Kansas consumes 40 thousand megawatts of electricity in a year, I want to know when Kansas can produce that much electricity over the course of twelve months - I never said they couldn't use any storage technology to use today's solar electricity tomorrow or tonight, I meant they need to provide enough energy to power the state via renewables for a year. This article celebrates the two times a year renewables can supply 10% of their needs, laudable, but not really earth-shattering news, since they can't replicate that level of success outside of two very small windows per year.
Heck, I'd be impressed if Kansas could produce 10% of it's annual needs via renewables, 4 thousand megawatts, but sadly that isn't even what this article is about - it's about a couple times a year when their renewable energy production peaks...
Both home and industrial scale energy storage with days of full-load capacity are already here and affordable.
Define "affordable".
My "demand" about 100% energy from renewables includes energy storage, which is to say it doesn't exclude them specifically - it simply means that currently Kansas consumes about 40 thousand megawatts of electricity a year (aprox.), let me know when renewables (solar, wind, hydro, etc.) can produce those 40 thousand megawatts over the course of 365 days (1 year). You can use any storage mechanism you want to store renewable energy until it is used.
Kansas peaks twice a year and produces about 10% of it's needed electricity from renewables - it's laudable, but not really noteworthy, it's like claiming that your SUV gets over 50 miles per gallon when you go down hill.
Kansas generates about 7-8% of it's needs through renewables every day, that's a good start, but is it really *that* big an accomplishment?
Joe Biden once said that guns are great for personal security, when someone breach into your house, simply chamber a shell into your 12 gauge shotgun and the criminal will likely runaway.
The possibility a victim might be armed is a great deterrent, oddly even gun control zealots know that - that is why they won't put 'this house is gun-free' signs in their front yard!
that it's harder to blow your brains out in the U.K. Doesn't mean you have fewer suicides, you have many more bridge jumpers, people stepping in front of trains, hanging, wrist cutting, pill overdoses, etc.
Per capital US and U.K. suicide numbers are pretty comparable.
Jared Loughner was (literally) certifiable, but no one in his life wanted to 'turn him in' so he was kept off the 'don't sell him a gun' list.
Everyone that knew the Aurora movie theater shooter was convinced he was crazy, dangerously crazy, but no one wanted to 'get involved'.
And so on - the NRA strongly supports background checks, but resists broad sweeping political blocks to gun ownership - they support decisions enacted by judges.
Time for Congress to reconsider Obama's attempt to limit gun access to mentally ill citizens.
Right, because how many mass shootings each year could be avoided if we simply kept guns out of the hands of Septagenarians too trusting to manage their own checkbook?
Obama wanted to deny a constitutional right to anyone that has someone else manage their finances according to social security records...
National Sovialist Party 'conservative', not even close.
Nazi's were for gun control, collective oversight of all matters of life, spoke of the 'collective good' and were vegetarians - which of those are 'conservative' ideas?
When a natural disaster strikes, before FEMA rolls in, before the Red Cross is on the scene, it's typically the Mormons that show up in force, ready to help.
The only people I'm aware of that are actually going to 'lose' healthcare coverage are the Americans that live in counties EVERY INSURER HAS PULLED OUT OF because they can't afford to lose millions of dollars, year after year, offering people insurance that is priced below cost.
PPACA is costing Americans coverage, all trump did so far was tinker with the penalty for not having coverage.
Let me know when Kansas can supply 100% of it's electrical needs through renewables when the electricity is actually needed - producing a surplus of electricity during the day does nothing to power lights at night.
Gasohol/Ethanol is among the dumber ideas for reducing our dependence on crude oil - the more ethanol you add to gasoline, the lower the MPG the car gets compared to 100% gasoline. Then there is the energy burned growing and harvesting the corn, processing the corn, transporting the additive, and then blending in the additive to create Ethanol.
The ONLY reason ethanol is a thing is because politicians forced it on the American consumer - it serves no other purpose than to further the goals of the politicians that keep it in place.
Solar: Free money to pay for basic Research & Development, Secured loans to build factories, Free Training for solar panel installers, Tax breaks for creating "green" solar panel installer jobs, Free money to pay for half of each solar panel installation, and, artificially high rates utilities must pay solar panel owners, regardless of the utility's ability to actually use the electricity when it is generated.
Oil: Ability to deduct research and development costs from income.
The great thing about oil is the ungodly amount of tax dollars the end-user pays per gallon, as we reduce dependence on Oil, tax revenues will drop, and have to be replaced by collecting more money elsewhere, for example, by taxing electric cars to help pay for infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.), erasing even the illusion that electric cars are "cheaper". (Oil companies earn less than 10 cents a gallon, the federal government collects almost 20 cents a gallon, and states collect up to 40 cents for each gallon of gasoline sold.)
Now that renewables are seriously starting to cut into market share
It peaked, for the YEAR, at 10% (the rest of the year it is less) - that isn't "seriously cutting into market share", that's "peaking at a noticeable level before sinking back into irrelevence."
Most people took the "covfefe" tweet to be a typo, although press secretary Sean Spicer told the media that the term was used intentionally. "The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant," he said.
Of course, it couldn't have been a typo and Sean Spicer couldn't have been joking...
If there is any president in history that will violate the presidential records act it's Trump
I nearly fell off my chair laughing when I read that!
Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, refused to every communicate over secure federal email servers, never logged into her official email account, and in clear violation of all applicable regulations retained 100% of her work emails for two years before being forced, at threat of federal subpoena, to turn them over - and when she did, she turned over only email her personal staff/lawyers determined were "work related", deleting - permanently - over 30,000 emails sent/received while Secretary of State. Hillary testified in front of Congress she didn't understand "confidential" markings, yet STILL, despite all I've detailed above, you insist that it would be Trump that would run afoul of the Presidential Records Act?
Amazing.
At best, even her strongest offenders have to admit Hillary Clinton struggled with federal record retention laws as Secretary of State.
Developed nations generally got where they are by raping the environment and not giving much thought to the consequences. Telling developing nations to fend for themselves under the environmental regs of the developed nations is a pretty good case of "I've got mine, Jack!".
So, for example, let's say the Paris Accord was to stop the raping of women, not the planet. It's OK to tell all the first-world citizens they have to stop raping women immediately, but the third-world nations will be allowed to not only keep raping women, to actually increase the number of women raped between now and 2030, and THEN start reducing the number of women raped? That would be the parallel example to the Paris Accord... except we, the members of the first world, need to not only allow the rapes of third-world women, but we have to send them money too.
Arguing that the US must shutter so-called clean coal-fired plants so that China, India, and others may build dirty coal plants to 'save the planets' is a lie. At BEST you are maintaining the level of greenhouse gasses emitted each year, not reducing it.
Is the Paris Accord about reducing greenhouse gasses or giving everyone an equal/fair chance to polite environment to build their economies?
Team Hillary thought the election was in the bag, there was no way Trump could become President they all thought, then when he won the Democrats all sat around wondering how the election was stolen from them!
Yeah but the US cumulative emissions per capita to date is still 10x China emissions. Touche!
Odd, I thought the issue was the amount of greenhouse gasses are pumped into the atmosphere, not WHO pumps it or how much EACH person is responsible for in a given nation...
sounds like the issue isn't the environment, it's about letting everyone polite equally.
PS, I love the stories about developing nations that are threatening to do nothing unless they are paid by developing nations to do so - when I was a kid we called that blackmail.
You're right, the Republicans 'hacked' the election and cost Hillary the Presidency - when will the Democrats start their investigation into those pesky Republicans and their 'better than thou' candidate that WASN'T under an FBI investigation?!?!
Republicans who were communicating with Russians who were being monitored had their conversations picked up. There was no "active wire tapping and spying on a republic candidate for president". None. Zero.
Congratulations, you have won the semantic argument, butmissed the point.
Yes, the exact meaning of 'wiretap' supports your claim that the Obama administration did not have wiretaps in-place targeting Trump team members... But, what it appears was in place was a National Security Advisor that for some reason had a list of Trump Associates that simply had to be unmasked everywhere they turned up in incidental surveillance so that she could personally better understand her briefings... add to that the fact that some of the unmasked intelligence that Susan Rice "needed" somehow appears in the press...
The Obama administration intentionally collected intelligence on a political adversary - the end result is the same, the approach was simply different, a distinction without a difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Kansas consumes 40 thousand megawatts of electricity in a year, I want to know when Kansas can produce that much electricity over the course of twelve months - I never said they couldn't use any storage technology to use today's solar electricity tomorrow or tonight, I meant they need to provide enough energy to power the state via renewables for a year. This article celebrates the two times a year renewables can supply 10% of their needs, laudable, but not really earth-shattering news, since they can't replicate that level of success outside of two very small windows per year.
Heck, I'd be impressed if Kansas could produce 10% of it's annual needs via renewables, 4 thousand megawatts, but sadly that isn't even what this article is about - it's about a couple times a year when their renewable energy production peaks...
Both home and industrial scale energy storage with days of full-load capacity are already here and affordable.
Define "affordable".
My "demand" about 100% energy from renewables includes energy storage, which is to say it doesn't exclude them specifically - it simply means that currently Kansas consumes about 40 thousand megawatts of electricity a year (aprox.), let me know when renewables (solar, wind, hydro, etc.) can produce those 40 thousand megawatts over the course of 365 days (1 year). You can use any storage mechanism you want to store renewable energy until it is used.
Kansas peaks twice a year and produces about 10% of it's needed electricity from renewables - it's laudable, but not really noteworthy, it's like claiming that your SUV gets over 50 miles per gallon when you go down hill.
Kansas generates about 7-8% of it's needs through renewables every day, that's a good start, but is it really *that* big an accomplishment?
Joe Biden once said that guns are great for personal security, when someone breach into your house, simply chamber a shell into your 12 gauge shotgun and the criminal will likely runaway.
The possibility a victim might be armed is a great deterrent, oddly even gun control zealots know that - that is why they won't put 'this house is gun-free' signs in their front yard!
The MAC 10 is an illegal automatic weapon, the AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon, and is THE most popular gun in America, bar none.
Your ignorance of guns is telling, you might want to educate yourself - you aren't helping your argument by saying stupid things like the above.
that it's harder to blow your brains out in the U.K. Doesn't mean you have fewer suicides, you have many more bridge jumpers, people stepping in front of trains, hanging, wrist cutting, pill overdoses, etc.
Per capital US and U.K. suicide numbers are pretty comparable.
Who is this 'they' you talk about?
Jared Loughner was (literally) certifiable, but no one in his life wanted to 'turn him in' so he was kept off the 'don't sell him a gun' list.
Everyone that knew the Aurora movie theater shooter was convinced he was crazy, dangerously crazy, but no one wanted to 'get involved'.
And so on - the NRA strongly supports background checks, but resists broad sweeping political blocks to gun ownership - they support decisions enacted by judges.
Time for Congress to reconsider Obama's attempt to limit gun access to mentally ill citizens.
Right, because how many mass shootings each year could be avoided if we simply kept guns out of the hands of Septagenarians too trusting to manage their own checkbook?
Obama wanted to deny a constitutional right to anyone that has someone else manage their finances according to social security records...
http://thehill.com/regulation/...
That's a very low bar to take away someone's right to self-protection.
National Sovialist Party 'conservative', not even close.
Nazi's were for gun control, collective oversight of all matters of life, spoke of the 'collective good' and were vegetarians - which of those are 'conservative' ideas?
When a natural disaster strikes, before FEMA rolls in, before the Red Cross is on the scene, it's typically the Mormons that show up in force, ready to help.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
BTW - it was once legal to hunt mormons, like for realsies, with a gun and shoot them, sanctioned by the Missouri government.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
I tolerated removed healthcare for the poor
What piece of legislation accomplished that?
The only people I'm aware of that are actually going to 'lose' healthcare coverage are the Americans that live in counties EVERY INSURER HAS PULLED OUT OF because they can't afford to lose millions of dollars, year after year, offering people insurance that is priced below cost.
PPACA is costing Americans coverage, all trump did so far was tinker with the penalty for not having coverage.
Let me know when Kansas can supply 100% of it's electrical needs through renewables when the electricity is actually needed - producing a surplus of electricity during the day does nothing to power lights at night.
Gasohol/Ethanol is among the dumber ideas for reducing our dependence on crude oil - the more ethanol you add to gasoline, the lower the MPG the car gets compared to 100% gasoline. Then there is the energy burned growing and harvesting the corn, processing the corn, transporting the additive, and then blending in the additive to create Ethanol.
The ONLY reason ethanol is a thing is because politicians forced it on the American consumer - it serves no other purpose than to further the goals of the politicians that keep it in place.
Let's take away subsidies from coal and oil, then
Let's examine the subsidies of each:
Solar: Free money to pay for basic Research & Development, Secured loans to build factories, Free Training for solar panel installers, Tax breaks for creating "green" solar panel installer jobs, Free money to pay for half of each solar panel installation, and, artificially high rates utilities must pay solar panel owners, regardless of the utility's ability to actually use the electricity when it is generated.
Oil: Ability to deduct research and development costs from income.
The great thing about oil is the ungodly amount of tax dollars the end-user pays per gallon, as we reduce dependence on Oil, tax revenues will drop, and have to be replaced by collecting more money elsewhere, for example, by taxing electric cars to help pay for infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.), erasing even the illusion that electric cars are "cheaper". (Oil companies earn less than 10 cents a gallon, the federal government collects almost 20 cents a gallon, and states collect up to 40 cents for each gallon of gasoline sold.)
Now that renewables are seriously starting to cut into market share
It peaked, for the YEAR, at 10% (the rest of the year it is less) - that isn't "seriously cutting into market share", that's "peaking at a noticeable level before sinking back into irrelevence."
They already have. You only have to take a look at the price of oil and gas now.
What? Oil has dropped in price because of wind power?
That's right, everyone that has a brain has converted their gas-burning SUV to wind power!
Most people took the "covfefe" tweet to be a typo, although press secretary Sean Spicer told the media that the term was used intentionally. "The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant," he said.
Of course, it couldn't have been a typo and Sean Spicer couldn't have been joking...
If there is any president in history that will violate the presidential records act it's Trump
I nearly fell off my chair laughing when I read that!
Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, refused to every communicate over secure federal email servers, never logged into her official email account, and in clear violation of all applicable regulations retained 100% of her work emails for two years before being forced, at threat of federal subpoena, to turn them over - and when she did, she turned over only email her personal staff/lawyers determined were "work related", deleting - permanently - over 30,000 emails sent/received while Secretary of State. Hillary testified in front of Congress she didn't understand "confidential" markings, yet STILL, despite all I've detailed above, you insist that it would be Trump that would run afoul of the Presidential Records Act?
Amazing.
At best, even her strongest offenders have to admit Hillary Clinton struggled with federal record retention laws as Secretary of State.
Your rape analogy is interesting:
Developed nations generally got where they are by raping the environment and not giving much thought to the consequences. Telling developing nations to fend for themselves under the environmental regs of the developed nations is a pretty good case of "I've got mine, Jack!".
So, for example, let's say the Paris Accord was to stop the raping of women, not the planet. It's OK to tell all the first-world citizens they have to stop raping women immediately, but the third-world nations will be allowed to not only keep raping women, to actually increase the number of women raped between now and 2030, and THEN start reducing the number of women raped? That would be the parallel example to the Paris Accord... except we, the members of the first world, need to not only allow the rapes of third-world women, but we have to send them money too.
Arguing that the US must shutter so-called clean coal-fired plants so that China, India, and others may build dirty coal plants to 'save the planets' is a lie. At BEST you are maintaining the level of greenhouse gasses emitted each year, not reducing it.
Is the Paris Accord about reducing greenhouse gasses or giving everyone an equal/fair chance to polite environment to build their economies?
Team Hillary thought the election was in the bag, there was no way Trump could become President they all thought, then when he won the Democrats all sat around wondering how the election was stolen from them!
Yeah but the US cumulative emissions per capita to date is still 10x China emissions. Touche!
Odd, I thought the issue was the amount of greenhouse gasses are pumped into the atmosphere, not WHO pumps it or how much EACH person is responsible for in a given nation...
sounds like the issue isn't the environment, it's about letting everyone polite equally.
PS, I love the stories about developing nations that are threatening to do nothing unless they are paid by developing nations to do so - when I was a kid we called that blackmail.
You're right, George W. Bush started Project Echelon in the mid-sixties... oddly, I'm not sure why he did that when LBJ was President?
You're right, the Republicans 'hacked' the election and cost Hillary the Presidency - when will the Democrats start their investigation into those pesky Republicans and their 'better than thou' candidate that WASN'T under an FBI investigation?!?!
Republicans who were communicating with Russians who were being monitored had their conversations picked up. There was no "active wire tapping and spying on a republic candidate for president". None. Zero.
Congratulations, you have won the semantic argument, butmissed the point.
Yes, the exact meaning of 'wiretap' supports your claim that the Obama administration did not have wiretaps in-place targeting Trump team members... But, what it appears was in place was a National Security Advisor that for some reason had a list of Trump Associates that simply had to be unmasked everywhere they turned up in incidental surveillance so that she could personally better understand her briefings... add to that the fact that some of the unmasked intelligence that Susan Rice "needed" somehow appears in the press...
The Obama administration intentionally collected intelligence on a political adversary - the end result is the same, the approach was simply different, a distinction without a difference.