29 replies to this topic

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Is it jobs?
Is it denierism of climate change facts?
Is it cheap (or so we think) fuel?
Is change too hard?
What is it?
I'd love to know.
Adding more coal plants will surely kill us off quicker, so what are we thinking?


"Global coal risk assessment-data analysis and market research",  released on November 20, estimated there are currently 1,199 proposed coal plants in 59 countries.
They noted that China and India together account for 76 percent of these plants.
The United States landed seventh, with 36 proposed coal-fired power plants.
Source

[adam_a]

It is most likely money combined with something we are familiar with. Coal is an understood power source to most people. The owners of the plant can sell it to a community as a job source that people understand and a "safe" energy source as people don't trust wind and solar yet.

By safe I mean reliable.

[FamilyTreeClimber]

I think adam-a is correct.  But, I would also add that it's short term versus long term results.  We are much better at satisfying immediate needs.  It is much more difficult to plan for what is best for 20, 30, 50 years down the road especially where money is concerned.  People and businesses would rather have the short term cheaper results than to put out the money that would be necessary for long term goals.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

The "I got mine-you're on your own" human mindset won't carry us much further.

[eds]

Most of the old electric generation coal plants in the USA Northeast
. . . are too expensive to clean up.
I spent Thanksgiving with someone who,
. . . last year thought "clean coal" was the answer,
. . . . . . because the sun doesn't always shine, and
. . . . . . the wind doesn't always blow.
. . . this year thinks more Nuclear plants are the answer
. . . . . . because renewables cost too much up front,
. . . . . . for too little actually useable out put.

"First they ignore you,
. . . Then they laugh at you,
. . . Then they fight you,
. . . Then you win." attributed to Mahatma Gandhi

[FamilyTreeClimber]

Eds, that is a beautiful quote from Gandhi.  It reminds me of when the Enron induced energy crisis hit California.  We were in dire straits as there were shortages and the prices were sky high.

Our local utility company (PG&E) and I am sure others set goals for reduction.  They may have even been statewide goals since the crisis affected everyone.  We had to reduce energy use by 20% or we'd be charged a pretty penny for our excess usage.  They implemented rolling blackouts so that necessary businesses would always have a steady supply.

Vice President Cheney laughed at us.  He called our little efforts "quaint" and mocked us for not doing something serious.  I assume the idea was to keep California consuming at a high rate so that Enron would make a fortune.

But, we fooled them.  The majority of the utility customers not only met the 20% reduction but surpassed it.  For those two years, we learned ways to cut back and we survived the crisis.

The Gandhi quote reminded me of that.  We can do better.

[r. zimm]

I think a big part of the "push back" against this type of solution is the perception that it is just another way for the government to control everything. I can't blame the folks that think this way because over time that's basically what happens.

Look at the foolishness about mandatory florescent light bulbs. Yes, they save energy but are much more hazardous to the environment and people then incandescent bulbs. Everyone in government knew that LED technology was in the works so why mandate the change to bulbs that when broken give off toxic gas? The only logical reason is two fold. One, our leaders only know what they are told by people they listen too and legislators on the Left only get their info from the Environmentalists, some of whom (you have to admit) would like nothing better than for all of us to live in the dark. Second, our leaders (of all sides) listen to industry donors who want nothing more than to force us to repurchase everything in out house every few years and could not care one wit about the garbage it causes.

I started using them until I did some research. Then I bought up a bunch of incandescents so I should be set until LED's are reasonable, put out more light, and fit into a regular socket.

It's getting as bad in the area of alternative energy. We are told it's great to have 16 different types of fuels/sources when in reality that is the stupidest thing we can do. Just pick one or two for vehicles (for example) and really work on those so the investment dollars are maximized. How about we use biodiesel for trucks and hydrogen fuel cells for cars, set a target date of 15 years and let academia and industry have at it.

[Phil]

The problem is we are going bankrupt and our economy depends on cheap energy.  We are borrowing 40% of what we spend, yet most don't want to accept how insane that is.  So when people are already scrambling to maintain, let alone grow, their standard of living, the last thing they want to hear about is higher energy costs.

Even though the economy is recovering, household incomes continue to fall.  That means less money in peoples pockets.  For those of us well off that doesn't mean more than an inconvenience, but for those who have to choose between energy to heat the home or get to work vs. school supplies, food on the table, etc. it is a quite different story.  With record numbers now below the povery line this should be no surprise.

There are those that say green trumps the economy and those that say the opposite, I come down in the latter.  Pretending we're rich by borrowing nearly half of what we spend will not end well.  On the other hand, fixing the economy will allow people to afford to go green.  Green can wait a couple of years, food on the table will not.  I grew up in a lower middle class area so perrhaps i'm biased but I do speak from experience.

[eds]

Phil, on 28 November 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

green trumps the economy

I've always thought of "economy," as being part of being "GREEN."

During the Depression and World War II rationing,
. . . everyone had Victory Gardens,
. . . Reused Leftovers,
. . . Recycled hand-me-down-clothing,
. . . Repurposed cardboard, to cover holes in the soles of shoes and
. . . Saved for a Rainy Day.
As you can see by the chart, Saving and/or Economy was forgotten.

Source: total-consumer-debt-over-25-trillion

Attached Files

•  Trap.jpeg   7.67K   2 downloads

[FamilyTreeClimber]

Phil, There will never be a perfect time some day in the future when we will have the perfect budget or the perfect situation.  It just never happens.  

Speaking of the 1930s and the Depression, this was a time when America did some great things.  Our economy was in terrible shape.  But, we invested in America which created jobs.  In California, both the Golden Gate Bridge and the Oakland Bay Bridge were constructed during the 1930s when their was no money and the government was broke.  Both of these ventures probably would never have been pulled off had not people seen the monetary investment as a payment towards the future.  Sure, they could have waited, but then that would have crippled the San Francisco Bay Area which needed both those bridges in the 1940s when the cable cars, trolleys, and local trains went out of favor.   I believe the Hoover Dam, Rural electrification, and a host of other things we don't even realize were constructed during the 1930s when we had no money.

I also grew up in a lower middle class neighborhood.  My Dad worked the bread line for grocery store chain and my Mom  was a secretary in small business.  We lived paycheck to paycheck for long periods of time.

I don't think it has to be an either/or situation.  Investing in the the green sector is a good investment.  It provides jobs and paves the way for the future.  I also don't think it needs to be the government alone footing the big.  Public/Private partnerships are good investments all around.

California's economy is starting to get back on it's feet because of investments in two sectors:  green and tech.  Sure it cost money, but then the investments in these sectors are putting people back to work.  For some of them retraining in the green sector has provided them a way to learn a trade since the job they had no longer exists.  Those people are earning paychecks and they are spending money.  That helps local business, too.

[eds]

In 1944, the average saving per year was $12,807.- and the average Debt was $7,475.-
In 2007, the average saving per year was $449.- and the average Debt was $121,650.-

Once known for their thrift, older Americans are piling on debt,
. . . filing for bankruptcy in record numbers and
. . . jeopardising retirement dreams.

Many Americans, Drowning in Debt, face a Lifetime of Repayment.

Source: nytimes

Attached Files

•  PAY.jpeg   11.22K   1 downloads

[Phil]

There's green and there's GREEN!    I'm not saying no one should plant victory gardens or recycle, I'm saying our debt is killing us.  Piling on even more will just kill us sooner.  I'm sure the Greeks thought their subsidized lives would go on forever too.  Near half of what we spend isn't ours as it is, the more we push that the dee[er we dig the hole.

As eds pointed out, this not 1930 or 1950.  This is now and we are no longer the only big dog on the block.  I've laid out a plan on numerous occasions on how to go solar without costing the government anything.  Just throwing money at a problem never works.

Again people are suffering now.  There is no perfect time to spend money but there is a better time and that's when people feel they can afford to think about the future.  Get the economy going, when people have jobs tax revenues go up and deficits go down.  People can then think about solar, EV's, etc. because they can afford it.  Government can think about doing more because they are no longer drowning in debt.

Then again, I'm just one voice in the Pacific Nothwest wilderness, (literally!). :laugh:

[adam_a]

The government can and should redirect money to help both go green and help the economy. For example: Cut down some of the money for oil subsidies take half that money to fight off debt the other half to invest in renewable energy. The oil companies still get some of their tax breaks, we don't have to borrow new money to invest in green energy, and the debt gets paid down some.

Just a thought on my part, I don't know how practical this would be.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

adam_a, on 04 December 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

The government can and should redirect money to help both go green and help the economy. For example: Cut down some of the money for oil subsidies take half that money to fight off debt the other half to invest in renewable energy. The oil companies still get some of their tax breaks, we don't have to borrow new money to invest in green energy, and the debt gets paid down some.

Just a thought on my part, I don't know how practical this would be.

Very practical and common sense-which is why it won't be adopted.

[r. zimm]

"people don't trust wind and solar yet."

I'm not sure if it's really trust or rather 1) total ignorance (the average person has little or no knowledge in basic electricity anymore), 2) Not something the "talking heads" talk about on the "who's doing what with whom" shows that way too many people watch, or 3) Traditional power source cost has remained low enough not to get everyone's attention (yet).

[Phil]

Hello, fiscal conservative here.

The oll subsidies are a mere pittance compared to the current deficits and they provide a huge return on investment for government revenues.  Government makes more off a gallon of gas than the oil companies do.  The major reason they are looking at taxing mileage instead of gallons is because they are losing so much with high mileage cars.

Government should not be in the venture capitalist business.  Solyndra and other very public failures have done nothing but breed distrust of the entire industry.  What should be done instead is drop the tariff on Chinese solar panels.   As one green blogger put it, if China wants to subsidize our solar conversion with their money, let them!  They've already found a way around the tariffs anyway.

Next we need an energy policy.  Where is the 100 million solar rooftop initiative?  We have mpg mandates for cars, why not green energy mandates for new buildings?

Finally there is personal initiative.  In Kennedy's immortal words, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country".  The government has already done it's part, 30% unlimited tax credit for solar panels and $7500 for an electric car, the rest is up to us.  You can buy a 200 watt panel for $175 or so, add a $150 microinverter and you become part of the solution.  Just skipping a daily Starbucks can pay for one a year.  Combined with most state incentives and net metering they pay for themselves in just a few years.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Phil, on 11 December 2012 - 06:55 PM, said:

Government makes more off a gallon of gas than the oil companies do.  

How would roads, bridges and dot check stations for trucks be built and maintained without gas tax?

[eds]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 12 December 2012 - 03:32 AM, said:

How would roads, bridges and dot check stations for trucks be built and maintained without gas tax?

Renewable energy tax?

[Shortpoet-GTD]

eds, on 12 December 2012 - 03:42 AM, said:

Renewable energy tax?

Sure, why not?
As long as they enjoy subsides like the oil giants do; but after they cut those subsides down to zero to the oil giants.

[Phil]

I didn't say don't collect the gas tax, I said it's so valuable to the government they are forced to consider alternatives as auto mileage increases.  They make a ton of money off the oil industry.  A mileage tax would be independent of MPG and gas vs alternatives.  The detriment is if GPS is used there are huge privacy concerns.

Oil subdidies are something like 2%, subsidies for renewables can approach 100%.  The feds alone give you 30%, then the states chip in, then there are federal grants and incentives and sometimes state grants and incentives for the manufacturing side.

With deficits running over a trillion a year, I wouldn't expect government to curb oil profits too much, nor spend even more on renewables.  Odds are, now that solar is so cheap, they may actually back off a little.  Time will tell.