Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Rocko

New energy sources

52 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, Padawan Knight said:

My biggest reason for mentioning subsidies is that people say we should remove them from fossil fuels to even the playing field. I say we either remove none or all. Without subsidies, I imagine that fossil fuels would suffer a decline. Without subsidies, wind turbine sales stopped altogether.

Fossil fuels has a well-established lobby with deep deep pockets and those subsidies find their way into the pockets of the politicians who make sure they stay in place. I'm sure there was a lobby for wind energy but there's no way it was paying the kickback close to the amount that oil and gas do. There's a reason why nobody leaves Washington without a million dollars in his or her bank account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, JayOzOne said:

Fossil fuels has a well-established lobby with deep deep pockets and those subsidies find their way into the pockets of the politicians who make sure they stay in place. I'm sure there was a lobby for wind energy but there's no way it was paying the kickback close to the amount that oil and gas do. There's a reason why nobody leaves Washington without a million dollars in his or her bank account.

Term limits. Hard to get graft if you're not around long enough to get to know the players and become corrupt.

How do you think Bernie has bought 4 homes on his salary?

Best example I could think of off the top of my head..yes, GOP politicians are corrupt too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Term limits. Hard to get graft if you're not around long enough to get to know the players and become corrupt.

How do you think Bernie has bought 4 homes on his salary?

Best example I could think of off the top of my head..yes, GOP politicians are corrupt too.

They're all corrupt. The biggest threat to the established order is the handful of Democrats who are beating the machine in spite of taking no corporate money. The question will be whether they maintain their nobility once they take office.

Our problem is that it's impossible to have a representative government with 350 million people. Everybody has to form alliances to get anything done and someone in Congress is lucky to be able to deliver on one of 20 promises made while campaigning. It used to be that social liberal/fiscal moderate Democrats could find common ground with social conservative/fiscal moderate Republicans and make the government work.

Now, there are shadow people pulling the strings and demanding absolute lock-step fealty with the party line, preventing compromise. A difficult task is now almost impossible, especially when McConnell and Ryan are kissing the ring of... somebody. It's not Trump. I'd love to know who is running things on both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, JayOzOne said:

They're all corrupt. The biggest threat to the established order is the handful of Democrats who are beating the machine in spite of taking no corporate money. The question will be whether they maintain their nobility once they take office.

Our problem is that it's impossible to have a representative government with 350 million people. Everybody has to form alliances to get anything done and someone in Congress is lucky to be able to deliver on one of 20 promises made while campaigning. It used to be that social liberal/fiscal moderate Democrats could find common ground with social conservative/fiscal moderate Republicans and make the government work.

Now, there are shadow people pulling the strings and demanding absolute lock-step fealty with the party line, preventing compromise. A difficult task is now almost impossible, especially when McConnell and Ryan are kissing the ring of... somebody. It's not Trump. I'd love to know who is running things on both sides.

It seems pretty clear that Soros is pulling strings on the liberal side. Not sure who is holding the reins of the conservatives, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Padawan Knight said:

It seems pretty clear that Soros is pulling strings on the liberal side. Not sure who is holding the reins of the conservatives, though.

Some people say it's the Koch brother's but they are Libertarians who vote both ways on certain issues.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm looking into solar panels for our home.

A couple of neighbors have gotten them installed and they are saving a lot on power. Plus, they look cool as heck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Padawan Knight said:

It seems pretty clear that Soros is pulling strings on the liberal side. Not sure who is holding the reins of the conservatives, though.

Soros is too obvious to be true, IMO. Progressives are just as gullible as conservatives but not nearly as organized. Besides, the left's policies are much more small potatoes in concept and don't have nearly as strong support as those on the right.

2 hours ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Some people say it's the Koch brother's but they are Libertarians who vote both ways on certain issues.  

I don't think it's the Kochs either. I know they sponsor ALEC but who is it that comes up with the policies that are promoted there? I don't think the Kochs waste a lot of their time coming up with "conservative" issues to enact so much as hear about them and decide that they are okay with them. Somebody is the mastermind. That's who is behind the curtain and that's who I want to see..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Padawan Knight said:

My biggest reason for mentioning subsidies is that people say we should remove them from fossil fuels to even the playing field. I say we either remove none or all. Without subsidies, I imagine that fossil fuels would suffer a decline. Without subsidies, wind turbine sales stopped altogether.

uh, what? there is a societal interest in promoting one over the other. there's no reason to entertain some dumb vision of 'fairness' for the sake of a literal commodity. it's not like the market would price them 'fairly' without subsidies - it wouldn't at all account for the damage and environmental cost of fossil fuels in the long-term, which turns out is a pretty **** good reason to explicitly prefer one over the other!

also your friend's anecdote doesn't at all appear to match up with the industry in general:

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/5/2/17290880/wind-power-renewable-energy-maps

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Padawan Knight said:

It seems pretty clear that Soros is pulling strings on the liberal side. Not sure who is holding the reins of the conservatives, though.

* makes fake jerking motion *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rocko said:

Can we please not turn this into a political or conspiracy theory thread

I feel you. But any discussion about energy and/or conservation inevitably will work its way to politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JayOzOne said:

I feel you. But any discussion about energy and/or conservation inevitably will work its way to politics.

Yea it will, But Soros and Koch brothers? Let's keep it on earth.

JayOzOne likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rocko said:

Yea it will, But Soros and Koch brothers? Let's keep it on earth.

Good point. Leave the infection in the body that bears it (Trump thread) and don't let it spread to this one, too.

Rocko likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2018 at 6:59 AM, Doozer said:

1) Money buys a lot of resources. The people who are starving live in poor countries. Not prioritizing making money (economy) over pointless platitudes leads to shortages, then people die.

2)The same people who cry about world hunger also boycott GMO's.

3)Again, money is not evil. It is a tool. A company that makes no profit has no incentive to research anything.

4)Prove that the benefit is worth the sacrifice and maybe we can agree on doing it. Trying something just to make some people feel good about themselves is just a waste of resources.

5)Live through a few dozen apocalyptic predictions and the anxiety fades. Like finding out that there are no monsters under the bed; it's a part of growing up.

6)Did you know that the entire 7 billion human population of the planet can fit on Rhode Island?

7)Eco terrorists are pretty bad.

 

"On Rhode Island"

:huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On October 7, 2018 at 7:54 PM, Rocko said:

Hey everyone.  Many of you may not know but I'm a big clean energy person. I dont know that we are anywhere near a fossil fuel free society but I wouldnt mind seeing one. The arguments that take place between Republicans and Democrats are stupid. Whether you believe in man made global warming (i do) or not you have to believe in the terrible nature of pollution and what it is doing to our air, water sources, and overall health. Im a big proponent of a multifaceted effort. I'm for a huge investment in nuclear power across the country with wind/solar/hydro where it can be most effective. What are your suggestions to move away from the polutant fossil fuels?

The most effective solution for clean energy is relying on the free market, but not the type we have, but a truly free and fair market where you pay for the full cost of what you use. 

Right now when we run our car, we pay for the gas. But our driving also costs the society in terms of the adverse health effects it causes, in terms of its impact on the ecosystem and on the climate, all external costs that we do not pay for, at least not directly. Only when we account and pay for these externalities, will we have enough financial incentives to develop and implement clean energy sources. 

JayOzOne likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dmo_dlo said:

The most effective solution for clean energy is relying on the free market, but not the type we have, but a truly free and fair market where you pay for the full cost of what you use. 

Right now when we run our car, we pay for the gas. But our driving also costs the society in terms of the adverse health effects it causes, in terms of its impact on the ecosystem and on the climate, all external costs that we do not pay for, at least not directly. Only when we account and pay for these externalities, will we have enough financial incentives to develop and implement clean energy sources. 

This is essentially the philosophical underpinnings of carbon taxation. There was a nice episode of the Daily this morning about this very issue. 

I dont think its a fool proof plan but it deserves consideration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dmo_dlo said:

The most effective solution for clean energy is relying on the free market, but not the type we have, but a truly free and fair market where you pay for the full cost of what you use. 

Right now when we run our car, we pay for the gas. But our driving also costs the society in terms of the adverse health effects it causes, in terms of its impact on the ecosystem and on the climate, all external costs that we do not pay for, at least not directly. Only when we account and pay for these externalities, will we have enough financial incentives to develop and implement clean energy sources. 

I have to think about this, but it's likely the best post in this thread so far. 

Plus one.

dmo_dlo likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dmo_dlo said:

The most effective solution for clean energy is relying on the free market, but not the type we have, but a truly free and fair market where you pay for the full cost of what you use. 

Right now when we run our car, we pay for the gas. But our driving also costs the society in terms of the adverse health effects it causes, in terms of its impact on the ecosystem and on the climate, all external costs that we do not pay for, at least not directly. Only when we account and pay for these externalities, will we have enough financial incentives to develop and implement clean energy sources. 

????  The only reason I'm asking the question I'm about to put forward is to get an explanation:

Free market in the good ol' US of A or worldwide?  The only reason I ask for a clarification is, who would pay for people in Cali (west coast as a whole) getting sick off of Chinese pollution (smog) that drifts across the Pacific Ocean?

Edit:  I understand what you are trying to say, .................................to a point

Rocko likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Andrews_31 said:

????  The only reason I'm asking the question I'm about to put forward is to get an explanation:

Free market in the good ol' US of A or worldwide?  The only reason I ask for a clarification who would pay for people in Cali (west coast as a whole) getting sick off of Chinese pollution (smog) that drifts across the pacific ocean?

Edit:  I understand what you are trying to say, .................................to a point

That's a great question, and not an easy one to answer. 

In an ideal world you want to account for all externalities, so if you're emitting in China you should pay for the death, asthma, or heart attack that you're causing in California too. Similarly, if you're emitting in New York, you should pay for the externalities you cause in Europe. However, for the health damage caused by burning fossil fuel, at least 90% (and I would say more than 95%) of externalities in the US are caused by American made pollution. So practically having a fair free market that accounts for externalities just in the US would still go a long long way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

This is essentially the philosophical underpinnings of carbon taxation. There was a nice episode of the Daily this morning about this very issue. 

I dont think its a fool proof plan but it deserves consideration. 

You are right, this is the philosophical underpinning of carbon tax. But this goes way beyond "carbon pollution", as those other societal costs such as health or ecosystem, when monetized, are much larger than the social cost of carbon or other prices put on carbon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2018 at 2:43 PM, Statick said:

I'm looking into solar panels for our home.

A couple of neighbors have gotten them installed and they are saving a lot on power. Plus, they look cool as heck.

i am hoping to build a house with a Tesla solar roof in 4 years or so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dago 3.0 said:

i am hoping to build a house with a Tesla solar roof in 4 years or so

Didn't I read somewhere that a lot of municipalities are passing laws preventing utilities from having to buy back energy produced by homeowners? I swear, government can't help but ruin anything good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0