georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2019 03:57 pm
@blatham,
[quote="blatham"

Quote:
In contrast the GND is a fairly specific list of goals that are either not feasible or not attainable.
You state this as a certainty but that certainty arises only as a consequence of your ideological certainties. The booming consumer demand for electrically powered automobiles (along with developed technologies in support of these products) is not something you nor I would have deemed likely or possible 10 or 15 years ago. Who, 20 years ago, would have placed a bet on seeing an African American in the WH in just a decade and a half? [/quote]

Well, it's true that I do believe that;
=> increasing economic growth rates;
=>reversing a long term decline in the Work force Participation Rate;
=> achieving a several decades low in the unemployment rate - particularly for minorities ;
=> reversing the abnormal decline in Defense Budgets of the past five years ;
=>clearing out a maze of administratively issued Federal rules that have stifled economic activity;
=> and lowering our former 35% corporate tax rates to more closely align with those of other modern countries ( Canada is an example ) ;

are all is in keeping with my "ideological certainties" ; they are also very very widely held beliefs.

I'll concede that the currently booming demand for electric cars is one I didn't foresee. While electric vehicles are indeed exhilarating torque machines, they are significantly less efficient than IC vehicles, when the losses attendant to generating the power; transmitting it to the charging site; and charging/discharging the battery are included to make the comparison meaningful.. In addition electric vehicles take hours to charge (unless one pays Tesla about $8K for a high speed charging station (Tesla is now closing their formerly free ones) . Finally since the batteries are good only for ~ 500 charge/discharge cycles, the owner is confronted with a $22K replacement cost at about 50,000 miles. The $7.5K Federal direct subsidies on all electric vehicles are now being removed, and Tesla is scrambling to reduce the price while still making a profit to sustain its sales. My bet is the company will collapse within a few years. (I certainly don't recommend an investment in the stock).

Hybrid vehicles are a different story. They have an ultra efficient constant speed IC engine that delivers nearly all of the power; a rechargeable battery & motor to take the acceleration transients (which significantly reduce the efficiency of IC engines) , and synchronous generator braking to save otherwise lost energy.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2019 04:18 pm
@georgeob1,
Re electrical vehicles (or other alternative propulsive systems)... the critical issue isn't efficiency. It is developing means to reduce the factors that have led to global warming. And every significant auto manufacturer is moving in that direction with an increasing ratio of models avoiding internal combustion (and as you know, charging times and driving range are rapidly changing). So whether or not Tesla manages to remain a viable automaker is quite beside the point.

Edit: another point here...
I imagine you might recall that when Chev introduced the Volt, Limbaugh went on a sustained campaign to debase the product. He had never spent time doing so with any other car prior to this. What he had to say was so untutored and ungrounded that the editor at Car and Driver (or Automobile) took his broadcasts to task. "You don't know what the **** you are talking about" was the drift.

So why did Limbaugh set out to do so? I trust that is clear even to you.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2019 04:58 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Re electrical vehicles (or other alternative propulsive systems)... the critical issue isn't efficiency. It is developing means to reduce the factors that have led to global warming. And every significant auto manufacturer is moving in that direction with an increasing ratio of models avoiding internal combustion (and as you know, charging times and driving range are rapidly changing). So whether or not Tesla manages to remain a viable automaker is quite beside the point.


Efficiency is indeed the critical issue if the ultimate source of the energy comes from fossil fuels. CO2 emissions are inversely proportional to thermodynamic efficiency, and , as I noted all electric vehicles and their power sources are significantly less efficient than IC engines.
Only ~ 13% of our electrical power is from "renewable" sources, and more than half of that is from dams constructed over 50 years ago. In the main Teslas are ultimately powered by coal and to a lesser but rising extent natural gas.

Today about 30% of our power generation comes from emissions free nuclear power. However the cessation of replacements for aging nuclear plants ( due to NRC regulations established by Obama -I hope Trump changes them- that made the commitment of capital for new plant construction impossibly risky causing the immediate cancellation of planned new construction of about eight new plants a few years ag0). The ongoing rate of decline of nuclear generation is much faster than the rise in wind & solar, even despite large subsidies and increasingly large mandatory set aside market shares in some states. The result is the coal and natural gas fraction of our power generation is likely to rise in the years ahead. (The same thing happened in Europe when Merkel shut down about half of Germany's nuclear plants, though there the replacement was low quality (energy per Kg burned) and high emissions brown coal,

Bottom line Teslas will continued to be powered by fossil fuels, and due to low efficiency have higher net emissions than conventional autos . Again hybrids are an exception - they are very efficient and do make a difference in emissions.

