Texas urges residents to cut power usage as prices surge

[Dutch Uncle]

Because leftist are fyucking God like and awesome.

Terry argument, like so many here is, that no matter how much top level power the right controls, if you have Dems any where in the system, they stilL RUN SHIT.

that righties are just hopeless to stop the Dems actually taking all control, no matter the power indifference.

So you can a GOP Governor, AG,, In control of all State Houses and most city governments but if you have just 1 or 2 Dem mayors, they are actually the ones in charge. THEY RUN SHIT.,

Terry denies being a far RWer yet his behavior belies his claims.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Terry denies being a far RWer yet his behavior belies his claims.

You have no perspective on what constitutes someone on the far Right versus far Left, none whatsoever.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You have no perspective on what constitutes someone on the far Right versus far Left, none whatsoever.

Please define it, Terry. You seem to believe anyone who doesn't hate the Left as you do is far Left.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Please define it, Terry. You seem to believe anyone who doesn't hate the Left as you do is far Left.

Wrong. The far Left wants to impose their ideas and will on everyone else. The C40 is a manifestation of this, as but one example of many. In that example, the far Left would tell you that you must become a vegan and stop eating meat. To ensure that happens, meat becomes not only illegal, but outlawed. If dairy is included, then it too becomes illegal and outlawed. Those that produce such products are forced out of business and their means of production confiscated. That's how the far Left rolls.

On the far Right, you have people who think they can live and do whatever they want with little restraint. They think everyone else can do the same. Sovereign citizens are one example of this.

So, taking other issues...

The far Left says abortion on demand from conception to birth should be universal and legal no exceptions. The far Right doesn't give a shit about abortions one way or the other. If you want one, get it. If you are against it, don't.

Where the far Left runs into a wreck is with those in between. Someone who wants some degree of restrictions on abortions is pilloried by the far Left. No exceptions! No restrictions! The far Left won't compromise, while the far Right doesn't care. Only the far Left, can't compromise because they have a unilateral view on everything.

For the far Left, their politics are summed up as What's ours is ours. What's yours is negotiable. The far Left wants a dictatorship of virtue as they see it. Their dictatorship will be the benevolent force that brings about utopia no matter how many dead bodies they have to create along the way.

For the far Left, the Center, not even the far Right, is, to them, the far Right. Someone Left of Center is just a heretic in need of reeducation. The far Right doesn't care so long as they're left alone to do what the hell they please.

It is Leftists, like you, that don't get it. You want the dictatorship of virtue. You want to impose your ideas on everybody else. You don't want a discussion. For you, there is no debate. Disagree and you get labeled variously a "Traitor" or maybe "heretic" or some other vile moniker meant to smear and discredit those on whom it's slapped.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Wrong. The far Left wants to impose their ideas and will on everyone else. The C40 is a manifestation of this, as but one example of many. In that example, the far Left would tell you that you must become a vegan and stop eating meat. To ensure that happens, meat becomes not only illegal, but outlawed. If dairy is included, then it too becomes illegal and outlawed. Those that produce such products are forced out of business and their means of production confiscated. That's how the far Left rolls.

On the far Right, you have people who think they can live and do whatever they want with little restraint. They think everyone else can do the same. Sovereign citizens are one example of this.

So, taking other issues...

The far Left says abortion on demand from conception to birth should be universal and legal no exceptions. The far Right doesn't give a shit about abortions one way or the other. If you want one, get it. If you are against it, don't.

Where the far Left runs into a wreck is with those in between. Someone who wants some degree of restrictions on abortions is pilloried by the far Left. No exceptions! No restrictions! The far Left won't compromise, while the far Right doesn't care. Only the far Left, can't compromise because they have a unilateral view on everything.

For the far Left, their politics are summed up as What's ours is ours. What's yours is negotiable. The far Left wants a dictatorship of virtue as they see it. Their dictatorship will be the benevolent force that brings about utopia no matter how many dead bodies they have to create along the way.

For the far Left, the Center, not even the far Right, is, to them, the far Right. Someone Left of Center is just a heretic in need of reeducation. The far Right doesn't care so long as they're left alone to do what the hell they please.

It is Leftists, like you, that don't get it. You want the dictatorship of virtue. You want to impose your ideas on everybody else. You don't want a discussion. For you, there is no debate. Disagree and you get labeled variously a "Traitor" or maybe "heretic" or some other vile moniker meant to smear and discredit those on whom it's slapped.

The fact you truly believe everything you wrote is what makes me think all your boats have left the harbor.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The fact you truly believe everything you wrote is what makes me think all your boats have left the harbor.

You'd need to be able to think first...

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You'd need to be able to think first...

Sure, Terry, it's all my fault you hate everyone left of you to the point of insanity.

 

[ptif219]

Texas gave all regulation away to power companies, they are raking it in on a antiquated delivery system, its the product of crony capitalism.

Its how things work in Honduras and the Bahamas and Guatemala.

They are working on it

https://www.fox4news.com/news/puc-ercot-emergency-conditions-texas-power-grid

 

[ptif219]

ptif argument is just stupid.

If Texas feels it needs MORE power from non renewables then they just need to build and get it.

To point at the renewables as the problem, as if simply removing the renewables would mean then there would be more power from fossil fuels, is just stupid.


if you were to suddenly remove the 25% of the power supplied by renewables that would not magically make the fossil fuels supply more. You would have to add more fossil fuels. if you need more fossil fuels then add them.


this pointing at the renewables as the problem is the same as the issue i point out to Terry above as pointing at the Left as the problem. Republi'cans' control the State. If Republi'cans' think they have identified a problem, then they CAN and SHOULD fix it. Just add more fossil in. If they are not fixing it, that is on them. NOt the left.

So who should pay for that?

 

[QP!]

So who should pay for that?

As happens in other States not named Texas, the State regulator requires the power utility companies who want to provide power in the State, for profit, to also provide a certain amount of capacity and redundancy.

No private company is forced to provide power in any State, but the deal is, if you want to, then you must meet these requirements.

But that reduces profits. Currently they make 'significant profits', for regular power generation and they make 'massive record setting profits' when the system gets over burdened or collapses an prices spike. Much the same as the gasoline companies make record profits whenever there is a (fake) shortage.


If you allow companies to get away with that why would they ever take some of the 'significant profits' to add capacity that would eliminate the 'massive profits'. Which shareholder wants the company to use the significant profits and lower their dividend or stock price to eliminate their massive profits?

Only republi'cans' like getting raped by massive corporations. They fight to ensure Big Pharma keeps taking advantage of all US citizens, unique in the 1st world, by not bulk negotiating for medications. They fight for Texas utilities to leave them at the mercy of extreme heat, and cold, and to then see those companies make massive record profits as a result.

Republi'cans' are derps. They are being used by their party and Trump to pad the pockets of massive industries and the uber rich while instead they tell them to care about 'woke' as the issue of our time.

 

[QP!]

Minor and for me irrelevant. It is however, a state issue not a federal one.

sure

And the Left is pushing just as hard or harder to make it a national unlimited access from conception to minutes before birth access. So?

The left NEVER said it was a State by State issue and was always for a National framework (ie Roe).

It is the Right who are HYPOCRITES because the second they gained the ability to do it State by State, they turned to trying to also do it Nationally.

So's the Left. The only difference is what books get banned, and what curriculum gets accepted.

Show me the efforts and calls to ban books on the left?

The right is in a war with Teachers and Librarians for having basic history books (such as the story of Rosa Parks) on their shelves.

What are you speaking about?

New York and Illinois were two of the worst offenders in the last round of congressional redistricting. BOTH parties gerrymander, and it's often--not always, but often--the Democrats that are the worst.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...ats-gerrymandered-congressional-map-rcna25549
https://www.vox.com/22961590/redistricting-gerrymandering-house-2022-midterms

yes both sides gerrymander but remember this post is about you saying above only the left does these bad things. Remember?

That's a problem for corporations, the military, etc. If the Left didn't push their agenda so hard on these entities, the Right wouldn't be pushing back with equal vigor.

Why can they not set their own agenda?

Especially corporations? Why does someone like Ron DeSantis feel the need to threaten and bully Restaurants, Cruise ships, Social media companies, Disney, etc and many others if they do not adopt the world view of the right?

Right back at ya! The Left does the exact same thing.

Examples please?


And i want to remind you that i replied to as you said this "...The difference is they (right) don't get together into big groups and force their stupid shit on everyone else like the radical Left does..." and you are now saying 'both sides do it', so you have backpedaled on your prior post, which is fine. So you have gone from 'the right are innocent in this area' to 'they are both bad'.

Now back up, with examples that the left is anywhere near as 'bad'. or backpedal from that one too.

 

[ptif219]

As happens in other States not named Texas, the State regulator requires the power utility companies who want to provide power in the State, for profit, to also provide a certain amount of capacity and redundancy.

No private company is forced to provide power in any State, but the deal is, if you want to, then you must meet these requirements.

But that reduces profits. Currently they make 'significant profits', for regular power generation and they make 'massive record setting profits' when the system gets over burdened or collapses an prices spike. Much the same as the gasoline companies make record profits whenever there is a (fake) shortage.


If you allow companies to get away with that why would they ever take some of the 'significant profits' to add capacity that would eliminate the 'massive profits'. Which shareholder wants the company to use the significant profits and lower their dividend or stock price to eliminate their massive profits?

Only republi'cans' like getting raped by massive corporations. They fight to ensure Big Pharma keeps taking advantage of all US citizens, unique in the 1st world, by not bulk negotiating for medications. They fight for Texas utilities to leave them at the mercy of extreme heat, and cold, and to then see those companies make massive record profits as a result.

Republi'cans' are derps. They are being used by their party and Trump to pad the pockets of massive industries and the uber rich while instead they tell them to care about 'woke' as the issue of our time.

Texas is proof solar and wind turbines will not replace fuels if you want to keep with EVs

 

[QP!]

Texas is proof solar and wind turbines will not replace fuels if you want to keep with EVs

Renewable energy (the entire sector), just like EV's is at the front end of their adaption cycle and innovation. Both are relatively young when you consider the focus and money that have poured into the sector in the past, compared to what is starting to go in to it now.

I can show you the first Personal Computers, and how big, slow and expensive they were and why some people believed they WOULD NOT ever get main stream adoption. But a handful of smart entrepreneurs understanding that advances in technology, that come with focus and mass amounts of money would prove those doubters wrong.

That is the NORM on this planet when mass amounts of Capital target a sector, from Computers, to ICE vehicles, to Nuclear technology, to so many every day things you do not even think about. The cost, scale and efficiency today is a exponentially better than at their beginnings.

You are making the same mistake Terry always makes. You are freezing the entire Renewable Energy sector in time and saying 'based on how it is today it will not and cannot provide the energy needed'.

Well d'uh.

And the point is not that Renewables have to REPLACE fossil fuels (that would be nice), WHAT THE POINT IS, is that every bit of Renewables produced should be able to LESSEN our reliance on fossil fuels, if done right.

That is also a mistake fossil fuel tards make, suggesting it is 'Replace fossil fuels or you have no value'. I point out to them that Natural gas, does not replace coal, does not replace OIl and gas, etc. They all LESSEN the need on the other form by providing a PART of the power needed by societies. Renewables are no different. As part of the energy mix they can lessen the need for Fossil fuels and that is a good thing.

Battery technology seems to be on the verge of some massive breakthroughs that could provide that first significant uptick on the curve for Renewables. A significant gain in performance, and safety and reduction in size, cost and weight could see the widescale adoption of battery walls in every new home built (credits or energy buy backs for existing home retrofits), that would then make the adoption of Solar on every home (with energy captured and stored) a potential reality.

That allows for every building to become part of a decentralized utility and smart grid, selling in power to the system when needed and providing coverage when needed.

If you think about what that means in the future it means no shut downs in peak usages (emergencies) in Texas or Cali or anywhere with a smart grid as they see the areas overloading (drawing too much power due to emergency) and shut them off the grid, before they collapse it and switch them on to their own battery back up draw down that would have 1, 2 or 3 days worth of emergency back up power. This protects the individual and the bigger utilities providing the bulk of power, but the bigger utilities hate it as they make the most profit in crisis.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Renewable energy (the entire sector), just like EV's is at the front end of their adaption cycle and innovation. Both are relatively young when you consider the focus and money that have poured into the sector in the past, compared to what is starting to go in to it now.

I can show you the first Personal Computers, and how big, slow and expensive they were and why some people believed they WOULD NOT ever get main stream adoption. But a handful of smart entrepreneurs understanding that advances in technology, that come with focus and mass amounts of money would prove those doubters wrong.

That is the NORM on this planet when mass amounts of Capital target a sector, from Computers, to ICE vehicles, to Nuclear technology, to so many every day things you do not even think about. The cost, scale and efficiency today is a exponentially better than at their beginnings.

You are making the same mistake Terry always makes. You are freezing the entire Renewable Energy sector in time and saying 'based on how it is today it will not and cannot provide the energy needed'.

Well d'uh.

And the point is not that Renewables have to REPLACE fossil fuels (that would be nice), WHAT THE POINT IS, is that every bit of Renewables produced should be able to LESSEN our reliance on fossil fuels, if done right.

That is also a mistake fossil fuel tards make, suggesting it is 'Replace fossil fuels or you have no value'. I point out to them that Natural gas, does not replace coal, does not replace OIl and gas, etc. They all LESSEN the need on the other form by providing a PART of the power needed by societies. Renewables are no different. As part of the energy mix they can lessen the need for Fossil fuels and that is a good thing.

Battery technology seems to be on the verge of some massive breakthroughs that could provide that first significant uptick on the curve for Renewables. A significant gain in performance, and safety and reduction in size, cost and weight could see the widescale adoption of battery walls in every new home built (credits or energy buy backs for existing home retrofits), that would then make the adoption of Solar on every home (with energy captured and stored) a potential reality.

That allows for every building to become part of a decentralized utility and smart grid, selling in power to the system when needed and providing coverage when needed.

If you think about what that means in the future it means no shut downs in peak usages (emergencies) in Texas or Cali or anywhere with a smart grid as they see the areas overloading (drawing too much power due to emergency) and shut them off the grid, before they collapse it and switch them on to their own battery back up draw down that would have 1, 2 or 3 days worth of emergency back up power. This protects the individual and the bigger utilities providing the bulk of power, but the bigger utilities hate it as they make the most profit in crisis.

You are completely wrong. EV's have been around for nearly 150 years. Solar and wind, likewise have been around for close to a century, if not longer.

They haven't been adopted in the past because they don't fucking work. This time around, government is forcing them on nations. It's that simple. "Renewables" eg., solar and wind, are expensive and unworkable. They are unreliable sources of generation, and that problem will never change. If the sun isn't shining, solar isn't producing. If the wind isn't blowing, or it's blowing too hard, wind generation doesn't produce.

Battery technology is pretty much a dead end. You can't get around chemistry and physics.

Home solar is a waste of time. The amount generated onto the grid per home is so miniscule as to be a rounding error. That is, it is a waste of time doing it.

Germany is a prime example of the disaster wind and solar truly are. That country, about the size of Texas has spent to date nearly a trillion dollars on a smart grid that doesn't work. Their grid is unstable, and their neighboring countries are disconnecting from Germany's grid to avoid issues caused by adoption of wind and solar. Industry is resorting increasingly to installing back up uninterruptable power supplies and diesel generators to avoid issues with grid fluctuations.

Wind and solar don't lessen the need for other forms of generation, they duplicate it. That means you have lots of installed excess power generation that sits idle costing big bucks to do so. The ONLY thing you might be able to credit to wind and solar is some small reduction in air pollution.

 

[QP!]

You are completely wrong. EV's have been around for nearly 150 years. Solar and wind, likewise have been around for close to a century, if not longer.

They haven't been adopted in the past because they don't fucking work. This time around, government is forcing them on nations. It's that simple. "Renewables" eg., solar and wind, are expensive and unworkable. They are unreliable sources of generation, and that problem will never change. If the sun isn't shining, solar isn't producing. If the wind isn't blowing, or it's blowing too hard, wind generation doesn't produce.

Battery technology is pretty much a dead end. You can't get around chemistry and physics.

Home solar is a waste of time. The amount generated onto the grid per home is so miniscule as to be a rounding error. That is, it is a waste of time doing it.

Germany is a prime example of the disaster wind and solar truly are. That country, about the size of Texas has spent to date nearly a trillion dollars on a smart grid that doesn't work. Their grid is unstable, and their neighboring countries are disconnecting from Germany's grid to avoid issues caused by adoption of wind and solar. Industry is resorting increasingly to installing back up uninterruptable power supplies and diesel generators to avoid issues with grid fluctuations.

Wind and solar don't lessen the need for other forms of generation, they duplicate it. That means you have lots of installed excess power generation that sits idle costing big bucks to do so. The ONLY thing you might be able to credit to wind and solar is some small reduction in air pollution.

And earliest forms of computers were around for over 150 years before, they went main stream, big Capital starting investing and they hit their main growth curve.

Terry you always make these same flawed arguments. By your logic personal computers were simply not going to ever be a thing before IBM and MS and others made them main stream because they were around over 150 years and no adopted them prior because personal computers just did not ficking work.

Do you see on the above how your EXACT argument applied to the personal computer before IBM and MS and others FINALLY made technology breakthru';s (both hardware and software)?

There simply is no denying that we are on the absolute front edge of Big Capital chasing improvements in all areas of Renewable energy. We are in that exponential growth phase of Capital.

And i do not think we have EVER had so much money betting on improvements that did not ever come. Individual failures within a sector, yes, but not the entire sector. Lots of PC upstarts went bankrupt but the sector soared.

As i always say Terry you should be the last person EVER to speak on the future and technology as you hold one singular world view and that is to measure EVERYTHING by where it is today and then say 'if it is not a massive success today... then it never will be'.

 

[QP!]

And i can do the same thing for the combustion engine that eventually became the heart of ICE vehicles. Around for hundreds of years before Ford eventually develops mass production, which then fuels the growth in the industry.

By your logic Terry, before Ford came in you would say 'combustion engines have been around for over 150 years . They haven't been adopted because they don't fucking work'.

Almost every development follows that path Terry but here you are, each every time we touch on technologies early in their mass development curve, with you trying to say they will not work in the future, and the technology will not get better, based on what you see today.


You simply have no clue how science and development work and should just stay out of these type discussions.

 

[ptif219]

Renewable energy (the entire sector), just like EV's is at the front end of their adaption cycle and innovation. Both are relatively young when you consider the focus and money that have poured into the sector in the past, compared to what is starting to go in to it now.

I can show you the first Personal Computers, and how big, slow and expensive they were and why some people believed they WOULD NOT ever get main stream adoption. But a handful of smart entrepreneurs understanding that advances in technology, that come with focus and mass amounts of money would prove those doubters wrong.

That is the NORM on this planet when mass amounts of Capital target a sector, from Computers, to ICE vehicles, to Nuclear technology, to so many every day things you do not even think about. The cost, scale and efficiency today is a exponentially better than at their beginnings.

You are making the same mistake Terry always makes. You are freezing the entire Renewable Energy sector in time and saying 'based on how it is today it will not and cannot provide the energy needed'.

Well d'uh.

And the point is not that Renewables have to REPLACE fossil fuels (that would be nice), WHAT THE POINT IS, is that every bit of Renewables produced should be able to LESSEN our reliance on fossil fuels, if done right.

That is also a mistake fossil fuel tards make, suggesting it is 'Replace fossil fuels or you have no value'. I point out to them that Natural gas, does not replace coal, does not replace OIl and gas, etc. They all LESSEN the need on the other form by providing a PART of the power needed by societies. Renewables are no different. As part of the energy mix they can lessen the need for Fossil fuels and that is a good thing.

Battery technology seems to be on the verge of some massive breakthroughs that could provide that first significant uptick on the curve for Renewables. A significant gain in performance, and safety and reduction in size, cost and weight could see the widescale adoption of battery walls in every new home built (credits or energy buy backs for existing home retrofits), that would then make the adoption of Solar on every home (with energy captured and stored) a potential reality.

That allows for every building to become part of a decentralized utility and smart grid, selling in power to the system when needed and providing coverage when needed.

If you think about what that means in the future it means no shut downs in peak usages (emergencies) in Texas or Cali or anywhere with a smart grid as they see the areas overloading (drawing too much power due to emergency) and shut them off the grid, before they collapse it and switch them on to their own battery back up draw down that would have 1, 2 or 3 days worth of emergency back up power. This protects the individual and the bigger utilities providing the bulk of power, but the bigger utilities hate it as they make the most profit in crisis.

They should have things set up for a smooth transition. That is not happening you will see brown outs and blackouts all over the country soon because the grid can't handle all the added use fro EV