[riveree]

Originally Posted by Ten

Incorrect. Alternative energy is not economically feasible; it does not compete because it cannot. For only one example, we're already learning that converting corn to ethanol dramatically and negatively impacts the cost of all food products related to corn.

Meanwhile solar is widely know to be far more expensive then traditional energy. There's a very good reason it absolutely requires heavy subsidies. Ditto wind. This is not an environmental issue; it's a fiscal issue.

And that brings us back to the point. The US Bubble Economy loves to make something out of nothing as much as the government likes to be lobbied to make artificial stimuli and call it growth. Put the two back together for a true fiasco. Decades ago we'd call it the New Deal -- it's Keynesian economics. It does not work. You cannot spend yourself rich.

Sorry, no way to get to the free lunch of alternative energy + "economic stimulus."

So let the free markets work. Get government out of the business of mismanaging fiat currency and out of the business of succumbing to special financial interests.

Well, I wasn't entirely disagreeing with you, I was just saying that if indeed there was a solar energy "bubble", a fringe benefit of it would be that we'd now have in place a clean source of free/reduced cost power.

Ethanol is a joke, I think everyone has moved beyond ethanol. Solar and ethanol are 2 entirely different alternatives.

Solar is heavy on the upfront costs, but that is lessening as its' popularity grows. I could see in the future more installers competing with each other to install solar panels on your home's roof as they now compete to install the granite in your kitchen.

[geos]

Originally Posted by Ten

Incorrect. Alternative energy is not economically feasible; it does not compete because it cannot. For only one example, we're already learning that converting corn to ethanol dramatically and negatively impacts the cost of all food products related to corn.

Meanwhile solar is widely know to be far more expensive then traditional energy. There's a very good reason it absolutely requires heavy subsidies. Ditto wind. This is not an environmental issue; it's a fiscal issue.

And that brings us back to the point. The US Bubble Economy loves to make something out of nothing as much as the government likes to be lobbied to make artificial stimuli and call it growth. Put the two back together for a true fiasco. Decades ago we'd call it the New Deal -- it's Keynesian economics. It does not work. You cannot spend yourself rich.

Sorry, no way to get to the free lunch of alternative energy + "economic stimulus."

So let the free markets work. Get government out of the business of mismanaging fiat currency and out of the business of succumbing to special financial interests.

I've got news for you, nuclear and oil get billions in subsidies (ie corporate welfare) every year. Cheney's an expert in feeding at the public trough. If we invested the over 3 TRILLION dollars embezzled and squandered on butchering & slaughtering innocent people who did nothing to us so we can steal their oil on alternative energy we would be completely energy independent. We could have bought every household in America solar panels, built enough concentrated solar collectors in the southwest to supply all our electrical needs and still have a trillion left over.

Keynesian economics is fine for the little people but well connected military contractors know the way to get rich is get your guys in office, frighten the populace into a frenzy by creating a pretext for war (a very profitable product and our biggest industry) and funnel tax payer dollars into your pockets. Make a killing on killing.

Yes it is an economic issue, an environmental issue and a national security issue. There is no more vital issue than energy. It affects every aspect of our lives and the cheap stuff is running out. Instead of investing in our energy future the vested energy interests seek to squeeze out every last drop of profit even as they squeeze the life out of our country. We've squandered our last chance at avoiding an energy disaster which will lead to social and economic disaster.

With so much free solar energy in FL it's shocking that every household doesn't have at least a solar hot water heater you can make for a few hundred dollars in hardware.

[Ten]

That's quite a rhetorical stew, geos. You lost me at the conspiracy theory and you've presented not one iota of evidence that alternative energy can compete. Proofs by assertion leave me unimpressed.

Sure conventional energy has its conflicts of interest -- I didn't suggest subsidizing alternative energy vindicated subsidizing conventional energy, did I?

But you nearly raise a valid point: Just how much manipulation is there in energy markets throughout...and what can we do about it so that all of them simply compete in a free market?

Propping up feel-good alternative energy is no solution to the marriage between oil and Washington DC, such as it actually may be, which I'm quite sure you cannot quantify. Even without that War for Oil rubbish.

[tallrick]

Solar PV has promise, it produces 12 watts or so per square foot. Another source of energy is wind. If the panels are installed on a suitable home, 1,000 square feet of panels would provide plenty of power for all electrical devices and battery charging time. It would take vast amounts of energy and resources to fit millions of homes with solar panels. It is little known, though that standard utitity power wastes 30% of its power just sending it through ugly, hurricane-prone power lines. The power plant itself wastes 70% of coal energy as heat. Small-scale cogeneration plants coupled with renewable solar, wind and tidal energy could significantly reduce energy loss. Widespread high-speed internet and more local manufacturing would also reduce dependance on foreign oil. The money wasted on a fake "war on terror" has set us back decades.

[sunrico90]

Sustainable Initiatives | Florida DEP

[GreenBill]

Originally Posted by Ten

Incorrect. Alternative energy is not economically feasible; it does not compete because it cannot. For only one example, we're already learning that converting corn to ethanol dramatically and negatively impacts the cost of all food products related to corn.

Meanwhile solar is widely know to be far more expensive then traditional energy. There's a very good reason it absolutely requires heavy subsidies. Ditto wind. This is not an environmental issue; it's a fiscal issue.

And that brings us back to the point. The US Bubble Economy loves to make something out of nothing as much as the government likes to be lobbied to make artificial stimuli and call it growth. Put the two back together for a true fiasco. Decades ago we'd call it the New Deal -- it's Keynesian economics. It does not work. You cannot spend yourself rich.

Sorry, no way to get to the free lunch of alternative energy + "economic stimulus."

So let the free markets work. Get government out of the business of mismanaging fiat currency and out of the business of succumbing to special financial interests.

Ten, you made some good points but also left much unsaid. You are correct re. ethanol subsidies and the effect they have on the cost of food. You are also correct that the government is manipulated on behalf of moneyed special interests, but you didn't go far enough. The main recipient of government protections and subsidies are status quo energy companies NOT alternative technologies such as solar, wind and other renewables.

Furthermore, externalities are rarely on the table when the cost/benefits of our current system are weighed against alternatives. These externalities include, environmental damage, health problems, climate change, oil-based international instability and a technology and industrial sector ill-prepared for the coming Green future and opportunity costs resulting from our addiction to powerful but backward looking corporations.

[GreenBill]

The Triple Bottom Line
<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_bottom_line" TARGET="_new">The triple bottom line</A>
Triple bottom line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The triple bottom line (or "TBL", "3BL", or "People, Planet, Profit") captures an expanded spectrum of values and criteria for measuring organizational (and societal) success; economic, environmental and social. With the ratification of the UN ICLEI TBL standard for urban and community accounting in early 2007, this became the dominant approach to public sector full cost accounting. Similar UN standards apply to natural capital and human capital measurement to assist in measurements required by TBL, e.g. the ecoBudget standard for reporting ecological footprint.


In the private sector, a commitment to corporate social responsibility implies a commitment to some form of TBL reporting. This is distinct from the more limited changes required to deal only with ecological issues.


<A HREF="http://macronet.org" TARGET="_new">Macrocosm USA</A> Possibilities for a New Progressive Era
Earth friendly web hosting powered by wind and solar energy
Macrocosm USA, a nonprofit clearinghouse for progressives emphasizing peace, justice, environmental, health solutions and issues