It easy to talk shit when it is not your ass on the line!
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2985531]So what do you propose? Send USA Or NATO troops to Ukraine? Get into a nuclear war? Because those are the only ways Russia gives up the territory it's occupying. At least Trump is promoting peace, instead of war "to the last Ukrainian. ".[/QUOTE]If someone walks up to me and tells me I am going to fuck you in the ass. I am going to tell them the only way you are going to fuck me the ass is after you have killed me.
The United States of America has no moral standing to decide if a man should bend over and take it or fight to the death. It's easy to type on a keyboard. Who among us have stood against an armed opponent that intends to cause you death or serious bodily harm?
[B]Why are you willing to tell another man he should bend over and take it[/B]?
If the [B]Ukraine[/B] wants to continue to fight and all we are doing is shipping arms because we have no [I]boots on the ground[/I] exactly what is the problem?
Get over it? LOL. Thanks, Captain Obvious?
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2985571]Politicians lie a lot. Trump lies more than most politicians. Get over it.
If he helps end this stupid war then maybe, just maybe, he'll get the Nobel Peace Prize! Wouldn't that be the cat's meow![/QUOTE]I got over Repub politicians lying in order to further their War Against America during Reagan's 1st term.
Still, I do think it is a wee bit newsy and worth a mention that the current POTUS just sided with Russia Russia Russia Russia, Xi, Kim and a whole bunch of anti-democratic dictators and against Western Democratic Allies on an issue of who invaded who in the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Yeah, he'll get the Nobel Peace Prize for preemptively surrendering everything to a murderous dictator on behalf of the country he invaded after Newd Grinbitch wins the Nobel Prize in Economics for doing everything in his power to thwart and reverse the Great Dem / Clinton Economic Recovery, Expansion and Trajectory to a Balanced and Surplus Budget without a single Repub vote for it that began months if not a year before Grinbitch or any other Repub controlled so much as a committe much less a house in Congress.
2 photos
What happened to Mr. Greatest Negotiator Ever?
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2985531]So what do you propose? Send USA Or NATO troops to Ukraine? Get into a nuclear war? Because those are the only ways Russia gives up the territory it's occupying. At least Trump is promoting peace, instead of war "to the last Ukrainian. ".[/QUOTE]So your and fat lying clown Trump's only conceivable solution to the end of Russia's aggression and a settlement in the war is to have him and his idiotic Secreatary of Defense start out by giving Russia Russia Russia Russia everything Putin wants, concede nothing to the country he invaded, demand that country give up their mineral resources to fat lying clown Trump and just shut up about the former Leader of the Free World characterizing him, the target and victim of the invasion, as a "dictator" and the one who started the war?
Brilliant. Why didn't Biden think of that? What a magnificent negotiator that fat clown liar Trump is!
Because, most certainly when one does that there is no way a murderous dictator thug like Putin would ever think of moving his juggernaut of world dominance one inch beyond Ukraine. Just as it never occurred to him to move one inch beyond Georgia after he invaded them under GW Bush.
Russia was not going to continue that war forever. Those troops were barely hanging on to any resolve to continue with only the prospect that Putin's #1 Useful Fat Lying Clown in the Western World, Trump, might squeak out another razor-thin win last November as a hope.
And even Trump-glorified God's like Putin don't live forever.
3 photos
Well, we know they're definitely not Accountants or Auditors
I think the appropriate words are Scammers and Liars:
[B]DOGE Secretly Changes Its Website After Being Caught in Huge Lies[/B]
[URL]https://www.yahoo.com/news/doge-secretly-changes-website-being-203001406.html[/URL]
[QUOTE]DOGE deleted the top five highest savings claims on its wall of receipts leaderboard after various news outlets pointed out multiple errors in its calculations, The New York Times David Fahrenthold reported Tuesday.
The savings, deleted with no explanation from DOGE or the White House, include: a $232 million cut to the Social Security Administration that actually amounted to only $560,000; an $8 billion cut at Immigration and Customs Enforcement that was actually only $8 million; and three $655 million cuts at the U.S. Agency for International Development that ended up being a measly $18 million. These mistakes all seem to be completely avoidable human errors.
The bottom of DOGEs savings list reads: Scoreboard normalized to agency size and budget.
"This is a preliminary leaderboard, and there will likely be some initial mistakes in the relative rankings.
DOGE had claimed earlier this week that it has saved $65 billion thanks to all of its cuts. Its website still boasts this number, despite the recently deleted claims.[/QUOTE][B]Nearly 40% of contracts canceled by Musks DOGE are expected to produce no savings.[/B]
[URL]https://apnews.com/article/doge-federal-contracts-canceled-musk-trump-cuts-a65976a725412934ad686389889db0df[/URL]
[QUOTE]Nearly 40% of the federal contracts that President Donald Trumps administration claims to have canceled as part of its signature cost-cutting program arent expected to save the government any money, the administrations own data shows.
The Department of Government Efficiency, run by Trump adviser Elon Musk, published an updated list Monday of nearly 2,300 contracts that agencies terminated in recent weeks across the federal government. Data published on DOGEs Wall of Receipts shows that more than one-third of the contract cancellations, 794 in all, are expected to yield no savings.
Thats usually because the total value of the contracts has already been fully obligated, which means the government has a legal requirement to spend the funds for the goods or services it purchased and in many cases has already done so.
"Its like confiscating used ammunition after its been shot when theres nothing left in it. It doesnt accomplish any policy objective, said Charles Tiefer, a retired University of Baltimore law professor and expert on government contracting law. Their terminating so many contracts pointlessly obviously doesnt accomplish anything for saving money.[/QUOTE]President Musk might be the richest really stupid man that ever lived or ever will live.
The end result of this is so predictable:
Rather than saving American tax-payers money it will only create chaos, confusion, uncertainty, wipe out jobs that generate revenue, trigger $Billions in wrongful termination lawsuits and court costs and skyrocket Trump's deficits even higher.
Or, what MAGAs and their Russian bot script-writers call, "The Best Month In Four Years"!
South Australia will show us the way...part II
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2985526]Spidy, you could simply say you made a mistake, and draw my attention to your much more realistic, revised LCOE numbers. It's only by a fluke that [b]I noticed you apparently got the moderator to change your original post,[/b] to change the LCOE's per megawatt hour. [/QUOTE]Tiny 12, yet ANOTHER backhanded way for you to come up with, just to say you were WRONG! [I][b](...kkkk!)[/b][/I].
Your problem and the trouble with you is, that you never take the time, needed to read and understand what I've posted. But instead you blindly rush in and interject your arrogance, to what you think is right. And time and time again, your narcissistic arrogance, has been shut down. Fine, by me, if you have brain farts and want to keep tripping over your tongue!
But, before you go making wild false accusations, allow me to educate you on how Admin edits work. As any ISGer worth their salt knows, that [U]when Admin changes a post, they'll have a stamped note at the end of the post indicating they've made a change.[/U].
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2985526]Again, I believe South Australia has the largest onshore natural gas production on the continent. I haven't checked that in a while though. The natural gas they use to generate power would be transported by pipeline from the Moomba Gas Plant in northern South Australia to Adelaide, and maybe they get a little pipeline gas from Victoria. The cost of generating electricity from natural gas transported by pipeline, especially with new combined cycle plants, is much cheaper than using LNG. Your post conveniently omitted LCOE ranges for combined cycle natural gas power plants. ...
As to your cost estimates for electricity with 4 to 12 hour battery storage, I suspect they're low. And also suspect there are periods much longer then 12 hours in the DR when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow much. The DR doesn't have the ability to import electricity from a neighboring country, like SA does from Victoria. [/QUOTE]Again if you'd bothered to read, what I posted, you'll note [B]the links[/B] of LCOE's in the section, [B][i]"LCOE Sources for 2023 or 2024:"[/i][/B], are NOT MY estimates and all came from U.S. and International energy agencies. So take it up with them smart ass!
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2985526]No doubt South Australia may by 2027 produce more electricity from renewables than it consumes. The state has some very sunny and windy places. It will however export the excess electricity, and continue to generate a substantial part of its electricity with reliable natural gas.
And if the state mandates "no more electricity from natural gas", then no doubt South Australia may, say, generate electricity from renewables in excess of its consumption, while importing, say, 25% of its needs from Victoria, produced there by coal fired power plants.[/QUOTE]Hey you're allowed to doubt whatever the fuck you want, I'll give you that!
But I've provided evidence that says otherwise. So try providing, a better set of arguments than your weakass doubts and maybe then we'll have a debate, on whether SA is producing more electricity and negative electricity prices, than what [I][b]"your doubts" [/b][/I] are telling you.
Ahh!...This is really getting tedious! Once again if you had REALLY READ, what I wrote, you'll note where I included, [I][b]"South Australia's Energy Mix: [/b][/I] (here: [URL]http://www.internationalsexguide.nl/forum/showthread.php?2467-American-Politics&p=2984800&viewfull=1#post2984800[/URL]).
[U]So no need for wild speculation of 25%.[/U] Currently SA, only takes a tiny 2-5% from Victoria through NEM. SA, is consistently YoY, growing out their grid with renewables, hence less and less reliance on coal, nat. Gas and NEM.
If you're going to wildly speculate, like you love to do, provide better facts, data or evidence.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2985526]As to your next-to-last paragraph, if renewables were the be all and end all, then why are they still constructing coal fired plants in India, China and many other countries? The air quality in cities in those countries sucks big time, and would benefit from less coal. But because of the economic reality they continue with coal. Are people in those countries stupid? [/QUOTE]Can't speak to India, but the air quality in most large Chinese cites, is on par or better per capita, than most USA cities like N.Y.
You should also note, that not only the air, but the noise pollution, in many of the large Chinese cities, is better than that of the U.S.
The coal argument is a fair one, but it is losing it's effectiveness, as many reports have China being at peak coal in 2024 and leveling off and declining going forward. Not sure I believe the pundits, either, but we'll see.
Now again, the coal argument is IMHO, weak, because you can hardly blame countries like China, India and others for [B]using what they have in abundance[/B] to power their industries. Besides, isn't that exactly what the USA Is doing with an abundance of natural gas (LNG and coal), under the wrongheaded Pickens Plan, to reduce American dependence on imported oil?
After all, Tiny 12, the USA And Europe, have had decades long head start, of unfettered polluting with coal, decades prior to any such 2015 Paris Agreements.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2985526]You've got things reversed. If the rich world somehow imposes renewable energy on developing countries without paying for it, people are going to suffer worse lives than they would otherwise. So called "robber oil and gas barons" are not imposing their will on poor countries. Rather, economic reality causes them to make the choices they do. That reality will result in greater consumption of renewables, but the world is not going to abandon fossil fuels for a long while.[/QUOTE]I reject your premises!
The way I see it, the DR are already spending [I](or should I say, flushing down the toilet) [b]$2.55 - $3.47 billion annually,[/b][/I] to the oil and gas robber barons, to run their electricity grid.
Although, what I am saying is, that if the DR, wishes to move pass their currently reliance on fossil fuels and toward energy security, they should find a way to divert about 5% of their imported fossil fuel costs each year, to fund the build out of more renewables. Slowly over time, they'll reach a better energy mix of more renewables, less fossil fuels and more importantly, energy independence and increasingly less money to the robber barons.
Frankly, if developing countries, like DR aren't currently doing this by now, they should be. I believe India, is rightly so, fast following in China's electrification footsteps, but have a long way to go. SA and many places in Australia as a whole, are tracking well, w/r to meeting their renewables goals.
