Americans Happy To Pay More For Clean Energy, But Only a Little More

Fluffeh writes "A recent study of over 1,000 folks for a paper published in Nature Climate Change has found that the average U.S. citizen is inclined to pay a premium to ensure that by 2035, 80% of U.S. power comes from clean energy. At random, respondents received one of three "technological treatments" or definitions of clean energy that included renewable energy sources alone, renewable sources plus natural gas, and renewable sources plus nuclear power. Delving into the socioeconomics, researchers found that Republicans, Independents, and respondents with no party allegiance were less likely by 25, 13 and 25 percentage points respectively to support a NCES than respondents that identified themselves as Democrats."

Comments

Solar power satellites

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Often absent from these discussions, and before the usual flamewars start, are solar power satellites, such as the ones JAXA is developing. This technology, while it may seem a bit blue sky at the moment is coming very much economically within our grasp over the next decade. All of the energy we need is flying right at us free of charge from the biggest nuclear reactor in the solar system, we just need to take advantage of it.

Re:Solar power satellites

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a reason they're absent: the numbers don't work.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/03/space-based-solar-power/

People are skeptical about paying more for power precisely because of boondoggles like that. How are we to know if the money is going to scientifically sound solutions or to someone's infeasible pet project, or worse, to their brother in law.

Re:Solar power satellites

[Intrepid imaginaut]

While its possible that er, Tom Murphy knows more than JAXA and their household name industy associates who are willing to put tens of billions of dollars into SPSs, I doubt it. Fact is, JAXA has gone on record as saying that launch costs need to be one hundredth of their current amount for it to be competitive. That is quite doable. Read the links!

Re:Solar power satellites

[MyLongNickName]

Or, we can invest in technology that already exists and that is already proven before trying to leapfrog two levels of technology. Solar on Earth would work in the US if we'd have technocrats instead of politicians running the country

Re:Solar power satellites

[jkflying]

You mean this one:
http://slashdot.org/~T+Murphy

Re:Solar power satellites

[Hentes]

Or you could put those panels on the ground instead of space getting the same energy for a fraction of the costs.

Re:Solar power satellites

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Something ridiculous like 90-95% of the cost is just launching the stuff up there, which at $10,000 a kilo for 1500-1900 tons per GW, well of course that won't work. What I'm talking about is using new technological advances which reduce the cost to 0.004 of their previous amount to make it work, and it will work.

Re:Solar power satellites

[Intrepid imaginaut]

The only real objection is the cost to launch, the rest is cherry picking some data and ignoring others. Look, its pretty simple.

According to this
http://www.ieice.org/proceedings/EMC09/pdf/21Q1-2.pdf
a 10km diameter rectenna will produce 6.75GW. So lets say 1.48 km to the GW, thats 1.72 square km.

The total power installed capacity of the USA is what, 1580 GW. This means you'd need a square of rectennas ~52km on a side to power the entire country, on the ground.

This is why the Japanese Space Exploration Agency along with numerous other companies are collectively willing to take a $21 billion dollar punt on the technology. 95-99% of that cost is simply launch expenses, a conclusion Tom himself reached. With the Star Tram, launch expenses drop from $10,000 a kilo to $40 a kilo, and suddenly we're in business!

Re:Solar power satellites

[Intrepid imaginaut]

If you say so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested#Criticism_of_EROEI

Incidentally I'm not claiming any particular qualifications in this matter, but I am quite capable of doing basic mathematics and reading and understanding reports. The numbers add up nicely.

Re:Solar power satellites

[Nadaka]

I didn't realize that it was so land inefficient. Putting solar thermal plants on the ground to supply 100% of us power needs (including automobiles and trains) only takes about a 100 mile square, less than 4 times to surface usage for not burning trillions (or more, have not done the math) of tons of rocket fuel.

Re:Solar power satellites

[geekoid]

The only people who want SPS are people who think space is empty.

Re:Solar power satellites

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Assuming that's true, and I haven't seen a source, you still aren't factoring in the need for things like lots and lots of HVDC lines from hot parts to cold parts, and that stuff don't come cheap. Besides which, its the dollar cost per unit produced that matters in energy production.

Why are you talking about rocket fuel?

Re:Solar power satellites

[geekoid]

Cuople of thing.

A sqr 100 miles to a side. 10,000 sqr miles. I think that s what you where saying, but you worded it kinds weird.

And ti would probably take more then that, that is a fairly optimistic assumption that doesn't account for growth.

Another thing to consider is water IST plants you a lot of water. And not in a way where it can be cooled and reused.

IST have a couple of other problems as well.
That said, I would love to see the government build on big enough to power , say Phoenix. 24/7.
The open it up and let anyone see how its built, the technology and all costs and electricity production numbers.
That would be the most effective way to get it on the table for energy companies.

If it does pan out as expected, and the energy companies don't don't start building there own, build another. The another.

Sell energy at cost. This is the only way to pressure energy companies to change. Take their business away.

For our northern states, I would like to see throium reactors.

Re:Solar power satellites

[geekoid]

Yes, if we use magic to life it in orbit, it's cost effective.

But hey, If' I am going to invoke magic genies, I'll wish for a devices the generates electricity out of the expansion of the universe and solve all out problems.
so what is the magic that lowers launch costs from 10K per kilo to 4 dollars per kilo?

And it still doesn't address the issues of just having something in orbit.

Re:Solar power satellites

[Nadaka]

DOH! unit conversion error! It will actually take about 9 times more land to do solar thermal on the ground, not 4 times. Its still close enough that I don't see any advantage for orbital solar considering the launch costs.

Re:Solar power satellites

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Again, why are you talking about launch costs? I'm talking about using the Star Tram.

Charanka Solar Park, capacity 500MW, occupies 7 square miles - so 7GW for 100 square miles, which is 0.0044 of total US capacity. One would need a site 225 times bigger and thats assuming they've already factored in daylight/night and bad weather losses. If they haven't its double or triple that again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charanka_Solar_Park#Charanka_Solar_Park

Re:Solar power satellites

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Yes, if we use magic to life it in orbit, it's cost effective.

www.startram.com

Re:Solar power satellites

[Nadaka]

We are talking about launch costs because they are still an issue. Build your star tram and get launch costs to $40 a pound and then you can be taken seriously.

Re:Solar power satellites

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Sandia National Laboratories takes the Star Tram seriously. Do you know something they don't?

Re:Solar power satellites

[AmiMoJo]

What I always find hilarious about these blog posts is how they assume that somehow their few hours with a pen, paper and Google has somehow uncovered a huge flaw in a plan that academics have been putting decades of research into.

No offence but if JAXA thinks it will work then I'll probably take their opinion as the most reliable.

Oh, and the blog only considers space based PV, but solar thermal has huge potential too.

Re:Solar power satellites

[Nadaka]

Yes I do.

1: We can build solar thermal capacity TODAY.
2: Even without launch costs, orbital solar is going to be more expensive than ground based solar because 10km ^ 2 of solar thermal plant in the desert will cost less than 1km of rectena plus a fleet of orbital platforms capable of delivering equivalent power from low earth orbit.

3: The TEA party exists. 98% of republican senators and representatives have signed the Norquist pledge to never ever raise taxes under any circumstances. 20 billion dollars is more than NASA's annual budget. Congress controls that budget. The worlds most powerful billionaires have tricked the american people into believing that you can balance the budget by slashing revenue. As long as the plutocracy of so called "fiscal conservatism" exists, you will never be able to fund your pie in the sky project. It will be hard enough just trying to keep the country out of the gutter.

Re:Solar power satellites

[Intrepid imaginaut]

1, Go for it, whats stopping you!

2. You have no figures to back this up, you're considering LEO which is not where SPSs will be (also reducing or removing erosion issues), and if JAXA says it will competitive at 1% of launch costs, it will be even more competitive at half that. Competitive in this case means ~a million per installed MW. Unlike earth based solar or wind it will work around the clock as well. And I calculated recently that you'd need to roll out a new 1GW SPS every couple of hours for twenty years to completely take over the global energy market, so industrial economies of scale would be enormously significant even if a tenth of that production rate could be reached.

Hell, even at the higher price level, my own distinctly unsunny country could spend a tiny amount of our annual revenue and have all of our electricity needs covered permanently, barring drastic rises in demand decades away. There will be a queue around the corner and into the street for this stuff.

You need to shake off the rocket restrictions we've all had drummed into our heads, they belong in a museum now.

3. Star Tram ain't looking for money from the taxpayer. ;)

Re:Solar power satellites

[Nadaka]

Star tram does not eliminate your launch costs if you are going beyond LEO. You still need rockets to hit a transfer orbit.

How are you going to build a star tram without taxpayers? Private industry? Right now, you can't get investments for ANYTHING without a likely profit within 1 year. Charity? good luck. How are you going to get right of way for the airspace around a structure 20k tall (or more) and 100s of k long?

I said solar thermal, not photovoltaic. Solar thermal can produce power steadily around the clock.

You are being as ridiculously optimistic.

Re:Solar power satellites

[Nadaka]

Yes. 100x100 miles = 10k miles ^ 2. Actually it does account for growth of nearly 20% higher than current power consumption assuming we can't build solar thermal plants any more efficiently than we can right now.

Re:Solar power satellites

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Star tram does not eliminate your launch costs if you are going beyond LEO. You still need rockets to hit a transfer orbit.

Star Tram can hit GEO as well, costs a little more, like $80 a kilo, but its not really a problem. The initial configuration which will determine the range of uses has yet to be finalised from the options available. There may even be a passenger capable 1.5 version.

How are you going to build a star tram without taxpayers? Private industry? Right now, you can't get investments for ANYTHING without a likely profit within 1 year. Charity? good luck.

Start small my friend. The ST team is putting an entry in for the NASA business plan competition, then going for the NASA nano launch prize, and building from there. Believe it or not there are many large private investors willing to take the long view. For example, Planetary Resources and indeed, JAXA's own solar satellites. Besides, as every investor knows, its not what you spend, its what you earn.

How are you going to get right of way for the airspace around a structure 20k tall (or more) and 100s of k long?

That's the generation 2. Generation 1 is only 100km long and goes up a mountain.

I said solar thermal, not photovoltaic. Solar thermal can produce power steadily around the clock.

You are being as ridiculously optimistic.

Great, go for it, as I said, what's stopping you? If solar thermal can revolutionise the world, what are you sitting here talking to me for? When can we expect the first ten gigawatts installed mark to be reached?

Re:Solar power satellites

[Intrepid imaginaut]

That guy's math was wrong too, but with the fixes:
Charanka Solar Park - 15.44 sq miles per GW.
His space example - 4.48 sq miles per GW

Surface area to get US needs:
Charanka Solar Park - 1580GW * 15.44 sq miles/GW = 24395 sq miles or 156 miles by 156 miles on the ground
His space example - 1580GW * 4.48 sq miles/GW = 7584 sq miles or 87 miles by 87 miles in space

The only difference between your math and mine is I didn't bother with the decimal places, hence the use of the term "approximately". Ground area covered in space hasn't been mentioned since there is neither ground nor a shortage of space in space. Basically, nobody cares.

especially if we can get solar more efficient & cheaper and get its longevity in the centuries range instead of a couple decades.

And I have almost invented time travelling sneakers! I have the sneakers finished but there's still the time travelling part to work out...

Look, the bottom line is neither the Star Tram nor SPSs need any drastically new technology, new materials, or new laws of physics to happen. Its looking very like they will produce power more cheaply than any other solution. So, they are going to happen.

My suggestion is to invest in an SPS company.

Re:Solar power satellites

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Sorry, ran ahead of myself there as I have a tendency to do. The document referenced also mentions 1GW produced from a rectenna south of 2 km as the modern standard. So, close enough.

What's with all the ACs in this thread, come on guys its healthy frank and open discussion, sign in!

Re:Solar power satellites

[hankwang]

hilarious about these blog posts is how they assume that somehow their few hours with a pen, paper and Google has somehow uncovered a huge flaw in a plan that academics

Well, this blogger is actually an associate professor in the physics department at UCSD, and a member of CASS, the Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences..

Re:Solar power satellites

[AmiMoJo]

You don't think JAXA has a large team of experts? They work with universities and have their own highly educated staff, both pure academics and engineers, with actual experience of space flight and space based solar arrays. Unlike this guy who wrote a blog post they have published papers on the idea and are willing to throw billions of Yen at project, staking their careers on it.

Did you read the blog post? It isn't rocket science, the numbers are easy enough to understand. It doesn't look like anything novel, so the only reasonable conclusion is that he doesn't understand or even know of the technology they are using and is basing his numbers of faulty assumptions.

Re:Solar power satellites

[hankwang]

You don't think JAXA has a large team of experts? They work with universities and have their own highly educated staff,

Like with the research on nuclear-fusion energy and space elevators. I'm not completely against doing some research in those fields, since in case of success, the payoff would be huge. But I wouldn't bet on it, since the technical hurdles are huge, in all of these three fields.

It'll be interested to see how the % changes

[Anonymous Coward]

as fossil fuel prices go up, as they must eventually. Of course, a rise in fossil fuel costs will cause a rise in manufacturing and transport costs for renewable energy generating equipment as well.

Re:It'll be interested to see how the % changes

[Chrisq]

as fossil fuel prices go up, as they must eventually. Of course, a rise in fossil fuel costs will cause a rise in manufacturing and transport costs for renewable energy generating equipment as well.

I can't work out whether that is a good argument for investing in renewables now, while the cost is low, or waiting until the cost differential justifies it.

Nice editing, editors.

[T Murphy]

NCES = national clean energy standard. Not that you'd want to clarify that in the summary or anything.

Re:Nice editing, editors.

[OzPeter]

NCES = national clean energy standard. Not that you'd want to clarify that in the summary or anything.

Editors? You must be new around here!

Re:Nice editing, editors.

[geekoid]

I f people want to know that something in the description means, they can go read the damn article.
Stop helping people to lazy to read.

Re:Nice editing, editors.

[bzipitidoo]

It's not a matter of enabling laziness. It's a matter of reducing friction. That's what Apple understands so well. And that's what Google understood when they made their main page very light while Yahoo was busy bloating their search page with ads and bling. Making people wait just one more second, press one more button, click one more link, do just 1 extra action no matter how tiny and insignificant, really does drive away users.

In guidelines I've seen for good writing, particularly technical writing, you are supposed to spell it out the first time you use it, and follow that with the acronym in parenthesis.

Who cares

[GeneralTurgidson]

People started using less energy to go green, my power company jacked up rates. My power company invested in a wind farm and jacked up my rates. Power companies are always looking for a reason to raise rates, and many people don't have the ability to install solar panels.

Re:Who cares

[Mashiki]

Well that's what happened here in Ontario, Canada. It got worse a bit further down the road when they decided to shove green energy down everyone's throat and kill the coal power plants. Last time I heard Ontario would have the highest power rates in North America by the end of 2013 if projections hold true, mostly due to our *lovely* FiT(Feed in Tariff) program. Which is currently paying a kick ass bounty rate as high as 68c/KWH for solar and wind power.

Fuck "clean" energy give me nuclear, coal and natural gas. Actually fuck it, I'm moving to Saskatchewan.

Re:Who cares

[bws111]

If you reduce power consumption, the only thing that does is lower the cost of fuel (maybe). None of the rest of the costs of generating and delivering power (wires, substations, transformers, maintenance, employees, etc) change just because you are using a little less power. If you are being billed based on consumption then of course the rates will go up as consumption goes down, because the actual costs have not changed that much. This is not that hard to figure out.

Re:Who cares

[mcgrew]

Have a look at these two photos:

Springfield, Il in 1930
Springfield, Il today

Personally, I like my air clean.

Re:Who cares

[dunkelfalke]

My power company paid me a EUR 20 bonus because I cut my power consumption by 300 kWh last year.

true of almost anything altruistic, really

[Trepidity]

You could also say: Americans willing to donate money to the poor, but only a little bit of money.

Re:true of almost anything altruistic, really

[Anonymous Coward]

Except if you are a democrat (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html)...

Liberals are only generous with other peoples' money...

Re:true of almost anything altruistic, really

[Trepidity]

Statistics on charitable donation are pretty interesting, but that article doesn't provide a very good overview. In particular, religious donations are quite large in the United States, and I think a considerably different sort of thing than charitable donations (in many cases, imo, religious donations are closer to political contributions, intended to advance one's viewpoint). Republicans do donate considerably more to churches (especially Mormons, who are overwhelmingly Republican and often still tithe a full 10% of their income), so certainly Republicans donate more to charity, if you count organizations like the LDS church as charities.

Re:true of almost anything altruistic, really

[localman57]

The interesting question to me about this is always how much of a Church's revenue flows back out as social works. If a church uses the money to build a more beautiful sactuary, or a recreation center that primarily benefits the members, then it's not much more charitable than paying a monthly fee to Bally's or a country club. If the money, however, is sent back out into the (or another) community, primarily to benefit non-members, then you're talking about charity. Personally, I feel that churches tend to be over-rated as charities. We give way less than 10% to our church, but more than 10% in total contributions to charity. I see a lot of charities that put my money to better use than our church committee can.

Re:true of almost anything altruistic, really

[Anonymous Coward]

All the churches I've ever attended let you specifically earmark where your money would go. And they had the full gamut of projects from apartments for addicts getting back on their feet, to battered women shelters, to disadvantaged youth programs. And of course the missionary trips to countries in dire straits to build schools and water wells.

People who scoff at religious charitable donations are sore assholes.

And I bet you wish you could earmark where your tax dollars went.

Re:true of almost anything altruistic, really

[drinkypoo]

People who scoff at religious charitable donations are sore assholes.

What I scoff at is tax dodging. They're corporations much like any other corporation; they have competition, they have an agenda. Let them pay taxes. I'm torn on whether contributions to churches should be tax-deductible. I don't like the idea that someone can fund proselytization and thus dodge part of their tax burden.

Re:true of almost anything altruistic, really

[Trepidity]

Oh, I'm quite sure many religious donations are genuinely charitable. I'd just like a more specific breakdown of the statistics. Donating money to fund door-to-door missionaries trying to convert people, versus donating money to fund a soup kitchen, versus donating money for a new stained-glass window, are all very different activities.

Re:true of almost anything altruistic, really

[jdgeorge]

In other words, "conservatives" aren't actually conservative?

Re:true of almost anything altruistic, really

[GodfatherofSoul]

You linked to an opinion article?

Re:true of almost anything altruistic, really

[Nadaka]

A fair amount of the money the LDS brings in goes to fighting against gay marriage. So they are actually harming society with their "charity".

Re:true of almost anything altruistic, really

[geekoid]

Very, very little go to social work, and most of that is PR or used in away to force people into doing a specific religious rituals.

Churches need to be taxed.

Re:true of almost anything altruistic, really

[mcgrew]

How can you tell how much money I drop in the red kettle at Christmas, how much I drop in the collection bag at church, how many ones I give to beggars? You can't. There's someone in town that drops a Krugerand in the Sally's kettle every Christmas here in Springfield, nobody knows who (s)he is. Conservative or liberal? There's no way to tell.

The only way to count charity is by charitable deductions, and I'd posit that a tax dodge is NOT charity. I never take a charity deduction. Remember, "So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full." Folks who read their bibles try to give secretly. And considering that conservatives favor a whole slew of things that Jesus actively preached against, I doubt many of them actually read the bibles they thump.

Re:true of almost anything altruistic, really

[TapeCutter]

Scumbag anti-science lobbyists such as the heartland institute also have tax free charity status.

Re:true of almost anything altruistic, really

[geekoid]

a) haha. Most are 'mom-profits' but the vast majority of the money (75%) goes to 'management'.
b) Then we should tax churches on it's income.

"1) Religious outreach; private schools
2) "Help the Poor" (food shelves, Coats for Kids, etc.)
3) Infrastructure (churches, etc.)"

no. 3,1,2, is far more accurate. The next is 1,3,2.

"You *could* make the argument that large international churches, such as the Catholic churches"
Those OTHER churches, those guys? yeah tax dodges, us? no where not.

IN any case, we should allow tax deduction for donation to non-profit. In fact, if altruism is truly the motive, then it should be illegal to call yourself a church if you require any type of donation. aka membership dues.

Re:true of almost anything altruistic, really

[IICV]

The interesting question to me about this is always how much of a Church's revenue flows back out as social works. If a church uses the money to build a more beautiful sactuary, or a recreation center that primarily benefits the members, then it's not much more charitable than paying a monthly fee to Bally's or a country club. If the money, however, is sent back out into the (or another) community, primarily to benefit non-members, then you're talking about charity.

Everything the churches do has strings attached, and those strings are intended to tie you to the church's religion.

For example: my wife wanted to donate some time to a local shelter for victims of spousal and child abuse. The place was amazing; the people had nicer houses than we did, maid services, meal services, everything.

The only catch, as it turned out, was that there were weekly masses that the victims essentially had to attend, and almost all the volunteers were from local churches - which basically means that while you're not watching your kids (e.g, because you're in mass or out looking for a job), they're in sunday school.

My wife ended up leaving in disgust, because the place was literally preying on the weak and powerless - they would take women and children who have nowhere else to go, and give them food and housing with a big helping of Jesus. That's not charity, that's cultish indoctrination.

Pretty much none of the various church charities are really charities; at best, they're a free sample of what the church wants you to think life with Jesus is like, and at worst they're just a way to grab people at the lowest point in their lives and force them onto the path the church wants.

Re:true of almost anything altruistic, really

[internerdj]

In McCulloch vs Maryland (1819), the state of Maryland tried to tax a federal bank with which they didn't think the federal government had the authority to establish. A precedent that came out of the ruling was that the ability to tax is the ability to destroy an organization. Under such a precedent, any effort to tax religion would most certainly violate the First Amendment.

Re:true of almost anything altruistic, really

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I can see why it is much better for those abuse victims to have no place to go than to have to sit through a church service (oh, the horror!)

BTW, why didn't your wife volunteer at the local atheist shelter, or the local atheist soup kitchen?

Re:true of almost anything altruistic, really

[mcgrew]

The interesting question to me about this is always how much of a Church's revenue flows back out as social works.

It depends on the church. My church gives almost all of the tithes to the poor. Pat Robertson's, otoh, probably gives very little if any; those $4000 suits and $500 ties he wears and $70,000 cars he drives cuts into the kitty.

Personally, I feel that churches tend to be over-rated as charities.

Some are, some aren't.

I see a lot of charities that put my money to better use than our church committee can.

Maybe you should find a different church?

Re:true of almost anything altruistic, really

[bws111]

Well, deductions doesn't tell you anything either, since they are not a matter of public record. You find out how much people contribute the same way you find out other information about people - ask them.

Re:true of almost anything altruistic, really

[tomhath]

Nice try, but gay marriage is a pretty low priority item for them; they were the last major religious group to join the fight against Prop 8, and then only after the Catholics begged them to join. In fact, Baptists (claimed religion of the other presumptive candidate) probably outspend Mormons.

Re:true of almost anything altruistic, really

[shutdown -p now]

Your mistake is in assuming that the opposite of "Christian Sunday school shelter" is some mythical "atheist shelter". The opposite is actually a service that simply does not any strings attached.

And, yes, that's precisely why it's preferable to have the government run such things. When private people do that, they feel that they have the right to attach those strings, because the money goes directly out of their pocket.

Re:true of almost anything altruistic, really

[shutdown -p now]

Maybe we should just stop assuming that all churches are charities, and tax them accordingly. Those that actually are charities can then register as such.

Re:true of almost anything altruistic, really

[shutdown -p now]

No, but at least those strings don't serve private interests.

Re:true of almost anything altruistic, really

[drinkypoo]

A precedent that came out of the ruling was that the ability to tax is the ability to destroy an organization.

Why is it not then also the ability to effectively destroy an individual? Any effort to tax me would violate my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But I still have to pay taxes if I want to participate in modern society.

Re:true of almost anything altruistic, really

[bws111]

First, you surely are either insane or incredibly naive if you believe government programs come with no strings attached.

Second, I don't see how a government program would be as efficient as a church-run program using mostly volunteers and donated goods.

Third, exactly what is wrong with a group of people deciding that there is a problem and they are going to fix it? 'Sit on your ass and wait for the government to act' is about the worst solution I can think of.

The small church I belong to doesn't even have enough money to afford a full-time pastor. All the cleaning and care of the property is done by volunteers. Yet we still manage to run a small soup kitchen that feeds 5-10 people a day. We still have fundraisers to collect money to pay the heating bills of people that can't afford it. We still donate to a local family shelter. There are absolutely NO requirements made of any of the people we serve, but they are told that we are a church and God loves them. I guess that counts as a 'string' or 'indoctrination'. And you know what? Many of them do show up at church on Sunday, and many of them wind up volunteering themselves. It seems that they think that an organization that has people who care enough to voluntarily give of their time and money to help them may be worth joining. I have never heard of anyone having that response to a government.

Re:true of almost anything altruistic, really

[bws111]

The churches want to spread their beliefs, and you call that a 'private interest' that should not be served. You seem to want to prevent that from happening, how is that not your own 'private interest'? The only difference I see is that you want the government to serve your interest for you.

Re:true of almost anything altruistic, really

[IICV]

BTW, why didn't your wife volunteer at the local atheist shelter, or the local atheist soup kitchen?

Because such things don't exist? I'm pretty sure you'd have a hard time finding a charitable atheistic orgamization that espouses atheism, and if you did my wife would probably be disgusted at the thought of volunteering there too - no matter what your goal, it's abhorrent to prey on people in need.

She did, however, find a nice secular aid organization, which provides housing and support with minimal strings (all they ask is for donations once you're back on your feet, but then so do churches). It's the same sort of thing, but far more charitable.

Re:true of almost anything altruistic, really

[mcgrew]

Well I don't think the Moonies or the Scientologists are anything but scams to suck money from suckers, but it would probably cost the government more in manpower and paperwork and lawsuits determining just which religions really are charities than they could collect from the fakes.

Re:true of almost anything altruistic, really

[mcgrew]

That assumes they'll tell you and be truthful about it.

Why isn't renewable cheaper?

[gtvr]

I mean, once you've built the gathering mechanism, isn't the point of renewable that you're not paying for the fuel?

Re:Why isn't renewable cheaper?

[SuricouRaven]

Higher capital costs, and the equipment isn't entirely maintainance-free. Photovoltaics only have a thirty-year designed lifetime, wind turbines need monitoring and occasional repair. Renewables are generally cheaper to run, as there are no fuel costs, but not enough to offset the much higher capital costs. Remember, if renewables were cheap, we wouldn't be using coal anyway.

Re:Why isn't renewable cheaper?

[Bongo]

Like an oil rig on top of government owned land or sea? Anyway, it may be something about energy density.

Re:Why isn't renewable cheaper?

[leonardluen]

Not necessarily, it means that the fuel replenishes itself. that doesn't mean you don't have costs associated with that fuel.

say i discover an algae that i can use to create electricity...that algae may need fertilizer, or need to be harvested in some way to produce that electricity. all that costs money.

Re:Why isn't renewable cheaper?

[BasilBrush]

Of course the energy company doesn't pay for the fuel either way. Mother nature makes fossil fuel as well as solar or wind, and they're all taken without payment. As a consumer of energy you're paying for the infrastructure, wages and dividends of investors.

But you're right, in the long run renewables should be cheaper.

But there is massive upfront capital costs. Of course there were massive up front capital costs for conventional power too. But they evolved over a couple of centuries. Renewables need to replace most of that in a couple of decades.

Re:Why isn't renewable cheaper?

[h4rr4r]

Photovoltaics have a 30 year 75-80% of new power production lifetime. They last a lot longer than that if you are ok with only getting 50% of rated power.

We use coal for lots of reasons, on of them is that it is artificially cheap since they don't have to pay for waste disposal like everyone else. Nuclear would also be super cheap if you let them dump their waste straight into the air.

Re:Why isn't renewable cheaper?

[localman57]

What you're talking about is basically the business plan used all across China. Lots of small (~30MW) coal plants close to urban areas to minimize transmission costs, with no scrubbers. And the jets that fly in to Beijing in the afternoon often have to land on instruments due to the smog.

Next time someone tells you we don't need the EPA, have them google Beijing Smog or Wuhan Smog on google images.

Re:Why isn't renewable cheaper?

[Hentes]

once you've built the gathering mechanism

There's the catch, getting any reasonable amount of power out of a renewable source requires a tremendous invest.

Re:Why isn't renewable cheaper?

[hipp5]

As far as I know, it IS economic when compared to newly-built coal. The problem is that we have a bunch of 40 year old coal plants that have paid their capital costs off, so the power coming from them is currently quite cheap. Of course, these plants won't last forever, and we're going to have this whole wave of needing new plants at some point, which will be very expensive. Fuel will also get more expensive in the future. So while renewables might be slightly more expensive than the antique power we get now, that's not going to be the case for long. The problem is, short-sighted people only see the $0.02/kWh price increase on their bill now and scream bloody murder without understanding that the $0.02/kWh increase now is insulating them from a (pulling this number out of my ass) $0.10/kWh increase a few years from now.

Re:Why isn't renewable cheaper?

[BasilBrush]

But that's just one more layer to the person who's getting the fossil fuel for nothing.

Re:Why isn't renewable cheaper?

[IICV]

Even people from Beijing think Wuhan is a shithole, that's how bad it is there.

I think most people want to be "green" but...

[XxtraLarGe]

The price of "going green" can't exceed the perceived benefit. I didn't start buying to new CFL light bulbs until the price dropped significantly. Slowly but surely, I'm replacing most of the bulbs in my house. I can't do all of them though, because they don't fit in all of our fixtures, which is the next thing they need to work on.

Re:I think most people want to be "green" but...

[leonardluen]

CFL's are horrible. when i flip the light switch on i want light now, not next week. it takes so long for them to warm up and provide useful light. if someone has a solution to this please let me know! if there are better CFL's than this then i haven't found them.

seeing as how it is starting to get more difficult to buy incandescents i have started trying out LED's. they are a LOT more expensive per bulb, but supposedly have a long life, and most importantly when i turn on the light switch they give me light now, similar to incandescents, without needing to warm up.

Re:I think most people want to be "green" but...

[h4rr4r]

Buy good ones. Look for known brands and don't just get the cheapest one on the shelf.

LEDs will always be faster to be on, but we are talking about milliseconds here.

Re:I think most people want to be "green" but...

[leonardluen]

Seeing that i am willing to buy LEDs should show i am not just buying the cheapest bulbs on the shelf. The CFLs still suck, what name brands should i be looking for? CFL's are even more atrocious in cold weather, such as in my garage in the winter.

I am not against fluorescent lighting, i had the big tubes in a few places for many years, and they worked fine, and last forever.

There are for other reasons i am beginning to prefer LEDs. For one they don't have mercury in them, which makes them a bit greener than CFL's when they burn out and need to be thrown away. Though i think LEDs still have a ways to go before they become mainstream. They need to become cheaper, and start releasing them in higher wattages. Phillips released a new one recently but i haven't found them in my area yet.

Re:I think most people want to be "green" but...

[h4rr4r]

The mercury in CFLs is so little I just don't worry about it. I am not planning on eating them, and I still eat Tuna and other large fish.

LEDs are always going to beat CFLs the only question is how much. I would suggest you look into the higher end phillips CFLs if you want quality ones.

DO NOT THROW AWAY CFLs! Take them to your local hardware store, home depot, lowes etc, they will accept them for recycling. They also sell these bulbs so pretty easy to take the dead one back when you buy a replacement. I would say the same thing about LED bulbs, these things all have valuable resources locked up in them.

Re:I think most people want to be "green" but...

[buglista]

I've gone for 7W LED spotlights to replace the 50W GU10 halogen thingys. All good so far here; but check with one bulb for colour and dispersion angle though before you shell out for all the fixtures. I like mine whiter, but some people don't, and the spots are close enough together that beam angle doesn't matter too much here.

Re:I think most people want to be "green" but...

[h4rr4r]

Please do name 1 brand that says that.

PROTIP: NONE OF THEM DO! If that was true you would have to do the same every time you opened a couple cans of tuna or catfood.

Re:I think most people want to be "green" but...

[leonardluen]

I am buying LEDs, they typically cost around the $20 to $30 range...so what makes you think i am opting for the cheapest CFLs?

i am not trying to troll or anything, i seriously have not found a CFL that doesn't have this problem. everyone keeps telling me to buy better CFLs or get the name brands, but i still haven't found one that doesn't have this warmup issue. they all startup dim and seem to take forever to get up to full brightness.

Re:I think most people want to be "green" but...

[Nadaka]

The cheap $1.25 CFL bulbs I get at walmart put out full light in less than half a second, most often faster than I can notice. Its been a long time since CFL's have been slow to light.

Re:I think most people want to be "green" but...

[purpledinoz]

American's are terrible energy wasters only because it's cheap. People in Phoenix, perhaps the driest place on earth, have cloth dryers (ok, maybe it's needed in winter). People take hot showers in their air-conditioned apartments with water heated from gas, while it's 40C outside. Compare that to Germans, on who automatically think about energy consumption for any appliance they buy. The difference in behaviour has nothing to do with a "green conscience", but everything to do with economics. Energy is much more expensive in Germany.

Re:I think most people want to be "green" but...

[geekoid]

boo hoo, I have to wait a second for light to come on.
What a whiner.

Re:I think most people want to be "green" but...

[leonardluen]

if it were only a second it would be acceptable.

I wouldn't be whining if you enviro-hippys hadn't outlawed bulbs that actually worked. and there are other places CFLs just don't work, such as cold or humid environments. </rant>

LEDs don't have this flaw, however are still too expensive, and still have a limited wattage range.

Re:I think most people want to be "green" but...

[GameboyRMH]

OH NOES you have to wait half a second for the light to come on? TEH HORROR!!!

Re:I think most people want to be "green" but...

[leonardluen]

searching google there are millions of results saying the same thing

Modern CFLs still take a few minutes to warm up before they reach their full brightness.

here is the article and another...

and some people just leave them on all day because it takes so long for them to warm up. that seems to defeat the purpose a little if you are trying to be "green"

half a second is acceptable...a few minutes is not. i have had a few CFLs that seemed to come on faster than that, but then after a week or 2 of use, seem to fall back to taking a few minutes. That just isn't acceptable, and i don't think it is an unreasonable complaint.

Re:I think most people want to be "green" but...

[Just Some Guy]

Pardon me while I get off your lawn.

Re:I think most people want to be "green" but...

[cyn1c77]

Please do name 1 brand that says that.

PROTIP: NONE OF THEM DO! If that was true you would have to do the same every time you opened a couple cans of tuna or catfood.

The packages do all have obscure warnings about the bulb containing mercury, that it should be handled carefully because mercury is harmful, and that "special precautions" should be taken if it is broken. But they do not specify what those precautions are. It stinks of legalese and is annoying to consumers. It's even more annoying that I have to take the bulb somewhere to recycle it: given that the government has essentially mandated that we need to use these things, they should find a way to allow mercury bulb recycling from our homes.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-compact-fluorescent-lightbulbs-dangerous

I don't want an easy-to-break product in my house that requires me to evacuate and vent a room for 15 minutes if I break it. And then I have to worry about the powder? What if I have a pregnant wife or young children in the house? Either take the mercury out of the bulb or armor it so that it can survive a 9 foot drop.

And despite the claims that they last "up to 10x longer" than a regular incandescent, I have found that they last just about as long during normal usage.

It's a scam product that costs more and doesn't work as well, like low-fat cheese. You want to save the environment? Have less children and learn to like a dark house.

Re:I think most people want to be "green" but...

[h4rr4r]

Mercury is not that dangerous. You don't know people that played with it as a children? Sure you don't want the kids eating it, but leaving the room for 15 minutes is not a huge deal.

The government has not mandated their use, their are even incandescents that will meet or exceed the efficiency requirements. LED bulbs also meet these targets and contain no mercury. The old style incandescents were heating elements that happend to make a small amount of light.

I have had CFLs last over 5 years. Perhaps your abode has an electrical problem.

Re:I think most people want to be "green" but...

[GameboyRMH]

I had no idea. Every one I've ever used takes about half a second to warm up and then is on at full brightness, like a new flourescent tube.

Re:I think most people want to be "green" but...

[mcgrew]

I've been using CFLs fof fiteen years, and the newer ones light up quickly. But even fifteen years ago, it was no more than two seconds, maybe five in sub-zero f weather.

I swear, you kids are even more impatient than we were when we were young and impatient. I can see the next generation: "This computer is too slow, it took three seconds to boot and a full five minutes to figure pi to a million decimal places! I don't have all damned year!

Re:I think most people want to be "green" but...

[leonardluen]

if i knew where to get such bulbs i wouldn't be complaining

Maybe it has something to do with the quality of the power grid in my area. i don't think it is the wiring in my house because i have had the same issue at 3 other places.

Nice Try Cobra Commander

[kannibal_klown]

Nice Try Cobra Commander... I saw that episode back when I was a kid. You just want a number of WMDs up there to use as weapons against GI Joe.

Re:Nice Try Cobra Commander

[The Mighty Buzzard]

If you're talking about back in the 80s, that wasn't G.I. Joe. It was Reagan and you were watching the news.

the irony is

[Anonymous Coward]

The oil industry is heavily subsidized by the US taxpayer via our massive military presence and operations in the Middle East. Exxon-Mobil and Chevron's shareholders don't pay that... taxpayers do.

Do conservatives ever even mention that? No, they don't.

Re:the irony is

[MyLongNickName]

Yup, this is part of the externality cost I mention in the post below. I am very free market oriented and frustrated at how big business/gov't has perverted it. US citizens see these perversions and assume that free market doesn't work. Yes, even a free market has its weaknesses that must be corrected by government intervention, but so much could be cured by not subsidizing established energy sources and taxing according to externality costs.

Re:the irony is

[Arker]

Yes, actually, we do. Neoconservatives, quite a different animal, are what you must have been thinking of there.

Re:the irony is

[tomhath]

Yea, and that also explains our military presence in Afghanistan, Korea, East Africa, and Latin America. Oh wait.

Re:the irony is

[ArcherB]

The oil industry is heavily subsidized by the US taxpayer via our massive military presence and operations in the Middle East. Exxon-Mobil and Chevron's shareholders don't pay that... taxpayers do.

Do conservatives ever even mention that? No, they don't.

I think the $0.31 per gallon that I pay should cover it. If not, consider that every single product I buy is transported to the store I bought is also using fuel, which is taxed, which I pay indirectly. Of course, all those products are made from parts, pieces and ingredients that had to be shipped to whoever made that product, which I also paid the tax for. Then, of course, there is my federal income taxes that are also used to fund our military presence in the Middle East and elsewhere, that ensure that I can put gas in my tank which is required to get me to work, my kids to school, and allows my family to have the occasional family outing. You know, actually live free and enjoy that freedom.

Although, it would be better if we could produce our own energy. Then we could tell those in the Middle East to pound sand and let the fund their own militaries. But then you have to find a way around the people protesting that producing our own energy might cause moose to stop fucking. Not that any of these people have ever seen a moose or have bothered to travel to places they have convinced themselves will be completely destroyed. Nor have they bothered to simply do the math and realize that some of these refuges are larger than most states and producing energy from these places would have the environmental impact of building a library in Wisconsin. Of course, they also refuse to consider that environmental impact from our heavily monitored and regulated drilling practices at home are much less than the impact from places that ruled by a prince or king or self appointed leader for life.

No. What these people want is for us to live like farmers from the 1700's, only without wood burning or producing livestock. They want us to grow our own food to share with the bugs and rodents that will decimate our crops and lead us to the brink of starvation. Of course, I need to stress that THEY want US to live that way. They will continue to live in their climate controlled apartments and drive their cars to and fro because they recycle the vitamin water bottles they drink, so they are OK. Is us that is the problem. Not them. /rant

Re:the irony is

[h4rr4r]

Because oil is the only resource the US wants and all military deployments are based solely on resource wants?

Sometimes our military is used for resources, this has been going on since we used the navy to hold islands that held bat guano for fertilizer and maybe before. Do you know why they call some of those nice warm countries banana republics?

Re:the irony is

[h4rr4r]

That $0.31 does not cover it. It is cute that you think it should, but it does not. Your taxes do not cover it either, note the deficit.

We actually get most of our oil from Canada, Mexico the USA and South America. The middle east has to be controlled to keep world market prices stable. The fact that you are ignorant of such a basic fact explains most of the rest of your nonsense. I have lived in Alaska, the current pipeline changed the environment dramatically. Caribou will stay around the warmed pipes in the winter. This changes their survival rates and has a large impact on the environment. Moose are not found in those areas as pipe lines are not normally built over the swamps and in the forests they prefer. Again we see your ignorance. Those refuges only hold enough oil for months of US use. They should be kept until we actually need them.

No one wants to live in the 1700s, they just want you to stop pretending that we can keep doing what we are doing now forever.

In short your rant only exposes you as ignorant and nothing more.

Re:the irony is

[Talderas]

Of course. It's because all the men walk around in a suit jacket and a banana hammock.

