billeisele

this stuff is so funny, so much denial when the truth is so clear like it or not, the guy has a long range plan, it may be in his head and maybe it's modified as conditions change but he has one, he told the world his agenda during the election process and he's executing it, he's extremely smart and is working that plan, we may not like the tactics but it's working is he doing some things wrong, yes, is he getting results, yes so the real issue is tactics, yes many don't like his tactics, apparently many are willing to ignore the tactics to receive the results the option would have been more years of greed, corruption, mysterious deaths (oh wait, those are still occurring, it's up to 56 or something right?) and nothing getting done you can't be accused of doing something wrong if you do nothing, that's basically the prior 8 years, a lot of talk and no action it seems that politicians just can't handle fast progress, they prefer the slow slog where they can manipulate for their own personal gain, time for quite a few to jump off the train this is interesting to watch and we will all see what happens Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

knock knock BV, the Tigers brought their A game, and beat AL with the little guy Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

jogging just jogging, it's terrible Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

Clemson will focus on stopping the run to force the young QB to throw. If they can do that then AL is in big trouble. Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

all good points, regardless, to many don't have a plan and almost no one practices enough have a plan, practice Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

100 jumpers into Kitty Hawk for the 100th anniversary, that's all that matters somehow all the jumpers and ground crew made it thru security with Bush and many others in attendance, the metal detectors were singing, after the first 3 jumpers with rigs some big dude in a black suit, ear bud and dark glasses waved us around security still don't know how everyone made it past the sniffing dogs Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

if the market is up tell him it's time for another appraisal because now the property is worth more don't sign anything until you have cash in hand Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

Here's one for you; let's say this election ends up without someone getting to the magical 270 electoral votes. It then goes to the House of Reps to decide. Will the Republican-controlled House choose Trump? Jerry Baumchen They probably would only if he formally agreed to work with them in some type of binding contract. Currently they know that he doesn't care about them any more, he used their party to get to this point and doesn't need them. If elected he wouldn't need the citizens of the country anymore so he could go back on any campaign promises while he uses his Presidential authority to hammer out all the pissing matches he can line up. If anyone thinks his SC choices will be anything but a personal bargaining chip you're kidding yourself; conservative, liberal, who knows. lol - that post maxed out the speculation meter Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

What news? Please post the news showing actual evidence of wrongdoing. the evidence against Killary is clearer than that for global warming, what happened to actions speak louder than words, she a proven liar and crook, what's unproven (so far) is her link to numerous mysterious deaths most of what there is on Trump is words, except for his proven business successes, track record of equal employment, actually have a real job, and may other positive things can't think of anything positive about Killary something has to change, it's Trump time Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

borrow a weight belt or 2, add 30 lbs and do a sub terminal opening jump on the 210, that will give you a feel for the extra forward speed and descent rate remove the weight and jump the 170, you'll be fine and probably safer, put a few jumps on the 170, talk to your instructors for landing tips, they can tell you if the 150 is a good idea why safer with the 170? the wing loading on the 210 is so low a 10 mph-ish wind can be an issue, gusts can be a real problem the 170 is still a very safe wing loading, provides a higher wing pressure and more forward speed, speed = lift at landing just realize that the lines are shorter, the wing load is higher and it WILL turn quicker and steeper for the same amount of toggle stroke, a turn near the ground on the 210 is no big deal, it can be with the 170, enjoy Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

at what point does the judge let her cool off in the steel hotel? Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

9 cell vs. 7 cell, and exact size matching isn't accurate anyway, different folks measure them different ways Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

isn't it interesting how the media controls the message crazed gunman don't go where they can get shot, they go to gun-free zones the media won't report a message that goes against their agenda how about the no gun selling law in Chicago, home of the current sitting idiot that can't say the words Islamic terrorism, where black people are killed every day by blacks, and where are the black lives matter peeps on that issue? way past time to fix this Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

Cool. I think a pretty ideal mid-range goal for the US is nuclear for baseline power, natural gas for peaking (via traditional peakers and rapid start up combined cycle plants) and renewables for opportunity energy. >I don't understand the paragraph about load aggregation It might be a local (California) term. The official definition is "An aggregation at one or more Participating Load Locations, created by the California ISO in consultation with the relevant Participating Load, for the purposes of enabling participation of the Participating Load in the California ISO Markets like Generation by submitting Supply Bids when offering Curtailable Demand." As I understand that legalese, CAL-ISO requires utilities to maintain a given generation margin to ensure grid stability in the event of unplanned plant shutdowns, loss of renewable energy etc. Per a recent rule they are allowed to aggregate (combine) sheddable load and treat that as part of their margin. So SDG+E can contract with a local company that can guarantee a significant load reduction within (say) five minutes by collecting guarantees from _other_ companies that they will shed X percent of their load within that timeframe. SDG+E calls them, they call the companies and demand is reduced. (The companies get a refund for going off-line quickly.) The chunk of load that can be shed together is called the aggregataed load, and it is treated almost like a peaker in terms of its usefulness in maintaining margin. At my company we have a NG peaker that can handle about 75% of the load of our main campus. (It's also our emergency generator for code purposes.) We can be online quickly and at full power within about 10 minutes, and thus shed that amount of load, which makes us eligible for some load aggregation outfits but not others. It's somewhat academic in the summer anyway - during hot days we run the turbines for power and use the waste heat to run an absorption chiller to run air conditioning. So we're running them anyway. one issue we're seeing with solar is the abrupt drop when a cloud rolls in, the generation drops but the load doesn't drop, this creates artificial peaks and load following this is expensive, gets us back to the point that regardless of the amount of alternative energy we still have to have the same amount of traditional generation, thus the cost of power is higher this is being discussed nationwide and will be resolved with higher basic facility charges, the conventional net metering concept is changing load aggregation - we have that program, it's simply an Interruptible Load program, we use it for system emergencies sounds like you are using your turbine for peak shaving, we wouldn't allow a customer to do that if they were Interruptible, when we need them they would already be off the grid thus no help in managing demand Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

thanks for the intelligent convo, always enjoy comparing the perspectives from the two coasts yep, as technology prices drop all kinds of previously unimaginable things can occur, we've agreed before that energy storage is THE game changer yep, locations with high power costs will be the first economic adopters, in SC residential is about 12 cents, a high load factor industrial customer is about 8 cents Our $11 billion plant cost covers all costs including new transmission and substations, does the Desert Sunlight plant cost include those? and what is the annual solar availability in that area and in your area? if you Google Map Jenkinsville SC you'll see our nuke construction, it's big boy construction, our website has the videos, the main crane has a 570' front boom lifting 7500 tons https://www.scana.com/investors/nuclear-development I don't understand the paragraph about load aggregation Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

An interesting article that seems to say different things. First off let's presume that it's not biased but factual. It infers that a $13 increase a month is OK. Then it gets garbled with other math. Let's just assume that $13 a month is what it says. The problem with that is 80% clean would cost at least 40% more, probably much more. That number comes from our actual experience in SC. We have a very lucrative construction contract that most likely can't be repeated. Our share is about $7 billion for 1,460 MW of nuclear. The whole project is $11 billion for 2,234 MW. The resulting rate increase (projected) is 37%. Once the plants are online rates will decrease due to lower fuel costs, probably 4-6%. That cost mostly likely can't be repeated because: it was negotiated 5-8 years ago, the site was already owned and permitted, low transmission cost, and a rail line was already present. Compare our cost to Southern Co, they are building identical units 100 miles away. Their current estimate is $21 million, almost double our cost. I suspect that the wording in the survey doesn't provide any education about the unintended consequences of rising utility costs. When rates rise it impacts everything. Folks with low incomes or fixed expenses are those that suffer the most. A nationwide increase would be a huge economic problem. Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

The question was what is one willing to pay. Not what is one forced to pay by the PUC. In this context the question is intended to determine how much one is willing to pay to socialize the cost of generation sources that are above the avoided cost of energy. Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

"the cost of the supply third." "utility will make a profit no matter what. Electric companies are regulated monopolies with a guaranteed overall rate of return." ========================= What do you consider a reasonable cost increase? Should those that cause the cost increase pay that cost? For a slight clarification - the utility is not guaranteed the profit. It is an allowed rate of return. That's a big difference. It's in the best interest of all customers that the utility remains financially healthy, it effects their financial rating. If the rating declines the cost of capital increases, and those costs are passed to customers. When a rate case occurs the data is a 1-year look back. By the time the request is settled it's about 21 months old. At that point the utility will earn less than what was requested. It gets more complicated but that is the basic process. Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

some otherwise generally intelligent folks just can't seem to grasp the fact that solar energy raises the overall cost of power and contributes to grid instability, regulated utilities are capital intensive businesses that are required to serve customers in their area, for this they are allowed to earn a rate of return on capital investment rates are calculated to allow that return based on historic trends of energy sales, basically rates are averages for my area solar availability with the best technology is about 23%, the customers with solar rely on the utility for the balance of their energy needs the utility has been politically forced to invest in solar but they still have to have the same amount of traditional generation sources the utility looses energy sales and has to invest more money, that equals rate increases effective next month there will be a surcharge on every customers bill to cover the solar costs, classic social welfare it's not difficult to understand yet folks still want to claim it's not true, rates rise when generation is added that has a cost above the current avoided cost of production Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

if we started a list there would be plenty on both sides, enough to start the Scumbag party Bill, Hillary, Dennis, Strom, ...... Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

the law is being misconstrued in the media, imagine that, being called anti-LGBT, what it does is protect 99.9% of the population, some think that a problem didn't exist but now one has been created by telling transgenders that they can't go in the bathroom of the sex that they want to be it's a complicated issue with no good answers (much like abortion), one solution would be to have 3 bathrooms - male, female and unisex PayPal is on the throne claiming they are high and mighty and will not build in NC - wonder why they think it's OK to have a hug operation in Malasyia where gay folks are arrested and jailed Bruce Springstudlynot canceled a concert, guess he was upset he couldn't go in the girls room - the law says that you must use public bathrooms based on the sex on your birth certificate, private business can do whatever they want - the law strengthens job and employment protection - the law eliminates county or city ordinances and says that state law applies it is poorly written and leaves much open to interpretation, like all crappy laws the final version will be determined in court with the outcome of the inevitable lawsuits Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

good stuff, pass it along Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

what about the option of the "Establishment" keeps trying to screw with this process, more folks get pissed and vote for Trump Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

Super Raven 4 - that adds a $1000 Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.