Who's more to blame for the economy? Obama or Congress

[esmith]

Not sure if I should reply to your question since it appears that I have invoked the ire of one of our members. However, since you asked, I will attempt to answer even though the "why is nit picking over the cost of electricity in mobile homes of importance to anyone here" might bring forth additional ire.

Mr. Smith your rate for kilowatt hour is quite good. Surely you don't believe everyone in the country has your rate do you?

No, I was just pointing out that the post #72 that said electric bills of $600 dollars seemed a little out of line and was using our "double-wide" manufactured home as an example with corresponding data

OK, lets get back to the meat and potatoes of my argument, what does anyone think wind and solar costs are per kilowatt? The sun does not shine all day nor does the wind blow continuously but our energy consumption does.
We would have to burn natural gas or go nuclear to replace coal. Do you have any idea what your rate per kilowatt would be if we went green?

Here is a table listing where our power comes from. (2009 data from Ref A)
Hydroelectric 50.6%
Coal 41.6%
Natural Gas 3.5%
Wind 2.4%
Biomass 0.8%
Geothermal 0.4%
Other 0.7%
You will note that wind supplies only 2.6% and there is a major issue about the cost of wind power brought about by politicians through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. I will be using statement that can be found in Ref A. and can be read in its entirety if you so desire. This issue is that the FERC requires the power company to purchase wind power even when the power requirement is low. The utility company said the requirement to buy from wind farms even during times of low demand forces it to back down other energy generators like coal-fired plants, and bringing the other systems back up when demand increases costs the utility more. Those costs are passed on to consumers, the company said. So in our case, according to the utility company wind power cost the consumer more. Maybe our situation is unique but I seriously doubt it. If politicians would get out of the way, maybe wind and solar could work. But until the wind and solar providers can come up with a cost-effective method of storing their electricity and selling it to the utility company when they need it I think there is a serious problem. The wind and solar power providers can not provide the required output to replace coal or natural gas power plants. I can't see how it would work without government subsides. (subsides=tax payer cost=consumer cost).

Ref A

 

[Storm]

Not sure if I should reply to your question since it appears that I have invoked the ire of one of our members. However, since you asked, I will attempt to answer even though the "why is nit picking over the cost of electricity in mobile homes of importance to anyone here" might bring forth additional ire.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/idaho-power-wind-energy_n_1901913.html

No need to snipe. I questioned the relevance of using individual bills as examples. I still do.

 

[esmith]

No need to snipe. I questioned the relevance of using individual bills as examples. I still do.

If I questioned the relevance of the statement ($600 power bill) without supplying actual data, that to me would not be a valid rebuttal. The best data I have is from our own situation. However, not knowing what the situation the poster was using in itself is not a valid input since supporting data was not included.

Sometimes I get a little hot under the collar and have been know to use incomplete or misleading information. Can we agree to disagree without getting on each others bad side?

 

[Storm]

If I questioned the relevance of the statement ($600 power bill) without supplying actual data, that to me would not be a valid rebuttal. The best data I have is from our own situation. However, not knowing what the situation the poster was using in itself is not a valid input since supporting data was not included.

Sometimes I get a little hot under the collar and have been know to use incomplete or misleading information. Can we agree to disagree without getting on each others bad side?

Eh, see my previous posts. I didn't take the original numbers as the word of God, I just didn't think it was important.

As for bad sides, I got no gripe with you as a person... kinda hard to when I don't have any idea who you are. I do have serious and legitimate issues with the tactic of deliberately using 'incomplete or misleading information,' particularly when you malign others for doing the same thing.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I don't think anyone disputes that coal fired electricity is the cheapest electricity and no matter how much you pay a month, you will be paying even more if we drop coal.

If someone is struggling with their coal powered electric bill, how will they come up with even more money? They will have to give up something. Food, clothing, medicine, their car perhaps.

Speaking of cars, I just have to laugh at people with electric cars patting their own backs about how green they are when actually many of their electric cars run on coal.

 

[Storm]

I don't think anyone disputes that coal fired electricity is the cheapest electricity and no matter how much you pay a month, you will be paying even more if we drop coal.

If someone is struggling with their coal powered electric bill, how will they come up with even more money? They will have to give up something. Food, clothing, medicine, their car perhaps.

Speaking of cars, I just have to laugh at people with electric cars patting their own backs about how green they are when actually many of their electric cars run on coal.

Yeah.... Their hearts are in the right place, but damn people. Think it through!

 

[Falvlun]

Speaking of cars, I just have to laugh at people with electric cars patting their own backs about how green they are when actually many of their electric cars run on coal.

Electricity (energy) garnered from a plant is more efficient than individual gasoline engines.

 

[Apex]

Electricity (energy) garnered from a plant is more efficient than individual gasoline engines.

But you also have to take into consideration the batteries and the rare earth metals that go into them.

 

[Falvlun]

But you also have to take into consideration the batteries and the rare earth metals that go into them.

I think that is relatively minor in comparison with global warming and the rise in greenhouse gasses. Baby steps. I don't understand the reasoning of "Whaaa! We can't come up with a perfectly clean source of energy therefore we should continue using the dirtiest method rather than move to one that is cleaner though it still causes some polution!"

 

[Apex]

I think that is relatively minor in comparison with global warming and the rise in greenhouse gasses.

It might not be as minor as you think.

Baby steps.

I agree. They are still a good first step.

I don't understand the reasoning of "Whaaa! We can't come up with a perfectly clean source of energy therefore we should continue using the dirtiest method rather than move to one that is cleaner though it still causes some polution!"

Neither do I. And I do not believe I have seen anyone here promoting this reasoning.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I think that is relatively minor in comparison with global warming and the rise in greenhouse gasses. Baby steps. I don't understand the reasoning of "Whaaa! We can't come up with a perfectly clean source of energy therefore we should continue using the dirtiest method rather than move to one that is cleaner though it still causes some pollution!"

Falvlun, we have to think this through. If we go completely green and electricity costs 25 cents per kilowatt we may be fantastic stewards of our planet but the reality of the problem is a global one.

If other countries burn coal for their energy source the planet still suffers the same consequence.

If you are going to build a factory where would you put it, in an area where you pay a nickel for every kilowatt or a quarter?

If we continue to lose jobs, how are we going to pay for this expensive green energy? All the jobs will be in India and China where they run on dirty energy sources. :sorry1:

 

[Wirey]

Falvlun, we have to think this through. If we go completely green and electricity costs 25 cents per kilowatt we may be fantastic stewards of our planet but the reality of the problem is a global one.

If other countries burn coal for their energy source the planet still suffers the same consequence.

If you are going to build a factory where would you put it, in an area where you pay a nickel for every kilowatt or a quarter?

If we continue to lose jobs, how are we going to pay for this expensive green energy? All the jobs will be in India and China where they run on dirty energy sources. :sorry1:

Exactly this^^^^^^^

If every North American immediately switched to renewable sources and suffered the 'sticker shock' associated with the change, our economy wopuld be damaged. Badly. Like it or not, our society essentially floats on a sea of oil. Take a good look at every single thing in your home. Everything, from the clock on the wall, to your silverware, to your dishes, to the apples in the crisper (which are going bad, by the way), was manufactured, shipped, stored, crated, inspected, and sold using some small amount of oil. We tend to see the lights in our houses as 'electricity', but let me assure you, that's a small part of the oil budget in your house. Industrial power usage, where the bulk of North Americans get their paycheque, accounts for 21% of the oil used in the US. Transportation is 29%. 10 percent is used for plastic bottles, Tupperware, sneakers, things like that. The rest is power generation.

File:US Energy Consumption by Sector 2007.PNG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Considering that on average, 65% of power generated is used for non-residential purposes (factories, streetlights, power losses for tarnsmission, etc), we see that the total residential load is about 13% of the oil used in the economy. With present methods, there is no green technology that can completely bridge that gap. We're getting closer, but we're not there yet.

The key, to me anyway, is to reduce consumption, and to invest in new technologies. And that is the role of government. Speaking at the investor level, aside from altruism, there is no reason to invest in green technologies. They don't pay well. The only organizations capable of spending the money needed to create these technologies are governments. I would propose a tech tax on all fossil fuels of about 3-6% of total consumer cost to be used strictly to fund university based research into green technologies.

The benefits are twofold. First, the additional costs will curb usage, albiet in a small way. Secondly, true advancement in a short period of time is only available through government intervention. Think moon landing program. Standing back hoping private ebnterprise will save the day is just a method to fail.

 

[Revoltingest]

Exactly this^^^^^^^

If every North American immediately switched to renewable sources and suffered the 'sticker shock' associated with the change, our economy wopuld be damaged. Badly. Like it or not, our society essentially floats on a sea of oil. Take a good look at every single thing in your home. Everything, from the clock on the wall, to your silverware, to your dishes, to the apples in the crisper (which are going bad, by the way), was manufactured, shipped, stored, crated, inspected, and sold using some small amount of oil. We tend to see the lights in our houses as 'electricity', but let me assure you, that's a small part of the oil budget in your house. Industrial power usage, where the bulk of North Americans get their paycheque, accounts for 21% of the oil used in the US. Transportation is 29%. 10 percent is used for plastic bottles, Tupperware, sneakers, things like that. The rest is power generation.

File:US Energy Consumption by Sector 2007.PNG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Considering that on average, 65% of power generated is used for non-residential purposes (factories, streetlights, power losses for tarnsmission, etc), we see that the total residential load is about 13% of the oil used in the economy. With present methods, there is no green technology that can completely bridge that gap. We're getting closer, but we're not there yet.

The key, to me anyway, is to reduce consumption, and to invest in new technologies. And that is the role of government. Speaking at the investor level, aside from altruism, there is no reason to invest in green technologies. They don't pay well. The only organizations capable of spending the money needed to create these technologies are governments. I would propose a tech tax on all fossil fuels of about 3-6% of total consumer cost to be used strictly to fund university based research into green technologies.

The benefits are twofold. First, the additional costs will curb usage, albiet in a small way. Secondly, true advancement in a short period of time is only available through government intervention. Think moon landing program. Standing back hoping private ebnterprise will save the day is just a method to fail.

You're all wet.....or at least covered in snow. (How deep is it up there now?)
Instead of government investing in new technologies, how about this:
- To pay down debt, instead of raising income tax, raise fuel taxes.
- Higher fuel taxes make greener technologies more competitive (eg, small cogeneration units, LED lighting, ground source heat pumps, 90%+ furnaces, better insulation, hybrid cars, smaller cars).
- Alter tax rates to favor investment in R&D.
- Reduce barriers to higher density housing (cuts urban sprawl, more energy efficient).
- Government entities shouldn't be exempt from fuel taxes.
- Government should stop subsidizing rural transportation (eg, paying for empty flights to rural airports).

Market based solutions have their advantages....no money pis**d away on Solyndra.

 

[Wirey]

You're all wet.....or at least covered in snow. (How deep is it up there now?)
Instead of government investing in new technologies, how about this:
- To pay down debt, instead of raising income tax, raise fuel taxes.
- Higher fuel taxes make greener technologies more competitive (eg, small cogeneration units, LED lighting, ground source heat pumps, 90%+ furnaces, better insulation, hybrid cars, smaller cars).
- Alter tax rates to favor investment in R&D.
- Reduce barriers to higher density housing (cuts urban sprawl, more energy efficient).
- Government entities shouldn't be exempt from fuel taxes.
- Government should stop subsidizing rural transportation (eg, paying for empty flights to rural airports).

Market based solutions have their advantages....no money pis**d away on Solyndra.

Greener technologies won't get more competitive with higher fuel prices. An electric car still uses coal or oil for power through the grid. No private business can afford the money needed to make green tech profitable. It has to come from government. The rest of it, okay. Except the high density housing. Wanna live next door to Alceste? All that French Horn crap all night? Pass!

 

[Revoltingest]

Greener technologies won't get more competitive with higher fuel prices. An electric car still uses coal or oil for power through the grid. No private business can afford the money needed to make green tech profitable. It has to come from government. The rest of it, okay. Except the high density housing. Wanna live next door to Alceste? All that French Horn crap all night? Pass!

Incentives still improve the situation. Even though we'll still be burning fossil fuels, we can burn less.
Example: We have a mix of vehicles on the road. With higher fuel costs, more efficient cars (eg, smaller, diesel, hybrid) will become a higher proportion.
This would apply to building construction, lighting purchases, etc.
It isn't a perfect solution, nor should it exclude any other useful methods.

 

[Wirey]

Incentives still improve the situation. Even though we'll still be burning fossil fuels, we can burn less.
Example: We have a mix of vehicles on the road. With higher fuel costs, more efficient cars (eg, smaller, diesel, hybrid) will become a higher proportion.
This would apply to building construction, lighting purchases, etc.
It isn't a perfect solution, nor should it exclude any other useful methods.

Assuming a 10% reduction overall from greener cars (and that's stretching it), you're still talking about 2% overall. Which, as any environmental group will tell you, is the same as zero. It's not enough.

 

[Revoltingest]

Assuming a 10% reduction overall from greener cars (and that's stretching it), you're still talking about 2% overall. Which, as any environmental group will tell you, is the same as zero. It's not enough.

One does what is worth doing, even if it doesn't solve all problems.
Add my measly 2% to whatever your approach would achieve, & it's an improvement.

 

[Wirey]

One does what is worth doing, even if it doesn't solve all problems.
Add my measly 2% to whatever your approach would achieve, & it's an improvement.

When will you admit I'm always right and you're always wrong?

I think we've reached the point where gradual change may not be an option. We may have an ice free arctic in ten years. That scares the hell out of me.

 

[Revoltingest]

When will you admit I'm always right and you're always wrong?
I think we've reached the point where gradual change may not be an option. We may have an ice free arctic in ten years. That scares the hell out of me.

I've no disagreement with the danger posed by a warming climate. But what is practical to mitigate it?
Whatever government subsidies we might see, a market oriented plan is still very much worth doing.

 

[Wirey]

I've no disagreement with the danger posed by a warming climate. But what is practical to mitigate it?
Whatever government subsidies we might see, a market oriented plan is still very much worth doing.

I'd agree with that. But since you brought it up, never!