What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Private Online Shopping Clubs Work view!
howlifeworks.com - How to become a member and get discounts of up to 80% on must-have luxury goods
43 Comments
- AWBoy666, on 06/03/2009, -3/+11Probably because government subsidies and political connections will make the companies abnormally profitable and reliable.
- GoodOldNeon, on 06/03/2009, -1/+8I guess they learned a little something from big oil, ehh?
- yerdaddy, on 06/03/2009, -2/+8Because blowing up mountains and burning stuff pretty much isn't the future.
- enantiodromia, on 06/03/2009, -1/+6All things being equal, I wold rather us "waste" money on domestic alternative energy production than wasting money on open-ended goalless wars making us a bigger target for terrorism every day.
Anyone know what the last count was for money which simply "vanished" somewhere between Congress writing the check and it actually arriving at the defense contractors in Iraq? - eastwood24, on 06/03/2009, -2/+7The world is going to increasingly need energy in the future to maintain growth rates and standards of living (growth + prosperity). With a declining supply and increase costs in procurring oil and coal, ect., this seems like a no brainer that some new 'green' startups will yield great long-term returns.
- mouthbreether, on 06/03/2009, -3/+7And completely undesirable for others.
- enantiodromia, on 06/03/2009, -0/+4yes, i'm sure the people who handle all this money have no idea what they are doing with it. that's probably how they got their jobs in the first place, right? because they waste their money on useless things.
- h99d, on 06/04/2009, -0/+3first it was the .com bubble
then the housing bubble
now the green energy bubble comes - vbullinger, on 06/03/2009, -0/+3Yes, that's definitely authorized by the Constitution...
- LMN8R, on 06/03/2009, -0/+3Quadruples in four years? Whatever. Until this investment doubles every two years, the numbers are meaningless.
- bilbus, on 06/04/2009, -0/+3So we can put someone on the moon, but we still need to generate our power using windmills .. swell.
Why not nuclear, its high tech, green, powerful, and safe when done correctly. - kolop1, on 06/03/2009, -6/+9Al Gore's wallet is getting thicker and thicker.
- bilbus, on 06/04/2009, -0/+2Nuclear is fine for the next 1000+ years.
I think we will figure out a better generation source by then. - tamckissick, on 06/04/2009, -1/+3Wow, the comments sure run the board in here. News about investment (which is private money by the way) quadrupling in four years comes out and most of the comments have negative stuff to say about renewables.
One says that he's waiting til it can double every 2 years. So he's not sold until it's double again what it is now. Does he not understand exponential ramping?
One guy says we're wasting too much money and should be going more nukes because they're clean and everlasting. Does he not realize that nukes destroy nearly the same land to mine as coal, with the inherant toxic minerals still concentrated in the tailings (TVA?)... or that they 'pollute' and consume local water ecosystems by overheating them... or that their price is greatly underestimated... or that they require enormous amounts of not-so-clean concrete? Those are just a few of the issues not discussed in the nuclear pamphlets.
One other poster want to just knock renewable / clean investment because it's resembling a bubble so that must be bad.
Another poster thinks nothing is being done (despite the highlighted article's contents) so the government should put local banks out of business by taking away their business and just loaning the money for free. I especially like his confusion between ROE (return on equity - as in when the home is resold/refinanced) and ROI (return on investment - as in monthly cashflow change from such a decision).
One brainchild is against PV because it creates so many toxic chemicals that we'll have to deal with in 20 years. Thin film technology drastically cuts that and other newer pv printing eliminates that. Most semi-conductor plants create (and sequester) those same chemicals when they're built in to our electronics, appliances, cars and even the very computer he used to comment from. Does he not realize that he'll replace his stupid PC a dozen times before that PV panel gets tossed in a dump?
The most worrisome comment is that we this is a no-brainer because our energy needs will increase (and have to, to support society's growth). This is not because he's incorrect (he's actually dead on), but more because there's no accounting for making our energy use more efficient. I've done studies and read others that compare our "direct" benefits from energy (e.g. the light, the moving picture and sound from a TV/computer, the chilling of our food and the transportation of ourselves and goods) against the energy we currently spend on those 'services'. It's staggering how much is wasted because we assume there's only one way to do something. For example, why move a 4,000 lb car both ways to work when we could (in a perfect world) do that work from home or even just move the person. Another one is how we currently lose 10% by transporting our fuels so we can lose 70% in generating electricity and another 5-7% in transporting that, so we can lose 30% more in our AC to DC power supplies (in most home electronics) so we can power mostly DC circuitry. In the end, that same circuitry usually runs off 12 volts DC which could be powered by a very small PV panel and some form of storage (ultra capacitors would be better than batteries). The cost on distributing this would be 1/3rd of the PV systems we're currently installing for the same benefit. Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. To support all those 'losses' mentioned above, each takes an entire industry of workers, drivers, maintenance workers, tellers, managers, planners, etc. etc. etc. indefinitely. When will we see that a one time purchase (if it lasts a decent length of time) is much cheaper than ANY long term service?
The projects discussed in this article have to show economic viability on their own without the subsidies. Sure subsidies make the projects more profitable and people do make extra money and that may create a bubble of sorts, but the big money does not get spent on the speculation that RECs, green tags, Net metering tarriffs, or other time based subsidies will continue. That extra money just results in more stable start up companies which can then self fund the more experimental technologies (too high of risk for big investors) and bring them to market. In essence, the system is working very well now. Sure, it could go faster or be cheaper, but you get what you put into it. Right now, given the bulk of the comments above, not too much is deserved. - inactive, on 06/03/2009, -1/+3Scientists predict that killer bees could ravage New York City by as early as 1985!
- vbullinger, on 06/03/2009, -0/+2@govsucks:
I don't recall GoodOldNeon saying that the topic of this article was a good thing or that he advised collectivism. He just took a jab at the big oil companies, which warrant many a jab.
I thumbed up all three of you guys, though. - Trent1492, on 06/04/2009, -0/+2"Al Gore's wallet is getting thicker and thicker."
This message brought to you by the Fossil Fuel Industry." - eastwood24, on 06/04/2009, -0/+2Before you jump on the Nuclear bandwagon keep in mind that Uranium is a rare finite resource that is high graded when extracted. France has used nuclear power extensively for the last several decades. They have now exhausted their domestic supply of uranium and must rely on Russia to procure the resource.
Besides Nuclear power isn't even really that perferable in terms of the costs and energy it takes to produce energy.
http://www.theoildrum.com/files/net_energy_cliff_v ... - vbullinger, on 06/03/2009, -0/+1Except that "In Search Of" was really good! I loved that show... when I was 12.
- Atario, on 06/17/2009, -0/+1"Probably because government subsidies and political connections will make the companies abnormally profitable and reliable."
Yeah...? What's your point? - inactive, on 06/03/2009, -5/+6............................................________
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:”........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\ - bilbus, on 06/04/2009, -0/+1sure, the fed should take out interest loans, to give people interest free loans to build solar power panels on their houses.
That makes a ton of sense.
If the ROE for solar is not a incentive enough, why should we encourage people to do it?
Oh wait the ROE is like 10 years! - roseap, on 06/03/2009, -2/+3I would, actually. If wikipedia is to be believed, panels generally last longer than 20 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic_module#M ...
Littering the landscape? Why can't they go on rooftops? Pervasive yet innocuous. - vbullinger, on 06/03/2009, -0/+1I don't know a current figure, but Rumsfeld gave a number on September 10th, 2001:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-562455425 ... - inactive, on 06/03/2009, -2/+3Hooray for buzzwords!
- jboitnott, on 06/03/2009, -0/+1And that Leonard Nimoy was the narrator of "In Search Of.."
- shig, on 06/04/2009, -2/+2Solar panels never stop producing electricity. One hundred years from now it should be possible to still extract 40-70% energy production out of a modern panel, so long as the copper isn't completely corroded, and the panel is still relatively intact.
- govsucks, on 06/03/2009, -3/+3WOW, two wrongs must make a right in collectivist world.
- cashmonkey, on 06/04/2009, -1/+1Government grants and subsides are such an ineffective method for combating climate change. A carbon tax would not create market distortions and be less prone to abuse.
- inactive, on 06/03/2009, -2/+2That show was hilarious. It was like the 2009 version of "In Search Of".
- Trent1492, on 06/04/2009, -1/+1Yep.
- Kate1240, on 06/04/2009, -0/+0The gold rush should be in there somewhere? :)
- bilbus, on 06/04/2009, -2/+2No thanks, I'll take a adult sized car that won't kill me if hit.
If they only made a car that ran on liberal's tears, we would be all set. - ethan406, on 06/04/2009, -1/+0Green energy? Who cares about the environment anyway?
/s - nextTopModel, on 06/03/2009, -2/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun
- oninbonin, on 06/04/2009, -1/+0Our environment (the Earth) produces more than enough energy
- inactive, on 06/03/2009, -2/+1they aren't any more expensive than any other sedan.
- inactive, on 06/03/2009, -3/+2The bad news: "green energy" being very expensive to produce, the more we "invest" in it, the poorer we become.
The good news: living in a shack with no electricity and running water frees one from dependence on foreign oil. Totally. - macdady843, on 06/03/2009, -3/+1Green Energy won't ever do ***** for us... Nuclear and Coal are the only things that will ever be practical.. and yes we have a lot of coal to go before we run out.
- santiago1, on 06/03/2009, -6/+3 Only because it's becoming the next big trend.
- stanggt3, on 06/03/2009, -7/+3Better keep spending or we are *****! Anybody watch Earth 2100 yet.....truly scary and accurate stuff
- InMSWeAntitrust, on 06/03/2009, -9/+4We need more government incentives to buy environmentally friendly products. A Prius is still a little out of reach for some.
- Hartz2800, on 06/03/2009, -13/+0………………….._,,-~’’’¯¯¯’’~-,,
………………..,-‘’ ; ; ;_,,---,,_ ; ;’’-,…………………………….._,,,---,,_
……………….,’ ; ; ;,-‘ , , , , , ‘-, ; ;’-,,,,---~~’’’’’’~--,,,_…..,,-~’’ ; ; ; ;__;’-,
……………….| ; ; ;,’ , , , _,,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ¯’’~’-,,_ ,,-~’’ , , ‘, ;’,
……………….’, ; ; ‘-, ,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-, , , , , ,’ ; |
…………………’, ; ;,’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-, , ,-‘ ;,-‘
………………….,’-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-‘ ;,,-‘
………………..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;__ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,’
………………,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’¯: : ’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; _ ; ; ; ; ;’,
……………..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;| : : : : : ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘’¯: ¯’’-, ; ; ;’,
…………….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,_: : _,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | : : : : : ; ; ; |
……………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ¯¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,,_ : :,-‘ ; ; ; ;|
…………..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-~’’ , , , , ,,,-~~-, , , , _ ; ; ;¯¯ ; ; ; ; ;|
..…………,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’ , , , , , , ,( : : : : , , , ,’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|
……….,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’, , , , , , , , ,’~---~’’ , , , , , ,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,
…….,-‘’ ; _, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘’~-,,,,--~~’’’¯’’’~-,,_ , ,_,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,
….,-‘’-~’’,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | ; ; | . . . . . . ,’; ,’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,_ ; ‘-,
……….,’ ; ;,-, ; ;, ; ; ;, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ;’, . . . . .,’ ;,’ ; ; ; ;, ; ; ;,’-, ; ;,’ ‘’~--‘’I Like Turtles"
………,’-~’ ,-‘-~’’ ‘, ,-‘ ‘, ,,- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ; ‘~-,,,-‘’ ; ,’ ; ; ; ; ‘, ;,-‘’ ; ‘, ,-‘,
……….,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ‘’ ; ; ;’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘’-,,_ ; ; ; _,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ;’-‘’ ; ; ; ‘’ ; ;’-,
……..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯¯’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-,
……,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,
…..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|..’-,_ ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ‘,
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 