Hmmm, I think the state of California should be footing some of that bill since it is their updated regulation which is part of that cost. I really dislike how "chasing the nuisance" can lead to unrealistic costs for industries that generate unintentional or illusory externalities through the actions of the parties which experience (or merely think they experience) the externality.
How much of a subsidy is fighting oil wars...and how much will be spent on fighting solar panel ones?
Not much considering that most of the supposed oil war subsidy is really a subsidy for US military contractor rent-seekers who would still get that funding even in the absence of any protection/control of oil distribution networks and markets. And in comparison, Europe and China are fighting that solar panel battle with substantial funding.
It's about not being blinkered, but by looking at what markets and opportunities are out there...what kind of tax regime, who controls what etc.
Hence, why I advocate continued consumption of oil resources until they are no longer economical compared to rival goods (including intangibles like security and reliability of the supply).
I don't believe the previous AC had a nuanced view of things. He was just offering cut and dry rhetoric that consumption of "finite resources" was somehow bad because there would be less of that resource for future generations. I gather the ferry was supposed to be the finite resource which could be replaced by a bridge.
But I appreciate that you have a more sophisticated view of that. I just think that a lot of people don't understand that the unpopular "consume" strategy can actually be more beneficial to future generations than the "conserve" strategy. It's situational.
If there is no benefit then the conservative, traditional, or even, easy way will prevail.
But given the demonstrated economic growth of the past century, most of which has been fueled by consumption of petroleum, we don't need to wonder if there's benefit or not.
the European model is augmented by expensive (tax and cost) energy much of which is not locally controlled. Therefore the need to innovate will prevail.
Can the US afford to idly stand by? Will the US choose a different solution that fits its energy model better?
The US can simply take whatever is demonstrated to work when it convenient and makes economic sense to do so.
So can the US afford to idly stand by? Of course they can. European renewable energy technologies work just as well anywhere else on Earth. Though it is worth noting that the US isn't idly standing by, but using petroleum to build things and useful stuff.
Somehow, the European renewable energy fads are considered more important than fundamental economic activities such as transportation or energy generation. I think that's a huge mistake which is already costing the EU greatly.
I must admit to getting tired of people conflating prudent resource management (which frequently and perhaps a bit unintuitively is "use it up now" such as the case with cheap petroleum) with greed.
The problem here is that there's no better use for cheap petroleum than to consume it now as an energy source to produce human transportation activity of value. That activity helps future generations more than any vague benefit that slightly cheaper petroleum would yield. We don't need that much of it for plastics or pesticides, the next big uses of petroleum.
This complaint reminds me about how Ronald Reagan once claimed that the TVA flooded more land than the floods they were meant to prevent...except his numbers were comparing the whole river system served by the TVA, while the estimate for the flood was a large singular event, so he left out the possibility of that flood occurring among how many more square miles of land...and numerous times, in uncontrollable fashion, in devastating ways.
Especially when you consider floods don't last very long while most flood control is permanent, this is a valid argument.
Of course, he also failed to mention how many of the other things he complained about were a result of the TVA being mandated to be fiscally solvent rather than serving the public needs into the future. Had he told the TVA to do so, they could have eliminated their use of coal entirely, and switched to a mix of hydroelectric and nuclear, with some gas, solar, and wind, but no, he told them they had to be run like a business, and no president sense has had the force of will to change the standard.
We could also have sold off TVA assets. That would have satisfied the "run TVA like a business" and serve the public need or as an investment, such as they are, better than having TVA in any of its prior forms.
A bit like 'why would I build a bridge here when it only costs a dollar to catch the ferry'...until the ferry needs replacing.
One needs to analyze both scenarios to see which is better in the situation at hand. A bridge isn't magically better just because ferries need replacement.
For example, a bridge between Juneau, Alaska and Port Rupert, British Columbia which are roughly 300 miles apart by water just doesn't make sense (an overland route is blocked by substantial ice fields and a bridge route would require by my WAG tens of miles of bridges plus roads in difficult terrain). But for the volume of traffic that comes out of Juneau, ferries work just fine.
Absolutely...except technological advances will have made production cheaper, therefore benefiting future users instead of lumbering then with even more expensive diminishing oil and startup costs and infrastructure from alternatives. I will cite electronic vehicles as an example.
You aren't thinking about this. Those technological advances happen either way. So we can have a wealthier, better future where we used resources now to better ourselves and our future. Or we can choose not to.
The level playing field argument is difficult to use on a finite resource.
You have a reason why you think that?
Oil will run out and add it does the cost will rise therefore we can choose to subsidise now or we can leave it for our offspring to pick up the heavier tab in the future.
So we have a choice presented here. We can chose to consume a relatively cheap source of energy to build wealth and have our offspring pick up a somewhat heavier tab in the future. Or we can choose to pay more now so that our offspring are a bit poorer without any change in their tab since the same argument you use now will still apply later. The only difference in the outcome is how much wealthier our offspring will be as a result of our choices now.
The US is a terrible polluter and has lots of fraked natural gas that have driven down prices, so isn't a very useful comparison.
Unless electricity costs matter to you more than those other concerns (the "terrible polluter" is about as polluting as the EU and fracking just doesn't seem that bad compared to normal oil drilling) at the minor levels they occur at.
What's not right? Germany pays a huge amount of money to make solar work. Those technical arguments still apply, but you can spend a bunch of money to ignore them.
Can someone explain to me why "try and" seems to have become so popular? It makes no logical sense as a replacement for "try to", and appears to be favored over the latter for purely euphonic reasons.
Nope. They only have such "human interactions", if summoned for an audit or the equivalent in your country.
You have to be missing that survival instinct.
No, he is choke full of survival instincts.
Whatever. I'd rather cut checks to the IRS at a distance than meet face to face and help an auditor make quota.
And of course, there's the distant and remote interaction of Slashdot. I'm not particularly interested in having "human interaction" with you. And since you're posting on Slashdot, it seems to me that you reciprocate.
False dilemma. Just because he posts on slashdot doesn't mean he cannot have "human interactions" outside of it with other people.
What "false dilemma"? It's a simple observation. He's yacking on Slashdot rather than having some of his valued human interactions. I merely note that he's making a choice that by his standards is rather bad. Same goes for the "trolling libertarians" observation. I don't rule out the possibility of other choices that have even more value than the two I mention.
How many people died in the protests after "Amish Mafia" debuted? You can say the same of other religious followers/cultures, but that statement isn't always going to be true.
This is why I see dragging China in the "Amazing" opening post as irrelevant (while the rest of the opinion that ANZUS+UK+Canada should stop pissing around being still relevant). But even more irrelevant: the reply of "Yeah, but China pisses harder".
It's the game that gets played when China does something wrong. Someone has to drag the US into the conversation, even if the comparison is ludicrous.
How about do both, release the data, THEN write a whole series of articles breaking it down?
Not as effective or profitable. Plus, the Guardian is getting mileage out of official response to the ongoing revelations. It keeps foes off balance and generates more stories.
WHAT T. F. makes those activities mutually exclusive? Right, greed.
So what? A media source successfully milking a highly profitable story means that future news sources may do more of the same. The business case for profiting from revealing wrongs and improving transparency of society will help us in the long run.
The Democrats pretty clearly kicked out Anthony Weiner. No laws broken, just questionable actions.
Until Weiner destroyed himself by lying about going back to sexting, he was set to become the next mayor of New York City. That's a lot of sting on that wrist slap. My take is "kicked out" means that politically, the person is persona non grata, not that he moves on to yet another big political office once the heat is off.
Usually incompetent theater like this is a distraction to try and draw attention from something else that is going on. I don't know what - perhaps the fact that tensions over the Falkland Islands are flaring up again, and the UK might be going back to war. The Guardian seemed to be the only paper reporting on that - every other paper in the UK is back to back royal baby photos right now.
And why would the UK government need even a bit of distraction over that particular issue?
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm, I think the state of California should be footing some of that bill since it is their updated regulation which is part of that cost. I really dislike how "chasing the nuisance" can lead to unrealistic costs for industries that generate unintentional or illusory externalities through the actions of the parties which experience (or merely think they experience) the externality.
But that's not going to happen.
How much of a subsidy is fighting oil wars...and how much will be spent on fighting solar panel ones?
Not much considering that most of the supposed oil war subsidy is really a subsidy for US military contractor rent-seekers who would still get that funding even in the absence of any protection/control of oil distribution networks and markets. And in comparison, Europe and China are fighting that solar panel battle with substantial funding.
It's about not being blinkered, but by looking at what markets and opportunities are out there...what kind of tax regime, who controls what etc.
Hence, why I advocate continued consumption of oil resources until they are no longer economical compared to rival goods (including intangibles like security and reliability of the supply).
I don't believe the previous AC had a nuanced view of things. He was just offering cut and dry rhetoric that consumption of "finite resources" was somehow bad because there would be less of that resource for future generations. I gather the ferry was supposed to be the finite resource which could be replaced by a bridge.
But I appreciate that you have a more sophisticated view of that. I just think that a lot of people don't understand that the unpopular "consume" strategy can actually be more beneficial to future generations than the "conserve" strategy. It's situational.
If there is no benefit then the conservative, traditional, or even, easy way will prevail.
But given the demonstrated economic growth of the past century, most of which has been fueled by consumption of petroleum, we don't need to wonder if there's benefit or not.
the European model is augmented by expensive (tax and cost) energy much of which is not locally controlled. Therefore the need to innovate will prevail.
Can the US afford to idly stand by? Will the US choose a different solution that fits its energy model better?
The US can simply take whatever is demonstrated to work when it convenient and makes economic sense to do so.
So can the US afford to idly stand by? Of course they can. European renewable energy technologies work just as well anywhere else on Earth. Though it is worth noting that the US isn't idly standing by, but using petroleum to build things and useful stuff.
Somehow, the European renewable energy fads are considered more important than fundamental economic activities such as transportation or energy generation. I think that's a huge mistake which is already costing the EU greatly.
I must admit to getting tired of people conflating prudent resource management (which frequently and perhaps a bit unintuitively is "use it up now" such as the case with cheap petroleum) with greed.
The problem here is that there's no better use for cheap petroleum than to consume it now as an energy source to produce human transportation activity of value. That activity helps future generations more than any vague benefit that slightly cheaper petroleum would yield. We don't need that much of it for plastics or pesticides, the next big uses of petroleum.
This complaint reminds me about how Ronald Reagan once claimed that the TVA flooded more land than the floods they were meant to prevent...except his numbers were comparing the whole river system served by the TVA, while the estimate for the flood was a large singular event, so he left out the possibility of that flood occurring among how many more square miles of land...and numerous times, in uncontrollable fashion, in devastating ways.
Especially when you consider floods don't last very long while most flood control is permanent, this is a valid argument.
Of course, he also failed to mention how many of the other things he complained about were a result of the TVA being mandated to be fiscally solvent rather than serving the public needs into the future. Had he told the TVA to do so, they could have eliminated their use of coal entirely, and switched to a mix of hydroelectric and nuclear, with some gas, solar, and wind, but no, he told them they had to be run like a business, and no president sense has had the force of will to change the standard.
We could also have sold off TVA assets. That would have satisfied the "run TVA like a business" and serve the public need or as an investment, such as they are, better than having TVA in any of its prior forms.
A bit like 'why would I build a bridge here when it only costs a dollar to catch the ferry'...until the ferry needs replacing.
One needs to analyze both scenarios to see which is better in the situation at hand. A bridge isn't magically better just because ferries need replacement.
For example, a bridge between Juneau, Alaska and Port Rupert, British Columbia which are roughly 300 miles apart by water just doesn't make sense (an overland route is blocked by substantial ice fields and a bridge route would require by my WAG tens of miles of bridges plus roads in difficult terrain). But for the volume of traffic that comes out of Juneau, ferries work just fine.
Absolutely...except technological advances will have made production cheaper, therefore benefiting future users instead of lumbering then with even more expensive diminishing oil and startup costs and infrastructure from alternatives. I will cite electronic vehicles as an example.
You aren't thinking about this. Those technological advances happen either way. So we can have a wealthier, better future where we used resources now to better ourselves and our future. Or we can choose not to.
Except you still pay for the nuclear subsidies while ALSO paying for the solar subsidies.
And vice versa. The solar subsidies aren't all paid by the kilowatt hour. This is a pointless level of spin.
And if lifespan should increase to a million years, that would be long enough for me to visit a few dozen star systems.
Do we really need technology to achieve what God has already promised us?
No offense, but that technology is at least possible. Imaginary promises OTOH just aren't that useful.
I would much prefer to be restored to a virtual world.
[...]
In my opinion this is the only way one would want to live forever.
It's amazing how many people think that other people buy into their crazy shit.
which hits about 98% renewable energy generation
How much real estate is permanently devoted to hydro in order to reach that level of "renewable" energy?
The level playing field argument is difficult to use on a finite resource.
You have a reason why you think that?
Oil will run out and add it does the cost will rise therefore we can choose to subsidise now or we can leave it for our offspring to pick up the heavier tab in the future.
So we have a choice presented here. We can chose to consume a relatively cheap source of energy to build wealth and have our offspring pick up a somewhat heavier tab in the future. Or we can choose to pay more now so that our offspring are a bit poorer without any change in their tab since the same argument you use now will still apply later. The only difference in the outcome is how much wealthier our offspring will be as a result of our choices now.
it currently take more energy to make a solar panel than it can generate in it's lifespan
That hasn't been true for a while.
The US is a terrible polluter and has lots of fraked natural gas that have driven down prices, so isn't a very useful comparison.
Unless electricity costs matter to you more than those other concerns (the "terrible polluter" is about as polluting as the EU and fracking just doesn't seem that bad compared to normal oil drilling) at the minor levels they occur at.
What's not right? Germany pays a huge amount of money to make solar work. Those technical arguments still apply, but you can spend a bunch of money to ignore them.
Nuclear subsidies are in your taxes, where you don't see them. Solar subsidies are in the electricity price, where you see them.
In other words, both those subsidies are in the same place. Whether you "see" them or not depends on what "see" means and how you spin it.
Can someone explain to me why "try and" seems to have become so popular? It makes no logical sense as a replacement for "try to", and appears to be favored over the latter for purely euphonic reasons.
Euphonic reasons sound good enough.
Just to answer you... normal people do it.
Nope. They only have such "human interactions", if summoned for an audit or the equivalent in your country.
You have to be missing that survival instinct.
No, he is choke full of survival instincts.
Whatever. I'd rather cut checks to the IRS at a distance than meet face to face and help an auditor make quota.
And of course, there's the distant and remote interaction of Slashdot. I'm not particularly interested in having "human interaction" with you. And since you're posting on Slashdot, it seems to me that you reciprocate.
False dilemma. Just because he posts on slashdot doesn't mean he cannot have "human interactions" outside of it with other people.
What "false dilemma"? It's a simple observation. He's yacking on Slashdot rather than having some of his valued human interactions. I merely note that he's making a choice that by his standards is rather bad. Same goes for the "trolling libertarians" observation. I don't rule out the possibility of other choices that have even more value than the two I mention.
How many people died in the protests after "Amish Mafia" debuted? You can say the same of other religious followers/cultures, but that statement isn't always going to be true.
This is why I see dragging China in the "Amazing" opening post as irrelevant (while the rest of the opinion that ANZUS+UK+Canada should stop pissing around being still relevant). But even more irrelevant: the reply of "Yeah, but China pisses harder".
It's the game that gets played when China does something wrong. Someone has to drag the US into the conversation, even if the comparison is ludicrous.
HOW do people believe this?
Observation. I'd have to say that this story, for example, contradicts your claim for the GCHQ. NSA may still do so.
How about do both, release the data, THEN write a whole series of articles breaking it down?
Not as effective or profitable. Plus, the Guardian is getting mileage out of official response to the ongoing revelations. It keeps foes off balance and generates more stories.
WHAT T. F. makes those activities mutually exclusive? Right, greed.
So what? A media source successfully milking a highly profitable story means that future news sources may do more of the same. The business case for profiting from revealing wrongs and improving transparency of society will help us in the long run.
The Democrats pretty clearly kicked out Anthony Weiner. No laws broken, just questionable actions.
Until Weiner destroyed himself by lying about going back to sexting, he was set to become the next mayor of New York City. That's a lot of sting on that wrist slap. My take is "kicked out" means that politically, the person is persona non grata, not that he moves on to yet another big political office once the heat is off.
Usually incompetent theater like this is a distraction to try and draw attention from something else that is going on. I don't know what - perhaps the fact that tensions over the Falkland Islands are flaring up again, and the UK might be going back to war. The Guardian seemed to be the only paper reporting on that - every other paper in the UK is back to back royal baby photos right now.
And why would the UK government need even a bit of distraction over that particular issue?