Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Trumpled (Alternative Leading) (Read 1180434 times) previous topic - next topic
Baggers and 220 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

Reply #4620 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
If the green energy was cheaper and more efficient, then it would get in.

Forget the grandstanding about funding, its incentivisation to save dollars, or a bribe to go green.

Either way, it shouldn't be necessary if the numbers add up.  If the numbers don't stack up, odds are they will also be flawed from an ecological perspective too and cost benefit analysis is including bullcrape that makes no difference to which way you go.

You do realise that the US fossil fuel industry is heavily subsidised? 

According to the IMF, fossil fuel subsidies cost the US taxpayers $757B in 2022.

The $26B over 5 years for hydrogen generation is a drop in the ocean and that’s for R&D rather than subsidised production.
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

Reply #4621 –
My caddy made me do it!


"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

Reply #4622 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
If the green energy was cheaper and more efficient, then it would get in.

Forget the grandstanding about funding, its incentivisation to save dollars, or a bribe to go green.

Either way, it shouldn't be necessary if the numbers add up.  If the numbers don't stack up, odds are they will also be flawed from an ecological perspective too and cost benefit analysis is including bullcrape that makes no difference to which way you go.

Is that the equivalent of 'rage quitting' the environment?

Its all too hard, i'm not trying anymore.

Thats pretty depressing.

Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

Reply #4623 –
Quote from: LP – on
My caddy made me do it!



The "Commander in Cheat" is at it again.  ::)
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

Reply #4624 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: Thryleon – on
If the green energy was cheaper and more efficient, then it would get in.

Forget the grandstanding about funding, its incentivisation to save dollars, or a bribe to go green.

Either way, it shouldn't be necessary if the numbers add up.  If the numbers don't stack up, odds are they will also be flawed from an ecological perspective too and cost benefit analysis is including bullcrape that makes no difference to which way you go.

Is that the equivalent of 'rage quitting' the environment?

Its all too hard, i'm not trying anymore.

Thats pretty depressing.

Not quite, its just a simple fact that cost benefit analysis is required.

i.e.  I have a gas hot water unit and heater at home.

The Gas heater cost me 6 grand, and was fitted about 5 years ago.   It has a lot of life left in it.
The hot water unit has been here at least 14 years (how long ive been in this house).  It would have cost about 1500 to fit at the time.
We renovated our kitchen, and have a gas cooktop.  That was 8 years ago, and it cost us $800.

Gas appliances:  $8200  Should be set for 75% of them for a significant period of time (30 years or more).

Our Gas bills $400 a quarter on average, for roughly $1200 a year according to our budget. 

Ive had a quote for solar.   The cost to fit solar and batteries is relatively cheap with rebates.  About $7000 all up for the panels and inverters, but add a battery, and it costs $10000.  Selling back to the grid is effectively useless. 

For me to get maximum benefit from solar, Ill need to replace the hot water unit with a heat pump (some of those are relatively free with rebates, but who knows for sure until you do it).  The Gas cooktop with induction (meanwhile get rid of the old pans Ive got, which we have had for a while but are in great shape because we clean well and dont cook on the stove all that much, and also fit split systems through the home, to use the free and green solar energy.

To replace it all, and go truly green will cost in the vicintiy of about $20 000 minimum (im being conservative).  My Gas bills would be eliminated, but I would need to upgrade a few appliances and cookware to go with it, and all those perfectly fine and usable items, would go to landfill, after all, I cant sell it unless someone is struggling and isnt going green. 

Cost benefit analysis?  Im in the hole financially, and whilst I might make that money back, it will take that long, Ill be net break even in about 15 years.  Guess what will likely need replacing at that time?  The Solar panels maybe, potentially the battery, and possibly all the appliances.

Is it that much greener?  Why wouldnt these businesses do the same thing on a macro economic scale? 

When push comes to shove, when the time to retire my generation of things comes, I would be silly to keep getting Gas things, but whilst they are performing, I am better off staying as I am, and odds are they will be fine for a long time.  Im contributing less to landfill in this process and saving myself a bit of up front cost, which I can use to generate more income elsewhere.

This isnt apathy to being green or ecological factors either.  Its just plain and simple common sense.  I might get some solar panels ahead of time to kickstart it but if the maths requires some gymnastics to achieve the benefit, its got some flaws.  Lets not forget the sheer waste of perfectly usable items.  Who cares about that though yeah?
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

Reply #4625 –
@Thry....
I get the logic.

I'm just a bit miffed (on a governmental level) as to why the need for money is first and foremost when the money is useless if we are not alive and/or have a planet to live on.

The cost/benefit analysis seems to ignore that tiny detail.

Invest now, for a future later.
The cost benefit will work itself out over the long run.

Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

Reply #4626 –
No,no.
Much better to catch and sell every fish in the sea to profit today than needlessly worry about tomorrow… 🙄
Let’s go BIG !

Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

Reply #4627 –
More examples of Scottish eloquence:

buttplug face,
toupeed f*cktrumpet,
c*ckwomble,
mangled apricot hellbeast,
witless f*ck*ng c*cksplat,
incompressible j*zztrumpet,
ignorant f*ckmuppet, and
tiny fingered, Cheeto-faced, ferret wearing sh*tgibbon.

Any malignant narcissist would have to be happy with any of that lot  ;D
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!
 

Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

Reply #4628 –
I presume that list was just courtesy of Billy Connolly? :o
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

Reply #4629 –
Quote from: LP – on
I presume that list was just courtesy of Billy Connolly? :o

Just run of the mill Scottish folk LP.  But then, Billy’s humour owed a lot to his ability to observe every day life 🙂
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

Reply #4630 –
Quote from: DJC – on
More examples of Scottish eloquence:

buttplug face,
toupeed f*cktrumpet,
c*ckwomble,
mangled apricot hellbeast,
witless f*ck*ng c*cksplat,
incompressible j*zztrumpet,
ignorant f*ckmuppet, and
tiny fingered, Cheeto-faced, ferret wearing sh*tgibbon.

Any malignant narcissist would have to be happy with any of that lot  ;D

 :))  :))  :))

The Scots, Irish and Aussies are among the most creative countries on the planet when it comes to slang. Anyone who takes themselves too seriously is fair game. And a narcissist is a delicious target.

Being a lover of comedy and comedians, I can honestly say that only twice have I had to leave the audience for spell due to laughing too hard - Billy Connolly and Tommy Tiernan. At the other end of the spectrum, for this little black duck, is George Carlin.

Trump is a comedian's banquet! An embarrassment of riches in terms of material to work with.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

Reply #4632 –
Paper straws have their issues are not ideal, but the answer is certainly not to retreat to the solution that caused all the problems in the first place.