[peeb]

Originally Posted by Eug 

1) I don't live in the US.

Sorry - I assumed you did. Regardless, the situation is pretty much the same almost everywhere, to varying degrees.

Originally Posted by Eug 

2) There are lots of subsidies for solar in the US. You can get as much as $20000 off an installation in the US... which would mean it would cost $80000 instead of $100000.

That's true in some places, although the subsidy for carbon fuels is much higher. I'm not sure the subsisdy for solar is as high as you think it is - where did you get the idea that a domestic solar system could cost 100,000?

Originally Posted by Eug 

Furthermore, you can get paid by the state electricity provider if your solar power generates net power for them.

Net metering is good, for sure, but it's not a subsidy - you're selling power.

Originally Posted by Eug 

Subsidies for solar abound, especially if you live in specific areas. However, solar still costs an arm and a leg for startup costs. I don't care so much about coulda woulda shoulda when it comes to my personal expenses and my house.

Subsidies for solar, are, as you point out, hit or miss - you have to live in certain areas. The costs are front loaded, whereas with carbon they are subsidized, socialized and delayed.

Originally Posted by Eug 

The bottom line is when someone says I should invest in solar or something for my home to help the environment, I have to wonder if they have any concept of the real world practicality.

Well, I agree with you that under the current subsidy regime it's difficult for individuals to make it make financial sense, but when you talk about 'real world practicality', I don't think you understand how much the public purse is dealing with the problems of carbon based fuel without passing those costs on to users.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by peeb 

That's true in some places, although the subsidy for carbon fuels is much higher. I'm not sure the subsisdy for solar is as high as you think it is - where did you get the idea that a domestic solar system could cost 100,000?

Those are real-world estimates for large homes, assuming you actually want to deal with near-peak power usage in your home with solar.

Estimates for say $25000-40000 solar setups are either for much smaller (and brand new very energy efficient) homes or for only partial coverage of power usage in a more usual home.

Quite frankly, I'd be better off ripping out my drywall and redoing all the insulation.

Net metering is good, for sure, but it's not a subsidy - you're selling power.

Actually, it indeed may be subsidized (depending upon what you mean by the term). The sold power is often at full residential rates, not at much lower bulk rates. Basically they're doing you a favour... because you're doing them a favour.

Well, I agree with you that under the current subsidy regime it's difficult for individuals to make it make financial sense, but when you talk about 'real world practicality', I don't think you understand how much the public purse is dealing with the problems of carbon based fuel without passing those costs on to users.

I pay my taxes, don't you?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Those are real-world estimates for large homes, assuming you actually want to deal with near-peak power usage in your home with solar.
Estimates for say $40000 solar setups are either for much smaller homes or for only partial coverage of power usage in that home.

I've never seen cost estimates that high for regular homes, but regardless, it's rare to install solar systems that produce near peak power. If you want to hit to cost sweet point, you rarely want to be producing more than you use yourself - producing close to peak usage would definitely put you in that category.

Originally Posted by Eug 

Actually, it indeed may be subsidized (depending upon what you mean by the term). The sold power is often at full residential rates, not at much lower bulk rates. Basically they're doing you a favour... because you're doing them a favour.

It's a sale, so I'm pretty sure it's not getting any government subsidy, which is what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by Eug 

I pay my taxes, don't you?

Indeed I pay taxes, but have a hard time thinking that using public resources to subsidize pretty much the worst possible power sources (coal etc) is a good use of my taxes. Of course, in addition to this, much of the cost isn't even being dealt with, and will be left for future generations.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I've never seen cost estimates that high for regular homes

Then it seems to me you haven't looked far enough into it.

To put it another way, my subwoofer alone can use 1000 Watts, so I just have to laugh when some of the solar PR stuff suggests that 2000 Watts of solar power generation is enough for a home.

It seems to me a reasonable rule of thumb is that it's around $8-10 per Watt, so that's about $20000 for 2000 Watts. If you go for more Watts it gets cheaper, so say $80000 for 10000 Watts.

Or are you assuming that you're going to heat the home with natural gas or something? I live in Canada. It gets cold here in the winter. And what about my hot water?

but regardless, it's rare to install solar systems that produce near peak power. If you want to hit to cost sweet point, you rarely want to be producing more than you use yourself - producing close to peak usage would definitely put you in that category.

I agree, it's rare to do that, but that's because it costs far too much money, since solar is so expensive.

Like I said, I'd do if it cost me $10000. But I ain't going to do it if it costs me $60000 or $40000 or even $25000.

It would take me what, 25 years to recoup my investment? I don't know if I'll even be living there by then.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by peeb 

What nonsense. I'm talking about things that many or most people can do...

Then you should phrase it that way. Say what you mean, don't try to blow it up into "we as a society." When you do that, you're the one responsible for the humorous predictability of the discussion. You're the one who started the over-generalizations.

More on topic, instead of saying "our society should make more affordable solar panels," why don't you say "I'm going to make more affordable solar panels"? In other words, why put the burden of responsibility on everyone else? It's hard, that's why. Your rhetoric makes it sound like a no-brainer. But it's a, um, brainer.

[olePigeon]

Traditional solar is cost prohibitive. People who don't make a lot of money looking to save money aren't going to be buying solar.

There are a lot of promising cheaper solar technologies on the horizon.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Eug 

To put it another way, my subwoofer alone can use 1000 Watts, so I just have to laugh when some of the solar PR stuff suggests that 2000 Watts of solar power generation is enough for a home.

The way you phrase that makes me think you are a little confused. Are you mixing up sound output measures with power consumption? What sub-woofer do you have? Regardless, I think what you've probably seen is the claim that for an average home 2000 is the typical low end load?

Originally Posted by Eug 

It seems to me a reasonable rule of thumb is that it's around $8-10 per Watt, so that's about $20000 for 2000 Watts. If you go for more Watts it gets cheaper, so say $80000 for 10000 Watts.

Where are you getting those figures? They seem awfully high.

Originally Posted by Eug 

Or are you assuming that you're going to heat the home with natural gas or something? I live in Canada. It gets cold here in the winter.

Am I understanding you right that you are trying to heat your house in Canada with a solar electric system?

Originally Posted by Eug 

I agree, it's rare to do that, but that's because it costs far too much money, since solar is so expensive.

By 'so expensive', you mean relative to subsidized fossil fuels. All fuel is expensive, one way or another. We've decided as a society to subsidize the worst of them. We need to stop doing that.

Originally Posted by Eug 

It would take me what, 25 years to recoup my investment? I don't know if I'll even be living there by then.

Again, I'm not sure where you're getting your figures or exactly what they include, so I'm not sure. 25 years sounds high, but then, I just invested in a roof that will pay back over that kind of time frame - it's not unusual to do that - if you move, you just roll it into the sale price of the house.

[Eug]

5000 watts - Electric oven
5000 watts - Clothes dryer (electric)
3800 watts - Water heater (electric)
3500 watts - Central Air Conditioner (2.5 tons)
1500 watts - Microwave oven
1500 watts - Toaster (four-slot)
900 watts - Coffee maker
800 watts - Range burner
500-1440 watts - Window unit air conditioner
200-700 watts - Refrigerator

Note that for the above, electric heaters are not even listed.

Originally Posted by peeb 

The way you phrase that makes me think you are a little confused. Are you mixing up sound output measures with power consumption? What sub-woofer do you have? Regardless....

My sub at max requires a circuit capable of 10A (120V). It probably draws closer to 7-8 Amps at peak, but you get the picture. It's an SVS PB-13 Ultra. I'm not sure what sound output measures I'd get confused with.

Am I understanding you right that you are trying to heat your house in Canada with a solar electric system?

No, cuz it's too expensive.

One could go with alternative solar heating methods... if you ripped out all the walls and started over.

By 'so expensive', you mean relative to subsidized fossil fuels. All fuel is expensive, one way or another. We've decided as a society to subsidize the worst of them. We need to stop doing that.

Fine, go right ahead. Maybe in 20 years I'll follow suit.

Again, I'm not sure where you're getting your figures or exactly what they include, so I'm not sure. 25 years sounds high, but then, I just invested in a roof that will pay back over that kind of time frame - it's not unusual to do that - if you move, you just roll it into the sale price of the house.

Solar panels on the roof aren't going to get you a $40000 premium on the house.

Where are you getting those figures? They seem awfully high.

Google is your friend.

It's around $8-10 per Watt for US residential installations. It's lower if you go for higher wattage, which is why it sometimes makes more sense for large commercial buildings.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Eug 

3800 watts - Water heater (electric)

Well, this one popped out as highlighting that you need to do a bit more research - you definitely should not consider running an electric water heater on solar electric - solar water heating will be much more cost effective. Water heating is the second largest energy cost in most homes, so that's usually the most cost effective point. Solar water heaters are also much cheaper than photo panels.

The bigger issue here though is that you are saying you need this level of power consumption, and that you also want a socialized system where other people under right the cost for you, it's the second part I take issue with.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.

I swore I was going to stay away, but this right there requires the Chris V Seal of Approval.™



We could drill every drop of oil in all 50 states, and it'd make about not one iota of difference with the long-term problem. The short-term problem is that we're experiencing a speculation bubble on the price of oil. The short-termers are speculating on it becoming a long-term problem, which it might. The Saudis are declining to pump more oil, perhaps because they can't. Russia is bellicose and corrupt, and the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge has about enough oil to fuel America's fleet of Hummers and Suburbans for about 3 hours, at highway speeds.

Expediency requires that no one suffer any pain that might be inflicted by an actual long-term solution, unfortunately. We're left with nothing but a surfeit of stupid.

[peeb]

Well said Chris.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Well, this one popped out as highlighting that you need to do a bit more research - you definitely should not consider running an electric water heater on solar electric - solar water heating will be much more cost effective. Water heating is the second largest energy cost in most homes, so that's usually the most cost effective point. Solar water heaters are also much cheaper than photo panels.

I don't think you get it. I'm not considering any of this at all, because it's impractical in my home, because I'd have to heavily alter (at significant expense) what already exists in the home. I'd consider some of these things if I were building a home, but I'm not.

The bigger issue here though is that you are saying you need this level of power consumption

Nope. I'm saying I want to be able do it. If I didn't, I'd just move into a smaller home.

and that you also want a socialized system where other people under right the cost for you, it's the second part I take issue with.

Ironically, I'd be perfectly happy if the government raised electricity prices a bit and shunted some of that money to research in alternative and renewable fuels. However, that still doesn't mean I'd actually buy a solar setup any time soon, even with heavy subsidization, because it simply doesn't make financial sense.

There's a HUGE difference between gradually shifting governmental policies and spending $60000 of your cash up front just because.

Let me ask you. Do you have a full-fledged solar setup in your house? If not, then why not? If you're living in an apartment then why aren't you demanding your landlord put one in? Do you own a car? If so, why? Etc.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I don't think you get it. I'm not considering any of this at all, because it's impractical in my home, because I'd have to heavily alter (at significant expense) what already exist in the home. I'd consider some of these things if I were building a home, but I'm not.

I think what you are saying is that you are not interested in finding out about it. That's fine, but you have several major misconceptions.

Originally Posted by Eug 

Ironically, I'd be perfectly happy if the government raised electricity prices a bit and shunted some of that money to research in alternative and renewable fuels.

The issue here is that the government is currently massively subsidizing the costs of the fuel you are using. It's not a question of raising the costs, the costs are already huge, they are just being paid by the state and society in general, not the people using the fuels.

Originally Posted by Eug 

However, that still doesn't mean I'd actually buy a solar setup, even with heavy subsidization, because it simply doesn't make financial sense.

Not to you, because you are not paying the cost of the fuel you are using, which is being massively subsidized. It's amazing that you think that solar needs subsidy, when it is carbon fuels that are being subsidized. It's hard to discuss this with you when you don't seem to have some of the basic facts.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by chris v 

and the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge has about enough oil to fuel America's fleet of Hummers and Suburbans for about 3 hours, at highway speeds.

This is the line people keep spouting, I guess because they heard it spouted somewhere else, but why is it when I've asked for SPECIFIC PROOF of how much oil is there, how long would it last in the REAL WORLD, not in fantasyland, as compared to other smaller reserves that have been pumping steadily for decades on end, and therefore how much REAL WORLD time would it buy us toward eliminating the need for the equivalent amount of Middle East oil until we can develop alternatives- I get nothing but cricket chirps.

There's no shortage of stupidity alright- from all sides of this issue.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I think what you are saying is that you are not interested in finding out about it. That's fine, but you have several major misconceptions.

I already looked into parts of it months ago. If you think you can find a company to install a solar setup for $2 a Watt, then I'm interested.

The going rate is usually around $8 a watt or more for residential installations. You keep suggesting that's not true, but have provided nothing to back that up. Look it up. It's out there.

The issue here is that the government is currently massively subsidizing the costs of the fuel you are using. It's not a question of raising the costs, the costs are already huge, they are just being paid by the state and society in general, not the people using the fuels.

Unsubsidized electricity where I live would probably mean an increase in electricity costs of about a third. Yes, that's a huge increase, but solar would still be impractical in that context.

Not to you, because you are not paying the cost of the fuel you are using, which is being massively subsidized. It's amazing that you think that solar needs subsidy, when it is carbon fuels that are being subsidized. It's hard to discuss this with you when you don't seem to have some of the basic facts.

You are very selective with your "facts". The fact of the matter is BOTH are subsidized. Solar essentially wouldn't exist at all without the numerous subsidies it's received over the years. And something like a $20000 rebate for solar installs in certain areas is nothing to sneeze at. Still, solar is largely impractical. If it weren't then there wouldn't be a need for such large rebates. And yet, despite the existence of such large rebates, solar is not popular.

It's not as if people LIKE paying high electricity bills. They just don't like paying $40000 up front to save a little bit so that they can break even on their investment 25 years later.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Unsubsidized electricity where I live would probably mean an increase in electricity costs of about a third.

It would be much, much more than that. When you take into account the infrastructure subsidies, tax breaks, health care costs, climate change adaptation etc, the costs of carbon are enormous.

Originally Posted by Eug 

You are very selective with your "facts". The fact of the matter is BOTH are subsidized. Solar essentially wouldn't exist at all without the numerous subsidies it's received over the years.

Somewhat, but carbon far more.

Originally Posted by Eug 

And something like a $20000 rebate for solar installs in certain states is nothing to sneeze at. Still, solar is largely impractical. If it weren't then there wouldn't be a need for such large rebates. And yet, despite the existence of such large rebates, solar is not popular.

Again, the rebates are tiny compared to carbon subsidies.

Originally Posted by Eug 

It's not as if people LIKE paying high electricity bills. They just don't like paying $40000 up front to save a little bit so that they can break even on their investment 25 years later.

Right, so you'd rather everyone kept paying far more tax and running up future cleanup costs to keep carbon fuels as cheap for you as you'd like.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

This is the line people keep spouting, I guess because they heard it spouted somewhere else, but why is it when I've asked for SPECIFIC PROOF of how much oil is there, how long would it last in the REAL WORLD, not in fantasyland, as compared to other smaller reserves that have been pumping steadily for decades on end, and therefore how much REAL WORLD time would it buy us toward eliminating the need for the equivalent amount of Middle East oil until we can develop alternatives- I get nothing but cricket chirps.

There's no shortage of stupidity alright- from all sides of this issue.

I know my post was hyperbole, but I have read from authoritative sources, that at current rates of consumption, that AWR has a year's maybe two, worth of oil. No one's sure, but it's not exactly Kuwait. It really doesn't buy us squat in the LONG TERM, which was my point. I don't feel like digging for hyperlinks,as I'm at work and lunch is almost over, but you could google your refutation, if you'd like.

The problem is, if we don't work on ALL aspects of this -- reducing consumption through efficiency, and yes, maybe a little bit of self-sacrifice (*shudder*), renewable fuels, alternative fuels, democracy and stability in oil-rich nations, like Nigeria, Venezuela and Russia, AND judicious drilling, it's not gonna matter. AWR by itself cannot fix the real problem.

[peeb]

[Eug]

Originally Posted by peeb 

It would be much, much more than that. When you take into account the infrastructure subsidies, tax breaks, health care costs, climate change adaptation etc, the costs of carbon are enormous.

Somewhat, but carbon far more.

Again, the rebates are tiny compared to carbon subsidies.

Right, so you'd rather everyone kept paying far more tax and running up future cleanup costs to keep carbon fuels as cheap for you as you'd like.

These types of arguments are not very useful. Remember, the infrastructure for carbon was built decades ago. Solar is NEW expediture, even very forceful handwaving isn't going to make that go away.

That's the problem. Sky is falling arguments by some only serves to annoy people, especially when there is no viable alternative. Solar is an alternative, but it is a horrendously expensive one, we haven't even counted the various environmental costs of manufacturing solar panels.

People want financially viable solutions, not just criticisms by people who think they know better.

I bought a Prius for $30000. It's a good design, even though I could get a similar non-hybrid car for $5000 less. Financially it can make sense without an enormous out-of-pocket up-front expense.

The same is not true even for subsidized solar. No matter what some may want to believe, most people simply aren't prepared to spend $40000 for solar, because the financials aren't sound in today's world. You may not like today's world, but that's the world we live in. That can change with time, but you're not liking doesn't mean it isn't the truth.

P.S.

1) I'm still waiting for a link for a company that will install a solar system in my home for $2 a Watt.
2) I'm still waiting for a description of how you've converted your home to solar use.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by chris v 

I know my post was hyperbole, but I have read from authoritative sources, that at current rates of consumption, that AWR has a year's maybe two, worth of oil. No one's sure, but it's not exactly Kuwait.

A "year or two" based on what? Replacing the ENTIRE US consumption of oil? If so, that would be ridiculous, as we don't need to do that, and the entire purpose of presenting such an argument would just be for the sake of propaganda.

A "year or two" based on replacing just volatile Middle Eastern sources, not Canada, Mexico, our own domestic oil sources and the rest of the world outside the ME? If so, I'd like to know how it jibes with the fact that we're already the #3 producer of oil, the sources we tap now don't "run out" after only a year or two, and ANWR is probably the largest reserve. The math there doesn't add up.

So once again, how much oil in ANWR would actually replace what NEEDS to be replaced, and for how long? That's a legitmate question. If there's no legitimate answer, then ANWR should remain on the table, or those opposed to drilling there need to GET an actual answer.

[peeb]

Eug, you're talking past the issue here. You're not recognizing that carbon is far more expensive than most other options, but that these costs are socialized.

I can't answer question 1, since I don't really know what your home is like or where it is. I doubt that you can install solar for $2 a watt, but then, I don't think you can get any fuel for that price without massive subsidies. So we're back where we came in - you're not willing to accept that you need massive public subsidy to get carbon fuel for $2 a watt.

As to my house, I have a solar water heater system that provides all my water heating in the summer, and about 2/3 in the winter. For electricity, I don't use it - the issue I've run into is that as we have converted most things to very energy efficient versions and got rid of electric applications we don't need, ironically solar gets less cost effective. At this point, since all my electricity is from wind / solar or biogas anyway, it doesn't make sense for me to put in panels. It's the trade off between efficiency and generation. Most of the investment on this in my home has been towards cutting usage.
I'm pretty interested in the massive utility scale solar that's just going in in California though - you tracking that one?

[chris v]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

A "year or two" based on what? Replacing the ENTIRE US consumption of oil? If so, that would be ridiculous, as we don't need to do that, and the entire purpose of presenting such an argument would just be for the sake of propaganda.

A "year or two" based on replacing just volatile Middle Eastern sources, not Canada, Mexico, our own domestic oil sources and the rest of the world outside the ME? If so, I'd like to know how it jibes with the fact that we're already the #3 producer of oil, the sources we tap now don't "run out" after only a year or two, and ANWR is probably the largest reserve. The math there doesn't add up.

So once again, how much oil in ANWR would actually replace what NEEDS to be replaced, and for how long? That's a legitmate question. If there's no legitimate answer, then ANWR should remain on the table, or those opposed to drilling there need to GET an actual answer.

Break it out how you want. It could supply 20% of our oil for 3-5 years, 10% of our oil for 5-10 years, etc. It's not high math. I'm also not saying we should never drill for new oil in the US. The problem that you seem to be unwilling to face is that no amount of new drilling in the US is going to fix the long-term problem by itself. We simply do not have the reserves for any kind of total oil independence, unless we cut our current rate of consumption of crude by 75-80%.

[peeb]

Exactly. Any argument for drilling ANWAR ultimately comes down to arguing that, instead of investing in a post carbon economy, we should spend the next 20 years destroying America's last wilderness areas and tearing up the middle east with expensive foreign wars to prop up the end of the carbon economy.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Eug, you're talking past the issue here. You're not recognizing that carbon is far more expensive than most other options, but that these costs are socialized.

I can't answer question 1, since I don't really know what your home is like or where it is. I doubt that you can install solar for $2 a watt, but then, I don't think you can get any fuel for that price without massive subsidies. So we're back where we came in - you're not willing to accept that you need massive public subsidy to get carbon fuel for $2 a watt.

I fully realize carbon fuel is subsidized. However, to get rid of that tomorrow would be world chaos.

Similarly, to demand that solar automagically be subsidized to a similar cost per Watt tomorrow would simply be stupid, when it inherently costs more. And are you really suggesting that an $80000 solar system for someone's private home should be $20000, with the government paying $60000 of that cost? The government would go bankrupt, and you'd be back in chaos again.

The solution is research, diversification and evolution, not revolution.

As to my house, I have a solar water heater system that provides all my water heating in the summer, and about 2/3 in the winter. For electricity, I don't use it - the issue I've run into is that as we have converted most things to very energy efficient versions and got rid of electric applications we don't need, ironically solar gets less cost effective. At this point, since all my electricity is from wind / solar or biogas anyway, it doesn't make sense for me to put in panels. It's the trade off between efficiency and generation. Most of the investment on this in my home has been towards cutting usage.

I applaud you for getting rid of applications you feel you don't need. What may they be? However, I personally won't be giving up my home theatre system with massive subwoofer and surround sound and 2000 lumen projector. I also won't give up my computers. I also won't give up my clothes dryer, even though I could theoretically hang my clothes in the backyard.

I'm pretty interested in the massive utility scale solar that's just going in in California though - you tracking that one?

Not really, because I don't live in California, nor will we ever get any energy supply from there. I've been looking a energy sources in Canada.

P.S. The only reason those exist in Canada is because of government subsidies.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I fully realize carbon fuel is subsidized. However, to get rid of that tomorrow would be world chaos.

But there is not even a road map for this. Your argument is that 'because doing it in one day would be disruptive we should not do it?'

Originally Posted by Eug 

Similarly, to demand that solar automagically be subsidized to a similar cost per Watt tomorrow would simply be stupid, when it inherently costs more. And are you really suggesting that an $80000 solar system for someone's private home should be $20000, with the government paying $60000 of that cost? The government would go bankrupt, and you'd be back in chaos again.

Over the long term the government and the people would be better off, because the full cost of carbon is higher. I'm not suggesting that the government subsidize anything, I'd like to see all fuel subsidies hidden and direct, go away. If we did that, solar would beat our carbon easily.

Originally Posted by Eug 

The solution is research, diversification and evolution, not revolution.

No, if we stopped subsidizing all the wrong things, the market would produce the revolution. Remember how we used to use whale oil to light houses? Same thing here - imagine what would have happened if the government had subsidized whale oil to try to keep whalers in business.

Originally Posted by Eug 

I applaud you for getting rid of applications you feel you don't need. What may they be? However, I personally won't be giving up my home theatre system with massive subwoofer and surround sound and 2000 lumen projector. I also won't give up my computers. I also won't give up my clothes dryer, even though I could theoretically hang my clothes in the backyard.

That's fine, I'm not trying to tell you what to do, I'm trying to say that I don't think that society as a whole should subsidize your choices.

Originally Posted by Eug 

Not really, because I don't live in California, nor will we ever get any energy supply from there. I've been looking a energy sources in Canada.

Really? Never is a long time. I can pretty easily see a day when Nevada might ship solar energy to Canada.

Originally Posted by Eug 

P.S. The only reason those exist in Canada is because of government subsidies.

The only reason carbon fuels exist in Canada is because of government subsidy. I don't see your point.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Break it out how you want. It could supply 20% of our oil for 3-5 years, 10% of our oil for 5-10 years, etc. It's not high math.

Let's assume that 10% of our oil needs come from volatile ME sources- what's wrong with getting out of the ME for 5 to 10 years, and develop alternatives and more efficient ways to use the rest of the supply so we can permanantly do without that 5 to 10% thereafter?

Notice how people like peeb simply cannot address this subject rationally, without interjecting propaganda and FUD like pretending we'd destroy the whole country by simply doing what we're already doing to the tune of being the world's #3 oil producer. It's why I've asked for rational people to give an answer- all the propaganda and stupidity gets tiring. You're right about one thing, no one can power anything with stupidity, but it would be nice if we could

I'm alo not saying we should never drill for new oil in the US. The problem that you seem to be unwilling to face is that no amount of new drilling in the US is going to fix the long-term problem by itself. We simply do not have the reserves for any kind of total oil independence.

No one said that all we should be doing is drill for oil and nothing else- you didn't even read my question coherently if you thought I did. Meanwhile, "Not drilling for oil while doing nothing else" just seems even dumber and just as short-sighted, yet seems to be what a lot on your side of the fence offer up.

Total oil independence is a red herring- we don't need "total oil independence" from the sane world, just a replacement for the sources in the Middle East, so that we could cut ourselves loose from that unstable pile of sand and let them sell their oil elsewhere.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by peeb 

But there is not even a road map for this. Your argument is that 'because doing it in one day would be disruptive we should not do it?'

Nope. Sorry, but your repeated misrepresentations of what people say are not going to cut it.

What I believe is we should move away from our dependency upon oil, but not scrap it tomorrow, because that would be stupid.

Over the long term the government and the people would be better off, because the full cost of carbon is higher. I'm not suggesting that the government subsidize anything, I'd like to see all fuel subsidies hidden and direct, go away. If we did that, solar would beat our carbon easily.

Not really. Remember, the infrastructure for carbon fuels already exists. The same isn't true for solar.

That's fine, I'm not trying to tell you what to do, I'm trying to say that I don't think that society as a whole should subsidize your choices.

What you seem to be suggesting is economic revolution based on a few nice sentiments, but not on any reasonable economic plan. Hell, you couldn't even support solar panel manufacturing at this time on electricity generated from solar.

Really? Never is a long time. I can pretty easily see a day when Nevada might ship solar energy to Canada.

The only reason carbon fuels exist in Canada is because of government subsidy. I don't see your point.

My point is that subsidies for solar already exist, and are in fact quite large. Just because you wish solar is inherently super financially viable doesn't make it so... today. However, increased development of the technology will certainly help.

BTW, you might want to know that most of our electricity here is NOT based on fossil fuels. Only about a quarter here is. Over half is nuclear, and the remaining quarter is hydro-electric (with a bit of wind thrown in).

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Nope. Sorry, but your repeated misrepresentations of what people say are not going to cut it.
What I believe is we should move away from our dependency upon oil, but not scrap it tomorrow, because that would be stupid.

The reason you think that we are dependent on oil is because it is subsidized so heavily. What you really mean is that you are dependent on oil subsidies.

Originally Posted by Eug 

Not really. Remember, the infrastructure for carbon fuels already exists. The same isn't true for solar.

Yeah, you're right. If only we had a system for transmitting electricity. Perhaps we could use wires strung from houses to generating stations. Oh, wait...

Originally Posted by Eug 

What you seem to be suggesting is economic revolution based on a few nice sentiments, but not on any reasonable economic plan. Hell, you couldn't even support solar panel manufacturing at this time on electricity generated from solar.

No, I'm suggesting we stop subsidizing oil. That would create a revolution in energy usage. No nice sentiments needed. The only reason solar doesn't look competative is that it is competing with such highly subsidized alternatives.

Originally Posted by Eug 

My point is that subsidies for solar already exist, and are in fact quite large.

Relative to what? Certainly not relative to carbon fuel subsidies.

Originally Posted by Eug 

Just because you wish solar is inherently super financially viable doesn't make it so. If that were the case, industrialization wouldn't have been based on fossil fuels.

You mean the industrialization that happened in the 19th century? Because that's not a complete red-herring. Oh, wait, it is.

Originally Posted by Eug 

BTW, you might want to know that most of our electricity here is NOT based on fossil fuels. Only about a quarter here is. Over half is nuclear, and the remaining quarter is hydro-electric (with a bit of wind thrown in).

Well, that's great that a quarter of your fuel comes from sustainable sources! Only three quarters to go!

[Eug]

Yeah, you're right. If only we had a system for transmitting electricity. Perhaps we could use wires strung from houses to generating stations. Oh, wait...

I guess solar generation sites magically appear on their own then, and there is no (monetary or environmental) cost whatsoever to the creation of them.

I guess that's true in a world where home installations of solar panels costs $2 a Watt, which is why you've already installed them. Oh wait...

No, I'm suggesting we stop subsidizing oil. That would create a revolution in energy usage. No nice sentiments needed. The only reason solar doesn't look competative is that it is competing with such highly subsidized alternatives.

I find it interesting that some of solar proponents make these sorts of claims, when the respectable solar companies themselves don't claim this.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I guess solar generation sites magically appear on their own then, and there is no cost whatsoever to the creation of them.

You must be using a different definition of 'infrastructure' to the rest of us.

Originally Posted by Eug 

I find it interesting that some of solar proponents make these sorts of claims, when the solar companies themselves don't claim this.

I think that's probably because solar companies are in the business of trying to gain subsidies, and think that they would look hypocritical for criticizing other industries for taking them.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Let's assume that 10% of our oil needs come from volatile ME sources- what's wrong with getting out of the ME for 5 to 10 years, and develop alternatives and more efficient ways to use the rest of the supply so we can permanantly do without that 5 to 10% thereafter?

Notice how people like peeb simply cannot address this subject rationally, without interjecting propaganda and FUD like pretending we'd destroy the whole country by simply doing what we're already doing to the tune of being the world's #3 oil producer. It's why I've asked for rational people to give an answer- all the propaganda and stupidity gets tiring. You're right about one thing, no one can power anything with stupidity, but it would be nice if we could



No one said that all we should be doing is drill for oil and nothing else- you didn't even read my question coherently if you thought I did. Meanwhile, "Not drilling for oil while doing nothing else" just seems even dumber and just as short-sighted, yet seems to be what a lot on your side of the fence offer up.

Total oil independence is a red herring- we don't need "total oil independence" from the sane world, just a replacement for the sources in the Middle East, so that we could cut ourselves loose from that unstable pile of sand and let them sell their oil elsewhere.

Okay, I know I jumped in on page three, so maybe I'm out of place calling you out specifically. I'm actually in just about total agreement with what you're saying, here -- except that no alternatives are being offered by the govt. in power at the present time. The conservative argument seems to be the one that all alternatives are either too expensive, or too far off in some distant future to concern ourselves with. (except for corn-based ethanol, which takes about as much oil to produce as it replaces) I see a much more concerted effort for higher milage standards, wind and solar power coming from the left side of the political spectrum, from where I sit, at least compared to the current administration whose energy policy seems to amount to "bomb them all."

I look around the world though, and I don't see a lot of potential for replacing middle-eastern oil. Mexico's biggest field is dwindling fast, which leaves us with the utter lawlwssness of western Africa, Putin, Hugo Chavez, who I'm sure are two of your favorite despots, and what? Canada?

[peeb]

Utter lawlessness in west Africa could be good news for Haliburton though.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You must be using a different definition of 'infrastructure' to the rest of us.

I guess solar power generation sites and the support for them do not count in your book.

Around here, the electricity infrastructure includes not just the grid, but all the power plants involved in generating that power, for obvious reasons.

I think that's probably because solar companies are in the business of trying to gain subsidies, and think that they would look hypocritical for criticizing other industries for taking them.

And maybe just perhaps they realize just how many subsidies they need to begin to compete in today's world.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Utter lawlessness in west Africa could be good news for Haliburton though.

It's working great for them in Iraq. Hasn't done much for the price of oil, as far as the common man is concerned, but it's worked wonders for their stockholders.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by chris v 

I see a much more concerted effort for higher milage standards, wind and solar power coming from the left side of the political spectrum, from where I sit, at least compared to the current administration whose energy policy seems to amount to "bomb them all."

I'm not looking for any real solutions to this or much of anything else to come from politicians. Politicians rarely have solutions- it's not even in the nature of politics to see actual solutions as beneficial, since perpetuating a need for more politics takes higher priority. The political left tarnishes itself on this issue with many people, because many on the left can't divorce themselves from other crazy schemes and ideas like socializing everything in sight, and therefore aren't trusted by many to do anything else with energy policy but use it as an excuse to implement more of the same.

Classic example: When the shriller of leftists expresses crazy ideas like "it'll be wonderful to have taxes on energy so high it'll force people to conserve!" without the slightest concern for the actual fallout of such a disastrous policy, and the fact that it smacks more of the usual far left desire for behavior control than any real concern for conservation, then they unwittingly take themselves out of any rational debate.

By the way, I don't think the far-right has any better ideas either- especially since, as I noted, I don't think the actual solutions to all this will ever come from politicians, or politically-motivated interests in general.

I look around the world though, and I don't see a lot of potential for replacing middle-eastern oil. Mexico's biggest field is dwindling fast, which leaves us with the utter lawlessness of western Africa, Putin, Hugo Chavez, who I'm sure are two of your favorite despots, and what? Canada?

We've got to replace it all at some point, however much sooner or later, whether we like it or not. I say the faster we can get out of the M.E. and give them what so many claim they are clamoring for (a greatly reduced US presence there) the better.

I personally would like that reduced presence to be felt the most in the form of our money.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Eug 

And maybe just perhaps they realize just how many subsidies they need to begin to compete in today's world.

Again, I'll make the same point, which you never respond to - yes, they need a lot of subsidies to compete with products that are even more subsidized!

[Eug]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Again, I'll make the same point, which you never respond to - yes, they need a lot of subsidies to compete with products that are even more subsidized!

You keep claiming this, but provide zero evidence for it. I have not seen claims from the companies providing solar energy that say this either. Yes there are subsidies for fossil fuels and stuff I have seen suggests that if the subsidies were removed the prices would jump about 30% locally. That is significant, but nowhere near the crazy high suggestions you seem to be making, and like I said before, your repeated vigorous online handwaving isn't going to make us believe it.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Eug 

You keep claiming this, but provide zero evidence for it.

You want evidence that carbon fuels are subsidized? It's easy to demonstrate for the US, I'm not as familiar with the Canadian situation, but I'm pretty sure it's similar.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is a good place to start:
Subsidizing Big Oil
In the US Big Oil gets about 80bn dollars a year, just in tax credits. By contrast solar programs are in the low hundreds of millions.
This is a pretty interesting article too: http://www.earthtrack.net/earthtrack...ormOptions.pdf

According to Donald Lubick, the U.S. Department of Treasury's former Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy the oil industry "probably has larger tax incentives relative to its size than any other industry in the country".

[Eug]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You want evidence that carbon fuels are subsidized?

Uh no. I guess you didn't read any of the many posts from us above.

What we want to see is where you get your idea that carbon fuels are so subsidized that those subsidies make solar subsidies seem miniscule.

EDIT:

I see you added some stuff later.

Ah, the classic "hidden environmental costs are subsidies" argument. This is the vigorous online handwaving I was talking about.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Ah, the classic "hidden environmental costs are subsidies" argument. This is the vigorous online handwaving I was talking about.

Well, I find it hard to imagine how you think that having to pay to clean something up in the future is not a cost. Let's float down that African river for a little while though, and imagine that we'll never have to clean up the mess we're making. Even under those rules, subsidies for carbon are still much, much higher.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Well, I find it hard to imagine how you think that having to pay to clean something up in the future is not a cost.

I find it hard to imagine how you think that moving everything to solar tomorrow is going to solve all the world's ills.

Originally Posted by peeb 

Let's float down that African river for a little while though, and imagine that we'll never have to clean up the mess we're making. Even under those rules, subsidies for carbon are still much, much higher.

Repeating the same things over and over again adamantly isn't going to make it any more true.

[ryaxnb]

Originally Posted by sek929 

If you need a pickup like I do you would be a retard not to get 4WD. Ever try to drive a RWD pickup with no weight in the bed around during a storm? Lemme just say that it'll keep you on your toes, so to speak.

Don't know about snow but my dad drives two 2WD RWD pickups ( late '70s Sierra! and a 90s Ford) off-road regularly (he's a forester) and rarely gets stuck. He knows his limits, but drives pretty far off-road and goes pretty deep. He uses an ATV (in 2WD also) or a Jeep CJ (4WD) when he needs to go further.

[sek929]

Some of the larger trucks have limited slip differentials which help out greatly. Carrying weight most of the time would also help. In the snow a RWD pickup can be not only dangerous but frustrating to keep it in line. You can do it if you know how to drive, but it can be very tricky.

Your pops obviously knows his sh!t, logging trails ain't exactly the freeway.

I guess I should change my statement to small trucks...small RWD trucks in the snow are utterly useless, I've owned one and let me tell you, I would have had a better time skiing to work then driving.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ryaxnb 

and rarely gets stuck.

Originally Posted by sek929 

In the snow a RWD pickup can be not only dangerous but frustrating to keep it in line. You can do it if you know how to drive, but it can be very tricky.

Isn't the issue (in a sense) one of not getting "stuck" in the snow? I mean, your rear wheels are going to be squirrely to begin with, you put something slippery underneath them and you got nuthin.

It's like trying to steer while you're doing an endo, any turn you make is going to throw your ass in the other direction.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I find it hard to imagine how you think that moving everything to solar tomorrow is going to solve all the world's ills.

Nice that you completely dodged the issue that, of course, someone is going to have to pay to clean up the mess that carbon fuels make. While solar will not solve all the world's ills, it will solve that one.

Originally Posted by Eug 

Repeating the same things over and over again adamantly isn't going to make it any more true.

No, but that was not what I did. I posted you the evidence that you asked for that carbon fuels receive far, far more subsidy than solar. Interesting that you ignore that, and instead pretend that that evidence isn't there.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I guess I should change my statement to small trucks...small RWD trucks in the snow are utterly useless, I've owned one and let me tell you, I would have had a better time skiing to work then driving.

Naw, it's "any." RWD trucks just don't make sense in the snow.

greg

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Eug 

It seems to me a reasonable rule of thumb is that it's around $8-10 per Watt, so that's about $20000 for 2000 Watts. If you go for more Watts it gets cheaper, so say $80000 for 10000 Watts.

Originally Posted by peeb 

Where are you getting those figures? They seem awfully high.

So...

If you look around the net at the various sites that install solar systems, they suggest that for a large home, something like an 8 kilowatt system is recommended, which works out to 800 square feet of panels. Pricing varies, with the low end of the scale suggesting $7 per Watt and the high end of the scale suggesting $12 per Watt.

With these numbers, a reasonable estimate is $72000 for a solar installation for a large home.

This number is 10% less than the $80000 I mentioned before. My bad.

[peeb]

So we've settled the issue of carbon being far, far more subsidized than solar? Just checking.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by peeb 

So we've settled the issue of carbon being far, far more subsidized than solar? Just checking.

Dude, give it a rest already.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Eug 

So...
If you look around the net at the various sites that install solar systems, they suggest that for a large home, something like an 8 kilowatt system is recommended, which works out to 800 square feet of panels. Pricing varies, with the low end of the scale suggesting $7 per Watt and the high end of the scale suggesting $12 per Watt.
With these numbers, a reasonable estimate is $72000 for a solar installation for a large home.
This number is 10% less than the $80000 I mentioned before. My bad.

Just to be clear, we're talking about essentially an off-grid system that provides nearly all the power for a large home? While that does sound a lot of outlay, when you spread that out over the useful life of the system and compare it with the actual cost of other fuels, it looks much more reasonable.
As I said, and you ignored, since we agree that carbon fuels are subsidized so highly, it only looks expensive compared to socialized fossil fuels.