Jump to content

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, mikewof said:

And yet oddly, you have decided to back a demented asshole in Australia over your fellow Americans in Wyoming.

Seek help.

That's a very very telling remark.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 242
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As a community service, I decided to give MIke the benefit of the doubt, so over the last week I have attempted to read his posts and research his position if I was unsure.  The results are now i

Why don't you just assign me a stance and argue against that?  You seem to be comfortable doing so. In the meantime, I am going back to pretending you don't exist.  Go right ahead in your Quixoti

Or not sailors at all. Can't remember too much on the sailing front from the numpty brigade.  Which begs the question...wtf are they here for? Edit: sorry, that's obvious, if they act like t

Posted Images

4 hours ago, Clove Hitch said:

Don't forget him defending Giuliani's attacks on Biden’s election win.

He is one of these Trump 'tards that claims they aren't a Trump 'tard, but somehow parrot Trump's talking points. 

So to get this straight ... you have no actual comments on Wyoming coal, you do use coal power though, but you're only here to use your coal-powered computer to complain about me.

Why not just admit that you're obsessed with me, which will help you handle your obsessed fan thing with a bit more panache?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

That's a very very telling remark.

Not nearly as telling as you thinking that the coal industry's future is in diamonds or your bother-in-law's silver mining efforts.

But as long as your coal-powered lifestyle allows you to live in denial of the coal that powers your lifestyle, it's all good, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mikewof said:

Not nearly as telling as you thinking that the coal industry's future is in diamonds or your bother-in-law's silver mining efforts.

I think you need a break Mikey. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Actually my heating is solar.

Solar thermal? Then the HVAC power and your cooling system still runs on coal.

Solar PV? Then it feeds into Australia's coal grid.

Really sucks when you have to confront the truth you would rather deny, huh?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mikewof said:

Solar thermal? Then the HVAC power and your cooling system still run on coal.

Solar PV? Then it feeds into Australia's coal grid.

Not that sort of solar. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Take a break Mikey.

Kate SFB is wanting some attention over in Corona Anarchy.

 

Isn't this the point where you accuse me of child slavery again? Kind of your go-to safe place? But yeah, I've little doubt that you, Ease, Duh-Raz'r or Clove will inevitably bitch to Clean or someone, it's who you are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mikewof said:

 

Isn't this the point where you accuse me of child slavery again? Kind of your go-to safe place? But yeah, I've little doubt that you, Ease, Duh-Raz'r or Clove will inevitably bitch to Clean or someone, it's who you are.

You're loosing contact (crackle) circuits burning out. Switch off before you crash and burn. Again 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2021 at 1:46 PM, mikewof said:

You know as much about energy as you do Wyoming, which apparently isn't much ... coal isn't particularly expensive.

626px-Levelized_energy_cost_chart_1,_201

So a 2010 report predicting the future costs of power in 2016 is the basis of your argument in 2021? That's scraping the bottom of the barrel of validity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, mikewof said:

As it stands, as far as I know -- at least with Excel Energy and I believe Idaho Power, the coal purchase agreements are still in effect, and the computers that you and I write these replies are still partly and often largely (depending on the time of day) powered by burning coal.

When power purchase agreements are broken (which they often are, for instance Xcel's PPA with our 30 megawatt installation in Alamosa, link) then the utility will try to work something else out, like an early exit, if that doesn't work, then it often ends up in arbitration or court.

You seem to be under the impression that power purchase agreements are rarely broken.

No, I’m wondering why the State is getting involved in corporate agreements. More socialism in red states I suppose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

No, I’m wondering why the State is getting involved in corporate agreements. More socialism in red states I suppose.

You'd think the state would have funding for life after coal, like rare earths?

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ncik said:

So a 2010 report predicting the future costs of power in 2016 is the basis of your argument in 2021? That's scraping the bottom of the barrel of validity.

 

If you bothered to know what the LCOE is, you would understand why it would need to be future costs for coal from 2010, because that was about the end of the road for investment in coal power. The whole point of LCOE is that it's the minimum price that the power needs to be sold for the project to break even over the life of the project. Perhaps you didn't notice, but coal is a twilight product, it's not receiving a whole lot of new investment.

Here are several estimates of the price of coal energy, none of them support Ease the Sheet's ridiculous contention that it's a wildly expensive form of power. The reason coal still survives is because it's NOT a particularly expensive form of power and it's transitioning toward natural gas retrofits.

935021935_ScreenShot2021-05-09at11_16_42PM.thumb.png.df0018ee3ae9485288fbe591a6eb23bd.png

Screen Shot 2021-05-09 at 11.08.52 PM.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

You're loosing contact (crackle) circuits burning out. Switch off before you crash and burn. Again 

No offense lady, but I learned long ago, that nutjobs who claim to understand the delicate emotional states of targets of their psychopathy, tend to read what they see in the mirror.

The way to shut me off is to complain to the mods, like you seem to love to do. Go ahead, you know you want to ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, mikewof said:

No offense lady, but I learned long ago, that nutjobs who claim to understand the delicate emotional states of targets of their psychopathy, tend to read what they see in the mirror.

The way to shut me off is to complain to the mods, like you seem to love to do. Go ahead, you know you want to ...

Mike, for the record I have never complained to the mods about you.

If people do, it's most likely they feel you're heading for a breakdown and in your interests.

