funded / conducted.

No research on fundamental physics, chemistry, etc.  No expensive particle colliders, space stations, etc. that require international partnerships. Essentially no environmental protection research unless regulated (polluter pays principle). 

 

[0R0 + 6,251]

15 hours ago, Wombat said:

Yeah, you are correct that the batteries are the most expensive part of the system, and that LNG backup will be required, but it doesn't change the direction the market is heading. Don't forget, I am not talkin just electricity, but green H2 as well.

The green H2 is interesting as it allows you to put up more capacity than required and store the excess energy production as H2. Which you can also move around on any infrastructure. Presumably to the same end market in SE Asia. Now what of the H2 consumption system? It has to be built for distribution and burning.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

On 11/5/2020 at 9:35 AM, 0R0 said:

The green H2 is interesting as it allows you to put up more capacity than required and store the excess energy production as H2. Which you can also move around on any infrastructure. Presumably to the same end market in SE Asia. Now what of the H2 consumption system? It has to be built for distribution and burning.

Alberta's new "green" H2 projects are just partial oxidized natural gas with CO2 sequestration.  The produced hydrogen just goes back into the established natural gas network, at least at first. 

https://www.alberta.ca/natural-gas-vision-and-strategy.aspx