Anytime you want to discuss technical knowledge in the area of energy policy, then go for it.Quote:
Obviously your UNDERSTANDING of my words is as insufficient as your technical knowledge despite the big word you found to hide the fact.
|
Anytime you want to discuss technical knowledge in the area of energy policy, then go for it.Quote:
Obviously your UNDERSTANDING of my words is as insufficient as your technical knowledge despite the big word you found to hide the fact.
I've already went for it. Guess you missed it through not understanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Well, I asked what you proposed for a solution and this is the "technical knowledge" you came up with.
Now if I missed your tech knowledge, maybe it was because you didn't include any. It was just a political vision about non-profits and not poisoning the land, air, and water. That's fine, but I don't think anyone would mistake that for a technical explanation of energy sources outside of fossil fuels, probably because you didn't bother to list a single one much less give us any real explanation of why they would work.Quote:
A global approach to minimizing waste and not poison the air, land, and water for our kids. Imagine energy providing being a non profit human endeavor, responsible for cleaning up it's own messes, while developing safer technology for its production. I don't see this as a silver bullet solution, but an incremental step in the right direction.
The key word is incremental as opposed to all out push for profit with no regard for consequences to life on Earth as we know it.
You must first identify the issues before you can design a solution. That's the first stage in developing any technology isn't it? Nothing political except to the uniformed and technically challenged.
The whole argument is mote, no matter what technology you employ you shift to another environmental problem, those who propose CO2 abatement cannot ignore the pollution these new industries bring
We did identify the issues. I asked what your solution was and you basically had none other than to dismiss nuclear power. Well, so much for any discussion involving technical knowledge.Quote:
You must first identify the issues before you can design a solution. That's the first stage in developing any technology isn't it? Nothing political except to the uniformed and technically challenged.
My point is that, like it or not, we are stuck with fossil fuels until the time someone comes up with a viable alternative. Solar and wind will contribute a relatively small amount, and learning to be more efficient in our use of energy will help some, but those are not going to do away with the use of carbon based fuels. Once you get past all the hoopla, it might be that the environmental consequences are not going to be all that great anyway. We'll see in the next two or thee decades.
If you weren't so technically challenged you would have remembered the technical debates and LINKS provided about the already developing technology of SST and cap and capture, and the resistance by the power companies or the regulatory roll backs of the dufus administration letting power companies off the hook to even invest in the technology for the future, or be responsible for past disasters.
Where were you when the BP, or Exxon spills occurred? It still has effected adversely vast eco systems that repubs have tried to let those corporations dither about the costs of those clean ups. I just gave you a LINK to the Hanson, Washington clean up efforts, and still you have no technical solution of your own nor can you debate the real clear issues we are already faced with. Instead we get from you and Clete just wait until we get the fix, in the meantime do nothing.
While it is a huge complex issue even for those technically advanced to grapple with, dismissing and ignoring is no solution either. To mitigate the problem I think you eliminate the worst COST that slows the progress, and makes solutions possible, ergo wrap your head around the not for profit aspect of future energy production which without huge subsidy you couldn't afford it any way. Still you are left with waste DISPOSAL that doesn't leach into the ground and pollute the water.
You got anything on that that's better than your solution on mitigating costs? Oh wait you got NOTHING to mitigate the costs.
And yet once again you have no ideas for alternative energy sources. Just putting a lot of text in a post says nothing about your supposed knowledge of technology. Writing about oil spills, Hanson, not for profits, and waste disposal does absolutely nothing to show us the pathway beyond fossil fuels. If you want to brag about your technical expertise, then at some point you have to actually put it out there for people to see. So far it has been nada.Quote:
If you weren't so technically challenged you would have remembered the technical debates and LINKS provided about the already developing technology of SST and cap and capture, and the resistance by the power companies or the regulatory roll backs of the dufus administration letting power companies off the hook to even invest in the technology for the future, or be responsible for past disasters.
Where were you when the BP, or Exxon spills occurred? It still has effected adversely vast eco systems that repubs have tried to let those corporations dither about the costs of those clean ups. I just gave you a LINK to the Hanson, Washington clean up efforts, and still you have no technical solution of your own nor can you debate the real clear issues we are already faced with. Instead we get from you and Clete just wait until we get the fix, in the meantime do nothing.
While it is a huge complex issue even for those technically advanced to grapple with, dismissing and ignoring is no solution either. To mitigate the problem I think you eliminate the worst COST that slows the progress, and makes solutions possible, ergo wrap your head around the not for profit aspect of future energy production which without huge subsidy you couldn't afford it any way. Still you are left with waste DISPOSAL that doesn't leach into the ground and pollute the water.
You got anything on that that's better than your solution on mitigating costs? Oh wait you got NOTHING to mitigate the costs.
I'll ask again. What non-profits are out there right now making good progress in a major segment of the economy? Give us a reason to believe that non-profits are the way forward.
climate protesters are going to borrow tactics from Hong Kong rioters. Does this mean we will see fire bombing? pitched battles with police? civil disobedience? Why because an autistic girl thinks there is an extinction. I'll make a prediction if this keeps going. Someone will get killed
Paraclete: Non-violent protests are one thing.....violent protests are another: When protesters go violent, they are asking for a violent response. These Antifa thugs wearing masks and running up and down our streets attacking people have only served to embolden other crazies: They should have never been allowed to pull those stunts in the first place....If you and I put a mask on and tried walking around, law enforcement will be all over us like white on rice.
I wasn't bragging about my technical skills, but have done the homework in an area I do have some experience in. My bad for presenting STUFF you have no clue about since you obviously have trouble identifying the relationships I tried to lay out for you which you fail to follow yet chose instead to try and put down and dismiss what I was presenting.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Shame on you for emulating the dufus and running your mouth to hide your lack of knowledge and it shows in poor debating skills. You must understand I just seek to provide data and research usable to the knowledgeable, but for you to reject the guidance to know more. That's cool with me, but if you think I'm going to do all the work for you to reduce to just words, you better think again.
So instead of reasonable debate and discussion we are reduced to insults and snark and rock throwing. That's cool with me too, since I can do that with the best of 'em, and frankly your laziness makes you an easy target, So try and keep up by doing your own homework and research and we can move along, or keep your time wasting assinine questions to yourself.
Case in point you could of simply googled your own question, "I'll ask again. What non-profits are out there right now making good progress in a major segment of the economy? Give us a reason to believe that non-profits are the way forward", and you would have found out that not for profit is the way to go to mitigate the high costs of design and implementation of the redundant systems required for a fully integrated efficient power grid. Maybe even you would have run across sites like this in a search for background information. What I present was the IDEA to go completely non profit, as opposed to return on investment through long term consumer support, for an industry that's already heavily subsidized by tax payers.
But if you rather snipe than learn cool, I don't have to waste anymore time debate another dufus, and we can just get to the rock throwing. Your choice.
PS
I realize that reading technical stuff is not your forte, or experience, but you are trying my patience my friend so out of respect at least act like you're trying to keep up.
You have presented nothing technical. You have presented no solutions. None.Quote:
I wasn't bragging about my technical skills, but have done the homework in an area I do have some experience in. My bad for presenting STUFF you have no clue about since you obviously have trouble identifying the relationships I tried to lay out for you which you fail to follow yet chose instead to try and put down and dismiss what I was presenting.
This whining gets old. I can't debate since you have presented nothing to debate about.Quote:
Shame on you for emulating the dufus and running your mouth to hide your lack of knowledge and it shows in poor debating skills. You must understand I just seek to provide data and research usable to the knowledgeable, but for you to reject the guidance to know more. That's cool with me, but if you think I'm going to do all the work for you to reduce to just words, you better think again.
I hope one day that you will learn that when you make a suggestion such as non-profits, then it is not my job to do research for you. You linked to this site. I found nothing there to indicate that non profits do any better job of providing energy than for profit companies, but I will give you credit for at least responding. https://www.publicpower.org/policy/d...ergy-resources
You get mad when someone calls you out on your posts. I am simply asking you to back up what you are saying. There's really no need to have a temper tantrum about it.
I don't care if you respond or not. That is your choice. When you post something foolish, I will respond to it. I will not engage in name calling such as you love to do. I always feel that if I have to resort to name calling, then it shows that I have nothing intelligent to say.Quote:
But if you rather snipe than learn cool, I don't have to waste anymore time debate another dufus, and we can just get to the rock throwing. Your choice.
That made me laugh. If you ever post anything concerning any level of technology, then I assure you I will have no trouble keeping up. Up to this point, any competent sixth grader could keep up with your posts. I don't say that to be ugly. You just simply haven't posted anything even approaching complicated. What am I supposed to be in awe of? Your posting about non profits, or landfills, or Hanson, or your concerns with nuke energy? Do you really believe you have posted anything that even approaches being complex???Quote:
I realize that reading technical stuff is not your forte, or experience, but you are trying my patience my friend so out of respect at least act like you're trying to keep up.
I ain't mad at ya guy. Dissappointed though. That's okay since you would obviously rather throw rocks. I guess you don't think much of the distributed energy resources concept even though it's already being developed. I just thought we could get some background going for a more informed interchange, rather than leave it at wait a few decades and see what happens.
You show me where I have thrown rocks and we can discuss it. You are the one tossing names around and suggesting I have no technical skills. When you start a genuinely tech conversation (as below), you will find I will have no trouble in keeping up.Quote:
That's okay since you would obviously rather throw rocks.
I'm familiar with the concept of DER, but it generally concerns such areas as rooftop solar cells, electric cars, or the very occasional residential windmill. Much of that would not exist if it wasn't for government subsidies. My son has an electric car. He bought it because he could get a 7K tax deduction, which means, of course, that you and I helped him out in buying his car. That's what I object to. If solar or wind can compete then fine, but as of now that is generally not the case, and when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing, then you have to fall back on something else. So no, I'm not excited about it.Quote:
I guess you don't think much of the distributed energy resources concept even though it's already being developed. I just thought we could get some background going for a more informed interchange, rather than leave it at wait a few decades and see what happens.
The truth is, the only currently viable, economically feasible alternative to the use of fossil fuels for genuinely large scale electrical production (which is what is needed) is nuclear. There is nothing else.
jlisenbe: I am pro-Nuclear, too......but that doesn't mean exclusively nuclear in all instances: There are many applications for Hydroelectric Power that I really think are great fits, as well.....and Hydroelectric works very well and its why my electric bill is the cheapest in the nation!
My understanding is that most of the prime hydro sites are already used, so what is left would not become a major contributor.Quote:
There are many applications for Hydroelectric Power that I really think are great fits, as well.....and Hydroelectric works very well and its why my electric bill is the cheapest in the nation!
You make more with more and bigger dams way up in those snowy mountainsQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Part of the bigger problem is the cost borne mostly on a regional, either county or locally to ensure a viable energy source to meet peak demands. A lot of small systems, state regulated according to what they have to work with. The US is very diverse both in resources and capital on local levels, so differing capacity needs are the ultimate factors involved, along with the costs to deliver, and in every jurisdiction the considerations of long term ROI borne by consumers of course, maintenance also born by consumers as well as whatever disasters and accidents to be mitigated. That's the jest of the formulae all the systems share no matter the source or capacity that's demanded.
Now bear with me a minute, and step back and visualize a bigger map, that expands beyond local and state and even regional, to the whole country. On this map we lay all the systems calculate demand and even with the factor of costs being the biggest initially, we get a GRID with obvious holes of both peak demands and over capacity. Obviously where I'm going is a SHARED GRID, which requires an expansion of redundant network power transmission sources, not to just add to capacity demands NOW, but the future as well if growth models hold.
Technology hasn't completely solved the nuclear waste storage problem, or the time cost of cleaning up the mess it makes, or I would be fully on board as long as a safety first approach was taken and the plans I've seen for that are a joke, just as the fossil fuel contingency plans are a complete joke, and if we haven't learned the lessons of big oil in handling their messes then what's the point of this whole exercise? One thing I learned in the steel mills was safety first, because the cost of doing business pales in comparison to the cost of human lives, and stuff does happen with us humans.
So what do you guys think?
How does that do away with our dependence on fossil fuels? As to your idea, I think that is largely done now as different power companies purchase power from others.Quote:
Now bear with me a minute, and step back and visualize a bigger map, that expands beyond local and state and even regional, to the whole country. On this map we lay all the systems calculate demand and even with the factor of costs being the biggest initially, we get a GRID with obvious holes of both peak demands and over capacity. Obviously where I'm going is a SHARED GRID, which requires an expansion of redundant network power transmission sources, not to just add to capacity demands NOW, but the future as well if growth models hold.
As to the safety of nuke power, if you accept the reality of GW, then which one is really the least safe, nukes or fossil fuels?
It doesn't do away with it at all nor do I forsee the burning of fossil fuels going away. My position is the cost of clean air, land, and soil being the goal and we do have technology for that expensive as it is. Rolled back was the regulation(?) that new plants require this technology which was cost saving, but unsafe in regard to pollution in the log term therefore humans as well and there is still those wastes that even the scrubber technology produces, it's just more contained. A policy that helps the bottom line, but long term doesn't solve the waste/pollution problem, but makes it more manageable.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
My idea is based in small part to that companies buying from each other when the need to, but expanded to widen the options those companies and states have. Why can't sunny Arizona sell some power to lets say Mississippi or even Texas when the wind dies down?
