You are viewing rhjunior

Mar. 6th, 2012 @ 11:19 am (no subject)
About this Entry
pestering
[User Picture Icon]
From:Nyxilis Mistwalker
Date:March 6th, 2012 05:09 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Been reading a lot recently about the failed energy companies that got loans recently. Aside from the massive failure of Solyndra there are others. Seems like whoever said they'd make something green got big bucks with lil show that they are actually a viable company.
[User Picture Icon]
From:nefaria
Date:March 7th, 2012 02:32 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Seems all the "green" companies intend to make their profits from government funding instead of the free market, where they can't compete.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:March 7th, 2012 05:54 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
May I quote you on that in five years? I have a suspicion that with current trends in solar prices I can poke considerable fun at you by 2017.
[User Picture Icon]
From:rhjunior
Date:March 7th, 2012 03:46 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
hell, you can probably quote him on that in fifty, and the story will still be the same.... The "current trends" are easily attributable to government subsidies and little else.
[User Picture Icon]
From:Nyxilis Mistwalker
Date:March 7th, 2012 10:23 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Wind is profitable because they finally got it cheap enough to rival existing things, but you can't put enough wind turbines to fuel even a quarter of total US energy needs if you covered the country in them. Nor is it a giant cash cow. And you know who did that? Not some upstart lil green money taker, General Electric makes the turbines. The same one that makes them for nuclear power, and far more parts for coal burning plants. Oklahoma Gas & Electric uses them, but they are merely a supplement, and will always be nothing but that.

Solar is still expensive for mass power plants with paltry returns compared to coal, US companies have fallen apart vs Chinese undercutting in this area back by their government. And these are not industrial level panels, these are merely home ones that shave a little off the top, do not make the home self suffecient, and could never ever power an aluminum plant, military base, or even a big sky scraper. It's at best a tiny lil thing to make your power bill go down a tiny bit, but so can spray foaming your home which shows a better drop on average.

The disconnect on green profitability is that it has to be something you want to do. Save you money, or make you money. Rarely does green anything do either of those. It's more people 'hoping and dreaming' that it will magically do something in the same means that people will magically stop warring with each other. It's simple math when you take solar and wind power compared to the overall use of US power and it falls vastly short. Construction levels alone on those things wouldn't even do it in five years. It takes longer than that to make that to simply make the hardware, but it still doesn't generate enough even then. Not for the US, China, Canada, Japan, Korea, India, United Kingdom, Germany, or any country that considers itself an industrial producer.
[User Picture Icon]
From:nefaria
Date:March 8th, 2012 03:06 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Another big downside to solar/wind: what happens when it's dark and the winds are calm? You get no energy, that's what. So you need to give everything a battery capable of powering it for 12 hours or more. Highly toxic, environmentally nasty batteries, for absolutely everything. Not very green at all.
[User Picture Icon]
From:kire_duhai
Date:March 9th, 2012 03:59 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
That *is* one reason to develop energy storage more than energy generation, though. A point lost on environmentalists.

Wind and solar both have potential as decent supplements, I think. But until there comes along a truly impressive energy storage technology, they'll never be more than that.

And the fact is, better energy generation tech is more likely to come along first.

-Kire Du'Hai
[User Picture Icon]
From:nefaria
Date:March 9th, 2012 05:02 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
The liberals should invent their miraculous new affordable energy-generation technique first, THEN we can all happily convert to it. They're acting like if they throw enough money at it, the technology will invent itself, and that's not the way science works.
[User Picture Icon]
From:Nyxilis Mistwalker
Date:March 13th, 2012 06:01 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
The joke is though, that the newer batteries they need for those electric cars, buses and more, are quite toxic. So are quite a few of the energies, or they need loads of hard to get precious metals. So to get a lil more out of cars off a debatable gas they're willing to go to toxins and Chinese strip mines. China produces well over half of the metals needed for them since they have about zero environmental rules or oversight. While most of the American mines shut down since theirs was vastly cheaper. Now, they announced they will simply not export x amount to the US, S. Korea, Canada, Japan, and UK. Suddenly, the US is playing catchup on that one!

So, toxic batteries, check, strip mining, check, helping another ruthless regime for a precious commodity? Check! Environmentalism as its best while they give oil companies grief for supporting the Saudis. >D
[User Picture Icon]
From:nefaria
Date:March 8th, 2012 03:04 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Well, levy a 1000% tax on energy from fossil fuels and funnel all that into solar/wind subsidies, and maybe you'll be right. Then again, maybe we'll just fund a few hundred Solyndras and solar/wind still won't be able to compete.
[User Picture Icon]
From:muirecan
Date:March 8th, 2012 03:46 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Heh not very likely. Solar power fails as a primary power source by the numbers. And by that I mean the physics of it doesn't work. There is not enough sunlight in area that the panel covers to act as a primary source of power.

That said solar power is a fantastic boutique power solution for specific cases. Where you need power in a setting that is either very low voltage allowing the panel to provide both the power to run the device and the power to charge the battery needed for night operation. Things like signs, emergency road side phones, field pumps and other such specialized uses are perfect applications. Running your house ... not so much. Powering your city ... definitely not so much.

Keep in mind the reason people do use solar now is that it is so massively subsidized that you only pay a fraction of what it would cost without the subsidy. Unfortunately for them wind and solar are complete and utter failures as primary power generation sources and they will remain such no matter how much money is thrown at them. They just don't scale up to usable levels on the large scale.
[User Picture Icon]
From:Catprog Catprog
Date:March 27th, 2012 04:48 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
18TW = total human energy usage(not including food)

you should be able to get an average power/m2 of 30W

(average solar irridance is 300w at 10% efficence)

means you need 600,000,000,000 m2

take their square root and you get 800km

1 square 800km on it's side is all the area you need.

Now compare that to a coal power station including the coal mine.


http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=ZM9086&form=CAT2&SUBCATID=1004#12 $305 for 90Watts $3.40/watt

http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=MI5192&keywords=grid+tie+inverter&form=KEYWORD $1/watt inverter

$4.4/watt for grid tie solar

5 hr*365 days = 1825 hours/year

10 years = 18,250 hours

1Kwh = 1000 hours = 18.25kwh

$4.4 / 18.25 = $0.24

http://www.originenergy.com.au/2087/Electricity-tariffs-QLD

$0.22759 cents.

Not that much difference on current prices.
[User Picture Icon]
From:rhjunior
Date:March 27th, 2012 08:21 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
yes, IF you ignore the necessity of continuous, STABLE power, storage of power, power for surges in demand, future growth....
and oh yes, the mining and manufacturing necessary to produce the 800 square km of solar cells in the first place--- and to eventually replace it. It currently costs more energy to make a solar cell than it produces in its functional lifetime, and produces more pollutants and WORSE KINDS of pollutants. The ecosystem can soak up carbon dioxide.... It's not so great at reabsorbing heavy metals and chemical toxins.

Solar is not a replacement for fossil fuels. Not even close.

[User Picture Icon]
From:gothelittle
Date:March 8th, 2012 03:15 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Current trends in solar prices are due to profits being made only by government funding instead of the free market, where they can't compete.
[User Picture Icon]
From:jordan179
Date:March 12th, 2012 02:38 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
In at least a significant number of cases, the whole purpose was apparently to funnel government funds to Obama supporters, probably so that they could funnel some back to Obama's campaign. Deep and sustainable corruption.
[User Picture Icon]
From:gothelittle
Date:March 8th, 2012 03:21 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Aye aye. If I were to create a company for the purpose of "making something green", I would be researching a way to make as affordable as possible residential conversion units for geothermal heating/cooling.

As for electricity, I would like a network of main nuclear power plants, with buildings marked "essential" (like hospitals, certain government buildings, and designated emergency shelters in times of trouble) powered entirely by smaller, sealed, on-site nuclear units like the type they're playing with in some Asian countries.

That way, the grid is low-cost, very high-efficiency (even more so if we add thorium reactors and permit breeder cycles), and hard to destroy in case of attack (as the essential buildings could probably provide limited power to neighboring homes as well in an emergency).

The next step would be even smaller units for rich residential homes (and those who decide to scrimp and save enough to get one in time).

The electrical grid should be like the Internet... darn hard to take down because there are so many distributed nodes.
[User Picture Icon]
From:kire_duhai
Date:March 6th, 2012 11:51 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
"Who can tax the sunrise...
Who can tax the trees...
Let you run a business and collect up all the fees?
The Government!
The Government can!"

Hehee.

-Tim Hawkins.
[User Picture Icon]
From:xaq
Date:March 8th, 2012 10:14 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I'd laugh a bit more at that if it didn't feel so blasted plausible. :/


On a side note, I wanted to mention something in regards to QQSR's ChipIn thing: it doesn't seem to want to keep a reliable track of how much folks are contributing. In the past few days it's gone from saying $165 to $37 to $231...by next Tuesday I expect it to proclaim you the world's first quintillionaire.
[User Picture Icon]
From:rhjunior
Date:March 8th, 2012 07:55 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
if only. but yes, people have continued clicking and sending that after the drive officially completed... I'm working on the pages right now.
[User Picture Icon]
From:xaq
Date:March 9th, 2012 07:07 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Well, if it works in your favor, more power to ya man.

Side note: Seems I was wrong with my prediction; it went back to $75. D:
[User Picture Icon]
From:haroldsson
Date:March 10th, 2012 11:16 pm (UTC)

free market

(Permanent Link)
This is a genuine puzzlement to me, not an attempt to argue for or against the issue, but there appears here mention, once again, of the concept of a "free market." Conservatives of a certain stripe mention this term a lot, somehow linking it to Ayn Rand, the "law of supply and demand" and withdrawal of the government from private enterprise. I honestly don't know what they mean.

In a global economy, are you (those of you who seem to know what a free market is) saying there should be no tariffs, no minimum wage (that one I get) no excise taxes, no government regulation, no unions, no subsidies, no corporate or business tax breaks or "incentives." No federal bank, of course, and no government support or bailout?

Does such a thing exist? Has it ever existed? Or is this some ideal state of affairs toward which we are working?

I am looking for a cogent response, something which will, in truth, educate me. I am not trying to provoke anything. This may not be the forum for it, I understand,m assuming my query even gets posted.

Seriously, I am tired of being called names by people who take issue with what they correctly or incorrectly perceive to be my political views, so if you can't answer this request without reference to the socialist, liberal, elitist, Obama huggers who are destroying the world, please refrain.

Thanks. Peace.
[User Picture Icon]
From:rhjunior
Date:March 11th, 2012 05:09 am (UTC)

Re: free market

(Permanent Link)
It's one, largely, towards which we are working.

It's never existed.... then again, many of the realities we take for granted today never existed just 300 years ago.
[User Picture Icon]
From:kire_duhai
Date:March 11th, 2012 08:37 pm (UTC)

Re: free market

(Permanent Link)
No, it has indeed never existed in its entirety.

Nor, probably, can it ever, at least on a large scale. Which is a valid point.

What many seem to miss is that reaching for that ideal has produced far better results than any other concept.

However, allow me to specify to the best of my understanding what angle 'free market' concepts usually take on your given criteria:

Tariffs would be allowed in an individual free market, since it would have to do with international trade. Unless you're talking about a worldwide free market (fat chance of that).

Minimum wage - yeah. Plain and simple, that's bad. Idiotically so. In any market, really.

Excise taxes - that's a regulation of the market, which always goes against the grain of market forces, which are usually beneficial. They're pretty much always bad. I can't really think of an exception, though I suppose ones might exist in theory.

Government regulation is a very broad term, and it covers a lot. By and large, any time an entity uses physical, political, or legal force to get the results that market forces aren't providing, it means bad things for everyone. And the government is the biggest perpetrator.

Unions would be allowed in a free market, sure - as long as they don't commit the crimes above. Unions should not be invulnerable to 'scabs' and competition, and anything that gives them an unearned advantage against challengers isn't right.
Subsidies are pretty much the other side of the excise tax coin. Pretty much bad.

The Federal bank... It's always been screwed up. But the government *should* be in charge of the mint, if the Articles of Confederation taught us anything. Then McCulloch vs. Maryland happened, and all went to hell.
To be honest, I don't know a good solution, or what the common opinion in free market schools of thought on this matter is.

Government support/bailout - pretty much bad period. The whole point of a free market is for people with successful ideas that benefit everyone to succeed while those with poor, short-sighted or flawed ideas to fail. That way good ideas build upon good ideas, and quality of life constantly improves. Government interference undermines the far more effective natural regulation of market forces.

I hope that helps, although you may have to go to someone else for more info on free market concepts of currency, mint, and the Fed.

And if anyone sees any gaping flaws in what I've said, feel free to chime in.

-Kire Du'Hai

P.S. Socialist liberal elitist Obama-huggers are destroying the world.

P.P.S. -Couldn't resist.

Edited at 2012-03-11 08:52 pm (UTC)
[User Picture Icon]
From:jordan179
Date:March 12th, 2012 02:41 pm (UTC)

Re: free market

(Permanent Link)
In a global economy, are you (those of you who seem to know what a free market is) saying there should be no tariffs, no minimum wage (that one I get) no excise taxes, no government regulation, no unions, no subsidies, no corporate or business tax breaks or "incentives." No federal bank, of course, and no government support or bailout?

Does such a thing exist? Has it ever existed? Or is this some ideal state of affairs toward which we are working?


It's an ideal state of affair toward which we're working. Though unions should of course be allowed -- under the rules governing any other sort of business associations, rather than being given special powers to break the laws which apply to other business organizations.

Having said this, at least free enterprise works even in an imperfect form. The same can't be said of socialism.
[User Picture Icon]
From:gothelittle
Date:March 13th, 2012 09:44 am (UTC)

Re: free market

(Permanent Link)
Government involvement is not only fine but necessary so much as it ensures that no coercion is occurring within the market. Government intervention should focus on matters such as ensuring that Megacorp isn't becoming a monopoly by threatening to crack the knees of its competitors.

If it appears to be a monopoly because it provides the best service for the best price and no coercion is happening, no problem. If the company does reach the point where it starts sacrificing satisfaction for profits, in a free market (which includes lack of coercion), smaller companies doing a better job at providing the same service will start popping up all over the nation like last year's Oriental Bittersweet.

What keeps that from happening in this day and age when a huge business goes corrupt? Usually expensive government licensing required to enter the business, heavy government taxation and regulation of employees and employee benefits, environmental and workplace regulation that goes beyond simple reason but that must nevertheless be complied with...

Why do you think laws like that are often supported by big business? Because it provides an entrance barrier to the upstarts and almost always contains a carefully-manufactured loophole for the established guys.

Anyways...

I know that's not a 100% answer to your question, but I hope it helps! The government has a role in a Free Market Economy, but only in ensuring that it remains a Free Market.
[User Picture Icon]
From:Catprog Catprog
Date:March 27th, 2012 05:01 am (UTC)

Re: free market

(Permanent Link)
and in some case natural entrance barriers .

Roads, phone,electricity,gas(piped not bottled) are examples.

Big businesses also have economies of scale making it harder to compete.

[User Picture Icon]
From:rhjunior
Date:March 27th, 2012 08:16 pm (UTC)

Re: free market

(Permanent Link)
And these differences are irrelevant to proper governance. It is not the job of government to cut down the tall poppies.
[User Picture Icon]
From:Catprog Catprog
Date:March 28th, 2012 01:52 am (UTC)

Re: free market

(Permanent Link)
I assume you mean with regards to the big business comment and not the natural monopolies.

I will tell you a story about the internet in my country.

the 1st company had a monopoly on copper.

the 2nd company thought they would run cable.

The 2nd company ran cable.

The 1st company responded by running cable to the same houses.

Now because the 1st one has so much more money they do not need to make a profit on their cable so the price is cheap. Company 2 has to reduce their price to compete. They don't make a profit.

Now anyone who wants to run cables looks at that situation. They decide that they will not be able to make a profit either. So company 1 retains it monopoly.