- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 2, 2012 at 11:20 pm #602746
JanSParticipantMitch McConnell needs to retire to the old folks home. I hate blatant dishonesty when it comes to these things:
http://factcheck.org/2012/03/more-pipeline-piffle-and-an-alaskan-absurdity/
April 3, 2012 at 1:46 am #753556
JayDeeParticipantIt entirely makes sense when you consider the larger picture:
<http://motherjones.com/environment/2012/04/fracking-environmental-regulations-toxic-planet>
It is easier to grease the skids and change the rules when money is a lubricant. Both sides respond, some more than others. While I am not a clean energy fruit loop I wish more people would consider the long-term: This too shall pass.
–
But the legacy and externalization of costs will remain. What are we doing long-term? There is no one answer but pricing coal out of the equation is one, and installing home solar voltaics (others can speak to this better than I) need to occur in the next 10 years.
April 3, 2012 at 3:35 am #753557
kootchmanMemberHardly a rousing endorsement of action. Note that everything Obama proposes is “after the 2012 election”. See the tape with Medvedev…. wait until his second term. When he has no restraints, we will get the full impact of his enlightened new economics. Solar voltaics has no payback in the PNW… if it did, you would see it. I am not going to plunk down $40K with a payback of 28 years and a replacement life of 20 years or less. Yes, I did the numbers. You go to an office tower and everything has to work, elevators, lights, computers. etc… ya don’t get cloudy days off. Sun, wind, are not reliable “on demand” load carriers. Blatant dishonesty? 75% of the electrical grid is coal fired. So, that’s the government solution. place more and more burdens on consumers… til we are lined up with our begging bowls outside a federal office … food stamps, energy stamps, medical stamps, education stamps… because the cost of a middle class life has been taxed or prices inflated beyond our means to pay. Who is going to subsidize it all? Democrats= Debt, Dependency, Decline. Pricing coal out of business means you are going to be priced out of being an energy consumer. Candles and hoodies for everyone. In the surge in demand the answer is to not stand in the way of production…. supply tempers prices… has always been so …will always be so. How do you want to replace coal? Nuclear? Hydro? ??? You can’t manufacture, transport, heat, with variable power sources. Solar powered air traffic control? Wind generated power for elevators, or our national satellite grid? sure.
April 3, 2012 at 3:44 am #753558
jamminjMember“Yes, I did the numbers.”
post it then, post the spreadsheet of your ‘numbers’. right now, since you have done them.
April 3, 2012 at 3:49 am #753559
jamminjMemberI… am…so… disjointed… I … can’t … make a ….complete…sentence…before… my…meds kick… in…so please…. excuse…my?= erratic..comm…ents. maybe…this disjointed… comments…seems to make…me more, wait a minute…I have a state to interject here….28% think Obama…wait, it’s economy is 59% in trouble…take money away fr….om the elderly…gacckkkkk, sure.
Kootch, can you for once just make a cohesive cognitive argument for your stance instead of writing like one of my patients? There is no forum police, but if you want your argument to be taken seriously, you better write better arguments than my 5 year old.
April 3, 2012 at 4:02 am #753560
JayDeeParticipantKootchman:
Regardless of your “coal provides us 75% of our electricity” assertion, the question is not does it, but should it? The current fervor over shale gas and oil is one thing, and both may temporarily displace some coal usage for electricity (nowhere near 75% unless you are in West Virgina) but what is the answer for the long term? There are some on the WSB who have installed solar. More power to them. What do their numbers say? What is the payback, and in the long run, the sun (from our point-of-view) is forever.
–
We are in a zero-sum game when it comes to fossil fuels. That being so, is it better to burn them in a 20th century sort of way, or use them as chemical feedstocks in the 21st and 22nd centuries? If we are better off not burning them, what do we use? What can we improve from an energy conservation point of view? Don’t go Cheney on me — Energy saved is energy not purchased from somewhere else. I actually support nuclear, though I’d favor thorium over uranium/plutonium. Gotta decide on somewhere to dump the small but hot waste stream (NV looked desolate enough to me).
April 3, 2012 at 12:53 pm #753561
redblackParticipantGotta decide on somewhere to dump the small but hot waste stream (NV looked desolate enough to me).
dude! you can’t dump nuclear waste in nickelsville! that’s just cruel.
just kidding.
my feeling is that until we find a safe way to not just sequester nuclear waste but get rid of it altogether, the moratorium on new plant construction should stand. and even then, i’d like to see some safety guarantees.
why is it that no private insurer will guarantee a nuke plant’s safety? tells me that even the engineers aren’t sure about it.
April 3, 2012 at 3:50 pm #753562
dbseaMemberI read alot more than I post around here and one thing I’ve noticed is alot of posts have some answers, some raise some good questions and see obstacles or opportunities but rarely offer a complete solution. That’s not a criticism, I don’t think it’s possible to solve alot of the issues raised in one post by one person. I think Kootch does a pretty good job playing devil’s advocate. There’s value in most of the posts but you can’t see it if you’re mainly interested in winning an argument. Just my 2 cents. I will now return to the background.
April 3, 2012 at 4:16 pm #753563
greatfree1MemberKootchman is correct about the cost for solar. To run the average house 100% off solar would be about 40K with the long payback. But the main reason the payback is so long is beacause our energy cost is so low in Washington. Solar panels are still quite effecient in the PNW. The rain keeps them clean. True it won’t produce as much as Arizona but still very viable. What we need are more incentives for homeowners to make it more affordable. Oregon is kicking our butt in that regard. We should take some of those big oil tax breaks and put them towards solar. It’s better for everyone in the long run. And most Solar panels come with a 25 year warranty.
April 3, 2012 at 4:22 pm #753564
JVMemberCoal? No.
Oil? No.
Nuclear? No.
That pretty much leaves us with wind, solar, and unicorn power.
Solar doesn’t work when it’s cloudy, and wind doesn’t work when it’s not windy. And unicorns, though an equally realistic option, are beautiful creatures and should not be enslaved for our power source. So that leaves us with? Hope and change.
April 3, 2012 at 5:09 pm #753565
JanSParticipantand your solution? Come on, guy…give us alternative ideas…
April 3, 2012 at 5:23 pm #753566
greatfree1MemberSolar does work when it’s cloudy, not at full power but they still produce. My work has a small system in SoDo, you can see what it is producing anytime you want. https://enlighten.enphaseenergy.com/public/systems/arCD27341
April 3, 2012 at 5:43 pm #753567
JVMemberSweet! I stand corrected!
Does half of the staff get the day off when it’s cloudy? That system should pay itself off in no time! The break even day should come right around the 2080 Olympics!
April 3, 2012 at 6:05 pm #753568
DBPMemberI understand homeowners not wanting to plough their nest egg into energy systems that won’t break even until they’re pushing up daisies. However, that’s a separate issue from whether the government should be developing/subsidizing alternative energy technologies.
These technologies will be developed. It’s only a question of who will be developing them: Americans or someone else?
The Chinese are now pulling ahead of us on renewable energy resources like wind and solar. Yet, if anything, the Chinese are even more addicted to non-renewable fossil fuels than we are.
So what does that tell you?
Here’s what it tells me: Just because you’re addicted to something doesn’t mean you should give in to the addiction and stop trying to kick it.
April 3, 2012 at 6:06 pm #753569
greatfree1MemberFrom what I’ve seen from selling solar, most homeowners don’t do it for the payback but rather to do something good for the enviroment. Most businesses do it for status to show they are enviromentally friendly. But everyone has their own motives for doing things and it’s not always to make money.
JV – What is the date of payback on your current system? Never? So although expensive upfront, why not look down the road at the long term benefit for the world. We need to start changing our ways.
April 3, 2012 at 6:15 pm #753570
DBPMembergreatfree1, we’re not talking about the people you rub shoulders with; we’re talking about the average homeowner. Most homeowners either aren’t willing (or aren’t able) to make those kinds of sacrifices “for the environment.”
It’s like anything. If you want people to change, you’ve either got to make it EASY for them to change, or make it hard for them NOT to change.
April 3, 2012 at 6:30 pm #753571
greatfree1MemberDPB – I work with the average homeowner, not a bunch of rich people. Alot of them use financing to pay for the system. There are rebates that help pay for some of the cost too. I agree that we need to make it easier for people to change and that’s why we should follow Oregon’s leadership on this as I said above, they are kicking Washington’s butts. 90% of the Solar I do is in Oregon. They make it easy.
And not everyone can get solar even it they wanted as they may have too many trees around them, roof may be facing the wrong way…etc.
Most houses can only hold about 8-16 panels anyways which would only cover maybe 1/3 of the homes energy cost. The cost of that average system is around $15,000. I’m not saying everyone should have solar but it wouldn’t hurt if more people/businesses used it.
April 3, 2012 at 6:46 pm #753572
miwsParticipantApril 3, 2012 at 7:09 pm #753573
oddrealityParticipantWe would love to get off oil. Solar would be great! We can’t even afford to get rid of the old oil furnace though, much less switch to solar. The prices will come down as it becomes more mainstream.I hope I live long enough.:)
April 3, 2012 at 10:42 pm #753574
kootchmanMemberrain does not keep the solar panels free of dirt.. in fact depending on the pitch of the roof… (like 9/12) they grow green algae very nicely. Yea mike… like Solyndra? We don’t need any more subsidies or ya greenies picking winners and losers. If it is viable and economic there will be a market. Take away those tax credits and there wouldn’t be a solar panel industry. The whole solar model was founded on… financing the panels… the banks get the interest payments. Another tribute to consumer debt burdens. Tread wheels for the public school kids… since we don’t have phys ed anymore… they can all do 60 minutes a day on a treadmill generator and tap into McSchwinns office… no more weight rooms for state prisoners… treadmills. DUI infractions? treadmill time… dog poop violators? 12 hours on the community treadmill to generate power. hey jamminj… TS.. ya know… don’t like the style… don’t read it. But do up your content cause it lacks…. y’know… maybe. Since those drilling permits that Obama won’t issue, that involve federal land… maybe we should stop leasing mineral extraction rights… and royalties… and sell the stuff. North Sea oil is sold to the refineries. I have not a problem with selling public trust oil, or timber, … it’s the peoples property. No solar energy model is self sustaining without government subsidy…. no mas… governments, in particular this one. suck at trying to be businessmen. There is a fundamental flaw in any business model that requires a federal subsidy. Big OIl is not getting subsides.. they are taking tax deductions allowed any other manufacturing company. Solyndra, Solar One, THOSE are subsidies… and the only one who benefits are solar manufacturers…. the consumer pays more, tax resources are wasted… I give you hot water heaters.. the on demand systems verses the holding at temp heaters… private companies in competition, will dramatically lower energy costs and consumption. Instead of unicorn and flute solar panles.. that retrofit is a massive energy saver… and most consumers can afford it. A two year no interest loan for low income families… is far better than some 40 to 100K solar panel boondoggle.
April 3, 2012 at 10:53 pm #753575
greatfree1MemberSolyndra was a disaster, they were a broken model to begin with. They hurt the whole industry with the bad publicity.They never should have been given that loan, A better company to look at would be SolarWorld who has been around since the 70’s. Or a number of other manufactures that have been in business for 20+ years. But i like the treadmill idea!
April 3, 2012 at 11:02 pm #753576
kootchmanMemberSolar Trust was a better model? They are bankrupt as is their German parent company. Any company that lives on government subsidy as a necessary revenue stream is a broken model. Here’s a hint… if you see private capital, either in stocks, or venture capital heading towards a company… it’s got a fair chance at not being a broken model. Capital isn’t political.
April 3, 2012 at 11:10 pm #753577
DBPMemberCitizen Kootchman was getting fed up. He decided it was time to send America a message.
Leaving the office early, he sped home over taxpayer-subsidized roads and bridges, stormed into his den, flipped on his hydro-electric powered computer and transmitted the following message over the government-created Internet:
“We don’t need any more subsidies or ya greenies picking winners and losers.”
Yah. That’s telling ’em! he thought.
April 3, 2012 at 11:21 pm #753578
DBPMemberif you see private capital, either in stocks, or venture capital heading towards a company… it’s got a fair chance at not being a broken model.
Oh, yeah!
And here’s some great examples from recent history:
¶ Enron
¶ Pacific Gas & Electric
¶ Lehman Brothers
¶ Tyco
¶ WorldCom
¶ Goldman-Sachs
¶ Bear Stearns
¶ Washington Mutual
Nope. Nothing broken there, kootch.
Except a few million retirees.
And a big chunk of the US economy.
April 4, 2012 at 12:20 am #753579
kootchmanMemberDBP… there are public good roads, bridges, schools, etc… TYCO bty is a great company…a fe executives doing some time.. but ya know..it wasn;t taxpayer money that was lost.. Ya know what’s interesting.. all those companies with the exception of Tyco have the greatest government thumbprint on them. They all were supposed to have government oversight..all were regulatory faiures. You can take a good swipe at the Gulf oil spill too.. those deep drilling permits got as much scrutiny as voter ID’s. . A fair chance.. but as we conservatives said.. saving the banks was a mistake and they saw it coming.. their investment in Obama in 2008 paid off handsomely didn’t it. As I worked on the Elwha dam removal project… I wondered… would we dam the free running Columbia today? I doubt it. But that low cost hydro… will not be low cost when we shut down coal and the rest of the country will ask why the PNW is getting all that subsidized power… so far we have fended off BPA being forced to triple out kw hours rates… but take coal off line and those rates will surge. Less supply, increased demand, = higher prices. Show me ONE green energy project this administration has invested our money in that is a success? The Chevy Volt? Assembly line closed.. no one wants them. Show me the success stories. I mean after 100 billion something must be working… you want to invest more. They have all been losers. All those banks were the handmaidens of the federal government who not only failed in their regulatory duty, it was a fundamental participant in the housing scam that bought the cards down. It couldn’t have happened without the Federal Housing Authority… one was neccesary for the other.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.