Pie In The Sky Tykes a Pike in the Eye, as my friends down under would say. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 29, 2012, 09:42:33 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--An article from IEEE explains just why "Alternative Energy" cannot violate the Laws of Thermodynamics or Economics any more than the bicycle wheel with the magnets on it. I would have posted this in the Snake Oil thread but I have been informed that scams that take billions and billions are "political", and should not be mentioned in the same thread with $29.95 veebalizers, gonkulators and tertiary encabulators.See the below link:http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/a-skeptic-looks-at-alternative-energy/0"I told you so, you damned fools."Hugo Gernsback 1884 -1967Best RegardsClear Ether

author: TerminalJack505
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2012, 08:20:05 pm
content: SgtRock, It's a bit off topic but I don't think your quote "I told you so, you damned fools." is from Hugo Gernsback. At least I can't find any reference to him saying it.H. G. Wells is known for that quote, however.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 30, 2012, 01:46:47 am
content: Dear TerminalJack505:--You appear to be mostly correct, Sir. Further research indicate that Jules Verne, Herbert George Wells, and Hugo Gernsback all said at one time or another that they wanted "I told you so, you damned fools" to be their epitaph.--Back on topic, see below link for a partial translation of the "Die Welt" article, telling about how 600,000 to 800,000 thousand Germans have had their power cut off, for non payment do to FITs, Feed In Tariffs, doubling electric bills for poor apartment dwellers, in order to subsidize PV installations for the rich. Link below:http://thegwpf.org/international-news/6063-green-energy-leaves-800000-germans-in-the-dark.html--Do not get me wrong, I love PV, it is just Government trying to legislate Physics that bothers me."Don't drag in television. It is worked to death and there are so many better appliances you can use in your stories."Hugo Gernsback 1884 - 1967Best RegardsClear Ether

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2012, 02:48:21 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on June 29, 2012, 09:42:33 amI really don't know why you think people have the stamina, if they at all have the inclination, to read your frequent links. You can at least give an accurate brief and state your position on it if you really want to share something with the forum. As it is, the link and then your jab at whatever is tiresome.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 30, 2012, 03:36:49 am
content: Dear PeteInTexas:--I believe, Sir, that if you will read the thread more carefully, you will see that I stated my position, and fairly briefly. But I will state it again, at the risk of being more "tiresome". I think that Government using Tax Payer dollars to try to legislate physics is wasting hard earned money and is causing the loss of jobs. You will note I cited an article from the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers about how Wind and PV are under-performing the stated expectations by quite a large margin. The article from Die Welt also supports this contention. It seems to me that what you find tiresome, are facts which to not tend to support government intervention in Transportation and the Grid.--With gas prices going down, I guess reaching the break even point on Plug-In hybrids will take somewhat longer now. As you know, Plug-In Hybrids often receive subsidies from hard working taxpayers. As you also know, Plug-In Hybrids use less fossil fuels and create less air pollution than conventionally powered vehicles, as long as you do not count what happens at the Generating Station.“Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice."H. L. Mencken 1880 - 1956Best RegardsClear Ether

author: jerry507
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2012, 04:56:50 am
content: The articles analysis of wind power is pretty terrible. It has a relatively small installed base and a low capacity factor, therefore it's no good. This isn't exactly a very true picture. Obviously power companies disagree. Many midwestern power companies are building huge amounts of wind turbines to supplant their fossil fuel plants. The inconsistent load factors are balanced out by cheap to build and run natural gas plants which can cycle up and down easily. Coal plants are still expensive to build and represent a considerable risk to the company. Turbines are small, individual investments which can be bought over time as needs come and go. You can actually plan a year out, not 20 years out as with a coal plant.The subsidies picture is a load too. If you look at the real spending, wind power gets about 5 billion dollars a year in subsidies with a huge amount of that in production subsidies which will go away. The market is still growing though at 20%+ a year. While everyone is busy wetting themselves about how venture capitalists aren't funding new wind projects, the standard players (power companies) are realizing the benefits. You don't get into the power business for quick profits and paybacks. You go there if you've got a lot of money and you want to try and park it in a nice safe place for 10 years.Solar and the rest have a ways to go technologically, but wind is already there.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2012, 05:39:21 am
content: If you think running up a 100ton rotor in under 5 minutes is efficient then yes having the gas plant as reserve is good. But you still need to have it powered up at all time, still need oil pumps for bearings, and need to have it spinning at a lower than synchronous speed in case the wind drops. All this uses both gas and power from the grid, instead of putting out power.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2012, 02:48:54 pm
content: What about small (10kW or so) natural gas piston engines in every house that also work as the water/space heater and emergency power generator? Use absorption cycle as well and you can get some cooling out of it as well.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2012, 02:57:50 pm
content: You mean an extra car per household?

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2012, 03:31:11 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on June 30, 2012, 02:57:50 pmNo, a small engine that is optimized to run efficiently at one power level and have provision for capturing more of the heat coming off it.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 30, 2012, 04:32:12 pm
content: Not had time to read all of the thread but solar panels are expensive because gov.s will pay over the odds for them and put them on rich peoples roofs. Try buying a panel on eBay, then check out the sellers own website if they have one. I bet you will find a marked increase on the website for the same panel, I don't wonder why, I know why !

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 30, 2012, 11:14:28 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Let me say at the outset that, American politicians are just as stupid and maybe even stupider that British ones. See the below link about how MPs have not the slightest idea how to actually cut carbon emissions by 80%:http://www.thedailybell.com/4025/The-Carbon-Charade-Continues"As reader after reader observed, not a single MP addressed the question. Not one had done any serious homework or showed the slightest practical grasp of how electricity is made and how our transport system is powered. They merely regurgitated irrelevant, jargon-ridden propaganda passed on to them by others. As one reader put it: "What is infinitely depressing is that all these idiots believe the nonsense they are fed."--Given the stupidity of the Government, the idea of giving them the power to shut down Newspapers, Broadcast Networks and Websites, does not seem like a terribly good idea.“Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."H.L. Mencken 1880 - 1956Best RegardsClear Ether

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2012, 11:29:03 pm
content: Unfortunately the reason politicians behave in stupid ways (they are not stupid, they are just driven by dogma and have a tendency to seek wealth, power and influence to the detriment of society)--the reason we get politicians like that is that nobody smart enough to be a scientist would be dumb enough or have enough character flaws to seek a career in politics.

author: jerry507
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2012, 01:33:45 am
content: Regurgitating crap goes both ways. "Wind is unreliable." Ok, HOW unreliable? The average capacity factor in Iowa is something like 33%, compared to about 65-75% to a coal power plant.But a 2MW wind turbine might cost 3.5 million total, whereas a 300MW coal plant might cost around 1 billion. 1.75 million per MW vs 3.33 million per MW. Add to that you can build 10MW now, 100MW later and it's a very nice proposition.Also, anyone that tells you power companies want to build more coal plants is kidding themselves. Look at this link to show you how excited power companies are about building new coal plants:http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/table1.4.cfmWind and natural gas are an excellent combination, as several large utilities have already figured out. A bunch of anti-renewable energy pundits seem to not have a clue how the actual business of power generation works.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 01, 2012, 02:37:58 am
content: Dear Jerry507:--With regard to the average capacity factor for Wind in Iowa being 33%, many argue that this is a Government Public Relations best case factor and the real factor is more like 20%, which agrees with historical data from other states and countries. If Wind in Iowa is such a profitable enterprise, then why is it subsidized by the Federal Government. Would it not be cheaper to just build gas fired plants and forget the wind altogether, given that turning gas turbines on and off every time the wind hiccups is not really good from a maintenance, or an efficiency standpoint I do not really think people are anti renewable just for the sake of being anti renewable. It is more likely that they have noticed the difference between promises and performance. Would you please try addressing IEEE article I linked to, where the difference between was was sold and what is being received is documented. Would it be your position that the author is lying, and that UK Solar and Wind are actually performing as promised?--Of course Power Companies would not wish to build coal fired plants, while looking down the barrel of an EPA shotgun, and a natural gas glut in the offing. I did not advocate the straw man of coal.--Now Power Companies are almost always quasi-governmental monopolies with a guaranteed income stream and a captive customer base. Given their need to maintain good relations with their Government masters, it is possible that some decisions are made on more that just a dollars and cents, businesslike basis. I would say this varies from state to state, in the US. I.E. California Power Companies probably find themselves in a different political environment that say, West Virginia or Kentucky."Evabody gotta be some place."Jackie Mason 1936 -Best RegardsClear Ether

author: jerry507
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2012, 04:40:54 am
content: Gas power plants have always been a peak load plant. That's what they're designed to do. Many utilities have yet to embrace wind power as a viable part of their power generation schemes. Government subsidies are designed to further that. Note also that since wind power has become quite prominent now and the industry has matured, they're dropping the production tax credit.Capacity factor is going to vary depending on the area. It's obviously more complicated given you add in the wind variable to the other capacity factor variables. For Iowa it's estimated at 33% and Iowa is estimated to be the 7th best state in the nation for wind energy.Coal power plants have been an unpopular choice for 20 years. You can blame it on the EPA now, but again that isn't what has caused the concern. Natural gas has been rising for a long time because of the economics of consumption, the risk of construction and recently environmental concerns.Power companies have been regulated monopolies for a very long time. This just displays a lack of broad knowledge about how the energy industry works, but I always speak in relation to the US so that is probably why we differ on a lot of issues. We do things a bit differently here. Power companies here make money by being very efficient. If you're only allowed to make X amount of money, you don't want to build a large power plant unless you absolutely have to, as it can eat into your profits if you don't use it 100% of the time. Coal power plants are very big, very expensive and they're base load plants so they're most cost effective if used 100% of the time. Often they are not, as base loads in the US are heavily eclipsed by peak loads.Why do I bring this up and why is it important? Because it's all intertwined. Coal is really popular with a lot of people who aren't power companies. You can blame it on the EPA, but when it gets to the point where you're hardly building any more coal plants and you're getting pissy because new EPA regulations will put the nail in the coffins of the old ones you only keep around because they're sunk costs slowly paying off, it's hard to really say the EPA is killing your unburning desire for more coal powerplants.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 01, 2012, 05:30:38 am
content: Dear Jerry507:--At the risk of making you even more angry, let me point out that the President has said:"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches."--And:"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, [energy prices] would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was... hey will pass that money on to consumers."--Leaving aside for the moment the relative incoherence of the second part of the last statement, is it really your contention that this Jawboning by the President, has no effect on the viability of coal fired plants, considering that he has promised to bankrupt them if and when he can? And, why if nobody wants to build them is the President willing to skyrocket utility rates, with his "Cap and Tax" uh, er, I mean "Cap and Trade" plan, to prevent them from being built?--I read your comment about not liking the analysis of the IEEE article I cited, but I could find no refutation of the facts as stated, that UK Solar and PV are performing very much below the promises made when they were sold to hard working British tax payers. It this correct or not. That was the point of the tread. You brought up coal, not I."I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left. "Margaret Thatcher 1925 -Best RegardsClear Ether

author: Obi_Kwiet
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2012, 11:46:33 pm
content: I think the issue is not whether wind and solar power can be viable sources of power, but whether they can give us a carbon free energy sector. Wind and solar will certainly have their place, but I think the issue is that politicians are heavily subsidizing it with the idea that they are draw-back free resource that can be scaled up to power the entire grid and end our carbon emissions. But in reality we are putting lots of tax payer money into the pockets of corporations that have no intention of realizing this goal.PV and wind's power factors are HIGHLY seasonal and unpredictable, so there just isn't any way of getting them to fix the issue of carbon emissions. We can reduce them by some percentage, but as long as the economy keeps expanding, that can't be considered a solution. There is a lot of money out there to push the a idea that it is, and a lot of highly uninformed voters who have no problem taking that at face value, but the bottom line is that there is no practical way to achieve this yet.

author: jerry507
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2012, 03:01:53 am
content: The IEEE article doesn't really have many actual facts.He gives some capacity factors for various types of power plants. He slightly overstates a few of them. You can find some historical data here:http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFwQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2F205.254.135.7%2Felectricity%2Fannual%2F&ei=dgjxT6esJ8TgqgGoxrWOAg&usg=AFQjCNFOgCgTfiIq99VSFmwnA01C63FeKwThe coal numbers in that document are based on data ending in 2007. I've seen other references that seem to indicate since coal plants have been less used in the last couple years, their capacity factors are down in the 65% range. Not that it's a significant difference.http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal-fired_power_plant_capacity_and_generationAs for the rest of the facts, they're not in debate. He lists reasonable numbers for growth of wind power, nameplate capacity, all that. He gives good numbers for cost of electricity from various sources. NUMBERS aren't the problem I have with the article.The problem is what he implies. He says electricity costs from renewable are too high and cost projections are out of line. But does he talk about cost projections of the more mature wind power as proof they're unreasonable? No, he chooses solar which is, as I have said, much less mature. He implies that the growth projections of renewables won't meet demand, but instead of talking about wind which still is growing rapidly, he talks about solar. Again, a less mature industry.He says renewables aren't a good solution because the grid can't handle them, when there is widespread consensus that our grid is terrible anyway and needs investment. Iowa, Texas, Minnesota and others are adding renewables and adding the grid necessary to handle them as part of broader infrastructure improvements. These are the same utilities that are also heavily sponsoring energy reduction initiatives to reduce the need for new energy. Hell, here in MN you can get state subsidized LED bulbs for 10-15$. That's how bad they want to avoid building new plants.He includes many extraneous facts to cloud the issue. He talks about China adding a bunch of coal plant vs the relatively tiny additions of wind here. I don't really know what conclusion he is trying to draw there. China's energy needs are expanding at a massively different rate then here, and they're destroying their environment in the process. If anything it should be a graphic and extreme case of WHY we don't want more coal power plants.And then at the end he gives a couple paragraphs of how massive and expensive the infrastructure to deliver fossil fuels is and how it can't be displaced in two decades. He's entirely right. But this seems to imply that since renewables can't do it, it's not worth doing. Which is... well, frankly it's just stupid (if that is his intention). Renewables won't happen overnight. It took decades to set up the fossil fuel system, and as it winds down it will be slowly replaced. In the mean time we must attack energy consumption on multiple fronts for a long time. How long will it take before incandescent bulbs disappear? The oldest currently operating coal plants will start to wind down in the next 5-10 years, they will be replaced largely with natural gas and renewables. Eventually coal will largely disappear as the newest plants start to hit 30 years and they're shut down. Power companies understand this, and they're used to operating on the span of decades. They're ALREADY DOING THIS and all they want is some reasonable certainty that we'll have some commitment to this over the years.And last, it should be noted that traditional fossil fuels certainly receive subsidies as well. Nuclear was built on the same government-backed model that renewables are today. Are we just going to ignore that as we say nuclear is awesome, but renewables are bad because they're government backed? The following is a decent link about the cost of fossil fuel subsidies in the US. Renewables aren't the only government backed energy sources.http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2012, 03:24:58 am
content: I think if you look to the future, there isn't much gas and there is a lot more coal. Gas is going to run out, especially if people keep burning it in power plants. Burning gas is unfortunate, as it is much more valuable as a petrochemical feed stock than as a fuel.In the longer term, coal remains in view as a major energy source. We will see a gradual increase in IGCC plants where coal is gasified in the process of extracting the energy from it and the carbon is captured rather than being emitted.There's no simple way to "fix" the grid to support wind power. The successful operation of the grid requires matching power generation to demand. But the wind doesn't blow on demand, so the scope for wind power is inherently limited until effective electricity storage schemes exist. At present the only effective storage scheme for electricity is hydroelectric.

author: jerry507
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2012, 04:10:44 am
content: Erm, what is "simple"? The grid is fixed by installing more lines, that is "simple". Is simple something that is cheap? That gets done quickly? Or isn't complicated?Coal is 150 years of power, more or less depending on a lot of factors. Natural gas is about 100 years, depending again.The fact that the wind doesn't blow on demand is certainly true, and the sun doesn't shine all the time. You can't always put water through a hydroelectric dam. Maybe the biomass crop isn't quite what it was last year.Renewable energy isn't advertised as an EASY solution. But the downsides to fossil fuels do offset their on-demand nature. But renewable energy does not need to be equivalent to fossil fuel in all the good ways to be as good or better than fossil fuel ON BALANCE. Times aren't so simple anymore that we can ignore the future and use easy technologies. We are advanced enough to look at the whole picture, even though we might not yet have all the answers.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 02, 2012, 04:45:36 am
content: Dear Jerry507:--You stated:"And last, it should be noted that traditional fossil fuels certainly receive subsidies as well."--The "subsidies" you refer to are not actually subsidies, but "tax exemptions" which reduce the amount of profits taken by government from the income stream of the companies concerned, in order to promote more taxable activity, not to promote policy objectives, which is the case with Wind and PV. With Fossil Fuels the taxes came first then the exemptions. With Wind and PV it is just the reverse, subsidies are granted up front, before any profits materialize. Policy objectives and not profits are driving.--By your absence of comment on two points, I assume you agree: 1) That the Presidents idea to "Skyrocket" energy costs in order to shut down Coal Fired Plants and Gas Fired Plants as well for that matter, and use the revenue to subsidize "Wind, Solar and Biofuels" is a good idea. 2) And that, indeed, Wind and PV in the UK have not been even close performing up to the levels promised when they were foisted, no matter what figures are now being touted for new installations.--With a Hydraulic Fracturing based Gas Glut and likely even an Oil Glut in the offing, and as the Peak Oil & Gas theory is forced to take the back seat, at least for a while (perhaps a century or so), other semi-fungible energy sources like, Wind, PV, Nuclear and yes even Coal, are going to be sucking hind teat for the nonce. This would seem to make the tarting up of the now rather peaked looking AGW Bette Noir more important than ever, if Statist Energy Policy Objectives are to succeed.--I remain convinced that economic survival will depend on Governments consuming a lesser fraction of the GNP, and not a larger one, how ever you sort it. Even Russia which is now under the hoof of Putin and his Oligarchs, is doing markedly better than it was under the Soviet Socialists. True, Energy Income is part of this, but so is the advent of Private Property and some of the means of production being in hands other that the Goverment's.--Lastly, please see below for a link to a Stanford University News article about Graphene and Nickel Iron Batteries, which may, repeat may, eventually allow for the practical utilization of Wind Power.http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/june/ultrafast-edison-battery-062612.html"He didn't know where he was going. But he knew where he was wasn't it."Lord Buckley 1906 1960Best RegardsClear Ether

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2012, 05:36:23 am
content: Quote from: jerry507 on July 02, 2012, 04:10:44 amSimple is doing something that solves the problem of balancing supply and demand. Installing more lines doesn't do that.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2012, 03:31:49 pm
content: Quote from: jerry507 on July 02, 2012, 04:10:44 amThese are points critics of renewable/alternate energy critics love to overlook:1) They insist that renewable/alternate energy MUST be a drop-in replacement of fossil fuel otherwise its a failure. This ignores a very important build out period. The fossil fuel industry had a similar build out period with the great advantage of non-existent environmental and health regulations (I believeslave labor was involvedas well, IIRC). That's why it was cheap and continues to be cheaper. Renewable/alternate sources do not have these luxuries.2) They consistently miss the point of renewable/alternate energy by not accounting for the fossil fuel that otherwise would be consumed or will be phase out. Because it is difficult to quantify the harm of fossil fuels on the environment and on health, it is likewise conveniently ignored putting renewable/alternate energy at a different standard.3) They continue to hold that economic feasibility in the short term is the only standard that needs to be met. Again, this fails to recognize the value (in terms of the environment and health) of fossil fuels not consumed that renewable/alternate fuels seek to eliminate.The criticisms of renewable/alternate energy only holds if we turn a blind eye to the TOTAL cost of fossil fuels.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2012, 03:45:44 pm
content: Quote from: SgtRock on July 02, 2012, 04:45:36 amThis is more propaganda talking point than support for a reasonable argument of a civil debate in political economy. While government spending is unsustainable into the long term, it is a perfectly sound way of injecting capital into the economy when capitalist are being lazy about employing capital that they do have on hand. It is especially sound when the money is spent on "big ticket" items that have long useful lives but are otherwise unprofitable for capitalists; like renewal/alternate energy infrastructures.PS: calling capitalists lazy in this context is perfectly reasonable. Holding on to cash instead of putting in to work is no different than a perfectly able body and mind sitting on their ass all day.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 02, 2012, 04:33:21 pm
content: Dear PeteInTexas:--So, If I have it right, it turns out that any argument for not confiscating more taxpayer money, for dead loser Wind and PV that have yet to perform as promised is "more propaganda talking point than support for a reasonable argument of a civil debate in political economy." And, that what we need is more Government Suits taking money from "Lazy Capitalists", without having to explain the failure of previous programs. Because, obviously, people who have never had a real job, or run a real business, know so much more about it that the people who have. At some point, the Government has to quit demanding a larger slice of the pie. Have you ever heard of, The Marketplace, The Unseen Hand, The Laffer Curve, The Law of Diminishing Returns, or The Goose That Laid the Golden Egg?--What would your explanation be, as to why the UK Government Wind and PV are such an under-performing waste of taxpayer money?"The problem with socialism is, eventually you run out of other peoples money."Margaret Thatcher 1925 -Best RegardsClear Ether

author: Architect_1077
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2012, 06:13:09 pm
content: The biggest threat I see to Western Democracies are the voters themselves. I see too much ideology fisting: people defend ideologies as though they are defending their favorite football team. "Oooh Oooh Capitalism is evil", "ooohh Socialism sucks". This attitude people have (and which reflects on how people vote) is both dumb and dangerous as it gives politicians weapons with which to fool voters. There is no set of political "recipes" that will save us. End of story.Politicians are politicians, whether their name is Bush or Obama, they will use whatever they can to convince people to vote for them.Getting back on topic, I tend to agree with SgtRock, though not entirely. I don't look at alternatives/renewables as being the ultimate solution that has to be shoved down our necks at all costs. While I agree that fossil fuels need to be phased out and probably need to beforcedout in some way or another due to various things which I won't discuss here, I don't agree that it can be done with the renewable sources that are available today, not by a long shot. That doesn't mean that they can't or shouldn't be implemented though! The question is, just how far should nations go to do so? I don't believe in Governments taking more of taxpayer's money to force important changes in society.Seriously, how do you look at someone that promises to improve your life and then asks for your credit card number? To my fellow Americans that like to believe in "savior" Governments: look at Europe. Did high taxes do good things to their economies? Have the political recipes of bloated centralized Governments with myriads of high taxes created enduring and strong economies? Look at Europecarefullyand learn from their successes, but learn even more from their failures.The quickest (read: available) and most economically viable solution I see (as a net source) is Nuclear, but that's far from ideal. It's a ticking time bomb. Sodoesany good alternative exist? Sadly, no. Among the various reasons for that are dumb corrupt politicians and dishonest private interests that kept some good alternatives from being developed in the not too distant past.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2012, 03:01:38 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on July 02, 2012, 04:33:21 pmIts a question of priorities. Do you want the economy to buy lots of multi-million dollar yachts that rarely leave the harbor or do you want the economy to make responsible investments for the future?Do you want the economy to buy mega mansions with no furniture in them or do you want the economy to buy the labor of capable and competent professionals to solve hard problems like disease?Do you want the economy to buy super cars that stay in climate controlled garages or do you want the economy to buy the education for motivated and inspired young people eager to make a contribution to society?The marketplace is good at one thing and that is to set prices. It cannot however, set the correct priorities. This is where your faith in the invisible hand fails you and society.Furthermore, I don't know why you think society should give people that have "run a real business" some special deference when most of them in fact fail. The only reason a lot of them are able to try again is by the grace of big government handing out incentives and providing cheap money.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2012, 03:31:42 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on July 02, 2012, 04:33:21 pmI don't know why you think the international composition of posters in this forum can make conclusions one way or the other about some whatever based on one article you link to talking about the politics of some far corner on the planet.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2012, 03:36:45 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on July 02, 2012, 04:33:21 pmThatcher and her bosom buddy Reagan gave us "trickle down economics". Since then, the incomes have dropped or remained stagnate even as the productivity of workers have continued to increase. Trickle down my butt!

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 03, 2012, 04:32:34 am
content: Dear PeteInTexas:--For the record, and 20 points: Did Government revenues increase or decrease, after the Reagan Tax Cuts?--You stated:"I don't know why you think the international composition of posters in this forum can make conclusions one way or the other about some whatever based on one article you link to talking about the politics of some far corner on the planet."--That is because it is difficult to discuss any energy policy outcomes of countries without some of these countries, indeed, having a definite location, which might seem like a "far corner of the earth" to some of the "international composition of posters". As Jackie Mason said "Evabody gotta be some place." In this case the "far corner of the planet" being discussed in this forum, which originates in Australia, was not Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, but a place many of the posters might indeed have heard of, a rather large island located between Ireland and Europe, known as Great Britain. Your teachers probably skipped over this particular part of the Geography lesson, while they were busy teaching you that FDR ended the Great Depression.--The reason for mentioning the marked under performance in this case, which unfortunately did have a definite location, and for that I apologize, was that it is illustrative of Government Alternative Energy projects in general, even those with locations. That being, that an unacceptable percentage of the time they fail and are a waste of money. Here in the US, we have the bankruptcies of Solyndra, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, Mountain Plaza Inc., etc, and the wasting of billions more subsidizing companies like Tesla, Fisker, and GM, who aren't exactly churning up the black ink. These would be the kind of non-lazy Capitalists you like, I think.--In your rush to advance the red banner and claim that business people, who actually make money, rather that just confiscate it, waste it, refuse to explain, and then demand more, I think you left a question pending. I repeat:--What would your explanation be, as to why the UK Government Wind and PV are such an under-performing waste of taxpayer money?--I would guess that your explanation for the utter failure of the USSR would be that it makes no difference, because what took place in the USSR was not Real Socialism, was in "a far corner of the earth" and Real Socialism has never been tried ((so lets try it some more, wink, wink)).--Next time I will find a failed Government program, that is not in some "far corner of the planet" like the UK, but somewhere closer to you, like Austin. By the way, how are the Dipsy Twits doing I haven't seen them on Austin Hippie Dimwits in a long time."In the heat of battle, my father wove a tapestry of obscenity that as far as we know, is still hanging in space over Lake Michigan."Ralphie ParkerBest RegardsClear Ether

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2012, 05:51:38 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on July 03, 2012, 04:32:34 amWhy don't you look at the record for the answer and give yourself 20 points. Just don't make any big political economy theory proclamations based on one data point.For the record, deficits ballooned under Reagan. Guess that Laffer Curve needs some more fudging. Give voters -20 points for buying into it.QuoteYes, my kind of non-lazy-capitalists are ones that take risk (and often fail) to solve hard, long term problems for the benefit of society. This is a very worthwhile use of wealth produced by any capitalist economy. As opposed lazy capitalists who can't be bothered to rise from their 800 count bed sheets unless there is 300% tax free profit in it for them.QuoteWhat do you want from this forum; why do you think we have the answers for that particular story? Why do you think data you provide is enough for anyone here to make a worthwhile conclusion one way or the other?QuoteI have no idea why you think its useful to guess at any of my opinions.QuoteIt can never be said that you lack the ability to gain the upper hand in an argument!Well done, sgt! Carry on!

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2012, 06:05:24 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on July 03, 2012, 04:32:34 amI find it hilarious how Ted Nugent keeps getting cowed to apologize for his rants. The blond trio never took anything back.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 03, 2012, 06:29:28 am
content: Dear PeteInTexas:--I want to thank you for you polite and measured response, as well as not disagreeing with any of the facts presented. Get this man some more figurative rope.--Indeed, we are both right about the Reagan Era; Government Revenues did indeed increase after the Tax Cuts. But the deficits did indeed balloon do to the fact that the Spending Cuts promised by Tip O'neill and the, at that time Democrat, House of Representatives, where as you know, all spending bills originate, were never implemented.--You stated:"I find it hilarious how Ted Nugent keeps getting cowed to apologize for his rants. The blond trio never took anything back."--I for one, have never cared for TNs music or his unrestrained personality. He is, as I understand it still working, for some reason. Meanwhile the two instrument playing sisters, of the very talented Blond Trio, have managed to unload Little Miss Sepuku, and are casting about for a singer who will not try to run off half of the audience, and lose a guaranteed fortune. The FUTK shirt, now that was a brilliant move. To bad time ran out before Natalie could wear her FUFT, shirt expressing her feelings about Ford Trucks.“The main difference for the history of the world if I had been shot rather than Kennedy, is that Onassis probably wouldn't have married Mrs Khrushchev.”Nikita Sergeyevich Krushchev 1894 - 1971Best RegardsClear Ether

author: Architect_1077
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2012, 12:27:28 pm
content: QuoteThen let them fail with their own money instead of the tax-payers' money. While I believe in tax benefits/incentives to help implement solutions less damaging to our environment, I don't believe in trying toforcethem into the market using government subsidies. You can't force products into the market that aren't yet ready to compete in said market. Inevitably, they are going to fail.Take the Tesla roadster for example. I love that idea, absolutely brilliant! An electric sports car that is pretty much as fast as any other gas sports car. BUT, where is the cheap, abundant and cleanly produced electric energy to charge it? It doesn't quite exist yet, at least not in enough quantity to make possible the existence of a broad market for cars such as the Tesla (or other electric cars for that matter). So, it is a car that is ahead of it's time and as aproductmeant for the public, it is going to inevitably fail in the foreseeable future. A case of wagon before horse.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2012, 03:01:05 pm
content: Quote from: Architect_1077 on July 03, 2012, 12:27:28 pmYou are wrong. I would not say government subsidized efforts inevitably fail though many certainly do. See the interstate highway system in the US, rural electrification and telecommunication programs also in the US, and of course the internet.Recently, we have SpaceX impossible without the billions upon billions wasted in NASA over the decades. That pay pal guy is rich but he could not make it off the drawing board but for the grace of big government. I would dearly love to see the "captains of industry" declare a similar "space race" for something worthwhile to society and completely funded by their own cash.But, no. Idolized businessmen can't even manage to build a freaking sports stadium for their own team without robbing tax payers blind. Apple, flush in iDevice loot, can't even manage to expand its operations without going to Austin tax payers hat in hand. Its disgusting.There are important things profit driven entities simply will not do. Which is why forcing them into market by setting priorities is the only way. Development of renewable/alternate energy qualifies nicely.QuoteOnce upon a time somebody built the internal combustion engine without regard for the fact the oil extraction technology was not completely worked out. I think that horse caught up with the wagon just fine.Once upon a time somebody thought of the assembly line for the manufacture of automobiles when roads were nothing more than two dirt streaks to anyplace worth going. Again, that horse caught up with the wagon just fine.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 03, 2012, 03:24:43 pm
content: Dear PeteInTexas:--You stated:"Once upon a time somebody built the internal combustion engine without regard for the fact the oil extraction technology was not completely worked out. I think that horse caught up with the wagon just fine.Once upon a time somebody thought of the assembly line for the manufacture of automobiles when roads were nothing more than two dirt streaks to anyplace worth going. Again, that horse caught up with the wagon just fine."--And it is a good damn thing that some Government ignoramuses did not grab all of somebody's money for some hare brained scheme to establish hot air balloon transport, using recycled heifer dust. These cases you cite are evidence against government interference in the marketplace, not evidence for. If you will study the Industrial Revolution, you will find that private property, patents, and the right to keep earned wealth are what moved it along, not redistributionism, or pyramids for Pharaoh."Business is never so healthy as when, like a chicken, it must do a certain amount of scratching around for what it gets."Henry Ford 1863 - 1947Best RegardsClear Ether

author: Architect_1077
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2012, 05:10:56 pm
content: QuoteNASA is a government institution for scientific research. They are not building products to sell (or shove) to the public. Big difference, I'm sorry you failed to see it. A perfect example of horse before wagon, and an example of the type of government spending/investing Idoagree with.QuoteMore differences you fail to see. All those examples you mention cameafterthey were ready to replace the old technologies that were in place before. The highway system cameafterthe car was developed and a proven technology that in fact was fully capable of replacing the horse wagon. The same was true for electrification and communications. Now, can you honestly and truly say that for the renewable energy sources? NO! No way on Earth!QuoteQuoteOnce upon a time those "somebodies" were not government subsidized companies. Somebody did research work, tested, and INVENTED a technology. After some time it began to catch on and improve. Only AFTER the technology was proven and well on the way to being implemented because it was indeed better than the technology it was replacing did government step in to build the necessary infrastructures. Government did NOT subsidize companies to ram cars, phones, electricity, down taxpayers necks.Again you mix things up. The wagon was never in front of the horse in any of the examples you gave.QuoteBusinessmen don't rob taxpayers, politicians do. People love blaming "the rich businessmen", yet people fail to see who it is that passes the laws. A businessman will do what he can to defend his business. So would you. Don't blame him for politicians being corrupt ignorant bastards.Second, the more money government takes from taxpayers the more corruption there is. It's a historically proven fact and you have very concrete examples of this. Again, look to Europe and learn.QuoteOf course not, because profit driven entities need to make money to survive. They can't just increase taxes and force someone else to pay for their mistakes if their investment fails. Either they succeed in doing business or they close down. It's as simple as that. Government, on the other hand, doesn't give a rat's ass. It's not their own money they're spending, it's withourmoney they take mostly without our consent.QuoteWrong. You can't force products into a market to replace technology that they are not yet ready to replace and not expect serious negative consequences. That approach makes no sense to me what-so-ever.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2012, 06:15:57 pm
content: Quote from: Architect_1077 on July 03, 2012, 05:10:56 pmThere is no difference. After decades of NASA spending there is now a market for the space transport product.QuoteWhat are you talking about?! Renewable/alternate energy sources largely produce electricity. Yes, they are all presently perfectly capable doing just that. Being in its infancy and facing a horde of haters, its not a drop-in replacement but that is no reason for society to give up on its development. There is no difference.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2012, 06:27:04 pm
content: Quote from: Architect_1077 on July 03, 2012, 05:10:56 pmWhat does it take to prove technology? The Tesla runs on electricity. It works. Wind power produce electricity. It works. Solar panels produce electricity. It works. Though only in development they all work. There are issues but you have given no sound argument as to why society should just give up now.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2012, 06:42:33 pm
content: Quote from: PeteInTexas on July 03, 2012, 06:27:04 pmSolar panels are much more expensive to buy than they cost to make. They have a heavily inflated markup because the government abstracts your taxes and my taxes to subsidize the purchase of them. In effect the government is taking your money and shoveling straight into the pockets of people profiting unreasonably from a distorted market.So, no, it doesn't work.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2012, 06:48:41 pm
content: Quote from: Architect_1077 on July 03, 2012, 05:10:56 pmWhich is exactly why private industry cannot be counted on to solve hard, long term problems, like energy, that have no short term gain. Which exactly why big evil government have to set priorities for the wealth of the nation.QuoteA scam or two have surfaced in private businesses over the years. I'm sure of it.QuoteLets not keel over in hyperventilation. You have been voting haven't you?QuoteA fashionable approach of late seems to be the so called "public-private" partnerships. Its been rocky but seems to be better than big evil government going at it alone to solve hard, long term problems.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2012, 06:57:29 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on July 03, 2012, 06:42:33 pmBut they still produce electricity.You got me worried there for a second. As far was distorted markets and so forth, eh, this can all be addressed in due course.

author: jerry507
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2012, 07:00:13 pm
content: The solar market is distorted. China has distorted it by flooding the market with very cheap panels from a lot of factories built with extremely cheap borrowed money. I'd really love to see your example on who is profiting unreasonably from this heavily inflated markup. Also, what exactly DOES it cost to make a solar panel?Thanks for pointing out that most fossil fuel subsidies are tax breaks. However, what was the point? Tax breaks are subsidies, soooooooooooo.... you agree with my point that fossil fuels also receive and have received for many decades, subsidies.I don't defend what Europe is doing with renewable energy. Frankly, I can't defend it or attack it because I don't know enough about it. It's also a different culture and style of government to what I am familiar with. Wasting money on renewable projects just to say you're doing it is obviously stupid. But when it comes to renewable energy I have to take a skeptical view when someone tells me a project is a waste; often there are other goals. If someone builds a small wind farm in an area with crappy wind in an effort to research ways to improve the efficiency of wind farms at low wind speeds, that's not a waste.I also specifically don't address solar, and limit what I say to wind, because I still believe that wind power is simply much more mature right now. Is solar a bad idea, and I suggest not going down that road? Absolutely NOT. Solar is probably one of the best mechanisms for generating global power needs over the next 50-100 years. It is most productive when we generally need power the most, and can be built in small quantities and situated nearly anywhere. It just needs more research and development. You know, like we did with nuclear power.And finally it should be noted that SpaceX survived (and really was even started) because of... government subsidies. All their development funding came from NASA. Their operating income will most likely all come from private ventures in the near future, though for now they're still being kept alive by NASA transport contracts to the ISS. Government subsidies don't always work, but neither does private venture capitalism either. No solution is perfect (just like renewable energy) but it doesn't mean it's bad...

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2012, 07:14:57 pm
content: You want to make something expensive subsidise it. Works for education, housing and everything else. You want to cut use tax it, though there is a point where the taxpayers revolt and stop paying. Cigarette taxes go up each year, yet people still buy them, along with booze. Prohibit it and the black market thrives, no tax collected and a net drain on tax as you waste money on prohibition. Legalise it and tax it and all make money.

author: Architect_1077
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 04, 2012, 01:13:10 am
content: QuoteThat's because nowhere in my posts did I say that society should give up. What I am criticizing is the attempt to force something which is not viable into use in way that is not possible. I'm criticizing the approach and pointing out that there are negative consequences to that approach.Wind, PV, biomass, natural gas... all those solutions are not viable replacements. Yes, they have their place, they indeed do help to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels to some degree but they do not and will not replace the bulk of our energy needs. Not in the short term and not in the long term.Yeah, the Tesla does work. Beautiful piece of technology. Caveat? We don't yet have the technology to produce most or all of our electricity cleanly, cheaply and in the necessary abundance to make such cars viable. End of story.Don't confuse my criticism with what I would like to happen. That necessary change will happen and is happening. It won't be government forcing that change.Necessitywill make it happen.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 04, 2012, 03:58:14 am
content: Quote from: Architect_1077 on July 04, 2012, 01:13:10 amAhh, fair enough. I see you want to make the transition as painful as possible.Have you seen how quickly gas prices can shoot up? It gets so high that for some people, driving to work barely breaks even. Imagine that happening to say, just 10% of the workforce in just a matter of months? It will devastate the economy like no other government energy initiative boondoggle you can imagine.In such a scenario of rapidly rising gas prices, how quickly do you think hybrid cars can be produced? How much would it cost? Will people that need them the most be in a financial position to react? How quickly do you think the economy can erect wind farms and solar panels to avert significant disruptions in commercial activity. Will the know-how and skilled work force even be there?Sure necessity is the mother of all inventions. My concern is it will not be able to do so before the economy takes a mortal blow. Something on the order of a mega Great Depression. And guess what the ultimate solution would be to get out of it? That's right, mega government spending!

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 04, 2012, 04:13:40 am
content: Quote from: PeteInTexas on July 04, 2012, 03:58:14 amGas prices shoot up due to market speculation and profiteering (and government interference--trade embargoes, production quotas, things like that).There is almost no underlying element of supply and demand in the price structure when viewed from production to consumer. It's all short term fluctuations due to trading dynamics.When in future there might be actual, real production shortages the effects will happen over decades and there will be plenty of time to react. As it stands, there is no restriction in the supply of fossil fuels in sight, and not likely to be in anyone's lifetime. The restrictions are all artificial, based on carbon emissions quotas (and carbon emissions can be addressed by carbon capture just as reasonably as by alternative energy sources).

author: Obi_Kwiet
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 04, 2012, 04:22:46 am
content: Yeah... that's not how scarcity works... You don't just run out.I think the best way to deal with these issues is to legislatively mandate the desired result and let companies decide how best to get there. Don't like carbon emissions? Cap them. Don't like nasty coal emissions? Prohibit nasty coal emissions. Letting the government decide what the best way to reach a particular goal is idiotic, because we have more qualified people who can be making those decisions. Like it or not, the rules of capitalism apply. Companies optimize for greatest profit. The government can take advantage of this by describing a simple rule set where profit optimization is constrained by certain desirable results. You put money on the line, and all of a sudden people start getting really, really objective. You want to take advantage of that. If the government specifies the means rather than the end, then you get highly involved technical issues being decided by popular opinion. So, highly ideological people who believe in homeopathy, or are fundamentalists who are highly suspicious of science will be the biggest contributors to the ultimate solution. Companies will just end up optimizing for what is most profitable within the legislative requirements they have been given, regardless of whether or not it effectively achieves the end goal.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 04, 2012, 04:45:39 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Obviously there are no facts whatsoever which could convince a Statist that any given program is a bad idea. If the Government demands it the companies will make it happen. Just look at Cuba.--Are you having trouble with those pesky Laws of Thermodynamics, just cap them, and the same for that Right Wing Universal Law of Gravitation. The running dog capitalist companies will come to heel.--Just cross your fingers, close your eyes and keep humming the Whiffenpoof song just as hard as you can, and do not let those mean mean people who do not like puppies and kitties say bad things about failed Government programs. Remember, reality does not matter, only endless increase in Government power."We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid." Benjamin FranklinBest RegardsClear Ether

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 04, 2012, 04:51:24 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on July 03, 2012, 03:24:43 pmThe early history of the Industrial Revolution is not necessarily something to be proud. Sure, a lot of people got rich. But they did it on the backs of slave and child labor, piss-poor wages, complete disregard for worker safety, pissing on the environment, soul sapping 16/7 work hours, graft and corruption (what we have today of this is "gentlemanly" by comparison), monopolies and cartels operating with impunity; shall I go on?No thanks. I want government interference on matters like these, thank you very much!

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 04, 2012, 05:02:31 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--There you have it folks, the Industrial Revolution made things worse for people. I rest my case."We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid." Benjamin FranklinBest RegardsClear Ether

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 04, 2012, 05:11:13 am
content: Quote from: IanB on July 04, 2012, 04:13:40 amFirst, it does not matter why gas prices are up. If it goes high for long enough for whatever reason (I assume you have also noticed how slowly prices go down), it will take a toll. It will have an adverse impact. Plenty of evidence for this.Second, don't expect multi-decade advance warning from oil producers that supplies are running low. Just the speculation that supplies are running low will send prices sky high. It is irresponsible to wait for uncomfortably high gas prices to begin getting serious about alternate/renewable energy sources. That would guarantee a very expensive and painful transition.An analogy would be marathoner waiting until he/she "hits the wall" on the 20th mile to drink water instead of taking a gulp every time its offered by cheering volunteers.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 04, 2012, 05:16:46 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on July 04, 2012, 05:02:31 amCorrect. It was not until the rise of labor unions and labor friendly policies did most people (99% of them or there abouts) start being better off and sharing in the joys of the Industrial Revolution. Give yourself 20 points for seeking out and reading objective historical accounts.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 04, 2012, 06:23:15 am
content: Dear PeteInTexas:--Just how did the huge British middle class arise, oh but that cannot be correct, it could not have existed until the unions, except for the fact that it did. Britain became the wealthiest nation on earth, "A nation of shopkeepers", I think the phrase is. The lives of most people got markedly better with the Revolution. I take it that the laws of private property that led to the Revolution, are the real culprit in your scenario. In your criticism of the Revolution you failed to indicate, compared to what, the past, conditions in China at that time, Utopia, what?--My point about the Industrial Revolution, was about more than just allowing another opportunity for more sanctimonious finger wagging. The point was that it did not happen because Government commanded a program to occur. It happened because Government guaranteed liberty, and then stood out of the way. After all wealth must first be created before it can be stolen.--You stated:"you have also noticed how slowly prices go down"--Please have a close look at the attached picture if you want a real idea of historical gas prices in Texas and "how slowly prices go down". The graph does not subtract out gas taxes, which have been increasing. In the Lone Star State taxes per gallon are 38.4 cents which in near the national average of 40 cents."We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid." Benjamin FranklinBest RegardsClear Ether

author: jerry507
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 04:51:25 am
content: What is the point of the graph? I appreciate how you want me to "draw my own conclusions" but I can draw many, and you don't state anything. It makes it easier to debate if you're not just out to be cryptic.Why are we debating the effect of subsidies still? We've established two instances just in this thread where subsidies have worked, nuclear power and commercial space travel. Those seem well accepted, yet renewable energy subsidies are "different" and "bad".There are two issues here:1. Do we want renewable energy at all?2. How do we get renewable energy if we want it?I assume the answer to #1 is yes, otherwise this argument is... well, let's just face it. You can't argue with stupid (and shortsighted). I assume the real debate is about #2?

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 05:28:34 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--There you have it, folks, people who post graphs that show actual historical gasoline prices, and counter the assertion that they decline slowly, are being cryptic. Both Nuclear Power and Commercial Satellites (the profit part of the Space equation) are direct offshoots of trillions spent on the Arms race. I just do not think they are a good example, since there are no Arms Race developments which can be handed down for free in this case.--No one has posted in this thread any assertion that UK Wind and Solar have been a good investment of Tax Payer Monies. The same kind of proof exists for investments by Spain, Italy, the US and others.--If a technology is not practical, profitable or mature, why not leave most of that money in the marketplace where it can produce real jobs, and spend small amounts on research projects.--Now, stay tuned for more of the, facts are cryptic argument, and lets make those Energy Prices skyrocket, like the man said, most of the people who pay income taxes did not vote with us anyway, so lets accuse them of ja**ing off, and being stupid and shortsighted, rather than confronting the assertion that UK investment in Wind and Solar have been dead losers."I'll have the Alfalfa sandwich, and the smashed yeast"Woody Allen 1935 -Best RegardsClear Ether

author: jerry507
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 04:49:22 pm
content: Sorry, you never actually said that prices had done anything. You just said "look at the graph". Prices have remained rather steady except for the last 7 years, which is not a clear indicator that prices have steadily risen over anything more than the last 7 years. They certainly haven't gone down, but again you never actually SAID anything. This is fine if we want to act like children and never say anything lest we be held to it later, but we're all adults here. Just say something if you want to.I have posted many things that assert the investments made by the US in renewable energy have been good investments. You don't see them that way, but that's because we have different opinions. If you want to blind yourself to any facts or information not presented by you, that's not my problem. I've read everything you've posted, and responded to your questions and challenges, and not just with "they're not any good".Technology doesn't become practical, profitable or mature by investing small amounts of research money. A huge part of the current state of wind and solar is because the money has been invested to create economies of scale. If you look here:http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-5047e.pdfyou'll see that the number of solar installs has grown very rapidly (see actual pg 12), and installed cost has gone from about 11$/W to 6.2$/W, not quite half (actual pg 15)http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-5047e.pdfThis article gives some turbine price quotes on actual pg 4 and follows that up with some analysis, which is largely applicable to solar too. Energy is expensive, and getting more expensive regardless of source. The price of renewable energy and fossil fuels are affected by similar broad market forces.You haven't actually said anything about the technology not being practical, profitable or mature aside from simply asserting these things. You've spent far more time saying subsidies are bad (just bad, for "obvious" reasons), derailing the conversation and seizing on comments about the industrial revolution, gasoline prices (a whole different story), british unions, and other political crap. Frankly your entire problem seems to be less with renewable energy and more on the political situation in your own country. While renewable energy is obviously linked to the political forces at work, it's also something we can debate as engineers, calmly and rationally. And even staying on topic.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 05:21:25 pm
content: Quote from: jerry507 on July 05, 2012, 04:49:22 pmAre you being deliberately obtuse?An assertion was made (and is commonly made) that gas prices go up fast and come down slowly. But a look at that graph shows that prices come down just as fast as they go up. The assertion is not borne out by the data.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 08:06:55 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on July 05, 2012, 05:21:25 pmFirst, prices of anything are generally "sticky" downwards. That's just driven from profit maximization tendencies. And the corner gas pump is certainly such a profit maximizer. They do come down faster when under threat from gouging investigations by the Federal Trade Commission as has been the recent past few years. But left on its own, the market will keep it high as long as consumers are willing to pay. That's just business 101.Second, I would not rely on data clearly marked randomuseless.infoThird, what matters to people on a day to day reality is the actual gas price and what portion of take home pay it is. I see on the graph that this has been trending upward. Inflation adjustment is no comfort for gas guzzlers as they no longer live in the psychedelic 70's. They want to compare gas prices from the last paycheck. From that perspective, the presented chart clearly indicates that gas prices are too damn high and getting higher still. In fact it looks to be accelerating.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 08:16:29 pm
content: Quote from: PeteInTexas on July 05, 2012, 08:06:55 pmSurely that has to be a good thing, no?If fossil fuel consumption is harming the planet, then increasing prices will discourage consumption and be good for mankind. Not only that, but higher prices of fossil fuels will improve the economics of alternative and renewable energy sources and will encourage industry to research and develop those.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 08:31:41 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on July 05, 2012, 08:16:29 pmWell, it depends on the particular consumer. Not everyone is in a financial position to buy a hybrid when gas prices put a squeeze on their household budget. A hybrid would be more readily affordable if all the horde of haters just get on board and not impede progress. But that is not the reality as they are committed to make the transition expensive and painful for working joes and janes.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 09:06:09 pm
content: No need to buy an expensive hybrid. Just a reasonable compact car rather than the big ass monster trucks I see on the road all the time.

author: jerry507
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 09:26:19 pm
content: Economic knowledge letdown. Gas prices are generally an "inelastic" good. Changes in price have little effect on consumption. If you're driving to work every day, you don't just drop a day of work when the price goes up 20%. Plus the upward spikes generally occur over timespans about 1/4 the length of the downward spikes, which would seem to indicate it takes longer for the price to go down than to go up. Of course it hardly makes sense to talk about how the prices go up and down; they trend sharply up all the time and when they do go down it's because of some crazy economic crisis.I don't know why I even said anything. This is all terribly off topic to renewable energy.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 05:39:43 am
content: Quote from: IanB on July 05, 2012, 09:06:09 pmIts a vicious cycle though. Demand for gas drops from using smaller/efficient cars and prices follow suit making big ass monster gas guzzler attractive. Prices go back up due to increased demand and round and round we go.Its best to just ultimately get off the fossil fuel gerbil treadmill.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 05:55:19 am
content: Quote from: jerry507 on July 05, 2012, 09:26:19 pmSgt Rock did not mean to show that sharp drop in gas prices around 2008 as evidence that gas prices dogenerallycome down as quickly as they rise. I'm sure he did not mean that.I don't think its altogether off topic. The renewable/alternate energy hater horde love to overlook the reality of the "pain at the pump" people are forced to accept.

author: jerry507
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 08:15:57 pm
content: There is a pretty big difference between the need for mobile power and the need for mains electricity. The technical challenges are pretty much completely different as well. No one is seriously suggesting wind, solar, hydroelectric or geothermal power for carsI almost typed biofuels and then had to backspace a bitThey get lumped together by politics but I don't really think they should be. The push for greater fuel economy goes back to the oil shock and pollution concerns came around relatively independently. There is the obvious link between electric cars and renewable energy to charge them, but that can pretty easily be abstracted. If you're generating mains electricity in a good way, what it goes to is just another load.