What total rubish. Explain if energy controls the cost of everything else, why we have computers, TVs, all kinds of electronics that are cheaper today, both outright and shockingly so in inflation adjusted dollars, than they were 10 or 20 years ago. And how it is that I can buy a hammer at Walmart today for a few bucks. Clearly it takes energy to make and deliver all those things.
Yeah, energy is one component of the price of most items, but it surely doesn't control the price.
jamesgangnc wrote: ...
"Few" as in "none"... :)
As I have said, there are uses (not particularly economic in comparison, but we'll give that the benefit of whether may come w/ time).
But which of the alternative(s) has the reliability factor? You're proposing building 3-4-5X the required capacity from diverse sources on the hope that out of that one _might_ have what's needed at any time? That seems to be the argument. Might work, but has to be terribly inefficient use of capital hence is going to be quite expensive in comparison.
All the intelligence in the grid you want can't make up for no wind or a cloudy day and afaik the sun still sets in the evenings...
--
The process really doesn't work that way at all. Most of the tax breaks and grants do not specify solutions, only outcomes. That's why they are called "alternative energy".
But I'm game, let's stop all the subsidies. Let's start paying the real costs of fuel and food and othet stuff, Then take a portion of that and use it for assistant to the actual poor.
Oh yea, you never did cite your 5% assertion about crude oil utilization. A little thing like that makes it difficult to consider you to be a knowledgeable person who has any ability to determine whether or not anything is germane to any discussion. I have trouble spelling sometimes too so I would suggest you take a look at the free version of WordWeb and folks might take you a bit more seriously if you could spell. Be well. ^_^
jamesgangnc wrote: ...
...
Name one worded that way.
The actual law(s) are specific tax breaks for wind, solar, etc., that are quite specific. As are the ethanol and biodiesel credits, mandates for minimum use levels, etc.
--
Sounds like someone is in Rush Limbagh fantasy land. If we are going to have this fantasy "free market" then lets have one. No exceptions for oil companies and no bailouts for bankers either. Show me 3 dozen of the bankers and Wall Street elite who sacked the economy in handcuffs and I will believe your statement means something.
Jeff Thies wrote in news:ijk4cm$n50$ snipped-for-privacy@news.albasani.net:
I've read that Holland isn't doing so well lately with it's wind generation.
Jeff Thies wrote in news:ijlq5e$22h$ snipped-for-privacy@news.albasani.net:
The "ungodly expensive" of nuclear is due to excessive gov't red tape and over-regulation.
The "ungodly expensive" of nuclear is largely the problem of design to containing radiation including separation of contaminated systems, and necessity of multiple layers of redundancy to keep the plant safe in fairy improbably scenarios. There are lots of improbably scenarios; some of them happen. There have been some potential disasters in the US; TMI is only one. The cost of mishap is high, as Chernobyl demonstrates. I really don't think "let the marketplace decide" is safe for nuclear.
Also contributing to "ungodly expensive" is the cost of dismantling a radioactive plant at end of life cycle. Also, now, defense against terrorists both in design and operation.
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:46:21 -0600, Jim Yanik wrote Re Re: OT: Wind Generation Follow-up:
Thanks to Jimmy Carter.
Jim Yanik wrote in news:Xns9E9077999157Ejyaniklocalnetcom@216.168.3.44:
Holland is indeed behind. Denmark is much, much better. If memory serves right. Not going to look it up.
Eek!
Helping the poor is the WORST thing you can do! In short order EVERYBODY will become "poor" so they can be "helped" by the government.
Look at the housing situation. The inflation in the housing market was CAUSED by the government trying to help the poor by mandating ugly loans.
Look at the number of people "dropping out" of the job market. Each month it's in the hundreds of thousands. Do you think they're eating dirt? No, they're getting unemployment compensation, now for up to THREE years!
If history is any guide, so what?
Europe and North Africa ran out of trees to make charcoal. Then coal was used to power the industrial revolution until coal became too expensive (in North Africa, the British used mummies to fuel their train engines). Europe turned to petroleum and nuclear power.
When the oil runs out, or more likely when it becomes too expensive, we'll find something else.
Why would you put them in handcuffs?
In the main, they broke no laws, they played by the rules, they have families.
Think of their children!
All the current difficulty started when some empathetic souls in the Congress decided to redefine membership in the middle class. Since "middle class" means, generally, that you own your own home, some liberals felt people could be moved from "poor" to "middle class" simply by fixing the economic system so these "poor" folks could have a house (they already had a car, cell-phone, microwave, 52" TV, and obviously more than plenty to eat).
Ergo, low-cost home loans were mandated.
The bankers and such that you want to see chained to a wall upside down are, in my view, the wrong targets for your wrath.
You should go after Bush!
But you already knew that.
Frankly, I don't believe either of those figures. Decades go by, yet we always seem to have a 100-year supply of oil, and a 100-year supply of coal.
Is it because they keep finding more, or is it because they know something we don't?
What if we found out we only had 50 years of oil left? There would be worldwide panic in the streets, riots, wars... Armageddon. Seriously.
What if we found out that we had 500 years of oil left? The bottom would fall out of the oil market, and a lot of very rich powerful people would no longer be rich or powerful.
Don't feed the bears. :-)
TDD
Yeah, it's a big coordinated worldwide conspiracy to keep the number set at a constant 100 year supply. They meet once a year in secret under the guidance of Dick Cheney. Participants include everyone from the Queen of England, to President I'manutjob of Iran, to Prime Minister Putin and all the OPEC producers, every country that's a developer of oil resources or a consumer. It's obviously easy to keep all those folks on the same page. When they get done with that meeting, they move on to discussing how to continue covering up the fact they they planned and committed the
911 attacks.So, it's better to hide the fact until there is only 5 years of oil left? Geez... With 50 years there would be time to plan and no panic in the streets.
No, the bottom would not fall out because we couldn't get to all that oil in the next year or 5 years or 50 years. It would still take a lot of money and time to extract it. We know there is a huge supply of coal availabe worldwide for hundreds of years and that market hasn't collapsed, has it?
:
There's a better chance of that happening than of seeing Barney Frank, Franklin Raines, or Jamie Gerlich go to jail. Tell me this. If there is a clear prosecutable case against Wall Street executives, why is it that they aren't being prosecuted? After the collapse of the internet bubble we saw dozens of prosecutions of executives from Enron, Wcom, Tyco....
Oh, but wait, that was under the Bush administration that was supposed to be in cahouts with big business, right. So, why is it that Eric Holder under Obama won't prosecute? Hmmm? Could it be he knows he doesn't have a case?
The thing that had the populist libs shorts all in a knot was the TARP money that was put together by Bush and bailed out Wall Street as well as other companies, like GM. How outrageous! Why that money is going to pay the guys that ran those companies! They still to this day rant on about it.
Well, of the $757bil that was lent or invested in those companies, what do you think happened to it all? In Obama's proposed budget it shows that all but $48billion has been recovered. But wait. That was when the budget was prepared months ago. As of now, it's down to $28bil that's still at risk. And when it's all over, it's almost certain the govt will have an actual PROFIT on the whole thing.
Compare that to Obama's stimulus for $850Bil+, which was money that went out the window never to be repaid at all.....
Much of the cost is paying interest on bonds while plants are arbitrarily and unjustly delayed. Most of the problem with waste disposal is not technical but political - the antinukers want lack of finding a solution.
What's so bad about vitrifying waste and dumping it into a salt dome? The antinukers like the roadblock that the waste must be retrievable!
And to repeat my standard soap box when this subject comes up, solar/wind/whatever doesn't HAVE to be thought of in terms of electricity, especially electricity transported over long distances. Electricity is very convenient, but it is not the only way to make use of alternative energy. On a micro scale, you can use it to move water from someplace low to someplace high, thereby storing up potential energy. Gravity can power your water taps. Passive solar should speak for itself by now, but everyone wants those damn Mcmansions of many gables. Skylights, sola tubes, and sunwalls (with appropriate shutters) can eliminate a lot of interior lighting requirements. Lots and lots of ways to cut down how many flowing electrons you need, many with what is now considered stone age tech. Those tall things on old religious and government buildings weren't just feeding an edifice complex- open the door in the top, and crack the windows or doors at the other end of the bottom, and flow-through ventilation for free.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.