Jump to content
REGISTERING FOR MEMBERSHIP ON UPLAND JOURNAL Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Thack

Climate Change

Climate Change  

  1. 1. Climate Change

    • Is human caused.
      Is human caused.
    • Is not human caused; part of the earth's normal climate cycles.
      Is human caused.
    • Is not occurring.
      Is human caused.
    • The Jury is still out (your undecided?)
      Is human caused.
    • Is a left wing conspiracy?
      Is human caused.
    • All science is a left wing conspiracy?
      Is human caused.


Recommended Posts

BigHink66
Could it work today without the tax credits? Not in very many places. Are you getting something in return for the tax credits? You bet. A bunch of stuff.

I think the real issue is what does your neighbor get for subsidizing your solar panels?  You know the guy who can't affor to spend 50K to get off the grid.

If the answer is to look at your ugly panels, I would buy a sling shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Briarscratch

Carry on!

how much of the practicality of solar is gobernment funded(tax credits/ect)  or mandated(forcing the utilities to buy spare power) , with regard to consumer implementation? Can is stand on it's own, in a free market? or must it be propped up?

Why should they have to stand on their own?  Look at the sweet heart deals oil and gas companies get from states and the federal government. Or the way they influence peddle in Washington.  I can't claim to have ever seen a "free" market.  It's a myth.

thats pretty funny.... yur starting to sound like gowdy.

What's the answer to his question, though, with regard to why "clean" energy has to be sustainable in the market without government help, while oil and gas companies are subsidized out the ass?

Let's not forget the corn / ethanol subsidies.   Talk about a government prop-up! Not to mention the fact that it's responsible for wiping out hundreds of thousands of acres of bird producing, soil holding, erosion preventing CRP.

Ethanol as a way to energy independence?   Now THAT'S BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hunshatt
more intrested in teh gobernments involvement(in solar) ... and looking to you for non BS answers... is it like ethanol ?

Let's not forget the corn / ethanol subsidies.   Talk about a government prop-up! Not to mention the fact that it's responsible for wiping out hundreds of thousands of acres of bird producing, soil holding, erosion preventing CRP.

Ethanol as a way to energy independence?   Now THAT'S BS.

it ABSOLUTELY pisses me off to no end when we have similar thoughts......  :glare:  :glare:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bosco mctavitch
what does your neighbor get for subsidizing your solar panels?

Clean air, clean water and energy independance and freedom from the need to spend billions politicking and fighting over foreign oil isn't enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Briarscratch
more intrested in teh gobernments involvement(in solar) ... and looking to you for non BS answers... is it like ethanol ?

Let's not forget the corn / ethanol subsidies.   Talk about a government prop-up! Not to mention the fact that it's responsible for wiping out hundreds of thousands of acres of bird producing, soil holding, erosion preventing CRP.

Ethanol as a way to energy independence?   Now THAT'S BS.

it ABSOLUTELY pisses me off to no end when we have similar thoughts......  :glare:  :glare:

Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day.  

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
charlo slim
BTW you want to get really pissed off, look at what state/feds/even local add as taxes to your purchase of a US gal

Yeah, that really galls my A$$.  Then they probably go and waste most of it on roads, bridges, and silly stuff like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hunshatt

I'd be ok if they did... but it certainly seems(given the state of the roads here  in the north east, and the amount of time the porjects take(that's  a sepertate union bashing thread) that the ching isn't going to those projects.....

I'll try to avoid the Boston "big dig" as an example estimated cost...4billion...... finished price ... over 16bill.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hunshatt
what does your neighbor get for subsidizing your solar panels?

Clean air, clean water and energy independance and freedom from the need to spend billions politicking and fighting over foreign oil isn't enough?

I'd actually be more inclined to subsidize those than most of the other things we "pay" for... at the gobernments demand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GB Jack
geo thermal, CRAZy expensve, and itl pay for itself in 30 years! WHAT a great deal! WTF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
martyg
geo thermal, CRAZy expensve, and itl pay for itself in 30 years! WHAT a great deal! WTF?

Fossil fuels NEVER pay for themselves - you're just feeding a corporate quarterly profit report.  

IMO one way to mitigate rising energy costs as one gets older is to spend a chunk of change now when you can afford it.  I'd be stoked to know that if I paid $25K (or some sum of money) now that I would never have another utility bill.

Ulaanbaatar has centralized geothermal heating - all city buildings are heated by this method.  It gets mighty cold there in winter - like 40 below C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roost em 1st
Are we talking geothermal for residential heat pumps or geothermal for producing electricity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Flush
Fossil fuels NEVER pay for themselves - you're just feeding a corporate quarterly profit report.  

Define "pay for themselves".

Just because it's renewable doesn't mean it's cheaper, even over the long run. Currently in most states solar or wind will never "pay for itself"

While it may not "pay for itself", electricity from the grid (mainly from fossil fuels) is currently the cheapest alternative for most Americans for their electrical needs/wants.

Currently from strickly a financial standpoint most folks would be better off investing that $25k in financial investments and using conventional systems for their power needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bosco mctavitch

...from strictly a financial standpoint...

Isn't that the whole problem though, that people look at so many very complicated issues as strictly a formula of short-term dollars and cents, without looking at any of the other costs associated with those decisions?  

What about the cost in tax $$, as well as the non-monetary costs that are influenced by it (effects to environment, health, etc just for example), of being shackled to a dirty energy source that is largely not located in your own country, and the price of which is impossible to control due to a world market where the overwhelmingly larger demand is in other places? While it's easy to understand why someone would choose to look at it from strictly a short-term dollars and cents perspective, does anyone think that's the best way to think about the issue in general when you have the overall long-term health of the country in mind?

The Tragedy of the Commons comes to mind...the commons in this case being the overall health of the country and the continuing quality of the places the we live.

There have to be associated costs with ANY energy source, and to me it seems very difficult--clouded with misinformation, conflicting self-interests and hidden agendas on both sides of the issue--to get any straight answers that allow for comparing the TOTAL, OVERALL costs of any energy source.  Petroleum products are clearly a case of "Too Big to Fail" right now (so many barren deserts in the middle east and elsewhere would not be strategically relevant if oil wasn't too big to fail), and that puts us in a very dangerous position, not to mention costing us in $ and in blood.  Since we're talking financials, I'd think at the very absolute minimum there would be virtue in simply diversifying where we get our energy from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Briarscratch
Also, how does the ROI model on geothermal construction change as oil hits and stays at $200 a barrel, as predicted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dogwood

...from strictly a financial standpoint...

Isn't that the whole problem though, that people look at so many very complicated issues as strictly a formula of short-term dollars and cents, without looking at any of the other costs associated with those decisions?  

What about the cost in tax $$, as well as the non-monetary costs that are influenced by it (effects to environment, health, etc just for example), of being shackled to a dirty energy source that is largely not located in your own country, and the price of which is impossible to control due to a world market where the overwhelmingly larger demand is in other places? While it's easy to understand why someone would choose to look at it from strictly a short-term dollars and cents perspective, does anyone think that's the best way to think about the issue in general when you have the overall long-term health of the country in mind?

The Tragedy of the Commons comes to mind...the commons in this case being the overall health of the country and the continuing quality of the places the we live.

There have to be associated costs with ANY energy source, and to me it seems very difficult--clouded with misinformation, conflicting self-interests and hidden agendas on both sides of the issue--to get any straight answers that allow for comparing the TOTAL, OVERALL costs of any energy source.  Petroleum products are clearly a case of "Too Big to Fail" right now (so many barren deserts in the middle east and elsewhere would not be strategically relevant if oil wasn't too big to fail), and that puts us in a very dangerous position, not to mention costing us in $ and in blood.  Since we're talking financials, I'd think at the very absolute minimum there would be virtue in simply diversifying where we get our energy from.

Really good point but lets try cutting it a little closer to home.  Here's my dilemma;  my '04 Toy Sequoia is completely paid for and gets about 16 mpg and could conservatively sell it for $13K.  I could practically downsize to a Subaru Outback, nearly double the mpg, pay out the door about $31K.  Assuming $4/gal gas it would take me about 10 years in fuel cost savings to make up the $18K difference, and that excludes depreciation of the new Subaru.  So obviously from a purely cost perspective it's advantageous to keep the Sequoia, but from an environmental standpoint it's a gas sucking emission spewing pig.  It's a real life conflict of priorities that reflects on a larger scale the dilemma of national energy policy. Who's gonna pay and who' gonna get hurt badly for the greater good? Where to draw that line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×