Sorry, I was referring to the OP and keeping to the topic, green power, of this thread.
discuss energy sources on their own merits of advantages and disadvantages without some colouring in bullshit.
What part of my post was bullshit? Every point I made is backed up be research and facts. I grew up in the mountains of BC and most people in our area are tired of turning beautiful valleys into lakes and killing species to produce electricity for export.
It's how you balance them and deal with them that matters.
How do you balance long term loss of habitat and species extinction? The final nail is that there are not many places left to put hydroelectric plant. The main point is that idea that HVDS will allow millions more people to use hydroelectric may not be as easy or as low impact as you seem to..
They are very different technologies. That would be like trying to run a nuclear plant on coal. Either the type of rocket was wrong or the explanation was wrong.
I'll tell your false "points" to all the businesses moving here.
What are false about my points? They are all based on documented facts. How does businesses moving to Seattle relate to Green energy?
Since you can't make a valid argument about how Green Seattle is you move even further from the discussion. That is an excellent way to admit that your argument is baseless.
That reply has nothing to do with your original assertion that Seattle is way ahead of everyone else on Green power and your false assertion of "profit" in your last post.
This means you have to source the mining/extracting of all the inputs, including turbines, mercury outsource from coal oil and even the infrastructure lights and vehicles used for maintenance, fab costs for the switching equipment and transformers, and so on down the line.
Green energy has similar issues including mining rare earths that go into PVs and magnets for wind generators.
You can keep arguing over how many angels dance on the head of a pin.
Sorry to bring facts into the conversation but your perceptions and reality are very far apart.
I just look at the fact and taxpayer subsidies mask the real costs of green power.
You don't know how to read appendices.
What appendices are you referring to considering that the one article you linked does not have an appendix?
My dad lives totally off-grid on solar, and you probably have all these wonderful objections
Off the grid is great and I have no objections at all.
but even Red states like Idaho are using wind and hydro.
I have no problem with wind power except that is is expensive compared to conventional sources. Idaho produces 6.3% wind generated electricity and 30% coal generated electricity. Talk to m when those two numbers get a lot closer together.
Adapt. Because the world isn't waiting for you to come up with objections about how it's flat.
Look at reality and realize that money does not grow on trees.
Which goes to subsidize a small portion of small green energy project but most go to renewable energy credits for existing installations.
2. Buy GreenPower (another program)
Green Power is a donation program to support education and local demonstration projects. How much did you donate?
DIRECTLY BOUGHT 1 unit of the Seattle Aquarium solar cell array - cost me $150, reduces my bill by $46 a year on average, so that means (wait for it)
Which is subsidized by the Green Up and Washington State to the tune of $1.15/Kw. The Aquarium project only opened in July so you have no real output figures to work with. According to you you will make $46/year. According to Seattle Power you should make about $28/year. I will go with the supplier's numbers.
5. PROFIT!
You also need a little help with math. $29 solar credit - ($12/month * 12 months) = 29 - 144 = -115. That makes it a loss to you of $115 and a loss to the taxpayers of Washington State of $26.30.
Now realize that the BASELINE is 89.8 plus 4.4. I am ABOVE THE BASELINE.
You are 5% above baseline. That is only double the gains you slagged in the original post and it cost you over $115/year to do it..
The Topol is a solid fueled rocket so fuel dumping,leakage is probably not the cause. I guess they will have to come up with another theory. The article has been updated to reflect this.
Right 4.4% rules, lol. By the way, 0.07% of that subsidy comes from Green Up money. Notice it is not the whole $1.15 which means that Green Up helps buy new solar panels but needs a lot of help to get it done.
Guess you didn't read my other comment. According to this Seattle uses 89.8% Hydroelectric. Wind, solar, tidal and geothermal make up, at most, another 4.4%. I do not believe that 4.4% is much to crow about.
While hydro electric production does not produce greenhouse gasses during electricity production there are other issues with it. 1. There are only limited places where hydroelectric is viable and they are rapidly being utilized. 2. The building of the facility uses massive amounts of concrete. The production of that concrete creates massive amounts of CO2 as the production process burns a lot of fossil fuels. 3. The lake produced kills thousands of trees which release their stored CO2 back into the atmosphere. 4. The lake produced destroys habitat and interferes with migration which can cause extinctions of land based species. 5. Dams have caused the extinction of a number of aquatic species due to spawning interruptions and change in habitat. 6. Hydroelectric dams are not permanent. They accumulate sediment behind the dam and the reservoir fills. Dams eventually need to be removed as they become no longer viable.
These are reasons why hydroelectric is not as green as some people think.
Freedom should win out in this case. Freedom always serves the public better than control.
There is always a problem with absolute statements like that. How about the freedom to kill someone you don't agree with? The freedom to drive any speed you want in any area? The freedom to walk into a bank and withdraw money you don't own? There are many freedoms that are curtailed in the public interest.
Here is the actual rulling rather than a paraphrased version. The important bit follows;
In assessing this question, the Court assessed four key issues. First, the context of the posts. The comments had been insulting, threatening and defamatory. Given the nature of the article, the company should have expected offensive posts, and exercised an extra degree of caution so as to avoid being held liable for damage to an individual’s reputation. Second, the steps taken by Delfi to prevent the publication of defamatory comments. The article’s webpage did state that the authors of comments would be liable for their content, and that threatening or insulting comments were not allowed. The webpage also automatically deleted posts that contained a series of vulgar words, and users could tell administrators about offensive comments by clicking a single button, which would then lead to the posts being removed. However, the warnings failed to prevent a large number of insulting comments from being made, and they were not removed in good time by the automatic-word filtering or by the notice-and-take-down notification system. Third, whether the actual authors of the comments could have been made liable for them. The owner of the ferry company could, in principle, have attempted to sue the specific authors of the offensive posts rather than Delfi. However, the identity of the authors would have been extremely difficult to establish, as readers were allowed to make comments without registering their names. Therefore many of the posts were anonymous. Making Delfi legally responsible for the comments was therefore practical; but it was also reasonable, because the news portal received commercial benefit from comments being made. Finally, the court addressed the consequences of Delfi being made liable. The sanctions imposed by the Estonian courts against the company had been fairly small. Delfi was required to pay a EUR 320 fine, and the courts did not make any orders about how the portal should protect third party rights in the future in a way that might limit free speech. Taking into account all of these points, the Court held that making Delfi liable for the comments was a justified and proportionate interference with its right to freedom of expression. There had therefore been no violation of Article 10.
Green up and Green Power is a feel good tax if ever there was one. Washington state is producing as much green energy as it can. Paying the extra fees does not make them produce more. It just allows you to feel good that you are paying for green energy. If you were not paying for the extra fee the green power would be going to someone else who didn't pay the fee. All it does is make the ratio of green energy use for someone else lower but the overall average stays the same.
According to this it is a bit lower than that at about 94.2%. It is also a bit skewed by the fact that Seattle is close to mountain ranges with lots of valleys that can produce hydroelectric power. If you remove the hydroelectric, 89.8% the percentage drops to 4.4%.
Not everyone lives in an area that has plentiful hydroelectric generation. It is like Arizona touting how much solar based electricity they are generating and slagging Seattle for falling behind.
Meanwhile, I just shelled out $150 to buy one unit of the Seattle Aquarium solar panel array, which will reduce my annual already green electric bill by about $46 until around 2035.
That is only because you are getting credited for $1.15/KWh when electricity sells locally for $0,0672. You are being paid over 17 times the going rate. Making money due to tax incentives really skews the picture. By the way according to Seattle Power the credits amount to "an estimated annual credit of almost $29 per solar unit" I really don't think comparing a highly subsidizes small , 49 kW, project with al large commercial project is very valid at all.
What I was trying to point out is that the closure of federal parks is due to the corruption in the Republican party and not the POTUS. The park is closed because the Republican Party will not allow a vote on a continuing resolution that does not delay implementing the health care bill for a year. The Republicans didn't get what they wanted when the bill passed so they are trying a back door approach now. Trying to put the closure on Obama's pile is false.
What do you see as Obama's corruption in the closure issue?
Do you mean the veterans who were admitted to the memorial 15 minutes after they got there? Wow, 15 minutes to find a couple politicians and get them down to the memorial to open it up for so they can appear to help there constituent even though they were the cause of the problem in the first place. Call me cynical but I smell some planning in this. Just because the Republican Party is not as easy a target as the POTUS does not mean they are not corrupt.
Take a look at the indictment and you will find that she lied much more than once. In fact, profit/loss is not one of the things she was accused of lying about. It was all about what she knew, when she knew it, who she talked to and why she sold her stock.
What is stopping someone from "independently" creating a bogus paper and submitting it to numerous peer-reviewed, open-access journals and analyzing the results? It seems reproducible and independently verifiable to me.
Considering the number of people who believe that trademarks cover all uses of a word and the lack of indication of a joke (:-) ,/sarcasm, etc) you might understand why I took your comment seriously.
I suspect the genuine sufferers keep it a bit quieter.
I am actually quite open about autism. It seems to help people understand why I wig out sometimes and need space. The difference is that I do not use it as an excuse and I apologize when I screw up.
BTW, I agree with everything the other reply said. There are a lot of factors involving the "autism epidemic".
Slashdot Mirror
According to this there are issues with comparisons using LCoE. The biggest one being comparing dispatchable and non-dispatchable sources.
It wasn't my "boast" so back off
Sorry, I was referring to the OP and keeping to the topic, green power, of this thread.
discuss energy sources on their own merits of advantages and disadvantages without some colouring in bullshit.
What part of my post was bullshit? Every point I made is backed up be research and facts.
I grew up in the mountains of BC and most people in our area are tired of turning beautiful valleys into lakes and killing species to produce electricity for export.
It's how you balance them and deal with them that matters.
How do you balance long term loss of habitat and species extinction? The final nail is that there are not many places left to put hydroelectric plant. The main point is that idea that HVDS will allow millions more people to use hydroelectric may not be as easy or as low impact as you seem to..
Well, that's all well and good for you people in areas that don't have 99.8 percent green energy like we in Seattle do.
Without the hydroelectric, 89.8% the green power in your original exagerated post drops to 4.4% making your original boast completely false.
They are very different technologies. That would be like trying to run a nuclear plant on coal. Either the type of rocket was wrong or the explanation was wrong.
I'll tell your false "points" to all the businesses moving here.
What are false about my points? They are all based on documented facts.
How does businesses moving to Seattle relate to Green energy?
Since you can't make a valid argument about how Green Seattle is you move even further from the discussion. That is an excellent way to admit that your argument is baseless.
That reply has nothing to do with your original assertion that Seattle is way ahead of everyone else on Green power and your false assertion of "profit" in your last post.
This means you have to source the mining/extracting of all the inputs, including turbines, mercury outsource from coal oil and even the infrastructure lights and vehicles used for maintenance, fab costs for the switching equipment and transformers, and so on down the line.
Green energy has similar issues including mining rare earths that go into PVs and magnets for wind generators.
You can keep arguing over how many angels dance on the head of a pin.
Sorry to bring facts into the conversation but your perceptions and reality are very far apart.
I just look at the fact and taxpayer subsidies mask the real costs of green power.
You don't know how to read appendices.
What appendices are you referring to considering that the one article you linked does not have an appendix?
My dad lives totally off-grid on solar, and you probably have all these wonderful objections
Off the grid is great and I have no objections at all.
but even Red states like Idaho are using wind and hydro.
I have no problem with wind power except that is is expensive compared to conventional sources. Idaho produces 6.3% wind generated electricity and 30% coal generated electricity. Talk to m when those two numbers get a lot closer together.
Adapt. Because the world isn't waiting for you to come up with objections about how it's flat.
Look at reality and realize that money does not grow on trees.
1. Buy Green Up (which is about $12 a month)
Which goes to subsidize a small portion of small green energy project but most go to renewable energy credits for existing installations.
2. Buy GreenPower (another program)
Green Power is a donation program to support education and local demonstration projects. How much did you donate?
DIRECTLY BOUGHT 1 unit of the Seattle Aquarium solar cell array - cost me $150, reduces my bill by $46 a year on average, so that means (wait for it)
Which is subsidized by the Green Up and Washington State to the tune of $1.15/Kw. The Aquarium project only opened in July so you have no real output figures to work with. According to you you will make $46/year. According to Seattle Power you should make about $28/year. I will go with the supplier's numbers.
5. PROFIT!
You also need a little help with math. $29 solar credit - ($12/month * 12 months) = 29 - 144 = -115. That makes it a loss to you of $115 and a loss to the taxpayers of Washington State of $26.30.
Now realize that the BASELINE is 89.8 plus 4.4. I am ABOVE THE BASELINE.
You are 5% above baseline. That is only double the gains you slagged in the original post and it cost you over $115/year to do it..
No I hate lies tat make things look better than they really are. Take off your rose coloured glasses and look at the facts.
The Topol is a solid fueled rocket so fuel dumping,leakage is probably not the cause. I guess they will have to come up with another theory. The article has been updated to reflect this.
Right 4.4% rules, lol. By the way, 0.07% of that subsidy comes from Green Up money. Notice it is not the whole $1.15 which means that Green Up helps buy new solar panels but needs a lot of help to get it done.
If you want to donate money to do those things then go right ahead but touting it as buying green electricity is just a cover up.
Most of the Green up money goes to by Renewable Energy Credits to support existing producers.
Guess you didn't read my other comment. According to this Seattle uses 89.8% Hydroelectric. Wind, solar, tidal and geothermal make up, at most, another 4.4%. I do not believe that 4.4% is much to crow about.
While hydro electric production does not produce greenhouse gasses during electricity production there are other issues with it.
1. There are only limited places where hydroelectric is viable and they are rapidly being utilized.
2. The building of the facility uses massive amounts of concrete. The production of that concrete creates massive amounts of CO2 as the production process burns a lot of fossil fuels.
3. The lake produced kills thousands of trees which release their stored CO2 back into the atmosphere.
4. The lake produced destroys habitat and interferes with migration which can cause extinctions of land based species.
5. Dams have caused the extinction of a number of aquatic species due to spawning interruptions and change in habitat.
6. Hydroelectric dams are not permanent. They accumulate sediment behind the dam and the reservoir fills. Dams eventually need to be removed as they become no longer viable.
These are reasons why hydroelectric is not as green as some people think.
Freedom should win out in this case. Freedom always serves the public better than control.
There is always a problem with absolute statements like that. How about the freedom to kill someone you don't agree with? The freedom to drive any speed you want in any area? The freedom to walk into a bank and withdraw money you don't own? There are many freedoms that are curtailed in the public interest.
Here is the actual rulling rather than a paraphrased version. The important bit follows;
In assessing this question, the Court assessed four key issues. First, the context of the posts. The comments had been insulting, threatening and defamatory. Given the nature of the article, the company should have expected offensive posts, and exercised an extra degree of caution so as to avoid being held liable for damage to an individual’s reputation.
Second, the steps taken by Delfi to prevent the publication of defamatory comments. The article’s webpage did state that the authors of comments would be liable for their content, and that threatening or insulting comments were not allowed. The webpage also automatically deleted posts that contained a series of vulgar words, and users could tell administrators about offensive comments by clicking a single button, which would then lead to the posts being removed. However, the warnings failed to prevent a large number of insulting comments from being made, and they were not removed in good time by the automatic-word filtering or by the notice-and-take-down notification system.
Third, whether the actual authors of the comments could have been made liable for them. The owner of the ferry company could, in principle, have attempted to sue the specific authors of the offensive posts rather than Delfi. However, the identity of the authors would have been extremely difficult to establish, as readers were allowed to make comments without registering their names. Therefore many of the posts were anonymous. Making Delfi legally responsible for the comments was therefore practical; but it was also reasonable, because the news portal received commercial benefit from comments being made.
Finally, the court addressed the consequences of Delfi being made liable. The sanctions imposed by the Estonian courts against the company had been fairly small. Delfi was required to pay a EUR 320 fine, and the courts did not make any orders about how the portal should protect third party rights in the future in a way that might limit free speech.
Taking into account all of these points, the Court held that making Delfi liable for the comments was a justified and proportionate interference with its right to freedom of expression. There had therefore been no violation of Article 10.
Green up and Green Power is a feel good tax if ever there was one. Washington state is producing as much green energy as it can. Paying the extra fees does not make them produce more. It just allows you to feel good that you are paying for green energy. If you were not paying for the extra fee the green power would be going to someone else who didn't pay the fee. All it does is make the ratio of green energy use for someone else lower but the overall average stays the same.
According to this it is a bit lower than that at about 94.2%. It is also a bit skewed by the fact that Seattle is close to mountain ranges with lots of valleys that can produce hydroelectric power. If you remove the hydroelectric, 89.8% the percentage drops to 4.4%.
Not everyone lives in an area that has plentiful hydroelectric generation. It is like Arizona touting how much solar based electricity they are generating and slagging Seattle for falling behind.
Meanwhile, I just shelled out $150 to buy one unit of the Seattle Aquarium solar panel array, which will reduce my annual already green electric bill by about $46 until around 2035.
That is only because you are getting credited for $1.15/KWh when electricity sells locally for $0,0672. You are being paid over 17 times the going rate. Making money due to tax incentives really skews the picture.
By the way according to Seattle Power the credits amount to "an estimated annual credit of almost $29 per solar unit"
I really don't think comparing a highly subsidizes small , 49 kW, project with al large commercial project is very valid at all.
What I was trying to point out is that the closure of federal parks is due to the corruption in the Republican party and not the POTUS. The park is closed because the Republican Party will not allow a vote on a continuing resolution that does not delay implementing the health care bill for a year. The Republicans didn't get what they wanted when the bill passed so they are trying a back door approach now. Trying to put the closure on Obama's pile is false.
What do you see as Obama's corruption in the closure issue?
Do you mean the veterans who were admitted to the memorial 15 minutes after they got there? Wow, 15 minutes to find a couple politicians and get them down to the memorial to open it up for so they can appear to help there constituent even though they were the cause of the problem in the first place. Call me cynical but I smell some planning in this. Just because the Republican Party is not as easy a target as the POTUS does not mean they are not corrupt.
Take a look at the indictment and you will find that she lied much more than once. In fact, profit/loss is not one of the things she was accused of lying about. It was all about what she knew, when she knew it, who she talked to and why she sold her stock.
What is stopping someone from "independently" creating a bogus paper and submitting it to numerous peer-reviewed, open-access journals and analyzing the results? It seems reproducible and independently verifiable to me.
Considering the number of people who believe that trademarks cover all uses of a word and the lack of indication of a joke ( :-) , /sarcasm, etc) you might understand why I took your comment seriously.
I suspect the genuine sufferers keep it a bit quieter.
I am actually quite open about autism. It seems to help people understand why I wig out sometimes and need space. The difference is that I do not use it as an excuse and I apologize when I screw up.
BTW, I agree with everything the other reply said. There are a lot of factors involving the "autism epidemic".
They own the word as it is associated with a youth organization; a boat is very different. Maybe you should read up on trademarks.