Mt Whitney Webcam
Mt Williamson Webcam
Feature Topics
Who's Online
0 registered (), 13 Guests and 12 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
3561 Members
10 Forums
5461 Topics
50157 Posts

Max Online: 382 @ 11/07/12 05:45 AM
Page 4 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >
Topic Options
#34921 - 01/15/14 02:20 PM Re: Solar Energy [Re: Steve C]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1130
Loc: NorCal
Originally Posted By: Steve C
SN, you sound like one of those stinkin' environmentalists.   smile

Not really, I just have kids and I'm quite sure the earth is round and our atmosphere doesn't extend to the Milky Way.

Top
#34922 - 01/15/14 05:20 PM Re: Solar Energy [Re: SierraNevada]
wbtravis Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1251
Loc: Corner of Jack Benny and Roche...
SN,

What did I say was incorrect? There is a commodity market place, you can buy unleaded gasoline at ~$2.67/gallon. If there is more supply than demand the price goes down, more demand than supply it goes up. There are bad actors everywhere, if I remember correctly, there was this guy who said if like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

Again, what does this have to do with power generation? Oil produces 1% of electrical power...more reliably than either wind or solar.

Top
#34923 - 01/15/14 05:31 PM Re: Solar Energy [Re: Steve C]
wbtravis Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1251
Loc: Corner of Jack Benny and Roche...
Steve,

The question you refuse to answer is who do you want to guard the sea lanes? A tangential question...who else is capable?

What Huntsman says is not relevant. Hmmm...if this bothers him so much why don't write a check to Uncle whenever the family ships loads of resins around the world. The sea lane thingy isn't just oil.

Top
#34924 - 01/15/14 05:44 PM Re: Solar Energy [Re: KevinR]
wbtravis Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1251
Loc: Corner of Jack Benny and Roche...
Originally Posted By: KevinR


Interesting graphic. Our generation is small in comparison to Germany, Italy and Spain.


Why are carbon emissions up in Germany? Why are they going back to lignite?

Turn out the lights, the party is over. At least in Germany, in early December.

Ever wonder why the 8th Air Force could only fly a few days a month before they went to radar bombing towards the end of the war.

Lot'sa extra Euros for something that doesn't work all that swell.

http://tinyurl.com/pvh49ac

Then there is the Europe's appetite for cheap power.

http://tinyurl.com/kokh26j

China and India...wants it cheap, too.

http://tinyurl.com/lpu6ef5

If you can get behind the WSJ pay wall.

Where will all the power intensive industries go and their jobs with them? Hmmm?


Edited by wbtravis (01/15/14 06:19 PM)

Top
#34925 - 01/15/14 06:18 PM Re: Solar Energy [Re: Bee]
wbtravis Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1251
Loc: Corner of Jack Benny and Roche...
Bee,

Item #1...where did I say that. We will do diligence but if they are the low cost provider, that where people who need cheap power will go. Defeating your carbon emissions reduction because China and India do not have our regulations.

Item #2...We don't buy that much oil there to begin with. How is putting up a slew of solar panels going to foreign reduce oil consumption. If you think this is going to take money out of hand of the Mullahs in Iran...you are mistaken.

Item #3...Really, can you prove there isn't an infinite supply? Or a supply that gets us to the next thing? Pricing indicates this commodity is anything but rare. Science keeps find more ways to maximize supply. Again, this discussion is about the subsidization of renewables.

Items #4...the refining of oil, the making of paper and chemical production are not buggy whip jobs. They are generally high paying jobs but new plants will be built where power is cheap, not where it is expensive.

As you might know the left tells us we should be paying more taxes. Hollywood is about as left as they come but when it comes to paying their fair share they refuse. They take their productions to places that give them incentives...tax breaks (lower costs), so that they might make more money. This is what will happen whenever there is an incentive...cheap power is that incentive to power intensive industry.

Coal plants elsewhere in the world are the unintended consequence of renewables because people want cheap power.

Top
#34927 - 01/15/14 06:54 PM Re: Solar Energy [Re: wbtravis]
Bee Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1261
Loc: Northern California
Bee,

Item #1...where did I say that. We will do diligence but if they are the low cost provider, that where people who need cheap power will go. Defeating your carbon emissions reduction because China and India do not have our regulations.

I should not have used quotations (not sure how to express an interpretation of a quote). I was attempting to display how I was interpreting the quote. If the solar power is available HERE, it would seem that it would become cheaper for the power generators to obtain this source of power generation VS purchasing overseas. Yes, start-up is more expensive than existing infrastructure, however, all innovations begin this way.

Item #2...We don't buy that much oil there to begin with. How is putting up a slew of solar panels going to foreign reduce oil consumption. If you think this is going to take money out of hand of the Mullahs in Iran...you are mistaken.

(chuckle) No, +-US money does not effect the flow of $$$ to the mullahs (I lived in the Middle East -- I know how that all works)Investing/building 'putting up a slew of solar panels' (as you put it) is an investment in cleaner air, water, & insures an infinite supply of energy.

Item #3...Really, can you prove there isn't an infinite supply? Or a supply that gets us to the next thing? Pricing indicates this commodity is anything but rare. Science keeps find more ways to maximize supply. Again, this discussion is about the subsidization of renewables.

"Or a supply that gets us to the next thing" (intentional quote) Conventional drilling/pumping method had run dry in many of the oil fields of the US, so that fracking became 'the next thing'. So what comes after fracking? Should we not be working on 'the next thing'?

Items #4...the refining of oil, the making of paper and chemical production are not buggy whip jobs. They are generally high paying jobs but new plants will be built where power is cheap, not where it is expensive.

The guy who owned the shop that made buggy whips may have begged to differ in his day. I guess we should have put off the car to save those jobs. Hybrids like the Volt & Prius were laughed out of the boardrooms for a long time and they were initially expensive. Based on the sales records only after a year the Prius was on the market definitely proves that people ARE willing to make a hefty investment for overall returns.

As you might know the left tells us we should be paying more taxes. Hollywood is about as left as they come but when it comes to paying their fair share they refuse. They take their productions to places that give them incentives...tax breaks (lower costs), so that they might make more money. This is what will happen whenever there is an incentive...cheap power is that incentive to power intensive industry.

Not sure of the relevence here, hopefully someone else will take this one up

Coal plants elsewhere in the world are the unintended consequence of renewables because people want cheap power.

I don't follow the logic with this one, either. Solar power -- like the hybrid vehicles- will be more expensive initially, however, as it is streamlined -- like the hybrid vehicles -- it will become cheaper.
_________________________
The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

Top
#34929 - 01/15/14 09:17 PM Re: Solar Energy [Re: Bee]
hiiker Offline


Registered: 03/02/10
Posts: 8
Loc: SoCal
And the US EPA is in bed with the greens. So put that in your pipe and smoke it. Enough said.

http://freebeacon.com/emails-show-extensive-collaboration-between-epa-environmentalist-orgs/

Top
#34930 - 01/15/14 09:28 PM Re: Solar Energy [Re: wbtravis]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1130
Loc: NorCal
Originally Posted By: wbtravis
SN,
What did I say was incorrect?

I give up, what did I say that you said was incorrect? In reading your latest blast of posts to Steve, Bee and myself, I don't know where to start.

1. Commodity price of oil.
2. Lecture on Supply and Demand 101.
3. Obama claiming you can keep your doctor.
4. Oil produces 1% of electricity (repeat)
5. Accusing Steve of dodging a question about who's guarding sea lanes (don't recall Steve being asked that question).
6. Something about writing a check to Uncle (Sam?) whenever family (who's family) ships loads of resins around the world.
7. Strange accusations about Germany because they had a week of foggy weather in December with low solar and wind production.
8. Rambling about 8th Air Force could only fly a few days a month before they went to radar bombing towards the end of the war.
9. List of items for Bee to address from China to India to Mullah's in Iran, paper and chemical production, Hollywood liberals, and the grand finale:

Renewable energy causes more coal plants to be built.

Did I miss anything? Excuse me, I would love to debate the benefits of solar energy, but I don't know which topic to pursue.




Edited by SierraNevada (01/15/14 09:54 PM)

Top
#34931 - 01/15/14 09:52 PM Re: Solar Energy [Re: hiiker]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1130
Loc: NorCal
Originally Posted By: hiiker
And the US EPA is in bed with the greens. So put that in your pipe and smoke it. Enough said.

http://freebeacon.com/emails-show-extensive-collaboration-between-epa-environmentalist-orgs/

I read the article end to end. Not much of a smoking gun there, mostly angry interpretation of a couple quotes without context. I guess it doesn't matter that it was investigated by an Inspector General who found EPA’s actions “conformed to agency guidelines, regulations and policy.”

This article fits the stated agenda of the Freebeacon perfectly:

Whether it’s exposing cronyism, dissecting the relationship between the progressive movement and the mainstream media, finding out just who is shaping our domestic and foreign policy and why, or highlighting the threats to American security and peace in a dangerous world, the Free Beacon is committed to serving the public interest by reporting news and information that currently is not being fully covered by other news organizations.

Yeah, I bet you won't see this story get much professional attention outside of Kansas.


Edited by SierraNevada (01/15/14 09:52 PM)

Top
#34935 - 01/16/14 06:15 AM Re: Solar Energy [Re: SierraNevada]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1130
Loc: NorCal
To get back on topic, here are a couple interesting recent breakthroughs in solar energy research:

Cambridge U. potential to double PV power output

Univ of North Carolina - Hydrogen Storage of Solar Energy

This seems a lot more exciting high tech science than fracking - which is basically injecting chemical solutions into bedrocks and aquifers. I guess it depends on how you feel about science.

Top
#34937 - 01/17/14 09:50 AM Re: Solar Energy [Re: SierraNevada]
wbtravis Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1251
Loc: Corner of Jack Benny and Roche...
SN,

1. Where did I provide the price oil. Hint: I never have. I have talked about the price of unleaded gasoline. This price is available on the internet just like APPL, IBM, HAL, HQH, PAA, ETP and CSCO.

2. Tell me how supply and demand works...I always thought when demand goes up with constant supply, price goes with it. Tell me where I am wrong.

3. Obama not only did that but did it many times. A lot of those times he did so with a , period. This is public record.

4. Oil produces one percent of power productions...I thought it was 2% until I was an Exxon commercial last week. Care to offer a link that states other wise. I got the 2% on Wikipedia.

5. Steve offered up a Amb. John Huntsman quote which states the price of gasoline would be if we were protecting supply...oil travels on the ocean in tankers. However, we do not protect just oil, we protect those Nikes, laptops and iPhones...just saying. Care to answer if not us whom question?

6. See #5

7. I offered up links on that one...sorry you did not read them. Northwest Europe has horrible weather...it is documented. Read about the 8th Air Force or Operation Watch on the Rhine. 95% of electricity produced in Germany was non-renewable because solar and wind were idle because of no sun and wind.

8. See #7. The weather in northwest Europe is historically bad, especially in winter.

9. Let's see, if someone needs cheap energy and there isn't any where they are, someone will build it where there is some. China and India are building it. Germany is building it. When Dow Chemical needs a plant to they will not build it where energy and regulation costs are high. Supply and demand at work. They will do it where emission regulations are not stringent as ours. I have a customer who use to be the post child for SCAQMD...they took people to see their fiberglass gel coat operation. AQMD came in one day tried fine them, they had exceed their daily quota a few days but were well within their yearly quota. Long story, short, most of their operation is now in Mexico, where they are using chemical long banned in California to make better products than they could make in California...Adidos a couple hundred jobs. Businesses will do what is best for their business be it Dow Chemical, the Weinstein Bros. or the small Fiberglass shop. I don't know what the buggy whip company will do.

Again, I have no problem with solar energy when it is competitive with others types.

BTW, what is going to happen to those plants in Germany when the population declines to 60 million mid century and there is one worker for one benefit recipient? Sometime before that the subsidy will go away and these plants will have to compete with lignite. The welfare state depends on expanding populations for handing out the goodies to their friends.

Hmmm...and from one of the PIGS...http://tinyurl.com/qgw7j62
See the next to the last paragraph.

Top
#34938 - 01/17/14 10:13 AM Re: Solar Energy [Re: Bee]
wbtravis Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1251
Loc: Corner of Jack Benny and Roche...
Bee,

1. Innovation is not driven by government. It is by individuals HP and APPL were started in garages.

2. Solar provides an irregular expense from of energy. See Germany this past December. Again, I do not have a problem with solar. I'd just like to see the proponents pay more for their power rather than the many who can least afford it.

3. I've got no problem working on the next thing and for it to be there when science finally fails the oil industry. Right now, we are awash in NG and coal. At current oil prices coal hydrogenation should be economically feasible, I read an article about 4 or 5 years ago as it being a way to lower jet fuel prices when oil was above $42/bl.

4. How much would a Volt without the subsidy? I know I would not pay what they would have to ask, if the car came to market a true cost plus Gross Trading Margin. Especially in if I drove in Minnesota in winter where electrical range is about 40 miles. I've zero problems with any energy efficient vehicle that is not subsidized...let it compete with clean diesel technologies out there...see VW, Mercedes and BMW. It the iterim...high paying jobs will leave California and the United States to places with lower regulation and lower energy costs. I am seeing that already in my industry...more imports, less domestic product...I see a basic commodity, whose specialty products were once almost 100% domestic.

Not listed as 5. The Hollywood examples shows even people who support taxes...you can substitute solar, will go where they need to go to get around regulation, taxes to reduce cost of goods and increase net profits. If they leave Solar Land for Lignite Land and Lignite Land isn't as stringent with regulations, what have you gained? Cleaner air? Cleaner water? No, you have lost jobs. Carbon emissions know no border.


Edited by wbtravis (01/17/14 10:35 AM)

Top
#34939 - 01/17/14 10:40 AM Re: Solar Energy [Re: wbtravis]
KevinR Offline


Registered: 11/03/09
Posts: 591
Loc: Manchester, NH
Originally Posted By: wbtravis
Bee,

1. Innovation is not driven by government. It is by individuals HP and APPL were started in garages.


More bs as usual. "...eight of the 10 most popular drugs produced by one of America's largest pharmaceutical companies were developed at the National Institutes of Health, which is a huge taxpayer-funded research complex. Most of today's anti-cancer drugs also have come courtesy of the National Institutes of Health."

Countless examples abound of government funded innovation. Try the Internet (DARPA) and CERN for starters. Without them, the web and the software standards driving this BB wouldn't exist. The list is endless.

Top
#34940 - 01/17/14 11:28 AM Re: Solar Energy [Re: KevinR]
Steve C Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 7527
Loc: Fresno, CA
> Countless examples abound of government funded innovation.

Add to that nuclear power. ...only Thorium reactor research funding was killed -- because it didn't produce byproducts for nuclear weapons. I am sure the congressman who killed it would also support the "If not us then who?" questions.

And to answer that question: The rest of the freakin' world! Let them step up and police the commerce. Create a void, and someone will fill it.

Top
#34941 - 01/17/14 07:57 PM Re: Solar Energy [Re: Steve C]
Bee Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1261
Loc: Northern California
Chiming in with Kevin and Steve:


"At the end of World War II, the NAS (National Academy of Sciences) began to advocate better research and development of prosthetics. Through government funding, a research and development program was developed within the Army, Navy, Air Force, and the Veterans Administration" Source


Okay, enough for me -- this reminds me too much of trying to reason with my 5-year-old nephew: I talk till I'm blue in the face, and he repeats the same nonsense over again.
_________________________
The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

Top
#34942 - 01/18/14 09:54 AM Re: Solar Energy [Re: wbtravis]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1130
Loc: NorCal
WBT, I think we hit both sides of most of the 9 item list. As Bee wrote, this could go on forever. Good time to let it rest.

I'm glad you have no problem with solar energy. At least we agree on that, if not on how best to move forward in a complex and strongly divided political world.

Top
#34946 - 01/19/14 10:39 AM Re: Solar Energy [Re: KevinR]
wbtravis Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1251
Loc: Corner of Jack Benny and Roche...
So, most innovation is by government, really. Who held the patent on teflon, nylon and kapton? Who developed ways to put adhesive on teflon. Post-it notes came from where. The list is endless.

Who commercializes it? The government...hmmm...what is that Soviet product you just had to have?

I realize there is a need for government in development of certain things. Power generation is not one of them. It seems to me if renewables were feasible the venture capitalists would be all over it...but they are not. The ones that are there are there because of government money.

It seems you all have no problems with high paying jobs leaving California and United States for places who will provide inexpensive power. Have you check the labor participation rate recently.

Now Kevin, first one to profanity loses.


Edited by wbtravis (01/19/14 10:45 AM)

Top
#34949 - 01/19/14 12:27 PM Re: Solar Energy [Re: wbtravis]
Steve C Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 7527
Loc: Fresno, CA
> So, most innovation is by government, really.

Earlier you were completely dismissing any innovation by government, and saying there should be no financial participation or help from the government. So you got a load of examples to the contrary. I think we can all agree that innovation and research can come from anywhere.

But the problem lies in the fact that exploiting the cheapest and easiest source of energy -- oil, coal (and that lignite) -- is shortsighted. I was debating with someone over the same issue, and he finally came out and wrote: "I don't care about the future, because I'll be gone."

The big problem IS that I care about the future. --for my grandchildren and theirs. And everyone else's grandchildren, too. That is why it is important to work TODAY to improve the methods and use of renewable energy instead of fossil fuel.

The government helping with solar power research, even subsidies for solar power (and electric vehicles too), is a very good use of tax money, in my opinion. It enables companies to compete with those cheaper (currently more available) energy sources, and along the way, further research and technology, so that in the future, moving toward ever-heavier use of renewables will not be as painful and cost so much.

Top
#34950 - 01/19/14 12:41 PM Re: Solar Energy [Re: wbtravis]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1130
Loc: NorCal
Originally Posted By: wbtravis
I realize there is a need for government in development of certain things. Power generation is not one of them. It seems to me if renewables were feasible the venture capitalists would be all over it...but they are not. The ones that are there are there because of government money.

Believe it or not, life is not all about immediate profit. This might be hard to accept, but societies and governments sometimes make decisions that are good for the next generation and beyond. One of the ways this is done is to help jump start new technologies that promise to improve society, such as clean renewable energy. This is done through research and policy. The direction that we take is mostly determined by who we elect. Elections have consequences. Americans didn't vote for "drill baby drill" in 2008 or 2012. Maybe next time.

Top
#34956 - 01/20/14 09:27 AM Re: Solar Energy [Re: Steve C]
wbtravis Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1251
Loc: Corner of Jack Benny and Roche...
I care about the future, Steve. I mentioned the future of Europe and the WZ universe ignored it. So, I pose it again, what happens in most of western Europe in mid-century when their populations are in steep decline and these power plants are in default because they can't meet their nut without the subsidy they are counting on to operate? This means Europeans will have to cost plus for power...with no subsidy. This means their power hungry "buggy whip" jobs are going elsewhere...with their young educate put upon work force. None of this is new, I've been reading about it for more than a decade.

The welfare state cannot operate without expanding populations. All you need to do is read about what is going on in west Europe to see the future of renewables. The only area they have seen a reduction in carbon emissions is air and sea transportation...everything else has seen increase. Energy, manufacturing, agriculture and waste management.

Another topic, is the labor participation rate. How can you pay for these subsidies with less and less people in the work force?

I point out what is going on and what is the future but I not told I wrong but to ignore reality. Like electric cars with ranges of 40 miles in winter are something I should gladly pay $40K...with a government subsidy.

Sorry, this is an economic loser and the primary loser is the future generation. California is the leader in this economic suicide pact...how many airplanes are made here? How many in 1975? How many cars? How many in 1975? How much furniture? How much in 1975? This stuff doesn't happen in a year or two years but in decades.

Top
Page 4 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >