A government energy program that makes sense.

S

speedracer

Banned
The cash for clunkers didn't go over very well. The waste created by perfectly fine cars being crushed along with the relatively lax gas efficiency increase standards seemed to rub everyone the wrong way. Bernie Sanders introduced a bill a couple of days ago that seems very much like the cash for clunkers, with 100% less stupid.

It proposes $2-3 billion a year for 10 years for federal incentives and rebates for solar installations and solar hot water heaters (which are fabulously efficient in many parts of the country but simply not used). He says that the goal is threefold:

1. Dramatically reduce the cost of solar installations to the end user. A $40,000 installation would cost the consumer roughly $15k, which makes it much more cost effective to do so. They can also be tied to the grid, allowing consumers to sell to the utility.
2. Dramatically increase demand, thereby using market forces to decrease material costs via economies of scale.
3. Immediately create jobs, which it would undoubtedly do.

He forecasts that all told, it would provide 30 gigawatts of power, or 30 nuclear plants. With the federal guarantees required to build nuclear at $6-10 billion a pop, that's a helluva deal. [1] Also, I'm a huge fan of anything that takes even a little bit of money out of the Middle East and Chavez's pocket. fuck those guys.

Any reason not to love it?

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/02/new-bill-create-10-million-solar-roofs-us.php

edit: my federal guarantee number was wrong. It was more than I thought.
[1]http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/maximizing-us-federal-loan-guarantees-new-nuclear-energy
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='speedracer']Any reason not to love it?[/QUOTE]

*checks notes written on hand*

Nukuler power is scary! It impregnated my virgin daughter and then posed for Playgirl!
 
My first reaction to this thread title was that "A government ________ program that makes sense" is almost always an oxymoron and a bad idea.

But then I thought about it, and 2-3 billion a year is hardly noticeable in the trillions of debt we are piling up with other questionable programs, so why the hell not. Let's hurry up and do it before a billion dollars is barely enough to buy a red bull and gas station nachos.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']My first reaction to this thread title was that "A government ________ program that makes sense" is almost always an oxymoron and a bad idea.[/quote]
That's not condescension, is it?
But then I thought about it, and 2-3 billion a year is hardly noticeable in the trillions of debt we are piling up with other questionable programs, so why the hell not. Let's hurry up and do it before a billion dollars is barely enough to buy a red bull and gas station nachos.
Click to expand...
O oracle, learned man of economics that's more than a libertarian caricature: what dollar figure would you put on the savings from the externalities of 100s of coal plants or 30 nuclear plants?

I like you thrust. You're a can't-do kinda guy, the poster child for the No movement.
 
I think putting more money into research is preferable to this. Current solar energy efficiency is so low as to make it uneconomical. For such technology to ever be widely used, it must improve dramatically. A few solar installations at high cost are not the way to go when you could put the money into developing solar film and the like.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I think putting more money into research is preferable to this. Current solar energy efficiency is so low as to make it uneconomical. For such technology to ever be widely used, it must improve dramatically. A few solar installations at high cost are not the way to go when you could put the money into developing solar film and the like.[/QUOTE]
I think we can let them do it for us. You spread it out over 10 years and they're gonna run to get a piece of the action. Let the firms do the research.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I think we can let them do it for us. You spread it out over 10 years and they're gonna run to get a piece of the action. Let the firms do the research.[/QUOTE]

I'm just saying that if you feel that government needs to get involved, that's probably a better use of money. The Department of Energy is giving out huge amounts of "stimulus" "grants" to companies to produce wind turbines and such, when the real need is R&D since current incarnations of wind/solar are too inefficient and expensive to replace things like coal.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I think putting more money into research is preferable to this. Current solar energy efficiency is so low as to make it uneconomical. For such technology to ever be widely used, it must improve dramatically. A few solar installations at high cost are not the way to go when you could put the money into developing solar film and the like.[/QUOTE]

Incorrect.

Solar panels last for many decades. The panels can be used as a roof substitute for the first two decades. After that, you've got the basis for the roof of a sunroom.

The cost is about 40cents per kWh over the 20 years if it is used as a standalone installation.

If they last 80 years, their cost is equal to today's electrical costs.

Given the government's aversion to intelligent long term thinking, 40 cents per kWh will be cheap.

Of course, nuclear winter renders solar panels useless.

Win some, lose some.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Incorrect.

Solar panels last for many decades. The panels can be used as a roof substitute for the first two decades. After that, you've got the basis for the roof of a sunroom.

The cost is about 40cents per kWh over the 20 years if it is used as a standalone installation.

If they last 80 years, their cost is equal to today's electrical costs.

Given the government's aversion to intelligent long term thinking, 40 cents per kWh will be cheap.

Of course, nuclear winter renders solar panels useless.

Win some, lose some.[/QUOTE]

Actually, since nuclear winter is a myth, you still win (if it can be called winning).
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Actually, since nuclear winter is a myth, you still win (if it can be called winning).[/QUOTE]

Well, it's an untested theory. Same as theories that an emp strike would destroy all semiconductor material in the country, which that hasn't been tested as well (Well actually, it is everytime lightning strikes).
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']My first reaction to this thread title was that "A government ________ program that makes sense" is almost always an oxymoron and a bad idea.[/QUOTE]

It's hard to convince someone to abandon a gut reaction - so instead I'll say that if you can get over this inherent reaction and actually examine a bill based on its goals, merits, and possible detriments (and not simply assume the latter of the three will always outweigh the former), you might one day achieve objectivity.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Actually, since nuclear winter is a myth, you still win (if it can be called winning).[/QUOTE]

Depends on where the nukes go off.

Up in the air? Maybe not a lot of dust.

On the ground in conjunction with a bunker buster? More dust. Is it enough dust to cause temperature drops that will fuck up crop yields? Is it enough dust to reduce the efficiency of solar panels? Nobody has tried it out on a large scale.

Also, AdultLink mentioned EMP.

http://www.parowanprophet.com/Nuclear_War_Comes/electromagnetic_pulse.htm

"When atom bomb tests were done in the South Pacific during the 1950’s the EMP damaged stuff in Hawaii about 800 miles away."

Thanks, AdultLink.

Of course, not much of anything is going to work after nuclear war.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Conservatives will be against it because Liberals are for it.

/No seriously[/QUOTE]

I think the best way to get things done now is for the Democrats to act like they hate something just so the Republicans will want to pass it, then pull the ol' switcheroo when it comes time to vote.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Depends on where the nukes go off.

Up in the air? Maybe not a lot of dust.

On the ground in conjunction with a bunker buster? More dust. Is it enough dust to cause temperature drops that will fuck up crop yields? Is it enough dust to reduce the efficiency of solar panels? Nobody has tried it out on a large scale.

Also, AdultLink mentioned EMP.

http://www.parowanprophet.com/Nuclear_War_Comes/electromagnetic_pulse.htm

"When atom bomb tests were done in the South Pacific during the 1950’s the EMP damaged stuff in Hawaii about 800 miles away."

Thanks, AdultLink.

Of course, not much of anything is going to work after nuclear war.[/QUOTE]

That was the 1950's. Today we have a ton more things that protect current. I'd personally that an emp strike would knock out a large radius (of semiconductor material) while large power stations and transmitters absorb the rest of power fluctuations. I'd personally be afraid more of nuclear power plants exploding....

You are right on nuclear war. But I think survival at that point would be more important than semiconductors...
 
[quote name='speedracer']That's not condescension, is it? [/quote]
Towards who/what?

I like you thrust. You're a can't-do kinda guy, the poster child for the No movement.
Click to expand...
Thank you. As long as energy ideas that are good ideas on paper, bad in practice, keep cropping - up I'm happy to eat and shit out the party of "no" for your entertainment.

I can't understand the "let's keep firing until we hit a target" economic policy machine, but it does entertain me.

[quote name='mykevermin']It's hard to convince someone to abandon a gut reaction - so instead I'll say that if you can get over this inherent reaction and actually examine a bill based on its goals, merits, and possible detriments (and not simply assume the latter of the three will always outweigh the former), you might one day achieve objectivity.[/QUOTE]
Of course that's my gut reaction. I find it hard to believe that anyone that's examined all government spending,historically, and really done a simple good vs bad analysis could come to a different conclusion.
But, you are right. If the plan put in place such as that in the OP were bullet proof enough to not give out free golf carts or have other big loop-holes, I could be convinced of it.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Of course that's my gut reaction. I find it hard to believe that anyone that's examined all government spending,historically,[/quote]

You give yourself too much credit.

No, really. Way too much credit. Like "I invented the pet rock!" credit.

Have you really examined all government spending? If I drafted a ten-question short answer test on the health care bills on Congressional floors right now, and gave you twenty minutes to take it, could you ace it?

Even the questions about the differences b/w the house and senate versions?

Too much credit. Lib'rls may be condescending, but I'd never outright lie and claim to have examined all government spending ever.

and really done a simple good vs bad analysis
Click to expand...

I slept through that section of statistics and research methodology classes. Please, tell me in great detail how a "good vs bad analysis" is done.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']If I drafted a ten-question short answer test on the health care bills on Congressional floors right now, and gave you twenty minutes to take it, could you ace it?

Even the questions about the differences b/w the house and senate versions?[/QUOTE]

That's a trick question: there are no bills on the floor right now (they're in an informal "ping pong" conference process - the House and the Senate both passed bills). But I'm game. ;) Where's the test? I think I could get close to acing it.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Thank you. As long as energy ideas that are good ideas on paper, bad in practice, keep cropping - up I'm happy to eat and shit out the party of "no" for your entertainment.[/quote]
Explaining why you think that contributes to debate. You should try it some time.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Explaining why you think that contributes to debate. You should try it some time.[/QUOTE]

I read that a few times and I can't figure out if it's a mistyped sentence or some type of code.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I read that a few times and I can't figure out if it's a mistyped sentence or some type of code.[/QUOTE]
I disagree.

I disagree. rawr deficit.

I disagree. Here's why:

One of the three makes for a reasonable discussion. I could see how you got confused.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Actually, since nuclear winter is a myth, you still win (if it can be called winning).[/QUOTE]

Don't say that, how will we ever live out our Fallout/S.T.A.L.K.E.R. fantasies?

But for arguments sake, the bill is nice and shiny and all, but solar is only something to HELP, not something to SOLVE the problem. It will take a lot more than cheap solar panels to do anything worthwhile. We need cheap: solar, wind, hydro and nuclear.

Coal and oil aren't really options anymore, and shouldn't be considered as such. They are both something to hold us over until we find something else to burn/use/destroy or, the better alternative, create.

If someone would just hurry up and figure out fusion we'd be set. Though we'd probably continue paying a rather high rate for the energy to "Earth® Power & Light"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think 30 gigawatts of added capacity would fall under the category "not worthwhile". 30 nuclear plants' worth of power is a shit ton.
 
[quote name='Zodiii']Don't say that, how will we ever live out our Fallout/S.T.A.L.K.E.R. fantasies?

But for arguments sake, the bill is nice and shiny and all, but solar is only something to HELP, not something to SOLVE the problem. It will take a lot more than cheap solar panels to do anything worthwhile. We need cheap: solar, wind, hydro and nuclear.

Coal and oil aren't really options anymore, and shouldn't be considered as such. They are both something to hold us over until we find something else to burn/use/destroy or, the better alternative, create.

If someone would just hurry up and figure out fission we'd be set. Though we'd probably continue paying a rather high rate for the energy to "Earth® Power & Light"[/QUOTE]

http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/views/v7i28_kumar.html

We could do that, but it would solve the energy problem permanently. If everybody on Earth had cheap electricity, it would cause a lot of problems.

The cost? Assuming America would have to go it alone, we could only spend $200 billion THIS YEAR killing brown people in exchange for an unlimited supply of energy for 1 billion years.
 
I've never seen that before, that's a pretty interesting idea, but it seems like it would be awfully impractical to get set up. It would require massive collaboration between the ENTIRE world to be put into place, which isn't likely.

This is something that I can see being plausible when we all wear white running suits and white shoes with our handy-dandy personal-life computer on our wrist.

But you know we have to keep killing brown folk, they don't support us or Israel.
 
[quote name='Zodiii']I've never seen that before, that's a pretty interesting idea, but it seems like it would be awfully impractical to get set up.[/QUOTE]

How so? Most of material is either on the Moon or on Earth and it doesn't have to be shipped. At most, we have to ship a few hundred golf carts to the moon. It has been done multiple times with carts to Mars.

[quote name='Zodiii']It would require massive collaboration between the ENTIRE world to be put into place, which isn't likely.[/QUOTE]

Really? We need Haiti's permission? I could see Russia and China wanting a piece of the action and, frankly, the expected costs of the project could be auctioned off to any country in the world in exchange for free energy contracts for a certain number of years. Of course, it isn't like we need anybody's help to do this.

[quote name='Zodiii'] This is something that I can see being plausible when we all wear white running suits and white shoes with our handy-dandy personal-life computer on our wrist.[/QUOTE]

White running suits are available.
White shoes are available.
Smartphones can have wrist straps added.

[quote name='Zodiii'] But you know we have to keep killing brown folk, they don't support us or Israel.[/QUOTE]

Yep. If we walk away from the war on terror, we're losers. It doesn't matter if we turn the world into an energy free utopia. That "L" will scar us forever.
 
I didn't see a true breakdown of costs in there so I am not sure of what it would cost to put into place, but if it were to be a 'world' energy source, it's going to require massive collaboration. It would probably require at least the EU, U.S., China and maybe Russia to get involved for the ground portion of the project.

I didn't see the part about most of the materials for the moon based part can be found/mined/collected from the moon itself.

And it's not that we need permission, we would need help, unless it was done in a scale of something covering North America only.

I'm all for it, if it can be logistically planned out, I wasn't bashing the idea beyond the fact that I have difficulties understanding whatever logistics as far as organizing it to happen are. I think there is a lack of unification in the world that would inevitably lead to problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top