0
Erroll

Buying biofuel for your car could be more devastating to the planet than traditional fossil fuels.

Recommended Posts

[reply
>>and let's not make any assumptions about a technology that does't commercially exist yet.

So by your logic it does not yet pay to even bother to explore the alternatives.But isn't it curious that OIL companies such as BP, and Chevron are investing in alternative energy technologies, Are they doing it for PR?, I don't think so, they are doing it because they are expert in the fact that petroleum is a finite resource and they they know it will be prohibitively expensive to continue to produce in the near future.



by my logic we absolutely should be experimenting with new technologies like cellulosic ethanol. let's just not plan our futur on things that are still highly experimental. it's like saying that in the year 2030 60% of our energy will come from cold fusion.
"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>you quote some legitmate examples and attempt to say it applies to everything else.

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
So we agree in principal, now it's just a matter of drawing the line.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>disagreed - supplementing the price of solar panels via taxpayer
>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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
however you look at it, the net balance is moving money from one group (non-solar users) and transferring it to another group (solar users)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> however you look at it, the net balance is moving money from one
>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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>>let's just not plan our futur on things that are still highly experimental.

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.
Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


Quote

We 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you 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.

...
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

you 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>even after Billvon pretended to acknowledge the tradeoff/extent
>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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0