... talk about whatever you like.
Photo taken at 7:23 this morning. Actual sunrise time was 7:05. The day to day change in the sunrise time is getting much bigger. The sunlight period is increasing by more than 2 and a half minutes a day —
February 9, 2020
At the New Snow Café...
... talk about whatever you like.
Photo taken at 7:23 this morning. Actual sunrise time was 7:05. The day to day change in the sunrise time is getting much bigger. The sunlight period is increasing by more than 2 and a half minutes a day —
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
223 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 223 of 223201?
202.
Let me know when this totals the $1 billion Trump has lost on his hotel/golf operations since becoming President because of risk-averse cancellations and increased security costs
There is no evidence that Trump lost billions since he became president. His net worth of $3.1 billion was unchanged from last year, Forbes Magazine said in March.
After Trump made a similar claim in August, Forbes wrote “Trump is not losing $3 billion to $5 billion. His income isn’t anywhere near $3 billion.”
Number of purplepenguin posts concerning Biden being paid by Secret Service for rent:
If you had bothered to click&read the link provided, you would have seen that was addressed:
The Post could find only one other recent example of a president or vice president charging his own Secret Service rent. Former vice president Joe Biden charged $2,200 a month for a cottage on his property in Delaware. Unlike the payments to Trump, Biden’s payments were listed in public spending databases. Biden was paid a total of $171,600 over six years.
Trump exceeded that total within three months, records show.
Let's also not forget that Eric Trump says the Secret Service stays for free, and/or pays only $50/night.
“From bestplacesdotnet: "On average, there are 158 sunny days per year in Beaver Dams (zip 14812). The US average is 205 sunny days." 47 less sunny days than average for the U.S., less than half the days in a year, and tax money, my money, was used to subsidize the installation of solar power. And not only are there fewer sunny days, on some of those sunny days the panels are going to be snow covered and useless.”
We got into a discussion earlier today (actually yesterday now) about living with over 300 blue sky days a year. I figured I had not had bright blue skies above me, with relatively low precipitation, for all of my life except for maybe ten years in DC, Austin, and SLC. She ibeat me with moving to Las Vegas at a month or two of age, and spending the rest of her life so far there, PHX, and NW MT. The mortgage broker I have been working with just moved to Seattle. I asked him how he could handle all the rain and humidity. We would both probably get clinically depressed if we did. His response was that he grew up there. And I think that is the cass for many - that they prefer what they grew up with.
The funny thing about rural NW MT, despite our town being almost to the Canadian border, there is a bunch of solar that actually works. If you get far enough out of the valley it is too expensive to run electricity. Phone is fine, because the rest of you are subsiding that. And wells and septic solve those problems. And that leaves electric. One friend, living on 80 acres, estimates that his solar panels supply all of the electricity they need for better than 300 days a year, and he can survive the rest of the year economically by augmenting with a propane driven generator - and he uses about as much propane a year as we do just keeping our house barely heated (to maybe 50 in the winter to keep from freezing the pipes). Of course, having a nice big son and SIL, he mostly uses wood for heat, because that is one thing that we have in excess are really big trees. That, black bears, and pre-venisons. All that firewood, and he probably isn’t really carbon neutral - until you take into consideration that thinning the forests for firewood helps reduce the severity of the forest fires that routinely devastate the area, and have since the urban living environmentalists destroyed the timber industry, which incidentally helped reduce the fire danger.
If you read enough real estate listings, you learn to recognize that sort of setup - whenever you see “off the grid”, you know that means solar, well, septic, and propane. Surprising how frequently you see listings like that for really nice houses, on 40, 80, 200 acres “off the grid”.
If grid tied photovoltaic installations made economic sense, subsidies wouldn't be needed to install them.
Aren't fossil fuels - such as oil and coal - also subsided by US taxpayers? Or have all of those been phased out?
So the old men running for nominee for president among Dems are losing it. Joe Biden has forgotten more than he ever knew about politics and bad words and things keep stuttering out of the hair plugs in his scalp - most likely because of his 1988 brush with death as a result of an aneurysm. Bernie now has another secret to keep; first he won't tell voters how much his Medicare for Everyone will supposedly cost and now his medical reports following his heart attack are too harsh to reveal. Old man Mike Bloomberg needs the power of the presidency in order to ban big orange drinks regardless of the $100 billion hole it will put in his substantial fortune.
Small nuclear power plants should be the way of the future. Less loss through the transmission lines, much smaller footprint, cheaper, don't get the environmental destruction of mining for the materials for the batteries, consistency not an issue. But of course, that is rarely being mentioned in the west.
@purplepenquin said...
Aren't fossil fuels - such as oil and coal - also subsided by US taxpayers? Or have all of those been phased out?
The government is stupidly subsidizing corn alcohol added to gasoline but that has nothing to do with the economic growth through fracking nor were the world's largest, cleanest and cheapest coal surface mining operations from the Powder River valley subsidized. States such as West Virginia have collected extraction taxes on coal but not on oil and gas taken from the ground.
To please the lefties here that complain about the budget, The President is introducing over four trillion in spending cuts. At last something from Trump you’ve been asking for...
A peak generating plant is expensive because it is only used part-time. I'm guessing its average emissions are higher because it emits a lot when fired up.
Abandon hope all ye who enter here.
"Aren't fossil fuels - such as oil and coal - also subsided by US taxpayers? Or have all of those been phased out?"
Tax write offs for losses aren't subsidies. Wind and solar are wildly expensive and inefficient ways to generate electricity. They both have a shelf life. Other than falling water nuclear is the way to go.
Ralph L said...
"A peak generating plant is expensive because it is only used part-time. I'm guessing its average emissions are higher because it emits a lot when fired up."
They are basically jet engines that run on natural gas. Jet engines are designed to be efficient at altitude. Not at 600ft above sea level. They consume an enormous amount of fuel. And here in Illinois they also consume an enormous amount of taxpayer dollars
nisala
Feel free to use our hosts formula. Blog what you find interesting. Don’t give a rip about what the commenters want. Have the depth of knowledge and tenacity to defend yourself. Have wide and varied interests, share those no matter how arcane others might find them. It helps to start with the credentials to at least have inquiring minds, to poke about your blog for ideas that challenge them.
For here reside the strongest blog commentariat in the blogosphere.
Peak generating plants are expensive because they have to be kept up and running in parallel - idling as it were - along with the "alternative fuel" plant because it takes like forever to get them on line from "cold," and "idling" is almost as expensive as running them full blast.
Oh, and that is true for nuclear, coal, natural gas, or whatever kind of plant they are. Actually they are all steam plants heated by furnaces fired by whatever fuel they are using. No "jet engines."
No "jet engines" is too strong. Direct gas turbine power plants do exist, but only small plants and few of those.
Which "key government officials" did Mr Trump dismiss in the last couple of days? The news reader at WQXR in New York said he had done that awful thing, although she didn't mention who she was talking about.
Marc, the Vindman twins and our EU ambassador.
For here reside the strongest blog commentariat in the blogosphere.
This reminds me of the motto chosen by the editor of the newspaper I worked on: "The South's Foremost College Weekly." Since we believed we were students at the South's foremost college, it was ambiguous.
"Peak generating plants are expensive because they have to be kept up and running in parallel - idling as it were - along with the "alternative fuel" plant because it takes like forever to get them on line from "cold," and "idling" is almost as expensive as running them full blast.”
Even those running on natural gas?
Peak generating plants DO NOT need to be kept running and on idle. A diesel generator can be started and paralleled with utility power in 90 seconds or so. A gas turbine takes less than 5 minutes - I'm not entirely sure how much less. A gas turbine peaking plant has to be manned at all times. The wholesale price of peak power pays for the salaries of people standing around waiting to start the plant year round.
As for jet engines being designed to operate at high altitudes- ones for aircraft are. Ones for generating plants or ship's power are designed for sea level. They are, however, overall less efficient if all they do is generate power. The high temperature exhaust is wasted thermal energy. The plant I applied for a job at had a bottoming cycle. The exhaust was used to generate steam. It greatly increased overall efficiency. Because the steam wasn't produced continuously, no one would pay for it. When producing steam, they gave it away to a nearby pharmaceutical plant.
We are getting snarled in terminology, think. I had not even seen "peak power generating plants," furnishing small amounts of extra power for shorter periods, discussed before.
Previous discussions have been about conventional power plants (full, or almost full, base load) being required to stand by for when solar or wind power just fail due to extreme variances in weather conditions.
Both problems must exist in very varied ways with considerable overlap in the measures taken to resolve them.
Post a Comment