Say Anything Blog

Pil: I agree completely that we can solve our present problems with technology; I do wonder why you think that subsidizing solar panels is either necessary or desirable, though.  The example of our synthetic rubber technology didn’t require any subsidies, did it?
The truth is that solar technology will not be competitive with fossil fuel technology in the foreseeable future, even with $200/barrel oil(if that ever happens).  The predictions of $4/gal gas was made in 2005, and isn’t here yet.  I don’t think it’s ever wise to take action on the basis of predictions, especially economic predictions.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

r108,

The solar panels could and would take a lot of strain off of our aging power grids as well. I don’t think it would be a replacement for fossil fuel energy, but a supplement.

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

The solar panels could and would take a lot of strain off of our aging power grids as well. I don’t think it would be a replacement for fossil
fuel energy, but a supplement.

I think your requirement for a subsidy tells the real story.  If and when solar panels are competitive on a level playing field, they will make it in the market.
I hope the ethanol example will be a lesson to everyone that the market knows best.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

The solar panels could and would take a lot of strain off of our aging power grids as well.

Hmmm, have you forgotten about cloudy conditions and short winter days when the highest energy consumption is when there is no sunlight?  Solar energy will always have to be suplemented by other energy sources.

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

I think oine good way to gemore energy isto build Nuclear Power Plants. That would help with powering homesand businesses. If you live in the desert, solar power iffine,but wahtif you live in the Midwest where stormswill block the solar panels. Or if youlive in the Pacific Northwest where it rains a lot.

We shold tap ANWAR, The Florida Coast, Gulf of Mexico, and coast of California. Also untap all the oil rigs that have been shut down for years.

And in the mean time while we use the domestic oil, wecan have technology getmorefule efficient cars, and help drive down the costsofthe hybtrids and get rid oftheboondongle of biofueltha is costing usmoreto make than notto make.  It is driving up cost infood and also in gass prices. Cutthe subsidies to the biofuel farms and seehow much it reallycosts the American people for this ridiculous wasteof food.

A solar panel subsidy is foolish.  The cost per unit of power is too high, and the amount of power produced by a home solar power system is next to trivial.  This proposal does sound liberal, because it is.

A solar panel subsidy is foolish.

I’m not talking about substituting solar power for the power from the main grids. Again, I’m talking about supplementing it.

Is it the answer to cutting our dependance on OPEC? No. It’s a drop in the bucket.

Got a better idea, Craig?

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

...why not give a full tax credit for the entire cost of installing a solar panel on your home? Or if you live in the country, a windmill for power? Want to save on energy? Produce your own. I’d install a solar panel tomorrow if I could get a total tax credit to do it…

I think oine good way to gemore energy isto build Nuclear Power Plants…

I still have not seen anyone make the link between electricity production and transportation fuels.  Electricity has been affordable for very long time in the US, and we have a surplus at night.

Where are all of the electric cars?

How will more electricity alleviate the high cost of transportation?

Bueller?  Bueller?

I have no objection to solar panels, unless I’m forced to pay for them.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Robert108:  In the People’s Republic where I live, the Public Utilities Commission wants to force taxpayers to pay for off-shore wind-farms.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The stakes are high. Whether the issue is the economy, or energy, or the federal courts or national security, the right answers are coming not from the Democrats, but from the Republicans. The surge of operations that began a year ago is succeeding. The only way to lose this fight is to quit. Richard M. Cheney, Vice President, 30 May, 2008

Thus adding insult to injury.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

The answer is C O A L and N U C L E A R.

Coal can be refined into oil for $55 per barrel.

Nuclear power is GREEN Power. You are exposed to more radiation from cooking a single meal over a gas stove in your kitchen than a nuclear power plant is allowed to emit out into the atmosphere in a year.

I don’t think $200 will do it.  Today there is no replacement! (I am sick of the BP commercial that talks about the “alternatives”—alternatives just can’t replace substantial amounts of fossil fuels—with the exception of Nuclear) There is nothing as transportable, controllable, reliable, quickly refillable, or affordable (yes, I did all able’s on purpose).

The sheer volume of oil used each day is staggering and the more electronic devices we get the more we will use.

We can conserve and supplement, but we can’t replace or conserve enough.

Battery technology is not there today.  It may be in 5 or 10 years, but not today and $200 oil won’t change that.  You can’t recharge a 350 mile battery in 5 minutes and I can fill my car and pee in that time!  (Someone could invent an electric car with exchangeable battery racks that you can change out at the Mobil station—slide in and out with a push, you don’t own the battery, you just use the power—but it has to be cheap enough, safe enough and have long enough life.  Hell, I have never had one of my laptops with a decent battery that didn’t need an expensive replacement way too often!)

What the government needs to do is get out of the way, stop subsidizing political options (ethanol anyone?) that sap real innovation and let the American free market solve the problem.  All of the government efforts over the past 30 years have done nothing compared to what the past 5 years of the markets have done. 

Worried about global warming?  Start a company that puts solar units on every home in America by selling carbon credits (and maintaining them because they aren’t free forever)—why hasn’t Gore’s carbon company done this—because you would actually have to do something not just plant a friggin tree.  BUT let the rest of us drill for the oil we need to fuel freedom.
DKK

What the government needs to do is get out of the way, stop subsidizing political options (ethanol anyone?) that sap real innovation and let the American free market solve the problem.

And the current price of oil and gas potentially makes other forms of energy which could not compete at the lower oil prices more attractive.

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

The answer to the fixing the problem is a division between stationary and mobile power generation allocation. For example, oil, natural gas, ethonol and electric are all mobile power sources, in that they can be used for transportation. One could argue coal is, as well, but emmisions would be an issue. However, we currently use all of these to produce electric power (stationary electric generation).

If we were to make a stronger push to impliment LNG as fuel, becuase it’s cheaper and domestic, you could cut the need for oil down and decrease the mandate on ethonol. Then put your efforts into using wind, solar, nuclear and coal into producing electricity, which could be used to help with battery driven cars and hybrids. In doing this, you have your singers singing and your dancers dancing instead of the rats nest of power connection we have now.

For what it’s worth, it not my idea. I saw T Boone Pickens air it out on MSNBC and I thnk he kinds knows a little about the energy markets.