JM

GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Meredith Poor said:

divided by 640 acres per square mile is 32812.5 square miles.
Square root of 32812.5 is a square sized 181 Miles East/West x 181 miles North/South.

'In the last decade'? Oil and gas has been leasing public land since the 1930's.

Anyone care to research the total area of the 'Nevada test site'? This is a radioactive wasteland less than 100 miles from Las Vegas.

The Permian basin is, by coincidence, about 180 miles x 180 miles.

Google maps has a 'Measure Distance' option, so one can draw a square around the Permian or other area to get an idea of the scale of a square 180 miles on a side.

Huge numbers are convenient for propaganda purposes. When one puts them in context, and particularly in comparison to other practices that have gone on for much longer, people realize what sort of manipulation is intended by the assertions.

I would love to educate you on the Permian Basin, but you'd call it a lie and go about your incredibly convoluted commentary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JoMack said:

I would love to educate you on the Permian Basin, but you'd call it a lie and go about your incredibly convoluted commentary.

Look up 'narcissist'. I suspect you've heard this mentioned before, somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/23/2021 at 3:04 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

The country and our economy is going to go through the roof with all the new investment. Thermal solar towers were indeed a mistake that occurred before the exponential cost decline of solar panels. No more will be built and when their contract runs out they will be shut down and replaced with standard panels. Technological advancement usually has a few dead ends along the way to success. Anyway if this is what you are going to try and hang your hat on, expect to be picking it up off of the ground because Ivanpah and Crescent Dunes have nothing to do with the future.

Such mistakes also happen in the fossil industry. A good example is the Inland Empire Energy Center which is being demolished after just a few years in operation because its turbines were a dead end design. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ge-power/general-electric-to-scrap-california-power-plant-20-years-early-idUSKCN1TM2MV

Says the resident Green Crusader, who drives an old BMW internal combustion engine. But actually, Jay, you are the harbinger of things to come, because sooner rather than later the realities of the false claims about climate change will be made apparent, and the good old CO2 emitting ICE vehicles will be the wave of the future again. You are already on the crest of the wave, Jay. Brilliant forecasting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

divided by 640 acres per square mile is 32812.5 square miles.
Square root of 32812.5 is a square sized 181 Miles East/West x 181 miles North/South.

'In the last decade'? Oil and gas has been leasing public land since the 1930's.

Anyone care to research the total area of the 'Nevada test site'? This is a radioactive wasteland less than 100 miles from Las Vegas.

The Permian basin is, by coincidence, about 180 miles x 180 miles.

Google maps has a 'Measure Distance' option, so one can draw a square around the Permian or other area to get an idea of the scale of a square 180 miles on a side.

Huge numbers are convenient for propaganda purposes. When one puts them in context, and particularly in comparison to other practices that have gone on for much longer, people realize what sort of manipulation is intended by the assertions.

The Permian basin is used only for oil production? That certainly is not the case in an area which I am familiar with, the Bakken.  You will notice as you drive through the Bakken areas that wheat and canola cover the land, with no conflict from oil production.

Where do you get this stuff?

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Says the resident Green Crusader, who drives an old BMW internal combustion engine. But actually, Jay, you are the harbinger of things to come, because sooner rather than later the realities of the false claims about climate change will be made apparent, and the good old CO2 emitting ICE vehicles will be the wave of the future again. You are already on the crest of the wave, Jay. Brilliant forecasting.

What a sad plea of desperation. I guess you ran out of unsubstantiated claims to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Sorry Mark but batteries are going to eliminate the fast start need, the need for spinning inertia, handle frequency events, and solve the problem of daily intermittency, etc. We have been over this before.

And you lost that earlier argument, and you mostly misunderstood what I posted.. You are talking about pushing aside what was mostly a much cheaper system and replacing it with expensive batteries and interconnections while still also requiring the gas plants. The batteries may take the edge off and give time for the peaking plants to start up, but the gas plants will still be required. End of story. This is not a recipe for creating jobs, it is one for destroying them. But I can see you are living in your own fantasy world. wouldn't you be better off on another forum where you can indulge your fantasies without difficult people like me pointing our realities? Anyway, I've probably spent enough time on this. Leave it with you.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

44 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

What a sad plea of desperation. I guess you ran out of unsubstantiated claims to make.

"Unsubstantiated"? Jay, you told me yourself that you drive an old BMW. What you do with your driving dollars tells us where your heart really is on this subject.

Oh, by the way, the problem with EV's appears to be that no one is really interested in them.

"Today, only 1% of total search share on Cars.com is for EVs."

Many people claim to be "interested" in EV's, but very few actually investigate them.

