WC's real name is Bill Braskey.
He just goes through wikipedia and tries to spout as if he actually knows what he is talking about. He said some really stupid and I would not let it go no matter how hard he tried to change the subject.I got no skin in the "capacitor" argument, so I think it is safe to say:
@ at two people aruging over the electrical properties of capacitors in the political section of a basketball message board. No offense meant to either party inolved.
I LOVE the internet for random (HA) like that.
A bit obsessive? Sure but he is goddamn annoying.
He does this all the time. Its his MO to sprout off jargon in an effort to make someone believe he understands what is involved. Its ironic as considering he's constantly praising himself for understanding the science behind everything he says.
He's a con artist and he's a god damn poor one. I can't believe RG has spent so much time arguing with him on climate change.
Parts changer
Technically, I have stopped arguing with anybody about climate change. It is a bit like trying to argue physics and chemistry with 9-11 truthers. Deniers are hip-deep in pseudo-science and arguing with such people about their beliefs is akin to trying to convince someone their religious dogma is dogma.
Where I do argue, and with a perfect track record so far, is for prudent risk management, and fairly solid economic grounds. I have yet to have any denier adequately and logically address either the risk managment and economic implications of man's use of fossil fuels.
Two specific instances stand out in my mind most that illustrate most clearly the failures in reasoning on the part of many "conservaties/libertarians" that WC exemplifies fairly well.
One was a news article about the government's decision to include some effects of ground air pollution on health in estimates of the real cost of air pollution. This included things like respitory distress to vulnerable populations and so forth. WC focused in on a couple of seeming semantic mistakes on the part of the reporter ("it should have been "oxide" instead of "oxides", etc), while completely ignoring the main thrust of the article. In his mind, hyper-focusing on the mistakes or hidden bias of the reporter completely invalidated the decision to more comprehensively factor in some health costs in considering pollution legislation.
Another was where he flat out stated once that teen pregnancies were much higher these days than when he was growing up, something that proved to be contrary to actual data. When presented with actual data showing the opposite, he started attempting, yet again, to tear down the source, and split hairs on definitions, as if either would somehow support his statement.
I see here the same thing playing out, although the pure science being discussed is a tad over my head.
I don't clearly recall that thread, but isn't that the same one where I was pointing out the author was drawing incorrect conclusions? Where you confused ozone and smog?
There are various forms of nitrogen and oxygen. Some are mostly man made, some are natural, and in equilibrium with other gasses. I think you were misunderstanding what my points were. I do know I kept having to keep you on track between ozone and smog. Ozone is a component of smog, but the two are not interchangeable.
Then that evolved to "unplanned" pregnancies, and the ages included what. Early 20's? We were looking at two angles of it. Years ago, high school students didn't plan to have children. Nearly all were "unplanned" pregnancies. Today, many teens intentionally get pregnant to extents never before in the past. It's no longer shameful, but "cool." They can also justify getting the state to pay for them to move away from mommy and/or daddy.
Why do you bring that up after realizing we were arguing two different angles of it, or do you refuse to accept that in preference of making me look bad? Or... are you purposely just slandering me?
Offshore Wind Power Line Wins Praise, and Backing
WASHINGTON — Google and a New York financial firm have each agreed to invest heavily in a proposed $5 billion transmission backbone for future offshore wind farms along the Atlantic Seaboard that could ultimately transform the region’s electrical map.
The 350-mile underwater spine, which could remove some critical obstacles to wind power development, has stirred excitement among investors, government officials and environmentalists who have been briefed on it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/sc...gewanted=print
You are asking him to prove a negative.
I can't prove that, if I hold a book over the floor and let go it will NOT fall, but I can prove that if it were to go up, that would be contrary to our current understanding of gravity.
Pretty bad ass article.
Google investing in offshore electrical grid aligns with the report a few weeks ago that said such a grid would provide nearly continuous power since always somewhere along the Eastern continental shelf, the wind was blowing.
Such a offshore grid could extend from Boston to Miami.
Seems like a good investment.Yet even before any wind farms were built, the cable would channel existing supplies of electricity from southern Virginia, where it is cheap, to northern New Jersey, where it is costly, bypassing one of the most congested parts of the North American electric grid while lowering energy costs for northern customers.
If you build it, they will come.
As I have stated before there is enormous potential there, it just takes capital to unlock it, just like anything else.
What we need is the imagination and courage to leap beyond the status quo.
It sounds to me like a transmission line from rural coal fired power plants to dense NE urban areas that will get subsidized by "wind energy" tax credits "just in case" wind farms want to tie into the grid.
You don't think they'd save a lot by building a line like that on land instead of at sea? Fairly certain if you're putting on a condom its because you plan to .
I know there were some issues with windfarms in Cape Cod due to the Kennedys ing about it.
The legal easements would be a nightmare for a new high voltage transmission line in that densely populated region. It's probably easier to do it this way.You don't think they'd save a lot by building a line like that on land instead of at sea? Fairly certain if you're putting on a condom its because you plan to .
Wind energy tax credits only really apply, to my knowledge, to actual MW produced, so this isn't quite accurate.
"just in case" is also inaccurate, as there are some projects that are already going ahead, if memory serves.
To me, power transmission lines have a similar function to roads. Both tend to have some add-on effects for the wider economy.
What will definitely happen is that those rural energy users will now be forced to compete with the NE users for available energy, although from the map given I don't see power going from rural to urban, just from urban to urban. The shift may exist, but isn't quite so direct.
The aggregate effect is a net positive though for the wider economy. Moving things from where it is relatively abundant to where it is relatively scarce always does that.
As was noted though, this provides infrastructure that makes wind energy more compe ive, and lowers capital barriers to entry for new capacity, since someone who wants to build a windfarm already has ready-made transmissive capacity. This project is, in essence, risk-sharing capitalism.
No kidding. That was so ironic. They don't want it in their backyard, which was a perfect place for them, but would force them on other people's back yards...
I ing hate elitists.
I wonder if this like some wind investments I've heard of. Invest $7 million and get $8 million in tax breaks over several years...Offshore Wind Power Line Wins Praise, and Backing
WASHINGTON — Google and a New York financial firm have each agreed to invest heavily in a proposed $5 billion transmission backbone for future offshore wind farms along the Atlantic Seaboard that could ultimately transform the region’s electrical map.
The 350-mile underwater spine, which could remove some critical obstacles to wind power development, has stirred excitement among investors, government officials and environmentalists who have been briefed on it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/sc...gewanted=print
Is it really a good capital investment, or a money maker with no risk?
Anyone know the tax detains of this?
"risk-sharing capitalism"
Electricity is a privilege, not a right -- Wild Coconut
I'm much rather such infrastructure such as "interstate electrical highways" be govt financed and operated, just like I never want to see for-profit municipal water companies, esp as Blue Gold disappears.
Enron, El Paso Energy(?), etc really messed up the deregulated electrical energy markets, while dubya's/Repug FERC did nothing and let the free market pillagers get on with their free market pillaging and market gaming. aka, the free market always delivering the best solution (for free market suppliers. free market consumers get screwed)
LOL...
Now you got me laughing over that one.
I am a nut at times. Just ask the woman I love.
In fact, if successful, the transmission spine would reduce the regulatory burden on subsequent projects, said Mr. Mitc , the Trans-Elect chief executive.
Mr. Kempton of the University of Delaware and Mr. Wellinghoff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said the backbone would offer another plus: reducing one of wind power’s big problems, variability of output.
“Along the U.S. Atlantic seaboard, we tend to have storm tracks that move along the coast and somewhat offshore,” Mr. Kempton said.
If storm winds were blowing on Friday off Virginia, they might be off Delaware by Saturday and off New Jersey by Sunday, he noted. Yet the long spine would ensure that the amount of energy coming ashore held roughly constant.
Wind energy becomes more valuable when it is more predictable; if predictable enough, it could replace some land-based generation altogether, Mr. Kempton said.
But the economics remain uncertain, he warned, For now, he said, the biggest impediment may be that the market price of offshore wind energy is about 50 percent higher than that of energy generated on land.
With a change in market conditions — an increase in the price of natural gas, for example, or the adoption of a tax on emissions of carbon dioxide from coal- or gas-generated electricity — that could change, he said.
If one assumes that the cost of fossil fuels will be rising, the economics will change.
I would make that assertion, and have here.
I would note that will happen even without the much criticized cap and trade or similar taxing scheme.
Again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, we lock ourselves into a form of power for about 30 years when we build each new power plant.
One might not be able to fully pin down the exact cost of coal in 15 years, but I would be willing to bet, even absent cap/trade/whatever we will see higher prices relative to inflation. Indeed, I will be betting my retirement money on just this happening.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 10-12-2010 at 02:44 PM.
U.S. Metallurgical Coal and Coke Supplies–Prices, Availability, and the Emerging Futures Markets
by
Richard F. Bonskowski
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/pa.../isspaper.html
There has been no rush to increase mining capacity. In fact, the fewer, larger players in the industry are today more market-savvy and are willing to manage their assets. They will not hesitate to idle or shut down a less profitable mine and to withdraw production from the coal supply pool rather than sell coal at rates of return that may be lower than inflation.
----------------------The other major change is that coal is now perceived as being potentially subject to price volatility. This volatility results from the deregulation of commodities closely linked to coal—natural gas, railroads, and the ongoing deregulation of electricity providers. As a result, energy marketers now include coal in their over-the-counter and futures markets.
The e there was due to a corresponding e in gas prices. Energy prices have become much more interrelated and interchangible.
If oil gets more expensive, so will coal/gas, and vice versa.
Given that all three are approaching, or past their "peaks", there is no reason to think they will get cheaper, relatively, over time, unless demand falls off much faster than supply. Unlikely to happen, barring some massive economic event.
"unless demand falls off much faster than supply. Unlikely to happen, barring some massive economic event."
you don't think the current Banksters' Great Depression isn't some "massive economic event"?
Demand is down all over the world, but commodity traders, certainly in conspiracy with carbon energy extractors/suppliers, are keeping the energy prices way above demand. And the commodity trading is all done in complete secrecy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
