Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    2:44 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: Daily News Article Discussions > Topics Add to favorite topics  
Author Topic: Utilities Want Solar Customers to Pay More Back to Topics
greshams

Champion Author
Cincinnati

Posts:4,320
Points:865,365
Joined:Nov 2011
Message Posted: Sep 23, 2013 12:32:51 AM

People with solar panels on their roofs often get a pretty good price break on their energy bills.
Too good, some utilities say.
Now, utilities in several states—including the country's sunniest, California and Arizona—are trying to do something about it.

Here's the issue: For most homes, solar panels don't generate all the power the residents use. At night and on cloudy days, and sometimes even on sunny days, these homes draw power from the grid that serves all a utility's customers. But at other times, the panels generate more power than the home is using, and that surplus power flows into the grid.
Visit Wall Street Journal for full article
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,304
Points:2,671,240
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 19, 2013 12:00:30 PM

"Like I said, unless their solar system supplies all of their power, they are paying for it"

They are not anywhere near the cost of the infrastructure, which is why the utilities rightfully want to leavy fees...

"And that seems to be just what they're doing"

Not adequately if they produce a significant amount of their own power and not at all if they are producing more power then they use, which is, again, why some utilities are rightfully charging solar users to be hooked to their grid..

"Yeah, well the politicians and the rich really should develop a better, less privileged, mindset."

Exactly which is why they should start rescinding these multibillion dollar handouts for alternative energy...



Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,518
Points:2,690,160
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2013 6:41:08 PM

Shockjock1961 - "If they are attached to the grid then they should pay for the maintenance."

Like I said, unless their solar system supplies all of their power, they are paying for it.

"You pay for the infrastructure you use..."

And that seems to be just what they're doing.

"That prevalent kind of mindset is why this country is $17 trillion in hock..."

Yeah, well the politicians and the rich really should develop a better, less privileged, mindset.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 10/18/2013 6:42:55 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,304
Points:2,671,240
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2013 6:19:11 PM

But then I see you still are in the entitlement/welfare mindset. You feel solar users are entitled to taxpayer handouts in order to buy their, and they should have free access to the power grid.

That prevalent kind of mindset is why this country is $17 trillion in hock...
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,304
Points:2,671,240
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2013 6:17:03 PM

"Unless their solar system supplies all of their power, they are paying for it."

If they are attached to the grid then they should pay for the maintenance. If their system supplies all the power they need, then they can simply have themselves disconnect. No connection, no fee. It's a pretty simple concept actually. You pay for the infrastructure you use...
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,518
Points:2,690,160
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2013 4:58:40 PM

Shockjock1961 - "That doesn't eliminate the responsibilty of the solar owner of paying for the infrastructure they utilize..."

Unless their solar system supplies all of their power, they are paying for it.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,304
Points:2,671,240
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2013 10:38:00 AM

"Actually, increased use of such technology should reduce the need for expensive long-distance transmission lines"

That doesn't eliminate the responsibilty of the solar owner of paying for the infrastructure they utilize...
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,518
Points:2,690,160
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2013 7:41:26 PM

Shockjock1961 - "Those who choose to adopt such technology should also be responsible to pay the costs associated with helping maintain the infrastucture such technology utilizes..."

Actually, increased use of such technology should reduce the need for expensive long-distance transmission lines.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,304
Points:2,671,240
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2013 1:44:45 PM

"Your objection was that you didn't have FREE access to the power they produced. Since they're only partly financed by taxes, you shouldn't have FREE access to the power they produce"

My initial objection was taxpayers financing a product that couldn't stand on it's own two feet economically. You are the one that was trying to make a comparison between the financing of roads and solar panels. I'm glad you are finally willing to concede it was an apples to oranges comparison...

"Your basic ideology seems to be that the government shouldn't spend any money at all."

To your flawed reasoning only. My basic ideology is the government should not be in the business of propping up failed and uneconomical technologies with taxpayer money.

Those who choose to adopt such technology should also be responsible to pay the costs associated with helping maintain the infrastucture such technology utilizes...
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,518
Points:2,690,160
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2013 1:07:20 PM

Shockjock1961 - "Is doesn't make any difference if it's only "partially" financed. My tax money shoudn't be going to a product to make it affordable for you to buy it..."

Your objection was that you didn't have FREE access to the power they produced. Since they're only partly financed by taxes, you shouldn't have FREE access to the power they produce.

"ONce again, it's not the job of government to prop up products which are economically nonviable..."

Your basic ideology seems to be that the government shouldn't spend any money at all.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,304
Points:2,671,240
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2013 9:05:33 AM

"I'm pretty sure some of your taxes go towards paying for power production and the distribution network."

In other words you are guessing...

"Also, those roads are completely paid for by taxes. The solar panels are only partly financed by taxes."

Is doesn't make any difference if it's only "partially" financed. My tax money shoudn't be going to a product to make it affordable for you to buy it...

ONce again, it's not the job of government to prop up products which are economically nonviable...

[Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 10/17/2013 9:08:05 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,518
Points:2,690,160
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2013 4:39:13 PM

Shockjock1961 - "You do know there is a difference between a government regulated private utility and a public one don't you? Just because a company has to follow government regulations, that doesn't make that utility a public one...."

In practice, that difference is less than you appear to think.

"As I pointed out before. I pay for roads with my taxes, and I have FREE access to those roads because I helped pay for them, whereas with private solar panels, I pay for them with my taxes and DO NOT have FREE access to the power your produce."

I'm pretty sure some of your taxes go towards paying for power production and the distribution network.

Also, those roads are completely paid for by taxes. The solar panels are only partly financed by taxes.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 10/16/2013 4:40:09 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,304
Points:2,671,240
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2013 9:53:12 AM

"So they could arbitrarily decide that they're not going to serve your neighborhood?"

They selectively can cut your power if you don't pay your bill...

You do know there is a difference between a government regulated private utility and a public one don't you? Just because a company has to follow government regulations, that doesn't make that utility a public one....

"Because you have access to any power that the power company buys back from them"

As I pointed out before. I pay for roads with my taxes, and I have FREE access to those roads because I helped pay for them, whereas with private solar panels, I pay for them with my taxes and DO NOT have FREE access to the power your produce.

The problem seems to be your inability to discern the difference between public and private assests.


[Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 10/16/2013 9:58:09 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,304
Points:2,671,240
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2013 9:52:23 AM

"But you DIDN'T give me a list of POWER PRODUCERS!"

Funny, when I checked most, if not all, the companies on the list own power generating assests.

So I've answered your question in spades...
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,136
Points:3,821,930
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2013 2:36:40 AM

But you DIDN'T give me a list of POWER PRODUCERS! You gave me a list of resellers.
That would be like me asking for a list of dairies, and you giving me a list of grocery and convenience stores that sell milk.
If you can't actually answer the question ...............

Besides, it is merely a sidetrack to the original topic.

[Edited by: rumbleseat at 10/16/2013 2:40:01 AM EST]
Profile Pic
teafortwo
Champion Author Washington

Posts:26,416
Points:1,869,830
Joined:Feb 2009
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2013 2:33:17 AM


Interesting debate.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,518
Points:2,690,160
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2013 7:49:33 PM

Shockjock1961 - "It's owned by private companies, I think that makes it private property..."

So they could arbitrarily decide that they're not going to serve your neighborhood?

"When I pay for private solar panels with my tax money I don't have free access to the power they produce. How is that hard to understand?"

Because you have access to any power that the power company buys back from them.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,304
Points:2,671,240
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2013 8:52:32 AM

"You didn't answer my question, shocky. Did you shop 40 different PRODUCERS of power?"

I gave you a list with links to the company. It's easy for you to verify...
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,304
Points:2,671,240
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2013 8:51:34 AM

"You mean you don't have access to the electricity the electric utility buys that's produced by those solar panels?"

When i pay for a raod with my tax money, I have free access to it. When I pay for private solar panels with my tax money I don't have free access to the power they produce. How is that hard to understand?
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,304
Points:2,671,240
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2013 8:50:08 AM

"The electrical power distribution network is private property?"

It's owned by private companies, I think that makes it private property...
Profile Pic
Sneakers55
Champion Author Houston

Posts:61,196
Points:2,567,535
Joined:Nov 2005
Message Posted: Oct 14, 2013 11:18:32 PM

On Oct 13, 2013 3:16:29 PM, rumbleseat wrote:

>And how do you think power companies, whether private or public,
>aren't monopolies?

The only thing that should be a monopoly is transmission and distribution. It's done that way in the ERCOT area of Texas. (Most of the state is in the ERCOT area.)

Texas has free and open competition in generation and free and open competition between retail electric providers.

>How many power companies can the average person choose from
>when moving to or building a new home?

I have a choice of 257 retail electric provider (REP) plans. Some of the REPs have long-term contracts with generation companies. Some of the REPs are owned by generation companies.

There is only one company that maintains the poles and wires and reads the meters for any given area in Texas. In the area of town that I'm in, it's CenterPoint Energy. I've switched over the years from Reliant Energy to TXU to Green Mountain to Gexa Energy. The transmission and distribution functions are a significant amount on the bill. I paid $79.75 last month for electric energy and $66.89 for transmission and distribution services.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,136
Points:3,821,930
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Oct 14, 2013 9:39:04 PM

You didn't answer my question, shocky. Did you shop 40 different PRODUCERS of power? Or did you shop 40 different resellers of the same generating sources? If there are 40 sellers, but only one producer, that producer has a monopoly.
So, again, to satisfy my curiousity, how many of those 40 companies actually have generating stations or hydro dams of their own, or under contract to them?
I can have my hydro or gas bills (if we had a natural gas line to our neighbourhood) come from different companies, but the actual power would still come from the same generation and distribution centres, and the gas from the same producers in the same fields through the same pipelines.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,518
Points:2,690,160
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 14, 2013 5:04:48 PM

Shockjock1961 - "I'm applying a different standard for public and private property, you are comnparing apples and oranges..."

The electrical power distribution network is private property?

"Yep, I do, but I don't pay for it with my tax dollar, I pay for it like my other utilities every month when I get a bill, unlike the solar panels I pay with my tax money but don't have access too..."

You mean you don't have access to the electricity the electric utility buys that's produced by those solar panels?
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,304
Points:2,671,240
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 14, 2013 9:00:47 AM

"40 different power companies?"

40 DIFFERENT power suppliers all competing to get the consumer to buy from their particular company...

Due to competitive shopping, I've reduced the cost of my electricity for $.119/Kwh to $.052/Kwh...

Once again, where is the monopoly?


[Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 10/14/2013 9:05:48 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,136
Points:3,821,930
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Oct 13, 2013 7:05:51 PM

40 different power companies? And they all have their own dams, or generating stations?
Or are they resellers, delivering power from the same sources, choices in who bills for your energy usage account?
If they don't generate power, they aren't really power companies, just distributors.

Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,304
Points:2,671,240
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 13, 2013 6:12:57 PM

"How many power companies can the average person choose from when moving to or building a new home?"

Last time I checked I had access to 40 different power companies...

List of residential electrical power providers

Now you were saying something about a monopoly?

After comparison, I signed a two year contract to purchase power from a company. I sure didn't see the government offer to pay me to use this particular companies product.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,304
Points:2,671,240
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 13, 2013 6:07:38 PM

"Because you're applying one standard to roads and another to electric power generation"

I'm applying a different standard for public and private property, you are comnparing apples and oranges...

"IOW, you don't know what you're talking about, but you've got lots of insults, based on stereotyping, available"

Your not understanding the difference between public and private property says it all...

"You don't pay for the power the power company produces?"

Yep, I do, but I don't pay for it with my tax dollar, I pay for it like my other utilities every month when I get a bill, unlike the solar panels I pay with my tax money but don't have access too...
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,136
Points:3,821,930
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Oct 13, 2013 4:16:29 PM

And, of course, there have NEVER been tax dollars used to build dams, nuclear plants, power plants, etc, or incentives for private power plants? Who do you think paid for Hoover Dam, for example, and during the Great Depression at that? Or does that not count?

And how do you think power companies, whether private or public, aren't monopolies? How many power companies can the average person choose from when moving to or building a new home?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,518
Points:2,690,160
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 13, 2013 3:18:33 PM

Shockjock1961 - "I've already answered that inane question. Why ask again?"

Because you're applying one standard to roads and another to electric power generation.

"You being a liberal, I understand that you don't know the difference between a public and private venture. Your last statement demonstrates this..."

IOW, you don't know what you're talking about, but you've got lots of insults, based on stereotyping, available.

"Now you are just being ignorant..."

You don't pay for the power the power company produces?
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,304
Points:2,671,240
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 13, 2013 9:23:44 AM

"Why all the support for monopolies?"

I don't support monopolies, where ever did you get this idea?

"Why is the idea a monopoly on power generation, the desire to eliminate any desire for people to actively cut the amount of power they have to buy from a power company, a good thing?"

If people wanty to invest their money either directly or indirectly into solar, that's fine with me, but I take issue with my tax dollar being spent propping up this uneconomical white elephant...

Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,304
Points:2,671,240
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 13, 2013 9:16:04 AM

"So when are you going to build your own streets to drive on?"

I've already answered that inane question. Why ask again?

"You may have paid for a portion of it with tax money, but not for all of it"

You being a liberal, I understand that you don't know the difference between a public and private venture. Your last statement demonstrates this...

"Just like you get to pay for the power the power company produces"

Now you are just being ignorant...

[Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 10/13/2013 9:20:43 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,136
Points:3,821,930
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Oct 13, 2013 7:47:51 AM

Why all the support for monopolies?
Why is the idea a monopoly on power generation, the desire to eliminate any desire for people to actively cut the amount of power they have to buy from a power company, a good thing? Seems to me I don't see much support for other monopolies.
In many things increased demand results in production savings and lower costs, however, increased demand for electricity results in higher bills to pay for new dams, gas plants, or nuclear plants, at an expense of billions of dollars, or, in some cases rolling brown- or black-outs.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,518
Points:2,690,160
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 13, 2013 1:06:20 AM

You said "learn to stand on your own two feet for a change."

So when are you going to build your own streets to drive on?

"I use and pay for the public streets with my tax money. When a private solar panel is hooked to the grid, not only did I pay for the solar panel with my tax money,"

You may have paid for a portion of it with tax money, but not for all of it.

"I get to pay for the power it produces with my utility bill."

Just like you get to pay for the power the power company produces.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,136
Points:3,821,930
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Oct 12, 2013 8:23:06 PM

"for free, like the roads are...."

The roads aren't free except to pedestrians and bicyclists. Even tourists pay, all drivers pay gas tax to pay for the roads, it isn't their fault politicians of all stripes roll it into general revenue then say they can't afford to pay for the upkeep.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,304
Points:2,671,240
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 12, 2013 9:54:58 AM

"Well, if they are hooked to the grid........"

I use and pay for the public streets with my tax money. When a private solar panel is hooked to the grid, not only did I pay for the solar panel with my tax money, I get to pay for the power it produces with my utility bill.

Now if the power from those solar panels were offered for use to the public for free, like the roads are....

[Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 10/12/2013 9:56:29 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,136
Points:3,821,930
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Oct 12, 2013 9:46:48 AM

"Are you opening your home to allow the public to make use of your tax payer funded solar panels?"

Well, if they are hooked to the grid........
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,304
Points:2,671,240
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 12, 2013 9:18:07 AM

"So you're going to stop driving on public streets?"

Wow, what an inane question...

Public streets are just that... PUBLIC. Anyone can use it. Are you opening your home to allow the public to make use of your tax payer funded solar panels?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,518
Points:2,690,160
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2013 4:54:54 PM

"Stop with the welfare/entitlement attitude, learn to stand on your own two feet for a change..."

So you're going to stop driving on public streets?
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,304
Points:2,671,240
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2013 8:59:19 AM

"It's an example of where those "glorified lab experiment[s]" are taking us"

It's and example of where these glorified lab experiments MIGHT take us. We MIGHT be bale to take advantage of zero point energy some day, but that hardly makes it an example of what we can do now...

"Though I don't agree with the concept, windfarms are becoming a more common sight"

Wind turbines were invented back in 1887 without government help I might add. So now you are claiming the "fallout" of Huge sums of money is that someone decided to put a bunch of these together. If so, it sounds like the government just wasted the tax payer dollar again...

"Which doesn't mean that all, or even most, of that government money was wasted"

You have demonstrated what has come out of it that is so innovative (A wind farm is not an innovation, the dutch have had them for centuries) as to not be considered a waste of money, so ya it does indicate that the government money was indeed wasted...

"It's becoming more viable daily, as research continues to improve it"

ONce again, you don't need the government to spend public money to do research. IF people truly want it, then somebody will develop it all without the governments input and without using the publics money! If you wish to buy/invest into solar, then by all means go, but don't expect me to pay your way. And that is where the problem lies. Solar users expect the public to pay for their white elephant, hence the outrage this topic sparked with solar backers when solar users are required to help pay the cost of the grid that they've voluntarily attached themselves to. Stop with the welfare/entitlement attitude, learn to stand on your own two feet for a change...
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,518
Points:2,690,160
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 10, 2013 7:23:15 PM

Shockjock1961 - "How can it be an example when it still nothing more then a glorified lab experiment??"

It's an example of where those "glorified lab experiment[s]" are taking us.

"OK, what widely usable renewable energy sources are a result of this "fallout"?"

Though I don't agree with the concept, windfarms are becoming a more common sight. More and more people are installing solar systems. I see quite a bit of marketing for geothermal HVAC systems (not really an energy source, but a way to use energy more efficiently).

"Not at all...
OptiSolar, Solasta, SV Solar, Senergen, Evergreen, Solyndra, SpectraWatt, and the list goes on and on... All companies which benefitted from Public handouts and lost all the money in bankruptcy...."

Which doesn't mean that all, or even most, of that government money was wasted. Those examples involve only a fraction of government spending on alternative energy.

"But we are talking Solar here. R&D has been done, most of it by the government, costing huge sums of money have been done and it's still not viable... That's the whole point. Time to pull the plug on the subsidies, tax credits and mandates and let those who want to adopt this non-viable option pay for it themselves..."

It's becoming more viable daily, as research continues to improve it.

"If there is a market, then there is no need for government support..."

It has to be demonstrated that there's a market.

"Not at all. If there is a market, then there is no need for the government to intervene. That the government HAS to intervene on such a large level proves that the product is non-viable in the market place..."

So far. Either the product or the market needs to mature a bit.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,304
Points:2,671,240
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 10, 2013 3:52:27 PM

"It's still an example."

How can it be an example when it still nothing more then a glorified lab experiment??

"No, I claimed that renewable energy sources were the fallout. That means widely usable sources"

OK, what widely usable renewable energy sources are a result of this "fallout"?

"Complete ideological dogma"

Not at all...
OptiSolar, Solasta, SV Solar, Senergen, Evergreen, Solyndra, SpectraWatt, and the list goes on and on... All companies which benefitted from Public handouts and lost all the money in bankruptcy....

"which completely ignores the thought that there might only be a market and profit potential after the initial research and development is done"

But we are talking Solar here. R&D has been done, most of it by the government, costing huge sums of money have been done and it's still not viable... That's the whole point. Time to pull the plug on the subsidies, tax credits and mandates and let those who want to adopt this non-viable option pay for it themselves...

"If they're better methods, then there is a market"

If there is a market, then there is no need for government support...

"You mean confirming your preconceived position, which is what you're going to believe no matter what is presented.."

Not at all. If there is a market, then there is no need for the government to intervene. That the government HAS to intervene on such a large level proves that the product is non-viable in the market place...
Profile Pic
kishoreCA
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:6,042
Points:867,595
Joined:Mar 2012
Message Posted: Oct 10, 2013 3:17:33 PM

Ok
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,518
Points:2,690,160
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 10, 2013 3:12:52 PM

Shockjock1961 - "Not an example since it may never be able to be commercially produced..."

It's still an example.

"No diversion simple truth. You claimed that "alternative" energy was created by the "fallout" of government subsidy. I just easily demonstrated it was not..."

No, I claimed that renewable energy sources were the fallout. That means widely usable sources, not phantom sources.

"Or governemnt intervention can simply be a complete waste of taxpayer money. IF there is a market and profit potential, then the product will be reserached and developed all without risk of public money..."

Complete ideological dogma, which completely ignores the thought that there might only be a market and profit potential after the initial research and development is done.

"If there is no market or long term profitability then development of better methods of doing things, is pretty pointless..."

If they're better methods, then there is a market.

"Once again, thanks for confirming my position that "alterntive" energy is, for the most part, uneconomical and marketably unviable..."

You mean confirming your preconceived position, which is what you're going to believe no matter what is presented..
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,304
Points:2,671,240
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 10, 2013 1:49:07 PM

"3-D Graphene"

Not an example since it may never be able to be commercially produced...

"Nice diversion."

No diversion simple truth. You claimed that "alternative" energy was created by the "fallout" of government subsidy. I just easily demonstrated it was not...

"No, but government intervention can significantly speed progress up"

Or governemnt intervention can simply be a complete waste of taxpayer money. IF there is a market and profit potential, then the product will be reserached and developed all without risk of public money...

"you'd rather that we never develop better methods of doing things unless they're immediately profitable"

If there is no market or long term profitability then development of better methods of doing things, is pretty pointless...

Once again, thanks for confirming my position that "alterntive" energy is, for the most part, uneconomical and marketably unviable...

[Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 10/10/2013 1:51:11 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,518
Points:2,690,160
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 10, 2013 1:07:37 PM

Shockjock1961 - "Cite and example of this for solar..."

3-D Graphene.

"Solar cells have been around since 1883, and wind turbins were first built in 1887 neither invention was subsidized by the government. Try again..."

Nice diversion.

"Sorry, it doesn't take government intervention to make progress. That's a liberal created hoax..."

No, but government intervention can significantly speed progress up.

Or down, as both conservatives and liberals often like to do.

"You were talking about porfit motive. IF there is a market need and a profit potential somene will do the research necessary to develop the needed product. You are simply proving my case, yet again, that "alternative" energy is not market necessary or economical by stating that the government HAS to intervene in order for it to be developed..."

IOW, you'd rather that we never develop better methods of doing things unless they're immediately profitable.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,304
Points:2,671,240
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 10, 2013 8:54:38 AM

"We develop ways to do the same things with less polluting materials, or with less of the polluting materials, or ways to make the current materials pollute less"

Cite and example of this for solar...

"No, from research funded or subsidized by the government into alternative energy sources"

Solar cells have been around since 1883, and wind turbins were first built in 1887 neither invention was subsidized by the government. Try again...

"So you don't want progress within your lifetime?"

Sorry, it doesn't take government intervention to make progress. That's a liberal created hoax...

"How many companies would do pure research of the sort necessary without government funding?"

You were talking about porfit motive. IF there is a market need and a profit potential somene will do the research necessary to develop the needed product. You are simply proving my case, yet again, that "alternative" energy is not market necessary or economical by stating that the government HAS to intervene in order for it to be developed...
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,518
Points:2,690,160
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 10, 2013 12:36:20 AM

Shockjock1961 - "Please explain how they become less..."

We develop ways to do the same things with less polluting materials, or with less of the polluting materials, or ways to make the current materials pollute less.

"EXACTLY. Therefore your point has no merit."

So far.

"From the space race? Hardly..."

No, from research funded or subsidized by the government into alternative energy sources.

"I sure do, but the public should not have to provide the money through tax dollars, tax credits, or through artificially inflated conventional prices to provide the alternative energy field a profit."

So you don't want progress within your lifetime? How many companies would do pure research of the sort necessary without government funding?

"Explain your reasoning..."

We got tremendous returns from the space program. There's hardly any part of modern life that hasn't benefited. Why would you think the money would have produced greater returns elsewhere?
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,304
Points:2,671,240
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 9, 2013 3:50:16 PM

"And with further research, those risks will become even less"

Please explain how they become less...

"However, yes, the benefit to national security has been minimal so far"

EXACTLY. Therefore your point has no merit.

"Renewable energy sources are the primary fallout from this research"

From the space race? Hardly...

"And, what, you don't believe in the profit motive?"

I sure do, but the public should not have to provide the money through tax dollars, tax credits, or through artificially inflated conventional prices to provide the alternative energy field a profit.

"Possible, but not likely."

Explain your reasoning...

Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,518
Points:2,690,160
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 9, 2013 12:53:00 PM

Shockjock1961 - "Make no mistake, there are ecological and health concerns when it comes to the manufacture of manufactur and deployment of alternative energy, so this argument is relatively invalid"

Sure there are. But they're less than the concerns from the continued use of petroleum products for energy.

And with further research, those risks will become even less.

"So how has the hundreds of billions of dollars spent propping up alternative energy increased our national security? It hasn't..."

"hundreds of billions"??? I think you're high by at least an order of magnitude.

However, yes, the benefit to national security has been minimal so far.

So far.

"Anf this "fallout" cannot happen without alternative energy? Research will just wither and die without subsidies to the the non-economically viable alternative energy systems?"

Renewable energy sources are the primary fallout from this research.

And, what, you don't believe in the profit motive?

"Huge amounts of money was wasted on the space program for national pride. How do you know that that money would not have seen even better returns if not used elsewhere?"

Possible, but not likely.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 10/9/2013 12:53:27 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,304
Points:2,671,240
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 9, 2013 9:52:43 AM

[L=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-09/text deleted ‘Land of Industry’ Jeopardized by Green Push[/L]

Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,304
Points:2,671,240
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 9, 2013 9:00:51 AM

"Much like the space program"

Huge amounts of money was wasted on the space program for national pride. How do you know that that money would not have seen even better returns if not used elsewhere?

[Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 10/9/2013 9:05:11 AM EST]
Post a reply Back to Topics