.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
lostboy
-
Posts
623 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by lostboy
-
-
<<SNIP>>
These climate change threads only offer a choice between geeking out on scientific minutiae and endless charts - like we have witnessed in this thread or slagging matches based on ideological positions and gotcha attempts. This comment is a case in point. Wilful ignorance masquerading as an attempt at rebuttal but so deep in the denier ideological roots that it becomes moronic.
The idea of reducing the impact of humans on the environment has resulted in a huge range of strategies over the last decade; regulatory and market based; macro-level and micro-level. Emissions standards imposed by regulators on automobile engines has resulted in major improvements in the internal combustion engine. One of the main reasons electric vehicles haven't yet dominated the market is the reliability and proven technology of the internal combustion engine which remains competitive with electric vehicle technologies at current costs. This is en example of regulatory interventions.
The development of carbon markets also known as Cap and Trade is an attempt at market based solutions to minimising human impact on the environment. These markets aim to identify the true cost of environmental impact. Stock markets are quite efficient at determining the cost of capital (price of money) but stock markets are centuries old. The Amsterdam Stock Exchange was established in 1602. So these markets have had a long time to work out efficient, effective and fair market rules. At the moment carbon markets are not efficient, effective or fair but they may be. Establishing the true cost of what economists call 'externalities' is a worthwhile and significant exercise. When you drive your car, do you have to pay the full cost of externalities involved? Not just things like its emissions and other pollutants but the impact your choice has on congestion, the cost of building and maintaining roadways or the cost of disposing of the materials at the end of the car's life. If all transport methods were priced a the true cost of all externalities, you will probably find people choosing public transport which will be more efficient because investments will be made more easily under a true pricing model. This is an example of market based solutions.
At the micro level, there has been a movement towards residential waste recycling for many years. Solid Waste Management (SWM) technologies and systems are being introduced to sort and recycle waste and turn the waste into energy (WTE). Thailand is pushing the WTE option and it has implemented world class SWM systems and technologies in a number of municipalities over the past 15 years including Phitsanulok and Lampang. At the macro level, conferences and gatherings that are so derided and scoffed at by the Deniers actually helps in sharing information and developing consensus about goals, targets and strategies.
There are just 4 strategies. There are many more based in regulatory, market, micro and macro structures.
I do not care about who wins the Climate Change argument. It is political now. Sides are taken based on ideology. The Deniers are on the wrong side of history. It is no coincidence that the Deniers are also generally the ones who oppose liberalism and the emergence and, frankly dominance of the new generation of millennial in the culture wars. This new generation are tackling the issue and have no time for the silly old nay sayers. So the grumpy old white men should just sit back and try and enjoy their remaining years.
The one difference in this thread was the issue of the Pope. Some interesting observations at the start of the discussion but it soon degenerated into the usual slagging match. I believe a populist pope moves the established church closer to a position of refuting the existence of a god than a reactionary Pope (like Red Prada Shoes ret.). Without the need for a god, then more people will realise the importance of protecting the earth's environment. I look forward to the day when those people currently suffering under the psychological delusion created by religion abandon this fantasy and become true humanists.
So how is that cap and trade scam working out for Australia?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Australia Repeals Controversial Carbon TaxAP | By KRISTEN GELINEAUPosted: 07/17/2014 12:41 am EDT Updated: 09/15/2014 5:59 am EDTSYDNEY (AP) — Australia's government repealed a much-maligned carbon tax on the nation's worst greenhouse gas polluters on Thursday, ending years of contention over a measure that became political poison for the lawmakers who imposed it.The Senate voted 39 to 32 to axe the 24.15 Australian dollar ($22.60) tax per metric ton of carbon dioxide that was introduced by the center-left Labor government in July 2012. Conservative lawmakers burst into applause as the final tally was announced.Prime Minister Tony Abbott's conservative coalition government rose to power last year on the promise of getting rid of the tax, assuring voters that removing it would reduce household electricity bills. He plans to replace the measure with a taxpayer-financed AU$2.55 billion fund to pay industry incentives to use cleaner energy.Article continues here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/17/australia-repeals-carbon-tax_n_5593843.html----------------------------------------------------------------------And, in the end, this is all most of you folks have in the way of an argument..."So the grumpy old white men should just sit back and try and enjoy their remaining years."I am pleased that I have been able to provide some useful activity for your Sunday lunch time by googling articles on Australia and finding out more about my wonderful country. But come on Charles, your Texas Good ol' boy act isn't working on this one.
How is cap and trade working out in Australia? Well look at the consequences of Abbot's decisions. He is no longer leader. Carbon markets or similar or alternative strategies will be introduced in Australia, if not under the Libs then certainly when the government changes. The Mad Monk was too zealous and partisan for his own good and went the way of the dodo. Not before embarrassing many Australians however.
I have engaged through my work for Thai agencies with Australian officials working in the relevant Ministries and statutory authorities on climate change and energy issues and I am quite confident that environmentally friendly policies will resume.
Besides, I made it clear in my post that carbon markets are not efficient, effective or fair - yet. As one of those pushing the edge of the right wing envelope, surely Charles you must appreciate the attempts at market based solutions to problems.
As a self confessed old white man (not sure if you're always grumpy or not), you can tell us precisely what impact you have on global environmental policy now? Sure, your career, from what I understand, contributed significantly to the American Energy Imperialist Economy but now in your Isaan village, do you have much sway over Arab princes and various Asian Generals? Or is TVF the only outlet? I use the phrase grumpy old white men to herald the emergence of the millennials who are fixing problems of long standing and of personal immediacy to me. So the old white men can keep shaking their fists at the sky.
Please let me know if you would like more primers on Australian politics and culture. Last time I was in Texas driving down to Freeport from Houston, I was surprised how much it resembled many parts of Australia where I grew up.
-
Why don't you guys get a room.
Only the lunatics are in denial. This one has been put to bed. Even the Pope signed off for Christ's sake!
Solutions please. Irrelevant if every scientist in the whole world agrees if they can't come up with a solution.
I have heard ZERO realistic solutions that China and India can implement.
These climate change threads only offer a choice between geeking out on scientific minutiae and endless charts - like we have witnessed in this thread or slagging matches based on ideological positions and gotcha attempts. This comment is a case in point. Wilful ignorance masquerading as an attempt at rebuttal but so deep in the denier ideological roots that it becomes moronic.
The idea of reducing the impact of humans on the environment has resulted in a huge range of strategies over the last decade; regulatory and market based; macro-level and micro-level. Emissions standards imposed by regulators on automobile engines has resulted in major improvements in the internal combustion engine. One of the main reasons electric vehicles haven't yet dominated the market is the reliability and proven technology of the internal combustion engine which remains competitive with electric vehicle technologies at current costs. This is en example of regulatory interventions.
The development of carbon markets also known as Cap and Trade is an attempt at market based solutions to minimising human impact on the environment. These markets aim to identify the true cost of environmental impact. Stock markets are quite efficient at determining the cost of capital (price of money) but stock markets are centuries old. The Amsterdam Stock Exchange was established in 1602. So these markets have had a long time to work out efficient, effective and fair market rules. At the moment carbon markets are not efficient, effective or fair but they may be. Establishing the true cost of what economists call 'externalities' is a worthwhile and significant exercise. When you drive your car, do you have to pay the full cost of externalities involved? Not just things like its emissions and other pollutants but the impact your choice has on congestion, the cost of building and maintaining roadways or the cost of disposing of the materials at the end of the car's life. If all transport methods were priced a the true cost of all externalities, you will probably find people choosing public transport which will be more efficient because investments will be made more easily under a true pricing model. This is an example of market based solutions.
