The first half megawatt

[Bob F]

And nearly always screws things up in the process. If profit is the
result of a free market exchange, how can it be bad? Both
participants are happier.

So if I make a profit by murdering you for hire, that's fine with you?

Ummm. Maybe what you said is not true.

Those who prefer to get something for nothing appreciate government
intervention, of course.

Which is why business hires all those lobbyists.

 

[Bob F]

Capitalism.

Not government.

Lobbyists, not capitalism. Socialise the losses. Privatize the profits.

 

[Bob F]

So, you are advocating a non-uniform taking of $ by force (aka
stealing) and arbitrarily giving to others?

A society makes decisions as to which ways they want to go. That is part of
being a society.

Do you really think those who get the enormously overwhelming benefit of out
society shouldn't be willing to support the society that got them there?

You, of course, support the current trend of cutting everything protecting the
lesser among us so all the savings can be passed on to the ultra rich.

 

[Giga2]

On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 09:29:02 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:

On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:15:47 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:

On 4/6/2011 1:36 AM, Falcon wrote:

[..]
Oh yeah, opportunity cost. Always easy to forget. I think 5%
is a reasonable estimate for such figures. So the question
is will it still be worth quite a lot in 15 years?

No.

Because the newest generation panels will be better and a 10th
of the price?

Joking aside, I'd put a few up if they WERE a tenth of the
price and doing
so didn't cost everyone else money in the form of higher
electricity prices.

Cost isn't the issue, cost /effectiveness/ IS.

As soon as they are cost effective, I'll install them.

At current prices, they are NOT cost effective, so why would I
install them?


Maybe to do something for the general good?

Who decides what's the "general good"? Isn't that what the market
is all about?

I would say the individual themselves must decide what they are to
do, for the general good or otherwise.

Exactly. So why take my money so someone else can buy something I
don't think improves the common good? If they want to advance their
idea of the common good, they can do it with their money. Then
they're entitled to feel superior, if that's what's driving them.

This has been decided through the democratic process. If you don't
agree with it fine but you may have to live with it.

He doesn't have to live with it. He can simply move to one of the
paradises in this world for his type, like Somalia. No government to make
decisions he objects to.

I understand some prisons are also quite lawless places when the guards
arn't looking!

 

[Giga2]

On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 09:29:02 +0100, Giga2"<"Giga2 wrote:

On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:15:47 +0100, Giga2"<"Giga2 wrote:

On 4/6/2011 1:36 AM, Falcon wrote:

[..]
Oh yeah, opportunity cost. Always easy to forget. I think 5% is
a
reasonable estimate for such figures. So the question is will it
still be worth quite a lot in 15 years?

No.

Because the newest generation panels will be better and a 10th of
the price?

Joking aside, I'd put a few up if they WERE a tenth of the price
and
doing
so didn't cost everyone else money in the form of higher
electricity
prices.

Cost isn't the issue, cost /effectiveness/ IS.

As soon as they are cost effective, I'll install them.

At current prices, they are NOT cost effective, so why would I
install them?


Maybe to do something for the general good?

Who decides what's the "general good"? Isn't that what the market is
all about?

I would say the individual themselves must decide what they are to do,
for the general good or otherwise.

Exactly. So why take my money so someone else can buy something I don't
think improves the common good? If they want to advance their idea of
the common good, they can do it with their money. Then they're entitled
to feel superior, if that's what's driving them.

This has been decided through the democratic process. If you don't agree
with it fine but you may have to live with it.

We don't live in a democracy.

Speak for yourself!

 

[Giga2]

You mean the citizens can't decide for themselves? They need some group
to tell them? Sounds like stupid citizens to me...

Do you ever use experts in your life? Dentists? Doctors? Car mechanic? Did
you buy your car from car manufacturer?

 

[Giga2]

And yet it has been done to great positive effect throughout our history.
Protective tarriffs funded our federal government for most of our history.
The Federal Highway System advanced the economy, as did the railroads,
both highly subsidized. Farm subsidies protected our food production.
Liability protections allowed the developement of nuclear power.
Governents subsidise police and fire departments. Germany and China both
are building their solar technologies by subsidizing them. Maybe not every
subsidy works as planned, but it is done ALL THE TIME.

It is really strange these people who advocate no or very mininmal
government and yet do not move to Somalia or parts Mindanao, Afghanistan,
Burmese forests etc.

 

[Giga2]

You could at any of the tea parties I've attended. Many carry personal
copies of the Constitution, and know how to use them.

But then you listen to people who say government=force which is clearly
untrue.

 

[Giga2]

So, you are advocating a non-uniform taking of $ by force (aka stealing)
and arbitrarily giving to others?

Force is reserved for those who would use it themselves. Just go quietly to
prison.

 

[Giga2]

A society makes decisions as to which ways they want to go. That is part
of being a society.

Do you really think those who get the enormously overwhelming benefit of
out society shouldn't be willing to support the society that got them
there?

You, of course, support the current trend of cutting everything protecting
the lesser among us so all the savings can be passed on to the ultra rich.

Seems to have really swallowed the poison pill of fanatasism with the good
medicine of right -wing politics IMO. Self-reliance, yes, self- absorbtion,
no.

 

[Giga2]

Are you arguing against my statemement that "for most people, the cost of
PV is far too expensive to justify."?

At the moment, not for long.

 

[Melodie de l'Epine]

Le 06/04/11 23:09, Vaughn a écrit :

.

Wrong. Please go back and read what I wrote above.

Thats your opinion. Actually governments have created markets and
controlled economies of scale forever. It doesn't always come out well(see
the housing bubble) but it's done, like it or not.

Vaughn

They did it for coal, gas and nuclear, so why shouldn't they do it for
renewables?



Mel

 

[Melodie de l'Epine]

Le 13/04/11 06:40, Bill Ward a écrit :


snip

Are you saying all tax-supported services are subsidies? It sounds like
a new use of the term "subsidy". To me, "subsidy" refers to the
government using taxpayer money to promote services not enumerated in the
Constitution. Wind turbines, solar cells, fuel cells, electric vehicles,
CFL lamps, shower flow restrictors and limiting toilet flush capacities
are some of those items that jump to mind.

It seems ludicrous to me to pretend using taxes to promote those
unnecessary services is as valid as providing a national defense and
justice system, or paying the the expenses of other enumerated powers in
the Constitution.

Well, if "life" is poisoned by pollution to such a point that "life" is
in danger, then subsidising pollution-reducing alternatives seems to be
legitimate, just as legitimate as justice systems or defense systems
(because if you're dead because of respiratory failure due to a
pollution high, your just as dead as if you got shot by a robber or
bombed by a foreign nation...)


Mel

 

[Melodie de l'Epine]

Le 07/04/11 15:34, Peter Franks a écrit :

Force.

You are advocating forcing people to do what you think is right.

Well, I use force to put my recalcitant 3 year old to bed because I KNOW
that 11pm is to late for her bed time.


Mel

 

[Melodie de l'Epine]

Le 06/04/11 15:34, Peter Franks a écrit :

snip

Presumably. Also, it will have depreciated and have virtually no resale
value.

Maybe; but it will still produce kWh that will offset what he would
otherwise buy of the grid, and the way electricity prices are going,
those offset kWhs are likely to be worth enough to make paying for a new
inverter worthwhile.

Mel

 

[Morris Dovey]

After exactly 8 weeks operation, our rooftop solar panel installation
has just clocked up its first 500 kilowatt hours - a spectacular result
for an installation in central Europe in winter.

Well done!

When you're ready to address the heating portion of your energy
consumption, you might consider something like the panels shown at
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html in a south-facing wall.

The (2007) installation shown has already saved the owner approximately
_twice_ the original panel purchase price.

The total panel area is 96 ft^2 (approximately 9 m^2).

 

[Peter Franks]

Do you ever use experts in your life? Dentists? Doctors? Car mechanic? Did
you buy your car from car manufacturer?

Except we aren't talking about experts, we are talking about 'society
making decisions' on our behalf.

It sure is hard to talk to you types when you keep misconstruing
EVERYTHING I say.

 

[Peter Franks]

Do you ever use experts in your life? Dentists? Doctors? Car mechanic? Did
you buy your car from car manufacturer?

Further, those 'experts' don't decide a single thing for me. They
provide their expert OPINION and the I DECIDE.

DUH!

 

[Peter Franks]

Le 06/04/11 23:09, Vaughn a écrit :

They did it for coal, gas and nuclear, so why shouldn't they do it for
renewables?

Do three wrongs now make a right?

 

[Peter Franks]

Lobbyists, not capitalism. Socialise the losses. Privatize the profits

How did lobbyists cause business profits to hit 60 year records?