UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (38) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: tpault Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 128282  
Subject: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/10/2012 6:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Michigan has a proposal for the Nov. election that would require 25% of energy production to be from "renewables" (wind, solar)

The concept sounds like one I want. I'd like to see mankind figure out how to rely on renewable energy, in my lifetime.

There are of course opponents of the proposal who say it will cost taxpayers too much money, and that the drafters don't even have a plan on how to reach the 25% on 2025.

You know, on warm sunny days we can see a yellowish hue, a haze as it were, above the horizon. It's pollution, or ozone, or what have you. I believe we are poisoning ourselves and the planet.

I don't know, what do some of you think?

Paul T.
Print the post Back To Top
Author: inparadise Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122468 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/10/2012 6:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Michigan has a proposal for the Nov. election that would require 25% of energy production to be from "renewables" (wind, solar)

I would want to know how this will be accomplished without subsidies, and if subsidies are to be used, where in the IIRC not so flush MI budget will it come from?

Lets try to renew our economy first, before we commit additional money that we do not have.

IP

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Donna405 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122469 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/10/2012 6:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I do know one thing. I have never had problems with allergies in my life as I do now. In addition, I look at friends who have asthma and who are struggling to breath the outside air. To me, that is enough to increase our use of clean energy.

Donna

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Goofyhoofy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122470 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/10/2012 6:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I would want to know how this will be accomplished without subsidies, and if subsidies are to be used, where in the IIRC not so flush MI budget will it come from?

I would hope they take it from the public schools, because I would rather have clean air in MY lungs than smart ideas in YOUR kids' heads.

Seriously, why am I supposed to pay to educate your children? Doesn't your philosophy say that YOU should take care of your own expenses?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122471 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/10/2012 6:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
I think it's a worthwhile goal. It will take commitment to reach it, though. Somehow I doubt MI is a mecca for solar energy. Might be able to get wave/tide energy from the lakes, though.

It is a really large problem that the entire nation faces. If we put reasonable regulation on coal mining (i.e. don't shear off the tops of mountains), the cost goes up. If we put more regulations on emissions from coal-fired plants, costs go up. Of course, the costs of NOT doing those things are also extremely high, but not nearly as apparent.

And if we have to provide subsidies, I'd much rather provide them for solar power than oil companies (whom we subsidize in numerous ways including military protection and/or wars...very pricey, even before including all the bloodshed).

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tpault Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122475 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/10/2012 7:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I doubt MI is a mecca for solar energy

It is more like a mecca for clouds

I'd much rather provide them for solar power than oil companies

Good point. I saw an article once on how big gov subsidizes big oil all the time, although I am not convinced on how. On the other hand when you look at how many skirmishes and mini wars we've been in over oil producing nations, it may be safe to say we not only subsidize big oil, we militarize it. Oh, you already said that, sorry. Apparently we think alike (most honest people do).

Tidal energy and wind energy for that matter, according to a show I saw on PBS, do alter the environment to an extent. The scientist went so far as to say only X% of our energy can come from wind or waves without affecting weather and ecosystems.

I received a statement in the mail from my electricity provider that said I think it was 3% currrently comes from either wind turbines, or gas from the local landfill.

I don't know who's suppose to pay for it but the commercials point out that there's no real plan to achieve the goal and that our energy bills would rise to pay for it. Several utility companies oppose the bill.

I'd like to think that 100 years from now it can't be said that all "I" did was burn fossil fuels to satisfy my addiction to warm showers, the internet, and cooking or refrigerating food.

I think we as a species are living high on the hog right now and we don't even realize it. It's like we've swollen to 7 billion on the planet... that's a whole lot of enchilades. What affords so many houses, SUV's, wars, Walmarts, and $26 million in campaign money flushed down the toilet? What fueled the birth of us baby boomers and industry and basically urbanizing almost every square mile of the U.S.?

Oil and coal. The natural course would be for those things to become depleted, and then populations have a negative growth.

Maybe the Earth needs a more practical balance of us, such that we don't snuff ourselves out. But thinking forwardly, we may be best off if we figure out how to replace fossil fuels. I mean, in 2008 the bubble burst, yeah, but does anyone remember what kind of immediately preceeded the fallout? It was gas prices north of 4 bucks.
http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx (click on the 8 year).

And don't look now but the gas prices today, which are partially a product of things that "limit" daily production of sweet crude, are climbing to the $4 mark again. Maybe that is a sign that we are playing around with our finite supply of energy and it is already causing chaos. So yeah, I'm a big fan of harnessing the sun. The earth is but a pinpoint in the space around the sun. If we could power the nation with one solar field in Arizona, just think how much energy would could have if we figured out a way to collect ten thousand Earth sized areas of sunshine, that radiates out all day and night, every day and night.

I know, easier said than done. Nonetheless, if we don't head that direciton, we are not going to make it. Not in present day numbers, anyway.

Paul T.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: inparadise Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122476 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/10/2012 7:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Seriously, why am I supposed to pay to educate your children?

Because their success will help keep your social security payments coming, and in the case of Eldest with his interest in internet security, possibly your energy safe from internet attack.

I'm not saying that renewable energy is a bad thing. Neither is the ability to pay one's bills. It's time that government starts to either earn more money or spend less, and develop a budget they can live within.

It constantly amazes me how one cut after another in spending is simply called too little to make a difference, but a few tens of million here, a few more there, and pretty soon, as someone I don't recall once said, it adds up to real money.

IP,
paying more than her share of Youngest's school costs in property taxes, and 100% of Eldest's college costs

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122477 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/10/2012 7:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 12
For more than a hundred years public authorities have made low cost, reliable electric power the goal for utilities.


Democrats and liberals used to hold the feet of utility executives to the fire to accomplish those goals.


Now, our liberal friends have changed that goal. Now they want renewable power (not hydro though) at any cost, which means very high power costs and unreliable power.

It's an insane policy goal in my opinion.

Liberals are now in bed with utility executives, getting all their little schemes funded at the expense of taxpayer and ratepayers in exchange for supporting high prices --- the higher the better.

It's an EVIL program, in my opinion.



Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: inparadise Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122478 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/10/2012 7:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
If we could power the nation with one solar field in Arizona,

Only if the lizards say we can: The strong push for renewable energy in this country has greatly increased demand for
Southwestern desert sites that are highly suitable for solar and wind energy production. The
proposed area for the Quartzsite Solar Energy Project will encompass about 1400 acres, about 11
acres of which is sand dune, with most of the remainder on potential sand-sheet habitats for the
Mohave Fringe-toed Lizard. The agencies have deemed the Quartzsite Project to be impacting
the Dunes Wildlife Management Area and surrounding habitat although little is known of the
relationship between the use of the habitat as a system by the Mohave Fringe-toed Lizard. This
study plan was developed in order to develop a better understanding of the extent to which
Mohave Fringe-toed Lizards occur in these sand-sheet habitats and the ecological importance of
lizards in these extensive dune-periphery habitats to the regional persistence of the species.(i.e.,
to what extent do these “sand-sheet” lizardsreproduce and recruit into the general population?


http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/az/pdfs/energy/qs...

IP

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122479 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/10/2012 7:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
This one is being built: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solana_Generating_Station

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PSUEngineer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122480 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/10/2012 11:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Michigan has a proposal for the Nov. election that would require 25% of energy production to be from "renewables" (wind, solar)

I have not looked into Michigan's proposal. Around 2/3 of states have some form of a renewable portfolio standard. Some people think renewable energy means clean energy. You can already see that on this thread. That is not necessarily true. Renewable energy sources may include wood waste, chicken manure, landfill gas and hog manure. Burning wood and animal manures can produce high levels of nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride. There have been discussions to expand the definition of wood waste to include whole trees.

Here in NC, 12.5% of electricity needs to come from renewable energy sources but only 0.2% needs to come from solar energy. My guess is much of it will come from wood waste.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tpault Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122481 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/11/2012 6:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I have not looked into Michigan's proposal. Around 2/3 of states have some form of a renewable portfolio standard. Some people think renewable energy means clean energy.

Michigan already has a renewable porfolio. I think it's 10% by 2015. Yeah, good luck with that. Michigan's proposal is to add to the constitution that the renewable energy be "clean":

Beginning no later than 2025, at least 25 percent of each electricity provider's annual retail electricity sales in Michigan shall be derived from the generation or purchase of electricity produced from clean renewable electric energy sources


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Wording-of-the-Michigan-r...

Further, if I'm not mistaken, this would put Michigan at the lead, in terms of aggressiveness of goal. It's even making news in California.

But to your point PSU I believe "biomass" is one allowable resource and one "biomass" is probably landfills. Ironic that clean, renewable energy includes that which would come from making as much waste for landfills as we possibly can?

Paul T.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tpault Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122482 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/11/2012 6:46 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Only if the lizards say we can

Well first off it doesn't sound like an educated person wrote that paragraph above. Or maybe they are educated but flunked English. I don't claim to be a grammar person but I'm also not claiming to be qualified to write a Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard Study Proposal.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

If the funky toed lizard survives but there's no mankind around to appreciate it, does their survival have any significance to us?

Paul T.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Gingko100 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122483 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/11/2012 6:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
It works in Australia, but I am not sure Michigan is the best model for it.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/epuron-acquires-australias-lar...

Perhaps Michigan plans to use hydro as a large part of this portfolio, as they have a lot of that, and not so much solar.

At any rate all this OTT language like "evil" is just silly. Sandusky is evil. This is just energy policy - on which people can disagree. China & Australia are leaders in renewable energy and we are not. We will be followers in this technology due to all the political brouhaha about it. That;'s not necessarily a bad thing - it is as yet a rather undeveloped field. But we will be followers for sure.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: voelkels Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122487 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/11/2012 8:06 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I do know one thing. I have never had problems with allergies in my life as I do now. In addition, I look at friends who have asthma and who are struggling to breath the outside air.

I doubt that your allergies are due to air pollution. The air now is much less polluted than it was during the 1950s & 60s and more kids now-a-daze have asthma & allergies than back then.

C.J.V. - remembering the air pollution from the mid & late 1950s, me

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MetroChick Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122491 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/11/2012 9:22 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I would like to see more expansion of clean energy options. Every house needs a roof - why not use something like integrated solar panels for the roofing to capture as much solar energy as possible. For my house, because of old growth trees (which I wouldn't want cut down) I couldn't depend on something like that exclusively, but it would help reduce the need for standard energy options.

Unfortunately I think one of the obstacles is once someone's house is setup with something like that, there's no revenue stream the way the is in deliving standard forms of energy.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122492 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/11/2012 9:55 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<Perhaps Michigan plans to use hydro as a large part of this portfolio, as they have a lot of that, and not so much solar.>>


In Washington State, environmentalists wrote into their initiative that hydro power wasn't to be considered a renewable power resource.

They started out by denying reality, because it didn't suit their political biases.

Better check that out in the Michigan proposal.


Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122493 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/11/2012 10:13 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<<< The system of green subsidies isn’t sustainable. Inland Empire Oilseeds in Eastern Washington found this out when federal subsidies ended and they shut down operations for a year, laying off workers and harming the community.

Oregon, California and other states are struggling under the weight of huge green-energy subsidies on strained public budgets. Oregon’s subsidies have exploded, and are expected to cost the state nearly $300 million this biennium alone.

Some argue this is the point — government should continue paying green subsidies no matter what. This view ignores other public commitments, such as health care and education and programs that actually help the environment. What gets cut?

Asking governments to promise money to millionaire owners of green-energy companies during a recession is like asking parents to pay for lemonade stands after losing their jobs. >>



<<First, subsidies for some renewables are beyond all reason. According to the U.S. Energy Department, fossil fuels receive a subsidy of about six one-hundredths of a cent per kilowatt hour. Wind power receives about five cents per kilowatt hour — a massive subsidy, but modest compared to solar, which receives nearly 97 cents per kilowatt hour. That’s 1,600 times the fossil-fuel subsidy.>>



http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2019398004_guesttoddmye...
>>

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Leana Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122494 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/11/2012 10:32 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
In Washington State, environmentalists wrote into their initiative that hydro power wasn't to be considered a renewable power resource.
...
Better check that out in the Michigan proposal.


The ballot reads (in part):

"Require electric utilities to provide at least 25% of their annual retail sales of electricity from renewable energy sources, which are wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower, by 2025. "


Leana

Print the post Back To Top
Author: fleg9bo Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122497 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/11/2012 3:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
The system of green subsidies isn't sustainable....

Oregon, California and other states are struggling under the weight of huge green-energy subsidies on strained public budgets. Oregon’s subsidies have exploded, and are expected to cost the state nearly $300 million this biennium alone.


Perhaps a little off-topic, but I thought this was interesting in that it illuminates the possiblity of corruption in so-called green practices:

IRS says 'tax avoidance' at heart of Solyndra bankruptcy plan

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/10/irs-says-tax...

The Internal Revenue Service urged a bankruptcy judge to reject solar panel maker Solyndra LLC's bankruptcy plan Wednesday, saying it amounts to little more than an avenue for owners of an empty corporate shell to avoid paying taxes. "The undeniable conclusion is that tax benefits drive this plan," attorneys for the IRS wrote in a bankruptcy pleading.

Taxpayers are on the hook for more than a half-billion dollars after the company filed for bankruptcy last year, just two years after winning a loan guarantee from the Department of Energy. What's more, government attorneys said that as far back as 2010, Solyndra owners had "planned meticulously" to be able to use Solyndra's net operating losses to offset future tax liabilities.
____________________

In the case of Solyndra, the biggest benefactor of the tax benefits and probably the reason why Solyndra got its loan guarantees in the first place when it was already known to be in financial trouble is its principal investor George Kaiser, a billionaire and major donor to Obama. But such abuses can occur in any administration and argue for an end to such government subsidies and supports in general.

--fleg

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Gingko100 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122498 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/11/2012 9:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Pish-posh. People said much the same things about LED's 20 years ago - expensive, a boondoggle forced down our throats in the name of energy-efficiency, not economically viable except as a vanity project, etc.

Now they are widely available and ALL my corporate clients use them.

The energy industry will change and this will become fully viable in time. I don't mind not being the leader here. Eventually we'll play catch-up with China and the leaders who are way ahead of USA, but that's not the worst thing in the world. But to dismiss R&D outright? No. That's ante-diluvian clinging to the past.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: alstroemeria Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122530 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/13/2012 8:18 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
In Washington State, environmentalists wrote into their initiative that hydro power wasn't to be considered a renewable power resource.

If enough water is removed from Washington rivers for agricultural irrigation, industry, and lawns, and if there's less precipitation feeding those rivers due to climate change, maybe hydro isn't as renewable as it used to be.

I'm a moderate on this issue, favoring some hydro and some salmon rivers. mmm...salmon! (and mmm...dams, engineering marvels we love to visit on RV trips).

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122538 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/13/2012 1:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<In Washington State, environmentalists wrote into their initiative that hydro power wasn't to be considered a renewable power resource.

If enough water is removed from Washington rivers for agricultural irrigation, industry, and lawns, and if there's less precipitation feeding those rivers due to climate change, maybe hydro isn't as renewable as it used to be.>>



Hydro power doesn't remove water from rivers.


Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tpault Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122539 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/13/2012 2:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
People said much the same things about LED's 20 years ago - expensive, a boondoggle forced down our throats in the name of energy-efficiency, not economically viable except as a vanity project, etc.

I'm not following you. LED's weren't even considered 20 years ago, let alone forced down our throats.

ALL my corporate clients use them

Really? That surprises me since very few businesses have anything but a few token LED's. But all your clients use only LED's?

Paul T.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sykesix Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122540 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/13/2012 2:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I would want to know how this will be accomplished without subsidies, and if subsidies are to be used, where in the IIRC not so flush MI budget will it come from?

Lets try to renew our economy first, before we commit additional money that we do not have.


I agree money needs to be spent wisely, but I think this is a clear economic imperative. In fact, it is hard to imagine a better use of the money. Our economy is completely dependent on oil. The price of oil is set on world markets, and a primary source of oil is the Middle East, a portion of the world that has never known political stability.

Oil price shocks caused recession in the US economy in 1973, 1981, 1990, and helped introduce the current downturn. Our dependence in oil comes at an almost unimaginable cost, in the form of loss of several percent of GDP when these contractions occur. In order to defend our oil supplies, the US military is mostly parked in the Middle East. This again, comes at amazing cost, both in gold and blood. We exporting about a half trillion dollars for foreign oil, and much of this money directly or indirectly supports governments hostile to the United States. Even if we don't buy the oil directly, somebody else will.

To be sure, most oil isn't used to generate electricity, and most electricity isn't used for transportation. But that could chance with fairly modest investments and the potential savings and advantages are enormous.

But some people think wars, recessions, poisoned groundwater, and death from black lung is cheaper and easier than the modest public investment that would be required to eliminate those things. I cannot disagree more. The most expensive thing we can do is to simply keep doing what we're doing.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122541 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/13/2012 2:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<I agree money needs to be spent wisely, but I think this is a clear economic imperative. In fact, it is hard to imagine a better use of the money. Our economy is completely dependent on oil.>>



Almost no oil is used as a fuel to generate electricity in the United States.




Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sykesix Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122543 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/13/2012 3:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Almost no oil is used as a fuel to generate electricity in the United States.

Thanks for the tip. I thought that point was important so in my post I made it a stand alone paragraph so people wouldn't miss it.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: inparadise Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122545 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/13/2012 4:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I agree money needs to be spent wisely, but I think this is a clear economic imperative. In fact, it is hard to imagine a better use of the money.

This is MI we are talking about, as in Detroit. I would suspect that the residents of Detroit would disagree with you. They have no money to spend, even on essentials.

IP

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tpault Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122553 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/14/2012 12:27 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
For more than a hundred years public authorities have made low cost, reliable electric power the goal for utilities.

Democrats and liberals used to hold the feet of utility executives to the fire to accomplish those goals.

Now, our liberal friends have changed that goal.


Which is it? A hundred years of "public authorities," or, Democrats and liberals?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tpault Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122554 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/14/2012 12:51 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The system of green subsidies isn’t sustainable. Inland Empire Oilseeds in Eastern Washington found this out when federal subsidies ended and they shut down operations for a year, laying off workers and harming the community

There's good reason for subsidizing green energy. Oil and gas have been around so long and they have all the inroads. Thus, the opposite of what you claim is a conspiracy theory by Democrats, fossil energy has been dirt cheap in the U.S.

Solar, wind, etc. need time to develop and as long as fossil energy is so cheap, there is no money to throw at renewables. Infrastructure and development are needed before renewable pricing is competitive. The problem is that, without being competitive, renewables cannot develop and bring us up to speed. Green subsidies, as the opinionated story you linked talks about, in fact does not need to be subsidized forever. Rather, only long enough to take off and be competitive.

Let's not forget that some communist countries almost entirely run their nation's businesses, and they do it with infusing them with national capital. Capital from the capitol as it were.

Paul T.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: GrandpaRalph Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122556 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/14/2012 9:00 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Let's not forget that some communist countries almost entirely run their nation's businesses, and they do it with infusing them with national capital.

Let's also not forget that there have been no communist countries that were successful by any financial, social, or other meaningful measure.

Ralph

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tpault Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122559 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/14/2012 1:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Let's also not forget that there have been no communist countries that were successful by any financial, social, or other meaningful measure

Sorry that doesn't make sense to me, I must be missing the point.

One reason we cannot compete with third world countries is that their governments subsidize, especially the very financially successful China.

Subsidizing is always happening. If alternative energy sources are to take off, it must be subsidized in the u.s. Now we can argue our feelings all day long. But as a for instance, no one is going to buy an all electric vehicle when there is no way to take a cross country trip, or even cross state trip. It would take many quick-charge or batter-swap stations across the country. No company can afford to make thousands of "electric" stations or swap stations, just so they can possibly then sell cars someday. Now, this example isn't the point, so I would ask not to argue back about how they really don't need "swapping stations," etc. The point is that they are all starting with a leg-down, and the entire model must change to make it an even-enough playing field before new energy alternatives can begin to compete.

Paul T.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122560 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/14/2012 3:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
<<Subsidizing is always happening. If alternative energy sources are to take off, it must be subsidized in the u.s. Now we can argue our feelings all day long. But as a for instance, no one is going to buy an all electric vehicle when there is no way to take a cross country trip, or even cross state trip.>>


The United States has been heavily subsidizing electric cars and they are still a failure. Just not practical despite the subsidies for most people.

The same thing is proving to be true of solar and wind. You can get as much as you want if you pay a big enough subsidy, but it really can't compete against conventional power sources.

It does result in much higher utility bills and unreliable power supplies though ----what a deal.



Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122561 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/14/2012 10:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<For more than a hundred years public authorities have made low cost, reliable electric power the goal for utilities.

Democrats and liberals used to hold the feet of utility executives to the fire to accomplish those goals.

Now, our liberal friends have changed that goal.

Which is it? A hundred years of "public authorities," or, Democrats and liberals?>>



Low cost, reliable power has been the usual business priority of utilities and government regulators for a hundred years or more.

Until recent years, those goals tended to be the priorities of liberals and Democrats as well. It was very common for Democrats to hold the feet of utility executive to a hot fire and to roast lower rates for customers out of utility executives.

But that kind of things has often been abandoned. Environmentalists and their Democrat allies now tend to favor very high rates to subsidize their renwable power which also reduces the reliability of power supplies.

Rate payers are getting soaked, and not just with electric power rates either. Water, sewer and garbage costs are often rising rapidly as well.


Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: GrandpaRalph Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122566 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/15/2012 8:04 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Sorry that doesn't make sense to me, I must be missing the point.

Yup.

Ralph

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tpault Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122578 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/15/2012 5:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Just not practical despite the subsidies for most people

Subsidizing the purchase of a car is not the same as subsidizing the industry. In fact, your sentence above makes my point for me.

Paul T.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Gingko100 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122597 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/17/2012 9:59 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I'm not following you. LED's weren't even considered 20 years ago, let alone forced down our throats.
Yes, they were certainly around. I was designing with them 20 years ago, albeit in specialized applications. 10 to 15 years ago I remember all the same arguments about how cost ineffective they were and that no one was ever going to use them except a few tree-huggers with money to waste.

ALL my corporate clients use them

Really? That surprises me since very few businesses have anything but a few token LED's. But all your clients use only LED's?

You would be wrong in your assumption. They are widely used these days because of lifecycle costs, energy-efficiency and coloration. Every single one of my clients uses them for the vast majority of their sales floor lighting.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 122599 of 128282
Subject: Re: 25% renewable energy by 2025 Date: 10/17/2012 11:59 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
LED lights are now available in Costco, too. Have been for a while, but pricing seems to be coming down (still a bit steep, IMO). But I foresee in the very near future starting to switch over. As my existing CFLs die I may start replacing them with LED.

CFLs are another example. Lots of grousing from the "who cares how much I pollute as long as I get cheap!!" crowd, claims they were too expensive except for money-wasting tree huggers, and now you can get multi-packs in Costco for a very reasonable price. I'm sure LEDs are on that same path at this point. By the time my existing stock of CFLs is exhausted LEDs will probably be very reasonably priced.

In fact, we just bought (from Costco) LED outdoor sconces to replace existing incandescent fixtures. I have the first one installed, and it works fine. Good (bright) light. 1poorlady really likes it. I'll be replacing the other two incandescent sconces probably this weekend.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (38) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement