News Stories

[NameGoesHere]

Originally Posted by sneaker

Sorry, I cannot agree.
The baseload article clearly defines baseload plants as plants that "produce energy at a constant rate", not as plants that always run at full power. You won't find the word "baseload" in the "Feed-in tariff" article a single time. Those two are unrelated.

And the costs for the wind and solar are high. That's why they need to be subsidized to compete. Not the other way round.

Including the tariff is why when I first referred to all renewables (in Europe), I said "de facto baseload" and not "baseload". I thought this is what we are arguing about. The renewables operate at full capacity whenever possible, because they are subsidized. By definition, that makes them baseload, even if some renewables would not be baseload without the subsidization.

I didn't bother to read these, but if one article on Wiki means so much then:

Article 1
Article 2
Article 3
Wind farms are still wind

Does the fact that Wiki does not come outright and state that neither is a baseload make it so? Again, it is not an exhaustive list. The nuclear plant can be a peaker plant, if it is run as an, albeit crappy, peaker plant, but there is no reason why it should be run as a peaker plant, so it is not run as a peaker plant.

Subsidized or not, it is how the plant is operated. No plant can always run at a constant rate. There are scheduled shutdowns, or technical difficulties where the plant can't be operated. That would be like a rainy day for a solar plant. I am pretty sure I mentioned this earlier. The entirety of the baseload fluctuates. When it comes to power plants, constant does not mean unchanging.

Definition - usually constant.
"Usually"
"Essentially"

Somehow this did devolve into arguing about the term. But know that I didn't arbitrary pick a meaning for the word "baseload". There is something else to call the wind/solar you wish to categorize, and it is "stochastic relative to demand", but that is rarely used, and they end up being referred to as baseload.

After this point I agree to agreeing that we disagree.

If any of this was due to a mistake in phrasing on my part, I apologize.

Edit 1: Before there's an argument over stochastic relative to demand, yes, people consider it an utterly pointless term.

Edit 2: To below, I called it such because on many energy blogs/forums when referring to wind/solar in Europe, it is accepted as "de facto baseload". It doesn't look the same if you're going to go off Wiki, but then again the conversations there don't belong on Wiki. The reasons given are why people find it acceptable to name it that way. Bumping the thread further over this is frivolous and kind of urks me. :\

[sneaker]

Originally Posted by NameGoesHere

Somehow this did devolve into arguing about the term.

Yes, it's only about the term. I don't think we disagree on anything else fundamentally.

But sorry, I will stress it again: you are making up your very own definition of baseload.
To cite once again:

Originally Posted by NameGoesHere

The renewables operate at full capacity whenever possible, because they are subsidized. By definition, that makes them baseload

No, because a baseload plant is defined as being a plant that delivers a constant amount of electricity. Wind and solar production drops to zero regularly, thus they cannot be baseload plants. Your definition of "operat[ing] at full capacity whenever possible" is completely made up.

Originally Posted by NameGoesHere

Does the fact that Wiki does not come outright and state that neither is a baseload make it so? Again, it is not an exhaustive list.

No, it does not make it so. But neither wind nor solar match the definition at all. Only your made up definition.

[Vexx]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/bu...omy/25tax.html

Originally Posted by Opening paragraph

General Electric, the nation’s largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010.
The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.
Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

That may be hard to fathom for the millions of American business owners and households now preparing their own returns, but low taxes are nothing new for G.E. The company has been cutting the percentage of its American profits paid to the Internal Revenue Service for years, resulting in a far lower rate than at most multinational companies.
Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore. G.E.’s giant tax department, led by a bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world’s best tax law firm. Indeed, the company’s slogan “Imagination at Work” fits this department well. The team includes former officials not just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress.
While General Electric is one of the most skilled at reducing its tax burden, many other companies have become better at this as well. Although the top corporate tax rate in the United States is 35 percent, one of the highest in the world, companies have been increasingly using a maze of shelters, tax credits and subsidies to pay far less.

... leaving small business and individuals to pick up the slack needed to maintain the environment in which these mega-corporations operate.

[flying ^]

coming soon for a House vote...



http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...12hr1135ih.pdf

Spoiler for [dramatic version]:

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/23/...n-food-stamps/

http://www.salon.com/technology/how_...es_hunger_war/

[ganbaru]

Thousands in Syria chant "freedom" despite reform offer
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...72N2MC20110325

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Thousands in Syria chant "freedom" despite reform offer
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...72N2MC20110325

you know, Syria and Iraq are actually the exact mirror image of each others.
Iraq had a majority Shia population ruled with an Iron fist by a Minority Sunni dictator.
Syria has a Majority Sunni population ruled with an Iron fist by a (supposed) Shia dictator.
Considering what happened after Saddam was removed from power, I'm not so sure i want to see what happens if Assad falls.

[Ithekro]

Well the Saudi's will probably be happy when he's out.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Well the Saudi's will probably be happy when he's out.

are they happy that Saddam is out ?

[Ithekro]

Sunni majority population in Syria would suggest they would like it.
Saddam on the other hand threatened them enough for them to not like him even if Iraq's population is not a majority Sunni.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Sunni majority population in Syria would suggest they would like it.
Saddam on the other hand threatened them enough for them to not like him even if Iraq's population is not a majority Sunni.

since Saddams fall, the majority of terrorist attacks have been carried out by Sunni and the victimes have been Shia.
if Syria falls, its likely to be reverese, and most of the victims would be Sunni.

and the Saudi's wish Saddam was still around today.
he may have been a prick (to put it mildly) but he kept Iraq Balanced, and was useful in keeping Iran in check.

now that Iraq and Egypt are no longer in the game, its basically down to Saudi arabia and the Gulf states vs the Shia axis.
I don't think they like those odds.

[flying ^]

oh noes

it's like Airbender and DBZ live action movie all over again

http://blog.moviefone.com/2011/03/23...ovie-protests/

[MrTerrorist]

Online poker: US states gamble on making it legal

This is like the Prohibition era, they ban it at first only to legalize it cause they were strap for cash.

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by MrTerrorist

Online poker: US states gamble on making it legal

This is like the Prohibition era, they ban it at first only to legalize it cause they were strap for cash.

Er, for Prohibition, it was more of the inability to enforce the law. So yeah, you get some dough, and people don't lose respect because you fail to enforce laws which are in the books. Why not?

[MrTerrorist]

News: Japanese Publishers' JManga.com Portal Now in Beta

[ganbaru]

Canadian government falls, election set for May
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...72O0U820110325
Everyone did know than it was comming ...

[MrTerrorist]

The secrets of Anna Chapman

[ganbaru]

Party defends Merkel against critics after election
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...72Q1ZS20110328

Clinton rules out U.S. Syria involvement
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...72Q1X920110327

Brazil's Olympic push isn't winning any medals
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...72Q18820110327

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by MrTerrorist

The secrets of Anna Chapman

I seriously doubt she's a spy. Like, seriously.

[MrTerrorist]

^Oh, your just saying that so the US can bring her back.
I know i would.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by MrTerrorist

^Oh, your just saying that so the US can bring her back.
I know i would.

Ehhh, idk what the US wants to do with her, nor do I pay it much mind, I just doubt she's a spy because she wouldn't have continued her show after being exposed like that

(if she were to come to Italy, on the other hand......)