by MonteQuest » Mon 25 Feb 2008, 02:00:00
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', ' ')If it had continued at its previous cost decline rate, it would have reached zero and even gone negative.
That's your spin. I believe the cost is going rise per kwh as energy and raw materials become more expensive.
Not to mention, the cost of renewable energy is going to rise over the next few years because there is insufficient renewable capacity to meet many government renewable targets or factory capacity to meet consumer demand for solar systems.
Be like trying to buy cheap ice during a hurricane.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by Tyler_JC » Mon 25 Feb 2008, 02:52:13
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', ' ')If it had continued at its previous cost decline rate, it would have reached zero and even gone negative.
That's your spin. I believe the cost is going rise per kwh as energy and raw materials become more expensive.
Not to mention, the cost of renewable energy is going to rise over the next few years because there is insufficient renewable capacity to meet many government renewable targets or factory capacity to meet consumer demand for solar systems.
Be like trying to buy cheap ice during a hurricane.
And that shortfall will lead to increased pressure...to build more capacity.
That's just how this stuff works.
An increase in oil prices doesn't repeal the laws of economics.
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
by wisconsin_cur » Mon 25 Feb 2008, 03:18:16
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', ' ')If it had continued at its previous cost decline rate, it would have reached zero and even gone negative.
That's your spin. I believe the cost is going rise per kwh as energy and raw materials become more expensive.
Not to mention, the cost of renewable energy is going to rise over the next few years because there is insufficient renewable capacity to meet many government renewable targets or factory capacity to meet consumer demand for solar systems.
Be like trying to buy cheap ice during a hurricane.
And that shortfall will lead to increased pressure...to build more capacity.
That's just how this stuff works.
An increase in oil prices doesn't repeal the laws of economics.
But the "laws of economics" are trumped by limits. Some things are not available at any price and many more are not available at a price that we are willing or perhaps able to pay.
I am only guessing here but I would suppose that economic theory will always allow for some adaptation that allows for continued expansion (anything really but here we are talking wind turbines). But in practice there comes a time when we start to make other choices (doing without) or make destructive choices (enter a war whose consequences constrain us). In theory we can make things work but I, at least, do not live in a theoretical world.
The world I live in is populated with fickle people. People who, the moment they cannot afford something the believe they have a right to or come to believe they will never be able to afford, begin to resent those who do have it. Resentment can take the form of political populism, physical sabatauge or many other forms.
If Americans start to get priced out of the market for electricity they will pressure government to get involved, first as an advocate, to drive down the price. But, as we have discussed in other threads, how long would our government be able to subsidize when we are faced with other account deficiets?? We could find ourselves like some Middle East nations, forced to
cut subsidies over night despite popular protests. then people do with out, then people try to steal, then people destroy.
The thing to remember, I think, is that we are beset with multiple problems and we do not have the luxerary of tackling them one at a time. Food inflation, public debt, personal debt, global warming, terrorism, de-globalization, peak-oil, NIMBY, and so many other things are coming down the pike at once, we cannot pretend that we can deal with one in isolation of the others.
cur
by yesplease » Mon 25 Feb 2008, 03:28:30
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', 'B')ut the "laws of economics" are trumped by limits. Some things are not available at any price and many more are not available at a price that we are willing or perhaps able to pay.
Yes they are. What are the limits, long term, for wind turbines?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
by yesplease » Mon 25 Feb 2008, 03:48:41
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'S')olar is made with petroleum, otherwise you'd point to silicon foundries powered by wind.
Wind is made with petroleum, otherwise we'd see fiber-blade fabricators run on solar energy.
Sources?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
by wisconsin_cur » Mon 25 Feb 2008, 03:50:24
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', '
')
The most essential limiting factor, however, is hope.
What I did a bad job attempting to articulate is that a lot of the productive things we do is built upon hope, hope that some project will benefit me. We went to space because everyone hoped or dreamed that their child might go into space or even live on the moon. Take away that hope and it is harder to justify a manned space program. As long as enough people have hope of benefitting from the wind turbines we will build them. If a critical mass loose that hope, than we will stop... and all of us will be just a little bit more screwed.
Last edited by
wisconsin_cur on Mon 25 Feb 2008, 04:43:41, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.thenewfederalistpapers.com
-
wisconsin_cur
- Light Sweet Crude
-
- Posts: 4576
- Joined: Thu 10 May 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: 45 degrees North. 883 feet above sealevel.
-
by yesplease » Mon 25 Feb 2008, 04:05:57
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', 'B')ut the "laws of economics" are trumped by limits. Some things are not available at any price and many more are not available at a price that we are willing or perhaps able to pay.
Yes they are. What are the limits, long term, for wind turbines?
Our willingness to pay for them as we are beset by other limitations (world credit), infrastructure to get the power to my non-existent electric car, my inability to buy those things when my job became unprofitable in an age of expensive oil, and my vote that money that is available should be spent on eggs and cheese for children instead of turbines, or dikes for Washington DC instead of Turbines, or a war to get more oil instead of turbines, or perhaps a tax on those still getting electricity to pay for those things which drives down the demand.
Could you quantify those?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
by wisconsin_cur » Mon 25 Feb 2008, 04:14:12
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', 'B')ut the "laws of economics" are trumped by limits. Some things are not available at any price and many more are not available at a price that we are willing or perhaps able to pay.
Yes they are. What are the limits, long term, for wind turbines?
Our willingness to pay for them as we are beset by other limitations (world credit), infrastructure to get the power to my non-existent electric car, my inability to buy those things when my job became unprofitable in an age of expensive oil, and my vote that money that is available should be spent on eggs and cheese for children instead of turbines, or dikes for Washington DC instead of Turbines, or a war to get more oil instead of turbines, or perhaps a tax on those still getting electricity to pay for those things which drives down the demand.
Could you quantify those?
by yesplease » Mon 25 Feb 2008, 04:19:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', 'O')f course not, that is why economists do not like to talk about them. This does not mean that they are not real. I love my wife but I cannot put a number on it. I love my children and I cannot put a price on that love. Because I love them (and my childhood development philosophy) my wife and I work less and esckew daycare, even though it would be to our financial benefit to have someone else care for them while we worked.
The difference between the love for your family, and some of what you mentioned, is that, like you said, you can't put a price, aka quantify, love, but you can quantify some of the other things you were talking about. That being said, if you don't want to provide any quantification for your statements, specifically those that can be quantified, that's your choice.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', 'I') trust math. It is math which leads me to be concerned about resource depletion but that does not mean that all that is real is that which can be measured and quantified.
If you trust math, quantify what you're talking about that can be quantified, and furthermore, look at use as well, since looking at something thoroughly is usually the best way to go about these sorts of things. If you want to of course.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
by wisconsin_cur » Mon 25 Feb 2008, 04:32:25
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', 'O')f course not, that is why economists do not like to talk about them. This does not mean that they are not real. I love my wife but I cannot put a number on it. I love my children and I cannot put a price on that love. Because I love them (and my childhood development philosophy) my wife and I work less and esckew daycare, even though it would be to our financial benefit to have someone else care for them while we worked.
The difference between the love for your family, and some of what you mentioned, is that, like you said, you can't put a price, aka quantify, love, but you can quantify some of the other things you were talking about. That being said, if you don't want to provide any quantification for your statements, specifically those that can be quantified, that's your choice.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', 'I') trust math. It is math which leads me to be concerned about resource depletion but that does not mean that all that is real is that which can be measured and quantified.
If you trust math, quantify what you're talking about that can be quantified, and furthermore, look at use as well, since looking at something thoroughly is usually the best way to go about these sorts of things. If you want to of course.
1. Perhaps someone can quantify things like world debt and where the tightening of the markets will take us. I personally question anyone who claims to know.
2. Someone can probably do the math about the upgrades that are needed to the system. Is one disqualified from observing that they system needs upgrading and that this would be expensive if they do not know how much they need to be upgraded or what it would cost?
3. You are still avoiding my main point. Economics has developed in nations and an era of hope of increasing prosperity. The math does seem to bread down where there is little or no hope or where people believe that they are being wronged.
You are willing to point out that I do not have the math to quantify things to your satisfaction. Are you willing to admit that the unquantifiable is at work in this, the non-theoretical world that we live in?
by yesplease » Mon 25 Feb 2008, 04:40:45
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', '3'). You are still avoiding my main point. Economics has developed in nations and an era of hope of increasing prosperity. The math does seem to bread down where there is little or no hope or where people believe that they are being wronged.
I do no mean to avoid it, however you have no presented anything concrete regarding it, up to and including what it was. If you want me to understand it you may want to reiterate what it was in different terms in order to facilitate communication.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', 'Y')ou are willing to point out that I do not have the math to quantify things to your satisfaction.
I have done no such thing. What I have done is pointed out that you didn't quantify some of what you were talking about that could be quantified, IMO of course. Why you didn't, only you may know. I never stated or implied that you did not have the math to quantify what you talked about, I simply stated that you didn't quantify it.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
by yesplease » Mon 25 Feb 2008, 04:44:27
Speaking of which, why did you make this statement?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', 'Y')ou are willing to point out that I do not have the math to quantify things to your satisfaction.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
by wisconsin_cur » Mon 25 Feb 2008, 04:45:31
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', '
')
The most essential limiting factor, however, is hope.
What I did a bad job attempting to articulate is that a lot of the productive things we do is built upon hope, hope that some project will benefit me. We went to space because everyone hoped or dreamed that their child might go into space or even live on the moon. Take away that hope and it is harder to justify a manned space program. As long as enough people have hope of benefitting from the wind turbines we will build them. If a critical mass loose that hope, than we will stop... and all of us will be just a little bit more screwed.
http://www.thenewfederalistpapers.com
-
wisconsin_cur
- Light Sweet Crude
-
- Posts: 4576
- Joined: Thu 10 May 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: 45 degrees North. 883 feet above sealevel.
-
by wisconsin_cur » Mon 25 Feb 2008, 04:55:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'S')peaking of which, why did you make this statement?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', 'Y')ou are willing to point out that I do not have the math to quantify things to your satisfaction.
By repeatedly calling on me to quantify hope or things like electical grid upgrades that I readily acknowledge that I lack the educational background to discover on my own and have not read any other analysis in order to relate.
That which is quantifiable I have confessed I do not know a number for. I do not think that this disqualifies me from commenting on the fact that limitations exist, even if I cannot give you a number. Yet you continue to ask for one. It would be a rationale assumption then to conclude that you are attempting to emphasize that I do not have a number. I know that! alright?
If a man is pointing a gun at me I do not need to know the caliber or how good of a shot he is to know that I am in trouble. I may not know how much trouble I am in but I know that I am in trouble. I'm sorry I do not know the shooters stats from the last time he was at the range, what type of ammunition he has loaded the firearm with and since he is hiding it under a newspaper I don't even know if it is a .45 or a .22. I do know however it is a gun, even if the threat cannot be quantified.
http://www.thenewfederalistpapers.com
by yesplease » Mon 25 Feb 2008, 04:55:38
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', '
')
The most essential limiting factor, however, is hope.
What I did a bad job attempting to articulate is that a lot of the productive things we do is built upon hope, hope that some project will benefit me. We went to space because everyone hoped or dreamed that their child might go into space or even live on the moon. Take away that hope and it is harder to justify a manned space program. As long as enough people have hope of benefitting from the wind turbines we will build them. If a critical mass loose that hope, than we will stop... and all of us will be just a little bit more screwed.
Even if hope isn't quantifiable, we'll either have it or not, so looking at it seems kind of trivial, don'tcha think? If we have it, great. If we don't, and lay down and die, then regardless of whether or no we can transition to something different, it won't matter because we won't do it. So, if we want to keep things up, we can just keep going, until we can't. Seems like Pascal's wager. Hope has no significant cost given the alternative of no hope and death.
Last edited by
yesplease on Mon 25 Feb 2008, 05:06:00, edited 1 time in total.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
by yesplease » Mon 25 Feb 2008, 05:05:06
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', 'B')y repeatedly calling on me to quantify hope or things like electical grid upgrades that I readily acknowledge that I lack the educational background to discover on my own and have not read any other analysis in order to relate.
Whether you believe you can quantify these things or not does no mean you can't unless you choose not to. If you try, and can't, then you can't. But choosing not to is different from not being able to. And no one knows whether or not they can do something until they try, within reason of course.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', 'I') do not think that this disqualifies me from commenting on the fact that limitations exist, even if I cannot give you a number. Yet you continue to ask for one.
I ask for one in the hope that you'll provide one and we can talk about it in a rational matter. However, I never stated that disqualifies you from talking about it.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', 'I')t would be a rationale assumption then to conclude that you are attempting to emphasize that I do not have a number. I know that! alright?
It is not a rational assumption. The only rational assumption would be that you do not know why I am asking, and in that case, if you wanted to know why I'm asking, you could ask me why I'm asking. I did not ask you to quantify these things because I am attempting to emphasize that you do not have a number for them
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', 'I')f a man is pointing a gun at me I do not need to know the caliber or how good of a shot he is to know that I am in trouble. I may not know how much trouble I am in but I know that I am in trouble. I'm sorry I do not know the shooters stats from the last time he was at the range, what type of ammunition he has loaded the firearm with and since he is hiding it under a newspaper I don't even know if it is a .45 or a .22. I do know however it is a gun, even if the threat cannot be quantified.
You don't need to know these things, but they may be useful depending on circumstance. WRT what we are talking about, quantifying different things can also be useful in our discussion.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
