Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-29-2016, 03:57 PM   #141
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Kerrville,Tx
Posts: 2,710
Actually the population of North America is well sited for solar. You just have to build DC lines from the higher parts of the great plains east. The Sun sets a couple of hours later in the Great Plains than the East. Note that DC transmission lines don't take the width of real estate that AC lines do. DC lines are now used to bring power from Churchill Falls in Labrador south for example or between the NorthWest and Southwest in the US. Of course the NIMBY lobby would object because that is what they do to power lines.
As to the last comment there are proposals to erect solar in the Sahara (where the sun shines a lot) north to Europe for example.
__________________

__________________
meierlde is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 04-29-2016, 04:58 PM   #142
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Music Lover View Post
And others consider the real deniers to be those who choose to ignore the real and verifiable data. NOAA says this:

"The calculated trends for all stations are available as a table in millimeters/year and in feet/century (0.3 meters = 1 foot)."

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sl...?stnid=9414290

And this:

"The mean sea level trend is 2.84 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.09 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1856 to 2015 which is equivalent to a change of 0.93 feet in 100 years."

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sl...?stnid=8518750
Sorry, you can't quote data that conflicts with what 99.9% of scientists agree upon & not expect backlash. Just saying....
__________________

__________________
gerntz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2016, 06:53 PM   #143
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,418
Sahara probably not a safe place to set up solar arrays to send to Europe.

Defending the installation and personnel running it probably will be costly.
__________________
explanade is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2016, 09:44 PM   #144
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Houston
Posts: 639
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerntz View Post
Sorry, you can't quote data that conflicts with what 99.9% of scientists agree upon & not expect backlash. Just saying....
Might wanna check your numbers a bit and might even dig into what they really mean. Probably not a good discussion for this board unless we want Porky to visit and kill a good discussion.
__________________
Whisper66 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2016, 07:30 AM   #145
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
You can argue that infrastructure investment does not contribute any net real new value, but you need to lay out some basic assumptions. Why does this displace other investment resources (labor, capital, resources) when all 3 are in surplus and why does it cause prices to rise when all 3 are suffering from deflationary pressures.
My assumption is that building dykes to protect existing cities doesn't increase productivity, productive capacity or improve standards of living above previous levels. Replacing an existing power plant with a different, oftentimes more expensive, power plant has much the same effect.

I also assume that whatever excess capacity may exist at the moment won't last for the 100 or so years that we'll be making these kinds of "investments." But I do agree that we currently have a free lunch opportunity to employ idled resources and capital for these kinds of projects. That free lunch won't last. And we've largely squandered it already.

Mostly spending on combating global warming and it's effects are going to be a net economic loss compared to a scenario where that spending wasn't necessary (like the past.) It doesn't build anything new. Instead a lot of existing wealth will get spent protecting existing wealth. We won't get richer doing that. The best we can hope is that we don't get much poorer.
__________________
Retired early, traveling perpetually.
Gone4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2016, 07:31 AM   #146
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
travelover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whisper66 View Post
Might wanna check your numbers a bit and might even dig into what they really mean. Probably not a good discussion for this board unless we want Porky to visit and kill a good discussion.
It has been argued many times before. Do a search here or start a new thread in the political forum.
__________________
Yes, I have achieved work / life balance.
travelover is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2016, 07:46 AM   #147
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone4Good View Post
Mostly spending on combating global warming and it's effects are going to be a net economic loss for society. It doesn't build anything new. So a lot of existing wealth will get spent protecting existing wealth. We won't get richer doing that. The best we can hope is that we don't get poorer.
The nice thing about economics is that you can make many different arguments, all you need is a clear set of assumptions, which you have. On these you and I will not see eye to eye, so let's drop it and not distract from an otherwise lively and interesting discussion (that hopefully stays on track).
__________________
MichaelB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2016, 07:55 AM   #148
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Utrecht
Posts: 2,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by explanade View Post
Sahara probably not a safe place to set up solar arrays to send to Europe.

Defending the installation and personnel running it probably will be costly.
It's also a strategic thingy.

Europe (and every country) want to make sure they can be energy independent if necessary. It's why agricultural subsidies are so persistent.

Still, would be so cool to be able to transport sunshine across the planet.
__________________
Totoro is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2016, 11:39 AM   #149
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,418
When New Orleans was rebuilt after Katrina, some contractors made money from the reconstruction activities.

But that may have been a temporary surge in economic activity.

Of course the other case is, if they didn't bother to rebuild, they lose whatever economic production the city was providing before the disaster?

Or you can say that about cities and countries after WWII. Europe was a mass of rubble. Reconstruction not only restored previous economic capacity, probably increased it with more modern infrastructure?
__________________
explanade is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2016, 12:01 PM   #150
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by explanade View Post
When New Orleans was rebuilt after Katrina, some contractors made money from the reconstruction activities.
I'm sure they did. But that is only one side of the ledger. We need to account for what was lost too.

Most likely what you're looking at is a destruction of wealth with the storm. And then a transfer of wealth from those who's property was destroyed to those who profited by rebuilding it. Somebody paid all those contractors, after all.
__________________

__________________
Retired early, traveling perpetually.
Gone4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why Solar & Wind won't be viable anytime soon? Midpack Other topics 67 06-30-2011 02:07 PM
Old Pharts are crushing us :-( mickj Young Dreamers 103 11-14-2007 12:57 PM
Hydrogen Hoax and real Alternative Fuels for cars samclem Other topics 86 02-27-2007 10:38 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:09 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.