Blatham wrote:
Edit: another point here...
I imagine you might recall that when Chev introduced the Volt, Limbaugh went on a sustained campaign to debase the product. He had never spent time doing so with any other car prior to this. What he had to say was so untutored and ungrounded that the editor at Car and Driver (or Automobile) took his broadcasts to task. "You don't know what the **** you are talking about" was the drift.

So why did Limbaugh set out to do so? I trust that is clear even to you.


I don't know what motivated Limbaugh (or the editor of Car & Driver). However I do know the science & engineering aspects of the problem, and Limbaugh was right.

snood
 
  4  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2019 05:03 pm
@blatham,
I would agree with everything you say about Warren except for one very hard piece. That is, she had been asked over and over whether she had tried to represent herself as Native American, and she had denied it. She tried to pass as Native American knowing full well that at BEST she had only a tiny fraction she could claim as such. What you were describing that your family did was simply assuming you were Jewish and later finding out you weren’t. What she did was willfully lie about herself.

How is it that you don’t think she acted deceptively? She has admitted that she based her opinion about her possible distant Native American ancestor on stories passed down from a relative. How can she take that, turn it into a claim of being Native American on a legal application, and not be knowingly deceptive?
Sturgis
 
  4  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2019 05:50 pm
@blatham,
Quote:
...no Jewishness...


Think for a second Blatham, think.
Being Jewish or some other religion or of no religion is not entirely connected to a region of the planet. We have a family member who was of Italian ancestry who converted to Judaism at about the time he married a Jewish woman.

As to looks, there were generations of Jewish folk in my past, none of them, other than my grandfather's younger brother had any so called 'typical' Jewish appearance about them. In fact nobody else in our known past has or has the so called Jewish nose. I myself only achieved some measure of it (appearing possibly Jewish) when I decided to let my whiskers grow. Prior to that, nobody could place a heritage tracer on me by appearance.


Regarding Warren, other than I just plain can't stomach her (she somewhat comes across as a Hillary part 2), what she did by claiming to be an American Indian, is not only deceitful, I find it disgraceful. Although my father was 50% Native American, I do not and have not ever claimed publicly or privately to myself be Native American. And definitely never made that claim on a sheet of paper or on an application. I acknowledge my heritage, yes, but it is a small piece of who I am. Born and raised in the same time period, I would expect better of her. To me it seems, she feels it's okay to cloud the facts if she thinks it'll get her the prize.

She needs to step back and get her affairs in order before trying to set order to the affairs of The U.S.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2019 06:36 pm
@blatham,
By the way, how's the weather up in Vancouver. I understand the whole Pacific Northwest is having some unseasonal storms, snow & ice etc. I was back on the East coast (near Washington) a couple of weeks ago and saw some unusual 7 deg. C temperatures accompanied by high 20kt winds - very cold. On the flight back I noticed the entire country (along our route) except for a narrow stretch of western Nevada was covered in snow.

Back in California we has relatively low temperatures and heavy rain.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2019 07:02 pm
https://scontent.fhou1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/51775697_10212653872011186_140062383920906240_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_ht=scontent.fhou1-1.fna&oh=4df38553d75fd97fa11f505963e89695&oe=5CEA7818
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2019 10:50 pm
@blatham,
Quote:
As AOC suggested in something I posted yesterday, fighting among ourselves and promoting the notion that "liberals" and "progressives" are natural enemies would be destructive to both. It is just ******* foolish and it is exactly what the right would want (thus what they will be working towards, overtly and covertly). 

That was my point entirely, two weeks back. Happy to see people start to get it. Back then i was downvoted profusely.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2019 06:36 am
@snood,
snood wrote:

I would agree with everything you say about Warren except for one very hard piece. That is, she had been asked over and over whether she had tried to represent herself as Native American, and she had denied it. She tried to pass as Native American knowing full well that at BEST she had only a tiny fraction she could claim as such. What you were describing that your family did was simply assuming you were Jewish and later finding out you weren’t. What she did was willfully lie about herself.

How is it that you don’t think she acted deceptively? She has admitted that she based her opinion about her possible distant Native American ancestor on stories passed down from a relative. How can she take that, turn it into a claim of being Native American on a legal application, and not be knowingly deceptive?

How can she be deceiving anyone who isn't classifying people by race/ethnicity and discriminating on that basis? Is it wrong to trick racists and prevent them from using their racism accurately?

If you treat everyone the same regardless of race/ethnicity, then it doesn't matter what box a person checks on a form, i.e. because you're going to treat them the same regardless, aren't you?
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2019 06:59 am
@Olivier5,
I sometimes attend to up/down votes for sociological reasons. As a measure of the worth of any posts, it's pretty much useless.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2019 07:03 am
@edgarblythe,
That's great, roger! I wonder how many people between 6 and 30 have any familiarity at all with Scrooge McDuck? He was a seminal figure for many of us.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2019 07:21 am
@edgarblythe,
Those aren’t centrists.
They’re republicans.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2019 07:26 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
By the way, how's the weather up in Vancouver.
I'm midway up Vancouver Island so a bit different from Vancouver itself though we're both right on the ocean. Until two or three weeks ago, it had been mild and very wet. Temperature right this moment here is 12 degrees fahrenheit, certainly the coldest it has been all winter, and we have about 6" to 8" of snow (our first significant snowfall of the year). Yet it is unusually dry so it suits me. And I am still as entranced as when I was a kid with the beauty and quiet of a world covered in snow.

The news coverage on Seattle, Victoria, Portland etc befuddles me a bit. Street cameras do not show anything very severe. Mind you, for many years I was a passionate skier so snow was always welcome and the only time snow on the road was problematic was where some ill-prepared dipshits proved an impediment to our reaching fresh snow before others rabid types got to it.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2019 07:30 am
@Sturgis,
Quote:
Think for a second Blatham, think.

I'm sorry. I'm busy this morning.

But permit me to link this particular bit in a Curb Your Enthusiasm episode (2 minutes duration) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M-tgHivx6s
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2019 08:22 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Efficiency is indeed the critical issue if the ultimate source of the energy comes from fossil fuels. CO2 emissions are inversely proportional to thermodynamic efficiency, and , as I noted all electric vehicles and their power sources are significantly less efficient than IC engines.
Only ~ 13% of our electrical power is from "renewable" sources, and more than half of that is from dams constructed over 50 years ago. In the main Teslas are ultimately powered by coal and to a lesser but rising extent natural gas.

Today about 30% of our power generation comes from emissions free nuclear power. However the cessation of replacements for aging nuclear plants ( due to NRC regulations established by Obama -I hope Trump changes them- that made the commitment of capital for new plant construction impossibly risky causing the immediate cancellation of planned new construction of about eight new plants a few years ag0). The ongoing rate of decline of nuclear generation is much faster than the rise in wind & solar, even despite large subsidies and increasingly large mandatory set aside market shares in some states. The result is the coal and natural gas fraction of our power generation is likely to rise in the years ahead. (The same thing happened in Europe when Merkel shut down about half of Germany's nuclear plants, though there the replacement was low quality (energy per Kg burned) and high emissions brown coal,

Nuclear power, even with it's evident risks, looks to me to be a necessary part of our energy systems. I have no beef with hydro-electric generation which is benign (other than as regards conflict with resident populations who will have to move). The share of energy provided by solar and wind systems (along with others in development) will grow, particularly if that growth is not impeded by fossil fuel interests and their toadies in office.

Is there something I get wrong there?

But the over-riding necessity is to minimize the causes of global warming. As you know, even the Pentagon is crafting policies/strategies to deal with the now inevitable mass migrations of humans, the loss of low-lying coastal military installations, etc. We talked earlier about Tony Judt's pessimistic views on our future and surely this all sits at the center of his or our concerns.