As to which is the safest, it's a wash right now because as I point out the safety plans for events that could be deemed a threat to are sorely inadequate on many fronts though those plans are required by law, but who enforces them? Those plans are available to the public. Review them and see if we agree. Remember they may be just regionally available, and states may have differing requirements.
Off hand though I would say nuclear is the most dangerous, and I think both could be safer. I accept GW, but also believe in responsible management, but like any human endeavor costs are what really governs performance and actions. PROFIT above all else. A national GRID to facilitate power and cost sharing is a MASSIVE endeavor but we did go to the moon didn't we?
All energy initiatives are subsidized already. The US spends a smaller amount than most nations because our networks are far more advanced AND more diverse in both resources and finances than the world and that's something to look into.
I believe in goals and working steadfastly to acheive them!
As long as we can agree that the way forward isn't radical...
Or that we're dying tomorrow....
Then maybe we can actually make progress I. A safe, healthy, and profitable future can be more assured this way.
How can you be sure of that?Quote:
As long as we can agree that the way forward isn't radical...
You can never be sure of anything but anything new will be considered radical by some for better or worse until tried and proven. Like going to the moon as an example. Radical stuff APPEARS more scary than doable, but some solution or good ideas worth trying, start with thinking outside the box I feel.
It's not like we don't have plenty of data and experience of what does work and what doesn't work as well as it could. I just don't think the costs and profitability should be the main factors in do ability or NECCESSITY. Hey it's just a thought, the starting point for a larger plan. I got nothing else to do but dream.
Radical would be dreaming of jumping out of a plane with no parachute, and expecting a soft landing. I mean a few years ago jumping off a cliff was insane, but guys do it for sport now. Somebody came up with a fly suit.
You had me until you seemed to indicate that we can ignore cost. Not even the non-profits can do that. It has to be paid for.Quote:
I just don't think the costs and profitability should be the main factors in do ability or NECCESSITY. Hey it's just a thought, the starting point for a larger plan. I got nothing else to do but dream.
I never said IGNORE costs, I said cost and profitability shouldn't be the MAIN factors in the consideration of viability of a plan. I'm a capitalists and do believe any cost can be mitigated (Regulatory rollbacks is not a good vehicle in this case. Just my opinion, but based on the data.).
jlisenbe: Ever hear of the 80/20 Rule? Its interesting and it exemplifies business.....It says that 20% of your sales people, Engineers, planners, accountants, whatever discipline accomplish 80% of your goals, whether it be projects or sales......and that 80% of that same staff accomplish the remaining 20%......Well, most people look at that and say "Fire that 80% and save the costs" but that will not work: You still need to retain the 80% staff to get that residual 20% gain.....Don't be so concerned with knowing the COSTS of Everything when the VALUE is the dominant concern.
Good memory. We went to the same school different years it seems. In terms of sports though the star can have a bad day or injury, and the role players have to step up and fill the gaps on any given day. That's usually the difference between winning and losings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
The Gemini fire didn't stop our moon landing quest did it? The Civil War didn't stop the nation from growing either. To overcome obstacles keep your eyes on the GOAL. Forgive me but I get goosebumps when challenged.
Great post VAC.
Talaniman: Its a Boxing match of sorts.....if the other guy isn't touching you, you probably aren't going to touch him, either, the way you want to...you have to step-in and take a gamble, chance, show some risks.....Same with industrial challenges and, I think, Energy projects of any stripe: There are no sure things and if that is the pursuit, the return will be minimalized.....You must risk greatly to achieve greatly.....and sometimes, you have to "Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before".....a lot of great accomplishments had a playbook but no set recipe book....so the plan was formulated but the safety net didn't exist because there were no previous "examples" to go by: What was being done was the first time it had ever been attempted!
I get what you're saying and I don't disagree other than to say that no business in America will teach people to disregard cost. It is not the only factor, but it is a big, big one.
LOL, Few things go perfectly according to the initial plan, so sometimes you have to make adjustments according to conditions. Sometimes you screw it up and have to redo it. Things do look better on paper, and I'm sure a national grid has been thought of. Just the jobs from all those man hours has me giddy.
I didn't say it would be cheap, but a country with a trillion dollar military that fights trillion dollar wars for years and can cut more than a trillion dollars in taxes aught to be able to fund a world class grid and power transmission system.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
>Relevant commercial break< Of course we need another commercial! Now back to our show folks, the very last paragraph says it all. The links are fabulous trust me! 8D
That same country is 23 tril in debt and still spends like a drunken sailor, so you might want to figure out a different funding source. And besides, how does making changes to the grid get us off of our dependence on fossil fuels?Quote:
I didn't say it would be cheap, but a country with a trillion dollar military that fights trillion dollar wars for years and can cut more than a trillion dollars in taxes aught to be able to fund a world class grid and power transmission system.
We don't have to get off fossil fuel, we must mitigate the pollution factor. That includes waste management. When we find a better energy source we can leave fossil fuels behind. I like lights and A/C personally. As to the debt, that can be managed too. Our politicians don't want to.
How do you practice waste management with the products of burning fossil fuels?Quote:
We don't have to get off fossil fuel, we must mitigate the pollution factor. That includes waste management
jlisenbe: Costs on a project positively influencing/increasing production are largely mitigated as that production volume/production rate increases over time....its the integration of costs: The more product you make/the higher the production, the more the costs of the particular production increase project's initial costs and, also, the new project's Annual Operating Costs, are spread out/across over the increased number of units produced (could be widgets, cinder blocks, cars, tanks, planes, paper, etc., whatever!)…the effect of this is that costs are water-down and disappear through enhanced production rates: Costs Per Unit Volume (whatever the unit produced is) will decline and the COSTS that everyone worries about simply evaporates......This is why COSTS just aren't that exciting when you look at it in terms of production increases. The ROI is there and it usually is there in gobs once you get the process tuned-up.....Where people go astray is over-estimating the project ROI period: You won't do that but once because the knots on you head and butt will remind you never to do it again!
Once a project is implemented and up to production levels anticipated, you can then begin to hone the process, and costs, even more by going after EFFICIENCY enhancements.....its like icing on the cake.
And so again, how do you practice waste management with the products of burning fossil fuels?Quote:
jlisenbe: Costs on a project positively influencing/increasing production are largely mitigated as that production volume/production rate increases over time....its the integration of costs: The more product you make/the higher the production, the more the costs of the particular production increase project's initial costs and, also, the new project's Annual Operating Costs, are spread out/across over the increased number of units produced (could be widgets, cinder blocks, cars, tanks, planes, paper, etc., whatever!)…the effect of this is that costs are water-down and disappear through enhanced production rates: Costs Per Unit Volume (whatever the unit produced is) will decline and the COSTS that everyone worries about simply evaporates......This is why COSTS just aren't that exciting when you look at it in terms of production increases. The ROI is there and it usually is there in gobs once you get the process tuned-up.....Where people go astray is over-estimating the project ROI period: You won't do that but once because the knots on you head and butt will remind you never to do it again!
Once a project is implemented and up to production levels anticipated, you can then begin to hone the process, and costs, even more by going after EFFICIENCY enhancements.....its like icing on the cake.
You ever consider the meat packing business? You shoot the bull better than anyone I know.
jlisenbe: No, I wasn't involved in that discussion....that was between you and Talaniman…...but since you brought it up with me: Typically, with the industry I am involved with, we have people/industries who use the carbon residual and residues that are a result of using fossil fuels (very efficient burns)…..there are many uses of carbon, particularly in filtration media.
No, never considered the meat packing business...but grew up on a beef cattle farm.....also, have a brother who is a Butcher. What I said to you isn't bullsh$&t....I have been involved in many projects like these. Don't know why you would want to come at me with such a smartassed reply....never have and never would do that to you.....I can only imagine that you must be having a bad day....the days will get better, jlisenbe, believe me.
My apologies, Vac. I had asked Tal, " how do you practice waste management with the products of burning fossil fuels?". I thought your post was his reply to my question which, of course, would have made no sense at all. I'm actually kind of glad to find out my mistake. I puzzled hard over his (your) reply and how it could have made sense relative to my question.
We have a power plant nearby that was going to be a model of how to burn coal cleanly. They were going to pipe the CO2 to oil fields and inject it into old oil wells. As it turned out they could not get the technology of gassifying coal to work right and the whole thing ended up being a colossal failure.
jlisenbe: Apology accepted, Sir.....one Southern man to the other!
There are ways to make this all happen....just going take a big commitment, government help (in spots), a lot of engineering, big time labor involvement, and, initially, an acceptance that financial losses are inevitable in the interim periods until the process cycles up and the bugs get worked out.
But my issues with all of this is the same as those expressed by Paraclete: While we spend time, money, and effort to implement all these waste management systems, if China and India don't respond-in-kind, very little net change will occur.
That's a very good point, but even beyond that it's still an open question as to how much of the marginal global warming that has occurred is genuinely caused by CO2. There is still so much of this that is still poorly understood.Quote:
But my issues with all of this is the same as those expressed by Paraclete: While we spend time, money, and effort to implement all these waste management systems, if China and India don't respond-in-kind, very little net change will occur.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:52 AM. |