patrick.net

Chris Hedges DOES have the most punchable face, though.

Press whores started seeding the Trump mental decllne scenario as soon as he announced his candidacy. And yet, IHLlary, Bernie, stoned immaculate Obama and Biden are their darlings?

6rdB says

I am not downvoting you - even though I disagree with you, we are having a reasonable conversation without any insults.

Thank you! I wish every user were like that.

I'm sure it's as unbiased and science driven as gender fluidity

TLDR

jazz_music says

is that bio-diesel?

No, right?

Anyway because of the positive impact on the infrastructure and all, we should throw bio-diesel into the trade-off studies.

Bioethanol can be made from corn (very bad ecologically) or waste cellulose (just bad or at best neutral). I read up about it a few years ago, and at that time only ethanol made from sugarcane in tropical countries such as Brazil made any environmental/economic sense. May be there is something new today, but I doubt.
Biodiesel in Europe is made from rapeseed, in US from soy. I do not think this is OK - burning food makes food prices go up, thus starving CHILDREN! and UNDERPRIVILEGED POPULATION GROUPS! Seriously though, I have not seen calculations on biodiesel - how much energy is gained (or lost, like in production of corn ethanol in US), and if it is environmentally friendly or not. I suspect not, since one needs craploads of pesticides. Without pesticides and intensive agriculture, we will need to put in more energy into biodiesel than we will get out of it for sure.

jazz_music says

The solutions must come from the same top systems integrators that design all the other complicated systems we enjoy as a society.

Alternatively, if we decentralize power production systems, we can screw over corporations/Big Oil/etc. Suppose we have a small but relatively efficient and non-polluting power generation system which we can install in our houses. Then most of oil-, coal-, etc lobby will disappear. I would be perfectly willing to have my own power generating system if I can hose Big Business and City Government. I would choose it even it is somewhat more expensive than power I have now. However, if I am FORCED to buy expensive power from Ms. Ocasio-Cortez/Al Gore power company, I might start rioting. That would not be MY choice anymore.

Unfortunately we do not have technology for efficient, small-scale power production yet.

jazz_music says

So there is no need to consume organic material that can be otherwise useful as food or something.

Turning McDonalds and other waste oil into biodiesel makes perfect sense - but this again would be a niche solution, although a very good one. Volume, unfortunately, will not be sufficient to replace diesel or gasoline significantly unless we all start consuming hamburgers on daily basis like our tweeter in chief.

At present they make most biodiesel from food, unfortunately.

6rdB says

Solar works in desert climates and covers up too much land

There are plenty of arguments against solar, but "covers too much land" is definitely not one of them. 5% of Arizona could be covered in solar panels and produce as much energy annually as is currently consumed in the entire country annually. Of course, we wouldn't run 100% on photovoltaics because of storage issues, distribution, cost, load balancing, etc. I'm just saying that the amount of land needed for solar is TINY !

Here's my calculation...

Total electrical use in the USA is about 4 trillion kilowatt hours per year.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/201794/us-electricity-consumption-since-1975/

A square meter solar panel can generate about 250 kilowatt hours per year with existing technology. That's conservative for optimum locations.
https://www.quora.com/How-much-solar-energy-can-be-tapped-in-1-sq-meter-on-a-roof

Sooooo..... 4e12 / 250 = 16 billion square meters = 16 thousand square kilometers . (remember, 1 square kilometer is 1000*1000 = 1 million square meters) . = 6150 square miles. It's about the area of Hawaii. It's a square 78 miles on each side.

If we placed ALL of that in the Arizona desert, it would consume about 5% of Arizona. That's a big area, but there's way more open desert space in and near Arizona.
https://state.1keydata.com/states-by-size.php

SunnyvaleCA says

Sooooo..... 4e12 / 250 = 16 billion square meters = 16 thousand square kilometers . (remember, 1 square kilometer is 1000*1000 = 1 million square meters) . = 6150 square miles. It's about the area of Hawaii. It's a square 78 miles on each side.

I've seen several times larger numbers
https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/calculating-ivanpahs-solar-sprawl
http://rameznaam.com/2015/04/08/how-much-land-would-it-take-to-power-the-us-via-solar/

6rdB says

SunnyvaleCA says

Sooooo..... 4e12 / 250 = 16 billion square meters = 16 thousand square kilometers . (remember, 1 square kilometer is 1000*1000 = 1 million square meters) . = 6150 square miles. It's about the area of Hawaii. It's a square 78 miles on each side.

I've seen several times larger numbers
https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/calculating-ivanpahs-solar-sprawl
http://rameznaam.com/2015/04/08/how-much-land-would-it-take-to-power-the-us-via-solar/

In post 31 above, I used 250 kilowatt hours / square meter / year for my generation figure. (kWh/m2/year) That was conservative. It corresponds, for example, to 1500 kWh/m2/year insolation and 17% efficiency. "Insolation" refers to total amount of sunlight energy falling; multiply by solar cell efficiency to get amount of usable energy generated. 250 kWh/m2/year is basically off-the-shelf solar cells in a decent, but not great, location (maybe Portland Oregon, with its highish latitude and a bunch of cloudy days).

That first article is self-inconsistent. First paragraph says location of SEGS installation has 2.7 kWh/hour/year insolation (total energy) and SEGS has 31% efficiency. 2.7 is about right for Arizona desert — the best we can do in the USA. 31% efficiency would, as the paragraph states, be truly excellent (and entirely possible). That means 800 kWh/m2/year — nearly 3x my figure (so only 1/3 of that 5% of Arizona needs to be covered) Then later there is a chart saying SEGS operation delivers 0.31 GWh/acre/year, which equates to 76 kilowatt hours per square meter per year. That is about 0.30 what I used in my calculation... so 17% of Arizona would be needed.

My guess is that their headline paragraph, which is touting currently-attainable efficiency is the correct figure, and the SEGS installation would only need to scale to less than 2% of Arizona to produce 100% of USA electricity. (caveats about storage and night time, etc., apply)

SunnyvaleCA says

Of course, we wouldn't run 100% on photovoltaics because of storage issues, distribution, cost, load balancing, etc.

Sure we could.

Convert the power to ethanol and use the existing infrastructure to ship it.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a23417/convert-co2-into-ethanol/

OK, it would introduce another step and another loss of efficiency, but I'm willing to give up another 5% of Arizona, no problem.

jazz_music says

plant system uses less than 50kWh per ton

Does this include energy required to grow plants? Or just oil processing energy?

6rdB says

SunnyvaleCA says

Sooooo..... 4e12 / 250 = 16 billion square meters = 16 thousand square kilometers . (remember, 1 square kilometer is 1000*1000 = 1 million square meters) . = 6150 square miles. It's about the area of Hawaii. It's a square 78 miles on each side.

I've seen several times larger numbers
https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/calculating-ivanpahs-solar-sprawl
http://rameznaam.com/2015/04/08/how-much-land-would-it-take-to-power-the-us-via-solar/

Second article seems to go with 70 to 80 kWh/m2/year. Still, that's only 16% of Arizona! If the south facing half of 20% of the houses in the USA were covered in panels, would that do it?

Another issue with solar panels is that they are by no means carbon-neutral. And they emit much more of some heavy metals than nuclear. See Fig 3 in the paper.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es071763q

Solar is 50% worse than nuclear for lifetime CO2 emissions per kilowatt-hour. Nuclear and wind tie for the best.

The study finds each kilowatt-hour of electricity generated over the lifetime of a nuclear plant has an emissions footprint of 4 grams of CO2 equivalent (gCO2e/kWh). The footprint of solar comes in at 6gCO2e/kWh and wind is also 4gCO2e/kWh. The best solar technology in the sunniest location has a footprint of 3gCO2/kWh, some seven times lower than the worst solar technology in the worst location (21gCO2/kWh). If we were running a civilization on ground based solar we would use a lot more bad locations.

In contrast, coal CCS (109g), gas CCS (78g), hydro (97g) and bioenergy (98g) have relatively high emissions

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/04/nuclear-energy-is-50-better-than-solar-for-lifetime-co2-emissions.html

6rdB says

Another issue with solar panels is that they are by no means carbon-neutral. And they emit much more of some heavy metals than nuclear. See Fig 3 in the paper.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es071763q

Solar is 50% worse than nuclear for lifetime CO2 emissions per kilowatt-hour. Nuclear and wind tie for the best.

The study finds each kilowatt-hour of electricity generated over the lifetime of a nuclear plant has an emissions footprint of 4 grams of CO2 equivalent (gCO2e/kWh). The footprint of solar comes in at 6gCO2e/kWh and wind is also 4gCO2e/kWh. The best solar technology in the sunniest location has a footprint of 3gCO2/kWh, some seven times lower than the worst solar technology in the worst location (21gCO2/kWh). If we were running a civilization on ground based solar we would use a lot more bad locations.

In contrast, coal CCS (109g), gas CCS (78g), hydro (97g) and bioenergy (98g) have rela...

My statement was that there were a bunch of problems (as you mention), but "not enough land" is certainly not one of them.

SunnyvaleCA says

"not enough land" is certainly not one of them.

Probably true for US - we have enough sunny desert land for solar panels. Solar definitely makes sense in sunny desert climates such as CA, AZ, etc - it does not make sense in N. Dakota where most energy is consumed in winter with short days and cloudiness, or Sweden, Germany, Canada. For those countries much more area would need to be covered.

6rdB says

SunnyvaleCA says

"not enough land" is certainly not one of them.

Prob true for US - we have enough sunny land for solar.

I wonder, what would be the efficiency and costs of high-voltage power delivery from Arizona to Canada? Does 80% of the world's population live with 1000 miles of a place with 2000 kWh/m2/year insolation? I'm guessing ... yes!

Where does the energy come from at night?

Batteries are helluva polluting. Batteries to cover night across the USA would be pollution crazy; and they don't last forever.

Don't forget their CO2 emissions in refining the materials they're made from, transporting them, or the land space they'd take up. And the constant rate of replacement. Also not very scaleable!

One of the biggest waste products of Rare Earth Mining for batteries and electronics is... Thorium. Why not use that waste, which is currently buried at big cost.

HonkpilledMaster says

Where does the energy come from at night?

Batteries are helluva polluting. Batteries to cover night across the USA would be pollution crazy; and they don't last forever.

That's why I mentioned "Of course, we wouldn't run 100% on photovoltaics because of storage issues, distribution, cost, load balancing, etc."

Check out salt water batteries. Check out pumped-storage hydroelectricity. If you don't care about portability then a whole lot of alternatives are available.

But ask yourself this... wouldn't it be potentially useful to get the low-hanging-fruit of solar power harnessed? Right now, households and businesses are encouraged to shift their electrical usage to night time to balance load. What if we could generate 20% electric needs during the day and balance the load that way. Then maybe we could even generate 40% of electric by solar and actively encourage people and business to use electricity during the day instead of night (think: charge your car during the day instead of 3:00 AM).

Yay! Let's bash Trump! Blah blah blah.

I'd like to see a scaled system of battery power that could handle a city of 500,000 for a 8 hour period first; pretty skeptical about the practicality of storing the energy in vast quantities.

The incidents you cite happened on Obama's watch.

6rdB says

it does not make sense in N. Dakota where most energy is consumed in winter with short days and cloudiness, or Sweden, Germany, Canada. For those countries much more area would need to be covered.

Definitely agree with this. So it might come down to 1000-mile-long transmission lines. I don't know if that is feasible.

Of course there is no need to forgo all solar panel technology because it's not viable everywhere. If the panels are effective in some areas when all "costs" are taken into account, then there may be good reason to deploy panels in those areas.

But another issues arises as well: Even if panels are good enough to improve energy generation in some areas, waiting a few years might result in better technology that vastly improves over what we could roll out today. Maybe it's better to suffer along with fossil fuels until really good technology can be rolled out.

Molten Salt Nuclear Reactors, replaced in a century by Fusion ;)

It would be funny if they were mostly inter agency infiltrators, and none of them knew it. "Uh, we have ten FBI infiltrators for every 'genuine' nazi white supremacist. Sig Heil!"
"Goddam, and I went and got a bunch of swastika tattoos for this undercover job, and the only people I tried to arrest were already working for the government!"

SunnyvaleCA says

Of course there is no need to forgo all solar panel technology because it's not viable everywhere. If the panels are effective in some areas when all "costs" are taken into account, then there may be good reason to deploy panels in those areas.

But another issues arises as well: Even if panels are good enough to improve energy generation in some areas, waiting a few years might result in better technology that vastly improves over what we could roll out today. Maybe it's better to suffer along with fossil fuels until really good technology can be rolled out.

I would gladly cover my house with solar panels, even though it would cost more than just getting electricity from power company since power companies are screwing all of us over. Unfortunately it is impractical here with hurricanes and bipolar weather of SE TX with freak hailstorms.

I suspect that price of electricity generated by solar is at this point limiting factor for many people. However, that should keep coming down with more research and improved production.

6rdB says

SunnyvaleCA says

Of course there is no need to forgo all solar panel technology because it's not viable everywhere. If the panels are effective in some areas when all "costs" are taken into account, then there may be good reason to deploy panels in those areas.

But another issues arises as well: Even if panels are good enough to improve energy generation in some areas, waiting a few years might result in better technology that vastly improves over what we could roll out today. Maybe it's better to suffer along with fossil fuels until really good technology can be rolled out.

I would gladly cover my house with solar panels, even though it would cost more than just getting electricity from power company since power companies are screwing all of us over. Unfortunately it is impractical here with hurricanes and bipolar weather of SE TX with freak hailstorms.

I suspect that price of elect...

Here in Sunnyvale, there's an interesting — if not pernicious — system in place. You pay for the generation of the electricity you use but then you pay for the infrastructure component proportionally to the amount you paid in generation. So, if you have solar cells on your home and are paying for no electricity generation, you also pay for no infrastructure. Infrastructure costs are being paid by fewer and fewer houses because more and more houses get solar panels. Right now I already pay a bit more for the infrastructure than I do for the generation. I assume there will be a sudden rush at some point, where that very last house that doesn't have solar will be hit with an infrastructure bill that covers all the infrastructure for the entire city.

Ask Democrats why they constantly promote lgbt with pedophilia. Half the fucking West Hollywood is old faggot pedos chasing young children. Look up Ed Buck, he was renting young boys. But big Democrat donor, so safe from prosecution because lgbt pedo.

jazz_music says

Maybe if we stop bombing these nine countries we are currently bombing. 5 in middle east and 4 in Africa. --Wouldn't that be something? Will the economic burdon of war ever be lifted from our shoulders to the extent that our taxes are used to DIRECTLY increase the quality of life in America without that being seen as some horrible kind of "-ism."

Fortunately, with Trump as President, there have been no new destabilizations carried out on behalf of Neoliberal Hegemony.

No so in the past with Obummer.

Also, something I don't get.

If the US is based on plunder, or Europe's ascension in the past was based on plunder, how did they make highly populous countries so damn rich, but now that they are back under the control of the generally less populous natives, they're dirt poor.

I think of Italy and Somalia. Italy was already industrialized when it occupied Somalia, it also had a shitload more people. Why then is Italy still a G-7 country, but Somalia is in far worse shape than when the Italians ran the show, if they have whatever Magical Commodity the Italians stole (Camel Dung? Dhow Rudders?) spread out among fewer people?

If a pound of pepper and cinnamon is the secret to British Industrialization and Wealth, how come Sri Lanka and Indonesia aren't landing on Mars?

Scaramucci is the PARAGON! OF! MENTAL! STABILITY! rivaling even the STABLE! GENIUS! PRECEDENT!

jazz_music says

Paul Craig Roberts

This guy seems to be of "America always BAD, Putin and Russia good, Israel is Nazi" type. Look for yourself https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/
Why don't he move to Russia then to kiss Putler's ass more efficiently...
Edit: and he published this type of crap on his website: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/01/11/a-holocaust-was-what-the-americans-did-to-the-germans/
I have talked to quite a few Germans and East Europeans who went through POW camps - there were no complaints about American POW camps, as opposed to British or Soviet.

If I were a gambling man, I would wager Scarmoochie is under investigation for a very serious crime, that has not come to the public light yet.

This is the MO for disgraced people from Trump's inner circle. They get mad at him, because he doesn't swoop in and pardon them. So they become professional Shit Talkers.

With every word this idiot says, just remember, he'll be in jail by December of this year. No! Now don't you feel sorry for him, he's done it to himself.

You roll in pig shit and mud with the Liberal Pigs, you get Swine on you.

Can I call it or WHAT?!?

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/08/the-mooch-anthony-scarramucci-falls-from-grace-with-president-trump-was-he-a-team-player-or-was-he-linked-to-stefan-halper-deep-state-spy/

This story is dead, the real story is when will he and the 44 Mafia go to jail?

One cannot lose what they did not have.
Therefore the question becomes WHY DID YOU EVER RESPECT GUN LOVING MASS SHOOTERS YOU VILE FUCKER!!!

HEYYOU says

I've lost respect for gun loving mass shooters.

CNN must have found Scaramucci's Epstein vids.

jazz_music says

doesn't make it writings necessarily wrong either.

True - in some issues he is right - such as that we should not be bombing multiple countries - let them deal with their problems by themselves. However, he is fairly annoying in many respects so it is difficult to take him seriously as he seems to have one-dimensional view on reality.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Completely different experience from the surrendering forces that gave themselves up and were held in open fields near the end of the war - under a different designation that magically exempted them from conventions of war.

I have no doubt Eisenhower regretted agreeing to the establishment of these camps eventually.

There were no saints in that war or for that matter in any war, and some of my acquaintances (civilians from E. Europe who were herded to Germany by Nazis as labor)) said that they were robbed of everything by advancing American troops. It appears though that Americans treated Germans better than Russians and British used to. I believe only 5000 of Germans (out of nearly 100K) captured by Russians at Stalingrad survived. Doubt that Germans captured by Americans had 5% survival rate...