THe GW Scan Is Still Alive, Amazingly
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Brent on 30 Jul 2010 22:26 On 2010-07-31, Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 02:02:22 GMT, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew > Russotto) wrote in misc.transport.road: >>>Tax rates as percent of income is fine. They are the lowest in 50 years. >> >>No, they aren't. They were lower in 1986. > > The amount that is collected is what matters. No, government spending is what matters. Government can get revenue three ways: 1) Directly taking it from the people. Generally through taxes. 2) Borrowing it. (reducing the sum available for the private sector and increasing the sum that must eventually come from 1 and 3) 3) Printing it. (reducing the value of savings and wages) So long as government spends people are made poorer. The method simply varies between the three above. Government spending is MUCH higher than it was even a couple-three years ago. Oh why did I look at this thread again?
From: Beam Me Up Scotty on 30 Jul 2010 22:51 On 7/30/2010 10:07 PM, Matthew Russotto wrote: > In article <rmt65654i7kqejtq2akdan872jos9jtsi2(a)4ax.com>, > Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:27:16 -0700 (PDT), Larry G >> <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Jul 30, 3:12 am, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 13:52:42 -0400, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Otto Yamamoto >>>>> <comrade.otto.yamam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> But you wouldn't WANT a real solution to this, right? Interfere with >>>>>>> the ability to tell everyone what to do... y'know... I notice you >>>>>>> simply ignored it. Tells a lot. >>>> >>>>>> What I might 'want' is immaterial. I don't see any 'real solution' >>>>>> coming down the line. >>>> >>>>> I knew it! Wow, can I call 'em, or what? Device to lower CO2 to >>>>> pre-industrial levels in 10 years, and you want to ignore it. This is >>>>> just grand. Just classic!!!! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! >>>> >>>> And its July 30, 6 days later, and nobody wants to discuss a >>>> possibility that we wouldn't have to spend 50 trillion dollars to >>>> lower CO2 levels (and cart most of that money out of the USA to do it) >>>> to pre-industrial levels, but instead could do so with a process that >>>> would probably produce about $15 trillion dollars worth of very high >>>> purity carbon that could be used as coal to generate electricity with >>>> no mercury in the air, no sulphur dioxide in the air, no radioactive >>>> effluents in the air, etc. etc. >>>> >>>> No, nobody on the "scare hell out of 'em so they'll give us trillions >>>> of dollars to fix a fake problem" side of this wants to know about a >>>> solution to their global warming scarecrow. Once again, here's the >>>> solution: >>>> >>>> http://www.physorg.com/news199005915.html >>> >>> thanks for the link... interesting >>> >>> now one for you: >>> >>> " Nuclear Energy Loses Cost Advantage" >>> >>> " PARIS � Solar photovoltaic systems have long been painted as a clean >>> way to generate electricity, but expensive compared with other >>> alternatives to oil, like nuclear power. No longer. In a �historic >>> crossover,� the costs of solar photovoltaic systems have declined to >>> the point where they are lower than the rising projected costs of new >>> nuclear plants, according to a paper published this month." >>> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/business/global/27iht-renuke.html?src=busln >> >> I'm all for it. Wonder if that includes some way to store the >> electricity overnight or over a time period within the cost of solar. >> That's solar's problem, it doesn't work at night. But if they get it >> to be viable, that's the way to go. > > Solar PV doesn't scale well, and any cost estimates for solar PV of > the scale of a nuclear plant are pure fantasy. Individually on each home.....
From: Dave Head on 30 Jul 2010 22:59 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 22:51:04 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everything(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote: >> Solar PV doesn't scale well, and any cost estimates for solar PV of >> the scale of a nuclear plant are pure fantasy. > >Individually on each home..... If I did that, I'd have to clean the D thing to keep output up, worry about the (expensive) power converter to turn the DC into 240 VAC, have to maintain the batteries for overnight / overcast power interruptions (if I'm going to the expense of buying solar, I'm sure as hell not going to be paying the power company too), and worry about the whole thing being taken out by lightning. Much better that the power company puts together a solar collector farm that is measured in miles on a side, thereby taking advantage of economy of scale, buys the batteries or other storage scheme and maintains it, and if it gets taken out by lightning, they'll have a spare in a warehouse in Chicago that will be on-site by overnight transport, and be installed by the next evening.
From: Brent on 31 Jul 2010 00:25 On 2010-07-31, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everything(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote: >>>> " PARIS � Solar photovoltaic systems have long been painted as a clean >>>> way to generate electricity, but expensive compared with other >>>> alternatives to oil, like nuclear power. No longer. In a �historic >>>> crossover,� the costs of solar photovoltaic systems have declined to >>>> the point where they are lower than the rising projected costs of new >>>> nuclear plants, according to a paper published this month." >>>> >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/business/global/27iht-renuke.html?src=busln >>> >>> I'm all for it. Wonder if that includes some way to store the >>> electricity overnight or over a time period within the cost of solar. >>> That's solar's problem, it doesn't work at night. But if they get it >>> to be viable, that's the way to go. >> >> Solar PV doesn't scale well, and any cost estimates for solar PV of >> the scale of a nuclear plant are pure fantasy. > > Individually on each home..... The problem with solar cells is the same with hybrid cars. The environmental cost of building of them in the first place. Last I heard the typical solar cells made today make up for their construction just as they reach end of life. What is really needed besides much greater conversion of energy is environmently friendly manufacturing of the cells. Until then, solar is only worth it for independence from the grid.
From: Larry G on 31 Jul 2010 06:47
On Jul 30, 10:26 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2010-07-31, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 02:02:22 GMT, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew > > Russotto) wrote in misc.transport.road: > >>>Tax rates as percent of income is fine. They are the lowest in 50 years. > > >>No, they aren't. They were lower in 1986. > > > The amount that is collected is what matters. > > No, government spending is what matters. Government can get revenue > three ways: > 1) Directly taking it from the people. Generally through taxes. > 2) Borrowing it. (reducing the sum available for the private sector and > increasing the sum that must eventually come from 1 and 3) > 3) Printing it. (reducing the value of savings and wages) > > So long as government spends people are made poorer. The > method simply varies between the three above. Government spending > is MUCH higher than it was even a couple-three years ago. > > Oh why did I look at this thread again? that view assumes that the purposes for which the money is spent - does not benefit the people who paid and ...at the least... that's an arguable point and a matter of opinion. For instance, the taxes that go to buy body armor are considered a worthwhile expenditure of money. In fact, tax money spent - provides jobs and stimulates the economy just as much as if the tax was not collected and it was spent on personal watercraft instead. |