blue in dc
- Member for
- 5 years 14 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|4 weeks 15 hours ago||Thanks and some thoughts||
While there are times I can get on my high horse and be a bit of an ass, I generally strove pretty hard not to do that in this thread. There has been lots of good far-ranging discussion in this thread and I was trying to constructively contribute to it (you can search my comments in this thread and see that I failed on the not be an ass at least once - that may be what earned me some of the down votes).
To the substance. There are very legitimate reasons that many players that are invested in the status quo and resistant to change. For instance, there is a large group of people in industry and government who understandably treat electric reliability as job 1. For those people, they know how to generally maintain reliability, under a system of large centralized fossil and nuclear plants, renewables create new challengess. For this reason they may be over conservative in ways that slow down the pace of change.
Similarly, many companies have invested billions of dollars in the current model and see more loss than gain in changes to that model.
A third example revolves around the fact that an evolving model for power generation/distribution/regulation asks challenging policy questions. We can see this in many states that are debating the rules for residential/commercial solar. Should those owners be allowed to sell excess electricity back to the griid, if so, how much? How should these people pay their fair share to maintain the broader grid? Typically this is at least partly done through charges based on electricity use. Those payments greatly decrease as they use less electricity even though the grid may still be providing tremendous benefit to them, both to provide power when the sun isn't shining and to sell their electricity.
Ironically, Musk, through his relationship with Solar City, and Tesla's involvement in grid and home storage is pushing these discussions just as he is pushing bigger picture policy discussions in the vehicle sector.
|4 weeks 18 hours ago||Ironically yesterday California announced reliability concerns||
Leaks at a natual gas storage facility are driving concerns about natural gas availability this summer.
With regards to the bigger question, in general, low natual gas prices and low renewable prices are leading to increases in capacity from those sources even as coal unots retire. Our growing ability to manage electric load is also helping. Further, EVs are a potential mechanism to help manage this load. At a minimum, charging rates can be varied to adjust to minute to minute load changes, but they could also potentially be used to incrrase supply by draining batteries. I"ve always wondered about the feasibility of this even though many suggest it. It seems unclear that car owners would be excited about extra charging/re-charging cycles that could reduce battery life for charging.
|4 weeks 19 hours ago||Isn:t the road tax the equivalent of a gas tax?||
Isn"t the basic idea that there is a cost to maintaing roads amd it has to be paid for somehow? Traditionally that cost has been at least partially paid by gas taxes. If large numbers of people move to EVs, that source will dwindle, thus a fee on EVs that obvious;y also use roads offsets this loss? While one can debate the merits of using gas taxes to finance roads, if you do go down this route, shouldn"t there be a mechanism by which EV drivers also pay their share?
|4 weeks 19 hours ago||Sorry for being so pissy||
And I appreciate that you went back and checked your facts.
While I know it is common practice on the internet, confidently asserting a "fact", when it is so far from being grounded in reality is one of the reasons I think we have so much trouble finding common ground.
If electric transmission losses were closer to 50% as you stated, if coal were the primary source used to generate electricity (Or the cheapest source to generate electricity), if renewables were significantly more costly (and their prices were not going down faster than any other source of electricity), the environmental case for EV"s would be much weaker. I know you haven"t made all of these assertions but others here have.
These misperceptions are all objectively, demonstartably false. When you look at the actual facts, the environmental case for EVs is quite clear. Note that these factors just get into the comparison of total fossil use from EVs vs fossil-fuel cars, they don"t even consider the benefits of moving pollution away from the ground level in more densely populated areas where more people actually breathe.
There is no teason that most people would actually have such facts floating around their brains (I certainly wouldn"t if I wasn"t an engineer who has spent over 20 years doing technology work in the power sector), but it doesn't seem like it should to be asking to much to expect that people who are going to assert a fact in an argumentt might want to check it first rather than just relying on things they heard somewhere.
|4 weeks 1 day ago||Do you always argue by just making shit up?||
I couldn"t find a single cite suggesting transmission/distribution losses higher than the 5 percent to 10 percent range. Nowhere near 50 percent.
|4 weeks 1 day ago||Renewables are a key part of the future||
In all three of those areas
1. In the US - we have an aging coal and nuclear fleet that is going to need to be replaced with something - while it won"t meet all the load, wind and solar are increasingly competive and are likely to play a big part
2. In Africa - where there is limited infrastructure, distributed renewables make even more sense
3. In Asia demand for cleaner air is competing for demand for more energy so, with the falling cost of renewables, it is likely that they will play a key role
While environmental concerns drive some renewable use, the pure business case continues to get better and better, prices continue to drop and performance continues to improve
|4 weeks 1 day ago||These guys make a pretty wide range of heavy duty EVs|
|4 weeks 1 day ago||To carry it even further||
The other renewables and natural gas are growing year on year while coal continues to drop. It is unlikely costs for natural gas generation will decline further while most projectiins have the cost of solar and wind continuing to drop.
|4 weeks 1 day ago||Renewables are the largest growing segment of the power sector||
Last year we built more new wind in the US than any other type of power generation. As we see continued advancement in energy management (both storage and the ability to move load) projections for how much we can depend on intermitent sources of electricity like wind and solar. When you combine that with non-intermittant renewable resources like hydro, geothermal, bio-mass and opportunities to use waste heat (e.g. Cogeneration) from industrial sources, the need for multibillion dollar centralized electricity only coal and nuclear plants becomes smaller and smaller.
|4 weeks 1 day ago||Not most likely coal||
Last year 1/3 of US power came from coal, 1/3 from natural gas and 1/3 from nuclear or renewable.
|4 weeks 1 day ago||Coal only provides about 1/3 US electricity||
Last year about 1/3 came from coal, 1:3 from natural gas and 1/3 from nuclear or renewables.
|4 weeks 1 day ago||Coal is the cheapest way to generate electricity?||
Not at today's natural gas prices. https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-analy....
To the extent that market forces are an agenda, I guess coal is being driven out of business by an agenda, but I think it is much more a case of aging coal plants struggling to compete with newer technologies.
|8 weeks 5 days ago||I am apparently so out of tune with what is mgoblog PC||
The original title seemed much more informative. It seems what Apple was asked (which the original title alluded too) and not who asked it is much more important.
|8 weeks 6 days ago||There seems to be a lot of debate about this||
It is contrary to my experience where my organization struggles to find qualified engineers. I did some research and while there seems to be lots of research that substantiates your thesis for IT amd acadamia, it seemed less true in other STEM areas. It also seems that there is a lower unemployment rate for STEM grads and that they have higher average starting salary.
My experience is that my undergraduate engineering degree has allowed me to compete quite well for upper level management positions with people who have non-STEM graduate degrees.
|8 weeks 6 days ago||Interesting thesis - any cites to back it up?||
I tried to substantiate the 1000 percent increase and what I found (http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/tuition-an...) suggested less than half of that. I also found a number of articles that suggested that reduced state funding was having the biggest impact on public higher education prices.
|15 weeks 2 days ago||So - government has a role?||
Doesn"t your assertion that the proper ratio of private to public is 4 to 1 actually concede there is in fact a role for government?
|15 weeks 2 days ago||So where do we diverge?||
1. Do you think that greenhouse gases impact climate? If so, is C)2 an important greenhouse gas?
2. Do you think that CO2 levels are increasing?
3. If so, do you think that the increase in CO2 is largely due to burning fossil fuels?
4. If you do agree with the above, is the reason that you are not concerned about the increase because you think the impact that changes in CO2 can have is negligible?
|15 weeks 2 days ago||Tragedy of the Commons?||
Familiar with it? Generally suggests that, "the real world" I believe you are refering to doesn"t do the best job of valuing all things and that is in fact a big part of why we have government.
|15 weeks 2 days ago||And basketball, hockey etc.||
With that argument of yours, someone might accuse you of being a government accountant. Good luck
|15 weeks 2 days ago||Seemingly more nuanced than that||
Apparently economic geologists (who typically work for extractive industries) are among scientists most skeptical of climate change. The Geology Society of America on the other hand has a position statement consistent with humans being the largest contributor to recent climate change.
|15 weeks 2 days ago||Don"t need military, clean air, roads||
Or the myriad of other things that government is involved in?
|15 weeks 2 days ago||Your post however deserves a huge sigh||
Oh yes, it"s cold in January - global warming can"t be real. just a big hoax.
|15 weeks 2 days ago||It may be an american right||
But in and of itself, it does nothing to make government better and generally makes it worse because it furthers the attitude that it can"t in fact be made better.
Ultimately, shitting on your own government alone is just shitting on yourself.
|15 weeks 2 days ago||All for improving things||
But all I see is someone making incredibly broad generalizations about politics on a sports blog - not sure how that is improving things. Further, the person I am responding to has called all government "parasites" that does not really suggest someone in the construcive, "how do we fix things" mode.
Suggesting that all things government are a total disaster seems to ignore the fact that the public-private partnership in the US has done some amazing things and that if you want to try to change things a slightly more nuanced view looking at where things work and don"t might be useful.
Making government work is really hard. Lots of people are coming from lots of different viewpoints and interests. Trying to find workable solutions that satisfy those often competing interests is hard work that is often failed at, that doesn't mean we should just call it a disaster and give up.
By the way - red herrings are widely accepted as "shitty logic" - I"ve re-read my post multiple times and tried to figure out where I said - we should just shut our mouths and not try to improve things.
|15 weeks 2 days ago||But neither makes either place better||
it"s easy to take a shit, cleaning up the mess is harder and is generally the job that comes to government (And by that, I mean countless men and women who work as career employeess at all levels of government not politicians). And I'll sit here all day defending that part of government.
|15 weeks 2 days ago||Anyone||
Who can make such sweeping generalizations about "government" might want to try some alternatives for a while. Russia, China, much of the middle east. While our government has problems, there are plenty of governments that are more of a disaster
|15 weeks 2 days ago||All parasites?||
People in the military who risk their lives to defend our country, people at NIH who devote their lives to curing disease, first responders to disasters - yes, certainly all parasites. While our government clearly has room to improve, I"m not sure you"d be thrilled with the way the country would look without it at all.
|15 weeks 2 days ago||Insightful||
|15 weeks 2 days ago||not the only close-minded one?||
While I don't know either UM Proud or Humen, it is not a huge leap to think that UM Proud"s joke just might say something about his political leanings as Humen suggested. On a U of M sports blog an easy and clearly non-contreversial joke might have been, "the owner of that station must have gone to MSU (or OSU)'. If not and you picked another target for your joke (in this case, government, but could just as easily have been some of the wonderful accounting on Wall Street where both the little guy and the greater economy have been screwed while some guy who sits at a desk and doesn"t actually make anything makes billions), it might say something about your political leanings.
I recognize that both of those negative descriptions are stereotypes that do not fairly represent tbe majority of the hardworking americans that work either in government or on Wall Street. On the other hand if someone chooses to make a joke about questionable accounting and used either example, I would in fact think that the underlying example might say that something about their politics.
This is not to suggest that both examples don"t have truth to them or present opportunities to make changes that could benefit all americans.
I will also note in Humen"s defense that he didn"t make the more political statement until asked for the clarification and that while Bernie Sanders might point out inefficincies in our health care budget his solution does not seem to suggest that he believes the federal government as a whole is incompetent while the two leading candidates in the other party have made no secret that they feel much of it is (as is their right as an American and as is the right of anyone that agrees with them) and as I believe Humen quite factually pointed out.
I aopoligize if this reply is "close-minded", because I think that there in fact could be some more than subtle political undertones to UM Proud"s original post, but certainly respect (but disagree with those who don't).
|36 weeks 6 days ago||Call me a homer, but 7-6 would be a disapoointment||
5-1 seems like the least we should expect against:
1-2 at home against
1-2 away against
Even if all of those losses were close, I'd be disappointed