Post Reply
Page 3 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
2 years ago  ::  Apr 26, 2012 - 9:44AM #21
Bodean
Posts: 9,574

Apr 24, 2012 -- 11:27PM, costrel wrote:


Apr 24, 2012 -- 10:12PM, Bodean wrote:

You are probably right!  I don't ascribe to "doctrine" religion.  I know Jesus, I know God, and have testimony of the greatness of that relationship, but I do not ascribe to regligious doctrine, ... especially the "legalistic" aspects of it all.  I don't mix well with the Calvanists branch of Christiantiy, which includes the Baptists.  I attend the Methodists Church, ... because it allows me to be who I am, focusing more on spirit, and less on "ya gotta do this and ya gotta do that" .. or even worse .. "dont' do this and don't do that".  I most certainly don't ascribe to the "I'm living to go somewhere after I die" .. perspective.  For me, "heaven" is a state, a relationship .. in the NOW .. not later. Thus, the "rapture" is of no intersts to me.  I mean .. why be a hypocrit today, with the hopes that you will be purified tomorrow, when you can strive to live the life of Christs TODAY, and let tomorrow take care of itself.


Thus .. I don't have much concept of the environmental perspectives of people who are watching the skies for something that should be welling up inside of them.


You attend a Methodist church? But your profile states that you are Reconstructionist/ Heathen, which led me to assume (apparently erroneously?) that you are Asatruar.





I don't fall in a religious category!


I don't even remember putting reconstructionists/heathen on my profile ... for that matter .. I don't even remember making a profile.  [that was 12 years ago].  Who knows ... maybe that was what I was studying at the time.


I've studied a LOT of religion and such .. including all the stuff that good Christians are not supposed to study.


Actually ... I was raised Catholic.  Thus .. I guess I'm still Catholic .. but I don't follow Catholic "doctrine".

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 26, 2012 - 10:08AM #22
Jasr
Posts: 11,776

Apr 20, 2012 -- 11:35AM, Bodean wrote:


There will be no demand as long as the technology is so expensive that the "average joe" can't afford it, ... and it actually improve their lives.  I mean ... let's face it ... this "theological" concern for the environment on the part of Greens is not enough to intice people to jump in.  You want them to jump in?? ..you have to show them a real benefit.


People are jumping in on the "tech gadgets", because they allow them better communication, and faster access, which in the long run, saves them money and makes life more convenient.  OTOH ... when a device like Solar Panels, can't even pay for itself over it's life time, people just can't get excited about it ... and that is independent of whether or not Jesus is comming back tomorrow.


AND .. the government giving billions to corporate interests for factories and farms, etc, are doomed to failure, because the people don't want them.  Ya gots to focus on making them wanting them.  Ya gots to balance the cost with the benefit.  Shucking out $30-40K for the benefit of some hippies out in California all worshipping Gaia doesn't qualify as a benefit to the consummer.


Simply put, to stimulate demand, you are going to have to beat the average $12K per decade they are paying for electricity today.  Make it such that Solar System cost the consumer $10K, thus saving them $2K in a 10 year period, and major benefit over the next 20 years, they will begin to jump on board.  That's just a 66% tax credit for the average total cost of $30K, over 10 years.





This is a great analysis of the problem.


I think the only way for solar to make economic sense to the consumer is if the consumer can use it to supplement conventional power...and sell his power to the utility when he is not using it. This requires enlisting utility companies, by enticement or regulation.


And I also think midsize consumers like big-box stores would offer an excellent return on investment if they were incented...in much the same way...to use their parking lots and roofs to install solar panels. They could still be parking lots of course; they would just have panels erected overtop.


Recently in Burlington Vermont I saw an assisted living facility affiliated with the Episcopal church with an enormous south-facing solar array erected on its roof. The facility in erected on a bluff next to a steep drop to Lake Champlain, so it is unlikely it will ever have to contend with a taller building that would block access to the sun. The panels face south and slightly to the west.


When I tried to google it I came up with this: a Burlington grocery store that is also using its rooftop to generate some power.


Burlington is remarkable for its tiered approach to electricity generation. Its power plant burns forestry waste as its main power source, supplements it with gas, and apparently incents business and not for profit consumers to add solar to the mix.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 26, 2012 - 10:29AM #23
teilhard
Posts: 51,372

Yes ... Finally Economies of Scale will drive down the Costs and Prices of Alternative Energy Technologies ...


Apr 26, 2012 -- 10:08AM, Jasr wrote:


Apr 20, 2012 -- 11:35AM, Bodean wrote:


There will be no demand as long as the technology is so expensive that the "average joe" can't afford it, ... and it actually improve their lives.  I mean ... let's face it ... this "theological" concern for the environment on the part of Greens is not enough to intice people to jump in.  You want them to jump in?? ..you have to show them a real benefit.


People are jumping in on the "tech gadgets", because they allow them better communication, and faster access, which in the long run, saves them money and makes life more convenient.  OTOH ... when a device like Solar Panels, can't even pay for itself over it's life time, people just can't get excited about it ... and that is independent of whether or not Jesus is comming back tomorrow.


AND .. the government giving billions to corporate interests for factories and farms, etc, are doomed to failure, because the people don't want them.  Ya gots to focus on making them wanting them.  Ya gots to balance the cost with the benefit.  Shucking out $30-40K for the benefit of some hippies out in California all worshipping Gaia doesn't qualify as a benefit to the consummer.


Simply put, to stimulate demand, you are going to have to beat the average $12K per decade they are paying for electricity today.  Make it such that Solar System cost the consumer $10K, thus saving them $2K in a 10 year period, and major benefit over the next 20 years, they will begin to jump on board.  That's just a 66% tax credit for the average total cost of $30K, over 10 years.





This is a great analysis of the problem.


I think the only way for solar to make economic sense to the consumer is if the consumer can use it to supplement conventional power...and sell his power to the utility when he is not using it. This requires enlisting utility companies, by enticement or regulation.


And I also think midsize consumers like big-box stores would offer an excellent return on investment if they were incented...in much the same way...to use their parking lots and roofs to install solar panels. They could still be parking lots of course; they would just have panels erected overtop.


Recently in Burlington Vermont I saw an assisted living facility affiliated with the Episcopal church with an enormous south-facing solar array erected on its roof. The facility in erected on a bluff next to a steep drop to Lake Champlain, so it is unlikely it will ever have to contend with a taller building that would block access to the sun. The panels face south and slightly to the west.


When I tried to google it I came up with this: a Burlington grocery store that is also using its rooftop to generate some power.


Burlington is remarkable for its tiered approach to electricity generation. Its power plant burns forestry waste as its main power source, supplements it with gas, and apparently incents business and not for profit consumers to add solar to the mix.





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 26, 2012 - 10:30AM #24
Bodean
Posts: 9,574

Apr 26, 2012 -- 10:08AM, Jasr wrote:



This is a great analysis of the problem.


I think the only way for solar to make economic sense to the consumer is if the consumer can use it to supplement conventional power...and sell his power to the utility when he is not using it. This requires enlisting utility companies, by enticement or regulation.





And .. that's another issue that gets my goat.


When I looked into panels on the house and the net meter system, turns out that the stinkin government has signed off on allowing Energy Companies to charge more per KW used on people who use solar supplement.  IE> .. corporate protectionism.  That's B.S.


Sound regulation of such an issue is demanded.  The Electic Co., should be mandated to sell it's electicity for a flat rate/kw.  If I decrease my usage from them, I should not be penalized.  I mean .. really .. they don't "buy" your electricity from you.  All you can hope for is a net ZERO balance.  But they have the meters rigged such that they "buy"your electicity at about 50% of what they charge you.  Further, as I mentioned, they make it such that if you have the net meter, you pay MORE per kw, than the average conventional system.


That's just wrong.  That's your Government at work!

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 26, 2012 - 10:41AM #25
catboxer
Posts: 14,012

Good analysis, Bodean.


And yes, that's our corporate-influenced government at work.


One for you, one or me, and one for good old PG&E.

Adepto vestri stercore simul.ttr
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 26, 2012 - 10:49AM #26
teilhard
Posts: 51,372

Electrical Power Companies operate and are regulated as Public Utilities, so obviously Price Adjustments are meant to give a Net Benefit (mostly) to The Company to ensure a reliable SUPPLY of Power TO The Public ...


Apr 26, 2012 -- 10:30AM, Bodean wrote:


Apr 26, 2012 -- 10:08AM, Jasr wrote:



This is a great analysis of the problem.


I think the only way for solar to make economic sense to the consumer is if the consumer can use it to supplement conventional power...and sell his power to the utility when he is not using it. This requires enlisting utility companies, by enticement or regulation.





And .. that's another issue that gets my goat.


When I looked into panels on the house and the net meter system, turns out that the stinkin government has signed off on allowing Energy Companies to charge more per KW used on people who use solar supplement.  IE> .. corporate protectionism.  That's B.S.


Sound regulation of such an issue is demanded.  The Electic Co., should be mandated to sell it's electicity for a flat rate/kw.  If I decrease my usage from them, I should not be penalized.  I mean .. really .. they don't "buy" your electricity from you.  All you can hope for is a net ZERO balance.  But they have the meters rigged such that they "buy"your electicity at about 50% of what they charge you.  Further, as I mentioned, they make it such that if you have the net meter, you pay MORE per kw, than the average conventional system.


That's just wrong.  That's your Government at work!





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 26, 2012 - 11:34PM #27
paeng
Posts: 557

The problem for the U.S. is not just transitioning but overspending on all levels. It has less than 5 pct of the world's population but has to consume up to 25 pct of world oil production to maintain middle class lifestyles. Given the need for other resources and an energy trap, no amount of alternative sources of energy will be able to meet such demand. It gets worse with a growing global middle class and the present middle class requiring the former in order to pay for its own lifestyle.


Also, that demand has been fueled by increasing levels of debt across the board for the past three decades, leading to the current recession. One solution, which is to add more debt with more tax credits, is what had been taking place during those decades.


Why was more money lent to car companies, etc? Because the middle class wants cars. For the U.S., something like 250 million, larger than its adult population.


What about factories? Around 70 pct work in the service industry because that's where the money is. How else can one get higher wages to get more easy credit to buy cars and other consumer goods, all part of a middle class lifestyle? Why else was manufacturing (together with pollution) outsourced?


Given that, one must give up the illusion of "free money" leading to technofixes because those will not solve the predicament of a resource crunch coupled with increasing resource demand as part of a global capitalist system.



Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 9:18AM #28
Bodean
Posts: 9,574

Apr 26, 2012 -- 11:34PM, paeng wrote:


Also, that demand has been fueled by increasing levels of debt across the board for the past three decades, leading to the current recession. One solution, which is to add more debt with more tax credits, is what had been taking place during those decades.


 





There's another side of that equation that you ignore. ... it's called social spending.


By far, the overwhelming amount of spending is tied up in wealth redistribution and spending that goes directly to people, and the administration cost.


Spending is what drives debt ... not receipts.  In the last two recessions, if you go to the Federal Budget Historical Tables, the deficit spending was the result of an ever increasing spending template coupled with a decrease in tax receipts directly correlated to a decrease in econommic activity.  I.E., our government did not make the necessary adjustments in spending to account for the decreases in tax receipts.


It goes down to what you can control, and what you cannot.  No government can control the reciepts, because they are dependent on the chaotic economy.  But .. every government has direct control of spending.


As for transitioning to alternative fuels, I will hold my position that the Government is going about it all wrong.  They are focusing on trying to ram Alternative Fuels down the publics throats, when the better tac would be to create the demand for such, and let the Venture Capitalists take care of bringing those techs to market.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 9:27AM #29
TENAC
Posts: 26,536

Apr 27, 2012 -- 9:18AM, Bodean wrote:


Apr 26, 2012 -- 11:34PM, paeng wrote:


Also, that demand has been fueled by increasing levels of debt across the board for the past three decades, leading to the current recession. One solution, which is to add more debt with more tax credits, is what had been taking place during those decades.


 





There's another side of that equation that you ignore. ... it's called social spending.


By far, the overwhelming amount of spending is tied up in wealth redistribution and spending that goes directly to people, and the administration cost.


Spending is what drives debt ... not receipts.  In the last two recessions, if you go to the Federal Budget Historical Tables, the deficit spending was the result of an ever increasing spending template coupled with a decrease in tax receipts directly correlated to a decrease in econommic activity.  I.E., our government did not make the necessary adjustments in spending to account for the decreases in tax receipts.


It goes down to what you can control, and what you cannot.  No government can control the reciepts, because they are dependent on the chaotic economy.  But .. every government has direct control of spending.


As for transitioning to alternative fuels, I will hold my position that the Government is going about it all wrong.  They are focusing on trying to ram Alternative Fuels down the publics throats, when the better tac would be to create the demand for such, and let the Venture Capitalists take care of bringing those techs to market.




THAT is the most incredible statement repeated by the left.  And seems to never be challenged.


When talk about demand that leads to debt, the only possible, logical reasoning has to be either new government programs or an increase is the size of existing programs.  That is the only way that can happen. This is Krugman economics.


In a normal captial economy, the demand would be met were it profitable or the business would cease to exist if it were not.


I give you Solyndra et al.



Geeez, could someone on the left please tell me they understand that.

Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 9:36AM #30
Bodean
Posts: 9,574

Apr 27, 2012 -- 9:27AM, TENAC wrote:


Apr 27, 2012 -- 9:18AM, Bodean wrote:


Apr 26, 2012 -- 11:34PM, paeng wrote:


Also, that demand has been fueled by increasing levels of debt across the board for the past three decades, leading to the current recession. One solution, which is to add more debt with more tax credits, is what had been taking place during those decades.


 





There's another side of that equation that you ignore. ... it's called social spending.


By far, the overwhelming amount of spending is tied up in wealth redistribution and spending that goes directly to people, and the administration cost.


Spending is what drives debt ... not receipts.  In the last two recessions, if you go to the Federal Budget Historical Tables, the deficit spending was the result of an ever increasing spending template coupled with a decrease in tax receipts directly correlated to a decrease in econommic activity.  I.E., our government did not make the necessary adjustments in spending to account for the decreases in tax receipts.


It goes down to what you can control, and what you cannot.  No government can control the reciepts, because they are dependent on the chaotic economy.  But .. every government has direct control of spending.


As for transitioning to alternative fuels, I will hold my position that the Government is going about it all wrong.  They are focusing on trying to ram Alternative Fuels down the publics throats, when the better tac would be to create the demand for such, and let the Venture Capitalists take care of bringing those techs to market.




THAT is the most incredible statement repeated by the left.  And seems to never be challenged.





TENAC .. in a way, it is correct.  The Government borrows Trillions of dollars, to hand out to people through social spending, so they can buy crap they don't need.


It operates on a personal level as well.  People will take out a home equity loan, so they can buy a whole bunch of crap they don't need.


You'll note two commonalities ... Debt .. and ... "buying crap you don't need".


Unlike in the old days, you took out debt to buy a car, a house, or other large ticket item that you could not just pay out of pocket.  Today .. people take out debt to put on an appearance of affluence they don't have, and buy TVs, Lawnmowers, vacations, pools, ... and all kinds of items that used to be considered "luxury".  My push mower does just fine .. yet my neighbor, who makes less than me, and has more debt than me, goes and buys a high dollar John Deer rider.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook