ACism and global warming

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Solar cell efficiency have gone from 8% in the 1990s to 42.8%. Key players have been Department of Energy, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories, NREL, Oak Ridge and University of Delaware.


[/ QUOTE ]

How much money do these programs recieve on a yearly basis?

[/ QUOTE ]

Careful, wacki doesn't like to discuss things like opportunity cost.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I love talking opportunity costs. Try searching my previous threads. ianlippert I don't have any concrete numbers *right now* but this should help:

[ QUOTE ]
DOE's renewable energy R&D program is large in relationship to the size of the current renewable energy industry, but its purpose is to help expand that industry. Figure 6 illustrates the distribution of R&D expenditures across renewable technologies. The largest single item is the category "Wind/Photovoltaic/Other Solar," funded at $134 million in fiscal year 1999. Within this category, the largest program is for photovoltaics, at $72.2 million in fiscal year 1999.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicer.../research.html
Packing for my plane flight so maybe I'll find a more current one later.


Compared to private industry:
[ QUOTE ]
Venture capitalists also are funneling money into energy research. The Cleantech Venture Network, which encourages and tracks private funding in the field, counted $2.9 billion invested in 2006 in "clean-tech" companies, whose products are designed to help the environment. Of that, $740 million went to biofuel companies, $378 million to solar businesses and $380 million to wind energy research.

BP, in addition to the new Energy Biosciences Institute at Berkeley, plans to spend $8 billion over 10 years on its own alternative energy effort, which includes building solar cells and wind farms.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://sfgate.com/c/a/2007/02/09/BUGG3O1FHK1.DTL

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]


This isn't a new argument, we've been here before. I don't trust the power to group anywhere but in large companies, and in that situation, the ability to compete won't be enough. It won't matter. They'll buy whatever they want, this includes their own DROs etc. People will still shop there because "hey global warming isn't an issue to me and check it out $2 tube socks, hellllllo".

If think people will be the new masters, then I'm pulling for you and hope you're right, but again, you'll have to forgive my being skeptical.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that there is a slight contradiction here. Could it be that the first "people" means dumb idiot hicks who can't tell their arse from their elbow and the second "people" means you? If statists just come out and said "I think most of the people in the world are to dumb to make their own decisions I know best and I need to impose this onto them for their own good", I believe they'd resolve a lot of the accusations of hypocrisy and we could start having a debate about if that belief is good or bad. The argument that you're scared of a small powerful elite with control over people seems to be incrdibly powerful doublethink to me.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This isn't a new argument, we've been here before. I don't trust the power to group anywhere but in large companies, and in that situation, the ability to compete won't be enough. It won't matter. They'll buy whatever they want, this includes their own DROs etc. People will still shop there because "hey global warming isn't an issue to me and check it out $2 tube socks, hellllllo".

If think people will be the new masters, then I'm pulling for you and hope you're right, but again, you'll have to forgive my being skeptical.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

To the extent that the concentration of power in large companies subject to competition is bad, the concentration of power in a single state subject to very limited competitive forces is much worse.

Again, don't confuse the assertion that competition is good with the assertion that competition will make things work out exactly the way I want. I agree that for the most part people make stupid choices (on my own subjective basis) that impact me negatively. This is true in how they elect officials as surely as it is true in how they choose consumer products. As you like to say, people are bastard covered bastards in bastard sauce (paraphrased). I don't assert that market forces will turn them into angel convered angels in angel sauce.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the most open and honest response I've read on here in quite some time.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

And it is a somewhat good answer. It does miss the fact, however, that the government needs be re-elected and will make decisions for the larger common good (or at least the good of those that will re-elect them), including the poor people, at least sometimes [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] , whereas a corporation will only make it for its shareholders which are by definition those that have an excess of capital. Thus the problem with AC, the richer will get richer, the poor will carry the burden, quicker than under statism.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This isn't a new argument, we've been here before. I don't trust the power to group anywhere but in large companies, and in that situation, the ability to compete won't be enough. It won't matter. They'll buy whatever they want, this includes their own DROs etc. People will still shop there because "hey global warming isn't an issue to me and check it out $2 tube socks, hellllllo".

If think people will be the new masters, then I'm pulling for you and hope you're right, but again, you'll have to forgive my being skeptical.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

To the extent that the concentration of power in large companies subject to competition is bad, the concentration of power in a single state subject to very limited competitive forces is much worse.

Again, don't confuse the assertion that competition is good with the assertion that competition will make things work out exactly the way I want. I agree that for the most part people make stupid choices (on my own subjective basis) that impact me negatively. This is true in how they elect officials as surely as it is true in how they choose consumer products. As you like to say, people are bastard covered bastards in bastard sauce (paraphrased). I don't assert that market forces will turn them into angel convered angels in angel sauce.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the most open and honest response I've read on here in quite some time.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

And it is a somewhat good answer. It does miss the fact, however, that the government needs be re-elected and will make decisions for the larger common good (or at least the good of those that will re-elect them), including the poor people, at least sometimes [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're making the other distortion - you're confusing the assertion that a lack of competition is bad with the assertion that a lack of competition will result in the government always doing things that I think are bad (on my own subjective basis).

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Now you're making the other distortion - you're confusing the assertion that a lack of competition is bad with the assertion that a lack of competition will result in the government always doing things that I think are bad (on my own subjective basis).

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all! If anything I am saying that the motivation of government and corporations are quite different and will lead to different results. As an investor give me the corporation motivations, as a human being give me the state any day!

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
Careful, wacki doesn't like to discuss things like opportunity cost. According to his logic, if you spend $10,000 getting someone to mow your lawn, then it was worth it because you got something done, especially if it was someone else's money.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not asking for the sake of opportunity costs, I'm asking to find out the relative difficulty volutary donations would have matching the money provided by the state.

[ QUOTE ]
DOE's renewable energy R&D program is large in relationship to the size of the current renewable energy industry, but its purpose is to help expand that industry. Figure 6 illustrates the distribution of R&D expenditures across renewable technologies. The largest single item is the category "Wind/Photovoltaic/Other Solar," funded at $134 million in fiscal year 1999. Within this category, the largest program is for photovoltaics, at $72.2 million in fiscal year 1999.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Venture capitalists also are funneling money into energy research. The Cleantech Venture Network, which encourages and tracks private funding in the field, counted $2.9 billion invested in 2006 in "clean-tech" companies, whose products are designed to help the environment. Of that, $740 million went to biofuel companies, $378 million to solar businesses and $380 million to wind energy research.

BP, in addition to the new Energy Biosciences Institute at Berkeley, plans to spend $8 billion over 10 years on its own alternative energy effort, which includes building solar cells and wind farms.


[/ QUOTE ]

So the government is providing a mere $200 million? That number is so low I'd actually question the validity of the numbers. Mabey when you have more time we can get some current numbers. It seems like when awareness is raised private companies do a much better job at anticipating consumer needs than the government does.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Solar cell efficiency have gone from 8% in the 1990s to 42.8%. Key players have been Department of Energy, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories, NREL, Oak Ridge and University of Delaware.


[/ QUOTE ]

How much money do these programs recieve on a yearly basis?

[/ QUOTE ]

Careful, wacki doesn't like to discuss things like opportunity cost.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I love talking opportunity costs. Try searching my previous threads. ianlippert I don't have any concrete numbers *right now* but this should help:

[ QUOTE ]
DOE's renewable energy R&D program is large in relationship to the size of the current renewable energy industry, but its purpose is to help expand that industry. Figure 6 illustrates the distribution of R&D expenditures across renewable technologies. The largest single item is the category "Wind/Photovoltaic/Other Solar," funded at $134 million in fiscal year 1999. Within this category, the largest program is for photovoltaics, at $72.2 million in fiscal year 1999.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicer.../research.html
Packing for my plane flight so maybe I'll find a more current one later.


Compared to private industry:
[ QUOTE ]
Venture capitalists also are funneling money into energy research. The Cleantech Venture Network, which encourages and tracks private funding in the field, counted $2.9 billion invested in 2006 in "clean-tech" companies, whose products are designed to help the environment. Of that, $740 million went to biofuel companies, $378 million to solar businesses and $380 million to wind energy research.

BP, in addition to the new Energy Biosciences Institute at Berkeley, plans to spend $8 billion over 10 years on its own alternative energy effort, which includes building solar cells and wind farms.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://sfgate.com/c/a/2007/02/09/BUGG3O1FHK1.DTL

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF does this have to do with opportunity costs?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Mowing the lawn is a bad anology. Saving the environment can't be replaced by something else that is equally nice but cheaper. If I had to spend $10.000 a month on medication to stay alive, would you say I was dumb for not considering the opportunity cost? Just think of how often I could go to the movies for that money.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're missing the point. I'm saying that for a *GIVEN GOAL* (having the yard mowed, or developing new energy, or XYZ) wacki thinks that accomplishing that goal justifies whatever amount of money is spent on it. It doesn't matter to him if there are other, cheaper (not to mention more moral) ways of arriving somewhere.

I used to work for a BIG computer company. When I would go to training classes and talk to people about how they were liking the class, most of them felt that the week of company time and expense were "worth it" if they learned ONE THING. It never occured to them that the classes were HORRIBLE because with the time and resources, they could have been learning about 20x as much stuff if the class were structured differently.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Careful, wacki doesn't like to discuss things like opportunity cost. According to his logic, if you spend $10,000 getting someone to mow your lawn, then it was worth it because you got something done, especially if it was someone else's money.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not asking for the sake of opportunity costs, I'm asking to find out the relative difficulty volutary donations would have matching the money provided by the state.

[/ QUOTE ]

Donations would be a part, but there would be more than just donations to fill the gap, of course.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
WTF does this have to do with opportunity costs?


[/ QUOTE ]

It has nothing to do with opportunity costs. I simply asked him how much the government was spending.