I stopped reading your long rants a long tome ago

Link to post
Share on other sites

@mikewofso, wyomin' wants to continue to commit industrial scale ecocide, and on top of that will sue states to open markets for it? 

that's nasty as fk, and beyond rationalizing. guess wyomin' can eat shit and die..

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:
38 minutes ago, mikewof said:

No offense lady, but I learned long ago, that nutjobs who claim to understand the delicate emotional states of targets of their psychopathy, tend to read what they see in the mirror.

The way to shut me off is to complain to the mods, like you seem to love to do. Go ahead, you know you want to ...

Mike, for the record I have never complained to the mods about you.

If people do, it's most likely they feel you're heading for a breakdown and in your interests.

The way to shut him off is the ignore button.

Works really well, fast, simple...

What's not to like?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mikewof said:

coal is dying

well knock me down with a feather ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikewof said:

 

If you bothered to know what the LCOE is, you would understand why it would need to be future costs for coal from 2010, because that was about the end of the road for investment in coal power. The whole point of LCOE is that it's the minimum price that the power needs to be sold for the project to break even over the life of the project. Perhaps you didn't notice, but coal is a twilight product, it's not receiving a whole lot of new investment.

Here are several estimates of the price of coal energy, none of them support Ease the Sheet's ridiculous contention that it's a wildly expensive form of power. The reason coal still survives is because it's NOT a particularly expensive form of power and it's transitioning toward natural gas retrofits.

935021935_ScreenShot2021-05-09at11_16_42PM.thumb.png.df0018ee3ae9485288fbe591a6eb23bd.png

Screen Shot 2021-05-09 at 11.08.52 PM.png

It's so cheap, Wyoming can't sell it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2021 at 12:20 AM, Ishmael said:

A new state law has created a $1.2m fund to be used by Wyoming’s governor to take legal action against other states that opt to power themselves with clean energy such as solar and wind, in order to meet targets to tackle the climate crisis, rather than burn Wyoming’s coal.

but that article conveniently fails to mention. 

On 5/8/2021 at 4:44 AM, mikewof said:

They're likely not going to waste that money suing states with whom they don't have contractual understandings

Oh, but here it is. 

On 5/8/2021 at 12:20 AM, Ishmael said:

Mark Gordon, the Republican governor of the deeply conservative state, which strongly backed Donald Trump in the last two presidential elections.

 

On 5/8/2021 at 12:20 AM, Ishmael said:

Trump promised, but failed, to revive a coal industry in deep decline across the US

Trump lives in your head. You can't turn it off.  :D 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Ah. makes sense.

We've probably something similar in our constitution, but I confess I think I read it only once in my year 12 politics class :D

 

Section 92 is - I think - on point here.

Though it too has been abused by one or more States at various times.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Not that sort of solar. :D

Mikey probably doesn't realise that Tasmania sells hydro power to Victoria, and he's probably never heard of the Snowy Mountains Hydro system either.

Poor Mikey. If only he'd ever spent some time in Australia, he might have a clue.

But probably not.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Mikey probably doesn't realise that Tasmania sells hydro power to Victoria, and he's probably never heard of the Snowy Mountains Hydro system either.

Poor Mikey. If only he'd ever spent some time in Australia, he might have a clue.

But probably not.

FKT

I was actually referring to wooly jumper assisted sunshine on windows . :)

I've got gas central heating throughout. But seeing as there's only me, Boo and the cats in here in my 1.5 million dollar mansion, and temps indoors are always 16 degrees + ,I don't use it

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

I was actually referring to wooly jumper assisted sunshine on windows . :)

I've got gas central heating throughout. But seeing as there's only me, Boo and the cats in here in my 1.5 million dollar mansion, and temps indoors are always 16 degrees + ,I don't use it

Thought you were referring to one of those evacuated tube or other tech water heaters actually.

My place here in Tasmania has really good solar gain.

Unfortunately it's raining, cold and windy ATM so I run the wood fire and/or reverse cycle heat pump. I got cold enough and wet enough moving the boat from its home mooring to the boat yard today, no need to overdo it. Nice to come back to a warm cottage.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mikewof said:

And yet oddly, you have decided to back a demented asshole in Australia over your fellow Americans in Wyoming.

Seek help.

You sure like to lump people together.  In your mind, me having even a tangential agreement with another poster means I'm sucking him off.

If we use that measure, you have got to be the biggest Trumpublican on the boards.  Maybe you like Cream of Mushroom soup.  dab your chin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Mike, for the record I have never complained to the mods about you.

If people do, it's most likely they feel you're heading for a breakdown and in your interests.

I stopped reading your long rants a long tome ago

Well played.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

The way to shut him off is the ignore button.

Works really well, fast, simple...

What's not to like?

Like so:

You've chosen to ignore content by mikewof. Options 

You've chosen to ignore content by mikewof. Options 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:
7 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Mike ...

I stopped reading your long rants a long tome ago

Well played.

Well, she -is- a librarian

Or, as a wise man once said (ok posted) "Some people have a way with words. Other people not have way."

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

Well, she -is- a librarian

Or, as a wise man once said (ok posted) "Some people have a way with words. Other people not have way."

- DSK

Thank you. But. I'm not a librarian. I just work in a Library :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

You sure like to lump people together.  In your mind, me having even a tangential agreement with another poster means I'm sucking him off.

If we use that measure, you have got to be the biggest Trumpublican on the boards.  Maybe you like Cream of Mushroom soup.  dab your chin.

