Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[digitaldog]

Your monthly electric bill will increase 2 1/2 times.   Nothing to fret about.

My monthly bill isn't a bill, I get a check you dummy. And when my payments stop after 12 years of sending electricity back into the grid, it will be $7 a month. I'm willing to pay 3X that for grid infrastructure. And I'll be still sending electricity into the grid.
But thanks for your typical idiotic FUD above.

[Manoli]

You didn't explain why parliament couldn't continue health care for ex-pats or provide a rebate for not using British health care and reducing government cost.

That’s correct - I didn’t.

But for the benefit of others who may have read your nonsense; Any Brit, post Brexit, who seeks to have his tax residency abroad (aka live in another country of the EU) has the option to choose whether he maintains access to the UK healthcare system OR benefits from the healthcare of his chosen country of residence. What he may NOT do is maintain both.

The choice is his or hers.

[Alan Klein]

That’s correct - I didn’t.

But for the benefit of others who may have read your nonsense; Any Brit, post Brexit, who seeks to have his tax residency abroad (aka live in another country of the EU) has the option to choose whether he maintains access to the UK healthcare system OR benefits from the healthcare of his chosen country of residence. What he may NOT do is maintain both.

The choice is his or hers.

Then why was the LuLa Brit complaining he was losing his health care due to Brexit? 

[digitaldog]

Then why was the LuLa Brit complaining he was losing his health care due to Brexit?

Struggling to find that Brit, struggling how to send a PM (that's a Private Message) to that Brit Alan? 

[TechTalk]

There are a number of possibilities for a UK citizen residing in Spain or elsewhere in the EU to have health coverage, before or after Brexit, under a government program, depending on the precise circumstances, and they're all easily found online. You may be eligible for one of various UK NHS coverage programs for citizens living in the EU, or it may be that you just simply enroll in that country's government health program when you establish residence. It depends on the status of your residency such as student, posted worker, length of stay, etc.

Why anyone would ask others, unconnected to it, to explain a story which they themself posted and provide the motivation for the assumed action of some unknown person, who's the subject of it, is more puzzling. Maybe taking responsibility for explaining your own stories would be the more reasonable and expected course.

[Peter McLennan]

Your monthly electric bill will increase 2 1/2 times.   Nothing to fret about.

Get used to it, Alan.  Adapting to climate change is going to cost everyone more money - now and for a long time to come.

You're gonna have to spend less on steaks, ice cream and pizza if you want to help ensure a future for the younger members of your family.

[TechTalk]

Transitions in technology generally come with a large upfront cost in infrastructure in order to realize a long-term public benefit. Sometimes that infrastructure cost is born by companies in the private sector. Sometimes it's born by government in the public sector. Sometimes, infrastructure cost is shared between the public and private sectors. Regardless of how the infrastructure costs are initially paid, the cost is usually recouped over time from the citizens or users thru taxes, service fees, the cost of goods, or some combination. There are numerous examples. Take a look at an airline ticket. There's the basic cost, plus service fees, and taxes that add up to the total ticket price and which go toward paying for all of the varied infrastructure required to enable your air travel. Some of that infrastructure is privately owned and some publicly.

Transitions require both money and time to accomplish. There are multiple issues that necessitate a transition away from unsustainable and polluting fossil fuels and toward renewable and clean sources of energy. The sooner the transition is started, the more gradually the transition can be accomplished, and the infrastructure costs can be spread over a longer period of time. Some costs will be paid in the short-term and some may be spread out, but the objective is the multiple long-term benefits achieved.

[Alan Klein]

America is broke.  Printing money to pay for infrastructure, climate change,  and all those social programs could bankrupt us. At a minimum,  it's creating massive price increases hurtng the poor the most as its a regressive tax in nature.

[Robert Roaldi]

America is broke.  Printing money to pay for infrastructure, climate change,  and all those social programs could bankrupt us. At a minimum,  it's creating massive price increases hurtng the poor the most as its a regressive tax in nature.

Funny how it's the social programs that are "bankrupting" you, not the 700 military bases or the endless security bureaucracies or all the prisons (or do you think that prisons create "profits").

If you're broke, how do you explain all the giant-sized SUVs and pickups?

Bottom line, it's not what these things cost, it's what does it cost NOT to do them.

[Alan Klein]

Funny how it's the social programs that are "bankrupting" you, not the 700 military bases or the endless security bureaucracies or all the prisons (or do you think that prisons create "profits").

If you're broke, how do you explain all the giant-sized SUVs and pickups?

Bottom line, it's not what these things cost, it's what does it cost NOT to do them.

Biden's new plans for spending requiring additional money printing does not include expansion of the military.  It's for infrastructure and social programs that's going to get paid for mainly with printing.   But you're point is well taken.  Our budget is way over our tax base and has to be reined in. That may require cutting the military budget.   

However, it important to keep in mind, defense come before social programs.  It's one of the main responsibilities of government, clearly spelled out in our constitution, "...to maintain an army..."  Other things come second. Public safety is another government responsibility.  Most of that comes from state budgets.  Prisons are state facilities and are paid for by states.  Prisoners for Federal crimes like tax evasion, burning down the capital, etc. go to Federal paid-for penitentiaries. 

