US Politics... 14 Months to Elections!

[Lord Mord]

TP,

That's an odd definition of innovation.

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

Wow. Entirely non-analogous. I'm surprised at you. The innovation is in not needing to buy and maintain a horse. The innovation is in the distance of travel possible. The innovation is in not breaking a leg or an axle or a wheel nearly as frequently -- okay, perhaps not at first, but it made such further efficiencies possible in a way that was both palpable and definitive in a way that green tech, as a whole, is not yet. At least, not at the consumer level.

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?

Not sure about all the possible benefits of a programmable thermostat, bu if it were really just another way of doing the same old thing, it would hardly have taken off. I think the obviation of constant monitoring and adjustment is probably pretty significant in the equation.

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?

Semantics. You haven't addressed TM's main point, that whatever innovation you can argue has occurred, the improvements for the end-user are slight at best; worse, that further investment doesn't appear likely to produce anything but further marginal improvements.

The opportunity may exist to develop simply staggering, incontrovertible innovation, but the bases for such investment is so speculative we should not be entrusting public money to it that could be better spent on, say, infrastructure, education, or public safety.

I don't know that I agree with the conclusion, but the assumptions seem pretty well borne out, and in any case we won't get anywhere by trying to argue what is or is not an innovation.

[ants]

I thought solar was now in a position that it was more fuel efficient to than the energy taken to create it. And that it was lower cost, the problem was that you can't sell your excess onto the grid (so you effectively lose a shed load in your peaks). Of course, that is a matter of how the grid is set up.

But this is all really beside the point. If we look at one of the "green" technologies - solar water heating - it is clearly cost advantageous. Hugely so. Yet how many of the "rational" people in the economy install it, or build houses with it on? Not a huge percentage. So a big problem here is that people are either:

a) idiots

B) too concerned about looks

c) uninformed

d) can't afford the initial investment.

None of which is great, and you can make an argument there for government intervention.

[TerraPrime]

Fossil fuel is not an efficient transfer of solar energy. I don't think anyone said it was. It is irrelevant though.

Hmm.... I dunno, I thought it was quite relevant in the context of Coco bringing up the issue of efficiency...

The reason fossil fuel is used is that most of the solar transfer has already been accomplished by nature.

Actually, I think it's more like a result of fossil fuels being so artificially cheap early on that we ended up building our entire infrastructure around it to the point where we are not utterly dependent on it, not because it is like the bestest source of energy in 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.

I don't think it's really fair to compare fossil fuels to solar energy without also considering the steps required to obtain that fossil fuel. Those are essential and required steps, each of which adds to the cost (direct and indirect) of fossil fuels. I mean, what kind of price tag are we putting on events like Exxon-Mobile spill or Deep Horizon spill? If your argument is that solar energy is not innovative because it does not capture energy better (defined as more efficient and/or more cheaply) then I think it's entirely relevant to bring these factors into consideration.

Also, I just don't think it's a given that fossil fuels are more efficient. Given that we lose anywhere between 40% to 60% of the energy through transmission lines between power plants and individual homes alone, whereas solar panels installed at the location will obviate the loss due to transmission, I think that will make solar energy a competitor to the traditional forms of power generation when it comes to efficiency. Maybe Timmet is around to give us some numbers to work with? I'm too lazy to google right now.

[Swordfish]

Hmm.... I dunno, I thought it was quite relevant in the context of Coco bringing up the issue of efficiency...

Actually, I think it's more like a result of fossil fuels being so artificially cheap early on that we ended up building our entire infrastructure around it to the point where we are not utterly dependent on it, not because it is like the bestest source of energy in nature.

I don't think it's really fair to compare fossil fuels to solar energy without also considering the steps required to obtain that fossil fuel. Those are essential and required steps, each of which adds to the cost (direct and indirect) of fossil fuels. I mean, what kind of price tag are we putting on events like Exxon-Mobile spill or Deep Horizon spill? If your argument is that solar energy is not innovative because it does not capture energy better (defined as more efficient and/or more cheaply) then I think it's entirely relevant to bring these factors into consideration.

Also, I just don't think it's a given that fossil fuels are more efficient. Given that we lose anywhere between 40% to 60% of the energy through transmission lines between power plants and individual homes alone, whereas solar panels installed at the location will obviate the loss due to transmission,

True. I believe though that a lot of that loss gets re introduced when it comes to need for storage storage, peak hours, etc.....

But I'm also a lazy non expert...... maybe someone who knows will chime in.

[Ser Reptitious]

Commodore,

No, but someone said the GOP would not give him anything. They have.

So they've offered a noose with which he can go hang himself. Well, I suppose in a literal sense that counts as "something". :rolleyes:

Maybe, but it benefits everyone else as well. We need to grow the pie to fund this entitlement state, that means giving money back to the growers.

So, as an example, say that you are a multi-billionaire, with an annual income of around, say, $100 million. How exactly will cutting your tax rate from, say, 25% to 20% grow the economy? Yes, you could invest that money into the economy, but you'll probably only do that if an enticing opportunity to make more money comes along. And if such an opportunity comes along, odds are you will invest funds into it regardless of your tax rate.

And besides, how do respond to Warren Buffett's call to increase taxes on the very rich? I mean, this guy clearly knows a thing or two about investing, so why is he demanding the exact opposite of what you are advocating?

What is your obsession with proportion, as if you are only concerned with jealousy rather than mutual benefit.

Jealousy has nothing to do with it. I'm just not convinced that the benefit would be mutual. The objective consists of two things: (1) kick-start the economy, and (2) balance the budget. Tax cuts are obviously not helpful in achieving the second endeavour, so we should only pursue them when we can be reasonably certain that they at least will help achieving the first objective. I know that's your theory (or, to be more precise, the trickle-down theory), but I'd like to see some hard evidence for that first.

Obama has given lip service to doing things to improve the economy with regard to the tax code and regulations, but he never actually does any of them.

And what exactly has the GOP accomplished in this regard? I thought it was the legislative branch that passes and revises laws?

Cuts in marginal tax rates, cuts in corporate tax rates, cuts in capital gains, cuts in taxation of overseas profits, etc. Not sure why it matters whether they are rich or not, if you purported aim is to grow the economy.

Because unlike you I'm not convinced that they do contribute to growing the economy. I'm not ideologically opposed to tax cuts, so long as they work and are affordable for the country. If you can show me that's the case I may change my mind...

The economy won't recover, we are in a double dip. His policies haven't/won't work, and to implement GOP policy would be an admission of failure.

As a country we just have to wait this guy out. He would rather go down in ideological flames than lower any tax rates or remove any regulation.

Really? I thought he agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts?

Seems to me you have it backwards. It's the current GOP that would rather go down in ideological flames rather than increase any tax (especially on the wealthy) by even one cent.

As for removing regulations, I find this current obsession fascinating, considering that the whole economic meltdown started in 2008 precisely because too many regulations had been removed.

[LindaElane]

We are now faced with a ludicrous spectacle of the Speaker of the House rejecting a request by the president to speak to a joint session of congress on a given date. 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.

Huh? There is a candidate debate on Wednesday, so they could have this speech on Thursday. Seems like that is what they said.

You are such a nice guy, Davos. But really....if Pelosi had said to Bush perhaps that they could have it on Thursday because of a Democrat debate on Wednesday I think it would have been all right.

Joint sessions of congress are very unusual, normally only for state of the union stuff. Normally not requested a few days in advance. If it is requested on short notice, it seems rational to negotiate on whether the debate should be Wednesday night or Thursday night. Anyway, again...I think I can pretty much guarantee that if Bush told congress a week in advance to come see his speech on a Wednesday and the speaker said "How about Thursday" it would seem fine...right?

Lets try it.

Date: 1 Sep 2008

Bush asked both houses of congress to get together next Wednesday night to hear him speak. The speech was not expected in this venue and was political. He "just happened" to ask for it on a night when the candidates opposing him were holding a major televised debate. " Pelosi said there were several things going on that night and could they do it on Thursday.

(This it not about me approving of Bush, this is about me wondering about what is up.)

[Swordfish]

Worth noting:

US marks first month with no troop deaths in Iraq

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

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.

That is both completely true and utterly irrelevant. The last I checked, we don't have to pay money for photosynthesis, nor did it cost us anything for the dinosaurs to eat plants, die, and decompose. Those losses in efficiency from sun to oil are meaningless. The only stages at which efficiency matters to us are those stages at which humans must exert time, money, and effort for conversion. Even then, the efficiency of transferring energy along the way is only one small part of the equation. You could have 99% solar efficiency, but if you aren't able to store that energy in usable quantities, and transfer that energy geographically, it is worthless

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.

Unless you can quantify that "cost", whatever value you assign is arbitrary.

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.

But so what? What is the economic value of maintaining the same pollution footprint as a solar panel? Because if we're talking about the economic viability or efficiency of solar power as an alternative to fossil fuels, and you're going to talk about the externalization of those costs, you've got to be able to quantify that for it to have any value in this discussion. Otherwise, it's someone just assigning arbitrary values from their sphincter.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

TP,

Wow. Entirely non-analogous. I'm surprised at you. The innovation is in not needing to buy and maintain a horse. The innovation is in the distance of travel possible. The innovation is in not breaking a leg or an axle or a wheel nearly as frequently -- okay, perhaps not at first, but it made such further efficiencies possible in a way that was both palpable and definitive in a way that green tech, as a whole, is not yet. At least, not at the consumer level.

Not sure about all the possible benefits of a programmable thermostat, bu if it were really just another way of doing the same old thing, it would hardly have taken off. I think the obviation of constant monitoring and adjustment is probably pretty significant in the equation.

Semantics. You haven't addressed TM's main point, that whatever innovation you can argue has occurred, the improvements for the end-user are slight at best; worse, that further investment doesn't appear likely to produce anything but further marginal improvements.

The opportunity may exist to develop simply staggering, incontrovertible innovation, but the bases for such investment is so speculative we should not be entrusting public money to it that could be better spent on, say, infrastructure, education, or public safety.

I don't know that I agree with the conclusion, but the assumptions seem pretty well borne out, and in any case we won't get anywhere by trying to argue what is or is not an innovation.

I'm not so sure I get the relevance of the point regarding whether something is an "innovation" or not. Improvements, even marginal improvements, have value. The relevant question is whether the degree of improvement achieved is worth the cost, and I think that's completely independent of whether or not something rises to the level of an "innovation" -- if such a line even exists. Even if green technology was not an "innovation", it would still have economic value if the marginal improvement was greater than the additional marginal cost.

[IheartTesla]

I guess I don't understand. Sure, the cost required to be put in to new technologes like solar cells or other alternative sources may outweight the current marginal benefits we get from it. However, these are also meant to be investments for the not so far future when we start running out of sources of conventional fuels like fossil fuels. At that point in time the price of solar energy or say photosynthetic based energy may start outperforming what we have to pay for oil based energy say. I don't see investments for the future in any profit model.

The argument against that is of course we are more concerned with the here and now. But the time scales for what I just talked about are not that removed from say social security financing or when the deficit will start to become unmanageable. And we are debating those things right now. At some point you will also have to spend for the future, not just cut spending for the future.

[ThinkerX]

guess I don't understand. Sure, the cost required to be put in to new technologes like solar cells or other alternative sources may outweight the current marginal benefits we get from it. However, these are also meant to be investments for the not so far future when we start running out of sources of conventional fuels like fossil fuels. At that point in time the price of solar energy or say photosynthetic based energy may start outperforming what we have to pay for oil based energy say. I don't see investments for the future in any profit model.

The argument against that is of course we are more concerned with the here and now. But the time scales for what I just talked about are not that removed from say social security financing or when the deficit will start to become unmanageable. And we are debating those things right now. At some point you will also have to spend for the future, not just cut spending for the future

Ah...somebody who agrees with me on this.

We are facing a near future catastrophe and the absolute best our politicians can come up with is pointless idiotic squabbles while traiterously ignoring mounting problems.

A now deceased poster on another site put it best:

'a politician will walk ten miles out of his way rather than make a hard decision.'

[Shryke]

That is both completely true and utterly irrelevant. The last I checked, we don't have to pay money for photosynthesis, nor did it cost us anything for the dinosaurs to eat plants, die, and decompose. Those losses in efficiency from sun to oil are meaningless. The only stages at which efficiency matters to us are those stages at which humans must exert time, money, and effort for conversion. Even then, the efficiency of transferring energy along the way is only one small part of the equation. You could have 99% solar efficiency, but if you aren't able to store that energy in usable quantities, and transfer that energy geographically, it is worthless

Unless you can quantify that "cost", whatever value you assign is arbitrary.

Not arbitary, just not 100% accurate.

Of course, assigning no cost to it is even less accurate.

But so what? What is the economic value of maintaining the same pollution footprint as a solar panel? Because if we're talking about the economic viability or efficiency of solar power as an alternative to fossil fuels, and you're going to talk about the externalization of those costs, you've got to be able to quantify that for it to have any value in this discussion. Otherwise, it's someone just assigning arbitrary values from their sphincter.

We can quantify them. They are not zero. And values chosen are not arbitrary (a word who's meaning you seem confused on), just not 100% accurate.

The problem, as ants so succintly put it, is you people don't actually understand the meaning of externalities.

Pollution is a cost of using fossil fuels that is not reflected in the price. (There are many many others.) That's what an externality is.

[ThinkerX]

Big lawsuits for big banks, brought by the government:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44366983/ns/business-us_business/

I see it as too little, too late.

And the 20 billion fifty state settlement is somewhere between 'very low' and 'pathetic'. Should be at least triple that, with prosecutions of the top echelons of those banks thrown in for good measure.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Big lawsuits for big banks, brought by the government:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44366983/ns/business-us_business/

I see it as too little, too late.

And the 20 billion fifty state settlement is somewhere between 'very low' and 'pathetic'. Should be at least triple that, with prosecutions of the top echelons of those banks thrown in for good measure.

So the agency that overseas Fannie/Freddie sues the banks who sold them those mortgages, saying that as seller, they misrepresented the quality of those mortgages and failed to perform due diligence. Due diligence is usually a concept that applies to the buyer as well, but whatever. By that same logic, I wonder if the banks and other investors who bought those securities from Fannie/Freddie may able to sue Fannie and Freddie for selling those mortgages repackaged as securities, misrepresenting their quality, and failing to perform their own due diligence on the shit they sold.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I guess I don't understand. Sure, the cost required to be put in to new technologes like solar cells or other alternative sources may outweight the current marginal benefits we get from it. However, these are also meant to be investments for the not so far future when we start running out of sources of conventional fuels like fossil fuels. At that point in time the price of solar energy or say photosynthetic based energy may start outperforming what we have to pay for oil based energy say. I don't see investments for the future in any profit model.

I think the word "investment" gets overused a lot. Or maybe misused. In either case, I don't see how spending money on something before it is economically viable is an Investment. If anything, you're getting a negative return because you're losing the time value of money.

It's one thing if we're only taking about research. But when, as here, we're talking about actual production and current use for commercial purposes, using a more expensive substitute while the original is still available at a lower cost makes no economic sense at all. For those businesses and regions where it does make sense currently, more power to them. Let them build it and use it, but at their cost. Not ours.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Not arbitary, just not 100% accurate.

Of course, assigning no cost to it is even less accurate.

I didn't assign it zero value -- I was pointing that the poster to whom I was responding himself didn't attach any economic value to zero pollution. He just said that if you required fossil fuel to have the same emissions as solar panels, they'd be more expensive. Well, yes, but unless you assign at least some particular economic value to zero emissions (over, say, a very tiny amount of emissions), then there no reason for us to assign an economic value to that externality.

The problem, as ants so succintly put it, is you people don't actually understand the meaning of externalities.

No, it's that externalities must have an actual cost associated with them to have any economic meaning. A minor amount of pollution that has no discernable health effects is an externality, but not one to which we should assign any value. The more the pollutant, the more of a cost. But that doesn't mean that any pollution with any negative effective has infinite cost, such that an energy source that has zero emissions should always be preferred to one with emissions regardless of costs. It's not that simple.

[TerraPrime]

That is both completely true and utterly irrelevant. The last I checked, we don't have to pay money for photosynthesis, nor did it cost us anything for the dinosaurs to eat plants, die, and decompose. Those losses in efficiency from sun to oil are meaningless. The only stages at which efficiency matters to us are those stages at which humans must exert time, money, and effort for conversion. Even then, the efficiency of transferring energy along the way is only one small part of the equation. You could have 99% solar efficiency, but if you aren't able to store that energy in usable quantities, and transfer that energy geographically, it is worthless.

It is only irrelevant because it weakens the case in support of maintaining the status quo in terms of energy use. The efficiency of energy transfer should absolutely be a factor in deciding which source of energy to use, imo.

As far as storage goes, the model here is solar panels installed at the site, so you only need a capacitor large enough to sustain the use at that site. Solar will also be unlikely the only source of energy. We're more likely to be looking at a mixed source model, with even some fossil fuel generated electricity.

Unless you can quantify that "cost", whatever value you assign is arbitrary.

People have indeed quantified the environmental costs of human activities. Costa Rica, for instance, calculated the amount of work that an acre of forest can do, in terms of purifying water and scrubbing CO2 by comparing to the cost of equivalent services provided by machines, and then they assigned that value to that acre of land.

Speaking of cost... what is the cost of the Deep Horizon spill, anyway? What is the cost of altering the ecosystem of an entire coast line?

But so what? What is the economic value of maintaining the same pollution footprint as a solar panel? Because if we're talking about the economic viability or efficiency of solar power as an alternative to fossil fuels, and you're going to talk about the externalization of those costs, you've got to be able to quantify that for it to have any value in this discussion. Otherwise, it's someone just assigning arbitrary values from their sphincter.

Eh? Economic value in maintaining a smaller pollution footprint is the cost-saving it will engender from saving us from having to clean up the environment later on or from having to deal with the consequences of unsalvageable changes like alterations in climate patterns.

But you know, any assigning of values will have to be done by experts, which, as you know, is a group of ivory-tower blowhards not to be trusted. So, even were I able to find a group of people to actually provide numbers, I doubt that it will do much to convince you, anyhow.

I think the word "investment" gets overused a lot. Or maybe misused. In either case, I don't see how spending money on something before it is economically viable is an Investment. If anything, you're getting a negative return because you're losing the time value of money.

That seems a bit odd, considering that the cost of fossil fuel energy will only increase as time goes by.

Let them build it and use it, but at their cost. Not ours.

Exactly. Because, you know, the energy policy and the consequences of those policies affect only them, or us, but never together.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

It is only irrelevant because it weakens the case in support of maintaining the status quo in terms of energy use. The efficiency of energy transfer should absolutely be a factor in deciding which source of energy to use, imo.

No, it's irrelevant because how efficient plants were at converting solar energy to mass, how efficient the dinosaurs were at consuming that plant material to build their own carbon-based bodies, and how efficienctly their decomposed bodies generate oil has absolutely zero to do with whether it makes economic sense for us to use petroleum today. In economic terms, all the work nature has done, efficient or not, is a sunk cost (paid tens of millions of years ago), and no additional cost is incurred regardless of how efficient or inefficient those plants and dinosaurs were.

As far as storage goes, the model here is solar panels installed at the site, so you only need a capacitor large enough to sustain the use at that site.

But it's not just a question of storing the energy you collect. It's a question of how much energy you can collect and store. In a great many places, you simply cannot collect enough solar energy to meet your power needs.

People have indeed quantified the environmental costs of human activities. Costa Rica, for instance, calculated the amount of work that an acre of forest can do, in terms of purifying water and scrubbing CO2 by comparing to the cost of equivalent services provided by machines, and then they assigned that value to that acre of land.

Speaking of cost... what is the cost of the Deep Horizon spill, anyway? What is the cost of altering the ecosystem of an entire coast line?

Actually, that has been quantified, and the responsible party has to pay the money. We have an EPA whose job it is to measure the effects of pollutants, determine the level at which risks exists, and issue requirements to emitters to reduce that pollution. And the costs of such controls are born by the polluters themselves, via the costs of regulatory compliance. Meaning that they are not externalized costs at all.

Eh? Economic value in maintaining a smaller pollution footprint is the cost-saving it will engender from saving us from having to clean up the environment later on or from having to deal with the consequences of unsalvageable changes like alterations in climate patterns.

And again, that has to be quantified to be of value.

That seems a bit odd, considering that the cost of fossil fuel energy will only increase as time goes by.

Why is that odd? Why pay more for something before you have to? At the point in time when fossil fuels becomes comparatively more expensive, it will make perfect sense to transition. It's not like it is something that will happen overnight, and it won't happen everywhere at the same time. Given that, it makes a lot more sense for individuals and businesses to make the decision to convert at a time when it makes the most sense for them, rather than a top-down, one size fits all model that inevitably will waste more resources.

It'll happen when it makes economic sense for it to happen.

[DanteGabriel]

Some dickhead conservative columnist has finally taken the mask off the GOP's vote fraud alarmism: they really just don't believe poor people should vote at all.

"It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country -- which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote," Vadum, the author of a book published by World Net Daily that attacks the now-defunct community organizing group ACORN, writes in a column for the American Thinker.

"Encouraging those who burden society to participate in elections isn't about helping the poor," Vadum writes. "It's about helping the poor to help themselves to others' money. It's about raw so-called social justice. It's about moving America ever farther away from the small-government ideals of the Founding Fathers."

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/columnist_registering_poor_to_vote_like_handing_out_burglary_tools_to_criminals.php?ref=fpblg

Pretty much what I knew -- conservative blowhards like this guy just hate the vast percentage of America that consists of people darker and poorer than them. They don't love America or Americans. They just love the parts they know and are familiar with, and fear and loathe the unwashed seething masses that actually make up the rest of America.

[The Progressive]

http://finance.yahoo...1745827859.html

"President Barack Obama on Friday scrapped his administration's controversial plans to tighten smog rules, bowing to the demands of congressional Republicans and some business leaders.

Obama overruled the Environmental Protection Agency and directed administrator Lisa Jackson to withdraw the proposed regulation to reduce concentrations of smog's main ingredient, in part because of the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and uncertainty for businesses at a time of rampant uncertainty about an unsteady economy."

Well there you go .......... seems that Obama is quite friendly to business.