They have not invested $107 trillion, as you stated, so don't be a smart ass.
Nope, this is coming from fossil fuel corporations who stand to lose $107 TRILLION in investments....
You even contradicted yourself with:
"Even at current lowered crude prices of $63 per barrel, the 1.7 trillion proven reserves alone have a value of $107 trillion"
You claim $107 trillion in investments and then you state $107 trillion in product value. Are you trying to imply it costs $1 in investment to get $1 in oil out of the ground?
Of course you aren't, so nobody has invested $107 trillion. Admit your mistake, like an adult, and move on..
You don't have to liquefy it.. It's not mandatory.. You can store it under high pressure. Yeah, you don't get the density you do with liquid, but so what? Build your system around that fact and you don't have a problem.
As I said.. build your facility next to your customer and storage becomes less of an issue.. You'd only have to store enough to handle production issues / fluctuations.
I'll give credit where credit is due.. Well said..
How would you fix it? I can't think of any system where power won't concentrate... I suspect Jefferson knew too, which is why he predicted a 20 year interval between minor revolutions, in this country, to maintain true freedom.
Term limits? You end up with puppets who are controlled by the rich. You also tend to lose out on experience when you won't let anyone stay long enough to get the experience.
The saying "It's not what you know, it's who you know" has been true for millennia. I'm not suggesting we give up, but every system we've ever tried ends up with concentration of power. From the days of tribal chieftains to monarchies to our own republics.
It's not just us either.. Lots of animals engage in this behavior.. Case in point; Lions... When a new male lion takes over a pride, there's a fairly decent chance he'll kill all the cubs.. This will guarantee that HIS cubs will one day run the pride. I guess we'd call this "genetic concentration of power".
I'll say this, what we are doing isn't working.. And these methods, that are more favored by the liberals, are making it worse in my opinion. They are attacking the core of our republic.. Free speech zones, disregard for the presumption of innocence, reverse sexism, reverse racism. I don't know what's left to attack... Will they suddenly be in favor of quartering soldiers in our homes without consent;)
We both know the constitution is ignored, and has been since day one. It's only upheld when it's high profile... Hell, my favorite, Jefferson, totally ignored it when he did the Louisiana Purchase.. (Congress allocates money and approves territory adjustments, not the President).
But this.. this isn't how it's fixed... This just makes it worse.
The FBI, itself, says upwards of 20% of rape accusations are false and made for revenge or regret. I've heard claims the true number might be north of 30%.
The more famous you are the less your ability to sue for libel, you ass clown. Right now Kavenaugh might be the most famous person in the United States..
It's possible he's passed the threshhold where he wouldn't be permitted to sue for libel. In this areana it has nothing to do with the merits of the accusation.
Once again, do you have any fucking clue as to how our system works? Of course you don't.. You're a cunty liberal..
Yeah, he was a party boy at a school for the elites. You know, the ones that rape children in the basement of pizza parlors? Kavanaugh is the kind of person Trump has been calling to have locked up, and now they're okay with making him a top tier judge?
Now it's guilt by association? You have a screw loose.. Seriously...
How would you feel if you gave a lifetime appointment to someone that later turns out to be a rapist.
Sorry for the sake of democracy its better to put someone else in that position, even if it costs one person a "job of a lifetime."
FUCK YOU. It is not better for democracy. The bullshit you are promoting is what is bad for democracy, you asshole.
Democracy involves innocence until proven guilty. Democracy involves DUE PROCESS, you leftist cunt.
Goddamn.. This is exactly why I hate liberals. You jerkoffs will say / do anything in furtherance of your bullshit goals, even if it means doing the exact opposite of what you claim to promote.
Your side will engage in racism to fight racism (all white men are bad).
Your side will engage in sexism to fight sexism (women must be believed at all costs) and "you must put a woman on your corporate board.. qualifications be damned, as long as she has a pussy!"
Your side will will shit all over due process to "save democracy". If anyone resembles Nazis (like your side loves to accuse the right of) it'd be you assholes. Fuck the rule of law! We need to save the rule of law!
Democracy has safeguards built in.. If he somehow turned out to actually be a rapist, we IMPEACH him.. Do you have any idea, whatsoever, how our system works?
Why do you think it's dirty energy that will power this system? Nuclear, Solar, Hydro, Geothermal, Wind... all are viable sources.. I'd be surprised if this company would develop this... green technology (after all, it's way cheaper to just pump methane out of the ground) and then power it with fossil fuels. What would be the point?
I wouldn't be surprised that if this is ever built, they power it directly with solar. If for nothing else, it would be great PR.
Class Action lawsuits are pointless; the lawyers get millions, the "class members" get a couple of bucks - MAYBE. Judges need to require that at least 75% of the money go to the class members, with much less to the lawyers.
Good luck getting any lawyers to take one on under your system. In a class action lawsuit the lawyers front all of the costs. If they lose the lawsuit (and it does happen) they are out whatever money they have invested.
Being able to recoup large amounts of money when they do win is how they offset the losses.
I bet you weren't an economics major and/or are a liberal. Liberals don't like large profits either. They don't understand that some companies have to make huge investments to see a return.. Take drug companies for example.. It might cost a billion dollars to invent a new drug.. Stats say only like... 1 in 10 drugs makes it to approval.. So for every drug a company brings to market, they may have to invest $10 billion dollars...
Class action lawsuits work in a similar way. I don't know the stats, but it's not 100% for wins.. That means the lawyers need to recoup the losses on the losses or they go out of business.
Before you rail on them for "greed", you might want to brush up on your knowledge of the subject, you hippy
For me, personally, I don't see the big deal in what they did. I pretty much assume anything "smart" is tracking me and selling that data to someone.
Well, a reasonable person would think that a company is following the law and NOT doing this surreptitiously. Vizio not only failed to disclose this practice, they actively hid it. That is illegal and that's why Vizio was dragged into court.
They also keep the software up to date.
Quite interesting that this is your price for living in a fishbowl. If you'll accept updated software in trade for your privacy, I've got to assume that a crisp $20 bill is enough to purchase a blowjob.
My kids absolutely love those tablets.
Sold out your kids privacy too... Shooting for parent of the year?
Long story short, I guess I don't care if they know what I watch. Netflix knows what I watch on Netflix. Amazon knows what I watch on Amazon.
Those companies disclose that they are doing this. It's not a secret. The issue with Vizio is that they did not disclose this, and the default is to assume that your fucking TV isn't spying on you like a scene out of 1984.
You lacking a sense of self-worth or something? Your lackadaisical attitude is disturbing to say the least.
The amount of people who opt in to receive settlements affect your math.
Not according to the fucking summary.
When it's all said and done, new court filings submitted on Thursday say each of those 16 million people will get a payout of somewhere between $13 and $31.
Generally the courts try to avoid remedies that destroy thousands of jobs.
I get what you're saying, but liquidating companies has a side effect of boosting the unemployment roles.. That, certainly, is not in the government's best interest.
Actually, batteries weigh less discharged than charged
I knew someone was going to say this.. And yeah, technically you are correct (E=mc2), but the difference is what? Billionths/Trillionths of a gram? For practical purposes there is no difference. We aren't talking quantum physics here.
and the difference in mileage between a full and empty tank is minimal, such that a 25mpg car can travel 300 meters further on an empty tank than a full tank
I'll accept that, but 300 meters is 300 meters.. The weight difference is significant though. We aren't talking billionths of a gram. 30 gallons of gasoline weighs about 6 pounds per gallon... That's a 180 pound difference, approximately the weight of the average human male. Assuming 20mpg, every 20 minutes (at 60mph) your car is 6 pounds lighter...
Our grid isn't 100% clean energy, so there's always load to offset at the moment. You can put the solar energy right on the grid.
If you are tied to the grid.. Lots of solar facilities aren't..
Besides, as I pointed out, nobody (that I am aware of) makes an EV that will traverse the entire United States. I can, with my current gasoline vehicle, drive all the way across this continent without ever pulling into a gas station, if I so desire. I can take enough gasoline with me. Be it in jerry cans or a secondary fuel tank. You can't do that with batteries.. They'd weight too much.
Best I could find is that Tesla's 85kw battery pack weighs about 450kg. (roughly 1,000 lbs). Tesla claims 285 miles (we'll round up to 300) for the 85kw battery pack.. That's 10 battery packs.. 10,000 pounds... 5 TONS to cross the US.
The equivalent gasoline would weigh 900 pounds.. and we'll toss in 200 pounds for the tank. 1,100 pounds total.. just 100 pounds more than the tesla's single battery pack.
I never said solar wasn't more efficient or greener. I'm just saying that chemical storage of energy is going to be with us a while longer..
Energy is, for practical purposes, a non-finite supply..
If you can use 10,000MW of solar to create 100MW of chemical energy, with a carbon-neutral footprint, why shouldn't you?
It's waaaaaaay easier to store chemical energy than solar. You can't pour solar into your gas tank and you can take all the chemical energy you need, in a couple of jerry cans, to drive all the way across the United States.. You can't do that with solar..
A battery is just as heavy full as empty.. But when you zip around burning chemical energy, your car gets a few pounds lighter for every gallon you burn.. You use less and less and less energy to travel the same distance.. This does not happen with batteries..
Doh.... Yeah, I misunderstood that myself.. Although I have to wonder why anyone would pull carbon out of the air to turn it into methane and then.. what? release the methane into the air? Why would anyone do that?
We do know how to produce electricity without burning shit.. Solar, Wind, Hydro, Nuclear.. You name it.. But the wind can die down.. The sun is gone 1/2 the day if it's not being obscured by clouds.. Liberals bitch every time someone wants to build a nuclear plant... Geothermal and Hydro are really about the only reliable ones..
Chemical energy storage is a fantastically efficient method of having reliable energy at your disposal. You can pour it into your gas tank and drive HUNDREDS of miles and when you run out, you can fill up your car again in mere minutes.
This company's idea is awesome... Chemical energy with no net harm to the environment... If we could get a few of these running and operate some as non-profit, we could use the proceeds to permanently reduce some of the carbon in the air, by storing it underground or turning it into diamonds, and end up with a net loss of carbon.
yeah.. so would the concentration of impurities...
Besides, think again what you are asking... I mean, really think about it..
Y
ou're just arguing over location.. 100T of carbon from the smoke stack is absolutely the same as 100T of carbon from 10' away or 5,000 miles away. You get 100T of carbon.... the air will self dilute..
Slashdot Mirror
oooh. good comeback. He gives facts, you respond with feelz..
You people couldn't hide if you tried.
They have not invested $107 trillion, as you stated, so don't be a smart ass.
Nope, this is coming from fossil fuel corporations who stand to lose $107 TRILLION in investments....
You even contradicted yourself with:
"Even at current lowered crude prices of $63 per barrel, the 1.7 trillion proven reserves alone have a value of $107 trillion"
You claim $107 trillion in investments and then you state $107 trillion in product value. Are you trying to imply it costs $1 in investment to get $1 in oil out of the ground?
Of course you aren't, so nobody has invested $107 trillion. Admit your mistake, like an adult, and move on..
You don't have to liquefy it.. It's not mandatory.. You can store it under high pressure. Yeah, you don't get the density you do with liquid, but so what? Build your system around that fact and you don't have a problem.
As I said.. build your facility next to your customer and storage becomes less of an issue.. You'd only have to store enough to handle production issues / fluctuations.
I'll give credit where credit is due.. Well said..
How would you fix it? I can't think of any system where power won't concentrate... I suspect Jefferson knew too, which is why he predicted a 20 year interval between minor revolutions, in this country, to maintain true freedom.
Term limits? You end up with puppets who are controlled by the rich. You also tend to lose out on experience when you won't let anyone stay long enough to get the experience.
The saying "It's not what you know, it's who you know" has been true for millennia. I'm not suggesting we give up, but every system we've ever tried ends up with concentration of power. From the days of tribal chieftains to monarchies to our own republics.
It's not just us either.. Lots of animals engage in this behavior.. Case in point; Lions... When a new male lion takes over a pride, there's a fairly decent chance he'll kill all the cubs.. This will guarantee that HIS cubs will one day run the pride. I guess we'd call this "genetic concentration of power".
I'll say this, what we are doing isn't working.. And these methods, that are more favored by the liberals, are making it worse in my opinion. They are attacking the core of our republic.. Free speech zones, disregard for the presumption of innocence, reverse sexism, reverse racism. I don't know what's left to attack... Will they suddenly be in favor of quartering soldiers in our homes without consent ;)
We both know the constitution is ignored, and has been since day one. It's only upheld when it's high profile... Hell, my favorite, Jefferson, totally ignored it when he did the Louisiana Purchase.. (Congress allocates money and approves territory adjustments, not the President).
But this.. this isn't how it's fixed... This just makes it worse.
No. He was accused after the fact. He wasn't accused before he was nominated. Your statement is FALSE.
Nice try, hippie.
The FBI, itself, says upwards of 20% of rape accusations are false and made for revenge or regret. I've heard claims the true number might be north of 30%.
The more famous you are the less your ability to sue for libel, you ass clown. Right now Kavenaugh might be the most famous person in the United States..
It's possible he's passed the threshhold where he wouldn't be permitted to sue for libel. In this areana it has nothing to do with the merits of the accusation.
Once again, do you have any fucking clue as to how our system works? Of course you don't.. You're a cunty liberal..
You just can't stop from engaging in generalizations can you?
All elites are scumbags... and?
C'mon.. You know you want to accuse some ethnic group of something.. Want me to help? How about "all whites are racist?"
You are such a cunt, it boggles the mind....
Yeah, he was a party boy at a school for the elites. You know, the ones that rape children in the basement of pizza parlors? Kavanaugh is the kind of person Trump has been calling to have locked up, and now they're okay with making him a top tier judge?
Now it's guilt by association? You have a screw loose.. Seriously...
I would. To be a lifetime appointed judge, you should be squeaky clean.
That's not what you want, you liar. He is squeaky clean. Someone accusing you of something, with ZERO proof, is not a blemish. Want proof?
I formally hereby accuse YOU of animal cruelty. I have witnessed, with my own eyes, you kicking a dog..... 30 years ago..
That's the level of "proof" that has been leveled against him. One PERSON saying some shit.
I hope to hell you aren't involved in any type of scientific research. You haven't got a clue what facts are.
How would you feel if you gave a lifetime appointment to someone that later turns out to be a rapist.
Sorry for the sake of democracy its better to put someone else in that position, even if it costs one person a "job of a lifetime."
FUCK YOU. It is not better for democracy. The bullshit you are promoting is what is bad for democracy, you asshole.
Democracy involves innocence until proven guilty. Democracy involves DUE PROCESS, you leftist cunt.
Goddamn.. This is exactly why I hate liberals. You jerkoffs will say / do anything in furtherance of your bullshit goals, even if it means doing the exact opposite of what you claim to promote.
Your side will engage in racism to fight racism (all white men are bad).
Your side will engage in sexism to fight sexism (women must be believed at all costs) and "you must put a woman on your corporate board.. qualifications be damned, as long as she has a pussy!"
Your side will will shit all over due process to "save democracy". If anyone resembles Nazis (like your side loves to accuse the right of) it'd be you assholes. Fuck the rule of law! We need to save the rule of law!
Democracy has safeguards built in.. If he somehow turned out to actually be a rapist, we IMPEACH him.. Do you have any idea, whatsoever, how our system works?
Ah. I misunderstood the first time around.. Gotcha.
Why do you think it's dirty energy that will power this system? Nuclear, Solar, Hydro, Geothermal, Wind... all are viable sources.. I'd be surprised if this company would develop this... green technology (after all, it's way cheaper to just pump methane out of the ground) and then power it with fossil fuels. What would be the point?
I wouldn't be surprised that if this is ever built, they power it directly with solar. If for nothing else, it would be great PR.
Class Action lawsuits are pointless; the lawyers get millions, the "class members" get a couple of bucks - MAYBE. Judges need to require that at least 75% of the money go to the class members, with much less to the lawyers.
Good luck getting any lawyers to take one on under your system. In a class action lawsuit the lawyers front all of the costs. If they lose the lawsuit (and it does happen) they are out whatever money they have invested.
Being able to recoup large amounts of money when they do win is how they offset the losses.
I bet you weren't an economics major and/or are a liberal. Liberals don't like large profits either. They don't understand that some companies have to make huge investments to see a return.. Take drug companies for example.. It might cost a billion dollars to invent a new drug.. Stats say only like... 1 in 10 drugs makes it to approval.. So for every drug a company brings to market, they may have to invest $10 billion dollars...
Class action lawsuits work in a similar way. I don't know the stats, but it's not 100% for wins.. That means the lawyers need to recoup the losses on the losses or they go out of business.
Before you rail on them for "greed", you might want to brush up on your knowledge of the subject, you hippy
For me, personally, I don't see the big deal in what they did. I pretty much assume anything "smart" is tracking me and selling that data to someone.
Well, a reasonable person would think that a company is following the law and NOT doing this surreptitiously. Vizio not only failed to disclose this practice, they actively hid it. That is illegal and that's why Vizio was dragged into court.
They also keep the software up to date.
Quite interesting that this is your price for living in a fishbowl. If you'll accept updated software in trade for your privacy, I've got to assume that a crisp $20 bill is enough to purchase a blowjob.
My kids absolutely love those tablets.
Sold out your kids privacy too... Shooting for parent of the year?
Long story short, I guess I don't care if they know what I watch. Netflix knows what I watch on Netflix. Amazon knows what I watch on Amazon.
Those companies disclose that they are doing this. It's not a secret. The issue with Vizio is that they did not disclose this, and the default is to assume that your fucking TV isn't spying on you like a scene out of 1984.