I don't understand what your complaint is about SUV's and pickups.  Those are personally purchased.  What does that have to do with state and Federal budgets?

[Robert Roaldi]

...

However, it important to keep in mind, defense come before social programs.  It's one of the main responsibilities of government, clearly spelled out in our constitution, "...to maintain an army..."  Other things come second. Public safety is another government responsibility.  Most of that comes from state budgets.  Prisons are state facilities and are paid for by states.  Prisoners for Federal crimes like tax evasion, burning down the capital, etc. go to Federal paid-for penitentiaries. 

I don't understand what your complaint is about SUV's and pickups.  Those are personally purchased.  What does that have to do with state and Federal budgets?

Given that your military budget is bigger than the next 5 (or 10) countries combined and that most of them are not enemies anyway, I think your government is adequately fulfilling its defence mandate, don't you?

The comment about expensive SUVs and pickups was obvious, I thought. If people are buying tons of those and paying for the gasoline they use, I don't see how you can make the statement that the country is broke. There is obviously lots of disposable income around, it's all a matter of what you choose to spend it on. If you choose to buy a big SUV and NOT spend it on repairing infrastructure, that's a choice that has consequences. If citizens have driveways full of toys and the cities around them are crumbling, I'd call that a problem, but you might not.

[PeterAit]

Your monthly electric bill will increase 2 1/2 times.   Nothing to fret about.

Nope. After some research I found that in almost every country, green energy is cheaper or on a par with fossil. Here's a quote from Forbes: "Utility-scale renewable energy prices are now significantly below those for coal and gas generation, and they're less than half the cost of nuclear." Germany is an exception. This is what cherry-picking data means. For some odd psychological reason you have a thing against green energy and feel a need to justify your opinion.

Here's a better idea: When confronted by overwhelming evidence that your opinion is wrong, change it. That's what intelligent adults do.

[Alan Klein]

Given that your military budget is bigger than the next 5 (or 10) countries combined and that most of them are not enemies anyway, I think your government is adequately fulfilling its defence mandate, don't you?

The comment about expensive SUVs and pickups was obvious, I thought. If people are buying tons of those and paying for the gasoline they use, I don't see how you can make the statement that the country is broke. There is obviously lots of disposable income around, it's all a matter of what you choose to spend it on. If you choose to buy a big SUV and NOT spend it on repairing infrastructure, that's a choice that has consequences. If citizens have driveways full of toys and the cities around them are crumbling, I'd call that a problem, but you might not.

Regarding defense, it seems most of the free world expects America to be the world's policeman.  They shuffle off their own defense costs to America figuring we'll do it anyway.  Germany and some other NATO countries seem to take advantage of us regarding this for years.  Trump was twisting their arms to get them to pay more.  But Biden's going to let them get away with it again only because Trump did the opposite.  Biden's new foreign policies are now based on doing everything the opposite of what Trump did even if some of the things he did were good for America.  So Biden will shoot ourselves in the foot just to be politically contrarian.  Nyah. Nyah.

To be clear it's the government that's broke.  The budget is way over taxes collected so they print and borrow incessantly.  Been doing this for decades but it's especially pernicious lately.  The problem isn't tax collection.  It's spending.  No matter how much government collects, they want to spend more.  Politicians are insatiable.

[digitaldog]

Alan. Literally no one here he’s taking your propaganda, assumptions and FUD seriously.

[digitaldog]

Here's a better idea: When confronted by overwhelming evidence that your opinion is wrong, change it. That's what intelligent adults do.

To put it another way:
“When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind. What Do You Do, Sir?” John Maynard Keynes

We are not dealing with an intelligent adult.

[Alan Klein]

Nope. After some research I found that in almost every country, green energy is cheaper or on a par with fossil. Here's a quote from Forbes: "Utility-scale renewable energy prices are now significantly below those for coal and gas generation, and they're less than half the cost of nuclear." Germany is an exception. This is what cherry-picking data means. For some odd psychological reason you have a thing against green energy and feel a need to justify your opinion.

Here's a better idea: When confronted by overwhelming evidence that your opinion is wrong, change it. That's what intelligent adults do.

It's true, Peter,  that producing electricity is seemingly cheaper with solar and wind if you only calculate narrowly.  But what the advocates don't want to talk about is that you need fossil fuel plants to provide power when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.  So you have all these fossil fuel plants that have to be maintained and built to run at those times.  So the true cost turns out to be way higher. 

That's what happened in Germany.  It's going to happen in New York State as I posted earlier when they build off-shore wind generators.  Also, keep in mind that off-shore construction is hugely costly.  NY only hires workers at extremely high union wages.  Add to that the fact they're constructing in the ocean and need to hire marine construction workers.  Also, what about maintenance workers?  They will need boats with captains and crews and helicopters just to transport them to get repairmen out to these facilities.   The cost difference to land-based plants is particularly multiplied and has already gone up substantially since announced only two years ago.

Also, the life span on wind had been only around twenty years vs. decades longer for traditional fossil fuel plants.  So now Germany and other who follow it's path will be stuck replacing the older wind plants with new generators adding to construction costs due to obsolescence.

Let me clear up this thing that I'm against green energy.  I'm not.  If someone can figure out how to burn water, I'd be all for it.  After all, I don't own an oil well in Texas.  My concern is that we're not getting a balanced view of the true cost of wind and solar generation.  Politicians and those in favor of it are hiding true costs.  How can you make good decisions when you only know half truths?  Other European countries are now studying Germany's green power to see why the costs have skyrocketed when it would have seemed they should go down.  Those countries are holding back on moving ahead with their own green or modifying them greatly so not to repeat Germany's errors.  America and other countries would be foolish to just repeat the same mistakes as Germany.  However, the bad news from Germany is being deliberately ignored here because it goes against the politics of green energy.  We shouldn't put our heads in the sand.  Maybe wind and solar isn't the better way.  Maybe we should look at nuclear again.  In any case, we have to be honest with the results others are getting and not ignore them. 

[Robert Roaldi]

Very interesting interview with David Simon (former Baltimore crime reporter and TV producer, The Wire, Treme, et al) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAuFg1K8N7M.

He touches on various areas of politics and culture and takes a swipe at Twitter, with whom he has had issues that I didn't know about. It's a wide-ranging discussion, about 30 min long.

[JoeKitchen]

Nope. After some research I found that in almost every country, green energy is cheaper or on a par with fossil. Here's a quote from Forbes: "Utility-scale renewable energy prices are now significantly below those for coal and gas generation, and they're less than half the cost of nuclear." Germany is an exception. This is what cherry-picking data means. For some odd psychological reason you have a thing against green energy and feel a need to justify your opinion.

Here's a better idea: When confronted by overwhelming evidence that your opinion is wrong, change it. That's what intelligent adults do.

I explained this once before in the past, but here we go again. 

Electricity prices are market based on the time of day that the energy is available to the market and are not based upon the cost of producing the electricity.  Baseline power (oil, gas, nuclear) produce on demand throughout the entire day, during both peak and off-peak hours.  Therefore any average pricing for those energy sources takes into account the entire pricing structure.  Wind and solar tend to only produce energy during off peak hours.  So average of those are skewed towards the cheaper times of the day. 

Therefore, making a comparison between baseline and green is not an accurate one due to the skewing towards cheaper times associated with wind and solar. 

Furthermore, you can not turn off wind and solar when it is producing.  So, even if the production is higher then the demand, it will still enter the grid.  This is not a good thing since an over charged grid can cause serious damage to the grid.  In this case, it is better for suppliers to sell the energy wholesale at whatever price they have to to get it out of the grid, causing pricing to crash even more during off peak hours, decreasing the cost further and often below production costs if the amount of wind and solar production is high enough. 

This cost though is not reflected in the cost of wind and solar prices since we have a single grid, as opposed to a different grid for each source of power (functionally impossible to do).  That is right, regardless of what people say, we do not have a free market anywhere when it comes to electricity due to a shared grid.  So, this loss is absorbed by the operating cost of the grid and labeled as taxes or service fees on the bill. 

Unfortunately, this distortion of costs associated with wind and solar, which makes it appear cheaper then baseline power, creates a trap leading people to think investing in wind and solar will save them money.  And it does, at first.  Unfortunately, it is not until you reach a approximately a 10% threshold, give or take a couple points based on your own local conditions, of total power coming from wind and solar, after you are long on your way, that the cost come pouring in, which is where Germany is right now.  The other countries you talk about are just not at that threshold yet. 

This has been outlined pretty extensively by energy economist Lion Hirth. 

On top of that, allowing yourself to become to reliant on wind and solar, which tend to not produce energy when you need it, can cause some pretty serious issues, like what happened in TX.  Wind and solar production dropped by about 98% during the cold snap.  Baseline power did have some issues as well, albeit the drop in power was minimal in comparison and fixable through the use of better parts, whereas wind and solar production dropped because of a lack of wind and sun, something that can not be fixed.  If TX had not become so reliant on wind and solar, and instead invested in more baseline power, they would have been able to supply energy. 

Note, just because I kind of figure you are going to do this, l will nip it in the bud.  Yes, if you look at total KWHs lose during the TX storm from wind and solar vs baseline, the drop is larger in the baseline.  However this is because the baseline produces a significantly larger amount of the percent of total energy in TX.  So, given this, you would expect a small percentage drop in total production of baseline to be bigger in absolute KWHs (given the larger supply to the grid) vs the absolute loss in KWHs from wind and solar that supplies a small amount to the grid. 

[digitaldog]

Electricity prices are market based on the time of day that the energy is available to the market and are not based upon the cost of producing the electricity.

Expect for just me....
"All generalizations are false, including this one." -Mark Twain
And the one above.

[digitaldog]

My concern is that we're not getting a balanced view of the true cost of wind and solar generation. 

Speaking for others again (we're not or you're not?).
My concern is you don't want and can't accept a balanced view on that; already proven over the last few days.
The lack of a balanced view over 217 and climbing+ pages shows, it's impossible to penetrate the conformation bias bubble of misunderstandings of some less than intelligent adults posting here. Posts that 'we're" not accepting .