INFLATION-- Tariffs—Canada sweating bullets; Mexico kissing Trump's a$$

[Seattle Husker]

You sure like throwing around the 'sex offender' label without consideration of the fact that he is not on a registry.

Reading comprehension 101: Show me where I said he was registered.

Evidently being convicted of exposing your penis to young girls as an adult is not enough to describe someone as a "convicted sex offender". He was charged and convicted of indecent exposure. I'm sure every convicted flasher would love your support.

Here is the arrest report if you are interested: https://annelandmanblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Boebert-Jason-record-2.pdf

 

[OUBubba]

I mean it's logical that we should effort at migrating to renewables. MIGRATE. We still need coal and oil for the foreseeable future. The green people need to bite the bullet and embrace nuclear. They're letting perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I mean it's logical that we should effort at migrating to renewables. MIGRATE. We still need coal and oil for the foreseeable future. The green people need to bite the bullet and embrace nuclear. They're letting perfect be the enemy of the good.

Here is what I don't understand, migrating to renewables helps the energy independence that some claim to covet so greatly. Increasing the renewable share of our energy consumption has a direct benefit to our leverage in relations with bad actors like Russia. Green technologies are simply a piece of the pie for the forseeable future.

 

[Monahorns]

I mean it's logical that we should effort at migrating to renewables. MIGRATE. We still need coal and oil for the foreseeable future. The green people need to bite the bullet and embrace nuclear. They're letting perfect be the enemy of the good.

How is it logical though? What logic are you applying to the situation. I think it is logical to stop building out new capacity of them.

Further you say wind and solar are perfect? While nuclear is just good? I would say nuclear is the best option out there long term. I would put it as the perfect because it can be made much safer than it is today, essentially 0 risk. It can also be the least expensive if we allowed more research and development of it. Plus it is fully reliable and deployable.

The key is the energy density of the fuel. Wind is the least dense. Then solar. Then wood and biomass. Then nat gas. Then oil. At the opposite end of the spectrum is nuclear.

 

[Monahorns]

Here is what I don't understand, migrating to renewables helps the energy independence that some claim to covet so greatly. Increasing the renewable share of our energy consumption has a direct benefit to our leverage in relations with bad actors like Russia. Green technologies are simply a piece of the pie for the forseeable future.

But we buy a lion's share of our solar panels and wind turbines from China. How is that independent? And they make them with coal power or they would be even more expensive.

 

[Seattle Husker]

How is it logical though? What logic are you applying to the situation. I think it is logical to stop building out new capacity of them.

Further you say wind and solar are perfect? While nuclear is just good? I would say nuclear is the best option out there long term. I would put it as the perfect because it can be made much safer than it is today, essentially 0 risk. It can also be the least expensive if we allowed more research and development of it. Plus it is fully reliable and deployable.

The key is the energy density of the fuel. Wind is the least dense. Then solar. Then wood and biomass. Then nat gas. Then oil. At the opposite end of the spectrum is nuclear.

No risk for nuclear? Putting aside demonstrable nuclear catastrophes, there is no known solution to disposing of nuclear waste aside from time, as in centuries of time. Additionally, leakage of contaminated waste is also a significant ecological issue.

Still, Nuclear needs to be part of our energy equation. Declaring nuclear is "essentially 0 risk" requires ignoring historical incidents and waste disposal facts.

In support of "green" energy I'd argue that you are forgetting technological evolution. Nuclear is safer and more efficient today (not 0 risk) than it was in 1970. The solar panels manufactured today are eons better than those my dad manufactured/sold in the '80s. A few weeks ago I visited Palm Springs. There is a gigantic wind farm right outside the city. You can see new windmills and older windmills side by side. Think those newer generation wind mills aren't orders of magnitude more efficient than their predecessors? Oil and fossil fuel technologies have decades (a century?) head start on renewables.

 

[Seattle Husker]

But we buy a lion's share of our solar panels and wind turbines from China. How is that independent? And they make them with coal power or they would be even more expensive.

If you're advocating for producing those here I'm supportive.

 

[OUBubba]

How is it logical though? What logic are you applying to the situation. I think it is logical to stop building out new capacity of them.

Further you say wind and solar are perfect? While nuclear is just good? I would say nuclear is the best option out there long term. I would put it as the perfect because it can be made much safer than it is today, essentially 0 risk. It can also be the least expensive if we allowed more research and development of it. Plus it is fully reliable and deployable.

The key is the energy density of the fuel. Wind is the least dense. Then solar. Then wood and biomass. Then nat gas. Then oil. At the opposite end of the spectrum is nuclear.

Dude. Allowing "the perfect to be an enemy of the good" is a saying. It means if you pass up on attainable gains because they're not good enough then you miss out on attainable gains. Nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, waste water hydro...it's all better than Saudi/Russian oil. But we need oil for the remainder of my lifetime, so, let's try to produce it in the good old US of A. For national security reasons and for employing our citizens reasons.

 

[mb227]

Reading comprehension 101: Show me where I said he was registered.

Evidently being convicted of exposing your penis to young girls as an adult is not enough to describe someone as a "convicted sex offender". He was charged and convicted of indecent exposure. I'm sure every convicted flasher would love your support.

Here is the arrest report if you are interested: https://annelandmanblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Boebert-Jason-record-2.pdf

Ever notice how nobody wants to post a Sentence and Judgment. Ever think that gets in the way of the tarring effort?

Nah. You wouldn't have been worried about that. It would interfere with your efforts to tar the spouse of a duly elected member of Congress.

Setting aside the registry, which is what most RATIONAL people tend to think of when the issue of sex offender is discussed, an arrest does not make one guilty of ANYTHING.

And if you know ANYTHING about the law (not sure that you really do other than to parrot talking points from the MSM), you would know that an arrest is not evidence. You would ALSO know that a conviction is often NOT had at the same level of offense as the original arrest might have been for, with the reduction being for any number of reasons. But you don't even know if there was a final conviction here, yet you want to hurl labels. Ironic considering you support teachers who engage in grooming behaviors of minor children...

 

[Monahorns]

No risk for nuclear? Putting aside demonstrable nuclear catastrophes, there is no known solution to disposing of nuclear waste aside from time, as in centuries of time. Additionally, leakage of contaminated waste is also a significant ecological issue.

I said no risk if development was allowed. Current technology has risks because the system is built as a pressure vessel. The explosions are due to pressure exceeding the facility limits. There are technologies that are known today which do not rely on pressure to produce energy. They are inherently safe. The safety of waste storage has been shown many times over. Plus there are ways of using that waste to produce more energy if the industry was allowed to innovate.

Still, Nuclear needs to be part of our energy equation. Declaring nuclear is "essentially 0 risk" requires ignoring historical incidents and waste disposal facts.

Reread what I said. You are twisting my words. You are ignoring what I said to try to make a point. It is a habit of yours.

In support of "green" energy I'd argue that you are forgetting technological evolution. Nuclear is safer and more efficient today (not 0 risk) than it was in 1970. The solar panels manufactured today are eons better than those my dad manufactured/sold in the '80s. A few weeks ago I visited Palm Springs. There is a gigantic wind farm right outside the city. You can see new windmills and older windmills side by side. Think those newer generation wind mills aren't orders of magnitude more efficient than their predecessors? Oil and fossil fuel technologies have decades (a century?) head start on renewables.

I am sure they are better too. The point is that constraints of an energy source are based on the energy density of the fuel. Wind and solar energy are way too energy sparse to be cheap. The sources are inherently unreliable/undeployable.

The mass of material to produce 1 kWh of wind and solar is 10 times what it takes for coal and gas. The base constraints are physics which is understood and can't be violated.

 

[mb227]

If you're advocating for producing those here I'm supportive.

If you support producing them here, you necessarily HAVE to endorse removing a number of EPA restrictions.

There are MANY obstacles which preclude wind and solar being viable as a replacement for oil, gas, coal, and nuclear. The battery production is a very dirty process from start to finish...

 

[Monahorns]

If you're advocating for producing those here I'm supportive.

Then it would be even more expensive. Maybe it helps your independence equation. But not a good solution overall.

 

[Chop]

Sadly, that won't stop the current trend being reported around town of just punching the tank.

 

[Chop]

And, importantly, that 7.9% number is BEFORE the recent oil price spike and the war. I'm thinking we'll hit double digits before it gets better.

 

[Chop]

Oil prices at $200 is no longer crazy, analyst says in dire warning

 

[Seattle Husker]

I said no risk if development was allowed. Current technology has risks because the system is built as a pressure vessel. The explosions are due to pressure exceeding the facility limits. There are technologies that are known today which do not rely on pressure to produce energy. They are inherently safe. The safety of waste storage has been shown many times over. Plus there are ways of using that waste to produce more energy if the industry was allowed to innovate.

Our fundamental disconnect is that you want to consider the energy production only up to the point of it's production and not any byproduct. If you completely disregard what happens after you'll always be at an impasse with the green energy people because that's the foundation of their concerns, Climate Change. So, nuclear waste as a problem is diminished. Of course we can innovate (remember that word) and try to make use of it in other ways. That should be on the table. Why aren't you allowing for innovation in renewables? With innovation could "the mass of material to produce 1 kWh of wind and solar" improve? It has greatly improved since their introduction. Do you expect that trend line to stop tomorrow?

The point that nuclear is safer now than in previous generations has already been agreed upon. Wind and solar are newcomers to the energy sector and arguably have seen the most innovation in the last 20 years because of the investment in them. In full transparency, if they come close to fossil fuels in energy efficiency without as significant ecological impact it's a no brainer. That's a long ways off though. Still, for the future of our country, our planet looking 100-200 years down the road we need to explore these technologies and others (e.g. Algae).

I am sure they are better too. The point is that constraints of an energy source are based on the energy density of the fuel. Wind and solar energy are way too energy sparse to be cheap. The sources are inherently unreliable/undeployable.

The mass of material to produce 1 kWh of wind and solar is 10 times what it takes for coal and gas. The base constraints are physics which is understood and can't be violated.

Inherently unreliable/undeployable like the Texas freeze in '20 or '21? The argument needs to be about the ratios of our energy mix not a black and white XX technology over XX technology.

 

[Monahorns]

Our fundamental disconnect is that you want to consider the energy production only up to the point of it's production and not any byproduct. If you completely disregard what happens after you'll always be at an impasse with the green energy people because that's the foundation of their concerns, Climate Change.

Not really. Batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines have large environmental costs and the waste toxic and there will be much more of it with those sources.

The world will adapt to the small amounts of climate change due to CO2 increase. The IR band which CO2 absorbs is almost all absorbed already. Warming due to CO2 has a physical limit of another 0.5C. That is the upper limit possible. Plus more CO2 is a benefit to crop yields.

. Of course we can innovate (remember that word) and try to make use of it in other ways. That should be on the table. Why aren't you allowing for innovation in renewables? With innovation could "the mass of material to produce 1 kWh of wind and solar" improve? It has greatly improved since their introduction. Do you expect that trend line to stop tomorrow?

The mass of material could improve. Today the mass comparison is 10xs. Maybe it could go to 5-8xs. But there isn't a path to that.

I am open to R&D to see what can be developed. I am more against government research dollars going to it, direct subsidies, and other laws forcing people into something. Give all the technologies an EQUAL playing field. I have no problem with that.

The point that nuclear is safer now than in previous generations has already been agreed upon. Wind and solar are newcomers to the energy sector and arguably have seen the most innovation in the last 20 years because of the investment in them. In full transparency, if they come close to fossil fuels in energy efficiency without as significant ecological impact it's a no brainer. That's a long ways off though. Still, for the future of our country, our planet looking 100-200 years down the road we need to explore these technologies and others (e.g. Algae).

If those things were true then they would win out. I am not against that. But the physics and constraints don't paint an optimistic picture. People should be free to invest in it, but development and transitioning shouldn't be forced, which is what Democrats are talking about.

About nuclear I am not talking about incremental improvement in safety. I am saying there are already design technologies that would be a revolutionary change if allowed to finalize design and commercialize. But regulations and laws make a new inherently safe process impossible to scale up.

Inherently unreliable/undeployable like the Texas freeze in '20 or '21? The argument needs to be about the ratios of our energy mix not a black and white XX technology over XX technology.

Inherently meaning as a part of its essential nature. Synonym Intrinsic.

 

[Chop]

 

[Chop]

 

[Chop]

 

[Chop]

 

[Chop]

 

[mchammer]

 

[Chop]

 

[nashhorn]

Even Costco water has gone up. Once was $2.99, which was unreal low. Today it’s just gone up again to $3.39. Ok, sounds like not much but over 10% increase.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I mean it's logical that we should effort at migrating to renewables. MIGRATE. We still need coal and oil for the foreseeable future. The green people need to bite the bullet and embrace nuclear. They're letting perfect be the enemy of the good.

Personally, I have no problem with researching and developing renewable energy sources. However, it really bothers me when existing forms of energy are shutdown before renewable energy sources are truly feasible and ready to substitute for what's being shutdown. That's how Putin got Germany by the balls. Heads should roll on that.

 

[humahuma]

The plant I have an office at had a R&D solar shingle project. Built a large "roof" installed different types of solar shingles, had all the wiring and was in operation for a couple of years. Then it was demo, I heard China could produce way cheaper solar shingles then us and project was terminated.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Personally, I have no problem with researching and developing renewable energy sources. However, it really bothers me when existing forms of energy are shutdown before renewable energy sources are truly feasible and ready to substitute for what's being shutdown. That's how Putin got Germany by the balls. Heads should roll on that.

To be clear, I'm not sure anyone on West Mall is advocating shutting down all fossil fuel energy production while renewables are in their infancy. It's a ramp that will take many decades to develop the technologies and transition infrastructure. Oil is still useful for more than energy so it will likely never fully go away. The goal of the left is simply to start that transition, invest in the right infrastructure. If the aspirational goals are what scares conservative I'd point out when was the last time an aspirational goal by the Feds was achieved? The Moon landing?

 

[Seattle Husker]

The plant I have an office at had a R&D solar shingle project. Built a large "roof" installed different types of solar shingles, had all the wiring and was in operation for a couple of years. Then it was demo, I heard China could produce way cheaper solar shingles then us and project was terminated.

Yes, their dominance in solar panel manufacturing is largely due to significantly lower labor costs.

Increased shipping costs and global supply chain challenges during the pandemic must be adding some amount to their cheaper costs. Maybe those challenges will begin to equal the field, a little.

 

[EDT]