Jump to content

jimmyjazz

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    45446
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    9

Posts posted by jimmyjazz

  1. Apparently the renovations at H-E-B Far West (Little Israel) have ruffled some feathers.  I don't have it in me to subject you to the replies, but suffice it to say that MOVING ITEMS AROUND THE STORE ONCE EVERY 12 YEARS IS AN ABOMINATION BEFORE GOD/YAHWEH!!!  No word from Maurice . . . yet:

    Quote

    Is anyone disappointed to see the cheese shop at H-E-B relegated to a wall and Maurice somewhat displaced? It’s a first world problem to be sure. I just wondered if there was any way to bring it back.

     

  2. We're going to be walking a fine line between now and Nov 2020, but the sadist in me is really looking forward to any and all attacks on that jackass just to see how insane he really gets.

    Of course, the downside is nuclear war, etc.  There's no risk-free reward.

    • Like 1
  3. 12 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

    At this point, trump refusing to leave and having to bring in Janet Reno to burn down the white house is the only way to cleanse the place 

    Cleaning crew:

    Image result for independence day white house

  4. 7 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

    Tell me about it.  Not only cars pulling out but I nailed a deer almost exactly in that spot several years ago.  Hit it going 55.  Car totaled.  Came over the hill and it was just standing there.  Couldnt imagine what would've happened on a bike.

    I'm amazed that the driver of the minivan wasn't seriously hurt.  The impact had to be on the driver's side of the vehicle -- even if it was "just" a motorcycle with 2 passengers, that's a lot of impact.

  5. 2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    I knew about pumped hydro, although from what I understand, it hasn't seen any large-scale deployment.  Why is that?

    Not my area, but I can surmise that it best lends itself best to specific (hilly) geographies.

     

    Quote

    I didn't know about the piston idea - I've seen it on a super-small scale (remember the simple interior light powered by a slowly descending bag of rocks/sand?).  Makes sense that it could work on a larger scale.  So again, same question -- why aren't we seeing it deployed on any real scale?  I'm genuinely curious.  Is it a size/space issue?

    Well, it's so nascent an idea that I can't imagine it will gain any traction in our lifetime.  Drilling oil wells every 3 blocks in downtown Manhattan seems like a non-starter.  Even at that, it would probably only power a stacked parking garage or something like that.  I honestly don't know, though, I'm spit-balling based on crude not-even-back-of-the-envelope calculations.

  6. I readily accept that this is intellectual snobbery (not to mention bigotry) on my part, but every time I see data like those presented above, I think to myself "yep, the right is on average dumber than the left".

    Prove me wrong.

  7. Just now, Brisketexan said:

    I know very little about storage technology EXCEPT to know that large-scale storage isn't yet widely deployed.  When it is -- and it surely will be at some point in time -- it will no doubt be a gamechanger.

    Well, there is at least one somewhat widely-deployed energy storage mechanism currently in use:  pumped hydro systems.  I have no idea how the economics work in conjunction with local renewable plants (wind/solar).  Basically, excess supply is used to pump water from a low reservoir to a high reservoir when cost of electricity is low, and then that water is allowed to drive hydro turbines to generate electricity when the cost is high.  Round trip efficiency is pretty good, and the water ends up back where it started, waiting for the next cycle.

    Interestingly enough, there are analogous systems being tried in urban environments where massive slugs of steel/concrete/whatever are driven up and down below grade in what amount to deep vertical mineshafts to generate power on daily cycles.

  8. 16 minutes ago, Bartles said:

    ^ That's how I read it at this point. On #6 above, the van could have even been turning right onto 2222, same direction as Ced, and still wouldn't have been enough time for him to stop from a high speed.

    True, but at least then she'd have been trying to turn right into the right lane of westbound 2222, as opposed to crossing both the right and left lanes to turn left (east).  He would have had a good chance of missing her.  (Theoretically he shouldn't have had much chance of hitting her at all since he was allegedly in the left lane of westbound 2222.)

  9. 3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Of course it would.  And my point has never been about storage -- it's about the fact that we actually do have generation resources that, while "intermittent," are an actual factor used in planning.  That's it. 

    But WHY are they an actual factor used in planning?  Could it be that they are moderately cost-attractive BECAUSE of tax breaks and subsidies?  If so, that blurs the truth.

     

    Quote

    Axiom has pooh-poohed "green energy" as effectively irrelevant because of its intermittent nature, s Axiom is.

    I haven't seen him do that.  Perhaps you're referring to earlier discussions.

     

    Quote

    yet the market treats it as a relevant resource.  I agree, it would be a LOT more relevant if legit storage was a real thing.

    "Legit" storage is "a thing" -- it just has associated costs.  The economics are phenomenally complicated, but worth working out.

     

     

  10. 1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

    I really feel like you're misunderstanding the points and arguments Brisket has been making (and apparently vice versa). But I'll let him address all that. It sounds to me like everyone is on the same page and talking past each other (and imagining their particular bugaboos in the other's arguments) 

    Could be.  I just thought Axiom brought some added common sense to the discussion and y'all piled on while misrepresenting what he was saying.

    Let me put it this way:  wouldn't it make sense to get ALL the truth on the table so that the path forward has the best chance of achieving a transition to significantly reduced carbon footprint associated with our grid?

  11. Let's clear some of this up.  To the best of my knowledge:

    1.  Cedric was driving west in the left lane of westbound 2222, heading away from central Austin towards 360 and his house just beyond

    2.  he had just passed Mesa Drive, which is a stoplight and is thus a reasonably safe entrance/exit to 2222

    3.  Mount Bonnell Road does not cross 2222 in a continuous manner -- the leg heading north from 2222 is farther east (closer to central Austin) than the leg headed south

    4.  as one approaches the north leg of Mount Bonnell Road heading west, there is a significant rise on 2222.  At the top, there is a flashing yellow light which warns of what's over the hill.

    5.  as one crests that rise, it's probably just a couple of hundred yards to the intersection with the north leg of Mount Bonnell Road.  The only traffic control at that intersection is a stop sign for those headed south on MBR, and at that intersection, all they can do is turn left or right onto 2222.

    6.  the minivan involved in the accident was turning left (east, towards central Austin).  The driver probably didn't see Cedric before pulling out because the distance to the crest of the hill is so minimal.  As others have said, a single motorcycle headlight is confusing at best, even if she saw it.  Any excess speed on Cedric's part would just make matters worse.

    7.  the southbound leg of Mount Bonnell Road, at which there is a stoplight, has jack shit to do with this accident.

    • Like 7
  12. Brisket is appealing to ERCOT's authority, which is at a very minimum derived from careful consideration of a handful of different inputs that go way beyond what this article tried to convey.  For one thing, ERCOT is in the here and now -- they have immediate demand needs, immediate supply to tap, and that supply is a coarse reflection of business decisions made by god knows how many suppliers, not all of which have the same goals in mind.  Taking current production ratio from renewables as a data point is specious at best.  What incentives were given to those providers?  What incentives were given to their COMPETITION?  What math is being used to compare one source versus another -- is it honest?

    Does it NEED to be "honest"?  (This speaks to my feeling that we don't need renewable energy to be dollar for dollar comparable to fossil fuels, but we for damn sure better be very educated on all the costs involved, which in the state of Texas involves a significant O&G sector and the hit it will take as fossil fuels become marginalized.)

    My biggest concern is that people (voters) take partial information and draw sweeping conclusions.  I think every one of us has the same end game in mind, but advocating for enhanced scrutiny in order to get close to the "optimal" path along the journey isn't silly and it doesn't make one some kind of Big Oil Whore, despite what is being alluded to on this thread.  Fuck that.

    • Like 1
  13. 25 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    Seriously, where in the article or in this thread is ANYONE saying we should go all renewable right now based on the information in the article? No one has made the argument that I've seen. I really have no idea what you are going on about. 

    Are you kidding?  I feel like there is some kind of translation problem here.  I can't believe you can be reading what Brisket is bloviating about and thinking "yeah, he knows what's what".  No offense, Brisket, (well, OK some offense intended), but you're way out over your skis here.

    Sorry, but I'm professionally neck deep in energy storage, and have been for decades.  The problems aren't simple and can't be argued in a forum post, regardless of how smart any particular individual thinks they are.  And, I only benefit from true knowledge of one aspect of the problem, of which there are many inputs.

    This is the problem with political hot topics like this -- it is almost impossible to get past the "yeah, well my cousin told me THIS" appeal to authority bullshit.  (And yes, I realize I just appealed to my own authority.)

    Whatever, this thread is now useless.  Tilt on at your windmills, gentlemen.  Pun intended.

    • Like 1
  14. 7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

    Ok see now, you're completely missing what brisket was saying - which is that no power source is 100% downtime free,

    This is such a fucking stupid argument.  Of course nothing is bulletproof.  What does that have to do with anything being discussed here?  

    I'll say it again -- I'm strongly in favor of going all renewables as soon as is reasonably possible, with "reasonable" being defined as a balance of economic and environmental factors, but there is a bunch of bullshit being posted as truth on this thread.  Yeah, nothing is free of downtime, but the nominal generation capability of a fuel-based plant is 24/7.  That's so not true for renewables that it's absolutely idiotic to try and blur the distinction.  "OH YEAH?  Well, OTHER power plants go down sometimes too!"

    Come on.  Some of us have real bona fides in this world.  (i.e., we're not lawyers)

    • Haha 1
  15. 10 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    His points aren't all complete garbage. But a lot of them have built in assumptions that are garbage. And, the way he is making his points and the emphasis he is placing on them on is also garbage. Yes, we need to consider the price of storage and the consistency of access to energy when looking at our system as a whole. Yes, intermittent sources of energy aren't going to 100% replace fossil fuels without more stable storage. No one, despite his implied insistence to the contrary, has argued otherwise. And his conclusion that intermittent sources of energy and knowledge of the cost associated with developing them are thus not useful is completely erroneous. 

    Agree or disagree: a blended power grid of renewable and fossil sources can be economically superior to a grid comprised 100% of fossil sources?

    Agree or disagree: to evaluate the above, you'd need to know the comparative cost of per unit energy for sources (in addition to other information)?

    Agree or disagree: Ultimately, we're looking at a curve that charts the economic efficiency of a power grid from 100% intermittent to 100% fossil. We'll need to know a lot of information to do so. But the most efficient system, right now, is going to be somewhere in the middle of that curve.

    I'll let him speak for himself, but I don't think you're correctly summarizing his point of view.  It's a fact that pro-green groups manipulate data as much as the fossil fuel industry.  It's marketing.  Both sides are trying to "win" the debate.  

    I, like (seemingly) all of you, as well as Axiom, would love to see us get off the fossil fuel teat as soon as possible, and I don't think it's an all-or-nothing deal, not by a long shot.  For fuck's sake, any move to more renewables stands a good chance of putting more money -- a LOT more money -- in my pocket.  I simply feel that the article linked doesn't do a good job of laying out the TRUE costs involved, which isn't to say it's wrong, but it's not particularly compelling as a business case.

    Y'all should really back off.  You're fighting people who might actually be on your side.  It's surly, I get it, but come on.

     

    • Like 1
  16. I wasn't a fan of Sonic Highways.  The show format put too much pressure on Grohl to come up with a quality song on a schedule.  That's not the way songwriting typically works.  The work suffered.

  17. I have no idea why you people (YOU people) think Axiom's points are garbage.  I think most of you are a lot more ignorant on the topic than you think you are.  But hey, wail away.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...