You could have described my one and only firing ever, to the word.
Me: "Boss, Beancounter- this backup system is broken and needs to be fixed. here is a cost breakdown for the fix and a loss analysis for failure to fix. It is genius and incorporates existing links and hardware to minimize cost and implement offsite backups for all sites!" Boss: "Shut up and go fix a printer somewhere."
Fast forward a year- major crash of a POS server. Loss of customer records, $300,000 and 6 months predicted to be spend reconstructing the database from paper records.
Boss: "You are fired for letting this happen." Me: "...."
You know, "charitible" foundations that somehow make your company MORE money without being taxed. Need to deduct those from your total charitable tally for the rich.
Nixon was a Republican. Can't criticize them, so you blame it on the first Democrat to take office after the event you hate. For reference, see current debt/recession and Obama.
The burning is because fracking exposes the methane to the water table. thus everyone in the area that uses a well has methane in their water. That means that water burns. Quite a surprise to you when you turn on the tap to fill a pan for your spaghetti and your sink explodes- ignited off of the nearby stove that is on.
The toxicity issues are related- when fracking breaks into the water table, so does the fluid. yes, it is mostly water. So is arsenic, cyanide, and many other deadly solutions. When a fraction of a part-per-million is carcinogenic, saying it is "mostly water" is dishonest.
A discussion about the impact of concentrating the drilling in drought regions to you means extrapolate that data across the entire country's water usage to show how small the impact is?
Don't try any more. Just chill and let the adults talk.
This gets repeated a lot. I imagine it would get traced back to anti-renewable groups.
Modern nuclear reactor ARE scalable. And getting more so. These claims are based on 30 and 40 year old reactor designs. No one is going to build new reactors based on those designs, now are they?
Using methane pipelines to ship hydrogen is as easy as just doing it.
Gas pipelines are run through compression plants and separation plants. membranes separate the gas compounds already- getting the hydrogen sulfide out on the basis that it is a larger molecule, shunting it out while sending the "sweet" gas methane on down the line. The membrane technology has recently been made more exact and cheaper by research at U of Texas: http://membrane.ces.utexas.edu...
The same technology can separate the tiny hydrogen molecule out at an earlier step for very little cost increase to the plant.
We have a huge methane infrastructure in place- something CNG has been capitalizing on. All you have to do is offer the same rates to the pipelines that methane does- transport based on CFM to a destination. I can't imagine any pipeline owner saying "no, I refuse to double my profits AND get my foot in the door of a whole new energy field at the same time." At least, not without a LOT of bribery from opponents to offset those profits.
Source: I worked for a 5 state pipeline owner handling their SCADA setup. I am no petroleum engineer, but I have a decent grasp of their operations and setup.
"Besides, electricity-to-hydrogen-back-to-electricity has a round trip efficiency of less than 50%." This is arguing that an alternative isn't perfect yet so we should abandon it entirely.
Seriously, quit that. The loss is a factor, but not an important one. The efficiency of fossil fuels is so low we cannot express it. Solar to organic to fuel involving millions of years of intense heat and pressure- massively inefficient.
So what if turning wind, or solar to hydrogen is inefficient? It's free. 50% of free is still free. Same with old design nuclear reactors that can't ramp up or down efficiently- the energy is wasted anyway, so the conversion is still a 50% waste reduction.
There are some hurdles to pass for hydrogen fuel cars, this just isn't one of them. It is a factor that we could also work to improve- nothing more.
This will prevent people from driving at a high rate of speed in the left lane, slamming on the brakes and swerving into the right lane just so they don't have to wait in line like everyone else or because they wanted to get one car ahead.
I hate these people with a passion, and get such gleeful pleasure from videos of this backfiring on them. When I am able to shut one out so they are fucked into waiting for traffic to clear--- I have a minor joygasm.
Only the Fox/Koch echo chamber is saying that. What he actually said is "I call upon congress to act responsibly. If they will not act, I will do everything I can within my power to move us forward."
in other words, do your job congress- but I have no faith you will so I will make what changes I can within the limits of my power to move our economy along.
Slashdot Mirror
Brawndo
www.brawndo.com
They chose to blow smoke up our ass instead of respond.
So... where do I know you from?
You could have described my one and only firing ever, to the word.
Me: "Boss, Beancounter- this backup system is broken and needs to be fixed. here is a cost breakdown for the fix and a loss analysis for failure to fix. It is genius and incorporates existing links and hardware to minimize cost and implement offsite backups for all sites!"
Boss: "Shut up and go fix a printer somewhere."
Fast forward a year- major crash of a POS server. Loss of customer records, $300,000 and 6 months predicted to be spend reconstructing the database from paper records.
Boss: "You are fired for letting this happen."
Me: "...."
document, document, document. And keep copies where you can get them once you are frog-marched out of the building wearing the scapegoat collar.
Gonna be funny when it turns out to be a dropped cigarette.
You know, "charitible" foundations that somehow make your company MORE money without being taxed. Need to deduct those from your total charitable tally for the rich.
This guy was on eof the more famous- but hardly an anomaly.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
Redneck Rampage already exists.
genuinely curious.
Nixon was a Republican. Can't criticize them, so you blame it on the first Democrat to take office after the event you hate. For reference, see current debt/recession and Obama.
fracking reduces the number of wells drilled by making each well more productive.
Fracking outlawed means more wells per reservoir have to be drilled. johnny, looks like steak again, daddy's skills are in high demand.
The ag argument fails because fracking removes that water from the water cycle. Ag does not.
Agriculture returns the water to the water cycle. Fracking does not.
Lies are present, but not coming from the source you think they are.
The burning is because fracking exposes the methane to the water table. thus everyone in the area that uses a well has methane in their water. That means that water burns.
Quite a surprise to you when you turn on the tap to fill a pan for your spaghetti and your sink explodes- ignited off of the nearby stove that is on.
The toxicity issues are related- when fracking breaks into the water table, so does the fluid. yes, it is mostly water. So is arsenic, cyanide, and many other deadly solutions. When a fraction of a part-per-million is carcinogenic, saying it is "mostly water" is dishonest.
A discussion about the impact of concentrating the drilling in drought regions to you means extrapolate that data across the entire country's water usage to show how small the impact is?
Don't try any more. Just chill and let the adults talk.
Your reply is propaganda bullshit.
That reads like my play list.
http://theenergycollective.com...
This gets repeated a lot. I imagine it would get traced back to anti-renewable groups.
Modern nuclear reactor ARE scalable. And getting more so. These claims are based on 30 and 40 year old reactor designs. No one is going to build new reactors based on those designs, now are they?
Using methane pipelines to ship hydrogen is as easy as just doing it.
Gas pipelines are run through compression plants and separation plants. membranes separate the gas compounds already- getting the hydrogen sulfide out on the basis that it is a larger molecule, shunting it out while sending the "sweet" gas methane on down the line. The membrane technology has recently been made more exact and cheaper by research at U of Texas:
http://membrane.ces.utexas.edu...
The same technology can separate the tiny hydrogen molecule out at an earlier step for very little cost increase to the plant.
We have a huge methane infrastructure in place- something CNG has been capitalizing on. All you have to do is offer the same rates to the pipelines that methane does- transport based on CFM to a destination. I can't imagine any pipeline owner saying "no, I refuse to double my profits AND get my foot in the door of a whole new energy field at the same time." At least, not without a LOT of bribery from opponents to offset those profits.
Source: I worked for a 5 state pipeline owner handling their SCADA setup. I am no petroleum engineer, but I have a decent grasp of their operations and setup.
"Besides, electricity-to-hydrogen-back-to-electricity has a round trip efficiency of less than 50%."
This is arguing that an alternative isn't perfect yet so we should abandon it entirely.
Seriously, quit that. The loss is a factor, but not an important one. The efficiency of fossil fuels is so low we cannot express it. Solar to organic to fuel involving millions of years of intense heat and pressure- massively inefficient.
So what if turning wind, or solar to hydrogen is inefficient? It's free. 50% of free is still free. Same with old design nuclear reactors that can't ramp up or down efficiently- the energy is wasted anyway, so the conversion is still a 50% waste reduction.
There are some hurdles to pass for hydrogen fuel cars, this just isn't one of them. It is a factor that we could also work to improve- nothing more.
Nuclear plants can swing at 5% per minute, between 30% and 100% output.
So... there's that.
Explain how these cannot apply to a nuclear plant.
Ooh, low blow. Right in the fact node!
This will prevent people from driving at a high rate of speed in the left lane, slamming on the brakes and swerving into the right lane just so they don't have to wait in line like everyone else or because they wanted to get one car ahead.
I hate these people with a passion, and get such gleeful pleasure from videos of this backfiring on them. When I am able to shut one out so they are fucked into waiting for traffic to clear--- I have a minor joygasm.
Only the Fox/Koch echo chamber is saying that. What he actually said is "I call upon congress to act responsibly. If they will not act, I will do everything I can within my power to move us forward."
in other words, do your job congress- but I have no faith you will so I will make what changes I can within the limits of my power to move our economy along.