It appears that one can renounce their U.S. citizenship, retire abroad and receive social security benefits. This is a broad generalization and each specific case should be carefully evaluated. This seems to be a case of a non-citizen being legally entitled to benefits.
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Ragnaar
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Peter Lang
Let’s put it in context – Peter Lang accuses me of being more abusive than him.
That’s right. Do the stats. Search for your comments on CE and reread them.
Furthermore, they demonstrate you cannot just let it go. You have to keep responding, and you continually turn to abuse. You ignore what’s important and relevant, and roll out all the nastiness you can think of – to many people.
You are the most arrogant, pompous person I’ve ever seen. Completely deluded about your own importance.
The only thing I remember about you is the continual arrogance, pretending to be an authority on every subject, and nastiness on almost every thread.
You keep saying you wont respond your out, ‘Bye” etc, but you can’t prevent yourself from making more unpleasant, completely unconstructive comments.
You seem determined to reduce any debate about what’s relevant – e.g. policy – to abuse.
Troll is a perfect description of what you are doing:
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by angech
He has his own website. He currently is communicating at ATTP as he is offside with Rob here.
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Pekka Pirilä
Additional people contribute both to the supply of labor and to the demand. These two effects largely cancel in their influence on unemployment.
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Rob Ellison
Wow.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Peter Lang
child
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by angech
On gravito thermal does the Coriolis force come into play in generating heart. These box arguments seem to ignore the fact of sideways air movement in a circular rotating world change the kinetic energy by rotating the frames of reference?
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Peter Lang
The energy return on energy invested (ERoEI) in renewable energy is not sufficient to supply the energy needs of modern society.
An excellent, short explanation of why renewables have no future is here:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/. The EROEI needs to be at least 14 to support modern society. So, only fossil fuels, hydro and nuclear can do it.
Below are some ERoEI figures for various electricity generation technologies. These include buffering – i.e. energy storage so the unreliable, non dispatchable renewables are properly comparable with the dispatchable technologies.
Solar PV = 1.6
Biomass = 3.5
Wind = 3.9
Solar CSP (desert) = 9
Gas (CCGT) = 28
Coal = 30
Hydro = 35
Nuclear = 75
Source: http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Peter Lang
Cost per average power delivered ($/W average, or $/Wh per hour) is a simple, approximate, way of comparing electricity technologies that have high capital costs and low fuel costs (such as renewables and nuclear):
Nuclear (USA) = 5.5
Nuclear (UAE) = 4.3
Solar thermal, Tonapah (USA) = 18
Solar thermal, Ivanpah (USA) = 19
Solar PV with storage, Windora (AUS) = 110
Solar thermal is over 3 times more expensive than nuclear.
Solar thermal is over 25 times more area than nuclear
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Peter Lang
[repost to follow abnove comment]
Cost per average power delivered ($/W average, or $/Wh per hour) is a simple, approximate, way of comparing electricity technologies that have high capital costs and low fuel costs (such as renewables and nuclear):
Nuclear (USA) = 5.5
Nuclear (UAE) = 4.3
Solar thermal, Tonapah (USA) = 18
Solar thermal, Ivanpah (USA) = 19
Solar PV with storage, Windora (AUS) = 110
Solar thermal is over 3 times more expensive than nuclear.
Solar thermal is over 25 times more area than nuclear
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Rob Ellison
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Jim D
Don M, they didn’t opt out. They were let go during the recession. There is still a lack of middle-class jobs even after Wall Street has fully recovered. Middle-class incomes have not risen in six years, while the top few percent benefit from Wall Street. It’s a disconnect. The bosses have more money but keep for themselves or send it overseas instead of employing more people in the US. What is needed is a stimulus that rewards setting up businesses in the US, but at the moment the government isn’t allowed by Congress to spend money on such things due to the debt. It is a self-reinforcing dilemma, because without as many well paid workers, the economic recovery is going to be slow due to lack of revenue.
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Rud Istvan
Brent, not only did contentional peak in 2008 (even IEA says so), it has been starting to decline since. IEA found existing fields falling at a rate of 5.1 to 6.9% per year. Only 8 ‘supergiants since 2000. Kashigan and the 7 brazil deepwater subsalts. When you go through unconventionals, Venezuela Orinoco API less than 10 has not offset its conventional decline, even though now the largest OPEC reserve. Athabasca bitumen sands need $100/ bbl since it takes 1.2 barrels of bitumen plus hydro upgrading at $20/bbl to make one barrel of syncrude. Shale breakeven depends on where in which shale. But for sure at $100bbl only 25% of Bakken wells were economic–paying for all the duds. The lower prices will reduce drilling, and the steep shale decline curves noted above will restore supply/ demand balance in less than 2 years. The Saudis know this. And I posted on it here in 2013? Essay IEA Fictions.
Jim2, you would benefit from reading all the oil and gas essays in Blowing Smoke, recommended by Judith. It is evident you are not well grounded in petroleum geophysics and engineering. The ultimate peak arrives around 2020, and certainly before 2030. Including shale production using horizontal drilling and fracking. At that time IMF says oil will be $200bbl. Never underestimate the drastic price volatility ($140 when in late 2007 demand exceeded supply by 1.5 mbpd, now $70 when supply exceeds demand by 1.5mbpd) in a price inelastic commodity.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by beththeserf
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/24/the-return-of-stagflation/
Sliding to impecunity …
guvuhmints’ curbing ingenuity
and opportunity for innovation,
curtailing thereby a nation’s
productivity. Acting like mini
You Knighted Nay-shuns,
practicing bureau accumularity,
they tax and tax and tax again
.
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Rud Istvan
Your notion of statistical stationarity in a time series is flawed. Please reread McKitrick’s recent paper on statistically significant ‘pause’ duration. It is well explained there. Whether mean temperatures were flat or declining from 1940 to 1975, or rising from 1975 to 1998, does not affect the mathematical notion of stationarity in temperature time series.
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Don Monfort
That’s comforting to know, Pekka. Can we send some over to Finland?
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist
These “illegals” are a part of our economy and contribute to our prosperity. They work for low wages. Deport them and the cost of most things will rise. Do you want to pay more for most things you buy?
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Rob Ellison
Let’s go back to this graphic.
Geothermal, wind, geothermal flash plant, landfill gas, large hydro, small hydro, nuclear, natural gas and coal are all potentially sub $100/MWh on a central estimate. Municipal solid waste comes close.
Of these – coal and gas costs are increasing – and nuclear and PV costs with newer technology are set to decrease. Some of these sources have other benefits. They can be mixed and matched in a systems sense to maximize resource use efficiency.
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Rob Ellison
Let me correct myself – solar is by no means sub $100/MWh – yet.
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Peter Lang
Your obsitnacy on this is unbelievable. You’ve posted this same link and same mislreading commenmt a probably more than a dozen time. I’ve told uyou and many othjers on other threads have exp0lained to you that you don’t understand what the chart is about and you are mosrepresenting it. Each place LCOE is posted (EIA, IEA, OECD, EPRI, BREE AETA,) tell you the same emssage. you keep ignoring it.
This shows you are a dishonest person. you cannot be trusted on anything becuase you’ve demonstrated your dishonesty overt and over again.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
