According to the government's numbers, Natural Gas is 73% the cost of wind on average, and Solar is nearly 3 times more expensive than Natural Gas. Of course this is IN THE USA (important to remember) and does NOT include tax incentives or funding deals afforded renewable projects, but only actual costs for construction, fuel, and decommissioning the plant after 30 years. (this is the fully burdened cost which actually is more favorable to renewables which have HUGE upfront costs and no fuel costs over time.)
Of course if you WANT to pay more.. Feel free... Which is apparently the case with Tesla. There business model is not about selling cheap cars to the have not's to maximize profits, theirs is a niche market, selling high priced low volume vehicles to the super-rich "have's" who need to appear as champions of the environment and don't mind paying for the appearance of actually caring. Those who want to drive carbon free to catch their chartered jet for their tropical vacation.
No, that's not what it says. It says it will be net-zero. That's a big difference.
This plant will be grid-connected. It will simply produce as much energy as it uses. Not all the time, not 24 hours.
So they will be drawing power from Fossil fueled Electric plants just like the rest of us. So much for carbon emissions being ZERO. But we already knew that wasn't in the cards, given that they will have to hire trucks to haul their batteries around.
I applaud their effort, but they are going to loose money on this. Not that it matters to Tesla, they already sell high priced, get out of the environmental guilt trip jail credits at insane costs for the rich and famous who need to look like they care and can afford it.
Having a kid on a respirator is better than watching them die (and yes I've done this), but it doesn't eliminate the FACT that nobody has died from this yet.
Are we SO self absorbed that we don't realize that kids are dying in Africa from Ebola? From Starvation even? Then we get all up in arms over a respiratory virus that hasn't killed anybody yet?
Yea, this is NOT a public health emergency, YET. It might get worse, if it does, people will likely die from it. But more kids die from car accidents on their way to school and this virus doesn't seem capable of becoming the leading cause of death. So far, the FLU has killed more kids this year.
Americans.... We stress out over the strangest things.
I'm not saying Congress didn't do this, they did. I'm saying they should UNDO this arrangement.
Who is talking about executive orders but you? Yes, these exist and have been used by presidents past. Now the current administration may be pushing the boundaries of what is considered a LEGAL executive order, but I'm not addressing that situation. It's just going to be a question for the next campaign at least for me. I'm going to want to know what the candidates think the logical limits to executive orders might be and I suggest you ask the question too.
This is about what people think the limits on government should be. What are the principles we use to figure out when government gets too big, to complex, to intrusive? Do you have any ideas about that?
You're one of the idiots who thinks because there wasn't a problem, then all the precautions and changes done ahead of time was useless, aren't you?
No, I'm I guy who recognizes the dangers of a government that is too big, too intrusive, to expensive. And I'm asking those who think otherwise to explain what they think the logical limits of government SHOULD be. Do you have ANY principles that would limit the size and scope of government's reach into your life or are you just willing to go along with the "it's for the children" type arguments for bigger, more intrusive, more expensive government arguments?
You know, you still haven't answered the question. Where does this end? What logical limits do you place on government? How big, how intrusive does it get in your view? When is it too big, too intrusive and how do we know we've reached that point? What are your governing principles on this?
Yes, I'm making logical arguments this illustrating my points by being absurd, that's no surprise, it's what I'm SAYING I'm doing. I'm asking your types to put logical limits in place so I can understand what your arguments, positions, actually are. Because as it stands, debating your types is like nailing jello to the wall. You can always claim "It's for the children" (or the poor, or this group or that) but what you don't want to discuss is where your limits are?
Personally, I think we've gone well past a federal government that is reasonable in size and scope and now have a behemoth out of control, unnecessarily expensive government that does too much and costs way too much. Where does it stop?
I'm with you on everything up until " I'm pointing back to first principles of SMALLER government and PERSONAL responsibility. "
This won't go well then, because Personal responsibility is fundamental to the founding of this country, in fact was WHY it was founded and why it's not a colony of Great Britain still.
That's all well and good, and should definitely be a goal for all. However...what do you think we should do with those who will fail the 'personal responsibility test'? This is where conservatives start mumbling. Most seem to be of the opinion 'Fuck off and die'.
Which you should fully know is NOT true if you are listening to what the advocates of "personal responsibility" are actually saying. One little known fact in the USA is that charitable contributions from the conservative right, far outweigh the contributions made by the left. The left has ceded the social responsibility to take care of the unfortunate to government, where the conservatives have not, so your characterization of my position is flat wrong. We don't mumble, we actually DO SOMETHING about the poor, directly, personally, and locally on our own. Yet liberals put their hands in their pockets and figure the government will take care of it.
So don't give me that garbage, it's just campaign rhetoric lies invented by the ones who want to be in charge of the biggest government they can.
That's where I differ. I'm all for personal liberty and all that, but I also realize that there will be people who will fail that test and end up destitute, homeless, a danger to themselves and others. Instead of letting stay homeless I think we should have a decent social safety net including housing, rehab centers, etc. I'm even for the creation of boarding schools for kids who live in horrible situations where it's clear the 'parent' is their largest impediment to a successful life.
So you still don't get it right? Personal responsibility does not run the opposite direction from providing help to the needy. I'm all for helping those who CANNOT help themselves (I give to charities for this very purpose) but I am NOT for enabling people to be free of responsibility for themselves. For those who are able, government help should be temporary and limited. If you want to better your station, you have my help, if you just want to sit back and complain about how bad things are or that you have to work too hard, I'm not inclined to be all that helpful.
Case in point. If you stand on a street corner asking for spare change "for a cup of coffee" expect me to offer to buy you a cup. I get cussed at about half the time, they don't want coffee, they want money, I don't give them a cent, but you take the coffee I'm likely to drop a few dollars in your hand. I've had poor people show up at my front door asking if I had any work they could do to earn something, and when they do, they are likely to get work from me, get paid well, get fed as much as I can come up with and sent away with leftovers. Show up with your wife and kids (as happened last week) and try and work hard, I'm going to over pay you and send you home with as much as I can without offending you with charity.
So, your characterization of conservatives is flat out wrong.
If you have a problem with the legislation based on the research from the CDC (or lack of being based on that), take it up with your Congress critter.
Oh how I wish that was how it worked in today's age. Now, the Executive branch has been ceded the right of law to pass regulations, this should NOT be. The DOE, IRS, EPA, HHS, FCC etc are now endowed with the ability to make regulations which can send you to jail if you violate them. Congress does write law, but we need to move back towards a form of government where ONLY congress makes law at the federal level, and do away with all these other regulation writing appendages of government.
Liberals... Where does this stop then? What are the limits of government control of my private life?
I'm fond of making the argument that says... "If you take this to it's logical conclusion, you end up at.... " and in this case we have to make *clear* lines.
So, I'm 7ft tall 190 lbs. Why do YOU care if I want to down 64 Oz of my favorite soft drink from one cup? How does it matter to you? (Hint: It doesn't..) So tell me again why government should be involved in this?
And if you think they should be, then why don't we go whole hog here and mandate that people only be allowed 1500 Calories a day and enforce this by making it illegal to consume 1501 or more with huge fines? How about we mandate exercise too? 20 min of cardio a week for everybody.... Yea, that's the ticket.. How about we make every woman have exactly two children and force them to breastfeed? It reduces breast cancer you know..
Where does this end? In my world, I'm pointing back to first principles of SMALLER government and PERSONAL responsibility. What we need is for people to take an interest in taking care of themselves. That is ONLY going to happen when we start expecting people to be personally responsible for themselves and not blame all that is bad on something/somebody else or try and legislate personal choices... But I'm but a silly conservative..
Yea, but.... "So Far" after 900 cases says that for now, this is not much of a risk, even to those in the high risk groups. More kids die from the flu, drowning and elevator accidents. I think the problem is a bit overstated. Heaven forbid we have some kind of virus that actually *does* kill kids get loose, oh wait, we already have that with Chicken Pox, Whooping cough, Mumps and the like, and that's just in the USA. Go overseas and there are a whole new raft of childhood illnesses that kill thousands....
I have no problem with being concerned... The problem is how they intend to *control* people for their own good.
Remember back when NYC tried to ban soft drink cups over some set size? That's the kind of thing that government has no business trying to control though law. Public education programs are good things, but until you are able/willing to ban soft drinks totally, making the size of the cup a matter of law is stupid.
So the CDC has it's place, but trying to legislate personal/private behavior is not among them.
Best you point that thing away from the station until we can figure out what's going on.
Wonder if NASA has been hacked....Again....
I wonder if the hackers understand the irony of fucking with objects in permanent orbit.
If it is hackers, it's likely some High School aged script kiddie trying to hack into some website to play games. So far they've only found tick tack toe, but what's this GTNW folder? Wait, that's a good movie idea! Joshua, call casting and get me Matthew Broderic's and Ali Sheedy's agents...
Why bother with doing it this way. Just do it using the Reusable Boeing X-37b Vehicle the Air Force has in orbit since December 2012 so you can alter the orbits enough to be useful. Everybody knows when the ISS is overhead.
thought programmers just liked to make things worse.
No, not programmers, politicians are the ones that make it worse. If they cannot accomplish that, they just try to claim that's it is worse than it is so they can claim responsibility for the eventual improvements.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you pay more?
Natural Gas is cheaper! Why pay more?
Not to mention your numbers are a bit on the wishful thinking side of reality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
According to the government's numbers, Natural Gas is 73% the cost of wind on average, and Solar is nearly 3 times more expensive than Natural Gas. Of course this is IN THE USA (important to remember) and does NOT include tax incentives or funding deals afforded renewable projects, but only actual costs for construction, fuel, and decommissioning the plant after 30 years. (this is the fully burdened cost which actually is more favorable to renewables which have HUGE upfront costs and no fuel costs over time.)
Of course if you WANT to pay more.. Feel free... Which is apparently the case with Tesla. There business model is not about selling cheap cars to the have not's to maximize profits, theirs is a niche market, selling high priced low volume vehicles to the super-rich "have's" who need to appear as champions of the environment and don't mind paying for the appearance of actually caring. Those who want to drive carbon free to catch their chartered jet for their tropical vacation.
Unless it starts raining and snowing upstream pretty soon, Hoover Dam isn't going to be a source of much electricity anymore.
Hoover dam is in Nevada. It matters not how they power their factory.
case closed.
Except for one tiny detail.... Part of Hoover Dam is in Arizona... Case still open unless you have something else...
No, that's not what it says. It says it will be net-zero. That's a big difference.
This plant will be grid-connected. It will simply produce as much energy as it uses. Not all the time, not 24 hours.
So they will be drawing power from Fossil fueled Electric plants just like the rest of us. So much for carbon emissions being ZERO. But we already knew that wasn't in the cards, given that they will have to hire trucks to haul their batteries around.
I applaud their effort, but they are going to loose money on this. Not that it matters to Tesla, they already sell high priced, get out of the environmental guilt trip jail credits at insane costs for the rich and famous who need to look like they care and can afford it.
Having a kid on a respirator is better than watching them die (and yes I've done this), but it doesn't eliminate the FACT that nobody has died from this yet.
Are we SO self absorbed that we don't realize that kids are dying in Africa from Ebola? From Starvation even? Then we get all up in arms over a respiratory virus that hasn't killed anybody yet?
Yea, this is NOT a public health emergency, YET. It might get worse, if it does, people will likely die from it. But more kids die from car accidents on their way to school and this virus doesn't seem capable of becoming the leading cause of death. So far, the FLU has killed more kids this year.
Americans.... We stress out over the strangest things.
I'm not saying Congress didn't do this, they did. I'm saying they should UNDO this arrangement.
Who is talking about executive orders but you? Yes, these exist and have been used by presidents past. Now the current administration may be pushing the boundaries of what is considered a LEGAL executive order, but I'm not addressing that situation. It's just going to be a question for the next campaign at least for me. I'm going to want to know what the candidates think the logical limits to executive orders might be and I suggest you ask the question too.
This is about what people think the limits on government should be. What are the principles we use to figure out when government gets too big, to complex, to intrusive? Do you have any ideas about that?
I'll take my tongue out of my cheek.... (I was making a sideways swipe at what I thought was not a serious complaint...)
You must live in Boulder.... Take a bike ride and ease up... Maybe find the nearest pot shop....
Ok.. Ok.. I'll stop making fun of my boyhood home....
You're one of the idiots who thinks because there wasn't a problem, then all the precautions and changes done ahead of time was useless, aren't you?
No, I'm I guy who recognizes the dangers of a government that is too big, too intrusive, to expensive. And I'm asking those who think otherwise to explain what they think the logical limits of government SHOULD be. Do you have ANY principles that would limit the size and scope of government's reach into your life or are you just willing to go along with the "it's for the children" type arguments for bigger, more intrusive, more expensive government arguments?
You know, you still haven't answered the question. Where does this end? What logical limits do you place on government? How big, how intrusive does it get in your view? When is it too big, too intrusive and how do we know we've reached that point? What are your governing principles on this?
Yes, I'm making logical arguments this illustrating my points by being absurd, that's no surprise, it's what I'm SAYING I'm doing. I'm asking your types to put logical limits in place so I can understand what your arguments, positions, actually are. Because as it stands, debating your types is like nailing jello to the wall. You can always claim "It's for the children" (or the poor, or this group or that) but what you don't want to discuss is where your limits are?
Personally, I think we've gone well past a federal government that is reasonable in size and scope and now have a behemoth out of control, unnecessarily expensive government that does too much and costs way too much. Where does it stop?
I'm with you on everything up until " I'm pointing back to first principles of SMALLER government and PERSONAL responsibility. "
This won't go well then, because Personal responsibility is fundamental to the founding of this country, in fact was WHY it was founded and why it's not a colony of Great Britain still.
That's all well and good, and should definitely be a goal for all. However...what do you think we should do with those who will fail the 'personal responsibility test'? This is where conservatives start mumbling. Most seem to be of the opinion 'Fuck off and die'.
Which you should fully know is NOT true if you are listening to what the advocates of "personal responsibility" are actually saying. One little known fact in the USA is that charitable contributions from the conservative right, far outweigh the contributions made by the left. The left has ceded the social responsibility to take care of the unfortunate to government, where the conservatives have not, so your characterization of my position is flat wrong. We don't mumble, we actually DO SOMETHING about the poor, directly, personally, and locally on our own. Yet liberals put their hands in their pockets and figure the government will take care of it.
So don't give me that garbage, it's just campaign rhetoric lies invented by the ones who want to be in charge of the biggest government they can.
That's where I differ. I'm all for personal liberty and all that, but I also realize that there will be people who will fail that test and end up destitute, homeless, a danger to themselves and others. Instead of letting stay homeless I think we should have a decent social safety net including housing, rehab centers, etc. I'm even for the creation of boarding schools for kids who live in horrible situations where it's clear the 'parent' is their largest impediment to a successful life.
So you still don't get it right? Personal responsibility does not run the opposite direction from providing help to the needy. I'm all for helping those who CANNOT help themselves (I give to charities for this very purpose) but I am NOT for enabling people to be free of responsibility for themselves. For those who are able, government help should be temporary and limited. If you want to better your station, you have my help, if you just want to sit back and complain about how bad things are or that you have to work too hard, I'm not inclined to be all that helpful.
Case in point. If you stand on a street corner asking for spare change "for a cup of coffee" expect me to offer to buy you a cup. I get cussed at about half the time, they don't want coffee, they want money, I don't give them a cent, but you take the coffee I'm likely to drop a few dollars in your hand. I've had poor people show up at my front door asking if I had any work they could do to earn something, and when they do, they are likely to get work from me, get paid well, get fed as much as I can come up with and sent away with leftovers. Show up with your wife and kids (as happened last week) and try and work hard, I'm going to over pay you and send you home with as much as I can without offending you with charity.
So, your characterization of conservatives is flat out wrong.
If you have a problem with the legislation based on the research from the CDC (or lack of being based on that), take it up with your Congress critter.
Oh how I wish that was how it worked in today's age. Now, the Executive branch has been ceded the right of law to pass regulations, this should NOT be. The DOE, IRS, EPA, HHS, FCC etc are now endowed with the ability to make regulations which can send you to jail if you violate them. Congress does write law, but we need to move back towards a form of government where ONLY congress makes law at the federal level, and do away with all these other regulation writing appendages of government.
Liberals... Where does this stop then? What are the limits of government control of my private life?
I'm fond of making the argument that says... "If you take this to it's logical conclusion, you end up at .... " and in this case we have to make *clear* lines.
So, I'm 7ft tall 190 lbs. Why do YOU care if I want to down 64 Oz of my favorite soft drink from one cup? How does it matter to you? (Hint: It doesn't..) So tell me again why government should be involved in this?
And if you think they should be, then why don't we go whole hog here and mandate that people only be allowed 1500 Calories a day and enforce this by making it illegal to consume 1501 or more with huge fines? How about we mandate exercise too? 20 min of cardio a week for everybody.... Yea, that's the ticket.. How about we make every woman have exactly two children and force them to breastfeed? It reduces breast cancer you know..
Where does this end? In my world, I'm pointing back to first principles of SMALLER government and PERSONAL responsibility. What we need is for people to take an interest in taking care of themselves. That is ONLY going to happen when we start expecting people to be personally responsible for themselves and not blame all that is bad on something/somebody else or try and legislate personal choices... But I'm but a silly conservative..
Get over it.. Living in Denver, You are part of the Louisiana purchase like most of the mid-west...
I always hated them because they didn't have milkshakes.
Huh? I was pretty sure they do..
Think of the chickens!!!
I thought it was about the cows....
Yea, but.... "So Far" after 900 cases says that for now, this is not much of a risk, even to those in the high risk groups. More kids die from the flu, drowning and elevator accidents. I think the problem is a bit overstated. Heaven forbid we have some kind of virus that actually *does* kill kids get loose, oh wait, we already have that with Chicken Pox, Whooping cough, Mumps and the like, and that's just in the USA. Go overseas and there are a whole new raft of childhood illnesses that kill thousands....
Americans..... We are messed up.
I have no problem with being concerned... The problem is how they intend to *control* people for their own good.
Remember back when NYC tried to ban soft drink cups over some set size? That's the kind of thing that government has no business trying to control though law. Public education programs are good things, but until you are able/willing to ban soft drinks totally, making the size of the cup a matter of law is stupid.
So the CDC has it's place, but trying to legislate personal/private behavior is not among them.
Yea, I know, he's on Europa, at least that's where he's been for the last 4 years or so.. Just go with the flow of the joke... ;)
Best you point that thing away from the station until we can figure out what's going on.
Wonder if NASA has been hacked....Again....
I wonder if the hackers understand the irony of fucking with objects in permanent orbit.
If it is hackers, it's likely some High School aged script kiddie trying to hack into some website to play games. So far they've only found tick tack toe, but what's this GTNW folder? Wait, that's a good movie idea! Joshua, call casting and get me Matthew Broderic's and Ali Sheedy's agents...
Why bother with doing it this way. Just do it using the Reusable Boeing X-37b Vehicle the Air Force has in orbit since December 2012 so you can alter the orbits enough to be useful. Everybody knows when the ISS is overhead.
Yea, this isn't rocket science we are doing here... Wait...
"I'm sorry Dave. I can't do that. [continues singing "Daisey" in the background]
Whatever, just leave the pod bay doors open....
Best you point that thing away from the station until we can figure out what's going on.
Wonder if NASA has been hacked....Again....
thought programmers just liked to make things worse.
No, not programmers, politicians are the ones that make it worse. If they cannot accomplish that, they just try to claim that's it is worse than it is so they can claim responsibility for the eventual improvements.