(08-26-2019 01:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-26-2019 01:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Used to be every navy in the world relied on wind.
Wonder why they changed?
Effectiveness and efficiency. Wind is likely making a comeback on ships, interestingly enough:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/technol...us-effect/
Quote:Rotor ships, sometimes called Flettner ships, have been around a while. The big development now is that the major players in shipping are taking the idea seriously. Yesterday the shipping colossus Maersk installed 100-foot-tall rotors on one of its tankers, the Pelican, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Maersk thinks the advanced sails could cut its fuel costs by 10 percent. That may not sound like much, but consider that the Danish mega-corporation spends $3 billion annually on fuel to move the world's cargo, so we're talking about $300 million. If the Pelican tests succeed, the Maersk could try out rotors on other vessels and turn more cargo ships into hybrid sailboats.
Oh, I see. I was talking about wind as the primary mover of ships, like in the Spanish Armada, and you counter with an auxiliary use to reduce costs 10%. Clearly apples and watermelons
Every industry that used wind power has go to other sources for power. Why?
I think wind is great as an auxiliary. As a sole or primary source, not so much..
(08-26-2019 01:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-26-2019 12:48 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-26-2019 08:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-25-2019 09:56 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-25-2019 09:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Using an anecdote as evidence of the unreliability of wind isn’t super compelling when wind was the 2nd largest producer of energy in the state of Texas for the first half of the year (behind natural gas).
https://www.kut.org/post/texas-has-gener...o-far-year
I make that drive quite a bit right now for work and see the turbines near Corpus churning frequently.
And using your own anecdotal evidence proves your point?
Where did I say wind power was unreliable? I just found it surprising and disturbing that that much capital investment was sitting completely idle on the 2 days within a week that I drove by. Maybe there was a problem, maybe everyone’s Tesla was fully charged.
I too have seen them churning away many times which made the sight of all of them completely still on 2 windy, hot and humid days very strange.
No - providing empirical evidence does.
My point of you own anecdote is that it directly refuted yours, but is worthless without further evidence.
And your empirical “evidence” says nothing about reliability. 22% of Texas power generated by wind is evidence of reliability??? By that logic, fossil fuel power generation in Texas is nearly 3 times more reliable than wind - 65% fossil fuels vs 22% wind.
Try these references if you are truly interested in wind turbine reliability. Again, I was only making a personal observation, not a statement about overall reliability of wind turbines.
https://www.npr.org/2017/06/22/532763718...eliability
https://www.exponent.com/knowledge/alert...eSize=true
https://www.intechopen.com/books/stabili...d-turbines
Inherently the 22% does say something about reliability - if wind was unreliable, a market, especially a deregulated power market, wouldn't rely on it. That is a really easy jump to make, and not one that requires complex critical thinking skills OR a deep understanding of energy production or markets.
Your personal observation basically said, "Geeze, look at these turbines not working - glad someone waster all that money." I pointed out, with evidence, that wind is now the second largest energy source in Texas, which means that these aren't massive wastes of capital. If they were such a waste, they wouldn't be built.
Subsidies have a lot to do with the justification for the investment.
Wind is obviously a part of an “all of the above” energy strategy. Mechanical reliability will get better with time, experience and development, but has a ways to go. Whether the wind is blowing or not, much like solar power being dependent on non-cloudy skies (see German experience), is a completely different matter.
And quit misstating what I said. I never said “glad someone wasted all that money”.
(08-26-2019 03:09 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-26-2019 01:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-26-2019 12:48 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-26-2019 08:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-25-2019 09:56 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote: [ -> ]And using your own anecdotal evidence proves your point?
Where did I say wind power was unreliable? I just found it surprising and disturbing that that much capital investment was sitting completely idle on the 2 days within a week that I drove by. Maybe there was a problem, maybe everyone’s Tesla was fully charged.
I too have seen them churning away many times which made the sight of all of them completely still on 2 windy, hot and humid days very strange.
No - providing empirical evidence does.
My point of you own anecdote is that it directly refuted yours, but is worthless without further evidence.
And your empirical “evidence” says nothing about reliability. 22% of Texas power generated by wind is evidence of reliability??? By that logic, fossil fuel power generation in Texas is nearly 3 times more reliable than wind - 65% fossil fuels vs 22% wind.
Try these references if you are truly interested in wind turbine reliability. Again, I was only making a personal observation, not a statement about overall reliability of wind turbines.
https://www.npr.org/2017/06/22/532763718...eliability
https://www.exponent.com/knowledge/alert...eSize=true
https://www.intechopen.com/books/stabili...d-turbines
Inherently the 22% does say something about reliability - if wind was unreliable, a market, especially a deregulated power market, wouldn't rely on it. That is a really easy jump to make, and not one that requires complex critical thinking skills OR a deep understanding of energy production or markets.
Your personal observation basically said, "Geeze, look at these turbines not working - glad someone waster all that money." I pointed out, with evidence, that wind is now the second largest energy source in Texas, which means that these aren't massive wastes of capital. If they were such a waste, they wouldn't be built.
Subsidies have a lot to do with the justification for the investment.
Wind is obviously a part of an “all of the above” energy strategy. Mechanical reliability will get better with time, experience and development, but has a ways to go. Whether the wind is blowing or not, much like solar power being dependent on non-cloudy skies (see German experience), is a completely different matter.
Is wind actually subsidized that much more compared to fossil fuel at the state or federal level? My guess is it that it is more subsidized, but not that much more to justify its rise.
My understanding was that the main reason we've seen wind generation take off over the last 5+ years is that producers have started to build better, bigger, and more cost-effective turbines as the industry has matured.
None of this discussion explains why the entire wind farm east of I-37, north of Corpus, was idle on August 9th and 13th. Plenty of wind those days and the near record heat indices in the area would suggest the need for power was great. Just a very strange sight. I have not been able to find any reference on-line regarding the downtime I observed. Maybe it was just for the 15 minutes or so each day I was passing by?
(08-26-2019 07:24 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019...itain.html
I'm posting this one specifically for George Webb since this seems to be one of his pet peeves. Trump doesn't seem to know the difference between England and the U.K.
Ugh! Unfortunately, I've read several books by PhD and/or Pulitzer-winning historians that repeatedly make the same error. It drives me crazy! Those authors certainly deserve blame, but so too do the editors -- I mean, what else does an editor have to do other than edit?
Getting it right is pretty simple if people would just take the time and think for a second. Then again, I've been criticized before (including in this forum, and sometimes quite viciously) for asking people to be thoughtful, rather than unthinking, in their word choice. The usual argument is that the listener will figure it out, so what difference does it make?
Omar
I don't know what, if anything, Omar has done wrong. But, as one of our leading lights has said before, there's an awful lot of smoke here, and the smoke warrants an investigation.
I am struck by the irony. Trump uses his own money to pay off a lover and the left wants that to count as campaign finance violation. I guess they think it would have been more proper to pay off Daniels out of the Campaign funds? Is that the complaint?
OTOH, Omar allegedly steers campaign money money to her married lover and/or his firm, and not a peep. Crickets.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Prediction: At some point, Omar will claim this is racial persecution.
(08-29-2019 09:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Omar
I don't know what, if anything, Omar has done wrong. But, as one of our leading lights has said before, there's an awful lot of smoke here, and the smoke warrants an investigation.
I am struck by the irony. Trump uses his own money to pay off a lover and the left wants that to count as campaign finance violation. I guess they think it would have been more proper to pay off Daniels out of the Campaign funds? Is that the complaint?
OTOH, Omar allegedly steers campaign money money to her married lover and/or his firm, and not a peep. Crickets.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Prediction: At some point, Omar will claim this is racial persecution.
"Not a peep" - Posts news article about the issue, which was just raised on Wednesday (yesterday).
We'll see what the FEC does - hopefully their job.
(08-29-2019 09:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2019 09:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Omar
I don't know what, if anything, Omar has done wrong. But, as one of our leading lights has said before, there's an awful lot of smoke here, and the smoke warrants an investigation.
I am struck by the irony. Trump uses his own money to pay off a lover and the left wants that to count as campaign finance violation. I guess they think it would have been more proper to pay off Daniels out of the Campaign funds? Is that the complaint?
OTOH, Omar allegedly steers campaign money money to her married lover and/or his firm, and not a peep. Crickets.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Prediction: At some point, Omar will claim this is racial persecution.
"Not a peep" - Posts news article about the issue, which was just raised on Wednesday (yesterday).
We'll see what the FEC does - hopefully their job.
"Not a peep" = no comments from the leftists on this board, and damn little from the Democratic party. Not even an "if true" comment, a la MSNBC.
The FEC will give her a slap on the wrist fine, and probably should. It will be interesting to see if the brother and tax allegations prove out.
She is still a leftist and antiIsrael heroine, just a little more tarnished.
Comey
This might make it harder to impeach Trump for firing Comey. I bet Nadler has a stomach ache.
(08-29-2019 09:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Comey
This might make it harder to impeach Trump for firing Comey. I bet Nadler has a stomach ache.
Comey's just happy he's back in the news cycle for his inevitable next book tour.
(08-29-2019 09:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2019 09:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2019 09:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Omar
I don't know what, if anything, Omar has done wrong. But, as one of our leading lights has said before, there's an awful lot of smoke here, and the smoke warrants an investigation.
I am struck by the irony. Trump uses his own money to pay off a lover and the left wants that to count as campaign finance violation. I guess they think it would have been more proper to pay off Daniels out of the Campaign funds? Is that the complaint?
OTOH, Omar allegedly steers campaign money money to her married lover and/or his firm, and not a peep. Crickets.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Prediction: At some point, Omar will claim this is racial persecution.
"Not a peep" - Posts news article about the issue, which was just raised on Wednesday (yesterday).
We'll see what the FEC does - hopefully their job.
"Not a peep" = no comments from the leftists on this board, and damn little from the Democratic party. Not even an "if true" comment, a la MSNBC.
The FEC will give her a slap on the wrist fine, and probably should. It will be interesting to see if the brother and tax allegations prove out.
She is still a leftist and antiIsrael heroine, just a little more tarnished.
Dude, the FEC complaint was filed yesterday...
Plus, you're comparing the response to a POTUS versus a freshman representative. A bit apples to oranges, no?
(08-29-2019 10:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2019 09:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2019 09:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2019 09:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Omar
I don't know what, if anything, Omar has done wrong. But, as one of our leading lights has said before, there's an awful lot of smoke here, and the smoke warrants an investigation.
I am struck by the irony. Trump uses his own money to pay off a lover and the left wants that to count as campaign finance violation. I guess they think it would have been more proper to pay off Daniels out of the Campaign funds? Is that the complaint?
OTOH, Omar allegedly steers campaign money money to her married lover and/or his firm, and not a peep. Crickets.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Prediction: At some point, Omar will claim this is racial persecution.
"Not a peep" - Posts news article about the issue, which was just raised on Wednesday (yesterday).
We'll see what the FEC does - hopefully their job.
"Not a peep" = no comments from the leftists on this board, and damn little from the Democratic party. Not even an "if true" comment, a la MSNBC.
The FEC will give her a slap on the wrist fine, and probably should. It will be interesting to see if the brother and tax allegations prove out.
She is still a leftist and antiIsrael heroine, just a little more tarnished.
Dude, the FEC complaint was filed yesterday...
Plus, you're comparing the response to a POTUS versus a freshman representative. A bit apples to oranges, no?
"Dude". I am glad you like my sartorial choices, kid. I had to shop all over Wal-Mart to get this finery.
Both prominent politicians. The difference is in the D/R. When the R cheated on his spouse, horror. When the D allegedly cheated on her spouse, no problem.
But now that one day has passed, what do you think should happen, if all/any of the allegations are true? Prison was advocated for Trump.
(08-29-2019 10:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2019 10:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2019 09:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2019 09:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2019 09:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Omar
I don't know what, if anything, Omar has done wrong. But, as one of our leading lights has said before, there's an awful lot of smoke here, and the smoke warrants an investigation.
I am struck by the irony. Trump uses his own money to pay off a lover and the left wants that to count as campaign finance violation. I guess they think it would have been more proper to pay off Daniels out of the Campaign funds? Is that the complaint?
OTOH, Omar allegedly steers campaign money money to her married lover and/or his firm, and not a peep. Crickets.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Prediction: At some point, Omar will claim this is racial persecution.
"Not a peep" - Posts news article about the issue, which was just raised on Wednesday (yesterday).
We'll see what the FEC does - hopefully their job.
"Not a peep" = no comments from the leftists on this board, and damn little from the Democratic party. Not even an "if true" comment, a la MSNBC.
The FEC will give her a slap on the wrist fine, and probably should. It will be interesting to see if the brother and tax allegations prove out.
She is still a leftist and antiIsrael heroine, just a little more tarnished.
Dude, the FEC complaint was filed yesterday...
Plus, you're comparing the response to a POTUS versus a freshman representative. A bit apples to oranges, no?
"Dude". I am glad you like my sartorial choices, kid. I had to shop all over Wal-Mart to get this finery.
Both prominent politicians. The difference is in the D/R. When the R cheated on his spouse, horror. When the D allegedly cheated on her spouse, no problem.
But now that one day has passed, what do you think should happen, if all/any of the allegations are true? Prison was advocated for Trump.
Bill Clinton would like a word with you...
What was advocated for Trump was that the FEC actually prosecute him. The same for Omar if there are illegal activities.
(08-29-2019 09:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2019 09:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2019 09:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Omar
I don't know what, if anything, Omar has done wrong. But, as one of our leading lights has said before, there's an awful lot of smoke here, and the smoke warrants an investigation.
I am struck by the irony. Trump uses his own money to pay off a lover and the left wants that to count as campaign finance violation. I guess they think it would have been more proper to pay off Daniels out of the Campaign funds? Is that the complaint?
OTOH, Omar allegedly steers campaign money money to her married lover and/or his firm, and not a peep. Crickets.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Prediction: At some point, Omar will claim this is racial persecution.
"Not a peep" - Posts news article about the issue, which was just raised on Wednesday (yesterday).
We'll see what the FEC does - hopefully their job.
"Not a peep" = no comments from the leftists on this board, and damn little from the Democratic party. Not even an "if true" comment, a la MSNBC.
The FEC will give her a slap on the wrist fine, and probably should. It will be interesting to see if the brother and tax allegations prove out.
She is still a leftist and antiIsrael heroine, just a little more tarnished.
First I've heard of this but if she was illegally funneling money to her side piece via her campaign then she should be out. Typical politician BS move if true. Get rid of all these bad actors who pull this type of stunt on both sides.
(08-29-2019 10:17 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2019 09:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2019 09:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2019 09:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Omar
I don't know what, if anything, Omar has done wrong. But, as one of our leading lights has said before, there's an awful lot of smoke here, and the smoke warrants an investigation.
I am struck by the irony. Trump uses his own money to pay off a lover and the left wants that to count as campaign finance violation. I guess they think it would have been more proper to pay off Daniels out of the Campaign funds? Is that the complaint?
OTOH, Omar allegedly steers campaign money money to her married lover and/or his firm, and not a peep. Crickets.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Prediction: At some point, Omar will claim this is racial persecution.
"Not a peep" - Posts news article about the issue, which was just raised on Wednesday (yesterday).
We'll see what the FEC does - hopefully their job.
"Not a peep" = no comments from the leftists on this board, and damn little from the Democratic party. Not even an "if true" comment, a la MSNBC.
The FEC will give her a slap on the wrist fine, and probably should. It will be interesting to see if the brother and tax allegations prove out.
She is still a leftist and antiIsrael heroine, just a little more tarnished.
First I've heard of this but if she was illegally funneling money to her side piece via her campaign then she should be out. Typical politician BS move if true. Get rid of all these bad actors who pull this type of stunt on both sides.
That's fair, if a bit harsh.
When you say first you've heard of this, does that mean CNN/MSNBC are not covering the story, or just that you have been too busy to listen to the news?
I heard this last night, but have not listened to any news today yet.
(08-29-2019 10:17 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2019 09:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2019 09:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2019 09:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Omar
I don't know what, if anything, Omar has done wrong. But, as one of our leading lights has said before, there's an awful lot of smoke here, and the smoke warrants an investigation.
I am struck by the irony. Trump uses his own money to pay off a lover and the left wants that to count as campaign finance violation. I guess they think it would have been more proper to pay off Daniels out of the Campaign funds? Is that the complaint?
OTOH, Omar allegedly steers campaign money money to her married lover and/or his firm, and not a peep. Crickets.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Prediction: At some point, Omar will claim this is racial persecution.
"Not a peep" - Posts news article about the issue, which was just raised on Wednesday (yesterday).
We'll see what the FEC does - hopefully their job.
"Not a peep" = no comments from the leftists on this board, and damn little from the Democratic party. Not even an "if true" comment, a la MSNBC.
The FEC will give her a slap on the wrist fine, and probably should. It will be interesting to see if the brother and tax allegations prove out.
She is still a leftist and antiIsrael heroine, just a little more tarnished.
First I've heard of this but if she was illegally funneling money to her side piece via her campaign then she should be out. Typical politician BS move if true. Get rid of all these bad actors who pull this type of stunt on both sides.
I would hope her convoluted marriage trail and its implications to tax fraud and immigration fraud would have a hard look garnered.
(08-29-2019 10:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2019 10:17 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2019 09:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2019 09:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2019 09:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Omar
I don't know what, if anything, Omar has done wrong. But, as one of our leading lights has said before, there's an awful lot of smoke here, and the smoke warrants an investigation.
I am struck by the irony. Trump uses his own money to pay off a lover and the left wants that to count as campaign finance violation. I guess they think it would have been more proper to pay off Daniels out of the Campaign funds? Is that the complaint?
OTOH, Omar allegedly steers campaign money money to her married lover and/or his firm, and not a peep. Crickets.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Prediction: At some point, Omar will claim this is racial persecution.
"Not a peep" - Posts news article about the issue, which was just raised on Wednesday (yesterday).
We'll see what the FEC does - hopefully their job.
"Not a peep" = no comments from the leftists on this board, and damn little from the Democratic party. Not even an "if true" comment, a la MSNBC.
The FEC will give her a slap on the wrist fine, and probably should. It will be interesting to see if the brother and tax allegations prove out.
She is still a leftist and antiIsrael heroine, just a little more tarnished.
First I've heard of this but if she was illegally funneling money to her side piece via her campaign then she should be out. Typical politician BS move if true. Get rid of all these bad actors who pull this type of stunt on both sides.
That's fair, if a bit harsh.
When you say first you've heard of this, does that mean CNN/MSNBC are not covering the story, or just that you have been too busy to listen to the news?
I heard this last night, but have not listened to any news today yet.
I haven't been in front of the news for a couple days. Busy times.
(08-29-2019 11:24 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2019 10:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2019 10:17 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2019 09:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2019 09:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]"Not a peep" - Posts news article about the issue, which was just raised on Wednesday (yesterday).
We'll see what the FEC does - hopefully their job.
"Not a peep" = no comments from the leftists on this board, and damn little from the Democratic party. Not even an "if true" comment, a la MSNBC.
The FEC will give her a slap on the wrist fine, and probably should. It will be interesting to see if the brother and tax allegations prove out.
She is still a leftist and antiIsrael heroine, just a little more tarnished.
First I've heard of this but if she was illegally funneling money to her side piece via her campaign then she should be out. Typical politician BS move if true. Get rid of all these bad actors who pull this type of stunt on both sides.
That's fair, if a bit harsh.
When you say first you've heard of this, does that mean CNN/MSNBC are not covering the story, or just that you have been too busy to listen to the news?
I heard this last night, but have not listened to any news today yet.
I haven't been in front of the news for a couple days. Busy times.
Thank you. I hope the busy times are busy good times.
It could very easily be that during her state rep runs and her Congressional run that her relationship with the political marketing guy was nothing more than one of her using him and paying him for those services rendered.
And during (or after) the campaigns, that her time around the guy got her enamored of him.
If so, wont be the first time that two people who worked in close proximity got interested in one another; wont be the last.
The issue of her affair with the guy is *her* business, and the campaign guys. And of course her husband's and his wife's. I really dont care about the adulterous nature of it. And, as noted before, my guess is that the relationship grew out of the close time together, and the money paid was not necessarily a 'paying the lover' type thing.
Omar has much more serious issues that she should address. That is, her convoluted marriage trail has the underlying potential issues of both tax fraud and immigration fraud. Those issues have been brought up even before Omar was a congress-critter, and even well before she ran (that is while she was a State rep.)
And when asked about these underlying issues on her marriage trail, she steadfastly refuses to offer any answers or comments.