Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 123

Thread: Solyndra to Declare Bankruptcy

  1. #101
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:16 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,306

    Re: Solyndra to Declare Bankruptcy

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Green energy is a newish industry. We'll presumably see 100s or 1,000s of green energy businesses go under as it sorts itself out. Nothing unusual about that. That's how biotech is, that's how software is, that's how all big booms work. That's how innovation works. For example, did you know that early on there were over 500 automobile manufacturers in the US? Something like 495 of them went out of business in the first couple decades.
    Wrong! All other energies are heavily subsidized and alternatives and renewables that are located locally are not. Why is that? You might ask. When local renewables come online, the existing Centralized Distribution of Energy player loses a small piece of profit forever. These very large energy players fight tooth and nail to undermine renewable initiatives at every level. It's just good business. It's not a conspiracy, just good business with the same effects as a conspiracy. They keep aiming poitical subsidies at technology that goes in to the existing grid, so that they still get their small profit on every KWH, Cubic Foot, or gallon. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

  2. #102
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:47 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,204

    Re: Solyndra to Declare Bankruptcy

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Wrong! All other energies are heavily subsidized and alternatives and renewables that are located locally are not. Why is that? You might ask. When local renewables come online, the existing Centralized Distribution of Energy player loses a small piece of profit forever. These very large energy players fight tooth and nail to undermine renewable initiatives at every level. It's just good business. It's not a conspiracy, just good business with the same effects as a conspiracy. They keep aiming poitical subsidies at technology that goes in to the existing grid, so that they still get their small profit on every KWH, Cubic Foot, or gallon. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
    Good reason to end all subsidies.

  3. #103
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:47 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,204

    Re: Solyndra to Declare Bankruptcy

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Yeah, he's right. You can't predict these sorts of things exactly. After all, we're talking about weather here. And any predictions need to be based on projections of how much greenhouse gas the world will release each year, which is very tough to predict exactly. But you can definitely predict long term trends and effects that various factors have and make very informed decisions based on those things.

    As for NYC specifically, realistically it won't ever go under water. It's worth too much. They'll build dykes and whatnot for real estate that valuable. But it will cost them many billions of dollars to deal with the impact of sea level rise. New York City alone has 600 miles of coastline and 4 of the 5 boroughs are islands. It is almost all built very close to sea level. So, the cost of a project like that would be enormous. They're currently predicting up to 23 inches of sea level rise by the end of the century in New York. That may not sound like much, but it means hundreds of miles of dykes, massive changes to drainage and water treatment systems, etc. And that is just for the sea level rise. The heat in general means much larger demands on its electrical grid in summer, public health problems related to heat, moving critical infrastructure further away from the shore line to make it less vulnerable to hurricanes and whatnot, etc. Just for New York City alone, we're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars fighting the effects of global warming.

    As for predicting when, that question doesn't really line up with the facts. Some costs have already begun to show up. It isn't like one day it will be above water and everything will be great, the next it will all be flooded. The water level will raise by a fraction of an inch per year. The very lowest areas will have a bit more damage in storms than they would have otherwise, then maybe they'll start improving drainage systems, then eventually they'll have to build a couple dykes, then a few more, etc. But, by the end of the century they're looking at massive costs from it.

    One thing that is important to keep in mind is that AGW doesn't work like we can cut carbon emissions and then the next day everything is back to normal. The effects last many decades. Changes in our behavior today more than our behavior at the end of the century, determine how things will be climatalogically at the end of the century.

    But, that's just one city. The costs nationwide will be much higher. By the end of the century they are projecting that nationwide we will face around $1.9 trillion/year in global warming costs if we do nothing to abate the problem at all.
    First, the stat for water level increases for NYC, as you stated it, says, "...up to 23 inches..." and it says "by the end of the century. "Up to" could mean no increase of only an inch or two. End of the century is still 89 years away. I'm afraid I do not find that compelling.

    Also, the figure of $1.9 trillion per year was offered by an organization made up of "environmentalist," including Robert Redford, a former union leader, etc. My guess is this is a far from unbiased source.

    At this point, I believe you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. However, if this is truly a critical issue that will cause monumental problems in the next 20 to 30 years, I would suggest that we ban automobiles and electricity and gas for heating and cooling our homes and businesses. This would go a long way to solving the problem. Do you agree?
    Last edited by LesGovt; 09-08-11 at 08:33 PM.

  4. #104
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Solyndra to Declare Bankruptcy

    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    Also, the figure of $1.9 trillion per year was offered by an organization made up of "environmentalist," including Robert Redford, a former union leader, etc. My guess is this is a far from unbiased source.
    I agree that they are biased, but the way I think that bias appears is not necessarily that the numbers are falsified, but that they're based on the worst case scenario for greenhouse gas emissions. Presuming that we continue to increase emission at exponential rate. That probably isn't realistic first because the governments of the world will take at least some steps to slow the growth in emissions. But, I think it is important to keep that in mind that the cost of doing absolutely nothing would be perhaps even 100s of times as high as the costs of taking drastic measures. Probably the sweet spot is somewhere in the middle, but a lot nearer the drastic measures pole than the do nothing pole IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    At this point, I believe you and I are going to have to agree to disagree.
    Fair enough. Good discussion.

