Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Darkpriest

  1. 14 hours ago, BruceVC said:

    Dark arent you concerned with this  " Vaccine hesitancy " that we see throughout the world ? Its quite big in the USA amongst minorities and the Trump support base. On CNN they were saying more than 40 % of Republican men wont take the vaccine 

    Take a look at this graph in the link below to see who in the USA are worst offenders around this 


    I'm always hesitant with something in its first itteration, and I can't blame people, to be somewhat hesitant until they see results on real population. 

    I said once before, that I do believe the vaccinations are the solution, just it was too early to rely on it and trumpet around the success. Usually complex problems require discipline and time, both of which are lacking in the modern populace. 

    We see various mutantions emerging, we still do not know the exact source / origin and while tests show various positive outcomes, they are just tests in a control group, which might not be fully representative. 


    There is also too much of politics around distribution of various vaccines, and profit margin protection, to treat this roll out more seriously. 


    All this points me to a direction, wait, isolate, observe and see for a next gen roll out. 



  2. 4 hours ago, BruceVC said:

    This view around global pharmaceutical giving up their patents and IP around vaccines is well meaning but misplaced and I dont support it. Why would any company in any part of the world that has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in RD and spent years learning how to manufacture vaccines  now give up all that time and effort to other countries or companies who have never been interested in the investment in those fields ? 

    If we somehow force pharmaceutical companies to give up their patents for Corona why stop with the Corona vaccines? Their are more deadly disease and viruses out their so why not just make the IP available for all vaccines and medicine and the global pharmaceutical companies will go out of business ?

     Also their is a vaccine program which is distributing vaccines to poorer countries for free or cheap its called Covax and basically its already deploying for free millions of vaccines throughout Africa


    Finally I dislike the usage of established real words that  that have a historical  meaning to people and countries, playing the " Apartheid " card is woefully inappropriate. And some NGO's and people, like the article ,  have framed this debate around the distribution of vaccines as " Vaccine Apartheid ". This is not at all like the terrible system of Apartheid and what it did. Using emotional words to support your argument to gain support is lazy and makes the  real word lose emphasis 




    You need to sk yourself a question, will you make world divided in ability to travel to rich and poor? Or if this is the actual pandemic then in the best attempt to return to normal is to remove the transmition and mutations potential from the human populce. The longer yoy take the process the more likely appearance of a mutation, which will bypass all the vaccination, making the spent money almost wasted. When do you consider cutting short term profits for longer term gains? Or do you accept that economies will not get back to normal and might crash hard, should a more dangerous mutation emerge? Weight in alternative costs for societies and economies vs pharma gains? 

  3. Focus more on pronouns, feels, "math is racist", "masculinity is bad, dangerous and toxic" and this will just become more prominent. 

    Not only US is losing on development and in tech progress, but it is now admitted, they cannot confront China near their sphere of influence. 



    Lets add to that trillion of printed debt, and socio-economic collapse starts appearing on the wall fast, and US going to the dumpster geopolitically is soon after (with US losing ability to project power both militarly and economcially, once dollar gets trash canned from the reserve currency status) 

  4. I find it distirbing and hillarious at the same time. Some of the current socialist/ left actions are so similar to what was happening in lets say Eastern Germany not so long ago. 

    Soon state will be taking children away from parents, because parents are wrong thinkers. 

    Just watch some of the video materials from great socialist utopias or listen to woman leaders  like Helga Labs. 


    • Thanks 1
  5. 2 hours ago, Darkpriest said:

    This is all too funny


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


    1 hour ago, Gorth said:

    I completely fail to see a relation between your comment and the linked article 🤔


    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


    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
  6. 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? 


  7. 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.



    No, "wind power failed to deliver it’s expected power – 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. 


  8. 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. 


  9. 58 minutes ago, 213374U said:






    "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. 



    "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’s expected power – almost 40% of expected power – in part due to lack of winterized wind turbines" 





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




    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. 

  10. 1 hour ago, Elerond said:


    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? 


  11. 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. 

  12. 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. 

  • Create New...