Wind farms

[marcski]

Marcski, you make a valid point. The premise is that for 57 million worth of windfarm, you get 30 KW (3 kw each) working at about 25% capacity for a net of 7.5 KW for 57 million. Now take a natural gas generator. You say it will cost 10 times, fair enough. Let's agree that it does. Look at how much more power is generated. It will be much, much more than 75 KW.

Understood. But isn't the point to establish green energy sources. The industry (green energy) is in its infancy and clearly has ways to go. Of course, older, more established sources of energy generation may be more efficient, they have been around for so long, they've been tweaked and perfected as far as efficiency. So, again you may be correct in that for every dollar spent today on electric generation, the largest amount of energy reaped may very well be from a nat. gas or traditionally fueled plant, but, in order to attempt to perfect green energy, whether it be solar or wind, there need to be attempts to build them now and see how they perform and then tweak and work on them over time just as the coal and gas plants have done. Without these early projects, nothing would change and the air we breathe will get dirtier and dirtier.

 

[deadheadskier]

Solar certainly is in its infancy state as evidenced by the strides being made in conversion efficiency.

I still say there's more to be considered than subsidies / free market pricing.

http://m.fastcompany.com/3029771/se...of-the-alberta-tar-sands-from-1000-feet-above

Look at the pictures. An area of North America larger than all of New England looks like that. That's why I shake my head when people complain about how unsightly Wind Farms are.

 

[yeggous]

Solar certainly is in its infancy state as evidenced by the strides being made in conversion efficiency.

I still say there's more to be considered than subsidies / free market pricing.

http://m.fastcompany.com/3029771/se...of-the-alberta-tar-sands-from-1000-feet-above

Look at the pictures. An area of North America larger than all of New England looks like that. That's why I shake my head when people complain about how unsightly Wind Farms are.

When people complain about solar not being cost competitive, they are almost always missing the point of spot prices. Electricity prices fluctuate throughout the day. Solar production peaks during the afternoon on sunny days, especially during the summer. This nicely coincides with when prices are highest. Solar does not need to be competitive with the monthly averaged price (the one you see on your electric bill).

 

[marcski]

I do not agree that the industry is still in its infancy.They had wind farms, huge ones, long established way back when the movie ET,the extra-terrestrial came out. When was that? 1982. That’s 33 years ago. Andit wasn’t even all that new way back then. I say it’s time they figure it outand become viable in the free market.

Ok. So 33 years for wind. How much less for solar? And how long have coal fired electric plants been around. Over 100 years, no?? Compared to "traditional" coal or nat. gas fired electric plants, wind and solar are in their infancy.

 

[Scruffy]

I do not agree that the industry is still in its infancy.They had wind farms, huge ones, long established way back when the movie ET,the extra-terrestrial came out. When was that? 1982. That’s 33 years ago. Andit wasn’t even all that new way back then. I say it’s time they figure it outand become viable in the free market.

When we talk about renewables, let's assume the modern era of renewables (circa 1982 for solar -the first photovoltaic cells were developed in 1954, the first experiments in photovoltaic was 1839-, wind has been used for energy (pumping water) since 200 B.C. Wind for producing electricity, circa 1940's during WWI - necessity is indeed the mother of all things, big and small!

So, yes, for the modern era, they are indeed still in their infancy because their development/adoption keeps getting interrupted by rather larger fossil fuel price fluctuations. Every time the price of oil rises significantly we see small scale (homes, small businesses and such) adoption of renewable energy systems on the rise, this helps drive R&D. Conversely, whenever we go through any significant price reduction, esp. for any length of time, we see a mitigation in adoption. We've seen these large fluctuations since the 1970's oil embargo, and now currently with the Saudi's price war against shale oil. You see the same thing happen with vehicle type purchases; when gas is expensive, cars that get good MPG, or hybrid/electric are selling like hotcakes, when gas is cheap, not so much.

Oil and coal, on the other hand, had no competing industry to inhibit their uptake. Wood and whale oil had no one lobbing to protect their interests back in the day.

When we see fossil fuel prices consistently high, is when we'll see real innovation in not only in renewables, but vehicle design.

 

[deadheadskier]

Alchemist Brewery going all solar

http://m.stowetoday.com/waterbury_r...140-8e26-11e5-88ba-1b242fb7c778.html?mode=jqm

 

[BenedictGomez]

Wind power.

The "hamsters on wheels" of the energy sector.

Really expensive purebred hamsters, on solid gold, diamond-encrusted wheels.

 

[BenedictGomez]

We could look at Amtrak. Tons of tax dollars supporting a business that the private industry does not wish to build. This industry is farfrom its infancy and when has it last operated in the black? At some point any business has to get beyond developmental and stand on its own.

I would argue that a private operator 100% could make the DC to Beantown route extremely profitable.

And to answer your question, the answer is "never".

Amtrak has literally, NEVER operated in the black, a fact that I believe would shock many if not most Americans (including you I presume given the use of "last" in your question).

AMTRAK - A Monetary Taxpayer Ripoff of American Knuckleheads

 

[wtcobb]

Just gonna leave this here:

 

[wtcobb]

More reading:
http://www.techinvestingdaily.com/report/3-solar-technology-stocks-you-must-own/1441

Solar is down to $0.36/watt (compared to $77/watt when introduced in the late '70's).

In regards to AMTRAK, here's a wild concept currently in a design contest:
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/hyperloop.html

 

[Scruffy]

Using Amtrak as an example is a apples to or oranges comparison. Amtrak aligns better with the Post Office for an example of government funds keeping an unprofitable public service going for the betterment of society.

Look no further than the oil industry if you want apples to apples.

Everyone loves to talk about subsidies as the evil bane of our existence, but the fact of the matter is that every one of us lives our modern cushy lives on the backs of government subsidies. Without which, we wouldn't be typing on this internet, driving to work, let alone the mountains to ski, or getting easy food. One of the jobs of government is to grease industries, get over it. We all live on the shoulders of those that came before us. A lot of those shoulders had help.

 

[deadheadskier]

Good points. The farming industry receives billions.

 

[Funky_Catskills]

The post office is self funded.
AMTRAK get grants..

At least that's what I thought..

 

[marcski]

The post office is self funded.
AMTRAK get grants..

At least that's what I thought..

Post office perennially loses Billions.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/11/postal-service-reports-1-5-billion-loss-in-second-quarter/

https://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2014/pr14_059.htm

 

[Funky_Catskills]

Post office perennially loses Billions.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/11/postal-service-reports-1-5-billion-loss-in-second-quarter/

https://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2014/pr14_059.htm

Yes but it's self funded..

 

[Funky_Catskills]

From the article:

The net loss includes $5.7 billion for the prefunding requirement of the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefit Fund and an additional $1.2 billion in non-cash workers’ compensation expense, consisting of $485 million related to changes in interest rates and $697 million of other non-cash workers’ compensation expense. These items are outside of management’s control.

No other business has to do this. This is an unfair burden against competitive comparisons.

Again, from the article:

Offsetting this positive news, however, were legislative burdens and constraints that contributed to a $5.5 billion net loss in 2014.

If they had a net loss of 5.5 Mil, the 5.7 mil handicap they were given, if eliminated, would show a tidy profit.

They get crushed by this..
People have it out for the USPO... Not sure why....

 

[Edd]

They get crushed by this..
People have it out for the USPO... Not sure why....

Can they be replaced by the private sector (UPS, Fed Ex)? If so, I can see why people would want it closed.

 

[deadheadskier]

The usual arguments against private alternatives is that they won't have stores in all communities like the Post Office does.

I think the USPS can still downsize and close some locations.

Around us there's no need for the Newfields office. I'm sure there are hundreds of locations like that all around the country.

 

[Funky_Catskills]

Can they be replaced by the private sector (UPS, Fed Ex)? If so, I can see why people would want it closed.

Why would they care?

 

[Funky_Catskills]

Agreed, and I can see them shutting down Saturday deliveries. End the swing shifts and extra manpower.

People that work do depend on Saturday delivery...