Energy shortsightedness

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Market demand does not, however, take into account what's best in the long run.

The "Market" is just an inanimate response to exchange mechanics. Market demand takes into account whatever period of time consumers take into account. Of course, consumers are people who have and spend money and they are as different as any two snowflakes, with thoughts and opinions and preferences of their own.

It's apparent that many have an opinion that all but a 'select few' consumers cannot make good decisions and need to be led like children. That's fine as long as they recognize they are in reality advocating for an aristocratic form of government/nanny state.

Forcing requirements/taxes that would otherwise equalize under natural market forces is no better/no more altruistic than abusing private property rights.

Rather than legislation of something rather subjective, even arbitrary, it's better off to continue to use respectable speech to get the 'average consumer' up to speed on making the right decisions. That way they are voluntary advocates of what they do rather than resentful prisoners of just a subpopulation's vision of their view of a better world.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,132]

>It's apparent that many have an opinion that all but a 'select few'
>consumers cannot make good decisions . . .

Of course. Which is as it should be, if the results of their choices affects society at large. Should we give antibiotics to anyone who asks for them? If not, why not? Are you calling them idiots if you claim that someone _shouldn't_ be able to get antibiotics for their child's runny nose?

>Rather than legislation of something rather subjective, even
>arbitrary, it's better off to continue to use respectable speech to get
> the 'average consumer' up to speed on making the right decisions.

It's the prisoner's dilemma. Often the right choice for a consumer is the wrong choice for the country. We had rationing during World War II, for example, because consumers would otherwise make good decisions for themselves (i.e. rubber tires are good and cheap, so I will buy a lot) but bad for the country (i.e. when the rubber supply gets tight we can't make airplane tires.)

We are now facing such a situation with the economy. If people continue to make decisions that benefit them in the short term they may hurt everyone else in the long term. Government has a role to play in preventing grievous harm to the economy (or a war effort, or public health) in such cases.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

it should be, if the results of their choices affects society at large. Should we give antibiotics to anyone who asks for them? If not, why not? Are you calling them idiots if you claim that someone _shouldn't_ be able to get antibiotics for their child's runny nose?

I can't seem to make sense of this. Sorry. It seems you are insulting me for laying out a position that people in general should make decisions for themselves. If so, I'm not the one belittling the regular person or thinking of them as 'idiots'. Perhaps 'aristocracy' put you on the defensive, if so, my apologies. Would 'meritocracy' have been better semantics here?

Quote

>We are now facing such a situation with the economy. If people continue to make decisions that benefit them in the short term they may hurt everyone else in the long term. Government has a role to play in preventing grievous harm to the economy (or a war effort, or public health) in such cases.

Definitely your opinion. We've discussed it before and you have good points and odd points, so I don't want to rehash it.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,132]

>I can't seem to make sense of this

Your position is that consumers, rather than an aristocratic 'select few' (your words, not mine) should decide what they want to buy without interference. If that is your position, do you think that consumers should be allowed to buy whatever antibiotics they want for themselves and their children, without interference from a bunch of elite doctors who would prefer to restrict usage of some antibiotics?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>I can't seem to make sense of this

Your position is that consumers, rather than an aristocratic 'select few' (your words, not mine) should decide what they want to buy without interference. If that is your position, do you think that consumers should be allowed to buy whatever antibiotics they want for themselves and their children, without interference from a bunch of elite doctors who would prefer to restrict usage of some antibiotics?

We are individuals, not cold germs, but still a very odd analogy - I'd have to say it's specious (IMO). Instead, let's liken the analogy to whether individuals should be able to see the doctor of their choice rather than the doctor the elite chooses for them. And 'aristocratic few' is appropriate concerning the way most strongly political types think and speak. I did mispeak, I meant something like "self appointed aristocratic few".

I can use that tactic too. Billvon - your position is that government must control the lives of people because they are incapable of seeing the impact in front of them since they are still living in the hunting/gathering stage of evolution. Is it your position that we should outlaw abortion for society's sake? {It's not fair to misrepresent you that way. See how nuts it is? See how just because of the topic you'll get knee jerk followers and opponents?}

And my position is to, instead of standing on the mount and telling the people they are 'unenlightened' and force them to do things your way (unpopular legislation), instead stand on your mount and convert them to advocates of your position (no legislation, active compliance). I'm not opposing the message, I'm opposing the implementation strategy.

Personally, I like your personal choices concerning energy. They are cool and I hope to emulate them someday. But not at the end of the legislative gun but because much of them are good choices for me, now, and society in the future.

I just get the consistent message that you don't have much of an opinion of people in general. I suspect that's a wrong impression, but it's the one screaming off the page.

I get very critical when someone thinks another law will make things better. But I do trust the big forces that drive societies: hunger, procreation, market forces, climate, creativity, desire, etc.

Here's another analogy that may or may not be useful: consistently hot weather will drive more efficient and effective air conditioner designs long before and more permanently than any law specifying A/C performance will ever drive it.

I think I started to digress quite a bit there so I should wrap it up.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,132]

>We are individuals, not cold germs, but still a very odd analogy . . .

Why? Surely if you believe that consumers can make good choices, you would support allowing any consumer to buy any antibiotic that he believed would benefit him. That is your position, right?

>I just get the consistent message that you don't have much of an
>opinion of people in general.

People are good at making decisions that benefit _them._ It's the underlying theory that capitalism is based on - that people will make decisions to make themselves richer, or to get more stuff they want, or whatever.

Sometimes there is a difference between what benefits an individual and what benefits a society. Since capitalism is set up to react to people making individual decisions, it often has the opposite than desired effect when looking at societal benefit.

Let's take your view on this and extend it to taxes. If people can be trusted to make good decisions for society, why not just allow everyone to send whatever they want in taxes every year? Surely a wise citizen will not allow the military to become defunded, and thus everyone will contribute an appropriate amount. Think that would work?

>Here's another analogy that may or may not be useful: consistently
> hot weather will drive more efficient and effective air conditioner
> designs long before and more permanently than any law specifying
> A/C performance will ever drive it.

If:

a) energy prices are such that they become a very significant part of the cost of the unit in the short term, and
b) manufacturers must, by law, publish energy efficiency ratings on their products

then I would agree with you.

[rehmwa 2]

This is what I heard.

Quote

>...
.
.
.
I ... agree with you.

THANKS

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

People are good at making decisions that benefit _them._ It's the underlying theory that capitalism is based on - that people will make decisions to make themselves richer, or to get more stuff they want, or whatever.

Sometimes there is a difference between what benefits an individual and what benefits a society. Since capitalism is set up to react to people making individual decisions, it often has the opposite than desired effect when looking at societal benefit.

Doesn't this fall under the principle of the freeloader? All common goods will get abused without some control in place.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Doesn't this fall under the principle of the freeloader? All common goods will get abused without some control in place.

But what happens when government create a class of 'freeloaders'? You answered it, the system is abused.

But to put a market driven product under the priciple of Freeloading - a system where people pay for their goods, is a stretch. Energy is not free (to most).

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,132]

>Doesn't this fall under the principle of the freeloader? All common
>goods will get abused without some control in place.

Depends how it's implemented. If there are ways to get stuff for free, and that stuff benefits the individual, then yes, there will be abuses. The poorly-structured solar heating incentives of the 70's are a good example of that. There are tens of thousands of non-functioning installations today because people wanted the tax break, not the system itself.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

>What is also shortsighted is this country's refusal to build more
>refineries. Jeez I wish people would wake up.

Why? The amount of oil there will be to process WILL go down. Why build more capacity? Would you add lanes to a highway near a military base that was being torn down in a few years, even if there were currently traffic jams?

In the '70s predictions were that we would soon run out of oil, and it would not be possible to breath in LA.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[kelpdiver 2]

it still ain't great in LA. I hate to think how bad it was in the 70s before I lived there.

[billvon 3,132]

>In the '70s predictions were that we would soon run out of oil . . .

We did run out of oil in the US. M. Hubbert predicted that US production would peak in the 1970's and then decline. Everyone poo-pooed him. And lo and behold, they peaked in 1971 and never recovered. Fortunately imports took up the slack (once we got over the arab embargo.)

>and it would not be possible to breath in LA.

It took massive governmental regulation (in the form of CARB) to clean up LA. Today, depending on what pollutant you measure, it's from 50% to 90% cleaner. And more people than ever own cars, and those cars are safer than ever before. Sometimes government regulation _does_ work, and work very well.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

M. Hubbert predicted that US production would peak in the 1970's and then decline. Everyone poo-pooed him. And lo and behold, they peaked in 1971 and never recovered

Why has US oil production declined?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[happythoughts 0]

I'm going to vote that we ban analogies. Proving something unrelated doesn't prove any other point.

How people act under duress situations or emergencies is not a valid comparison to how they will generally act.

Discussions about situations should be done as discussions about that one situation, not "There were these people in the Andes who ate other people, so be careful getting on an airplane..."

[billvon 3,132]

>Why has US oil production declined?

Because the easy to get (i.e. cheap oil) has mostly been drilled. There will always be oil somewhere you can get to, but they are generally the smaller, harder to get to, more expensive deposits. Which makes sense - if they were easy to get to they would have been drilled already.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

I'm going to vote that we ban analogies.

That'll sure save some bandwidth.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

>In the '70s predictions were that we would soon run out of oil . . .

We did run out of oil in the US. M. Hubbert predicted that US production would peak in the 1970's and then decline. Everyone poo-pooed him. And lo and behold, they peaked in 1971 and never recovered. Fortunately imports took up the slack (once we got over the arab embargo.)

>and it would not be possible to breath in LA.

It took massive governmental regulation (in the form of CARB) to clean up LA. Today, depending on what pollutant you measure, it's from 50% to 90% cleaner. And more people than ever own cars, and those cars are safer than ever before. Sometimes government regulation _does_ work, and work very well.

Yeah, but the air still stinks in LA.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,132]

Some good news for a change:

---------------------------
France to Host World's First Nuclear Fusion Plant

By REUTERS
Published: June 28, 2005

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Science's quest to find a cheap and inexhaustible way to meet global energy needs took a major step forward on Tuesday when a 30-nation consortium chose France to host the world's first nuclear fusion reactor.

After months of wrangling, France defeated a bid from Japan and signed a deal to site the 10-billion-euro experimental reactor in Cadarache, near Marseille.

The project will seek to turn seawater into fuel by mimicking the way the sun produces energy. It would be cleaner than current nuclear reactors, would not rely on enriched uranium fuel or produce plutonium.

. . .

The 500 megawatt ITER reactor will use deuterium, extracted from seawater, as its major fuel and a giant electromagnetic ring to fuse atomic nuclei at extremely high temperatures.

One of the biggest challenges facing scientists is to build a reactor that can sustain temperatures of about 100 million Celsius (180 million F) for long enough to generate power.

``I give it a 50:50 chance of success but the engineering is very difficult,'' said Ian Fells of Britain's Royal Academy of Engineering.

. . .

The EU is to take on 40 percent of the project's cost, France will pay 10 percent and the remaining five partners 10 percent each. Building the reactor is expected to take about ten years at a cost of 4.6 billion euros ($6.14 billion).

But some scientists say it could take three times that long and the sides have yet to reach a final agreement on a number of issues, including financing, before the builders can move in.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-energy-france-nuclear.html?oref=login

[justinb138 0]

6.1 Billion dollars on something that has only a 50% chance of working?

Seems like the money could be better spent by building fission reactors instead and using the rest of the money to find better ways to dispose of spent fuel...

Bill, do you happen to know how much a fission plant costs to build compared to the fusion plant?

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Some good news for a change:

---------------------------
France to Host World's First Nuclear Fusion Plant

Fusion - the energy source of the future.

Always has been, always will be...

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

6.1 Billion dollars on something that has only a 50% chance of working?

In 2005 dollars, the Manhattan Project was way way more expensive, and when started was given about a 50% chance of working.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

6.1 Billion dollars on something that has only a 50% chance of working?

In 2005 dollars, the Manhattan Project was way way more expensive, and when started was given about a 50% chance of working.

Ah, good point.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

6.1 Billion dollars on something that has only a 50% chance of working?

If the odds of success were really that high, it would be money damn well spent.

[billvon 3,132]

>Bill, do you happen to know how much a fission plant costs to
>build compared to the fusion plant?

There hasn't been one built in the US in a long time, so there are no current numbers. But the AP-1000 is supposed to cost around $1.2 billion in construction costs, without counting siting, evacuation planning, switchgear, fuel, disposal or decommissioning costs.