Mark Blyth, the economist who's making sense
- Thread starter ttystikk
- Start date
- Status
similar to pattern of president pedo outrageous claim then spin; the outrageous claim that was made wouldn't have happened if subject of attack didn't do 'something' to upset president pedo.
we must now accept his wishes unchecked..his repeating of a lie so often it becomes truth. everyday, i keep thinking surely it can't get any worse..
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
it's Huckster 101. I just love the outright..it's so bold. remember the 'we have a senator in the hospital', when we didn't and called out on? he pretends he didn't hear the question..it's actually an advanced sales technique which he pulls off flawlessly because nobody corrects him. you're only supposed to use it once during conversation but he pulls it off because NO ONE QUESTIONS and says YOU ARE WRONG PRESIDENT PEDO!:
there is also pattern connected to NK ICBM launches..shoe is about to drop, friends.
Last edited:
dagwood45431
Well-Known Member
You two need to step up the pillow talk.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-concentrating-solar-tower-is-worth-its-salt-with-24-7-power/
This is how solar power generation can provide power at night and load balancing anytime. It's brilliant and elegantly solves the single biggest problem of solar power, no batteries required.
This is how solar power generation can provide power at night and load balancing anytime. It's brilliant and elegantly solves the single biggest problem of solar power, no batteries required.
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
You literally just post links from your retarded Facebook time-line, don't you? I saw this clickbait earlier too...but I'll be relatively civil.
The problem with the system is it kills pretty much anything that flies through the beams. Also storing things as heat is ridiculous. Heat is the final stage of matter/energy and always involves a huge loss in an open system.
Batteries and PV panels are the future, it's just doped silicon (a hugely abundant material) that can be placed anywhere, is modular and directly produces electrical power.
As a rule of thumb you can always assume that every conversion stage in a reaction like this is a loss.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Scientific American is 'click bait'? Sure, buddy.
Yes, birds that fly through the beams get cooked. Birds flying into wind turbine blades get chopped. At least it's one tower instead of hundreds of spinning blades.
The molten sodium mixture is stored in insulated tanks for later use. If you read the article, you'd realize they don't have to store it, they can use the heat immediately. Also, thanks to the rule of surface area vs volume, bigger tanks are more efficient than smaller ones. A tank isn't an 'open system'; it's storage.
The energy storage system is far less expensive than vast banks of batteries needed to hold the same energy, which translates into lower cost of capacity. It also doesn't degrade over time and multiple discharge cycles like batteries.
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
You obviously don't understand what you're saying. Larger storage tanks have a far larger surface area to dissipate heat into the surroundings and are less efficient above a certain size, there's a gradient it's not x is better than y.
And there's no such thing as a totally closed system nor is the Earth considering one anyway.
And a tank that isn't 100% insulated is not considered a closed system.
Converting light to heat, to convert liquid to gas, to convert kinetic to electrical is WOEFULLY inefficient compared to light to electricity or light to chemical to electricity.
Do you even science, bro?
Let me guess, you can't respond because you don't know anything beyond what they stated in that article.
I bet you think solar roadways is "freakin awesome" too.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Volume to surface area is a thing. You clearly don't physics much.
These systems use the energy of light to generate heat- much of that energy is already long wavelength infrared. Of course, all of the light energy can be converted into heat.
Silicon solar panels are rarely more efficient than 22%, most are in the 10-15% range. You don't do applied properties of materials much, it seems.
As far as converting one kind of energy into another, it turns out that most power plants burn fossil fuels of one sort or another, use the heat to generate live steam and use that in turbines to turn generators and make electricity. These plants are up to 35% efficient unless they use water heat recapture technology, which uses large amounts of fresh water to boost their efficiency as high as 70%. But you don't do much mechanical engineering, it seems.
Stick to your programming.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Solar roadways need to solve the compromises of performance vs durability and suitability of the surface for traffic to be practical. I don't see it happening soon.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
https://boingboing.net/2017/11/18/blood-funnels-jammed.html
Candid Wall Street barons worry that GOP tax plan will lead to literal euthanasia of the rentier
We can only hope...
Candid Wall Street barons worry that GOP tax plan will lead to literal euthanasia of the rentier
We can only hope...
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
Lol, they dont produce more than they consume you retard.
You're talking about the wrong kind of efficiency, lol!
The efficiency ratings you describe is how much energy in the sunlight that strikes a PV panel can be converted directly to electrical power.
You're talking about efficiency in terms of losses of heat, which is an inefficiency within the system.
With a PV system the only internal losses are those of the copper wire, the batteries, charge controller and inverter.
Yours involves huge losses to the atmosphere before electricity is even produced, never mind friction within the turbines and a litany of others.
Yours is also not modular and has a fixed setup and huge footprint. Mirror based solar is largely on the way out due to the ever increasing efficiency and drop in cost of PV.
Your arrogance is only exceeded by your unrelenting ignorance...what you saw was marketing, plain and simple.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Efficiency is efficiency.
Modularity only goes so far- it turns out that it's not profitable to the utility to have customers put the panels on their roofs, it's better to put them in big farms.
And you're missing the point of the sodium heat reservoir completely.
Stick to your keyboard. Your engineering skills will definitely leave us all in the dark.
+rep
awesome article thanks for sharing! in a nutshell..PRESIDENT PEDO, RYAN AND MC CONNELL IS LYING RIGHT TO YOUR FACE and lose respect for MC CAIN if he VOTES this.In 1936, John Maynard Keynes suggested that a fair economic system would lead to "the euthanasia of the rentier, and, consequently, the euthanasia of the cumulative oppressive power of the capitalist to exploit the scarcity-value of capital" -- implying that we have a choice between fairness and extreme wealth, and that the two couldn't peacefully co-exist.
Lurking in the back of the minds of the super-rich, and in the share-price of surveillance/control businesses like Palantir and G4S is the fear that one day, the world will come to realized that Peter Thiel was right when he declared that the "freedom" to be a ruthless exploiter plutocrat was not "compatible" with democracy, and decide to opt for the latter (Thiel, meanwhile, seems to plump for the former).
Now, the Republican Party is pushing for a tax-plan that rewards literal idle wealth, windfalls to fund share buybacks and other nonproductive financial engineering, millions for the children of the richest 0.2% of Americans, while making it impossible for all but the wealthiest to go to grad school, cutting funds for rural people suffering from opiod addiction, cutting health-care for 9,000,000 poor American children; raising tax on the dwindling middle class, raising tax on home-ownership, cuts funding for health care for the poorest Americans across the board, cuts benefits for veterans, adds 1.5 trillion to the debt.
Candid Republican lawmakers have admitted that they feel they must transfer trillions to the richest Americans or face the end of their political careers as their campaign contributions dry up.
But as wave after wave of revelations come about the impunity with which the super-rich dodge taxes and cram the American worker, the euthanasia of the rentier is gaining traction.
A senior Wall Street exec -- anonymous, for obvious reasons -- told Vanity Fair's William Cohan that they feared that passage of the GOP's tax plan would be the final straw that collapsed the whole Reagonomic, neoliberal consensus and triggered a new growth industry for guillotines. In part, that's because the plan is so economically incompetent that it will inevitably usher in a horrific recession that will batter the Americans who are still trying to recover from the last finance-industry-triggered econopocalypse, with a new housing crisis, a tax disaster in populous "blue" states like New York and California, a collapse in consumer confidence and spending, and worse.
Other CEOs have gone on the record, calling the Trump plan a "tax cut" not "tax reform" with the super-rich as the prime beneficiaries, and no reason to believe that the cuts will be accompanied by higher wages, better jobs, or more investment in the US.
If Cohn were being more honest, he’d admit what most chief executives are saying privately, and some publicly. “The Trump team is arguing that massively cutting taxes for corporations will somehow translate into significant wage increases for working people,” David Mendels, the former C.E.O. of publicly traded software company Brightcove wrote last week. “This argument fundamentally disregards everything we know about how companies actually decide to hire and how much to pay their employees. As a C.E.O. (and in previous roles) I was involved in hiring and determining salaries for thousands of people over 25 years. From real-world experience I can tell you that tax rates literally never came up in any discussion about hiring or pay levels.” Occam’s razor, he added, is the best rubric to predict what will happen when you give investors more money in the absence of increased demand: they’ll keep it.
Howard Schultz, the billionaire executive chairman of Starbucks, was more blunt: “This is not tax reform,” he said at the DealBook conference in New York last week. “This is a tax cut. It’s fool’s gold that he wants to take the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent. For what purpose? Is that profit going to go back to the people who need it the most? Is that going to help half the country that doesn’t have $400 in their bank account for a crisis? No.”
Executives know there’s no mechanism in the G.O.P. tax plan to reward them for passing those savings along to their employees, who Paul Ryan has estimated would get an average $4,000 raise (over a decade) as a result of corporate largesse. The labor market has tightened considerably—the unemployment rate is at a 15-year low—and the stock market is starting to level off. The word on the street, though, isn’t that higher corporate profits will lead to higher wages; rather, it’s all about buybacks: Goldman says stock buybacks will hit $590 billion in 2018, while Merrill Lynch predicts half of all repatriated cash would go to buybacks or acquisitions. It’s a sugar high that might extend the market rally temporarily, but will deepen the rot in our economic cavity.
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Concentrated solar power (CSP) farms take up huge tracts of land mostly in sensitive desert areas. We should treat these areas properly in terms of environmental impact and so not all or even much of the available flat wild desert land is available. Certainly farm land can be converted with a trade-off between food production vs electrical power production being an obvious one that needs to be thought through too.
Photo-voltaic (PV) cells can be mounted just about anywhere, Tech improvement for PV arrays is continuing while the tech for large CSP farms is relatively inflexible and not on the same growth of improvement curve shown by PV. Cost is another factor, Concentrated Solar Power hasn't met cost goals whereas large scale PV is already competitive with conventional fossil fuel power generators and prospects for technical improvements to make it cheaper than fossil fuel power. The advantage that CSP has of 24 hour power generation is attractive but higher cost makes it less so. Nor does the argument of higher conversion efficiency outweigh the higher cost per CSP watt compared to PV.
PV has an edge in terms of cost and flexibility in production siting. In other words, more and lower cost daytime production capacity is available to PV than CSP. If higher value is placed upon total effect on global warming and sustainability, and night time production is factored in, CSP probably has the edge. Just saying there is no need to go wholly one way or the other.
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
"Efficiency is efficiency"...?
Oh just stfu already, you're clearly clueless as fuck.
The thing is, they don't actually "produce" power at night, they use heat produced during the day to keep the turbines running.
Unless you can tell me that the molten salt tanks can beat the modularity and 90-95% storage efficiency of batteries then it's a moot point.
Trust me, the Australian Govt isnt getting Tesla to build a commercial sized battery storage bank for their PV arrays because they're short of land to use Concentrated Solar
Last edited:
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
No source just plagiarism in an attempt to look smart.+rep
In 1936, John Maynard Keynes suggested that a fair economic system would lead to "the euthanasia of the rentier, and, consequently, the euthanasia of the cumulative oppressive power of the capitalist to exploit the scarcity-value of capital" -- implying that we have a choice between fairness and extreme wealth, and that the two couldn't peacefully co-exist.
Lurking in the back of the minds of the super-rich, and in the share-price of surveillance/control businesses like Palantir and G4S is the fear that one day, the world will come to realized that Peter Thiel was right when he declared that the "freedom" to be a ruthless exploiter plutocrat was not "compatible" with democracy, and decide to opt for the latter (Thiel, meanwhile, seems to plump for the former).
Now, the Republican Party is pushing for a tax-plan that rewards literal idle wealth, windfalls to fund share buybacks and other nonproductive financial engineering, millions for the children of the richest 0.2% of Americans, while making it impossible for all but the wealthiest to go to grad school, cutting funds for rural people suffering from opiod addiction, cutting health-care for 9,000,000 poor American children; raising tax on the dwindling middle class, raising tax on home-ownership, cuts funding for health care for the poorest Americans across the board, cuts benefits for veterans, adds 1.5 trillion to the debt.
Candid Republican lawmakers have admitted that they feel they must transfer trillions to the richest Americans or face the end of their political careers as their campaign contributions dry up.
But as wave after wave of revelations come about the impunity with which the super-rich dodge taxes and cram the American worker, the euthanasia of the rentier is gaining traction.
A senior Wall Street exec -- anonymous, for obvious reasons -- told Vanity Fair's William Cohan that they feared that passage of the GOP's tax plan would be the final straw that collapsed the whole Reagonomic, neoliberal consensus and triggered a new growth industry for guillotines. In part, that's because the plan is so economically incompetent that it will inevitably usher in a horrific recession that will batter the Americans who are still trying to recover from the last finance-industry-triggered econopocalypse, with a new housing crisis, a tax disaster in populous "blue" states like New York and California, a collapse in consumer confidence and spending, and worse.
Other CEOs have gone on the record, calling the Trump plan a "tax cut" not "tax reform" with the super-rich as the prime beneficiaries, and no reason to believe that the cuts will be accompanied by higher wages, better jobs, or more investment in the US.
If Cohn were being more honest, he’d admit what most chief executives are saying privately, and some publicly. “The Trump team is arguing that massively cutting taxes for corporations will somehow translate into significant wage increases for working people,” David Mendels, the former C.E.O. of publicly traded software company Brightcove wrote last week. “This argument fundamentally disregards everything we know about how companies actually decide to hire and how much to pay their employees. As a C.E.O. (and in previous roles) I was involved in hiring and determining salaries for thousands of people over 25 years. From real-world experience I can tell you that tax rates literally never came up in any discussion about hiring or pay levels.” Occam’s razor, he added, is the best rubric to predict what will happen when you give investors more money in the absence of increased demand: they’ll keep it.
Howard Schultz, the billionaire executive chairman of Starbucks, was more blunt: “This is not tax reform,” he said at the DealBook conference in New York last week. “This is a tax cut. It’s fool’s gold that he wants to take the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent. For what purpose? Is that profit going to go back to the people who need it the most? Is that going to help half the country that doesn’t have $400 in their bank account for a crisis? No.”
Executives know there’s no mechanism in the G.O.P. tax plan to reward them for passing those savings along to their employees, who Paul Ryan has estimated would get an average $4,000 raise (over a decade) as a result of corporate largesse. The labor market has tightened considerably—the unemployment rate is at a 15-year low—and the stock market is starting to level off. The word on the street, though, isn’t that higher corporate profits will lead to higher wages; rather, it’s all about buybacks: Goldman says stock buybacks will hit $590 billion in 2018, while Merrill Lynch predicts half of all repatriated cash would go to buybacks or acquisitions. It’s a sugar high that might extend the market rally temporarily, but will deepen the rot in our economic cavity.
Fogdog is obviously gone soft on your retards, it's a shame he liked the copy/paste of a known psycho racist, I thought his judgement was better than that.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
It's the text of the article she quoted at the top of her post.
I realize the article is too long for you to get through without a nap.
Go to bed, the adults are talking.
- Status