RE: From Unsustainable to sustainable

RE: From Unsustainable to sustainable (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Tkman117 -> RE: From Unsustainable to sustainable (1/16/2014 5:37:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 Regardless of your opinions on climate change, the economy or your political affiliation, I'm fairly certain it's clear for everyone we are traveling on an unsustainable path. Nope. Its not clear to me that we're on an unsustainable path (at least regarding energy) at all. Right now, if we wanted to power everything in the US off of coal - we could do so for 70 years. If we wanted to power everything off natural gas we could do so for 70 years. If we wanted to power everything off of klathyrates we could do so for 200 years. So, no I don't see an unsustainable path. The fact that we have a time limit at all is what makes it unsustainable. The definition of unsustainable is: "not able to be maintained at the current rate or level." and with oil and gas usage only increasing across developing and developed nations, it just makes it even more difficult for these resources to be maintained at their given levels. But the problem isn't that these energy sources will run out in 200 years after we're long dead, the problem is the selfish and evil idea that because a world economic collapse won't happen in your life time that nothing needs changing. I want humanity to live on to a successful and prosperous future, not dwindle and die because someone thinks only of them self and the immediate present.

servantforuse -> RE: From Unsustainable to sustainable (1/16/2014 6:00:05 PM)
There is no set time limit to worry about. If the liberals were right when Carter was president we would have run out of oil 20 years ago. If you are that worried, put on your sweater and ride your bike. For myself, I'm not selling my Yukon.

Tkman117 -> RE: From Unsustainable to sustainable (1/16/2014 6:08:15 PM)
Do you understand a word of what I said? Im not being an alarmist, Im not saying a collapse is going to happen in our life time. I'm saying why do we want to hold back our own species? Why do we want to keep humanity on path which if left unaltered, could result in ruin? I want the best for humanity, what do you want? Your car? There are other ways to change the world other than riding a bike, it would take time, but it can happen. And to be honest, your opinion is why I hate most conservatives. DS on the last few pages is a true conservative who makes sense in why he believes what he believes, and I agree with him, you believe what you believe because of greed. Pure and simple.

servantforuse -> RE: From Unsustainable to sustainable (1/16/2014 6:27:38 PM)
Nothing is unaltered in this country or the world. It is changing every minute of every day. Cars, homes, office buildings and everything else are becoming more efficient.

Phydeaux -> RE: From Unsustainable to sustainable (1/16/2014 7:45:22 PM)
The place was Hawaii. California is looking at slowing down and or other solutions for the same problem. The essential problem is this TJ: Customers of the fossil fuel generating plants pay for the distribution network as part of their bill. People that are putting collectors on their roof and selling the power back to the power companies are not paying for the distribution net, although they are enjoying the benefit of it. In Hawaii this meant that fewer and fewer people were paying the costs of maintain the distribution grid, and it got to be a huge problem. Any single user is not required to connect to the grid. So if they want to only power their own home they are entirely welcome to do so. However, the problem is that solar advocates are using the grid - they just don't want to support it. In fact the very fact of using solar power makes the grid inherently more unstable and more costly. It is, in fact, reasonable therefore to require them to pay something towards its upkeep. quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Once I get back on my feet financially (been a tough couple years), I'm probably going to geek out in my leisure experimenting with vertical axis wind turbines. Why do all that? Because I want to reduce my utility costs so I have more money for other purposes, and so that I can lower my costs for when I eventually retire. Increase my self-sufficiency. I have been looking at some vids and plans on vertical axis wind turbines and if you build your own there are not that expensive (at least compared to buying retail).. they don't seem hard to build at all (from what I have seen so far).. As far as cutting back or going off grid goes, now some utility corps are lobbying city hall to charge fees to properties that have solar systems! One has already been approved to do that (somewhere in CA I think).. I really find that appalling.. and now that one has succeeded, the other utility corps will follow (they have nothing to lose to try and keep trying).. so they are gonna try to get ya no matter what you do.. [>:] So when more and more people start finding alternatives, those corps that see money (which they see as their money even if its your money [8\|]) flying out the window, they are gonna do things to counteract that..

Phydeaux -> RE: From Unsustainable to sustainable (1/16/2014 7:47:46 PM)
Its funny. You say "I'm not being an alarmist" & "the collapse is going to happen in our life time." Even when people told you they said the same thing in 1973.. you're not listening. quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 Do you understand a word of what I said? Im not being an alarmist, Im not saying a collapse is going to happen in our life time. I'm saying why do we want to hold back our own species? Why do we want to keep humanity on path which if left unaltered, could result in ruin? I want the best for humanity, what do you want? Your car? There are other ways to change the world other than riding a bike, it would take time, but it can happen. And to be honest, your opinion is why I hate most conservatives. DS on the last few pages is a true conservative who makes sense in why he believes what he believes, and I agree with him, you believe what you believe because of greed. Pure and simple.

servantforuse -> RE: From Unsustainable to sustainable (1/16/2014 7:50:51 PM)
Phydeaux, Just remember. TK just turned 19.

Phydeaux -> RE: From Unsustainable to sustainable (1/16/2014 7:53:25 PM)
Tk: Let me point you to a famous bet: Simon & Ehrlich made a widely followed bet in 1980. Simon had Erlich choose five commodity metals. Copper, chromium, nickel, tin and tungsten. Ehrlich bet that the prices would be higher at the end of ten years. Since more and more people would exhaust the supply. Simon bet that the prices would be lower. Because it was his contention that humans have ideas. And that these ideas can be developed to find new sources; develop new processes etc. Simon won. Prices on all 5 metals were lower at the end of the wager period.

Phydeaux -> RE: From Unsustainable to sustainable (1/16/2014 7:55:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Phydeaux, Just remember. TK just turned 19. I can certainly appreciate his idealism and desire to save the world. Highly admirable qualities. But you can't assume that just because people don't believe as you do that they are just greedy bastards.

tj444 -> RE: From Unsustainable to sustainable (1/16/2014 8:37:53 PM)
Arizona I believe did impose a fee but it was a lot less than they wanted (for now).. I don't see it as the solar advocates using the grid, I see it as a conservation measure that they paid tens of thousands of dollars to implement, not just for saving money on their utilities but for the good of the country and world, to switch to a renewable resource that is better for the environment and instead of using up finite resources.. I say.. there should not be any fees to those people, not unless you want to charge those coal and un-green electric utility users for the resulting cleaner air from solar (& other benefits).. And it sounds like some of those Hawaii (& other state) solar advocates will be using batteries for power storage instead of using the grid.. quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux The place was Hawaii. California is looking at slowing down and or other solutions for the same problem. The essential problem is this TJ: Customers of the fossil fuel generating plants pay for the distribution network as part of their bill. People that are putting collectors on their roof and selling the power back to the power companies are not paying for the distribution net, although they are enjoying the benefit of it. In Hawaii this meant that fewer and fewer people were paying the costs of maintain the distribution grid, and it got to be a huge problem. Any single user is not required to connect to the grid. So if they want to only power their own home they are entirely welcome to do so. However, the problem is that solar advocates are using the grid - they just don't want to support it. In fact the very fact of using solar power makes the grid inherently more unstable and more costly. It is, in fact, reasonable therefore to require them to pay something towards its upkeep. quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Once I get back on my feet financially (been a tough couple years), I'm probably going to geek out in my leisure experimenting with vertical axis wind turbines. Why do all that? Because I want to reduce my utility costs so I have more money for other purposes, and so that I can lower my costs for when I eventually retire. Increase my self-sufficiency. I have been looking at some vids and plans on vertical axis wind turbines and if you build your own there are not that expensive (at least compared to buying retail).. they don't seem hard to build at all (from what I have seen so far).. As far as cutting back or going off grid goes, now some utility corps are lobbying city hall to charge fees to properties that have solar systems! One has already been approved to do that (somewhere in CA I think).. I really find that appalling.. and now that one has succeeded, the other utility corps will follow (they have nothing to lose to try and keep trying).. so they are gonna try to get ya no matter what you do.. [>:] So when more and more people start finding alternatives, those corps that see money (which they see as their money even if its your money [8\|]) flying out the window, they are gonna do things to counteract that..

tj444 -> RE: From Unsustainable to sustainable (1/16/2014 8:47:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Phydeaux, Just remember. TK just turned 19. I can certainly appreciate his idealism and desire to save the world. Highly admirable qualities. But you can't assume that just because people don't believe as you do that they are just greedy bastards. hmmm.. sounds to me like he is boomer deja vu.. how many boomers had his viewpoint in their idealistic youth, only to find a couple of decades of living turn them into today's greedy bastards (that in their youth they saw their previous generation being)?.. I find that metamorphosis to be interesting.. in a disheartening kinda way.. so much for evolution, huh?

Phydeaux -> RE: From Unsustainable to sustainable (1/16/2014 9:38:16 PM)
The fact is without access to the grid, the installations in Hawaii have dropped by 90%. The federal and state governments have subsidies to offsets in many areas to encourage solar power. But if you remove the requirement for the utilities to pay artificially high rates, then even with the federal and state subsidies the panels aren't worthwhile. As for "saving the planet" by using solar power - in the off chance you actually don't know my point of view on that - its entirely hogwash. European nations are refusing to set goals for co2 emissions, Germany is backing away from its subsidies. As studies in spain and Germany have confirmed the net effect of their massive investments into renewable energy has been an INCREASE of emissions and jobs offsourced, energy poverty, and grid instability. I'm happy to provide links, if you actually will bother to read them. quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 Arizona I believe did impose a fee but it was a lot less than they wanted (for now).. I don't see it as the solar advocates using the grid, I see it as a conservation measure that they paid tens of thousands of dollars to implement, not just for saving money on their utilities but for the good of the country and world, to switch to a renewable resource that is better for the environment and instead of using up finite resources.. I say.. there should not be any fees to those people, not unless you want to charge those coal and un-green electric utility users for the resulting cleaner air from solar (& other benefits).. And it sounds like some of those Hawaii (& other state) solar advocates will be using batteries for power storage instead of using the grid.. quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux The place was Hawaii. California is looking at slowing down and or other solutions for the same problem. The essential problem is this TJ: Customers of the fossil fuel generating plants pay for the distribution network as part of their bill. People that are putting collectors on their roof and selling the power back to the power companies are not paying for the distribution net, although they are enjoying the benefit of it. In Hawaii this meant that fewer and fewer people were paying the costs of maintain the distribution grid, and it got to be a huge problem. Any single user is not required to connect to the grid. So if they want to only power their own home they are entirely welcome to do so. However, the problem is that solar advocates are using the grid - they just don't want to support it. In fact the very fact of using solar power makes the grid inherently more unstable and more costly. It is, in fact, reasonable therefore to require them to pay something towards its upkeep. quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Once I get back on my feet financially (been a tough couple years), I'm probably going to geek out in my leisure experimenting with vertical axis wind turbines. Why do all that? Because I want to reduce my utility costs so I have more money for other purposes, and so that I can lower my costs for when I eventually retire. Increase my self-sufficiency. I have been looking at some vids and plans on vertical axis wind turbines and if you build your own there are not that expensive (at least compared to buying retail).. they don't seem hard to build at all (from what I have seen so far).. As far as cutting back or going off grid goes, now some utility corps are lobbying city hall to charge fees to properties that have solar systems! One has already been approved to do that (somewhere in CA I think).. I really find that appalling.. and now that one has succeeded, the other utility corps will follow (they have nothing to lose to try and keep trying).. so they are gonna try to get ya no matter what you do.. [>:] So when more and more people start finding alternatives, those corps that see money (which they see as their money even if its your money [8\|]) flying out the window, they are gonna do things to counteract that..

tj444 -> RE: From Unsustainable to sustainable (1/16/2014 11:49:53 PM)
and I expect there are plenty of links that prove the exact opposite of your viewpoint/links.. People can usually find links/info/studies that support their own view.. how many times do we read about studies that totally contradict each other? all the time.. Yes, I have seen some of your threads/posts and no, I am not all that interested in reading pre-chosen/skewed info.. I personally think solar panels/equipment are way overpriced.. and its like a lot of things the govt gets into, the subsidy doesn't really lower the price, it keeps the price higher than it would be otherwise.. and the rules/hoops to jump thru to get the subsidy suck.. not worth it imo (basically at these prices its a scam which is why if I did solar I would diy but some states/cities wont let you do that either [8\|]).. Imo govt subsidies are a gift to manufacturers, retailers, installation corps, etc.. For the govt its a job creation initiative and not a "save the earth" kinda thing.. quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux The fact is without access to the grid, the installations in Hawaii have dropped by 90%. The federal and state governments have subsidies to offsets in many areas to encourage solar power. But if you remove the requirement for the utilities to pay artificially high rates, then even with the federal and state subsidies the panels aren't worthwhile. As for "saving the planet" by using solar power - in the off chance you actually don't know my point of view on that - its entirely hogwash. European nations are refusing to set goals for co2 emissions, Germany is backing away from its subsidies. As studies in spain and Germany have confirmed the net effect of their massive investments into renewable energy has been an INCREASE of emissions and jobs offsourced, energy poverty, and grid instability. I'm happy to provide links, if you actually will bother to read them.

graceadieu -> RE: From Unsustainable to sustainable (1/17/2014 7:13:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri How much time do we have left, Ken? I know you don't know, because no one knows yet. The only thing we do know, is that current known reserves are a particular extraction cost at current technologies are running out. On a grand scale, we are running out (we are consuming it, and I'm very, very, willing to bet it's not in unlimited supply), but how much do we have, and how long will that last? It's tough to say, because improving technology allows us to find and extract oil that was inaccessible before - but also, global demand is going up and up as the developing world becomes increasingly industrialized and prosperous. But I think the fact that oil companies have gotten into alternative energy is probably a sign. They know much better than you or I, and they seem to be seeing the writing on the wall.

mnottertail -> RE: From Unsustainable to sustainable (1/17/2014 7:58:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri And, government intervention to prevent and root out corruption isn't a bad thing. It's about keeping the Market "unhampered," as von Mises puts it. Von Mises, among the other fools of his day theorized economics proceeding from assumptions that are wholly invalid, in violation of actual empirical data to the contrary, and down on into the days of Hayek, Fischer, Becker, North, Sowell, and Friedman, who; in the Menger-Friedman controversy forwarded the theory that proceeding from incorrect assumptions and causes did not matter so long as the outcome was what it was said it would be. Here is the line of communistic freetraders who proceed from this perfect competition, and free market ideal that is unworkable and therefore unthinkable in the real world. This illustrates it exactly. A large group of scientists, sociologists, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, and economists (add as you please) are stranded on a desert island, with a vast store of canned goods, enough to feed them quite well until their rescue which is gauged to be within the year. They cannot find a method to open the cans. Finally, the economist says, I can solve your problem... Assume we have a can opener, he smugly intones.

DesideriScuri -> RE: From Unsustainable to sustainable (1/17/2014 12:41:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux The place was Hawaii. California is looking at slowing down and or other solutions for the same problem. The essential problem is this TJ: Customers of the fossil fuel generating plants pay for the distribution network as part of their bill. People that are putting collectors on their roof and selling the power back to the power companies are not paying for the distribution net, although they are enjoying the benefit of it. In Hawaii this meant that fewer and fewer people were paying the costs of maintain the distribution grid, and it got to be a huge problem. Any single user is not required to connect to the grid. So if they want to only power their own home they are entirely welcome to do so. However, the problem is that solar advocates are using the grid - they just don't want to support it. In fact the very fact of using solar power makes the grid inherently more unstable and more costly. It is, in fact, reasonable therefore to require them to pay something towards its upkeep. These parts, if you generate more power than you use, you either store it in battery banks, or you "sell" it back to the grid (which isn't counter to anything you stated). We do pay both a generation cost, and a distribution cost for power. When we "sell" it to the grid, the only credit gained, is in the generation cost. Example (purely fictional numbers; any resemblance to reality is a complete coincidence): I use 100kWh in a month, paying $10/kWh for generation and $5/kWh for distribution, but generated 50kWh in the sunny and windy portions of that month. My bill would be $1000 for the power I used, less a $500 credit for my "excess" generation, plus $500 for distribution of that 100kWh. Even though my combined cost for power is $15/kwH, my "sell price" is only $10/kWh. Since people pay distribution costs according to what they use, those that use less (even when it has nothing to do with personal power generation), will pay less than those that use more. If I were to have a battery bank connected to solar arrays and a wind farm, but tie into the grid for the assurance that I'll have power, if I neither draw from the grid, nor put anything onto the grid, why should I pay anything once everything's been installed?

DesideriScuri -> RE: From Unsustainable to sustainable (1/17/2014 1:00:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri How much time do we have left, Ken? I know you don't know, because no one knows yet. The only thing we do know, is that current known reserves are a particular extraction cost at current technologies are running out. On a grand scale, we are running out (we are consuming it, and I'm very, very, willing to bet it's not in unlimited supply), but how much do we have, and how long will that last? It's tough to say, because improving technology allows us to find and extract oil that was inaccessible before - but also, global demand is going up and up as the developing world becomes increasingly industrialized and prosperous. Pretty much what I said (not that I'm claiming you were intending something else). quote: But I think the fact that oil companies have gotten into alternative energy is probably a sign. They know much better than you or I, and they seem to be seeing the writing on the wall. Could that have anything to do with regulations? Could it have anything to do with energy companies seeing that people want to include alternative energy sources? GE getting into solar panels isn't necessarily a sign of the demise of fossil fuel power plants. It could very easily be GE catering to the demands and whims of the consumer, aka business development. The problem arises, however, when government comes in and either prevents use of cheaper fuels or reduces the actual costs of more expensive fuels, artificially. Those signals to the Market distort the real demands of consumers. As things get more expensive, they tend to be less demanded by the Market. Just like the cost of oil production changes as technologies change, power generation (as a whole) will also change as technologies make things less expensive and/or recoverable.

mnottertail -> RE: From Unsustainable to sustainable (1/17/2014 1:06:28 PM)
The government did by policy (and by legislation) artificially reduce the cost of petroleum products as well as coal fired electricity plants for onto a century, maybe more. That has led us to be in a rather disadvantaged place today.

mnottertail -> RE: From Unsustainable to sustainable (1/17/2014 1:07:48 PM)
But look!!!! There is a windspill!!!! no injuries were reported, and the water was fine!!!

DomKen -> RE: From Unsustainable to sustainable (1/17/2014 3:21:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse We don't know any of that. 30 + years later and the world is using more oil now that ever. There wasn't a shortage then, and there isn't one now. You've lost touch with reality.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625