Your posting is only infrequent now, that you've had to take a day job.
The 95% consensus is now just 43%
- Thread starter WeToddDid2
- Start date
Actually, pisspore was insulting me from behind ignore, so I created the account so I could counter-insult the runt.
Anything else?
Actually, pisspore was insulting me from behind ignore, so I created the account so I could counter-insult the runt.
Anything else?
Sounds like something you would expect to hear from a two year old child, not definitely not a grown man.
If by taking a day job, you mean ive been much busier trading during the day due to insane volatility as of late, then you would be correct.
Shot for shot, mate. I just don't throw first.
Let's start with point 3. I am going to explain why large-scale green power deployment will fail in the U.S.
The traditional power structure is based on large generation facilities with a hub-spoke network of local transmission lines delivering power that is down-converted at sub-stations before arriving at your home or business. Power is also shared between regions (as necessary) using high voltage wires - this also led to an electricity trading market (which traders gamed and left California without lights a few years back).
The concept of "smart-grid" involves a more flexible transmission structure which will allow a large number of discrete power sources to provide electricity to local communities. It reduces relying on large generation facilities and enables discrete green power sources.
A good amount of research (not funded by the government) has done into smart-grid over the past years. Power utilities are primarily interested in only smart metering at the home which allows them to charge for power in 15 minute increments. The power companies have not been interested in the larger portion of "smart grid" which involves upgrading their infrastructure to be more flexible and supporting many discrete sources of power. In fact it is in the power companies best interest to protect their large generation plants with the current transmission architecture and not pursue upgrades - certainly there is no money in it for a protected regulated monopoly.
For large-scale green power with many solar and wind generators to be successful, the U.S. power-grid must be converted to a micro-grid which will support a large number of green sources with small gas plants providing necessary excess power in situations where demand is greater than the green sources can provide (e.g. nighttime).
From a legislative point of view, the government must define regulation that require power companies to purchase green power from homeowners and businesses - and define clear regulation on "back-metering" for payment.
There is a further need to open up the electricity market to green competitors and require that the transmission network be opened up to all competitors. Similar to how the Telecom Act of 1996 opened up the home phone service to all market participants by requiring phone lines to the home be leased to competitors at reasonable rates. The government needs to take step to open up the electricity market - while reducing dependency on large regulated utilities. The transmission network should become a shared resource - forward thinking power utilities will start to create a business model where their money is made in leasing the power lines to other firms with billing based on the amount of electricity sent through the lines - as opposed to the current large plant generation & bill the customer model.
The U.S electric infrastructure is falling apart and has not been updated for decades for the most part. Similar to our transportation system it is sadly in need of modernization and overhaul.
The focus of the U.S. government on global warming has reduced investment in power system overhaul to minimal levels. Nearly all of the government research grants go to "climate change" initiatives and none to smart grid research. Similarly all of Obama's crony capitalism "green investments" went to companies with politically connected executives (e.g. Solyndra, Fisker, Abound, etc.) which had no connection to large-scale power grid improvements - I will note nearly all of the crony-capitalism investments failed and provided no successful products.
The U.S. government should have been focusing on upgrading our electric grid to support the evolution of electricity delivery. The federal government should have been providing tax credits to existing utilities to upgrade their infrastructure to a smart micro-grid. The legislature should have been focused on driving regulation on back-metering and opening the market to all electric generators. The Department of Energy should have spent their grant money on smart-grid research - not on meaningless CO2 projects.
The "climate change" advocates have sucked in $1.5 Trillion per year - money that could have been better spent on meaningful green initiatives such as upgrading our power infrastructure to support large-scale green power deployment via a micro-grid - rather than crony consulting contracts and putting worthless CO2 scrubbers on utility generation plants. None of the "climate change" spending has in any way enabled a smart grid to support green power - sadly it has detracted from providing a large-scale green electricity solution for our country.
Last edited:
Thank you for the analysis of the power grid situation and how that inhibits the growth of local renewables. I agree 100% that that is something the government should be throwing a great deal of support behind. Do you think that the political power of the utilities and fossil fuel industries has anything to do with the hesitation?
I think that the $1.5 Trillion figure you present is somewhat misleading. A quick search brought up this article from the Washington Times (hardly a liberal rag) which states clearly that this number "...includes within that industry nine segments and 38 sub-segments. This encompasses sectors like renewables, green building and hybrid vehicles." In other words, it is disingenuous to say that the money in this figure isn't going to improving technologies for energy efficiency.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/11/climate-change-industry-now-15-trillion-global-bus/
I think that the $1.5 Trillion figure you present is somewhat misleading. A quick search brought up this article from the Washington Times (hardly a liberal rag) which states clearly that this number "...includes within that industry nine segments and 38 sub-segments. This encompasses sectors like renewables, green building and hybrid vehicles." In other words, it is disingenuous to say that the money in this figure isn't going to improving technologies for energy efficiency.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/11/climate-change-industry-now-15-trillion-global-bus/
I will agree that some money in this figure is going to technologies which overlap and have a reasonable green purpose such as green building and hybrid cars. I do not in any way disagree with this particular spending
However the direct climate change consulting market sucks down $1.9 Billion which could be better spent on other purposes.
“That also includes the climate change consulting market, which a recent report by the journal estimates at $1.9 billion worldwide and $890 million in the U.S.,” Mr. Jergler says.
I will also agree that the lobbying from electric utilities has definitely slowed down the deployment of a nation-wide smart grid - after all it is in the best interest of utilities to remain monopolies and not have to modernize anything in their plant. However most of the regulatory strife that utilities endure recently are due to "climate change" initiatives to put CO2 scrubbers on plants (and take off the hard particle scrubbers which actually reduce air pollution) and to shut down coal fired power plants --- not due to any government initiatives to convert to a smart grid (or provide back-metering, etc.).
An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence.
Surface measurements of downward longwave radiation
The increase in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases has increased the amount of infrared radiation absorbed and re-emitted by these molecules in the atmosphere. The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation, which is then re-radiated away from the surface as thermal radiation in infrared wavelengths. Some of this thermal radiation is then absorbed by greenhouse gases in theatmosphere and re-emitted in all directions, some back downwards, increasing the amount of energy bombarding the Earth's surface. This increase in downward infrared radiation has been observed through spectroscopy, which measures changes in the electromagnetic spectrum.
Figure 2: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).
Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation
The increased greenhouse effect is also confirmed by NASA's IRIS satellite and the Japanese Space Agency's IMG satellite observing less longwave leaving the Earth'satmosphere.
Figure 3: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).
Surface measurements of downward longwave radiation
The increase in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases has increased the amount of infrared radiation absorbed and re-emitted by these molecules in the atmosphere. The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation, which is then re-radiated away from the surface as thermal radiation in infrared wavelengths. Some of this thermal radiation is then absorbed by greenhouse gases in theatmosphere and re-emitted in all directions, some back downwards, increasing the amount of energy bombarding the Earth's surface. This increase in downward infrared radiation has been observed through spectroscopy, which measures changes in the electromagnetic spectrum.
Figure 2: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).
Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation
The increased greenhouse effect is also confirmed by NASA's IRIS satellite and the Japanese Space Agency's IMG satellite observing less longwave leaving the Earth'satmosphere.
Figure 3: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).