[jstoesz]

Air,

I will give you the last word.

Thank you for the conversation.

[jstoesz]

Air,

I will give you the last word.

Thank you for the conversation.

[jstoesz]

1. If they so cost effective why does the solar industry require government coercion. The fact is there will be a day when they are feasible (actually it is already here, for many applications) but government coercion just makes us all (excluding the green energy industry) worse off.

2. Scapegoat? Who am I scapegoating. My point is that our GHG emmissions would be much worse if not for us sending all our energy intensive jobs to a country that has a much higher pollution rate. How about you look at emissions per GDP. emmissions per capita is worthless. If our countries population included all of the stone age farmers of western china, our emissions per capita would be the envy of the world!

I love this statement…”by 2020.” That is like saying I am going to be a billionaire by 2020…at least I am going to try! You forgot to mention that we are currently the worlds largest consumer of wind energy already and china currently exports 99% of all solar panels produced…oh and you forgot this too…from wiki

“The amount of electricity generated with solar power within China itself is so far comparatively small: as of the end of 2008, the solar power capacity attached to the national grid (i.e., excluding autonomous systems) was under 100 MW, i..e merely 0.01% of the nation’s power generation capacity.”

3. Your reference to oil prices is no less possible in other areas. This was from market manipulation and speculation. Other energy sectors are just as reliant on this. Where do those PV cells come from? or all the rare earth metals used in the prius. Fact is, foreign reliance is here to stay. And price spikes are always present.

4. Under AB32 we are still getting our power from PGE and if you want to put panels on your roof, you are still putting it back on their grid…You still need them.

5. Shall we start a separate thread about the plausibility of anthropomorphically caused global warming. I am more interested in the immediate negative implications for the fallacious long term benefits of AB32. The fact that I am a big skeptic of AGW aside, can anyone honestly claim that we are immediately doing our unemployment rate a favor by enacting AB32.

When we usher in this new era of green energy, who is going to make all the green energy stuff? California with its high taxes on energy, business profits, and emissions regulations? Or just across the border to nevada…or farther away to asia. This will never help CA jobs, but it might pad everyone else’s pockets.

[jstoesz]

1. If they so cost effective why does the solar industry require government coercion. The fact is there will be a day when they are feasible (actually it is already here, for many applications) but government coercion just makes us all (excluding the green energy industry) worse off.

2. Scapegoat? Who am I scapegoating. My point is that our GHG emmissions would be much worse if not for us sending all our energy intensive jobs to a country that has a much higher pollution rate. How about you look at emissions per GDP. emmissions per capita is worthless. If our countries population included all of the stone age farmers of western china, our emissions per capita would be the envy of the world!

I love this statement…”by 2020.” That is like saying I am going to be a billionaire by 2020…at least I am going to try! You forgot to mention that we are currently the worlds largest consumer of wind energy already and china currently exports 99% of all solar panels produced…oh and you forgot this too…from wiki

“The amount of electricity generated with solar power within China itself is so far comparatively small: as of the end of 2008, the solar power capacity attached to the national grid (i.e., excluding autonomous systems) was under 100 MW, i..e merely 0.01% of the nation’s power generation capacity.”

3. Your reference to oil prices is no less possible in other areas. This was from market manipulation and speculation. Other energy sectors are just as reliant on this. Where do those PV cells come from? or all the rare earth metals used in the prius. Fact is, foreign reliance is here to stay. And price spikes are always present.

4. Under AB32 we are still getting our power from PGE and if you want to put panels on your roof, you are still putting it back on their grid…You still need them.

5. Shall we start a separate thread about the plausibility of anthropomorphically caused global warming. I am more interested in the immediate negative implications for the fallacious long term benefits of AB32. The fact that I am a big skeptic of AGW aside, can anyone honestly claim that we are immediately doing our unemployment rate a favor by enacting AB32.

When we usher in this new era of green energy, who is going to make all the green energy stuff? California with its high taxes on energy, business profits, and emissions regulations? Or just across the border to nevada…or farther away to asia. This will never help CA jobs, but it might pad everyone else’s pockets.

[jstoesz]

1. If they so cost effective why does the solar industry require government coercion. The fact is there will be a day when they are feasible (actually it is already here, for many applications) but government coercion just makes us all (excluding the green energy industry) worse off.

2. Scapegoat? Who am I scapegoating. My point is that our GHG emmissions would be much worse if not for us sending all our energy intensive jobs to a country that has a much higher pollution rate. How about you look at emissions per GDP. emmissions per capita is worthless. If our countries population included all of the stone age farmers of western china, our emissions per capita would be the envy of the world!

I love this statement…”by 2020.” That is like saying I am going to be a billionaire by 2020…at least I am going to try! You forgot to mention that we are currently the worlds largest consumer of wind energy already and china currently exports 99% of all solar panels produced…oh and you forgot this too…from wiki

“The amount of electricity generated with solar power within China itself is so far comparatively small: as of the end of 2008, the solar power capacity attached to the national grid (i.e., excluding autonomous systems) was under 100 MW, i..e merely 0.01% of the nation’s power generation capacity.”

3. Your reference to oil prices is no less possible in other areas. This was from market manipulation and speculation. Other energy sectors are just as reliant on this. Where do those PV cells come from? or all the rare earth metals used in the prius. Fact is, foreign reliance is here to stay. And price spikes are always present.

4. Under AB32 we are still getting our power from PGE and if you want to put panels on your roof, you are still putting it back on their grid…You still need them.

5. Shall we start a separate thread about the plausibility of anthropomorphically caused global warming. I am more interested in the immediate negative implications for the fallacious long term benefits of AB32. The fact that I am a big skeptic of AGW aside, can anyone honestly claim that we are immediately doing our unemployment rate a favor by enacting AB32.

When we usher in this new era of green energy, who is going to make all the green energy stuff? California with its high taxes on energy, business profits, and emissions regulations? Or just across the border to nevada…or farther away to asia. This will never help CA jobs, but it might pad everyone else’s pockets.

[jstoesz]

1. If they so cost effective why does the solar industry require government coercion. The fact is there will be a day when they are feasible (actually it is already here, for many applications) but government coercion just makes us all (excluding the green energy industry) worse off.

2. Scapegoat? Who am I scapegoating. My point is that our GHG emmissions would be much worse if not for us sending all our energy intensive jobs to a country that has a much higher pollution rate. How about you look at emissions per GDP. emmissions per capita is worthless. If our countries population included all of the stone age farmers of western china, our emissions per capita would be the envy of the world!

I love this statement…”by 2020.” That is like saying I am going to be a billionaire by 2020…at least I am going to try! You forgot to mention that we are currently the worlds largest consumer of wind energy already and china currently exports 99% of all solar panels produced…oh and you forgot this too…from wiki

“The amount of electricity generated with solar power within China itself is so far comparatively small: as of the end of 2008, the solar power capacity attached to the national grid (i.e., excluding autonomous systems) was under 100 MW, i..e merely 0.01% of the nation’s power generation capacity.”

3. Your reference to oil prices is no less possible in other areas. This was from market manipulation and speculation. Other energy sectors are just as reliant on this. Where do those PV cells come from? or all the rare earth metals used in the prius. Fact is, foreign reliance is here to stay. And price spikes are always present.

4. Under AB32 we are still getting our power from PGE and if you want to put panels on your roof, you are still putting it back on their grid…You still need them.

5. Shall we start a separate thread about the plausibility of anthropomorphically caused global warming. I am more interested in the immediate negative implications for the fallacious long term benefits of AB32. The fact that I am a big skeptic of AGW aside, can anyone honestly claim that we are immediately doing our unemployment rate a favor by enacting AB32.

When we usher in this new era of green energy, who is going to make all the green energy stuff? California with its high taxes on energy, business profits, and emissions regulations? Or just across the border to nevada…or farther away to asia. This will never help CA jobs, but it might pad everyone else’s pockets.

[jstoesz]

1. If they so cost effective why does the solar industry require government coercion. The fact is there will be a day when they are feasible (actually it is already here, for many applications) but government coercion just makes us all (excluding the green energy industry) worse off.

2. Scapegoat? Who am I scapegoating. My point is that our GHG emmissions would be much worse if not for us sending all our energy intensive jobs to a country that has a much higher pollution rate. How about you look at emissions per GDP. emmissions per capita is worthless. If our countries population included all of the stone age farmers of western china, our emissions per capita would be the envy of the world!

I love this statement…”by 2020.” That is like saying I am going to be a billionaire by 2020…at least I am going to try! You forgot to mention that we are currently the worlds largest consumer of wind energy already and china currently exports 99% of all solar panels produced…oh and you forgot this too…from wiki

“The amount of electricity generated with solar power within China itself is so far comparatively small: as of the end of 2008, the solar power capacity attached to the national grid (i.e., excluding autonomous systems) was under 100 MW, i..e merely 0.01% of the nation’s power generation capacity.”

3. Your reference to oil prices is no less possible in other areas. This was from market manipulation and speculation. Other energy sectors are just as reliant on this. Where do those PV cells come from? or all the rare earth metals used in the prius. Fact is, foreign reliance is here to stay. And price spikes are always present.

4. Under AB32 we are still getting our power from PGE and if you want to put panels on your roof, you are still putting it back on their grid…You still need them.

5. Shall we start a separate thread about the plausibility of anthropomorphically caused global warming. I am more interested in the immediate negative implications for the fallacious long term benefits of AB32. The fact that I am a big skeptic of AGW aside, can anyone honestly claim that we are immediately doing our unemployment rate a favor by enacting AB32.

When we usher in this new era of green energy, who is going to make all the green energy stuff? California with its high taxes on energy, business profits, and emissions regulations? Or just across the border to nevada…or farther away to asia. This will never help CA jobs, but it might pad everyone else’s pockets.

[jstoesz]

who here works so little in their “9-5” (yeah right) salaried position that they could work overtime? I for one would pay to work less hours.

[jstoesz]

who here works so little in their “9-5” (yeah right) salaried position that they could work overtime? I for one would pay to work less hours.

[jstoesz]

who here works so little in their “9-5” (yeah right) salaried position that they could work overtime? I for one would pay to work less hours.

[jstoesz]

who here works so little in their “9-5” (yeah right) salaried position that they could work overtime? I for one would pay to work less hours.

[jstoesz]

who here works so little in their “9-5” (yeah right) salaried position that they could work overtime? I for one would pay to work less hours.

[jstoesz]

[quote]Investment in wind and solar will result in ton of high end engineering, manufacturing and installation jobs. Sure, some of it will go to China, but European companies that invested early in wind, made a ton of money EXPORTING to China. If we make investment now, you will have cheap clean energy by 2020. If not, it will always be 10 years away.[/quote]

We have had solar for 40+ years, and scientist have always said it will reach parity with oil in 10 years. Have we underfunded out investment in solar, or is it just not here yet? Things that are truly economically viable even in 10 years are subsidized by private investors. The government is only required when a scientists claim of adequacy is clearly a fantasy to those with capital. The government is the sucker.

[quote]AB32 reduces our dependence on foreign oil. We import around 12.2M bbl/day. If there is a correct mix of electric cars and high efficiency vehicles in US, complete switch from heating oil to natural gas, the imports can be completely eliminated. That would result in ability to reduce our defense budget by probably around $400B/year. Do you think $400B tax cut would be good for the economy?
Now, AB32 doesn’t do all of that, but it nudges us in the right direction.[/quote]

“There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?” And I mean this in all mocking. If our goal is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil (which I am for), let us tax the crap out of it, and open up our own reserves. This backdoor way of getting there is ripe with unintended consequences, which ends up shipping our GHG’s to china (with our jobs).

[quote]As cheap supplies dwindle and third world demand grows, prices of oil will go higher and higher. If nothing else, AB32 is an insurance policy that when oil goes to $200, you will be able to buy a relatively inexpensive electric or high MPG car. California electric car initiative got canceled, but I can guarantee you that a lot of people are very happy they can purchase a Prius.
And before you can say free market can fix all of that, just look how long car manufacturers are taking to introduce efficient vehicles on their own. [/quote]

Instant and severe scarcity does not happen organically. It happens over time, and as fuel gets more expensive, other means of reducing oil consumption will happen organically. Free markets can fix it…notice the prius requires a tax refund and a special carpool lane sticker. Prior to all of this bullshit subsidy, we had the CR-X (better gas mileage than the prius with a standard gas engine) which happened organically from the high gas years of the 70’s.

[quote]Same deal with electricity generation. When the new Enron decides to screw with us, you just put solar panels on your house. In Germany, which has well developed installer market, you can put up solar panels, installation and transformer included, at about $4/W. With San Diego insolation, that translates to about 12c/kWh, without any government subsidies.[/quote]

You can put solar panels on your house now. And even with the government subsidy, they have at least a 20 year buyback period. Was this comment supposed to be in the fantasy land where solar panels are cheaper than nuclear or coal power? How does AB32 get us less dependent on PG&E and more to a decentralized grid (which I am also for BTW).

[quote]And finally, climate change. Lets say 98% of scientists are wrong, and that there is only 30% chance of any negative effects. Do you know what the cost would be of having most of eastern California turn into desert? Or what the cost to industry would be if water prices went up 1000%?[/quote]

What if I said there is a .01% chance that if you get in your car tomorrow you could DIE!!! Would you drive to work tomorrow? This is no argument. If you want to deal with the merits of scientific argument fine, but to dismiss dessent with scare tactics is pointless.

Also of note, no where in your response did I see an argument for AB32 resulting in more employment in California. All that was stated falls into the category of future ethereal benefits.

[jstoesz]

[quote]Investment in wind and solar will result in ton of high end engineering, manufacturing and installation jobs. Sure, some of it will go to China, but European companies that invested early in wind, made a ton of money EXPORTING to China. If we make investment now, you will have cheap clean energy by 2020. If not, it will always be 10 years away.[/quote]

We have had solar for 40+ years, and scientist have always said it will reach parity with oil in 10 years. Have we underfunded out investment in solar, or is it just not here yet? Things that are truly economically viable even in 10 years are subsidized by private investors. The government is only required when a scientists claim of adequacy is clearly a fantasy to those with capital. The government is the sucker.

[quote]AB32 reduces our dependence on foreign oil. We import around 12.2M bbl/day. If there is a correct mix of electric cars and high efficiency vehicles in US, complete switch from heating oil to natural gas, the imports can be completely eliminated. That would result in ability to reduce our defense budget by probably around $400B/year. Do you think $400B tax cut would be good for the economy?
Now, AB32 doesn’t do all of that, but it nudges us in the right direction.[/quote]

“There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?” And I mean this in all mocking. If our goal is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil (which I am for), let us tax the crap out of it, and open up our own reserves. This backdoor way of getting there is ripe with unintended consequences, which ends up shipping our GHG’s to china (with our jobs).

[quote]As cheap supplies dwindle and third world demand grows, prices of oil will go higher and higher. If nothing else, AB32 is an insurance policy that when oil goes to $200, you will be able to buy a relatively inexpensive electric or high MPG car. California electric car initiative got canceled, but I can guarantee you that a lot of people are very happy they can purchase a Prius.
And before you can say free market can fix all of that, just look how long car manufacturers are taking to introduce efficient vehicles on their own. [/quote]

Instant and severe scarcity does not happen organically. It happens over time, and as fuel gets more expensive, other means of reducing oil consumption will happen organically. Free markets can fix it…notice the prius requires a tax refund and a special carpool lane sticker. Prior to all of this bullshit subsidy, we had the CR-X (better gas mileage than the prius with a standard gas engine) which happened organically from the high gas years of the 70’s.

[quote]Same deal with electricity generation. When the new Enron decides to screw with us, you just put solar panels on your house. In Germany, which has well developed installer market, you can put up solar panels, installation and transformer included, at about $4/W. With San Diego insolation, that translates to about 12c/kWh, without any government subsidies.[/quote]

You can put solar panels on your house now. And even with the government subsidy, they have at least a 20 year buyback period. Was this comment supposed to be in the fantasy land where solar panels are cheaper than nuclear or coal power? How does AB32 get us less dependent on PG&E and more to a decentralized grid (which I am also for BTW).

[quote]And finally, climate change. Lets say 98% of scientists are wrong, and that there is only 30% chance of any negative effects. Do you know what the cost would be of having most of eastern California turn into desert? Or what the cost to industry would be if water prices went up 1000%?[/quote]

What if I said there is a .01% chance that if you get in your car tomorrow you could DIE!!! Would you drive to work tomorrow? This is no argument. If you want to deal with the merits of scientific argument fine, but to dismiss dessent with scare tactics is pointless.

Also of note, no where in your response did I see an argument for AB32 resulting in more employment in California. All that was stated falls into the category of future ethereal benefits.

[jstoesz]

[quote]Investment in wind and solar will result in ton of high end engineering, manufacturing and installation jobs. Sure, some of it will go to China, but European companies that invested early in wind, made a ton of money EXPORTING to China. If we make investment now, you will have cheap clean energy by 2020. If not, it will always be 10 years away.[/quote]

We have had solar for 40+ years, and scientist have always said it will reach parity with oil in 10 years. Have we underfunded out investment in solar, or is it just not here yet? Things that are truly economically viable even in 10 years are subsidized by private investors. The government is only required when a scientists claim of adequacy is clearly a fantasy to those with capital. The government is the sucker.

[quote]AB32 reduces our dependence on foreign oil. We import around 12.2M bbl/day. If there is a correct mix of electric cars and high efficiency vehicles in US, complete switch from heating oil to natural gas, the imports can be completely eliminated. That would result in ability to reduce our defense budget by probably around $400B/year. Do you think $400B tax cut would be good for the economy?
Now, AB32 doesn’t do all of that, but it nudges us in the right direction.[/quote]

“There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?” And I mean this in all mocking. If our goal is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil (which I am for), let us tax the crap out of it, and open up our own reserves. This backdoor way of getting there is ripe with unintended consequences, which ends up shipping our GHG’s to china (with our jobs).

[quote]As cheap supplies dwindle and third world demand grows, prices of oil will go higher and higher. If nothing else, AB32 is an insurance policy that when oil goes to $200, you will be able to buy a relatively inexpensive electric or high MPG car. California electric car initiative got canceled, but I can guarantee you that a lot of people are very happy they can purchase a Prius.
And before you can say free market can fix all of that, just look how long car manufacturers are taking to introduce efficient vehicles on their own. [/quote]

Instant and severe scarcity does not happen organically. It happens over time, and as fuel gets more expensive, other means of reducing oil consumption will happen organically. Free markets can fix it…notice the prius requires a tax refund and a special carpool lane sticker. Prior to all of this bullshit subsidy, we had the CR-X (better gas mileage than the prius with a standard gas engine) which happened organically from the high gas years of the 70’s.

[quote]Same deal with electricity generation. When the new Enron decides to screw with us, you just put solar panels on your house. In Germany, which has well developed installer market, you can put up solar panels, installation and transformer included, at about $4/W. With San Diego insolation, that translates to about 12c/kWh, without any government subsidies.[/quote]

You can put solar panels on your house now. And even with the government subsidy, they have at least a 20 year buyback period. Was this comment supposed to be in the fantasy land where solar panels are cheaper than nuclear or coal power? How does AB32 get us less dependent on PG&E and more to a decentralized grid (which I am also for BTW).

[quote]And finally, climate change. Lets say 98% of scientists are wrong, and that there is only 30% chance of any negative effects. Do you know what the cost would be of having most of eastern California turn into desert? Or what the cost to industry would be if water prices went up 1000%?[/quote]

What if I said there is a .01% chance that if you get in your car tomorrow you could DIE!!! Would you drive to work tomorrow? This is no argument. If you want to deal with the merits of scientific argument fine, but to dismiss dessent with scare tactics is pointless.

Also of note, no where in your response did I see an argument for AB32 resulting in more employment in California. All that was stated falls into the category of future ethereal benefits.

[Author]

Posts