Things are bad. What's the solution?

Good Luck said:
I wasn't denigrating your use of the programs. I was stating that the fact those programs are needed to make solar affordable means it is not an economically viable, wide-use alternative source of electricity.


But that is your personal situation. Unfortunately the grid does not have the ability to simply shut down when the sun goes down. And yes, every little bit helps, but I am not talking about personal advantages, I am talking about the BEST way to spend our tax dollars on shifting our energy economy to alternate sources. Solar and wind are NOT efficient means of spending our tax dollars for that purpose.


Wind has all kinds of problems. I seem to recall a certasin former U.S. Senator and his family being significant opposition to the idea of a large, offshore wind farm in the general vicinity of said former Senator's home state.


Now this is an area that government could have a significant positive influence with minimal investment by using tax breaks and some subsidies to encourage the spread of bio diesel (or other biofuel) outlets and distributors.


And how about waste PAPER? Or other burnable waste we generate in hundred ton lots daily? The types of scrubbers used by coal plants could easily handle any contaminates.


Ethanol and methanol are good fuels. It was the assinine decision to use corn as biomass that is stupid. (Perhaps the subsidy of corn ethanol was DESIGNED to fail?) Currently research is looking at algae as biomass, plus there is always cellulosic ethanol from sources like switch grass. And turning waste wood into methanol is not quite as dumb as you make it out to be. The energy release represented by 100 tons of waste wood can be achieved by less than 40 tons of methanol. When talking transportation costs, energy density of a fuel is an important factor. (places like Nebraska or Kansas aren't exactly known for their huge forests and woods industries) While alcohols have their problems, they also have their advantages, including being far cleaner burning than petroleum fuels, as well as renewable. Just get off the idea we have to use food as biomass.


Sorry, but I have to disagree there. The relative costs of operating a large multi-megawatt facility more than compensates for transmission losses when compared to the costs of operating and maintaining a couple thousand kilowatt-range point-of-use generators. If this were not the case, energy companies would be building small stations all over rather than concentrating on larger facilities. Again, we need to look at economic efficiency as well as energy efficiency.
Click to expand...
1. That’s obvious, but the feds and state governments voted the things in. They will ultimately be viable as unit costs decrease and energy costs rise.
2. Again, the grid does not have to shut down. But certain power plants, notably oil fire, produce variable demand. With on-site systems operating they will simply produce less.
3. Folks are opposed to large scale turbines. These are small scale. The vertical axis unit I’m looking at is 5’ wide and sits on top of an 18’ high tower.
4. We don’t need subsidies for biodiesel. Most of it is made from waste food oils, pumped out of grease traps at restaurants, and they have been paying to get rid of it for years. Waste companies can now turn it into biodiesel and make money both ways.
5. Its cheaper to transport electricity than ethanol. Burn your waste wood to make electricity instead.
6. Burn paper that can’t be recycled, What about garbage? I’ve long been an advocate of waste to energy plants.
7. There’s not a lot of maintenance of PV systems, and for small wind its minor. A lot less than a car, and many folks do their own maintenance.
 
Damn Yankee said:
1. That’s obvious, but the feds and state governments voted the things in. They will ultimately be viable as unit costs decrease and energy costs rise.
2. Again, the grid does not have to shut down. But certain power plants, notably oil fire, produce variable demand. With on-site systems operating they will simply produce less.
3. Folks are opposed to large scale turbines. These are small scale. The vertical axis unit I’m looking at is 5’ wide and sits on top of an 18’ high tower.
4. We don’t need subsidies for biodiesel. Most of it is made from waste food oils, pumped out of grease traps at restaurants, and they have been paying to get rid of it for years. Waste companies can now turn it into biodiesel and make money both ways.
5. Its cheaper to transport electricity than ethanol. Burn your waste wood to make electricity instead.
6. Burn paper that can’t be recycled, What about garbage? I’ve long been an advocate of waste to energy plants.
7. There’s not a lot of maintenance of PV systems, and for small wind its minor. A lot less than a car, and many folks do their own maintenance.
Click to expand...
1: Once again, the concern is economic efficiency as well as energy efficiency. it is not currently ECONOMICALLY efficient to use tax dollars to subsidize costly alternate energy. The idea is to SUCCEED in reducing our dependency on foreign oil. Using the limited funding we have available for that purpose in a manner that begets little return for the money invested is NOT the way to succeed.

2: Problem is the grid use increases just as solar starts to drop off line. And while the cost per KWH is at the point that it takes upwards of 70% subsidy to make it economical, that , again, is not the best use of tax dollars for approaching the problems of energy production. It seems you keep missing that point. It's not just about energy, it is about COST of energy, and using tax dollars to subsidize cost-inefficient methods just begs for failure, just as subsidizing stupid sources of biomass led to failure.

3: Yet you are the one who mentioned concern about what your neighbors will say....

4: Weren't you also the one who said you don't have a local source of bio diesel? We need to encourage better distribution of the bio diesel sources out there, and that's where government policies come in, to include tax breaks and even subsidies to local fuel distributors to build the extra facilities they need to offer bio diesel as a product.

5: You can only transmit electricity so far before transmission loss becomes intolerable. Also, once again, the idea is to use, as much as possible, current infrastructure, modified to use alternate fuels. Use waste wood where it is available, but gotta get alternate fuels to those plants not near waste wood sources, too. And that means transporting fuels that are energy dense.

6: exactly what I was saying. Burn all burnable waste and use current anti-pollution technologies that keep fossil fuels tolerable to clean up anything nasty. And, while we're at it, use residual heat to neutralize toxic waste, capturing the bad remnants in the same anti-pollution devices. It's not only a source of energy, but will go a LONG way in reducing the pressure on our land fills.

7: Yet you, yourself, mentioned maintenance as a concern of your putting in a wind turbine of your own. You might also want to double check average wind in your area. Some areas simply don't have enough sustained wind for the average wind turbine to pay for itself easily.


None of the above means, in any way, I denigrate nor discourage individuals from building their own wind or solar electrical sources. The more the merrier when it comes to that. What I object to is using tax dollars to subsidize them. When it comes to the national goal of cleaner energy and energy independence, these methods simply are not an economically efficient use of our tax dollars.
 
Damn Yankee said:
What's irrational about avoiding taxes and having the power company pay me? :)
Click to expand...

It's irrational from a systemic viewpoint to give you these benefits for no reason.

I guess you don't really care about free markets at all, and instead prefer it when the government does you favors. Just like the welfare recipients you hate and judge.
 
Good Luck said:
1: Once again, the concern is economic efficiency as well as energy efficiency. it is not currently ECONOMICALLY efficient to use tax dollars to subsidize costly alternate energy. The idea is to SUCCEED in reducing our dependency on foreign oil. Using the limited funding we have available for that purpose in a manner that begets little return for the money invested is NOT the way to succeed.

2: Problem is the grid use increases just as solar starts to drop off line. And while the cost per KWH is at the point that it takes upwards of 70% subsidy to make it economical, that , again, is not the best use of tax dollars for approaching the problems of energy production. It seems you keep missing that point. It's not just about energy, it is about COST of energy, and using tax dollars to subsidize cost-inefficient methods just begs for failure, just as subsidizing stupid sources of biomass led to failure.

3: Yet you are the one who mentioned concern about what your neighbors will say....

4: Weren't you also the one who said you don't have a local source of bio diesel? We need to encourage better distribution of the bio diesel sources out there, and that's where government policies come in, to include tax breaks and even subsidies to local fuel distributors to build the extra facilities they need to offer bio diesel as a product.

5: You can only transmit electricity so far before transmission loss becomes intolerable. Also, once again, the idea is to use, as much as possible, current infrastructure, modified to use alternate fuels. Use waste wood where it is available, but gotta get alternate fuels to those plants not near waste wood sources, too. And that means transporting fuels that are energy dense.

6: exactly what I was saying. Burn all burnable waste and use current anti-pollution technologies that keep fossil fuels tolerable to clean up anything nasty. And, while we're at it, use residual heat to neutralize toxic waste, capturing the bad remnants in the same anti-pollution devices. It's not only a source of energy, but will go a LONG way in reducing the pressure on our land fills.

7: Yet you, yourself, mentioned maintenance as a concern of your putting in a wind turbine of your own. You might also want to double check average wind in your area. Some areas simply don't have enough sustained wind for the average wind turbine to pay for itself easily.


None of the above means, in any way, I denigrate nor discourage individuals from building their own wind or solar electrical sources. The more the merrier when it comes to that. What I object to is using tax dollars to subsidize them. When it comes to the national goal of cleaner energy and energy independence, these methods simply are not an economically efficient use of our tax dollars.
Click to expand...
1. Again, this is not funding, but avoidance of taxes. The feds and state are willing to take less of my money for me to make myself partially energy independent.
2. So? The grid is already there. And peak use occurs during the hottest part of the day, when I’m making the most power.
3. That’s one reason why I’m steering away from wind and towards solar.
4. I don’t have a local source, true, but that’s likely because the grease gets hauled off to a central plant and the fuel then bought up by bus companies. Half the busses at Logan this last weekend were fueled by the stuff. Bioiesel can only account for a small amount of total fuel use, and it gets bought up fast so companies can call themselves green.
5. Most electricity is generated far from where its used.
7. Wind requires more maintenance than a solar system, but still its not a lot of maintenance. It would take less time to maintain then I currently take to put up and take down window screens.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's irrational from a systemic viewpoint to give you these benefits for no reason.

I guess you don't really care about free markets at all, and instead prefer it when the government does you favors. Just like the welfare recipients you hate and judge.
Click to expand...

Again, these aren't benefits, but avoidance of taxes. Try again and you'll get the same result. :)
 
Damn Yankee said:
1. Again, this is not funding, but avoidance of taxes. The feds and state are willing to take less of my money for me to make myself partially energy independent.
2. So? The grid is already there. And peak use occurs during the hottest part of the day, when I’m making the most power.
3. That’s one reason why I’m steering away from wind and towards solar.
4. I don’t have a local source, true, but that’s likely because the grease gets hauled off to a central plant and the fuel then bought up by bus companies. Half the busses at Logan this last weekend were fueled by the stuff. Bioiesel can only account for a small amount of total fuel use, and it gets bought up fast so companies can call themselves green.
5. Most electricity is generated far from where its used.
7. Wind requires more maintenance than a solar system, but still its not a lot of maintenance. It would take less time to maintain then I currently take to put up and take down window screens.
Click to expand...
1: explain the economic difference between reducing your taxes by X for building a solar assembly, and taking those taxes and giving you X for building a solar assembly. Bottom line is it is still inefficient use of limited resources. The money used (or not received if you like) could also be used to alter the burners in at least one boiler of an oil fired electrical plant to accept waste wood as a fuel. Guess which would have the greater impact on our energy economy?

2: Actually peak in warm areas (which is what I assume you mean by peak being during the hot part of the day) is shortly AFTER sundown, when it's still hot enough for people to be running their ACs, but add lights, street lights, etc to the mix. Unfortunately, that is when solar arrays stop producing. But that's neither here nor there. A bunch of solar arrays do, admittedly, ease demand on the total grid. The problem is it still is not economically efficient to use tax dollars - they could be MUCH better spent in other areas of the energy economy. That is my point - what the government does with our money to create a better, more efficient, and self-sufficient energy economy.

3: Exactly. Problems with wind power make it's wide spread use unlikely even they do manage to get costs down.

4: If we remain dependent on used cooking oil as resource for bio diesel, it'll never be more than a by line. That is another place tax breaks and other subsidies can help in bringing areas like yours a local outlet - and in the process get a lot bigger bang for the tax buck. There are a large number of agriculture oils that can be used to make bio diesel. The trick is getting people to set up facilities. Once they are set up they'll be self sustaining. It's the costs of setting up - especially in a recession - that is preventing it from taking off, and that's where gubmint assistance can pay off. Ditto clean diesel derived from liquifaction of coal. Conversely, unless there is a significant breakthrough in basic theory, solar will never be self sustaining - it will ALWAYS cost more in set up and maintenance (panels do not last forever and take more than their life time to pay for themselves).

5: And there is a reason for that. Big facilities are cheaper in the long run, and big facilities do not mesh with suburbia - so they are remotely located and the companies eat the transmission loss because the alternative (lots of small, local facilities) would still cost more.

7: My point is not that individual small wind systems cost a lot to maintain and operate (they don't, and I never said they did.), it is that they cost more COLLECTIVELY than a large facility - which is why energy companies prefer to use them over lots of little ones. Even those companies exploring wind prefer to use great big honkin generators on big honkin towers, all clustered together and transmit the power from the wind farm over long distances, despite transmission loss.

OTOH, disregarding the visual impact, a small wind system WILL pay for itself, even without subsidies, over the lifetime of the system in spite of maintenance concerns. That is something that cannot be said of solar.
 
Last edited:
Good Luck said:
1: explain the economic difference between reducing your taxes by X for building a solar assembly, and taking those taxes and giving you X for building a solar assembly. Bottom line is it is still inefficient use of limited resources. The money used (or not received if you like) could also be used to alter the burners in at least one boiler of an oil fired electrical plant to accept waste wood as a fuel. Guess which would have the greater impact on our energy economy?

2: Actually peak in warm areas (which is what I assume you mean by peak being during the hot part of the day) is shortly AFTER sundown, when it's still hot enough for people to be running their ACs, but add lights, street lights, etc to the mix. Unfortunately, that is when solar arrays stop producing. But that's neither here nor there. A bunch of solar arrays do, admittedly, ease demand on the total grid. The problem is it still is not economically efficient to use tax dollars - they could be MUCH better spent in other areas of the energy economy. That is my point - what the government does with our money to create a better, more efficient, and self-sufficient energy economy.

3: Exactly. Problems with wind power make it's wide spread use unlikely even they do manage to get costs down.

4: If we remain dependent on used cooking oil as resource for bio diesel, it'll never be more than a by line. That is another place tax breaks and other subsidies can help in bringing areas like yours a local outlet - and in the process get a lot bigger bang for the tax buck. There are a large number of agriculture oils that can be used to make bio diesel. The trick is getting people to set up facilities. Once they are set up they'll be self sustaining. It's the costs of setting up - especially in a recession - that is preventing it from taking off, and that's where gubmint assistance can pay off. Ditto clean diesel derived from liquifaction of coal. Conversely, unless there is a significant breakthrough in basic theory, solar will never be self sustaining - it will ALWAYS cost more in set up and maintenance (panels do not last forever and take more than their life time to pay for themselves).

5: And there is a reason for that. Big facilities are cheaper in the long run, and big facilities do not mesh with suburbia - so they are remotely located and the companies eat the transmission loss because the alternative (lots of small, local facilities) would still cost more.

7: My point is not that individual small wind systems cost a lot to maintain and operate (they don't, and I never said they did.), it is that they cost more COLLECTIVELY than a large facility - which is why energy companies prefer to use them over lots of little ones. Even those companies exploring wind prefer to use great big honkin generators on big honkin towers, all clustered together and transmit the power from the wind farm over long distances, despite transmission loss.

OTOH, disregarding the visual impact, a small wind system WILL pay for itself, even without subsidies, over the lifetime of the system in spite of maintenance concerns. That is something that cannot be said of solar.
Click to expand...


1. The difference is that the tax write-off is voluntary avoidance of taxation for private energy generation while you are advocating government funding of an industrial process.
2. Again I would not be using tax dollars but spending the money in an important and emerging private sector that I would otherwise be paying to the government to waste.
3. My main reason against choosing a wind turbine is that TVA will only pay me three cents over retail while solar pays twelve. Since it’s a vacation cabin and I’m not there about 300 days per year they will be paying me most of the time.
4. Using food resources for fuel is a bad idea for the reasons mentioned earlier, whether for ethanol or biodiesel.
5. It’s a moot point on why big facilities are sited. The fact is that on-site generation saves distribution costs.
7. Collective costs don’t matter because individuals can do most of the maintenance themselves in their spare time.
8. But TVA will pay me nearly double the retail rate for the power, so the system will pay for itself very quickly, then begin to make me money. At least that’s that way it appears on a preliminary basis. I’ll be doing the math on it after I figure out the allowable federal and state tax incentives. I already took maximum energy tax credits for upgrading my heat pumps at my main home, so I’m not sure if I can avoid taxes a second time.
9. I think the problem that you are having with this is that you are looking at it from a national perspective- ‘does it make sense for governments and utilities to adopt these policies?’ My perspective is different. They already adopted these policies and there’s nothing that I can do to have them retracted, so within these new rules, what can I do to save or possibly make money?
 
Damn Yankee said:
1. The difference is that the tax write-off is voluntary avoidance of taxation for private energy generation while you are advocating government funding of an industrial process.
2. Again I would not be using tax dollars but spending the money in an important and emerging private sector that I would otherwise be paying to the government to waste.
3. My main reason against choosing a wind turbine is that TVA will only pay me three cents over retail while solar pays twelve. Since it’s a vacation cabin and I’m not there about 300 days per year they will be paying me most of the time.
4. Using food resources for fuel is a bad idea for the reasons mentioned earlier, whether for ethanol or biodiesel.
5. It’s a moot point on why big facilities are sited. The fact is that on-site generation saves distribution costs.
7. Collective costs don’t matter because individuals can do most of the maintenance themselves in their spare time.
8. But TVA will pay me nearly double the retail rate for the power, so the system will pay for itself very quickly, then begin to make me money. At least that’s that way it appears on a preliminary basis. I’ll be doing the math on it after I figure out the allowable federal and state tax incentives. I already took maximum energy tax credits for upgrading my heat pumps at my main home, so I’m not sure if I can avoid taxes a second time.
9. I think the problem that you are having with this is that you are looking at it from a national perspective- ‘does it make sense for governments and utilities to adopt these policies?’ My perspective is different. They already adopted these policies and there’s nothing that I can do to have them retracted, so within these new rules, what can I do to save or possibly make money?
Click to expand...

Government directing invesment into pet industries is fascism, regardless of the rationale.

using government influence to favor some areas over others is just a tool in the bubble-crafting kit used to hide the destruction of our real economy.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Government directing invesment into pet industries is fascism, regardless of the rationale.

using government influence to favor some areas over others is just a tool in the bubble-crafting kit used to hide the destruction of our real economy.
Click to expand...

So? You or I can't do anything about that. Its not a sin to take advantage of a willing fool.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Government directing invesment into pet industries is fascism, regardless of the rationale.

using government influence to favor some areas over others is just a tool in the bubble-crafting kit used to hide the destruction of our real economy.
Click to expand...

We don't live is a bubble. We live in a real world. Breathing in oxygen vs. breathing in carbon monoxide, benzene and methane have human health and economic consequences.
 
Damn Yankee said:
So? You or I can't do anything about that. Its not a sin to take advantage of a willing fool.
Click to expand...

Of course we can do something about it.

We can advocate policies which restore our real economy to health, instead of remaining silent as our leaders create bubble after bubble which only help elites as the real economy is outsourced.

You're part of the problem

All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

Are you even good anymore? I mean you have your christ delusion, but is that where your morality ends?
 
AssHatZombie said:
Of course we can do something about it.

We can advocate policies which restore our real economy to health, instead of remaining silent as our leaders create bubble after bubble which only help elites as the real economy is outsourced.

You're part of the problem

All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

Are you even good anymore? I mean you have your christ delusion, but is that where your morality ends?
Click to expand...

Making money off willing fools allows me to have more to contribute to my favorite political candidates. When your enemy is dumb enough to throw you his hand grenade, Catch it, pull the pin and throw it back at him.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top