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

[Gulo Blue]

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.

Obviously (from the context) I was just talking about the entire beef supply and not other foods.

 

[Spartanmack]

Obviously (from the context) I was just talking about the entire beef supply and not other foods.

Obviously, given your history of nit picking and pedantic arguments about the meaning of words, I'm going to say no, that's not obvious. And I'll add, after clarifying, you're still wrong. If there was the will to do it, it could be done in less than a generation. That's not long at all.

 

[tinselwolverine]

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

Not Czech but not far off.

Russian Jewish.

A stunning beauty who didn?t do much after Mod Squad, maybe because she didn?t have to.

Marrying Quincy Jones made her crazy Rich.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Obviously, given your history of nit picking and pedantic arguments about the meaning of words, I'm going to say no, that's not obvious. And I'll add, after clarifying, you're still wrong. If there was the will to do it, it could be done in less than a generation. That's not long at all.

BS nonsense aside, where is your argument at this point? Before it was over adopting new technology at a reckless pace and switching beef 'now' and now you're telling me about what pace would be possible if there was the will? Keep going, let's see if you end up where I started.

 

[byco42]

Not Czech but not far off.

Russian Jewish.

A stunning beauty who didn?t do much after Mod Squad, maybe because she didn?t have to.

Marrying Quincy Jones made her crazy Rich.

She was in Twin Peaks and was the most beautiful woman on the show by light years.

 

[Spartanmack]

BS nonsense aside, where is your argument at this point? Before it was over adopting new technology at a reckless pace and switching beef 'now' and now you're telling me about what pace would be possible if there was the will? Keep going, let's see if you end up where I started.

My argument hasn't changed from the beginning, switching to synthetic beef wouldn't be like switching baseload energy to new less reliable technologies. Unlike power generation, the issue with beef is an issue of buy-in, not infrastructure. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that or how I can make it more clear.

I'm assuming this is just a tactic to make it seem like I'm all over the board because at this point you need me to be.

 

[sggatecl]

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?

Well, when I said I didn't know whether it was cost-cutting or laziness, you certainly cast a vote towards cost-cutting. In my opinion, if you're going to get into the business of heating and cooling of the places people live and work, you're on the hook for whatever measures you can take to keep them safe. You mention you want people to stop blaming capitalism and look at how ERCOT is actually run but then give a very capitalist answer.

Since 2010, ERCOT?s reserve margin - the buffer between what it can produce vs. forecasted demand - has dropped to about 10% from about 20%. This has put pressure on generators during electricity demand spikes, making the grid less flexible. But sure, those damn windmills are to blame. Not ERCOT itself.

because the loudest voices on one side drown out every other voice and they're the most dangerous.

This is completely 100% subjective. There's nothing to address but felt the need to point it out. You're always going to assume the extreme opposite viewpoint of yours in any topic is the dangerous one. That goes for everyone. The same person on the opposite end of the spectrum will feel people making claims not a single windmill should ever be built again and are 100% pro gas/coal are the dangerous ones and thus the loudest. You ignore the loud voices on your extreme side because they are more acceptable than the other side.

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.

How can you make the claim that people don't know how ERCOT works and then say this situation isn't unique to Texas? It's VERY unique to Texas if you're looking at the big picture and not just shit-talking about windmills and other renewables.

 

[Spartanmack]

She was in Twin Peaks and was the most beautiful woman on the show by light years.

Sherilyn Fenn would be my pick from that show - another hometown girl. she went to the rival high school and was a senior when my oldest brother was a freshman so none of the Macks took her to a homecoming dance.

 

[Gulo Blue]

My argument hasn't changed from the beginning, switching to synthetic beef wouldn't be like switching baseload energy to new less reliable technologies. Unlike power generation, the issue with beef is an issue of buy-in, not infrastructure. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that or how I can make it more clear.

I'm assuming this is just a tactic to make it seem like I'm all over the board because at this point you need me to be.

Pretty sure your position was that the problems are fake and the policies would be disastrous and talk of buy in vs infrastructure wasn't the issue.

 

[Spartanmack]

Well, when I said I didn't know whether it was cost-cutting or laziness, you certainly cast a vote towards cost-cutting. In my opinion, if you're going to get into the business of heating and cooling of the places people live and work, you're on the hook for whatever measures you can take to keep them safe. You mention you want people to stop blaming capitalism and look at how ERCOT is actually run but then give a very capitalist answer.

I wouldn't say I cast a vote either way with respect to why baseload maintenance wasn't done. I just asked if, assuming the appropriate maintenance is done to meet winter generation demands, does it make sense to spend the money for redundant capacity that's only going to be used in the summer when demand is much higher.

Since 2010, ERCOT’s reserve margin - the buffer between what it can produce vs. forecasted demand - has dropped to about 10% from about 20%. This has put pressure on generators during electricity demand spikes, making the grid less flexible. But sure, those damn windmills are to blame. Not ERCOT itself.

I already said, pointing out limitations of a technology isn't absolving ERCOT of anything. Plenty of blame to go around.

This is completely 100% subjective. There's nothing to address but felt the need to point it out. You're always going to assume the extreme opposite viewpoint of yours in any topic is the dangerous one. That goes for everyone. The same person on the opposite end of the spectrum will feel people making claims not a single windmill should ever be built again and are 100% pro gas/coal are the dangerous ones and thus the loudest. You ignore the loud voices on your extreme side because they are more acceptable than the other side.

It's not subjective and i'm not assuming the radical left energy position is dangerous, I'm saying it absolutely is. When you're talking about transforming a multi-trillion dollar economy putting your fate in the hands of unreliable energy generation, there's nothing subjective about saying that's dangerous, it's a fact. It's a MASSIVE gamble based on pseudo science that could destroy the economy and have a massive toll on human life and may not solve any real problems.

How can you make the claim that people don't know how ERCOT works and then say this situation isn't unique to Texas? It's VERY unique to Texas if you're looking at the big picture and not just shit-talking about windmills and other renewables.

Simple - by reading post after post after post bemoaning how things like this are signs of the failures of capitalism. Anyone who thinks energy production, transmission and distribution are capitalistic and the problems with the grid are an example of the failures of capitalism has no idea how energy is produced, transmitted and distributed in America. It's one of the most regulated industries there is. It may be the ONLY industry that's so regulated that the government actually tells them precisely how much profit they're allowed to make. If anyone thinks these posts don't exist, they're blind. And if they think the grid problems are a failure of greedy capitalism, they have absolutely no idea how ERCOT and other ISOs, power generators and utilities are structured and how they work.

None of this is unique to Texas. There are something like 9 other ISOs in North America and virtually every grid in the country is inadequate and incapable of handling major disruptive events. Texas, at best is temporarily "unique" as they're the only one currently dealing with a major weather event. We had a blackout in '03 that exposed major weaknesses in the NE grid that still aren't fixed today. It was a different event that triggered it - we probably could manage sustained mid teens temps, but a different event could cause a major catastrophe - the problem is very similar.

 

[Gulo Blue]

It was a different event that triggered it, but the problem is very similar.

Right. Wind power and artificial beef.

 

[Spartanmack]

Pretty sure your position was that the problems are fake and the policies would be disastrous and talk of buy in vs infrastructure wasn't the issue.

you're mixing up two different conversations. The problem (ACCC) is fake, transforming the grid as the fanatics would like would be disastrous - I don't consider people pushing the same solutions I'm pushing (nuclear baseload and nat gas peak and eventually renewables if/when they're cheaper and more reliable) to be fanatics.

That's different from telling rich countries to swap into synthetic beef. I don't see that destroying the economy or putting our access to reliable electricity at risk. That doesn't mean the idea isn't ridiculous and the proponents of it aren't fanatics (and/or con artists trying to line their pockets). I do think we'd massively ramp up the use of things like Roundup, which is very concerning to me.

 

[Spartanmack]

Right. Wind power and artificial beef.

I see we're no longer at "BS nonsense aside..."

But if this new cow Gates wants to develop can fly, then we might need to talk about this...

 

[Gulo Blue]

you're mixing up two different conversations. The problem (ACCC) is fake, transforming the grid as the fanatics would like would be disastrous - I don't consider people pushing the same solutions I'm pushing (nuclear baseload and nat gas peak and eventually renewables if/when they're cheaper and more reliable) to be fanatics.

That's different from telling rich countries to swap into synthetic beef. I don't see that destroying the economy or putting our access to reliable electricity at risk. That doesn't mean the idea isn't ridiculous and the proponents of it aren't fanatics (and/or con artists trying to line their pockets). I do think we'd massively ramp up the use of things like Roundup, which is very concerning to me.

If the topics are so distinct, why was 'blah blah blah artificial beef' your response to 'Bill Gate started a nuclear reactor design company 15 years ago'?

 

[Gulo Blue]

I see we're no longer at "BS nonsense aside..."

But if this new cow Gates wants to develop can fly, then we might need to talk about this...

Oh no, never mistake that. No matter what qualifiers or how well sourced or pedantic you might think my posts appears, if it's addressing you, it's ad hominem. I'm being very clear with that policy.

 

[Spartanmack]

If the topics are so distinct, why was 'blah blah blah artificial beef' your response to 'Bill Gate started a nuclear reactor design company 15 years ago'?

I hadn't read your link, if I had I would have said he's not a "100% renewables now" fanatic if he's proposing common sense policies like nuclear energy. I also would have added the fact that I've been advocating for transitioning to nuclear generation since day one on this board so why would I think someone who agrees with that is a fanatic? Why even bring him up?

I had just read the story about his position on beef yesterday so when you asked if he was a fanatic, I said yes, he is a fanatic because he wants rich countries to switch to 100% synthetic beef now. It's no so much the "now" part (although I'm not backing down from that and made myself clear on what I mean by "now") as the idea itself, but in typical gulo fashion, you latched onto the "now" and went on for pages and pages arguing about the time frame.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Time frame can be the difference between possible and impossible. Fanatic and reasonable.

 

[Spartanmack]

Oh no, never mistake that. No matter what qualifiers or how well sourced or pedantic you might think my posts appears, if it's addressing you, it's ad hominem. I'm being very clear with that policy.

thanks but unlike you, I don't need to have painfully obvious things explained to me.

 

[Spartanmack]

Time frame can be the difference between possible and impossible. Fanatic and reasonable.

no, timeframe can make something that's possible impractical but it doesn't suddenly make it impossible - I would think most pedants would know that. And Bill Gates' timeframe for switching to synthetic beef (whatever it may be) isn't what makes him a fanatic. Although, I suppose if he said he wanted to do it over the next millennium, I'd judge him less fanatical.

 

[Gulo Blue]

no, timeframe can make something that's possible impractical but it doesn't suddenly make it impossible - I would think most pedants would know that. And Bill Gates' timeframe for switching to synthetic beef (whatever it may be) isn't what makes him a fanatic. Although, I suppose if he said he wanted to do it over the next millennium, I'd judge him less fanatical.

You make weird choices sometimes.