.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
placeholder
-
Posts
24,667 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by placeholder
-
-
10 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:
Voting in the U.K is private , so so one knows who voted for or against him .
Voters don't have to reveal that they voted against him , so they are safe .
What kind of heroes would they be if they didn't openly profess their opposition to Khan? I'm confidently that they made sure to stand up publicly and be counted.
-
1 hour ago, mogandave said:
Got it. You can’t be inconvenienced, but you are pushing change that disproportionately hurts the poor.
Air pollution hurts the poorest most
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/air-pollution-hurts-poorest-most
Poor produce fewer traffic emissions than rich but are most affected, study finds
https://www.uwe.ac.uk/news/poor-produce-fewer-traffic-emissions-than-rich-but-are-most-affected
Global air pollution exposure and poverty
-
2 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:
I wouldn't go as far as to say that the terrorists have won , this is just another win in a war going on in many fronts
Kudos to all those heroes who put their lives on the line by voting against him.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, JonnyF said:
I'd have thought the Jews would be more concerned about Labour getting power than the Muslims would be.
What with their anti semitic views and friendship with Hamas.
Right. Labour's support for Israel, which cost them support among British Muslims, means that they are friends with Hamas.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Tug said:
I can’t speak for the English voters but as an American to me it’s not a question of them trusting us,it’s the opposite it’s us trusting them!religion of peace indeed!!!
Right. Sadiq Khan's victory in London means that the terrorists have won!
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, mogandave said:
Amd remember the left pushing sex ed as the be-all-end-all for out of wedlock pregnancy and STDs, yet both have skyrocketed.
You sure about that?
Teen-age pregnancies have plummeted in the USA.
Teenage birth rates in the US reached historic lows in 2022, CDC report finds
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/teenage-birth-rates-us-reached-historic-lows-2022/story?id=99720479
Solo mothers – those who are raising at least one child with no spouse or partner in the home – no longer dominate the ranks of unmarried parents as they once did. In 1968, 88% of unmarried parents fell into this category. By 1997 that share had dropped to 68%, and in 2017 the share of unmarried parents who were solo mothers declined to 53%. These declines in solo mothers have been entirely offset by increases in cohabitating parents: Now 35% of all unmarried parents are living with a partner.2 Meanwhile, the share of unmarried parents who are solo fathers has held steady at 12%.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/04/25/the-changing-profile-of-unmarried-parents/
And who is it who supports abstinence only education? It isn't progressives.
Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs Are Ineffective and Harmful to Young People, Expert Review Confirms
Abstinence-only sex education increases teen pregnancy in conservative US states, study finds
-
1
-
-
Well you do have a point about the infrastructure. Biden actually passed a huge bill which among other things targets these. His predecessor repeatedly promised a big infrastructure bill, much like he promised a big health care bill, but somehow failed ever to come up with one or the other.
"The Senate on Tuesday approved an expansive bill to rebuild the nation’s aging roads and bridges, with $8.3 billion specifically targeted to water infrastructure projects in the West and billions more to fund national projects to mitigate the impact of wildfires.
After months of negotiation among President Biden, Democrats and a group of moderate Republicans to forge a compromise, the Senate voted 69 to 30 in favor of the legislation. In the end, it had support from 19 Republicans, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky."
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-08-10/infrastructure-bill-california-water
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:
Yes , that is what I also said
No. You failed to mention that he was turned away.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:
For once he speaks the truth. Sad you don't see it.
Really? The US economy has been growing at a faster pace than any other major fully developed nation. Unemployment is low by historical standards Manufacturing is moving back. It's even producing gas and oil at record rates. How exactly is the USA falling apart?
-
2
-
-
Just now, KhunLA said:
So true, but you did bring up the morality of men, rather than the responsibility of women, which I emphasize.
Remember .... 'THEIR BODY ... THEIR CHOICE' ... only they have control over being pregnant or not.
Where did I mention morality? Morality is quite arbitrary. For a devout Catholic using birth control is immoral.
-
2 minutes ago, mogandave said:
Why not explain it?
If Los Angeles depends on Phoenix for power when it rains, vice-versa, then both have to have the capacity for both.
I'm getting tired of this. First off, it's distributed power. So it's not a case of one city depending on one other city. And the point is that batteries can be cheap enough at $20 to provide plenty of reserve power. And among other calculations that went into the MIT study, was research on weather from which algorithms were derived. Get back to me in the unlikely event that you read the article that I have linked to several times.
-
15 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:
He turned up with a magazine with his photo on the front page and his address , that wasn't accepted , so he used his drivers licence, which was accepted
After he was turned away he had to fetch his driver's license:
Writing in his Daily Mail column, he said: "I want to pay a particular tribute to the three villagers who on Thursday rightly turned me away when I appeared in the polling station with nothing to prove my identity except the sleeve of my copy of Prospect magazine, on which my name and address had been printed.
"I showed it to them and they looked very dubious… within minutes I was back with my driving licence and voted Tory."
-
8 minutes ago, mogandave said:
And?
Do I really have to explain the obvious to you? The hours a battery can discharge are based on a constant flow. So if less power is consumed at night then you will need less batteries discharging power.
-
1 minute ago, mogandave said:
So you have to have five times the capacity.
Twice the capacity of each wind and solar, and once capacity of fossil fuel or nuclear, correct?
And how many weeks of battery capacity?
You seem utterly resistant to recognizing the the role that interconnectivity has to play in all this
-
6 minutes ago, KhunLA said:
I think you need to associate with a better circle of friends & family. We were raised NOT to take advantage of people, as there is no need to, to be happy.
Quite the opposite, if using such tactics, if you enjoy looking in the mirror.
More information about yourself. Who knows, it may even be true. But true or not, it's utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, mogandave said:
No, in the morning the batteries have already bee. used for 10 hours.
But yes, as long as you have fossile fuels and or nuclear to back it up it’s great.
First off, you take no account of the fact that nighttime consumption is far lower than daytime consumption. Utilities often charge lower rates at night than during the daytime precisely for this reason.
-
24 minutes ago, KhunLA said:
I never needed to stoop to those low tactics, and honesty with like mined horny people always worked for me. No need for all that silliness, as there's always some wanting to share smiles with me.
Well, good for you. And when you and your clones become the only males on planet earth the problem will be solved. Until then, the issue isn't about you.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Just now, placeholder said:
It would certainly be far better if emissions were drastically cut.
Actually that would be 4 days. Which is why interconnectivity is important. The wider the grid, the more resilient it is against such events.
Come to think of it, it's generally quite windy when it rains so who knows how many days it would take.
-
2 minutes ago, mommysboy said:
Regarding stopping fossil fuels: it's not an economic decision, but an existential one. Emissions need to be drastically cut. If we do it now, perhaps life will be livable in 50 years time, if we don't well it doesn't bear thinking about.
It would certainly be far better if emissions were drastically cut.
1 minute ago, mogandave said:And how long, and how much power does it take to charge them?
Still, at 100 hours, if it starts raining in the morning, and rains for three days it’s done.
Actually that would be 4 days. Which is why interconnectivity is important. The wider the grid, the more resilient it is against such events.
-
13 minutes ago, mogandave said:
And as has been shown countless times, the articles you link to generally do not include what is driving costs.
i have provided information about the sharp rise in cost of coal and gas. Do you really need the link spelled out for you. As for the cost of "fuels" such as wind and solar, last time I checked, they were free.
-
Just now, mogandave said:
And as has been shown countless times, the articles you link to generally do not include what is driving costs.
Every solar and or wind installation must be backed up with fossil fuel or solar.
How many days/weeks/months of capacity should a a battery backup provide?
Much of this depends on the connectivity of the grid. The wider the range of power sources that can be drawn on, the less important the fossil fuel backup becomes. As I have noted before, here is an article from Vox that explains research from M.I.T. that delves deeply into the issues. The conclusion that research came to was that it would take batteries with a cost of $20 per kwh of capacity to reach 100%. These batteries can generate power for 100 hours vs. at most 8 hours for lithium. But to reach 95%, batteries would only need to have a cost of $151 per kwh. At the time, it was expected that this wouldn't happen before 2030 at the earliest. But has been consistently been the case when it comes to predictions about batteries, progress has run way ahead of schedule. Even lithium batteries have now broken that barrier. And iron-air batteries can be manufactured for a cost of $20 per kwh of capacity.
Getting to 100% renewables requires cheap energy storage. But how cheap?
-
1
-
-
Just now, sidneybear said:
I'd much rather read your paraphrased opinion of what you find online, rather than just links to it without your own analysis, or author's voice. Anyone can Google and post links, many of which might present both sides of the same argument, but it takes skill to interpret them and apply their content to real world situations.
In relation to these batteries, what's your opinion on how production could be scaled to make renewables a real contender, obviating the need for base load generation (fossil fuels and nuclear) that still can't be done without when there's no sun and wind? $20 per kWh is $20,000,000 per GWh, GW being the realm that power generation is usually talked about. A 1 GW nuclear power reactor, for example, can produce nearly 24 GWh of power per day. it feasible to scale up the production of three batteries to that level, by when, and at what environmental impact? Of course, batteries are useless unless they're charged, so what kind of renewable generation infrastructure would need to be built to replace nuclear and fossil fuels, taking into account increased demand from EVs? I'm interested in your own analysis, rather than just links here.
Assertions without evidence are empty. Why should I care what you would rather read? Why should I spend time paraphrasing when I offer brief, clear quotes that support my arguments? What purpose would that serve? And I don't see why I should, given that those quotes are accompanied by links to sources that do an admirable job of explaining of these complex issues.
It seems to me that you prefer what are colloquially referred to as B.S. sessions. Sessions where you can claim without offering any independent evidence that climatologists are publishing false results in order to serve their paymasters . Or you characterize authoritative sources as liars without your offering any independent evidence. You have clearly demonstrated that when your assertions are countered with evidence you resort to unsupported slurs or empty denials. It's you who need to change your method of discourse. Not me.
-
1
-
-
Just now, mogandave said:
This must be why the cost of electricity has plummeted…
As I pointed out previously with evidence to back it up, the cost of coal and LNG rose sharply. And nuclear power plants have had huge cost overruns. What's more, while solar and wind power are now dominating in the construction of new power plant capacity, they still compose a fraction of the installed power base.
-
2
-
-
Anyone who doesn't have doubts about Trump's mental condition should read this article:
Trump calls prosecutor a 'f**king a**hole' and compares himself to Al Capone in bizarre speech
In a wild tirade, former president Donald Trump has blasted classified documents prosecutor Jack Smith as a "f**king a**hole" during a speech where he likened himself to notorious gangster Al Capone.
Trump, visibly irate, claimed he had been "indicted like Alphonse" and unleashed a verbal onslaught against Smith during a high-ticket fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago, with guests paying £30,000 each to attend.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/trump-calls-prosecutor-fking-ahole-32739414
-
1
-
Rebuilding Bridges: Labour's Quest to Regain Trust Among Muslim Voters
in World News
Posted
Since when is standing up and publicly stating where you stand the same thing as going on a rampage etc?