Trump

[CBB_Fan]

No I don't believe that. I know that it produces some CO2. That doesn't bother me, but it does bother some. My point was that all energy sources have some level of negative and we need to be able to reconcile the negatives for the greater good. Today, fossil fuels have the most positives and the fewest negatives. It could have been nuclear, but it's not. Perhaps someday solar will have the most positives. I hope that If that happens that people don't whine about the problems I mentioned previously.

It is far more complex than "fossil fuels have the most positives and least negatives." That isn't even true of all fossil fuels, which compete with each other just as much (or even more) than other energy sources. It also implies that we should only use fossil fuel for now, which isn't a good implication.

Fossil fuels have existing infrastructure advantages, giving them a low-investment advantage, and easily scale to peak power. They have an existing workforce in both urban and rural areas, and a variety of companies and funding mechanisms (making it easier to get a bond or set-up an LLC).

Alternative energy sources (wind/solar/hydro) already match fossil fuels in costs per kWh, led by massive drops in battery prices. In places with stable funding, an engineering base large enough to handle an emerging technology, and ample wind/sun throughout the year it actually makes a great deal of sense to move to renewables for non-peak hours. There is also a certain attractiveness for those with homes far from normal grids, which can power themselves off solar.

So in many places, it already makes a great deal of sense to start switching some energy generation to renewables. But for peak-power, fossil fuel reigns supreme. And many places don't have subsidies or investment firms to help start new businesses, or the engineers to set-up and maintain the technology, or the actual capability of generating renewable power.

Yes, we should care about the negatives and in many cases fossil fuels are better. I just wanted to say that isn't the case everywhere. The big cost with renewables has been the batteries, which are necessarily to store energy until it is needed, and large batteries have dropped 80% in price over the past 6 years. They really are farther along than people think.

[MoValley John]

It is far more complex than "fossil fuels have the most positives and least negatives." That isn't even true of all fossil fuels, which compete with each other just as much (or even more) than other energy sources. It also implies that we should only use fossil fuel for now, which isn't a good implication.

Fossil fuels have existing infrastructure advantages, giving them a low-investment advantage, and easily scale to peak power. They have an existing workforce in both urban and rural areas, and a variety of companies and funding mechanisms (making it easier to get a bond or set-up an LLC).

Alternative energy sources (wind/solar/hydro) already match fossil fuels in costs per kWh, led by massive drops in battery prices. In places with stable funding, an engineering base large enough to handle an emerging technology, and ample wind/sun throughout the year it actually makes a great deal of sense to move to renewables for non-peak hours. There is also a certain attractiveness for those with homes far from normal grids, which can power themselves off solar.

So in many places, it already makes a great deal of sense to start switching some energy generation to renewables. But for peak-power, fossil fuel reigns supreme. And many places don't have subsidies or investment firms to help start new businesses, or the engineers to set-up and maintain the technology, or the actual capability of generating renewable power.

Yes, we should care about the negatives and in many cases fossil fuels are better. I just wanted to say that isn't the case everywhere. The big cost with renewables has been the batteries, which are necessarily to store energy until it is needed, and large batteries have dropped 80% in price over the past 6 years. They really are farther along than people think.

The day of the solar/wind home is within our lifetime. Interestingly enough, electric utilities don't want to buy consumer generated excess power. We will always need a grid, but probably won't need large scale power plants. Hopefully the utility companies will soon figure out that their future role won't be producing energy, but managing the grid as a trading platform as consumers buy their short term need and sell their excess.

[pinstripers]

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/did-votes-by-noncitizens-cost-trump-the-2016-popular-vote-sure-looks-that-way/

I'll be damned

[BOBB]

The day of the solar/wind home is within our lifetime. Interestingly enough, electric utilities don't want to buy consumer generated excess power. We will always need a grid, but probably won't need large scale power plants. Hopefully the utility companies will soon figure out that their future role won't be producing energy, but managing the grid as a trading platform as consumers buy their short term need and sell their excess.

Agreed. This is not a partisan issue. Utilities will need to maintain and update the grid and be able to provide backup power when needed. The concept that utilities will be out of the picture is misguided. I know that I could run my home off of solar for 250 days a year. I would need gas and electric for the other 100. I obviously need to pay something for the reliability and maintenance of the grid, regardless if I am generating excess power on the good days.

[BOBB]

http://www.investors.com/politics/ed...ooks-that-way/

I'll be damned

http://www.justfactsdaily.com/substantial-numbers-of-non-citizens-vote-illegally-in-u-s-elections/

Did you go on to follow their sources? The number, while stipulating that any noncitizens voting is too many, is likely not as large as extrapolated to the maximum as this article does.

"In this 2008 survey of 32,800 respondents, 339 identified themselves as non-citizens, and 38 of these non-citizens checked a box that said “I definitely voted” in the 2008 general election or were recorded in the Catalist database as voting in that election. At face value, this means that 11.2% (38/339) of non-citizens voted in the 2008 election.

Applying this 11.2% figure to the Census Bureau’s estimate of 19.4 million adult non-citizens in the U.S., this amounts to 2.2 million non-citizens who voted illegally in the 2008 election. After weighting these results and accounting for margins of error, the authors estimated that a maximum of 2.8 million non-citizens voted in 2008.

On the low side, the authors noted that only five non-citizens who said they voted were recorded in the Catalist database as voting. If these were the only people who voted, it would mean that 1.5% (5/339) of non-citizens voted. Applied to 19.4 million adult non-citizens, this amounts to 290,000 votes. After weighting these results and accounting for margins of error, the authors estimated that a bare minimum of 38,000 non-citizens voted in the 2008 election."

Using other data from the survey, the authors refined their high and low estimates to produce a “best guess” that 6.4% or 1.2 million non-citizens cast votes in 2008. The survey also showed that 81.8% of non-citizen voters reported that they voted for Obama."

[pinstripers]

I have 4 solar water wells. They work fairly well. They are not maintenance-free. A holding tank of a couple thousand gallons would be a good idea. Without storage batteries, they are part-time solution. I'm glad I have them, but it's not a magical answer. Not yet.

[MoValley John]

Agreed. This is not a partisan issue. Utilities will need to maintain and update the grid and be able to provide backup power when needed. The concept that utilities will be out of the picture is misguided. I know that I could run my home off of solar for 250 days a year. I would need gas and electric for the other 100. I obviously need to pay something for the reliability and maintenance of the grid, regardless if I am generating excess power on the good days.

The grid needs to become a trading platform. Generation of electricity to fill spot needs could be private sector, plugged into the public grid. It could be posdible that large amounts solar/wind electricity is generated and stored in batteries by private corps, delivering energy on demand. As a consumer, I could choose which company to buy spot power from, much like deciding between which corner gas station to patronize. I could als sell any excess I generate. My month end bill would include a flat charge for use of the grid, transaction fees, transaction credits and debits. If I'm a good boy, I could owe next to zero, if I'm bad, I'd probably owe about the same as I do now.

[pinstripers]

The grid needs to become a trading platform. Generation of electricity to fill spot needs could be private sector, plugged into the public grid. It could be posdible that large amounts solar/wind electricity is generated and stored in batteries by private corps, delivering energy on demand. As a consumer, I could choose which company to buy spot power from, much like deciding between which corner gas station to patronize. I could als sell any excess I generate. My month end bill would include a flat charge for use of the grid, transaction fees, transaction credits and debits. If I'm a good boy, I could owe next to zero, if I'm bad, I'd probably owe about the same as I do now.

Battery technology needs to progress. Also, Both solar and wind require a backup plan and always will. Stationary jet engines are being used now as a backup, which, if you have to own them, have to use them anyway, why not just use them all the time.

[SB Shock]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russians...officials-say/


But at least some of the 35 diplomats were kicked out because they were suspected of being involved in election-interference operations, according to one of the former officials.

Given how we found out just how widespread this election hacking was, this is a nice interesting piece of info to be refreshed about

The Russians were given 24 hours to get out of the compound and 72 hours to leave the country. Current U.S. officials tell CBS News they vacated the compounds before the 24-hour deadline, striking some as odd and raising the question of whether the diplomats had been tipped off about their expulsion.

How many Germans have we kicked out?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-intelligence-also-snooped-on-white-house-a-1153592.html

How many chinese have we kicked out?

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/06/defence-contractor-accused-spying-china-170622232438593.html

https://www.rt.com/usa/364614-us-china-cyberattack-targets/

I guess what Trump should do is just cover it all up like the Obama administration with China.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/13/technology/china-fdic-hack/index.html

[wufan]

It is far more complex than "fossil fuels have the most positives and least negatives." That isn't even true of all fossil fuels, which compete with each other just as much (or even more) than other energy sources. It also implies that we should only use fossil fuel for now, which isn't a good implication.

Fossil fuels have existing infrastructure advantages, giving them a low-investment advantage, and easily scale to peak power. They have an existing workforce in both urban and rural areas, and a variety of companies and funding mechanisms (making it easier to get a bond or set-up an LLC).

Alternative energy sources (wind/solar/hydro) already match fossil fuels in costs per kWh, led by massive drops in battery prices. In places with stable funding, an engineering base large enough to handle an emerging technology, and ample wind/sun throughout the year it actually makes a great deal of sense to move to renewables for non-peak hours. There is also a certain attractiveness for those with homes far from normal grids, which can power themselves off solar.

So in many places, it already makes a great deal of sense to start switching some energy generation to renewables. But for peak-power, fossil fuel reigns supreme. And many places don't have subsidies or investment firms to help start new businesses, or the engineers to set-up and maintain the technology, or the actual capability of generating renewable power.

Yes, we should care about the negatives and in many cases fossil fuels are better. I just wanted to say that isn't the case everywhere. The big cost with renewables has been the batteries, which are necessarily to store energy until it is needed, and large batteries have dropped 80% in price over the past 6 years. They really are farther along than people think.

No argument from me.

[SB Shock]

Lol okay, obama this obama that.

I guess you didn't read the Washington Post article where the ultimate conclusion was the Obama administration were afraid and choked.

It is the hardest thing about my entire time in government to defend," another senior Obama administration official told The Post. "I feel like we sort of choked.

This pretty much sums up the Obama foreign policy.

Obama’s approach often seemed reducable to a single imperative: Don’t make things worse,” the report said. “As brazen as the Russian attacks on the election seemed, Obama and his top advisers feared that things could get far worse.

The NSA has moved forward with putting in place the option for being able to conduct retaliatory cyber-strike in the future if the russians choose to continue their operations.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-banner-7a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.3cc9c3ccbae5

[jdshock]

I guess you didn't read the Washington Post article where the ultimate conclusion was the Obama administration were afraid and choked.



This pretty much sums up the Obama foreign policy.



The NSA has moved forward with putting in place the option for being able to conduct retaliatory cyber-strike in the future if the russians choose to continue their operations.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...=.3cc9c3ccbae5

The article also did an excellent job of laying out the Russia stuff, but there are still people who call it a witch hunt and fake news.

[MoValley John]

The article also did an excellent job of laying out the Russia stuff, but there are still people who call it a witch hunt and fake news.

It's not fake news, but it is a witch hunt. As I've said over and over, foreigners meddling, or attempting to meddle on our elections is nothing new. Our meddling, or attempting to meddle in foreign elections is nothing new, either. Furthermore, had Clinton won, there would have been little more than a sidenote, if even that.

Our intelligence community has the task of preventing meddling. They were asleep ay the switch. Moreover, the Democrats were in charge at the time, not Trump, so any meddling really comes back to themselves. Instead, we get whining, crying and gnashing of teeth. It's tiresome.

This is a witch hunt only because foreign meddling happens every election. No votes were illegally cast, nor were any suppressed by any interference, so the tally wasn't altered, and the anger and investigations are being misdirected at a candidate, rather than the administration that was in charge of preventing interference.

When you look at it from the outside, the misdirected anger is pretty humorous.

[wufan]

The article also did an excellent job of laying out the Russia stuff, but there are still people who call it a witch hunt and fake news.

I think the issues are mixed on this which makes it seem like there's a lot more disagreement than there is. Even when someone speaks with solid facts to a Trump supporter, they might get a patterned denial because it has been said/implied that Russia won the election for Trump, and/or Trump and/or his campaign and/or his cabinet are working with Russia. So if you say, "We have to stop those Russians from interfering in our elections", you might get a defensive response like, "they didn't do anything."

I think the denials are not about Russia but are about Trump + Russia. If I'm wrong it's scary.

[MoValley John]

I think the issues are mixed on this which makes it seem like there's a lot more disagreement than there is. Even when someone speaks with solid facts to a Trump supporter, they might get a patterned denial because it has been said/implied that Russia won the election for Trump, and/or Trump and/or his campaign and/or his cabinet are working with Russia. So if you say, "We have to stop those Russians from interfering in our elections", you might get a defensive response like, "they didn't do anything."

I think the denials are not about Russia but are about Trump + Russia. If I'm wrong it's scary.

You would be right.