3rdnlng Posted March 27, 2019 Posted March 27, 2019 3 minutes ago, whatdrought said: Now I know what to call it when my wife asks why the entire house (specifically the bathroom) smells like *****... "I was being comprehensive." Invest in a exhaust fan, you Neanderthal.
Tiberius Posted March 27, 2019 Posted March 27, 2019 Just now, 3rdnlng said: OK. So tell us what you'd do to make it less comprehensive. Would we still be able to eat beef? Would we have to ride bikes instead of using fossil fuel vehicles? What part of AOC's plan would you jetisson? She connects it to jobs and higher wages, which I get to attract support, but those things need to be addressed separetly, IMO. Beef, I'm sure, but it is bad for the environment. Vehicles will have to be electric which will mostly be from renewable energy. You think its all fake news? 2 minutes ago, whatdrought said: I think we should test this.. you go away and we'll see if progress stops. Learn how to read
3rdnlng Posted March 27, 2019 Posted March 27, 2019 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: She connects it to jobs and higher wages, which I get to attract support, but those things need to be addressed separetly, IMO. Beef, I'm sure, but it is bad for the environment. Vehicles will have to be electric which will mostly be from renewable energy. You think its all fake news? Beef, what? Are you proposing we get rid of it or not? How about pork? Did you know that the USA has reduced carbon emissions over 30% since 2005, mainly by moving towards more natural gas use? Did you know that The Paris Accord signing countries haven't done jackshit in that regards? In the meantime our GDP has increased dramatically over that 14 years.
Tiberius Posted March 27, 2019 Posted March 27, 2019 1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said: Beef, what? Are you proposing we get rid of it or not? How about pork? Did you know that the USA has reduced carbon emissions over 30% since 2005, mainly by moving towards more natural gas use? Did you know that The Paris Accord signing countries haven't done jackshit in that regards? In the meantime our GDP has increased dramatically over that 14 years. I don't know about beef but can't imagine they will get rid of it. I know about reduction of emission, mainly through new light bulbs and such. But so what? If more needs to be done to save the planet, what are you going to do, blame liberals?
3rdnlng Posted March 27, 2019 Posted March 27, 2019 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: I don't know about beef but can't imagine they will get rid of it. I know about reduction of emission, mainly through new light bulbs and such. But so what? If more needs to be done to save the planet, what are you going to do, blame liberals? Interesting Take on Electric Cars. This is for Engineers out there, surely there should be a rebuttal to this article. Say it isn't true! As an engineer I love the electric vehicle technology. However, I have been troubled for a long time by the fact that the electrical energy to keep the batteries charged has to come from the grid and that means more power generation and a huge increase in the distribution infrastructure. Whether generated from coal, gas, oil, wind or sun, installed generation capacity is limited. A friend sent me the following that says it very well. You should all take a look at this short article. INTERESTING - ONE OTHER QUESTION. IF ELECTRIC CARS DO NOT USE GASOLINE, THEY WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN PAYING A GASOLINE TAX ON EVERY GALLON THAT IS SOLD FOR AUTOMOBILES, WHICH WAS ENACTED SOME YEARS AGO TO HELP TO MAINTAIN OUR ROADS AND BRIDGES. THEY WILL USE THE ROADS, BUT WILL NOT PAY FOR THEIR MAINTENANCE! In case you were thinking of buying hybrid or an electric car: Ever since the advent of electric cars, the REAL cost per mile of those things has never been discussed. All you ever heard was the mpg in terms of gasoline, with nary a mention of the cost of electricity to run it . This is the first article I've ever seen and tells the story pretty much as I expected it to Electricity has to be one of the least efficient ways to power things yet they're being shoved down our throats. Glad somebody finally put engineering and math to paper. At a neighborhood BBQ I was talking to a neighbor, a BC Hydro executive. I asked him how that renewable thing was doing. He laughed, then got serious. If you really intend to adopt electric vehicles, he pointed out, you had to face certain realities. For example, a home charging system for a Tesla requires 75 amp service. The average house is equipped with 100 amp service. On our small street (approximately 25 homes), the electrical infrastructure would be unable to carry more than three houses with a single Tesla, each. For even half the homes to have electric vehicles, the system would be wildly over-loaded. This is the elephant in the room with electric vehicles. Our residential infrastructure cannot bear the load. So as our genius elected officials promote this nonsense, not only are we being urged to buy these things and replace our reliable, cheap generating systems with expensive, new windmills and solar cells, but we will also have to renovate our entire delivery system! This latter "investment" will not be revealed until we're so far down this dead end road that it will be presented with an 'OOPS...!' and a shrug. If you want to argue with a green person over cars that are eco-friendly, just read the following. Note: If you ARE a green person, read it anyway. It's enlightening. Eric test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors and he writes, "For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine." Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on the battery. So, the range including the 9-gallon gas tank and the 16 kwh battery is approximately 270 miles. It will take you 4.5 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10 hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5 hours. In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging time) would be 20 mph. According to General Motors, the Volt battery holds 16 kwh of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery. The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned, so I looked up what I pay for electricity. I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16 per kwh. 16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery. $18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the Volt using the battery. Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine that gets only 32 mpg. $3.19 per gallon divided by 32 mpg = $0.10 per mile. The gasoline powered car costs about $20,000 while the Volt costs $46,000-plus. So the American Government wants loyal Americans not to do the math, but simply pay three times as much for a car, that costs more than seven times as much to run, and takes three times longer to drive across the country.
Tiberius Posted March 27, 2019 Posted March 27, 2019 No one said it would be easy...But if you don't think the planet is worth it, then... I mean you should be happy, the world will be burning and you can be shooting at the firefighters. You probably will win this, look at what happened in France with the gas tax. I admit, we Liberals are tilting at windmills, but the world is burning. No one said it would be easy. Fight the good fight
DC Tom Posted March 27, 2019 Posted March 27, 2019 12 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: The gasoline powered car costs about $20,000 while the Volt costs $46,000-plus. So the American Government wants loyal Americans not to do the math, but simply pay three times as much for a car, that costs more than seven times as much to run, and takes three times longer to drive across the country. While true, it ignores the simple fact that the "efficiency" calculation being pushed on people is a measure of CO2/mile, not dollars or energy efficiency or overall environmental impact or any other measure. It's yet another symptom of the unfortunate hijacking of the environmentalist movement by extremely narrow-minded zealots who want to reduce "the environment" to one simple outrage.
3rdnlng Posted March 27, 2019 Posted March 27, 2019 Just now, DC Tom said: While true, it ignores the simple fact that the "efficiency" calculation being pushed on people is a measure of CO2/mile, not dollars or energy efficiency or overall environmental impact or any other measure. It's yet another symptom of the unfortunate hijacking of the environmentalist movement by extremely narrow-minded zealots who want to reduce "the environment" to one simple outrage. What pisses me off is that the Global Warming, Climate Change idiots take the focus off of actually improving the environment. Initiatives like the Great Lakes Cleanup of the 70's that actually did much good are lost in the great cow farts debates of today.
Tiberius Posted March 27, 2019 Posted March 27, 2019 33 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: What pisses me off is that the Global Warming, Climate Change idiots take the focus off of actually improving the environment. Initiatives like the Great Lakes Cleanup of the 70's that actually did much good are lost in the great cow farts debates of today. But global warning is a threat to our country and world. What should be done? Just hold more disingenuous votes in the senate?
reddogblitz Posted March 30, 2019 Posted March 30, 2019 (edited) On 3/27/2019 at 8:15 AM, Nanker said: I wrote an extensive post on Medicare and what it actually costs. First, Medicare is not free. It doesn't cover lots of things - like dental expenses, eyeglasses, hearing aids. It also has caps to the coverage that it does provide. And very significantly - it is a policy that covers a SINGLE individual. There are NO family policies. Oh, and one more thing, you don't get it unless you've worked and paid into the system for 30 quarters, i.e., 7.5 years. Just Part A costs $437 per month per person unless you worked for 7.5 years and paid into the system. Part B costs at least $134 per month per person, and it's means tested, so you could pay as much as $428.60 per person per month for Part B. Part B also has a $183 deductible per year per person, and after that you still have to pay 20% of the Medicare approved amount of your Dr. bills. So, I say yeah, sure. Give 'em what they're asking for. Make Medicare mandatory for everyone. Then let 'em start crying about how expensive the insurance is. you're right. I posted something like this a while back as well. What they're talking about and people say they want is NOT Medicare. Why are they calling it that? Doubling down on thinking we're stupid I guess. One more thing. Part B IS bought from an insurance company. Edited March 30, 2019 by reddogblitz
Nanker Posted March 30, 2019 Posted March 30, 2019 The he supplemental Part B is bought from a private carrier. The basic part of Part B is a government plan that pays for Dr visits and a few other things. It has a deductible. The basic Part B premium is at a minimum $134 which they take out of your SS check each month. Then, on top of that you can get a private policy to cover some of what Medicare Part B doesn’t cover.
reddogblitz Posted March 30, 2019 Posted March 30, 2019 2 hours ago, Nanker said: The he supplemental Part B is bought from a private carrier. The basic part of Part B is a government plan that pays for Dr visits and a few other things. It has a deductible. The basic Part B premium is at a minimum $134 which they take out of your SS check each month. Then, on top of that you can get a private policy to cover some of what Medicare Part B doesn’t cover. thanks for the clarification. actually I was thinking of Medicare Advantage. Medicare Part B (medical insurance) is part of Original Medicare and covers medical services and supplies that are medically necessary to treat your health condition. This can include outpatient care, preventive services, ambulance services, and durable medical equipment. It also covers part-time or intermittent home health and rehabilitative services, such as physical therapy, if they are ordered by a doctor to treat your condition. Some of the preventive services Medicare Part B covers include a one-time “Welcome to Medicare” preventive visit, flu and hepatitis B shots, cardiovascular screenings, cancer screenings, diabetes screenings, and more. For a full list of preventive services covered under Medicare Part B, refer to the Medicare handbook, “Medicare and You.” If you are in a Medicare Advantage plan, you would get both your Medicare Part A and Part B coverage through a private health insurance company contracted with Medicare. By law, Medicare Advantage plans must offer at least the same level of coverage as Original Medicare, and some plans include additional coverage not included in Original Medicare such as routine dental and/or vision, hearing, and even prescription drug coverage. https://www.ehealthmedicare.com/original-medicare-articles/medicare-part-b/ it is confusing.
keepthefaith Posted March 30, 2019 Posted March 30, 2019 On 3/27/2019 at 1:52 PM, 3rdnlng said: Interesting Take on Electric Cars. This is for Engineers out there, surely there should be a rebuttal to this article. Say it isn't true! As an engineer I love the electric vehicle technology. However, I have been troubled for a long time by the fact that the electrical energy to keep the batteries charged has to come from the grid and that means more power generation and a huge increase in the distribution infrastructure. Whether generated from coal, gas, oil, wind or sun, installed generation capacity is limited. A friend sent me the following that says it very well. You should all take a look at this short article. INTERESTING - ONE OTHER QUESTION. IF ELECTRIC CARS DO NOT USE GASOLINE, THEY WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN PAYING A GASOLINE TAX ON EVERY GALLON THAT IS SOLD FOR AUTOMOBILES, WHICH WAS ENACTED SOME YEARS AGO TO HELP TO MAINTAIN OUR ROADS AND BRIDGES. THEY WILL USE THE ROADS, BUT WILL NOT PAY FOR THEIR MAINTENANCE! In case you were thinking of buying hybrid or an electric car: Ever since the advent of electric cars, the REAL cost per mile of those things has never been discussed. All you ever heard was the mpg in terms of gasoline, with nary a mention of the cost of electricity to run it . This is the first article I've ever seen and tells the story pretty much as I expected it to Electricity has to be one of the least efficient ways to power things yet they're being shoved down our throats. Glad somebody finally put engineering and math to paper. At a neighborhood BBQ I was talking to a neighbor, a BC Hydro executive. I asked him how that renewable thing was doing. He laughed, then got serious. If you really intend to adopt electric vehicles, he pointed out, you had to face certain realities. For example, a home charging system for a Tesla requires 75 amp service. The average house is equipped with 100 amp service. On our small street (approximately 25 homes), the electrical infrastructure would be unable to carry more than three houses with a single Tesla, each. For even half the homes to have electric vehicles, the system would be wildly over-loaded. This is the elephant in the room with electric vehicles. Our residential infrastructure cannot bear the load. So as our genius elected officials promote this nonsense, not only are we being urged to buy these things and replace our reliable, cheap generating systems with expensive, new windmills and solar cells, but we will also have to renovate our entire delivery system! This latter "investment" will not be revealed until we're so far down this dead end road that it will be presented with an 'OOPS...!' and a shrug. If you want to argue with a green person over cars that are eco-friendly, just read the following. Note: If you ARE a green person, read it anyway. It's enlightening. Eric test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors and he writes, "For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine." Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on the battery. So, the range including the 9-gallon gas tank and the 16 kwh battery is approximately 270 miles. It will take you 4.5 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10 hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5 hours. In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging time) would be 20 mph. According to General Motors, the Volt battery holds 16 kwh of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery. The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned, so I looked up what I pay for electricity. I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16 per kwh. 16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery. $18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the Volt using the battery. Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine that gets only 32 mpg. $3.19 per gallon divided by 32 mpg = $0.10 per mile. The gasoline powered car costs about $20,000 while the Volt costs $46,000-plus. So the American Government wants loyal Americans not to do the math, but simply pay three times as much for a car, that costs more than seven times as much to run, and takes three times longer to drive across the country. Are you sure you're paying $1.16 per KwH? Our rates are about 10% of that. Here they are. Customer Class 2019 Rates Monthly Customer Charge Energy Charge (kWh) Demand Charge (kWd) Average Monthly Electric Bill Residential Average kWh = 844 $15.60 $0.1112 N/A $109.48 Other considerations regarding fully electric vehicles... It's likely that long term maintenance costs will be lower for electric vehicles as they have fewer systems or simpler systems. Battery replacement currently though is very expensive. Oil while abundant in supply is a finite resource. At some point in the future we'll need to reduce dependence. There will be plenty of future development done to improve battery technology, motors and drives and electric delivery (recharge) systems. The internal combustion engine is light years more powerful and efficient than it was years ago. I'm dead against the government pushing and subsidizing electric vehicles but as the marketplace becomes more accepting and technology improves, let the evolution continue at its own sensible pace. 1
3rdnlng Posted March 30, 2019 Posted March 30, 2019 1 hour ago, keepthefaith said: Are you sure you're paying $1.16 per KwH? Our rates are about 10% of that. Here they are. Customer Class 2019 Rates Monthly Customer Charge Energy Charge (kWh) Demand Charge (kWd) Average Monthly Electric Bill Residential Average kWh = 844 $15.60 $0.1112 N/A $109.48 Other considerations regarding fully electric vehicles... It's likely that long term maintenance costs will be lower for electric vehicles as they have fewer systems or simpler systems. Battery replacement currently though is very expensive. Oil while abundant in supply is a finite resource. At some point in the future we'll need to reduce dependence. There will be plenty of future development done to improve battery technology, motors and drives and electric delivery (recharge) systems. The internal combustion engine is light years more powerful and efficient than it was years ago. I'm dead against the government pushing and subsidizing electric vehicles but as the marketplace becomes more accepting and technology improves, let the evolution continue at its own sensible pace. This was already addressed and the author must be wrong.
Tiberius Posted April 2, 2019 Posted April 2, 2019 What else could the fool do? Trump punts vote on health-care bill until after 2020 election President Trump has apparently heeded warnings from fellow Republicans about the perils of such a fight during campaign season. By John Wagner and Erica Werner 2 hours ago
Tiberius Posted April 3, 2019 Posted April 3, 2019 14 hours ago, /dev/null said: Obviously! GOP has no clue on health care aside from the fact they want to make sure Americans don't have it
SoCal Deek Posted April 3, 2019 Posted April 3, 2019 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Obviously! GOP has no clue on health care aside from the fact they want to make sure Americans don't have it Tibs, I almost agree with you for once...go figure! I would correct a couple of things though. First, what all these folks are arguing about is health INSURANCE, not really health care. Second, the GOP just doesn’t want the government paying for that insurance. Their motivation is not centered on keeping Americans from buying insurance.
Tiberius Posted April 3, 2019 Posted April 3, 2019 1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said: Tibs, I almost agree with you for once...go figure! I would correct a couple of things though. First, what all these folks are arguing about is health INSURANCE, not really health care. Second, the GOP just doesn’t want the government paying for that insurance. Their motivation is not centered on keeping Americans from buying insurance. Morning SoCal, Ok. In practice, if the courts strike down Obamacare, it will mean millions will lose care, through the loss of insurance. Trump is totally lying when he says he wants to replace it.
3rdnlng Posted April 3, 2019 Posted April 3, 2019 56 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Morning SoCal, Ok. In practice, if the courts strike down Obamacare, it will mean millions will lose care, through the loss of insurance. Trump is totally lying when he says he wants to replace it. Did those people not have "care" prior to Obamacare?
Recommended Posts