Slashdot Mirror
Portugal Gives Itself a Clean-Energy Makeover
daem0n1x writes "It appears that some countries in oil-poor Europe are making a successful transition to renewable energy at a fast and steady pace. This article talks about the small country of Portugal on the West Coast of Europe, known for its white sand beaches, oranges, fish, and wines. Portugal has no oil, but lots of sun and wind. Five years ago, the government decided, against many dissenting voices, to invest massively in taking advantage of the country's natural resources in clean energy. The results are here. It used to be a heavy energy importer, but now it exports it."
Brilliant place!
"The United States, which last year generated less than 5 percent of its power from newer forms of renewable energy, will lag behind..." Drill baby, drill.
Well maybe not, electricity is still cheap in the US. Keep burning coal it has been working for me rather well so far.
Got Code?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"This article talks about the small country of Portugal on the West Coast of Europe" (As opposed to the other Portugal)
You can always find the truth buried near the end of the article:
But a decade ago in Portugal, as in many places in the United States today, power companies owned not only power generating plants, but also transmission lines. Those companies have little incentive to welcome new sources of renewable energy, which compete with their investment in fossil fuels. So in 2000, Portugal’s first step was to separate making electricity from transporting it, through a mandatory purchase by the government of all transmission lines for electricity and gas at what were deemed fair market prices.
Fox News translation: Obama bin Laden wants steal our energy and kill your grandmother! Let freedom ring for... um... dirty coal power.
So the government seized the private wealth of individuals to create really expensive new energy which, according to TFA, increase Portueguese energy costs by 15% on top of the exorbitant (2x the US) rate they already paid. So the Portueguese got reamed twice - once to pay for it, and again to pay to maintain it.
Also, since money is a rough proxy for emissions, and the project costs so much, its reasonable to conclude that the "clean" energy is in fact more polluting than fossil fuels which are a fraction of the price. This is particularly applicable to Europe where, according TFA, the emissions trading system builds the costs of emissions into the fuel.
It's hard. It's expensive. It won't please everyone. But it is totally worth it for future generations. It takes vision, vision beyond the end of our noses, to realize that.
Call me when these ideas scale. Until then, your irrational hatred of the weak nuclear force makes you myopic and a slave to the middle east.
The summary says they're now an energy exporter. So, their long-term investment is paying off. What's the gripe?
Whether it'll pay itself off in time for the actuaries to be happy with the deal's another thing.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Your link also indicates that Portugal's public debt is 75.2% of the GDP (getting this number from the CIA fact book and the other one from The Economist).
The United States' public debt is 88% of the GDP without the huge investment in renewable sources of energy. What's their excuse?
I'm not saying Portugal's economy is better than that of the United States — it isn't. I'm just pointing out that public debt as a percentage of the GDP is not the best way to assess the health of an economy or if an investment in cleaner energy is a good idea.
Paying off for who? According TFA, the Portuguese government sold off the rights to the electricitiy to private companies. The government is also paying a massive subsidy to the private companies for 15 years. So the people of Portugal get to pay higher (15%) electric costs while the companies get to export energy to other nations. I'm sure you're right that there is nothing to gripe about.
Sun and wind?
Don't make me laugh. Hardly a blip compared to how much renewable power is generated by good ol' hydroelectric in Portugal.
Just out of fashion technology so not worth mentioning much in press.
Or maybe it's because Portugal is trying realllyyyyyy hard to export their wind tech to the USA?
Or will it pay for itself by the time it all has to be replaced? PV cells don't last for ever. Windmill Generators can essentially, with enough upkeep. Will it pay for the army of maintainers to be paid, cover workmans comp, cover their retirement plans?
I'd like to hope so....I just doubt it will be an actual "investment" in the fiduciary sense. Energy independence is a laudable goal, but not always a good financial investment.
THL phish sticks
Well, USA has a public debt of 93% and an electric grid quite archaic compared to Portugal.
And did I mention that Portugal has one of the most state of the art internet broadband internet coverage (with optical fibre connecting the house in major cities) and 3.5G across most of the country in the all world. Being Portugal only rival as far as I know, Estonia?
Yeah, the public accounts might be bad ... but we are investing in the future.
Sun and wind?
Don't make me laugh. Those are hardly a blip compared to good ol' Hydroelectric production in Portugal.
But as an out of fashion techology (no one likes big dams anyway) I guess it's not worh mentioning.
or maybe this is all related to the fact Portugal is pushing really hard to export their wind tech to the US..
Portugal is also, by some margin, the poorest country of the Western Europe and by per capita GDP it's been overtaken by Eastern and Central European countries (Portugal: $21K, Czech Republic: $24K, Slovenia $28K). Btw, since you are comparing it with the USA: $46K. I don't know much about Portugal, but perhaps one of the reasons is that it tends to embark on projects like you mentioned that sound good but don't make economic sense?
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Maybe maybe not - there are a great deal of conclusions being drawn from a VERY small part of the whole picture.
What is their consumption per capita? If it was low because of the cost of creating energy was so high (and theirs was high, I do not know their consumption though but price/consumption have a fairly large correlative - and IMO - causative link) once they adjust to this level of available energy it may become a real money sink. Their long term investment is paying off in the short term but it's not unusual for that to happen and a venture still die off. It takes time for adjustments to be made.
What are the environmental impacts going to be too - we know they have a reduced carbon footprint but contrary to what is popular in the media today carbon isn't the only pollutant and not even the worse of the bunch (heck it isn't even the worse greenhouse gas let alone pollutant). These technologies still are only a small part of our energy production and a number of them didn't scale too well (see tidal generators effect on long shore currents when implemented past an experimental level or large windmill farms effects on avians).
Assuming that they have growth how will this scale? Yes, they have excess now but in another 10 years will they be able to use this for their population? If you are at 90% of your capacity today chances are you are going to be screwed in a decade or more down the line. I do not know what their capacity is either, but it is a question that wasn't addressed in the press release.
The answer may very well be really really good to all those - I simply do not know and it isn't something easy to find (and may not even be done). One can find articles such as this, but I'll believe that as much as I do that BP cares about the environmental impact of the Gulf Oil leak. Well, not exactly true - I believe a negative with respect to BP's caring (that is they do not at all and it is a lie) and I'm simply neutral on those questions above - no reason why they can't come out quite positive (that is they have great justification but it wasn't in the scope of the article or other publications).
My main point is don't count your chickens before the eggs hatch. For a great deal of these things someone somewhere has to give it a go and see what happens. It is usually the medium sized countries with a severe lack of some resource that are a great large scale test and they are certainly doing that. Just, again, it is a bit premature to declare success and make fun of people who haven't gone to it.
In the long run that has been a good deal of what has killed many so called "special interest" groups that could have gotten a good 80% of what they wanted. They want it all, they want it now, and nothing less will suffice - turns out when you want "all or nothing" you are more likely to get "nothing". I think we could have had 70-80% of these "green" (I use quotes because more often than not all I see is how they reduce carbon emissions - while important so what if it raises sulfur emissions or sends 10 species of birds to extinction?) technologies if they were not tied to extremists that say things that anyone other than a True Believer can poke holes in, let alone someone that takes a bit of thought at it. It makes it easy to totally dismiss (another is we have to act now as it has to be better - tell that to people in the south about erosion and introducing kudzu to stop it).
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
Funny, our debt ratio was quite a bit lower in 2008, but it's been rocketing higher and higher rapidly since. I wonder why that is... It's sad when Dubya, the profligate spender, is a fond memory in terms of fiscal discipline.
Yes, it is. I completely agree. But what I was trying to say is that, not all is bad. It would be worst to be like Greece, with public accounts worst than Portugal and lagging back in everything.
You can be sure I'm not defending our government. Just that there is also a positive point to the picture.
Portugal has been working on this for some years now. They will be getting some of the first shipments of the Nissan/Renault electric Leafs I presume.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL0934720820080709
Let me get this straight...
Portugal is investing in the future. They are doing so by building out infrastructure that will supply green energy while simultaneously building out infrastructure that will increase the energy use of the population. Averting Global Warming so that you can download movies faster?
This is weird.
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
It's expensive. It won't please everyone. But it is totally worth it for future generations.
For the most part, the "expensive" countries all have dying cultures, since they don't reproduce enough to survive. (Remember "replacement rate" is 2.1)
Don't worry, somebody will fill those empty countries, and the "future generations" don't look like they will be the types of high-tech folk who will keep things green, care about your culture, or be high-tech enough to get homo sapiens "off this rock".
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Ah. Business as usual. No matter where you go, there you are. Regulatory capture, cronyism, nepotism, corporatism, back-room dealing, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions", & etc.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
You are either trolling or joking. So I will let Slashdot points system straight that out.
If you really think so.
Imagine a nice quiet town in the mountains with a standard two-lane highway as the only transportation in and out. This little town is adorable and attracts tourists for all over who come and spend their money as well as deteriorate the very environment they find dear.
The town sees this problem because lately there have been complaints that traffic is getting very bad on the weekends during peak travel times. The town decides the best course of action is to expand the road so that it can handle 300% of the current traffic resulting in fewer complaints by visitors.
However, the problem is now that with increased road capacity, they are seeing even more people show up to walk around and look at crafts. The problem hasn't been solved, simply postponed and arguably exacerbated.
If Portugal wants to increase power capacity while at the same time increase power consumption, something isn't going to end as anticipated. Of course I agree that developing clean energy is a noble goal. But it seems a bit hypocritical to say you're doing so while on the other hand doing exactly the opposite.
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
Are you crazy or something? You are actually trying to say that providing broadband access across all the country AND IN OPTICAL FIBRE, it's not even coper, and putting up 3.5G internet instead of GPRS, is actually making any appreciable difference to our energy consumption?
Sadly, only a certain segment of the population believes you can cut taxes and start two wars without harming the economy.
I'll be glad to respond to any shucking and jiving with salient quotes from some of your friends about inheriting the Clinton Recession in 2002. The most unfortunate thing that did happen under Clinton's watch, as far as the economy goes, is allowing Glass Steagall to be dismantled.
FTA: "The country’s electricity production costs and consumer electricity rates — including the premium prices paid for power from renewable sources — are about average for Europe, but still higher than those in China or the United States, countries that rely on cheap coal."
Portugal paid a ridiculous amount of money to put in place a new system that has not and will not save them any money. The costs of renewable energy sources may decrease over time, but only for NEW installations. Existing installations, including the ones in Portugal, will continue to cost exactly the same as they did when they were installed. Far from a success, this is in fact a giant failure for Portugal.
You are actually trying to say that providing broadband access across all the country AND IN OPTICAL FIBRE, it's not even coper, and putting up 3.5G internet instead of GPRS, is actually making any appreciable difference to our energy consumption?
You do realize that computers use electricity, right? Did I miss a /. story somewhere? Is everyone using hand cranks and hamsters?
A chart
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
Haha. The left wing douchebag Obama supporters are out modding in force! I can just feel the smug douchiness!
But my point is to question if this is a positive or a negative point. Sure it's nice to have clean energy, but there are downsides too. It involved investing billions that could have been used for other purposes, not least tax breaks for individuals and businesses.
Just look at Ireland (well it's in crisis too but there is no question that lowering taxes was a huge factor in the unprecedented economic boom there). What if they decided that instead of bringing in hundreds of high tech companies by very low business taxes they decided to invest that money in windmills, solar plants and the best broadband in the world? Maybe they would be in Portugal's place today (btw Ireland GDP per capita today: $39K, Portugal: $21K - 20 years ago they were about the same).
Another problem is higher electricity prices. There is no surer way to reduce jobs, increase prices and generally harm the economy than by increasing energy cost.
Disclaimer: I don't know if what I said above has anything to do with reality in Portugal, I am just pointing out that there are two sides to clean energy equation
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
You do realize the computers exist witouth being connected to the internet, right? In fact, you do realize that the computers that are connected to broadband internet are normally much more recent and much more energy efficient than the one your grandmother uses to store cooking recipes, without internet connection, right?
Why do articles (the summary included) talking about power-generation always mention oil and it's coming scarcity or price.?
Practically, no one uses oil for power and if they do it's almost rarely more than a sliver of the pie. In the United States it's about 3.25% and in most countries it's far lower.
Sure if you're talking about energy usage in general it makes a lot of sense to mention oil, but for power-generation, not really.
You do realize that computers use electricity, right? Did I miss a /. story somewhere? Is everyone using hand cranks and hamsters?
Yes, they do..use energy that is, not hamsters. ;-) However, when there's no computer or reliable broadband available, you need to move your physical body from location A to B to get any work done, which uses a heck of a lot more energy than logging in to the company's network from the comfort of home.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Well, no, this is not the problem. The public spending in these projects, even when it fails is not the problem here.
Portugal's problem, and you can check in the wikipedia by seeing our awful gini index (the worst of all European union), is the very bad distribution of wealth. Most company owners see people as a source of cheap labour ... so of course, if people doesn't earn enough, they also tend not to work very hard. And mind you, the bosses don't pay low wages because they don't have money (like I said they have a LOT OF MONEY), they pay low wages because, well, they all do, and unless you have a very specialized job, if you don't want to do it for what they pay, they find another one to do it.
Another problem, is that, there is a very big tax fraud in here. The proletariat pays taxes because they have a steady income ... the rich don't because the system is made so that it's very difficult to control what they really earn. Portugal it's a great country in some aspects ... but a very shitty one in some others :S
Ok, listen, I know your intentions are good and all, but you have to understand something. If you roll out broadband across an entire country (though small) there will be a lot of people acquiring fast internet that they did not have previously.
Doesn't it make sense that they will be using their computers more often? Do you think that somehow the electricity the Internet uses is static? More computers, more switches, more routers, more repeaters, all amount to higher electricity use.
Do you think that gasoline consumption doesn't change if more people have cars? Or better roads?
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
Sadly, only a certain segment of the population believes you can cut taxes and start two wars without harming the economy.
First of all, cutting taxes is generally understood to be good for the economy. Fighting wars generally isn't, so I don't know why you are bundling those two together. Secondly, the two wars were generally supported by both parties (though in case of Iraq there were more opponents among Democrats but that was mostly posturing for political reasons). I don't think it's clear at all that the US foreign policy would have been any different under Clinton or, god forbid, Gore especially after 9/11.
I don't think the recession was caused by Obama nor inherited from Bush. It's simplistic to the point of ridiculous to view something as complex as the economic cycle as determined by which president is in office even though their decisions of course have some impact.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Thanks for the EXCELLENT comment.
Portugal exported some uranium ore to Iran during the early 1980s, ammounting to close to 300 tons. However, its mines have been abandoned since late 1980s to early 1990s. From http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/IAEA/s-1997-779-att-1.htm :
However, its mine have been abandoned since late 1980s to early 1990s, mainly because of economic viability and not as much as from puny environmentalist concerns as claimed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Portugal
My sig is better than your sig.
I checked both from CIA world fact book earlier but those wasn't the numbers they had:
Portugal:
76.9% of GDP (2009 est.)
66.3% of GDP (2008 est.)
USA:
52.9% of GDP (2009 est.)
39.7% of GDP (2008 est.)
Though:
"note: data cover only what the United States Treasury denotes as "Debt Held by the Public," which includes all debt instruments issued by the Treasury that are owned by non-US Government entities. The data include Treasury debt held by foreign entities. The data exclude debt issued by individual US states, as well as intra-governmental debt. Intra-governmental debt consists of Treasury borrowings from surpluses in the trusts for Federal Social Security, Federal Employees, Hospital Insurance (Medicare and Medicaid), Disability and Unemployment, and several other smaller trusts. If data for Intra-government debt were added, "Gross Debt" would increase by about 30% of GDP."
So maybe for comparisons your 88% is more correct anyway. What do I know. IANAE.
Do you think that gasoline consumption doesn't change if more people have cars? Or better roads?
It changes for more if you have more cars ... but changes for less if you have better roads. Improving our internet connection is the equivalent of better roads ... not more cars.
Oh, now this argument. You are partly comparing apples to nail clippers. Fuel use and electricity use are not the same thing.
If people are home more often, okay, sure, you have less fuel being used to drive around conducting your normal life. But what about all the things people do on the internet that have real-world counterparts that use very little power? Internet gaming uses a lot more electricity than kids meeting up in the park to play a game.
Also, consider that in many cases a work environment consolidates the energy use to one location. I don't know any hard numbers, but if a business employs 100 people that all work in an office, the power used to heat/cool the building seems to me like it would be quite a bit less than the power used to heat/cool 100 homes. Though, I'm sure this depends greatly on how you heal/cool your business/home.
Would I say that I use more electricity today than I did back in 1995 dicking around on CompuServe? Of course I do.
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
Better roads just means that more people will elect to drive.
Doesn't anyone remember Ray Kinsella?
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
I don't know much about Portugal, but perhaps one of the reasons is that it tends to embark on projects like you mentioned that sound good but don't make economic sense?
Doubt it. This is an issue you can see in general comparing north vs south Europe. I don't remember the word for it but the southern countries is more about living / spending your time outside of work whereas for many in the north your life is about working. I assume the weather conditions, need to take siestas in the middle of the day because it's too warm to do anything useful anyway and so on may be some reasons for it.
I think one reason economic is better up north is because people simply work harder.
May be wrong though. Also tourism is a bigger industry in those southern countries.
Developing countries also leading the way. Thailand broke ground this month on two large solar PV installations, a 38 MW plant and a 73 MW plant, the latter will be the world's largest when it goes into operation November 2011. Thailand is not poor but it isn't rich either, yet it can figure out how to finance and build renewable energy systems on a large scale. More on the solar race in Thailand http://geomark.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/solar-race-is-on-in-thailand/
Khao Yai Land
"First of all, cutting taxes is generally understood to be good for the economy."
No, see that's why the US is in massive decline. Cutting taxes is good for rich people, and rich people only.
Mobile in india, as the name itself tells, explain/educates/gives every useful and important information about mobile. All models of all companies are explained with their pro & cons, you name it and you have it on http://mobileinindia.in/ Simple and elobrative language explain every mobile in short
I'm all for renewable energy, but building energy plants for the purposes of exporting rather than importing power is not a good global solution for everyone. So my question is where did they build them?
In my last travels around Europe I could not help but notice wind turbines dotted all over the beautiful Austrian country side. I noticed wind turbines in the mountains in the south part of France. I went skiing on the edge of the Swiss alps and there were wind turbines on the fucking mountain tops. I mean really, these are not unpopulated places, they are destinations known for their beautiful scenery.
Mean while here in Australia we have hundreds of thousands of sqkm of arid and unpopulated wasteland rife with wind and sun. Yet we build nothing but coal fired powerplants. (not to mention we have a metric buttload of uranium).
Portugal if I visit you next year and your wonderful country is dotted with wind turbines in all the most scenic places I will be sorely disappointed.
First of all, cutting taxes is generally understood to be good for the economy.
Citation needed.
Fighting wars generally isn't, so I don't know why you are bundling those two together.
If you had a drug addiction, and you were always broke, there's a very good reason to think that ending the drug addiction would solve the second problem.
Secondly, the two wars were generally supported by both parties (though in case of Iraq there were more opponents among Democrats but that was mostly posturing for political reasons). I don't think it's clear at all that the US foreign policy would have been any different under Clinton or, god forbid, Gore especially after 9/11.
Let's see: we've spent a few trillion dollars, increased recruitment to Al Qaeda, funneled money to the Taliban through the ISI, lost thousands of soldier's lives, maimed thousands more, killed a few hundred thousand muslims, displaced a few million more, given up habeas corpus, built secret prisons around the world for the purposes of rendition and torture, and we've handed the war in Afghanistan - the "good" one - over to the CIA and Task Force 373 that's busy extrajudicially executing terrorism suspects.
What could Gore, or anyone, have possibly fucked up more than that?
I don't think the recession was caused by Obama nor inherited from Bush. It's simplistic to the point of ridiculous to view something as complex as the economic cycle as determined by which president is in office even though their decisions of course have some impact.
Generally speaking, Democratic administrations have reduced military spending and increased taxes. Have a look at the results for yourself: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Democrats aren't inherently better or anything, but at least they have demonstrated that cutting military spending and progressive taxes reduce the national debt. If people making more than 160,000 a year are really going to quit working over a 4% increase in Federal tax income, I say good riddance. There are plenty of people who will step up to take their place. They deserve to lose money for being fair weather patriots, who apparently only care about this country when it's dumping cash into their pockets.
Yes, but it's a lot like where about 3/4 of the population of China live and colder than most of India. That sounds a bit more typical than Lake Wobegon USA to me.
As for Australia, yes. What are you personally doing about it? (Asks he, smugly regarding his home solar PV plant, high efficiency insulation, rainwater collection system and fertiliser-free vegetable patch)
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
"This little town is adorable and attracts tourists for all over who come and spend their money as well as deteriorate the very environment they find dear."
Who will provide the grand design?
What is yours and what is mine?
'Cause there is no more new frontier.
We have got to make it here.
We satisfy our endless needs and
justify our bloody deeds,
in the name of destiny and the name
of God.
And you can see them there,
On Sunday morning.
They stand up and sing about,
what it's like up there.
They call it paradise,
I don't know why.
You call someplace paradise,
kiss it goodbye.
- From "The last resort" by The Eagles.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
What about the +900.000 Intel Classmate computers (aka Magalhães) that were handed out by government? The same educational purpose could be achieved by having much less computers (like using them in the classroom, with proper tutoring and supervision from a teacher) and, guess what, much less energy would be used (and wasted, by not spending endless hours playing games and watching porn, because we all now what most of the kids do with their Magalhães). And apparently given out computers to poorer families with low skills doesn't make much difference (probably for worse, since the kids now have a new "toy" to play with and their parents don't give a crap about what they are using that tool for). But hey, just pour money into a problem solves it, right? That's why our education system is our pride! Or maybe not...
Thanks for pointing out that Portugal is "a small country .... on the West Coast of Europe, known for its white sand beaches, oranges, fish, and wines".
For us non-USA folk, could you Americans give us geographical guidance when referring to US states, e.g. rather than just saying "New England", could you provide similar context, for example, say "New England is a small state on the East Coast of the USA, known for its historical districts, American Football team and ..." (umm well I don't know anything else so this is why I could do with some help).
This kind of context would be really helpful for us non-Americans! ;-)
I think Americans knowledge of European countries is about the same as Europeans knowledge of US states. Probably in both cases knowledge is biased to places which feature more in movies.
Maybe we have low wages because we have one of the lowest productivity rates in Europe. Compared to the productivity of a German, a medium Portuguese "earns" more. And what about the "11-months worked/14-months payed"? That makes all the sense too. Or maybe the fact that we have such a heavy tax burden too helps explain that (an employer must set aside about 1.500€ to pay you 1.000€). Or the fact that half of the economy is in the State's hands. Guess only the "greedy neoliberals" are to blame, not our benevolent (our should I say corrupt?) government...And don't start with the "TVI/FoxNews" comparison, because I pass on watch RTP/SIC/TVI altogether. And by the way, our public debt should reach 110% by next year and our total external debt exceeds 350% of GDP (far worse than Greece's). Too bad the article says absolutely nothing about our energy efficiency, which is one of the worst in Europe. Of course enhancing this doesn't "sell" anything and doesn't make Mexia's (EDP's CEO) account balance grow by another couple a million per year. But if we were as efficient as say, Finland, we'd need significant less energy to start with and maybe we could ditch the whole wind-energy scheme, that's going to burden us for years to come. Don't forget we are NOT paying for most of this "brave new world" of renewables since electricity prices have been set by government to a lower value than actual production costs (the deficits just keep on pilling up, and sooner or later must be payed...with interests). That's why subsidies are then pulled off in Spain and Germany: because it's a huge burden for the economy.
For decades, Portugal didn't embark in projects of any kind, that's why it's the poorest country of western europe. It won't harm them to bet their future in technology,
How much higher than 15% would those costs be if the energy companies could not offset their costs by exporting excess energy?
Cutting taxes is often NOT good for the economy, especially long term when there is a lot of debt and unfunded entitlement programs, and programs that are desperately needed but have yet to be created and funded. I don't think Gore would have done much different to stop the coming recession, he's not socialist enough to have really challenged the corrupt capitalist system that causes the depression cycle, but we would have been in an incredibly more favorable position to ride it out than we were and are in. He also would not have attacked Iraq - a war of choice which has done nothing to improve our security and has in fact weakened it and squandered our hard earned reputation with the rest of the world.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Portugal only generates 17% of the electricity it uses: http://energy.eu/#dependency So actually the 45% renewables is 45% of that 17%. Which is really, what, 8% of Portugal's consumed electricity? The rest they buy from their EU neighbours, probably mostly from France who export 49% of their generated power, since Spain don't really output enough and presumable wouldn't *only* sell to Portugal (see same table). I'm not saying the Portuguese energy department (whatever it's called) doesn't try to buy renewable energy from the EU grid, but I don't think they practically could buy enough from their neighbours to reach 45% renewables *consumed*, which is what really matters - especially in a country with such a high energy dependency. And Portugal is a hot country. I live in the south of France and used to live in the UK and I know how much lower my energy needs are here because I pay the bills! It's easier to use less energy in a country where you don't really need to heat yourself at any time of the year. Not to be all doom and gloom, this is a political stunt, but if you want a real success story look at Denmark. Net energy exporter (over 35% more power generated than needed by the country) and 30% of the energy it generates is from renewables: http://energy.eu/#renewable And they want to do better. Now that *is* impressive. If they weren't exporting so much energy then more than 50% of their consumed power would be renewable (though I guess the exports pay for a lot of the investment in renewables).
And mind you, the bosses don't pay low wages because they don't have money (like I said they have a LOT OF MONEY), they pay low wages because, well, they all do, and unless you have a very specialized job, if you don't want to do it for what they pay, they find another one to do it.
Another problem, is that, there is a very big tax fraud in here. The proletariat pays taxes because they have a steady income ... the rich don't because the system is made so that it's very difficult to control what they really earn.
Gosh, this seems very similar to what might be said about the USA... with two qualifiers: the low wages are realized by having people in other (poor) countries do the work, and the low tax burden of the rich is not due to fraud, but due to the power they wield in lobbying for tax breaks.
Who cares? It's all imaginary money after all.
One thing that is not imaginary though is all the jobs created by the maintenance needs, and the free power that will flow from their generators.
So they'll use more power. Well, great! It comes from the sun and wind anyway.
Plenty of energy and communications are a good thing, aren't they? Unless you're a ludite, I guess, but you wouldn't be posting on Slashdot.
Really I'd be surprised to learn that moving half a ton of metal on a dozen of miles is cheaper than using the home air climatizer that happens to be 10% less efficient than at work.
What could Gore, or anyone, have possibly fucked up more than that?
You could all be weggie-eating communists driving around in public transport singing hippie songs, and the worst, not allowed to own all those guns anymore.
Of course, that would have been quite unlikely. Looking from outside, your two-party-system's both parties are really the same.
There are a lot of companies and individuals investing in microproduction (you have buildings with solar panels that actually sell electricity to the grid during the day) and it makes economic sense. Not only they're generating energy for their own use, but they sell the excess production to the grid at a competitive rate (electricity in Portugal is expensive).
The funny thing is that, in Portugal, broadband/wideband coverage is close to 100%, 3G/3.5G coverage is close to 100%, digital TV coverage with HD (by cable or satellite) is close to 100%, the percentage of citizens owning a cellphone is over 70%, and yet on the graphic you linked to you can see that the consumption per capita is quite lower than other countries without the coverage we have on machine-dependant services. And yes, pretty much everyone has at least one computer, and some form of high-speed connection.
Why do we see this meme so often? Solar and wind energy is used to produce electricity. Electricity isn't significantly produced by oil, it's mostly coal, followed by nuclear, hydro, and natural gas...
We do use oil as chemical feedstock and for fuel for mobile applications like vehicles. Thus far, our usage of electricity in that function is 'insignificant'.
Don't get me wrong, I'm always happy about staying away from coal and using something significantly cleaner. After all, coal is even nastier than oil. Well, modern coal plants are cleaner than autos, but that's because they have industrial sized pollution controls.
I don't read AC A human right
Oh, I see your point. The coal plants don't have any employees. They don't need maintenance, they run spontaneously.
I don't know how to interpret the statistics you linked to. Sweden for example imports half its electricity (in the form of uranium) and all of its oil, so it stands to reason that well over 50% of Sweden's energy needs are covered by imports. Yet the table you linked to only shows a modest 37.4%. The page is very light on details regarding what the figures actually mean. My speculation would be that nuclear fuels were "forgotten" in the totals where electric power, coal, oil etc. were included, thus rendering the table utterly useless for the purpose of measuring energy dependency (which incidentally is the heading of the table).
Am I missing something? You seem to have given these statistics quite some thought. Can you offer any further insights regarding this?
You can be sure I'm not defending our government. Just that there is also a positive point to the picture.
I would say that investing in Information Technologies and Renewable Energy are the only good things this government has ever done. All the rest was simply dreadful. I just can't remember anything else they did right, at this moment.
You do realize that computers use electricity, right?
Very little. My current laptop (and most new computers are laptops) uses a peak of 85W, which is above average. If I leave it on and consuming electricity at full load for one year, that's around 750kWh. If it's only 8 hours a day, then it's only around 250kWh. In more realistic usage (not charging the battery, running the CPU and GPU flat out and simultaneously burning a DVD and driving the USB and FireWire ports at full power), it's closer to 100kWh/year, if that. That amounts to around 2% of the per-capita GDP energy consumption for Portugal.
And you're blithely ignoring secondary effects. For example, ubiquitous Internet means that I now do most of my grocery shopping online. Rather than every customer driving to a supermarket, loading up a car, and driving it back, I can order the stuff that I want and a van makes one trip around the city for 20-40 customers. You only need to do this a few times to completely offset the energy cost of the computer just from that one use. I also work from home now, so I don't need to travel anywhere for work - more energy saving. I pay bills and do banking online, rather than having things printed and posted - more energy saving.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Your reasons do not explain the Gini index. This is clearly caused by poor wealth distribution, which goes against your arguments.
The heavy taxation and the weight of State in the economy that you complain about are a lot bigger in Scandinavian countries that have the lowest Gini indexes in the world.
Your arguments are typical of the right-wing free-market mentality (called neoliberal in Europe), that has guided the policies in most of the world in the latest decades, leading our economy into ruin.
We don't have siestas. You're mistaking us with Spain. Also, the Portuguese are the second only to UK in number of overtime hours worked (almost all of them illegally not paid).
The main difference is that the northern countries are better managed. The mentality here is that it's OK for people to be in high places and make lots of money not for merit, but because of acquaintances or family. Our managers are the best paid and the worse in EU. It's OK to evade taxes if you're rich and know people in high places. In many northern countries this is unthinkable.
Say whatever you say about Portugal (there are a lot of good things to say), but don't mention Internet connection, please. Maybe the coverage is good, but the quality of it is horrible over here in Coimbra! You get a 20Mbit connection (ZON) which barely works half of the time. Transfer speed is mostly good, but simply browsing web pages is a pain. Loading web pages should just work, it's not a 33.6k modem after all, but instead they time out so often you start wondering if the whole Internet is going down. Same thing with all my friends who've been living here, all around Coimbra. I would choose a cheaper 10Mbit connection which I had in Finland over this one any time.
I can name another good one: de-bureaucratization. We can do many stuff by internet, or physical at a "loja do cidadão" without even a fraction of the paperwork, and we can do many things much much faster. For instance, creating a company in an hour, an day to take care of every legal and fiscal requirement to sell a house, etc. Other than these 3 things yes ... I agree this government sucks.
Indeed, exactly! of course I guess I could look up wikipedia I suppose ;-)
Just wanted to reply to the bit about extradjudicial executions. How do you think it should work? Domestically even non-terrorist suspects may get killed if they are summoned to court but they refuse to come and instead fight the police. Do you think if someone refuses to cooperate we should just be like "nevermind, we can't use force on you because you haven't been given due process.."
As well as being ahead of the game in terms of green energy Portugal also has the most advanced drug laws in the world
In 2001, Portugal became the first European country to abolish all criminal penalties for personal drug possession. In addition, drug users were to be targeted with therapy rather than prison sentences.[6]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal
The first country to back away from AMERICA'S 'war on drugs' - which has been as successful as the 'war of terror.'?
Maybe we have low wages because we have one of the lowest productivity rates in Europe. Compared to the productivity of a German
No, that's wrong, very very wrong. That's a completely far right-wing view of the problem. The all North of Portugal relies on cheap labour. QUITE HARD cheap labour. Or do you think an employee from the shoes/textile industry working 40h a week for a measly €450 a month is not breaking his back for the boss? The productivity rate doesn't measure how are people work, it measures how much that work gives. The education levels in Germany are far higher than in Portugal, so they have many more people doing high paying, high level jobs and that's the real reason they are more productive.
What do you think it makes more money per hour to their boss, a civil Engineer in Germany or 10 shoemakers in Portugal? And now, which job would you rather do? Because from your point of view, it looks like you would like to be making shoes, since after all, that people don't do anything ... their productivity rates are too low.
competitive, at least not in the US. Subways and monorails and other local mass-transit systems may use grid electricity, but intercity/interstate passenger and freight trains use onboard-diesel-generated electricity (in other words, oil).
Can you please cite an historical example of when cutting taxes was bad for the economy, or at least demonstrably not good for the economy? While I will agree that, in theory at least, there may be times that cutting taxes is not good for the economy, saying that "cutting taxes is often not good for the economy" requires that one be able to point to an historical example where this is true.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Coal plants benefit from massive influxes of cheap fuel that is cheap to convert to electricity. The margins are high because the energy was built up on natures time, not company's dime. Pollution is cheap, for the polluter.
Have you ever run the numbers on a PV array for your house? I did. If there were no government subsidies, the system would pay for itself 5 years after I had to replace the entire thing.
Granted, a nation buying in bulk can probably get a good discount. But these guys are basically using money from everywhere else, taking property from it's own citizens, and holding back the rest of the European economy to do it.
THL phish sticks
Well, sorry to say but you haven't informed yourself before buying, the problem is that Zon is a pile of crap. It's not from the infrastructure. Although I don't want to admit it, the slighter more expensive services of Sapo or Meo are way, wayyyyy more reliable then Zon. And look, for 20€ a month you have unlimited downloads, 20Mbit broadband internet with free telephone calls to landlines in the all country ... I would say it's a very good deal.
From the article "Portuguese households have long paid about twice what Americans pay for electricity", so there is no miracle. Consumers pay for it with higher utility rates.
The grid is not as smart as the article implies. Earlier this year (see http://aeiou.expresso.pt/as-eolicas-e-o-mau-tempo=f562222 in Portuguese) in a stormy night Portugal was giving away electrical energy to Spain and France, while still paying the contracted rate to the producers.
The real Portuguese deficit is much higher then the statistics show. Hospitals, freeways and lots of other things have been transferred to private companies. For example private companies have built freeways, but it is the government that pays the toll, not the driver. The loans for building the freeway are on the company books not on the government books, but it is the government that has to pay the loans. Go to N 40 41', W 8 32' move north and check how the government managed to build two parallel freeways in the middle of the countryside. In one the toll is paid by the driver, the other it is paid by the government (that is the taxpayer). Next time you read about the risk of Portugal going bankrupt, you will know why: expensive freeways, expensive electrical energy, lots of public works...
Second, once there's something cheaper, wind farms will be worth removing for the materials alone. Who wants to remove cyanide and heavy metal laden mine tailings?
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Too many countries are waiting for a real oil shortage before going green or becoming efficiently self sufficient.
I think it is an amazing achievement and should not be taken lightly, and that so many other countries especially 3rd world countries could stand to help themselves by doing this.
GDP per capita is not a very suitable measure of how 'rich' a country is. The U.S. has a larger GDP per capita than Germany, Finland, Sweden and Japan. Yet the average citizen of each of those countries is far wealthier than the average American.
At best, GDP per capita is a measure of how much of the economy of a country consists of banks and oil companies.
I'm all for renewable energy, but I find just transfering from fossil to renewable with the same stupid bastards running the grid and leaching off the public to be intollerable.
P>
There is no need for a massive infrastructure when most forms of renewables are advanced enough and cheap enough to be integrated into a house or builidng.
I for one will be taking advantage of all the discounts and rebates this winter to put in a solar water heater for the house and the pool, next year it will be solar panels for electricity.
You're saying that the economy is more important than the environment? You must be American. It seems that Portugal with its investments is better set up for the future than the USA which is heavily reliant on depleting resources.
According to your other post, Portugal should be energy insecure and polluting so they can give tax breaks to business? As if they don't have enough problems with a mega-rich overclass.
If the Portuguese shoemaker wasn't paid so little money, his job would be in China and he would be at the employment agency. Most people don't care much for a 'Made in EU' label and they just want to spend as little money as possible.
How much was spent, what is the cost to generate, and how much profit is made?
My God man, weren't you listening to him? The marginal rate on the incomes of those earning 250K or more would have been marginally higher! MARGINALLY HIGHER!!!!
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
Coal plants benefit from massive influxes of cheap fuel that is cheap to convert to electricity. The margins are high because the energy was built up on natures time, not company's dime. Pollution is cheap, for the polluter.
Coal is NOT cheap when you factor in the huge environmental damage it causes. Stop thinking about the environment as a free, infinite asset. It's not.
Have you ever run the numbers on a PV array for your house? I did. If there were no government subsidies, the system would pay for itself 5 years after I had to replace the entire thing.
Granted, a nation buying in bulk can probably get a good discount.
I've said it a million times: Without state intervention, the polluting technologies will always win, because they're already there and (ignoring the environment) they're cheaper. But that's a short-sighted strategy. If we all though like that, we'd be still living in cages.
But these guys are basically using money from everywhere else, taking property from it's own citizens, and holding back the rest of the European economy to do it.
From everywhere else? Where? Taking property? What property? Holding the rest of the European economy? Do you think a 10 million people country with a ridiculous GDP has the power to hold back anything in Europe? You need to go out more.
That certainly is great, I love it. In a few years, we went from bureaucratic and slow to be in the world's top ten or five. But I was including that when I talked about investment in Information Technology, because, in the end, it's all that.
Portugal has distinct geographic advantages which allows them to benefit from renewable energy sources. Many parts of the country fairly mountainous. So there are countless ideal locations for wind turbines and there are already a ton out there. But what the article fails to mention is that the majority of Portugal's power generation actually comes from hydroelectric.
In fact, in a region much of my family hails from there has been talk, for decades, of building a dam. It looks like it's finally going through and it's going to have a fairly profound affect on the area. I mean that negatively, people losing land and it possibly changing the nature of commerce in the area. A concern I've been hearing for years is that dams increase humidity. From personal observation summers seemed dryer when I visited as a kid to more recently. They get a lot of the hazy humidity I experience in the states. One of the concerns is that it affects the quality of grapes for wine production but admittedly I've seen no evidence to support that.
One thing that's certain is that it hasn't made electricity any cheaper. And from the way people talk, it seems to have gotten a good bit more expensive. But again, Portugal is ideally situation. They've got consistent strong winds blowing off the ocean and mountains. Perfect for wind turbines and they could easily set up tidal generation along the coast. It also helps that a lot of people have left the countryside for the cities. There have been some moving back, but there's still plenty of land, even if a lot of it is farmland, to erect turbines or sacrifice for reservoirs. The country is also quite small making it rather easy to keep the grid up-to-date.
The US is a far larger country and not every state has ideal geography for renewable energy. Certain areas are far too densely populated to realistically build anything like this. In my area there was furor over something as simple as how to run power lines across a few counties. And really, while individual states are comparable to any European nation the fact is that they've come to be far too dependent on the federal government. They don't have the resources or sufficiently knowledgeable state employees to be able to be able to do any of this for themselves. Hell, a a bunch of trees go down and a city will run to FEMA asking handouts.
The NIMBY crowds seem to be much stronger in the US than in most other countries. Choose from the right checklist of concerns, historical preservation or environmental issues, and you can block anything or at least put it in limbo. I'm not sure if it's because other governments walk all over their citizens with impunity, which in some cases they seem to, or if the people can look beyond their self-centered and unrealistic desires to protect their communities from change.
A historical example? Is the current recession bad enough for you? Eight years of tax cuts on top of the previous decades' cuts haven't helped economy in the slightest. They have made the wealth distribution worse. They have led to a ballooning of the debt. How can you possibly argue that the Bush tax cuts helped?
This isn't entirely true. I live in Portugal. The media in here gives us the exact opposite news: Portugal imports more than it exports and it doesn't explore even a third of its potential in renewable energy sources. The whole story is written pro-government, stating that they were against "many voices". That is a lie. The government did indeed do a very good job in that department, but it was agreed by all parties and, I think (though I can't assure), that the idea was first brought on by part of the opposition. If there's one thing that this government did well was that. Now add up the tons of corruption cases hidden that were archived and we have our very own political suck ass system. I feel ashamed to live in a country full of idiots who continue to elect the bastards in the government, in spite the much clear evidence of their crimes, corruption and illegal activities. It's as they say, we can't let the whole country elect, because a great deal of it is illiterate and gullible (as a consequence of the long time it took us to support public education and the time it took us to dump religion, which ruled the mentality of the Portuguese people for years).
And I've seem some comments out there, such as: "Portugal will thrive while the US stumbles.". Portugal still doesn't have decent income from renewable energy sources. It won't, because the government is starting to cut back on what could help with that. Most importantly, public education is being ruined in Portugal. Next to nobody wants to teach now. Those who want, can't get in. Those who currently teach are being kicked out. Unless this changes, our educational system will be very degraded in the next 30 years. And without proper education, we can't have as many intelligent and kind people to lead us out of the blackhole that's haunted our country for years now.
I hope I'm drastically wrong, but a bit of research will tell you that it doesn't seem that way. The people who have been commenting here clearly don't live in Portugal and see what this is like. There are worse countries, though. I just hope Portugal can recognize its new great minds so that they don't do as the previous ones and run away to other countries.
Have you heard about SoylentNews?
Your link also indicates that Portugal's public debt is 75.2% of the GDP (getting this number from the CIA fact book and the other one from The Economist).
The United States' public debt is 88% of the GDP without the huge investment in renewable sources of energy. What's their excuse?
I'm not saying Portugal's economy is better than that of the United States — it isn't. I'm just pointing out that public debt as a percentage of the GDP is not the best way to assess the health of an economy or if an investment in cleaner energy is a good idea.
I believe Portugal has universal health care as well.
Also, they recently decriminalized / legalized all drugs (even cocaine), and instead people can use what they want, but there are addiction centers to help people quit if they so choose.
"If people making more than 160,000 a year are really going to quit working over a 4% increase in Federal tax income, I say good riddance." That's me! I bailed on the U.S. almost 10 years ago. They don't get taxes out of me anymore. But you got it wrong - it's an ethical issue. I no longer fund the manufacture of land mines that blow the legs off of little kids across southeast Asia, or give a raise in benefits to unwed mothers each time they squeeze out another illegitimate kid soon to be a gang member, or award people who have "inflicted more fear, more loss of freedom and more loss of life than anyone else" (actual words of U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates when honoring General Stanley McChrystal during the general’s retirement ceremony). Nope, you are paying for those things, not me.
Khao Yai Land
Not really for anybody with a brain and a pair of working eyes. There is a strong correlation of lower taxes and economic prosperity throughout history of USA and the world. What people in favor of higher taxes argue for is greater equality, not greater overall wealth of the nation - which only comes through production (which is encouraged by lower taxes)
Government can be broke while the economy is healthy. The only thing needed is for the government to act like everybody else when they are broke: reduce spending.
He could have done all those things AND damaged the economy even more by Obama style massive increase in government spending. There is no natural limit of ~10% for unemployment in the US, it can easily go up to 20% or more like in various European countries. Keep taxing and spending and you'll see.
Spoken like someone who makes less than $160,000. Raising taxes on any income group harms everybody in the long run. What economy in recession needs the least is to reduce individuals and business ability to invest, to hire and to spend and that's exactly what higher taxes do.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Here's the thing, "cutting taxes" is not the real crux of the issue. The real problem comes when you cut taxes, and then either cut government spending, or even worse, don't cut government spending. The one leads to less investment in infrastructure and such that the government is rather better than the private sector at providing, the other just leads to people bickering over the massive debt that is SURE to bring massive taxes to pay off.
Cutting taxes is often NOT good for the economy, especially long term when there is a lot of debt and unfunded entitlement programs, and programs that are desperately needed but have yet to be created and funded.
Easy solution: eliminate the existing entitlement programs and don't create any new ones. As for Gore not being socialist enough for you, sorry to say thing this, but that is pretty disgusting. I hope you are under 20 years old. Otherwise, anybody who is able to witness the record of socialist economic "theories" and the economic collapse and destruction they had brought everywhere they were tried, not to mention the totalitarian regimes they brought into power (you can't have socialism AND liberty - you have to pick one) and literally 100s of millions of lives (all by government action) lost, and still argues for it has lost any right to the excuse of honest ignorance and is beneath contempt.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
No, the current recession is not evidence that tax cuts are bad for the economy. The tax cuts went into effect in 2003, the recession did not start until December of 2007 (according to official, although the traditionally a recession is defined as two or more quarters of negative GDP in a row which would put the start of the recession in the third quarter of 2008). Additionally when you consider that the economy showed marked improvement immediately after the tax cuts took effect, it makes it hard to argue that they harmed the economy.
I would argue that a significant reason that the current economy is as bad as it is is the anticipated tax increases that go into effect January 1st, 2011. A major additional factor is the uncertainty about what regulations will result from the Health care law and the Financial "reform" law. Both of those laws call for masive new regulations of all aspects of our economy and few of those regulations have been written yet.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
> You do realize that computers use electricity, right?
Yes they do but not that much. Here's some perspective:
A desktop computer (minus display) uses about 100W. If you leave it on all the time that's 2.4kWh per day. If only 8 hours, that's 0.8kWh.
Add a 22" LCD panel for another 55W. 155W * 8 hours a day = 1.24kWh. Note: you can get most modern PCs and displays to go to "energy saver" mode when idle, so they can use even less power.
Contrast:
A single fluorescent tube lamp uses about 40W.
A Desk/stand fan uses about 50W.
A fridge uses about 100W on average.
A typical room airconditioner/heater uses about 1000 to 1500W peak (how much on average depends on your temp setting, but it's usually bad in terms of energy consumption).
Microwave ovens, toasters, hair dryers also use about 1000W when running.
A "proper" electric oven uses about 2500 to 7000W. Roast/bake something for an hour and it'll use more than running a PC for 8 hours.
Washing machines can use about 2kWh per load ( http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/laundry.html ).
And clothes dryers? They use 4kW or so.
A Tesla Roadster has a 53kWh battery and a range of about 350km. That makes it about 7km per kWh. Including charging losses, Tesla state the overall plug-to-wheel efficiency is 0.128 kWh/km. I guess that excludes stuff like in-car airconditioning and heating ;).
That means just driving an electric car to work 10km away will use more electricity than running a PC+LCD for 24 hours.
And after driving 10km to the office, most people will end up working on a computer anyway. So if the fibreoptic stuff allow more people to work from home, it'll actually save a lot more energy.
Lastly: 1 litre of petrol contains about 34 megajoules. That's 9.4 kilowatt hours. A small car's fuel tank can typically hold about 40-50 litres. Yes that's not electricity but if you don't use an electric vehicle to get to work, you'll probably be burning petroleum.
Ah yes, the cages. I miss my cage.
Interesting.
Oh, shit. I meant caves.
+1 internets for you, good sir.
You forgot to mention all the nice monopolies and cartels we have: oil, energy, banks, telecommunications. I would even go as far as saying the wealth asymmetry is only a reflection of the prevailing corruption in the markets and society in general.
Err, I live here. And ok, it's true that there are no criminal penalties for possession of drugs for personal use. But, didn't the Dutch do that a LONG time ago already? At most we where the 2nd ones. And we still don't have coffee shops ... ridiculous, if I wanted to buy cannabis I would need to actually make a transaction with someone that would be breaking the law and not paying taxes and I couldn't really trust the quality of the merchandise has I can do in a Dutch coffee shop.
And can you grown your own cannabis plant ? (legally speaking)
Only if you can keep it below 6g dried (because that's what's considered "personal use" around here) ... which I think it's impossible.
Or not, perhaps I can get really rich by making little bonsai cannabis plants and sell them around :D
100kWh/year
You realize that's like a hundred pounds of coal a year, right?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Citation needed
Laffer Curve
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
that's close to Belgium and Netherlands legislation then
:-)
If anyone manages to grow that bonsai thing, he'll become a new God
Now you can spend an extra 10k per car on battery's and drag them around all the time, or you can use a hybrid trolley system for those times when you need the extra range.
I think you're underestimating the cost of electrifying 46,876 miles of road. Plus you can't necessarily just put elevated 'trolly wires' in because the highways also have to be able to take oversized traffic.
Build it into the roadway and you're looking at even more expensive and difficult to maintain.
That's why for highway travel I'd either say rent a vehicle with an IC engine(hybrid or not), or rent a trailor with a generator and make the EVs compatible with them.
I don't read AC A human right
I'm plenty old enough to see that you can't have capitalism and equity - you have to pick one; while socialism, liberty, and a greater degree of equality than we have here happily coexist in most of Europe and parts of Asia (not China, think South Korea and Japan). I find capitalism disgusting. It's probably the most abhorrent, dehumanizing, terrible, evil thing I could imagine. The failures of the "socialist" states in the 20th century were not failures of socialism they were failures of totalitarianism. Socialism REQUIRES democracy. The millions that died in the USSR and China did not die because of socialism they died because they lived under a dictatorship that was poorly run. In America, millions barely scrape by or worse because they live under a capitalist system that is poorly run.
The ignorance of what socialism is comes from never seriously challenging the notion that exploitation and greed are the best building blocks for a system of government and commerce. If we are to succeed in the long term as a nation, as a species, then we ought not to base our organizing structures on our worst qualities and fuel them with our basest desires for material wealth and lust for power.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
There is a strong correlation of lower taxes and economic prosperity throughout history of USA and the world.
Reassertions are not citations. You haven't got a single study to show for it? Or are you one of the mises.org spawn who doesn't believe in math?
Government can be broke while the economy is healthy. The only thing needed is for the government to act like everybody else when they are broke: reduce spending.
At a certain point in debt per GDP ratio, this is correct. But all of the states who do tax progressively and spend on internal infrastructure, education, and technology dominate GDP per capita. That's because 10,000,000 to build a McMansion produces far less wealth for a society than sending 400 kids to college who couldn't otherwise afford it. In the libertarian model, there's no way to optimize shared resources. Everyone's going to grab all of the money and power they can grab until we have 3rd world demographics: an ultra-wealthy sliver at the top doing just fine, while the rest of society struggles for basic needs. That's the primary reason iPads aren't selling like hotcakes in places in South America where we forced the Chicago school on their economy. There's no market of people who can afford to buy them.
There is no natural limit of ~10% for unemployment in the US, it can easily go up to 20% or more like in various European countries. Keep taxing and spending and you'll see.
The true number of unemployment is already closer to 16%, perhaps as high as 20%, since America does not count the underemployed or those who have given up looking for work. We've had higher unemployment than Europe for some time now, and it's gotten worse since the Bush tax cuts have been in effect.
Spoken like someone who makes less than $160,000. Raising taxes on any income group harms everybody in the long run. What economy in recession needs the least is to reduce individuals and business ability to invest, to hire and to spend and that's exactly what higher taxes do.
Fuck me. I didn't know I was arguing with someone who had money! Never mind about all of these facts and figures I was going to give you... you win since you have the money. No, it's a solid line of reasoning. Works great for the Hiltons.
Ok, first of all I take back the beneath contempt thing from my last post as I don't actually doubt your sincerity. I just think you are as close to being 100% wrong in everything you said as it is possible to be. If you look up socialism in the dictionary you will find that its central characteristic is the state ownership of the means of production (industry) and distribution (trade). You cannot have liberty under the system where it is illegal for you to produce something and then sell it, which is exactly how it was in socialist countries in Eastern Europe, China etc. Only state was allowed to own the means of production although in some countries small business were allowed and those tended to be vastly more productive than state own businesses. Look up private owned agricultural businesses in Soviet Union which produced 30% of the gross product of the nation despite covering only 3% of the arable land. If you think it's no big deal to give up the economic liberty then consider that humans can only survive on Earth (other than as hunters/gatherers in small parts of Africa) through producing stuff. Human economic activity is the only difference between the city I am in now (and probably a trillion dollars worth of stuff that's in it) and the worthless empty desert 50 miles away. In other words if the government controls the economic activity, that means that there is zero liberty for the population except as granted by the government. There are no rights possible without the right to produce and trade because those are the same thing as the right to life.
If you are one of those who think they have socialism in Sweden or whatever, then you are the one who is ignorant of what socialism is. Welfare state is not the same thing as socialism. If you are in favor of welfare state (sort of forced charity) on top of a completely capitalist economy, like Sweden's, then you should call it welfare state and not socialism.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Let me break this down.
74,1% of bosses in Portugal have less than high school education.
26,9% have high-school.
I think that sums it all.
Wow. Is your US audience really so geographically challenged that you need to tell them what Portugal is? And saying "West Coast of Europe" is strange. Look at a map. Europe doesn't have one single west coast. And Portugal has a south coast too.
Climate.
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
You bring up secondary effects, yet only the ones that are in favor of your argument.
What about the additional electricity you will use while at home for heating/cooling/lighting etc? What about the secondary effect of all the garbage trucks that will have to go to all the different houses to pick up the trash they could have picked up at one central office building? What about all the kids choosing to stay home and play video games all day instead of going to the park? How about all the additional networking equipment that will have to be built, installed, maintained, and replaced?
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
Oh, I thought you meant we used to have the mentality of circus animals or something. No worries, cave is also appropriate.
Interesting.
The mines stopped being profitable after the Cold War. That was when the world started melting nuclear warheads into fuel.
Not really for anybody with a brain and a pair of working eyes. There is a strong correlation of lower taxes and economic prosperity throughout history of USA and the world.
Uh, no, it isn't that clear cut. If you think it is, show me the data. This argumentum ad populum, not supported by any real data. Here are two analyses, with data, that do not support your above statement.
http://www.angrybearblog.com/2007/09/tax-rates-and-economic-growth-look-at.html
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm
What is comes down to is, it's a lot more complicated than that. There isn't a single parameter (taxes) that determines economic growth or recession. Some models may predict it, but that doesn't mean they are accurate. Here is a link I posted in another comment thread,
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm
Socialism simply means that the means of production is owned by the workers themselves, not a separate class of capitalist that benefits from the labor of others because they own the land and means of production. Economic freedom is only one type of freedom, and not even the most important type. Socialism makes an unusual (from a capitalist point of view) distinction between private property (means of production) and personal property (the things you own like your car, clothes, etc). Only private property is collectivized and given not to the state, but to the workers to administer through a democratic process (the "state"). Liberty is not just a matter of economics. "Economic" freedom is a tool to serve humanity, humanity does not exist to serve economics. There is nothing sacred about the ability to make and sell things under a capitalist system, and if the same amount of greater benefit can be derived from a different system then that's what should be followed. And strictly speaking, even under a socialist system of production it is still possible to make and exchange things, but production is tailored to meet human needs and not what will enrich the capital holding class regardless of the costs to the worker's health, peace, the environment, civil rights, etc.
You mentioned the Soviet Union which makes me think you considered them socialist in more than name. The revolution in Russia certainly began with socialist intentions, and they maintained nominal adherence to a few key socialist ideas but it was never more than a dictatorship in practice.
Sweden or most European countries are definitely more socialist than the US is, and I think they are a good model for a transition period before making more radical changes. Throughout the history of human society we have become more cooperative and collectivized, not less. There have been fits and starts of other forms of government but equilibrium will not be reached until there is a system that fixes the fundamental problems of inequality present in the current capitalist system. 95% of the population should not work for the benefit of the top 5%.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Debt as percentage of GDP is a meaningless statistic. What counts is interest.
Mart
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
http://www.worldsalaries.org/portugal.shtml
Salaries seem higher in Portugal, while the cost of living seems lower (bottom).
Perhaps income inequality is higher in the US, so that $46K per capita GDP does not get to most workers.
US average salary seems to be about $27K
http://www.worldsalaries.org/usa.shtml
The Portuguese model applies to all drugs though - not just pot.
Portugal has also legalized all drug use. Whatever these folks are on - we, in the USA, need some badly!
Looking at GDP, yes. But you need to read it in a different light. Portugal is a temperate climate country, with a socialist government, where people live reasonably well:
All of this greatly reduces incentives to entrepreneurship, with obvious results in economic evolution. On the flipside, it means that a salary of 1500eur/month buys you a good home, a nice car and two weeks vacation in the tropics, because you don't have to save for health, education or harsh times.
Further, Portugal suffers from low education levels when compared to the rest of Europe and namely when compared to former USSR countries. It's an effect of our dictatorship (ended in '74) that will take a generation to fix (and is indeed being fixed). The result is that industry uses little capital, uses more manpower than machinery and suffers naturally from the consequent low productivity.
Nevertheless, it's a really nice country to live in, with economic parameters difficult to explain to a Northern American.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you