At the micro level, there has been a movement towards residential waste recycling for many years. Solid Waste Management (SWM) technologies and systems are being introduced to sort and recycle waste and turn the waste into energy (WTE). Thailand is pushing the WTE option and it has implemented world class SWM systems and technologies in a number of municipalities over the past 15 years including Phitsanulok and Lampang. At the macro level, conferences and gatherings that are so derided and scoffed at by the Deniers actually helps in sharing information and developing consensus about goals, targets and strategies.
There are just 4 strategies. There are many more based in regulatory, market, micro and macro structures.
I do not care about who wins the Climate Change argument. It is political now. Sides are taken based on ideology. The Deniers are on the wrong side of history. It is no coincidence that the Deniers are also generally the ones who oppose liberalism and the emergence and, frankly dominance of the new generation of millennial in the culture wars. This new generation are tackling the issue and have no time for the silly old nay sayers. So the grumpy old white men should just sit back and try and enjoy their remaining years.
The one difference in this thread was the issue of the Pope. Some interesting observations at the start of the discussion but it soon degenerated into the usual slagging match. I believe a populist pope moves the established church closer to a position of refuting the existence of a god than a reactionary Pope (like Red Prada Shoes ret.). Without the need for a god, then more people will realise the importance of protecting the earth's environment. I look forward to the day when those people currently suffering under the psychological delusion created by religion abandon this fantasy and become true humanists.
-
Sometimes I think it helps to read some of the more reasoned conservative commentators in the country, rather than only tune into the hype and nonsense punted by the Coulters as if they are the only true voice of the right.
David Brooks of the NYT has always been a favorite commentator of mine, even if a little right wing for my taste. But he's one of the few sane voices I hear coming from the right these days. I thought his column this week was pretty enlightening.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/opinion/the-republicans-incompetence-caucus.html?_r=1
Well Ann Coulter is a very smart individual, she easily could have been a university government or law professor but felt she'd be more effective in the popular arena. And the article is interesting but the response I'd have to his claim that the right has become a crisis-oriented insurgency is that it is a response to socialism seeping into the left: their current tactics come right out of Saul Alinsky who taught the way for disenfranchised people to advance is by destroying those who are successful.
Case in point: Alinsky's Rule #4: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon," hence the "racist bigot" line, Trump and Carson are both "right-wing wackos" and so on. Not sure how Brooks expects the right to counter that without mounting a response like we're seeing.
Saul Alinsky and Alinsky's Rules are the obsession of dour rightwingers and other socio-cultural and super sensitive sour political reactionaries.
Ridicule goes back to Socrates and is used in logic, mathematics, philosophy among other fields or disciplines.
Will Rogers, with his down-home way, made ridiculing political leaders an art form. And that art form has been embraced by America’s humorists ever since.—Bob Hope, 1996.
Some Rogers humor;
I don't belong to any organised political party. I'm a Democrat.
Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/hope-for-america/the-fine-art-of-ridicule.html
It becomes easy as pie to see how and why Wisconsin Gov Scott Walker in his abysmal
campaign debacle for the Republican party nomination to be POTUS failed amidst a great ridicule.
This is not to dismiss the serious concerns of the serious poster in all of his seriousity about Saul Alinsky. Ridicule is a serious matter, as is pointed out,
According to Canadian television and newspaper critic John Doyle, "there are specific periods when satire is necessary. We've entered one of those times"
http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=srhonorsprog
"Laughter is food for thought, so humor must be taken very seriously.” — International Journal of Applied Philosophy
http://www.sunypress.edu/p-5779-humor-and-the-good-life-in-mode.aspx
Clicking the link provides an illustration of the point:
Well there could be a place for it - like Ann Coulter's query, "What lives in a gated community, but thinks a wall is not a legitimate way of defending a country?" Or "what travels with a detache of armed bodyguards but thinks guns are not a legitimate way to defend yourself." That's to the point and accurate ridicule, same with Socrates.
A point of ridicule on the right would be who makes millions of campaign dollars from tobacco and alcohol companies, but wants to throw you in jail for a joint? Or the quip about how you can tell a preacher's vices by his Sunday sermons. If he talks about adultery every week, he has a mistress. If he talks about sobriety, he's a heavy drinker.
But the "right-wingers are nutjob bigots" isn't either, it's straight-out character assassination. "Shut up, he explained." A kind of left-wing totalitarianism - exactly like they do in Red China.
Coulter 'quips' and 'queries' where Alinsky 'destroys'. No doubt you call yourself an independent or undecided voter. Yet your partisanship is blatant. 'Liberals are driven by Satan' http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2007-06-28.html is a quip? Where is your outrage at this character assassination by Coulter? Unless you subscribe to this absurdity of course.
You align yourself with bigots and homophobes. Own it. Revel in it. Accept that you are marginalised and your time has passed. Otherwise your only option is to get more ridiculous and hyperbolic. Red China indeed! What is that when it is at home? Some relic of the 50's?
-
Bernie Sanders is an old, white man who advocates policies that seeks to empower people not exploit them.
He might have some good intentions but he really needs to get himself an image consultant…..he really reminds me of Christopher Lloyd, the Professor in Back to the Future.
Who cares what he looks like? I remember Christopher Lloyd fondly from watching Taxi as a kid. I enjoy his performances. I do not ascribe his characters' personality traits to politicians who vaguely resemble him. Many Americans are conditioned to react to politicised words like liberal, socialist, marxism etc. I don't see anyone posing any cogent or coherent argument against Sanders' policy statements. As a sitting Senator, he has more then good intentions, he has the potential wherewithal to implement or at least impact real change.
-
Many posters here epitomize why the US is almost done for and why Americans are considered uneducated. While these liberals have gotten their fantasies to come true in the US they have seen fit to live akin to refugees in a country that still has many semblances of the third world about it instead of back home in the US where they should supposedly be in paradise. They have voted with their feet, if not their minds. From afar they call for yet more destruction of what is left of the once great USA, heeding the latest memes cast out to them by the lamestream liberal dominated bankster run kosher media. It's like watching a nation gleefully engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.
One man comes along, and he may be a faker, but he at least talks some sense about at least slowing the destruction, and he is automatically vilified as if a satanic creature. Yet no REAL reasons are given for this... just a mindless list copied from the media clowns.
It's staggering that so many don't even SEE the real problems that are so OBVIOUS and instead are just living in a hypnotized state, fiddling as Rome burns...
Yes Coulter and the other tea bag nut jobs mourning the loss of white privilege, you know, the privilege ordained by god for the chosen few.
Perhaps if you put more words in capital letters you might Stop the Rot!
America will still be great when the first female is elected President because of it will adapt to meet the needs of new generations despite the attempts by the wealthy, privileged classes to invent and perpetuate a class system. I look forward to the time that America adopts Spanish as a 2nd official language. And black people are treated with respect as citizens by the police whose salaries they pay.
And what are you doing here in the third world (sic). Here for the temples right?
-
I get attacked on this forum for being an old white man.
I'm wondering where all the liberal outrage is that the Democratic lineup consists of four old white men and one old white woman...and all of them political hacks.
Hardly an endorsement for diversity.
Being an old, white man is a matter of time, genetics and chromosomes; elements over which no-one has control. Thinking like an old, white man is, however, something that you can influence and this is what draws attacks. Bernie Sanders is an old, white man who advocates policies that seeks to empower people not exploit them.
Two hours of debate and all you could find was some comments about physical appearance. No comment on any of the policy issues? Of course not. Old, white man thinking again. Stuck in a rut reminiscing about the golden age of a youth that never existed and angry about the loss of power and influence to a new, forward thinking generation.
Attacking Democrats on diversity is more than a 'Hail Mary' pass. it is arrant nonsense.
-
I dont know what these european politicians are smoking. Rules for refugees should be as follows:
Want to live in a christian country? Convert from islam to christianity..... They will all be tripping over themselves to get the fug out.
What is a christian country? Countries are not people. They have no religion. Please name a country not existing in the medieval period that legally requires its citizens to be Christian. Then please move there. On your way out the door, maybe you can tell us which brand of Christianity is acceptable to you and your club.
I think Hungary set a proud example.
There is no law in Hungary requiring citizens to be christian.
-
There you go, my predictions are coming true, no country on earth can sustain a million foreign
sub cultured intake of poor destitute refugees no matter how financially viable and sound their
economy is, no even the united state can do it, but yet, Merkel is forgoing the dire consequences
her action might bring on ordinary Germans, who's no doubt will lose having to put and pay
for so many aliens.....
You are surely old enough to remember German reunification. The population of East Germany in 1990 was around 16 million. West Germany, as it was known then absorbed that population. Yes there were issues but it happened.
All praise to Merkel and other Germans who welcome and give comfort to refugees in need.
-
PEGIDA, unfortunately, is a populist movement of extreme intolerant and unreasonable "fact-turners" and right-wingers and 'nutz-ies' coupled with the political 'subtle-ness' of Hamas.
These misguided hate stirrers have zero credibility while they bring gallows to their demo, affixed with (misspelled - of course) names of politicians.
And I say this as someone who has never liked Merkel..
I see the mainstream media brainwash did a good job on you. Sad to see... There have been voices before syaing, "Well, if you don't like it - do something! Get out on the streets and make sure they (the puppet politicians) hear you!" Then, when people do, they call 'em Nazis. As a German, it seems that in the world's view they can chose only out of two sides: Leftist dogooder or rightwing Nazi, but the reality is more complex. If you want to convert to Islam and live under Sharia law because you were too ignorant to see the signs on the wall, it is your choice. Mine was to get the F out of there, and that was decades ago when I for myself had figured out what's gonna happen to Germany soon and until today all of my predictions came to pass... If I would have remained, I most likely would be put (by people like you) in the Nazi folder as you people seem to be too narrow-minded to create more than two folders... poor you.
Yes, why should you have to put up with intolerance.
Germans waving flags on issues related to race. Thankfully there are still some of your compatriots who remember history and welcome new citizens.
-
I dont know what these european politicians are smoking. Rules for refugees should be as follows:
Want to live in a christian country? Convert from islam to christianity..... They will all be tripping over themselves to get the fug out.
What is a christian country? Countries are not people. They have no religion. Please name a country not existing in the medieval period that legally requires its citizens to be Christian. Then please move there. On your way out the door, maybe you can tell us which brand of Christianity is acceptable to you and your club.
-
Notwithstanding all the off topic conversation about Obama's successes/failures, permit me to take a little look at why Murdoch might be correct in his assessment.
1. Obama is of mixed heritage with a black father and white mother.
2. His black father deserted him when he was an infant and Obama had only a fleeting relationship with him until his father's death.
3. His parents divorced when Barack was only two years old and his mother married one Lolo Soetoro of Indonesia.
4. Obama lived in Hawaii with his mother and maternal grand-parents from birth until 1967 when he moved to Indonesia, where he lived and went to school for the next four years before returning to Hawaii.
5. Obama remained in Hawaii with his grand-parents until his graduation from a private high school in 1979, which he attended on a scholarship.
6. Obama left Hawaii in 1979 when he moved to Los Angeles to attend Occidental College, where his records remain sealed to this date.
7. Obama then attended Columbia in NYC where he obtained a Bachelors degree in 1983. His records remain sealed at Columbia to this date.
8. Obama worked as a community organizer for several organizations in both NYC and Chicago for the next five years.
9. Obama then entered Harvard Law in 1988 where he obtained a JD. Records are sealed there as well.
10. After graduation from Harvard he returned to Chicago and fell under the wing of Valerie Jarrett, and the rest is history.
Now somebody please tell me where Obama went through a tumultuous childhood fraught with being a minority having to ride in the back of the bus that could even begin to make him feel discriminated against because of his skin color.
He has led a sheltered life with free spending helping hands throughout.
He doesn't have a clue what real life is like, much less being a black man in real life. Give it some thought.
PS: An earlier poster tried to give Obama credit for the TARP program. TARP was passed by Congress and signed into law by George Bush in 2008. All Obama did was join 73 other Senators and vote "Aye" on the bill. Since this was the only known financial adventure the US government actually ran at a profit, he doesn't get credit for the whole thing simply by voting to approve the legislation.
Spoken like a true old white man. You have not one iota of understanding of what it means to grow up and live as a minority in an environment that is structured to favour a stereotyped gender, race, religion and sexual orientation.
You merely wish to diminish Obama's life experience because of his miscegenation. This discredited concept is the very core of racism. It is disgraceful and reeks of the plantation mentality.
-
*cutting out idiot rhetoric*
So please tell me again how Obama is the best president?
1. Operation Neptune Spear (this alone weighed against all the quagmire of the Iraq war and your favorite topic.. the national debt created from it, not to mention the lives and limbs lost from Iraq war).. consider that next time you vote for a neocon
2. Equal Rights for LBGT (I couldn't even take my spouse to the USA without DOMA ruling)
3. Obamacare works beautifully for my spouse
4. My 401k is a lot better today than it was in October 2008.
5. Gas costs less than half of what it did in 2008.
6. The economy. His gamble on TARP and his plan is working.. the economy is recovering.. slowly but surely compared to Europe/ China/ Russia/ Brazil.. they would kill to be in the United States shoes right now. We're definitely not losing 750,000 jobs a month.. we're adding 200k or more consistently.
7. Anti-War Stance and getting out of Iraq
8. Opening Cuba
9. The alternative is just obstruct obstruct obstruct and do nothing except preaching trickle down economics which convincing suckers at the bottom of the economic pyramid they can make money when the only one's making anything are those at the top, kill food stamps, pell grants, medicare, medicaid, privatize social security, education, pensions, get cronies to run it into the ground, lower taxes for the 1% while raising sales taxes, tolls, fees and then rail on and on how government doesn't work.
I would like the next POTUS to continue progressive policies and try to be even better than Obama has been.
Hopefully it's Bernie Sanders! I think Bernie can do a 5 times better job than Obama but that doesn't mean Obama isn't better than Reagan, Bush and Bush.
5. Gas costs less than half of what it did in 2008.
DESPITE Obama, not because of him. He has done everything he can to increase the price of fuel, including stopping the Keystone pipeline. It is only because of frakking that the price of fuel in the US has come down, combined with a world recession.
The price of gas is linked to long term oil contracts. In the US, Henry Hub is a distribution hub in Louisiana that provides a reference price for natural gas. With the fall in oil prices, shale gas and shale oil in many part of the US are now too expensive to extract. The utilisation of shale gas in the US requires significant investment in infrastructure including pipelines. For export, large investments in terminals and liquefaction facilities are needed to ship it as LNG to global markets.
The Keystone Pipeline would have a negligible effect, if any, on US/Global oil and gas prices.
The only way a politician can offer lower gas prices, an in this context gas usually means fuel for vehicles is to lower taxes, which comprise a significant portion of the pump price in most countries or by subsidies. Anyone who claims otherwise, as certain right wing politicians in the last Presidential election cycle, have their heads up their butt.
-
Something Mr. Corbyn and other republicans (in the European sense) sould consider, including some of you represented here, Is that counterintuitively, the Monarchies of Europe defended democracy with everything they had during WW11. Whereas all of the republics became Fascist and Nazi dictatorships.
Factor in Russia and the USSR (CCCP) Who had recently shot their Royal family the Romanoffs and the case is made even stronger for the monarchies; Britain, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, with Sweden turning both ways as did France.
So it's not a matter of opinion who is more democratic, the likes of Mr Corbyn or dear old Betty Windsor. It's a matter of historical record.
Well yes. According to that famous neo-marxist anarchist, Henry Ford:
"History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's damn is the history that we make today." (Chicago Tribune, 1916).http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/182100.html
About time for some revisionism on WWII and the Cold War I think.
Nothing like cherry picking wars,
What about WW1, where the German King and the British King (cousins) agreed to fight and kill off all the unneeded serfs left off from the industrial revolution.
Don't forget that to those who wrap themselves in the Union Jack and refer to 'the sovereign' or 'Lizzie', WWII was the good war where everyone knew what was right or wrong. Notwithstanding those new Eastern European 'democracies' were in a post-imperialism phase reacting against the autocracy of their various imperial masters.
I don't think the Lizzie Lovers would bother asking the people of the Congo what they thought of their Belgian imperial overlord. Just as long as a few locals got bits of tin or coloured ribbon to put on their shirts, then everything is ok.
-
Something Mr. Corbyn and other republicans (in the European sense) sould consider, including some of you represented here, Is that counterintuitively, the Monarchies of Europe defended democracy with everything they had during WW11. Whereas all of the republics became Fascist and Nazi dictatorships.
Factor in Russia and the USSR (CCCP) Who had recently shot their Royal family the Romanoffs and the case is made even stronger for the monarchies; Britain, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, with Sweden turning both ways as did France.
So it's not a matter of opinion who is more democratic, the likes of Mr Corbyn or dear old Betty Windsor. It's a matter of historical record.
Well yes. According to that famous neo-marxist anarchist, Henry Ford:
"History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's damn is the history that we make today." (Chicago Tribune, 1916).http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/182100.html
About time for some revisionism on WWII and the Cold War I think.
-
Yep. I've been all over.
If you wish, you might want to check my posts and see how many I have made in the many threads on the forum dealing with Scotland's break with the UK and the UK break with the EU.
I used to visit Scotland for golf vacations and drove from London to Scotland many times. Do those trips qualify me for an in-depth conversation about the secession matters?
I think not, so I choose to keep my mouth shut when it comes to matters that I have little knowledge of or personal concern about.
That little piece of advice might cover a multitude of posts and posters that somehow believe a brief visit to the US qualifies them as an expert on life in the US.
One thing that is being tragically overlooked in all this discussion on the school shootings and mass murders is this simple fact...
This really isn't a gun control issue. It is a mental health issue.
Come on Charles. You know very well this is straight of the right wing think tank's play book on talking points to divert the gun control debate. Pure idealogical bs.
John Oliver doesn't agree with you:
"The vast majority of mentally ill people are nonviolent and the vast majority of gun violence is committed by non-mentally ill people. In fact, mentally ill people are far likelier to be the victims of violence rather than the perpetrators."
I believe he has a point. The death of human beings by gun violence is a universal issue. Funny how some 'patriots' hold that the 1st Amendment is inviolable except when talking about the 2nd Amendment and then no-one has the right to any opinion contrary to the status quo.
Please feel free to start attacking the media source and responding with excerpts from the NY Post or Breitbart.
You are certainly living up to your user name. Congratulations for being so omniscient in advance.
Firstly let me apologize for the delay in getting back with you. It was rather late when I read your post and I had a 90 day report to make today so I have not had the time to respond appropriately.
Now to your post.
1. I have never had the dubious pleasure of listening to John Oliver, having never heard of him. However since your brilliant post informing me that he disagrees with my position on the medical industry and mass shooters, I decided to look him up. I now find out he is a British comedian who has worked with Jon Stewart. In my opinion, which I am sure he will disagree with, that already gives him two strikes.
In short, I really couldn't care less whether some empty suit named John Oliver agrees or disagrees with something I might compose. Strike three.
2. Now, your trying to use Huffington Post as a reliable unbiased source and telling other posters what sources you find repugnant ranks right up there with my own personal opinion about John Oliver. The Huffington Post is merely an extra liberal extension of the Democratic Party and the Hillary campaign. Having said all that, I will continue using links I find useful and continue disregarding those that are from the far left field of liberalism.
3. Since you, and your guru John Oliver, seem to believe the mental health industry has no dog in this fight, let me provide just a few links for you to read and digest:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
35 School shooters/school related violence committed by those under the influence of psychiatric drugs
http://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Every mass shooting over last 20 years has one thing in common... and it's not gunsLearn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039752_mass_shootings_psychiatric_drugs_antidepressants.html#ixzz3nsrSFIto----------------------------------------------------------------------Medicated to Death: SSRIs and Mass Killings----------------------------------------------------------------------SSRI Stories---------------------------------------------------------------------Finally there is this little snippet relating to the shooter from Oregon."There are a number of indications that Harper-Mercer had mental health or behavioral issues. His screen name on some social media sites was "lithium love." Lithium is used as a psychiatric medication.Harper-Mercer graduated from The Switzer Learning Center in 2009, according to a graduation listing in The Daily Breeze newspaper. Switzer Center is a private, nonprofit school in Torrance, California, geared for special education students with a range of issues from learning disabilities, health problems and autism or Asperger's Disorder, according to the school's website.No need to apologise Chuck. Being active in your winter years is very healthful I understand. So the 90 day reporting is a good reason to get out of the house. Wouldn't know about that myself. I recall doing 1 report in my time here about 19 years ago and thankfully never had to do another one.
Do you not find it boring being predictable? You post links and then expect readers to attack the source instead of the argument and I say the same thing and lo and behold, you attack the source. As I predicted.
While I find it interesting that the lunar-right (to steal a phrase from elsewhere) desperately try and become experts on mental health and psychiatric medication and supervision in a desperate attempt to justify the 'mental health' narrative diversion away from gun control issues, I think that it is noticeable that you do not address one word of John Oliver's statement. You point to his nationality. You point to his vocation. You point to his association with John Stewart, someone by the way who has actually acceded to 'Godhood' unlike the bunch of nobodies promoted by Ratzinger and his predecessors. Remind me, are their any right wing comedians who actually make anyone laugh with them instead of at them. You know, the so-called 'entertainers' like Rush Limbaugh and O'Reilly/Hannity? But to the point, irrespective of John Oliver's political, social or even sexual affiliations, is there anything that you have to say about his point?
People with mental health issues are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. You don't agree? Of course they are because they are rendered powerless by their condition and less able to deal with challenges. Not everyone can be a Texas Ranger Chuck. For the gun lobby to co-opt the serious issue of mental health care for their grubby ideological agenda is anathema. Further stigmatising an already misunderstood and unappreciated human condition.
I will admit to you that I didn't bother to read your links. Just like you didn't bother to read mine, once you say the red flag of Huffington Post or maybe you googled John Oliver and say 'The Daily Show' and you knew you would not need to go any further. Anyway, this thread has died, much like the rationale for the 2nd Amendment and I probably shouldn't have responded to your post and bumped it. This week has been quite busy so I could have just stuck to working on my projects but I just felt the need to further contribute to your 'education'.
You do know that liberalism in the economic sense is the same as free market capitalism and deregulation don't you? I find it amusing to be accused of being liberal and progressive. It is such a compliment but the right thinks it is such an insult. And then they double down by saying socialist or communist and I see people talking about cultural marxism the more to the looney right they move. So I wonder if you might define what the 'ultra left' of liberalism is? And you may want to read Adam Smith before your reply.
So I hope I have given you enough red meat to chew on while you are next playing golf with the few remaining Generals, sorry former clients of yours, who are left living and probably best to put this thread out of its misery but we can pick up the tussle in the next gun control thread that will inevitably occur and keep on recurring with tragic and appaling regularity.
-
I will be happy to enlighten you but I doubt you will find it any less offensive than my original response.
I have been a member of this forum going on 13 years so I consider myself well versed in which nationalities are apt to take a particular position on gun control. As you might recall there have been a plethora of such threads in recent years.
The overwhelming attitude towards the Second Amendment is a mixture of ridicule and scorn from many forum members emanating from the nations of England, Australia, New Zealand and the partners of the EU. The liberal progressive attitude is the lowly Americans have no idea what they are doing and somehow are threatening the well being of the world with the US' right to bear arms, notwithstanding the fact most of the critics of the Second Amendment have never been in the US, never lived in the US and have no plans to ever visit the US.
Nothing seems to be at fault except the weapons industry and the lack of laws. No fault lies with the medical profession for their confidentiality rules, the entertainment industry for their violent games or Hollywood for their graphic violence in movies.
First and foremost is, nobody seems to think the parents should bear any responsibility for the actions of their offspring who have turned against society and decided to mass murder innocent people. There doesn't appear to be any soul searching on their part trying to figure out where they went wrong and what they might have been able to do to avoid tragedies such as this.
The interview I watched on CNN with the shooter's father was blaming the availability of guns as the sole reason his son went south on humanity.
And this, kind sir, is the general attitude that is voiced on this forum by members of those nations mentioned above. It's all the fault of the gun owners and gun laws.
You might want to rethink what you consider to be vile and odious.
How about the murder of nine innocent young people by a crazed maladjusted individual as a starter?
Agree with you on one point, many non-americans don't understand the obsession with the right to bear arms. I'd go even further though, and say that many Americans don't understand that obsession either. And I have not seen convincing arguments in favor of that right, only arguments that show a limited point of view.
Regarding your implied point 'know the area and you're allowed to discuss on it', I have been to the US, so following your reasoning am allowed to discuss it. I've even been to Yankee and Confederate areas, so am allowed to discuss on that. Hell, I've even been to Israel, multiple times, so I'm allowed to discuss on that as well, ever been to Israel?
Yep. I've been all over.
If you wish, you might want to check my posts and see how many I have made in the many threads on the forum dealing with Scotland's break with the UK and the UK break with the EU.
I used to visit Scotland for golf vacations and drove from London to Scotland many times. Do those trips qualify me for an in-depth conversation about the secession matters?
I think not, so I choose to keep my mouth shut when it comes to matters that I have little knowledge of or personal concern about.
That little piece of advice might cover a multitude of posts and posters that somehow believe a brief visit to the US qualifies them as an expert on life in the US.
One thing that is being tragically overlooked in all this discussion on the school shootings and mass murders is this simple fact...
This really isn't a gun control issue. It is a mental health issue.
Come on Charles. You know very well this is straight of the right wing think tank's play book on talking points to divert the gun control debate. Pure idealogical bs.
John Oliver doesn't agree with you:
"The vast majority of mentally ill people are nonviolent and the vast majority of gun violence is committed by non-mentally ill people. In fact, mentally ill people are far likelier to be the victims of violence rather than the perpetrators."
I believe he has a point. The death of human beings by gun violence is a universal issue. Funny how some 'patriots' hold that the 1st Amendment is inviolable except when talking about the 2nd Amendment and then no-one has the right to any opinion contrary to the status quo.
Please feel free to start attacking the media source and responding with excerpts from the NY Post or Breitbart.
-
A school teacher has an easy time with a class of 10 and a difficult time with a class of 50. Australia has a population of 20 million and the USA has 300 million. Do you see the difference? Australia has 33 thousand people in jail. USA has almost 3 million. Do you see the difference? If my only worry was a population the size of Florida with few violent minorities, crime and guns would not be much of a problem.
Clearly the whole concept of governance eludes you. You imply a connection between differential population sizes and gun control but don't offer anything but snide comments centred on simple arithmatic. Utterly meaningless. Your notion of social cohesion is outmoded, discredited and backward. As is your notion of class room management. There is nothing there to offer to any discussion on gun control. Other countries have led the way and provide examples. Ignore, resist and deny them at your peril.
The concept of city like Detroit eludes you. Australia does not have one. Crime in Australia is not the same as crime in America.
If you have a problem in America in many places cops don't come to help you. It is not the same in Australia.
You want to compare Australia gun/crime with America OK. Adjust your ethnic populations to match America.
Pick places in America that have a ethnic and population match to Australia. Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming those kinds of places. Gun crimes? Next to none.
Why were you speaking in code all this time. Your concern is not population size or habitable zones. Your concern is people with dark skins and poor people. You fear them. That's why you want your guns. Why didn't you make this clear in the first place. If I'd known I was dealing with a common garden variety racist, I wouldn't have bothered. Since there is no point dealing with bigots, then I will leave with the final observation that your understanding of Australia, a country of immigrants, is woeful.
-
Australia is quite small compared to the US? You really do dream this stuff up.
I suggest you use google to compare.
The population of Australia is 10 million less than one state, California (there are 49 other states). If you combine the GDPs of Australia, Burma, the Czech Republic, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Peru and Ukraine, you will have the same size economy as California. California accounted for nearly 3 percent of the worlds GDP in 2008. The Governor of many states in the USA has a significantly larger populations and economies to manage than the country of Australia. Almost all of America is habitable and almost none of Australia is. Australia’s habitable land takes up approximately 10% of the actual land mass, with 90% being ‘termed’ uninhabitable. http://37propertygroup.com.au/2012/08/12/population-density/
Sorry, it's a small country the size of one State in terms of population and economy and does not have the same problems as a large country like the USA to compare the two is apples to watermelon; it does not compute.
http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/california-vs-the-world_2010-05-10/
You present no argument to demonstrate any correlation between population size, GDP and percentage of habitable land with gun control. You merely spray around googled figures that are entirely out of context in an attempt to counter legitimate questioning of your assertions; such assertions getting wilder and wilder as you dig yourself deeper into numerous holes.
Figures on increases in total number of guns in Australia since 1996 that you have tried to throw around elsewhere are meaningless. The issue is not the ownership but the regulation of ownership which is far stricter and far more effective in Australia as a result of effective, sensible and enforced gun control legislation.
The trouble with googling data to support weak, illogical and inconsistent arguments and statements is that meaningless data does not provide meaning for nonsensical statements. I have spent a number of years living in and working with indigenous people who inhabited your so-called 'uninhabitable' areas of Australia. They and their ancestors have been doing so for probably more than 50,000 years. That's even before indigenous people inhabited the North American continent. I don't know the originator of the nonsense on habitable vs non habitable land that you 'researched' or the context of the data but every 2nd year high school geography student in my home state learns about the difference between arable and non arable land as this has been a guiding factor in the development of that part of Australia since colonisation. But again, serious issues but nothing to do with gun control.
Your objective is clear. You wish to diminish Australia's achievements to support your ideological rant on guns. You attempt to blow the horn of American 'exceptionalism' to justify your point of view. Go for it. These threads occur with appaling frequency and there is always some 'enthusiast' to spout the usual pro-gun nonsense backed up by judicious contributions from the hard right loons talking about the good old days in Texas or Oregon or 'when I was a prison guard'. Next week's mass shooting threat will throw up some other goon to push the party line. It is pleasing to see the number of Americans who appreciate the experience of those who live without fear in communities with well regulated gun laws and understand absolutely the correlation between gun control and th reduction in deaths by firearms.
Go for it. But if you attempt to use information about things that you only find out from Google, then don't be surprised if your silly 'facts' and data are thrown back at you. That pretty much includes almost everything about Australia.
A school teacher has an easy time with a class of 10 and a difficult time with a class of 50. Australia has a population of 20 million and the USA has 300 million. Do you see the difference? Australia has 33 thousand people in jail. USA has almost 3 million. Do you see the difference? If my only worry was a population the size of Florida with few violent minorities, crime and guns would not be much of a problem.
Clearly the whole concept of governance eludes you. You imply a connection between differential population sizes and gun control but don't offer anything but snide comments centred on simple arithmatic. Utterly meaningless. Your notion of social cohesion is outmoded, discredited and backward. As is your notion of class room management. There is nothing there to offer to any discussion on gun control. Other countries have led the way and provide examples. Ignore, resist and deny them at your peril.
-
Australia is quite small compared to the US? You really do dream this stuff up.
I suggest you use google to compare.
The population of Australia is 10 million less than one state, California (there are 49 other states). If you combine the GDPs of Australia, Burma, the Czech Republic, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Peru and Ukraine, you will have the same size economy as California. California accounted for nearly 3 percent of the worlds GDP in 2008. The Governor of many states in the USA has a significantly larger populations and economies to manage than the country of Australia. Almost all of America is habitable and almost none of Australia is. Australia’s habitable land takes up approximately 10% of the actual land mass, with 90% being ‘termed’ uninhabitable. http://37propertygroup.com.au/2012/08/12/population-density/
Sorry, it's a small country the size of one State in terms of population and economy and does not have the same problems as a large country like the USA to compare the two is apples to watermelon; it does not compute.
http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/california-vs-the-world_2010-05-10/
You present no argument to demonstrate any correlation between population size, GDP and percentage of habitable land with gun control. You merely spray around googled figures that are entirely out of context in an attempt to counter legitimate questioning of your assertions; such assertions getting wilder and wilder as you dig yourself deeper into numerous holes.
Figures on increases in total number of guns in Australia since 1996 that you have tried to throw around elsewhere are meaningless. The issue is not the ownership but the regulation of ownership which is far stricter and far more effective in Australia as a result of effective, sensible and enforced gun control legislation.
The trouble with googling data to support weak, illogical and inconsistent arguments and statements is that meaningless data does not provide meaning for nonsensical statements. I have spent a number of years living in and working with indigenous people who inhabited your so-called 'uninhabitable' areas of Australia. They and their ancestors have been doing so for probably more than 50,000 years. That's even before indigenous people inhabited the North American continent. I don't know the originator of the nonsense on habitable vs non habitable land that you 'researched' or the context of the data but every 2nd year high school geography student in my home state learns about the difference between arable and non arable land as this has been a guiding factor in the development of that part of Australia since colonisation. But again, serious issues but nothing to do with gun control.
Your objective is clear. You wish to diminish Australia's achievements to support your ideological rant on guns. You attempt to blow the horn of American 'exceptionalism' to justify your point of view. Go for it. These threads occur with appaling frequency and there is always some 'enthusiast' to spout the usual pro-gun nonsense backed up by judicious contributions from the hard right loons talking about the good old days in Texas or Oregon or 'when I was a prison guard'. Next week's mass shooting threat will throw up some other goon to push the party line. It is pleasing to see the number of Americans who appreciate the experience of those who live without fear in communities with well regulated gun laws and understand absolutely the correlation between gun control and th reduction in deaths by firearms.
Go for it. But if you attempt to use information about things that you only find out from Google, then don't be surprised if your silly 'facts' and data are thrown back at you. That pretty much includes almost everything about Australia.
-
Yes, calling people that disagree with you moronic is always a good argument. Installed capacity: that is the power that would be developed if ALL the turbines were working at 100%. They never will be. That's where the scam comes in. That's why the UK is abandoning wind power as a source of energy.Tell me where there is enough wind in Thailand for this to happen? I drove past a wind farm in Switzerland every day and I NEVER saw all the turbines working at once, mostly they were all immobile. Whatever the power costs are in Thailand, the fact is that these ugly things will never bring 3002 MW. More like 300.As far as I know, these turbines are part of a scam in many parts of Europe. They forget to tell you that you need 4000 hours of adequate wind yearly to make these things worthwhile.
So where's the windy city in Thailand where you have that kind of potential?
"Wind turbines generate electrical energy when they are not shut down for maintenance, repair, or tours and the wind is between about 8 and 55 mph. Below a wind speed of around 30 mph, however, the amount of energy generated is very small." from https://www.wind-watch.org/faq-output.php
Wind turbines are also UGLY. They will doubtless be implanted in the middle of Nature reserves, together with the accompanying access roads. Convincing people to insulate their homes and factories might be a start, I shudder to think what the air conditioning bills for the malls all over Thailand cost.
I'm calling potential for scam on this one.
Installed capacity of wind power in Thailand in 2014 was 224.5 MW. The target for wind capacity by 2036 in the as yet unreleased PDP 2015 (Power Developmetn Plan) is 3002MW. It is probable that most of the wind will be installed by private Thai energy companies using the Feed in Tarrif (FIT) of 6.06 baht/kWh.
The economics of wind farms varies in each country depending on the price of grid connected electricity, costs of inputs and whether subsidies are provided. Calling the wind industry a scam is pretty moronic in my view. Wind will provide a key element of Thailand's much needed fuel diversity and move away from over reliance on diminishing natural gas. The targets for wind energy represent the mobilisation of 2.5 - 4 billion US$ which will come primarily from domestic capital markets, not to mention the employment opportunities and the impact on reduction of Thailand's carbon emissions.
You may have your own opinions of the aesthetics of wind turbines but please acknowledge the role of wind energy on Thailand's energy policy and the economics of the wind industry before blowing so much hot air.
A quote from the link I gave before, that you evidently haven't read:
General Electric (GE) makes a once widely used 1.5-megawatt model. 1.5 MW is its rated, or maximum, capacity, at which rate it will produce power when the wind is in the ideal range for that model, between 27 and 56 mph. Turbines are now generally in the range of 2-3 MW.
At wind speeds below 30mph, production drops to 10% of that.
Very few solar power installations in Thailand, why is that? Subsidies for insulation of buildings would certainly be worthwhile. Wind power? Nah
Solar power is also part of the plan with bids planned for a further 600mw early next year i believe. Thailand is fairly well advanced in the region as far as solar is concerned and fancies itself as an ASEAN hub (along with being a hub for everything else under the sun).
The allocation of solar PV to be bid under the new Feed In Tariff (FIT) regulations was approved by the National Energy Policy Council (NEPC) in October last year. NEPC approved the conversion of 800 MW allocated to villages to also include government agencies and agricultural cooperatives. As this 800 MW has been developed by the policy makers, the numbers have changed back and forth primarily depending on the interest of the current regime and it has been divided, recombined, and divided many times amongst a range of 'categories'. What seems to be the case is that a large part will go to Agricultural Co-operates. At a FIT public hearing a couple of months ago, ERC indicated that applications for 5000 MW of PV had been received just from Agricultural Cooperatives without considering any other government entity, which also could include state enterprises if they wanted to apply. So applications for 5000 MW when 800 (or 600) is available. I was told that the policy makers were considering a lottery system to select the winning tenders, which to me is a retrograde step.
The 800 MW allocation only allows solar PV installations of up to 5 MW in each unit, although I did hear that this had been increased to 10 but I am not sure on the reliability of that information and I have stayed far away from this project. The 800 MW is the only game in town for solar at the moment. In terms of the future, I think the days of 'first come first served' are long gone not just for solar but most renewable energy projects. I also think that there is a strong sentiment for community based projects and residential rooftop PV and the old style solar farms licenses being 'won' by certain cronies may be finished. We would have to wait and see what impact this 'decentralised generation' model has on the ability to finance investments and on the operations of the grid network.
I think that industrial and residential rooftop solar PV may be the way forward in Thailand for the solar sector.
-
As far as I know, these turbines are part of a scam in many parts of Europe. They forget to tell you that you need 4000 hours of adequate wind yearly to make these things worthwhile.
So where's the windy city in Thailand where you have that kind of potential?
"Wind turbines generate electrical energy when they are not shut down for maintenance, repair, or tours and the wind is between about 8 and 55 mph. Below a wind speed of around 30 mph, however, the amount of energy generated is very small." from https://www.wind-watch.org/faq-output.php
Wind turbines are also UGLY. They will doubtless be implanted in the middle of Nature reserves, together with the accompanying access roads. Convincing people to insulate their homes and factories might be a start, I shudder to think what the air conditioning bills for the malls all over Thailand cost.
I'm calling potential for scam on this one.
Installed capacity of wind power in Thailand in 2014 was 224.5 MW. The target for wind capacity by 2036 in the as yet unreleased PDP 2015 (Power Developmetn Plan) is 3002MW. It is probable that most of the wind will be installed by private Thai energy companies using the Feed in Tarrif (FIT) of 6.06 baht/kWh.
The economics of wind farms varies in each country depending on the price of grid connected electricity, costs of inputs and whether subsidies are provided. Calling the wind industry a scam is pretty moronic in my view. Wind will provide a key element of Thailand's much needed fuel diversity and move away from over reliance on diminishing natural gas. The targets for wind energy represent the mobilisation of 2.5 - 4 billion US$ which will come primarily from domestic capital markets, not to mention the employment opportunities and the impact on reduction of Thailand's carbon emissions.
You may have your own opinions of the aesthetics of wind turbines but please acknowledge the role of wind energy on Thailand's energy policy and the economics of the wind industry before blowing so much hot air.
Yes, calling people that disagree with you moronic is always a good argument. Installed capacity: that is the power that would be developed if ALL the turbines were working at 100%. They never will be. That's where the scam comes in. That's why the UK is abandoning wind power as a source of energy.Tell me where there is enough wind in Thailand for this to happen? I drove past a wind farm in Switzerland every day and I NEVER saw all the turbines working at once, mostly they were all immobile. Whatever the power costs are in Thailand, the fact is that these ugly things will never bring 3002 MW. More like 300.
A quote from the link I gave before, that you evidently haven't read:
General Electric (GE) makes a once widely used 1.5-megawatt model. 1.5 MW is its rated, or maximum, capacity, at which rate it will produce power when the wind is in the ideal range for that model, between 27 and 56 mph. Turbines are now generally in the range of 2-3 MW.
At wind speeds below 30mph, production drops to 10% of that.
Very few solar power installations in Thailand, why is that? Subsidies for insulation of buildings would certainly be worthwhile. Wind power? Nah
I did not call you a moron. I said that calling the wind energy industry a scam is moronic. If you want to take it personally, fine. It wasn't meant as a personal reference. Also, no. I did not read your link. It was immaterial to my point. it still is. Equipment specs don't do it for me at all. I once had to sit through a whole day of briefings at GE's HQ in Albany New York with a bunch of Thai officials on one of their new turbines that they were trying to flog off. Thoroughly boring.
Rates capacity of wind turbines, solar PV, hydro turbines etc is quite unimportant for grid operators. What counts is how much power is provided to the grid. That is what the grid operator pays for. Rated capacity is a figure that can help power planners but power plans are full of assumptions and scenarios that change change for a variety of reasons; technology changes being just a minor one.
the operator of a wind farm has an obligation under a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) to provide the amount of power specified in the contract. Even if the amount of power is not specified and the system operator has to take any power produced by a renewable source, as is the case in Germany, then they are only interested in the kWh produced. Actual kW or MW capacity is irrelevant. The SO must secure sufficient power to meet demand 24/7. Whether the wind farm operator has all turbines running or some are down for maintenance or whatever, is up to the operator to manage within the requirements of the contract with the off-taker.
There are many issues related to the economics of wind and other renewable energy that create perverse outcomes. Rated capacity of equipment or maintenance outages are not among them and none of them rise to the level of 'scam'.
Wikipedia has some nice and clear stats on wind energy. Total global wind energy installed capacity 2014 is almost 370,000 MW. China has over 114,000 MW. Just 3 years ago, I visited State Grid of China with a Thai delegation and they had just passed Germany's 23,000 MW to their increase is massive. The US is now 2nd on the list ahead of Germany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_by_country These figures are impressive. All of the multiple billions of dollars of investment; all of the highly trained engineers working in the public and private sector on wind energy; all of the economists and financiers working on the costs and price of power supplied by wind; and, all of the consumers being served by wind energy around the world. Any you call it a scam?
You asked where are the locations for wind farms in Thailand. The NE and some part of the South. You can find wind maps of Thailand on the internet. Wind farm developers will have their own. Any proposal for a wind farm under the VSPP and SPP regulations is required to have extensive data on this. The fact that you don't know this information does not mean it does not exist.
You say that there are very few solar installations in Thailand. In 2014 installed capacity of solar energy was 1,298.5 MW. Under PDP2015 it is expected to be 6,000 by 2035. The power planners expect this to be mostly solar farms but now that the Energy Regulatory Commission has issued regulations on rooftop solar, I personally believe that this sub-sector will expand significantly once net metering has been approved by Cabinet. The Ministry of Energy is already looking at pilot programs for the liberalisation of rooftop solar PV in 2 provinces.
Subsidies for insulation and other energy efficiency initiatives are available from the Energy Conservation Fund administered by the Energy Policy and Planning Office (EPPO). I have very limited experience with ESCO's and the DSM sector in terms of retail energy efficiency. However, I cannot see any relevance of this to the wind energy issue.
If you post links on the economics of wind energy or the impact of wind energy on network system operations, I will probably read it. There are some extremely interesting and important concerns related to those issues. Links on turbine specs will remain unread by me.
-
Let's hope you are right? But given past purchases of equipment for the gov has been shady to say the least one can only wonder why unit prices were not listed as yet compared to the price your senior positioned ministered are showing they will not have paid for them. Transparency remember. Maybe Mr.P has finally scared your coworkers into being honest politicians. Or at the least transferred out the bad ones. It would be a breath of fresh air to finally see that corruption is finally be rooted out of the system even if it has not been from all places.Notice how no info about costs or when this project was approved. It makes me wonder if when this info finally does come to light just how much corruption is involved. I hope their was none and costs are not overly exaggerated. But I have yet to see this not happen in thailand
Purchase of renewable energy by MEA and PEA is regulated under the Very Small Power Producer Program (VSPP) for sales of energy to the grid of less than 10 MW. If a wind farm sells energy of between 10 - 90 MW then it will come under the SPP regulations. Both sets of regulations can be found on the websites of MEA, PEA and the Energy Regulatory Commission. The ERC regulates power procurement according to the Energy Industry Act 2007.
International energy companies operate in Thailand under Board of Investment privileges allowing tax holidays and relaxation of foreign ownership restrictions. Foreign and domestic owned energy companies submit proposals for SPP and VSPP according to the regulations, raise the capital, then procure, install and operate the equipment. Pretty much all aspects of this process from raising capital to equipment purchase happens in a competitive environment and in compliance to accounting, audit and financial reporting rules.
Slagging of a multi-billion dollar industry that is essential to the economic development of the country with wild and frankly pig-ignorant allegations is pretty low class. If you or anyone has evidence of corruption in this or any other industry involving state agents, then you can PM me. Many of the officials that I have worked for and alongside in government occupy dome of the most senior positions in the various Ministries involved in the economic sector and I know that they would act swiftly if presented with evidence.
No government agency is involved in the procurement of equipment or the operations and management of wind farms under the SPP and VSPP programs. The regulator issues the license to the private company, MEA and PEA purchase the power provided. Equipment purchase by private companies is a commercial decision. You will not find many private companies revealing commercially confidential information such as contract prices for purchases. Prices paid by government entities who purchase the power are publicly listed and reviewed at a regular rate involving extensive public consultation.
Just saying that the sale goods and services by a Danish company must be corrupt because you think everything in Thailand is corrupt is pretty meaningless. And so wide of the mark. I am sure the Danish company would not welcome even the hint of any allegation of corruption. Anti-corruption legislation in the UK, Australia, Europe, US and Canada is massively stringent. Hurling around unsubstantiated allegations on this issue is no small thing.
Your faith in the General is quaint. But utterly and comically unfounded.
This is an issue that warrants serious attention and discussion. Without knowledge of the way the industry, in this case the wind/power industry works, the policy and regulatory environment and other relevant issues then offering crude generalisations based on 5th hand information you may have come across is quite pointless. The energy industry is a major part of the Thai economy. It is a serious business impacting on the lives of many. It should be taken seriously. As should any drive against corruption in that or any other sector.
-
Notice how no info about costs or when this project was approved. It makes me wonder if when this info finally does come to light just how much corruption is involved. I hope their was none and costs are not overly exaggerated. But I have yet to see this not happen in thailand
Purchase of renewable energy by MEA and PEA is regulated under the Very Small Power Producer Program (VSPP) for sales of energy to the grid of less than 10 MW. If a wind farm sells energy of between 10 - 90 MW then it will come under the SPP regulations. Both sets of regulations can be found on the websites of MEA, PEA and the Energy Regulatory Commission. The ERC regulates power procurement according to the Energy Industry Act 2007.
International energy companies operate in Thailand under Board of Investment privileges allowing tax holidays and relaxation of foreign ownership restrictions. Foreign and domestic owned energy companies submit proposals for SPP and VSPP according to the regulations, raise the capital, then procure, install and operate the equipment. Pretty much all aspects of this process from raising capital to equipment purchase happens in a competitive environment and in compliance to accounting, audit and financial reporting rules.
Slagging of a multi-billion dollar industry that is essential to the economic development of the country with wild and frankly pig-ignorant allegations is pretty low class. If you or anyone has evidence of corruption in this or any other industry involving state agents, then you can PM me. Many of the officials that I have worked for and alongside in government occupy dome of the most senior positions in the various Ministries involved in the economic sector and I know that they would act swiftly if presented with evidence.
-
As far as I know, these turbines are part of a scam in many parts of Europe. They forget to tell you that you need 4000 hours of adequate wind yearly to make these things worthwhile.
So where's the windy city in Thailand where you have that kind of potential?
"Wind turbines generate electrical energy when they are not shut down for maintenance, repair, or tours and the wind is between about 8 and 55 mph. Below a wind speed of around 30 mph, however, the amount of energy generated is very small." from https://www.wind-watch.org/faq-output.php
Wind turbines are also UGLY. They will doubtless be implanted in the middle of Nature reserves, together with the accompanying access roads. Convincing people to insulate their homes and factories might be a start, I shudder to think what the air conditioning bills for the malls all over Thailand cost.
I'm calling potential for scam on this one.
Installed capacity of wind power in Thailand in 2014 was 224.5 MW. The target for wind capacity by 2036 in the as yet unreleased PDP 2015 (Power Developmetn Plan) is 3002MW. It is probable that most of the wind will be installed by private Thai energy companies using the Feed in Tarrif (FIT) of 6.06 baht/kWh.
The economics of wind farms varies in each country depending on the price of grid connected electricity, costs of inputs and whether subsidies are provided. Calling the wind industry a scam is pretty moronic in my view. Wind will provide a key element of Thailand's much needed fuel diversity and move away from over reliance on diminishing natural gas. The targets for wind energy represent the mobilisation of 2.5 - 4 billion US$ which will come primarily from domestic capital markets, not to mention the employment opportunities and the impact on reduction of Thailand's carbon emissions.
You may have your own opinions of the aesthetics of wind turbines but please acknowledge the role of wind energy on Thailand's energy policy and the economics of the wind industry before blowing so much hot air.
Ignore Pope on climate, says US Republican Marsha Blackburn
in World News
Posted
As an Australian national, am I responsible for the country having the highest emissions in the world? I voted for the party that created carbon tax. I do not hold shares in mining companies. As a non resident national, I am not sure what else I can do. Just as the first settlers de-forested the country to the tune of an estimated 70% of native flora, I do not believe that I should be held personally responsible for this. This mentality existed until the 70's when much of Australian culture was irrevocably changed by the Whitlam labour government.
So in terms of baiting, I think you are being far more provocative than I. My post was not even in response to one of your many, many posts and I made no reference to you. I guess if I was baiting, then I hooked you well and good since you took my post personally and responded.
OK, to your points. Thailand is a middle income country having experienced massive growth in the past decades and its governance and regulatory system has not caught up with this. I have worked in the 2 sectors that are major contributors to pollution being energy and transport. Investments in public transport infrastructure, increasing capacity mix in power production to 10% renewables by 2036 under PDP2015 and significant investments by the Energy Conservation Fund in demand side management (energy efficiency) with awareness campaigns, retrofitting building, promoting energy efficient appliances is a pretty good start for a country that still projects a need for 50 GW capacity by 2036 (up from the current installed capacity of 30 GW - about equivalent to the state of Victoria). Polluter pays has been a core policy of the Thai government for two decades. The current government has prioritised investment in solid waste management. Thailand is getting there with a mixture of advocacy, regulation and direct subsidisation of investments in environmentally friendly technologies.
Why tar everyone with the Bangladesh experience. Their ship-breakers are major polluters and their governance and regulatory systems are incapable of dealing with the poison produced by such greed. Is it relevant to climate change? I have no idea. I have stated that climate change is a political issue and I do not care about points scoring.
You accuse me of being a fellow traveller of the Alarmists. Fine. Whatever. But really, the overpopulation thing was the fear-meme of the 70's. I grew up with it. Watched Soylent Green and thought Charles Heston was great until I found out he was a gun nut. What have we learned since then apart from using Tchaikovsky, Beethoven and Grieg for death scene music? Well, that food technologies have improved to feed billions of more people. Also that educating females results in a lower birth rate. Similarly, birth rate falls as GDP of a country increases. So population alarmism is pretty much out of date. But is was scary for a kid in the 70's.
So I guess the question is why is a right wing environmental scientist part of the Denier's camp? It makes no sense. The right has consistently opposed environmental regulations and in the US rant about closing the EPA. Whether you subscribe to the ideology of climate change or not, surely the proponents of environmental conservation and protection are a better bet than those who oppose this?