|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 24 2014 02:24 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2014 02:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Newly released court documents include excerpts from emails showing that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's recall election campaign team told him to instruct donors to give to a key conservative group that would run ads for Walker and distribute money to other conservative groups backing him.
The documents released Friday by a federal appeals court also show that prosecutors believe Walker personally solicited donations for conservative group Wisconsin Club for Growth to get around campaign finance limits and disclosure requirements as he fended off the recall attempt in 2012.
Aides told Walker to tell donors that they could make unlimited donations to Wisconsin Club for Growth without having the gifts publicly disclosed. Wisconsin Club for Growth then funneled the money to other conservative groups that advertised on Walker's behalf.
"As the Governor discussed ... he wants all the issue advocacy efforts run thru one group to ensure correct messaging," Walker fundraiser Kate Doner wrote to campaign adviser R.J. Johnson in April 2011, a little more than a year before the recall election. "We had some past problems with multiple groups doing work on 'behalf' of Gov. Walker and it caused some issues ... the Governor is encouraging all to invest in the Wisconsin Club for Growth."
It's not clear whether Walker followed the instructions from his team. But the documents say millions of dollars later moved from donors he was set to speak with to Wisconsin Club for Growth, which in turn funded groups backing Walker in the recall election. Source I never get these people. If your going to do something illegal why on earth are you using email and keeping records...
Because there is little to no consequences and they do so much shit it's not practical to do it in secret.
|
On August 24 2014 04:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2014 03:33 Danglars wrote:On August 23 2014 16:00 Wegandi wrote:On August 23 2014 15:17 Danglars wrote:On August 23 2014 12:28 Wegandi wrote: Wow....instead of decriminalizing drugs and repealing no-victim laws to reduce crime and eradicate violent gangs people advocate spending even more money on Police and militarizing them even more. I can't even...never mind violent crime statistics have been plummeting since the early 1990s. The last thing the Government needs is more power, especially when the 'problems' they're called on to ameliorate, they created in the first place. Typical Government MO. True. On the subject of militarizing them even more, I remember the situation, back before any of these efforts had gotten underway, when the police were literally outclassed. I know from local media I'm not alone recalling when we all were scared for police safety and public safety when criminals could easily fend off police. Maybe I just want a happy medium between Iraq humvees and full military getup and cops with pea-shooters getting seriously injured and killed in the line of duty from rioters or armed criminals (or as you say, violent gangs). Of course it is tragic when innocents are killed, but that doesn't mean that you should turn what are supposed to be 'keepers of the peace', into paramilitary Gendarmes for local jurisdictions, never mind the insanity that are SWAT teams. You think you're going to give them all this power and equipment and for them to not use it and/or use it for its intended purpose? Less than 4% of all warrants carried out by SWAT are for 'its intended purpose' (e.g. hostage, heavily armed assailants, etc.). What makes this level of Government any more benevolent than its other appendiges? In fact, given the power that Police all ready have, you'd think erring on the side of restraint even more would be the wise choice. What we've essentially done not only through Federal incentivization and our Foreign Military Adventures (aka rain of death and hegemony for money and power) is to create our very own Stasi. Between the see something say something, report your neighbors, paranoia about 'guns', rational thinking and discussions have been long since tossed aside. Liberty, freedom, property rights...how antiquated. Also, the question is begged - who is 'we' in your general statement? This myth about police being your protectors and servants needs to be quelled quickly. Even the Supreme Court has upheld that the police have no obligation to 'protect', 'serve', or otherwise help anyone. Police have always been and always will be the enforcement arms of local Governances - to carry out the petty edicts of county and municipal officials, mostly in enriching themselves. Has anyone even bothered to address the heinous asset forfeiture programs throughout the country? If anything police resemble the local Mafia, more than anything else. At least gangs don't have ideology and propaganda stations to brainwash people into accepting their violence and lawlessness. Ferguson merely espouses what happens daily in this country. Oh, and as far as the dangers that cops face...being a cop isn't even in the top 15 most dangerous jobs in America. (That would go to logging and fishing) https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131230/15411225716/number-officers-killed-line-duty-drops-to-50-year-low-while-number-citizens-killed-cops-remains-unchanged.shtmlIf you check those statistics even more you'll see that half of the ~100 killed were by their own volition via traffic accidents. I'm sorry, but one incident doesn't give any jurisprudence to the idea of creating paramilitary power-driven immunized goons 'in the name of their safety'. Speaking of....qualified immunity, and the tax payers paying for individual cops rights abusing citizens needs to end. They need to get and pay for their own bonds if they want to be cops - so they pay for their own transgressions. If its tragic when innocents are killed, is it simultaneously unavoidable that SWAT teams with rifles and body armor will abuse their newfound protection and firepower? Please also view what I was saying in the context of my recent comments too.I caution against instinctive backlash that will take away rifles, body armor, anything that looks black and threatening. The southern border's wide open, illegal gun smuggling is open season. Terrorists, gangs, even criminal elements present that may be armed in future encounters. I want them to have peers in weaponry. Don't strip down police swats till they have 9MM and defensive riot gear to deal with automatic weaponry (as happened in LA, as held down police for an hour even while being small and disorganized). The "we" comment was discussions on local radio because locals in my area have not forgotten a demilitarized police force wounded and praying for divine help with one robbery. You go WAY too far casting police as the true criminals Police have always been and always will be the enforcement arms of local Governances - to carry out the petty edicts of county and municipal officials, mostly in enriching themselves. Law and order and petty edicts means petty edicts and self enrichment first, law and order afterthought. I suggest police department reform is the better answer. What prejudice, honestly though. I wonder if personal anecdotes fuel this mafia accusation. Ferguson merely espouses what happens daily in this country. Cops don't daily face riots. Cops do daily make split second decisions when their lives may be in peril. If you buy into one narrative, cops don't daily shot unarmed black teenagers with their hands up. The myth is a police force as corrupt as Mexico, as Russia, as Pakistan. Leadership, training, professionality. Don't let the bad apples stain the credibility of police around the country. No tanks, no petty crime SWAT raids, and not too much to ask. Bring political pressure to bear on SWAT team abuse. Fire leaders that can't lead, revert back to proven uniformed police procedures, retrain. Anybody believe the outcry won't lead to police cruiser cameras in Ferguson? Let the peaceful reforms and not prejudice lead the way in department reform. I don't know if you believe citizens having no power in banding together to change how their local police do their business. Others already covered principles deadly force protecting themselves, yes EVEN subhuman police officers, from grievous injury and death. Others already posted statistics on police brutality and police shootings. Your just going to hate me for this but yes taking away weapons now can have bad results but it should never have come this far! Police shouldn't have to fight gangs running around with assault weapons. But the American belief that everyone should have access to guns has created an arms race between gangs and law enforcement that is unheard of in the first world. Also you want peaceful reforms? What reforms. The entire system appears to be corrupt down to the core, there will never be reforms without massive public outcry, this shit has been happening for years and years and it only appears to be getting worse. How many more need to get murdered before the general public actually takes a stand? I already saw the suggestion of decriminalizing marijuana. That's dialogue on possible legal reforms. If you've been reading, Jonny brought up Police visits to High Schools on DARE programs. Undo these stereotypes, deserved and undeserved, and make new ties from civilian police force to the protected citizens. "Corrupt down to the core" is pessimism ossified. Many police forces are respected and honored. If poor predominantly black rioters is unfair characterization of the peaceful ones, hopelessly corrupt police forces around the country is simultaneously as bigoted. Rioters gonna riot, police never going to police? Pretty big double standard.
I'm not going to cover your grand explanation for criminal gangs and assault weapons. It should never have gone so far to have the APCs rolling around with clueless leaders directing fully decked-out cops like they were in a foreign country. History's full of preventable slides that led to wars, genocides, death. When in a hole, dig out, don't dig another hole and blame the first for being dug. You say take a stand? The results of good stands are reforms (and in extreme examples, entire government changes). Time to return to cops on the beat, SWAT teams for the next AK47 group or ISIS group or dangerous standoff.
|
President Obama has ordered a review of federal programs that supply local law enforcement agencies with military weapons and equipment after concerns over how the police handled unrest in Ferguson, Mo., in the aftermath of the shooting death of Michael Brown.
A senior Obama administration official says the president "whether state and local law enforcement are provided with the necessary training and guidance; and whether the federal government is sufficiently auditing the use of equipment obtained through federal programs and funding."
The official also says the review would include input from the Domestic Policy Council, the National Security Council, the Office of Management and Budget, as well as the departments of Defense, Justice, Homeland Security and Treasury.
Obama telegraphed the likelihood of a review on Monday when he urged a reexamination of such programs.
"There is a big difference between our military and our local law enforcement, and we don't want those lines blurred," the president told reporters at the White House. "That would be contrary to our traditions."
Source
|
A reminder that Police incompetence isn't always racist...
WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. - The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD) admitted Thursday deputies made a deadly mistake this week when they fatally shot an innocent man, reports CBS Los Angeles.
John Winkler, 30, was killed Monday night after deputies responded to a call of a man with a knife. Winkler reportedly worked temporarily as a production assistant for the TV show "Tosh.0″ on Comedy Central.
Shortly after 9:30 p.m., deputies say two men burst out of an apartment building and ran towards them. The first man who exited was bleeding profusely from the neck. Winkler followed close behind, reports the station.
The deputies on scene apparently were confused when they saw Winkler "lunging at the back of the fleeing victim," LASD Chief Bill McSweeney told CBS Los Angeles.
Deputies shot Winkler four times and the other man was shot once. Winkler died from his injuries at a hospital. The other man survived.
Investigators now say Winkler and the man who was bleeding were actually victims of a third man, Alexander McDonald, who lived inside the apartment building, reports the station.
Winkler, who lived in the apartment above McDonald, got unwittingly involved in the violence when he came down to visit two friends at McDonald's apartment. The suspect crawled onto his own balcony from outside and held the three men hostage with a butcher knife. Witnesses reportedly told police McDonald was acting delusional and crazed.
At some point, Winkler and the victim who had been stabbed managed to escape, only to be shot when they exited the building.
Source
Yeah you read that right... The police shot the victims...
|
On August 24 2014 09:15 GreenHorizons wrote:A reminder that Police incompetence isn't always racist... Show nested quote +WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. - The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD) admitted Thursday deputies made a deadly mistake this week when they fatally shot an innocent man, reports CBS Los Angeles.
John Winkler, 30, was killed Monday night after deputies responded to a call of a man with a knife. Winkler reportedly worked temporarily as a production assistant for the TV show "Tosh.0″ on Comedy Central.
Shortly after 9:30 p.m., deputies say two men burst out of an apartment building and ran towards them. The first man who exited was bleeding profusely from the neck. Winkler followed close behind, reports the station.
The deputies on scene apparently were confused when they saw Winkler "lunging at the back of the fleeing victim," LASD Chief Bill McSweeney told CBS Los Angeles.
Deputies shot Winkler four times and the other man was shot once. Winkler died from his injuries at a hospital. The other man survived.
Investigators now say Winkler and the man who was bleeding were actually victims of a third man, Alexander McDonald, who lived inside the apartment building, reports the station.
Winkler, who lived in the apartment above McDonald, got unwittingly involved in the violence when he came down to visit two friends at McDonald's apartment. The suspect crawled onto his own balcony from outside and held the three men hostage with a butcher knife. Witnesses reportedly told police McDonald was acting delusional and crazed.
At some point, Winkler and the victim who had been stabbed managed to escape, only to be shot when they exited the building. SourceYeah you read that right... The police the victims... "But they had only seconds to react, shooting was the only option they had" That's what the usual suspects will say, just like before.
|
On August 24 2014 08:33 Danglars wrote: Many police forces are respected and honored. If poor predominantly black rioters is unfair characterization of the peaceful ones, hopelessly corrupt police forces around the country is simultaneously as bigoted. Rioters gonna riot, police never going to police? Pretty big double standard.
The problem is the definition of the word "policing". Because "it's just like the military, but inside the country"is not a very sane definition of the word. I don't buy this "but it's so dangerous here!" argument. England and Wales managed to not kill anybody for two years, surely the US may be able to manage a month without killing some black guy, right?
|
Groups that closely follow regulations are expecting the Obama administration to continue issuing controversial rules through the midterm elections, despite the political risk it could pose for Democrats.
With time running out on President Obama’s second term, federal agencies are hitting the gas on a number of regulatory initiatives that are central to the White House’s “go-it-alone” agenda.
The pace of rulemaking is a stark contrast from the months leading up to the 2012 presidential election, when the flow of rules came screeching to a near halt.
The expectation that the gears of the regulatory process will keep moving highlights how the president's desire for a second-term legacy sometimes conflicts with the short-term political considerations of congressional Democrats.
“We can’t underestimate the role politics plays in regulatory decisions,” said Stuart Shapiro, a former staffer at the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, who is now an associate professor at Rutgers University. “It’s important to remember that at the heart of regulations are political decisions.”
Source
|
Disappointing! I'd advise some optimism on the issue though - the economy is becoming more energy efficient, alternatives better, and 'energy intensity' is falling too. All of which (to the best of my knowledge) point to the 'economic threshold' either falling, or the EROI of alternatives rising. Still, the out-performance of nuclear is striking...
Edit: for quick reference to the chart, "buffered" means with an efficient energy storage technology employed. Edit 2: CCGT is a type of natural gas to electricity.
The Catch-22 of Energy Storage. Pick up a research paper on battery technology, fuel cells, energy storage technologies or any of the advanced materials science used in these fields, and you will likely find somewhere in the introductory paragraphs a throwaway line about its application to the storage of renewable energy. Energy storage makes sense for enabling a transition away from fossil fuels to more intermittent sources like wind and solar, and the storage problem presents a meaningful challenge for chemists and materials scientists… Or does it? Guest Post by John Morgan. John is Chief Scientist at a Sydney startup developing smart grid and grid scale energy storage technologies. He is Adjunct Professor in the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering at RMIT, holds a PhD in Physical Chemistry, and is an experienced industrial R&D leader. You can follow John on twitter at @JohnDPMorgan. First published in Chemistry in Australia. Several recent analyses of the inputs to our energy systems indicate that, against expectations, energy storage cannot solve the problem of intermittency of wind or solar power. Not for reasons of technical performance, cost, or storage capacity, but for something more intractable: there is not enough surplus energy left over after construction of the generators and the storage system to power our present civilization. The problem is analysed in an important paper by Weißbach et al.1 in terms of energy returned on energy invested, or EROEI – the ratio of the energy produced over the life of a power plant to the energy that was required to build it. It takes energy to make a power plant – to manufacture its components, mine the fuel, and so on. The power plant needs to make at least this much energy to break even. A break-even powerplant has an EROEI of 1. But such a plant would pointless, as there is no energy surplus to do the useful things we use energy for. ... + Show Spoiler +There is a minimum EROEI, greater than 1, that is required for an energy source to be able to run society. An energy system must produce a surplus large enough to sustain things like food production, hospitals, and universities to train the engineers to build the plant, transport, construction, and all the elements of the civilization in which it is embedded.
For countries like the US and Germany, Weißbach et al. estimate this minimum viable EROEI to be about 7. An energy source with lower EROEI cannot sustain a society at those levels of complexity, structured along similar lines. If we are to transform our energy system, in particular to one without climate impacts, we need to pay close attention to the EROEI of the end result.
The EROEI values for various electrical power plants are summarized in the figure. The fossil fuel power sources we’re most accustomed to have a high EROEI of about 30, well above the minimum requirement. Wind power at 16, and concentrating solar power (CSP, or solar thermal power) at 19, are lower, but the energy surplus is still sufficient, in principle, to sustain a developed industrial society. Biomass, and solar photovoltaic (at least in Germany), however, cannot. With an EROEI of only 3.9 and 3.5 respectively, these power sources cannot support with their energy alone both their own fabrication and the societal services we use energy for in a first world country.
Energy Returned on Invested, from Weißbach et al.,1 with and without energy storage (buffering). CCGT is closed-cycle gas turbine. PWR is a Pressurized Water (conventional nuclear) Reactor. Energy sources must exceed the “economic threshold”, of about 7, to yield the surplus energy required to support an OECD level society. Energy Returned on Invested, from Weißbach et al.,1 with and without energy storage (buffering). CCGT is closed-cycle gas turbine. PWR is a Pressurized Water (conventional nuclear) Reactor. Energy sources must exceed the “economic threshold”, of about 7, to yield the surplus energy required to support an OECD level society.
These EROEI values are for energy directly delivered (the “unbuffered” values in the figure). But things change if we need to store energy. If we were to store energy in, say, batteries, we must invest energy in mining the materials and manufacturing those batteries. So a larger energy investment is required, and the EROEI consequently drops.
Weißbach et al. calculated the EROEIs assuming pumped hydroelectric energy storage. This is the least energy intensive storage technology. The energy input is mostly earthmoving and construction. It’s a conservative basis for the calculation; chemical storage systems requiring large quantities of refined specialty materials would be much more energy intensive. Carbajales-Dale et al.2 cite data asserting batteries are about ten times more energy intensive than pumped hydro storage.
Adding storage greatly reduces the EROEI (the “buffered” values in the figure). Wind “firmed” with storage, with an EROEI of 3.9, joins solar PV and biomass as an unviable energy source. CSP becomes marginal (EROEI ~9) with pumped storage, so is probably not viable with molten salt thermal storage. The EROEI of solar PV with pumped hydro storage drops to 1.6, barely above breakeven, and with battery storage is likely in energy deficit.
This is a rather unsettling conclusion if we are looking to renewable energy for a transition to a low carbon energy system: we cannot use energy storage to overcome the variability of solar and wind power.
In particular, we can’t use batteries or chemical energy storage systems, as they would lead to much worse figures than those presented by Weißbach et al. Hydroelectricity is the only renewable power source that is unambiguously viable. However, hydroelectric capacity is not readily scaled up as it is restricted by suitable geography, a constraint that also applies to pumped hydro storage.
This particular study does not stand alone. Closer to home, Springer have just published a monograph, Energy in Australia,3 which contains an extended discussion of energy systems with a particular focus on EROEI analysis, and draws similar conclusions to Weißbach. Another study by a group at Stanford2 is more optimistic, ruling out storage for most forms of solar, but suggesting it is viable for wind. However, this viability is judged only on achieving an energy surplus (EROEI>1), not sustaining society (EROEI~7), and excludes the round trip energy losses in storage, finite cycle life, and the energetic cost of replacement of storage. Were these included, wind would certainly fall below the sustainability threshold.
It’s important to understand the nature of this EROEI limit. This is not a question of inadequate storage capacity – we can’t just buy or make more storage to make it work. It’s not a question of energy losses during charge and discharge, or the number of cycles a battery can deliver. We can’t look to new materials or technological advances, because the limits at the leading edge are those of earthmoving and civil engineering. The problem can’t be addressed through market support mechanisms, carbon pricing, or cost reductions. This is a fundamental energetic limit that will likely only shift if we find less materially intensive methods for dam construction.
This is not to say wind and solar have no role to play. They can expand within a fossil fuel system, reducing overall emissions. But without storage the amount we can integrate in the grid is greatly limited by the stochastically variable output. We could, perhaps, build out a generation of solar and wind and storage at high penetration. But we would be doing so on an endowment of fossil fuel net energy, which is not sustainable. Without storage, we could smooth out variability by building redundant generator capacity over large distances. But the additional infrastructure also forces the EROEI down to unviable levels. The best way to think about wind and solar is that they can reduce the emissions of fossil fuels, but they cannot eliminate them. They offer mitigation, but not replacement.
Nor is this to say there is no value in energy storage. Battery systems in electric vehicles clearly offer potential to reduce dependency on, and emissions from, oil (provided the energy is sourced from clean power). Rooftop solar power combined with four hours of battery storage can usefully timeshift peak electricity demand,3 reducing the need for peaking power plants and grid expansion. And battery technology advances make possible many of our recently indispensable consumer electronics. But what storage can’t do is enable significant replacement of fossil fuels by renewable energy.
If we want to cut emissions and replace fossil fuels, it can be done, and the solution is to be found in the upper right of the figure. France and Ontario, two modern, advanced societies, have all but eliminated fossil fuels from their electricity grids, which they have built from the high EROEI sources of hydroelectricity and nuclear power. Ontario in particular recently burnt its last tonne of coal, and each jurisdiction uses just a few percent of gas fired power. This is a proven path to a decarbonized electricity grid.
But the idea that advances in energy storage will enable renewable energy is a chimera – the Catch-22 is that in overcoming intermittency by adding storage, the net energy is reduced below the level required to sustain our present civilization.
BNC Postscript
When this article was published in CiA some readers had difficulty with the idea of a minimum societal EROI. Why can’t we make do with any positive energy surplus, if we just build more plant? Hall4 breaks it down with the example of oil:
Think of a society dependent upon one resource: its domestic oil. If the EROI for this oil was 1.1:1 then one could pump the oil out of the ground and look at it. If it were 1.2:1 you could also refine it and look at it, 1.3:1 also distribute it to where you want to use it but all you could do is look at it. Hall et al. 2008 examined the EROI required to actually run a truck and found that if the energy included was enough to build and maintain the truck and the roads and bridges required to use it, one would need at least a 3:1 EROI at the wellhead.
Now if you wanted to put something in the truck, say some grain, and deliver it, that would require an EROI of, say, 5:1 to grow the grain. If you wanted to include depreciation on the oil field worker, the refinery worker, the truck driver and the farmer you would need an EROI of say 7 or 8:1 to support their families. If the children were to be educated you would need perhaps 9 or 10:1, have health care 12:1, have arts in their life maybe 14:1, and so on. Obviously to have a modern civilization one needs not simply surplus energy but lots of it, and that requires either a high EROI or a massive source of moderate EROI fuels.
The point is illustrated in the EROI pyramid.4 (The blue values are published values: the yellow values are increasingly speculative.)
Finally, if you are interested in pumped hydro storage, a previous Brave New Climate article by Peter Lang covers the topic in detail, and the comment stream is an amazing resource on the operational characteristics and limits of this means of energy storage.
References
Weißbach et al., Energy 52 (2013) 210. Preprint available here. Carbajales-Dale et al., Energy Environ. Sci. DOI: 10.1039/c3ee42125b Graham Palmer, Energy in Australia: Peak Oil, Solar Power, and Asia’s Economic Growth; Springer 2014. Pedro Prieto and Charles Hall, Spain’s Photovoltaic Revolution, Springer 2013. Link
|
On August 24 2014 10:17 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2014 08:33 Danglars wrote: Many police forces are respected and honored. If poor predominantly black rioters is unfair characterization of the peaceful ones, hopelessly corrupt police forces around the country is simultaneously as bigoted. Rioters gonna riot, police never going to police? Pretty big double standard.
The problem is the definition of the word "policing". Because " it's just like the military, but inside the country"is not a very sane definition of the word. I don't buy this "but it's so dangerous here!" argument. England and Wales managed to not kill anybody for two years, surely the US may be able to manage a month without killing some black guy, right? When I used policing, I did mean uniformed police officers just patrolling their communities, investigating fraud and complaints, and keeping the peace. I don't know the specific comparisons with UK police forces and overall crime, though I've read some stories that don't make it look pretty.
|
On August 24 2014 14:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
"The problem is analysed in an important paper by Weißbach et al.1 in terms of energy returned on energy invested, or EROEI – the ratio of the energy produced over the life of a power plant to the energy that was required to build it."
I had a look at the preprint linked in your link and some of the data is out of date or misleading. E.g the the EROI of 3.9 is based on "1000 peak-hours/year". Maybe that's true for Southern Germany but for the US average capacity factor for new pv plants is closer to 20%. 20% of 1 year is 1750 hours.
http://theenergycollective.com/jemillerep/450556/what-are-capacity-factor-impacts-new-installed-renewable-power-generation-capaciti http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=14611 [see second figure]
Then there there's the assumption of 13% module efficiency, even though 15% polysilicon modules already exist. Over 50% of the required energy goes for producing solar-grade polysilicon but wafers have been getting thinner, again decreasing the energy needed.
So (one) problem with this kind of analysis is that it assumes technology stays at the level it was 2 years ago. Then it concludes that any kind of transition would be problematic. Well, we already know that from a pure cost perspective. But the same factors that are driving down cost are also improving EROI.
|
On August 24 2014 15:00 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2014 10:17 Nyxisto wrote:On August 24 2014 08:33 Danglars wrote: Many police forces are respected and honored. If poor predominantly black rioters is unfair characterization of the peaceful ones, hopelessly corrupt police forces around the country is simultaneously as bigoted. Rioters gonna riot, police never going to police? Pretty big double standard.
The problem is the definition of the word "policing". Because " it's just like the military, but inside the country"is not a very sane definition of the word. I don't buy this "but it's so dangerous here!" argument. England and Wales managed to not kill anybody for two years, surely the US may be able to manage a month without killing some black guy, right? When I used policing, I did mean uniformed police officers just patrolling their communities, investigating fraud and complaints, and keeping the peace. I don't know the specific comparisons with UK police forces and overall crime, though I've read some stories that don't make it look pretty. It's not about "corrupt" police officer or something else, it's a social matter. I don't know if you've ever had any interraction with police officers, but the context you're in will greatly influence the interraction : a policeman in his office is, most of a time, someone you can talk to. Late at night, on the street, things can get violent very quickly, even in France with no guns at all (even I had some situations).
Now think about the social context in Ferguson : it's people from a (I believe) white/middle class neighborhood, working in a black/poor neighborhood, with some criminality and an history of social tension between the police force and the population. In this situation, I bet all cops are on tilt : it's not a problem of person, but of institutions.
|
On August 24 2014 20:45 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2014 15:00 Danglars wrote:On August 24 2014 10:17 Nyxisto wrote:On August 24 2014 08:33 Danglars wrote: Many police forces are respected and honored. If poor predominantly black rioters is unfair characterization of the peaceful ones, hopelessly corrupt police forces around the country is simultaneously as bigoted. Rioters gonna riot, police never going to police? Pretty big double standard.
The problem is the definition of the word "policing". Because " it's just like the military, but inside the country"is not a very sane definition of the word. I don't buy this "but it's so dangerous here!" argument. England and Wales managed to not kill anybody for two years, surely the US may be able to manage a month without killing some black guy, right? When I used policing, I did mean uniformed police officers just patrolling their communities, investigating fraud and complaints, and keeping the peace. I don't know the specific comparisons with UK police forces and overall crime, though I've read some stories that don't make it look pretty. It's not about "corrupt" police officer or something else, it's a social matter. I don't know if you've ever had any interraction with police officers, but the context you're in will greatly influence the interraction : a policeman in his office is, most of a time, someone you can talk to. Late at night, on the street, things can get violent very quickly, even in France with no guns at all (even I had some situations). Now think about the social context in Ferguson : it's people from a (I believe) white/middle class neighborhood, working in a black/poor neighborhood, with some criminality and an history of social tension between the police force and the population. In this situation, I bet all cops are on tilt : it's not a problem of person, but of institutions.
It's not quite the way you describe. For one thing, Furguson is not a poor city overall, it's middle class. Here is an excerpt, but the whole article is worth reading.
Lost in the tale of woe about Ferguson is that while the entry point was often cheap multi-family housing such as Canfield Green, many blacks came from North St. Louis City for single-family houses, better schools and lower crime. While there are pockets of poverty and Section 8 renters that dominate the media reports, there is also a resilient black middle class, though it has been hit hard by the great recession. While a large number of whites departed for homogeneous St. Charles County over the last 40 years, many have stayed.
Racial segregation is declining rapidly in the United States, and North St. Louis County is ground zero. For those who see value in the preservation of sustainable multiracial neighborhoods, the low-slung middle-class suburban houses of Ferguson and Florissant might be as good as it gets in the United States.
Source
|
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Health insurance companies in California may not refuse to cover the cost of abortions, state insurance officials have ruled in a reversal of policy stemming from the decision by two Catholic universities to drop elective abortions from their employee health plans.
Although the federal Affordable Care Act does not compel employers to provide workers with health insurance that includes abortion coverage, the director of California's Department of Managed Health Care said in a letter to seven insurance companies on Friday that the state Constitution and a 1975 state law prohibits them from selling group plans that exclude the procedure. The law in question requires such plans to encompass all "medically necessary" care.
"Abortion is a basic health care service," department director Michelle Rouillard wrote in the letter. "All health plans must treat maternity services and legal abortion neutrally."
Jesuit-run Santa Clara University and Loyola Marymount University notified employees last fall that they planned to stop paying for elective abortions, but said faculty and staff members could pay for supplemental coverage that would be provided through a third party. The two schools said their insurers, Anthem Blue Cross and Kaiser Permanente, had cleared the move with the state.
University employees who objected to the decision and abortion-rights groups lobbied the women' caucus of the California Legislature, which in turn asked Gov. Jerry Brown to clarify and reverse the health care department's determination.
Source
|
On August 25 2014 02:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Health insurance companies in California may not refuse to cover the cost of abortions, state insurance officials have ruled in a reversal of policy stemming from the decision by two Catholic universities to drop elective abortions from their employee health plans.
Although the federal Affordable Care Act does not compel employers to provide workers with health insurance that includes abortion coverage, the director of California's Department of Managed Health Care said in a letter to seven insurance companies on Friday that the state Constitution and a 1975 state law prohibits them from selling group plans that exclude the procedure. The law in question requires such plans to encompass all "medically necessary" care.
"Abortion is a basic health care service," department director Michelle Rouillard wrote in the letter. "All health plans must treat maternity services and legal abortion neutrally."
Jesuit-run Santa Clara University and Loyola Marymount University notified employees last fall that they planned to stop paying for elective abortions, but said faculty and staff members could pay for supplemental coverage that would be provided through a third party. The two schools said their insurers, Anthem Blue Cross and Kaiser Permanente, had cleared the move with the state.
University employees who objected to the decision and abortion-rights groups lobbied the women' caucus of the California Legislature, which in turn asked Gov. Jerry Brown to clarify and reverse the health care department's determination. Source
I just don't understand how this is even debatable. Healthcare coverage is just another form of compensation an employee receives for doing their job. A company isn't entitled to tell a person what to do with their paycheck, so why the fuck would they be allowed to tell people what to spend their healthcare coverage on?
|
On August 25 2014 02:12 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2014 02:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Health insurance companies in California may not refuse to cover the cost of abortions, state insurance officials have ruled in a reversal of policy stemming from the decision by two Catholic universities to drop elective abortions from their employee health plans.
Although the federal Affordable Care Act does not compel employers to provide workers with health insurance that includes abortion coverage, the director of California's Department of Managed Health Care said in a letter to seven insurance companies on Friday that the state Constitution and a 1975 state law prohibits them from selling group plans that exclude the procedure. The law in question requires such plans to encompass all "medically necessary" care.
"Abortion is a basic health care service," department director Michelle Rouillard wrote in the letter. "All health plans must treat maternity services and legal abortion neutrally."
Jesuit-run Santa Clara University and Loyola Marymount University notified employees last fall that they planned to stop paying for elective abortions, but said faculty and staff members could pay for supplemental coverage that would be provided through a third party. The two schools said their insurers, Anthem Blue Cross and Kaiser Permanente, had cleared the move with the state.
University employees who objected to the decision and abortion-rights groups lobbied the women' caucus of the California Legislature, which in turn asked Gov. Jerry Brown to clarify and reverse the health care department's determination. Source I just don't understand how this is even debatable. Healthcare coverage is just another form of compensation an employee receives for doing their job. A company isn't entitled to tell a person what to do with their paycheck, so why the fuck would they be allowed to tell people what to spend their healthcare coverage on? A lot of it's perceptual. You don't 'spend' healthcare coverage, you buy coverage and then you have it to use. I doubt there would be the same issue if they could just give their employees cash to buy insurance on their own.
|
On August 25 2014 02:12 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2014 02:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Health insurance companies in California may not refuse to cover the cost of abortions, state insurance officials have ruled in a reversal of policy stemming from the decision by two Catholic universities to drop elective abortions from their employee health plans.
Although the federal Affordable Care Act does not compel employers to provide workers with health insurance that includes abortion coverage, the director of California's Department of Managed Health Care said in a letter to seven insurance companies on Friday that the state Constitution and a 1975 state law prohibits them from selling group plans that exclude the procedure. The law in question requires such plans to encompass all "medically necessary" care.
"Abortion is a basic health care service," department director Michelle Rouillard wrote in the letter. "All health plans must treat maternity services and legal abortion neutrally."
Jesuit-run Santa Clara University and Loyola Marymount University notified employees last fall that they planned to stop paying for elective abortions, but said faculty and staff members could pay for supplemental coverage that would be provided through a third party. The two schools said their insurers, Anthem Blue Cross and Kaiser Permanente, had cleared the move with the state.
University employees who objected to the decision and abortion-rights groups lobbied the women' caucus of the California Legislature, which in turn asked Gov. Jerry Brown to clarify and reverse the health care department's determination. Source I just don't understand how this is even debatable. Healthcare coverage is just another form of compensation an employee receives for doing their job. A company isn't entitled to tell a person what to do with their paycheck, so why the fuck would they be allowed to tell people what to spend their healthcare coverage on?
Because it's 'MURICA.
|
FERGUSON, Mo. (KMOV.com) -- A Ferguson woman who was shot in the head last Tuesday during early moments of a peaceful Michael Brown protest said she is still waiting for police to take action. “No officer ever showed up to speak with me... neither from Ferguson police or St. Louis County," Mya Aaten-White told News 4.
Since then, Aaten-White said she has been trying to get an investigation going with police about who shot her. Her lawyer, hired by her alma mater, is shocked by the Ferguson Police Department’s response. Police told News 4 they were not able to comment on the situation and requested we contact a firm representing them. Our calls have not been returned.
Source
Ferguson PD is apparently all out of fucks and has none to give...
|
On August 24 2014 19:15 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2014 14:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
"The problem is analysed in an important paper by Weißbach et al.1 in terms of energy returned on energy invested, or EROEI – the ratio of the energy produced over the life of a power plant to the energy that was required to build it."
I had a look at the preprint linked in your link and some of the data is out of date or misleading. E.g the the EROI of 3.9 is based on "1000 peak-hours/year". Maybe that's true for Southern Germany but for the US average capacity factor for new pv plants is closer to 20%. 20% of 1 year is 1750 hours. http://theenergycollective.com/jemillerep/450556/what-are-capacity-factor-impacts-new-installed-renewable-power-generation-capacitihttp://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=14611 [see second figure] Then there there's the assumption of 13% module efficiency, even though 15% polysilicon modules already exist. Over 50% of the required energy goes for producing solar-grade polysilicon but wafers have been getting thinner, again decreasing the energy needed. So (one) problem with this kind of analysis is that it assumes technology stays at the level it was 2 years ago. Then it concludes that any kind of transition would be problematic. Well, we already know that from a pure cost perspective. But the same factors that are driving down cost are also improving EROI. PVs are really quite amazing since they're getting closer and closer to matching Moore's Law. So many of the recent improvements to microprocessors go hand-in-hand with the improvements needed to make PVs more efficient.
|
On August 25 2014 03:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2014 02:12 Nyxisto wrote:On August 25 2014 02:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Health insurance companies in California may not refuse to cover the cost of abortions, state insurance officials have ruled in a reversal of policy stemming from the decision by two Catholic universities to drop elective abortions from their employee health plans.
Although the federal Affordable Care Act does not compel employers to provide workers with health insurance that includes abortion coverage, the director of California's Department of Managed Health Care said in a letter to seven insurance companies on Friday that the state Constitution and a 1975 state law prohibits them from selling group plans that exclude the procedure. The law in question requires such plans to encompass all "medically necessary" care.
"Abortion is a basic health care service," department director Michelle Rouillard wrote in the letter. "All health plans must treat maternity services and legal abortion neutrally."
Jesuit-run Santa Clara University and Loyola Marymount University notified employees last fall that they planned to stop paying for elective abortions, but said faculty and staff members could pay for supplemental coverage that would be provided through a third party. The two schools said their insurers, Anthem Blue Cross and Kaiser Permanente, had cleared the move with the state.
University employees who objected to the decision and abortion-rights groups lobbied the women' caucus of the California Legislature, which in turn asked Gov. Jerry Brown to clarify and reverse the health care department's determination. Source I just don't understand how this is even debatable. Healthcare coverage is just another form of compensation an employee receives for doing their job. A company isn't entitled to tell a person what to do with their paycheck, so why the fuck would they be allowed to tell people what to spend their healthcare coverage on? A lot of it's perceptual. You don't 'spend' healthcare coverage, you buy coverage and then you have it to use. I doubt there would be the same issue if they could just give their employees cash to buy insurance on their own.
The problem is that would be far more expensive for the company or the individual (depending on how you do it). If any company gave its employees exactly what it paid for its healthcare there is no way you could get the same plan for the same price so its cheaper for everyone if the company just buys the policy for its employees.
|
As the pace of these deals picks up, the White House is scrambling to find a way to close this corporate tax loophole, which the Treasury estimates could eventually take a $20 billion bite out of corporate tax receipts. But unless, and until, Congress gets down to a long-overdue overhaul of the tax code, companies like Burger King with big overseas profits will likely continue to pursue these deals. ..... "They're ... basically renouncing their citizenship and declaring that they're based somewhere else, just to avoid paying their fair share," Obama said in a weekend radio address last month. ..... Canada, which could become Burger King's new tax home if the deal goes through, just cut its federal corporate tax rate to 15 percent—the lowest of the so-called Group of Seven leading industrial nations, according to the Tax Foundation.
Source
Burger King in talks to buy Tim Horton's. The M&A into tax inversion train continues.
|
|
|
|