billvon 2,400 #1926 October 13, 2019 "My wildfires" are going fine since there are none near me. I pay quite a lot in taxes, most of which goes to the US government. I am not rich enough to pay less. I'll check back with you in January to see how your weather's doing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
richravizza 25 #1927 October 13, 2019 On 10/11/2019 at 4:17 PM, billvon said: Sort of. More like Atlas Shrugged than Anthem. And perhaps the future is a set of small, distributed private generators running microgrids, like Hank Reardon's "atmospheric electricity" generator, described in Atlas Shrugged as the solution to the energy needs of Galt's Gulch. (Wind turbines, anyone?) Since we're in the imaginatative.I dont think Hank would have used an intermittent power source dependent on the whims of the wind.I thought,it would more closely resemble a Nuclear Power Plant, with an abundant base load and instantaneous ramp up capability. After the collapse of the Ecosystems in the mid 2020's,synthetic farming averted Famine... Skip to 1:06 Is that the Tule fog of the Southern San Joaquin Valley? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #1928 October 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, richravizza said: Since we're in the imaginatative.I dont think Hank would have used an intermittent power source dependent on the whims of the wind.I thought,it would more closely resemble a Nuclear Power Plant, with an abundant base load and instantaneous ramp up capability. Uh . . . nuclear power plants have close to zero generation flexibility. I had a friend who used to work at San Onofre, and he described the pains they went through to try to modulate power during the day. They finally settled on boron concentration in the primary loop. They'd add boron (and then try to remove it) as power needs went up and down. It was a several hour's process - and it was expensive and maintenance-heavy. And it was the opposite of fast response. But it was the best option they had to modulate power. And it wasn't Roarke's energy source; it was John Galt's. He created an atmospheric electrostatic motor that generated power for the people of Galt's Gulch. And if it's really atmospheric potential energy that he's harvesting, that power source is VERY intermittent. Ayn Rand makes a clear distinction between people (like the government) who would say "it is therefore impossible" and John Galt, who would just invent cheap batteries to deal with the problem. Of course Ayn Rand was just using that thing as a symbol of inventiveness; she had no idea how it might have worked. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
richravizza 25 #1929 October 13, 2019 12 minutes ago, billvon said: And it wasn't Roarke's energy source; it was John Galt's. He created an atmospheric electrostatic motor that generated power for the people of Galt's Gulch. And if it's really atmospheric potential energy that he's harvesting, that power source is VERY intermittent. Ayn Rand makes a clear distinction between people (like the government) who would say "it is therefore impossible" and John Galt, who would just invent cheap batteries to deal with the problem. Of course Ayn Rand was just using that thing as a symbol of inventiveness; she had no idea how it might have worked. Sorry for the obvious mistake in Characters. I'll agree with you, she was no Engineer ! 14 hours ago, billvon said: "My wildfires" are going fine since there are none near me. Mine,not so fine. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #1930 October 14, 2019 On 10/11/2019 at 7:17 PM, billvon said: Sort of. More like Atlas Shrugged than Anthem. And perhaps the future is a set of small, distributed private generators running microgrids, like Hank Reardon's "atmospheric electricity" generator, described in Atlas Shrugged as the solution to the energy needs of Galt's Gulch. (Wind turbines, anyone?) Galt designed the generator, Reardon was the steel guy. What's interesting about the interpretation of that book is that everyone who sees it as a dogma of conservatism wants to reference ONLY the aspects of a government thwarting innovation (as if that means all government involvement is bad) and not government supporting and funding innovation. Remember, all of this stuff stays on the free market. Sure, you'll have a county owned installation here and there but that's it. The three characters (Galt, Danneskjold and d'Anconia) were equally students of science AND philosophy. They weren't looking for an economocracy, in fact the world they created in the gulch supported each other's innovations. I wonder what they would say to how politicians try to prop up the coal industry or stop innovation in the renewables sector. Or how about how industries don't think they should be on the hook for environmental issues and instead think it's the role of society to accept that as a part of them providing for the greater good. I doubt they would sit there looking at a destroyed ecosystem saying, "It couldn't be helped, not our fault, we're not to blame." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #1931 October 14, 2019 On 10/12/2019 at 10:30 PM, billvon said: "My wildfires" are going fine since there are none near me. I pay quite a lot in taxes, most of which goes to the US government. I am not rich enough to pay less. I'll check back with you in January to see how your weather's doing. Hopefully it will be cold and snowy, I have lots of snowboarding to do and the DZ goes into hibernation mode for the winter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #1932 October 14, 2019 1 hour ago, brenthutch said: On 10/13/2019 at 2:30 AM, billvon said: I'll check back with you in January to see how your weather's doing. Hopefully it will be cold and snowy, I have lots of snowboarding to do and the DZ goes into hibernation mode for the winter. Best time for surfing the Great Lakes as well - season starts next month! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #1933 October 14, 2019 On 10/11/2019 at 5:37 PM, richravizza said: Placerita Nature Center A pack of us used to run that canyon at night during the full moon. The shadows of scorched trees on the hillside always gave me the creeps. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
richravizza 25 #1934 October 15, 2019 13 hours ago, Coreece said: A pack of us used to run that canyon at night during the full moon. The shadows of scorched trees on the hillside always gave me the creeps. They stopped it at the ridge line,but It ran south,Jumped the 14,went WSW to the 5,breify jumped it! But, thats there they pinned it down! hit it with serious air assets.They saved Towsley Canyon Nature Center is,damn too close. Run? at Night ! ?! Respect Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #1935 October 23, 2019 On 9/17/2019 at 9:40 AM, DJL said: I voluntarily pay an additional $5 per billing cycle for my power company to develop renewables, I don't really care that it's likely a greenwash bit of bullshit. True, people don't want to pay more money, not really a mystery, it's always someone eles's problem: "Instead, clear majorities say they would prefer that climate initiatives be funded by increasing the taxes on wealthy households and on companies that burn fossil fuels." This is the typical uninformed BS you'll see, that wealthy people and corporations need to pay for it. The fact is that everyone was benefiting from low cost power, whether it be coal power plants or gasoline engines so we ALL need to pay for it. That's great! And very kind of you - But now we require you to pay for everyone that cannot afford it too. Your $5 donation is accepted and we will now tax you $25 - thanks for your support. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #1936 October 23, 2019 Just now, turtlespeed said: That's great! And very kind of you - But now we require you to pay for everyone that cannot afford it too. Your $5 donation is accepted and we will now tax you $25 - thanks for your support. Sounds good, my power bill varies by $40 each cycle so that's within my means. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #1937 October 23, 2019 Just now, DJL said: Sounds good, my power bill varies by $40 each cycle so that's within my means. Good. Not exactly fair or just - but good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #1938 October 23, 2019 Just now, turtlespeed said: Good. Not exactly fair or just - but good. I'm making a statement that I realize the cost of mitigating our past use of fossil fuels. It's certainly not fair and the longer we don't do anything the less fair it gets and the more I have to pay. I absolutely should not have to pay more because people want cheap dirty energy but I'm responsible enough to address the reality of it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #1939 October 23, 2019 1 minute ago, DJL said: I'm making a statement that I realize the cost of mitigating our past use of fossil fuels. It's certainly not fair and the longer we don't do anything the less fair it gets and the more I have to pay. I absolutely should not have to pay more because people want cheap dirty energy but I'm responsible enough to address the reality of it. Do you believe that you should be able to force me to agree with you? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #1940 October 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, turtlespeed said: Do you believe that you should be able to force me to agree with you? You won't have a choice and the sooner you realize that the less you'll pay. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #1941 October 23, 2019 9 minutes ago, DJL said: You won't have a choice and the sooner you realize that the less you'll pay. Is that a yes? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #1942 October 23, 2019 1 minute ago, turtlespeed said: Is that a yes? Blah blah blah Speaker's Corner one-liner-answer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #1943 October 23, 2019 1 minute ago, DJL said: Blah blah blah Speaker's Corner one-liner-answer. I think you meant . . .Blah Blah Blah - Speakers Corner avoidance of answering a specific question. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #1944 October 23, 2019 2 hours ago, turtlespeed said: I think you meant . . .Blah Blah Blah - Speakers Corner avoidance of answering a specific question. Anyway, to get back to this. From the month ago conversation, I believe I was attempting to dissuade the idea that Americans could simply sue energy companies and rich people to pay for the costs associated with environment issues. I think that's a pretty unlikely scenario. Time after time those companies are long gone, wealthy people are the most politically connected AND there are more cookies in the jar of the American population mass. Rather than spend any time or money in legislation let's just all get the fuck over it, admit that we ALL reaped the benefits of cheap energy and we ALL should pay for it. So that's why I'm saying it's not your call, you're already paying for it, you're being made to pay for it and you'll be forced to pay for it. Looking ahead, the sooner we deal with the financial realities of transitioning to lower CO2 the less we'll pay in the long run so again, you will be forced to pay for it one way or the other and the earlier you decide to the less you will be forced to. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #1945 October 23, 2019 3 hours ago, turtlespeed said: Do you believe that you should be able to force me to agree with you? Agree? No. Obey the law? Yes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #1946 October 23, 2019 2 hours ago, billvon said: Agree? No. Obey the law? Yes. So, you would be against conscientious objectors then. (statement) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #1947 October 24, 2019 9 hours ago, turtlespeed said: So, you would be against conscientious objectors then. (statement) What's wrong with obeying the law? (question) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #1948 October 24, 2019 8 hours ago, billvon said: What's wrong with obeying the law? (question) I was responding to this - I don't see any law mentioned. I'm making a statement that I realize the cost of mitigating our past use of fossil fuels. It's certainly not fair and the longer we don't do anything the less fair it gets and the more I have to pay. I absolutely should not have to pay more because people want cheap dirty energy but I'm responsible enough to address the reality of it. As far as obeying the law? I will ask you a question I think you asked me in the past - Do you ever drive over the posted speed limit? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #1949 October 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, turtlespeed said: I was responding to this - I don't see any law mentioned. I'm making a statement that I realize the cost of mitigating our past use of fossil fuels. It's certainly not fair and the longer we don't do anything the less fair it gets and the more I have to pay. I absolutely should not have to pay more because people want cheap dirty energy but I'm responsible enough to address the reality of it. As far as obeying the law? I will ask you a question I think you asked me in the past - Do you ever drive over the posted speed limit? Good example. I do speed and when I get caught I'm subject to the penalties in place. That's an effective system for public safety. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #1950 October 24, 2019 1 minute ago, DJL said: Good example. I do speed and when I get caught I'm subject to the penalties in place. That's an effective system for public safety. I don't disagree. But are you breaking the law because you disagree with it - or because it is inconvenient? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
