New study on wind energy

Page 4 of 9  


And water power. Here in Wa state the power companies must by law include a certain percentage of 'renewable power'. But water power is specifically exempted.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jamesgangnc wrote:

I trust you'll permit an analogy to illustrate the CO2 in the atmosphere and its increase.
If the atmosphere could be represented by the area of a football field, including the end-zones, the amount of CO2 is roughly equal to the area occupied by a prostate official who died as a result of seven stab wounds inflicted by irate fans after he made four consecutive bad calls against the home team.
The increase in CO2, since 1900, could be represented by the stain left on the astoturf as he slowly bled out without a single person coming to his aid.
(In case you're interested, the remaining seventeen minutes of play took place without a single penalty.)
In other words, CO2 ain't much (one three-hundredths of one percent).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It ain't the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that counts. It is the _effect_ it has.
I hope you aren't in the "CO2 isn't a gsreenhouse gas" crowd. Or like my old man "if a little bit is good, a bunch more lot is better".
The climate is warming. Whether due to nature, to man or a combination of both can be argued but the basic fact is that it _is_ warming.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Harry K wrote:

Possibly. Some analysts demonstrate that the planet has NOT warmed by any detectable amount since 1998.
Even if the planet IS warming, it is far, far better - according to some computations - to deal with the consequences than try to mitigate a possible cause.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"some analysts" as in denialists cherry picked data.

So do nothing and continue screwing up the atmosphere? Sounds like a good plan to me...not!
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
harry wrote:

I know maths is hard, but in simple terms:
382 / 1,000,000 = 0.000382 = 0.03%
Which is what I said.
And anybody who takes what the EPA reports as Gospel is trying to play Chinese checkers with only three marbles.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
harry wrote:

Oh, anything's POSSIBLE.
Just ask the EPA.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope, that is reality and it _will_ kick us in the butt somewhere down the road in the future.
If we don't stop population growth we will be reduced to subsistance level and a _greatly_ reduced world population - nature will see to that.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The world has billions of years before the sun burns the planet up. We ought to live here in such a way that the planet will be livable that long.
I think the planet can easily support 1 billion humans. 7 billion, ridiculous.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

Me too. While solar and wind may never fully replace oil and coal, they can put a serious dent in our need for either. We seem to have entered a binary world where things are either black or white. No gray allowed. "If taxing the rich like they used to be taxed doesn't *immediately* solve the money crisis, then there's no sense in doing it at all" seems to be the mantra of many who forgot we got in this mess one day at a time and it's going to take time to get out of it.
A similarly nonsensical position is to believe solar, wind, tidal and other sources of power shouldn't be explored because they are not going to replace oil and coal instantly. Even if the Feds have to pony up some seed money, it's better to have the idle machinists in Detroit building *something* useful instead of sitting home doing nothing.

Finally!!! A person who gets it!!! Why is it OK to steal resources from our children's future but not OK to put them into debt? The answer is, of course, that neither thing is good to do. It's just that the national debt situation makes for good political theater. Maybe if we got smart and didn't hand over billions of dollars to a country that gave safe-haven to Osama bin Laden we could save our way back to prosperity.
I don't seem to recall anyone clamoring over how much it cost to start the two wars we have no chance of winning. I don't even recall anyone clearly elucidating what we stood to gain from these wars. What have we gained? So far it seems to me the only thing we have to show for those wars is a large group of horribly wounded soldiers that the CBO estimates might cost ANOTHER trillion dollars to care for duing their (often) miserable lifetimes. I don't know about you, but if I spend two or three trillion on something, I'd like to get at least some value.
Obama and Bush were equally stupid about these wars, thinking they could deny Al-Qaeda "training camps." Someone should have told them it's an awfully big world out there and we don't have enough troops to keep it all terrorist free. We weren't able to stop McVeigh on our own home turf. What does that say about the sanity of thinking we can lock terrorism down worldwide? The terrorists are laughing themselves silly at us because we've spent ourselves into near bankruptcy chasing down ghosts and goat herders. That's just what they wanted - to terrorize us into not thinking clearly - and it just BURNS me that we've allowed them to succeed to the point where we're near broke and openly fighting amongst ourselves.
Both parties have people in them with good ideas but they're getting drowned out and run over by leaders who believe that winning is the ONLY thing. It's more important than getting the country back to prosperity. If there's a SINGLE economist who thinks the plan to default on the US debt is a *good* idea, I haven't come across them. Universally they seem to be saying that going into default has the potential to double our trouble by raising the cost to borrow money and paying the added costs of dealing with the chaos a government shutdown would cause.
Ironic, considering it was two wars, the TSA and a pro-business Medicare drug plan that have helped drive us so deeply into debt. All that happened under someone else's watch. We've reached the uneviable situation where political leaders are saying, in reality, "we would rather see the baby cut in TWO rather than have those devils in the OTHER party get it all!"
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually it wouldn't be. Taxing the rich like they used to be would actually make it worse. According to IRS figures, 1980 the top 1% (and you can't get any richer than that) paid 19.05% oF fed income taxes. By 1987 (I toss this in since the tax changes in '86 include some in the definition of Adjusted Gross Income so prior to this is not exactly comparable) it was 24.81% and by 2008 (the last I could find) it was 38.02%. So, in order to tax the rich like we did in the 80s, we would have to cut their taxes in half. >

Not from an economical standpoint. If the only reason something is "successful" is because of the tax impacts, when they go away so will the jobs. Better to get the person in something that is going to last than to put him into make work jobs. The second wave of S&L failures, for instance, were largely related to a change in the tax laws that (retroactively) took away some artificial incentives to build. These were largely built as a tax dodge (which made at least some econ sense until the advantages went away).
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're pulling the typical conservative stunt. Cherry pick statistics to support your point. What about the percenatges of wealth held by the rich. And the increased difference between the wealthy, the middle class, and the poor. You can't take one stat in isolation and use it to prove a point. You have to look at the whole picture. Besides it's not just the rich, what about tax breaks for oil companies that post record profits? What kind of sense does that make. How do you defend that?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jamesgangnc wrote:

The "tax-break" bucket is not connected to the "profit" bucket. The tax breaks were legislated to achieve some social goal (e.g., employment) with no regard by the taxing authorities as to the profitability of the recipient.
To the degree that oil companies - or others - take advantage of these "tax breaks," they should be applauded for promoting the social goals envisioned by the legislative bodies.
Maybe we should name a holiday or something in the oil companies' honor.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Seems like we do this over and over again.
-snip-

Lets just say for the sake of argument that the whole enchilada is $100.
That top 1% made 8 1/2% of the money in 1980. Their rate was 34%. [data from http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html ] The gov't collects $2.89 from those boys/girls.

In 2008 they were making 20% of the money. And their rate was 23%. the gov't collects $4.46.
So the gov't would make out pretty well if they started paying what us peons pay [if we include FICA]
Jim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What do those number prove other than that the country is splitting into "haves" and "have nots" in a way we perhaps have never seen before except during the Great Depression? Your numbers are deceptive because they don't explain why the rich are paying so much more (apparently) in taxes. It's because year after year, they're making more and more money and average workers are making less and less.
Let's look at the numbers:
The NY Times Sunday Business editors asked Equilar to examine exec compensation: The final figures show that the median pay for top executives at 200 big companies last year was $10.8 million. That works out to a 23 percent gain from 2009. Most ordinary Americans aren't getting raises anywhere close to those of these chief executives. Many aren't getting raises at all - or even regular paychecks. Unemployment is still stuck at more than 9 percent. According to a report released by GovernanceMetrics
http://www2.gmiratings.com/news_docs/155620110607prelimceopay.pdf
in June, things improved for chief executives. Many executives received stock options that were granted in 2008 and 2009, when the stock market was sinking. Now that the market has recovered from its lows of the financial crisis, many executives are sitting on windfall profits, at least on paper. In addition, cash bonuses for the highest-paid C.E.O.'s are at three times prerecession levels, the report said.
Those kind of numbers tell the real story behind your observation that the wealthy are paying more in taxes than they used to. The answer is simple: the amount they pay reflects the growing schism between the haves and the have nots. CEO's are earning obscene salaries and compensation compared to the workers in the companies they run. The workers that still *have* jobs, that is.
The average American worker was taking home $752 a week in late 2010, up a mere 0.5 percent from a year earlier. After inflation, workers were actually making less.
The rich got a 23% "raise" while the workers actually got one worth less than zero. So just looking at what percentile pays what tax rate doesn't tell the whole story: you have to look at the bigger picture.
Adapted from: http://www.ourbusinessnews.com/we-knew-they-got-raises-but-this /
So what seems to be an obscene tax burden on the rich turns out to be simply getting them to pay their fair share on the outrageous compensation packages these guys get compared to John Q. Workingman. If some VP makes 20 times what an average worker earns, let him pay 20 times the taxes, too. Stockholders are usually quite willing to reign in these "super paydays" but all sorts of bizarre impediments make it mostly impossible to do. So far, the only force that seems able to affect the grossly overcompensated is the tax law and even that often proves unequal to the task.

Why, then, are we giving billions of dollars in tax breaks and incentives to the richest companies on earth like Exxon? That knife either cuts both ways or it doesn't cut at all. One hundred years ago, the tax breaks given to the nascent oil industry made sense. Dry holes were common and the Feds countered with deals that made it still worthwhile for drillers to take the risk.
Very few dry holes occur these days, comparatively speaking, but the tax "loophole" still lives on. The tax breaks given to companies researching newer, improved ways of doing things were as important then as they are now. It burns me to hear solar and wind tax credits attacked as government charity when the voluminous credits given to the oil and gas industries are simply glossed over or deemed necessary to maintain the status quo. Worse, still is how established industries tend to actually stifle innovation to protect their markets.

Ah, the false choice. The *real* choice we're facing is something slightly different. It's better to put a man in a job making solar panels or windmills than it is it have him sitting at home watching Maury and drinking beer, consuming tax dollars and producing nothing useful to the economy. If subsidies were good enough for the oil and gas industry (and still continue to this day) why should solar and wind be denied their opportunity to grow? If putting in solar panels and turbines helps blunt the need for yet another coal-fired power plant to handle the peak load, that's an overall good thing. We've got factory "ghettoes" in the country where skilled workers are rotting away contributing nothing to the economy. The free market says that's just fine. I say it's stupid and shortsighted.

The S&L crisis that *I* remember was based on the same damn idiocy that tripped us up in the current recession. Deregulation.
"Congress finally acted on deregulating the thrift industry. It passed two laws, the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 and the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982. The deregulation not only allowed thrifts to offer a wider array of savings products, but also significantly expanded their lending authority. These changes were intended to allow S&Ls to "grow" out of their problems, and as such represented the first time that the government explicitly sought to increase S&L profits as opposed to promoting housing and homeownership. Other changes in thrift oversight included authorizing the use of more lenient accounting rules to report their financial condition, and the elimination of restrictions on the minimum numbers of S&L stockholders. Such policies, combined with an overall decline in regulatory oversight (known as forbearance), would later be cited as factors in the collapse of the thrift industry."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:48:07 -0400, "Robert Green"

Thanks for throwing logic into this. The simple fact is that very wealthy individuals, and corporations, pay far less % of their income in taxes than they have since the 1940s. On top of this, we have three wars that are solely for the purpose of ensuring that corporate profits remain high. Corporations, of course, have no loyalty to the US and if they can increase their profits but hurt the US, they do so and are doing so.
Oh, but if we just give them more money, then they'll create jobs. True, but those jobs aren't in the US because corporations make more money if they pay lower wages overseas. And they keep those profits offshore.
One sure outcome of the debt ceiling discussion now going on between the two corporate-controlled parties will be another tax holiday for overseas cash. That is, money on which no taxes are paid because it is kept overseas will now be allowed to return to the US with a tax rate of perhaps 5%. So, GE, Honeywell, Verizon, and 7 or 8 other corporations that made $167 Billion over the last few years and paid no taxes will be allowed to bring home their cash and pay almost nothing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/26/2011 7:54 AM, dgk wrote: ...

Well, that's better than maintaining the present situation of tax rates being more favorable overseas so that _none_ of it returns to the US.
If tax rates were/are so low on US corporations in the US and they pay so little as seems to be the thesis, why are these corporations not taking advantage of that low rate?
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

<stuff snipped>

Precisely. Corporations have no conscience. Worse, still they have the potential for eternal life and are acquiring rights of citizenship once exclusively reserved to human beings. Government is the only force able to effectively counter the wrong-doing of corporations. Even a casualstudy of Federal law reveals much of it was put in place in response to corporate malfeasances.
Work safety laws, drug laws, food laws, etc. almost all came about because of instances of horrific corporate wrongdoing like locking factory fire doors or poisoning hundreds of people to death. A true free market would be as workable as a football game without refs.

I was hoping Obama would try to turn the rust belt around and remake it as a center of alternative energy manufacture. Sometimes all that's needed for an industry to take off is a little early "pump priming." The idea that if we slash taxes more that jobs will be created is just more Reagan mythology. Economists keep reporting that companies are sitting on piles of cash. They aren't hiring because the demand's not there. The demand's not there because so many people have lost their jobs and are barely scraping by. That's in large part due to the stimulus being too small to make a difference.

The difference between individual tax and corporate "optimizing" is incredibly unfair. Big Business can hire armies of accountants and lobbyists to get them sweet deals we individuals can only dream of. Big Business perpetually whines about how the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world but they never mention how few big businesses actually pay that "show" rate. The Democrats should be daily pointing out how easily businesses like Exxon bypass tax liabilities with subsidies, tax perks and accounting games when the people are being told "we've got to cut back on your health care - for the children." The people that stole billions from the nation's pension funds should at leave have to pay some of it back in taxes.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

statistics, although you have to go looking through the reports. From the low of the recession in January 0f 2009 to April of 2010, private sector net jobs increased on average 67,600 a month. From April 2010 through May, the average increase in private sectors jobs was 6,400. The cutoff date in April? The passing of healthcare reform. No hiring because there is no clarity in what each person is going to cost.

Cooperation and Development (OECD) concludes that, "Taxation is most progressively distributed in the United States, probably reflecting the greater role played there by refundable tax credits, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. . . . Taxes tend to be least progressive in the Nordic countries (notably, Sweden), France and Switzerland." The OECD studytitled "Growing Unequal?"also found that the ratio of taxes paid to income received by the top 10% was by far the highest in the U.S., at 1.35, compared to 1.1 for France, 1.07 for Germany, 1.01 for Japan and 1.0 for Sweden (i.e., the top decile's share of Swedish taxes is the same as their share of income). There are also reasons to suggest that increasing some of these (especially cap gains) may actually result in LESS taxes. The top 1% reported fewer capital gains in the tech-stock euphoria of 1999-2000 (when the tax rate was 20%) than during the middling market of 2006-2007. It is doubtful so many gains would have been reported in 2006-2007 if the tax rate had been 20%. Lower tax rates on capital gains increase the frequency of asset sales and thus result in more taxable capital gains on tax returns. LArgely because (especially at the pinnacle) tax consequences are figured in. A person has to hang on longer (slowing fruquency of sales and thus taxes) to reach a simliar post tax earning. This was also seen following the first cut in cap gains during the Clinton administration.. something both sides conveniently forget to mention for differing reasons.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Good catch!
Business Administration 101 teaches that an enterprise should trade a variable expense for a fixed on at every opportunity, even if the fixed expense is slightly more in the long run. You do this for planning purposes and to eliminate surprises. Business do not like, they REALLY do not like, uncertainty.
Businesses are sitting on immense amounts of capital. Evidently these businesses are run by businessmen who simply will not commit their resources to an uncertain future.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.