Is Free Speech Under Attack in this Country?

[tw]1362051107883675649[/tw]

Neighboring states such as Louisiana and Oklahoma are also struggling with similar weather. But some aspects of this crisis seem unique to Texas.
 
Abbott isn't going to weather this well. Texas failed in regulation of their power companies. Wind and solar power failed in a winter storm. It isn't difficult to see and admit that both of these things are true.

It is interesting to see the criticism of Texas for their second blackout in a decade when California seems to get a pass for blackouts every Summer.
 
Jaw said:
Abbott isn't going to weather this well. Texas failed in regulation of their power companies. Wind and solar power failed in a winter storm. It isn't difficult to see and admit that both of these things are true.

It is interesting to see the criticism of Texas for their second blackout in a decade when California seems to get a pass for blackouts every Summer.
Click to expand...

It is really interesting anymore? I’d use expected by now.
 
I mean... natural disasters and anomalies will happen. You can't predict everything weather related.

Why didn't middle America have stronger silos when the derecho hit? Why didn't Louisiana build taller foundations ?

Mother nature doesn't give a F about what you built or are trying to prevent. She's a bad B.

It isn't pointless to try and prevent, but it isn't a failure.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
Tapate50 said:
I mean... natural disasters and anomalies will happen. You can't predict everything weather related.

Why didn't middle America have stronger silos when the derecho hit? Why didn't Louisiana build taller foundations ?

Mother nature doesn't give a F about what you built or are trying to prevent. She's a bad B.

It isn't pointless to try and prevent, but it isn't a failure.
Click to expand...

Some of it is bad luck some of it is policy choice.

There are areas prone to flooding that build dikes to protect against one in a hundred year floods.

There are other areas who will build dikes to protect against one in a thousand year floods.

And depending upon the magnitude of the potential catastrophe both might be the right policy decision.
 
nsacpi said:
Some of it is bad luck some of it is policy choice.

There are areas prone to flooding that build dikes to protect against one in a hundred year floods.

There are other areas who will build dikes to protect against one in a thousand year floods.

And depending upon the magnitude of the potential catastrophe both might be the right policy decision.
Click to expand...

It sucks but there are cost/benefit analyses that have to be done and opportunity costs that have to be considered. Governments simply don't have enough funds to protect against every potential disaster and so they have to prioritize where their limited funds are spent. If your area is frequently hit by powerful tornadoes, it's probably the right decision to invest more in tornado sirens, shelters, and funds to aid with cleanup rather than invest in protecting against a one in a thousand year flood. When your sirens save a dozen lives and the cleanup goes smoothly, no one credits the preparedness. When a thousand year flood happens, everyone screams "Why weren't we prepared?"

That doesn't excuse every lack of preparedness. Often there are corners that were cut or things that were simply ignored that cause disasters to be worse. Sometimes politics gets in the way. So I think when things do go sideways during a disaster there needs to be an analysis of what went wrong and if blame is due it should be assigned. But blame shouldn't simply be thrown around for the sake of having someone to blame. Sometimes the choices leading up to the disaster were correct and mother nature just upsets the best laid plans of mice and men.
 
striker42 said:
It sucks but there are cost/benefit analyses that have to be done and opportunity costs that have to be considered. Governments simply don't have enough funds to protect against every potential disaster and so they have to prioritize where their limited funds are spent. If your area is frequently hit by powerful tornadoes, it's probably the right decision to invest more in tornado sirens, shelters, and funds to aid with cleanup rather than invest in protecting against a one in a thousand year flood. When your sirens save a dozen lives and the cleanup goes smoothly, no one credits the preparedness. When a thousand year flood happens, everyone screams "Why weren't we prepared?"

That doesn't excuse every lack of preparedness. Often there are corners that were cut or things that were simply ignored that cause disasters to be worse. Sometimes politics gets in the way. So I think when things do go sideways during a disaster there needs to be an analysis of what went wrong and if blame is due it should be assigned. But blame shouldn't simply be thrown around for the sake of having someone to blame. Sometimes the choices leading up to the disaster were correct and mother nature just upsets the best laid plans of mice and men.
Click to expand...

What's inexcusable is when there is a risk that's well understood and the cost-benefit is very clear and nothing is done. Way before Katrina, New Orleans had been identified as the major city most at risk of catastrophic flooding and very little was done.

Trivia question of the day: What is the major American city that is second most at risk of catastrophic flooding?
 
When the Yellowstone supervolcano finally blows, people are going to be pissed that we didn't build to withstand that once-every-700,000-years event. I expect it to be either Trump's or Reagan's fault.
 
nsacpi said:
What's inexcusable is when there is a risk that's well understood and the cost-benefit is very clear and nothing is done. Way before Katrina, New Orleans had been identified as the major city most at risk of catastrophic flooding and very little was done.

Trivia question of the day: What is the major American city that is second most at risk of catastrophic flooding?
Click to expand...

New Orleans was a disaster waiting to happen. Everything from lack of oversight to actual corruption contributed to the levees not being adequate. One of the big problems there was just the scope of the lack of preparedness. The task to get things straightened out was going to be herculean and it was to prepare for something that might not happen in anyone's lifetime. So people just ignored it and hoped for the best.

Not sure what the second most at risk city would be. Maybe DC? It's built on a swamp by a river.
 
striker42 said:
New Orleans was a disaster waiting to happen. Everything from lack of oversight to actual corruption contributed to the levees not being adequate. One of the big problems there was just the scope of the lack of preparedness. The task to get things straightened out was going to be herculean and it was to prepare for something that might not happen in anyone's lifetime. So people just ignored it and hoped for the best.

Not sure what the second most at risk city would be. Maybe DC? It's built on a swamp by a river.
Click to expand...

Sacramento. It is at the junction of the American and Sacramento Rivers. But the big risk is from the snowpack in the Sierra Nevada. The nightmare scenario is a very snowy winter followed by rapid melting in the spring. I remember one year when I was living out there that scenario started playing out. Schwarzenegger was flying around in a helicopter looking very worried. After the danger passed he gave a speech saying they had to do something about it. Improve the levees, etc. But I don't think there was much follow through.
 
nsacpi said:
Sacramento. It is at the junction of the American and Sacramento Rivers. But the big risk is from the snowpack in the Sierra Nevada. The nightmare scenario is a very snowy winter followed by rapid melting in the spring. I remember one year when I was living out there that scenario started playing out. Schwarzenegger was flying around in a helicopter looking very worried. After the danger passed he gave a speech saying they had to do something about it. Improve the levees, etc. But I don't think there was much follow through.
Click to expand...

Discounting the importance of preparing for an uncertain to occur event is a classic human behavior.

I worry about the Tacoma area. If Mt. Ranier erupts unexpectedly the body count from the lahars would be unbelievable.
 
striker42 said:
Discounting the importance of preparing for an uncertain to occur event is a classic human behavior.

I worry about the Tacoma area. If Mt. Ranier erupts unexpectedly the body count from the lahars would be unbelievable.
Click to expand...

There is a volcano on one of the Canary Islands that will someday cause the western part of the island to collapse into the ocean. It will trigger a tsunami big enough to destroy NY and other east coast cities. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your point of view) that is a few hundred years away.
 
Last edited:
sturg33 said:
While California's have to unplug their toasters when the temp gets above 90 in the summer, Texas has issues issues in a once in a century ice storm.

This reminds me of when people took photos of empty grocery shelves in first week of pandemic and said capitalism was the issue

Still, Texas has subsidized green energy quite a bit over the years, which has created a larger dependence on things like wind... and as we continue to see, green energy just won't work when you need it most.
Click to expand...

You're full of **** and you should know it.

Canada produces 83% or something like that from sources other than coal and gas. Last time I checked Canada is a little bit colder than Texas.
 
Canada is 10% of US population... and the majority of their energy is hydro which Texas doesn't have the resources to use. Their next largest are nuclear, gas, oil, and coal. Non hydro renewables make up less than 7%
 
zitothebrave said:
Texas can't do hydro, but how much wide open sunny landscapes exist that could be filled with solar fields?
Click to expand...

They did that with wind. It accounts for about a quarter of Texas's power generated.

But solar and wind is way harder to get large amounts of power from than hydroelectric.
 
Eue1STVXIAEAzUM
 
goldfly said:
[tw]1362127602123702273[/tw]
Click to expand...

Frozen wind turbines aren't responsible for the blackouts in spite of some people railing against them. Frozen natural gas lines are.

Wind turbines did freeze up but that was because they weren't equipped to work in extreme colds. That's probably a defensible position considering how abnormal this cold weather is and the fact that the power grid could have probably absorbed them going down. It just became an issue when natural gas wasn't prepared for the cold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top