EMB Blog: 2022 OTAs thru Pre-Season

[ToastJenkins]

51 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Already is to some extent.  ZipCar, Car2Go and Maven (the GM backed model).  Also Turo (think AirBnB for cars) and Enterprise Car Share.  Plus Lime, Scoot, Bird, Skip, Spin for scooters and Citibike et al for bikes and e-bikes. Kind of extensions of the likes of what Uber wants to do with driverless cars.  Also look at AirBnB, VRBO, which are just extensions of renting out homes and second homes.  

Fringe luxury items. Will is come down enough in cost to gain wide adoption? I doubt it. 

[austinfan]

5 minutes ago, Doc S. said:

Admitting I haven't done my homework on this but killing the Keystone Pipeline was a serious blow to US energy independence, No?

The loss of( I have heard 15 to 60 thousand ) jobs aside. the delivery of oil product to refining facilities without trucking seemed to be a no-brainer. Instead of selling petro product we are now begging International producers to help us out.

What did I miss? What is the plan going forward or is it all a bow to the New Green Deal, Force/wean the US population to move away from petroleum products? Empower and finance all the solar, battery, Natural gas brokers?

Serious question. What is the agenda here?

yeh yeh CVON... just asking...

No. The part of the Keystone pipeline that had value was already built, what was stopped was the part that would have opened the American market (and world market) to Canadian oil sands, which is highly carbon intensive and expensive oil.

As far as "jobs," those are for a few months, once the pipeline is completed, you're talking dozens, at most hundreds of jobs, the construction jobs disappear when the pipeline is complete.

The oil market is complicated by the fact that refineries are optimized for certain qualities of oil, Arabian light and West Texas Light are the highest valued oil b/c they produce a higher amount of gasoline and jet fuel per barrel, Venezuelan heavy oil is lowered value, but if priced right, some refineries will be optimized to "crack" that oil and get more gasoline out of it.

We've been draining America first for 50 years, after the best shale oil deposits are exhausted, the only cheap oil will be owned by Middle East countries - even the Russians will need to expand into costly Siberian oil fields. The best way to ensure "energy independence" is to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, even natural gas is now a world market, so we can't protect ourselves from high prices triggered by events outside the US. But if the industrialized nations reduce their consumption, that will both reduce carbon emissions and put downward pressure on oil prices, reducing revenues to places that harbor terrorists like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Texas.

[austinfan]

4 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Yup.  Great solution, for people that can afford to buy two overpriced vehicles.  That's the way to show that you understand the average joe.  

The bill they just passed subsidizes EVs, but only up to a certain price point.

What they're trying to do is get production of EVs up to a scale that will reduce costs, and at that point, as the market gets larger, there's more incentive to invest in R&D to make the cars better and cheaper and grab a large share of a growing market. But cars aren't like the internet, it will take decades of incremental improvement.

The benefits however are not just carbon reduction in the US, but developing better electric cars will mean they will eventually be sold all over the world.

I don't care, I'll be dead, but if you have children (and grand children) and give a damn about them, you don't want them living in a world where the average temperature increases by 4-6 degrees (Fahrenheit) the next 30-50 years. We're not going to meet unrealistic targets, but if we start now, we can at least slow and eventually stop global warming over that time period.

[Iggles_Phan]

5 minutes ago, austinfan said:

The bill they just passed subsidizes EVs, but only up to a certain price point.

What they're trying to do is get production of EVs up to a scale that will reduce costs, and at that point, as the market gets larger, there's more incentive to invest in R&D to make the cars better and cheaper and grab a large share of a growing market. But cars aren't like the internet, it will take decades of incremental improvement.

The benefits however are not just carbon reduction in the US, but developing better electric cars will mean they will eventually be sold all over the world.

I don't care, I'll be dead, but if you have children (and grand children) and give a damn about them, you don't want them living in a world where the average temperature increases by 4-6 degrees (Fahrenheit) the next 30-50 years. We're not going to meet unrealistic targets, but if we start now, we can at least slow and eventually stop global warming over that time period.

Mmmhmm.

[Iggles_Phan]

55 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Translates  to ESP is so appalling that all restaurants in Cleveland have banned him.

I was just there.  I told them about him ahead of time.

[Doc S.]

3 minutes ago, austinfan said:

No. The part of the Keystone pipeline that had value was already built, what was stopped was the part that would have opened the American market (and world market) to Canadian oil sands, which is highly carbon intensive and expensive oil.

As far as "jobs," those are for a few months, once the pipeline is completed, you're talking dozens, at most hundreds of jobs, the construction jobs disappear when the pipeline is complete.

The oil market is complicated by the fact that refineries are optimized for certain qualities of oil, Arabian light and West Texas Light are the highest valued oil b/c they produce a higher amount of gasoline and jet fuel per barrel, Venezuelan heavy oil is lowered value, but if priced right, some refineries will be optimized to "crack" that oil and get more gasoline out of it.

We've been draining America first for 50 years, after the best shale oil deposits are exhausted, the only cheap oil will be owned by Middle East countries - even the Russians will need to expand into costly Siberian oil fields. The best way to ensure "energy independence" is to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, even natural gas is now a world market, so we can't protect ourselves from high prices triggered by events outside the US. But if the industrialized nations reduce their consumption, that will both reduce carbon emissions and put downward pressure on oil prices, reducing revenues to places that harbor terrorists like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Texas.

Thank you for that AFan.

What about the "untapped" Oil reserves in the Alaskan Wilderness, projected to be multi-millions of barrels or the deep reserves attributed to the offshore sections of the Bering Sea and surrounding underwater plots. I've heard the Biden people have made those explorations untenable due to restrictive permitting, closed areas and lethargic processes. Not a political debate here, just a question of availability and intent.

[Iggles_Phan]

1 hour ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Discuss 

Apparently, he's a bigger moron than I tell people... and that boggles the mind.

[Iggles_Phan]

2 hours ago, bpac55 said:

I work in economic development and tourism and one of our biggest issues is workforce and workforce transportation for warehouses (we have tons of them).  There are certain sectors where ride share like mentioned could be great.

There are LOTS of great ideas but back to my original point.  Have multiple options rather than saying no more Hemi, we are going EV.   Work together for solutions for all.  Don't force us all down one hole.  There's a whole lot of Americans who don't want to be forced in to an EV, or can't afford one and so on.

If you want an EV or a hybrid.  Great we have that option.

If you want a V8, sorry no more.  

[Doc S.]

4 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Apparently, he's a bigger moron than I tell people... and that boggles the mind.

He is a mind-numbing boggle...

Surprised people pay him to do whatever it is he does...

besides making "Elite" moves...

[Utebird]

18 minutes ago, austinfan said:

The bill they just passed subsidizes EVs, but only up to a certain price point.

What they're trying to do is get production of EVs up to a scale that will reduce costs, and at that point, as the market gets larger, there's more incentive to invest in R&D to make the cars better and cheaper and grab a large share of a growing market. But cars aren't like the internet, it will take decades of incremental improvement.

The benefits however are not just carbon reduction in the US, but developing better electric cars will mean they will eventually be sold all over the world.

I don't care, I'll be dead, but if you have children (and grand children) and give a damn about them, you don't want them living in a world where the average temperature increases by 4-6 degrees (Fahrenheit) the next 30-50 years. We're not going to meet unrealistic targets, but if we start now, we can at least slow and eventually stop global warming over that time period.

This is why I feel the need to watch and re watch the movie Dune and take notes.

 

[Doc S.]

3 minutes ago, Utebird said:

This is why I feel the need to watch and re watch the movie Dune and take notes.

 

We have entered the time when those around us will seek our lives...

[BigEFly]

1 hour ago, Doc S. said:

Admitting I haven't done my homework on this but killing the Keystone Pipeline was a serious blow to US energy independence, No?

The loss of( I have heard 15 to 60 thousand ) jobs aside. the delivery of oil product to refining facilities without trucking seemed to be a no-brainer. Instead of selling petro product we are now begging International producers to help us out.

What did I miss? What is the plan going forward or is it all a bow to the New Green Deal, Force/wean the US population to move away from petroleum products? Empower and finance all the solar, battery, Natural gas brokers?

Serious question. What is the agenda here?

 

yeh yeh CVON... just asking...

First off, let me preface this with a couple of items.  I am a conservationist.  But I think the environmentalists were wrong about the Keystone XL pipeline.  The stupid news keeps saying that the Keystone Pipeline was killed.  It really was the XL extension, which really just straightens the path (and bypasses the Balkans).  

The Keystone and the XL run to Hardesty in the Alberta Tar Sands in Canada (so to your first question, no to energy independence barring my plan to annex Canada not coming to fruition).  The environmentalists object to the Alberta Tar Sands oil because it is very heavy, thus cause more release of carbon refining it and there is the gas releases that go with production.  Some just don’t like more oil available.  I agree with the former about the quality but not the latter.  If we don’t buy and refine it, China will.  (It is also a higher cost production reserve, to my comments earlier.). On a scale of 1-10 with 1 being the lowest, the tar sands aren’t any better than a 3 as to cost, quality and ease of production.  Now more of it would have come through the XL and we did lose the construction jobs (the infrastructure bill more than makes up for that).  

The US is actually pretty rich in oil shales and trapped natural gas.  But that too is high cost production and we have states like NY that prohibit fracking.  But fossil fuels will continue to become more scarce and expensive as we use them.  

I am a huge fan of certain renewables because of what they don’t cost.  Love solar.  We should be like Germany using the medians on our highways for solar.  I really like wind but I strongly suspect there are better devices. The windmills at the Linc (Eagles are very green) intrigue me.   I can’t believe we don’t utilize wave power, especially in the Great Lakes.   I dislike dams as opposed to runs, just like the mill runs of old.  Mess too much with food fish like salmon and shad.  Before Conewego (one of the stupidest dams there is for numerous reasons) and Holtwood, eel used to make it all the way to Sunbury.  I have no objection to nuclear other than we need a place to put spent fuel rods and a reliable way to transport them. (BTW, nuclear was in the new Inflation Reduction Act).  

Now electric has its own limitations, primarily lithium and who controls lithium. Rare earth metals are also a necessity and because of the method of mining, the production of those is concentrated elsewhere.  We have deposits but not the will to mine (not just environmentalists but capitalism- wage costs, comes into play.)

My dad was a geophysicist/geologist with Chevron as one of my uncles. I remember sitting at the kitchen table in the early 1970s, pre gas crisis and then during the embargo and listening to my day tell me about how we had passed the midway point on available petroleum and it was going to get scarcer and more costly.  Geologists understood that.  Chemical engineers like @Next_Up understand what goes into production today compared to fifty  years ago.  Heck, if it wasn’t for those engineers, we wouldn’t have horizontal drilling that has afforded us some temporary energy independence.  Our best path to energy independence includes weaning ourself from petroleum  

Green New Deal is a stupid name.  Little green in it.  

[RememberTheKoy]

Interesting how people here have been going after Hurts for leaving the pocket in practice, but it's something they have been working on per Shane Steichen.

 

https://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2022/8/17/23309135/eagles-shane-steichen-calls-jalen-hurts-flawless-against-jets-preseason-game-joint-practice

Steichen later talked about how they work with Hurts to improve his accuracy throwing on the run — like his 28-yard pass to open Friday’s game. The OC noted that with anything, they rep it over and over again during practice and individual drills. He also credited QB coach Brian Johnson for doing a nice job of getting him out of the pocket during individual drills to work on those throws.

"He was flawless in the game, six for six. He was great moving in the pocket on the first play, he got out and made the explosive play on that one. And he came back and checked the ball down to the back and got another 11 yards there. Then we hit the pivot over the ball to Jack [Stoll]. Then we hit the chip screen. Then he scrambled and scored a touchdown and we got called for holding. Then we come right back and he throws a beautiful pass to Dallas [Goedert]. Dallas is just so strong and his finish to go get in the end zone was impressive. It was a really good start.”

[ToastJenkins]

6 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

First off, let me preface this with a couple of items.  I am a conservationist.  But I think the environmentalists were wrong about the Keystone XL pipeline.  The stupid news keeps saying that the Keystone Pipeline was killed.  It really was the XL extension, which really just straightens the path (and bypasses the Balkans).  

The Keystone and the XL run to Hardesty in the Alberta Tar Sands in Canada (so to your first question, no to energy independence barring my plan to annex Canada not coming to fruition).  The environmentalists object to the Alberta Tar Sands oil because it is very heavy, thus cause more release of carbon refining it and there is the gas releases that go with production.  Some just don’t like more oil available.  I agree with the former about the quality but not the latter.  If we don’t buy and refine it, China will.  (It is also a higher cost production reserve, to my comments earlier.). On a scale of 1-10 with 1 being the lowest, the tar sands aren’t any better than a 3 as to cost, quality and ease of production.  Now more of it would have come through the XL and we did lose the construction jobs (the infrastructure bill more than makes up for that).  

The US is actually pretty rich in oil shales and trapped natural gas.  But that too is high cost production and we have states like NY that prohibit fracking.  But fossil fuels will continue to become more scarce and expensive as we use them.  

I am a huge fan of certain renewables because of what they don’t cost.  Love solar.  We should be like Germany using the medians on our highways for solar.  I really like wind but I strongly suspect there are better devices. The windmills at the Linc (Eagles are very green) intrigue me.   I can’t believe we don’t utilize wave power, especially in the Great Lakes.   I dislike dams as opposed to runs, just like the mill runs of old.  Mess too much with food fish like salmon and shad.  Before Conewego (one of the stupidest dams there is for numerous reasons) and Holtwood, eel used to make it all the way to Sunbury.  I have no objection to nuclear other than we need a place to put spent fuel rods and a reliable way to transport them. (BTW, nuclear was in the new Inflation Reduction Act).  

Now electric has its own limitations, primarily lithium and who controls lithium. Rare earth metals are also a necessity and because of the method of mining, the production of those is concentrated elsewhere.  We have deposits but not the will to mine (not just environmentalists but capitalism- wage costs, comes into play.)

My dad was a geophysicist/geologist with Chevron as one of my uncles. I remember sitting at the kitchen table in the early 1970s, pre gas crisis and then during the embargo and listening to my day tell me about how we had passed the midway point on available petroleum and it was going to get scarcer and more costly.  Geologists understood that.  Chemical engineers like @Next_Up understand what goes into production today compared to fifty  years ago.  Heck, if it wasn’t for those engineers, we wouldn’t have horizontal drilling that has afforded us some temporary energy independence.  Our best path to energy independence includes weaning ourself from petroleum  

Green New Deal is a stupid name.  Little green in it.  

Geologists and conservationists got the supply side all wrong though

nuclear can be dine with thorium tonavoid the waste issues. Its the only logical path for the scale and reliability we need. Still need better storage and grid. Solar is a local solution at best and the roi is negative. 

[Mike030270]

https://www.instagram.com/p/ChYQWPrLO9e/

Sounds like a robotic cat

[HazletonEagle]

cant wait for some joint practice tweets tomorrow.

[Utebird]

15 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

Interesting how people here have been going after Hurts for leaving the pocket in practice, but it's something they have been working on per Shane Steichen.

 

https://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2022/8/17/23309135/eagles-shane-steichen-calls-jalen-hurts-flawless-against-jets-preseason-game-joint-practice

Steichen later talked about how they work with Hurts to improve his accuracy throwing on the run — like his 28-yard pass to open Friday’s game. The OC noted that with anything, they rep it over and over again during practice and individual drills. He also credited QB coach Brian Johnson for doing a nice job of getting him out of the pocket during individual drills to work on those throws.

"He was flawless in the game, six for six. He was great moving in the pocket on the first play, he got out and made the explosive play on that one. And he came back and checked the ball down to the back and got another 11 yards there. Then we hit the pivot over the ball to Jack [Stoll]. Then we hit the chip screen. Then he scrambled and scored a touchdown and we got called for holding. Then we come right back and he throws a beautiful pass to Dallas [Goedert]. Dallas is just so strong and his finish to go get in the end zone was impressive. It was a really good start.”

There's a difference between leaving a clean pocket take off running short of the first down and leaving the pocket to avoid pressure and Throwing on the run.

[Iggles_Phan]

10 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

cant wait for some joint practice tweets tomorrow.

Sadly, ESP might not have any tweets to share... as he'll be suffering from food poisoning.

[Doc S.]

38 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

  

Green New Deal is a stupid name.  Little green in it.  

Thank you for that. Explains some of the thinking involved.

Yeah, stupid name but it was coined by the "Squad" lo Fn l.

[BigEFly]

1 minute ago, ToastJenkins said:

Geologists and conservationists got the supply side all wrong though

nuclear can be dine with thorium tonavoid the waste issues. Its the only logical path for the scale and reliability we need. Still need better storage and grid. Solar is a local solution at best and the roi is negative. 

It’s not supply side, it is what is in the ground (finite) amount and the cost to retrieve it.  I doubt a market with $20 a liter gasoline is sustainable.  My dad told me early in life that the bean counters rule the world and he was right.  He told a story of proposing to test a new field.  Not drilling costs money.  The bean counter wanted to know how much oil the field would produce.  My dad looked at him and told him that based on the geology, there should be oil there.  How big the reservoir was would depend on what they found when they drilled (for example, the geology would not only trap oil but also ground water).  And there was a chance that they wouldn’t find anything.  Now, I dealt in probabilities in my profession and would have asked the question differently than the accountant but that’s the nature of fossil fuels.  

I would argue that one of our greatest conservationists, Teddy Roosevelt, pretty well understood supply side.

ROI on solar on your house is probably net zero (25 year life and 20 years to recoup the cost) but on solar farms, hardly negative.  Now what’s interesting is in some parts of the third world folks are using solar as a collective and the ROI is much healthier than our individualism. 
 

Every nuclear reactor I visited and toured expressed concern for storage of used fuel rods. 

[SB52]

2 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Discuss 

Imagine the egocentricity it takes to believe you just have to share this with the world.

[ToastJenkins]

16 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

It’s not supply side, it is what is in the ground (finite) amount and the cost to retrieve it.  I doubt a market with $20 a liter gasoline is sustainable.  My dad told me early in life that the bean counters rule the world and he was right.  He told a story of proposing to test a new field.  Not drilling costs money.  The bean counter wanted to know how much oil the field would produce.  My dad looked at him and told him that based on the geology, there should be oil there.  How big the reservoir was would depend on what they found when they drilled (for example, the geology would not only trap oil but also ground water).  And there was a chance that they wouldn’t find anything.  Now, I dealt in probabilities in my profession and would have asked the question differently than the accountant but that’s the nature of fossil fuels.  

I would argue that one of our greatest conservationists, Teddy Roosevelt, pretty well understood supply side.

ROI on solar on your house is probably net zero (25 year life and 20 years to recoup the cost) but on solar farms, hardly negative.  Now what’s interesting is in some parts of the third world folks are using solar as a collective and the ROI is much healthier than our individualism. 
 

Every nuclear reactor I visited and toured expressed concern for storage of used fuel rods. 

That assumes the idealistic amd not real efficiency and lifespan for solar. Not the reality. Its negative even at scale. Thats why private enterprise wont do it.

rods are uranium and old technology. Thorium decays completely

 

[LeanMeanGM]

12 minutes ago, SB52 said:

Imagine the egocentricity it takes to believe you just have to share this with the world.

Me or him?

[SB52]

2 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Me or him?

The tweet about packing food.

[BigEFly]

18 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

That assumes the idealistic amd not real efficiency and lifespan for solar. Not the reality. Its negative even at scale. Thats why private enterprise wont do it.

rods are uranium and old technology. Thorium decays completely

 

But private industry is doing solar.  Farms popping up all over the country. 12 significant utility sized farms in PA and over 400 solar farms in development. Heck, my Newsmax watching father-in-law can see and acknowledge all the commercial solar farms growing up around his place in east Texas.   Sorry, you missed on this one.  Business is developing solar farms  

There is no such thing as a Thorium reactor. Thorium has no isotopes.  The old, long discontinued thorium based reactors were bombarded by U233 to work.  U(ranium)233 is highly radioactive.  The theory that thorium produces no radioactive material is based on a liquid core.  So many issues with this.  You’ve been listening to Andrew Yang way too much.