DURR it's cold outside there can't be no global warming or hurrrrr

[Gulo Blue]

It's not difficult and yet, many people are unaware and want to spend billions if not trillions getting off of fossil fuels - making that change would make the grid less not more reliable. "Get what you can" may be a really simple idea, but that's not the idea or the message. The people complaining about the unreliability aren't the loudest voices in the room, they're being drowned out by the people complaining that we have to go completely renewable by yesterday.

Loudest voices in your room maybe. Not 'the room'.

 

[Gulo Blue]

It's far more important and would be far more productive to get the renewable fanatics to get on board with nuclear power baseload generation.

Fanatics like Bill Gates? https://www.terrapower.com/people/bill-gates/

 

[sggatecl]

I don?t know that it does that or that people are trying to say ?wind bad, gas/coal good.? The point is there are a shitload of problems with wind and solar that nobody seems to know and we?re not being told about - they?re not this panacea to solve all our problems. And the point of my post in this case it?s very possible that wind was a bigger problem than those tweets indicate - the expectations for wind generation could be very low because so much of wind capacity is offline.

I gotta assume one of two things. You didn't bother reading the link in my first post (or the post itself) or you're being obtuse and are firmly entrenched in the position you have set in your mind.

They knew exactly how to fix the problem but they didn't do it. Period. There are windmills all over the north and midwest that run during harsh conditions every year. Proper maintenance and simple use of heating elements would've prevented much of the problems in windmills (and gas power!). To say there are problems that people don't know is disingenuous. We know exactly how to approach this situation. They chose not to. Laziness or cost-cutting, I'm not sure.

The fact that there were big problems with gas and coal generation doesn?t disprove the assertion that a shift to wind/solar would make our grid or grids less reliable, not more. I don?t think that?s really in dispute by any serious person. Yet the loudest voices on one side want to eliminate fossil fuels - they need to have it pounded into their heads that it?s not possible. We can?t store electricity on a massive scale and wind only generates power when the wind is blowing and solar only generates power when the sun shines.

Why is it you're so preoccupied with the loudest voices on one side, but not the other? In one paragraph you somehow don't see how wind power is vilified and in the very next you're going on about how we can't store wind/solar power reliably and thus can't 100% convert to these two things. An argument no majority is making unless you take into account nuclear power then yeah, you can most certainly move away from fossil fuels.

Unless of course you completely disconnect your power grid from the rest of the United States because you're big bad Texas. And then you ask for federal aid months after floating ideas to secede because your under developed, shittily operated power grid shit the bed. Then you're pretty screwed no matter what.

 

[Spartanmack]

Loudest voices in your room maybe. Not 'the room'.

it would be hard to be more wrong than this.

 

[Spartanmack]

Fanatics like Bill Gates? https://www.terrapower.com/people/bill-gates/

yes, fanatics like Bill Gates, the guy who just said rich countries should shift to 100% synthetic beef now.

 

[Gulo Blue]

it would be hard to be more wrong than this.

What loud voices are pushing for an immediate green-only shift rather than a long term push to get away from fossil fuels only possible as R&D for new technologies change the available options?

 

[Gulo Blue]

yes, fanatics like Bill Gates, the guy who just said rich countries should shift to 100% synthetic beef now.

He didn't say now in the quotes I saw. Should we get there as we can? Probably, yes.

 

[Gulo Blue]

And if anyone doesn't click the link, Bill Gates, the fanatic for whom it is

"more important and would be far more productive to get the renewable fanatics to get on board with nuclear power baseload generation"

founded a nuclear reactor design company 15 years ago.

 

[Spartanmack]

I gotta assume one of two things. You didn't bother reading the link in my first post (or the post itself) or you're being obtuse and are firmly entrenched in the position you have set in your mind.

They knew exactly how to fix the problem but they didn't do it. Period. There are windmills all over the north and midwest that run during harsh conditions every year. Proper maintenance and simple use of heating elements would've prevented much of the problems in windmills (and gas power!). To say there are problems that people don't know is disingenuous. We know exactly how to approach this situation. They chose not to. Laziness or cost-cutting, I'm not sure.

I never saw your first post - i read the tweet thread that was making the case that wind power was producing above expectations (at selective intervals). I'm not being obtuse or absolving anyone of responsibility for this massive clusterfuq. I'd be happy to get into the discussion, particularly so certain posters on here who blame the profit motive and capitalism for this mess can learn what ERCOT is, how it works and who it's accountable to.

The problems that people don't know about are the ones that can't be fixed by heating elements. And while we're on the subject of heating elements, slag away on the decision to neglect baseload generation but does it make sense to pay for and maintain heating elements on peak generation equipment that's going to be offline several months a year?

Why is it you're so preoccupied with the loudest voices on one side, but not the other? In one paragraph you somehow don't see how wind power is vilified and in the very next you're going on about how we can't store wind/solar power reliably and thus can't 100% convert to these two things. An argument no majority is making unless you take into account nuclear power then yeah, you can most certainly move away from fossil fuels.

Unless of course you completely disconnect your power grid from the rest of the United States because you're big bad Texas. And then you ask for federal aid months after floating ideas to secede because your under developed, shittily operated power grid shit the bed. Then you're pretty screwed no matter what.

because the loudest voices on one side drown out every other voice and they're the most dangerous. The bolded sentence is completely wrong - I don't make either of those points. I completely see how wind power should be presented - as an intermittent peak load generator, not reliable enough for us to get of nuclear and coal/gas. I clearly see how it's justifiably "villified" although I would have said "criticized." I don't see how that wasn't clear. And we can't store ANY electricity in large scale, regardless of the source. I would add that even if we could store it on the scale we would need to, we can't generate enough electricity with renewables to charge the batteries.

There is not majority in this discussion, but on one side, you have a very large contingent pushing disastrous policies that are gaining traction, the center left is bowing to them whether you see it or not - all you have to do is read a few paragraphs of coverage of John Kerry. As for nuclear, my position on that has been clear and consistent for years - I've advocated for nuclear baseload, natural gas and scrubbed coal peak generation until the very real problems with renewables are solved.

finally, the idea that this is unique to Texas or that the Texas grid is worse than any other state is insane. Texas just happens to be in the spotlight because a weather event exposed the issues.

 

[Spartanmack]

He didn't say now in the quotes I saw. Should we get there as we can? Probably, yes.

"I do think all rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef. You can get used to the taste difference, and the claim is they're going to make it taste better over time." - Bill Gates

I'm aware of your fondness for nits, but given what he said about getting used to the taste, it sounds to me like he thinks we should do it now. He doesn't even think we should wait until they develop better tasting synthetics so he's probably not making this recommendation for our grandkids to kick it off.

as for the graphic, that's pretty cool but I think mother earth can carry the load. I do like the idea of more geographically dispersed, smaller scale production. We are looking into buying beef by the whole cow from a (almost) local grass-fed farm. What we need to figure out is the cost and storage thing - it may make more sense to split a cow with another family. obviously that's a problem for high population density areas like here - there isn't enough land for 12mm people in the tri-state area to buy locally sourced organic beef. But i'm not making the switch to beef analogs because some climate fanatic thinks it's a good idea.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'm aware of your fondness for nits, but given what he said about getting used to the taste, it sounds to me like he thinks we should do it now. He doesn't even think we should wait until they develop better tasting synthetics so he's probably not making this recommendation for our grandkids to kick it off.

as for the graphic, that's pretty cool but I think mother earth can carry the load. I do like the idea of more geographically dispersed, smaller scale production. We are looking into buying beef by the whole cow from a (almost) local grass-fed farm. What we need to figure out is the cost and storage thing - it may make more sense to split a cow with another family. obviously that's a problem for high population density areas like here - there isn't enough land for 12mm people in the tri-state area to buy locally sourced organic beef.

A nit? Pushing to develop new technologies and deploy them as quickly as is practical is entirely different from recklessly jumping to things that aren't ready yet.

It means taking action now, not universal deployment. Using the imperfect technology now at as much of a scale as you can helps identify problems and solutions. "Sounds to me like he thinks" is another variation on the list of phrases you use before saying something wrong.

Generally speaking, he's been talking about a 30 year window when he discusses these things.

 

[Spartanmack]

A nit? Pushing to develop new technologies and deploy them as quickly as is practical is entirely different from recklessly jumping to things that aren't ready yet.

It means taking action now, not universal deployment. Using the imperfect technology now at as much of a scale as you can helps identify problems and solutions. "Sounds to me like he thinks" is another variation on the list of phrases you use before saying something wrong.

Generally speaking, he's been talking about a 30 year window when he discusses these things.[/QUOTE]

You didn't see where he said now, but you got all of that out of his statement? We're not talking about transforming the grid - I'm pretty sure we could ramp up synthetic beef production in way less than a generation, if we were fanatics. So in this case, starting now means transitioning pretty darn fast and i don't think starting now is a big misinterpretation of his sentiment. Regardless of the timeline, the idea of going 100% synthetic makes him pretty fanatical in my book.

He's not calling for universal deployment - he wants rich countries to eat synthetic beef and for those countries to build a better cow for poor countries. He may be talking about a 30 year window for global adoption, but it sounds like this fanatic wants us and other developed nations to eat fake beef starting now.

 

[Gulo Blue]

You didn't see where he said now, but you got all of that out of his statement?

I listened to his podcast with Rashida jones.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I listened to his podcast with Rashida jones.

She?s a babe.

Her dad is Quincy Jones you know, and her mom was the check on the old Mod Squad.

 

[Spartanmack]

She’s a babe.

Her dad is Quincy Jones you know, and her mom was the check on the old Mod Squad.

chick or czech? or both? Never watched the show but I know it's not "check."

 

[Spartanmack]

I listened to his podcast with Rashida jones.

I didn't listen to that. Did he disclose his investments in fake meat companies Impossible Foods, Beyond Meat, Memphis Meats and Hampton Creek Foods to Rashida? When he was potentially manipulating the market for his stocks, but not disclosing his holdings, did he give a timeline for when we should move to 100% synthetic meat protein like the ones from his companies? I read and listened to parts of his interview with MIT Technology Review which is where I got the impression he wants us (rich countries) to start buying the products he's invested in now (without actually disclosing his investments).

 

[byco42]

If Bill wants is to use it, he’s profiting from it.

 

[byco42]

She?s a babe.

Her dad is Quincy Jones you know, and her mom was the check on the old Mod Squad.

Quincy had zero respect for the Beatles. Link

?They were the worst musicians in the world,? he told interviewer David Marchese. ?They were no-playing motherf****rs. Paul [McCartney] was the worst bass player I ever heard.?​

Then he recanted it all. *eyeroll*

But he couldn?t recant this:

Jones recalled arranging Love Is a Many Splendoured Thing for Starr?s 1970 debut solo album Sentimental Journey.

?Ringo had taken three hours for a four-bar thing he was trying to fix on a song. He couldn?t get it. We said: ?Mate, why don?t you get some lager and lime, some shepherd?s pie, and take an hour-and-a-half and relax a little bit.??

In the interim, Jones called English jazz drummer Ronnie Verrell into the studio.

?Ronnie came in for 15 minutes and tore it up. Ringo comes back and says: ?George [Martin], can you play it back for me one more time??

?So George did, and Ringo says: ?That didn?t sound so bad.? And I said: ?Yeah, motherf***er because it ain?t you.? Great guy, though.?​

 

[Gulo Blue]

I didn't listen to that. Did he disclose his investments in fake meat companies Impossible Foods, Beyond Meat, Memphis Meats and Hampton Creek Foods to Rashida? When he was potentially manipulating the market for his stocks, but not disclosing his holdings, did he give a timeline for when we should move to 100% synthetic meat protein like the ones from his companies? I read and listened to parts of his interview with MIT Technology Review which is where I got the impression he wants us (rich countries) to start buying the products he's invested in now (without actually disclosing his investments).

He does want us to start now. That's not the same as thinking it's remotely possible to change the entire food supply of wealthy nations in a short period of time.

But you got an impression of what he wants, so I guess that's that.

 

[Spartanmack]

He does want us to start now. That's not the same as thinking it's remotely possible to change the entire food supply of wealthy nations in a short period of time.

But you got an impression of what he wants, so I guess that's that.

switching off of real beef is big but it's not changing the entire food supply of wealthy nations but you've got an impression of what I think Bill Gates wants, so I guess that's that.

And even though it's a big part of the food supply, it's not like we'd have to tear down and rebuild the infrastructure. The tech exists, processing plants can be converted, land use can be transitioned. Physically, this transition could be accomplished in much less than a generation. The hurdle is buy-in, not infrastructure. And for the record, I'm not buying in. Beef, it's what's for dinner, tomorrow night (tonight is Ash Wednesday and we're abstaining). I just hope transitioning to plant based meat substitutes doesn't increase O2 levels in the atmosphere to dangerous levels or at a dangerous rate that accelerates ACCC.

Given you think that it's changing the entire food supply of wealthy nations, the fact that we can't agree that makes him a fanatic goes a long way to explaining why we don't agree on much.