# Moore's law for solar energy?



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 6, 2011)

"Solyndra’s failure was actually caused by technological success: the price of solar panels is dropping fast, and Solyndra couldn’t keep up with the competition. In fact, progress in solar panels has been so dramatic and sustained that, as a blog post at Scientific American put it, “there’s now frequent talk of a ‘Moore’s law’ in solar energy,” with prices adjusted for inflation falling around 7 percent a year." - Paul Krugman in his latest article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/opini ... &seid=auto


This is his reference:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gue ... lar-cells/


----------



## bsound76 (Nov 6, 2011)

If it is true that solar panels are becoming cheaper (and I've been recently hearing that it is true) then that is great news.

There is a college in my area that gets 100% of its electricity through solar panels. In fact, they are making money off the excess energy by supplying it to the power company.


----------



## Mike Greene (Nov 6, 2011)

I think there's a lot of wishful thinking there. Solar is a very different technology than computers. 7% per year isn't much of a drop and people I've spoken with tell me it won't drop much faster than that.

His final statement about solar already being cost effective is wrong, by the way. We're putting in solar right now and without the subsidies and tax breaks we're getting from DWP (the power company) and from the federal government, it would be at least 20 or 30 years before the system would pay for itself. Factor in interest rates most people would have to pay to finance a purchase like this and it doesn't even come close to making financial sense. It's the rebates and tax breaks that make it cost effective, and even then, it's still kinda like buying a Prius in terms of what you really get. (Mostly bragging rights.)

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of solar power. But I doubt its an industry that would survive without subsidies.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 6, 2011)

You're probably right about it being wishful thinking - if for no other reason than that you also need a good way to store solar energy when the sun isn't shining - but his point is that solar would require much less subsidy to be competitive if conventional energy weren't being subsidized. That's a point he could have made a lot finer - the military, health, and environmental costs are huge - but he probably didn't want to lose his audience in a rant.


----------



## midphase (Nov 6, 2011)

I wish we could get solar in our place, but the tall trees block the sun and I don't think we'd get a whole lot of benefit.

On the positive side, I'm starting to notice more and more solar powered traffic signs and street lights...really cool!


----------



## Dan Selby (Nov 7, 2011)

Mike Greene @ Mon Nov 07 said:


> 7% per year isn't much of a drop



A 7% annual reduction is a halving of price in less than 10 years (and so quartering of current price in less than 20 years etc.) So not the change in cost/performance in computing... but not nothing, either.


----------



## Mike Greene (Nov 7, 2011)

Dan Selby @ Mon Nov 07 said:


> A 7% annual reduction is a halving of price in less than 10 years (and so quartering of current price in less than 20 years etc.) So not the change in cost/performance in computing... but not nothing, either.


You're right, there will come a point in the not too distant future when solar makes financial sense even without subsidies. The point I meant to make was that unlike with computers, those panels that are expensive today won't be dirt cheap next year. Which is why we went ahead and made the plunge now rather than later, because we won't be kicking ourselves that our investment today would have been half the price in a couple years. In fact, it could be the opposite, because those subsidized rebates cut the price by half or more (here in L.A.,) but they won't necessarily continue.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 7, 2011)

The answer is likely to be a mix of energy sources, and not just solar - and not just local panels on peoples' roofs but solar power plants.


----------



## Dan Selby (Nov 7, 2011)

Yep. We need a mix (including nuclear) plus a smart grid and electrified transport quickly. And we need to stop saying "no" to everything. If anyone here hasn't read it, I wholeheartedly recommend David MacKay's excellent "Sustainability without the hot air", which dispassionately lays out our options, with pros and cons for all the energy sources and, most importantly, with sensible and testable numbers.

And, you can download the whole thing for free:

http://www.withouthotair.com/


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 7, 2011)

We are light years ahead of any other nation when it comes to clean Coal Burning technology and the fact it is not spoken of very much is probably because the defense industry is heavily vested into it.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... rw2NzvD1nQ

I built this facility 18 years ago during the day, then gigged at Harveys in Tahoe at night. I was bringing home major cash for 3 years then.
But what was more interesting is the way they compressed the Coal, then burned it somehow without breaking current EPA standards.
As a matter of fact, living here in Las Vegas you'd think we'd use the Hoover Dam Turbines for power, but we don't, we pay NVEnergy up in Reno for our power, so that plant is covering millions of people.

I am quite confident we will get alternative energy solutions in the next 2 decades as we race against Chinas' multi trillion dollar investment.
That's why these Solar Panels just don't make any sense to me. Even if the massive arrrays we have had built here in Nevada years ago, and are still being built would show any benefits they'd really spend tons of cash on further development, but wind and solar are so costly with little benefit when compared to other technologies.

I do have a trailer hitched Solar Generator that makes Hunting and Camping trips an incredible pleasure though. Much better than gas powered generators, and they do pay for themselves after a few years, but they just can't generate enough power compared to other forms of alternative energy.

Here's a jpeg of Pinion Pines. We loved it, it was right next to the Mustang Ranch when Joe Conforti still ran it. Once the IRS took over and he fled to Brazil it went out of business.
I always said the Feds were so stupid they couldn't find a Hooker in a WHore House... THis is just another example of that.

I had to really dig to find the documents on this, and Goggle Maps won't acknowledge it's existance, but since I knew where it was, and frequented the wonderful Old Bridge, and Mustang Ranch, they couldn't hide it from me.

The rather large round dome was added after our job was finsihed. We were not allowed to see or even use our old badges to re eneter the jobsite, so their technology even back then was super hush-hush...


----------



## rgames (Nov 7, 2011)

The solar power benefit is, indeed, hard to justify on a financial basis (at least right now). There are plenty of folks here in Tucson who have solar and sell power back to the power companies - it still takes a *long* time (10+ years) to recover the cost. Factor in time value of money and the investment looks like a bad choice on a financial basis.

*Here's a novel concept that does help the environment AND yields immediate financial benefit: quit using so much energy!
*

Why does this exceedingly simple solution never come up? Let's see, hmmm... oh yeah, the solar panel manufacturers get government subsidies when laws are passed that give tax breaks on their products! So those are the solutions that get promoted, and the masses follow the advertising...

Just like the whole hybrid car nonsense: the auto manufacturers love the government subsidies in the form of tax breaks for hybrid car owners. Yet the people who limit their driving have MUCH more positive impact on the environment and get no tax breaks. Stupid.

And two people in two hybrids burn more gas than two people in one SUV, yet the two hybrids are allowed in the HOV-3 lanes and the SUV is not. Stupid.

The whole environmental movement is about big money: it's run by advertising and political positioning. It is, in fact, all about image. Actual positive impact on the environment is not a concern. It's whether or not you're in tune with the latest environmental fad, many of which are not even close to the best way to address real environmental problems. Stupid.

rgames


----------



## Mike Connelly (Nov 7, 2011)

Isn't the smarter thing to use more efficient stuff and cleaner energy AND use less energy?



rgames @ Mon Nov 07 said:


> And two people in two hybrids burn more gas than two people in one SUV, yet the two hybrids are allowed in the HOV-3 lanes and the SUV is not.



I suppose that may be true in some cases, but it's hard to see how that math works out with hybrids that can get 40+ mpg and many SUVs getting under 20. For driving two people around, why would you need an SUV? Wouldn't the best option be to use one car instead of two AND use the most fuel efficient vehicle you can?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 7, 2011)

One thing is consistent, Richard: you have annoyingly off-target opinions on every subject. 

***
Chimuelo, are you talking about scrubbing or carbon sequestration? The former prevents acid rain, but it's not clean energy.


----------



## rgames (Nov 7, 2011)

Mike Connelly @ Mon Nov 07 said:


> Isn't the smarter thing to use more efficient stuff and cleaner energy AND use less energy?



The smart thing is to use less energy regardless of how you do it.

If you buy solar panels and reduce your energy consumption by 10% then great. If I cut my energy use by 25% via some other means then haven't I had a bigger impact? If I have a bigger impact on the environment, then shouldn't I get the bigger reward? Under the current ridiculous system, your 10% reduction is rewarded with tax benefits while my 25% reduction goes unrecognized. Like I said, that's stupid... Well, unless you build solar panels or hybrid cars.

Are we trying to incentivize people to go green or are we trying to incentivize people to buy some manufacturer's products? The answer right now is the latter. Is that what you want?

Unfortunately, "Environmental Activism" is mostly about following fads initiated by the manufacturers of solar panels, hybrid cars, etc. Lobbies have a lot of power, especially when they tie themselves to emotional topics like the environment.

Not sure what's off-target about that, Nick, unless you prefer the fads 

rgames


----------



## Udo (Nov 7, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Nov 08 said:


> Chimuelo, are you talking about scrubbing or carbon sequestration? The former prevents acid rain, but it's not clean energy.


The world's first "clean coal" power plant went into production only recently (in Germany, late 2008, I think). It captures CO2 and acid rain producing sulfides.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 7, 2011)

Nick I am not quite sure, but the Boilermakers and Steamfitters were all over the place so I am led to believe that origianlly it was compression and steam, but that was Phase 1.
I am sure Phase 4 is where they're at right now, but the original goal was clean burning coal and the process was suppose to take 15-20 years, so we're close to that goal.
I have a retired Steamfitter Bro who lives in Lovelock right by there so I shall give me a holler.

I try to tell friends about how Nevada is 92% Federally owned land and they can do anyrthing they want out here.
I poured Concrete at Fallon Naval Air Station in a really weird large runway that was ringed with massive rounded rusty Iron edges, and had triple Mats of rebar w/ Dowel baskets and 32 inches deep.
Years later I found out it hydaulically comes out of the ground 8 feet and shifts violently left to right, to emulate an Aircraft carrier in a bad storm, and these guys practice touch and go....... >8o 

Yucca Mountain, Area 51, there are dozens more of secret facilitiesl I don't even know about where workers from out of State come and live in bunkers and aren't allowed to leave, etc.

There;s lots of stuff here, and we are not privvy to it's use or existance.

But I really do love seeing this kind of stuff, as a taxpayer I get really excited watching squadrons of Ospreys and F22's streaking across the sky..............

That's what taxes are for IMHO, not some silly Solar Panel company that is 5 times more expensive than the CHinese make, and inefficient and riddled with elitist corruption.

But alternative energy with the right politicians are all the USA needs to get back to living up to its reputation.
When Government and Private industry work together and keep the Congressional members form corrupting the process we can really make great advances..

Just look at Skunkworks, the Hoover Dam, even the St.Louis Arch.
Why we have become such a black/white, yes/no, left/right type of society is beyond me. That benefits the status quo, nothing else.

I am sending my son to technical school where engineering and clean energy are the focus. Right now we only have 320,000 people in the USA working in the field. !00,000 of them are in California alone.
I saw the pink clouds disappears from 1966-1973 as I looked down from Deep Creek by Arrowhead.
So I know California will be jumping with venture capitaists and govenrment backing soon.
I expect the most dangerous types of facilities will be in the land of DOE here in Nevada, as they can get away with murder here, and satellites can;t view the massive underground facilities they have here.

Bring it on quickly, but elites must not be allowed to have familiy or freinds as investors. We almost ruined our chances by having such crony fake wealthy elites involved in the profiteering, that was suppose to happen.


----------



## sbkp (Nov 7, 2011)

rgames @ Mon Nov 07 said:


> If you buy solar panels and reduce your energy consumption by 10% then great. If I cut my energy use by 25% via some other means then haven't I had a bigger impact?



I'm not sure of the exact meaning of your question, but...

If I use 10% less energy and the 90% I'm still using comes from solar, and...

If you use 25% less energy and the 75% you're still using comes from coal or oil, then...

I've had the bigger impact. 

But I'm not sure that was your scenario. Were you positing that I get 10% of my energy from solar vs you using 25% less energy altogether and both of us getting the remaining portion from dirty fuels? Then sure... you have had a bigger impact.

But I don't know anyone who would get a photovoltaic system for the sake of saving 10% on their electric bill.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Nov 7, 2011)

The Scientific American article obscures a key point. The reduction in cost isn't because the process improves. It's because more and more capacity is built. 

That chart that shows the technological improvements in the lab is unrelated to the market. Yes, researchers discover more and more efficient (watt per area) technologies, but the stuff you actually buy is some of the least efficient stuff. Watt per dollar is all that matters in the market. We put the cheap stuff on our roofs.

Solyndra's failure wasn't that their technology wasn't up to snuff. It was due to ever more capacity from China along with an artificially low exchange rate. Heck, Solyndra might have delivered more watts per square foot, but it means nothing if they deliver fewer watts per dollar.

It would be like trying to manufacture a high volume, $20 Christmas toy in the US. It wouldn't fail because of technology. It would fail because we have a non-level playing field.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 7, 2011)

My instinct is that all of the above is important: technology/efficiency, the economy of scale, cheap Chinese manufacturing/artificially low currency, and - as Krugman is saying - massive quasi-hidden subsidies for conventional fuel.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 7, 2011)

And I guess I should elaborate why Richard misses the point. Yes of course conservation is the low-hanging fruit. But you can break every single transaction on the planet down to an exchange of energy; in reality we're never going to be using less, we're always going to continue using more and more.

And we're near the end of the oil age whether we like it or not. So by all means conserve, recycle, and have fewer kids; but there's no getting around the fact that we need to figure out the next energy economy, and it's better to do it while there's still time. It's going to take everything we have to make it happen - politically/economically and technologically.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 7, 2011)

Well we could drill for Oil for decades still, but the age of people tolerating it's poisonous after effects is at an end.
I still think Big Oil will keep production rolling along as it converts over to alternative energy.
My mother is very old but sharp as a Tack and graduated Los Angelos High ( Walt Whitman Room 222 ... :mrgreen: ), was so popular of an Italian gal that the Pachuca gals protected her.
But during her Fashion Design career with Edith Head ( GOne With The Wind ) she saw nylons that a fingernail file couldn't pierce, and my Grandpas' Model T could burn leftover Vegetable Oil as fuel since during WW2 Gasoline was scarce once you left LA and went to Gallup or Salt Lake.
So I know the Feds have already got something in the works that's years ahead of China or Europe ( no offense ).
Over here the military has the best of everything, the most money, brightest scientists, NASA, you name it, they got it.
So all that is left is for Auto manufacturers to convert over to natural Gas or Hydrogen, and Clean Coal burning is so perfect for us since we have more Coal and Natural Gas than entire continents.
We just need the right leaders again to unite everyone and inspire the painful changeover that MUST take place.

When Obama took office Nevadans were watching water already so we were used to conservatisim ( not the GOP version ) so many starting taking the Natural Gas Busses, and to tell you the truth they're cheap, and fun.
I love taking the little miniature Jagermeister bottles and freezing them for the trip home. See someone you know or a fine babe and you're in like flint.

So we are not helpless and destitude as people would like us to believe we are.
We can start doing this right now. I actually thought Obama was going to, but perhaps we need a better economic foothold.
But Americans felt guilty about being the hogs of the world and reading about it and actually did something.
There are so many bike paths and busses here in Vegas, only the morons drive on the strip...

Anyways, Bring it on....

My Mom says we already did this during WW2, so cowboy up and get ready cause it's coming soon...
I believe this because the Military is already using such fuels.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 7, 2011)

> So I know the Feds have already got something in the works that's years ahead of China or Europe ( no offense ).



Really?


----------



## rgames (Nov 7, 2011)

sbkp @ Mon Nov 07 said:


> rgames @ Mon Nov 07 said:
> 
> 
> > If you buy solar panels and reduce your energy consumption by 10% then great. If I cut my energy use by 25% via some other means then haven't I had a bigger impact?
> ...


It's very simple.

Let's say we both start off with a carbon footprint of 100 units.

You go solar and reduce yours to 90 units. I cut consumption and reduce mine to 75 units.

If you want to incentivize environmentally friendly behavior, which should you reward?

Obviously you reward the person with the smaller carbon footprint. But right now that's not what we're rewarding. We reward people for buying in to fads regardless of the actual impact on the environment, primarily because they're driven by companies who make huge amounts of money off of people's good intentions.

You're highlighting the problem: people think that because they buy in to a fad that they're doing something better. In fact, there are almost always better ways than those that become fads.

The fads are driven by the profit motive: haven't you noticed that the fads (and tax incentives) require you to BUY something new? Why do you think that is? Who do you think is driving that requirement? People who really care about the environment? No way.

Here's another example I love to give: when the Prius craze started, a number of my friends bought them and, of course, began bragging about how environmentally friendly they had become. Then they got quiet when I pointed out this fact: one guy was driving about 90 miles a day. At 45 miles per gallon he was burning 2 gallons of gas each day. I, in my gas-guzzler SUV, positioned my lifestyle so that I was averaging about 8 miles a day. At 16 miles per gallon, I was burning about 1/2 gallon of gas a day. That's right, by choosing to cut consumption (rather than buying in to the Prius fad), I was FOUR TIMES more environmentally friendly than my holier-than-thou-because-I-drive-a-Prius buddy.

And he got the tax break. There's a word for that: stupid.

Again, it's very simple: cut consumption. Sure, you can do it by buying solar panels and a Prius, but understand that there are approaches that have a MUCH larger impact. So if you're serious about your commitment to the environment, do those first.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 7, 2011)

And if you bought a Prius you would be consuming far less. The point of the tax break is to encourage people to buy electric or hybrid cars in order to create a market for them. If your friend is holier than thou that's a separate issue.


----------



## Udo (Nov 7, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Nov 08 said:


> > So I know the Feds have already got something in the works that's years ahead of China or Europe ( no offense ).
> 
> 
> 
> Really?


IF that is in fact the case, it's mainly because of imported talent. Foreign-born and educated researchers are disproportionately influential in US science, particularly in the physical sciences. 

Routinely, well over 60% of the most-cited authors and well over 50% of the citation classics are from foreign-born researchers.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Nov 8, 2011)

rgames @ Mon Nov 07 said:


> The smart thing is to use less energy regardless of how you do it.



So wouldn't that make driving a more efficient car the smart thing as opposed to "nonsense" or "a fad"?

And wouldn't carpooling, driving less, AND using a more efficient care use less energy?



rgames @ Mon Nov 07 said:


> If I have a bigger impact on the environment, then shouldn't I get the bigger reward?



It depends. A big reduction could either mean someone is being extremely efficient with their energy use, or it could mean that they used to be incredibly wasteful and brought their energy use into line with everyone else. And different people have different needs. It would be great to reward all manner of lower energy use but I'm not sure how that would be quantified. Would it really make sense to just reward people who happen to live closer to where they work (or have less traffic)? Or favor people who live in moderate climates over those who live somewhere very cold that actually requires using more energy to maintain a livable temperature?

If you can think of a way to reward reductions in energy use that makes sense, I'd love to hear it.

You also seem to be convinced that you're saving way more energy than other people but based on what you've posted I'm skeptical that's true (or that you even have the information to make a claim like 25%).



rgames @ Mon Nov 07 said:


> Are we trying to incentivize people to go green or are we trying to incentivize people to buy some manufacturer's products? The answer right now is the latter.



I'm not sure why you think the two are mutually exclusive. And there's nothing stopping every car company from making more fuel efficient cars, if they're not taking advantage of the situation (which includes the subsidy). Just because some theoretical situation may save more energy doesn't negate the fact that things like hybrid cars DO save energy.

Really it seems like your complaint is about the subsidies, you haven't made any argument against the hybrid cars or solar panels themselves.



rgames @ Mon Nov 07 said:


> I, in my gas-guzzler SUV...



So what's your justification for driving that? If you do believe that using less energy is a good thing, why wouldn't you consume even less energy with a more efficient vehicle?


----------



## rgames (Nov 8, 2011)

Like I said, you certainly can cut consumption by buying a Prius or solar panels. However, the incentive should be based on your consumption, not on whether you buy a Prius or solar panels.

*Don't reward the process - reward the outcome.*

If you adjust your lifestyle by buying a Prius and installing solar panels and your carbon footprint is 100 units, you get a tax subsidy.

If I adjust my lifestyle in some other ways and my carbon footprint is 50 units, I get no tax subsidy.

Explain to me how that's not stupid.

You can't get away from the fact that the current incentives are driven by lobbies, not actual environmental impact.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Nov 8, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Nov 07 said:


> And if you bought a Prius you would be consuming far less.


And if I buy an 88 Civic or a moped I could do even better than that.

Any tax subsidies for those options?

(Answer: no)

See the light yet?

rgames


----------



## JonFairhurst (Nov 8, 2011)

So Richard, you're saying that you own an SUV and compensate for it by driving very little, or do you drive as much as the average person, meaning that it's a theoretical situation?

BTW, there is a great way to incentive the result - raise the tax on gasoline. By a lot. The person who drives their SUV very little will avoid the tax. The person who drives a hybrid a ton pays the tax.

Gas taxes ideally pay for roads. Those who buy the most gas put the most wear and tear on the roads, whether it be a light vehicle that drives many miles or a heavy vehicle that drives few.

It's the ideal tax.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 8, 2011)

Richard, your fingers are robbing your brain. This is the sentence after the one you quoted:



> The point of the tax break is to encourage people to buy electric or hybrid cars in order to create a market for them.



It really does make economic sense. But I agree with Jon too.


----------



## rgames (Nov 8, 2011)

Agree on the gas tax, though tax increases are always a tougher sell than tax credits. So, politically, it's a solution that's harder to implement.

I drive my SUV more now since I moved to Tucson a few years ago but the 8 mile number was correct for the 7 years I was living in Virginia. I hate spending money on cars so I drive them until they completely fall apart, and my 11-year-old Explorer ain't there yet. So I still have it and am less environmentally friendly than I was 

However: though I drive a bit more now, my wife drives a lot less. We also use a lot less household energy, so we collectively reduced our carbon footprint. Still not getting any tax benefits, though...

rgames


----------



## rgames (Nov 8, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Nov 08 said:


> Richard, your fingers are robbing your brain. This is the sentence after the one you quoted:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So why not use tax breaks to create a market for 88 Civics and mopeds?

Better yet, what about the people who abandon their vehicles altogether? What tax incentives do they have?

Is the purpose to reduce consumption or to cater to the lobbies?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 8, 2011)

Again: the purpose is to subsidize and encourage development of electric and hybrid vehicles!


----------



## robh (Nov 8, 2011)

rgames @ Tue Nov 08 said:


> Better yet, what about the people who abandon their vehicles altogether? What tax incentives do they have?


They won't be paying *any* tax on a new vehicle. 

Rob


----------



## rgames (Nov 8, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Nov 08 said:


> Again: the purpose is to subsidize and encourage development of electric and hybrid vehicles!


I think you're missing the point - what about non-electric and non-hybrid vehicles that get better gas mileage than the Prius?

Don't they count?

Also, the electric car is probably still burning coal at the power plant. It moves the source of the greenhouse gases but I'm not sure it's actually reducing them. Again, though, there's the fad thing: if you can pass the blame to someone else then you're free and clear, right?

However, if you can power your car from the solar panels on your house, that's something! Doubt it, though...

Honestly, though, I doubt that cars are responsible for as much environmental impact as, say, houses, buildings, factories, power plants, etc. I haven't done the math but my gut says vehicle emissions aren't the biggest problem. Actually, given the energy consumed by buildings, I doubt they're even in the top few.

EDIT: http://climate.dot.gov/about/transportations-role/overview.html (http://climate.dot.gov/about/transporta ... rview.html)

About 17% of emissions come from passenger vehicles. 33% comes from power plants, 20% from industrial sources.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 8, 2011)

The part about burning coal is an old argument: electricity is still cleaner even in areas that use coal-fired power plants.

And the other point is the one *you're* missing. No, gas cars that get better mileage don't count as far as a subsidy for electric vehicles is concerned. Gas is already subsidized heavily, and your reward is a lower bill at the pump.

Gas is taxed much higher in Europe, by the way, and as a result they have a much smaller fleet.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Nov 8, 2011)

rgames @ Tue Nov 08 said:


> Also, the electric car is probably still burning coal at the power plant.



Not so much up here in the Pacific Northwest. The Columbia River and wind power supply a good deal of our power. And in California, a lot of power comes from Natural Gas. Not that there's zero coal out west, but it's not as big out here as in the Southeast.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Nov 9, 2011)

rgames @ Tue Nov 08 said:


> If you adjust your lifestyle by buying a Prius and installing solar panels and your carbon footprint is 100 units, you get a tax subsidy.
> 
> If I adjust my lifestyle in some other ways and my carbon footprint is 50 units, I get no tax subsidy.
> 
> Explain to me how that's not stupid.



How would you propose measuring your carbon footprint in order to give you that subsidy? Not to mention figuring out how much of that is due to "adjusting your lifestyle" and how much is due to what your circumstances happen to be. Unless you favor subsidizing things like living in a milder climate. As people have pointed out, high fuel taxes do incentivize based on total use.

The government is trying to incentivize the positive behaviors they can. I'd definitely support subsidizing other positive behaviors, the trick is figuring out how to do that. But I don't see the logic behind opposing doing a good thing based on not doing other good things.



rgames @ Tue Nov 08 said:


> You can't get away from the fact that the current incentives are driven by lobbies, not actual environmental impact.



If a person switches from an SUV that gets 16MPG to a hybrid that gets 45, they are using a third the gas. How is that not actual environmental impact? Or are you just arguing that doing a good thing is bad if it's done for the wrong motivation?



rgames @ Tue Nov 08 said:


> I drive my SUV more now since I moved to Tucson a few years ago but the 8 mile number was correct for the 7 years I was living in Virginia.



It's telling that you had to cherry pick a situation to use as an example instead of your actual current situation.



rgames @ Tue Nov 08 said:


> I think you're missing the point - what about non-electric and non-hybrid vehicles that get better gas mileage than the Prius?
> 
> Don't they count?



I'd totally support incentives for high mileage vehicles other then hybrid and electric. But for the most part those cars are old ones and there are significant differences from most current cars. For one those cars scored extremely low in safety ratings, and often didn't include things like airbags, power steering, power brakes etc. And for the most part those older cars with the highest mileage only held two passengers, which isn't an option for some drivers. Things like hybrid technology allow improvements in fuel efficiency without having to sacrifice other things (although I do think it makes sense to do it along with other tweaks). I wouldn't be surprised the '88 civic could get even better mileage with the same design but a hybrid engine.


----------



## rgames (Nov 9, 2011)

Mike Connelly @ Wed Nov 09 said:


> If a person switches from an SUV that gets 16MPG to a hybrid that gets 45, they are using a third the gas.



If a person switches from an SUV that gets 16 MPG to a hybrid that gets 45 MPG and adjusts his lifestyle so he drives a lot more then there's a good chance he's had zero net effect.

If a person adjusts his lifestyle to drive his 16 MPG SUV a lot less, then he could very well be having a much larger positive impact than the person who buys the hybrid and drives the same amount.

Again: *focus on the outcome, not on the process.*

Buying a hybrid CAN have a positive effect. So can a lot of other things. Why reward only the hybrid?

Tracking it all is very easy: if you want to opt-in to the tax incentive program then you send along your odometer reading and power meter reading at the end of every year along with your tax return. The gov't then looks at what kind of vehicle you drive and what type of power you use to compute your carbon footprint. The lower your carbon footprint, the larger your tax credit. Very simple.

Again, the metric should be your consumption, not whether you buy a hybrid or solar panels because it's entirely possible to do both and have very little positive effect.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 9, 2011)

When someone says the same thing over and over it means he has nothing else to say. And you continue to conflate two separate issues; the only difference in your last post is that you put it in bold.

So let me say the same thing over again another redundant time in addition to the last times in a repeated attempt to penetrate the fortress: all these promising energy technologies on the horizon need subsidizing while they're being developed in order to have any hope of competing with conventional energy sources.

The consumption metric is a separate issue. This is about the economy of scale; when more people by something it becomes cheaper, and tax breaks encourage more people to buy electric cars and solar panels.

If you want to *focus on the outcome* then you have to look at the longer-term outcome. Conserving oil is great, but it's not leading to the next energy economy.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Nov 9, 2011)

rgames @ Wed Nov 09 said:


> If a person switches from an SUV that gets 16 MPG to a hybrid that gets 45 MPG and adjusts his lifestyle so he drives a lot more then there's a good chance he's had zero net effect.



And what reason is there to believe that the typical driver would triple their amount of driving when they get a hybrid car? Seems like you're more concerned with imagining hypothetical situations than what actually takes place in the real world.



rgames @ Wed Nov 09 said:


> Buying a hybrid CAN have a positive effect. So can a lot of other things. Why reward only the hybrid?



I agree that it would be good to reward lower energy use in other ways. The hybrid is just an easier thing to quantify. I don't really get your complaint about incentivizing hybrids, really your beef is that there aren't more incentives. Unless it's just sour grapes and you feel like if you can't get a tax break, nobody else should either.



rgames @ Wed Nov 09 said:


> Tracking it all is very easy: if you want to opt-in to the tax incentive program then you send along your odometer reading and power meter reading at the end of every year along with your tax return. The gov't then looks at what kind of vehicle you drive and what type of power you use to compute your carbon footprint. The lower your carbon footprint, the larger your tax credit. Very simple.



That's a start. But what about people who own multiple cars, isn't there potential for fraud by sending in the mileage of one/some and leaving out the ones driven most? Doesn't it ignore things like people who don't own a car but take cabs everywhere instead? Rental cars? In the case of a family do you divide the power use by the number of family members? Or just those who have a drivers license? And it totally ignores other means of transportation, someone might drive very little but do a ton of flying, should that be considered as well?

Even if that is all worked out, are you really incentivizing habits or just rewarding people who happen to live in a moderate climate or happen to live closer to the places they need to go?

Basically what you propose is just a more complicated way of charging people more for gas and electricity. Wouldn't it be simpler to get the same result by just raising fuel taxes (and phasing out subsidies and tax breaks for fossil fuels)?

As Ned said, the subsidy isn't just about encouraging people to use more energy efficient products, when that use goes up the economy of scale goes up and those technologies become cheaper. Best case scenario is that eventually virtually all vehicles sold are hybrid (or something similarly efficient), and we should get there sooner with that sort of incentive.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Nov 9, 2011)

Waldo used to own a hybrid car. He sold it to buy a large SUV. He adjusted his lifestyle by driving less than a third as much as he did before, since buying his inefficient SUV.

Where's Waldo?

I doubt that any of us has ever met this Waldo guy.

And Nick is right. If there are lots of Waldos, the sales volume of SUVs went up, companies invest more in SUVs and less in hybrids, and over time, average consumers (who don't radically change their lifestyles) will find more, cheaper SUVs on the market and fewer, more expensive hybrids on the market.

If you want *RESULTS* in aggregate, give tax credits and incentive to the production and/or the purchase of efficient vehicles. The key is to find out where the money will have the most effect - to the manufacturers, the dealers, or the buyers. 

Can it work? Hell yeah. Just ask me about TV energy efficiency...


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 9, 2011)

I heard that Sharp TV has some really Sharp guys working there, ....no pun intended.

What about Carbon credits.......? 
I'd love to accumulate some of those for lowering my footprint.
And then maybe some pictures of starving peasants in Somalia planting trees to offset my use....  
Boy I'd feel so much better then. I feel so guilty now I take a Bus, ride a bike, and force my family to take at least 8 urinations, and four large dumps in the toilet before we flush.

Now that I have had my fun, I too look forward to seeing some of the technology our military is using like the Solar powered silent drones, bio fueled tanks, and other alternative fuels hit the market place.
I do love my ancient F250, but I really would like to get a tax break and buy a hybrid, but so far I see nothing but crap from GM.
Tesla looks really cool, but 100k for a car is for the Hollywood and DC elites.
50k for something that looks as cool as the new Cadillacs and I'll be all in.
I no longer have big racks of gear. Solaris, a laptop for Kontakt, the XITE-1, and SE-1 all in a small SBK Studio 4U laptop Case.
So add my new Mackie THumps and I can fill the back seat and passenger side front seat, and feel quite chic, and sound great doing it too....


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 9, 2011)

You should definitely get a tax break for micturation:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0818_050818_urinebattery.html (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ttery.html)


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 9, 2011)

:mrgreen: 
Alternative definately has it's advantages....
We could teach our pets to urinate that way too, and who knows maybe Urine will save the Planet...
I piss alot because I drink 2 gallons of water a day, just think if I could recycle that into a fuel tank and drive, that's be a great patent.

Makes me mad thinking of all the urine I wasted pissing off of my front porch at night.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Nov 9, 2011)

Regarding TVs, we developed a consensus test procedure from IEC for TV On Mode power consumption. It was formally published in October 2008. I was the project leader for the IEC effort and edited the DVDs and Blu-ray Disc that are used as the standard test material. It was dubbed the "World's Most Boring TV Show." Manufacturers, environmental groups, and polcymakers were all involved in developing the standard and submitted it for vote with 100% consensus. It received zero negative votes at the international level.

Here's an article released a year before publication...
http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/23628/print

EPA Energy Star released their version 3.0 TV specification the same month as the IEC standard was published. Energy Star is a voluntary program that allows efficient products to affix the Energy Star logo to products, manuals, boxes, websites, etc. It is required for products sold to the federal government and some other large institutions. It's administered in the US, but there are Energy Star programs worldwide. Manufacturers are strongly motivated to have their products qualify.

The Energy Star program goal is to have 25% of products qualify when a spec is released. Back in 2008 the data showed that by setting the curve so that a 50-inch TV was allowed 318W, 25% of models would qualify. That allowed 0.30 W/in2.

Fast forward three years. We are now at version 5.3. TV efficiency increased so quickly that the limit for all TVs 50 inches and above is 108W.

My employer, SHARP, recently released an 80-inch TV. It consumes 97W and costs $22 per year to operate according to FTC's EnergyGuide program. To get it into the EPA database, the product is tested by a 3rd party and the number is entered by a Certification Body. The LC-80LE632U uses 0.0355 W/in2. That's 8.5 times as efficient as the Energy Star limit for a 50-inch TV only three years ago.

The keys were having an accurate test method, an incentive for manufacturers, and vibrant competition in a fast-moving sector. (New models are generally released every year.) Before we had the international test method and an incentive program, manufacturers didn't pay much attention to energy efficiency. The spec and program released in October 2008 transformed the TV world.


----------



## rgames (Nov 9, 2011)

I repeat myself in the hopes that I can make people understand that climate science doesn't care if you drive a Prius.

It cares how much CO2 you dump into the atmosphere.

When science battles pop culture, it is true that pop culture usually wins. But most of us with backgrounds in the sciences refuse to give up the fight.

You'll thank us later 

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 9, 2011)

Oy freaking veh. You are completely hopeless.

Do you really not understand that we need to move past the ICE? This has nothing to do with trendy people whose affect you don't care for, it has to do with creating a market for next-gen cars.

Several people, myself included, have repeatedly acknowledged your point about conservation producing less CO2. What's hard to understand is why you are incapable of understanding the thought that follows that: but we need to develop the next energy economy, and it won't be oil-based!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 9, 2011)

Jon, did the improvement in LCDs vs. plasma also have a big effect on TV efficiency? That's not rhetorical, it's a question.


----------



## Diffusor (Nov 9, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Nov 09 said:


> Oy freaking veh. You are completely hopeless.
> 
> Do you really not understand that we need to move past the ICE? This has nothing to do with trendy people whose affect you don't care for, it has to do with creating a market for next-gen cars.
> 
> Several people, myself included, have repeatedly acknowledged your point about conservation producing less CO2. What's hard to understand is why you are incapable of understanding the thought that follows that: but we need to develop the next energy economy, and it won't be oil-based!



Oil will be with us for a long time coming I am afraid.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 9, 2011)

Well, we're going to run out of cheap oil at some point.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Nov 10, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Nov 09 said:


> Jon, did the improvement in LCDs vs. plasma also have a big effect on TV efficiency?



Both LCD TVs and Plasma TVs have improved. Initially, people saw plasmas as being less efficient, but that was largely due to the larger sizes of plasma TVs at the time. You need more power to light more area, and area increases at the square of the size. So the 50-inch, 500W plasma was a real heater, while 100W 22" LCDs seemed more efficient. From a watt per area standpoint, they were about the same.

The big improvement for LCD TVs came from the move from CCFL to LED backlighting. But there are also independent improvements in electronics, etching, color filters, and on and on. PDPs (plasma) are more vertically integrated. While they've improved strongly, they haven't improved as quickly as LCD.

FWIW, as of the October 15th EPA database, SHARP had the 11 most efficient TVs - all LED LCDs. 

And rather than taking a performance hit with efficiency, performance continues to improve. The 60-inch Elite model won this year's HDTV shootout - the first year that an LCD beat plasma in that contest. It takes 75.3W and is amazingly bright. Performance wise, it simply stomps the LCDs that came before.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-20 ... -shootout/

(BTW, the color issues mentioned in the article have been resolved by my colleagues. I've seen the results.)

Efficiency in the TV market has undergone an amazing - and under-reported - transformation.

Note that the transformation was achieved at the product level with testing and Energy Star incentives. It had nothing to do with how much any one individual consumed energy or generated CO2.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 11, 2011)

Well whoever controls Fossil Fuels for the next 40 years will still have a major part in how the real world works.
We need to lead in Alternative Energy but cannot kill off our resources we still need until that time.
Canada recently dumped Billions into the Oil Sands project where we were to build a pipeline across the US. and at least help kiss the Middle East Oil goodbye, but Soros...............ooops.................I mean Obama decided not only to screw over the Canadians, but Americans who need jobs, our own self reliance, and guess who will come in and buy the project since Obama is frozen by fear of angering the Enviromentalists....?
Looks like China would be happy to sell us our Oil now and Alternative Energy needs.
We have a troubling economy, but the most dangerous thing I see in the USA is the campaign kicking off 1 1/2 years early, and causing these wealthy Liberals to screw over the American working man once again.....

Obama has to be working for the Chinese through George Soros.........
We have purposely bancrupted several Green Energy projects, where China is more than happy to fill the void, we borrow insane amounts of money, 1.8 trillion so far, now we let them walk in after pissing off another allie and take the Oil we are sure to be purchasing now from the CHinese....

My God what in the hell is wrong with Professors and Lawyers that infest our capital....?

I look at the GOP and shake my head in disgust but at least they seem to like their Country........

Give me anyone other than Obama and Soros in 2012................


----------



## JonFairhurst (Nov 11, 2011)

I have a question... why does the pipeline need to bring Canadian oil to Texas? Why not put a refinery in the Midwest and ship it via the Mississippi River or Great Lakes? Those would be jobs too.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 11, 2011)

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... YjnqN1L6TA

It's a Bush thing probably, with Haliburton and other DC powerbrokers.

I know for a fact that Oil comes up the Mississppi and the last leg back is full of Coal.
I'm from St.Louis originally so I go back every year and in the Arch 2 years ago I counted 60+ Barges packed with Coal waiting to go downstream.
They have to space 2-3 miles.

Also when visiting Nashville I fish in the Tennessee River up by Murray, KY. and I never saw so many triple barge Coal runners before.
China buys so much Coal from us and their cities are incredibly polluted from burning it. They need that 3 Gorges Dam badly, but even then it will only supply so much power, they'll still need Coal and Oil.

This is why I believe we will make a fortune with them when our Clean Coal buring reaches its final phase.
But the idea of Oil going to Texas tells me that USA/Canada plans on exporting.
I'd love nothing more than to see Venezuela and the Middle East beg for customers.
We need Alternative energy no doubt, but freedom from the shieks and the freaks is more important to me.

It's their Oil that has our troops all over the Middle East. We should have never become so dependant on foreign energy. I'd love to bring everybody home and use the trillions from Wars and shipping Middle Eastern Oil on alternative energy right here at home.

If Trumpka was for the working man like he claims, he'd be all over these EPA activists and put 20,000 of his guys to work.
This is why I believe we owe China so much money, that they now dictate what our leaders do..............it's the only answer I can think of and it makes me sick just thinking about it.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Nov 14, 2011)

rgames @ Wed Nov 09 said:


> I repeat myself in the hopes that I can make people understand that climate science doesn't care if you drive a Prius.
> 
> It cares how much CO2 you dump into the atmosphere.



And if all else being equal, a Prius dumps less CO2, it seems it would care if you drive a prius.




rgames @ Wed Nov 09 said:


> But most of us with backgrounds in the sciences...



Science? You don't dispute that hybrid cars get better mileage than the vast majority of most other cars (certainly not ones of comparable size and function). Nor do you dispute that incentives encourage people to switch to more efficient cars. You just seem to be mad that there's no incentive for things you think you happen to do, like driving less, and have sour grapes about it.


----------



## rgames (Nov 16, 2011)

It's not sour grapes, it's annoyance at the lack of rational thought. If you want to save the environment, doesn't it make sense to figure out what matters to the environment?

One last attempt trying to explain that the Prius part doesn't matter. This time we'll do as you suggest and assume that everyone buys the environmentally friendly car. You'll see that it doesn't matter.

Three people currently drive about 50 miles a day in cars that get 25 MPG, so right now they're all burning 2 gallons per day. They all decide they want to be more environmentally friendly, so each makes changes to do so. Person A and Person B both buy a Prius (so they get a tax credit). Person C buys an 88 Civic or some other non-lobby-supported car that gets the same gas mileage as a Prius (let's assume it's 50 miles per gallon).

Person A continues driving 50 miles a day. So he's burning about 1 gallon of gas per day. And he gets a tax credit.

Person B decides that since he's so environmentally friendly, he can finally buy that really nice house way out in the suburbs, so he's now driving 100 miles a day. No problem, though, because he's now driving a Prius, right? So he's burning about 2 gallons of gas per day. And he gets a tax credit.

Person C decides to move to a location that drops his total driving to about 5 miles per day. So he's burning 0.1 gallon of gas per day. Surely he gets a tax credit, right? Ummm.... nope.

So here's what you have:

Person A: 1 gallon per day, tax credit.
Person B: 2 gallons per day, tax credit.
Person C: 0.1 gallon per day, no tax credit.

Per your argument, they've all bought the environmentally friendly car, right? So the incentives are doing what they're supposed to, right? Nope. Not even close. In fact, the worst polluter is the one who bought the Prius: he's producing 20 times more pollutants than the guy who gets no tax credit. That's stupid.

Even if person C had *not* purchased the environmentally friendly car, he'd still be burning only 0.2 gallons per day in his old (environmentally unfriendly) car. So he's still 5x better than Person A and 10x better than Person B.

So there you have it: the car is only a *tiny* piece of the benefit to the environment. Therefore, incentivzing the choice of car rather than other factors is not a logical choice from the standpoint of environmental impact.

QED

The incentives as currently constructed don't make sense if your goal is to convince people to be environmentally responsible. The incentives are in place to line the pockets of the auto companies.

So, no, I don't care if you drive a Prius. The environment doesn't care, either. I suggest we listen to the environment, not the auto lobbies 

rgames


----------



## Dan Selby (Nov 16, 2011)

Richard, that really is such a silly and disingenuous post. You pick out of the air totally unconvincing starting conditions, with no supporting evidence, in order that it plays out to support your position. Person B makes a purchasing decision on a HOUSE based on the fact that they've also bought a Prius? They were holding back from buying a house because they were concerned that their car wasn't economical enough? Really? You are presenting this as a likely and typical scenario?

You have also, again, *completely ignored* the responses you've received (from Nick and others), acknowledging your point on the importance of energy usage reduction but saying that the tax credit on hybrid vehicles is in large part there to help create and speed the transition to hybrid and electric vehicles. If you wish to reduce a nation's carbon output associated with transport, most people would suggest that incentivising people to buy '88 Civics is not a long-term viable solution - switching to EVs is.

Is a tax credit on purchases of hybrids the silver bullet? Of course not. Could/should there be other tax levers? Obviously. But if you are p'ed off because the tax system isn't 100% "fair" based upon each individual's personal carbon output then... welcome to the real world. The tax system is a clumsy and blunt instrument and the best you can hope to achieve is behaviour changes across a society.


----------



## rgames (Nov 16, 2011)

As I said, it's not about fairness, it's about stupidity. The current incentive system is stupid. Plus, because it's a tax subsidy, I'm being forced to pay for that stupidity!

As shown in the example above, 80% of the benefit is obtained by reducing consumption (comparing A and C). Another 10% benefit is obtained by buying a hybrid. Yet the current incentives acknowledge only the 10% benefit and ignore the 80% benefit. There's no way to rationalize that fact, unless you're an auto manufacturer.

If you want to treat heart disease in a patient and 80% of the benefit is obtained through Activity A and another 10% benefit is obtained through Activity B, are you going to focus on Activity B? Of course not - you place the focus commensurate with the likely effect. (Unless, of course, you're the pharmaceutical company that sells the 10% solution.)

The examples I give are arbitrary but you can generalize them any way you want. You'll always come to the same conclusion: if you're concerned about the environment, there are much better ways to go green than buying a hybrid. Yet that is the only way that is currently incentivized.

rgames


----------



## Dan Selby (Nov 16, 2011)

Just so it's clear, it's the *second paragraph in my reply* to you which is important and which you have again ignored. There is a bigger picture.

As to the other stuff you keep banging on about (which nobody is arguing with): yes, petrol duty is too low in your country, yes to incentives/subsidies to home insulation, ditto incentives for companies to encourage teleworking, flexible working hours so people aren't gridlocking the roads all at the same time, better public transport.

And if you can come up with sensible, workable and demonstrably effective ways to incentivise people to drive less and live closer to their places of work (other than fuel duty, which is the most obvious) then I'll have a portion of that too please.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Nov 16, 2011)

rgames @ Wed Nov 16 said:


> Person C buys an 88 Civic



Sure, that's a good thing as well but there are a finite number of 88 civics out there, aren't there? Not to mention that it's not nearly as safe as newer cars, including ones that get similar mileage.



rgames @ Wed Nov 16 said:


> Person B decides that since he's so environmentally friendly...



Straw man argument, of course you can invent imaginary scenarios in which people doing one good thing are doing a worse bad one.



rgames @ Wed Nov 16 said:


> Person C decides to move to a location that drops his total driving to about 5 miles per day. So he's burning 0.1 gallon of gas per day. Surely he gets a tax credit, right?



A tax credit for driving less would be nice but how would you implement it? This was discussed above, you could do a credit for low mileage but how to do it without it being overly complex and inclined to fraud? And actually a measure of low fuel use overall? Also, moving closer simply isn't an option for many people - rather than incentivizing, it seems like this would just reward those who happen to live close (or in areas where things happen to be close together). Seems very unlikely to actually change behavior. But if you do think of a way that makes sense, I'll completely support it.

Don't forget, if he's using that little gas he IS paying much less in gas taxes, so there is an incentive that way.



rgames @ Wed Nov 16 said:


> So the incentives are doing what they're supposed to, right?



Well, yeah. All else being equal, the incentives are encouraging people to buy more fuel efficient cars which actually do use less fuel. The only exception is the ridiculous hypothetical of a guy moving 50 miles further away BECAUSE he gets better mileage (which by your logic would be equally likely for the guy buying the 88 civic). The only downside would be if efficiency CAUSED more driving and you've shown no evidence of that.

Let's look at it another way and add up the total numbers.

Originally the three guys used six gallons of gas a day.
After buying new cars they're using a total of 3.1 gallons, just about half as much.

Even if you ignore the 88 civic and just look at the two Prius drivers, it went from 4 gallons to 3. So yeah, even in the most laughable example of half of the sample pool DOUBLING their mileage, your example still shows a reduction of 25%



rgames @ Wed Nov 16 said:


> So there you have it: the car is only a *tiny* piece of the benefit to the environment.



Based on an imaginary guy who only drives five miles a day? Sure, that's a slam dunk argument.



rgames @ Wed Nov 16 said:


> Therefore, incentivizing the choice of car rather than other factors is not a logical choice from the standpoint of environmental impact.



Why would incentivizing various things be mutually exclusive? Just because (you think) something else would save more energy that's no reason not to incentivize something that does save energy.



rgames @ Wed Nov 16 said:


> The incentives as currently constructed don't make sense if your goal is to convince people to be environmentally responsible.



But when people switch to more efficient cars, that IS saving gas. Which you just showed in your example. It is encouraging people to be environmentally responsible. Sure, there are other ways to be that as well, and maybe some make a bigger difference, but that doesn't change the fact that it is accomplishing what it set out to do.



rgames @ Wed Nov 16 said:


> So, no, I don't care if you drive a Prius. The environment doesn't care, either.



As I said before, if the result of driving a prius is a significant reduction in gas use, wouldn't you think the environment would care?



rgames @ Wed Nov 16 said:


> Plus, because it's a tax subsidy, I'm being forced to pay for that stupidity!



And yet if you want 88 civics and low usage subsidized, you're asking to be forced to pay for more.



rgames @ Wed Nov 16 said:


> As shown in the example above, 80% of the benefit is obtained by reducing consumption (comparing A and C).



Shocker, if you reduce the distance from work by 90% you save a lot of gas. Now for how many people is that a practical option? Again, you can create any outcome you want with hypothetical situations, what matters is real life.



rgames @ Wed Nov 16 said:


> If you want to treat heart disease in a patient and 80% of the benefit is obtained through Activity A and another 10% benefit is obtained through Activity B, are you going to focus on Activity B?



Would anyone seriously ask that question while ignoring the costs/difficulty/consequences of the two activities? If A is something many people can achieve without much trouble and B is wildly impractical then yeah, it does make sense to focus on A (although again I don't see how encouraging two separate good things is mutually exclusive). In your example "Activity B" is "everyone move 90% closer to work", you think that is going to get high adoption?

As Dan pointed out yet again, absolutely nothing in your argument is in opposition to hybrid cars or the subsidizing of them. You just seem to think that encouraging other ways to save energy is mutually exclusive (when it's certainly possible to do both, which has been repeatedly pointed out and ignored). Or you have a perverse sense of sour grapes - if your preferred means of saving energy are not subsidized, nobody should get subsidized.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 16, 2011)

boing boing boing

^ That's the sound of me banging my head against a wall.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Nov 16, 2011)

Richard,

Try for a moment to stop looking at hypothetical "trees" and take a look at the actual "forest".

On average, US drivers travel 12,000 miles per year. This value varies somewhat year by year, but has remained fairly consistent for decades. That means for every person who drives five miles per day (1,825 per year), somebody is effectively driving 22,175 miles per year.

Today, we tax fuel (and could tax it more.) That penalizes those who are either inefficient or drive a lot. Cool. There's your solution for Persons A, B, and C.

And, if the market demands better fuel efficiency, manufacturers will provide it. But many in the market still don't care. One look at the density of trucks and SUVs on the road confirms this. So manufacturers only invest so heavily in new, efficient drive lines. 

One way to speed up the development of new technologies is for the government to offer carrots. That helps a manufacturer justify additional R&D costs and helps reduce the sticker shock of new, low-volume technologies. 

Fuel taxes alone don't have that effect. Also, increasing fuel taxes greatly can harm small businesses and those who travel to work service jobs in high-rent areas. In other words, by the time you've taxed fuel heavily enough to make high-earners really care about fuel efficiency, you've already hurt those on the margins.

By taxing fuel reasonably and by rewarding manufacturers for deploying efficient vehicles, we can get the best, most balanced solution.

And if Person C doesn't win in that situation, then so be it. In any tax scenario, you can always find "Person C" and play a sad violin tune for them.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 16, 2011)

Bring the price of the Tesla down to 59,999 MSRP, with a 5k rebate and accellerated deprecitaion on Taxes for suckers like me who pay quarterly, and I'll buy one.
If they would have let Fannie and Freddie give loans to anyone for electric cars instread of houses, we'd be much better off.

I don't know how else it is in neighborhoods across the USA, but I see apartment complexes with Ferraris, Mercedes, Escalade SUV's, and all of these really expensive vehicles, yet they rent an apartment....??

I guess it's just Vegas where everone wants to be " connected."
Us veterans are the ones who really are connected but don;t want anyone thinking so, or they'll be all over you trying to sell something, or get someones number, etc.

I think we'll get some decent programs once the corruption is stopped, but that's like Warren Buffet saying he wants to pay more taxes....


----------



## rgames (Nov 16, 2011)

Regarding how you make my approach work, I already answered that: each year when you file your tax return, you send in your odometer and power meter readings. Then the government calculates your emissions based on what kind of car you drive and what type of power you use. It's very simple.

So, OK, let's drop it. But *please* understand that the only thing that really matters is how much CO2 (and other emissions) you dump into the atmosphere. Reducing those emissions is done *much* more effectively by means other than buying a hybrid car or solar panels (as my examples show). In fact, the best way to do it involves buying nothing at all. Any guesses on why that approach is not incentivized? Just think about it.

As a final note, the pollution argument is really secondary. The real issue is reducing reliance on fossil fuels. But the solution is the same: reduce consumption. Don't limit the ways in which people choose to achieve that reduction. And certainly don't incentivize the ways that have the least effect while ignoring those that have the most effect.

OK. Done!

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 17, 2011)

And you're still missing the point.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Nov 17, 2011)

Send in odometer readings? For money? Oh yeah, that wouldn't be open to fraud.

The guy with the rusting truck in the front yard gets zero miles every year! We should all put rusting trucks in our front yards.

I think we already established, if you want to tax use, tax fuel. Oh right. We already do that (though maybe not enough.)

BTW, I'm still trying to figure out how giving money to the guy with the rusting truck maximizes GM's motivation to make revolutionary, efficient cars available to those who want the ability to buy them.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 17, 2011)

Cash for Clunkers helped remove thousands of Obama stickers off of our streets.....

I like Fannie Mae and Freddy Macs Millions of Dollars of tax payer bonuses for their elite CEO's who only need 7 billion more of bailouts this year.......... :mrgreen: 

We can call that cash for Flunkers..........

Ankyu.............Please.....Stay seated.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 17, 2011)

C4C was modeled on a European program that was very effective.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Nov 18, 2011)

rgames @ Wed Nov 16 said:


> Regarding how you make my approach work, I already answered that: each year when you file your tax return, you send in your odometer and power meter readings. Then the government calculates your emissions based on what kind of car you drive and what type of power you use. It's very simple.



And it has already been pointed out how that's a poor measure of actual energy use and likely to attract loopholes if not flat out fraud. But I'm sure you'll continue to ignore that.

Besides that, aren't we doing pretty much the same thing already by taxing fuel use? The more fuel you use, the more tax you pay. You want to make that a bigger incentive, just raise fuel taxes higher.



rgames @ Wed Nov 16 said:


> Reducing those emissions is done *much* more effectively by means other than buying a hybrid car or solar panels (as my examples show).



You mean by moving 90% closer to work? Sure, there are theoretical ways to reduce consumption more than buying a hybrid car, but the one in your example is orders of magnitude less practical and actually achievable.

Could you actually move so you live a tenth as far from work as you do now? And if so, would there be other sacrifices and compromises involved?

What your example showed is that switching to a more efficient vehicle DOES give a significant reduction in energy use. Whether another hypothetical (and wildly impractical) reduction might be bigger doesn't change that.



rgames @ Wed Nov 16 said:


> In fact, the best way to do it...



Well, if your measure of "best" only considers the issue to be a simple algebra problem and ignores the fact that moving closer to your work might have other downsides. Not to mention that it may be flat out impossible for many people.

And even playing along with the notion that it is "best", why limit ourselves to using _only_ the "best" method of reduction instead of using as many as we can?


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 19, 2011)

JUst in case anyone is interested, I decided to drive up to Reno, NV. and pick up a friend for TDay....he won't fly and is so broke he can't pay attention, so I grabbeb him + wife/son.
On the way up I was told Hwy. 395 south from Mono Lake to Lone Pine was closed due to high winds up to 110 mph., overturned 18 wheelers, etc.
I went up 95 from Vegas and halfway they had the road closed and re routed me to 361 > 50 > 80 West, which was 65 miles out of my way but drove me right by the Pinon Pines Power Plant, and now they're completely finished, which explains why my power bills are paid to the new NV Energy up in N.Nevada.
All I can say is that the compressed coal, and whatever other techniques they do must be working rather well. All of Northern Nevada and Las Vegas use these plants, I am sure of it, and what I found really exciting was the fact that all Smoke stacks and domes from these various facilities strung out across the Truckee Valley all had emissions, but were steam only..... o-[][]-o 
It was snowing up there so I could see my breath, so I know that these " smokestacks " emit nothing or the EPA would be all over them, and I really think we are burning Clean Coal and not making much of a braggers right about it.

I will start my own research and see why this isn't being touted much in the media or by politicians. Especially Harry Reid. He should be all over this as any politician involved would use this during campaign season.
My guess is it's another Yucca Mountain, Area 51, Fallon NAS thing.
In other words " national security risk. "
Also got to drive by Creech AFB when it was all lit up and the Blue Angels were flying nightime formations, as that's their AFB, and the sound was the sound of many.........Cool shit actually.

The media seems to keep everyone focused on shit that distracts us.
One drive through Nevada and I can tell you Sam has shit together, the idea of the USA ever collapsing or turning into a nation of rioting looters, is a hoax.

FWIW I also drove by the Solar fields which IMHO are a big waste of money. But they are HUGE.....
Cant believe Harry Reid doesn't try and take credit like a politician would normally do, but it's a Yucca Mountain, Area 51, Falln NAS kind of thing where things exist that really according to Uncle Sam don;t exist......?


----------

