What Cost is Clean Energy Worth?

[The_Penguin]

Have any of you been to Germany lately? What they have accomplished with solar power there is quite amazing.

Honestly? Focused solar energy combined with pumped storage would work wonders. If we were to take into account that if were to turn something as big as Hoover dam (the lake behind it) and take all that solar energy hitting mirrors and turning turbines (which causes then for smaller dams to be refilled during the day), we'd be easily able to cover a huge chunk of our electricity consumption.

Concentrating solar power land use - SourceWatch <--- This one is particularly good.
Solar power plants in the Mojave Desert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unless there is a massive breakthrough in solar cells and you can make them out of the stuff that you easily find around you, they're a waste of money.

Building such a system wouldn't be a bad idea, we haven't had a major civil construction project in this country for decades.

 

[phattonez]

So now we are going to setup a toll booth at every streetcorner? Sometimes being slightly "unfair" is more pratical and thus more fair, that to try to recectify every individual unfairness. I would really rather pay extra for my fuel that to have to deal with a toll booth every time I drive.

Polution is polution, I understand that at a given time polution in a big city may be more concentrated, but in the big scheme of things polution created in the city migrates to the desert and over the ocean, and everywhere else. Even polution created in the desert adds to the concentration of polution in the city. If city dwellers have an issue with the concentration of polution in there area, they are more than welcome to move to the desert.

There is electronic tolling which is very easy to set up. And pollution is most concentrated near the source of the pollution. With time is diffuses evenly everywhere, but pollution is spewed often in cities making average pollution in cities higher than average pollution in deserts.

 

[Orion]

Project the cost of oil, coal and natural gas in 30 years when India and China have truly massive middle classes.

Is the cost of clean energy worth it? Hell Yes.

The current oil shills will be retired or dead in 30 years. They don't really care about thinking that far ahead.

 

[masonkiller]

Project the cost of oil, coal and natural gas in 30 years when India and China have truly massive middle classes.

Is the cost of clean energy worth it? Hell Yes.

Then use it. But don't force people to use it. Implying that clean energy should essentially be forced on us for "the good of the planet" is implying we need some central planning, and politicians can NEVER properly allocate resources. The only thing that can properly decide when clean energy is viable, where it should be used, and what types will be used, is the pricing mechanism. As the price of current energy approaches the price for alternative energy, then people will react accordingly. To attempt to force it upon people is suicide.

Also, nuclear energy is extremely clean, is very cost efficient, and would last us for hundreds of years if the government would just let people start constructing them (again an example of central planners disrupting the pricing mechanism)

 

[obvious Child]

very good point - although I am still inclined top believe (after coming to forums such as this) that the real costs of renewables are also overstated ... this tends to support the resistance to change as much as hiding the real cost of alternatives.

It's probably both. Fossil is understated and renewable is overstated. It's hard to make good comparisons when it's basically impossible to determine the real cost per watt each produces.

Nuclear is often totted as the cheap alternative despite billions of tax dollars flowing to subsidize it every year.

 

[obvious Child]

Then use it.

What makes you think I don't?

But don't force people to use it.

So you're against taking tax dollars to subsidize coal, nuclear, oil and natural gas? After all, they are effectively forcing me to pay for it.

Implying that clean energy should essentially be forced on us for "the good of the planet" is implying we need some central planning, and politicians can NEVER properly allocate resources.

You mean like how nuclear power was effectively a government program forced upon the country?

You mean like how coal, natural gas, and oil all have massive subsidies which effectively force people to use them by pricing out non-heavily subsidized alternatives?

Kid, you need to learn a bit before jumping in the pool.

Furthermore, the notion that the market always allocates resources better is foolhardy. Basically, you are arguing that people buying chia pets provides better economic outcomes then funding NASA. I've had this conversation with brighter people then you and they finally agree that the market does not always allocate in a better fashion for better results. Drop the "always" arguments and you'll save yourself some grief.

The only thing that can properly decide when clean energy is viable, where it should be used, and what types will be used, is the pricing mechanism. As the price of current energy approaches the price for alternative energy, then people will react accordingly.

So how about we drop subsidies for non-alternative? Or drop subsidies for all? I'm not sure Fossil Industry will like that. After all, they are used to the billions upon billions in corporate welfare they get every year. Nuclear will go ape**** since they get subsidies per kilowatt. Non-alternative furthermore doesn't price in pollution. So let's get that cost built in. You're right, pricing is important. So let's get all of the costs into the price rather then compare apples to oranges.

To attempt to force it upon people is suicide.

Coal, Oil, Natural Gas, Nuclear and Hydro say you're wrong.

Also, nuclear energy is extremely clean, is very cost efficient, and would last us for hundreds of years if the government would just let people start constructing them (again an example of central planners disrupting the pricing mechanism)

Too bad it will cost huge amounts on effectively taxpayer loans and requires subsidies to stay competitive.

 

[Barbbtx]

If gasoline were $7/gallon right now, those gas-guzzling SUV's? They'd be parked. Major car manufacturers would be tripping all over themselves to get more-and-more-miles-per-gallon.

If it cost $3 to buy a bottle of water in its plastic container, nobody would buy it. They'd actually, heaven-freakin'-forbid fill a reuseable container with water at HOME. Free.

If it cost $3/day to burn a lightbulb, people would quickly learn to shut off lights/appliances they weren't using.

If Pampers cost $8 each, people would find other ways.

It people were charged $25 per bin of "garbage" and recycling was free, we'd be recycling everything we could.

If dentists charged $2,500 to pull a tooth and $10 to fill a cavity, we'd all be toothless.

Money is the greatest motivator on earth.

The only way to encourage living green is to price living 'otherwise' out of sight. It's the only way to change habits.

Sounds like you would like less freedom and more government control over your life.
Do you really want to be told what you have to drive, what you have to put on your kid's butt, where you have to put that banana peel, where you get your water, what temperature you have to keep your house at, what light bulbs you have to use and how long you can leave them on? Don't say no it's not that way, you'd still have a choice. The thing is many people wouldn't have a choice because yes money is a motivater and some people would no longer be able to live in freedom because people like you forced them into doing what they say is the right thing to do.
I already do everything I can do and can't cut back anymore. Higher energy and gas prices might mean I couldn't afford food. I already recycle what I can. If I had to pay $25 for every bag I couldn't recyle I'd have to give up my internet service. Yikes!
I'm so sick of power hungry liberals, telling Americans how they must live their lives.
Al Gore needs to clean up his own house before he tells others to clean theirs.

 

[Barbbtx]

For auto pollution, it should be the road that pays nearby landowners, and the roads should charge for pollution based on what they have to pay local landowners. Of course, that would be if deals had been made before the roads were built. As we're stuck with what we have, I'd say try to get an estimate on how much damage it causes and charge based on that. Once that's done, try to phase in a program whereby polluters would have to strike deals with nearby landowners before polluting so that they can pay for and have a limit on the amount of pollution they create. This is the only right way, but it can only be done with new buildings. Everything else just has to be estimated.

Auto pollution hurts landowners? Sorry please explain.

 

[MaggieD]

Sounds like you would like less freedom and more government control over your life.
Do you really want to be told what you have to drive, what you have to put on your kid's butt, where you have to put that banana peel, where you get your water, what temperature you have to keep your house at, what light bulbs you have to use and how long you can leave them on? Don't say no it's not that way, you'd still have a choice. The thing is many people wouldn't have a choice because yes money is a motivater and some people would no longer be able to live in freedom because people like you forced them into doing what they say is the right thing to do.
I already do everything I can do and can't cut back anymore. Higher energy and gas prices might mean I couldn't afford food. I already recycle what I can. If I had to pay $25 for every bag I couldn't recyle I'd have to give up my internet service. Yikes!
I'm so sick of power hungry liberals, telling Americans how they must live their lives.
Al Gore needs to clean up his own house before he tells others to clean theirs.

Oh, no!!! Not me, Barb. That's an illustration of social engineering. It's done all the time, really. And it is the most effective way to change behaviors. I'm like you. I live as green as I can -- which is greener than most. ;-)

 

[masonkiller]

What makes you think I don't?



So you're against taking tax dollars to subsidize coal, nuclear, oil and natural gas? After all, they are effectively forcing me to pay for it.

Yes

You mean like how nuclear power was effectively a government program forced upon the country?

You mean like how coal, natural gas, and oil all have massive subsidies which effectively force people to use them by pricing out non-heavily subsidized alternatives?

America has always had a tendency to associate energy and government, but that has resulted in so many problems, some of which you point out. I don't agree with ANY of the subsidies government has on energy right now.

Kid, you need to learn a bit before jumping in the pool.

I don't appreciate the condescending tone

Furthermore, the notion that the market always allocates resources better is foolhardy.
Basically, you are arguing that people buying chia pets provides better economic outcomes then funding NASA.

People buy in accordance with what they value. So if people are all buying chia pets and not funding space exploration, then people prefer the economic outcome of buying chia pets. To force them to do otherwise is not only immoral but also clearly not whats best for the people. But considering multiple private space exploration programs have been started, clearly thats not happening.

I've had this conversation with brighter people then you and they finally agree that the market does not always allocate in a better fashion for better results.

Yes clearly you already know my level of intelligence

Drop the "always" arguments and you'll save yourself some grief.

No thanks.

So how about we drop subsidies for non-alternative? Or drop subsidies for all? I'm not sure Fossil Industry will like that. After all, they are used to the billions upon billions in corporate welfare they get every year. Nuclear will go ape**** since they get subsidies per kilowatt. Non-alternative furthermore doesn't price in pollution. So let's get that cost built in. You're right, pricing is important. So let's get all of the costs into the price rather then compare apples to oranges.

Drop subsidies for all. Sounds like a great plan to me!

Coal, Oil, Natural Gas, Nuclear and Hydro say you're wrong.

Not anywhere close to optimum efficiency. And the further I go along with this it seems like you're implying that without government to plan and build all of our power plants, we'd all be in the dark right now.

Too bad it will cost huge amounts on effectively taxpayer loans and requires subsidies to stay competitive.

I don't know what else to tell you except no, it wont. Not if you get rid of all these damned subsidies and allow some true market competition to flourish.

 

[obvious Child]

Yes

You do realize that would make fossil much more expensive no?

America has always had a tendency to associate energy and government, but that has resulted in so many problems, some of which you point out. I don't agree with ANY of the subsidies government has on energy right now.

Fair enough, but without subsidies, we'd likely see less incentives for nuclear.

I don't appreciate the condescending tone

Get used to it. We don't play with Kids' gloves here. Well, some people do. :2wave:

People buy in accordance with what they value. So if people are all buying chia pets and not funding space exploration, then people prefer the economic outcome of buying chia pets.

But the economic benefit derived is clearly in favor of NASA. Thus suggesting that the market does not allocate resources better. Furthermore, the idea that the market will allocate better is a gross misunderstanding of capitalism. Capitalism allocates money where profit can be made. Nothing else actually matters. The notion that individual profit can produce the best outcomes is extremely shaky.

To force them to do otherwise is not only immoral but also clearly not whats best for the people.

So funding the NIH with tax dollars is immoral and not best for people when it produces life drugs that save their lives? So dying is better then paying taxes in the best interests of people? As you can see, I've had experience in finding examples where I turn your argument completely upside down and force you to argue truly absurd claims. I suggest you drop the asinine argument of "always." Or someone far meaner then I will come along.

But considering multiple private space exploration programs have been started, clearly thats not happening.

After government spent billions on developing the tech and expertise to get civilian commercial exploration off the ground.

Yes clearly you already know my level of intelligence

When you are arguing that chia pet spending is better then NASA in terms of providing economic benefit to society, it's not hard to determine it. eace

No thanks.

Suit yourself. But don't say I didn't warn you.

Not anywhere close to optimum efficiency. And the further I go along with this it seems like you're implying that without government to plan and build all of our power plants, we'd all be in the dark right now.

All of us? No. Some of us? Maybe. And most likely those who would have it would be paying outrageous prices for electricity. Similar to how Reliant forced British consumers to pay literally through the nose for water. And for nuclear, that's 100% on the money. Without tax payer loans/guarantees, we wouldn't have a nuclear energy private industry.

I don't know what else to tell you except no, it wont. Not if you get rid of all these damned subsidies and allow some true market competition to flourish.

But in a true market, there wouldn't be nuclear power.

 

[masonkiller]

So funding the NIH with tax dollars is immoral and not best for people when it produces life drugs that save their lives? So dying is better then paying taxes in the best interests of people? As you can see, I've had experience in finding examples where I turn your argument completely upside down and force you to argue truly absurd claims. I suggest you drop the asinine argument of "always." Or someone far meaner then I will come along.

Taxes are inherently immoral. Unless somebody has proven that violence and coercion can be moral, it's hard to argue against it. If people want energy and healthcare and drugs all at lowest possible price, then the first solution should not be "Hey lets give a bunch of guys a bunch of guns, and then have them tell us how to spend our money". No. The free alternative would be for individuals to pay for the products and services themselves in accordance with how they value each product and service. Supply and demand will meet together to find equilibrium prices etc. etc. And this will ------>ALWAYS<------ be more efficient.

 

[obvious Child]

Taxes are inherently immoral.

Okay then. You might want to look up Agent Ferris. You two anarchists would get along great.

One question, tell me, without taxes funding enforcement of the capitalistic framework, what's stopping people and companies from turning a free market into a despotism rampant with fraud, violence and very unfree practices?

 

[masonkiller]

Okay then. You might want to look up Agent Ferris. You two anarchists would get along great.

Awesome there are at least two of us on here!

One question, tell me, without taxes funding enforcement of the capitalistic framework, what's stopping people and companies from turning a free market into a despotism rampant with fraud, violence and very unfree practices?

Because that exact fear would be rampant, so if some company started putting out orders for weapons and started training soldiers, that company would lose customers so quick they'd be bankrupt in no time. You can't assume you're the only person with these fears

 

[obvious Child]

Because that exact fear would be rampant, so if some company started putting out orders for weapons and started training soldiers, that company would lose customers so quick they'd be bankrupt in no time. You can't assume you're the only person with these fears

So what's stopping the two biggest military firms from taking over? Nothing.

And you like Ferris, seem to think that these companies wouldn't just take what they want by force. Who needs customers when you can shoot people in the face and take their stuff?

 

[masonkiller]

So what's stopping the two biggest military firms from taking over? Nothing.

And you like Ferris, seem to think that these companies wouldn't just take what they want by force. Who needs customers when you can shoot people in the face and take their stuff?

Yet again the companies need the weapons and soldiers to do so in the first place. So the company is going to have to explain to their investors why they started purchasing said weapons and soldiers.

And even IF they found some way to acquire enough resources to start invading towns, the overhead of funding invasions simply would not be covered by the profit made by burning down peoples houses and stealing their stuff. It would be significantly more cost efficient to just do business peacefully, as it is more beneficial to both buyers and sellers.

 

[obvious Child]

Yet again the companies need the weapons and soldiers to do so in the first place. So the company is going to have to explain to their investors why they started purchasing said weapons and soldiers.

That's the whole point. You take over what you want by force and become dictator. Screw your investors. Once you have their money, you start your own little army.

Anarchists have this insane notion that people are inherently good and will never ever grab power for themselves.

And even IF they found some way to acquire enough resources to start invading towns, the overhead of funding invasions simply would not be covered by the profit made by burning down peoples houses and stealing their stuff.

of course not. It would be made by becoming their Overlord and working the conquered as slaves.

 

[masonkiller]

That's the whole point. You take over what you want by force and become dictator. Screw your investors. Once you have their money, you start your own little army.

Anarchists have this insane notion that people are inherently good and will never ever grab power for themselves.

Lol I love this statist argument. Ok then; lets put out some generalized possible descriptions of the human race in terms of good and evil.

All men are all good: Clearly we don't need government, since everybody wants to be peaceful and sing kumbaya

All men are evil: We definitely don't want a government, since we would be giving evil people a huge amount of power over everyone else

50 - 50 split between good and evil people : We also don't want a government, because at least 50 percent (and most likely more) of the government will be evil, and will do evil upon everyone else with the extraordinary powers they have been given.

of course not. It would be made by becoming their Overlord and working the conquered as slaves.

Despite what you may think, slavery was ONLY profitable at all because it was state subsidized. Once the government stopped subsidizing slavery, it became to expensive to continue. It's the only real reason it ever ended. Yet again peaceful exchange would be more beneficial to this rather evil company.

 

[imagep]

Lol I love this statist argument. Ok then; lets put out some generalized possible descriptions of the human race in terms of good and evil.

All men are all good: Clearly we don't need government, since everybody wants to be peaceful and sing kumbaya

All men are evil: We definitely don't want a government, since we would be giving evil people a huge amount of power over everyone else

50 - 50 split between good and evil people : We also don't want a government, because at least 50 percent (and most likely more) of the government will be evil, and will do evil upon everyone else with the extraordinary powers they have been given.




Despite what you may think, slavery was ONLY profitable at all because it was state subsidized. Once the government stopped subsidizing slavery, it became to expensive to continue. It's the only real reason it ever ended. Yet again peaceful exchange would be more beneficial to this rather evil company.

How was slavery subsidised?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

The oil spill has allowed for the clean energy debate to be renewed (by the Administration). It makes me wonder what price for clean energy is too steep. Personally, I use water filters and reusable containers because it is green and cheap.

But, is it worth double the electricity bills for clean energy? What's the right price?

What cost was our current energy-infrastructure worth? Before electricity there was no 'electric company' and 'gas station network' - but it's an intrical part of our lives, now. . . was it worth it? Was it beneficial?

I favor it because it's new. New = the future and evolution, furthering ourselves, educating ourselves and learning more.
I don't feel we should ever favor stagnation - when a country/culture/era becomes stagnant it becomes endangered and possibly extinct.

Change, growth and adaptation is essential to survival.

 

[masonkiller]

How was slavery subsidised?

Colonization of Africa was all subsidized, and more importantly the shipping of slaves was subsidized.