|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted April 11, 2009 02:09 AM |
|
|
Solar is great, but current technology isn't good enough. There are much better cells available (DSSCs, e.g.), but they're far from cost-effective and are only of academic interest at this time.
Mvass is correct that nuclear is going to be the way to go, but unfortunately it's got quite a PR problem to deal with.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted April 11, 2009 02:39 AM |
|
|
Nobody knows if solar or nuclear or tidal, none of, or all of the above or something we don't even know about yet will ultimately be the most efficient energy source. The point of a carbon tax is to more accurately price the true costs of burning so called cheap sources of energy such as coal or gasoline. Presumably, whichever energy sources end up being cheaper than coal + carbon tax will come into widespread use. I'd argue that this is a better option than picking one or more options and subsidizing it directly in order to make it cost-competitive with coal since you'll almost certainly pick the wrong one. For instance, biofuel based on corn.
Additionally, not all carbon emissions come from cars. A carbon tax targets all sources of emissions (industry, power plants, airplanes, etc.) and is thus a superior option.
I'm actually quite surprised that the so-called greens here are not supportive of a carbon tax. As far as the claim that this is like letting someone pay a fine to get out of a jail sentence... well, ever gotten a speeding ticket? Same dealio.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 11, 2009 02:48 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm actually quite surprised that the so-called greens here are not supportive of a carbon tax. As far as the claim that this is like letting someone pay a fine to get out of a jail sentence... well, ever gotten a speeding ticket? Same dealio.
No you don't get it. We (or maybe me) are not against carbon tax alone -- by itself, it's better than nothing. But there are better ways around it. That's why we criticize it, or rather people who say "we have carbon tax, why aren't greens satisfied?" because, while it is better than nothing, it's not a solution.
Quote:
Meh, I don't have much hope in solar power. I think the immediate future is in nuclear fission, and the more distant - in nuclear fusion.
While nuclear is clean, it has the same basic problem of ideology as oil or any other such fuel (bio ones don't count, see why): they are all extracted from the Earth, or 'mined' or whatever you want to call it.
I mean, any living being uses the Sun's energy (food is not resource extraction, since it's part of the ecosystem cycles), it's the most 'natural' form of energy available.
This is speaking in ideology of course.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 11, 2009 03:10 AM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Your alternative to the carbon tax seems to be some kind of application of the Coase Theorem. I'm all for the Coase Theorem, but it doesn't always work - particularly when transaction costs are high.
And who cares about ideology? What matters is what works.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 11, 2009 03:12 AM |
|
|
For purposes of a richer discussion, we can add ideology as well.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 11, 2009 03:15 AM |
|
|
And when it comes to ideology, there I must break with the greens. I agree with some of their goals - but not with their mentality.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 11, 2009 06:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
TheDeath:
Your alternative to the carbon tax seems to be some kind of application of the Coase Theorem. I'm all for the Coase Theorem, but it doesn't always work - particularly when transaction costs are high.
*sigh* My problem with carbon tax is that its indeed someting that could work, but its to weak compared to what needs to be done. You don't send in a bunch of squires to do a knights job, however you send in the knight and the squires because that works.
Carbon tax would only work if it was along with someting drastic.
Quote:
How about using oceanic territory to place solar plates around the equator? Or is that just crazytalk? I mean, they can install oil platforms, so...
I would preffere wave energy that. And i would also preffere wind energy over that.
But installing it on the top of oil rigs could also work.
Quote:
Or like - flattening all of australia and cover it with one big solar plate! We'd have the power to serve the world and then some!
Now, all we need is a nod from the queen of the british empire and BAM! we're in! What say you?
A bit overdone. But a city where all roofes are covered with those could work.
Quote:
And when it comes to ideology, there I must break with the greens. I agree with some of their goals - but not with their mentality.
Who said you needed to be green to realize that someting needs to be done?
____________
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 11, 2009 06:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But installing it on the top of oil rigs could also work.
Actually, the people on the rig would not like that... (and yes going for days without sunlight will prove to destroy the morale of your workers and their health.)
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 11, 2009 06:20 PM |
|
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 11, 2009 06:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
IMO, the benefits of "something drastic" are outweighed by the costs.
Thats a pure empthy claim since "someting drastic" can be very many things.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 11, 2009 08:35 PM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 11, 2009 08:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Solar is great, but current technology isn't good enough. There are much better cells available (DSSCs, e.g.), but they're far from cost-effective and are only of academic interest at this time.
Mvass is correct that nuclear is going to be the way to go, but unfortunately it's got quite a PR problem to deal with.
The CLEVER way to go is wind, sun, water, tides. Geothermal energy. There's so much energy used and produced out there, we just need to tap it.
Nuclear energy has a lot more than a PR problm - it has a WASTE problem. Never underestimate waste as a problem. Moreover it demonstrated a couple of times already ho potentially desastrous it is.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 11, 2009 09:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
IMO, the benefits of "something drastic" are outweighed by the costs.
"benefits"? "cost"? What does that mean?
It is the greed for COST in the first place which led us here. As long as it's cheaper, who gives a **** about anything else right? 
Quote:
Nuclear energy has a lot more than a PR problm - it has a WASTE problem. Never underestimate waste as a problem. Moreover it demonstrated a couple of times already ho potentially desastrous it is.
Yes but some nations want to have nukes anyway...
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 11, 2009 10:13 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
As long as it's cheaper, who gives a **** about anything else right?
I have no sympathy for this kind of view that completely ignores the concept of trade-offs. Companies have to put their waste somewhere. Either somebody will buy it or not, and if not, then the companies will have to find something else. Regardless, your point about cost is incorrect. Something may be cheaper now but more expensive later - just look at fossil fuels. I'm talking about it being cheaper overall.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 11, 2009 10:23 PM |
|
|
And if it wasn't expensive later, it would be "overall ok"?
No I am not banning trade-offs. I am banning cheaper alternatives being the choice simply because... they are cheaper, while obviously they have some serious effects.
If these effects were bound to the actual product or service or whatever you do, it would NOT be a problem. For example, if the cost could be lowered by making a lower-quality product, then it's an ok tradeoff. If the cost could be lowered by AFFECTING SOMETHING ELSE THAN THE PRODUCT, then nope.
Obviously the bigger the scale, the more alarming, with small being negligible.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 11, 2009 11:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And if it wasn't expensive later, it would be "overall ok"?
Yes.
Quote:
I am banning cheaper alternatives being the choice simply because... they are cheaper, while obviously they have some serious effects.
I am considering the effects as part of the cost - that is, "cost" does not just mean "dollar price tag". They have to do something with the waste. Obviously, they can reuse it, but then? They either have to buy a place to put it, or sell it to somebody else. And if no one's buying, then they don't have much of a business.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 12, 2009 12:18 AM |
|
|
I think we're speaking in two different frequencies here. What I meant was the "collateral" effects or whatever as being implied by this 'cost'. (ok bad choice of words)
Any compromise that is within the product itself (like I said, let's say a slower CPU instead of a faster one!) is ok and I'm all for it, better choices anyway. What I am against is if this "cutting costs" compromise implies some 'collateral' effect.
And no by cost I mean purely the stuff against profit. And no, no taxes in this example.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 12, 2009 12:37 AM |
|
|
That's what carbon taxes are for - for internalizing externalities. (Obviously, in the case of uranium it wouldn't be a carbon tax, but you get the idea.) Regardless, we could have standards for how to dispose of the stuff, and so on.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 12, 2009 02:45 AM |
|
|
*sigh*
Carbon tax does not FIX anything, it tries to REPAIR it.
Why break it in the first place?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 12, 2009 02:49 AM |
|
|
Because sometimes it is more beneficial to break something (even though you're producing something positive in the process) and then pay for it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
