yes, really. EIA publishes the costs of generation annually. solar is cheaper than all 7 types of new coal generation facilities, all fuel cell and nuclear facilities, both types of biomass facilities, wind, geothermal, solid waste, small hydro, even new large hydro facilities.
Did you know that Chinese solar panels have 25% to 300% tariffs in the US ? Full stop. Haha, what is the ITC subsidy your clamoring on about again? Similar arrangement in the EU. They could sell for.55 $/kWh, but they sell for mid 0.70s because US mfgrs (actually German owned, fake US corp, asian mfgers) lobbied for tarrifs because they cannot compete against state of the art chinese solar manufacturing cities, who have completely up to date US made equipment and better economies of scale. To be blunt, you parrot talking points of people who most likely have no idea what they are talking about or 2) have some other agenda (preserving their depreciated energy production assets)
solar (arguably) remains more expensive than ~3-4 of 5 types of natural gas generation, but given the uncertainty of natural gas prices over the next 30 years and the fact solar is cheaper than all 5 types of at only moderately higher gas prices, it seems like a fairly conservative economic hedge. Solar and natural gas also pair wonderfully. Solar also will not be subject to export competition when LNG terminals are built and export capacity ramps... to sell gas at 3x the price to europe/asia
Solar today is installed at a fraction of the cost of most of California's gas infrastructure (and astonishingly expensive peaking gas infrastructure) -which is major factor in their costs...
Solar plants are going up for $1200-$1300/ W these days, without subsidies, international developer/manufacturers are making 20% gross margin in these projects.
Solar only appears expensive when compared against fully depreciated, dirty coal infrastructure. When it comes to the inevitable grid modernization solar fills a massive hole (20-40%), there is ample opportunity for hundreds of billions of dollars of cost effective solar investment. Approximately 35 to 40% of those costs is literally revenue that the US and EU gave away to Chinese solar conglomerates, mostly due to myopic thinking of entrenched institutions and the failure of smart people (probably yourself) to assess the progress and trajectory of the solar industry over the past 30 years.
The commoditization of solar energy into the most accessible low cost energy resource has gone according to plan (predictions) for over 30 years actually its convincingly ahead of schedule since 2005, mainly due to the Chinese factor. The idea that in 2015 when renewables (wind+solar) are now the largest (annual production addition) and fastest growing energies on earth and I'm still combating against the same ignorant arguments is hilarious.
I've now realized there will be no "ah ha" moment, where I told you so. No daay will come where my industry will be thanked for growing the economy and modernizing our infrastructure and perhaps alleviating co2 production. The ignorance will just slip into the darkness, as it has over the last decade as monied interests quietly switch sides, and we'll have to pretend it was never really there. Oh well, at least I put my money where my mouth is a decade ago. Thankfully so have hundreds of billions of dollars of private investment. Its an unstoppable force. =) From these hundreds of billions we will reap trillions because the cost of capital of solar energy has been the last hurdle. And hilariously, features that were nonsensically attacked as the weaknesses of solar by agenda driven institutions, are now recognized as the strengths. A solid state device aimed at the sun for 25+++ years with 1% OP EX, competetively installed today with guaranteed fixed pricing. Game over. Good luck hedging natural gas costs for the next 30 years at 2015 prices. LoL.
Considering the pace at which this energy was added to the grid, it is news worthy. Considering coal (and large hydro and nuclear) are all about ~9% each in California, it will only be a handful of years until solar surpasses power production from each coal, nuclear, and large hydro.
Perhaps then solar detractors will rubber neck at the remarkable progress in the industry. It will be hilarious over the coming decade as the raw economics drive us to abandon domestic resources (coal, gas) in favor of Chinese (or Malaysian) manufactured solar panels. Exporting billions of dollars to China after handing them this giant industry (inevitably one of the world's largest) on a silver platter.
I wonder how the myopic thinkers will react to this scenario. Of course, we'll have to wait a decade for them to realize what has already happened.
let me know when you complete this irrelevant wandering and we can get back on topic, which was that the capricious and diminutive support of renewable energy in the US will be the most costly squandered opportunity in the history of capitalism.
Your right it has nothing to do with the insignificance of nuclear energy in China. Also coal is no longer the benchmark of cheap energy generation. Its natural gas. Welcome to the 21st century.
Ridiculous non sequitur. No one is pushing back against this perspective because it is not being advocated or practiced. Freedom has nothing to do with it, unless you speak of the freedom to stomp on others to enrich oneself.
Earth's sustainable population using current tech is somewhere between 9 and 12 billion.
Nice speculation, I wager it's been shared shared by numerous past societies on the brink of collapse. Please comment on top soil depletion, aquifer depletion, uncontrollable erosion, over grazing, deforestation, and collapsing fishing stocks. None of the current rates of these activities are sustainable today, let alone 9-12 billion people, let alone any increase in quality of life for under developed regions.
Others mentioned heat pumps, but even an standard efficiency natural gas furnace or wood stove is likely more efficient, in that you are directly using the primary fuel for heating, rather than converting it to electricity at lower efficiency and then losing some to transmission before it hits your resistor.
Sadly the question was rhetorical. Somehow the gap between the self-perceived and actual critical faculties is somehow larger on slashdot than it is in the general population.
Solar costs $1800/kW + no fuel and +1% opex. Already competitive solar costs are trending down sharply.
This isn't a 1% issue. This is a widespread ignorance issue, much like the following opinion:
Solar has a long long way to go and can't conceivably make a dent in Global Climate change and CO2 emissions without some real and somewhat illusory technology improvements that make it much more economical.
According to who? Not anyone who has studied and published on the issue for the last 15 years (Including every major US and international investment bank, government energy agency, analyst, and even many fossil fuel companies). In fact, you could only make this statement from a position of neglectful ignorance. Presently a ~$125 billion dollar industry with annualized growth exceeding 20%, better than any industry of its size or larger. 50GW+ in 2015. According to a recent Agora report, which effectively models prior growth and ramps it down (before you slam models, historically we've underpredicted the rise of solar) places scenarios of zero technological innovation have it sustaining itself at 200 GW/yr in the next decade, larger in financial scope than the coal mining industry. At technological breakthrough we might get 1700 GW/yr, or something as large as the oil industry, the biggest industry on earth.
Time matters and Solar, Wind and Hydro aren't going to get us where we need to go before some major sea level rise and climate dislocations are locked in.
Funny, while you prattle on or lobby or do whatever it is you do that doesn't result in more nuclear energy, the present solar industry is adding capacity at 6 to 9 times the rate of the fastest nuclear timeline I've encountered at a run rate of 50 reactors a year, increasing YoY at 20%.
AC output of solar energy is typically more like 12-16%. No it isn't a serious hit, it is more than sufficient, for example, to power non heating and cooling loads for most people on earth based on population density.
This is crazy nonsense. Virtually every industry and business, especially manufacturing, gets subsidies and tax breaks. Economics have nothing to do with it.
The concern is that Renewable is not quite ready for Prime Time and being jammed down our throats.
Solar has been ready for prime time for 15 years. China filled the vacuum and made it happen in 5, just as predicted by anyone who studied the manufacturing learning curve of PV wafers and cells from prior semiconductor industry advancements. Far from jamming it down anyone's throats, we developed it all and then gave it up because we could not see past the very close horizon of a few entrenched interests.
Virtually every financial firm of merit has predicted that the raw economics of solar energy will lead to global domination over the coming decades. Everything predicted has essentially come to pass, usually faster than anticipated. The global (American growth is moderate) surge in solar energy over the past several years has been driven by private capital investing on long horizons and to a lesser extent the fleeting and arbitrary subsidy regimes bouncing around global markets. Predictions in efficiency, cost, and waste reduction have exceeded expectations for a decade. There will be no slow down in the economic race to the bottom for years to come. Solar is growing in subsidy rich regimes and low subsidy regimes. Solar tax credits are no different than those in myriad other sectors throughout the economy, except perhaps in this case it pertains to what will be one of the largest and most geo-politically important industries ever created.
An entirely self sufficient multi-trillion dollar per year global industry (exceeding the coal and gas industries and potentially rivaling oil) is essentially set in stone. Renewables need to be jammed down the throats of every American until they vomit blood because we've ceded leadership in what will be the world's biggest industry to China.
Despite idiots carrying on about subsidies for solar and wind, half of them are available to all power generation and manufacturing facilities. The tax benefits are marginal, and ITC is essentially juice to the banks to get the ball rolling and establish the new financial structures necessary for long term capitalization of these assets. It's a very new model, after all, compared with conventional power generation. State subsidies vary, they suck, they increase the cost of solar energy, and hence do not really facilitate the spread of solar, nor do they cost tax payers much money.
The US essentially developed all the technology (through heavy research subsidies) over decades. Instead of cashing in over the last decade on what as become economically competitive against tens of billions of dollars of existing assets, a bunch of ignorant assholes gave away they keys to the castle. Only 10 years of ass dragging by US and its ignorant short-sighted thinking will have ceded these industries to China.
This is about economic prosperity. Not the environment.
Ok. Let's talk about the costs of solar energy without government subsidies. Utility solar power is $1.80/watt without any subsidies ($1.20 in China *before subsidies*), in fact actually this cost includes TARIFFS on imported Chinese modules products... Yeah, modules in the US are 25% more expensive on average than rest of the world because of a trade war the US (and to lesser extent the EU) launched against China for dominating the solar industry after the west left it for dead. Mostly due to ignorance like you display.
$1.80/watt for solar power is cheaper than a significant portion of peaking capacity installed throughout the world. Its cheaper than nuclear energy under the current regulatory regime. Its cheaper than new coal plants that must meat better pollution regulations, and its nearly as cheap as new natural gas capacity.
I see no problems, except for abject ignorance on the state of the industry, the state of the subsidies, and the cost of energy generation, and the cost of energy to the consumer.
In principle I have no problem giving up control or data. I choose otherwise because I enjoy DIY. Why does it make you so angry I and other brainless consumers have the freedom to choose?
That escalated quickly. In the real world we have limited resources; specifically its preposterous to legislate against all potential problems. On top of that it also violates a very popular, long standing interpretation about the role of the US Federal Government. Given that the number of hypothetical problems is infinite, it seems like a prudent course of action to use past results as a key input to planning, priority and predictor of future consequences. I asked for some of examples. I presented several potentially deal-breaking problems with the proposed legislation. I also suggested that sponsors of this particular legislation are not genuine in their motivations. Good luck with your opposing theory. I imagine it's quite some task to solve all the hypothetical problems in the world.
Interesting analogy. I checked my credit score recently to see the effect of playing CC games. I took a huge hit, but I still have excellent credit. Credit Karma had a neat feature where I could compare myself based on age, income, sex to others. I was surprised to see that I am only in the 55-60% percentile. Since I'm still offered the cheapest rates of capital, it seems to me that about 40% of similar people are offered cheap capital, thus benefiting from credit history.
I was weary about facebook and google in 2005. I don't really use facebook and google's 10 years of my data hasn't noticeably impacted me in anway (neglecting insignificant enhancements). I don't care much for my privacy these days, advertisers haven't been't been successful in harnessing data to sell me stuff (despite vastly increasing income, my expenses remain constant), the government nor my employer haven't persecuted me based on public knowledge, and I sort of enjoy seeing my timeline evolve on facebook exclusively via others' input.
That said, it still seems rather trivial to maintain personal privacy, mostly at personal expense. So what gives? Why is it so important I share your values? Can't you just go off and do your anonymous things in some quiet place? What is the point of this advocacy?
Good unintended analogy. As with the vast majority of recreational drug users, most people will live in both worlds without having an issue. I don't know why my virtual existence wouldn't define who I am since it is effectively just a database of data about me.
It is quite reasonable to ask that scientific studies that you want to base LAW on be reproducible otherwise you could just make up anything and when it couldn't be reproduced you'd say "well I did it once"... and then if I ask to see where you got that data you just say "nope, its secret"...
Do you have examples of this occurring? I'm not one for legislation for the sake of hypothetical problems.
Who is the arbiter of these requirements in each case? Critics? People who have a direct financial incentive to stall and kill any attempt to be regulated?
When institutions that fund bogus science make technical claims against the "completeness of the science, that they "can't reproduce results"," take 10 years to "study the science" "reproduce results," or come up with "conflicting" results, like for example they have in the past with lead and smoking, then what? Do you spend time and money while people literally die to settle the issue?
If I understand you clearly, you would like to preserve the sanctity of the scientific method and we should accept that people may be poisoned for decades while its all sorted out?
I have no problems with the idea in principle if our regulatory approach required that we first scientifically demonstrated that chemicals and processes weren't harmful (in the manner proposed). But that isn't how it works, in the current environment one poisons first, and investigates later. This seems backward to me...
How do you reconcile that one of the sponsors of the bill explicitly rejects the scientific method in favor of biblical interpretation?
Slashdot Mirror
yes, really. EIA publishes the costs of generation annually. solar is cheaper than all 7 types of new coal generation facilities, all fuel cell and nuclear facilities, both types of biomass facilities, wind, geothermal, solid waste, small hydro, even new large hydro facilities.
.55 $/kWh, but they sell for mid 0.70s because US mfgrs (actually German owned, fake US corp, asian mfgers) lobbied for tarrifs because they cannot compete against state of the art chinese solar manufacturing cities, who have completely up to date US made equipment and better economies of scale. To be blunt, you parrot talking points of people who most likely have no idea what they are talking about or 2) have some other agenda (preserving their depreciated energy production assets)
Did you know that Chinese solar panels have 25% to 300% tariffs in the US ? Full stop. Haha, what is the ITC subsidy your clamoring on about again? Similar arrangement in the EU. They could sell for
solar (arguably) remains more expensive than ~3-4 of 5 types of natural gas generation, but given the uncertainty of natural gas prices over the next 30 years and the fact solar is cheaper than all 5 types of at only moderately higher gas prices, it seems like a fairly conservative economic hedge. Solar and natural gas also pair wonderfully. Solar also will not be subject to export competition when LNG terminals are built and export capacity ramps... to sell gas at 3x the price to europe/asia
Solar today is installed at a fraction of the cost of most of California's gas infrastructure (and astonishingly expensive peaking gas infrastructure) -which is major factor in their costs...
Solar plants are going up for $1200-$1300/ W these days, without subsidies, international developer/manufacturers are making 20% gross margin in these projects.
Solar only appears expensive when compared against fully depreciated, dirty coal infrastructure. When it comes to the inevitable grid modernization solar fills a massive hole (20-40%), there is ample opportunity for hundreds of billions of dollars of cost effective solar investment. Approximately 35 to 40% of those costs is literally revenue that the US and EU gave away to Chinese solar conglomerates, mostly due to myopic thinking of entrenched institutions and the failure of smart people (probably yourself) to assess the progress and trajectory of the solar industry over the past 30 years.
The commoditization of solar energy into the most accessible low cost energy resource has gone according to plan (predictions) for over 30 years actually its convincingly ahead of schedule since 2005, mainly due to the Chinese factor. The idea that in 2015 when renewables (wind+solar) are now the largest (annual production addition) and fastest growing energies on earth and I'm still combating against the same ignorant arguments is hilarious.
I've now realized there will be no "ah ha" moment, where I told you so. No daay will come where my industry will be thanked for growing the economy and modernizing our infrastructure and perhaps alleviating co2 production. The ignorance will just slip into the darkness, as it has over the last decade as monied interests quietly switch sides, and we'll have to pretend it was never really there. Oh well, at least I put my money where my mouth is a decade ago. Thankfully so have hundreds of billions of dollars of private investment. Its an unstoppable force. =) From these hundreds of billions we will reap trillions because the cost of capital of solar energy has been the last hurdle. And hilariously, features that were nonsensically attacked as the weaknesses of solar by agenda driven institutions, are now recognized as the strengths. A solid state device aimed at the sun for 25+++ years with 1% OP EX, competetively installed today with guaranteed fixed pricing. Game over. Good luck hedging natural gas costs for the next 30 years at 2015 prices. LoL.
In 2014, the UK was the largest market for solar energy in the EU.
Considering the pace at which this energy was added to the grid, it is news worthy. Considering coal (and large hydro and nuclear) are all about ~9% each in California, it will only be a handful of years until solar surpasses power production from each coal, nuclear, and large hydro.
Perhaps then solar detractors will rubber neck at the remarkable progress in the industry. It will be hilarious over the coming decade as the raw economics drive us to abandon domestic resources (coal, gas) in favor of Chinese (or Malaysian) manufactured solar panels. Exporting billions of dollars to China after handing them this giant industry (inevitably one of the world's largest) on a silver platter.
I wonder how the myopic thinkers will react to this scenario. Of course, we'll have to wait a decade for them to realize what has already happened.
let me know when you complete this irrelevant wandering and we can get back on topic, which was that the capricious and diminutive support of renewable energy in the US will be the most costly squandered opportunity in the history of capitalism.
Your right it has nothing to do with the insignificance of nuclear energy in China. Also coal is no longer the benchmark of cheap energy generation. Its natural gas. Welcome to the 21st century.
Ridiculous non sequitur. No one is pushing back against this perspective because it is not being advocated or practiced. Freedom has nothing to do with it, unless you speak of the freedom to stomp on others to enrich oneself.
Earth's sustainable population using current tech is somewhere between 9 and 12 billion.
Nice speculation, I wager it's been shared shared by numerous past societies on the brink of collapse. Please comment on top soil depletion, aquifer depletion, uncontrollable erosion, over grazing, deforestation, and collapsing fishing stocks. None of the current rates of these activities are sustainable today, let alone 9-12 billion people, let alone any increase in quality of life for under developed regions.
Others mentioned heat pumps, but even an standard efficiency natural gas furnace or wood stove is likely more efficient, in that you are directly using the primary fuel for heating, rather than converting it to electricity at lower efficiency and then losing some to transmission before it hits your resistor.
Any business or industry of sufficient size is lobbying in its own interest to maximize tax incentives and direct subsidies...
Sadly the question was rhetorical. Somehow the gap between the self-perceived and actual critical faculties is somehow larger on slashdot than it is in the general population.
Coal costs $2-3000/kW + 0.02 $/kWh fuel + ~0.019 $/kWh opex. Costs are trending up.
Solar costs $1800/kW + no fuel and +1% opex. Already competitive solar costs are trending down sharply.
This isn't a 1% issue. This is a widespread ignorance issue, much like the following opinion:
Solar has a long long way to go and can't conceivably make a dent in Global Climate change and CO2 emissions without some real and somewhat illusory technology improvements that make it much more economical.
According to who? Not anyone who has studied and published on the issue for the last 15 years (Including every major US and international investment bank, government energy agency, analyst, and even many fossil fuel companies). In fact, you could only make this statement from a position of neglectful ignorance. Presently a ~$125 billion dollar industry with annualized growth exceeding 20%, better than any industry of its size or larger. 50GW+ in 2015. According to a recent Agora report, which effectively models prior growth and ramps it down (before you slam models, historically we've underpredicted the rise of solar) places scenarios of zero technological innovation have it sustaining itself at 200 GW/yr in the next decade, larger in financial scope than the coal mining industry. At technological breakthrough we might get 1700 GW/yr, or something as large as the oil industry, the biggest industry on earth.
Time matters and Solar, Wind and Hydro aren't going to get us where we need to go before some major sea level rise and climate dislocations are locked in.
Funny, while you prattle on or lobby or do whatever it is you do that doesn't result in more nuclear energy, the present solar industry is adding capacity at 6 to 9 times the rate of the fastest nuclear timeline I've encountered at a run rate of 50 reactors a year, increasing YoY at 20%.
No fucking contest. And its purely economic.
AC output of solar energy is typically more like 12-16%. No it isn't a serious hit, it is more than sufficient, for example, to power non heating and cooling loads for most people on earth based on population density.
This is crazy nonsense. Virtually every industry and business, especially manufacturing, gets subsidies and tax breaks. Economics have nothing to do with it.
The concern is that Renewable is not quite ready for Prime Time and being jammed down our throats.
Solar has been ready for prime time for 15 years. China filled the vacuum and made it happen in 5, just as predicted by anyone who studied the manufacturing learning curve of PV wafers and cells from prior semiconductor industry advancements. Far from jamming it down anyone's throats, we developed it all and then gave it up because we could not see past the very close horizon of a few entrenched interests.
Virtually every financial firm of merit has predicted that the raw economics of solar energy will lead to global domination over the coming decades. Everything predicted has essentially come to pass, usually faster than anticipated. The global (American growth is moderate) surge in solar energy over the past several years has been driven by private capital investing on long horizons and to a lesser extent the fleeting and arbitrary subsidy regimes bouncing around global markets. Predictions in efficiency, cost, and waste reduction have exceeded expectations for a decade. There will be no slow down in the economic race to the bottom for years to come. Solar is growing in subsidy rich regimes and low subsidy regimes. Solar tax credits are no different than those in myriad other sectors throughout the economy, except perhaps in this case it pertains to what will be one of the largest and most geo-politically important industries ever created.
An entirely self sufficient multi-trillion dollar per year global industry (exceeding the coal and gas industries and potentially rivaling oil) is essentially set in stone. Renewables need to be jammed down the throats of every American until they vomit blood because we've ceded leadership in what will be the world's biggest industry to China.
Despite idiots carrying on about subsidies for solar and wind, half of them are available to all power generation and manufacturing facilities. The tax benefits are marginal, and ITC is essentially juice to the banks to get the ball rolling and establish the new financial structures necessary for long term capitalization of these assets. It's a very new model, after all, compared with conventional power generation. State subsidies vary, they suck, they increase the cost of solar energy, and hence do not really facilitate the spread of solar, nor do they cost tax payers much money.
The US essentially developed all the technology (through heavy research subsidies) over decades. Instead of cashing in over the last decade on what as become economically competitive against tens of billions of dollars of existing assets, a bunch of ignorant assholes gave away they keys to the castle. Only 10 years of ass dragging by US and its ignorant short-sighted thinking will have ceded these industries to China.
This is about economic prosperity. Not the environment.
Ok. Let's talk about the costs of solar energy without government subsidies. Utility solar power is $1.80/watt without any subsidies ($1.20 in China *before subsidies*), in fact actually this cost includes TARIFFS on imported Chinese modules products... Yeah, modules in the US are 25% more expensive on average than rest of the world because of a trade war the US (and to lesser extent the EU) launched against China for dominating the solar industry after the west left it for dead. Mostly due to ignorance like you display.
$1.80/watt for solar power is cheaper than a significant portion of peaking capacity installed throughout the world. Its cheaper than nuclear energy under the current regulatory regime. Its cheaper than new coal plants that must meat better pollution regulations, and its nearly as cheap as new natural gas capacity.
I see no problems, except for abject ignorance on the state of the industry, the state of the subsidies, and the cost of energy generation, and the cost of energy to the consumer.
In principle I have no problem giving up control or data. I choose otherwise because I enjoy DIY. Why does it make you so angry I and other brainless consumers have the freedom to choose?
How about you don't use these products? I don't get the nonstop privacy outrage. Why can't I give away mine?
buy and root the wink hub, many radios. many places it ends up free if you spend $12- $16 on a couple of z wave LED lights. otherwise its $50
Why do so many people find economical solar energy so upsetting?
Mars gets 40% earth insolation. 40% isn't a tiny fraction. It's like the difference between California and Germany. Hardly a show stopper.
That escalated quickly. In the real world we have limited resources; specifically its preposterous to legislate against all potential problems. On top of that it also violates a very popular, long standing interpretation about the role of the US Federal Government. Given that the number of hypothetical problems is infinite, it seems like a prudent course of action to use past results as a key input to planning, priority and predictor of future consequences. I asked for some of examples. I presented several potentially deal-breaking problems with the proposed legislation. I also suggested that sponsors of this particular legislation are not genuine in their motivations. Good luck with your opposing theory. I imagine it's quite some task to solve all the hypothetical problems in the world.
Interesting analogy. I checked my credit score recently to see the effect of playing CC games. I took a huge hit, but I still have excellent credit. Credit Karma had a neat feature where I could compare myself based on age, income, sex to others. I was surprised to see that I am only in the 55-60% percentile. Since I'm still offered the cheapest rates of capital, it seems to me that about 40% of similar people are offered cheap capital, thus benefiting from credit history.
I was weary about facebook and google in 2005. I don't really use facebook and google's 10 years of my data hasn't noticeably impacted me in anway (neglecting insignificant enhancements). I don't care much for my privacy these days, advertisers haven't been't been successful in harnessing data to sell me stuff (despite vastly increasing income, my expenses remain constant), the government nor my employer haven't persecuted me based on public knowledge, and I sort of enjoy seeing my timeline evolve on facebook exclusively via others' input.
That said, it still seems rather trivial to maintain personal privacy, mostly at personal expense. So what gives? Why is it so important I share your values? Can't you just go off and do your anonymous things in some quiet place? What is the point of this advocacy?
Good unintended analogy. As with the vast majority of recreational drug users, most people will live in both worlds without having an issue. I don't know why my virtual existence wouldn't define who I am since it is effectively just a database of data about me.
It is quite reasonable to ask that scientific studies that you want to base LAW on be reproducible otherwise you could just make up anything and when it couldn't be reproduced you'd say "well I did it once"... and then if I ask to see where you got that data you just say "nope, its secret"...
Do you have examples of this occurring? I'm not one for legislation for the sake of hypothetical problems.
Who is the arbiter of these requirements in each case? Critics? People who have a direct financial incentive to stall and kill any attempt to be regulated? When institutions that fund bogus science make technical claims against the "completeness of the science, that they "can't reproduce results"," take 10 years to "study the science" "reproduce results," or come up with "conflicting" results, like for example they have in the past with lead and smoking, then what? Do you spend time and money while people literally die to settle the issue?
If I understand you clearly, you would like to preserve the sanctity of the scientific method and we should accept that people may be poisoned for decades while its all sorted out?
I have no problems with the idea in principle if our regulatory approach required that we first scientifically demonstrated that chemicals and processes weren't harmful (in the manner proposed). But that isn't how it works, in the current environment one poisons first, and investigates later. This seems backward to me...
How do you reconcile that one of the sponsors of the bill explicitly rejects the scientific method in favor of biblical interpretation?
freedom pop gives better service for free if you live in a good coverage area.