Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (1060887)	3/18/2018 10:56:03 PM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Respond to of 1575181

Ruling Climate Fanatics Obliterated in Aussie State Election Eric Worrall / 8 hours ago March 17, 2018 1888 Riots in Romania – Five hundred armed peasants marching to Kalarash. By The London Illustrated News staff (“sketches by our special artists”) (The London Illustrated News, p. 482) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons Guest essay by Eric Worrall h/t JoNova – South Australians have finally tired of economic misery and expensive, unreliable green electricity; the government which created the mess has just been crushed at the ballot box, 25 seats to 18. Jay Weatherill quits as leader after losing South Australian election Outgoing premier says he will stay on the backbench and is not interested in going to Canberra The ousted South Australian premier, Jay Weatherill, has said he will stand down as Labor leader and ruled out a switch to federal politics after losing Saturday’s state election. “The Labor party has plenty of fantastic choices as leader, I won’t be one of them,” he told reporters on Sunday. Weatherill would not put a timeline on the leadership change but said it would be “sooner rather than later” once the final results of the election were known. … The prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, who spoke to Marshall on Sunday morning, is claiming the Liberal win in South Australia is an endorsement of his energy policy. “Jay Weatherill said this was a referendum on energy policy,” Turnbull said in Sydney. “The people have spoken and spoken in favour of our policies, which is to support affordable and reliable energy to ensure that we can meet our Paris commitment, and at the same time ensure that we can keep the lights on and indeed afford to keep the lights on.” But Labor’s climate and energy spokesman, Mark Butler, said the result was because the “time for change force” proved too strong. “It was a campaign in which I think Labor can hold its head up high,” he said. … Read more: theguardian.com South Australia isn’t completely out of the woods – Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbullmight be crowing about the defeat of the South Australian climate extremists, but he has carbon on his hands. Turnbull’s “affordable energy policy” includes an operational, low profile carbon market, which in my opinion looks set to extract an increasingly painful climate tithe from the pockets of ordinary Australians.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (1060887)	3/18/2018 10:56:42 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575181

Well at least you got one fact that I agree is correct. FACT: Scientific experts can be wrong. All the rest is just hand waving and as you have admitted you have not looked at the underlying data and really have not verified any of those supposed claims. Most are false or mean nothing.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (1060887)	3/18/2018 11:22:44 PM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB POKERSAM Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575181

You claimed sun and wind energy is near cost parity with fossil fuels.....IT IS NOT. You claimed German VAX tax was the reason German electricity cost twice that of neighboring Czech republic. Czech Republic has virtual same VAX tax.............you suggested taxes on German electric generation was largely used to fund Muslim immigration.............THEY ARE NOT. Germany has a renewable energy tax on electricity equal to the cost of electricity production...........they also have a specific electricity tax............I don't care what you believe .....but don't come here and make claims that are demonstrably UNTRUE. At this point in time, solar and wind energy utilization would not expand without all the thinly veiled subsidies they receive.......and in my opinion if all additional costs were factored in to the equation including the cost of maintaining sufficient conventional capacity for the extended time when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine, people would DEMAND this reckless move to sustainable energy be stopped and re-examined. Forcing utilities to rely on far more expensive renewables would mean skyrocketing bills. Families with low incomes would be forced to choose between keeping the lights on and putting food on the table. A 100% renewable future would likely be technologically impossible. A 2017 analysis in the journal Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews concluded: “In all individual cases and across the aggregated evidence, the case for feasibility is inadequate.” Why Is Russian Gas in Boston Harbor? wsj.com Environmentalists’ war on fossil fuels helps Vladimir Putin. The Gaselys liquefied natural gas tanker sits at an import terminal in Boston, Jan. 28. PHOTO: SCOTT EISEN/BLOOMBERG NEWS By Drew Johnson March 12, 2018 7:33 p.m. ET 146 COMMENTS A tanker arrived in Boston Harbor carrying natural gas that would keep residents’ homes warm for the rest of the winter. The late-January delivery came from Siberia. Why are some parts of America reliant on Russian natural gas, especially when domestic gas production has surged? The problem is entirely political. In 2016 officials in Massachusetts and New Hampshire blocked financing for the $3 billion Access Northeast Pipeline, which would have reliably provided fuel to three New England states. That same year a report from Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey’s office claimed the state could “maintain electric reliability” without new infrastructure. The Russian gas heating Boston homes this winter suggests otherwise. Politicians are opposing pipeline projects to curry favor with increasingly radical environmentalists. The activist group 350.org is organizing online campaigns to oppose every new coal, oil, and natural-gas project. Greenpeace claims it is time to leave fossil fuels “where they belong: in the ground.” The Sierra Club is pushing the U.S. to abandon all fossil fuels, claiming the country is ready for 100% renewable energy. These ideas might sound nice, but they would hurt America’s most vulnerable citizens. Blocking natural-gas pipelines needlessly inflates consumers’ energy bills and destabilizes the electrical grid. Natural gas and coal are responsible for about 64% of America’s electrical power. Only 15% comes from renewables. Because of its relatively low price, natural gas is the primary energy source for half of American homes. Since 2006, when the fracking revolution began, natural-gas prices have dropped 27% for residential consumers. Forcing utilities to rely on far more expensive renewables would mean skyrocketing bills. Families with low incomes would be forced to choose between keeping the lights on and putting food on the table. A 100% renewable future would likely be technologically impossible. A 2017 analysis in the journal Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews concluded: “In all individual cases and across the aggregated evidence, the case for feasibility is inadequate.” The ultimate irony is that natural-gas pipelines help the environment. With more pipelines, power plants could switch from coal to natural gas, which emits up to 60% less CO2. Many have already switched, which explains why carbon emissions from power plants have dropped by 25% since 2005, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas that traps 30 times as much heat in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide does, have fallen 16% since 1990. Natural-gas production has doubled in that period. The anti-fossil-fuels campaign is neither realistic nor environmentally sound. Blocking pipelines and other energy infrastructure projects raises costs on American families while forcing them to rely on Vladimir Putin to heat their homes. Mr. Johnson is a senior scholar at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance. Appeared in the March 13, 2018, print edition. The ultimate irony is that natural-gas pipelines help the environment. With more pipelines, power plants could switch from coal to natural gas, which emits up to 60% less CO2. Many have already switched, which explains why carbon emissions from power plants have dropped by 25% since 2005, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas that traps 30 times as much heat in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide does, have fallen 16% since 1990. Natural-gas production has doubled in that period. The anti-fossil-fuels campaign is neither realistic nor environmentally sound. Blocking pipelines and other energy infrastructure projects raises costs on American families while forcing them to rely on Vladimir Putin to heat their homes. Mr. Johnson is a senior scholar at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance. Appeared in the March 13, 2018, print edition.