Al Gore's Mea Culpa

[blueblood]

Who cares? Seriously? Maybe tax payers who saw billions of dollars go to subsidize corn-based ethanol production. Maybe food buyers that saw a huge spike in corn-based food products. Just them.

Do you know anything about the Ag and energy industry?

When you are a net exporter of goods, high prices are a good thing. The US is the world's largest ag producer and exporter. The US is also one of the largest petroleum importers in the world. It's only logical that they take measures to curb the amount of oil imported for the sake of national security and economic effects of being such a large oil importer.

The Bush administration was a big supporter of the ethanol program, and righfully so. With approximately 40% of the US corn crop going to ethanol production, that translates into a lot of oil saved. Not only that, it benefits the US economy by having its exports being sold at higher prices.

For the US it's either 80$ a barell oil and $5.50 corn or $100+ a barell oil and 3$ corn. Guess which side both US parties were on?

[Moonlight Graham]

A politician acts in favour of votes over principle? I DON'T BELIEVE IT!!

[Jack Weber]

Do you know anything about the Ag and energy industry?

When you are a net exporter of goods, high prices are a good thing. The US is the world's largest ag producer and exporter. The US is also one of the largest petroleum importers in the world. It's only logical that they take measures to curb the amount of oil imported for the sake of national security and economic effects of being such a large oil importer.

The Bush administration was a big supporter of the ethanol program, and righfully so. With approximately 40% of the US corn crop going to ethanol production, that translates into a lot of oil saved. Not only that, it benefits the US economy by having its exports being sold at higher prices.

For the US it's either 80$ a barell oil and $5.50 corn or $100+ a barell oil and 3$ corn. Guess which side both US parties were on?

Um...The Professor does'nt know anything...

[bush_cheney2004]

...My only "rhetoric" is that research in wind energy and solar energy shows promise and should continue development. The problem comes when luddite hacks dismiss technologies they dont even have introductory knowledge of.

You're a liar....the "promise" and "development" are decades old.

Just be honest! You dont have the faintest idea of where those technologies are at, and you dont know the first thing about them. Theres nothing wrong with that and you shouldnt be embarassed.

You are quite mistaken....I was working with such "technologies" before you were eating solid food, including power systems, storage, inverters, photovoltaics, thermo-electric conversion modules, thermoacoustic generators, nuclear reactors, gas turbines, internal/external combustion engines, Torpedo MK-50 lithium boilers, Rankine steam cycle generators, and all associated control systems, gallium arsenide semiconductors, interstitial materials, etc., etc. Research and development for power sources, distribution, applications, and efficiencies are a lot older than your brave new world of "green" discovery.

Oh, and just for fun, I own 5,000 shares of HYGS....a home boy company in Canada.

Edited November 24, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[TimG]

My only "rhetoric" is that research in wind energy and solar energy shows promise and should continue development. The problem comes when luddite hacks dismiss technologies they dont even have introductory knowledge of.

Pfft. I have not patience for people who believe in magical technology fairies.

Your problem is you understand nothing about the economics of power production. Any source of energy that requires subsidies can be sustained over the long run. Solar and wind are useless power sources for that reason and that reason alone. When someone comes up with a business plan for wind and solar that does not require cash payouts I will take them seriously (i.e. loan guarantees are fine if the business plan can make the loan payments from income).

If, as you say, the technologies are 'not mature' then we should not be talking about any use outside of a few large scale pilot projects. The idea that we should commit to having X% of our power from an 'immature' technology is rediculous.

Edited November 24, 2010 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

If, as you say, the technologies are 'not mature' then we should not be talking about any use outside of a few large scale pilot projects. The idea that we should commit to having X% of our power from an 'immature' technology is rediculous.

Yes...focus on power....not energy. Understand the difference in the real world.

[Sir Bandelot]

Yes...focus on power....not energy. Understand the difference in the real world.

Especially, the power of the dark side?

[dre]

Pfft. I have not patience for people who believe in magical technology fairies.

Your problem is you understand nothing about the economics of power production. Any source of energy that requires subsidies can be sustained over the long run. Solar and wind are useless power sources for that reason and that reason alone. When someone comes up with a business plan for wind and solar that does not require cash payouts I will take them seriously (i.e. loan guarantees are fine if the business plan can make the loan payments from income).

If, as you say, the technologies are 'not mature' then we should not be talking about any use outside of a few large scale pilot projects. The idea that we should commit to having X% of our power from an 'immature' technology is rediculous.

Your problem is you understand nothing about the economics of power production. Any source of energy that requires subsidies can be sustained over the long run. Solar and wind are useless power sources for that reason and that reason alone.

More luddite horseshit. Evidencd by the fact that you dont hold ANY other industries to that standard besides wind and solar. Wind and solar have recieved only a tiny percentage of the energy subsidies over the last few years. Your pet nuclear industry has recieved virtually ALL the money allocated.

The fact is that subsidies in wind and solar generated more power per dollar than subsidies to nuclear during the nuclear industries early capitalization phase.

Theres a good report here... you have to sign up for it though.

Overview: This report examines federal subsidies to wind, solar, and nuclear power programs and finds that while nuclear energy received the majority of subsidies, wind energy provided more energy per dollar spent in the first 10 years. Wind, solar and nuclear power received approximately $150 billion in cumulative federal subsidies over roughly fifty years, some 95% of which supported nuclear power. Perhaps more significant, nuclear power received far higher levels of support per kilowatt-hour generated early in its history than did wind or solar. Federal Energy Subsidies also provides qualitative accounting of Federal involvement in hydropower development.

http://jobfunctions.bnet.com/abstract.aspx?docid=111076

Dang so much for your horse shit about per kilowatt production subsidies! Because the nuclear industry got more of THOSE as well. Wind energy generated more power per dollar in subsidies than nuclear did when it was at the level of capitalization that wind and solar are now!

By your OWN litmus test... the nuclear industry has completely failed and the technology isnt usefull. Good christ.

Your problem is you understand nothing about the economics of power production.

I know 10 times what you know about that. Youve done nothing but trip yourself up over and over again. You claim that solar energy is mature even though its in the midst of a series of major breakthroughs that have completely changed the way PV works and how its manufactured. Nobody with even a passing knowledge of PV development would even consider saying something that clueless.

And your silly claim that an emerging energy source has to exist without subsidies is ignorant of the ENTIRE HISTORY OF HUMAN TECHNOLOGY.

NOT ONE SINGLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGY is would be deemed "usefull" when you apply that moronic, luddite, litmus test to it. Not a SINGLE one.

Edited November 24, 2010 by dre

[dre]

You're a liar....the "promise" and "development" are decades old.

You are quite mistaken....I was working with such "technologies" before you were eating solid food, including power systems, storage, inverters, photovoltaics, thermo-electric conversion modules, thermoacoustic generators, nuclear reactors, gas turbines, internal/external combustion engines, Torpedo MK-50 lithium boilers, Rankine steam cycle generators, and all associated control systems, gallium arsenide semiconductors, interstitial materials, etc., etc. Research and development for power sources, distribution, applications, and efficiencies are a lot older than your brave new world of "green" discovery.

Oh, and just for fun, I own 5,000 shares of HYGS....a home boy company in Canada.

You are quite mistaken....I was working with such "technologies" before you were eating solid food, including power systems, storage, inverters, photovoltaics, thermo-electric conversion modules, thermoacoustic generators, nuclear reactors, gas turbines, internal/external combustion engines, Torpedo MK-50 lithium boilers, Rankine steam cycle generators, and all associated control systems, gallium arsenide semiconductors, interstitial materials, etc

Just another lie. You have zero credibility.

[bush_cheney2004]

...More luddite horseshit. Evidencd by the fact that you dont hold ANY other industries to that standard besides wind and solar. Wind and solar have recieved only a tiny percentage of the energy subsidies over the last few years. Your pet nuclear industry has recieved virtually ALL the money allocated.

Wind and solar are centuries old....get a grip.

[dre]

Especially, the power of the dark side?

Yes...focus on power....not energy

[bush_cheney2004]

Just another lie. You have zero credibility.

You wouldn't know a practical power system if it bit you in the ass. You are powered by Google!

[dre]

You wouldn't know a practical power system if it bit you in the ass. You are powered by Google!

Yawn. Oh well... bout as much value as the rest of your horse shit I guess. Good job!

[bush_cheney2004]

Yawn. Oh well... bout as much value as the rest of your horse shit I guess. Good job!

I can play your kind of game all day and night. You are a pretender with no practical experience in power production. A toy turbine on your roof doesn't count.

[dre]

I can play your kind of game all day and night. You are a pretender with no practical experience in power production. A toy turbine on your roof doesn't count.

Youre exactly wrong about who I am. What YOU are is a liar, and a luddite and someone the jumps from thread to thread farting out one-line clown-posts about stuff you know jack shit about.

[bush_cheney2004]

Youre exactly wrong about who I am. What YOU are is a liar, and a luddite and someone the jumps from thread to thread farting out one-line clown-posts about stuff you know jack shit about.

Oh sure, having been handed your ass, you go for the diversion. I even know more about Al Gore than you!

[Jack Weber]

Youre exactly wrong about who I am. What YOU are is a liar, and a luddite and someone the jumps from thread to thread farting out one-line clown-posts about stuff you know jack shit about.

I know about the fabrication of units for the power industry...

You're right about Miss Saskatchewan,though...

[bush_cheney2004]

I know about the fabrication of units for the power industry...

You're right about Miss Saskatchewan,though...

So much for being ignored...again.

[TimG]

Evidencd by the fact that you dont hold ANY other industries to that standard besides wind and solar. Wind and solar have recieved only a tiny percentage of the energy subsidies over the last few years.

It is subsidies per KWH that matter. That is what seperates the sustainable from the unsustainable.

The fact is that subsidies in wind and solar generated more power per dollar than subsidies to nuclear during the nuclear industries early capitalization phase.

Show where governments MANDATED the use of nuclear power during that phase? It was only used in pilot projects then. Solar and wind long past that phase and there is only room for marginal improvements in the technology. BTW - I read that report quite awhile ago and dismissed for that reason.

Wind energy generated more power per dollar in subsidies than nuclear did when it was at the level of capitalization that wind and solar are now!

SFW? Nuclear power in the 60s is comparable to wind/solar in the 90s. Wind/solar are in the stage that nuclear was is the 70-80s. Mature technologies where the ROI is known. In the case of wind/solar, the ROI is negative and there is little prospect of that changing.

[bush_cheney2004]

Capture wind and solar...on your bike! Yay! I charged my iPod in an eco-friendly way, saving at least 5 polar bears from an agonizing death!

http://www.oureverydayearth.com/capture-wind-and-solar-power-on-your-bike/

Edited November 24, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[dre]

Oh sure, having been handed your ass, you go for the diversion. I even know more about Al Gore than you!

Handed my ass? You didnt even try to argue the point. You didnt even make an attempt to participate in this thread AT ALL as a matter of fact.

Its about Thermo Dynamics!

POwer dude! Not energy!

Get freakin real. Youre just a sideshow clown. You know it... and everyone else does too.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Get freakin real. Youre just a sideshow clown. You know it... and everyone else does too.

I don't argue with the mentally disabled...it is not polite!

[dre]

It is subsidies per KWH that matter. That is what seperates the sustainable from the unsustainable.

Show where governments MANDATED the use of nuclear power during that phase? It was only used in pilot projects then. Solar and wind long past that phase and there is only room for marginal improvements in the technology. BTW - I read that report quite awhile ago and dismissed for that reason.

SFW? Nuclear power in the 60s is comparable to wind/solar in the 90s. Wind/solar are in the stage that nuclear was is the 70-80s. Mature technologies where the ROI is known. In the case of wind/solar, the ROI is negative and there is little prospect of that changing.

It is subsidies per KWH that matter. That is what seperates the sustainable from the unsustainable.

Right. And when the nuclear industry was at the level of capitalization solar is at now its per KWH subsidy was higher. Dance all you want, but according to YOUR OWN litmus test Nuclear energy is failed because it recieved per KWH subsidies for decades!

Solar and wind long past that phase and there is only room for marginal improvements in the technology

Utter horseshit. Virtually all the largest advances have come in the last 15 years. Textured mono, aluminum BSF, cast multi, point contact mono, passivating SN, Iso texture, nano towers, and multi junction panels. All these are major changes that have resulted in a MASSIVE price reduction over the last 15 years, and some of them still havent hit the market yet.

You could make this claim 100000 times but you would still be wrong.

Show where governments MANDATED the use of nuclear power during that phase?

Gotcha. So now that you realize that if you applied the same litmus test (no production per kwh subsidies) that you insist on applying to wind and solar that you also have to dismiss the nuclear industry, youve resorted to moving the goal posts. Its not about per kwh subsidies its about mandated use!

It was only used in pilot projects then.

Thats exactly where solar energy is. The pilot project phase. Theres very little installed capacity and virtually all the central plants are experimental. The cost of solar PV has only gotten low enough to see any sort of widespread use in the last 3 or 4 years. Now that it has come down though the number of installations is skyrocketing.

Solar PV alone will reach grid parity within the next decade, and concentrated solar significant promise as well for central plant applications.

They did a study in North Carolina and found that EVEN TODAY solar energy costs less than nuclear energy in that state, with solar utilities selling power for under 16 cents, and steadily decreasing while at the same time nuclear power has steadily INCREASED in cost.

Edited November 24, 2010 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

Thats exactly where solar energy is. The pilot project phase. Theres very little installed capacity and virtually all the central plants are experimental. The cost of solar PV has only gotten low enough to see any sort of widespread use in the last 3 or 4 years. Now that it has come down though the number of installations is skyrocketing.

Nonsense....the first phase of SEGS (solar energy hybrid technology) in the Mojave Desert dates to the early 80's. It now generates more than 350 MW with a capacity factor of about 20%....compared to a conventional base load power plant that runs close to 90%.

[dre]

Nonsense....the first phase of SEGS (solar energy hybrid technology) in the Mojave Desert dates to the early 80's. It now generates more than 350 MW with a capacity factor of about 20%....compared to a conventional base load power plant that runs close to 90%.

Those are all pilot projects used to test plant designs. Modern plants based on those advances are just starting construction now. The last two SEGS plants built are actually quite successfull and turn a good profit. Shitty example to back up the caricature of solar as a failed technology. A number of new plants will be finished over the next few years.