Ok, and the article and author you're linking to is a climate-change denier. Se we're at a draw there and I'm not getting to a Google search war with you. People who care can look it up for themselves.
A bunch of utilities have incurred extra costs due to poor planning and execution. One thing that pro wind and solar advocates have said for over a decade is that to properly implement them requires utilities to address energy storage. I'm only aware of one utility in the US that did, with the rest pretending that they didn't need to invest in storage or in standby natural gas generators. This head-in-the-sand approach led to situations where utilities have had to purchase power on an emergency basis on the secondary market, forcing them to pay many times market rate (sometimes upward af 200x the market rate) for the electricity. So, it was not the technologies that caused the problem and therefore extra costs but, bad management and planning. Renewable energy has a different set of problems (no better or worse) to deal with than coal or gas yet, people want to treat it the same. Nuclear is a whole different set of problem than all of the others.
How does it happen? Here's the goal in this (whether they succeed is another mater): By making the rule change that no one but Murray Energy wanted, the government is sending a signal that renewables are not as good as an investment as they had been and that people should spend their money elsewhere, preferably coal. If successful, it would reduce R&D into those more efficient solar panels that you brought up that I'll use for an example thus delaying when newer, more efficient panels hit the market. Keeping older, less efficient panels on the market means that the cost of renewables don't drop as quickly as they otherwise would have therefore giving coal another few years of life. Now, the government doesn't actually control all these factors so they make changes up the chain hoping the dominoes fall where they want them too. Now, some people say this is absurdly complex but, governments have been using policies like this ever since they stopped having state-sanctioned monopolies to affect commerce. It doesn't always go as intended, though.
The point is, that, except for the coal industry, everyone was happy with the rules as they were. The only reason for a change now is to make Murray Energy happy. And for instant-on power, natural gas is a far better, and cleaner, solution with an even shorter response time.
So, chill. If solar really is cheaper than coal, then anything short of mandating use of coal (which noone is proposing) won't even slow down the uptake of solar...
Umm... false equivalency. The cost of renewable energy has nothing to do with retail utility costs to the consumer. The cost of retail (the cost you pay) electricity bills continue to climb, even though the cost of wholesale (the cost that utility companies pay) electricity continues to decline. The cost of renewables affects the wholesale price of electricity which has remained flat and therefore has actually dropped in price, due to inflation, for the last 10 years and for the first time in history. This has not been affecting retail prices however because the wholesale cost of electricity is only one factor in retail pricing. Other factors include maintenance of aging infrastructure, employees (especially employee healthcare), lobbying and executive compensation (the largest area of increase at a lot utilities). So, sadly, even though renewables are reducing the cost of producing electricity, it's had little to no effect on what we pay the utility companies.
You're acting like this is some big secret that I'm claiming is being hushed up. Trump makes no apologies for his friendship with Murray or his role in crafting White House energy policies. You can do a Google search if you want more details on their relationship. I'm not going to research 20 links that your not going to read anyway. Remember, one of Trump's biggest traits, whether you love it or hate it, is that he does what he wants his critics can go to hell.
So, your comment goes against all the statistics which that say that renewable energy is decreasing the overall cost of energy and you link to a climate change denial website to back your claim up. Costs of wholesale energy are decreasing at such a fast rate in Europe that it's causing hell for the retail electric companies. They had an incident in Europe several months ago where the wholesale cost of energy went negative for a time. Yes, renewable energy comes with a different set of problems than we are used to in traditional energy but, it's nothing insurmountable. You either live in an alternate reality or are a paid shill for Murray Energy.
The repeal of this measure has nothing to do with the environment, economy or jobs. Slowing or stopping the cost reductions in clean energy is what this is about. Robert E. Murray, the chief executive of Murray Energy, the owner of the largest number of coal fired plants in the country, is a long time personal friend of Trump. The fact that clean energy has been getting cheaper every year is killing his company whose margins are getting cut every year. This has nothing to do with anything other than improving Trump's friends bottom line; everything else is irrelevant.
"out of step with current attitudes to data privacy."
The current and former CEO have made it very clear what their stance on data privacy is: "privacy is dead;" was the quote. So Google's current attitude about data privacy is the same as it has always been. From their point of view, they're doing you a favor in not trying to delude you into believing that you have privacy and being upfront and out in the open that you have none.
Presidents always tend to get the blame, regardless of party. Example on the other side: "Obamacare," even though Obama had nothing to do with it's writing. It was primarily written up by Kennedy's team.
The problem is this bill gathers them all up and treats them equally. There's no distinction or any incentive for the sites to create distinction. That's the problem with this bill.
The general sense I get from this is lawmakers either wanted to make a well-intentioned law but, didn't understand the internet well enough to write it, were informed it was bad as written and it would take far more research and work to design it to work as intended, and the lawmakers decided they didn't want to spend the time/work and passed "whatever" instead or anti-sin activists wanted to shut down smut sites on the internet and intentionally passed it under the guise of an anti-trafficking bill to slide it through. Both scenarios are believable so I'm not sure which is correct. It is possible that group 1 started the bill and group 2 hijacked it, too.
I really did mean just a limited number on the right but, I can see how many would just see "right" and remove the limiting qualifiers out of habit. Most conservatives are actually reasonable and see the need for public education but, may have some disagreements about how it is managed (not unjustified). It's mostly political insiders and a few unhinged far-right that are outright against public education and they tend to attack it with amazing vitriol.
Sorry but, worked in both public and private education but, not as a teacher. The cause for the lowering standards is actually the parents of the students. The over-entitled helicopter parents that demand that their perfect little snowflakes get better grades, despite not doing the work because it'll hurt their self-esteem and college entrance chances. Since the school board is elected by said parents, because they're the only people that care who is elected to the school board, they put pressure on administrators to force the teachers to lower their standards. And if you think this problem is better in private education, boy have I got a surprise for you. They just don't have public records requirements so they can cover it up better.
They also have to deal with the ever shrinking vocabulary of the average person in the United States due to decades of neglect, and outright contempt from some on the right, of the public education system.
Wow, someone has an entitled 50 year old oak tree that's slowly grown up their ass. The reason I don't have a checkbook is the fact that I threw the previous two away without ever writing one check. Yes, you can go to the bank and get a check if you find out the IRS website is down before 4pm. But, if you wait until the last minute to pay, and a lot of people do, you may very well be screwed when you get home from work, go to pay the IRS and find that their payment processor is down. Now, in the tax office, we never recommend that they wait until the last day to pay but, how many people are eager to pay the government money before they absolutely have to?
Your either forgetting or are unaware that many people these days that have a checking account don't actually have a checkbook to write checks. I haven't had one in over 10 years, nearing 15!
Except, there was no authentication required and no attempt to scramble the addresses on a public facing server. Therefore, the data was open for public viewing and likely indexed on Google if anyone wanted to do a search. Yes, the government didn't intend for it to be public view but, that's their fuckup. It's time to stop trying to prosecute people for other people's mistakes because "we're the government."
I think the door analogy would go something like this: I go into a public government building and the information I need is in open door A and then I see open doors B, C, D, E, etc and go "huh, I wonder what's behind this open door in a public building (with no warning/forbidden signs) and then someone tries to arrest me for breaking and entering.
More often than not, you are correct, even though you are probably trolling. Consumers are stupid and have proven that they will make the same bad choices over and over again.
Unless Comcast is the only provider in your area. If that's the case, you'll pay through the nose while you scream like a little bitch and then they'll ignore you and/or laugh at you since they know you have no other option.
Slashdot Mirror
*died laughing*
Ok, and the article and author you're linking to is a climate-change denier. Se we're at a draw there and I'm not getting to a Google search war with you. People who care can look it up for themselves.
A bunch of utilities have incurred extra costs due to poor planning and execution. One thing that pro wind and solar advocates have said for over a decade is that to properly implement them requires utilities to address energy storage. I'm only aware of one utility in the US that did, with the rest pretending that they didn't need to invest in storage or in standby natural gas generators. This head-in-the-sand approach led to situations where utilities have had to purchase power on an emergency basis on the secondary market, forcing them to pay many times market rate (sometimes upward af 200x the market rate) for the electricity. So, it was not the technologies that caused the problem and therefore extra costs but, bad management and planning. Renewable energy has a different set of problems (no better or worse) to deal with than coal or gas yet, people want to treat it the same. Nuclear is a whole different set of problem than all of the others.
How does it happen? Here's the goal in this (whether they succeed is another mater): By making the rule change that no one but Murray Energy wanted, the government is sending a signal that renewables are not as good as an investment as they had been and that people should spend their money elsewhere, preferably coal. If successful, it would reduce R&D into those more efficient solar panels that you brought up that I'll use for an example thus delaying when newer, more efficient panels hit the market. Keeping older, less efficient panels on the market means that the cost of renewables don't drop as quickly as they otherwise would have therefore giving coal another few years of life. Now, the government doesn't actually control all these factors so they make changes up the chain hoping the dominoes fall where they want them too. Now, some people say this is absurdly complex but, governments have been using policies like this ever since they stopped having state-sanctioned monopolies to affect commerce. It doesn't always go as intended, though.
The point is, that, except for the coal industry, everyone was happy with the rules as they were. The only reason for a change now is to make Murray Energy happy. And for instant-on power, natural gas is a far better, and cleaner, solution with an even shorter response time.
Actually, they have been crafting a plan to mandate the use of coal using the cold-war era Defense Production Act. Thankfully, so far, that have not actually done it but, they have seriously proposed it.
Umm... false equivalency. The cost of renewable energy has nothing to do with retail utility costs to the consumer. The cost of retail (the cost you pay) electricity bills continue to climb, even though the cost of wholesale (the cost that utility companies pay) electricity continues to decline. The cost of renewables affects the wholesale price of electricity which has remained flat and therefore has actually dropped in price, due to inflation, for the last 10 years and for the first time in history. This has not been affecting retail prices however because the wholesale cost of electricity is only one factor in retail pricing. Other factors include maintenance of aging infrastructure, employees (especially employee healthcare), lobbying and executive compensation (the largest area of increase at a lot utilities). So, sadly, even though renewables are reducing the cost of producing electricity, it's had little to no effect on what we pay the utility companies.
One Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/09/climate/coal-murray-trump-memo.html
You're acting like this is some big secret that I'm claiming is being hushed up. Trump makes no apologies for his friendship with Murray or his role in crafting White House energy policies. You can do a Google search if you want more details on their relationship. I'm not going to research 20 links that your not going to read anyway. Remember, one of Trump's biggest traits, whether you love it or hate it, is that he does what he wants his critics can go to hell.
They already do: https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2018/04/10/google-to-power-georgia-data-center-with-solar.html
So, your comment goes against all the statistics which that say that renewable energy is decreasing the overall cost of energy and you link to a climate change denial website to back your claim up. Costs of wholesale energy are decreasing at such a fast rate in Europe that it's causing hell for the retail electric companies. They had an incident in Europe several months ago where the wholesale cost of energy went negative for a time. Yes, renewable energy comes with a different set of problems than we are used to in traditional energy but, it's nothing insurmountable. You either live in an alternate reality or are a paid shill for Murray Energy.
I can't argue with you there.
The repeal of this measure has nothing to do with the environment, economy or jobs. Slowing or stopping the cost reductions in clean energy is what this is about. Robert E. Murray, the chief executive of Murray Energy, the owner of the largest number of coal fired plants in the country, is a long time personal friend of Trump. The fact that clean energy has been getting cheaper every year is killing his company whose margins are getting cut every year. This has nothing to do with anything other than improving Trump's friends bottom line; everything else is irrelevant.
"out of step with current attitudes to data privacy."
The current and former CEO have made it very clear what their stance on data privacy is: "privacy is dead;" was the quote. So Google's current attitude about data privacy is the same as it has always been. From their point of view, they're doing you a favor in not trying to delude you into believing that you have privacy and being upfront and out in the open that you have none.
Presidents always tend to get the blame, regardless of party. Example on the other side: "Obamacare," even though Obama had nothing to do with it's writing. It was primarily written up by Kennedy's team.
The problem is this bill gathers them all up and treats them equally. There's no distinction or any incentive for the sites to create distinction. That's the problem with this bill.
"Whoosh!"
The general sense I get from this is lawmakers either wanted to make a well-intentioned law but, didn't understand the internet well enough to write it, were informed it was bad as written and it would take far more research and work to design it to work as intended, and the lawmakers decided they didn't want to spend the time/work and passed "whatever" instead or anti-sin activists wanted to shut down smut sites on the internet and intentionally passed it under the guise of an anti-trafficking bill to slide it through. Both scenarios are believable so I'm not sure which is correct. It is possible that group 1 started the bill and group 2 hijacked it, too.
I really did mean just a limited number on the right but, I can see how many would just see "right" and remove the limiting qualifiers out of habit. Most conservatives are actually reasonable and see the need for public education but, may have some disagreements about how it is managed (not unjustified). It's mostly political insiders and a few unhinged far-right that are outright against public education and they tend to attack it with amazing vitriol.
Sorry but, worked in both public and private education but, not as a teacher. The cause for the lowering standards is actually the parents of the students. The over-entitled helicopter parents that demand that their perfect little snowflakes get better grades, despite not doing the work because it'll hurt their self-esteem and college entrance chances. Since the school board is elected by said parents, because they're the only people that care who is elected to the school board, they put pressure on administrators to force the teachers to lower their standards. And if you think this problem is better in private education, boy have I got a surprise for you. They just don't have public records requirements so they can cover it up better.
They also have to deal with the ever shrinking vocabulary of the average person in the United States due to decades of neglect, and outright contempt from some on the right, of the public education system.
Wow, someone has an entitled 50 year old oak tree that's slowly grown up their ass. The reason I don't have a checkbook is the fact that I threw the previous two away without ever writing one check. Yes, you can go to the bank and get a check if you find out the IRS website is down before 4pm. But, if you wait until the last minute to pay, and a lot of people do, you may very well be screwed when you get home from work, go to pay the IRS and find that their payment processor is down. Now, in the tax office, we never recommend that they wait until the last day to pay but, how many people are eager to pay the government money before they absolutely have to?
Your either forgetting or are unaware that many people these days that have a checking account don't actually have a checkbook to write checks. I haven't had one in over 10 years, nearing 15!
Except, there was no authentication required and no attempt to scramble the addresses on a public facing server. Therefore, the data was open for public viewing and likely indexed on Google if anyone wanted to do a search. Yes, the government didn't intend for it to be public view but, that's their fuckup. It's time to stop trying to prosecute people for other people's mistakes because "we're the government."
I think the door analogy would go something like this: I go into a public government building and the information I need is in open door A and then I see open doors B, C, D, E, etc and go "huh, I wonder what's behind this open door in a public building (with no warning/forbidden signs) and then someone tries to arrest me for breaking and entering.
More often than not, you are correct, even though you are probably trolling. Consumers are stupid and have proven that they will make the same bad choices over and over again.
Unless Comcast is the only provider in your area. If that's the case, you'll pay through the nose while you scream like a little bitch and then they'll ignore you and/or laugh at you since they know you have no other option.