(01-21-2017 01:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I can't tell what you're point is, OO. Is it that just because these renewables can have adverse side-effects that we shouldn't develop them? Or that they aren't this miracle panacea to our energy needs and you feel the need to point that out?

The tactic you're using, whether intentional or unintentional, is what a lot of those who favor fossil fuels over renewables do, which is to point out the speck in the eye of renewables, while fossil fuels have a giant stick in theirs. The speck shouldn't stop us from pushing forward and trying to develop newer and better energy technologies.

Basically, what I want to point out that they are not the miracle panacea so many act like they are. No free and unlimited enrgy, with no consequences or only good consequences on the environment. They have consequences, environmental and political, and costs that are different but just as real as the costs we have now in other forms of energy.

Way too many people think all we need to do is replace coal with solar, oil with wind, and the world will be so much better. Not saying anybody here here is like that, but I have heard that or similar thoughts on other boards within just the last few days.

The First Bundy confrontation was effectively triggered by the government protecting the habitat of the desert tortoise. What will be the fallout when the desert tortoise no longer can find food because the desert is shaded by solar collectors? One mistake is is in thinking the desert is empty and useless. Believe me, there will be those who will protect habitat from encroachment even by solar collectors. And there are hundreds of species of plants, animal, and even fish that will be affected, and thousands that will be affected indirectly.

when I say, no free lunch, I mean there is no easy and obvious solution that makes everybody happy. I see this as more than a speck, I see it as a buried log. A sequoia sized log.

Every solution involves change - a drop in sunlight, a drop in ambient temperature, whatever. When we reach the point, maybe a half century hence,maybe a century, it will no longer be oil and gas ad coal that are the villains. It will be that solar collectors are killing wildlife and changing the ecology, the food chain, as well as the economy, and there will be pro and anti factions, like now. You think polar bears dying off is bad press? Hang around 50 years and see what happens.

I have no solutions. All I can do is point out there are no perfect solutions, and the problems are not specks that can be discussed away, but real world problems that will divide us. There are consequences, both unintended and unforeseen. Careful where you step.

The easiest way to do that is to point out there is no free lunch.

(01-21-2017 01:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  As others pointed out, the biggest issue with renewables is the inability at the moment to provide a good base load on a consistent basis.

Actually, the biggest flaw with renewables is their inability to power mobile applications, like cars. To refer to your analogy in the part I didn't quote, neither the mobile problem nor the base load problem nor the scale and infrastructure problems (which we really haven't gotten to yet because we are not that far along the development curve) are specks. They're more like massive boulders. Or maybe mountains.

We need to transition from non-renewable energy sources to renewables. But before we can transition, we need something to transition to. That's still missing at this point.

(01-21-2017 02:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 01:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I can't tell what you're point is, OO. Is it that just because these renewables can have adverse side-effects that we shouldn't develop them? Or that they aren't this miracle panacea to our energy needs and you feel the need to point that out?
The tactic you're using, whether intentional or unintentional, is what a lot of those who favor fossil fuels over renewables do, which is to point out the speck in the eye of renewables, while fossil fuels have a giant stick in theirs. The speck shouldn't stop us from pushing forward and trying to develop newer and better energy technologies.

Basically, what I want to point out that they are not the miracle panacea so many act like they are. No free and unlimited enrgy, with no consequences or only good consequences on the environment. They have consequences, environmental and political, and costs that are different but just as real as the costs we have now in other forms of energy.
Way too many people think all we need to do is replace coal with solar, oil with wind, and the world will be so much better. Not saying anybody here here is like that, but I have heard that or similar thoughts on other boards within just the last few days.
The First Bundy confrontation was effectively triggered by the government protecting the habitat of the desert tortoise. What will be the fallout when the desert tortoise no longer can find food because the desert is shaded by solar collectors? One mistake is is in thinking the desert is empty and useless. Believe me, there will be those who will protect habitat from encroachment even by solar collectors. And there are hundreds of species of plants, animal, and even fish that will be affected, and thousands that will be affected indirectly.
when I say, no free lunch, I mean there is no easy and obvious solution that makes everybody happy. I see this as more than a speck, I see it as a buried log. A sequoia sized log.
Every solution involves change - a drop in sunlight, a drop in ambient temperature, whatever. When we reach the point, maybe a half century hence,maybe a century, it will no longer be oil and gas ad coal that are the villains. It will be that solar collectors are killing wildlife and changing the ecology, the food chain, as well as the economy, and there will be pro and anti factions, like now. You think polar bears dying off is bad press? Hang around 50 years and see what happens.
I have no solutions. All I can do is point out there are no perfect solutions, and the problems are not specks that can be discussed away, but real world problems that will divide us. There are consequences, both unintended and unforeseen. Careful where you step.
The easiest way to do that is to point out there is no free lunch.

Every possible answer has problems. I know no answer better than to keep all in the mix, keep pushing to solve the problems, and ultimately sort it in favor of the ones with the best benefits to problems ratios.

And OO is spot on, the problems with renewables are not specks, they're redwoods or boulders or mountains at this time. The primary problem is that none of them is as good a source of energy as petroleum. None is as energy intense, none is a versatile, none is as easy to transport and handle, none is as good in any number of ways.

(01-21-2017 03:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 02:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 01:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I can't tell what you're point is, OO. Is it that just because these renewables can have adverse side-effects that we shouldn't develop them? Or that they aren't this miracle panacea to our energy needs and you feel the need to point that out?
The tactic you're using, whether intentional or unintentional, is what a lot of those who favor fossil fuels over renewables do, which is to point out the speck in the eye of renewables, while fossil fuels have a giant stick in theirs. The speck shouldn't stop us from pushing forward and trying to develop newer and better energy technologies.

Basically, what I want to point out that they are not the miracle panacea so many act like they are. No free and unlimited enrgy, with no consequences or only good consequences on the environment. They have consequences, environmental and political, and costs that are different but just as real as the costs we have now in other forms of energy.
Way too many people think all we need to do is replace coal with solar, oil with wind, and the world will be so much better. Not saying anybody here here is like that, but I have heard that or similar thoughts on other boards within just the last few days.
The First Bundy confrontation was effectively triggered by the government protecting the habitat of the desert tortoise. What will be the fallout when the desert tortoise no longer can find food because the desert is shaded by solar collectors? One mistake is is in thinking the desert is empty and useless. Believe me, there will be those who will protect habitat from encroachment even by solar collectors. And there are hundreds of species of plants, animal, and even fish that will be affected, and thousands that will be affected indirectly.
when I say, no free lunch, I mean there is no easy and obvious solution that makes everybody happy. I see this as more than a speck, I see it as a buried log. A sequoia sized log.
Every solution involves change - a drop in sunlight, a drop in ambient temperature, whatever. When we reach the point, maybe a half century hence,maybe a century, it will no longer be oil and gas ad coal that are the villains. It will be that solar collectors are killing wildlife and changing the ecology, the food chain, as well as the economy, and there will be pro and anti factions, like now. You think polar bears dying off is bad press? Hang around 50 years and see what happens.
I have no solutions. All I can do is point out there are no perfect solutions, and the problems are not specks that can be discussed away, but real world problems that will divide us. There are consequences, both unintended and unforeseen. Careful where you step.
The easiest way to do that is to point out there is no free lunch.

Every possible answer has problems. I know no answer better than to keep all in the mix, keep pushing to solve the problems, and ultimately sort it in favor of the ones with the best benefits to problems ratios.

Agree. Maybe there is no free lunch, but we can work to get the most lunch for the money. So to speak.

basically, I was just think of the Yellowstone story. park management decided to rid the park of wolves. Nobody liked them, and they eat the elk, and everybody loves elk. So they eradicated wolves, and the elk herds grew and grew and grew, to the point where they were overeating the forage, killing small trees, and so the ponds got silty, rushes took root, and the beavers could no longer build their dams. Domino after domino. So they reintroduced wolves, and slowly the effects are being reversed.


Or, another, lake trout were introduced to a Great Lake, where they are killing off the cutthroats. Bunches of our tax dollars being spent to try and reverse that.

Bottom line, we always need to look past the first domino, to the fifth or ninth or whatever t takes. Ecologies are delicate things.

(01-21-2017 03:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 01:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  As others pointed out, the biggest issue with renewables is the inability at the moment to provide a good base load on a consistent basis.

Actually, the biggest flaw with renewables is their inability to power mobile applications, like cars.

To parse, you need to differentiate between energy uses --- whether they require high density or low density. You really cant lump everything into one basket.

For transportation --- you absolutely require high density solutions. Even low energy density motors (think Tesla) need very high density bundles associated with them to make them usable. The battery is the *only* device that transforms really low energy density (straight current) into anything approaching a high density package. Even then, you are payload restricted. This is why even with motorization you will see small discrete things that move (cars, carts, mopeds). There is not presently any way to make a parcel that will move a semi or a freighter with any efficacy approaching motors utilizing high energy density sources (i.e hydrocarbon based),

Similar arguments can be used to show that high energy industrial applications (cement, steel, etc.) cannot be done effectively with low density energy sources (i.e. electric, no matter ists source).

Looking at the other side, there are applications that really only require low energy density power sources (electricity being the best example). One way of producing this low energy density power is to transform high energy density sources (coal, uranium, gas) into low energy dense forms through the generation process. But greens do a decent job at capturing low density energy forms and transforming them into electricity. Its just that the methodologies arent anywhere near as constant and dependable as opposed to "downgrading" high energy density forms to electricity.

But cars can definitely be powered by renewables -- electric cars are becoming more and more normalized; albeit performance will lag as defined by the source density issue. Another 'renewable' is bio-diesel -- albeit with a high necessity of added energy (or time) to produce. Yet another is fuels made from high cellulose based plants -- think switchgrass fuels made in Brazil. Again, one has to add some energy to make this step, and that energy can be in the form of added high density production methods, of low density usage integrated over longer periods of time.

So I think cars is very doable. Big scale stuff like freighters and semis are more problematic with direct low density energy usage. One can make fuels for these, but need added energy which means long term density usage in production over a short time or low density usage in production over much, much longer times.

Quote:To refer to your analogy in the part I didn't quote, neither the mobile problem nor the base load problem nor the scale and infrastructure problems (which we really haven't gotten to yet because we are not that far along the development curve) are specks. They're more like massive boulders. Or maybe mountains.

We need to transition from non-renewable energy sources to renewables. But before we can transition, we need something to transition to. That's still missing at this point.

Apologies for the long winded reply; first job out of Rice was in the oil industry, and have had my toe in various energy related fields for a long time now.

I probably am guilty of truncating my responses a bit on this thread. I've had some majorly long posts on the subject and was trying to avoid rehashing everything. I'm a huge fan of electric cars, but at this point they have a long way to go. None of them is truly viable for a cross country trip yet, for example. But we need to keep pushing until we get there. I'm also a huge fan of what Brazil has done. I've published in academic journals about that.

I just think we need to keep pushing everything. I don't know where the breakthrough is going to come, so the more options we have, the better.

FYI ... There's quite a bit of informed science-based discussion about energy mix, base/peak loads, real-world renewable performance and grid stability with renewables in the "open threads" of the blog "Brave New Climate", run by Australian Barry Brook. Here's a link to the latest of these threads: https://bravenewclimate.com/2016/09/10/open-thread-26/

(The entire blog was long focused on these sorts of discussions ... but Barry's focus seems to have moved on to other high-tech issues ... but his readers have kept the interesting dialogue going in the open threads.)

So, a lot has happened since I had a chance to post much…

1) What a a bizarre inauguration speech. “The American carnage stops now!” Um, OK. I’ve said it before, during the campaign, but it’s like he watched Escape from New York and thought it was a documentary. And hearing “America First” invoked in the campaign was weird enough, hearing it so prominently in the speech was unsettling. (Historically the phrase is associated with the isolationist, Nazi-appeasing, anti-Semitic movement to keep us out of WWII.)

2) Absolutely huge demonstrations the day after the inauguration. We’ll see if they turn in to anything lasting.

3) Bizarro performance from Spicer. Complaining about the “lying media” while telling easily verifiable lies. Sorry, not lies, “alternative facts”. Also, why does Spicer have a grudge against Dipping Dots? Just weird.

4) CIA speech – strange on so many levels. Offended many CIA people, not to mention outgoing director, and then we find out he had staff planted there to cheer.

5) As this story notes, his administration is leaking like it’s in the dying days of a failed campaign not the first days of a presidency.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/201...adman.html

And the stories are not encouraging: "On Sunday, one of the president’s confidantes told Politico that his staffers have to “control information that may infuriate him,” a task made difficult by the fact that the leader of the free world “gets bored and likes to watch TV.”

Granted, I don't think there's an administration in the history of the country that didn't get off to a rocky start. But this really seems to be a mess...

Almost forgot: 6) Trump tells Republican congressional leaders 3-5 million undocumented aliens voted, so he actually won the popular vote. This is one of those that is both comical and concerning.

(01-24-2017 02:15 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Almost forgot: 6) Trump tells Republican congressional leaders 3-5 million undocumented aliens voted, so he actually won the popular vote. This is one of those that is both comical and concerning.

Concerning if true, or concerning if untrue?

(01-24-2017 04:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 02:15 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Almost forgot: 6) Trump tells Republican congressional leaders 3-5 million undocumented aliens voted, so he actually won the popular vote. This is one of those that is both comical and concerning.

Concerning if true, or concerning if untrue?

Concerning if true! That means Trump may not have won the election!

(01-24-2017 02:15 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Almost forgot: 6) Trump tells Republican congressional leaders 3-5 million undocumented aliens voted, so he actually won the popular vote. This is one of those that is both comical and concerning.

I just don't get how he views this as helping him. If there truly was such a large amount of voter fraud, why isn't he calling for immediate investigation? If true, we need to find out how that was allowed to happen, if it was conducted via a conspiracy to rig the election, if the results of the down-ballot races are legitimate in the state's where these votes were cast, and if the results of the general racr are legitimate as well. Why would he rail about these illegitimate votes but offer no investigation?

Plus, if he is suggesting that it was some sort of liberal conspiracy, why in the heck did the liberals put all of the extra votes in states that didn't matter? They should have busses those votes to the Rust belt!

(01-25-2017 05:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 02:15 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Almost forgot: 6) Trump tells Republican congressional leaders 3-5 million undocumented aliens voted, so he actually won the popular vote. This is one of those that is both comical and concerning.

I just don't get how he views this as helping him. If there truly was such a large amount of voter fraud, why isn't he calling for immediate investigation? If true, we need to find out how that was allowed to happen, if it was conducted via a conspiracy to rig the election, if the results of the down-ballot races are legitimate in the state's where these votes were cast, and if the results of the general racr are legitimate as well. Why would he rail about these illegitimate votes but offer no investigation?
Plus, if he is suggesting that it was some sort of liberal conspiracy, why in the heck did the liberals put all of the extra votes in states that didn't matter? They should have busses those votes to the Rust belt!

What would you investigate?

If the problem were in-person voter fraud, you couldn't detect it on election day without voter ID. How would you discover it after the fact?

As for why they didn't do it in problem states, they didn't know they were going to be problems until after the polls closed. And based on what was discovered in Detroit, maybe they did do it.

I think this whole claim by Trump is idiotic. I can't figure out why he's doing it. But he's spent the last 18 months doing things that I thought were idiotic, and so far they've worked.

(01-25-2017 07:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 05:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 02:15 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Almost forgot: 6) Trump tells Republican congressional leaders 3-5 million undocumented aliens voted, so he actually won the popular vote. This is one of those that is both comical and concerning.

I just don't get how he views this as helping him. If there truly was such a large amount of voter fraud, why isn't he calling for immediate investigation? If true, we need to find out how that was allowed to happen, if it was conducted via a conspiracy to rig the election, if the results of the down-ballot races are legitimate in the state's where these votes were cast, and if the results of the general racr are legitimate as well. Why would he rail about these illegitimate votes but offer no investigation?
Plus, if he is suggesting that it was some sort of liberal conspiracy, why in the heck did the liberals put all of the extra votes in states that didn't matter? They should have busses those votes to the Rust belt!

What would you investigate?

If the problem were in-person voter fraud, you couldn't detect it on election day without voter ID. How would you discover it after the fact?

As for why they didn't do it in problem states, they didn't know they were going to be problems until after the polls closed. And based on what was discovered in Detroit, maybe they did do it.

I think this whole claim by Trump is idiotic. I can't figure out why he's doing it. But he's spent the last 18 months doing things that I thought were idiotic, and so far they've worked.

The original claim from trump was that the 3 million were in california. The Dems were not worried about California.

And I know that many states keep some records (for example, we sign our names next to our info in texas) so there should be evidence to review if there is concern that nearly 3 million people voted illegally. That claim is evidence of a conspiracy (at that size) to swing an election. Isn't that serious?

Also, regarding detroit, where did you hear there were legitimate claims of fraud? After a quick google search the only places I saw that were Breitbart or other right wing rags. Any other source actually dug into the claims and found that the total number of votes that were above the number of people who had voted was less than 0.3% of the total votes logged. If we can extrapolate that to the national vote (assuming those dirty, but rather incompetent Dems did the same job across the country) that would account for only 400,000 fraudulent votes.

(01-25-2017 08:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And I know that many states keep some records (for example, we sign our names next to our info in texas) so there should be evidence to review if there is concern that nearly 3 million people voted illegally.

OK, so you have voter rolls with signatures. Now what? What investigative techniques can you utilize to determine whether people voted illegally? I see a signature on a page. How do I determine whether it is legitimate or not?

Quote:Also, regarding detroit, where did you hear there were legitimate claims of fraud? After a quick google search the only places I saw that were Breitbart or other right wing rags. Any other source actually dug into the claims and found that the total number of votes that were above the number of people who had voted was less than 0.3% of the total votes logged. If we can extrapolate that to the national vote (assuming those dirty, but rather incompetent Dems did the same job across the country) that would account for only 400,000 fraudulent votes.

I would say that when the total number of votes exceeds the number who voted by any amount, that is per se evidence of fraud.

(01-25-2017 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 08:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And I know that many states keep some records (for example, we sign our names next to our info in texas) so there should be evidence to review if there is concern that nearly 3 million people voted illegally.

OK, so you have voter rolls with signatures. Now what? What investigative techniques can you utilize to determine whether people voted illegally? I see a signature on a page. How do I determine whether it is legitimate or not?

Quote:Also, regarding detroit, where did you hear there were legitimate claims of fraud? After a quick google search the only places I saw that were Breitbart or other right wing rags. Any other source actually dug into the claims and found that the total number of votes that were above the number of people who had voted was less than 0.3% of the total votes logged. If we can extrapolate that to the national vote (assuming those dirty, but rather incompetent Dems did the same job across the country) that would account for only 400,000 fraudulent votes.

I would say that when the total number of votes exceeds the number who voted by any amount, that is per se evidence of fraud.

Not being an expert on the field for fraud, I can't tell you exactly what methods to use, but I have to imagine there are some techniques out there where you can at least cross check if there were claims of people who tried to vote but couldn't because someone had already signed in their place.

And so I imagine you must feel the opposite about wherever number of votes is less than the number on the registration/rolls? There is human and computer error, and it should be investigated (which it was), but at some point there is a chance that human/machine error caused the discrepancy.

The over/under voting is not EVIDENCE of fraud, but it could be a sign of fraud (hence the need to look into it). Evidence would provide some insight into the reason for the alteration and there being intent of that action, no?

Good news, Trump says he is going to start an investigation as of this morning. Looks like he thinks there is a way to look into it. Wil be funny when they turn up way less than 3 million questionable votes.

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTru...4903090176

(01-25-2017 08:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 08:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And I know that many states keep some records (for example, we sign our names next to our info in texas) so there should be evidence to review if there is concern that nearly 3 million people voted illegally.

OK, so you have voter rolls with signatures. Now what? What investigative techniques can you utilize to determine whether people voted illegally? I see a signature on a page. How do I determine whether it is legitimate or not?

Quote:Also, regarding detroit, where did you hear there were legitimate claims of fraud? After a quick google search the only places I saw that were Breitbart or other right wing rags. Any other source actually dug into the claims and found that the total number of votes that were above the number of people who had voted was less than 0.3% of the total votes logged. If we can extrapolate that to the national vote (assuming those dirty, but rather incompetent Dems did the same job across the country) that would account for only 400,000 fraudulent votes.

I would say that when the total number of votes exceeds the number who voted by any amount, that is per se evidence of fraud.

Not being an expert on the field for fraud, I can't tell you exactly what methods to use, but I have to imagine there are some techniques out there where you can at least cross check if there were claims of people who tried to vote but couldn't because someone had already signed in their place.

And so I imagine you must feel the opposite about wherever number of votes is less than the number on the registration/rolls? There is human and computer error, and it should be investigated (which it was), but at some point there is a chance that human/machine error caused the discrepancy.

The over/under voting is not EVIDENCE of fraud, but it could be a sign of fraud (hence the need to look into it). Evidence would provide some insight into the reason for the alteration and there being intent of that action, no?

So if you have 100 people registered, and 105 votes, that is not evidence of voter fraud. Interesting.

The overage by itself is a clear indication of something drastically wrong at some level. Not in and of its own concrete proof, but kink of like the presence of festering boil on your leg is saying *something* is very wrong.

If the state had also implemented strong voter id laws, it would be even clearer. But let us not forget, stronger voter id laws are *racist* in nature....

(01-25-2017 08:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Good news, Trump says he is going to start an investigation as of this morning. Looks like he thinks there is a way to look into it. Wil be funny when they turn up way less than 3 million questionable votes.

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTru...4903090176

What a waste of taxpayer money and government employee time. This is equivalent to a football team, which scored more points than the other team, disputing the clear fact that the losing team had more yards gained than the winning team and then asking league officials to measure the length between the yard markers on the field.