I wrote a post recently on electric
vehicles which generated a certain amount of debate as to what the
future holds with regard to electricity generation. Coincidentally, today there was an article in my newspaper about the fastest growing
occupation in the United States. Yes, you guessed it, it happens to
be in an alternative energy industry. It led me to do a little
research about that industry. So I thought I would share with you a
few videos on what I found.
First up is a nice video on how a wind
turbine functions. Yes, it does kind of give away what that fastest
growing occupation is. Lol! But I will get back to that later.
This next video answers a question that I have wondered about as I have driven past wind farms here
in Minnesota. Why do the windmills have three blades?
While Europe is ahead of the United
States in harnessing the power of the wind, we have made baby steps
to try to catch up.
So what is the fastest growing
occupation?
Wind Technician
No, it's not just for guys!
157 comments:
"Why do the windmills have three blades?"
It had not occurred to me to wonder; I'd simply assumed it was a matter of efficiency and of avoiding harmonic vibrations. (House fans usually have either 3 or 5 blades; internal combustion engines commonly have an odd number of blades as well.)
Very interesting videos Lynnette. Apart from the technical end, I've been to most of the places in the latter two and am in love with the scenery. Except for Block Island, which I only saw from the air recently and by weird coincidence was reading about its history. One (I mean me) thinks of the US as a young country, but Block Island goes way back, even with just European visitors, let alone Native Americans.
And having been to those places reminds me: a hundred miles south east of that Mojave desert wind farm is the San Gorgonio pass where you can see old turbines line every ridge, from the pass itself down to Palm Springs and beyond. From what I read, they were built after the 70s oil crises when energy efficiency was on everyone's minds. The turbines are ridiculously cost inefficient. With later additions they average 0.2 MW each, but many are only 50 kW. And while a few majestic 6 MW turbines can be pretty, thousands of aging pylons in every direction is an eyesore.
Eventually wind energy will have to pay its way. As the video mentions, Europe has longer experience with bigger turbines. Its first offshore windfarm to be "end-of-lifed" came down last year after 25 years. Total lifetime costs made it a multiple of conventional electricity costs. But, like with San Gorgonio, we expect capital and operational costs to reduce as an industry matures. With decades of experience, is that happening?
One of the problems with wind turbines is land usage. The US has an advantage here. That Mojave desert farm is not exactly interfering with much. Not even with the view -- I am quite a fan of desert scenery, but that road from Bakersfield to Barstow ain't exactly pretty to begin with. But putting turbines in remote areas is an additional cost in itself. That is even more true of deepwater offshore turbines, located where the wind blows the strongest. They are prohibitively expensive. You could argue that the costs of conventional power should take carbon impact into account. And that may be true, but then let's not try to pretend that future energy is going to be cheap, no matter what we do.
Money is cheap at the moment, for reasons connected with our recent financial crises. But its very cheapness means that guaranteeing 3.5% yoy increases for wind-powered electricity puts the mounting costs way, way ahead of inflation. And cheap money always increases the chances of misallocation, like was done at San Gorgonio at a time when people were convinced renewables were the salvation.
I'm a big fan of renewables. If they don't eventually take over, we are scuppered as a species. I don't think wind is going to be the winning technology. It's complicated and expensive compared to solar (for instance). The best that can be said is that it might form part of our energy mix, but how much a part is still to be decided.
One of the environmental concerns often mentioned in connection with wind farms is dangers to birds and bats. I suspect the sort of people who refer to them as "bird whackers" aren't always that interested in birds and bats, but in denigrating wind farms. I came across a video today that pointed out that windfarms don't cause a fraction of the problems for birds that plate glass windows do.
I'm glad the greenies have come to this revelation, even if late in the day. Back in the late eighties, the Exxon Valdez oil spill was said to be one of the world's greatest environmental disasters due to the impact on bird life in the Gulf of Alaska. It turns out that the number of birds killed was the same as those killed every day by plate glass windows in the US alone.
"It turns out that the number of birds killed was the same as those
killed every day by plate glass windows in the US alone."
Still, the birds killed in the Gulf of Alaska were not starlings and rock pigeons and other nuisance species, nor was the bird kill spread out over 3 million square miles. A concentrated kill is a rather different sort of thing than killing the same number of birds across the nation.
Might just as well tell a farmer that he because he has only minor percentage of the rats that run loose in New York City every day, he cannot be heard to claim he has a rat problem. It makes no sense.
"…guaranteeing 3.5% yoy increases for wind-powered electricity…"
This across the European Union, or just in Ireland?
As an aside to the subject of renewable energy….
Forbes has dropped Shorthands estimated net worth to $3.1 billion dollars, meaning he's down 17% from last year. CNBC If he was thinking he'd be able to leverage his current position into the kinda money his hero, Vladimir Putin has socked away, then he seems to have been sorely disappointed so far.
And, Da‘esh has finally been driven from Raqqa, Syria, official announcement made. The city is virtually destroyed though. CBSNews This has been so long expected that it's hardly hitting the front pages.
Notorious liberal whinger, Florida Governor, Rick Scott, has called out the national guard in advance of a speech to be given by the white nationalist (and eager Trumpkin) Richard Spence at the University of Florida. CBSNews
And it looks like the Kurds have given up Kirkuk pretty much without a fight.
They've been playing this game a long time, and have managed to keep from having to go head to head with any of the regional powers, whether Tehran, Baghdad (since Saddam), Ankara, or Damascus. I'd have to assume they judged that the Shia were going to make a war out of it.
Trump's newest travel ban has been blocked by the same judge in Hawaii who blocked Trump's prior travel bans, on largely the same grounds. Reuters
It had not occurred to me to wonder;...
It wasn't something I lost sleep over, just a matter of idle curiosity. I always picture windmills, or wind turbines, as looking more like the older style with more blades.
I'm a big fan of renewables. If they don't eventually take over, we are scuppered as a species.
Hmmm...now, Petes, this sounds very much like you believe that the use of fossil fuels is playing a role in climate change. Or, is it the possible fighting that may occur over scarcer natural resources that could cause that "scuppering"? :)
I can see where people would object to the aesthetics of a wind farm. Just like people don't want a high tension power line in their backyard. Any possible health concerns aside. But at some point people will have to realize that other considerations may come before appearances. Sad as it may be. Because I can certainly understand the desire for a more natural landscape.
One thing I have wondered about with wind turbines constructed in the ocean, such as the floating field conceived of in one of the videos, is the affect of severe weather. A severe storm could raise real havoc with electricity generation if it damages the wind turbines.
Forbes has dropped Shorthands estimated net worth to $3.1 billion dollars, meaning he's down 17% from last year.
They were discussing this on CNN. One analyst made the point that Trump is still heavy into New York real estate, which has decreased in value.
Personally I have to wonder if Trump's behavior will eventually have an impact on his "brand", ultimately hurting his bottom line. If nothing else, this alone would be the thing that would hurt Trump the most. Well, other than being tried, and convicted, of some sort of crime, ala Bernie Madoff, of course.
Trump's newest travel ban has been blocked by the same judge in Hawaii who blocked Trump's prior travel bans, on largely the same grounds.
I fully expect that Trump will start tweeting about that. I have to assume that he is getting very frustrated having a judge constantly putting a stumbling block to his implementing his policy, whatever it may be.
[Lynnette]: "Hmmm...now, Petes, this sounds very much like you believe that the use of fossil fuels is playing a role in climate change."
I believe it's playing a role in increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. I believe that leads to an increase in atmospheric radiative forcing. I believe that in turn leads to a warming of the earth, but the sensitivity of the warming to the radiative forcing is not nearly as well known as the forcing itself (which is a matter of pretty basic, and pretty well understood physics). I don't believe the behaviour of the actual climate in response to the warming is well known at all, however my knowledge in this area is limited -- it's on my list for further investigation. Even if it's not well known I think we should adopt a precautionary principle, but tempered by the well known effect that high energy prices will have on the economy and especially on the poor. For that reason I don't think we should over-subsidise wind and solar, nor over-penalise carbon.
[Lynnette]: "Or, is it the possible fighting that may occur over scarcer natural resources that could cause that "scuppering"? :)"
Natural resources are finite. Nevertheless they have shown a remarkable resilience to depletion. Dire warnings about running out have been around since we started using fossil fuels to power industry and the economy. All of them have come to naught.
In the slightly less than 20 years that I've been looking at it closely, the so called "peak oil" movement has come close to taking over the societal discourse on what we should do about impending shortages. We had a huge run-up in oil prices. Then we had the financial crash, a curtailment in demand, and simultaneously the coming to fruition of a lot of oil exploration and technology improvements that had been drive by the high prices. The result was a dramatic crash in prices.
Although prices recovered temporarily, in the last three years the cycle has reversed. A huge glut in oil supply has depressed prices. This is to the chagrin of the various green movements, for whom the peak oil story was pulling in the same direction as they want to go. Now the world is awash with oil. But the curtailment of exploration investment in the last three years has already set the scene for the next price run-up, during which people will once again announce that "oil is running out".
The bottom line is that I don't believe anybody actually knows the state of the earth's oil (and other fossil fuel) resources. We have unprecedented technology that allows us to "see" the presence of oil-bearing rocks far underground. But -- as you well know -- the shale revolution is not so much the result of vast new discoveries, but our discovery that we could exploit resources that we didn't know we could. The mistake most people make is thinking that "reserves" are a fixed quantity of oil (etc.) in the ground. In fact, reserves expand enormously as the price of oil goes up, due to the increasing economic viability of extraction. Canadian tar sands are the classic example -- below a certain significant oil price the reserves are essentially zero, as the state of Alberta has found with the wild swings in its fortunes.
(cont'd)...
...(cont'd)
The US shale story is an amazing success. Shale production is also able to respond much more quickly to changes in market conditions compared to, say, deepwater oil. The latter requires years of huge up-front investment which then generates oil into a market which is completely unknown at the time of the investment decision. But shale is not infinite either. Depletion rates are very high. That's because you are exploiting thinner strata to begin with, but also using much more efficient extraction techniques than just a few years ago. On the other hand, the extent of shale deposits is huge, and the may be world wide. On yet another hand, some economies are much less open to the idea of shale extraction than the US, and there is an outright ban in various places.
This is all a long-winded way of saying: I don't know. I do suspect we have relatively little to worry about in oil supplies for the next twenty years, and in fossil fuels in general for much longer than that. That's just my opinion. I trust it more than most of the "experts" I have read, as I have formed it from reading many, many different sources coming from different angles over the years. It's not that I think I know more than them, but some of them have been excessively tunnel-visioned about either geology (like the early 2000s "peak-oilers") or economics (like certain doomsters who think the world economy is unravelling).
But the bottom line is that I would advocate a precautionary principle on fossil fuels too. We can't be certain about either their finitude or their effect on climate. The real problem is that the fuel that is likely under most threat -- oil -- is also the one that is probably hardest to replace due to its application in the transport sector. As you know, I am skeptical about the likelihood or possibility of a rapid transition to EVs.
I remain hopeful that we are going to see a breakthrough from "left field" in one form or another. I remain convinced the most likely is nuclear fusion as there are enormous strides occurring in private development that are very little reported on. But you can't put all your eggs in the basket of hoped-for technology break throughs that might never occur. I especially apply to this to some things that do get a lot of coverage, like experimental batteries or biofuels. The basic technology in both areas is hundreds of years old, and there are good arguments from thermodynamics why certain efficiencies are very hard to better. On the other hand, there's always the possibility of doing better with what we have, such as better load balancing of electricity demand, and "negawatts" -- the curtailment of demand by more efficient lighting, insulation, and so on.
[Lynnette]: "I can see where people would object to the aesthetics of a wind farm. Just like people don't want a high tension power line in their backyard. Any possible health concerns aside. But at some point people will have to realize that other considerations may come before appearances. Sad as it may be. Because I can certainly understand the desire for a more natural landscape."
Depends on the regulatory environment too. Over here, people can hold up the planning process for a new wind farm for a long time by objecting to it. That said, we've still managed to overbuild our wind capacity compared to our fairly doddery old fossil fuel infrastructure which still has to satisfy baseload demand when the wind isn't blowing. We had hoped to sell our unneeded capacity to the UK via power interconnectors (we already have one to Northern Ireland and an undersea one to Wales) but, well ... you probably know that the UK has fairly uncertain times ahead.
[Lynnette]: "One thing I have wondered about with wind turbines constructed in the ocean, such as the floating field conceived of in one of the videos, is the affect of severe weather. A severe storm could raise real havoc with electricity generation if it damages the wind turbines."
Dealing with that is part of the reason for the extremely high cost of deepwater wind. I still wonder if we cold go high instead of far out. There are various impressive small scale demos of aerial wind collection from kites and gliders. They would allow wind generation from much closer to where it's needed, and could exploit a vastly larger volume of the atmosphere at higher altitude where the wind blows stronger. From your videos, you can see how the power generated by turbines is proportional to the area swept out by the blades, with most of the torque generated by the high speed blade tips. A kite lets you essentially fly those "tips" in isolation, with arrays of kites software-controlled to fly the most efficient formations.
Apologies for some missing letters ... seem to have a few crumbs under the keyboard keys ;-)
"3.5% yoy"
Probably more commonly written as Y-o-Y, this means:
1) Per year, and…
2) I'm way cooler than you ‛cause I write yoy instead of ‘per year’.
"increase in atmospheric radiative forcing"
This term means
1) The ‘greenhouse effect’, and
2) I'm way cooler than you ‘cause I call it ‘increase in atmospheric radiative forcing’.
But, Marcus is, no doubt, duly impressed.
The NFL is having its normally scheduled two-day meeting, in New York City, set to end today. However, it didn't take both days for the owners to come to a conclusion on how they were going to handle the ‛kneeling’ controversy recently inflamed by Trump. They made their announcement late yesterday.
No surrender to Trump; no change to current policy. As far as the league is concerned, players are free to kneel. (Individual owners may think otherwise; Jimmy Jones, owner of the Dallas Cowboys, has announced that he'd bench any player who ‛disrespected the flag’--a threat widely interpreted as directed at kneeling during the national anthem.)
Players were still taking a knee into Monday night's scheduled game, although the networks are getting bored with the topic now and have largely reverted to their ‛pre-Trump’ policy of running commercials during the national anthem.
Looks to me like Trump's lost this one. He'll need a win somewhere else to offset this I reckon. I don't know of anybody who's got a clue where he'll strike next, but I'm expecting him to strike somewhere.
I see the whinge fest is reaching epidemic proportions with Representative Frederica Wilson sharing her professional outrage on behalf of that bereaved soldier's family. I would presume Trump's reference to the service member "knowing what he was getting into" was meant to imply that he was extraordinarily brave to get into it regardless. That would seem like a logical inference for anyone reasonable person thinking about it. It's not an inference I can find in any of the MSM. But then, it's not the inference Ms. Wilson wanted to give. Ramping up the anti-Trump rhetoric is presumably even more important to her than lobbying to be able to wear her hat collection in Congress.
For someone who claims to not be a ‛dedicated’ Trumpkin your continued outrage (or call it disgust or irritation or whatever you choose, your continued complaints about how miserably he's being treated) at the slings and arrows and travails he must endure is quite remarkable.
As it turns out, Trump's defense to the ‛he knew what he was getting into’ allegation is not that it showed admiration for Sgt. Johnson's bravery (I don't imagine even Petes would think that ‛he knew what he was getting into’ was meant to show the optimism and inherent entrepreneurial spirit of somebody who'd, for instance, lost his house payment in a poker game). Rather, Trump claims never to have said it. Trumptweets And, he claims to have ‛proof’.
Looks like we'll be hearing more about this now. Now it guaranteed ain't gonna go away soon.
And, we'll probably have an opportunity along the way to figure out whether or not Trump meant that comment to match up with Petes' rather unlikely interpretation. But, if he's starting out with a full denial that's not likely gonna be his defense later. I guess we'll havta wait and see.
I'd read about this little dust up earlier, but didn't know quite what to make of it, having not heard from the widow, Myeshia Johnson, currently pregnant and mother to two small children by the late Sargent. Figured I'd wait to here from her--much like Trump's invocation of the dead son of his Chief of Staff, John Kelly, I thought I'd wait to hear what the family thought about having their personal loss made the subject of political battles before I took a position on any of it.
Also in today's TrumpTweets: Trump is still trying to win the presidential election against Hillary Clinton and he has noticed that the NFL failed to kneel before him and he is not pleased.
And, on accout of it is Petes; yeah, I know it's spelled ‛hear’.
"Looks like we'll be hearing more about this now."
That may have been an understatement. If Trump can win this one it may even make up for his loss to the NFL.
For honest opinion:
Pete: "This is all a long-winded way of saying: I don't know. I do suspect we have relatively little to worry about in oil supplies for the next twenty years, and in fossil fuels in general for much longer than that. That's just my opinion."
Of course we do not have anything to worry about in the near term. We have ample fossil fuels for the time being. We will though when fossils eventually run out.
And Lynnette's post was on wind then YES there's a wind-electric market to be had, but it is limited.
Denmark today have about 25% of their electricity from wind (By far highest in the world), and that's great. BUT it can't be expanded on and already it's depending on Danish connections to the Nordpole-project where Scandinavia tries to be one energy givng and sharing centre. When the wind in Denmark doesn't blow their electricity comes from furnaces or imports from Swedens nuclear or hydro plants.
You simply can't have an electric system that goes on and off depending on the weather. And it's not even like your lightswich would go on or off it's at the main electrical facilities. They NEED to have a base load of about 65% of their capacity or they will have to be shut down (or shut down themselves) and then re-started. Rendering in irratic blackouts.
Penguins die because too much ice:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41608722
#savepenguins #moreCO2please
In other news:
Colin Kaperniqe who started the kneelings at NFL games can't get a new job (shocker) and says rasism is fault.
Meanwhile bleachers are almost half empty across the USA and NO-ONE can dare to guess why.
Here's an article touching on the matter but not really adressing the cause:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/ravens-insider/bs-sp-ravens-fans-20171016-story.html
Fact is: the vast bulk of Football (bread and circus to keep the crowds in place) fans are whites, and white men in particular. Tell them they're the scum of the earth and sooner or later they will vote with their feet.
Later still of course, once they're deprived of their bread and circus diversions, they'll take action... let's see how that plays out and which side ya'll wanna be on.
"For honest opinion"
Now might be a good time to remind you that battery technology can still make some fairly impressive improvements. (Petes inherent pessimism notwithstanding.) For insance: MIT thinks they have a new battery technology for us. They've announced a sulfur/salt rechargable battery, that'll cost about a fifth of the price of comparable wattages in a lithium-ion battery. It's apparently somewhat more limited on energy ‘density’ than are the best lithium-ion batteries and is therefore more suited to storage of renewable electric power power (solar and wind especially) than for batteries onboard an electric vehicle, at least for now. MIT.EDU A truly cheap rechargeable made from plentiful and inexpensive materials that don't require special handling could make renewables much more attractive than they are even today.
"Meanwhile bleachers are almost half empty across the USA
and NO-ONE can dare to guess why."
They can fairly easily notice that the crowds dropped off before the fuss with Trump arose, back when Colin Kaepernick had once the only guy who had been kneeling and he wasn't playing anymore. Some of the NFL owners are suspicious that a controversy that hadn't arisen yet is probably not the cause of the empty seats that started showing up before the controversy, and so are reluctant to try to fix the wrong thing just to please you and Petes and those white guys in Alabama who don't buy tickets anyway, cause Alabama don't have a pro football team.
In any case, Trump has been rebuffed and he is mad and Marcus ain't exactly happy ‛bout it either.
And the networks are back to showing commercials instead of showing the guys on one knee.
@ Lynnette,
You mentioned earlier that you'd not heard anything about Iran being the driving force behind Baghdad's recent recapture of Kirkuk. I have recently run across a couple of articles on that.
National Interest
Al-Monitor
Baghdad was pissed off about the recent referendum, no doubt about that. But, the driving force, the power from which the Kurds backed down, was Tehran. The Iranians want that Shia dominated land corridor through Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the Kurds were looking like a possible problem for them.
It's been nagging at the back of my head, that I called the owner of the Dallas Cowboys ‛Jimmy Jones’. (Lee C. @ Wed Oct 18, 06:19:00 am ↑↑) His name is Jerry Jones.
And, on the Kurdish thing. Dexter Filkins, writing in TheAtlantic (short piece this time) says that Suleimani managed to bribe (and maybe also intimidate) the Talabani clan, who lead the PUK, perhaps along with a compliment of threats, both carrot and stick sort of thing maybe, but definitely carrots.
It's beginning to look like the White House now wants to get very far away, very fast, from any conversation having anything to do with Trump's phone call to Myeshia Johnson.
In spite of the fact that their owners' meeting has already ended, seems he's now lookin’ to heat that fuss back up again anyway (he may actually be relying on the idea that they will continue to defy him--give him something he can keep wavin’ in front of his dedicated Trumpkins, and Petes and Marcus, to help them forget ‛bout that unfortunate mention of ‛proof’ regarding the phone call).
Hmmmm, I probably should have identified ‛that fuss’ as being his hell raising with the NFL to try to force them to play the national anthem at all football games. (And, of course, to force the players to stand at attention for same.)
[Marcus]: "Of course we do not have anything to worry about in the near term. We have ample fossil fuels for the time being. We will though when fossils eventually run out."
That's something of a tautology. But I mentioned 20 years for oil, which is fairly near term if true. One problem is that, despite some people being deluded about EVs, the demand for oil keeps on increasing. It will touch 100 million barrels per day for the first time sometime next year, and probably average above that by 2019. US shale will peak between now and the 2030s, and Russian output probably too. The giant Ghawar field which underpins much of Saudi output will be nearing a century old. In any case do you really want to be relying on Saudi, Iran and Iraq for increases in output, which will probably be the case in the next decade? Nor do we want to be making oil from even dirtier sources like coal and kerogen.
[Marcus]: "And Lynnette's post was on wind then YES there's a wind-electric market to be had, but it is limited... You simply can't have an electric system that goes on and off depending on the weather."
Which is why we need that breakthrough in storage. But I do wish the press would stop writing those breathless announcements about revolutionary new batteries which "just need five more years" for commercialisation. I've lost count of the number of announcements that are never seen again by the goldfish-like public. We need a touch of pragmatism about where it's all going.
[Marcus]: "Penguins die because too much ice"
Means nothing in isolation, of course. Antartic ice has hit record levels in recent years only to fall back to average amounts. This year it has hit a record summer low. And in any case, Antarctic ice increases are more than offset by Arctic losses.
"But I do wish the press would stop writing those breathless
announcements…"
That announcement was made by MIT and the link was to the MIT web site. (I notice that I did include an extra colon the second time I tried to link to it, just above ↑↑, so I'll do it again, right this time. MIT.EDU)
I'm watching the debate between Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz. lol! Much more entertaining than other debates I've watched.
There is also a special about Mosul on PBS Channel 2 tonight at 9:00.
Cruz vs Sanders isn't playing here, but the Mosul special is coming up later.
... there's always the possibility of doing better with what we have, such as better load balancing of electricity demand, and "negawatts" -- the curtailment of demand by more efficient lighting, insulation, and so on.
I think there is definitely room for improvement with conservation. I myself am doing my bit by trying to make my home more energy efficient by sealing air leaks.
We had hoped to sell our unneeded capacity to the UK via power interconnectors (we already have one to Northern Ireland and an undersea one to Wales) but, well ... you probably know that the UK has fairly uncertain times ahead.
Another casualty of what was another unfortunate vote.
You mentioned earlier that you'd not heard anything about Iran being the driving force behind Baghdad's recent recapture of Kirkuk. I have recently run across a couple of articles on that.
Thanks, I'll have to check them out when I have more time.
George W. (Dubya) Bush, who's been mostly apolitical in public since he left the White House, has decided to come out swinging today in a speech given in New York City. WashingtonPost Dubya's been a frequent target of Trump's continual condemnations, and now Dubya's returned the favor.
This'll not make much of a difference in anything. Dubya's no longer popular among the dedicated Trumpkins, hasn't been for awhile.
I notice that Shorthands has given himself and his administration a score of 10 (out of a possible 10) for their response to the hurricane devastation of Puerto Rico, where 80% of the population is still without power or phone communications and fully a third is still without potable water.
This is just slightly less nuts than his speculations earlier today on Twitter that the FBI had conspired with the Russians (and the Democrats) to ‛get’ him.
The President of the United States is a lunatic, and we've all gotten used to it. Pretty much take that sort of thing in stride these days.
Trump campaign officials were ‘re-tweeting’ posts from the Russian trolling operation right up to the eve of the last presidential election. Recognizable names pushing the Russian lines and Russian posts include, Ann Coulter, Kellyanne Conway, and Donald Trump, Jr. DailyBeast.
I wasn't going to mention this until ex-General John Kelly decided to take the podium at the White House and rage against the Democrats in support of his boss. (And I will also note that the late Sargent La Page Johnson's mother has already weighed in on her family's interaction with Trump, but had nothing to say about John Kelly's experiences.) In any case…
First Lieutenant Robert Michael Kelly, deceased son of Trump's Chief of Staff, John Kelly, whom Trump has made a central character in his newest competition with Obama over who has made the most phone calls to families of dead soldiers, Lt. Kelly had a wife.
He left a widow.
Generally ya figure the phone call goes to the widow. Trump's been making a big deal out how Obama didn't call the general. But, usually ya figure the condolence call goes to the widow, not to the General. General Kelly knows that. And he's covering for Trump anyway.
Sargent's name was La David Johnson; I missed it the first time ↑. (I should probably look these things up before I start typing them out.)
Post Script:
I think this was a mistake, putting Kelly out there to whine for him. When I saw Trump's twitter posts this morning and noticed that he was going just about everywhere else but here, laying down markers in all kinds of different directions, I thought he'd figured out he needed to let this one go. I think that lunacy about the FBI might be working with the Russians (and the Democrats) to hamper Trump was just about loony enough to drive this one off the front pages. He coulda got away from this with that one.
Now it's just gonna blow back up again.
I mentioned earlier that there seemed to be a dearth of electric motorcycles. (Marcus informs me of juiced up bicycles in Sweden, but that's not quite what I was talking about.) Well, it seem Kalashnikov, the infamous weapons maker, is getting set to produce electric motorcycles for the Russian military and police sectors. kalashnikovs on wheels
The President of the United States is a lunatic, and we've all gotten used to it. Pretty much take that sort of thing in stride these days.
Wasn't there a King of England who was also not quite all there? But at least they had an excuse as the monarchy is hereditary. We do not. We have people in this country who actually like his take on things.
"Wasn't there a King of England who was also not quite all there?"
At least two. The second one was George III, King when the 13 colonies rebelled.
I notice this morning that, after Trump's Chief of Staff, John Kelly, got all emotional about how Democrats were politicizing a ‘sacred’ conversation, this on behalf of his not-Democrat boss, Trump decided to renew his attacks on "Congresswoman Wilson(D)" and claim she "gave it a total lie on content". Trumptweets
I think it's a safe guess that ex-General Kelly will not be making a return appearance at the podium to likewise chastise Trump for doubling down on his own efforts to score political advantage on this supposedly ‛sacred’ ground.
There are indications that ex-General John Kelly embellished his facts yesterday during his scathing remarks regarding Democratic Congresswoman Fredericka Wilson. Politico.Com
The second one was George III, King when the 13 colonies rebelled.
Yeah, that's the guy. Made some bad choices there.
You know, when you buy something don't you normally watch to see if it is working out?
Why is it that so many of those who voted for our fake president say they don't watch the news?
Leaves...*sigh*...leaves everywhere!
"Why is it that so many of those who voted for our fake president
say they don't watch the news?"
Because they don't. They watch FoxNews instead.
White House is holding an emergency press briefing today, now, to try to hold together ex-General John Kelly's defense of Shorthands.
Press briefing did not go particularly well, but, it could have been worse. As things now stand the Trump administration has now tripled down on calling a black Congresswoman a liar, and a large portion of his dedicated Trumpkins will appreciate that. Of course, the Trump administration's position here is demonstrably false. There are video tapes of the event which ex-General Kelly falsely recounted, and they vindicate the Congresswoman. On the other hand, that portion of the dedicated Trumpkins to which I referred don't give a damn that the Trump administration is the one doing the lying. As long he's ragging on a black Congresswoman they'll be happy ‛bout it.
It will not, however, help to broaden his base. (I suppose he knows that.)
Odd trumptweet this morning. He claims to ‘hope’ for continued media coverage of Congresswoman Frederika Wilson. Perhaps it's an attempt to invoke what's popularly called ‘reverse psychology’.
Or, perhaps he does want the news to concentrate on her and let up on the mentions of the various fabrications indulged in by ex-General John Kelly.
It appears that even George W. is not so subtly attacking Trump. I suspect that if Reagan were alive he'd be doing the same thing.
They watch FoxNews instead.
I'm not sure she even does that. I suspect she has made up her mind and nothing will sway her, unless it is something that directly affects her adversely.
"I'm not sure she even does that."
I don't know the particular person you're talking about, so, maybe she doesn't even do that. But, to answer your earlier question less flippantly. I've run across the same phenomena, and I've come to the conclusion that most times it's because they can tell, probably from the phrasing of your question, maybe from the subject, maybe from a lack of rapturous countenance on your part, they can tell that you're not a dedicated Trumpkin, and they do not like to discuss political things outside of the tribe, especially they do not wish to discuss things that might impact on their dedication to Trump. (Or, more exactly, they don't wanna hear it.) So, they just claim to not know what you're talking about, figure that's the quickest way to shut down your attempt at opening that conversation.
"I suspect that if Reagan were alive he'd be doing the same thing."
If Reagan were still alive (and not suffering from Alzheimer's) the current crop of crazies would have long since denounced him as a turncoat and a squish, a RINO in their current terminology.
Pete: "Which is why we need that breakthrough in storage. But I do wish the press would stop writing those breathless announcements about revolutionary new batteries which "just need five more years" for commercialisation."
There IS a simple solution that's available now. Just use surplus electricity to pump water to a higher level and then release that water into a turbine to generate electricity when there's a shortage.
Wind or solar (or nuclear) surplus -> electricity -> stored energy in an elevated water tank -> electricty.
Pretty straight forward. The questions are about energy-loss and costs, those might make this solution non feasible for the time being. And also there's a question to be asked regarding any other complex solution - is there any that is as cheap, environmentally friendly, effective and safe? Not yet it seems.
So there might be an even better way, but we do have a way already.
Lee: "If Reagan were still alive"
He'd be appalled at fools kneeling for the National Anthem of the USA. So would Kennedy have been btw. And your founding fathers would likely have thought them kneelers execution prospects.
Anywho, Trump is winnin' biggly on that issue and as long as those dumbass balltossers keep their shenanigans up Trump has an easy way to deflect from more serious issues. Just poke them idiot balltossers and see those morons who genuinely think THEY are the masters of the Universe, which they are certainly not, act like rabid monkeys and the press will follow. He plays 'em like a fiddle, Trump does.
"Fuck, I had a bad week, got none of my proposals through congress, let's poke them moronic balltossers who can be said hate at the US-flag again, make that the headlines."
Genious!
"…let's poke them moronic balltossers…"
I still expect Trump will wind that one down in the near future. The NFL is apparently not going to knuckle under, and he doesn't want to keep reminding his dedicated Trumpkins that they've defied him and gotten away with it.
But, we shall see. He does have that fuss going with the Congresswoman and he sorely needs a diversion from that one. That's not going his way either.
My guess is he's gonna need something bigger, something even more outrageous than either of those things to keep his people distracted (especially after the ‛tax reform’ thing doesn't come through for him). He'll likely have to go full out after the Congressional Republicans' blood is my guess. Turn the Republican civil war up to full.
See, he's got a problem there that he cannot solve. The only reason they're putting up with him just now is they still hope he can sign their tax cuts for the rich. If those don't come through (or, even if they do, which is something he apparently hasn't thought through) they'll not have much use for him after that. So, he's probably screwed either way after their current tax proposals get resolved, win or lose, he's probably screwed after that. Then he'll have to start thinking hard about either purging the party or running as an independent, either way will keep him busy.
"And your founding fathers would likely have thought them
kneelers execution prospects."
Probably not. The Congress didn't make up rules about civilians standing for the national anthem until the 1940s (‛joint resolution’, not a law). And the NFL didn't bring the teams out before the national anthem until 2009.
"…and the press will follow."
Problem with that theory is that the networks have already gotten bored with that one and gone back to showing commercials during the national anthem, as was their practice before Trump made it briefly reasonable to forgo that commercial income in favor of covering the controversy.
"…let's poke them moronic balltossers…"
It occurs to me. We'll have an indication come Monday. There'll still be kneelers this Sunday. And no waiting for the NFL owners' meeting; that's already happened. So, Trump will either try to make a deal about it on twitter Monday, or he won't. So, we won't have to wait long for the first indicator.
Only a few days late, Trump has finally noticed that, with the fall of Raqqa, the end of Da‛esh's Caliphate ‛is in sight’. And he's gotten around to taking credit for it.
The only reason they're putting up with him just now is they still hope he can sign their tax cuts for the rich.
I hear the latest is that they are considering lowering the amount that people can put away in their 401k's from a current max of $18,000 to $2,400. That's a huge cut. In effect their tax cut would raise taxes on the upper middle class. Those who would be the most likely to be able to put away $18,000.
I hadn't heard that one. But they've got to find the money somewhere to give cuts to the .1%.
There will be a bunch of different notions floated before they settle on what's most likely to clear with 51 votes in the Senate (and get through the House).
My bet is that they don't manage to pull it off. I'm betting on another debacle like their ‛repeal and replace’ efforts. But I'm certainly not giving odds on that.
But they've got to find the money somewhere to give cuts to the .1%.
