PeterMP

Members
  • Content Count

    2,289
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About PeterMP

  • Rank
    The Dirtbags
  • Birthday 07/11/1972

Profile Information

  • Location
    Something catchy like headexplode or EA's

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. PeterMP

    ***2018-19 NBA Season Thread***

    He should have taken it to the rim. Down by 2 with Westbrook fouled out. Adams was at the top of the arc guarding Embiid. Get 2 points, go into OT, and win the game. The problem is that it isn't just a jump shot. It's even a FT. He doesn't want to take it to the rim in that situation in case he gets fouled because he doesn't want to be at the line with the game on the line.
  2. The fact that Germany has done as well as they have with alternatives despite being so poorly geographically situated for altetnatives is one reason people like to talk about Germany. The path forward for Germany is clear. Do more to couple roof top solar with home batteries (whose prices have come down a lot). Reduce coal use. Diversification of the NG market through things like shipped LNG will help with that. Update their electric grid to transport energy to high demand areas from high producing areas, especially for wind. Establish long term storage options. I am not sure how anything related to Germany is not relevant to France. Demand is tied to weather so every country has issues with that. When it gets extremely cold, France cannot meet demand and has to import from other places- including Germany. On the other hand, during low demand they can generate too much electricity- they sometimes shut down nuclear plants like Germany does for solar or wind. Other than progress on storing energy thst they can couple with their nuclear plants so they can optomize their use of nuclear energy, there is not much more France can do in terms of cutting emissions with respect to electricity hat makes sense. It certaily does not make sense to build greater nuclear capacity (as a function of consumption). Essentially the same wall exist for France (and every country trying to cut emissions.) (The big thing for both has to be transportation and somehow coupling that demand so that it is at a different than current electrical peak demand )
  3. He's protecting both. Negotiating with Trump is a waste of time because if you strike a deal with him and then somebody criticizes on Fox News 10 minutes later, he'll change his mind. I've said before, I essentially agree with Larry. Even now, the Democrats should be quite and be passing bills. Instead, they've allowed the narrative to change. Keep the narrative on we're passing bills that people want to see passed and even including funding for border security in them.
  4. You can't miss your short term targets and be on pace to hit your long term targets. France isn't on target to hit its long term targets without adjustments because it missed its short term targets. Germany has plans to phase out coal plants. Germany has been closing coal mines: http://fortune.com/2018/12/21/germany-closes-last-coal-mine/ Which makes it politically easier for them end coal power and they are making plans to eliminate coal power: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-coal-exit-commission https://www.power-technology.com/news/vattenfall-coal-power-plants/ By sort of nebulous long term goals with no good idea of how they are going to achieve them, Germany is in as good a shape as France. I talked about absolute numbers. Germany generates slightly more electricity than France. It has less than 2X the total CO2 emissions as France. You don't generate more electricity, have only 2X the CO2 emissions if it is taking you 10X more CO2 to generate a kwh of electricity. Also, France dumps plenty of power during non-peak demand time. A lot electricity during non-peak time actually flows from France through Germany to Poland in times of low demand because you don't just turn down a nuclear reactor. To meet peak demand France generates more electricity than they need. Electricity prices in Germany have stabilized over the last few years (and even gone down some) and: I missed Germany in the list. https://energytransition.org/2015/03/germany-is-not-burning-us-forests/ You've been posting the same stuff here for years. You need some more material. Germany also has fast start natural gas plants (https://www.power-technology.com/projects/irsching/) and has increased its use of natural gas to generate electricity, but as anybody that pays attention knows Germany also has issues with getting natural gas that has minimized their adoption of natural gas. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davekeating/2018/07/19/how-dependent-is-germany-on-russian-gas/#42be58b93b48
  5. Is it possible for you to post something that doesn't contain clear fallacies on the topic? "The results are stark. German policymakers have quietly started to acknowledge that continued reliance on coal will prevent the country from meeting its emissions targets. Meanwhile, France is on track to hit its own targets, and is setting its sights on the complete elimination of coal-fired power." France isn't on target to hit its emission standards. They've had years where CO2 emissions where supposed to go down and went up and because of that are having to change their emission targets. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-carbon-emissions/france-to-revise-carbon-emissions-target-after-missing-2016-goal-idUSKBN1FB2W0 And it isn't like your link is old. It is just wrong. Though, yes everybody admits that if Germany had maintained their nuclear output, in terms of CO2 production, they'd be better off. I've already said they have 2 priorities. From there, your most recent link doesn't actually address your point about 10X more CO2 per electric production. Yes, Germany is generating more electricity from coal, which tends to generate more CO2, but it isn't like the number for France is 0. Here's what I know: 1. Germany generates slightly more electricity than France (which your link supports). 2. Per a person, Germany uses slightly less electricity than France. 3. But Germany has more people. (those ideas are consistent with one another) Germany has less than double the total of emissions of France (not correcting for GDP or per capita). German cars are not massively more efficient than French cars, etc. Unless there is something odd with the math it is hard to reconcile those things with Germany is generating 10X more CO2 to generate electricity than France. You don't generate slightly more electricity than another country have less than 2X the CO2 emissions than the other country, but use 10X more CO2 to generate electricity unless something odd is happening. Lastly, if what you are concerned about is CO2 emissions than consuming less energy per a person is a valid way to cut emissions. Saying all that matters is CO2 generated per a kwh ignores that. Conservation matters and helps.
  6. They are generating more electricity every year from alternatives. Germany has not only prioritized reducing CO2 emissions, but also eliminating nuclear power. That they've been able to eliminate some of their nuclear power plants and not see increases in emissions is significant. Emissions other years were down too. Emissions since 1990, total, per GDP, or per capita are down. You are looking at one year and nobody is saying those are the only 2 reasons (again energy generated from alternatives were up). And energy generated from the high CO2 emitting coal sources are down. Germany needs to do some work to update their grid (as does essentially every western country), and more work has to be done on storage/transmission (and as I've already state the costs of home solar batteries if falling, expected to fall more, and Germany is heavily moving in that direction. Couple that with plug in electrics, you get even more storage and flexibility, which will help even out their supply/demand issues, while diminishing CO2 output.
  7. You've cited the same thing from a different source that still gives no way of knowing how they've generated their numbers (from a pro-nuclear group). Germany isn't generating that much less CO2 than France through other non-electrical production or using that less electricity than France (electrical consumption per a person is about the same in both countries) for that math to work out. German cars are not putting out that much less CO2 then French cars that Germany is generating 10X as much CO2 for electricity, but per a GDP or per a person the two countries are very close to the same in terms of over all CO2 production. The same thing applies as I stated before. Don't believe everything you read on the internet. Linking from a different source (that is admittedly pro-nuclear) doesn't change anything. As stated at your link, the key is recycling and cleaning are possible. That isn't possible with waste from nuclear reactors.
  8. Good God man, did you have a let me find whatever junk I can on the internet and post it night? PTS's are becoming a component of a modern grid anywhere in the world. The electric grids of Europe were not connected until relatively recently and so in most cases are only connected in a few key places. If the Netherlands didn't want German electricity flowing into their grid, they could just disconnect the few places where they are connected. You know where else they use PTS' on the French/Spanish border, the Belgium and Netherlands border, in the US, and yes, in the UK (though they call them quad boosters). http://www.abb.com/cawp/seitp202/8E11298367DF412AC1256F880030299B.aspx https://www.tdworld.com/overhead-transmission/nation-s-largest-phase-shifting-transformer-takes-residence-monticello https://innovation.ukpowernetworks.co.uk/innovation/en/Projects/tier-2-projects/Flexible-Plug-and-Play-(FPP)/Project-Documents/TechCon-Asia-Pacific-2013-Quadrature-booster-full-paper.pdf
  9. I'd love to see the math that lead to that conclusion, which is actually noticeably missing from your link. (Germany's CO2 output is less than 2X France's, and they have a larger population, country, and GDP.) Energy generated from alternatives in France and Germany as a percent of energy used are pretty much equivalent. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-climate-targets And again, despite your initial implication, Germany is not bringing in large amounts of "dirty" energy from other countries. It is a net energy exporter, and much of what it does import, it imports from heavily nuclear France. In terms of costs, the costs of nuclear power even in France, are misleading because they aren't paying for long term storage of waste. France has spent billions of dollars studying how to store waste (not paid through electricity taxes/fees, but the general fund) to come up with a plan to have people question whether it is valid. And the cost of building the thing where they would store the waste under the plan was estimated $25 billion euros, and that's just for the building not the long term upkeep, maintenance, monitoring etc. When you take into the long term costs of waste storage the economics of nuclear power changes greatly. Currently, France is generating energy using a method that they have no idea what the real long term costs are, but they certainly aren't paying it. There is no fund in France (or anywhere else in the world) where governments or companies are saving money to deal with the long term costs of waste from nuclear power.
  10. The link said that demand dropped for a number of reasons, including higher prices. Using less electricity causes less CO2 production. Raising prices alone doesn't cause CO2 emission to drop, but using less electricity, which higher prices encourage, does. So I'll ask again, what is inherently wrong with people using less electricity? Germany is actually a net exporter of electricity. https://www.renewable-ei.org/en/activities/column/20180302.html France doesn't actually generate enough electricity during periods of high demand to meet their needs with their nuclear power so they end up buying electricity from Germany. Then, when demand is low, France generates more power then they need so Germany buys it (cheaply) (You don't just turn nuclear power plants off when demand is low). Germany does do the same with some its other neighbors with respect to not clean electricity (e.g. coal), but if you are going to punish them for importing (cheap) dirty electricity at times of low demand, then you have to give them credit for exporting green electricity to France and some of their other neighbors when demand is high. Germany is also heavily invested in home solar batteries (and the prices of home Li solar batteries is dropping make this more affordable), which helps even out their issues with supply and demand from solar. They went the wrong way with cars going to diesel instead of electrics, but after the issues with companies lying about emissions, they are now going the other way, which will also help them reduce CO2 emissions and help even out supply and demand issues by encouraging people to charge their cars at peak production times by offering low electric prices. It is clear that Germany is generating more electricity every year with renewables, while lessening excess demand. It isn't clear if they are doing enough fast enough to keep up with a growing economy and population. But that also doesn't mean the same won't happen next year too. Are they going to be down 7% again this year, probably not, but that doesn't mean they won't be down period.
  11. You don't generate less CO2 because electricity prices went up. You generate less CO2 if people use less electricity. Is there a reason that people using less electricity is inherently bad? They increased production of electricity through non-fossil fuels also increased. Overall renewables were up 3%. Wind power generation was up 13%. Solar up 14%. Those are the result of real investments in long term infrastructure.
  12. Just want to point out global CO2 levels are still increasing. Emissions are increasing.-reached a global high based on best estimates. US emissions are going to be up for 2018. Oh and the oceans are warming faster than we thought: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2019/jan/16/our-oceans-broke-heat-records-in-2018-and-the-consequences-are-catastrophic Oh and emissions are down in Germany with positive GDP growth. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-co2-emissions-set-fall-strongly-2018
  13. PeterMP

    Election 2018 Thread (An Adult Finally Has the Gavel)

    Was looking for something else and came across this. Seems like it might beinteresting: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2018/11/10/2018-what-really-happened/ "In fact, if you look at the graph carefully (and you also remember that we’re excluding uncontested elections, so we’re missing part of the story), you see the following: – In strong Republican districts (D’s receiving less than 40% of the vote in 2016), Democrats gained almost everywhere, with an average gain of, ummm, it looks something like 8 percentage points. – In swing districts (D’s receiving 40-60% of the vote in 2016), D’s improved, but only by about 4 percentage points on average. A 4% swing in the vote is a lot, actually! It’s just not 8%. – In districts where D’s were already dominating, the results were, on average, similar to what happened in 2016. I don’t know how much this was a national strategy and how much it just happened, but let me point out two things: 1. For the goal of winning the election, it would have been to the Democrats’ advantage to concentrate their gains in the zone where they’d received between 40 and 55% of the vote in the previous election. Conversely, these are the places where the Republicans would’ve wanted to focus their efforts too. 2. Speaking more generally, the Democrats have had a problem, both at the congressional and presidential levels, of “wasted votes”: winning certain districts with huge majorities and losing a lot of the closer districts. Thus, part of Democratic strategy has been to broaden their geographic base. The above scatterplot suggests that the 2018 election was a step in the right direction for them in this regard." The point being that a lot of "safe" Republicans seemed a lot less safe after this election.
  14. The problem, as I pointed out, is your solution isn't really a solution. It is a hope and a dream, and things might break that way, but it is as possible that things will break the other way in which case you've caused pain and missed an opportunity to move Democratic priorities forward for nothing.
  15. 1. If they don't vote, it is still a win for the Democrats in terms of the Senate elections. Putting things up that people will generally support and watching the Republicans not vote on them is a win. It still puts pressure on the Republicans. 2. McConnell can be removed from as Senate majority leader if enough of his members lose confidence. Realistically, if you are so sure that nothing would come from passing such bills (because of Trump/McConnell), what is the issue with putting them up? (I suspect subconsciously you are essentially like Skin'emAlive and see this as way to deal Trump a final serious blow and letting him out through a "compromise" (even one that doesn't really give him what he wants) is bad. And to me, that would be the worse thing the Democrats can do. If it turns into beating Trump for the Democrats and not being about good governance, long term, they (and all of us) are going to lose. And that is what I think is happening. This has turned into an effort show up or beat Trump. It has gotten away from governing.)