You lacking a sense of self-worth or something? Your lackadaisical attitude is disturbing to say the least.
The amount of people who opt in to receive settlements affect your math.
Not according to the fucking summary.
When it's all said and done, new court filings submitted on Thursday say each of those 16 million people will get a payout of somewhere between $13 and $31.
Generally the courts try to avoid remedies that destroy thousands of jobs.
I get what you're saying, but liquidating companies has a side effect of boosting the unemployment roles.. That, certainly, is not in the government's best interest.
Actually, batteries weigh less discharged than charged
I knew someone was going to say this.. And yeah, technically you are correct (E=mc2), but the difference is what? Billionths/Trillionths of a gram? For practical purposes there is no difference. We aren't talking quantum physics here.
and the difference in mileage between a full and empty tank is minimal, such that a 25mpg car can travel 300 meters further on an empty tank than a full tank
I'll accept that, but 300 meters is 300 meters.. The weight difference is significant though. We aren't talking billionths of a gram. 30 gallons of gasoline weighs about 6 pounds per gallon... That's a 180 pound difference, approximately the weight of the average human male. Assuming 20mpg, every 20 minutes (at 60mph) your car is 6 pounds lighter...
Our grid isn't 100% clean energy, so there's always load to offset at the moment. You can put the solar energy right on the grid.
If you are tied to the grid.. Lots of solar facilities aren't..
Besides, as I pointed out, nobody (that I am aware of) makes an EV that will traverse the entire United States. I can, with my current gasoline vehicle, drive all the way across this continent without ever pulling into a gas station, if I so desire. I can take enough gasoline with me. Be it in jerry cans or a secondary fuel tank. You can't do that with batteries.. They'd weight too much.
Best I could find is that Tesla's 85kw battery pack weighs about 450kg. (roughly 1,000 lbs). Tesla claims 285 miles (we'll round up to 300) for the 85kw battery pack.. That's 10 battery packs.. 10,000 pounds... 5 TONS to cross the US.
The equivalent gasoline would weigh 900 pounds.. and we'll toss in 200 pounds for the tank. 1,100 pounds total.. just 100 pounds more than the tesla's single battery pack.
I never said solar wasn't more efficient or greener. I'm just saying that chemical storage of energy is going to be with us a while longer..
I will concede that point.
Yes. I have.
Thank You
Energy is, for practical purposes, a non-finite supply..
If you can use 10,000MW of solar to create 100MW of chemical energy, with a carbon-neutral footprint, why shouldn't you?
It's waaaaaaay easier to store chemical energy than solar. You can't pour solar into your gas tank and you can take all the chemical energy you need, in a couple of jerry cans, to drive all the way across the United States.. You can't do that with solar..
A battery is just as heavy full as empty.. But when you zip around burning chemical energy, your car gets a few pounds lighter for every gallon you burn.. You use less and less and less energy to travel the same distance.. This does not happen with batteries..
Doh.... Yeah, I misunderstood that myself.. Although I have to wonder why anyone would pull carbon out of the air to turn it into methane and then.. what? release the methane into the air? Why would anyone do that?
How so? How is it worse than doing nothing?
They pull 100T of carbon out of the air.. They burn it.. 100T goes back..
Do nothing.... 100T just sits there in the air..
How is doing nothing better? Do you think that if they pull 100T out and burn it, there will be more than 100T in the air?
We can't create elements with chemical processes..
We do know how to produce electricity without burning shit.. Solar, Wind, Hydro, Nuclear.. You name it.. But the wind can die down.. The sun is gone 1/2 the day if it's not being obscured by clouds.. Liberals bitch every time someone wants to build a nuclear plant... Geothermal and Hydro are really about the only reliable ones..
Chemical energy storage is a fantastically efficient method of having reliable energy at your disposal. You can pour it into your gas tank and drive HUNDREDS of miles and when you run out, you can fill up your car again in mere minutes.
This company's idea is awesome... Chemical energy with no net harm to the environment... If we could get a few of these running and operate some as non-profit, we could use the proceeds to permanently reduce some of the carbon in the air, by storing it underground or turning it into diamonds, and end up with a net loss of carbon.
yeah.. so would the concentration of impurities...
Besides, think again what you are asking... I mean, really think about it.. Y
ou're just arguing over location.. 100T of carbon from the smoke stack is absolutely the same as 100T of carbon from 10' away or 5,000 miles away. You get 100T of carbon.... the air will self dilute..