This is true. One hopes, though, that the voting electorate wakes up in time before the fox steals all of the eggs out of the hen house.
At least the 401k was something that encouraged people to save for the future, which would keep them off the rolls of those needing extra help in their old age. As it is people really aren't saving enough now.
Hmmm...it looks like China is stepping in to fill the vacuum left by the retreat of the United States under Donald Trump. Xi seems to have made a rather long speech laying out the course of China's, and perhaps the world's, future.
President Xi may be overly optimistic.
Lynnette: "At least the 401k was something that encouraged people to save for the future, which would keep them off the rolls of those needing extra help in their old age. As it is people really aren't saving enough now."
My comment on that is not related to Trump as I have no real understanding of ya'lls family economics or pension plans.
But over here there's been a shift to increased self reliance when it comes to ones pension. We used to have a system where you worked until you were 65 and then you could rely on a pension that was not as high as your previous wage but liveable.
Now parts of that have been "individualized" and even parts of the state pension you're supposed to manage by your own. Giving rise to all manner of "pension investment planners", some good, some who devastate your future for quick gains for themselves.
The trend is for much more personal responsibility, and a big portion, I dare say a majority, are not equipped to save in the now to have savings in the future.
Plus. Going into multikulti mode every average citizen is going to think more 'bout himself and less 'bout others. Because there's no community left.
I for one would rather pay less taxes than pay more to help a bunch of low wage arabs and afghans and africans I feel zero kinship with and do not want in my country to begin with. So I'll vote for less government. Starve the beast is my new aim.
"The trend is for much more personal responsibility…"
We've seen that trend here. It basically boils down to a government effort to direct more private, retirement money into the stock market.
The 17 female members of the Congressional Black Caucus have issued a written demand that Trump's Chief of Staff, John Kelly, apologize to Congresswoman Frederika Wilson, ‘without delay’. CBC-House.Gov Given what this would do to his relationship with Trump, it's not likely that's ever gonna happen. (At least, not until after Trump fires him.)
But over here there's been a shift to increased self reliance when it comes to ones pension.
That is what the 401k plan and various other tax deferred savings plans were designed to do. Traditional pension plans set up by employers have all but disappeared, in favor of individual retirement plans where you may, or may not, have some kind of employer matching funds. The 401k's limit has gradually risen to allow people to put away more money, deferring taxes until when the money is withdrawn. The carrot being that when a person retires the tax rate he or she may have to pay would be lower, since the person is no longer working. By lowering the limit the Trump administration is going to collect taxes sooner rather than later, and remove the incentive for people to save. They are, again, deferring any real effort to get our fiscal house in order by reallocating tax collections to lower rates for corporations and higher income people, while removing a reason for middle income people to save more for their retirement.
The speculation is that people will put money into a ROTH IRA, which is an individual retirement plan that does not defer taxes. It is funded with after tax money, but there is no tax on withdrawal of funds.
Yes, the 401k and other similar plans have been a boon for the stockbrokers and Wall Street in general. So this will also affect them, and I would guess returns for those invested, as well.
Of course, I can't really blame this last idiotic idea on Trump, as it seems to be an all inclusive GOP screw up.
"a boon for the stockbrokers and Wall Street in general."
I would argue that the ‘boon for…Wall Street in general’ is the more important symptom. There's been a halving of domestic, publicly traded stocks since the year 2000, down from around 8,000 to closer to 4,000. Send in more money to chase fewer available investments, and the price is going to go up. Irrespective of whether the stocks are actually worth the higher price, the price is going to go up.
(The American stock market divorced itself from the underlying American economy years ago.)
Trumptweets: Only one somewhat desultory mention of the NFL. His heart's just not in it anymore. But, it will give the dedicated Trumpkins hope, for the time being (Marcus as well).
Yale study provides further support for the premise that ‘conservatives’ are, across the board, more fearful than the rest of us.
"Social scientists have long known how to turn liberals into conserva-
tives in the lab — all they have to do is scare them."
Turns out the reverse is also true. Many conservatives can be cured of their politics by making them feel safer. (Also, it appears that simple handwashing can help alleviate, if not eliminate, racism. Perhaps Marcus could be induced to spend more on hand soap?)
Another study, from the other coast, suggests that Prozac makes crabs braver, which makes them less conservative. (Perhaps news to give to Petes, who is both conservative and somewhat crabby?)
Apparently Trump is not the only one who has embraced twitter. Who was that masked man?
His heart's just not in it anymore.
I think, judging by recent Vikings' games, this might have taken on a life of its own.
"…this might have taken on a life of its own."
There are more players protesting now than there were before he decided to tell them they could not. That's likely to remain the case.
TrumpyBear !!
I kid you not. This is for real. Popped up as a commercial on the early morning news. Comes complete with a certificate of authenticity.
(Made in China, both the bear and the certificate.)
[Marcus]: "There IS a simple solution that's available now. Just use surplus electricity to pump water to a higher level and then release that water into a turbine to generate electricity when there's a shortage."
It's a very efficient way of doing things (~85% iirc) but it's got one fatal flaw: there are very few suitable sites for it.
The lowest price for solar power last year is the highest price now.
Ok, it is Saudi Arabia, but <3c/kWh is still pretty incredible.
Jeff Flake, the other Republican Senator from Arizona, has just notified the hometown paper that he's retiring from the Senate at the end of this term. He's not gonna run for re-election. He said that he didn't like the ‛nastiness’ that currently prevails within the GOP, and further said that, ‛There may not be a place for a Republican like me in the current Republican climate or the current Republican Party’.
Arizona Senate seat is now up for grabs; the Democrats got a shot at it.
Solar rules.
It makes Jimmy Carter look very smart.
Jeff Flake, the other Republican Senator from Arizona, has just notified the hometown paper that he's retiring from the Senate at the end of this term.
Which means he could be very honest on the floor of the Senate. He has just aligned himself with others who have started openly criticizing Trump and his behavior.
@ Lynnette,
PBS's Frontline tonight, ‛Putin's Revenge, Part 1’.
I don't know if that's just the name of this episode, of if there actually is a ‛Part 2’.
Lee: "We've seen that trend here. It basically boils down to a government effort to direct more private, retirement money into the stock market."
Here we have a state pension pplan and always (not always but in recent memory) had one. Suddenly "they" decided to take 15% of that and you could "invest" that money.
On paper that's maybe not that bad an idea. But it opened up a window for the financial sharks to go in for the kill.
Some of those funds available to choose from invest in very high risk assets, with peoples pension money, and take a very large cut like 3% regardless if there are gains or losses. Now those kinda funds might make 15% in any one year so the "saver" thinks he's netting 12%, and he DOES, but he fails to take into question the very high risk of the fund and the fact that this risk is on HIM ALONE, not on the fund manager.
OK, if you're tuned in and you're active and making several different re-allocations per year this might (might - you culd still get burned) be very favourable to you. But most folks aren't tuned in. They choose something that looks like a good idea and then stay with it.
IMO pensions should be a payment either the state or previos employers make based on your payment into the system (taxes and salary) and those should not be individualized. With a base level guaranteed by the state.
Pete: "It's a very efficient way of doing things (~85% iirc) but it's got one fatal flaw: there are very few suitable sites for it."
I can see that. Especially as great areas for solar do not usually coincide with ample water supplies. Wind does better on that score, but wind is kinda iffy with regards to other stuff.
But maybe there could be a way do do this in a closed circuit system? Building water tanks on different levels and conduits between them and then filling them with brought in water that stays in that closed system. Just an idea, but it doesnt strike me as unfeasible. What do you think?
Like solar panels in a desert with few/no sand storms to interrupt them. Garner the electricity and any surplus energy use that to pump water to higher levels.
Building two huge concrete tanks to contain that water is not at all impossible. One elevated, one sitting lower.
Of course the economic factor is one I have not thought off here, as I have NO idea what the construction costs might be. I'm just throwing an idea out there.
Marcus, as you probably know the gravitational potential energy of a mass of water depends on just three things. One of them, the acceleration due to gravity, we can't do anything about unless we build a bigger planet. ;-)
The other two are, fairly obviously, the mass and the change in height. Taking into account the constant g and an efficiency of 85%, we get about 8kJ of energy for every tonne of water we drop through a height of one meter. Bearing in mind that a large power plant would output many terajoules over the course of one hour, that adds up to an incredible amount of water if we want to store the equivalent energy.
It goes pretty much without saying that a completely artificial system would be prohibitively expensive and/or technically infeasible. Even using the resources that nature provides, pumped hydro costs maybe five times as much per MW to build compared to a combined cycle gas turbine. Obviously, though, it pays back over time by effectively increasing the capacity factor of your baseload power.
In the real world, pumped hydro plants using existing mountains and lakes, augmented by artificial reservoirs at one end of the drop as needed. Typical head of water is several hundred meters (e.g. 300 metres for Ireland's Turlough Hill, or 400 metres for the much larger Bath County in Virginia). By my calculation, at maximum output Bath County has to drop 900 tonnes of water per second through its turbines!
From what I've read in the past, finding new sites for pumped hydro is difficult. You need the terrain to be just right in order to minimise costs. One idea that was explored here in Ireland recently was utilising coastal mountains for pumped hydro, damming valleys to create the upper reservoir, and using the sea as the lower reservoir. There were technical and environmental concerns about the corrosive nature of seawater and its effect on the groundwater surrounding the reservoir. This was to be mitigated using an impervious lining (and increasing the cost, of course). The plan wasn't taken further, but it wasn't deemed impossible either.
A similar idea to pumped hydro, but using the moon as the pump(!), is the tidal lagoon. Here you get your energy for free, but you really see the difference that a relatively tiny head of water makes. Tidal lagoons are only feasible where you've got the very largest tidal ranges, such as the Severn Estuary in the UK with a range of 15 metres. It is estimated that a hydro plant there could generate a third of the UK's energy needs.
However, rather than an artificial lagoon, you would need to dam the entire estuary with a tidal barrage, leading to unacceptable environmental consequences. (Vast amounts of marine and river life, and millions of birds, depend on the mud flats created in the tidal interstices).
More realistically, artificial coastal lagoons have to be built. Round the corner from the Severn is Swansea Bay with a tidal range of 8 metres or so. A proposed tidal lagoon would enclose an area of over ten square kilometres of ocean, yet generate a relatively paltry 300 MW.
It's also possible to install undersea turbines to capture tidal flow without having to build an expensive lagoon. But these depend on even rarer tidal conditions, and involve heavy machinery that has to withstand corrosive seawater as well as taking a battering from storms.
At the end of the day, the tidal power dissipated by the entire planet (i.e. the drag created by the oceans across the surface of the earth) is "only" about 4 terawatts. It's not large even compared to human energy consumption and takes the entire surface of the planet to achieve it. I tend to write off tidal energy as a worthwhile source: there simply isn't enough of it in sufficient concentration. (Unfortunately, innumerate greenies often rabbit on about these resources without being able to do the sums).
How deliciously ironic! The Clinton campaign was funding the famous dirt-digging dossier on Trump, and they lied about it for a year. Also, the company they paid -- Fusion GPS -- had Russian connections of their own, including with Natalia Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin, they of the infamous Trump Jr. meeting. Crooked Hillary definitely living up to her name. I reckon Americans dodged a bullet by not electing that sleazebag. (Unfortunately they also threw themselves on a grenade, as Trump has turned out to be quite an idiot).
"…Trump has turned out to be quite an idiot…"
And more than Hillary's equal in the sleazebag category.
PBS's Frontline tonight, ‛Putin's Revenge, Part 1’.
Thank you for reminding me! I had seen that in the program earlier, but had forgotten. Ten minutes to go. I think I will be able to stay awake.
It seems one of our major cities in Minnesota, Minneapolis, is considering converting its fleet of vehicles to electric. The cost would be around $87 million over ten years for half of its fleet. They estimate the cost savings would be $1.3 million in fuel and $1.8 million in maintenance costs annually.
Lynnette, when I saw your figures I thought it looked crazy expensive, but on checking the story I see they are only planning to replace end-of-life vehicles and $87m is the total cost ... $9m more expensive than replacing with ICEs.
It's not clear from the article whether they are talking about half the fleet or 45% of it, and it's not clear if the projected savings are for the same fraction of the fleet or for all of it. It's further not clear whether the cost includes the additional charging stations required.
Putting the most optimistic interpretation on it, it looks like an additional cost of $18.4k per vehicle, and annual fuel and maintenance savings of $6.3k per vehicle. If that's correct then a payback time of less than three years looks pretty sweet! I suspect it isn't this rosy, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea. I mean, if a municipality can't achieve savings through economy of scale, who can? This sort of thing should be the low hanging fruit of electrification.
I note though, that it's only light vehicles that are feasible to replace, and they have yet to check the wintertime performance of the vehicles they are trialling. Wouldn't want the things cutting out in -30 temps while on a call out to one of those Minnesotan cannibalism incidents! ;-)
The House of Representatives just accepted the Senate's budget outline. Passed barely 216 votes in favor, and I think they needed 215. Chances of them being able to pull off their tax cuts for the wealthy just went up I think. I'll give it 50/50 now.
"The Clinton campaign was funding the famous dirt-digging dossier
on Trump, and they lied about it for a year."
Beginning to look like you may have jumped the gun on that one. Too eager perhaps.
However, Trump is still incompetent, utterly unfit for his position, and is still the bigger sleazebag.
Ahh, I see that Minneapolis link works now! I tried that the other day, but it kept wanting me to subscribe and wouldn't go on to the article. It must have been because it was the same publishing day.
I note though, that it's only light vehicles that are feasible to replace, and they have yet to check the wintertime performance of the vehicles they are trialling. Wouldn't want the things cutting out in -30 temps while on a call out to one of those Minnesotan cannibalism incidents! ;-)
Yes, there are certain special considerations here in Minnesota when looking at converting our vehicles to something other than gasoline powered. :)
I've been casting an occasional eye on the Spanish government's efforts to assert its supremacy over the Catalan region (including disbanding the local government and imposing direct rule on the region from Madrid). Today the Catalan regional parliament declared independence from Spain. (The opposition parties had walked out prior to the vote, but the governing coalition had enough votes without them.) They only needed 68 votes for a majority; vote was 70 in favor of secession; 12 against.
Pete: yes I see that man-made reservouirs of water aimed at storing hydro power are too expensive to be feasible. Under THIS current and short term economic paradigm.
The Great Wall Of China was a vastly more expensive enterprise yet it was accomplished and eventually proven likely unessessary (which is something that cannot be known as we don't know what'd happen without it).
My point being: to judge every future energy project on the viability of it to compete economically in todays energy market - then we're limiting ourselves to quick-fixes.
But, hey, that's how ya'll libertarians want it so let's just go for what's good for the present. Bit like how ya'll Catholics abandoned the religion ya'll claim to adhere to once it got too hard to stand up for ya'lls true beliefs. Facebook > Vatican. Sad.
Lee: "I've been casting an occasional eye on the Spanish government's efforts to assert its supremacy over the Catalan region"
You've been castin' your eye on CNN and most likely have close to zero understanding of the Catalan/Spain situation.
"You've been castin' your eye on CNN…"
Nope, today's news was taken off of Reuters. And there's no particular reason to believe some dumbass Swedish fascist is any more informed about the Catalonian/Spanish independence conflict than am I.
"he Great Wall Of China was a vastly more expensive enterprise…"
Might be fun watchin’ you tryin’ to back that one up too.
Lee: "And there's no particular reason to believe some dumbass Swedish fascist is any more informed about the Catalonian/Spanish independence conflict than am I."
So what is your take on he Spain-Catalan conflict?
Me: "The Great Wall Of China was a vastly more expensive enterprise…"
Lee: "Might be fun watchin’ you tryin’ to back that one up too."
Easy you dumb fuck. The Great Wall of China is the by far most single entreprise in terms of labour and present dasy costs of any single undertaking by man on this planet.
It trumps the pyramids in Egypt by tens of times, and the pyramids are a contestor for #2.
The Angkor Wat? Been there - imressive. The Taj Mahal? been there - impressive. The Great wall of China - much superior to any man made entity yet to this date. Been there - most impressive.
Yall haven't likely been outta Kentucky or wherever the hell ya'll lay ya'lls hat. So STFO, whydoncha.
"So what is your take on he Spain-Catalan conflict?"
My first ‛take’ on the question is that you're looking for an argument and I'm not.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
What do you figure to be the cost of building a lake on stilts of sufficient size to justify building a lake on stilts in the first place?
On another subject…
Republicans in Congress have just about decided to ‛wrap up’ their Congressional investigations into Russian meddling in the last Presidential election in time for their findings of ‛no collusion’ to be made into a ‛fact’ via Radio-Right-Wing, FoxNews, Breitbart, et al. and properly forgotten by time the 2018 mid-term elections come around.
I have no real doubt but that they'll be able to do just that.
One possible fly in their ointment is the independent Mueller investigation. That could turn out to be a problem for them. (Failure to pass tax cuts for the wealthy could cause their fragile détente to collapse, which could also be a problem for them, but that's a 50/50 proposition)
So, I have been wondering what exactly Trump is trying to divert attention from? The release of classified documents pertaining to the Kennedy assassination is a rather hefty diversionary tactic, I'm thinking. Is it the sinking poll numbers in the wake of the hurricane damage, in particular Puerto Rico, is it the tax cut package the GOP is trying to enact, or is it something else?
And, what, exactly would be so sensitive about the Kennedy assassination that it would warrant a warning that release of all documents may endanger our national security?
"And, what, exactly would be so sensitive about the Kennedy
assassination…"
My best guess is that the supposed danger to ‛national security’ consists of embarrassing the hell out of the CIA and FBI, and maybe even the NSA. Probably talking about leads they missed, and false trails they took.
You've been castin' your eye on CNN and most likely have close to zero understanding of the Catalan/Spain situation.
I'm more the CNN junkie, then is Lee, Marcus. I haven't seen too much on that, myself. It seems an event that has been glossed over by some. Not so with others, though.
My best guess is that the supposed danger to ‛national security’ consists of embarrassing the hell out of the CIA and FBI, and maybe even the NSA.
Personally I would think that the Snowden affair would be far more embarrassing for some, it being more recent.
"I would think that the Snowden affair would be far more
embarrassing…"
1) Fewer people follow the Snowden affair closely, and
2) Far fewer people are wound up tight in conspiracy theories resulting from the Snowden disclosures, and
3) Far fewer people follow the Snowden affair that closely.
"I'm more the CNN junkie…"
He's just looking for a replacement line for his old WaPo line. He got tired of me making fun of him over that, and so now he's looking for some other line he can use without having to actually think.
[Marcus]: "Pete: yes I see that man-made reservouirs of water aimed at storing hydro power are too expensive to be feasible. Under THIS current and short term economic paradigm."
Most modern liberal economies have (at least) two economic paradigms. There is the one for private industry which rewards profitable enterprise and another for the public purse which can take into account future utility and the "greater good". However, both paradigms punish the misallocation of resources. Whatever is spent on one project cannot be also spent on another, so it better be the right one.
[Marcus]: "The Great Wall Of China was a vastly more expensive enterprise yet it was accomplished and eventually proven likely unessessary."
So you just need to find a multi-multi-billionaire with more money than sense. Or reintroduce serfdom. Right now, clueless billionaires and serfs are in short supply.
[Marcus]: "My point being: to judge every future energy project on the viability of it to compete economically in todays energy market - then we're limiting ourselves to quick-fixes."
So why don't we put solar panels on the moon, or go harvest hydrocarbons on Saturn's moon Titan? If every non-viable project is up for grabs, why limit yourself to building Lake Erie on stilts the height of the Empire State?
[Marcus]: "But, hey, that's how ya'll libertarians want it so let's just go for what's good for the present."
LOL. I don't often get accused of being a libertarian, but thanks anyway. I presume you model yourself after that great promoter of public works who built the autobahns. ;-)
[Marcus]: "Bit like how ya'll Catholics abandoned the religion ya'll claim to adhere to once it got too hard to stand up for ya'lls true beliefs. Facebook > Vatican. Sad."
Huh?
The Dutch are working at running combined-cycle gas turbine/generators on used toilet paper. PBS
Today I read something on a forum that crystallised my thoughts on the Trump whinge fest for me. Indeed, it is not specific to Trump but generally applicable to the tenor of current political discourse in many countries:
"Similarly if you are horrified by the election of Donald Trump as U.S. president or by the result of the Brexit referendum or Austrian parliamentary election then you are presented with the fact that there is stronger support than you expected for politicians and beliefs that you don't agree with."
"It is a major problem for those with contradictory beliefs when the levels of support for causes they abhor comes as a surprise to them and this applies to all sides."
"Wherever you sit on the political matrix if you espouse beliefs that are less prevalent in society than you think they deserve to be then it should be imperative for you to take your strongest arguments to the debate so that the unenlightened can be educated in the correctness of your positions."
"If a backlash against currently politically correct values occurs then it is quite likely that it will be authoritarian in nature and destructive and divisive in effect and it is up to everyone to try to prevent or mitigate this. Having an open debate where there is no censorship, where the concept of "hate speech" is acknowledged as the ludicrous conceptual precursor to thought crime that it is and that statements and opinions are not banned from public fora for any ideological reason is the best hope we have that whatever form the future of our society takes that it will be one that we can live together in peacefully whatever our convictions and beliefs."
Amen.
Amen indeed.
Not happening though.
The opposite seems to be happening.
Pete: "So why don't we put solar panels on the moon, or go harvest hydrocarbons on Saturn's moon Titan? If every non-viable project is up for grabs, why limit yourself to building Lake Erie on stilts the height of the Empire State?"
You're intentionllay misinterpreting me. What I meant to say is maybe we ought to think of a new energy regime before oil and gas peaks. Doing so might well mean we have to put funds and labour into projects that are not presently economically sound.
NOT doing so and going only after current market price will mean first of all that we are locked in with fossils for quite some time. And if you're a believer in Climate Change that should worry you.
Plus, if we don't get alternatives online before oil and gas peaks, which they WILL do, then there will be a period where we will struggle as hell to replace those fossils, and it will be made all the harder than it could have been if we used some of 'em fossil fuels to create the new energy paradigm.
Fuck, I fing myself a nationalist rightwinger arguing the case of fossil fuel replacement with do-gooder leftyleaning softhearts (and dickheads in the case of Lee). Surreal.
Perhaps I have my answer to what all the diversions were for. It appears that the first indictment will be handed down as a result of the Mueller investigation. No one is saying who, though. So we won't know who in advance. Will it be Manafort or Flynn? Or someone else?
Having an open debate where there is no censorship, where the concept of "hate speech" is acknowledged as the ludicrous conceptual precursor to thought crime that it is and that statements and opinions are not banned from public fora for any ideological reason is the best hope we have that whatever form the future of our society takes that it will be one that we can live together in peacefully whatever our convictions and beliefs."
Does this statement mean that they can be banned for another reason?
Does this mean that public discourse should be allowed to degenerate into as uncivil a manner as is needed to make sure each person's opinion or idea is heard by as many people as possible?
...where the concept of "hate speech" is acknowledged as the ludicrous conceptual precursor to thought crime..
Is verbal abuse to be allowed to make a point? People are free to think whatever they like, but are they free to abuse others in their quest to get their idea across? Is that really open debate? Or is that just mud slinging? Where is the line crossed?
"No one is saying who, though."
My guess is they go after a bit player first. This will serve more than one purpose.
1) It'll dare Trump to issue a pardon; if he lets a bit player go without pardon, he'll have more trouble (politically) issuing pardons later for higher ups. If he pardons a bit player it'll cause more immediate trouble for the Congressional Republicans who're currently trying to spike the investigations (or bury the news from the Mueller investigation in a flurry of counter-charges all being investigated at the Congressional level).
2) It'll perhaps pressure higher ups to start looking for a deal with Mueller. (Example: There's been a habit develop among U.S. Attorneys to file charges against drug dealers' wives (whether or not she's been involved in the business; sometimes the jury convicts innocent people); he pleads guilty to what they want to put on him; they drop the charges against his wife. Works often enough that they keep doin’ it.)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Is verbal abuse to be allowed to make a point?"
There are also another things that reactionaries almost always want in the name of ‛freedom of speech’ (theirs). They want freedom of speech where they want to make their speech. I.e: They claim the right to entertain an audience in the forum of their choice, whether or not that forum happens to belong to somebody else. And they almost always claim an unfettered right to incitement to go along with their ‛freedom of speech’.
Here in America we have rather looser constraints on matters of speech, a result of our First Amendment, but even here the right to free speech is not unrestricted; never has been unrestricted.
Traditionally the restrictions were sought by our reactionary elements. However, demographics have been going against them here of late, and so they've come to a belated love of unrestricted freedom of speech.
It's almost always those who find their speech is either offensive to the majority or is unconvincing to the majority who favor unfettered, unrestricted rights to ‛freedom of speech’. That was true when the hippies first started protesting against the Vietnam war; it's equally true now that it's the reactionaries who are protesting (in today's world their protest is generally over their loss of privileged position).
"Perhaps I have my answer to what all the diversions were for."
Word is that Team Trump was taken by surprise at the headline from CNN and have been scampering to orchestrate a response ever since. So, any diversions ‛pre-headline’ would not have been in anticipation of; subsequent topics is another matter; clearly they've ramped up the noise level on all other distractions.
Ooooooh, I just saw a commercial from the people behind needtoimpeach.com, whoever they are. Basically saying we need to impeach Trump because he is mentally unstable and a clear and present danger. That's the first time I've seen anything where someone has actually spent money on. Of course, this commercial was on CNN.
I saw a notice the other day that some mega-millionaire type had funded an ‘impeach Trump’ effort to the tune of $10 million.
1) That's not near enough, and
2) It's way too early, and
3) It may be a bad idea; they'll still have Mike Pense in there.
I didn't take it serious then, so I didn't note the guy's name nor the source of his mega-millions.
Word is that Team Trump was taken by surprise at the headline from CNN and have been scampering to orchestrate a response ever since.
No leaks on Mueller's team. A very good thing.
So, any diversions ‛pre-headline’ would not have been in anticipation of;...
Then perhaps it has more to do with Trump's poor performance in general.
"No leaks on Mueller's team. A very good thing."
Team Trump is howling that the leak to CNN came from Mueller's team. I'm dubious, but it's possible. I think it more likely that a defense lawyer was told to make his client available to appear in court on Monday and that the leak resulted from that, from a defense lawyer's office.
TrumpTweets: Shorthands is upset ‘bout the Russian/collusion investigation this morning. That one does seem to spook him. I keep thinkin’ that's ‘cause there's stuff back there that we don't know yet.
It is possible that Trump had advance notice that this article was about to be published in the New York Times. His outbursts have kinda pushed this information off of the front pages. Although, I don't imagine that he's managed to divert Mueller's attention from it.
That one does seem to spook him. I keep thinkin’ that's ‘cause there's stuff back there that we don't know yet.
Yes.
Not counting about 40 players for the Houston Texans who knelt for the first time this time because the owner of the Houston Texans said last week that we can't allow ‛the inmates to run the prison’, looks like there was another couple dozen or so players protesting during the national anthem again this week. (Also not counting those who do stand but decline to put their hands over their hearts as the Congressional Directive directs, which would amount to another couple dozen, but generally folks don't count them on account of Shorthands declared that acceptable in his eyes.)
We'll have to see if Shorthands has any enthusiasm for tweeting at the offenders this morning. He may have much to distract his dedicated Trumpkins away from today, but his heart wasn't really in it last week, so enthusiasm is a question now.
[Marcus]: "You're intentionllay misinterpreting me."
No, but I accept your Lake Erie on stilts might've been just a (bad) example.
[Marcus]: "What I meant to say is maybe we ought to think of a new energy regime before oil and gas peaks. Doing so might well mean we have to put funds and labour into projects that are not presently economically sound."
Ok, I get your point and I somewhat accept it, BUT... it incurs a serious risk of governments attempting to pick technology winners. That is something they have been very bad at on occasion. There is nothing like the lure of public money to bring out the delusional and the charlatans.
A recent case in point is "second generation biofuels" in the US. Based on the dubious success of corn ethanol, the idea was that agricultural waste and woody biomass would become the new inputs to processes that break down lignin and hemicellulose. A variety of companies -- some led by Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who imagined thermodynamic problems could be solved like software ones -- promised big and delivered zero, but not before soaking up billions in public subsidies and startup capital.
The US government even went as far as mandating a certain quantity of ethanol from 2nd gen processes to be blended with gasoline. That became an embarrassing reversal when no such fuel ever materialised. And probably no such fuel ever will, as the fermentation of complex carbohydrates and organic polymers like lignin followed by water removal is simply not very energetically profitable. Efforts to pre-process the materials for easier digestion involved horrible acid leaching. (Not that the first generation fuels are very environmentally friendly either. And by the way, we already have a method to turn woody biomass into liquid fuels which has been around since the ancient Egpytians, but that's another day's story).
On the other hand, there is no denying that government incentives such as tax breaks and feed-in tariffs for wind and solar power have been instrumental in bringing those technologies to maturity. Those have not been without startup disasters too, though. And we have to be careful about perverse incentives too. Energy deregulation has been a decidedly mixed blessing.
We need to think ahead not just to where our power will come from, but to storage and distribution technologies. Today the cost of distribution is built into utility costs. In a future where large numbers of customers only depend on the grid for, say, a third of each day, utilities will hike the relative cost of grid usage. (Actually, that's already happening). It will come as a shock to customers who have made investments with ten or twenty year payback times, who are depending on FITs to make the numbers work. They may find they get charged for their micro-generation instead of being paid for it.
In short, it is hard to even guess the economics of the future energy market, let alone what will power it. So what economically unsound pet projects do you have in mind? My favourite is nuclear fusion, but it already has backing from private investment and academia. Though I'm sure a bit of sucking on the government tit would speed things along ;-)
The whinge fest is really reaching fever pitch about now. The prospect of a lynching over Russian collusion (with Manafort and Gates looking like the fall guys) is sending the baying mob wild with excitement. Today there are viral images of a pleasant young lady giving the finger to Trump's motorcade, and another holding an "Impeach" placard outside his golf club. I'm sure Obama suffered similar abuse, but the media didn't report on it quite so gleefully.
Came across a couple of interesting vids. This NY Times sponsored discussion comes close to admitting that the MSM is hysterical, and probably doing the progressive cause damage. (Action starts at 2:15, I was able to bear about the first 15 minutes, and only because of Camille Paglia). This other one is hilarious and entertaining but makes a serious point about talking to people you disagree with instead of just bellyaching in an echo chamber.
Trump campaign advisor George Papadopolous has pled guilty to a charge of making false statements to the FBI during their investigations. A guilty plea this early kinda suggests that Papadopolous has rolled. (It matters what he knows though, does he have anything on Trump, is he only an early link in a chain going up?)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Shorthands is taking this opportunity to let his fuss ‛bout the NFL kneeling during the anthem fall away. It would seem to be an opportunity to distract his dedicated Trumpkins from today's news, but he's not much interested in it this morning. (Maybe next week Marcus.)
Camille Paglia is hardly in a position to make ‛admissions’ on behalf of ‛the mainstream media’
Tragedy! The Manafort and Gates charges have turned out to be about money laundering, nothing to do with the election campaign. The baying mob will have to look elsewhere to find evidence of Trump having Vladimir Putin's babies. Oh, look over there ... George Papadopolous! (Turns out he engaged in a bit of self-aggrandisement with the Trump campaign about the importance of his Russian links, and was too embarrassed to tell the Feds he'd only just made them. Not exactly the stuff of spy thrillers, but the baying mob won't be too concerned about that. They've got their witch).
Look out for tomorrow's sizzling headlines in a similar vein: sixth-grader sits for pledge of allegiance, Melania's favourite scarf made in former Russian satellite country, Trump hires space aliens before African-Americans.
Petes: Tragedy! The Manafort and Gates charges have turned out to be about money laundering...
Tragedy? On the contrary. They are going in exactly the right direction.
I see that Manafort has pled guilty.
Lee C.: Trump campaign advisor George Papadopolous has pled guilty to a charge of making false statements to the FBI during their investigations. A guilty plea this early kinda suggests that Papadopolous has rolled.
Indeed.
Petes: The baying mob will have to look elsewhere to find evidence of Trump having Vladimir Putin's babies.
lol! Really?
No, but I accept your Lake Erie on stilts might've been just a (bad) example.
Maybe the wrong format. ;)
I just read some of the indictment. Geez, what did I say? Never mess with the IRS. $18 million. Lied to tax preparers, among others.
Let the whinge fest continue...
"Turns out he engaged in a bit of self-aggrandisement with
the Trump campaign about the importance of his Russian links…"
That sounds suspiciously like an extremely poorly thought out defense imagined up by the legal geniuses at FoxNews' Opinion Division and/or Breitbart. I rather doubt that Trump's real lawyers are going to go with a defense that the Trump campaign was hiring people with known connections to Russian intelligence as policy advisors. Doesn't strike me as a defense Ty Cobb is likely to make. (Sounds more like a Sean Hannity defense, or maybe something dreamed up by Erick Erickson.)
By the way, the money laundering charges against Manafort would seem to significantly increase the odds that Mueller has Trump's tax returns going back a similar period, 2006 I think they said.
I suspect they're looking Trump over already for potentially laundering Russian mob/oligarch money.
I suspect they're looking Trump over already for potentially laundering Russian mob/oligarch money.
I suspect that was always in the cards.
Yeah, we let it go without mention that Trump personally interviewed the replacement Federal Prosecutors for the Manhattan and Brooklyn and D.C. circuits, where he and his family were most likely to have been investigated and/or charged with any potential federal crimes, should the occasion arise. (Transcripts of the interviews most definitely not available.) This was a serious break with established norms, but Trump breaks with established political norms on an almost weekly basis.
Editing error:
"…for the Manhattan and Brooklyn and D.C. districts…"
Post a Comment