I just wrote about Cream of Mushroom in the Tuna Casserole thread.

Anyway, if everyone who insults you is in fact a "Tumpublican" then he would have won a second term.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Mike, for the record I have never complained to the mods about you.

If people do, it's most likely they feel you're heading for a breakdown and in your interests.

I stopped reading your long rants a long tome ago

They're not for you, anyway.

Think of my posts as that section of the library outside of the children's section ... you know, that part of the library you've never visited? Again, people who see those around them as "heading for a breakdown" often are only able to reflect their own internal conflicts and imminent emotional collapse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mikewof said:

 

Any thoughts as to why the state of Wyoming is stepping into legal conflict between Supplier and Customer? I guess that at least as a professed leftie, you don’t mind the expansion of govt role to include taking sides in commercial disputes, as opposed to adjudicating them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Mikey probably doesn't realise that Tasmania sells hydro power to Victoria, and he's probably never heard of the Snowy Mountains Hydro system either.

Poor Mikey. If only he'd ever spent some time in Australia, he might have a clue.

But probably not.

FKT

I used to live in Australia, I have a clue ... a clue that your Tasmanian hydropower is a bit more than a drop in the bucket, and nearly as environmentally damaging as coal ...

1637955138_ScreenShot2021-05-10at1_43_26PM.png.a24c7eeb03d36a6aed53c0f34ba63bf3.png

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Any thoughts as to why the state of Wyoming is stepping into legal conflict between Supplier and Customer? I guess that at least as a professed leftie, you don’t mind the expansion of govt role to include taking sides in commercial disputes, as opposed to adjudicating them.

What legal conflict? Please be specific ... do you have a specific court case or lawsuit in mind?

I can't effectively discuss something for which even you don't have details. Name the case and we can discuss ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mikewof said:

What legal conflict? Please be specific ... do you have a specific court case or lawsuit in mind?

I can't effectively discuss something for which even you don't have details. Name the case and we can discuss ...

Why did they just allocate $1.5m for legal fees to get involved in legal conflict. Focus man.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

It's so cheap, Wyoming can't sell it.

Yeah, you finally get the idea. Coal is dying, and it's cheaper for some of these utilities to break their PPEs and pay for the exit.

But if Wyoming plays its cards right, they can hopefully transition some of the PPEs to Wyoming natural gas and do some investments in REEs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Why did they just allocate $1.5m for legal fees to get involved in legal conflict. Focus man.

You claimed that Wyoming is "stepping into legal conflict between Supplier and Customer?" Okay what is the "legal conflict"?

Allocating money for attorneys fees that you might need later is just the business of government, discretionary fees aren't always available. So again, if you truly have "focus" what is the "legal conflict" you claimed?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, 3to1 said:

@mikewofso, wyomin' wants to continue to commit industrial scale ecocide, and on top of that will sue states to open markets for it? 

that's nasty as fk, and beyond rationalizing. guess wyomin' can eat shit and die..

Wyoming has some of the best environmental, fish, game and water protection in the region. They're not the enemy here.

If you want an enemy, open up your power bill, call the the Public Information Officer for your power utility, and ask what percentage of your power comes from coal. Next, walk over to the mirror and look at the face there, because ultimately, it's those faces in mirrors, the consumers who are buying all that coal energy who "commit industrial scale ecocide."

Just look at this thread ... it was started by an Australian and we have a handful of Australians who have thrown their arms into the air about coal, when those Aussies are more than happy to not only burn lots of coal for their own power, but also export 70% of what they don't burn to the rest of the world. So if Australia wants to continue to commit industrial scale ecocide, should they "eat shit and die" as well?

Ironically, Australia has also dipped their toe into these conflicting waters, but it seems our local Aussies would rather you not know about that. Once COVID became the flavor of the day, Australia launched a bunch of somewhat anti-Asian probes to demand that independent investigators get into Wuhan to look into the origins of COVID. China was offended, so they blacklisted Australian imports of coal and food. Suddenly a bunch of Aussies are on the hook for a half billion dollars or so worth of coal, meat and barley that wasn't allowed into Australia. So then Australia goes fully tin-hat, even worse than Meli and FKT, and suddenly decide that China is trying to deliberately screw with the mental health of Australians and they cancelled their pending infrastructure deals with China, who already known as the single biggest industrial polluter on the planet, but that didn't bother Australia at all when they inked the deals ...

https://www.startribune.com/australia-ends-china-deals-on-national-interest-grounds/600048431/

Long story short, Australia is increasingly becoming the hysterical nutjob at the end of the block who stockpiles zombie provisions and gets into throwing bags of flaming shit up and down the global sidewalk. They can say what they like, but they did increasingly see themselves as part of the Asian sphere of commerce and infrastructure, and now they're getting cold feet and pining for the days of working with the USA and Canada.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, mikewof said:

 

That's your entire thesis, that Wyoming needs to sue so that folks who made purchase agreements hold up their end of the bargain.

 

Why is it the state of Wyoming's responsibility, and not the mines?

Focus!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikewof said:

Anyway, if everyone who insults you is in fact a "Tumpublican" then he would have won a second term.

I used your criteria for lumping folks together and you just argued how stupid it is.  Bravo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I used your criteria for lumping folks together and you just argued how stupid it is.  Bravo.

I'm fine with your nonsense, it's the math that objects.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

That's your entire thesis, that Wyoming needs to sue so that folks who made purchase agreements hold up their end of the bargain.

 

Why is it the state of Wyoming's responsibility, and not the mines?

Focus!

 

Think of a power purchase agreement much like any other resources contract; both the agreements, the exit and the objections are usually accompanied by specific legal actions. As for Wyoming, they're doing what States do, they work with their industries ... same as California does with agricultural water, and New York does for finance. They invest in their industries, advocate for them, sometimes go into legal battle with them. Your state does it, my state does it, Wyoming does it.

Now, back to the "legal conflict" you keep mentioning ... what are the specifics of this? Where is the lawsuit? Do you have any details about this "legal conflict"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, mikewof said:

 

Forget your ADD meds? Post #1

 

A new state law has created a $1.2m fund to be used by Wyoming’s governor to take legal action against other states that opt to power themselves with clean energy such as solar and wind, in order to meet targets to tackle the climate crisis, rather than burn Wyoming’s coal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Forget your ADD meds? Post #1

 

A new state law has created a $1.2m fund to be used by Wyoming’s governor to take legal action against other states that opt to power themselves with clean energy such as solar and wind, in order to meet targets to tackle the climate crisis, rather than burn Wyoming’s coal.

How dare those states "opt" to do that.  We need to force them to buy that coal.  If Wyoming suing them is what it takes, we know who is "for" that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mikewof said:

Wyoming has some of the best environmental, fish, game and water protection in the region. They're not the enemy here.

If you want an enemy, open up your power bill, call the the Public Information Officer for your power utility, and ask what percentage of your power comes from coal. Next, walk over to the mirror and look at the face there, because ultimately, it's those faces in mirrors, the consumers who are buying all that coal energy who "commit industrial scale ecocide."

Just look at this thread ... it was started by an Australian and we have a handful of Australians who have thrown their arms into the air about coal, when those Aussies are more than happy to not only burn lots of coal for their own power, but also export 70% of what they don't burn to the rest of the world. So if Australia wants to continue to commit industrial scale ecocide, should they "eat shit and die" as well?

Ironically, Australia has also dipped their toe into these conflicting waters, but it seems our local Aussies would rather you not know about that. Once COVID became the flavor of the day, Australia launched a bunch of somewhat anti-Asian probes to demand that independent investigators get into Wuhan to look into the origins of COVID. China was offended, so they blacklisted Australian imports of coal and food. Suddenly a bunch of Aussies are on the hook for a half billion dollars or so worth of coal, meat and barley that wasn't allowed into Australia. So then Australia goes fully tin-hat, even worse than Meli and FKT, and suddenly decide that China is trying to deliberately screw with the mental health of Australians and they cancelled their pending infrastructure deals with China, who already known as the single biggest industrial polluter on the planet, but that didn't bother Australia at all when they inked the deals ...

https://www.startribune.com/australia-ends-china-deals-on-national-interest-grounds/600048431/

Long story short, Australia is increasingly becoming the hysterical nutjob at the end of the block who stockpiles zombie provisions and gets into throwing bags of flaming shit up and down the global sidewalk. They can say what they like, but they did increasingly see themselves as part of the Asian sphere of commerce and infrastructure, and now they're getting cold feet and pining for the days of working with the USA and Canada.

do I tap into an energy grid that's far more wasteful and detrimental than it has to be, yup. am I the reTurdlican gubmint of a red state that mines coal for use as an irresponsible energy source, no. and yes, fuck 'em here in this matter.

what are you doing here Mikey, throwing around borderline irrelevant claims of hypocrisy (and admittedly, it's obviously not without some validity) when wyomin' is going full reTurdlican in this matter exactly where they shouldn't; environmentally in 2021. this turd here isn't worth polishing, the fk are you really trying to achieve?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

do I tap into an energy grid that's far more wasteful and detrimental than it has to be, yup. am I the reTurdlican gubmint of a red state that mines coal for use as an irresponsible energy source, no. and yes, fuck 'em here in this matter.

what are you doing here Mikey, throwing around borderline irrelevant claims of hypocrisy (and admittedly, it's obviously not without some validity) when wyomin' is going full reTurdlican in this matter exactly where they shouldn't; environmentally in 2021. this turd here isn't worth polishing, the fk are you really trying to achieve?

His ADD will kick in and he’ll talk about rare earths again. (Btw, read this weekend that a mining co broke ground in the US recently to mine said metals...) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, mikewof said:

 

If you bothered to know what the LCOE is, you would understand why it would need to be future costs for coal from 2010, because that was about the end of the road for investment in coal power. The whole point of LCOE is that it's the minimum price that the power needs to be sold for the project to break even over the life of the project. Perhaps you didn't notice, but coal is a twilight product, it's not receiving a whole lot of new investment.

Here are several estimates of the price of coal energy, none of them support Ease the Sheet's ridiculous contention that it's a wildly expensive form of power. The reason coal still survives is because it's NOT a particularly expensive form of power and it's transitioning toward natural gas retrofits.

935021935_ScreenShot2021-05-09at11_16_42PM.thumb.png.df0018ee3ae9485288fbe591a6eb23bd.png

Screen Shot 2021-05-09 at 11.08.52 PM.png

You've missed the point...my simple argument is that your data is old, so stop relying on it. Power costs have changed markedly since 2010, or even 2016, and will continue to do so.

Market forces are driving demand away from coal, and some state suing others for not buying said coal isn't going to change that. Careers come and go based on demand. That puny $1.2million should go to re-training and developing emerging markets, not lawyers pockets.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

do I tap into an energy grid that's far more wasteful and detrimental than it has to be, yup. am I the reTurdlican gubmint of a red state that mines coal for use as an irresponsible energy source, no. and yes, fuck 'em here in this matter.

what are you doing here Mikey, throwing around borderline irrelevant claims of hypocrisy (and admittedly, it's obviously not without some validity) when wyomin' is going full reTurdlican in this matter exactly where they shouldn't; environmentally in 2021. this turd here isn't worth polishing, the fk are you really trying to achieve?

He's trolling.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Forget your ADD meds? Post #1

 

A new state law has created a $1.2m fund to be used by Wyoming’s governor to take legal action against other states that opt to power themselves with clean energy such as solar and wind, in order to meet targets to tackle the climate crisis, rather than burn Wyoming’s coal.

You wrote that there is a "legal conflict between supplier and customer." Allocating money for possible incursions against existing power purchase agreements is not a "legal conflict between supplier and customer." It might help pay for one someday, but it isn't a a legal conflict.

So again, what is the "legal conflict"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 3to1 said:

do I tap into an energy grid that's far more wasteful and detrimental than it has to be, yup. am I the reTurdlican gubmint of a red state that mines coal for use as an irresponsible energy source, no. and yes, fuck 'em here in this matter.

what are you doing here Mikey, throwing around borderline irrelevant claims of hypocrisy (and admittedly, it's obviously not without some validity) when wyomin' is going full reTurdlican in this matter exactly where they shouldn't; environmentally in 2021. this turd here isn't worth polishing, the fk are you really trying to achieve?

You claimed that Wyoming is anti-environment. They are only as anti-environment as we are for continuing to buy and use coal.

So what are you trying to achieve here, by demonizing Wyoming? They're a drop in the bucket compared to Australia, why not demonize Australia? Why is Australia not committing "industrial scale ecocide" as you put it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mikewof said:

Wyoming has some of the best environmental, fish, game and water protection in the region. They're not the enemy here.

If you want an enemy, open up your power bill, call the the Public Information Officer for your power utility, and ask what percentage of your power comes from coal. Next, walk over to the mirror and look at the face there, because ultimately, it's those faces in mirrors, the consumers who are buying all that coal energy who "commit industrial scale ecocide."

Just look at this thread ... it was started by an Australian and we have a handful of Australians who have thrown their arms into the air about coal, when those Aussies are more than happy to not only burn lots of coal for their own power, but also export 70% of what they don't burn to the rest of the world. So if Australia wants to continue to commit industrial scale ecocide, should they "eat shit and die" as well?

Ironically, Australia has also dipped their toe into these conflicting waters, but it seems our local Aussies would rather you not know about that. Once COVID became the flavor of the day, Australia launched a bunch of somewhat anti-Asian probes to demand that independent investigators get into Wuhan to look into the origins of COVID. China was offended, so they blacklisted Australian imports of coal and food. Suddenly a bunch of Aussies are on the hook for a half billion dollars or so worth of coal, meat and barley that wasn't allowed into Australia. So then Australia goes fully tin-hat, even worse than Meli and FKT, and suddenly decide that China is trying to deliberately screw with the mental health of Australians and they cancelled their pending infrastructure deals with China, who already known as the single biggest industrial polluter on the planet, but that didn't bother Australia at all when they inked the deals ...

https://www.startribune.com/australia-ends-china-deals-on-national-interest-grounds/600048431/

Long story short, Australia is increasingly becoming the hysterical nutjob at the end of the block who stockpiles zombie provisions and gets into throwing bags of flaming shit up and down the global sidewalk. They can say what they like, but they did increasingly see themselves as part of the Asian sphere of commerce and infrastructure, and now they're getting cold feet and pining for the days of working with the USA and Canada.

Christ on a fucking cross, where do these jackoffs get all this time to type all this shit?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, pusslicker said:

where do these jackoffs get all this time to type all this shit?

Uh, they're not sailing enough?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

Uh, they're not sailing enough?

Or not sailors at all. Can't remember too much on the sailing front from the numpty brigade. 

Which begs the question...wtf are they here for?

Edit: sorry, that's obvious, if they act like they do here in real life, they're the loneliest fuckers on the planet and just gagging for any form of interaction. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Ncik said:

You've missed the point...my simple argument is that your data is old, so stop relying on it. Power costs have changed markedly since 2010, or even 2016, and will continue to do so.

Market forces are driving demand away from coal, and some state suing others for not buying said coal isn't going to change that. Careers come and go based on demand. That puny $1.2million should go to re-training and developing emerging markets, not lawyers pockets.

I posted more current data, it hasn't changed the price of coal much. Regardless what Ease the Sheet claims, coal is an average-priced source of energy, it is not particularly expensive.

And yes, the puny $1.2 million will ideally go into re-training, and transitioning from coal to natural gas, rare earth elements and renewables. The lawyers are going to get involved because they always get involved with power purchase agreements. But the real opportunity is in using the remainder of those coal PPAs for emerging technologies. If Wyoming doesn't protect their interests, they'll just get shit on, like always.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, shaggybaxter said:

Or not sailors at all. Can't remember too much on the sailing front from the numpty brigade. 

Which begs the question...wtf are they here for?

Edit: sorry, that's obvious, if they act like they do here in real life, they're the loneliest fuckers on the planet and just gagging for any form of interaction. 

And yet, here you are, one of the loneliest fuckers on the planet, just gagging for any form of interaction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mikewof said:

And yet, here you are, one of the loneliest fuckers on the planet, just gagging for any form of interaction.

:)

Oh contraire, the LAST thing I am looking for is more interaction, trust me. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, pusslicker said:

Christ on a fucking cross, where do these jackoffs get all this time to type all this shit?

Sweet Smoking Mary, you might not realize it, but some of us are sufficiently literate that we can type "all this shit" in less time than it takes you to struggle with the Velcro straps on your shoes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Sweet Smoking Mary, you might not realize it, but some of us are sufficiently literate that we can type "all this shit" in less time than it takes a dipshit like you to struggle with the Velcro straps on your shoes.

And if you ask nicely, one of us might teach you one day how to do it. 

As a bonus, we could teach you how to write properly too. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, shaggybaxter said:

And if you ask nicely, one of us might teach you one day how to do it. 

As a bonus, we might teach you how to write properly too. 

Thanks, but I suspect I've forgotten more than you've ever learned about neutrinos.

You might know something about assorted vegetables, there are likely a lot of those in the establishment in which you are currently institutionalized.

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, mikewof said:

 

So why are they claiming to set aside money to sue? Don’t be a Dog or a Tom. You’re above that, I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mikewof said:

You claimed that Wyoming is anti-environment. They are only as anti-environment as we are for continuing to buy and use coal.

So what are you trying to achieve here, by demonizing Wyoming? They're a drop in the bucket compared to Australia, why not demonize Australia? Why is Australia not committing "industrial scale ecocide" as you put it?

australia is shitting the bed too (hell, who isn't), but the thread was about wyoming (and your garden variety special 'merican right-wing dumbfucks). 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, 3to1 said:

australia is shitting the bed too (hell, who isn't), but the thread was about wyoming (and your garden variety special 'merican right-wing dumbfucks).

Spend some time around the West. You'll see Colorado manhandle our wildlife migrations and the privatize access to resources, you'll see Idaho lease out critical wildlife migration routes to BLM profiteering, you'll see Montana sell off critical public lands, you'll see Arizona, California and Utah screw the pooch on water. But Wyoming "gets it." They protect their natural resources remarkably well.

Regardless your assumed superiority of the average Wyomingan's poltiics, their contribution in the coal space is fleeting compared to what came out of West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Wyoming found themselves in the space because a state that small doesn't have a lot of options. And it helps nobody in the country to label them "dumbfucks". The opportunity with Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Colorado, and even a little chunk here and there of California is right in front of us.

In a decade or two, when your political-driven exclusion seems kind of quaint, the world is going to mainlined into rare earth elements like you can't possibly imagine. It's like the book Dune, where "spice" and water runs the planet. None of this shit works without REEs, not electric vehicles, not computers, not wind turbines, solar panels, robots, microprocessors, nanotechnology, advanced energy. It all needs REEs. We have the opportunity to put this political bullshit aside and actually develop a domestic REE industry, but unfortunately, the dimwits of the ages are too busy defining things through politics. It's become the new religion ... these politicians are a bunch of useless dead weight drug addicted criminals. (I took that from a personal conversation with Woody.) Why in the living fuck do so many Americans worship these politicians like deities? Does it give them everlasting life?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Raz'r said:

So why are they claiming to set aside money to sue? Don’t be a Dog or a Tom. You’re above that, I think.

They set aside money for potential legal actions. Most PPAs involve legal action and close to 100% of breached PPAs involve legal action.

So, again, is that the same thing as "legal conflict between supplier and customer"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2021 at 7:52 AM, Shortforbob said:

"While the US constitution’s commerce clause prevents one state from banning goods and services based upon their state of origin, there is nothing to prevent them banning certain things, such as coal, as long as the measure is not targeted at one specific state."

Why is that clause there? 

Surely that would mean if one state has a diseased crop or foot and mouth, other states can't ban products from that state?

Weird.

 

States can and do ban the import and movement of diseased animals.   Exceptions are sometimes made for animals moving to slaughter, depending on the disease, risk to humans, animal suffering, etc.   Movement of livestock across state lines is heavily regulated and increasingly enforced.   This is one of several areas where the Constitution doesn't mean what it says, but has been re-interpreted to allow for reality.   Often the result isn't a ban, but a series of regulatory hurdles before livestock can be moved (identification, testing, examination, vaccination, limitations to steers or animals too young to breed in the case of STD (Brucella Abortis), etc.  

In the absence of safety regulation, the states cannot interfere with commerce.   This was written in to prevent larger states from bullying smaller states or preventing them from developing economies as future competition.   For example, Ohio and Michigan couldn't stop southern states from building car factories.   They can't tariff southern made cars.  They can under limited circumstances enact environmental regulation exceeding federal regulation, as California did.  This power is under scrutiny of the relevant federal agencies and courts, to prevent overreach.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, mikewof said:

 

That's what you said it was, Wyoming suing as customers aren't living up to purchase agreements. Change your mind?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2021 at 11:13 PM, Ease the sheet. said:

You'd think the state would have funding for life after coal, like rare earths?

Just curious ... as a layperson, do you have a rudimentary understanding of what REEs actually do and why they are generally irreplaceable?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Nice! said:

If only there was some way they could have known that the demand for coal would be reduced over time.

The fact that Wyoming is in the coal game rather than West Virginia and Pennsylvania (and they have cleaner-burning, harder coal than Wyoming) is testament to the reality that everyone with even a modicum of understanding knows that coal is a twilight energy source.

But the PPAs were written because the reality is that the computer you used to type that message, and the heating, cooling , and ventilation in your home is still largely powered by coal.

We're not in the same league of bad as Australia, but still ...

US%2520Primary%2520Energy%2520Consumptio

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikewof said:

Spend some time around the West. You'll see Colorado manhandle our wildlife migrations and the privatize access to resources, you'll see Idaho lease out critical wildlife migration routes to BLM profiteering, you'll see Montana sell off critical public lands, you'll see Arizona, California and Utah screw the pooch on water. But Wyoming "gets it." They protect their natural resources remarkably well.

Regardless your assumed superiority of the average Wyomingan's poltiics, their contribution in the coal space is fleeting compared to what came out of West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Wyoming found themselves in the space because a state that small doesn't have a lot of options. And it helps nobody in the country to label them "dumbfucks". The opportunity with Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Colorado, and even a little chunk here and there of California is right in front of us.

In a decade or two, when your political-driven exclusion seems kind of quaint, the world is going to mainlined into rare earth elements like you can't possibly imagine. It's like the book Dune, where "spice" and water runs the planet. None of this shit works without REEs, not electric vehicles, not computers, not wind turbines, solar panels, robots, microprocessors, nanotechnology, advanced energy. It all needs REEs. We have the opportunity to put this political bullshit aside and actually develop a domestic REE industry, but unfortunately, the dimwits of the ages are too busy defining things through politics. It's become the new religion ... these politicians are a bunch of useless dead weight drug addicted criminals. (I took that from a personal conversation with Woody.) Why in the living fuck do so many Americans worship these politicians like deities? Does it give them everlasting life?

 

gee yea that's fkn' swell and all, but how are we going to stop exploiting the planet to death, you know, the 'ol elephant in the room. that's the top priority in the short and especially long term as opposed to the relatively shortsighted economic/energy fuckery which would make sense, I guess, if we didn't exist on a living world which doesn't give a shit about our high maintenance needs and wants. that's the biggest of the big pictures, so where's the fkn' sense of true urgency concerning it?

in other words, 'it ain't all about us'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mikewof said:

But the PPAs were written because the reality is that the computer you used to type that message, and the heating, cooling , and ventilation in your home is still partly powered by coal.

Nope. It's almost all hydro where I live. There's also bit of wind and solar for good measure. That said, your comment is a distraction from my point, which is that dwindling coal demand was easily predictable several decades ago. Kinda like oil now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nice! said:

Nope. It's almost all hydro where I live. There's also bit of wind and solar for good measure. That said, your comment is a distraction from my point, which is that dwindling coal demand was easily predictable several decades ago. Kinda like oil now.

You may have a lot of hydro near where you live (which is often more environmentally-damaging then coal, btw) but just because you live near a hydro plant doesn't mean the electrons in your lines come from mainly hydro. That's not how a regional grid works. It's more like a whorehouse ... whatever crabs and lice are in that place, tend to be equally spread among the customers.

I have 6 kW of solar power on my roof, ostensibly enough for all of my power. But the reality is that I use just as many coal-powered electrons as anyone else, because it's a grid-tie system.

Now, to your point ... coal demand has dwindled because of natural gas, and more specifically, the economics of fracking. Your computer and your home are not only powered by coal, but they are hugely powered by fracking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there's a lot of talk about energy sources, where's the talk about vastly lower global energy demands?? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mikewof said:

You may have a lot of hydro near where you live (which is often more environmentally-damaging then coal, btw) but just because you live near a hydro plant doesn't mean the electrons in your lines come from mainly hydro. That's not how a regional grid works. It's more like a whorehouse ... whatever crabs and lice are in that place, tend to be equally spread among the customers.

Whatever. Coal is dead. Get over it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

gee yea that's fkn' swell and all, but how are we going to stop exploiting the planet to death, you know, the 'ol elephant in the room. that's the top priority in the short and especially long term as opposed to the relatively shortsighted economic/energy fuckery which would make sense, I guess, if we didn't exist on a living world which doesn't give a shit about our high maintenance needs and wants. that's the biggest of the big pictures, so where's the fkn' sense of true urgency concerning it?

in other words, 'it ain't all about us'.

We're making good progress, assuming we all ignore the OTHER elephant in the room. We have dramatically increased the amount of wind energy and solar energy in our energy mix, we're gradually transitioning over from the old destructive hydropower to more ecologically-balanced run-of-river hydro. We have transitioned from nuclear and coal to natural gas, which is a half-decent filler until we can build energy storage with pumped power, hydrogen and compressed air storage. We have seen huge improvements with energy efficiency in buildings, with the rise of high-efficiency LEDs lights that have actually inverted the commercial HVAC space, to the point where internal commercial loads are often now balanced with external loads ... some buildings are actually down to just their mandatory air exchanges!

We absolutely have made a lot of progress, and we do it because we do love the Earth, and we want to improve on the shitpile that we were handed with the primaries of nuclear and coal. Ten years ago here in SA, even the granola munchers and tree-huggers used to be annoyed by my constant trumpeting of "low-entropy power production." Now it's 2021, and low-entropy power production is growing fast that we can manage it. We're looking at emerging sources in ocean power, geothermal, advanced solar and advanced wind, and especially energy storage. It's here now and it's growing.

But the "other" elephant in the room IS the fact that China controls 98% of the Rare Earth Elements industry. None of this low-entropy, environmentally-sustainable energy and efficiency works without REEs. The LED lighting needs REEs, the wind turbines and solar panels need them, the advanced, high-efficiency turbines need them, the heat exchanges, the smart grids, the superconductors, the electric vehicles, the batteries, the hydrogen fuel cells. Nothing works without REEs.

So when you brush off Wyoming with a "yea that's fkn' swell" you also brush off the opportunity we have transition to a genuinely sustainable REE infrastructure, where we don't contaminate the planet by pulling REEs out the ground. We can do it much cleaner and more sustainably than China.

And in case you didn't know, this is what a once-pristine river looks like after China needed it for REE production ...

Standaert_China-Rare-Earths_2_web.jpg

You can read more about it here: https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-wrestles-with-the-toxic-aftermath-of-rare-earth-mining

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Nice! said:

Whatever. Coal is dead. Get over it.

Coal is still alive, you just choose to ignore the energy you get from coal.

Actual energy managers don't have that luxury.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

there's a lot of talk about energy sources, where's the talk about vastly lower global energy demands?? 

It's happening in North America and Europe, and gradually spreading to Asia.

The LED light has been one of the biggest changes, because they light efficiently, but more than that, they don't product much waste heat that needs to be removed by commercial HVAC systems. And the LED lighting industry barely existed before Obama, that's practically a technological explosion, ignore it at your peril. Building insulation has improved, windows have improved. Vehicle efficiency hasn't improved much, in fact electric vehicles are in many ways more polluting than gasoline vehicles. But now we have telework, which helps. Industrial efficiency has improved. Solar has grown very fast, all these homes now have decent-sized photovolatic arrays on the roof where there none just a few years ago. My roof has 6 kw of solar up there and it has fed the region grid steady for about six years now with zero maintenance. We have energy storage on a scale now that we could have never imagined twenty years ago, with megawatts and even gigawatts of compressed air power and pumped power on-demand as the grid demands it.

These changes are happening because millions of people have devoted their careers to these efficiency improvements. If you don't know about them, it doesn't mean they don't exist, it just means you haven't learned about them yet. But efficiency is damned near a religion to the people who work on it ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Just curious ... 

Just curious, do you realize that you sound like a condescending ass?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, pusslicker said:

Christ on a fucking cross, where do these jackoffs get all this time to type all this shit?

It's woofsie, He probably has dragonspeak or something...  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1*XRa2SMveRrEtfEyfODHrcA.png

Lots of logical fallacies in this thread so far. You don't have to be a hermit to criticize the status quo--it is possible to both live in a society and want it to become somewhat better in the future.

 

For example, two ways I want our society to improve is better understanding the true cost of coal power. Sure it's the cheapest the second cheapest power source out there. It's easier and faster to build a coal power plant than a nuclear one. But the costs of coal go beyond those of digging it up and burning it.

 

What-is-the-safest-form-of-energy.png

 

These are pretty depressing facts. Coal kills 1,000x more of the people it provides power for than solar photovoltaic. We have literally tens of thousands of cases of cancers in the USA each year which are solely due to burning coal, treated at colossal cost by public and private insurers and leading to huge and avoidable numbers of deaths. Natural gas is barely 10% as harmful as coal and it's still two orders of magnitude more deadly than solar. And the sources for this chart do not represent the "intangible" damage of a polluted and poisoned environment for the next 1,000 generations of humans to enjoy.

 

The response to any mention of renewables is always to point out that the power grid as it stands now couldn't bear a full conversion to renewables only. But this is a strawman fallacy. No reasonable people are talking about smashing all the coal plants starting tomorrow. The conversion to renewables will require several decades of adjustment, grid upgrades, and will probably involve burning a lot of natural gas in the meantime. Accepting that is still consistent with not wanting to continue investment in coal, an obviously flawed and regressive solution to power generation, today.

 

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700

 

I live in a state which is the 5th least dependent state on the Federal government. Altogether, my state of Massachusetts pays about 20-25% more in federal taxes than we receive in federal spending. Wyoming is the 12th most dependent state and, like the vast majority of red states, receives more in federal spending than they pay in taxes. It seems like Wyoming gets a pretty sweet deal to me: the republican-leaning population doesn't want to pay taxes and their politicians won't ask, so it falls to people in blue states to fund the shortfall. Massachusetts with 11x the population as Wyoming gets the same number of senators in the Senate, and 9 representatives in congress to Wyoming's 1, still in Wyoming's favor.

 

This seems to me, a mere liberal-arts-overeducated libtarded coastal elite, something very much like taxation without equal representation. And when Wyoming turns around and threatens to sue my state with the tax money I paid to subsidize their low-tax Republican dreamland unless I accept the coal which would kill 1,300 people in my state each year (~55 TWh annual MA energy consumption * ~24 deaths per TWh from coal) and cause countless more avoidable cancers, it makes me pretty peeved. But sue me for being annoyed I guess! Gotta spend that $1.2 million somewhere!

  • Like 2