This is JMartin's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following JMartin's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
JMartin
Recent Activity
There might be enough wood chips from pine beetle kill to do the job, but the wind would probably blow it all away. If Colorado replace fossil fuel electricity with solar and wind (lots of both), we would not send the water from cooling towers to the other side of the Mississipi, which is what happens now. It is too late to stop the fracking train in Colorado -- unfortunately.
Whoa, Herman. My issue with corporate welfare says nothing about conspiracies or other countries. I just want to know why it is an invesment when it is corporate money and an expenditure when it is tax money. Can't we share the proceeds that eminate from investment. Also, Government does not serve the same purpose as a corporation. But that does not mean the citizens who paid the taxes you complain about, should not recieve some benefits when there are fruits from the reasearch. And the fact that there are other countries has nothing to do with whether we are doing it right or not. You seem to be "commingling" the issues.
SJC - That is correct. And that is why we have not had a new antibiotic developed for 30 years, and the treatment for Hepatitis A cost $80,000 per person. You know darned well that the Government paid for most of the basic research for medicine, but the citizens are not allowed to share in the profits. Talk about a welfare state.
It seems to me the cost of production has little meaning. These only make sense for "excess" producton of solar and wind, meaning the energy produced has no value unless stored. Now, for you engineers that assume the entire system is going to be optimized that is not a problem. But in the real world, there will eventually be more electricity produced than needed at certain times of the day, in some locations. Someone previously posted that Hawaii already has this problem. I don't think we are going to build a nuclear reactor that will not go into operation for at least 10 years, on the assumption we can start it up on demand as backup capacity. Flow batteries may not be the only answer, but everything is on the table.
I would love to see this in solar drones that would make possible low-cost, competitive wifi.
Amen Brotherk. Close the coal mines and make jobs by cutting switchgrass to dump in the mines to sequester carbon. They will be healthier jobs, too.
EP - I saw a recommendation some time back that biomass be sequestered by dumping it in abandoned mines.
Roger, I am having difficulty following your thoughts. Sorry. Harvey, What you say may be true, but the savings will go to individuals who will spend their share of the savings in many ways, maybe at the fast food joint that pays the higher minimum wage. Anyway, no central government or business will use it to install H2 stations.
Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) along with autonomous vehicles for the "last mile."
Ralph, your comments make perfect sense, except for one. We will continue to have jobs because of fracking, not fracking because of jobs. Everyone (politicians and commentators) seem to think we do everything to create jobs. Actually we do everything to create profit. Jobs are a cost to the business, not a purpose for it. If fracking could be done by cheap robots, it would be. But then we would crow about the jobs in the robotics industry. :-)
If India could build an efficient grid and/or storage for renewables, they could (and probably soon will) use wind and solar in place of coal. http://www.zdnet.com/solar-prices-reach-a-new-bottom-almost-competitive-with-coal-7000027534/
If India could build an efficient grid and/or storage for renewables, they could (and probably soon will) use wind and solar in place of coal. http://www.zdnet.com/solar-prices-reach-a-new-bottom-almost-competitive-with-coal-7000027534/
Dursun - in 73 we had gasoline anxiety. That could also happen again. So pick your poison.
China is not building nuclear plants and piling on wind and solar so their people can burn Russian Oil forever. Plus they understand the costs incurred by pollution when the state pays for healthcare. My guess is they will have a higher penetration of BEV's and PHEV's than the US in the VERY near future.
Herman, Don't get me wrong. I am not opposed to nuclear energy, nor am I expert enough to evaluate all the financials. I simply point out what is no dark secret -- that investors are not willing to risk their own money in nuclear energy. Only if Governments take that risk will there be development. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't see any evidence so far.
Davemart - your statement may or may not be accurate, but it is meaningless. China may put up it's money to build power plants, but they also have built cities that stand empty. The only way the US will build NPPs is the same -- if the Government guarantees 100% of the loans, thus taking 100% of the risk so investors don't have to. If investors take on the risk, solar and wind will win along with CPP and NGPP. If you can show me an NPPs being built with private capital, I may listen to your arguments. Otherwise, they are meaningless.
EP - Canada can ship product from their own fields through their own ports to China, and the money will still stay in N America. Just the refineries on the Gulf Coast will not be doing the refining. Harvey - the 97% will applaud all the "new jobs." That is the 500 jobs that will be created for the next 4 years while the pipeline is being built and then disappear after it is finished.
About the cost of the 1st year of the Iraq war. We won't do it because we like wars, particularly oil wars, and these projects will not benefit big oil. However, I bet the Europeans would consider it.
HarveyD, You added elements to your argument. I can agree with the benefits of infrastructure, reduced debt, and clean energy. I just have a visceral negative reaction to the jobs argument.
And nothing personal HarveyD, but I have come to detest the argument that this approach or that will create jobs. That is usually a political lie to garner votes while supporting some donor's pet project.
I agree with Davemart and Herman. The jobs created only last a few years anyway. You can create jobs with any form of construction -- solar, wind, nuclear, wave/tidal -- all producing clean energy for a long time to come.
Keystone Pipeline is simply a scheme to move oil from Canada to Gulf coast where we will refine it and sell it to other countries. So what is the benefit to US? A few temporary jobs to build the pipeline. Benefit to big oil -- huge profits. Risks -- more pollution in US, oil spills. In five years the construction jobs will be gone. In ten years, oil use for transportation will be in decline. Why should we do this. Let the Canadians build a pipeline if they want.
HarveyD, I am with you. Just as we now throw away natural gas by flaring it off, we should conserve what we make. There WILL be excess electric from the sources you note. We should not squander it. The cost, on the other hand, I do not know about.
Waterborne freight is more efficient for heavy, bulk items like fuel, etc. It also does not require a driver for every truck. However, we abandoned canals long ago, so water has limited range. If we could automate trucks (driverless, or preferabley PRT type vehicles and rails) then transport could not only be more energy efficient, but reach all necessary points. PRT has been promoted for passengers, but it seems to me more valuable for carrying limited size loads of freight. WalMart, FedEx, and UPS should be builing out lines from distribution centers.