XPost: alt.politics.congress, alt.politics.corruption, alt.politics.economics   
   XPost: alt.politics.election, alt.politics.misc, alt.politics.obama   
   XPost: alt.politics.scorched-earth, alt.politics.socialism.mao,    
   lt.politics.trump   
   XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.conspiracy, alt.apocolypse   
   XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.infowars   
   XPost: alt.beam-me-up.scotty.there-is-no.intelligent-life.down-here,   
   alt.politics.guns   
   From: NOT-SURE@idiocracy.gov   
      
   On 7/17/22 3:27 PM, -hh wrote:   
   > On Sunday, July 17, 2022 at 12:46:28 PM UTC-4, governo...@gmail.com wrote:   
   >> -hh wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> Democrat organized crime political system...   
   >>   
   >> You misspelled 'Republican'.   
   >   
   > That was a claim from Scotty; not sure how it got misattributed.   
   >   
   > What Scotty is confused about is simply that it is possible for   
   > one approach to be less efficient yet still cheaper than another.   
      
   It's NOT confusing it's impractical... it means the supply and demand   
   has been corrupted or hit a limitation if you can get more efficient for   
   less money depending on who's efficiency we're discussing, be it the   
   producers efficiency or the consumers use of the item... the consumer is   
   always looking for more efficient for less cost because it means their   
   money is worth more but while buying one or two of them that you can use   
   that might make your life more efficient and save time/money buying 10   
   is a cost that doesn't necessarily compute into 10 times the savings you   
   got from buying one that you can use since you might only be able to use   
   one at a time. Which means that suddenly, that efficiency requires that   
   you limit your purchase to one to be as efficient as possible. Where by   
   the manufacturer might need to produce enough to run the manufacturing   
   plant 24/7 and make more than he can sell at one per person to get that   
   product made as cheap as it can be produced, so by buying only one and   
   being most efficient the consumer has to pay more for a less efficient   
   manufacturing process and being individually efficient cost him more   
   since the items price is raised to everyone for the lost production   
   efficiency.   
      
   While you think you got the cheapest most efficient item, it really   
   wasn't because if you used more of them it would have been produced   
   cheaper and you could have saved even more per each use of the item if   
   you needed to use it more but the limiting factor was the human factor   
   of need and ability.   
      
      
   >   
   > As applied to solar, what it means is that instead of trying to carefully   
   > match supply with demand and having a significant power banking   
   > subsystem to smooth over days of low production (cloudy/etc), it is   
   > actually cheaper to have an *insignificant* amount of power banking   
   > and to have enough 'extra' power generation to still meet 100% of   
   > demand even on low production days.  This is because the costs of   
   > power banking is greater than of power generation.   
      
   That's all well and good, but where do you put that Solar/Wind   
   equipment, it takes more land... more copper wire more aluminum rails or   
   wind mills and more people to maintain...  that all takes more FOSSIL   
   FUEL to build and maintain, which makes the highly prized label of   
   SUSTAINABLE ENERGY... farther down the road doesn't it on the calendar,   
   doesn't it?   
      
   With the loss in efficiency you gain a loss of CARBON NEUTRAL date   
   expectation, instead of taking 5 years to produce enough energy to get   
   to the prized label of system wide CARBON NEUTRAL, it may take 6 or 7   
   years instead just 5years... and as it expands on land so does the   
   travel time and distances to maintain it, it will exponentially expand   
   as you have to drive farther and farther to maintain them and that land   
   in use can't produce vegetation that increases the CO2 another negative   
   effect. They begin to compound one another as the Global Warming cult   
   likes to claim the CO2 has a feedback loop and forcing effects on the   
   climate. Wind Mills kill birds and birds drop seeds that grow so by   
   killing enough birds they reduce the rate of seeds being widely   
   distributed, Is that a feed back loop and/or forcing that will cause   
   more CO2?  So building extra wind mills could create more CO2 rather   
   than help reduce CO2?  Are you making the same mistake again and again,   
   and while Einstein called it insanity, I call it stupidity.   
      
   Interesting questions? Speculating using the GLOBAL WARMING cults own   
   formula can make the solutions they choose look like they will cause   
   more CO2 NOT less which by their own "pseudo science" suggests that   
   there will be more CO2 not less with extra Solar/Wind Capacity being   
   built that is NOT needed if the system is built in different ways.   
   https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2007/10/common-climate-miscon   
   eptions-co2-as-a-feedback-and-forcing-in-the-climate-system/   
      
      
   > Where it gets interesting is because the economics are saying that   
   > one needs to be willing to literally waste power when production   
   > exceeds the sum of (demand + bank charging), which is counter-intuitive   
   > in our traditional paradigm mindset where power is made through the   
   > consumption of a scarce resource (oil / gas / wood / etc).   
      
   Wasting power can be cheaper than batteries to bank it but only because   
   batteries are more expensive and that's partially due to the EPA   
   regulations...   
      
      
   I see no problem with over building the system unless it creates new   
   problems, but so far you can't keep up with the *GROWTH* of the energy   
   use and the retirement of old worn out and outdated systems. Which means   
   that building in extra capacity to keep up with GRID system   
   ineffeciancies will take more land and more Fossil Fuel to build and   
   more fossil... or more of it's own sustainable energy being consumed to   
   maintain the system as it expands which makes it, even less efficient.   
   And that brings up that GLOBAL WARMING idea of FEEDBACK-LOOPS   
   compounding the problem. If you looked for it in CO2 as a problem why   
   NOT when you create solutions to the CO2 feedback loops?  Is it because   
   you want to push GLOBAL WARMING as a crisis but really don't want that   
   feed back loop idea to stifle your "preferred solution"... which points   
   to GLOBAL WARMING as duplicity in action as you create one crisis using   
   the same mumbo-jumbo you ignore in the solution and created a   
   contradiction in the process to get to the conclusion the GLOBAL WARMING   
   cult needs for their political power to grow?   
      
      
   >   
   > Where this all gets really interesting is the innovation opportunities for   
   > when there's a "free"-but-highly-intermittent source of energy that now   
   > becomes available to markets.  For example, one could use cheap &   
   > intermittent energy to pump water through a reverse-osmosis purification   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)