Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

PhantomJB

Members
  • Content Count

    1,566
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

268 Excellent

About PhantomJB

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

6,974 profile views
  1. Exactly. And not just as a personal preference (I hope anyways).
  2. Yes. I see your point and we are not necessarily in disagreement. Back in the 2016 GOP primaries it was clear that Kasich was lacking in the charisma dept. vs. Trump. But clearly one of these candidates had far more substance than the other. But was it Kasich's fault for not having more charisma? Or the GOP electorate's fault for overvaluing charisma at the expense of much better governance? Trump jokes aside, my point is that charisma can be seriously overrated.
  3. This does nothing to disprove my point. But thanks for the response.
  4. The problem with Klobuchar isn't a lack of charisma or personality. The problem is the electorate doesn't properly value being the most effective minority party Senator in over 20 years.
  5. I'm no expert but will offer a few thoughts/opinions: - If you buy and electric vehicle now, for the long term you are overwhelmingly helping not one, but two, "situations." First is the environmental/climate change situation. Second is the military cost and other issues surrounding oil extraction in Middle East. - At the present moment, it's not exactly clear in a head-to-head matchup whether the lesser evil is gasoline- or electric-powered vehicles. They have different impacts. Gasoline-powered gives off SO2 and NO2 (plus all the refining pollution) and electric has a CO2 impact. CO2 being the big climate change contributor and the others being primarily air pollution. - The CO2 impact of an electric vehicle is only as good as the mix of its source. If it's 100% coal then it makes global warming that much worse but slightly helps with other emissions. If 100% wind and solar then obviously a big winner since no emissions at all. - Conclusion: Even if you believe you will have an immediate net negative environmental impact, you still buy the electric vehicle to become an "early adopter." Early adopters of any technology have an often pain-filled experience but are an essential stepping stone as the technology eventually brings about a better future. Early adopters are pioneers that help drive down the manufacturing cost curve as well as enable gradual product improvements. Eventually a critical mass accumulates to rapidly accelerate infrastructure development (e.g. fueling stations) and mainstream adoption. A positive feedback loop will also develop between electric vehicle manufacturing and renewable energy source generation. That is when your question will answer itself. https://www.howtogeek.com/405770/early-adopter-pain-is-real-but-we-need-it-for-progress/
  6. Not sure where the OP wants to go with this thread but IMHO this is an elephant in the room and worth exploring (without labeling or finger pointing). What's interesting to me is that Nixon is the one who established the EPA by executive order in 1970, so there is a solid history there. And what's ironic is that the political resistance to adopting federal climate measures almost seems to be growing, all the while the science has markedly improved, state and local governments plow forward with their own initiatives, and the private sector activity is strong. Is it simply the increasing left/right polarization? Or is there still genuine doubt about the science? Utility and oil & gas lobby too strong? Or to take a different approach, what is the common ground? Children? Economic and global leadership?
  7. Yes. I thought I mentioned that good point. I would also add things like electric car fueling station architecture, siting and potentially building new transmission lines, etc.
  8. If the authors of the GND start getting too much into technology then it's going to be Solyndra all over again. Complete resistance from the GOP with the government meddling and picking winners and losers arguments. The only technology role for the government that will gain broad support is primary research for NextGen technologies, commercialization partnership programs, large infrastructure projects and funding for large-scale demonstration projects that otherwise will not attract private capital (e.g. carbon capture, utility scale solar). The focus of the federal government should be breaking down barriers that allow accelerated deployment of existing technologies, which will then allow them to ride down the cost curve. For example, carbon tax, re-writing utility regulatory framework, emissions targets, leveling the playing field for incentives, building codes, etc.
  9. Not to ignore the rest of what you wrote, but to just to focus in on this for a second...I think we cross that bridge when we get to it. From the world's perspective, at the moment we are the ones who aren't following their lead. Our withdrawal from the Paris Accord underscores that. There can be a political argument until the cows come home about whether it was in our best interests to do so...but the current fact is we are not working on making the deal better. We just bailed. So IMO our first goal is to lead by example. Get our own house in order. If we do things right, there is an unreal amount of technological and systems innovation that is required to make the conversion. Just like after WWII, the space race and winning the Cold War, the economic strength and technological development achieved through the process of solving a huge problem will naturally put us back in a natural leadership position. As well as regain the moral high ground. If at that point others aren't following, then we can negotiate from a position of strength vs. our current weak position.
  10. My interpretation of Tim's post was that language used in the GND legislation itself is important. How they describe the challenge ahead is important. Because that is the starting point for all the interpretations from the media, politicians, etc. Rather than using Jimmy Carter-esque self-flagellating and depressing language, the authors should frame the issue more in line with how other American leaders have inspired to face huge challenges in the past. A combination of JFK clearly-focused goals and aspirations, combined with FDR-like perseverance confidence and Reagan-esque optimism is what I would personally like to see to motivate the general public. My $0.02 anyways.
  11. Not quite. The REC credit is less like a monetary tax credit and more like "extra credit" you used to get for doing well on your homework. Vail Resorts used to buy 1MWh energy from the utility just like any other customer. Then on top of that they would purchase 1MWh of REC's that were originally given to the wind farm in Wyoming. Like an offset. Now Vail Resorts just buys 1 MWh directly from the wind farm. No. REC's are not given to natural gas or any other fossil fuel producers.
  12. Renewable Energy Credits. It's basically an indirect way of purchasing renewable energy. A wind farm in Wyoming puts 1MW of electricity into the grid. In exchange they get the current spot rate of 5 cents / kWh (made up number) for the electricity, plus 10 REC's. Those REC's certify that 1MW of wind has been put into the grid and are subsequently bought at a negotiated rate by a wholesale REC broker. That broker then marks them up and sells them retail to various individuals and business who can't afford/don't want/not ready yet to generate their own renewable energy on-site. It's what Whole Foods, Vail Resorts, Celestial Seasonings and others did prior to their own on-site generation. Even though their on-site energy may come from a fossil fuel source they can (truthfully) claim they use renewable energy. Just not directly.
  13. Do you think the change in GND language will occur anytime before the election? If not, we're kind of just talking theoreticals here. That's all well and good to a point but I'd rather react to what's real than discuss what should be.
  14. Yes. But these companies can only impact our overall carbon fuel use by the size of their individual footprint. That's all any of us can do. These companies answering to investors on a quarterly basis are serving as role models is my central point.