Slashdot Mirror
Obama Awards Nearly $2 Billion For Solar Power
crimeandpunishment writes "President Obama says it's time to heat up solar power, and he's willing to spend a big chunk of federal money to do it. Saturday the president announced the government is giving nearly $2 billion to companies that are building new solar plants in Arizona, Colorado, and Indiana. The president says this will create thousands of jobs and increase our use of renewable energy."
Abengoa Solar, a unit of the Seville, Spain-based engineering company, will receive a $1.45 billion loan guarantee to build a solar-power plant in Arizona that will create 1,600 construction jobs and 85 permanent jobs, according to White House documents released in conjunction with Obama’s address.
The power plant will be the first of its kind in the U.S. and generate enough energy to power 70,000 homes, Obama said.
1.45billion to power 70,000 homes.
That's $20,000 per home?
.. Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. -- Paul Graham
Good: I'm in favour of vastly increasing the proportion of solar in the energy mix.
Rgds
Damon
http://m.earth.org.uk/
Has anything changed, or is the government still being stupid with our money?
What do you mean "our money"? It's the government's money! Now STFU you right-wing, racist, Fox News watching, Glenn Beck worshiping fascist!
Relevant TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/saul_griffith_on_kites_as_the_future_of_renewable_energy.html I haven't actually watched it but my brother said it pretty much blows all other renewable energy resources out of the water.
What is the total cost of install and operation for 50 years for the solar project? What is it for a nuclear plant? A coal fired plant? The solar power plant likely has a higher construction and installation cost, but it likely has a lower operating cost.
I don't know the answers to the questions I'm raising -- but I do think that simply asking "That's $20,000 per home?" isn't the question which yields the most useful answer.
P.S. It's a loan guarantee. $1.45B is the upper limit on how much it will cost the taxpayers. The lower limit is $0.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
The 2 billion SHOULD HAVE GONE TO GEO-THERMAL AND SOLAR THERMAL. Look, one of the smartest things that Obama can do is to increase AE, as well as push for electric cars. That is good. The problem is that AE, in wind and solar PV, already has massive backing. OTH, Solar Thermal has some real potential. In particular, collectors should be added to thermal systems. That would allow these to be used 100% for dropping the use of coal/natural gas. OTH, when building a new solar thermal plant, half to 2/3 of the collectors are used for during none sun times. But that adds a lot of expense to solar thermal.
Likewise, Geothermal has minor amounts of funds. Yet, we are on the edge really getting it cheap. Why? Potter drilling and Foro Energy. Both are working on spallation approaches to drilling (hydro and laser). In addition, there is a REAL simple and relatively inexpensive way to get to geo-thermal. Basically create tax breaks, or even subsidies, to continue drilling down on dry wells. Many wells are exploratory and will be dry wells. These are typically at around 8-10K feet. But, we offer up breaks/subsidies to continue down to hot areas so that the well is not a total bust for the drilling company. Most of the Geo-thermal area is around 12-16K. That is expensive if you are starting from the surface. But if you are starting from a well at 5-10K, then it is relatively cheap. And from the drilling companies POV, they would very much like to make money in places that they drill. If they can not have oil/natural gas, they will be excited to have 10-50 MW geo-thermal power.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Bill Gates doesn't care about US corporate IP rights anymore, he cares about his legacy as a philanthropist.
The defence budget for the current war is around 480 billion dollars per year, so it's the equivalent of two day's budget for the war to be spent on something that may eventually reduce the number of wars.
Money well spent, all drunken sailors should be so wise.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
It really doesn't take a genius to accurately predict how much it is actually going to cost.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
These are loans, not give away money. I am fine with that. Obama's 1'st years and W' 8 years did trillions of give away dollars all based on deficits. This is the feds lending the money at a low rate. The 2 billion loan will probably cost us around 100 million long-term. In fact, the smartest thing that Obama/congress can do is to lend the money to state and local entities to build out projects. Had they done that originally, then we would have a pretty low debt down the road (though with the potential to have much higher).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It's folksy economic "wisdom" like that may yet lead us back into recession. Until jobs come back, we can either pay people to build things with long-term value, or we can pay them to sit at home.
Yeah, because BP spending $27B for a one-time oil spill is money much better spent than $2B in a long term strategy which might prevent such future catastrophes... and even that pales in comparison to the loss of life and incredible expense of continued efforts to do whatever it is that the U.S. is doing deployed in oil-rich countries.
Don't blame the current administration. The previous administration takes a lot of blame, but going much further back there were errors all along the way which could be easily forseen. The truth is that there are a lot of people who simply don't give a F- as to what happens to the people who are going to be living with the results 20 years from now. The bad decisions which made people wealthy 20 years ago are being paid for by the people today. And the bad decisions of today won't be paid for another 20 years.
I swear that there are some people in this world who simply disagree with political policy because they didn't vote for it, and form their opinions about what affects their immediate well-being. Choosing not to see the problem doesn't make it go away, it just makes it all the harder to deal with for the generation which will inherit the problems 20 years from now.
If you think that $2B on solar is a waste, what do you think a better policy is for a sustainable future? Solar is not the answer... but it's part of the answer.
1.45 billion is a LOAN. If the Spanish company takes the money and runs, the feds are on the hook for it. If they take the money and default after they complete the project, the feds are on the hook for the money, but we get the project. If they don't default, the feds are on the hook for $0.
The 1.45 billion is not part of the budget, it is not being paid by tax payers at this point, it is a loan from a bank (not the feds) that the feds are insuring.
Increased power consumption is a fact of life in the US today. You can either invest in Nuclear (assuming you could get it okayed) for $3-5 billion; a coal solar park for $1.45 billion; or a coal plant for about $1 billion even. In any case, the feds are going to have their ass on the line for the project, and IMO, increasing the risk by 450 million is well worth it for not having to deal with the ramifications of yet more coal plants.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
I heard laying one brick would not a house build, so I gave up.
After a week of binge drinking to drown my sorrows, I finally went home only to find my neighbor's brick house completed. To this day I couldn't figure out how he did it; magic faeries wished the house into existence perhaps?
- These characters were randomly selected.
... but can we spare a couple hundred mil for a real alternative?
Financing private sector: the long term value seems less important than short term bonuses to high management.
Need examples? :D
You want long term value? finance the installation of solar panels at home. Same or more temp jobs for construction, no 85 jobs, but no bill for the families. In spain they would likely provide cheap electricity to the neighborhood.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Shush. Don't rain on their parade. They want to believe it's a gross injustice. Logic just gets in the way.
Someone had to do it.
Subsidizing non-economical power generation is not money well spent. If anything they should have given an extra 2 billion to NIF or the DOE's Gen IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative(which is only requesting 200 million for 2010).
I don't know too much about the US, but my understanding was that if you have no income and no money, then that doesn't get you anything from the government. If it weren't for private charity, people with no income would die from starvation or exposure. In that case there isn't a notion of paying people to sit at home, though perhaps I'm wrong when I think that the government in the US doesn't give money to people with no other income. Am I?
If they make it and produce electricity, then they will have to repay this loan over the years. So, unless the company screws up very badly or unless the the Sun turns off, in the end this will cost tax payers exactly $0.
I remember the good old days, when Congress would appropriate money for projects. When, exactly, did Presidents get signing authority on the national checkbook?
The president is spending from the checkbook on an account created for him by Congress. This is the stimulus bill money from last year for which there was an immediate need. "Immediate"' is clearly not what it once was.
.. Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. -- Paul Graham
Let's give our tax / borrowed money to a South African corporation, Since we have no manufacturing capability here.
How exactly does subsidizing solar power prevent Muslims from crashing airliners into skyscrapers
But more importantly, subsidizing solar power research means people can import less energy. Reduced global demand for petroleum reduces the market power and therefore political power of countries that harbor Islamist crusaders like the ones who committed a mass murder-suicide in New York on 2001-09-11.
OK what the hell does the Tesla electric car have to do with a solar power plant?
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.--Mark Twain
Okay, you started it:
How exactly does invading countries of mostly peaceful Muslum people make them less likely to do such things.
(with solar power... just to stay on topic)
One of the riskiest classes of loan guarantee made by the feds is for nuclear power plant construction.
Those loans are expected to have a 50% default rate.
Solar's a bit less risky than that -- far less likely to have cost overruns or construction problems. Generally the government does not price risk high enough, but that doesn't mean they lose every dollar they guarantee. Most of it gets payed back.
Someone had to do it.
Agree totally!
You're right, that's even better with an even brighter future if fusion ever (and it will!) pays off.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
It MAY reduce the number of wars! This is the same sort of rationalization that addicts make. In this case it's a government that is addicted to spending money (on a foolish 'solution' in this case). It seems to be their answer to every problem.
I don't think we went to war over the bali incident, and they don't bomb your skyscrapers as much when you stop killing their families for oil.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
It's a $1.45B LOAN GUARANTEE, not cash money. Unless they default on the loan it only costs imaginary money.
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
Tesla is brought to you by the same people who brought us PayPal and SpaceX.
Except that they appear to have been subsidized with federal tax taxpayer money (something I despise) they could be good people doing a good/hard thing at the wrong time. I suspect that if the fed-govt wasn't so expensive these days that Tesla could stand on its own.
.. Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. -- Paul Graham
Follow the money. From your wallet, into the gas pump, and from there onwards.
Eventually some of it ends up going to terrorists.
Someone had to do it.
America doesn't need so much oil so the US doesn't prop up pro-US tinpot dictators in oil rich countries.
The people in those countries then don't get shit on so much by the US and so are less likely to be pissed off and violent towards the US.
He's actually not spending any money. The companies building solar power are taking loans for $2B and probably expect to make a profit.
You're correct. Any welfare money tends to come with strings attached and is unreliable as a substantial portion of the populace believes fully that nobody ever had bad luck. If you're poor, then it's because you were lazy or incompetent and that they shouldn't be required to help out. Farming all those essential services to nonprofits means that portions of the needy just don't get anything at all. If it isn't a popular cause chances are you'll get precisely zip in terms of support.
What's really fucked up is that if you're abused as a child, they'll send the abuser to prison if caught, but the actual support given is pretty minimal and it's a pretty good bet that people are going to look the other way.
This is a similar deal, people gripe about fuel prices and terrorism, but they don't want to actually pay for the measures needed to deal with it. Folks are all for change, but they don't want to pay for it, and they don't want the upper classes to pay their fair share.
>> unless the the Sun turns off
I'm pretty sure this would be covered under a sunset clause in the loan documentation.
For unemployment at least, you just need to "prove" youre trying to get a job, then you can get free money. Proving it involves picking up applications and calling some hotline or going online and inputting where you went.
Nevermind that Spain's experiment with subsidizing solar power is one of the causes of their looming fiscal insolvency.
And now to break out that classic Slashdot trope: Citation needed.
I would be more inclined to call neo-Keynesian welfare economic wisdom folksy in the sense that everyone is taught FDR took us out of the Great Depression with the New Deal and WW2 (which is just wrong - check out the depression that never was: 1920).
Regardless of the existence of jobs, any variation from what people actually want can be considered wasteful; private or public. You're right that jobs are important and in demand; but to just create them is to treat the symptoms rather than cure the cause.
Keynes himself said that all government spending turns into inflation and that any public spending, to be at all effective, *must* be unexpected.
Exactly. When you're rich enough, you start to want to whitewash all the evil you did to get that rich using all that money you have from being, well, evil. I'm not sure why they try though, it doesn't work ... it's not like people have forgotten how evil Rockefeller was. No one is going to erase from history the damage that the windows monopoly did to the computing industry, or the lives that that ruined or ended.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
I think we should be spending more on alternative energy YEARS ago unfortunately the problem is that the Obama administration has show no fiduciary responsibility spending on EVERYTHING under the sun (no pun intended) with no viable funding stream to pay for it - they spent $3B on the cash for clunkers program for heavens sake !
(--Rupert Darwall, "Britain Tries Fiscal Austerity", the Wall Street Journal, 29 Jun 2010)
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
So, what you're saying is, unless Obama can come up with one single, perfect jobs solution that will blanket "the socio-economic stratem" with high-paying, permanent positions, there's absolutely no point in doing anything at all.
Uhuh.
May I introduce you to the Nirvana fallacy.
also this is not supposed to last indefinitely... once a given time period is up you then have to qualify for welfare which is more difficult to qualify for. Once again they try to keep tabs on you to make sure youre looking for a job, I'm not sure how the time limits work for that one.
If it were the answer, it would already be happening. That 2 billion just created a solar energy bubble.
Folks are making points about the money spent, or loaned actually, but what is saved is just as valuable. Less $ on oil wars, oil cleanup, medical costs associated with pollution, retraining for lost jobs due to spills ruining livelihoods. And then there's the savings that are less about money but perhaps even more important. Like fewer fouled beaches, saved species, oh and that global climate change thing. The calculations for this kind of investment really need to be more wise and less driven by simpleminded ideology if you ask me.
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.--Mark Twain
I'm always puzzled at this notion that if you allocate money to some project, and as a result that project hires somebody to do a job, then you've created a job. I suppose it is true if we compare what you've done to keeping that money in a mattress. However, if you put it in a bank then the bank is going to invest the money which will move that money into the hands of someone who is doing something with it. That "doing something" is likely going to entail hiring someone at some point. So it mostly doesn't matter how you allocate money: it's mostly always going to create jobs. The government is taking money from people through taxes, thereby preventing those people who originally held the money from putting that money somewhere where it could create jobs - like putting it in the bank, investing it or perhaps just buying sodas. So the government doesn't directly create jobs by allocating money to a project, since jobs would have been there anyway by not collecting that money through taxes in the first place.
Now the economy is not a zero sum game, so it may still sometimes be a good idea to have the government redistribute money to projects that will benefit the country or humankind in the long term, e.g. where those projects wouldn't obtain funding otherwise because the benefits of the project are external and won't be enjoyed directly by the person undertaking the project. Perhaps this project will do that, and perhaps in benefiting us all it will even indirectly create many more jobs than those that are directly necessary for carrying out the project. What I'm puzzled by is just the idea that the direct employees of the project represent "jobs created" when a similar number of jobs would likely exist anyway if the project never existed. I guess the most you can say is that jobs have been created in one state/town/place by removing a similar number of jobs from other states/towns/places, and that is a benefit to the place that is receiving those jobs. So a politician presenting such a project will want to focus on the benefit of jobs created in one place and downplay the harm of removing those jobs elsewhere.
You forgot something. For unemployment, you have to have been employed, and as such, paying unemployment *Insurance* premiums.
Generally we frown on insurance policies that try to take the money and run.
For some reason, though, that seems to be exactly what the Republicans want the Feds to do with the UI insurance programs.
Someone had to do it.
In line with your sig... did Henry Ford require government loans to get his newfangled auto assembly line off the ground??
When did it become gov't business to decide which technologies should be funded or not?
Also, haven't we learned our lesson about foreign-owned power generation yet? Or do you really LIKE paying 10 times what you did when it was all US-owned??
(Yes, my bill is actually 10x what it was before "deregulation", despite using 1/3rd less power. That's about 6 times the inflation rate for the same period.)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I don't think so - they sold all the 1000 cars they offered. And they sold them out in days.
An electric car with electricity from coal will still pollute far less than a gas powered car. Electric cars recharge overnight - when base load is lower, thus this electricity is much easier on the environment than the peak hour electricity. And now you can actually choose what kind of energy you want, so if you choose a green electricity supplier and have an electric car, then you will not pollute the environment. You can't force the rest of the US change, but you can always to the best you can yourself.
Government loan is not expenditure. They are expected to pay it back.
The CNN article you quote has no mention of the things you claim. Also you should know that expanding a business into new market comes with costs. For example, Sony PS3 *and* both XBox'es cost much more in parts than their sales price. However, once they started manufacturing then in large numbers and technology matured and defect rates went down, the costs went down as well. For example PS3 is now finally costing Sony less money to make than they sell it for.
Tesla have the same strategy - they design a new product, that is pushing the technology forward. The first few years the cars might be made at a loss, because of the new technology, but later on these losses will become 'market expansion investments' and they will recover the losses as the market expands and the volumes grow.
There are plenty of ways to store the sun's energy overnight. One involves using the sun to heat molten saltpeter and then running a heat engine that slowly sucks up that heat, as AC suggested. Others include flywheels or just using the existing power grid for a lower nighttime load that doesn't have to cover air conditioners.
Why not just build more nuclear plants? Nothing speculative about them at all.
Of course.
But we need a mix of energy sources. Is there enough fissile material being produced to power the entire nation? What about disposal? Our Sun bombards us with an obscene amount of energy. It would be stupid not to grab it.
We Americans need to get away from this magic bullet mentality of one thing will solve all our problems. And we need to get away from this mentality that we're going to turn off the oil spigot overnight and live in clean green energy and be at peace for ever and ever.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
It's folksy economic "wisdom" like that may yet lead us back into recession. Until jobs come back, we can either pay people to build things with long-term value, or we can pay them to sit at home.
p. Or how about we don't pay people to sit at home? Take the money spent on UI and "sit-at-home" spending and just eliminate corporate taxes. They bring in less than $130 billion. Eliminate taxation from companies and you'll see business creating those jobs that VP Biden's told us are gone forever (all 8 million of them).
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Subsidizing non-economical power generation is not money well spent.
That argument will hold no water until the oil industry stops getting their subsidies.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
That's because the collateral damage from Microsoft's war on skills has taken out just about all engineering and science, not just IT, in the universities. It's also crippled the ability of any private company to be efficient, nimble or even competitive. Microsoft's acting Political Action Committee, the Gates Foundation, is working hard to make sure that war on skills comes even to secondary school.
We're talking about a loan, anyway, to known viable companies making an in-demand product not more sub-prime lending bubble stuff. Even the word loan is in both the title and in the URL. Without science or industry and an academia that's being rubbed out, the hope has to come from other countries. What the Bush administration did to other countries with ammo, it did to the US with policies. Sadly while the Bush junta is out of office, they have not entirely left power. If the loan has to go to companies in Spain to allow the US to get back on its feet again sometime this next 20 years, then that's how it goes.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Because they're expensive and time consuming to build. Solar is less expensive and quicker to build. Solar really isn't speculative, we know where the sun is going to be at any given point in the year as well as a rough estimate for the kind of weather that the array is being set up in. No part of this is speculative in nature. That being said, having nuclear as a part of the mix is a wise idea, given that it's waste is easily contained and could be refined for more fuel until it's mostly spent.
Please explain to us exactly how electricity from the sun replaces any oil right now.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Wait, so you want us to steal the UI benefits from the people that paid for them, and use them to give corporations an excuse to give their CEOs bigger raises?
Someone had to do it.
To be accurate, the answer is nuclear, not solar.
I would much prefer that 2 B be spent to pay corporations to hire people who have been unemployed for 6 months + (lets say a 3k credit over 2 years per employee, tax effective cost of 1200 per hire at 40% tax rate, bringing back 800k+ jobs, not to mention the reduction in federal unemployment payments) than to waste it on solar energy, which from a personal standpoint, takes 44 years to break even over current electrical bills.
When, exactly, did Presidents get signing authority on the national checkbook?
That was Bush's fault. All that Executive power that his administration grabbed is now in the hands of the other party. And yet, when folks complained about it when it was happening, they were "unAmerican" or "supported the terrorists"
What comes around goes around.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Estimates vary widely, depending on who you ask and who is paying those people to give that answer. With nuclear it depends on if you count that you have to monitor the waste for 1 million years or if you just dump it in a hole and forget about it. Most people assume you can forget about it, or reprocess it later to recoup some of your costs.Here's one estimate:
The cheap price for coal and gas may or may not count the cost of dealing with they myriad environmental and health problems associated with them, such as acid rain, mercury contamination, coal miner occupational hazards (~120,000 coal miners have died on the job since 1850), global warming and associated climate change, water quality degradation due to mountaintop removal, wars in foreign countries to protect oil interests (Iraq, Niger delta), etc. etc. etc. Contrast that to solar power where the only point that real environmental degradation is being done is during the synthesis of the cells (and recycling at EOL) rather than over the entire lifespan as in coal.
The answer here seems to be that solar is more expensive up front, but should benefit society because of the lower environmental and health concerns associated with it. Note that this makes fiscal sense for the federal government to make these loans because more often than not, it is the taxpayer who pays for the clean up of environmental damage or health risks, not the power company.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
Of course the fact that this is a loan and not a subsidy appears to be missing from your facts, and your logic.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Nevermind that Spain's experiment with subsidizing solar power is one of the causes of their looming fiscal insolvency. Let's follow them down the path to ruin. Yay!
Spain has a debt to GDP ratio of 50% as of 2009 - that's about what ours was. They just suffered a massive real estate bubble and suffered badly from the oil shock of 2008 since they have no fossil fuel resources. Do you really think even twenty billion euros is a drop in the bucket to the increased cost to their economy if oil prices skyrocket again?
You're penny wise and pound foolish. If your livelihood depends on a resource that can easily bankrupt you, then you should probably borrow every dime you can to get off of it. At lease they have the sense to invest in something that will actually reduce their dependency on the oil addiction instead of prolonging it with two intractable wars.
This conservative rhetoric has reached the point where investment in America is considered unpatriotic. Employment for Americans is somehow irresponsible. I guess when everyone is living in a trailer on a diet of beans and processed corn you'll be happy?
That should make for an excellent pitch for investors. Come build a business in America! We're all illiterate and we have no infrastructure!
We need more Nuclear Solar or Solar Nuclear. The answer *has* to be Nuclear powered even if it's Solar.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
The likelihood of this reducing the number of wars in the future seems pretty remote to me. I agree the drunken sailor spends his money wiser.
The fact is, that we are in this situation because we became dependent on fossil fuel (oil, natural gas, coal). We need to have a diverse matrix of various energy. We DO need more nukes, but I would like to see it be limited to no more than 1/3 of your total energy. And once we are larger and more diverse, then I would like to see it limited further back to 25, or even the current 20%. THough to be fair, nukes are 20% of ELECTRICITY, not energy.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
No, subsidizing clean power generation is money well spent. Putting said hardware into the hands of greedy corporations so that they can turn a profit on it at our expense is not. The government *should* be spending money on solar, but it should be subsidizing it in the same way that it subsidized hydroelectric power a few decades back---by creating a nonprofit organization like TVA to be responsible for the production and delivery.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Afghanistan, who harbored the 9-11 terrorists, in not an oil producer. Their main export to the west (their 'cash crop') is Heroin.
Solar power is promising in that it's abundant... however it's not efficient and it's not "clean".
The biggest problem is consistent production. You get less power when it's cloudy and none at night.
You can fix this by:
1. Building huge batteries which use all sorts of expensive (if you want efficiency) and toxic chemicals.
2. Putting in super conducting lines so power can be shared across regions (but this is expensive and can't scale to address the loss of power at night)
Right now the cleanest forms of consistent power are geothermal and (despite the stigma) nuclear. That's where we need to be investing our money.
They cut their subsidizes because of the debt crisis, it wasn't the cause of it. Germany did the same.
However all those panels that have thus far made them the number 1 solar power nation in the world aren't going to suddenly go defunct. They will provide energy for a couple decades at least.
- These characters were randomly selected.
I'm sure that if the politicians set up yet another 'Non-profit' the union bosses and lobbyists for varied interests would manage to climb up it's ass and make vigorously certain it would remain permanently and vigorously non-profit.
If it were the answer, it would already be happening. That 2 billion just created a solar energy bubble.
You are naive. What incentive does any major energy company have to abandoning the oil resources they have already invested billions in? Imagine it's any other company. Hell, imagine if Microsoft decided to invest all of their money in clean, reusable, open source code and make windows apps perfectly compatible with the Linux kernel. Would their windows sales go up or down?
Now imagine BP knowing that any breakthrough in clean energy technology enormously devalues their leased rights to oil fields and capital investments in equipment. In fact, if the breakthrough was big enough, BP would then be sitting on a pile of lawsuits waiting to happen. Are you, as BP, going to gently hold the hands of companies plotting your demise, or buy up clean energy companies, bury the technology, and spread FUD about climate change?
Yeah. Now you're thinking like a real CEO. Fuck the world: I want money.
The 1.45 billion is not part of the budget, it is not being paid by tax payers at this point, it is a loan from a bank (not the feds) that the feds are insuring.
And who gets to keep the interest on the loan? If the feds are guaranteeing the loan, shouldn't they get the interest too?
It's like the recent changes to student loans. For the last few decades, banks issued any student a loan. If they didn't pay up, they went and got their hunk of flesh from Uncle Sam. When the student did pay up, the banks kept 100% of the profit. This was recently changed so that the government is officially in the banking business (for students).
If "we the people" had a publicly-owned bank for energy development, $2 billion would generate $20 billion in new loans for clean energy projects. See SUSTAINABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT: HOW COSTS CAN BE CUT IN HALF and OUT OF THE ASHES OF GM: THE PHOENIX OF RENEWABLE ENERGY, for example.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
Arizona - Obvious choice for solar.
Colorado - Ok.. I guess they get a lot of sun too.
Indiana - Huh?
Why not New Mexico? SoCal? Nevada? Is it politics? Distribution/distance (Indiana's proximity to the east coast)?
Wait... Michele Malkin is against industries that are demonstrably efficient in use and require fewer State funded employees? Perhaps she didn't understand the study.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Now imagine how well off we'd be if we spent 480 billion per year on solar power, and only 2 billion on foreign wars.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
if fusion ever (and it will!) pays off.
20 years, right?
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
I'm sure the GP is referring to the Spanish Job Study, which has been debunked by everyone who has read it. This article is particularly good at pointing out the massive methodological flaws in the study.
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/credit_for_trying_spanish_stud.html
Well, it's a good thing most of those terrorists were Saudis, and they produce lots of oil!
You can stand down, wingnut.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
I think your argument would benefit from the use of Twunt.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
Why would I hire someone that I have to pay at least 25K per year when I dont need the labor, a 3k credit is not going to change that.. The business climate sucks, in 6 months the largest tax increase in american history is about to go into affect. We still don't clearly know how regulations and policies instituted over the last 3 years are going to affect us. The specter of cap and trade is looming. Too many unknowns. You want us to hire people? Make it easier to do business.
Well, the problem with the Microsoft analogy is that Windows is not a finite resource. I'm not saying that the oil is definitely almost gone, but it will run out at some point in the future. If the oil companies have not moved away from oil by then, they're pretty much done.
they spent $3B on the cash for clunkers program for heavens sake !
A program that by most analysis was a success. It got people buying cars which was the main point of that, keep dealerships and their employees in business, get old vehicles off the road.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
What incentive? Sustainable income -- oil is both risky and a limited resource (right now much of the risk is socialized by the public, so of course they won't stop anytime soon). In fact, there has been a lot of research put into alternative energy by existing energy bigwigs. What incentive will remain after the 2 billion runs out? People are just going to jump on the solar energy bandwagon now that there's immediate cash being thrown at it.
It reminds me of my visit to the main Google campus, where every single building has solar panels on top. They did it not just because it sounds awesome, but because the government subsidized the cost with tens of millions of dollars. In the 30 year lifespan of the solar panels, they will come nowhere near paying back the cost of their production. This illustrates the fallacy of supporting alternative energy for its efficiency -- it's more inefficient and as such is currently a wasteful thing to put into production (what kind of energy was used in the production anyway?). The technology isn't there yet, which is why subsidization like this 2 billion is such an easy sell on the surface.
My point is that the money is going to be squandered by people who will put this public money to work for them. It's not even money being put toward independent research; it's money being put toward creating solar plants! The same solar plants that cost more to make than they return.
This 2 billion is corporate welfare -- the 2 billion goes toward building plants, and the owners of the plants will now be making themselves money at the expense of the public. Take into account the collusion of government and corporation; the same crowd sits at the head of both, and the same crowd is always helping itself.
If it were the answer, it would already be happening. That 2 billion just created a solar energy bubble.
You are naive.
What you've shown in your entire post is that the above was correct. Solar is not the answer when you have large corporate interests whom are against changes to the status quo. By investing the $2 billion the government is usurping those interests and providing capital to those companies who are not dependent on oil remaining the dominant energy form in the US. Now, debating whether or not solar was the right technology to invest in, that's the real question.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
The terrorists did quite a bit of their training, particularly the training in how to operate an airplane, in an oil producing nation with a history of invading other other producing nations; that same nation's government also gave specialized training to the people who organized the 9/11 attacks, including Osama Bin Laden himself! Why did we not invade that country?
Oh, wait, that nation was the USA.
Palm trees and 8
note: That's why this is a bubble; no one would be building solar plants yet, because they don't return energy at a sustainable rate.
Actually, a drinking analogy is not a bad one for U.S. energy policy.
An alcoholic binge drinker realizes that the amount they are drinking is making a big, negative financial impact on their lives. They have always done home brewing to try to keep the costs of their habit down, but the yield keeps declining (parts of their basement are already a large brewery, and they're out of room to expand, worse, the production volume is declining year by year for some reason). So, they have to buy more and more alcohol from the store and they're inconveniently fond of imported beer. More than half the beer they drink is now imported (~60%), and they consume a stunning 20% of all the beer available for sale in their entire community. Realizing the situation, they promise to their family, year after year, that they will cut back on the alcohol and find other alternatives. They provide financial incentives to themselves to drink less alcohol and more of the other stuff. They invest in alternatives (e.g., they bought some milk and put it in the fridge). Yet, year after year, they drink a greater and greater volume of alcohol, and it costs them more and more to do so. This goes on for about 40 years. Worse, one day the brewery in the basement blows up, and the mess and insurance costs to clean up the basement were absolutely insane (actually, that's misleading -- the brewery still leaking into the basement as we speak and the full costs aren't entirely quantified yet, but the basement is indeed a mess).
One day, the alcoholic decides to drink a small glass of water from the tap in addition to the 20 gallons of beer they expect to drink that day. It was difficult, but they feel confident they are on the road to kicking their habit.
Now replace the alcohol with oil and that pretty much sums up U.S. energy policy of the last 40 years or so.
To return to your analogy, the problem is: that brick *IS* all that's ever been invested in building your house compared to the scale of the challenge of constructing it.
Party on, USA!
And the ideologies of Bin Laden are a reaction to the US military presence in Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere (like Afghanistan).
So if you're trying to make a point that the war in Afghanistan is not intrinsically liked to oil, you aren't doing a good job.
I'm very excited about this.
Let's make like a bird... and get the flock outta here.
Read the article, it is about solar technology. There's your tie to technology.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Remember that whether its loans or grants that there are negative effects of this program.
A Government itself is not concerned with wealth generation, as such it can only supply capital for any purpose in only a few different ways:
1) It can redirect capital by taking it from those that are producers in society (taxes).
2) It can borrow capital from those that have it to lend.
3) In a fiat money system it can print it.
All three methods of government capital acquisition have negative impacts on the broader economy. In case 1 you reduce the money that individuals and business can spend on their own needs, in case 2 you do the same thing with the exception of delay the consequences of case 1 but at greater cost (an effective savings/investment penalty) and in case 3 you penalize spending and encourage consumption... which in turns leaves less money over time for investment into productive purposes.
You might object that the money is being paid back since these are government loans. But because that money was obtained in one of the ways listed above, there is real short term damage as described. So all that's happened is that the Government has substituted its investment priorities (which are not predicated on market needs) for those of the market and displacing market needs/wants in the process.
Since the expansion of productive capacity isn't even the goal, this (and other programs like it) will likely lead to a net loss of employment and personal wealth over what would have been without it.
Nevermind that Spain's experiment with subsidizing solar power is one of the causes of their looming fiscal insolvency.
The main reason for the fiscal insolvency of Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain is pretty much identical: low productivity and rampant tax evasion. Spain's solar projects pale in comparison to these two causes, and in the long run, these solar energy ventures will start to pay for themselves. Solar energy is, by its very nature, a long-term play, one that is very unpopular in nowaday's corporate "grab the cash and run"-world.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Oops...
"and in case 3 you penalize spending and encourage consumption"
should read:
and in case 3 you penalize savings and encourage consumption
Short answer: you're an idiot (in the classical-Greek sense).
Long answer: you're a fucking idiot. The President is not authorized to make loans without Congressional approval, either.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
..and fuck the people that buy used cars, the most energy-responsible thing a person could do.
"His name was James Damore."
You're saying that Congress essentially gave him a blank check to spend how he likes. Not exactly the kind of checks and balances that we should have.
My point stands: executive power has gone way, way beyond what it should be.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
What is the time frame of use on these estimates (20 years, 50 years)? I've never seen a PV estimate as low as that (or any of the other technologies for that matter).
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
If that was sarcasm and I missed it, I apologize. Either way, the truth is that cost savings do not roll downhill. Any tax savings realized by corporations goes to officer salaries.
Even if management is ethical, they still won't create jobs; without an increase in consumer demand, the ethical thing to do is distribute the savings as dividends.
Always someone has power over you. The thing to consider is this: Is the power good, or bad?
Why not let homeowners to add the cost of buying and installing solar panels into their mortgages? The cost over 30 or so years would seem as shocking as it is now where you have to pay for the costs all up front.
Afghanistan, who harbored the 9-11 terrorists, in not an oil producer
Yes, but the Afghan terrorists (and others) are funded by Saudi Arabia. They Saudis don't want to get their hands dirty, so they sit at home or in their villas in Cannes and fund the poor gullible brainwashed Afghan boys.
First of all, Premiums Are Not Subsidies. The spanish government doesn't pay a single penny for renewable energy (it doesn't even concedes loans to companys, like Obama is doing). The money for renewable energy isn't paid from taxpayer's money, so cutting premiums can't return back even a single Euro to the government. So it has not sense to claim that premiums are being cutted because of public debt issues because renewable premiums aren't paid with public debt, they are paid by the companies that distribute (but don't generate) the power, and they are quite low (2c€/KWh).
Second, our anual government budget for this year is 350000€ millions. The premiums cut has been of 1300€ millions. That's a 0.003%. The total amount of premiums paid in 2009 to renewable energy before the cut was (according to the Industry minister) 6000€ millions. That's a 0.017% of our 2010 public budget. Hardly a problem even if was paid with public money (which it wasn't)
To a certain point. There's a point of diminishing returns even in keeping old cars running. A car cannot use more energy to make than it's list price would buy. From there, it's simple math to get an outer bound on how long it takes bad mileage to overtake a new car. Then you have to subtract all the energy used to make or salvage replacement parts, and the amount of energy expended due to increased injuries with less modern safety equipment.
In other words, it's by no means a closed system. I was disappointed that Cash For Clunkers didn't demand more of an energy savings and allowed what I considered to be too-new-to-trash cars to get trashed. But on the whole, it did work.
Someone had to do it.
Unless they default on the loan it only costs imaginary money.
I think you mean Reactive money.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
You obviously aren't the target market.
A 3k credit will make a huge difference when someone needs to pay rent and the local grocery store or restaurant is making people work overtime without overtime pay rather than hiring enough people to avoid the issue.
Regardless of the fact that you are hiring college graduates, why on earth would that be less of an investment than solar energy?
Way to be ridiculously off topic and still not have a point.
After the 2 billion has been spent, recovered, and payed back to the government, the manufacturing technology to produce more will have improved, and thus solar energy will be more affordable. As such, there will be a sustained incentive going forward. Simple, really. And in the meantime, it keeps some people off the UI and wellfare rolls.
Someone had to do it.
It's clean, but the non-economical part is critical.
It doesn't matter how much you spend on "clean power" if you can't generate enough of it to replace "dirty power" without bankrupting everyone.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
A US invasion of the USA would not only reduce the unemployment rate directly, but if televised would make a popular reality TV program. It could be bigger than the World Cup, and afterward the USA would have both sympathy (for losing) and support (for winning) of all the world's nations!
This 2 billion is corporate welfare -- the 2 billion goes toward building plants, and the owners of the plants will now be making themselves money at the expense of the public.
It's a government guarantee of 2 billion in loans, not a government grant of 2 billion dollars.
The companies are figuring that they'll make money from the investment, but they can't get loans in this economy. If they do make money, it won't cost the government much, and in the meantime, it will create some badly needed jobs.
Some of the jobs will be temporary construction jobs, but some will be permanent, especially the project for the solar panel manufacturing plant expansion.
Your percentages are off by a factor of 100, should be 0.3% and 1.7%, but that still doesn't affect your argument much as those percentages are still rather low.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
Hah! Good one. Wish I was moderating.
Someone had to do it.
What is the supposed reasoning behind that? Do they not want as many Americans as possible alive to buy their oil?
which is totally what she said
The President is not authorized to make loans without Congressional approval, either.
And it appears that Congress did give him approval. Approval in the sense of, here's cash, and here's a very large limit we may or may not enforce. Go forth and do what you will.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
no one would be building solar plants yet, . . .
That's odd, I just worked on a small project for a new solar power plant in Chicago, so, obviously, someone is building solar plants already.
This money has already been allocated as part of the stimulus package according to TFA. As others are pointing out, this is chump change compared to what we are spending daily to "keep us safe". It may be anathema to "Conservatives", but sometimes it takes government funding to change economic realities that are harmful or to create economic realities that are good for all and not just one company. The Internet comes to mind, the national highway system, the space program, etc. Once the government can create a network effect through jumpstarting an infrastructure, private companies can move in and create huge economic ripple effects - again, I will use The Internet as a good example. I agree wholeheartedly that we need to get back to a balanced budget, unfortunately, the last president actually was a drunken sailor ( or at least a dry drunk Vietnam evader ) who ran the country into the ground and amassed huge debts by giving tax breaks to the wealthy and engaging in two wars of choice.
"The world is a construct of forceful imagination. Those who don't know walk around in the reailties of those who do"
You're saying that Congress essentially gave him a blank check to spend how he likes. Not exactly the kind of checks and balances that we should have.
You would prefer that the House of Representatives not do block granting of a trillion dollars at a time to the President with no strings?
.. Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. -- Paul Graham
Wouldn't it just come right out again next time the gas pump is used? Do you then have to follow the car that pumped it into their tank? Genius! We now know how to find out who's a terrorist and where their secret bases are hidden!
which is totally what she said
Seriously, By what measure?
Car Sales?
http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/c4c-chart.jpg
Domestic Production? (This is kind of a strawman as most of the cars on the list are made in the US factories by foreign owned entities, but most GE cars and some of Fords are manufactured in Canada.)
http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1036/top-cash-for-clunkers-trade-ins-and-new-cars/
You seem to think that we should not be spending money, but if not now, then when? We can't build solar capacity to take the burden off of other plants after plants start going offline for emergency repairs. We need that reserve capacity in place now. No, scratch that, we needed it in place a decade ago. And our power needs continue to increase, so we're going to need even more power plants. If we're going to build more generation capacity, why not build clean solar instead of something messier?
The fact is, our power production infrastructure is in sad shape. We get about one fifth of our nation's power from nuclear plants. Almost all of the nuclear power plants in the U.S. are operating near the end of their design lifetime or beyond it. It won't be more than a couple of decades before we're going to need *major* overhauls to *dozens* of nuclear reactors. If we don't have adequate power generation in place by the time that happens, our country is f***ed with a capital "F".
Further, solar power, unlike vegetarian Mexicans, is a resource that, once constructed, generally requires minimal maintenance to provide power for three decades or more. Compared with nuclear power, it is almost as cheap (and getting cheaper, unlike nuclear), produces no ongoing waste products to speak of, is far safer, and can be installed anywhere, not just far away from populated areas.
Solar spending just makes sense.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Solar PV and thermal *is* fusion power. It works today, and can only get better with more adoption and economies of scale. The original solar PV panels cost over ten grand apiece and weren't near as efficient as we have today! Now it is a few hundred, and they are better.
Solar PV is good for joe homeowner, solar thermal is good for making larger commercial generating plants. We have millions and millions of rooftops sitting baking in the hot sun that could be covered with panels, and millions of acres of desert that could have mirrors and towers.
You want fusion, let the engineers start building it,(I suggest 100% tax credits for actual deployment as opposed to a carbon tax to jumpstart cleaner power adoption better) the scientists can keep playing around with laser magnetic plasma bubbles at their leisure. If you want the power though, today, all we lack is building the stuff and getting it out there.
And no threats of war over who gets access to solar power, as opposed to oil or fission or man made fusion power. No embargoes, no acrimonious debate, no inspectors needed, nothing. It's the most peaceful energy source we have that actually works now, and it scales from running one small house to a whole city. This is stuff we have *now* that could be used a lot more.
Not sure if you can slap a dollar sign amount on what "peaceful" is worth, but you sure can see the external costs and threats with other sources of energy like oil and fission and coal and so on, along with the not barely hidden environmental costs. Fission power is the largest threat we have to global war today, because nations threaten each other with the weapons. If you can make fission power, it is a short step away from fission weapons, as such, too dang dangerous if you ask me. I don't care if a fission reactor can make a lot of "hot", because it is in the headlines daily that we could go to a larger war over who has access or "permission" to develop the tech.
This doesn't exist at all with solar fusion power. There should be a global trillion dollar massive push for solar, just to help eliminate the threats of war over fission power level tech. This is no joke, we are *this close* to a much larger major middle eastern war over fission tech, and that in turn WILL impact oil prices once it starts, and it looks worse and worse daily.
If we had gone heavily solar thirty years ago, on a massive scale, just done it, we could have nipped this in the bud, and helped avoid it.
All our forms of energy have costs, money, waste, etc, but eliminating wars and threats of wars, *those* costs in terms of money and human misery, should never be overlooked in the larger and more long range picture.
That is the broken window fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
That somehow spending money after bad is a good thing. We can take this money and spend it because this other thing is broken and it will somehow make us richer for it.
All it does is drag the problem out. Maybe it softens the blow but only makes us pay for the problem over the longer term. In many ways the crash of last year was an 'echo' of 2000. Because Bush did not let the market crash then either. No one was bitching much when they were getting 300-800 dollar checks. But where did that money come from? All it did was drive prices up and ignored the actual fundamental problems that hedge funds were creating. They just moved onto other markets (housing and oil). They currently are doing the same thing to gold and silver but no one seems to care.
No one believed me in 2000 when I said due to the way the government is handling this, and the policies enacted by the Clinton administration, and continued by the Bush admin, there will be a decent size crash 6-9 years from now. You can look at every crash and there is always an echo. The echo is caused by the gov stepping in and trying to fix the first issue by throwing money at the problem.
When the 1997-1999 congress removed the barriers to create great depression type crashes we ended up with 2 of them. It is only *NOW* that we are thinking of putting those rules back into play.
In 4-5 years we will have another echo crash. That is because *THIS* administration has thrown too much money into the system. It will probably be in healthcare and gold. Gold futures is right now today being used to hedge the bet against these huge (now risky) loans the government is making.
We are today spending money that our great grand children havent even made yet. Cash for clunkers is a prime example of that. Those cars would have been off the road in 10-15 years anyway. Cars like that do not last. Eventually it is more expensive to fix them than it is to buy another clunker. For example how many 40s/50s/60s/70s/80s era cars do you see driving around, not many. It has disrupted an entire supply chain that grew naturally for a good 10-15 years. What about all the little mom and pop garages that made money on fixing those clunkers? The junkyards that made money selling used parts. The parts stores that made new parts for those cars? Oh and now they will need to raise their prices to make up the shortage because of the lack of sales on that stuff. Never mind the people that can not afford new cars anyway now cant get a reasonably priced used car. As the prices of used cars has gone up because the supply of them has gone down dramatically. I was pretty shocked when I priced out my car to sell last year. It had actually gone up in value. But the reasons were pretty clear as to why.
That is the broken window fallacy in play right there...
You're right, that's even better with an even brighter future if fusion ever (and it will!) pays off.
This is fusion power paying off. We're just using a bigger reactor than most fusion proponents expected.
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
I have no idea where you got this from?
To build a solar farm that outputs the same power a nuclear power station does, the costs are insane and this is without the enormous amount of land required, ignoring the fact it can't generate power at night and the high maintenance, inefficient power distribution (due to the low level of power it provides per unit).
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Don't forget the benefit of producing mutant super-heroes.
Table-ized A.I.
I manage one of the "corporations" that you referred to. That makes it relevant. We employ 10 people and your stupid 3k tax credit doesn't even come close to being a blip on our radar considering it wont even offset the ridiculous amount of unemployment insurance we have to pay so people can get their 2 years of unemployment benefits. And no, we don't employ a single college graduate, including myself. We make a product that doesn't get subsidized, and actually have to meet real world demand. That's why we pay people more than minimum wage. And when someone works more than 40 hours a week we pay them overtime as required by law, and we appreciate their efforts.
1. By reducing our dependence on foreign oil, so we aren't pressured to depose their governments and put in people the oil companies like better (e.g. the Shah of Iran). By the way, reducing dependence was originally a doctrine proposed by Henry Kissinger way back during the Nixon years, and endorsed by both Reagan and Bush 43 in speeches they made during their terms.
2. By giving us an alternative to Nuclear, so those Muslem suicide bombers YOU want to blame for the whole problem of war, don't use it to extend their bomb blast radius by three or four orders of magnetude. That's originally from the Carter administration, but endorsed by Bush 41, 43, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and plenty of other republicans before they found out Obama had written a college paper relating to the subject.
You're the one who has claimed that Muslem suicide bombers are a very serious problem, justifying a 480 Billion a year budget and a rapidly growing deficit, but that we don't need to worry about that very serious problem getting funds from what we spend on oil, or using some of the other alternatives against us. That's crazy talk - either they are a big problem or they aren't, but there's no possible middle ground where they are not a threat but worth spending 480 billion a year to counter.
The real point is you hate the president, nothing he will ever do will ever please you, and if you have to simultaniously quake in fear of those Muslem terrorists and think they are no big deal whenever he takes a rational step to deal with them, you are capable of the double-think required to preserve your hate.
Who is John Cabal?
>will likely lead to a net loss of employment and personal wealth over what would have been without it.
Bullshit. This is being done because investors are wary about investing in that industry as its seen as being too risky. I'm so sick of these anti-government screeds and so glad people like you are marginalized internet weirdos no one takes seriously. If people like you were in charge we'd be living in an Ayn Rand dystopia and certainly wouldn't be posting on the government created internet.
I served in the U.S. armed forces for 13 years, and am convinced the best war would be fought on a tropical island, using paintball or laser-tag weaponry, and allowing 15 minute breaks every two hours, plus weekends off. Winner gets whatever political point was being fought over but has to pick up the whole bar tab. If we spread it over several islands the Marines could play too.
Warning: We did have a US invasion of the USA once (Lee went north of the line into Pennsylvania, then a bit later Sherman went way, way south of the line, and finally, Sherman, Grant, and Sheridan all met up for the photo-op so everybody got to feel invaded at least a little, some a lot.), and that wasn't nearly as fun as either of our proposals.
Who is John Cabal?
You would be correct if everyone willing to work in these fields was presently employed. A number of those jobs will likely be taken by the skilled people who are currently employed as they will be willing to work for lower salaries and more willing to move to this location. Without this project, a small portion of these funds would also have to be spent to pay these people to do nothing.
Feel free to do more reading. Live in the real world.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Actually, there's a good chance if you're in the USA, you're probably sourcing your oil from Canada or Venezuela.
Where "terrorists" have us by the balls is that OPEC moves in a block to set the international price of oil. Even though we don't do a lot of business with Saudi Arabia, keeping them happy keeps oil prices where we want them to be.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
They've already got more money than they have use for so they blow it on nonsense projects that cost a ton of money for little gain. I don't think they're worried much about profit maximization.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Agree totally!
You're right, that's even better with an even brighter future if fusion ever (and it will!) pays off.
When fusion goes off it will be very bright, and rather brief.
oh. pays off? NM
.. Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. -- Paul Graham
damn....I like that. Too bad I'm out of mod points.
Gretchen Peters: Seeds of Terror - BookTV start at about 37:00.
The Taliban have this bogus justification that they explain to farmers that they persuade or force to grow poppy. Islam, of course, bans any use, traffic, or trade in narcotics or alcohol. So, their justification for it is that it's OK because because this is a jihad against the infidels and we're selling the drugs to the infidel west. But as I said before, very little Afghan heroin actually reaches the United States. It's about 70% of the heroin sold in Europe and the UK comes from Afghanistan. But the vast majority of Afghanistan's drug crop ends up in - stays in Afghanistan, or ends up in Pakistan, Iran, central Asia now; countries like Kazakhstan have huge huge heroin problems. So it's a totally bogus argument - completely hypocritical.
If you have time, I recommend the whole thing. Your post has motivated me to get her book from the library, so thanks.
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
I am really starting to think that a large percentage of my fellow humans are just insane. Do you guys really think that we will be burning toxic shit to get out power in the future? Is that the best we can do? For a bunch of technophiles, this is an awfully Luddite-like position.
The key is to get manufacturing to be completely off-planet. This nonsense of needing to get the energy down to the planetary surface to use it is nuts. Further, the waste products from manufacturing should not be left on the surface either. Turn the entire surface into a park and place to spend your weekends, and raise the kids and such.
Just thinkin.
.. Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. -- Paul Graham
Just saying... they better be.
Wouldn't solar replace coal for our electricity needs rather than oil for our transportation energy needs? And don't we get most of our coal from not the middle east?
Not to imply that this is not a good move, I think this will likely do much more than another B2 bomber.
Why did we not invade that country?
Oh, wait, that nation was the USA.
So then we did, just very very very pre-emptively.
Just think if we would have started our solar initiative while Carter was still in office. Thanks a lot corporate media for selling us Reagan/Bush all those years. You really helped us all out. Asshats!
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Nonsense projects like trying to destroy the world's economy and get one of their main markets to despise them?
which is totally what she said
Solar power is economical. Costs for solar are close to the costs for nuclear. We don't have more solar power is because coal is cheap, not because solar is expensive. At some point, you just have to bite the bullet.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
the national highway system
Um... when did we stop spending on that? The Fed has also been using highway funding as a way to do unconstitutional things to the states for 50 years
the space program
Oh yes. That immediately led to all sorts of space activities by us citizens,
etc
keep listing! I'm loving this.
Once the government can create a network effect through jumpstarting an infrastructure
when does the Fed Gvt move back out? Please?
, private companies can move in and create huge economic ripple effects - again, I will use The Internet as a good example.
Um.. The fed didn't spend all that much "creating" the internet. But I'll give you that DARPA is a good example for you to use.
I agree wholeheartedly that we need to get back to a balanced budget,
Really? At what cost? EPA? HUD? DepEnergy? DepAgri? DeptEdu? DepDefence? FHLMC? FNMA? Health and Human Services? DepInterior? Medicare? Welfare? Social Security?
unfortunately, the last president actually was a drunken sailor ( or at least a dry drunk Vietnam evader ) who ran the country into the ground and amassed huge debts by giving tax breaks to the wealthy and engaging in two wars of choice.
Don't forget almost all of the presidents, with very few exceptions. Especially FDR and Obama.
I really think the problem isn't the presidents, it's the House of Representatives. Let's get that back under control, really. Cut costs down to the level where even the IRS is not needed. If the states what such and such a service, let them pick up the tab. The Fed has for too long been using Income Tax generated cash to control the states. Cut that out!
I suggest the next move should be winding back all the laws back to 1890 and then add back the things which are truly important. Divest each of the above agencies except those MANDATED by the Constitution.
BTW, taxing the wealthy is no way to balance the budget. A wealthy is paying my paycheck, and I'm paying taxes. Much better to induce the wealthy to create jobs. It's a multiplicative effect. Besides, I WANT to be wealthy. I spend too much time bellyaching on Slashdot to ever make it though. =8^)
.. Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. -- Paul Graham
Well - the pipelines and especially the (rare, largest in the world?) mineral deposits known since 90's - I can see other than heroin coming out of Afghanistan! The strategic position, etc also doesn't hurt? I love red flowers but for each their own - heroin export from Afghanistan is actually very small today, the world has gone by, drug dealing is not what it used to be, all the propaganda aside - LOL!
Yes but the oil companies have been wanting to put a pipeline over Afghanistan for years. Just because there is no oil under Afghanistan doesn't mean the oil companies won't stand to make lots of money from us taking it over.
I don't get why we aren't doing more with space-based solar. I'm no physicist, but it seems like you should be able to launch 4 or 6 fairly-equidistant satellites with solar collectors into orbit somewhere around the equator, and you have fully fault-tolerant/redundant 24 hour a day power that you can beam down to regional distribution points via microwave, which then uses the existing power grids to get it where it is needed. This provides a big enough chunk of the required energy for the planet, and OPEC countries become just competing providers, not a defacto energy monopoly bloc that they are.
Then we can move on to having wars over something else, like clean water, the next limited, mismanaged resource.
If you thought that solving the oil problem would stop wars, think again. We're human - we're really good at killing other humans. It's our thing, yo. In light of that, my dream is that one day, our wars, instead of being about tragic-yet-understandable resource management and distribution, are about utterly ridiculous things. I hope my kids or grandkids are around when Fox News is trying to pin the great Boxers vs Briefs vs Commando war (World War 6) on the Clinton Administration. Or maybe Al Jazeera reports that the Big Endians are regrouping after a deadly surprise attack by the Little Endians in the Where-to-break-open-your-eggs war that is now going into its third year in Southeast Asia.
Maybe, just maybe, in the year 3019, future generations will have a war over whether we should execute Dick Cheney with a firing squad or by hanging. Yes, he'll still be around then, causing mischief. If you don't like it, then YOU get off your ass and find the rest of the horcruxes.
But I digress - space-based solar beats the pants off terrestrial solar, what with no silly clouds and atmosphere to get in the way, not having to worry about a lack of sunny days, and a host of other reasons I can't think of right now.
Can some smart person of science who actually knows what they are talking about comment on whether this is a crazy argument?
The patents are only good for 18 years. That's a good enough tradeoff in my opinion. Expecting a government run organization to be effective at inventing things is like expecting a professional athlete to be faithful to his wife.
That said. I'm not complaining about government handouts until every citizen receives the equivalent of what Wall Street executives got when they were bailed out.
Not much comes from Afghanistan?
In 2007, 93% of the opiates on the world market originated in Afghanistan
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/research/AFG07_ExSum_web.pdf
[Coal] Power plant cost to top $1 billion Alliant seeks OK for power plant The cost to build a new coal-fired power plant in Cassville or Portage has soared because of higher construction prices, Alliant Energy Corp. said Friday. The 300-megawatt power plant, which would generate enough power to supply 150,000 homes, is now projected to cost $1.1 billion if it is built in southwestern Wisconsin and $1.2 billion if it is built in Portage, the utility said.
1.45 billion for a renewable, pollution-free energy source or $1.2 billion for billowing black clouds. It's really a no-brainer. A coal power plant costs nearly the same amount. Also, keep in mind the more we build solar power plants, like with anything, the cheaper and more efficient they will get.
Can we really afford not to build them?
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
As opposed to nonsense projects that will get progressively MORE expensive as the resource runs out.
Newsflash, oil, gas and all the shale extraction gimmickry might last us 200 years, at an ever increasing cost. The sun is here for approximately the next 5 billion years, and the raw material costs nothing to "extract".
Um... when did we stop spending on that? The Fed has also been using highway funding as a way to do unconstitutional things to the states for 50 years
I would prefer we transition to mostly high-speed rail ( which will require government investment ), but what is your alternative for the highway system? Have a private company run it? Like BP? Good luck with that.
Oh yes. That immediately led to all sorts of space activities by us citizens,
Would you prefer we hadn't gone to space? I will give you a great example of "space activities": satellite technology. If it weren't for government spending, we would not have gone to space. I admit that there is lots of room for private funding now, but that is because government funding showed that it was feasible.
Um.. The fed didn't spend all that much "creating" the internet. But I'll give you that DARPA is a good example for you to use.
OK, so it was cheap. But private industry wouldn't have done it because it was a project that benefitted other people than the companies themselves.
Really? At what cost? EPA? HUD? DepEnergy? DepAgri? DeptEdu? DepDefence? FHLMC? FNMA? Health and Human Services? DepInterior? Medicare? Welfare? Social Security?
Well, we're going to have to make some tough choices - and not just on the spending side, also on revenue collection. Corporations who use tax shelters should be punished for doing so, I would reduce the size of the military by 1% a year for the next 5 years, leave Iraq and Afghanistan, stop sending billions of dollars to countries like Israel and Egypt, raise the retirement age for Social Security and make government more transparent to the people so we can see where the hell the money is going.
BTW, taxing the wealthy is no way to balance the budget. A wealthy is paying my paycheck, and I'm paying taxes. Much better to induce the wealthy to create jobs. It's a multiplicative effect. Besides, I WANT to be wealthy.
I think this is part of the problem - the identification with extremely rich people. You are right, that there is a sweet spot beyond which corporations will be less inclined to spend money and create jobs. We are way, way, past that point. I just want the taxes on the wealthy restored to what they were during the Reagan years. The "conservatives" seem to think those were the good old days of economic expansion, so let's get back there. What jobs does a company create with profit above and beyond what they invest back into their companies? Do you really think Exxon Mobil would explore less if their profits were reduced from $45 billion a year to $40 billion a year?
Is it more important to give money to really rich people or to pay down the debt? The interest on the debt is killing us. The rich people will survive.
"The world is a construct of forceful imagination. Those who don't know walk around in the reailties of those who do"
Half the imported US oil comes from an OPEC nation
The top five source countries of U.S. petroleum imports are Canada (19%), Saudi Arabia (12%), Mexico (11%), Venezuela (9%), and Nigeria(85)
43% of the oil in the US comes from the US.
Where your oil comes from is more of a regional thing - west coast, some from Mexico, alot from Alaska and California, some from the Great Basin and Great Plains
http://www.eia.doe.gov/ask/crudeoil_faqs.asp
So what you're saying is that the unemployed have obsolete skillsets, and probably should be spending their time out of work learning new ones so that they can find jobs?
No, I am not saying that at all. I am simply pointing out that the key to economic recovery does not lie in green jobs.
If the Saudi in question already has a billion dollars it doesn't matter if America buys any more of their oil. Besides, even if the USA stopped buying Saudi oil tomorrow, China and India would just take up the slack - So the Saudis can fund terror in America, financed by China.
In my opinion, the only long-term multi-generational solution is for the west (yes, that's you, USA) to fund education in Pakistan, Afghanistan and their ilk. If you educate the populace out of ignorance, then the Saudis lose their proxy-'warriors.'
Now imagine how well off we'd be if we spent 480 billion per year on solar power, and only 2 billion on foreign wars.
Good point. Our new Chinese overlords would let us all sit in lounge chairs and enjoy our free electricity all day long!
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
In other words, it's by no means a closed system. I was disappointed that Cash For Clunkers didn't demand more of an energy savings and allowed what I considered to be too-new-to-trash cars to get trashed. But on the whole, it did work.
So on the one hand..
...you know for certain that there were significant negative effects such as 'too-new-to-thrash cars' being trashed, and that the fuel efficiency increase mandated was only minor...
..but on the other you declare for certain that "it did work"
You have come into this with your mind made up, and even though you can list ways that it shouldnt have been made up without a real inspection of the factors, well fuck it.. "it worked"
You can start here to figure out why an old car that gets 20 MPG is awesome for the environment vs the manufacture and use of a new car that only gets a modest increase in fuel efficiency.
Cash for clunkers was a huge failure for the environment, but it saved GM dealerships. That was its point.
"His name was James Damore."
You forgot the back end cost. In order to make themselves feel good about a decisive victory, congresscritters will pay for rebuilding the country according to building standards the locals won't be able to meet -- or care to meet.
Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
Then how will those people get food and shelter?
Seriously, how can you suggest abolishing something essential to the survival of so many people without bothering to propose your own alternative?
How about not subsidizing anything and simply taxing the bad, the stuff you want to go away? That way you do not favour any particular development or any particular firm, but ALL and it becomes a FREE MARKET instead of what it is today.
If you want a FREE MARKET in non-carbon energy sources, you have to tax the emissions of carbon based technologies. Everyone subsidizes them as they are allowed to pollute our waters with mercury for free, like it didn't have an economic impact.
Oh wait, this involves a bad word, tax. Apparently in the US and Canada using he word tax gets you politically linched, even if it makes sense and would save taxpayers money. In Canada an election was basically lost over new "taxes"
http://taxshift.ca/carbontaxes
of course there are people that just "don't get it" and post stupid editorials,
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=d8b09ec3-9707-48cd-b3da-8620511a901f
They "don't get it" that who pays is not trucker, it's their customer. Those then keep passing the cost along *up* the chain. Ultimately who pays is the customer who gets that money back, and amount of money they pay in tax is determined by what choices they make. Products requiring less trucking will simply be more profitable. Maybe local farmer can get more money for selling local produce locally than getting it trucked 7000 miles. Now that is a radical idea.
Troll != "I disagree"
+1 flamebait
Auto sales were already rising. Cash for Clunkers spiked above that rise, then "spiked" below that rise, and then it caught up to the rise. In other words, the only thing CFC did was add a spike up and a dip down in a more or less steady rise, while costing the taxpayer money.
I know you are busting my balls, but it was funny. Sorry, I'm not offended.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
Then, assuming we don't find some other bullshit reason for staying involved in their internal affairs and bringing further misery to them, they can be pissed off for first world abandonment, and denial of opportunities. Like in "Planetes."
Arizona - Solar thermal generating plant.
Colorado - Solar panel manufacturing plant.
Indiana - Solar panel manufacturing plant.
I'm calling BS on this. Fuell cell is not an energy source and all other numbers seem that are off and hand-made to make alternatives look better.
"why not build clean solar instead of something messier?" Because you are ignoring the economic issues that don't magically disappear with good intentions. What I'm saying is, would you like to pay $20 for a loaf of bread because someone ignored the economics of power generation and it now costs $18 to provide the energy to bake one loaf of bread? We have the tech to build supercomputers that make today's desktops look like yesterday's watches. Why don't you buy one of these supercomputers the next time you are looking to replace or add another desktop system? You see, the economics make a lot more sense there.
That may be so, but it's totally irrelevant to the problem with the point at hand. If the power system needs an overhaul, then it should be done with whatever technology is most practical and cost efficient. Jamming something into the system because it makes you feel good makes about as much sense as replacing you P4 desktop system with a Cray super computer because it's time for an upgrade. We need to make smart decisions that will not cause the costs of a loaf of bread or gallon of milk to jump $18.
Actually, the maintenance is going to be about the same if not less with the Mexicans. You see, you pay the Vegan Mexicans and they take care of themselves. The bearings and crap on the generators and bicycles can be made to last about as long as the solar panels. The similarities are strikingly the same too. It's a large waste of money and will only massively inflate the costs of providing new electricity when cheaper and more reliable methods are already available.
You mentioned Nuclear and some of it's drawbacks. The interesting thing is that it's in existence today with the exact same drawbacks and is still more cost efficient and cheaper to the consumer then solar is. What will change with this is Solar and Wind when breakthroughs are made that make it the viable replacement. This may or may not happen, it is likely it will though. So as of today, the money should be put into research and development that will make solar more efficient so that tomorrow, when we need the power, it can be the best and most cost effective replacement if it ever is going to be without artificially inflating the costs of other energy.
To do otherwise is like telling the poor, you will be perfectly fine with paying $18 a loaf of bread, you will find all sorts of work when your electric bill is $400 a month and you have to pay $200 a week for bus and taxi
I think it's obvious who "came into this with their mind made up."
People that actually bother to analyze things, other than noting the CfC was not purely an environmental program, but also economic stimulus, are more rational, and note the program had both benefits and disadvantages:
Take a look herefor example:
First, an important point, it's not all about CO2:
"Of course, cleaner-running cars also spew fewer air pollutants such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, volatile organic compounds, benzene, formaldehyde, particulate matter, and other toxic materials that contribute to smog and respiratory disease."
And here is where we get some interesting numbers...
"According to a study by Christopher Knittel of the Center for the Study of Energy Markets, that would reduce annual gas consumption in the United States by roughly 186 million gallons per year, lowering emissions of carbon dioxide, the most important element in the greenhouse gases that are implicated in global warming, by about 1.9 million tons a year."
"Another criticism of the plan is that cash for clunkers is an expensive way to reduce carbon emissions. One estimate, by Henry Jacoby, co-director of the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change at MIT, is that CARS will reduce carbon emissions at a cost of about $160 a ton; Knittel puts the figure at $237 and possibly much more. By comparison, a ton of carbon on the European trading system goes for about $20 right now.
"But while the direct environmental effect might be expensive and not necessarily huge, is it at least a meaningful step in the right direction? To answer that, one has to look at a more complicated picture. First of all, there is the environmental cost of manufacturing all those new cars; the process of making and transporting the average new car creates 6.7 tons of carbon dioxide. So that’s about 4.6 million tons of carbon dioxide created right there from the trading in of 690,000 cars."
If we went by that without considering side-factors, then CfC would eventually result in a net CO2 reduction.
However, they even take into account your point:
"What’s more, there is the “Mexico effect.” As Matthew Kahn, an environmental economist at UCLA, notes, the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement has, in effect, been a hemispheric cash-for-clunker program, as the United States and Canada ship used but sellable cars south of the border. If these are sent to the scrap heap instead, that means that many older and dirtier Mexican clunkers will stay on the road longer, reducing the gains of the slightly greener U.S. fleet."
But in the end:
"Moreover, most of the the funds for cash for clunkers came by shifting money from the loan guarantee program for renewable energy, which is designed to make it easier to invest in and expand green energy projects. Unfortunately, there is no alternate universe in which to test whether there would have been more green for the buck had the money stayed where it was. But the point is that to determine the calculus of environmental impact, one has to go beyond the simple arithmetic of new cars and mileage standards. The most that can be said of cash for clunkers is that it probably has some modest environmental benefits, and that these will accrue over time — but at above-market cost." ...which, as programs that are primarily designed as economic stimulus, not environmental programs, go, is a pretty good side-benefit. History will show CfC to have been an effective program. I may wish that it was tweaked, but I am capable of recognizing that it did, indeed, work.
Also, it never hurts to ask snopes.
Someone had to do it.
Could you provide some links to this information?
Last I hear solar was comparable to nuclear on a per watt basis only during peak production times. But that doesn't take into consideration the fact that only a few hours are peak for solar and solar is useless half of the time if not more where nuclear is useful almost 24/7.
And if you want solar to work at night, you have to find a way to store the energy, convert it to usable forms and transmit it. Remember, people turn the lights on when it's dark out, not when it's high noon and the light coming through the windows already light the room.
It's a fucking LOAN GUARANTEE. So shit can be built in the first place. It's a LOAN.
Governments issue LOAN GUARANTEES for loads of crap that otherwise would not happen. It includes nuclear power plants, coal power plants, oil drilling, etc.. Without loan guarantees you'd be sitting in a house with permanent brownouts and blackouts because no one would want to invest in 20+ year power plants with an uncertain market and unknown future interest rates.
Thirty year lifespan and it won't pay back cost of production? Where did you get that? Why do people keep repeating this? This has been debunked here on slashdot numerous times now in these discussions.
Here ya go, you offered no citation for your 30 year claim, but I have a counter with citation. Various types of PV panels and energy to build them payback period, goes from one for thin film bleeding edge to four years for more expensive crystalline types, after that, all the power they make is free. OK, double that for some place with crappy sun, 8 years, that leaves 22 years of free or real dang cheap power.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf
The big energy companies really don't like solar all that much, because eventually your home power plant is paid off and no need to send them a check every month. They'll fool around with it, good for PR purposes, but they really don't push it that hard either.
As to government subsidies and whatnot, meh, I can't think of a single form of energy production that hasn't been subsidized one way or the other from government. Heck, centralized power absolutely depends on government subsidy in perpetuity, eminent domain seizure and use with no check cutting to the property owners for power poles and natgas lines. If they had to negotiate transit fees property owner by property owner, coal and nuke power and natgas would be as expensive a way to make power as you can think of. And there wouldn't be nuke one if the government didn't back them up as the insurer of last resort, not a private insurer out there would cover all the liability risks and costs. Now look at making sure foreign oil keeps flowing with our military presence for decades...
Any subsidies or tax breaks for solar are the proverbial drop in the bucket, compared to what the other energy sources have benefited and profited from over the generations now.
... because China is going to invade us with which navy, exactly?
If we spent twice as much as they do on the military, then yes, I might agree with your sentiment - we shouldn't cut spending, because maybe they might invade, who knows, but really that would be bad for business all around so they might not and anyway they don't really have the capacity to move that many people.
However, our military spending isn't just twice as much as China's - we spend TWENTY times as much as China. We could cut our military spending to one-tenth of what it currently is, and we'd still be spending more than any other country.
Yeah, that's why saudi newspapers blame everything on America. Thanks, bushbot.
Is there enough fissile material being produced to power the entire nation?
That would be strange, since that would constitute a huge amount of overproduction since fissile material isn't at this time powering the entire nation.
We Americans need to get away from this magic bullet mentality of one thing will solve all our problems.
Build enough nuclear reactors and it really will solve a lot of your energy problems. The problems with nuclear are political rather than technical - it's not that it couldn't or shouldn't be done, it's that people don't want to.
So, not only are you an irrational idiot, but you are rude as well.
The fact is, that congress gave him the money for this. But let me guess. You are one of those types that believe that Obama was born in Kenya? Or that the democrats actually were behind 9/11?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If you want coal to be more expensive, this is what you do: Buy coal reserves, and sit on them.
If you're not big enough for that, convince others to chip in.
It's really that simple. Anything less voluntary than that is tyranny.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Oddly enough, none of the 9/11 terrorists were from Afghanistan...or Iraq for that matter.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
I agree that borrowing has been way too easy lately, but not that it has been too cheap. Historically (going way back, except for the 70's/80s), mortgages, e.g. have been around or below 6%, but required significant down payments. The 10%, 5%, and even 0% downpayments, even "ninja" non-documentation loans, and the euphoria about housing prices always rising, are what contributed to the bubble.
But that's not the problem now. In part thanks to the bank bailout, the banks have money, but they're very skittish about loaning it out, and they are not meeting demand. Under those conditions, the government guarantee is using stimulus funds to stimulate the economy, as intended.
And, this is what Libertarians can't figure out about Keynesian economics. In bad economic times, it's pointless giving tax cuts to the wealthy big corporations because they usually choose to sit on their money (buying up gold for instance) and wait for things to get better (because they can afford to). The working and middle class take this money and spend it immediately.
The problem with our 2 stimulus packages is they were effectively trickle-down economic policy and not Keynesian economics. And, just as we should have known, the banks are sitting on the money waiting for things to get better.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
As a libertarian (more l, than L these days), I mostly support what you say. The ISSUE is that the gov MUST DO WHAT IS IN THE NATION'S BEST INTEREST. And economics does not take into account national security or its interests. With that said, I prefer that the gov. does minimal amounts of choosing and minimal amounts of investments to change our directions. HOWEVER, the truth is, that much of our infrastructure was actually built via gov. interference and investments. The old phone system that was developed from 30's-50's counted on a great deal of gov. investment. Likewise, our roads, which were also once the envy of the world counted on large gov. investment. Our aircraft system depended on large gov. investment. Our one time large amounts of railroads depended on gov. investments. Finally, our nukes and coal plants were all via gov. investment. Our dams and water control were also the envy of the world. Basically, America was made great during the mid-late 1800's, and again from 1932-1970.
OTH, our crumbling infrastructure is what occurs when businesses are given monopolies and have no real requirement to invest, starting since 1980.
The problem is that if you are going to de-regulate, that is good. BUT, you have to remove the monopolies, and at times, the gov. STILL have to help push business to do what is national interests.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Expanding solar capacity will increase the for-profit funded research as well. If we build only small scale stuff we will never learn to manage the large scale one neither. So even if the only thing it's good for gathering experience, it might worth it.
Fuck the economic Ayn Randists and their fixation with shaving off every cent from every thing and keeping it for themselves.
LET'S JUST DO THIS: IT'S ALREADY PAST TIME!
That would be lovely except that every time the fed spends a dollar, that's a huge amount of money that the private sector can't spend. The Fed has a horrible record of picking the right projects to back and is hugely inefficient at doing projects.
Consider convincing a more local government to back for infrastructure projects. Local governments are much much better at making good use of taxpayer money. This is self evident for many reasons. Get the Fed off our back so our states and counties can do the work that we think is important.
.. Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. -- Paul Graham
Non-economical is critical, but it is unfair to compare solar to existing forms of power.
Nuclear was mentioned. To determine its economic viability, we need to factor in the cost of government subsidies for guaranteed waste disposal/storage as well as the military costs to prevent other nations from achieving this ideal energy solution (yes, that was meant to be sarcastic).
For our main power source, coal, we should factor in the cost of retrofitting ALL plant to "clean coal" standards and/or the cost of building new ones. We need to consider the cost of feedstock extraction and the transportation of feedstock. We need to consider the social cost of where we site these plants - which, unfortunately, often wind up in poorer neighborhoods and harming the health of their youth. Then there are other often overlooked costs, like water resources.
So we need to decide if we wish do a full life cycle analysis of cost, or we wish to bias our judgments by not including all costs in some to make them sound more favorable.
One side note when considering economic viability. Which do you think is better for the health of a community and nation - distributed local power generation interlinked across the nation, or a few key locations and a centralized top-down authority removed from the community administrating it.
Actually no, you jumped to a conclusion. What I was saying is that more needs to be done than simply going green.
And did anything in this announcement say "Well, our work is done, jobs are created, time for a vacation"? No.
This is a piece of the puzzle. And a small one. But it's a piece nonetheless, and it *does* create some jobs for some people, which is better than no jobs for any people.
Yes, 2007 -ages ago! And, opiates are a very, very small part of world drug problem. Definitely, makes a lot of money (and power) for some but in global drug problem, a drop in a bucket.
The mineral findings, actually known since 90's, since russians made a lot of research there with help of some, let's say, global companies are something thousands and thousands times more valuable - and, of course, legal in view of world population. Makes you wonder - or?
Oops... I opened up a can of worms. Just so people understand, I get that battery manufacturers pollute quite a lot too. I also understand their ranges are limited. However, there are companies out there (globally) working on projects like quick-change battery stations (I believe Israel is going to pilot their installation).
This is what I call a "2 standard deviation" solution. There are situations where alternative solutions would be needed for long-distance transport. I think returning to a rail system for cargo would be a good idea, and that could be based off of electricity vs fossil fuels. However, when the majority of manufacturers are making electric vehicles, I think we will see some good technological advancements and economies of scale kick in.
You forgot the back end cost. In order to make themselves feel good about a decisive victory, congresscritters will pay for rebuilding the country according to building standards the locals won't be able to meet -- or care to meet.
Precedent: Japan.
Solar power isn't as PROFITABLE as fossil fuel based power generation......YET.
However, and very importantly, solar has one obvious advantage that no one has yet pointed out.
Unlike gas, coal, petroleum, nuclear, hydroelectric, and geothermal sources, solar is at least SCALABLE in 3 dimensions. It just depends on where the collector happens to be. Silicon is fairly abundant, but not exclusively needed for power generation, a solar thermal unit can accomplish power generation if employed correctly.
To a lesser extent, bio-mass and wind generation are also scalable in a 3 dimensional context, but the efficiencies involved are a bit less than solar can manage, and are a bit less certain in the long run.
Unemployment costs for a business your size are 3% of compensation costs, so a 3k credit over 2 years would directly offset unemployment costs (based on your statement of 25k per employee per year).
On the other hand, Way to be ridiculously off topic and still not have a point.
So rather than address the arguments I've raised you'd rather just spout dogma as the mainstream position?
Just how is it good that people raising, in calm voices might I add, serious objections to a point and then taking the time to explain those objections merits marginalization? Do you simply have no convincing answer?
Before I go on, I will address the only point of relevance that you made. Regarding the investments being discussed... are you conceding then than they are risky and will likely need on-going subsidies to keep viable? Seems if there was a clear market need and demand for this stuff that these loans, grants, etc wouldn't be needed. Investors take a risk every time they invest.... and in fact are subsidizing this very program through the purchase in Government bonds (as it stands now). And if fact this type of lending being so much 'safer' than, say, green tech is one of the leading reasons why green tech companies can't get investment any other way. Yes, government demand for capital from the market is using capital that would have otherwise been put into other projects.
The problem with the mob, of which you're evidently a part, is that so little of their position is laid out rationally. As for me, I prefer to look at the broader picture, including facts rather than biases and ideological bigotry, and draw my own conclusions.
One small detail. In most states, it's the employer not the employee who is paying the unemployment insurance. And yes, while the feds pretend to be involved in unemployment insurance, it is properly administered and controlled by the states as the federal government has absolutely no constitutional or other authority to be involved in it. The feds do little more then offer money to the states if it's spent in a certain way. If you are self employed and lay yourself off, there is a good change you won't even qualify for unemployment.
Can you explain this one a tad but more. It's sort of confusion because the last I heard, the republicans wanted the states to deal with it and were apposed to the feds mucking around and perpetually extending it. Perhaps we both are missing something here?
We could cut our military spending to one-tenth of what it currently is, and we'd still be spending more than any other country.
And he suggested we cut it to one two-hundred-fortieth, which would put us right above Sudan and Hungary. A defense budget of $2B would support 100,000 full-time troops (1/15 of our current active force) at $20K a year, assuming they clothed, fed, housed, armed, and transported themselves. That's 2000 soldiers per state which would be 48 soldiers per county. China's fishing fleet could take us over with numbers like that.
I'm not going to argue that we shouldn't divert some funds from defense - I doubt the Army would miss two or three new Abrams tanks a year. But gutting the defense budget as he suggested would be irresponsible, criminal, and immoral.
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
I am not a Libertarian, though I do hold many similar political philosophical beliefs and have studied their philosophy as well as some of the others. I would urge you to not call yourself a libertarian at all... based on your message you're not one (big L or little l). I'm not saying that as an indictment, merely as an observation. I'll explain why, at risk of over generalizing... there are many flavors of 'Libertarian Philosophy' and they don't all agree, and there are many more philosophies that draw similar political conclusions but have differing roots.
The one thing that really all of the libertarian philosophies that I know tend to agree on is the right of the individual over collective rights. Under these philosophies, you are the only person with the right to determine how to live your life: whether that's to take drugs, to become a stock broker or to determine the disposition of the property. You have the right to Life, Liberty, and Property/Pursuit of Happiness (a la Locke/a la Jefferson). These rights are not grants from Government but irrevocable rights of natural law. The only limitations on your power of action is that you may not infringe on another's rights. With these rights do come responsibilities... you are solely responsible for making your living, for the consequences of your actions (i.e. take drugs and fry your brain: your problem). Etc.... there are no societal obligations to you.
Now consider the basic premise of your comment. You state that the Government must do what is best for the Nation... and imply that it can do so at the expense of individual choice in the matter. In essence your argument is that there are no natural rights as understood by the libertarian philosophers, but rather what they would call rights are really revocable privileges granted by Government. If you own property (cash/land/whatever) then the Government may morally revoke that privilege when it deems fit for a given purpose when it decides that "it's in the nation's best interest". Your position is a complete repudiation of libertarian philosophical ideals; you emphasize supremacy of collective rights over individual rights. Practical outcomes have no bearing on the philosophical conclusions: you either believe that collective rights outweigh individual rights or the other way around.
And by the way... the problem with collective rights is that they are always exercised by individuals on behalf of society... though these individuals have their own self-interests and motivations. I have never heard any tyrant saying what their actions are intended to harm their subjects... they all claim that what they do is in their nation's interest. You might claim democracy is a safeguard by allowing the majority to claim what is national self interest? Remember that lynchings back in the day had such a degree of popular support that fair juries could often times not be found to try the murderers... as such mobs, too, can have a funny sense of communal or national interest.
You also forget - we're at nearly 10% unemployment and the payments have been extended again and again and again. Eventually, you do run out of money. I'd rather the people who've been on unemployment for over two years be cut off. If they were that unemployable, they should have been getting retrained during that time. I'd rather the money not run out when the next 10% lose their jobs because this administration can't let go of its pet projects and get to work fixing the job market and the economy.
Now imagine how well off we'd be if we spent 480 billion per year on solar power, and only 2 billion on foreign wars.
Good point. Our new Chinese overlords would let us all sit in lounge chairs and enjoy our free electricity all day long!
Well, they actually would, since I hear there's quite a few chinese around, and they don't like being in the dark.
On the other hand, a big marching army carrying torches would be quite scary at night.
Thanks. Yes, that was partly my point. Also they're not only repeating the policies that didn't work, they're getting more and more extreme in their attempts to find a solution (just like in the story).
Or as another old jape aptly puts it, "I cut that piece of wood three times, and it's STILL too short!"
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
In 2009 opiate production was down 10%, so now they are around 84% of the world's production.
They still have more acres cultivated for poppies than are cultivated for coca in South America.
So it remains that a ton still comes from Afghanistan.
The UN report for 2003 (last year data is available) claims the bulk of the 22 million problem drug addicts in the world are opiate users.
So if there are say 15 million problem drug addicts and 83% of the opiates come from Afghanistan then 12.45 million problem drug addicts are using Afghani sourced drugs, or more people than are in Greece.
Not a "drop in the bucket".
I love how everybody always points fingers to "big bad CEOs", when the vast, vast superdupermajority of corporate leaders are small business owners who often have a difficult time scaling up their business because of the tax burden of hiring employees.
In effect, you ignored my entire post. I did not shrug off the economics of it. I pointed out that it was starting to approach nuclear power in terms of operating cost. I figured that was enough by itself, but apparently not, so here's a quick review of economics 101 for you:
1. The cheapest solar installations are currently about on par with the most expensive nuclear power plants. This means the "non-economical" thing is just a load of bull, as I said in the post you replied to.
2. What's the #1 thing that brings down the cost of manufacturing? Economies of scale. Now you can't get economies of scale on nuclear plants. Each one has to be designed specifically for the location, at least to some degree. No two are alike. This doesn't lend itself to getting cheaper any time soon. Even if we started building cookie-cutter nuke plants, we'd still only be able to put them in certain places, which means economies of scale never kick in. And the fissionable material is only going to get more expensive as demand increases, so the long-term future of nuclear is not so bright.
Does solar lend itself to economies of scale? You bet. As we build more PV panels, we continue to find ways to make them for less money. We've seen major advances in non-PV solar systems, too, particularly in the area of nighttime power storage. What one thing is required for solar power to get cheaper? Lots and lots of people building large-scale solar power systems. Unlike nuclear plants, we can build tens of thousands of these things safely, so economies of scale can actually kick in and make the cost of each installation substantially cheaper. Subsidizing a few solar installations now is a great way of making new installations much more economical in the near future.
Besides, solar power is already cheap enough that it costs barely half what I'm paying for my highest tier of power from PG&E, so it's plenty economical already. The people who say solar is not economical are either misinformed or have an agenda. If it were not economical, PG&E would not be in the process of setting up a number of substantial solar power systems right now. In fact, at California's energy rates, even individual-sized PV systems (some of the most expensive per kWh) typically break even on cost after 5-10 years and are guaranteed to still be providing 85% of their original power output after 30. Sounds pretty economical to me.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Cents_Per_Kilowatt-Hour
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The economic issues are a smoke screen. Besides, what I recommended was that the government create nonprofit orgs to produce solar power. By cutting out the profit at the generation level, solar power would likely be *cheaper* than nuclear, though coal would still be cheaper.
So the question becomes: do you like widespread pollution? That's what this really comes down to. If you want to have nearly unbreathable air like China does, we could have really, really cheap power. Just build a whole crapload of coal plants. That doesn't make it a good decision.
Secondarily, in the short term, solar is only moderately expensive, but in the long term, it is likely to be much cheaper than using natural gas, diesel, and eventually coal. We only have so much fossil fuel in the ground, and prices are already increasing. In ten years, those solar installations are going to look like a windfall compared with gas-powered peaker plants, and that's even if the cost of solar doesn't drop (which it will).
You're joking, right? The square footage alone would be absurd. The energy required to keep said people from dying of heat exhaustion would far exceed the power produced, so it would inherently be net energy negative! Further, a sizable percentage of the solar panels, assuming proper maintenance, will still be producing some power long after the *children* of the people riding the bicycles have all died of old age. Mechanical bearings lasting as long as solid-state parts just isn't within the realm of reality.
Yes, it's *slightly* more cost efficient and cheaper. With no possibility for getting significantly cheaper with economies of scale. Solar, by contrast, is in its infancy, and government spending in a nascent industry invariably results in production increases, which results in better economies of scale, which brings down the cost for everyone over the long haul, and to an extent, even in the relatively short term. At the current rate, solar power will be significantly cheaper than coal within a decade *if* we continue the ramp-up.
No, it's like telling the poor, "You'll have to pay an extra dollar for each loaf of bread right now so that in ten years you'll be paying $5 for a loaf of bread instead of $1,000." Food for thought.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
you goose step to a dogma
Really? Could you point it out to me? This is slashdot, so show your work, coward.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Yes, at this point with our huge budgets and the whole "surrounded by ocean thing" a world coalition would have a difficult time landing large amounts of hostile troops without resorting to Nuclear weapons.
Common Sense
That would be cool and all, if this was actually subsidizing solar power research... the summary says they money is going to companies building production plants, not early-stage research. In other words, just another government distortion of the free market. I'd rather have solar panel producers who can stand on their own commercially instead of giving handouts to yet another industry who will then become dependent on said handouts.
Drunken sailor?
I can say "drunken National Guard airman" - you know the DUI-guy who went crazy with the national credit card, wiping out a budget surplus and driving the national debt to incredible levels even before he drove the economy into a deep, deep ditch, and only THEN wrote the largest check the world has ever seen (TARP) to keep the national economic wreck he created from turning into a molten puddle.
BTW - this is only a loan guarantee for a productive purpose that will likely not cost the government anything. Not something the drunken airman would like.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Subsidizing solar power is the wrong approach. The right approach is to start buying up lots of solar panels for installations on the tops of government buildings. That will increase demand and make it more more profitable to get into the business (provided the main criteria isn't cheapest solar panel our tax dollars can buy). More profit will drive more companies to open up solar manufacturing and R&D. Sowe get a double benefit. We get more solar power production and we get the added benefit of getting more solar power onto the grid right from the startnot X number of years down the R&D road.
What makes you say that? If I cut costs in my business, I don't necessarily pay myself more (at least not directly).
how to invest, a novice's guide
They were fugitives from Saudi Arabia, and harbored in Afghanistan.
The 'pipeline over Afghanistan' motive is as debunked as the nonsense about Obama not being a US citizen.
Go ahead and be the left-wing version of a birther if you wish.
Way to be an asshat.
Sumdumass is a just a second sockpuppet account that the above idiot gets on when you wants to have fun by making people angry. That is why he brought in irrelevant bullshit about Cray computers and bicycles and why it doesn't make sense.
It doesn't have to make sense - it's just a game.
I had that idiot spouting random bullshit over serious posts I made a while ago until I read his journal to find it's a fake, joke second persona where he pretends to be tinfoil hat crazy to stir people up. To paraphrase: "Slashdot is hacking me OMG" and similar stuff.
Thanks for the link. It does appear that what I said is still true. It doesn't take into consideration the fact that only a few hours are peak for solar and solar is useless half of the time if not more where nuclear is useful almost 24/7. Once that is figured in, it's completely out of range for practical comparisons in real life use.
Remember that any sort of major electricity generation project lasts for two, three or possibly four decades so what looks like a huge price per home gets spread out over a very long time.
With solar the operating costs are very low, you can put it somewhere where the line losses will be very low but the capital costs are very high. The total cost over the lifetime are starting to get competitive especially in places a long way from the amount of water you need to run anything else.
I'll spell out the coal situation clearly - a huge capital cost although less than with solar, larger ongoing costs and typically larger line losses since you have more restrictions on where you can site it. At some distance from a lot of water even photovoltaics start to look good.
Nuclear is irrelevant to this since I'm comparing it to the current situation and whether nuclear fans like it or not nobody has been building the things in the USA lately - feel free to advocate on another thread but here I just want to compare solar and coal.
Isn't it incredibly funny that the US generated nuclear figures never come close to what people in the UK are paying on their bills, or in France, or Russia, or Japan, or China? The nuclear "debate" still remains as complete and utter fabricated bullshit versus mindless fear.
The answer as always is instead of accepting rubbery figures you ask an advocate to give you their best shot - pick the best performing plant on earth, name it, and give you the specific numbers for that. The answer to that is always attempted distraction and zero information that answers the question.
Nuclear is an alternative energy with a lot of promise and has been used effectively in specific situations (eg. submarines, partial energy independence for Japan in case of military blockade, etc), and has had the side benefit of producing weapon material. However it is still a very complex and expensive way to boil water so in the past has been a terrible way to generate electricity. That's my answer to the "nuclear now" idiots that think it's a solved problem - for everyone else there are promising options in nuclear that could be developed into something very useful, and some are even already at the prototype stage.
The answer, as with every alternative energy source, is to develop it to the point where the benefits make it worthwhile - and only then you start taking about building hundreds of the things.
the space program
Oh yes. That immediately led to all sorts of space activities by us citizens,
Seriously? I'm just as pissed as the next grounded cowboy, we were promised rocket-ships after all. But the space program has affected us citizens directly and indirectly in profound ways. Here are just a few hits from a quick google search. Enjoy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Race#Legacy
http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/10-tech-breakthroughs-to-thank-the-space-race-for-617847
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/apollo.htm
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/pdf/80660main_ApolloFS.pdf
http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/NASA_Derived_Technology_Captures_Unique_Inaugural_Image_999.html
http://space-exploration.suite101.com/article.cfm/nasa-space-technology-inventions-and-products
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/industry-02f.html
Wouldn't solar replace coal for our electricity needs rather than oil for our transportation energy needs?
I think they're banking on our entire energy consumption model to fall more and more to electricity, with all petroleum consumption becoming much smaller in the pie charts.
Or you could just use different panels that work well in cloudy weather - which of course use far more toxic chemicals than the usual but the answer is not to lift the glass and lick the cadmium on the panel.
Nuclear of course uses far more toxic chemicals and it's very difficult to mine Uranium without creating serious heath risks for the people in that areas around the mine (eg. hospitalisations from drinking water contamination in a town near Ranger Uranium mine, Australia).
We need to stop pretending anything is "clean" because the reality behind the PR is always big, dirty industrial processes so the answer as always is to contain them in such a way that nobody gets hurt.
"Clean" is for selling washing detergent - any time a salesman for any type of energy uses it you know they are trying to sell you a huge lie. Even geothermal done badly has the potential to damage farmland with salt.
The media is getting obsessed with labelling all kinds of things as "toxic". We're supposed to apply the "toxic" argument to what people are exposed to or what is on the material safety data sheet and not arbitrarily. A spoonful of margarine won't kill you but the catalyst used to make it out of vegetable oil probably will. Thus the process is "toxic" but the end product is safe enough to eat.
There are photovoltaics that produce reasonable amounts of power without direct sunlight.
One of the riskiest classes of loan guarantee made by the feds is for nuclear power plant construction.
Those loans are expected to have a 50% default rate.
Solar's a bit less risky than that -- far less likely to have cost overruns or construction problems. Generally the government does not price risk high enough, but that doesn't mean they lose every dollar they guarantee. Most of it gets payed back.
Not a SINGLE utility has ever defaulted on a loan-guarantee for a Nuclear Power Plant.
Of course, if you come out EVERY SINGLE DAY and declare "it will rain because I say so!", one day, it will probably rain.
Does that mean you can create rain?
"Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
When will US become net exporter of crude oil?
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
The most effective solar and wind power device is drying clothing and linen outdoors, as opposite of drying in electrical dryers.
During drying water changes physical state, turning from liquid to vapor. Changing physical state means a lot of energy.
In some districts and even in entire cities drying outdoors is forbidden not to spoil views of nice houses. So in these districts and cities a huge amount of energy is being used in electrical driers.
But in other poorer districts and cities there will be installed immense wind mills and vast solar panel fields, even more reducing a value of housing in these areas.
Instead he had to ban forbidding outdoor drying and invest in development of outdoor driers. Outdoor drying not only saves energy, it cools down the planet, as billions of pieces of clothing and linen is being washed and dried every day around the globe.
Unfortunately, this fashion on vanilla fences and Barby-houses is spreading on such countries and India, China, Indonesia, Russia, Brazil, etc., where the growing middle class is also moving into gated communities, where outdoor drying is forbidden.
So the social problem is to be solved, not a technical problem. A solar panel is weak and unreliable in comparison with an outdoor drier, which uses energy of sun and wind most effectively, without any loses, without expensive and polluting manufacturing.
you dog step to a goose ma
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
And, this is what Libertarians can't figure out about Keynesian economics. In bad economic times, it's pointless giving tax cuts to the wealthy big corporations because they usually choose to sit on their money (buying up gold for instance) and wait for things to get better (because they can afford to). The working and middle class take this money and spend it immediately.
Here in Australia we did some bailing out but also one of the government's ideas was to give a large one off bonus to those on welfare. I can't remember the exact figure but I think it was about $1800. They also worked on the theory that that money would be spent immediately and would recycle into the economy. It seems to have worked 'so far'. We may still yet go down the tubes. I certainly hope not.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
You know, 20 years ago, when I joined the Libertarian party, I was fanatical. In 20 years of sucking hind teat to the likes of W, I have become a lot more pragmatic. My response was why it is better over the grants. Now, as to your judging my statement against your perception of the party, I have to laugh. So many ppl have this perception that Libertarian == anarchism. In addition, they seem to ignore what the party puts out, and just push points made by dems/pubs which really are false. Too bad.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
thanks. It's Sunday freaking morning. This is no time to make me want a beer!
>>>The defence budget for the current war is around 480 billion dollars per year
So why didn't Obama end the war like he promised? He's the Commander-in-Chief and it's as easy as ordering all the soldiers withdraw back to a defensive position (patrolling the border and US shoreline). The End. Money saved. It's what I would do in his position.
As for the 2 billion you're right - it's just change. The problem is that Congress has another ~10,000 projects just like this (pork) and that adds up to serious money that is being squandered.
And finally jobs: I've been out of engineering work for almost two years. I managed to land a temporary 3 month contract and that's it. Now I'm in worse shape than previously (HR idiots assume a 3 month stint means I am not worth hiring, rather than assume it was cost-cutting by a new boss). Where are all these supposed jobs Obama's creating? I'll probably send my resume to these solar companies but doubt it will lead to anything - I have no solar background.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
More than once, the British invaded during the War of 1812, and the Japanese invaded, captured and shortly held one of our Aleutian Islands.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
What's the #1 thing that brings down the cost of manufacturing? Economies of scale
Well, that happens in free, for-profit markets. What you are advocating is a non-profit entity to fund research. Any examples of it being the #1 thing that brings down the cost of manufacturing in such non-free, non-profit ecosystems also?
Come to look at it - Why does economy of scale bring down cost of manufacturing? Scale creates profit, profit creates incentive to do better/same at same/lower prices, thus drives corporate R&D. Why should government take this long, wasteful and circuitous route to reduce cost of manufacturing when they could invest directly in R&D? Why manufacture thousands of square kilometres of solar panels, only to replace them with 20% more efficient ones after 3 years?
Government already has institutions that specialize in R&D. Public universities / government owned research organizations. Just fund research on design, manufacturing process, deployment, large scale effects, etc. for solar PV panels / solar thermal / whatever "clean" energy production technologies they can think of. Such institutions are already working reasonably well. Setting up new institutions needs a lot of effort that is not required in this case.
Take home message: Think about why economy of scale reduces cost of manufacturing.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
The program most definitely sold cars, but it was a miserable failure for both the economy and for the environment.
Most owners care about their business, and use cost-cutting to strengthen the business. But publicly-owned companies are not run by the owners. They're run by managers who may or may not have the best interests of the business in mind. It's called the Principal-agent problem. Publicly-owned companies are more easily corrupted because the owners (stockholders) are not the ones tending to the daily matters of the business.
Always someone has power over you. The thing to consider is this: Is the power good, or bad?
Consistent production is not a problem when there are multiple sources of electricity. Natural gas powered plants can be run at night and on overcast days and throttled back when solar is producing. No serious person is saying that we should eliminate everything but solar.
The large amount of land needed is not a problem because the best land for solar is in the desert and this is some of the cheapest land available. Rooftops are also available.
How much of this 2B will actually end up spent in the US? Foreign companies installing Chinese solar panels - that's what - 1 hop, maybe 2 hops and its gone...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/business/energy-environment/09solar.html
According to the Republicans (who had six years of full control of government to prove that they could create jobs, and squandered it) the only reason you don't have a job is because our unemployment benefits are so lavish that they keep you from looking for work. So they have no problem cutting off unemployment for people in your situation; they're just freeloaders anyways.
Were you in congress, I imagine that you would have voted against the stimulus. Since you would presumably then be employed, you'd probably also vote against any jobs program that "added to the deficit." So what, exactly, should Obama be doing to create jobs? If you were in charge, what would be your solution to putting the country back to work? More tax cutting and deregulation? That's how we got into this mess in the first place.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
The money would be even better spent subsidizing converting federal building to solar. Giving money away to one particular company or another opens the door wide to graft and corruption. At the very least, it provides ample opportunity for the appearance of graft and corruption.
The Federal government has huge purchasing power, and lots of property that must be maintained. Require those building to convert to solar power (and provide the money to do it), and you not only subsidize the panel makers, but the converter makers, the installers, the distributors, etc. Solar needs more than manufacturers. It needs a whole infrastructure. A whole market, if you will.
Not we could expect the community organizer to understand that.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
As we've learned, getting troops to a country is easy. Occupying and controlling the country is hard. I think we could disband the Department of Defense entirely for a decade, and we could fight off any invasion solely on the strength of our former soldiers and private arms. If we (the highest-spending military behemoth on the planet, by a factor of ten) couldn't control Iraq (an area smaller than Texas, with a population of about 20M), how the hell is China going to invade and control us?
Besides, the GP wasn't making a serious proposal (any more than I am). He's just pointing out how truly screwed up our spending priorities are right now. I'm sure he'd be ecstatic with, say, a 50% reduction in military spending.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Heh, I voted for Bob Barr. It's all the people voting for "the lesser of two evils" that allow our honorable soldiers to be left in every armpit of a hellhole this world has to offer.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Krahar, as someone that watches family members suck off our welfare system, knowing full well that they are imminently able to work, I can tell you without a doubt that no one starves in America for lack of public aid. My mother and sister have been given separate apartments, and both eat exclusively from the benefits of the food stamp program.
The greatest health problem among America's poor population is...are you ready for this?.... OBESITY. In other countries, poor people die of starvation. In America, the poor bastards sit around in government bought apartments, stuffing their faces until they're to fat to move. Again, this is from personal experience with family members, whose finances I'm particularly familiar with, because I tried very hard to coach them on how to handle their money to stay independent.
Now there is a catch. To live off the public dole in the US requires that you go whole hog. You have to dodge any reasonable work, because trying to work your way out of the hole you've gotten yourself into will disqualify you from the aid long before the wages are enough to provide a lifestyle as comfortable as what the public dole offers. Many, many people prefer to be idle all day rather than work to improve themselves.
In short, your contention that the government leaves the poor to starve is laughable. I don't know what news source you listen to in order to get such ideas, but they are not even close to being realistic.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Ya it's useful. I used to be in the biz and sold a ton of solar hot water heaters, and worked on several air heaters as well, residential and commercial. As to absorption cooling, correct again, that is how a lot of ammonia gas RV (or remote cabin, etc) refrigerators work, I have three of them (all small though).
I just think decentralized solar power, of any type, is just spiffy beyond belief. anything to get the homeowner away from the monthly "bill" that can never be paid off. That and superinsulation of the home are the best bets for personal alt energy independence. I work on this stuff a lot for myself, this is how I "invest", no wall street scam stocks or put your grandchildren into debt government paper for me, useful and practical tangibles only. Trying to get as independent as possible. We've made a huge hit on the grocery bill with extensive gardens, a greenhouse, etc. We switched to stored solar-wood-for heating and haven't used any propane for heating for three years now. I have some solar PV but not enough to replace everything, like a lot of folks waiting for it to drop a scosh more in price, that's all. Went mostly retired a few years back and my income dropped like down to 25% of what I was making, so everything I do has to be on the ultra cheap. I rotate around, this year will be lots more insulation, next year, something else.
I see a lot of greenies rag on suburbia, on the contrary, I think stand alone suburban homes with a decent yard (and a good internet connection so if possible telecommuting) are the best compromise for most people, has the most potential. You *can* do solar PV and thermal and have a decent garden etc, and eventually the solar PV carport or garage for the electric ride. Can't do any of that in town in some apartment, you stay tied to "the man" forever and ever. We live further out than suburbia on a big farm, yesterday we had the "all our own stuff" fourth of july cookout, our own beef, chicken and bass, veggies from the garden, etc. tres cool, good eats. Fresh picked watermelon and sweet corn and tomatoes just can't be beat.
Including that scam wall street cap and trade carbon tax. That is something they brainwashed the greenies into thinking is "the solution". Total mind fsck. On the other hand, I love the tax *credit*, the anti tax. If the government would just pass a 100% tax credit for people and businesses, say up to 25 grand for individuals amortized over 5-10 years, there would be zillions of PV panels and assorted whatnot up there within a short time. The carbon tax just goes to make the same fatcats richer, that's it. That money will leave your pocket anyway, so which would most folks like, get to have some decent solar installed, or read little blurbs in the paper about megacorp making record profits? I think most folks would opt for getting their own panels, etc. At commercial scales, if there was a full tax credit for some huge commercial solar installation (whatever, variations there), investors would look at that, as opposed to tradition burn fuel plants, which are still taxed, and go "this is a no brainer" and opt for cleaner and more sustainable and more profitable.
Government can either tax or not tax, all taxes do today is act as social engineering. With fiat currencies, there is no direct need to fund government with taxes, we the people could demand direct funding and get the new money into circulation that way, rather than "loaning into existence" through the banks. I just hates that con game they have pulled with the federal reserve and lesser banks , it's a pure scam.
If we switched to direct funding (with balanced budgets and no increases beyond proven productivity gains), it would do wonders for the economy of the 99% who aren't already fatcats out there, and really clean up the environment and spur better quality development and investments, etc.
Trillions to bailout the fatcats, put everyone else into generations long debt. seems rather ludicrous to me when we have decent alternatives out there that could be implemented. I'd like a more advanced variation on the "bancor" currency, I designed it some years back, using the top 100 traded commodities as our new currency backing and to set M3 rates of new currency creation existence. Etc. Another subject, but that's how to afford a lot of new spiffy things and stop ripping the "we the people" off. Of course those goons who control government through wall street investment banks would hate it, they'd have to go get real jobs. ;)
I'd advise you to move to the US south right now if it wasn't for the oil spill. See, I'm not that insensitive! hahaha! Not sure how that will shakeout. If they get it fixed though, hopefully, it is much nicer here than these urban yankee loons (I am a reformed yankee loon, heh) go on and on about. This is 2010 here, not 1950. Cheaper to live than most other areas of the US as well. Year round growing season here, etc, (just cabbages and carrots, etc in the winter though) even though we get a little winter and the occasional snow, it's nothing like "up north". Plenty of sunshine, and still jobs to be had. Not bad at all really. Plenty of recreation, including fishing, etc on open to the public areas, zillions of acres of that. I lived in many yankee states, but I like Georgia a whole lot bettah. Mountains, rolling hills, huge farmlands, lakes, streams and some beach action, big city life to as far in the sticks as you care to go. Got it all.
In short, your contention that the government leaves the poor to starve is laughable.
The word contention implies that I was stating something. In fact I said what my impression was and then asked if that was right. Thus there is no contention.
When I was in the US, I saw lots of people on the street whose sole occupation seemed to be to beg for money or food. So those people actually do have housing and a sufficient income to support themselves from government aid? In that case they are even more of a nuisance than I had thought.
If we (the highest-spending military behemoth on the planet, by a factor of ten) couldn't control Iraq (an area smaller than Texas, with a population of about 20M), how the hell is China going to invade and control us?
100,000 Iraqi deaths compared to 4700 coalition deaths? I'd say we're controlling it pretty damn well. Just because insurgents exist doesn't mean that a government isn't in nominal control - remember, we've had our fair share of terrorist attacks, but most people won't argue that the US government is in control.
Besides, the GP wasn't making a serious proposal (any more than I am). He's just pointing out how truly screwed up our spending priorities are right now. I'm sure he'd be ecstatic with, say, a 50% reduction in military spending.
And I'm not disagreeing that a reassessment of priorities is necessary. But when you ignore the whackos instead of addressing them, they just gain more power, and end up running the Glenn Beck Show.
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
That's about how long I'm expecting us to be able to stretch the aging nuclear plants before the first one shuts down due to noncompliance. Maybe sooner. We'll need a replacement for somewhere approaching a third of our power production within about a decade after that. Lack of availability of power + high demand = skyrocketing costs. Simple economics, really.
AFAIK, that 15 cents per Kwh is already an average. The difference between 15 and 30 is primarily the difference between different types of hardware installation and different amounts of sunlight in different areas of the country. And actually, that price is apparently based on production with storage. If you are doing grid tie solar, it's almost as cheap as coal power. My math, based on just the cost of panels (ignoring conversion losses, the initial purchase cost of the inverter, installation costs, etc.) is somewhere around 4-6 cents per kWh averaged over the design lifespan of modern panels. That's at retail costs for panels. Buying in bulk brings the cost down considerably, and a corporate entity with hired installers would probably spend considerably less per panel than a homeowner paying a commercial installer would.
For small panels, yes. For large panels, there are still yield problems that need to be resolved, plus a general lack of manufacturing plants building the things. There are still places where economies of scale can play a part. And better manufacturing techniques are being developed---techniques that companies wouldn't bother developing if people weren't buying them. Money spent on buying panels means money getting rolled into R&D to bring the cost down, the efficiency up, etc. Economies of scale doesn't just apply to the manufacturing costs, you know.
The fact is that solar panel cost per watt has dropped by more than an order of magnitude since the 90s while life expectancy has increased substantially. There are still plenty of gains to be had in this space.
And you can do that in two ways: by supporting the existing panel manufacturers through your purchases or by trying to do an end run around them. One of these leads to stronger industry, and it's not the latter. The idea of licensing patents to U.S. companies for free is a nice idea in theory, but in practice, Chinese manufacturers don't care about U.S. patents anyway, so all you're really doing is shifting the R&D burden from the companies building panels (where it belongs) to the government (where it will be done with the least efficiency humanly possible just like everything else the government does).
At least with the corporations holding the cards, if the Chinese manufacturers rip off their IP, they have a little bit of leverage (pulling all of their production and doing so in a very public way as a warning for future companies that might consider doing business with them). If that IP is held by the government, the U.S. government has no such cards to play. You mIght as well start the countdown to a bankrupt U.S. solar industry as soon as you start down that path unless you can also manage to convince solar manufacturing companies to build their products entirely in the U.S. (which isn't very likely).
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Uh... no, I'm advocating the government creating a non-profit entity to buy a boatload of solar panel and/or solar tower rigs and set up dozens of large solar-based power generation plants. You must be confusing me with someone else.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
No, that's after factoring all that in, factoring in the extra costs of professional installation by a for-profit entity up on somebody's roof, and lots of other costs. And those numbers are still on the high side, probably because (I think) they're based on a survey of existing installations rather than the cost of a new installation going forward.
I ran the math on panels assuming somewhere around $3 per watt of output, and assuming 5 equivalent full sun hours (e.g. southern California), and the panel costs by themselves came out to somewhere around 4 cents per kWh averaged over the lifespan of the hardware. That's not the whole cost, of course---you still have the inverter, whatever meter changes are needed for grid tie, installation costs, and the interest you would have made on that money, but I'm finding it hard to believe that a newly installed setup based on the latest panel technology would be anywhere near 15 cents pre kWh, much less 30. And remember that inverter cost per watt tends to decrease as the size of the inverter increases, so large commercial installations would be even cheaper.
I'm not saying solar is profitable in places where power is cheap (TVA) and/or sunlight is scarce (Alaska), but for much of the U.S., they should be pretty good from an economic perspective at this point. Even the leased solar systems (where you pay per month) typically cost on the order of half what PG&E charges for power, or so I'm told. Now admittedly that's subsidized, but I doubt the state covers half the cost....
I intend to go fully solar (non-leased) when I build a house, as even a conservative estimate without a penny of subsidies would have it paying for itself in ten years, and the first few panels (knocking out the top tier of power usage) would pay for themselves in five. With subsidies, it would pay for itself even sooner. Your numbers may vary depending on how much you're getting ripped off for power, how much sun you get, and whether you know how to install the panels yourself.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Unemployment benefits are a simple equation,
More starving poor on benefits = less crime.
Dont expect right wing nut job sto understand this though.
Friend, I'm in almost exactly the same position as you. Keep your head up. It will work out.
As for your questions: I believe Obama is a good man but he can't just unilaterally decide to pull the troops out of there. Not because it isn't in his power, but rather because he may end up dead if he does. I know I sound like a nut, but defence contracts ARE worth hundreds of billions annually to the war-mongerers and they won't just let him switch off the tap, you can be sure.
For your working on a solar project: Realize no one else has any background in it, so you're as good as any other applicant on that merit. You can do it!
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Ok, in a perfect world, but we all know that behind closed doors, there will always be things that can be done to get out of paying, whether one blows the other, rubs his back, greases his palm, I really gotta think that this is money we will never see again....for some reason (car industry anyone?)
Although if the outcome of this means everyone can go to your local walmart to buy solar panels and be able to install them like they do ikea shelving, then I would have to say, lets do this !
Anecdotal evidence FTW.
I am speaking of a market trend, not an individual person buying. The reasoning that appears to be shown by the market trend is this: people were going to buy a car anyway, and they did it sooner rather than later because of the CFC program. This moved a lot of the car-buyers all into one time - a spike. Then, all those folks didn't buy a car when they were normally going to - a drop. Then it continued as normal.
Okay.
Graph of the "cliff."
Retail sales data put into a chart (with links to origin of graph and the sales data itself, which came from the government, in case the right-wing bias of hotair.com makes you want to disregard). Here is the original graph/blog and person that made it.. It also has a variety of other info, like the cost per ton of CO2 reduced, etc.
The purpose was to create a boost during a bad time AND get better cars on the roads. In fact, 1 person I know bought a new car for the 1st time and normally would never do so.
That was a very high cost to get a "better car" on the road.
I don't doubt that you think you know about it. It's just that all "official" sources of information tend to gravitate towards the 15 to 30 cent mark without inverters and storage for POV solar.
And by official, I don't mean that your numbers aren't true, I mean that these are the numbers presented by advocates that are selling or handling the stuff in a professional way of some sort. They all seem to gravitate back to the same set of numbers. Of course this could be as you mentioned, " (I think) they're based on a survey of existing installations rather than the cost of a new installation going forward" or it could be that you are considering your own labor as free in your calculations or something. The reports I can find do seem to be a year or more old.
Here is an interesting but somewhat outdated site that expands on the notions a little better. What is interesting is the chart they included on the differences in hours of good sunlight in different areas of the US. Southern California can see 9 hours where Ohio is lucky to get 5 hours optimal sun. And even though prices have changed and all, if you look, you will notice that that he didn't even bother with batteries to store the energy. I guess it doesn't make sense to use batteries when you are selling the power back to the utility company. But then there ar drawbacks there too.
Here is an article for you:
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/6/26/focus/4197991&sec=focus
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
If you have any doubt, try to offer food to one of them standing at a street corner with a sign saying that they will work for food.
You will be cursed for the entire time that you are stuck at the red light. They want cash, which they can use to buy alcohol or worse. They definitely will NOT work, for food or anything else. I've been there, done that, and know several others that have shared my experience. One was a restaurant owner in desperate need of kitchen help. He couldn't get any.
There have been a few news channel exposes on this idea that homeless people are starving in America. The various charities give away so much food that, again, the biggest health problem among the American "poor" is obesity.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba