Buying biofuel for your car could be more devastating to the planet than traditional fossil fuels.
By
Erroll, in Speakers Corner
Recommended Posts
rehmwa 2
For example:
No energy regulation at all - bad agreed
Law saying "you must put solar panels on your roof or we will arrest you" - bad agreed, and I'm surprised you feel this way
Law giving solar providers a million bucks a piece - bad agreed
Tax break for people who want to install solar systems - good disagreed - supplementing the price of solar panels via taxpayer money will only slow down the motivation of solar panel manufacturers to make them cheaper, I'd rather see government limit the involvement to providing calculators on-line to people that let them understand the time it takes for these to pay themselves off. This is, essentially, your 3rd point (give solar providers a million buck$) that you said was 'bad', but worse, they aren't motivated to use the extra $$$ for product improvement
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
billvon 2,400
>money will only slow down the motivation of solar panel manufacturers to
>make them cheaper . . .
Why? Competition still exists. Why wouldn't BP try to make their panels cheaper than Kyocera?
Indeed, the increased demand for panels spurred by tax breaks will _enable_ cost reduction by allowing economies of scale to kick in. We watched this happen over the past 20 years or so.
When I first got involved with solar, PV cost $100 a watt. State funded solar programs like the Carrizo plant brought that down to $10 a watt by turning them from lab curiosities used to power satellites to real products that people bought. Tax breaks then caused an increase in production, resulting in a reduction to $4/watt. (With the rest of the system you're now seeing about $8/watt installed.)
The incentive programs you see nowadays are graduated. So you get a $3/watt tax break for a year, a $2/watt break for two years, a $1 a watt for four years, then nothing. That's a good price breakdown as an incentive, since as the larger market spurs competition and reduces prices, the incentive drops off.
>I'd rather see government limit the involvement to providing calculators
>on-line to people that let them understand the time it takes for these to
>pay themselves off.
Why? Private websites already do that.
http://findsolar.com/
>This is, essentially, your 3rd point (give solar providers a million buck$)
>that you said was 'bad', but worse, they aren't motivated to use the
>extra $$$ for product improvement
Exactly. Giving them a million bucks gives them zero incentive to streamline their process. Increasing demand via tax breaks (to consumers, not the companies themselves) gives them a tremendous incentive to modernize. After all, no one wants to invest in an uncertain market - but if a market is guaranteed (partly through tax incentives) you will see that investment.
I was at Solar Expo 2007 in Long Beach recently, and the amount of investment that has been spurred by the Germany and Japan incentives has been staggering. Evergreen Solar has spent tens of millions on new ribbon-extrusion ovens because they know they will recoup their investment. So in the crucible of the real world, the incentives are working.
rehmwa 2
this type of thing actually favors money transfer from poor (that can't afford them even with a credit) to the affluent
that's all government does
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
billvon 2,400
>group (non-solar users) and transferring it to another group (solar users)
Well, everyone pays taxes, so everyone is supporting this.
At a more abstract level, yes, it's moving money around. Schoolkids get money from non-schoolkids. Military types get money from non military types. Road users get money from non road users. Convicted criminals get money from non-criminals. Pilots get money from non-pilots. Skydivers get money from non-skydivers. Solar-subsidy installers get money from non-solar-subsidy installers.
The hot tip is to make good decisions so such transfers get you what you want.
I agree that's a risky way to plan, but sometimes it pays to place a tough goal ahead in order to foster progress in that direction. What I think needs to happen is a greater investment in the scientific research which can lead to more breakthroughs in energy production, storage and distribution.
We're getting there, I think that by the time the petroleum situation becomes really dire, a network of working alternatives will be in place.
D S #3.1415
Quote
so you kinda make my point - perhaps it's in our better interests to get out of it more than 'in' it more - good opinions both ways, I'm just on the out of it more side. Or at least it's more intuitive to me so when there's a debate my Devil's advocate tendencies take me to that POV
Actually, I don't want to get "in it" more, I prefer a lateral move, as in transferring the massive subsidies that we give the petroleum and war industries and using it for alternative energy R&D. And when Big Solar starts posting record profits for any company ever in world history, we yank them too.
QuoteWe could stop meddling in other nations AND not further meddle in business issues.
Sometimes businesses need regulation so they don't do things like buy jobs for politicians and write the legislation for them, poison the planet and its inhabitants for profit, elevate shareholder concerns over child health (even if "Bag-O-Glass" IS the coolest present a child could want), or monopolize the market and force people to use an inferior operating system.
rehmwa 2
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Quoteyou guys are still writing in the 0% vs 100% mode (even after Billvon pretended to acknowledge the tradeoff/extent point - though as if he brought it up first), and, the parts 'in reply to' don't really match up to the actual 'replies' so well either, so I'll just sit back and read and stop trying to dialogue and just take the lecturing from y'all.
Sorry, didn't mean to give you the 0% vs 100% impression. You should know by now that I'm a gray thinker in an often "black and white", "with us or against us" SC. Admittedly, I do get impatient sometimes and put my foot down, campaign financing being one example. Sort of an "If you break it I'm going to have to take it away from you. Go sit in timeout" kinda thing.
So keep the dialog going if you feel so inclined. If no one responds to a post then I'm likely to think that either I've made a good point or that I'm so far off in la la land that even a Bush apologist won't throw a "crazy" emoticon at me. Most likely though, it's somewhere in between.
billvon 2,400
>point - though as if he brought it up first
The whole NcClimber/Kallend distortion thing doesn't suit you.
Nothing about this discussion works if you are thinking in 0%/100% terms. Ethanol will never replace 100% of our fuel needs. The government will not be effective if they try to legislate behavior to solve our energy problems. What we're talking about is what steps we can take that _use_ the free market to do the hard work of introducing alternatives. Some (the 1970's solar thermal rebates) were disasters. Some (the recent PV tax breaks, the California PZEV requirements) have worked pretty well. That's what we should be learning from.
I am quoting examples to show that government "interference" is indeed sometimes a good thing when it comes to planning for the future.
>It's not a go/nogo thing like you want to argue - it's a matter of extent.
Actually that IS my point. The free market works great within certain limits. The government is good at setting those limits, and encouraging development in the right direction. You need the right degree of both.
For example:
No energy regulation at all - bad
Law saying "you must put solar panels on your roof or we will arrest you" - bad
Law giving solar providers a million bucks a piece - bad
Tax break for people who want to install solar systems - good
>take your choice - I'd like to avoid the abuses/shortsightedness we've
>seen in the past when we "let the government take care of it"
It's not black and white. There have been abuses with the free market. There have been abuses of government oversight. There is a happy medium where government oversight is not onerous and the free market is given a good degree of freedom - but with the right regulations and incentives in place so profit does not trump planning for the future, public health etc.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites