Dan Gross Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 I was actually referring to the overall economics. Subsidies prevent free market economics to take place so in essence hampers true innovation. I agree with you that the consumer may pay less for charging the battery, but if the fundamentals are not right, the tax payer is paying for the subsidies. Which means all of us pay for pushing some hair-brained idea.For renewables, take the example of wind power. Once installed, the electricity is the closest you can get to free. But the upfront costs, the variability of supply are so large that again the economics do not make sense compared to conventional generation means. The only reason you see so many wind farms going up (huge amount is Denmark, Germany, UK) is that they are subsidized by the federal govt. and have guaranteed rates that will be paid to the producers. A political ploy if you may call it so. Only place where subsidies may work is where costs would go down with large deployments and government money will help get the industry out of its learning phase/curve. 408923[/snapback] Trust me, you do not have to lecture me on the cost effectiveness of wind farms. Not with the potential of 40 450' heavily subsidized towers going up in my little farm town. I was primarily referring to personal on-site renewable energy sources, like the homes being pre-built with solar arrays in California...it would not take much to power the charger needed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 imagine how much gas we'd consume if as many people owned cars and they were all V8's 408945[/snapback] I don't want my tax dollars subsidizing a technology that will help people buy V8's (as in engines). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 Trust me, you do not have to lecture me on the cost effectiveness of wind farms. Not with the potential of 40 450' heavily subsidized towers going up in my little farm town. I was primarily referring to personal on-site renewable energy sources, like the homes being pre-built with solar arrays in California...it would not take much to power the charger needed... 408950[/snapback] Fair enough, I went overboard with my sermonizing. What you are referring to is photovoltaic (PV) technology and it may actually work. This case is different in that the people who want it will pay for it similar to the buyers of hybrid cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 I don't want my tax dollars subsidizing a technology that will help people buy V8's (as in engines). 408980[/snapback] i didnt say that what i said was, although the steps to gas conservation often seem small, such as the article i posted b4 shows that at least there is some innovation towards the right direction 30-40 years ago every american was driving around in a big car with a big ass engine, then the gas crisis hit and japanese cars seemed more practical, now gas consumsption per car is so much less than it was then, in 30 years from now maybe hybrid cars will be the next phase that will dominate the market and reduce consumption at least there are companies out there that are doing their best while the oil companies just speak about constricting supply Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 at least there are companies out there that are doing their best while the oil companies just speak about constricting supply 409051[/snapback] I would have agreed with your entire post but you had to go and sneak that last sentence in there ! If by oil companies you mean OPEC I agree. However, each and every refinery in the US is going pedal to the metal to supply gasoline and diesel. The tap is wide open but it is a tap sized for 1970s demand. We need a bigger tap or less thirst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 I would have agreed with your entire post but you had to go and sneak that last sentence in there ! If by oil companies you mean OPEC I agree. However, each and every refinery in the US is going pedal to the metal to supply gasoline and diesel. The tap is wide open but it is a tap sized for 1970s demand. We need a bigger tap or less thirst. 409216[/snapback] we need to reduce consumption its the only way if we keep letting the price drop to an acceptable level then people will consume more, public transportation is there for a reason, it needs to be used i see more and more people driving and spending a larger part of their income on vehicules, it should only be for the necessary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 I think everyone needs to Google commodity markets, and get a grip. The people buying the oil have a lot more influence than the people selling it, right now. If this "war is about oil", we would have had it in 1972. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 I think everyone needs to Google commodity markets, and get a grip. The people buying the oil have a lot more influence than the people selling it, right now. If this "war is about oil", we would have had it in 1972. 409338[/snapback] And who buys oil? Bush and his cronies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 Fair enough, I went overboard with my sermonizing. What you are referring to is photovoltaic (PV) technology and it may actually work. This case is different in that the people who want it will pay for it similar to the buyers of hybrid cars. 408984[/snapback] Speaking of Hybrids and photo-voltaics... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts