"Renewable" Energy or Hydrocarbons Keeping People From Freezing Their Butts Off This Week in U.S.?

[ronwagn + 6,290]

22 hours ago, NickW said:

As Taamvan said - there is a certain value in having a mix of energy sources. 

Wind and solar have never been promoted as an option to meet all transportation and heating needs. 

Tell that to AOC and a large percentage of liberals. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 1/31/2019 at 12:24 PM, NickW said:

Post that linky then and lets have a look

Anyway - nothing stopping anyone filming from the roadside. They are not military sites and I assume the USA, like the UK hasn't turned into a fascist state. 

We are well on our way to becoming a fascist state. Illinois now has a completely Democrat controlled state which is a haven for illegal aliens. Chicago is about to go bankrupt as the whole state will eventually. State employee's retirement plans are severely underfunded. Illinois is losing population, and I will eventually be leaving. Property taxes are sky high. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

23 hours ago, sandbun said:

Considering the big power issues that occurred during the polar vortex in 2014 generally involving either natural gas - pipelines freezing/slowing down the flow or other issues with keeping the plants supplied with natural gas - or issues at coal plants where the equipment there failed or the coal piles themselves just froze solid and couldn't be moved/used, not sure why all the big concern with green energy sources this time around. Unless, you know, you just wanted an excuse to kick the hippies. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/3/16844854/energy-markets-coal-bailout-winter-cold-snap

Because you can depend on natural gas a lot more than anything else for heating. 

[NickW + 2,714]

23 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

You should probably read the actual "Green New Deal" being championed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  Here is a link and an excerpt:

A Green New Deal

TRANSFORM TO A LOW-CARBON ECONOMY

The United States needs to reduce its annual greenhouse emissions from 2016 by 16 percent to achieve our 2025 reduction target communicated through the Paris Agreement, and 77 percent to reach our 2050 target. To strive for the global goal of a 1.5-degree future, the U.S. should aim for zero net emissions by mid-century. This requires massive economic and technological transformation in how we create and consume energy, build structures, and transport people and goods. This transformation must accelerate now.

CLEAN & RENEWABLE ENERGY

✔ 100% Clean and Renewable Electricity by 2035

All electricity consumed in America must be generated by renewable sources, including solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, sustainable biomass, and renewable natural gas, as well as clean sources such as nuclear and remaining fossil fuel with carbon capture.

✔ Zero Net Emissions from Energy by 2050

We must end all emissions from fossil fuels. The full U.S. economy can and must run on a mix of energy that is either zero-emission or 100 percent carbon capture by mid-century. This includes residential, commercial, and industrial electricity; thermal energy; and transportation.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

✔ 100% Net-Zero Building Energy Standards by 2030

Buildings can stand and operate for over 100 years, and current building standards are not in line with goals for deep decarbonization. Yet buildings also have the highest potential for low-cost emission reductions of all sectors. We must start constructing and retrofitting to the highest performance standards now to avoid locking in outdated technology and to reach these goals by mid-century. New technological innovation every year will push the potential of building and industrial efficiency, helping American citizens and businesses lower energy costs and be more competitive.

TRANSPORTATION

✔ 100% Zero Emission Passenger Vehicles by 2030

The technologies already exist; we only need to scale-up charging infrastructure and consumer incentives to transition 100 percent of sales to zero emission passenger and light duty vehicles by 2030, followed with a swift phase out of internal combustion engines.

✔ 100% Fossil-Free Transportation by 2050

To reach decarbonization goals, we must transition away quickly from the use of fossil fuels in aviation, heavy duty vehicles, and rail. Not everything can be electrified, meaning we must innovate and scale up the next generation of biofuels and carbon-neutral fuels.

 

I should have clarified - by anyone who isn't a complete imbecile 

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

Tell that to AOC and a large percentage of liberals. 

As an eco pragmatist I would take the position that if you want a BAU economy in a cold climate then the only way you can go completely non fossil fuel is either by having huge hydro electric resources relative to your population base (New Zealand and Norway good examples of this gift of geography) or go big time nuclear. 

In the absence of either of the above then a mix of renewal and fossil fuel resources is a realistic mix. Such a mix might look like this. 

25% Wind

15% Solar

25 % other renewables (Waste to energy, Biomass, Hydro, tidal, geothermal) 

35% fossil fuels - ideally gas but perhaps some coal thrown in for security of supply and coal is relatively easy to stockpile

The development of cheaper storage may help reduce the FF component. 

The above is supply share not generating capacity.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 minute ago, NickW said:

As an eco pragmatist I would take the position that if you want a BAU economy in a cold climate then the only way you can go completely non fossil fuel is either by having huge hydro electric resources relative to your population base (New Zealand and Norway good examples of this gift of geography) or go big time nuclear. 

In the absence of either of the above then a mix of renewal and fossil fuel resources is a realistic mix. Such a mix might look like this. 

25% Wind

15% Solar

25 % other renewables (Waste to energy, Biomass, Hydro, tidal, geothermal) 

35% fossil fuels - ideally gas but perhaps some coal thrown in for security of supply and coal is relatively easy to stockpile

The development of cheaper storage may help reduce the FF component. 

The above is supply share not generating capacity.

That might work but I think it would be better to establish more like 60% natural gas and the rest whatever you choose. Natural gas is also the best for electric generation both cost wise and environmentally IMHO but if wind and solar etc. are preferable to others that is fine too. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

12 hours ago, Jeff_Calgary said:

Ron - That is on the portion of ones income that is greater than $10 million dollars so it really does not affect 99.9% of the people. In the 1950's and 60's the tax rate in the US on incomes at that level was 90%. Was that not the GOP good old days? You need to watch the 'news' part of Fox-not the 'opinion' part seeing as they just make stuff up.

Read this https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx

We should only raise tax rates if we cut expenditures first. I would start with illegal aliens and getting more for our defense dollars. Build the wall to cut illegal alien expense. Cut the number of government employees etc. Once that was all locked in I might be ready for a small increase in taxes. 

Edited February 2, 2019 by ronwagn

[taamvan + 19]

I begin with the rough proposition that we are using 130% of the annual solar input to sustain 7BN people.   Obv. we could never capture 100% of the insolation of the Earth which demonstrates how much more than the baseload input of the Sun = Earth equation (wind, solar, hydro, crops, inherent heating) is being expressed in therms (sic) of fossil sources.    

Carbon is a great limiting factor in Earth's natural growth (in the absence of humans and the prevalence of plants) but in a managed human biosphere carbon re-expression into the biosphere has to be considered in every equation otherwise we are only shooting ourselves in the foot in any rational assessment

Edited February 2, 2019 by taamvan

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, taamvan said:

I begin with the rough proposition that we are using 130% of the annual solar input to sustain 7BN people.   Obv. we could never capture 100% of the insolation of the Earth which demonstrates how much more than the baseload input of the Sun = Earth equation (wind, solar, hydro, crops, inherent heating) is being expressed in therms (sic) of fossil sources.    

Carbon is a great limiting factor in Earth's natural growth (in the absence of humans and the prevalence of plants) but in a managed human biosphere carbon re-expression into the biosphere has to be considered in every equation otherwise we are only shooting ourselves in the foot in any rational assessment

Im not sure what you are trying to say here. The suns energy falling on the earth dwarfs the entirety of what the world consumes in terms of fossil, nuclear or renewable energy. 

 

At any given times approx 173000 TW of solar energy hit the earth. That equates to approx 1.75bn twh per year. 

Global electricity production is about 21000 twh which is the equivalent in joules to about 6 minutes of solar energy. 

 

[David Jones + 84]

The question seems moot. The idea of 100% renewables is still far off on any plan, most of the time we're talking 20-30 years and I'm guessing these usually assume some level of storage, often a lot so during cold spells you could be running on backup storage for the most part. It's unlikely that these temperatures would hold for months or even weeks at a time. As mentioned above, modern wind turbines work down to -30c and future incarnations might improve on this. Also, you are not going to have -50c for a long time across major section of the populated world. In a larger, globalized renewables system that is interconnected across more of the world, local occurrences can be compensated for by power delivery from other regions. Superconducting transmission lines can be built to provide global connectivity for a functional 100% renewable system down the road that might even work without major storage. There's been plenty of advancement on this front lately. The trouble with the old world thinking is exactly that, limited perspective and the acceptance of or even desire for excessive conflicts between nations in order to be "on top" all the time. When everyone tries to be at the top and will accept nothing less, eventually nobody will be.

The question is not whether renewables work or whether we have the technology to go 100% renewable in 20-30 years, we have this and what remains is quasi in the pipeline. The question is really whether human beings will learn to work together sufficiently in order to enable this transition to proceed properly before substantial climate damages arrive in 20-40 years. That's within the lifetime of most people born beyond the range of 1960-1980, at least in the developed world where life expectancy is close to 80 years.

Edited February 2, 2019 by David Jones

[David Jones + 84]

On ‎1‎/‎31‎/‎2019 at 11:37 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

I'm guessing you have never been face to face with a militant anti - oil & gas extremist.

"Renewable" energy is not exactly "cleaner" than natural gas, despite media hype.

Knock yourself out with "renewable" energy.  Just don't scream that oil & gas is evil and will kill the human race.

"Renewable" energy will not replace oil & gas any time soon.

 

You mean kinds who are concerned about their future?

[David Jones + 84]

On ‎1‎/‎31‎/‎2019 at 11:51 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

You should probably read the actual "Green New Deal" being championed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  Here is a link and an excerpt:

A Green New Deal

TRANSFORM TO A LOW-CARBON ECONOMY

The United States needs to reduce its annual greenhouse emissions from 2016 by 16 percent to achieve our 2025 reduction target communicated through the Paris Agreement, and 77 percent to reach our 2050 target. To strive for the global goal of a 1.5-degree future, the U.S. should aim for zero net emissions by mid-century. This requires massive economic and technological transformation in how we create and consume energy, build structures, and transport people and goods. This transformation must accelerate now.

CLEAN & RENEWABLE ENERGY

✔ 100% Clean and Renewable Electricity by 2035

All electricity consumed in America must be generated by renewable sources, including solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, sustainable biomass, and renewable natural gas, as well as clean sources such as nuclear and remaining fossil fuel with carbon capture.

✔ Zero Net Emissions from Energy by 2050

We must end all emissions from fossil fuels. The full U.S. economy can and must run on a mix of energy that is either zero-emission or 100 percent carbon capture by mid-century. This includes residential, commercial, and industrial electricity; thermal energy; and transportation.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

✔ 100% Net-Zero Building Energy Standards by 2030

Buildings can stand and operate for over 100 years, and current building standards are not in line with goals for deep decarbonization. Yet buildings also have the highest potential for low-cost emission reductions of all sectors. We must start constructing and retrofitting to the highest performance standards now to avoid locking in outdated technology and to reach these goals by mid-century. New technological innovation every year will push the potential of building and industrial efficiency, helping American citizens and businesses lower energy costs and be more competitive.

TRANSPORTATION

✔ 100% Zero Emission Passenger Vehicles by 2030

The technologies already exist; we only need to scale-up charging infrastructure and consumer incentives to transition 100 percent of sales to zero emission passenger and light duty vehicles by 2030, followed with a swift phase out of internal combustion engines.

✔ 100% Fossil-Free Transportation by 2050

To reach decarbonization goals, we must transition away quickly from the use of fossil fuels in aviation, heavy duty vehicles, and rail. Not everything can be electrified, meaning we must innovate and scale up the next generation of biofuels and carbon-neutral fuels.

 

It's borderline but all of this can likely be accomplished in the developed world, there are enough resources to do this and speaking for myself, after a bit of looking around I was able to cut 50% of my heat related emissions in just 1 year. Obviously, it would require quite a bit of effort but it is not impossible and aiming for this would substantially increase the odds that the relatively safe zone of >80% reduction by 2050 is achieved.

If you actually look closely at how much developing nations such as India are investing in renewables, you'll find that it is a much larger portion of GDP than developed nations, this btw is how you evaluate the effort involved because it represent the strain on the nation better. We've basically been dragging our feet in comparison. If renewables were so expensive and useless or there was no issue with fossil fuel emissions, poor nations such as India wouldn't be devoting so much of their GDP to adopt these technologies. India is one of the few countries that is actually on track for 2c based on their efforts. Sad that the most powerful nation in the world and other developed nations seem to be failing to meet their obligations.

Edited February 2, 2019 by David Jones

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

3 hours ago, David Jones said:

It's borderline but all of this can likely be accomplished in the developed world, there are enough resources to do this and speaking for myself, after a bit of looking around I was able to cut 50% of my heat related emissions in just 1 year. Obviously, it would require quite a bit of effort but it is not impossible and aiming for this would substantially increase the odds that the relatively safe zone of >80% reduction by 2050 is achieved.

If you actually look closely at how much developing nations such as India are investing in renewables, you'll find that it is a much larger portion of GDP than developed nations, this btw is how you evaluate the effort involved because it represent the strain on the nation better. We've basically been dragging our feet in comparison. If renewables were so expensive and useless or there was no issue with fossil fuel emissions, poor nations such as India wouldn't be devoting so much of their GDP to adopt these technologies. India is one of the few countries that is actually on track for 2c based on their efforts. Sad that the most powerful nation in the world and other developed nations seem to be failing to meet their obligations.

Very bluntly, I view the Green New Deal as a deliberate attempt to bankrupt the U.S. via enforced Socialism. 

I do get tired of candy coating my reactions to AOC's insanity of attempting to shove more government control and more taxes onto U.S. citizens.

Read the actual Green New Deal.  I provided a link earlier, and only excerpted a small portion which is related to energy.  Unworkable.  If implemented, it will bankrupt the U.S.

Socialism worked out great for Chavez and Maduro and their cronies.  Socialism made the leaders fithy f*cking rich.  Didn't work out so well though for 95% of Venezuelans. 

Exhumed remains of Karl Marx to run for US President

... And this new batch of Presidential candidates, gunning for the 2020 seat, want higher taxes, guaranteed employment, free education, free healthcare, universal basic income…

These are all wonderful concepts. But somebody has to pay for it all.

Already, even with an economy that’s been booming for the past several years, the US government is $22 trillion in debt and running $1+ trillion deficits. A recession, which is becoming more likely by the day, on its own would push the deficit into multi trillions of dollars.

And a host of socialist programs would send the thing into orbit.

This trend is only building. We’ll soon be living through one of the greatest redistributions of wealth in modern history.

The real insanity here is that, again, history shows that these approaches don’t work. ...

 

[David Jones + 84]

13 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Very bluntly, I view the Green New Deal as a deliberate attempt to bankrupt the U.S. via enforced Socialism. 

I do get tired of candy coating my reactions to AOC's insanity of attempting to shove more government control and more taxes onto U.S. citizens.

Read the actual Green New Deal.  I provided a link earlier, and only excerpted a small portion which is related to energy.  Unworkable.  If implemented, it will bankrupt the U.S.

Socialism worked out great for Chavez and Maduro and their cronies.  Socialism made the leaders fithy f*cking rich.  Didn't work out so well though for 95% of Venezuelans. 

Exhumed remains of Karl Marx to run for US President

... And this new batch of Presidential candidates, gunning for the 2020 seat, want higher taxes, guaranteed employment, free education, free healthcare, universal basic income…

These are all wonderful concepts. But somebody has to pay for it all.

Already, even with an economy that’s been booming for the past several years, the US government is $22 trillion in debt and running $1+ trillion deficits. A recession, which is becoming more likely by the day, on its own would push the deficit into multi trillions of dollars.

And a host of socialist programs would send the thing into orbit.

This trend is only building. We’ll soon be living through one of the greatest redistributions of wealth in modern history.

The real insanity here is that, again, history shows that these approaches don’t work. ...

 

You are being overly dramatic about this. What usually happens with Republican "tax cuts" btw is that you get more inequality where the rich get bonuses from the government simply because of an assumption that they deserve to have millions or even billions. Nobody is that valuable as a person and in terms of human value to society, someone like Einstein should have been a billionaire. He was not. So really, if we want to talk about equality, it's generally been the conservative and republican political orientations that have damaged this substantially with their gifts for the rich at the expense of the less wealthy members of society. Somehow, this administration is convincing many that they are for the people, that couldn't be further from the truth.

I'm not an absolute fan of the GND but republicans created this deal with their desire to destroy any sort of limitations on their corporate fossil fuel related pollution and their denial of anthropogenic climate change as an issue. The GND is not a Democrat creation, it is a Republican one. Assuming this denial and general idiocy continues within the republican party and similar political alignments, you can expect this GND to pale compared to future proposals to tackle AGW/ACC. So best find a way to work together to solve the issue before things really get out of hand. A first step for the republican party would be to stop denying that there's an issue at all or that we as a species have nothing to do with it and to come to the table with real results from efforts to reduce their industrial emissions (lets face it, at this point the republican party is basically just an extension of the fossil fuel industry) without the need for others to force them to adhere to obligations that are in many ways their patriotic duty.

In terms of deficit, the constant wars and efforts to secure fossil fuels is likely a big part of your issue. These costs are often associated with the right, not the left. Did we really need boots on the ground in Iraq? Would Syria have happened if Iraq wasn't an absolute mess? Wars have a way of spreading and anthropogenic climate change has already been linked to some extent to the Arab Spring. So if you want to talk about costs, AGW/ACC will be your greatest issue in the coming decades as damages and unrest spread and costs for ensuring a stable global economy rise. No amount of walls will help keep this issue and it's associated repercussions out. Frankly, placing a wall at the border is like putting a Band-Aid on someone whose internal organs are laid bare. You'll improve the situation only if you close up the massive gash that continues to widen.

Trying to implement a transition later, say in 20-30 years when substantial damages have already arrive, will be far more costly as you'll be dealing with costs of the transition that will likely have to be much higher due to the far more urgent situation/shorter timeframe as well as with rising costs from the damages themselves and the associated unrest/migrations. That could potentially lead to a global depression and failure of societal structures across the board. So the longer we wait to address the issue and pretend like it's not the result of our activities or even a problem, the costlier it'll be for everyone. Rich and poor, regardless of country. This is an intrinsic property of the situation.

Edited February 3, 2019 by David Jones

[Sukumar Ray + 52]

Renewable energy revolution has already started. Being an advocates of Climate change and Global Warming I wish this revolution picks up  momentum sooner than later. It is also true that our fossil fuels are not never ending and our dependence on them whether living in Chiller or Warmer region of the Globe is coming to an end with in few decades from now. Most of the fossil fuels are very dirty fuels that have turned  our livings dirtier than expected !! Environmental scientists have proven that our over dependence on fossil fuels have largely been contributing to global warming . Those nations who have exploited these dirty natural resources are primarily responsible for this global warming and challenge !!.

It is undeniable fact that renewable energy will finally be meeting the energy requirement of the world. While people living in the chiller and icy regions must have the luxury of burning calories of the hydro carbon fuels  to keep them warm and fit, people  in the hot and humid regions are feeling the onslaught of global warming and climate change. Few folks in icy regions may tend to disbelieve terms like global warming actually exits. For them frost burns and chilling winds are dichotomy to how the  globe is warming ??

Edited February 3, 2019 by Sukumar Ray

[John Foote + 1,135]

AOC is a bit of a loon. She has two real positive contributions though.

1. She has rattled the entitled Democratic political machine, and that is a good thing. I do not mean as in pushing entitlement programs, she's a bit out to lunch there, but the establishment of which is disconnected from people, unless the financial sector is your people. 

Actually can't think of second thing she's done except getting people to vote. Folks that rightly reject the establishment Democratic machine which takes their votes for granted. Not a fan of most of their positions, but it's important people vote.

Her over the top renewable energy is no sillier than Trump promising Mexico to pay for the wall. And yes, ignorant people with vote for it. Too many believe in free lunches. 

Edited February 3, 2019 by John Foote

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 2/1/2019 at 10:27 PM, taamvan said:

I begin with the rough proposition that we are using 130% of the annual solar input to sustain 7BN people.   Obv. we could never capture 100% of the insolation of the Earth which demonstrates how much more than the baseload input of the Sun = Earth equation (wind, solar, hydro, crops, inherent heating) is being expressed in therms (sic) of fossil sources.    

Carbon is a great limiting factor in Earth's natural growth (in the absence of humans and the prevalence of plants) but in a managed human biosphere carbon re-expression into the biosphere has to be considered in every equation otherwise we are only shooting ourselves in the foot in any rational assessment

You are not considering many factors such as ocean algae, methane hydrates, peat bogs, biogas, thermal recovery, tidal power, wind, hydro etc. 

[Greg Wetherall + 1]

On 2/2/2019 at 4:21 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

Very bluntly, I view the Green New Deal as a deliberate attempt to bankrupt the U.S. via enforced Socialism. 

I do get tired of candy coating my reactions to AOC's insanity of attempting to shove more government control and more taxes onto U.S. citizens.

Read the actual Green New Deal.  I provided a link earlier, and only excerpted a small portion which is related to energy.  Unworkable.  If implemented, it will bankrupt the U.S.

Socialism worked out great for Chavez and Maduro and their cronies.  Socialism made the leaders fithy f*cking rich.  Didn't work out so well though for 95% of Venezuelans. 

Exhumed remains of Karl Marx to run for US President

... And this new batch of Presidential candidates, gunning for the 2020 seat, want higher taxes, guaranteed employment, free education, free healthcare, universal basic income…

These are all wonderful concepts. But somebody has to pay for it all.

Already, even with an economy that’s been booming for the past several years, the US government is $22 trillion in debt and running $1+ trillion deficits. A recession, which is becoming more likely by the day, on its own would push the deficit into multi trillions of dollars.

And a host of socialist programs would send the thing into orbit.

This trend is only building. We’ll soon be living through one of the greatest redistributions of wealth in modern history.

The real insanity here is that, again, history shows that these approaches don’t work. ...

 

Tom: You are exactly right. Socialists will do anything to grow the government and control people.  I am reading “Stalin” by Edvard Radsinsky and Stalin played the same old game the socialists are playing in Washington now. They claim to be helping low income earners and complain about the disparity in wealth among the classes. Yet, every single social program they initiate costs the lower classes more and more. There aren’t enough truly wealthy people to pay for all of this nonsense. The average person pay almost 10% of their wages in social security and medicaid and the income tax bar keeps being lowered to include more and more people. With the recent Husseincare passage, people are spending ungodly sums on health insurance. It is so disgusting how they pass these laws aimed at helping lower income people and, in the end, those programs destroy the very people they were meant to help. The income gap isn’t a result of capitalism but the socialist morons who continue fleecing th middle class in the name of helping them. Just absolutely disgusting. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

 

4 hours ago, Greg Wetherall said:

Tom: You are exactly right. Socialists will do anything to grow the government and control people.  I am reading “Stalin” by Edvard Radsinsky and Stalin played the same old game the socialists are playing in Washington now. They claim to be helping low income earners and complain about the disparity in wealth among the classes. Yet, every single social program they initiate costs the lower classes more and more. There aren’t enough truly wealthy people to pay for all of this nonsense. The average person pay almost 10% of their wages in social security and medicaid and the income tax bar keeps being lowered to include more and more people. With the recent Husseincare passage, people are spending ungodly sums on health insurance. It is so disgusting how they pass these laws aimed at helping lower income people and, in the end, those programs destroy the very people they were meant to help. The income gap isn’t a result of capitalism but the socialist morons who continue fleecing the middle class in the name of helping them. Just absolutely disgusting. 

 

Full text: President Trump's 2019 State of the Union address

... We stand with the Venezuelan people in their noble quest for freedom — and we condemn the brutality of the Maduro regime, whose socialist policies have turned that nation from being the wealthiest in South America into a state of abject poverty and despair.

Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country.

America was founded on liberty and independence — not government coercion, domination and control.

We are BORN FREE, and we will STAY FREE.

Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will NEVER be a socialist country. ...

 

Some people are unhappy listening to this...

 

VIDEO: Sour Ocasio-Cortez refuses to applaud ‘cooperation, compromise, common good’

 

Too bad...

 

AOC's "Green New Deal" now looks dead in the water.  Kinda like an "aborted" Socialist Deal.

 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

I wanted to share one comment from another website; it's a story, actually:

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so 
many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and 
among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to 
support more government programs, in other words redistribution of 
wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather 
staunch conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the 
lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a 
professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, 
selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs.

The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be 
the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how
she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather 
haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to 
maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and
was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party 
like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, 
and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her 
time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy 
classes, she never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so 
popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to 
all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes 
because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his 
daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 
1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way
you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and 
equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her
father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how 
would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested
a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing 
toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the conservative side of the fence."

[Meredith Poor + 883]

On 2/7/2019 at 8:36 AM, Dan Warnick said:

I wanted to share one comment from another website; it's a story, actually:

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so 
many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and 
among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to 
support more government programs, in other words redistribution of 
wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather 
staunch conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the 
lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a 
professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, 
selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs.

The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be 
the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how
she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather 
haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to 
maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and
was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party 
like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, 
and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her 
time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy 
classes, she never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so 
popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to 
all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes 
because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his 
daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 
1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way
you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and 
equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her
father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how 
would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested
a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing 
toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the conservative side of the fence."

This is the follow-up to the liberal daughter vs the conservative father....

The young woman was now in her fourth year of college, and visited her parents during spring break.

Her father was clearly impressed with her academic record and her ambitions, the latter of which included continuing on to get a Masters. Then the topic turned to love, marriage, and children.

"Seeing much potential in the way of boyfriends, husbands, significant others, etc.?"

"Not at the University. The sex ratio is 60% women, 40% men. At least half of the men, in any case, are up to their ears in debt. So this works out to 3 women competing for every male that is largely debt free."

The father had, of course, known some of that, but it had never sunk in what this meant for his daughter. "When would you consider getting married?"

"I need to get my career settled first. Assuming that takes five years, then I would be 24 when I graduate with my masters, and 29 with five years of work. So, late 20's/early 30's."

"You realize that your reproductive potential declines significantly after age 35. Have you given that much thought?"

"Of course. Houses where good jobs are cost half a million dollars. Traffic barely moves. So I can live in a cheap house two hours from my job or in an expensive house within walking distance of my job. In the first case I have no time for a spouse or children and in the second I can't afford it."

"What happened to your friend Audrey?"

"She has a boyfriend. They just spent the summer goofing around in Europe. She has a job lined up as a purchasing agent for a discount clothing department store chain somewhere in upstate New York."

"So..." her father intoned "She could be married with children before you even finish your masters."

"Possibly. Or single and living on child support. Whadda think?"

Her mother chimed in... "Our parents got married right out of high school."

"Yeah, your father could get a job with a high school education. Good luck with that now."

"So, will we ever see a grandchild?"

"One, possibly. Two or or more, not so much. That's just the way things are these days. In any case, I'm not even thinking about it right now."

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Minnesota Madness: Big Freeze Exposes Wind & Solar’s Deadly Flaw – Hopeless Intermittency

Power consumers pinning their hopes on the weather, inevitably learn to expect mixed results. 200,000 Victorian businesses and households learnt the hard way, as a sudden wind power output collapse left them sweltering during a summer heatwave.

At the other end of the temperature spectrum, the risk of being powerless is even more serious. The elderly and frail do not last long without reliable and affordable energy to heat their abodes.

Across America’s Mid-West a burst of frigid weather has exposed the fatal (literally) flaw in wind and solar power: they’re never there when you need them most.

Why “Green” Energy is Futile, In One Lesson

...

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Minnesota Madness: Big Freeze Exposes Wind & Solar’s Deadly Flaw – Hopeless Intermittency

Power consumers pinning their hopes on the weather, inevitably learn to expect mixed results. 200,000 Victorian businesses and households learnt the hard way, as a sudden wind power output collapse left them sweltering during a summer heatwave.

At the other end of the temperature spectrum, the risk of being powerless is even more serious. The elderly and frail do not last long without reliable and affordable energy to heat their abodes.

Across America’s Mid-West a burst of frigid weather has exposed the fatal (literally) flaw in wind and solar power: they’re never there when you need them most.

Why “Green” Energy is Futile, In One Lesson

...

Meanwhile in other Troofers news. 

 

Edited February 13, 2019 by NickW

[NickW + 2,714]

The Victorian blackouts were caused by transmission network failures not wind (or indeed gas, coal, solar or Hydro). 

https://phys.org/news/2019-01-degree-days-blackouts-power-stations.html