On 2024-02-26, Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:56:10 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

>>Incorrect. It was the politicians response to corona that messed up the
>>economics. What was a common cold led to complete shut down of all markets
>>+ massive political fingering of the markets. We are now seeing the result
>>of this socialism.

> A common cold? I know people who died from covid. I don't know anybody
> who died from the common cold. Where do you get your information? Do
> you watch Fox News?

When the "common cold" first washed over mankind, there's no telling how
many people died. Any google answers on this are B.S., because nobody
has a clue when that happened. Some speculate that they do. They don't.

On 2024-02-26, Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> He's the Swedish Leonard. These people live in their own reality. Any
> discussion is useless.

Thank you! Anything that separates us from the sticky glob of sheeple is
a win-win. Cults and sheeple, what is the World coming to?

On 2024-02-26, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

> I think you also have geothermal in california, but I don't know if it is
> possible and financially meaningful to build out the capability.

Nevada, where I live, has 26 geothermal plants according to google. I
know where two are and haven't paid attention to the rest.
Can you imagine utilizing Yellowstone? That would tap the vast energy
there and maybe reduce the devastation when the next "big one" erupts
and demonstrates what "climate change" really means.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Graham wrote:

> On 2024-02-26 11:27 a.m., D wrote:
>
>>>
>>> A common cold? I know people who died from covid. I don't know anybody
>>> who died from the common cold. Where do you get your information? Do
>>> you watch Fox News?
>>>
>>
>> I know people who died from bananas and common cold. And yes, Fox is the
>> ultimate source of truth in case you didn't know it, so in case you don't
>> follow Fox I cannot take you seriously.
>
> And as you follow Fox, I can't take you seriously.
> BTW it's obvious that you apply "socialism" to anything you don't like.
> I suggest you do some reading on the subject.
>
Likewise! Done plenty of reading and experienced it for myself. I think
the reason you don't see the evils is that you never tried a taste of it
yourself.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Bruce wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 12:33:32 -0700, Graham <g.stereo@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-02-26 11:27 a.m., D wrote:
>>
>>>> A common cold? I know people who died from covid. I don't know anybody
>>>> who died from the common cold. Where do you get your information? Do
>>>> you watch Fox News?
>>>
>>> I know people who died from bananas and common cold. And yes, Fox is the
>>> ultimate source of truth in case you didn't know it, so in case you
>>> don't follow Fox I cannot take you seriously.
>>
>> And as you follow Fox, I can't take you seriously.
>> BTW it's obvious that you apply "socialism" to anything you don't like.
>> I suggest you do some reading on the subject.
>
> He's the Swedish Leonard. These people live in their own reality. Any
> discussion is useless.
>

Not at all. But it is difficult to get through to you since you seem to be
living in some kind of "la la land". But I have great hopes that you'll
wake up by studying my texts in depth! =)

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Leonard Blaisdell wrote:

> On 2024-02-26, Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> He's the Swedish Leonard. These people live in their own reality. Any
>> discussion is useless.
>
>
> Thank you! Anything that separates us from the sticky glob of sheeple is
> a win-win. Cults and sheeple, what is the World coming to?
>

And I'm still enjoying the pod with my great friends over here! ;)

On 26 Feb 2024 20:44:47 GMT, Leonard Blaisdell
<leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2024-02-26, Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:56:10 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>>>Incorrect. It was the politicians response to corona that messed up the
>>>economics. What was a common cold led to complete shut down of all markets
>>>+ massive political fingering of the markets. We are now seeing the result
>>>of this socialism.
>
>> A common cold? I know people who died from covid. I don't know anybody
>> who died from the common cold. Where do you get your information? Do
>> you watch Fox News?
>
>
>When the "common cold" first washed over mankind, there's no telling how
>many people died. Any google answers on this are B.S., because nobody
>has a clue when that happened. Some speculate that they do. They don't.

All facts that contradict Leo's ideology are false facts! Think! Think
harder!

On 26 Feb 2024 20:49:42 GMT, Leonard Blaisdell
<leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2024-02-26, Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> He's the Swedish Leonard. These people live in their own reality. Any
>> discussion is useless.
>
>
>Thank you! Anything that separates us from the sticky glob of sheeple is
>a win-win. Cults and sheeple, what is the World coming to?

But you are one of the sheeple. You're a Trump zombie. You can't get
more 'sheeple' than that.

On 2024-02-26, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, heyjoe wrote:

>> Neither Biden, nor Trump are good choices for POTUS in 2024.
>> Not sure I can pinch my nose hard enough to vote for either of those
>> two.

> Wow, this seems like a very uncommon balanced and realistic position. In a
> completely ideal scenario I'd vote for Ron Paul myself.

Ron Paul for President! But I want Kristi Noem as Vice President. How do
we get 'em both? I'd also be happy with vice versa.

On 26 Feb 2024 21:20:15 GMT, Leonard Blaisdell
<leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2024-02-26, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, heyjoe wrote:
>
>>> Neither Biden, nor Trump are good choices for POTUS in 2024.
>>> Not sure I can pinch my nose hard enough to vote for either of those
>>> two.
>
>> Wow, this seems like a very uncommon balanced and realistic position. In a
>> completely ideal scenario I'd vote for Ron Paul myself.
>
>Ron Paul for President! But I want Kristi Noem as Vice President. How do
>we get 'em both? I'd also be happy with vice versa.

She's against abortion and against same-sex marriage, to name a few
things. Her next election campaign should be titled "Back to the
Middle Ages with Kristi Noem!"

Leo, your brain stopped taking in new information at the same time as
Sheldon's. Around 1965, I'd say.

D wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, heyjoe wrote:
>
> > D wrote :
> >
> > > That's green socialism for you! Welcome to team Trump! ;)
> >
> > I'm not on Team Trump. Trump is not a nice person and should he be
> > elected POTUS, he'll be a lame duck from day one. Even more
> > handicapped than he was in his first term.
> >
> > Biden is a professional politician. We've already got waay too many
> > of those in Washington, DC. Let Biden get out on the campaign
> > trail, in front of voters, so they can judge for themselves whether
> > or not he's still capable of being the leader of the US. That will
> > not happen.
> >
> > Neither Biden, nor Trump are good choices for POTUS in 2024.
> > Not sure I can pinch my nose hard enough to vote for either of those
> > two.
>
> Wow, this seems like a very uncommon balanced and realistic position.
> In a completely ideal scenario I'd vote for Ron Paul myself.
>
> I find it very interesting that this election seems to be revolving
> around which side is better at defeating its nausea. ;)

Oh he has company. I don't like either choice. Biden is already
showing signs of memory failure. We voted in Reagan for a second term
but he seemed solid then. 2 years later the issues came up. Biden
doesn't have a reasonable fall back. The VP's main action was to
refuse her only real task (visit the border for him). She'll be a
waste.

Trump won't get any cooperation from inside or outside the USA so will
be ineffective. Now I *know* it won't happen but if he straightend up
and Nikki Halley ran with him as VP (won't happen, his ego is too big)
that team might work well to give us an alternative. Nice
dream....*sigh*.

On 2024-02-26, Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2024-02-26, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, heyjoe wrote:
>
>
>>> Neither Biden, nor Trump are good choices for POTUS in 2024.
>>> Not sure I can pinch my nose hard enough to vote for either of those
>>> two.
>
>> Wow, this seems like a very uncommon balanced and realistic position. In a
>> completely ideal scenario I'd vote for Ron Paul myself.
>
>
> Ron Paul for President! But I want Kristi Noem as Vice President. How do
> we get 'em both? I'd also be happy with vice versa.

I wanted to give Pete Buttigieg a chance in 2020. But he dropped
out before the Michigan primary.

--
Cindy Hamilton

songbird wrote:

> heyjoe wrote:
> ...
> > ... Green is great, but not to the exclusion of what
> > works at the best price.
>
> the best price for much in energy now is wind, solar
> and battery storage. include more transmission lines to
> spread the footprint and that means cheap energy from
> anyplace else is available for the price of wheeling
> and transmission losses. it is much cheaper to ship
> electrons than coal or oil.
>
> short-sighted thinking though, well, it's going to suck
> for later generation when they have to pay the bills to
> rebuild further inland or try to protect places from
> storms. pay now or pay later at a compounded rate.
>
>
> songbird

Virginia Beach is having a wind power problem. People are objecting to
having the power cables buried across the land. Yup, they are that
stupid. They think it will cause radiation or something.

Don't worry, it will either come in at 1 of the 2 bases or the Governor
will just grab the land citing the need to force an easement on them
for supply of critical state infrastructure needs.

It's already being built.

While it will supply supposedly about 1/4 VB's needs it actually goes
to Dominion (our power company for the state). Piecemeal of the total.

Virginia has 3 coal powered stations left (and a small one privately
owned that powers some other industry plant).

Don and the cab driver sighted 5 new solar installs in progress or
completed on his way home last week.... (ours was paid off on 15Feb24).

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 21:44:44 +0000, "cshenk"
<cshenk@virginia-beach.net> wrote:

>D wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, heyjoe wrote:
>>
>> > D wrote :
>> >
>> > > That's green socialism for you! Welcome to team Trump! ;)
>> >
>> > I'm not on Team Trump. Trump is not a nice person and should he be
>> > elected POTUS, he'll be a lame duck from day one. Even more
>> > handicapped than he was in his first term.
>> >
>> > Biden is a professional politician. We've already got waay too many
>> > of those in Washington, DC. Let Biden get out on the campaign
>> > trail, in front of voters, so they can judge for themselves whether
>> > or not he's still capable of being the leader of the US. That will
>> > not happen.
>> >
>> > Neither Biden, nor Trump are good choices for POTUS in 2024.
>> > Not sure I can pinch my nose hard enough to vote for either of those
>> > two.
>>
>> Wow, this seems like a very uncommon balanced and realistic position.
>> In a completely ideal scenario I'd vote for Ron Paul myself.
>>
>> I find it very interesting that this election seems to be revolving
>> around which side is better at defeating its nausea. ;)
>
>Oh he has company. I don't like either choice. Biden is already
>showing signs of memory failure. We voted in Reagan for a second term
>but he seemed solid then. 2 years later the issues came up. Biden
>doesn't have a reasonable fall back. The VP's main action was to
>refuse her only real task (visit the border for him). She'll be a
>waste.
>
>Trump won't get any cooperation from inside or outside the USA so will
>be ineffective. Now I *know* it won't happen but if he straightend up
>and Nikki Halley ran with him as VP (won't happen, his ego is too big)
>that team might work well to give us an alternative. Nice
>dream....*sigh*.

If Trump straightened up... sounds like... if a dog had six legs.

On 2024-02-26, Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> But you are one of the sheeple. You're a Trump zombie. You can't get
> more 'sheeple' than that.

Sticks and stones, Bubbly Boo, sticks and stones. If I called you a
zombie, you'd scream, "Bullying!" like a stuck pig.

On 26 Feb 2024 22:31:54 GMT, Leonard Blaisdell
<leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2024-02-26, Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> But you are one of the sheeple. You're a Trump zombie. You can't get
>> more 'sheeple' than that.
>
>
>Sticks and stones, Bubbly Boo, sticks and stones. If I called you a
>zombie, you'd scream, "Bullying!" like a stuck pig.

Have I ever complained that you're bullying me? No. So whatchou on
about? :)

D wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2024, songbird wrote:
>
> > heyjoe wrote:
> > ...
> > > ... Green is great, but not to the exclusion of what
> > > works at the best price.
> >
> > the best price for much in energy now is wind, solar
> > and battery storage. include more transmission lines to
> > spread the footprint and that means cheap energy from
> > anyplace else is available for the price of wheeling
> > and transmission losses. it is much cheaper to ship
> > electrons than coal or oil.
> >
> > short-sighted thinking though, well, it's going to suck
> > for later generation when they have to pay the bills to
> > rebuild further inland or try to protect places from
> > storms. pay now or pay later at a compounded rate.
> >
> >
> > songbird
>
> Energy storage based on batteries at national level is impossible
> with todays technology.
>
> Wind and solar are great, as long as there is wind and sun. When not,
> it is horribly bad.
>
> I think a combination of nuclear for predictable base load, coupled
> with wind, solar both at a company level and individual level is the
> way to go.
>
> I think you also have geothermal in california, but I don't know if
> it is possible and financially meaningful to build out the capability.

Virginia is going the multi-source route. No useful geothermal here.
Some wind areas blocked by shipping routes (yes, we are a *major*
shipping port plus a huge amount of Navy bases and ships).

Mike Duffy wrote:
....
> Dude, I saw it on TV.

the asshole encouraged the crowd to interfere with
the peaceful transition of the presidency. he's no
longer qualified (he wasn't to begin with IMO). he's
violated any oaths he may have sworn. his continued
comments in recent months certainly also make him
unqualified.

songbird

cshenk wrote:
> D wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2024, songbird wrote:
>>
>> > heyjoe wrote:
>> > ...
>> > > ... Green is great, but not to the exclusion of what
>> > > works at the best price.
>> >
>> > the best price for much in energy now is wind, solar
>> > and battery storage. include more transmission lines to
>> > spread the footprint and that means cheap energy from
>> > anyplace else is available for the price of wheeling
>> > and transmission losses. it is much cheaper to ship
>> > electrons than coal or oil.
>> >
>> > short-sighted thinking though, well, it's going to suck
>> > for later generation when they have to pay the bills to
>> > rebuild further inland or try to protect places from
>> > storms. pay now or pay later at a compounded rate.
>> >
>> >
>> > songbird
>>
>> Energy storage based on batteries at national level is impossible
>> with todays technology.

blatantly false.

how many GWH do you consider national?

>> Wind and solar are great, as long as there is wind and sun. When not,
>> it is horribly bad.
>>
>> I think a combination of nuclear for predictable base load, coupled
>> with wind, solar both at a company level and individual level is the
>> way to go.
>>
>> I think you also have geothermal in california, but I don't know if
>> it is possible and financially meaningful to build out the capability.

they have it and do use it. same for hydropower, wind,
solar and now plenty of batteries (and they are building
a lot more).

during the day and early evening they are running most
days between 60-80% or more on renewables + hydro, etc.
and that is continuing to go up. where they are currently
not storing enough from the daytime to get them through a
full evening but that will be coming along. i've been
watching this trend for years. it's working.

the problem at the moment is using lithium batteries
for energy storage is a really expensive way to go and
there are cheaper technologies (which don't catch on
fire) now which could be used instead but everyone is
stuck on lithium. lithium may be a more energy dense
technology but it does not last as many cycles as some
of the others so it ends up costing more over the long-
haul.

> Virginia is going the multi-source route. No useful geothermal here.
> Some wind areas blocked by shipping routes (yes, we are a *major*
> shipping port plus a huge amount of Navy bases and ships).

if they can do offshore it will often be the cheapest source
possible and they are still making larger and larger ones so
that means fewer turbines per GW.

songbird

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Leonard Blaisdell wrote:

> On 2024-02-26, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>> I think you also have geothermal in california, but I don't know if it is
>> possible and financially meaningful to build out the capability.
>
>
> Nevada, where I live, has 26 geothermal plants according to google. I
> know where two are and haven't paid attention to the rest.
> Can you imagine utilizing Yellowstone? That would tap the vast energy
> there and maybe reduce the devastation when the next "big one" erupts
> and demonstrates what "climate change" really means.

That sounds like a great win/win to me! Environmentalist hysterics happy
and environmental rationalists like myself happy.

But!

If I think about how things go in sweden when the expansion of hydropower
is discussed, those discussions are always stopped by the
environmentalists due to destruction of nature. So the environmentalists
are actually the ones stopping the expansion of hydropower in sweden.

But fortunately the EU has now defined nuclear as environmentally
friendly, so I hope some of the hysterics are changing their minds about
it. Discussions are also underway to build new nuclear in sweden after it
being forbidden for many, many decades.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Bruce wrote:

> On 26 Feb 2024 20:49:42 GMT, Leonard Blaisdell
> <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-02-26, Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> He's the Swedish Leonard. These people live in their own reality. Any
>>> discussion is useless.
>>
>>
>> Thank you! Anything that separates us from the sticky glob of sheeple is
>> a win-win. Cults and sheeple, what is the World coming to?
>
> But you are one of the sheeple. You're a Trump zombie. You can't get
> more 'sheeple' than that.
>

I love your eloquent rhetoric skills. Your argument carries great weight!

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Leonard Blaisdell wrote:

> On 2024-02-26, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, heyjoe wrote:
>
>
>>> Neither Biden, nor Trump are good choices for POTUS in 2024.
>>> Not sure I can pinch my nose hard enough to vote for either of those
>>> two.
>
>> Wow, this seems like a very uncommon balanced and realistic position. In a
>> completely ideal scenario I'd vote for Ron Paul myself.
>
>
> Ron Paul for President! But I want Kristi Noem as Vice President. How do
> we get 'em both? I'd also be happy with vice versa.
>

That's beyond me! It seems to me that sometimes the american political
system is sub-optimal. ;)

As for Kristi, she has never made enough media head lines to reach europe.
Ron Paul has been in the european news a few times but never Kristi.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, cshenk wrote:

> D wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, heyjoe wrote:
>>
>>> D wrote :
>>>
>>>> That's green socialism for you! Welcome to team Trump! ;)
>>>
>>> I'm not on Team Trump. Trump is not a nice person and should he be
>>> elected POTUS, he'll be a lame duck from day one. Even more
>>> handicapped than he was in his first term.
>>>
>>> Biden is a professional politician. We've already got waay too many
>>> of those in Washington, DC. Let Biden get out on the campaign
>>> trail, in front of voters, so they can judge for themselves whether
>>> or not he's still capable of being the leader of the US. That will
>>> not happen.
>>>
>>> Neither Biden, nor Trump are good choices for POTUS in 2024.
>>> Not sure I can pinch my nose hard enough to vote for either of those
>>> two.
>>
>> Wow, this seems like a very uncommon balanced and realistic position.
>> In a completely ideal scenario I'd vote for Ron Paul myself.
>>
>> I find it very interesting that this election seems to be revolving
>> around which side is better at defeating its nausea. ;)
>
> Oh he has company. I don't like either choice. Biden is already
> showing signs of memory failure. We voted in Reagan for a second term
> but he seemed solid then. 2 years later the issues came up. Biden
> doesn't have a reasonable fall back. The VP's main action was to
> refuse her only real task (visit the border for him). She'll be a
> waste.
>
> Trump won't get any cooperation from inside or outside the USA so will
> be ineffective. Now I *know* it won't happen but if he straightend up
> and Nikki Halley ran with him as VP (won't happen, his ego is too big)
> that team might work well to give us an alternative. Nice
> dream....*sigh*.
>

Trump and Nikki cooperating? Wow, that would be very surprising! I wonder
how all political commentators would take that? I could also imagine that
Nikki would quit after a few weeks. ;)

On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Bruce wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 21:44:44 +0000, "cshenk"
> <cshenk@virginia-beach.net> wrote:
>
>> D wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, heyjoe wrote:
>>>
>>>> D wrote :
>>>>
>>>>> That's green socialism for you! Welcome to team Trump! ;)
>>>>
>>>> I'm not on Team Trump. Trump is not a nice person and should he be
>>>> elected POTUS, he'll be a lame duck from day one. Even more
>>>> handicapped than he was in his first term.
>>>>
>>>> Biden is a professional politician. We've already got waay too many
>>>> of those in Washington, DC. Let Biden get out on the campaign
>>>> trail, in front of voters, so they can judge for themselves whether
>>>> or not he's still capable of being the leader of the US. That will
>>>> not happen.
>>>>
>>>> Neither Biden, nor Trump are good choices for POTUS in 2024.
>>>> Not sure I can pinch my nose hard enough to vote for either of those
>>>> two.
>>>
>>> Wow, this seems like a very uncommon balanced and realistic position.
>>> In a completely ideal scenario I'd vote for Ron Paul myself.
>>>
>>> I find it very interesting that this election seems to be revolving
>>> around which side is better at defeating its nausea. ;)
>>
>> Oh he has company. I don't like either choice. Biden is already
>> showing signs of memory failure. We voted in Reagan for a second term
>> but he seemed solid then. 2 years later the issues came up. Biden
>> doesn't have a reasonable fall back. The VP's main action was to
>> refuse her only real task (visit the border for him). She'll be a
>> waste.
>>
>> Trump won't get any cooperation from inside or outside the USA so will
>> be ineffective. Now I *know* it won't happen but if he straightend up
>> and Nikki Halley ran with him as VP (won't happen, his ego is too big)
>> that team might work well to give us an alternative. Nice
>> dream....*sigh*.
>
> If Trump straightened up... sounds like... if a dog had six legs.
>

Well, I guess you could count the tail and the reproductive apparatus to
make it six, right?

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, songbird wrote:

> cshenk wrote:
>> D wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2024, songbird wrote:
>>>
>>>> heyjoe wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> ... Green is great, but not to the exclusion of what
>>>>> works at the best price.
>>>>
>>>> the best price for much in energy now is wind, solar
>>>> and battery storage. include more transmission lines to
>>>> spread the footprint and that means cheap energy from
>>>> anyplace else is available for the price of wheeling
>>>> and transmission losses. it is much cheaper to ship
>>>> electrons than coal or oil.
>>>>
>>>> short-sighted thinking though, well, it's going to suck
>>>> for later generation when they have to pay the bills to
>>>> rebuild further inland or try to protect places from
>>>> storms. pay now or pay later at a compounded rate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> songbird
>>>
>>> Energy storage based on batteries at national level is impossible
>>> with todays technology.
>
> blatantly false.
>
> how many GWH do you consider national?

The total electricity consumption in the United States in 2022 was about
4.07 trillion kilowatt-hours (kWh)

Show me the cost of battery storage and I think you'll find it
unrealistic.