Re:the irony is

[Hatta]

Then, of course, there is my federal income taxes that are also used to fund our military presence in the Middle East and elsewhere, that ensure that I can put gas in my tank which is required to get me to work, my kids to school, and allows my family to have the occasional family outing. You know, actually live free and enjoy that freedom.

Because your ability to carpool your kids to school is more important than the lives of innocent Iraqis, gotcha.

Re:the irony is

[ArcherB]

For starters, not all of our interests in the Middle East are oil based. For example, Bahrain has no oil. Bahrain exports things like aluminum. The US Navy's 5th Fleet is also based there. That fleet costs the US taxpayer 10s of billions of dollars. The US Navy 5th Fleet is that massive naval force you allude to that protects our interests in the Middle East. Note the cost; 10's of billions of dollars.

The US uses roughly 386,000,000 gallons of gasoline a day. At a tax of $0.31/gallon, that is $119,660,000 in tax revenue. Multiply that by 365 days a year and the US receives $43,675,900,000 per year from gasoline taxes. The US also uses about 60 billion gallons of diesel each year which calculate to roughly $18 billion in tax revenue per year ($0.30/gallon). So the US receives about $62 billion per year from gasoline taxes alone, which is plenty to fund the 5th Fleet, especially when you consider the taxes paid when cars are sold, various taxes paid by the companies that make cars and components. And, of course, all those "leases" you hear about where "big oil" wants to drill on government land are not free. The government gets a percentage per barrel. Now, granted, the domestic oil production is not in the Middle East, but like you said, "The middle east has to be controlled to keep world market prices stable".

So, yeah! The cost of patrolling the waters of the Mid East is more than covered by our gasoline and diesel taxes alone. Also note that oil is not the only interest we have in the region. It's a big one, sure, but not the only one.

Don't like my numbers? THIS site says the following:

The cost of securing our access to Middle East oil - deploying U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, patrolling its water and supplying military assistance to Middle East countries - is estimated at $50 billion per year, which adds additional dimes to each gallon of gasoline we purchase.

But you say:

That $0.31 does not cover it. It is cute that you think it should, but it does not. Your taxes do not cover it either, note the deficit.

Um... Given the numbers above, it appears that it really DOES cover it and then some. It's cute that you are so quick to call me ignorant.

Moose are not found in those areas as pipe lines are not normally built over the swamps and in the forests they prefer.

It appears they "prefer" the pipelines.

Again we see your ignorance. Those refuges only hold enough oil for months of US use. They should be kept until we actually need them.

Well, for starters, we won't extract and refine it all at once. And to be fair, I'm fully aware of the impact drilling will have on prices. If I had it my way, we'd tax it as a condition of permission to drill there and use the money to invest in renewables. For example, a $10/barrel tax times the billions of barrels in ANWR alone would be more than enough to not just fund, but INCREASE the amount of money funding our fusion research.

Re:the irony is

[h4rr4r]

The tax you pay is for roads, numbnuts.
The $0.31 does not get sent to the DOD. If you want to double the tax and use that to pay for the Middle East adventures, I fully support that.

 

Re:the irony is

[ArcherB]

Then, of course, there is my federal income taxes that are also used to fund our military presence in the Middle East and elsewhere, that ensure that I can put gas in my tank which is required to get me to work, my kids to school, and allows my family to have the occasional family outing. You know, actually live free and enjoy that freedom.

Because your ability to carpool your kids to school is more important than the lives of innocent Iraqis, gotcha.

I served and spent time in the middle east. I think you have been about our purpose for being there. Our job was not to kill innocent brown people, but to protect them. You didn't seem to care about the mass graves filled with men, and others filled with women, still holding their toddler children. These are the innocent Iraqis and I'm amazed at how much you don't care about them. You seem more concerned about the people we were sent there to kill; the people who filled these mass graves or allowed it to happen.

And I send my kids to private school so they don't get the same brainwashing indoctrination that people like you got from our public school system.

Re:the irony is

[ArcherB]

The tax you pay is for roads, numbnuts.
The $0.31 does not get sent to the DOD. If you want to double the tax and use that to pay for the Middle East adventures, I fully support that.

My roads are funded through my state. That means the additional state levied gasoline taxes are used to pay for roads along with my registration, property and sales taxes. The only roads the federal government are responsible for are interstates, and even then the states pay for part of that.

No taxes get sent straight to the DOD. Unfortunately, they all go into a giant pot that everyone raids. My point was that the gasoline taxes that are paid into the system are greater than what is taken out to patrol the mid east waters. The rest goes into the pot and I'm sure some of that is used to pay for interstates.

And my nuts have feeling, although that should be none of your concern.

Re:the irony is

[geekoid]

Your gas tax has nothing to do with 'paying for the war'.

Add a buck then it might start to take care of it.
Ha, every time we go to war, maybe the price of gas should be taxed an additional dollar a gallon to pay for it. That will have people seriously thinking about going to war and staying at war. The need to go to war would need to out weigh the political disadvantages of raising gas a dollar a gallon.

Re:the irony is

[lsamaha]

Without taking stand here, it's probably fair to note that 85% of the federal fuel tax is dedicated to road construction and maintenance most of the rest is earmarked for mass transit, so some other changes (reducing road work/reducing cost of contracts/raising the tax, de-earmarking the fund) would be necessary to use the fuel tax to support overseas actions.

Re:the irony is

[geekoid]

Youmight want to look at the federal money your state ALSO gets to work on roads, numbnuts.

The money put in is used you many other things, as it always has been.
You do know we have spent over 1.3Trillion dollar in about 10 years, right?

so this $43,675,900,000 per year doesn't cover the cost of the wars.
It would take 14 years of that to pay for the cost of the last 10 years.
And this isn't talking about normal peace time operations, as in keep a fleet there.

You're application of the numbers is laughable ignorant.
I also like how you try to twist his argument from paying for war, to patrolling.

Re:the irony is

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't like my numbers? THIS [iags.org] site says the following:

The cost of securing our access to Middle East oil - deploying U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, patrolling its water and supplying military assistance to Middle East countries - is estimated at $50 billion per year, which adds additional dimes to each gallon of gasoline we purchase.

$50 billion dollars, are you kidding? The *direct* costs of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan over the last decade have been estimated by researchers at Brown University to be at least $3.2 trillion. I'll do the math for you: that's over $300 billion/yr, just for the costs of prosecuting those wars.

You need to realize that a link to a professionally designed Web Site does not constitute proof. Washington think tanks have their own agendas which almost invariably revolve around maintaining funding from well-heeled clients. $50 billion/yr does not pass the giggle test, the smell test, the "duh?" test, or the slap-the-forehead test.

Re:the irony is

[mr.mctibbs]

Your accounting is missing the immense loss of life and liberty that our military ventures cause.

Re:the irony is

[Arker]

You seem quite confused. There was no mention of parties above. Someone, possibly you, said that conservatives dont talk about the welfare/warfare state and how it subsidises oil (among many other things.) And that's entirely incorrect, it's not even in the ballpark. Conservatives (from Senator Borah to Representative Paul) have been making those criticisms all along. "Neoconservatives" do not, no, but then again they were never really conservatives to begin with.

Re:the irony is

[GameboyRMH]

Brown people blood doesn't cost America any money, and what's the cost of a few dead soldiers here and there and the occasional PATRIOT Act compared to the creeping terror of RANGE ANXIETY? The existential threat of NUCLEAR POWER? The horrific, gut-wrenching sight of WIND FARMS AND SOLAR POWER PLANTS!?

Driving big V8-powered SUVs made of melted-down action men to work every day is what makes America great dammit.

Re:the irony is

[lsamaha]

I'm interested in your statement about a U.S. state's self-sufficiency relevant to road maintenance. The raiding of the federal fund sounds genuinely alarming. Can you provide a reference? (I realize we're drifting far off topic here but I'm genuinely interested in learning more ...)

Re:the irony is

[h4rr4r]

Patrolling the water is not the only cost. Add in what we spent on the war in Iraq and see what the real costs were.

Re:the irony is

[ArcherB]

You argument is a fine example of the Moving the goalposts" fallacy.

Here is the conversation we are having:
From AC:

The oil industry is heavily subsidized by the US taxpayer via our massive military presence and operations in the Middle East.

From Me:

I think the $0.31 per gallon that I pay should cover it.

From h4rr4r:

That $0.31 does not cover it. It is cute that you think it should, but it does not. Your taxes do not cover it either, note the deficit.

From Me:

Um... Given the numbers above, it appears that it really DOES cover it and then some. It's cute that you are so quick to call me ignorant

From h4rr4r:

The tax you pay is for roads, numbnuts.

From Me:

My roads are funded through my state

And finally, from you:

so this $43,675,900,000 per year doesn't cover the cost of the wars.

So now we are talking about the wars? First, the fact that we have not stolen Iraq's oil is proof that neither Iraq war was not a war for oil. Go there, spend a bit of time with the people there, visit the mass grave sites and speak with a few of the people who were literally tortured themselves or had their family members tortured. The only role oil played was that it would fund Hussein's activities. But, like I said, I'm not here to argue the wars in the middle east any more than I am here to debate Operation Just Cause.

The OP stated the oil industry is heavily subsidized to pay for our peace keeping efforts in the middle east. I proved that gasoline taxes alone cover the cost. I didn't include the costs the oil companies pay to lease land, taxes private landowners pay, taxes the oil companies pay themselves, or the taxes paid by those in the oil industry. Then someone moved the goal posts and said that the taxes are needed to pay for roads and threw in an insult for good measure. That's a sure sign someone is frustrated they have been proven wrong. I pointed out that roads are the responsibility of the states, with the exception of interstates. Local roads are local responsibility and they should be paid for by the states. The fact that the feds subsidize state road projects is not the point. That's pork paid for out of the general fund and is not what we are discussing here.

This is where you also commit the "Move the goal posts" fallacy. You said:

You're application of the numbers is laughable ignorant.
I also like how you try to twist his argument from paying for war, to patrolling.

and

You do know we have spent over 1.3Trillion dollar in about 10 years, right?

First, I was responding to "massive military presence and operations in the Middle East." That costs about $50 billion a year. You called it "... normal peace time operations, as in keep a fleet there." No one mentioned the wars until you got here.
Next, my numbers are spot on. If you have a problem with them, I refer you to my link.

The cost of securing our access to Middle East oil - deploying U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, patrolling its water and supplying military assistance to Middle East countries - is estimated at $50 billion per year, which adds additional dimes to each gallon of

Re:And, of course

[jkflying]

National Clean Energy Standard.

From the first sentence from TFA.

Re:to much weapon potential

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Birds could fly through the rectenna area without harm, its 1GW across a 1km diameter receiver.

Re:And, of course

[Joce640k]

If you ask McDonalds customers if they'd like to see more salads and healthy choices they'll say, "Yes, of course!"

But ... when McDonalds put them on the menu they keep right on buying burgers and fries.

Moral: People answering surveys tend to idealize.

Solar power satellites are a dumb idea

[khipu]

Solar power satellites are obviously a bad idea: they may increase efficiency by a factor of up to maybe 2-4, but at a cost that is orders of magnitude higher. You're better off just covering more area on the ground.

And power satellites have serious security implications, allowing large amounts of power being focused anywhere in the world. In fact, the idea of space-based solar power is so obviously bad from an economic point of view that I suspect it really is just an attempt to get weapons into orbit.

Re:Solar power satellites are a dumb idea

[Intrepid imaginaut]

The only expensive thing about them, in fact the only thing stopping them from being feasible, is launch costs. And happily we have an answer to that one.

Re:Solar power satellites are a dumb idea

[khipu]

Geosynchronous optimistically are at least $10000/pound, LEO about half that. So let's assume for the sake of argument JAXA's one hundred fold reduction $50/pound. Solar panels are about 5W/pound; let's assume space based can be made much thinner and lighter at 50W/pound. 13MW generation capacity costs about $100 million (Nellis), so that's roughly $0.10/W. When you put that together, even with JAXA's assumptions of a 100 fold reduction in price, it still costs 10 times as much to move a solar panel into orbit than to manufacture it in the first place, for an expected gain of 2-4 in capacity. And that's not even counting maintenance costs. So even assuming JAXA's 100-fold decrease in launch costs and a tenfold increase in the power density of solar cells, we are still an order of magnitude away from even being in the ballpark.

And, you haven't answered other questions. How do you actually ensure that these space-based solar power plants aren't going to be used as weapons? What does beaming large amounts of additional solar energy do to earth's heat balance?

Re:Solar power satellites are a dumb idea

[Intrepid imaginaut]

To be competitive, the satellite needs to be around $1-2 million per installed megawatt. Given it weighs in the region of 1500 to 1900 tons, launch costs must be 90%+ of its $21 billion pricetag. Reducing these to a trivial sum means, as JAXA have said, it becomes competitive, and until we have further information, I'm prepared to take it that JAXA knows whereof they speak.

I've already answered the weaponisation question elsewhere in the thread, and its all on wikipedia too. As for large amounts of solar energy, take a look at this picture:

http://www.desertec.org/uploads/media/stage-start_en.jpg

That nice red square right there is the amount of surface area that would be receiving twice as much energy as usual, and thats after a century of unprecedented satellite building. Its not much energy and its not a large area, particularly since it will be spread out into small sites all over the world. Actually it should be a lot less space since rectennas are more efficient than solar cells, but you get the idea anyway.

Re:Solar power satellites are a dumb idea

[khipu]

To be competitive, the satellite needs to be around $1-2 million per installed megawatt. Given it weighs in the region of 1500 to 1900 tons, launch costs must be 90%+ of its $21 billion pricetag. Reducing these to a trivial sum means, as JAXA have said, it becomes competitive, and until we have further information, I'm prepared to take it that JAXA knows whereof they speak.

You just cite a bunch of meaningless numbers without actually doing the calculation. What matters is: increase of efficiency of space over ground, kg/W and $/kg launch costs. I did give those numbers, and even under a hypothetical 100x reduction in launch costs, space based solar still isn't nearly competitive. And those calculations are just lower bounds on the cost of space-based systems: you need to account for R&D costs for getting launch costs down, plus maintenance and replacement.

For the time being, space based solar is not competitive. Investing in developing launch vehicles for the purpose of space-based solar energy generation is not competitive.

I have no doubt that in a century or two, space based solar might be competitive if we find some other reason to achieve drastic reductions in launch costs, but that is just not relevant to political or economic decisions right now. The right thing to do right now is to deploy ground-based solar power, with existing technology.

I've already answered the weaponisation question elsewhere in the thread,

No, you have not. The arguments you provide merely suggest that under normal operations, the system will not cause harm. That doesn't mean that the system is not weaponizable. It can certainly disrupt electronics, and probably cause other effects as well.

That nice red square right there is the amount of surface area that would be receiving twice as much energy as usual

That's not an answer, just hand-waving. Ground-based solar is much safer from a heat-balance point of view (even there, we need to worry about albedo); for space-based solar, you must do the calculation, including expected growth rates. Imagine that red square doubling every few decades, and things look rather different.

Re:Solar power satellites are a dumb idea

[Intrepid imaginaut]

What matters is: increase of efficiency of space over ground, kg/W and $/kg launch costs.

You really must have a horse in this race. What matters is $/W, and that is all that matters. Fairly impressive tap dancing trying to avoid that however, although I might just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you actually don't know what you're talking about, rather than deliberately trying to obfuscate the facts.

The rest of your post follows on from that, really.

Re:Solar power satellites are a dumb idea

[khipu]

You really must have a horse in this race. What matters is $/W, and that is all that matters

Yes, that's all that matters. And JAXA's and your $/W figures don't work out given current technologies, they are obviously still 1-2 orders of magnitude off.

You really must have a horse in this race.

Only as a tax payer, who doesn't want to see his taxes wasted on another stupid and expensive government-funded "alternative" energy system.

Now either put up some real numbers justifying your $/W figures or shut up.

Re:Solar power satellites are a dumb idea

[Intrepid imaginaut]

And JAXA's and your $/W figures don't work out given current technologies, they are obviously still 1-2 orders of magnitude off.

Really, ah, so thats why JAXA stated launch costs would have to be a hundredth of what they are for SPSs to be economical. And golly gosh, look, here's Star Tram to do just that.

Only as a tax payer,

This, I doubt. I mean you probably pay taxes somewhere, but I'd be surprised if that was the reason for this frenetic and slightly entertaining mud-stirring operation.

who doesn't want to see his taxes wasted on another stupid and expensive government-funded "alternative" energy system.

Now either put up some real numbers justifying your $/W figures or shut up.

The numbers have already been supplied in abundance. It has been made clear over and over again that SPSs don't work without the Star Tram. On that front, keep your taxes, Star Tram doesn't want them. Keep your little two-sides-of-the-same-coin political squabbles, keep your "angle", whatever it may be, keep your jingoism. Keep your government, your pork, and your lobbyists. None of them will change a thing.

I mean have you any idea what the Star Tram actually is? Is the silk road to space, the highway to the heavens, its as cheap as it is possible to get within the known laws of physics, it even beats out space elevators if they are possible. Its bifrost, its the stairway to the stars. Solar power satellites? That's the tip of the iceberg, the lowest of the low hanging fruit.

In a world where JAXA and private industry are willing to put down $21 billion on an SPS they know for a fact can't ever turn a profit, where billionaires embrace an asteroid mining concept without even a business plan to its name, do you think that a gargantuan enabler with the ability to put the global economy into a permanent unending boom like the ST will need government funding?

Please.

I doubt SPSs or any number of revolutionary technologies will need government funding either once its built, since the reasons for the current massive capital costs are mostly just launching the stuff up there. Just stop and think about it for a minute, think about the implications.

Re:Solar power satellites are a dumb idea

[khipu]

Really, ah, so thats why JAXA stated launch costs would have to be a hundredth of what they are for SPSs to be economical. And golly gosh, look, here's Star Tram to do just that.

Well, and as I showed with my numbers, I don't see how JAXA's claims work out. Given the cost of existing solar technologies, you need more like a factor of 1000x in reduction of launch costs (plus a lot of favorable assumptions) to make it competitive even if you disregard other costs. With higher maintenance and replacement costs, I don't think it's competitive with ground-based solar even if launches were free.

I mean have you any idea what the Star Tram actually is? Is the silk road to space, the highway to the heavens, its as cheap as it is possible to get within the known laws of physics, it even beats out space elevators if they are possible. Its bifrost, its the stairway to the stars. Solar power satellites? That's the tip of the iceberg, the lowest of the low hanging fruit.

I think cheap space launch technologies are great for all sorts of purposes, but using space-based solar power to advocate low cost launch capabilities is a dead end.

think for yourself!

[khipu]

While its possible that er, Tom Murphy knows more than JAXA and their household name industy associates who are willing to put tens of billions of dollars into SPSs, I doubt it.

Instead of playing a game of "who do I believe", why don't you use your own head and figure it out for yourself? Figuring out the relative cost and benefits of space solar energy is elementary.

Furthermore, apart from the horrible cost/benefit tradeoffs for space solar, and the military risks, your web site points out yet another problem: energy balance. Ground-based solar doesn't change the overall energy balance much, since the solar radiation is coming in anyway and most gets absorbed whether you use it for energy or not. But space-based solar pumps large amounts of energy through the atmosphere that otherwise wouldn't have come in, and then converts it all into heat on the ground.

Re:think for yourself!

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Instead of playing a game of "who do I believe", why don't you use your own head and figure it out for yourself? Figuring out the relative cost and benefits of space solar energy is elementary.

If you read the linked discussion there is quite a bit of figuring out already done.

Re:think for yourself!

[PhilHibbs]

Instead of playing a game of "who do I believe", why don't you use your own head and figure it out for yourself? Figuring out the relative cost and benefits of space solar energy is elementary.

Yeah, it's not exactly rocket science. Wait...

Re:think for yourself!

[geekoid]

And when they need to move it out of the way of space debris? Easy of destruction doesn't seem to gte added into the thought proses of people who are for it.

1 satellite accident could ruin the whole thing.
Then there is wear and tear. Just being in space wears things out.
Look at the lessons we are learning from the space station. And this thing would be how many time bigger then the space station? how many would we need?

Re:think for yourself!

[Intrepid imaginaut]

We're going to need to deal with the space debris issue sooner or later, may as well be sooner. That will affect a lot more than SPSs. And we would need a lot. A lot.

Re:think for yourself!

[khipu]

The pro-space-power discussion says "rocket launches will also need to be cut to a hundredth of the current cost". Hence, the approach is not cost effective even according to its proponents. And that discussion doesn't explain how a factor of 2-4 gain in efficiency offsets the launch and maintenance costs.

Finally, proponents still haven't explained who should actually get control over what is, in effect, a large collection of massive radiation-based weapons platforms orbiting earth. Why would we let any nation put that kind of device into orbit?

Re:think for yourself!

[Intrepid imaginaut]

The pro-space-power discussion says "rocket launches will also need to be cut to a hundredth of the current cost". Hence, the approach is not cost effective even according to its proponents. And that discussion doesn't explain how a factor of 2-4 gain in efficiency offsets the launch and maintenance costs.

Star Tram can reduce launch costs to 0.004 of their previous amount.

Finally, proponents still haven't explained who should actually get control over what is, in effect, a large collection of massive radiation-based weapons platforms orbiting earth. Why would we let any nation put that kind of device into orbit?

As I've already said, a bird could fly through the rectenna beam without harm.

Re:think for yourself!

[khipu]

Star Tram can reduce launch costs to 0.004 of their previous amount.

0.004 is only a factor of 2.5 better than 0.01, hence, even with that hypothetical launch technology and the extremely optimistic assumptions I made above, space solar power would still be several times as expensive as ground based solar power.

As I've already said, a bird could fly through the rectenna beam without harm.

That's under ordinary operating conditions (and even then they are disruptive to electronics). It doesn't change the fact that you have a large collection of potential beam weapons in space.

Re:think for yourself!

[Intrepid imaginaut]

I have to say at this stage I genuninely have no idea what you're talking about.

Re:think for yourself!

[khipu]

I have to say at this stage I genuninely have no idea what you're talking about.

I gave you numbers that showed that even at hundredfold reduction in launch costs and a tenfold reduction in solar cell weights, space power is still more than 10x as expensive as ground-based solar power. That means that space-based power is still not cost-effective even at a 250 fold reduction in launch costs.

Fortunately, it is only a little bit more expensiv

[buglista]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Here in UK, our DoE-equivalent have computed on-shore wind as being close enough to coal - and we're running out of coal, so I'm guessing it will be marginally cheaper in few years.

I guess I am odd then...

[Lumpy]

I gladly pay MORE for clean energy. I went out and bought and installed solar connected to a grid tie inverter. But in reality I end up paying less because it significantly reduces my electrical bill as it runs the meter backwards during the day. In the middle of the summer with the AC cranking it makes up for 1/2 the electricity I use for the AC. so it will pay it's self back in about 3 more years. after that it's free money.

unfortunately most of my fellow countrymen are not smart enough to handle their money and do this. I have had friends look at me and not understand the whole payback thing. they get stuck on the "You paid $5000 to put solar on your house and you will pay an electric bill?" They cant understand that monthly bill reduction = money saved.

Which makes me sad, I though I had smarter friends.

Re:I guess I am odd then...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because of massive subsidies. What rate are you getting to sell power on your terms? Likely 5 to 20 TIMES the going wholesale rate.

Re:I guess I am odd then...

[Lumpy]

Nope. I get no rate other than what I pay. I either remove power demand or reduce the number of WH I used. I can not get a credit if I send more power than I consume.

Re:I guess I am odd then...

[Lumpy]

Michigan USA.

No subsidies at all. In fact I had to fight the power company and threaten a lawsuit as they were trying to block me from installing it.

Re:I guess I am odd then...

[geekoid]

Only 5K, wow. If ti was 5K I would have solar on my roof right now,.

For my, it's 15K. Plus, no one will do it until a get a new roof, but that's a separate issue.

Re:I guess I am odd then...

[Drethon]

Glad it works for you, I'm still waiting for it to be affordable to me. My typical monthly electric bill is $50 a month so half that would be $300 a year or 16 years 8 months of operation with no maintenance to pay for itself.

Just bemoaning my predicament though... enjoy your solar :)

Re:I guess I am odd then...

[Lumpy]

Why 15K? you can start a lot smaller than that and add panels as you can afford to.

Re:I guess I am odd then...

[Lumpy]

If you are $50 a month you either have incredibly cheap electricity, or a very low power consumption at your home.

If you just dont use that much power, even a small 300 watt system can make a difference in your home electriclty bill. That's just $500 in panels and cable plus $600.00 for a 2500W grid tie inverter that will sync and back feed the power system. and then you have room for expansion up to 2000 watts of panels.

2000Watts with 5 hours of sunlight a day = 10Kwh a day

Now find an electrician that is not a thief and you can get it all installed ( Panels on the ground near the home) for probably $2600.00 total to start. Then just adda panel here and there when you have the cash. I bought used panels so I get them for about $1.00 a watt.

Re:I guess I am odd then...

[Lumpy]

I forgot that you can go even smaller as well, I forgot about the enphase micro inverters that grid tie. 210Watts with a single 260Watt panel for less than $500.00

That's over 1 Kwh a day that is removed from your electric bill calculated at 5 hours of peak output sunlight, at least for up here in Michigan. IF you live in the south you get a lot more solar hours per day so it goes up from there. IT's not a lot but it's an affordable start that makes a real impact on your electric bill. Smaller scale never has a good payback though.

Re:I guess I am odd then...

[hazzey]

Could you give a little more detail? Also living in the midwest, if I COMPLETELY replaced my electricity needs with solar, I could only spend about $4,000 total on a system and have it pay back in 3 years. In some very brief looking online, this MIGHT pay for the inverter and installation. What size system did you install?

Re:And, of course

[TheRaven64]

To be fair, McDonalds 'salads' are so laden with oil and sugar that it's difficult to class them as healthy choices...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:This stuff gets me frustrated

[tomhath]

governments should tax at a rate equal to the externality costs

Two problems with that: 1) Nobody can accurately determine the externality cost, and 2) Nobody trusts the government to spend that money appropriately.

Basically this proposal is a suggestion to arbitrarily raise the cost of energy, and let whatever political party is in power choose which energy source is subsidized the most. We've already seen how well that works; no thanks.

Re:And, of course

[h4rr4r]

I tend to buy salads and such if I stop at a McDonalds. Of course before they had those items I just did not stop there if I could avoid it.

Re:to much weapon potential

[__aaltlg1547]

1 kW/m2 of microwaves is safe for animals?

For people if you lose control of the beam? For electronics?

Everyone has their priorities ...

[tgd]

I choose to pay about 25% more for my electricity to have 100% renewable. The extra $20 a month isn't a big deal to me, and while I'm not a dirty enviro-hippy, I do think its a matter of being responsible. I can afford to pay extra for it, so I do.

People choosing to do things like that (buy clean electricity, the people who bought the early hybrid cars, people buying the pure electric and extended range electric cars etc) help to fund the growth of the technology where it can become ubiquitous. (Or, as another example, the people who pay $250k for a ride on Virgin Galactic -- its all the same.)

Re:Everyone has their priorities ...

[GameboyRMH]

Only 25% more? Not bad. To me it would be worth it just so I can tell the anti-environmentalists on Slashdot who tell me to turn off my computer "Actually this computer runs on 100% renewable energy. Maybe you should turn YOURS off. *smugface* "

Re:This stuff gets me frustrated

[h4rr4r]

No need to let the government do it. Allow someone to come up with a way of removing this stuff from the air. Then the government only forces power produces to pay to have that done. If these producers can find a cheaper way to clean their waste up let them. Allow them some percentage of waste, ever moving towards 0%. I bet nuclear starts to look a lot better once the playing field is leveled.

Easier If You Can See the Impact

[Greyfox]

A few years back I spent some time in Romania. My first impression of the country was "Miami without emissions controls". Everyone smoked in Romania at the time, and outside there was the constant smell of diesel exhaust. By the end of a week there my lungs actually hurt. After that, I appreciate the achievement that someplace like Downtown New York City has made in having breathable air. I wonder if you asked citizens of Beijing if they'd be willing to pay more for energy in exchange for significantly improved air quality, how many of them would say yes.

Re:Easier If You Can See the Impact

[GodfatherofSoul]

I would expand this to basically all kinds of regulations. You go to a country that doesn't have them, and you understand why they're so valuable. Or, you could just go on a road trip in Mexico and see how well their gated-communities+immigrate-to-the-US philosophy worked out.

Re:to much weapon potential

[lorenlal]

Isn't that one of the disaster buttons? Right next to the Monster attacks?

Re:And, of course

[GNious]

Why would someone go to MacD to get salads? There are places for salads, and places for burgers, and MacD is, uhm, neither really.

Re:to much weapon potential

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Yeah, that's about the amount of energy you get from normal sunlight.

Re:And, of course

[FriendlyLurker]

People are only willing to pay a little more for clean energy because the full environmental cost of polluting energy has not been realized or seen by the majority, yet. Ask those in expanding tornado zones, or in newly created flood zones what they would pay for clean energy and Ill wager you will get very different results...

Surface area required for solar powering the world

[Medievalist]

Solar currently requires a good bit of acreage before you even begin to reap enough energy to power a single, 1 story building.

You might be interested in this infographic.

http://www.landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127

As it turns out, the world is remarkably large.

Re:And, of course

[localman57]

Why would someone go to MacD to get salads?

Because their friends who like burgers are also going there for lunch. The ability to placate the healthy eater or vegeterian in a lunch group has become vital to the lunch menu, particularly in urban business areas. If you don't have these items, you get Veto'd by one person out of six, and you lose the whole group to some place the one can settle for.

Re:And, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Going to McDonalds for a salad is like going to a hooker for a hug.

Re:Surface area required for solar powering the wo

[PhilHibbs]

I see your infographic and raise you a Randall:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2011/11/22/xkcd-the-cost-of-electricity/

Re:to much weapon potential

[rubycodez]

at one frequency. that's bad, people who receive much less than that (working on radar, etc.) have much higher incidence of testicular and ocular tumors

Re:to much weapon potential

[Intrepid imaginaut]

If one chose to set up camp in the beam for years on end I couldn't guarantee there'd be no ill effects... :D

I pay extra for "dirty" energy

[Sloppy]

I pay extra income tax to send my country's military forces halfway around the world, to provide security for privately-owned oil tankers full of privately-owned oil to pass through the Persian Gulf. I pay extra income tax in order to provide non-humanitarian "foreign aid" to several other governments in the oil-rich area, just to keep them (somewhat) friendly.

Even if I opt out of using subsidized oil, I don't get to opt out of paying for the subsidy. Why would I pay even more to subsidize Yet Another competing energy source? (Well, ok, let's not get fanatical about that .. I understand that we've all come to an agreement to subsidize coal by allowing the plants that burn it to dump their CO2 into the public atmosphere as an externality (there's the subsidy) instead of making them plant forests to soak it up, but coal isn't really a direct competitor to oil; it's used differently so by subsidizing both, I'm not really paying to back two sides against each other, which would be silly.)

Can we just get the Central Committee's existing government-planned subsidy payments transferred? Why does the politburo always go with oil and coal in their five year plans? I'd be willing to do a subsidy re-assignment, at least short-term. (Long-term.. well, actually I'm unsure about the wisdom of even having a Central Committee and all this economic planning, but that's another topic.)

Re:I pay extra for "dirty" energy

[drinkypoo]

coal isn't really a direct competitor to oil; it's used differently

Where does the power for EVs come from if we switch over?

Re:I pay extra for "dirty" energy

[arkane1234]

umm... not coal?

One of the other alternatives, perhaps?

Re:I pay extra for "dirty" energy

[drinkypoo]

OK, realistically where does the power actually come from in the really real world if we really start buying EVs right now, or for that matter, any time in the next two decades?

Re:I pay extra for "dirty" energy

[Doc Ruby]

Geothermal plants can totally replace all US nuke and coal plants within the next 5-10 years, coming online 2-3 years after breaking ground. With another 10 years of research they can probably be deployed practically everywhere in the world.

They generate no emissions, use mostly the same (steam) generating equipment as nukes and coal, are completely sustainable.

Re:I pay extra for "dirty" energy

[drinkypoo]

They generate no emissions

Read up on the history of the facility at The Geysers before you start clamoring for geothermal power. I've ranted and railed about this at length, but the truth is that there is nothing clean or "green" about geothermal power in the USA. Note also that Calpine's facility at The Geysers has always been over budget and under projected output in addition to its numerous other sins.

Re:I pay extra for "dirty" energy

[Doc Ruby]

The Geysers is the first one, and old. Do you have a link detailing the negative carbon budget typical of geothermal projects initiated since 2005? And if the US ones suck while foreign ones don't, that's not proof against geothermal but against the US.

Re:I pay extra for "dirty" energy

[drinkypoo]

The Geysers is the first one, and old.

And yet they've spent a lot of time and a lot of dollars to try to make it not suck and failed.

Do you have a link detailing the negative carbon budget typical of geothermal projects initiated since 2005?

There's a lot more to worry about than carbon.

And if the US ones suck while foreign ones don't, that's not proof against geothermal but against the US.

Yes, and we're talking about geothermal in the USA. Try to stay on topic.

Re:I pay extra for "dirty" energy

[INowRegretThesePosts]

provide security for privately-owned oil tankers

You don't think that private property should be protected by the government?
Imagine seeing a robber break into your house, and you call the cops to hear "Oh, but you live in a privately-owned house. Go pay for your own security"

By the way, if the government does not protect individuals and businesses, then they will have to hire their own hired guns. Is that what you want?

Jesus, logic seems to escape certain people.

(I posted anonymously by accident)

Re:I pay extra for "dirty" energy

[Doc Ruby]

No link. Whatever.

Re:I pay extra for "dirty" energy

[Sloppy]

provide security for privately-owned oil tankers

You don't think that private property should be protected by the government?

I'm glad the discussion didn't get hung up on whether or not we subsidize oil, and has moved on to whether or not it's a good idea to continue doing it.

Imagine seeing a robber break into your house

The cops do not protect you in a situation like that, and never have. I love cop movies as much as anyone else, but you are taking them way too seriously, if you think that cops will protect you or your property during a robbery. That is exactly the kind of situation where the role of protecting your and your property really is left to the citizenry itself.

If you are robbed, by all means call the cops later when you're safe, but For Fuck's Sake either immediately get out of the house to safety, or (alternative strategy) cock your shotgun as noisily as possible. The only protective role they might play, will be pre-emptive vs a hypothetical "next victim," in the sense that the perp may be identified and arrested later, almost certainly not at the scene of your robbery.

That isn't to say they don't protect in that last pre-emptive sense that I mentioned; they do. But that's almost all they do. In real life, nearly all protection at the tactical level is private. People adopt strategies such as the excellent and time-tested "be in a group" and "run away", banks employ private security guards and armored cars, house owners buy locks for their doors, bars have bouncers, money handlers are audited, and so on. Most security is private.

if the government does not protect individuals and businesses, then they will have to hire their own hired guns. Is that what you want?

For large-scale routine shipping, hell yes I do wish they hired their own guns. But somehow you've got me thinking of taxpayer-subsidized naval protection of shipping as being more precedented and routinely accepted than your robbery example, not less. In a way, you've almost brought me over to your side, by showing me how much weirder private property protection could be (I'm imagining government protecting people from robbery, by having a couple cops stationed inside every house). That was one of the cleverest rebuttals I have ever seen.

Re:I pay extra for "dirty" energy

[Sloppy]

I think his point is that if grid-charged electric vehicles become sufficiently popular, then when I subsidize both coal and oil, I actually am being an idiot. I'll be paying extra to play those two directly competing techs against each other, at the espense of all other techs.

I was really bending over backwards to justify the existing subsidies but drinkypoo is just not playing along at all. He might be an enemy of the politburo; the KGB should keep an eye on that trouble-making bastard.

Re:I pay extra for "dirty" energy

[INowRegretThesePosts]

First, you are nitpicking about the house-robbery example. Wether the police stops the robbery (which may be extremely rare as you claim) or prosecutes the criminal, it *is* public protection of private property.

Second, are you a leftist or a libertarian? Because advocating for the right of large corporations to buy their own warships would make a leftist's head explode.

Re:And, of course

[catchblue22]

Don't act as if purchasing decisions by the average consumer are based on calm deliberation and rational thought, because most often they are not. Most purchasing decisions are based in large part on subconscious impulses and emotions. Basing public policy on how consumers make purchasing decisions will result in irrational policy.

Re:And, of course

[catchblue22]

From TFA

We find that the average US citizen is willing to pay US$162 per year in higher electricity bills (95% confidence interval: US$128–260), representing a 13% increase

And yet the average US citizen has been "willing" to pay for a 200% increase in gasoline costs over recent years.

Why "only a little more"?

[mark-t]

Considering that "dirty" energy sources are going to continue to go up in price anyways, and people will happily pay it because the alternative will be to not have said energy at all, I'm not sure why they'd only be happy to pay a little more for clean energy.

Not in my experience

[ajegwu]

After my IT consulting company cratered under the weight of the economy, I got involved with an Energy Supply Company, that I will not spam you with. Now that I've gathered a few hundred customers, who are all given the option of having their bills go down using traditional energy sources or having their bills go up using Green-e Certified energy (wind power here in NY) exactly ZERO chose to pay an extra $0.02 per KWh to go green.

Re:Not in my experience

[JustNiz]

My guess for this is two reasons:
1) The weren't given enough info prior to being asked to choose: e.g. exactly which green technology would be used or exactly why it would cost more.

2) People already have plenty of good reasons to have zero trust in large corps to do the right thing over making more profit (i.e. whats the guarantee they wouldn't just pocket most of the extra money collected and at most just fund a cheap smokescreen token effort).

Re:Not in my experience

[geekoid]

2 cents a kilo is , what? 25% increase?

Re:Not in my experience

[InsertCleverUsername]

Hmmm... We had a partial green power option from Florida Power & Light and I didn't mind paying a little extra, but maybe I was the only one --the program was canceled after a year or two.

Re:Not in my experience

[GameboyRMH]

Makes sense. Corporations don't give a fuck about the environment, why would they? They can't tell their shareholders at the next quarterly meeting that their running costs went up to reduce damage to the planet so that the weather won't be so bad long after every old fart in the room is dead, they'd throw a shit-fit. Only the most high-profile and image-sensitive companies that have shit-tons of extra money to throw around have any incentive to give a shit. BlahCorp manufacturing that builds obscure widgets in the industrial park? Not so much.

Re:Not in my experience

[Doc Ruby]

Con Ed power is about $0.20:KWh, so an extra $0.02 is a 10% increase. Still pretty hefty, especially on top of the criminally highest electricity rates in the country.

Re:And, of course

[cayenne8]

To be fair, McDonalds 'salads' are so laden with oil and sugar that it's difficult to class them as healthy choices...

Err....I don't believe McD's salads come "pre-dressed"...it only gets full of oil and sugar if the person heaps on a dressing that is full of oil and sugar...?!?

I think they do offer lighter salad dressing choices?

Exactly--Solar PV's Effect on Prices in Germany

[DaKong]

This is exactly right. A few days ago this article came out that showed, quite dramatically, the effect existing Solar photovoltaics have had on wholesale electricity prices in Germany--it has essentially chopped off the top of the price curve.

Solar produces best at the peak of the day, which is exactly when spot prices for electricity peak, so your payback is even faster than average electricity prices would indicate. And the amazing thing is that even without taking that consideration into account a payback period of, say, 5 years is still pretty trivial when you're gonna own the house for 30 years.

Parent sounds condescending, but he's right!

[Anonymous Coward]

This cannot be reinforced enough, humans only have so much mental bandwidth. We have habits and routines that don't require significant mental effort, freeing up "cycles" to deal with more demanding tasks, and when your life is stable it is very hard for people to continue to override those subconscious programs.

I was recently at a pediatric subspecialty conference (Yes, I'm an MD, thus my anony-mouse posting) and in a section on childhood obesity, a recent paper was briefly discussed. They looked at the ability of people to make "healthy" choices with and without distractions. I can't find the paper now (Not at my desk) but, IIRC, when people only had to choose a healthy meal, without any other distractions or tasks, most people could make "healthy" choices. But with a task as simple as remembering a sequence of random numbers, a significant number of subjects wouldn't make the "healthy" choice. They just couldn't free up the bandwidth to do so. Which puts a spin on the obesity epidemic, doesn't it?

I know *I've* had countless situations where I've made the "easy" choices, or the "quick" choice because I was stressed or distracted or busy, rationalizing that "it's just this once, it's not worth the effort," and I'm (damn me but this will sound arrogant) far better positioned to make smart choices than the average consumer. Discarding modesty (which is hard, because I have a hard time *believing* this about myself) I'm rather clever, financially comfortable (Doing the math, I'm damn near the accursed "1%"), with little debt, a stable job, a beloved spouse in a stable relationship, I'm frankly one of the BEST people in the world to make smart, well thought out, well planned decisions.

And I still screw it up, more often than not. My wife and I are a good team, and we can catch a lot of bad decisions between the two of us, but we are, frankly, a rare pairing.