I don't know if you attend to automotive writing very much. I do because much of it is wonderful. For example, just last week I read a piece on a new McLaren model which sports 600 HP. The chap who tested the car wrote that driving the thing is like log-rolling the planet. The legitimate complaint against auto mags is that (like golf or skiing or cycling mags etc) is that they function in tandem with their industries, providing fundamental marketing needs like encouraging demand for new products. I've been reading them for years. My brother, who raced and did ground-up restorations of his race cars and a number of Lotus' just because he loved them, had a collection of thousands of the things going back to the mid 60s. But these writers are car nuts and their integrity is really very consistent. When an editor (it was Motor Trend) chooses to criticize a major media figure for his ignorant blatherings about a car (something I have never seen before) he ain't the voice you ought to ignore. Here's that editorial
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2019 08:49 am
@blatham,
mark
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2019 09:18 am
@snood,
As reluctant as I am, I have to agree, it's disappointing.

0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2019 09:27 am
@blatham,
georgeobi wrote:
Quote:
In contrast the GND is a fairly specific list of goals that are either not feasible or not attainable.


Blatham wrote:
Quote:
You state this as a certainty but that certainty arises only as a consequence of your ideological certainties.


Haha. I wish I could have I summed up the frustration with debating with him so well. Nevertheless, I find George one of the more sane conservatives on this site.
snood
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2019 10:25 am
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:

snood wrote:

I would agree with everything you say about Warren except for one very hard piece. That is, she had been asked over and over whether she had tried to represent herself as Native American, and she had denied it. She tried to pass as Native American knowing full well that at BEST she had only a tiny fraction she could claim as such. What you were describing that your family did was simply assuming you were Jewish and later finding out you weren’t. What she did was willfully lie about herself.

How is it that you don’t think she acted deceptively? She has admitted that she based her opinion about her possible distant Native American ancestor on stories passed down from a relative. How can she take that, turn it into a claim of being Native American on a legal application, and not be knowingly deceptive?


How can she be deceiving anyone who isn't classifying people by race/ethnicity and discriminating on that basis? Is it wrong to trick racists and prevent them from using their racism accurately?

If you treat everyone the same regardless of race/ethnicity, then it doesn't matter what box a person checks on a form, i.e. because you're going to treat them the same regardless, aren't you?


That’s some interesting chop logic, with a tinge of libertarian baby-out-with-the-bathwater excessiveness thrown in. I take it you consider all affirmative action programs to be oppressive racism?

So by that reasoning, why not answer any and all questions on applications with the information that puts one in the best possible light, regardless of the objective truth?

Some schools and other institutions have incorporated admission/recruitment policies that take ethnicity into consideration. You’re saying if someone tries to take advantage of that by assuming a false ethnic identity, that’s just caveat emptor for the institution. I’m saying if someone tries to leverage a false identity to personal gain, that’s an unfortunate statement about their character.

I’m more than happy to agree to disagree here. If you’re not, I’m going to have to just let that be your problem, not mine.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2019 11:28 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

…. Nuclear power, even with it's evident risks, looks to me to be a necessary part of our energy systems. I have no beef with hydro-electric generation which is benign (other than as regards conflict with resident populations who will have to move). The share of energy provided by solar and wind systems (along with others in development) will grow, particularly if that growth is not impeded by fossil fuel interests and their toadies in office.

Is there something I get wrong there?

No. We actually agree !

The growth rate of wind and solar power is limited by their cost, despite large subsidies and guaranteed access to sales to Public Utilities. New more efficient ( power/unit of area) solar cells are now available, however they cost much more than the standard silicone based cells. Over time I suspect that will improve, and, when it does, we can expect faster growth.

The main inherent limitation of wind and solar results from the fact that the wind doesn't blow, and the sun doesn't shine all the time. Both must be designed to take the maximum expected solar intensity/wind velocity, but both are limited by this to "capacity factors" ( = average actual power output/installed power capacity) of no more than about 50%. In fact modern wind turbines have capacity factors of about 30% (~37% in ocean areas), and solar cells also about 33%. This means that for both about three units of generating capacity ( i.e. cost) must be installed to get one unit of output.

Modern wind turbines are easy to see from an aircraft at high altitude and their numbers are increasing fast. On a boring flight to the East coast I noticed that the ridgelines of the Western Appalachians in Virginia and Maryland are dotted with wind turbines every few hundred yards. I estimated about 100 turbines on each of the two westerly ridges - 200 total. New land based turbines are typically rated at 3 MW output , so the total before my eyes had a rated output of ~ 600 MW- that's about 50% of the output of a current nuclear generating station. However, based on the capacity factor, the average output of each turbine is about 1.0 MW, or 200MW total. In short it would take about 1,200 such wind turbines to equal the output of a single nuclear plant, and we would still need other power sources to fill in when the wind isn't blowing.

Offshore turbines are generally larger and, owing to the lower wind friction, have higher capacity factors ( up to almost 42%). However they are more costly. A good definition of a worried man is the owner of a $7,000,000 wind turbine mounted on an equally costly 300 ft. tower installed concrete & steel platform, 30 miles at sea.

There are indeed large hazards associated with nuclear power. However the probability of their occurrence is incredibly small, and modern construction features virtually eliminate most hazards in the unlikely case an extreme accident - a meltdown- occurs. This was demonstrated at Three Mile Island, and, despite numerous, unconscionable safety violations, even at Fukushima. ( 15,000 were killed by the tsunami but no one died as a result of the reactor accident.) Almost forty years after the Three Mile Island accident, there is still zero discernable impact on public health in the region.

In both Canada and the U.S. the nuclear power establishments have lower safety and public health effects (confirmed by government data) than their fossil fuel counterparts and even large industrial manufacturing complexes.

I believe the long term future of our energy production should be based on nuclear and renewable generation, supplemented by compound cycle gas turbine plants (very efficient and low emissions) as may be economically needed

blatham wrote:
But the over-riding necessity is to minimize the causes of global warming. As you know, even the Pentagon is crafting policies/strategies to deal with the now inevitable mass migrations of humans, the loss of low-lying coastal military installations, etc. We talked earlier about Tony Judt's pessimistic views on our future and surely this all sits at the center of his or our concerns.


I generally agree, but believe the well-being of living people should also be a priority. Most AGW enthusiasts have unrealistic expectations for the continuation of warming and sea level rise. The fact is that we are looking at a max. 2 deg. C temperature rise over the next century and a sea level rise of 1/8th inch per year ( i.e. 96 years per foot) . That's temperatures and sea levels about equal to the Medieval warm period.

In short we should include the current welfare of people in our considerations, and take advantage of the ongoing technological improvements we are already seeing . We have the time to solve this problem in an orderly, realistic way that is also protective of human life.

I liked Tony Judt's "Postwar" history of modern Europe very much. He did indeed become more pessimistic in the years that followed, and before his death from ALS (a terrible disease) a few years ago. He wrote a brief history of his last years and struggle with his debilitating disease which I read -- very gripping and sad.

blatham wrote:

I don't know if you attend to automotive writing very much. I do because much of it is wonderful. For example, just last week I read a piece on a new McLaren model which sports 600 HP. The chap who tested the car wrote that driving the thing is like log-rolling the planet. The legitimate complaint against auto mags is that (like golf or skiing or cycling mags etc) is that they function in tandem with their industries, providing fundamental marketing needs like encouraging demand for new products. I've been reading them for years. My brother, who raced and did ground-up restorations of his race cars and a number of Lotus' just because he loved them, had a collection of thousands of the things going back to the mid 60s. But these writers are car nuts and their integrity is really very consistent. When an editor (it was Motor Trend) chooses to criticize a major media figure for his ignorant blatherings about a car (something I have never seen before) he ain't the voice you ought to ignore. Here's that editorial


I read the editorial, but noted the near complete absence of any technological detail in it. I noted the writer commended it for urban commuting, and "well planned trips". I suspect the latter referred to planned amusements during the required six hour recharging after ~ 5 hours of driving.

Immediately after graduating from Annapolis I ( and many others) bought a Corvette ( I wish I kept it) . However, when I reported to flight training in Pensacola I found the parking lot at the officer's quarters filled with them. Later, after getting married, I owned a Pontiac GTO ( stupid car- huge engine and a two speed automatic transmission). I retired from the Navy driving an Alfa Romeo Spider -- my favorite car. ( Very Italian - if you let go of the wheel it would cut somebody off.)
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 08/17/2019 at 12:42:32