I am interested in skateboards, but I will not use one.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Two-Thirds-Of-Americans-Are-Interested-In-Electric-Vehicles.html

 

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Sorry Mark but batteries are going to eliminate the fast start need, the need for spinning inertia, handle frequency events, and solve the problem of daily intermittency, etc

I forgot to mention - the Californian capacity market.. Apparently it does not have a formal market but it may need one, giving just how the state grid is changing. I just looked up some figures and was shocked to see that the state imports about 25 per cent of its power. No wonder they have blackouts.. Forget all the renewable crap...  build more gas plants and start a capacity market.. Leave it with you.   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

The Permian basin is used only for oil production? That certainly is not the case in an area which I am familiar with, the Bakken.  You will notice as you drive through the Bakken areas that wheat and canola cover the land, with no conflict from oil production.

Where do you get this stuff?

Keep in mind PV is less "land intensive" than CSP. 

PV will also probably be very widely distributed as many homes and smart buildings end up with panels. 

Still the total land surface area needed isn't much:

https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-much-solar-would-it-take-to-power-the-u-s/

And that is with current efficiency.

I think CSP is interesting for brownfields.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

37 minutes ago, surrept33 said:

Keep in mind PV is less "land intensive" than CSP. 

PV will also probably be very widely distributed as many homes and smart buildings end up with panels. 

Still the total land surface area needed isn't much:

https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-much-solar-would-it-take-to-power-the-u-s/

And that is with current efficiency.

I think CSP is interesting for brownfields.

 

 

PV and CSP may be in your lingo, but they are not generally used terms, try and give a full-worded identification first time out, then use the alphabet soup lingo version in subsequent sentences.

You remind me of the NASA scientist who was interviewed on network television, telling us all about LOX storage and how it should be handled. I had no idea what LOX was, but later they told us it meant "liquid oxygen"...now, I knew what that was, but LOX is not really a technical term, it was just some lingo used by scientitsts.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, markslawson said:

And you lost that earlier argument, and you mostly misunderstood what I posted.. You are talking about pushing aside what was mostly a much cheaper system and replacing it with expensive batteries and interconnections while still also requiring the gas plants. The batteries may take the edge off and give time for the peaking plants to start up, but the gas plants will still be required. End of story. This is not a recipe for creating jobs, it is one for destroying them. But I can see you are living in your own fantasy world. wouldn't you be better off on another forum where you can indulge your fantasies without difficult people like me pointing our realities? Anyway, I've probably spent enough time on this. Leave it with you.  

No Mark, I am quite certain that it is my reporting of what California's doing with big batteries that is upsetting your fantasy world. At this point you are in complete denial of reality and wishing I would go away. Sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

PV and CSP may be in your lingo, but they are not generally used terms, try and give a full-worded identification first time out, then use the alphabet soup lingo version in subsequent sentences.

You are in an energy forum. PV and CSP are well known. Perhaps you should bother to do a little research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

PV and CSP may be in your lingo, but they are not generally used terms, try and give a full-worded identification first time out, then use the alphabet soup lingo version in subsequent sentences.

try deglossarifiying it:

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=PV+CSP

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

5 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You are in an energy forum. PV and CSP are well known. Perhaps you should bother to do a little research.

 

5 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You are in an energy forum. PV and CSP are well known. Perhaps you should bother to do a little research.

Jay, you remind me of an interview on network television where a NASA scientist described how LOX should be stored and handled. I had no idea what LOX was, but later they told us it meant "liquid oxygen". Well, I knew what liquid oxygen was, but "LOX" was not really a technical scientific term at all, it was just lingo used by scientists. 

This is part of your problem with connecting with the general public, if you want more than 1% of car buyers to look at your EV vehicles, you need to connect and explain your ideas. So far, you're getting a fail.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

5 minutes ago, surrept33 said:

try deglossarifiying it:

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=PV+CSP

Try de-lingoing it.

By the way, your answer was off the point.....you seemed to have some misconception about the disruption caused by oil extraction. I called you on it. 

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, markslawson said:

I forgot to mention - the Californian capacity market.. Apparently it does not have a formal market but it may need one, giving just how the state grid is changing. I just looked up some figures and was shocked to see that the state imports about 25 per cent of its power. No wonder they have blackouts.. Forget all the renewable crap...  build more gas plants and start a capacity market.. Leave it with you.   

Good grief, not that chestnut again. There is nothing wrong with importing electricity from other states. In fact interconnecting renewable generation across a wide geographic area is one of the best ways to build a resilient renewable based grid. We are building new HVDC to import even more electricity.

So it is ok to import all of our natural gas to make electricity here but it isn't ok to import our electricity directly from other states???

 

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

4 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Good grief, not that chestnut again. There is nothing wrong with importing electricity from other states. In fact interconnecting renewable generation across a wide geographic area is one of the best ways to build a resilient renewable based grid. We are building new HVDC to import even more electricity.

Now, there you go again. If you want to connect  to the general reader, drop the silly lingo and say what you mean in English.

HVDC? I don't use that in common parlance, although I am willing to allow some lingo terms like EV or ICE...hmm, on second thought I will be using full words for those hackneyed lingo-isms henceforth.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

Now, there you go again. If you want to connect  to the general reader, drop the silly lingo and say what you mean in English.

HVDC? I don't use that in common parlance, although I am willing to allow some lingo terms like EV or ICE...hmm, on second though I will be using full words for those hackneyed lingo-isms henceforth.

Good grief, your willing to allow?! Look, this is an energy forum, I am not trying to connect with the general reader. Everyone else here knows what it means and if they don't then they put it into Google and learn about it. You have to accept some responsibility and effort on your part and not expect everyone here to do all your work for you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

5 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Good grief, your willing to allow?! Look, this is an energy forum, I am not trying to connect with the general reader. Everyone else here knows what it means and if they don't then they put it into Google and learn about it. You have to accept some responsibility and effort on your part and not expect everyone here to do all your work for you. 

My explanation seemed to pass over your head, Jay. Let me try it again.

Most people know what those terms refer to, but they do not communicate in lingo using abbreviated letters.

If you want to use lingo instead of language, that is fine with me, but I will no longer use "EV" instead of electrified vehicle or "ICE" instead of internal combustion engine. The general reader may be more interested in these discussions than you realize.

 

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

My explanation seemed to pass over your head, Jay. Let me try it again.

Most people know what those terms refer to, but they do not communicate in lingo using abbreviated letters.

If you want to use lingo instead of language, that is fine with me, but I will no longer use "EV" instead of electrified vehicle or "ICE" instead of internal combustion engine. The general reader may be more interested in these discussions than you realize.

 

Yes and they need to Google terms they don't understand. That's what I do and if it still isn't clear I will politely ask for more information. If I write High Voltage Direct Current are you anymore elucidated than reading HVDC? Because I think both are equally meaningless until you go look it up or ask someone to explain it. Do I also have to provide a full definition of what High Voltage Direct Current is every time I use it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

13 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Yes and they need to Google terms they don't understand. That's what I do and if it still isn't clear I will politely ask for more information. If I write High Voltage Direct Current are you anymore elucidated than reading HVDC? Because I think both are equally meaningless until you go look it up or ask someone to explain it. Do I also have to provide a full definition of what High Voltage Direct Current is every time I use it? 

Jay, those are not "terms", they are jargonized lingo, and you seem to be confused by the difference. 

Sure, "high voltage direct current" is what I guessed it probably was, but I do not use electrical jargon in my daily work.

"CSP"? That abbreviation could refer to almost anything, not just "concentrated solar power". Everyone has some idea what concentrated solar power might mean, but CSP is strictly jargon. CSP is not a technical or scientific term. It is just lazy language.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, JoMack said:

OOPS!

 

 

image.png.31a118b7dd79f366dad673b90cb240ab.png

OOPS II.

Clipboard01.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

10 minutes ago, turbguy said:

OOPS II.

Clipboard01.jpg

More OOPS

BSEE: Crew mistakes caused 2013 gas well blowout, fire in gulf | Oil & Gas  Journal

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

43 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Jay, those are not "terms", they are jargonized lingo, and you seem to be confused by the difference. 

Sure, "high voltage direct current" is what I guessed it probably was, but I do not use electrical jargon in my daily work.

"CSP"? That abbreviation could refer to almost anything, not just "concentrated solar power". Everyone has some idea what concentrated solar power might mean, but CSP is strictly jargon. CSP is not a technical or scientific term. It is just lazy language.

Shorthand is useful for various reasons. It can decrease your S.M.O.G (Simple Measure of Gobbledygook). It makes things easier to read by being less mentally taxing.

I kind of expected people to know PV - even consumer solar panel companies market that term. I only brought up CSP because the image in the first post was a plant of that type, and it's important to contrast the (huge) differences between PV and CSP. The only thing that they have in common is they are both turn sunlight into electricity.

With many people expecting large shifts in the energy industry, increasing the fluency of what you consider non-familiar jargon (which is pretty arbitrary, anyways) only helps you in the long run. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

36 minutes ago, surrept33 said:

 

Shorthand is useful for various reasons. It can decrease your S.M.O.G (Simple Measure of Gobbledygook). It makes things easier to read by being less mentally taxing.

I kind of expected people to know PV - even consumer solar panel companies market that term. I only brought up CSP because the image in the first post was a plant of that type, and it's important to contrast the (huge) differences between PV and CSP. The only thing that they have in common is they are both turn sunlight into electricity.

With many people expecting large shifts in the energy industry, increasing the fluency of what you consider non-familiar jargon (which is pretty arbitrary, anyways) only helps you in the long run. 

Frankly, I have  better things to do with my time than to keep up with changing electrical jargon. 

Common practice is to use the full term in the first instance and then use an abbreviation later in the post.

 

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
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.