Regarding your points: 1) Your observations on their business model are speculation. They offered you terms to lease your land based on a royalty. You weren't comfortable with that and appropriately decided not to lease your land. Other developers offer a fixed lease, or a combination of fixed and royalty. Regardless, this point is unrelated to abandonment of wind turbines. 2) The turbine locations they proposed would have created unacceptable risk (regardless of the compensation discussed in point 1). You appropriately decided not to lease the land. However this is unrelated to turbine abandonment. 3) As lessor, you requested remediation security (commonly requested) and they declined. That the location was on a ridge line instead of flat plains would have undoubtably increased the cost to both install and remove (or repower). You're correct that they were blowing smoke -- at the end of a 25 year lease they would not be "valuable equipment"
However, what would be valuable, is a site that is permitted for wind power with infrastructure to connect to the grid, and a grid configured to allow for that interconnection. It is these attributes which make old wind-farms valuable and attractive to investors and developers who want to replace existing turbines (typically 15-25 years) with new technology which produces substantially more energy from the same amount of wind.
Source: I develop greenfield and repowered wind and solar power plants.
Unless we get electricity too cheap to meter, the old wind turbines will be replaced with new wind turbines. These old turbines are located in the best wind resource (and already paid the fixed infrastructure cost to connect to the grid), so the most desirable to repower.
There are many examples in California where turbines were first installed in the 1980s which have already, or are in the process now, of repowering.
You manifestly don't believe that smoking is good for you so I assume you don't smoke tobacco.
Likewise you think that hydrocarbons will kill you, your offspring and the planet so I assume you don't use them either. Because let's face it the only way to stop hydrocarbons being used is to stop using them. No petrol or diesel, no plastic, no coal powered electricity, no copper or aluminium, no cement, no building materials. Nothing that comes from hydrocarbons.
Are you doing that? Are you setting a good example and encouraging everyone you know to follow it?
Craig King
Yes, I don't smoke tobacco. And I generally avoid sitting in confined spaces with tobacco smokers.
However, I don't believe hydrocarbons will kill me, my offspring, or the planet. I do think that atmospheric CO2 negatively impacts the climate and lowers all of our standards of living. And I think ocean acidification is bad. Furthermore, I don't think you should be subsidizing my price of hydrocarbons.[1] And if I choose to use hydrocarbons once the direct and indirect subsidies are removed, that should be my right -- that's how a well functioning free market works. People who don't drive cars shouldn't subsidize those who do. Government, through fossil fuel subsidies, shouldn't be "picking winners"
This isn't about "setting examples" but is about an off-balance sheet liability for the planet which will be a drag on productivity and standards of living for future generations.
So, you opposed the RICO investigation (1999-2006) of the so-called "science" which said that cigarettes are safe?
Yes. The way to counter speech that you disagree with, is not censorship, but MORE SPEECH. It is especially effective if you can back up your speech with data.
My read is not that the academics and scientists are trying to counter "speech" but to counter "crime." The way you counter crime you don't agree with is change the LAWS.
Rarely have I wished to have mod points as much as I do now to mod parent up.
Pollution is an externality. By not internalizing the cost (through a revenue-neutral tax), we are subsidizing the polluter. Yes, level the playing field and let the market figure it out.
At $24/ton CO2, the price of electricity (100% coal) would increase $0.024/kWh. For natural gas derived electricity, $0.013. Assuming a fuel mix of 50% coal, 25% gas, 25% CO2 free, then that's an increase of $0.015, assuming no market-based substitution. And if revenue neutral, that money would be returned to tax payers.
Perhaps someone can explain why we should continue to subsidize coal?
Yes, but in general we don't go to heroic lengths to save them. People are intrinsically motivated to work in their own best interest. Which is why "save the earth" isn't a message that resonates with anyone other than the environmentalists.
You clearly would not be a candidate for this car then. This is a luxury sports sedan. Generally luxury sports sedans get well below 25 MPG.
I'd also suspect, if your electricity is $0.18, then your gas is likely higher than $3.50.
It also appears that the Tesla roadster gets 4 miles / kWh and some super-efficient electric cars are above 10 miles per kWh. So yes, the calculations are very sensitive to the inputs.
As a matter of policy, I'd prefer to see the (US) government get out of the business of subsidizing oil and picking winners and let the market produce whatever the consumer demands. I think we'd see a lot more people (in the US) driving cars like yours -- 45 MPG.
Perhaps the most important question is what is the all-in cost per mile of operation and how many miles to I need to operate it annually for it to make financial sense. For a SWAG: Assume $0.10/kWh, 3 miles/kWh, or $0.033/mile for electricity, vs. 25 MPG, $3.50/gallon, $0.14/mile for gasoline. Effective difference of $0.10/mile. At a US average annual distance of 12,000 miles, the fuel cost difference is $1,200. Electric vehicle advocates also suggest that you save another $200/yr on oil changes, oil filters, etc.. If you assume an average ownership period of 10 years, that's a $14,000 savings in OpEx. Of course, currently the car is more expensive, you're limited (slightly) in range, and there are (currently) limited number of places where you can fast-charge (15-20 minutes full charge).
Since when do Slashdot readers bet against technology?
On what do you base your assertion that [insert climate action] will wreck the economy?
From a passionate moderate standpoint, I think the scientists have done a better job demonstrating a causal relationship between our CO2 emissions and climate change than the skeptics have done in demonstrating that doing anything about climate change will wreck the global economy.
Regarding (b), a less expensive (administratively speaking) would be to apply the tax at the point of extracting the previously sequestered carbon. In this manner, there are fewer inspectors required and orders of magnitude less complexity for the market.
The most compelling implementations of this that I've heard are to make it revenue-neutral and phase it in slowly. Ultimately however, a price still needs to be determined. In the US, the analysis I've seen suggests that given our fuel mix, a $15/ton CO2 tax would result in ~6% increase in electricity prices assuming no fuel switching. If phased in slowly to permit technology improvements and fuel switching, it should be much less.
I have a blackberry curve on T-Mobile. I use UMA over Comcast internet quite successfully. I do not pay any extra for this capability, though it might be part of my rate plan.
offers a critical view at the new Microsoft technology
You know, a lot of people will read this and not understand that it's a joke. If five years from now, the general population thinks that it is a MS technology, we'll know where it started!
Re:Paying for _community_ content?
on
Slashdot Updates
·
· Score: 1
Show us all your costs, from servers to salaries, and your profit. Let us know that we're being charged this because of need, and not because of the avarice of a few businessmen over at VA.
Wow. Imagine a world where people were only paid based on need. What would happen to any financial incentive to innovate? Yes, there are other reasons people may have to innovate. None of these put food on the table, a roof over the head, or clothes on the back.
For an interesting analysis of payment based on need, try reading Atlas Shrugged.
Slashdot Mirror
Regarding your points:
1) Your observations on their business model are speculation. They offered you terms to lease your land based on a royalty. You weren't comfortable with that and appropriately decided not to lease your land. Other developers offer a fixed lease, or a combination of fixed and royalty. Regardless, this point is unrelated to abandonment of wind turbines.
2) The turbine locations they proposed would have created unacceptable risk (regardless of the compensation discussed in point 1). You appropriately decided not to lease the land. However this is unrelated to turbine abandonment.
3) As lessor, you requested remediation security (commonly requested) and they declined. That the location was on a ridge line instead of flat plains would have undoubtably increased the cost to both install and remove (or repower). You're correct that they were blowing smoke -- at the end of a 25 year lease they would not be "valuable equipment"
However, what would be valuable, is a site that is permitted for wind power with infrastructure to connect to the grid, and a grid configured to allow for that interconnection. It is these attributes which make old wind-farms valuable and attractive to investors and developers who want to replace existing turbines (typically 15-25 years) with new technology which produces substantially more energy from the same amount of wind.
Source: I develop greenfield and repowered wind and solar power plants.
Unless we get electricity too cheap to meter, the old wind turbines will be replaced with new wind turbines. These old turbines are located in the best wind resource (and already paid the fixed infrastructure cost to connect to the grid), so the most desirable to repower.
There are many examples in California where turbines were first installed in the 1980s which have already, or are in the process now, of repowering.
You manifestly don't believe that smoking is good for you so I assume you don't smoke tobacco.
Likewise you think that hydrocarbons will kill you, your offspring and the planet so I assume you don't use them either. Because let's face it the only way to stop hydrocarbons being used is to stop using them. No petrol or diesel, no plastic, no coal powered electricity, no copper or aluminium, no cement, no building materials. Nothing that comes from hydrocarbons.
Are you doing that? Are you setting a good example and encouraging everyone you know to follow it?
Craig King
Yes, I don't smoke tobacco. And I generally avoid sitting in confined spaces with tobacco smokers.
However, I don't believe hydrocarbons will kill me, my offspring, or the planet. I do think that atmospheric CO2 negatively impacts the climate and lowers all of our standards of living. And I think ocean acidification is bad. Furthermore, I don't think you should be subsidizing my price of hydrocarbons.[1] And if I choose to use hydrocarbons once the direct and indirect subsidies are removed, that should be my right -- that's how a well functioning free market works. People who don't drive cars shouldn't subsidize those who do. Government, through fossil fuel subsidies, shouldn't be "picking winners"
This isn't about "setting examples" but is about an off-balance sheet liability for the planet which will be a drag on productivity and standards of living for future generations.
[1] http://www.worldenergyoutlook....
So, you opposed the RICO investigation (1999-2006) of the so-called "science" which said that cigarettes are safe?
Yes. The way to counter speech that you disagree with, is not censorship, but MORE SPEECH. It is especially effective if you can back up your speech with data.
My read is not that the academics and scientists are trying to counter "speech" but to counter "crime." The way you counter crime you don't agree with is change the LAWS.
Because arresting people is what science is about now.
So, you opposed the RICO investigation (1999-2006) of the so-called "science" which said that cigarettes are safe?
And about time?
If I had modpoints, I'd mod you up.
Does this mean Standford will divest itself from the use of electricity too? Or is this just a hypocritical publicity stunt?
Stanford receives electricity from two sources -- Cardinal Cogen, an onsite natural gas cogeneration unit, and PG&E. Neither of which use coal.
Ideal for me would be to have a Google Earth layer that when I edit, my edits appear on others who share the layer and vice-versa. Any solutions?
Perhaps the Mammoths were too preoccupied trying to "save the earth" when it was themselves that needed saving!
Rarely have I wished to have mod points as much as I do now to mod parent up.
Pollution is an externality. By not internalizing the cost (through a revenue-neutral tax), we are subsidizing the polluter. Yes, level the playing field and let the market figure it out.
At $24/ton CO2, the price of electricity (100% coal) would increase $0.024/kWh. For natural gas derived electricity, $0.013. Assuming a fuel mix of 50% coal, 25% gas, 25% CO2 free, then that's an increase of $0.015, assuming no market-based substitution. And if revenue neutral, that money would be returned to tax payers.
Perhaps someone can explain why we should continue to subsidize coal?
Yes, but in general we don't go to heroic lengths to save them. People are intrinsically motivated to work in their own best interest. Which is why "save the earth" isn't a message that resonates with anyone other than the environmentalists.
Headline is hyperbolic. Astroid sized impacts aren't going to destroy Earth. It'll be fine. It's the humans for which we need to be concerned.
This was never something for the environment. It was always another subsidy for farmers and Big Oil.
You clearly would not be a candidate for this car then. This is a luxury sports sedan. Generally luxury sports sedans get well below 25 MPG.
I'd also suspect, if your electricity is $0.18, then your gas is likely higher than $3.50.
It also appears that the Tesla roadster gets 4 miles / kWh and some super-efficient electric cars are above 10 miles per kWh. So yes, the calculations are very sensitive to the inputs.
As a matter of policy, I'd prefer to see the (US) government get out of the business of subsidizing oil and picking winners and let the market produce whatever the consumer demands. I think we'd see a lot more people (in the US) driving cars like yours -- 45 MPG.
Perhaps the most important question is what is the all-in cost per mile of operation and how many miles to I need to operate it annually for it to make financial sense. For a SWAG: Assume $0.10/kWh, 3 miles/kWh, or $0.033/mile for electricity, vs. 25 MPG, $3.50/gallon, $0.14/mile for gasoline. Effective difference of $0.10/mile. At a US average annual distance of 12,000 miles, the fuel cost difference is $1,200. Electric vehicle advocates also suggest that you save another $200/yr on oil changes, oil filters, etc.. If you assume an average ownership period of 10 years, that's a $14,000 savings in OpEx. Of course, currently the car is more expensive, you're limited (slightly) in range, and there are (currently) limited number of places where you can fast-charge (15-20 minutes full charge).
Since when do Slashdot readers bet against technology?
On what do you base your assertion that [insert climate action] will wreck the economy?
From a passionate moderate standpoint, I think the scientists have done a better job demonstrating a causal relationship between our CO2 emissions and climate change than the skeptics have done in demonstrating that doing anything about climate change will wreck the global economy.
Regarding (b), a less expensive (administratively speaking) would be to apply the tax at the point of extracting the previously sequestered carbon. In this manner, there are fewer inspectors required and orders of magnitude less complexity for the market.
The most compelling implementations of this that I've heard are to make it revenue-neutral and phase it in slowly. Ultimately however, a price still needs to be determined. In the US, the analysis I've seen suggests that given our fuel mix, a $15/ton CO2 tax would result in ~6% increase in electricity prices assuming no fuel switching. If phased in slowly to permit technology improvements and fuel switching, it should be much less.
I have a blackberry curve on T-Mobile. I use UMA over Comcast internet quite successfully. I do not pay any extra for this capability, though it might be part of my rate plan.
Mobile Carriers Cry "Fewer Operating Systems" not "Less Operating Systems". RTFA or pay attention to grammar in your next life.
The "article" is not an article, but a press release written by an employee of a public affairs company.
./, I have no idea. Oh, wait.
"Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company."
How this made the front page of
Sure enough. Looks like I've already disabled the "allow 'safe' files" after downloading. Thanks for helping me understand.
Went to the proof of concept, followed directions and it did not execute.
I'm running 10.4.5 with Safari 2.0.3. Looks like not everyone is vulnerable.
offers a critical view at the new Microsoft technology
You know, a lot of people will read this and not understand that it's a joke. If five years from now, the general population thinks that it is a MS technology, we'll know where it started!
Show us all your costs, from servers to salaries, and your profit. Let us know that we're being charged this because of need, and not because of the avarice of a few businessmen over at VA.
Wow. Imagine a world where people were only paid based on need. What would happen to any financial incentive to innovate? Yes, there are other reasons people may have to innovate. None of these put food on the table, a roof over the head, or clothes on the back.
For an interesting analysis of payment based on need, try reading Atlas Shrugged.