  5. #105
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Solyndra to Declare Bankruptcy

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Wrong! All other energies are heavily subsidized and alternatives and renewables that are located locally are not. Why is that? You might ask. When local renewables come online, the existing Centralized Distribution of Energy player loses a small piece of profit forever. These very large energy players fight tooth and nail to undermine renewable initiatives at every level. It's just good business. It's not a conspiracy, just good business with the same effects as a conspiracy. They keep aiming poitical subsidies at technology that goes in to the existing grid, so that they still get their small profit on every KWH, Cubic Foot, or gallon. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
    Not sure how that contradicts anything I have said.

    IMO the biggest way the big energy companies sabotage renewables is with patent trolling. They buy or develop a key technology for making a particular renewable more economically viable, then they sit on it so nobody but them can use it.

  6. #106
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: Solyndra to Declare Bankruptcy

    Quote Originally Posted by SE102 View Post
    Transparently mindless...
    This hypothetical situation is tripe and belongs in the conspiracy forum.

    BAWAAHAAA! good one....A reply comparable to 'Nuh uh'..... That is just priceless.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  7. #107
    Advisor nijato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Charm City, USA
    Last Seen
    01-19-12 @ 03:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    417
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    First, the stat for water level increases for NYC, as you stated it, says, "...up to 23 inches..." and it says "by the end of the century. "Up to" could mean no increase of only an inch or two. End of the century is still 89 years away. I'm afraid I do not find that compelling.

    Also, the figure of $1.9 trillion per year was offered by an organization made up of "environmentalist," including Robert Redford, a former union leader, etc. My guess is this is a far from unbiased source.

    At this point, I believe you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. However, if this is truly a critical issue that will cause monumental problems in the next 20 to 30 years, I would suggest that we ban automobiles and electricity and gas for heating and cooling our homes and businesses. This would go a long way to solving the problem. Do you agree?
    First, the IPCC numbers for sea level rise don't count ANY rise from land icesheet melt (e.g. Greenland) because the dynamics are not well understood. And to say "up to 23 inches" could mean 1 or 2 is disingenuous, as this would require a slowing of the rate currently seen and is therefore not likely at all.

    Secondly, to use the reduction ad absurdium argument of banning autos, etc. is likewikse disingenuous as it doesn't allow for obvious incremental reductions such as increased efficiency and fuel switching to lower impact sources (e.g. natural gas.)
    "A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

  8. #108
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:47 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,204

    Re: Solyndra to Declare Bankruptcy

    Quote Originally Posted by nijato View Post
    First, the IPCC numbers for sea level rise don't count ANY rise from land icesheet melt (e.g. Greenland) because the dynamics are not well understood. And to say "up to 23 inches" could mean 1 or 2 is disingenuous, as this would require a slowing of the rate currently seen and is therefore not likely at all.
    You may think it is disingenuous; however, my question had to do with a timeline. I was told that a timeline was not possible and all I was given was that water levels could increase "up to 23 inches" "by the end of this century." If alternative energy is viable, that allows plenty of time for the alternative energy to develop the product. To say I was disingenuous is not correct. I would think that the better approach for those who believe global warming is an imminent disaster racing towards us is not to disparage those who disagree, but rather to make a cogent argument that we are wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by nijato View Post
    Secondly, to use the reduction ad absurdium argument of banning autos, etc. is likewikse disingenuous as it doesn't allow for obvious incremental reductions such as increased efficiency and fuel switching to lower impact sources (e.g. natural gas.)
    If this problem is as serious as all of you declare, why is it that taking the most effective steps to end the problem an absurd argument? I have been told that if we take steps today, the impact may not be until the future. It would seem to me that smaller, incremental steps may not be enough nor soon enough.

  9. #109
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: Solyndra to Declare Bankruptcy

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Wrong! All other energies are heavily subsidized and alternatives and renewables that are located locally are not. Why is that? You might ask. When local renewables come online, the existing Centralized Distribution of Energy player loses a small piece of profit forever. These very large energy players fight tooth and nail to undermine renewable initiatives at every level. It's just good business. It's not a conspiracy, just good business with the same effects as a conspiracy. They keep aiming poitical subsidies at technology that goes in to the existing grid, so that they still get their small profit on every KWH, Cubic Foot, or gallon. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
    Which oil company has received a half-a-billion dollar government handout?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  10. #110
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: Solyndra to Declare Bankruptcy

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Green energy is a newish industry. We'll presumably see 100s or 1,000s of green energy businesses go under as it sorts itself out. Nothing unusual about that. That's how biotech is, that's how software is, that's how all big booms work. That's how innovation works. For example, did you know that early on there were over 500 automobile manufacturers in the US? Something like 495 of them went out of business in the first couple decades.
    That's happens, because it's not a, "real industry". The oil and gas industry didn't have to, "sort itself out".
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •