Jump to content

Darkpriest

Members
  • Content Count

    1,394
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Darkpriest

  1. 2 hours ago, Darkpriest said:

    This is all too funny

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/feb/23/al-jazeera-rightwing-media-platform-conservatives-rightly

    So will screaming left now target muslims in their worldview challanges? ūüėā

     

    1 hour ago, Gorth said:

    I completely fail to see a relation between your comment and the linked article ūü§Ē

     

    Al Jazeera is, if not officially, at least in its execution, a-religious btw. Even if they cover in more detail parts of the world ignored by most western media (like Africa, South America, Middle East, South Asia, The Far East and Russia).

    It's about the conflict of interests more than anything, especially at times, where there were voices to remove some more right leaning news networks from cable

    https://thehill.com/policy/technology/539868-house-democrats-press-cable-streaming-companies-for-carrying-misinformation

    Given the possible content of the new TV, would it also appear there? 

    I wonder what will be its content and I'm sure there will be some conflict of interests in dealing with a TV, that seems to be aimed at Trump supporters. 

    Hence I expect a lot of 'screaming' at some point. 

    I stopped taking notice and care of US "culture" - recently i only had a look at Disney related news, but did not even delve into the whole fired actress debacle. 

    • Haha 1
  2. 10 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

    You're not saying the same thing.

    1) 'Strain' on natgas supply was not the problem, it physically freezing and reducing supply was. Even if wind power had been at 100% nominal power- which no one should be relying on- it would not and could not make up that difference. Wind power only reduced first, it had no influence on natgas power dropping. They wouldn't have had Scotty shouting down the lines about not being able to give it more or his natgas plant'll blow cap'n, they'd know it can produce x MW of power- and you cannot run the turbines out of spec.

    2) a,b are conflation, at best. You can make the exact reverse argument- renewables only 'failed' because the natgas electricity that was meant to balance loads failed to materialise- to blame natgas instead. Indeed, since it's well known that supply from wind and solar especially are intermittent natgas and other spot energies are fundamentally intended to smooth out and increase/ decrease (maintain) supply as renewables come on/offline; ie such an argument actually shows that it was natgas that failed. (c) is the ultimate reason for natgas electricity failing.

    They aren't grid infrastructure technically, the grid infrastructure isn't energy production but the lines and transformers that move the energy*. I'd suspect rather a lot of that failed too due to ice on lines and possibly even transformers freezing**. But that had nothing to do with renewables, since natgas was also effected, and it was the one that was meant to be able to step up output for balancing purposes. If natgas power had been maintained or risen the shortage could probably have been largely mitigated to relatively short lived rolling black outs, in general, and probably more general blackouts in rural areas as lines physically failed.

    *eg we have a ~600MW hydro power plant here that is unconnected to the grid as it produces power exclusively for an aluminium smelter. Which is great, since Comalco loves to threaten to shut down that smelter immediately before elections as an attempt to gouge better prices from its supplier.

    **which shouldn't happen if they have current since transforming generates a decent amount of heat (indeed, failure to remove the heat is a frequent cause of failure), but does happen if they're not supplied with power.

    On one hand, you could say that's the explanation, then however the question stands, why to invest i wind and alternatives at all if they cannot support the grid in harsh conditions, when another part is failing? 

     

    To be more precise, why spend effort and resources on building something faulty, instead of putting the same resources to secure something less faulty? 

     

  3. 1 hour ago, 213374U said:

    Haha. So "data" from market watch and financial types to counter official data from ERCOT (you know, the bunch ****ing running Texas' power grid) and the US Energy Information Administration? Much financial. Such informational, wow.

    I mean, it's not just that some random financial douchebags are being misleading with those charts -- the ~50% wind drop figure is from feb 9, before the storm even started. You can clearly (to the extent the pictures allow) see that there are similar decreases before, storm or no storm -- this is why the nominal reliable capacity for wind is rated by ERCOT at less than 40%, while gas is supposed to be 100% reliable. Or at least I'm guessing those are the dates in the charts because they are so tiny that it's hard to tell. I'm sure that's not at all on purpose in an effort to obfuscate and mislead, no. It's just an unfortunate side effect from financial types these days not being able to afford more than 56k dial-up so clearer images are out of the question.

    EudCR6UWYAgTwo5?format=png&name=900x900

    http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/197379/CapacityDemandandReservesReport_Dec2020.pdf

    No, "wind power failed to deliver it‚Äôs expected power ‚Äď almost 40% of expected power" is ~false~¬†because a) only¬†coastal¬†wind energy production was rated at ~40% (with wind from the Panhandle and Other regions being rated substantially lower than that), and b) that figure is not a fraction of¬†the total production but rather a fraction of the nominal total¬†wind¬†power generation in Texas. ERCOT has wind and solar classified as "intermittent renewable", because they are aware of the fact that they are not fully dependable.¬†Which is why, on the other hand,¬†gas is 100% --¬†not because Texas gets 100% of its power from gas, but because it's supposed to be 100% dependable and not fail when it's cold, cloudy, or not windy enough.¬†

    So no, Texas' problems weren't related to wind farms failing in any way any non-financial type with excessive positions in fossils could possibly conceive. Sean Hannity was lying, Greg Abbott was lying, and you -- you are very much lying. What's funny is that Abbot at least attempted to clarify his comments to Hannity. But here you are, doubling down on the lies.

    I like your confirmation bias. It's consistent and can be relied upon. 

    In essence, we are saying the same. 

    1) Wind power in Texas was unreliable, and could not produce sufficient auxiliary power to reduce strain on the natgas sources during the increased demand at the time of freezing weather

    2) Nat gas failed to provide electricity within its technical capacity due to: a) spike in demand, b) insufficient support from renewables, c) failure of gas pumping infrustructure in cold weather. 

    Both of which ultimately come to a point about grid infrustructure being vulnerable to cold weather due to lack of proper investment in "winterization" 

    Technology wise, gas, oil and coal infrustructure should be more resistant to cold weather and you can see in other countries that renewables fail at certain negative temperature and increased snowfall levels due to their nature of producing power - they need unobscured space and minimum waste of energy in their production process. "winterization" had also its efficiency limits. 

     

  4. 1 minute ago, BruceVC said:

    No Dark, its not the green energy that is the biggest contributor to the energy grid. And it wasnt the greatest failure, that was fossil fuels like coal 

    I do not think that Coal failed at all. What did fail is:

    - Solar and Wind due to weather conditions - a lot of it could be predictable, as people managing the grid should be aware that their turbines are not cold resistant. The actual plant production failure caused power to drop. 

    - Nat gas overcapcity failed to cover, as a lot of it was also not cold resistant. Technically, they had the capacity in this part to cover for expected wind failures, but the gas pumping infrastructure failed, not the actual process of turning gas to power at the plant. 

     

  5. 58 minutes ago, 213374U said:

    No.

    tdux003vjni61.png

    https://www.eia.gov/beta/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electric_overview/regional/REG-TEX

    EuelYMnUUAYRzqA?format=jpg&name=large

    http://www.ercot.com/news/releases/show/225369

    "As of 9 a.m., approximately 46,000 MW of generation has been forced off the system during this extreme winter weather event. Of that, 28,000 MW is thermal and 18,000 MW is wind and solar."

    It wasn't "wind farms failing" because wind provides a small fraction of Texas power (under 10% compared to about 65% for gas in total dependable capacity). It was, in fact, mostly natural gas pumping systems freezing because Texas NG is wet and kept under pressure to run vertical separators at or near the wells. When the valves at the separators freeze, gas simply no longer reaches the compressors (which may or may not be offline themselves) down the line and power plants run out of gas, literally.

    Stop lying.

    It's not a lie. First you have failing wind power, then a spike in the power output on the natgas, trying to cover up, and then you get another failure in the grid. 

    image.png.872f6665d390543ceedf22ab7740483b.png

     

    "Ice storms knocked out nearly half the wind-power generating capacity of Texas on Sunday as a massive deep freeze across the state locked up wind turbine generators, creating an electricity generation crisis."

    "Wind power failed to deliver it‚Äôs expected power ‚Äď almost 40% of expected power ‚Äď in part due to lack of winterized wind turbines"¬†

     

     

    image.png.6c8b722e380c052426e8240d04308378.png

     

    Natural gas made up the difference, but then suffered from lack of supply from non-winterized delivery

    image.png.a89e8c84009a37bc3c4f1445b6e06220.png

     

    image.png.0dd88103b9f4b0f06e2b278b0cd96990.png

    I've mentioned, that it's not clear cut, but at the core of it was wind farm that failed big time, and other areas were not in shape to cover for the drop in the winter conditions. 

    Key part of the message, is that a lot of infrastructure is simply not cold resistant. 

  6. 1 hour ago, Elerond said:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/20/us/texas-storm-electric-bills.html?referringSource=articleShare

    This is reason why I don't like electric market tied price of electricity, as even in best scenarios it gives quite minor savings compared to fixed price and it is vulnerable to price spikes during disasters that will eat all the savings that you could make in decades in couple days.

    And it does disaster does not need even to be that big, like for example machine break down in one of the base power plants (nuclear power plant, or giant gas/coal power plant) can easily cause 1000% spike for hour or two, even when there is ability to buy electricity from other countries during the outage.

    To be honest, I find a contract, which does not give a consumer a fixed price, a bit predatory. I can understand higher bills due to higher consupmtion, but the price per unit should be set by the contract without exceptions. Any disaster related spikes should fall onto the operator, so they will either insure against that, or hedge by delivery contracts from other areas/sources. 

     

    As for the Texas power issues, they were related to wind farms failing, but the other side of the story is, that those windmilss were not designed and built with 'winterized' option. Question is, why? 

     

  7. To be honest, initially I thought that Covid would be a trigger for the freefall and bust of various systems. However, I quickly realized, that FED and ECB were just given a green light to pump trillions into the system to keep it going. 

    Paradoxically, COVID became a catalyst for record heights, even, when regular street economy is suffering. 

    Wait until rent moratorium expires in US. 

  8. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-media-facebook-idUSKBN2AK01S

     

    Austarlia will most likely push FB to yield and accept some form of payment, as in the background there is already a political union building, which consists of Australia, Canada, France, Germany, and it also is fitting the tune played by India. 

     

    I believe Russia works on a law or is already proceeding one, which will allow them to fine Social Media tech, if they will censor any Russian citizen, who did not break a Russian law. 

    Some other more nationalistic leaning countries, are also looking in that direction. 

  9. 20 minutes ago, Elerond said:

    Australian News services don't pay for Facebook for publishing their content there, as Facebook makes its money from ad revenue and selling visibility for the posts. Facebook point for blocking Australian news companies from posting their content in Facebook is that it does not want to pay for them for publishing content in Facebook.

    Fair enough, however this also means less traffic and less ad revenue for FB. I guess they could choke it up. However, governments like money, and you can be sure, that they will now move into space, where FB will have to compromise its core business practice. They will target the traffic generated by Australian taxpayers amd demand portion of that ad revenue and revenue from selling behavioral profiling information be paid as a tax. (and you can be sure, that they will drop on the platform the resposnsibility to ensure identity of its user, if that user is a local taxpayer or not) 

     

    And as it was also said, not only that content was blocked. 

  10. 7 minutes ago, Elerond said:

    The legislation that caused this was hardline legislation by Australia, which forces US tech companies to pay Australian news companies for their content that appears in their sites. Facebook point in blocking Australian news sites is that it does not want to pay them for content that they publish in its service for free 

    Theu do not publish for free, they use the traffic those generate and make money off that. There are no "free" services. You are paying them with your data usage. 

  11. 1 hour ago, Elerond said:

    Yeah, Facebook is still private company and US based company which allows them to decide what to publish, which includes foreign governments and news organizations, without fearing closure of their business or retribution from their government.

    US government cannot force them to publish anything because of US constitution, but US constitution of course don't protect them outside of US if they want to do business in countries that aren't US (I mention this because previous discussion about this was about social media companies blocking US politicians and organizations). As in this case Facebook decided not to publish any of Australian news sites because of change in Australian law which they welt were such that they didn't want to even try to comply with it and decided draconian measure of blocking all the content which the new law impacts. 

    This just will make other countries hardline more on US tech. India is doing it with Twitter, EU is very slow, but eventually they will hammer on US tech, and they lose nothing if FB would be removed, as they do not see much money from SM making money of EU users. Sure, some lifestyle of 'influencers' amd services around them will have to change, but that's not much of a loss either. 

  12. @Zoraptor

    Capacity and production are not equal. Usually a grid should have ample room for growth in use of power. You do not want to catch up with demand on a yearly basis, so in that scenario it is not unreasonable to have a capacity to switch between different sources. Sure, if there will be part of the grid failing, you will likely not be able to meet the total regular demand, but there is a chance, you'd not be completely out, and with reduced use, you'd enough to get by. 

     

    @Guard Dog

    I'd say it's partially the fault of how most peoples' psych operate. People tend to have the bias towards denying possibility of something bad happening to them. 

    There is even a nice term to describe this in behavioral sciences. 

    Remember early stages of COVID where people were making jokes of China and would say, that this can't spread and affect their lives? 

     

    To people saying that this could have been prevented by gov, etc.

    Perhaps true, given enough money and resources, most likely yes. However, planning for odd years out and maintaining something and spending a lot of resources on something that may or may not happen once in a decade asks for a question, who would be paying for that? Resources and money are not unlimited (even though FEDs printing machine tries to defy the latter). You need to weight risks and sometimes choke up some loss if a risk materializes, if as an overall net outcome of actionn/inaction is still on the positive side in the long period. Sure, it sucks to have people lose their life, be hungry etc, but reality is, you can't have all the people covered with all safety nets and services. Natural limitations of scarcity of resources come to play. You can have valid questions if the magnitude of losses could be reasonably expected to be lower. The answer is, most likely yes, but more government and beurocracy is not the best answer. What EU is proving us, the exact opposite is true. Too much regulations and government can actually hinder efforts in dealing with various crisises. 

  13. There is some merit to the fact, that you can't rely 100% on 'green' energy (the methods of production, getting resources, and longevity&waste of used elements put that green to a question mark) 

     

    If you have a blizzard for 5-10 days with -20C then your solar panels, and largely wind turbines, and sweet water turbines are very inefficient in producing power vs consumption to maintain them somewhat operational. 

    The best green energy we can hope for is a nucler fusion reactors, which then could be supported by solar and turbine based energy creators (to secure and diversify sources) 

    In EU you had countries already buying energy and CO2 permissions from other countries, where electricty is mostly fossil fuel or nucleal based, just because the green energy production suffered during this winter. 

    I can't say I'm surprised though, to see any crisis being used to bash each other and oversimplifing causes and exaggerating impact of these simplified causes. 

     

    Note: there was a snowfall even on Sahara this winter. 

    • Like 1
  14. 3 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

    US budget deficit to exceed $2.3 trillion for 2021 

    The government spending deficit exceeds the rate of growth. Our economy is expanding against all reason or odds but it really isn’t because we’re going to be a negative growth for government spending. Oh and by the way in case anybody wonders why “nothing“ cost $48,000 per coin, this is why. this is also why gold is trading for double it’s real world value.

    Tick tock tick tock....

     

    These guys are onto something. I'd say, that within 2 years there will be a trigger event, which will lead to a heavy negative yield on almost all classes of investments, barring some groups of physical assets.

    And this time, all the tools are already spent. 

    https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/number-blows-world-everything-bubble-edition

     

  15. It's predictable, in areas where you have snowfalls and cold weather, green energy is a myth, at least in current tech. For heating houses, you could go geotherm, but you still need electricity and a lot of it, ubless you want to go back to candles and pen and paper work or other manual work. 

    I recall even Germany had to fire up some still not closed coal based plants to 100% just to get by, but if this weather will persist they will jave shortages as well. 

    Tried running Tesla recently in -20C?

  16. 32 minutes ago, KaineParker said:

    Where I live rent has rapidly risen up over the years without a minimum wage increase, freedom bucks, or drastic changes to median income so I'm more than a little dubious of the market producing a price people are able to pay.

    You os have a demand, the prices wouldn't go up, if there were no people thinking that this is worth to pay that much to live in an area. 

    Population is also not static, the number of it changes. If the amount of houses did not change, but the population doubled, then even if the median did not change, the total number of people able to pay higher prices did increase. 

     

    On principle, I'm against the UBI. 

    Who will pay for that? What is the limit of people in a ratio of working to non-working before it breaks? How resilient it is towards changes in demographics and productivity of the given demographics? 

    @Elerondalso didn't live in the area and time, when everyone was employed (nevermind that productivity went to the crapper and everyone was overall poorer) 

×
×
  • Create New...