When you look at the "average" citizen and the amount of money and effort that is spent to bypass or just plain wear down their psychological defenses and routines, we don't have a damn chance. SOMETHING else has got to change, because people are people. Wonderful, irritating, brilliant, stupid people.

Re:Parent sounds condescending, but he's right!

[catchblue22]

Interesting post. I don't think you are necessarily implying this, but I think that there is a danger in writing off humans as "irrational". I think we have the potential to be rational, if we try. Even if rationality is in essence an "impossible goal", we can still move towards it. Having an ideal, even if it is not absolutely achievable is "useful", in that it will likely result in a better society.

I have done a fair amount of thinking about classical Greek civilisation. It is often (mistakenly I believe) that the Greeks assumed that humans were inherently rational. What is often left out of descriptions of Greek thought is their mythology, their gods. I believe that to Greek philosophers the various gods were allegorical descriptions of the irrational forces inside us (Aphrodite - eros, Ares - war like impulses, Bachus, etc). To the Greeks our "souls" were rational entities being buffeted by irrational forces. Given recent scientific thought on human rationality or lack thereof, this seems a good description of the human condition.

donating blood, etc.

[geoffrobinson]

Look up the book "Who Really Cares?"

Conservatives are more generous than liberals in all sorts of categories. Donating time to charities to donating blood.

The cause seems to be that when you think it is the government's responsibility to help people, you are less willing to help people. Personally, I think focusing on the government being the main source of help turns people into greedy narcissists only concerned about how much they are getting. You don't have to worry about helping others because it isn't your responsibility.

Re:to much weapon potential

[Nadaka]

One of the supposed benefits of orbital solar is that you can use the land beneath the antenna's for other purposes, such as farming or parks. I don't like the idea of irradiating our farmers or children.

Re:to much weapon potential

[Nadaka]

They had to same authoritarian political ideology of the monarchs that preceded them. The difference is that they do not appeal to the divine right of kings for their authority, but rather make token gestures towards ruling for the good of society and murdering anyone who would speak against them. It is the same authoritarian political ideology that now infests America, using appeals to the divine hand of the free market as the superstition that placates the ignorant masses.

Re:And, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

then you rapidly become a group of '5' that can go anywhere to eat a nice lunch.

Are the other 4 guys assholes too?

Re:And, of course

[geekoid]

Way to miss the point. With more options like salads at more places, then the more places the 6 of you can go.

And they where talking about McDonalds, not 'a nice lunch'. Any where you would go to get a nice lunch will have salads.

If you consider McDonalds a 'nice lunch' you need to enjoy more opportunities,.
Now, It's a quick lunch, ts an 'ok' lunch. People go there, I occasionally go there, so I ma not bashing it. Nice lunch seldom means fast food.

Re:to much weapon potential

[AngryDeuce]

+1 Informative.

I was always partial to the flood, though. It was just so fucking biblical.

Re:And, of course

[arkane1234]

The fat mainly comes from the grilled chicken, or other internal contents which are not componentized.

Re:And, of course

[cayenne8]

And yet the average US citizen has been "willing" to pay for a 200% increase in gasoline costs over recent years.

Well, it isn't like most Americans have a choice in that...you pretty much 'have' to have a car to get around and function reasonably in this society. I don't even look at the price on the gas pump, it is just as much a basic need for my daily functioning as eating or drinking water is. No...I won't die immediately if I don't have gas to drive...but I will be in trouble eventually when I can't get to the store and back with food...and mostly, if I lose my job and cannot support myself...well....

Gas and a car are just pretty much basic of life in the US, and you just pay what you have to to keep living and being productive.

Re:to much weapon potential

[geekoid]

The you should keep them out of the sun.. really you should keep then at 0K.

Re:to much weapon potential

[Intrepid imaginaut]

What? You may be thinking of wind turbines. I wouldn't advise anyone do much with the land under a rectenna.

Re:And, of course

[internerdj]

Because they have children? Is there any other reason to go to McDs?

Re:And, of course

[localman57]

The other thing is that for a lot of people, it isn't a matter of being "fucking picky" as trying to show respect for the God that you believe in. At our company we have Hindus, Muslems, Sikhs, and just your garden variety vegeterains and health nuts, and we typically all go out together.

If you alienate all of these people, eventually they'll quit. A company like mine will hire the best of them, and eventually we'll put you out of business if you are a competitor of ours.

Re:And, of course

[InsertCleverUsername]

If you ask McDonalds customers if they'd like to see more salads and healthy choices they'll say, "Yes, of course!"

Textbook example of what social psychologists call social desirability and one of the most damning criticisms of the validity of surveys.

Re:And, of course

[cayenne8]

If you consider McDonalds a 'nice lunch' you need to enjoy more opportunities,.

Far from it...I live in New Orleans, food central city.

I can't honestly tell you the last time I ate at a McD's. I virutally never go to eat fast food, and if you live in NOLA proper, you actually don't even see many fast food joints. Most place you go to eat here, are locally owned establishments. My 'junk' food, treat is an oyster poboy and some sweet potato fries.

:)

It actually comes as a jolt to me, when I travel to other cities...Houston for example...I was just amazed to see row after row after row of strip malls as I traveled the highway...each one almost a mirror of the other one...each had nothing but chain restaurants...Applebee's, Olive Garden...etc.

I guess I get spoiled here...and forget how many people have almost no nice local choices, just chain restaurants and fast food places.

I can't remember the last time I ate at a chain restaurant either...now that I think about it. I'm actually kinda proud of that!!

:)

Re:And, of course

[cayenne8]

At our company we have Hindus, Muslems, Sikhs, and just your garden variety vegeterains and health nuts, and we typically all go out together.

Never worked at a site that had and significant number of people of religious faith that prohibited them from eating most foods. I've never worked at a place where that was an issue...and I've worked a lot of Federal sites in the past too...which you would assume to be really diverse...but I've yet to run into someone that said they couldn't go eat somewhere due to religious reasons.

Right now..I'm in New Orleans....where food itself *IS* the religion for most people.

:)

Re:Excellent!

[GameboyRMH]

Whose data do we have to read to "know its fake?" Time Cube Guy's?

Re:And, of course

[bws111]

They offer a 'Premium Caesar Salad' without chicken (4g fat), with grilled chicken (5g fat) or crispy chicken (18g fat). Same for the 'Premium Southwest Salad'.

Re:Attention Green Snake Oil salesmen

[Mashiki]

Yeah better watch out. People don't like green energy being called a boondoggle, especially when you point out that it's subsidized for between 50-70c/kwh over and above the market rate for coal, NG, hydro, or nuclear.

Re:And, of course

[ShanghaiBill]

... severely limit choices of restaurants ...

I don't think "anything but McDonald's" is "severely limiting". I am a veggie (but not a vegan) and 99% of restaurants are fine. Any pizza place is good. Subway is great. Most burger joints offer a garden burger or some kind of veggie wrap. McDonalds is the ONLY major chain that doesn't "get it". And, no, french fries don't count.

Re:And, of course

[BlackSnake112]

If you are looking to move, and the area is a flood zone. Look elsewhere. If you are dumb enough to move into a flood zone, why should other people pay for your foolishness. Tornado zones really can be anywhere. The state of Maryland has many tornados. Yet that state is not considered part of tornado ally.

Reliability/predictability

[alispguru]

With a big fossil fuel plant or a hydro dam, you get 90% or more of the rated output, and outages are rare.

With a big solar PV plant, you get 1/3 to 1/4 the rated maximum output, and outages happen nightly

With a big wind farm, you get 30% of rated maximum, if you're lucky, and long periods of calm happen more frequently than you'd like.

For example, England has been working on wind power for the last decade or so. The results have not been good.

Re:And, of course

[Eponymous Hero]

nah they're just keepin it real

Re:And, of course

[sorak]

To be fair, McDonalds 'salads' are so laden with oil and sugar that it's difficult to class them as healthy choices...

Err....I don't believe McD's salads come "pre-dressed"...it only gets full of oil and sugar if the person heaps on a dressing that is full of oil and sugar...?!?

I think they do offer lighter salad dressing choices?

They do offer light Italian and balsamic vinaigrette dressings that clock in at about 60 calories (too lazy to look it up right now). Add chicken, cheese and bacon (standard on their more 'generic' large salad), and it is around 450 calories. People like to bash McDonald's, but their healthy options aren't that bad.

Re:And, of course

[sorak]

... severely limit choices of restaurants ...

I don't think "anything but McDonald's" is "severely limiting". I am a veggie (but not a vegan) and 99% of restaurants are fine. Any pizza place is good. Subway is great. Most burger joints offer a garden burger or some kind of veggie wrap. McDonalds is the ONLY major chain that doesn't "get it". And, no, french fries don't count.

Not a vegetarian, but my wife is (sort of), and she was mentioning how bad Hardy's/Carl's Jr is. I think she got a cheese quesadilla, but that was it.

Re:And, of course

[Joce640k]

I think they do offer lighter salad dressing choices?

The dressing comes in a little packet so you can choose to add less of it. Or none at all.

Re:And, of course

[Joce640k]

McDonalds isn't bad if you skip the fries and soda. Try ordering two Big Macs instead of a 'menu'.

(Though if you don't order fries+soda they might call security, it's unpatriotic...)

Re:And, of course

[cyn1c77]

Because their friends who like burgers are also going there for lunch. The ability to placate the healthy eater or vegeterian in a lunch group has become vital to the lunch menu, particularly in urban business areas. If you don't have these items, you get Veto'd by one person out of six, and you lose the whole group to some place the one can settle for.

Hmm..I dunno. In my experience, if you have one out of the 6 that is that fucking picky...then you rapidly become a group of '5' that can go anywhere to eat a nice lunch.

I don't mind someone being a vegan, but they certainly aren't welcome to severely limit choices of restaurants for a nice work lunch outing. They're the outlier....let them deal with it.

Your statement does not account for extenuating circumstances such as that person being (1) your boss or (2) extremely attractive.

Mod Parent up

[coyote_oww]

A tax scheme is the first step toward control - you can easily see the tax code changing for different classes of "churches" depending on how close they toe the governement line. Won't accept gay clergy? higher taxes for you!

The problem with taxing anything is "how" - do you tax reciepts? that is, going to church is subject to a "sales tax" - 6% of your donation goes to the government? or by "profit" ((revenue - expenses)*.06)? what counts as expense in that case? or just a fixed fee? or fee-per-sq.ft.? or fee per member?

Generally, I would prefer all "non-profits" to disappear and become conventional corporations, subject to the (revenue-expense)*x tax rate, plus property taxes. However, I come from a background that sees a church as a group of people, rather than a building...

Re:Mod Parent up

[internerdj]

Well the biggest complaint I've heard about taxes and Churches is they aren't subject to property tax. As such a number of religious organizations have horded very desirable land. Since they aren't taxed then even a congregation with no monetary intake would never have to turn that land back over to the public. Unfortunate, but are you really going to get a constitutional amendment to allow the government to tax religious non-profits?

Re:Mod Parent up

[bws111]

Property taxes ought to be abolished altogether. They are absolutely the most unfair form of taxation there is.

Re:And, of course

[scot4875]

The exact same argument could be made for electricity, could it not?

--Jeremy

Re:And, of course

[tomhath]

Do you think a bill to increase liquid fuels tax by $2 per gallon would get through Congress? No chance.

That's what the survey was trying to find. The price point they can claim energy will be in order to have a chance at getting getting a bill passed. Once they find that point they can make up their number based on "studies" to support the claim that magic pixie dust and unicorns will only add 13% to your electric bill (after subsidies of course).

Re:And, of course

[jkflying]

Yeah, but the trouble is that it's just a matter of time before there won't be anywhere left to move. There will come a time when the coast is stormy, inland has tornados, the poles are just giant mudpiles of melting permafrost and the equator has malaria. How about facing the problem instead of running away?

Clap trap

[Stumbles]

What a load of propagandist bullshit designed to solicit empathy from calmatistic fatalists and fool the rest into thinking there really is something we can do to "save the planet". Not gonna happen. The measly "energy savings" from say a CFL is nothing compared to the resource drain a global population increase is and will have. Besides, there is no reason a CFL for example needing to cost more than a standard incandescent.

Re:And, of course

[Khashishi]

I'm not sure what you mean. Most Americans can afford McDonald's every day. This doesn't include medical costs, of course.

Guilt succeeds

[J'raxis]

And an equally large proportion of Americans are willing to engage in silly, time-wasting rituals that have been sold to them by priests and ministers as a way of ensuring they get into "heaven" when they die. These rituals are typically sold to people by making them feel bad about themselves for not doing the rituals. Guilt can make people do awfully irrational things.

Similarly, the environmentalists have done a great job guilting people into feeling bad about themselves unless they waste their money on "green," too.

I support clean energy---when it provides a material benefit to people: For example, when it's cheaper, or when it's more sustainable, or when it lessens dependency on centralized infrastructure---but not merely when someone tries to make me feel bad about us "ruining the planet" with carbon dioxide and pollution.

Re:Guilt succeeds

[Doc Ruby]

You're ruining the planet, and we think you suck.

Re:And, of course

[sorak]

McDonalds isn't bad if you skip the fries and soda. Try ordering two Big Macs instead of a 'menu'.

(Though if you don't order fries+soda they might call security, it's unpatriotic...)

The only problem there is that Big Macs are over 500 calories each, and high in sodium. You would probably be better off replacing one of the burgers with apples, a fruit and walnut salad, or a side salad. I typically would order either a grilled chicken bacon ranch salad, or a snack wrap, side salad, and (sometimes) apple dipper. The three items together fall in the around 500 calorie range.

I'm just now realizing that I eat at McDonald's too damn much.

Re:Surface area required for solar powering the wo

[Medievalist]

Randall's estimated cost of buying enough solar panels to power US homes for one year (based on extrapolating from 2005 data and California usage) doesn't really address the issue I thought we were talking about, which is that the original poster thinks solar panels can't produce a useful amount of power because they take up too much space.

However, I love XKCD and welcome any chance to link to Randall's work! So good job there.

PS: Bio-generated natural gas is the fuel of the future. It's carbon-neutral, it scales with population, it's possible to create it anywhere on Earth, and we already have all the infrastructure we need to distribute and use it. It's the cheapest, safest, least-polluting option, and it doesn't require militarized central facilities or poisoning the water table.

Re:Competing Theory

[geoffrobinson]

Thanks for proving my point. The important thing, to you, is how you spend someone else's money. What you do with your money is insignificant to you.

Re:And, of course

[mcgrew]

Why would someone go to MacD to get salads?

They have good salad (Burger King salad sucks but their hamburgers and fries are a lot better than McD's). Rather than making a salad, I'll go through the drive through and pick up a salad for a dollar, throw a steak on the grill and a potato in the microwave and ten minutes later I'm eating an excellent steak dinner for about four bucks.

Re:And, of course

[mcgrew]

You don't HAVE to put the dressing on it, you know. And you don't have to put the whole package of dressing on it even if you use the dressing.

The books of Jehovah's Witnesses are open

[tepples]

The interesting question to me about this is always how much of a Church's revenue flows back out as social works.

If you sincerely believed that the existing governments were about to collapse and that the world would fall under the rule of a heavenly kingdom, wouldn't helping people learn about the coming kingdom count as social work?

If a church uses the money to build a more beautiful sactuary, or a recreation center that primarily benefits the members, then it's not much more charitable than paying a monthly fee to Bally's or a country club.

I don't know about the finances of other religious groups, but the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses separates the congregation's donations into three categories:

• "Local congregation expenses" covers mostly utilities and maintenance of the Kingdom Halls. The elders don't get any of this; they serve as volunteers.
• "Worldwide work" covers printing of The Watchtower, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, and other free literature, along with legal defense of the Witnesses' house-to-house teaching work.
• "Kingdom Hall construction" covers building new Kingdom Halls, the buildings in which each congregation meets twice a week. In general, one Kingdom Hall can serve three congregations, and congregations split when they threaten to exceed one monkeysphere. So on average, that's one Kingdom Hall for every 300 Witnesses and associates.

The books of Jehovah's Witnesses are open. You can go into any Kingdom Hall and look at a report of amounts contributed to and paid from each category before the public talk every Sunday.

Obvious, it comes from coal

[bussdriver]

From cheaper, cleaner, more secure, coal power plants. Peak coal is a long ways off, peak oil already happened. Nuclear still costs too much and now solar is cheaper and faster to build than nuclear. In a few years grid power storage could be viable if the big power industries do not buy off enough government to delay it.

The grid should be government owned and managed like the roads. Power generators and users would operate on it similar to the markets built upon the "free" transit infrastructure. Coal power will not compete for much longer against solar power when it loses its grid monopoly power to undermine democracy and force subsidies funded by the public. Let coal compete on an even marketplace against the others without corruption and you just watch... but 1st you have to remove them from owning the grid, 2nd you have to LIMIT how much power 1 company can generate (because we have too much concentrated power which again undermines democracy.)

We have approximately $6 TRILLION needed to redo the USA power grid, it will take a long long time to do that - hopefully people come to their senses and do it smart (and I don't mean "smart grid" but something decentralized and open over some of silly ideas I've been hearing about - I'd rather my fridge did not talk to the grid but my solar panels got paid a fair up to the minute rate without the power company screwing me over at every chance.)

Re:Obvious, it comes from coal

[khallow]

We have approximately $6 TRILLION needed to redo the USA power grid

What's up with these fantasy numbers? I'll do it for $5 trillion. And I'll have enough left over to be the richest person on the planet by about an order of magnitude.

Re:Surface area required for solar powering the wo

[AmiMoJo]

His isn't comparing like-for-like though. He uses the price for each technology today. Nuclear benefited from massive subsidy in terms of research and development that drove the cost down, while the cost both types of solar is still falling rapidly. Solar thermal in particular will dramatically drop in price in the next few years.

There is also a better chance of getting a good return on money invested in certain kinds of energy because it is in demand and can be widely exported (especially to emerging economies).

He includes costs for coal from health damage and pollution, but then says he doesn't have figures for dealing with nuclear waste, clean-up, insurance, security and so forth. The US puts a limit of 40 years on nuclear site decommissioning, but that only requires the reactor to be entombed in concrete. In the UK where the site is returned to its natural state ready for re-use it takes us 80-90 years...

Independents with Part Allegiance

[Doc Ruby]

Independents, and respondents with no party allegiance

How are those two groups different?

Re:Attention Green Snake Oil salesmen

[Doc Ruby]

Yes, you're competing with oil, coal, gas and nukes boondoggles for $billions in subsidies every year. Only the really dangerous stuff should get the free handouts.

Re:The study only allowed for a 13% increase in co

[Doc Ruby]

So? Germany and Denmark also have among the highest gasoline and fuel oil prices. Because their economies actually charge closer to what these energy sources cost.

Unlike in socialist Republican paradise USA, where the government for a century has been wealth transferring from all the proles into the subsidized wallets of the oil/gas/nukes cronies who run the place, keeping fuel prices seeming low by separating the subsidies and costs of damage from the retail price.

Geothermal could replace all the coal/gas/nukes making electricity, and power our vehicles. But because nuke fetishists always insist that "only nukes" this or that, the nukes cronies get all the subsidies and smart alternatives like geothermal languish.

Re:And, of course

[Doc Ruby]

Tornado zones aren't everywhere, but they will be much more so. Most of the US is at risk of various weather catastrophes, especially floods and droughts/fires. As the climate changes faster than species can adapt, it will all get worse, probably mostly everywhere. The area left for 300-500M people to reliably live in and off of will be far too small.

Not to mention the pressures on America's global economy as hundreds of millions of climate refugees stress their local infrastructure, resource wars escalate beyond borders, and energy gets rationed among those who can afford it as its true costs finally force themselves home.

Re:And, of course

[Doc Ruby]

I love New Orleans, especially for the food. I lived there for years, return every year, and I just got back a week ago.

But I was very pleased with Houston's food. I think it has the most restaurants per capita of any US city (and therefore anyplace in the US) - though it's hard to believe it's more than SF. I found it very easy to get good food of many different varieties. But that was in my hosts' neighborhood and where they go around the city. It's no New Orleans, but noplace else is. I suggest you get a Houston chowhound to show you around. As a New Orleanian you'll appreciate it more than most would.

Re:And, of course

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

You do realize malaria used to be pretty much anywhere out of the polar region right ? It was fought by destroying the natural habitat of the mosquito (ie. by destroying swamps), and that worked pretty fucking well. By contrast, fighting malaria with medicine without destroying the natural environment that supported it has had only limited success keeping malaria away from the rich only at best (and even in that, limited success). Meanwhile, medicine has caused resistant strains to pop up that could once again spread.

We could do something similar for tornadoes. They are dependant on certain structures, a large region of essentially air moving upwards. If we were to launch large structures into the ocean that break the connection between the top and the bottom of that thing it would at least weaken them. Another option is to heat up the air above them, for which weapons might be useful.

Here's my view. If we're serious about controlling the weather, we shouldn't be mucking about with tiny effects somewhere deep down the chain. We should find out how to directly influence the weather, and go out and do it. Changing some parameter that has near-random effects on any specific locale is bound to cause people to move even if the overall effect is good. If we don't fix global warming, some coastal areas might become difficult to live at, if we do fix global warming loads of inhabited places (e.g. Canada, Russia, Alaska, Northern Europe) will become uninhabitable again. And any effect in between will simply move the tornadoes, leading to another round of moving.

You want to stop tornadoes ? Let's find a way to directly attack and destroy any funnels. Want to destroy malaria ? Destroy all swamps worldwide. Want permafrost ? Wait, who the hell wants that ?

We're humans, dammit ! Counting on gaia to be merciful when we "do right by the earth" will only lead to mountains of corpses. Nature will not reward us for good behavior. Rather, we should bend nature to our will, kicking and screaming.

Re:to much weapon potential

[__aaltlg1547]

It's somewhat safe in the form of sunlight, although sunlight does cause cancer

I asked about microwave radiation, which is not present at anything like this level in sunlight.

Just on the ground side there are all kinds of technical problems:
* how do you deal with clouds?
* how do you deal with safety for people (and animals if you care about them?)
* how much buffer area do you need around the receiving arrray and what can you do with it?
* if there's an emergency, how do you shut down the beam?
* how much airspace is made inaccessible over the receiving array and how do you coordinate with pilots to keep them out of beam?

On the space side how do you deal with:
* forming a beam that you can aim and steer with enough precision
* getting it fucking up there and with whose money? (It won't be mine.)
* orbit maintainance
* what do you do with the satellite during the (minimally) 90% of the time when it won't be in line of sight of your receiving array?
* how do you ensure that the controls cannot be hijacked or blocked?
* what provisions are there to disable the array when (not if) it malfunctions
* can it be maintained on orbit?

Re:Competing Theory

[10101001 10101001]

Well, let's see... According to Wikipedia, at least, the US spends ~35% of GDP on social programs in the US, of which 21% is through government, 10% is through charitable giving, and 4% is through private organizations. In comparison, in France and Sweden it's 30% to 35% of GDP of which a larger majority is through government. To me that indicates two things: that there seems to be some sort of innate threshold of just how much people are willing to spend on social programs as a nation and that in the US it's structured that a lot more of that spending is done through individual choice. Still, if suddenly the government were to simply stop collecting taxes and spending them for social programs, I don't presume that either more people would start contributing to charity nor those already contributing would be able to fill in that 21% gap--if everyone has a $5,000 smaller tax burden yet only 50% of people contribute to charity, that implies each person already contributing would have to contribute that $5,000 currently going to taxes plus an additional $5,000 to make up the difference.

Of course, it could be argued that the money being spent is really unnecessary and wasteful, yet by all accounts the French system actually provides better health care and other services for everyone and, again, its social program spending is about the same percentage of GDP as the US. Certainly, I don't think the government has anything close to 50% overhead on most programs and simply denying a lot of people benefits because they are "unworthy" is more an excuse for a lack of funds than to accept that private charity alone isn't sustainable. But, then, it's quite possible the above figures are off as I don't know if they include things like private healthy insurance, private pensions, etc which may or may not be necessary to provide some sort of parity to the French (or other similar) systems to make a useful comparison.

What is most significant is that poor/needy people don't starve/freeze/whatever to death--certainly, not unless they go out of their way to do so. Using the government as a compulsory system clearly works and functions that "what [I] do with my money *is* [significant] to [me]", but it's also significant to me what you do with your money since there's no way I can provide welfare/healthcare/social security alone. I mean, if it were truly the case that charity was enough, then certainly it should be true that the US's social program spending would be higher, if nothing else to guarantee health care for everyone--and not just the emergency care mandated by government on hospitals. Obviously that point breaks down because the people who do contribute are too poor to contribute more--which speaks volumes about what the rich aren't doing with their money-- and/or people are oblivious to the need to contribute more--which speaks volumes about the way the situation in the US has been so twisted that politicians routinely speak as if the US health care system was the best in the world, ignoring how pragmatically its not because there's not enough spending for those in need, which tends to support the idea that charity is more a token gesture by people than a concerted effort by people to stay informed and resolve actual problems.

But, I guess it's easier to focus on who and how the money is collected than on, you know, taking to task politicians and charities to deliver results upon their mandate on the money they already have and likely will have. That'd seem to be a much bigger issue.

Re:to much weapon potential

[Intrepid imaginaut]

All of these questions and more can be answered when you hire me as your research assistant, or alternately look it up on wikipedia and the links I supplied earlier.

Re:And, of course

[cayenne8]

The only problem there is that Big Macs are over 500 calories each, and high in sodium.

Well, here's my thoughts on it....and much of it had to do when I was growing up.

Eating McDonald's was kind of a treat really....I would get to eat there once, maybe twice a month tops.

So, if you're doing a fast food burger trip once a month...I'd have to say doing 2x Big Macs isn't really gonna hurt you.

That being said, I honestly can't remember the last time I ate at a McD's....has been at least 1-2 years...

Re:And, of course

[cayenne8]

Strange but true...but Knoxville, TN had the record for quite awhile with most restaurants per capita in the States.

For a small city, that place was LOADED with restaurants.

I'll try to check out the chowhound for Houston tho...'cause my last times there over the past years..I saw virtually nothing but chain restaurants....ugh!

:)

Re:And, of course

[cayenne8]

The exact same argument could be made for electricity, could it not?

Yup!!

Good example....I don't really look at my power bill either....just click it and send it....

what's your horse in the race?

[khipu]

You really must have a horse in this race.

I can't figure out what your horse in the race is. Space based power is so obviously a bad idea given current launch costs that you must have some angle. Do you work in the space industry? Do you work for a company that wants subsidies? Or are you so enamored with the Star Tram system that you hope you can manipulate people into funding it this way? Come on, come clean.

Avoiding oil is the key

[INowRegretThesePosts]

In my arrogant opinion, avoiding oil the key. Oil comes from extremely oppressive and aggressive places - Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Iran. By buying oil we fund a future Jewish genocide. We threaten Israel's enemies militarily (thus helping increase the already-too-large US military, and feeding anti-Americanism) with our right hand and throw bags of money at them with our left hand. This is *extremely* counter-productive; it would be very funny if it wasn't so tragic. The government should overtax gas-guzzlers, subsidise economic cars and lift the barriers on Brazilian ethanol. Not only for the environment, but for safety.

This is more important than subsidising solar. Solar is already reaching grid parity as soon as 2015 (check the Wikipedia article on grid parity), and then it will continue its rapid evolution and become cheaper than coal. Therefore, market forces are enough and there's no need to waste on solar tax money that can go to subsidising economic cars.

Re:And, of course

[sorak]

I can see that. You have to "cheat" every now and then.