TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC

Market politics

Discussion in 'TSLA Investor Discussions' started by Lessmog, Feb 3, 2018.

Tags:
  1. JRP3

    JRP3 Hyperactive Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    15,658
    Location:
    Central New York
    Here in NY we have yearly inspections, if the vehicle is old enough there are no emissions tests and it's just a safety test, mileage is always recorded and put into the state computers. Ideally road costs would be tied to an equation taking into account mileage and vehicle weight, since heavier vehicles such as large trucks do most of the damage.
     
    • Helpful x 1
  2. Intl Professor

    Intl Professor Active Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    2,620
    Location:
    California
    Near the end of her corporate law practice she was one of if not the highest paid female attorney specializing in business.
     
    • Informative x 1
  3. K3jSe7Llp7

    K3jSe7Llp7 Closed

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2018
    Messages:
    113
    Location:
    Calif
    Of course with the benefit of hindsight, but that wasn't what happened.
    The good thing was, after I'd escaped from that gang, a group of Malay women followed me. They asked me what happened and I told them about the coffee. Looking down and nodding they said they saw the whole thing and apologized for their people. They clearly didn't think that I deserved to be first cheated and then brutally beaten the way you all do.
    I'm disappointed in how you respond to this true and sensitive story so far from anything you've dreamed of.
    I wonder if you who denounce me would be willing to declare openly that you are biased and proud of it?
     
    • Disagree x 1
  4. JRP3

    JRP3 Hyperactive Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    15,658
    Location:
    Central New York
    Everyone has biases, including quite obviously yourself. I'm not sure which biases you're accusing me of having but I wasn't saying you deserved what happened but I would not have acted the way you did in that situation. I also would not choose to repeatedly put myself into similar situations as you seem to do. You've chosen a risky lifestyle, bad things are likely to happen.
     
  5. neroden

    neroden Model S Owner and Frustrated Tesla Fan

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    14,458
    Location:
    Ithaca, NY, USA
    I see I'm being moderated. However, I am not going to back down here.

    I demand that Mr. Tieman apologize and retract his bigoted remark. If he doesn't, I'll have to ask the moderators to intervene and remove him.

    There are people throughout the world who have actually been "literally overrun by hostile foreigners". A short list includes:
    (1) Tibetans overrun by Chinese Army in 1950s (and Uighurs today overrun by hostile Chinese, being put in "re-education camps" for growing beards)
    (2) Manchuria (& Vietnam, Indonesia, etc.) overrun by Imperial Japanese Army in WWII
    (3) First Nations overrun by European invaders in the 16th-19th centuries
    (4) Amazonian tribes overrrun by Brazilian cattle ranchers currently
    (5) Poland overrun by Russians and Germans before WWI, and again in WWII
    (6) Carthage overrun by Rome
    (7) Rome overrun by the Goths

    Nothing remotely like this has ever happened in California in Mr. Tieman's lifetime. His use of the phrase "overrun by hostile foreigners" in peaceful, prosperous, law-abiding California is histrionic, overblown, wildly exaggerated, arrogant, incredibly insulting to those who actually *have* been overrun by hostile foreigners, and frankly comes across as racist nonsense. That sort of racist nonsense is not suitable for any discussion forum and he should retract his claim. If he retracts it we might be able to have a real conversation.
     
    • Like x 9
    • Disagree x 1
  6. K3jSe7Llp7

    K3jSe7Llp7 Closed

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2018
    Messages:
    113
    Location:
    Calif
    hello moderator - please delete my account. Thank you.
     
    • Funny x 4
  7. EVNow

    EVNow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    5,872
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Hardly any foreigners were in Iraq before they were overrun resulting in 1 million dead. I can give dozens of such examples from memory.

    So, I think their policy is understandable.
     
    • Like x 2
  8. K3jSe7Llp7

    K3jSe7Llp7 Closed

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2018
    Messages:
    113
    Location:
    Calif
    Hello moderator, I'm serious. I would like to cancel my membership in this forum. I've looked through all the menus but can't find the way. Please be assured that this isn't a flippant or vindictive decision. Please either do it or tell me how. Thank you.
     
  9. STARR X

    STARR X Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    115
    Location:
    Decatur, Georgia

    Log out and never log in again? That seems like the simplest solution.
     
    • Like x 7
    • Funny x 1
  10. S'toon

    S'toon Knows where his towel is

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    3,416
    Location:
    AB
     
    • Like x 2
  11. ggr

    ggr Roadster R80 537, SigS P85 29, M3P 80k

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    We can't do it either. I passed on your first request to the forum admins @doug and @danny. That's the most we can do.
     
    • Helpful x 1
  12. Paracelsus

    Paracelsus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2015
    Messages:
    482
    Location:
    Idaho
    As California proves an accelerated path to 100% renewables is possible and that a Green New Deal could certainly be a successful reality right now, it is wonderful to see AOC calling out the Republicans and the 'middle of the road' Democrats, including those that are relying on natural gas as a 'clean energy' for many years to come.

    AOC, at Green New Deal rally, puts Joe Biden and other Democratic climate moderates on notice

    Not included in the previous article is the fact that Washington's governor and 2020 Democratic hopeful Jay Inslee's 'Clean Energy' plan relies on natural gas until 2045 for the state of Washington............another fricking quarter century of fracking. Unacceptable when the planet is already on fire.

    Clean power is now the law; Inslee signs bill for zero-carbon electricity by 2045
     
    • Like x 4
    • Informative x 1
  13. wdolson

    wdolson Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,094
    Location:
    Clark Co, WA
    Today Washington's electricity is generated using less fossil fuel than almost any state. Currently only 20% comes from fossil fuels. About 2/3rds comes from hydroelectric sources with other renewables and one large nuclear plant included. The bulk of natural gas used in Washington is used directly piped into houses to heat water, furnaces, and other heating appliances.

    With a large installed base of gas water heaters and gas furnaces, it's not that simple to just shut off the gas. Houses need to be converted to electric appliances and that's a burden on homeowners. Even if the state helps out with incentives. Even with electricity rates in WA being the lowest in the US, heating with natural gas is still cheaper than using electricity in many cases. That's another factor.

    The US also has a massive glut of natural gas right now. If we quit drilling wells tomorrow and just used the proven reserves there is enough to last 80 years.

    When anyone takes a realistic look at fossil fuel use, there is no path to drastically reducing CO2 emissions without also reducing the human population pretty significantly. The entire infrastructure of human civilization is built on fossil fuel use. Taking extreme steps to stop will result in the collapse of civilization and a few billion people dying, which will further reduce CO2 production.

    Scottish comedian Frankie Boyle (who is politically very left, but also has a dark streak) made the point that if you really want to reduce CO2 emissions, become a cannibal. For every person you eat, you've reduced their carbon footprint to zero. Ultimately the problem is Earth has too many people on it. We're past the long term carrying capacity of the planet. We are stabilizing, but at a level that is unsustainable long term.

    Each human being leaves a mark on the planet, even if their CO2 footprint is small. The oceans have been badly overfished to a point of ecosystem teetering on the brink of collapse (the demand is mostly Asia and Africa); the oceans also are full of plastic, 90% of it flowing out of a handful of rivers in Africa and Asia. The demands of high intensity agriculture in the United States to feed all those mouths have polluted ground water, is killing the bees, and polluting both us and all sorts of animals with many of chemicals.

    The fossil fuels needed to produce our food from plants is staggeringly high. I cant find it now, but a few years ago I saw an analysis that pointed out that around 1940 for every gallon of fuel used in agriculture, there were 20 bushels of food (or something like that) produced. By 1970 it was 1:1. By the time of the article (sometime last decade) is was flipped 20:1 the other way. Agriculture today uses more chemicals that require energy to make and transport, the food is transported further after harvest, and it's more processed than it used to be. We also put more demand on each acre of land to produce more. Our farm land is getting burned out, which requires more chemicals to keep producing. Just getting back to 1970 levels is going to be tricky.

    On that cheery note...
     
    • Like x 1
  14. Unpilot

    Unpilot I would rather spend my remaining time Helping

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2017
    Messages:
    2,373
    Location:
    Illinois
    The above is why I vacillate between "ostrich mode" and freaking out.
    On my saner day's I try to do what I can..."think Globally act locally" works for me.
     
    • Like x 1
  15. Paracelsus

    Paracelsus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2015
    Messages:
    482
    Location:
    Idaho
    Appreciate the response @wdolson. While I enthusiastically entered the world of EV ownership with our Model X purchase in September 2017, I was understandably disappointed to learn that EV ownership ranked further down the list of sustainability choices than switching to a vegetarian diet and of course making a decision to not have children. We did have only one child, so we managed a negative population growth for the two of us........and after learning that Big Agriculture (meat & dairy industry) has a greater Carbon Footprint than the fossil fuel industry, we have made our best attempt over the last couple years to be vegetarians and to grow as much of our food from our 1 1/2 acre organic garden on our homestead in Idaho as we possibly can. Having given up meat for a more sustainable future I am afraid we would be worthless as cannibals, but the concept certainly makes sense. It's probably pretty difficult to find Organic Options as a cannibal, especially now that Bayer bought Monsanto. Sweden also recently pointed out to the world the value of giving up overseas flights as a top choice to reduce our carbon footprint. Our fascination with the ancient construction sites around the planet certainly had us pleading guilty for our many trips to some fascinating and unexplained locations over the years. So yes, finding a win is very difficult without a whole lot of give.

    My frustration with Washington's continued use of natural gas for power production is not because it is still a cost effective method to help meet peak demand when it exceeds NW hydro baseline capacity. My frustration is that Washington already has the capacity to reduce its natural gas dependency on natural gas peaker plants for peak demand by using available surplus California solar during peak hours, but Jay Inslee instead took a position of support for the existing paradigm and sent a hard message to California that it should play by the rules of the old guard in the Pacific NW to not upset the balance - primarily the hydro and natural gas blend of power production. Perhaps you saw his rather sharply penned editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle this last summer where he called out California Solar for essentially being too efficient?

    Washington Governor Inslee: California should collaborate on power grid

    In a nutshell the NW Hydro system is bleeding money when excess California solar is available on the same grid. And from the perspective of the NW Hydro and Grid operators it obviously isn't a good thing when you have to sell your power at a loss because there is too much power already available on the grid. But from the perspective of a burning Planet...........who cares. Isn't California solar cleaner than natural gas peaking plants? For that matter, California Solar is in many ways cleaner than Columbia Basin hydro. And as more battery storage is added to the solar and wind projects in California the amount of surplus power available on the west coast will only increase. The harsh reality for NW grid operators is that this is the beginning of a real paradigm shift.....one where both natural gas and hydro will be less cost effective than cleaner solar and wind + storage. New solar projects in California will be operating at <$0.02/kWh yet some hydro projects at existing dams cost twice that much to operate. And I have been told that the Columbia hydro system alone has billions of dollars of deferred maintenance it does not even have scheduled yet, and has about $500 Million per year just in salmon mitigation expenses. That is money that could be invested in new solar & wind + storage projects in Eastern Washington, Eastern Oregon, and Southern/Western Idaho with greater success and lower O&M if the vision wasn't to hang on to natural gas as a 'clean energy' source until 2045. The paradigm is shifting to a more sustainable future, and that future will not include natural gas peaker plants.....and it will also likely have a significant reduction in its hydro production.

    At the time of the Enron crisis the amount of surplus hydro power in the Pacific NW was significant, so the NW grid operators invested in improving the grid connection between the Pacific NW to Southern California so that it could create new load for its surplus hydro power. Almost 20 years later the Pacific NW has grown so much that it does not have much surplus power to sell anymore.....instead it has added about 10,000 MW of wind - about the same amount as the federal hydro capacity of the Columbia Basin.....and worse yet, California has a new surplus of cleaner power that can flow north on the same grid that was once meant to supply California. The NW residents and businesses simply want the cheapest power available to them for the most part, but the NW grid operators want to see a return on their investment for building a more substantial grid. So there is great resistance to letting California Solar flow north on the grid. So should we be held hostage from cheaper and cleaner power because the NW grid operators need to pay off their Natural Gas stranded assets. The Economy of the NW would vote NO on that.

    I must admit that I go back and forth on the controversy over the removal of the 4 Lower Snake River Dams (Lower Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental, and Ice Harbor) between Lewiston Idaho and the Tri Cities in Washington. Not because I don't think the ocean conditions would be improved if they were removed. The faster the water can flow to the ocean the colder it can potentially be when it gets there. Constantly titrating warmer water into a cold Pacific Ocean from a huge river source that has been warmed by hydro and irrigation projects can only have one effect can't it - warming the ocean that is. My concern is that there are potentially other hydro projects upstream that are having an even greater effect on river water temperatures. It would be extremely helpful if hydro projects could be classified by location and effect to help determine whether or not they are really 'Green' power IMHO. Lake fed hydro like the Snettisham plant that feeds Juneau, Alaska is extremely positive IMO, whereas the damning of the Mekong River and subsequent warming of an already warm river system should result in significant negative ocean effects from that project. Remember that the Snake River is fed from the Grand Tetons and used to flow ice cold water from snow run off down the Snake and into the Columbia River. Now it is not uncommon for water flowing past Hells Canyon Dam to well-exceed 70 degrees before it even reaches the 4 Lower Snake Dams in question. So with the planet on fire and wind/solar a viable alternative, perhaps it is time we also consider looking upstream of the 4 Lower Snake Dams at the impact of the 15 dams in Idaho. I do agree that the 4 Lower Snake Dams can likely be replaced with cleaner sources of solar and wind with storage, that there already is a sufficient surplus of power in the eastern Columbia River Basin, and that they likely no longer serve the transportation needs they were once argued for. And like most, my preference is for wild flowing rivers where ever possible - not simply to improve the wilderness, but most importantly to improve the ocean conditions. The Earth is a sentient being and the rivers are its bloodlines...........we are simply re-learning what the Ancient Wisdom Traditions have tried to tell us all along. And we are learning at the expense of the planet.

    I am guilty of rambling once again. I sincerely appreciate your contributions and where they take these discussions. My point that was likely lost a paragraph or two ago was simply that Inslee and Washington have the potential to completely walk away from the natural gas demand used as a peaker plant fuel source WAY before their plan calls for in 2045......perhaps even before 2025 if the motivation was there. Solving the other natural gas demand problems you pointed out such as water heaters and appliances will take longer as you pointed out.
     
    • Informative x 3
    • Like x 3
  16. neroden

    neroden Model S Owner and Frustrated Tesla Fan

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    14,458
    Location:
    Ithaca, NY, USA
    I agree that it makes no sense to hang on to gas-fired power plants when Washington State could be building more batteries. What needs to be done politically?

    Obviously if Washington State doesn't import California Solar, California will just put it in batteries for overnight use in California, or export it in other directions.
     
  17. JRP3

    JRP3 Hyperactive Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    15,658
    Location:
    Central New York
    #3777 JRP3, May 15, 2019
    Last edited: May 15, 2019
    We need to stop the Cayuga power plant here in NY from transitioning to gas peakers. Only solar and battery packs make sense at this point.
    The only reason Cayuga Power want's to transition to NG peakers is so their parent company can sell their products.
    Cayuga Power LLC is owned by Riesling Power LLC which is owned by Heorot Power Holdings LLC which is owned by Beowulf Energy Holdings, an oil and gas infrastructure company. Beowulf Energy | About
     
    • Informative x 1
  18. lolachampcar

    lolachampcar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2012
    Messages:
    5,132
    Location:
    WPB Florida
    I read and hear a lot about big Ag/Farming having a large carbon footprint. Am I the only one that sees a huge difference between carbon in circulation and carbon that has been sequestered for millions of years?

    On the population control front.... Well, that is another enormous can of worms.
     
  19. JRP3

    JRP3 Hyperactive Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    15,658
    Location:
    Central New York
    Big Ag carbon footprint is from all the fossil fuel inputs.
     
    • Like x 1
  20. wdolson

    wdolson Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,094
    Location:
    Clark Co, WA
    Washington may be passing on solar from California because the solar peaks in California don't meet up with the peaks in Washington. The bulk of Washington's population is in the Puget Sound area and air conditioning in homes is still not all that common.

    Washington's energy plan may be to hold onto the natural gas plants because all the plants are smallish compared to the two other non-renewable plants in the state, one of which is shutting down soon. Washington has one coal fired plant that will be partially shut down next year and the other unit will be shut down by 2025. That's the biggest fossil fuel plant in the state at 1.3 GW capacity. The 13 natural gas plants combined is less than 3.5 GW capacity. There is also a commercial nuclear plant on the Hanford Reservation and a lot of people in the state would like to see it shut down.

    For stationary storage, things will take off when new, cheap chemistries go into production. Li-ion batteries really aren't the best chemistries for stationary storage except when space is a premium (such as home storage). For commercial stationary storage where space is not a premium, low density cells with long life and low cost are much better chemistries to use. There are some in the labs now being tested that could go into production in the next few years.

    In the Northwest, the better use for batteries is on wind power rather than solar. West of the Cascades gets some of the fewest sunlight hours a year in the lower 48. East of the Cascades gets much more sun, but there are also fierce winds especially around the Columbia Gorge. Sometimes when the Columbia is running high, such as in spring runoff the Bonneville Power Administration forces the wind mill operators to shut down because the dams are producing too much power. If the wind mills had battery banks, they could store some energy instead of just having to go idle until the run-off ends.

    Solar is so un-economical around here that I ran Google's solar calculator on my house. At the end of 20 years, it would cost me $10K more to go solar than continue hooked up to the utility. I did the same calculation on the house where I grew up in Los Angeles. It would need 1/4 the size array to get the same energy demand and would save almost $20K over 20 years.

    The bulk of it is. There is some CO2 from raising animals and the stubble from some crops gets burned, but lots of vehicles are used in farming these days. Plus the energy needed to run food processing plants, then transporting the food to the end consumers. 70 years ago the bulk of long range transport in the US was done by rail, but with the rail network at max capacity, a tremendous amount of long distance transport is done by truck now which consumes a lot more fuel.
     
    • Helpful x 1

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.
  • Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


    SUPPORT TMC