Where's the buzz?

[Gary M]

 

 

personally, i'd rather obama put the medical insurance industry out of business before big coal.

how would I get healthcare?

[ExiledInIllinois]

how would I get healthcare?

Through single payer.

[3rdnlng]

if this is what you want, then vote for obama. his policies are shepherding this transformation. the coal people i know are confident that romney will relax environmental regulations on coal.

 

personally, i'd rather obama put the medical insurance industry out of business before big coal.

 

 

I didn't say I wanted this though. I thought it worthy of a discussion or study that would look at the whole situation including unintended consequences. I agree that Obama's policies are anti-coal but what are his solutions? Hopes & prayers?

[Doc]

I didn't say I wanted this though. I thought it worthy of a discussion or study that would look at the whole situation including unintended consequences. I agree that Obama's policies are anti-coal but what are his solutions? Hopes & prayers?

No. More "successful" guaranteed loans for green energy.

[Rob's House]

Sowell on Friedman. It's a little OT but here's as good a place as any.

 

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/08/01/milton_friedmans_centenary

 

Like many, if not most, people who became prominent as opponents of the left, Professor Friedman began on the left. Decades later, looking back at a statement of his own from his early years, he said: "The most striking feature of this statement is how thoroughly Keynesian it is."

 

No one converted Milton Friedman, either in economics or in his views on social policy. His own research, analysis and experience converted him.

 

...

 

He showed that the relationship between inflation and unemployment held only in the short run, when the inflation was unexpected. But, after everyone got used to inflation, unemployment could be just as high with high inflation as it had been with low inflation. When both unemployment and inflation rose at the same time in the 1970s -- "stagflation," as it was called -- the idea of the government "fine tuning" the economy faded away. There are still some die-hard Keynesians today who keep insisting that the government's "stimulus" spending would have worked, if only it was bigger and lasted longer.

 

This is one of those heads-I-win-and-tails-you-lose arguments. Even if the government spends itself into bankruptcy and the economy still does not recover, Keynesians can always say that it would have worked if only the government had spent more.

[dayman]

I didn't say I wanted this though. I thought it worthy of a discussion or study that would look at the whole situation including unintended consequences. I agree that Obama's policies are anti-coal but what are his solutions? Hopes & prayers?

 

 

Supposedly on the jobs end, yes the coal jobs go away. But on average every billion spend on new coal fire plans nets 870 jobs. The same amount in solar closer 1900 and for wind a whopping 3,300 on condition the turbine are actually built in the US (which is a significant condition). Retrofiting houses/buildings on the other hand produce 7-8 million jobs per billion spent. Despite certain example I know you love to point out and they are fair enough, a study from the Brookings institution found that from '03-'10 new clean energy jobs grew by 8.3%, way faster than in other fields, and on average they pay 20% more. And while nothing has performed the way we want, they've continued to grow through the recession.

 

Now this stuff comes from the brooking institution and http://www.google.org/energyinnovation/The_Impact_of_Clean_Energy_Innovation.pdf ... so I know being the skeptic of all things left many coal supporters will nay say it all and call it BS and that's fair enough. All I'm saying is if you consider the coal folk, consider the other folk as well. The biggest challenge v. coal is that coal plants are easier to finance...solar and wind have very low annual costs but high upfront costs (despite solid rates in increasing technology which are lowering this cost).

 

Anyway, I agree with you. It is a good discussion to have. I do support solar and wind I think we have a great layout in this nation to take advantage of it and a lot of other nations are doing so for good reason. But at the same time I'm just adding this to the discussion...I don't need coal plants gone tomorrow. But it's pretty clear to me our focus moving forward isn't there.

Edited August 1, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Rob's House]

Sowell on Friedman. It's a little OT but here's as good a place as any.

 

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/08/01/milton_friedmans_centenary

Oops. Wrong "Where's the buzz" thread

 

Supposedly on the jobs end, yes the coal jobs go away. But on average every billion spend on new coal fire plans nets 870 jobs. The same amount in solar closer 1900 and for wind a whopping 3,300 on condition the turbine are actually built in the US (which is a significant condition). Retrofiting houses/buildings on the other hand produce 7-8 million jobs per billion spent. Despite certain example I know you love to point out and they are fair enough, a study from the Brookings institution found that from '03-'10 new clean energy jobs grew by 8.3%, way faster than in other fields, and on average they pay 20% more. And while nothing has performed the way we want, they've continued to grow through the recession.

 

Now this stuff comes from the brooking institution and http://www.google.org/energyinnovation/The_Impact_of_Clean_Energy_Innovation.pdf ... so I know being the skeptic of all things left many coal supporters will nay say it all and call it BS and that's fair enough. All I'm saying is if you consider the coal folk, consider the other folk as well. The biggest challenge v. coal is that coal plants are easier to finance...solar and wind have very low annual costs but high upfront costs (despite solid rates in increasing technology which are lowering this cost).

 

Anyway, I agree with you. It is a good discussion to have. I do support solar and wind I think we have a great layout in this nation to take advantage of it and a lot of other nations are doing so for good reason. But at the same time I'm just adding this to the discussion...I don't need coal plants gone tomorrow. But it's pretty clear to me our focus moving forward isn't there.

I don't mean to keep coming at you, but you keep posting things I'm interested in. I reject the notion of looking at production based on jobs created. It's a short-term view of a long term issue. You want to look at net production. It goes back to the Friedman quote I pointed out where the chinese were bragging that having their workers use shovels instead of back-hoes created more jobs, to which he asked why not give them spoons.

 

A job is only as valuable as the utility it creates. If you're paying more for a worker than the utility his job creates (and that's to be measured against the utility that would be created were the funds allocated differently) then the difference is essentially a welfare check. Like so many government jobs programs where we pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for temporary median wage jobs. It would make more sense to just cut those people a check and have them stay home. That's called welfare. And if you're generating less electricity for more money all that extra money is waste. If your ultimate goal is reduction of CO2 that can certainly weigh into the analysis, but if economic growth and increased prosperity is the goal then # of jobs created should not be a factor.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Rob's House

[dayman]

Oops. Wrong "Where's the buzz" thread

 

 

I don't mean to keep coming at you, but you keep posting things I'm interested in. I reject the notion of looking at production based on jobs created. It's a short-term view of a long term issue. You want to look at net production. It goes back to the Friedman quote I pointed out where the chinese were bragging that having their workers use shovels instead of back-hoes created more jobs, to which he asked why not give them spoons.

 

A job is only as valuable as the utility it creates. If you're paying more for a worker than the utility his job creates (and that's to be measured against the utility that would be created were the funds allocated differently) then the difference is essentially a welfare check. Like so many government jobs programs where we pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for temporary median wage jobs. It would make more sense to just cut those people a check and have them stay home. That's called welfare. And if you're generating less electricity for more money all that extra money is waste. If your ultimate goal is reduction of CO2 that can certainly weigh into the analysis, but if economic growth and increased prosperity is the goal then # of jobs created should not be a factor.

 

CO2 is the topic and that is THE factor I'm really concerned with in this thread but it goes along with all sorts of other considerations b/c we live in the real world. Someone started talking about coal and whatnot and then "other factors" came into the discussion that's why those stats came out. And the less energy...it's not true. It's energy with lower annual costs. And solar and wind are things other countries are going at aggressively and we are well equipped as a nation to do the same. Like I said earlier we consistently come out on top in studies about countries whose natural layouts are conducive to wind and solar.

 

So it's not about making jobs the idea. Or CO2 the idea. Or annual costs the idea. Or energy independence the idea. It's about all of that, rolled into 1. And lest I leave it out of any post I make...it's also not about only solar and wind as far as my position it's just about solar and wind being good ideas for us that we should not be made to hate or trivialize.

Edited August 1, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Rob's House]

CO2 is the topic and that is THE factor I'm really concerned with in this thread but it goes along with all sorts of other considerations b/c we live in the real world. Someone started talking about coal and whatnot and then "other factors" came into the discussion that's why those stats came out. And the less energy...it's not true. It's energy with lower annual costs. And solar and wind are things other countries are going at aggressively and we are well equipped as a nation to do the same. Like I said earlier we consistently come out on top in studies about countries whose natural layouts are conducive to wind and solar.

 

So it's not about making jobs the idea. Or CO2 the idea. Or annual costs the idea. Or energy independence the idea. It's about all of that, rolled into 1. And lest I leave it out of any post I make...it's also not about only solar and wind as far as my position it's just about solar and wind being good ideas for us that we should not be made to hate or trivialize.

My only problem with solar and wind is the concern that they are being forced in despite being less cost effective than alternative measures. If they were more or equally cost effective the market would usher them in; as of yet it has not. The only reason I can see for their existence is to reduce CO2. While I don't see that as a top priority I'll respect that others do and frame my thoughts through that prism. I'd want to have at least a vague idea of the cost per ton of reduced CO2 and what % of CO2 pumped into the world's atmosphere annually that represents.

 

Job creation should always be a by-product rather than the objective for the reasons mentioned before.

[dayman]

My only problem with solar and wind is the concern that they are being forced in despite being less cost effective than alternative measures. If they were more or equally cost effective the market would usher them in; as of yet it has not. The only reason I can see for their existence is to reduce CO2. While I don't see that as a top priority I'll respect that others do and frame my thoughts through that prism. I'd want to have at least a vague idea of the cost per ton of reduced CO2 and what % of CO2 pumped into the world's atmosphere annually that represents.

 

Job creation should always be a by-product rather than the objective for the reasons mentioned before.

 

 

Well like I said I brought up job creation in the discussion as a by-product point.

 

Solar and wind would be the norm now if it were a fix all and ready to take the reigns, I don't deny that nobody does. What I'm saying is the innovation curve is on the rise w/ world demand, and world demand is on the rise not for no reason at all...b/c this stuff is as of today great energy in some areas and looks increasingly promising in others. Here in America it could work great...we have a lot of wind and a lot of sun (obviously not all over the nation but in various places).

 

It's not being "forced in" it's about looking to the future. I get the market mindset. I really do I'm not trying to say it's stupid or trivialize it. I'm actually a fan in many (actually almost all) circumstances. But investment and planning and positioning for the future makes business sense. Investment is apart of market forces. In some things it happens perfectly fine naturally...in others the competition and uncertainty in time frame and most of all status quo is something that causes the market to not jump on something until later. As a nation, collectively, we can and should position ourselves to excel in ALL areas of new energy....gas, wind, solar, anything else under the sun (pun intended).

 

It's a philosophical divide and I respect that...but there are IMO some things that through incentives and programs should be encouraged publicly. This is one such area. Every tactical procedure we use to position ourselves? What programs? What incentives? That's where the debate is ripe. Is CO2 bad? Is solar and win a crock of ****? That's not a debate I see as credible.

Edited August 2, 2012 by TheNewBills

[3rdnlng]

Supposedly on the jobs end, yes the coal jobs go away. But on average every billion spend on new coal fire plans nets 870 jobs. The same amount in solar closer 1900 and for wind a whopping 3,300 on condition the turbine are actually built in the US (which is a significant condition). Retrofiting houses/buildings on the other hand produce 7-8 million jobs per billion spent. Despite certain example I know you love to point out and they are fair enough, a study from the Brookings institution found that from '03-'10 new clean energy jobs grew by 8.3%, way faster than in other fields, and on average they pay 20% more. And while nothing has performed the way we want, they've continued to grow through the recession.

 

Now this stuff comes from the brooking institution and http://www.google.org/energyinnovation/The_Impact_of_Clean_Energy_Innovation.pdf ... so I know being the skeptic of all things left many coal supporters will nay say it all and call it BS and that's fair enough. All I'm saying is if you consider the coal folk, consider the other folk as well. The biggest challenge v. coal is that coal plants are easier to finance...solar and wind have very low annual costs but high upfront costs (despite solid rates in increasing technology which are lowering this cost).

 

Anyway, I agree with you. It is a good discussion to have. I do support solar and wind I think we have a great layout in this nation to take advantage of it and a lot of other nations are doing so for good reason. But at the same time I'm just adding this to the discussion...I don't need coal plants gone tomorrow. But it's pretty clear to me our focus moving forward isn't there.

 

 

Hey NB, be careful about using the number of jobs created as an indicator of the jobs that are worthwhile. The sectors you tout are heavily sponsered by the government. The first thing that needs to be considered is efficency. I spent many years filtering through a lot of schit in a lot of companies getting to that point. You are a younger guy with a lot of idealistic thoughts. That's fine for you. I'm an older guy than you, who has seen, experienced, and lived through much more. I'm somewhat of a history major, and know that history needs to be respected. I think you learn from history. You, on the other hand are still in the knowitall group. That's ok, you'll change. (or go to the ponytail thing)

[Oxrock]

1343759966[/url]' post='2517675']

Apparently you missed the joke...

 

You pointed out that he was not a skeptic before seeing the light and becoming a non-skeptic. I simply mentioned that I've never voted for a democrat before intending to not vote for a democrat.

 

I didn't think it was that unclear.

 

Upon further review , I now get it. (slaps head) Doh!Alcohol may have been impairing my reading.

 

[dayman]

Hey NB, be careful about using the number of jobs created as an indicator of the jobs that are worthwhile. The sectors you tout are heavily sponsered by the government. The first thing that needs to be considered is efficency. I spent many years filtering through a lot of schit in a lot of companies getting to that point. You are a younger guy with a lot of idealistic thoughts. That's fine for you. I'm an older guy than you, who has seen, experienced, and lived through much more. I'm somewhat of a history major, and know that history needs to be respected. I think you learn from history. You, on the other hand are still in the knowitall group. That's ok, you'll change. (or go to the ponytail thing)

 

Well hey I think very highly of you and your worldly experiences too 3rd. So that's at least 2 of us. One day I will go beyond these walls of my crib. Then my soul will be crushed and I'll hate ideas. Then I'll be a big boy like you.

Edited August 2, 2012 by TheNewBills