N Korea: Exhibit No. 1 why central planning is doomed to failure

[Flyguy]

In short, central planning is like incest: genetic diseases flourish by suppressing all contrary viewpoints, no matter how well-founded.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW9JEPSJQOs
The US exhibits much of this in its non-scientific efforts to ineffectively manipulate the climate by government edict.

[Fred Bloggs]

NK only exists because the U.S. made it that way, geniuses at work again:

During the war, the Allied leaders considered the question of Korea's future after Japan's surrender in the war. The leaders reached an understanding that Korea would be liberated from Japan but would be placed under an international trusteeship until the Koreans would be deemed ready for self-rule.[1] In the last days of the war, the U.S. proposed dividing the Korean peninsula into two occupation zones (a U.S. and Soviet one) with the 38th parallel as the dividing line. The Soviets accepted their proposal and agreed to divide Korea.[2]

Soviets made NK a satellite state with a puppet government- boy, that must have just surprised everyone! And to add insult to injury the USSR never did a damned thing to fight the Japanese during the war. They only formally declared war against Japan less than a month before the Japanese unconditional surrender.

Korea has been around for many thousands of years. They know how to self-rule without a bunch of westerners who know next to nothing about their history and culture telling them when they would be ready.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_Korea

[Anthony William Sloman]

Central planning, done well (and it rarely is), reconciles contrary viewpoints. Sewage Sweepers opinions about climate change aren't a "contrary viewpoint". They were produced by some remarkably inept climate change denial propaganda generated by the fossil carbon extraction industry who want to keep on making lots of money, even though what they do is progressively messing up the global climate.

Basically, he wants to put the fossil carbon industry in the same position as the North Korean Communist Party, free to be as irresponsible and self-indulgent as they chose to be.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Flyguy]

On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 6:53:50 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 7:34:35 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > In short, central planning is like incest: genetic diseases flourish by suppressing all contrary viewpoints, no matter how well-founded.
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW9JEPSJQOs
> > The US exhibits much of this in its non-scientific efforts to ineffectively manipulate the climate by government edict.

> Central planning, done well (and it rarely is), reconciles contrary viewpoints. Bozo's Sewage Sweepers opinions about climate change aren't a "contrary viewpoint". They were produced by some remarkably inept climate change denial propaganda generated by the fossil carbon extraction industry who want to keep on making lots of money, even though what they do is progressively messing up the global climate.

>
> Basically, he wants to put the fossil carbon industry in the same position as the North Korean Communist Party, free to be as irresponsible and self-indulgent as they chose to be.
>
> --

> Bozo Bill Sloman, Sydney

Bozo clings to the (wrong) idea that central planning can succeed (it can't). There are PLENTY of "contrary viewpoints" to the absurd idea that we can manipulate the climate. We CAN'T! All of our wasted efforts will, at BEST, have a negligible effect on the climate. Maybe Bozo can quantify how much effect we MIGHT have if EVERY climate manipulation proposal is implemented.

I, of course, advocate a rational, integrated approach to energy, NOT a "net zero" carbon solution (which WON'T WORK!). This IS "central planning" at its WORST!

Bozo's Sewage Sweeper

[Flyguy]

They "know" how to self-rule? Give me a fucking break! The North Koreans know only how to wield power over the unarmed masses.

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 6:09:53 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 6:53:50 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 7:34:35 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > In short, central planning is like incest: genetic diseases flourish by suppressing all contrary viewpoints, no matter how well-founded.
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW9JEPSJQOs
> > > The US exhibits much of this in its non-scientific efforts to ineffectively manipulate the climate by government edict.
> >

> > Central planning, done well (and it rarely is), reconciles contrary viewpoints. Sewage Sweepers opinions about climate change aren't a "contrary viewpoint". They were produced by some remarkably inept climate change denial propaganda generated by the fossil carbon extraction industry who want to keep on making lots of money, even though what they do is progressively messing up the global climate.

> >
> > Basically, he wants to put the fossil carbon industry in the same position as the North Korean Communist Party, free to be as irresponsible and self-indulgent as they chose to be.
>

> Bill clings to the (wrong) idea that central planning can succeed (it can't).

Of course it can. It frequently goes wrong, and needs lots of checks and balances to catch it before it goes too far wrong. If you've got a really big project, nothing else works.

Getting rid of fossil carbon as an energy source doesn't need central planning. Solar cells and wind turbines produce electricity more cheaply than burning fossil carbon , and the magic of the free market will do the job without any help from central planning. Central planning can help install enough grid storage to cover the intermittent nature of the cheaper sources - in Australia the electricity suppliers do seem to be doing this on their own,, but the reworking of the Snowy Mountains hydroelectric scheme to incorporate more pumped storage is a bit too big a job for a single company,

> There are PLENTY of "contrary viewpoints" to the absurd idea that we can manipulate the climate. We CAN'T!

We have already manipulated the climate by dumping a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere - the current CO2 level is 412 ppm, when the natural level for an interglacial is 270 ppm. We can manipulate it back by burning less fossil carbon as fuel and getting more of our energy from solar panels and wind turbines, and save money in the process. Sewage Sweeper is merely an ignorant idiot.

> All of our wasted efforts will, at BEST, have a negligible effect on the climate. Maybe Bill can quantify how much effect we MIGHT have if EVERY climate manipulation proposal is implemented.

I haven't got a clue how many climate manipulation projects have been mooted. The question is simply how much more fossil carbon we can afford to burn, dumping even more CO2 into the atmosphere.

> I, of course, advocate a rational, integrated approach to energy, NOT a "net zero" carbon solution (which WON'T WORK!). This IS "central planning" at its WORST!

The Australian electricity generation industry rejected the previous Australian governments centrally planned push to encourage the burning of even more coal to keep the mining industry happy, and insisted investing in solar panels and wind turbines to get cheaper electricity.

Sewage Sweeper claiming to be "rational" is - of course - utterly comical. He's just cutting and pasting denialist propaganda.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Anthony William Sloman]

The clique now running North Korea isn't exactly representative of the country as a whole. It's like claiming that the US needs to be put under adminstration because Trump made a hash of running the country while he was in power..

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Fred Bloggs]

Ummm- are you overlooking S. Korea as an example of successful self-rule? S.Korea is positively thriving, they have a higher standard of living than the U.S., which isn't saying much these days, and no, I'm not talking about those sterile numbers centric ratings invented by economists. N.Korea is an artifice put in place by the USSR to aggravate the U.S. and its influence in the region, it's not indicative of Korean self-rule.

[John Larkin]

Right. Nobody, especially politicians and economists and movie stars,
can predict causalities in economic and social systems. Best to let
many people try many things and see what works.

The anti-carbon anti-energy thing can't work either. Too many chinese
and indians and africans want tractors and refrigerators and water
pumps and lights, and want their kids to live, and will get energy to
serve those ends.

[Flyguy]

Hardly. S Korea is not a communist state with central planning, which starkly contrasts the difference between communism and democratic rule.

[Flyguy]

> Bozo's Sewage Sweeper claiming to be "rational" is - of course - utterly comical. He's just cutting and pasting denialist propaganda.
>
> --
> Bozo Bill Sloman, Sydney

The bottom line is that Bozo has NO IDEA how much the climate can be manipulated by cutting CO2 emissions. NONE. In fact, the US has been cutting CO2 emissions for the last TWENTY YEARS and it has had ZERO impact. ZERO!
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carbon-co2-emissions

Bozo's Sewage Sweeper

[Fred Bloggs]

But they do very much have central planning when they want to increase their national wealth with exports. The government gets in on the act of subsidizing industry with big export potential, as well as protecting domestic industry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_South_Korea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Trade,_Industry_and_Energy

N. Korea is not a communist state in reality, they just say they are, not that it makes any difference. Every bit of dictum coming out of their government is total bs and everyone, including the people who live there, knows it. Generally countries with governments who think they're the be all and end all are total disasters.

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 3:21:14 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 12:47:16 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 6:09:53 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 6:53:50 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 7:34:35 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > In short, central planning is like incest: genetic diseases flourish by suppressing all contrary viewpoints, no matter how well-founded.
> > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW9JEPSJQOs
> > > > > The US exhibits much of this in its non-scientific efforts to ineffectively manipulate the climate by government edict.
> > > >
> > > > Central planning, done well (and it rarely is), reconciles contrary viewpoints. Sewage Sweepers opinions about climate change aren't a "contrary viewpoint". They were produced by some remarkably inept climate change denial propaganda generated by the fossil carbon extraction industry who want to keep on making lots of money, even though what they do is progressively messing up the global climate.
> > > >
> > > > Basically, he wants to put the fossil carbon industry in the same position as the North Korean Communist Party, free to be as irresponsible and self-indulgent as they chose to be.
> > >
> > > Bill clings to the (wrong) idea that central planning can succeed (it can't).
> >
> > Of course it can. It frequently goes wrong, and needs lots of checks and balances to catch it before it goes too far wrong. If you've got a really big project, nothing else works.
> >
> > Getting rid of fossil carbon as an energy source doesn't need central planning. Solar cells and wind turbines produce electricity more cheaply than burning fossil carbon , and the magic of the free market will do the job without any help from central planning. Central planning can help install enough grid storage to cover the intermittent nature of the cheaper sources - in Australia the electricity suppliers do seem to be doing this on their own,, but the reworking of the Snowy Mountains hydroelectric scheme to incorporate more pumped storage is a bit too big a job for a single company,
> > > There are PLENTY of "contrary viewpoints" to the absurd idea that we can manipulate the climate. We CAN'T!
> > We have already manipulated the climate by dumping a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere - the current CO2 level is 412 ppm, when the natural level for an interglacial is 270 ppm. We can manipulate it back by burning less fossil carbon as fuel and getting more of our energy from solar panels and wind turbines, and save money in the process. Sewage Sweeper is merely an ignorant idiot.
> >
> > > All of our wasted efforts will, at BEST, have a negligible effect on the climate. Maybe Bill can quantify how much effect we MIGHT have if EVERY climate manipulation proposal is implemented.
> >
> > I haven't got a clue how many climate manipulation projects have been mooted. The question is simply how much more fossil carbon we can afford to burn, dumping even more CO2 into the atmosphere.
> >
> > > I, of course, advocate a rational, integrated approach to energy, NOT a "net zero" carbon solution (which WON'T WORK!). This IS "central planning" at its WORST!
> >
> > The Australian electricity generation industry rejected the previous Australian governments centrally planned push to encourage the burning of even more coal to keep the mining industry happy, and insisted investing in solar panels and wind turbines to get cheaper electricity.
> >

> > Sewage Sweeper claiming to be "rational" is - of course - utterly comical. He's just cutting and pasting denialist propaganda.
>

> The bottom line is that Bozo has NO IDEA how much the climate can be manipulated by cutting CO2 emissions. NONE. In fact, the US has been cutting CO2 emissions for the last TWENTY YEARS and it has had ZERO impact. ZERO!
>
> https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carbon-co2-emissions

What maters is the CO2 content of the atmosphere as a whole, which has kept on going up.
https://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/atmospheric_co2/primary_mlo_co2_record.html

The US may have reduced it's CO2 emissions a bit, but nowhere near enough to stop the CO2 level in atmosphere from increasing. It has to do quite a bit better.
It's responsible for a 25% of the excess CO2 already present in the atmosphere, so it is under an obligation to try harder, not that it recognises the obligation.

Sewage Sweeper seems to think that having achieved some reduction in emissions - nowhere near enough - is an excuse for not trying to do enough to make a difference.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Anthony William Sloman]

It's not even communism - just military dictatorship that likes to call itself communist. The leading role of the communist party is bad enough, but North Korea is even worse.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 2:58:36 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 12:34:30 -0800 (PST), Flyguy
> <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >In short, central planning is like incest: genetic diseases flourish by suppressing all contrary viewpoints, no matter how well-founded.
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW9JEPSJQOs
> >The US exhibits much of this in its non-scientific efforts to ineffectively manipulate the climate by government edict.
> Right. Nobody, especially politicians and economists and movie stars,
> can predict causalities in economic and social systems. Best to let
> many people try many things and see what works.

John Larkin can't, and doesn't think that anybody else can. It does depend on which cause and effect chains you are predicting and how accurate your predictions need to be, but that's being moire precise than John Larkin can manage,

> The anti-carbon anti-energy thing can't work either. Too many chinese
> and indians and africans want tractors and refrigerators and water
> pumps and lights, and want their kids to live, and will get energy to
> serve those ends.

And are happily getting them by buying roof-top solar and a back up battery. Not all that many of them so far - it may now be the cheapest way of getting energy, but it is still a significant capital investment.

John Larkin seems to think that the only road to technological paradise has to be the one that the US followed. Africa went straight to cell phones - it's cheaper to put up a bunch of mobile phone towers than it is to run wires to every customer.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 7:58:36 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 12:34:30 -0800 (PST), Flyguy
> <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >In short, central planning is like incest: genetic diseases flourish by suppressing all contrary viewpoints, no matter how well-founded.

> Right. Nobody, especially politicians and economists and movie stars,
> can predict causalities in economic and social systems. Best to let
> many people try many things and see what works.

Central planning can certainly fail, but it did get Yuri Gagarin a nice view from orbit...
Predicting causalities isn't similar to electioneering skills, but politicians (or the 'statesman' subset of those)
and economists ARE doing the right things. Movie stars are mixed; the
'coherent story' school of drama isn't the only specialization there...

Eisenhower said it well: plans are useless, but planning is essential.
Support good planning, or D-day will arrive and overwhelm your pathetic defenses.

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 23:45:44 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 7:58:36 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 12:34:30 -0800 (PST), Flyguy
>> <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In short, central planning is like incest: genetic diseases flourish by suppressing all contrary viewpoints, no matter how well-founded.
>
>> Right. Nobody, especially politicians and economists and movie stars,
>> can predict causalities in economic and social systems. Best to let
>> many people try many things and see what works.
>
>Central planning can certainly fail, but it did get Yuri Gagarin a nice view from orbit...

The per-capita GDP of Russia is about $10K. Cuba used to be a pretty
wealthy country. N Korea used to be the prosperous half.

>Predicting causalities isn't similar to electioneering skills, but politicians (or the 'statesman' subset of those)
>and economists ARE doing the right things.

Almost never.

[whit3rd]

On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 7:16:12 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 23:45:44 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 7:58:36 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

> >> ...Nobody, especially politicians and economists and movie stars,

> >> can predict causalities in economic and social systems. Best to let
> >> many people try many things and see what works.
> >
> >Central planning can certainly fail, but it did get Yuri Gagarin a nice view from orbit...

> The per-capita GDP of Russia is about $10K. Cuba used to be a pretty
> wealthy country. N Korea used to be the prosperous half.

> >Predicting causalities isn't similar to electioneering skills, but politicians (or the 'statesman' subset of those)
> >and economists ARE doing the right things.

> Almost never.

That can be a strong statement, if you repeat it without using Al Gore's internet.

[bitrex]

On 2/1/2023 10:16 AM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 23:45:44 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 7:58:36 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 12:34:30 -0800 (PST), Flyguy
>>> <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In short, central planning is like incest: genetic diseases flourish by suppressing all contrary viewpoints, no matter how well-founded.
>>
>>> Right. Nobody, especially politicians and economists and movie stars,
>>> can predict causalities in economic and social systems. Best to let
>>> many people try many things and see what works.
>>
>> Central planning can certainly fail, but it did get Yuri Gagarin a nice view from orbit...
>
> The per-capita GDP of Russia is about $10K. Cuba used to be a pretty
> wealthy country. N Korea used to be the prosperous half.

The wingnut descendants of revolutionary-era Cuban expats in Florida
seem to regularly take the opportunity to show that Castro wasn't wrong
in showing their families the door.

Similarly in China:

<https://i.redd.it/yel4f5ux6de41.jpg>

There are lots of indictments of communism, "my family used to be
serf-owning gangsters before the commies took it all away" isn't one of
them.

>> Predicting causalities isn't similar to electioneering skills, but politicians (or the 'statesman' subset of those)
>> and economists ARE doing the right things.
>
> Almost never.
>

There are probably more make-work bullshit jobs in the USA of 2023 than
there ever were in the Soviet Union.

If so, it's likely not a failing one can blame on habitually
"work-averse" leftists in a logically consistent way.

[Fred Bloggs]

Castro was a step-up from that corrupt p.o.s. he overthrew. Originally he was even accepted by the wealthy landed class, people who owned massive haciendas and traced their ownership back to land grants from the King of Spain. This was because Castro didn't show his hand of having communist designs until after he was in power. Then he started nationalizing everything and the wealthy fled to the U.S. mostly. Most of those people had large investment portfolios with U.S. banks that remained largely intact despite the revolution.

"The economy of Cuba is a mixed command economy dominated by state-run enterprises. Most of the labor force is employed by the state. In the 1990s, the ruling Communist Party of Cuba encouraged the formation of worker co-operatives and self-employment. In the late 2010s, private property and free-market rights along with foreign direct investment were granted by the 2018 Cuban constitution.[10][11] Foreign direct investment in various Cuban economic sectors increased before 2018.[12][13] As of 2000, public-sector employment was 76%, and private-sector employment (mainly composed of self-employment) was 23%, compared to the 1981 ratio of 91% to 8%.[14] Investment is restricted and requires approval by the government. In 2019, Cuba ranked 70th out of 189 countries on the Human Development Index in the high human development category.[15] As of 2012, the country's public debt comprised 35.3% of GDP, inflation (CDP) was 5.5%, and GDP growth was 3%.[16][needs update] Housing and transportation costs are low. Cubans receive government-subsidized education, healthcare, and food subsidies.[17][18]"

To give you an idea, the U.S. debt is now running 120% GDP.

Cuba is pretty much modernizing itself now, and in a good way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Cuba

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 7:34:35 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

This is actually just Sewage Sweeper being terminally confused. There's nothing wrong with central planning as such - the Manhattan project was centrally planned - but it can go easily wrong if the people doing the planning aren't up to the job. A dictatorial military regime such as North Korea is more likely to get it wrong than most. They are much more likely to persist in doing the wrong thing, because pointing out that some aspect of the plan isn't working right can lead to extremely severe sanctions.

Dealing with the unfortunate consequences of human induced climate change doesn't actually call for central planning - we just have to stop burning fossil carbon as fuel as fast as possible. Since solar cells and wind turbines both generate electricity more cheaply that burning fossil carbon, we can rely on the free market to do that for us. It isn't doing it as fast as it might, and a little centrally planned encouragement to get it to happen faster isn't out of place - what we lose on junking coal- and gas-fired generating plant before it wears out, we win back by having fewer expensive weather disasters.

Sewage Sweeper is much to dim to know that solar cells and wind turbines are the cheapest sources of electric power - it's only been true for about the last ten years, and he hasn't learned anything in that time. He not to too dim to read climate change denial propaganda which does tend to skate over this point.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Flyguy]

On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 9:47:46 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 7:34:35 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > In short, central planning is like incest: genetic diseases flourish by suppressing all contrary viewpoints, no matter how well-founded.
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW9JEPSJQOs
> > The US exhibits much of this in its non-scientific efforts to ineffectively manipulate the climate by government edict.
> This is actually just Sewage Sweeper being terminally confused. There's nothing wrong with central planning as such - the Manhattan project was centrally planned - but it can go easily wrong if the people doing the planning aren't up to the job. A dictatorial military regime such as North Korea is more likely to get it wrong than most. They are much more likely to persist in doing the wrong thing, because pointing out that some aspect of the plan isn't working right can lead to extremely severe sanctions.
>
> Dealing with the unfortunate consequences of human induced climate change doesn't actually call for central planning - we just have to stop burning fossil carbon as fuel as fast as possible. Since solar cells and wind turbines both generate electricity more cheaply that burning fossil carbon, we can rely on the free market to do that for us. It isn't doing it as fast as it might, and a little centrally planned encouragement to get it to happen faster isn't out of place - what we lose on junking coal- and gas-fired generating plant before it wears out, we win back by having fewer expensive weather disasters.
>

> Bozo's Sewage Sweeper is much to dim to know that solar cells and wind turbines are the cheapest sources of electric power - it's only been true for about the last ten years, and he hasn't learned anything in that time. He not to too dim to read climate change denial propaganda which does tend to skate over this point.
>
> --
> Bozo Bill Sloman, Sydney

Bozo keeps DENYING that the climate manipulation ISN'T centrally organized, even though it obviously is. California is MANDATING that ALL cars be electric - how is this NOT central planning?

Solar cells AREN'T the "lowest" power generator WHEN you factor in the standby power necessary to provide power during the EIGHTEEN hours the sun isn't shining. How could Bozo be SO IGNORANT?

Bozo's Sewage Sweeper

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 6:09:27 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 9:47:46 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 7:34:35 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > In short, central planning is like incest: genetic diseases flourish by suppressing all contrary viewpoints, no matter how well-founded.
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW9JEPSJQOs
> > > The US exhibits much of this in its non-scientific efforts to ineffectively manipulate the climate by government edict.
> > This is actually just Sewage Sweeper being terminally confused. There's nothing wrong with central planning as such - the Manhattan project was centrally planned - but it can go easily wrong if the people doing the planning aren't up to the job. A dictatorial military regime such as North Korea is more likely to get it wrong than most. They are much more likely to persist in doing the wrong thing, because pointing out that some aspect of the plan isn't working right can lead to extremely severe sanctions.
> >
> > Dealing with the unfortunate consequences of human induced climate change doesn't actually call for central planning - we just have to stop burning fossil carbon as fuel as fast as possible. Since solar cells and wind turbines both generate electricity more cheaply that burning fossil carbon, we can rely on the free market to do that for us. It isn't doing it as fast as it might, and a little centrally planned encouragement to get it to happen faster isn't out of place - what we lose on junking coal- and gas-fired generating plant before it wears out, we win back by having fewer expensive weather disasters.
> >
> > Bozo's Sewage Sweeper is much to dim to know that solar cells and wind turbines are the cheapest sources of electric power - it's only been true for about the last ten years, and he hasn't learned anything in that time. He not to too dim to read climate change denial propaganda which does tend to skate over this point.
>

> Bozo keeps DENYING that the climate manipulation ISN'T centrally organized, even though it obviously is. California is MANDATING that ALL cars be electric - how is this NOT central planning?

It's more centrally planned encouragement than anything more. They aren't actually mandating that all cars be electric, merely that you will eventually have to replace your car with an electric car if you replace it after a certain date.

Sewage Sweeper can 't get it into his head that climate change is real and happening, and needs to be slowed down and eventually reversed. Science is international, but it isn't centrally controlled

> Solar cells AREN'T the "lowest" power generator WHEN you factor in the standby power necessary to provide power during the EIGHTEEN hours the sun isn't shining.

So where's your costed calculation of the additional cost of buying the storage capacity and keeping it maintained? Wind turbines don't provide power all the tine either, but the wind has been known to blow when the sun isn't shining.

The Australian utilities don't seem to be put off by it - though they haven't installed much grid storage yet. What they have installed pays for itself by buying up power when it is cheap (when the sun is shining) and selling to back when power is more expensive. Since you can only sell back about 85% of what you buy, the day night differential has to be bigger than that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Power_Reserve

> How could Bill be SO IGNORANT?

Not knowing the kinds of "fact" that Sewage Sweeper asserts - without support - isn't ignorance. It just involves having the kind of grasp of reality that Sewage Sweeper lacks. The real question is how Sewage Sweeper stays so ignorant when he keeps on getting reminded that he doesn't know much and a lot of what he thinks he knows happens to be wrong

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Fred Bloggs]

Maybe you should try reading the constitution, wherein is stated:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It is the duty of government to promote the general welfare. I would say that regulating an industry out of existence that is hell bent on creating environmental conditions lethal to the people, is a pretty good example of promoting general welfare. It's no longer open to debate.

You clearly don't understand the most elementary distinction to be made between command and market economy, which means you have less education than a high school student.

Your "engineering" education isn't worth the price of a cup of coffee at the Salvation Army booth. But people like you have no clue, and that's why society in general detests engineers. USSR was another cesspool where everyone and their uncle was an engineer, and look what that got them.

>
> Solar cells AREN'T the "lowest" power generator WHEN you factor in the standby power necessary to provide power during the EIGHTEEN hours the sun isn't shining. How could Bozo be SO IGNORANT?

We have ample demonstration of your analytic (dis)-abilities in these matters.

>
> Bozo's Sewage Sweeper

[John Larkin]

So explain the 5:1 per capita GDP.

>
>If so, it's likely not a failing one can blame on habitually
>"work-averse" leftists in a logically consistent way.

Well, you'd have to actually think about it.

[Flyguy]

On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 3:03:16 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 6:09:27 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 9:47:46 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 7:34:35 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > In short, central planning is like incest: genetic diseases flourish by suppressing all contrary viewpoints, no matter how well-founded.
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW9JEPSJQOs
> > > > The US exhibits much of this in its non-scientific efforts to ineffectively manipulate the climate by government edict.
> > > This is actually just Sewage Sweeper being terminally confused. There's nothing wrong with central planning as such - the Manhattan project was centrally planned - but it can go easily wrong if the people doing the planning aren't up to the job. A dictatorial military regime such as North Korea is more likely to get it wrong than most. They are much more likely to persist in doing the wrong thing, because pointing out that some aspect of the plan isn't working right can lead to extremely severe sanctions.
> > >
> > > Dealing with the unfortunate consequences of human induced climate change doesn't actually call for central planning - we just have to stop burning fossil carbon as fuel as fast as possible. Since solar cells and wind turbines both generate electricity more cheaply that burning fossil carbon, we can rely on the free market to do that for us. It isn't doing it as fast as it might, and a little centrally planned encouragement to get it to happen faster isn't out of place - what we lose on junking coal- and gas-fired generating plant before it wears out, we win back by having fewer expensive weather disasters.
> > >
> > > Bozo's Sewage Sweeper is much to dim to know that solar cells and wind turbines are the cheapest sources of electric power - it's only been true for about the last ten years, and he hasn't learned anything in that time. He not to too dim to read climate change denial propaganda which does tend to skate over this point.
> >
> > Bozo keeps DENYING that the climate manipulation ISN'T centrally organized, even though it obviously is. California is MANDATING that ALL cars be electric - how is this NOT central planning?
> It's more centrally planned encouragement than anything more. They aren't actually mandating that all cars be electric, merely that you will eventually have to replace your car with an electric car if you replace it after a certain date.

LOL! Bozo obviously doesn't know anything about what is happening in CA - no, it is NOT optional; it is REQUIRED:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-moves-accelerate-100-new-zero-emission-vehicle-sales-2035

>
> Sewage Sweeper can 't get it into his head that climate change is real and happening, and needs to be slowed down and eventually reversed. Science is international, but it isn't centrally controlled

Again, climate change IS NOT the result of human activity. Bozo can't show a SINGLE scientific source that PROVES increases in CO2 DIRECTLY affects global temperatures in any significant way. In fact we had three decades of global cooling even as CO2 concentrations increased.

> > Solar cells AREN'T the "lowest" power generator WHEN you factor in the standby power necessary to provide power during the EIGHTEEN hours the sun isn't shining.
> So where's your costed calculation of the additional cost of buying the storage capacity and keeping it maintained? Wind turbines don't provide power all the tine either, but the wind has been known to blow when the sun isn't shining.

Just WHERE do you think the power comes from during the 18 hours that the Sun isn't shining? ALL solar and wind power needs a backup generator because of their unreliability. And a good part of that backup is COAL-FIRED plants.

>
> The Australian utilities don't seem to be put off by it - though they haven't installed much grid storage yet. What they have installed pays for itself by buying up power when it is cheap (when the sun is shining) and selling to back when power is more expensive. Since you can only sell back about 85% of what you buy, the day night differential has to be bigger than that.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Power_Reserve

Batteries are an EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE backup method, between $150 and $250 per KWh. By way of comparison I buy power where I live at the rate of $0.08 per KWh.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf

>
> > How could Bill be SO IGNORANT?
>

> Not knowing the kinds of "fact" that Bozo's Sewage Sweeper asserts - without support - isn't ignorance. It just involves having the kind of grasp of reality that Sewage Sweeper lacks. The real question is how Sewage Sweeper stays so ignorant when he keeps on getting reminded that he doesn't know much and a lot of what he thinks he knows happens to be wrong

Bozo keeps on making UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS and REFUSES to back them up, so it is BOZO that doesn't support his radical positions such as FIREBOMBING and NUKING his own country.

>
> --
> Bozo Bill Sloman, Sydney

Bozo's Sewage Sweeper

[Fred Bloggs]

On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 12:21:47 PM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:

> Again, climate change IS NOT the result of human activity. Bozo can't show a SINGLE scientific source that PROVES increases in CO2 DIRECTLY affects global temperatures in any significant way. In fact we had three decades of global cooling even as CO2 concentrations increased.

Are you so dull you can think the Earth can indefinitely absorb a net heat gain from the sun and not get warmer? Maybe you think the thermal energy gets converted into something else.

https://terra.nasa.gov/news/joint-nasa-noaa-study-finds-earths-energy-imbalance-has-doubled

> Just WHERE do you think the power comes from during the 18 hours that the Sun isn't shining? ALL solar and wind power needs a backup generator because of their unreliability. And a good part of that backup is COAL-FIRED plants.

That's not a reliability issue, it's called availability. Those are two distinct characteristics. Reliability is associated with something breaking and losing function, whereas availability has more to do with something being accessible for use. But unreliable sounds much more a slur than unavailable, and that's why the term is used so often by the unhinged.

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 4:21:47 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 3:03:16 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 6:09:27 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 9:47:46 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 7:34:35 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > In short, central planning is like incest: genetic diseases flourish by suppressing all contrary viewpoints, no matter how well-founded.
> > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW9JEPSJQOs
> > > > > The US exhibits much of this in its non-scientific efforts to ineffectively manipulate the climate by government edict.
> > > > This is actually just Sewage Sweeper being terminally confused. There's nothing wrong with central planning as such - the Manhattan project was centrally planned - but it can go easily wrong if the people doing the planning aren't up to the job. A dictatorial military regime such as North Korea is more likely to get it wrong than most. They are much more likely to persist in doing the wrong thing, because pointing out that some aspect of the plan isn't working right can lead to extremely severe sanctions.
> > > >
> > > > Dealing with the unfortunate consequences of human induced climate change doesn't actually call for central planning - we just have to stop burning fossil carbon as fuel as fast as possible. Since solar cells and wind turbines both generate electricity more cheaply that burning fossil carbon, we can rely on the free market to do that for us. It isn't doing it as fast as it might, and a little centrally planned encouragement to get it to happen faster isn't out of place - what we lose on junking coal- and gas-fired generating plant before it wears out, we win back by having fewer expensive weather disasters.
> > > >
> > > > Bozo's Sewage Sweeper is much to dim to know that solar cells and wind turbines are the cheapest sources of electric power - it's only been true for about the last ten years, and he hasn't learned anything in that time. He not to too dim to read climate change denial propaganda which does tend to skate over this point.
> > >
> > > Bozo keeps DENYING that the climate manipulation ISN'T centrally organized, even though it obviously is. California is MANDATING that ALL cars be electric - how is this NOT central planning?
> > It's more centrally planned encouragement than anything more. They aren't actually mandating that all cars be electric, merely that you will eventually have to replace your car with an electric car if you replace it after a certain date.
>
> LOL! Bozo obviously doesn't know anything about what is happening in CA - no, it is NOT optional; it is REQUIRED:
> https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-moves-accelerate-100-new-zero-emission-vehicle-sales-2035

Will be required after 2035, always assuming that Calfornia will still be there in 2035.

> > Sewage Sweeper can 't get it into his head that climate change is real and happening, and needs to be slowed down and eventually reversed. Science is international, but it isn't centrally controlled.

> Again, climate change IS NOT the result of human activity. Bozo can't show a SINGLE scientific source that PROVES increases in CO2 DIRECTLY affects global temperatures in any significant way. In fact we had three decades of global cooling even as CO2 concentrations increased.

I obviously can't show a single scientific study which would persuade Sewage Sweeper - mere facts don't influence him.

https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm

does actually go through a bunch of influential papers that persuaded the scientific community - of which Sewage Sweeper isn't a member - that anthropogenic global warming was real. The "three decades of cooling" that Sewage Sweeper refers to are the cooler part of the roughly sixty year multidecal Atlantic cycle (like El Nino but slower) which only got noticed in 1994. Anthropogenic global warning only only emerged from that kind of background noise in the 1990's after the atmospheric CO2 level had hit 350 ppm (up from the natural interglacial 270 ppm). It's now at 412 ppm.

This isn't the first time I've drawn that web-site to his attention. It took me a while to work through it. and it's probably more technically demanding than he can manage.

> > > Solar cells AREN'T the "lowest" power generator WHEN you factor in the standby power necessary to provide power during the EIGHTEEN hours the sun isn't shining.
> > So where's your costed calculation of the additional cost of buying the storage capacity and keeping it maintained? Wind turbines don't provide power all the tine either, but the wind has been known to blow when the sun isn't shining.
>
> Just WHERE do you think the power comes from during the 18 hours that the Sun isn't shining? ALL solar and wind power needs a backup generator because of their unreliability. And a good part of that backup is COAL-FIRED plants.

Gas-fired power plants are preferred for backup - they can start up a lot faster. Batteries are even faster, and fast enough to be useful for phase control - about half of the Hornsdale reserve (see below) is used just for that, and that job pays about ten times as well as buying up power from the grid when it is cheap and selling it back to grid in the evening when peopie will pay more for it

> > The Australian utilities don't seem to be put off by it - though they haven't installed much grid storage yet. What they have installed pays for itself by buying up power when it is cheap (when the sun is shining) and selling to back when power is more expensive. Since you can only sell back about 85% of what you buy, the day night differential has to be bigger than that.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Power_Reserve
>
> Batteries are an EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE backup method, between $150 and $250 per KWh. By way of comparison I buy power where I live at the rate of $0.08 per KWh.
> https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf

That $150 to $250 per KWm.hour is capital cost per unit capacity. You do have to pay interest on it. Your $0.08 per kW.hour is what you pay for the power you consume. That capital cost is low enough that Hornsdale more than pays it's interest charges by buying up power from the grid during the day, when it is cheap and selling ti back to the grid during the night, when people will pay more for it.

https://www.entura.com.au/batteries-vs-pumped-storage-hydropower-a-place-for-both/

"Pumped hydro boasts a very low price per megawatt hour, ranging from about $200/MWh to $260/MWh. Currently, battery costs range from $350/MWh to nearly $1000/MWh, with this cost reducing rapidly (costs reduced by about 25% during 2016)."

Batteries are rapidly getting cheaper

> > > How could Bill be SO IGNORANT?
> >

> > Not knowing the kinds of "fact" that Sewage Sweeper asserts - without support - isn't ignorance. It just involves having the kind of grasp of reality that Sewage Sweeper lacks. The real question is how Sewage Sweeper stays so ignorant when he keeps on getting reminded that he doesn't know much and a lot of what he thinks he knows happens to be wrong

<snipped more of the usual drivel>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 4:55:45 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 12:21:47 PM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:
>
> > Again, climate change IS NOT the result of human activity. Bozo can't show a SINGLE scientific source that PROVES increases in CO2 DIRECTLY affects global temperatures in any significant way. In fact we had three decades of global cooling even as CO2 concentrations increased.
>
> Are you so dull you can think the Earth can indefinitely absorb a net heat gain from the sun and not get warmer? Maybe you think the thermal energy gets converted into something else.
>
> https://terra.nasa.gov/news/joint-nasa-noaa-study-finds-earths-energy-imbalance-has-doubled

This is probably pitched above Sewage Sweeper's level of comprehension.

Back in 1824 Joseph Fourier worked out that if the earth was a black body warmed by the sun, it's surface temperature would be -18C - which it is, if you look at the "surface" a few miles up in the atmosphere that re-radiates the heat we get from the sun as near-infra red radiation.

More CO2 in the atmosphere pushes that re-radiating surface a bit higher. There's a thermal gradient in the atmosphere - the lapse rate - which means that the temperature at the surface we live on goes up a bit. The temperature at the surface of the oceans also goes up a bit so there's more water vapour in the atmosphere above the oceans (about 70% of the Earth's surface) and that is a greenhouse gas too though it condenses out of the atmosphere as you go higher and the air get colder.

He won't understand that either (because he doesn't want to), but it is simple enough.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Flyguy]

> Bozo Bill Sloman, Sydney

"which means that the temperature at the surface we live on goes up a bit"

WTF does "a bit" mean? That says NOTHING, you idiot!

[Flyguy]

On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 8:15:01 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 4:21:47 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 3:03:16 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 6:09:27 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 9:47:46 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 7:34:35 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > In short, central planning is like incest: genetic diseases flourish by suppressing all contrary viewpoints, no matter how well-founded.
> > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW9JEPSJQOs
> > > > > > The US exhibits much of this in its non-scientific efforts to ineffectively manipulate the climate by government edict.
> > > > > This is actually just Sewage Sweeper being terminally confused. There's nothing wrong with central planning as such - the Manhattan project was centrally planned - but it can go easily wrong if the people doing the planning aren't up to the job. A dictatorial military regime such as North Korea is more likely to get it wrong than most. They are much more likely to persist in doing the wrong thing, because pointing out that some aspect of the plan isn't working right can lead to extremely severe sanctions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dealing with the unfortunate consequences of human induced climate change doesn't actually call for central planning - we just have to stop burning fossil carbon as fuel as fast as possible. Since solar cells and wind turbines both generate electricity more cheaply that burning fossil carbon, we can rely on the free market to do that for us. It isn't doing it as fast as it might, and a little centrally planned encouragement to get it to happen faster isn't out of place - what we lose on junking coal- and gas-fired generating plant before it wears out, we win back by having fewer expensive weather disasters.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bozo's Sewage Sweeper is much to dim to know that solar cells and wind turbines are the cheapest sources of electric power - it's only been true for about the last ten years, and he hasn't learned anything in that time. He not to too dim to read climate change denial propaganda which does tend to skate over this point.
> > > >
> > > > Bozo keeps DENYING that the climate manipulation ISN'T centrally organized, even though it obviously is. California is MANDATING that ALL cars be electric - how is this NOT central planning?
> > > It's more centrally planned encouragement than anything more. They aren't actually mandating that all cars be electric, merely that you will eventually have to replace your car with an electric car if you replace it after a certain date.
> >
> > LOL! Bozo obviously doesn't know anything about what is happening in CA - no, it is NOT optional; it is REQUIRED:
> > https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-moves-accelerate-100-new-zero-emission-vehicle-sales-2035
> Will be required after 2035, always assuming that Calfornia will still be there in 2035.
>
> > > Sewage Sweeper can 't get it into his head that climate change is real and happening, and needs to be slowed down and eventually reversed. Science is international, but it isn't centrally controlled.
> > Again, climate change IS NOT the result of human activity. Bozo can't show a SINGLE scientific source that PROVES increases in CO2 DIRECTLY affects global temperatures in any significant way. In fact we had three decades of global cooling even as CO2 concentrations increased.

> I obviously can't show a single scientific study which would persuade Bozo's Sewage Sweeper - mere facts don't influence him.

VIOLA! Bozo ADMITS he HAS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF!!

>
> https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm
>
> does actually go through a bunch of influential papers that persuaded the scientific community - of which Sewage Sweeper isn't a member - that anthropogenic global warming was real. The "three decades of cooling" that Sewage Sweeper refers to are the cooler part of the roughly sixty year multidecal Atlantic cycle (like El Nino but slower) which only got noticed in 1994. Anthropogenic global warning only only emerged from that kind of background noise in the 1990's after the atmospheric CO2 level had hit 350 ppm (up from the natural interglacial 270 ppm). It's now at 412 ppm.

Bozo ADMITS there was a cooling period when conventional global warming theory says there SHOULD HAVE BEEN a warming period.

>
> This isn't the first time I've drawn that web-site to his attention. It took me a while to work through it. and it's probably more technically demanding than he can manage.
> > > > Solar cells AREN'T the "lowest" power generator WHEN you factor in the standby power necessary to provide power during the EIGHTEEN hours the sun isn't shining.
> > > So where's your costed calculation of the additional cost of buying the storage capacity and keeping it maintained? Wind turbines don't provide power all the tine either, but the wind has been known to blow when the sun isn't shining.
> >
> > Just WHERE do you think the power comes from during the 18 hours that the Sun isn't shining? ALL solar and wind power needs a backup generator because of their unreliability. And a good part of that backup is COAL-FIRED plants.
> Gas-fired power plants are preferred for backup - they can start up a lot faster. Batteries are even faster, and fast enough to be useful for phase control - about half of the Hornsdale reserve (see below) is used just for that, and that job pays about ten times as well as buying up power from the grid when it is cheap and selling it back to grid in the evening when peopie will pay more for it

Bozo ADMITS that so-called renewables NEED BACKUP! What he DOESN'T admit that this cost IS NOT factored into their cost of production.

> > > The Australian utilities don't seem to be put off by it - though they haven't installed much grid storage yet. What they have installed pays for itself by buying up power when it is cheap (when the sun is shining) and selling to back when power is more expensive. Since you can only sell back about 85% of what you buy, the day night differential has to be bigger than that.
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Power_Reserve
> >
> > Batteries are an EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE backup method, between $150 and $250 per KWh. By way of comparison I buy power where I live at the rate of $0.08 per KWh.
> > https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf
> That $150 to $250 per KWm.hour is capital cost per unit capacity. You do have to pay interest on it.

HELLO! Interest is the LARGEST COST!!

Your $0.08 per kW.hour is what you pay for the power you consume. That capital cost is low enough that Hornsdale more than pays it's interest charges by buying up power from the grid during the day, when it is cheap and selling ti back to the grid during the night, when people will pay more for it.

That $0.08 per KWh INCLUDES ALL COSTS, capital, interest and operational.

>
> https://www.entura.com.au/batteries-vs-pumped-storage-hydropower-a-place-for-both/
>
> "Pumped hydro boasts a very low price per megawatt hour, ranging from about $200/MWh to $260/MWh. Currently, battery costs range from $350/MWh to nearly $1000/MWh, with this cost reducing rapidly (costs reduced by about 25% during 2016)."

I have ALREADY addressed pumped hydro - it is VERY LIMITED because of the large landmass and water it requires.

>
> Batteries are rapidly getting cheaper

Hey Bozo, I ALREADY presented data on that - they AREN'T getting cheaper by much.

> > > > How could Bill be SO IGNORANT?
> > >
> > > Not knowing the kinds of "fact" that Sewage Sweeper asserts - without support - isn't ignorance. It just involves having the kind of grasp of reality that Sewage Sweeper lacks. The real question is how Sewage Sweeper stays so ignorant when he keeps on getting reminded that he doesn't know much and a lot of what he thinks he knows happens to be wrong
>
> <snipped more of the usual drivel>
>
> --

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 9:21:47 AM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:
> On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 3:03:16 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 6:09:27 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

> > > ... keeps DENYING that the climate manipulation ISN'T centrally organized, even though it obviously is. California is MANDATING that ALL cars be electric - how is this NOT central planning?

> > It's more centrally planned encouragement than anything more. They aren't actually mandating that all cars be electric, merely that you will eventually have to replace your car with an electric car if you replace it after a certain date.

> LOL! Bozo obviously doesn't know anything about what is happening in CA - no, it is NOT optional; it is REQUIRED:
> https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-moves-accelerate-100-new-zero-emission-vehicle-sales-2035

Yeah, don't just cite it, now READ it for content; it doesn't retire existing cars, only NEW cars offered for sale are
held to the zero-emission requirement. It isn't necessarily electric, you can
do a rubber-band windup if you want. So, 'mandating that all cars be electric' is
not correct.

[Anthony William Sloman]

> "which means that the temperature at the surface we live on goes up a bit"
>
> WTF does "a bit" mean? That says NOTHING, you idiot!

It was addressed to you.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

says that it has gone up about 1.3 degrees Celcius since the period 1880 -1900. You won't take this seriously, so I didn't bother spelling it out. The number shows up in pretty much every popular science article on the subject, so I shouldn't have needed to.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 5:49:33 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 8:15:01 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 4:21:47 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 3:03:16 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 6:09:27 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 9:47:46 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 7:34:35 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > In short, central planning is like incest: genetic diseases flourish by suppressing all contrary viewpoints, no matter how well-founded.
> > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW9JEPSJQOs
> > > > > > > The US exhibits much of this in its non-scientific efforts to ineffectively manipulate the climate by government edict.
> > > > > > This is actually just Sewage Sweeper being terminally confused. There's nothing wrong with central planning as such - the Manhattan project was centrally planned - but it can go easily wrong if the people doing the planning aren't up to the job. A dictatorial military regime such as North Korea is more likely to get it wrong than most. They are much more likely to persist in doing the wrong thing, because pointing out that some aspect of the plan isn't working right can lead to extremely severe sanctions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dealing with the unfortunate consequences of human induced climate change doesn't actually call for central planning - we just have to stop burning fossil carbon as fuel as fast as possible. Since solar cells and wind turbines both generate electricity more cheaply that burning fossil carbon, we can rely on the free market to do that for us. It isn't doing it as fast as it might, and a little centrally planned encouragement to get it to happen faster isn't out of place - what we lose on junking coal- and gas-fired generating plant before it wears out, we win back by having fewer expensive weather disasters.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bozo's Sewage Sweeper is much to dim to know that solar cells and wind turbines are the cheapest sources of electric power - it's only been true for about the last ten years, and he hasn't learned anything in that time. He not to too dim to read climate change denial propaganda which does tend to skate over this point.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bozo keeps DENYING that the climate manipulation ISN'T centrally organized, even though it obviously is. California is MANDATING that ALL cars be electric - how is this NOT central planning?
> > > > It's more centrally planned encouragement than anything more. They aren't actually mandating that all cars be electric, merely that you will eventually have to replace your car with an electric car if you replace it after a certain date.
> > >
> > > LOL! Bozo obviously doesn't know anything about what is happening in CA - no, it is NOT optional; it is REQUIRED:
> > > https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-moves-accelerate-100-new-zero-emission-vehicle-sales-2035
> > Will be required after 2035, always assuming that Calfornia will still be there in 2035.
> >
> > > > Sewage Sweeper can 't get it into his head that climate change is real and happening, and needs to be slowed down and eventually reversed. Science is international, but it isn't centrally controlled.
> > > Again, climate change IS NOT the result of human activity. Bozo can't show a SINGLE scientific source that PROVES increases in CO2 DIRECTLY affects global temperatures in any significant way. In fact we had three decades of global cooling even as CO2 concentrations increased.
> > I obviously can't show a single scientific study which would persuade Bozo's Sewage Sweeper - mere facts don't influence him.
>
> VIOLA! Bozo ADMITS he HAS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF!!

Not exactly. Nothing foolproof enough to convince a total idiot who can be relied on to either ignore or misrepresent data he doesn't like

> > https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm
> >
> > does actually go through a bunch of influential papers that persuaded the scientific community - of which Sewage Sweeper isn't a member - that anthropogenic global warming was real. The "three decades of cooling" that Sewage Sweeper refers to are the cooler part of the roughly sixty year multidecal Atlantic cycle (like El Nino but slower) which only got noticed in 1994. Anthropogenic global warning only only emerged from that kind of background noise in the 1990's after the atmospheric CO2 level had hit 350 ppm (up from the natural interglacial 270 ppm). It's now at 412 ppm.

> There was a cooling period when conventional global warming theory says there SHOULD HAVE BEEN a warming period.

The surface temperature of the earth is an average. El Nino events push it up, La Nina events lower it. The mutildecadal Atlantic cycle, is more of the same, but with a longer period.

Idiots like you got excited when the very intense 1998 El Nino meant that there wasn't any visible global warming for the next few years.

It was still going on, but swasmped by the shrter term noise on the signal.

> > This isn't the first time I've drawn that web-site to his attention. It took me a while to work through it. and it's probably more technically demanding than he can manage.
> > > > > Solar cells AREN'T the "lowest" power generator WHEN you factor in the standby power necessary to provide power during the EIGHTEEN hours the sun isn't shining.
> > > > So where's your costed calculation of the additional cost of buying the storage capacity and keeping it maintained? Wind turbines don't provide power all the tine either, but the wind has been known to blow when the sun isn't shining.
> > >
> > > Just WHERE do you think the power comes from during the 18 hours that the Sun isn't shining? ALL solar and wind power needs a backup generator because of their unreliability. And a good part of that backup is COAL-FIRED plants.
>

> > Gas-fired power plants are preferred for backup - they can start up a lot faster. Batteries are even faster, and fast enough to be useful for phase control - about half of the Hornsdale reserve (see below) is used just for that, and that job pays about ten times as well as buying up power from the grid when it is cheap and selling it back to grid in the evening when people will pay more for it.

>
> Bozo ADMITS that so-called renewables NEED BACKUP! What he DOESN'T admit that this cost IS NOT factored into their cost of production.

Isn't it? the utility companies in Australia are investing a lot in solar farms and wind turbines, and they aren't going bust. My guess would be that they would have figured in the costs of providing back-up power. Nobody seems to talk about it explicitly - this at least does mention it

https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/are-solar-and-wind-cheapest-forms-energy-and-other-faqs-about-renewables

> > > > The Australian utilities don't seem to be put off by it - though they haven't installed much grid storage yet. What they have installed pays for itself by buying up power when it is cheap (when the sun is shining) and selling to back when power is more expensive. Since you can only sell back about 85% of what you buy, the day night differential has to be bigger than that.
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Power_Reserve
> > >
> > > Batteries are an EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE backup method, between $150 and $250 per KWh. By way of comparison I buy power where I live at the rate of $0.08 per KWh.
> > >
> > > https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf
> >
> > That $150 to $250 per KWm.hour is capital cost per unit capacity. You do have to pay interest on it.
>

> Your $0.08 per kW.hour is what you pay for the power you consume. That capital cost is low enough that Hornsdale more than pays it's interest charges by buying up power from the grid during the day, when it is cheap and selling ti back to the grid during the night, when people will pay more for it.
>
> That $0.08 per KWh INCLUDES ALL COSTS, capital, interest and operational.
>
> HELLO! Interest is the LARGEST COST!!

So what.

But you did confuse capital cost with running cost which does emphasise - once again - that you are an idiot.

> > https://www.entura.com.au/batteries-vs-pumped-storage-hydropower-a-place-for-both/
> >
> > "Pumped hydro boasts a very low price per megawatt hour, ranging from about $200/MWh to $260/MWh. Currently, battery costs range from $350/MWh to nearly $1000/MWh, with this cost reducing rapidly (costs reduced by about 25% during 2016)."

> I have ALREADY addressed pumped hydro - it is VERY LIMITED because of the large landmass and water it requires.
> >

> > Batteries are rapidly getting cheaper.

>
> Hey Bozo, I ALREADY presented data on that - they AREN'T getting cheaper by much.

You do misunderstand and misrepresent the data that you do find. You haven't presented it here, so we can't work out how you've got it wrong this time.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Flyguy]

On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 2:54:31 AM UTC-8, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 5:49:33 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 8:15:01 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 4:21:47 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 3:03:16 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 6:09:27 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 9:47:46 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 7:34:35 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > In short, central planning is like incest: genetic diseases flourish by suppressing all contrary viewpoints, no matter how well-founded.
> > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW9JEPSJQOs
> > > > > > > > The US exhibits much of this in its non-scientific efforts to ineffectively manipulate the climate by government edict.
> > > > > > > This is actually just Sewage Sweeper being terminally confused. There's nothing wrong with central planning as such - the Manhattan project was centrally planned - but it can go easily wrong if the people doing the planning aren't up to the job. A dictatorial military regime such as North Korea is more likely to get it wrong than most. They are much more likely to persist in doing the wrong thing, because pointing out that some aspect of the plan isn't working right can lead to extremely severe sanctions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dealing with the unfortunate consequences of human induced climate change doesn't actually call for central planning - we just have to stop burning fossil carbon as fuel as fast as possible. Since solar cells and wind turbines both generate electricity more cheaply that burning fossil carbon, we can rely on the free market to do that for us. It isn't doing it as fast as it might, and a little centrally planned encouragement to get it to happen faster isn't out of place - what we lose on junking coal- and gas-fired generating plant before it wears out, we win back by having fewer expensive weather disasters.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bozo's Sewage Sweeper is much to dim to know that solar cells and wind turbines are the cheapest sources of electric power - it's only been true for about the last ten years, and he hasn't learned anything in that time. He not to too dim to read climate change denial propaganda which does tend to skate over this point.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bozo keeps DENYING that the climate manipulation ISN'T centrally organized, even though it obviously is. California is MANDATING that ALL cars be electric - how is this NOT central planning?
> > > > > It's more centrally planned encouragement than anything more. They aren't actually mandating that all cars be electric, merely that you will eventually have to replace your car with an electric car if you replace it after a certain date.
> > > >
> > > > LOL! Bozo obviously doesn't know anything about what is happening in CA - no, it is NOT optional; it is REQUIRED:
> > > > https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-moves-accelerate-100-new-zero-emission-vehicle-sales-2035
> > > Will be required after 2035, always assuming that Calfornia will still be there in 2035.
> > >
> > > > > Sewage Sweeper can 't get it into his head that climate change is real and happening, and needs to be slowed down and eventually reversed. Science is international, but it isn't centrally controlled.
> > > > Again, climate change IS NOT the result of human activity. Bozo can't show a SINGLE scientific source that PROVES increases in CO2 DIRECTLY affects global temperatures in any significant way. In fact we had three decades of global cooling even as CO2 concentrations increased.
> > > I obviously can't show a single scientific study which would persuade Bozo's Sewage Sweeper - mere facts don't influence him.
> >
> > VIOLA! Bozo ADMITS he HAS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF!!
> Not exactly. Nothing foolproof enough to convince a total idiot who can be relied on to either ignore or misrepresent data he doesn't like

Translation: You're RIGHT, I don't have SHIT!

> > > https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm
> > >
> > > does actually go through a bunch of influential papers that persuaded the scientific community - of which Sewage Sweeper isn't a member - that anthropogenic global warming was real. The "three decades of cooling" that Sewage Sweeper refers to are the cooler part of the roughly sixty year multidecal Atlantic cycle (like El Nino but slower) which only got noticed in 1994. Anthropogenic global warning only only emerged from that kind of background noise in the 1990's after the atmospheric CO2 level had hit 350 ppm (up from the natural interglacial 270 ppm). It's now at 412 ppm.
> > There was a cooling period when conventional global warming theory says there SHOULD HAVE BEEN a warming period.
>
> The surface temperature of the earth is an average. El Nino events push it up, La Nina events lower it. The mutildecadal Atlantic cycle, is more of the same, but with a longer period.
>
> Idiots like you got excited when the very intense 1998 El Nino meant that there wasn't any visible global warming for the next few years.
>
> It was still going on, but swasmped by the shrter term noise on the signal.

Idiots like you can't SPELL or THINK!

> > > This isn't the first time I've drawn that web-site to his attention. It took me a while to work through it. and it's probably more technically demanding than he can manage.
> > > > > > Solar cells AREN'T the "lowest" power generator WHEN you factor in the standby power necessary to provide power during the EIGHTEEN hours the sun isn't shining.
> > > > > So where's your costed calculation of the additional cost of buying the storage capacity and keeping it maintained? Wind turbines don't provide power all the tine either, but the wind has been known to blow when the sun isn't shining.
> > > >
> > > > Just WHERE do you think the power comes from during the 18 hours that the Sun isn't shining? ALL solar and wind power needs a backup generator because of their unreliability. And a good part of that backup is COAL-FIRED plants.
> >
> > > Gas-fired power plants are preferred for backup - they can start up a lot faster. Batteries are even faster, and fast enough to be useful for phase control - about half of the Hornsdale reserve (see below) is used just for that, and that job pays about ten times as well as buying up power from the grid when it is cheap and selling it back to grid in the evening when people will pay more for it.
> >
> > Bozo ADMITS that so-called renewables NEED BACKUP! What he DOESN'T admit that this cost IS NOT factored into their cost of production.
> Isn't it? the utility companies in Australia are investing a lot in solar farms and wind turbines, and they aren't going bust. My guess would be that they would have figured in the costs of providing back-up power. Nobody seems to talk about it explicitly - this at least does mention it

They aren't going bust because of A LOT of government subsidies.

>
> https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/are-solar-and-wind-cheapest-forms-energy-and-other-faqs-about-renewables

This totally GLOSSES OVER the energy storage problem, spewing cliches about how the problem will be solved "in the future" bullshit.

> > > > > The Australian utilities don't seem to be put off by it - though they haven't installed much grid storage yet. What they have installed pays for itself by buying up power when it is cheap (when the sun is shining) and selling to back when power is more expensive. Since you can only sell back about 85% of what you buy, the day night differential has to be bigger than that.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Power_Reserve
> > > >
> > > > Batteries are an EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE backup method, between $150 and $250 per KWh. By way of comparison I buy power where I live at the rate of $0.08 per KWh.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf
> > >
> > > That $150 to $250 per KWm.hour is capital cost per unit capacity. You do have to pay interest on it.
> >
> > Your $0.08 per kW.hour is what you pay for the power you consume. That capital cost is low enough that Hornsdale more than pays it's interest charges by buying up power from the grid during the day, when it is cheap and selling ti back to the grid during the night, when people will pay more for it.
> >
> > That $0.08 per KWh INCLUDES ALL COSTS, capital, interest and operational.
> >
> > HELLO! Interest is the LARGEST COST!!
> So what.

So, it is called ECONOMICS, you dolt.

>
> But you did confuse capital cost with running cost which does emphasise - once again - that you are an idiot.
> > > https://www.entura.com.au/batteries-vs-pumped-storage-hydropower-a-place-for-both/
> > >
> > > "Pumped hydro boasts a very low price per megawatt hour, ranging from about $200/MWh to $260/MWh. Currently, battery costs range from $350/MWh to nearly $1000/MWh, with this cost reducing rapidly (costs reduced by about 25% during 2016)."
>
> > I have ALREADY addressed pumped hydro - it is VERY LIMITED because of the large landmass and water it requires.
> > >
> > > Batteries are rapidly getting cheaper.
> >
> > Hey Bozo, I ALREADY presented data on that - they AREN'T getting cheaper by much.
> You do misunderstand and misrepresent the data that you do find. You haven't presented it here, so we can't work out how you've got it wrong this time.

I DID present and you DIDN'T understand it, Bozo.

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 4:56:51 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 2:54:31 AM UTC-8, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 5:49:33 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 8:15:01 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 4:21:47 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 3:03:16 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 6:09:27 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 9:47:46 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 7:34:35 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

<snip>

> > The surface temperature of the earth is an average. El Nino events push it up, La Nina events lower it. The mutildecadal Atlantic cycle, is more of the same, but with a longer period.
> >
> > Idiots like you got excited when the very intense 1998 El Nino meant that there wasn't any visible global warming for the next few years.
> >

> > It was still going on, but swamped by the shorter term noise on the signal.

>
> Idiots like you can't SPELL or THINK!

How would you know? Your spell checker will show up my typo's, but you clearly need that kind of help with thinking, and it's very clear that you don't get it.

> > > > This isn't the first time I've drawn that web-site ( https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm) to his attention. It took me a while to work through it. and it's probably more technically demanding than he can manage.

> > > >
> > > > > > > Solar cells AREN'T the "lowest" power generator WHEN you factor in the standby power necessary to provide power during the EIGHTEEN hours the sun isn't shining.
> > > > > > So where's your costed calculation of the additional cost of buying the storage capacity and keeping it maintained? Wind turbines don't provide power all the tine either, but the wind has been known to blow when the sun isn't shining.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just WHERE do you think the power comes from during the 18 hours that the Sun isn't shining? ALL solar and wind power needs a backup generator because of their unreliability. And a good part of that backup is COAL-FIRED plants.

As Fred Bloggs has pointed out, renewable energy sources are intermittent, rather than unreliable. The intermittent nature of the supply is tolerably predictable perfectly managable.

> > > > Gas-fired power plants are preferred for backup - they can start up a lot faster. Batteries are even faster, and fast enough to be useful for phase control - about half of the Hornsdale reserve (see below) is used just for that, and that job pays about ten times as well as buying up power from the grid when it is cheap and selling it back to grid in the evening when people will pay more for it.

> > > Bill ADMITS that so-called renewables NEED BACKUP! What he DOESN'T admit that this cost IS NOT factored into their cost of production.

Everybody knows that solar cells and win turbines need grid storage. Why Sewage Sweeper imagines that this isn't factored into the cost of installing them escapes me. Popular web-sites on the subject don't go into that - it complicates the presentation.

> > Isn't it? the utility companies in Australia are investing a lot in solar farms and wind turbines, and they aren't going bust. My guess would be that they would have figured in the costs of providing back-up power. Nobody seems to talk about it explicitly - this at least does mention it.

> They aren't going bust because of A LOT of government subsidies.

They don't get any subsidies in Australia - the previous government subsidised the fossil fuel extraction industies, and those subsidies are still being rolled back.

People who put solar panels on the roof of their house used to get subsidised, but all thew web sites that talk about that are date back to 2017 and earlier

> > https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/are-solar-and-wind-cheapest-forms-energy-and-other-faqs-about-renewables
>
> This totally GLOSSES OVER the energy storage problem, spewing cliches about how the problem will be solved "in the future" bullshit.

They are being solved right now. The Hornsdale Power Reserve was the first grid scale battery, but are now others, and the Snowy 2.O pumped storage scheme is going to take a couple of years to get up and running, but it is being worked on right now.

https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/snowy-20/about/

> > > > > > The Australian utilities don't seem to be put off by it - though they haven't installed much grid storage yet. What they have installed pays for itself by buying up power when it is cheap (when the sun is shining) and selling to back when power is more expensive. Since you can only sell back about 85% of what you buy, the day night differential has to be bigger than that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Power_Reserve
> > > > >
> > > > > Batteries are an EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE backup method, between $150 and $250 per KWh. By way of comparison I buy power where I live at the rate of $0.08 per KWh.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf
> > > >
> > > > That $150 to $250 per KWm.hour is capital cost per unit capacity. You do have to pay interest on it.
> > >
> > > Your $0.08 per kW.hour is what you pay for the power you consume. That capital cost is low enough that Hornsdale more than pays it's interest charges by buying up power from the grid during the day, when it is cheap and selling ti back to the grid during the night, when people will pay more for it.
> > >
> > > That $0.08 per KWh INCLUDES ALL COSTS, capital, interest and operational.
> > >
> > > HELLO! Interest is the LARGEST COST!!
> > So what.
>
> So, it is called ECONOMICS, you dolt.

And you don't understand it at all. After all, you did confuse the capital cost of what you would pay for for a kW.hour of battery capacity with what you do pay for a kW.hour of power.

> > But you did confuse capital cost with running cost which does emphasise - once again - that you are an idiot.

> > > > https://www.entura.com.au/batteries-vs-pumped-storage-hydropower-a-place-for-both/
> > > >
> > > > "Pumped hydro boasts a very low price per megawatt hour, ranging from about $200/MWh to $260/MWh. Currently, battery costs range from $350/MWh to nearly $1000/MWh, with this cost reducing rapidly (costs reduced by about 25% during 2016)."
> >
> > > I have ALREADY addressed pumped hydro - it is VERY LIMITED because of the large landmass and water it requires.

But still useful.

> > > > Batteries are rapidly getting cheaper.
> > >
> > > Hey Bozo, I ALREADY presented data on that - they AREN'T getting cheaper by much.
>
> > You do misunderstand and misrepresent the data that you do find. You haven't presented it here, so we can't work out how you've got it wrong this time.
>
> I DID present and you DIDN'T understand it, Bozo.

You ideas about what you might have presented sometime in the past are as confused and unreliable as your ideas about what the data meant.

Find the link again, or shut up.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney