US Politics... 14 Months to Elections!

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Or the rules change (whether you agree with the rule or not). Regulation can of course change the equation and make something profitable. For example the rule that SUVs are trucks and not cars meant they dealt with a more favorable set of regulations related to mileage and emmissions. If California decides that electric car owners pay half the taxes and fees of nonelectric vehicles, the equation definitely changes. Of course a switch to a mileage tax versus a gas tax also changes the equation for people.

LOL, no one has been able to come up with a green product that anyone actually likes, so we'll just force them to buy them by pricing everything else out of their range! See? The green revolution is here?

How very progressive.

[The Progressive]

Lol, is the concept of internalizing externalities that hard to grasp for rightwingers?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Lol, is the concept of internalizing externalities that hard to grasp for rightwingers?

Not a rightwinger dude.

I have no problem with eliminating any and all tax breaks. As I stated to TP in the last thread, taxation should be agenda neutral. There is no reason for trucks to pay less than cars. Taxation should be about funding the required services, the end.

But you completely missed the point (and I notice no one is disputing it). Green tech is not taking off like everyone keeps saying it will because it is not innovative. It simply does the same thing in a slightly different way It doesn't come up with anything new for the consumer. Simply pricing out good technology for bad but more politically popular technology makes things worse, not better. And of course, disproportionately affects the poor, which you people claim to care about when it's convenient.

The green tech boom will come when someone comes up with an idea that does something new.

[The Progressive]

Not a rightwinger dude.

Yeah and I'm not a liberal, lol.

I have no problem with eliminating any and all tax breaks. As I stated to TP in the last thread, taxation should be agenda neutral. There is no reason for trucks to pay less than cars. Taxation should be about funding the required services, the end.

External costs do not have agenda. Some systems are just better at determining the real cost of externalities than others, and thus structured their tax system accordingly.

But you completely missed the point (and I notice no one is disputing it). Green tech is not taking off like everyone keeps saying it will because it is not innovative. It simply does the same thing in a slightly different way It doesn't come up with anything new for the consumer. Simply pricing out good technology for bad but more politically popular technology makes things worse, not better. And of course, disproportionately affects the poor, which you people claim to care about when it's convenient.

The green tech boom will come when someone comes up with an idea that does something new.

The personal computer/laptop didn't become a permanent fixture in most households overnight you know.

[Arlingzen Bill]

double post

[Arlingzen Bill]

LOL, no one has been able to come up with a green product that anyone actually likes, so we'll just force them to buy them by pricing everything else out of their range! See? The green revolution is here?

How very progressive.

There are plenty of green products people like...green is a great color. There are even some "eco-friendly" products that people like... have you met a Prius owner or ate organic foods (some are eco some aren't).

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Yeah and I'm not a liberal, lol.

Betcha I'd legalize more drugs and end more wars than you would. And I used to work on an organic farm.

The personal computer/laptop didn't become a permanent fixture in most households overnight you know.

No, but what it did do what come up with a new product. There was no such thing as personal computer before. Same with the internet, and the automobile, and the passenger airplane.

Solar/Wind power is a good example of green tech. They don't do anything new. They create electricity. They do so in a more expensive, and less reliable manner than the way we have now. They'll get adopted widespread when the cost and hassle of using them is less than that of using what we've got.

Now, if someone found some way to use algae to generate electricity that you could store in your garage and would generate say 75% of most households daily electricity needs, that would kick off a green revolution.

[The Progressive]

Solar/Wind power is a good example of green tech. They don't do anything new. They create electricity. They do so in a more expensive, and less reliable manner than the way we have now. They'll get adopted widespread when the cost and hassle of using them is less than that of using what we've got.

I think you're entirely missing the point that the reason why green tech aren't competitive currently is because external cost of their competitors aren't taken into account by the existing regulatory structure.

[awesome possum]

I doubt you misread it. Different experts have different opinions about lots of things.

Truth.

Betcha I'd legalize more drugs and end more wars than you would.

Sad thing is, neither of these issues should be swayed solely by political leaning but they mostly are.

Solar/Wind power is a good example of green tech. They don't do anything new. They create electricity. They do so in a more expensive, and less reliable manner than the way we have now. They'll get adopted widespread when the cost and hassle of using them is less than that of using what we've got.

Sounds like a First World Problem, which is a hilarious meme that I may make a new topic about. Reminds me of a cartoon I saw that highlights the potential damage involving oil, coal and nuclear power which are all potentially catastrophic. The potential damage involving wind or solar power? It's in my backyard and it's really loud and I might have to actually do work beyond flipping a switch!

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I think you're entirely missing the point that the reason why green tech aren't competitive currently is because external cost of their competitors aren't taken into account by the existing regulatory structure.

Hey dude, it's your government that gives power companies a monopoly and sets their rates for them. It's your government that provides subsidies to oil companies and doesn't make them pay the cost of their own clean up. According to you such things must remain in the hands of the government, they are too important for the market.

Things are the way you all voted them to be.

[The Progressive]

Hey dude, it's your government that gives power companies a monopoly and sets their rates for them. It's your government that provides subsidies to oil companies and doesn't make them pay the cost of their own clean up. According to you such things must remain in the hands of the government, they are too important for the market.

Things are the way you all voted them to be.

I agree that clearly we need even more and better regulations of the energy sector! :thumbsup:

[TerraPrime]

Green tech is not taking off like everyone keeps saying it will because it is not innovative. It simply does the same thing in a slightly different way It doesn't come up with anything new for the consumer. Simply pricing out good technology for bad but more politically popular technology makes things worse, not better.

That's an odd definition of innovation.

The personalized automobile is not innovative! Why? Because people already have horse-drawn carts before!

How about programmable thermostats? Is that an innovation, or not? Old houses already have thermostats, after all, and it's just a new way of doing the same old, isn't it?

We have not been able to use solar energy to significantly supplement our consumption of electricity. Now we are better at it. That's not innovation?

And of course, disproportionately affects the poor, which you people claim to care about when it's convenient.

It's only slightly less nauseating than when libertarians and conservatives whose main policy for the poor is "fuck'em" then try to turn around and use the poor class as a beating stick against the liberals. If you can ever find it in your libertarian heart to support programs like school lunch for kids and head start programs or any type of social service programs where we tax the middle and upper class to pay for services for the poor people in, then I'll take your criticism on how the liberal agenda is failing the poor a bit more seriously.

[TerraPrime]

It's the same function as the solar panels on top of your house. However, one is far more efficient and cheap than the other.

I'd dispute both the efficient and cheap part.

Fossil fuel is not efficient transfer of solar energy, because it needed to pass through plants first, and then most likely animals, and at each trophic level, you lose some of the captured energy. Even when solar panels are only at 30% efficiency, it's still a much more efficient transfer of energy from solar radiations to electricity than from solar energy to plants to animals to decomposition to extraction to refinery to purification to additives to distribution.

Cheap is also not a given, either. It's only cheap because much of the cost of extracting fossil fuels (coal or oil) are deferred in some ways and picked up by the public. Things like, for example air pollution. If we make each company at each step of the process maintain the same pollution footprint as a solar panel does, we'd see a significant increase in the cost of oil and fossil fuels, I'd imagine. It's the same model as Wal-Mart. That shirt that you are buying for $8.99 is only $8.99 because the real cost of the shirt is hidden in distributed areas that do not affect the final pricing.

[TrackerNeil]

Yes, Boehner has given reasons and at least the last I saw was open to another date. When you get down to it though its simply that this group of republicans simply can not simply say yes to this president. While it, to my knowledge, violates neither the letter of the constitution or the law, it is exceedingly petty, obstructionist, and obtuse. It also sets a bad precedent, which is about the only thing this congress seems to be able to accomplish. At any point since at least the civil war such behavior would have been political suicide. In these strange days, sadly, I can not be so sure.

This is why I think Obama needs to play a bit more hard ball henceforth. It's quite clear that the GOP is not prepared to cooperate on any policy that might in some way benefit the president. Mitch McConnell has stated quite explicitly that the party's #1 goal is to prevent Obama's reelection. So the party in control of the House of Representatives essentially has no interest in governing, nor in letting anyone else do so.

[ants]

Not a rightwinger dude.

I have no problem with eliminating any and all tax breaks. As I stated to TP in the last thread, taxation should be agenda neutral. There is no reason for trucks to pay less than cars. Taxation should be about funding the required services, the end.

But you completely missed the point (and I notice no one is disputing it). Green tech is not taking off like everyone keeps saying it will because it is not innovative. It simply does the same thing in a slightly different way It doesn't come up with anything new for the consumer. Simply pricing out good technology for bad but more politically popular technology makes things worse, not better. And of course, disproportionately affects the poor, which you people claim to care about when it's convenient.

The green tech boom will come when someone comes up with an idea that does something new.

You seem to have entirely missed the point of externalities.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

His argument is that both of those things do something new and do it better than the previous technology could do it, particularly your horse cart/car analogy.

Yes exactly.

Fossil fuel is not efficient transfer of solar energy, because it needed to pass through plants first, and then most likely animals, and at each trophic level, you lose some of the captured energy. Even when solar panels are only at 30% efficiency, it's still a much more efficient transfer of energy from solar radiations to electricity than from solar energy to plants to animals to decomposition to extraction to refinery to purification to additives to distribution.

Fossil fuel is not an efficient transfer of solar energy. I don't think anyone said it was. It is irrelevant though. The reason fossil fuel is used is that most of the solar transfer has already been accomplished by nature. Fossil fuels are far more efficient at converting from their current state into electrical, kinetic, or thermal energy than solar panels though. Solar energy conversion is a strawman in this instance.

Cheap is also not a given, either. It's only cheap because much of the cost of extracting fossil fuels (coal or oil) are deferred in some ways and picked up by the public.

This I agree with and is actually the market answer as well. All the costs of using a resource should be borne by the consumer. No costs should be deferred to uninvolved parties. Those who pay such costs have the right to compensation.

[awesome possum]

The solar power discussion always reminds me of this image:

Surface Area Required to Power the World

[Maithanet]

The solar power discussion always reminds me of this image:

Surface Area Required to Power the World

And even that is an overestimate, because you can put solar panels in places that are not otherwise useful, like your roof. No need to devote valuable land to it.

But the problem with solar panels remains cost. It gets more cost effective vs conventional electricity prettymuch every year, but it still isn't there yet.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Lessee, installed solar panels cost about $100 per square foot. Lets assume economy of scale brings that down to $70.00 per square foot. 1 square kilometer = 10,763,910 square feet. So you're looking at a low low cost of only $276,053,926,837,500.00 Give or take $10 trillion or so. To power the world as it was in 2008. You'll need another $100 trillion if you want to prepare for the future.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

AP,

The solar power discussion always reminds me of this image:

Surface Area Required to Power the World

That's a mighty interesting map. Two questions though: how we will run ships, aircraft, and trains that do heavy lifting via this tech and aren't there are serious problems with power transmission from the localls chosen for the map to the locals that need the power with significant losses to the power generated as I gets further and further from it's point of generation?