This Friday?
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: All over
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STW--FWIW, the want to put my thoughts into some box to characterize them "extreme right wing" or "conspiracy" (stamping a label on them) is a form of rhetoric embraced by much of the MSM in their parroting. It relieves the viewers, readers, and listeners from the responsibility of looking into the substance of an issue themselves and simply stamp a tidy label on it. In actuality, you'd probably find my views adverse to coercion so they'd sit more in the "Extremist Libertarian" category--if there were a category at all which there isn't. Having a deeper look and not giving my blind trust to some doctor somewhere just because he went to a good school and has a bunch of pretty looking paper with nice seals and stamps on the wall. But rather looking into his track record (and in particular his track record treating whatever ailment I might have). Well trained experienced pilots with lots of pretty certifications hit the ground also; it's not all the hours ya got but the next one that's in front of you that's important. Now, experience CAN help keep you out of scrapes you might have gotten into in the past and avoid dangerous situations developing. So the 'stamps' really don't mean much.
If these ideas are so true and wonderful, why is the court of first resort perpetuated by the MSM always that some regulatory agency pick them up and impose them on peoples through coercion ? Advocating the force of law, fine, and imprisonment in the implementation rather than showing a potential path towards making a better mousetrap. The whole idea is to engage in civil debate such that people can make the correct choice for their situation and if something is so wonderful might want to embrace it.
If someone wants to drive a Prius or Tesla that's fine by me (some Teslas have eye popping acceleration kicking a Corvette's azz FWIW). If they are doing so out of some sense that they're 'saving the planet' (who'll do what she do with our without us), they're delusional. If they are telling ME I have to drive one (or a car that acts like it) then they are wrong--just plain wrong--as is imposing rules that effectively try to make a truck into a Prius. There's no way a state entity can look in from the outside to determine what an individual's wants or needs are; particularly for a vehicle which will have an infinite spectrum of potential missions all unique to the individual.
If you actually look into the matter, you'll find out the lion's share of electrical power is and will continue to be provided by fossils with a greater fraction of nuclear (hopefully) coming online. Main grid power from windmills has been a bust (not to mention that windmills have their OWN externalities and environmental impact -- in fact if you get into the weeds you can show climate disruptions caused by windmills equal to or greater than the great Carbon scam for an equal amount of energy produced--because either is minuscule and dwarfed by other factors. Same as for geothermal and the like--which by running the physics of extracting energy from the earth could result in a minuscule change in the angular momentum of the earth and as such affect it's rotation rate with all the dire climatic effects--on par with whatever Carbon might be doing). Now windmills or solar CAN be a boon when used in off grid applications (where it's expensive to string a power line and/or the individual wants a power source which doesn't rely on the mains -- and the conditions permit its exploitation). So the bottom line is that no one energy source is inherently better than any other; it just becomes a question of which is cost effective and feasible for a particular situation (which has to be determined by the individual IN that situation). Fusion might be here someday; Thorium might augment Uranium in nuclear until it gets here (it shows great promise but the excess neutron flux in the Thorium reactor is probably not as optimistic as its claims; LFTR sounded promising right up to the point the promoter said with a straight face working with Uranium Hexaflouride wasn't a big issue). So I guess in your terms you'd say right wingers chase fusion, left wingers chase windmills.
But getting back to the Tesla; IF you buy into the carbon scam, you are likely going to find out that your Tesla pollutes just as much (if not more) than an equivalent car burning hydrocarbons. Something has to make the energy. That something is probably coal or an oil or NATGAS burning turbine (at least if the 'greens' are looking for as 'green' a source as practical--the rabid greens always living in a never achievable Tomorrowland and using that fairy tale to attempt to justify actions they're taking today on the false premise that the technology exists in the near future which it doesn't. And then sliding that near future forward). The best combined cycle gas turbine plants (which use gas turbines running generators in series with a steam turbine attempting to recover waste heat) operate at around 50% thermodynamic efficiency on a really good day (in order to get overall efficiencies you multiply individual ones)--meaning that out of each 1000 therms (or calories, or joules, or whatever you like) 500 of those actually make it to generated electricity (the NATGAS btw could also be burned directly in a car heat engine with efficiencies somewheres in the 30's). The electricity gets stepped up to transmission voltages, incurs line losses along the way (I squared R), gets stepped down to distribution voltages, gets stepped down again at the house or charging source, and then goes into the battery. Transformer efficiency varies under load; 97% is a good number for a 75kVA transformer at more than 30% of it's nameplate capacity. Line losses are a bit tricker; typical values are around 8-15% depending on how far the electricity goes from source to customer (and varies widely). Split the difference and use 10% losses (90% transmission efficiency).
So when you crunch those numbers, optimistically with today's most advanced power plants, around 41% of the fuel at the power plant becomes electricity at the plug. From there you have to subtract losses charging the battery and then discharging it again. Optimistically you're looking at an 85% charging efficiency so you're down to 34%. And that hasn't counted power to the wheels yet.
Not really any different than a gasoline engine and beaten by a high efficiency diesel. In fact, the claimed efficiency on a gasoline powered Atkinson cycle Honda Insight beats it by 6%.
Now, why haven't I heard things like THAT on the MSM who's been plugging electric cars (not that I have anything against electric cars, in fact think they hold promise. But they're less 'green' than what we got).
Perhaps because they like sound bytes and agendas.
Oh, and in the ultimate folly, the City of Berkeley decided to ban NATGAS use (though the stroke of a pen) on new construction there. The MSM was keen to tout the 'greenness' of it and what an advance in reducing carbon footprint.
Except when you look at where California's power comes from that stroke of a pen DOUBLED it. Using the previous numbers you went from a NATGAS powered furnace (close to 95% efficient) down to 40-ish. Or a NATGAS powered water heater (in the 80s for a good one) down to 40. And don't get me started on electric stoves.
SO--these are relatively simple calculations (even for a reporter) -- Why don't we hear it ? Why hasn't some enterprising cub reporter run stories of how electric cars increase emissions ? Why didn't we IMMEDIATELY read media articles critical of Berkeley's decision (which doubled their carbon footprint) -- rather seeing in the media it being a "Landmark" decision towards addressing climate change (even though it unquestionably makes carbon emission go up--to the extent of doubling them--so even if you believe in the carbon scam it makes things significantly worse).
I'm all for informed debate. Only the MSM doesn't inform; it propagandizes, shapes, and parrots. And promotes sloth in drilling down into seeing what the numbers actually are and the reality actually is. By replacing an individuals' due diligence with sound bytes and bumper stickers.
If these ideas are so true and wonderful, why is the court of first resort perpetuated by the MSM always that some regulatory agency pick them up and impose them on peoples through coercion ? Advocating the force of law, fine, and imprisonment in the implementation rather than showing a potential path towards making a better mousetrap. The whole idea is to engage in civil debate such that people can make the correct choice for their situation and if something is so wonderful might want to embrace it.
If someone wants to drive a Prius or Tesla that's fine by me (some Teslas have eye popping acceleration kicking a Corvette's azz FWIW). If they are doing so out of some sense that they're 'saving the planet' (who'll do what she do with our without us), they're delusional. If they are telling ME I have to drive one (or a car that acts like it) then they are wrong--just plain wrong--as is imposing rules that effectively try to make a truck into a Prius. There's no way a state entity can look in from the outside to determine what an individual's wants or needs are; particularly for a vehicle which will have an infinite spectrum of potential missions all unique to the individual.
If you actually look into the matter, you'll find out the lion's share of electrical power is and will continue to be provided by fossils with a greater fraction of nuclear (hopefully) coming online. Main grid power from windmills has been a bust (not to mention that windmills have their OWN externalities and environmental impact -- in fact if you get into the weeds you can show climate disruptions caused by windmills equal to or greater than the great Carbon scam for an equal amount of energy produced--because either is minuscule and dwarfed by other factors. Same as for geothermal and the like--which by running the physics of extracting energy from the earth could result in a minuscule change in the angular momentum of the earth and as such affect it's rotation rate with all the dire climatic effects--on par with whatever Carbon might be doing). Now windmills or solar CAN be a boon when used in off grid applications (where it's expensive to string a power line and/or the individual wants a power source which doesn't rely on the mains -- and the conditions permit its exploitation). So the bottom line is that no one energy source is inherently better than any other; it just becomes a question of which is cost effective and feasible for a particular situation (which has to be determined by the individual IN that situation). Fusion might be here someday; Thorium might augment Uranium in nuclear until it gets here (it shows great promise but the excess neutron flux in the Thorium reactor is probably not as optimistic as its claims; LFTR sounded promising right up to the point the promoter said with a straight face working with Uranium Hexaflouride wasn't a big issue). So I guess in your terms you'd say right wingers chase fusion, left wingers chase windmills.
But getting back to the Tesla; IF you buy into the carbon scam, you are likely going to find out that your Tesla pollutes just as much (if not more) than an equivalent car burning hydrocarbons. Something has to make the energy. That something is probably coal or an oil or NATGAS burning turbine (at least if the 'greens' are looking for as 'green' a source as practical--the rabid greens always living in a never achievable Tomorrowland and using that fairy tale to attempt to justify actions they're taking today on the false premise that the technology exists in the near future which it doesn't. And then sliding that near future forward). The best combined cycle gas turbine plants (which use gas turbines running generators in series with a steam turbine attempting to recover waste heat) operate at around 50% thermodynamic efficiency on a really good day (in order to get overall efficiencies you multiply individual ones)--meaning that out of each 1000 therms (or calories, or joules, or whatever you like) 500 of those actually make it to generated electricity (the NATGAS btw could also be burned directly in a car heat engine with efficiencies somewheres in the 30's). The electricity gets stepped up to transmission voltages, incurs line losses along the way (I squared R), gets stepped down to distribution voltages, gets stepped down again at the house or charging source, and then goes into the battery. Transformer efficiency varies under load; 97% is a good number for a 75kVA transformer at more than 30% of it's nameplate capacity. Line losses are a bit tricker; typical values are around 8-15% depending on how far the electricity goes from source to customer (and varies widely). Split the difference and use 10% losses (90% transmission efficiency).
So when you crunch those numbers, optimistically with today's most advanced power plants, around 41% of the fuel at the power plant becomes electricity at the plug. From there you have to subtract losses charging the battery and then discharging it again. Optimistically you're looking at an 85% charging efficiency so you're down to 34%. And that hasn't counted power to the wheels yet.
Not really any different than a gasoline engine and beaten by a high efficiency diesel. In fact, the claimed efficiency on a gasoline powered Atkinson cycle Honda Insight beats it by 6%.
Now, why haven't I heard things like THAT on the MSM who's been plugging electric cars (not that I have anything against electric cars, in fact think they hold promise. But they're less 'green' than what we got).
Perhaps because they like sound bytes and agendas.
Oh, and in the ultimate folly, the City of Berkeley decided to ban NATGAS use (though the stroke of a pen) on new construction there. The MSM was keen to tout the 'greenness' of it and what an advance in reducing carbon footprint.
Except when you look at where California's power comes from that stroke of a pen DOUBLED it. Using the previous numbers you went from a NATGAS powered furnace (close to 95% efficient) down to 40-ish. Or a NATGAS powered water heater (in the 80s for a good one) down to 40. And don't get me started on electric stoves.
SO--these are relatively simple calculations (even for a reporter) -- Why don't we hear it ? Why hasn't some enterprising cub reporter run stories of how electric cars increase emissions ? Why didn't we IMMEDIATELY read media articles critical of Berkeley's decision (which doubled their carbon footprint) -- rather seeing in the media it being a "Landmark" decision towards addressing climate change (even though it unquestionably makes carbon emission go up--to the extent of doubling them--so even if you believe in the carbon scam it makes things significantly worse).
I'm all for informed debate. Only the MSM doesn't inform; it propagandizes, shapes, and parrots. And promotes sloth in drilling down into seeing what the numbers actually are and the reality actually is. By replacing an individuals' due diligence with sound bytes and bumper stickers.
Last edited by Slasher1; 15th Oct 2020 at 18:33.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MSM distorts and propagandizes one political narrative. Sadly, there are far too many sheeple that unthinkingly buy into their fatuous arguments. If you try to debate most adherents about their tenets, they invariably either cut off the discussion, get emotional or revert to ad hominem attacks. Hopefully there are enough voters who recognise the extreme danger that the Dem party represents to the survival of the USA. The Dems have gone full radical revolutionary extreme left, and their taking power would certainly see America enter a very dark period. If that happens, you can be certain the rest of the world will follow closely behind.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MSM distorts and propagandizes one political narrative. Sadly, there are far too many sheeple that unthinkingly buy into their fatuous arguments. If you try to debate most adherents about their tenets, they invariably either cutoff the discussion, get emotional or revert to ad hominem attacks. Hopefully there are enough voters who recognise the extreme danger that the Dem party represents to the survival of the USA. The Dems have gone full radical revolutionary extreme left, and their taking power would certainly see America enter a very dark period, which would see the collapse of the country as it was founded. If that happens, you can be certain the rest of the world will follow closely behind.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Gold Coast
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fox News is the most popular news station in the world. Fox News IS msm.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...iewership-usa/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...iewership-usa/
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly. There is a wide and very diverse spectrum of media outlets available and people make their own choices.
Slasher, reading your comments, I don't think media is the real issue here. None of your comments on renewable energy are unknown or suppressed by anyone. Just google environment and electric cars, you will find hundreds ( literally) critical reports from a variety of media outlets. Just to give you an example, this report is from the most read left-of-center newspaper in the UK:
https://www.google.com.hk/amp/s/amp....imate-friendly
I think the real issue is your libertarian position. In the end you probably will have to accept some form of majority rule and restrictions of your freedom. We all have.Good luck.
Slasher, reading your comments, I don't think media is the real issue here. None of your comments on renewable energy are unknown or suppressed by anyone. Just google environment and electric cars, you will find hundreds ( literally) critical reports from a variety of media outlets. Just to give you an example, this report is from the most read left-of-center newspaper in the UK:
https://www.google.com.hk/amp/s/amp....imate-friendly
I think the real issue is your libertarian position. In the end you probably will have to accept some form of majority rule and restrictions of your freedom. We all have.Good luck.
Last edited by Sam Ting Wong; 15th Oct 2020 at 21:33.
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: All over
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks. I've been watching decades of tyrannies of the majority fecklessly making some really poor (coercive) decisions based on 'facts' that just ain't so. At the end of the day the 'well-armed John Galt' approach might be one of the few paths available to those who want to prevent the (I believe manipulated) lemmings from taking them along for the ride off the cliff.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CNN, MSNBC, C-SPAN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPBS,...etc, etc. THAT is the MSM. Fox is the only outpost of truth in an ocean of propaganda and lies. If you want to debate policy and events, then happy to do so. I suspect that you don't have the evidence to refute the fact that the entire "Deep State" is aligned against DT and his re-election. Well, the 130M voters who supported his declaration to "drain the swamp" last time will be an even greater number of voters this time. The common sense of the American electorate (in spite of the insanity in Washington) will win the day, and the American experiment will continue. The malignant forces aligned against truth, justice and the American way will go down to defeat again.
To drag us back temporarily to the thread, it seems that the HK stockmarket has some information or prescience about "Friday", whichever "Friday" it happens to be.
0293 is up 12% in the last couple of days.
0293 is up 12% in the last couple of days.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: In a suitcase
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
haha, that's the funniest thing I've read all week. They are all as bad as each other and the if you believe it as wholeheartedly as it seems show a severe lack of critical thinking.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Vietnam
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that to be a bump of optimism surrounding the Hong Kong -Singapore travel bubble announcement yesterday.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. If you keep saying this Friday? Chances are it will be one day (Friday) careful what you wish for. Suspect we all know it’s coming.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ronald Lam, chief customer and commercial officer, admitted in the report that the airline was “facing a long and uncertain road to recovery.” It is burning cash at a rate of HKD1.5-2 billion Hong Kong dollars (USD194-258 million) per month, he said, and “will continue to experience significant cash burn until the market recovers.”
A full restructuring plan could be unveiled in October, he added.
A full restructuring plan could be unveiled in October, he added.