to make travel affordable, it should have more public transit.
While I'd like better public transportation, people in the US will not use it just because it's better. Many of those who own their own vehicles do not want to and will not give up their vehicles unless they have to. I've put less than 50,000 miles on the car I've owned almost 9 years yet I am not willing to depart with it. For me, I don't want to lose the freedom to jump in my car whenever and drive wherever so long as I can afford it. At the same tyme I'm not against raising fuel taxes, I've actually advocated raising them.
Cost them money? Not likely. Mark my words, they'll charge people that drive less the same that they pay now, and charge people that drive the most even more.
I don't know about where you live but some states limit how much insurance companies can charge for insurance. And with competition insurance issuers will compeat to offer coverage, which means better coverage and or lower costs. It'd be those who are higher risks who would pay more, but that's how it is now.
Why would anyone think that paying by the mile would reduce the amount I'm driving?
Because the more you drive the more you pay. There was an excellent example of this last summer. When gas prices spiked miles driven fell. Now if you are one of those who consciously restricts your driving it may not matter, if you've cut driving as much as you can what else can you do?
"Do you really think AIG would insure nuclear power with a big premium?"
Would any sensible insurance company cover something to the point where is could bankrupt them no matter how unlikely the event in question is?
That was my point, without government subsidies nuclear power would not be able to get their own insurance.
Navajo
Another person who can't figure out the difference between nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
During the cold war the US government wanted material for weapons, the navajo got screwed.
Okay how about Yucca Mountain. With the signing and ratification of the Treaty of Ruby Valley between the Western Shoshone and the United States the Shoshone has treaty rights to Yucca. And despite the Shoshone opposing the storage of nuclear waste there it is being forced on them. Yucca is about storing used fuel from power plants not nuclear weapons.
Oh so now you want to say CATO, Forbes, as well as other business, capitalist, or freemarket groups are idiot NIMBYs?
Where did I call them idiot NIMBYs?
You didn't directly but you did imply it when you said how politicians would bow to the pressures of NIMBYs who oppose nuclear power. CATO and the others oppose government subsidies, and without them there would be no nuclear power.
Calling nuclear bad because (counting fusion research) it gets 1.59 per megawatt hour when your own pet uselessness gets 24.34 isn't in the same league as the pot calling the kettle black.
I don't call nuclear bad because it is subsidized. It is bad because it is environmentally bad. Now you may not care about the environment but it is what gives you life. As for subsidies I oppose virtually all subsidies. I don't care whether it's agriculture, coal, corn based ethanol, nuclear, solar, or wind. They should not be getting subsidies like they have been year after year after year.
Instead of my tax dollars going to these subsidies I'd rather keep the money and spend it on what I what. I'd rather support local farmers by going to the farmer's markets or coops than have billions of my, and your, tax dollars given to Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill. I'd rather be able to choose to buy my electricity from whomever I want rather than have government give power companies and industries I oppose subsidies. And I want externalities accounted, paid, for by those who create them.
If you choose to live in places that are susceptible to flooding and hurricanes, then you can use insurance, pay for it yourself, or live somewhere else in the first place.
Like the people of Bangladesh can pack up their belongings and move to higher ground. And of course they're so wealthy they can afford to pay for land twice, first the land flooded then the land on higher grounds.
Property rights do not generally extend into bodies of water such as these, so it does not surprise me that they are allowed to become contaminated.
Then you think those bodies of water should be privatized? And what of the Inuit? That's what regulations are about, to protect the commons and those who can't protect themselves. I don't like regulations in general, many are advocated by big businesses to keep out competition among other things, but without some there is no way to protect some who are harmed.
It comes down to not thinking there are many legitimate reasons to hide source. That it makes you money is weak, considering that it costs me usability and training material.
It costs me, er progrsmmers who use the GPL too, tyme, money, and effort. With no provision to prevent others from profiting while the programmer goes hungry.
If it were just you and I it would be a toss-up, but when only you benefit and everyone else loses surely you can see why your rights to keep people out (of my code) don't matter much to me, or in fact is a negative.
Well now I didn't say anything about me closing your code. The BSD does not allow that. What it does do is allow me to close my code. Your code is still open and anyone can use it. Two, even closed source code benefits people. Photographers who use Photoshop benefit, or they wouldn't use it, as do those who hire the photographer. The same with OS X and Windows.
If it's cost effective to make a home more efficient, then the owners should do it themselves.
I didn't say home owners shouldn't pay themselves. By the same token do you feel the same about you paying for all the costs of your use of fossil fuels and nuclear power? Or do you thing taxpayers should give coal, other fossil fuels, and nuclear power subsidies as well?
And what did I say? "the subsidies you are pointed out was because of government interference and requirements that wouldn't have been there in the first place."
Since you're having problems understanding or will not read I'll just make this one more post. I copied and pasted directly from the CATO and Forbes article how neither Chine, France, India, nor Russia, which do not have to government requirements on nuclear power the US does finds nuclear power profitable. In all 4 countries government says when nuclear power plants get built not businesses or the market.
I aspect you to ignore that or make more excuses instead of facing reality. So I will not reply to any more trolls.
Tell that to the freemarket CATO Institute and "Forbes". CATO republished "Forbes'" article "Hooked On Subsidies". Are you going to tell them there's a difference as well?
Especially read where it says "How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
Solar panels need subsidies so that people can pretend that they're economical.
Nuclear plants need loans because they are economical,
Nuclear power gets more than loan guarantees. They also get other subsidies. This includes limited liability. The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act limits the amount the industry has to pay in the case of an accident, taxpayers pay anything over $10 billion. Do you really think AIG would insure nuclear power with a big premium? Do you think the industry has paid the Navajo when they were harmed by spills? Or any other indigenous groups?
it's just that the chances of some politicians bowing to the pressure from idiot NIMBY's
Oh so now you want to say CATO, Forbes, as well as other business, capitalist, or freemarket groups are idiot NIMBYs?
killing the construction or making expensive changes to the requirements half way through are so high and the amounts of money so large it's more practical to get the loans from the government.
Reread the part above copied from the CATO and Forbes article about how China, France, India, and Russia do not have profitable nuclear power, and they don't have the requirements the US does. Those governments say what gets built not businesses or the market. Oh, but I've already ascertained you think they are idiot NIMBYs.
Because we're not talking about DC transmission...[DC] transmission is actually much cheaper/more efficient than AC for long hauls.
Doesn't change the fact that it's still absurdly expensive. Yet again, much better to put that money into nuclear.
Whether energy comes from coal, nuclear power, solar, or wind those transmission lines still have to do upgraded. If you're going to add the cost of doing so to wind you have to add it to nuclear as well. It's absolutely absurd you count the cost against wind but not nuclear power.
As usual, the hip-and-green crowd gets modded up without proving a thing.
As usual, nuclear power proponents don't prove a thing either. Now I will say something about nuclear power, and provide links to back it up. Nuclear power is not profitable, it is "Hooked on Subsidies". Not even in China, France, India, or Russia is it cost effective:
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
Meanwhile cost overruns are high and "it would be cheaper for the U.S. to instead focus on energy efficiency and alternative sources such as wind and solar."
It obviously has nothing to do with the 15-30 year window before you reach 1:1 parity with energy invested::energy harvested.
Only it's not 15 to 30 years before wind turbines make as much energy as was required to make the turbines. According to this the financial payback period, for which the energy used to make the turbines is included, is 4 to 8 years. Another page has the payback period for wind turbines on Orkney Islands as under 10 years. Here's another that says there's a payback period of 10 years. Now this says the ASU wind turbine has a life expectancy of 20 years. Now there are still some Jacobs wind turbines still in service that were made before 1950. "In Minnesota, Jacobs units began being connected to Rural Electric Cooperative (REC) grids starting in 1981. Many of these systems are still on line to REC grids' selling renewable wind power (AG-WATTS) in 2008." Because of their reliability some people look for old Jacobs and if they aren't working will rebuild them. The people at Homepower love them.
Scaling up wind and solar could produce just as many unintended consequences as any other form of power generation.
I've asked about this myself. I'd like to see an ecological and life cycle analysis of different methods.
all I've heard are a few grumblings about birds getting hit by the turbine blades
I've heard "concern" about wind turbines killing bird too, yet I never hear those same people say anything about how many birds are killed by buildings or bright lights, cats, or cars.
Benefit - to whom? Certainly not to the people who have to pay to replace their perfectly good homes...
If it's not efficient then it's not perfectly good. Of course would it be more effective if the home was insulated better and had more efficient heating and cooling or if it is rebuilt will the increased efficiency offset the embedded energy in the home?
All you have to do is build them thar local transmission lines with tax payer money or else he'll drop it to focus on his water monopoly already in place!
I support Picken's plan to erect wind turbines but I don't support government paying to install transmission lines just for him. Instead the whole national grid needs to be rebuilt. In other words I disagree with the writer of TFA.
subsidies are not the government saying "your doing a good job, here is some money"
What subsidies are and what they are supposed to be are different. They are supposed to be temporary aid to get started or during hard tymes. What they are is a yearly hand out to the already wealthy. Cargill is one of the US's largest privately owned corporations yet it receives billions of tax dollars yearly. Archer Daniels Midland, ADM, is another large corporation that receives billions in subsidies. The Freemarket CATO Institute cites ADM in a case study of corporate welfare.
the subsidies you are pointed out was because of government interference and requirements that wouldn't have been there in the first place.
I knew it, I wonder why I post links when they are not read. If you had read at least the article from CATO I linked to you should have read how nuclear power plants are only built because government says to build them, that if it were up to the free market they would not be built. Here's the quote:
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
Fuck, just look at Al "my mansion uses more electricity then a small city" Gore.
I don't have to, I've already pointed out problems I have with Al Gore. I even pointed out how at least George Bush uses geothermal heating for his ranch in Crawford, TX while Gore built an energy hog of a home himself.
Do what you want to do, just don't attempt to force me or anyone else into doing it unless they want to.
If you pollute you are forcing people to do what they don't want to. And yes, burning fossil fuels is polluting. As is using nuclear power.
HVDC can carry about 40% more power over the same lines, compared to AC. The main drawback is that you need to convert to/from AC on either end.
No, you don't need to convert DC to AC and back. Thomas Edison's electric company used DC. The old DC power system wasn't fully converted to AC until 2007. Even today Off the Gridders use DC. It's cheaper and loses less power if you use DC appliances with DC power than it is to convert DC to AC and use AC appliances. Of course this only matters if you only use solar PVs. If you use a hybrid system, solar and geothermal, micro hydro, tidal, or wind, then you'll need an inverter. You'll also need one if you use batteries to store energy.
Pollution and such can be handled easily through protection of life and property - if you damage either - you are liable.
And who pays for hurricane damage or for flooded land? What about health problems from poison ivy?
The answer to all of it is to protect individual rights and freedoms
By what mechanism? How do you protect Indonesia or Venice from submerging? How is an Inuit protected from thin ice while out hunting? Inuits are already paying for the West's use of chemicals like PCBs which bioaccumulates. Puget Sound is contaminated with PCBs and other man made chemicals. Orcas and other wildlife can be driven extinct in the Sound because of them.
Then why are "conservationist" attempting to take my freedoms away and impose their morality onto me?
As long as you pay for all the costs, and don't pass costs on to others, you can do whatever you want. But when my tax dollars support your life style then I will speak up.
Electricity or at least energy consumption will increase
Energy consumption will not increase so much renewable sources can't cover it even if the population grows. Here's a link to photos somewhere in Sudan that's no where near an electrical grid, yet some owners were able to open a net cafe powered by solar panels. All together the net cafe, a vocational school, and the micro loan office is powered by PVs. I couldn't find a link to it online but the print edition of IEEE's magazine "Spectrum" had an article about how a business was started in Southeast Asia, I don't recall the country, that employed people to assemble small portable solar PV systems. With loans from a micro loan bank they were sold to villagers who were then able to improve their own lives.
You're absolutely right, and that's why we need either nuclear power or a large power transmission grid to lower CO2 emissions.
Wrong. Two billion people in the world don't have electricity. Carbon-based sources produce the most, and cheapest energy. Carbon-based sources are responsible for the doubling of human life expectancy.
Wrong. As you say many of those who's life spans have increased have no access to electricity, carbon based or not. What did increase most people's lifespan was the Green Revolution which was based on mechanization and petroleum, fossil fuels. However petroleum is not going to last forever, we have anywhere between 15 and 40 years before peak oil. Meanwhile solar panels and micro loans allow poor people who live no where near an electrical grid to start businesses such as a net cafe.
That also discounts the effects of high carbon in the atmosphere, such as poison ivy which grows faster and is more toxic with higher carbon levels. Or disease carrying mosquitoes gaining higher altitudes and latitudes infecting more people if the world warms.
It's time to forget about environmental propaganda and start being concerned with the lives of individuals who need abundant, cheap energy to survive, and to thrive.
Fossil fuel is only cheap to those who produce and consume it because they get to pass on the external costs to others. If users had to pay the costs of pollution they'd be paying much more. They'd also be paying more if fossil fuels were not subsidized by the government. Yes, subsidized. The coal, natural gas, nuclear power, and petroleum industries receive billions of dollars in government subsidies. In the video My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'" on YouTube rep Markey details some of the government subsidies all these industries get. In another video "Chevron agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies".
Quite simply many people like you believe energy from fossil fuel is cheap, but if they had to pay the full price they'd know the truth, it is not. In markets where fossil fuels and nuclear power did not get subsidies and had to pay for the pollution created alternative and renewable energy sources could compeat.
You're absolutely right, and that's why we need either nuclear power or a large power transmission grid to lower CO2 emissions.
A new smart grid is needed whether nuclear is used to generate the power or other methods are used. At least using a mix of different energy sources, geothermal, solar, tidal, or wind where appropriate can mitigate it. A national grid can transmit power from where it's being produced in abundance to where it's needed.
The problem with the large power grid is that power is generateed at a 60 Hz frequency.
Not all electricity is produced at 60 Hz. Heck not all is produced as AC, solar PVs produce DC. And over long distances transmitting power via HVDC, High-voltage direct current there is less power loss that AC. Thomas Edison's electric company originally delivered DC power. He got into a war of currents with Tesla when Tesla pushed for AC power. He went so far as to cruelly execute Topsy the elephant with DC.
Oh, I see you mention using DC.
All in all, any solution for making more electricity available is expensive. Conservation is the easiest and cheaper way to implement technically, but it seems, at least in the USA, very difficult for the people to accept.
Agreed! Both with conservation being cheaper and with getting Americans to conserve being hard. One possible solution would be to tax emissions then give ratepayers a refund. Say, if the tax raises the average ratepayer's power bill $100 a month then they receive a $100 refund a month. They can then use the money to improve efficiency. The more energy they save the more money in their pockets.
Falcon
Notice I didn't say I like or approve of the proposal, all I'm doing here is making it. Maybe others can share problems with this one or their own proposal.
Nuclear power doesn't need a massive transmission system"? How does it transmit all that power then, pixel dust? Couldn't solar and wind use the same dust?
Objecting because nuclear power is dirty is wrong? Objecting because nuclear power is "Hooked On Subsidies" and is not profitable without those subsidies is wrong? Objecting because cost overruns quadruple the cost of building plants is just wrong?
If you build breeder reactors and reprocess fuel, you're left with plenty of power for the next several hundred years and by the time it is all spent, what's left has a half life of decades instead of centuries.
What's left with reprocessing, which as long as Wall Street pays for and not government I'll support, is waste with shorter half-lifes but that's not all. You also end up with a list of toxic chemicals. And the technology is not proven yet.
Slashdot Mirror
to make travel affordable, it should have more public transit.
While I'd like better public transportation, people in the US will not use it just because it's better. Many of those who own their own vehicles do not want to and will not give up their vehicles unless they have to. I've put less than 50,000 miles on the car I've owned almost 9 years yet I am not willing to depart with it. For me, I don't want to lose the freedom to jump in my car whenever and drive wherever so long as I can afford it. At the same tyme I'm not against raising fuel taxes, I've actually advocated raising them.
Falcon
Cost them money? Not likely. Mark my words, they'll charge people that drive less the same that they pay now, and charge people that drive the most even more.
I don't know about where you live but some states limit how much insurance companies can charge for insurance. And with competition insurance issuers will compeat to offer coverage, which means better coverage and or lower costs. It'd be those who are higher risks who would pay more, but that's how it is now.
Falcon
Why would anyone think that paying by the mile would reduce the amount I'm driving?
Because the more you drive the more you pay. There was an excellent example of this last summer. When gas prices spiked miles driven fell. Now if you are one of those who consciously restricts your driving it may not matter, if you've cut driving as much as you can what else can you do?
Falcon
Anther oppressive government plan to require people to pay for roads they use.
Falcon
"Do you really think AIG would insure nuclear power with a big premium?"
Would any sensible insurance company cover something to the point where is could bankrupt them no matter how unlikely the event in question is?
That was my point, without government subsidies nuclear power would not be able to get their own insurance.
Navajo Another person who can't figure out the difference between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. During the cold war the US government wanted material for weapons, the navajo got screwed.
Okay how about Yucca Mountain. With the signing and ratification of the Treaty of Ruby Valley between the Western Shoshone and the United States the Shoshone has treaty rights to Yucca. And despite the Shoshone opposing the storage of nuclear waste there it is being forced on them. Yucca is about storing used fuel from power plants not nuclear weapons.
Oh so now you want to say CATO, Forbes, as well as other business, capitalist, or freemarket groups are idiot NIMBYs?
Where did I call them idiot NIMBYs?
You didn't directly but you did imply it when you said how politicians would bow to the pressures of NIMBYs who oppose nuclear power. CATO and the others oppose government subsidies, and without them there would be no nuclear power.
Calling nuclear bad because (counting fusion research) it gets 1.59 per megawatt hour when your own pet uselessness gets 24.34 isn't in the same league as the pot calling the kettle black.
I don't call nuclear bad because it is subsidized. It is bad because it is environmentally bad. Now you may not care about the environment but it is what gives you life. As for subsidies I oppose virtually all subsidies. I don't care whether it's agriculture, coal, corn based ethanol, nuclear, solar, or wind. They should not be getting subsidies like they have been year after year after year.
Instead of my tax dollars going to these subsidies I'd rather keep the money and spend it on what I what. I'd rather support local farmers by going to the farmer's markets or coops than have billions of my, and your, tax dollars given to Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill. I'd rather be able to choose to buy my electricity from whomever I want rather than have government give power companies and industries I oppose subsidies. And I want externalities accounted, paid, for by those who create them.
Falcon
If you choose to live in places that are susceptible to flooding and hurricanes, then you can use insurance, pay for it yourself, or live somewhere else in the first place.
Like the people of Bangladesh can pack up their belongings and move to higher ground. And of course they're so wealthy they can afford to pay for land twice, first the land flooded then the land on higher grounds.
Property rights do not generally extend into bodies of water such as these, so it does not surprise me that they are allowed to become contaminated.
Then you think those bodies of water should be privatized? And what of the Inuit? That's what regulations are about, to protect the commons and those who can't protect themselves. I don't like regulations in general, many are advocated by big businesses to keep out competition among other things, but without some there is no way to protect some who are harmed.
Falcon
It comes down to not thinking there are many legitimate reasons to hide source. That it makes you money is weak, considering that it costs me usability and training material.
It costs me, er progrsmmers who use the GPL too, tyme, money, and effort. With no provision to prevent others from profiting while the programmer goes hungry.
If it were just you and I it would be a toss-up, but when only you benefit and everyone else loses surely you can see why your rights to keep people out (of my code) don't matter much to me, or in fact is a negative.
Well now I didn't say anything about me closing your code. The BSD does not allow that. What it does do is allow me to close my code. Your code is still open and anyone can use it. Two, even closed source code benefits people. Photographers who use Photoshop benefit, or they wouldn't use it, as do those who hire the photographer. The same with OS X and Windows.
Falcon
If it's cost effective to make a home more efficient, then the owners should do it themselves.
I didn't say home owners shouldn't pay themselves. By the same token do you feel the same about you paying for all the costs of your use of fossil fuels and nuclear power? Or do you thing taxpayers should give coal, other fossil fuels, and nuclear power subsidies as well?
Falcon
And what did I say? "the subsidies you are pointed out was because of government interference and requirements that wouldn't have been there in the first place."
Since you're having problems understanding or will not read I'll just make this one more post. I copied and pasted directly from the CATO and Forbes article how neither Chine, France, India, nor Russia, which do not have to government requirements on nuclear power the US does finds nuclear power profitable. In all 4 countries government says when nuclear power plants get built not businesses or the market.
I aspect you to ignore that or make more excuses instead of facing reality. So I will not reply to any more trolls.
Falcon
Tell that to the freemarket CATO Institute and "Forbes". CATO republished "Forbes'" article "Hooked On Subsidies". Are you going to tell them there's a difference as well?
Especially read where it says "How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
Solar panels need subsidies so that people can pretend that they're economical.
Nuclear plants need loans because they are economical,
Nuclear power gets more than loan guarantees. They also get other subsidies. This includes limited liability. The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act limits the amount the industry has to pay in the case of an accident, taxpayers pay anything over $10 billion. Do you really think AIG would insure nuclear power with a big premium? Do you think the industry has paid the Navajo when they were harmed by spills? Or any other indigenous groups?
it's just that the chances of some politicians bowing to the pressure from idiot NIMBY's
Oh so now you want to say CATO, Forbes, as well as other business, capitalist, or freemarket groups are idiot NIMBYs?
killing the construction or making expensive changes to the requirements half way through are so high and the amounts of money so large it's more practical to get the loans from the government.
Reread the part above copied from the CATO and Forbes article about how China, France, India, and Russia do not have profitable nuclear power, and they don't have the requirements the US does. Those governments say what gets built not businesses or the market. Oh, but I've already ascertained you think they are idiot NIMBYs.
Falcon
Because we're not talking about DC transmission...[DC] transmission is actually much cheaper/more efficient than AC for long hauls.
Doesn't change the fact that it's still absurdly expensive. Yet again, much better to put that money into nuclear.
Whether energy comes from coal, nuclear power, solar, or wind those transmission lines still have to do upgraded. If you're going to add the cost of doing so to wind you have to add it to nuclear as well. It's absolutely absurd you count the cost against wind but not nuclear power.
As usual, the hip-and-green crowd gets modded up without proving a thing.
As usual, nuclear power proponents don't prove a thing either. Now I will say something about nuclear power, and provide links to back it up. Nuclear power is not profitable, it is "Hooked on Subsidies". Not even in China, France, India, or Russia is it cost effective:
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
Meanwhile cost overruns are high and "it would be cheaper for the U.S. to instead focus on energy efficiency and alternative sources such as wind and solar."
Falcon
It obviously has nothing to do with the 15-30 year window before you reach 1:1 parity with energy invested::energy harvested.
Only it's not 15 to 30 years before wind turbines make as much energy as was required to make the turbines. According to this the financial payback period, for which the energy used to make the turbines is included, is 4 to 8 years. Another page has the payback period for wind turbines on Orkney Islands as under 10 years. Here's another that says there's a payback period of 10 years. Now this says the ASU wind turbine has a life expectancy of 20 years. Now there are still some Jacobs wind turbines still in service that were made before 1950. "In Minnesota, Jacobs units began being connected to Rural Electric Cooperative (REC) grids starting in 1981. Many of these systems are still on line to REC grids' selling renewable wind power (AG-WATTS) in 2008." Because of their reliability some people look for old Jacobs and if they aren't working will rebuild them. The people at Homepower love them.
Falcon
Scaling up wind and solar could produce just as many unintended consequences as any other form of power generation.
I've asked about this myself. I'd like to see an ecological and life cycle analysis of different methods.
all I've heard are a few grumblings about birds getting hit by the turbine blades
I've heard "concern" about wind turbines killing bird too, yet I never hear those same people say anything about how many birds are killed by buildings or bright lights, cats, or cars.
Falcon
Benefit - to whom? Certainly not to the people who have to pay to replace their perfectly good homes...
If it's not efficient then it's not perfectly good. Of course would it be more effective if the home was insulated better and had more efficient heating and cooling or if it is rebuilt will the increased efficiency offset the embedded energy in the home?
Falcon
All you have to do is build them thar local transmission lines with tax payer money or else he'll drop it to focus on his water monopoly already in place!
I support Picken's plan to erect wind turbines but I don't support government paying to install transmission lines just for him. Instead the whole national grid needs to be rebuilt. In other words I disagree with the writer of TFA.
Oh, another thing, "T. Boone Pickens Wants to Sell Water He Doesn't Own".
Falcon
First of all, I do pay for all my costs.
So how did you figure out external costs?
subsidies are not the government saying "your doing a good job, here is some money"
What subsidies are and what they are supposed to be are different. They are supposed to be temporary aid to get started or during hard tymes. What they are is a yearly hand out to the already wealthy. Cargill is one of the US's largest privately owned corporations yet it receives billions of tax dollars yearly. Archer Daniels Midland, ADM, is another large corporation that receives billions in subsidies. The Freemarket CATO Institute cites ADM in a case study of corporate welfare.
the subsidies you are pointed out was because of government interference and requirements that wouldn't have been there in the first place.
I knew it, I wonder why I post links when they are not read. If you had read at least the article from CATO I linked to you should have read how nuclear power plants are only built because government says to build them, that if it were up to the free market they would not be built. Here's the quote:
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
Fuck, just look at Al "my mansion uses more electricity then a small city" Gore.
I don't have to, I've already pointed out problems I have with Al Gore. I even pointed out how at least George Bush uses geothermal heating for his ranch in Crawford, TX while Gore built an energy hog of a home himself.
Do what you want to do, just don't attempt to force me or anyone else into doing it unless they want to.
If you pollute you are forcing people to do what they don't want to. And yes, burning fossil fuels is polluting. As is using nuclear power.
Falcon
HVDC can carry about 40% more power over the same lines, compared to AC. The main drawback is that you need to convert to/from AC on either end.
No, you don't need to convert DC to AC and back. Thomas Edison's electric company used DC. The old DC power system wasn't fully converted to AC until 2007. Even today Off the Gridders use DC. It's cheaper and loses less power if you use DC appliances with DC power than it is to convert DC to AC and use AC appliances. Of course this only matters if you only use solar PVs. If you use a hybrid system, solar and geothermal, micro hydro, tidal, or wind, then you'll need an inverter. You'll also need one if you use batteries to store energy.
Falcon
Pollution and such can be handled easily through protection of life and property - if you damage either - you are liable.
And who pays for hurricane damage or for flooded land? What about health problems from poison ivy?
The answer to all of it is to protect individual rights and freedoms
By what mechanism? How do you protect Indonesia or Venice from submerging? How is an Inuit protected from thin ice while out hunting? Inuits are already paying for the West's use of chemicals like PCBs which bioaccumulates. Puget Sound is contaminated with PCBs and other man made chemicals. Orcas and other wildlife can be driven extinct in the Sound because of them.
Falcon
You stay within _your_means_ not force me to stay within your means.
But are you paying for everything to support your life? Or are you using cheap subsidized power that passes external costs on to others?
Then why are "conservationist" attempting to take my freedoms away and impose their morality onto me?
As long as you pay for all the costs, and don't pass costs on to others, you can do whatever you want. But when my tax dollars support your life style then I will speak up.
Falcon
Electricity or at least energy consumption will increase
Energy consumption will not increase so much renewable sources can't cover it even if the population grows. Here's a link to photos somewhere in Sudan that's no where near an electrical grid, yet some owners were able to open a net cafe powered by solar panels. All together the net cafe, a vocational school, and the micro loan office is powered by PVs. I couldn't find a link to it online but the print edition of IEEE's magazine "Spectrum" had an article about how a business was started in Southeast Asia, I don't recall the country, that employed people to assemble small portable solar PV systems. With loans from a micro loan bank they were sold to villagers who were then able to improve their own lives.
Falcon
You're absolutely right, and that's why we need either nuclear power or a large power transmission grid to lower CO2 emissions.
Wrong. Two billion people in the world don't have electricity. Carbon-based sources produce the most, and cheapest energy. Carbon-based sources are responsible for the doubling of human life expectancy.
Wrong. As you say many of those who's life spans have increased have no access to electricity, carbon based or not. What did increase most people's lifespan was the Green Revolution which was based on mechanization and petroleum, fossil fuels. However petroleum is not going to last forever, we have anywhere between 15 and 40 years before peak oil. Meanwhile solar panels and micro loans allow poor people who live no where near an electrical grid to start businesses such as a net cafe.
That also discounts the effects of high carbon in the atmosphere, such as poison ivy which grows faster and is more toxic with higher carbon levels. Or disease carrying mosquitoes gaining higher altitudes and latitudes infecting more people if the world warms.
It's time to forget about environmental propaganda and start being concerned with the lives of individuals who need abundant, cheap energy to survive, and to thrive.
Fossil fuel is only cheap to those who produce and consume it because they get to pass on the external costs to others. If users had to pay the costs of pollution they'd be paying much more. They'd also be paying more if fossil fuels were not subsidized by the government. Yes, subsidized. The coal, natural gas, nuclear power, and petroleum industries receive billions of dollars in government subsidies. In the video My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'" on YouTube rep Markey details some of the government subsidies all these industries get. In another video "Chevron agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies".
Quite simply many people like you believe energy from fossil fuel is cheap, but if they had to pay the full price they'd know the truth, it is not. In markets where fossil fuels and nuclear power did not get subsidies and had to pay for the pollution created alternative and renewable energy sources could compeat.
Falcon
You're absolutely right, and that's why we need either nuclear power or a large power transmission grid to lower CO2 emissions.
A new smart grid is needed whether nuclear is used to generate the power or other methods are used. At least using a mix of different energy sources, geothermal, solar, tidal, or wind where appropriate can mitigate it. A national grid can transmit power from where it's being produced in abundance to where it's needed.
The problem with the large power grid is that power is generateed at a 60 Hz frequency.
Not all electricity is produced at 60 Hz. Heck not all is produced as AC, solar PVs produce DC. And over long distances transmitting power via HVDC, High-voltage direct current there is less power loss that AC. Thomas Edison's electric company originally delivered DC power. He got into a war of currents with Tesla when Tesla pushed for AC power. He went so far as to cruelly execute Topsy the elephant with DC.
Oh, I see you mention using DC.
All in all, any solution for making more electricity available is expensive. Conservation is the easiest and cheaper way to implement technically, but it seems, at least in the USA, very difficult for the people to accept.
Agreed! Both with conservation being cheaper and with getting Americans to conserve being hard. One possible solution would be to tax emissions then give ratepayers a refund. Say, if the tax raises the average ratepayer's power bill $100 a month then they receive a $100 refund a month. They can then use the money to improve efficiency. The more energy they save the more money in their pockets.
Falcon
Notice I didn't say I like or approve of the proposal, all I'm doing here is making it. Maybe others can share problems with this one or their own proposal.
Yeah, reversed in that there is no problem.
Nuclear power doesn't need a massive transmission system"? How does it transmit all that power then, pixel dust? Couldn't solar and wind use the same dust?
Falcon
just wrong.
Objecting because nuclear power is dirty is wrong? Objecting because nuclear power is "Hooked On Subsidies" and is not profitable without those subsidies is wrong? Objecting because cost overruns quadruple the cost of building plants is just wrong?
Falcon
If you build breeder reactors and reprocess fuel, you're left with plenty of power for the next several hundred years and by the time it is all spent, what's left has a half life of decades instead of centuries.
What's left with reprocessing, which as long as Wall Street pays for and not government I'll support, is waste with shorter half-lifes but that's not all. You also end up with a list of toxic chemicals. And the technology is not proven yet.
Falcon