[jlisenbe]

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.

[talaniman]

Anytime you want to discuss technical knowledge in the area of energy policy, then go for it.

I've already went for it. Guess you missed it through not understanding.

[jlisenbe]

Well, I asked what you proposed for a solution and this is the "technical knowledge" you came up with.

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.

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.

[talaniman]

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.

[paraclete]

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

[jlisenbe]

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.

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.


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.

[talaniman]

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.

[jlisenbe]

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.

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.

[paraclete]

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

[Vacuum7]

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.

[talaniman]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[jlisenbe]

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.

You have presented nothing technical. You have presented no solutions. None.

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.

This whining gets old. I can't debate since you have presented nothing to debate about.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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???

[talaniman]

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.

[jlisenbe]

That's okay since you would obviously rather throw rocks.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Vacuum7]

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!

[jlisenbe]

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.

[paraclete]

My understanding is that most of the prime hydro sites are already used, so what is left would not become a major contributor.

You make more with more and bigger dams way up in those snowy mountains

[talaniman]

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?

[jlisenbe]

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.

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.

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?

[talaniman]

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.

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.

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.