Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
It isn't as if oil companies are doing you and me some sort of favor by pumping the stuff out of the ground. Far from it.

Cycloptichorn

Obvious disagreement here, cyclops. They obviously are doing all of us a big favor. And even though you may not have a car, they are doing you big favors by providing the energy necessary to heat and power your residence, and help the manufacture and production of countless products you use and consume to live they life you do. In fact, this is more than a favor. It is absolutely essential. Unless you decide to go live in a cave somewhere, I suggest you face the reality of how essential energy is. So far, I don't think there is a viable alternative to completely replacing fossil fuels as an energy source. I have confidence that further discoveries and technological advancement will fill the void as the needs present themselves, but the free market is essential in being able to accomplish this.

Sheesh, Okie, I certainly don't need you to explain to me how energy works.

I'm just saying that when a business charges you a price for a service, it isn't a favor being done to you. They aren't being nice. They are trying to make a profit. Period.

Quote:

Making high profits is a service to society, perhaps contrary to what some idiot professor may have told you.

Okay, let's get something straight right now.

None of my professors - with the exception of my two courses on Economics, both of which were decidedly free-market enthusiasts - ever said a damn thing about anything having to do with the economy or environment at all. My ideas are based upon my personal experiences and observations about society and our world in general.So why don't you just drop the exaggerated 'proffesurs r evil' shtick, because it's getting pretty f*cking tiresome.

Back on topic - making high profits is not a service to society. It represents a situation in which the business has figured out a way to provide a service or product which is both scarce enough and in high enough demand that people are willing to part with large amounts of money to get it. This is not an inherently bad position, but when you begin to manipulate the market - either the supply levels or the demand levels - in order to MAKE the price stay high, you are not serving anyone but yourself; and modern corporations and businesses do this every single day.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

On another note...

Here is why I believe solar power will continue to rise as a part of our power structure, and within a short amount of time it will be solar, nuclear, and some wind only!

Quote:

December 5, 2006

New World Record Achieved in Solar Cell Technology
New Solar Cell Breaks the "40 Percent Efficient" Sunlight-to-Electricity Barrier

WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Alexander Karsner today announced that with DOE funding, a concentrator solar cell produced by Boeing-Spectrolab has recently achieved a world-record conversion efficiency of 40.7 percent, establishing a new milestone in sunlight-to-electricity performance. This breakthrough may lead to systems with an installation cost of only $3 per watt, producing electricity at a cost of 8-10 cents per kilowatt/hour, making solar electricity a more cost-competitive and integral part of our nation's energy mix.

Give 'em 5 years, they'll hit 50%. In 20 years it will be 70% and by that point we're talking about pretty damn high efficiencies.

Note that it was DOE Funding that helped lead to this discovery. For all those who don't understand the difference between applied and theoretical research (ahem, Foxfyre), this article's for you!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

miniTAX wrote:
What??? This means that 1300 years ago, with no SUV, no megalopolis and no carbon "polluter", it was as warm as now ? With 100x less people, how did they do that ?

Joking a bit, minitax?

No Walter, I was just thinking of headlines about record breakers: warmest october... since 1952, hottest summer since 1890 and so on, all due to global warming Very Happy

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Give 'em 5 years, they'll hit 50%. In 20 years it will be 70% and by that point we're talking about pretty damn high efficiencies.

Cycloptichorn, you are fantasizing about the trend. And you are talking about concentrators PV, meaning the active photovoltaic surface is minuscule compared to the optics. So the high efficiencies here are just marketing tricks, nothing to compare to the 20% efficiency of monocrystalline PV or the 10% efficiency of thin film (CIS or CIGS) PV.

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Give 'em 5 years, they'll hit 50%. In 20 years it will be 70% and by that point we're talking about pretty damn high efficiencies.

That's nonsense. You are fantasizing about the trend. And you are talking about concentrators PV, meaning the active photovoltaic surface is minuscule compared to the optics. So the high efficiencies here are just marketing tricks, nothing to compare to the 20% efficiency of monocrystalline PV or the 10% efficiency of thin film (CIS or CIGS) PV.

Thanks, I'll place my trust in physics professors who I have a long professional history with over some random guy on the internet every time.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The oil companies aren't just sitting around waiting for the price to be set by society, either; they actively work to raise the prices.

It's just like OPEP, a cartel which set quotas to maintain high prices. Or like the NOCs (national oil compagnies) which control 80% of world oil. Funny that you accuse the Majors, which control only a fraction of world production, of all evils and you praise the states which are the worst offenders by their interventionism.
Nostalgia for planned economy I presume. But well, pondering what happens to the ex-soviets, you should have known the bigger the gov is, the worse things go.

P.S. What you say about the greedy-companies-hiking-prices-reaping-profits for oil is also true for computers, medicines, software, education... You'd want to have more gov control on them too ? Who will fix the limits then ?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Thanks, I'll place my trust in physics professors who I have a long professional history with over some random guy on the internet every time.

If you like. I just told you about simple physics of real things to spare you from ridiculous yield projections or from believing scamers (contrary to marketing men, I sell nothing) but you are free not to hear.
BTW. You can also check if what random internet-guy says is true or not :wink:

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Making high profits is a service to society

This made me smile!

May I quote it back to you the next time you're ranting about how the enormous profits all these "Hollywood types" make are totally unjustifiable?

("Yes, it was $15 yesterday. I'm charging $20 today - it's a service to society.")

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
Making high profits is a service to society

This made me smile!

Me too, because the governement says the same (replace "profits" by "tax").
For example, the left here in France, as we are approaching major elections are propagating the idea that as oil is depleting (and the earth is warming, the water is lacking...), its price will inevitably go up. So its wise too get used to high prices NOW to be less affected by high prices LATER, hence more taxes are needed. I swear it's true

http://forum-images.hardware.fr/images/perso/clickerfou.gif

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
Making high profits is a service to society

This made me smile!

May I quote it back to you the next time you're ranting about how the enormous profits all these "Hollywood types" make are totally unjustifiable?

("Yes, it was $15 yesterday. I'm charging $20 today - it's a service to society.")

Quote me all day long, I would love it. Maybe some of you would learn it by repeating it.

Concerning Hollywood, I don't have to buy Hollywood's garbage, so they can rip you off if you let them, go ahead. Nobody is holding a gun to your head making you buy the stuff. For the products you do not deem to be a valuable service to you, simply don't buy it, its a free country. If you don't like gasoline, don't buy it. Simple.

In your price raising example, if someone raises the price to $20, if there is competition, somebody else will take all of their customers by charging $15 for the same product if it is economical to sell it for that, and the $20 company will go out of business. Unless of course it is the government doing it, then there is nobody there to be competitive and no choice of who to buy from, and of course they will never go out of business because you can be thrown in jail if you don't send them the tax money.

Good grief, are people really stupid enough to believe that profit is necessarily evil, bad, or greedy? Some of this stuff is basic, people, wake up.

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Thanks, I'll place my trust in physics professors who I have a long professional history with over some random guy on the internet every time.
If you like. I just told you about simple physics of real things to spare you from ridiculous yield projections or from believing scamers (contrary to marketing men, I sell nothing) but you are free not to hear.
BTW. You can also check if what random internet-guy says is true or not :wink:

Interestingly, I'm not 'buying' anything so the scammers don't really affect my life too much one way or another.

I'm well aware of how PhotoVoltaic technology works; I've been studying it and helping myself and others install it on their homes for a long time.

Given that you have shown yourself to be firmly on the side of those who deny that pollution and emissions are any sort of concern for a modern society to address, I take everything you write with a very large grain of salt, Mini...

Oh, yeah

Quote:

Funny that you accuse the Majors, which control only a fraction of world production, of all evils and you praise the states which are the worst offenders by their interventionism.

I never praised any state controller of oil resources. Can you link to where I did?

Quote:

P.S. What you say about the greedy-companies-hiking-prices-reaping-profits for oil is also true for computers, medicines, software, education... You'd want to have more gov control on them too ? Who will fix the limits then ?

No, sorry, your analogy fails. Try harder.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote:

old europe wrote:
okie wrote:
Making high profits is a service to society

This made me smile!

May I quote it back to you the next time you're ranting about how the enormous profits all these "Hollywood types" make are totally unjustifiable?

("Yes, it was $15 yesterday. I'm charging $20 today - it's a service to society.")

Quote me all day long, I would love it. Maybe some of you would learn it by repeating it.

Concerning Hollywood, I don't have to buy Hollywood's garbage, so they can rip you off if you let them, go ahead. Nobody is holding a gun to your head making you buy the stuff. For the products you do not deem to be a valuable service to you, simply don't buy it, its a free country. If you don't like gasoline, don't buy it. Simple.

In your price raising example, if someone raises the price to $20, if there is competition, somebody else will take all of their customers by charging $15 for the same product if it is economical to sell it for that, and the $20 company will go out of business. Unless of course it is the government doing it, then there is nobody there to be competitive and no choice of who to buy from, and of course they will never go out of business because you can be thrown in jail if you don't send them the tax money.

Good grief, are people really stupid enough to believe that profit is necessarily evil, bad, or greedy? Some of this stuff is basic, people, wake up.

Not only are profits a good thing for all the good reasons you have listed, but free trade also ensures that the price of anything is tied to the time honored principle of supply and demand coupled with the cost of materials and production.

It is no mystery that if the supply of raw materials (i.e. oil) become scarce or the supply is threatened, the cost of products made from oil will substantially increase with corresponding increase in the price the consumer pays. The same thing happens when the government tacks additional taxes on cost of production or the end product or forces additional costs (i.e. higher minimum wage, additional regulations, etc.). Except for the freeloaders, the consumer is the one who ends up paying for all that.

But cut those profits to the point that there is no incentive left to make the product and everybody does without.

If those who condemn the oil companies stopped buying all the products made possible by the oil indusry, the oil companies would shortly go out of business and would no longer be a problem re global warming if they ever were. Of course we would no longer have the products either.

It might be enough to get some folks to look more favorably on the scientific evidence that questions the AGW theories. Smile

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm well aware of how PhotoVoltaic technology works; I've been studying it and helping myself and others install it on their homes for a long time.

Given that you have shown yourself to be firmly on the side of those who deny that pollution and emissions are any sort of concern for a modern society to address, I take everything you write with a very large grain of salt, Mini...

I don't care a damn you take what I say with a grain of salt smal or large. Do your homework, man instead of saying "I know" Mad

Look a the peak power of 100 square feet of 20% yield basic photovoltaic. Then compare it to 100 square feet of you nealy 50% yield concentrating photovoltaic. You'll see your 50% yield is all crap. End of demonstration.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I never praised any state controller of oil resources. Can you link to where I did?
Quote:
You praise state intervention, be it in controlling oil resources or transportation, food, health, what's the difference ?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

P.S. What you say about the greedy-companies-hiking-prices-reaping-profits for oil is also true for computers, medicines, software, education... You'd want to have more gov control on them too ? Who will fix the limits then ?

No, sorry, your analogy fails. Try harder.

Cycloptichorn
Where's that fails ? If you assume that big oils make cartel to hike prices (anti-trust laws, know what it is?), why would it be different with computer makers, pharmaceutical companies, automobiles makers... since there are just a few of them. That is to show your accusation against big oils is just sentimental but nothing rational.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

old europe wrote:
okie wrote:
Making high profits is a service to society

This made me smile!

May I quote it back to you the next time you're ranting about how the enormous profits all these "Hollywood types" make are totally unjustifiable?

("Yes, it was $15 yesterday. I'm charging $20 today - it's a service to society.")

Quote me all day long, I would love it. Maybe some of you would learn it by repeating it.

Concerning Hollywood, I don't have to buy Hollywood's garbage, so they can rip you off if you let them, go ahead. Nobody is holding a gun to your head making you buy the stuff. For the products you do not deem to be a valuable service to you, simply don't buy it, its a free country. If you don't like gasoline, don't buy it. Simple.

In your price raising example, if someone raises the price to $20, if there is competition, somebody else will take all of their customers by charging $15 for the same product if it is economical to sell it for that, and the $20 company will go out of business. Unless of course it is the government doing it, then there is nobody there to be competitive and no choice of who to buy from, and of course they will never go out of business because you can be thrown in jail if you don't send them the tax money.

Good grief, are people really stupid enough to believe that profit is necessarily evil, bad, or greedy? Some of this stuff is basic, people, wake up.

Well, I think that capitalism works because people are greedy. It just comes naturally to them. They don't have to try very hard.

0 Replies

All of this discussion really points out the fact that that yesterday's socialists and communists all readily jump on the green bandwagon. It offers them real hope of gaining control over societies, so anybody that believes that the man caused GW debate is only scientific and not politically charged is full of it, plain and simple. Take out the socialists and communists if you prefer, but simply consider the folks that love government control of everything, and there are always plenty of them. They love the idea that man is causing all these problems, problems that nobody has demonstrated is a problem by the way, but such people are immediately drawn to that side and are emotionally attached to the "sky is falling" crowd.

0 Replies

If you call working to earn your food, shelter, clothing, and comforts, greed, then I would say you are misinformed. If you want to take what somebody else has earned because you are envious, then I would call that greed. If you envy an oil company that has the ambition to actually do something to provide you something, then you are the greedy one. If you want something for nothing, for them to give you what you want for nothing, you are the greedy one.

0 Replies

Quote:

problems that nobody has demonstrated is a problem by the way, but such people are immediately drawn to that side and are emotionally attached to the "sky is falling" crowd.

Gotta stop lumping everyone in together.

For example, you know that there are many such as myself who are far more concerned with pollution than Climate Change. GW and Climate Change are real problems that have to be looked into, but there's no doubt at all that pollution is a problem, a big one, that directly affects people's lives.

And I know I don't have to tell you which groups are the biggest polluters, Okie, because you already know.

Mtax

Quote:

Where's that fails ? If you assume that big oils make cartel to hike prices (anti-trust laws, know what it is?), why would it be different with computer makers, pharmaceutical companies, automobiles makers... since there are just a few of them. That is to show your accusation against big oils is just sentimental but nothing rational.

Sorry, your analogy fails because Energy as a commodity transcends the other things you listed (which in the case of education isn't even a commodity). We can do without individual items, but we can't do without energy. This is what makes energy companies especially dangerous.

As I said earlier, it isn't that I think you're dumb, or that you don't know what you are talking about; it's just that I've been reading and studying PV and Solar issues, as well as having hands-on experience, for a long time. I know that the breakthroughs I linked to today won't lead to amazingly high efficiencies. But sooner or later we will achieve those efficiencies. My entire point was that the DOE money going to studying this is certainly not wasted....

It seems to me that you have a singular mission in this forum, and that's to argue with proponents of GW. You certainly don't discuss anything else as far as I can see. And I'm just not interested in arguing it with you, because you're just as bad as those who claim we are all going to die next year from melting ice caps.... just flipped, is all.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote:

If you call working to earn your food, shelter, clothing, and comforts, greed, then I would say you are misinformed. If you want to take what somebody else has earned because you are envious, then I would call that greed. If you envy an oil company that has the ambition to actually do something to provide you something, then you are the greedy one. If you want something for nothing, for them to give you what you want for nothing, you are the greedy one.

Greed is wanting stuff for the sake of having stuff, and yes, it is inherent in all of us.

Noone said that working for a living is greedy; but when the acquisition of wealth/stuff becomes more important than other concerns in your life, for no purpose other than your creature comfort/sense of accomplishment, then yes, you are greedy.

When oil companies stop being about oil and start being about maximizing profits - as we can see evidence of today - that's greed.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Well, I think that capitalism works because people are greedy. It just comes naturally to them. They don't have to try very hard.

It's called redundancy instinct. The best life insurance for cavemen is to amass as much as he can : silex, furs, food, weight, women, children... It's absurd to think this instinct is necessarily bad (ah, our christian culture and its symbolic sins). Government systems which tried forcibly to change it have failed miserably.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

If you call working to earn your food, shelter, clothing, and comforts, greed, then I would say you are misinformed. If you want to take what somebody else has earned because you are envious, then I would call that greed. If you envy an oil company that has the ambition to actually do something to provide you something, then you are the greedy one. If you want something for nothing, for them to give you what you want for nothing, you are the greedy one.

Even greed has its place in the scheme of thing. It is after all what drives humankind to build a better mousetrap.

Last week my husband was caught in the bad snowstorm and had to overnight in a small town east of Albuquerque. As soon as the Interstate closed and they had a captive clientele, all the motels in town tripled their room rates. Greed? Absolutely. Price gouging? Most certainly.

Beneficial? Yes.

Thomas Sowell, one of my favorite economists, put it into perspective some time ago. A family of four or six or more in such a situation might take two, three, or four rooms at regular room rates. But triple the price and the same family is more likely to squeeze into one room leaving space for other travelers caught in the storm. As it was, the small town was able to shelter far more people than it otherwise might have been able to do.

It is the law of supply and demand. The motel owners almost certainly didn't raise their rate out of any kind of altruistic spirit but there was a plus side to the action nevertheless. As soon as the traffic could move, the rates dropped to normal for otherwise the small town would get no business at all.

There are many more ways to look at the issue than just the obvious one that the oil companies make very good profits.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know