"Green Energy" policies screw the poor!!!

Discussion in 'Environment' started by skookerasbil, Oct 1, 2012.

  1. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,144
    Thanks Received:
    2,909
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,175
    More k00k losing.


    Most people think green is good but pay little attention to associated increases in costs. In 2015, it will cost between $49 and $79 to generate one megawatt hour of electricity from natural gas. A megawatt hour from onshore wind will cost between $75 and $138, and from solar photovoltaic will cost between $242 and $455.


    How Obama


    And they dont give a shit as long as their green fantasies are achieved. These people........they just dont get it. How ironic too........the poor getting poorer on the back of the taxpayer = a clusterfuck.


    So......all you people checking in on this forum trying to get a handle on the environment stuff? Careful what nutty-ass cause you embrace.........you may well be fucking over some poor people!!!
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2012
  2. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,419
    Thanks Received:
    5,405
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,274
    If you own the solar photovoltiac, it will cost you nothing after you have finished the payback period. As the price of electricity just keeps going up, even in those areas that do not have renewable energy, the initial investment of the photovoltaic panels with decrease with relationship to the payback period. If one also purchases a vehicle that is a hybrid with a partial ev range, such as the Ford Energi C-Max, your payback period is diminished greatly.
     
  3. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,144
    Thanks Received:
    2,909
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,175
    LOL.........yup.......these poor people have 30K, 40K, 50K to lay out and hope they live the almost 20 years before it becomes a smart investment.

    Ray.........ya gotta be kidding me my friend. Even Obama said himself the pursuit of his policies are going to cost plenty in terms of electric costs.

    Here is the graph from my link in Post #1..........its a no-brainer. Wind and Solar fuck over the poor>>>>>

    [​IMG]



    Wind and Solar are a joke. And funny...........since Obama took office, theyve gone directly down into the shitter!!!
     
  4. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,144
    Thanks Received:
    2,909
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,175
    [​IMG]
     
  5. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,419
    Thanks Received:
    5,405
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,274
    Well, yes, it is. The earth is warming. The reason is GHGs produced by humans. The consequences are being felt right now in every grocery store.

    As for obese junkies, who cares?
     
  6. flacaltenn
    Online

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,009
    Thanks Received:
    4,652
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,339
    So tell us O.R. how has YOUR paycheck investment in solar/wind panned out for you? Had to have the roof repaired recently? How's your insurance company with all this? Got good financing? Think poor people give a crap about all that?

    Not only are rate payers gonna pay TWICE for the same KWhrs --- because wind is a BACKUP to the primary generator who is CONTRACTED to provide 100% of the expected load --- but likely --- there will soon be (with smart metering) severe penalties for exceeding your "average" or any other trigger they want to place out there. You thought hidden charges from your cable was bad --- just WAIT for "smart grid" crap to get slapped on your bungalow..

    Those costs that were posted likely DON'T INCLUDE the costs of dumping nat gas/ coal energy into the ground every time the wind starts blowing.. It's ASTROMICALLY expensive to integrate statistically variable sources of energy onto a grid that HAS to maintain sync with INSTANTANEOUS demand..
     
  7. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,144
    Thanks Received:
    2,909
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,175

    Apparently.............the World Bank cares enough to write a white paper on the subject. Yuk........yuk.........now heres a group only a bonfide mental case would call partisan skeptics.


    The title???



    Investment decision making under deep uncertainty -- application to climate change


    Investment decision making under deep uncertainty -- application to climate change


    Author: Hallegatte, Stephane ; Shah, Ankur; Lempert, Robert; Brown, Casey; Gill, Stuart; Collection Title: Policy Research working paper ; no. WPS 6193
    Country: World; Date Stored: 2012/09/06
    Document Date: 2012/09/01 Document Type: Policy Research Working Paper
    Language: English Region: The World Region
    Report Number: WPS6193 SubTopics: Climate Change Economics; Climate Change Mitigation and Green House Gases; Global Environment Facility; Water Supply and Sanitation Governance and Institutions; Science of Climate Change
    Volume No: 1 of 1


    Summary: While agreeing on the choice of an optimal investment decision is already difficult for any diverse group of actors, priorities, and world views, the presence of deep uncertainties further challenges the decision-making framework by questioning the robustness of all purportedly optimal solutions. This paper summarizes the additional uncertainty that is created by climate change, and reviews the tools that are available to project climate change (including downscaling techniques) and to assess and quantify the corresponding uncertainty. Assuming that climate change and other deep uncertainties cannot be eliminated over the short term (and probably even over the longer term), it then summarizes existing decision-making methodologies that are able to deal with climate-related uncertainty, namely cost-benefit analysis under uncertainty, cost-benefit analysis with real options, robust decision making, and climate informed decision analysis. It also provides examples of applications of these methodologies, highlighting their pros and cons and their domain of applicability. The paper concludes that it is impossible to define the "best" solution or to prescribe any particular methodology in general. Instead, a menu of methodologies is required, together with some indications on which strategies are most appropriate in which contexts. This analysis is based on a set of interviews with decision-makers, in particular World Bank project leaders, and on a literature review on decision-making under uncertainty. It aims at helping decision-makers identify which method is more appropriate in a given context, as a function of the project's lifetime, cost, and vulnerability.


    Investment decision making under deep uncertainty -- application to climate change, Vol. 1 of 1




    Those who dont understand the ramifications of a paper like this are beyond hopelessly naive. Suffice to say, its about the best barometer on how the power brokers of the world envision financial plans surrounding climate change.


    Speaks to "climate related uncertainty" based upon vast descrepancies between models, depending on location.

    For example, the paper notes...............

    Apparently, the IPCC provides results from 19 global climate models. Even though the models agree on the very big picture (more warming in high latitude than in low latitude; more precipitation in high latitudes; less precipitation around the tropics; more precipitation around the equator), the differences can be huge in some regions (e.g., half the models predict an increase in precipitation over India; half the models predict the opposite; and — as a consequence — the “average model” predicts no change, showing the risk of using an average model).

    Here’s another example: “For Ghana, [one model] predicts a 20% increase in precipitation, while [another model] predicts a 30% decrease!”








    I laughed my balls off when I saw this.............more strong evidence that the "consensus science" is losing. Now though, I'm just more aware of the level of spin attached to these "climate models". These assholes pick the ones that fit the narrative every time.



    But the people out there in charge of $$$ and climate investment................dont.:D:D:D
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2012
  8. earthmuffin
    Offline

    earthmuffin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2012
    Messages:
    48
    Thanks Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +8
    If alternative energy received the kind of subsidies that fossil fuels do, this wouldn't be an issue. Alternative energy is expensive because it hasn't really been invested in the way it should be.
     
  9. flacaltenn
    Online

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,009
    Thanks Received:
    4,652
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,339
    So how much ALTERNATIVE energy has been provided since OBAMA plowed $90,000,000,000 into it as SUBSIDIES?? Ener1, Solyndra -- do THOSE ring a bell? In fact, as Romney pointed out -- that $90 BILL is about 20 years of oil subsidies.

    And there isn't really even any ALTERNATIVEs --- just "supplements". Because a technology that only delivers for 6 hours a day and is unpredicable to boot will NEVER be a PRIMARY source of electric grid generation.

    Have you ever even LOOKED at a production graph for wind farm power?

    You LIKE geothermal? Biomass Conversion? ALL OF THESE HAVE BEEN HEAVILY invested and subsidized for DECADES and they contribute DIDDLY SQUAT today in terms of meaningful reliable power..
     
  10. earthmuffin
    Offline

    earthmuffin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2012
    Messages:
    48
    Thanks Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +8
    The 90 billion dollar figure you speak of is the entire budget for the Department of Energy's Recovery Act which is a program that has been in existence since 2009. And a mere fraction has actually gone into what you could consider subsidies for wind and solar, nor has the entire amount even been spent yet. Most of the money has gone to cleanup efforts, namely of nuclear weapon storage sites, and programs dedicated to energy efficiency. Much has also gone into the effort to make coal more efficient and cleaner to burn, something Romney himself supports. The companies you mention have cost the government money, yes. However it's in the hundreds of millions, not billions.
    Also, the figure that Romney mentioned is not only questionable on it's own, it doesn't take into account any of the things the fossil fuel industry relies upon, like federally supported railroads.
    Just as an aside, when Romney claimed half of these federally backed industries failed, that was incorrect. And it was actually only a fifth of what Congress budgeted for.


    These things have not been invested in. We have, over the years, been improving the efficiency of things like solar energy. It's not something that will come cheap. But it is because that it has been relegated to the position of supplement (like you mentioned), many assume it can be nothing more.
     

Share This Page