So Trump is installing all these oil guys, and someone is creating a narrative of russians hacking the election, and it's all so overly bizzare I think I'm living in someones broken simulation matrix. Then I see https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/09/unpacking-new-cia-leak-dont-ignore-alu... which says "But what about the implications that climate science will be squelched in addition to alternative energy development? They can purge anybody who worked on alternative energy, halt reporting about climate change, but they can't hide tankers floating out at sea chock full of oil. They can't hide the strategic petroleum reserve. They can't force the market to pay more for oil unless they truly shut off the spigots and the moves they are making suggest they are doing no such thing." So what's going on here? There's some kind of sigint here about oil, but I'm not quite seeing all the pieces. Are we out? Is it gone? Or do we just have some shadow government that's about to bust the petrodollar and go cryptocurrency because it's getting too hard to trace the cold hard cash flows when they go dark? Or is this leaking stuff just the intelligence community reminding Trump who's really in charge here. What I read of him is he'd be trivial to manipulate by some guys who have spent their lives installing puppet governments.
On 12/11/2016 07:19 PM, hozer@hozed.org wrote:
So Trump is installing all these oil guys, and someone is creating a narrative of russians hacking the election, and it's all so overly bizzare I think I'm living in someones broken simulation matrix.
Then I see https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/09/unpacking-new-cia-leak-dont-ignore-alu... which says
"But what about the implications that climate science will be squelched in addition to alternative energy development? They can purge anybody who worked on alternative energy, halt reporting about climate change, but they can't hide tankers floating out at sea chock full of oil. They can't hide the strategic petroleum reserve. They can't force the market to pay more for oil unless they truly shut off the spigots and the moves they are making suggest they are doing no such thing."
So what's going on here? There's some kind of sigint here about oil, but I'm not quite seeing all the pieces.
Are we out? Is it gone? Or do we just have some shadow government that's about to bust the petrodollar and go cryptocurrency because it's getting too hard to trace the cold hard cash flows when they go dark?
Or is this leaking stuff just the intelligence community reminding Trump who's really in charge here. What I read of him is he'd be trivial to manipulate by some guys who have spent their lives installing puppet governments.
I'm only going to reply in brief and don't care to discuss or follow up but essentially what's happened is all the 'easy oil'. The light sweet stuff that just bubbles up out of the ground and is cheap to extract and process is already sitting in reserve tanks in Saudi, Qatar etc. Hundreds of square miles of facilities with a armies (literally) to protect them. As it gets used, there simply isn't being enough oil discovered at that sort of cost to replace it driving the cost up. Almost every new 'find' the exploration companies make touted as megafields turn out a few months or years later, without note in the media, to be duds. As the oil becomes more expensive to process. from the TRILLION DOLLAR WARS required to secure it, to the sludge they call tar sands and Shale/Bakken oil that is SO expensive to turn into anything usable that it's literally considered junk investing and a scam by most energy market people, those increased costs show in the price of the oil. I recommend Paul Roberts "The End Of Oil" very highly. He does an excellent job, in a dozen pages or so, of describing a modern history of the middle east from the time Aramco shipped the first barrel of oil, to the Persian gulf war with a lot about how Central Asia and Russian oil/natural gas figure into the equation. Alternative energy. Energy economics. Published in the 2004: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Paul+Roberts+%22The+End+Of+Oil%22&ia=web Rr
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 10:41 PM, Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/09/unpacking-new-cia-leak-dont-ignore-alu... the 2004: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Paul+Roberts+%22The+End+Of+Oil
Oil, Gas, and Coal are on path to near irrelavancy within 25 years max. The plants will be shrink wrapped and preserved for any future need, with a few left running as research labs. Simply because Solar, Wind, and Nuke are taking over, no one wants the soot and carbon in the atmosphere, no one wants the external geopolitical dependencies, and no one wants to bet on shit that will run out. Especially when an equivalent investment is essentially clean, cheap, and free, forever. Solar has reached an efficiency now where it pays to build the giant fabs and literally start printing energy for free from sand. If the carbon corporations had a brain they'd have started renewable divisions yesterday. But like MAFIAA etc, they're retarded and will fight losing battle till they die. Enter Tesla. People call bullshit but when they start clicking around the links and looking at the data, Solar is taking off like a rocket worldwide. Invest today. Put that shit on your roof bro, batteries in your basement, LED in your ceilings, and fiber to your neighbors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_renewable_energy_topics_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_recycling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry
On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 01:44:57 -0500 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
Oil, Gas, and Coal are on path to near irrelavancy within 25 years max. The plants will be shrink wrapped and preserved for any future need, with a few left running as research labs. Simply because Solar, Wind, and Nuke are taking over, no one wants the soot and carbon in the atmosphere, no one wants the external geopolitical dependencies,
nuke is worse than oil and has the same 'geopolitical dependencies'.
and no one wants to bet on shit that will run out. Especially when an equivalent investment is essentially clean, cheap, and free, forever. Solar has reached an efficiency now where it pays to build the giant fabs and literally start printing energy for free from sand.
"print energy for free" is obvious nonsense. Have you bothered looking at the real numbers? Amount of energy that reaches a particular place, efficiency and COST of the system to collect it?
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 1:24 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
nuke is worse than oil and has the same 'geopolitical dependencies'.
I know it has sourcing and mining issues but we know safe open crowd reviewed plant designs and open inspections are possible for those bold enough to set aside secret corp profit bullshit, and obviously there are zero emissions, except for waste. And maybe similar source reserve timescales as hydrocarbon fuels.
"print energy for free" is obvious nonsense. Have you bothered looking at the real numbers? Amount of energy that reaches a particular place, efficiency and COST of the system to collect it?
Yes deep sunbelt is a current requirement to break even on short term corp quarterly profit bullshit timescales. Longer term amortization vs hardware failure rate and maintenance seems doable there too, even a latitude out. There seems to be more efficiency yet to come, combined with what a global shift from hydrocarbon could do to economics there. Look at the installed base growth curve, they're not all dreaming lefty activists throwing their money away, there's serious corps in there going for it. So shoot me if I'm a bit bullish on nuke and solar / wind. For the next decade at least while efficiency, production, installs, and geopolitical / acceptance matures to be able to tell for sure.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/divestment-has-pulled-26-trillion-dollars-o... http://motherboard.vice.com/read/fossil-fuel-divestment-has-doubled-in-the-l... http://divestinvest.org/2016-report/ A little over a year ago, it was big news that thousands of people and hundreds of institutions controlling more than $2.6 trillion in total assets had pledged to remove their investments from stocks, mutual funds, and bonds that invest in fossil fuel companies. A year later, that number has doubled. According to a report by DivestInvest, a philanthropy helping to lead the movement, more than 688 institutions and 60,000 individual investors worth $5.2 trillion have pulled their investments from fossil fuel companies and have reinvested a portion of their assets into clean energy companies. In September 2015, 436 institutions and 2,040 individuals worth $2.6 trillion had divested. For comparison, the total net worth of investors who had pulled out of the fossil fuel market was just $52 billion in September 2014. Divestment is increasingly seen as one of the stronger moves that private citizens and companies can take to support the move to clean energy. The movement started in earnest in 2011 when college students began petitioning their institutions to remove their assets from stocks, bonds, and mutual funds that invest in fossil fuel companies. What was seen as a gimmick at the time appears to be gaining real momentum a year after the Paris Climate Treaty was signed. http://www.businessinsider.com/r-us-energy-department-balks-at-trump-request... The Department of Energy said Tuesday it will reject the request by President-elect Donald Trump's transition team to name staffers who worked on climate change programs. Energy spokesman Eben Burnhan-Snyder said the agency received "significant feedback" from workers regarding a questionnaire from the transition team that leaked last week. From a Reuters story, syndicated on BusinessInsider: The response from the Energy Department could signal a rocky transition for the president-elect's energy team and potential friction between the new leadership and the staffers who remain in place. The memo sent to the Energy Department on Tuesday and reviewed by Reuters last week contains 74 questions including a request for a list of all department employees and contractors who attended the annual global climate talks hosted by the United Nations within the last five years. "Our career workforce, including our contractors and employees at our labs, comprise the backbone of (the Energy Department) and the important work our department does to benefit the American people," Eben Burnham-Snyder, Energy Department spokesman said. "We are going to respect the professional and scientific integrity and independence of our employees at our labs and across our department," he added. "We will be forthcoming with all publicly available information with the transition team. We will not be providing any individual names to the transition team." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/12/rapid-rise-methane-emiss... http://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/8/697/2016/ Emissions of the powerful greenhouse gas methane have surged in the past decade, threatening to thwart global attempts to combat climate change. Scientists have been surprised by the surge, which began just over 10 years ago in 2007 and then was boosted even further in 2014 and 2015. Concentrations of methane in the atmosphere over those two years alone rose by more than 20 parts per billion, bringing the total to 1,830ppb. This is a cause for alarm among global warming scientists because emissions of the gas warm the planet by more than 20 times as much as similar volumes of carbon dioxide. In the meantime, emissions of carbon dioxide -- the main component of manmade greenhouse gases in the atmosphere -- have been leveling off. The new research, published in the peer-review journal Environmental Research Letters, suggests that the world's attempts to control greenhouse gases have failed to take account of the startling rises in methane. The authors of the 2016 Global Methane Budget report found that in the early years of this century, concentrations of methane rose by only about 0.5ppb each year, compared with 10ppb in 2014 and 2015. The scientists speculate that agriculture may be the main source of the additional methane that has been recorded. However, they cannot be sure of all the sources, owing to a lack of monitoring. At least a third of methane comes from the exploitation of fossil fuels, including fracking and oil drilling and some coal mining, where methane is viewed as a waste gas and is frequently allowed to escape or, in some cases, flared off, which is less harmful. Unlike carbon dioxide emissions, however, which have been tracked in various ways since the 1950s, emissions of methane are poorly understood and could represent a threat that scientists have still not accounted for.
On December 13, 2016 8:17:13 PM EST, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/divestment-has-pulled-26-trillion-dollars-o... http://motherboard.vice.com/read/fossil-fuel-divestment-has-doubled-in-the-l... http://divestinvest.org/2016-report/ A little over a year ago, it was big news that thousands of people and hundreds of institutions controlling more than $2.6 trillion in total assets had pledged to remove their investments from stocks, mutual funds, and bonds that invest in fossil fuel companies. A year later, that number has doubled. According to a report by DivestInvest, a philanthropy helping to lead the movement, more than 688 institutions and 60,000 individual investors worth $5.2 trillion have pulled their investments from fossil fuel companies and have reinvested a portion of their assets into clean energy companies. In September 2015, 436 institutions and 2,040 individuals worth $2.6 trillion had divested. For comparison, the total net worth of investors who had pulled out of the fossil fuel market was just $52 billion in September 2014. Divestment is increasingly seen as one of the stronger moves that private citizens and companies can take to support the move to clean energy. The movement started in earnest in 2011 when college students began petitioning their institutions to remove their assets from stocks, bonds, and mutual funds that invest in fossil fuel companies. What was seen as a gimmick at the time appears to be gaining real momentum a year after the Paris Climate Treaty was signed.
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-us-energy-department-balks-at-trump-request... The Department of Energy said Tuesday it will reject the request by President-elect Donald Trump's transition team to name staffers who worked on climate change programs. Energy spokesman Eben Burnhan-Snyder said the agency received "significant feedback" from workers regarding a questionnaire from the transition team that leaked last week. From a Reuters story, syndicated on BusinessInsider: The response from the Energy Department could signal a rocky transition for the president-elect's energy team and potential friction between the new leadership and the staffers who remain in place. The memo sent to the Energy Department on Tuesday and reviewed by Reuters last week contains 74 questions including a request for a list of all department employees and contractors who attended the annual global climate talks hosted by the United Nations within the last five years. "Our career workforce, including our contractors and employees at our labs, comprise the backbone of (the Energy Department) and the important work our department does to benefit the American people," Eben Burnham-Snyder, Energy Department spokesman said. "We are going to respect the professional and scientific integrity and independence of our employees at our labs and across our department," he added. "We will be forthcoming with all publicly available information with the transition team. We will not be providing any individual names to the transition team."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/12/rapid-rise-methane-emiss... http://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/8/697/2016/ Emissions of the powerful greenhouse gas methane have surged in the past decade, threatening to thwart global attempts to combat climate change. Scientists have been surprised by the surge, which began just over 10 years ago in 2007 and then was boosted even further in 2014 and 2015. Concentrations of methane in the atmosphere over those two years alone rose by more than 20 parts per billion, bringing the total to 1,830ppb. This is a cause for alarm among global warming scientists because emissions of the gas warm the planet by more than 20 times as much as similar volumes of carbon dioxide. In the meantime, emissions of carbon dioxide -- the main component of manmade greenhouse gases in the atmosphere -- have been leveling off. The new research, published in the peer-review journal Environmental Research Letters, suggests that the world's attempts to control greenhouse gases have failed to take account of the startling rises in methane. The authors of the 2016 Global Methane Budget report found that in the early years of this century, concentrations of methane rose by only about 0.5ppb each year, compared with 10ppb in 2014 and 2015. The scientists speculate that agriculture may be the main source of the additional methane that has been recorded. However, they cannot be sure of all the sources, owing to a lack of monitoring. At least a third of methane comes from the exploitation of fossil fuels, including fracking and oil drilling and some coal mining, where methane is viewed as a waste gas and is frequently allowed to escape or, in some cases, flared off, which is less harmful. Unlike carbon dioxide emissions, however, which have been tracked in various ways since the 1950s, emissions of methane are poorly understood and could represent a threat that scientists have still not accounted for.
Vegans will argue cow farts cause a huge portion of that methane. I think they are right, to a point... -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 8:28 PM, John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
Vegans will argue cow farts cause a huge portion of that methane. I think they are right, to a point...
Yeah. So. What do you expect from something that stands around eating and digesting green carbon sink all day. Just attach pilot lights to their ass and convert it back to lesser order carbons immediately upon emission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
On Dec 13, 2016, at 11:26 PM, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
Just attach pilot lights to their ass and convert it back to lesser order carbons immediately upon emission.
Somebody needs to apply for a patent…. I can see it now - “flaming bovine anal aperture for reduction methane emissions”. New FDA requirement. Sounds good to me lolz :P John
Hey Ed, that your Wilma headin over to farmer Greens pasture? Yup :) http://www.40south.co.nz/photos/YY7S5838.jpg https://overtherainbowtothemoon.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/rainbow-cow.jpg
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-energy-computers-idUSKBN1431RV https://www.nrdc.org/ California regulators were poised on Wednesday to adopt the nation's first mandatory energy efficiency rules for computers and monitors -- devices that account for 3 percent of home electric bills and 7 percent of commercial power costs in the state. The state Energy Commission said that when fully implemented, the plan will save consumers $373 million a year and conserve as much electricity annually as it takes to power all San Francisco's homes. Final approval of the standards, expected at a meeting in Sacramento of the five-member commission, caps a nearly two-year planning process that had input from environmentalists, industry, scientists and consumer groups. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an environmental group that helped devise the standards, has said the new standards would cut greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion in power generation by 700,000 tons a year. The California standards set a benchmark for a machine's overall energy use and leave manufacturers the flexibility to choose which efficiency measures to use to meet it -- an approach that the NRDC says fosters innovation. http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/12/first-offshore-wind-farm-in-us-waters... http://dwwind.com/press/americas-first-offshore-wind-farm-powers/ http://www.providencejournal.com/news/20161212/deepwater-gets-ok-for-full-th... On Monday, energy company Deepwater Wind announced that its wind farm three miles off the coast of Block Island, Rhode Island, has the all-clear to sell electricity to the regional power grid. The Block Island Wind Farm is the first offshore wind energy plant in the U.S., and it's expected to produce 30 MW of electricity at full capacity. Deepwater Wind is slowly ramping up energy output and still must provide additional paperwork to the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council, but the executive director of that organization, Grover Fugate, told the Providence Journal, "we don't anticipate any major issues" to getting the wind farm fully online. The one hitch in the Deepwater's plan is that one of the five turbines was recently damaged when a drill bit was left in a critical part of turbine. According to the Providence Journal, "the bit had caused damage to an unspecified number of the 128 magnet modules that line the circular generator and are critical to producing energy." Although the magnet modules can apparently be replaced easily, Deepwater needs to have the components shipped from France, where General Electric, the manufacturer of the wind turbines, makes them. For now, four turbines capable of churning out 6 MW of power each are operational. The Providence Journal notes that National Grid will pay Deepwater Wind 24.4 cents per kilowatt hour of power, with the price escalating over time to 47.9 cents per kilowatt hour. Because the residents of Block Island have some of the most expensive electricity rates in the nation, they will actually see energy savings, despite the price. Mainland Rhode Islanders, on the other hand, will pay an extra $1.07 per month on average.
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 03:34:37 -0500 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 1:24 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
nuke is worse than oil and has the same 'geopolitical dependencies'.
I know it has sourcing and mining issues but we know safe open crowd reviewed plant designs and open inspections are possible for those bold enough to set aside secret corp profit bullshit, and obviously there are zero emissions, except for waste.
...waste being a serious, unsolved problem?
And maybe similar source reserve timescales as hydrocarbon fuels.
"print energy for free" is obvious nonsense. Have you bothered looking at the real numbers? Amount of energy that reaches a particular place, efficiency and COST of the system to collect it?
Yes deep sunbelt is a current requirement to break even on short term corp quarterly profit bullshit timescales. Longer term amortization vs hardware failure rate and maintenance seems doable there too, even a latitude out. There seems to be more efficiency yet to come, combined with what a global shift from hydrocarbon could do to economics there.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/03/20/suntech-bankruptcy/2...
Look at the installed base growth curve, they're not all dreaming lefty activists throwing their money away,
I don't thinkt it's their moeny. It's the money they get through subsidies. But just in case I get accused of...something. Oil is heavily subsidized too.
there's serious corps in there going for it.
Like suntech? =P Anyway, the underlying problem is that there's no real market for energy. The current energy 'market' being a poster child for crony capitalism, including the 'hight tech' sector.
So shoot me if I'm a bit bullish on nuke and solar / wind. For the next decade at least while efficiency, production, installs, and geopolitical / acceptance matures to be able to tell for sure.
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 2:37 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
...waste being a serious, unsolved problem?
Halflife is a bitch. But unlike all the other shit we pump into the air / water, nuke waste localized, and all of it forever could be stored on perhaps a 250 sq km or so reservation. As with all of nuke, its problems are not technical but are political, regulation, secrecy, ignorance.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/03/20/suntech-bankruptcy/2...
I don't thinkt it's their moeny. It's the money they get through subsidies. But just in case I get accused of...something. Oil is heavily subsidized too.
Subsidy / redistribution should probably not be used to prop up dumb legacy shit that's already been done and has questionable future. If stuck with subsidy, better it be for something better.
Like suntech?
Sure. And the article seems clear they overfinanced, overfabbed and overproduced into miscalculated demand, among other things, and killed themselves. Their problem. Not a problem with solar. Solar installs and installed base are growing globally, see the previous links.
Anyway, the underlying problem is that there's no real market for energy. The current energy 'market' being a poster child for crony capitalism, including the 'hight tech'
Certainly no real consumer level market. Other than consumers with solar on their roofs competing with their electric company. There's no real multiple overlay n-mile energy delivery infrastructure to the end user premise. But there is some legit sell / buy / deliver on the supply side the closer you get to production point.
On Dec 15, 2016, at 2:56 AM, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 2:37 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote: ...waste being a serious, unsolved problem?
Halflife is a bitch. But unlike all the other shit we pump into the air / water, nuke waste localized, and all of it forever could be stored on perhaps a 250 sq km or so reservation. As with all of nuke, its problems are not technical but are political, regulation, secrecy, ignorance.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/03/20/suntech-bankruptcy/2...
I don't thinkt it's their moeny. It's the money they get through subsidies. But just in case I get accused of...something. Oil is heavily subsidized too.
Subsidy / redistribution should probably not be used to prop up dumb legacy shit that's already been done and has questionable future. If stuck with subsidy, better it be for something better.
Like suntech?
Sure. And the article seems clear they overfinanced, overfabbed and overproduced into miscalculated demand, among other things, and killed themselves. Their problem. Not a problem with solar. Solar installs and installed base are growing globally, see the previous links.
Anyway, the underlying problem is that there's no real market for energy. The current energy 'market' being a poster child for crony capitalism, including the 'hight tech'
Certainly no real consumer level market. Other than consumers with solar on their roofs competing with their electric company. There's no real multiple overlay n-mile energy delivery infrastructure to the end user premise. But there is some legit sell / buy / deliver on the supply side the closer you get to production point.
When you can build a new home with solar panels all over it and tesla battery arrays in the basement to keep you going at night, it's just possible to get to the point where you receive a check from the utility company every month, rather than a bill .... I think, and hope, this is the future of power in homes. John
From: John Newman <jnn@synfin.org>
When you can build a new home with solar panels all over it and tesla battery> arrays in the basement to keep you going at night, it's just possible to get to> the point where you receive a check from the utility company every month, rather than a bill .... I think, and hope, this is the future of power in homes. John Why should a house-installed solar installation use batteries at all? Batteries are big, heavy, inefficient, have a limited lifetime, and are made of expensive and potentially toxic materials, which can sometimes explode with little or no warning. I think of the AC power-grid as an infinite-capacity, indefinite lifetime, virtually 100% efficient, "battery". Jim Bell
On Dec 15, 2016, at 4:12 AM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: John Newman <jnn@synfin.org>
When you can build a new home with solar panels all over it and tesla battery arrays in the basement to keep you going at night, it's just possible to get to the point where you receive a check from the utility company every month, rather than a bill .... I think, and hope, this is the future of power in homes. John
Why should a house-installed solar installation use batteries at all? Batteries are big, heavy, inefficient, have a limited lifetime, and are made of expensive and potentially toxic materials, which can sometimes explode with little or no warning.
So you don't waste all those KW accumulated during the day. Modern advanced batteries (like the ones sold by tesla) perform quite extraordinarily well.
I think of the AC power-grid as an infinite-capacity, indefinite lifetime, virtually 100% efficient, "battery".
But it's not a battery. There is lots and lots of carbon being burned down to keep that grid humming.
Jim Bell
From: John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> To: jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> Cc: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com>; "cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org" <cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 2:00 AM Subject: Re: oil supply sigint On Dec 15, 2016, at 4:12 AM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote: From: John Newman <jnn@synfin.org>
When you can build a new home with solar panels all over it and tesla battery> arrays in the basement to keep you going at night, it's just possible to get to> the point where you receive a check from the utility company every month, rather than a bill .... I think, and hope, this is the future of power in homes. John
Why should a house-installed solar installation use batteries at all? Batteries are big, heavy, inefficient, have a limited lifetime, and are made of expensive and potentially toxic materials, which can sometimes explode with little or no warning.
So you don't waste all those KW accumulated during the day. Modern advanced batteries (like the ones sold by tesla) perform quite extraordinarily well. Apparently you completely misunderstood what I said.
I think of the AC power-grid as an infinite-capacity, indefinite lifetime, virtually 100% efficient, "battery".
But it's not a battery. There is lots and lots of carbon being burned down to keep that grid humming. But a given house can treat the AC grid as if it's a "battery". If the solar panels generate more electricity than the house happens to be using, they will throw the power into the AC grid, and in effect run the meter backward. The power-generation systems don't have to work as hard, when they are partly supplied by excess residential electricity.
Jim Bell
On Dec 15, 2016, at 5:24 AM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> To: jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> Cc: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com>; "cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org" <cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 2:00 AM Subject: Re: oil supply sigint
On Dec 15, 2016, at 4:12 AM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote: From: John Newman <jnn@synfin.org>
When you can build a new home with solar panels all over it and tesla battery arrays in the basement to keep you going at night, it's just possible to get to the point where you receive a check from the utility company every month, rather than a bill .... I think, and hope, this is the future of power in homes. John
Why should a house-installed solar installation use batteries at all? Batteries are big, heavy, inefficient, have a limited lifetime, and are made of expensive and potentially toxic materials, which can sometimes explode with little or no warning. So you don't waste all those KW accumulated during the day. Modern advanced batteries (like the ones sold by tesla) perform quite extraordinarily well.
Apparently you completely misunderstood what I said.
I think of the AC power-grid as an infinite-capacity, indefinite lifetime, virtually 100% efficient, "battery".
But it's not a battery. There is lots and lots of carbon being burned down to keep that grid humming.
But a given house can treat the AC grid as if it's a "battery". If the solar panels generate more electricity than the house happens to be using, they will throw the power into the AC grid, and in effect run the meter backward. The power-generation systems don't have to work as hard, when they are partly supplied by excess residential electricity
I get that argument, but I think a person would end up saving far more money on their own electric bill if they didn't have to tap into the grid at night for their own juice. Effectively the batteries become the grid for this particular house, at night, when the sun is down ;) And the less people tapping into the grid, the less carbon being burned at the other end....
Jim Bell
On 12/15/2016 03:38 AM, John Newman wrote:
On Dec 15, 2016, at 5:24 AM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> To: jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> Cc: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com>; "cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org" <cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 2:00 AM Subject: Re: oil supply sigint
On Dec 15, 2016, at 4:12 AM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote: From: John Newman <jnn@synfin.org>
When you can build a new home with solar panels all over it and tesla battery arrays in the basement to keep you going at night, it's just possible to get to the point where you receive a check from the utility company every month, rather than a bill .... I think, and hope, this is the future of power in homes. John
Why should a house-installed solar installation use batteries at all? Batteries are big, heavy, inefficient, have a limited lifetime, and are made of expensive and potentially toxic materials, which can sometimes explode with little or no warning. So you don't waste all those KW accumulated during the day. Modern advanced batteries (like the ones sold by tesla) perform quite extraordinarily well.
Apparently you completely misunderstood what I said.
I think of the AC power-grid as an infinite-capacity, indefinite lifetime, virtually 100% efficient, "battery".
But it's not a battery. There is lots and lots of carbon being burned down to keep that grid humming.
But a given house can treat the AC grid as if it's a "battery". If the solar panels generate more electricity than the house happens to be using, they will throw the power into the AC grid, and in effect run the meter backward. The power-generation systems don't have to work as hard, when they are partly supplied by excess residential electricity
I get that argument, but I think a person would end up saving far more money on their own electric bill if they didn't have to tap into the grid at night for their own juice. Effectively the batteries become the grid for this particular house, at night, when the sun is down ;)
And the less people tapping into the grid, the less carbon being burned at the other end....
See http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2016/04/slow-electricity-the-return-of-low-vo...
Jim Bell
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 05:16:30AM -0700, Mirimir wrote:
On 12/15/2016 03:38 AM, John Newman wrote:
On Dec 15, 2016, at 5:24 AM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> To: jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> Cc: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com>; "cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org" <cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 2:00 AM Subject: Re: oil supply sigint
On Dec 15, 2016, at 4:12 AM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote: From: John Newman <jnn@synfin.org>
When you can build a new home with solar panels all over it and tesla battery arrays in the basement to keep you going at night, it's just possible to get to the point where you receive a check from the utility company every month, rather than a bill .... I think, and hope, this is the future of power in homes. John
Why should a house-installed solar installation use batteries at all? Batteries are big, heavy, inefficient, have a limited lifetime, and are made of expensive and potentially toxic materials, which can sometimes explode with little or no warning. So you don't waste all those KW accumulated during the day. Modern advanced batteries (like the ones sold by tesla) perform quite extraordinarily well.
Apparently you completely misunderstood what I said.
I think of the AC power-grid as an infinite-capacity, indefinite lifetime, virtually 100% efficient, "battery".
But it's not a battery. There is lots and lots of carbon being burned down to keep that grid humming.
But a given house can treat the AC grid as if it's a "battery". If the solar panels generate more electricity than the house happens to be using, they will throw the power into the AC grid, and in effect run the meter backward. The power-generation systems don't have to work as hard, when they are partly supplied by excess residential electricity
I get that argument, but I think a person would end up saving far more money on their own electric bill if they didn't have to tap into the grid at night for their own juice. Effectively the batteries become the grid for this particular house, at night, when the sun is down ;)
And the less people tapping into the grid, the less carbon being burned at the other end....
See http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2016/04/slow-electricity-the-return-of-low-vo...
Cool! I feel like Tesla vs Edison keeps coming up in our current culture, over and over... I really dig the Nolan movie "The Prestige", btw. Bowie made a great Tesla :) I haven't read the book it was based on, although it's supposed to be good, I have a feeling it may be one of those cases where the film outdoes the novel... of coures, thats just a feeling, since I haven't read it :P John
On 12/15/2016 05:38 AM, John Newman wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 05:16:30AM -0700, Mirimir wrote:
On 12/15/2016 03:38 AM, John Newman wrote:
On Dec 15, 2016, at 5:24 AM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> To: jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> Cc: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com>; "cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org" <cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 2:00 AM Subject: Re: oil supply sigint
On Dec 15, 2016, at 4:12 AM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote: From: John Newman <jnn@synfin.org>
When you can build a new home with solar panels all over it and tesla battery arrays in the basement to keep you going at night, it's just possible to get to the point where you receive a check from the utility company every month, rather than a bill .... I think, and hope, this is the future of power in homes. John
> Why should a house-installed solar installation use > batteries at all? Batteries are big, heavy, > inefficient, have a limited lifetime, and are made of > expensive and potentially toxic materials, which can > sometimes explode with little or no warning. So you don't waste all those KW accumulated during the day. Modern advanced batteries (like the ones sold by tesla) perform quite extraordinarily well.
Apparently you completely misunderstood what I said.
> I think of the AC power-grid as an infinite-capacity, > indefinite lifetime, virtually 100% efficient, > "battery".
But it's not a battery. There is lots and lots of carbon being burned down to keep that grid humming.
But a given house can treat the AC grid as if it's a "battery". If the solar panels generate more electricity than the house happens to be using, they will throw the power into the AC grid, and in effect run the meter backward. The power-generation systems don't have to work as hard, when they are partly supplied by excess residential electricity
I get that argument, but I think a person would end up saving far more money on their own electric bill if they didn't have to tap into the grid at night for their own juice. Effectively the batteries become the grid for this particular house, at night, when the sun is down ;)
And the less people tapping into the grid, the less carbon being burned at the other end....
See http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2016/04/slow-electricity-the-return-of-low-vo...
Cool!
Technohippies ;)
I feel like Tesla vs Edison keeps coming up in our current culture, over and over... I really dig the Nolan movie "The Prestige", btw. Bowie made a great Tesla :) I haven't read the book it was based on, although it's supposed to be good, I have a feeling it may be one of those cases where the film outdoes the novel... of coures, thats just a feeling, since I haven't read it :P
So I've started rereading _Thirteen_. Brutal opening.
John
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 06:07:32AM -0700, Mirimir wrote:
On 12/15/2016 05:38 AM, John Newman wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 05:16:30AM -0700, Mirimir wrote:
On 12/15/2016 03:38 AM, John Newman wrote:
On Dec 15, 2016, at 5:24 AM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> To: jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> Cc: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com>; "cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org" <cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 2:00 AM Subject: Re: oil supply sigint
On Dec 15, 2016, at 4:12 AM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote: From: John Newman <jnn@synfin.org>
> When you can build a new home with solar panels all over > it and tesla battery arrays in the basement to keep you > going at night, it's just possible to get to the point > where you receive a check from the utility company every > month, rather than a bill .... I think, and hope, this is > the future of power in homes. John
>> Why should a house-installed solar installation use >> batteries at all? Batteries are big, heavy, >> inefficient, have a limited lifetime, and are made of >> expensive and potentially toxic materials, which can >> sometimes explode with little or no warning. So you don't waste all those KW accumulated during the day. Modern advanced batteries (like the ones sold by tesla) perform quite extraordinarily well.
Apparently you completely misunderstood what I said.
>> I think of the AC power-grid as an infinite-capacity, >> indefinite lifetime, virtually 100% efficient, >> "battery".
But it's not a battery. There is lots and lots of carbon being burned down to keep that grid humming.
But a given house can treat the AC grid as if it's a "battery". If the solar panels generate more electricity than the house happens to be using, they will throw the power into the AC grid, and in effect run the meter backward. The power-generation systems don't have to work as hard, when they are partly supplied by excess residential electricity
I get that argument, but I think a person would end up saving far more money on their own electric bill if they didn't have to tap into the grid at night for their own juice. Effectively the batteries become the grid for this particular house, at night, when the sun is down ;)
And the less people tapping into the grid, the less carbon being burned at the other end....
See http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2016/04/slow-electricity-the-return-of-low-vo...
Cool!
Technohippies ;)
I feel like Tesla vs Edison keeps coming up in our current culture, over and over... I really dig the Nolan movie "The Prestige", btw. Bowie made a great Tesla :) I haven't read the book it was based on, although it's supposed to be good, I have a feeling it may be one of those cases where the film outdoes the novel... of coures, thats just a feeling, since I haven't read it :P
So I've started rereading _Thirteen_. Brutal opening.
Systematically unfreezing, eating, and refreezing the poor fuckers that got boarded on the same ship as you, after somebody tweaked it so only YOU wake up early... although, frankly, the 13 villian (i forget his name) is practically a macguffin. I just really dug the atmosphere, the character Carl, the female cop he works with, the (brutal) action.. Altered Carbon and 13 are my two favorite Morgan books, I'm not sure which I like better. Probably 13... it feels a little closer to home. And the ending was great.
John
-- John
From: Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net>
See http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2016/04/slow-electricity-the-return-of-low-vo... What is said there is logical, but it is impractical. Society has far too much invested in AC transmission systems (including those wires already installed in buildings) and consuming devices to expect even a small switchover to DC for the vast majority of applications. In Tesla's (and Edison's) day DC was impractical, because there was no efficient, reliable way to convert low-voltage DC to high-voltage, and back. (motor-generator sets were the closest to that.) In contrast, the AC transformer was very simple, reliable (no moving parts), and eventually could be built to step up to 760 KV (and perhaps higher), enabling transmission of many hundreds of miles, and then down to 240 VAC, split to 120 VAC. That's why Tesla was right, and Edison was wrong. Edison could never have wired the country with any realistic DC system. Today, converting DC to DC is far easier, at least for low voltages, see the large set of chips made by Maxim. https://www.maximintegrated.com/en/products/power/switching-regulators.html But it is virtually as easy to convert rectified AC to low-voltage DC, with these same kinds of chips. So there is very little reason to abandon the modern AC distribution system. Even a local solar array generates a varying voltage that will have to be switched to a specific DC voltage to charge batteries, which is easy to do. And if you hope to sell your excess of power to the grid, it will have to be converted to AC anyway. Jim
On 12/15/2016 10:40 AM, jim bell wrote:
*From:* Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net>
See http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2016/04/slow-electricity-the-return-of-low-vo...
What is said there is logical, but it is impractical. Society has far too much invested in AC transmission systems (including those wires already installed in buildings) and consuming devices to expect even a small switchover to DC for the vast majority of applications. In Tesla's (and Edison's) day DC was impractical, because there was no efficient, reliable way to convert low-voltage DC to high-voltage, and back. (motor-generator sets were the closest to that.)
The REA (Rural Electrification Administration/Act) attempted DC power on farms around the the US in the 1930s, but my understanding of one of the big problems with DC power is voltage drop, which isn't critical with AC powered devices but cause the need for 'stations' set up every so many miles to boost the DC voltage again.
In the 1930s, the provision of power to remote areas was not thought to be economically feasible. A 2300 volt distribution system was then used in cities. This relatively low voltage could only be carried about 4 miles before the voltage drop became unacceptable.
REA cooperatives used a 6900 volt distribution network, which could support much longer runs (up to about 40 miles). Despite requiring more expensive transformers at each home, the overall system cost was manageable. [Citation needed]" (<< Not gonna find verification, therefore "Fail" -Rr)
Ps.
Wiring was performed using type NM (nonmetallic) sheathed cable, insulated with asbestos-reinforced rubber covered with jute and tar.
I lived next to a house in the Pajaro Valley (Ca) post-Loma Prieta earthquake when I was still a Ham radio operator, that had remnants of that wiring, and could see it from my radio room. One evening, while SWL listening, the roof of that lovely old 2-story farmhouse caught fire and the place burned to the ground while the Aromas Volunteer FD watched helplessly. The earthquake had knocked the insulation off the wires mounted on ceramic knobs tens of decades later and presto flamo... The owner's peacocks took days to round up as they scampered around the strawberry fields like little feathered streaks. That beautiful 2 story farmhouse complete with windmill was replaced by an (ugh...) Mobile home. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Act
In contrast, the AC transformer was very simple, reliable (no moving parts), and eventually could be built to step up to 760 KV (and perhaps higher), enabling transmission of many hundreds of miles, and then down to 240 VAC, split to 120 VAC. That's why Tesla was right, and Edison was wrong. Edison could never have wired the country with any realistic DC system.
Today, converting DC to DC is far easier, at least for low voltages, see the large set of chips made by Maxim. https://www.maximintegrated.com/en/products/power/switching-regulators.html
But it is virtually as easy to convert rectified AC to low-voltage DC, with these same kinds of chips. So there is very little reason to abandon the modern AC distribution system. Even a local solar array generates a varying voltage that will have to be switched to a specific DC voltage to charge batteries, which is easy to do. And if you hope to sell your excess of power to the grid, it will have to be converted to AC anyway.
Jim
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-15/world-energy-hits-a-turni... A transformation is happening in global energy markets that's worth noting as 2016 comes to an end: Solar power, for the first time, is becoming the cheapest form of new electricity. This has happened in isolated projects in the past: an especially competitive auction in the Middle East, for example, resulting in record-cheap solar costs. But now unsubsidized solar is beginning to outcompete coal and natural gas on a larger scale, and notably, new solar projects in emerging markets are costing less to build than wind projects, according to fresh data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The chart shows the average cost of new wind and solar from 58 emerging-market economies, including China, India, and Brazil. While solar was bound to fall below wind eventually, given its steeper price declines, few predicted it would happen this soon.
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 13:03:41 -0500 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-15/world-energy-hits-a-turni...
A transformation is happening in global energy markets that's worth noting as 2016
I haven't bothered looking at oil's price for a while...and I just did. So, in the last two years the price went down from ~100 to ~40 - the price isn't even tracking the massive inflation of the last 10 years. Arch-fascists like elon musk and friends are probably not too happy...
comes to an end: Solar power, for the first time, is becoming the cheapest form of new electricity. This has happened in isolated projects in the past: an especially competitive auction in the Middle East, for example, resulting in record-cheap solar costs. But now unsubsidized solar is beginning to outcompete coal and natural gas on a larger scale, and notably, new solar projects in emerging markets are costing less to build than wind projects, according to fresh data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The chart shows the average cost of new wind and solar from 58 emerging-market economies, including China, India, and Brazil. While solar was bound to fall below wind eventually, given its steeper price declines, few predicted it would happen this soon.
A transformation is happening in global energy markets that's worth noting as 2016 comes to an end: Solar power, for the first time, is becoming the cheapest form of new electricity. This has happened in isolated projects in the past: an especially competitive auction in
From: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-15/world-energy-hits-a-turni... the Middle East, for example, resulting in record-cheap solar costs. But now unsubsidized solar is beginning to outcompete coal and natural gas on a larger scale, and notably, new solar projects in emerging markets are costing less to build than wind projects... [end] Great news, I suppose, although the credibility of such is impacted a little because of its source, Bloomberg. One thing to keep in mind about wind power, at least in America, is that there is a major impediment in getting the electricity from the generator to the market. Easily available are maps of average wind speed, for instance: http://apps2.eere.energy.gov/wind/windexchange/wind_maps.asp Keep in mind that the amount of extractable power is proportional to the CUBE of the wind speed. An 8 m/sec wind has 8 times the extractable energy as a 4 m/sec wind. ((8/4)**3)) = 8 This band of high-energy wind, about 200-300 miles wide, has the unfortunate characteristic of being 1000-1500 miles away from the coasts, and it is difficult to efficiently transfer electric power over 1000 miles. Some day, the material called "metallic carbon nanotubes" will open this up as a possibility. They are called "metallic" not because of metal (they are pure carbon) but because they conduct electricity quite well. But actually, they conduct electricity more like a room-temperature superconductor, not merely a metal. A single "metallic" carbon nanotube (MCNT), typically 1 nanometer in diameter, has an electrical resistance along its length of about 6800 ohms. That sounds odd, because I didn't specify how long that MCN is. And that's the weird part: The resistance is 6800 ohms, NO MATTER HOW LONG IT IS!!! Even 6800 ohms sounds high, except that's the resistance of only a single tube. A cable, with a cross-section of 1 square centimeters, would contain 100 trillion such fibers. If those fibers were an average of 1 meter long, individually, that a given meter of cable would have a resistance of 6800/(1E14)ohms, or 68 pico-ohms. 1000 kilometers of such a cable would have a resistance of 68 micro-ohms. Two such cables, 2000 kilometers long, would have a total resistance of 68 micro-ohms x 4, or about 270 micro-ohms. Currently, electrical power is transported at extremely high voltages, as much as 770 KV, to minimize transmission losses. This requires a huge, wide right-of way, and tall towers to handle this voltage. The advent of MCNTs as electrical conductors would allow such transmission over far less voltage, say 60KV, buried next to two-lane roadways. Transmitting 6 gigawatts at 60KV requires 100,000 amps. Total resistance losses over 2000 kilometers (two wires) would be I-squared-R, or ((0.000270 ohms)) x (100,000**2)). or 2.7 megawatts, or a loss of about 0.05%. This would make development of wind power in that region practical. Jim Bell
On 12/13/2016 02:34 AM, grarpamp wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 1:24 PM, #$%& <#$%&#$%&@gmail.com> wrote:
nuke is worse than oil and has the same 'geopolitical dependencies'.
I know it has sourcing and mining issues but we know safe open crowd reviewed plant designs and open inspections are possible for those bold enough to set aside secret corp profit bullshit, and obviously there are zero emissions, except for waste. And maybe similar source reserve timescales as hydrocarbon fuels.
The issues I have with nuclear energy, are that when things go wrong... they go *really* wrong. Sure, they may not fail as often as they used to, but that doesn't mean shit isn't going to *really* go sideways when it does. Seriously, the Fukushima disaster makes the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon incidents look like a few guys pissed in the ocean. Nom nom nom radioactive fish... -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com
On Dec 15, 2016, at 4:10 AM, Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
On 12/13/2016 02:34 AM, grarpamp wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 1:24 PM, #$%& <#$%&#$%&@gmail.com> wrote: nuke is worse than oil and has the same 'geopolitical dependencies'. I know it has sourcing and mining issues but we know safe open crowd reviewed plant designs and open inspections are possible for those bold enough to set aside secret corp profit bullshit, and obviously there are zero emissions, except for waste. And maybe similar source reserve timescales as hydrocarbon fuels.
The issues I have with nuclear energy, are that when things go wrong... they go *really* wrong. Sure, they may not fail as often as they used to, but that doesn't mean shit isn't going to *really* go sideways when it does.
Seriously, the Fukushima disaster makes the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon incidents look like a few guys pissed in the ocean. Nom nom nom radioactive fish...
Newer fission reactor designs that are built in more suitable geographic locations are far less dangerous. I find it amusing how the left accuses the right of denying science (climate change) while at the same time vehemently doing the same thing on a number of issues (gmos, nuclear power, vaccines..). Of course the future, one hopes, is in fusion. Not the LENR hoax bullshit, but the stuff they are researching at ITER in Europe.
-- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 4:26 AM, John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
Of course the future, one hopes, is in fusion. Not the LENR hoax bullshit, but the stuff they are researching at ITER in Europe.
Remind me stellar physics... Sun fuses due to gravity created by excess fuel reserves in outer sheaths, sheath fuel consumed, gravity pressure thins, fuse stops, star falls in or blows out. Even if they somehow feed ToySun external fuel, where do they expect to generate a fuse worth of power (knowing energy conversion back into magnet/laser fields is very lossy thus requiring even more energy) to sustain a viable fuse while still having enough bypass left over to dump into the electric grid? Solar power? That's the only long term net input the Earth has. Law of conservation of energy? Fusion physics for dummies? Somehow I don't think this will happen until we learn to assemble the minimum critical + reserve mass for a real star. Till then have fun flying solar panels and raping planets?
On 12/15/2016 01:10 AM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 1:24 PM, #$%& <#$%&#$%&@gmail.com> wrote:
nuke is worse than oil and has the same 'geopolitical dependencies'.
I know it has sourcing and mining issues but we know safe open crowd reviewed plant designs and open inspections are possible for those bold enough to set aside secret corp profit bullshit, and obviously there are zero emissions, except for waste. And maybe similar source reserve timescales as hydrocarbon fuels. The issues I have with nuclear energy, are that when things go wrong...
On 12/13/2016 02:34 AM, grarpamp wrote: they go *really* wrong. Sure, they may not fail as often as they used to, but that doesn't mean shit isn't going to *really* go sideways when it does.
Seriously, the Fukushima disaster makes the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon incidents look like a few guys pissed in the ocean. Nom nom nom radioactive fish...
Sigh... Don't forget about the thousands of abandoned capped-off wells in the Gulf with deteriorated concrete casing leaking continually and unchecked (map and more on request) But about Nuclear Power... Just in, radioactive water plume hits West Coast: No danger seen from Fukushima 'fingerprint' on US West Coast http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/1213/No-danger-seen-from-Fukushima-fin... But that report isn't REALLY 'breaking'. That report is based on Woods Hole findings it took a YEAR for CSM to get around to: https://www.whoi.edu/news-release/fukushima-higher-levels-offshore And thanks for all the radioactive tuna, too. https://swfsc.noaa.gov/textblock.aspx?Division=FRD&id=20593 No matter ... since everything but the Southern Ocean is fished out. 90% of the 'food fish' are gone, and that 'whitefish' in your fishsticks/patties/etc. is whatever they can find with white flesh... Off the coast of Chile. Ps. Peak Farming per Scientific American. Sixty Year until Soylent Green is reality. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-... Fuck the kids. Just give 'em an iphone, PokemonGo and tell 'em to stfu. Rr
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 4:10 AM, Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
The issues I have with nuclear energy, are that when things go wrong... they go *really* wrong. Sure, they may not fail as often as they used to, but that doesn't mean shit isn't going to *really* go sideways when it does.
Whether all at once boom, or toxic pollution over decades, there's little net difference globally. Boom just makes the news is all, burning carbon doesn't. Futher as before, you can design out most of the current state of boom with new open designs the world can see, inspect onsite on demand, require changes, etc. When you design a nuke plant like you design an IoT device, of course there will be a pile of flaws.
Seriously, the Fukushima disaster makes the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon incidents look like a few guys pissed in the ocean. Nom nom nom radioactive fish...
Agriculture runoff and dumping chemically poisoned acid rain fish. No net diff. Doesn't matter population depletes and kills oceans soon anyways.
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 02:55:50 -0500 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 4:10 AM, Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
The issues I have with nuclear energy, are that when things go wrong... they go *really* wrong. Sure, they may not fail as often as they used to, but that doesn't mean shit isn't going to *really* go sideways when it does.
Whether all at once boom, or toxic pollution over decades,
you mean nuclear? I thought it was pollution for thousands of years...
there's little net difference globally. Boom just makes the news is all, burning carbon doesn't.
Futher as before, you can design out most of the current state of boom with new open designs the world can see, inspect onsite on demand, require changes, etc. When you design a nuke plant like you design an IoT device, of course there will be a pile of flaws.
Seriously, the Fukushima disaster makes the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon incidents look like a few guys pissed in the ocean. Nom nom nom radioactive fish...
Agriculture runoff and dumping chemically poisoned acid rain fish. No net diff.
Come on.
Doesn't matter population depletes and kills oceans soon anyways.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 3:11 AM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
you mean nuclear? I thought it was pollution for thousands of years...
Yes Chernobyl's done for 1k years in a single boom. Consider net impact of burning carbon there for 1k years. Here's why Chernobyl boom... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
participants (8)
-
grarpamp -
hozer＠hozed.org -
jim bell -
John Newman -
juan -
Mirimir -
Razer -
Shawn K. Quinn